Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

[Amphetryon]

My main issue with this argument is that it implies that both scenarios are equally possible; a DM cannot fly in the air and breath fire on someone, but they can act out the part of the dragon/prince verbally. If it were physically possible to be a D&D classed person, why would we play D&D?

I would tend to agree.

[tiercel]

If this is going to devolve into a "beatsticks suck compared to full casters" discussion, it does bear mentioning that there is some level dependence; most campaigns I've played in start at low level, even level 1.

Full casters' OMG I WINZ0R FOREVER status doesn't just start instantly; they can't self-buff every defense they could want at will at low-to-mid levels. Heck, druids stand out from other full casters at level 1 just because of the animal companion.

I'm not pretending that non-casters don't fall further and further behind, but it does take some time before casters are polymorphed flying invisible mirror imaged displaced wind walled for four encounters a day while having plenty of spell slots left over for dealing T0T4L PWNAGE. (And even then, if a DM always is giving an arbitrary number of rounds of prep time before every fight, he's just further favoring the Already Almighty Casters.)

And you don't have to resort to Oberoni to simply NOT interpret every possible rule in the most favorable way for casters (e.g. if RAW doesn't explicitly say how feats for advancing animal companions get chosen, it doesn't mean the DM has to allow the player to weasel in, say, Martial Stance and Vow of Poverty).

[Engine]

I'm not pretending that non-casters don't fall further and further behind, but it does take some time before casters are polymorphed flying invisible mirror imaged displaced wind walled for four encounters a day while having plenty of spell slots left over for dealing T0T4L PWNAGE. (And even then, if a DM always is giving an arbitrary number of rounds of prep time before every fight, he's just further favoring the Already Almighty Casters.)

You know what?
I never played a caster that way: mostly because I never played a high level caster. But it doens't matters: low level monsters doesn't need that level of protection. At first level you could have few spell slots, but a single Entangle or Sleep do the job.

And you don't have to resort to Oberoni to simply NOT interpret every possible rule in the most favorable way for casters (e.g. if RAW doesn't explicitly say how feats for advancing animal companions get chosen, it doesn't mean the DM has to allow the player to weasel in, say, Martial Stance and Vow of Poverty).

Yeah, but you know another thing?
I had a lot of DMs. 3\4 of them were totally ok with almost everything casters did, but they were picky with feats for martial characters. Not mentioning that they outright banned ToB.
I even had a DM who thought that more Smite Evil per day were overpowered and I really should use the 3.0 version of the Paladin.

Casters are good, really good. I have no problem with that. But a lot of people doesn't acknowledge that.

[Kaeso]

Once more you are blind apparently to a party working as a group - the bad guy is flying so cast fly on the Fighter and he can come up and join the battle.

Au contraire, I'm aware of the fact that a party, working as a group, has to make sure they expend the least ammount of resources to make sure they can survive. To fight a BBEG that can cast fly, a fighter demands that the wizard casts fly on him, accompanied by some other buffs, just to make the fighter halfway decent. Meanwhile, a cleric provides his own means of flight (eighter through animal devotion or air walk) which saves the wizard one spell slot which he can use to prepare a more efficient spell, perhaps another buff for the cleric or a nice lockdown spell. Hp is another very valuable resource, and a cleric provides a means to recover said resource, unlike the fighter. While I understand your sentiments about the 'classic' adventuring group, it's a sad fact that WotC proved incompetent when it comes to making a game balanced. I would fully agree with you if CoDzilla wasn't a better fighter than the fighter himself.

It's a sad fact that the fighter is only moderately useful in combat, and completely useless outside of combat (which is one of the reasons I'm fond of ToB. Warblades, like the real knights of old, are skilled in diplomacy, while they also provide a more detailled and effective combat system. No longer is combat about mindlessly bashing your opponents face in, but assuming a certain stance and using a variety of strikes of multiple disciplines).

Also, I'd like to say this to your 'rule' that disregards social skills. First of all, imagine that you're playing a game of DnD with a shy, timid boy that dreams of being the cool, charming guy with a silver tongue that everybody likes. Are you going to rob him of his fun, purely because he's not a great orator in real life? The player and PC are two different entities, the players (lack of) social skills shoud not be projected onto his PC (unless he lets his PC do really stupid things like running around naked through the King's palace and smacking the Queen on her perfectly formed backside..... however, with a high enough diplomacy roll ). Second of all, your houserule makes a whole set of skills perfectly useless, robbing classes like the bard of one of their greatest assets. Investing in a seemingly good skill like bluff becomes a trap. Finally, if you don't allow social skills in your games, do you allow social spells such as charm person, dominate etc.? If you do, you're actually making non-casters even more redundant than they already are.

If this is going to devolve into a "beatsticks suck compared to full casters" discussion, it does bear mentioning that there is some level dependence; most campaigns I've played in start at low level, even level 1.

Full casters' OMG I WINZ0R FOREVER status doesn't just start instantly; they can't self-buff every defense they could want at will at low-to-mid levels. Heck, druids stand out from other full casters at level 1 just because of the animal companion.

You make a good point, but I believe this only applies to the wizard. Sure, he can cast a devestating spell or two, but after that it's just plinking around with your crossbow and hoping the beatsticks can keep you out of danger.

The druid however has, as you just stated, his animal companion that's roughly equal to a fighter. He can also wear hide armor, use a falchion and has moderate BAB. At level one, this means the difference between his attack roll and that of a fighter is marginal (before calculating STR scores). Let's not forget that even at level 1 the druid has a handful of potent spells, which can still be exchanged for summons. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a summoned meatshield can be a lifesaver.

The cleric is almost the same story: he has the ability to wear full plate from the very start (unless it's a cloistered cleric), moderate BAB, proficiency with all simple weapons (and proficiency + weapon focus in a single martial weapon with the war domain) and a cleric also has a handfull of potent spells at level 1, which can be exchanged for cure spells. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a well timed cure light wounds spell can mean the difference between a glorious victory or bitter defeat.

So in conclusion, at level 1 fighter vs CoDzilla means good meatshield vs decent meatshield that can also cast spells to summon and/or cure wounds. The only one who's disproportionally disadvantaged at those levels is the wizard.

Really? Because I'm looking a druid with an AC so sucky it's going to take forever and a day to heal him, and a group of mooks each of whom have taken token damage and have 1 neg level each. Which at a level at which you can cast multiple 3rd level spells at every encounter is going to do the square root of sod all.

Oh well, let's go on to the next fight.

Wizard: I can't, we have to rest now.

Fighter: already?

Wizard: Sure. I've spent all my spell slots trying to cover every possible contingency. After 2-3 encounters, I'm just not sure if I can contribute to the next fight or not.

fighter: Hang on... You don't sound like a terrbily viable character in all.. Are... are you... are you just a theoretical build?

I'm probably laying it on a bit thick. I've seen all caster parties work. But they do have problems, and in my experience balanced works better.

You make a good point, but it does make one wonder how many hit points a fighter has left after 2-3 encounters, and if he can survive a fourth encounter without the support of casters. Let's also not forget that a spell-less cleric (even without DMM: persist shenenigans) and druid (even without wildshape) are still halfway decent combatants. Maybe not as good as a fighter, but still decent enough.

Nope. Not overstating at all. With spellcasters in the party, you have absolutely no need for frontliners.

Fighter: Need me to stand in front of you while you cast spells so you don't get grokked?

Wizard: Nah. Fly.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to fly in front of you so you don't get grokked by a mook with a bow?

Wizard: Nah. Mirror Image.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to charge the mooks and deal some damage?

Wizard: Fell Drain Magic Missile. Nah. Druid cleaned up the BBEG during the two rounds it took me to cast those spells. I just nailed the group of mooks with that spell I just said out loud.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to go make dinner or something?

Wizard: Nah. Cleric's got that covered, and the Bard is Prestidigitation'ing some flavor into the food. Plus, you don't really have the skills to spare for Craft: Cooking, do you?

Fighter: Oh. Damn.

Frontliners = useless. I'm currently playing a Cleric who is frontlining for a party consisting of a Paladin, a Knight, and a Rogue. I'm not wearing heavy armor. Or any armor, actually. DMM suits me just fine.

You're being too harsh on the fighter, he can still be useful.
He can carry the party's phat lewt

[Fox Box Socks]

The wizard is being a jerk - the fighter would best find a group with better players.

So, you're admitting that the wizard outclasses the fighter, and the only thing that prevents him from doing so is the social contract. Gotcha.

[Togo]

Au contraire, I'm aware of the fact that a party, working as a group, has to make sure they expend the least ammount of resources to make sure they can survive. To fight a BBEG that can cast fly, a fighter demands that the wizard casts fly on him, accompanied by some other buffs, just to make the fighter halfway decent.

Hm.. You're appealing to emotion with the demands, but it doesn't wash. Whomever ends up flying is the recipient of the same spell. The problem is not that a fighter needs fly, whoever flies up needs fly. The problem is merely that fly is not something the fighter provides.

So the problem is that the fighter doesn't get fly spells, unless he gets potions or an item. Is there some pressing reason why everyone has to bring their own?

I would fully agree with you if CoDzilla wasn't a better fighter than the fighter himself.

I don't think he is. He's better on occasion, but in the long run he's inferior.

It's a sad fact that the fighter is only moderately useful in combat, and completely useless outside of combat (which is one of the reasons I'm fond of ToB. Warblades, like the real knights of old, are skilled in diplomacy, while they also provide a more detailled and effective combat system. No longer is combat about mindlessly bashing your opponents face in, but assuming a certain stance and using a variety of strikes of multiple disciplines).

It's why I like marhsals, rangers, and generally go for a prestige class. I agree with you that figher is a badly designed class. I just disagree that there is no advantage to having a front-liner in the party.

You make a good point, but I believe this only applies to the wizard. Sure, he can cast a devestating spell or two, but after that it's just plinking around with your crossbow and hoping the beatsticks can keep you out of danger.

The druid however has, as you just stated, his animal companion that's roughly equal to a fighter. He can also wear hide armor, use a falchion and has moderate BAB. At level one, this means the difference between his attack roll and that of a fighter is marginal (before calculating STR scores).

I've played one, and strength makes that difference. Unless you're all using 40 pt buy, or never intending to get above 4th level, strength is likely to be one of your last choices for a druid. Wildshape, and the need for wis and con, makes str a third choice at best.

Let's not forget that even at level 1 the druid has a handful of potent spells, which can still be exchanged for summons. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a summoned meatshield can be a lifesaver.

No, at 1st level, a summoned meatshield is a waste of time. It takes a round to appear, attacks once, maybe gets an attack of opportunity, and then vanishes. I'm all for creative use of summoning, but it doesn't do the meatsheild job.

The cleric is almost the same story: he has the ability to wear full plate from the very start (unless it's a cloistered cleric), moderate BAB, proficiency with all simple weapons (and proficiency + weapon focus in a single martial weapon with the war domain) and a cleric also has a handfull of potent spells at level 1, which can be exchanged for cure spells. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a well timed cure light wounds spell can mean the difference between a glorious victory or bitter defeat.

Sure, but again you have a focus problem. What's his strength? Are you cutting back on wisdom? Charisma? I've seen high strength combat clerics played, and they're an interesting choice. But they end up acting as front-liners, not primary casters, so why not have a front-liner to start with? And why don't people have their own cure light wounds potions or wands, a snip at 50gp?

Earlier on you were saying that a non-caster front-liner demands fly, and implied that he was remiss for not providing his own. Now you're saying that a cleric is a better front-liner because he can cast cure light wounds on other people?

So in conclusion, at level 1 fighter vs CoDzilla means good meatshield vs decent meatshield that can also cast spells to summon and/or cure wounds.

A low level fighter is much better at killing things than a low level cleric. At that level stats make a big difference, and the CoD will generally have either notably lower hp, or notably lower str, or both. A druid will have an animal which works well, but isn't as good as the fighter, and a poor AC that makes him good in combat only if someone else is drawing fire. Cleric spells aren't that great at low level. Druid spells are, but they're highly situational, as is the animal companion itself.

I'm not saying a cleric, or even druid, can't play to a front-line role. Merely that to build the best front-liner, you're typically better off looking at something other than cleric, druid, or wizard. You can do it with cleric, and I've seen it done well, but in my experience the idea that a party of all clerics, druids and wizards enjoys a clear advantage over a balanced party is fiction. Your game may differ.

You make a good point, but it does make one wonder how many hit points a fighter has left after 2-3 encounters, and if he can survive a fourth encounter without the support of casters.

There's a strong split in the game between in combat healing, which is generally the preserve of the cleric, and out of combat healing, which is the preserve of anyone who can trigger a wand. Most front-liners of my aquaintace provide their own wands of lesser vigour or cure light wounds, although some players do point out that damage taken protecting others shouldn't be the responsbility of a single character.

[Engine]

It's why I like marhsals, rangers, and generally go for a prestige class. I agree with you that figher is a badly designed class. I just disagree that there is no advantage to having a front-liner in the party.

Having a frontliner is surely useful: no one can deny that. It's just that Rangers, Fighters, Marshals, Paladins aren't that good in that. Unfortunately casters like Druids and Clerics are better suited to do the job. You could disagree, and I wholly respect your opinion.

But, sadly, my gaming experience (and not just mine) says something different. The best tank I had in a party was a Cleric.

[Dr.Epic]

Clerics:

HD: d8
BAB: average
Armor: Heavy
Spells: full caster

Basically, their spells are on par with wizards and they have a better HD, BAB and can wear any armor they want and not worry about it interfering with spells.

[Eldariel]

You make a good point, but I believe this only applies to the wizard. Sure, he can cast a devestating spell or two, but after that it's just plinking around with your crossbow and hoping the beatsticks can keep you out of danger.

The druid however has, as you just stated, his animal companion that's roughly equal to a fighter. He can also wear hide armor, use a falchion and has moderate BAB. At level one, this means the difference between his attack roll and that of a fighter is marginal (before calculating STR scores). Let's not forget that even at level 1 the druid has a handful of potent spells, which can still be exchanged for summons. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a summoned meatshield can be a lifesaver.

The cleric is almost the same story: he has the ability to wear full plate from the very start (unless it's a cloistered cleric), moderate BAB, proficiency with all simple weapons (and proficiency + weapon focus in a single martial weapon with the war domain) and a cleric also has a handfull of potent spells at level 1, which can be exchanged for cure spells. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a well timed cure light wounds spell can mean the difference between a glorious victory or bitter defeat.

So in conclusion, at level 1 fighter vs CoDzilla means good meatshield vs decent meatshield that can also cast spells to summon and/or cure wounds. The only one who's disproportionally disadvantaged at those levels is the wizard.

Wizards get disproportionate offense at level 1 though. Having 4 slots of level 1 spells each of which can potentially destroy multiple opponents with one action is far more powerful than anything any other class gets access to. So yes, they'll only cast one per encounter and then pluck away with a Crossbow but if that one spell did as much as any other character could hope to do with all their actions in the same encounter (sure, enemies can make their saves; but if 3 enemies all make their saves with 25% chances, any comparable warrior would've also missed for 3 rounds straight while the Wizard, having spent only one spell, at least has the option of spending a second spell to finish the job next round instead of being entirely useless for 3 rounds, though at a harsh cost to his daily resources), that's hardly a problem.

They pay for this by lacking in defense (well, unless they happen to have Abrupt Jaunt anyways), but in a couple of levels they'll have enough spellslots to maintain the most fearsome offense in the game while also having few spells dedicated to defense. But yeah, L1 Wizards without Abrupt Jaunt or e.g. Whisper Gnome Hide or mount + Ride-ranks (for Cover) or some such are quite the glass cannons and rely on not being attacked very often to survive (I guess they can pull off ~15 AC or so but their saves and HP will both be unimpressive - then again, this is level 1 for you so everyone's HP is low enough that they can be one-hit so it isn't that big a factor only making it more likely).

It's worth noting that level 1 Wizards can afford a 1st level scroll or two (only 25gp a piece, or half that crafted with their Scribe Scroll once they get any XP) which allows them to artificially extend their daily resources beyond the ~4 slots they normally have, for a bad day. And that throwing an Alchemist's Fire (basically 2d6 damage touch attack) or shooting a Crossbow with 14-16 Dex are both perfectly respectable contributions for your actions on level 1.


The difference in spell power between arcane and divine casters is very notable on level 1; Entangle is Druid's only real amazing level 1 spell (Clerics have none in Core outside Domain slot with e.g. Strength though they have lots of numeric buffs, and single-target debuffs with save) while Wizards have Color Spray, Sleep, Grease, Ray of Enfeeblement & Enlarge Person as big ones. Silent Image is obviously big but as its uses are different, I'm not counting it among those.

EDIT: That said, Druids are of course still stronger on level 1. Having an extra character, superior defenses (Druids have decent HP, massive Will & Fort-saves thanks to SAD and Con+Wis focus + good progressions, massively strong defensive skills [Spot, Listen] and decent AC as the stronger armor hasn't really stepped in to generate the gap that lasts until Wildshape yet) and relevant spells obviously beats only having relevant spells. Though L1, Barbarians also give casters a run for their money; Extra Rage, Whirling Frenzy, reach weapon (on L1, Martial Weapon Proficiencies are actually really strong), go to town. I'm just saying, L1 Wizards are comparatively RPGs, not slouches. They last just long enough to likely bring their A-game to all the big encounters, are capable of slightly extending their daily durability with Scrolls and they have the biggest alpha strike impact on the level against most opponents.

[TroubleBrewing]

Hm.. You're appealing to emotion with the demands, but it doesn't wash. Whomever ends up flying is the recipient of the same spell. The problem is not that a fighter needs fly, whoever flies up needs fly. The problem is merely that fly is not something the fighter provides.

So the Wizard has to cast it twice. That's twice the resources for half the benefit.

So the problem is that the fighter doesn't get fly spells, unless he gets potions or an item. Is there some pressing reason why everyone has to bring their own?

Not really. But wouldn't you rather have a party member who brings something to the table, rather than being a drain on limited resources? You were the first to point out that wizards have limited spells per day.

I don't think he is. He's better on occasion, but in the long run he's inferior.

[Citation needed]

It's why I like marhsals, rangers, and generally go for a prestige class. I agree with you that figher is a badly designed class. I just disagree that there is no advantage to having a front-liner in the party.

There are advantages, sure. But the best front-liners are also full spellcasters.

I've played one, and strength makes that difference. Unless you're all using 40 pt buy, or never intending to get above 4th level, strength is likely to be one of your last choices for a druid. Wildshape, and the need for wis and con, makes str a third choice at best.

He's talking about the animal companion, not the Druid.

No, at 1st level, a summoned meatshield is a waste of time. It takes a round to appear, attacks once, maybe gets an attack of opportunity, and then vanishes. I'm all for creative use of summoning, but it doesn't do the meatsheild job.

Sure. At 1st level. After about 3rd, there's no reason for the Fighter to be there, if you have access to summons. At 1-3, you've got an animal companion. (This example being strictly limited to Druids. There are, of course, other options for each caster.)

Sure, but again you have a focus problem. What's his strength? Are you cutting back on wisdom? Charisma? I've seen high strength combat clerics played, and they're an interesting choice. But they end up acting as front-liners, not primary casters, so why not have a front-liner to start with?

Prioritize Wisdom, followed by Cha, followed by Str. You can usually spare a 14 to Str. If the front-liner has an 18 Str, so what? +2 damage is not worth losing out on everything a full-casting frontliner has to offer.

And why don't people have their own cure light wounds potions or wands, a snip at 50gp?

Because Cure Light potions are a waste of GP.

Earlier on you were saying that a non-caster front-liner demands fly, and implied that he was remiss for not providing his own. Now you're saying that a cleric is a better front-liner because he can cast cure light wounds on other people?

Look one step deeper: We're saying that casters are better frontliners because they can cast spells.

A low level fighter is much better at killing things than a low level cleric. At that level stats make a big difference, and the CoD will generally have either notably lower hp, or notably lower str, or both.

There might be a difference, but it won't end up being statistically significant.

A druid will have an animal which works well, but isn't as good as the fighter, and a poor AC that makes him good in combat only if someone else is drawing fire.

Actually, a thread dedicated to this comparison determined the exact opposite result, and they were comparing it as though the Druid was AWOL. A riding dog/wolf animal companion at first level has a higher AC than an equivalent fighter, too.

Cleric spells aren't that great at low level.

But it's better than no spells. Lookin' at you, Fighter Ranger Barbarian Monk Knight every meatshield that isn't a full caster.

Druid spells are, but they're highly situational, as is the animal companion itself.

An animal companion is just a meatshield. So is the Fighter. Why is the animal companion more situational? (The only difference between the two is that one is a class feature, while the other is a class. Guess which one I'd rather have in the party?)

I'm not saying a cleric, or even druid, can't play to a front-line role.

Well, I'm glad we can finally agree on someth- Wait.

Merely that to build the best front-liner, you're typically better off looking at something other than cleric, druid, or wizard. You can do it with cleric, and I've seen it done well, but in my experience the idea that a party of all clerics, druids and wizards enjoys a clear advantage over a balanced party is fiction. Your game may differ.

I'm willing to concede that in your experience, this may be true. I certainly don't mean to sound as though I've been implying that you're playing the game wrong: I'm simply trying to get the point across that a party of full casters is always superior to a party of noncasters. I'm willing to resort to a build-off, but I honestly think that the advantages of a party of Tier 1 characters over a party of mixed tiers should be self-evident.

[dextercorvia]

At levels 1-3, a cleric spends most of his slots keeping the fighter and himself alive. Wouldn't it make sense, to reduce your damage output by 1-2 points per round in order to double your healing capacity? This might also mean that the level 1 Cleric isn't afraid to use just one of his spells for buffing purposes.

I would much rather see a Cleric, Cleric, Druid, Wizard party than a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard party. There 3 party members can contribute to healing if need be. That reduces the burden on any one member.

[TheCountAlucard]

At levels 1-3, a cleric spends most of his slots keeping the fighter and himself alive.

Do they? I certainly never did. Especially not during combat. No, at levels 1-3, most of my slots were devoted to low-level buffs, and healing was delegated to wands.

[dextercorvia]

Do they? I certainly never did. Especially not during combat. No, at levels 1-3, most of my slots were devoted to low-level buffs, and healing was delegated to wands.

Level 3 might be an exaggeration, but until you get reliable healing from items, it isn't much of one. In the campaigns where I have played low level clerics, we were out of touch with society, and unable to purchase anything for levels at a time.

[urbanwolf]

so what would happen if a druid/cleric had to have a spell book

so all zero level spells 3 1st level +1 per point of wisdom bonus and research(prayserch) other spells the could still spotainies cure/summon and cleric would get domain spells free would not bridge the cap between them and non casters but might make the druid a little less easy to gamebreak

and this would be one of those rule zero whatever things someone called on me earlier

[Strife Warzeal]

so what would happen if a druid/cleric had to have a spell book

so all zero level spells 3 1st level +1 per point of wisdom bonus and research(prayserch) other spells the could still spotainies cure/summon and cleric would get domain spells free would not bridge the cap between them and non casters but might make the druid a little less easy to gamebreak

and this would be one of those rule zero whatever things someone called on me earlier

They would be tier 1 casters still? Wizards have just as easy a time breaking the game.

[MrRigger]

so what would happen if a druid/cleric had to have a spell book

so all zero level spells 3 1st level +1 per point of wisdom bonus and research(prayserch) other spells the could still spotainies cure/summon and cleric would get domain spells free would not bridge the cap between them and non casters but might make the druid a little less easy to gamebreak

and this would be one of those rule zero whatever things someone called on me earlier

They've got one of these. It's called the Archivist (Heroes of Horror). And it's still Tier 1. A lot more fun than clerics, in my opinion.

[Leon]

Waste of resources. The Cleric can Air Walk himself, thus spreading the resources out and allowing the Wizard to do something useful, instead of acting as a crutch to a terrible and unnecessary party member.

Only terrible to you (and any other stuck in a very narrow minded view)

Not sure what you mean here. Your houserule is not a valid argument.

Its not a argument, but a example of the vagueness that that skill provides and the thought since several classes have a magic boost to it that they can do it better than one that does not.

It isn't selfish if everyone can contribute. The only time it's selfish is when one or more party members have chosen to be useless by comparison, and thus are insisting that the Cleric/Wizard/Whoever spend their resources in order that they might contribute.

I call that "baby bird syndrome".

Everyone can Contribute - the fighter is well and able to do things on his own, with support he is extremely potent (and so is the rest of the group). Just having a Potent Cleric would not be of much help to the interest's of the group as a team.

Actually, it would appear that you don't need optimization. The rest of the crowd appears to like challenging, interesting, and engaging fights. You are welcome to play the game however you like, but don't tell us what we need or don't.

No i don't and neither does anyone, you can choose to use it. It is not needed and you can have challenging, interesting, and engaging fights without it - I'd Tell you the same but you'll not listen and try to twist the words back at me (much like many other posts anything that threatens the dominance of Optimization on this board is grilled and decried)

Your opinion.

yep, and I'm fully justified to have it.

Again, nobody is lording anything over anybody. You seem to be taking offense that we're suggesting that Clerics and Druids simply don't need Fighters. Namecalling is unnecessary.

Do point out explicitly where there is name calling - its a general statement that if you are doing this in a game you are an example of a bad player.

Or is it just that the Fighter is unnecessary, and this bothers you because it doesn't fit with your narrow interpretation of what an "adventuring party" should contain?

I don't have a narrow interpretation of what a adventuring party is - i have a nice broad view that anything can and will work with a adventuring party. Your view that only Wizards and Clerics are needed is the narrow one.
No class is a necessity.

They've got one of these. It's called the Archivist (Heroes of Horror). And it's still Tier 1. A lot more fun than clerics, in my opinion.

Hugely fun up to the point where you discover that the DM has a Thing for Arcane Magic and all the caster loot you find is Arcane related scrolls and books. And when you try and do independent research you are given unrealistic DCs to learn them.

So if you play one make sure that you can get access to the full array of spell options otherwise its like playing a very limited Cleric

[TroubleBrewing]

Its not a argument, but a example of the vagueness that that skill provides and the thought since several classes have a magic boost to it that they can do it better than one that does not.

Emphasis mine.

THEY CAN.

Magic trumps everything. Hence the origin of the phrase "A Wizard did it", the implication being that with the incredible variety and power level of spells at his disposal, a properly built Wizard can do anything.

Everyone can Contribute - the fighter is well and able to do things on his own,

What things? Without heavy, heavy optimization, the Fighter can't do anything. WITH heavy optimization, he's limited to being a one trick pony- Mounted, Tripper, and Ubercharging are the usual three.

And those tricks aren't necessary. Anyone can provide damage.

with support he is extremely potent (and so is the rest of the group).

Not the argument. The argument is "supporting the Fighter is a waste of resources, since he can't do anything without support". Fighter + support = weaker than Cleric. Cleric + support = So much better.

Just having a Potent Cleric would not be of much help to the interest's of the group as a team.

Yes... Yes it would? Because a potent Cleric is orders of magnitude more useful than the most potent Fighter, therefore it is exactly in the interest of the group as a team. Ever heard the phrase "A team is only as strong as its weakest member"? The Cleric isn't going to be that member, and the Fighter is. Who would you rather have supporting you?

i have a nice broad view that anything can and will work with a adventuring party. Your view that only Wizards and Clerics are needed is the narrow one.

Tier 1-2 classes are all you need. If you want to play something else, great. But all you need to get by are full casters. If you WANT something else, well, that's a different discussion.

I personally favor Barbarians over everything else, and they're nowhere near the top. It's an unneeded role, if you have proper Tier 1 support. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.

Hugely fun up to the point where you discover that the DM has a Thing for Arcane Magic and all the caster loot you find is Arcane related scrolls and books. And when you try and do independent research you are given unrealistic DCs to learn them.

So if you play one make sure that you can get access to the full array of spell options otherwise its like playing a very limited Cleric

And in this narrow universe, sure, that's the case. Still doesn't change its Tier.

Mr. Rigger was merely pointing out that a "Cleric with a spellbook" already exists, and it's an enormously entertaining class. (I prefer Clerics, but only because I hate the bookkeeping that having a spellbook entails.)

[LordBlades]

Everyone can Contribute - the fighter is well and able to do things on his own, with support he is extremely potent (and so is the rest of the group). Just having a Potent Cleric would not be of much help to the interest's of the group as a team.

A fighter will never be as potent as a well built cleric or druid (mid level and above) even with all the buffs in the world, for a very simple reason: most of the awesome buffs in the game (Divine Power, Righteous Might, Bite of the Werewhatever etc.) are range:personal. So the fighter is not getting them.

In regards to teamwork, D&D is a cooperative game where everybody's supposed to have fun, so not being a jerk is kind of expected. However, if you're bringing a fighter into a let's say cleric, druid, wizard party, you're the one being a jerk because you're bringing something completely inadequate power-wise and expect them to spend their resources to make you not suck.

I don't have a narrow interpretation of what a adventuring party is - i have a nice broad view that anything can and will work with a adventuring party. Your view that only Wizards and Clerics are needed is the narrow one.
No class is a necessity.

Of course no class is necessary, you can have a nice game with clerics and wizards, and you can have a nice game with fighters and rogues. Just not in the same party, unless clerics and wizards hold back a great deal.

From my own experience, parties work best when there's 1(maybe 2) tiers difference between members. I've played in (and run) pretty fun tier 1-2 games, and I've also played fun tier 3-4 games. Mixing them together however has proven quite bad.

[TheCountAlucard]

Seriously, the argument's a little ridiculous. If you're going to base social challenges off of the player's skill instead of the character's, then what's stopping the Int 3, Cha 1 guy with no ranks in social skills being the party "face," leaving the bard to twiddle his thumbs despite his 18 Charisma and max social skills, AND spells to help him, hm?

And yeah, anything a non-caster, a caster can do better.

[MrRigger]

Hugely fun up to the point where you discover that the DM has a Thing for Arcane Magic and all the caster loot you find is Arcane related scrolls and books. And when you try and do independent research you are given unrealistic DCs to learn them.

So if you play one make sure that you can get access to the full array of spell options otherwise its like playing a very limited Cleric

So what if the DM doesn't automatically give you spells to fill out your prayerbook? Sure, it would be incredibly helpful if they did, but all Archivists get Scribe Scroll at 1st level, and they are explicitly fluffed as seekers of divine knowledge. So it's not a stretch to say your Archivist searches out churches, druid groves, and other divine organizations to see what he can learn from them, resulting in you collaborating with the in house clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, and adepts to make scrolls, which you can then use to add to your prayerbook permanently. Is it a roundabout method of doing things? Absolutely. But it means you're opening up plot and quest hooks for the party as a whole, expanding your personal potential, and most importantly, having fun.

And that's without going into trading your unusable arcane loot (either because you have no party member with UMD (though you probably should), or no arcane caster) to the church as direct trade for divine scrolls of the same spells. Church of Boccob is the first place I'd check out if I ran into problems like this (especially since I'd likely be worshiping Boccob since Boccob grants the Knowledge Domain, and even if you don't take it or can't take it, you get the bonus on Lore of the Gods spell (something an Archivist is foolish to do without).

MrRigger

[Coidzor]

Hugely fun up to the point where you discover that the DM has a Thing for Arcane Magic and all the caster loot you find is Arcane related scrolls and books. And when you try and do independent research you are given unrealistic DCs to learn them.

Well, there's no accounting for bad taste, now is there?

[Togo]

Emphasis mine.

THEY CAN.

Magic trumps everything. Hence the origin of the phrase "A Wizard did it", the implication being that with the incredible variety and power level of spells at his disposal, a properly built Wizard can do anything.

Ok, so we're playing different games here. I'm playing a game where wizards have a limited number of spells slots, a limited number of feats, a limited number of spells and items and feats he has access to, and have to make and stick by choices at the start of the day. You're playing a game where the potency of an individual character is somehow determined by the number of build options open to him at character creation. No wonder we disagree.

What things? Without heavy, heavy optimization, the Fighter can't do anything. WITH heavy optimization, he's limited to being a one trick pony- Mounted, Tripper, and Ubercharging are the usual three.

And those tricks aren't necessary. Anyone can provide damage.

But the front-liners are, mechanically, better at it, and have access to options that make them better still. Buff spells can make a less competant warrior temporarily better in some areas, but the question is then what is the best platform for those buffs? Why choose a spellcaster?

Bear in mind that you're simultaneosuly arguing that 'anyone' can deal out damage, and that fighters can't do anything without optimisation.

Also, ew, if you think those are the only useful options for a front-liner, you're missing a lot.

Not the argument. The argument is "supporting the Fighter is a waste of resources, since he can't do anything without support". Fighter + support = weaker than Cleric. Cleric + support = So much better.

I'm arguing that cleric + front-liner is better than cleric + cleric.

Yes... Yes it would? Because a potent Cleric is orders of magnitude more useful than the most potent Fighter, therefore it is exactly in the interest of the group as a team.

Except that both teams already have a cleric. The question is whether a front-liner is better or worse than cleric number 2.

Tier 1-2 classes are all you need. If you want to play something else, great. But all you need to get by are full casters. If you WANT something else, well, that's a different discussion.

You realise the Tier system is based, not on mechanical advantage, but on flexibility, right?

I'm questioning whether duplicating a flexible class is really better than having two different classes. Presumably you'd agree that at some point, adding more clerics to the party would be less effective than adding a lower tier class?

[LordBlades]

But the front-liners are, mechanically, better at it, and have access to options that make them better still. Buff spells can make a less competant warrior temporarily better in some areas, but the question is then what is the best platform for those buffs? Why choose a spellcaster?

Simple, because a spellcaster with his personal range buffs active offers a superior 'base chassis' on which to apply further buffs to a fighter. Not to mention said spellcaster can provide some of the buffs himself, freeing the spell slots and actions of other party members.

[Engine]

Ok, so we're playing different games here. I'm playing a game where wizards have a limited number of spells slots, a limited number of feats, a limited number of spells and items and feats he has access to, and have to make and stick by choices at the start of the day. You're playing a game where the potency of an individual character is somehow determined by the number of build options open to him at character creation. No wonder we disagree.

As I already said, I wholly respect your opinion. Anyway it seems to me that you have a little prejudice here.
You're right saying that as a Wizard one should make choices at the start of every day. It's true, absolutely true. But you should consider that a Wizard COULD make those choices: a Fighter couldn't. So while a Wizard could pick all the wrong spells for the day, could also pick the right spells (and a lot of spells are just good that they are worthy every day). A Fighter, instead, couldn't make a lot of choices. She has to stick with her build all day, every day.
An example: as a Wizard I couldn't pick the Fly spell and during the day it could happen the party has to fight a flying enemy. A Fighter just can't fly on her own.

And let me say another thing, you say that spells are a limited resource: you're absolutely right. HP are another limited resource, so a Fighter has limits. And spells, as a limited resource, should be used with care. More on this point...

But the front-liners are, mechanically, better at it, and have access to options that make them better still. Buff spells can make a less competant warrior temporarily better in some areas, but the question is then what is the best platform for those buffs? Why choose a spellcaster?

Why choose a spellcaster? Because, most of the times, is the right (mechanically speaking, of course) thing to do. It's sad, really.
Let's say that we have a flying enemy above us: you're a Fighter and I'm a Wizard. I could cast Fly on you, but unless I prepared another Fly I'm stuck on the ground. So we have two characters here, one that could do just one thing (just attack) and one that could do many things (spells prepared for the day). IMHO it's more useful the character who could do more things than just attack.

Frontliners are useful. But a frontliner excessively dependant on others isn't that useful.

I'm questioning whether duplicating a flexible class is really better than having two different classes. Presumably you'd agree that at some point, adding more clerics to the party would be less effective than adding a lower tier class?

Tactical flexibility is the key: two spellcasters, same class, could prepare more spells that could cover more situations. A Fighter could just attack, or maybe trip. She's not tactical flexible, unfortunately.

Anyway I'm not saying that no one should play a Fighter, or a Ranger. I always have at hand buffs for melee-types, Invisibility for the party Rogue and so on. I love teamwork, even If I need to manage more carefully my daily allotment of spells. But, system-wise, they're not needed.

[deuxhero]

Do they? I certainly never did. Especially not during combat. No, at levels 1-3, most of my slots were devoted to low-level buffs, and healing was delegated to wands.

At level 3 you should be Hold Person something scary looking at minimum/core!

And yeah, anything a non-caster, a caster can do better.

Only if true namers are "casters", as there is no other way for a caster to suck better.

[Kaeso]

Its not a argument, but a example of the vagueness that that skill provides and the thought since several classes have a magic boost to it that they can do it better than one that does not.

Yes, some people are better than speaking in public than others. Yes, the skill can be a bit overpowered but that's no excuse to ban an entire skill subset, making it, and classes that specialize in it, entirely useless. Actually, the entire charisma stat is near useless and the bard loses some of its edge (only some, not all. Yes, having spells is that good). The giant has a very popular diplomacy fix on this very website.

And, yet again, IMHO it's very unrealistic to expect a great speech from somebody who just wants to be the cool, charismatic guy in his escapist fantasy game. Unless (aspiring) lawyers, actors and politicians make up a great part of your gaming group it's most likely not going to happen.

Everyone can Contribute - the fighter is well and able to do things on his own, with support he is extremely potent (and so is the rest of the group). Just having a Potent Cleric would not be of much help to the interest's of the group as a team.

Name one thing a fighter can do on his own with or without support that a cleric or druid can't do with or without the same support.

Since we're on the subject anyway, how is a potent cleric not of use when it's in the same 'party slot' as the fighter? If we have a "Cleric, druid, cloistered cleric, wizard" party (where the cleric fills in for the fighter and the cloistered cleric for the rogue), then the party should be better than the 'standard' party, purely because a cleric with divine power activated is a fighter with spells. He can smash heads, make sure he can reach said heads, use his magic to break any defenses surrounding those heads and provide secondary healing if the other cleric/druid can't handle it anymore (very unlikely, but still). A fighter that can provide his own spells is more useful than a fighter that needs spells to be cast on him, purely because spells are a limited resource. If you can bring more of it to the table, you greatly benefit the party not only because you can cast spells on yourself, but you can also buff your party members if they need it. A fighter is only on the receiving end of buffs. Said buffs also make the cleric less gear-dependant, should your game be hosted by a DM who's stingy with his magic items. A cleric without a magic gear can just cast 'greater magic weapon', 'magic vestment' and a slew of other spells on his own and/or his party's equipment. A fighter is stuck with being reduced to near uselessnes.

No i don't and neither does anyone, you can choose to use it. It is not needed and you can have challenging, interesting, and engaging fights without it - I'd Tell you the same but you'll not listen and try to twist the words back at me (much like many other posts anything that threatens the dominance of Optimization on this board is grilled and decried)

Most of us here believe that epic optimization isn't needed, we are only aware that some classes are more useful than others, and some are simply a waste of the paper they're printed on (CW samurai anyone?). Actually, most people prefer to play around tier 3, where the duskblade and crusader dwell.

I don't have a narrow interpretation of what a adventuring party is - i have a nice broad view that anything can and will work with a adventuring party. Your view that only Wizards and Clerics are needed is the narrow one.
No class is a necessity.

I wouldn't call that view narrow, there's enough proof that druids and clerics are better fighters than the fighter himself. A cleric with divine power alone is a fighter with less feats but more spells, and spells > feats.

Hugely fun up to the point where you discover that the DM has a Thing for Arcane Magic and all the caster loot you find is Arcane related scrolls and books. And when you try and do independent research you are given unrealistic DCs to learn them.

I once played a wizard with a DM who whould on the fly tell me things like "oops, grease doesn't work that way" or "you just cast sleep on those bandits? Well, they wake up". You can't foresee a dishonest/inexperienced/douchy DM and that doesn't change the effectiveness of any class under the normal circumstances.

So if you play one make sure that you can get access to the full array of spell options otherwise its like playing a very limited Cleric

IMHO the wizard is the only one who suffers from that. The Cleric and Wizard have a handful of good spells available even in core only games. The cleric still has access to the divine power spell, which is pivotal in any melee cleric build.

[Worira]

Emphasis mine.

THEY CAN.

Magic trumps everything. Hence the origin of the phrase "A Wizard did it", the implication being that with the incredible variety and power level of spells at his disposal, a properly built Wizard can do anything.

Uh... That's not the origin of that phrase at all.

I'm questioning whether duplicating a flexible class is really better than having two different classes. Presumably you'd agree that at some point, adding more clerics to the party would be less effective than adding a lower tier class?

No, I wouldn't agree with that. 4 Clerics is a really, really powerful party. I would generally say that the most powerful party in core is Cleric/Druid/Druid/Wizard, although some might adjust the numbers a bit.


Oh, and to the people talking about wizards having 4 first level spells per day at level 1: What? Not unless they've got 28 Int, they don't. Without a racial modifier, they don't even get 3.

[LordBlades]

Oh, and to the people talking about wizards having 4 first level spells per day at level 1: What? Not unless they've got 28 Int, they don't. Without a racial modifier, they don't even get 3.

Default wizard has 1 base, Elven generalist or specialist wizard has 2 base, any focused specialist has 3 base. Add 1-2 bonus spells from int.

[Worira]

Oh, hurf durf, me am smart. That said, I'd still say that most wizards tend to take specialization but not focused, putting most of them at 3/day.