You seem to be missing a few feats...
I did the math for you. I'm not.
Here's Three of them. While they may be proficiencies that come with the class, all three will require a wizard to spend feats to pick them up. Thus, they are feats...and you picked the cleric so you wouldn't have to spend feats to get these proficiencies.
You are correct that all three will require a wizard to spend feats to get them, however you are incorrect for a different reason. They are not feats. It's not a debatable issue. They're proficiencies, not feats. Also, you are incorrect in saying that someone picks a cleric based on proficiencies. While not impossible, that is highly unlikely, and I, for one, choose clerics for their spell lists, regardless of their proficiencies.
Actually, I believe you are mistaken. Does it not take a feat for an arcane caster to get access to a Domain, and then above and beyond for domain spells?
Yes, it does take one feat for an arcane caster to get access to a domain, but no it does not take above and beyond for domain spells. When they take that feat they get the domain power and access to the domain spells.
I would also hazard that the simple benefit of getting 9 extra spells castable/day is equal to NINE feats, since extra spell only gives you access to 1...but that's, as you say, a specialization benefit. Kindly note the cleric gets the equivalent of specialization without having to give up a school of magic...I think we can thus agree that we are talking feat-equivalents, yes?
No. The cleric does not, as I pointed out, get the extra bonuses of specialization that a wizard gets. And once again, No. We are talking feats. Cold, hard feats. Not feat-equivalents. I have stated the range of our discussion, please stick to it.
I'm not disputing that as an action/emergency, but what it does is free up spell slots. You don't ever have to memorize cures for in OR out of combat healing. In short, you get to memorize key spells, that you know will be needed, without ever having to actually memorize them. In or out of combat, it's superflous. From a Feat standpoint, this is actually equivalent to the Signature Spell feat, Five Times! (Or Spontaneous Cures, the real feat equiv)
Actually, while this is somewhat valid, it depends on our framework. I am not assuming core only. Once we add in Spell Compendium, this becomes irrelevant. Vigor spells replace cure spells and cannot be cast spontaneously. So using that framework, which I apologize for not specifying before, spontaneous curing is sub-par. It's not feat-equivalent, but again, as we're talking feats only, it's not a valid point either way.
No, I'm actually around the cleric being ahead at this point...way ahead, depending on how you feat-match Spontaneous Curing (lol).
Care to show me your math? I mean, honestly, lay it out in simpleton terms for me here. I did the math and showed 8 more feats starting. I'll give you Domain powers 2xs. That's 6 up still. I can even give you specialization as a feat, even twice. That's 4 up. Even if I gave you spontaneous curing, that's 3 up. Even with proficiencies we're only breaking even. Mind you the last 6 aren't feats, so we're throwing them back out. Wizard is up by 6 feats. Please, if you can lay out the math with
feats not feat-equivalents, I'm all ears.
Well, clerics are ahead on feats and equivs, and I'll agree that the normal effect of turning is quite superfluous except in an undead heavy campaign...or as fuel for divine feats, which means stat dependence is more important then level.
So you're agreeing that turning is useless in your average game without a heavy investment? Awesome. I'm glad we agree on something
It's more along the lines of "Well, this PrC grants full casting plus ten benefits, but you don't advance your Turning level." "Gee, thats a tough choice to make for my cleric using his turns to fuel DMM..."
I see your point, and I'm not going to refute it, as this discussion is about DMM breaking the level cap, not about PrCs.
I think we're differing on our definitions of feats and equivs, but o well.
I agree. Under your 'feat-equivalent' system they're just beginning to break even, but going on feats alone, they're behind. (This is already assuming in both cases that a cleric takes DMM Persist.) Thankfully, I've (at least I hope) clarified that I'm talking in choosable feats only. So let's work in that framework.
Well, you make the choice to play a character, and those are among the benefits they get. To replicate those benefits, the wizard would start having to spend feats. I think that qualifies as feats and feat equivs. Ignoring the incredible front end loading of the cleric, and the free spec benefits of their domains, because they don't have some extra lines in their class features table over 20 levels seems kind of narrow...
So, we're going to have to agree to disagree on feat counts, because to get what the cleric does, the mage is going to have to spend more bonus feats then he's got.
I think we got separated here, Bier. I'm not saying let's make the cleric = wizard. That would be a bad idea, in my opinion, and clearly (at least in my mind) goes against the ideal that schticks should not be intruded on. You seem to be a big proponent of that (I hope I'm not mistaken in that statement). I don't want to make them equal, and I agree that the front loading is not necessarily the best way to handle it. However, I am stating that the investment a cleric makes to use DMM is a hefty one, especially considering the number of extra choices other classes gain. When a character makes that hefty of an investment, there should be some reward for it. Breaking the metamagic limit is that reward and truly does not throw things out of balance.
Ah, well, everytime I bring up dispel to a DMM monkey, I get shouted back at with 'caster level increases are cheap' and 'bead of karma' and Ring of Counterspells and Spellswords, and so on. I'd have to direct you to JaronK for some of the real abuse you can get with DMM Persist, and all for pretty cheap, too. I'd also note that giving everyone fast healing/1 all day replicates the effect of a 90K magic item...for each of them. It also saves you every single slot you might use to cure them, because you never need to heal out of combat.
No need to direct me to others, I know well how to increase CL, just as well I know that decent mages have those same increases and, since CR works the way it does, it is much easier for enemies to be able to dispel better than a cleric can increase his CL, at least in my experience that has been the case. Your miles might vary. Yes, fast healing 1 is powerful. Is it game breaking? Hardly. Yes, it saves a cleric from wasting other spells on healing, but, honestly, what other class would have to waste precious daily resources to keep people that aren't him at full health? Again, healing from a cleric is subpar in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there, so let's drop it.
My first reply would be "Other, more balanced Divine Feats". Which there are a bunch of. The problems with borking the metacap and allowing it to persist are just too much not allow it. Vs. Undead? Mostly you'd need some gold for Turn booster items. People would rather spend the gold on # of Turns, rather then level therof...the payoff is much, much higher in terms of relative gold/cost/benefit.
I mean, really, there's a divine feat where you blow a Turn Attempt to give your allies some fast healing for a few rounds. Or, you blow six Turns and give them fast healing all day...which is worth more? Which is more balanced?
Honestly, you haven't defended your point. Well, not completely. I'll give you that feat to grant fast healing. And you know what, the problem with that feat is that it doesn't scale well. At low levels it's too good, at high levels it's terrible. But it is a valid point. So one feat alternative. Anything else? There, unfortunately, aren't all that many "more balanced Divine Feats." The ones that I can think of actually make the cleric intrude further into the melee roll, which I think we want to avoid, right? So once again, prove me wrong, cite stone cold examples, please.
Ahhhhh!?! REally? Because every single Uber Cleric build I've ever seen from the fanatics who espouse Codzilla use this combo if they've any choice at all. JaronK thrives on it, and he's particularly obsessive about squeaking out every advantage he can from a build...(and yeah, I'll admit I don't even like the guy, but eeesh, can he squeak the numbers!)
Wow. Seriously? Please stop mentioning JaronK. We're having a discussion between you and I here. Let's keep it simple. I've seen what he can do and some of it is impressive, others not so much. I humbly request you not mention other people, because, basically, anything from someone else at this point is hearsay, which isn't fact. Let's stick to the facts.
As to answer your question, though, yes. Really. I had an Uber Cleric over on the old WotC boards that dueled a gatling gun-style archer and won using only DMM Quicken. Persist is arguably better, but not the only option, and certainly not the most commonly viewed to be superior.
I've seen Quicken DM cleric builds. They have some instantaneous versatility, but in no way do they compare to the all day power of getting up buffs of some of the CoDzilla builds. Every Cleric Optimizer I've seen would far, far rather have persist then Quicken (heh, 6 level vs 4 level cost should be the key indicator of the value of the feats!), and they devolve to Quicken ONLY if they can't get Persist. Really, having to Quicken the same spell 2-3 times vs having it on all day? Spending action outside of combat where you can buff up your caster level, vs having to spend a swift action before combat/after initiative for a temporary benefit at lower casting level?
Quicken is not NEARLY as abusive as Persistent, which is why I say the CoDzilla builds start falling down. Sure, you can make a nice cleric build! Never said no. But a CoDzilla build? Can't say I've seen one...which means when I say it's not nearly as good, does not mean it's BAD. It means just that...it's not nearly as Uber.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and while that may have been all you've seen, I can assure you it is not the case. As I stated above, I've build a perfectly viable 'Uber Cleric' with DMM Quicken. I've actually seen a rash, recently, or people who state they prefer quicken to persist. It's really all subjective.