Clerics as Wizards

We played a game last night and the cleric was a prevailing class amongst our group. On thing as a DM the cleric is way to powerful! Why would anyone play anything but a specialized cleric who gets wizard spells and can fight almost as well as a fighter.  Add to that the cantrip and the super class is complete. Anyone else think the cleric needs to be trimmed down more??

Use Dungeon Dice http://dice.ajb.bz 

Best Basic OSR Clone, SimpleDnD

We played a game last night and the cleric was a prevailing class amongst our group. On thing as a DM the cleric is way to powerful! Why would anyone play anything but a specialized cleric who gets wizard spells and can fight almost as well as a fighter.  Add to that the cantrip and the super class is complete. Anyone else think the cleric needs to be trimmed down more??


I think the wizard needs to be beefed up, not the cleric nerfed. 

Same goes for the fighter and ranger.  Maybe monk, haven't seen one yet in action.
To read about my playtest sessions click here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29995793/?sdb=1&pg=last#533677003


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

We played a game last night and the cleric was a prevailing class amongst our group. On thing as a DM the cleric is way to powerful! Why would anyone play anything but a specialized cleric who gets wizard spells and can fight almost as well as a fighter.  Add to that the cantrip and the super class is complete. Anyone else think the cleric needs to be trimmed down more??


If you play an arcanist cleric you lose armor proficiency and possibly weapn proficiency. And the cleric does not fight as well as a fighter at higher levels when the fighter can deal far more damage with deadly strike/ his probably highter STR. In fact, I ran a 14th level dungeon with two of my friends and they played a cleric and a fighter. The cleric felt useless because he had so few high level spells and the fighter was beating down on all the enemies.
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
The cleric has definitely set the bar for class design.

It is a very solid concept, and they are very effective at the table.

Danny

I completely disagree. The Cleric is the only class that is SO fleshed out. None of the other classes have as much depth or options as the cleric. In is completely inconsistant with the other classes. Why would anyone want to be wizard at all if a cleric has some wizard stuff (cantrops) and can wear armor and have more hit points. 

Use Dungeon Dice http://dice.ajb.bz 

Best Basic OSR Clone, SimpleDnD

An arcanist cleric has no armor proficiency (unless you are a dwarf) and only simple weapons. They have 1 wizard spell for spell levels 1-5 and the rest are cleric spells. You have fewer spells per day, but you get channel divinity which makes your spells either harder to resist or allow you to cast your 1st or 2nd level wizard spell. You are also considerably better at fighting with weapons than a wizard. I think if you want to play a wizard character the arcanist cleric is not the best choice as while there are some benefits, you lose versatility and utility with your spells, also don't downplay the ability for the wizard to cast rituals that he has not prepared if they are in his spellbook.
I completely disagree. The Cleric is the only class that is SO fleshed out. None of the other classes have as much depth or options as the cleric. In is completely inconsistant with the other classes. Why would anyone want to be wizard at all if a cleric has some wizard stuff (cantrops) and can wear armor and have more hit points. 



You're right, it is the only class that is fleshed out as much as it is, that just says that the other classes are not complete yet. The Cleric as it stands now is the only complete class in my eyes, all the others need fixing with regards to class mechanics and features.
I completely disagree. The Cleric is the only class that is SO fleshed out. None of the other classes have as much depth or options as the cleric. In is completely inconsistant with the other classes. Why would anyone want to be wizard at all if a cleric has some wizard stuff (cantrops) and can wear armor and have more hit points. 



You're right, it is the only class that is fleshed out as much as it is, that just says that the other classes are not complete yet. The Cleric as it stands now is the only complete class in my eyes, all the others need fixing with regards to class mechanics and features.



The cleric has lots of options because it is recreating the diversity of the second edition Specialty priest. More than any other class, the cleric gets options because people expect priests of distinct gods to be distinct. They need to show that the cleric works as the arcanist and trickster types for the cloth-caster type cleric, and the heavily armored warpriest type.

Frankly, I'd like to see the combat/magic focus taken out of the deities and made a distinct choice for clerics: I can imagine a priest of the protector deity as the crusader/templar type (with a combat bonus like +1 with weapon attacks and heavy armor), or the cloistered/theurge type (spellcasting or channel divinity bonus).
It would be nice if there was a paladin option for each diety, and you could either be the paladin for that deity, with less spells and more weapon damage, or be the cleric, with more spells and less weapon damage.
@Egamma, it would be really easy to houserule that. Oaths grant Domain spells, Channel Divinity, and Mount. Dieties grant Domain spells, Channel Divinity, Cantrips, and an extra ability. Take a Diety's domain spells and CD (removing scaling at level 11 because it doesn't scale for Paladins) and give to the Paladin. Pali's don't use cantrips and all they would need is a mount.
Ok if the cleric is to diverse, then why do we have the Druid, Ranger and the Paladin classes? Cleric should be greatly simplified - if you want specific types of clerics then new classes should be formed - not the swiss army knife approach, as a DM it makes it really hard to have all of these random powers, and as a player you can take hours and hours to setup a character. 

Paladin = Templar

Ranger =  Natural Magic (emphasis on fighting)

Druid = Natural Magic (emphasis on magic)

Use Dungeon Dice http://dice.ajb.bz 

Best Basic OSR Clone, SimpleDnD

I completely disagree. First, how does adding more classes simplify character creation? Then I just have to read that many more class descriptions, rather than options for a cleric. Second, being a cleric says something more about your character than simply what spells or abilities you cast. A druid is not just a cleric that casts natury spells. A druid is a protector of the woods and a friend of woodland creature. You can be a cleric of a nature god with a totally different take - such as wanting to create gardens or cultivate green space within a city. I think you're focusing too much on the mechanics of clerics and not enough on the role they play in the game. A cleric of war should not play the same as a cleric of healing, and the rules as they are reflect that very well.
@WhyIdDM Your point is well taken, but it is not being applied to all of the classes evenly. The Cleric has all these options that no other class even comes close to. There are already 3 classes with cleric spells - why is the cleric a superclass unto itself? I say simplified the cleric to keep the consistancy with the other classes.

Use Dungeon Dice http://dice.ajb.bz 

Best Basic OSR Clone, SimpleDnD

Cleric is indeed the most powerful class in D&D 3E e in the D&D next (so far). But I don't see the cleric as much more powerful than the druid. And besides, players should choose to play with classes that they like most, not for advantages - personaly I hate to play cleric. Btw, druid, cleric, ranger and paladin are completly different classes. I say that it's good as it is now, although WoTC could improve the other classes, like fighter or rogue.
And when you try to balance all the classes at all cost, you could (in my opinion) make the same mistake made in 4th, system that every class feels the same - again: in my opinion, don't hate me 4th fans!
@gabriel - that's why its key to no give any classes access to all abilities. In 2e, cleric where restricted to types of spells, armor and weapons. Fighter where unlimited with fighting, wizards were also limited with spells and equipment. Without a mechanic for adjusting leveling (i.e.: separate experience requirements per class) why would anyone play anything but a cleric - you get the hand-to-hand of a fighter, the spells of a cleric, plus the cantrops of a wizard.

Use Dungeon Dice http://dice.ajb.bz 

Best Basic OSR Clone, SimpleDnD

@gabriel - that's why its key to no give any classes access to all abilities. In 2e, cleric where restricted to types of spells, armor and weapons. Fighter where unlimited with fighting, wizards were also limited with spells and equipment. Without a mechanic for adjusting leveling (i.e.: separate experience requirements per class) why would anyone play anything but a cleric - you get the hand-to-hand of a fighter, the spells of a cleric, plus the cantrops of a wizard.

I see your point. However, I think that WoTC should change other classes to balance with cleric, not the other way around. I really don't like to play cleric, but I really don't see a problem if the cleric is a *little* more powerful than other classes - the cleric and the druid as it is now. Maybe, the wizard/sorcerer should have more spell avaliable per day, and the fighter more class features. In another words: I like the cleric the way it is now. But that is my opinion, of course. You see, there's beauty in assimetry.
Well the "Arcanist" Cleric has been removed...so guess I'll never play a Cleric now but of course the OP is happy that its gone cause you know unique characters are bad.
Arcanist clerics never made sense to me, to be honest.    You worship a god of magic.... but don't do anything dealing with the Arcane; you channel someone else's power?    How does that even work?


Anyways, the cleric, as written is pretty broad and can fit every single magical archetype out there.   Which can make other classes feel redundant.   Dark shadow caster?  Black night?  Evil cleric, either pure caster or war varient.   Studious arcanist?   Arcana Cleric.    Someone who's made a pact with devils for power?  Again, cleric.   Shapeshiftery nature worshiper who summons animals?  Nature cleric with summons and polymorph spells.


As a class, the cleric is simply all over the place with its concepts.   Its not just a god's clergy.  It really does need to have a tighter focus.   And that's not touching the mechanics.   I'm just talking about the design space - when it includes wizards, warlocks, druids, and paladins and makes them redundant...  Or, worse, leaves classes and concepts floundering. 


If it does that, then, yes, it is an issue.  When the class concept can be defined as "I can be anything that involves magic," we have issues.   
@Egamma - I love your idea about having a paladin defined for each god. One might take it further by defining the entire clergical heirachy for a god. That, however, would best be served by specific supplements. On the other hand, DM guidelines for how to define one might be in scope.
-------------------- D&D Player/DM since 1975 - Veteran of Chainmail, AD&D, 2e, v3.5, DnD4e and now Next.
Sign In to post comments