Clerics

[Pinkcrusade]

Greetings, Playground!

I am going to be playing a Cleric soon, and, (being unfamiliar with 5e) come to you guys to figure out Clerics and their Domains.

How are Clerics in this edition? What are your opinions on the Domains available to them (power level and such), spell list and just general usefulness.

Thanks a lot.

[Scirocco]

There's a cleric guide somewhere on this board, but just in general clerics are good.

Life -healing
Light - blaster
Lore - skill monkey and divination
Death, War, Nature, Tempest are all melee domains
Trickery is the weakest and is sort of a ninja domain, still you're a cleric, so it's not that weak

[Regulas]

As usual Clerics are the jack of trades, master of one of your choice class.

You're a full caster (if cleric style) that can tailor your list and abilities to suit any other sub-role you need. While retaing a higher hitdie and good proficiency.

[Yorrin]

The guide is in my signature, and has a breakdown of the individual abilities within each domain.

War and Tempest are best served as martial characters who use their spells for buffs and downtime heals. They get full weapon and armor proficiencies, and can go either Str with heavy armor and two handed weapon, or Dex with finesse/ranged weapons and Studded Leather. War is obviously the more focused of the two martially, whereas Tempest cares more about things like battlefield positioning as well as blasting with spell slots.

Knowledge and Light, by direct contrast to the above two, are your "caster" domains, with a focus on the Sacred Flame cantrip as your at-will source of damage and using your spells for anything from blasting to utility to the buffs and heals that all Clerics are good at. They go with medium armor, which means you'll be starting in Scale and working your way up to Half Plate. Knowledge has an almost psychic feel to it whereas Light is set up to be a more focused blaster-caster.

In between are Nature, Life, and Death- each is better with a weapon than with Sacred Flame, and so you'll want to go with your relevant weapon ability score (Nature and Life prefer Str and Death prefers Dex, except if Nature focuses on Shillelagh or Death Focuses on Chill Touch, both of which are pure Wis builds). And from that last parenthetical you can see that these builds tend to have a lot of variation. Nature is set up to be a buffer with some BFC, Life can heal on a whim, and thus makes his/her spell slots go a lot further, and Death is focused on necrotic damage from both weapon and spell as well as debuffs.

Trickery, as stated above, is a bit of an unfocused domain that begs for a multiclass or the right feats to make it a better Rogue+, but it's not advised for most straight-Cleric builds as it falls behind in the at-will damage department. Still, it comes packaged with a lot of deception-type spells and abilities that could greatly aid a good Rogue dip.

[Eslin]

The guide is in my signature, and has a breakdown of the individual abilities within each domain.

War and Tempest are best served as martial characters who use their spells for buffs and downtime heals. They get full weapon and armor proficiencies, and can go either Str with heavy armor and two handed weapon, or Dex with finesse/ranged weapons and Studded Leather. War is obviously the more focused of the two martially, whereas Tempest cares more about things like battlefield positioning as well as blasting with spell slots.

Knowledge and Light, by direct contrast to the above two, are your "caster" domains, with a focus on the Sacred Flame cantrip as your at-will source of damage and using your spells for anything from blasting to utility to the buffs and heals that all Clerics are good at. They go with medium armor, which means you'll be starting in Scale and working your way up to Half Plate. Knowledge has an almost psychic feel to it whereas Light is set up to be a more focused blaster-caster.

In between are Nature, Life, and Death- each is better with a weapon than with Sacred Flame, and so you'll want to go with your relevant weapon ability score (Nature and Life prefer Str and Death prefers Dex, except if Nature focuses on Shillelagh or Death Focuses on Chill Touch, both of which are pure Wis builds). And from that last parenthetical you can see that these builds tend to have a lot of variation. Nature is set up to be a buffer with some BFC, Life can heal on a whim, and thus makes his/her spell slots go a lot further, and Death is focused on necrotic damage from both weapon and spell as well as debuffs.

Trickery, as stated above, is a bit of an unfocused domain that begs for a multiclass or the right feats to make it a better Rogue+, but it's not advised for most straight-Cleric builds as it falls behind in the at-will damage department. Still, it comes packaged with a lot of deception-type spells and abilities that could greatly aid a good Rogue dip.

Was looking at your guide, and it mentions using touch of death on chill touch or a weapon attack - how can you use it on chill touch? Doesn't it specify melee attack?

[Yorrin]

Was looking at your guide, and it mentions using touch of death on chill touch or a weapon attack - how can you use it on chill touch? Doesn't it specify melee attack?

...whoever made Chill Touch a ranged attack needs to get fired. That's what I get for writing a section of the guide without actually checking that Chill Touch is, in fact, a touch spell. Going to edit it now...

Which makes pure-Wis builds less than ideal for Death Domain: Dex + Wis advised.

[Eslin]

Damn, was hoping I'd missed something. Hate the lack of a second attack for clerics, was hoping there was a way for death domain cleric to deliver that sweet 5+lvlx2 damage without having to slum it in melee.

[Finieous]

War and Tempest are best served as martial characters who use their spells for buffs and downtime heals. They get full weapon and armor proficiencies, and can go either Str with heavy armor and two handed weapon, or Dex with finesse/ranged weapons and Studded Leather. War is obviously the more focused of the two martially, whereas Tempest cares more about things like battlefield positioning as well as blasting with spell slots.


Agree on War, with the proviso that if you don't MC into a class with Extra Attack, at some point your casting ability will far outstrip your fighting ability. Realistically, that point probably arrives at level 5 when martials are getting Extra Attack, though I think your martial prowess with War Priest, Guided Strike, Divine Strike and buff spells can keep you competitive through the second tier. At 9th level, pick up your 5th level spells and start looking at EK, paladin, etc. Otherwise, you're either casting spells OR fighting...and you're more effective casting spells. All those fighting abilities start to seem obsolete.

Tempest is a bit of an odd duck. You get heavy armor, martial weapons, reaction attack for 2d8 against opponents who hit you in melee, and Divine Smite for +1d8 weapon damage (at 8th level). But that isn't enough to make you a competitive warrior, and your spell list is oriented toward blasting (literally, with lots of thunder damage). I think it's best played as a caster who can punish enemies that get too close.

[Eslin]

Yeah, lack of extra attack on cleric has always seemed really strange. Many domains get a bunch of features that indicate they should head into melee, but for the most part with only one attack cantrips do equal damage with no investment required, single attribute dependency and range.

Would just flat out giving extra attack to clerics be a problem?

[Regulas]

How exactly would you recommend running a Trickery Cleric anyway (for combat)? Use the illusion just to get advantage on damage spells until you hit 7th level and then you can ignore all your class features via polymorph?

[jaydubs]

Would just flat out giving extra attack to clerics be a problem?

Balance wise? I don't have enough experience to say. But it would certainly feel unfair to a lot of players using other classes.

Barbarian, ranger, paladin, monk - I gave up a lot of other stuff to get that extra attack, like decent (or any) spellcasting, and now the cleric just gets it for free?

Rogue, bard, druid, warlock - why aren't I getting a second attack? I used to be a 3/4 BAB class too, and I have lots of builds that mix it up in melee. What makes the cleric so special?

[Eslin]

Balance wise? I don't have enough experience to say. But it would certainly feel unfair to a lot of players using other classes.

Barbarian, ranger, paladin, monk - I gave up a lot of other stuff to get that extra attack, like decent (or any) spellcasting, and now the cleric just gets it for free?

Rogue, bard, druid, warlock - why aren't I getting a second attack? I used to be a 3/4 BAB class too, and I have lots of builds that mix it up in melee. What makes the cleric so special?

Bard and warlock do get it, druids get multiattack, rogues are balanced around needing to use their bonus action to make their single sneak attack more reliable.

[Yorrin]

As I've pointed out multiple times, Divine Strike comes in later than an extra attack, but by the time it's maxed out it's the equivalent of an extra longsword strike every round (2d8 avg=9, 1d8+5 avg= 9.5). And just like other classes they get spells that can boost damage output while swinging a weapon, so they may or may not have a few levels of lag, but they definitely are caught up by the end.

As for "how to play trickery:" you want to pick up Rapier proficiency from somewhere, or Shillelagh, or Heavy Crossbow, and then you've got Mirror Image and Invoke Duplicity to turn you into a frustrating defensive caster. Spirit Guardians + Bestow Curse when you're mixing it up in melee is potent on any Cleric, and Bestow Curse seems appropriately "tricky." Save most of your spell slots for situational buffs/debuffs/heals and the rest of the time pretend you're a rogue that doesn't care about the flank.

[Finieous]

Yeah, lack of extra attack on cleric has always seemed really strange. Many domains get a bunch of features that indicate they should head into melee, but for the most part with only one attack cantrips do equal damage with no investment required, single attribute dependency and range.


I'm not convinced it's a problem. Cleric -- regardless of domain -- is a full caster. If you want to focus on melee, you want to MC into a martial class at some point. Beyond that point, full caster gonna cast. On the other side, if you want to play a martial with some spells, you can go paladin. I do think it's a legitimate question why so many of the domains seem to emphasize melee. I think it would have made both conceptual and design sense for tempest clerics to get a small casting ability of some kind as opposed to heavy armor proficiency, for example.

[Finieous]

As I've pointed out multiple times, Divine Strike comes in later than an extra attack, but by the time it's maxed out it's the equivalent of an extra longsword strike every round (2d8 avg=9, 1d8+5 avg= 9.5). And just like other classes they get spells that can boost damage output while swinging a weapon, so they may or may not have a few levels of lag, but they definitely are caught up by the end.


I don't think they do "catch up." Cleric 9/EK 11 gets War Priest, Guided Strike, Divine Strike, buffs and spiritual weapon for no-Concentration bonus action attacks, but also gets a fighting style, Action Surge, two Extra Attacks, War Magic, Eldritch Strike, super useful arcane spells like shield and mirror image, and d10 hit dice. If you want to melee, I don't think it's really a contest.

But even if the pure cleric does "catch up" in the end, the point is more that a high-level cleric is almost always going to be more effective casting a spell than making a melee attack, even with Divine Smite. Getting the "equivalent of an extra longsword attack" doesn't cut it. You can't attack and cast a spell, so your Divine Smite just kinda sits there feeling unloved.

[Person_Man]

Would just flat out giving extra attack to clerics be a problem?

My current opinion base on our games is that the Cleric should not get Extra Attack. My reasoning is as follows:

1) Clerics get plenty of spells with lots of useful options, including Animate Dead and Conjure spells for minions, direct damage like Flame Strike, healing and status removal spells which allow them to survive anything that doesn't kill them in 1 round or prevent them from casting, and Cantrips which provide a decent baseline of ranged damage. No class is supposed to be great at everything. For most clerics, their melee attack with a weapon is just for backup.

2) Although it's much more difficult to pull off a CoDzilla build because of the Concentration Rules, Clerics do actually get a number of pretty awesome buffs to choose from. Domain abilities, Guiding Bolt, Bless, Spiritual Weapon, Enhance Ability, etc. So if you care about melee and take the right Domain, Great Weapon Master and War Caster, and add in a good spell buff, your at-will melee damage with a weapon will be comparable to the baseline of melee classes.

[Eslin]

I'm not convinced it's a problem. Cleric -- regardless of domain -- is a full caster. If you want to focus on melee, you want to MC into a martial class at some point. Beyond that point, full caster gonna cast. On the other side, if you want to play a martial with some spells, you can go paladin. I do think it's a legitimate question why so many of the domains seem to emphasize melee. I think it would have made both conceptual and design sense for tempest clerics to get a small casting ability of some kind as opposed to heavy armor proficiency, for example.

Clerics being full casters is no problem for me, rangers and paladins fill the 'divine, but with pointy sticks' niche just fine. I'm just perplexed that they gave them things like martial weapons and bonus damage on strikes and no extra attack.

A tempest domain cleric at their peak (14) with a longsword is dealing 3d8+5 damage with a hit, has to get into melee range, has to occupy his hand and has to split his stats between wisdom and strength, whereas a light domain cleric is doing 3d8+5 at the same level at range and needing only wisdom, and will be boosting that to 4d8+5 in a few levels. The features almost make the cleric's melee attacks as good as their fairly poor cantrip damage, whereas considering the risks (melee range) and costs (MAD!) the melee cleric should be incentivised by getting the best sustained damage of the cleric options.

Keep in mind all this goes out the window for death domain clerics, who deal an extra 5+lvlx2 damage 1-3 times per short rest - at 20, that's 45 bonus damage on your next 3 swings.


My current opinion base on our games is that the Cleric should not get Extra Attack. My reasoning is as follows:

1) Clerics get plenty of spells with lots of useful options, including Animate Dead and Conjure spells for minions, direct damage like Flame Strike, healing and status removal spells which allow them to survive anything that doesn't kill them in 1 round or prevent them from casting, and Cantrips which provide a decent baseline of ranged damage. No class is supposed to be great at everything. For most clerics, their melee attack with a weapon is just for backup.

2) Although it's much more difficult to pull off a CoDzilla build because of the Concentration Rules, Clerics do actually get a number of pretty awesome buffs to choose from. Domain abilities, Guiding Bolt, Bless, Spiritual Weapon, Enhance Ability, etc. So if you care about melee and take the right Domain, Great Weapon Master and War Caster, and add in a good spell buff, your at-will melee damage with a weapon will be comparable to the baseline of melee classes.

1) A backup for what? They already have cantrips that do comparable damage and require absolutely no investment.

2) Even with all that, you're not getting anywhere near anyone else's baseline. You're investing several feats, diluting your stats even further by needing to take strength and using up your concentration and you're still only getting one attack per round, two if you managed to hit and kill with the first.

Note that clerics are competent in other areas, so I've yet to have a cleric feel like crap because their melee is so poor. I do however have a storm domain cleric player who has gone back to casting sacred flame whenever he needs to deal damage and doesn't want to blow slots since it's safer and just as effective as melee.

[Yorrin]

I don't think they do "catch up." Cleric 9/EK 11 gets War Priest, Guided Strike, Divine Strike, buffs and spiritual weapon for no-Concentration bonus action attacks, but also gets a fighting style, Action Surge, two Extra Attacks, War Magic, Eldritch Strike, super useful arcane spells like shield and mirror image, and d10 hit dice. If you want to melee, I don't think it's really a contest.

But even if the pure cleric does "catch up" in the end, the point is more that a high-level cleric is almost always going to be more effective casting a spell than making a melee attack, even with Divine Smite. Getting the "equivalent of an extra longsword attack" doesn't cut it. You can't attack and cast a spell, so your Divine Smite just kinda sits there feeling unloved.

I'm comparing straight Cleric to straight any-other-class. Mutliclassing is obviously a whole different animal. Compare Cleric melee ability to Ranger, Paladin, or Monk, for example, and you'll see that they end up comparable. And yes- in many situations you're going to be better served casting a big spell, but you've only got so many of those, so having strong melee ability as a baseline is greatly beneficial. Also keep in mind that unless you're Light or Tempest you're fairly limited in your blasting potential due to the Cleric spell list not having that as an emphasis, so when damage is what you're needing to do sometimes melee really is the best option.

[Finieous]

I'm comparing straight Cleric to straight any-other-class. Mutliclassing is obviously a whole different animal. Compare Cleric melee ability to Ranger, Paladin, or Monk, for example, and you'll see that they end up comparable.

Setting aside monks, which I know almost nothing about, and paladins whose smites will blow the cleric away, the cleric reaches 4d8+5 at 14th level (23; Str 20, Divine Smite and spiritual weapon). A ranger is doing 3d8+2d6+14 at 5th level (34.5; Str 20, Dueling, hunter's mark and Colossus Slayer).

ETA: Hope I've got that right as I'm AFB and working from memory.

[Shining Wrath]

Some classes are not about damage per round, at least not as the first emphasis. This is going to be true of most Cleric builds.

5e really does emphasize the party build over the character build a little more than 3.5, and the OP should consider what the rest of the party is doing when choosing the Clerical subtype. Trickery, I feel, moves up a bit if there are Rogues in the party. Blessing of the Trickster is an obvious boon for the party sneaky person, and Cloak of Shadows lets you maneuver into a position to give the Rogue Sneak Attack; once there, your Cleric decent AC and HP lets you survive all the foes swarming you while the Rogue deals scathe.

[Yorrin]

Setting aside monks, which I know almost nothing about, and paladins whose smites will blow the cleric away, the cleric reaches 4d8+5 at 14th level (23; Str 20, Divine Smite and spiritual weapon). A ranger is doing 3d8+2d6+14 at 5th level (34.5; Str 20, Dueling, hunter's mark and Colossus Slayer).

ETA: Hope I've got that right as I'm AFB and working from memory.

You keep bringing up Spiritual Weapon (which is 1d8+5, btw) but forgetting Spirit Guardians (3d8 save half) which would bring Clerics up to 7d8+10 (avg 41.5, vs Ranger avg 34.5 assuming your math above is right). Smites are great but they blow through spell slots pretty quick, and Spirit Guardians is the equivalent of a 2nd level smite but lasts up to 10mins. So a smite-heavy Paladin will be a couple of d8s ahead for the first couple fights, but then the Cleric is right back in it. And this is ignoring the fact that Spirit Guardians affects all foes within 15ft of you, not just your one target, as well as slowing them.

I'm not claiming Clerics are the best class for melee, but they can certainly keep up.

[Finieous]

You keep bringing up Spiritual Weapon (which is 1d8+5, btw) but forgetting Spirit Guardians (3d8 save half) which would bring Clerics up to 7d8+10 (avg 41.5, vs Ranger avg 34.5 assuming your math above is right).


Well, I didn't want to make it a comparison of higher-level spells. But sure, as long as the 14th level cleric has both Str 20 and Wis 20 and we assume the save is missed, he can "keep up" with the 5th level ranger.

Also, the cool thing about spiritual weapon and spirit guardians is that you can keep 'em up while doing something more useful than your 3d8+5 melee attack. ;)



I'm not claiming Clerics are the best class for melee, but they can certainly keep up.

You keep saying it, but I'm still not seeing it. You've shown that a 14th level cleric with two maxed out stats can "keep up" with a 5th level ranger.

[Yorrin]

Well, I didn't want to make it a comparison of higher-level spells
Spirit Guardians is a third level spell...? Hardly "higher level" as far as Clerics are concerned.


5th level ranger.

At 5th level that Cleric has all of the above except the 2d8 from Divine Strike, which still puts him in line with the Ranger. Both have big nasty spell slots to go nova with at later levels, but unlike the ranger the cleric continues to improve his sustained damage. Both builds are assuming maxed stats, so that's hardly a valid criticism and only makes two points of damage difference anyway.

[Finieous]

Spirit Guardians is a third level spell...? Hardly "higher level" as far as Clerics are concerned.


The point is, we're trying to compare melee ability. Adding in spells that a casting cleric can use just as well or better than a fighting cleric doesn't clarify anything. Cleric spellcasting is awesome. I think we both agree on this point.



At 5th level that Cleric has all of the above except the 2d8 from Divine Strike, which still puts him in line with the Ranger. Both have big nasty spell slots to go nova with at later levels, but unlike the ranger the cleric continues to improve his sustained damage. Both builds are assuming maxed stats, so that's hardly a valid criticism and only makes two points of damage difference anyway.

Well, one build is assuming one maxed stat, while the other is assuming two. In any case, your 5th level cleric is dealing 1d8+5 in melee. The rest is coming from two persistent spells. The total damage is 5d8+10 (32; assumes no save). The ranger is dealing 3d8+2d6+14 (34.5). That's unsurprising -- I recall saying at the outset that martial clerics could remain competitive, not just at level 5, but through the second tier. The problem, again, is that beyond that point, melee falls further behind the martial classes AND the opportunity cost of attacking rather than spellcasting becomes greater.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I don't believe that a fighting cleric can keep up with the martial classes past level ~10, and I think a fighting cleric is less effective than a casting cleric past level ~10. I've explained why I think this as well as I can. You disagree, and I respect that.

[The_Ditto]

Clerics + extra attacks = Paladin.

Clerics in previous editions were also a tad strong because they were full caster + very capable melee.

In my opinion, the Paladin fits the full melee "holy warrior" perfect, Clerics should be more like Invoker in 4e was, squishy divine casters .. NOT melee not that Invokers were *that* squishy in 4e :P - but at least they headed in the right direction, IMHO.

*shrug* That's just me, though :)

[jaydubs]

Would just flat out giving extra attack to clerics be a problem?


Bard and warlock do get it, druids get multiattack, rogues are balanced around needing to use their bonus action to make their single sneak attack more reliable.

Your post asked about clerics just flat out getting an extra attack, implying as a free bonus on top of their normal features rather than by sacrificing other class features. The bard and warlock both have to sacrifice other options in the form of picking specific colleges or pacts. The druid has to go pick moon circle if he wants better combat forms.

Limit it to the martially inclined domains, remove some of their domain powers, and then you're got a better parallel.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

It would be nice if the marital focused domains could remain effective/active at attacking at higher levels. Scaling up the War domain's extra attacks like Bardic Inspiration would work, going from recharging on a long rest to a short rest, somewhere in level 5 to 10. Or giving something like the EK's war magic, but inverted, to the more martial domains, such as casting a domain spell allows an attack as a bonus action.

[Person_Man]

Clerics in previous editions were also a tad strong because they were full caster + very capable melee.

Minor nitpick that's worth mentioning - in 1E & 2E Clerics had mediocre hit points (d8 hit die and limited to +2 bonus from Con), weapon proficiencies (and limited magic weapons they could use), were limited to 1 weapon attack per round (whereas Warriors maxed out at 2 per round by default), AND they were limited to 7th level spells, and (without splat) their spell lists were mostly limited to healing, defense, and divination. (With a few important mid-high level exceptions, like Flame Strike and Blade Barrier). Plus casting spells was a LOT more difficult for a variety of reasons.

For many players, 1E & 2E Clerics were not particularly fun to play (especially at low levels), but were considered a "required" class for someone in the party to play because of their ability to heal. (Which was even more uber important in 1E/2E, which placed a much bigger emphasis on large dungeons with randomly generated monsters). That's why the 3E Cleric ended up being written to be so many options that ended up being crazy powerful when optimized. The developers over-compensated on its perceived weaknesses.

[charcoalninja]

Minor nitpick that's worth mentioning - in 1E & 2E Clerics had mediocre hit points (d8 hit die and limited to +2 bonus from Con), weapon proficiencies (and limited magic weapons they could use), were limited to 1 weapon attack per round (whereas Warriors maxed out at 2 per round by default), AND they were limited to 7th level spells, and (without splat) their spell lists were mostly limited to healing, defense, and divination. (With a few important mid-high level exceptions, like Flame Strike and Blade Barrier). Plus casting spells was a LOT more difficult for a variety of reasons.

For many players, 1E & 2E Clerics were not particularly fun to play (especially at low levels), but were considered a "required" class for someone in the party to play because of their ability to heal. (Which was even more uber important in 1E/2E, which placed a much bigger emphasis on large dungeons with randomly generated monsters). That's why the 3E Cleric ended up being written to be so many options that ended up being crazy powerful when optimized. The developers over-compensated on its perceived weaknesses.

Minor nitpick but those 7th level cleric spells were as strong as 9th level wizard spells. Plague of doom for example did 1,000 damage. Harm did all your HP except for 1-4 no save. Blade barrier was still very much a thing. And fire storm was obnoxious. Heal gave you all your HP back so you could keep fighting far longer than any fighter could hope to while flying around on a chariot of FIRE.

Spellcasters were unbelievably powerful in 2e especially once Stoneskin reared its ugly head.

On the 5e tempest cleric, a big part of his damage is going to be the free 2d8 thunder damage he gets to slap people with if they DO decide to hit him. That's an ability that is specifically designed to support their melee role.

[Yagyujubei]

forgive me if this has already been said but there was so so much reading.

it's true that clerics don't get an extra attack ,but divine strike BASICALLY gives it to them with the additional die added on each attack. just saying, and it might be considered better than multiple attacks because you only need to hit once to get all the extra damage.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

forgive me if this has already been said but there was so so much reading.

it's true that clerics don't get an extra attack ,but divine strike BASICALLY gives it to them with the additional die added on each attack. just saying, and it might be considered better than multiple attacks because you only need to hit once to get all the extra damage.

One attack means you can't stack your +damage mods, so the +d8s essentially keep you on par with your cantrip spell casting. Except cantrips eventually get to 4d8, and divine strike maxes at 2d8.
Plus it makes your attack an all-or-nothing affair, like the rogue. And like the rogue, it means you'll be wanting to have advantage or some kind of to-hit buff up as much as possible.

[Yagyujubei]

One attack means you can't stack your +damage mods, so the +d8s essentially keep you on par with your cantrip spell casting. Except cantrips eventually get to 4d8, and divine strike maxes at 2d8.
Plus it makes your attack an all-or-nothing affair, like the rogue. And like the rogue, it means you'll be wanting to have advantage or some kind of to-hit buff up as much as possible.

true, I hadn't really considered that bit. but it does GREATLY increase the potency of any extra attack you may pick up from multiclassing or buffs.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Nope, unfortunately divine strike is specifically a once-per-turn ability. So in the case of say a War domain cleric, you'll be using your extra attacks when your first shot misses to ensure you land the DS damage.

[Eslin]

true, I hadn't really considered that bit. but it does GREATLY increase the potency of any extra attack you may pick up from multiclassing or buffs.

It really doesn't. If you hit with your first attack, your next one does 1d8+3 damage. The second attack would be about making sure you got the 1d8-2d8 damage in with greater reliability, like a really sub-par rogue (4d6 vs 1d8, 7d6 vs 2d8).

[Yagyujubei]

really? oh man my buddy who is a cleric is doin' it wrong then, and no one has called him out on it...

now the moral delemma, do I bring it up and screw him over for future sessions? or do I niceguy...leaning towards being a douche hehe

[Eslin]

really? oh man my buddy who is a cleric is doin' it wrong then, and no one has called him out on it...

now the moral delemma, do I bring it up and screw him over for future sessions? or do I niceguy...leaning towards being a douche hehe

The ability has a short description that clearly states once per turn, the only way to misread that is deliberately.

[LuthielValkire]

Regarding the question of melee clerics... I think that clerics can be effective in melee if we consider the fact that many cleric spells and domain powers provide melee boosts without traditional weapon attack spamming.

In this way, we should consider clerics as melee capable with good spell and decent item support.

For example, the spell combo -- spiritual weapon + guardian spirits provides a good chassis for the melee type cleric. Both scale with level slots, GS provides a slow as a lock down and, in addition, the melee weapon attack gets +2d8 over the course of a career for melee focused domains.

Overall weapon effectiveness will be determined by the kinds of magic items a cleric ends up having access to. At 17+ this is probably at least +1, but could be as high as +3, add in +1d6, +2d6 or 1d8 damage, or add in desirable effects outside of damage. In addition, items like potions and belts of giant strength, manuals and the like give the melee cleric the potential to well exceed the 18-23 average from sacred flame (4d8 w/ or w/o +5). For example a cleric with a flame tongue longsword who quaffs a potion of cloud giant strength does 3d8 +2d6 +8 = 28.5 average damage on a hit. And that doesn't even consider the surge potential of the warpriest with a great weapon and the great weapon feat. Further, items like the sword of answering may even give the melee cleric the opportunity to apply the extra 2d8 both on turn and off turn as a reaction.

By contrast, there's little item support for sacred flame.

In addition, I don't understand why there isn't more mention of the sentinel feat for the melee cleric -- which would also give him/her the opportunity to apply that 2d8 twice. This synergizes well with guardian spirits to make the cleric sticky and/or a great flank buddy for the rogue or great weapon fighter (either will attract a lot of attention due to the damage they dish out). Add in heavy armor or high dex + shield and you have the bones of a living, breathing tank. High defenses + healing spells + slow aura from guardian spirits + bonus attack from spiritual weapon + reaction and stickiness from sentinel is an enemy lock down and grinding away nightmare just begging to happen. You could do this rather well with life, thunder (although this one begs more for the charger feat), war, death, nature, and, surprisingly due to mirror image and illusory doubles, trickery.

Variant human would probably be the best race to get sentinel early. But for the long haul, dwarf or wood elf would do fine with 2 feats (sentinel + warcaster) and 3 ability increases.

These builds really aren't MAD. They're more TAD (two attribute dependent) -- Wis/Str or Wis/Dex. In addition, everyone's a bit MAD in that decent Wis, Dex and Con are desirable for saves. Con for HP. Dex for catch all. And strength for not being the one roped up the cliff for the inevitable climb check ;).

But, more seriously, given the spell synergies, high defenses, healing, and potential stickiness I could see the cleric fulfilling the role of the 4e defender rather nicely -- essentially creating a hole in the battlefield that enemies keep falling into. This is in contrast to the pure meat shieldiness of the Druid and the Barbarian.

And the beauty if this is that it works great for the combat in which the PCs get mobbed, but there's nothing to prevent the cleric from also dropping Banishment to help cut another hard encounter in half or cast bless for the big fight with the dragon when those buffs to attacks and saves will really come in handy.

The point is that the cleric, if played well, can still be a respectable melee combatant during the types of encounters when that is needed -- providing a unique set of powers without out-shining the GWF or the rogue or the paladin or the Druid or the barbarian... But the real nice trick here is that the cleric can still be a blast to play and in the melee role too (+spells).