battle clerics

[Renvar]

You know, if the OP had said that Battle Clerics are not a wise choice for new players who are just learning the game, particularly in a group environment, I think most would agree with that.

I play a battle cleric and a FvS with some melee capability, but both are very strong healers and I have my keyboard hotkeys programmed to my liking and know how to melee, watch red bars, throw heals, and even back out and lose aggro and switch to full healing mode, when necessary.

I also know most quests pretty well and know which fights will need dedicated healing based on how the party has been handling the quest so far.

None of this probably exists on a new player. This is not a new player bash. I am all about new players and teaching them the game. They will get it over time and be just fine, but the first toon should probably not have these requirements. It would be better to start with a toon that has a larger margin of error, or when grouping play your battle cleric more conservatively toward dedicated healing until you get the hang of the dual role.

The point is, it's not the build. The build takes a fair beating regularly. But the build is a sound one and can be great fun to play and very valuable in a group, if played correctly and with teamwork.

Unfortunately, this is a very good solo build. Melee capability with strong healing leads, especially in levels 1-6. I see a lot of new players going this direction because they feel it makes them more self sufficient and they can heal their own mistakes. But solo play and group play with a battle cleric is so different. And your group play varies so much with the group mix. Have another cleric? Healing bard? FvS? These will all affect your melee/heal ratio.

So, please, let's focus on giving good advice to new players (and vets as well) who play battle clerics rather than just universally slamming the build as a failure.

[BangsLiekWhoa]

What if he has a pocket cleric to baby sit him?

Actually I heal myself fine with no cleric whatsoever. I also heal any other WF in the party and do so better than clerics just b/c I use repair so it works better on WF (no fault of the clerics).

Also, I have received -23 rep for my posts on this thread. I'm sorry to know that so many people will defend to the death a class decision that is useless after the first several levels. I pity you really. If you want to fight pick a melee class, if you want to heal pick a healing class. Don't try to be everything or you will fail miserably.

***And its the clerics that focus on fighting MORE than healing that I have been referring to here.*** They are useless also because people invite a cleric to a party for heals not fighting. So if you get a cleric in your group who refuses to heal (or won't use his spell points to heal but always just wants people to shrine ---> really happened in a Stormcleave Outpost group I was in) you don't have a healer since you simply expected him to do his job.

In short, a healer who fights in melee some is fine (that's the definition of a cleric), but a cleric who only fights is useless. That's how it is regardless of how much you <3 your gimp character.

[BangsLiekWhoa]

You know, if the OP had said that Battle Clerics are not a wise choice for new players who are just learning the game, particularly in a group environment, I think most would agree with that.

I play a battle cleric and a FvS with some melee capability, but both are very strong healers and I have my keyboard hotkeys programmed to my liking and know how to melee, watch red bars, throw heals, and even back out and lose aggro and switch to full healing mode, when necessary.

I also know most quests pretty well and know which fights will need dedicated healing based on how the party has been handling the quest so far.

None of this probably exists on a new player. This is not a new player bash. I am all about new players and teaching them the game. They will get it over time and be just fine, but the first toon should probably not have these requirements. It would be better to start with a toon that has a larger margin of error, or when grouping play your battle cleric more conservatively toward dedicated healing until you get the hang of the dual role.

The point is, it's not the build. The build takes a fair beating regularly. But the build is a sound one and can be great fun to play and very valuable in a group, if played correctly and with teamwork.

Unfortunately, this is a very good solo build. Melee capability with strong healing leads, especially in levels 1-6. I see a lot of new players going this direction because they feel it makes them more self sufficient and they can heal their own mistakes. But solo play and group play with a battle cleric is so different. And your group play varies so much with the group mix. Have another cleric? Healing bard? FvS? These will all affect your melee/heal ratio.

So, please, let's focus on giving good advice to new players (and vets as well) who play battle clerics rather than just universally slamming the build as a failure.

This is more like it. +1

They are good for the first several levels like he says, but not good later for new people. Also, like he said, "some melee capability, but both are very strong healers". This is how clerics should work.

[richieelias]

Except you did not say "but not good later *for new people*"

Instead you made a blanket statement that Battleclerics were not useful after the first few levels. Which is completely, utterly, entirely, stupidly, false.

Hell, even a poorly played battlecleric is still self sufficient. With blade barrier on top of that, he's making a significant contribution to dps as well. It takes a very very very bad player to not be able to utilize the strengths of a Battlecleric.

Now, when you get a new player that tries to do EVERYTHING with a battlecleric... yes, that is a horrid idea and I will suggest new players steer clear of Battlecleric for that very reason every time.

But again, you did not say that.

At first.

[Twerpp]

I believe this game functions best with 6 players who are the best at what they do, not with players who made sacrifices to be mediocre in a couple different areas. Some people call that min maxing but I like the way I said it better.

[BangsLiekWhoa]

I believe this game functions best with 6 players who are the best at what they do, not with players who made sacrifices to be mediocre in a couple different areas. Some people call that min maxing but I like the way I said it better.

Thank you! +1

[richieelias]

I believe this game functions best with 6 players who are the best at what they do, not with players who made sacrifices to be mediocre in a couple different areas. Some people call that min maxing but I like the way I said it better.

That would be so awesome in a perfect world.

Unfortunately, this is not that world so it pays big time to make sure you are always self sufficient.

[Ironforge_Clan]

I believe this game functions best with 6 players who are the best at what they do, not with players who made sacrifices to be mediocre in a couple different areas. Some people call that min maxing but I like the way I said it better.

Twerpp - I have to disagree since the game is 20% build, 20% gear, and 60% the player. I've seen people do amazing things with builds that others only laugh at. It is all about how you use what you have.

BangsLiekWhoa - if you think that every party should be made up of the perfect mix of six characters I suggest you go outside your comfort zone and run with some other people.

[BangsLiekWhoa]

Twerpp - I have to disagree since the game is 20% build, 20% gear, and 60% the player. I've seen people do amazing things with builds that others only laugh at. It is all about how you use what you have.

BangsLiekWhoa - if you think that every party should be made up of the perfect mix of six characters I suggest you go outside your comfort zone and run with some other people.

There you go misquoting... i agreed with him when he said "this game functions best with 6 players who are the best at what they do" not it only functions when this happens. It just functions BEST when this is the case.

My usual group consists of 2 friends and me plus 3 random other people regardless of class. We are a nigh unstoppable force by ourselves, but enjoy having other people along and it also helps to have others. This is far from the "optimal" party formation, but it works.

Please next time try to see what is written clearly, not through a lens of what you want it to say.

[Phidius]

Actually I heal myself fine with no cleric whatsoever. I also heal any other WF in the party and do so better than clerics just b/c I use repair so it works better on WF (no fault of the clerics).

Also, I have received -23 rep for my posts on this thread. I'm sorry to know that so many people will defend to the death a class decision that is useless after the first several levels. I pity you really. If you want to fight pick a melee class, if you want to heal pick a healing class. Don't try to be everything or you will fail miserably.

***And its the clerics that focus on fighting MORE than healing that I have been referring to here.*** They are useless also because people invite a cleric to a party for heals not fighting. So if you get a cleric in your group who refuses to heal (or won't use his spell points to heal but always just wants people to shrine ---> really happened in a Stormcleave Outpost group I was in) you don't have a healer since you simply expected him to do his job.

In short, a healer who fights in melee some is fine (that's the definition of a cleric), but a cleric who only fights is useless. That's how it is regardless of how much you <3 your gimp character.

Heh, sorry 'bout that Bangs... I got carried away having fun with word games, and lost track of who was being talked about I didn't give negative rep, though - don't believe I even can at this point.

But to say in one sentence "If you want to fight pick a melee class...", and then to say "In short, a healer who fights in melee some is fine..." sounds a bit contradictory.

Cleric's may not have the highest theoretical melee DPS, but a dead melee has absolutely none.

[Braegan]

I believe this game functions best with 6 players who are the best at what they do, not with players who made sacrifices to be mediocre in a couple different areas. Some people call that min maxing but I like the way I said it better.

I can sort of agree with that statement for smooth runs and/or elite runs level appropriate. However, a balanced Cleric or Fav Soul can have all the melee prowess it needs at about the same sacrifice as a Ranger or Wizard does taking one or two levels of Rogue for trap skills. They can retain and use their primary function as well as be pretty good in something else entirely. But as Iron has said, that is more in the player then anything else.

[miceelf88]

Meh

I dunno. I have seen some really great battle clerics in action. They're pretty good, if built and played right.

Impaqt has several builds, including a pure class cleric that can be decent at melee while still a the highest level of casting, with just spell selection. The builds that actually have non-cleric levels are a little harder to do correctly, but if one is just using the builds that are out there, they're completely fine.

I think most of the problems with battle clerics are NOT with the builds (although it's possible to build ineffective battle clerics, I know this for a fact). Most of the problems are that many people who want to be battle clerics are those who don't want to be team players or try to be really good at something or have responsibility for a given role in group. The right build isn't going to help such a situation, but those kinds of players tend not to think much about builds anyway.

And, as noted, sometimes, it's that there are non-clerics in group who believe that the cleric's blue bar is just an extension of their red bar.

[BangsLiekWhoa]

Heh, sorry 'bout that Bangs... I got carried away having fun with word games, and lost track of who was being talked about I didn't give negative rep, though - don't believe I even can at this point.

But to say in one sentence "If you want to fight pick a melee class...", and then to say "In short, a healer who fights in melee some is fine..." sounds a bit contradictory.

Cleric's may not have the highest theoretical melee DPS, but a dead melee has absolutely none.

Thanks.

What I meant by that is that I have seen several clerics that want to only fight and keep themselves alive. They do not care to heal anyone else at all. They basically try to play solo even when in a group. And about the "In short, a healer who fights in melee some is fine..." I meant that they can still be a good cleric and fight some as long as they don't ignore the role of healing. Primarily make sure the party stays alive and if you can fight some too, then all the better. And some people just are idiots and will get themselves killed no matter how good the healer, trust me, I understand you can't help this as a healer.

Agreed.

[Ironforge_Clan]

There you go misquoting... i agreed with him when he said "this game functions best with 6 players who are the best at what they do" not it only functions when this happens. It just functions BEST when this is the case.

My usual group consists of 2 friends and me plus 3 random other people regardless of class. We are a nigh unstoppable force by ourselves, but enjoy having other people along and it also helps to have others. This is far from the "optimal" party formation, but it works.

Please next time try to see what is written clearly, not through a lens of what you want it to say.

Hmmm kind of tough to misquote something when you hit the quote button. I think you meant to say inferring or presuming since I used your agreement of what Twerpp wrote and used that to once again render an opinion on what I thought of your opinion.

I still disagree that this game funcitons BEST with the optimal group becuase I truly don't believe there is such a thing. True some party make ups do better in certain quests but even that can be overcome by good players and smart play.

[Renvar]

I believe this game functions best with 6 players who are the best at what they do, not with players who made sacrifices to be mediocre in a couple different areas. Some people call that min maxing but I like the way I said it better.

I respectfully disagree. I think flexibility in the group is much more valuable than 6 toons that are the best (min/maxed). When the unexpected happens (such as lag, bad dice roll, etc) it's good to have some overlap of abilities to be able to recover. Adapt and overcome. Especially when it comes at a low cost.

The Wiz who takes a level of rogue can be 90% of a full Wiz and 90% of a trapsmith. Does that 10% make the difference in success or failure in a quest? Probably not. The sacrifice of 10% of your build max capability for 90% of another area can be a solid trade off.

Same with the Battle Cleric. You can give 10-15% of your healing/casting to be a 80% capable DPS. Is that small percent costing you a completion? Probably not. The player's skill will be more the issue.

I'd rather have 6 players who have maximized their value to the party, rather than ones who have min/maxed a particular role. Even though there are a good number of quests, end game raiding in particular, where you will probably be fulfilling only one role exclusively. Neither my battle cleric nor my FvS melees in Shroud part 4 or part 5. Same with Hound and VoD.

To each his own, and focusing on one thing and being great at it is never a wrong choice, but after having played the game for a while, I find that it's more fun for the player and better for the party to have that flexibility. Especially when PUG'ing these days. PUG'ing is like a box of chocolates. Some of them brown things ain't candy...

[TFPAQ]

Lots of interesting posts...

My dwarven cleric has a strength of 30, Wis of 30 HP 460 and just under 1800 sp. He has GTWF OTWF and wields dual GS Dwarven Axes...

He is Cleric15/Fighter2/Pally3

Is he geared? ... oh yeah... can he run with the top dps guys? yup - and keeps them up with quickened mass heals from the front lines. Is he the best dps build out there? Nope - but is close enough that only the dps "bean counters" would know the difference. His motto in his bio is "I heal from the front".

Can he heal? 788 HP on a crit Heal spell...

What would being a "straight cleric", which appears to mean healbot from a bunch of your posts, bring to the table that this guy can't? Quite honestly the best played clerics make judicious use of offensive spells as well, not just being the healbot or DV battery. Most fights you don't need to command, etc, but if you know where and when, a "true" battle cleric is fun to watch and run with.

Battle cleric doesn't have to mean melee ...

[BangsLiekWhoa]

Hmmm kind of tough to misquote something when you hit the quote button.

Yes it is. Somehow you still did though. Congratulations!

You took my approval of him saying that the party functions BEST with 6 people who are best at what they do to mean that I thought that was the ONLY way thing would work or the only way I would play. I was simply agreeing that it does work BEST that way.

[Ironforge_Clan]

Yes it is. Somehow you still did though. Congratulations!

You took my approval of him saying that the party functions BEST with 6 people who are best at what they do to mean that I thought that was the ONLY way thing would work or the only way I would play. I was simply agreeing that it does work BEST that way.

Simply laughable! Again I must point out that I did not misquote anything, my friend, I inferred from your response that you do indeed share that small minded opinion. And for the record I am not calling you or Twerpp small minded just the idea that a party is better off with six characters that only have one role each.

[rduggins]

I have played and run with some very awsome battle clerics. It is quite easy to do damage and heal at the same time. However in light of the new FTP situation and the lame battle clerics I have had the horror of grouping with latly I sadly have to agree.

it was low level wasnt it

[sirgog]

So, you disabled rep b/c you didn't want negative rep? Is that because you don't know how this game works?

Battle cleric is an awesome choice in PnP (I often play one with great success). However, in DDO, it not that great a choice. The problem is that once you get to higher levels you are not good enough at healing or tanking so you are pretty much useless. Sure he may not be able to spell things correctly even with spell check, but he still has a point even if it is a rant.

Not at all true.

Battle clerics (assuming a Clr18/Ftr2 level split) have their main heal spells heal for the following percentage of a Clr20's heals:

Heal: 100%
Mass Cure Moderate Wounds: 93.75%
Mass Cure Light Wounds: 92%
Mass Heal: 90%
(Whilst less often used, the other healing spells - Mass Cure Serious/Critical Wounds, Cure Critical Wounds etc all have 94.7% or better effect from a Clr18/Ftr2; the higher level Mass Cures may become more useful in future as more players get access to Superior Devotion 8 or Superior Ardor 8 or Superior Efficacy 8)

That's *all* they are behind in healing. Clr19/Pal1 builds are even higher healing.

And, with one more person doing significant melee DPS, enemies go down faster.


At present endgame, there is *no* quest where I would rather have a Ftr20 max-DPS Kensai build and a Clr20 healbot build to two equivalently geared, well built Clr18/Ftr2 builds. More melee DPS, more healing, more Bladebarriers (even if the save DC is lower than that of the healbot), more wipe prevention (two people that can cast Quickened True Resurrection).