PDA

View Full Version : Let's Talk About Party Roles



AKA_Bait
2006-12-27, 10:02 AM
Something I see all the time on the boards is the "My Cleric/Druid can beat the snot out of your Fighter in Melee" debate. Sometimes I even see the "My Wizard can too" argument. To some extent these are purely intellectual discussions based upon the mechanics of the game but occasionally I am forced to wonder if they are indicative of something else.

Frankly, these posts tend to overlook the party interaction and party strategy bits of the game. Sure, the Cleric can buff the heck out of himself and wade into combat but if I were playing the fighter after he did that he would be greeted with a rousing round of "What the f*** did you think you were doing back there?" at the end of combat. This is because Clerics and Druids have a particular party role, one that basically, from the fighters point of view, is 'if you get yourself killed on the front line, no one can heal/rezz you. If one of the rest of us gets iced you can bring us back.' tact. Also, because, it seems to me, that all the buffs the cleric would use to get to be (possibly) better in combat would be better used on the fighter in the first place.

The same is true of Wizards. Wizards and other casters, as I see it, are designed to advance more slowly than their rough and tumble counter parts. This is partly because they are expected to have to spend xp on things, which the rest of the party is not. Also, it's, in my view, expected that the party wizard/artificer is not just going to be creating magical items etc. for themselves, but also for the rest of the party. Why? Presumably, they are his friends. I don't want my friends to die, and if you look at some of the articles the Giant has posted, that doesn't have to depend upon alignment. Also, even if they aren't his friends, every time Joe the Wizard goes down into the dungeon he is placing his life into the hands of his comrades; of course he would want to equip them well. A wizard should want to create boots of flying for the Fighter or Barbarian before he makes them for himself. He can cast the spell, they can't, and they need to get close to the thing right off the bat, he doesn't.

Thoughts?

piffin
2006-12-27, 10:19 AM
There is indeed a spell that will preserves one's soul if they perish in battle. I'm not sure of the name but it is in complete divine. If you get rez'd that way though you take a permanent -2 to your constitution. I think it is worth it for those situations where the cleric says " Oh don't worry guys! I can take it!"

Also, if you have an extra player who doesn't know what to play... I suggest another healer for those people who think they are tough s***.

amanodel
2006-12-27, 10:23 AM
Some buffs are self-only buffs as far as I know. If ther are enough meelee fighters in a group than the cleric is best to remain at the back, buffing and healing. But since they have powerful combat buffs, they can fill in the role of the meelee warrior if the current group is not strong at that.

If the cleric is in a group with a dwarven defender, a barbarian and a fighter, he better learn spells buffing them or various battlefield control spells than Righteous magic or whatitsname.

But if the party consist of a blaster sorc, a rogue and a duelist, the cleric is best at the front of the party as a tank.

The same goes to druid. Only druid is better, since with natural spell he can tank+cast spells at the same time.

And a wizard is always better in the back then in the front. If he doesn't need spells just to defend himslef, he can get those spells to kick ass.

AKA_Bait
2006-12-27, 11:01 AM
Several things:

1. Some buffs are self only. Things like prayer and bull's stregnth are not and are better put on the fighter than the cleric. For things like Divine Power, which are self only, IMO the cleric is better served to prepare other spells of that level, Cure Critical, Death Ward, Restoration if they plan to play as a party. Same goes for the spell mentioned that I'm not familliar with which allows a self-rezz. There are probably better uses for that slot that day.

2. I'm talking about the standard party here. That party is smashy guy, divine guy, arcane guy and toolbox. In parties that deviate from this one someone will need to step up and fill the absent role. Be that the cleric with fighting or the bard/rogue with spells. Typically, in my exp, these deviant parties also don't function as well as others and the DM has to keep the golves on a bit and not exploit those particular party weaknesses.

3. Druids and casting in wildshape. Sometimes, I wonder about this. Why would not the swarm of whatever critter is going up against this front line, armorless force, not ready attack actions for when the druid is about to cast if they have an intelegence score above that of an animal? Concentration checks every round have got to seriously impede the quality of the caster. In addition, with casters that need to buff up and then take the place of the fighter, there is always a fair chance that the monsters will get to them before they finish, or really start, buffing themselves, in which case they are in serious trouble.

amanodel
2006-12-27, 11:23 AM
1. It still depends on the circumstances. There are encounters needing two meelee tanks even when you only have one fighter at your team. Having a divine power or such prepared is never a bad idea. If you don't need it you can just spontanusly cast a cure wounds in it's place. Whenever the primary meatshiled fails his will save it's good to have a plan B.

2. Deviant parties function just as good. They need a different tactic, but they function well. Party roles are different when you have Bard/Paladin/Ranger/Druid instead of Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric, but still can take challanges. The misfits party is not as good arcane or divine caster, meatshield or toolbox as the regular party, but they are much more versatile, every member can fill in at least two party roles.

3. Because the druid has already casted some neat hours/level buffs on himself when he woke up.

AKA_Bait
2006-12-27, 11:42 AM
1. Only so many spontaneous castings per day. Dispel Magic or Spell Immunity is a better plan 'B', certianly better than having to try to thump on your meatshield. Also, where you need more than one, Summons are more effective as they do the job of keeping the baddies off you for a while and letting you effectivley cast.

2. We shall just have to disagree. IME the standard party is more effective and is what the game essentially balanced for. Sure, you can compensate for stuff, but I'm not at all sure that it makes you any more versitile having 2 folks that can do something not very well and two other folks that can watch their back not very well, as opposed to one who can do it really well and 3 who can watch their back really well.

3. Our Druid friend is still going to be getting stabbed and needing to make at least one or two concentration checks per spell per threatening enemy. Also, the rest of the party should be just thrilled he used those slots right at the beginning of the day to buff himself rather than the party members who's job it is to be in the thick of it.

amanodel
2006-12-27, 11:59 AM
Do not underestimate versatility. The DM has pretty much trick up his sleeve to make you realize that. The standard party becomes much more weak if one member becomes a bit disabled for whatever reasons. It includes, but not limited to: rust monsters, ability damages or drains, level drain, loss of items, enchantment spells, disabling spells, failed saves, assassins, or separating the party for a short period of time. The standard party loses an entire party option if a bad thing happens, while the usually weaker party has the option to fill in it's place. It's only up to the DM whether to abuse this or not.

AKA_Bait
2006-12-27, 12:06 PM
That works both ways though. As a DM I've typically had to hold back more often to avoid the TPK when it is a non-standard party than when it is a standard one. Also, the toolbox also has a role in being that step in guy in those situations. But your typical toolbox also has more outside of combat skills to draw on.

PinkysBrain
2006-12-27, 12:13 PM
Also, because, it seems to me, that all the buffs the cleric would use to get to be (possibly) better in combat would be better used on the fighter in the first place.
The D&D developers their infinite wisdom made the best buffs personal range ... and then to add insult to injury they made persistent spell (which only works on personal range buffs).

Lousifer
2006-12-27, 12:16 PM
Sure, the Cleric can buff the heck out of himself and wade into combat but if I were playing the fighter after he did that he would be greeted with a rousing round of "What the f*** did you think you were doing back there?" at the end of combat. This is because Clerics and Druids have a particular party role, one that basically, from the fighters point of view, is 'if you get yourself killed on the front line, no one can heal/rezz you.
People who tell the divine spellcaster to "shut up, buff us and heal" are the reason nobody wants to play clerics. I played a druid in my first 3e game, we had no clerics, and everyone was always getting on my case about not prepping enough heal spells and whatnot. It even got to the point where the GM was trying to get me to multiclass to cleric for spontaneous heals.

Few people want their "heroic" role to be solely the party's HP battery. I didn't mind being the healer, but I wasn't going to spend all my spellslots on cure spells. I talked the rogue into raiding the party treasure to get us some wands of cure light wounds and it helped a bunch. The fact that I didn't heal much (if at all) during combat made the party actually use tactics instead of just relying on a timely Cure Serious to save them.

Point being... having to be the healbot/buffbot stank in D&D 1e and 2e, to the point where WotC buffed clerics and made them not have to even prepare heals. A cleric wears plate. A cleric has amazing self-only buffs (Divine favor/power, righteous might). A cleric's party buffs are PBAoE, so he has to be close to the action anyway. Why shouldn't the cleric go up front and melee things to death? It's something they're quite good at. D&D isn't a CRPG, it isn't an MMO, there aren't fixed roles like there are in those games. The other PCs are players. They want to be heroes too. Just because you picture the hero as a conan-esque guy with a bunch of people whose sole purpose is to make him even more powerful in a fight doesn't mean everyone in your group is going to want to go along with being the fighter's sidekick.

amanodel
2006-12-27, 12:17 PM
Yes, that's true, because the two kind of set-up works differently. They are suited for different adventures. Ftr/Clr/Wiz/Rog is your typical dungeon crawling team, and they are the best at it They are competent in wilderness or city adventures, but not that much. The Brd/Pal/Rgr/Drd paty I made up will have a hard time in a dungeon, but will be good enough in a wilderness or city campaign. that party has two 2/3-useful toolboxes, three 2/3 compenent meelee guys and two 1/5 competent, on 2/3 useful and one good caster, plus a two party faces. Whoever get's out temporarely for whatever reason, the others can continue without any trouble.

Valairn
2006-12-27, 12:26 PM
I find that while buffing people helps, doing more damage then them combined is preferable.... divine metacheese..... blah

Kantolin
2006-12-27, 01:42 PM
I believe the major party roles are actually Tank, Healer, Caster, and Skill-monkey. Whichever classes you utilize to do these things are fine.

The problematic portion is that a cleric can, very easily, fulfill the first two roles, and can pull some serious muscle in the third category as well (And use a couple spells to help with the forth).

I mean. Sure, the fighter can play 'tank' and/or 'frontliner', however you'd like to word that. But the cleric, with a single spell, does a better job of it than the fighter. So in the following occasion:


but if I were playing the fighter after he did that he would be greeted with a rousing round of "What the f*** did you think you were doing back there?"

A similarly logical action is 'Hey fighter! The heck were you doing running into the frontlines? It's your job to support Mrs. Cleric starting from round two and giving her flanking so we can kill the enemies more quickly'.

Now, if you could divine power or righteous might or even divine favor other people, then you'd have a great argument. But as is, the 'A cleric is better than a fighter' debates usually mean 'A cleric is better at frontlining than a fighter is at frontlining', which is the problem.

Resulting in the logical process being that a standard party becomes Cleric, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard.

Edit2: And Druid can be used almost synonymously with 'Cleric' here.

Edit: And as a comment against your wizards-must-craft sequence, a logical response is 'Because as a high level wizard, I'm more useful to the party than I would be at a lower level than the rest of the party, so I'd rather not lose experience'.

This also overlooks the fact that most magic item crafting doesn't cost a huge amount of experience, a sorceror frequently won't know the spells, and that quite frankly, not all people who would like to play wizards want to be low level, the same way not all clerics want to be healbots, the same way not all fighters want to be utterly useless for anything short of standing dully on the frontlines just existing there while the real heroes solve the battle. So hey.

Pegasos989
2006-12-27, 01:53 PM
So... What if cleric likes to do something else than supporting fighter?

What if cleric wants to have fun too?

What if buffed cleric + fighter takes care of encounters significantly ovet twice as fast as if he was just spending time healing - now he won't have to as opponent won't have that much time damaging fighter. Here is your tactical aspect.

Saying "Clerics are unbalanced but it doesn't matter because fighters should just make sure they stay as heal bitches!" is idiotic on every level I can think of.


So what was your point again?

Khantalas
2006-12-27, 01:55 PM
Well, if a cleric can die in the front ranks, then the fighter is screwed. There are few things a cleric can't handle but a fighter can. Same goes for druids.

The wizards don't even have to get to the front ranks. They can make sure there never was a front rank. Then the fighter's job is dealing whatever damage he can to the helpless enemies - "coup de grace"ing if possible.

Athenodorus
2006-12-27, 01:57 PM
People who tell the divine spellcaster to "shut up, buff us and heal" are the reason nobody wants to play clerics.

You are absolutely correct.
Of course, the players in MMOs are real people too, and are often expected to have their heroic moment by being the party bandaid...
Not a "role" I prefer.

Pegasos989
2006-12-27, 02:00 PM
Several things:

1. Some buffs are self only. Things like prayer and bull's stregnth are not and are better put on the fighter than the cleric. For things like Divine Power, which are self only, IMO the cleric is better served to prepare other spells of that level, Cure Critical, Death Ward, Restoration if they plan to play as a party. Same goes for the spell mentioned that I'm not familliar with which allows a self-rezz. There are probably better uses for that slot that day.

Cure critical is fourth level spell healing 4d8 +9 at that time. Fighter gets beaten about that amount in round or two at that level. So if cleric casting divine power can end the fight round or two earlier, he was more efficient than healing the round.


2. I'm talking about the standard party here. That party is smashy guy, divine guy, arcane guy and toolbox. In parties that deviate from this one someone will need to step up and fill the absent role. Be that the cleric with fighting or the bard/rogue with spells. Typically, in my exp, these deviant parties also don't function as well as others and the DM has to keep the golves on a bit and not exploit those particular party weaknesses.

The problem is that cleric is better at fightning than fighter in addition to being caster. So Smashy guy (cleric) works better than smashy guy (fighter) in addition to being the divine guy.


3. Druids and casting in wildshape. Sometimes, I wonder about this. Why would not the swarm of whatever critter is going up against this front line, armorless force, not ready attack actions for when the druid is about to cast if they have an intelegence score above that of an animal? Concentration checks every round have got to seriously impede the quality of the caster. In addition, with casters that need to buff up and then take the place of the fighter, there is always a fair chance that the monsters will get to them before they finish, or really start, buffing themselves, in which case they are in serious trouble.


So if every frontline opponent needs to start preparing actions towards druid instead of making full attacks, it tells us that druids are not overpow... what? Besides, those actions will never go off as then druid just starts beating the hell out of them as legendary dire ape of doom.

tarbrush
2006-12-27, 02:19 PM
The obvious lesson to bearned here is that the person who wants to be playing the party tank should probably play an appropriately tailored cleric, hence negating the problem of all the healing being in one basket and thus allowing both clerics to fight and presumably, therefore have more fun.

Shazzbaa
2006-12-27, 02:33 PM
1. It still depends on the circumstances. There are encounters needing two meelee tanks even when you only have one fighter at your team...

Then this isn't a problem. I think the point of the OP was people constantly talking about how the fighter is "overshadowed" by . If the tank needs a second tank to back him up, then he's not being overshadowed -- they're both needed.

The point is that when you only need one tank, and the fighter's built to be a tank, that... yes, perhaps the cleric [I]can be just as much a tank, but why? The fighter fills that role. To me, it seems only an issue if the cleric is trying to do the fighter's job and leaving the fighter with nothing to do -- the cleric may well serve as a secondary tank, but the point is, that although he perhaps can usurp the fighter's position, he shouldn't.

So, basic idea being, if the cleric is overshadowing the fighter, he needs to do his own job and let the fighter do the fighter's job. It doesn't mean he can't ever do cool things. Heck, our cleric is our primary healer, but he still manages to get his moments to shine, be awesome, and impress everyone.
It's sort of like what TLN always said about wizards -- let the fighters do the damage and mopping up of enemies, so you can do "all the important stuff."

Or at least, that's the basic idea I got from the post; I suppose I could be mistaken. It kind of makes sense, though.

Pegasos989
2006-12-27, 02:34 PM
The obvious lesson to bearned here is that the person who wants to be playing the party tank should probably play an appropriately tailored cleric, hence negating the problem of all the healing being in one basket and thus allowing both clerics to fight and presumably, therefore have more fun.


Exactly. Which is why cleric -class is so overpowered compared to other classes.


I think that the strongest core party would consist of Cleric tank, Cleric divine caster (though they can be combined as cleric knows all the spells), Cloistered cleric skill monkey and a wizard battlefield controller.

Culwch
2006-12-27, 02:48 PM
3. Our Druid friend is still going to be getting stabbed and needing to make at least one or two concentration checks per spell per threatening enemy. Also, the rest of the party should be just thrilled he used those slots right at the beginning of the day to buff himself rather than the party members who's job it is to be in the thick of it.

Our druid friend needs not to worry about getting stabbed at all if he wants to cast in the front line; all he needs to do is to Cast on the defensive. Making the Concentration check at DC = 15 + spell level is trivial if you a. invest ranks into Concentration skill, b. wildshape into a combat form (that tends to have a big Con score).

Pegasos989
2006-12-27, 02:58 PM
Now, there seems to be some misconception that fighters' job is to be in the frontline even if he does it worse than clerics and druids. Even worse, people seem to think that though fighter does frontlining worse, he should be mad at the player of druids or cleric if they start doing it (though it is better even tactically).

Can anyone explain reasoning behind this, besides just "I say so" or "That's the way things should be" or some similar form of avoiding the words "I have no idea".

tarbrush
2006-12-27, 03:03 PM
Well, there is the legitimate argument that if your healer kicks the bucket you're basically screwed. But again, the obvious solution that you need 2 clerics rather than a fighter and a cleric.

Because people die regardless of whether they're at the front or the back.

amanodel
2006-12-27, 04:55 PM
let the fighters do the damage and mopping up of enemies, so you can do "all the important stuff."

This is a worthy point of view. Sure a cleric druid or wizard can outshine a fighter in meelee, but he also has a dozen other things to do. Turning undead, dispelling magic, banishing outsiders, and all the other important things. Everyone can do damage. But the mage can do things much more important than sheer damage. Plus, the fighter is the guy who's got feats. He can attack a dozen times in a round, tripping and disarming up to 8 enemies a round, or leap attacking, stormtrooping, whirlwinding, and all the bloody things. Buffed clerics and wizards can't do that in meelee. They may become strong, have the BAB of the fighter, but won't be as skilled as him. Of course the cleric can cast righteous magic, divine might, some other buff and then go to meelee, but IMO better buffing up the fighter and summoning a celestial dire wolf (or any other stuff) to provide flank and do some extra damage. And dispelling effects the enemy casters do. Altough I'd still prepare a powerful self-buff at least one for a day, in case something really bad happens to the fighter.

----------

Following the cleric instead of fighter, we could go as far as cleric instead of rogue or cleric instead of wizard. 4 clerics in a team. Whoa. It'd been an interesting party. :) But it'd be fun to RP four clerics of different fates working together.

It could be done with wizard instead of fighter, wizard instead of rogue. Even wizard instead of cleric can be done, just make sure you don't get hurt, there'll be noone to heal you. Altough RP-wise I can't imagine four wizards working together. It won't work in the long even mechanically.

Rogue instead of anyone involves UMD and heavy flanking and generally low AC and HP, and thus a high mortality rate.

Fighters instead of anyone... It'd work as far as they don't encounter a trap, a monster with a strange spec quality, something that requires a will save, and as long as they have HP. It just won't work for more than three decent encounters.

McClintock
2006-12-27, 05:05 PM
So we just had a huge battle in my group. We were fighting a bunch of stone giants and ogres. Our front line consisted of a Barbarian 10, Paladin 9 (Enlarged) and a Righteous Mighted/Divine Powered Cleric 12 and we rocked straight through the giants/ogres.

There were a total of 6 ogres & 10 giants (I think) that were dead in 7 or 8 rounds. In the first 4 rounds of combat the cleric had all the spells, after which the spells wore off.

Our barbarian was averaging 80 (3 attacks) points of damage a round with his great axe. The paladin was getting about 45 (2 attacks) with a bastard sword and the cleric was getting about 45 (2 attacks) with a heavy flail.

With Cleave and a 2-handed weapon, the fighter was killing giants 2 to 1 over the cleric and paladin, plus the cleric had to stop to heal himself so he could stay alive.

This is not thie first time I have come across these fighter/caster battle threads, what I want to know is... are you comparing a CoDzilla that is built for battle or one that is built to be a buff/battlefield/healer caster? Because if so what level are you choosing? What spells? Are the stats the same for both PCs? Because in my opinion, and it is only an opinion, fighters fight and CoDzillas support.

Lousifer
2006-12-27, 05:40 PM
To be honest, the cleric in your party was not a very good example of how to melee if he was using a 2 hander and taking more damage than a fighter or paladin... Or his equipment was sorely lacking.

First, a cleric should use a shield. They usually don't have the strength or feats to make the 2-handed weapon as good as it is in the hands of a dedicated fighter. What makes a cleric so “tank-like” in hand to hand (in my experience) is the ability to wear heavy armor, a large shield and enchant both with Magic Vestament. The cleric typically does not lay out as much damage per round as a fighter/barbarian/rogue/etc, but they should be much tougher to damage at all (Higher AC, good all around saves...)

I would fully expect almost any class to bring more damage to the table than a hand-to-hand cleric, but the cleric brings their moderate damage to the table in addition to strong buffs for their whole party (Bless, Prayer, Recitation). Don’t underestimate the debuff half of prayer or recitation, effectively increasing the AC of your party vs. everything as well as making your party hit harder/more often.

The big drawback is a cleric who's going to buff themselves and their party for the fight may spend 2-3 rounds buffing that might be better spent on some other activity.

Pegasos989
2006-12-27, 05:45 PM
So we just had a huge battle in my group. We were fighting a bunch of stone giants and ogres. Our front line consisted of a Barbarian 10, Paladin 9 (Enlarged) and a Righteous Mighted/Divine Powered Cleric 12 and we rocked straight through the giants/ogres.

There were a total of 6 ogres & 10 giants (I think) that were dead in 7 or 8 rounds. In the first 4 rounds of combat the cleric had all the spells, after which the spells wore off.

Our barbarian was averaging 80 (3 attacks) points of damage a round with his great axe. The paladin was getting about 45 (2 attacks) with a bastard sword and the cleric was getting about 45 (2 attacks) with a heavy flail.

With Cleave and a 2-handed weapon, the fighter was killing giants 2 to 1 over the cleric and paladin, plus the cleric had to stop to heal himself so he could stay alive.

This is not thie first time I have come across these fighter/caster battle threads, what I want to know is... are you comparing a CoDzilla that is built for battle or one that is built to be a buff/battlefield/healer caster? Because if so what level are you choosing? What spells? Are the stats the same for both PCs? Because in my opinion, and it is only an opinion, fighters fight and CoDzillas support.

Yeah, as you said, for some reason cleric had not the buffs up half the time. (which is kinda wierd as they all last atleast 12 rounds for him)

If we compare melee capability of cleric to melee equivalent of fighter, we naturally use cleric with quicken spell as soon as he can and otherwise... Well, feats towards melee. Like the barbarian would take. Depends on build. As WoTC char op boards had Cleric build thread, they had blaster clerics, archer clerics, caster clerics... One guy asked for melee cleric build and answer was "Cleric 20. Quicken spell. All other feats open."

Generally stats go about in order Wis>Str>Con>Dex>Cha>Int. If cleric is built as Wis>Cha>Int>Con>Str>Dex as a healer, naturally he will not outshine fighter just because he gets full bab and some increases. However, with full bab, higher strenght than the fighter, bigger size than the fighter, stuff like luck bonuses to stuff...

As to level, the comparaments have three stages:
One: You can cast 5th level spells (Like quickened divine favor. Casting the big three takes 2 standard actions)
Two: You can cast 8th level spells (You can quicken two of the big, thus getting buffed in one round)
Cheese: You have access to divine metamagic, thus either being always persisted with them on or quickening every one of them at low-mid levels.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-27, 05:53 PM
I hate this argument so much. "Clerics aren't overpowered, because they should be buffing the fighter!" Yeah, that's great, except that Bull's Strength sucks (doesn't stack with STR boosting items) after level 3 or 4, Prayer sucks for the slot it eats up, Bless likewise sucks after the first couple of levels... the best buffs are Divine Favor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might. Which are personal only.

The cleric can buff up and fight, and still heal and Death Ward when it's called for. Pretty easily, in fact.

Lousifer, if a cleric is going into melee, a two-handed weapon is much better than a shield. Shields suck after the first couple of levels. If the cleric can afford it, an animated shield is nice; other than that, it's unnecessary.

Pegasos989
2006-12-27, 05:55 PM
To be honest, the cleric in your party was not a very good example of how to melee if he was using a 2 hander and taking more damage than a fighter or paladin... Or his equipment was sorely lacking.

First, a cleric should use a shield. They usually don't have the strength or feats to make the 2-handed weapon as good as it is in the hands of a dedicated fighter. What makes a cleric so “tank-like” in hand to hand (in my experience) is the ability to wear heavy armor, a large shield and enchant both with Magic Vestament. The cleric typically does not lay out as much damage per round as a fighter/barbarian/rogue/etc, but they should be much tougher to damage at all (Higher AC, good all around saves...)

I would fully expect almost any class to bring more damage to the table than a hand-to-hand cleric, but the cleric brings their moderate damage to the table in addition to strong buffs for their whole party (Bless, Prayer, Recitation). Don’t underestimate the debuff half of prayer or recitation, effectively increasing the AC of your party vs. everything as well as making your party hit harder/more often.

The big drawback is a cleric who's going to buff themselves and their party for the fight may spend 2-3 rounds buffing that might be better spent on some other activity.


First, damage: Combat cleric's str is his second highest stat and divine power (+6 enchantment) brings him up to any magic items fighter might have afforded and righteous might's (+4 size) bonus brings his strenght over fighter's. Then the divine favor's (+3 luck) is just topping it. (Edit: Oh, and he might get more damage from being bigger too but well, fighter can get enlarge potions easily enough - even if that makes him spend the round "buffing" like cleric does) Naturally his to hit should be so high due to all those spells that he can power attack more and top even more, but you get the idea. And this was cleric who only had his most essential in combat buffs on.

Then, the time:
9th level: (Quickened divine favor + divine power)+(righteous might) means he uses two rounds buffing (and closing up with move actions). Not too bad but worth noting. (EDIT: As Bears mentioned, righteous might isn't necessary yet, so you can buff in one round if you want to.)
15th level: (quickened divine favor + righteous might)+(quickened divine power) means one round buffing and even on that he can move.
These assuming DM doesn't allow cheese, which makes it less than one round at 9th level...


And yeah, as you said, due to cleric's long buffs, he has the ac comparable to others too. But well, magic vestment should really be cast on team too, before fights. (EDIT: Though righteous might gives him natural armor and DR topping the barbarian easily... So yeah, I would say he wins in AC too unless fighter concentrates on his ac - in which case cleric wins even more in damage)

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-27, 05:57 PM
A 9th level cleric shouldn't be casting Righteous Might, incidentally, unless he has pre-combat buffing time. Quickened Divine Favor plus Divine Power do just fine.

the_tick_rules
2006-12-27, 06:05 PM
people sure enjoy putting down the fighter don't they. they way i see it the fighter is the screen for the others to operate behind. unless a cleric is fully buffed ahead of time (which he could only do once or twice) he might be dead before he can buff himself. same for a wizard, properly screened he's fearsome, but mobbed he can fall rapidly. so let's show the fighter some love people.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-27, 06:08 PM
people sure enjoy putting down the fighter don't they. they way i see it the fighter is the screen for the others to operate behind. unless a cleric is fully buffed ahead of time (which he could only do once or twice) he might be dead before he can buff himself. same for a wizard, properly screened he's fearsome, but mobbed he can fall rapidly. so let's show the fighter some love people.

Man, do people even read these posts?
The cleric needs one round to buff himself. One. Round. He buffs himself and moves into melee. He's out one attack compared to the fighter. Big deal.

As to the wizard, at lower levels, it's true; at higher ones, he's flying, invisible, and way the hell over there; good luck mobbing him before he traps or kills you.

Kantolin
2006-12-27, 06:31 PM
As an attempt to avoid derailing this into a 'cleric v fighter' debate...

The reason people comment that clerics are better than fighters is because clerics make better tanks and frontliners than fighters.

So, while you can disagree with that, that's a discussion that's been done to death, and can additionally be done here.

Basically again: Clerics are better and more effective tanks/frontliners than fighters. So if you see a cleric, a competent assumption is 'this cleric is a better frontliner than a fighter'.

Disagreeing with clerics being better at the fighter's supposed 'job' is perfectly acceptable, and there have been and likely will continue to be a half dozen topics addressing this. But if you agree that clerics are better tanks than the tank, then why on earth wouldn't you have the best tank up front being a tank? Sounds like that's a better option for everyone involved.

Edit: Wizards are slightly different animals. They're more useful than fighters by a wide margin, but usually aren't expected to or frequently able to simply walk to the front lines and replace the fighter. It's just that wizards bring more to the table, making a wizard a much more competent option.

And at low levels (Where wizards are weakest), anyone can die when mobbed. I mean, almost any critical hit is likely to kill even a barbarian at level 1, and a d8 + strength stab will kill anyone if the roll gets lucky. Not to mention that sleep and color spray tend to solve battles on round one.

Traveling_Angel
2006-12-27, 07:05 PM
One of the best buys a fighter can get is a Ring of Regeneration or similar item. This hammers on the main weakness of the CoDzilla mentality-when you run out of spells, your no longer awesome. A fighter with fast healing-even if it's only one- can keep going like the energizer bunny. An artifact I'm thinking of gives the wearer fast healing 1. This makes you heal 600 points in an hour. This makes the wearer-especially a fighter type- the best recovery rate in a long shot, even at epic. form 0 to 600 in an hour is dang good.

axraelshelm
2006-12-27, 07:06 PM
Okay I just read a wizard supposed to enchant magic items and weapons for his team mates.
I play casters and tend to cling to my exps like gold because the pay off at higher levels warrants it.
I don't mind sharing my spells but to actively give up exps when i can level up for more spells to help my team mates seem abit counter productive to me.

And yes the cleric is tough i SUGGEST Trickery domain lovely spell and skill selection including invisibility your cleric is now scout and a unseeing target. Buff all you want!

Kantolin
2006-12-27, 07:09 PM
One of the best buys a fighter can get is a Ring of Regeneration or similar item.

Trouble is, it's very rare that a fighter will be nearly as good for the duration of most fights despite fast healing 1, which will also take up a decent amount of money which could be used towards letting him survive more. Healing 1 hit point per round doesn't in particular matter when you're constantly taking 30s to the face. A cleric can deal with the fights with more efficiency and thus solve the problem of dying from the 30s to the face you're taking.

PinkysBrain
2006-12-27, 07:15 PM
When you are out of spells you start using your pearls of power, when you are out of your pearls of power you start using your scrolls and wands, when you are out of those you say "to hell with this, later suckers ... word of recall".

Devils_Advocate
2006-12-27, 11:34 PM
The point is that when you only need one tank, and the fighter's built to be a tank, that... yes, perhaps the cleric can be just as much a tank, but why? The fighter fills that role. To me, it seems only an issue if the cleric is trying to do the fighter's job and leaving the fighter with nothing to do -- the cleric may well serve as a secondary tank, but the point is, that although he perhaps can usurp the fighter's position, he shouldn't.

So, basic idea being, if the cleric is overshadowing the fighter, he needs to do his own job and let the fighter do the fighter's job.
So... playing a tank-build Fighter basically amounts to "calling" the tank roll, since that's pretty much all the character can do? And thus tanking is the Fighter's job and not the Cleric's?

Well, that's just fine and dandy if the Cleric's player agrees with that. But obviously, it's not when the Cleric's player agrees with that that there's an issue! It's not fine and dandy if the Cleric's player also wants his character to be a tank, maybe even designed his character to be a tank. In that case, he certainly doesn't agree that the Fighter "owns" the tank role, and he can't have it. And if the Fighter's player feels that he does own the tank roll... Well, at that point

- The Cleric's player thumbs his nose at the Fighter's and says, "Hey, look! My guy is better at melee than yours, plus he can cast spells! Bet you regret your choice of class now, sucker!"
- The Fighter's player says, "Hey, wait a minute! We need you to stay back and heal and buff us! That's your job! If you wanted to play a front-line melee combatant, you should have made a fighter or a barbarian or a paladin instead of a character who's really good at tanking!"

(Paraphrased, although in some cases, perhaps not too much...)

This is where things start to break down.

(Substitute "Paladin"/"Barbarain"/"Ranger"/whatever for "Fighter" and "Druid"/whatever for "Cleric" above as appropriate.)

Kantolin
2006-12-27, 11:40 PM
As a brief addendum to my previous posts (which agrees rather whole-heartedly with Devils Advocate), it's perfectly okay for someone who utterly enjoys playing the support role to do so. I personally like playing support roles, just not as a cleric... quite frankly, clerical buffs for other people suck, so if I wanted to play a support character, I'd play a wizard.

The catch is that, well. Clerics get a decent base attack bonus and full plate. And a variety of domains that help in smacking things. Your average cleric will be anywhere but the back of the party playing support. In addition, your average cleric will enjoy time on the front lines, and will frequently discover divine power (especially if you're limited to core. If you get away from core, they may not notice the three awesome core cleric spells amidst the variety, but hey).

And then you get the cleric who'd like to be a tank since clerics are actually good at it.

krossbow
2006-12-27, 11:50 PM
All I'm hearing from the Anti-cleric tank side is "Hey, don't do that! I NEED YOU! Just because I'm totally irrelevant without you and your uber doesn't mean you can ignore me!"


Roles? Thats BS. You do what your good at. The problem is not the cleric: Its the fighter. The fighter should not need to be babysat by the cleric to fight, as the cleric can fight much better.


Clerics take one round, and they beat out Fighters. Quicken spell and persistent spell just make it sad. It is NOT the other people's jobs to make sure you can do it. It's like telling God that he's your bitch and to use his massive power to make your life rock.

Lousifer
2006-12-28, 12:26 AM
Lousifer, if a cleric is going into melee, a two-handed weapon is much better than a shield. Shields suck after the first couple of levels. If the cleric can afford it, an animated shield is nice; other than that, it's unnecessary. I guess it depends on the kind of campaign you're in. I've always found having the extra armor enchantment slot on the shield to be quite handy, and the extra AC makes a pretty good amount of difference in survivability.

Yeah with a shield you're not laying out the big crushing hits like a barbarian or fighter with a greatsword, but I have a hard time giving up the extra AC when it pushes me to the point where the things I'm fighting need 19-20 to even hit me... and really, when I'm the cleric, I am the one who needs to survive the fight.

Dunno, maybe AC is irrelevant in the campaigns y'all play in, but honestly, the character who's nigh-impossible to hit lives longer in the ones I've played in.

Jack Mann
2006-12-28, 03:59 AM
Well, you want decent AC, to be sure. But most of the time, you can take fewer hits by making sure they're not alive to deal them. They hit often enough, they're going to get through eventually, even with your high AC.

Fizban
2006-12-28, 06:15 AM
Exactly. Which is why cleric -class is so overpowered compared to other classes.


I think that the strongest core party would consist of Cleric tank, Cleric divine caster (though they can be combined as cleric knows all the spells), Cloistered cleric skill monkey and a wizard battlefield controller.
Swap the Cloistered Cleric for a Beguiler and you're good to go. Someone (TLN?) was saying a while back that Cleric+Druid+Beguiler+Wizard=win in a box.

Our druid friend needs not to worry about getting stabbed at all if he wants to cast in the front line; all he needs to do is to Cast on the defensive. Making the Concentration check at DC = 15 + spell level is trivial if you a. invest ranks into Concentration skill, b. wildshape into a combat form (that tends to have a big Con score).
Except the point was that they readied actions to hit him, not AOO's. All casters cast defensively if they are in AOO range, but a readied action has nothing to do with that. The counter of course being that if they spend all their actions waiting for a spell to disrupt, the druid has no reason to cast a spell instead of smashing them.

Khantalas
2006-12-28, 06:21 AM
Swap the Cloistered Cleric for a Beguiler and you're good to go. Someone (TLN?) was saying a while back that Cleric+Druid+Beguiler+Wizard=win in a box.

You should also add a direct damage dealer into the mix so that the wizard doesn't have to waste his precious spells on them.

Psion would work fine.

Fizban
2006-12-28, 06:26 AM
Druid and Cleric have enough direct damage spells to help the wizard out, especially when you add splatbooks. Flamestrike, Fire Storm, Fire Seeds in core, splatbook Druid just gets ridiculous.

Khantalas
2006-12-28, 06:27 AM
Druid and Cleric have enough direct damage spells to help the wizard out, especially when you add splatbooks. Flamestrike, Fire Storm, Fire Seeds in core, splatbook Druid just gets ridiculous.

But buffs... What about Buffs?

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 06:27 AM
Um, druids and clerics can deal damage in melee. Damage spells: just say no.

Valairn
2006-12-28, 06:32 AM
Metacheese > Fighter or in layman's term, cleric's 3 feats > all of the fighters.......

Fizban
2006-12-28, 06:43 AM
But buffs... What about Buffs?
Everyone buffs, everyone has DD, everyone (except the wizard) gets in melee. How much straight damage do you want anyway? If everyone prepares say one DD spell, that's 3, and the beguiler knows some non-lethal dealing spells that are nearly as good. If we assume this party deals most of it's damage through buffed up melee combat, 3 support AoE's should be fine.
Looking at the Druid's 4th level list, the only "buff" spells are Air Walk and Freedom of Movement, with Reincarnate and Cure Serious, so a Druid could probably spare 2 Flamestrikes. Clerics do have quite a few useful 5th levels, so maybe not him, but still. This party is meant to kill stuff hand to hand, if you wanted direct damage than you wouldn't have used this party. Besides, the wizard can change what he's doing every day, if he wants damage he can get damage. The original combo started out as a joke of "well why not but all the most broken casters together and make a party?"

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 06:53 AM
Beguilers, it should be noted, aren't broken. A really uber party would have a Rogue 1/Wizard 4/Unseen Seer 10/Arcane Trickster 5 build instead--19/20 wizard casting > Beguiler.

Khantalas
2006-12-28, 06:55 AM
What about Binders? I though they were quite broken at high levels. Or I am just having hallucinations.

Fizban
2006-12-28, 07:04 AM
Beguilers, it should be noted, aren't broken. A really uber party would have a Rogue 1/Wizard 4/Unseen Seer 10/Arcane Trickster 5 build instead--19/20 wizard casting > Beguiler.
Fine, I missspoke. The plan wasn't so much combine the most broken casters as it was to combine the best. I think it cropped up somewhere in the Batman thread, which became part discussion of all casters, and it was mentioned that if you were to make an all caster party a Beguiler would be better than an Arcane Trickster. The Unseesn Seer combo beats it, but also requires multiclassing, destroying the serene simplicity of the concept and completely ruining the extra attention I attempted to draw by exxagerating the broken-ness.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 07:12 AM
What about Binders? I though they were quite broken at high levels. Or I am just having hallucinations.

Total hallucinations.

Khantalas
2006-12-28, 07:19 AM
Well, Akuma once suggested that they would be broken.

Although the said binder was in a party with a Psion, Warblade and Dread Necromancer with Tomb-Tainted Soul.

They should all have Tomb-Tainted Soul.

Wolf53226
2006-12-28, 09:59 AM
Boy, maybe it was just you guys that had the issue where the tank was jealous. In the last campaign I played in, I was the cleric, I was told by the tank, a barbarian, that I was not supposed to buff him, but to buff the thief and myself and together me and the thief were to take out baddies as well. We were low enough level that saving someone after a party death wasn't an issue, we couldn't do it, and I alway left some utility spells that could be switched out for heals in my memorized list for after the battle. Granted, I could buff myself to be "as good as" the barbarian in combat, and thus I was a big help to the party, because combat went much smoother with more target for the bad guys to have to worry about.

amanodel
2006-12-28, 10:04 AM
IMO the fighter is still useful. He can do battlefield control and the like. Sure the wizard can too, but why waste spells on both field control and self-transformation? Just send in the fighter guy and let him do his job, while you make sure everything is allright, and keep the enemy spellcasters away from doing much harm.

In an easy fight with <4 enemies sure you can transform and beat the hell out fo them, but when you face the army of the lich king you have better things to do than smashing two dozen zombie minions and 20 bugbears. That's the fighters job. He'll keep 'em at bay with his HP and feat builds, why the cleric and the wizard can focus on the real threat, the lich king behind the minions.
Sure he could blast away up to five minions per round, or transform and take out two per round, but that's not his job. Let the fighter and/or barbarian play with the minions while the cleric turns the mummies away and the wizard nukes the lich. If the caster has too much free time than buff the meelee fighters, or help them in the battlefield control with some spells, or healing.

edit: forgot about the rogue. He's probably searching through the treasury of the lich king while you risk your life.

Khantalas
2006-12-28, 12:09 PM
IMO the fighter is still useful. He can do battlefield control and the like. Sure the wizard can too, but why waste spells on both field control and self-transformation?

Gah?

How does a fighter do battlefield control? Did he suddenly gain an ability other than swinging his sword around that I haven't heard of?

And why should wizard transform himself, anyway? He has to make sure that the enemy doesn't pose a threat, and he does it by casting massive control spells. Not by transformation.

Or I just didn't understand what you said.

Rigeld2
2006-12-28, 01:22 PM
IMO the fighter is still useful. He can do battlefield control and the like. Sure the wizard can too, but why waste spells on both field control and self-transformation? Just send in the fighter guy and let him do his job, while you make sure everything is allright, and keep the enemy spellcasters away from doing much harm.

In an easy fight with <4 enemies sure you can transform and beat the hell out fo them, but when you face the army of the lich king you have better things to do than smashing two dozen zombie minions and 20 bugbears. That's the fighters job. He'll keep 'em at bay with his HP and feat builds, why the cleric and the wizard can focus on the real threat, the lich king behind the minions.
Sure he could blast away up to five minions per round, or transform and take out two per round, but that's not his job. Let the fighter and/or barbarian play with the minions while the cleric turns the mummies away and the wizard nukes the lich. If the caster has too much free time than buff the meelee fighters, or help them in the battlefield control with some spells, or healing.

edit: forgot about the rogue. He's probably searching through the treasury of the lich king while you risk your life.

...

If the Fighter is relegated to minion masher, he plays a useless role.

krossbow
2006-12-28, 01:39 PM
Evard's Black tentacles = greater battle field control than ANYTHING the fighter could ever do.


Oh, your going to smash them to clear the way to the lich? Well, I kind of just grappled all the minions with one spell. thats okay, your doing your best, your just "special" *pats head, gives hard candy*

Oh, yeah, before I forget... *puts bright orange safety headgear on fighters head* your +5 helm of protection.

Rigeld2
2006-12-28, 01:41 PM
/me dies laughing

The Gilded Duke
2006-12-28, 02:13 PM
Back to the original post.. I was once in a game where everyone else in the party had decided to be a front line meleer. I had originally wanted to be a social face using illusion like spells, and ended up going with a telepath psion. I ended up filling the social face, the blaster, the healer(Cleric minion with Thrallherd), and the skill monkey rolls.

It didn't work out too well.
I

Fizban
2006-12-28, 05:45 PM
Gah?

How does a fighter do battlefield control? Did he suddenly gain an ability other than swinging his sword around that I haven't heard of?

And why should wizard transform himself, anyway? He has to make sure that the enemy doesn't pose a threat, and he does it by casting massive control spells. Not by transformation.

Or I just didn't understand what you said.

Ever seen a tripmonkey build? As for the wizard, I don't know, but I've freqently liked the idea of "crap, I'm out of useful spells.....Lesser Dragonshape/charge!!!!!!!"

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 05:47 PM
How does a fighter do battlefield control? Through a combination of Combat Reflexes, size/reach increasers, and the Improved Trip and Stand Still feats. Add in Karmic Strike for more goodness, plus Deft Opportunist and Power Attack, and so on.

amanodel
2006-12-28, 07:58 PM
Yeah, what Bears and Fizban said. That way wizard guy need not to worry about that. So he can do something that actually matters. Sure he could just cast some tentacles and sleet storms and pixie dust. There are two problems with that. 1. Instead of casting those, you could also cast spells aimied at the BBEG (or encounter boss), who's more powerful than the rest. (You casted tentacels in the first round? The lich casts irresistible dance on you. You lose.) 2. It works tremendously until the DM says "there was a cleric in the goblin horde. He just mispelled all your spells effects." Fighters cannot be dispelled that easily.

Khantalas: The transformation part was directed for people always having fun pointing out how well the cleric rocks whe casts divine might and such on himself.

Rigeld2: Someone has to do the dirty job, or am I mistaken? Power word: Kill, disintagrate, or even magic missile is not the best way to deal with the weaker guys. We have a proverb like "with a cannon against a pigeon" (it's not really pigeon, but the other bird's name escapes me). If the wizard plays with the minons while the fighter gets to the lich? Fighter gets killed in 1d2-1 rounds, then the wizard falls too.

Krossbow: Ha ha. Ha. Until someone dispels your precious tentacles. One spell slot waisted for nothing. Certainly the best way to play a wizard. (I just used that spell in a campaign of mine. 50% of PC's threw the save, laughed at it, and just kicked the evil wizard's ass with steel.) The fighter does not have to clear the way to the lich. He only needs to keep those away from your soft organic mage belly, so you can focus on the lich, who is the real threat. On the other hand, the guisarme+armorspikes warrior rocks. Bears can tell you, he plays him now. A cleric or a druid just couldn't do that, no matter if he buffs himself up to 45 STR.


(all the examples are to be envisioned with the stanard party against a relatively high-level wizard and his many minions, some hard encounter.)

Rigeld2
2006-12-28, 08:43 PM
(You casted tentacels in the first round? The lich casts irresistible dance on you. You lose.)
Nice Straw Man. First, the lich has to either have arcane reach or w/e the feat is that gives reach to touch spells, or be in touch range. If the lich is in touch range, then deal with it first and THEN deal with the mooks.


2. It works tremendously until the DM says "there was a cleric in the goblin horde. He just mispelled all your spells effects." Fighters cannot be dispelled that easily.
Really? Fighters get dispelled easier than Clizards.


Rigeld2: Someone has to do the dirty job, or am I mistaken? Power word: Kill, disintagrate, or even magic missile is not the best way to deal with the weaker guys. We have a proverb like "with a cannon against a pigeon" (it's not really pigeon, but the other bird's name escapes me). If the wizard plays with the minons while the fighter gets to the lich? Fighter gets killed in 1d2-1 rounds, then the wizard falls too.
Youre right, those three spells are probably the worst ways to deal with mooks. There are far, far better ways. Like I said, if all the fighter does is deal with mooks, hes been relegated to uselessness.


Krossbow: Ha ha. Ha. Until someone dispels your precious tentacles. One spell slot waisted for nothing. Certainly the best way to play a wizard. (I just used that spell in a campaign of mine. 50% of PC's threw the save, laughed at it, and just kicked the evil wizard's ass with steel.)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm
Do you see a save? I see a grapple check. If 50% of your party has grapple checks of (Casters Caster Level) +8 then theres a seperate issue.


The fighter does not have to clear the way to the lich. He only needs to keep those away from your soft organic mage belly, so you can focus on the lich, who is the real threat.
Why do people keep saying this? Its not possible unless theres a chokepoint. Why keep messing with the weakling fighter if the "soft organic mage" is right there? Just leave enough mooks to occupy him and let the rest charge the mage. Yay for a useless fighter!


On the other hand, the guisarme+armorspikes warrior rocks. Bears can tell you, he plays him now. A cleric or a druid just couldn't do that, no matter if he buffs himself up to 45 STR.
Really?


(all the examples are to be envisioned with the stanard party against a relatively high-level wizard and his many minions, some hard encounter.)

Theres no such thing as a standard party.

Fizban
2006-12-28, 10:50 PM
There is such a thing as a standard party: it's what all the CR's, wealth by level tables, and classes themselves are balanced around. The standard party has a melee fighter, a full divine caster with healing spells, a full arcane caster with a few AoE spells, and a character with lots of skills and trapfinding. This is the assumed party that everything is balanced against.

Now, amanodel: thank you, you are the only person I've ever seen acknowledge that the party's spells can be dispelled. As well, at high levels, it's an initiative battle between casters. If the party's caster wastes a turn dealing with mooks instead of the BBEG caster, then the BBEG caster just won initiative and killed you all.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 11:29 PM
Bears can tell you, he plays him now. A cleric or a druid just couldn't do that, no matter if he buffs himself up to 45 STR.

I hate to tell you, man, but a cleric or druid could *totally* do that. And once he gets Righteous Might, he could do it better, having a size and strength advantage for tripping. All it takes, fundamentally, is reach, Combat Reflexes, and Combat Expertise/Improved Trip or Stand Still. Human cleric: Human--EWP: Spiked Chain (or MWP: guisarme, or find a deity or cause with the guisarme favored weapon and take the War domain--hell, Kossuth's favored weapon IS the spiked chain), Combat Expertise at first, Improved Trip at third, Combat Reflexes at 6th. That's all you *really* need. Stand Still is better than Expertise/Trip for *control*, since it's just one feet. Level 9, the cleric takes Quicken as normal. At 12, he picks up Power Attack,which he can now use to great effict with his superior AB from buffs; before that, he made up the damage with buffs and high strength.

As to the black tentacles, Rache happens to have a good enough grapple check thanks to Jotunbrud to be competitive with them (CL+8 for a level 7 wizard would be +15, and Rache has +15); without it, he'd be at a disadvantage. A single Fear or Confusion spell, however, would've had a great chance of screwing over the entire party (except the cleric, who could then be handled). That wizard wasn't played like an Uber PC-Wizard--and I appreciate that, mind you. :P


Edit: I wish people would quit going on about how the cleric can be dispelled.

If there is a spellcaster capable of dispelling the cleric, an equal-level caster, he's got a 45% chance of stripping each particular buff.
Meanwhile, that same caster could cast Deep Slumber (third level) or Glitterdust (second level) and be far *more* likely to take out a tank entirely or make two of'em useless. Any caster capable of dispelling a cleric PC could do far worse to a fighter with the same level spell.

krossbow
2006-12-29, 12:22 AM
Krossbow: Ha ha. Ha. Until someone dispels your precious tentacles. One spell slot waisted for nothing. Certainly the best way to play a wizard. (I just used that spell in a campaign of mine. 50% of PC's threw the save, laughed at it, and just kicked the evil wizard's ass with steel.) The fighter does not have to clear the way to the lich. He only needs to keep those away from your soft organic mage belly, so you can focus on the lich, who is the real threat. On the other hand, the guisarme+armorspikes warrior rocks. Bears can tell you, he plays him now. A cleric or a druid just couldn't do that, no matter if he buffs himself up to 45 STR.



Wow. So your caster somehow has a uber high grapple check too? to avoid being tentacled?

Granted, he could have a ring of freedom of movement. but, if he's gone first, then all his minions are screwed and useless till the next turn. I.E., he's open to get blasted.

Second, otto's irrisistable dance? Well, I declare that he just lost my save too, so I win. See, it's really easy to win a debate when you declare that a wizard LOSES THEIR BEST SAVE. It's a will save. Now... class, what are wizard's BEST save? Come on... It starts with a W...

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 12:28 AM
It's called IRRESISTIBLE dance because you can't resist it, man. No saving through.

krossbow
2006-12-29, 12:38 AM
Oh, wait, sorry, get that one mixed up with tasha's hideous laughter. >.< *smacks head*


:smallsigh: crap, ignore that then.

amanodel
2006-12-29, 11:34 AM
IMO any proper lich can fly, or has freedom of movement, or just far away from his minions. The fact that wizards rock, can go double for the ones the DM plays :)

By dipelling I said that a sample spell effect can be dispelled easier than a fighter character.


Now, amanodel: thank you, you are the only person I've ever seen acknowledge that the party's spells can be dispelled. As well, at high levels, it's an initiative battle between casters. If the party's caster wastes a turn dealing with mooks instead of the BBEG caster, then the BBEG caster just won initiative and killed you all.Exactly my point. Party caster needs to leave the fighter guy the dirty work, and aim his spells at the enemy wizard (s). As fast as he can.


Do you see a save? I see a grapple check. If 50% of your party has grapple checks of (Casters Caster Level) +8 then theres a seperate issue.Grapple check is effectively a save. The fighter fith high STR and BAB has a great chance to overcome it.


Like I said, if all the fighter does is deal with mooks, hes been relegated to uselessness.It's not useless, someone has to do that. It's better this way than firing spells madly at them just to exhaust the mages.


Bears is right. A cleric can do battlefield control really well, if he's a fighter build. Many clerics don't have those feats, and have the standard mace+heavy shield cleric gear. It can be done, but the cleric has other useful spells to use against spellcasters. It depends on the encounter, if it lets you to fight meelee, or it needs your spells.

(Yup, that wizard was played very badly intentionally, with some over-tuned self-confidence. Plus there were some not too strongly built characters I wouldn't like to hurt badly, and we had some player disappereances, too. A powerfullly played wizard would had the chance to kill that party outright. If the party was a group with several battles behind them, to know each other well, and each would have a character at mechanically 80% of possible power, than I wouldn't go that easy on you. :) )

Rigeld2
2006-12-29, 12:23 PM
By dipelling I said that a sample spell effect can be dispelled easier than a fighter character.
And youre wrong. Its easier to dispel a Fighters items than it is a Clerics spell.


Grapple check is effectively a save. The fighter fith high STR and BAB has a great chance to overcome it.
Grapple Check is nothing like a save. To have a 50/50 chance of overcoming the tentacles, a full BAB class needs to have either a 26+ str or Imp. Grapple and an 18+ str. Anything less than that and your chances go down steeply. There is no "I rolled a 20 I saved". What classes were the 50% of the PCs that "threw the save"?


It's not useless, someone has to do that. It's better this way than firing spells madly at them just to exhaust the mages.
Wrong. Toss a Melee Cleric or Druid in there instead of the Fighter (if theres even a way to "distract" the mooks) and you do nothing but gain effectiveness.


Bears is right. A cleric can do battlefield control really well, if he's a fighter build. Many clerics don't have those feats, and have the standard mace+heavy shield cleric gear. It can be done, but the cleric has other useful spells to use against spellcasters. It depends on the encounter, if it lets you to fight meelee, or it needs your spells.
So.. a cleric can fill two roles, and a fighter can fill one. Isnt that what has been said?

amanodel
2006-12-30, 03:18 PM
So.. a cleric can fill two roles, and a fighter can fill one. Isnt that what has been said?My point in that as like:
Following the cleric instead of fighter, we could go as far as cleric instead of rogue or cleric instead of wizard. 4 clerics in a team. Whoa. It'd been an interesting party. :) But it'd be fun to RP four clerics of different fates working together. One cleric goes fighter built, another learns only setect snares and pits and knock spells, other learns offensive spell to be the "wizard", and one goes on a buffer build. Perfectly viable. So let's not only belittle the fighter, all the other classes then.

So what do you think what is the fighter's role in the party? (Aside from dying quickly and let his player to create a CoDzilla instead, which I see as your point.)


This thread was not about only high-level parties, so I assumed we talk about the roles generally, not in a "munchkinned highlevel" way.


(On a side note, I see that all the comparing conversations assume high-level character builds. There was recently a poll here, and the vast majority of the GM's and players like, and play <10 level games.)

Cybren
2006-12-30, 03:20 PM
My point in that as like: One cleric goes fighter built, another learns only setect snares and pits and knock spells, other learns offensive spell to be the "wizard", and one goes on a buffer build. Perfectly viable. So let's not only belittle the fighter, all the other classes then.

So what do you think what is the fighter's role in the party? (Aside from dying quickly and let his player to create a CoDzilla instead, which I see as your point.)


This thread was not about only high-level parties, so I assumed we talk about the roles generally, not in a "munchkinned highlevel" way.


(On a side note, I see that all the comparing conversations assume high-level character builds. There was recently a poll here, and the vast majority of the GM's and players like, and play <10 level games.)
Pretty sure the poll was just on where people consider "high level" to start, and what level they start at

amanodel
2006-12-30, 03:42 PM
I was referring to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30306) thread. 94% of the folks like to play and DM starting at less than ten levels. That means the are about 6% of the games starting high, and another percents of games adavencing to there.

It just strikes me odd that people argue about hypothetical 20-th level parties, and every such conversations end up someone mentioning time stop, disjunction, and the like. It's fine that the "strongest character"-esque threads go like that, but in my opinion, it's not the best argument to in thread like this that "timestop, you die".

I found that everyone assumes that casters are powerful already and they can kill hunderds of minions and three BBEG's in a move action. Nobody mentioned even mid-level party concepts, or low-level ones. Bears brought up his cleric build to be better battlefield control than a fighter at mid-high levels, but I haven't seen other arguments like that. By the poll, people play usually at the lower levels, so I found it interesting.

For example, what should the party roles be when all the wizard can do is to cast a few magic missiles and some spells to protect themselves? Or when the difference between d8 or d10 hp matters. Or when the fighter is not assumed to wear rings of freedom of movement.

Pegasos989
2006-12-30, 03:44 PM
Yeah, it was at what level they start at. I start at generally around level 4 (add or remove 2 levels) but it doesn't mean the games couldn't go above 12.

Fighter is dispelled easily. A lot easier than cleric. Fighter has boots of flying, which are propably standard CL, so they are easy to dispel. From that point on, he is useless against flying enemies (unless he is a ranged fighter).

Pegasos989
2006-12-30, 04:01 PM
I was referring to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30306) thread. 94% of the folks like to play and DM starting at less than ten levels. That means the are about 6% of the games starting high, and another percents of games adavencing to there.

It just strikes me odd that people argue about hypothetical 20-th level parties, and every such conversations end up someone mentioning time stop, disjunction, and the like. It's fine that the "strongest character"-esque threads go like that, but in my opinion, it's not the best argument to in thread like this that "timestop, you die".

I found that everyone assumes that casters are powerful already and they can kill hunderds of minions and three BBEG's in a move action. Nobody mentioned even mid-level party concepts, or low-level ones. Bears brought up his cleric build to be better battlefield control than a fighter at mid-high levels, but I haven't seen other arguments like that. By the poll, people play usually at the lower levels, so I found it interesting.

For example, what should the party roles be when all the wizard can do is to cast a few magic missiles and some spells to protect themselves? Or when the difference between d8 or d10 hp matters. Or when the fighter is not assumed to wear rings of freedom of movement.


As said, it all was on what level games start at. My campaigns tend to last, you know, several sessions. A lot of games is at mid to high levels though they start at low levels.

Also, wizard progression:
1-4: Sleep and color spray dominate. If opponent fails save - and they will unless they are, you know, other spellcasters - the fights can be ended in one round.
5-6: Both low level win buttons stop working, you get hold person, deep slumber...
7-8: Same as before but you have enough spells per day for every encounter. If you want to use it, you get polymorph.
9+: You get overland flight.
11+: You get contignency

So as you see, wizards are very powerful from the start. It is just that at low levels, spells per day matters, so they only dominate an encounter or two...

Cleric:
1-6: You are full caster, able to wear full armor, 3/4 bab... You are one of the strongest classes in the game
7: You get divine power
9: You get quickened divine favor + divine power

HeinleinFan
2006-12-31, 05:49 AM
Merely because I'm curious . . . How do you fellows play a rogue?
My rogues (one and her cohort) are built for fighting and diplomacy, respectively. Reading this thread and one that ranked the classes, I couldn't see why people assume a rogue won't be useful in battle.

By using magic items (we get a lot more money than the DMG recommends, because the various DMs I play under tend to smash us. We don't die - but eight ninth-level players against twelve frost giants, one uber frost giant cleric, three fighter-class frost giants and three worms that explode miserably when killed make for a tough fight), I've upped my elven rogue's Dex to 30. Admittedly, she's dirt poor - but her AC is 28. And she can do a lot of damage with the poisons she collected from an assassin.

So . . . what is this "Weak rogue" beeswax about? Are most rogues geared toward diplomacy, or what? (I could see them being weak then; the only advantage my diplomat has is a good Feint.)

Matthew
2006-12-31, 10:57 AM
Not sure. My Rogues are usually built for Stealth and either Two Weapon Fighting, Ranged Combat or both.

Usually, Spot, Listen, Search, Sneak and Hide are all maxed out and either Rapid Shot or Two Weapon Fighting are taken at Level 1. The other Skills and maybe a Feat are usually chosen with regard to the Campaign and proposed Party Role, though I have been known to play an Elven Thief with Stealth instead of a Combat Feat.

As for Roleplaying, well that varies from Character to Character.

tarbrush
2006-12-31, 12:00 PM
Things like rogue arcane tricksters/unseen seers tend to be quite popular, seeing as you get spells and sneak attack.

The other big one is TWF rogue with lots of sneak attack. Apart from the deluge of skill points, I never saw rogues as faces really. But then again only bards can reasonably claim to be good faces, everything else tends to lack the skill points and the charisma focus.

To be honest, in our mythical optimised party, skillmonkey is the easiest role to subsume into another class. So you'r probably end up with a beguiler, or a wizard focused rogue/wizard or some other dual threat.

amanodel
2006-12-31, 12:26 PM
1-4: Sleep and color spray dominate. If opponent fails save - and they will unless they are, you know, other spellcasters - the fights can be ended in one round.

In every low-level campaigns I have played wizards were only a hindrance. The "win buttons" failed to work often, and many of our encounters had resistance. Around 5-8th level the power structures turned around, and the wizard became the strongest character. Sure they not useless at the beginnings, but it'd be foolish to depend on him when you encounter a few goblins or various monsters. At low levels everyone has a notable chance to make his save. Maybe it's just me, but low-level games I saw was not with "I'm the destroyer of worlds, tremble, mortals!" wizards, but rather "operation: hide behind the meatshields" ones.

For clerics, low levels they can't hit hard, and they have to provide a lot of healing, so they can't recklessly cast spells. They are strong and versatile, but they are not uber yet.

Pegasos989
2006-12-31, 12:44 PM
In every low-level campaigns I have played wizards were only a hindrance. The "win buttons" failed to work often, and many of our encounters had resistance. Around 5-8th level the power structures turned around, and the wizard became the strongest character. Sure they not useless at the beginnings, but it'd be foolish to depend on him when you encounter a few goblins or various monsters. At low levels everyone has a notable chance to make his save. Maybe it's just me, but low-level games I saw was not with "I'm the destroyer of worlds, tremble, mortals!" wizards, but rather "operation: hide behind the meatshields" ones.

For clerics, low levels they can't hit hard, and they have to provide a lot of healing, so they can't recklessly cast spells. They are strong and versatile, but they are not uber yet.

Well, sure, sleep fails to work often. However, will save (assuming standard int 16 and no items or feats) DC 14...
Kobold fails 70% of the time
Goblin fails 70% of the time
Orc fails 75% of the time
Bugbear fails 60% of the time
Ogre fails 60% of the time
...
So while wizard doesn't dominate, he should be pretty guaranteed to take out as many opponents as rogue, for example. Naturally spells per day limit, but they get scribe scroll as a bonus feat and scribing a scroll of sleep takes 12 gp, 5 sp and 1 exp...

And yeah. Clerics do not own at low levels. However, as you said, it is partly because he has to spend spells healing the fighter who would die without him, so comparament:
Fighter: Does a lot but takes resources of two characters.
Cleric: Does less but keeps alive another character in addition
so... yeah. Also, even with standard elite array, greatsword cleric at second level has attack of +4 (2d6 +3), which hits (and kills, as many low level encounters consist of multiple enemies with no more than 10 hp) about half the time.

So they won't dominate at low levels but saying that they are weak support characters is just plain wrong.

Valairn
2006-12-31, 01:48 PM
I think what people are trying to say here is, its not about whether mages are uber all the time or clerics for that matter, what they are saying is, when it comes down to it, the classes are useful more often and in the ways they are useful, they make or break a fight. A fighter will never make or break a fight, unless he does something particularly retarded.

Matthew
2006-12-31, 01:50 PM
Eh? I have seen Fighters 'make or break fights' at Level 1. Do you mean at higher levels?

krossbow
2006-12-31, 05:37 PM
Eh? I have seen Fighters 'make or break fights' at Level 1. Do you mean at higher levels?



At Level 1, a commoner with a stick and a peanut lodged in his brain is a fight breaker. :smalltongue: Seriously, its so easy to get killed or lucky/unlucky at level one that it shouldn't be taken seriously on anything.

Matthew
2006-12-31, 05:47 PM
Heh. Sure, but Full BAB Classes at Levels 1-4 are sturdy win or lose type Characters. If the Fighter in your [Fighter / Rogue / Wizard / Cleric] party goes down and you can't heal him, the situation may have just turned desperate. If the Wizard goes down and you can't heal him, it's generally inconvenient, but no big deal for combat. After Level 5 or so, though, the situation changes.

Shadowdweller
2006-12-31, 10:41 PM
I must respectfully disagree that "skillmonkey" is or ever WAS one of the primary roles associated with the iconic party.

The concept of an adventuring party stems back to the very beginnings of D&D, before there even WERE skills. You will not find a place in the WotC books where such a role is defined or referred to as a standard feature in a party. In many cases the incidence of challenges best dealt with by skills is low enough that magic makes for far superior solutions. The wizard really has always been the utility belt.

What you will instead find in the literature are repeated references to a "scout" or "scouting". THAT, I submit, is the true niche of the rogue in the iconic party...albeit one that might be alternately filled by monk, ranger, bard, and even wizard or druid to varying degrees of success.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-31, 10:47 PM
Scouting is now skill-based. Hide, Move Silently, Search... "Trapmonkey" is also an important role in Typical D&D, which is also skill-based. "Skillmonkey" may not have always been around, but the rogue's real role is skillmonkey, which covers scouting, traps, and sometimes being the "face".

Shadowdweller
2007-01-01, 05:04 AM
Scouting is now skill-based. Hide, Move Silently, Search...
Except that it isn't, always. Which is why both wizards and druids make decent scouts.


"Trapmonkey" is also an important role in Typical D&D, which is also skill-based.
"Trapmonkey" is a subset of scouting...apprehension of danger BEFORE it strikes you.


"Skillmonkey" may not have always been around, but the rogue's real role is skillmonkey, which covers scouting, traps, and sometimes being the "face".
The rogue's real STRENGTH is in skills. That is not the same thing as ROLE.

Pegasos989
2007-01-01, 05:16 AM
I don't really get your point. At all. Are you saying that... What exactly? Besides, the skillmonkey is referred to as "Expert" in phb, expert being a party role in addition to a tank, arcane caster and divine caster. Rogue is expert because of his skills. That makes his party role as skillmonkey (for whom diplomacy, scouting, etc. are as he has the skillpoints for that). It doesn't mean that rogue couldn't do anything else besides using skills but that is his role, the thing that he gets better than other party members at.

Matthew
2007-01-01, 07:01 AM
The 2.x Thief had a number of Thief Skills, which he was expected to use. Almost no other Character Class could use those Skills (though, contrary to popular belief, it was entirely possible for other Characters to Sneak, Hide, Listen, Spot and Search, just not very well).

ambu
2007-01-01, 07:40 AM
Oh Matthew the memories.... the awful memories. And 'not very well' is a very....mild description,

stainboy
2007-01-01, 08:56 AM
Ok, say you've got a fighter and a cleric in a party. Let's assume our cleric's pragmatic about his buff spells and is as willing to buff the fighter as he is to buff himself, so for the purposes of this exercise they both have every available cleric buff that buffs their damage or attack rolls. We'll give the fighter a 18 strength and the cleric a 16 strength, since the cleric has to spend points on Wisdom. They're both 10th level and wielding +3 greatswords.

Fighter:

Pre-buff stats: Str 18, Base Attack Bonus +10/+5, wielding +3 Greatsword

Feats: Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Weapon Specialization (Greatsword), Improved Critical (Greatsword), Greater Weapon Focus (Greatsword), 5 other feats that don't help with single-target damage - our fighter already has all the available RAW feats that help him swing a greatsword harder.

Buffs: Prayer (+1 attack/damage), Aid (+1 attack), Bull's Strength (+4 Strength).

Attack: +23/+18
Damage: 2d6+15
Crit: 17-20/x2


Cleric:

Pre-buff stats: Str 16, Base Attack Bonus +7/+2, wielding +3 Greatsword

Feats: Martial Weapon Proficiency (Greatsword), Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Quicken Spell (doesn't matter for this exercise, but it's part of the build).

Buffs: Righteous Might (+4 Strength, size increase ups greatsword's damage to 3d6), Divine Power (+6 Strength, increases base attack bonus to +10/+5), Divine Favor (+3 attack/damage), Prayer (no bonus - doesn't stack with Divine Favor, just including this one so the fighter and the cleric have all the same non-self-only buffs), Aid (+1 attack), Bull's Strength (no bonus - doesn't stack with Divine Power).

Attack: +26/+21
Damage: 3d6+18
Crit: 19-20/x2



On average, the cleric deals 6-7 more damage per swing before power attack. He also has 3 more attack bonus than the fighter and can afford to power attack 3 points harder, which gives him +6 more damage. The fighter has an edge on criticals, but it's not enough to make up the difference. Even if the fighter was throwing 10-point power attacks every round and still only failing to confirm criticals on a natural 1 (which would mean he'd have to be attacking something with an AC of 9), he'd gain less than 5 damage per swing on average from his Improved Critical feat.

So yes, a cleric who has time to buff before a fight can outmelee a fighter by a huge margin. If the argument is that a cleric should use his spells to buff the best melee-er in the party rather then to buff himself.... well, in at least some circumstances buffing the best melee-er does mean buffing himself.

Pegasos989
2007-01-01, 09:42 AM
Well, the arguement is not about if cleric is better or fighter but rather which one should he buff.

The cleric's best buffs are personal only. Let's assume fighter has +4 str item for str 22, cleric has str 16.

If cleric buffs fighter:
Round 1:
Fighter get's enlarged, dealing 1d6 +1.5 more damage per round from now on (and gaining reach)
Round 2+: Cleric casts buffs that grant fighter like +1 to hit

If cleric buffs himself:
Round 1:
Fighter drinks potion to get enlarged
Cleric gains +9 to hit (+3 str, +3 bab, +3 luck), +1d6 +9 (1d6 from large greatsword, +6 from having +4 bigger str mod and +3 from divine favor) damage (divine power + quickened divine favor)
Round 2+:
They start whacking the enemy


Which one is more efficient? Cleric helps the party so much more by buffing himself than the fighter... If his buffs weren't self only, things might be diffrent but... bah.

amanodel
2007-01-01, 12:30 PM
Being a skillmonkey is a way to do the scouting, talking or trapping. A wizard or cleric with an alternate spell list can be an excellent scout, and can take the rogue's role easily. Just memorize tons of divinations, hiding, knock spells, or eagle's splendor and enchantments for being the party face, or alarm and trap spells for trapping.

tarbrush
2007-01-01, 12:50 PM
Nah, all you need for trapfinding is summon monster 1 and a sense of humour.

Thrawn183
2007-01-01, 02:27 PM
I personally play a cleric right now. I feel that clerics are extremely powerful and flexible. I think they are much more valuable in a party than a fighter.
(This is my disclaimer, and my declaring of any possible bias.)

Question: have people here considered not making wisom their highest ability? If you put say a 14 into wisdom, boosted it one inherently and then wore a simple +4 item that would still allow you to cast ninth level spells. Granted you wouldn't get as many bonus spells per day, but it would allow you to max out your str and con as much as you can, and still probably leave you with the best will saves in the party. I'm just assuming with this one that you aren't going for increasing the dc of your spells because you're always going melee.

Question 2 (This one leans the opposite direction): I hear people talking about using quickened spells and such at level 9, or not much later. How many fights do you run in a day? Are you using a lesser metamagic rod of quicken on divine favor? Its not like you can cast that many self buff's in a day... and even if you do, yes a dispel magic probably will ruin your day if you have six buffs active on yourself.

Question 3: Why not use a fighter as ranged character? With d10 hit die, don't put a high stat into con. Go strength and dex, use a bow that allows you to add your strength bonus to damage and then you can put that stat from con into something else: like int to balance out potentially (forget that guaranteed crappy) skill points. Then let the cleric take the front line, who with a high con will have just as good of fort save as you normally would anyway. Improved toughness alone balances out the difference between a cleric's d8 and a fighter's d10.

Anyway, I play in a party with 7 pc's total, that's not counting cohorts or mounts or anything. I've found it more useful to buff others than to buff myself. (I mean, we had 2 paladins a knight and a soulknife at one point). Now that things have swung toward us having more casters that equation is changing a little. (go clerics!)