Without a very loose interpretations of the rules is DMM good on a cleric?

[incog64]

By the time you take out spells with variable range (this probably includes touch), spells of instantaneous duration and spells whose effects are discharge the spells you can use are very limited. Combined this with the amount of feats required to make it work, is it worth it?

If so, can you provide some useful examples especially at early levels because at later levels many other things are good as well.

Thanks.

[remetagross]

Don't forget DMM can be applied to an MM feat other than Persist spell. DMM (Quicken) is darn powerful as well, and much less fiddly in either its conditions of application or its execution than DMM (Persist). Same thing for DMM (Twin).

[incog64]

Don't forget DMM can be applied to an MM feat other than Persist spell. DMM (Quicken) is darn powerful as well, and much less fiddly in either its conditions of application or its execution than DMM (Persist). Same thing for DMM (Twin).

Fair but that is so many resources.

[Troacctid]

Here's a good list of eligible spells: https://web.archive.org/web/20170107215025/http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7260

While there aren't THAT many good options on the base cleric list, the ones that ARE good tend to be REALLY good.

[remetagross]

Fair but that is so many resources.

Well it's only 1 feat (Quicken or Twin) while Persist asks for Extend as a prerequiste (though granted it's a good feat in its own right) and requires much more Turn Undead uses than either Quicken or Twin.

[Biggus]

Some good ones are:

1 Divine Favor
2 Elation (BoED)
3 Footsteps of the Divine (CCh), Mass Lesser Vigor (SpC)
4 Divine Power, Recitiation (SpC), Lesser Holy/Infernal Transformation (SpC)
5 Righteous Might, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (SpC)
6
7 Holy Star (SpC), Holy/infernal Transformation (SpC)
8 Stormrage (SpC)
9 Greater Visage of the Deity (SpC)

There's also (Greater) Consumptive Field (SpC) but it's 1) evil only and 2) totally broken. Sadism and Masochism (BoVD) are similar. Even without those there's plenty to go at, unless the DM allows either multiple turning pools or multiple nightsticks it'll be very hard to get all of them.

[Telok]

We let reach range spells qualify. Reach Revenance and reach Revivify were a pretty useful combo as levels went up. Revenance being basically a decent combat heal + enabler for extending the window on Revivify.

[incog64]

Here's a good list of eligible spells: https://web.archive.org/web/20170107215025/http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7260

While there aren't THAT many good options on the base cleric list, the ones that ARE good tend to be REALLY good.

Thanks....

[incog64]

Some good ones are:

1 Divine Favor
2 Elation (BoED)
3 Footsteps of the Divine (CCh), Mass Lesser Vigor (SpC)
4 Divine Power, Recitiation (SpC), Lesser Holy/Infernal Transformation (SpC)
5 Righteous Might, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (SpC)
6
7 Holy Star (SpC), Holy/infernal Transformation (SpC)
8 Stormrage (SpC)
9 Greater Visage of the Deity (SpC)

There's also (Greater) Consumptive Field (SpC) but it's 1) evil only and 2) totally broken. Sadism and Masochism (BoVD) are similar. Even without those there's plenty to go at, unless the DM allows either multiple turning pools or multiple nightsticks it'll be very hard to get all of them.

Thanks......

[Asmotherion]

By the time you take out spells with variable range (this probably includes touch), spells of instantaneous duration and spells whose effects are discharge the spells you can use are very limited. Combined this with the amount of feats required to make it work, is it worth it?

If so, can you provide some useful examples especially at early levels because at later levels many other things are good as well.

Thanks.

Touch is not a variable range, by any definition I know of.

The spells you can use still include staff like Divine Power; Ergo, even with a strict reading, your Cleric can double as a (less effective) Fighter, thus, yes, DMM is still OP. And, this is just one example, there are plenty of other applications.

[Paragon]

In my signature you'll find every possible persistable spell. You just need to expand every spoiler tab and go Ctrl+F "Cleric 2" for instance

[pabelfly]

While we're on the subject of DMM Persist clerics, what are the best nonstandard spells to add to a Cleric's spell list for persisting shenanigans?

[Anthrowhale]

With DMM, you should ask: how good is a spell as a feat?

Even with basic usage (2 active spells from 3 feats), it starts out okish (i.e. divine favor), but then grows rapidly with access to spells at higher levels.

And then of course you can optimize by increasing turns and decrease persistent spell cost so that the number of persistent spells is basically "all" or all that you care about by high level (consider Shapechange[Tome Dragon] for Free Metamagic -3, Easy Metamagic for -1, Dweomerkeeper 10 for -1, so the base cost is 1 implying 2 turns to persist). An ECL20 character that can effectively persist all desired spells is 'tier 0' (i.e. game breaking).

[incog64]

Touch is not a variable range, by any definition I know of.

The spells you can use still include staff like Divine Power; Ergo, even with a strict reading, your Cleric can double as a (less effective) Fighter, thus, yes, DMM is still OP. And, this is just one example, there are plenty of other applications.

I have seen arguments both ways about touch; however, ultimately its up to the DM. Worst case you spend a feat to include them but once again feat heavy. If the goal is to become fighter just be a fighter. Below are 2 arguments why it isn't.

1. If it helps any more, touch isn't necessarily a fixed range because the range of touch is given by the toucher's reach. For example shocking grasp has a range of 5 ft for a regular human wizard, but a range of 10 ft for an enlarged human wizard.

2.While the text of the feat is somewhat ambiguous, there are several indications in the rules that touch spells are not valid targets of Persistent Spell:

If spells with "a fixed range" were intended to include touch spells, why are spells with Personal range called out as allowed? After all, "Range: Personal" is no more variable than "Range: Touch."

The errata for the book in which Persistent Spell was originally printed, Player's Guide to Faerun, explicitly said that touch spells could not be persisted. While subsequent re-publishings of the spell did not include these changes, they're indicative of what the intent of the feat's wording was.

Heroes of Battle p. 113 describes the effect of War Weaver's Enlarge Tapestry class feature:
Spells you cast through an eldritch tapestry have their range category increased: touch spells become close range, close-range spells become medium range, and medium-range spells become long range. Long-range spells and spells with fixed ranges are unaffected.

This rule explicitly draws a distinction between touch spells and spells with fixed ranges, and treats them differently, implying that touch spells are not included in the category of spells with fixed ranges.

[Anthrowhale]

I have seen arguments both ways about touch. Worst case you spend a feat to include them but once again feat heavy. If the goal is to become fighter just be a fighter.

A suitable Cleric is a better fighter than a Fighter at essentially any level. They are probably closest at level 1, but a Cloistered Cleric [Time,War, Knowledge Devotion] is already coming out ahead.

[incog64]

With DMM, you should ask: how good is a spell as a feat?

Even with basic usage (2 active spells from 3 feats), it starts out okish (i.e. divine favor), but then grows rapidly with access to spells at higher levels.

And then of course you can optimize by increasing turns and decrease persistent spell cost so that the number of persistent spells is basically "all" or all that you care about by high level (consider Shapechange[Tome Dragon] for Free Metamagic -3, Easy Metamagic for -1, Dweomerkeeper 10 for -1, so the base cost is 1 implying 2 turns to persist). An ECL20 character that can effectively persist all desired spells is 'tier 0' (i.e. game breaking).

I hear you but at that level there are many builds that are game breaking.

[incog64]

A suitable Cleric is a better fighter than a Fighter at essentially any level. They are probably closest at level 1, but a Cloistered Cleric [Time,War, Knowledge Devotion] is already coming out ahead.

Until he gets hit and its over for the Cloistered Cleric.

[Biggus]

While we're on the subject of DMM Persist clerics, what are the best nonstandard spells to add to a Cleric's spell list for persisting shenanigans?

What do you mean by nonstandard? Spells from other classes?

[Chronos]

Except cleric becomes better fighter. And can still spend spell slots to do other things than fighting. A clerzilla isn't just persisting Divine Power, Divine Favor, and maybe Righteous Might. They also have a bunch of spells that are already all-day duration, like Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, Undead Bane Weapon, and Superior Resistance. And then you also get utility effects like Detect Evil, Updraft, Knight's Move, Invisibility Purge, Magic Circle, Speak with Dead, Death Ward, Mystic Aegis, the Summon Monster line, Blistering Radiance, Stalwart Pact, Wall of Stone, (Greater) Dispel Magic, Wind Walk, Ghost Trap, Discern Location, Earthquake, Gate, or Miracle. Plus options to fix up your friends, like all the Cure Wounds spells, Resurgence, Close Wounds, Delay Poison, Lesser Restoration, Stabilize, Delay Death, Revivify, Heal, or Resurrection.

[incog64]

Except cleric becomes better fighter. And can still spend spell slots to do other things than fighting. A clerzilla isn't just persisting Divine Power, Divine Favor, and maybe Righteous Might. They also have a bunch of spells that are already all-day duration, like Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, Undead Bane Weapon, and Superior Resistance. And then you also get utility effects like Detect Evil, Updraft, Knight's Move, Invisibility Purge, Magic Circle, Speak with Dead, Death Ward, Mystic Aegis, the Summon Monster line, Blistering Radiance, Stalwart Pact, Wall of Stone, (Greater) Dispel Magic, Wind Walk, Ghost Trap, Discern Location, Earthquake, Gate, or Miracle. Plus options to fix up your friends, like all the Cure Wounds spells, Resurgence, Close Wounds, Delay Poison, Lesser Restoration, Stabilize, Delay Death, Revivify, Heal, or Resurrection.

Once again at higher levels their buff effects can replicated with stuff you can buy.

The Clericzilla has to live to be "OP". I am always curious about all these OP builds, do players actually play them from level 1?

Also, how does a Clericzilla handle being dispelled?

[Anthrowhale]

Until he gets hit and its over for the Cloistered Cleric.

There's a couple tricks which makes initial hitpoints not very meaningful.

Time Domain: Improved Initiative
War Domain: Weapon Focus + martial weapon proficiency
Knowledge Domain -> Knowledge Devotion //provides at least +1 to attack and damage.
L1 feat: Shape Soulmeld(Bloodtalons) //provides an effective +9 hit points.
Human feat: Wild Cohort (Riding Dog) //provides a second character that's just as powerful.

And then of course you have spells. If your dog can Coup de Grace, then Heartache is essentially a save-or-die.

I calculated the odds for something like this for Wizard vs. Fighter here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24650205&postcount=400) (and further down that thread). The Wizard came out ahead, and my expectation is that the Cloistered Cleric would do so as well.

[Anthrowhale]

Also, how does a Clericzilla handle being dispelled?

The best solution here is to amplify your caster level since that does much more as well. (Greater) Consumptive Field, Hathran circle magic, node magic, Prayer bead of karma, Ankh of Ascension, etc..

[incog64]

The best solution here is to amplify your caster level since that does much more as well. (Greater) Consumptive Field, Hathran circle magic, node magic, Prayer bead of karma, Ankh of Ascension, etc..

That makes sense but if the bad guys do it to its wash. One thing for sure, my DM has no problem escalating to keep the game balanced.

[pabelfly]

What do you mean by nonstandard? Spells from other classes?

Any spells not on the Cleric spell list. So Sorcerer/Wizard spells, domain spells. etc.

[Troacctid]

Once again at higher levels their buff effects can replicated with stuff you can buy.

The Clericzilla has to live to be "OP". I am always curious about all these OP builds, do players actually play them from level 1?
Honestly, I think you need to take this sort of thing with a grain of salt. Dunking on the core martial classes (especially fighter and monk) is a popular pastime in this community, and they draw a lot of floccinaucinihilipilification. I'm not saying it isn't well-founded, because the core martial classes have some gaping design flaws that would be inexcusable today, but the discussions around it usually suffer from a lack of good context and perspective, and it's a good way to derail a thread like this one that isn't really about the fighter class. (Especially since when we're talking about divine power, the barbarian is clearly the more analogous comparison, IMO.) It's even worse if people start talking about these classes fighting against each other in combat (something that does not matter at all for intra-class balance in a co-op game!) instead of fighting for space on your character sheet.

For the most part, the core martial classes and their variants are heavily frontloaded, which means they perform best early on but fall off over time as their class levels just...stop giving them new stuff, for some reason. In practice, this doesn't hurt balance all that much in most campaigns, because most campaigns that start at level 1 never make it to high enough levels for the drop-off to become really severe, and if they do make it that far, prestige classes are supposed to be there to help shrink the gap. In practice, you'll probably find that, on average, the core martial classes are a smidge advantaged over most of the core casters in the early game, disadvantaged over those same casters in the midgame (by a gradually increasing margin), and then suffer greatly in comparison as you start to move into the level 10+ portion of the campaign. Then, without fail, the campaign collapses due to scheduling issues so that you don't have to see the absolute bloodbath of intra-party disparity that occurs once high-level spells enter the picture. That's been my experience.

In games that start at higher levels, though, you really don't want to be a frontloaded class. It's just embarrassing, frankly.


Also, how does a Clericzilla handle being dispelled?
Depends on how well you've prepared for it.

[pabelfly]

Honestly, I think you need to take this sort of thing with a grain of salt. Dunking on the core martial classes (especially fighter and monk) is a popular pastime in this community, and they draw a lot of floccinaucinihilipilification. I'm not saying it isn't well-founded, because the core martial classes have some gaping design flaws that would be inexcusable today, but the discussions around it usually suffer from a lack of good context and perspective, and it's a good way to derail a thread like this one that isn't really about the fighter class. (Especially since when we're talking about divine power, the barbarian is clearly the more analogous comparison, IMO.) It's even worse if people start talking about these classes fighting against each other in combat (something that does not matter at all for intra-class balance in a co-op game!) instead of fighting for space on your character sheet.

For the most part, the core martial classes and their variants are heavily frontloaded, which means they perform best early on but fall off over time as their class levels just...stop giving them new stuff, for some reason. In practice, this doesn't hurt balance all that much in most campaigns, because most campaigns that start at level 1 never make it to high enough levels for the drop-off to become really severe, and if they do make it that far, prestige classes are supposed to be there to help shrink the gap. In practice, you'll probably find that, on average, the core martial classes are a smidge advantaged over most of the core casters in the early game, disadvantaged over those same casters in the midgame (by a gradually increasing margin), and then suffer greatly in comparison as you start to move into the level 10+ portion of the campaign. Then, without fail, the campaign collapses due to scheduling issues so that you don't have to see the absolute bloodbath of intra-party disparity that occurs once high-level spells enter the picture. That's been my experience.

In games that start at higher levels, though, you really don't want to be a frontloaded class. It's just embarrassing, frankly.

There's also an informal gentleman's agreement when playing that you want to play at a similar level of power as the other people you play with. And if you're not going to balance it with how you build your character and how you play at the table, your DM is going to do the balancing for you.

So, technically, the fighter is weaker than a Cleric. In practice, it's irrelevant, because the Fighter will have meaningfully contributed to combat just like the Cleric did.

[RandomPeasant]

DMM: Persistent is sort of an odd duck. It's actually fairly expensive in terms of resources. You need three feats to get it at all (and Persistent Spell is pretty damn useless outside the combo), and even when you've done that you need some kind of further investment (an additional source of turning, high CHA, nightsticks, Extra Turning, and the like) to use it even once. It does scale fairly well once you've started investing, but even then you're spending some additional resources for every use.

So what do you get for all that? Well, you can probably out-fight whatever sort of martial the party would have otherwise, but unless you're going all-out to fuel it you're not hitting a point where you start trivializing monsters. So that gets you to the response CoDZilla has had since the original Cleric Archer: people are really upset because it's an excellent demonstration of how pointless Fighters are, but it's not particularly objectively overpowered by the standards of what casters can do. For three feats a Shadowcraft Mage can get Heighten Spell, Spell Master, and Signature Spell (or Heighten + Earth Sense + Earth Spell). For two feats a Druid can get Natural Spell + Aberration Wild Shape. For one feat a Sorcerer or Wizard can get an Ancestral Relic runestaff and go nuts with spell access (as a Sorcerer) or spontaneity (as a Wizard).


This rule explicitly draws a distinction between touch spells and spells with fixed ranges, and treats them differently, implying that touch spells are not included in the category of spells with fixed ranges.

3e is not written tightly enough for you to draw that type of inference. For instance, the Fighter specifies that they must meet pre-reqs for their bonus feats, while the Monk specifies that they do not need to. As a result, there is no way to infer how we should understand the Rogue's bonus feats (which don't specify at all) from those examples. You have to find the general rule, and I have not seen anyone provide a general definition of "fixed" in any of these debates.


Except cleric becomes better fighter. And can still spend spell slots to do other things than fighting.

This is the big thing. The Fighter can fight passably well. The Cleric can fight passably well and also see the future and summon angels. There's just no contest.


Any spells not on the Cleric spell list. So Sorcerer/Wizard spells, domain spells. etc.

shapechange is the obvious one. giant size is fun. body outside body is also neat, though the sort of builds that do stuff with body outside body tend not to be the same as the ones that stack a lot of Persistent buffs. There are a lot of swift haste-style spells on various arcane lists that Persist really well because they go from 1 round to 24 hours.


it's a good way to derail a thread like this one that isn't really about the fighter class.

Once you ask the question "is this overpowered", whatever you are using as a baseline necessarily becomes a topical part of discussion.


prestige classes are supposed to be there to help shrink the gap.

I mean, sure, but while "which prestige classes are good" really is off-topic, I will point out that the notion that they are something that helps non-casters pull ahead is rather laughable.


the core martial classes are a smidge advantaged over most of the core casters in the early game

This is not true, except for sort of the Rogue, because it has an actual protected niche. The difference between a Fighter and a Cleric at 1st level is that the Fighter gets a bonus feat, more more point of BAB, and two more HP and the Cleric gets domains, turning, a better will save, and spells (the weapons are mostly a wash thanks to the War domain).


Also, how does a Clericzilla handle being dispelled?

The normal dispels have CL caps so you can just boost yours until you're immune.


So, technically, the fighter is weaker than a Cleric. In practice, it's irrelevant, because the Fighter will have meaningfully contributed to combat just like the Cleric did.

This is a silly argument because it also proves that Pun-Pun and a 1st level Commoner with 3s in all stats are balanced.

[Anthrowhale]

That makes sense but if the bad guys do it to its wash. One thing for sure, my DM has no problem escalating to keep the game balanced.

The problem here is that dispel magic caps out while caster level does not.

I generally agree with what Troacctid says. I would add that a non-core cleric can generally compete with a non-core fighter right at level 1 at rough parity, and then the disparity grows with levels.

[pabelfly]

This is a silly argument because it also proves that Pun-Pun and a 1st level Commoner with 3s in all stats are balanced.

For your extreme examples, the DM would no doubt put a stop to them before the game even starts, and if that somehow didn't occur, Pun-Pun requires the player to be allowed to make a bunch of questionable decisions without any consequence, or even the DM just saying: "no, this is too ridiculous for this game, I'm not letting you do that." Your examples really prove my point rather than disprove it.

[Troacctid]

This is not true, except for sort of the Rogue, because it has an actual protected niche. The difference between a Fighter and a Cleric at 1st level is that the Fighter gets a bonus feat, more more point of BAB, and two more HP and the Cleric gets domains, turning, a better will save, and spells (the weapons are mostly a wash thanks to the War domain).
I should have said most core martials. Core monk is...not good. Gets rolled by the cleric kit pretty easily. But the level 1 fighter and barbarian get a fair amount of mileage out of better weapon proficiencies (namely the greatsword), as well as not having to care about mental stats, and the fact that the cleric's modest allotment of low-level spell slots doesn't always reliably outperform a fighter bonus feat, or a barbarian's free action rage, or a paladin's at-will detect evil, or a rogue or ranger's increased skill points.

[RandomPeasant]

For your extreme examples, the DM would no doubt put a stop to them before the game even starts, and if that somehow didn't occur, Pun-Pun requires the player to be allowed to make a bunch of questionable decisions without any consequence, or even the DM just saying: "no, this is too ridiculous for this game, I'm not letting you do that." Your examples really prove my point rather than disprove it.

If the strongest possible character in the game and the weakest possible character in the game are "balanced" by your definition, your definition is worthless.{Scrubbed}


I should have said most core martials. Core monk is...not good. Gets rolled by the cleric kit pretty easily. But the level 1 fighter and barbarian get a fair amount of mileage out of better weapon proficiencies (namely the greatsword), as well as not having to care about mental stats, and the fact that the cleric's modest allotment of low-level spell slots doesn't always reliably outperform a fighter bonus feat, or a barbarian's free action rage, or a paladin's at-will detect evil, or a rogue or ranger's increased skill points.

The martial classes are certainly at their best relative to the casters at 1st level. But they're not advantaged, as you initially suggested. A Cleric needs only a quite modest 14 WIS to get a bonus spell, which is hardly more investment in mental stats than a Fighter who wants Combat Expertise needs. At that point you can grab cause fear twice and be comfortably ahead of whatever bonus feat the Fighter is getting -- Power Attack may be a strong feat, but at 1st level it's fairly irrelevant, and few of the other options are really any better. And the Cleric still gets a domain (or two if you think War isn't worth it), and turning, and the ability to cash in their spells for healing if he feels the need. I would give you that, say, the ToB martials are ahead here (though the Swordsage falters, and the Druid is better-off than the Cleric). But the idea that, say, the Paladin's detect evil is some huge advantage doesn't really measure up. If you start relying on it, your DM can quite easily show you up for that.

[pabelfly]

If the strongest possible character in the game and the weakest possible character in the game are "balanced" by your definition, your definition is worthless.{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I didn't say they were balanced, I said that the DM would balance things in their game if you can't/won't do it yourself. I feel that these are two fundamentally different statements.

[RandomPeasant]

I didn't say they were balanced, I said that the DM would balance things in their game if you can't/won't do it yourself. I feel that these are two fundamentally different statements.

{Scrubbed}

[Biggus]

Any spells not on the Cleric spell list. So Sorcerer/Wizard spells, domain spells. etc.

Sorcerer/Wizard
1 Shield, Critical Strike, Arrow Mind, Serene Visage
2 See Invisibility, Wraithstrike*
3 Ferocity of Sanguine Rage, Spellcaster's Bane, Arcane Sight
4 Ruin Delver's Fortune, Ray Deflection, Greater Mirror Image
5 Greater Blink
6
7 Greater Arcane Sight
8 Superior Invisibility
9

*brokenly good when persisted, be ready to dodge flying books

Bard
1 Improvisation

Paladin
1 Silverbeard
3 Find The Gap, Righteous Fury

Ranger
2 Hunter's Eye, Lion's Charge, Swift Haste

Wu Jen
7 Body Outside Body, Giant Size

[pabelfly]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I want to sum up this conversation:

Pabelfly: There’s an informal agreement where people will try to play characters of a similar power level, and if you don’t balance your character against the party, the DM will do it instead.
RandomPeasant: How about if a commoner with 3s across the board played with Pun-Pun?
Pabelfly: The DM is going to say no before the game even starts, and even after it does start, all the DM has to do is say to Pun-Pun is “no, this is too ridiculous”.
RandomPeasant: Oh, so you’re saying they’re both balanced, are you?
Pabelfly: No, I said the DM is going to balance things.
RandomPeasant: So what you’re saying is that there’s no problem now. That’s a logical fallacy.

Now that we’ve summed up the conversation, my response: I didn’t say there wasn’t a problem. I said it was something that the DM can solve. Again, I feel that these are two fundamentally different statements.

[remetagross]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

By the way, while the Cleric puts a 14 in Wisdom, it's that many points not sunk into Str/Dex/Con as the Fighter just did. In the meantime, the Fighter buys a mount with his starting WBL, takes Mounted Combat and Spirited Charge as his bonus feat, and kills everything in one hit.

[Crake]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

"It's not balanced, that's the DM's job" is not the Oberoni fallacy.

The Oberoni fallacy is "The DM can change the rules to balance the game, therefore the rules are fine".

Acknowledging the issues with the rules, but stating that the DM can intervene to fix them is not the oberoni fallacy, that's just 3.5 in a nutshell.

There should honestly be a fallacy about the inverse to be honest, something like the RAW fallacy. "This interpretation and application of the rules is fine, because it's RAW, despite the likelihood of anyone ever accepting it to a table being close to nil", because it's such a common trope in this subforum specifically

[Firechanter]

My stance on the original question:

DMM is good, potentially _very_ good, it's just not as stupidly-gamebreakingly-overpowered as some TO based on questionable rules interpretations could make it appear.

In short, I find that even without shenanigans like "3 different sources of Turn" and Nightstick stacking it can be well worth it. And not only for Persist, either.
It's been a while since I created any builds with it, but I _never_ used aforementioned shenanigans and was still happy with the result.

[incog64]

My stance on the original question:

DMM is good, potentially _very_ good, it's just not as stupidly-gamebreakingly-overpowered as some TO based on questionable rules interpretations could make it appear.

In short, I find that even without shenanigans like "3 different sources of Turn" and Nightstick stacking it can be well worth it. And not only for Persist, either.
It's been a while since I created any builds with it, but I _never_ used aforementioned shenanigans and was still happy with the result.

Good news, depending on your perspective, my DMM will agree to two domains. I plan basically to buff, shoot arrows and be the face. When I build characters I try have them play multiple roles so that I am engaged in the entire campaign.

[AvatarVecna]

General thought:

If you're playing in an undead-heavy campaign, DMM is a problem regardless of what metamagic you took. It's competing for a valuable resource. It's still potentially worth it, but the opportunity cost is higher. In a game where undead are less common (standard rarity or less), that opportunity cost vanishes. If your DM allows something close to RAW but doesn't allow nightstick stacking, you can get a couple good Quickens or Twins or Persists each day for very little investment. Persist having Extend Spell as a feat tax isn't an issue, because Extend is a pretty good metamagic for most casters. If your DM adds a houserule where you can't use DMM to mimic a spell you couldn't cast without it, then DMM becomes decent-to-bad depending on which feat you went with. Is getting a persisted 1st lvl spell at 13th lvl for just a lvl 1 slot a balance issue? Even if it's lesser vigor, the answer is "not really". It's neat? But far from a problem. In such a game, DMM's main upside becomes the ability to spontaneously apply metamagic without spell level increase; you can probably see the potential value in being able to spontaneously make a few spells Still each day, for example.

[Darg]

General thought:

If you're playing in an undead-heavy campaign, DMM is a problem regardless of what metamagic you took. It's competing for a valuable resource. It's still potentially worth it, but the opportunity cost is higher. In a game where undead are less common (standard rarity or less), that opportunity cost vanishes. If your DM allows something close to RAW but doesn't allow nightstick stacking, you can get a couple good Quickens or Twins or Persists each day for very little investment. Persist having Extend Spell as a feat tax isn't an issue, because Extend is a pretty good metamagic for most casters. If your DM adds a houserule where you can't use DMM to mimic a spell you couldn't cast without it, then DMM becomes decent-to-bad depending on which feat you went with. Is getting a persisted 1st lvl spell at 13th lvl for just a lvl 1 slot a balance issue? Even if it's lesser vigor, the answer is "not really". It's neat? But far from a problem. In such a game, DMM's main upside becomes the ability to spontaneously apply metamagic without spell level increase; you can probably see the potential value in being able to spontaneously make a few spells Still each day, for example.

It also competes with the domain spontaneity feat from CD if you have good domain spells you'd like to be able to cast more often.

[Biggus]

There should honestly be a fallacy about the inverse to be honest, something like the RAW fallacy. "This interpretation and application of the rules is fine, because it's RAW, despite the likelihood of anyone ever accepting it to a table being close to nil", because it's such a common trope in this subforum specifically

Well said sir. People who argue that ultra-literal interpretations of RAW which lead to brokenly powerful abilities no DM I've ever played with would allow in an actual game are the correct way to read the rules make my hair hurt.

[RandomPeasant]

By the way, while the Cleric puts a 14 in Wisdom, it's that many points not sunk into Str/Dex/Con as the Fighter just did. In the meantime, the Fighter buys a mount with his starting WBL, takes Mounted Combat and Spirited Charge as his bonus feat, and kills everything in one hit.

I mean you kill everything in one hit by having 18 STR and using a two-handed weapon at 1st level. Ubercharging is great in the long run, when HP starts scaling past the damage you can deal by just making attacks. But at 1st level your weapon is dealing die + stat and people's HP is die + stat. Life is cheap at 1st level.


Persist having Extend Spell as a feat tax isn't an issue, because Extend is a pretty good metamagic for most casters.

The feat tax is Persistent, not Extend. It is does literally nothing outside the combo until 11th level, and practically you are never going to use it outside the combo at any level. The book version of DMM (where you don't need to have the feat) is really good because it's one feat to start Persisting stuff. But with the errata you are getting an absolutely dead feat, even if you also get a pretty good one (and even there, it's not like Extend on its own is by any stretch the obviously-correct feat for a Cleric to take).


"It's not balanced, that's the DM's job" is not the Oberoni fallacy.

It is if you want to do anything with that. Like, what are we supposed to understand the statement "the DM can just balance out the literal strongest-possible and weakest-possible builds in the game" as other than a claim about balance in the system, at which point you have exactly the Oberoni Fallacy. "The DM can just do X" is exactly the thing the Oberoni Fallacy exists to counter, and the attempts to re-define it away from that are fairly transparent.


"This interpretation and application of the rules is fine, because it's RAW, despite the likelihood of anyone ever accepting it to a table being close to nil", because it's such a common trope in this subforum specifically

That's not a fallacy. That's just how interpreting rules works. Yes, I would like it if various things that are RAW were instead not RAW and replaced by things that were less dumb. But the fallacy is insisting that RAW must actually be the thing we think is workable, even when that thing requires bizarre readings of the text.


Well said sir. People who argue that ultra-literal interpretations of RAW which lead to brokenly powerful abilities no DM I've ever played with would allow in an actual game are the correct way to read the rules make my hair hurt.

Honestly it's much worse the other way. People come to some torturous interpretations of the rules in an effort to claim that plainly-broken things aren't broken. The rules have to be the rules even when the rules are dumb, because most of the rules aren't dumb, and making the business of interpreting rules into a legalistic nightmare makes all the rules that are fine a pain to deal with.

[Crake]

It is if you want to do anything with that. Like, what are we supposed to understand the statement "the DM can just balance out the literal strongest-possible and weakest-possible builds in the game" as other than a claim about balance in the system, at which point you have exactly the Oberoni Fallacy. "The DM can just do X" is exactly the thing the Oberoni Fallacy exists to counter, and the attempts to re-define it away from that are fairly transparent.

Thats not true at all, you’re trying to broaden the definition of the fallacy. “The DM can just do X, therefore the system is balanced” is the fallacy. Saying “The system is broken, but the DM can just do X to make the system playable” is NOT the oberoni fallacy. It is a LOGICAL fallacy, not a practical application fallacy. You dont need to DO anything with it.

The oberoni fallacy exists in discussions about whether the system is fine as is, as soon as you accept that it is not, you no longer are adhering to the fallacy.


That's not a fallacy. That's just how interpreting rules works. Yes, I would like it if various things that are RAW were instead not RAW and replaced by things that were less dumb. But the fallacy is insisting that RAW must actually be the thing we think is workable, even when that thing requires bizarre readings of the text.

It is a fallacy when its brought up as “this is RAW, so it must be acceptable”, which it oh so frequently is. Arguments abound about “is this broken thing actually RAW?”. The argument should be irrelevant if the actual RAW is never something any sensible table would play.

[pabelfly]

It is if you want to do anything with that. Like, what are we supposed to understand the statement "the DM can just balance out the literal strongest-possible and weakest-possible builds in the game" as other than a claim about balance in the system, at which point you have exactly the Oberoni Fallacy. "The DM can just do X" is exactly the thing the Oberoni Fallacy exists to counter, and the attempts to re-define it away from that are fairly transparent.

The Oberoni Fallacy is "there is no problem with the rules because the DM can fix it."

I never once said that there wasn't a problem. I simply said balance was something a DM can fix should the players be unable to.

As for what to do with that information... once we identify balance problems in a game, a DM has all sorts of options to to fix the problem, and should feel free to utilize whatever tools they want to do so. We're not obliged to endure them simply because the characters involved are legally built according to the rules.

[RandomPeasant]

“The DM can just do X, therefore the system is balanced” is the fallacy. Saying “The system is broken, but the DM can just do X to make the system playable” is NOT the oberoni fallacy.

Saying "it doesn't matter that the Cleric is objectively more powerful than the Fighter, the DM will rubber-band them back to the same level of relative performance" is the claim that was originally made, and that is exactly the Oberoni Fallacy. I suppose you can retreat to "we just said the system was balanced in practice, not that the system is actually balanced", but that's a semantic argument and we both know it.


It is a fallacy when its brought up as “this is RAW, so it must be acceptable”, which it oh so frequently is. Arguments abound about “is this broken thing actually RAW?”. The argument should be irrelevant if the actual RAW is never something any sensible table would play.

I just have no idea what discussions you think are happening, because "if we just assume that 'the creature might later seek revenge' means 'you will be immediately murdered by Orcus', planar binding isn't broken" is about a thousand times more common than "you have to let me planar binding a Kelvezu at 11th level because it's RAW". The problem is precisely that people are unwilling to actually acknowledge and internalize "RAW is broken", not that people are insisting they be allowed to do drown healing.

[Crake]

Saying "it doesn't matter that the Cleric is objectively more powerful than the Fighter, the DM will rubber-band them back to the same level of relative performance" is the claim that was originally made, and that is exactly the Oberoni Fallacy. I suppose you can retreat to "we just said the system was balanced in practice, not that the system is actually balanced", but that's a semantic argument and we both know it.

Thats objectively NOT the oberoni fallacy. Acknowledging the reality of what will occur in the event a player ignores the implicit gentleman’s agreement of a table is not an adherance to the oberoni fallacy.


I just have no idea what discussions you think are happening, because "if we just assume that 'the creature might later seek revenge' means 'you will be immediately murdered by Orcus', planar binding isn't broken" is about a thousand times more common than "you have to let me planar binding a Kelvezu at 11th level because it's RAW". The problem is precisely that people are unwilling to actually acknowledge and internalize "RAW is broken", not that people are insisting they be allowed to do drown healing.

This isn’t even close to what im talking about.

[JNAProductions]

Saying "it doesn't matter that the Cleric is objectively more powerful than the Fighter, the DM will rubber-band them back to the same level of relative performance" is the claim that was originally made, and that is exactly the Oberoni Fallacy. I suppose you can retreat to "we just said the system was balanced in practice, not that the system is actually balanced", but that's a semantic argument and we both know it.

I just have no idea what discussions you think are happening, because "if we just assume that 'the creature might later seek revenge' means 'you will be immediately murdered by Orcus', planar binding isn't broken" is about a thousand times more common than "you have to let me planar binding a Kelvezu at 11th level because it's RAW". The problem is precisely that people are unwilling to actually acknowledge and internalize "RAW is broken", not that people are insisting they be allowed to do drown healing.

There is a difference between "The Cleric is built well and can fight as well as the Fighter," which is a difficult issue to fix-do you buff the Fighter? nerf the Cleric? both? by how much? what's the best mechanism to do so?
And "One PC is Pun-Pun, the other is a Commoner with 3s across the board," which is really easy to fix. Tell both players "Bring a PC that can contribute to the adventure in a reasonable way." If the players refuse to do so... That's a problem that rules won't solve.

Like, there's legitimate problems with 3.5. Even following Rules As Played, a Monk sucks. They might have proficiency in their unarmed strikes, but forget about being subpar compared to other PCs, they can't keep up with the monsters they're expected to fight. THAT is an issue. But Pun-Pun is not.

[pabelfly]

Saying "it doesn't matter that the Cleric is objectively more powerful than the Fighter, the DM will rubber-band them back to the same level of relative performance" is the claim that was originally made, and that is exactly the Oberoni Fallacy. I suppose you can retreat to "we just said the system was balanced in practice, not that the system is actually balanced", but that's a semantic argument and we both know it.

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I'll try to restate my argument.

Theoretically, Cleric is better than the Fighter.

At an actual game table, the Cleric's player and the Fighter's player should find means to make and play their characters so they both feel like they meaningfully contribute to the party. If players are unable to do this, the DM will find ways to create some semblance of balance so both feel like they meaningfully contribute to the party.

Knowing that Cleric is better than Fighter helps the Cleric and Fighter know how much they should optimize their characters, and helps the DM understand why there are differences in performance of the two characters. It shouldn't influence what classes each player chooses to play, because the players and/or DM ensure everyone is able to contribute to the success of the party.

[Chronos]

When I made a DMM cleric, I didn't have access to nightsticks, and I took Extra Turning twice. All told, I ended up with 14 Turn Undead uses per day, enough to persist two spells. I chose Divine Power and Righteous Wrath of the Faithful. I also persisted Divine Favor, the old-fashioned way (by using a 7th-level slot on it). I also had, as all-day buffs (from a naturally-long duration) Status, Crown of Smiting, Magic Vestment (on myself and party members), Greater Magic Weapon, Undead Bane Weapon, Stalwart Pact (on all party members), Superior Resistance, and Wind Walk (on all party members). That still left me with a couple of feats (which, frankly, I wasted, for flavor reasons), and plenty of other spells to cast during the day if needed.

It's possible to turn the power level up much higher than I did. But my character was already plenty powerful.

[Bucky]

An ECL20 character that can effectively persist all desired spells is 'tier 0' (i.e. game breaking).

At ECL20 with decent practical optimization, tier 1 characters break the game. DMM Persist limited mainly by total spell slots fits in but isn't necessarily even the most powerful part of the cleric's build.

[Telok]

Had a DMM elf cleric once. One nightstick, one extra turning, extend but not persist, reach spell, multishot, craft wand, +1 collision bow, and the elf domain. Elf domain gave divine True Strike, wanded & wand chambered on the bow with extended magic weapon to up the +s. Yeah, still needed to drop the rounds/level buff at the start of combat and only shot every other round because I wasn't looking to out-fighter the fighter. But a decent archer of the 'one big hit' school, reach spell Revenance & Revivify & Heal, and a pile of lesser vigor wands.

[Anthrowhale]

At ECL20 with decent practical optimization, tier 1 characters break the game. DMM Persist limited mainly by total spell slots fits in but isn't necessarily even the most powerful part of the cleric's build.

I generally agree that there are multiple ways to break the game, with persistomancy being one of them.

[Crake]

I generally agree that there are multiple ways to break the game, with persistomancy being one of them.

The tier list measures your ability to solve problems, not your power. You can have tier 4 characters that one shot enemies and "break the game", being able to persist a bunch of buffs for convenience doesn't up your tier, as it doesn't really increase your ability to problem solve. There are no problems that were previously not within your realm to manage without persisting your spells, that are now suddenly within your capability to overcome.

[Anthrowhale]

There are no problems that were previously not within your realm to manage without persisting your spells, that are now suddenly within your capability to overcome.
I definitely disagree here. When you have massive AC/Save/Attack/Damage/Immunities/etc... from 50+ persisted spells, you can solve many more problems in practice. Some quantification of that is here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?188138-Team-Solars-(Archiving)).

[Crake]

I definitely disagree here. When you have massive AC/Save/Attack/Damage/Immunities/etc... from 50+ persisted spells, you can solve many more problems in practice. Some quantification of that is here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?188138-Team-Solars-(Archiving)).

right, but the majority of what is accomplished there is doable without persistomancy, having it persisted is merely a convenience, not a requirement to the application of the problem solving.

[Anthrowhale]

right, but the majority of what is accomplished there is doable without persistomancy, having it persisted is merely a convenience, not a requirement to the application of the problem solving.

I sort of agree with this. If you knew precisely what the challenge was, you could cast the spells just before the encounter and have everything lined up to a similar relevant effect. The limits here are:

You typically have imperfect knowledge of coming encounters.
Some of the 1 round spells--wraithstrike, suffer the flesh, etc... are very good when persisted and could not be precast.
Persistent spells are easy on the slots, so you can afford to have many encounters/day.

[Chronos]

Eh, rare is the encounter, even a non-combat encounter, where you'll have the luxury to cast multiple buffs before you start directly addressing the challenge. There just isn't enough time. Whereas, if your buffs last all day, you probably can spend a half-hour at the start of the day casting all of them, and then you never need to spend the time to cast them again.

[Crake]

I sort of agree with this. If you knew precisely what the challenge was, you could cast the spells just before the encounter and have everything lined up to a similar relevant effect. The limits here are:

You typically have imperfect knowledge of coming encounters.
Some of the 1 round spells--wraithstrike, suffer the flesh, etc... are very good when persisted and could not be precast.
Persistent spells are easy on the slots, so you can afford to have many encounters/day.



Eh, rare is the encounter, even a non-combat encounter, where you'll have the luxury to cast multiple buffs before you start directly addressing the challenge. There just isn't enough time. Whereas, if your buffs last all day, you probably can spend a half-hour at the start of the day casting all of them, and then you never need to spend the time to cast them again.

Right, but those spells aren't tier 1 spells. Something like wraithstrike isn't a solution to a problem, it's a convenience. Remember, not all problems are combat, and being better at one thing (combat) is tier 4, even if you're INSANELY good at combat, that is the fighter dilemma after all. Honestly, the biggest persisted spell on their roster is shapechange alone, which lasts 10 minutes/level, or 170 minutes by the time it becomes available, which is more than enough time for the majority of the day's activities. If you merely EXTENDED shapechange, with DMM, rather than persisting it, you'd probably be just as well off in 99% of circumstances.

[Troacctid]

The tier list measures your ability to solve problems, not your power. You can have tier 4 characters that one shot enemies and "break the game", being able to persist a bunch of buffs for convenience doesn't up your tier, as it doesn't really increase your ability to problem solve. There are no problems that were previously not within your realm to manage without persisting your spells, that are now suddenly within your capability to overcome.
No, the tier list absolutely measures your power, being able to One Punch Man encounters consistently will absolutely raise your tier, and action economy is kind of important actually.

Cleric is an S-tier caster without persistomancy, so it is technically true that persistomancy doesn't increase the class's tier, if only because there's no room for it to go any higher. But let's not pretend like "solving problems" and "power" are somehow two functionally different things in a game that ultimately only really consists of three things: problem-solving, bookkeeping, and amateur improv theater.


Right, but those spells aren't tier 1 spells.
"Tier 1 spells" aren't really a thing. Every top-tier caster is top-tier because of their spell list in aggregate, not because of specific spells.


Something like wraithstrike isn't a solution to a problem, it's a convenience. Remember, not all problems are combat, and being better at one thing (combat) is tier 4, even if you're INSANELY good at combat, that is the fighter dilemma after all.
Combat is, like, more than half the problems in the entire game. And it can be subdivided into at least half a dozen different types of problem that all call for different solutions. It's disingenuous to treat the entire theater of combat as a single problem and weight it the same as e.g. tracking.


Honestly, the biggest persisted spell on their roster is shapechange alone, which lasts 10 minutes/level, or 170 minutes by the time it becomes available, which is more than enough time for the majority of the day's activities. If you merely EXTENDED shapechange, with DMM, rather than persisting it, you'd probably be just as well off in 99% of circumstances.
9th-level spells barely even count towards a class's tier ranking at all, Crake. I promise you, a 9th-level spell that's already OP on its own is not the biggest persisted spell on the cleric's roster.

[Crake]

Combat is, like, more than half the problems in the entire game. And it can be subdivided into at least half a dozen different types of problem that all call for different solutions. It's disingenuous to treat the entire theater of combat as a single problem and weight it the same as e.g. tracking

Right, but there's a reason why uberchargers are still stuck at tier 4 regardless of being able to one shot boss encounters.

[Troacctid]

Right, but there's a reason why uberchargers are still stuck at tier 4 regardless of being able to one shot boss encounters.
Right. Because the tier lists for classes are based on a weighted average of a multitude of possible builds and optimization levels, rather than being dictated by the outlier builds that are disproportionately stronger than what we expect from a typical specimen of the class; and because ubercharger builds tend to be min-maxed for specific types of combat encounters in ways that leave them with easily exploitable unfavorable matchups that their basic class abilities are poorly equipped to hedge against.

[Darg]

Right. Because the tier lists for classes are based on a weighted average of a multitude of possible builds and optimization levels, rather than being dictated by the outlier builds that are disproportionately stronger than what we expect from a typical specimen of the class; and because ubercharger builds tend to be min-maxed for specific types of combat encounters in ways that leave them with easily exploitable unfavorable matchups that their basic class abilities are poorly equipped to hedge against.

Like terrain, cover, flight maneuverability, other obstacles, etc. That's not even including all the ways magic can just leave them neutered or readied/delay actions that can devastate them while they have basically no AC. Ubercharging is just a gimmick and requires a DM that does not really change the tactical landscape beyond flat land with no obstacles.

[Troacctid]

Like terrain, cover, flight maneuverability, other obstacles, etc. That's not even including all the ways magic can just leave them neutered or readied/delay actions that can devastate them while they have basically no AC. Ubercharging is just a gimmick and requires a DM that does not really change the tactical landscape beyond flat land with no obstacles.
You can optimize your way out of those obvious weaknesses to some extent, of course, if you're willing to spend additional build resources to do so, but yes, the lack of native answers to really basic combat encounter variations like "What if three dimensions?" and "What if multiple enemies?" is a big problem for the C and D tiers of uberchargers, and a big reason why other, more flexible combat classes like the warmage, duskblade, and crusader are higher tier than the barbarian.

[Darg]

I just like bashing on uberchargers because it's just a constant suggestion for players, regardless of the class they play.

[Crake]

Right. Because the tier lists for classes are based on a weighted average of a multitude of possible builds and optimization levels, rather than being dictated by the outlier builds that are disproportionately stronger than what we expect from a typical specimen of the class; and because ubercharger builds tend to be min-maxed for specific types of combat encounters in ways that leave them with easily exploitable unfavorable matchups that their basic class abilities are poorly equipped to hedge against.

Just replace ubercharger with 1d2 crusader then, in either case, one shotting enemies does not raise your tier, because being good at exactly one thing, combat, is tier 3 at best. The power of t2 and t1 is their prowess for things beyond combat, in addition to being proficient at combat. Being slightly better at combat due to having a bunch of persisted spells does not increase your tier level.

[Chronos]

Except that combat isn't "exactly one thing". It's over half of the encounters in a typical game, and being infinitely good at it (like the d2 crusader) spills over into options even in other encounters (See that guy over there? The guy who killed a great wyrm in one hit? You don't want to be on his bad side. There, social encounter solved.). If nothing else, having one guy who can completely solve all of the combat encounters massively frees up the build resources of everyone else to be even better at all of the other sorts of encounters: How many combat spells does a spellcaster typically prepare each day?

[Darg]

Being slightly better at combat due to having a bunch of persisted spells does not increase your tier level.

Just because it's the main thing people focus on, doesn't mean that persistomancy doesn't have extremely useful out of combat utility and problem solving capability. In fact there a lot of spells that can even apply to both in combat and out of combat situations that can pretty much break the game should a player get their hands on a persisted version of it. An even smaller number of these spells give you a lot of flexibility to choose the benefits at will even after the spell is cast.

[Troacctid]

Just replace ubercharger with 1d2 crusader then, in either case, one shotting enemies does not raise your tier, because being good at exactly one thing, combat, is tier 3 at best.
Just a couple of posts ago you were saying it was tier 4 at best, weren't you?

The "combat actually consists of many things" point has already already been made. I'll add to it that the niche ranking system (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System) documents 7 different combat niches, 6 noncombat niches, and 4 additional niches that have applications both in and out of combat, which I personally think backs up my earlier assertion that combat is about half the game.


The power of t2 and t1 is their prowess for things beyond combat, in addition to being proficient at combat.
I think it's more accurate to say that the power of the top two tiers is that spellcasting is just generally really, really strong in this edition, since that's the actual common thread between all of those classes. There are plenty of lower-tier classes that are proficient at both combat and noncombat things.


Being slightly better at combat due to having a bunch of persisted spells does not increase your tier level.
All of the classes that are best at persisting a bunch of spells are already in S tier without it.

[Crake]

Just a couple of posts ago you were saying it was tier 4 at best, weren't you?

That was for an ubercharging fighter. Crusaders are tier 3 by nature of their maneuvers, and so it would remain tier 3

[Gnaeus]

Just replace ubercharger with 1d2 crusader then, in either case, one shotting enemies does not raise your tier, because being good at exactly one thing, combat, is tier 3 at best. The power of t2 and t1 is their prowess for things beyond combat, in addition to being proficient at combat. Being slightly better at combat due to having a bunch of persisted spells does not increase your tier level.

Thats not exactly true.

Bear in mind that the tier system assumes equivalent optimization. So a "normal" barbarian who just hits things is worse than a "normal" crusader who has more options is worse than a "normal" sorcerer who has different combat options and a bunch of other things. An ubercharger may be worse than a d2 crusader (same reasons) is worse than an optimized sorcerer with 2 dozen minions and I win buttons.

But the d2 crusader could well be on par with a less optimized sorcerer who picked decent spells but wasn't (ab)using planar binding or polymorph or other best in class spells. A 1 tier difference is pretty standard for difference in opti-fu. Or even the Ubercharger might be a good match for a badly built sorcerer (I just picked all my spells from Evocation school!). And whether you consider the D2 crusader or Ubercharger in those examples to be T2 or the sorcerer to be T3 or 4 would mostly depend on who was the outlier in terms of the average party optimization level.

It just so happens that every high tier character happens to be at least as good at combat and better at other stuff as long as their optimization levels are similar.

To put all that in another way almost all powers are interchangeable with WBL. If I have enough combat mojo that I can spend most of all of my WBL on out of combat stuff, I have out of combat utility. Now that assumes a fair bit of optimization and a magic mart. But usually by the time we are playing uberchargers we have passed that bar.