Thinking abt dipping into Fighter for 1 level for a Fighting Style and saving throw proficiencies. Then I was like, Fighters also tend to get weapons-based feats. So if I'm building a Cleric multi-class for occasional tanking but also want to do some reasonable damage per round, which of these feats should I plan for after getting an my initial Wisdom boost?
* Dual Wielder - better Armor Class, better chance of hitting per round since two attacks, but spellcaster
* Shield Master - No additional attacks, just defense and a bit of shoving
* Polearm Master - More opportunities for attack, ablility to maintain some distance when I get into melee
On Fighter: is the Cons proficiency, Second Wind, and Fighting Style not worth it on a full caster like a Cleric?
The big problem with trying to dual wield is casting. You’ll always have your hands full. From those choices, I’d probably go shield master. PAM is cool, but won’t you be better off making attacks with your casting stat? And using your BA for healing word?
But also, as is always the case with a full caster, you’ll end up delaying your spell progression for that bit of tankiness. I’d stick cleric, pick an aggressive subclass and go for it that way. fwiw, I played a tempest cleric, heavy armor, martial weapons, up in melee a lot, and I still ended up casting much more than ever swinging my weapon. It was just much more reliable. After I took warcaster and got cantrip OAs, I don’t think I ever used my weapon.
My observation is that Paladins and Rangers still manage to cast spells with their hands full most of the time. Paladins with a sword and board; Rangers with a bow and arrow or while dual-wielding. What is different about a Cleric trying to do the same?
War Clerics love a level of fighter. Maul (for topple), GWM, grab true strike from High elf or some other manner. Hit things hard, knock them down, use spirit guardians. Get Warcaster. Never lose concentration. Hit them again if they try to run away. Your ASI's: 4: Warcaster, 8 GWM, 12 Heavy Armor Master.
I feel like part of the reason to start level 1 w/ Fighter is to avoid spending a feat on Warcaster, no? Aren't there some better feats to get if you already start with saving throw prof. in Constitution?
My observation is that Paladins and Rangers still manage to cast spells with their hands full most of the time. Paladins with a sword and board; Rangers with a bow and arrow or while dual-wielding. What is different about a Cleric trying to do the same?
It comes down to components. Hunter’s mark and divine smite only have a verbal component, so full hands don’t matter, for example. But clerics have lots of spells with an S component which requires a free hand.
Also paladins, and clerics, can use their shield as a focus, which can help with M components. But that doesn’t get around the S without warcaster. Even with warcaster, it gets tricky, as that means you can ignore the S if there’s an M, but is a spell is just V S (cure wounds being a good example) you still need a free hand even if you have warcaster.
There’s also the secret third option, that your group just kind of ignores components, which I think is a not uncommon house rule.
My observation is that Paladins and Rangers still manage to cast spells with their hands full most of the time. Paladins with a sword and board; Rangers with a bow and arrow or while dual-wielding. What is different about a Cleric trying to do the same?
It comes down to components. Hunter’s mark and divine smite only have a verbal component, so full hands don’t matter, for example. But clerics have lots of spells with an S component which requires a free hand.
Also paladins, and clerics, can use their shield as a focus, which can help with M components. But that doesn’t get around the S without warcaster. Even with warcaster, it gets tricky, as that means you can ignore the S if there’s an M, but is a spell is just V S (cure wounds being a good example) you still need a free hand even if you have warcaster.
There’s also the secret third option, that your group just kind of ignores components, which I think is a not uncommon house rule.
No, War Caster allows performing somatic components with weapons or a shield in both hands — that benefit is there to help with that specific issue, spells that have an S component but no M component. You don't need a free hand for spells like that if you have War Caster.
But I'm very much a proponent of your secret third option. I've never bothered enforcing any of this.
I feel like part of the reason to start level 1 w/ Fighter is to avoid spending a feat on Warcaster, no? Aren't there some better feats to get if you already start with saving throw prof. in Constitution?
Yes and no. If you want to always maintain concentration on spells then warcaster AND con proficiency is very good. If your plan is to primarily use spirit guardians then not dropping your concentration is more valuable than marginal dpr bump from increasing wisdom. Additionally, if you have true strike based on wisdom you can use warcaster with your reaction strikes when people run fleeing from the Spirit Guardians. This is even more damage.
Part of this is based on my experience in play. When the cleric casts spirit guardians they put a large target on their back. They soon get attacked by multiple ranged attackers who want to get it dropped. Improving your AC and chance to maintain the spell becomes critical.
Taking a level of fighter does a couple of nice things for a War Cleric. 1. it provides weapon masteries which add to the martial flavor of the class. 2. Topple specifically in a spirit guardians area is deadly. 3. It provides Con save proficiency, so while you are 1 level delayed in advancement you don't need to take one of the feats you might want. 4. you can take thaumaturge because protector is redundant.
My observation is that Paladins and Rangers still manage to cast spells with their hands full most of the time. Paladins with a sword and board; Rangers with a bow and arrow or while dual-wielding. What is different about a Cleric trying to do the same?
It comes down to components. Hunter’s mark and divine smite only have a verbal component, so full hands don’t matter, for example. But clerics have lots of spells with an S component which requires a free hand.
Also paladins, and clerics, can use their shield as a focus, which can help with M components. But that doesn’t get around the S without warcaster. Even with warcaster, it gets tricky, as that means you can ignore the S if there’s an M, but is a spell is just V S (cure wounds being a good example) you still need a free hand even if you have warcaster.
There’s also the secret third option, that your group just kind of ignores components, which I think is a not uncommon house rule.
No, War Caster allows performing somatic components with weapons or a shield in both hands — that benefit is there to help with that specific issue, spells that have an S component but no M component. You don't need a free hand for spells like that if you have War Caster.
But I'm very much a proponent of your secret third option. I've never bothered enforcing any of this.
Argh. Yes. My mistake. I was thinking about using a shield as a focus that lets you cast vsm and vm spells. Thanks for the correction.
Thinking abt dipping into Fighter for 1 level for a Fighting Style and saving throw proficiencies. Then I was like, Fighters also tend to get weapons-based feats. So if I'm building a Cleric multi-class for occasional tanking but also want to do some reasonable damage per round, which of these feats should I plan for after getting an my initial Wisdom boost?
* Dual Wielder - better Armor Class, better chance of hitting per round since two attacks, but spellcaster
* Shield Master - No additional attacks, just defense and a bit of shoving
* Polearm Master - More opportunities for attack, ablility to maintain some distance when I get into melee
On Fighter: is the Cons proficiency, Second Wind, and Fighting Style not worth it on a full caster like a Cleric?
The big problem with trying to dual wield is casting. You’ll always have your hands full.
From those choices, I’d probably go shield master. PAM is cool, but won’t you be better off making attacks with your casting stat? And using your BA for healing word?
But also, as is always the case with a full caster, you’ll end up delaying your spell progression for that bit of tankiness. I’d stick cleric, pick an aggressive subclass and go for it that way.
fwiw, I played a tempest cleric, heavy armor, martial weapons, up in melee a lot, and I still ended up casting much more than ever swinging my weapon. It was just much more reliable. After I took warcaster and got cantrip OAs, I don’t think I ever used my weapon.
My observation is that Paladins and Rangers still manage to cast spells with their hands full most of the time. Paladins with a sword and board; Rangers with a bow and arrow or while dual-wielding. What is different about a Cleric trying to do the same?
War Clerics love a level of fighter. Maul (for topple), GWM, grab true strike from High elf or some other manner. Hit things hard, knock them down, use spirit guardians. Get Warcaster. Never lose concentration. Hit them again if they try to run away. Your ASI's: 4: Warcaster, 8 GWM, 12 Heavy Armor Master.
I feel like part of the reason to start level 1 w/ Fighter is to avoid spending a feat on Warcaster, no? Aren't there some better feats to get if you already start with saving throw prof. in Constitution?
It comes down to components. Hunter’s mark and divine smite only have a verbal component, so full hands don’t matter, for example. But clerics have lots of spells with an S component which requires a free hand.
Also paladins, and clerics, can use their shield as a focus, which can help with M components. But that doesn’t get around the S without warcaster. Even with warcaster, it gets tricky, as that means you can ignore the S if there’s an M, but is a spell is just V S (cure wounds being a good example) you still need a free hand even if you have warcaster.
There’s also the secret third option, that your group just kind of ignores components, which I think is a not uncommon house rule.
No, War Caster allows performing somatic components with weapons or a shield in both hands — that benefit is there to help with that specific issue, spells that have an S component but no M component. You don't need a free hand for spells like that if you have War Caster.
But I'm very much a proponent of your secret third option. I've never bothered enforcing any of this.
pronouns: he/she/they
Yes and no. If you want to always maintain concentration on spells then warcaster AND con proficiency is very good. If your plan is to primarily use spirit guardians then not dropping your concentration is more valuable than marginal dpr bump from increasing wisdom. Additionally, if you have true strike based on wisdom you can use warcaster with your reaction strikes when people run fleeing from the Spirit Guardians. This is even more damage.
Part of this is based on my experience in play. When the cleric casts spirit guardians they put a large target on their back. They soon get attacked by multiple ranged attackers who want to get it dropped. Improving your AC and chance to maintain the spell becomes critical.
Taking a level of fighter does a couple of nice things for a War Cleric. 1. it provides weapon masteries which add to the martial flavor of the class. 2. Topple specifically in a spirit guardians area is deadly. 3. It provides Con save proficiency, so while you are 1 level delayed in advancement you don't need to take one of the feats you might want. 4. you can take thaumaturge because protector is redundant.
Argh. Yes. My mistake. I was thinking about using a shield as a focus that lets you cast vsm and vm spells. Thanks for the correction.
It is needlessly complicated and very easy to misunderstand/misremember, which is a good argument in favor of the "just ignore it" approach.
pronouns: he/she/they