Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

[Rogue Shadows]

I don't know what Oberoni is. Unless it's related to A Midsummer Night's Dream.

[LordBlades]

I don't know what Oberoni is. Unless it's related to A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Oberoni fallacy is a fallacy along the lines of 'it's not broken because I can fix it' as far as I know.

[term1nally s1ck]

The Oberoni Fallacy is the fallacy that the rule stating that the DM can change the rules is a way to excuse flaws in the rules.

Just because the DM can say a druid cannot use X, Y, and Z, and we're going to be doing 6 encounters a day with interspersed time for social interaction in between each of them, does NOT make the fighter better than the druid in 3.5. It *might* make the fighter better in the specific campaign setting you are running, but that is not exemplary of 3.5.

[Fox Box Socks]

This is a textbook example of the Oberoni Fallacy:

"The DMM Cleric isn't that strong because the DM can just make sure he gets Greater Dispel Magic cast on him three times a day"

It's a fallacy because the second half of the sentence is contradicting the first half: if the DMM wasn't too strong to begin with, the DM wouldn't have to bombard the Cleric with Dispels.

It often gets combined with the Perfect Solution Fallacy, which in this case looks something like "Pff, Paladins aren't weak. What if a schizophrenic high-level Wizard teleports in and slaughters everyone that isn't a Paladin? Then everyone who isn't a Paladin dies!".

Short version? If the DM has to go out of his way to make sure the PC isn't dominating the game, that PC is too strong. And no, corner cases where the PC is at his weakest isn't enough to prove that the PC in question isn't all that strong.

[Kojiro]

Indeed, although some people seem to misinterpret it as being against "fixing" problems on your own. It's merely stating that, if you have to "fix" something, then it is a problem by the very fact that you are proposing fixing it.

Breakdown of fallacy as it would apply to this threat:

Spoiler

Show

-"I think that Clerics and Druids are balanced and that everyone else is overreacting," passes. It's arguable as to correctness, but that's not my point here.

-"I think that Clerics and Druids are too powerful," is also fine.

-"I think that Clerics and Druids are too powerful, so I houserule/ban/limit things/put them in situations set against them," passes; again, not commenting on whether or not it's a good solution, just on whether or not the fallacy applies.

-"I think that Clerics and Druids are not broken because I can take away their magic/Wildshaping/companion/whatever is broken," is not fine. If there were not a balance problem, then you would not need to fix it. That you do so contradicts your own statement and undermines your point entirely. This is specifically what the fallacy applies to (well actually it originally applied to whether or not rules were broken or inconsistent, but whatever); it's not whether or not things should be houseruled or limited, but that if you are doing so you cannot claim that there is no problem there when you yourself have taken efforts to fix that problem.

Alternatively, here's a link. Posting this mainly because people quoting/applying these fallacies (like the people who have the exact opposite of the meaning of the Stormwind fallacy in mind when they bring it up) bothers me... Although actually this thread seems to have it right so far. Not sure why I typed all that, in retrospect.

[dextercorvia]

I don't normally comment on this sort of thread, but I feel compelled to point out that ruling out divine metamagic isn't a houserule. Divine metamagic is an optional expansion rule, not core functionality, so ruling it out is the default case. Clerics doesn't have the ability to use divine metamagic unless the "house" stance specifically includes that expansion book and its associated rules. Your house might do so, but we can't objectively compare a class's ability to fill a role by using your houserules. :o)

There is such a thing as a core only discussion. This was never one. Once you are in the larger body of RAW, DMM is a perfectly legitimate option. As others have said, the Fighter is hampered much more by core only than any of the T1 spellcasters in the PHB.

Warning: Anecdotal Evidence ahead. I played a cleric in a core only game, starting at level 1. Somewhere around level 3, one of the party members asked OOC if I was playing a Cleric or a Paladin. Part of that was lack of system knowledge on his part (I had been healing before level 2). But, mostly it was rp'ing him as a Warrior of Light, and being our only tank since the Barbarian's player left after like the third encounter 1. We did perfectly well with Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. As a matter of fact, the amount of healing I had to do went down, because the Barbarian had needed so much constant patching.

[Kojiro]

I think that would be anecdotal evidence, technically, not empirical evidence. Could be wrong, admittedly, but I'm pretty sure.

[dextercorvia]

I think that would be anecdotal evidence, technically, not empirical evidence. Could be wrong, admittedly, but I'm pretty sure.

You are correct. I guess my brain is on summer vacation.

[MrRigger]

Well, that's not terrible. It is summer, after all. Summer vacation is allowed in this case.

MrRigger

[Grey Knight]

To reply in bulk to all those shouting me down with "but the cleric is still broken in core!"; I wasn't saying anything different to this. I was pointing out that not using expansion books which make it more broken isn't "only a house rule" but is actually the opposite.

If you would care to point to the passage in any 3.5 book where it says using any other 3.5 content is optional, except for the setting specific books, and UA, I'll be interested.

By default playing 3.5 includes all non-setting material published in 3.5.

Haha what? Are you serious. So my friends and I aren't "really" playing 3.5 because we haven't bought all the books. The reams upon reams of splatbooks are, as you say, not optional. Well I've learned something today at any rate.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't usually post in optimisation-related threads, I'll clear off now. We now return you to your regularly scheduled nerditry.

[term1nally s1ck]

No, you are. You just don't use all the options available to you in characters. Nothing says you *have* to use all the books available, but all the books are available to be used.

[dextercorvia]

To reply in bulk to all those shouting me down with "but the cleric is still broken in core!"; I wasn't saying anything different to this. I was pointing out that not using expansion books which make it more broken isn't "only a house rule" but is actually the opposite.

First of all, you'll notice that at least one of the threads I replied to was specifically talking about their house rules for DMM.

Secondly, as I said before, if the claim had been made that Fighter was better at frontlining in Core only, you would have a point. That person would probably still be wrong, but at least your argument would apply. But, in an internet discussion, of the advantages of one class over another, removing a couple of feats that give a perceived advantage to one of the classes, and then claiming that the other class is better, just reeks of fallacy.

It's like claiming that a Renault is faster than a Porsche because if you give the Renault a mile head start, it wins a 50 mile race. It is still wrong, but, even if it did win in such a situation, it wouldn't prove that it was faster, just that you were able to set up the course in such a way that it could win.

If you say that Fighter is better at melee than Cleric, because X is not available in my game, you are not making an objective statement about reality. That is what I was pointing out.

[Aquillion]

The Fighter is much weaker in core-only. No shock trooper + leap attack, no way to get pounce, etc. By comparison, most of the most broken spells in the game are in core.