D&D 3E/3.5 Clerics in 3.5

[stormos]

Hey all;

Has anyone noticed that Cleric's in 3.5 seem significantly out of balance with the other classes. Our group has been taking a serious look at Divine Power and Righteous Might. Seperately either one make a Cleric a pretty good fighter. Together they wipe the floor.

In line with this, virtually all of the wizard spells that caused instant death in 3.0 got weakened, but none of the 3.0 Cleric spells were reduced.

It just seems to me that 3.5 Clerics are way to versatile.

Has anyone else ran into this?

P.S. One thing that really bothers me about Cleric spells is that they designers went through the trouble to rename a lot of spells, but missed Animate Dead, Create Undead, and Create Greated Undead. Shouldn't they be Create Undead, Lesser; Create Undead; and Create Undead, Greater?

 

[welby]

I think most people view clerics as the strongest class.

 

[Shin Okada]

I agree with you that Cleric in 3.5e is (and maybe was in all the older editions) the strongest core class. In 3.0e they were already the most versatile class. Now they got a reach weapon (long spear) and this is good.

But I don't agree with you that Divine Power and Righteous Might are too powerful. They are 4th and 5th level, 1 round/level buff spells.

A cleric must spend precious 2 turns to cast both of them. If a PC is always casting 2 buff spells without any trouble, something is wrong. That is the DM's fault.

And those spells have very short duration and good only for that combat at best. If a PC cleric can use 4th and 5th level spells at his disposal and using every time he fights, his enemy may easily accessible to Dispel Magic and other negating spells.

And maybe the DM is tossing to few number of encounters per day. 1roud/level maybe strong when you meet one big fight per day and can spend all your resources for it. But not so strong if you meet 10 of so of relatively smaller encounters. Remember not all the encounter is actually fought. You here some sound behind a door but it maybe a harmless animal or a hostage groaning. So casting high level buff spells at every door is not a good strategy (or at least not so cost-effective).

 

[Deset Gled]

One of the major balancing factors for a cleric is the fact that they don't get to use a lot of their more powerful abilities as often as other characters do. Instead, they are forced to spend more time and spells for healing. Because of this, I also find that it's hard to convice people to play one. Of course, if you have a party with two clerics (or few encounters per day), they can let their more powerful side shine through a lot more often.

As a DM, I find myself worrying more about a twinked out druid than cleric.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree with Shin.

I am playing in a G-series campaign converted over to 3.5. Even though we have a pretty good idea when and where the violence will occur, even though we are on the offensive and using hit & run tactics so we only expect 1 or 2 big fights per day, even though the battles occur more on our terms than our opponent's, actually employing these super buff super short spells is not an easy task.

It is a matter of 'marginal utility'. Is tbuffing myself for a round or two while my friends are getting pounded more effective than buffing up my friends or laying into the enemy with the Flame Strike (or whatever)? The answer is usually no.

If the answer is no in your campaign, then the power level of these two spells is entirely academic.

As for the power level of the cleric, I think the class is markedly better than any other class. Its weakness, such as it is, is the cleric is less flashy than any other class. My observations of RPG player nature indicates that the thrill of playing a flashy PC tends to be high on the list of desirables. Very high. So while the cleric may be mechanically "too powerful", this does not seem to detrimentally affect player enjoyment.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Clerics are very powerful, that's true.

Our group has been taking a serious look at Divine Power and Righteous Might. Seperately either one make a Cleric a pretty good fighter. Together they wipe the floor.

Don't forget Divine Favour

Well, you can't use that combo all day (unless you only have one fight per level) Sure, on higher levels you can quicken them, but you're still limited in your uses per day, and on lower levels you'll need some time to prepare - and you don't always have the option to do so before combat. So you'll miss out at least one round (and fights in D&D tend to be rather short, so that's a lot)

Then, they don't last long, so even if you use them before a fight, there is the possibility that the enemy comes only after your spells have run out.

And if you fight a spellcaster, he might be smart enough to put a targeted dispel on the oversized cleric....

In line with this, virtually all of the wizard spells that caused instant death in 3.0 got weakened, but none of the 3.0 Cleric spells were reduced.

Virtually all? I only know about Disintegrate. One of the more devastating wizard spells.

Clerics, on the other hand, got toned down in several instances:
Hold person now allows additional saves - and clerics get that sooner than wizards. A cleric 3 could had the first virtual save or die spell with that. Now the guy gets to make another save, so you need to get the timing right to deliver the CdG, and you can't hack away at your leisure as he'll snap out sooner or later.
Harm, one of the most problematic spells in 3e, has been toned down as well, and won't reduce the Great Red Wyrm to 1d4 hp without a save on his part.

It just seems to me that 3.5 Clerics are way to versatile.

Clerics are often acused to be too versatile (but funnily enough, people also state that they're too bland, and not customizable enough, and 2e had that better).

I'm not totally sure whether I say they're too versatile, but I wouldn't say they're "way too versatile".

P.S. One thing that really bothers me about Cleric spells is that they designers went through the trouble to rename a lot of spells, but missed Animate Dead, Create Undead, and Create Greated Undead. Shouldn't they be Create Undead, Lesser; Create Undead; and Create Undead, Greater?

I think, that's because it isn't Greater Create Undead (so the task of creating undead has become greater), but Create Greater Undead (so the undead you create are greater ones).

Also, note that Create Undead doesn't reference Animate Dead (while it does state that it is a much more potent spell than animate dead, it doesn't say "as animate dead, except...") so Animate Dead doesn't belong to the chain spell. And "Create Undead, Greater" was also unnecessary because the spells both start with Create and are next to each other in the book.

The only spell chain they messed up more or less, is alter self/ polymorph /shapeshift. they reference each other but are several pages apart. They could have renamed them lesser polymorph, polymorph, greater polymorph (and polymorph any object and polymorph, baleful)

 

[Ogre Mage]

Clerics were actually more overpowered in 3.0, with the 1 hour/level buff spells, 3.0 hold person and 3.0 heal and harm. The extend spell feat made the 1 hour/level buff spells ridiculous. 3.0 persistent spell made things even more crazy as high level clerics could achieve all-day divine power and righteous might with minimal effort.

 

[ForceUser]

And yet, despite the fact that clerics are obviously one of the most powerful classes in 3E, they are still one of the least popular classes to play. Few enjoy the role of healer. While I agree that divine favor, righteous might & divine power make for a thunderously powerful combination, that is a minimum of two rounds spent buffing while a fight is going on. As veteran 3E players can attest, 2 rounds is an eternity in combat, especially at the higher levels. Fights often last no more than 3-5 rounds; if you spend half of that time buffing, what have you really accomplished?

I played a 3.5E cleric, starting in 3.0, from 5th to 14th level. Yes, he was a powerhouse. I did RM & DP and soloed fire giants. I put the dual-axe wielding fighter to shame in the melee output department while also covering party healing & buffing. But you know what? I took up the role of cleric at 5th level because nobody else wanted to play one and we had a big party with little healing. Over the course of the campaign, characters came & went, either killed off or retired, and nobody ever made another cleric, despite the class's obvious power as demonstrated by me.

Power doesn't make the class popular. It's wierd. Me, I love 'em and can't wait to play another in the right campaign.

 

[Ancalagon]

Clerics can be very fun to roleplay though, all the dogma can lead to fun stuff.

I think that, while a few clerical spells were strengtened in 3.5, overall the clerics lost power. The shorter duration stat-buffer spells are a huge deal, magic vestment and greater magic weapon doesn't work as well, bladebarrier doesn't work the same, harm and heal are different...

Finaly, party with multiple healers are always more successfull IMO, and it allows each healer to do more than just be a bandaid battery.

Ancalagon

 

[Perun]

I can't speak for others, but I for one don't mind the role of a healer. What I do mind is the "blandness" of the cleric class.

Based on their game stats (average BAB, decent HD, proficient in all armour types), it's clear they're designed to be a second-line combatants. Meaning you'll probably go for decent Str and Con scores. You'll also want a decent Wis, and if you want to make use of your Turn Undead ability, you'll want a decent Cha as well.

That leaves Dex and Int as "dump stats". Low to average Dex will make you bad in ranged combat, but it's surviveable. Low to average Int will give you just your low base skill points (or even a penalty, if you go with 9 or lower), and a cleric pretty much goes for Knowledge (religion) (because it both makes sence for the class and for the lovely +2 turn check synergy it gives, especially if your Cha isn't all that great), with Spellcraft and Concentration trailing in close behind.

Besides, class a written leaves very little space for the scholar priest type of character.

That's why I welcomed the cloistered cleric variant from the UA with open arms. I'm currently DM-ing, so I can't test it, and we already had a standard cleric in the party (the player also liked the class from the moment he saw it, and said that he would have made his character a cloistered cleric, if the class had been available at the start of the campaign). Instea dof requiring good scores in Wis, Con, Str and Cha, it benefits from high Wis, Int and Cha.