forgive my ignorance, but what is....

[big teej]

Codzilla?

I see it referenced all the time, and don't have a clue what it entails. :smalltongue:

explain!

[Tyndmyr]

Cleric what basically beats people up in melee. Yay divine buffs.

[Human Paragon 3]

Codzilla

COD, Noun, abreviation for Cleric of Death.

Zilla, Adjective, Like Godzilla.

Codzilla is a cleric who buffs himself into the stratosphere in order to make him a better at melee than melee classes, often using Persistent Spell so his buffs last all day long.

[Talya]

Codzilla?


CoDzilla = Cleric-or-Druid-zilla.

Clericzilla is a divine-caster that persists melee buffs and ends up fighting in melee better than a fighter. It's a terrible concept because the Clericzilla isn't actually better in melee than the fighter with a couple buffs on him...in fact, the fighter is much better if you allow splatbook feats with all the many options they can get. (Which isn't to say the fighter is more powerful than a cleric, they're just better at melee than a cleric, the cleric should be doing more clericky, spellcasting type thingies.)

Druidzilla is more literal. Druid wildshapes into giant lizard and eats tokyo. This one isn't a bad idea. While a druid's spellcasting is more powerful than wildshape, the druid is actually the best melee combatant in the game, bar none. Not even ToB types can keep up (though it's close.)

[Geigan]

Cleric or Druid zilla. One of the 2 core tier 1s who descend into melee because they can do it just as well(and sometimes better) than your typical frontliners. The enemies run in fear as if they were in kaiju film screaming in terror from CoDzilla.

swordsaged

[Drachasor]

CoDzilla = Cleric-or-Druid-zilla.

Clericzilla is a divine-caster that persists melee buffs and ends up fighting in melee better than a fighter. It's a terrible concept because the Clericzilla isn't actually better in melee than the fighter with a couple buffs on him...in fact, the fighter is much better if you allow splatbook feats with all the many options they can get. (Which isn't to say the fighter is more powerful than a cleric, they're just better at melee than a cleric, the cleric should be doing more clericky, spellcasting type thingies.)

Druidzilla is more literal. Druid wildshapes into giant lizard and eats tokyo. This one isn't a bad idea. While a druid's spellcasting is more powerful than wildshape, the druid is actually the best melee combatant in the game, bar none. Not even ToB types can keep up (though it's close.)

It is this. Cleric-or-Druid. I'd say though that it isn't hard for a Cleric to be a better fighter than a fighter, unlike what you say. Large size, larger attack bonuses, more damage are all pretty easy. It's good for a cleric to do that some since it is very spell efficient, but of course they should still use spells to lock things down and so forth. Melee fighting is for mopping up.

Imho, the term is about how both can be pretty unstoppable and do everything. Strong casting with lock downs and such? Yep. Strong melee? Yep. It requires very little work for either (strong melee is a bit harder for a wizard).

[erikun]

Cleric-or-Druid-zilla, the way I've heard it. It is the fact that a Cleric or Druid can self-buff themselves to the point where they completely outshine other mundane melee types, and still have full spellcasting available.

There are of course rather moderate versions that just make good combat-oriented characters. More powerful versions Clericzilla generally make use of Persistent Divine Metamagic with nightsticks or gathering turn attemtps to keep multiple buffs active all day, while Druidzilla generally uses something like Velociraptor + Wildshape + Venomfire (if I remember correctly) to deal tons of damage with an animal companion accomplice.

Note that even the most basic versions of a melee Cleric or Druid can cast a spell or two and end up better than most Fighters.

[Talya]

It is this. Cleric-or-Druid. I'd say though that it isn't hard for a Cleric to be a better fighter than a fighter, unlike what you say. Large size, larger attack bonuses, more damage are all pretty easy. It's good for a cleric to do that some since it is very spell efficient, but of course they should still use spells to lock things down and so forth. Melee fighting is for mopping up.

Imho, the term is about how both can be pretty unstoppable and do everything. Strong casting with lock downs and such? Yep. Strong melee? Yep. It requires very little work for either (strong melee is a bit harder for a wizard).


My issue is that the fighter can also get that large size, and buffs for attack bonuses, and such...but from the party spellcasters. Then they have all the benefits of being a fighter (and let's face it, there are some gorgeous melee fighting feats in splatbooks) and the spells.

it's not that a cleric can't do it, they certainly can. And due to spells they will be more versatile -- because they cast spells, not because they smack things better. But the amount of character-building resources a cleric needs to commit to be Clericzilla (Persistant divine metacheese?) solely for the purpose of equalling a fighter's natural BAB and hit points? It's just not worth it. Not to mention, all those resources have been spent so a cleric can use up their actions not casting spells. No, I just don't buy it. I consider clericzilla "optimization" to be bad, stinky, moldy cheese. By this I mean, simultaneously a cheesy attempt to break the game, and a lowering of the cleric's overall power level.

Druid doesn't need to commit any resources to do the same thing (other than unloading a pile of money on wilding clasps, which is a big "if" the DM allows Ye Old Magicke Item Emporium shopping), and actually end up huge sized with a pile of tricks at their disposal that rival fighter splatbook feats. Where fighters turn to the feats section in a new splatbook to optimize, druids turn to the monsters section.

[Amphetryon]

My issue is that the fighter can also get that large size, and buffs for attack bonuses, and such...but from the party spellcasters. Then they have all the benefits of being a fighter (and let's face it, there are some gorgeous melee fighting feats in splatbooks) and the spells.

it's not that a cleric can't do it, they certainly can. And due to spells they will be more versatile -- because they cast spells, not because they smack things better. But the amount of character-building resources a cleric needs to commit to be Clericzilla (Persistant divine metacheese?) solely for the purpose of equalling a fighter's natural BAB and hit points? It's just not worth it. Not to mention, all those resources have been spent so a cleric can use up their actions not casting spells. No, I just don't buy it. I consider clericzilla "optimization" to be bad, stinky, moldy cheese. By this I mean, simultaneously a cheesy attempt to break the game, and a lowering of the cleric's overall power level.

Druid doesn't need to commit any resources to do the same thing (other than unloading a pile of money on wilding clasps, which is a big "if" the DM allows Ye Old Magicke Item Emporium shopping), and actually end up huge sized with a pile of tricks at their disposal that rival fighter splatbook feats. Where fighters turn to the feats section in a new splatbook to optimize, druids turn to the monsters section.
I believe the point of Clericzilla over Fighter is that the Cleric need not rely on other party members to be able to rock out in combat (and the Cleric can choose to do other things instead), whereas a Fighter often must rely on them in order to do that (and that's the only thing he's supposed to be good at).

[Yora]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/Bauglir/cleric.jpg

[RagnaroksChosen]

My issue is that the fighter can also get that large size, and buffs for attack bonuses, and such...but from the party spellcasters. Then they have all the benefits of being a fighter (and let's face it, there are some gorgeous melee fighting feats in splatbooks) and the spells.

it's not that a cleric can't do it, they certainly can. And due to spells they will be more versatile -- because they cast spells, not because they smack things better. But the amount of character-building resources a cleric needs to commit to be Clericzilla (Persistant divine metacheese?) solely for the purpose of equalling a fighter's natural BAB and hit points? It's just not worth it. Not to mention, all those resources have been spent so a cleric can use up their actions not casting spells. No, I just don't buy it. I consider clericzilla "optimization" to be bad, stinky, moldy cheese. By this I mean, simultaneously a cheesy attempt to break the game, and a lowering of the cleric's overall power level.

Druid doesn't need to commit any resources to do the same thing (other than unloading a pile of money on wilding clasps, which is a big "if" the DM allows Ye Old Magicke Item Emporium shopping), and actually end up huge sized with a pile of tricks at their disposal that rival fighter splatbook feats. Where fighters turn to the feats section in a new splatbook to optimize, druids turn to the monsters section.

I'd take a cleric over a fighter any day for my front line class.

Not only can they pull most of the fighter tricks, they can do it and still cast spells as really to be equal to a fighter is probably 1 or two persisted buffs. And even with out persist cheese, they are still better in general.

[sonofzeal]

With a purposeful premise and a terrible sound he destroys the encounter in a single round....
Helpless fighters in mithral plate scream "My God" as he casts Harm on them....
He buffs up his BAB and lays the smack down as he Turns through the zombies to the center of town...

Ooooooh no! They say he's really cheap
Go go CoDzilla! Yeaaaa....
Ooooooh no! There goes Waterdeep!
Go go CoDzilla! Yeaaaa....

- shamelessly stolen from "utilitarian" back on WotC boards.

[Talya]

I'd take a cleric over a fighter any day for my front line class.

Not only can they pull most of the fighter tricks, they can do it and still cast spells as really to be equal to a fighter is probably 1 or two persisted buffs. And even with out persist cheese, they are still better in general.

I'm not questioning that. I agree.

This isn't because they are better at melee, however. It's because what they actually can do is better than melee -- even on the front line. If they're swinging their hammer, they're "doing it wrong." (Not a judgement...there are plenty of stylistic reasons for a cleric to be good at melee, it's just a suboptimal choice. The cleric who did not "optimize" for clericzilla is far more useful -- even on the front line -- than the cleric who did.)

Druidzilla? She doesn't care. She is wildshaping into huge-sized dire superlizard (before the wizard casts Enlarge Person on her to turn her into a gargantuan-sized dire superlizard) and eating Tokyorc. She is SO good at melee that it's actually worthwhile for her to melee...and this didn't take any noticeable amount of her personal resources at all...

[Drachasor]

it's not that a cleric can't do it, they certainly can. And due to spells they will be more versatile -- because they cast spells, not because they smack things better. But the amount of character-building resources a cleric needs to commit to be Clericzilla (Persistant divine metacheese?) solely for the purpose of equalling a fighter's natural BAB and hit points? It's just not worth it. Not to mention, all those resources have been spent so a cleric can use up their actions not casting spells. No, I just don't buy it. I consider clericzilla "optimization" to be bad, stinky, moldy cheese. By this I mean, simultaneously a cheesy attempt to break the game, and a lowering of the cleric's overall power level.

You don't need to devote that many resources to it. You don't need meta-magic cheesing to equal a fighter as a cleric. Divine Power or Divine Might is pretty much sufficient to equal a fighter, and together a Cleric easily exceeds one. DMM isn't necessary (though if you want to not use persistent cheese then DMM used on Quicken Spell is quite a bit more than sufficient).

The point of Clericzilla isn't to play as a fighter though. It is that you can trivially outclass a fighter AND do a ton of other stuff. Outclassing the fighter, like I said, is part of the mopping up aspect of the fight. That's after you've shut down most of the enemy...then you can outclass the fighter. Or if it happens that dealing HP damage is the most efficient way to go about a fight, you just buff up right before you engage.

Yes, a buffed fighter can do a lot of stuff, but a fighter can't get the awesome buffs that are cleric-only. That's how a Cleric can outclass the fighter and make it a better expenditure of resources than buffing the fighter.

Again, the "-zilla" doesn't mean "unstoppable physical fighting machine." It means "unstoppable force." The Cleric can take you out a dozen ways, and if they don't work he can bash your head in better than any PHB class designed around bashing heads in. He has no weak points.

I do agree that the Druid has a quicker time of buffing up for melee combat. In fact, the Druid is definitely the king of melee combat. He can hit you, his animal companion can hit you, he can summon spontaneously things to hit you (as well as use buffs) -- summons also suck up HP damage. The Cleric can't beat the Druid as far as physical conflict goes...but the Cleric has his own strengths regarding spells and enemies.

[Doug Lampert]

My issue is that the fighter can also get that large size, and buffs for attack bonuses, and such...

How do they get Divine Favor for bonuses to attack and damage from level 1 on? Personal Spell.

How do they get a +4 size bonus to Strength and a +2 size bonus to Constitution with no penalty to dex?

What spell gives them a +6 enhancement bonus to strength?

Many of the best buffs are PERSONAL range core cleric spells. It takes substantial effort and usually non-core books to get those buffs on a fighter.

And after you've done that, your party of
Wizard/Cleric/Fighter
has one frontliner and few spells to spare.

Mine of
Wizard/Cleric/Druid
has three frontliners and plenty of slots to spare.

One of these parties isn't just a bit stronger than the other in melee, it is VASTLY stronger in melee, and it's ALSO the one with better casting and more strength out of melee.


I believe the point of Clericzilla over Fighter is that the Cleric need not rely on other party members to be able to rock out in combat (and the Cleric can choose to do other things instead), whereas a Fighter often must rely on them in order to do that (and that's the only thing he's supposed to be good at).

That and the fact that personal range spells and wildshape/animal companion buffs mean that if you bother to build a serious melee CoDZilla you're actually better than the buffed fighter. And you can export spells.

Now, a serious melee cleric is a seriously self gimped character, he probably took a relatively low wis because he's suffering hard from MAD, a cleric who plays as a caster with a trivial secondary melee ability is EVEN STRONGER, but that doesn't mean a fighter is better a melee than a ClericZilla, it just means that a cleric can stop buffing when he gets to "nearly as good as a buffed fighter" and start concentrating on something more effective than mopping up.

[Talya]

How do they get Divine Favor for bonuses to attack and damage from level 1 on? Personal Spell.

Got me on that one. I'd need to look up a guide to luck bonuses. Suffice it to say, it's better to attack without that bonus than to spend the round casting it. You're not persisting it at level 1.



How do they get a +4 size bonus to Strength and a +2 size bonus to Constitution with no penalty to dex?

Doesn't matter. They're starting with 18 str and 16 con, all the size bonus is doing is letting the cleric catch up...a little bit. The fighter did get a +2 size bonus to strength from enlarge person.


What spell gives them a +6 enhancement bonus to strength?
Who'd bother casting that? The fighter has that on gear (cause they don't need it on wisdom.) It's not going to stack.


Many of the best buffs are PERSONAL range core cleric spells. It takes substantial effort and usually non-core books to get those buffs on a fighter.

All those buffs do is allow the cleric to almost catch up to what the fighter already had (Full bab, higher hit points, much higher strength.) The cleric is either spending the entire fight buffing, or blowing a whole pile of high level spell slots every day (or wasting all their feats and turning attempts getting persist on half their buffs), just to do what a fighter without feats already had.

I'm not arguing that makes the fighter an essential addition to a group. You're probably always better with another cleric. I'm just saying that cleric isn't going to be as good at melee as a fighter would have. They're just better all around everywhere else, and shouldn't gimp themselves by focusing on melee.

Hey! With self buffs, ClericZilla might be able to do the job of a tier 5 class almost as well!

Or, he can mostly ignore melee and be tier 1.

[Doug Lampert]

Got me on that one. I'd need to look up a guide to luck bonuses. Suffice it to say, it's better to attack without that bonus than to spend the round casting it. You're not persisting it at level 1.



Doesn't matter. They're starting with 18 str and 16 con, all the size bonus is doing is letting the cleric catch up...a little bit. The fighter did get a +2 size bonus to strength from enlarge person.

If I'm building a serious melee cleric I started with 12 Wis and 18 Str and at least 14 con for the same or fewer build points, that puts me ahead.

Why would a melee cleric treat Wis as more important than Str? He needs enough to cast his spells, but that's all. Save DCs don't matter, he's not casting offensive spells, he's not using turns for anything else so it's nonsensical to say he's wasting them, he doesn't need that many bonus spells from his ability.

With 12 wis and an item and I can use my highest slots. And I need fewer items because I can self buff. Serious melee clerics are stupid, but they easily outpace the fighter as a melee combatant.

Now a serious spellcasting cleric is EVEN BETTER, but that's not the same as claiming that a cleric can't beat a buffed fighter in melee, because they clearly can.

DougL

[Seerow]

Talya: Your Fighter ends up with less hit points, a worse fort save, and a FAR lower Will Save than the equivalent cleric, even when you assume the Fighter is getting buffed by another caster. But now you're comparing a Wizard/Cleric + A Fighter vs just a Cleric. And the sad thing is that it's still a really close match, and the cleric still has areas unrelated to his casting utility he pulls ahead in (such as the afformentioned saves)

Also, for the Fighter's awesome diversity of feats? I'm 90% sure there's a way for a Cleric to get Heroics on his spell list, so he can persist as many Fighter Bonus feats as he feels he needs. But really, you don't need that many. Frankly, the Fighter doesn't need as many feats as he gets, unless he's going for something obscure like jack-b-quick, and even that is questionably valuable.

[Talya]

stuff

Let's turn the tables a bit.

How is that melee focused cleric going to get:
Power Attack>(Improved Bull Rush)>Shock Trooper, Leap Attack
Combat Expertise>Improved Trip>(dodge)>Karmic Strike, Elusive Target
Improved Unarmed Strike>Improved Grapple
Exotic Proficiency (Spiked Chain)
Mage Slayer
Combat Reflexes>Robillar's Gambit
Martial Study x3
Martial Stance x2


See, those things boost a fighter more than any of those cleric's buffs boost them. A cleric can get some of them, but not nearly as many. That's 20 feats...Even a single classed level 20 fighter can only get 19 of them, but they're close.

Druids don't need as many, since their animal forms give them a plethora of special abilities instead.

If a fighter got himself all those feats, who's are you going to want to buff for melee first, the fighter or the cleric?


Talya: Your Fighter ends up with less hit points,

Never better than equal hit points, assuming the cleric dumps wisdom to 12 like one of the previous poster's suggested. Of course then you are gimping your cleric.


a worse fort save

Despite having a far higher average constitution score?


and a FAR lower Will Save than the equivalent cleric, even when you assume the Fighter is getting buffed by another caster. But now you're comparing a Wizard/Cleric + A Fighter vs just a Cleric. And the sad thing is that it's still a really close match, and the cleric still has areas unrelated to his casting utility he pulls ahead in (such as the afformentioned saves)

Yes, this much is true. I think it is a close match...but if you stick to melee, it's one that a well built fighter will always win.



Also, for the Fighter's awesome diversity of feats? I'm 90% sure there's a way for a Cleric to get Heroics on his spell list, so he can persist as many Fighter Bonus feats as he feels he needs. But really, you don't need that many. Frankly, the Fighter doesn't need as many feats as he gets, unless he's going for something obscure like jack-b-quick, and even that is questionably valuable.

How many feats, spell slots, and turning attempts do you have again? You're not going to persist 19 heroics, righteous might, divine power, all just to be almost as good in melee as a fighter. You simply do not have the resources. And once again, why would you want to?

The cleric can be more useful than the fighter as a front-liner without ever engaging in melee combat! Cast spells! That's why you're tier 1! This is what i've been saying all along. ClericZilla is a trap. It's how to turn your Cleric into a half-assed fighter who's wasting all his feats, spells, and money trying to equal someone who they don't need. Just be a cleric. Forget Clericzilla.

[sonofzeal]

Let's turn the tables a bit.

How is that melee focused cleric going to get:
Power Attack>(Improved Bull Rush)>Shock Trooper, Leap Attack
Combat Expertise>Improved Trip>(dodge)>Karmic Strike, Elusive Target
Improved Unarmed Strike>Improved Grapple
Exotic Proficiency (Spiked Chain)
Mage Slayer
Combat Reflexes>Robillar's Gambit
Martial Study x3
Martial Stance x2


See, those things boost a fighter more than any of those cleric's buffs boost them. A cleric can get some of them, but not nearly as many. That's 20 feats...Even a single classed level 20 fighter can only get 19 of them, but they're close.

Druids don't need as many, since their animal forms give them a plethora of special abilities instead.

If a fighter got himself all those feats, who's are you going to want to buff for melee first, the fighter or the cleric?
Clerics have spells that grant Improved Grab and better grapple damage than a Fighter could hope to get.

They also get normal feats from levelling up. DMM:Persist take three feats out of ten that might be available (human, flaws, etc)

[Piggy Knowles]

I agree with Talya's sentiment overall, in that turning into a fighter is one of the more boring things that a cleric can do.

That being said, let's say a cleric devotes ALL of his feats to being as good as a fighter. Let's say Power Attack, DMM (Persist) and its pre-reqs, and a boatload of Extra Turning.

That Cleric can easily stand toe-to-toe with any Fighter, who has ALSO dedicated all of his feats to being good at melee combat. Except that we're not taking into account a few factors....

1. Those feats that the Cleric has dedicated can be used to persist a gigantic list of spells, meaning that one day the cleric can go all giant man smash with big, buffed strength, and another day turn himself into a superior archer, and yet another day make himself able to turtle through anything. The fighter has more feats, but he can't swap them out to completely change combat styles the way the cleric can.

2. Those feats that the Cleric spent also don't just have to be dedicated to making himself good at hitting people with sharp things. There's a huge number of extendable and persistable spells that can turn him into, say, the party face, or augment his spellcasting prowess, or give him constant laser eyes, or turn him into a some sort of strange oracle that sees and knows all. I'd like to see Leap Attack do any of that.

3. Even if all of his feats WEREN'T super flexible, his feats are just one of the cleric's many resources. If he spends a ton of feats and three spells to become a fighter, that's fine, because after all is said and done he still has all his remaining spells left over. The Fighter? Sorry, his feats are his ONLY resource. He can use them to get quite good at something, and then... well, I guess he can max out Craft checks and learn to whittle.

[Seerow]

Despite having a far higher average constitution score?

I'd consider the Cleric to have a similar base constitution score, a lower strength, and a higher wisdom. I don't agree with the guy who said dump wisdom and bump a str up to 18. That said I also don't see your Fighter pulling off an 18 str and 16 con without being a half orc or something. That's 26 points in a point buy before putting anything else into anything.

I'd consider a decent array:

Str: 16 (10 points)
Dex: 10 (2 points)
Con: 14 (6 points)
Int: 8 (0 points)
wis: 14 (6 points)
Cha: 10 (2 points)

There's 26 points. Your Fighter has with this same point buy:

Str: 18
Dex: 8
Con: 16
Int: 8
Wis: 8
Cha: 8




Ouch. Dump stats ahoy!

Basic spells: Righteous Might, Divine Favor, Divine Power. The 3 core personal buffs the Cleric gets. Results in +3 hit +3 damage, saves 36,000 gold which can get funneled into nightsticks, gains some nice DR, 2 more bonus str, and con than the fighter can get, and no penalty to dex like the fighter has to eat.

So Righteous Might brings your str/con up to par with the Fighter's (assuming the Fighter dumped everything else, if he decided that having an 8 in 4 stats was a bad idea, the Cleric just pulled ahead in at least one of these, likely Con), and brings your dex a full 4 points above the fighter's, so you have 2 higher initiative and AC. Divine Power brought your BAB up to match the Fighter's. Divine Favor gives you an additional bonus to hit/damage as though you had just gained another 6 strength, that the Fighter can't match without taking something like the terrible weapon focus feat chain.

Oh and there's also Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment, which get the Cleric free +5 weapons and armor, saving him more money to throw into either nightsticks or something else (such as better quality weapons) depending on what he needs.




Yes, this much is true. I think it is a close match...but if you stick to melee, it's one that a well built fighter will always win.

Once again, it's a Wizard or Cleric or both backing up a Fighter, and the Fighter wins by a hair. Give the Cleric an extra Cleric and Wizard buddy backing him up, and he wins. Or we can focus on what each brings to the table individually.




You realize you need to take persistant spell metamagic for EACH and EVERY spell you want to persist? How many feats do you have again? How many turning attempts, even if you cheese? You're not going to persist 19 heroics, righteous might, divine power, all just to be almost as good in melee as a fighter. You simply do not have the resources. And once again, why would you want to?

Um you're mistaken on how Persistent Spell works. You can apply it to any spell you want once you get it, it just has a high spell slot adjustment, which you wave away with nightsticks. You may be thinking of Divine Metamagic being required for every metamagic you want to use with turning attempts, but we only need it once for persist and we're good.

From there, there's 2 ways you can do it: You can cheese out turn undead, picking up a bit more charisma, and dipping into prestige classes that grant alternate turn undead types, and starting with one of the variants, so you stack up turn undead uses very quickly, enough to persist a large number of spells easily. The alternative is, you pick up nightsticks, as they're dirt cheap
and just go to town.

Finally, you don't NEED to persist 19 heroics. You can, if you really try, but there's no point. For one, you only need to persist 11 to match the Fighter's feats feat for feat. For two, you only really need 2 or 3 to have the staple combat feats. Like I said, most of those feats are superfluous and worthless, which is why the fighter sucks. Getting all those feats isn't worth the effort of getting them, so you use heroics to pick up say Power Attack/Leap Attack/Shock Trooper/Standstill. Assuming you didn't want to waste your real feats on those.





You're right that going melee cleric is squandering resources, and you'd be stronger spamming a high CL blasphemy or whatever it is clerics do these days. But that's not really the point. The point is if you want a capable melee fighter with some other utility on the side, the Cleric or Druid are your go to guys. And some people don't care for the idea of turning into a bear, riding a bear, shooting bears.

[Talya]

Finally, you don't NEED to persist 19 heroics. You can, if you really try, but there's no point. For one, you only need to persist 11 to match the Fighter's feats feat for feat. For two, you only really need 2 or 3 to have the staple combat feats. Like I said, most of those feats are superfluous and worthless, which is why the fighter sucks. Getting all those feats isn't worth the effort of getting them, so you use heroics to pick up say Power Attack/Leap Attack/Shock Trooper/Standstill. Assuming you didn't want to waste your real feats on those.

I would argue that every feat I listed (apart from the prerequisite garbage, like dodge or improved bull rush) is very, very valuable. I didn't put in garbage feats, just the ones that are actually really good.

Hell, just Martial Study x3 and Martial Stance x1 (yay for Thicket of Blades!) should be considered essential for anyone wanting to melee without Martial Adept levels. (in fact, I'd say it's one of the few ways Druidzilla can spend character build resources in making themselves much better at Melee Combat.)


The point is if you want a capable melee fighter with some other utility on the side, the Cleric or Druid are your go to guys. And some people don't care for the idea of turning into a bear, riding a bear, shooting bears.

Hey, DruidZilla is THE most capable melee in the game. ClericZilla can hardly keep up to fighter in melee alone (though as I've said, is still more useful for other reasons), and certainly is no match for Warblade or Crusader or Swordsage or Bard or Bardadin or Glaivelock or several other decent melee builds.


Okay, I'll make one exception.

You really want to build ClericZilla effectively? Really?

Crusader/Cleric/RKV. Now THAT is ClericZilla. Fighters take a walk. But then, Fighter/Warblade is also better than fighter. It's not really fair to include multiclasses in there...

[Seerow]

I would argue that every feat I listed (apart from the prerequisite garbage, like dodge or improved bull rush) is very, very valuable. I didn't put in garbage feats, just the ones that are actually really good.

Hell, just Martial Study x3 and Martial Stance x1 (yay for Thicket of Blades!) should be considered essential for anyone wanting to melee without Martial Adept levels. (in fact, I'd say it's one of the few ways Druidzilla can spend character build resources in making themselves much better at Melee Combat.)

Let's look at your list:

How is that melee focused cleric going to get:
Power Attack>(Improved Bull Rush)>Shock Trooper, Leap Attack
Combat Expertise>Improved Trip>(dodge)>Karmic Strike, Elusive Target
Improved Unarmed Strike>Improved Grapple
Exotic Proficiency (Spiked Chain)
Mage Slayer
Combat Reflexes>Robillar's Gambit
Martial Study x3
Martial Stance x2




Out of those, I'd go with:
Power Attack->Imp Bull Rush->Shock Trooper, Leap Attack
Combat Reflexes->Robilar's Gambit
Mage Slayer
Martial Study x3


That said I'm not sure why anyone would take martial study 3 times normally rather than just dipping warblade/crusader. Seriously. The Cleric has justification in not wanting to lose a caster level, and can get it via a persisted spell (plus the extra versatility of picking new maneuvers each day/casting!)... but a Fighter? Never. Why take 10 levels of Fighter for 3 maneuvers and 2 stances when you can get most of that from a 1 level dip?


Even with those that's 8. I can drop Combat Reflexes/Robilar's in a pinch, because they're really just kind of nice. Power attack is generally useful enough to warrant an actual feat. So that's 5 spells persisted there, plus the 3 big ones mentioned earlier. Not too terrible. 3 of those spells the (the martial study) the cleric is getting far better use out of than the Fighter due to the ability to change them.



As an aside, I will point out it is questionable whether Robilar's and Karmic Strike stack. Check out the original Jack B Quick thread for details, the original person who posted it eventually conceded he believed it was not RAW legal. That could open up another 4 feats for you to do something else with.

[Talya]

That said I'm not sure why anyone would take martial study 3 times normally rather than just dipping warblade/crusader. Seriously. The Cleric has justification in not wanting to lose a caster level, and can get it via a persisted spell (plus the extra versatility of picking new maneuvers each day/casting!)... but a Fighter? Never. Why take 10 levels of Fighter for 3 maneuvers and 2 stances when you can get most of that from a 1 level dip?


Given a choice, I'd make fighter the 1-2 level dip. :smallwink:

I'm not arguing here for the superiority of fighter as a melee class. I'm arguing against the superiority of Clericzilla as a melee class. The argument about fighter taking Martial Study/stance is because once you start throwing in warblade levels, I really think it stops being a fighter. And I honestly believe the purpose of the fighter class at this point is for dipping to get feat prerequisites for other melee classes. (And I really wouldn't remove the fighter class from the game -- I like it there for that purpose alone.)

The problem with ClericZilla...whether you're right or I am doesn't matter...the fact that it is even close means it's a bad idea for a cleric to devote any resources to being a strong melee combatant, because Fighter is the wrong target. If ClericZilla could melee as well as a warblade? I'd say Booyah! Do it! But they can't. I say they can't even keep up to a fighter. You say they can, but in the end, it doesn't matter. Fighter is one of the weakest melee classes in the game. ClericZilla cannot keep up to barbarian, for a better comparison. Or any of the TOB classes, or bard, or many of the other classes I listed above. If it can keep up with fighter...even surpass it...MAYBE...it just barely does so. The only reason ClericZilla is better than fighter, is it's also a cleric. It's not half the cleric it would be if you ignored optimizing for melee, but it's still a cleric. You are always better NOT optimizing a cleric for melee, from a power perspective.

Now, DruidZilla is another story.


Do to the great superiority of Druidzilla to Clericzilla, I propose renaming CoDZilla to DoCzilla.

[Drachasor]

Again though, CoDzilla wasn't meant to be "these are unstoppable melee combatants". It means "these are unstoppable combatants!"

They can do everything and do it well. Frankly, a Cleric CAN melee extremely well. Divine Favor is like +6 strength, Divine Power handles the magical item and BAB difference, and Righteousmight gives a +4 size bonus (that's the leveling difference) and a slew of other bonuses. A Cleric can start with a 13 strength, grab Power Attack, and never worry about any other melee feets and be an excellent melee combatant WHEN THEY NEED TO BE ONE -- that's just 3 spells, toss in a few more in other books (if you are going to give the fighter access to non-core stuff) and they can do a lot more just like the fighter can with more books. Even 10 spells is a very modest investment around 10th level.

That's just ONE PART of how they are CoDzilla. They also have a slew of spells that rival the Wizard's in utility and destruction. They can heal extremely well when needed. They can do everything at a Good or Awesome level.

I repeat, it's CoDzilla not because they do melee combat well, but because they do everything well. Like Godzilla, there's nothing you can place in the way of a Cleric or Druid that will stop them.

[RedWarrior0]

I repeat, it's CoDzilla not because they do melee combat well, but because they do everything well. Like Godzilla, there's nothing you can place in the way of a Cleric or Druid that will stop them.

Except that said cleric might as well go Cloistered for the free Knowledge domain, since investing in melee isn't the best choice for the cleric.

[Drachasor]

Except that said cleric might as well go Cloistered for the free Knowledge domain, since investing in melee isn't the best choice for the cleric.

It's always good to be flexible. Sometimes doing melee damage is a good idea...sometimes it is the most efficient or part of the most efficient solution. Enemies immune to magic can be best handled by brute force for instance when you have to kill them.

It's not like it takes a Cleric a bunch of resources to be awesome at melee. We're talking about maybe one feat and a handful of spells. That's nothing.

[Midnight_v]

Regardless of the debate already raging here's the origin of that term, which is a statement about "BALANCE" more than anything, because people didn't get that core was unbalanced from the onset for melee's. Using core only was the worst thing you could do in many peoples opnions.
Without further ado:


The Origin of Codzilla: by RaicalTaoist
"It bears saying: if up against a logic-impervious DM who thinks Core is balanced and Psionics isn't, then the most powerful way to disprove that is to play a C.o.D. (Cleric or Druid). Noncore material will not be necessary unless you are going for pure overkill. So by all means, if you must win that argument, take you C.o.D. to town. Annihilate the opposition. Make the NPCs and other players scream "Oh no, it's C.o.D.zilla!!!!!" in badly dubbed English. Breathe radioactive fire. Knock down buildings. Then stomp out of the burning Tokyo that is the ruins of the game and swim off into the ocean, seeking a DM with some basic cognitive functions."

[molten_dragon]

This one isn't a bad idea. While a druid's spellcasting is more powerful than wildshape, the druid is actually the best melee combatant in the game, bar none. Not even ToB types can keep up (though it's close.)

I strongly disagree with this. While druids are very solid melee combatants, and are far more versatile than any strictly melee build, A well-built melee character will hand a druid his fuzzy butt in a strictly melee fight. Even with the druid having a 2:1 advantage.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I always thought ClericZilla just meant that clerics could do anything very well, not that they could outdamage optimized fighters per se.

I prefer a mix of party buffs and self buffs when I use DMM Persist. Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, Recitation, Mass Lesser Vigor, and Mass Shield of Faith make everyone pretty capable in melee, and then Holy Star, Surge of Fortune, Divine Power and Ice Axe make the cleric rock out without any melee feat investment.

If you have feats for it, I'd get DMM Chain too, so you can make sure everyone's equipment can has the plusses without much gold expenditure. Better for everyone to chip in on a Bead of Karma and a few Pearls of Power instead, eh? Sure, this ClericZilla is no chargebarian as far as damage output goes, but he contributes more to the group and can cast devastating spells when he needs to.

[sonofzeal]

I find Cleric spells are often best at making yourself virtually immune to anything the enemies can throw at you, and then just walking up and beating them into submission. Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, True Seeing, Energy Resistance... and suddenly, a lot of things that ends a Fighter's day suddenly slide right off you like water off a duck's back. And then, hey, Divine Favour's only a lvl 1 spell and you can bonk heads with impunity.

[Amphetryon]

I strongly disagree with this. While druids are very solid melee combatants, and are far more versatile than any strictly melee build, A well-built melee character will hand a druid his fuzzy butt in a strictly melee fight. Even with the druid having a 2:1 advantage.

At what level do you believe this to be the case, and is Leadership available?

[Tvtyrant]

I strongly disagree with this. While druids are very solid melee combatants, and are far more versatile than any strictly melee build, A well-built melee character will hand a druid his fuzzy butt in a strictly melee fight. Even with the druid having a 2:1 advantage.

Are you perchance talking about Superchargers?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If a charger meets an unbuffed druid and his companion in an open field and wins initiative, he can kill them before they act. That, of course, is a lot of ifs, but melees do have a damage advantage. Venomfire closes the gap, but that means half of the 2 on 1 spent round 1 buffing.

[Drachasor]

I strongly disagree with this. While druids are very solid melee combatants, and are far more versatile than any strictly melee build, A well-built melee character will hand a druid his fuzzy butt in a strictly melee fight. Even with the druid having a 2:1 advantage.

Not true at all when you factor in summons (also part of the Druid's melee) and the Druid's animal companion, buffs, etc.

Oh, and widened anti-life shell ensures the Druid will attack first (it lasts 10 minutes per level).


If a charger meets an unbuffed druid and his companion in an open field and wins initiative, he can kill them before they act. That, of course, is a lot of ifs, but melees do have a damage advantage. Venomfire closes the gap, but that means half of the 2 on 1 spent round 1 buffing.

A tremendous amount of ifs, considering the Druid can be an unidentifiable (as a druid) bird in the sky. There's no reason why they'd be caught unbuffed.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Not true at all when you factor in summons (also part of the Druid's melee) and the Druid's animal companion, buffs, etc.

Oh, and widened anti-life shell ensures the Druid will attack first (it lasts 10 minutes per level).At the level the druid gets it, it lasts less than 2 hours.

There's no reason why they'd be caught unbuffed.Most druids I see played are in combat form all day until they can afford to use wild shape on utility and then shape back into a combat form every serious encounter.

[molten_dragon]

At what level do you believe this to be the case, and is Leadership available?

Eh, I'm not sure exactly what levels it would be true for. Probably after 10 or so, for the melee build I'm thinking of to mature. I don't see why it matters that leadership is available, as long as it is available to both sides equally. It can be horribly abused by pretty much anyone.

[molten_dragon]

Are you perchance talking about Superchargers?

Yeah, I'm thinking of something along the lines of spirit lion totem barbarian/warblade ubercharger with shock trooper, leap attack, combat brute, brutal strike, etc. for dealing wads and wads of damage and backed up by utility/defensive maneuvers to keep him alive long enough to kill things (I love you manticore parry).

[molten_dragon]

Not true at all when you factor in summons (also part of the Druid's melee) and the Druid's animal companion, buffs, etc.

I am indeed factoring in all of that.


Oh, and widened anti-life shell ensures the Druid will attack first (it lasts 10 minutes per level).

Attacking first definitely won't guarantee the druid a win.

[Drachasor]

At the level the druid gets it, it lasts less than 2 hours.

Yeah, which means it is more than enough time if the druid thinks they are remotely in danger.


Most druids I see played are in combat form all day until they can afford to use wild shape on utility and then shape back into a combat form every serious encounter.

Most aren't in a PvP setting or without allies except their companion and summons. Though, honestly, if you are traveling over land, then being a bird or other flying creature gives you a much better view of danger than being on the ground.

The absolute best case you can make is a druid could be KO'd if they are caught unbuffed, within charge range (and druids have spot as a skill), AND lose initiative. All this together is extremely unlikely and applies equally to a wizard or any other class.

Far more likely is the druid sees/hears the charger well beforehand and takes appropriate measures before the charger is aware of anything. Assuming no special divinational measures to be safe.


Attacking first definitely won't guarantee the druid a win.

After summons, buffs, debuffs, and the like it most certainly will. Especially since anti-life shell stops chargers from charging.

I grant this isn't the most efficient way for a Druid to deal with a charger, but it isn't that bad either.

[molten_dragon]

After summons, buffs, debuffs, and the like it most certainly will.

No, it really won't. Especially considering the warblade can just activate a belt of antimagic field and hand the druid his ass while the druid is wasting 20 rounds summoning and debuffing.


Especially since anti-life shell stops chargers from charging.

This is another point too. When you have to use up half your daily spell slots to be able to do for a single fight what a good melee build can do all day, it's really hard to argue that you're a better melee character than they are.

Because that's the argument I'm making. Not that a druid can't beat a melee character in 1 on 1 combat. He very well may be able to (though it's not the foregone conclusion that you seem to think it is). I'm saying that when it comes to being able to best fill the melee role in a party, a character built specifically for it (and built well) out of melee classes is going to do a better job than a druid.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yeah, I'm thinking of something along the lines of spirit lion totem barbarian/warblade ubercharger with shock trooper, leap attack, combat brute, brutal strike, etc. for dealing wads and wads of damage and backed up by utility/defensive maneuvers to keep him alive long enough to kill things (I love you manticore parry).

Manticore parry only applies to manufactured weapons. No deflecting natural weapons. Plus, charger (not ubercharger, that's a specific build) implies that he'll catch the druid on an open plain without being spotted. And druids get spot as a class skill.

[Drachasor]

No, it really won't. Especially considering the warblade can just activate a belt of antimagic field and hand the druid his ass while the druid is wasting 20 rounds summoning and debuffing.

I'm not sure where you are pulling that item from. If that's a reasonable item for a charger to have at say 11th level, then the druid is best not engaging in melee. In that case I would agree that a charger is the better melee combatant in a PvP scenario when matched against a Druid.

Though, a smart druid might be able to fake out the charger into wasting whatever uses this belt has.


This is another point too. When you have to use up half your daily spell slots to be able to do for a single fight what a good melee build can do all day, it's really hard to argue that you're a better melee character than they are.

Because that's the argument I'm making. Not that a druid can't beat a melee character in 1 on 1 combat. He very well may be able to (though it's not the foregone conclusion that you seem to think it is). I'm saying that when it comes to being able to best fill the melee role in a party, a character built specifically for it (and built well) out of melee classes is going to do a better job than a druid.

Well, you are saying something totally different now. Before you were saying a Charger could kill a druid. Now you are saying they can out melee damage them in a party. Those are very different things. Pick one. The latter is much more clearly in the Druid's favor given wildshape, an animal companion, and just a few summons (hardly half the spell list).

[Amphetryon]

No, it really won't. Especially considering the warblade can just activate a belt of antimagic field and hand the druid his ass while the druid is wasting 20 rounds summoning and debuffing.



This is another point too. When you have to use up half your daily spell slots to be able to do for a single fight what a good melee build can do all day, it's really hard to argue that you're a better melee character than they are.

Because that's the argument I'm making. Not that a druid can't beat a melee character in 1 on 1 combat. He very well may be able to (though it's not the foregone conclusion that you seem to think it is). I'm saying that when it comes to being able to best fill the melee role in a party, a character built specifically for it (and built well) out of melee classes is going to do a better job than a druid.

The reason I asked what level, by the way, is I'm willing to build the Druid if you're willing to build the melee. This isn't me throwing down the gauntlet, this isn't a challenge on my part. This is an offer to find out, if you're interested. If you're not, that's totally fine.

[Acanous]

I'd watch that fight.

Be willing to design the playing field, too.

[Drachasor]

If agreed to, you guys should start a new thread for it.

Edit: I'd watch too.

[TehLivingDeath]

Let's stop being silly here: an optimized Fleshraker companion will give most melee characters a run for their money, and we're not even talking about the actual T1 spellcaster who might as well turn into a Fleshraker himself. This debate pops up almost everytime CoDzilla is discussed, and it always ends with a listing of all the different ways the Druid can nulify, lockdown, disable or straight up kick the Fighter's butt.

[Revenance]

I'm guessing Archivistzilla is also possible...?:smallsmile:

EDIT:
Out of curiousity, has someone build their Archivists the -zilla way, but this is most likely an off-topic question regarding CoDzillas :smallsigh:

[tyckspoon]

I'm guessing Archivistzilla is also possible...?:smallsmile:

EDIT:
Out of curiousity, has someone build their Archivists the -zilla way, but this is most likely an off-topic question regarding CoDzillas :smallsigh:

It's doable, but it relies on Persisting even more than the base Cleric does, because it's starting off a worse frame, which means you have to get Turn Undead in there somehow, which mostly means Sacred Exorcist (or dipping a level in Cleric, I guess, if you really want it running as soon as you can.) Once you have that going, it's a little more powerful than the standard Cleric design, because you can use the usual Cleric stuff plus lift good buffs from the other divine casters- the Bite of the Were-foo line from the Druid list is an especially powerful, persistable buff that Clerics won't normally get until they can Miracle it.

[Midnight_v]

I'd watch that fight.

Be willing to design the playing field, too.

;p

Where this going down?

[Silva Stormrage]

I'm guessing Archivistzilla is also possible...?:smallsmile:

EDIT:
Out of curiousity, has someone build their Archivists the -zilla way, but this is most likely an off-topic question regarding CoDzillas :smallsigh:

Yes I believe there was a test of spite build that had a persisted troll shape with energy immunity (Fire + acid) and favor of the martyr up to be immune to damage.

[Talya]

Let's stop being silly here: an optimized Fleshraker companion will give most melee characters a run for their money, and we're not even talking about the actual T1 spellcaster who might as well turn into a Fleshraker himself. This debate pops up almost everytime CoDzilla is discussed, and it always ends with a listing of all the different ways the Druid can nulify, lockdown, disable or straight up kick the Fighter's butt.

Not to mention Twelve-Headed CryoHydra wildshape, or other similar fun times. Exalted Wildshape is fun, getting all the (Ex) and (Su) abilities of all your wildshape forms. Draconic wildshape is more of a spellcasting platform than a melee-tool, so we'll ignore it.

Contrary to popular opinion (and it is true that they lose versatility), the only thing more powerful in melee than a wildshape-focused druid, is a wildshape-focused druid with vow of poverty.

[Getsugaru]

Codzilla can also be a reference to this:http://i32.tinypic.com/d9s45.png