New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 253
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Philistine's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Under a rock

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    The "completely typical for an animal of its type" clause also specifies a level one druid's animal companion.
    _______________________________________________
    "When Boba Fett told Darth Vader, "As you wish," what he meant was, "I love you.""


    Phil the Piratical Platypus avatar by Serpentine

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    I've found fighters to be very useful. They're very hard to play, far more so than a wizard, cleric or druid.

    The job isn't just to hit stuff. The job is to face off on the front line. That involves hitting stuff, getting hit, manipulating the trade off in your groups favour, and making sure you're pursuing the right options. Playing a good fighter is about what's good for the group. Putting yourself in harm's way and trying to stack your personal combat prowress is almost always a bad idea for the individual, but it gives the rest of the group the edge that allows them, for example, to play a character that's really weak in defence but has a great selection of spells. That's why, if you just compare what each can do by themselves, or worse, what they can do to eachother, you get a distorted picture.

    Part of the reason why some people don't rate front-line fighters is because they play them badly. Part of the reason is that, yes, there are now enough spells out there that a spellcaster can prepare for almost any eventually. The key word there is can. The sample cleric being discussed is cloistered, has the war and trickeryand dragon domains, divine metamagic, and apparently enough rounds and spell slots to heal, buff themselves, debuff the enemy and still full attack every round. I'd love to see his sheet. Flexibility is key yes, but spellcasters have to make choices, typically at the start of the day, on what to focus on and what not to.

    Take your cue from what people choose to ban. One of my groups has come up with a fairly lengthy list, including divine metamagic, VoP and polymorph, sure, but also including two-weapon fighting with armour spikes, the marshal, and some of the more egregious archer builds. So long as you avoid the really cheesiest builds, a balanced party still works better than all spellcasters, although I'm sure that's a lot of fun, just like a playing an all-rogue party is great fun. I'm not saying that the spellcasters aren't powerful, or even that they aren't too powerful, merely that if you've reached the stage of calling all front-liners useless, no matter how well played, then you're probably overstating the case.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Midnight_v's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tx
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Actually changing into monsters isn't too strong.
    I don't think so either.

    Cleric yes. Druid not so much. All you need to do to break the Druid is crack open the MM1 and look at the stats for the list of monsters provided in the PHB, then take Natural Spell. That's it.
    This gentleman seems to think thats its a big part of the problem though.

    As stated above I really think that a big part of people suddenly NOT liking druids, is the whole "Eye opening experience" thing in which they learn that banning all those books isn't going to help preserve balance you're just being unfair to you non caster players.
    Honestly magic is ... Magic can get pretty wonky powerful in D&D. Thing is the monsters have it too. IN SPADES.

    The suck part is the guy with the twin swords doesn't get to be the hero who lives through it all and defeats the Evlulz, and that challenges some peoples perspectives.
    Likewise ... and this is what Engine was saying, when someone actually creates a fighter that can do ANYTHING well, it leads to complaints. Which likely stems from the fact that they have to do 1 thing well, the spam it till they can invest enough resources to do a second thing well... and they rarely get enough to do a third thing and not be somekind of science experiment race.

    Its a multifaceted problem. It irks me though that how many people ONLY look at it from one narrow perspective.

    EDIT
    I wanted to take a sec and comment on the above poster.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Flexibility is key yes, but spellcasters have to make choices, typically at the start of the day, on what to focus on and what not to.
    Agree. When discussing theoreticals, I too have noted that any theoretical caster has everything he needs. They really won't they have to make choices. So at somepoint they could make the wrong choice. The thing is they have choices at all. So you're right, overall.
    However...
    The last paragrapch of your post went into somestrange land about banning armor spikes. Its was very LOL,WuT?. Cause that means someone in that group doesn't know what they're talking about mechanically and are banning things that are absolutely Unbroken. I started to do a line by line but its not even that crucial, banning archery focused builds ends with only casters being useful in ranged combat beyond 60ft on an open plain. Which is sad.
    So long as you avoid the really cheesiest builds, a balanced party still works better than all spellcasters
    This is totally contingent on how you define "cheesiest" it sounds like your definition includes any caster whose dedicated to doing anything but evocation.
    An all caster party works better than a balanced party if the the All caster party is balanced. I could show you how they work better in every way if you like. Though if you're arguing that anycaster that is gishing, is cheesy, you've insulted gotten rid of many favored archtypes for many people and some our favorite chars of all time.

    Frontliners is a very wierd term but you have to understand that the job is pretty easily replaced via Caster. Further well it should be, the option at least, cause there are monsters in D&D that NOBODY should engage in melee.
    Last edited by Midnight_v; 2011-07-16 at 06:59 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hawaii
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    If you ask me, while clerics aren't quite druids in their 'Hey I can turn into a bear? Cool!'... they're pretty breakable.

    I was playing a timid party-healing goblin cleric, and hit level 7. Upon doing so, I looked in the PHB for 4th level cleric spells, to find that... well, most of them are fairly dumb to memorize, and then there's divine power.

    I ended up memorizing spell immunity and neutralize poison, and never used them during the time I had them memorized. Each time I was picking spells... there was divine power, just asking me to be a lateral to the party's fighter... just sitting there...
    Beginnings usually happen over trifles... even if it's a coincidence...

    ~ Final Fantasy Tactics

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Togo View Post
    I've found fighters to be very useful. They're very hard to play, far more so than a wizard, cleric or druid.

    The job isn't just to hit stuff. The job is to face off on the front line. That involves hitting stuff, getting hit, manipulating the trade off in your groups favour, and making sure you're pursuing the right options. Playing a good fighter is about what's good for the group. Putting yourself in harm's way and trying to stack your personal combat prowress is almost always a bad idea for the individual, but it gives the rest of the group the edge that allows them, for example, to play a character that's really weak in defence but has a great selection of spells. That's why, if you just compare what each can do by themselves, or worse, what they can do to eachother, you get a distorted picture.

    Part of the reason why some people don't rate front-line fighters is because they play them badly. Part of the reason is that, yes, there are now enough spells out there that a spellcaster can prepare for almost any eventually. The key word there is can. The sample cleric being discussed is cloistered, has the war and trickeryand dragon domains, divine metamagic, and apparently enough rounds and spell slots to heal, buff themselves, debuff the enemy and still full attack every round. I'd love to see his sheet. Flexibility is key yes, but spellcasters have to make choices, typically at the start of the day, on what to focus on and what not to.
    As far as I'm concerned (but I could be wrong) a fighter won't be able to do that without magic equipment and some good buffs from the wizard or cleric. In this situation, the fighter is only able to fullfil his only role by having casters spend spells on him. Let me repeat that: to do the only thing he's good at, a fighter needs magic, which he has no access to. I think a wizard would rather have a cleric as his companion than a fighter. The cleric is also a good frontline fighter (having heavy armor proficiency, proficiency with all simple weapons + one martial weapon if he has the war domain and only a marginally worse hp and BAB (both of which are solved by divine power)) and from time to time the wizard might even expend a spell on his behalf, but said cleric has his own spells too. It's the same story for a druid, but with more bears.

    Now ToB classes (especially the crusader) are a different ballgame. They are not only much better in combat due to their manouvres, but can actually force the enemy to attack them, something the average fighter can only dream of doing.
    Last edited by Kaeso; 2011-07-16 at 07:15 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Midnight_v's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tx
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    As far as I'm concerned (but I could be wrong) a fighter won't be able to do that without magic equipment and some good buffs from the wizard or cleric. In this situation, the fighter is only able to fullfil his only role by having casters spend spells on him. Let me repeat that: to do the only thing he's good at, a fighter needs magic, which he has no access to. I think a wizard would rather have a cleric as his companion than a fighter. The cleric is also a good frontline fighter (having heavy armor proficiency, proficiency with all simple weapons + one martial weapon if he has the war domain and only a marginally worse hp and BAB (both of which are solved by divine power)) and from time to time the wizard might even expend a spell on his behalf, but said cleric has his own spells too. It's the same story for a druid, but with more bears.
    Maybe... maybe people just hate this?
    HATE IT.

    Now ToB classes (especially the crusader) are a different ballgame. They are not only much better in combat due to their manouvres, but can actually force the enemy to attack them, something the average fighter can only dream of doing
    ...but then I get the idea that many people hate this too.

    I'm starting to get the idea that people hate Melee Characters in someway, secretly.
    They never really say it but when there is a melee character keeping up with or exceeding the monsters in damage. Theres always a complaint.
    Where as even if we take away the ability from ALL CASTERS TO FIGHT.
    Casting would still includ things like "Save... or Die" which I wonder if some people like better becaues the dm can always cheat that I guess.
    Maybe its becaue fighting in D&D isn't like fighting in WoW or something along those lines. People seem to keep saying "tank"... which would imply that you're a guy in heavy armor protecting weak phsyically casters.

    ... so I'm thinking may some of the reason that there's all this animosity is that, many people (not that I've NEVER SAID "All, Most, or You, if myu post offends you at all) many people get upset because they're talking about this but they're trying thier best to defend the sacred cow.

    Sacred Cow:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Spoiler
    Show
    "Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue" = The party.
    "Add a bard" = Five man band.


    So the idea... that
    Spoiler
    Show

    "Wizard, Wizard, Cleric Druid" = The party
    "Add a monk" = for the Lulz
    "Add a sorcerer" = for the fun.

    Is more effective, just offends some people cause they're partial to what they've always been taught works.

    Especially when you get into tings like
    Spoiler
    Show
    "Crusader, Warblade, Swordsage, Druid" = The party.
    "Add a binder" = For the variety.
    Too much anime...

    ...Just makes people foam a the mouth sometimes...
    So it occurs to me that many people aren't going to be happy with ANY change from that original paradigm, sometimes

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight_v View Post
    Maybe... maybe people just hate this?
    HATE IT.


    ...but then I get the idea that many people hate this too.

    I'm starting to get the idea that people hate Melee Characters in someway, secretly.
    They never really say it but when there is a melee character keeping up with or exceeding the monsters in damage. Theres always a complaint.
    Where as even if we take away the ability from ALL CASTERS TO FIGHT.
    Casting would still includ things like "Save... or Die" which I wonder if some people like better becaues the dm can always cheat that I guess.
    Maybe its becaue fighting in D&D isn't like fighting in WoW or something along those lines. People seem to keep saying "tank"... which would imply that you're a guy in heavy armor protecting weak phsyically casters.

    ... so I'm thinking may some of the reason that there's all this animosity is that, many people (not that I've NEVER SAID "All, Most, or You, if myu post offends you at all) many people get upset because they're talking about this but they're trying thier best to defend the sacred cow.

    Sacred Cow:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Spoiler
    Show
    "Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue" = The party.
    "Add a bard" = Five man band.


    So the idea... that
    Spoiler
    Show

    "Wizard, Wizard, Cleric Druid" = The party
    "Add a monk" = for the Lulz
    "Add a sorcerer" = for the fun.

    Is more effective, just offends some people cause they're partial to what they've always been taught works.

    Especially when you get into tings like
    Spoiler
    Show
    "Crusader, Warblade, Swordsage, Druid" = The party.
    "Add a binder" = For the variety.
    Too much anime...

    ...Just makes people foam a the mouth sometimes...
    So it occurs to me that many people aren't going to be happy with ANY change from that original paradigm, sometimes
    I agree that the casters can get away with ridiculous stuff while a decent melee class always gets called out on being 'too anime', but I think that our train of thought is mostly to blame. When we think of magic, we think of things that would in no way be comprimisable with modern science, like a man that flies on his own strength, throws around balls of fire, changes shape, cures wounds etc. Phrases like 'a wizard did it' or 'it's magic, I ain't gotta explain sh*t' perfectly express the common sentiments among DnD players. However, a melee class is limited to the rules of physics. I remember a guy I played a PbP game with saying that warblades are too anime (he referred to ToB as BoWFM btw) and completely unrealistic because a round represents six seconds and a warblade with the raging mongoose strike can make 4 x OMGWTFBBQ attacks in those six seconds.

    If you're going to complain about that, then why not call out the druid on his ability to change into a bear and summon bears out of thin air?

    IMHO ToB being a bit 'anime' is a good thing, because anime is known for 'normal' melee focused characters performing insane feats of strength/skill, which is exactly what DnD needs to make melee a viable alternative to CoDzilla. I actually remember a demotivational poster that perfectly expressed my thoughts on this: it depicted Goku as a swordsage and Hercule (or Mr. Satan outside of the US) as a monk (the implications are obvious).
    Last edited by Kaeso; 2011-07-16 at 08:11 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Xin-Shalast
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    People. They love hating things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    +3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
    Homebrew
    To Do: Reboot and finish Riptide

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Fox Box Socks's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight_v View Post
    Honestly magic is ... Magic can get pretty wonky powerful in D&D. Thing is the monsters have it too. IN SPADES
    Without getting into an Edition War, because God knows we don't need another one of those, this is a terrible way to approach game balance.

    It's like if one of the classes gets a free rocket launcher at level 1, and then you give all the monsters rocket launchers to compensate. It's just going to make the guy without a rocket launcher suck even more.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    Heroes of Horror is only 1.8 pounds. By comparison, the DMG is a hefty 2.6 pounds, making it by far the more powerful book.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chicago Suburbs
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Togo View Post
    So long as you avoid the really cheesiest builds, a balanced party still works better than all spellcasters,
    This absolutely is not true. I challenge you to build a "balanced" first level party that "works better" than a first level party of all spellcasters will. If it works at first level, it works at every level, because spellcasters scale quadratically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Togo View Post
    I'm not saying that the spellcasters aren't powerful, or even that they aren't too powerful, merely that if you've reached the stage of calling all front-liners useless, no matter how well played, then you're probably overstating the case.
    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.
    Iron Chef Award!

    Spoiler
    Show

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Engine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Milan,Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Togo View Post
    I've found fighters to be very useful. They're very hard to play, far more so than a wizard, cleric or druid.
    The job isn't just to hit stuff. The job is to face off on the front line. That involves hitting stuff, getting hit
    Yes, but how?
    There's no mechanic in the Fighter class that could do that. In my current group my Wizard gets targeted a lot more than the tank.
    Unfortunately the Fighter could do nothing about that, D&D has no aggro system for the Fighter class. And by the way a Fighter isn't really that durable without magic. Yes, she has a lot of HP. But she could be entagled, blinded, slowed, paralyzed, stunned and much more. And she could do little about that. Primary casters could protect themselves with spell, Fighters couldn't. By the way, Fighters don't have great saves. They need the primary casters' support to survive, while primary casters have little need of them: I found that a well placed Summon Monster most of the times could replace a Fighter all too well.

    It's sad: and I'm not speaking because I'm a huge fan of casters, but because I love melee warriors. I played them a lot, from Fighters to Paladins. And a lot of times I found that they lack in choices: yes, the casters could make bad choices, but at least they have that chance. As a Fighter, most of the times, I'm stuck with the few tricks I have and nothing more. I feel like I'm just a warm body in the battlefield, which is really annoying.

    And I never played in a high-optimization group.

    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight_v View Post
    Oh and what'd you think of this?
    "I've heard some people complain that playing a spell casting Polar bear at certain levels is broke and ruins the game balance.
    The thing they fail to consider though? Just how many Spellcasting Flying Polar bears they are going to have to fight in the life of a pc.." -Midnight_v
    Sorry, but I'm unsure on what you're trying to say with that. Could you explain, please?
    Last edited by Engine; 2011-07-16 at 08:41 PM.

    Forever in debt with smuchmuch for the cyberpunk avatar.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Leon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaeso View Post
    Spoiler
    Show
    That's the whole problem! The fighters job is "hit stuff", which would be fair enough in a balanced game. The problem, however, is that the clerics job is "heal the wounded, weaken the enemy, buff the party and hit stuff (preferably harder than a fighter on steroids could ever hope to do)". If you look at it like that, even an effective fighter is kind of redundant. In your average "fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard" party, the cleric and wizard could easily take over the roles of fighter and rogue (especially if the cleric is a cloistered cleric with the trickery domain (for sneaky stuff) and dragon domain (for diplomancy)). Actually, a "wizard-cleric-druid-donkey that carries their phat loot" would be better than the 'standard' party.

    Even if we limit ourselves to just "making sure the bad guy dies", the fighter is outshined by all three Core big boys. Let's imagine a very common scenario: the big bad can fly, what does the fighter do? He switches to a bow, but unless he's completely specialized to fight specifically with a bow, he'll suck. On the other hand, a wizard uses overland flight and uses a few blasty spells (I know, unoptimized) to fry the big bad to a crisp. The druid changes into a strong animal that can fly and summons more strong, flying animals. The cleric uses animal devotion or air walk, casually strolls up to the big bad with a big smirk on his face due to how he can simply defy gravity because his god loves him so much, and slaps the big bad in the face with his 1d6+OMGWTFBBQ damage. Even if we assume that the fighter is purely specialised in archery, a zen archery cleric will more often than not be better (because his archery skills are keyed off his primary casting stat, making sure it's pretty much the only stat he'll ever need) and he still has some spells to back him up if archery proves to be sub-optimal in a given situation.

    Another problem a fighter can encounter in his "hit stuff" task is insanely high AC and/or damage reduction. To overcome this obstacle a fighter needs really good rolls and/or magic weapons and/or good armor + hp to make sure he can outlive the big bad in this test of endurance (pro-tip: if the big bad has such a high AC and/or DR and a decent damage output, this isn't going to happen anytime soon). The big three however get to choose between:
    a) summoning something that can overcome their DR and/or AC, or even to just act as a meat shield.
    b) blasting spells that bypass AC and/or DR
    c) weakening his defenses, then smash his face in with a good ol' mace
    d) using other means to take care of him (forcecage + cloudkill, hold person + coup de grace and I'm sure there are other ways to take care of it. Ask one of the Cleric- or Wizard-freaks on this board).

    Now that that's out of the way, we should know that flexibility is the name of the game. Imagine a situation where hitting stuff in the face isn't the best course of action, for example when you need to convince a heavily guarded baron to finance your cause. The fighter will just sit in a corner while he sulks over how he's useless. The big three, however, can use spells to improve their diplomatic prowess, and the druid and cleric even have diplomacy as class skills! If you take a cloistered cleric with the dragon domain he also gets bluff and intimidate as class skills and the spells "voice of the dragon" to boot, which gives him a +10 to diplomacy, bluff and intimidate. A bard with glibness is probably the only thing that can out-diplomance said cloistered cleric.

    Now, what if said baron will somehow refuse to budge and joins the Big Bad's side instead? One way to take care of this (dependant on your alignment) is to assassinate him. A fighter can't do this unless he has some magic items/potions especially for this job or a rogue that's willing to drag him along through a portable hole or something like that. The wizard, however, can use the invisibility spells combined with fly to be unseen and unheard, the druid just changes into an unsuspicious animal (a cat, mouse, owl or what have you) and the cleric has a spell called ghost touch which reduces the AC penalty from his heavy armor. I'm not too familliar with other spells on the cleric list that deal with this problem, but I know that a (cloistered) cleric with the trickery domain gets a lot of stealth skills as class skills.

    This demonstrates that even a fighter who's very good at his job gets out-classed by the big three in what's supposed to be his only purpose, and he's useless unless the situation specifically demands that you crack some skulls. Of course, the best retort would be "the fighter isn't supposed to be a solo player, he has party members that can give him the buffs required". This is a very good retort, but let's think about it this way: what would make the wizard more effective, a fighter that needs half of his spells, or a cleric that can provide himself with all the spells he needs and have some to spare for his wizard buddy?
    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.

    Diplomacy - well that is what happens when you you rely solely on a skill and its numbers, never played like that with any of the groups i have joined or run over time - if you You cant say what you want to say diplomatically then having a +100 to the skill is not going to change anything.
    Diplomacy is not mind control you may well get the target up to being helpful but if no means no then all you have a a helpful person telling you no you cant do that


    I play a Cleric, i know all these silly things you can do with them. I don't buff the wazoo out of my self and wade into combat to dominate as i know that its better to buff the wazoo out of everyone else and make for a better group as a whole than be selfish in a group environment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight_v View Post
    Wow. Thats such a falsehood that I don't know if you're being funny or not. Fighters specifically CAN'T do that without excessive optimization. He doesn't hit things hard enough, especially not the things that do the same job as him on team evil.
    Unless you know your optimization you really are not going to be able to the things that people think when they think of the archtype.
    No, you don't need Optimization - its just that many of you have done so much with it for so long that you forget that its not needed.

    The Fighter/Monk/Whatever all work and do so well without it.
    Fine its not earth shattering breakable like a full spell caster is but its also not bad and can do its thing just fine but more so with a bit of magical support.

    If you are lording it over another player who is not playing a full spell caster for not having what your class can do then you are a bad player.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grey McBannert View Post
    Spoiler
    Show

    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.
    The wizard is being a jerk - the fighter would best find a group with better players.
    Last edited by Leon; 2011-07-16 at 10:50 PM.
    Thankyou to NEOPhyte for the Techpriest Engiseer
    Spoiler
    Show

    Current PC's
    Ravia Del'Karro (Magos Biologis Errant)
    Katarina (Ordo Malleus Interrogator)
    Emberly (Fire Elemental former Chef)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_G View Post
    Just play the character you want to play. Don't feel the need to squeeze every point out of the build.
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    take this virtual +1.
    Peril Planet

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chicago Suburbs
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    Diplomacy - well that is what happens when you you rely solely on a skill and its numbers, never played like that with any of the groups i have joined or run over time - if you You cant say what you want to say diplomatically then having a +100 to the skill is not going to change anything.
    Diplomacy is not mind control you may well get the target up to being helpful but if no means no then all you have a a helpful person telling you no you cant do that
    Not sure what you mean here. Your houserule is not a valid argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    I play a Cleric, i know all these silly things you can do with them. I don't buff the wazoo out of my self and wade into combat to dominate as i know that its better to buff the wazoo out of everyone else and make for a better group as a whole than be selfish in a group environment.
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    No, you don't need Optimization - its just that many of you have done so much with it for so long that you forget that its not needed.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    The Fighter/Monk/Whatever all work and do so well without it.
    Your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    If you are lording it over another player who is not playing a full spell caster for not having what your class can do then you are a bad player.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    The wizard is being a jerk - the fighter would best find a group with better players.
    The Wizard is being a jerk because he doesn't need the Fighter's help?

    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?
    Last edited by TroubleBrewing; 2011-07-16 at 10:56 PM.
    Iron Chef Award!

    Spoiler
    Show

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    1st: Do you run the other skills based on player skill too, or is it just the social skills, out of curiosity? I've seen a few games run to undervalue the character's social skills in favor of the player's - mostly by what I'd consider "old-school" DMs - and it always strikes me as curious that a DM would require the socially adept character to be played by the socially adept player, while not making similar demands on the strength-oriented character's player or the dexterity-oriented character's player.

    2nd: Without a certain level of system mastery and/or optimization, you end up either running away, dying, or otherwise not meeting level-appropriate challenges adequately in every campaign I've ever seen. This runs both ways; a DM with good system mastery can arrange matters so that encounters don't curb-stomp the PCs who don't yet have a good grasp on what makes for an effective character in 3.X, just as a player with good system mastery/optimization skills can play a support character in such a way as to make the Half-Elf Monk feel consistently useful in combat. . . provided the DM has a modicum of system mastery, common sense and enough decency not to exploit the myriad weaknesses of a Half-Elf Monk relative to a stronger hit-and-run combat type.
    Last edited by Amphetryon; 2011-07-17 at 06:11 AM. Reason: stray punctuation
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV. Play as me!


    Spoiler
    Show

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphetryon View Post
    1st: Do you run the other skills based on player skill too, or is it just the social skills, out of curiosity? I've seen a few games run to undervalue the character's social skills in favor of the player's - mostly by what I'd consider "old-school" DMs - and it always strikes me as curious that a DM would require the socially adept character to be played by the socially adept player, while not making similar demands on the strength-oriented character's player or the dexterity-oriented character's player.
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chicago Suburbs
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post
    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 disagree with the notion that only socially savvy players can play social characters. There are rules given for Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive checks to circumvent this kind of thing.
    Iron Chef Award!

    Spoiler
    Show

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey McBannert View Post
    I disagree with the notion that only socially savvy players can play social characters. There are rules given for Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive checks to circumvent this kind of thing.
    And you are free to do so; however it is apples to oranges to compare killing a dragon with talking to a prince. A DM can simulate the latter, not the former.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chicago Suburbs
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post
    And you are free to do so; however it is apples to oranges to compare killing a dragon with talking to a prince. A DM can simulate the latter, not the former.
    That's what I'm saying.
    Iron Chef Award!

    Spoiler
    Show

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey McBannert View Post
    That's what I'm saying.
    You disagreed with what I said... To agree with what I said? My original post was pointing out the folly in the "If your doing skills without checks why not combat?!" not saying that doing skills without checks is a good thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Worira's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    Combat - well that is what happens when you you rely solely on an attack and its numbers, never played like that with any of the groups i have joined or run over time - if you You cant drive a sword through an orc's armoured torso then having a +100 to the attack roll is not going to change anything.
    This makes as much sense as the original.

    EDIT: What is up with these ninjas in my threads yo
    Last edited by Worira; 2011-07-16 at 11:18 PM.
    The following errors occurred with your search:

    1. This forum requires that you wait 300 seconds between searches. Please try again in 306 seconds.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chicago Suburbs
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post
    You disagreed with what I said... To agree with what I said? My original post was pointing out the folly in the "If your doing skills without checks why not combat?!" not saying that doing skills without checks is a good thing.
    I just went back and re-read your post like four times. I'm really sorry; I totally thought we were on opposite sides there. I need to get more sleep.
    Iron Chef Award!

    Spoiler
    Show

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    How do these Clerics, Druids, and Wizards never run out of spells
    if they are doing muti buffs, heals, debuffs damage spells, would they not run out after like one or two encounters

    The one thing the fighter has is that he never runs out of hitting things

    do you go to bed after every fight
    do the NPC's let you

    what ever happened to reasorce managment?

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by urbanwolf View Post
    How do these Clerics, Druids, and Wizards never run out of spells
    if they are doing muti buffs, heals, debuffs damage spells, would they not run out after like one or two encounters

    The one thing the fighter has is that he never runs out of hitting things

    do you go to bed after every fight
    do the NPC's let you

    what ever happened to reasorce managment?
    Oh I assume that resource management went out the window when the fighter used up his limited resource and the casters had to keep him alive with their resources.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight_v View Post
    This is totally contingent on how you define "cheesiest" it sounds like your definition includes any caster whose dedicated to doing anything but evocation.
    An all caster party works better than a balanced party if the the All caster party is balanced. I could show you how they work better in every way if you like.
    [/SPOILER]
    That might help. A link would be fine, since presumably it's been done already. The only examples I've seen show the casters breaking down into a number of specialist roles, some of would be better done by a non-caster. Maybe I've not seen a strong enough example.

    I tried an all caster party, and by the end of the 5th fight they were leaning pretty heavily on the druid's animal companion and summoned speed bumps, and by the end of the 8th fight, they were running out of steam. Of course we'd banned persist and DMM. The all-casters did ok, they managed just fine, they just weren't as flexible as the balanced party.

    You mention Gish, which gives me pause. If your casters include Gish, then you're not doing without front-liners, you're just giving them some casting levels. Which is fine, but means you need to give the same flexibility to the front-liner builds too.

    I just use the term front-liner to avoid using fighter - a particular character class that has it's own problems - or meleeist, which gives a false impression of what a good front liner should be able to achieve.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey McBannert View Post
    This absolutely is not true. I challenge you to build a "balanced" first level party that "works better" than a first level party of all spellcasters will. If it works at first level, it works at every level, because spellcasters scale quadratically.
    ? That doesn't follow.

    I have played and DMed all caster parties, and played and DMed balanced parties. I don't agree that the former work better. Maybe it's because we don't use persist spell, or DMM?


    Quote Originally Posted by Grey McBannert View Post
    Fighter: Need me to stand in front of you while you cast spells so you don't get grokked?

    Wizard: Nah. Fly.
    You're using a 3rd level spell slot at the start of every fight? And relying on winning initiative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey McBannert View Post
    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.
    You're using a 2nd level slot at the start of every fight? And relying on winning initiative. For a spell that might keep you safe for maybe two rounds?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey McBannert View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Togo; 2011-07-17 at 04:50 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by olentu View Post
    Oh I assume that resource management went out the window when the fighter used up his limited resource and the casters had to keep him alive with their resources.
    What resources has the fighter used up?

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Togo View Post
    What resources has the fighter used up?
    HP. Remember? He tanks attacks by blocking hits with his face. Also, all the other consumbles to let him be up to par (flight, true seeing, limited teleportation etc).
    "Power is merely the faculty to act. It is a kinetic quantity few can grasp. The deaths of these fanatics costs me nothing. I can replace them. Because I never stop moving."

    -Lucian~Fortuna Saga-

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Togo View Post
    What resources has the fighter used up?
    HP. Standing in front getting hit involves losing HP.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Engine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Milan,Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Togo View Post
    That doesn't follow. I have played and DMed all caster parties, and played and DMed balanced parties. I don't agree that the former work better. Maybe it's because we don't use persist spell, or DMM?
    A lot of times I've played without DMM, and I found that spellcasters work better. I found they work better even just in Core.

    Quote Originally Posted by Togo View Post
    You're using a 3rd level spell slot at the start of every fight? And relying on winning initiative?
    Every character relies on winning the Initiative. Even the Fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Togo View Post
    Fighter: Hang on... You don't sound like a terrbily viable character in all.. Are... are you... are you just a theoretical build?
    We have a Witch, a Cleric and a Wizard: none is a theoretical characters, and we do just fine. Because an encounter heavy on party's resources is heavy on Fighter's resources, too. To me, it seems that is your Fighter the theoretical character: a Fighter who can go on on fighting all day without running out of HP just like spellcasters run out of spell slots, who can effectively tank the enemies thus protecting the other party members without a single mechanic that let him do that (houserules don't count).

    I love the concept of the Fighter; I hate the Fighter class.
    Last edited by Engine; 2011-07-17 at 05:36 AM.

    Forever in debt with smuchmuch for the cyberpunk avatar.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

    Quote Originally Posted by LordBlades View Post
    HP. Standing in front getting hit involves losing HP.
    Does it involve losing hp any faster than they are lost anyway? .

    Taking a step back, I'd suggest that any discussion of what's better or worse can only be contingent on a single style of play. I played in one 1st ed campaign where manipulation of wealth made other character traits irrelevent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Engine View Post
    I love the concept of the Fighter; I hate the Fighter class.
    I don't particularly like it. As a pure class it doesn't really do what it's supposed to, I generally go for a mix of base classes and then go for a prestige class, just as I do when playing a caster.
    Last edited by Togo; 2011-07-17 at 06:06 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •