Life Cleric in the Melee?

[Reaver25]

When my dad used to talk to me about D&D, he loved the Cleric. A few strong buffs and a beast in melee. Now, maybe my dad was a liar. Or maybe WotC made Clerics more focused on spellcasting. Even then, I am hard pressed to find consistently excellent spells for the Cleric.
My point is: could a Life Cleric (no MCing) be good in melee? I know they have the extra 1d8 radiant in melee at lvl 8, but it just isn't the way it used to be. Thoughts?

[Aembrosia]

A cleric of any kind can be good in melee but the paradigm is drastically different than how a barbarian is good in melee.

Specific to the life cleric you start the early game with a high ac. You attempt to interpose yourself between a caster or striker and an enemy. You aught to have decent health. Whether or not you hit let alone deal damage with a melee or spell attack is largely irrelevant. Using your action to help action assist a striker is viable for now. Ideally you turn on bless and base something or dont cast bless, tank something and hope for the best. Apply bandaids as needed.

Later on you are playing a control tank. Spirit guardians and a font of life to draw from making your allies hard to drop. That will quickly become a major red alert to even ogres. The synergy here is you actually want to get hurt, but you dont want to be the only one - so you can heal yourself while you heal others. Again, dealing damage with your action is not a big deal. Grappling might even be a better use of your action here.

Much later you might need to start being a little more careful what you're running face first into. Perhaps shift into a more reactionary defensive than an aggressive defense.

A life cleric in a 2 or 3 person party will need to fullfill roles that a life cleric in a 5 or 6 person party wont need to. Generally though your worth isnt based on how well you can swing a hammer. The option is in your kit, but, theres probably more creative avenues available to you that your fighter cant consider.

[MeeposFire]

Clerics are solid in melee. Not as good as the warrior types but a life cleric can take a fair beating and hit back decently well. They also have some nice spells that enhance that with things like spiritual weapon and spiritual guardians.

They won't be like previous clerics though in that they cannot have a huge amount of personal buffs that make him stronger than your typical warrior but they have some really nice buffs in this edition that make them worthwhile and effective in melee.

[Tarvil]

1: Get Booming Blade cantrip by feat, race or multiclass
2: Cast Spirit Guardians/Spiritual Weapon
3: ???
4: Profit

[Foxhound438]

1: Get Booming Blade cantrip by feat, race or multiclass
2: Cast Spirit Guardians/Spiritual Weapon
3: ???
4: Profit

classic meme

[djreynolds]

I played a life cleric in CoS. Melee was where I was at.

2 thoughts, 1 is used my sacred flame as my attack, wisdom based and save or suck so no disadvantage.

2 At some point you grab a club and get shillelagh and fight in melee. Good for a minute. I never did, as I was more focused on maxing out wisdom first, and my strength was a 14, good enough

8th and 14th you get radiant damage added onto you melee attack, so shillelagh is good (magic initiate)

Just have a decent strength so you can use heavy armor or play a hill dwarf

We only went to 10th, so I never grabbed shillelagh, and I found the class very tanky, oodles of healing

Cleric, really is the original GISH

[Mandragola]

A 5th edition cleric is reasonably good in melee. It doesn't have dpr to compete with the true melee classes and that's deliberate. Clerics are spellcasters first and foremost, not beatsticks.

Once upon a time clerics were indeed melee powerhouses. Back in 3.5 you could stack up spells like divine power and righteous might to get spectacular strength scores, way above what could be achieved naturally. And lo, there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the players of barbarians and paladins, who (perhaps rightly) felt that the cleric was stealing their thunder. My own 3.5 barbarian 1/cleric 12 enjoyed power attacking with a two-hander, doubling the benefit, since his strength was so high that missing didn't really happen. He did obscene damage. There used to be a "massive damage" rule where you had to make a save or die if a single hit did more than 50 damage, and my DM got used to rolling it.

So that was nonsense, and accordingly divine power and righteous might are not in the 5th edition phb. Clerics have had to shrink back down to medium size and cut their strength scores by half or more. A cleric is now a support (or more charitably, "leader") character. He's in the party for the spells he can cast, not the D6+3 damage he does when he bashes something with his mace. He has a good AC and hp pool, which is good news and means he can stand on teh front rank. But don't think he'll be slaying everything around him because he won't... or at least not until he casts spirit guardians.

[Tanarii]

Depends what you're looking for in melee.

Damage? It's okay, but not Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin damage. Ignoring race for a sec, you'll be doing 1d6+1d8+ a minimum of 3 at level 8. Or 2d8 with sacred flame (which works at point blank range) at level 5. Basically, you can either pump up Str a bit and do decent melee damage, or just focus on Wis and use Sacred Flame.

But at-will damage isn't their strongest point. As others have said, defense (mainly high AC & Wis) and point blank spell casting is. So yeah, they'll be in melee. But they won't necessarily be melee, depending on what you mean by that.

Dwarven Life Clerics (of Moradin, of course) are particularly nasty. They either get a Str or Wis bonus, if the have suffice t Str they get to use a Warhammer, and if they don't build up Str they aren't slowed down by using heavy armor.

[Plaguescarred]

Life Cleric are good in melee, not so much for it's damage but for it's ability to withstand attack due to its usually high AC, and its way to help everyone with spells such as Bless, Cure Wounds, Command, Healing Word etc ...

[Slipperychicken]

When my dad used to talk to me about D&D, he loved the Cleric. A few strong buffs and a beast in melee. Now, maybe my dad was a liar. Or maybe WotC made Clerics more focused on spellcasting. Even then, I am hard pressed to find consistently excellent spells for the Cleric.
My point is: could a Life Cleric (no MCing) be good in melee? I know they have the extra 1d8 radiant in melee at lvl 8, but it just isn't the way it used to be. Thoughts?

d8 hit die makes them not completely squishy. Get a 14+ con on that and you can survive a few rounds in melee
18 armor class fresh out of character creation, which is pretty great. Scale mail and shield. You don't even need to meet any strength requirements.
For damage: Can buff with spirit guardians and spiritual weapon, then autoattack with sacred flame, or even guiding bolt. You could use your bludgeoning weapon instead of a cantrip, although that's not my personal preference. You could also get shillelagh through magic initiate and use that for an autoattack.

So they can actually be pretty respectable at melee. Just remember that it's a secondary role (the primary being buffing and healing), and don't expect to outdamage fighters or outlast barbarians.


@Excellent spells: Clerics have some real stars on their list, and can prep them whenever they want.

Spirit guardians: Aura of 'screw-you'. You can clear out large numbers of low-health enemies with this. Your GM will most likely target you, so try to have war caster if you plan to use it.
Spiritual weapon: It's a 'ranged' bonus action attack, it does force damage, and it keys off wisdom. It's solid.
Sacred flame. It's a great cantrip. It deals radiant, which basically nothing has resistance to it. Before it scales up at level 5, the damage is low enough that you'd be justified using a crossbow instead (or even your mace against skeletons).
Bless IMO is the best spell on the cleric list, for both its low level and its effect. +1d4 to hit for three allies sounds small, but don't be fooled. Giving a +2 or +3 to hit is almost equivalent to a very rare or legendary magic weapon. If you have some good damage-dealers, it can improve their output tremendously (can be 50% or more depending on how much trouble they're having hitting an enemy), and the math means it automatically scales to their damage output, so it will be just as great at level 20. Adding the 1d4 to saving throws is really just icing on the cake. If you include yourself in the spell, that 1d4 also applies to concentration checks to keep the spell going.
Healing Word and its mass version are must-haves, especially on a life cleric. The mass version is very efficient. I've turned losing battles into victories by using Preserve Life channel divinity and following it up with Mass Healing Word.
Lesser Restoration, Remove Curse, and other status-removal spells get a surprising amount of mileage. Remember all those times someone got cursed, blinded, paralyzed, or diseased, and then the whole party had to run crying back to town or risk getting stomped by the next fight? I don't, because I always kept them handy on my life cleric. I think that the possession-removing ones also deserve a mention just because of how many times GMs will try to use demonic possession in games. As a cleric, you are probably the team's only means of curse-removal, so be careful around treasure and try not to get cursed yourself.
Revivify, raise dead, and that whole group are all great. Nothing says power like bringing your friends back to life. Just get the required components beforehand and keep them handy. If you don't have the components, one trick you can do is to cast Gentle Repose on a newly-dead ally (stopping the clock on revivfy), then bring the body back to town, get the components (perhaps selling off some of the companion's equipment if necessary), and cast revivify. That effectively lets you do Raise Dead four levels lower, for 200 less gold. Just make sure to work out resurrection-procedures in advance. No sense reviving someone who doesn't want to come back.

[Naanomi]

They make good *second guy in melee* options, since they can heal both frontliners (themselves and the other guy) with one casting... makes healing spells almost good enough to use regularly. Almost.

[Charing]

I've found with my life cleric that while I can walk in and hit someone in the head with a spiky piece of metal on a stick, it's generally not the best use of my time. On the other hand, I've got good armour and a shield, so ideally I like to find myself as a combat supporting character when I'm not casting spells.
Bless is often a good choice, and I've had some success with being in melee to support other characters with Help actions and so on... Sometimes you can help out in unsurprising ways - being in melee combat range with Sanctuary up can be helpful if you're not attacking, and the spells you're casting are focused on your allies rather than your foes, anyone who wants to hit you needs to get through a wisdom saving throw (Which I imagine will be high, in almost every clerical case) to even get the chance to try and get past your high AC.
You don't be dishing out huge damage compared to a lot of frontline fighters, and that's true, but you can still be a real combat boon, I think.

[Herobizkit]

As you'd except, Dwarves and Half-Orcs make for some tough Life Clerics. Hill Dwarves get 1 bonus HP per level; Mountain Dwarves get proficiency in Hammers and Axes (for that delicious d10 two-handed swing). Half-Orcs get some great stat bonuses as well as being able to shrug off one knockout a day.

There's no shame in wanting to bring the fight to your enemies, and Life Clerics can do a darn fine job of it.

[Slipperychicken]

As you'd except, Dwarves and Half-Orcs make for some tough Life Clerics. Hill Dwarves get 1 bonus HP per level; Mountain Dwarves get proficiency in Hammers and Axes (for that delicious d10 two-handed swing). Half-Orcs get some great stat bonuses as well as being able to shrug off one knockout a day.

There's no shame in wanting to bring the fight to your enemies, and Life Clerics can do a darn fine job of it.

Dwarves' speed is not reduced by armor, which is helpful if you want a good AC but don't want to invest ability scores into it. A dwarf can dump both dex and strength, wear chainmail and a shield, and still have AC 18 while moving at speed 25. That gives you a little more freedom with your stat array.

[Tanarii]

Dwarves' speed is not reduced by armor, which is helpful if you want a good AC but don't want to invest ability scores into it. A dwarf can dump both dex and strength, wear chainmail and a shield, and still have AC 18 while moving at speed 25. That gives you a little more freedom with your stat array.
Life clerics are meant to stick in the think of things though, and this option means throwing away your OA, as well as your level 8/14 damage boost.

Not saying it's a terrible way to go, just that you're intentionally throwing away something the domain provides. Albeit something most people consider a minor boost.

[Reaver25]

I suppose I just didn't think they were that good in melee, but I forget their place in combat. It's not to deal damage, it's to sustain damage. So... that's what I was confused about. My dad, like I said, made a Cleric sound more like a Paladin, which I kind of liked. Anyways, thanks for all of the great responses, gave me a lot to think about.

[Mandragola]

I suppose I just didn't think they were that good in melee, but I forget their place in combat. It's not to deal damage, it's to sustain damage. So... that's what I was confused about. My dad, like I said, made a Cleric sound more like a Paladin, which I kind of liked. Anyways, thanks for all of the great responses, gave me a lot to think about.

Honestly if your dad is talking about earlier editions of the game, then clerics could indeed stomp all over things. That has recently changed.

[Klorox]

Honestly if your dad is talking about earlier editions of the game, then clerics could indeed stomp all over things. That has recently changed.

It really depends on the edition.

I find clerics are the most OP melee characters in any of the 3rd edition renditions.

[Pex]

A 3rd level cleric can be making two attacks per round for a total of 2d8 + 6 damage at +5 to hit. He can have +1d4 to hit on top of that with 18 AC. If he forgoes the +1d4 to hit he can have 20 AC. At 8th level it's two attacks for 3d8 + 8 damage total with +1d4 to hit or 20 AC or an additional 3d8 damage or half that. The 5E cleric can be a warrior if he wants to be.

[djreynolds]

A typical heavy armor cleric can dump dex, its okay.

My life cleric was very good in CoS.

I didn't use melee attacks, as I had spells.

The question it if you want to be primarily melee, it is possible? Yes.

Do you need 2 attacks, no. You can have spiritual weapon cast at a higher level, but you need wisdom for this attack.

You can grab shillelagh, somehow and use wisdom.

Nature cleric is not to underestimated, as they get heavy armor and druid spell cantrips, and elemental strike ain't bad.

But I like war cleric and ranger, melee or ranged is very good. 6 levels of the new ranger brings a lot and you still your 8th and 14th level ability for an easy 13 in dex.

Lot of multiclassing potential for clerics.

And you do not need a 20 in strength/dex to excel in combat, a 16 is good enough

[Willie the Duck]

I suppose I just didn't think they were that good in melee, but I forget their place in combat. It's not to deal damage, it's to sustain damage. So... that's what I was confused about. My dad, like I said, made a Cleric sound more like a Paladin, which I kind of liked. Anyways, thanks for all of the great responses, gave me a lot to think about.

Every edition has been different

In straight little brown books OD&D, the cleric could do everything a fighting man could do except wield magic swords. Everyone did the same damage in melee, and unlike magic users, the cleric could wear any armor. They were just a little behind a dedicated warrior in warrior-ing. Roughly the same is true for other versions of basic D&D, although those codified the cleric as wielding 1d6 damage maces and hammers to the fighters 1d8 and 1d10 weapons. They did not do as much damage, but only marginally so, but they certainly had lasting power. Pretty much the only reason to keep them out of combat was to cast spells, which they had a lot fewer to cast.

The Greyhawk expansion upped the damage for swords in comparison to everything else, and added exceptional strength for 18 str fighting men. This set the tone for AD&D, with the same effects, as well as also giving clerics bludgeoning weapons (the best of which I believe is the 1d6+1/1d6 mace, as compared to the 1d10/3d6 greatsword a fighter used). Fighters also slowly got extra attacks/round. Here is where fighter's damage output starts to really outpace clerics (but they still have high survival).

Late 1st edition and 2nd edition had fighters get specialization, which added +1hit, +2 damage, and 1/2 an extra attack/round. Assuming a +1 weapon, medium opponent, and 18 Str (with fighter rolling 51 on percentile dice), a specialized 8th level fighter with a longsword was attacking twice a round for 1d8+6 vs the cleric's 1/round for 1d6+4. Not insurmountable, but put the cleric at a more reasonable 16 strength, get the fighter gauntlets of ogre power and a greatsword, and have them fighting a hill giant, and suddenly the cleric is dishing out 1d6+2 vs the fighter's 2 x 3d6+9. Late 2e had a bunch of options for the cleric to get fighter weapons (and fighter exceptional strength rolls and con-to-hp if they were clerics of Meilikki. 2e was not known for its balance), but usually gave up most of their types of spells to do so.

3e the actual frame of the cleric was fairly reasonable. They made good 2nd string fighters and high-AC anvils upon which hopefully the enemy would waste attacks while the heavy hitters did their thing. It was some specific spells which were an issue. I think they were supposed to be "if you need to make your cleric act as a full warrior for a combat, they should memorize one of these, and spend their first round casting it." In combats which generally lasted 3-6 rounds, that 1st round spent casting was a significant limiter and a straight core-book cleric was solid, but didn't run away with the game. The real problem is that almost immediately splat books made easy and obvious workarounds to that 1st round casting. Clerics quickly became the primary front-liner, but also got to be full casters. That, on top of other insults to the martial types, is a serious sticking point many have with 3e.

4e is its own animal. It is balanced and everyone gets a role to play, including in combat.

In 5e, the cleric is what you make of it. Life cleric has great armor, simple weapons, and lots of combat-related spells. Bless, Spirit guardians, Spiritual weapon, Sacred Flame are the obvious choices. You do not mow down your enemy with devastating melee strikes, but between boosting your side, damaging enemies who approach, and giving yourself bonus-action attacks, you can facilitate a large amount of extra damage/turn for your side.

[Tanarii]

Every edition has been different

In straight little brown books OD&D, the cleric could do everything a fighting man could do except wield magic swords. Everyone did the same damage in melee, and unlike magic users, the cleric could wear any armor. They were just a little behind a dedicated warrior in warrior-ing.Actually, the inability to use magic swords usually meant that Fighters outpaced Cleric Damage in oD&D. Or at least, I gather that was historically true for oD&D. It certainly was true for BECMI, and in AD&D 1e as well. The ability to use magic swords was a huge power boost to Fighters. And Rogues, if there were any left over after Fighters got first pick.[/QUOTE]

[Willie the Duck]

Actually, the inability to use magic swords usually meant that Fighters outpaced Cleric Damage in oD&D. Or at least, I gather that was historically true for oD&D. It certainly was true for BECMI, and in AD&D 1e as well. The ability to use magic swords was a huge power boost to Fighters. And Rogues, if there were any left over after Fighters got first pick.

Well, both BECMI and rogues (thieves) are not OD&D (which I have distinguished from OD&D + GH), so there will be differences.

However, the actual damage output is not that different. All weapons did 1d6. Swords do come up extra frequently on the magic item table, and they max out at +5 instead of +3. The fighting man is likely to have a +1 sword (4.5 avg. dmg) long before the cleric finds a +1 mace, so they will be doing 4.5/3.5 =29% more damage (huh, more than I thought). At high levels, the fighting man will have a +5 sword to the cleric's +3 mace, so 8.5/6.5 = 31% more. Still a far cry from later editions where extra attacks and extraordinary strength walk away with the damage totals.

The real advantage of magic swords in the OD&D days was that something like 40% of them had additional special powers, like allowing you to fly, or cast fireballs x/day, or the iconic holy avengers and vorpals and so on. Martials never were as powerful as spellcasters simply by way of their fighting ability. They just had spells of their own, but they were picked of the treasure table.

[VoxRationis]

Also keep in mind that previous iterations of rogues and wizards were significantly more delicate than today. If you have a four-person party (five if you're lucky), the cleric is going to be in melee duty most of the time by virtue of being somewhat less than 50% likely to die to a house cat.

[Tanarii]

Well, both BECMI and rogues (thieves) are not OD&D (which I have distinguished from OD&D + GH), so there will be differences.Noted, and that's why I was careful to distinguish between them, and say that it was my understanding for oD&D, as opposed to my personal experience. Which was all with AD&D 1e and BECMI.


The real advantage of magic swords in the OD&D days was that something like 40% of them had additional special powers, like allowing you to fly, or cast fireballs x/day, or the iconic holy avengers and vorpals and so on. Martials never were as powerful as spellcasters simply by way of their fighting ability. They just had spells of their own, but they were picked of the treasure table.That's specifically what I was referring to. Between sentience being primarily a sword thing and very common, and almost all the very powerful magic weapons being swords, being able to use swords was a non-trivial power boost for those classes that could use them.

[MeeposFire]

One thing to remember though is that clerics could buff themselves into being very nasty warriors however excpet for real long term buffs doing so is very clunky in combat when you have to spend your actions buffing before actually attacking. That can be problematic sometimes. It can be dealt with and if you do it then you will be brutal.

4e does have a nice benefit in that you are competent in melee and can heal while still being able to attack. That was a HUGE boost to the fun factor to the cleric since before cleric players had to choose between fighting (casting) or healing for the most part. Thankfully that is one of the many things they carried over into 5e. The buffing part did not fully come over (partly due to concentration rules) but you still can do a lot and you can heal people and still smack somebody with your mace (healing word for the win).