# WHy do druids and clerics get special treatment?



## Sylrae (Aug 10, 2010)

Just something I've always wondered.

Why do the druid and cleric get medium bab, better hp, and armor access, while retaining full spellcasting?

It's been often said that they were the most powerful class.

Take a look at the summoner. Other than summon spells, he casts like a bard for that medium bab and d8.

Are there reasons that the druid and cleric should cast up to 9th level spells instead of being capped at 6? (d10 hd: armor + 4th level spell cap, d8 hd: lighter armor + 6th level spell cap, d6 hd: no armor + 9th level cap?)

am I the only one who sees the cleric and druid as a wizard with an "infinite spell list" and nonmagical combat abilities to boot?

I'm not saying this thought is right. Maybe it makes sense as is. if so, I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation as to why.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 10, 2010)

Clerics and Druids get a better BAB and armor proficiencies because they tend to get into melee alot, while wizards and sorcerers are designed to avoid melee like the plague. Clerics and Druids don't have the arsenal of offensive spells that arcane casters do. Instead, they have powerful buff spells and things like wild shape that allow them to go into melee and not die horribly.

As for why they get their entire spell list free, I've always kinda disliked this too, though their spell list doesn't even begin to compare to the wiz/sor list for power and versatility. Clerics and Druids each fill a much narrower niche, while wizards and sorcerers have a spell for just about everything imaginable other than healing and resurrection (with high level spells like wish, they can even do that).


----------



## Gorbacz (Aug 10, 2010)

You're kind of 10 years late to the party, Sylrae - if not longer. The "why clerics and druids are more awesome than the rest of the universe" topic was beaten to death across the history of 3.0 and 3.5. Whatever we will write here will be just a repeat of that discussion.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 10, 2010)

Basic summary: the 3e design team felt that, on the whole, people needed a little bribery to make sure someone always wanted to play a cleric, as healing and buffing was not deemed to be all that glamorous. Since druids might be pressed into service as a healer, they got brought along for the ride.


----------



## Sylrae (Aug 10, 2010)

I had those discussions in 3.x, I just find it odd that they weren't addressed in pfrpg.

I remember in 2e cleric spells only went up to 7th level. Don't remember how druids were handled, but I think it was similar.

I wouldn't mind druids and clerics as 2/3 casters, like the bard and summoner, and make full caster versions that are squishier with all the way up to 9th, and a couple extra perks.

Has anyone tried this and how did it work.

Are the spell lists really that specialized to make up for the fact that they get extra goodies? I think I remember seeing damage spells for the druid as good as the wizard's, though I'm not sure the cleric gets fantastic spells that are not buffs.

Obviously cleric and druid fans would protest, but would lowering the spell level access for clerics and druids to match the other d8 casters make them terrible? would they need a couple other goodies to bring them back up in power to match the summoner?


----------



## Sylrae (Aug 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Basic summary: the 3e design team felt that, on the whole, people needed a little bribery to make sure someone always wanted to play a cleric, as healing and buffing was not deemed to be all that glamorous. Since druids might be pressed into service as a healer, they got brought along for the ride.



Hmm. not many players play a druid built for healing (I've seen players refuse to even prepare healing spells, and tell the party members to buy potions/wands - or say the most they'll do is operate the cure light wounds wands purchased by the rest of the party), and to a lesser extent, seen clerics do the same. "I worship the god of war. I don't take healing spells."
Now, I don't have a problem with either of those, in theory.  You don't want to make a healer but still want to make a religious/nature type? that should be doable. 

The bard and (now) the witch, also healers, the witch can actually fill the role of party healer, don't get those goodies. The witch gets full casting but a d6, and the bard gets a d8 but 2/3 casting (and virtually nothing he can do BUT buff and heal ~and perform).

I don't expect my players to build parties with healers if they don't want to, and in that case try to make healing items readily available (I don't even require the players to build parties to cover everything - one time we had 2 different builds of rogue, a noncasting ranger variant, a swashbucvkler, and a fighter. they went through a hell of alot of potions and used alot of wands. lol.)

But the explanation wasn't that of making them on an even playing field, more of bribing someone who may play the healer?

I'm seriously considering going the route of the summoner on these guys. 2/3 casting, with whatever your schtick is as something you can do better than that. The summoner can summon and planar ally up to 9th, and even has an SLA for it. The cleric should get cure/inflict/restoration stuff/etc to 9 even if the rest of the spells only go to 6, and the druid should get summon nature's ally up to 9 (and should look very similar to the summoner.) Is there a good reason ~NOT~ to perform this particular nerf? Has anyone already done a decent job of it?


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 10, 2010)

*APG Inquisitor*

Well there's the APG Inquisitor, he's a divine caster going to 6th level though starting at first, a limited spell list though. He's also good with the bow, and his judgements, as well as team feats. He's kind of a ranger for the church. Certainly fitting a different niche, and probably not what you're looking for, but such a character already exists.

I've thought about experimenting building an arcane caster using the Inquisitor as template, and swapping arcane for divine spells, a limited spell list, and something other than judgements, though bow would make as good a weapon choice, perhaps sword too. Just for experimentation.

GP


----------



## Sylrae (Aug 10, 2010)

What I'm going for is more of a weighing of the pros and cons of nerfing druid and cleric (maybe oracle too). by either lowering bab/hd/armor proficiencies, or lowering their casting to that of the summoner, and then offering both options seperately.

The alternative that I also think would be worth weighing the pros and cons of would be considering the ramifications of upping everyone to d8s with light armor proficiency, and dropping the bad bab entirely. (I dont think this is the way to go for the record, but it raises the question, why does that spellcasting class get it when this one doesnt? I'm not sure I'm convinced the cleric spell list is so terribly inferior to the wizard list.)

I'm looking for comments on how it would be good/bad and why, and any suggestions that may be better. I mean, there is a reason people frequently cite these two classes as the most powerful in the game-that to me means we either start using them as the measuring stick and raise anything up until it's as good as these are, or we tone them back until they're on par with the other classes more.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 10, 2010)

I don't think much good would come from nerfing the druid or cleric. Some of the reasons they've got their benefits are legacy - moderate BAB, d8 hit die plus their typical roles in a campaign.
As for why they get 9th level spells, there wasn't much reason to restrict them from that. The 7th level spells in 1e/2e made them pretty much full casters then and 3e just normalized it so that every full caster got the same levels of spells. Wizards and sorcerers get a lot flashier and variable offense by comparison and that's a fair trade with the lower BAB and hp of the arcanists.
The real issue is the expansion of spells and getting the full list to choose from. The expanded spells have to be much more carefully balanced in the whole of the spell list for clerics and druids than the wizards and sorcerers who have to deliberately build their lists, incorporating higher opportunity costs the whole time. 
Besides, the main problem with the druid - wildshape - has already been substantially reduced in power. Not much more is necessary.


----------



## Kaisoku (Aug 10, 2010)

The Oracle has Sorcerer spellcasting. In my own play experience (yes, actual play experience, not theory), the level behind on curative response magic (such as, curing permanent blindness for example), is felt critically.

The 3.5e (or was it 3.0e?) DMG had rules on creating new spells for casters. It stated some fairly specific rules for how to build a divine spell over an arcane spell.
Let me see if I can find it...

... Okay, I'll paraphrase some of the advice stated in here (pg 35, 3.5e ver):

- If it's so good you can't see someone not taking it, then it's too powerful (or too low level).
- Compare range/duration/target to other spells to check the balance.
- Arcane magic should have the best offensive magic, flashy/dramatic, but not have healing/restorative magic.
- Clerics should have the best curative and alignment magic, and have great information gathering magic.
- Druids should have the best animal/plant magic.
etc (more stuff on the different classes)

Then there's a section on "Damage Caps for Spells", where it outright states the damage caps for different levels, with a specifically different table for Divine magic that lists all damage amounts at one step behind.

So originally, the spell lists for Clerics and Druids were meant to be far more restrictive.
Also, the Druid has a bit of a different spell list over the Cleric, in that their curative magic is delayed slightly, which allows access to some more "flashy" or damaging spells accessed earlier (around Arcane Magic levels) in compensation, but only when it's appropriate to nature magic.

Splatbooks and 3PP material tended to power creep, and thus remove those types of restrictions in many areas... which is why it's not usually an issue if you played with core rules only.


----------



## Gorbacz (Aug 10, 2010)

The major problem with the Cleric was that he was able to replace Fighter and Paladin easily. In Pathfinder, this was toned down by removing heavy armor proficiency and nerfing the holy trifecta.

The major problem with the Druid was Wildshape, and Pathfinder addressed this as well by nerfing Wildshape major time.

I doubt that any of these two classes needs any further changes.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 10, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> What I'm going for is more of a weighing of the pros and cons of nerfing druid and cleric (maybe oracle too). by either lowering bab/hd/armor proficiencies, or lowering their casting to that of the summoner, and then offering both options seperately.




Given option one of lowering bab/hd/armor(clerics already lost heavy armor prof.), what is the cleric supposed to do? They have a couple of offensive powered spells, but nothing very flashy - especially at the low levels.  With no bab, lesser hd and even less armor they will be left casting buff spells, hiding from combat and healing the party.  That doesn't sound like a very fun character to play.

I've played several clerics in 3.5 and am playing one now in a Pathfinder game.  From the playability standpoint it is much more fun to be able to wade into some combat to help out, cast a buff spell or two here or there to help the party and then have some healing to help out.  If I could only stand on the sidelines and cast a low-level buff spell and heal other party members a cleric would lose a lot of the fun factor.

Wizards and Sorcerers get to make things go boom.  So they can stand back and as their levels increase their spells are much beyond giving people a +1 to hit and more like I am going to incinerate this large area.  

As for lowering the spell progression, I think that is going to have some unintended consequences.  Certain adventures and modules will assume if you have a party level of 5th level that the party will have relatively ready access to some of the remove spells or the increased healing of cure serious.  




			
				Sylrae said:
			
		

> The alternative that I also think would be worth weighing the pros and cons of would be considering the ramifications of upping everyone to d8s with light armor proficiency, and dropping the bad bab entirely. (I dont think this is the way to go for the record, but it raises the question, why does that spellcasting class get it when this one doesnt? I'm not sure I'm convinced the cleric spell list is so terribly inferior to the wizard list.)




Really?  The wizard spell list seems to be much more spectacular.  The cleric has a wealth of spells they can prepare on any given day, but they are relatively niche oriented.  Some buff spells (for party or self), some remove/cure spells and some offensive spells, several of which are of much reduced area than a comparable wizard's skill - flame strike, I am looking at you.  So while cleric spells certain have their place, from the offensive standpoint I think the wizard is a bit better off.

The wizard is also often called the supreme class and blamed for stealing the spotlight as the levels increase.  Not sure increasing their bab and armor proficiencies are going to help that.



			
				Sylrae said:
			
		

> .... I mean, there is a reason people frequently cite these two classes as the most powerful in the game-that to me means we either start using them as the measuring stick and raise anything up until it's as good as these are, or we tone them back until they're on par with the other classes more.




Has anyone played a higher level Pathfinder game to actually weigh in on the power balance with the changes Pathfinder has already made?  I know we've had discussions on how the classes were abused in the past, but often these were followed with "this was never a problem in my game".  

I hate to see the game rules being tweaked to prevent abuse by only 5% of the games out there (yeah, I made that number up) when the RAW are working well for the remaining people.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 10, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> and to a lesser extent, seen clerics do the same. "I worship the god of war. I don't take healing spells."



This seems an odd comment since clerics don't take healing spells in 3X thanks to spontaneous casting.

If you are playing negative energy guys, then it make sense and the issue goes away.  And a negative energy badass cleric character could be cool and effective, but I don't think any moreso than a fighter in PF.


----------



## Kaisoku (Aug 10, 2010)

A lot of divine spells are touch range based, or single target ranged. Only at the really high levels do they get into area stuff, and even then, it's rather restrictive (unlike wizard's toolbox).

What you might be thinking of is a cloistered cleric.
Basically, take away the combat abilities, bump up the range and targets of their spells (curing at a distance, etc), give him a few extra spells in the utility fashion, and possibly more skills or a lore based ability.

With spellcasting that favours keeping at range, and non-combat focused abilities, he doesn't need the BAB, HD or armor and weapon proficiencies.

But that just emphasizes why the current Cleric does need those things... his spell list is tailored to this need for combat-focus.


----------



## Sylrae (Aug 10, 2010)

My comparison was brought on by the summoner. in very many ways, the druid is the existing analog for this guy. arguably you could make a summoner by refluffing the druid, giving a different list of same-cr animal companions and switching up the spell list a bit, and he'd be tougher/better in many ways. that had me start wondering why the c&d get to be all touigh and get thhe 9th level spells.



BryonD said:


> This seems an odd comment since clerics don't take healing spells in 3X thanks to spontaneous casting.
> 
> If you are playing negative energy guys, then it make sense and the issue goes away.  And a negative energy badass cleric character could be cool and effective, but I don't think any moreso than a fighter in PF.



I was saying they choose inflict as their spontaneuous, channel negative energy, and then don't bother taking the cure spells.

IronWolf, what if that reduced spellcasting didn't slow down the cleric's access to healing/remove/raise dead type spells?(like the summoner's access to summon monster planar ally, and gate > because that's the way I was thinking of handling it. They'd get them at lower levels.)



			
				IronWolf said:
			
		

> Really?  The wizard spell list seems to be much more spectacular.  The  cleric has a wealth of spells they can prepare on any given day, but  they are relatively niche oriented.  Some buff spells (for party or  self), some remove/cure spells and some offensive spells, several of  which are of much reduced area than a comparable wizard's skill - flame  strike, I am looking at you.  So while cleric spells certain have their  place, from the offensive standpoint I think the wizard is a bit better  off.



I can sortof see your point when I look through the cleric list in the PF Core book. they dont have the same *number* of spells. as soon as I look at the APG, or I imagine many other splats, paizo or wotc, they start doing the same sorts of ranged damage and whatnot as the wizard.

I don't plan on disallowing the splats, and I dont mind them having a similar array of spells as a wizard, but as above, if they're going to have that array maybe they should be toned back in some of their casting outside their niche. (If I were to reduce the list to 6 spell levels from *ONLY PFcore, they'd lose a couple spells known, but a large majority of the things on the cleric list would get renumbered. and they'd have less spells per day.)hmm.

If I do up a list I'll put it up here for critique.

Has anyone done a cloistered cleric variant for Pathfinder? Maybe that's what I'm looking for. 
Make cloistered Cleric + Cloistered Druid the defaults.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 10, 2010)

I have a player using the Summoner class, and though it might be he plays it too well - the armies of elementals he creates I think make it overpowered - now I haven't seen the final version in the APG, we're currently still using the Beta. But I don't see the Summoner as a baseline to take Clerics and Druids in a similar direction, I'd rather see the Summoner gone from the class lists altogether (but I am sure we'll keep it, just it won't be my favorite class from a DMs point of view.)

So now better understanding your design direction regarding this subject, I don't know how to help you, since your intended direction is 180 degrees opposite from where I'd go.

Summoner to me is just an odd new class, like the Cavalier, something I don't want to see other classes follow in style or direction.

GP


----------



## Kaisoku (Aug 10, 2010)

Well, Unearthed Arcana had a Cloistered Cleric class variant (I guess, similar to how Pathfinder does Archetypes).
It's OGC, so you can click that link to see it.

I think they went with "knowledge focused" for their non-combat focus, so their class skills, lore ability, and spell/domain choices were based around that.

I'd maybe remove the domain thing, and expand the spell list a bit to get a little more utility, and the bonus that they can cast cure/inflict spells at a range of "close", to make them a little more universal in application.
Edit: Oh! And change the extra class skills to be more based on the domains chosen (perhaps make a list that has one to two skills related to each domain).


----------



## Sylrae (Aug 10, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> I have a player using the Summoner class, and though it might be he plays it too well - the armies of elementals he creates I think make it overpowered - now I haven't seen the final version in the APG, we're currently still using the Beta. But I don't see the Summoner as a baseline to take Clerics and Druids in a similar direction, I'd rather see the Summoner gone from the class lists altogether (but I am sure we'll keep it, just it won't be my favorite class from a DMs point of view.)
> 
> So now better understanding your design direction regarding this subject, I don't know how to help you, since your intended direction is 180 degrees opposite from where I'd go.
> 
> ...



The APG Summoner is considerably weaker in eidolon and in summoning ability, but has a selection of spells more comparable to the original beta summoner.

Which beta are you using? "Final playtest"? or the original that they toned back considerably?

I'm kindof just seeing a standardization that maybe d8 = 6 spell levels + specialized spells all the way up to nine, but renumbered, may not be a bad idea.

If you're finding summoner too powerful, try out the APG.



Kaisoku said:


> Well, Unearthed Arcana had a Cloistered Cleric class variant (I guess, similar to how Pathfinder does Archetypes).
> It's OGC, so you can click that link to see it.
> 
> I think they went with "knowledge focused" for their non-combat focus, so their class skills, lore ability, and spell/domain choices were based around that.
> ...



Good suggestion. I'll give it a shot and post my findings trying to do this in PFRPG. Maybe people will like it, who knows.


----------



## Philosopher (Aug 10, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> Has anyone done a cloistered cleric variant for Pathfinder?




The Tome of Secrets has a priest class, which is very similar (but not exactly the same) as the cloistered cleric.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Aug 11, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Given option one of lowering bab/hd/armor(clerics already lost heavy armor prof.), what is the cleric supposed to do? They have a couple of offensive powered spells, but nothing very flashy - especially at the low levels. With no bab, lesser hd and even less armor they will be left casting buff spells, hiding from combat and healing the party. That doesn't sound like a very fun character to play.



Flashy?
Like Hold Person, etc?

Or by Flashy do you mean damage spells?


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 11, 2010)

Starbuck_II said:


> Flashy?
> Like Hold Person, etc?
> 
> Or by Flashy do you mean damage spells?




Yes, Hold Person can be useful.  Of course an equivalent level wizard could easily cast web and control a much larger portion of the battlefield or break out a scorching ray spell for some flashy fun!


----------



## concerro (Aug 11, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> Just something I've always wondered.
> 
> Why do the druid and cleric get medium bab, better hp, and armor access, while retaining full spellcasting?
> 
> ...




"Full Casting" is misleading. The arcane spells are a lot better than the divine spells. The squishy wizard is still the most powerful class according to most people.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 11, 2010)

If you believe that they still are, and if you happen to be right, it would be a legacy thing.

Otherwise, it's historical. Time was, no-one wanted to play one, and with good reason, for the most part (in terms of mechanics and play experience, generally) - so, they got bumped up, big time.

Class balance is such a funny thing, because it brings out such extreme claims and exclamations. Online, at least. . .


----------



## joela (Aug 11, 2010)

Sylrae said:


> I had those discussions in 3.x, I just find it odd that they weren't addressed in pfrpg.




The issue was probably brought up in the open playtesting as well. I assumed clerics and druids maintained full-casting for backwards compatibility.


----------



## Herobizkit (Aug 12, 2010)

I second the Cloistered Cleric variant.  It is the "official" Cleric IMC.  You want to be a good warrior with some priest magic?  Play a Paladin, 'cuz that's what they do.


----------



## Votan (Aug 12, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> If you believe that they still are, and if you happen to be right, it would be a legacy thing.
> 
> Otherwise, it's historical. Time was, no-one wanted to play one, and with good reason, for the most part (in terms of mechanics and play experience, generally) - so, they got bumped up, big time.
> 
> Class balance is such a funny thing, because it brings out such extreme claims and exclamations. Online, at least. . .




My experience of high level 3.5E play (let you know about high level pathfinder in about a year) is that full casters* could *dominate above 15th level (only), but this is highly dependent on campaign style and assumptions.  It's notable that a lot of the adventure paths top out around here:

Rise of the Runelords: 15th level
Curse of the Crimson Throne: 16th level
Second Darkness: 16th level
Legacy of Fire: 15th level
Council of Thieves: 13th level
Kingmaker: 15th level (but doesn't give a range)
Sepent's Skull: 15th level (but doesn't give a range)

The reason I bring this up is, if you accept that there is a caster/non-caster imbalance, most reports (and my own experience) suggest that it does not show up until you get to above these levels.  My 3.5E experience involved combinations of feats, items and abilities that were perhaps not perfectly thought out -- none of these seem to exist in Pathfinder.  

So it is worth considering that,* if *the cleric is slightly too strong, it is an issue that won't show up (if at all) until the extreme end of the campaign.  These also happen to be levels that the non-caster classes get some new and interesting abilities (look at weapon and armor mastery for the Fighter or the high level Paladin abilities).


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 12, 2010)

I think it has already been said but it should be stressed. Do not make the mistake of comparing the Druid and Cleric spell lists with that of the arcane spell list. The druid comes close but by far the arcane list has a lot more high damaging spells, battlefield control, enhancements, utility, and nastier debuffs than the divine caster lists. Because of the greater power inherent on the arcane spell list the divine casters are compensated with other abilities.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 13, 2010)

Votan said:


> Kingmaker: 15th level (but doesn't give a range)




The final Kingmaker AP expects you to be around 15th at the start and hitting 17th at the end.


----------



## Psion (Aug 13, 2010)

Falling Icicle said:


> As for why they get their entire spell list free, I've always kinda disliked this too, though their spell list doesn't even begin to compare to the wiz/sor list for power and versatility.




I believe that in 3e, the "know all spells" thing was instrumental in making the abusable. Because every new supplement that comes out, _et voila!_ You know all the new power-escalating spells!


----------



## Votan (Aug 13, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> The final Kingmaker AP expects you to be around 15th at the start and hitting 17th at the end.




Fair enough.  Even with that range, if we assume minor balance issue between casters (e.g. clerics) and non-casters begin after 16th level than they would be present for a very small portion of the adventure.  

That doesn't seem like it is worth a class redesign over!


----------

