Wizards vs. Clerics

[Stalker0]

I think Wizard spellcasting is only slightly better than clerics. Also, any spell that is very specilized is automatically better for a cleric than a wizard. While a wizard has to invest money to learn a lot of spells, the cleric just gets them. And if he needs some very specific spells for a fight one day, he can get them. If the wizard hasn't learned them, he's out of luck.

Wizards also take a lot of money to get powerful-while clerics can be spending their money on other things. Also, clerics often get teh support of their church.

 

[Henry]

As someone earlier said, Clerics look good on paper, but they lack in the categories of area damaging spells (Please don't point out the domain spells, or Fire storm or flame strike, as those are a very limited range compared to the wizard) and in offensive spell capability. In fact, someone mentioned that they thought the Wizard was substandard to to the cleric in divinations; they forgot about identify, analyze dweomer, and contact other plane, all spells that do not have fully accessible clerical equivalents.

However, a cleric EXCELS in one-on-one combat, in healing, in defensive magics, and in special, non-spell slotted abilities. Whereas a wizard's power is more up front, a cleric's strenght falls in preparation. A cleric with no buffing spells prepared is quite weak in combat , because their main focus is dealing with singular enemies, and in defense. A wizard can immediately cure up anything from fireballs, to cone of cold and chain lightnings, to death spells, power words affecting one or dozens of creatures, and ultimately meteor swarms and shapechangings. Any spellcaster can be weaker when caught unprepared, but the cleric has a little more of a glass jaw in that area (Protection from elements, ability buffing spells, holy auras, divine power, etc. etc.)

 

[smetzger]

Re: Re: A Not Entirely Serious Answer

Should have been The Game Magic-Users, if you ask me.

They were name level.

 

[Rary the Traitor]

In fact, someone mentioned that they thought the Wizard was substandard to to the cleric in divinations; they forgot about identify, analyze dweomer, and contact other plane, all spells that do not have fully accessible clerical equivalents.

I agree about Identify and Analyze Dweomer, but Commune is vastly superior to Contact Other Plane. The only advantage COP has over Commune is that it doesn't have an XP cost, but at level 9 (since Commune and COP are level 5 spells), 100 XP isn't that much.

Otherwise, Commune is a much better spell. It allows the cleric to ask 1 question per caster level (instead of 1 question per 2 levels), and it's certain to succeed (while COP, when used to contact a Greater Deity, has a 88% chance of success, IF the caster succeeds at an intelligence check against DC 16; and the charisma/intelligence loss is pretty harsh).

 

[Henry]

I agree about Identify and Analyze Dweomer, but Commune is vastly superior to Contact Other Plane. The only advantage COP has over Commune is that it doesn't have an XP cost, but at level 9 (since Commune and COP are level 5 spells), 100 XP isn't that much.

Otherwise, Commune is a much better spell. It allows the cleric to ask 1 question per caster level (instead of 1 question per 2 levels), and it's certain to succeed (while COP, when used to contact a Greater Deity, has a 88% chance of success, IF the caster succeeds at an intelligence check against DC 16; and the charisma/intelligence loss is pretty harsh).

Upon re-reading the spell, I tend to agree; I didn't realize just how much of a loss they are talking there! However, there is one advantage. Whereas Commune only lets you talk with YOUR deity, who is not omniscient and can only answer questions it knows, with Contact other plane, you can ask ANY deity, and stand a good chance of getting the absolute truth, from a deity who knows it. The only shaft the wizard gets there is the potential CHA and INT loss, and the fact that he only gets one question per TWO levels.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, yes, we should all definately fear that a Cleric, a worshiper of a God, can call upon his god's knowledge and call his god's friends sooner than a Wizard can

As for whether a buffed cleric is a clearly superior fighter to a fighter of the same level, I am still very doubtfull. Also, those buffs mean the cleric doesn't really have any other powers left to use, if they buff themselves....it's also temporary, whereas a fighters' powers are permanent....I may be swayed with some numbers, but even if it turns out the buffed Cleric is 'better,' I'd say that it doesn't prove much, what with the temporariness, and the cleric having to basically use all their class powers to get there (and then not having healing or damage-dealing left).

Wizards deal more damage. Clerics certainly aren't pointless in the area, getting some damaging and potent death-dealing magics, but they'll pale before a wizard of the same level in their ability to kick butt. To compensate for not being able to kill things with magic, they're at least somewhat competent in melee.

Otherwise, as far as I can see, a cleric excels in the things it's supposed to excel at (like calling servants of the gods, power over life and death, making the party stronger, and in using his god for advice), and remains competent in martial skills to boot, simply because their powers are all very limited and/or unglorious.

It looks good on paper, but in play, you have a buffer/healer who isn't a burden to the party. You can have a cleric devoted to ass-kicking, but their spells are going to pale before the Wizard's, they're going to be less skilled at what they're usually depended on for, and the only thing they get to compensate is that at least they don't die with a strong breeze like most Wizards.

If you're looking for a cleric that can't kick ass, take a look at the white mage. I assure you, I didn't nerf the class in the slightest (basing it on the Cleric), and most people who've played it still think that it's kind of weak, despite all the nummy healing and protective and buffing goodies it has.

 

[Creamsteak]

Clerics have a certain coolness to them, but I like to play Wizard/Clerics, for their general mix. I like to have the vibe of both, however, that kinda cross-classing nets you nothing. On a power perspective, it's inferior to a cleric with the magic domain until levels 34+, at which point casting 9th level type wishes and miracles is just... um.... miricalwishus.

I think the fact that I am the story focal point about 33% of the time, when I play, makes being an inferior class more appropriate, as my character doesn't really need to do much more than do whatever he's doing, regardless of power level. Of course, I'm one of those players that prefers to be guaged against a hundred opponents 6 levels below my character rather than 1 opponent at my level, because I'm a fan of 'LOTR' type fighting description, except when it's time for a good strong, solid fight (like Gogandantes in Onimusha 2).

 

[Morticon]

Hehe this arguement will get no where. Well anyways i just signed up on EN World's forum im happy to be here!

First of all waaay back to the first message about clerics.
They ARE restricted on spells... need we forget the nice opposite alignment spell restrictions slapped on clerics. Plus look at the clerics skill selections, not extremely large just like the wizards, but their lists are extremely different. The wizards option to take any knowledge skill is great. The wizard and cleric bring their own abilities to a group which usually differ a lot. Also on the arguement that clerics need to choose spells carefully because of healing... maybe if they are evil clerics who can't sack non-domain spells for healing. I don't think it should be Wizards vs. Clerics but more like... Wizards and Clerics.. awww... *puts the clerics and wizards hands together as they trott off into the sunset*

Morticon

 

[Creamsteak]

Well anyways i just signed up on EN World's forum im happy to be here!
Morticon

Welcome to the boards. Hope your stay is long, and enjoyable.

 

[Numion]

As someone earlier said, Clerics look good on paper, but they lack in the categories of area damaging spells (Please don't point out the domain spells, or Fire storm or flame strike, as those are a very limited range compared to the wizard) and in offensive spell capability.

Flame Strike is a medium range spell, like most of the wizards, and so is Fire Storm. Only Fireball has a better range from wizard spells. And if you look at Fire Storm, it's pretty damn good, though it is high level. The bility to spread the damage is better than in any wizard spell. But these blasts aren't an important part of the clerics arsenal; buffs and protections are. The few blasts are just icing on the cake.

However, a cleric EXCELS in one-on-one combat, in healing, in defensive magics, and in special, non-spell slotted abilities. Whereas a wizard's power is more up front, a cleric's strenght falls in preparation. A cleric with no buffing spells prepared is quite weak in combat , because their main focus is dealing with singular enemies, and in defense. A wizard can immediately cure up anything from fireballs, to cone of cold and chain lightnings, to death spells, power words affecting one or dozens of creatures, and ultimately meteor swarms and shapechangings. Any spellcaster can be weaker when caught unprepared, but the cleric has a little more of a glass jaw in that area (Protection from elements, ability buffing spells, holy auras, divine power, etc. etc.)

A wizard with no spells active is also quite weak in combat. I'd say weaker than a cleric, because cleric has more hitpoints and better saves across the board. What's your point? And a fully buffed up cleric in fact does spells left. That's the thing I mentioned earlier: better fighter than a fighter, and then some spells.