I think the answer essentially comes down to no one wanting to spend their actions healing other players as opposed to trying to fight the monsters. Its a powerful and necessary class but if your going to be resurected as part of a sports car do you want to be the gas or the engine?
Essentially what the cleric does well is not really all that fun. Rolling a critical with your power attack - now thats fun. Laying the beat down on every enemy in the room with your new high level spell, well thats fun. Tumbling through half an enemy army to bring the fight straight to the BBEG spell caster - definitely fun. Casting yet another healing spell on a fellow adventurer, not so much fun.
I agree that they tend to be a bit overlooked, probably due to what JM just stated. I personally enjoy them . .. everyone loves the cleric.
I agree with last rogue. Clerics are extremely popular at our game table. They are probably #1, with Bard being the least favored core class (no one has ever played one).
My first DM talked me into playing a cleric, I was the last player and we already had a wizard, rogue and fighter. The short straw you might say. Loved the class even though I played with only four spells per spell level till lvl 11 due to my DM screwing up big time but it has been my 'main' class whenever I get the chance.
My Sigil party loved me to death(human, clr 7, RS of Pelor 10) since I could heal just about anything the bad guys dished out and turn undead into dust within seconds and always prepared a myriad of spells from Word of Recall and Wind Walk to Restoration and Firestorm. Having the advantage of wearing the best armour available and being able to carry a shield to boot means you're never the first to go down, the D8 on HP also does wonders. I stocked up on healing potions, wands of cure moderate, a fully charged staff of healing, a masterwork healing kit and a heal skill that went through the roof ment that even in situations that magic was depleted or prevented I could still prevent deaths and put party members back on their feet.
Add in a few combat related feats and you suddenly find you deal a fair deal of damage(Hold the Line, Exotic WP Bastard Sword and a holy weapon) plus you can stand your own against creatures till backup arrives to deal the killing blow.
You're sort of the 'jack-of-all-trades' between a fighter, wizard and paladin. You can do most things well, but not as good as other classes except for two things; healing and undead killing.
Yes, I can honestly say I love clerics.
Rift,
Edit; shame on me for forgetting to copy/paste the entire thing, now the computer ate it. Basically I think people don't want to play clerics because they're not the real 'heroes' that the other classes appear to be. The brave paladin or fighter leading the charge, the mighty spell flinging sorcerer/wizard, the acrobatic rogue that eludes his enemies every strike or the ranger that can kill an enemy at a thousand feet with a single shot of his bow. Compared to the...priest-gone-rambo that spends his time healing his buddies? It makes sense that once people play with a good cleric that they'll value you very much and might even take up the class themselves but its not likely to happen the first time they start a character.
Clerics, while they have been touted as "the best class in the game" by several designers (somewhere on the WoTC site) the class has several quirks (I won't call them design flaws). I have the same issue in my party. The one guy who plays clerics hates how they are designed. Thankfully, the newer cleric-ish classes help.
First is that what you start with is pretty much all you get. Oh sure, the BAB and spells increase, but they get no new or interesting abilities later on. The class seems designed tp PrC. Other core classes get SOMETHING later on, or can be played straight (no multi-classing) to 20. Clerics don't get the same flavor.
Second, is they are a suport class. As has been stated before, they do not get the limelight. People do not write books about them. they are designed to support other characters. Yes, they can turn the face of the battle, but they aren't the star. It's like being an offensive lineman in football or a stay-at-home defenceman in hockey. Not flashy, but you need them to suceed.
Third. At low levels, with so few spells they are stuck in a hard spot. Do they buff, attack or save for the heal? At level 1 they get a whopping 2 spells (maybe) which makes this a tough choice. And an important one. Yes, at later levels this balances out. But the early levels are where you set the foundation of your character. What I've seen is the party clerics burn out or bore out WAY before they get to the levels where they start to get powerful.
I like the clerics, don't get me wrong. I see what WoTC was going for. I see how versatile clerics are and how useful they can be. But these seem to be my players complaints over the years.
|
I think most people just don't know how to play clerics.
I am currently playing a cleric of a fire god. And I tell you, when you set an entire lake (about the size of a Great Lake) on fire, you get the notice of those more "playable" characters. Granted, there was a whole slew of favorable cicumstances that no one realized would let me do it, but I did. :)
Ok, cleric... start the fight buffing the fighters. They appreciate those extras and know you make them so much better. Fight begins, the cleric follows the fighters in. Using a reach weapon I am able to get right into the heart of the fight, without getting hit. I am close enough to heal or buff when needed.
And I tell you, there is nothing like watching the druid being eaten alive by a Black Pudding, and everyone afraid or unable to even come close to effecting it. Good old boring cleric throws up a Wall of Fire and ends the fight and saves the druid and heals the others. What would they do without me? Die...
The Wizard and I both a buffers. We buff the fighters and make them killing machines and let them do the dirty work for us. Then when they get in over their heads we come in and save them. Sounds like a lot of fun to me.
I for one believe Clerics to be potentially one of the most powerful classes in the game. Players ignore them at their peril and stupidity. A cleric that is properly spelled up can equal a Fighter in combat and potentially exceed him (albeit only until his spells expire and he doesn't have the Feats that a straight Fighter has). You've also got spells that can cure yourself, harm foes from a distance, and at mid to high levels, stop combat immediately. Of the 9 or 10 players in my Killer Age of Worms campaign, I currently have 3 different players playing Clerics, and they are collectively driving me crazy with their abilities in tandem...
I for one believe Clerics to be potentially one of the most powerful classes in the game.
This pretty much sums up my opinion of the class as well. Like I said in another thread somewhere, “When the other classes pray, nobody answers.”
I think another problem (besides what’s already been mentioned above) comes with the intricacies of the cleric’s religion. If a player isn’t familiar with a pantheon or religious background (or just not “seeing” it) they can quickly get overwhelmed with the variety of options and sort of go into shutdown. To avoid this semi-schizophrenic appearance for a character (unless it’s part of your concept), a lot of players will pick the safe roll…the party’s private M*A*S*H unit.
Playing a cleric “right” (very subjective, I understand) still involves so much work that a lot of players don’t understand it, or don’t want to deal with it. After all, you’re playing a character than is roughly the same as doing a Fighter/Mage (in basic essence). They can wear the heavier armors (unless specifically proscribed by their tenets), use good weapons (unless limited by dogma), and can still cast a variety of spells (as pointed out by several other, above). And they get to hold their own 24/7 tent revival with their party members as the next best thing to a captive audience. Hehe…
They’re just so versatile I think the class actually intimidates a lot of people.
|
|
People do not write books about them.Ever read The Cleric Quintet by R.A. Salvatore. It's five books about a cleric.
Those are Salvatore's worst work ever - if anything, they've made fewer people play divine spellcasters. Stay the heck away.
Clerics, however, are awesome - most of my players clamour to play one, and I once DMed a campaign with an all-cleric party.
People do not write books about them.Ever read The Cleric Quintet by R.A. Salvatore. It's five books about a cleric.Those are Salvatore's worst work ever - if anything, they've made fewer people play divine spellcasters. Stay the heck away.
Clerics, however, are awesome - most of my players clamour to play one, and I once DMed a campaign with an all-cleric party.
Oh come now, as a Forgotten Realms fan I must . . . hell, who am I kidding? Five books to read about a cleric that doesn't really know if he believes in his god, and in the end thinks that he might kinda believe in him, and thus, his god rewards him by giving him uber powers.
Although the ironic thing is, in 3.5 Cadderly would likely be a Favored Soul, which means the title of the whole series is off.
If you want to read about clerics, the original DragonLance books are a good source, or the Priests series of Forgotten Realms novels, The Year of Rogue Dragons has an interesting cleric of Lathander in it, The Scions of Arrabar has some clerics of Waukeen in the series as major characters, and Paul Kemp's Erevis Cale books are an awesome read about clerics in D&D worlds (and the first book of the Twilight War is pretty good as well).
Clerics are fantastic if played right. And with the right combination of feats, spells, and prestige classes, clerics can be the most powerful character in a party. There are many who claim that the cleric is still the most powerful class ever designed for 3rd Ed.
Druids and favored souls are also great value. I always play up the leverage I have over other PCs with my clerics. That doesn't mean I hold their hit points ot ransom, but I do end up wielding a whole lot of power over the group's decisions.
|
|
Ever read The Cleric Quintet by R.A. Salvatore. It's five books about a cleric.Those are Salvatore's worst work ever - if anything, they've made fewer people play divine spellcasters. Stay the heck away.
Oh come now, as a Forgotten Realms fan I must . . . hell, who am I kidding? Five books to read about a cleric that doesn't really know if he believes in his god, and in the end thinks that he might kinda believe in him, and thus, his god rewards him by giving him uber powers.
A friend of mine hated those books so much that he now refuses to play any combination of dwarves/clerics/monks/druids, and strongly discourages anyone to play dwarven druids if he is within throwing range. While I sympathise, I like clerics too much to completely agree with him.
You'd think that with the number of evil clerics that show up as the BBEG, that a player wouldn't go "Hey, I could play a character that does that too." Clerics are my favorite class. They can kick ass and take names from here to the Nine Hells, and then gate your ass back out. Something about being so in-tune with one's spiritual beliefs that it directly affects the physical world around you appeals to me.
That, and I have a thing for maces and blunt trauma.
|
Clerics are my favourite class, I drift away to other classes, but always return. However, I think that to enjoy playing a cleric (especially at low levels), you need two things:
one: party balance. In a current campaign, being a lone cleric in a party of 7 with four fighter types was a bit wearing...you do nothing but heal. Now that one fighter has died and the player decided to go with a war cleric it is good again, the cleric has flexability (and can afford to lose spell levels to go into some of those prestige classes).
two: Another Role. Be it a fighter or a sage, smething you can do that doesn't use up those all important (to the rest of the party) spells. I have seen players turned off clerics forever because they were just treated as healers by the rest of the party and had no other role.
I hate clerics.
I have never played a cleric and probably never will. As a DM ofcourse, I like clerics, they are tougher than arcane casters and when they die I get to indulge my hatred of clerics.
Why do I hate clerics? Because clerics are not powerful, their gods are powerful, and clerics leech off that power. Without their gods, clerics are just tougher than average experts.
Somebody above mentioned R.A. Salvatore, I think Artemis Entreri said it best: Clerics turn to a god to make them powerful, while the rest the world achieves the same end by relying and building upon their own strengths. (paraphrased somewhat)
Well, this is the first I have heard of 3.5 clerics being unpopular; there so bleeding tuff now that seems 3 or 4 of my players always want to play one; they blast as good as a wizard; fight better than a warrior; and can snoop and poop with the best of them if they want to and serve the right diety; what's not to love.
sigh, as I have said before, usually ducking tomatoes and rotten cabage; I really dont think R.A.S. is much of an author, I have read many of his books; like 10 or 15 and they are really poor, under developed things, much like the writing i would expect from a second or third year writing student. I get more out of the Sunday funnies; and really dont see what all you guys that love him so much see in his writing that blows yer dress up and makes you giggle.
My cleric of Wee Jas in SCAP is an odd guy: he doesn't heal a whole lot (except for wand use) and can't spontaneous-cast heal spells, and he doesn't like to melee either (not enough strength, saves the buffs for other characters). He plays like an armored wizard with a horde of special tricks up his sleeves, and he's been extremely impressive.
He has the Death domain, granting Death Touch 1/day: that's how Kazmogen died after the rest of the party was at the point of despair, and how the high priest at Bal-Hamatagn died, and no one will forget the time the priest was swallowed by a wyst and then emerged triumphantly from its dead, melting corpse.
He uses Dismissal and Banishment to get rid of things the other PCs can't even touch. He uses Silence to lay low spellcasters that would otherwise trash the party. And the Dictum into the midst of over fifty smallish demons takes the party prize for most enemies nuked in one round.
And Heroes' Feast has saved the PCs probably more times than any other spell (except the wizard's signature Tasha's Irresistable Laughter). You just can't beat immunity to fear, poison and disease.
Speak with Dead has also been truly spectacular: at least three times the GM has rolled the save, turned greenish, and said, "Ah, oops, okay, he answers you--what do you ask?" on a major, and well-informed, dead NPC. Commune and Divination are really strong, too.
You don't have to play clerics as healers or even buff generators. They are very competitive for everything except direct damage (Searing Light and Flamestrike are decent but not as good as what a wizard can do) but there are a lot of applications where direct damage is not the best anyway.
The cleric in my GM's other SCAP campaign never gets to do anything but healing, and the player is bored--like any class, cleric is more fun in a party whose style supports it well. It helps if at least one other PC can use the happy stick (paladin, ranger, bard, rogue, druid--it shouldn't be too hard to find someone).
Mary
Why do I hate clerics? Because clerics are not powerful, their gods are powerful, and clerics leech off that power. Without their gods, clerics are just tougher than average experts.Somebody above mentioned R.A. Salvatore, I think Artemis Entreri said it best: Clerics turn to a god to make them powerful, while the rest the world achieves the same end by relying and building upon their own strengths. (paraphrased somewhat)
You can set a fire witha magnifying glass. True, you can't do it without the sunlight in the first place, but if the magnifying glass is dirty, or is scratched up, or cloudy, the light will neve focus. A cleric's faith is the magnifying glass.
We recently lost our cleric to a shift change, so I took it upon myself to create one. I noticed during most melee combats the group seems to trip all over itself and get in each others way, we have about 7-8 players and have been in an extensive dungeon crawl. So I wondered if I could create a cleric that could also do ranged combat.
I started by looking through Complete Divine for a Prestige Class I could hopefully strive for.
I found the Seeker of the Misty Isle to be almost exactly what I wanted. The other characters are all 6 lvl, so I decided to make him 5th lvl. The DM is pretty generous (two floating die on abilities, he practically invites munchkinism, so I also wanted to show him why this is not a good idea) on giving players basically what they want concerning classes. The character I ended up making was a Ranger 2/Cleric 3. It's almost sickening to behold. He's starting with the War and Protection domains, duality seems to suit him. When he gets his first lvl of SotMI, he'll also get the Travel domain, and upon reaching 6th lvl he gets the Magic domain as well. His only real limitation is that he has to wear light armor so he can use Rapid Shot.
This really isn't the kind of character I would take in a normal campaign. I just wanted to throw that out there. I did come up with a minor melodramatic backstory for him. But truth be told, I wouldn't think of using this particular character in someones campaign have him accepted as is.
We recently lost our cleric to a shift change, so I took it upon myself to create one. I noticed during most melee combats the group seems to trip all over itself and get in each others way, we have about 7-8 players and have been in an extensive dungeon crawl. So I wondered if I could create a cleric that could also do ranged combat.
I started by looking through Complete Divine for a Prestige Class I could hopefully strive for.I found the Seeker of the Misty Isle to be almost exactly what I wanted. The other characters are all 6 lvl, so I decided to make him 5th lvl. The DM is pretty generous (two floating die on abilities, he practically invites munchkinism, so I also wanted to show him why this is not a good idea) on giving players basically what they want concerning classes. The character I ended up making was a Ranger 2/Cleric 3. It's almost sickening to behold. He's starting with the War and Protection domains, duality seems to suit him. When he gets his first lvl of SotMI, he'll also get the Travel domain, and upon reaching 6th lvl he gets the Magic domain as well. His only real limitation is that he has to wear light armor so he can use Rapid Shot.
This really isn't the kind of character I would take in a normal campaign. I just wanted to throw that out there. I did come up with a minor melodramatic backstory for him. But truth be told, I wouldn't think of using this particular character in someones campaign have him accepted as is.
Stat him up and submit him to the DM Tools site. You got my attention and I want to see what you have done.
Why aren’t clerics more popular as player characters?
That is easy enough to answer.
Perception.
I would lump Clerics and Paladins together in this. The perception is restricted actions / code of ethics.
Your personal groups may vary, but the "typical" or "average" group of players don't really want to be told how to play their characters. So they feel constrained by the religions. How many of you really see a devout follower of a religion outside of a Cleric or Paladin? Add in a dash of cynicism due to the players own feelings on religion in their own life... And you have the recipe to Clerics not being popular.
Why aren’t clerics more popular as player characters?That is easy enough to answer.
Perception.
I would lump Clerics and Paladins together in this. The perception is restricted actions / code of ethics.
Your personal groups may vary, but the "typical" or "average" group of players don't really want to be told how to play their characters. So they feel constrained by the religions. How many of you really see a devout follower of a religion outside of a Cleric or Paladin? Add in a dash of cynicism due to the players own feelings on religion in their own life... And you have the recipe to Clerics not being popular.
I have to wonder about that. I expect that the 'average' game does not really dwell heavily on the clerics religion unless the player is keen on the idea. I doubt most DMs really force the issue all that much - oh sure you have to read the paragraph associated with your God maybe and you can't really act against what it says in this paragraph but otherwise I suspect your good in most games.
Paladin is probably more of an issue. The whole code thing is kind of spelled out and most DMs will probably make you, more or less, follow it.
Maybe my area was different... But most DM's I have seen always had an opinion on how Clerics were supposed to act.
As an example (taken out of context):
My thought is that a divine spell is easy to deal with . . . Lion's Roar doesn't really sound like a Wee Jas spell to me. Even if the cleric knows of the spell, they pray to Wee Jas, and Wee Jas says . . . "sorry, not my style."
There isn't any other class that has DM fiat written into the class.
Maybe my area was different... But most DM's I have seen always had an opinion on how Clerics were supposed to act.
As an example (taken out of context):
My thought is that a divine spell is easy to deal with . . . Lion's Roar doesn't really sound like a Wee Jas spell to me. Even if the cleric knows of the spell, they pray to Wee Jas, and Wee Jas says . . . "sorry, not my style."There isn't any other class that has DM fiat written into the class.
Even this is just the DM saying 'spell to powerful' or 'not really appropriate for your type of cleric'. Maybe you agree with the DM and maybe you don't but its not like your really dwelling on religion and ethics - your being denied a spell, not following a code.
Anyway my bet is Knight Errant probably has some other mechanic dealing with the rest of the spells in the spell compendium when it comes to wizards. At a guess - 'these arcane spells are rare - you can't just learn them at will when you gain a level - you must delve into hidden lore and find scrolls (conveniently located in the adventures I'm going to put you through)'.
Thats not to say that DMs don't have a view of how clerics are supposed to act to some extent. If your a cleric of Lothander you can't just kill the towns folk if they don't give you all their stuff. That said I suspect that most of the time your basically fine. You have an alignment and its all hooked up into your God but if you meet your alignment your probably fine in terms of appeasing your God. If the DM makes a special point of mentioning that there is a church of your God in the town then you, as a cleric, should probably take the hint and go check out the church and yes you should take the holy quest the church entrusts you with. If you don't and your DM starts screwing with you its not really because your failing as a cleric - its because your screwing up the adventure hook.
Anyway my bet is Knight Errant probably has some other mechanic dealing with the rest of the spells in the spell compendium when it comes to wizards. At a guess - 'these arcane spells are rare - you can't just learn them at will when you gain a level - you must delve into hidden lore and find scrolls (conveniently located in the adventures I'm going to put you through)'.
Yes, you are correct. If a PC gains a level in an arcane class, they could pick their "automatic" spells from the PH, but if they want something from the Spell Compendium, or a FR book, or a terrain book or what have you, they would have to go somewhere and find that particular spell to study.
To simplify the rule, the PH spells are pretty much baseline and you can count on them. Eveything else would have to be roleplayed in order to be encountered and picked up.
[Deleted due to no longer being relevant.]
* Delete *
For what it's worth, and I have only been lurking on the thread, I didn't take it that way. It seemed more of a constructive example to me.
I'm just taking my comments out. I don't want to derail anything. I get that the critism was that the cleric class has this "flaw" and my example was showing how this "flaw" affects gameplay.
I'm just taking my comments out. I don't want to derail anything. I get that the critism was that the cleric class has this "flaw" and my example was showing how this "flaw" affects gameplay.
What did I miss out on?
I'm just taking my comments out. I don't want to derail anything. I get that the critism was that the cleric class has this "flaw" and my example was showing how this "flaw" affects gameplay.What did I miss out on?
All the excitement - ain't that always the way?
Even this is just the DM saying 'spell to powerful' or 'not really appropriate for your type of cleric'. Maybe you agree with the DM and maybe you don't but its not like your really dwelling on religion and ethics - your being denied a spell, not following a code.Anyway my bet is Knight Errant probably has some other mechanic dealing with the rest of the spells in the spell compendium when it comes to wizards. At a guess - 'these arcane spells are rare - you can't just learn them at will when you gain a level - you must delve into hidden lore and find scrolls (conveniently located in the adventures I'm going to put you through)'.
Thats not to say that DMs don't have a view of how clerics are supposed to act to some extent. If your a cleric of Lothander you can't just kill the towns folk if they don't give you all their stuff. That said I suspect that most of the time your basically fine. You have an alignment and its all hooked up into your God but if you meet your alignment your probably fine in terms of appeasing your God. If the DM makes a special point of mentioning that there is a church of your God in the town then you, as a cleric, should probably take the hint and go check out the church and yes you should take the holy quest the church entrusts you with. If you don't and your DM starts screwing with you its not really...
As a player (and divine caster) in KEJR's Mistledale campaign, I don't find the flavor of deities to be a problem. Mind you, I also derailed at least 2 plots easy in that campaign. And the campaign got cooler & we got big enemies (City of Shade, anyone?), and nice allies.
Now:
The defenses are simple for lion's roar, call it screams of the arcane/ancestors... Same effect, mechanics, & stuff, but flavorwise better suited for wee jas.
Between KEJR & myself, we have pretty much every freaking spell in the game. This leads to lots of foresight & thinking about my spellcasters, and I approach him with a list of wants, usually within my spellcaster's theme. For those that aren't, I alter the flavor text & name to make it viable. Poof, I get what I want a couple of sessions later, after my character worked for it, and earned it. That's how I like my game, with lots of room for character development, and watching KEJR's head explode ;P
/d
I think a lot of people don't like clerics because of the 'jack of all trades' deal. I myself would much rather play a character that has one or two things which he/she is really good at than being mediocre at a bunch of things. Now I've heard it said often enough that a cleric can be as good as a specialized character in their own field, which I have yet to see proven, but even so the player has to go out of his/her way to do so. Especially for a role-oriented player, going out of their way to show up another class which is supposed to be better than the cleric at their own trade is just not appealing.
My biggest problem with playing clerics is the GM; I have found that many GM's have no flippin clue about thier dieties or their dieties religions and that always leaves characters like Clerics and Paladins and sometimes Monks out to dry. There are certainly gms that I will not ever play any type character that depends or dieties in any way at all in their games; if there are a lot of gms out there like that; and I certainly hope there is not; then I could see why gms are unpopular. My world, for instance; had until recently; about 150 dieties of every shape, size, flavor; power level and whatnot that anyone could find some diefic backup for any type character they wanted. I also think that Paladins being only Lawful Good is just down right ignorant and about as thoughful as doggie piddle on the floor. I have two basic rules for Paladins; your diety has to have levels of paladin; hence any race that has a diety with paladin levels can play a paladin; and every alignment has a champion of that faith; that champion is called a paladin. Surprizingly; Paladins are still fairly unpopular. By not taking any levels of cleric; paladin or monk; it seems that between 1/3 to 1/2, maybe more of the feats in the game are excluded to you. So there you have it; I think the reason clerics are unpopular is that many gms are fit to run a game. I know; sounds harsh, but then I love this game and hate to sit down to play a game and find out the gm is not prepared for anything but a hack and slash fest; granted; most of the peeps whose stuff I have read in these boards all sound like they run a great game and do their background work and would never let a religous character class get strung out on the lamb holding his prayer beads in one hand and his....well; I digress, butat this point I think I am talking to the choir.
A cleric should be an example of the virtues of the diety they represent; that means they should be able to be able to tailor their character class to fulfill the needs of the diety. It is up to the gm to define the diety and that dieties expectations and see that the game mechanics of the class allow the cleric to fulfill that expectation. This kind of play variability should be enticing to anyone who likes to roleplay and as one cleric can be vastly different from another.
It seems several people took the wrong point from my example.
I wasn't trying to comment on the power level of a particular spell, nor the appropriateness - or lack thereof - of denying access to that spell.
I was illustrating that players, at least perceive, all of their characters power / ability strictly in the hands of DM whim.
A DM of good or better quality is not a problem in that case.
The problem is finding a DM of that quality. There is far too much room in the Cleric class for a DM to "arbitrarily" (again, this is from the player's perspective) take away the character's worth and value.
The DM can't just say "Bob the Half Orc Barbarian wakes up and can't remember how to wield his ax." At least not within the boundaries the player takes away from the PHB.
But the DM can say "Lucky the Gnome Cleric of Olidammara wakes up and doesn't receive any answers to her prayers for spells that day." And, realistically doesn't have to say anything further.
Now, most situations like this will warrant some dialog, and after some questions and answers, the player of Lucky can find out that the DM feels that Olidammara is upset with Lucky since she didn't try to pocket the tip the group left on the tavern table after their meal.
Completely silly situation. Probably not terribly common.
But I am saying thoughts like this filter through the heads of players as they think out brand spanking new characters.
Once a trust level is built up, the better groups will drop these preconceptions, and Cleric use isn't a problem any more.
It seems several people took the wrong point from my example.
I got what you were saying when I reread the original post. I see your point, and I'm sorry I got a little turned around on what you were trying to say.
To use your example, I wouldn't all of the sudden say that Darkmeer's druid couldn't use spell X when he had been for a while and then arbitrarily say that Mieliekki doesn't like it when he does that.
I will say this though. While its fairly obvious to more experienced DMs, newer DMs might not be as careful in making sure that the newer books fit their themes and the like, and it might not be a bad idea for new books to point out that even though clerics, druids, etc. don't have to have prayerbooks or to "learn" spells the way wizards do, that doesn't mean they have to have automatic access to new spells that come out.
Thankfully I'm blessed with some great players (even if one of them isn't here to play anymore, i.e. Darkmeer and Glenndo) that were very interested in making backgrounds for their divine casters and learning what their religion and their own personal credos were.
I love clerics as NPC's for all the lovely reasons listed above and more.
But when I get to play in Searns games I can never get into a cleric character. I always like some personality quirks and personally driven characters and I just can't get that long lasting feeling out of a cleric character. Probably due to the fact that clerics and paladins, as have been mentioned, are just secong class warriors with no special skills if not for a god lending them power.
I love druids and monks (although I've never thought of monks as being religious either). I'm playing a halfling druid now in Saerns campaign and loving it.
If you are noticing that clerics are in decline in you're campaigns I have something that might help. The next time you ask your players to come up with a new character watch what they do. If ,like my friends and myself, they crack open a PHB and start flipping through the second chapter for inspiration you may have a problem.
With a clerics sppecial abilities space looking like this
Turn of rebuke undead
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It isn't exactly an eye grabber, despite the undeniable power and usefulness of the class.
And Let's face it, Jozan could stand a makeover. Redgar, Ember, Krusk, and Soveliss (Q-tip arrows and all) look like their all ready and willing to lay a serious smack down. Vadania isn't entirely impressive by herself but she has a friggin WOLF, and a wolf pet has never had a single lapse in being awesome in the history of all awesome things.
Jozan, on the other hand, looks like little Billy got into daddys big boy armor again.
I like clerics, but they need to fire their PR department.
I've had alot of people be ungratefull for a healer, in an instance where a group of six went in and five came out I was assalted with "Why the hell didn't you heal ME?!?! I'M twice as imprortant as him" that kind of thing happens more often than expected, and it's not fun.
"Eat brains"!
Thankfully I'm blessed with some great players (even if one of them isn't here to play anymore, i.e. Darkmeer and Glenndo) that were very interested in making backgrounds for their divine casters and learning what their religion and their own personal credos were.
Umm, are you implying that Glenndo & myself are the same person?
*begins identity crisis & split personality paranoia*
But what of Mrs. Glenndo? Is she a figment? Oh, no, What of Foghorn?!
*slaps self, returns to reality*
The auto "I'm a cleric & I should be able to cast this spell because it's on the list" mentality hurts the clerics, IMO. It tends to attract the munckin mentality in that respect, being able to cast sooo many spells. Example: A priest of Nerull is much more likely to cast a create undead spell than, say, a priest of Pelor. See, a reason NOT to allow every priest access to EVERY priest spell across the board (and I didn't even go outside the PHB, yay me!). Pelor's clergy specifically states that Undead=BAD. Let alone alignment-based restrictions. Said DM would be right to say NO for the cleric of Pelor to not be able to cast create undead. Now, if said DM said that, say, Daylight couldn't be cast by the priest of Pelor, I'd have a bone to pick. Heck, lion's roar might even make Pelor's list.
My favorite spells/feats come from a small number of books. Perhaps a discussion of "legal books" in a campaign should happen. It does in our games, and if something comes up in another book it can be allowed, but by quality of not being a legal book, does not have to be included.
BTW KEJR, thankyee for the compliment. I like our group, too. They're all open-minded enough for the hybrid game happening right now :)
/d
But when I get to play in Searns games I can never get into a cleric character. I always like some personality quirks and personally driven characters and I just can't get that long lasting feeling out of a cleric character.
Which IMO is a bit odd, since for me clerics are perhaps the most interesting class to roleplay. The class should force one to ask the big questions and preferably find motivation other than "I just want to be tougher/richer/better" (thought that one might of course also be a motive, since it is even more fun to have several conflicting motives...)
And indeed the fact that the clerics are not self-sufficient brings new dimensions on how to run a character.
I do agree that when it comes to simple hack'n'slash being a healerbot is boring, annoying or both but if the game is more character-driven cleric becomes much more interesting character...
|
i had a cleric, ended up being level 21.
Honestly cleric's are devestating, especially on higher levels, they out damage everyone, and can be nigh invincible, also they are dang versatile.
Divine power/might/strength?
Greater Visage of the Deity (complete divine, spell compendium)
Add power attack with that.
And cast some spells on your weapon.
Oh and yeah, use a two handed weapon and a animated shield.
Oh ah take that one feat that lets you quicken spells for some turn undead uses.
Take leadership.
Really my character did around 300-600 damage a round, with melee attack.
Could follow up with a swift heal or damage spell or what have you.
yeah i did it all and made my DM's carefully crafted villains biting the dust, his epic encounters were naught to hit me.
Also my fellow PC's hated my gut for stealing their screen time, killing all, finding all the secrets and knowing it all.
Yeah it was fun playing the high level cleric, for a time.
But I will never do it again.
It was not very fun being that all powerfull, I really needed little help from the others, also it was a hell of load of paperwork making the guywork.
Alas.