PDA

View Full Version : Fix for Cleric?



Dhavaer
2009-05-12, 05:12 AM
Wizards can be replaced with Wu Jen, and Sorcerers can be made to use their list.
Druids can be made to use the shapeshift variant.

Is there a similar quik 'n ezy fix to unbrokenate Clerics?

grautry
2009-05-12, 05:18 AM
What type of Cleric?

CoDzilla? Replace them with Crusaders or for a worse nerf, Paladins.
Caster? Replacing them with a Favored Soul knocks them down a notch, but they're still plenty powerful.

Also, don't allow Nightsticks or DMM altogether.

Farlion
2009-05-12, 05:22 AM
Find players that aren't totally into powergaming and actually want to roleplay?

Cheers,
Farlion

Fan
2009-05-12, 05:23 AM
Find players that aren't totally into powergaming and actually want to roleplay?

Cheers,
Farlion

Again with the stormwind fallacy! :smallannoyed:
A character who is optimized does NOT mean a character that does not want to role play.

kamikasei
2009-05-12, 05:27 AM
Player restraint;
disallowing DMM/nightstick abuse (not necessarily disallowing either thing all together);
and nerfing the niche-stomper spells like Righteous Might.

Replacing core Cleric with the cloistered cleric variant might help, too. It depends on what exactly they're doing that's causing you a problem; I'm assuming you're thinking of the buff-and-brutalize approach.

Eldan
2009-05-12, 05:32 AM
Well, for me, giving them d6 HD, only light armour and simple weapons for all except war domain clerics helped. I.e. pretty much the cloistered cleric approach. With some buffs, they can still go frontline in an emergency, but they usually think about it a little longer since they are just a little squishier usually.

Starscream
2009-05-12, 05:32 AM
I once had good results with a paladin who simply used the cleric spell list. Much better than a standard paladin, but not nearly as powerful as a standard cleric due to the lack of higher level spells.

Farlion
2009-05-12, 05:35 AM
A character who is optimized does NOT mean a character that does not want to role play.

Agreed, but he's looking for a "less powerful" variant of a cleric if I understood correctly. So instead of replacing the class, just don't play it that broken.

Clerics are only broken, if the player decides to use these special combinations and the game is only played by RAW.

Play a full healer cleric for instance. Buff others, not yourself. The fighter will love it, whoever else you buff also and you won't be brokenly good.

Cheers,
Farlion

Tempest Fennac
2009-05-12, 05:40 AM
I agree with Farlion about how easy they are to fix. Another option if you wanted less tough Clerics is the Archivist, but they can be seen as broken due to pretty much getting access to any spell in the game thanks to Cleric Domains (which wouldn't be an issue if Clerics were banned), and less common Divine casters like Shugenjas: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3 .

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-12, 05:42 AM
For fix you mean?

If you mean Clerics do too many things, first and foremost split them between "heavy" (core cleirc) and "ligh" (cloistered cleric from UA).

Then assign domains regaridng the havyness and lightness of the cleric.

Finally, split the spell list in groups, in a way that flavour o mechanically wise is consistent but doable.

You can improve this with ACFs.

Of course there will be common ground.. it's likely that most of them will have the healing spells.

If you are talking about CoDzilla, ban things like nightstick - or ban divine metamagic at all.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-12, 05:43 AM
Archivists can also get pretty bad thanks to adepts, thanks to those underpowered cleric wannabes getting some spells clerics don't, and some that they do at lower levels.

Tempest Fennac
2009-05-12, 05:49 AM
I forgot about those (and Paladins and Rangers for that matter). Admittedly, I tend to ignore Adepts unless I want an NPC expert to have some magic skills (fluff-wise, an Adept can be handled with a low-level Cleric or Druid in my view). Ironically, it almost seems like Adepts were used as a basis for Archivists looking at their spell list. :smalltongue:

Zeful
2009-05-12, 05:56 AM
The best way to "fix" any class is to punish outrageous optimization. Something along the lines of "I don't mind optimization, but if you go to far you will attract the attention of people who don't like you far sooner than normal. They will be overwhelmingly more powerful when they decide to "visit" you, because you are a threat to them."

Leon
2009-05-12, 07:47 AM
An Archivist is only insanely powerful if let run unchecked, a good DM isn't going to let you blithely grab every spell that's not nailed down.


I'm with Farlion on this
And i have found such a good group - in actuality some of them have seen the rampant "optimizing" that can happen with 3.5 and put a Heavy Clamp on such things, which can make it difficult for someone such as me who likes to try out different idea's such as Class combination's or races


There is a big difference between making a good strong character and optimizing - we have upto 8 people playing in the group and 7 of them have good strong PCs - the last one is currently (apparently) dis-satisfied with the game since his Paladin did a Iceberg impersonation and is prone to do random stupid things

We have:(all at Lvl 7) Fighter, Monk, Pyromaniac Evoker, Healing Cleric, Paladin, Dragonheart Adept Sorcerer, Rogue and Archivist/Barbarian
The Duskblade is expected to have a very short lifespan soon (Has split with the party in a Big way - we are all in the Alps, he's gone looking for trouble in Egypt)

In another game i have a Druid who despite not having wildshape or a Pet is still a very potent force - he fights with a Glaive and unarmed, same game has a Psion with a hefty LA, a Soul Knife, a Healing Cleric and a Ranger who is more a guiding force for his pet than anything else - very solid group

None of these PCs mentioned are Optimized, they are just well created and Us the players work well as a team

grautry
2009-05-12, 07:53 AM
Agreed, but he's looking for a "less powerful" variant of a cleric if I understood correctly. So instead of replacing the class, just don't play it that broken.

Clerics are only broken, if the player decides to use these special combinations and the game is only played by RAW.

But that's an extremely fine line.

For example, is Divine Power okay? Is Extended Divine Power okay? Is Persisted Divine Power okay(epic slot, but can be done)? Is DMM'ed Divine Power okay?

What about DMM? Is DMM Quicken broken? What about if you add a Nightstick? What if you add five? Is even a single DMM Persist broken? Two? Three?

Where do you draw the line?


Play a full healer cleric for instance. Buff others, not yourself. The fighter will love it, whoever else you buff also and you won't be brokenly good.

Here's the problem. Clerics are, by class requirements, wise. They might not be book-smart, but they're certainly able to reason enough to see what's effective in combat.

If you're playing a Cleric that doesn't do whatever is the most effective, then you're roleplaying badly however ironic that is. You're playing a character that's consciously choosing to make himself sub-optimal in life and death situations. I mean really, how can you justify that?

The only way I can think of the top of my had to make that fly in-character is if your character is suicidal or has a death-wish of some kind.

Faleldir
2009-05-12, 08:02 AM
1. Restrict what kinds of spells they can use on themselves.
2. Make them learn their spells like an arcane caster.
3. As an extreme nerf, randomly determine which spells their god feels like letting them prepare that day.

Riffington
2009-05-12, 08:13 AM
If you're playing a Cleric that doesn't do whatever is the most effective, then you're roleplaying badly however ironic that is. You're playing a character that's consciously choosing to make himself sub-optimal in life and death situations. I mean really, how can you justify that?

Umm, real life? Chaplains - even those likely to find themselves in combat - don't really tend to study jujitsu (or other arts dedicated to winning fights even if it cripples a man). Priests who entered combat seem to have dedicated themselves more to saving men's souls or inspiring troops than to maximizing their chances of winning wars. Heck, the majority of soldiers smoke - basic optimization theory would tell them to stop, but they don't.

anyway.
The simplist fix: Ban wands of cure light wounds or lesser vigor.

In basic groups (people who play like the designers intended), a cleric plays two roles. She stands up front for justice and smites infidels with her mace. She also runs to the aid of fallen friends and heals them.
Played like this, the cleric is powerful and necessary. Some think she is also boring; that aspect depends. But a lot of that power is stuff that every group needs anyway.

But in groups who have figured out that noncombat healing is done more efficiently by wands (and that combat healing is rarely useful if resurrection magics are easily available), the cleric loses most of her healing role. That frees her to use her spells to steal the show.

Besides: potions are just cooler than wands.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-12, 08:18 AM
Umm, real life? Chaplains - even those likely to find themselves in combat - don't really tend to study jujitsu (or other arts dedicated to winning fights even if it cripples a man). Priests who entered combat seem to have dedicated themselves more to saving men's souls or inspiring troops than to maximizing their chances of winning wars. Heck, the majority of soldiers smoke - basic optimization theory would tell them to stop, but they don't.

D&D is not real life.

Clerics in D&D are trained holy warriors who also happen to be ordained priests, not the other way around!

potatocubed
2009-05-12, 08:46 AM
The houserule I always enforce is that you can't use metamagic - even mitigated metamagic, like with DMM - to boost a spell's level to higher than you can normally cast. Problem solved.

For a far more in-depth solution, every deity should have their own cleric class, covering proficiencies, spell lists, skills, skill points, and so on. (See Faiths and Avatars from AD&D to see what I mean.) But 'quick and easy', that is not.

Farlion
2009-05-12, 09:07 AM
For example, is Divine Power okay? Is Extended Divine Power okay? Is Persisted Divine Power okay(epic slot, but can be done)? Is DMM'ed Divine Power okay?

What about DMM? Is DMM Quicken broken? What about if you add a Nightstick? What if you add five? Is even a single DMM Persist broken? Two? Three?

Where do you draw the line?


As DM I draw the line. Period. All of my players either don't care about optimizing their character or come to me if they think they found something that might break game balance in some way or another. Then we discuss if this would actually destroy the campaign or if it just allows me to challenge them more. No rule, no line, just my decision as DM of that specific camaign.




Here's the problem. Clerics are, by class requirements, wise. They might not be book-smart, but they're certainly able to reason enough to see what's effective in combat.

If you're playing a Cleric that doesn't do whatever is the most effective, then you're roleplaying badly however ironic that is. You're playing a character that's consciously choosing to make himself sub-optimal in life and death situations. I mean really, how can you justify that?


Puh, I totally disagree, but if that is what you think a cleric is, fine with me.

Here my definition of a cleric:
A cleric is a person who lives up to the ideals of his or her diety. He craves to internalize the teachings of his god and tries to carry these along his life path.

The cleric you describe above, might me one of a martial diety, but theres others out there. And even martial clerics might notice, that giving the fighter a buff is more effective, that taking it himself. The clerics sole purpose is not fighting, but keeping up his or her dieties ideals (this can be through combat, but it doesn't have to be).

Cheers,
Farlion

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-12, 09:40 AM
Cloistered Cleric and ban many of the self-only buffs. Now he can't go Zilla, but the party can get his boost.

Saph
2009-05-12, 09:53 AM
For example, is Divine Power okay? Is Extended Divine Power okay? Is Persisted Divine Power okay(epic slot, but can be done)? Is DMM'ed Divine Power okay?

Yes, yes, no, no, would be my answers.

Divine Power is fine as long as the PC is spending an action to use it (because in 3.5, losing a round of actions is a major penalty).


What about DMM? Is DMM Quicken broken? What about if you add a Nightstick? What if you add five? Is even a single DMM Persist broken? Two? Three?

No, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

At least in my experience. I've never seen a good reason to allow DMM, much less DMM Persist. It's one of the cheesiest things out there.

Deciding where to draw the line might be a matter of preference, but it's not difficult.

- Saph

Goatman_Ted
2009-05-12, 10:19 AM
No single change is going to stop a player who wants to break the game from doing so.

But I'd drop Divine Metamagic the same way I would any other metamagic cost-reducer in a lower powered game.

Not because I don't want a perpetually Divine Favored, Divine Powered, Righteous Mighted Cleric outshining the Fighter in melee (he probably won't), but because I don't want the Cleric using real metamagic on actually scary spells.

Epinephrine
2009-05-12, 10:20 AM
Yes, yes, no, no, would be my answers.

Only one I disagree with is the first "no" there. Epic slot? Sure. that's what epic spells are like. That's a 10th level slot, right? And can still be dispelled (and if you are epic, you'll be facing dispells of various types)

DMM though is broken, as is metamagic song, or other ways to get big metamagic effects without using the appropriate spell level. Persistent is a huge power, which is why it has a punishing +6 spell level cost. You can do a lot with a 9th level spell slot; gaining a 3rd level buff all day (or 4th level, if you have easy metamagic as well - I'm iffy on easy metamagic) is nice, but I don't think it's necessarily broken. So many ways to remove the buff anyway, if that's what you want your 9th level spell slot for, fine.

Riffington
2009-05-12, 10:29 AM
D&D is not real life.

Clerics in D&D are trained holy warriors who also happen to be ordained priests, not the other way around!

If that were true, their training would encompass the two weeks or so it takes to learn how to use a sword.

Besides, that doesn't change the basic fact that people don't optimize in real life. Our real life warrior heroes waste their money inhaling Con poisons. Our real life scientists imbibe Int toxins - and the most brilliant one I can think of spent a great deal of time dabbling in lockpicking.

It is not bad roleplaying for a cleric to use her perceived strength (healing) in combat rather than the "true" strengths that players have discovered based on RAW and statistics.

Justin B.
2009-05-12, 10:32 AM
Clerics are powerful. That's the nature of the beast. Honestly, would you expect it to be any other way? These are the avatars of Gods walking the Earth, rightly they should be the most powerful beings on the Material Plane if they've culled enough favor from their deity.

This is balanced by the overwhelming DM control this allows. Your DM is your God for all intents and purposes. He can choose not to give you something he feels is upsetting the game. The easy way to avoid this is to buff other party members. Simple, effective, and shows that you're nto actively trying to steal the game for yourself.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-12, 10:37 AM
If that were true, their training would encompass the two weeks or so it takes to learn how to use a sword.

Besides, that doesn't change the basic fact that people don't optimize in real life. Our real life warrior heroes waste their money inhaling Con poisons. Our real life scientists imbibe Int toxins - and the most brilliant one I can think of spent a great deal of time dabbling in lockpicking.

It is not bad roleplaying for a cleric to use her perceived strength (healing) in combat rather than the "true" strengths that players have discovered based on RAW and statistics.

So being trained to use heavy armour doesn't make someone a warrior? What?

Not all warriors use swords. In fact, in 'real life' combat you'd probably use a mace - swords are not that good if your opponent is wearing anything tougher than, say, cloth.

Tengu_temp
2009-05-12, 10:48 AM
Limiting clerics to healbotting is a bad, bad idea, because for most people being a healbot who does nothing else but throws Cure X Wounds around is freakin' boring. I'd say that using cloistered clerics and banning DMM is probably the best idea - and if someone wants to play a more militant religion-oriented character, offer them to play a crusader.

oxybe
2009-05-12, 11:42 AM
not all chaplains are clerics, and not all clerics are chaplains.

a level 18 NPC aristocrat with a maxed out religion skill, a high int and skill focus (religion), as well as a high diplomacy/bluff/intimidate & sense motive could very well be the highest authority in the church for whatever reason.

on the flipside, the peasant who is blessed by St.Cuthbert for his diligent and valiant protection of his land and those on it could very well be a cleric. guy might not know exactly why he can heal wounds, but he's got his convictions and he's sticking to them.

D&D classes tend to vary between too focused or not focused enough when it comes to fluff, and over the years i've come to just ditch all premade fluff if i can and work with what i have to make the character i want.

the generic D&D cleric & paladins though? the cleric is the hand of the deity while the paladin is the sword, both trained to endure the hardships that are to come when the need to fight the forces of [insert thing your deity dislikes] or protect the [insert thing your deity likes]. the cleric focuses more on drawing forth and spreading the blessings of the deity while the paladin focuses on protecting those who would harm the faithful.

my opinions on if you want to make the cleric less borked?

talk with your players, set expectations and go through the spell list and find the problematic spells, then remove them. also, only allow material after looking it over.

Telonius
2009-05-12, 11:52 AM
My quick mechanical fix to Clerics: No multiple Nightsticks, Divine Power is removed from the normal Cleric list (though it's still on the War Domain list), DMM allows you to reduce the metamagic cost by no more than (Cleric Level/4).

Riffington
2009-05-12, 12:13 PM
So being trained to use heavy armour doesn't make someone a warrior? What?

Not all warriors use swords. In fact, in 'real life' combat you'd probably use a mace - swords are not that good if your opponent is wearing anything tougher than, say, cloth.

Maces are terrible against platemail. That's not the point.
The point is that clerics spend a fair bit of time learning how to use defensive items like armor and shields, and next to none learning how to use offensive weapons like swords. This is because they have a defensive calling, not because of optimization. They are not called because they have high wisdom, because they are the best tacticians, or because they will be the greatest warriors. They are called because of their faith and their personality.
They spontaneously cast cure/cause spells not because either is a great tactic or is worth the effort it takes them[or their deity] to learn, but because it's fitting for them. It's what they do.

In fact, the real reason clerics have simple weapons is just a straight carryover from medieval history (Bishop Odo). Realizing that priests were forbidden to shed blood, he picked up a mace since it could be used to kill his enemies without drawing blood. In 1st and 2nd edition, clerics were therefore forbidden edged weapons; in 3rd they compromised by allowing simple weapons and then making the mace the best simple weapon. So it's nothing to do with optimization - all to do with history, personality, and theologic interpretation.

Jayabalard
2009-05-12, 12:18 PM
Again with the stormwind fallacy! :smallannoyed:
A character who is optimized does NOT mean a character that does not want to role play.He didn't say that; he suggests finding "players that aren't totally into powergaming and actually want to roleplay" ... which, in my opinion, would meet his needs better than "players that are totally into powergaming and actually want to roleplay", or "players that aren't totally into powergaming and don't want to roleplay" or "players that are totally into powergaming and don't want to roleplay"

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-05-12, 12:39 PM
Quick fixes:

Divine Metamagic: You have to actually have the un-adjusted slot available to cast, even if DMM reduces the adjustment to 0. In other words, you can't do DMM Persist: Divine Power unless you actually have 10th level spell slots.

Divine Power: This spell may not be persisted.

Righteous Might: This spell may not be persisted.

Lesser Vigor: Ban

Nightsticks: Ban

Then proceed with the following changes to the core Cleric class:

Armor Proficencies: None. Paladins are fighters, Clerics, other than those from the War domain, are not. War domain now grants Light Armor Proficiency in addition to one Martial Weapon

Weapon Proficencies: Simple

HD: d6

Enforce Diety/Domain rules. Seriously, this will solve a lot of domain exploitation. You want to play a cleric with the War domain? Pick a diety with the War domain. Doubt he's also going to have the Planning domain (or whatever that allows you to get Persist really fast). No diety, no spells.

Tempest Fennac
2009-05-12, 12:43 PM
My problem with limiting their survivability is that it makes it harder for them to heal other people, which would cause problems for the entire party if someone needs healing. Also, what's wrong with Lesser Vigour? I know it restores a lot of HPs, but Clerics can;t cast it spontaneously, and it is poor for in-combat healing, which I've found is often essential.

lsfreak
2009-05-12, 01:08 PM
The problem with Lesser Vigor is DMM Persist + Lesser Vigor. But with the changes he listed, why bother? You can persist it on 1 person a day, 2 if you dump extra feats or money into Turn attempts... at level 14. At that point, there's bigger things to worry about that a trickle of out-of-combat healing.

grautry
2009-05-12, 01:11 PM
Deciding where to draw the line might be a matter of preference, but it's not difficult.

Sure, it's not difficult, but I outlined only a couple of cases really.

I mean, if you just go "well, don't cheese the Cleric" then you need to decide what cheese actually means in dozens, if not hundreds of cases. You'll have dozens of feats and hundreds - if not thousands - of spells that you need to decide if they are cheese. Not to mention all the possible permutations.

This means that you're essentially trying to keep track of a really, really huge number of house rules for each and every thing that your cleric might potentially do.

That's why I think that "just don't cheese" simply doesn't work. It's too much work to review everything on case-by-case basis. Not to mention it's quite unsatisfying to the player if he simply doesn't know whether any of his class features will work as advertised - or if he has to read a tome of house rules.

This is why I think that if you want to nerf a class then you need to do it in an overarching, general way. Like my example with replacing Cleric with Favored Soul or banning DMM. "Just don't cheese" is not a good answer.


A cleric is a person who lives up to the ideals of his or her diety. He craves to internalize the teachings of his god and tries to carry these along his life path.

The cleric you describe above, might me one of a martial diety, but theres others out there. And even martial clerics might notice, that giving the fighter a buff is more effective, that taking it himself. The clerics sole purpose is not fighting, but keeping up his or her dieties ideals (this can be through combat, but it doesn't have to be).

Um, how does that relate to what I said? Your deity's philosophy doesn't really matter here.

If your Cleric is anything like your average D&D adventurer then he'll still face hundreds of life-or-death situations. A Cleric choosing sub-optimally in situations like those is a person that is faced with the choice between AK-47 and a stick, chooses the stick.

It really doesn't matter if that person worships <insert deity here>. If he's smart - and he knows that he absolutely needs to fight - then he should choose the most effective option, as far as his ability to judge what's effective allows him to.

I mean, you can surely find an in-character reason as to why he's for example - in-combat healing -(like tradition, V-like arrogance in his ability to judge what's best, belief that healing magic is inherently superior etc.) but besides special cases like those, your average wise Cleric should gravitate towards the optimal choices.

Jayabalard
2009-05-12, 01:28 PM
your average wise Cleric should gravitate towards the optimal choices."Optimal choices" does not have to be skewed toward combat in any way... and real people are rarely optimized... most are generalists of some sort of other.

[quote]Clerics are, by class requirements, wise. They might not be book-smart, but they're certainly able to reason enough to see what's effective in combat. If you're playing a Cleric that doesn't do whatever is the most effective, then you're roleplaying badly/[quote]Not at all. Being wise does not mean that you are going to base your life about being effective in combat; nor does it mean that your roleplaying wrongly if you choose intentionally sub-optimal choices as a wise man.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-12, 01:29 PM
Why is the Cleric such an issue, really? The best Cleric builds are usually ones that help the party(chain buffers, War Weavers, etc). In cases where a Cleric is built for Zilla, it's generally obvious from the sheet, in which case the response is simple: "Bad player! No treat! New character sheet!" Ban the Holy Word line, keep an eye for any character going Zilla, and you'll be fine. It's not like you're dealing with Druids or Wizards, where the rules that make them OP are easy to exploit without needing cheese or even special knowlege.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-05-12, 01:30 PM
Um, how does that relate to what I said? Your deity's philosophy doesn't really matter here.

If your Cleric is anything like your average D&D adventurer then he'll still face hundreds of life-or-death situations. A Cleric choosing sub-optimally in situations like those is a person that is faced with the choice between AK-47 and a stick, chooses the stick.

It really doesn't matter if that person worships <insert deity here>. If he's smart - and he knows that he absolutely needs to fight - then he should choose the most effective option, as far as his ability to judge what's effective allows him to.

I mean, you can surely find an in-character reason as to why he's for example - in-combat healing -(like tradition, V-like arrogance in his ability to judge what's best, belief that healing magic is inherently superior etc.) but besides special cases like those, your average wise Cleric should gravitate towards the optimal choices.

There is Wise, then there is Intelligent... the two are not necessarily the same. To use an example found in ghe D&D 2e books: Wisdom deals with willpower and experience, intelligence is the actual means of calculating thought. So, for example, a man could be intelligent enough to know he should quit smoking, but lack the Wisdom to go through with that decision.

Most Clerics listed in D&D are devout in their belief, generally because they have personally witnessed instances which proved that their diety really does exist.

If, for example, the diety was one which espoused pacifism and non-violence, much like Mr. Ghandi in India, then his clerics would consider it sacrilegious to pick up arms and armor, even if that would be the most 'combat optimized' decision.

Clergy, at least in my games, have broader thought processes than mere combat, as is only fitting for people with high Wisdom scores. What is optimized for combat, for example, may not necessarily be optimized for general living. That is where you are finding the mis-communication: Not everyone agrees that Combat is what you should optimize for.

You have to define a goal before you can optimize to it. Your goal, quite clearly, is to win in combat. Good for you. In some games, that works. However, not every game is a blood-and-gore combat-fest.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-12, 02:26 PM
Anti-Clericzilla fix: Self-only buffs are only available as domain spells. Bam, done.

Anti-noncasters-suck fix: Spell trigger items are usable by everybody.

Anti-ubercaster fix: Quicken spell is banned. Metamagic rods are banned. In fact, anything that allows the application of metamagic to a spell without using as high a spell slot as that metamagic feat normally requires is banned.

Specific spells also need to be banned, but reducing throughput is itself a big concern, since the existing rules let casters tweak it way too high.

grautry
2009-05-12, 02:29 PM
"Optimal choices" does not have to be skewed toward combat in any way... and real people are rarely optimized... most are generalists of some sort of other.

Well, most people aren't fantasy heroes capable of calling upon power of their deity, are they? Nor do they face life-or-death combat everyday.

It's simply a matter of necessity. If you find yourself in a life-or-death situation often then I don't believe that you'll do nothing. In real life, if say, you were mugged every other week, you'd train martial arts or buy a gun or other means of self-defence. In D&D you'll use whatever means you deem effective that you have at your disposal.

If it's not combat, then you'll pick other focuses to do better at your task. If the fate of a kingdom, the world, your own soul, the welfare of whatever you care about, any other goal - rests on what you(and your team) are capable of(in any area) then only the most apathetic person would not 'optimize' themselves.


If, for example, the diety was one which espoused pacifism and non-violence, much like Mr. Ghandi in India, then his clerics would consider it sacrilegious to pick up arms and armor, even if that would be the most 'combat optimized' decision.

But once again, those are very specific situations, aren't they? Such a character would probably be better represented by a Cloistered Cleric.

Your average Cleric is expected to be capable in combat. How do we know this? Proficiency with heavy armor, decent BAB and tons of spells whose only purpose is harming/incapacitating/killing the enemy or making sure that others are more efficient at it.

And guess what? He'll probably still optimize himself to be the best non-violent peaceful Cleric he can be to the limit of his abilities.


Your goal, quite clearly, is to win in combat. Good for you. In some games, that works. However, not every game is a blood-and-gore combat-fest.

When you make an assumption... You know how this goes, don't you?

I clearly said that "anything like your average D&D adventurer" and "knows he absolutely needs to fight". If a Cleric is not a holy warrior at the front line but instead a village-dwelling peaceful Cleric then he'll probably optimize himself for that. He'll take stuff like Healing Domain or Augment Healing. Or whatever works for what he needs to do.

Point is, he'll still be trying to be the best he can at what he does. Just because he won't be a combat-monkey won't mean he won't consciously choose the most effective tools at his disposal - aka he'll optimize.

The Rose Dragon
2009-05-12, 02:33 PM
If a Cleric is not a holy warrior at the front line but instead a village-dwelling peaceful Cleric then he'll probably optimize himself for that.

And by standard D&D assumptions, be an Adept or Expert.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-12, 02:42 PM
Ban feats that allow a cleric to trade in a use of turn/rebuke undead to do something other than turn or rebuke undead. Exceptions might be made on a case by case basis, but most of these seem to be fairly overpowered.

Riffington
2009-05-12, 03:32 PM
Well, most people aren't fantasy heroes capable of calling upon power of their deity, are they? Nor do they face life-or-death combat everyday.

It's simply a matter of necessity. If you find yourself in a life-or-death situation often then I don't believe that you'll do nothing. In real life, if say, you were mugged every other week, you'd train martial arts or buy a gun or other means of self-defence. In D&D you'll use whatever means you deem effective that you have at your disposal.


Some people are heroes who face life-or-death combat every day. Guess what: most don't optimize. Army rangers smoke, reducing their endurance. They spend more money on their wives, Xboxes, or alcohol than on their weapons or protective gear. They make racist comments to men their lives depend upon. And they are big damn heroes.

If every hero/villain optimized, the President would never make stupid faux pas. Scientists wouldn't drink. Babe Ruth would be skinny. Michael Phelps wouldn't smoke pot. Mike Tyson would have decided that asthma disqualified him from being a pro boxer. Barkley would have memorized the kama sutra.

The fact is, the vast majority of our heroes are horribly unoptimized, even for the things they love to do. It's just human nature. If you want to play someone optimized, go ahead - but you have to realize you are in the minority even among mythic heroes.

Swooper
2009-05-12, 03:51 PM
The houserule I always enforce is that you can't use metamagic - even mitigated metamagic, like with DMM - to boost a spell's level to higher than you can normally cast. Problem solved.
I'm with this guy.

grautry
2009-05-12, 04:13 PM
The fact is, the vast majority of our heroes are horribly unoptimized, even for the things they love to do. It's just human nature. If you want to play someone optimized, go ahead - but you have to realize you are in the minority even among mythic heroes.

Problem being that the things you mention are rather minor in comparison to their overall optimization.


Army rangers smoke, reducing their endurance.

And spend how many hours each week on combat/physical training?


They spend more money on their wives, Xboxes, or alcohol than on their weapons or protective gear.

I was unaware of the fact that soldiers in an army buy their own gear. Those poor, poor airplane pilots. The fuel prices must be driving them to poverty. Not to mention the missles! :smallwink:


If every hero/villain optimized, the President would never make stupid faux pas.

The fact that they get elected despite their stupidity tells me they have a fairly optimized Charisma, Bluff and Diplomacy allowing them to both convince the people to vote for them and get enough political clout to matter.


Scientists wouldn't drink.

But they wouldn't be scientists if they haven't spent years learning their sciences.


Babe Ruth would be skinny. Michael Phelps wouldn't smoke pot. Mike Tyson would have decided that asthma disqualified him from being a pro boxer.

All sports analogies which are really weak considering that to become a pro sportsman you have to train all the freaking time. Each one of those spent thousands of hours to become who they are. They are the Pun-Puns of our world, pot or not.

The examples you're using are the D&D equivalent of a Cleric who has ten Nightsticks, DMM Persist, DMM Quicken and took Iron Will, or started with 17 Wisdom instead of 18 or something equally minor in comparison to overall level of cheese.

Curmudgeon
2009-05-12, 05:58 PM
I think the whole search for a "fix" is focused in the wrong place: on the Cleric character.

The fix needs to be on the DM or the campaign setting.

Almost all of the Cleric's problems are due to spells. Divine Metamagic (Persistent Spell) X is a long-term effect that benefits from niche D&D economic effects -- but it's still just a spell that can be dispelled. So a smart DM will have smart enemies, who know that debuffing is effective. Make Dispel Magic commonplace in most battles, and you've got an entirely different sort of game.

Riffington
2009-05-12, 06:19 PM
And spend how many hours each week on combat/physical training?

Right: an army ranger is a big deal. But they aren't *optimized*. They may have a 13 in strength and dexterity. They may have a feat of Skill Focus: Appraisal. And they put their lives on the line.




I was unaware of the fact that soldiers in an army buy their own gear.

Now you are aware. The military provides certain things. It does not provide every item that a soldier would want. Soldiers often use personal funds to buy a variety of lifesaving devices - including body armor, weapons, and silly string. They mod their humvees and change their uniforms slightly. And sometimes they don't.




The fact that they get elected despite their stupidity tells me they have a fairly optimized
It tells me that they aren't optimized, but get elected anyway. Some of the things that would make them better *candidates* (not even saying better presidents) would be easy but they just never got around to it. And they didn't have to, because many of their opponents weren't so hot either.




But they wouldn't be scientists if they haven't spent years learning their sciences.
Sure. Every scientist is an Expert rather than a Commoner. And has an Int of at least 12. And at least 3 ranks in the appropriate knowledge. If that's optimization, then great. But when people ask to have their characters optimized, they mean something different.




The examples you're using are the D&D equivalent of a Cleric who has ten Nightsticks, DMM Persist, DMM Quicken and took Iron Will, or started with 17 Wisdom instead of 18 or something equally minor in comparison to overall level of cheese.

No. They're the D&D equivalent of someone had an 18 Wisdom, and managed to become a Cleric instead of an Expert; they may have then spent their feats on Dodge, Power Attack, and Improved Unarmed Strike. Having the high stat and the cleric class makes them a big damn hero. That doesn't mean they're optimized.

The fact is, there's a huge difference between Character Optimization and figuring out that a fighter should have a high strength. I'm not telling you not to optimize your character. I'm telling you that if you do it, you need to know that makes your character an outlier.

Saph
2009-05-12, 09:56 PM
That's why I think that "just don't cheese" simply doesn't work. It's too much work to review everything on case-by-case basis. Not to mention it's quite unsatisfying to the player if he simply doesn't know whether any of his class features will work as advertised - or if he has to read a tome of house rules.

This is why I think that if you want to nerf a class then you need to do it in an overarching, general way. Like my example with replacing Cleric with Favored Soul or banning DMM. "Just don't cheese" is not a good answer.

To be honest, I think "Just don't cheese" is the only good answer. If you try and personally fix EVERY SINGLE broken thing in D&D, you'll go mad. I mean, do you have any idea how many game-breakers there are out there? I can think of a hundred without even trying.

So when I DM, I simply tell the players that it's their responsibility to make a character that gets along with the rest of the party, and leave it at that. "Get along with the rest of the party" covers a lot of things, and a compatible power level is one of them. Most players aren't stupid, and I usually find that they quickly develop a pretty good sense of what's on par, overpowered, or broken for any given campaign.

Basically, I find it works better to say "Here's the result I want, you figure out how to do it" than to say "Here's the result I want, here's the list of rules that I'm hoping will make you do it."

- Saph

grautry
2009-05-12, 11:57 PM
Right: an army ranger is a big deal. But they aren't *optimized*. They may have a 13 in strength and dexterity. They may have a feat of Skill Focus: Appraisal. And they put their lives on the line.

Now you are aware. The military provides certain things. It does not provide every item that a soldier would want. Soldiers often use personal funds to buy a variety of lifesaving devices - including body armor, weapons, and silly string. They mod their humvees and change their uniforms slightly. And sometimes they don't.

Well, guess what?

That just means that in the real world, 13 Strength and Dexterity is optimized. You can't seriously tell me that a person who spends dozens of hours each week training for their job is somehow un-optimized because he likes to spend his money on luxuries, smokes and has a hobby outside of his job.

Those are minor issues that miss the big picture.


Sure. Every scientist is an Expert rather than a Commoner. And has an Int of at least 12. And at least 3 ranks in the appropriate knowledge. If that's optimization, then great. But when people ask to have their characters optimized, they mean something different.

Like, optimization appropriate to the world where people can have the power of minor demigods?

Guess what? Optimization is relative. In a world where being powerful doesn't mean that you recruit your followers but instead can create entire races of them with magic, there are higher standards.

In the real world, that candidate/soldier/scientist/whatever is optimized. This means that the politician can have 14 Charisma, 4 levels in Aristocrat and one level in Warrior. And maybe Skill Focus:Diplomacy, Iron Will and Power Attack. Even if not every choice is perfect, that person is still vastly more optimized that your average human being.


No. They're the D&D equivalent of someone had an 18 Wisdom, and managed to become a Cleric instead of an Expert; they may have then spent their feats on Dodge, Power Attack, and Improved Unarmed Strike. Having the high stat and the cleric class makes them a big damn hero. That doesn't mean they're optimized.

So you're saying: the character is optimizing his class(Big Five, you can't do any better) and his casting stat - by far the most important stat he has(18 Wisdom) but he has a poor choice of 2 feats(out of many that he will choose later or possibly retrain) therefore, he is unoptimized?

You're once again showing a case of Big Picture: Optimized, Small Details: Unoptimized.

Tempest Fennac
2009-05-13, 01:37 AM
Rose Dragon, why would a village-based Cleric be an Adept or Expert? Experts don't get magic and Adepts are basically make-shift casters for areas where full casters aren't available. I'd personally have Clerics who have no interest in fighting as Cloistered Clerics as well due to how they get abilities in place of fighting ability.

Farlion
2009-05-13, 02:31 AM
In real life, if say, you were mugged every other week, you'd train martial arts or buy a gun or other means of self-defence. In D&D you'll use whatever means you deem effective that you have at your disposal.


I like this one, because it states the different point of view we have.

Seriously, if I got mugged every other week, I would NOT buy a gun nor would I train martial arts, but I'd think about why I get mugged. Is it because I take the wrong roads? Is it because I just look like someone who wants to be robbed? Is it because the police in town isn't doing their work?

In my settings, this is exactly how my players think. If they get robbed while traveling, it mostly has a reason and the best way to solve the problem, is to find out, "why you are robbed at all", not "how can I train to beat up bandits more efficiently".

Cheers,
Farlion

Aquillion
2009-05-13, 03:15 AM
Agreed, but he's looking for a "less powerful" variant of a cleric if I understood correctly. So instead of replacing the class, just don't play it that broken.

Clerics are only broken, if the player decides to use these special combinations and the game is only played by RAW.

Play a full healer cleric for instance. Buff others, not yourself. The fighter will love it, whoever else you buff also and you won't be brokenly good.

Cheers,
FarlionClerics are actually not very good at buffing others; most of their most powerful buffs are self-only.

Maybe you don't like the CoDzilla cleric who buffs themselves and then wades into battle, but that is how the cleric is intended to be played. This isn't like the Wizard issue, where they screwed up by assuming everyone would be a blaster -- the 2e Cleric really was built to be a full-healer cleric, and everyone hated to play it. Groups had trouble convincing people to be a cleric. The 3e cleric was designed to avert this by using spontaneous cure-conversion so you could heal freely in your downtime using extra spells, while giving them lots of powerful self-only buffs so they could wade into combat. This is an entirely deliberate design decision, and "Righteous cleric of Moradin who draws upon the power of my god, goes into a religious fury, and then wades into combat to lay the smack-down on the sinful and unrighteous with a huge-ass hammer" is a perfectly valid character concept, no more or less valid or good for roleplaying than "prayer guy who sits in the back healing occasionally." The changes to the cleric class from 2e to 3e were deliberately intended to encourage that character-type, since the designers thought it would encourage more people to play clerics -- note that the issue is not power (2e clerics were plenty powerful), but character concept; they found more people were interested in character concepts that got involved in combat.

They... went a bit to far, and you can see what we got. But the point is, "cleric who wades into battle" is not an inherently broken character concept. "Gun-toting priest" (well, "hammer-toting priest", or whatever your god's weapon happens to be) is intended to be the primary concept represented by the Cleric class; this is why other classes and variants were later created for people who want to play a purely noncombatant healer.

But telling people that their character concept is "not roleplaying" because the game's broken mechanics is too powerful is kinda offensive. I know you didn't mean to say it that way, but that's how it's coming across. "Hair-trigger Hammer-toting priest of Moradin who speaks with a soft voice and heals the injured, but smacks down the unrighteous with massive hammers when he gets angry (and then heals them up and tries to convert them afterwords)" is a perfectly good starting description for a character.

Although you may not realize it, by telling people they should only play pure healers if they want to play "proper" clerics, you are already altering the game's basic assumption. 3e (unlike previous editions) was designed around the assumption that most people would not want to play that, and the cleric's design principals reflect this understanding. You still can, but it's not the primary assumption reflected in, say, the cleric spell list.

Allerdyce
2009-05-13, 03:26 AM
Having actually had a few people try to rob me (not once a week, but enough that I can easily tell at least 5 funny stories of being robbed without having to think about it) I've never thought "Hey, I should learn how to disarm people of weapons" or anything like that. In general, people don't optimise unless they have a very specific goal in mind, which generally requires both an intellectual and emotional basis. People optimise their high school transcripts because they're trying to get into a high end college and get scholarships. Their intention is to get a full education and work in whatever their field is, which is assumed to be their life's passion, or at least something their somewhat passionate about, while also providing a comfortable life for themselves. On the other hand, you have people like thugs or what have you, that like going out and getting into fights, but don't really optimize for it. They're usually kinda strong and tend to know basic fighting knowledge, but they don't, for instance, go out and take martial arts classes, or consistently train outside of maybe lifting weights somewhat regularly. They may enjoy fighting, but they don't have an intellectual reason to complement that liking, and thus don't dedicate themselves to it.

From what I've seen, people generally need more than one good reason to optimize for anything. Just because it's a good idea isn't good enough in most cases. It usually takes an emotional and intellectual investment in the idea for someone to do that. That being said, if someone is majorly invested in something, they're gonna do it one way or the other. That still doesn't excuse abusing rules to do things that are gonna diminish other people's fun by totally stealing their thunder. I think it's pretty reasonable to just ask yourself "Am I disrupting other people's enjoyment?" and use that as a measuring stick for whether the mechanic you're using is a good idea.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-13, 03:33 AM
Being an adventurer who routinely gets into life-or-death situations (that is, gets into a life-or-death fight at least once every few days) has a very good damn reason to 'optimize' himself.

grautry
2009-05-13, 03:34 AM
I like this one, because it states the different point of view we have.

Seriously, if I got mugged every other week, I would NOT buy a gun nor would I train martial arts, but I'd think about why I get mugged. Is it because I take the wrong roads? Is it because I just look like someone who wants to be robbed? Is it because the police in town isn't doing their work?

In my settings, this is exactly how my players think. If they get robbed while traveling, it mostly has a reason and the best way to solve the problem, is to find out, "why you are robbed at all", not "how can I train to beat up bandits more efficiently".

Yes, but here you're forgetting the "must do this" part.

For example, you are certainly right that in the real world you can probably avoid most muggings simply by avoiding certain places. Or by trying to motivate the policemen. Or by changing your looks etc.

But what if avoidance doesn't work? Generally in fantasy campaigns you'll face situations where it's your party's responsibility to accomplish something. If they avoid the encounter, the BBEG will burn down the village. If they try to motivate the guards then it probably turns out that they're too weak to face the challenges on their own.

If fate of <whatever> doesn't depend on your party than any of those can work. But if it does then you're in a situation where you really don't have a choice but to engage the problem - by whatever means.

And you're still probably optimizing. If your tactic is avoidance then you'll invest to be better at cunning/sneaky solutions. If your means of solution is "how to avoid looking like someone who wants to be robbed" then you'll try to do your best at intimidation or disguise or other means. And if you're just going in to smash faces then you'll optimize at combat.

Once again, combat is merely an example of what you're trying to be effective at.

Overall my idea is simple: if you're trying to accomplish a goal then you'll choose the most efficient way to go about accomplishing that goal to the limits of your willpower(which Clerics really shouldn't lack if we use Will saves as an analogy to willpower) and ability to judge what's best(which Clerics should be at least average at - and if you can't do that yourself then your resident party genius should be able to tell you what's best). This applies doubly so if you're portraying a character that's supposed to be exceptional at what he does - which you probably are, given just how powerful D&D characters are.

I really don't see why that's so controversial.

Oslecamo
2009-05-13, 03:42 AM
Being an adventurer who routinely gets into life-or-death situations (that is, gets into a life-or-death fight at least once every few days) has a very good damn reason to 'optimize' himself.

Being an adventurer who routinely gets into life-or-death situations is just proof that said adventurer definetely doesn't think like a normal person.

Actually, the fact that the adventurer is geting into life-or-death situations routinely means he/she doesn't really care that much about it's own well being.

After all, are we going to a warzone in search of fame and glory at the risk of our own head or are we siting confortably at our computers and working for something less risky?

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-13, 04:03 AM
Being an adventurer who routinely gets into life-or-death situations is just proof that said adventurer definetely doesn't think like a normal person.

Actually, the fact that the adventurer is geting into life-or-death situations routinely means he/she doesn't really care that much about it's own well being.

After all, are we going to a warzone in search of fame and glory at the risk of our own head or are we siting confortably at our computers and working for something less risky?

...I think you'll find that the type of people to go into warzones care a great deal about their own well-being. This is why they go in armour and carry weapons. And also why they kill the other guy before he kills them.

Khanderas
2009-05-13, 04:46 AM
So being trained to use heavy armour doesn't make someone a warrior? What?

Not all warriors use swords. In fact, in 'real life' combat you'd probably use a mace - swords are not that good if your opponent is wearing anything tougher than, say, cloth.
But still in spite of all that. Virtually EVERY civilization on earth, has had swords or swordlike weapons as the main symbol of military and the military weapon (or secondary to spears sometimes) of choice.
All of the above, except in very hot climates, have had leather armor and up.

So if a heavy stick, that is far easier to make, buy and maintain, would be superior to a sword on any combatant wearing any kind of armour was true. Swords would not be as popular for centuries all over the world.

Oslecamo
2009-05-13, 05:21 AM
...I think you'll find that the type of people to go into warzones care a great deal about their own well-being. This is why they go in armour and carry weapons. And also why they kill the other guy before he kills them.

They don't kill the other guy to protect themselves. They kill the other guy to take their stuff. It's 99% of the reasons why people pick up weapons and armor and go kill other people.

Also, you never heard of martyrs?

Anyway, you can't deny that someone is dying in the middle of the fighting. When I go to study in my university, I don't expect my fellow students to try to take my life.

Farlion
2009-05-13, 05:29 AM
I really don't see why that's so controversial.

Then let me try to explain.

As far as I'm concerned, the combat oriented/optimized cleric is the only cleric playstyle that gets too cheesy (correct me if I'm wrong). So by giving your cleric another non-combat discipline he can optimize in, is probably the easiest way to make clerics unbroken.


Cheers,
Farlion

DragoonWraith
2009-05-13, 06:18 AM
a level 18 NPC aristocrat with a maxed out religion skill, a high int and skill focus (religion), as well as a high diplomacy/bluff/intimidate & sense motive could very well be the highest authority in the church for whatever reason.
Heh, this is a good point. In medieval times, the Cardinals (the guys who elect the Pope; these days they're basically just Bishops+, but they weren't always) often weren't even priests, they were really just diplomats for the church, usually noble-born with some religious conviction, but mostly it was just another path to power and influence and respect.

OK, so maybe it's not really that good a point because I'm not really sure what it has to do with D&D Clerics. But it's still interesting history trivia! (to me, anyways)

Riffington
2009-05-13, 07:01 AM
Well, guess what?

That just means that in the real world, 13 Strength and Dexterity is optimized. You can't seriously tell me that a person who spends dozens of hours each week training for their job is somehow un-optimized because he likes to spend his money on luxuries, smokes and has a hobby outside of his job.
That's exactly what I'm telling you. An ordinary Army Ranger is a hero. An optimized Army Ranger would look like "Well, my main hobbies are sharpshooting, and martial arts. I have OCD, and have to spend 2 hours working out every morning. I am also allergic to walrus fur. My wife is a wealthy attorney, who spends most of her money buying me military equipment. My high school language was Arabic, and I spent a year abroad in Iraq in high school, and in Afghanistan in college."



Guess what? Optimization is relative. In a world where being powerful doesn't mean that you recruit your followers but instead can create entire races of them with magic, there are higher standards.

No, power is what's relative. Optimization != power. Higher level characters are not "more optimized" than lower level characters.

Optimized isn't "the thing that a new player would think looks cool and powerful". That's the standard. It also isn't your attribute rolls (you have no control over how you roll). Optimized is when you put in some combos that a newbie would be unlikely to come up with, which would enable you to mop up the floor with his character. Optimization is when you very carefully design your character (given the attributes you rolled and level you're playing at) to get every bit of power possible out of the "build".



Overall my idea is simple: if you're trying to accomplish a goal then you'll choose the most efficient way to go about accomplishing that goal to the limits of your willpower(which Clerics really shouldn't lack if we use Will saves as an analogy to willpower) and ability to judge what's best

Therefore, Michael Phelps never smokes pot. Look, maybe you are special. But just be aware that 99% of exceptional heroes (and a far higher proportion of humans generally) don't do the most efficient or most effective thing.

Severedevil
2009-05-13, 09:29 AM
An ordinary Army Ranger is a hero. An optimized Army Ranger would look like "Well, my main hobbies are sharpshooting, and martial arts. I have OCD, and have to spend 2 hours working out every morning. I am also allergic to walrus fur. My wife is a wealthy attorney, who spends most of her money buying me military equipment. My high school language was Arabic, and I spent a year abroad in Iraq in high school, and in Afghanistan in college."

That's perfectly realistic - they go into life or death situations all the time. What's unrealistic are the ordinary Army Rangers, who know they can do all of those things and dump Charisma for more Wisdom, but don't. (Especially the ones who chose a spouse based on love rather than disposable income. Classic newbie trap.) Those guys clearly do not know how to be a character in a war zone.

Actually, they should be playing a gunarmed swordsage, and stop dragging down their party.

Justin B.
2009-05-13, 11:49 AM
But still in spite of all that. Virtually EVERY civilization on earth, has had swords or swordlike weapons as the main symbol of military and the military weapon (or secondary to spears sometimes) of choice.
All of the above, except in very hot climates, have had leather armor and up.

So if a heavy stick, that is far easier to make, buy and maintain, would be superior to a sword on any combatant wearing any kind of armour was true. Swords would not be as popular for centuries all over the world.

Mostly what this is attributed to is that swords are very expensive to maintain and create, at least more expensive than other weapons of the era, therefore they served as something of a status symbol and a military symbol as well. It has very little to do with their usefulness; they were mostly sidearms.

On the battlefield you want one thing above all others: reach. Reach means you can touch your opponent before he can touch you. Reach advantage his huge, swords generally don't have any of it.



So being trained to use heavy armour doesn't make someone a warrior? What?

Not all warriors use swords. In fact, in 'real life' combat you'd probably use a mace - swords are not that good if your opponent is wearing anything tougher than, say, cloth.

This is more or less correct. Even heavy plates, chain mail and padding don't do much to stop a concussive force. Bludgeoning weapons are the best weapons for a heavily armored opponent.

ericgrau
2009-05-13, 12:14 PM
As said probably 10 times already, find a group that doesn't munchkin too much and the problem is solved. Otherwise ban the cheese yourself: DMM, nightstick, etc. It might also help to not give the group higher than normal stats so MAD classes like clerics don't take advantage of it.

In core the cleric can buff the daylights out of himself to become slightly better than a fighter. This comes with traps like divine power where you have to play catch-up for 4-5 rounds just to do only as much damage as a cleric who spent round 1 attacking instead. And, putting aside spells like divine power that are only good for stat bragging ("I technically have full BAB, but I screw myself spending a round to get it"), if a fighter joins that party and the cleric (or a wizard/sorcerer) buffs him in the morning as well then the fighter will greatly outshine the cleric. Plus any enemy caster with half a brain will (or should) dispel magic every cleric he sees and/or his martial party members.

If the cleric shines at healing and removing status ailments, that's just peachy, so we're left with SoD's and inflict spells. Barring cheese, SoD's have about a 50% chance of landing on anything strong enough to be worth casting it on, requiring about 2 rounds. And unlike a wizard the cleric mostly gets touch range single target SoD's. Direct damage also tends to take 2 rounds, and doesn't require spell slots. So no biggy there. Inflict spells are stronger against heavily armored opponents since they are touch attacks, and weaker otherwise. So no biggy there either.

grautry
2009-05-13, 12:33 PM
That's exactly what I'm telling you. An ordinary Army Ranger is a hero. An optimized Army Ranger would look like "Well, my main hobbies are sharpshooting, and martial arts. I have OCD, and have to spend 2 hours working out every morning. I am also allergic to walrus fur. My wife is a wealthy attorney, who spends most of her money buying me military equipment. My high school language was Arabic, and I spent a year abroad in Iraq in high school, and in Afghanistan in college."

Therefore, Michael Phelps never smokes pot. Look, maybe you are special. But just be aware that 99% of exceptional heroes (and a far higher proportion of humans generally) don't do the most efficient or most effective thing.

Repeating the same argument over and over again - which you're doing right now - does not make it any more valid.

What you're essentially saying is: to be considered "optimized" you need to devote every single waking minute of your life to making yourself better at what it is that you're optimizing. You can't have a minor vice. You can't have your own life outside of your job. You can't do anything but train, non-stop without anything less than absolute, total and complete devotion to your discipline.

Because seriously, Michael Phelps is not optimized? That guy trains five hours a day, six days a week. He exercise so much in fact, that he needs to eat twelve thousand calories per day to have the energy to train as he does.

And in your opinion, all of that INSANE optimization is automatically invalid because he has a minor vice?

By the way of analogy, if smoking pot makes Michael Phelps unoptimized then the only optimized D&D build is Pun-Pun. Because, any other build has some minor flaws due to being, you know, not omnipotent(lookie! Incantatrix requires Iron Will - must mean it's an unoptimized class).

Riffington
2009-05-14, 09:47 AM
Repeating the same argument over and over again - which you're doing right now - does not make it any more valid.

What you're essentially saying is: to be considered "optimized" you need to devote every single waking minute of your life to making yourself better at what it is that you're optimizing. You can't have a minor vice. You can't have your own life outside of your job. You can't do anything but train, non-stop without anything less than absolute, total and complete devotion to your discipline.
I may have repeated myself, but I never said that.
What I'm saying is that dedication may be necessary to optimization in many cases, but it is not identical with optimization. Training hard in the ways that other people train hard for your profession is not optimization. Going beyond that to succeed because of the way the rules work is optimization. Bill Gates is an optimizer. He was a decent programmer, but not astounding. Yet he understood the rules in an abnormally clear way, allowing him to go to the right school, drop out of that school when it was no longer useful to him, take advantage of certain contracts, build bugs that were actually features for him, etc. The guys at MIT who work every minute on their programming skills are dedicated, but not necessarily optimized.



Because seriously, Michael Phelps is not optimized? That guy trains five hours a day, six days a week. He exercise so much in fact, that he needs to eat twelve thousand calories per day to have the energy to train as he does.
And in your opinion, all of that INSANE optimization is automatically invalid because he has a minor vice?
1. That's dedication, not optimization.
2. A minor vice? Maybe for you it'd be minor. He stood to lose his entire career. It's the kind of mistake even a journalist could pick up on. It's the equivalent of a wizard who decides to start charging into battle.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-14, 11:42 AM
Swords are popular, historically, for three main reasons:

They're a status symbol. Swords are expensive and difficult to maintain compared to other weapons. If you own a sword, it says "Look at me! I'm rich!"

They're versatile. A blade is far more useful than a blunt instrument. You can use it to cut things other than other people. What can you use a mace for? Hammering in a nail, maybe, if you're very careful and for some reason don't have a hammer?

They're cool. No, seriously, this is a reason. People for some reason like swords, above and beyond the whole "expensive = status symbol" thing. This is why heroes tend to be depicted with a sword while anyone in a real battle would likely have a spear and a mace.

Hint: Swords were not actually all that common in real combat. They're good for chopping up your lessers, and they create horrific wounds compared to some weapons. But if you're fighting a guy in a tin can, you'll just want to smack him in the chest until his ribs break.

ericgrau
2009-05-14, 03:40 PM
On swords, given that they were a common weapon of choice in armies they must have been effective. Take, oh, all of the Roman Legions, for example. Wikipedia says the Francs tried to ban the export of swords because Vikings were using their swords to raid them. Spears and pole-arms were a popular way for the relatively untrained and poor commoner to fight the trained and richer riding swordsmen, due to their reach and the ability of some to dismount. Which only implies that the riding swordsmen were the greatest threat to be feared. Wikipedia says that as armor and helmets became more common, the usefulness of maces became limited. Phalanx formations used both spears and swords. The spear was for throwing or reach at range, then the sword for close quarters. Swords became more common as iron became more plentiful, implying that cost seems to be one of the major issues on equipping them at large scale. Bronze was never plentiful, which is why today it costs much more than iron. Bronze swords were uncommon IIRC.