The common standard for comparing classes holds that we should compare character classes by asking which one wins in a one-on-one battle. This standard is misguided for several reasons:
(1) Certain character classes are not meant for one-on-one battles. It is silly to compare a rogue with a fighter by asking which wins in a fight.
(2) It is the rare situation that a player character is on his or her own. Usually, a PC stands with a group of PCs. The PC's strengths compliment other PCs, and weaknesses are off-set by other PC's strengths.
(3) If what a player cares about is his character's survival, it is likely that working well within a group is more important than the ability to face solo challenges. The best fighter in the world will be less likely to survive an adventure with three other fighters than the same fighter with a cleric, wizard and rogue at his side.
The standard of comparison I propose is a relative standard. Rather than ask "Is a fighter more powerful than a wizard?" we should ask "Is a fighter more powerful than a wizard as an addition to a party of composition x?" Whether the fighter or the wizard is better is answered by which party will usually be more successful--if the party plus the fighter is usually more successful, the fighter is better; otherwise the wizard is. But we can now note that what answer we get depends on the composition of the party. A fighter will be a better addition to a party of a cleric, rogue and wizard than a wizard will be. But a wizard will be a better addition to a party of two fighters, a ranger, a cleric and a rogue. A general result of this is that there are no absolute facts about whether one class is better than another, but rather facts about which class is best relative to a party composition.
With small parties a single character makes a big difference. If you were to add one character to a party of a wizard and a rogue, it should be a character who adds combat power and healing. A paladin is an ideal choice. A ranger is second. A fighter, cleric, druid, monk, or barbarian would be a good addition, but clearly not as good as a ranger or paladin. It would be unhelpful to add a bard, sorcerer, wizard or rogue to this group.
A common misconception is that bards "suck." Yet, in a party with strong combat and divine magical power but no stealth or arcane might, a bard is a nice compliment rivaled only by a multi-class wizard/rogue. The bard adds both arcane power and stealth to the group, plus charm for diplomatic situations. The bard's song abilities compliment the combat powers of the warriors, they give decent ranged combat support, and the extra healing will be good. I'll admit that in a large party with specialists in all the major areas (combat, stealth, healing, arcane magic) the bard won't look like a huge boon to the party, but what character looks like a huge boon to a large party?
Another common claim is that clerics are the most powerful class. While a cleric's magical power rivals a wizards, a clerics role as healer in the party means that a certain portion of his power goes into supporting fellow adventurers. A wise cleric has to balance his spell use between healing and non-healing spells. That's a constraint on the cleric's actions that the one-on-one standard doesn't highlight, and once account of it is taken, we see that the cleric isn't as powerful as the common assumption portrays.
The question remains: won't very similar classes, such as barbarians and fighters or wizards and sorcerers, be comparable in such a way that we can still say absolutely which is more powerful? Let's consider an argument that barbarians are always better than fighters. The argument goes like this: a barbarian is as good a straight up warrior as a fighter. The fighter's only advantages are in diversity and AC. But a well-built barbarian can compensate for the lighter armor with good dexterity, and on the strategy I'm suggesting, diversity of abilities will make less a difference to the party than excelling at combat. Since the barbarian has better saves, more skills and uncanny dodge (great for being the only guy at the front or dealing with pesky sneak attacks), won't the barbarian always be at least as much a boon to a party as a fighter? I think that the answer is "no." The method of class comparison that I suggest emphasizes the capacity of a party to resolve as many challenges as possible. In a party that already has a strong front-line warrior, such as a barbarian, a character that adds combat diversity as well as more front-line power is going to be better than a character that just adds more front-line power. Remember how much more powerful that front-line barbarian becomes when someone throws a trip on his target? Yes, the fighter is going to add something that the barbarian won't.
At the end of the day, this game is about having fun by imagining ourselves participating in exciting adventures. For that to happen, we need a diverse adventure, one in which we see diplomacy, espionage, battle and magic. My standard of measuring character strength is one that leads to such gaming experiences. And that is what speaks most on behalf of it.
1. Not every comparison need be made at 20th level. A classes relative power should be measured in increments. My suggestion here is 1st then every stat bonus increase.
2. Use the default array when determining stats(15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8). Not every character has an 18. And most certainly not several 18's. This also tends to limit stat heavy classes such as paladins and clerics.
On some specific examples:
A fighter will be a better addition to a party of a cleric, rogue and wizard than a wizard will be.
But not better than a Druid/Cleric/Barb.
If you were to add one character to a party of a wizard and a rogue, it should be a character who adds combat power and healing. A paladin is an ideal choice.
Incorrect. A Cleric will fight as well and heal better. As will a Druid.
Yet, in a party with strong combat and divine magical power but no stealth or arcane might, a bard is a nice compliment rivaled only by a multi-class wizard/rogue.
That's three characters. Standard size, and the size for which the game is balanced, is four. Thus a Wizard and Rogue is a better choice than Bard and something else.
Another common claim is that clerics are the most powerful class. While a cleric's magical power rivals a wizards, a clerics role as healer in the party means that a certain portion of his power goes into supporting fellow adventurers. A wise cleric has to balance his spell use between healing and non-healing spells.
Only if he is the primary healer. In a party with two clerics one focuses on healing while the other focuses on being stupid good in melee. If there is a is also a Druid, Cleric needs to cast so few healing spells it makes little difference. Furthermore, a caster-heavy party will kill many enemies without getting touched. It's usually the meatshields (fighter and barb) who need healing. Finally, it is rare that a cleric should actually use all his spells in any one day.
In a party that already has a strong front-line warrior, such as a barbarian, a character that adds combat diversity as well as more front-line power is going to be better than a character that just adds more front-line power. Remember how much more powerful that front-line barbarian becomes when someone throws a trip on his target? Yes, the fighter is going to add something that the barbarian won't.
Incorrect. The raw damage output of a Barbarian with Fighter support is lower than the raw damage output of two Barbarians. It could be argued that the fighter's use of trip and such might make the pair take less damage, however this is by and large negated, if not surpassed, by the fact that the Barb-Barb team will kill it faster, meaning the enemy has fewer opportunities to do damage, and has a higher total HP to begin with.
--------------
In conclusion: Because Barbarians do more where it actually matters (doing damage and killing things) they are better than Fighters. Because Clerics and Druids can do the job of those two classes and then some, each can replace a Fighter or Barb (or Ranger or Paladin) and do a better overall job.
When players are choosing characters, they should certainly consider the composition of the party when deciding which characters would be best. However, at that point, the balance decisions have already been made. What players and DMs would like to see, from a game design perspective, is some way of testing character balance. My view is that it should be possible to assign numerical values to all of a character class's features, and then add them up and compare the total to the totals for other classes. The trick comes in assigning those numerical values.
Of course, if we had this, then character classes as we know them would probably become a thing of the past. Using the assigned values for class features, players could essentially use a point-buy system to build their own classes. The benefit to that would be that the structure of the classes would be transparent, and it would be easier to determine that the classes are properly balanced.
So, a good article, but I think it is tangential to the real issue.
Another popular perception is that setting makes a difference in class power. In low magic settings, for instance, fighters lose the equipment that they should have. However, if we apply your reasoning to the problem, the fighter is a good addition. That fighter is wall between you and death. You want him to stay alive and blocking for as long as possible, so you create the equipment that he needs. This is called synergy. Mages help the fighters so that the fighter help them.
I think much of my argument still stands. (The most important point I was making is that the "Who wins in a fight" method of determining character strength is not a good one.) You seem to have misunderstood me as saying that we should ignore the strength of any particular character and attend rather to the strength of a party. But that is not what I said. I said that we should understand the strength of particular class by understanding how they contribute to a party. You haven't done anything to show that that is wrong, and that was my main thesis. I argued from this main thesis to another claim, which was that we should not evaluate the power of character classes in absolute terms, but rather in party-relative terms. I then claimed that there are not absolute facts about which class is most powerful on that basis. You're primary point is that this last claim is false, i.e. we still get absolute answers about, for example, whether clerics are better than bards.
First of all, even when evaluated at party strength a set up of Wizard, Druid, Cleric, second Cleric/Rouge/Barbarian will beat out a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric party, because it's just better.
That's a difficult sentence to parse. What I think you mean is that if we start with three characters, a wizard, a cleric and a druid, then adding a cleric or a barbarian or a rogue will make a party that is stronger than a party of a wizard, a cleric, a rogue and a fighter. The question I am after answering is how to determine the strength of particular character classes, not particular parties. That your first party is stronger than the second may be true but it is utterly beside the point. It is obvious as can be that certain parties are more powerful than others, but our question is not about strength of parties, but rather strength of classes. And my claim is that the strength any one character is determined by how well the character fits with the party.
The power of any one character is relative to the rest of the party. Of course, if we change the whole party, we get different answers to questions about how some one character contributes to the party. For example, I stated that a bard is a good addition to a party with divine magic and melee power, you then responded that that's only two characters. First, in the basic set up, it does sound like two characters and I meant as much--if you add just one character to a two character party with divine magic and melee power, a bard is a very good choice. You seem to think that the appropriate response to this is to change the example. That doesn't make sense. It's as if I said "What if we attack Iran" and you responded to some different question like "what if we attack Iran, Syria and North Korea?" There's no rule that says the party must be four characters; my example was totally legitimate. But second, nothing I said means that the party was just two characters: it could have been a Barbarian, a Paladin, a Cleric and a Druid in the party. A bard is still an excellent addition. Moreover, a bard is a much better addition than a cleric, which establishes the claim that you've tried to refute.
You claim that a cleric will fight as well and heal better than a Paladin. Certainly the cleric will heal better. But fight as well. Certainly not. A paladin has a higher BAB, which means not only a higher attack bonus but multiple attack per round at sixth level, a cleric at eighth. At eleventh level the Paladin has the basic melee power of a 15th level cleric. And the paladin's high saving throws and greater HP mean that she is much less likely to fall in combat. Some cleric spells will certainly make the cleric very powerful for a fight or two, but the cleric cannot be as reliable as the paladin in a fight. Moreover, a paladin has many of those combat enhancing spells.
Your claim that druids and clerics are as good at melee as fighters is preposterous. I accept that clerics are no shabby warriors, but they aren't up to the fighter's prowess. The burden of proof is on you to show me that the cleric can somehow make up for his slower BAB progression.
I think this portion pretty much epitomizes the whole issue I have with your post:
If you were to add one character to a party of a wizard and a rogue, it should be a character who adds combat power and healing. A paladin is an ideal choice. A ranger is second. A fighter, cleric, druid, monk, or barbarian would be a good addition, but clearly not as good as a ranger or paladin.
Druids and Clerics literally add more combat power than a paladin or ranger.
I'm not even making this up. At higher levels, a cleric will be either Quickening or Persisting (with Divine Metamagic) stuff like Divine Power and Divine Favor, among the many other buffs they can access. A Druid will turn into a giant angry animal of dismemberment and just go to town.
So, while I can understand the ideas behind lots of your points, the mechanics of the actual game don't match up to them--so your method is not, in fact, a better method of class evaluation at all.
That your first party is stronger than the second may be true but it is utterly beside the point. It is obvious as can be that certain parties are more powerful than others, but our question is not about strength of parties, but rather strength of classes. And my claim is that the strength any one character is determined by how well the character fits with the party.
But if a party is by definition weak when it requires the addition of a class that means the class itself is weak, or at least degenerate.
But second, nothing I said means that the party was just two characters: it could have been a Barbarian, a Paladin, a Cleric and a Druid in the party. A bard is still an excellent addition. Moreover, a bard is a much better addition than a cleric, which establishes the claim that you've tried to refute.
But much worse than a Rogue, who does the job the Bard would be doing (sneaky stuff) much better. A party with both a Cleric and a Druid has no need of the Bard's weak spellcasting powers or songs.
Your claim that druids and clerics are as good at melee as fighters is preposterous. I accept that clerics are no shabby warriors, but they aren't up to the fighter's prowess.
Ah, the days when I was this naive... ;) You don't hang around the Optimization boards much, do you?
The burden of proof is on you to show me that the cleric can somehow make up for his slower BAB progression.
Well, let's use an 11th level Cleric as an example. A Righteous Might gives you +5 to hit, +4 AC, +22 HP and DR 5/good or evil. That's 13/8. Throw in an Aid and you get another +1 to hit and d8 + 10 temporary HP. Divine Favor is +3 to attack and damage, although iirc this will not stack with the +1 from Aid. (Oh yeh, and you're now large).
So you get +16/11 to hit with d8 + 32 more HP and assorted other bonuses. This outdoes the Paladin's +11/6/1 easily. You can do this 2-3 times a day. You can also use Divine Might 3-4 times a day, which gives you a Paladin's BAB (including additional attacks) and +6 Str and +1 HP/level, thus making it +17/12/7 and 11 HP with Divine Favor.
And you can still heal using any left-over slots and the vast majority of your 2nd and 3rd level slots and you can also throw some extremely mean DD (11d6 Flame Strike!) into the mix.
Finally, this is a half-cocked build I made in the last 20 minutes using no PrCs. Real Cleric optimization is many times worse.
Also, a Druid may very well be worse because they just wildshape into a bear and use that to beat people senseless while still casting whatever they want using Natural Spell.
So yes, a Cleric can easily make-up for and surpass his slower BAB.
Thanks for your thoughts. You raise some important points. At the end of the day, adventures tend to be tailored to the characters that are involved and consequently, lacking in a particular area as a party tends to produce adventures that exploit weaknesses and strengths in such a way that a party is suited. Clawhound raised a point much in this vein. It's really difficult to evaluate a character without knowing what the character and his/her party will face. A rogue could do very well sneaking and stealing in an environ of fairly strong fighters who just won't notice him, while that same rogue will have a hard time getting the treasure that's in the chest closely guarded by giants. The notion that one class is absolutely better than some other is pretty silly when we consider all the kinds of situations that a character can be in.
When players are choosing characters, they should certainly consider the composition of the party when deciding which characters would be best. However, at that point, the balance decisions have already been made. What players and DMs would like to see, from a game design perspective, is some way of testing character balance. My view is that it should be possible to assign numerical values to all of a character class's features, and then add them up and compare the total to the totals for other classes. The trick comes in assigning those numerical values.
Yeah. That's a great point. There are a handful of really important dimensions in which any party must excel and several others in which it is valuable to excel. I think this point gets at exactly what I expressing, that a successful party is one that does well in those dimensions and that, at the end of the day, whether a character is powerful or weak depends upon how well the party can do without him. Just suppose (and the point here is meant as a heuristic, not meant to fully encompass the scope of challenges that a party faces) that characters are evaluated in four dimensions: stealth, melee, healing, arcane. On this supposition, a party with a druid, barbarian and rogue will do well in three of four categories. Adding a wizard will have them doing well in all categories. If we consider a party of a bard, barbarian and druid, the party will do okay in arcane and stealth, well in melee, and great in healing. What a particular character contributes to a group is usually obvious. But the value of contributing that usually depends on what the rest of the characters contribute.
Example: your party has a healer, support character, and a spellcaster all set up. They need your character to be a melee combatant. Your choice is barb, fighter, Paladin (yes he does spellcast, but its just a dabble, its primary focus is that of melee combatant), Ranger (see paladin), and maybe monk. Now it's not an easy choice between these classes, however one class would be passed over nine times out of ten: the fighter. The same things happen in the spellcasting area with the sorc. These classes have problems.
But to jump back on the wagon of Phil's argument, he has correctly exonerated two classes: the cleric and the bard. As a divine spellcaster choice, it's not really easy to pick between a druid or a cleric. The cleric and the druid are fine. The bard brings just as much to the table as the rogue or even the non-core classes of noble or master.
All in all I'd say both Phil and hamham have pretty good outlooks into this topic. This is just my two cents and my personal spin on Phil's idea to make the arguments of these two more understandable to the other.
Weapon Proficiency (Spiked Chain) [Human Bonus Feat]
Weapon Focus (Spiked Chain) [Level 1 Bonus Feat]
Combat Expertise [Level 1 Standard Feat]
Improved Trip [Level 2 Bonus Feat]
Combat Reflexes [Level 3 Standard Feat]
If this beast matches up against any level three Barbarian, there will be a slaughterfest in favor of the fighter. If you raise them to level four,
Improved Initiative [Level 4 Bonus Feat]
Can be added to the list, giving you a high chance to win initiative.
This is not an argument on cleric being the best class. I don't think any class is better than any other everything is situational.
On the cleric BAB problem Divine Power + Divine Favor + Righteous Might
For example a 12th Cleric with these 3 spell would have a BAB of +12/+7/+2
would be large, have +10 Strength (6 enhancement, 4 strength) +3 luck bonus to attack/damage. +2 Con, and 11 temp hp. On the defensive side, +2 enhancement to natural armor and DR 6/good (or evil).
Those Spell are part of why people think the cleric is best.
The nearest spell to Divine Power is Tenser's Transformation, but that causes wizards/sorcerers to lose there spell casting ability and has a costly material component (potion of bull's strength).
People need to remember that this game is designed for the character's to work together. I a game I'm in I have a drow fighter 2/Wizard 6/Bladesinger 3, the DM allowed me to buy off my LA using the variant in Unearthed Arcana.
But most of the time the other characters (please don't ask why they are together is still don't understand it myself)
(aasimar cleric 7/Doomguide 4 [hasn't bought off LA yet], aasimar Paladin 6/Knight of the Chalice 5 [also hasn't bought off LA yet], wood elf Ranger 9/Barbarian 3 [melee style, doesn't really use the class abilities very well] and a zenythri monk 11 [hasn't bought off LA yet either]) don't work together at all which has lead to the current death total at me 1, Clr 3, Pal 4, Rgr/Bar 3, monk 3. So there is my 2 copper piecesFor all of you people who think the fighter is weak. Don't play one. :P
I must disagree with you philosfool when you say clerics and druids aren't as good as fighters in melee. As much as it pains me, HamHam's right. Clerics have things like Divine Might and Divine Power to make both his attack and damage higher overall. While it is temporary, clerics should be able to do it enough to count and even with out the spells they are still good in combat. Druids can use Wild Shape and spells like Magic Fang to beef up both themselves and their animal companion making them insane in melee. While it is temporary, the fact they can be better in melee than a fighter AND have all the other spells besides is what makes them so powerful. I for one am one of the people who think that game is fine, but not recognizing that clerics and druids can indeed be better in melee then fighters doesn't help your case. While the flaw is that its temporary, if you read the spells and look how long they last, you'll see that it is pretty mean.
Your claim that druids and clerics are as good at melee as fighters is preposterous. I accept that clerics are no shabby warriors, but they aren't up to the fighter's prowess. The burden of proof is on you to show me that the cleric can somehow make up for his slower BAB progression.
The argument that the cleric is uniformly better than the fighter at fighting is only made at medium to high levels. Before level 7 or so, it is simply not true (and I would be prepared to debate that).
However, around level 7, the cleric gets a spell called Divine Power that really tilts the balance if it can be cast. If splatbooks are allowed, this spell can be persistent (via divine metamagic) or quickened (again, DMM). Add in delightful little gems like spikes, divine favor, etc and you get a character that can be extremely effective compared to a fighter at melee.
Druids seem to do it entirely with wildshaping into Bears; not a path I like the flavor of but undoubtedly powerful.
Your claim that druids and clerics are as good at melee as fighters is preposterous. I accept that clerics are no shabby warriors, but they aren't up to the fighter's prowess. The burden of proof is on you to show me that the cleric can somehow make up for his slower BAB progression.
It seems like if this is the case, then we've shifted the argument to what the relative power level of each class is in fulfilling a specific role. Now we're comparing fighters with druids and clerics AS WARRIORS. This comparison seems much more meaningful. Though the reverse may be true, intuition tells me that clerics should not be as good at fulfilling the warrior role as fighters.
Extrapolating from your argument that the party composition determines class strength, there must be some role that the party needs to be filled. For example, a fighter/ranger/rogue party could use some magic, while a wizard/bard/druid party needs a warrior class character. If one allows that certain classes, such as fighter and barbarian, fulfill similar roles in a given party, then a power-level comparison in terms of the role filled makes sense. In terms of the fighter/ranger/rogue party, it seems clear that the cleric will fulfill the healing/spellcasting role better than a bard (on the basis of more spells, faster progression, less duplicated skills/abilities, etc.)
The primary advantage of "weaker" classes is diversity. They trade power in a specific ability (spellcasting, melee fighting, etc.) for diverse class abilities. This usually means better skill use (rogue) or weaker versions of several abilities (bard). These are useful class attributes, especially for smaller parties that need each character to fulfill multiple roles. If a party was composed of fighter/ranger/cleric, a bard might be a reasonable choice, because it fulfills both the rogue role, and the arcane spellcaster role, albeit not as well as having both a rogue and a sorceror. On the other hand, for a large party, the most important thing is not to duplicate abilities. Having two characters with similar, yet mediocre, abilities is not nearly as helpful as having one character that is spectacular at performing the same task. (This is because there are enough characters to adequately fill the other roles. I'm using this as my definition of "large".)
If one could define some metric for determining how well a particular class fulfills a particular role (i.e. a number that represents how well a cleric acts as a warrior), it would be possible to determine if the added diversity was worth sacrificing raw power. You would do this by determining how much each particular role was worth to you, then multiplying each role's value with the classes effectiveness at filling this role, and comparing total score.
Example:
A party needs both a skill using character (such as a rogue) and an arcane caster. The party has a divine caster, so spellcasting is less important, but helpful. Now the worths of each role might be 0.75 for skill using and 0.25 for arcane caster.
Now let's say we've measured the ability of rogues and bards to fulfill these two roles. [FOLLOWING VALUES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY] I'll say the rogue scores a 1 for skill using, while the bards scores 0.8. For arcane casting, I'll assign the rogue a 0.1 (on the basis of UMD), and the bard 0.4 (totally arbitrary).
Now, the worth of the classes can be determined as
Worth of the rogue = 0.75(1) + 0.25(0.1) = 0.775
Worth of the bard = 0.75(0.8) + 0.25(0.4) = 0.7
So, for this situation, with the given numbers, the rogue turns out to be a better choice. Now, let's change the situation a bit. What if the party needs both a skill user and a caster equally? The worths change somewhat.
Worth of the rogue = 0.5(1) + 0.5(0.1) = 0.55
Worth of the bard = 0.5(0.8) + 0.5(0.4) = 0.6
Now the bard is "better". Certainly, the bards other abilities (bardic music/knowledge) have been totally neglected here, but you could factor in those abilities as well. (The rogue would score a zero for both categories, though bardic knowledge could partially be made up through use of the knowledge skill.)
Unfortunately, it would be difficult to come up with ratings that accurately reflect the effectiveness of each class at each role, and probably equally difficult to determine how much fulfilling each role is worth to a particular party. At best, we can estimate, but with such marginal advantages with assumed "perfect" numbers, it still turns into a judgment call.
So:
1) Diversity is more important in smaller parties. In larger parties, character classes that are REALLY GOOD at being one thing are not only more feasible, but increase the overall party power level, since they have less duplicate abilities.
2) In terms of a particular role to be filled, such as warrior, it is likely possible to determine which class is "better" at filling that role.
3) When two or more roles must be fulfilled by a single character, it becomes very difficult to determine which character fills those roles better.
4) In a "large" party, in which only a single role must be filled by a character, the better choice is the class that is better at filling that role. (Common sense, I know...)
Yeah. That's a great point. There are a handful of really important dimensions in which any party must excel and several others in which it is valuable to excel. I think this point gets at exactly what I expressing, that a successful party is one that does well in those dimensions and that, at the end of the day, whether a character is powerful or weak depends upon how well the party can do without him.
You're making an interesting point, but I'm not sure you're understanding mine. You're still talking about evaluating character classes in the context of the party, while I'm talking about evaluating character classes by comparing their power level relative to each other. I think that both levels of evaluation are worth making, but they occur at different times. First, at the game design stage, decisions are made (by the designers, not the players) about what abilities to give each class. Then, much later, when the players get together to make up their characters, they should consider the composition of their party, and recognize that a strong party will have different classes that complement each other.
What I would like to see is some objective way of measuring the relative strengths of each class. Does the fighter's ability to wear heavy armor adequately balance the barbarians higher hit dice and (at higher levels) damage reduction? Do the fighter's bonus feats adequately balance the special abilities gained by the barbarian and the monk (for example)? What sorts of class features should be considered interchangeable and which should "cost" more?
Class design is obviously complicated, and as the 3.5 revision showed, sometimes certain classes don't quite match up. I think that any comprehensive method of class evaluation needs to take that into consideration.
HamHam, you disregard a lot of classes. Yes some classes like the Cleric and Druid are crazy good, other classes can be just as strong, especially with prestiging and a little thought.
A prestige-d, planned, optimized cleric will be stronger than a similarly treated fighter/bard/etc with the possible exception of exploitish builds like Hulking Hurler which no sane DM would ever allow in a game. Meanwhile, Clerics can achieve sick power levels without having to dig for loop-holes.
The argument that the cleric is uniformly better than the fighter at fighting is only made at medium to high levels. Before level 7 or so, it is simply not true (and I would be prepared to debate that).
So am I. Even before level 7, Aid, Bull's Strength, and Divine Favor will keep a Cleric more or less even with a fighter or other full-BAB class. The only real problem is a lack of spell slots. But at such low levels the effective difference between the two BAB's is also a lot lower, making the spells less necessary.
Druids are actually worse off because they can't wild shape till 5th level, and can't Nat Spell till 6th.
---------
Really, stuff like Bards isn't the problem. They do in fact fit a special role and over all make a pretty good character. The real issue is the caster-melee imbalance.
Hamham's cleric:
"Well, let's use an 11th level Cleric as an example. A Righteous Might gives you +5 to hit, +4 AC, +22 HP and DR 5/good or evil. That's 13/8. Throw in an Aid and you get another +1 to hit and d8 + 10 temporary HP. Divine Favor is +3 to attack and damage, although iirc this will not stack with the +1 from Aid. (Oh yeh, and you're now large)."
Great, let's see how this fight goes down for each party. All the characters are eleventh level, and they're fighting a frost giant (CR 9, a good challenge for three eleventh level characters.) We'll assume that the warrior (cleric or paladin) is in front, preventing the frost giant from getting to the less melee apt classes. Since the paladin is worst off if he/she can't charge for triple damage with a lance, let's assume the giant has initiative:
Round one:
Giant move to paladin/cleric and attacks
Cleric casts Righteous Might/Paladin full attack
Rogue, moves to flank, using tumble to avoid AoO, one sneak attack.
Wizard, haste on all the party
Round two:
Giant full attack on whomever did most damage.
Cleric casts Aid/Paladin full attack (four attacks, hasted)
Rogue sneak attack three times (hasted)
Wizard, magic missile
Let's summarize the fight so far. I'll use the standard NPCs from Ch. 4 of the DMG for the paladin, wizard and rogue. The rogue uses a short sword +1, the paladin a long sword +2. At the end of round 2 the wizard has done (on average) 17.5 damage. The rogue averages 61.25 damage. Paladin averages 37.525. Cleric does 0.
Round three:
Giant.
Paladin full attack/Cleric full attack
Rogue sneak attack (if the giant isn't dead)
Wizard--something pretty good, like "look, we're done."
Let's summarize again. The party with the paladin has killed the giant. They have used 1 1st level and 1 3rd level spell. They will need to heal some. The cleric party also wins in the third round. They have spent a fifth level spell and a second level spell. They will have to heal the same amount of damage as the paladin's party. So, will you please explain to me what was so great about the cleric build you gave me, besides the fact that he/she casts high level spells that waste time? Don't forget that the paladin is a fairly lame build as a melee warrior, and he/she didn't use smite evil. I also ignored the possibility of critial hits for the characters, so those damage numbers are on the low side, and didn't use any power attack.
If that paladin were a fighter or barbarian, the fight would have been over before the wizard cast magic missile, but the party would have been looking for healing elsewhere, which would have been no good.
I think a more accurate definition of power would be how hard the DM has to work to make a given player's character shine.
Honestly, a lowly dispel magic has a shot at ending a good number of magical effects. Now I don't know what persistent spell does, so bear with me if it breaks this argument, but how many times is your cleric going to memorize divine favor/power each day? If he's going to do it many times, how much versatility is he sacrificing by taking the same spell over and over? (This is a little less important for favored souls.) How much gold and xp will he burn on scrolls of these spells? What if the party runs into a beholder? That anti-magic cone could really spoil the day of a party depending on a buffed cleric and a wild shaped druid for melee power.
I know that anecdotal evidence isn't the end-all-be-all, so the dispel argument ain't perfect, but with all these super-clerics running around with buff spells on them, some spellcaster is bound to take notice. (And if it's a sorcerer, he can burn off all kinds of spells per day on dispels if he has to.) I just wanted to note that the outcome of lots of encounters depends on what the enemies are prepared to fight. If they're packing a lot of dispels, the casters get screwed. If they depend on dominate spells cast on characters with low will saves, they could turn the fighter against the party. It will vary from encounter to encounter.
I just ask you all to rest assured that there are safeguards within the game to prevent one-trick-ponies from decimating everything they come across. When you come across the caster packing lots of dispels, you'll be thankful for your all-natural fighter or barbarian who doesn't give a rip what gets dispelled.
However, I also admit- I don't know which way is "right".
I posted a couple of threads where folks "voted' on "most powerful" and "most fun". The results are here:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=369436
This makes a third way of comparing the classes- pure consensus.
Honestly, a lowly dispel magic has a shot at ending a good number of magical effects. Now I don't know what persistent spell does, so bear with me if it breaks this argument, but how many times is your cleric going to memorize divine favor/power each day?
It doesn't matter.
Here's the deal: Clerics have spell slots, period. Fighters do not.
It doesn't matter if the Cleric has to spend some spell slots or all of them to become better than the Fighter at fighting. As long as the end result is "he's a better fighter than a Fighter," that's garbage.
And that's just sad. Even if a cleric had to blow 100% of his spells to become a better fighter than a Fighter, he's still the better of the two class choices to make.
For the record, Clerics really only need a few 5th level slots here and there for Quickened Divine Favors. Alternately, they can spend some of the gold they should have by mid-level on those Quicken Metamagic Rods; if they do that, then really, they're not even blowing their best spell slots on some of their superbuffs.
What if the party runs into a beholder? That anti-magic cone could really spoil the day of a party depending on a buffed cleric and a wild shaped druid for melee power.
Nobody's happy in an anti-magic field. The fighter stuck in one is suddenly, in most ways, a fighter of much lower level. Likewise, so is the cleric or druid. And, I've gotta be honest here, the offensive output of a low-level fighter isn't that much better than the cleric's. I mean, it's not so much better that the fighter can ever respond to the cleric's bragging by saying "Oh yeah? Well, at least I'm better than you in an anti-magic field!" and not get laughed at by the party.
I know that anecdotal evidence isn't the end-all-be-all, so the dispel argument ain't perfect, but with all these super-clerics running around with buff spells on them, some spellcaster is bound to take notice. (And if it's a sorcerer, he can burn off all kinds of spells per day on dispels if he has to.) I just wanted to note that the outcome of lots of encounters depends on what the enemies are prepared to fight. If they're packing a lot of dispels, the casters get screwed.
The dispel magic argument isn't that good at all, actually.
Dispel Magic takes an action to cast. Every round you cast a Dispel is a round that you're not throwing an all-or-nothing; it's a round where you're spending your entire standard action on something that will guaranteed not kill the target.
Even if Dispel had a 100% success rate--that is, you cast it on an opponent, all of their buffs immediately fall away--it still wouldn't be all that outstanding, because at the end of the day, you're spending spells and combat actions to not kill the target. (It would also be annoying as heck, but that's neither here nor there)
That doesn't mean that there aren't times where Dispelling is a good idea--however, there's going to be more times where you'd rather say "make a Fort save or die," or "make a Will save or attack your friends."
I just ask you all to rest assured that there are safeguards within the game to prevent one-trick-ponies from decimating everything they come across.
I agree. There's a counter for just about everything.
Unfortunately, there's more counters for Fighters and such than divine casters...and that's not cool.
-----------------
As I've said before, my largest issue with this thread is that it's built on ignorance of the actual mechanics. philosofool basically said "well, I'm going to write a treatise on how to build a party--but I'm only going to consider a class's flavor text to determine what role that class can play, and how powerful it is."
This would be bad enough in...just about any discussion of how D&D works, actually. However, in a thread whose entire point is to discuss how classes compare to each other, it's almost criminal.
What makes warrior types is that they can wake up in the morning and fight, fight all day, then skip sleep, and still fight at full potential. The same is not true for clerics. In fact, who stays up and guards the spellcasters as they sleep in hostile environments? In a party full of clerics and mages, do you really want another character fighting for sleep-time? If a character must forgo spells, doesn't that just turn the character into a sub-optimal fighter?
The second factor missed is "unpredictability." If you don't know what you will be fighting, flexibility becomes more valuable than specialization. You can turn the cleric into a well-tuned fighting machines, but that specializes the clerics and decreases flexibility. If you have complementary abilities, this allows the cleric to choose flexibility and be better prepared for unpredictable situations.
Yet another problem with cross-specialization clerics are those high BAB creatures that can hit you like clockwork. The cleric can heal himself and stay in battle, but if he's healing himself, who's hurting the monster? In contrast, with a melee fighter, the cleric can use his spells to keep the fighter standing while the fighter damages the monster.
Since the game was designed with these synergies in mind, you'll find that these synergies work rather well.
Clawhound, what are you talking about?
First of all--and this may only be my own, limited experience playing the game--nightly attacks are not commonplace. They happen, sure, but they don't happen every night, unless you're in a cruel part of the world (or have a cruel DM). So they're not really a big deal, and they should no longer be a worry around level 8 (rope trick, caster level 8!) or maybe 9 or 10 (teleport).
Second, your logic on the cleric's party role is sort of skewed.
Try this.
Take the archetypal 4-person party (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard).
Replace the fighter with a second cleric.
Tell that cleric to just focus on being the best fighter he can--via spells, feats, or anything else he can think of. Tell him that anything he can do above and beyond that is just a bonus.
You'll find that the cleric will come either dangerously close to replacing the fighter--or, if built right, quite possibly better than the fighter in combat.
And he'll have spells and stuff left afterwards.
That's the reason a lot of us are flipping out over the portrayal of clerics and druids by the original poster. 'Oh, they're just healers that are kind of good at fighting' is an unfortunately inaccurate assessment of their power.
Giant move to paladin/cleric and attacks
Cleric casts Righteous Might/Paladin full attack.
So... the party was surprised by a Frost Giant? Emphasis on the Giant. If the party is that incompetent, then no, they won't be able to effectively use a Cleric.
You buff before engaging.
Ham Ham, I noticed in your comparison of the Cleric and Paladin you did not use any of the paladins spells or special abilities. I believe that the paladin is also capable of casting Divine Favor and has a few Smite usages as well. At 11th that +11 to damage is going to help out significantly.
A Paladin can cast Divine Favor maybe twice in a day, assuming he hasn't loaded these slots with healing spells, which unlike a Cleric he has to do because he can't cast them spontainously.
As for smite, that is useless against none evil. If you are fighting Evil, a Good Cleric will have some nasty anti-evil weaponry as well, which will put a simple Smite to shame.
In fact, who stays up and guards the spellcasters as they sleep in hostile environments?
Rope Trick.
The second factor missed is "unpredictability." If you don't know what you will be fighting, flexibility becomes more valuable than specialization. You can turn the cleric into a well-tuned fighting machines, but that specializes the clerics and decreases flexibility. If you have complementary abilities, this allows the cleric to choose flexibility and be better prepared for unpredictable situations.
A Cleric can go all out in melee and have spell slots to spare for other things. He loses minimal flexibility, which a fighter never had in the first place.
Yet another problem with cross-specialization clerics are those high BAB creatures that can hit you like clockwork. The cleric can heal himself and stay in battle, but if he's healing himself, who's hurting the monster? In contrast, with a melee fighter, the cleric can use his spells to keep the fighter standing while the fighter damages the monster.
So your argument is that 2 characters are better than 1? Well guess what, you can have two clerics in a party. Now the first cleric is hurting the monster more than the fighter would and the second is healing him less than the one that is healing the fighter because the melee-cleric has DR and temporary HP.
Clerics look great on paper, but how often, in actual play, do you get the luxury of time?
Quite a bit, actually. Perhaps we've had different game experiences.
What makes warrior types is that they can wake up in the morning and fight, fight all day, then skip sleep, and still fight at full potential. The same is not true for clerics. In fact, who stays up and guards the spellcasters as they sleep in hostile environments? In a party full of clerics and mages, do you really want another character fighting for sleep-time? If a character must forgo spells, doesn't that just turn the character into a sub-optimal fighter?
Guards? Shoot, you've got familiars, animal companions, psicrystals, and cohorts. Or maybe even the party Rogue. And don't forget the extra-dimensional space of a rope trick past level 8.
Plus, you don't always have to sleep for just 8 hours. If you need to, you can get your characters on an 10-hour rest period or even 12.
The second factor missed is "unpredictability." If you don't know what you will be fighting, flexibility becomes more valuable than specialization. You can turn the cleric into a well-tuned fighting machines, but that specializes the clerics and decreases flexibility. If you have complementary abilities, this allows the cleric to choose flexibility and be better prepared for unpredictable situations.
Ok, here's where you're really missing the point. Remember my earlier example of just subbing out the party Fighter for another Cleric?
If the cleric can do about as good a job of fighting as the fighter, PLUS cast a couple extra spells, he's a better choice to fill that slot. If he does an even better job of fighting than the fighter, that's just sad.
The point is this: If you stick a cleric in the party, and tell him to be the best fighter he can, he will more than capably fill that role. That's all you're asking him to do--and he can do it. So, as I said, it doesn't matter if he can fill the "cleric" role or not. You're not asking him to. You're just asking him to be a pretend fighter.
Yet another problem with cross-specialization clerics are those high BAB creatures that can hit you like clockwork. The cleric can heal himself and stay in battle, but if he's healing himself, who's hurting the monster? In contrast, with a melee fighter, the cleric can use his spells to keep the fighter standing while the fighter damages the monster.
You're comparing a Cleric to...a Cleric and a fighter. Yeah, that's ghetto. Compare one character to one, not two. Or, if you need to, compare two clerics to a cleric and a fighter. At any rate, here's the final point you've missed:
A well-built cleric can be a fighter-type OR a spellcaster, depending on what spells he wants to memorize for the day. A well-built fighter can JUST be a fighter-type.
You talk about flexibility? If he really needs to, the melee cleric can take off his fighter hat and put on a healing hat, or damage spell hat, or save-or-die hat. A fighter is stuck wearing his fighter hat, all day, every day. No comparison.
Our GM's often give us little or no time for prep. We don't optimize nearly as much as we could. My group tends to be much more casual and we admittedly play sub-optimal characters.
Having rethought this, much of the problem that I see is that Clerics are both primary spellcasters and secondary fighters. That is, they almost get the best of both worlds. Would a reduction to d6 HD, rogue progression BAB, and medium armor be sufficient to tame the cleric? Or does the brokenness stem from available spells? Or does the brokenness come from spells that the game designers envisioned to pump up fighters, but instead, are used to make them irrelevant?
Plus, mithral full plate should still allow a character with only medium armor proficiency to strap it on without issue. Strap a +5 mithral buckler to his arm, he's still good to go. Even if they couldn't get ahold of mithril full plate, they could still make due with medium armor.
As I was saying before, even if a cleric was almost as good a fighter as a fighter, there's still some real issues for the game. The problem really comes to the fore when you have min-maxxed clerics fighting better than fighters do.
Would a reduction to d6 HD, rogue progression BAB, and medium armor be sufficient to tame the cleric? Or does the brokenness stem from available spells? Or does the brokenness come from spells that the game designers envisioned to pump up fighters, but instead, are used to make them irrelevant?
I'm not sure that the cleric is the problem. If I were going to focus on one thing, I'd start with the fighter. I haven't had time (yet) to do the kind of thorough comparison I'd like to, but even just at first blush, it doesn't seem like the fighter's class features balance out with the features of other classes, like the cleric or the barbarian. For instance, what are a few extra feats compared to evasion, damage reduction, and the rest of the barbarian's special abilities? The fighter gets more feats, and exclusive access to the weapon focus and weapon specialization feats - and that's about it.
I'm not sure that fighters are irrelevant, though. A fighter is a better combatant than a cleric without any spells, and that holds true if the fighter and cleric both have the same spells cast on them; the disparity only arises when the cleric is subject to spells that the fighter is not. I'm not trying to argue that that makes the fighter better, just that it means they're not irrelevant. Anyone who chooses to add a second cleric instead of a fighter is making a choice, that they're willing to accept the comparatively lower combat capability in exchange for having another divine spellcaster.
- The fighter is mildly underpowered because their feat trees are too shallow. There is no "must have" drawing you deeper into fighter.
- The cleric is mildly overpowered.
It's the delta, the difference between the two, which is causing the problem.
That much said, I still believe that a fighter is still a very valuable member of a party and a good choice. They may be sub-optimal choices, on the power scale, but if they choose their magic items well, they can remain very relevant in every fight.
Having rethought this, much of the problem that I see is that Clerics are both primary spellcasters and secondary fighters. That is, they almost get the best of both worlds. Would a reduction to d6 HD, rogue progression BAB, and medium armor be sufficient to tame the cleric? Or does the brokenness stem from available spells? Or does the brokenness come from spells that the game designers envisioned to pump up fighters, but instead, are used to make them irrelevant?
It's the boost spells. WotC has already taken a couple steps towards fixing it. However, note that a cleric that focuses on bossing and healing the whole is actually a better cleric. Sure a cleric can boost himself +3, but boosting everyone +2 is better, and less selfish. In those parties (where the cleric is played primarily as a support character) the cleric isn't overpowered at all, and that seems to be what WotC intended.
They just need to do a little more along those lines.
As for the Cleric examples, being required to cast those spells isn't exactly good, and it's not like you had those options at earlier levels.
Why didn't the Wizard just Polymorph the Paladin into something like a Lional or Hound Archon? Then you have absolutely better Fighter types if the group actually works together, at which point the Cleric is free to power-up if they need to; but they aren't required to.
If the Cleric group fought another Giant (or a Giant Wizard with fly for those Druids out there), then the Cleric would have to cast those spells again, and if he ever fails then the party just lost it's healer.
The class debate: I don't know how the divine metamagics work, but normally quicken and, especially, persistent are quite large bumps to spell level, right? And if divine feats are used, fighters also have access to nice splatbooks.
Also, PHB fighters fill many niches. PHB fighters are competent in many battles: Large monsters, hordes, archery, humanoids.
The method of class evaluation isn't that bad.
It's a "feel-good" method that Philosofool uses, that ignores actual numbers in favor of flavor text. That is actually pretty bad.
Also, PHB fighters fill many niches. PHB fighters are competent in many battles: Large monsters
Many large monsters make the Fighter look lame, standing side-by-side. When a monster of a certain CR has more HP, better armor, and heavier attacks than a fighter of the same level, that looks bad for the fighter.
, hordes
I'll go out on a limb and say that people capable of throwing area damage spells can take out hordes easier, although I will say that fighters built in certain ways aren't bad at it, either.
, archery
Ok, do you mean Fighters are exemplary Archers? They are not. You either need a good PrC for that, or a...Cleric Archer.
humanoids.
Not exactly sure what you mean here. Do you mean other creatures with PHB races and classes? I would reckon that wizard, clerics, druids, and rogues would be better against humans and humanoids.
I'm not sure that fighters are irrelevant, though. A fighter is a better combatant than a cleric without any spells, and that holds true if the fighter and cleric both have the same spells cast on them; the disparity only arises when the cleric is subject to spells that the fighter is not.
Which they are, given the large number of sweet, self-only buffs. So the "when" condition you're talking about is easily met.
It's a "feel-good" method that Philosofool uses, that ignores actual numbers in favor of flavor text. That is actually pretty bad.The intention behind it isn't bad, to clarify.Many large monsters make the Fighter look lame, standing side-by-side. When a monster of a certain CR has more HP, better armor, and heavier attacks than a fighter of the same level, that looks bad for the fighter.
Yup, but fighter can survive those quite easily, compared to druid, for example. Druid isn't actually the paragon of AC.I'll go out on a limb and say that people capable of throwing area damage spells can take out hordes easier, although I will say that fighters built in certain ways aren't bad at it, either.
Fighter with 2 feats is good at it. One with 3 feats is even better.Ok, do you mean Fighters are exemplary Archers? They are not. You either need a good PrC for that, or a...Cleric Archer.
The core fighter, having the surplus of bonus feats, is quite likely to take few in archery. Standard cleric has low dexterity and no archer feats.Not exactly sure what you mean here. Do you mean other creatures with PHB races and classes? I would reckon that wizard, clerics, druids, and rogues would be better against humans and humanoids.
Trip, disarm, sunder, those I mean. Most fighter will do at least few of them. Most clerics will not.
Core (no karmic strike, or such) fighter mightn't shine greatly when compared to some other character optimized for the niche, but the fighter will be adequate at pretty much all areas of combat. This doesn't mean that fighter is completely okay currently, but it is competitive. Like bard, it is generalist, to a point.
Rope Trick: Hey great spell, why don’t we use this. ... Probably because we don’t want to leave our horses and Bag of Holding outside, unguarded.
Now let’s come to the classes:
Bard: I really think, this one is too weak. Philosofool said, that he would be a good character for a party that already has fighter/healer, but to a cleric with trickery and Illusion domains would be good, too. And even more a sorcerer or battle sorcerer would definitely be better. The best place for the bard is in low-power role-playing campaigns, where fights are easy and you do not need to optimize your character. Out of combat he is the second useful character after the wizard.
Cleric: Oberoni, your show really good the first rule of successful disgusting: If you doubt your own position, you have already lost. ;) Show me the players that played the fighter in your games. If they are worth warriors then the cleric, there is something wrong.
I actually played/mastered in games below level 14 - 15 and almost only core material. But I read/created in the higher levels, too. And if you just want a warrior, the fighter is a better choice than the cleric.
The Fighter need 2.5 high attributes (Str, Con, med. Dex). A Cleric needs at least 3.5 (Same plus Wis) and usually 4 (plus med. Cha).
The fighter is a much better unbuffed.fighter – because you can always get surprised (Incorporeals from underground, ethereal shift in and out...)
The fighter is a much better unbuffed.fighter – because every caster can run out of spells
And don’t overestimate spells like Divine Power or righteous might – they only give named bonuses. Fighters should have similar bonuses, about 2 points lower, through magic items, too.
About warriors:
- Fighters: I agree, that after about level 10, you should either multiclass, or demand some expansion book/homemade feats, if you want to play a fighter. I love the fighter/barbarian, leveled equally.
- Barbarian is all about damage. He is usually slightly worse when trying to meat-shield for the caster.
- Paladin would be superior, if he could have every single attribute at at least 14, better 16 in Str, Dex, Con and Cha. However, even with lower Dex, Int and Wis, he still makes a good social character, and a good mage slayer with that saves and ‘protection from evil’. Not to forget that detect evil, that is really great.
- Ranger (Melee) can even excel a barbarians damage potential, if you give him a high strength and elemental damage weapons. If he would get 3.0 Haste he would be ...able to kill himself in a single turn (partial charge + full attack). This is mainly, because he can’t take as much attacks as a fighter, paladin or barbarian. You can also go with low strength for some dex and finesse your weapons. Then you are probably about as good as a fighter but with the edge of stealth and senses and some nice little abilities for the woods.
Ranged warriors:
A ranged warrior is usually about: Get every single point of damage you can get. This means weapon specialization is a must have. I have build a level 9 fighter that can deal about a hundred damage with a single (good) full attack. However, for a real campaign, the arrows would probably be too expansive but 70-80 should still be possible. Of cause, the ranged ranger is also useful. I would say the best character would be a multiclassed one with about 2 fighter level per ranger level.
... So, you see, none of the warrior class is really useless.
Spellcaster:
The question here is: Is the sorcerer underpowered? I say and always said: No, he isn’t! However, he is best used as a second caster for bigger groups. You can also add him to a specialized wizard, Sorcerer + Illusionist (or whatever you like) is definitely better then two wizards (without specialization), although a wizard is better than anyone of the two.
And in this position he is the best combat-caster.
Maybe the sorcerer is not the best choice for a small party, through in the campaign I’m dming at the moment, a sorcerer is the only caster and he is doing a really good job. Not a single “Damn, if I was a wizard I could cast xyz now” – Moment in 4 sessions. But in any case the sorcerer in not simply worse than the wizard.
Bottom line:
Although I still think the bard is useless in any group, philosofool’s idea of how to judge the different classes is probably good. I would make numbers for it like that:
Do the following steps for parties of 4, 5 and 6:
1. Concept the best parties you can think of. About 10 to 15 and rate them on a 10 point scale with 1 point for the worst and 10 for the best.
2. Give all classes points equal to the highest rated party they are in.
3. For each class look take each other class, that is not in the best party and add that classes points*the parties points they are both in / 10.
The result should be a classes total usefulness.
The strength of the caster classes is that the they are very versatile and can fit into most DM styles, hack and slash to heavy role play spells can fix them all, the only weakness of the casters is that they really really standout. Look on the "What's a DM to Do?" thread and you'll see regular (daily) advice threads on how to make a caster's life miserable, and after having nightmare cast on your cleric on a nightly basis and your spellbook nuked a few times is enough to make the fighter start to look good. While I will agree with the Op-board guys that the fighter is a little underpowered and a poor choice for most DM styles, and the DMs that allow their campaigns to turn into Scry and Fry fests make this discrepancy far worse by making allowing the clerics/druids to unload there entire spell inventory on a few encounters, but sometimes for some DMs you should consider taking a fighter along, even if its just to keep the Golem attacks and MDJ/AMZ frequency down.
Bard: I really think, this one is too weak. ... The best place for the bard is in low-power role-playing campaigns, where fights are easy and you do not need to optimize your character. Out of combat he is the second useful character after the wizard.
I am going to disagree with this. Particularly the part about the wizard being more useful out of combat. The out of combat utility contest is between the Rouge and the Bard, the wizards lack of skill points just eats them in that case. Not just lack of class skill points (high int makes up for that) but the lack of class skills to spend those Int points on. Bards speak the language you need, make you money (legally), and they have enough class skill points to bulk up on whatever skill faults the party as a whole has. A rouge, IMO, is second best out of combat because of the skill points.
Now, when I say out of combat I'm not talking about opening lock, or getting through doors. A rouge or a wizard are about as equally capable at doing that. The rouge edges out the wizard because they can open fifty locks in one day at fifth level while the wizard has to blow spells to open ten. Then he has to go and sit in the corner for 8 hours. The worst a rouge can do is break his tools. Out of combat means to me, talking. Social interaction. Something that no one, not even a cleric can do as well as the bard.
Fascinate and suggestion, that's all I need to say. Inspire competence, is pretty good to, but the right spells with a bard's abilities and social skills make them more effective in social situations then any other class. But you're right about the lack of combat prowess. Then there is this question: what are you fighting for? A bard makes a great odd-man out of a combat situation. All they have to do is stay in hearing range of the party for their primary combat function to be accomplished. That leaves the wily bard free to all sorts of little things like search, and spot, or slight of hand a few things.
philosofool, I like the direction of the article, but I never really try to calculate what "every/any party" needs. I think that the best way to look at a party is by looking at it's quest. What is the party trying to accomplish? Say you have two fighters and a barbarian, what's the best new character? Well what do you want to do? A bard or cleric would serve near equal utility, both have healing, spells, and the bard will be better at protecting the weak willed fighters from annoying magic (countersong). A wizard could be the best choice if something arcane needs doing, but, as always with wizards, their combat utility depends on the spells in the book, and craft magic arms and armor. Druid Ranger sure sure, either one, combat and magic, but are they headed for the woods? Might as well go with the Paladin if not. I personally think that no one should ever bother with paladin except to get into Ur-Priest, but eh, anyway! The question of which class serves the party best can be very simple. Sometime you can play games where every one in the party is the same class: Gladiator game? All fighters. Arcane school? All wizards. On a mission from god? Well all bards of course, brothers, in black outfits, singin' da blues.
O.Y. how about a bardic feat?
Throw Voice
Prerequisites: Bardic Music Ability, Perform (Oratory) 5 Ranks.
Benefit: A bard with the throw voice feat can attempt to Hide and Move Silently while using their bardic music ability, when they are using Perform (Oratory). Throw Voice does not apply when using other Perform skills.
Normal: Using the bardic music ability prevents you from Hiding or Moving Silently.
Special: Other Perform skills such as singing, comedy, or any Performance that uses only your voice is also affected by the throw voice feat.
Hrmph, I could word that better. But y'all see.
)In negating the "the cleric owns all" argument, I would levy this one. My cleric and I had a mock duel, since the majority of the party split to go get munchies. He did manage to kill me, but he knew where I was for a grand total of 1 round. The only means he was able to use to kill me was area affecting randomly. Now, if I had been a smart rogue (and/or not blind and deaf from getting caught in a lucky holy word) I could have just left and let him blow out his spells all day trying to find me. Now, place that ability at night. The party's asleep, and the rogue has decided that she wants them dead. Taking a -10 to listen for being asleep, how many beat the +25-ish move silent modifier? Answer, the dragon with blind sense. The Only person (overpowered cleric included) that couldn't be dead at my hands if I so desired tends to fly a few miles off and find a cave to sleep in. (whoops, guess I got into the cleric-overpowered argument after all)
The bottom line is this. Every class has weaknesses that can be easily exploited by the other classes. The cleric doesn't handle being snuck up on well. The fighter can't cast spells and is far from immune from charm. The barbarian, well, I've never played one to judge, so I'm not sure; probably similar to the fighter. Mages, one word--fragile. The rogue has all the resiliency of a wet paper bag. And the bard wants so desperately to be as good as the mage and the rogue and fails at both. Ultimately, the classes are fairly well balanced, and any judgments about them need to be made in context.
I see a lot of mentioning about the 'combat power' of the cleric, but D&D isn't played in a vacuum or a series of arenas.
1. That combat power suddenly goes right out the window when in a AMS for example,
2. Or that combat power is pretty damn useless if the cleric comes across a MDJ wielding wizard,
3. Or that combat power is useless if the cleric eventually runs out of spells,
4. Or that combat power is useless if the party has to TALK their way out of something,
5. Or that combat power is useless if the party is having mounted combat and the cleric's ride skill is very low,
6. Or.......
See the point of the original poster now?
Many people when making the statement xyz try to narrow down all possible situations to make the statement easier to dissect, but the simple fact is that D&D is never usually played in a vacuum with strict loyalty to RAW.
However I do think the Cleric is overpowered by looking at it's class features and comparing it to other classes, rather than it's combat power.
My point - D&D isn't all about combat power. It is a factor yes, but not the be all and end all of a classes power.
Unless you can actually calculate the infinite number of combinations and possibilities of each class and it's concurrent advantages and disadvantages.
Multiply that by the infinite number of unique scenario's each character might be involved in and divide their prior advantages and disadvantages between those categories.
Then multiply it by the factor of the infinite number of potential classes you match the original class with and divide their relative advantages and disadvantages between those groups.
Then factor the infinite number of potential combinations of classes that could replace the class you're comparing with.
Then compare it to the infinite combinations of classes that class could be combined with to form a party.
Then realise that everyone's going to make only one of those combinations and calculate for that random factor thrown in.
Then calculate the potential of every single DM who will show any number of behavior patterns and ideals and throw that in as a random factor of application of prior situations.
Then multiply it all by the random misreading of rules, enforced rules, houserules and inconsistencies enforced by random intervention of all possible DM's.
Then you haven't done the maths, and it might be a bit more complex then that, but I've think I've got everything you need to calculate.
If you can't do all that, then your maths are a very poor comparison, because they don't actually show anything than a meaningless comparison of numbers which you haven't properly considered.
1d12+60 doesn't mean much if you actually needed to use a bow.
In reality, it is better to assume everything is in a state of flux with undeclared variables (which it is), then when it comes to it, use undeclared variables in a state of flux and apply them to your own undeclared variables in flux and see what best fits the flux variables in a complementary form by seeing what there basics are (I'm going to make a Cleric of Kord, he's got a Fire Sorc and she's a halfling Ranger), and taking into account your knowledge of the variables and applying something that fits (I might try a Bard then).
11th lvl cleric (16wis) does the following:
Divine metamagic (empower, quicken)
rnd 1:Empowered Divine power, Quickened Sanctuary
rnd 2: Spiritual weapon, order it to attack
rnd 3: Spiritual weapon, order it to attack
rnd 4 until victory: spiritual weapon, order it to attack
So by rnd 3 we have:
Combatants:
Cleric BAB +15/+10/+5 and cannot be attacked unless the enemy succeeds a will save.
Spiritual weapons (2) +18/+13/+8 (BAB + WIS) every round after the first for 1d8+3 points of damage a hit.
And if the combat somehow ends up in round 8 we now have 8 of these things beating the living crap out of well everything. And just for the hell of it the cleric decides to fight as well.
Spiritual weapon has the lovely bonus of getting to full attack the target so long as it's in range after using it's initial move action, ignores DR, and is a force effect.
That Frost Giant from the earlier example has an AC of 21 so the spiritual weapons consistently hit it 2/3 or the time. so we're looking at 2d8+6 damage in rnd 2, 4d8+12 in rnd 3, 6d8+18 in rnd 4, with the cleric not even being attacked and only burning his crummy little second and third level spell slots(used some for more spiritual weapons) + divine power. Add a minor rod of quickening and this damage doubles to a total of 24d8+72 damage by round 4. And that's without crits. Frost Giant has 133 hp, average damage done by rnd 4 by cleric alone? 132. The giant needs to beat a DC 14 will save for the Sanctuary (cleric has 16 WIS, but should honestly have it around 22-24 by now) not hard with its +6 will save, but if take the actual wis cleric's DC of 17 on Sanc (+6 WIS +1 spell level) and giant boy's screwed 50% of the time and is annihilated by our cleric single handedly with cleric not even getting hit.
So I COULD take a fighter or I could get a cleric that fights better than the fighter, and brings invincible fighters along for the ride. Oh, and he can heal too, and slaughters undead like no tomorrow. Let's see the fighter match that.
Fighter match the cleric? Why have a fighter when you can have 7 of them with a single cleric?
11th lvl cleric (16wis) does the following:
You'd need 4 feats, so you'd have to be human, and you'd be crippled until then.
Divine metamagic (empower, quicken)
rnd 1:Empowered Divine power, Quickened Sanctuary
rnd 2: Spiritual weapon, order it to attack
rnd 3: Spiritual weapon, order it to attack
rnd 4 until victory: spiritual weapon, order it to attack
Empower does nothing to Divine Power,
rnd 1: 8 turning attempts gone to little effect (3 empower, 5 quick)
Try doing that more than once in a day.
So by rnd 3 we have:
Combatants:
Cleric BAB +15/+10/+5 and cannot be attacked unless the enemy succeeds a will save.
Spiritual weapons (2) +18/+13/+8 (BAB + WIS) every round after the first for 1d8+3 points of damage a hit.
And if the combat somehow ends up in round 8 we now have 8 of these things beating the living crap out of well everything. And just for the hell of it the cleric decides to fight as well.
Spiritual weapon has the lovely bonus of getting to full attack the target so long as it's in range after using it's initial move action, ignores DR, and is a force effect.
The Clerics BAB is 11, the will save isn't that high for a 1st level spell, so he's toast, especially if they use indirect attacks, if he attacks he's dead anyway. The 1d8 damage doesn't get any bonus to damage aside from the basic +2 it's got from being 2nd level. Worse still, try attacking something at range with this spell.
That Frost Giant from the earlier example has an AC of 21 so the spiritual weapons consistently hit it 2/3 or the time. so we're looking at 2d8+6 damage in rnd 2, 4d8+12 in rnd 3, 6d8+18 in rnd 4, with the cleric not even being attacked and only burning his crummy little second and third level spell slots(used some for more spiritual weapons) + divine power. Add a minor rod of quickening and this damage doubles to a total of 24d8+72 damage by round 4. And that's without crits. Frost Giant has 133 hp, average damage done by rnd 4 by cleric alone? 132. The giant needs to beat a DC 14 will save for the Sanctuary (cleric has 16 WIS, but should honestly have it around 22-24 by now) not hard with its +6 will save, but if take the actual wis cleric's DC of 17 on Sanc (+6 WIS +1 spell level) and giant boy's screwed 50% of the time and is annihilated by our cleric single handedly with cleric not even getting hit.
So I COULD take a fighter or I could get a cleric that fights better than the fighter, and brings invincible fighters along for the ride. Oh, and he can heal too, and slaughters undead like no tomorrow. Let's see the fighter match that.
Ignoring the Giant example (as one out of an infinite array of monsters) and you're stuffed completely. Even worse, how on earth are you actually getting to 11th level with all your feats tied up in non-core feats?
If I really wanted to kill that Ice giant with a Fighter, I could monkey grip an oversized spiked chain and drink a potion or enlarge self to match the Reach and whip it from a distance, failing that I could just pick up a bow and get on a mount. You've trounced one Giant once per day using most of your resources and you think you match to a Fighter?
Add yourself at lower levels to a party and you've got no chance, add yourself to a high level party and your tactics fall over. Your worth to a party might be significant, but your effectiveness throughout a campaign is low.
The Clerics BAB is 11, the will save isn't that high for a 1st level spell, so he's toast, especially if they use indirect attacks, if he attacks he's dead anyway. The 1d8 damage doesn't get any bonus to damage aside from the basic +2 it's got from being 2nd level. Worse still, try attacking something at range with this spell.
From the SRD:
"Spiritual Weapon
Evocation [Force]
Level: Clr 2, War 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Magic weapon of force
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
A weapon made of pure force springs into existence and attacks opponents at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 force damage per hit, +1 point per three caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level)."
This looks pretty good at range. A tenth level cleric can use this at a range of 200 ft. In practice it is really tough to attack at a longer range except under exceptional circumstances. It's a 2nd level spell and it really hurts whatever it is unleashed on (albeit slowly). No save and only a single SR check.
It's not an extreme option but for a second level spell it and do some pretty amazing things in a lot of encounters. Few things are immune to it and, in large numbers, they can really begin to hurt an opponent.
With divine power the 11th level cleric has a BAB of +11 plus his wisdom modifier to hit (could easily be around +6-8 at this point). A +18/+13/+8 attack for 1d8+3 damage every round isn't too shabby for a low level spell.
For an L11 cleric with 24 wisdom and divine power running, that's +18/13/8 1d8+2, or 15.5 damage a round per spiritual weapon.
An archer of level 11 is firing his bow 4 times a round, and he's doing about 15-20 points a hit, depending on how much he spent on his bow and whether he's built with weapon spec, smiting or vs favored enemy etc. He can full attack from the first round if bow is in hand or if he has quickdraw.
e.g., my arcane archer at that level, assuming only +1d6 adder on his bow will be doing 1d8 (arrow) +1d6 (adder) +4 (strength mod) +2 (weapon spec) +2 (arcane archer enhancement bonus, or GMW from a caster for the same level) for 16 average damage a shot. Ie as much as the SW does if all 3 of its attacks hit.
and with his boots of haste his volley looks more like this
+17/+17/+17/+12 d8d6+8 or about 60 a round, with higher attack mods for the most part. His feats and wiz spells also give him some other options that cleric can't do, since all his feats are tied up in divine metamagic to get a few quickened SW's. My archer can also do this at much longer ranges and can keep it up until he runs out of arrows. He also crits on 19-20 for 3x damage, a SW is going to have slightly worse crit mod if a martial god, or much worse if the god favors simple weapons.
Heck with a nonmagic bow all he loses is the d6 (14 points of damage a round). Flame arrow, bardsong, etc all help push it the other way.
And it just gets better if any other buffs are available.
(At L12 he gets an additional attack at L12, and +1 to hit and damage, the cleric gets...+1 damage)
... For that to happen, we need a diverse adventure, one in which we see diplomacy, espionage, battle and magic. My standard of measuring character strength is one that leads to such gaming experiences. And that is what speaks most on behalf of it.
I agree completely. It is worth mentioning that possibly the most important sentence in your whole article is the one above - that is, that for every class to show their worth the game must contain a balanced mixture of events. With an adventure where you are presented with only combat situations and no opportunity for a bard will be almost useless. However, if the bard is able to impress a local lord enough that he offers to send several Men at Arms with the party ... suddenly said Bard is much more valuable.
The barbarian stands behind cover and shoots him down. The fighter has to run up to engage his uber weapon, but can't take any AoO due to the cover.
Barbarian retreats with superior movement and shoots him again.
Then, if we melee, we give the human barbarian Power Attack, Cleave and Improved Sunder.
With one blow, he sunders the Fighter's chain. Now fighter-boy has no uber tripping weapon, and the barbarian proceeds to tear him a new one.
At level 3.
Troll the optimization boards. Cleric Archers. Cleric meleers. The straight fighter really doesn't have anything they can't do if they wish to. And a fighter does not have the DMG output of a barbarian, and anyone who thinks swinging that big chain around doesn't make him a target of every ranged attack in the area is dreaming.
==
Barbarian: Reading the debate so far, a general line of thought seems to be that this class overshadows the fighter, especially in raw damage output. To be perfectly honest, this ability to overshadow other classes in raw damage seems to be by design. This class lacks the flexibility and options of most other classes in exchange for that narrow focus. It fills a niche, and a specific demand. However, unlike the fighter, and other warrior classes, it cannot escape that pigeonhole.
Bard: This class was, in second edition, the most underpowered class in the game. A response, apparently, to its late and wildly overpowered introduction to an earlier edition. In third edition it is perhaps the benchmark of what a well-balanced class should be. It has a variety of abilities, yet excels at nothing to the point of overshadowing other class’s pre-eminence. It is, at it’s core, a rogue class, yet it has fewer skills, it has spellcasting yet does not come close to comparing to any primary caster in ability, and its other abilities are mostly unique to the class.
Cleric: One of the more hotly debated classes in the game, the cleric is, in my opinion, the least balanced and most powerful class in the game. This class possesses hit points equal to a ranger, base attack bonus and weapon proficiency better than a rogue, and armor ability equal to a fighter (and better than barbarians, rangers, or any other core class except fighter). In addition they are better spellcasters than wizards, who are theoretically the best casters in the game. Ignoring for the moment spell selection, which is every bit as good as a wizard’s and unencumbered by spells known or spellbooks, this last assertion derives from the fact they have the same number of base spells, an additional bonus domain (which provides two demi-magical abilities), and the ability to spontaneously drop spells for cure or inflict. Setting aside any other consideration, this makes the cleric the most able to fill any other class’s roll and have resources to spare for its own. A quality healing class which does not overshadow other casters or fighters can be found in the Miniatures handbook.
Druid: I have few problems with this class. They are primary spellcasters with spontaneous spell replacement and D8 hit points. They are limited in armor compared to a cleric, and have a variety of special abilities. This class might be unbalanced but if so it is overshadowed by the cleric.
Fighter: The vast majority of complaint against the fighter seem to stem from the lack of ‘depth of power,’ feat trees which at best have 4 levels. Instead of rejecting the class fundamentally for this lack there are a list of feats from a variety of sources which can be adjusted to accommodate for it. When referencing epic-level play, the class is lackluster- however I attribute this to shoddy epic rules which only poorly mesh with the lower level advancement. The advantage of a fighter is not that he can out-damage a barbarian (which would make the barbarian class redundant) but that he can choose what to excel at, or choose to be a good combat generalist- defining his own niche, or set of niches, within the party.
Monk: I do not feel this is a balanced class. Too many abilities which are too powerful. Too many penalties which are inherently cancelled by the abilities of the class (armor restrictions, but bonus AC, for example). I don’t feel that this needs belabored as it seems to be fairly well understood. Their ability to use stealth, speed, and combat flair overwhelms the rogue, and their wide array of skills can make other class’s particular specialty seem redundant.
Paladin: A fighter which has yielded some flexibility and taken alignment restrictions for special abilities. While the 3.0 paladin was vastly underpowered it seems a strong fighter-type now without automatically overshadowing the other warriors.
Ranger: Similar to the paladin, this is a fighter which has yielded some flexibility and possible hit points for special abilities. This class is a strong balance between stealth and combat without automatically overshadowing either the rogue or other warrior types.
Rogue: Again, this class seems balanced. Mastery of skills and dexterity based abilities makes this class a strong class with it’s own, wide, niche.
Sorcerer: I have no particular bias for or against the sorcerer, however see below under the discussion of wizards, and especially specialists.
Wizard: I have made my case about the wizard elsewhere on these boards, so I will endeavor not to occupy too much space with it here. Wizards cast less per day than any other primary caster, partially because they are the only primary caster without some level of spontaneous casting. While, in theory, they have the broadest spell list their usable list is as sharply curtailed as a sorcerer’s by their dependence on a spellbook (and thus the GM’s kindness to expand beyond automatic spells for level), and even the spell list advantage is eroded as supplement after supplement improves other classes spell lists at least as fast as the wizard’s. The familiar ability is often seen as a potentially role-play, but not worth the liability. Finally, the wizard’s ability to create magic items is overshadowed by every other spellcasting class having the same ability, only with access to more spells. They also have the worst armor, hit points, and base skill selection in the game. Finally, because they are the only class without even a nod towards spell flexibility, their utility is *entirely* dependant on how well they can predict what the DM has planned, a trait with no in-game basis. Finally, even if a wizard discovers a powerful attack, useful utility, or other niche, that position will only be available until his spells run out, or the balance of SR to other magical effects shifts.
Specialists: While only a variant of the wizard, being listed in the PH makes them a core class. As a wizard “subclass” the specialists suffer all the same penalties as the wizard, plus a sharp restriction on what magic they can use. In short, most specialists would be better off playing sorcerers, bards, or generalists because the benefits are far short of the penalties.
Bard: This class was, in second edition, the most underpowered class in the game. A response, apparently, to its late and wildly overpowered introduction to an earlier edition. In third edition it is perhaps the benchmark of what a well-balanced class should be. It has a variety of abilities, yet excels at nothing to the point of overshadowing other class’s pre-eminence. It is, at it’s core, a rogue class, yet it has fewer skills, it has spellcasting yet does not come close to comparing to any primary caster in ability, and its other abilities are mostly unique to the class.
I wouldn't say this is true. Bards rocked the lower levels in 2nd ed. because they went up levels as a rogue they were after a few thousand experience better spellcasters than wizards while having more hp and better fighting abilities. I liked them a lot better in 2nd edition.