GameBanshee Forums

Hey guys,

is it just my impression, or are clerics in NWN2 really that strong? Don't get me wrong, cleric's have never been particularly weak in any D&D edition. I always felt them to be quite well-balanced. In NWN2 though, they seem to be even more powerful than wizards or sorcs. Let's just compare some of the most important aspects, in my opinion at least.

First of all, clerics roll d6 instead of d4 for their hitpoints. Furthermore, they can wear heavy armor, use shields, and have a bigger weapon selection. Clerics also have a higher BAB I believe, and get more attacks per round earlier. This makes the cleric very well capable of going for some melee action, whereas the wizard is basically limited to his spells. Maybe some ranged attacking with a bow or crossbow.


Let's take a look at the spell pool now. Normally this is supposed to be the point, where the wizards makes up for his fragility in melee combat. Especially in terms of offensive spells, etc. However, I honestly do feel that the cleric spell pool is at least as good, if not even better. Cleric and Wizard spells are no longer something you can't compare anymore, like it was back AD&D 2nd edition for example.

So anyway, let's take a closer look. Clerics get a lot of excellent buffs/debuffs, damage spells, healing spells, crowd control, etc. As if that wouldn't be enough, they even get the luxury of spontaneous conversion. You don't even have to memorize a single(!) healing spell.

What does the wizard get? Well, he gets buffs/debuffs, too. But they're not any better than those of the cleric. The damage spells? Nope, sorry. The cleric damage spells are even BETTER than the wizard damage spells. Sure, a cleric has no Horrid Wilting or some such. But who needs Horrid Wilting, when he has Firestorm??


Here are some other examples of incredibly powerful cleric damage/combat spells.

Harm: single target, 150dmg from lvl 15 on. 'nuff said. Does the wizard have any lvl 6 spell that can even begin to compare to this? I don't think so.

Destruction: Well, like Finger of Death, just better. Instead of taking 3D6 points of dmg on a failed save, the target takes 10D6 points of dmg. Very nice.


I actually feel a bit cheated as a player who loves arcane spellcasting. It seems to me that the cleric is plate-wearing, melee-fighting, healing, buffing uber-caster, while the wizard is nothing but a simple caster. Still useful, and still powerful, but nothing in comparison to the cleric. They even stripped us off our beloved Timestop!



What's your opinion on this? Are there any important aspects that I missed? Discuss!





So long,
Sol



Note: Please do not drift into multi-classing in this thread.

Well Clerics are certainly very powerful, especially with their domains giving them even more power.

But we do have more spells that do deal out death and destruction. For example, Wail of Banshee is a very very good spell at killing things with low fort save. Now you can argue that clerics have Implosion, but that spell can take out you and your party just as easily as the bad guys.

Then we have the great Bigsby spells, which are awesome, and there is no equivalent cleric spells to compare them to.

Plus, Wizards especially win big time when it comes to skills. I mean we have just a ton more of them then clerics, due to our high Int. And more feats as well, even if you consider the free feats granted by certain cleric domains.

And we have protection spells as well. For example, Shadow Shield, which I think you'll agree is a very very good spell, and Premonition.

We also have better summoning spells, like Planar Binding and Greater Planar Binding which last more then the regular Summon Creature of the same lvl.

The biggest advantage to clerics is that they are very versatile. They don't just stand and cast cast cast. If enemies get up close and personal, or if they get silenced, they just whip out their trusty mace and go beat some people up.

The Cleric (and Druid), have been recognized to be the most "powerful" classes even in the P&P version, because they walk the upper middle range of both melee and spellcasting, with the option to buff themselves to strengths beyond a Fighter, given time, and a plethora of offensive spell options to match any Wizard. Not to mention that they have all spells available to them instead of having to hunt down a scroll for a desired spell.

Yes, being a servant of a deity has to have advantages over obtaining those spell power by your own self!

My arcane bread and butter is firebrand, isaacs missle storm, and lesser isaacs missle storm, - all of them as is, or empowered, or maximized. Because clerics have none of these 9 options, it's hard for me to think that they can match a wizards offensive power.

I think there is alot more to offensive spell power than what are your best two or three or ten spells. You have to consider every spell level 1-9. When you dig a little deeper, wizards/sorcerors get alot more use out of metamagic feats than clerics, and this can make a big difference. The key is that arcane magic has better offensive spells at lower levels. This gives versitility and effectiveness vs smaller foes, and when using empower, maximize spell, even more good options at high levels. Here's some examples.

You liked Harm as a cleric spell - 150 damage after level 15. I like Flame Arrow as a good comparison, Maximized Flame Arrow that is - 96 damage after level 16 AND can be fired from a distance AND damage continues to increase at levels 20,24,28,32 etc.

You like Fire Storm for a cleric - Mages have Maximized and Empowered Firebrand with both probably deal better average damage and are party friendly.

It's difficult for a cleric to be a great offensive caster because too many spells are inconvienient is one way or another. Many are short range or require a touch attack (Harm, Slay Living); Some have a small area of affect (Flame Strike); Certain spell levels don't even have a decent offensive option.

I believe that a Cleric's offensive spells are best used as backup, when buffing and healing are not going to win the day. When you are ambushed by 5 shadow priests who are about to cast Finger of Death at your whole party, it might be time to drop a Fire Storm to take them out. When you are trying to beat up a demon, but arn't geting through his damage resistance, Harm is a nice way to take down his hitpoints.

This is not to say that Clerics or Wizards/Sorcerors are more powerful characters. As previously described Clerics have other things going on that adds to their power.

Snipercon wrote:
You like Fire Storm for a cleric - Mages have Maximized and Empowered Firebrand with both probably deal better average damage and are party friendly.

It's the other way around, actually. Fire Storm doesn't hurt your party, while Firebrand randomly targets any creature in the area of effect. Same with Isaac's Missile Storm btw. That's probably the main reason why I dislike these spells.

They're fine for soloing, but in a group you do not often get the chance to set them off without damaging any of your party members. Unless you're playing on normal or easy difficulty of course.

Most of the cleric aoe spells however, like Fire Storm or Storm of Vengeance for example, only damage your enemies, while your own party is unaffected. This also allows much better placement of those spells.




So long,
Sol

There are some very nice spells, which clerics more or less lack (less in the meaning they can't have it all, only some of them if they choose the according domains).

DR - they lack completely the nice DR giving spells.
Spell immunity/absorb - against those disabling/instant killing spells.
Imp. Invisibility - Sancuary is kind of like it, however 50% concealment is still a very-very good thing.
Polar Ray - no save/no comment
Various elemental damage - mages have spells dealing various elemental damage evenly spread, they do not have any problem dishing out damage to anything. The red dragon comes to my mind - clerics are worthless against him no matter how buffed up they are. Also, "magic" type damage spells are rare in the cleric list, and they are simply the best DD spells.
Undead - yes, you heard me right. No way a cleric can deal with a high level lich/mummy/vampire with less effort than a mage. Turn won't work (only if you have so high cha that it cripples your build), and they will throw their saves against the spells. And usually mage spells have better damage in the case of a passed save.
Shapeshift - this only came to my mind, I do wonder if it is true however. I never played a shifter mage, but probably it can be good with the lot of forms.
Haste
Knock

Also, according to my experience (I love sorcs and clerics, I played them at least 5-10 times through the whole OC) they are nearly the same. Well a pure cleric vs. mage PvP could be interesting, but I think if the players are good, a mage could beat a cleric.

Solusek wrote:Firebrand randomly targets any creature in the area of effect. Same with Isaac's Missile Storm btw.

That's not how it works in the game. Firebrand only targets enemies. I can cite a source, and I just tested on hardcore to confirm this.

"Firebrand: d6/lvl fire damage (to 15d6) to 1 target/level
//Deals damage only to enemies, making it very party-friendly. Range
//could be longer, but otherwise an extremly nice spell."
GameFAQs: Neverwinter Nights 2 (PC) Wizard/Sorceror Guide by ShinesmanOffWhite

Also, I primarily use Isaacs targeted at a single creature. Heaps of damage, good range, and no save makes this ideal.

I didn't realize that Fire Storm was also party friendly, and that makes it a top notch damage spell. However, my point was not that Clerics don't have good damage spells, but that they don't have quality damage spells at EVERY level. Because Mages have a better variety of options, Empower/Maximize spell can be used to really multiply their overall firepower.

Firebrand still makes this point. As the game mechanics currently work, Maximized and Empowered Firebrands simply do better average damage than Fire Storm AND because they occupy two spell levels you can potentially have twice as many castings.