Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Jim · 06-12-2003, 08:02 AM

You really can't compare these two. They are completely different classes that serve completely different purposes and where one shines the other sucks.

My 2 Euros:

A cleric will have a vastly superior AC over a mage
A cleric will have a superior THAC0 and choice of weapons over a mage
A cleric has more HP than a mage
A cleric is therefore much more of a tank than a mage
A cleric can destroy undead with great ease, much, much more effectively than a mage
A cleric can buff his summons and party like no other. Simply group them all together and then cast bless, chant, protection from evil 10' radius and defensive harmony
Then he can buff himself - Armour of Faith, Draw upon Holy Might, holy power, death ward, righteous magic etc to rub the "I'm a tank and you're not" statement in that little bit more
A cleric can heal the entire party including summons from almost the entire area of the map by using a single casting of greater restoration, all for the megre cost of fatigue on the caster (thanks for Rataxes for pointing this one out). Sure, a mage can use andrewas' clone+rod of ressurection combo, but this limits to one healing per round only. How about fully healing 6 party members and masses of summons with a single spell casting
A cleric can remove offensive cloud spells such as stinking cloud, incendary cloud, cloud kill, death fog etc. A mage has no way of dispelling these, making life harder for fellow party members
A cleric can cure disease, poisons and remove curses. A mage cannot.
Clerics can summon aerial servants. I love these things. They only hit once per round, but I've seen them hit for over 70 damage on a critical hit! I'd much rather have one of these than an Air Elemental. Druids miss out here. Between Aerial servants and mountain bears, clerical summons will own arcane summons of 6th level or below (I'm sure I'll get flamed for that statement!).

As for casting pure damaging spells, of course the mage wins here, but don't rule out:

Call lightning (massive continous damage over several rounds)
Holy smite (potentially party friendly and good area damage spell)
Flame strike
Fire Storm

If you're comparing a cleric and a mage going head to head against each other, then the mage has the potential (with the correct tactics) to obliterate the cleric. In a large party however, a cleric is an invaluable addition, and I hardly think they aren't effective nor do they get shaft (especially with all their buffs and healing abilities - their summons and offensive spells are a bonus). However, in a situation where a mage is confronted by multiple highly magic resistant foes, then I feel the cleric will have the advantage (due to the tank factor). Sure the mage can slowly lower the resistance of each one, and follow up with an arsenal of offensive spells, but this will take time. Especially if a chain contigency/spell trigger needs to be fired at each foe with 3xlower resistance before the spell casting proper can begin. The cleric can blade barrier/globe of blades and buff up to buggery before engaging each one in melee or unleashing a non resistable firestorm all around him.

By the way, although it looks like I'm trying to say a cleric is better than a mage, this is far from my point. I am simply trying to prove that clerics are far from useless and they do not get shafted (clerics in IWD were substantially worse IIRC, with a VERY limited selection of 6th and 7th level spells). I am actually pro mage! But clerics will always serve a great purpose for me.

[RANDOM THOUGHT]Does improved alactrity enable a mage to use wands with the same no pause per round effect as he/she gains from casting spells? I've never tried this, but if this is possible, then a mage could unload entire wands with 50 charges of fireballs/lightning and cause utter chaos![/RANDOM THOUGHT]

06-12-2003, 08:02 AM	#65
Jim Quintesson Join Date: May 1, 2001 Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, England Age: 45 Posts: 1,088	You really can't compare these two. They are completely different classes that serve completely different purposes and where one shines the other sucks. My 2 Euros: A cleric will have a vastly superior AC over a mage A cleric will have a superior THAC0 and choice of weapons over a mage A cleric has more HP than a mage A cleric is therefore much more of a tank than a mage A cleric can destroy undead with great ease, much, much more effectively than a mage A cleric can buff his summons and party like no other. Simply group them all together and then cast bless, chant, protection from evil 10' radius and defensive harmony Then he can buff himself - Armour of Faith, Draw upon Holy Might, holy power, death ward, righteous magic etc to rub the "I'm a tank and you're not" statement in that little bit more A cleric can heal the entire party including summons from almost the entire area of the map by using a single casting of greater restoration, all for the megre cost of fatigue on the caster (thanks for Rataxes for pointing this one out). Sure, a mage can use andrewas' clone+rod of ressurection combo, but this limits to one healing per round only. How about fully healing 6 party members and masses of summons with a single spell casting A cleric can remove offensive cloud spells such as stinking cloud, incendary cloud, cloud kill, death fog etc. A mage has no way of dispelling these, making life harder for fellow party members A cleric can cure disease, poisons and remove curses. A mage cannot. Clerics can summon aerial servants. I love these things. They only hit once per round, but I've seen them hit for over 70 damage on a critical hit! I'd much rather have one of these than an Air Elemental. Druids miss out here. Between Aerial servants and mountain bears, clerical summons will own arcane summons of 6th level or below (I'm sure I'll get flamed for that statement!). As for casting pure damaging spells, of course the mage wins here, but don't rule out: Call lightning (massive continous damage over several rounds) Holy smite (potentially party friendly and good area damage spell) Flame strike Fire Storm If you're comparing a cleric and a mage going head to head against each other, then the mage has the potential (with the correct tactics) to obliterate the cleric. In a large party however, a cleric is an invaluable addition, and I hardly think they aren't effective nor do they get shaft (especially with all their buffs and healing abilities - their summons and offensive spells are a bonus). However, in a situation where a mage is confronted by multiple highly magic resistant foes, then I feel the cleric will have the advantage (due to the tank factor). Sure the mage can slowly lower the resistance of each one, and follow up with an arsenal of offensive spells, but this will take time. Especially if a chain contigency/spell trigger needs to be fired at each foe with 3xlower resistance before the spell casting proper can begin. The cleric can blade barrier/globe of blades and buff up to buggery before engaging each one in melee or unleashing a non resistable firestorm all around him. By the way, although it looks like I'm trying to say a cleric is better than a mage, this is far from my point. I am simply trying to prove that clerics are far from useless and they do not get shafted (clerics in IWD were substantially worse IIRC, with a VERY limited selection of 6th and 7th level spells). I am actually pro mage! But clerics will always serve a great purpose for me. [RANDOM THOUGHT]Does improved alactrity enable a mage to use wands with the same no pause per round effect as he/she gains from casting spells? I've never tried this, but if this is possible, then a mage could unload entire wands with 50 charges of fireballs/lightning and cause utter chaos![/RANDOM THOUGHT]