I said it. I’ll say it again – clerics are overrated.
The cleric spell list is baby-back booty buttcheeks. It’s awful. It’s real bad. People yell “but muh heals! Muh heelz!”
So what?
Virtually all cleric healing before Greater Arcana is accomplished via either Cure Wounds or Healing Word, both of which are widely available outside the class. Cleric domains vary wildly in usability, with the ‘good’ ones often being ‘Good’ primarily because their Domain Spells patch the clerics booty-buttcheeks awful spell list. Clerics have medium armor proficiency, a very few have heavy, but they’re stuck with a d8 hit die and aren’t noticeably sturdy – and I say this as somebody who’s played a heavy-armored shield-wielding Tempest cleric that tried to do the frontline battle priest thing. There’s a reason “melee cleric” is a meme, even after Wizards gave half of them extra damage on their single swing a turn. My DM was as generous as a DM could reasonably get with Cynai and she was still “Acceptable” at best as a frontliner. Super fun and I loved her dearly, but I hold no illusions about her level of Gudness.
None of the cleric’s other class features are worth writing home about. Useful in the niches they’re designed to be useful in, but so is almost every other class feature in D&D. Every tool in the game will shine when put to the specific task it’s written for; the measure of versatility is whether that tool shines anywhere else, and most cleric stuff simply does not.
Healing in this game is best when it’s spread out to as many people as possible. A party that has one really great healer is up a creek when that healer goes down first. A party of four in which all four people have a little bit of healing is far safer and more resilient than a party of four with one really great healer and nothing else.
Clerics. Overrated.
The core of ‘the best’ adventuring party is a paladin and a wizard. A paladin because they have all the martial capability of the fighter and every inch of the CLS capacity of the cleric, as well as bearing one of the most powerful abilities in 5e in Aura of Protection. Fighters get to be Indomitable and reroll failed saves once per rest; paladins get to be Protected and just not fail saves in the first place. Fighters get extra attacks; paladins get smites to make the attacks they do get matter more. Clerics get healing spells; paladins get a Lay On Hands pool that can’t be Counterspelled, doesn’t take up/interfere with the paladin’s spells, and can be apportioned with millimetric precision. AND ALSO healing spells. The paladin is the most self-sufficient and omnicapable class in 5e. And of course, wizards have access to the best spells in D&D bar none; a well built wizard can turn every spell slot they have into “I cast Solve Problem”.
Honestly? If you have those two, the other two don’t matter. Or rather, the other two just tilt the party into different directions of ‘the best’. I selected rogue and druid mostly on a lark, but you could as easily substitute a bard for the rogue (or the druid), double up on martial hammering with a fighter or barbarian, expand your toolset with an artificer, whatever floats your boat. If you have the dingdong, the wizzerd, and at least one other source of CLS healing? You’re golden. The rest depends on the particulars of your campaign.
Big wilderness hike, spending most of your time in the howling wilds? Strap on a ranger and a druid, profit.
Got loads of downtime in a long-runner game? Artificer is worth their weight in all the magical tools, scrolls, and other handy items they can fabricate.
Lots of urban skullduggery, plenty of indirect threats and chicanery rather than Rolling Initiative thirty times a game? Get your rogues and bards out, put Expertise to work.
Whatever your campaign is aimed at will determine the other two ‘Best’ choices, but it’s very difficult for me to picture a ‘Best 4’ that doesn’t include a wizard or a paladin. It is, however, effortless to picture a ‘best 4’ that doesn’t include a cleric.
So there’s that.
I personally like clerics, they can still cast a lot of cool cool spells and have a D8 of hit dice, which is much better than a wizards. Clerics are also versitial, and you can actually build a melee fighter like cleric. I really like the tempest cleric subclass, it's great.
You have made some good arguments though, paladins are a very good class as well. Lay on hands is overpowered, and having high AC is always great, both abilities work particularly well at low levels. If you have a party of 5+, I think having both a cleric and paladin wouldn't hurt. Honestly, I don't think their's a massive power level difference between the two classes, it really depends on what you and your party are going for, and what subclass you take (some are really good, and some subclasses are just duds).
Gosh... I feel like each class is so well designed and unique, it's really hard to rate them.
Overall though, I think ranger is probably the weakest class, while paladin and "skill monkey" classes are generally pretty good.
Honestly, it's hard for me to do "class ratings" since each class is unique and good in it's own way, and a lot depends on subclass.
As for the typical party: The first four are usually fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. The best however? That's also hard.
I'd say, barbarian over fighter, probably a cleric (you always need a healer, I think this one is non-negotiable), a wizard, and a skill monkey such as an artificer, bard or rogue. A ranger would also work as well.
So I see you ignored monk entirely how is it a balanced and relevant class what role is it good at hmmm?
None of the cleric’s other class features are worth writing home about. Useful in the niches they’re designed to be useful in, but so is almost every other class feature in D&D. Every tool in the game will shine when put to the specific task it’s written for; the measure of versatility is whether that tool shines anywhere else, and most cleric stuff simply does not.
Healing in this game is best when it’s spread out to as many people as possible. A party that has one really great healer is up a creek when that healer goes down first. A party of four in which all four people have a little bit of healing is far safer and more resilient than a party of four with one really great healer and nothing else.
The core of ‘the best’ adventuring party is a paladin and a wizard. A paladin because they have all the martial capability of the fighter and every inch of the CLS capacity of the cleric, as well as bearing one of the most powerful abilities in 5e in Aura of Protection. Fighters get to be Indomitable and reroll failed saves once per rest; paladins get to be Protected and just not fail saves in the first place. Fighters get extra attacks; paladins get smites to make the attacks they do get matter more. Clerics get healing spells; paladins get a Lay On Hands pool that can’t be Counterspelled, doesn’t take up/interfere with the paladin’s spells, and can be apportioned with millimetric precision. AND ALSO healing spells. The paladin is the most self-sufficient and omnicapable class in 5e. And of course, wizards have access to the best spells in D&D bar none; a well built wizard can turn every spell slot they have into “I cast Solve Problem”.
Honestly? If you have those two, the other two don’t matter. Or rather, the other two just tilt the party into different directions of ‘the best’. I selected rogue and druid mostly on a lark, but you could as easily substitute a bard for the rogue (or the druid), double up on martial hammering with a fighter or barbarian, expand your toolset with an artificer, whatever floats your boat. If you have the dingdong, the wizzerd, and at least one other source of CLS healing? You’re golden. The rest depends on the particulars of your campaign.
I agree that Clerics are over-rated in 5e. Most people think "Cleric" when they think healing but there are just soooo many options for that in this edition.
However, I disagree that Wizards are indispensable to party composition. They are good for broad utility, but so is the Druid. Between Wildshape, summons, and control spells, there are few problems a Druid cannot solve. Plus they have healing and Lesser/Greater Restoration, which Wizards lack.
Best 4-person Band, IMO, is Paladin, Druid, Bard, Warlock. Paladin for the Aura and all-around Tanking. Druid because they solve all kinds of "environment" problems, from lack of food, too much water and not enough water - to Monster-of-the-Day with Lair Powers or "the dog ate our map". Bards because they are Best-in-Class for solving "social" problems and get Magical Secrets, effectively allowing them to fill in any spellcasting gaps there are. My "Warlock" slot is the most optional one. I chose Warlock, though, because A) infinite-use spells and spell-like abilities; B) there are so many ways to build them that you could fit them into any party; C) somebody has make trouble for the party or else everything is just kill this, kill that, equip this, buy that. IOW, Warlocks are the Wildcard, the Jester, the unexpected Ace.
If I had one more slot, I would have added a fighter of a Druid. My team specializes in charisma, wisdom, strength, and Intelligence. They all know counter spell through sub classes and we have a descent front line with the bard and paladin.
I think this is the strongest 4 person team the weakest would be ranger, monk, purple Dargon fighter, berserker barbarian. Or 4 monks.
Gosh... I feel like each class is so well designed and unique, it's really hard to rate them.
Overall though, I think ranger is probably the weakest class, while paladin and "skill monkey" classes are generally pretty good.
Honestly, it's hard for me to do "class ratings" since each class is unique and good in it's own way, and a lot depends on subclass.
As for the typical party: The first four are usually fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. The best however? That's also hard.
I'd say, barbarian over fighter, probably a cleric (you always need a healer, I think this one is non-negotiable), a wizard, and a skill monkey such as an artificer, bard or rogue. A ranger would also work as well.
So I see you ignored monk entirely how is it a balanced and relevant class what role is it good at hmmm?
I only mentioned a few skill monkey classes, because I had a limited time to make my post. Monks are a good class in many ways and I think they are cool, just because I didn't mention them doesn't mean that I view monk as a weak and underpowered class.
If all you want them for is healbots? Sure. As a class? Not really. Just as with Artificers and Wizards they have versatility up the wazoo. They can buff better than pretty much no-one else (AoP is fantastic but a wizard will probably stay more than ten feet away from the frontline and the Paladin with said aura), they have subclasses to fit every situation and they are just good at what they do. A Twilight Cleric rocking the old weapon attack-Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon combo is a force to be reckoned with, for example.
Whatever your campaign is aimed at will determine the other two ‘Best’ choices, but it’s very difficult for me to picture a ‘Best 4’ that doesn’t include a wizard or a paladin. It is, however, effortless to picture a ‘best 4’ that doesn’t include a cleric.
The question wasn't "pick the four best classes", it was "best party composition" with up to four members. Even if the wizard might be on eof the "best" classes doesn't mean that it has to be in the best party if that party can cover four the lack of a wizard and still come out on top.
I personally like clerics, they can still cast a lot of cool cool spells and have a D8 of hit dice, which is much better than a wizards. Clerics are also versitial, and you can actually build a melee fighter like cleric. I really like the tempest cleric subclass, it's great.
You have made some good arguments though, paladins are a very good class as well. Lay on hands is overpowered, and having high AC is always great, both abilities work particularly well at low levels. If you have a party of 5+, I think having both a cleric and paladin wouldn't hurt. Honestly, I don't think their's a massive power level difference between the two classes, it really depends on what you and your party are going for, and what subclass you take (some are really good, and some subclasses are just duds).
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.So I see you ignored monk entirely how is it a balanced and relevant class what role is it good at hmmm?
I agree that Clerics are over-rated in 5e. Most people think "Cleric" when they think healing but there are just soooo many options for that in this edition.
However, I disagree that Wizards are indispensable to party composition. They are good for broad utility, but so is the Druid. Between Wildshape, summons, and control spells, there are few problems a Druid cannot solve. Plus they have healing and Lesser/Greater Restoration, which Wizards lack.
Best 4-person Band, IMO, is Paladin, Druid, Bard, Warlock. Paladin for the Aura and all-around Tanking. Druid because they solve all kinds of "environment" problems, from lack of food, too much water and not enough water - to Monster-of-the-Day with Lair Powers or "the dog ate our map". Bards because they are Best-in-Class for solving "social" problems and get Magical Secrets, effectively allowing them to fill in any spellcasting gaps there are. My "Warlock" slot is the most optional one. I chose Warlock, though, because A) infinite-use spells and spell-like abilities; B) there are so many ways to build them that you could fit them into any party; C) somebody has make trouble for the party or else everything is just kill this, kill that, equip this, buy that. IOW, Warlocks are the Wildcard, the Jester, the unexpected Ace.
I went cleric, paladin, bard, wizard.
If I had one more slot, I would have added a fighter of a Druid. My team specializes in charisma, wisdom, strength, and Intelligence. They all know counter spell through sub classes and we have a descent front line with the bard and paladin.
I think this is the strongest 4 person team the weakest would be ranger, monk, purple Dargon fighter, berserker barbarian. Or 4 monks.
I only mentioned a few skill monkey classes, because I had a limited time to make my post. Monks are a good class in many ways and I think they are cool, just because I didn't mention them doesn't mean that I view monk as a weak and underpowered class.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.If all you want them for is healbots? Sure. As a class? Not really. Just as with Artificers and Wizards they have versatility up the wazoo. They can buff better than pretty much no-one else (AoP is fantastic but a wizard will probably stay more than ten feet away from the frontline and the Paladin with said aura), they have subclasses to fit every situation and they are just good at what they do. A Twilight Cleric rocking the old weapon attack-Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon combo is a force to be reckoned with, for example.
The question wasn't "pick the four best classes", it was "best party composition" with up to four members. Even if the wizard might be on eof the "best" classes doesn't mean that it has to be in the best party if that party can cover four the lack of a wizard and still come out on top.
Oh please, Twilight Clerics and Peace Clerics are clearly bonkers-level of OP. They don't belong in the game in the first place.