Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ElyasRavenwood 02-04-07, 12:04 AM	Bringing the cleric back in line with the other three basic classes, the Wizard, the Fighter and the Rogue. I think that of the four basic classes, namely the cleric, wizard, fighter and rogue, the cleric is by far the most powerful of the group. I have been trying to think of “fixes” to bring the cleric more in line with the rest of the other classes. I do like the Cloistered cleric, and the Archivist, which gave me some ideas. Dedicated Devine Spell caster The “ Cloistered Monk”: Bab: as wizard. Saves: as wizard. Hit dice: as wizard. Skills: 2+int as wizard. Spells per day, as Wizard, uses a Prayer book like an Archivist, Must prepare spells like archivist and he selects spells from the Cleric spell list. Has Turn Undead. If he wishes to have two domains, he may add the domain spells to his spell list, and he gains a domain spell slot. However, he must pick two domains, and remove these spells from his spell list. Note: In my campaign, I use the term Martial artist to describe someone who fights without weapons. I feel that the class name monk is misleading and confining. It traps people’s conceptions in Asia. I think changing the class name monk to martial artist will offer the same freedom of character conception as changing the class name of Thief to Rogue. Spontaneous Devine spell caster The “Mystic in the Prophetic tradition”: Bab: as sorcerer. Saves: as sorcerer. Hit dice: as sorcerer. Spells per day: as sorcerer. Spells known: as sorcerer. Selects spells from Cleric spell list. Has turn undead. Lay on of hands as Paladin (replaces familiar). Social Devine Spell caster “The Parish priest”: Bab: as bard. Saves: as Bard. Hit dice: as bard. Skills: 6+-int mod as bard, Bard skill list. Spells per day: as bard. Spells Known: as bard. Selects spells from cleric spell list. Has bardic music. Combat oriented Devine spell caster Knight of church The Paladin- I know this isn’t perfect and can use allot of tweaking. Any thoughts comments ideas will be appreciated. Thank you
kadeity 02-04-07, 12:44 AM	this is based on faulty logic. First, the Fighter is RIDICULOUSLY WEAK. Second, The cleric is the real tank in the bunch. Third, The Wizard is just as bad as the cleric, but thats only because of its spell list. Rogue is the only balanced one in the bunch. p.s. "Divine" is not spelled Devine
OneWinged4ngel 02-04-07, 12:48 AM	this is based on faulty logic I totallly agree. To say that the Wizard is in line with the Fighter or Rogue while the Cleric is not is just ridiculous. For one, the power level of Wizards is very close to the Cleric's in many cases, depending just on what sort of materials are allowed in the game and the surrounding circumstances. The fixes are also lame, and it couldn't possibly hurt to clean up your presentation, from formatting to spelling and grammar.
chinoquezada 02-04-07, 01:21 AM	A wizards at its best: --------------------- The party's Wizard casts Gate = The world ends... A fighter at its best: -------------------- The party's Fighter trips an enemy, kills it and cleaves an adjacent oponnent = 1 kill, possibly 2. Now the math: -------------- The world ends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 kill, possibly 2. Get it? CQ
Beckett 02-04-07, 09:30 AM	For the most part, the "unbalanced" fighter/rogue/anything not a Cleric/Druid/Wizard is because people don't know how to play them. What can the most powerful Wizard do if a fighter type deals so much damage that not one spell will go off.
mkill 02-04-07, 11:07 AM	For the most part, the "unbalanced" fighter/rogue/anything not a Cleric/Druid/Wizard is because people don't know how to play them. What can the most powerful Wizard do if a fighter type deals so much damage that not one spell will go off. 1. Laugh at the guy who just killed your clone. 2. Not get hit in the first place. 3. Trigger a contingency that kills the guy. 4. Take a five-foot step backwards. (duh) 5. Never lose initiative in the first place. 6. Never let the guy within charging distance in the first place. 7. Let your undead army smack him. 8. Cast on the defensive (duh) 9. Trigger a contingency to... well, we already had one in 3., but there's other funny uses 10. Laugh at the guy who just killed a mirror image (okay, I repeat #2, but it's more funny with a 2nd level spell)
Lord_Tirian 02-04-07, 11:11 AM	For the most part, the "unbalanced" fighter/rogue/anything not a Cleric/Druid/Wizard is because people don't know how to play them. What can the most powerful Wizard do if a fighter type deals so much damage that not one spell will go off. Are we talking 'bout high- or mid-levels? The first levels are okay - the main problem with the fighter is: After the first 10 levels or so, he becomes ridiculously useless... about you example? That's simple. The wizard will contingency dimension door away. And proceed to killing the fighter... even at 11th level, he'll get forcecage for such tanks. Or watch he despair of the fighter, since the wizard is invisible... And the fighter? Has no counter-measures without a bunch of magic items OR his wizard/cleric friend... oh? Then it's a magic-user battle again, right?
mkill 02-04-07, 11:15 AM	Bringing the cleric back in line with the other three basic classes, the Wizard, the Fighter and the Rogue. Okay, let's bring the cleric in line! Wizard: Yay, we gain Gate as a class spell! Rogue: Meh, no more Divine Metamagic cheese! Fighter: Buh, Paladin spells per day :(
Grod_The_Giant 02-04-07, 11:17 AM	yes, casters are more powerful. Yes, the 'all day' fighter stinks. But you know what? fine. The cleric is the tank? fine. He's in melee, not healing or buffing like he's supposted to do. And what happens in an anti-magic zone? The wildshaped druid is tearing up melee? fine. He's being a melee person, not a spellcaster. the cleric buffs up and out-fighters the fighter? why don't you cast your buffs on him, i.e. the guy dedicated to melee. If Divine Power stopped spellcasting, and natural spell was metamagic applying a +1 or +2 level, then CODzilla would be taken down a notch.
mkill 02-04-07, 11:24 AM	Dedicated Devine Spell caster The “ Cloistered Monk”: Bab: as wizard. Saves: as wizard. Hit dice: as wizard. Skills: 2+int as wizard. Spells per day, as Wizard, uses a Prayer book like an Archivist, Must prepare spells like archivist and he selects spells from the Cleric spell list. Has Turn Undead. So the result is... an Archivist. Just weaker than it already is. If he wishes to have two domains, he may add the domain spells to his spell list, and he gains a domain spell slot. However, he must pick two domains, and remove these spells from his spell list. :confused: Could you write this again in a way that makes sense? Note: In my campaign, I use the term Martial artist to describe someone who fights without weapons. I feel that the class name monk is misleading and confining. It traps people’s conceptions in Asia. I think changing the class name monk to martial artist will offer the same freedom of character conception as changing the class name of Thief to Rogue. Renaming classes is superflous. Characters don't know what classes they have anyway. If I play a fighter I can call myself just as well "knight" or "pirate". Besides, a real martial artist would have some decent weapon proficiencies. Spontaneous Devine spell caster The “Mystic in the Prophetic tradition”: Bab: as sorcerer. Saves: as sorcerer. Hit dice: as sorcerer. Spells per day: as sorcerer. Spells known: as sorcerer. Selects spells from Cleric spell list. Has turn undead. Lay on of hands as Paladin (replaces familiar). So the result is... a Favored Soul. Just weaker than it already is. And what's the use of Lay on hands when you are a full divine spellcaster? Social Devine Spell caster “The Parish priest”: Bab: as bard. Saves: as Bard. Hit dice: as bard. Skills: 6+-int mod as bard, Bard skill list. Spells per day: as bard. Spells Known: as bard. Selects spells from cleric spell list. Has bardic music. So the result is... a Divine Bard (Unearthed Arcana). Just well, a little different spell list. So you basicly remove clerics from the game, and double the Archivist, Favored Soul and Divine Bard with equal or worse versions. Meh, when all you really needed was ban either Persistant spell or Divine Metamagic :thinks: The funny thing is that you didn't even give a reason why clerics would be ahh so "teh uber". Well, the good thing is that you players can just use the Druid instead to break the game.
Beckett 02-04-07, 01:53 PM	Ever hear of ready an action? Your force cage doesn't go off first, and your 5ft step is useless cause the fighter can take a Move action with his Standard Action he readied. It's not underpowered, it's underedjucated. Grapple, sunder/steal components, Bull Rush, or just Full Attack till dead. Take away a Fighter's sword or a Rogues dagger and they still fight on. Take away a Wizards little book and then what?
OneWinged4ngel 02-04-07, 02:04 PM	Ever hear of ready an action? Your force cage doesn't go off first, and your 5ft step is useless cause the fighter can take a Move action with his Standard Action he readied. It's not underpowered, it's underedjucated. Grapple, sunder/steal components, Bull Rush, or just Full Attack till dead. Take away a Fighter's sword or a Rogues dagger and they still fight on. Take away a Wizards little book and then what? Actually, if you take away a Wizard's book he'll still kill you in that fight, then take his book back. Taking their book doesn't actually hamper them at all in a given battle. Taking a fighter's sword makes him suck. Actually, he even sucks with his sword Taking a rogue's dagger doesn't *quite* matter so much... something as simple as a gauntlet is good enough to sneak attack people with, and so you'll get decent damage. However, a good rogue isn't just using his dagger. For one, he should be using UMD to its fullest. You're also ignoring all the problems inherent in actually *getting* to the Wizard. Also... underedjucated? That spelling is a result of too little education, perhaps.
mkill 02-04-07, 02:06 PM	Ever hear of ready an action? Your force cage doesn't go off first, and your 5ft step is useless cause the fighter can take a Move action with his Standard Action he readied. It's not underpowered, it's underedjucated. Grapple, sunder/steal components, Bull Rush, or just Full Attack till dead. Take away a Fighter's sword or a Rogues dagger and they still fight on. Take away a Wizards little book and then what? You're not even right on the RAW. He can take a 5 ft. step with a readied action. And you deliberately ignore the problems of the fighter to get close to the wizard to ready an action in the first place. AND you are offtopic here.
ElyasRavenwood 02-04-07, 02:23 PM	I think when you compare the cleric to the other four basic classes The Wizard the Figher and the Rogue, the cleric gets more stuff. If you look on page 36 of the DMG you will notice on the guidelines for creating new arcane and divine spells, the divine spells only fall a few dice behind the wizards. In 2003 I went to the I Con convention at Stoneybrook on Long Island. Skip Williams Monte Cook and Bill Slavicsek were there giving a panel discussion, to answer questions and promote 3.5 when it came out in July of that year. I asked Skip Williams if the cleric was more powerful then the other basic classes, the wizard, rogue and fighter. He said yes. He also said that the designers decided to give the clerics more “ goodies” then the other classes because it was often the last class anyone in a gaming group wanted to play and the DM often had to NPC a cleric. And yes my suggested classes have their problems. I am lifting the template of other classes and tweaking them slightly. The “Cloistered monk” and the “mystic” are purposely weaker then the Archivist and the favored soul. The Archivist and the favored soul are being measured against the Cleric. I think the cleric is too powerful when compared to the fighter wizard and rogue. Cleric statistics BA FS RF WS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 2 0 2 3 11 2 1 3 0 3 4 21 3 2 3 1 3 4 21 11 4 3 4 1 4 5 31 21 5 3 4 1 4 5 31 21 11 6 4 5 2 5 5 31 31 21 7 5 5 2 5 6 41 31 21 11 8 6 6 2 6 6 41 31 31 21 9 6 6 3 6 6 41 41 31 21 11 10 7 7 3 7 6 41 41 31 31 21 11 8 7 3 7 6 51 41 41 31 21 11 12 9 8 4 8 6 51 41 41 31 31 21 13 9 8 4 8 6 51 51 41 41 31 21 11 14 10 9 4 9 6 51 51 41 41 31 31 21 15 11 9 5 9 6 51 51 51 41 41 31 21 11 16 12 10 5 10 6 51 51 51 41 41 31 31 21 17 12 10 5 10 6 51 51 51 51 41 41 31 21 11 18 13 11 6 11 6 51 51 51 51 41 41 31 31 21 19 14 11 6 11 6 51 51 51 51 51 41 41 31 31 20 15 12 6 12 6 51 51 51 51 51 41 41 41 41 Saves Fortitude and Will Good Progression. Reflex Weak Progression Medium Base attack progression Hit dice d8 Class skills: Concentration, craft, diplomacy, heal, knowledge, arcane, history, religion, the planes, profession, spell craft Skill points 2+ int modifier. 2+int modifier Turn Undead Simple weapons Armor light, medium, heavy and shields Two domains Spontaneous casting of cure spells Knows and can cast all spells on the cleric list when the cleric advances in level No spell failure when casting in armor. I may have forgotten a thing or two. Wizard Statistics Saves: Fortitude and Reflex Weak Progression Will Good Progression Weak base attack progression Hit dice: d4 Skill points 2+int Modifier Scribe Scroll fest Summon Familiar 4 bonus Meta magic or item creation feats over 20 levels An excellent spells per day progression Is capable of learning an unlimited number of spells, but apart from the 2 free spells every level, must find the rest. Arcane spell failure with the use of armor Fighter statistics Saves Fortitude Good progression, Weak Reflex and Will progression Best Base Attack Progression Hit Dice d 10 Skill points 2 + int modifier Feats Simple and Martial weapons, Light Medium and Heavy armor proficiency Bonus feat first level and every even numbered level. Rogue Statistics Saves Good Reflex and poor Will and Fortitude Medium Base attack bonus Hit dice: 1d6 Skill points 8+int modifier Trap finding Sneak attack Evasion Improved uncanny dodge Special abilities 10,13,16,19 Crippling strike, defensive roll etc I may have missed a think or two. I often do. And there is probably a hole or two in my arguments. However, I maintain that the cleric is a cut above the other classes. concerning the Domains, I was meerly trying to in some way follow the Specialist wizard model, where they gain an extra spell slot and give up two schools of magic. I was trying something similar. The clerics dont give anything up for their extra domain slot. They are just given the extra slot. These ideas need a lot of work it is at best a rough draft.
ElyasRavenwood 02-04-07, 02:25 PM	I apologies, the cleric table did not work out as well as I would have liked
danielinthewolvesden 02-04-07, 02:48 PM	The cleric does not need a nerf. The beleif that the cleric is over-powered comes from the CO boards, where they can show that a cleric (or druid) "a 20th level can win a one on one arena battle with any other class, given perfect knowledge of which foe they will be fighting (the knowledge is required to not only choose the spells, but even to design the cleric including Domains), unlimited pre-game buffs, no need to heal or buff the party, and no need to conserve powers for the next encounter". And they can do that. So? How many of us play IRL table-top D&D where ""a 20th level can win a one on one arena battle with any other class, given perfect knowledge of which foe they will be fighting (the knowledge is required to not only choose the spells, but even to design the cleric including Domains), unlimited pre-game buffs, no need to heal or buff the party, and no need to conserve powers for the next encounter".? Look at all those assumptions: that the cleric is 20th level- few games ever get there. Comparing power at 20 level and only 20 level skews the whole thing heavily for the spellcasters. Let us compare @ 4th level, instead, Hmm? That the cleric has perfect knowledge of the foe! Sometimes we get that. But although wizards and clerics certainly are far more powerful "tomorrow- when we have the right spells" clerics do not get to swap out domains like that. Unlimited pre-game buffs? Sure, by taking two feats and burning all ones turns, you can get a couple of spells to be Persitant, and a few other last for nearly all day anyway. But rounds or minute per level spells are very limited, and the most powerful self-buffs are short duration. "No need to heal or buff the party" is where it really breaks down. The cleric's ROLE is to heal and buff th eparty, noi just himself. This is really why clerics do not need nerfing. That ROLE is boring as heck, and the "What's a DM to Do" board has commonly complaints form DM's bewailing the fact that folks just plain do not want to play clerics. Playing the heal-bot can be boring. The Wizard is really more powerful than the cleric IRL gaming- once you get to very high levels. Sure, a tiny nerf at the highest levels might not be a bad idea for spellcasters. Maybe we delay 9th level spells until Level 20- for all spellcasters. Get rid of Divine Metamagic. Remind DM's that new spells from new supplements do not have to be "automatic" There ya go. Fixed. The rogue is always nesseary, and no one can do his job. With Complete Scoundrel, he needs nothing. But the Fighter is fine until around level 5, by which time it should be considering a PrC anyway, and there are lots of nice PrC's for warriors.A small boost to add some versaility to the Fighter is not a bad idea. Let us give him 2 bonus skill points at every level he does not get a feat. And, at level's 5, 10, 15, 20, he gets to choose a new class skill. Oh, and make sure he does have access to all new feats.
chinoquezada 02-04-07, 09:20 PM	The cleric does not need a nerf. The beleif that the cleric is over-powered comes from the CO boards, where they can show that a cleric (or druid) "a 20th level can win a one on one arena battle with any other class, given perfect knowledge of which foe they will be fighting (the knowledge is required to not only choose the spells, but even to design the cleric including Domains), unlimited pre-game buffs, no need to heal or buff the party, and no need to conserve powers for the next encounter". And they can do that. So? How many of us play IRL table-top D&D where ""a 20th level can win a one on one arena battle with any other class, given perfect knowledge of which foe they will be fighting (the knowledge is required to not only choose the spells, but even to design the cleric including Domains), unlimited pre-game buffs, no need to heal or buff the party, and no need to conserve powers for the next encounter".? Look at all those assumptions: that the cleric is 20th level- few games ever get there. Comparing power at 20 level and only 20 level skews the whole thing heavily for the spellcasters. Let us compare @ 4th level, instead, Hmm? That the cleric has perfect knowledge of the foe! Sometimes we get that. But although wizards and clerics certainly are far more powerful "tomorrow- when we have the right spells" clerics do not get to swap out domains like that. Unlimited pre-game buffs? Sure, by taking two feats and burning all ones turns, you can get a couple of spells to be Persitant, and a few other last for nearly all day anyway. But rounds or minute per level spells are very limited, and the most powerful self-buffs are short duration. "No need to heal or buff the party" is where it really breaks down. The cleric's ROLE is to heal and buff th eparty, noi just himself. This is really why clerics do not need nerfing. That ROLE is boring as heck, and the "What's a DM to Do" board has commonly complaints form DM's bewailing the fact that folks just plain do not want to play clerics. Playing the heal-bot can be boring. The Wizard is really more powerful than the cleric IRL gaming- once you get to very high levels. Sure, a tiny nerf at the highest levels might not be a bad idea for spellcasters. Maybe we delay 9th level spells until Level 20- for all spellcasters. Get rid of Divine Metamagic. Remind DM's that new spells from new supplements do not have to be "automatic" There ya go. Fixed. The rogue is always nesseary, and no one can do his job. With Complete Scoundrel, he needs nothing. But the Fighter is fine until around level 5, by which time it should be considering a PrC anyway, and there are lots of nice PrC's for warriors.A small boost to add some versaility to the Fighter is not a bad idea. Let us give him 2 bonus skill points at every level he does not get a feat. And, at level's 5, 10, 15, 20, he gets to choose a new class skill. Oh, and make sure he does have access to all new feats. Have you played ever played a cleric? This is not meant as an offense, but is an actual question. Cleric with DMM can make quickened+reach cure spells to heal anyone in the party, and still have his move+standard action to be the tank+fighter of the party. Clerics are overpowered, be sure of that. In the sense that they can fill various roles if played correctly. Heck, get a trick from Complete Scoundrel and you can maintain concentration as a swift action.
kadeity 02-05-07, 04:19 AM	how about you this. Clerics cast divine spells, which are the best spells for combat. He can do this while wearing heavy armor. And Healing himself. You can do alot of weapon-related junk with feats... like gain weapon focus...without blinking twice at the feat. Grab Kord as your deity, and you get a greatsword. NOW your a better tank than the FIGHTER. YOU are a better PALADIN that the uh, PALADIN. Ok Same Song, Second Verse. Druids can grab one feat and cast while wildshaped.... So they are just as combat casting deadly as cleric. We are also useful in and out of combat. Wildshape can do all sorts of fun things i wont get into. For now ill just mention that Dinosaurs are animals too, then remind you of all the fun feats, like the ones that let a Druid become an Abberation, and the feat Assume Supernatural Ability. BAM. beholder in the party. And im not even getting into the natural armor. Theres more, but i digress. Lets do this again. Now Wizards. We have a utility spell for everything.We are useful in and out of combat. We can do so much crap,are the strongest class, and literally get stronger everytime a book comes out. The biggest dealbreakers tho, are wish, and GATE. thats right, i dont ahve to fight you. I have People who do that for me. Did i say people? i meant SOLAR'S. And DRAGONS. k. fighter. Hi. Im fighty mcfighterson. I fight. Im real good with this one weapon here. I can trip you, then stab you, then break your toys... as long as your not a Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Rogue or...yeah...um... ima go sharpen my sword now.
chinoquezada 02-05-07, 08:30 AM	Hi. Im fighty mcfighterson. I fight. Im real good with this one weapon here. I can trip you, then stab you, then break your toys... as long as your not a Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Rogue or...yeah...um... ima go sharpen my sword now. :heehee
Thalspar 02-05-07, 08:55 AM	the fighter = tank rouge = flanker sneaky dude wizard = spells were in the Nine hells is the bloody healer come on if there was not a cleric in the group the figther dead in few good blows wizard would die of one and the rouge dead as well without the cleric all money the group gets doesn't go in magical stuff, it goes in healing potions which could be easilly avoid by cleric heling power which no one can mach(not even druid) jeah and by the way what happens to wizards when they are out of spell:confused: yes you got it right they are doomed without a cleric or fighter who is going to protect the wizard . he is very powerfull indeed in higher lvl's but when he is out of spells he is pretty much useless. then is the moment for the cleric or fighter to kick some serious butt
travellersside 02-05-07, 10:00 AM	If the spellcasters are out of spells, then: 1) it's been a very long day - that's what wands, scrolls, potions, staves and other miscellaneous items are for. 2) the fighter must now be extremely careful, since he's completely incapable of replacing any hitpoints that he loses. In other words: he can't afford to fight, since he risks dying. Therefore he won't be doing his job very well either. Fighters are not capable of going all day without a break. None of the core classes are capable of it. It is generally accepted that just about all of the primary casting classes are significantly more powerful than the fighter class. I believe that the only exception is the Healer. Perhaps all these people who claim this may be onto something? Back on topic. Please. Clerics would still do extremely well if we eliminated Turn Undead (and Rebuke, for you nitpickers out there) completely. The mechanics are dreadful, and it becomes worthless as you gain levels. This encourages you to find alternative uses for your daily charges, hence the existence of the divine feats which do just that. Since this feature only works on undead, it works unreliably at best, and undead are capable of being defeated without Turn Undead, it makes sense to simply dump it. Clerics are good enough that you don't need to replace it. Many of the abuses would be avoided by this. Since clerics are able to dominate in melee, should they care to (many of their best buffs are self-only, so they can't give them to the fighter), this leads to a lot of people playing clerics as if they were fighters who have less feats, but who happen to be able to cast as a full caster. Since the spells more than make up for the lack of feats, they do very well indeed. Unfortunately, while it's possible to curb some of the worse excesses, the main problems lie in the system itself. In other words, if magic was toned down so that it was less powerful, but could be cast more often, it wouldn't be such a big deal. To do this, you'd also need to rejig the monsters too, of course, else they'd be wiping the floor with you. In other words, the entire system needs to be redone in order to tone casters down. There is an alternative that requires far less work, and that's to boost the power of the weaker classes so that they are capable of pulling their weight in this dangerous world. Tome of Battle helps significantly, but still falls short. (The amount of effort to make a powerful ToB build is vastly more than the amount it takes to make a powerful cleric or wizard) So, you have a choice, either stick with the rules as is, with its overpowered magic and monsters, requiring you to upgrade some classes; or rewrite everything to reduce the power level, requiring you to reduce the power of some classes. Fighters - Hoplessly inadequate. Past the first handful of levels, a fighter can rarely hold his own against an appropriately CRed opponent. While you are supposed to get help from your friends, the disparity in power is ridiculous. Rogues - Pretty decent. Their main problem is that their combat abilities tend to depend on their opponents not being immune to sneak attack damage. Still, with UMD, they can fall back on other options. A good rogue can always do something useful. Wizards - Problematic. A competant player will do well in the majority of situations, just with walking-around gear and spells. Given the chance to prepare appropriately, there's almost nothing that they can't do. Clerics - Exceptionally powerful. A cleric's walking-around setup is capable of handling anything that the fighter can, and still help the rest of the group out. If the cleric does fight, battles are over sooner, and thus there are less injuries to heal. If the cleric doesn't fight, battles take longer and there are more injuries to heal. It's a no-brainer. Although not so much a problem with Core, clerics have access to every cleric spell that isn't expressly forbidden to them, thus any cleric with the time to prepare can handle almost any situation that a wizard can, and some that he can't.
Tony Vargas 02-05-07, 01:47 PM	It's not hard to see how the Cleric just plain 'gets more' than the other PH classes. The Cleric's casting is entirely comparable to that of the Wizard, for instance (more spells, same caster level, all spells known instead of only those in a book - just less focus on certain kinds of spells and more on others) - in addition to that casting, the Cleric gets to to do it full armor, had d8 HD (only 1hp/level less than the fighter on average - almost double the wiz's hps), better BAB, Turn Undead, and domain powers. Whether or not the Cleric and Wizard can reach the same peak of sheer abuse through specific high-level broken spells isn't really the issue. It's just that the Cleric gets /more/ than th Wiz, or anyone else. You could back off on the Cleric's HD (d6), or otherwise reduce his combat abilities, and that might help. I think you'd do better, though, to reduce his spell list. Take the self-buffs (Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might, etc) out, and you vastly reduce his peak combat power, making him less competative with the fighter as party tank. Take out his most broken spells (like Miracle), and you make him less competative with the Wizard. You can pare the Cleric list down to a pretty basic help-the-party list (area buffs & heal/restoring/utility), then add back a little bit under Domains for flavor and fun, and you might end up with a Cleric that's less likely to become the 'C' in CoDzilla, but is still attractive enough to players that you won't constantly have Clericless parties. Of course, you'll need to fix the Druid, too...
willpower 02-05-07, 02:41 PM	this is based on faulty logic. First, the Fighter is RIDICULOUSLY WEAK. Second, The cleric is the real tank in the bunch. Third, The Wizard is just as bad as the cleric, but thats only because of its spell list. Rogue is the only balanced one in the bunch. p.s. "Divine" is not spelled Devine Sorry if this sounds like I'm being mean, but talk about faulty logic!?! How can there be only 1 balanced class. To have a balanced class it needs to be balanced against another class, therefore, you cannot have only 1 balanced class. You can have a class you think is where all the other classes power level should be, but other than that it would require at least 2 classes to have a balance.
INeedNoSalt 02-05-07, 02:49 PM	Sorry if this sounds like I'm being mean, but talk about faulty logic!?! How can there be only 1 balanced class. To have a balanced class it needs to be balanced against another class, therefore, you cannot have only 1 balanced class. You can have a class you think is where all the other classes power level should be, but other than that it would require at least 2 classes to have a balance. Balanced vs the challenges presented?
travellersside 02-05-07, 02:50 PM	The rogue is fairly well balanced against the sort of things that a character of that level is expected to encounter. This is the best baseline to use - does it perform appropriately for its level. There are other balanced classes, we're just focusing on the four that the OP mentioned. As is, the fighter doesn't perform well in level-appropriate situations. The rogue does about right, and both the cleric and wizard not only do well, but can in fact handle ELs several points higher than their level. Consequently, they are considered overpowered, while the rogue isn't. By the way, it's entirely possible for none of the classes to be balanced - they don't have to balance against each other after all, since this isn't PvP.
willpower 02-05-07, 04:58 PM	Balanced vs the challenges presented? Well, wouldn't that mean that the fighter is the most balanced? The fighter seems to do at least ok in most encounters. But the other types can be highly situational. Afterall, the Rogue is great in a fight with other classed opponents, or most monsters, but needs to have at least one other person to flank with in order to make the most of his abilities, but against some encounters the rogue is seriously outclassed if he can't use his classes staple the sneak attack. The Wizard, and other casters like the druid and cleric likewise are great in their own right, and many times overpowered, but in certain circumstances, where their magic becomes useless they are seriously outclassed. Like against a monster immune to most magic, or something with a high SR, or in an antimagic field. Clerics and Druids might still fair ok in most of the other cases that the Wizard wouldn't because the cleric could always just buff himself up and bash it out, likewise with the Druid by changing into various critters. Though they would still be hosed in an antimagic field. Don't get me wrong in an antimagic field, a fighter would also be hurt, anyone who uses magic would. But he wouldn't be affected as much as the wizard. So if the term of a class being balanced is referring to the challenges presented than I would say it was the fighter that was most balanced. He might be weak versus some of the others, but his strength isn't as situational as theirs.
Tony Vargas 02-05-07, 05:21 PM	Well, wouldn't that mean that the fighter is the most balanced? Yes. The fighter and rogue, though, are too different from the Cleric to really be of use as touchstones to gauge whether you've brought the Cleric into line or not. Not that the Wizard is exactly a paragon of balance (quite the opposite), but what it gives up in durrability and combat capacity to get it's spellcasting is one thing you can look at...
willpower 02-05-07, 05:31 PM	As is, the fighter doesn't perform well in level-appropriate situations. The rogue does about right, and both the cleric and wizard not only do well, but can in fact handle ELs several points higher than their level. Consequently, they are considered overpowered, while the rogue isn't. Unless of course the encounter the rogue is facing happens to be immune to SA's. And even if they aren't immune to them, the rogue would not fair as well as the fighter, paladin, or barbarian, if he was by himself, because he couldn't make use of his primary ability enough to counterbalance their strengths. I know and agree about Wizards and Clerics and such being able to handle encounters at higher than their appropriate level, though at times, they will not be able to handle encounters at even much less than their appropriate level.I ran an encounter such as this once with a creature that was immune to all magic of 6th level or lower. The creatures CR was 13, and the wizards was higher than this. He did have one spell at a high enouugh level to affect the creature, but it was energy immunity, and hence it was useless against the creature. The wizard was helpless, and he was higher than the encounter. It so happens all the other characters were pretty much useless as well as the ceature happened to have a decent DR, so the only faired well against the creature was the barbarian who was a level lower than all the others as he was the only one that could do enough damage to hurt the creature. So what you are saying may be correct for the most part, but it is still highly situational. By the way, it's entirely possible for none of the classes to be balanced - they don't have to balance against each other after all, since this isn't PvP. I do agree with this statement whole heartedly. I don't really think any of the classes are completely, and in some cases even approximately balanced to one another. I think this is fine if everyone still has their place, and in the wide range of different encounters, you can encounter that is fine. Even though most think the Fighter is one of if not the weakest class, his contribution is pretty steady in most encounters, and in some rare instances he will be the best chance the party has. Quite frankly, in the lower levels he pretty much always is. (In this frame I am referring to the fighter as any of the frontliners, Fighter, Barbarian, as well as Paladin.)
travellersside 02-05-07, 05:58 PM	Well, wouldn't that mean that the fighter is the most balanced? The fighter seems to do at least ok in most encounters. <blinks> You're joking, right? But the other types can be highly situational. Afterall, the Rogue is great in a fight with other classed opponents, or most monsters, but needs to have at least one other person to flank with in order to make the most of his abilities, but against some encounters the rogue is seriously outclassed if he can't use his classes staple the sneak attack. So, you're saying that in some situations the rogue does well, in others poorly - sounds about right to me. Also, that while he does okay by himself, he works best in a team. Still sounds balanced - he shouldn't win every encounter. Instead, he should have some situations where he's good, and some where he's bad. Incidentally, a rogue with a wand of Greater Invisibility has no need of a flanking ally. The Wizard, and other casters like the druid and cleric likewise are great in their own right, and many times overpowered, but in certain circumstances, where their magic becomes useless they are seriously outclassed. Ah, here's where it gets difficult. These situations come up a lot less than you seem to assume. Partly because any competant spellcaster has a few backup items to help out, and partly because it's so rare to spend a significant amount of time in an AMF. Sure, they happen, but it's extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that it's a bad idea to suggest that this is what balances the caster classes. Like against a monster immune to most magic, or something with a high SR You'd be surprised how few monsters are genuinely immune to magic. The usual ones that are 'immune to magic' are still vulnerable to spells that ignore SR, and as a bonus, they aren't protected against spells that don't affect them directly. If my low level wizard encounters a golem, I can use Grease to knock it over, then run past it fairly happily. As a bonus, simple illusions will be extremely effective, due to the fact that a golem has no Int. Watch me lead it over that pittrap. Spells that actively injure the enemy are usually the worst choice. Clerics and Druids might still fair ok in most of the other cases that the Wizard wouldn't because the cleric could always just buff himself up and bash it out, likewise with the Druid by changing into various critters. Though they would still be hosed in an antimagic field. Don't get me wrong in an antimagic field, a fighter would also be hurt, anyone who uses magic would. But he wouldn't be affected as much as the wizard. Again, AMFs should be rare enough that this isn't an issue. I'm a DM. My players got careless and were caught in an AMF pit trap with no apparent way out. There was a lot of ranting and raving about how unfair it all was. Eventually it occured to them to use an adamantine weapon to just plain dig their way out. There should always be an option - i.e. if they come up with a good idea, let them. Amusingly, since most monsters use spell-likes as a backup, and are pretty nasty in their own right, the fighter will be almost as useless, since his main advantage is now extra hp. Remember, he's probably relying on a +Str item, a heavily enchanted weapon, rings, a necklace, armour etc. Take all those away, and the fighter can't handle a party equivalent monster either. I'd expect the rogue to manage best in an AMF, not a fighter. In fact, since he expects that he can beat anything in a standup fight (I'm still not sure why) he doesn't have the mentality that it would be a good idea to run away. As such, I would expect a fighter to be the first one munched. So if the term of a class being balanced is referring to the challenges presented than I would say it was the fighter that was most balanced. He might be weak versus some of the others, but his strength isn't as situational as theirs. Since a fighter is only capable of combat, and usually specialises in a particular aspect of it, such as archery, melee or mounted, my conclusion would be that he was even more situational than any other. Outside of his specialisation, he's got nothing. No skills, no special powers, just equipment. He can't even heal himself if he gets hurt, and let's face it, he's going to get hurt. A lot. On the other hand, provided that the situation is such the casters haven't been arbitrarily stripped of their abilities, they will do very well indeed. The warlock, although once proclaimed overpowered, is now generally accepted as a balanced class, on a par with the rogue. He's certainly the weakest primary spellcasting class, with an extremely limited number of 'powers' available. Yet, he's still more flexible than the fighter. Why? Because not only isn't the fighter the best at what he does, he can't do anything else. If the game calls for the party to talk to anyone, the cleric may have the diplomacy to manage it, the rogue may well have the face skills, and the wizard has a number of useful spells. If the group needs to explore carefully and stealthily, the rogue is probably fine, while the cleric breaks out a silence spell, and the wizard grabs invisibility. When it's time to analyse an old text, you hand it to the rogue (possibly) or the wizard (usually). All three classes also have access to different knowledge skills, although it has to be said that the higher divination spells tend to trump most important uses of a knowledge skill. In almost all situations, any competant spellcaster is capable of using a spell to not only get by, but to succeed. If not one that's to prepared, then one that's on a scroll or wand. There is a limit to the number of skills that a rogue can have, but he gets by fairly well by borrowing magic items and using UMD. In this case, the cleric has a significant advantage, since he full access to his spell list, while the wizard only has access to those he has encountered, thus limiting the items that can be made. As such, it's easily possible for a spellcaster, especially a cleric, to have near-instant access to any spell that he wants. He just needs to prepare. Incidentally, remember that it's possible for multiple people to collaborate in the creation of an item, with one providing the feats, and another the spells. Fighters lose out because they have no skill points worth mentioning, an appalling skill list, charisma as a dump stat, and no abilities useful out of combat. The normal order of power is: Cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter. However, with time for preparation, the positions of the wizard and cleric are reversed - wizards win out if they can prepare - otherwise, they are merely very good. Edit: I ran an encounter such as this once with a creature that was immune to all magic of 6th level or lower. The creatures CR was 13, and the wizards was higher than this. To be honest, this sounds like a poorly prepared wizard, rather than an example of why wizards aren't extremely powerful. To begin with, I'd be wondering whether an illusion would be any use - it tends to be the first thing that I think of. Then, I'd be curious as to whether it seemed likely to fall to a Grease spell. Could it fly - I would certainly be able to. If I could fly and it couldn't, I'd grab my wand of Shrink Item (a spell so massively useful that I consider it almost compulsory for any decent level wizard) and drop shrunk boulders on its head. And that's the cruder solution. There's usually something in your bag of tricks that doesn't involve zapping your target directly and thus a) using an inferior spell, and b) risking SR.
kadeity 02-05-07, 06:07 PM	You balance character classes against challenges of their CR. Here is something you cant argue with. Every single core class, EXCEPT FIGHTER, can do things out of combat, and do them well. I understand that the Cleric NEEDS to be survivable. I mean, he is the last line of defense. My point is that the cleric SHOULDN'T be the first line. The major points that set the cleric so far ahead are that... a)he can heal himself. well. frequently... meaning he might appear to have low hp, but he really has his HP+ average rolls on as many cure spells as he has spells per day. b)he can wear heavy armor, and carry a shield. He also has access to Nearly all the GOOD martial weapons via domains. c)Domain powers= options. Sure some of the domain powers arent so great. Some are as good as a feat. Some are juts plain new class abilities. d)Divine spells BUFF BATTLE. What do i suggest? Well we all know homebrew fixes are useless to most people...but do ncie for your own personal game.... so heres how i suggest you satisfy yourself in your game. Well right now the cleric is more than a battle priest. Hes an amazing Paladin type crusader. Our friendly neighborhood healer is tankable. Lets detank the tank...And make a few variants. SUPPORT PRIEST a)the cleric can no longer spontaniously heal himself. Yes, he has to actually prepare spells for that. He can still sling them at his pals, but for himself...no deal. As a consolation prize, heal/inflict spells are now castable at a range of 30ft. Go you. Stay in the back. b)Were scaling you back to medium armor pal. Heavy isnt what the priests are into. We know you need survivablity, so you can keep your d8hd. c)you only get one domain at first level, and another at 10th... and your ONLY proficient in simple weapons. No diety weps for you. d) you can buff others as normal, but anytime you target yourself you its a full round action cast. DIVINE CHAMPION a)you gain smite progression, lose ability to spontaniously cast cure/inflicts, lose turn undead. b)yay keep your heavy armor. yay diety weapons. c)you cast EXACTLY as a cleric, same list and all, except now you have a bards spells per day progression. You still prepare as normal ect. you only get one domain, ever, and thats at 1st level. you detect evil at will at 1st level. and you MUST BE YOUR DIETIES EXACT ALIGNMENT. d)at 5th level you gain a special mount as a paladin of your cleric level -3. LAYBROTHER a)you get detect good/evil at first level. you ahve to choose good or evil. b0you can heal yourself, and heal others at a range of 30ft all of your heal spells get +2 wherever it says +1per level. cant turn undead. domains as normal(though some domain powers wont work if you cant turn undead.) c) light armor, simple weapons only, d6 hit die. d)+10 movement speed at first level, just because your a weakling healer who runs around. +10 again at 10th. e) You gain the ability to spontaniously cast "magic circle against -" and "protection from" spells though they may not be of an alignment opposing your own. sure my fixes arent great. they likely stink. but they are so very not as bad as the fighter fixes that float around.
travellersside 02-05-07, 06:31 PM	My responses are in bold SUPPORT PRIEST a)the cleric can no longer spontaniously heal himself. Yes, he has to actually prepare spells for that. He can still sling them at his pals, but for himself...no deal. As a consolation prize, heal/inflict spells are now castable at a range of 30ft. Go you. Stay in the back. Most cleric healing happens after the comabt is over, rather than during. It's only a minor nerf. b)Were scaling you back to medium armor pal. Heavy isnt what the priests are into. We know you need survivablity, so you can keep your d8hd. Mithral Full Plate. c)you only get one domain at first level, and another at 10th... Still a very minor nerf and your ONLY proficient in simple weapons. No diety weps for you. You're essentially rewriting the War domain. I forsee a lot of elven clerics. d) you can buff others as normal, but anytime you target yourself you its a full round action cast. Again, pretty minor - most of the better ones have a good duration, so they're counted as walking around buffs. The rest tend to be cheesed with DMM. All told, an extremely minor reduction in power. DIVINE CHAMPION a)you gain smite progression, lose ability to spontaniously cast cure/inflicts, lose turn undead. Quite a nerf. Good. b)yay keep your heavy armor. yay diety weapons. c)you cast EXACTLY as a cleric, same list and all, except now you have a bards spells per day progression. You still prepare as normal ect. you only get one domain, ever, and thats at 1st level. you detect evil at will at 1st level. and you MUST BE YOUR DIETIES EXACT ALIGNMENT. d)at 5th level you gain a special mount as a paladin of your cleric level -3. There's one big problem with this suggestion - it sounds more like a paladin rewrite than a cleric rewrite. In fact, if I wanted to play a paladin-type character, I'd be happier to play with this than with the current PHB paladin. Still, I can't say that I object to it at all. LAYBROTHER a)you get detect good/evil at first level. you ahve to choose good or evil. But I'm neutral... I've always been partial to a completely new ability that simply allows you to detect people that your deity severely disapproves of. No explanation as to why - if you want to know, you'll have to investigate. b)you can heal yourself, and heal others at a range of 30ft all of your heal spells get +2 wherever it says +1per level. cant turn undead. domains as normal(though some domain powers wont work if you cant turn undead.) Clerics don't need Turn Undead, so that's just helps to cut down on the abuses. You'd better note that the caps on the healing spells are raised, else you won't actually heal any more than a normal cleric does. The ranged healing is a nice boost. c) light armor, simple weapons only, d6 hit die. A more significant difference than just dropping to medium. These are okay. d)+10 movement speed at first level, just because your a weakling healer who runs around. +10 again at 10th. Since you're wearing light armour, you've probably got a normal movement of 50' now - thus allowing greater tactical flexibility. A decent boost. e) You gain the ability to spontaniously cast "magic circle against -" and "protection from" spells though they may not be of an alignment opposing your own. These are useful - note that they provide immuities to mental controls. A major boost. While the emphasis has shifted, I'd suggest that this is a nice upgrade to the cleric, rather than a downgrade.
tiluvias99 02-05-07, 06:33 PM	I like how people say that cleric = overpowered supporters only think in terms of arena battles. The truth is that, while clerics perform better in arena battles, they also perform better in campaigns, and fill the role of "tank" far better than any fighter could. Simply put: a party with a Wizard, a Rogue, and Two Clerics (or Druids, or a Cleric and a Druid) is significantly more effective is 99.9% of all situations than a party with a Wizard, a Rogue, a Cleric (or Druid), and a Fighter. And, in all actuality, a party consisting of 4 Clerics/Druids/Wizards (or a mix and match of those) is significantly more effective than any other kind of party past the mid-levels.
warforgedMonkey 02-05-07, 07:48 PM	Quote my DM: ",,, if there wasn't a fighter in front of the wizards the wizards would be toast!!" if there wasn't a cleric healing the fighter and the rest of the group and casting insane dmg spells everybody would be dead!! the fighter might be fun to play at the first lvl's cleaving kobolds but later when the cleric is doing 1d20 dmg per round (clutch of orcus) and the wizard is sending everybody between planes and making insane dmg rolls, the fighter is still stuck with his greatsword 2d6. i think the best 4 are: cleric, wizard, druid, rogue.
ElyasRavenwood 02-06-07, 07:45 AM	This has certainly been an interesting thread to read. The reason I am thinking about tonning down the cleric relates to one of the fundameltal premisis of D and D. The entire challage rating system is set up so a party of four adventurers will be challanged by a particular encounter. I know could be more specific then "challanged" but that word will do for now. Each of the bread and butter core classes, the Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Thief, (I mean Rogue) have areas of expertese, which allow them to work much better together as a team and contribute to the sucess of the party. I think that the cleric is capable of doing his job escelently. I just think that it is not necessarily a good idea, when he can do other classes jobs, almost as well, if not better then they can. What then is the point of having a team of specialists working together? That is the point of the game isnt it? (apart from getting togther with friends, eating pizza and soda, making monty python and princess bride jokes, and killing imaginary monsters and taking thier loot to buy better goodies for imaginary characters) I suppose that is all i am trying to do. Sorry about hte spelling, have to get to work and I did not have time to run the spell checker and grammer checker :) Oh one last quesion. I know there is a lot of prestige classes aimed at improving the cleric's combat ability. Are their prestige classes, that A) allow the cleric to continue to heal effectivly, and B) continue to turn undead and focus on the clerics magical spell casting, while sacrificeing combat ability? The best thing I have found so far is the Cloistered cleric. Has anyone found anything better? Thanks
efreeti 02-06-07, 11:22 AM	We have a party made up of a druid, cleric, sorceror, monk, paladin & fighter\rogue. We are all about 15th level at the moment and running through the SCAP campaign. The group sorceror keeps trying to use polymorph and various buff spells to make himself decent in melee which takes him about 3 or 4 rounds. A few sessions ago our cleric pointed out that if he really wanted he could spend 3 or 4 rounds buffing himself up and go into combat himself but unfortunatley that would mean that the paladin and\or monk would probably be dead by then so "could he please stop messing around trying to change himself into an Ent and instead cast dispel on those summoned demons!" Meanwhile the monk is using a demon bane staff to quickly destroy most of the enemies with relative ease. If an outsider was looking in on that session they would presume that the monk was by far the most powerful character on the party. The following session we fought a very nasty red dragon and the monk was barely hurting it through it's DR. It took the entire session and all of the characters pulling out every trick they could find to kill that dragon (or actually just scare him off as happened in our case). A few sessions back we were attacked by assasins whilst drinking in a tavern. They walked in with a silence stone and splattered us from wall to wall. In that situation it was the paladin and the monk who pretty much saved the day as most of their abilities are inherent rather than magic based. If the magic users had metamagic to allow them to cast in silence it may have been different, but then again why would they have bothered to prepare it for a random day shopping in town. If they had spent loads of feats on that sort of ability anyway it would have been the ONLY time it would have been useful over the last 15 levels! What I am trying to say, as are a few other people on this thread, is that if you play the game the way it was intended and your DM is not a complete moron then the core classes all have their strengths and weaknesses. Sure the Druid, Cleric and Wizard have a wide range of abilities and can often "mimic" the abilities of other classes but doing so takes time, costs feats and possibly hinders other players. I think if you mess around with the cleric too much you will just end up with no clerics in the game. It is probably better to just do a bit of simple house ruling based on how you run your campaign and what your players are like. Making a cleric buy heavy armour feat or increasing the casting time of Gate, for example, is quite often enough to solve any specific small gripes you might have with the system as written.
chinoquezada 02-06-07, 01:11 PM	The group sorceror keeps trying to use polymorph and various buff spells to make himself decent in melee which takes him about 3 or 4 rounds. A few sessions ago our cleric pointed out that if he really wanted he could spend 3 or 4 rounds buffing himself up and go into combat himself but unfortunatley that would mean that the paladin and\or monk would probably be dead by then so "could he please stop messing around trying to change himself into an Ent and instead cast dispel on those summoned demons!" Right on the sorc, he does take a lot of time to do that. Wrong on the cleric, if he takes a lot of time to do that, he's just taking to much time. Any cleric, any, should have DMM Reach + DMM Quicken. Think of it, if he quickens a reach cure spell, and then quickens another reach cure spell he just saved to lives. And he is Radiant Servant and has the Master of Day and Night (Players Guide to Eberron) he just did to empowered maximized cures at lvl 8. Now, if he has the same combo and noone needs healing, he buffs one spell quickened, then wades into combat. If someone happens to fall, he just makes a concentration check and casts a quickened + reach cure spells as a free action and then uses his both attacks to kill whatever fell your comrade. Its that simple.
Mr. Master 02-06-07, 02:10 PM	What I am trying to say, as are a few other people on this thread, is that if you play the game the way it was intended and your DM is not a complete moron then the core classes all have their strengths and weaknesses. Sure the Druid, Cleric and Wizard have a wide range of abilities and can often "mimic" the abilities of other classes but doing so takes time, costs feats and possibly hinders other players. I think if you mess around with the cleric too much you will just end up with no clerics in the game. It is probably better to just do a bit of simple house ruling based on how you run your campaign and what your players are like. Making a cleric buy heavy armour feat or increasing the casting time of Gate, for example, is quite often enough to solve any specific small gripes you might have with the system as written. I completely agree with you. You see,I play with D&D 3.0 and I've never seen such problems. I'm the DM and my personal NPC is a cleric,but he couldn't do nothing without the wizard,the fighter and the ranger (house ruled:the 3.0 ranger is not so good a choice) of the party.The 2 warriors can do incredible amount of damages,since the fighter has taken the Knight prestige class and the ranger is an half dragon (but I've also played with an elf Ranger and I can say that I've never seen such a powerful distant-combat fighter).The ranger,moreover,works as the scout of the party and his cure spells (he has a wand of cure moderate wounds)can help when the cleric is not in sight.The fighter is a war machine,the only one able to kill a Huge Red Dragon with a single charge.Moreover,since he's an earl,he's very helpful when the PCs has to do with nobles,battles,taxes (!) and all the civil world stuff.The wizard is extremely powerful,but he relies on his careful daily spell choice and if a fighter come close to him,he will die (actually,he has dies 3 times,every time against fighting-oriented NPCs). Of course,I have had to create some house rules,since 3.0 has some things that I don't like (ranger core class,some feats,some prestige classes),but with simple house ruling I think that you can solve any problem. Just to make an example,I've created 3 house rules that make spell casting characters a bit more "human": -when casting defensively,the DC is 20+spell's level+[enemy's BAB-caster's BAB] -when a character loose 50%+1 of his hit points,he gets a -1 to his attack roll/ damage roll/STs/AC/skill-level-char- rolls/DC of his spells.When loosing 75%+1 of his points,he gets a -2. -the only way you can improve the DC of your spells is thanks to your Int score and the Focus Spell (whatsoever school of magic you like) feat.The other feats/prestige class powers don't work anymore. However,as I've always said,the game would be more fair if the importance of magic AND magic's power was reduced a bit.
efreeti 02-07-07, 01:37 PM	Any cleric, any, should have DMM Reach + DMM Quicken. Think of it, if he quickens a reach cure spell, and then quickens another reach cure spell he just saved to lives. And he is Radiant Servant and has the Master of Day and Night (Players Guide to Eberron) he just did to empowered maximized cures at lvl 8. Now, if he has the same combo and noone needs healing, he buffs one spell quickened, then wades into combat. If someone happens to fall, he just makes a concentration check and casts a quickened + reach cure spells as a free action and then uses his both attacks to kill whatever fell your comrade. Its that simple. It isn't that simple, this is what I was trying to say. A> The feats and prestige classes you mention involve various expansion books and combining 2 different world settings (radiant servant of pelor in Eberron) which most good DMs will have some sort of limits on. Also I am not entirely convinced I would allow someone to apply 2 DMM effect to one spell in the same round. It may not specifically say you can't but it also does not say you can. It would certainly be something we would discuss as a group before allowing it. B> The combat examples you give just don't happen every encounter. Players can fail their concentration checks, there movement can be blocked, they get distracted by other monsters, they get too badly damaged, they need to cast a remove paralysis, they need to swap over a weapon, cross some boggy ground, fail a saving throw, not have any turn attempts left etc etc etc. C> There is no reason at all why "all" clerics would want to chose that feat combination unless for some reason all clerics were somehow linked by a big hive-mind plot. DMMs use up turn attempts which will quickly run out if you use them all the time. Sounds great on paper but in the game you often have more than one or two fights per day so if you have wasted all your turn attempts in the first 10 rounds of comabt you end up with a number of feats that are then useless for the rest of the day. Characters have different backgrounds, different areas of interest and different ideas about how to be useful. I agree chinoquezada that there are some feat\class\race combos out there that seem to be no brainers (for want of a better expression) but they are often one trick ponys or are just very tiresome and can be stomped on by a few minor house rules (such as not allowing combined DMMs) which brings us back round to the topic and how blanket nerfing the cleric is probably not necessary. Edit: Just as a point of interest (now I am near some books). Quicken spell cannot be used on spont. cast spells so the curing would have to be prepared and reach spells still needs a ranged touch attack to hit the target. How may good aligned clerics would want to waste spell slots on curing every day just so they could quick cast them? Not really "must have" choices methinks.
Tony Vargas 02-07-07, 06:39 PM	I think that the cleric is capable of doing his job escelently. I just think that it is not necessarily a good idea, when he can do other classes jobs, almost as well, if not better then they can. What then is the point of having a team of specialists working together? The cleric probably is meant to act as the second-string for any of the other classes (though not the rogue so much, and definitely the fighter), in an iconic party - it's part of his support role. An iconic party only has one fighter, and a single frontliner can be bypassed fairly easily, so the cleric being able to stand up to melee (and the rogue generally being able to contribute in and escape from melee) makes the fighter's job of 'defending the party' a little more tennable. There are also times when a certain spell is particularly vital - such as dispel magic or protection from evil or just a good damaging blast, and, if the wizard lacks that particular spell or it fails, the Cleric is his backup (and if that backup isn't needed, the cleric can use it for healing). The Cleric can even suplement the rogue a bit (though in clumsy ways, like summoning celestial badgers to set off traps or hoping all the traps the party comes accross will be encountered w/in the durration of his find traps spell - the archanist, though, is also a bit of a rogue backup, with spells like invisibility and knock). The problem, as you point out, is that those second-string abilities can be stacked up to match or, with sufficient exploits, even outshine the primary. Doing so isn't usually a good idea, because it entails expending cleric resources inefficiently, but that doesn't stop a spotlight-hungry player from trying it. You could snip out most of the cleric's ability to emulate other classes just by removing spells. Making the cleric melee-vulnerable, like the wizard, would make it impossible for him to step on the fighter's toes, but it'd also make the fighter's job twice as hard (with two squishy guys in robes to protect instead of just one). Trimming his spell /list/, but leaving his armor would probably be the better option. Spells to remove could include: Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Shatter, Sound Burst, Hold Person, Enthrall, Find Traps, Searing Light, (Greater) Dispel Magic, Summon Monster, Planar Ally, and, of course, Miracle, plus 'reversed' spells such as Blindness/Deafness, Poison, Cause ___ Wounds, Harm, Slay Living, Destruction, etc. That's not a complete list, just a start. And, Domains would also need to be altered. This would force the cleric back into the support role, leave him clearly a second-string warrior, reduce his combat casting potential, and leave the rogue the sole trapfinder. It would also reduce the effectivness of the party, as the other classes woudl be more often 'performing without a net,' as it were. Turning, HD, armor & weapons, and spells/day could even be left the same, though.
Beckett 02-08-07, 08:57 AM	So an NPC class than? I love the concept of the Cleric priest, but why would anyone want to play the character that only helps other people to play the game and does nothing for themselves. That, AND ONLY THAT, is the problem with the Cleric, and that is what needs to be braught back in line with the other core classes. There is a reason that not only do not many people play Clerics, but people useually WILL NOT play a Cleric because it is so boring and generic. Any class can be overpowered. Most in fact are rather easy do do it to. Outside of Divine Metamagic, there just are not many options, which is the only reason that the feat seems so good, there isn't anything else! Now take into consideration that Clerics just don't have that great a variety of spells, and metamagic is generally fairly useless. Makes sense for Arcanists, but there are not many good options for Clerics, besides Extend Buffs and some rare other occasions.
travellersside 02-08-07, 09:01 AM	why would anyone want to play the character that only helps other people to play the game and does nothing for themselves. Bards.
Beckett 02-09-07, 04:18 AM	Even the Bard has much more fun and many more options than a Cleric. Not only that, people sometimes don't mind playing a Bard, while many will not play a Cleric. Bards actually can be pretty fun and pretty mean in a fight, but can do much out of a fight.