Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DM Kojira 04-17-05, 02:27 PM	There are probably a lot of threads on this subject but I couldn't find any. I think Cleric is way overpowered, I mean they can heal, and have almost as much fighting power as a fighter (not as much because of their base attack bonus), and their saves are only second to the monk's. They also have diety spells, and spontaneous casting. Could somone tell me what they think about this or point me to a post that does. Thank You.
-Defiler of Souls- 04-17-05, 03:05 PM	clerics are widely regarded as the second most powerful class, and with good reason(the strongest being the druid). Actually with thier spells like divine favor and divine power they can probably outmelee a fighter. also they get domain abilities and bonus domain spell slots. It also helps that the can wear any armor, automaticly know all thier spells, don't ever need to prepare cure spells, and have access to the divine metamagic feat. Personally i wouldn't say thier strong enough to be in need of any real nerf, but yes they are one of the strongest classes.
mr.unknown 04-17-05, 03:08 PM	but overpowered...? i don't think so. the CLR is no doubt a awesome support char. with healing & buff spells, medium BAB, no spell failure, & 2 good saves. but of course the balance to this is the CLR's lack of a variety of class features. where as most other classes get some kind of class features and/or bonus feats, the CLR gets none. furthermore, quite a few domain powers require the char. to continue ONLY in Clr levels in order to increase in power (IE turn/rebuke fire/water creatures, smite, etc). also, turn/rebuke undead does not improve further when the Clr gets a prestige class unless the PrC specifies that PrC levels stack with Clr levels in turn/rebuke effectiveness. furthermore, in order to enhance his only class feature (turn/rebuke) effective, the Clr would have devote attention to increasing his CHA score, thus the Clr has two primary ability scores to worry about (not that much of a draw back, but still, the wiz or sor only has one primary score to worry about).
Elthbert 04-17-05, 03:37 PM	The cleric is overpowered, it is got to be the most talked about issue on this board. They are broken they need a nerf badly, but it could be accomplished with the removal of 3 or 4 particular spells ( those that buff them to make them equal to a fighter) they are good at everything except stealth and that is too much. The only more powerful class than the cleric is possibly the druid, but thats iffy the cleric is just powerful on a BS level.
Elthbert 04-17-05, 03:53 PM	look here http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=411231
Nuntius128 04-17-05, 05:19 PM	Well, a class can be very powerful, but it really depends on the player as well. Some people think that Fighter is horribly underpowered, and yet, I made a 12th level Fighter that my DM couldn't beat, no, not even hit with a room full of 10 Ogres. At the same time, some less experienced players can take a class like Cleric or Druid, and they won't be overpowered for the sake of inexperience. And most of the more experienced gamers I know never take anything for the sake of power, so that does sort of balance out. It also depends on the DM, too. Eventually, every good DM can find a way to take apart a strong character with something. Example, Clerics have poor Reflex saves. Fireball. Healing? Ebon Ray of Doom. A Sorceror can pick apart a Cleric with the aid of those 2 spells.
Elthbert 04-17-05, 05:27 PM	Well, a class can be very powerful, but it really depends on the player as well. Some people think that Fighter is horribly underpowered, and yet, I made a 12th level Fighter that my DM couldn't beat, no, not even hit with a room full of 10 Ogres. At the same time, some less experienced players can take a class like Cleric or Druid, and they won't be overpowered for the sake of inexperience. And most of the more experienced gamers I know never take anything for the sake of power, so that does sort of balance out. It also depends on the DM, too. Eventually, every good DM can find a way to take apart a strong character with something. Example, Clerics have poor Reflex saves. Fireball. Healing? Ebon Ray of Doom. A Sorceror can pick apart a Cleric with the aid of those 2 spells. A DM shouldn't have to take apart a character they should be balanced directly.
Elessar 04-17-05, 05:27 PM	but of course the balance to this is the CLR's lack of a variety of class features. where as most other classes get some kind of class features and/or bonus feats, the CLR gets none. I would say that each individual spell counted as a class feature, since they all do something different. Also, unlike arcane spellcasters, the cleric automatically gets access to every spell that he has the capability to cast. So he has a whole pool of diverse abilities, really. Even if they technically all fall under the same class feature heading of "spells." furthermore, in order to enhance his only class feature (turn/rebuke) effective, the Clr would have devote attention to increasing his CHA score, thus the Clr has two primary ability scores to worry about (not that much of a draw back, but still, the wiz or sor only has one primary score to worry about). Wizards and Sorcs also depend quite a bit upon Dexterity since they cannot wear armor, but I see your point.
LordHell 04-17-05, 05:30 PM	As it stands, a cleric doesnt need a party. No other class is like that. If that says anything - it says the Cleric is overpowered. It doesnt need class features because it can already do everything all other classes can do, save perhaps a Rogue. The Cleric needs to ONLY be able to cast spells from his/her Gods domains + universal - it just makes sense to me. Healing should also be a privledge - not a right. Ditch spontaneous casting. Why would a God channel power to a Cleric it had no sway over? I would even argue it couldn't.
tyranith_of_hextor 04-17-05, 06:04 PM	No, Clerics are not overpowered. The object of a cleric is to be a bandaid, not a fighter. Or, in the case of evil clerics, to magically kill things. Your claim is that they have almost as much fighting as fighters? Um... no. True, the base attack isn't as good, but they also completely lack weaponry, and feats. The reason why fighters are good is for their bonus feats. A 6th level human Cleric has 4 feats, maybe more for certain domains. A 6th level human Fighter has 8 feats. Give them Power attack, improved sunder, focus, specialization with their weapon and anything else made for demolushing,then the fighter wins. A Cleric is meant to be a supporting spell caster. Their reason for having simple weapons and all armor is for back up fighting. In the event that they run out of spells, they fight until they can break away. I don't know why you think a cleric is broken, but I don't think so.
LordHell 04-17-05, 06:15 PM	No, Clerics are not overpowered. The object of a cleric is to be a bandaid, not a fighter. Or, in the case of evil clerics, to magically kill things. Your claim is that they have almost as much fighting as fighters? Um... no. True, the base attack isn't as good, but they also completely lack weaponry, and feats. The reason why fighters are good is for their bonus feats. A 6th level human Cleric has 4 feats, maybe more for certain domains. A 6th level human Fighter has 8 feats. Give them Power attack, improved sunder, focus, specialization with their weapon and anything else made for demolushing,then the fighter wins. A Cleric is meant to be a supporting spell caster. Their reason for having simple weapons and all armor is for back up fighting. In the event that they run out of spells, they fight until they can break away. I don't know why you think a cleric is broken, but I don't think so. Clerics may not be terribly broken at low levels, but the higher level they become, the more expodentially broken they become. A Cleric with Bulls strength, Endurance, Divine Power, Divine Favour, the Strength domain, Righteous Might, and so forth is suddenly going to make the party fighter look like a sissy school girl. Also you've got to take it in context. The class itself has no real weakness. It either needs to have its spellcasting limited or its melee capacity limited - this goes for the Druid too. They are meant to be a bit of both, melee and spell casting, but as they are they're way too good at spell casting. Either limiting their spells to only domain spells or only 7th level spells as they were in 2nd Edition is a good start. Also whoever gave them metamagic in 3.5 also must have been on the booze the night before, come on, they can already cast spells in armour. Why not just turn them into a full spellcaster class with no arcane spell failure, way more hitpoints, and a better BAB? Not only that, don't forget their usefulness vs Undead.
Nuntius128 04-17-05, 06:49 PM	A DM shouldn't have to take apart a character they should be balanced directly. I'm not saying they should do it. I said they should be able to.
Elthbert 04-17-05, 06:59 PM	I'm not saying they should do it. I said they should be able to. A Dm can kill any chaacter they want at any time SO what that doesn't mean the cleric isn't overpowered.
woozygremlin 04-17-05, 07:02 PM	While a cleric permitted to slip the leash can be troublesome, I have always found improved sunder works wonders on a holy symbol (especially the cheap wooden ones, although I doubt silver would be much tougher IRL). I don't even consider this particularly cheesy, hell fantasy literature is chock full of mighty heroes shattering the BBEG's orb of evil, or whatever, rendering him powerless, but I'd still expect some whining from the cleric's player. The above not withstanding, cleric aren't so much too powerful as they are too flexible, this same problem plagues all of the spellcasting classes to some degree or another, but is most visible in divine casters due to their enforced specialization in earlier incarnations of the game (only being able to cast spells from certain spheres).
Nuntius128 04-17-05, 07:03 PM	A Dm can kill any chaacter they want at any time SO what that doesn't mean the cleric isn't overpowered. ... :confused: I... think you misunderstand what I meant. The role of DM isn't PC killer. But a DM worth his salt should be able to, if necessary, balance gameplay where necessary. "Picking apart" doesn't mean killing. Picking apart, in this case, means laying down guidelines to keep it balanced. There are ways to make a character less powerful in comparison to what they could have been. Its up to the DM to make that choice. The DM is the balancing factor. I don't really know where you got the idea that I meant "If its strong, DM kills it."
Elthbert 04-17-05, 07:05 PM	Just because they can take them a part doesn't mean they are balanced, they are more powerful than other classes of the same level, that makes them over powered.
Elthbert 04-17-05, 07:06 PM	While a cleric permitted to slip the leash can be troublesome, I have always found improved sunder works wonders on a holy symbol (especially the cheap wooden ones, although I doubt silver would be much tougher IRL). I don't even consider this particularly cheesy, hell fantasy literature is chock full of mighty heroes shattering the BBEG's orb of evil, or whatever, rendering him powerless, but I'd still expect some whining from the cleric's player. The above not withstanding, cleric aren't so much too powerful as they are too flexible, this same problem plagues all of the spellcasting classes to some degree or another, but is most visible in divine casters due to their enforced specialization in earlier incarnations of the game (only being able to cast spells from certain spheres). Clerics wern't restricted likethat in 1st edition, they simply didn't have the massive buffing spells that they now have and of course only EVER got 1 attack a round.
Koga:The ninja trick 04-17-05, 07:07 PM	Try this little remedy out in your games, see if it works.. Clerics only be able to cast spells from thier domains. However instead of just two they get all the domains of thier diety and The Koga invented someone godless domains they could get through the bonus feat "bonus domain". Druids lose wildshape. It's simple and effective. :)
Nuntius128 04-17-05, 07:16 PM	Just because they can take them a part doesn't mean they are balanced, they are more powerful than other classes of the same level, that makes them over powered. Alright, let's hold on a second. Is this helping to make leeway in finding a more suitable 'balance' to the Cleric? Or are you just getting angry and beating the point into my head? Also, I like Koga's idea. That sounds reasonable enough.
thegreatbuddha 04-17-05, 07:18 PM	Everyone can outmelee a fighter. Its not really hard. If you're looking for the ability to lay waste to foes with one attack, you're better off with a gnome bard than a fighter. Fighters excel at tactical combat through intelligent use of feats. That being said, clerics can outmelee a barb, which is a much more apt comparison, they get instant-kill spells like a wizard, with the proper spells can get fighter BAB, or a rogue's ability to sneak, find traps, etc... They can do anything another class can do, almost as well if not better. But they still pale to a good old druid Wildshaped into a Dire Bear with Natural Spell and greenbound Summoning
Elthbert 04-17-05, 07:20 PM	Alright, let's hold on a second. Is this helping to make leeway in finding a more suitable 'balance' to the Cleric? Or are you just getting angry and beating the point into my head? Also, I like Koga's idea. That sounds reasonable enough. I'm not angry I just didn't think you understood what I was saying. All they need is Divine favor, divine might and rightous might removed and they should have there BAB droped to that of a wizard. that would fix them with out nerfing their divine wrath of the gods aspect.
Elthbert 04-17-05, 07:24 PM	... :confused: I... think you misunderstand what I meant. The role of DM isn't PC killer. But a DM worth his salt should be able to, if necessary, balance gameplay where necessary. "Picking apart" doesn't mean killing. Picking apart, in this case, means laying down guidelines to keep it balanced. There are ways to make a character less powerful in comparison to what they could have been. Its up to the DM to make that choice. The DM is the balancing factor. I don't really know where you got the idea that I meant "If its strong, DM kills it." Now I know why you where confused< I missed this post, sorry.
Nuntius128 04-17-05, 07:28 PM	Now I know why you where confused< I missed this post, sorry. Actually, it was the spelling, grammar, and punctuation of the post I quoted that confused me.
Elthbert 04-17-05, 07:31 PM	well I am working sometimes I miss punctuation when I am doing that.
Nuntius128 04-17-05, 08:11 PM	well I am working sometimes I miss punctuation when I am doing that. Its fine. No worries. I was just completely lost, but I'm not gonna chastize you for it.
BlaineTog 04-17-05, 08:31 PM	The object of a cleric is to be a bandaid, not a fighter.From a game design perspective, this is certainly true. But clerics don't have to do this. They have the option of fighting. If they do this to the exclusion of their role as the party healer, they get much more personally strong.
Nyferto 04-18-05, 08:01 AM	Surely the point of the cleric is to fill in that religeous caster void? Why is an adventuring Cleric of Kord a walking Bandaid (do they know it's Christmas?).
Gnarl 04-18-05, 09:20 AM	Wow, another one of those threads :D You can't possible consider the cleric to be overpowered. They spend on average one round out of 2 or 3 healing others. If on top of that you add the time needed to cast your great combat spells you'll realize that you're doing less damage than your party bard. I'd like to have other's feedback on clerics in play. I'm not talking about a deathmatch or a power build on paper. We all know they appearently look better than others in those situations (maybe wizards and druids stand a chance). I would also be interrested in knowing how often they considered their character to be crap compared to the party cleric. Try avoiding talking about the one time you picked your characters classes and prestige class because of x,y,z wonderful role playing experience. If you made a sucky character for role playing reasons, don't blame the cleric for it. I'm pretty sure you were worse than a well built commoner.
Kaboth 04-18-05, 10:08 AM	I consider the cleric probably the leading class (tied with druid) on too powerful. The thing about clerics are the class itself is not too bad if someone stayed straight cleric. The problem is the PrC's for clerics exponentially quantify their powers into broken proportions and now add books like BoVD or BoED and you add another exponent to the equation on total power level. Here is case of my friends character which is broken now and its only going to get worse. He is a level 10 character and if I am not mistaken its broken down like 5 Cleric, 2 Dweomer Keeper, 3 Divine Disciple. He is postponing dweomer keeper so his spell selection is greater when he gets some power. However right now, his current build allows him to keep persistant fast healing 1 on four characters. The problem is that people that say clerics are not underpowered either A.) Are powergamers and do not want to be "nerfed" or B.) Seen powergamers really abuse clerics to what they can do. What I mean about B.) is that if built right clerics can be extremely offensive. We actually have another cleric in the group and hes an undead killing machine. Rarely will any undead survive if his cleric as around so its easy to cover them. One way I look at power levels of classes at various levels, I ask one question. How far could a party of 6 characters all belonging to X class (X being the class being the unknown variable) go in an adventure. For example, how far could 6 20th level clerics get as opposed to 6 wizards, 6 fighters, etc... Just on mechanics, the more "magic" you have available the farther you can go. Sounds okay because fighters have magic items, but the problem is magic is finite with non magic based chartacter classes such as fighters.
Elthbert 04-18-05, 10:10 AM	In the game i have been running for 4 years now there was no problem with the cleric until about level 15 then she started to obviously be more powerful than the rest of the party( with the possible exception of the wizard) and I had her Heavily restricted.. only weapons avialable where mancatcher, lasso, dagger and short bow. She is a cleric of the goddess of love, she is an adventurer ( complicated back story) but she was restricted to weapons which fit with the archtype. Now before anyone says anything the bow never became a problem, it is the fact that she has a good AC and HP and spells out the wazoo destruction is a very potent spell particularly when you can just keep hitting them with it.
DM Kojira 04-18-05, 10:42 AM	Thanks for the help. I never realized druid was overpowered. If anybody has any ideas on if you were to nerf Cleric, or Druid how it would happen. I dont understand what you mean by spells of his diety, and for Druid just so you realize taking away wild shape would take away 12 levels of abilities that the druid gains. Any feedback would help thank you.
AramilWindwalker 04-18-05, 11:01 AM	I am a level 7 cleric of st. cuthbert with the destruction and strength domains. I smite undead and hit non-undead things with my mace until they die. I am very good at what i do, mainly because my feats were poured into turning, and my stats into fighting, and am still a decent healer(and the only one our party has). I could not stand alone for very long, even with an easily buffable 22 ac, +10ish to ar, pretty good saves, and overall usefulness. I can tell that clerics are somewhat overpowerful, and i do not use them by choice, I only do so because i am the only divine caster in the party(barring the paladin, but he hardly counts), and am basically the only healer, since the paladins ego is rather inflated, as is his head. I would easily prefer a rogue over this cleric, but I do what i must. Sorry for the rant, but I think clerics are only overpowered because of their disturbing versatility, and the druid only overpowered because of the abillity to wildshape into dire bears and such, and spells like quill blast, that hasn't been errataed, and even i think it should
Elthbert 04-18-05, 11:09 AM	Thanks for the help. I never realized druid was overpowered. If anybody has any ideas on if you were to nerf Cleric, or Druid how it would happen. I dont understand what you mean by spells of his diety, and for Druid just so you realize taking away wild shape would take away 12 levels of abilities that the druid gains. Any feedback would help thank you. easy cleric nerf reove the following spells unless they are domain spells. Divine Power, Divine Favour, Righteous Might and cut there BAB down to that of a wizard. poof instant fix.
Aki Warren 04-18-05, 11:16 AM	In the campigian where I am currently a Cleric of Tempest, I am by far the strongest. I am in fact so strong that the DM is asking me to please play another class. He would rather have an npc cleric healer and me be whatever class I wish. He feels the two of us would not be as powerful as me being a cleric. By the way, the cleric line of spells that adds damage to wooden weapons is nice. Very. That alone makes me better then a fighter, although I'll admit that I need to get scrolls of it somehow. Takes up to many slots
Gnarl 04-18-05, 11:25 AM	Sorry for the rant, but I think clerics are only overpowered because of their disturbing versatility Do you actually manage to fill all those roles a cleric can fill without running out of spells ? *impressed* My DM must be a rotten bastard :D The problem is that people that say clerics are not underpowered either A.) Are powergamers and do not want to be "nerfed" B.) Seen powergamers really abuse clerics to what they can do C) Assume that all players are not powergamers.
beaver1024 04-18-05, 11:30 AM	Wow, another one of those threads :D You can't possible consider the cleric to be overpowered. They spend on average one round out of 2 or 3 healing others. If on top of that you add the time needed to cast your great combat spells you'll realize that you're doing less damage than your party bard. Do clerics have to spend combat rounds healing others? No. Is it better to kill the enemy causing damage than to heal your party members during combat? Yes. Hence clerics shouldn't spend combat rounds healing. Furthermore what happens if you have 2 clerics in a party. They can share the healing burden around and have more spell slots for combat buffs. Their combat buffs last all day, Spikes, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestments so they don't need to spend a round or two buffing themselves. With Divine Metamagic they can run around with fighter BAB all day.
Nyferto 04-18-05, 12:13 PM	Their ability to kill others is quite limited though, GMW doesn't help you too much, is better cast by other people on other people and isn't an all day buff till much later on (when it actually has a noteable effect anyway). Everything else is practically pointless, Enlarge person handles most of Righteous Might in a much lower level spell and divine power is pointless on Warrior types anyway, Divine Favour did get nerfed and anything else is superceeded by other buffs, inate ability and class features. If you want to talk about offensive spell casting potential, only Bards are weaker in that area, and that's only because they don't have many spells for it (unless you consider the illusion and charm abilities). They lack offensive nukes, tactile defensive spells and the rest. Aki, if you were the most powerful - it's because others weren't bothering. Broken material doesn't mean a class is broken.
AramilWindwalker 04-18-05, 01:16 PM	Do you actually manage to fill all those roles a cleric can fill without running out of spells ? Yes, I do, very well actually, My party loves me for this, mostly because no one else wants to be stuck as band-aid, so i'm making the most of it, and now a question: Is there a ruling somewhere that says you have to have the metamagic feat before you can take it as divine metamagic? This will help my whole group in the long run.
beaver1024 04-18-05, 07:17 PM	Their ability to kill others is quite limited though, GMW doesn't help you too much, is better cast by other people on other people and isn't an all day buff till much later on (when it actually has a noteable effect anyway). Everything else is practically pointless, Enlarge person handles most of Righteous Might in a much lower level spell and divine power is pointless on Warrior types anyway, Divine Favour did get nerfed and anything else is superceeded by other buffs, inate ability and class features. How exactly does GMW "doesn't help"? It gives you +x to attack and damage. With 1 Bead of Karma (core item), the spell lasts 4 hours longer. Lasting 11 hours at the time you get it is lasting all day in my book. What exactly limits their ability to kill others when Spikes give them +10 stackable bonus to damage? No fighter boast this at 10th level. If you want to talk about offensive spell casting potential, only Bards are weaker in that area, and that's only because they don't have many spells for it (unless you consider the illusion and charm abilities). They lack offensive nukes, tactile defensive spells and the rest. Offensive nukes? Flamestrike? Firestorm? Destruction? Chain Lightning? Fireseeds? Tactical defense? Blade Barrier? Wall of Stone? Are you saying these aren't effective spells? These are also core spells.
BlaineTog 04-18-05, 07:22 PM	You can't possible consider the cleric to be overpowered.Sure you can. Many do. I among them. They spend on average one round out of 2 or 3 healing others.No they don't. They certainly don't have to. If on top of that you add the time needed to cast your great combat spells you'll realize that you're doing less damage than your party bard.One or two rounds to buff will *not* lower your damage potential that much. Additionally, a fun little thing called Quicken Spell makes buffery much faster.
amanodel 04-18-05, 11:55 PM	Divine Metamagic solves all of these problems...It is called Nightstick Rod. It allows 4 more undead turning/rebuking attempts. It is only 7,500 gp . It is in Libris Mortis. Talk about overpowering Divine Metamagic. Talk about a lot of Buffs quickened. Yes, I can severely break the cleric. By 10th lvl, with Divine Metamagic and the proper focus, the cleric can become the most flexible core class possible. If you are making a cleric, I think it is important to specialize in the bow (take a feat or be an elf, or use a crossbow) or a melee weapon, and then buffing / inflicting spells. It is incredibly easy to be both a great bowman, swordsman, buffer/healer, and spellcaster over a long period of tiem, but to truly break a class you should pick two of these focuses and choose feats accordingly. I do think that it is overpowered because of its abiltiy to prepare any spell on its class list and its diversity on its lists.
Reinsuoknera 04-19-05, 04:15 AM	The cleric is not overpowered. Look at all of the other classes and look at all of the things that you can do with them to make them really powerful. A cleric has an alright BAB, two good saves, turn/rebuke, a d8 Hitdie and spells that never get quite as devastating as a Wizards will. The only way that I can see a Cleric being overpowered is if the gamemaster allows them to. I don't mean any disrespect to any GMs, but I honestly have never had trouble with a cleric in my games. Their main strength lies in their ability to heal, buff the party(including themselves,) and turn/rebuke. Their Hitdie, saves and Armor prof.s just make them stand a better chance at doing what they are intended to do. A cleric alone can be powerful, but when a cleric buffs his party correctly and is of a particularly good build then the party is even more powerful. Classes that get big buffer spells are meant to boost abilities. I really don't see why anybody would want to gimp them.
Nyferto 04-19-05, 08:03 AM	How exactly does GMW "doesn't help"? It gives you +x to attack and damage. With 1 Bead of Karma (core item), the spell lasts 4 hours longer. Lasting 11 hours at the time you get it is lasting all day in my book. What exactly limits their ability to kill others when Spikes give them +10 stackable bonus to damage? No fighter boast this at 10th level. Offensive nukes? Flamestrike? Firestorm? Destruction? Chain Lightning? Fireseeds? Tactical defense? Blade Barrier? Wall of Stone? Are you saying these aren't effective spells? These are also core spells. GMW, others cast it sooner and more frequently and with less stress on your spell casting (it's a 4th level spell for Clerics), Spikes isn't core. Other spells can be quicker and more beneficial than either. Check the range and area on those spells. Flamestrike - negated by a Tower shield and has medium range with a small radius. Firestorm - personal range only, Destruction - single target fort save low range. Chain Lighting - only castable in domain slots with the Right domain (only 1 core has it), other people still cast it better and more frequently. Fireseeds - Druid spell except with the right domain, note that only one core deity has those domains and they aren't that strong because they still aren't cleric spells. Blade Barrier - limited range of effect, Wall of stone - worse than Wall of Force. Everything is suppassed by other casters. They might be effective in a very limited fashion, but others are better with them and you have to limit yourself in order to use some of the better ones.
Gnarl 04-19-05, 08:49 AM	Do clerics have to spend combat rounds healing others? No. Is it better to kill the enemy causing damage than to heal your party members during combat? Yes. Hence clerics shouldn't spend combat rounds healing. Furthermore what happens if you have 2 clerics in a party. They can share the healing burden around and have more spell slots for combat buffs. Yes you are right, kill the enemy is much much better than healing. But you're not the only one dealing damage in the party. If you start not healing your mates, they fall. Fallen party memember = 1) less party members to protect the heavy artillery (wizard) 2) less party members to help the rogue flank and sneak attack 3) one less person dealing damage to your enemies 4) someone sacrifies a round so he doesn't bleed to death 5) one less person having fun at the table (most important imo) if the combat lasts another 30-40 minutes You're not going to use your best offensive spells on easy combats and in the hard ones, you'll need all the help you can get. One or two rounds to buff will *not* lower your damage potential that much. Additionally, a fun little thing called Quicken Spell makes buffery much faster. You can't use quicken spells before 7th level and you probably have better things to do with your spells at those levels than casting quicken versions of your lower level spells. It's probably our play style but our combats rarely last more than 5 rounds. We do have a lot more than the DM guide suggests though. Divine Metamagic solves all of these problems You're talking about one specific cleric build that leads to potential abuse. Does a single cheesy build make a whole class broken ? Is this a general discussion on clerics or a discussion on the all too common persistent spell (or quicken spell), divine metamagic, trickery domain (for polymorphing into an astral deva) etc.. cheesy cleric build ? If you have power gamers in your game, blame them not the cleric. Their combat buffs last all day, Spikes, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestments so they don't need to spend a round or two buffing themselves. With Divine Metamagic they can run around with fighter BAB all day. If I recall correctly, those buffs last 1 hour per level. Assuming a 8-10 day of work, you would need 2 of each to have them last all day at lower levels. At those levels, this is tricky because you don't have an unlimited amount of spells to spare. As a side note, I usualy cast those spells on the party fighter and rogue. But overall, you are all right about the cleric. He can do more damage than the rest of the party, have a better cas count than the fighter, etc, I never denied that. But I seriously have doubts on a cleric's ability to survive for long in an adventure designed for a 4-5 player if he doesn't heal his buddies. I suppose both myself and all the other people I have played with are too party-orientated to truely see the outstanding powers of the cleric or maybe it's just because I have never seen a cleric of more than 13th level in play or maybe it's just that I have very little experience playing with munchkins. I've been dugneon mastering d&d 3rd ever since it came out and to be perfectly honest, I never had a problem with a cleric build. I have never seen my campaigns ruined or even at risk of being ruined because of a cleric. The only character classes that have ever ruined campaigns in our games where a fighter and a wizard. And strangely, it always came from the same player.
angryman 04-19-05, 09:21 AM	The cleric's ONLY weaknesses are - speed (but they can cast wind walk, and some domains grant fly) - lack of rogue abilities (they can cast detect traps and heal themselves) - low ref save (they can cast the resist line and heal themselves) All of these can be rectified or circumvented. In game, the cleric has to decide what to do, but whatever he does, he will shine at it. There are no monsters a cleric need fear. If they're undead, he turns 'em, if they're big monsters, he buffs and smacks them (golems too). If they're outsiders, he banishes them. If they're a class, he casts XXX and kills them. In my XP, clerics can routinely defeat all classes except druids and above level 17, wizards. Oh yeah, they can heal...at least they cant turn into full spellcasting huge bears in plate armour like druids.
beaver1024 04-19-05, 09:50 AM	GMW, others cast it sooner and more frequently and with less stress on your spell casting (it's a 4th level spell for Clerics), Spikes isn't core. Other spells can be quicker and more beneficial than either. Only arcane casters cast GMW earlier. However it is useless for arcane casters because they can't fully utilise it. On the other hand clerics can easily make use of GMW. How can other spells be quicker when it takes no preparation time to use GMW in combat? Ie they cast it at the start of the day. How is it a stress on the cleric's spellcasting when they have as nearly many spell slots as a sorcerer? Check the range and area on those spells. Flamestrike - negated by a Tower shield and has medium range with a small radius. Firestorm - personal range only, Destruction - single target fort save low range. Chain Lighting - only castable in domain slots with the Right domain (only 1 core has it), other people still cast it better and more frequently. Fireseeds - Druid spell except with the right domain, note that only one core deity has those domains and they aren't that strong because they still aren't cleric spells. Blade Barrier - limited range of effect, Wall of stone - worse than Wall of Force. Everything is suppassed by other casters. All evocation spells are negated by a tower shield, that puts Flamestrike on par with the best wiz/sorc spells. Flamestrike also has the benefit of half irresitable damage. Compared to Cone of Cone, it is at least it's equal. Larger area of effect doesn't make it necessarily a better spell because you will catch allies in your area of effect. Firestorm is not a personal range only. Destruction is way better than the equivalent Finger of Death. Better secondary damage and better failed save effect. Lesser range is not a big deal you make it out to be. How many encounter start at medium or long range, especially in dungeons? The availability of chain lightning isn't an issue as wiz/sorcs have to acquire this spell with money and expenditure of spells known. This just highlights another overpowered characteristic of the cleric, that is they know all that they can cast instantly and without cost. With a simple item (ie Pearl of Power) or a craft item feat, they can cast chain lightning as easily as other casters. With Divine Sponteneity they can cast chain lightning better than sorcerers. Fireseeds is not strong? No SR? No save? 20d6 damage? Wall of Stone is at the same level as Wall of Force, they're the same level of effectiveness, they do different things that's all. Besides, clerics can cast Wall of Force via Miracle in any event. With mircale, clerics surpass other casters in their speciality. They might be effective in a very limited fashion, but others are better with them and you have to limit yourself in order to use some of the better ones. I only wish that other classes is as "limited" as clerics are. Clerics they're better fighter than fighters, better necromancers than necromancers, better diviners than diviners, better summoners than conjurors, better archers than rangers and better spontaneous casters than sorcerers.
Nayk 04-19-05, 09:56 AM	In my opinion, the cleric is not really overpowered but it is the strongest of all when working alone. In a PC group, he fits its place, and sure that every classe can be overpowered when using that or that spell with combination with that item and so on... Buffing take time Antimagic and dispel magic are there to dispel. Somewhat when I play a character that can dispel, I quickly suspect the more "magic buffed" npc in a fight and cast dispel on him... Foes should that as well (it's automatic tactic ;)) If you don't heal other you will be alone, and your group will suffer, and your group shouldn't stay with you if you play an *alone* type of play. (dispel magic for your information is known to bards, clerics, druids, paladins!, sorcerers, wizards .. , except cantrips/orisons, it's one of the spell that is the most largely known to classes ... shouldn't it be as often used as fireball? (known only to wizard/sorcerer?) The cleric can fight well when buffed and he's no longer able when dispelled ;) The fighter can fight well all day long for as many fights as you want In my games with my dm, there has never been an issue of an overpowered cleric... Y@
beaver1024 04-19-05, 09:57 AM	Yes you are right, kill the enemy is much much better than healing. But you're not the only one dealing damage in the party. If you start not healing your mates, they fall. Fallen party memember = 1) less party members to protect the heavy artillery (wizard) 2) less party members to help the rogue flank and sneak attack 3) one less person dealing damage to your enemies 4) someone sacrifies a round so he doesn't bleed to death 5) one less person having fun at the table (most important imo) if the combat lasts another 30-40 minutes All the problems above disappear if nearly everyone in the party plays a cleric instead of the lesser classes. You can't use quicken spells before 7th level and you probably have better things to do with your spells at those levels than casting quicken versions of your lower level spells. It's probably our play style but our combats rarely last more than 5 rounds. We do have a lot more than the DM guide suggests though. Divine Metamagic. You're talking about one specific cleric build that leads to potential abuse. Does a single cheesy build make a whole class broken ? Is this a general discussion on clerics or a discussion on the all too common persistent spell (or quicken spell), divine metamagic, trickery domain (for polymorphing into an astral deva) etc.. cheesy cleric build ? If you have power gamers in your game, blame them not the cleric. If they can use Archame, Red Wizard and Greater Spell Focus to basically nerf wiz/sorcs into the ground from 3.0->3.5 we can talk about the even greater amont of cleric builds that are even more broken than the broken arcane builds in 3.0. If I recall correctly, those buffs last 1 hour per level. Assuming a 8-10 day of work, you would need 2 of each to have them last all day at lower levels. At those levels, this is tricky because you don't have an unlimited amount of spells to spare. As a side note, I usualy cast those spells on the party fighter and rogue. Bead of Karma (core item) increases your caster level by 4 for 10 minutes. At 7th level your GMW will last 11 hours. Casting them on the fighter and rogue is useless because the fighter and the rogue can't make use of your other great buffs like Divine Power and Divine favour which you can persist. Casting all the cleric's buffs on themselves makes them a better fighter than a fighter. Why bother with the fighter? But overall, you are all right about the cleric. He can do more damage than the rest of the party, have a better cas count than the fighter, etc, I never denied that. But I seriously have doubts on a cleric's ability to survive for long in an adventure designed for a 4-5 player if he doesn't heal his buddies. He doesn't need to heal his buddies if they can heal themselves (ie other clerics).
beaver1024 04-19-05, 10:03 AM	In my opinion, the cleric is not really overpowered but it is the strongest of all when working alone. In a PC group, he fits its place, and sure that every classe can be overpowered when using that or that spell with combination with that item and so on... Buffing take time Antimagic and dispel magic are there to dispel. Somewhat when I play a character that can dispel, I quickly suspect the more "magic buffed" npc in a fight and cast dispel on him... Foes should that as well (it's automatic tactic ;)) If you don't heal other you will be alone, and your group will suffer, and your group shouldn't stay with you if you play an *alone* type of play. (dispel magic for your information is known to bards, clerics, druids, paladins!, sorcerers, wizards .. , except cantrips/orisons, it's one of the spell that is the most largely known to classes ... shouldn't it be as often used as fireball? (known only to wizard/sorcerer?) The cleric can fight well when buffed and he's no longer able when dispelled ;) The fighter can fight well all day long for as many fights as you want In my games with my dm, there has never been an issue of an overpowered cleric... Y@ As a DM who tried to use the dispel magic stick over and over, let me dispel (pun intended) the myth. Dispel Magic doesn't work. Why is this? 1) It is easy for clerics to buff their caster level up the wazzo for their buffs. A bead of karma alone decreases the chances of a successful dispel magic by 20% from an equal level opponent. 2) While the caster is wasting their time dispelling the cleric's buffs, they're leaving the cleric's companion's a free shot at the enemy. Also as a DM that has tried to use the Antimagic trick over and over, let me tell you this. Antimagic does not work! Why is this? A very simple reason, the person under the antimagic shield is completely neutered as far as magic is concerned. This means that the cleric can cast fly or airwalk can laugh at the idiot that can't reach them. Additionally some cleric builds can cast in antimagic fields and infact try to walk around in persistant antimagic fields to take advantage of this fact. My players were laughing really hard when their fully enchanted +5 holy, flaming mace smashed the stupid wizard's head in even while the wizard was "protected" under their own antimagic field.
Wolfwood2 04-19-05, 10:42 AM	Thanks for the help. I never realized druid was overpowered. If anybody has any ideas on if you were to nerf Cleric, or Druid how it would happen. I dont understand what you mean by spells of his diety, and for Druid just so you realize taking away wild shape would take away 12 levels of abilities that the druid gains. Any feedback would help thank you. Wait a minute here. You "never realized druid was overpowered", but now that some guys on a message board have said so, you're considering making massive mechanical changes? I think any changes you should make should be based on real experience, not message board theorizing. My advice is to make an NPC druid villain and run your PCs up against that. That way you can get a real look at the class in play.
Nayk 04-19-05, 01:44 PM	Additionally some cleric builds can cast in antimagic fields and infact try to walk around in persistant antimagic fields to take advantage of this fact. My players were laughing really hard when their fully enchanted +5 holy, flaming mace smashed the stupid wizard's head in even while the wizard was "protected" under their own antimagic field. Clerics can cast in antimagic fields??? how is that? .. antimagic is not supposed to be that "antimagic"?? That is a hole in the game if there is a new spell/abilities that make antimagic absolete .. and sure that if there is a way to be in antimagic and still cast .. then that's THE problem! And your fully enchanted +5 holy, flaming mace .. is supposed to become a "masterwork mace only" in an antimagic field by the way. (1d8 + STR only) Why is this? A very simple reason, the person under the antimagic shield is completely neutered as far as magic is concerned. This means that the cleric can cast fly or airwalk can laugh at the idiot that can't reach them. Wizards, sorcerer has familiars and "share spell". Make use of their class abilities!!! And your wizard with that 20 INT should be intelligent enough to not use "antimagic field" it on himself! The only class that needs to cast it on himself is THE cleric :) And consider that almost half of the "core familiars" have natural fly speed bat (fly), hawk (fly), owl (fly), raven (fly) it shouldn't be a problem ... oups your clerics fall and take some d6s damage? a silence/antimagic field on your familiar anyone? ;) In all what I mean .. is that if your players consistently make use of the same powerful tactic and you never get something failed for them once in a while .. then yes they are too powerful .. but it's the same for any class abilities. Hum .. did you see those "rogue always sneak attack; help me" threads? The "psions are overpowered, help me" threads? The "bards "diplomacy" checks help me" threads? The "psychic warriors" with chain and stand still combos... and so on... Every class can have an overpowered way or another ... some are only more straightforward .. and less opened to "tweaking" such as fighter/barbarian ... It's up to the DM, and DM only to balance his game. Diversify his foes, make them challenging to everyone .. there is always something to do .. And again .. if your players make use of the same tactics over and over then the NPC should hear of it and prepare in consequence. Why? When you see a rogue as PC, why don't you as a wizard cast reflex save spells at him? but fortitude based spells instead? If you see a troll, why do you cast fireball at him? If you face undeads, why do you try to turn them and use searing light agains them. If you know of a PC that always buff himself all day long (divination, gather information, reputation, detect magic) why shouldn't you put him under an antimagic field? Anyway .. it's my two cents... PS: Sorry if I appear rude... don't be offend .. it's not intended and my english is bad and I don't always know how to formulate polite refuting . Y@
Aki Warren 04-19-05, 02:21 PM	Out of the following parties, which is better? Be honest now, and this is pure powergamer. Please don't feed me RPing or anything like that. Yes, I love rping, but it has no place when speaking of class balance 1) 4 Druids 2) 4 Clerics, each with a different choice of domains 3) 4 Wizards 4) 1 Fighter 1 Wizard 1 Rogue 1 Cleric You know what, just rank them. I already placed them in my order of choice, although I readily admit I HATE playing a Druid. I'm not a big fan of nature in general :cool:
Nayk 04-19-05, 02:44 PM	(deleted ... double post) sorry. Y@
LordHell 04-19-05, 07:25 PM	Depends on the levels, but lvl 17+ I'd take 4 Wizards over anything else any day. lvl 10-16, probably 4 Clerics :) Lvl 1-9, probably a Fighter, Rogue, Druid, and Cleric One thing when arguing about these is taking into consideration the splat books. Splat books are non-core, and it always irks me when people bring up ridiculously overpowered feats and classes from non-core material. As far as Im concerned, they're not official and incredably unbalanced, they shouldnt be used in such debates. Stick to core stuff only. Dm's that allow non-core material willy nilly without reviewing the material first deserve to get overpowered PC's in their games.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 04-19-05, 11:24 PM	Divine Metamagic. One-trick pony. It's a pretty good trick, admittedly, but it's not infallible. For a start, it's pretty feat-intensive---Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, and Divine Metamagic(Persistent Spell) is the bare minimum, but is also useless for anyone with less than 7 Turn Undead attempts, which means either (a) an 18+ Charisma, or (b) Extra Turning. Four feats---and 9th level non-Human minimum---to get this effect on one spell. A few common misconceptions make this more broken than it really is: 1) Elemental domains do not increase the Turn Undead uses you have to power Divine Metamagic. The feat specifically states that it requires Turn Undead uses, which Turn Fire Creature is not. 2) Radiant Servant of Pelor does not grant additional Turn Undead uses. What it does do is allow the character to perform a greater turning---as per the Sun domain ability---3+Cha times per day. The Sun domain ability lets you perform a greater turning in place of a regular turning. No additional Turn Undead uses are granted; existing ones are augmented/replaced. With those clarifications in mind, a Cleric can't Persist his big three buffs (Divine Favour, Divine Power, Righteous Might) until he gains 21 Turn Undead uses. With a base Cha 18, plowing level-based raises into it, and assuming a Cha +6 item, that's still 3 Extra Turning feats, or a 12th-level Human (15th-level anything else). If the character gets hit with a Dispel Magic that takes one of them down, it's gone for the day, along with a significant portion of the character's power (since the character's feats, money, and stats were sunk into this trick). Dispel Magic isn't all that hard to apply, either---BBEGs have minions for exactly this purpose. A couple of low-level enemy spellcasters can use 750gp scrolls of Dispel Magic (caster lvl 10); even against a 12th-level caster with a Bead of Karma, the Dispel has a 20% chance to take down each of the Cleric's buffs, and take them down for the whole day. More often than not, a minion's targetted Dispel Magic will clobber one of the Cleric's costly Persistent buffs; that's not a trivial thing for a high-level caster to risk all of his feats, one of his best stats, and a good chunk of his money on. Mind you, the tactic works pretty well against unintelligent or non-equipment-using enemies, and I do agree that Divine Metamagic is too powerful in general, as is a Bead of Karma. The combo just isn't a big deal until higher levels, though, and even then is risky. If they can use Archame, Red Wizard and Greater Spell Focus to basically nerf wiz/sorcs into the ground from 3.0->3.5 If spell DCs going down by 1---which is more effect than most Wizards saw from the changes---is "nerfing into the ground", you must live at a very high altitude. :)
beaver1024 04-20-05, 12:14 AM	One-trick pony. It's a pretty good trick, admittedly, but it's not infallible. For a start, it's pretty feat-intensive---Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, and Divine Metamagic(Persistent Spell) is the bare minimum, but is also useless for anyone with less than 7 Turn Undead attempts, which means either (a) an 18+ Charisma, or (b) Extra Turning. Four feats---and 9th level non-Human minimum---to get this effect on one spell. Human cleric with Planning and Undeath domain can do this at level 3. With Nightstick from Libris Mortis he can easily get enough turning attempts to fuel the ability. This one trick, makes the cleric a better fighter than a fighter and a better archer than a ranger. I'd say this is the only trick they need but unfortunately they have way more tricks to exploit. They can still be better fighter than fighters with Spikes, GMV and Magical Vestments. Better spontaneous casters than sorcerers with Domain Sponteneity. Kill everything with uber caster level increases and Holy Word/Blasphemy etc.. If spell DCs going down by 1---which is more effect than most Wizards saw from the changes---is "nerfing into the ground", you must live at a very high altitude. :) Stat buff spells nerfed? Hold spells nerfed? Power Words nerfed? Eyebite, Emotion, Temporal Stasis, Fly, Disintegrate, Baleful Polymorph, Shadow Walk, Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, Horrid Wilting, Invisibility, Teleport, Wall of Force, Jump (!!), Spider Climb, Etherealness, Ethereal Jaunt all nerfed? Metamagic nerfed? Not nerfed into the ground?
Votan 04-20-05, 12:52 AM	Clerics can cast in antimagic fields??? how is that? .. antimagic is not supposed to be that "antimagic"?? That is a hole in the game if there is a new spell/abilities that make antimagic absolete .. and sure that if there is a way to be in antimagic and still cast .. then that's THE problem! There is an extremely poorly thought out feat called Initiate of Mystra in the Player's Guide to Faerun. These feats (there are a cluster of them for Forgotten Realms dieities) are the most powerful feats I have ever seen (neat class abilities plus unique spells added to the spell list). The Mystra one allows caster level checks to cast in an anti-magic field. This is often combined the the web enhancement for the Complete Divine which has a class called the Dweomerkeeper of Mystra that has an extremely poorly worded list of class abilities that beg for revision. They allow the casting of spells in a manner that ignores material components and XP costs. These two feats from one diety in one setting are way out of balance with other D&D classes and builds. However, in general, my experience is that the cleric does well in their assigned role but does not dominate the game. I've played and DMed clerics and never seen a case where the cleric clearly dominated the game above and beyond everybody else.
Kaboth 04-20-05, 02:56 AM	the Dispel has a 20% chance to take down each of the Cleric's buffs, and take them down for the whole day. Now, dont get me wrong I liked a majority of his post. However, I thought when you do an Area Dispel Magic it stopped as soon it dispelled something? IIRC, it doesnt have a chance against all buffs, it starts at the highest level spell and goes down until it dispels something and then it is discharged and stops.
Nyferto 04-20-05, 04:59 AM	Only arcane casters cast GMW earlier. However it is useless for arcane casters because they can't fully utilise it. On the other hand clerics can easily make use of GMW. How can other spells be quicker when it takes no preparation time to use GMW in combat? Ie they cast it at the start of the day. How is it a stress on the cleric's spellcasting when they have as nearly many spell slots as a sorcerer? So a majority of casters cast it earlier? It doesn't matter if they can't take full use of it - you cast it on people who can use it better anyway. Rather than wasting spells on a one trick pony Cleric. All evocation spells are negated by a tower shield, that puts Flamestrike on par with the best wiz/sorc spells. Flamestrike also has the benefit of half irresitable damage. Compared to Cone of Cone, it is at least it's equal. Larger area of effect doesn't make it necessarily a better spell because you will catch allies in your area of effect. Firestorm is not a personal range only. Destruction is way better than the equivalent Finger of Death. Better secondary damage and better failed save effect. Lesser range is not a big deal you make it out to be. How many encounter start at medium or long range, especially in dungeons? The availability of chain lightning isn't an issue as wiz/sorcs have to acquire this spell with money and expenditure of spells known. This just highlights another overpowered characteristic of the cleric, that is they know all that they can cast instantly and without cost. With a simple item (ie Pearl of Power) or a craft item feat, they can cast chain lightning as easily as other casters. With Divine Sponteneity they can cast chain lightning better than sorcerers. Fireseeds is not strong? No SR? No save? 20d6 damage? Wall of Stone is at the same level as Wall of Force, they're the same level of effectiveness, they do different things that's all. Besides, clerics can cast Wall of Force via Miracle in any event. With mircale, clerics surpass other casters in their speciality. I only wish that other classes is as "limited" as clerics are. Clerics they're better fighter than fighters, better necromancers than necromancers, better diviners than diviners, better summoners than conjurors, better archers than rangers and better spontaneous casters than sorcerers. Missed the change to Firestorm. Fireball isn't stopped by a Towershield because it's a spread. Neither can Horrid Wilting or Chain Lightning or any number of targeted spells that Arcane casters have more of. Firestorm might have half resistable damage, but being replaced by empowered versions of other spells that are fundamentaly better doesn't equate to much, being limited to fire isn't too hot either. Fire seeds isn't a Cleric spell - it's available through a few domains - not exactly top nuclear action. Considering Ethereal creatures walk through Walls of stone, and walls of stone are destructable - nowhere near beter. As for Pearls of power - Not exactly overwhelming, and please stop going on about non-core optional material like Domain Spontinaity - it only works a limited number of times per day and you still have to take very specific options. Air walk is rubbish. It doesn't let you fly, it doesn't increase your speed it barely increases your maneuverability. Finally Bad material is just bad material - it doesn't mean anything in relation to a class Specific choices are specific choices - they are not every member of a class, stop going on about all Clerics taking specific choices.
Nyferto 04-20-05, 05:02 AM	Out of the following parties, which is better? Be honest now, and this is pure powergamer. Please don't feed me RPing or anything like that. Yes, I love rping, but it has no place when speaking of class balance Now that's just complete crap. Balance effects everyone, having a sensible DM who understands and caps dodgy material is all the Class Balance you need. 1) 4 Druids die in early levels 2) 4 Clerics, each with a different choice of domains die at early levels, lack of options and valid effect 3) 4 Wizards die even quicker at higher levels, I'd rather have 4 sorcs or Wu-jen though. 4) 1 Fighter 1 Wizard 1 Rogue 1 Cleric [i]Have a chance of getting off the early levels and actually making it as a group to higher levels because of group teamwork. [/QUOTE]
Nayk 04-20-05, 08:32 AM	Votan: Thanks to pointing me this feat out. I didn't know of it. This feat horribly broken in my opinion. And as with you, we never had any overpowered clerics/druids into any of our party. Y@
Nyferto 04-20-05, 08:35 AM	Well Faerun is typically more powerful than standard campaigns, but the Dweomer Keeper was so bad it was even too powerful for the CD.
beaver1024 04-20-05, 09:15 AM	So a majority of casters cast it earlier? It doesn't matter if they can't take full use of it - you cast it on people who can use it better anyway. Rather than wasting spells on a one trick pony Cleric. Fine call it what you will, but my one trick pony is a better fighter than a fighter, better archer than a ranger and a better spontaneous caster than a sorcerer. That a lot of tricks for a one trick pony. Missed the change to Firestorm. Fireball isn't stopped by a Towershield because it's a spread. Flamestrike isn't stopped by a towershield either because flamestrike is a cylinder effect and according to the SRD, cylinder effects ignore all obstructions in it's area. Neither can Horrid Wilting or Chain Lightning or any number of targeted spells that Arcane casters have more of. Firestorm might have half resistable damage, but being replaced by empowered versions of other spells that are fundamentaly better doesn't equate to much, being limited to fire isn't too hot either. Horrid wilting and chain lighting are castable by clerics with the right domains. Arcane casters have less spell slots than clerics so no they don't have more of those spells. Arcane casters also need to expend their spells slots known or obtain the spells in some way unlike clerics who get all their spells known the moment they can cast them so again no arcane casters may never find the right spells let alone all of them. Using my one trick pony, my clerics can empower the flamestrike as well, making it even better with higher save dc. Wow my one trick pony seems to be able to do a lot of tricks. Fire seeds isn't a Cleric spell - it's available through a few domains - not exactly top nuclear action. Sure it is. It's castable by clerics is it not? Not top nuclear action? No save no sr? Max damage 20d6? Maximised, it's better than meteor swarm which is the top arcane nuke. Considering Ethereal creatures walk through Walls of stone, and walls of stone are destructable - nowhere near beter. Wall of stone is more flexible, at worst it is equal to a wall of force. It doesn't matter in any event, clerics can cast wall of force through any number of means, Greater Any Spell, Magic Domain, Miracle. As for Pearls of power - Not exactly overwhelming, and please stop going on about non-core optional material like Domain Spontinaity - it only works a limited number of times per day and you still have to take very specific options. It works enough times to make the cleric a better spontaneous caster than the sorcerer. Your specific option lets the cleric spontaneously cast 9 spells up to 3-4 times a day at the very least. That's just 1 feat. A wizard needs at least 4 feats to emulate the same kind of flexibility. A sorcerer has no chance and neither does a fighter. It also gets around their pitiful once/day limitation of their domain spells. Just because it's non core doesn't make it any less valid. 3.5 wiz/sorcs were nerfed to the ground mainly due to non core materials in 3.0. Air walk is rubbish. It doesn't let you fly, it doesn't increase your speed it barely increases your maneuverability. Right so "Air Walk" doesn't let you fly but it does let you get the same benefits as flying. I guess that semantic difference matters greatly to that Iron Golem I left on the ground. Or should I laugh at it's inability to get to me as I destroy it with my ranged weapons? Arguably it lets you have perfect flying manuverability because you can "hover". Which is more than I can say for the crappy overland flight. Finally Bad material is just bad material - it doesn't mean anything in relation to a class Specific choices are specific choices - they are not every member of a class, stop going on about all Clerics taking specific choices. Right class abilities that are broken doesn't make the class broken. Guns don't kill people people do right?
Gnarl 04-20-05, 09:18 AM	All the problems above disappear if nearly everyone in the party plays a cleric instead of the lesser classes. It hardly ever happens, even power gamers enjoy some degree of flavore in their games. Divine Metamagic. Once or twice per day. Hardly unbalancing. Bead of Karma (core item) increases your caster level by 4 for 10 minutes. At 7th level your GMW will last 11 hours. Casting them on the fighter and rogue is useless because the fighter and the rogue can't make use of your other great buffs like Divine Power and Divine favour which you can persist. Casting all the cleric's buffs on themselves makes them a better fighter than a fighter. Why bother with the fighter? Beeds of Karma is 20,000 gp, more than your regular starting wealth at 7th level. You might grab a little +1 here and a +1 there to CL before 15th level but it's not that easy. He doesn't need to heal his buddies if they can heal themselves (ie other clerics). As above
Kaboth 04-20-05, 09:40 AM	Beeds of Karma is 20,000 gp, more than your regular starting wealth at 7th level. You might grab a little +1 here and a +1 there to CL before 15th level but it's not that easy. You dont have to make or a purchase a full string of Beeds of Karma each bead knocks down the price.
beaver1024 04-20-05, 09:43 AM	It hardly ever happens, even power gamers enjoy some degree of flavore in their games. So because "it hardly ever happens" in your group means that it's ok to have completely overpowered and broken class?
Nyferto 04-20-05, 10:17 AM	Fine call it what you will, but my one trick pony is a better fighter than a fighter, better archer than a ranger and a better spontaneous caster than a sorcerer. That a lot of tricks for a one trick pony. Except no singular core build can even attempt all that, certainly not every single core cleric, and not even every non core cleric. You're never better, you just add up numbers differently. You're actually quite poor as a character. Flamestrike isn't stopped by a towershield either because flamestrike is a cylinder effect and according to the SRD, cylinder effects ignore all obstructions in it's area. Though if you aim the shield upwards, no line of effect is possible. Not forgeting the medium range. Horrid wilting and chain lighting are castable by clerics with the right domains. Arcane casters have less spell slots than clerics so no they don't have more of those spells. Arcane casters also need to expend their spells slots known or obtain the spells in some way unlike clerics who get all their spells known the moment they can cast them so again no arcane casters may never find the right spells let alone all of them. Using my one trick pony, my clerics can empower the flamestrike as well, making it even better with higher save dc. Wow my one trick pony seems to be able to do a lot of tricks. Using an impossible non-core one trick pony. You can't cast a cleric spell more than once at all. You can only prepare it in domain slots, and you can't cast either without the right domains, so far you've got Air, Water and Fire domains - which is impossible, even having two of those options limits what the rest of your abilities are. Picking those spells isn't a problem if you use the free spells known to learn them, considering their quite potent and you'll know plenty, it's much better. Casters don't need every spell in existance, they only need the ones that count and provide usage. Knowing every spell in existance doesn't help you prepare the right ones. Sorcs don't have less spell slots, Clerics don't have that many more spells, and the bonus ones they do have are for domain spells, that's not actually the same thing as having more slots, especially if the domain spells aren't cleric spells. Sure it is. It's castable by clerics is it not? Not top nuclear action? No save no sr? Max damage 20d6? Maximised, it's better than meteor swarm which is the top arcane nuke. Only with the Fire or Sun domain can you cast it, which means it's only castable in domain spell slots for Clerics, which isn't actually that good. Better than Meteorswarm? Rubbish. Read the damn spell description for both. Fire Acorns only do 20d6 damage to one target within 100ft (god forbid they're at 105ft), after that splash damage will only be 20 witin a 10ft radius. You can do that rather poor attack once per day maximised, slightly more with other features. Meteor swarm has a good chance to negate the save and does around 4 lots of 2d6 damage, followed by 4 lots of 6d6 damage in a 40ft burst. A maximum total of around 8d6 unresistable and 16d6 fire (potentially no save). At long range more than once per day and with little chance of a simple tower shield getting in the way. Wall of stone is more flexible, at worst it is equal to a wall of force. It doesn't matter in any event, clerics can cast wall of force through any number of means, Greater Any Spell, Magic Domain, Miracle. Greater any spell, non core, Magic Domain, once per day again with specific options and not inate ability, certainly not casting it with Horrid, Chain and Fireseeds then? Miracle, yeah great idea. Wall of stone instead of Wall of Force - a complete liability. It works enough times to make the cleric a better spontaneous caster than the sorcerer. Your specific option lets the cleric spontaneously cast 9 spells up to 3-4 times a day at the very least. That's just 1 feat. A wizard needs at least 4 feats to emulate the same kind of flexibility. A sorcerer has no chance and neither does a fighter. It also gets around their pitiful once/day limitation of their domain spells. Just because it's non core doesn't make it any less valid. 3.5 wiz/sorcs were nerfed to the ground mainly due to non core materials in 3.0. A wizard doesn't need to emulate that, he's already got better spells. Just because it's non-core means it can be ignored for being overpowered, though you still can't cast domain spells more than once if they're not on the Clerics spell list. Right so "Air Walk" doesn't let you fly but it does let you get the same benefits as flying. I guess that semantic difference matters greatly to that Iron Golem I left on the ground. Or should I laugh at it's inability to get to me as I destroy it with my ranged weapons? Arguably it lets you have perfect flying manuverability because you can "hover". Which is more than I can say for the crappy overland flight. Same benefits as flying? Does Fly make you vulernable to strong winds? Does Fly keep your speed the same? Does it offer limited maneuverability by limiting you to inclines of 45 degrees? Is it a 4th level spell? Does it cripple my speed for moving upwards by reducing my already poor speed by half? Do I have to cast Overland flight to out perform it? Can I cast overland flight to outperform it anyay? It's a crud spell, moving 10ft drawing an AOO at a 45 upwards angle doesn't really help you get away from the Iron golem who only has to take a 5ft step to full attack you again. Nore does it worry the flying Wizard bombing you from 400ft+40ft per caster level away with spells that exploit your weak reflex save. Right class abilities that are broken doesn't make the class broken. Guns don't kill people people do right? They aren't class abilities, they're options available to the class. You don't have to pick certain domains - you can pick different ones.
Gnarl 04-20-05, 10:18 AM	So because "it hardly ever happens" in your group means It hardly ever happens in all the groups I have played in. And that's over 5 the past 3 years. Same in all the role playing game fairs I have been at. that it's ok to have completely overpowered and broken class? I am only saying that I have never seen the reason for calling clerics 'completely overpowered and broken class' in my d&d experience (and that doesn't mean I'm right). They are good, but not any better than the rest of the group. And you'll also notice that I have invited other players and DM to relate their clerics in play experience. It was probably useless since only people that have witness cleric abuse are likely to even bother reading one of these pathetic x is overpowered threads. You dont have to make or a purchase a full string of Beeds of Karma each bead knocks down the price. It's still 20k.
Kaboth 04-20-05, 10:30 AM	Quote: You dont have to make or a purchase a full string of Beeds of Karma each bead knocks down the price. It's still 20k. I will look it up when I get home, I think you are wrong. I remember reading that you can have less beads and it doesnt have to be a full string. There was something about each bead taking the price down, I just dont recall if it was a set amount or power based.
Nyferto 04-20-05, 10:36 AM	The power of a special bead is lost if it is removed from the strand. Reduce the price of a strand of prayer beads that is missing one or more beads by the following amounts: bead of blessing –600 gp, bead of healing –9,000 gp, bead of karma –20,000 gp, bead of smiting –16,800 gp, bead of summons –20,000 gp, bead of wind walking –46,800 gp. You reduce the price of the item, but the bead itself costs 20,000gp. You create strands, not individual beads (apparently).
Kaboth 04-20-05, 10:56 AM	You reduce the price of the item, but the bead itself costs 20,000gp. You create strands, not individual beads (apparently). Thanks for typing up that for me. Yes the base price is still 20,000 GP, but you also have to remember the other rules on magic items when creating. You can always create a lesser version of an item for less cost. All of the calculations for this are in the magic item section either after Artifacts or Intelligent Items, I think. In that general area LOL, anyway.
Nyferto 04-20-05, 10:58 AM	They still count against your wealth by level at full cost though. Crafting one woult just suck up more feats. Either way, their more broken for their power and lack of equivelants. Depending on them isn't exactly a good thing, nore do the tactics described really work that well.
Votan 04-20-05, 10:59 AM	Votan: Thanks to pointing me this feat out. I didn't know of it. This feat horribly broken in my opinion. It fails the basic test of "why would I ever NOT take this feat". Do I want the funky ability to cast in antimagic fields (making wizard killer ever)? Or is it that I want anyspell and greater anyspell added to my class list? Or am I merely interested in the nifty new class spells.
RadicalTaoist 04-20-05, 11:13 AM	1) 4 Druids die in early levels 2) 4 Clerics, each with a different choice of domains die at early levels, lack of options and valid effect Wrong and Wrong. 4 Druids have 4 Animal Companions - that makes a tremendous difference at the low levels. As for the 4 Clerics, with 4 times the healing capablity of all the other parties except for the Druids (and the Clerics are still ahead) they'll have over-the-day endurance none of the other parties can match. Their only vulnerability is traps, and they can Summon a creature here and there to 'test the waters'. 3 Clerics and a Rogue would be better though.
Votan 04-20-05, 11:17 AM	So because "it hardly ever happens" in your group means that it's ok to have completely overpowered and broken class? It means I usually look for the problem to emerge before I counter it. It is not that I do not see the potential for abusive cleric builds, it is just that I have yet to see one work in practice. Even my own cleric ended up with a specific niche and no more . . . One thing that clerics seem to have is a lot mroe options than other classes that leads to niche tactics. Example: Domain spells. Clerics can get a lot of first rate spells not normally available through domains. But they have very few slots for this. Now this can be improved by Domain Spontaneity (still my vote for strongest feat in CD, beating divine metamagic). But unless you were gifted with amazing stats, charisma is not high. That means the number of these spells used per day is small. Now the feat extra turning can help here. But that also means that you are spending feats here instead of on things like divine metamagic. Clerics get few feats and so trying to build up a multiple good options is realy hard. At best you can get a competent cleric with one good sideline (spont. domain spells or something). Now if this is a cleric of Pelor with the Sun and Stregnth domain this could still be pretty tough but hardly gamebreaking. The same thing with Holy Word tricks -- you need to spend an enormous amount of focus to get the super caster levels required to make this work really well. Along the way (as it usually requires Hierophant levels) you lose a lot of high level spells and become substabntively weaker if the enemy hs the wrong alignment.
Nyferto 04-20-05, 11:55 AM	Wrong and Wrong. 4 Druids have 4 Animal Companions - that makes a tremendous difference at the low levels. As for the 4 Clerics, with 4 times the healing capablity of all the other parties except for the Druids (and the Clerics are still ahead) they'll have over-the-day endurance none of the other parties can match. Their only vulnerability is traps, and they can Summon a creature here and there to 'test the waters'. 3 Clerics and a Rogue would be better though. At first levels, the Animal companion isn't that strong, there's a good chance you'll die before you even get to second level because of poor spell availability, weak weapon selection and lowly armour. Combined with MAD and you're just stalling for time before you actually just die. As you go up in level, they don't get that much better and they won't make up for other party members with their lack of abilities. Even when you get Wildshape, you're ability to function is crippled because of the limitations of such creatures. Clerics are even worse. They have far more vulnerabilities than traps, and traps that kill them (because they can't afford con, can't disarm at all, and only have a d8 with low reflex) will be fatal anyway. It's not like you can raise them at those levels. Summoning large amounts of creatures to die for you is going to cripple your spell casting abilty, not to mention ruin you when it comes to actually fighting. A trap going off doesn't always disarm it. They also have armour deficiencies (because they don't have the feats to counter the weakness of each), nore can they compensate for their weapons till higher levels, by that time they're already dead. They don't have that much endurance, by level 5 they could all be killed by one or two fireballs from flying Wizards, grappled to death by Monks, Sneak attacked because they don't have spot and listen (and they aren't druids with animal companions), mauled by outrightly more powerful warriors and completely subdued by using aligned casting against them. So no, they aren't that strong at all, demonstrate how by actually building the groups.
Dungeon Master 04-20-05, 12:39 PM	These are the changes I am going to make to the druid and cleric class. I'm doing this more for flavor than for balance. Clerics are able to cast spells spontaneously like a sorcerer. They cannot use metamagic feats. They are restricted to their God's domains (each god has 4 domains) and a universal domain. They lose their heavy armor proficiency. I might also change their Fort save to the slower progression. Druids are able to cast spells spontaneously like a sorcerer. They cannot use metamagic feats. They are restricted to five domains relating to nature (plant, animal, healing, water, fire, earth, air, weather, to name a few). The druid gains his/her first wildshape at 7th level, with an additional wildshape at 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th, and 19th level. The druid loses the ability to wildshape into a huge creature (no more dire bears or dire tigers!). The druid gains wildshape (tiny) at 10th level instead of 11th level. A druid must have the plant domain to wildshape into a plant and elemental domain (element) to wildshape into an elemental of (element). The druid is proficient with all hunting weapons. The druid loses armor proficiency (medium). The druid gains natural disease immunity at 6th level. The druid's immunity to poisons does not apply to non-natural poisons (poisons of an extraplanar nature). The druid's caster level may be reduced while in heavily urban areas (-1 to -4 caster levels). In sacred glades and other hallowed places of nature the druid may gain 1-4 caster levels.
Votan 04-20-05, 01:19 PM	At first levels, the Animal companion isn't that strong, there's a good chance you'll die before you even get to second level because of poor spell availability, weak weapon selection and lowly armour. Combined with MAD and you're just stalling for time before you actually just die. As you go up in level, they don't get that much better and they won't make up for other party members with their lack of abilities. Even when you get Wildshape, you're ability to function is crippled because of the limitations of such creatures. From the SRD (an acceptable animal companion for 1st level): WOLF Hit Dice: 2d8+4 (13 hp) Initiative: +2 Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares) Armor Class: 14 (+2 Dex, +2 natural), touch 12, flat-footed 12 Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+2 Attack: Bite +3 melee (1d6+1) Full Attack: Bite +3 melee (1d6+1) Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft. Special Attacks: Trip Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent Saves: Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +1 Abilities: Str 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6 Skills: Hide +2, Listen +3, Move Silently +3, Spot +3, Survival +1* Feats: Track, Weapon Focus (bite) Trip (Ex): A wolf that hits with a bite attack can attempt to trip the opponent (+1 check modifier) as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity. If the attempt fails, the opponent cannot react to trip the wolf. While it is true that I could build a level 1 fighter who was better than this, it is not an easy task. 4 of these with a party of Druids is going to make challenge level 1 encounters pretty easy (note that the worlf counts as a CR 1 creature so a good encounter is one wolf against 4 wolves and 4 druids). Now, notice that it is a 24 hour prayer to replace this creature (i.e. easy). So it is easier to take casualties on animal companions than on fighters. A NE druid could do so on a routine basis. If these guys lead the party, only trapped doors are an issue (and even they won't be at level 3 when all of the druids switch to apes). Later on I suspect that the animal companion falls off but I've only ever played a druid at levels 1-4 and it always did exceptionally well.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 04-21-05, 02:32 AM	Now, dont get me wrong I liked a majority of his post. Thanks. :) However, I thought when you do an Area Dispel Magic it stopped as soon it dispelled something? IIRC, it doesnt have a chance against all buffs, it starts at the highest level spell and goes down until it dispels something and then it is discharged and stops. So do a Targetted Dispel Magic rather than an Area Dispel Magic. Most of the abusive Cleric suggestions aren't all that subtle, and---if they're half as abusive as claimed---it'll be pretty obvious which enemy is buffed to the gills. Or, failing that, Arcane Sight.
Nyferto 04-21-05, 03:25 AM	From the SRD (an acceptable animal companion for 1st level): WOLF Hit Dice: 2d8+4 (13 hp) Initiative: +2 Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares) Armor Class: 14 (+2 Dex, +2 natural), touch 12, flat-footed 12 Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+2 Attack: Bite +3 melee (1d6+1) Full Attack: Bite +3 melee (1d6+1) Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft. Special Attacks: Trip Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent Saves: Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +1 Abilities: Str 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6 Skills: Hide +2, Listen +3, Move Silently +3, Spot +3, Survival +1* Feats: Track, Weapon Focus (bite) Trip (Ex): A wolf that hits with a bite attack can attempt to trip the opponent (+1 check modifier) as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity. If the attempt fails, the opponent cannot react to trip the wolf. While it is true that I could build a level 1 fighter who was better than this, it is not an easy task. 4 of these with a party of Druids is going to make challenge level 1 encounters pretty easy (note that the worlf counts as a CR 1 creature so a good encounter is one wolf against 4 wolves and 4 druids). Now, notice that it is a 24 hour prayer to replace this creature (i.e. easy). So it is easier to take casualties on animal companions than on fighters. A NE druid could do so on a routine basis. If these guys lead the party, only trapped doors are an issue (and even they won't be at level 3 when all of the druids switch to apes). Later on I suspect that the animal companion falls off but I've only ever played a druid at levels 1-4 and it always did exceptionally well. Well if you've got 4 companions, the DM typically ups the CR to match an 8 strong party. If they're somehow exempt from that, then it's just another pathetic revision, when did they loose the advenutring Druid limitations on HD? I predict an onslaught of bows, or just spells. Actually it'd be pretty easy to beat all of those with an intelligent Fighter or even Barb.
beaver1024 04-21-05, 03:42 AM	Well if you've got 4 companions, the DM typically ups the CR to match an 8 strong party. If they're somehow exempt from that, then it's just another pathetic revision, when did they loose the advenutring Druid limitations on HD? I predict an onslaught of bows, or just spells. Actually it'd be pretty easy to beat all of those with an intelligent Fighter or even Barb. The animal companion doesn't increase the CR value of the character because it is a class feature and thus already taken into account in the unmodified CR of the creature. Druids in 3.5 doesn't have HD limitations on their animal companions anymore, instead they can choose their companions from a list. A wolf is part of the list of animal companions that a 1st level druid can have. What's even better than 4 druids with 4 animal companions is 4 druids with 4 animal companions and all 4 have the greenbound summoning feat.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 04-21-05, 03:44 AM	Human cleric with Planning and Undeath domain can do this at level 3. With Nightstick from Libris Mortis he can easily get enough turning attempts to fuel the ability. True enough---by taking two lame domains and a not-terribly-expensive magic item, you can effectively get three free feats that are useful for this. Of course, a Human Cleric 3 isn't going to get too much use out of a Persistent Divine Favour (+1/+1)---free feats or not, Persisting the common "problem" spells won't be a big deal until at least 9th level (when a Cleric could conceivably make his own Bead of Karma). Even at that point, having spent both domain choices, a decent stat, all but one of his feats, and almost all of his money, the Cleric will have 3+3(Cha)+4(Nightstick)+4(Undeath domain)+4(Extra Turning) = 18 uses, or enough to use the ability twice. Using his last feat for Extra Turning does indeed let the Cleric Persist three spells, at the cost of most choices the character can make (race, domains, money, feats, undead turnings, high-level spells). And it's still vulnerable to Targetted Dispel Magic. Nevertheless, he does indeed gain an impressive +5 to hit, +1 AC, +7-10 damage, and a nice DR 6/Evil over what a reasonably-equipped 9th-level Fighter would have (assuming he also burns spells for GMW and GMV), and he still has 2 third-level spells, 8 lower-level spells, a few lame domain spells, and a single undead-turning usage remaining. I would hope a Fighter could find enough things to spend 9-10 feats on---such as insane Trip bonuses, high-DC weapon style stunning attacks, or the like---that he'd be able to contribute something more than mere damage. A Fighter with Jotunbrud, Wolf Berzerker, and Improved Trip would be a better tripper even despite the size- and Strength-enhancing magic, for example. Or one could just take a Half-Ogre Fighter/Barbarian with Spiked Chain, Wolf Berzerker, Improved Trip, and Combat Reflexes---approaching triggers an AoO, which becomes a trip at ~+9 differential, which becomes an attack at +4 and the Cleric ending his movement outside of attack range, with either moving or standing up triggering another AoO. A few cheap accessories (Enlarge potion and Awesome Blow = probable DC 20-25 Reflex save to avoid AoO + prone + knocked flying), and it appears---at least to me---that the ultra-specialized Cleric isn't the end-all, be-all of brokenness, even in the absence of the on-every-single-spell-list Dispel Magic. This one trick, makes the cleric a better fighter than a fighter and a better archer than a ranger. I'd say this is the only trick they need but unfortunately they have way more tricks to exploit. They can still be better fighter than fighters with Spikes, GMV and Magical Vestments. All of which are vulnerable to Dispel Magic. All of which require a relatively high-level caster to be abusively useful. And all of which make the character---arguably---more powerful than some of the weakest classes in the game. It's not like being stronger than an asthmatic puppy is a particularly noteworthy accomplishment. :) Better spontaneous casters than sorcerers with Domain Sponteneity. Because having 9 pre-chosen spontaneous spells is soooo much better than having 30 personally-chosen spontaneous spells. :rolleyes: Stat buff spells nerfed? Hold spells nerfed? Power Words nerfed? Eyebite, Emotion, Temporal Stasis, Fly, Disintegrate, Baleful Polymorph, Shadow Walk, Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, Horrid Wilting, Invisibility, Teleport, Wall of Force, Jump (!!), Spider Climb, Etherealness, Ethereal Jaunt all nerfed? Metamagic nerfed? Not nerfed into the ground? Since even modest-level Wizards are still more powerful than the large majority of classes simply due to their massive save-or-die spell DCs, that would have to be a pretty big "no, not even near the ground." Most of the "nerfs" you claim are either largely irrelevant---like the new range limitations on Teleport or the continuing uselessness of Otiluke's Freezing Sphere---hurt everyone else more (the well-deserved nerfing of staf buff spells being cast all the time and/or multiply-empowered), or are pretty minor (Fly isn't the end-all of overland travel now---ooo!). Considering how tremendously powered up Wizards are in 3.5 vs. 1ed or 2ed---when saving throws against spells got easier with advancing level, rather than harder---or vs. most other classes in 3.5---I'm sure the non-spellcasters are weeping at the poor Wizard's save-or-die spells only working 80% of the time now instead of 85%---it's nothing short of absurd to call 3.5 Wizards "nerfed into the ground".
Xavim 04-21-05, 05:08 AM	I'm curious as to what makes the Druid contend with the cleric? The cleric will have better AC, Better damage output, has better utility spells, and wins with miracle (the single most powerful spell in the game) The druid can't grapple the cleric since Freedom of movement is a cleric spell, needs to make a will save to even attack him in the first place (sanctuary) and almost has to fight multiple clerics at once (spiritual weapon + empowered Divine power = force weapons attacking at +30/+25/+20/+15 + wis modifier EVERY round after the first in an unegatable full attack so long as you're within range.) As far as I can tell the cleric IS broken, he simply has too much going for him. Powerful nukes, miracle gives him every 8th level spell and lower on everyones list if he wants is, he can prepare any spell ever written for the cleric with no cost, can wear heavy armour, while casting all his spells in heavy armour, tonnes of hitpoints, and healing for if he needs more, and so on. the cleric really can fight better than the fighter, nuke better than the wizard, spontaeneously cast nearly as good as a sorcerers, and are the best healers, necromancers, diviners and summoners in the game. But in all honesty if you ask me all of the casters (save the bard) are far too powerful. If you want to even pretend to close the gap on the caster/non-caster power gulf ban all spells 6th level and above. Really then the casters might actually worry if they see a fighter.
Xavim 04-21-05, 05:13 AM	Considering how tremendously powered up Wizards are in 3.5 vs. 1ed or 2ed---when saving throws against spells got easier with advancing level, rather than harder---or vs. most other classes in 3.5---I'm sure the non-spellcasters are weeping at the poor Wizard's save-or-die spells only working 80% of the time now instead of 85%---it's nothing short of absurd to call 3.5 Wizards "nerfed into the ground". Interesting that you feel wizards were weaker in 2nd ed. I can think of a multitude of spells that were far, far more powerful in 2nd ed than in 3.5 stoneskin being the obvious one. In 3.5 it stops a meger 10 damage. in 2nd ed it stopped upwards of 14 ATTACKS regardless of damage. the only thing a non-caster could do against this spell was prey he could strangle the mage before he reduced them to ash. then of course there was the good 'ol power word kills (in a system where you stopped gaining dice based hit points after level 10(I think...)) 2nd ed has 3.0 double cast per round haste aswell as other niceities. Anyway I obviously disagree but am really curious as to why you think 3.5 wizards are more powerful than their previous incarnations.
Nyferto 04-21-05, 07:02 AM	The animal companion doesn't increase the CR value of the character because it is a class feature and thus already taken into account in the unmodified CR of the creature. Druids in 3.5 doesn't have HD limitations on their animal companions anymore, instead they can choose their companions from a list. A wolf is part of the list of animal companions that a 1st level druid can have. What's even better than 4 druids with 4 animal companions is 4 druids with 4 animal companions and all 4 have the greenbound summoning feat. Actually, their choices are powered by HD, you can't just pick a creature. In 3.0, if you were adventuring you could only handle ones half the level of a non-adventuring Druid. Anyway, even with these Companions (who do up the suitable CR because they're companions), they're not exactly beating the universe with them. If you keep going on about non-core material, you'll just damn your stance even more.
Gnarl 04-21-05, 07:04 AM	the cleric really can fight better than the fighter Do more damage than a fighter, certainly yes. It's not like it's difficult anyway. Even a bard with arcane strike can do more damage than a fighter :D. Fight better, argueable. The tactical feats available to fighters are very good. Only the wizard can hinder his opponents the way a fighter can. Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Improved Trip, Combat Expertise, Brutal Throw, Improved Bull Rush, Combat Brute, Hold the Line just to name a few are all just wonderful. They greatly increase a fighter's combat skills beyond damage. Not to mention that it makes the fighter a lot more fun to play than in the previous versions of d&d. I still make nightmares about 2nd edition fighters that could only hit and do nothing else. nuke better than the wizard Just to refresh my memory. Flame Strike is the first isn't it ? Then you get commet strike, holy word, firestorm and then ? Also the wizard has lower level nukes. Empowered version of these lower level nukes deal more damage than what a cleric could do at the same level. And in my opinion, Frostfell is the single best 9th level nuke ever. (save or die, 20d6 on a successful save). A single high level nuke doesn't count much in the whole adventuring career of a wizard though. spontaeneously cast nearly as good as a sorcerers Cure Light Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, Cure x, Cure y, Cure z, and I forgot the spontaneous domain feat for another 1-9 extra spontaneous spells you can't even cast because you're using all your turning attempts on divine metamagic. I'm not too sure that makes them better than sorcerers, but at least this point is agrueable. the best healers, diviners and summoners in the game I couldn't agree with you more on this one. necromancers. They're better at making undeads, better at dealing negative energy typed damaging spells, they only have 2 decent curses (bestow curse and greater bestow curse) and they have some decent save or die spells. IMHO, the wizard is the true expert in fear effects, sickening effects, energy drains, curses and weakening spells. There is no equivalent of ray of enfeeblement, wave of fatigue, wave of exhaustion, vampiric touch, enervate (at such a low level), sword of darkness, eyebite, ghoul touch or fear in the cleric spell list (not that I know of, maybe in the book of vile darkness ?). I admit, this is a bit of personal preferences. Most necromancers I have played with usualy enjoyed the undead creation thing while I strongly prefer the cursing type.
DarknessEternal 04-21-05, 10:28 AM	Since even modest-level Wizards are still more powerful than the large majority of classes simply due to their massive save-or-die spell DCs, that would have to be a pretty big "no, not even near the ground." What am I missing out on that is making DCs higher than trivially low which our group sees?
Votan 04-21-05, 11:11 AM	Actually, their choices are powered by HD, you can't just pick a creature. In 3.0, if you were adventuring you could only handle ones half the level of a non-adventuring Druid. Anyway, even with these Companions (who do up the suitable CR because they're companions), they're not exactly beating the universe with them. If you keep going on about non-core material, you'll just damn your stance even more. An animal companion is a class feature. It no more ups the CR of a party than the wizard's familar or the cleric's summoned creature. The wolf at first level is a bit stronger than one might expect but it stays in balance well after about 3rd level. Even with 100% pure core material (PHB, DMG, MM) the all Druid party is pretty darn amazing at low levels. They have a brief hard period around 4th level I think before wildshaping into bears comes into play. Even then, they do have well known weaknesses. The only thing that seems to cause this group trouble (using standard low CR MM encounters) is either undead or archers who have planned a specific anti-druid ambush. Both can be handled but the druid party will not be quite as pleased if this happens.
Kaboth 04-21-05, 11:12 AM	What am I missing out on that is making DCs higher than trivially low which our group sees? I wouldnt call a DC of 34 trivial... DC's at low levels and high levels are hard to overcome, it just so happens the high levels the consequences for a failed save are much more dramatic.
Nayk 04-21-05, 11:18 AM	By Xavim: (spiritual weapon + empowered Divine power = force weapons attacking at +30/+25/+20/+15 + wis modifier EVERY round :OMG! Empower, from SRD: Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level. Really very powerful in effect ... but not in the rules ... What I see the most from this thread "cleric are overpowered" is: 1. A rule is not applied correctly and thus is giving more power then it should be allowed. 2. Use of external feats such as the external core feat that allow you to cast in an antimagic field. 3. Use of combos/items that make a trick powerful. 4. Not playing NPC effectively against a combos that is taken over and over, such as cleric always buffing itself and the wizard casting antimagic on himself instead of his familiar... 5. External books were not as heavily tested then core rules and may have some exploitable area. Allowing everything in your game can really bring your powergamers that exploit one overseen area. All of these applied can really make any classes overpowered. Not only the cleric. Y@
DarknessEternal 04-21-05, 11:19 AM	I wouldnt call a DC of 34 trivial... DC's at low levels and high levels are hard to overcome, it just so happens the high levels the consequences for a failed save are much more dramatic. At what level and by what means? That's what I asked. For example, at level 20, that isn't such a hard save to make, DC 34. At level 10, it sure would be. So at what level and by what means are you achieving this DC 34?
Votan 04-21-05, 11:32 AM	Well if you've got 4 companions, the DM typically ups the CR to match an 8 strong party. If they're somehow exempt from that, then it's just another pathetic revision, when did they loose the advenutring Druid limitations on HD? In 3.5. I actually kind of liked the 3.0 Druid but it was a little weak. In 3.5E they toughened it up too much. The animals are part of the Druids CR so this party (4 wolves, 4 druids) should face the same encounter as a cleric, rogue, fighter and wizard (all also first level). :eek: For 1st level, it's not clear that I could come up with ANY combat encounter that the druids would have more overall trouble with than the iconic party. At this level, the rogue isn't advanced enough to make a non-combat enocunter work. And DC 21 traps are very hard for a level 1 rogue to find so trapfinding is yet to reach it's glory (Rogue with 14 INT, 4 ranks and skill focus (search) who burns a FEAT to be good has a +9 and so fails to find the trap 55% of the time -- an elf or a human who burns both feats can manage a +11 -- getting above 14 in INT for a rogue at first level pretty much means you are no longer using the elite array around which the game is balanced). I predict an onslaught of bows, or just spells. Actually it'd be pretty easy to beat all of those with an intelligent Fighter or even Barb. Remember, this is a CR 1 encounter. If it is CR 2 the party is getting double XP. The bows are the trickiest of the lot, in my opinion, although the druids have a couple of spells that can make closing with the bowman (singular at this level unless they are 3 goblins or something) easy such as entangle. Still, there is a reason my favorite druid build is an elf (I also like playing elves and was looking for a class they worked well with; in core it is not wizard). As for the intelligent fighter or barbarian (of level 1 or 2 at most), I would love to see the tactics that will work. I think the 4 wolves should be able to win this alone using wolfpack tactics even if they lose one wolf doing it (NE Druid -- time to bind another creature to serve my will). Melee is clearly the wrong choice. The wolves make bad trippers but having to resist 4 attempts per round without countering is begging for a bad roll. Ranged means you need a tactic to prevent the wolves from closing and the druids from doing something and the party from disengaging and coming back under better conditions. Tricky. That spot and listen are class skills for all four druids (and they have the skill points to burn here) makes sneaking up on them possible but hard. They lack most face skills except diplomacy (including the ever useful sense motive) so a political encounter will be very challenging. But it might be just as bad for a default party. The well played 2nd level barbarian will usually kill a wolf. A high threat encounter consuming a major party resource is a usual outcome. But it's hard to see how he stays up long (assuming he's elite array and thus CR appropriate). At higher levels spells begin to matter. If using core only, the major weak point will be the limited druid list. There is something worth having at every level but barely. Opponents will not even think about the desperate need to put up flame resistance. Retarded monkeys will correctly guess that all ninth level slots are filled with Shapechange and so forth. But at higher levels it is magic based encounters that will confound the druids. Things like Demons or wizards. Raging dire bears and empowered flamestrikes will make short work of melee classes.
Kaboth 04-21-05, 11:32 AM	At what level and by what means? That's what I asked. For example, at level 20, that isn't such a hard save to make, DC 34. At level 10, it sure would be. So at what level and by what means are you achieving this DC 34? I was just doing base math for a rudementary wizard thats 20th level with a 20 Inteligence (would probably be closer to 28 though) using a 9th level spell. Thats not including feats and/or magic items or PrC's. If you did just core classes with the same rudimentary basics the best their save bonus would be is +17 and that would mean they would have to roll a 17 or better on their save which gives you approcimately a 20% chance to save. At low levels base DC's will be roughly 15 and you will most likely have a Save bonus of +6 (or +7) if you are the right class and have the appropiate ability score bonus to add to your save. Which is not bad, it just depends on your best save and bonuses.
DarknessEternal 04-21-05, 01:09 PM	18 Int at level 1 means 34 Int at level 20 (levels/inherent(and this bonus is subjective)/item) = +12. level 9 spell = +9. That's only a DC 31 on their 9th level spells. It's not easy, but it's certainly not astronomical. Without the inherent bonus, it's only 28. Key ability + spell level alone will never make a save hard.
Kaboth 04-21-05, 01:31 PM	18 Int at level 1 means 34 Int at level 20 (levels/inherent(and this bonus is subjective)/item) = +12. level 9 spell = +9. That's only a DC 31 on their 9th level spells. It's not easy, but it's certainly not astronomical. Without the inherent bonus, it's only 28. Key ability + spell level alone will never make a save hard. I was talking about bonuses to ability scores you get for leveling, +5 total and starting with an 18 INT which would bring you to a 23 Int (+6 to DC). I did mess up though, I should have said 25 and not 34... When I did my math I started the save DC at 20 (for his level, dont ask me what I was thinking) and then 9 for the level and bonuses... However, its not hard for a wizard to get their save DC's to (and above) a 34.
Gnarl 04-21-05, 03:02 PM	an 18 INT I wish I had that :D However, its not hard for a wizard to get their save DC's to (and above) a 34. int 18 + 5 leveling + 5 inherent +6 headband of intellect +2 racial (sun elf)= int 36 (+13 to save DC) spell focus, greater spell focus +2 So a 9th level spell would be 32 outside your focus, 34 in your focused school(s). 34 is tough to reach before epic levels. For example, at level 20, that isn't such a hard save to make, DC 34. Let me see now, +12 base, +5 resistance bonus, usually around +4/+5 stats, maybe +1 luck/competence or something, that's something around +24. DC 34 is horrible complicated to make even at 20th level you mean. You need to be in your best saving throw, good stats and good magic items to even have a chance of making them. *wonders if he plays the game right* you both meant DC 24 right ?
Kaboth 04-21-05, 04:00 PM	*wonders if he plays the game right* you both meant DC 24 right ? Yes, Intially messed up because I had level 20 on my mind, as in 20 +SL+AM instead of what it should have been 10+SL+AM. So when I discussed the DC at 34, I actually meant 24.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 04-21-05, 10:15 PM	What am I missing out on that is making DCs higher than trivially low which our group sees? What do you consider "trivially low"? Take, for example, 10th-level characters. The Wizard will probably have Int 22 (base 16, +2 from levels, +2 from cheap item), for a save DC of 21. The Fighter will probably have Wis 12 (or lower), Cloak of Resistance +2, and +3 base save bonus, for a total of Will +6. Dominate Person has a 70% chance of making the Fighter the Wizard's personal lackey for over a week. How is this "trivially low"? Consider 20th-level characters. The Wizard will probably have Int 30 (16 base, +5 levels, +3 inherent, +6 item), for a save DC of 29. The Fighter will probably have Wis 16 or lower (12 or lower base, +6 or lower item), Cloak of Resistance +5, +1 from a Luckstone, and +6 from levels, for a total Will save of +16. Dominate Monster has a 60% chance of making the Fighter the Wizard's personal lackey for several weeks. How is this "trivially low"? Even if the Fighter were a Paladin instead, he'd still have about a 40% chance of becoming Lackey Man, which I still wouldn't call "trivially low". In my experience, the DC-vs-saves disparity is even worse than this, in part because an NPC Paladin can't afford to spend 80% of his money on boosting saves. Indeed, if you look at the sample 18th-level NPCs, the average bonus for their worst save is less than +8; against save DCs in the 25+ range, that's not what I'd call "trivially low".
Neeek 04-21-05, 10:33 PM	What do you consider "trivially low"? *snip solid, but irrelevant to my comment, calculations* In my experience, the DC-vs-saves disparity is even worse than this, in part because an NPC Paladin can't afford to spend 80% of his money on boosting saves. Indeed, if you look at the sample 18th-level NPCs, the average bonus for their worst save is less than +8; against save DCs in the 25+ range, that's not what I'd call "trivially low". See, the *real* problem is the Cleric's Will save vs. the Fighter's Will Save. At 20th, I'd put the average fighter at about +12-14. A typical cleric will have +12(base) + 12(Wis) +5(Cloak) +1(luck) for a total of +30. Which means a DC 32 Will save is at the same time both a near auto-success and a near auto-failure. So what you end up with is either making the saves so hard that some of the party save on only a 20, or so weak that some of the party only fails on a 1. That is where problems occur. How high or low the DCs and saves *actually* are is irrelevant. The difference between the DCs and the saves of the party member, and more specifically the difference in saves between party members, is what actually matters.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 04-21-05, 10:37 PM	Interesting that you feel wizards were weaker in 2nd ed. I can think of a multitude of spells that were far, far more powerful in 2nd ed than in 3.5 stoneskin being the obvious one. Stoneskin wasn't all that tremendous---it lost a charge from any attack (whether successful or not), and was (IIRC) not cheap to cast. While pretty nice against a single BBEG, it wasn't all that grand against a more typical encounter (multiple opponents with multiple attacks), where it wouldn't last long. then of course there was the good 'ol power word kills (in a system where you stopped gaining dice based hit points after level 10(I think...)) 9-11, depending on the class. Keep in mind that the xp tables were quite different and not only was a Wizard capable of casting 9th-level spells extremely rare---it took much longer to level up to 17th than it does now---but the other classes would be several levels ahead by then, steadily gaining more hit points (albeit slowly). 2nd ed has 3.0 double cast per round haste aswell as other niceities. 2ed also had you age a year when you used Haste, so nobody ever did. 2ed also had a Wizard unable to cast anything if he was hit previously in the round; that made getting out of a difficult situation that much harder. 2ed also had minimal Con bonuses for Wizards, meaning 11d4+8 hit points was probably all an archmage was going to have. 35 hit points doesn't last all that long... 2ed also had saving throws steadily approach 2; by high levels, the character's base save was likely to be "roll 6+"; adding in a Ring of Protection made save-or-die spells almost useless against characters. This last is the major powerup from 2ed into 3ed. Whereas before a Wizard had to rely on multiple spells to wear down a target through sheer damage (or to get enough save-or-die chances that one was failed), now Wizards can fling a spell and expect a one-shot kill. In 2ed, the Fighter could expect to shrug off the Wizard's spell 80% of the time; now he can expect to die 80% of the time. That alone makes spellcasters vastly more dominant in the 3ed games I've seen than they ever were in the 2ed games.
Elthbert 04-21-05, 10:46 PM	Stoneskin wasn't all that tremendous---it lost a charge from any attack (whether successful or not), and was (IIRC) not cheap to cast. While pretty nice against a single BBEG, it wasn't all that grand against a more typical encounter (multiple opponents with multiple attacks), where it wouldn't last long. Well it used to last forever that was a big deal, no back stabbing thief was going to hurt you because well 3 weeks ago you cast stone skin that was pretty damn useful. 2ed also had you age a year when you used Haste, so nobody ever did. 2ed also had a Wizard unable to cast anything if he was hit previously in the round; that made getting out of a difficult situation that much harder. 2ed also had minimal Con bonuses for Wizards, meaning 11d4+8 hit points was probably all an archmage was going to have. 35 hit points doesn't last all that long... 2ed also had saving throws steadily approach 2; by high levels, the character's base save was likely to be "roll 6+"; adding in a Ring of Protection made save-or-die spells almost useless against characters. This last is the major powerup from 2ed into 3ed. Whereas before a Wizard had to rely on multiple spells to wear down a target through sheer damage (or to get enough save-or-die chances that one was failed), now Wizards can fling a spell and expect a one-shot kill. In 2ed, the Fighter could expect to shrug off the Wizard's spell 80% of the time; now he can expect to die 80% of the time. Well I'm not sure about you 1 shot kill thing there but you for got wizards MAJOR powerup in 3rd addition ---BONUS SPELLS -- that was a MAJOR POWER UP.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 04-21-05, 10:53 PM	the *real* problem is the Cleric's Will save vs. the Fighter's Will Save. While not the entire problem, I do agree that that's much of it. D&D3e has some serious problems, and stat-and-magic-inflation make all of them worse. Far too many modifiers get thrown around, and the sheer number makes it almost impossible to make a system that won't be badly broken in some cases. Back in the day, the Hulking Hurler build of 2ed was a dart specialist who managed something like 30 damage per round; compare the tens of thousands of damage per round broken builds do now, and it's fairly clear how the system is full of loopholes. IMHO, any 4th edition should tone down the size and number of modifiers (armour, shield, natural armour, insight, Dex, deflection, sacred, dodge, and who knows what else are far too many armour class modifiers to have around) and make the game less of a number-crunching arithmetic lesson and more of a simple, playable game. (And this from a math geek...)
Kaboth 04-21-05, 11:07 PM	LOL well I can tell the above poster played 2nd Edition as well. FYI, Stoneskin needed 100GP diamond dust spread over the shoulders over the recipient. Also, 2nd edition stoneskin was easy to pull down, I figured out a way to bring it down easily. Each attack takes it down, so all I would do is take a hand full of copper pieces and toss it at the opponent. You have to remember it lost for each attack made against them not each hit. To bypass the haste aging process, I would use a wish to be immune to magical aging which protected you from more than haste. Even with the aging modifiers for haste we still used it. Double your attacks was to nice sometimes. So yea, overall I agree that casters got a HUGE boost in 3.x DnD.
Elthbert 04-21-05, 11:22 PM	LOL well I can tell the above poster played 2nd Edition as well. FYI, Stoneskin needed 100GP diamond dust spread over the shoulders over the recipient. Also, 2nd edition stoneskin was easy to pull down, I figured out a way to bring it down easily. Each attack takes it down, so all I would do is take a hand full of copper pieces and toss it at the opponent. You have to remember it lost for each attack made against them not each hit. To bypass the haste aging process, I would use a wish to be immune to magical aging which protected you from more than haste. Even with the aging modifiers for haste we still used it. Double your attacks was to nice sometimes. So yea, overall I agree that casters got a HUGE boost in 3.x DnD. your trick shouldn't have worked, all those coins were 1 attack.
Kaboth 04-21-05, 11:33 PM	your trick shouldn't have worked, all those coins were 1 attack. Nope, there was description that gave examples that lead to the idea. I would have to go to storage to pull out my 2nd ed. books, but I know it was there and I showed my DM all my notes at the time. We even went over and over this attack over the years and it was the same thing.
Gnarl 04-22-05, 07:07 AM	Nope, there was description that gave examples that lead to the idea. I would have to go to storage to pull out my 2nd ed. books, but I know it was there and I showed my DM all my notes at the time. We even went over and over this attack over the years and it was the same thing. Yeah I remember, it was pathetic. Ever fighter had his bag of copper coins just in case a wizard had stoneskin. It was rediculous.
Master9 04-22-05, 07:40 AM	I basically read through this in once good sitting, and although I'm sure everybody has everything as firmly in their mind as they have their religious beliefs (IE, nothing short of a miracle will change your mind once you're dug in), the way I see it is this: Clerics have decent saves and survivability and respectable (although not extremely good) combat prowess. Everything they can do through magic is not quite as good as other classes (with the exception of healiing). Clerics are good at multitasking and are extremely versatile, but they dont get equally powered spells until they are at a higher level (and spell level and power level are two different things). This comes at the expense of effectiveness. They have to use spells to compete with what other classes can do without, which automatically limits how much they can do. And dont blame the cleric for being overpowered because somebody tanked all their feats into one series of powerful abilities. Give me a day and I can make a broken character of any class (with the possible exception of the bard because I dont know anything about them), so part of the problem I'm sure is one bad apple ruining the whole bunch.
Aki Warren 04-22-05, 12:02 PM	You bring a fighter, we'll bring a cleric. We'll set them against a number of challenges that is equal to the CR for the level we chose. I suggest somewhere around CR 9 or so, how's that? WAIT! People already did that! The fighters all lost. The wizards did okay. The Clerics and druids won a LOT of the encounters! What could that ever mean? Could it mean that a Cleric or Druid can handle what normally an entire party is required to do, and they can do it most of the time? Does this mean that other classes can NOT do such things? I think it just might :D
Gnarl 04-22-05, 12:48 PM	You bring a fighter, we'll bring a cleric. We'll set them against a number of challenges that is equal to the CR for the level we chose. I suggest somewhere around CR 9 or so, how's that? WAIT! People already did that! The fighters all lost. The wizards did okay. The Clerics and druids won a LOT of the encounters! What could that ever mean? Could it mean that a Cleric or Druid can handle what normally an entire party is required to do, and they can do it most of the time? Does this mean that other classes can NOT do such things? I think it just might :D A deathmatch/gauntlet is just bull crap when it comes to figuring out which class is the best. It only means that cleric power builds are better than fighter power builds and that's about it.
Nayk 04-22-05, 02:09 PM	on 1 vs 1 combat, that's how it is: 1st Winners: Psions / Wilders Psions can burn all their PPs in one single encounter. While clerics/wizards may have 4-5 9th level slots, psions can take all their pps to have 9-10 level slots!! Does that means that a psion is broken? .. ohh no .. I played several ones .. and finally come to the conclusion that it bug me to always finish the day without PPs and nothing to do. They are not that powerful in true gaming. But really are as NPC / 1vs1 combat. 2nd winners: Primary casters (clerics, wizards) They use the most possible their higher level slots to the slowest. But they do so at a pace slower then psions. Are primary caster broken, No, for the same reason as psion, but they fare more gradually ... And will still have some lesser slots at the end... 3rd winners: Secondary casters: (psychic warriors, possibly well built bards, paladins, rangers) Quite not really more powerful in 1 on 1 combat then 4th one because they don't have that many resources to spend on a single encounter. 4th winners: Normal characters (fighters, barbarians, monks*, rogues) Note that a monk using its quivering palm may change the situation, but it's only 1/week. Those are always performing equally, and thus could perform for the same equally 8 combats in a row. Conclusion: 1st, 2nd winners are best at single combat, but in real game will need to choose when using their resource or not. If they always do they will always win the 1st encounter .. but may really loose the one after that. 3rd and 4th: Are always or almost consistent. Exemple on what I mean: On a real dungeon crawl.. Team is going (typical group) Creature is coming out from hiding. Who act? Cleric cast divine power? Fighter hit the creature, rogue sneak attack the creature, Wizard is waiting to see the power of the creature? There is a chance that fighter and rogue will dispatch the creature if it is not so tough before the cleric has finished buffing ... (oupss .. spending resource for nothing .. but how the cleric could have known that it would be that easy) They continue .. oups medium fight, the cleric finally is able to make use of its second divine power spent .. after buffing itself .. it acts for a couple of round. They continue .. big fight .. the cleric needs to spend all his great resources to be of utility .. (no more resource) Wizard and cleric push to stop, they want to rest .. and continue day after. but what is awaiting them in the dark? 4th encounter .. fighter and rogue are almost doing it alone, cleric help a little bit. What does that mean? That the cleric/wizard must act "wisely" and not spend their resource at the first opportunity. Sure they can dispatch almost anything on one single combat .. but they don't know what will follow and need other resource right after. The wizard is even more dependants on using wisely its resource, because it cannot rely on physical combat (but it still can use bows when being an elf, and can have other utility quite weak) Fighters don't care about nothing .. they simply go combat after combat and are always ready. The cleric must pray at the beginning of the day*, if he doesn't have the oppurtunity, it will pass a *whole* day without spells. It cannot simply rest for 8 hours and then pray. (look at rule of the game) and apply it so in your game! OK .. I already hear the following from you: "But the cleric can make divine power persistent .. and so on..." It's persistent that is too much powerful, that and the feat that let you cast in antimagic field. Secondly they are from *second* resource book (i.e complete divine) Persistent is broken when it permit a spell that has a duration of 1round/level only to be made effective for the *whole* day. It should simply make it have a duration on the next level. i.e: (seconds become minutes, minutes become 10 minutes, 10minutes become hours and so on...) and have it automatically extended. I'll see a lot of clerics still use this *nerfed* option on spell like spikes and so on .. but it won't be broken and will still be very *useful* ... Y@