Post/Author/DateTime	Post
arkthepieking 04-27-08, 04:29 AM	I've got a few friends that would like to disagree with me. I tried saying that ((overall)) the cleric is a better class. Oh no, this would not do. I was arguing against THREE people on this matter. Never mind the fact that I pointed out all the various points on the full 9th level spell progression and Cleric's domains. No, the paladin can swift cast a spell, then attack. Oh, and it gets mounted combat. Well la de freaking da. Those were the only two points they could make, which would have been easy for me to destroy, except I have the absolute hardest time arguing against them. They do such a good job at making me feel stupid, that I can't think of a single fact to shut them up most of the time, and end up walking away with my head hung in shame, even if I know I'm right. Dragonfire adepts function like psychic warriors? That's just moronic!!!! Now, I'm asking kindly, wizards community, please help me shut my idiot friends up so I can finally win an argument against these guys.
Qube 04-27-08, 04:35 AM	Now, I'm asking kindly, wizards community, please help me shut my idiot friends up so I can finally win an argument against these guys.the correct statement would be: clerics can be better optimized then paladins ... in a party the clerics job is diffrent then the paladin. clerics can be great front liners ... until dispel /reaping dispell /greater dispel / ... is cast ...
goram_browncoat 04-27-08, 07:56 AM	A paladin makes for a better unbuffed melee character than the cleric A cleric makes for a better buffer, buffed melee-er, battlefield controller, utility/support character, backline caster, necromancer, healer than a paladin. As a character levels from 1 to 20, a cleric does nothing but get stronger and stronger and stronger. The paladin on the other hand will see a sharp decline in usefullness as challenge ratings go up. Has anybody ever heard of PoDzilla? I sure havent. Also, miracle .. nuff said Paladins cast spells as swift actions? I do believe they need to take a feat for that. Clerics have a whole wealth of feats that have much scarier applications (DMM being offcourse the obvious one, but they get more milage out of most of the other divine feats). The swift paladin casting is also nuanced by looking at what exactly he is casting. I'm sure theres a few good paladin spells, dont get me wrong, but the amount of good cleric spells is so vast it puts paladin casting to shame.
dman11235 04-27-08, 09:47 AM	The cleric can cast a spell as a swift action too! It's called quicken spell+DMM quicken. Not that they need to, they've persisted all the appropiate spells using DMM persist and Beads of Karma and other various ways to up their CL until it can't be dispelled. Yes, a paladin can take DMM. Oh boy. They have nothing really all that useful to use it on. They don't get higher than level 4 spells. Clerics get miracle. And gate. And can do more than just mediocre melee. They can be stronger at melee with the right buffs (core only even), and can still do other stuff at the same time. How agaon is the paladin a better class? Oh and for the mount? Yeah, bout that, it's not anywhere near as powerful as the druid's animal companion, and if the cleric really wants a mount (mounted combat is not generally the best course of action) they can take Wild Cohort. Or Leadership and get a Pegasus or something. Leadership will give them a mount that can have class levels too!
Clawhound 04-27-08, 10:40 AM	I think it better to say that Clerics are different than Paladins. Do they feel the same to you? Do they play the same? That much said, Cleric is both a better designed class and an overpowered class. Here is why I think that cleric is a better class and not just a more powerful class. Short of massive stupidity, Clerics don't lose all their class powers. DM's love abusing paladins. Clerics are not bound up with moral and ethical restrictions, even thought they are even more closely tied to their deity, and they gain far more power from their deity. If anything, its clerics that should have all the restrictions. Clerics can rearrange their powers to fit the mission before them. Clerics are better equipped via spells to defend others. Paladins are poorly equipped to defend others. Clerics are better equipped via spells to not only identify evil, but to identify good. A paladin has no ability to spot a holy fracking holy relic. Clerics can easily maintain their AC and their Magic Weapons through divine power. Paladins lag behind even though this is their primary area of need. Paladins must protect their mounts while clerics can toss any summonable creature to its death with no repercussions. Paladins nerf their damage by using a mount to its full effect unless they specialize in charging. There you go. The cleric is too good. The paladin is not designed correctly for its role.
dman11235 04-27-08, 06:20 PM	Actually, cleric is a more poorly designed clas than the Paladin. It has no class features, and as such loses nothing from PrCs and multiclassing. It is in fact one of the most poorly designed classes, right up there with Fighter and Sorcerer. Paladins actually have something that keeps you wanting to take the class, no matter how bad it is (smites per day and remove disease and mount progression). And I believe clerics can be a better paladin than the paladin. It's what cleric-zilla is. I mean, what's a spell caster that's good at melee without having bonus feats? The paladin...and the cleric. And the cleric is better at melee than the paladin.
ninjarabbit 04-27-08, 07:23 PM	What's funny is that paladin is the only other class that can benefit from DMM and paladins have a few spells that benefit from it like righteous fury (SpC) and any wizard spells you get from the Sword of the Arcane Order feat.
Auspex7 04-27-08, 08:09 PM	Actually, cleric is a more poorly designed clas than the Paladin. It has no class features, and as such loses nothing from PrCs and multiclassing. It is in fact one of the most poorly designed classes, right up there with Fighter and Sorcerer. Paladins actually have something that keeps you wanting to take the class, no matter how bad it is (smites per day and remove disease and mount progression). i don't feel like the cleric class is poorly designed. i may well be part of a minority for feeling this way, but the cleric class has always been my favorite class in DnD. i've never felt like i needed something to 'make me want to keep taking the class', and even if i did, i would be perfectly content using spell progression as a fine reason to continue. yeah, you can take PrCs to continue spell progression and pick up some perks, but you don't have to, and you'll be perfectly effective if you go 20+ levels of straight cleric. call me crazy, but i have to love a class where you can just as easily go straight levels, OR multiclass, and still be capable, and very tasty. cleric/blackguard and cleric/thaumaturgist are pretty kickbuns flavors...
dman11235 04-27-08, 08:33 PM	That's the point, it's poorly designed because it doesn't hold you to the class. It's a no brainer to PrC. Design does not equate to power, but ca guide it a little. It's a very powerful class, but the lack of class features means that you don't need to stay with it to retain that power. Look at, say, the ranger, bard, or Dread Necromancer (!). These are fairly well designed classes. In fact, the DN may be the most well designed class out there. Power level is average (between 5 and 7 on the scale), and most importantly (for design purposes) you feel a twinge when you want to multi-class/PrC. You feel like you want to toss a coin to decide which way to go. it's about as powerful PrC'd as it is straight, and that's what makes it well designed. Along with the fact that you gain something new every level.
Auspex7 04-27-08, 10:20 PM	That's the point, it's poorly designed because it doesn't hold you to the class. It's a no brainer to PrC. Design does not equate to power, but ca guide it a little. It's a very powerful class, but the lack of class features means that you don't need to stay with it to retain that power. Look at, say, the ranger, bard, or Dread Necromancer (!). These are fairly well designed classes. In fact, the DN may be the most well designed class out there. Power level is average (between 5 and 7 on the scale), and most importantly (for design purposes) you feel a twinge when you want to multi-class/PrC. You feel like you want to toss a coin to decide which way to go. it's about as powerful PrC'd as it is straight, and that's what makes it well designed. Along with the fact that you gain something new every level. my position is never "why not multiclass?" it's always been "why multiclass?" if the answer isn't related to a flavor-concept, i don't do it. multiclassing for goodie bags will never be something i endorse. because of that mentality, i don't view the cleric as a flawed design. i believe the flaw to be with the player's compulsion to mutliclass or go to a PrC because he wants to optimize, instead of doing so because it is part of his image of his character's nature. optimizing for the sake of optimizing is hand in hand with metagaming in my book. a living character would never say "i need a one level dip into rogue so i can get +1d6 on sneak attack. after that, i'm thinking swordsage to get assassin's stance for +2d6 on sneak attack..." more likely would be a cleric of a given deity *remaining* a cleric because that's his calling. PrCs like blackguard or thaumaturgist are ones i see as still serving a deity, rather than turning your back on them. i'm probably just old fashioned, though.
dman11235 04-27-08, 10:54 PM	Yeah, you're old fashioned. Why not do both? They are not mutually exclusive, that's called the Stormwind Fallacy. You can optimize and stay within the flavor perfectly. But that's not the issue at all. The issue is, the class is boring. It has no flavor, other than what you give it. And what you give it is very vague, and has no impact on the class at all. A well designed class is vague enough to give you room to customize, but specific enough to have its own flavor. That's why the Ranger is so well designed. You have two completely different combat styles, and in those two completely different styles you have some more smaller style differences. And then more variety with the other class features, but it's still specific enough to say "this is a ranger". The cleric, well, it's way too general, and any flavor you create isn't supported by the class. Spells hardly count, cause they aren't class features per se. The Dread Necromancer spell list however is a part of the flavor set by the base class, and lends to its good design. Cleric? All over the place, no order what so ever. Now, I'm not saying that completely set flavor is a good thing, just look at the CW samurai for evidence of that. What I am saying is that there is a happy medium between rigid flavor (CW Samurai, Paladin) and too much freedom (fighter, cleric). The stuff that is very specific (CW Samurai, Radiant Servant of Pelor) belongs in PrC territory, not base class. Base classes give you the tools to generally shape your character, but can fine tune your character if you want, while PrCs fine tune your character concept to something slightly different. All the while, the class features allow you to do the things your character should be able to do. And that's why optimiziing is actually following your character concept and not ignoring flavor.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 04-28-08, 11:04 AM	a living character would never say "i need a one level dip into rogue so i can get +1d6 on sneak attack. after that, i'm thinking swordsage to get assassin's stance for +2d6 on sneak attack..." He would not say that, that much is true. What he would say however is this: " I need to learn how to stab people in the face better" and in his quest for the perfect face stab, he dips into Rogue and Swordsage.
Aethios 04-28-08, 11:30 AM	He would not say that, that much is true. What he would say however is this: " I need to learn how to stab people in the face better" and in his quest for the perfect face stab, he dips into Rogue and Swordsage. He probably wouldn't say anything actually... Like there was some conversation going on between him and the rest of the party: --- Rogue:"Hey, man, thanks for flanking that guy so that I could get that attack in easier..." Fighter:"No problem, really, but even with that help, you didn't do much damage to that thing." Rogue:"Yeah, sorry, I really need to learn to stab s*** better. Any suggestions?" Wizard:"Actually, if you start taking Swordsage levels, you will be able to up your damage accordingly with Assassin's stance!" Rogue:"Wha..?" --- More likely, the rogue wouldn't take a level in swordsage unless it was prominent in the society or he came upon a tome explaining the intricacies of the Sublime Way. Although, it's not wholly impossible for a Rogue to see a talented swordsmen take a certain stance with a mythical aura about it and then go "hell yeah!" Also, to go back onto topic, Clerics have flavorful prestiges they can plow into, or they can stick straight Cleric. Either way, they are a powerful PC. Paladin flat-line somewhere along the way in their progression. Make a 20th level straight cleric vs. their 20th level straight Paladin and watch who wins. If you play it half-way decently, you should very well win the battle and utterly destroy any arguments that Paladin is a better class. In response to some earlier statements in this thread stating that these are two different classes and that they should be viewed thusly, I agree. It's not really about which class is more powerful, it's about which class you, as the PC, have more fun playing. If you get your jollies from a Soulknife or a Samurai, play that character until the bitter end, I say. ^^
Beckettvampire 04-28-08, 01:38 PM	Nah, the correct statement is that the Cleric is better than the Paladin in all ways.
dman11235 04-28-08, 05:53 PM	But the Samurai (CW) is a fighter without bonus feats. With a couple feats and a couple worthless abilities. The Soulknife at least has something unique to bring to the table.
Auspex7 04-28-08, 06:10 PM	He probably wouldn't say anything actually... Like there was some conversation going on between him and the rest of the party: --- Rogue:"Hey, man, thanks for flanking that guy so that I could get that attack in easier..." Fighter:"No problem, really, but even with that help, you didn't do much damage to that thing." Rogue:"Yeah, sorry, I really need to learn to stab s*** better. Any suggestions?" Wizard:"Actually, if you start taking Swordsage levels, you will be able to up your damage accordingly with Assassin's stance!" Rogue:"Wha..?" --- More likely, the rogue wouldn't take a level in swordsage unless it was prominent in the society or he came upon a tome explaining the intricacies of the Sublime Way. Although, it's not wholly impossible for a Rogue to see a talented swordsmen take a certain stance with a mythical aura about it and then go "hell yeah!" Also, to go back onto topic, Clerics have flavorful prestiges they can plow into, or they can stick straight Cleric. Either way, they are a powerful PC. Paladin flat-line somewhere along the way in their progression. Make a 20th level straight cleric vs. their 20th level straight Paladin and watch who wins. If you play it half-way decently, you should very well win the battle and utterly destroy any arguments that Paladin is a better class. In response to some earlier statements in this thread stating that these are two different classes and that they should be viewed thusly, I agree. It's not really about which class is more powerful, it's about which class you, as the PC, have more fun playing. If you get your jollies from a Soulknife or a Samurai, play that character until the bitter end, I say. ^^ yar.
Qube 04-29-08, 02:20 AM	[LIST] Short of massive stupidity, Clerics don't lose all their class powers. DM's love abusing paladins. Clerics are not bound up with moral and ethical restrictions, even thought they are even more closely tied to their deity, and they gain far more power from their deity. If anything, its clerics that should have all the restrictions.read "ex-clerics": clerics also need to follow their CoC of fall. but you are correct that most DMs don't enforce those rules as tight as the paladins code of conduct - cleric misses "Bless Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blessWeapon.htm)" and Holy sword (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holySword.htm) though ... - paladins can also abuse DMM (24h/day Holy Sword, Death Ward and Divine Favor :) ) and they can take the feat that is intended for multiclassing spellcasters to increase their casterlevel by 4. (which is normally only half their level ...). also, their base damage is slightly higher as they wield martial weapons
Disco777 04-29-08, 06:33 AM	Any class is good if the player is smart and selects goods feats, like if the Pally was 2 hand spec, they could get Disarm or Sunder...hmm what else. Ppl need to learn how to use their characters first, they make a bad name for the good 5% of players :/
Qube 04-29-08, 07:52 AM	an other one: paladin has better saves then the cleric :D
Clawhound 04-29-08, 09:03 AM	The Paladin is more challenging to play than a cleric. I've sometimes picked weaker classes in games because I know that they are weak and I am up to the challenge. Weaker classes teach you to focus on what is truly important, how to make compromises, and how to focus your build well. Weaker classes force you to rely on your teammates and know how to synergize with them. With a cleric, you can never, truly, fly without a safety net. You are never as committed. Believe it or not, the classes with some of the heaviest restrictions often wind up having the strongest presence in game. I suppose its because you really need to think about those classes as you play or they have such iconic ethoses to them.
Auspex7 04-29-08, 12:58 PM	The Paladin is more challenging to play than a cleric. I've sometimes picked weaker classes in games because I know that they are weak and I am up to the challenge. Weaker classes teach you to focus on what is truly important, how to make compromises, and how to focus your build well. Weaker classes force you to rely on your teammates and know how to synergize with them. With a cleric, you can never, truly, fly without a safety net. You are never as committed. Believe it or not, the classes with some of the heaviest restrictions often wind up having the strongest presence in game. I suppose its because you really need to think about those classes as you play or they have such iconic ethoses to them. i don't agree that the paladin (and other more narrow classes) are inherently better for RP. sure, they tend to force the issue a little bit for people who need the guidelines. if you play a cleric for RP purposes, rather than mechanics purposes... couldn't you see how RP friendly the class is? this is the main reason i've always loved clerics so much. theyare broad enough to allow the player to intepret their faith, assign alignment, etc--but they still have a built in implication that the character is someone with a strong personal code. a cleric couldn't really be a 'sunday christian', for instance... if they are being granted spells by their god (or other source), they *must* believe whole-heartedly in that source. a lot goes along with that.
Aethios 04-29-08, 01:40 PM	i don't agree that the paladin (and other more narrow classes) are inherently better for RP. sure, they tend to force the issue a little bit for people who need the guidelines. if you play a cleric for RP purposes, rather than mechanics purposes... couldn't you see how RP friendly the class is? this is the main reason i've always loved clerics so much. theyare broad enough to allow the player to intepret their faith, assign alignment, etc--but they still have a built in implication that the character is someone with a strong personal code. a cleric couldn't really be a 'sunday christian', for instance... if they are being granted spells by their god (or other source), they *must* believe whole-heartedly in that source. a lot goes along with that. The Cleric must believe in God, like iron believes in metal! Paladin is RP friendly because of it's dictates and definition. You play a paladin only if you want to and you generally know those CoC's. Also, it's a good way to weed out those CE players if you chose your class first, as a Paladin, under no circumstance, will ally himself with anything evil. It speaks flavor, but I see where you are coming from. When it comes down to it, though, RPing squarely places itself on the shoulders of the player, not the class. The class choice is merely a purpose of direction, you see, and works in-cohesion with the player for purposes of playing the character.
Clawhound 04-29-08, 01:51 PM	I did not say that paladins were better for RP, I said that they tend to have a stronger presence in-game. These two are not the same thing. Even badly role-played paladins or samurai tend to have a strong presence in the game. These characters tend to exude their ethos; the rules that they live by. Even with no personality whatsoever, they have an ethos. I find that the other classes do not provide such compelling ethoses. Players can create them, of course, but most wind up being very convenient to the player rather than inconvenient. In all practicality, I have rarely seen the cleric played with the conviction of the average paladin.
Auspex7 04-29-08, 02:01 PM	I did not say that paladins were better for RP, I said that they tend to have a stronger presence in-game. These two are not the same thing. Even badly role-played paladins or samurai tend to have a strong presence in the game. These characters tend to exude their ethos, the rules that they live by. Even with no personality whatsoever, they have an ethos. I find that the other classes do not come with such comprelling ethoses, even if the player wan work up some good ones. In all practicality, I have rarely seen the cleric played with the conviction of the average paladin. my point was that a cleric should 'exude his ethos' every bit as much as a paladin (or samurai, crusader, etc). when a paladin loses his way, who does he turn to for atonement? probably a cleric of his deity. why? because clerics are paragons of faith and devotion. any cleric who doesn't 'exude his ethos' = a diminished fighter.
Clawhound 04-29-08, 02:23 PM	my point was that a cleric should 'exude his ethos' every bit as much as a paladin (or samurai, crusader, etc). when a paladin loses his way, who does he turn to for atonement? probably a cleric of his deity. why? because clerics are paragons of faith and devotion. any cleric who doesn't 'exude his ethos' = a diminished fighter. Should <> Does. In practical experience at the table, I generally more see paladins acting as paragons than I do clerics. That tells me that there is something about the paladin (even if it is just the fluff text) that leads to a different style of play, or something about a paladin that draws a style of player.
Auspex7 04-29-08, 02:39 PM	Should <> Does. In practical experience at the table, I generally more see paladins acting as paragons than I do clerics. That tells me that there is something about the paladin (even if it is just the fluff text) that leads to a different style of play, or something about a paladin that draws a style of player. i'll agree that the paladin leads a player more than the cleric does. i'm also going to admit i'm very biased. i love the cleric class. i love being able to be a LN type hard@ss, a LG of Ilmater type, a demon-lord worshipping cleric/thaumaturgist, or a truly vile cleric/blackguard. all of them share the common thread of fanaticism, but they offer so many different flavor choices.
Aethios 04-29-08, 02:40 PM	Should <> Does. In practical experience at the table, I generally more see paladins acting as paragons than I do clerics. That tells me that there is something about the paladin (even if it is just the fluff text) that leads to a different style of play, or something about a paladin that draws a style of player. I have no arguments with this to a varied extent. Stating that your bias is based off of personal experience leaves little room for debate aside from the point of argument that every group has it's own experience. These boards help us learn from each other in order to make that SHOULD a DOES. Exceptions do help to prove the rule, note.
Aethios 04-29-08, 02:44 PM	i'll agree that the paladin leads a player more than the cleric does. i'm also going to admit i'm very biased. i love the cleric class. i love being able to be a LN type hard@ss, a LG of Ilmater type, a demon-lord worshipping cleric/thaumaturgist, or a truly vile cleric/blackguard. all of them share the common thread of fanaticism, but they offer so many different flavor choices. Fanaticism = one of those bands with WWWJD? (What would Wee Jas Do?) That's the basis of one of my Clerics... Yay for parodies.
Argaud 04-29-08, 03:29 PM	Oh and for the mount? Yeah, bout that, it's not anywhere near as powerful as the druid's animal companion, and if the cleric really wants a mount (mounted combat is not generally the best course of action) they can take Wild Cohort. Or Leadership and get a Pegasus or something. Leadership will give them a mount that can have class levels too! The paladin mount is far stronger than the druids companion (except, obviously, at level < 5). The paladin mount is ruled by CR (DMH page 204) the druid by HD, and CR << HD for animals. The paladin can chose almost all the druid possible companions as mounts, and usually far earlier in levels, and they come already enhanced and intelligent. Paladin's mounts are extremely easy to twink up to the ridiculous.
Clawhound 04-29-08, 03:30 PM	I don't believe that I am saying that other classes can not have the same effect as a paladin. Here are the things that I see having strong "effects" on a party. There is something about the character or build that effects and pushes at the entire party. Think of them as permanent vetos against certain solutions. That affects the party dynamic. * Paladin (code, falling, obligation) * Samurai (honor) * Vow of Peace (do not fight) I am sure that there are other examples of these things.
Blackguard1001 04-29-08, 03:42 PM	Rogue:"Hey, man, thanks for flanking that guy so that I could get that attack in easier..." Fighter:"No problem, really, but even with that help, you didn't do much damage to that thing." Rogue:"Yeah, sorry, I really need to learn to stab s*** better. Any suggestions?" Wizard:"Actually, if you start taking Swordsage levels, you will be able to up your damage accordingly with Assassin's stance!" Rogue:"Wha..?" Actually rogue and swordsage have the same BAB progression, also sneak attack damage usually surpass the fighters damage.
Drackthor 04-29-08, 03:58 PM	Yeah, you're old fashioned. Why not do both? They are not mutually exclusive, that's called the Stormwind Fallacy. You can optimize and stay within the flavor perfectly. That's a misuse of the fallacy, choosing Cleric 20 because it fits the character idea, while not optimized, is different from deciding not to multiclass because it is optimization and thus hindering your character idea.
dman11235 04-29-08, 04:38 PM	There's always a PrC that fits the character. Yeah, I'm confident in saying always. Why? Contemplative. Done. Can fit any cleric. There's also many thousands of character ideas that are not plain old cleric. Also, many PrCs can be adjusted flavor wise to fit the character. so really, there's no excuse. Other than possibly core only. Well, then you've gotta do cleric 20 or cleric 10/Thaumatugist 10 to be optimized. Heirophant doesn't cut it until epic. Then it's glorious.