|
So, as the title suggests, there seems to be a problem with parties without healers.
And noone heals better than a straight-classed cleric.
So, what's the problem here? It can't be a design issue, as the cleric is the most "ability-laden" of the characters...
decent HD
heavy armor
full casting progression
domains, with powers granted
decent weapon selection
2 good saves
no real MAD
turn undead
And there's plenty of love cleric-wise when it comes to spells, items, feats, and the like...not to mention prestige classes.
Is it that onerous to be responsible for patching up the party? Is it annoying to take on that role?
I usually end up being the talker of the group when i play, but that's easily achievable with a cleric, and of the last 8 or 10 characters i've made, 3 or 4 of them were healers of some sort.
SO......what gives? Do you regularly run without a cleric? Does someone in the group really like playing one? Do you take turns, or draw straws, or somesuch?
Typically, in our games, someone will step up and play the healer (one-off's aside, of course, all bets off on those). In my current STAP game the cleric has made the difference in ALL the encounters with undead thus far, and kept more than 1 member of the party alive when they shouldn't have.
-the hamster
Person-to-person, I've never met anyone who actively sought the healer role. I've played with a few folks who were obsessed with druids, but plainly not for their healing powers. I've only met one guy ever who absolutely refused to play a cleric, because of some incident with a previous DM. In my experience, people take the cleric role because it's considered a necessity but they also end up having fun playing the character (myself included).
Online...well, plenty of posters swear by clerics being the best class in the game.
|
I am playing a Favored Soul in a campaign. I wanted to play the party rogue but someone else wanted to try out the scout. With no healer we were doomed so I thought I give it a hardy try. (we also have no arcane power so I'm actually multiclassing in sorcerer).
I must say I am surprised how much fun I'm having! While not a real cleric, my favored soul is tons of fun. He's able to hold his own in combat, cast some cool spells, and save everyone's backside! ...of course we're screwed in the turning department.
If he dies (very likely given the mean streak in our DM) I'll replace him with a dwarven cleric straight up.
The biggest complaint I've gotten from players is the double role they have to play. Keeping up with numbers for combat (weapons skills, strength adds, etc.) and then add on all the bookkeeping for spells (2e or 3X) and they get so bogged down flipping pages to analyze their options they can hardly make up their minds on what to do...overload, in other words.
We always have a cleric/priest/healer of some sort. I've even seen games where the party has opted to go without a mage/sorcerer to make sure they had a one-man M*A*S*H unit.
Personally, I'll play anything, so whatever the party feels it needs most is generally what I take. Clerics are low on my list of preferences, but not a definite exlude by any means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a twofold problem with the cleric, which is not actually a problem with the class itself. The first problem is that with all of those cool things that the cleric can do, such as wearing armor and having a decent chance to slug it out with weapons, and the ability to cast some great buffs and combat spells, the cleric rarely has much time to use those abilities.
In a five round combat, what usually happens is:
Round One: Cleric buffs party members
Round Two: Cleric buffs self
Round Three: First party member gets injured/level drained/ability damaged, Cleric has to "fix" them.
Round Four: Party member that is almost dead has to be healed.
Round Five: Another party member either needs to be "fixed" or needs to be healed.
Round Six: Combat over.
If there are undead involved, throw the turn attempt into round one, and bump everything else back by one.
The cleric is very important, and needs to be doing the things that he is doing, but he has probably more responsibilities in a responsible, mature party than any other class. This means that for people that may not be as into roleplaying a "caregiver," or into roleplaying at all, they won't really get into this kind of character.
The other "problem" is with people that DO get into roleplaying, because in many instances, the actual roleplaying specifics of being a cleric of one god over another has been very sparse. How does a cleric of Heironeous play differently than a cleric of Pelor? How does a cleric of "Peace" act if you are a cleric of a "concept?" And if you are playing in a homebrew, and the DM either hasn't come up with details about different faiths, or only has them in his head, how do you find out about them?
I think this is one of the reasons that the Core Beleifs columns have been popular, because they give some roleplaying texture for people that want to know SOMETHING about the religion their cleric belongs to. I also suspect that clerics may not be as unpopular in settings like DragonLance or Forgotten Realms, where deities and their religions have gotten some specific details in the past.
Just my thoughts.
Oh, of the last three characters I have played, two have been clerics.
My group hasn't had many clerics, though druids see a heavy rotation for some reason. I guess it comes down to the thinking that a support role heavy character like a cleric or bard doesn't get as many chances to really shine in many encounters. Of course, when a friend recently DID play a cleric (it helped that he had a lot of good ability scores) he was very impressed with the amount of things he could do. Clerics are a great (moist, chewey, canned) center for an adventuring party. I think maybe the "man or woman of the cloth" thing turns some players off as well. I dunno. Clerics can be badasses, it's just getting someone to take a chance and playing one well that's challenging. If one doesn't want to be a healer type cleric, they should do as James Jacobs said at the start of the Age of Worms Paizo campaign. Just tell the people complaining to play one themselves if they have a problem.
Of course, you can't really get away from the role, but distribution of healing potions, wands, etc. can open the field a bit more for the cleric to shine.
As far as our little group is concerned, someone will ALWAYS play the cleric. They're vital to all our groups (heck, just check out KnighterrantJR's Mistledale Campaign, and how many times Merry had to "fix" Grim). What people have to think about is how important the "buffs" really are. The buffs are great when you have the time, but there are just as many situations when you don't have that luxury. There are also situations where you can delay actual combat, whether through tactics or terrain, which make the cleric even more vital with buffs and front line combat. I find that people who really know their fighter/barbarian/whatever will allow themselves to get hurt to a much greater extent when they know that a cleric is near, so the cleric can fight the "monsters" that the party is overcoming.
The other thought is to force a cleric to fight, simply by making combat last more than 5-6 rounds. We've had combats like that (I believe 22 rounds to be exact, right KEJR?), where our party cleric hasn't had a choice.
The only thing that seems to me to be a problem with clerics is that they are the singular "healing battery" of the group. I don't particularly care for that thought, especially in the case of Heironeous, Tyr, or even Haela Brightaxe. They're warpriests, and fight for just causes AND maintain their group's cohesiveness.
Enough ranting
/d
The other thought is to force a cleric to fight, simply by making combat last more than 5-6 rounds. We've had combats like that (I believe 22 rounds to be exact, right KEJR?), where our party cleric hasn't had a choice.
/d
A personal record, AND we suffered no long term psychological damage that you know of from that long fight . . .
In our group we usually have a cleric because one of the players likes playing them. Unfortunatley we also have to stock up on healing potions because she has an extrodinary ability to lose characters. Even if we don't have a cleric a few cure potions usually keeps us alive. I personally haven't played a cleric before but am planning to play a cleric of St.Cuthbert soon.
Person-to-person, I've never met anyone who actively sought the healer role.
Should we meet in person, you would know at least one. I love playing clerics, quite often healers though other types of clerics too...then again, I also love playing bards and more often than not generally fall into "glue that keeps it together" role in adventuring parties.
Also in the groups I have played it hasn't been that hard to find someone to play cleric...sometimes we get more than one (all-cleric party is waiting to happen though we have played a cleric-paladin-monk party...I think there was a ranger there too).
I have played in party's without a cleric and I've run a group without a cleric, healing potions and wands usually solve the problem of not having a cleric.
I would like to say you really don't need to have a cleric to have a successful party, both players and DM just need to adjust their gamestyles.
The biggest complaint I've gotten from players is the double role they have to play. Keeping up with numbers for combat (weapons skills, strength adds, etc.) and then add on all the bookkeeping for spells (2e or 3X) and they get so bogged down flipping pages to analyze their options they can hardly make up their minds on what to do...overload, in other words.
This is my least favorite part about creating and playing a cleric. If I try to focus on everything a cleric can do, I end up wasting time and space, especially since I have cruddy luck with dice. So when I make and play a cleric I focus on spellcasting plus one other trait, like turning, combat or skills. I usually am more effective that way and have more fun.
I love to play clerics and paladins with the caviat that I understand the diety or religion and duties imposed therein; nubulism is the enemy here. Good ones; evil ones; nuetral ones; their great. You should see the faces of those big burly fighters who have been ignoring you and casting dispersions when they are all beat up down like 60 or more hps and turn to you for healing and you say; "Son, this is a good time to talk about your faith or lack thereof...." Start them heal spells off with some moniker; "by the power of <insert>, I, your priest call upon your power to heal" or somesuch.
In 3.5; they might just be the strongest class there is; sheesh they have everything and quite possibly a buffed up fighting based cleric can out fight a fighter in melee; or with a few modification; be a blaster, a buffer, a sneak; sheesh; their great. Druids are also a very viable healer and I am all kinds of jazzed up with trying the master of shapes or forms, dont remember the name; if I can play in a game; sigh, I gm a whole lot.
Always seems to be a troublesome class, as the mentality of the Healer cannot be shaken from peoples perspectives!
I prefer Rogues myself, but clerics on occasion, a class with lots of power, but seems to get little rotation in my gaming group, in fact on a larger scale divine classes seem to be skipped in favour of others constantly!
A few of my players like to play overly religious types, but always go for other classes than divine when doing so!
It doesn't help that MMO clerics tend to be either Healers or Nukers, so people get that stuck in there head too!
It doesn't help that MMO clerics tend to be either Healers or Nukers, so people get that stuck in there head too!
very true; in MMO's it is almost a mindless class, everyone always tells me what a great cleric I play, hehe but I dont have the heart to tell them that all I do is make a /assist main tank button; hit my auto attack like a wand; and stare at the parties hps doing heals and wards as needed. Still, is a nice pace different from being the puller or the blaster and despise the job of main tank so I never create those types.
|
In our AoW campaign, we are using gestalt rules, so healing isn't a problem - 3 of the 4 party members can do it.
Our Shatter Gates of Slaughtergarde (henceforth SGoS) campaign is a different story, however. The DM said "play what you want", so we did. As a result, we have no healer. My character is a Warlock and should eventually get Deceive Item, which will let him use divine scrolls, wands, etc thathave healing capabilites. Another guy wants plans to take his PC down the road of the anti-paladin, which should allow him to use divine magic items as well.
very true; in MMO's it is almost a mindless class, everyone always tells me what a great cleric I play, hehe but I dont have the heart to tell them that all I do is make a /assist main tank button; hit my auto attack like a wand; and stare at the parties hps doing heals and wards as needed. Still, is a nice pace different from being the puller or the blaster and despise the job of main tank so I never create those types.
It doesn't help that MMO clerics tend to be either Healers or Nukers, so people get that stuck in there head too!
Very true, I go for Puller or Tank mostly in MMO's as I like Dwarves ;)
Keeping up with numbers for combat (weapons skills, strength adds, etc.) and then add on all the bookkeeping for spells (2e or 3X) and they get so bogged down flipping pages to analyze their options they can hardly make up their minds on what to do...overload, in other words.
how long have your players been playing this version; hmm this sounds more like they just dont know the game very well and dont study the spells; do you have the spell companion? this helps as it has a nice list of quite a few of the spells; am hoping for a 2nd ed for it to gather all the new stuff.
Does your group make your clerics pray for spells before hand? If you do, that makes it a lot harder as they agonize over spells the same as mages. Our group believes that a diety can always hear his clerics and we have found that this rule really chokes the class up; consider some options like not having them study or pray for specific spells before hand and allow your mages maybe to study and offensive, defensive and information/other for each of their spells; yes, this is more bookwork for mages (heeh who many believe should be bookish); but can bring a lot of enjoyment to your game.
when a player plays a spellcasting class and doesnt know the spells and holds up the game for long periods furiously trying to figure out what to do on their initiative is a drag for everyone; the player, the group, the gm; everyone gets frustrated. There are some very workable solutions to ease this tension though.
|
In the last campaign that I played in, I was a Cleric of Kord. I did it to prove to the rest of the group that a cleric could be the most important player in the group. I wound up taking most of the attacks, so the rest of the party could survive. They would have been completely destroyed if this cleric had not been there to soak most of the damage and attacks. I played this cleric from 1 to 20, and never even came close to dropping. When the party samurai fell, I became the main artillary.
Then we started a new campaign. The DM said "play what you want." I said first off that, while I enjoy playing a cleric, I wanted to play something different. Still, even though I proved how much fun it could be to play the cleric, this new party has no cleric. Some people never learn.
NO party I have ever ran has gone more than one or 2 sessions without a cleric. Lately, the summoning cleric has seen a lot of love in my groups, but now I have one who gave up domains and turning for lay on hands and pally mount, and its been very effective. Loses the domain spells slots and powers, but the lay on hands means he almost always has SOME healing ability, and can use his spells for other things. My longest lived charcter was an Elven war cleric, who I loved, but yeah, I ran into the "i can do so much, but I never have enough time!!" By the time I could get manuvered to be effective, my party had slaughtered every thing, or was in trouble and needed bailing out. Oi.
In 3.0 they were great; you could take Persistent Spell (+4 levels back then, not +6) and easy metamagic. Divine favor hadn't been nerfed yet. At 18th level, you'd have +5 deflection from persistent shield of faith, +6 luck to attacks and damage from persistent divine favor, BAB +18 and enhanced Str and hp from persistent divine power. The end result was that clerics could fight better than fighters; you could let everyone drop into the negatives and then heal them after you'd killed all the bad guys. Now, however, you have to pretty much stand around healing--how often does your DM really give you enough warning to pre-buff with all those spells? And nobody wants to be that guy.
Now, if the cleric had more skill points, he could be the party spokesperson, too (Cha synergy with Turn Undead). But with 2 per level, a cleric can't really fill that role and still take essentials like Concentration. So he's pretty much relegated to the role of healer, with heavy armor to protect him from all those flanking attacks when touching allies in the midst of a crowded melee.
Which is why i really like the Cloistered Cleric variant in UA. Sort of a mix of cleric and bard, with out all the armor. Its pretty sweet, IF you have a party big enough to hide behind :0
If one doesn't want to be a healer type cleric, they should do as James Jacobs said at the start of the Age of Worms Paizo campaign. Just tell the people complaining to play one themselves if they have a problem.
Hunh. I hadn't really noticed that phenomenon before. No one really complains, or they didn't in my old group, about NOT having a cleric or healer (we always seemed to have a good supply of potions), but if someone decided to play a cleric and not focus on healing, THEN it became an issue. Even though the party now still has more restorative ability than it did before. Strange.
As for my personal feelings, I have to say of the four core archetypes (arcanist, warrior, divine caster, and stealth master), arcanist is definitely my favorite, and when I derivate, I want to do something quite a bit different, so I often go to a warrior-type. However, I have to say that I prefer the thought of clerics over them. I just love spellcasting, and in my old group, there were only a few people who had a head for it, and I was one of them. One of the others was often DMing, so it often fell to me to not only be the arcanist or primary spellcaster, but also dole out information to the other players about my abilities, or even theirs when they made forays into such classes.
We did have one player, however, who really liked clerics and pulled them off to great success. However, the healing aspect was about the least fun for him, I think. He prefered all the buffing he could give to others and himself, the combat abilities he had, mixed with the offensive spells that clerics can access.
I've also noticed that most druid players analysing their abilities throw in healing almost as an afterthought.
I guess it just sounds like a lot of responsibility and second-fiddle playing. Many people get spooked away from the class because of that, or because they can't figure out how to change it and personalize it.
Clerics often see more play as villains, and in such a role, tehy are often feared. Even people who don't want to play one know what the class can do.
But with 2 per level, a cleric can't really fill that role and still take essentials like Concentration.
Bah! Concentration is overated.
how long have your players been playing this version; hmm this sounds more like they just dont know the game very well and dont study the spells; do you have the spell companion? this helps as it has a nice list of quite a few of the spells; am hoping for a 2nd ed for it to gather all the new stuff.
Hmm, when creating the character I choose a default set of spells to pray when I don't expect something specific or don't have any needs to do something different. So it is just "the usual" or "I replace Command with Endure elements".
This has been a long standing bone of contention with my players. In my old parties (2nd ed), when we started a new campaign we all ran to do the old "NOT IT!" to avoid playing cleric. The one guy who played one all the time (read as- forced) quit (for obvious reasons). After that we had Bill the Cleric NPC (our DM sucked, can you tell).
Since then I have played Clerics, which are much better now than 2nd ed. Still, we have very few takers in my new group. Which is a shame because we have a martial heavy party. (2 fighters, 1 ranger, 1 rogue, and a druid. Our cleric is a dwarven cleric of Dumathion (sp?).
If you check my other threads, the cleric's player has had several complaints about the class, and some are valid... But that's another thread. But he only reluctantly played a cleric, becuase no other class seemed to fill a need for that party like Cleric.
He's running into the issue described above in that at level 1, his options are buff or heal as far as spells go. And as a good cleric he can't see the character not waiting to use heals. Unfortunately, with no other class getting the full array of healing options he feels he will become nothing more than a walking healing wand. Especially at low levels.
Personally, I would have designed the class a bit differently. I think orienting the clerics more specifically to each god would be better suited. Domains do this to a point, but many of the domains are weak or close to pointless. And In my world, undead don't wander around everywhere, so turning undead isn't all that helpful to them.
SO......what gives? Do you regularly run without a cleric? Does someone in the group really like playing one? Do you take turns, or draw straws, or somesuch?
I really like playing clerics, and I haven't noticed that anyone in my current group has any particular aversion to playing them.
This must be an issue related to one's style of play, because I've heard this complaint about no one wanting to play the cleric many times on D&D boards like this one, but never (in 3.x) seen an example of it myself.
So, as the title suggests, there seems to be a problem with parties without healers.
I think the main problem is that people get the healer/support aspect stuck in their heads and don't think about the other options available to the cleric. When the majority of the party and the player of the cleric character share that mindset, then the cleric becomes a "boring" class, a "walking healing wand," etc. Some players will refuse to play druids, favored souls, or other primary divine casters because they're afraid of "being stuck as the healer." I don't have a problem with clerics, but then I usually create my character last and play whatever type of character the party needs most.
I think this mindset is the main reason for the dragon shaman in PHB2. The auras are automatic effects, requiring only a swift action to initiate or change, which lets the dragon shaman do more than just buff and heal.
One spell, two words:
Death Ward.
Granted, other classes have it, but clerics do it best. Nothing plays a defensive game like a cleric. Once them there wights and specters and 11th level mages with finger o death and them 11th level clerics with harm start winging around heavy negative energy, energy drain, and death effects, your party will start begging for a cleric.
I've seen one casting of death ward prevent a tpk several times over. When I recently allowed a sidequest in my Savage Tide game to recover a lost olman artifact rumorecd to possess the power to stave off all manner of death, my players jumped on finding it. When they discovered it could produce a mass death ward once per week, they were in freaking heaven.
You want to be a core rules meatgrinding monkey? Halfling cleric. Your ac and saves are insane, and the cleric combat buffs more than make up for lower strength and weapon size. Add some spell compendium, and your a nasty, nasty little preacherman.
And honestly, its all style of game. A group who takes time to listen at doors and even get a rod of enemy detection, or x-ray goggles, can have time to buff more often than not.
You want to be a core rules meatgrinding monkey?
Then be any flavor of cleric. The various expansion books just add to the power.
I played a 3.0 ranger/cleric (Ehlonna) with the Plant and Sun domains (starting as an apprentice and trying to become a verdant lord from Masters of the Wild) in the Sunless Citadel and he rocked. Martial weapons, healing, buffs, and good saves in all categories. Skeletons? Greater Turning. Twig blights? Rebuke Plant Creatures. He was the most effective character in the party.
For 3.5, a dwarf cleric (Moradin, racial substitution levels from Races of Stone) 8/battlesmith (RoS) 2/fist of Raziel (BoED) 10 can seriously kick butt and take names in addition to healing. If you want an undead-bane character, then go for a cleric (Pelor) 6/radiant servant (CD) 8/sacred exorcist (CD) 6.
hmmm... personaly since 3.0 came out I have never had a problem with "nobody wants to play the cleric" in previous editions it was much more common among the people that I come into conatact with, but that is because nobody wanted to be "just the healer", in 3.x by being able to spontaniously cast healing spells, it allows for much more flexibility, and many more people seem to like to play the class.
While we're OK with Clerics, and someone will usually step up, it isn't a coveted role. I suspect that's for a few reasons:
a) Daily spell memorization is a pain. Magdalena thiriet's "SOP memorization", or taking a spontaneous variant like Favored Soul are the best ways around it.
a1) Plus, half your effort in picking spells is wasted, since you have to use them to run standard healing instead.
b) Tequila's comment about doing upkeep for dual roles (and their perceived greed at taking both Cleric specific and generic warrior magic items) is a drawback.
c) You spend your effort helping others stay on their feet, ensuring that they continue to look cool. Rarely do you get to deal the final blow. (Kinda like being the fullback instead of the striker in soccer.)
d) It has the same "alignment type" restrictions a Paladin has, but specific to the Cleric's god. You can wind up getting your spell memorization nuked if you disagree with the GM about your religious practices.
e) Plus, the big flavor they get is about their religion. But most worlds have casual polytheism and people get impatient with "conversion speeches"-- religion's usually used as a divider, not the bard's easy schmoozing with everyone.
f) The people who tend to play Clerics often don't have a lot of real life faith. It's hard to fake faith, and if you don't, you wind up as a generic support role caster.
All that said, I've played and enjoyed playing a Cleric. Their abilities, especially on paper, are impressive. Still, there are a lot of hassles in taking on the role.
|
|
wow...such good discussion...
its good to hear that others dont have this kind of problem, and others have overcome it.
i think it hit me because i was thinking about playing a cleric, and wondering just what kind i'd play.
looking at the cloistered cleric, i think i've fallen in love.
high skill points, free knowledge domain, bardic knowledge, and with the right domain selection you're the healing bard of coolness, minus the electric guitar.
any other tips, stories, or gripes on clerics? any really good tricks to getting the party to enjoy the role of cleric?
-the hamster
For me, the most interesting part in playing cleric is that it comes with inbuilt philosophical ponderings.
Don't be a default healer who just stands there waiting for the Bob the Fighter to yell "Medic!", ask yourself what it means to be a healer. Is it right that you heal specifically these people and not, say, those people these people are trying to hack to pieces?
Are you idealistic healer who wants to ease the anguish and pain in the world? Then you should actively also search nonviolent methods to deal with problems, spells like Command or Hold Person are your friends. You should show mercy also to your enemies.
Or are you scientific healer who is more concerned about basic anatomy and how do biological systems work, and having capabilities in healing comes more as an afterthough? Then go ahead and explore things, poke Bob the Fighter in that red spot "does that hurt? What about that?" Try strange herbal remedies in case they would have the same effect as your Cure light wounds and you could save a spell slot for something else.
One of the more interesting and funnier healer characters I have played was this dwarf cleric who administered much of his healing magic (except for the quick battle healing) via massages and so forth (he was also bisexual sacred prostitute). He believed in helping people by expanding their understanding of the world and themselves by overwhelming their senses...(I loaned good amount of lines from free love talk of hippies and tantrism...)
And these are only examples of healer, which is only one stereotype of cleric.
You are a cleric. Your role is not to be the healerbuffer. Your role is to ask the big questions: Who are we? Where are we going? What is good life? How to achieve that? Then you have to pursue realization of those answers as well as you can.
|
I like clerics. It's nice to be in demand.
I will say that something I would love to see (maybe in future editions) is more variety in characters that can fill a healer role. I'd love it if classes resembling Cleric, Paladin, Druid, Shaman, or whatever, could all heal equally as well, so parties could have variety in their divine casters without sacrificing necessary healing ability. I think you'd see fewer issues with people not wanting to be divine casters in a game like that.
In the past groups I DMd had issues with being the cleric because they thought all they could do was be a fount of healing. Then I played one that was very different. He supplied the healing via wands, potions, etc and did healing between combats, but he liked to *fight*. He rarely, if ever, spontaneously healed anyone. He was too busy being the battle cleric of Heironeous that he was meant to be.
I found that a couple of PCs took ranks in use magic device and a new understanding was had by all.
Since then we haven't had an issue.
On the note of variety, it seems to me that with those listed and the favored soul and even the warlock with their very cool ability to take 10 in any situation on a use magic device role that there are a good variety of those who can heal. That's not even mentioning the PrCs...
Cleric is an excellent. They're as well-defended as a fighter, and with a few buffs can fight better than one too. Cleric is a teeny bit overpowered, if you ask me, but that's because they have the extra responsibility of keeping the party alive.
I've never played in or DMed a group that didn't have at least one cleric. I think clerics are fun to play but they didn't even make my short list of favorite classes. Even though we have always had at least one cleric per party, it's rare for someone to eagerly volunteer for the cleric position. Of course, we have this same problem with wizards. Someone is usually just "Alright (sigh), I guess I'll be the wizard" so I was stunned that the wizard class got such a response on the favorite class poll. Definitely not the case with the group of veterans I've played with for decades.
Anyway, back to clerics, the point previously posted here that most resonates with my group is the whole patching everyone else up so *they* can be the hero condition. Sure, you're an integral part of the team but you're rarely specifically in the spotlight. You're everybody's horse. Need extra melee skill? Cleric, you pick up the slack. Someone in need of fixing? Cleric, come quick. The cleric is versatile and tough and does plenty of heroic things but mostly just in the background. Sure he/she can turn undead and thereby completely diffuse a potentially lethal encounter but somehow that just isn't what they'll be talking about as they gather at the local tavern next Tuesday.
Other classes are more forgiving of non-roleplaying players but, IMO, only good roleplaying can rescue the cleric from a very stale existence. The quirky lines "By Odin's breath, I smote thee!", the stereotypical hauteur, etc. - these are the things that really make the clerics fun and interesting. In our Age of Worms campaign, the party's cleric was this pudgy, pasty-faced intellectual who was more interested in research than anything else. A complete coward, he longed to be accepted by his peers and padded his own ego by constantly reminding the others what an important role he had in the party. An annoying little fellow, sorta the class nerd, but wonderfully developed by the player and certainly memorable.
I am playing a Favored Soul in a campaign. I wanted to play the party rogue but someone else wanted to try out the scout. With no healer we were doomed so I thought I give it a hardy try. (we also have no arcane power so I'm actually multiclassing in sorcerer).
I must say I am surprised how much fun I'm having! While not a real cleric, my favored soul is tons of fun. He's able to hold his own in combat, cast some cool spells, and save everyone's backside! ...of course we're screwed in the turning department.
If he dies (very likely given the mean streak in our DM) I'll replace him with a dwarven cleric straight up.
Favoured souls have very good charisma. They make a pretty good Cleric for a player who is not super keen on the role because they can get very good cohorts. In other words your Cleric can have cohort that does something else besides heal.
I have played in party's without a cleric and I've run a group without a cleric, healing potions and wands usually solve the problem of not having a cleric.
I would like to say you really don't need to have a cleric to have a successful party, both players and DM just need to adjust their gamestyles.
If your DM will adjust his game style that is. Personally I never nerf the monsters cause the adventuring party is has no cleric. For one thing it just means that the adventuring party hits that much harder - their Achilles heal is that they can dish it out but they can't take it. Seems kind of lame to start pulling the monsters punches because somebody might get hurt in this case.
My players are welcome to skip the cleric role, and if they think out their options, maybe they can even get by with a lot of consumables but I'm not playing nice because they all want to make something that blows monsters up real good and don't want to deal with the fact that monsters will try to do the same to them.
In my game the players can do as they please but I play every monster to the best of its ability keeping innate weaknesses in mind (vermin and Golems are innovative for example) The monsters want to live as much as the characters after all.
Cleric is an excellent. They're as well-defended as a fighter, and with a few buffs can fight better than one too. Cleric is a teeny bit overpowered, if you ask me, but that's because they have the extra responsibility of keeping the party alive.
I think they are maybe more then a tiny bit overpowered though its not system breaking overpowered. Especially if you allow a lot of the non-core books. They are rightly feared in the hands of the DM. Especially when the DM gets to make that 'all cleric' band of villains.
Still I completely agree with the analysis above that the big problem with the Cleric is that between the buffs and the healing and the fact that most combats are maybe 5 rounds long the cleric never manages to get in on the kill. Its not that the Cleric can't dish out damage in both melee and with offensive spells. My cleric player is right at the level where a combo of Divine Favour and Blade of Blood can make him the most powerful 'fighter' in the party.
However its hard to get to that point. The players are usually arguing with each other over whether the Cleric should heal the parties normal meat shield or launch the devastating attack, more often then not the correct answer (though not always the one the players take) is heal the fighter. Basically speaking the cleric is theoretically awesome but between the early round buffs (for players and himself) and the later heals he is usually to busy to lay the smack down.
All that said one can have fun with the cleric - good role playing helps but also once you really are fighting a Dragon and his Undead Sorcerer side kick and the fighters fallen into the nasty pit trap they dug in the floor being the cleric just is not so bad. Sure your supposed to heal but in this case the fighters indisposed and your the back up fighter for the mage so get in front of that Dragon. On another occasion the mage gets feebleminded - well your the back up caster - toss down flame strike, Etc. In actual play the cleric does get to be an important and non-stereotyped role often enough that its going to be fun. Especially if you make a cleric that can be the back up mage in a pinch and the back up fighter in a pinch. The more roles you can fill in a pinch the more times you will be called upon to fill these roles.
One danger to fall into about not having a cleric is that its easy to think that the main thing they do is to heal the party. The problem is, the traditional cleric role is to "set things right," not just to heal. Yes, most of the time this falls under heading of "giving back hit points," but the first time you are in the middle of nowhere after having been hit by a vampire's level drain, and you don't have a cleric to cast restoration and you find out that you just lost two levels . . . then you remember what ELSE the cleric can do to "fix things."
Er . . . nope, this has never happened to me . . . seriously, I'm over it now . . . moving on.
Other things a cleric can do that no one else can . . . align weapon. Several creatures can be a LOT easier to take down with this simple spell, but no one else has it, and "holy" weapons, and especially "lawful" or "chaotic" weapons aren't extreemly common.
Plus, when you run up against something that you can tell is undead, but you have no idea how else to harm the thing, nothing is more satisfying than the cleric saying, "I know how to hurt it," and then converts a high level spell to a healing spell to blast whatever the obscure shambling undead thing is.
If your DM will adjust his game style that is. Personally I never nerf the monsters cause the adventuring party is has no cleric.
I guess the question is more that if you put the same type or level of conflict against a group with little healing power as you would against a group with fullblown healerbuffer. Very different thing from not playing monsters to their full capacity.
I have complained before about level suggestions in published Dungeon adventures to be typically too low, I will do it again. I don't play with fully optimized parties and I don't want to play with fully optimized parties.
Likewise, DCs for traps and locks seem often to assume that the party rogue (of course there is a full rogue locksmith in every adventuring party) has maximized the necessary skills. I disagree with this assumption. If you have maximized Open locks skill, that means that you should be frigging master locksmith and go through large majority of locks thinking "why do they even bother to stick such piece of c**p in their door". Majority of locks and traps should be such DC that one can overcome them by taking 10 with cross-class skill...
Other classes are more forgiving of non-roleplaying players but, IMO, only good roleplaying can rescue the cleric from a very stale existence.
I do agree, without attempt to roleplaying cleric is the dullest role, Momma who has to clean up afterwards when the others have finished playing. When one is actually treating one's cleric as full real person it is one of the more interesting characters...though typically this means less-than-optimum build and fighters' unhappiness that Momma doesn't pick up their toys after all.
I have been thinking a bit about those spontaneous heals and harms too...maybe those should be changed to spells of appropriate level from the domain spell lists? So the cleric with Healing domain would be the only one able to replace spells with heals? After all, why would cleric of, say, Olidammara be interested in either healing or inflicting? Are clerics of Vecna or Wee Jas really that interested in harm spells? Or Kord about cures?
your second paragraph sounds reasonable to me; play test it if you can and let us know how it turns out.
If your DM will adjust his game style that is. Personally I never nerf the monsters cause the adventuring party is has no cleric.I guess the question is more that if you put the same type or level of conflict against a group with little healing power as you would against a group with fullblown healerbuffer. Very different thing from not playing monsters to their full capacity.
I have complained before about level suggestions in published Dungeon adventures to be typically too low, I will do it again. I don't play with fully optimized parties and I don't want to play with fully optimized parties.
Likewise, DCs for traps and locks seem often to assume that the party rogue (of course there is a full rogue locksmith in every adventuring party) has maximized the necessary skills. I disagree with this assumption. If you have maximized Open locks skill, that means that you should be frigging master locksmith and go through large majority of locks thinking "why do they even bother to stick such piece of c**p in their door". Majority of locks and traps should be such DC that one can overcome them by taking 10 with cross-class skill...
well, i let my rouge type who would otherwise have a really tuff time with locks; spend a lot of extra time on the lock and take a 20; most locks are not in place to stop the adventure and most adventures are not centered around any particular lock; so lockpicking is only important to me when trying to do so in a crisis at which time a pc must roll.
So, as the title suggests, there seems to be a problem with parties without healers.
And noone heals better than a straight-classed cleric.
So, what's the problem here? It can't be a design issue, as the cleric is the most "ability-laden" of the characters...
decent HD
heavy armor
full casting progression
domains, with powers granted
decent weapon selection
2 good saves
no real MAD
turn undeadAnd there's plenty of love cleric-wise when it comes to spells, items, feats, and the like...not to mention prestige classes.
Is it that onerous to be responsible for patching up the party? Is it annoying to take on that role?
I usually end up being the talker of the group when i play, but that's easily achievable with a cleric, and of the last 8 or 10 characters i've made, 3 or 4 of them were healers of some sort.
SO......what gives? Do you regularly run without a cleric? Does someone in the group really like playing one? Do you take turns, or draw straws, or somesuch?
Typically, in our games, someone will step up and play the healer (one-off's aside, of course, all bets off on those). In my current STAP game the cleric has made the difference in ALL the encounters with undead thus far, and kept more than 1 member of the party alive when they shouldn't have.
-the hamster
well, i love playing the healer. its a great role playing type and no one wants you to die so i know ill last a long time, i key element when you have a complex role-playing character.
as i side note there is a god in the forgotten realms dwarven pantheon with war and luck for domains and greatsword for a favored weapon so my gold dwarf cleric is a total tank in his full-plate
most locks are not in place to stop the adventure and most adventures are not centered around any particular lock;
Excellent point. Few people are going to stop in the middle of a combat for 2d4 rounds to use Open Lock (Isn't that how long it takes? It's largely irrelevant to my post if that's wrong). Therefore, since the party will almost certainly be using the skill outside of combat, there is rarely a reason for them not to take 20 on the roll. Thus, even more evidence of Valegrim's point.
So, the answer would seem to be simply reducing the DC on the locks to a level more consistent with the foes and their capabilities/expectations regarding lockbreakers (and your party's abilities, if so desired). It's a fairly easy modification to make, and is more internally consistent (not that the players will ever really notice/care), and perhaps most importantly, allows much greater flexibility in party structure without compromising efficiency nearly as drastically.
I understand how it can still be irritating to see such things published, though, even if it is a simple thing to fix.
Uhm, we seem to have drifted off clerics....
|
|
Clerics!! I love 'em. I play a lot of PbP on the WotC Real Adventure boards (since I've now taken over the mantle of DM for my tabletop group), and three of my characters there are clerics - and none of them are remotely similar. The class is wonderfully versatile, IMO. Of course, all of my clerics are in Eberron, and I really like the feel of religion in that setting.
My fighter 2/cleric 3 war veteran, Bree, starts out with her longbow and then joins melee fairly quickly – she fully expects the rest of the party to keep themselves together during a fight, and rarely heals until the encounter is over. Wren, dragonmarked cleric 2, is a mischievous wanna-be reporter who has a very deep personal faith but a highly chaotic nature that keeps her from settling down – she’s currently AWOL from training at a central temple. She also has the Charm domain from the ECS, which gives the rather amusing ability to literally “turn on the charm”. Sathal, cleric 6/exorcist of the Silver Flame 6, kicks things off with a high level summon monster, followed by any necessary buffs and a “holy smite” to soften things up. And I haven't even played my Nosomatic Chirurgeon concept yet...weee!! So many options, in one little class.