War cleric

[Spacehamster]

Anyone else finding it odd that war cleric and to a lesser degree tempest cleric does not get the extra attack feature that even a wussy like the valor bard gets?

Just something that popped into my head and thinking it would fit the theme of both those subclasses?

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Yep, I do find it odd. If it wasn't for the valor bard, I'd say that's it's a full caster thing. The clerics do get heavy armor and better spellcasting, before 10th level at least.

[MrStabby]

Also the war domain gets kind of an extra attack. Spiritual weapon is pretty similar to an extra attack as well.

Also they are a Cleric. Like a priest, a Rabbi or an Imam... even those pious souls that are advocating holy war are still more preacher than soldier most of the time.

[DanyBallon]

Both War and Tempest cleric get heavy armor, while Valor Bard don't. War cleric get the ability to do second attack as a bonus action a number of time equal to their Wisdom modifier, they can use channel divinity to get +10 on their attack roll, or give it to someone else, you get the ability to add damage dice... Tempest cleric can deal lightning or thunder damage in reation to an attack, max out lightning or thunder damage. and they also get the ability to add damage dice.

That's pretty much more interesting than getting extra attack

[Mandragola]

War clerics and valour bards look like they are going to be beatsticks, but really they are not. The problem isn't just that they don't get a 2nd attack, it's that they don't actually get anything that really buffs their damage in melee. Meanwhile their casting gets good and they stop spending actions bashing stuff - because they are too busy nuking.

A class that's actually designed to hit stuff has a number of qualities different to a bard or cleric. They:


use their primary stat to attack
typically get extra attacks (except rogues)
get other stuff to increase their damage - either as spikes like action surge or smite or always on like sneak attack


Bards and clerics don't get this stuff. Or well, clerics do start to do that mini-smite thing of theirs, which would be awesome if it was more than once per round. That means they keep up with the sacred flames coming out of light/knowledge clerics.

At level 10 bards do get the option of turning into pretty interesting archers of course. But they don't have a route to becoming heavy hitters in melee. The good news is that they can make themselves relatively tanky, so occasionally a good use of their action can be to dodge and give themselves bardic inspiration.

[Person_Man]

Spiritual Weapon exists, is a Bonus Action to cast and use each round, scales when cast out of higher level slots, and does not require Concentration.

Thus Clerics don't need Extra Attack, and if you gave it to them then CoDzilla would be reborn.

On a related note, many things people used to consider basic/balanced/etc class abilities are "hidden" in 5E spells. Spiritual Weapon, Find Steed, Smite Whatever, Find Familiar, Hunter's Mark, Hex, etc. You can't just read a character's class description any more - you need to take the time to read through their poorly indexed spell list as well if you really want to understand what a class can do.

[charlesk]

Extra attack doesn't require a spell slot or your bonus action. So not quite the same. I'm sure you realize this... but the earlier comments about war clerics not really being full melees are still pretty on-point.

This wasn't really the case in 3.5 due to all the buffs.. I played a melee cleric and he was scary. You can't do that nearly as well in this version.

[DanyBallon]

This wasn't really the case in 3.5 due to all the buffs.. I played a melee cleric and he was scary. You can't do that nearly as well in this version.

That was one of the problem of 3.P, almost everyone was more competent at fighting than the fighters. 5e tried to give them back being good at their speciality.

[ChubbyRain]

Spiritual Weapon exists, is a Bonus Action to cast and use each round, scales when cast out of higher level slots, and does not require Concentration.

Thus Clerics don't need Extra Attack, and if you gave it to them then CoDzilla would be reborn.

On a related note, many things people used to consider basic/balanced/etc class abilities are "hidden" in 5E spells. Spiritual Weapon, Find Steed, Smite Whatever, Find Familiar, Hunter's Mark, Hex, etc. You can't just read a character's class description any more - you need to take the time to read through their poorly indexed spell list as well if you really want to understand what a class can do.

Eh, I think CoDzilla is already back. Clericzilla especially.

The war cleric is good in melee with good consistent damage (divine strike or whatever it is called also helps). Has good consistent cantrip damage. Has fantastic spell damage (guiding bolt is the name?radiant damage that scales well and has a good rider).

They can be self sustaining (create food and create water),. They can change their tactics from day to day. Once you hit level 5 or so, you have enough spell slots to fill different roles at once, as needed, through out the day.

If you specialize in an area, it is one of the few classes that don't make you give up anything, you are also effective at anything else.

Other classes you tend to have to give up beimg effective at something else to specialize and be more effective at something else. The cleric isn't really that way.

The only weakness a cleric might have is being a scout... But a Dex based cleric works fine and they can pick up a familiar via a feat. And even as a Dex cleric you can still be a good consistant damage dealer.

Clericzilla may not be as overwhelming as before, but clerczilla is here.

[Strill]

Eh, I think CoDzilla is already back. Clericzilla especially.

The war cleric is good in melee with good consistent damage (divine strike or whatever it is called also helps).He has the minimum melee damage possible while still being worth using, right.


Has good consistent cantrip damage.He has terrible cantrip damage, right.


Has fantastic spell damage (guiding bolt is the name?radiant damage that scales well and has a good rider).His spell damage IS good, but if you think it's from Guiding Bolt, you're off living in some other world. Guilding Bolt is absolutely terrible.

I'd really like to know though, why is any of this an advantage? All the spells and attacks you've mentioned do nothing but single-target damage. You do realize that all of them are redundant right? That you can't use more than one of them per turn, and there is no reason to ever use anything but the one that does the most damage right? I've seen people make the argument that frivolous redundancy is somehow a benefit, and I just cannot understand why. What would posses you to think that being able to do the exact same thing two ways is somehow helpful?

[ChubbyRain]

He has the minimum melee damage possible while still being worth using, right.

He has terrible cantrip damage, right.

His spell damage IS good, but if you think it's from Guiding Bolt, you're off living in some other world. Guilding Bolt is absolutely terrible.

I'd really like to know though, why is any of this an advantage? All the spells and attacks you've mentioned do nothing but single-target damage. You do realize that all of them are redundant right? That you can't use more than one of them per turn, and there is no reason to ever use anything but the one that does the most damage right? I've seen people make the argument that frivolous redundancy is somehow a benefit, and I just cannot understand why. What would posses you to think that being able to do the exact same thing two ways is somehow helpful?

Play a cleric and then please return and try again.

But with regard to Guiding Bolt is one of the best spells in the game. It is a attack spell (advantage works in your favor), starts with 4d6 damage out of a 1st level slot, has good range, scales well (1d6/slot, at 3rd level spell it is 2d6 less than fireball), party friendly (fireball is not always easy to pull off), has a great rider effect (Hit with another Guiding Bolt if your allies are leaving the enemy to you), has a damage type that is among the lowest in resistance and immunity, and to top it all off you don't have to specialize or optimize to get all this... Every cleric from Knowledge to War can grab this spell. Oh! And the spell crits! Almost forgot about that one. 8d6 Radiant damage + Rider at level 1? Yes please. Sure it can also auto fail on a 1 but I like to use it when an ally is granting me advantage or I gain advantage from another source (inspiration).



Random Note: You can make a pretty dang good Melee oriented Light Cleric. With spells such as Spiritual Weapon, d6 weapon (i like spears), and concentration booster spells... I'm playing a melee oriented cleric (and have played one shot higher level clerics), my average damage may not be top tier but I do enough to put an enemy down when I want to. And when I want to blast multiple enemies at a time I can still use burning hands or fireball or whatever... Or guiding bolt if the situation calls for it. You don't need to compare your average damage to a Fighter or Monk, just to the average HP of what you are fighting. If it takes my cleric an extra round to kill a creature (which can barely touch me when I have 17+ AC) then that is fine since I can heal myself easily enough.

Clericzilla lives.

[charlesk]

I played a melee cleric in 3.5. I've seen a melee cleric in my current 5e game. They are not even remotely comparable.

The issue isn't whether clerics can be competent melee combatants in 5e. They can. It's that in 3.5, they could be better melee combatants than melee classes while also having a full repertoire of nasty offensive and defensive spells.

In my 3.5 campaign, by level 15 the DM had to design encounters around keeping the enemies out of melee range of my cleric. That does not happen in 5e.

So people can disagree on whether "clericzilla" is alive or dead, but the 3.5 variant is six feet under.

ETA: Someone said Guiding Bolt is "absolutely terrible"? Huh?

[RulesJD]

The problem is that War Clerics bring nothing to do the table that other domains can't bring but better. They gain no new spells to their list and their abilities are extremely situational. Tempest Clerics are better in Melee in every way for the playable levels and Life clerics are only behind in the lack of martial weapons, which is easily picked up in a variety of ways. Because almost every fighting cleric will have to take their first level as a fighter (Dueling or Defense fighting style + Con proficiency for Concentration saves), the ultimately melee Cleric is likely a Life Cleric because of the added heals and utility of rezing multiple party members. Tempest for slightly better tanking and damage.

Also, Guiding Bolt is a nice spell, but it is definitely not the source of Cleric DPR. Please see Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon.

[ChubbyRain]

I played a melee cleric in 3.5. I've seen a melee cleric in my current 5e game. They are not even remotely comparable.

The issue isn't whether clerics can be competent melee combatants in 5e. They can. It's that in 3.5, they could be better melee combatants than melee classes while also having a full repertoire of nasty offensive and defensive spells.

In my 3.5 campaign, by level 15 the DM had to design encounters around keeping the enemies out of melee range of my cleric. That does not happen in 5e.

So people can disagree on whether "clericzilla" is alive or dead, but the 3.5 variant is six feet under.

ETA: Someone said Guiding Bolt is "absolutely terrible"? Huh?

Actually when I ran a high level cleric the DM took a snack break in order to change things up with later fights... My cleric was able to change to meet the needs of the group during a long rest. The cleric is so damn versitile it isn't funny. They are dependant on long rests for the most part but between spells and the wonderful Sacred Flame cantrip... Long rest dependency isn't that bad. The melee focused light cleric was fun.

Guiding Bolt is gold in my book. Probably the best 1st level spell a cleric, or any class, obtains (single target damage with rider). Inspiration + Spiritual Weapon + Guiding Bolt + Inflict Wounds + Spiritual Weapon makes for a nasty 2 round combo.



Also, Guiding Bolt is a nice spell, but it is definitely not the source of Cleric DPR. Please see Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon.

Good thing the cleric can have all three running at one time. Might take a round to have everything set up... But yeah.

Spiritual Weapon totally should have been a concentration spell... But then no one would take it.

More on topic...

The war cleric is nice when you don't look at other domains, they get some nifty domain spells that you don't have to prepare.

It makes a really good multiclassing class with other melee oriented classes. Champion Fighter War Cleric is fun as is Totem Barbarian War Cleric.

[Inevitability]

I think WOTC is trying to prevent the cleric from becoming the 'You can cast spells AND you have heavy armor AND you are a great warrior AND you get some random class features with that' it used to be. If you want to play the 'holy warrior' archetype, be a paladin.

[Strill]

Play a cleric and then please return and try again. I'm playing a knowledge cleric in my current campaign. I'd never consider using Guiding Bolt when there are other spells that are so much better.


But with regard to Guiding Bolt is one of the best spells in the game. It is a attack spell (advantage works in your favor), starts with 4d6 damage out of a 1st level slot, has good range, scales well (1d6/slot, at 3rd level spell it is 2d6 less than fireball), party friendly (fireball is not always easy to pull off), has a great rider effect (Hit with another Guiding Bolt if your allies are leaving the enemy to you), has a damage type that is among the lowest in resistance and immunity, and to top it all off you don't have to specialize or optimize to get all this... Every cleric from Knowledge to War can grab this spell. Oh! And the spell crits! Almost forgot about that one. 8d6 Radiant damage + Rider at level 1? Yes please. Sure it can also auto fail on a 1 but I like to use it when an ally is granting me advantage or I gain advantage from another source (inspiration).
So Guiding Bolt does 14 damage on average. So let's break this down: As a War Cleric, you could be dealing 10 damage with a greatsword attack, but instead you choose to spend a 1st-level slot to deal 3 more damage and give advantage to a single ally. On the other hand, you could just cast Bless and in doing so get an accuracy bonus equivalent to Advantage for your entire party for the rest of the fight. It seems clear to me which one is the better spell.


Random Note: You can make a pretty dang good Melee oriented Light Cleric. With spells such as Spiritual Weapon, d6 weapon (i like spears), and concentration booster spells... I'm playing a melee oriented cleric (and have played one shot higher level clerics), my average damage may not be top tier but I do enough to put an enemy down when I want to. And when I want to blast multiple enemies at a time I can still use burning hands or fireball or whatever... Or guiding bolt if the situation calls for it. You don't need to compare your average damage to a Fighter or Monk, just to the average HP of what you are fighting. If it takes my cleric an extra round to kill a creature (which can barely touch me when I have 17+ AC) then that is fine since I can heal myself easily enough.

Clericzilla lives.

Spiritual weapon is a spell and does not require anything even remotely melee oriented. It can be used from range, and it benefits from Wisdom, not Strength. It's something you should be using whenever single-target damage is called for anyway since it's one of the top three cleric spells.

You're also completely missing the point of "clericzilla". Clerics could out-perform fighters at the Fighter's job. Clerics can no longer do that. Even with Spiritual Weapon, your damage is nowhere near a Fighter's, especially if the Fighter has Greatweapon Master, Sentinel, or Polearm Master.


You don't need to compare your average damage to a Fighter or MonkOf course you do! That's literally the whole point of "Clericzilla"! You're obviously talking about something completely different.


ETA: Someone said Guiding Bolt is "absolutely terrible"? Huh?Yes it is. There's no reason to cast it over Bless.

[Gwendol]

ClericZilla of old (3.5 anyway) rests on stacking spells like Divine Power and Righteous Might, and ideally DMM persist them. This is no longer the case, and so it is right to say that in 5e that concept is dead.

That the cleric is a very versatile full caster is correct, and rightly so.

[charlesk]

Yes it is. There's no reason to cast it over Bless.

Guiding Bolt can allow a melee-focused cleric to do significant damage from a range of 120', or against flying creatures, or enable a rogue's sneak attack, and it happens instantly and doesn't require concentration.

It is not an uber spell, but it is a good one, and is certainly not obsoleted by Bless. And the two can be used together.

[Person_Man]

Spiritual Weapon totally should have been a concentration spell... But then no one would take it.

I agree entirely.

I hate non-Concentration spells with a duration, because they slow down combat, require more book keeping, and once more splat books get printed they will encourage players to stack lots of weak non-Concentration buffs together.
Though to compensate, every such spell should really be worth maintaining Concentration on.

But again, the designers specifically left off Concentration from Spiritual Weapon because they knew it was basically a replacement for Extra Attack, allowing Clerics to maintain comparable kinda-at-will damage with other classes. (Yes I know it requires spending a spell. But its a low level spell, is a Bonus Action, and it lasts all combat).

[Mandragola]

The complaint that spiritual weapon requires a spell slot is somewhat redundant. You're mostly comparing it against martial classes which don't have spell slots in the first place, or who have far fewer of them. And spiritual weapon isn't really the same as a second attack anyway because it can wander around by itself while the cleric casts other spells with his actions. It's actually more like being hasted - though obviously not as good as that.

[charlesk]

That makes sense when theorycrafting. My experience in actual gameplay is that it depends a lot on the group composition and roles.

A fighter is usually responsible just for dealing damage and absorbing damage. His second attack is "always on".

A cleric has limited spell slots and cannot burn them indiscriminately on doing damage. In our group, the cleric spends a lot of slots on healing. This is another way that clerics are weaker in 5e than in 3.5, where you got more spell slots, bonus spell slots, and healing magic items flowed like water. It's true that 5e has other healing methods (hit dice, full heal on rest) but in a tough fight the cleric still needs to hold back and conserve carefully. The fighter does not.

[TheOOB]

A great deal of effort was made to make it so clerics were not comparable to front line fighters and couldn't replace them entirely. Clerics normal attack is never supposed to be their primary way of contributing to a fight fast the early levels.

Bard has much less damage ability native, so getting a better attack ability is more balanced for them.

[iTreeby]

Inspiration + Spiritual Weapon + Guiding Bolt + Inflict Wounds + Spiritual Weapon makes for a nasty 2 round combo.

FYI you can't do this. See "Casting a Spell", under bonus action it says "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time o f 1 action."

[Dorphius]

I play a war cleric, and I think they can do very solid damage given the right setup. For instance, I made variant human with the sharpshooter feat. I am currently 6th level.

So we were taking down this boss and I started out with bless. Everybody else went, and now it was the second round of combat when our ranger shot some arrows, and did something like 25dmg. Then it was my turn... first I cast Guiding Bolt at 3rd level (attack roll spell) 6d6 and hit because of bless. If I did not hit at 6th level...twice a day I can use my channel divinity for a +10. I can attack as a bonus action after taking the attack action a number of times equal to my wisdom mod so 4 times which you get back on a short rest. So Guiding Bolt then gives advantage on the next attack roll. So then I use my long bow to and -5 to hit +10 to damage.

After my round the ranger looked at me and said "did you just do 43 damage?". I laughed. Just having out damaged everybody else that round, while wearing full plate, had bless going, and am a full healer is not bad at all. Am I going to complain that I don't get an extra attack at 5th or 6th level....no. I can do just fine without it. Although as a cleric I can do a decent amount of damage, I am a cleric. If you want 2nd attack and be king of damage every round then play another class. But clerics can hold their own.

[Mandragola]

Using the +10 to hit with sharpshooter or GWM is a cool idea. Fair enough.

[Strill]

Anyone else finding it odd that war cleric and to a lesser degree tempest cleric does not get the extra attack feature that even a wussy like the valor bard gets?

Just something that popped into my head and thinking it would fit the theme of both those subclasses?

Melee clerics get Divine Strike instead. It comes out mostly the same.

[TheOOB]

Melee clerics get Divine Strike instead. It comes out mostly the same.

It's not as good because it doesn't multiply any special abilities or buffs you are recieving. Plus it's better to take two attacks that deal 5 damage than one attack that deals 10.

[RulesJD]

I play a war cleric, and I think they can do very solid damage given the right setup. For instance, I made variant human with the sharpshooter feat. I am currently 6th level.

So we were taking down this boss and I started out with bless. Everybody else went, and now it was the second round of combat when our ranger shot some arrows, and did something like 25dmg. Then it was my turn... first I cast Guiding Bolt at 3rd level (attack roll spell) 6d6 and hit because of bless. If I did not hit at 6th level...twice a day I can use my channel divinity for a +10. I can attack as a bonus action after taking the attack action a number of times equal to my wisdom mod so 4 times which you get back on a short rest. So Guiding Bolt then gives advantage on the next attack roll. So then I use my long bow to and -5 to hit +10 to damage.

After my round the ranger looked at me and said "did you just do 43 damage?". I laughed. Just having out damaged everybody else that round, while wearing full plate, had bless going, and am a full healer is not bad at all. Am I going to complain that I don't get an extra attack at 5th or 6th level....no. I can do just fine without it. Although as a cleric I can do a decent amount of damage, I am a cleric. If you want 2nd attack and be king of damage every round then play another class. But clerics can hold their own.

You are getting your rules wrong. Here's how:

1. Casting a spell is not the "attack" action. It is the "casting a spell" action. Thus, you cannot use your War Priest bonus attack after casting Guiding Bolt.

2. War Priest only recharges on a LONG rest, not a short rest. This significantly reduces the usefulness of the feature.

3. I question your stat arrangement. Full plate requires 15 str (unless a dwarf). To be any sort of reliable as a Cleric, you'll want at least 16 Wis. That leaves you with only so many points elsewhere. If you're ranged, then you're dumping it into Dex to be around 14-16. That leaves you with almost no points left over for Con, so your health (and much more importantly your Concentration save) will be garbage. Either you're giving up Cleric spells by bumping Dex or better to hit with Sharpshooter, or you're never going to reliably hit because you'll be bumping Wisdom instead of Dex.

4. The Ranger could far, far out damage you with a long bow because the Ranger will have the Archery +2 to attack rolls feature. Thus, Bonus action Hunters Mark, two attacks. Second attack will trigger Colossus Slayer. First damage roll will be 1d8+Dex (likely +4 at this point) +10+1d6 (avg of 22). Second damage roll will be 1d8+Dex+10+1d6+1d8 (avg of 26.5). Total average damage of 48.5 Ranger gets that every round, not just 4'ish times a day.

If you want to discuss Cleric DPS, the conversation is largely limited to upcasting Spirit Guardians in round 1, then Spiritual Weapon round 2, then comboing Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon + Inflict Wounds (or just melee attack, or Guiding Bolt). The good news is that the SG/SW combo is immensely powerful, at the cost of the requirement of being practically within melee range.

[RulesJD]

Melee clerics get Divine Strike instead. It comes out mostly the same.

It is not mostly the same, not even close. Divine Strike is limited to once per turn, thus you can do it at most to one attack. Compare to the Paladin Improved Smite that adds the damage to each attack, with no limit per turn.

[Strill]

It is not mostly the same, not even close. Divine Strike is limited to once per turn, thus you can do it at most to one attack. Compare to the Paladin Improved Smite that adds the damage to each attack, with no limit per turn.

Well I wasn't comparing it to Improved Divine Strike now was I? I was comparing it to Extra Attack.

[tarlison]

Well I wasn't comparing it to Improved Divine Strike now was I? I was comparing it to Extra Attack.
Give the cleric extra attack and the paladin and ranger are practically obsolete

[ChubbyRain]

FYI you can't do this. See "Casting a Spell", under bonus action it says "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time o f 1 action."

I wasn't giving the exact order. But a War (or other martial weapon) Cleric could pull the following off easily

Spiritual Weapon (BA, casting right before the fight or before you get to engage an enemy... This scenario can happen a lot.)

Round 1: Spiritual Weapon Move/Attack (1d8+Wis) (BA) + Inspiration + Guiding Bolt (4d6) (A w/ advantage).

Round 2: Inflict Wounds (3d10) (A w/advantage) + Spiritual Weapon Move/Attack (1d8+Wis) (BA).

Round 3: Weapon Attack (2d6+Str)(+xd8) (A) + Spiritual Weapon Move/Attack (1d8+Wis) (BA).


Radiant, Necrotic, Force, and Bludgeoning/Slashing damage. The bond action/cantrip rule only applies when you cast the spell not anytime after that. The cleric can move/attack with the Spiritual Weapon and still cast action spells like Inlict Wounds.

All attacks are subject to critical hits and on round 1 and 2 you will give yourself advantage in your attack rolls. 2 chances to crit each round on really good to decent damage? Single target is going down.

[Strill]

Give the cleric extra attack and the paladin and ranger are practically obsolete

Give them extra attack INSTEAD of Divine Strike, and they're not much different than they are now.

[iTreeby]

I wasn't giving the exact order.

yeah the "two turn combo" part was throwing me off, it's doable with more rounds to cast in. it's worth noting that it isn't difficult to outrun the spiritual weapon which is moving 20 ft a round. If you cast spirit weapon in another room it could end up doing nothing for several turns. it only lasts for ten turns. if you pre buff at round zero you could get off the attack routine you described and take out the single target with only three spells and three rounds and still have SW up for another few rounds BUT it isn't doable in two turns which was my only point. don't forget to get warcaster so you can cast spells and have your 2h heavy weapon equipped at the same time.

[Ardantis]

Clerics are bananas again. Sounds like the only thing keeping mundane damage up is the critical hit system!

[Dorphius]

originally posted by RulesJD

1. Casting a spell is not the "attack" action. It is the "casting a spell" action. Thus, you cannot use your War Priest bonus attack after casting Guiding Bolt.

not true, as quoted from the players handbook


If there’s ever any question whether something you’re
doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re
making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

As for the rest of your post rulesjd, it is true I got confused between different clerics that I play. My war cleric wears a chain shirt, and has a lower than 15 str. while I pumped up dex to 16 and wis to 18 at 4th lvl. Still Guiding bolt at 3rd lvl = 6d6 avg 21 + bow shot 1d8 +3 (-5 hit +10dmg) avg 18, = 37 avg dpr for 4 rounds per long rest. Plus If needed I can use my channel divinity twice per short rest for the +10 to hit when needed. But using guiding bolt then the bow power attack at advantage from the GB I don't have to use it often. It makes the war cleric a versatile role still being able to pump out some respectable damage when needed and being able to keep bless going while doing other clericy things like heal and such. I was never saying that a ranger can never out damage my cleric, especially on a consistent basis, it just happened that one round and it was funny. Still believe a cleric is a viable option for damage while remaining a strait cleric.

[RulesJD]

not true, as quoted from the players handbook



As for the rest of your post rulesjd, it is true I got confused between different clerics that I play. My war cleric wears a chain shirt, and has a lower than 15 str. while I pumped up dex to 16 and wis to 18 at 4th lvl. Still Guiding bolt at 3rd lvl = 6d6 avg 21 + bow shot 1d8 +3 (-5 hit +10dmg) avg 18, = 37 avg dpr for 4 rounds per long rest. Plus If needed I can use my channel divinity twice per short rest for the +10 to hit when needed. But using guiding bolt then the bow power attack at advantage from the GB I don't have to use it often. It makes the war cleric a versatile role still being able to pump out some respectable damage when needed and being able to keep bless going while doing other clericy things like heal and such. I was never saying that a ranger can never out damage my cleric, especially on a consistent basis, it just happened that one round and it was funny. Still believe a cleric is a viable option for damage while remaining a strait cleric.

That's nice, you're still wrong.

Relevant text from War Priest: "When you use the Attack action, you can make one weapon attack as a
bonus action.

Capitalized "Attack" = the one Action you get each turn from PHB p. 192. "The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack."

Very next thing in the PHB is the Action you need to take for "Cast a Spell". You cannot use War Priest after casting Guiding Bolt, because Guiding Bolt requires you to use your Action to Cast a Spell, not take the Attack action.

[Dorphius]

quoted from PHB page 192

The most common action to take in combat is the Attack
action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an
arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged
attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules
that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature
o f the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack
with this action.

then look under "making an attack" page 193-194 and you see

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a
weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part o f a
spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s
range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether
the target has cover and whether you have advantage
or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells,
special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties
or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a
hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has
rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause
special effects in addition to or instead o f damage.
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re
doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re
making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

then right under that in the "Ranged Attacks" section on pg. 195 it says

When you make a ranged attack, you fire a b ow or a
crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles
to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot
spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a
ranged attack.

I don't see how I am wrong by casting GB which requires an attack roll and therefore considered an attack and following up with the war cleric weapon attack. In the war cleric description it says "using the attack action" which GB is doing since it requires 1 action, and requires an attack roll, and therefore considered an attack according to the text above that is underlined and quoted from the PHB. If I cast a spell that required a save instead of an attack roll, I don't think I would be able to fire the bow afterwards. I will admit my mistake if you can show me otherwise please do, I do not like to be playing a character that constantly breaks the rules under the radar. I always try my best to follow rules, I just don't see any place in the PHB that tells me that's what I am doing.

[Ziegander]

Yes, Guiding Bolt is an attack, but that does not mean that casting Guiding Bolt is "an Attack Action." Reread the rules.

[Xetheral]

Yes, Guiding Bolt is an attack, but that does not mean that casting Guiding Bolt is "an Attack Action." Reread the rules.

Expanding on the above: to cast Guiding Bolt you must elect to take the Cast a Spell action. Because of that, you, by definition, didn't take the Attack action.

Casting Guiding Bolt happens to include making an attack, but there are many ways in the game of making an attack without having elected to spend one's action the Attack action.

[Gnomes2169]

Well I wasn't comparing it to Improved Divine Strike now was I? I was comparing it to Extra Attack.

... And Extra Attack is still a lot better than divine strike. Right off the bat, if we compare DS to a longsword attack, the DS will only add the damage die to the attack, cannot be used to finish off two (likely weakened) targets, and doesn't nearly gain the same benefits of having an even slightly magical weapon (which could add damage dice of its own). As well, the DS feature doesn't really give the option to shove/ trip freely like the extra attach feature (since you can make multiple attempts/ round, or just trip and attack the same target), and if you are using the DMG tactical variants then it gives you fewer marked targets, fewer chances to disarm, and fewer chances to cleave things.

Even on a mathematics level, DS is losing out. Longsword vs longsword (cleric with DS vs fighter with extra attack at level 6) comes out to: 2d8+Mod (Average 12 DRP with a +3) vs 2*(1d8+Mod) (Average 15 DPR with a +3, though it's more likely to be a +4 or +5 and thus 17 or 19 DPR comparatively, given a fighter's increased amount of ASI's, which will likely go directly to the fighter's attack and damage stat). If we add a +1 longsword, then the difference (assuming the same attack mod) is 13 vs 17, and if we just went craaaaaazy and gave them both a flametongue, then the difference is 19 vs 29.

It's not "about the same." Really. Giving the cleric an extra attack isn't something I would really encourage, since martial things and at-will damage are supposed to be for non-full caster types. I do feel like Divine Strike works for the more "gishy" clerics, since it allows them to mix it up in melee while reserving spells for buffing/ healing, but it is in no way equal to the extra attack class feature.

[RulesJD]

*snip*(

I quoted you the relevant text from the PHB. Please, just accept that casting a spell does not trigger War Priest. It will save us all a lot of time.

[Dorphius]

RulesJD



Re: War cleric





Quote Originally Posted by Dorphius View Post

*snip*(
I quoted you the relevant text from the PHB. Please, just accept that casting a spell does not trigger War Priest. It will save us all a lot of time.

I sit corrected, Touche!