Are cloistered clerics worth it?

[Kaeso]

Let me start of by saying that I love the flavor of the cloistered cleric. The core cleric, as it is, is more of a paladin than the paladin itself, while the cloistered cleric feels like a real, medieval occidental monk that focuses on philosophy, natural science, healing etc. (Okay, medieval monks couldn't heal... unless you count the hospitallers. They did, as their name implied, have hospitals).

As far as gameplay goes, I'm kind of doubting their utility. While they can heal and buff, their skills on these fields are hardly an improvement over the regular, paladin-esque cleric, they only get a bonus domain and a few more skill points (though the skill points could be useful and reflect a life of study). They don't get any notable extra spells, so they're mostly stuck in the back healing and buffing without any true source of damage. I wouldn't mind this so much if their buffing skills had improved compared to a regular cleric.

So would you agree with me if I say that a normal cleric is better than a cloistered cleric overall?

[jpreem]

They only get a bonus domain.
Mwhahahaha- insert sinister laughter of a munchkin here.

[TroubleBrewing]

Cloistered Cleric is a better choice. All Knowledges as class skills means Knowledge Devotion is awesome and also free, given the bonus domain. It eliminates the problem of 3/4 BAB vs. 1/2 BAB, too. Magic Vestment negates the heavy armor problem, and the extra skill points more than outweigh the ~2 extra hp/level.

[Jude_H]

Spells > Skills > pretty much anything else in the basic game.

Summons pack some offensive heat, as does Knowledge Devotion, if you want to go that way.

[TroubleBrewing]

Spells > Skills > pretty much anything else in the basic game.


I like this explanation better than mine.

[/thread]

[AslanCross]

If you don't want to play a divine warrior and want to play a true divine caster, they certainly are worth it. The bonus domain (more spells) alone is worth it, plus you get the added utility of the Lore ability and more skill points.

In my Eberron RHOD campaign, the cloistered cleric was primarily a problem solver, then a secondary blaster/wand slinger (Magic and Force domains) and had Knowledge skills up the wazoo. She was a very strong all-around character who pretty much took up the role of a wizard (the party had a blaster psion, but no wizard).

EDIT: Spell Compendium has a whole bunch of offensive spells, if you really want blasting. Divine Power will cover your melee bases. You could even do a Zen Archer cleric.

[Prime32]

Cloistered clerics are significantly more powerful than normal ones. That poor BAB means nothing when your buffs set your BAB to full anyway, and you can use the extra domain for Knowledge Devotion.

If you're dipping a level of cleric (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2773), there is basically no mechanical reason not to use cloistered cleric (unless you use fractional BAB and can't take a hit to it)

[Talya]

Magic Vestment negates the heavy armor problem, and the extra skill points more than outweigh the ~2 extra hp/level.


It's only ~1 extra hp/level. (d6 vs. d8...3.5 vs. 4.5.) At first level it's 2 extra hit points, though, which is when they matter most I suppose. Cloistered is still the better option...

[Thespianus]

The only silly thing about trading the Knowledge Domain for the Knowledge Devotion feat is that you lose your Knowledge skills as class skills, since this is the Domain power of the Knowledge Domain. You have to find a way around that. I believe you have to either dip other classes or grab another feat to keep all Knowledges as class skills.

[dextercorvia]

The only silly thing about trading the Knowledge Domain for the Knowledge Devotion feat is that you lose your Knowledge skills as class skills, since this is the Domain power of the Knowledge Domain. You have to find a way around that. I believe you have to either dip other classes or grab another feat to keep all Knowledges as class skills.

You can also grab a different domain like Mind or Inquisition to trade for Knowledge Devotion.

[Veyr]

Or take either Educated or Knowledge Devotion as a feat, or if you're only dipping Cleric, sticking to classes that do get all Knowledges as class skills aside from that one dip.

[Thespianus]

You can also grab a different domain like Mind or Inquisition to trade for Knowledge Devotion.
That's the reason people dip Church Inquisitor, right? ;)

But, true, you can trade another Domain for it, if you think that gives you a better benefit than a Feat.

[dextercorvia]

That's the reason people dip Church Inquisitor, right? ;)

But, true, you can trade another Domain for it, if you think that gives you a better benefit than a Feat.

It's not a bad reason. If you aren't going PvP, you can probably get away without that pimptastic of a dispel check.

Honestly, if I'm building a caster cleric (my preference over a gishy cleric), I'm not going to bother with Knowledge devotion. If I'm rolling a Gish-C, then I'll probably just swap out the domain after I have a skill bonus of +15-20.

Either way, my domains and feats are already accounted for. It's only in a dip situation, that I'm likely to be focused on getting Know. Devo.

[Jude_H]

The only silly thing about trading the Knowledge Domain for the Knowledge Devotion feat is that you lose your Knowledge skills as class skills, since this is the Domain power of the Knowledge Domain. You have to find a way around that. I believe you have to either dip other classes or grab another feat to keep all Knowledges as class skills.
Eh. Clerics get Arcana, Religion and the Planes. Add Nature with Knowledge Devotion, and you have like 90% of the MM covered.

That's the reason people dip Church Inquisitor, right? ;)But... But Inquisition is awesome.

[MarkusWolfe]

But... But Inquisition is awesome.

And sometimes, unexpected.

[Thespianus]

Or take either Educated or Knowledge Devotion as a feat
That's what I meant with "grab another feat to keep all Knowledges as class skills." :smallwink:

[Thespianus]

Eh. Clerics get Arcana, Religion and the Planes. Add Nature with Knowledge Devotion, and you have like 90% of the MM covered.

Dungeoneering comes up frequently in, well, dungeoneering situations. ;)


But... But Inquisition is awesome.
With that sweet feat that allows you to cast Dispel Magic to Counterspell as an immediate action, it becomes very nice indeed. +4 to Dispel Checks is yum.

[Gullintanni]

Dungeoneering comes up frequently in, well, dungeoneering situations. ;)


With that sweet feat that allows you to cast Dispel Magic to Counterspell as an immediate action, it becomes very nice indeed. +4 to Dispel Checks is yum.

Divine Defiance FCII. Combine it with Spontaneous Domain Casting ACF and the Magic Domain for spontaneous Dispel Magic for fun and profit.

[Talya]

As nice as cloistered clerics are, I sorta prefer archivists for the same fluff and setup. Oh, there's advantages to both (Domains in particular are an advantage to the CC), but...archivists are just damn cool. Especially if your DM is like me and allows a variant of "Collegiate Wizard" ("Seminary Educated") that's refluffed to work for Archivists (and grants +2 religion instead of arcana.)

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, the Cloistered variant of Cleric is definitely worthwhile. However, they have poorer survivability than regular Clerics at low levels (before 7, where Divine Power first becomes available). So they need to be played as timid scholars before long periods of study give them enough knowledge and resources to work around their limitations.

[Metahuman1]

Never forget Knowledge Local if your getting Knowledge Devotion. Local covers Humanoids, which more or less covers every variant of the PHB 1's playable races, and a fair number of the playable races introduced in assorted splat books.

It's a category you know your gonna fight at least once in a while in just about every game.

[mootoall]

Dungeoneering is good for Abberations!

[navar100]

"Cheese it" by going into Radiant Servant prestige class and get back your combat awesomeness.

Still, playing a cloistered a cleric mostly/usually means you are playing a spellcaster cleric as opposed to a warrior cleric. That's a viable tactic. Don't underestimate buffing. Buffing the party makes everyone fight better. That matters. You are contributing when someone else lands the killing blow. Bless and Prayer are important spells. Many times people hit or miss just because of a +1/-1. Clerics also get some nice attack spells on their own. Dispel Magic is a biggie. Searing Light, Flame Strike, Harm, Implosion. Spell Compendium has Moonbolt and Cometfall.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Cloistered Cleric really is just that awesome. I generally don't even use the knowledge devotion.

First I love it for playing a priest with spells as opposed to the Tier 1 Paladin that the standard cleric is.

Second if you PrC or multiclass into something that grants better armor and weapons early (at 5 or 6) then you lose just 1 point of BAB and 4-5 hp and you gain a domain and 24-28 skill points. I'd consider that even in a totally unoptimized game where I wasn't going to have perma or every fight Divine Power.

The only time I'd play a vanilla cleric given the option of cloistered is if I was in a game starting at level 1 and wanted to be able to where armor and hit things with a stick out of the box. Even at lvl 2 I'd play a Cloistered Cleric 1/Crusader 1.

[Thespianus]

So they need to be played as timid scholars before long periods of study give them enough knowledge and resources to work around their limitations.
Well, timid scholars with Power Attack, anyway. :smallwink:

[Curmudgeon]

Well, timid scholars with Power Attack, anyway. :smallwink:
No, I don't think so. Power Attack is only for when you've got enough BAB, and enough bonuses to hit without BAB, to make that worthwhile. Before Divine Power Cloistered Clerics are at ½ BAB, and need to focus on WIS instead of STR. Power Attack would just be a dreadfully bad feat choice then.

[Eldariel]

People seem to forget that Clerics are full casters. They don't need to go Clericzilla to smack it hardcore in the frontline; a Cleric spellcaster is not quite as strong as Wizard (without lots of work to expand the spell list at any rate) but he's certainly more than viable on his own right and has access to some really good spells not on Wizard-list (in addition to the obvious Freedoms of Movement, Death Wards and Heal, there's some real good low level stuff like Silence, Darkbolt and company).

Indeed, caster Clerics are more natural Cloistered Clerics; though of course, CC can go just as Zilla as classic Cleric, just a bit more reliant on Divine Power later on; early on BAB is fairly irrelevant and it's just a function of your stats and feats anyways; I've played a warrior Cloistered Cleric levels 1-3 with 18 Str and done the same as the contemporary warriors as a Tripper, just with less HP but some spells to make up for all that. I personally like removing Divine Favor, Divine Power and Righteous Might from the CC spell list to keep the archetypes separate.

[Godskook]

It is only a 'downgrade' for the first ~6ish levels. After that, it just rocks out loud slightly harder than the regular version.

Oh, and by downgrade, I mean trading ~7is hp and 1 BAB for 36 skill points, a better skill list, a spare domain, and domain-less and free identify(an incredible boon to low-level characters).

[Talya]

People seem to forget that Clerics are full casters. They don't need to go Clericzilla to smack it hardcore in the frontline; a Cleric spellcaster is not quite as strong as Wizard (without lots of work to expand the spell list at any rate) but he's certainly more than viable on his own right and has access to some really good spells not on Wizard-list (in addition to the obvious Freedoms of Movement, Death Wards and Heal, there's some real good low level stuff like Silence, Darkbolt and company).


Yeah, this always baffles me. People talk about how suboptimal melee combat is compared to spellcasting, then set up a Clericzilla to waste combat actions by smacking stuff with a stick. I'm not saying it isn't fun to play a melee focused cleric (there's lots of great reasons to do so), just don't complain about balance if that's what you're doing. Clerics don't need to melee to be tier 1.

[HalfDragonCube]

Spells > Skills > pretty much anything else in the basic game.

Shouldn't feats be in there somewhere?:smallbiggrin:

[FMArthur]

TBH, if I wasn't going to wade into battle with a buffed-up Cleric (Cloistered or normal), I might just prefer to be an Archivist. Devotion feats and all-day buffs are what Turn Undead is for. If you're not using your Turning and you're not using Cleric BAB and HD, Archivist has everything else for you. They've got more - and more diverse - domain spells, the Druid list, and some Ranger/Paladin goodies.

[Talya]

TBH, if I wasn't going to wade into battle with a buffed-up Cleric (Cloistered or normal), I might just prefer to be an Archivist. Devotion feats and all-day buffs are what Turn Undead is for. If you're not using your Turning and you're not using Cleric BAB and HD, Archivist has everything else for you. They've got more - and more diverse - domain spells, the Druid list, and some Ranger/Paladin goodies.

Not to gloat, but I only swordsaged you by about 5 hours and 12 posts. ;)

You actually provided more info though, so carry on, good sir!

[HalfDragonCube]

TBH, if I wasn't going to wade into battle with a buffed-up Cleric (Cloistered or normal), I might just prefer to be an Archivist. Devotion feats and all-day buffs are what Turn Undead is for. If you're not using your Turning and you're not using Cleric BAB and HD, Archivist has everything else for you. They've got more - and more diverse - domain spells, the Druid list, and some Ranger/Paladin goodies.

That and you can milk spells out of your fellow spellcasters.

[Eldariel]

TBH, if I wasn't going to wade into battle with a buffed-up Cleric (Cloistered or normal), I might just prefer to be an Archivist. Devotion feats and all-day buffs are what Turn Undead is for. If you're not using your Turning and you're not using Cleric BAB and HD, Archivist has everything else for you. They've got more - and more diverse - domain spells, the Druid list, and some Ranger/Paladin goodies.

Domains and Turning certainly buff up your spellcasting too. Divine Spell Power, Divine Metamagic (it's not just for Persistent Spell, y'know), Domain Spontaneity, etc. makes for a lot of ways to buff your spells with Turning, and far as Domains go...well, there's obviously expanding your spell list, and then there's tons of casting-based buffs like Inquisition, any elemental/aligned domain ever, etc. And a bunch of Domains with just generally good stuff (Pride, Time, Celerity, Luck, etc.) being useful regardless of whether you go caster or caster/warrior.

Also, Clerics have SAD casting while Archivist are slightly MAD with their bonus spells, and while Archivists get by and large more spells, Clerics automatically know all their spells while Archivists need scrolls to learn them. Archivist isn't a Super Cleric; it's superior in many aspects but Cleric has many things going on for it too (some PrC entries require Domain access too, for example, restricting them to Cleric before level billion when Archivist finally gets Contemplative).


Cloistered Clerics also make for superb skill monkies since they can expand on the skill list with Domains (and few Cleric-only feats) and get 6+Int base skills making them one of the best casting skill monkies, up there with Beguilers and Artificers.


Archivists are cool but so are Clerics, Cloistered or otherwise, in melee or casting. It's a world of choices, man.

[dextercorvia]

Not so fast. Clerics get domain slots, which allows them to take advantage of Domain Spontaneity (Spell domain), and turn attempts can be used to great effect with Divine Spell Power.

Edit: Ninja'd, and I meant the Spontaneous Domain ACF, rather than the feat.

[TroubleBrewing]

Shouldn't feats be in there somewhere?:smallbiggrin:

They are: "everything else in the game".

[Thurbane]

My 2 cents is that the Cloistered Cleric is almost always worth it. What they gain compared to what they lose seems like a no-brainer to me. About all they lose is some combat durability, which can more than be compensated for at mid+ levels by spells and items anyway.

The gains in an extra domain and those tasy 6 skill points/level more than compensate, IMHO. Lore and some bonus non-cleric spells is just icing on the cake...

[TroubleBrewing]

The combat durability is a non-issue at low levels, too.

You can still wear and cast in heavy armor at low levels, you just aren't proficient with it.

The hit point loss is no big deal; it's 4 HP at first level and and average 2 points per level after. At 20th level that comes out to 42 HP.

Woooo. :smallamused:

[Divide by Zero]

The hit point loss is no big deal; it's 4 2 HP at first level and and average 2 1 points per level after. At 20th level that comes out to 42 21 HP.

Fixed for you.

[TroubleBrewing]

Cloistered clerics get d4's, clerics get d8s.


And this is why my math has been screwed up the last few posts.

Apparently, they get d6's.

I stand corrected!

[Leon]

Yes. They are worth it



As far as gameplay goes, I'm kind of doubting their utility. While they can heal and buff, their skills on these fields are hardly an improvement over the regular.

So they're mostly stuck in the back healing and buffing without any true source of damage.


Buffing your group is increasing the amount of Damage that they can do/receive and that is a far greater boon than your own source of damage and some of that buffing will rub off on you anyway - if you are still really wanting to mix it up after that the old Divine Power is still there and you have access to a decent weapon (Morning Star)

If you are smart you'll have Knowledge Devotion and a lot of Knowledge's to give you a edge on a large array of creatures.
The Skills will also let you inform your party of what things are cable of and maybe some weaknesses that you can exploit.


Shouldn't feats be in there somewhere?:smallbiggrin:

They can be useful but are not always essential - i know someone who played for 8 levels without any, her PC is now much better but even without feats was still great

[Ason]

They're worth it.

Plus, if you're really concerned about the lack of armor/whatnot and if you are a min-maxer to the degree that folks in my gaming circle tend to be, then you can always take one level of Prestige Paladin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin) to gain heavy armor, detect evil, +1 BAB and smite evil 1/day at the cost of 2 skill points. You don't lose casting or even turn undead- just two skill points once for the one level of this PrC before going back to Cloistered Cleric or another PrC. Of course, you have to maintain the code of conduct after taking a level of this class, but a true min-maxer never worries about such trifling things. :smalltongue:

[Talya]

They're worth it.

Plus, if you're really concerned about the lack of armor/whatnot and if you are a min-maxer to the degree that folks in my gaming circle tend to be, then you can always take one level of Prestige Paladin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin) to gain heavy armor

There's no such thing as heavy armor!


(Edit: I know, I know. This is not strictly true. If you can wear heavy armor, and don't have much dexterity, Adamantine Full Plate is strictly better than Mithral.)

[HalfDragonCube]

They can be useful but are not always essential - i know someone who played for 8 levels without any, her PC is now much better but even without feats was still great

Suppose so, but aren't skills like that as well? You can do some great things with them (like swimming up waterfalls and double-jumping) but a Wizard can get by without them just as much as they can by without feats.

[Incanur]

The regular cleric has advantages during the lower levels. Heavy armor and decent base attack bonus helps when you're fighting goblins and such. Beyond that, the cloistered cleric wins.

[Talya]

The regular cleric has advantages during the lower levels. Heavy armor and decent base attack bonus helps when you're fighting goblins and such. Beyond that, the cloistered cleric wins.

About that decent BAB...standard Cleric and Cloistered Cleric have the same BAB up until level 3, so that portion doesn't make much difference for very long...

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Yes, the Cloistered variant of Cleric is definitely worthwhile. However, they have poorer survivability than regular Clerics at low levels (before 7, where Divine Power first becomes available). So they need to be played as timid scholars before long periods of study give them enough knowledge and resources to work around their limitations.

To be fair, clericzilla exists for a reason.


Yeah, this always baffles me. People talk about how suboptimal melee combat is compared to spellcasting, then set up a Clericzilla to waste combat actions by smacking stuff with a stick. I'm not saying it isn't fun to play a melee focused cleric (there's lots of great reasons to do so), just don't complain about balance if that's what you're doing. Clerics don't need to melee to be tier 1.

Honestly, clericzilla exists, and I think it exists for a rather poor reason: it's there to show the DM that a cleric or druid can smack face easily if not better than a fighter type because of their spells, not despite them. Some of the best buff spells are self only, meaning a cleric or druid can easily abuse them without having to dip around like a standard, arcane gish would.

See, we still know about clericzillas, but we don't know why. They're fun as hell! Pardon the easy pun. That aside, they are a misguided attempt to show just how strong a spellcaster can be without a meatshield to take blows. Clerics and druids transition easier than most arcane gishes (save the odd War Weaver based gish) and do it just about as well as those guys do, too! Well, the smacking face part, at least.

[Kaeso]

To be fair, clericzilla exists for a reason.

Isn't that reason because most nonbuff cleric spells are fairly lackluster?

[Eldariel]

Isn't that reason because most nonbuff cleric spells are fairly lackluster?

Nah, Core Clerics have a strong if narrow slew of combat spells too and out of core they get a fairly competitive (not Wizard-strong, but caster-strong) slew of good stuff. Clericzilla happens 'cause it's pretty natural; they have low-level Personal buffs and they're naturally martially oriented so the game kinda guides you to that direction naturally.

And then, you crunch the numbers and realize that with your Personal buffs you can outfight dedicated warrior classes and that's where you start up on the path to Clericzilla.


In short, other spells aren't bad, just the buffs are good too (and used to be even better).

[FMArthur]

Isn't that reason because most nonbuff cleric spells are fairly lackluster?

Perhaps most are, but you aren't preparing most Cleric spells, you're preparing the good ones, and in there on the Cleric and domain lists it isn't hard to find amazing spells for every type of spellcasting. They do have a lot of buff spells, and buffing up and wacking stuff is cool and easy; that's pretty much it. With Clerics and other tier 1s, you should never interpret a more common playstyle as a sign of a limitation, because that's just not true at all.

[Thespianus]

No, I don't think so. Power Attack is only for when you've got enough BAB, and enough bonuses to hit without BAB, to make that worthwhile. Before Divine Power Cloistered Clerics are at ½ BAB, and need to focus on WIS instead of STR. Power Attack would just be a dreadfully bad feat choice then.

Yeah, ok, buildwise it's suboptimal to take Power Attack before you have Divine Power, or at level 6 (so you're prepared at level 7 :smallwink: ), but what I meant is that you will have to have a Strength of 13 to qualify for Power Attack. The "timid Scholar" would at least have to be a "timid Scholar with decent body strength".

Normally, the Cleric is fairly Feat starved, so depending on what other Feats the player wants, Power Attack may have to be taken earlier on.

[LordBlades]

Yeah, ok, buildwise it's suboptimal to take Power Attack before you have Divine Power, or at level 6 (so you're prepared at level 7 :smallwink: ), but what I meant is that you will have to have a Strength of 13 to qualify for Power Attack. The "timid Scholar" would at least have to be a "timid Scholar with decent body strength".

Normally, the Cleric is fairly Feat starved, so depending on what other Feats the player wants, Power Attack may have to be taken earlier on.

If you're going standard clericzilla route, you have at least 3 feats that you could take before Power Attack (extend spell, persistent spell, DMM: persist). Only in certain circumstance (2 flaws, human, Planning domain) are you compelled to take Power Attack early on.

[Talya]

To be fair, clericzilla exists for a reason.



Honestly, clericzilla exists, and I think it exists for a rather poor reason: it's there to show the DM that a cleric or druid can smack face easily if not better than a fighter type because of their spells, not despite them. Some of the best buff spells are self only, meaning a cleric or druid can easily abuse them without having to dip around like a standard, arcane gish would.

See, we still know about clericzillas, but we don't know why. They're fun as hell! Pardon the easy pun. That aside, they are a misguided attempt to show just how strong a spellcaster can be without a meatshield to take blows. Clerics and druids transition easier than most arcane gishes (save the odd War Weaver based gish) and do it just about as well as those guys do, too! Well, the smacking face part, at least.


The buffed cleric may be better at melee than a fighter. Probably not, though. They can keep up, but with the abundance of splatbooks, the tactical choices offered by fighter bonus feats can be impressive, and Clericzilla never gets those. This means that it is more efficient for the cleric to buff up the fighter to be even better than he is, that it is for the cleric to turn himself into a half-assed fighter. I'm not saying the cleric isn't more powerful than a fighter, he most certainly is. I'm saying that, like the batman wizard concept, the cleric is more effective making his party better than he is as a damage dealer.

(This is actually one of the most misunderstood ideas of TLN's "Batman Wizard" concept, too. The Batman wizard doesn't render the rest of his party irrelevant. He turns the rest of his party into gods.)

[LordBlades]

The buffed cleric may be better at melee than a fighter. Probably not, though. They can keep up, but with the abundance of splatbooks, the tactical choices offered by fighter bonus feats can be impressive, and Clericzilla never gets those. This means that it is more efficient for the cleric to buff up the fighter to be even better than he is, that it is for the cleric to turn himself into a half-assed fighter. I'm not saying the cleric isn't more powerful than a fighter, he most certainly is. I'm saying that, like the batman wizard concept, the cleric is more effective making his party better than he is as a damage dealer.

(This is actually one of the most misunderstood ideas of TLN's "Batman Wizard" concept, too. The Batman wizard doesn't render the rest of his party irrelevant. He turns the rest of his party into gods.)

The problem is that many of the best buff spells&stuff (like divine favor, divine power and righteous might for cleric, wildshape and Bite of X for druid) are personal range only.

Also, IMHO the fighter vs. whatever caster issue is not 'should I buff the fighter or myself' but rather 'should one play a fighter that requires the action of other party members to be effective or a caster that can provide his own buffs, thus freeing the actions of the other party members'

[Talya]

The problem is that many of the best buff spells&stuff (like divine favor, divine power and righteous might for cleric, wildshape and Bite of X for druid) are personal range only.


This is true of Righteous Might, which is a great spell for a fighter, if they could get it. (And they can, with the right gear that allows the sharing of personal range spells.) However, Divine Power is just the cleric's "Catch up" spell, putting them on the Fighter BAB & fighter hit die. Even if you could cast Divine Power on a fighter, it wouldn't really be worth it.

Notice I didn't mention druids. Druids are one-woman wrecking machines, paragons of self-sufficiency.

[Eldariel]

The buffed cleric may be better at melee than a fighter. Probably not, though. They can keep up, but with the abundance of splatbooks, the tactical choices offered by fighter bonus feats can be impressive, and Clericzilla never gets those. This means that it is more efficient for the cleric to buff up the fighter to be even better than he is, that it is for the cleric to turn himself into a half-assed fighter. I'm not saying the cleric isn't more powerful than a fighter, he most certainly is. I'm saying that, like the batman wizard concept, the cleric is more effective making his party better than he is as a damage dealer.

(This is actually one of the most misunderstood ideas of TLN's "Batman Wizard" concept, too. The Batman wizard doesn't render the rest of his party irrelevant. He turns the rest of his party into gods.)

Eeh, it's not even that; I don't think it really matters whether it's more efficient for the Cleric to buff the Fighter or himself. It's just that "You have a Fighter and a Cleric in a party? Better experience for everyone if the Cleric buffs the Fighter a bit while the Fighter goes to town, with Cleric coming in as secondary combatant."

On the other hand, don't have a frontline non-caster? Go to town with fully buffed DMM: Persist Clericzilla; you'll do the job wonderfully (there's few ways to get some feat-like abilities, and shapechanging makes for wonderfully efficient special attacks).


Though I'll say this; the Cleric would probably outperform a buffed Fighter simply because of the number and the power of the Personal buffs in the game. Feats do help; charge multipliers & improved control abilities primarily.

However, Cleric really doesn't need the charge multipliers and the control abilities come through buffs and especially size increases. The Cleric would have to invest in few basic feats (probably Power Attack, Combat Reflexes and maybe something like Holy Warrior or Knowledge Devotion) but he can afford those and beyond there, magic will mostly serve to make up for what he misses.

Ultimately though, that's the kinda thing to worry about in character creation. After all, then you have the option of deciding as a group, how powerful characters you're gonna play and who fills which role how. After the characters are made, it's only fair to try and make the best out of everyone as they are. Especially if that doesn't mean gimping yourself to a relevant degree.

[Gullintanni]

This is true of Righteous Might, which is a great spell for a fighter, if they could get it. (And they can, with the right gear that allows the sharing of personal range spells.) However, Divine Power is just the cleric's "Catch up" spell, putting them on the Fighter BAB & fighter hit die. Even if you could cast Divine Power on a fighter, it wouldn't really be worth it.

Notice I didn't mention druids. Druids are one-woman wrecking machines, paragons of self-sufficiency.

Actually IIRC, Divine Power increases strength and has some other benefits. It puts Clerics ahead (albeit only marginally) by default. Start throwing on the personal Buffs and Clerics leap pretty far ahead. Throw in two levels of Fighter for Bonus Feats, the Planning Domain for Bonus Extend, and you can create an Uber-Charger Fighter that's also got 18 levels of Cleric.

It's true though that in a party of all martial characters, Clerics will get more mileage out of party buffing. Druids...for all that they're worth, actually lose ground on the Cleric in the party buffing role...and a Necromancer Cleric can ostensibly build minions that rival the effectiveness of the Animal Companion. But Druids make up for this by being bear riding bears with a bear cohort and bear friends. All of whom have Greater Magic Fangs and Animal Growth.

[Incanur]

The buffed cleric may be better at melee than a fighter. Probably not, though.

Depends on how far you go in the direction of TO. Ye ole consumptive field (or greater consumptive field) gives evil clerics a nearly unbeatable advantage by the RAW. Polymorphing shenanigans like shapechange do too.


This means that it is more efficient for the cleric to buff up the fighter to be even better than he is, that it is for the cleric to turn himself into a half-assed fighter.

But the party would be better off still - in terms of power - with another cleric or druid instead of the fighter. I actually had an campaign where folks took this mindset to heart and everybody played casters. Minions, cohorts, summons, and so on provided tanking when needed.

[Eldariel]

Actually IIRC, Divine Power increases strength and has some other benefits.

+6 Strength and Temp HP, but Str is enhancement bonus so it is subsumed by Fighter's items later on, and the Temp HP just brings them even in that regard.

[Talya]

Actually IIRC, Divine Power increases strength and has some other benefits. It puts Clerics ahead (albeit only marginally) by default.


The strength bonus from Divine Power is an enhancement bonus. Even in campaigns where the world is not Ye Old Magick Item Emporium, a belt of giant strength is usually fairly easy to come by at the level you're casting divine power. Maybe not +6, but +4 easily. Couple this with the fact that the +6 strength bonus is likely only compensating for the fact that the fighter dumped wisdom and charisma while the cleric did not - and therefore maxed out his strength score, and it probably doesn't catch them up to the fighter. Again, it's Righteous Might that's the sweet buff. And it's good enough that I think it's worthwhile to get those bracelets to share personal range spells between your big tough party melee type and the cleric...

(The fighter can do almost as well with a cheap custom "always on" item of Enlarge Person, but righteous might is strictly better if they can get it).

[LordBlades]

But the party would be better off still - in terms of power - with another cleric or druid instead of the fighter. I actually had an campaign where folks took this mindset to heart and everybody played casters. Minions, cohorts, summons, and so on provided tanking when needed.

It works surprisingly well. My last party was all caster too : Cleric/Ordained Champion, Cleric/Ardent/Psychic Theurge, wizard-based Gish, Spellthief/Wizard/Incantatrix, Wizard/Incantatrix, Wizard/Master Specialist enchanter with a Mindbender dip.

[Gullintanni]

+6 Strength and Temp HP, but Str is enhancement bonus so it is subsumed by Fighter's items later on, and the Temp HP just brings them even in that regard.

You just have to be more creative to get your edge. I can get a +6 Enhancement bonus to Str without items. That's $36,000 gold I don't have to spend. Ergo, I have a $36K WBL edge over an equal level fighter. I'd say that qualifies as at least a marginal edge over the fighter; everything else being equal :smallwink:


Maybe not +6, but +4 easily. Couple this with the fact that the +6 strength bonus is likely only compensating for the fact that the fighter dumped wisdom and charisma while the cleric did not...


And this is a character creation issue. A melee focused cleric can dump CHA and max strength. A Cleric focused on WIS doesn't even need to max WIS, 19 is enough for an OP Cleric, you just won't be spamming SoD's. Which is fine because your melee attacks will be your SoD's.

[Talya]

You just have to be more creative to get your edge. I can get a +6 Enhancement bonus to Str without items. That's $36,000 gold I don't have to spend. Ergo, I have a $36K WBL edge over an equal level fighter. I'd say that qualifies as at least a marginal edge over the fighter; everything else being equal :smallwink:

They have more than a marginal edge on the fighter. However, a fighter being properly supported by buffs is still more powerful than a cleric wading into melee with Persistent Divine Metacheese. This is not to say the party probably wouldn't be better with two clerics.

On the other hand, I used Fighter because it's the simple, default, example. Let's replace him with a Warblade, and suddenly you're probably not better off with a second cleric, if only for the fact that your party now has a better swiss army knife of tools at their disposal.

[Gullintanni]

On the other hand, I used Fighter because it's the simple, default, example. Let's replace him with a Warblade, and suddenly you're probably not better off with a second cleric, if only for the fact that your party now has a better swiss army knife of tools at their disposal.

That's a different debate though. Warblades don't suck. Warblade is a point I'll grant though. But IMHO, four Clerics is mechanically one of the best parties you can build. They can cover every party role. Taking one out to add a Warblade will substantially weaken the party over all. :smalltongue:

Although if I were DMing a game and my players brought me a four Cleric party I'd probably RageQuit and leave.

[Talya]

Although if I were DMing a game and my players brought me a four Cleric party I'd probably RageQuit and leave.


Even that four cleric party is probably better off not having any of them wade into melee unless absolutely necessary. If you've got one of those clerics constantly pulling out a big hammer and smashing stuff, they'd be better off with a warblade -- because that warblade supported by 3 clerics will smash stuff better than another cleric would.

The cleric is only better than the warblade because they have better things to do than smash stuff.

[Gullintanni]

Even that four cleric party is probably better off not having any of them wade into melee unless absolutely necessary. If you've got one of those clerics constantly pulling out a big hammer and smashing stuff, they'd be better off with a warblade -- because that warblade supported by 3 clerics will smash stuff better than another cleric would.


Arguable...but I could see that being true. ToB makes melee awesome. IMO, the Fighter in that situation is still boned.

[Incanur]

It works surprisingly well.

I wasn't surprised. The party in the campaign I ran stabilized at the following: a wizard/pale master who became a lich, a ranger/warlock/ur-priest, an wizard/druid arcane hierophant, and a master spellthief unseen seer. Everyone except the ur-priest was down at least one caster level and they didn't always use the best tactics, so they weren't as unbelievably powerful as the could have been but still plenty potent. Long-termed scheming and organization building formed a important aspect of the adventure.

[Greenish]

If you've got one of those clerics constantly pulling out a big hammer and smashing stuff, they'd be better off with a warblade RKV.Fixed that for you. :smalltongue:

[Thespianus]

If you're going standard clericzilla route, you have at least 3 feats that you could take before Power Attack (extend spell, persistent spell, DMM: persist). Only in certain circumstance (2 flaws, human, Planning domain) are you compelled to take Power Attack early on.

There's also Knowledge Devotion, that helps you from Day 1, and Extra Turning when you're playing with one of those DMs out there that won't allow the Night-cheese-Sticks to stack.

Sure, Power Attack doesn't necessarily show up early, but you definitely want it, at least on level 9 or 12.

[Gullintanni]

There's also Knowledge Devotion.

Yeah but this isn't a feat. This is a traded Knowledge domain. Cloistered Cleric wins again.

[Thespianus]

Yeah but this isn't a feat. This is a traded Knowledge domain. Cloistered Cleric wins again.
Yeah but, as I mentioned earlier, trading away Knowledge Domain for Knowledge Devotion leaves you with three relevant Knowledge-domains, and - at least in our campaign, Knowledge(Dungeoneering) and Knowledge(Nature) comes up quite a lot. That depends on your scenario, though, I suppose.

To gain the best mileage out of Knowledge Devotion, you want the Feat _and_ all the Knowledge skills.

[Gullintanni]

Yeah but, as I mentioned earlier, trading away Knowledge Domain for Knowledge Devotion leaves you with three relevant Knowledge-domains, and - at least in our campaign, Knowledge(Dungeoneering) and Knowledge(Nature) comes up quite a lot. That depends on your scenario, though, I suppose.

To gain the best mileage out of Knowledge Devotion, you want the Feat _and_ all the Knowledge skills.

Hm. Fair enough. My players are pretty kick-in-the-door oriented, so the Knowledge stuff doesn't really come up so much. YMMV I guess?

[Thespianus]

YMMV I guess?
Yeah. :smallsmile:

[Eldariel]

Hm. Fair enough. My players are pretty kick-in-the-door oriented, so the Knowledge stuff doesn't really come up so much. YMMV I guess?

Heh. How do they know what they're fighting, then? In our games, we find a ton of use out of all the 6 Knowledges used to identify opponents, and moderate amounts of other stuff; I'd expect Kick-In-The-Door players would use the 6 (Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Religion, The Planes) even more :smalltongue:

[Gullintanni]

Heh. How do they know what they're fighting, then? In our games, we find a ton of use out of all the 6 Knowledges used to identify opponents, and moderate amounts of other stuff; I'd expect Kick-In-The-Door players would use the 6 (Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Religion, The Planes) even more :smalltongue:

They don't care what they're fighting. They just hit it until it's dead. My players grew up playing AD&D. Nothing in 3.5 is as dangerous to well built characters as monsters in AD&D were, and my players are pretty tactically cautious.

[Eldariel]

They don't care what they're fighting. They just hit it until it's dead. My players grew up playing AD&D. Nothing in 3.5 is as dangerous to well built characters as monsters in AD&D were, and my players are pretty tactically cautious.

I can think of plenty of things that are way more dangerous in 3.5 than in AD&D...

[Gullintanni]

The problem in 3.5 is not the lethality of the monsters relative to their AD&D counterpart, but the fact that immunities and defenses are so much easier to come by for an optimized 3.5 party than for AD&D characters.

[Eldariel]

The problem in 3.5 is not the lethality of the monsters relative to their AD&D counterpart, but the fact that immunities and defenses are so much easier to come by for an optimized 3.5 party than for AD&D characters.

Great Wyrms did not quicken multiple Disjunctions a turn while breathing and attacking at the same time in AD&D though. And Eye Tyrants didn't scale into ridiculous save DCs on all their eyes (well, mostly because saves didn't scale back then).

Certainly AD&D combat had its deadly aspects, with longterm buffs difficult to maintain and come by, and vastly lower HP totals but 3.X certainly has more than its share of extremely dangerous adversaries that can challenge the most prepared characters.

[Gullintanni]

Great Wyrms did not quicken multiple Disjunctions a turn while breathing and attacking at the same time in AD&D though. And Eye Tyrants didn't scale into ridiculous save DCs on all their eyes (well, mostly because saves didn't scale back then).

Certainly AD&D combat had its deadly aspects, with longterm buffs difficult to maintain and come by, and vastly lower HP totals but 3.X certainly has more than its share of extremely dangerous adversaries that can challenge the most prepared characters.

Beholders aren't really any more dangerous in 3.5 though. Scaling DCs or no, WBLmancy and Fort Save optimization protects you from almost half of their rays, Mindblank protects from most of the rest. Death Ward is also useful.

I guess it's true that if you optimize your monsters, they can be dangerous to even a well constructed party, but I prefer not too. As the DM, my resources and capacity for optimization far outrank the resources of my party. Throwing a Great Wyrm with a Rod of Greater Metamagic Quicken for summary disjoining is indefensible DMing IMO. 3.5 is broken at higher levels of play, and abusing that brokenness in order to screw players is not evidence of more dangerous encounters, but rather, poor game balance.

[Eldariel]

Beholders aren't really any more dangerous in 3.5 though. Scaling DCs or no, WBLmancy and Fort Save optimization protects you from almost half of their rays, Mindblank protects from most of the rest. Death Ward is also useful.

I guess it's true that if you optimize your monsters, they can be dangerous to even a well constructed party, but I prefer not too. As the DM, my resources and capacity for optimization far outrank the resources of my party. Throwing a Great Wyrm with a Rod of Greater Metamagic Quicken for summary disjoining is indefensible DMing IMO. 3.5 is broken at higher levels of play, and abusing that brokenness in order to screw players is not evidence of more dangerous encounters, but rather, poor game balance.

Eh, players have access to the same tools. I mean, it doesn't have to be Disjunction; it could just as well be Time Stop or Gate or whatever. Wasn't thinking of Rod of Quicken but spending feats on Multispell and Automatic Quicken (Dragons qualify).

And I mean, all Dragons have to be handmade anyways since they don't have ready builds so this is perfectly standard (they also have lots of treasure some of which they're mentioned to use themselves). Really, to stand up to a high level party, a Dragon better be pulling most of the stops since the high level party is bringing the heat too.


Far as Beholders go, well, their Will-saves scale frighteningly fast especially for special individuals (higher Cha ones); they can be much more problematic than in AD&D on high levels (though when you first introduce them, they're just as dangerous in both, of course; that is, very).

[Gullintanni]

Eh, players have access to the same tools. I mean, it doesn't have to be Disjunction; it could just as well be Time Stop or Gate or whatever. Wasn't thinking of Rod of Quicken but spending feats on Multispell and Automatic Quicken (Dragons qualify).

And I mean, all Dragons have to be handmade anyways since they don't have ready builds so this is perfectly standard (they also have lots of treasure some of which they're mentioned to use themselves). Really, to stand up to a high level party, a Dragon better be pulling most of the stops since the high level party is bringing the heat too.

Far as Beholders go, well, their Will-saves scale frighteningly fast especially for special individuals (higher Cha ones); they can be much more problematic than in AD&D on high levels (though when you first introduce them, they're just as dangerous in both, of course; that is, very).

Time Stop and Gate (provided you're not chaining) are fine. Disjunction is just dirty pool IMO. By the same token, a Wizard with contingencies + Cleric Divinations can shut down even an optimized dragon, action economy shenanigans aside. Divine Defiance + Caster Level buffing shuts down enemy spellcasters pretty hard too.

I guess the point I'm really making here is that my players put a lot of effort into surviving in AD&D. As a result there were very few player deaths. In 3.5 DnD, to achieve the same results, the level of effort they need to put in to survive at any point in the game is comparably negligible. If you acknowledge that the DMs job is not to kill players, and the players optimize strictly for survival, then the players will survive.

[LordBlades]

Time Stop and Gate (provided you're not chaining) are fine. Disjunction is just dirty pool IMO. By the same token, a Wizard with contingencies + Cleric Divinations can shut down even an optimized dragon, action economy shenanigans aside. Divine Defiance + Caster Level buffing shuts down enemy spellcasters pretty hard too.

I guess the point I'm really making here is that my players put a lot of effort into surviving in AD&D. As a result there were very few player deaths. In 3.5 DnD, to achieve the same results, the level of effort they need to put in to survive at any point in the game is comparably negligible. If you acknowledge that the DMs job is not to kill players, and the players optimize strictly for survival, then the players will survive.

It depends on what optimization level you're playing at. From my experience with mid and high level high op games is that, in order to have a challenging monster, it's abilities have to be downright lethal (significant chance to cause character death if they manage to penetrate through the PCs defenses). Fights don't usually last more than 1-2 rounds(the rest is moping up of what's left) so a given monster is unlikely to get more than 1 shot in. And unless you can make that shot count (pretty much anything else than death is trivial to undo past a certain level, and even death in some conditions) it's a non-threat to the party.

[Gullintanni]

It depends on what optimization level you're playing at. From my experience with mid and high level high op games is that, in order to have a challenging monster, it's abilities have to be downright lethal (significant chance to cause character death if they manage to penetrate through the PCs defenses). Fights don't usually last more than 1-2 rounds(the rest is moping up of what's left) so a given monster is unlikely to get more than 1 shot in. And unless you can make that shot count (pretty much anything else than death is trivial to undo past a certain level, and even death in some conditions) it's a non-threat to the party.

This is generally true, in my experience, in situations where the game is played at mid-high level and where there is only one monster. In a 4v1 situation, party vs. monster situation you're correct though. Challenge = Lethality. In a 4v4 situation, lower lethality is fine, as staying power increases.

Across levels 1-12, you can play a single monster pretty effectively without it killing party members every round. And, as always, use groups of monsters combined with tactical positioning. It seems to be how 3.5 functions best. In this case Challenge = Endurance.

[LordBlades]

This is generally true, in my experience, in situations where the game is played at mid-high level and where there is only one monster. In a 4v1 situation, party vs. monster situation you're correct though. Challenge = Lethality. In a 4v4 situation, lower lethality is fine, as staying power increases.

Across levels 1-12, you can play a single monster pretty effectively without it killing party members every round. And, as always, use groups of monsters combined with tactical positioning. It seems to be how 3.5 functions best. In this case Challenge = Endurance.

Agreed. How challenging a given monster is directly relates to the ability of that monster to do inconvenient things. As level increase, so does the array of defenses PCs have access to, and the list of things that can inconvenience them shrinks. At very high level it merely revolves around insta death by methods that make resurrection very hard/impossible. Everything else is easily fixable.

[Gullintanni]

But then that's really a problem with balance at high level 3.5. Not exactly news to any of us. :smallwink:

Play E6. :smallsmile:

[Curmudgeon]

Play E6. :smallsmile:
That's only a solution when you obtain the bulk of useful abilities from feats rather than class levels above 6. You can't have a Rogue/Shadowdancer in E6. :smallmad:

[Gullintanni]

That's only a solution when you obtain the bulk of useful abilities from feats rather than class levels above 6. You can't have a Rogue/Shadowdancer in E6. :smallmad:

You lose out on customization, but the game remains playable forever. Plus, for high difficulty encounters, your players have to MacGuyver things a little bit. Player roleplaying ingenuity, instead of system mastery, becomes the focus of high level encounters. 3.5 really misses out on that little bit of awesome that carried AD&D so well.

But I get your point. You have to do more homebrewing in E6...but for what it's worth, a Daring Outlaw R3/S3 still works magnificently. :smallwink:

[Godskook]

Yeah but, as I mentioned earlier, trading away Knowledge Domain for Knowledge Devotion leaves you with three relevant Knowledge-domains, and - at least in our campaign, Knowledge(Dungeoneering) and Knowledge(Nature) comes up quite a lot. That depends on your scenario, though, I suppose.

To gain the best mileage out of Knowledge Devotion, you want the Feat _and_ all the Knowledge skills.

Except nobody(who knows what they're doing) trades knowledge domain for K.Devotion. Both Inquisition and Mind can be traded, and since knowledge is a gimme from CC, you're free to shop for a god who has at least on of the other two domains on his list.

[Curmudgeon]

Except nobody(who knows what they're doing) trades knowledge domain for K.Devotion.
I beg to differ on this point. Education makes all Knowledges class skills for all of your classes, whereas Knowledge makes all Knowledges class skills just for your Cleric levels; if you're multiclassing the feat is better. Then it's just a matter of determining if the 5 extra spells you get from Knowledge are worth retaining. Other domains give greater numbers of spells not on the regular Cleric class list; City, Envy, Force, Gnome, Greed, Illusion, Kobold, Madness, Moon, Plant, Seafolk, Temptation, Transformation, Trickery, and Warforged domains, for instance, provide all extra spells (i.e., 9 per domain).

[Godskook]

I beg to differ on this point. Education makes all Knowledges class skills for all of your classes, whereas Knowledge makes all Knowledges class skills just for your Cleric levels; if you're multiclassing the feat is better.

Granted, but my main point was that getting knowledge devotion didn't require losing knowledge domain.

[Eldariel]

That's only a solution when you obtain the bulk of useful abilities from feats rather than class levels above 6. You can't have a Rogue/Shadowdancer in E6. :smallmad:

I think they do most PrCs as feat chains.

[Gullintanni]

I think they do most PrCs as feat chains.

I don't think there's support for PrCs at all outside of those you can qualify before ECL 6.

[dextercorvia]

I don't think there's support for PrCs at all outside of those you can qualify before ECL 6.

I have seen an Archmage chain of feats. I personally don't care for the homebrew feats that accompany E6. I think it functions perfectly well without them.

[Thespianus]

Granted, but my main point was that getting knowledge devotion didn't require losing knowledge domain.

Which was exactly my point. I explicitly wrote "Trading away Knowledge Domain for Knowledge Devotion" is bad, since that was what was suggested in the post I replied to.

Picking the Education-feat is a good way out, also Inquisition domain, as you mention. However, since you'd normally would want Magic and Travel domains as well (Travel Devotion give great boosts, especially for a melee-oriented Cleric, and Magic is just awesome.), you would probably do best to pick the Education feat, as Curmudgeon has pointed out.