Fighter vs Cleric

[bloodtide]

So nearly everyone says the fighter is useless next to the cleric and that the cleric can dominate the battlefeild and do everything the fighter can, but better.

And that statement is only true depending on how you play the game. If you go by the standard '15 minute day of 4 level appropriate encounters', then yes the cleric will dominate as every single (level appropriate) encounter they will be at full spells and abilities.

But, what if you were to make that 8-12 level appropriate encounters? Suddenly the cleric can't use everything up for just a couple times, and if they do, they risk going into several battles weakened.

To demonstrate:

Fondor the fighter:Human male fighter 10th Ac21 Atk +18/+13 melee Dam 2d6+10/17-20 (+3 greatsword). So every round Fondor can do 12-22 damage twice for 24-44 damage a maximum a round.

Cella the cleric:Human female cleric 10th Ac21 Atk +10/+5 Dam 1d8+3, +2 heavy mace). So with no spells Cella can do 4-12 damage, maybe twice for 8-24 a round.
Then spells: If Cella knows she will only have four tough encounters a day, she can go ahead and 'burn out' all of her spells. So for each fight she can cast:Bless(+1 to hit), Divine Favor(+3 hit/dam), Divine Power(bab+10, +6Str, 10hp) so she gets Atk +18/+13 and does 12-19 damage, possibly twice for 24-38.

So by burning three spells she can be almost as good as the fighter. But note that Divine Power is 4th level, so she can only have the maximum four of them per day. And that is if she wants to give up any other 4th level spells.

So with just four encounters a day, Cella is just as good as the fighter. But what about encounters five, six, seven or more? Suddenly Cella can't afford to use up three or more spells and encounter. She has to save them to last for several encounters. So, she does not use Divine Power in every (level appropriate) encounter. Even if she has it available four times, she has to pick and choose the five encounters out of the possible twelve that she will use them for.

The same is true with attack spells. She can use Flame Strike three times a day for 10-60 damage to foes. And that would exhaust her 5th level spells. Again she could take out a foe in a single encounter, but can't do it 8-12 times a day. Note that for every single encounter of the day, from 1-12, Fondor can do his 24-44 damage every single attack.


So both Fondor and Cella are simple builds and they are pure core, so if anyone would like to suggest ways they can be altered to prove or disprove the point that:A spellcaster can't dominate a game with more then 4 level appropriate encounters a day, have at it.

[Zaq]

DMM would like a word with you. Even without Persist, there are plenty of long-lasting buffs you're ignoring.

Also, HP is a resource that runs out pretty quickly if you're having a 12-encounter day. Cella can refill her HP if she needs to (probably with a wand, but with her spells if she's desperate). Can Fondor?

[The Boz]

The number of hour/level, 24-hour and similar duration spells, not to mention metamagics, makes a mockery of your argument that boils down to "clerics aren't consistently powerful".

EDIT:
Also, your point is made moot by the fact that the fighter has a better weapon, and the cleric is a disabled person with just one hand. And the figher, for some reason, seems to have a higher Strength, has Weapon Focus and Specialization, and obviously has Pounce or something similar.

[Pigkappa]

This is not what people mean by "cleric is better than fighter". In your example, the cleric actually isn't better even for 4 encounters/day. Wasting 3 rounds for each encounter is really bad, since encounters rarely last more than 5 rounds.


An optimized cleric will have the Divine Metamagic feat from Complete Divine, which is terribly unbalanced and allows you to spend turn undead attempts to apply a metamagic feat to your spells, and then cast a Persistent Divine Power each day (Persistent Spell is a metamagic feat from Complete Arcane, turns the duration of a spell to 24 hours). Now the cleric has as many HPs as the warrior (a bunch of them are temporary, however), about the same Strength, the same base attack bonus. So you are a Fighter with less feats but the cleric spells and domains. And, if you try to gather more Turn Undead attempts to Persist another spell (which is quite easy by RAW), you can Persist more spells too (Righteous Might, or Divine Favor at lower levels).

[bloodtide]

The number of hour/level, 24-hour and similar duration spells, not to mention metamagics, makes a mockery of your argument that boils down to "clerics aren't consistently powerful".

I'd like a couple examples.

What can a cleric do to make themselves 'better then the fighter' for a full 16 hours of game time?

Most combat spells have durations no longer then minutes. So what does the cleric do an hour later?

Can a cleric take a selection of feats and spells and such to do so? Of course, sacrificing everything else.

[Killer Angel]

DMM would like a word with you.

To be fair, bloodtide was considering "simple builds core only", so no DMM.
That said, clerics still rule, only they must put a little more effort in it. While the core fighter alone, won't live enough through all those encounters.


Most combat spells have durations no longer then minutes. So what does the cleric do an hour later?


A basic core unoptimized cleric? cast the same spell, previously recalled with a pearl of power.

[bloodtide]

An optimized cleric will have the Divine Metamagic feat from Complete Divine, which is terribly unbalanced and allows you to spend turn undead attempts to apply a metamagic feat to your spells, and then cast a Persistent Divine Power each day (Persistent Spell is a metamagic feat from Complete Arcane, turns the duration of a spell to 24 hours). Now the cleric has as many HPs as the warrior (a bunch of them are temporary, however), about the same Strength, the same base attack bonus. So you are a Fighter with less feats but the cleric spells and domains. And, if you try to gather more Turn Undead attempts to Persist another spell (which is quite easy by RAW), you can Persist more spells too (Righteous Might, or Divine Favor at lower levels).

So a cleric can use three feats plus one spell plus at least most of their turn attempts to just 'be about as good' as the fighter.

I guess that's modern optimization for you.

[sirpercival]

Why is the cleric trying to do melee? Sure the cleric CAN, and in a given encounter that may be their best tactic (and if they do melee in that encounter, they will probably be similarly effective to the fighter). But usually the cleric will cast other spells that are more efficient at dealing with problems.

And, at the end of this 16-hour marathon day, the fighter (if still alive) will probably have a much lower hitpoint total, and the cleric (with their 3/4 BAB) will STILL probably be able to melee somewhat if they've run out of all their spells.

[Amphetryon]

So a cleric can use three feats plus one spell plus at least most of their turn attempts to just 'be about as good' as the fighter.

I guess that's modern optimization for you.

As good or better than the fighter is at fighting, while still having access to 9th level spells? Sounds like a good deal from here.

[charcoalninja]

You know except for this example.

Cleric takes 40 damage. Cleric heals it.
Fighter takes 40 damage... it doesn't come back.

The point is that the cleric will be smashing heads for all 12 encounters while Fighter boy will paste after encounter 2 without help.

[Killer Angel]

So a cleric can use three feats plus one spell plus at least most of their turn attempts to just 'be about as good' as the fighter.

I guess that's modern optimization for you.

Did you miss the part when the cleric is as good as the fighter (same BAB but better stats), without the fighter's feats but still with all its spells?

[Ducklord]

{Scrubbed}

[dextercorvia]

So a cleric can use three feats plus one spell plus at least most of their turn attempts to just 'be about as good' as the fighter.

I guess that's modern optimization for you.

No. The cleric does that to have the same BAB as the Fighter. He already has a reach weapon and comparable strength to the fighter. Now he persists Righteous Might for extra strength, con, DR and reach. Then he enchants his own weapon (saving gp for Prayer Beads, Pearls of Power, etc), and possibly those of the party. Then he lays out some combat buffs that affect all of the party. Now, after each encounter, he repairs all of the damage they have taken -- also from a persisted effect.

What does the fighter do that makes not only himself, but his entire party more damaging/survivable?

Furthermore, this represents a small percentage of his available spell slots. This leave plenty of room for defeating an enemy that a fighter can't even reach.

[gbprime]

Look, if you throw out enough books, the fighter starts to suffer even more than the cleric does.

But look at it from flexibility. If your group knows what it's getting into (more or less), the cleric can tailor his daily spell allotment any way he likes. The fighter, on the other hand, can walk up and beat on something... and that's his only real option.

[sirpercival]

And, since the Cleric can cast divination spells... he can know what he's getting into beforehand.

[Vowtz]

Cleric gets scribe scroll feat, problem solved.

[Curious]

So a cleric can use three feats plus one spell plus at least most of their turn attempts to just 'be about as good' as the fighter.

I guess that's modern optimization for you.

>Three feats
>To completely obviate another class

Yeah, totally not worth it.

[Pilo]

And since the fighter get a lot more feats, he can take Leadership and get a lesser cleric to cast heals and boost on him or an abjurator to dispell the cleric...

[sirpercival]

So the fighter would BE a cleric, but at a lower level. Clever.

[Killer Angel]

>Three feats
>To completely obviate another class


Ah! I knew that the cleric was a trap! For the druid, doing the same thing it's far easier!

[The Boz]

Yeah, druid does it just by selecting an animal companion.
He then does it again at level 4. One druid = 2 fighters and about half a cleric.

[sirpercival]

Yeah, druid does it just by selecting an animal companion.
He then does it again at level 4. One druid = 2 fighters and about half a cleric.

I'll trade you two binder rookie cards for your druid and a potion of CLW.

And some gum.

[Steward]

The Druid is just an unfair class. A player would have to be pretty conscientious while playing one to give other classes a chance to contribute.

[ILM]

But, what if you were to make that 8-12 level appropriate encounters? Suddenly the cleric can't use everything up for just a couple times, and if they do, they risk going into several battles weakened.
So once you've taken away the spells of a cleric, and barring day-long or persisted buffs, she's not as good as the fighter at fighting? Enlightening.

Since we're doing what-ifs based on unusual encounters, what if in all those encounters the enemies were flying, invisible and had DR 10/slashing? Oh god, Fighters are completely useless, let me go rip that page out of my PHB!

[tyckspoon]

But, what if you were to make that 8-12 level appropriate encounters?

Fondor will be dead somewhere between encounter 4 and 6, and you're quite underestimating Cella.

Using Elite Array as baseline 'cause it's fast:

Fondor's relevant stats:
Str 15 +2 levelup points
Con 14
Dex 13

Cella's Relevant stats:
Str 15 +1 levelup point
Wis 14 (melee cleric, doesn't need to hyperfocus Wis for DCs- buy an item.)
Con 13 + 1 levelup point
Dex 12

So in raw stat line, Fondor has.. exactly no advantage. His Str mod is the same, his con mod is the same, his dex mod is the same.

Gear:
Cella *can* use a two-handed weapon as well, but if you're wanting to highlight some of the benefits Cella gets for being a Cleric using a shield works out..

So. Fondor gets his full plate and his great sword. Default AC: 19. Default damage: 2d6+6 at +13.

Cella gets full plate, a light shield, and a mace. Default AC: 20. Default attack: 1d8+3 at +10.

Now let's magic some stuff up. Cella picks up a Bead of Karma, uses it at the start of the day, and casts Greater Magic Weapon on her mace and Magic Vestments on her armor and shield. This makes her gear all +3 for 14 hours and uses under half of her alloted wealth-by-level. AC: 26. Attack: d8+6 at +13.

Fondor feels kind of threatened by this, because that Cleric has the same attack bonus he does and much better AC, so he also buys +3 for his sword and armor. This costs him 18,000 for the sword and 9,000 for the armor, disregarding the base item+masterwork costs for now (although Cella has no need to purchase the masterwork quality, which will give her 300 GP more margin to buy useful adventuring gear/scrolls/whatever.) AC: 22, Attack: 2d6+9 at +16.

Now, Cella's happy with her AC (it's still lowish, but she's ok.) She moves straight on to stat boosters, save buffs, and all the other stuff adventurers need. How about a +2 Strength and +2 Wis? Ok then. 8,000 more. Attack: d8+7 at +14. +2 Resistance to saves is a bargain at just 4,000. 17,000 more gold available. Well, Haste is just about the best buff a melee character can ask for, so let's get some Boots of Speed. And no adventurer is complete without extradimensional space, so we'll round off with a Handy Haversack, leaving 2,000 gp (again, ignoring the cost of the base mundane gear as having been paid for/absorbed by the discretionary spending margin several levels ago; full plate would take up pretty much all of this on its own.) That's just enough cash to get a Ring of Protection +1 in there! So let's do that.

So now, when Hasted, Cella is 6 points up on AC over Fondor and only one point under in attack bonus. She does less damage, but that's entirely due to the difference between base weapons; if she had the War domain for a greatsword/greataxe she'd be doing the same damage, and the free Weapon Focus would remove that last point of attack bonus difference.

But we're not being fair to Fondor. He hasn't spent the rest of his money yet after all.

Now, Fondor is not happy with his AC. He knows that if Cella's 27/28 is still uncomfortably low for their level, his 22 is near suicidal. His first order of business is an amulet of natural armor and a ring of protection at +1 each. Those 2 points of AC will run him 4,000 GP and bring him to AC 24. Next most efficient AC: Animated Heavy Shield +1, costing him another 9,000 for +3 AC. Now, remember he's already spent 27k on his sword and armor. Another 9k for more armor and 4k on alternate AC bonuses brings his total cost to 40k; he's only got 9k more on his WBL. +2 Strength, +2 Con, and +1 Resistance to saves will wipe him out, and that's either ignoring the cost for combining Con+Nat. Armor on the amulet or slot-changing one of them.

So, at this point, Cella enjoys having better saves, access to Haste, and a neat utility item. Fondor enjoys.. swinging a larger weapon and more HP, and the weapon can be equalized with one of Cella's class features. Recall that to this point Cella has not spent a single spell in combat.

[Big Fau]

So nearly everyone says the fighter is useless next to the cleric and that the cleric can dominate the battlefeild and do everything the fighter can, but better.

And that statement is only true depending on how you play the game. If you go by the standard '15 minute day of 4 level appropriate encounters', then yes the cleric will dominate as every single (level appropriate) encounter they will be at full spells and abilities.

But, what if you were to make that 8-12 level appropriate encounters? Suddenly the cleric can't use everything up for just a couple times, and if they do, they risk going into several battles weakened.

To demonstrate:

Fondor the fighter:Human male fighter 10th Ac21 Atk +18/+13 melee Dam 2d6+10/17-20 (+3 greatsword). So every round Fondor can do 12-22 damage twice for 24-44 damage a maximum a round.

Cella the cleric:Human female cleric 10th Ac21 Atk +10/+5 Dam 1d8+3, +2 heavy mace). So with no spells Cella can do 4-12 damage, maybe twice for 8-24 a round.
Then spells: If Cella knows she will only have four tough encounters a day, she can go ahead and 'burn out' all of her spells. So for each fight she can cast:Bless(+1 to hit), Divine Favor(+3 hit/dam), Divine Power(bab+10, +6Str, 10hp) so she gets Atk +18/+13 and does 12-19 damage, possibly twice for 24-38.

So by burning three spells she can be almost as good as the fighter. But note that Divine Power is 4th level, so she can only have the maximum four of them per day. And that is if she wants to give up any other 4th level spells.

So with just four encounters a day, Cella is just as good as the fighter. But what about encounters five, six, seven or more? Suddenly Cella can't afford to use up three or more spells and encounter. She has to save them to last for several encounters. So, she does not use Divine Power in every (level appropriate) encounter. Even if she has it available four times, she has to pick and choose the five encounters out of the possible twelve that she will use them for.

The same is true with attack spells. She can use Flame Strike three times a day for 10-60 damage to foes. And that would exhaust her 5th level spells. Again she could take out a foe in a single encounter, but can't do it 8-12 times a day. Note that for every single encounter of the day, from 1-12, Fondor can do his 24-44 damage every single attack.


So both Fondor and Cella are simple builds and they are pure core, so if anyone would like to suggest ways they can be altered to prove or disprove the point that:A spellcaster can't dominate a game with more then 4 level appropriate encounters a day, have at it.

Spamming Direct Damage, especially in a core-only environment, is tactical suicide on the caster's part. There are a number of better ways to do this (Planar Binding something with an AoE ability, for example, trades one of your spell slots for a "free action" blasting ability), and most of them are Core.

Unfortunately, the Handbooks at BG are still inaccessible. However, the verdict on Tier 1 casters VS Tier 5 noncasters was in years ago. The optimizer community proved that a Tier 1 is flat-out better than a Tier 5. Or every other Tier below Tier 1 (Tier 2's being the closest they have to an actual challenge).

And as for the "endurance" problem you mentioned; I forget who, but someone proved that a 20th level Tier 1 has 90 spells/day. Given that an encounter lasts between 1-5 rounds (amounts vary based on optimization), 90 spells/day is enough for 18 encounters (assuming 5 spells/encounter).



Even I, inexperienced as I am, can come up with 5 spells/encounter that will end those encounters outright. It isn't that hard to do.

[ILM]

And as for the "endurance" problem you mentioned; I forget who, but someone proved that a 20th level Tier 1 has 90 spells/day. Given that an encounter lasts between 1-5 rounds (amounts vary based on optimization), 90 spells/day is enough for 18 encounters (assuming 5 spells/encounter).
Nonono, you're playing it WRONG. What if encounters lasted 100 rounds? Then the Cleric would be left behind, clearly proving Fighters are superior.

[Big Fau]

Nonono, you're playing it WRONG. What if encounters lasted 100 rounds? Then the Cleric would be left behind, clearly proving Fighters are superior.

What is a Fighter? A miserable pile of bonuses and hit points!

[Gullintanni]

What is a Fighter? A miserable pile of bonuses and hit points!

Treasure with a name!

[The Boz]

Expensive Magical Loot Delivery Service, from henceforth known as EMLDS.

[Psyren]

And the OP was never seen again :smalltongue:

IHBT!

[Heatwizard]

Also, why would a cleric wade into 15 fights a day without Persisted buffs? Even when getting into melee like a Fighter, they're still full casters, and one of their advantages is their big list of ways to decide what does and doesn't happen. With infinite cosmic power, you can take a nap on your own terms.

[bloodtide]

So much to reply too:


This is not Fighter vs Cleric in single combat against each other. This is fighter vs cleric as members of an adventuring group. So it's not like the cleric takes damage and just heals it and the fighter takes damage and says 'oh darn'. The cleric has to heal the damage of the whole group, fighter included, plus themselves.

Persistent spells all day? Does no other DM ever use Dispel Magic or related spells on the PC's? Or is that not allowed in the Optimization Rules? Dispel magic(and related spells) are almost an automatic. Why would an intelligent magic using foe not attempt to dispel magical effects? I very much doubt a persistent spell effect would last all day.

Magic Items It's always odd that the spellcasters are given tons of magic items to buff them up, yet for some reason the fighter ''must not use magic''. But why? Magic items are free for everyone to use. Spellcasters are the only ones that can cast spells, not use magic items.

But then this theoretical assumes that the Infinite Magic Mart follows the characters around.

[Big Fau]

So much to reply too:


This is not Fighter vs Cleric in single combat against each other. This is fighter vs cleric as members of an adventuring group. So it's not like the cleric takes damage and just heals it and the fighter takes damage and says 'oh darn'. The cleric has to heal the damage of the whole group, fighter included, plus themselves.

Except healing is best done out of combat or in emergencies only. Clerics who heal in combat are wasting spells unless someone is about to die.


Persistent spells all day? Does no other DM ever use Dispel Magic or related spells on the PC's? Or is that not allowed in the Optimization Rules? Dispel magic(and related spells) are almost an automatic. Why would an intelligent magic using foe not attempt to dispel magical effects? I very much doubt a persistent spell effect would last all day.

Funny that, Clerics have the most access to CL boosters. Those CL boosters put their spells safely out of the Dispel Magic CL cap.

It isn't like you can boost your Greater Dispel check into the 40's, now is it?


Magic Items It's always odd that the spellcasters are given tons of magic items to buff them up, yet for some reason the fighter ''must not use magic''. But why? Magic items are free for everyone to use. Spellcasters are the only ones that can cast spells, not use magic items.

Spellcasters can craft magic items. Fighters cannot (well, normally anyway).


That, right there, is the nail in the coffin.

[Psyren]

The cleric has to heal the damage of the whole group, fighter included, plus themselves.

How much damage does the fighter have to heal?
Also, healing items exist.


Does no other DM ever use Dispel Magic or related spells on the PC's? Or is that not allowed in the Optimization Rules?

1) Few monsters have dispels that matter, because few monsters are full casters. For instance, a dragon's ability to dispel anything is pitiful.
2) For those that do, they're blowing actions dispelling that would have otherwise gone into claw/claw/bite on the fighter or trying to grapple the wizard or AoEing the party etc.
3) Any character relying on buffs is going to protect them. Battlemagic Perception, Dispelling Buffer, CL boosters etc. etc.


Magic Items It's always odd that the spellcasters are given tons of magic items to buff them up, yet for some reason the fighter ''must not use magic''. But why?

Fighters don't have any magic to use. That's just how the game was made. Sure they can buy items, but so can clerics, making it a wash.

(And that's without crafting items at half-price, as Big Fau pointed out.)

[vitkiraven]

Bloodtide,

As much as I absolutely LOATHE the idea that the pansy god-slave can outfight the man who has been wielding bare steel his whole life, the scary "necromancers from the edge of the ocean" have deemed that all those who dabble in the unnatural arts of magic are of far superior stock than those hardy men who use their might alone to survive.
It is not a winnable battle, to be like the fighter, and attempt to compare oneself to those who kneel and cower like dogs before an outsider, be the source of their power divine or arcane. It is much better to compare something that should have been the fighter in the first place.
The Warblade.
This class, the warblade, might have a bit more ability to compare with those morally weak servants to other entities, even though it is not nearly as much as is needed. Indeed, the filthy "conjurers of the pacific's sands" have deemed fit that the only means for a person to survive in the worlds they have created is to dive head first into the filthy, fetid world of magic, and not be a true pure hero and divest ones' self of the impure taint that one gets from such abhorrent energies.
Yea, though existing trope from long ago tells the story of brave barbarians that defeat the scourge that is foul magic, the duplicitous "enchanters of the misty land of the Pacific North West" have deemed that no real barbarian, nor fighting man, can even hope to take on their prized Mary/ Marty Sue/ Stu classes, the spell wielders.

tl:dr, Go with Warblade, and not fighter, and if you are worried about wuxia, focus on Iron Heart and Stone Dragon.

[Curious]

A way to make ToB un-wuxia; ignore the fluff, ignore the attack names. Boom, done.

[tyckspoon]

Persistent spells all day? Does no other DM ever use Dispel Magic or related spells on the PC's? Or is that not allowed in the Optimization Rules? Dispel magic(and related spells) are almost an automatic. Why would an intelligent magic using foe not attempt to dispel magical effects? I very much doubt a persistent spell effect would last all day.


You might want to re-read Dispel Magic. It's actually weighted against the dispeller- dispel check is d20 + CL against target of 11 + CL, which means you have to roll above-average to dispel an even-level caster's spells.. and if you're talking about a Persist Cleric, they won't be even-level spells. Consider this basic once you can afford them: a Bead of Karma and a Ring of Enduring Arcana. Bead of Karma gives +4 CL, and is used in the morning when casting the day's persistent spells. Ring of Enduring Arcana gives another +4 against counterspells or dispels. So that's level+8; if we keep using level 10, your hypothetical dispeller has a target number of 29 to remove a spell from the Cleric. That's almost off the capacity of Dispel Magic altogether.

And then there's the other relatively inexpensive means of protecting against dispel, like wearing a Ring of Counterspells loaded with (Greater) Dispel Magic and/or a Spellblade weapon protecting against the same.. Dispelling is only 'almost automatic' against items (DC=flat caster level, and items tend to have low CLs) and for casters specifically optimized for that task. If you're deploying a dispel-optimized caster against the cleric, it is probably in both an over-level encounter (so it's *supposed* to be an actual threat) and a tacit admission that the Cleric was good enough that you had to deploy a specific counter that most of the party isn't especially threatened by.

[dextercorvia]

So much to reply too:


This is not Fighter vs Cleric in single combat against each other. This is fighter vs cleric as members of an adventuring group. So it's not like the cleric takes damage and just heals it and the fighter takes damage and says 'oh darn'. The cleric has to heal the damage of the whole group, fighter included, plus themselves.


Which is why if you are grinding through abnormally large numbers of encounters per day, you would rather have 2 clerics than a fighter and a cleric. They have comparable fighting ability, and with the former option you get twice as much healing, which means the party can last twice as long.

Or, are you claiming that Fighter+Cleric is stronger than Cleric alone? I think you might be right (due mainly to action economy), but it would be a close contest.

[Amphetryon]

So much to reply too:


This is not Fighter vs Cleric in single combat against each other. This is fighter vs cleric as members of an adventuring group. So it's not like the cleric takes damage and just heals it and the fighter takes damage and says 'oh darn'. The cleric has to heal the damage of the whole group, fighter included, plus themselves.

Persistent spells all day? Does no other DM ever use Dispel Magic or related spells on the PC's? Or is that not allowed in the Optimization Rules? Dispel magic(and related spells) are almost an automatic. Why would an intelligent magic using foe not attempt to dispel magical effects? I very much doubt a persistent spell effect would last all day.

Magic Items It's always odd that the spellcasters are given tons of magic items to buff them up, yet for some reason the fighter ''must not use magic''. But why? Magic items are free for everyone to use. Spellcasters are the only ones that can cast spells, not use magic items.

But then this theoretical assumes that the Infinite Magic Mart follows the characters around.
On the first point: If the Cleric is healing all the damage that the party's taken, and contributing to melee damage at anything RESEMBLING the Fighter's contribution level - which every example given here has done - he's outstripping the Fighter's usefulness. Additionally, outside of the Heal spell, most actual healing is more efficiently done outside of combat, where wands, potions, scrolls, etc. fill the niche perfectly well.

On the second point: If the enemy uses a targeted Dispel Magic on the Cleric, the Cleric will lose some percentage of his buffs and, potentially, an action or two to restore them if he's not happy with, yanno, being able to be a decent melee type who can still cast spells. That same targeted Dispel Magic on the Fighter's gear turns him into an extremely vigorous Commoner at any level beyond around 3, depending on the group's optimization level and access to gear.

On the third point: Wealth by Level is a built-in expectation of the game; this has been discussed before. If you're removing Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe from the game, the Fighter's inability to use magic items will render him obsolete more quickly than the Cleric, who can choose spells to make up for the DM's choice to make said items hard to get, including choosing to craft them himself. Yes, it's true; the Cleric could choose to magic up the weapons and armor of the Fighter in that circumstance, but why? The Fighter's not contributing anything to the party that the Cleric couldn't with the same equipment, and is dragging on the party's wealth and XP gains. Fighters are demonstrably more equipment dependent than Clerics. If the DM restricts access to CLW wands and potions and such, the Cleric needs only set aside a tiny portion of his spell allotment to manage the issue (again, perhaps devoting a single Feat to obviating the issue entirely), whereas the Fighter is left utterly at the mercy of the Cleric's ability to heal him, after the Cleric has already healed himself, the Wizard who's Stinking Cloud and Haste spells did more in combat than the Fighter, and the Rogue whose Skills set - while potentially redundant with Wizard/Cleric spells - is at least made up for by being able to dish damage relevant to the party's while having a function outside combat.

[Gullintanni]

You might want to re-read Dispel Magic. It's actually weighted against the dispeller- dispel check is d20 + CL against target of 11 + CL, which means you have to roll above-average to dispel an even-level caster's spells.. and if you're talking about a Persist Cleric, they won't be even-level spells. Consider this basic once you can afford them: a Bead of Karma and a Ring of Enduring Arcana. Bead of Karma gives +4 CL, and is used in the morning when casting the day's persistent spells. Ring of Enduring Arcana gives another +4 against counterspells or dispels. So that's level+8; if we keep using level 10, your hypothetical dispeller has a target number of 29 to remove a spell from the Cleric. That's almost off the capacity of Dispel Magic altogether.

And then there's the other relatively inexpensive means of protecting against dispel, like wearing a Ring of Counterspells loaded with (Greater) Dispel Magic and/or a Spellblade weapon protecting against the same.. Dispelling is only 'almost automatic' against items (DC=flat caster level, and items tend to have low CLs) and for casters specifically optimized for that task. If you're deploying a dispel-optimized caster against the cleric, it is probably in both an over-level encounter (so it's *supposed* to be an actual threat) and a tacit admission that the Cleric was good enough that you had to deploy a specific counter that most of the party isn't especially threatened by.

And since we're dealing with a paranoid cleric who must protect his buffs, then this character also took the Magic Domain and Spontaneous Domain Casting ACF so that he can spontaneously cast Dispel Magic to counterspell. He also dipped one level into Church Inquisitor for a +4 untyped bonus to Dispel checks, allowing you to exceed Dispel Magic's normal caster level cap.

This Cleric also took Divine Defiance from FCII, so that he could dispel as an immediate action by spending one turn attempt. So not only does the opposing caster have to beat the CL of the buffs to dispel them, he first has to beat a supercharged, immediate action counterspell just to get his Dispel Magic off. However...if the spellcaster is casting Dispel Magic, as opposed to the Greater version, or one of Dispel Magic's other variants, countering a spell with the same spell doesn't require a check.

So...the Cleric, by spending a turn attempt, can automatically Counterspell Dispel Magic as long as he has the slots for it. Have fun.

[JaronK]

So nearly everyone says the fighter is useless next to the cleric and that the cleric can dominate the battlefeild and do everything the fighter can, but better.

No, they say that the Cleric has far more options and far more abilities available to it, which it can use to be extremely useful all the time. Meanwhile, the Fighter is only useful under specific conditions (hitting stuff in a way that matches how the Fighter was built), and otherwise the class does very little. Also, the Cleric can be better at hitting stuff that a Fighter if you know how to do it.


And that statement is only true depending on how you play the game.

Because it's about potential abilities. If you don't use their potential, Clerics are weak... just like everyone else.


If you go by the standard '15 minute day of 4 level appropriate encounters', then yes the cleric will dominate as every single (level appropriate) encounter they will be at full spells and abilities.

Also if you do a marathon style endless encounters thing. Fighters without Cleric support run out of HP and become dead. Clerics without Fighter support use Extended Persistent Lesser Mass Vigor or Vigorous Circle to keep the party alive, Extended Persistent Righteous Wrath of the Faithful/Divine Power/Righteous Might to destroy enemies in melee (if they want, while also buffing the Rogue/Summoned Creatures/any other fighty type), and do this all while using only two spell slots and a bunch of turn attempts per day. Then they have their other spells for whatever else it was they wanted to do (for marathon encounter playstyle, I recommend Animate Dead+ Black Sand so you have endlessly healing minions that fight all day).


But, what if you were to make that 8-12 level appropriate encounters? Suddenly the cleric can't use everything up for just a couple times, and if they do, they risk going into several battles weakened.

Nope, they do what I said above, while the Fighter runs out of HP and dies.


To demonstrate:

Fondor the fighter:Human male fighter 10th Ac21 Atk +18/+13 melee Dam 2d6+10/17-20 (+3 greatsword). So every round Fondor can do 12-22 damage twice for 24-44 damage a maximum a round.

In non combat situations, he's useless. Against flying opponents, he's useless. Against ranged opponents, he's useless until he gets in range (which with terrain, could take a while). And with no way to heal, he dies after a few encounters if he doesn't have a healer to support him (like a Cleric). Maybe he's smarter than this and gets a decent bow so he can use archery in addition to melee, which makes him useful when terrain is bad and against fliers (though Wind Wall still screws him entirely), but he's still useless in most non combat encounters, and still runs out of HP in marathon encounters. We'll assume his feats are all set up to fight really well with that greatsword and bow. Actually, let's do this a bit smarter, giving him reach... his feats will be set up to use Guisarme and some kind of bow.

But still, he runs out of HP unless he can kill everyone at range.


Cella the cleric:Human female cleric 10th Ac21 Atk +10/+5 Dam 1d8+3, +2 heavy mace). So with no spells Cella can do 4-12 damage, maybe twice for 8-24 a round.

But, Cella's going to be smart, since she knows we're doing marathon encounters. So she's going to take the Undeath and Planning domains and be a melee necromancer type (you seem to want her to go with melee, so we'll do that). Let's go with a nice Cloistered Cleric. Planning and Undeath gives her Extend Spell and Extra Turning free, so she's going to take as her feats Persistent Spell, DMM: Persistent Spell, Knowledge Devotion, Extra Turning (again), and, um, some other feat (another Extra Turning? Dear lord, that's a bit much). And she'll have Bracers of Archery so she can use a Greatbow (Fighter might want the same). Not sure why she'd use a Heavy Mace... give her a Longspear instead. Reach is good. And it looks like from the damage bonus on that mace you meant for her to have a base str of 12.

Okay, so she should be able to pull off persisting 2 spells a day, but she'll also extend them (perhaps with a Metamagic Rod of Extend) so they last 48 hours. So she'll use Extended/Persisted Divine Power (+6 Str, full BAB), Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (Extra attack each round and +3 morale bonus to attack and damage rolls in melee, mind affecting, for all nearby allies), Vigorous Circle (Fast Healing 3 for all nearby allies), and Righteous Might (Large, +8 Str, +4 Con, +4 NA, DR 5/good). Plus she'll use Animate Dead to have a bunch of minions (note her area buffs don't help them, as they are mind affecting or living target only spells).

So she has a strength of 26 (12 base +6 Enhancement Bonus +8 Size Bonus), BAB 10. And due to Knowledge Devotion, she's probably getting a +5 to hit and to damage against everything. So actually her attack and damage (with a +2 Longspear) is +25/+25/+20 Longspear 2d6+19 (20' reach, Piercing). So she slaughters all before her with ease, and any living allies near her get buffed massively too, and she's healing all day long (her animate dead minions heal all day long due to one casting of Black Sand ages ago), and she's healing her party all day long, and this took two spells per day.

Thus, the Fighter can't go all day (out of HP) and is useless in many encounters (any that don't involve fighting, or don't allow him to effectively use his fighting style) while the Cleric can fight indefinitely (regenerates hp, has minions that do the same) and has plenty of spells left over for support. Also the Cleric fights far better by this level.

And note that being a melee Cleric is hardly optimal. It's just doing what you seemed to want.

JaronK

[Flickerdart]

So much to reply too:


This is not Fighter vs Cleric in single combat against each other. This is fighter vs cleric as members of an adventuring group. So it's not like the cleric takes damage and just heals it and the fighter takes damage and says 'oh darn'. The cleric has to heal the damage of the whole group, fighter included, plus themselves.

Persistent spells all day? Does no other DM ever use Dispel Magic or related spells on the PC's? Or is that not allowed in the Optimization Rules? Dispel magic(and related spells) are almost an automatic. Why would an intelligent magic using foe not attempt to dispel magical effects? I very much doubt a persistent spell effect would last all day.

Magic Items It's always odd that the spellcasters are given tons of magic items to buff them up, yet for some reason the fighter ''must not use magic''. But why? Magic items are free for everyone to use. Spellcasters are the only ones that can cast spells, not use magic items.

But then this theoretical assumes that the Infinite Magic Mart follows the characters around.
So...the Cleric (which can, as demonstrated, equal the Fighter without casting a single spell) is healing everyone in the party, using up enemy actions (and then resisting them, because his CL is so easy to jack up) and crafting toys for everyone in the party to have. And also fighting. You've just demonstrated yourself that the Cleric is four times more useful than the Fighter, who can only fight, and offers absolutely no benefits to the party other than that fighting.

[Vowtz]

Clerics are more powerful and more useful. Given the situation of 34 encounters on a day, he has a much better chance of staying alive than the fighter.


Playing a fighter is usually more fun.
It's more challenging, you don't have standard class answers for everything and you will have to adapt in a lot of situations.

[JaronK]

Dispel Magic is easy to counter (Spellblades, that ring in MiC, etc). And you should have little trouble boosting CL, especially on all day buffs (Bead of Karma, Consumptive Field) which can make you virtually immune to this anyway.

Heck, when I'm playing evil Clerics, I'll absolutely have fun with a bag of rats+Consumptive Field in the morning before my buffing (Persistent Spells, Greater Magic Weapon, and any other long duration buffs) along with the Bead for a nice +4+50% CL boost. That means at level 10 I'd actually have a CL of around 21. Dispel Magic is not an issue. But I thought that might be too much optimization for this excercise (even though really that Longspear should have been a +5 for that reason, and the money would instead be spent on a Nightstick or something).

JaronK

[sirpercival]

Guys, you're totally missing the point!

The REALLY optimized fighter will have taken Leadership and some Leadership feats from Heroes of Battle, and will have an ARTIFICER cohort to make him all his gear and double his WBL, and a bunch of Crusader followers who will give him tons of extra actions with White Raven Tactics and heal him up with all their Crusader's Strikes. So, the fighter will be COMPLETELY better than the cleric at an encounter marathon. MUCH better than a commoner who took the same feats.

[erikun]

Old-school responses:

The Cleric can heal after a fight; the Fighter cannot. The Fighter is limited to his ~80 HP at 10th level, while the Cleric could go through over 300 HP if desired. The Cleric has better endurance, and would last through more fights than the Fighter, even with worse combat numbers.

The Cleric has no need (or very little need) to focus on seperate stats than the Fighter. The Cleric is only +3 BAB from the Fighter, with a 1d8 vs 2d6 weapon. The difference is not that great between the two.

The Cleric can buff herself. These buffs can last a very long time. A 10th level Cleric with 14 WIS (very low) has 18 spell slots. That would be Protection from Evil for +2 AC/+2 saves for 18 combats, easily comparable to what the Fighter has available. If we want, we could cast Protection from Evil and Bull's Strength for a total of 9 combats, netting both +2 to all defenses over the Fighter and a nearly identical to-hit/damage.

Note that while a Cleric might give up a spell slot for healing, a Fighter doesn't even have that option. So while "needing to heal" would drop the Cleric's buffed combats from 9 to 8, it would stop the Fighter's combats for the day.

Clerics can use wands of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor for healing that doesn't rely on spell slots, not to mention Pearls of Power for additional spells.


...and that's all in core. Let's not forget Knowledge Devotion, Magic Domain, Divine Metamagic, Persist Spell, and whatever else makes even this limited comparison irrelevant.

[Gnaeus]

(for marathon encounter playstyle, I recommend Animate Dead+ Black Sand so you have endlessly healing minions that fight all day).

This. Cella's Zombie hydra or skeletal dragon by itself is a better fighter than Fondor. Her half dozen rebuked shadows are also a better fighter than Fondor. Cella herself MAY NOT (and with persist buffs, devotions etc, she will, but anyway) do as much damage as Fondor, but at level 10 with that damage output Fondor is nothing but a movable wall, and between her better will save and her ability to self-heal Cella is a better movable wall than Fondor. Assuming that Cella never casts a spell other than a heal or a self buff or Animate Dead, and throws out half of her abilities, I would still rather have what she brings to the party's melee abilities than what Fondor brings.

[Gullintanni]

-Correct Post-

JaronK

Using non-core options for this was mean. :smalltongue:

[Vowtz]

Guys, you're totally missing the point!

The REALLY optimized fighter will have taken Leadership and some Leadership feats from Heroes of Battle, and will have an ARTIFICER cohort to make him all his gear and double his WBL, and a bunch of Crusader followers who will give him tons of extra actions with White Raven Tactics and heal him up with all their Crusader's Strikes. So, the fighter will be COMPLETELY better than the cleric at an encounter marathon. MUCH better than a commoner who took the same feats.
Translating in: The fighter sucks, but his army rocks!

I think more than half of those followers will be dead by the end of the day.

[sirpercival]

Writing in all caps makes it VERY CLEAR that I'm not being ironic AT ALL. lol

[Gullintanni]

Writing in all caps makes it VERY CLEAR that I'm not being ironic AT ALL. lol

Seerow has a good policy on this. He colors his sarcasm with blue text. Really brightens up the place :smalltongue:

[sirpercival]

Seerow has a good policy on this. He colors his sarcasm with blue text. Really brightens up the place :smalltongue:

I thought the comment about the Commoner with the same feats at the end was too obvious, but apparently not. LOL

/derail

[CactusAir]

Seriously, next time just link the guy to Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards instead of wasting time trying to beat sense into someone stubbornly determined to cling to inanity.

[JaronK]

Using non-core options for this was mean. :smalltongue:

I guess. In which case, our trusty Cleric should just stick with animated dead (Zombie Hydras are best, Skeletal Giants are solid too, though really any good melee critter should work) as a general thing. Sadly there's no all day endless healing in core, but at least we can use a Desecrated Evil Altar so as to have really tough minions to do the majority of the fighting.

JaronK

[The Boz]

Seriously, next time just link the guy to Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards instead of wasting time trying to beat sense into someone stubbornly determined to cling to inanity.

Why didn't you just do so (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards)?

[Arbane]

Seerow has a good policy on this. He colors his sarcasm with blue text. Really brightens up the place :smalltongue:

The correct Font of Sarcasm is Magenta.

[Doug Lampert]

I thought the comment about the Commoner with the same feats at the end was too obvious, but apparently not. LOL

/derail

I thought you were serious till I hit that.

After which I assumed it was obvious sarcasm.

DougL

[Coidzor]

So both Fondor and Cella are simple builds and they are pure core, so if anyone would like to suggest ways they can be altered to prove or disprove the point that:A spellcaster can't dominate a game with more then 4 level appropriate encounters a day, have at it.

Why are you even trying to make this point? :smallconfused:


A way to make ToB un-wuxia; ignore the fluff, ignore the attack names. Boom, done.

Ignore the fluff, read the real world arms and armor thread or google Italian Longsword or German Longsword.

[Eldariel]

To be clear for OP, arguments for class utility are never "in addition"; the question is which class would you rather have for a given party slot. Would you rather have (to stick to classic composition) Wizard/Rogue/Cleric/Cleric or Wizard/Rogue/Cleric/Fighter - that is, would you rather fill out the warrior slot with a Fighter or a Cleric? Better yet, would you rather have Wizard/Rogue/Fighter or Wizard/Rogue/Cleric?

The point here is, the party with the extra Cleric is getting more out of that character slot than the party with a Fighter. The Cleric is contributing to the party overall in a myriad of ways while also fighting approximately as well as, or better than a Fighter with the whole posse (let's not be unfair here; if we make a Charger/Controller/Zhentarim Dungeoncrasher Thug Fighter with Rapid Shot & KD/Edu he can hit things decently if he can get to them, has a somewhat passable ranged damage output and has few other tricks up his sleeves).

[Yuki Akuma]

I really wish people would stop screaming "tires don exits" without having any knowledge of how the game actually works.

It's kinda sad, to be honest.

[Midnight_v]

What is a Fighter? A miserable pile of bonuses and hit points!

Bravo... vampyre. . .

[Valameer]

To expand on what Eldariel said, look at it this way:

Two fighters built for melee combat are not as effective together as a cleric and a fighter built for melee combat. Am I correct so far? Good.

The problem is, a fighter and a cleric built for melee combat are not as effective together as two clerics built for melee combat.

I think this is a design flaw, and it's unfortunate. But if you want a million examples of the veracity of what I say, just pay attention to the numbers crunched in the rest of this thread.

I like fighters, and the role they (are supposed to) play in combat. Personally, I've found AD&D to be a better match for the style of game I want to play. Fighters bust faces, hold the front line and keep mages alive, and mages occasionally tell the laws of physics to shut up and sit down.

[ArcanistSupreme]

So when a cleric that prepares nothing but healing spells (aka the worst cleric ever) can outpace the party fighter in combat, how do the game designers not see an issue? I think that's the real question.

[Amphetryon]

So when a cleric that prepares nothing but healing spells (aka the worst cleric ever) can outpace the party fighter in combat, how do the game designers not see an issue? I think that's the real question.

The playtesters didn't try to outpace, or even compete with, the fighters in combat. They either Didn't Do The Math or had a Critical Research Failure and thought that using those healing spells every round, with occasional pre-fight buffs for big fights, was 'doing their part.' So the old notes would indicate, anyway.

[Big Fau]

The playtesters didn't try to outpace, or even compete with, the fighters in combat. They either Didn't Do The Math or had a Critical Research Failure and thought that using those healing spells every round, with occasional pre-fight buffs for big fights, was 'doing their part.' So the old notes would indicate, anyway.

To be fair, in the days of 3.0 testplaying, there was no research. Everything was based on AD&D.

And in 3.5, the research still didn't exist, at least anywhere near the level we have it. The Bag-o-Rats Fighter was well-known amongst power gamers or rules lawyers, but that's seriously the extent.

[umbergod]

as much as I hated ToB when I first heard of it, I would honestly replace the fighter class with warblade, and monk with unarmed swordsage. warblade is a better fighter, unarmed swordsage is a better monk >.<

[tiercel]

I'm not going to argue that Fighter is anywhere near as powerful as Cleric, as a class, even at mid much less high levels.

But there are some things about Cleric optimization exercises that get thrown around here as if they just go to actual gaming tables because "it's RAW, we have to play our game BY THE LITERAL RULES."

Most notably, DMM. This is just my personal experience but I've never seen this feat in an actual game, probably for much the same reason that I've never seen an actual Pun-Pun build at the gaming table or actual infinite-wish loops attempted in game either: it's not cool to break the game. That the game is dumb enough to just hand you a rule strong enough to break it doesn't mean you should do it.

To an only slightly lesser extent is the problem of "divine inheritance": splatbooks increase the range of options for all characters, but for most characters, those options come with an in-game and/or opportunity cost -- you choose one feat or PrC instead of another, and a wizard has to at least locate, purchase, and scribe some new spell. Clerics (and druids and classes w/full access to their lists) just get all those new spells for free, waking up one morning and their god is all "hey, you have a whole boatload of new spells you can access today because I have a new sourcebook." In my experience, again, a sort of gentleman's agreement exists -- be modest in accessing splatbook spells, preferentially ones that might have something to do with your god, and the DM won't worry about a Banhammer.

My point isn't that the Cleric as written (and even as I've seen it played) isn't ridiculously strong -- it is. My point is that, in my experience, actual PCs designed to be played at the actual gaming table, haven't been the result of Optimization Board exercises designed to perform toilet functions upon other members of the party. Cleric is strong enough, with few real weak points and the automatic high-level I Win button of full 9-level casting, without being deliberately played to kick sand in your party's face.

[Big Fau]

Tiercel, the point of arguing with someone on this forum, especially about this topic in particular, is that it is based on the RAW. Nowhere in the first post did the OP say this thread was based on his personal experiences, nor did he present a set of house rules for us to argue by, with the exception of Core-Only (where Persistent Spell nor DMM are applicable, a fact that has been noted upon by those who have brought those two abilities up).

Stating that your personal experiences deviate from the theoretical potential has no bearing on this thread's debate. At best, you can expect a post like that one to derail the thread from the argument, but the odds are slim due to the circumstances of this thread's topic.

While your opinion is valued, your reason for posting it is flawed.

[umbergod]

I am actually starting in a campaign where I play a melee centric cleric, that makes heavy use of DMM:Persist. So don't say it never sees play, b/c it does. especially in high optimization games (which I dont play, most campaigns I play are tier 3)

[Coidzor]

My point isn't that the Cleric as written (and even as I've seen it played) isn't ridiculously strong -- it is. My point is that, in my experience, actual PCs designed to be played at the actual gaming table, haven't been the result of Optimization Board exercises designed to perform toilet functions upon other members of the party. Cleric is strong enough, with few real weak points and the automatic high-level I Win button of full 9-level casting, without being deliberately played to kick sand in your party's face.

Then your point is that you're missing the point. The cleric can exceed the fighter using only core, as has been mentioned. Splatbooks are just gravy.

Further, it can do this without using any of its actual game breaking tricks simply using the bag of tricks it's intended to use as part of its class features, unless you're deliberately redefining breaking the game to performing at or exceeding the level of the fighter in combat, which means that pretty much every class above T4 is broken then. So that should probably be thrown out as a definition.

[faceroll]

Why is the cleric trying to do melee? Sure the cleric CAN, and in a given encounter that may be their best tactic (and if they do melee in that encounter, they will probably be similarly effective to the fighter). But usually the cleric will cast other spells that are more efficient at dealing with problems.

Like what?

[Big Fau]

Like what?

They do have a few really good debuffs, but most of their useful spells are buffs.

Weird, huh?

[faceroll]

I'm genuinely curious. Cleric spells are "I cast a spell on myself so I can hit better." That's not... I dunno, that's not what sirpercival claimed. He claimed:


But usually the cleric will cast other spells that are more efficient at dealing with problems.

Again- like what? What's on the Cleric's list that allows an orthogonal approach to problems, like Druids & Wizards get?


Then your point is that you're missing the point. The cleric can exceed the fighter using only core, as has been mentioned.

Yeah, if you give the cleric ample prep time to cast all his spells. Otherwise, the fighter will kill everything in the time it takes the cleric to put his buffs up. Clerics supercede fighters outside of combat (remove curse, air walk, travel domain, etc), but in combat, not so much. Need DMM persist. With that, then they're pretty gravy. Still not quite as efficient at per/action damage as a fighter until very high levels when cleric can pick up enough power attack multipliers.

[erikun]

Most notably, DMM. This is just my personal experience but I've never seen this feat in an actual game, probably for much the same reason that I've never seen an actual Pun-Pun build at the gaming table or actual infinite-wish loops attempted in game either: it's not cool to break the game. That the game is dumb enough to just hand you a rule strong enough to break it doesn't mean you should do it.
Not everyone is talking about DMM Persist or mass Animate Dead. I pointed out that only a single spell - Bull's Strength, specifically - will boost a Cleric equal to a Fighter at 10th level. Choices we make beyond that, such as choosing the War Domain for Greatsword access, just makes the Cleric clearly the better choice.

And that really is the problem. It's not necessarily that the Cleric can cast a few spells and become equal to the Fighter; it's that the best fighting-man to choose is the Cleric, not the Fighter. It's the same problem that the Druid has, where any one single ability (Animal Companion, Wildshape, numerous spells) can make them better than the Fighter, and the Druid still has all these other abilities available to either surpass the Fighter or do other things the Fighter can't even manage.

[Lans]

Old-school responses:

The Cleric can heal after a fight; the Fighter cannot. The Fighter is limited to his ~80 HP at 10th level, while the Cleric could go through over 300 HP if desired. The Cleric has better endurance, and would last through more fights than the Fighter, even with worse combat numbers.

This is not completely true, their are several ways for a Fighter to get access to healing through feats. For example draconic aura will let a fighter heal to half+1 after every fight, Martial Stance could let him heal to full, etc



I pointed out that only a single spell - Bull's Strength, specifically - will boost a Cleric equal to a Fighter at 10th level. Choices we make beyond that, such as choosing the War Domain for Greatsword access, just makes the Cleric clearly the better choice.

No it doesn't, it makes the cleric on par with the warrior, the fighter is going to have his own bonus feats that will pull him ahead. 7 BAB+2 Str+1 Weapon Focus vs 10BAB+3 Weapon Focus Line.


You could of used divine power which would of been way closer, but you didn't.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Thread locked.