[D&D] Clerics, secretly balanced?

[Xaden]

Okay, I know that there are several of you out there who feel clerics are one of (if not the most) powerful class out there, and there are going to be many of you who will fight the ideas I present here with tooth and claw, but I hope to bring up some interesting points none-the-less.

Okay, the cleric gets a decent BAB, good HP, and access to a large array of decent weapons and any armor by virtue of the class itself, not to mention spells. Maybe the devistational capacity of those spells are slightly under that of wizards and sorcerers, but they are still very good spells. But I'm going to try and (maybe weakly) argue that the class is still fairly balanced, not through their abilities, maybe not through game mechanics, but through the role they are supposed to play.

Now I have played many D&D games in the past, partook of many campaigns, played with different people and with different DMs, but if I've noticed a lack of anything in all these games, it's clerics. Sure, every now and then someone will play one, but I have found that by-and-large it's hard to find someone willing to play the "healer". Now, if you've been playing for any length of time I'm sure each of you have run into munchkins, and in fact, all of us are guilty of it to some degree or another (let's face it, I doubt that there are many of us who would like to play an asthmatic, kobold, level 1 commoner NPC class. We want our character's to be able to help out and do something at least somewhat noteworthy within the campaign or game at large). So if there are "power gamers" out there, why is it that clerics are so hard to come by? Why do they seem to be a rare breed? (At least, rare in the games I've played; if you've had clerics fairly often in your games (without having to ask or beg someone to play one), please let me know, I'd love to play with that person since I've always found a shortage of clerics in the games I've played).

It seems likte to me the balancing factor of clerics, the reason that I've found them to be uncommon (if even seen at all) is because they're expected to be the "healer". Their job is to run around the battle-field casting cure spells and remove poison and disease spells. And without something like quicken spell (which comes with it's own significant drawback (specifically Cure Light Wounds becomming a 5th level spell! Yikes!), you can generally only cast one spell a round, and that's pretty much it for your character for the round. So if every round just about every group member is getting hit by attacks, flaming breath and chain lightning spells and the like, the cleric is reduced to "I'm comming! I have your healing right here! Just wait a moment!", well, maybe that's all the balancing they need. If they can only rarely bring their combat prowess to bear, is it really that great an advantage? If they can't often cast their more devistational and damaging spells as often (cause they're casting healing spells and the like), do they really make him significantly more powerful? And since many of their healing spells are touch range spells, they just about have to get into the front lines to heal the fighters and barbarians hacking their ways through the throngs of enemies (getting hit along the way) and therefore need a certain amount of protection and HP just to survive to heal others. The decent HP and excellent armor capacities mearly make it possible for them to play their role.

Okay, maybe the argument I'm making here is a little weak, but I still think I made some decent points here and the discussions this will hopefully provoke will also hopefully be a lot of fun (especially since I plan on playing devil's advocate in this thread, if anyone even decides that this thread is worth commenting upon).:D

[LynMars]

I love playing clerics. The classes I tend to gravitate towards are Bards and Clerics in any setting; if it's healing ability, and/or a perfomance class, I tend to take it. I haven't played one for awhile; last one I played was a Bard/Cleric of Eilistraee in a FR campaign. Wore Bracers of Armor, and Amulet of Natural Armor, and lotsa Dex/Dodge stuff, to get the AC bonuses, as she didn't wear full plate.

I wouldn't say Clerics are restricted to heal-only spells, though. I quite often get damaging spells out. In fact, that Cleric/Bard I mentioned above was the character we accidentally broke. Buffs from myself and the Mystic Theurge in the party, and the right spell compliment, and I ended up with 12 melee attacks a round, at stupidly high bonuses to hit--and it was all legal. It wasn't every single time (just when we had even half a minute to prep), but even then I was still getting in like 6-9 a round. The damage I was doing was obscene. We seriously didn't mean to do it like that; I can't twink on purpose for the life of me.

Healing in a lot of the groups I run in is saved til the end of the combat, or when someone is in dire need of it. We also tend to go with more than 1 person of healing capability; whether through wands, potions, or someone else with spells/class ability to keep folks at least stable if not up til the cleric can get to 'em.

Cleric is a second line fighter and spellcaster; part of their job is to help end the fight sooner so they can keep folks from needing too much healing in the first place. Also, the ability to spontaneously cast healing spells as a good or neutral cleric is incredibly handy for making sure you have a good repetoire of buffs and damage spells otherwise, with a few you don't mind losing for said healing when needed. And keep a wand/potions handy anyway for when you do run out of slots.

[Xaden]

Well I'm glad to see you enjoy playing clerics (that's just so uncommon with the people I've played with) and it sounds like you have a lot of fun with them. I'm also glad to see you don't seem to think they're to uber (even though you managed to make the uber-cleric of DOOM!:fun: (even if it did take a couple of moments to do such)), and while I'm not fond of clerics I have played a couple of druids (I love those guys!) and have often done the healing at the end of combat as you have done (except in those cases when someone needed healing and Right Now!), and those druids were also capable of getting off some decent spells or a healthy attack or two as well. I've just heard on a couple of thread people complaining of the power of clerics and whatnot and thought it might be phun to get off a thread about them (and I'm sure it still will be phun once a couple more people notice it!:D ).

[LynMars]

Oh, they can be quite uber if built right, as my character, who we didn't even try to break, could so easily get that big. Wasn't exactly straight Cleric, though, to be fair; a couple levels of Bard, a few more of Cleric, 2 levels of Contemplative, then Sword Dancer the rest of the way up, taking the divine spells option, as it's one of those "progress with your caster level, either divine or arcane" types.

[Mercutio]

Here's the issue Xaden - people have the mistaken opinion that clerics are like they are in MMO's or from the 2nd edition. Clerics as presented now truly are the most powerful base class. You can literally do anything with the properly gamed cleric. If you don't believe that clerics are the most powerful, then you obviously don't read what the game designers themselves have said. They purposefully made the cleric the most powerful so that people would want to play them.

That said, I never played a cleric before because I resented the idea of being the band-aid. Well, I decided to try one out, and fell in love with the character. I refused to be the band-aid and gamed the character to do what I want - which is a chain-wielding trip master who can tank alone. He buffs and attacks and defends. If he still has spells at the end, he might heal someone, but he might not. He is more powerful than the fighter who was built to be a tank, has healing abilities, has diplomacy to be the talking head of the party, and has offensive and defensive magic. I could solo with this character, which means he isn't totally optimized, but he can do everything except disarm the traps and sneak around.

EDIT: I see the point you're making. I think it's a fallacy that all groups will cover all the bases. I know groups I play in don't. We play what we want, and think only peripherally about covering the traditional roles.

[nightinverse]

They're balanced by roleplaying responsibility and the place in society, and not by system mechanics. As has been said before, in the numbers they are very powerful indeed to encourage players to consider them, which, to be honest, doesn't seem to have worked very well. However, any GM worth hers or his salt will rein in the cleric through religion, society and the divine - if said cleric becomes an issue.

[Chris Chandler]

The cleric is plenty heavy, and can quickly be made into a juggernaut, and the main impetus for balance with this class is through responsible roleplaying. This brings up two issues:

1. What is responsible roleplaying?
2. How can objective mechanics be adjudicated by subjective esoterics?

The answer to one can be pretty simple - Play so that those around you enjoy the game. The issue here is, that is going to be different in every single gaming group, and will be different even within gaming groups between campaigns. I agree, in theory, that a player shouldn't aim for abuse, but, then again, a player shouldn't have to voluntarily hamstring himself to be "viable". Responsible roleplaying isn't something that can just be codified.

The second issue is much more frustrating, and is a more serious issue. I argue that, under no circumstances, should esoterics be required to balance mechanics. it just isn't something that can be objective. Using RP as a balance for the cleric is the same slippery slope which says that RP balances Vow of Poverty. Mechanical limits balance mechanical strengths. RP cannot do that.

All that to say, yes the cleric is powerful, but I don't think it's overpowered, nor do I think druids and wizards are overpowered, either. Rather, I think fighters and rogues are underpowered.

[BigRedRod]

3rdedition was built on a number of central ideas. One of these was not balancing game mechanics against roleplaying. Therefore it shouldn't be a valid argument to say that Clerics may be the strongest class but they also have more limitations due to roleplaying.

[LeadPal]

And that is why I am so staunchly opposed to the BoED.

The problem with the cleric, simplified as far as possible, is that it can eclipse almost any other class, and fill a few secondary roles while it does it. Merc's example cleric is far better than a fighter at fighting, which is the only thing a fighter can do. And I've seen even more powerful clerics, too. Even in the rare instances when the cleric can't surpass another class at their specialty (such as very high level wizards), they still have far more options available to them.

Even outside of such extremes (in a core-only game, for instance), a cleric is still a match or nearly a match for any other class role, and almost always with more versatility on top of that. This is still far from an ideal state, and though I can't speak for anyone else, I'd be loathe to play such a severely limited game anyways.

The only clerics that I've seen that weren't at all unbalanced were created by total newbie players with no idea how to powergame in the slightest. The rarity of clerics, I likewise attribute to many people not paying attention to the potential abuse available. Before I started going online, for instance, I didn't even think about clerics, mostly for Xaden's reasons; but now, the only reason I don't make all my characters clerics is because I don't believe in such cheapassery.

While I agree in general that nonspellcasters should be better, rather than making spellcasters weaker, I just don't see any merit in the cleric's existance. Every type of cleric conceivable can be created using classes other than cleric, in a more balanced fashion. The favoured soul, shugenja, spirit shaman, ardent, divine mind, healer, and archivist (and likely more that escape me at this moment) all fit the cleric's role perfectly. I'm strongly considering doing away with the cleric class altogether, and not bothering to replace it.

[LynMars]

Clerics aren't the only ones to benefit from the things in BoED. They can get a lot out of it, but it is made for more than Clerics and Paladins.

I do tend to play with groups a bit more focused on the RP side than rules-ness. But still, like I said; I had a primarily-Divine classed character, that we didn't even try to break, with a 2 ECL even, knocking down her casting ability, and it ended up still being rather powerful.

[LeadPal]

Clerics aren't the only ones to benefit from the things in BoED. They can get a lot out of it, but it is made for more than Clerics and Paladins.Not quite my point, actually.3rdedition was built on a number of central ideas. One of these was not balancing game mechanics against roleplaying. And that is why I am so staunchly opposed to the BoED.

[nightinverse]

I've always loved the concept of the cleric, and quite frankly, I assume that roleplaying v system is always a balancing factor because humans are fallible. I do agree, however, that it is far too capable in a standard game - it takes effort to restrict it. I'm just up for that effort.

BoED isn't interesting. For that matter, BoVD is more a coffee-table book than a serious supplement for me.

I personally dumped Complete Divine and Complete Arcane while taking Complete Warrior and looking into Complete Adventurer. If there is a power gap, I can close it by including other material that improves said non-spellcaster classes.

I was working on a variant of Cleric that suffered from tithing, spell fatigue and some other logical control elements, but I can't find the text.

As to... the favoured soul, shugenja, spirit shaman, ardent, divine mind, healer, and archivist, some of those feel like Clerics with more stuff. Others are uninteresting to play. I'd rather have the Cleric concept than pretty much any of those.

[LynMars]

I actually really dislike the proliferation of new "Base Classes" cuz a lot of them don't feel like basic classes to me.

And I see what folks mean about disliking the rules additions in BoED and BoVD. Some of that stuff is obscene, yes. S'why I tend to focus on what little actual content is put in those books in terms of roleplaying discussion. That's what I've always found interesting and valuable in a game book. Rules can be added, modded, or dropped as needed for each individual game. I've even found tiny useful bits in the Book of Erotic Fantasy, and some half-decent and logical magic spells and items (majority of that book really is trash, though).

The RP factor can help balance, but that's so reliant on players and GMs that it doesn't really help such an argument, or detract from the rules imbalance. Which is why I tend to see rules as guidelines for creating characters and fairly arbitrating combat, and then tell stories how I want to. Rules Lawyers don't do so well in my games unless they can adapt.

[BigRedRod]

I actually really dislike the proliferation of new "Base Classes" cuz a lot of them don't feel like basic classes to me.
Especially given one of the other central beliefs of designing 3rd edition was avoiding making a class for every concept.

[nightinverse]

Especially given one of the other central beliefs of designing 3rd edition was avoiding making a class for every concept.

I simply restrict them as best I can, as I do with Prestige Classes. I mean, honestly, the only non-PHB classes I've ever used are Hexblade and Samurai. The former was interesting, different, but would have made a better prestige class. The latter was... well, if I wanted to take a Fighter/Monk/Paladin I would have.

Anyway, back to Clerics!

[LeadPal]

I don't agree with wasting effort on new base classes either, myself, but I'm not going to throw out good balanced rules when they're readily available. If I want an archivist-type character, and the archivist class is right in front of me, I might as well use it.

What I've found is that every new divine base class I've seen and pondered has paled in comparison to the cleric, in a good way. Even the questionable ones like Favoured Soul just aren't as powerful overall (although that particular one deserves a little re-tooling nevertheless). Hence, since the breadth of material keeps all the flavour intact, I see no reason not to drop the cleric entirely. Though, I'm starting to consider altering the favoured soul to take up a more cleric-y role.


I've even found tiny useful bits in the Book of Erotic Fantasy, and some half-decent and logical magic spells and items (majority of that book really is trash, though).You bought the Book of Erotic Fantasy for the rules? ;)

[Xaden]

Uuuhhhh... yea... yes I got the Book of Erotic Fantacy for the... uhhh... the articles, yeah that's it! :nervous: The articles! All joking aside, I thought that book was a good one, it's a bit more fun and light-hearted than the other books, it's just got a great feel to it a much more fun read than the other books, which are just so cold and full of weird esoteric rules (though rules I often use none-the-less).

[Xaden]

I also feel, though, that the other "core" classes do have thier uses. Every now and then one will fit a character concept a bit nicer than the traditional core classes (true enough, you can often wiggle-fit the original core classes into pretty much any concept, but every now and then it's nice to have an alternate). They just keep thing a little more lively now and then.

[Linklegacy77]

(even though you managed to make the uber-cleric of DOOM!http://www.online-roleplaying.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley%20-%20silly.gif

Somebody call me?

[LeadPal]

No, we called Biff. Go away. :)

[LynMars]

You bought the Book of Erotic Fantasy for the rules? ;)

Who said anything about buying? I've looked at it. I wouldn't spend money on that tripe (but I know some weirdos who actually did).

[Linklegacy77]

No, we called Biff. Go away. http://www.online-roleplaying.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley%20-%20happy.gif

That was rude. I am the high lord vicar of the earthly church of Doom, which means I'm the most powerful cleric of Doom ^^.

Moving on, clerics have some in game restrictions, it's true. The problem is, it is so very easy to find your way around any of them if you are clever enough.

[LynMars]

You and your cleverness.

If a GM is letting someone get around Diety-imposed restrictions by being "clever" and not yoinking one's abilities for it when you violate your alignment/tenants, then the GM is doing his part to encourage not-so-good RP and is likely, in my mind, running a hack-n-slash game where it's more important that the PCs find new ways to "win" the game than RP a story and accept consequences to actions--even if they're the "right" ones.

"Being clever" when killing a ridiculously uber monster the GM is likely throwing at the party cuz he's either bored, trying to kill everyone off, and/or is tired of the twink-whoring is one thing. Trying to get around what should be basic precepts of a character concept (cuz why else would they choose this particular diety to worship, out of allll the ones available, especially if playing somewhere like FR, if not because the Church's message resounds with them), isn't Roleplaying anymore; THAT is twinking, and breaking the Cleric class and concept. Doing whatever you want, when you want, with the powerful class, cuz you're being "clever" enough to get around things that should be stripping you of your diety's favor. And the GM is a schmuck for letting it happen. I dun care if they're normally the bestest GM evar and I love their games. I'd call them and the player on that sort of thing.

[Xaden]

“Originally Posted by LeadPal You bought the Book of Erotic Fantasy for the rules? http://www.online-roleplaying.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley%20-%20wink.gif ”Who said anything about buying? I've looked at it. I wouldn't spend money on that tripe (but I know some weirdos who actually did).


And what's wrong with some of those weirdos?! :fun: I resemble that remark! grumble grumble... Book of Erotic Fantasy... TRIPE... don't know what you're talking about... grumble grumble :fun: *ptptptptptptptpt!*

(Just playing)

[LynMars]

Sorry, but I'm an actual girl in a college/military town. I don't gotta worry about gamer-porn. :roll:

[Xaden]

Sorry, but I'm an actual girl in a college/military town. I don't gotta worry about gamer-porn. http://www.online-roleplaying.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley%20-%20cheeky.gif

But don't you see!? That's just it! If you don't worry about it, who will? You gotta' represent. :fun:

[Linklegacy77]

If a GM is letting someone get around Diety-imposed restrictions by being "clever" and not yoinking one's abilities for it when you violate your alignment/tenants, then the GM is doing his part to encourage not-so-good RP and is likely, in my mind, running a hack-n-slash game where it's more important that the PCs find new ways to "win" the game than RP a story and accept consequences to actions--even if they're the "right" ones.


I didn't meant bypass any restrictions they have, I meant bypass getting restricted in the first place, for example, by worshiping a cause. Play a neutral cleric in the cause of defeating evil. There, anything you do that furthers this goal in any way at all is legitimate. You aren't even worshiping a deity.

[Doomsmile]

I had a politically incendiary thought after reading that, but I'd rather not share it to avoid being banned...

Anyway, the neutral cause or defeating evil would probably stop you from doing evil yourself- you'd have to find a way to defeat yourself!
Even so, there's easier ways to find an easily abused cause- why not a cleric of clerical abuse? Your charge in the world would be to abuse your powers!
This is why the cleric of a cause concept should be brought out back and shot.

[LynMars]

I'ma stand by my "if the GM allows such wishy-washy BS, then it's a twinky hack-n-slash fest anyway" comment. But then, I'm a silly person who skims the rules to get the basic understanding I need for play, and then reads through any descriptions of setting and all that flavorful stuff that you oftentimes have to search high and low for in a D&D book.

[Mercutio]

DS and LynMars - the PHB clearly and without any qualification or reservation makes reference to clerics who worship an ideal vice a god. Since gods exist in D&D, as do planes and alignments, it is not a far cry to worship an intangible like War, which would be most likely chaotic and neutral, and would not hinge on a god unless you create one yourself.

This isn't the real world where the question of gods is whether they really exist. This is a fantasy world where gods literally walk the earth, power spells, commune directly to their followers, etc. Since that's the case, why is it hard to conceive of worshipping a blank ideal like "I worship the balance of nature - True Neutral" without having to worship Nature itself?

[LynMars]

the PHB clearly and without any qualification or reservation makes reference to clerics who worship an ideal vice a god. Since gods exist in D&D, as do planes and alignments, it is not a far cry to worship an intangible like War, which would be most likely chaotic and neutral, and would not hinge on a god unless you create one yourself.

This isn't the real world where the question of gods is whether they really exist. This is a fantasy world where gods literally walk the earth, power spells, commune directly to their followers, etc. Since that's the case, why is it hard to conceive of worshipping a blank ideal like "I worship the balance of nature - True Neutral" without having to worship Nature itself?
Because in a world with literal, tangible gods one can actually talk to, walk with, and otherwise directly know exist, that sort of thing seems to me even wonkier in such a setting. "Fantasy" and "Magic" do not always excuse "lack of logic"--if anything, in many cases you almost have to have better reasoning for it to work in order to continue suspension of disbelief--but let's not even start down that road here.

Now, there are cases where someone could reject the gods for whatever good, character reasons they had decided on in the character's backstory. But then...Why be a Cleric? A fighter saying "Screw the pantheon, I'll just devote myself to war" is one thing. Someone getting divine powers from a random concept because their "belief" or "dedication" is so strong? They would have to be that much more devoted, I'd think, to make that work and gain power from it, otherwise, what makes them any different than any other (for lack of a better term here) agnostic, who chooses not to follow a particular god and isn't granted divine powers for it?

In your nature example, a Druid I can see using that, and if set up right, getting away with it. But Druids aren't what we're debating here. For a Cleric to use a concept instead of a diety, I'd want to see specific reasons why they choose to eschew the existing pantheon(s), and then likely a listing of self-designed-and-adhered to behaviors in order to be able to gather enough divine power not backed by any god in order to do the same things other clerics who are can do. Adhering to a philosophy is really much the same as dedication to a religion, just handled differently.

Knowing me, if I were GMing, if a player could pull that off without making the character "I worship a concept so don't have restrictions, so can do almost anything I want, see!" (which would get handled quite early), then I'd probably do something really spiffy with their character in the end. The hard part would be convincing me to allow it in the first place; my initial response would be "Then why not be a (insert appropriate class here), or worship the diety that already covers that aspect in their portfolio?" That last question could lead to a storyline about breaking from some of the dogma of the church and going back to the base roots of the ideal, which could be great storyline, so...maybe. Otherwise, I'm going to assume they want to play what's arguably the most powerful base class in the game without having to worry about attached strings. And using "cuz the party needs a healer" would not be an acceptable answer, no.

Also, I don't really think that idea should work in some settings, like Forgotten Realms, where there's a penalty of sorts set up for the afterlife
if you decided to not follow a particular diety. With the vast number available in that particular setting, plus it uses all the base ones...there's almost no way to not find a god that "fits". In Eberron, however, it might work better than worshipping a particular faith, since that setting takes the normal clerical conventions and turns them inside out anyway.

[LeadPal]

In Eberron, however, it might work better than worshipping a particular faith, since that setting takes the normal clerical conventions and turns them inside out anyway.Yeah, Eberron is really where the theory of inherent clerical balance (that's what I'm calling it now) completely fails. You can literally be a chaotic evil worshipper of the god of law and good, and still get divine power. That's a pretty important rule of the setting.


Also, I don't really think that idea should work in some settings, like Forgotten Realms, where there's a penalty of sorts set up for the afterlife
if you decided to not follow a particular diety. It doesn't work in Forgotten Realms. To my knowledge, if you don't worship a diety, you don't get any divine power. Of course, I believe even then there are intentional, legitimate loopholes in the rules that you can find in Faiths and Pantheons--although I don't have that book, and thus can't confirm it. At any rate clerics in FR are even more powerful than normal, so things are worse there to begin with.


I'd think, to make that work and gain power from it, otherwise, what makes them any different than any other (for lack of a better term here) agnostic, who chooses not to follow a particular god and isn't granted divine powers for it?Because they're actually devoted to the power of their domains themselves. A cleric of Goodness and Healing isn't an agnostic, he's a worshipper of the infinite holy goodness of the multiverse, drawing his power from the energies of Elysium, or something.

Or, at least, that's the official stance on it. Fact of the matter is, barring houserules, it is possible in most settings to devote yourself to a non-entity like "Goodness," with no restrictions. Now, I'm all for houserules, myself, and I think your idea is a good start; however, I'm in favour of more extensive, mechanical changes.

One of the biggest problems I see with the idea of limiting clerics by roleplay restrictions, is that from an in-game standpoint, it rarely makes sense. Why would any church not want their clerics to be unstoppable badasses that crush all opposition to the faith? Or, at least, that are exceeding powerful and thus can complete any and all goals of their faith with ease? Why would they want to hold back? There are explanations, but compared to just scaling clerics back to a fair extent, I can't help but think them arbitrary.

[Mercutio]

I think the thread topic is being lost here. The point is that the roleplaying factor being use to "balance" clerics is ridiculous, considering that even the game creators say they made the clerics mechanically superior to every other class. They (and I'm referencing a Sean K. Reynolds interview, as well as some things I've seen written from Skip Williams and Monte Cook) fully admit that they made the clerics more powerful than the other base classes, and none of them mention any kind of balancing from the roleplay aspect of things. I think setting an intangible as a factor to reign in a tangible ruleset is preposterous.

Simply put, even if you made the roleplay restrictions even crazier than a paladin's, you wouldn't balance the cleric because it's still innately more powerful.

My problem with making you worship a deity is that they don't all have combinations of Domains that I want. I wanted travel and law for my dwarven cleric. Is there a deity in FR that grants those two domains? No. So I had to settle for travel and dwarf, which is a wasted domain. I think the mistake is in tying specific domains to specific deities. I think they should have gone the other way and given restricted domains, and left it open beyond that.

Anyway, clerics are inherently more powerful and should be mechanically toned down, not heaped with more roleplay restrictions that even the paladin.

[nightinverse]

But here we hit a stumbling block. The cleric fills a crucial role as support spellcaster and support combatant. What are you going to do?

Leech an order of hit die? That's just foolish. The gap is so wide, and yet... it can have no real effect when played right.
Skills? You can't pull skill points, they don't have any.
Weaken turning? Yeah, maybe just take away all the "turning sucks, let us use a turn attempt for something else" feats. Wait, we are back where we started!
Weaken the spell list? Take away the indirects and it loses all diversity. Take away the directs and it becomes harder to solo or small-team.Take away the personals and it loses a lot of playability.
Spell Mechanics? Prayer book - no. Exhaustion from repeated casting might make a difference, but that will reduce the interest in the class and complicate the system.
Class Restrictions? A multiclassing restriction only encourages leveling in Cleric. Lowering the armour changes the flavour a lot, but I can see it without Heavy armour access. The weapon list is small as it is.Honestly now.

[Doomsmile]

Well, I'm cobbling together a highly modified D&D setting currently. One big change is that I'm using a modified version of Unearthed Arcana's Generic Class system, which essentially ammounts to a limited "Build your own class." For the most part, it looks like it'll work great.
Anyway, the way I've dealt with the extreme power of divine spellcasters (clerics) is by making them more like arcane spellcasters (mages).
Mages and Clerics (the two caster classes) get the same spells per day, same spells known, same number of class skills, same hit dice, etc. Clerics even suffer spell failure from armor. The only real diferances is that the cleric has to deal with being associated with his/her god/goddess (which can cause problems in the wrong town), casts prepared spells, and get a "cleric power" based on their diety.

I'm not sure if this idea would be qualified as "radical," and it's exact workings are limited to people using generic class systems, but I just thought I'd share.

[LeadPal]

But here we hit a stumbling block. The cleric fills a crucial role as support spellcaster and support combatant. What are you going to do?Bologna. I've played many games without clerics, or with gimped semi-clerics. They are not crucial, unless you consider having a character who can do a better job at everything than everyone crucial.

[nightinverse]

Healing and indirect magic that doesn't fit with any other class as well as the turning ability. Yeah, they aren't necessary if a game is tailored to accommodate the lack or the players happen to have say... numerous other people covering the role.

[Mercutio]

Want the easiest fix to clerics? Nerf their combat abilities. No more heavy armor, rogue BAB, take away the direct damage spells or heavily restrict their use, make the buff spells require a target other than self.

[nightinverse]

That's not a fix, it nerfs them too far for most new players to entertain use.

That said, I was running some tests, with most of the aforementioned changes - except for the buff changes. Might be balanced enough.

[LeadPal]

Healing and indirect magic that doesn't fit with any other class as well as the turning ability. Yeah, they aren't necessary if a game is tailored to accommodate the lack or the players happen to have say... numerous other people covering the role.Not so. There are plenty of ways to heal without a cleric (heck, there's even a class devoted to it!), turning is highly overrated (only affects a single monster type, if it even works, which isn't always common at high levels, and you can still kill undead the old fashioned way), and their non-healing spells are hardly unique in all the game.

Seriously, clerics are not necessary, by any stretch of the imagination... unless, of course, the party in question is so dysfunctional as to rely on their gross overabundance of power.

[Doomsmile]

My World's Largest Dungeon game went for well over a month without a cleric and without loosing a character (though death). We had a wand of cure light wounds wielded by a warlock. That was it. It really made things interesting. We had a huge incentive to avoid fights, for example.
Now, though, we have a "binder," whatever the deuce that is. All I know is that it looks broken, seems like a silly concept, and has cure minor wounds at will.

I have to say, though, that the game was, well, a lot more fun without a dedicated healer.

[Xaden]

I see what you people mean by this thread eating posts. I had some nice physics-y stuph and now it's gone, along with at least one post by the good LeadPal. I'm guessing conspiracy. The D&D folks don't want physics being applied to their games so they devour any such information to protect the (sometimes) insanity of thier games. Though actually the physics I used ended up for-the-most-part agreeing with reality, not quite, but close enough cosidering that it's all supposed to be a bit abstract (so things don't get too confusing in the game). But if you people cared for the information again I could always re-post it, I'm just not sure anyone really cared (I just sometimes get a kick out of finding out these things, such as a 20th level Human Monk can run at about 41 mph without the run feat, and at about 51 mph with the run feat, phun, don't you think).

[nightinverse]

There are plenty of ways because they've been added in an increasing plethora of crappy supplements that only serve to further imbalance the game. Don't take an extended stance on a point that is valid for the basic game. Not everybody can afford superfluous books that require extensive editting pre-play.

Clerics are a necessary role in Core D&D which remains the most stable incarnation of the system aside from Iron Heroes.

[Mercutio]

NI, by your own admission, the top-of-my-head fix to the clerics seems to bring them down in power to be more balanced with the other classes. Nerfing is a term we use to describe fixes we don't like because they drop the power level down. Well, we're discussing how clerics are too powerful. There are only two ways to fix that. Up every other class' power (a task that would take eons and still wouldn't fix the imbalance between casting and non-casting classes), or lessen the cleric's power. And since we were all saying the cleric is too powerful, we obviously are using the other classes as measuring sticks, so it only makes sense to strip the cleric some.

[Doomsmile]

I've always thought "nerf" meant to take something that was over-powered, then over-ballancing it to make it weaker than everything else and/or unplayable/unusable. For example, in 3.5, the nerfed Boots of Striding and Springing, which currently suck with a vengence.

In other words, I think what NI meant is that it would relegate clerics to the "sucks with a vengance" box, right next to bards.

[Mercutio]

That's what I took nerf to mean too, but NI also said that after a little bit of playtesting, the cleric fixes probably balanced the cleric. Keep in mind that those were all off-the-cuff. I haven't playtested them or really even looked at what is involved, but the things I mentioned are some of the major points of clerics that make them so powerful. I think simply taking away their ability to use heavy armor and shields will go a long way to balancing them. Wizards and Clerics have about the same power in terms of magical abilities, but wizards spells are interrupted by any armor. Wizards also get crappy attack bonuses. Simply doing those two things doesn't "nerf" the cleric. Neither does taking away offensive magic.

Keep in mind - the armor, the offensive magic, the decent attack abilities - were all added specifically because they wanted people to play the class. It's not that it would be too weak without those things, but that it was purposely made too strong so that people who had reservations after 2e clerics would not fear the cleric in 3e. Honestly, I was one of those players until two things happened. 1. The Clerics vs Druids competition I DMed. 2. I am playing a dwarven cleric in a FR campaign who outdamages the tank, outheals everyone, is better at attack spells than the mage, and can find traps (via the Find Traps spell) better than the rogue. I've had to tone down how I play the cleric simply because the other players were starting to feel unnecessary.

[nightinverse]

That's not a fix, it nerfs them too far for most new players to entertain use.

That said, I was running some tests, with most of the aforementioned changes - except for the buff changes. Might be balanced enough.
Restricting the buff spells took it down too far but if you just have everything else you suggested, the cleric seems balanced. That said, I haven't run it solo or in a party against everything in the books, so there could be unforseen issues.

Even without the buff spells it was better than the lamentable bard.

[AbusePuppy]

Nerf their combat abilities. No more heavy armor, rogue BAB, take away the direct damage spells or heavily restrict their use

I do like the idea of stripping the cleric's armor down, either to medium or to light, depending on how much you hate them. They can still buy it back up with feats but that eats into their power base for abusing turning/etc and thus still keeps them weaker.

Clerical DD spells are crap compared to everyone else. I've never had any problem with them in my games, though we've also never had anyone try and go to town with a cleric, either.

I'm pretty sure the cleric already uses the same BAB progression as the rogue. Unless my eyes and 3.5 PHB are decieving me.
__________________
Your horoscope for today
Cancer (June 22—July 22): You lack initiative, which means that you usually wait until someone yells "Get funky!" before you get funky.

[akiko]

No, they're not. I am confused as well. I would think Medium is almost necessary for the cleric. I can't see them in light only.

[LeadPal]

There are plenty of ways because they've been added in an increasing plethora of crappy supplements that only serve to further imbalance the game. Don't take an extended stance on a point that is valid for the basic game. Not everybody can afford superfluous books that require extensive editting pre-play.Oh, come now, can't you see what a silly argument that is? I mean, you can't really argue that they're crappy supplements and that not everyone can afford them, because you couldn't honestly say that they're crappy without buying them, thus showing that you're able to afford them. I won't dwell on that, though, since both things could be true, for the right people.

More notable is that they can't possibly be that crappy, because my argument is that using them in the absence of the cleric actually rebalances the system by itself. (Okay, maybe not with the favoured soul, and I still think that the druid is also broken, but there's not a thing in the world that's utterly perfect.)

Looking at what else is being offered, it almost feels as if I should suggest a "core" fix that just-so-happens to look exactly like the supplemental material that I'm suggesting now, so as to get a better reception. All I'm suggesting now, after all, is the simplest and most effective fix that I can think of, using the best methods available to me. You were expecting me to suggest a simple and effective fix using the best methods available to someone else? :S

And you still haven't shown anything to suggest why the cleric is really so necessary. Paladins, bards, druids and monks (a third of the core classes) all have healing available to them, and you can't really say that it's insignificant, either, because good clerics rarely if ever heal, pressing the attack so that it's not necessary. Furthermore, potions, scrolls, and wands with healing spells are so inexpensive that there's no reason anybody should lack for hp or anything else at any time. Hardly a specialized fix there. As for other magic... well, there's little else special to clerics that others don't have anyways. Same with secondary combat capability. And, again, turning is overrated; most challenging undead ignore it anyways.

So, remembering that the loss of a cleric in the party lets you get another character with his own capabilities... you're losing a bit of healing, while the rest of the game gets a whole lot more balanced. Easily compensated for, just by increasing the availablity of healing items. Problem solved, and swiftly, too.

And that's only if you staunchly oppose the buying of new books. Of course, that's your decision, but not everyone would agree with that. Personally I think the archivist makes a fantastic replacement for the cleric, and think that buying the purchase of a single book (Heroes of Horror) does the trick of balancing things fine. I mostly just listed the others for the sake of completeness, in case you absolutely cannot justify creating an archivist.

[nightinverse]

A cleric is a cleric is a cleric. A priest. A character archtype that fills a very different base role than any other class and offers one different easy roleplaying opportunities. Healing and support comprise the core role of the cleric, and I would take the general concept over all the derivatives. Yes, my support of the cleric is first and foremost from a roleplaying position, and not that of mechanics. Which, really, is why I would rebalance it at the moment.

Yes, there are other healing abilities. Yes, healing objects are dirt cheap, if I recall in order to further encourage the use of Clerics and offer a few alternatives if the incentives failed to work. Does anybody else get to spontaneously cast cure spells? No. Domains? No. Turning? No.

We're here to rebalance it, not replace it. If I could afford another book, I would investigate the options more thoroughly, but as it is, I'm working with what I have read - Heroes of Horror (With the most hilarious tag line on the back) didn't seem very good, so it's not even on my list. Same with the Complete Divine - those classes which looked and played like Clerics with more and/or broader abilities.

So, thus far we had...
Decreased Base Attack Bonus
Decreased Armour
Some Spell Work

I'm not sure where the Rogue thing came in, but general reduction is what I meant.

The rebalance maintains...
d8 Hit Die
2 Good Saves
Domains
Spontaneous Casting
Spell Independence
Simple Weapons
Shields
2+ Skill Points
Turning

Is there anything there that looks like it might finish the restructuring, or is everything solid?

[Linklegacy77]

Yes, there are other healing abilities. Yes, healing objects are dirt cheap, if I recall in order to further encourage the use of Clerics and offer a few alternatives if the incentives failed to work. Does anybody else get to spontaneously cast cure spells? No. Domains? No. Turning? No.


Don't forget that paladins do get turning, albeit a much worse version. Just thought I'd mention it.

And the archivist really would make a great version for it, but it's much much weaker.

And your rebalance sounds almost like the cloistered cleric except it has a worse hit die and more skill points.

[akiko]

I'm with Link, I was starting to think the same thing. This is part of why I never really attempt to rebalance it, because no one is abusing it anyway (in games). And if you have a player that is you should hope he is mature enough to tone it down (like Merc) because its no fun for anyone. All said I still think its fine the way it is, but then again I guess this conversation really isn't for me then.

[Linklegacy77]

I mean, nobody would invite Biff to games if he wasn't willing to not play uber characters. Even if it is the most powerful, it is easy to tone it down if you don't want to upset other players.

Oh, and Akiko and I are going to be participating in an experiment at 3ebb: An all Clerics game.

[LeadPal]

Peace, nightinverse, peace. What my last statement implied did not reflect what I had actually intended; I'm sorry for having offended you with it.

What I had meant was that I feel the archivist is in fact quite an excellent substitute for the cleric, in spite its mechanical differences, and far more than simply a derivative of the class. The fact that it is different in some ways does not invalidate it in all but a very few roles that the current cleric serves. For instance, although the archivist receives neither turning nor domains, it does retain all of the fine anti-undead spells available to the cleric, as well as many other spells that can be seen in domains. The mechanical difference doesn't matter, because it can be roleplayed in a fashion nearly identical. And, making up for the occasional lack, in some ways it allows superiour roleplaying, since the archivist does receive some additional abilities in line with a priestly concept, such as free scribing and dark knowledge (which is not necessarily dark, depending on roleplaying and feat choices). Holding on to class abilities for their own sake, without considering other ways of achieving the same effect, in itself feels like putting mechanics before roleplaying to me.

While there are ideas that simply don't work with the archivist, there are ideas that don't work with the cleric, either (I want my prayerbook, damnit!), and for those, I did suggest alternate measures amongst a half dozen classes to the same effect. I appreciate that these measures might not work for you or others depending on which books you own and want to own, but as I said, I can't really anticipate the needs of anyone but myself, and so my idea fulfills my own needs first and foremost.

As well, do notice that some ideas won't work as well with your own rebalanced (not replaced) cleric. A fighting cleric would be harder to conceive, and any idea hinging on a spell retooled would be ruined. Considering that either way, you'll gain and lose some options, is there really any difference between a rebalanced and replaced cleric, except for possibly the difficulty of the two tasks?

[nightinverse]

Just the flavour.

And why would you want prayer books? It took us so many editions to escape them...

[Darken]

Looks like I joined the discussion a bit late. There had been some good points so I don't need to copy & paste my 6 page essay on why Clerics are overpowered. The best way to "balance" the Cleric would be mechanical adjustments that preserve them in the same role as intended by the designers, but reduce their options in excelling in other roles, which is the primary problem with Clerics today. I'll cover this at the end.

First I feel the need to address some points here that had been brought up. Many people are saying "Well, in my game the Clerics are fair and not overpowered." or "I had a Rogue in my game and he is very valuable and not weak at all." Good, that means the DMs for these games did a great job in balancing the campaign, given the party composition, and provided everyone with moments to shine by integrating everyone's abilities. That's great, kudos to them.

However, in a mechanics discussion, there's no room for roleplaying restraints, DM regulations, player compromising, and so on. These things are all subjective, and thus have no place in a mechanics discussion. This does not imply they are not important - in fact, they are very important, this is a roleplaying game with a DM after all, how can they not be important? But the fact is, if you require DM regulation and/or roleplaying constraints, that would already mean, mechanically, the classes are not balanced. Even the designers, as stated, publically mentioned they purposely made Clerics the most powerful class so people will play them (since the designer think Cleric is an essential role in a successful party). Why is this not a valid arguement in a mechanics discussion? Because with them, anything to anything can be made fair. With proper DM planning and roleplaying, everyone can have fun, even if you are playing a Kobold Commoner or a Black Pudding Paladin or Demogorgon - does that say anything about balance? No, inherent imbalance is still there, just the artifical apparant balance is achieved due to the outside factors which should not have been a requirement to a proper game system.

This does not mean in powergaming only. Look at the Cleric vs Druid game on 3ebb - that's obviously powergaming to near max there. Biff's character have +21 to Init and my character have +39 to Init, ensuring we go first, and execute plans such that the other side would have 0% of success. Does that mean Cleric only excel in powergaming? Not at all, because their inherent structure in the class system already made them powerful, and powergaming expands that magnitude. With the same level of powergaming (which can, in fact, be 0 powergaming, i.e. a simple normal character), Cleric simply outmatches other classes mechanically.



On to topic then. As mentioned, the best way is to adjust their mechanics so that they still fill the intended role (healing and support, be it buff or de-buff) the best, but reduce their capabilities in extending their abilities to other roles (physical fighting, large skill usage, offensive magic, or self-buffs that enable them to do these things on a significant basis). Similiar to a Fighter who does nothing but fight, Wizard does nothing but spellcasting with offensive and utility spells, Clerics can undergo the samething with healing and support.

I would propose the following:

- 1/2 BAB
- d6 HD
- Armor proficiency to light only with small shield
- Removal of spells (in domain or not) that duplicate other classes' abilities. Examples include Divine Power (physical fighting), Find Trap (skill usage), Horrid Wilting (offensive magic, in, for example, Water domain).

But implement the following:

- Deity-specific domain powers that grant some partial insight into some roles. For example, a War deity may grant the Cleric a better BAB, a metalsmithing deity may grant better weapon proficiency and perhaps more skill points into Craft(X) skills, a magic deity may grant additional spells, and so on.
- Slightly more skill points, say 4+Int, to cover their essensial needs in skills normally ignored in min/maxed Clerics, such as Diplomacy, Heal, Sense Motive, etc.

[Xaden]

You know, I've seen in a couple of threads now the argument about certain classes being more or less powerful based on how the DM runs things, such as eliminating a rogue's sneak attack with monsters with concealment, or without living anatamy and the like, but the fact of the matter is such things can be done to any class. If I want many of the wizard's powers to be undermined I put in monsters with SR, or golems or just a beholder to stare at the wizard, if I want to reduce the effectiveness of the fighter I put in monsters with concealment or damage reduction and if I'm afraid of them getting in a little damage with the flaming quality of their longsword I put in a creature with some energy resistance as well. The fact of the matter is any DM can render any class, or even several classes fairly non-functional if they want to, so I don't believe that should be a criterion for strength of a character class or not. I just mention it because I think it's a strange and funny argument for at least these sorts of discussions.

[Mercutio]

I think darken has hit just about all the same things I suggested off the cuff, but his suggestions are more detailed. I think following those balancing elements will fix the cleric class without a problem.

[Linklegacy77]

Darken is correct, for the most part. I'm not going to modify clerics in my games, because if my players are going to abuse anything like that, they aren't going to be playing for long if they don't shape up. While it has no place in a mechanical discussion, I feel like sharing this:

I am playing an illumian support cleric in a game. I am only support. I do not fight, and I do not do much other than heal and buff. That aside, I am incredibly good at it. At level 10, I give every member of the party a +5 to hit, a bonus attack each round on a full attack, many temp hp, +6 to AC, and many other bonuses and buffs each day. My cleric is the essential character of the team. I alone increase the power of each party member by quite a bit. Such is my role.

Then again, I did choose to be a cloistered cleric.

Clerics are balanced to all the other base classes only if the game is fairly low powered, and if everybody agrees not to powergame. The fact that this has to be done proves that the cleric is inherently powerful, but I don't think the cleric breaks the game, and thus doesn't fit under my definition of broken. Overpowered? Maybe. Broken? I don't think so, at least if you don't powergame.

[Darken]

The problem is not how much (if at all) one powergames though. As I pointed out, Clerics are mechanically superior regardless of how much you powergame - which can be no powergaming at all. In a regular game it might be fine if the players do not know how to fully utilize the power or choose not to for the sake of enjoyment for everyone, but that, again, is contingent on the player's attitude, which is not a valid factor to consider for balance.

[Linklegacy77]

I agree, it's just that it shouldn't matter if one player is slightly better than anybody else, as long as he doesn't flaunt it.

[Doomsmile]

I like the idea of the BAB strip down, not only from a mechanical stand-point, but also due to a question that's been raised several times by people I've talked to: why does a holy man know how to fight so well? In other words: if Billy-bob gets drunk at a church barbecue (don't ask) and gets in a fist-fight with Father Thomas (again, don't ask), why the deuce is Father Thomas such a better fighter than Billy-bob? (now you may ask)

As for the armor, why not just make clerics vulnerable to spell failure like a wizard or sorcerer? If that's too harsh, why not give them bard-style spell-failure, where light armor doesn't count? In other words, is there really a good reason why the somatic components of divine spells are so much harder to screw up than their arcane equivalents? Other than to let clerics out-tank fighters, I mean.

[Doomsmile]

Divine casters suffering from spell failure was the thrust of that post.
... and the mental image of a catholic priest kicking some guy's butt in a fist-fight, which I found kinda' entertaining...

[LynMars]

*Patpats DS* It's okay, we still love you.

Well, maybe.

Anyway, I think removing the ability to wear heavy and medium is a step in the right direction...but in D&D there are many alternatives. The Bard/Cleric/Contemplative/SwordDancer I played that we accidentally broke by 10th lvl and didn't realize it (granted, any character built half-right is fairly mean by 10th lvl if the player knows what they're doing and has access to certain material)? Didn't wear armor at all, ever. She was a cleric of Eilistraee, so tended to wear as little as possible ("Silly Humans and their modesty issues; great for distraction, though..."). She made up for it with a good Dex mod, and whenever the party found magic items that gave Nat Armor bonuses, they gave them to her first, if it was better than what she was wearing already.

[Doomsmile]

There's been discussion in the bard thread about clerics, so I'm going to continue it here:

The cleric get full spellcasting. That pwns skills no matter how you look at it.
Appart from the diplomacy think that I mentioned in the bard thread (for those of you who don't feel like reading the whole thing, a decent 11th level bard can automatically pass her diplomacy check to make a hostile creature apathetic if she's built to do so.), there's several things skills can do that spells can't.

First on our tour is Spot and Listen. These two friendly skills will give you the heads up if you're going to be ambushed, stabbed in the back, or if that guy's packing a hidden sword. Yes, if the sword is magical, detect magic will (eventually) find it, but you have to be tipped off to use it- spot is automatic.

Next up is Bluff (or Lie, as my brother insists I call it). Sure, suggestion may be able to get more extreme results, but everyone has a will save to some degree. Not many people (in fact, surprisingly few PCs) take Sence Motive. And it doesn't provoke an attack of opp.

Last on our little tour is Search. Search a room to find hidden compartments! Find secret doors in antimagic or made with a bit of lead (people who build dungeons occasionally take precautions against mages)! Find coins and more! Pitty so few classes get it as a class skill.

Another often overlooked strength of skills over spells is that they work in antimagic. That's right, you can dissapear from right under an enemy's nose without even using a spell slot.

[Xaden]

I also don't think spells can truly overwhelm say, a rogue with lots of skills (or even someone with a fair number of ranks in a couple of skills) and that's for this reason: If I got a rogue who can find traps, stealth around, bluff people into doing things, climb walls, open locks and all that other good jazz, okay, maybe you have your wizard with invisilibility, and that's better than Hide, but it's limited in duration, and maybe he's got Spider Climb which is better than climb, but again, just once, and maybe he casts Detect Traps (which is extremely limited without ranks in Search anyways, but whatever) and again that's a one time thing. Now maybe this wizard has only spells like this memorized so that all the time he can "Out-skill" the rogue, but is he still better than the rogue? He doesn't have the HP, backstab (and I don't care what you say, that ability rocks!), as high a BAB etc. etc. etc. Now was it really worth it to "out-skill" the rogue using all his spells like that? I don't really think so.

And let's just say that there's three different traps within one dungeon (a likely possibility) and that they're not right next to each other, for a cleric, wizard, or whatever to consistantly "out-skill" the rogue he'd have to memorize the spell 3 times! Is this really worth it? He's giving up almost all his spells of one level just to try and match up to the rogue, or whoever. This isn't just true for finding traps either, there's a pit in the floor, how many times is the spellcaster going to memorize Jump, or Fly just for those pits, and how many times are they going to memeorize invisibility to try and out-sneak whoever, and how many times are they going to memeorize Find Traps to try and out-search that guy? And what do they have left after all that? Nothing.

One spell for each skill does not make any skill not useful due to the limitations I just presented: limited durations, limited spell slots. Heck! Just knowing what to memorize! Jump and Find Traps are the same level of spell, do you memorize 3 Jumps and 2 Find Traps or 3 Find Traps and 2 Jumps just to try and "out-skill" whoever? Let's get real here, you're gonna' take a Healing spell or a Shield spell or an Attack spell 'cause you got the rogue and there's no way you could memorize or prepare enough spells to do better than that, and if you did somehow manage to memorize enough of these little spells, then you've just totally gimped your own spellcasting ability. How has this paid off? How does this show up whoever with whatever skill? "Look, I can out-jump you... three times... and now I'm a magic gimp. Oh why did I even bother?"

Spells don't really make up for having ranks in a skill, they're just too limited. (Especially Find Traps, 'cause even if you knew there were 3 traps in a dungeon and you took the spell 3 times, how would you even know when to cast them? Do you cast one right at the beginning? What if there's no trap in the front hall? You just wasted the spell, now you're definetly going to run into at least one of the traps). Spells do not make up for having any number of ranks in a skill (and this is true for Clerics, wizards, sorcerers or whoever, a skill is infinite, a spell is limited and you only have so many, is it really worth wasting them on these little things? I just don't think so).

[Mercutio]

You cannot compare a rogue maxed out for being roguish with a wizard or cleric maxed out to be a wizard or cleric and expect them to win. However, if you build a cleric to max out rogue traits, he can outrogue a rogue any day of the week and twice on Sunday. With kobold domain, cloistered cleric (6 skill points!), and the right selection of spells and feats, any cleric that is built to do the rogue duties can outrogue any rogue. Never forget that clerics get Diplomacy as a skill too, which many people seem to leave off.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. You need to compare apples (rogues) to apples (clerics specifically built to be rogues). If you do that, you'll see that a cleric can beat a rogue at his own game in an instant.

First on our tour is Spot and Listen. These two friendly skills will give you the heads up if you're going to be ambushed, stabbed in the back, or if that guy's packing a hidden sword. Yes, if the sword is magical, detect magic will (eventually) find it, but you have to be tipped off to use it- spot is automatic.
These spells are called divinations. They'll beat a spot or listen all the time.


Next up is Bluff (or Lie, as my brother insists I call it). Sure, suggestion may be able to get more extreme results, but everyone has a will save to some degree. Not many people (in fact, surprisingly few PCs) take Sence Motive. And it doesn't provoke an attack of opp.
Clerics get diplomacy. And spells. And spells that are cast defensively or outside of combat don't provoke attacks of opportunity.

Skills are nice, no doubt about it, but rogues do not have a monopoly on skills.

[Linklegacy77]

Appart from the diplomacy think that I mentioned in the bard thread (for those of you who don't feel like reading the whole thing, a decent 11th level bard can automatically pass her diplomacy check to make a hostile creature apathetic if she's built to do so.), there's several things skills can do that spells can't.


So can the cleric. Next point:

First on our tour is Spot and Listen. These two friendly skills will give you the heads up if you're going to be ambushed, stabbed in the back, or if that guy's packing a hidden sword. Yes, if the sword is magical, detect magic will (eventually) find it, but you have to be tipped off to use it- spot is automatic.

How many spells can do this better? I can't even keep track of them all. Besides, with night sticks and divine metamagic: persistent spell, a cleric can make every buff he casts on himself last all day with ease.

Next up is Bluff (or Lie, as my brother insists I call it). Sure, suggestion may be able to get more extreme results, but everyone has a will save to some degree. Not many people (in fact, surprisingly few PCs) take Sence Motive. And it doesn't provoke an attack of opp.

Many better spells, and spells can aid in bluff checks. Spells outside of combat don't provoke attacks of oppotunities, and if the spell doesn't have verbal components or somatic components (silent and still spell), the enemy won't even be aware that you are casting.

Last on our little tour is Search. Search a room to find hidden compartments! Find secret doors in antimagic or made with a bit of lead (people who build dungeons occasionally take precautions against mages)! Find coins and more! Pitty so few classes get it as a class skill.

Again, divination magic. Won't work in antimagic I guess, but it isn't as if every time there's a secret door, the room is going to be in an antimagic field.

also don't think spells can truly overwhelm say, a rogue with lots of skills (or even someone with a fair number of ranks in a couple of skills) and that's for this reason: If I got a rogue who can find traps, stealth around, bluff people into doing things, climb walls, open locks and all that other good jazz, okay, maybe you have your wizard with invisilibility, and that's better than Hide, but it's limited in duration, and maybe he's got Spider Climb which is better than climb, but again, just once, and maybe he casts Detect Traps (which is extremely limited without ranks in Search anyways, but whatever) and again that's a one time thing. Now maybe this wizard has only spells like this memorized so that all the time he can "Out-skill" the rogue, but is he still better than the rogue? He doesn't have the HP, backstab (and I don't care what you say, that ability rocks!), as high a BAB etc. etc. etc. Now was it really worth it to "out-skill" the rogue using all his spells like that? I don't really think so.


Find traps spell. Silence spell (no move silently check required). All sorts of spells for hiding, ranging from darkness to invisibility. (Domains are so awesome.) Enchantment spells for bluffing, not to mention said cleric can do it so many other ways. Open locks? Knock spell. And a cleric has more HP then the rogue, same BAB, better saving throws, and can just put a persistant divine power for the same BAB as a fighter, +6 to strength, and temp hit points ALL DAY. And apparently you don't care what others say about it, because Sneak Attack as an ability is one of the weakest combat features in the game. Maybe it's decent at levels 1-3, after that goodbye rogue. Not to mention said cleric has more spells left, can wear heavy armor, and more.

And don't forget that the cleric can easily buff himself up with 24 hour duration spells, so that he doesn't have to prepare the spells multiple times per day. All he needs is 3 feats and night sticks. Why cast find traps 3 times when one casting lasts all day long? How about a fly spell that lasts all day long? Why jump when you can just fly?

[LynMars]

Thing about those awesome domain spells, you still only get that one slot a day, unless you find a class that lets you spontaneously cast domain spells like healing/inflicts.

So, with the right selection of feats (which a Cleric doesn't get many of, just the basic allotment, so is giving up other feat selections he could be using--like the ones needed to get into a prestige class), and spells (still only has a finite number of them per level, and has to give up other good spells they could be memorizing--or end up converting them to healing anyway), a Cleric can theoretically out-rogue a Rogue. At least for a day, or so long as they don't lose their spiffy gear, or whatever.

But why should they? Why do they need to? Even if rogue is a "weak class", I've yet to play in a party without one--either an actual Rogue, or a Bard focusing in that area and in those skills, which sorta works. At best, if the Cleric even bothers, they're emergency measures.

It's feasible, yes, that's been proven by those with more sourcebooks and skill at twinkery. But it's still, IMO, silly to try to take another class' role over at the expense of a lot of your own class' strengths and potential. If someone came to me with a rogue'd-out Cleric, I'd look at them funny, and ask them why they weren't just playing a Rogue. Or multiclass between the two. And their Diety'd better be a god associated with Rogues--a Cleric of a god of love and bunnies (cuz those domains have what the Cleric "needs" to pull it off) taking over the Rogue slot would be silly.

Oh wait, I'm sorry; I'm starting to think of actual roleplaying and storyteller responsibility again, my bad. :roll: This is a rules discussion.

[Linklegacy77]

With the PHB2, you can spontaneously cast domain spells, and there is a feat that lets you spontaneously cast domain spells.

And whether or not he would or should is a different matter. The point is, the cleric can out-rogue a rogue.

Oh, and as I may have said before, we are trying an experiment over at 3ebb. A game of only clerics.

[LynMars]

Having played a Druid using PHB2 rules, I can say that about 90% of that book is broken and makes a twinky game even more twinky. Few supplements do such nasty things to the rules as that one.

[Xaden]

Persistent spell is not a replacement for skills! A Persistent spell uses up a spell slot SIX levels higher then the spell's actual level! That feat isn't even potentially useful until 11th level and you show me any 0th level spell that will replace having even a handful of skill ranks in a skill and I'll kick myself in the @$$! And are you seriously going to give up a 9th level spell slot for Fly? There are dozens of better ways of using a 9th level spell, just look at any 9th level spell.

And please list even a handful of these spells that outstrip these skills all day. Yes, invisilibility could be made Persistant, but it would still only last until you attacked and then it would end (and now you're down a 9th level spell), and please list a handful of the spells that can replace having high ranks in spot and listen (and still make them persistent, 'cause you can use spot and listen all day), are you seriously going to cast Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos as Persistent spells (taking up 4 7th level spell slots, which you still wouldn't be able to do until 15th level at best, 'cause you couldn't have that many 7th level spell slots until then) so you can spot trouble better than someone with those skill ranks?

Detect Secret Doors, Detect Magic, Find Traps, are you going to be casting these spells as 6th and 7th level spells to have them last all day? You'd have to be around level 17 or 18 just to try and pull that off and again you're eating up all your 6th and 7th level spells just to do this. Those levels of spells really rock (when you're not using them to try and make up for rogue skills), you're totally pissing away your spellcasting capacity by doing this, why? Why are you gimping yourself just to try and make up for having ranks in skills? And you still can only pull this off at the higher levels. A rogue can be consistantly good at these things, all day, every day, from levels 1 to 20 and beyond, you're persistent spell argument is only good at levels 11 and up (at best!) and then you're just crippling your spellcasting abilities.

You'd have to cast around a dozen persistent spells (level 6+ spells) to make up for jumping, climbing, spotting and listening, finding traps (and I'm finding very few spells for disarming them, though I'm sure there must be a couple), disarming traps, opening locks (you run into 3 locked doors and that's three more of your 2nd level spells for knock), bluff, diplomacy, sense motive (you gonna' cast Zone of Truth as a Persistant spell (8th level spell), just to tell when someone's lying to you all day long (and that doesn't even protect you against feinting in combat so that my high-level rogue can sneak attack your sense motive-less wizard or cleric for +xd6 unavoidable damage if I hit)).

The versitility, consistant usefullness, continuous usability of ranks in skills cannot be replaced by spells, the skills are useful from level 1 to 20, you don't have to wait till level 13+ to start making up for not having these skills, they can be used infinitely (how many times are you going to prepair suggestion to make up for the rogue Diplomacing every opponent to become indifferent instead of hostile?)

Now don't get me wrong, spells are useful, they are powerful, and they can temporarily outsrtip most uses for most skills (but again not all), but they are temporary, they are one-time-use things, some of them are no guarantee of anything (Find Traps for example) and if you're seriously making them persistant you're eating up truly usefull spell slots for something that can still be covered with a couple ranks in a skill; and doing such isn't even a possibility until the higher levels.

And if you still disagree, then please I'd like to see this spell list, I'd like to see what this cleric or wizard is preparing every day to try and outrogue the rogue in skills, all day long. Can he do this at first level? Can he do it at 5th? Can he do it at 10th? 15th? When does he become capable of out-skilling the rogue and doing it all day long? And is it really worth giving up all those other spells he could be casting? Wouldn't it just be better to have a rogue fill a rogue niche, than try and have a cleric or wizard fill that niche instead of having the cleric or wizard fill the cleric or wizard niche? Spells just cannot fesably make up for a rogue's skill array, and even if you've managed to do it, you've then totally gimped your spellcaster's spellcasting ability. It just doesn't make sense to do things that way. Why man? Why?

[Linklegacy77]

Persistent spell is not a replacement for skills! A Persistent spell uses up a spell slot SIX levels higher then the spell's actual level! That feat isn't even potentially useful until 11th level and you show me any 0th level spell that will replace having even a handful of skill ranks in a skill and I'll kick myself in the @$$! And are you seriously going to give up a 9th level spell slot for Fly? There are dozens of better ways of using a 9th level spell, just look at any 9th level spell.
Did you read all of what I wrote? With divine metamagic: persistant spell, he doesn't have to increase the slots AT ALL! Six turn undead attempts: bam, free 24 hour duration. Night sticks, an item for 7,500 gp, increases your daily turn undead attempts by 4. Guess what combo that creates?

And please list even a handful of these spells that outstrip these skills all day. Yes, invisilibility could be made Persistant, but it would still only last until you attacked and then it would end (and now you're down a 9th level spell), and please list a handful of the spells that can replace having high ranks in spot and listen (and still make them persistent, 'cause you can use spot and listen all day), are you seriously going to cast Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos as Persistent spells (taking up 4 7th level spell slots, which you still wouldn't be able to do until 15th level at best, 'cause you couldn't have that many 7th level spell slots until then) so you can spot trouble better than someone with those skill ranks?
Persistent Greater Invisibility with divine metamagic. What do you know, I'm invisible all day and can still attack and cast spells.

Persistent choose destiny. Every time I make an attack roll, skill check, ability check, or saving throw, I get to roll 2 dice and pick which roll to use.

Persistent divine power. Full bab, +6 enhancement to str, bunch of temp hp.

Persistent fly as a 3rd level spell. No need to climb or jump anymore.

Here's a fun one: Persistent Foresight. I now know everything that is going to happen before it happens.

Here's the most powerful non-epic spell ever: Gate

You wanted ones to replace the rogue's skills? I've already covered climb and jump, and even spot and listen.

Comprehend Languages, find traps, silence, zone of truth, discern lies, freedom of movement, tongues, true seeing... (the list goes on and on)

And all this with a cloistered cleric, who has 6 skill points per level.

Now don't get me wrong, spells are useful, they are powerful, and they can temporarily outsrtip most uses for most skills (but again not all), but they are temporary, they are one-time-use things, some of them are no guarantee of anything (Find Traps for example) and if you're seriously making them persistant you're eating up truly usefull spell slots for something that can still be covered with a couple ranks in a skill; and doing such isn't even a possibility until the higher levels.
With what I've just shown you, they can do it all day long, still have spell left over, and still fight better.

And if you still disagree, then please I'd like to see this spell list, I'd like to see what this cleric or wizard is preparing every day to try and outrogue the rogue in skills, all day long. Can he do this at first level? Can he do it at 5th? Can he do it at 10th? 15th? When does he become capable of out-skilling the rogue and doing it all day long? And is it really worth giving up all those other spells he could be casting? Wouldn't it just be better to have a rogue fill a rogue niche, than try and have a cleric or wizard fill that niche instead of having the cleric or wizard fill the cleric or wizard niche? Spells just cannot fesably make up for a rogue's skill array, and even if you've managed to do it, you've then totally gimped your spellcaster's spellcasting ability. It just doesn't make sense to do things that way. Why man? Why?
The point is that he can do these things, not that he would. It isn't that the cleric would be a better rogue than the rogue, the point is he can, that shows the balance issues here. And he starts outshining the rogue at around levels 5-7, not all that early in the game. As I've said before, the rogue is best from levels 1-5.

[akiko]

I will start, but not finish this. You take a cloistered cleric kobold with kobold and trickery domains. Kobold grants trapfinding as a rogue, trickery grants the skills you need to be in class and CC grants 6 skills/lvl. At 1 level you take extend spell 3rd persistent spell and 6th divine metamagic(persist spell). Basically the only thing you buy during this time are Night Sticks from Libris Mortis. These handy dandy things grant extra uses of turn checks a day. Now with 2 sticks and Divine Meta you can now bump up almost any spell to one that lasts all day. Divine Metamagic (CD) allows you to use your turn checks instead of spell slots on a 1 for 1 basis. So you want to have the BaB of a fighter persist it. You want magical weapons? Persist it. You want +4 Wis? Don't buy the phylactery or whatever it is ,persist it.

[LeadPal]

Please note that you're using some of the most obscenely overpowered material in existence (I mean, who allows Night Sticks? I can barely stand Divine Metamagic itself!) to crush the rogue. Not that I don't agree with you that clerics>rogues, but you should be attacking them from a level field, not from the top of a cliff. Since this is an argument about fundamental balance problems, stick to the fundamentals.

[nightinverse]

Who allows Libris Mortis for players? Complete Divine at all? Complete Arcane?

No more splat books, damn it.

Oh, and I agree that Clerics > Rogue, but not All > Rogue.

Gate itself is an issue, yes. Luckily, I run moderate games for moderate players. Haven't had a High level campaign for years now.

[Xaden]

Now you also point out Divine Metamagic, and that is a very nice and powerful feat, but realize that every spell you make persistant with that feat costs you 7 trun attempts!


Persistent Greater Invisibility with divine metamagic. What do you know, I'm invisible all day and can still attack and cast spells.

Persistent choose destiny. Every time I make an attack roll, skill check, ability check, or saving throw, I get to roll 2 dice and pick which roll to use.

Persistent divine power. Full bab, +6 enhancement to str, bunch of temp hp.

Persistent fly as a 3rd level spell. No need to climb or jump anymore.

Here's a fun one: Persistent Foresight. I now know everything that is going to happen before it happens.

Here's the most powerful non-epic spell ever: Gate

You wanted ones to replace the rogue's skills? I've already covered climb and jump, and even spot and listen.


So you covered 4 rogue skills with these 5 spells that you made persistant, 5 spells coupled with Divine Metamagic costs you 35 turn attempts! Now assuming an 18 in Cha for your cleric, that's 7 turn attempts right there, so now you're down to only 28 more turn attempts you need, that's 7 of your Night sticks, for 7,500 gp each, that's a total of 52,500 gp. Now assuming standard monetary progression from the DMG, that would require your character to be level 11 to have that sort of money, and now your cleric has 13,500 gp left for other items, that's a +2 weapon, a +2 armor, and a little something else, and all that just to cover 4 skills. You then list 8 more spells to cover about a like number of skills, at 7 more turn attemps per spell, that's 56 more turn attempts you need, at 4 per night stick that's 14 more night sticks you need, that's amother 105,000 gp! So yes, okay, at level 15 I'll admit defeat, your cleric is then a better rogue than the rogue with skills, 'cause at level 15 he'd have the wealth (200,000 gp) to pruchase what he needs to out-skill the rogue. Of course, by then the rogue probably has his own fair share of magic items that significanlty boost his skills, so that's arguable still, but close enough.

Do you not see how truly wacky that is? Just how far out of the way a cleric has to go to out-rogue a rogue? Yes, I'll admit it is possible, just not at all feasable. The rediculuos ammounts of resources you need to put into it is astrinomical! Okay, if he makes his own Night sticks, he could concevably do it by level 12 with a loss of only 6,300 xp. So by level 12 your cleric could out-rogue the rogue all the time, but that's still a huge loss of resources that just makes it a little out there, you know what I mean? But yes, I'll admit defeat, your cleric could then out-rogue the rogue hands down, all the time. It just requires all that. You are right.

[Doomsmile]

I should say that I have no idea what "Persistant Spell" is (ain't Core, I'll say that much) and, having read through most of PHB II, I find anything from that book highly suspect of Bro-o-o-o-o-o-o-oken status.
Same aplies the ability to cast a meta-magic spell without paying spell levels for it (which is why RPGA banned the "Sudden" meta-magic feats).

That said, what the devil is "persistant spell?" I think I've peiced together the basics of this "divine meta-magic" abomination.
Yet, I can't help but feel that the rogue would also be a god-class, were it to have three bloody supplements essentially designed soley for it.

[Mercutio]

Clerics have one supplement designed for them, as do rogues.

To those of you who don't use splat books and accuse them of all be broken - how many of you have actually played or GMed a game where they were allowed? How much real experience do you have? I admit that there are elements that can be broken, but I think that's even true of core rules. Outright banning of supplements strikes me as a "sour grapes" type of thinking, where you have zero concept of how to run with those books, and then say they're broken without ever having even tried to use them.

For the record - I allow almost everything from almost every book, but I require the players to ask me about it first. I don't ban whole books outright, because I know how to use the books. I have players that are pretty good a powergaming, but I know how to counter that, keeping the power level on par for the party level.

Now - you guys asked Link to find a way to emulate a rogue using the rules. He did that admirably. Now you go back and change the rules, which is BS. Of course if you only use core rules each character class is pretty much set in stone. That's why there are supplements. People got tired of having to take all the class features of classes when they didn't the character concept. But say you join a party - they need a healer and a trapfinder, but they only have one slot open in the party. Why not allow you to build a cleric that can do rogue stuff? Otherwise the party is severely gimped and then you have the distinction of forcing the party to fill traditional roles, and not play what they want to play.

[akiko]

I'd also like to commend Link. I started to put forth a build as well at about the same time as his. But his is more borken down and easier to understand. I would also like to mention that he didn't even call into play the various prestige classes that would have made it even easier.

DS: Persistent takes any spell that has a duration and changes its duration to 24 hours. It costs 6 spell levels IIRC. So a Bull's Strength (2nd level) would cost an 8th level spot.

[Linklegacy77]

Please note that you're using some of the most obscenely overpowered material in existence (I mean, who allows Night Sticks? I can barely stand Divine Metamagic itself!) to crush the rogue. Not that I don't agree with you that clerics>rogues, but you should be attacking them from a level field, not from the top of a cliff. Since this is an argument about fundamental balance problems, stick to the fundamentals.

If the rogue is allowed these resources, then so is the cleric.

So you covered 4 rogue skills with these 5 spells that you made persistant, 5 spells coupled with Divine Metamagic costs you 35 turn attempts! Now assuming an 18 in Cha for your cleric, that's 7 turn attempts right there, so now you're down to only 28 more turn attempts you need, that's 7 of your Night sticks, for 7,500 gp each, that's a total of 52,500 gp. Now assuming standard monetary progression from the DMG, that would require your character to be level 11 to have that sort of money, and now your cleric has 13,500 gp left for other items, that's a +2 weapon, a +2 armor, and a little something else, and all that just to cover 4 skills. You then list 8 more spells to cover about a like number of skills, at 7 more turn attemps per spell, that's 56 more turn attempts you need, at 4 per night stick that's 14 more night sticks you need, that's amother 105,000 gp! So yes, okay, at level 15 I'll admit defeat, your cleric is then a better rogue than the rogue with skills, 'cause at level 15 he'd have the wealth (200,000 gp) to pruchase what he needs to out-skill the rogue. Of course, by then the rogue probably has his own fair share of magic items that significanlty boost his skills, so that's arguable still, but close enough.

Who needs other money? Just take a plain masterwork weapon, and cast persistant magic weapon. While you are at it, persistent magic vestements, or while you are at it, don't bother persisting those, because the duration is 1 hour/level.

Persistent spell is a metamagic feat from the complete arcane.

Rogues have the complete adventurer, clerics have the complete divine. At some point, another one for rogues will be out: the complete scoundrel.

I love rogues, I really do, but the cleric can outdo them.

This shows the inherent problem with clerics.

They can do this with any class. Any class at all! It's like we're going back in time to the older editions where the priest who put all his stuff into fighting was a better fighter than the warrior.

A cleric can be a better fighter than the fighter.
A cleric can be a better rogue than the rogue.
A cleric can be a better hunter than the ranger.
A cleric can be better at any base class than that class is itself.

Clerics are not balanced.

[Doomsmile]

The cleric can be better at any base class at what they do except the warlock! I love warlocks.

Complete adventurer is a rogue book? I'll have to look into this...

Now I wish to rebut post #80, which is really sticking in my craw.

In reguards to paragraph one: I have played in long-term campaign that allowed open supplements. I've got a warlock, we've got a swashbuckler/fighter going for Knigh of Corelon Larentian, and we've got a Binder. The binder would be a game-breaker if the player was better, but that wasn't the problem. The problem was when someone pulled a broken combat nut drawn mostly from Magic of Incarnum. Our DM has since declared a "no supplements" rule, which we pursuaded him to laxen to "elements must pass the smell test with the other players and the DM."
There's trash out there by the barge-full. If something is actually playable without being in breach of ballance, I generally have no problem with it. I do have a problem with trash like this "divine meta-magic" et all. capiche?

In reguards to paragraph two: Kudos to you. I have yet to find a way to compensate for someone who is able to out-do a character at his or her primary role without making the outdone character(s) just as useless.

In reguards to paragraph three: I resent the implication that I'm somehow "changing the rules" by saying "don't use broken trash from supplements to outdo core material." Using fairly ballanced stuff like "a warlock can fly all day- there goes jump and climb" donesn't bug me. Saying "I can use a combo from three supplements using the second-most-broken meta-magic feat Doomsmile has ever seen to make these skills irrelevant!" does bug me.

[akiko]

Using fairly ballanced stuff like "a warlock can fly all day- there goes jump and climb" donesn't bug me. Saying "I can use a combo from three supplements using the second-most-broken meta-magic feat Doomsmile has ever seen to make these skills irrelevant!" does bug me.

But DS, you didn't mention any of these stipulations before. That's the issue Merc has. You mentioned out-rogue-ing a rogue and asked for how and that is what Link provided. Now if you want the same thing with only Core all you have to do is ask for that. Not simply dismiss what Link did as worthless, though to you it may be so (considering that you do not use these books as openly as some do).

[nightinverse]

Didn't we just fix the Cleric a dozen or so posts ago?

[Linklegacy77]

In reguards to paragraph one: I have played in long-term campaign that allowed open supplements. I've got a warlock, we've got a swashbuckler/fighter going for Knigh of Corelon Larentian, and we've got a Binder. The binder would be a game-breaker if the player was better, but that wasn't the problem. The problem was when someone pulled a broken combat nut drawn mostly from Magic of Incarnum. Our DM has since declared a "no supplements" rule, which we pursuaded him to laxen to "elements must pass the smell test with the other players and the DM."
There's trash out there by the barge-full. If something is actually playable without being in breach of ballance, I generally have no problem with it. I do have a problem with trash like this "divine meta-magic" et all. capiche?


As we've had this discussion before DS, I'll merely remind you that said magic of incarnum player was most likely cheating. Magic of Incarnum is a very weak option, incredibly so. I can't find a way to powergame it, even Biff would be hard pressed to do so. You have a problem with clerics? Good, I'm glad you agree they are broken. Moving on.

How exactly, did a binder possibly become close to broken? Binders are weak, very much so. Maybe it was because your other fighter was a swashbuckler, not a barbarian or fighter, so it just looked good in comparison.

Just because something is stronger than the weak classes doesn't make it broken. What makes it broken is when it outdoes everything else, or when it makes the game unplayable. Clerics are stronger than everything else.

And like Akiko and Merc said, you asked for how the cleric can outdo the rogue at being a rogue, and I answered you. (thanks guys)

[Mercutio]

I generally have no problem with it. I do have a problem with trash like this "divine meta-magic" et all. capiche?Fine. You don't like Divine Metamagic - but it's not like a new thing that wasn't written by WotC. It's an officially sanctioned rule book that was written and signed off by D&D creators. You don't like it, you don't have to include it. Calling it trash shows that you are not open to learning or changing how you play. It doesn't validate your point. Simply saying you think it unbalances a game is fine. My return point to you is, what else does a cleric do with his turn undead attempts? They're worthless unless you are in a campaign that is strictly focused on undead. Divine Metamagic was an attempt to let those account for something.

In reguards to paragraph two: Kudos to you. I have yet to find a way to compensate for someone who is able to out-do a character at his or her primary role without making the outdone character(s) just as useless.Then I question whether or not you really have any idea whether or not those things are broken or not. Saying, OMG it's TEH BROKEN! doesn't make it so unless you personally have examined it and tried to figure out the limitations of said item.

In reguards to paragraph three: I resent the implication that I'm somehow "changing the rules" by saying "don't use broken trash from supplements to outdo core material." But you are changing the rules. The question was, can a properly built cleric, designed to outperform the rogue, actually do so? The answer was yes, so then you went back and said, "but that's not core and it's broken..." That's like Calvinball where you change the rules just to avoid losing.

Using fairly ballanced stuff like "a warlock can fly all day- there goes jump and climb" donesn't bug me. Saying "I can use a combo from three supplements using the second-most-broken meta-magic feat Doomsmile has ever seen to make these skills irrelevant!" does bug me.Well, it's two supplements, one of which is allowed in most games. The Divine Metamagic is not nearly so broken as you think it is. Night sticks, however, are when combined with Divine Metamagic. The easiest way to tone that down would be to say that night sticks don't stack with themselves when counting turn undead attempts. That sounds fairly balanced to me. But you didn't even attempt to look at it like that. You just had a knee-jerk reaction.

[nightinverse]

No, it's not like Calvinball at all. I personally can't afford the supplements, why should the replies be tailored to "Mr. Everybook" rather than "Mr. Average Poor Guy" It makes no sense to assume you can use any of the many optional supplements for the reply. Only a few people have them. We all have the SRD.

[Mercutio]

The conversation was about building a character that could replace another character. When you build anything, you use the tools you have access to, do you not? It just so happens that some people (and I'd argue a large portion of D&D gamers) have the complete books, at a minimum, and that many others own a few of the other supplements.

[nightinverse]

Well, I would contend that most long term gamers below the age of thirty-five simply don't have the money for those supplements - and as I've said, it makes no sense to build with the tools you have if nobody else can evaluate it. It's like trying to run an XP program on 3.11 Workstation.

[Mercutio]

I'm below 35. I'm pretty sure Link is, and treehouse. I'd bet that LP is. I know akiko is. I think all of us have the Complete Books. In fact, if I were to take a poll, I'd bet a large portion of the people on ORP who came from 3ebb have the complete books.

[BigRedRod]

The conversation was about building a character that could replace another character. When you build anything, you use the tools you have access to, do you not? It just so happens that some people (and I'd argue a large portion of D&D gamers) have the complete books, at a minimum, and that many others own a few of the other supplements. The argument is about whether a certain class is over or under powered, not whether a certain supplament is broken. It makes sense to divide this into two areas. The core Cleric and the expanded Cleric.

I'm below 35. I'm pretty sure Link is, and treehouse. I'd bet that LP is. I know akiko is. I think all of us have the Complete Books. In fact, if I were to take a poll, I'd bet a large portion of the people on ORP who came from 3ebb have the complete books. No need to try and set up divides here. And, you guys need to stop bitching about whether more people have the extra books or don't, just make a goddamn poll. One more word about this pointless argument which can actually be settled and I'll take my belt off to the lot of you.

Edit: There is now a poll (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6714). So now we can let the userbase of this site determine whether they own and use lots of non-core stuff.

[Mercutio]

Well, we've proven that the cleric was broken, and then we "fixed" it. Then the conversation rolled around to the fact, not conjecture, that a properly gamed cleric can outdo any other base class.

Could a base cleric outdo the rogue at rogue duties? No. But can a cleric that is gamed to outdo the rogue, do so? Absolutely.

[Doomsmile]

I'd like to appologise for my eariler post. I was really cranky because the car broke down last night, and I needed that car to help someone move and to get to work today, and I fear I may have taken it out on you lot. Many appologies for the undiplomatic nature of that post and any injury it may have caused.
However, I belive there's a lesson to be learned from this: Friends don't let friends post angry.
That totally belongs on a bumper sticker.


PS: I still think divine meta-magic looks pretty broken. So there. :yum:

[Linklegacy77]

Well, I would contend that most long term gamers below the age of thirty-five simply don't have the money for those supplements - and as I've said, it makes no sense to build with the tools you have if nobody else can evaluate it. It's like trying to run an XP program on 3.11 Workstation.

I'm definately below 35. In fact, I'm 22. I've got the money easily.

PS: I still think divine meta-magic looks pretty broken. So there. http://www.online-roleplaying.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley%20-%20lick.gif

Divine metamagic isn't broken. Using it with night sticks, is broken. Even so, it's nothing compared to our favorite ninth level spell, gate. ^^

As for the core cleric being broken, that's easy to see. The fact that the core cleric can cast as well as the wizard, fight as well as the fighter, and be the only good healer shows this as well.

[elmer_jok]

Had to bring up the gate again didn't ya! Damn everyone and them saying that you can have a continuous loop of solars. Any logical DM knows that would only go so far. Do I have to explain again?

[Linklegacy77]

It's not just solar angel loops, a level 17 caster can summon a paragon, pseudonatural, Neh-Thalggu (brain collector), which would be a cr 51 creature.

[elmer_jok]

assuming he knew what a paragon, pseudonatural, Neh-Thalggu was.

[Linklegacy77]

Well yes, but epic monsters are just that, epic monsters. Epic characters and monsters have all sorts of legends and stuff about them, and learning about such creatures isn't hard. It was just an example of how powerful gate is.

And clerics can cast this powerful spell.

[Doomsmile]

Okay. I get your point. Gate is stupid and so are clerics. Can we get back to the fixing it part? I can't even find our fix anymore.

[LeadPal]

Yeah, I'm below 35, myself, and used to have all the money in the world for gaming. Still have a fair budget, too.

Having those books and having seen Divine Metamagic in-game, I think that it's only balanced about half the time. I've had to rebalance it for my own use. I still think that you can't prove that the cleric is inherently overpowered with supplements. They are, but that won't prove it.