|
I am not sure where to stick this post. I have a question. I have noticed over the years playing D&D in general people do not like playing clerics. Usually it is the last role to be filled in a gaming group, and the DM often has to NPC Clerics. I know that there are a handful of players who like playing clerics. I happen to be one of them. Looking from a crunch perspective, they are a pretty good deal, with their d8 hps, their medium attack bonus, their ability to use all armor, and cast spells in them. I could go on for quite a few more lines, but in short they are a pretty good deal.
So why is it that many people do not like to play clerics? What are your thoughts?
On a side note, I know we all like to tinker with things. In my home brew campaign I have been planning to tinker with the cleric class. I like the class. In my opinion the class is too good at doing the jobs of other classes. I want to trim it back so to speak so it falls in line with the wizard fighter and rogue.
I was thinking of replacing the Knight Templar inspired cleric with three variants.
First if someone wishes to play such a crusader, I would direct him or her to the paladin class.
“Parish priest”
I was thinking if someone wanted to play a priest with an emphasis on social skills, I was thinking of looking at the bard class. Perhaps, simply swap out the spell list of the bard for the spell list of the cleric. Also swap out the weapon’s permitted for the bard, with the weapons allowed for the cleric.
“Cloistered Priest, Illuminator)
I was also thinking if someone wanted to have a more scholarly priest, simply take the wizard class, drop the familiar, perhaps add the Turn undead class feature, and two domains, and swap out the Wizard spell list for the Cleric spell list.
“ The wandering Priest Prophet”
I was thinking for a priest who is more of a loner, who spontaneously is able to do miracles, perhaps using the sorcerer class, might be a good place to start. Perhaps drop the familiar class feature, add Turn undead, add Lay on of hands, Devine health, and Removed disease like a paladin. I thought this might duplicate the flavor of a spontaneous charismatic “prophet” who isn’t attached to a church hierarchy.
I know that these alternatives are sub par to the cleric as it stands in the PHB, but I am trying to cut back on the cleric’s ability to do other character’s jobs.
Any thoughts?
I am not trying to re invent the wheel here, just see what the patterns are for the other character classes in the game and emulate them. I may need to re examine these ideas with the pathfinder beta test game out.
Why are people reluctant to play clerics?
|
I am not sure where to stick this post. I have a question. I have noticed over the years playing D&D in general people do not like playing clerics. Usually it is the last role to be filled in a gaming group, and the DM often has to NPC Clerics. I know that there are a handful of players who like playing clerics. I happen to be one of them. Looking from a crunch perspective, they are a pretty good deal, with their d8 hps, their medium attack bonus, their ability to use all armor, and cast spells in them. I could go on for quite a few more lines, but in short they are a pretty good deal.
So why is it that many people do not like to play clerics? What are your thoughts?
3 reasonswhy very few of us play clerics even when they are called overpowered...
1) no one wants to be the Bandaid Box
-really, no one wants to play like that..., in a mmorg you even get problems getting healers... most players want to be in front of the action, combating or calling spells vs their enemeis... than debuffing enemies, buffing allies and sticking up the fallen comerades...
-I like to play cleric... but the last thing that passes on my ehad is to be the bandaid box... i see the gods, think of a oncept and i follow that concept... healing be damned (ok know i can heal people with "turn undead" everyone is happy because it lets me boost myself to do damage and heal them (we have only 2 people in the front of the battle, we need as many as we can get :S)
2) 2 skills points... suck
-you can barely get your character designed... they think that because you pray, you hit and you cast a few spells that is a well rounded charater and he/she has no more skillsor life... that sucks...
i love to play well rounded characters, that are flexible... and that doesn't needmagic for every little thing
3) other players thinks that a good exchange for a cleric isa basket of healing potions or a rogue witha wand of cure light wounds...
-ok if thatis the image the players have about the cleric i do understand why no people want to play them, even when we are shown so cool concepts like Kira or other... for every one cool concept you see again the monastic cleric that serves for nothing else than to heal... ahh or bring undead or demons to the world...
i for one... wantto play something different... any complains go to meet my cleric's god... and my cleric knows he/shw will not answer the pagans :P
“Parish priest”
I was thinking if someone wanted to play a priest with an emphasis on social skills, I was thinking of looking at the bard class. Perhaps, simply swap out the spell list of the bard for the spell list of the cleric. Also swap out the weapon’s permitted for the bard, with the weapons allowed for the cleric.“Cloistered Priest, Illuminator)
I was also thinking if someone wanted to have a more scholarly priest, simply take the wizard class, drop the familiar, perhaps add the Turn undead class feature, and two domains, and swap out the Wizard spell list for the Cleric spell list.“ The wandering Priest Prophet”
I was thinking for a priest who is more of a loner, who spontaneously is able to do miracles, perhaps using the sorcerer class, might be a good place to start. Perhaps drop the familiar class feature, add Turn undead, add Lay on of hands, Devine health, and Removed disease like a paladin. I thought this might duplicate the flavor of a spontaneous charismatic “prophet” who isn’t attached to a church hierarchy.
This are concept, not classes, they can be prestige classes or they can be armed with a good selection of feats, spells and skills...
|
|
I am not sure where to stick this post. I have a question. I have noticed over the years playing D&D in general people do not like playing clerics. Usually it is the last role to be filled in a gaming group, and the DM often has to NPC Clerics. I know that there are a handful of players who like playing clerics. I happen to be one of them. Looking from a crunch perspective, they are a pretty good deal, with their d8 hps, their medium attack bonus, their ability to use all armor, and cast spells in them. I could go on for quite a few more lines, but in short they are a pretty good deal.
So why is it that many people do not like to play clerics? What are your thoughts?On a side note, I know we all like to tinker with things. In my home brew campaign I have been planning to tinker with the cleric class. I like the class. In my opinion the class is too good at doing the jobs of other classes. I want to trim it back so to speak so it falls in line with the wizard fighter and rogue.
I was thinking of replacing the Knight Templar inspired cleric with three variants.
First if someone wishes to play such a crusader, I would direct him or her to the paladin class.“Parish priest”
I was thinking if someone wanted to play a priest with an emphasis on social skills, I was thinking of looking at the bard class. Perhaps, simply swap out the spell list of the bard for the spell list of the cleric. Also swap out the weapon’s permitted for the bard, with the weapons allowed for the cleric.“Cloistered Priest, Illuminator)
I was also thinking if someone wanted to have a more scholarly priest, simply take the wizard class, drop the familiar, perhaps add the Turn undead class feature, and two domains, and swap out the Wizard spell list for the Cleric spell list.“ The wandering Priest Prophet”
I was thinking for a priest who is more of a loner, who spontaneously is able to do miracles, perhaps using the sorcerer class, might be a good place to start. Perhaps drop the familiar class feature, add Turn...
Well I make clerics, but most often it's to avoid being pigeon toed to be SUA, or Stick Up Ass syndrome. However I tend to tell I'm making a paladin, but more often then not people will figure out I'm a cleric.
My problem is that most people would look at me for this...
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0006.html
so I have to explain that he's a fighter not a healer and I'm saving my spells for battle.
I am also someone who likes clerics, but have noticed the trend as well.
I think the general feeling is that you just aren't really quite in control of your own character on the battlefield. Nobody really ever commands the arcane caster: "Hey you, you better cast fireball right now", but people *do* petition the cleric for healing immidiately, basically forcing his next action to heal. In many combats 50% or more of a cleric's actions might be based on keeping other party members up.
If a party member is low on HP, the cleric basically has only a few options.
1. Let them die and do something else. If your cleric is good, this probably goes against their alignment. Even if this isn't the case, your IRL friends whose characters meet their demise 'because of you' aren't going to be too happy, and that's just not good.
2. Heal them, which takes your entire action.
Being "heal b*tch" is the #1 reason people dont want to play clerics IMO. This isn't allieviated until a cleric picks up a metamagic rod of quicken spell, so that he can heal and still do something 'fun' on his turn, 3 times a day anyway. Usually though, even in this fashion you are unable to use the full force of your clerical power.
Going along with that... people want to shine. People want to be the guy that dishes out insane amounts of damage every hit. People dont want to be the guy who casts the bulls strength/ prayer/ greater magic weapon that *makes* them do that stuff. Because like it or not, it's always the other guys that ge to say "I do 153 points of damage." Not, "I do 38 points of damage, and Jozan's buffs, which helped me hit and increase damage, whack it for another 115" even if that might be the case. The characters may not "feel" as useful, even if in fact, they are holding the party together.
Where a wizard has a plethora of options on how the enemy shall meet their demise, when it comes to healing, clerics have only a handful of options. Most of these are in the form of Good/Better/Best. Why cast cure light during battle if you have a cure mod available? Basically this leaves you with one choice of an action every time someone gets hurt to the point where they need healing. Once you hit level 11, Heal is your only real option. Of course in 3p you can channel as well, but that merely adds one more choice, not really a plethora of options.
Now, if something is to be done -and I'm not saying it should be mind you, I personally think clerics are just fine the way they are- than it ought to be something to the effect of a lesser amount of healing to an ally that links on to another action, such as a spell or an attack. You could do this by adding feats. A metamagic feat which has the effect that when the metamagiced spell is cast, a cure serious on an ally within 30 feet also goes off, might be the kind of thing that would do the trick. Say it increases the spell level by 2-3.
Maybe this thread should be in the OGL/3.5 forum... or the PRPG forum.
I don't think the problem is in how attractive the cleric class is, I think the problem is that it is the class that is missed the most by fellow party members. Take a party with 2 clerics, a ranger, and a rogue and no one says "Someone needs to play a wizard". The same party with 2 wizards, a ranger, and a rogue and suddenly everyone is debating who is going to play the cleric. There is seldom much debate over whether you need a cleric in the party, the question is who is going to play the cleric.
Obviously, the big thing is the healing. Druids and bards can handle much of the healing role but not as well as the cleric. One way I've alleviated this in my campaign is by making healing magic more available outside the cleric class. The ridiculously under-priced Belt of Healing is great for lower level parties. I've seen adventures where they stash tons of healing potions all over the place which is vaguely reminiscent of Castle Wolfenstein with the little aid packs all over the place. I've also made some custom items similar to the healing belt which let people self heal.
Druids, Bards, and Rangers can use healing wands, the obvious bargain healing tool being the wand of CLW for outside of combat... Wand of Vitality for those with Spell Compendium. Inside combat healing is much more expensive because creatures capabilities to damage far outstripes low level healing spells and most wands... thus the demand for clerics ;)
|
|
As it's been stated already, playing a cleric can feel like playing a Medic in Team Fortress 2. Sure you're more versatile and have more toys to play with, but everyone still has the same expectations of you and keeps spamming the "MEDIC!" key.
No other class is going to meet as much protest from the other players because of the player trying to stretch their legs and stepping out of the strict role expected of him. How many people have played the only cleric in their group and decided to channel negative energy and didn't have other party members belly ache about it?
|
The positive energy burst in the Beta rules doesn't really do much to make the cleric less of a healing-bot, it just makes him more efficient at it. And, okay, he can heal and turn at the same time. In the adventure I played in, there were no undead so moot point.
I agree with other posters about providing alternative sources of healing so that the cleric isn't the party's only hope. However, personally, adding a ton of healing magic wand and potions makes me feel like I'm playing Zelda or something.
Me, I like the whole "second wind" concept from 4E. Allow players the opportunity to heal themselves a little bit by taking no actions in a round (or maybe just going to total defense). Hit points are supposed to be an abstract combination of physical health, energy and luck. Would it be so bad to let players stop and recharge? The benefits are balanced by the costs of not attacking or taking any other actions. I think this would go a long way toward reducing the healing burden on clerics.
You think you got problems I play a druid in a party with no clerics !
so many great druid spells go lacking because we'd be dead otherwise, and even though I should stay behind and heal I say to hell with that and always charge headlong into battle at 50ft speed for the first hit ;)
Why are people reluctant to play clerics?
In my experience, it usually comes down to the following:
1) Either the player or the party pidgeon-holing the cleric as a "heal-bot/walking Band-Aid." Spending most of your time in combat casting cure spells to keep other party members from dying is not fun for a lot of people. If the party also has a bard, druid, paladin, or ranger (or just a character with at least one level in one of those classes), or a rogue with a high Use Magic Device skill, then investment in multiple wands of cure light wounds (and each PC carrying some more powerful potions) can spread out the healing duties (and make the party much stronger, also).
2) The cleric spell list is short on direct attacks. Even though the cleric commands powerful magic, little of it can be used to directly damage/disable a wide variety of foes (although some domains can improve this). Generally, most combat effective clerics concentrate on self-buffing to turn themselves into melee powerhouses. However, this can take preparation/time, which is not always appreciated/considered by the player or the rest of the party (or doesn't fit the play style).
3) The cleric (like the paladin) has to worry about the DM's interpretation of their actions. There is an extra role-playing challenge involved in playing a cleric: They have to abide by a code of action that supports their diety's portfolio/teachings; their spellcasting ability is dependent on keeping their cosmic boss (as run by the DM) happy with them. This constraint on the player's possible actions is one that some are not willing to take on.
Creative Director
|
Clerics are my 2nd favorite class to play; bards being 1st. That said... the fun I get out of playing clerics is the role playing stuff and the feeling of being able to really buff up and protect the other PCs and to fix them up. Clerics (and bards too, of course) also make great diplomats and leader types. A cleric's spells do things in combat indirectly; they don't do direct damage, but with the right combo of buff spells you can be responsible for a LOT of stuff in combat.
But it's not the same as running up and crushing foes with a weapon, or throwing fireballs. My guess? Folk who don't like playing clerics (or bards, for that matter) miss the direct and obvious path to glory. The rewards for playing a cleric are much more subtle than doing the most damage in a fight.
I second James, and clerics are also one of my favorite classes...
But there are problems. Healerbot mode of playing is boring, and that's why several cleric characters of mine don't do it (and DM better keep it in mind when running adventures...). If I play a healer I play a healer but if I don't, I don't.
Rubbish skill points don't help either.
|
I've always enjoyed running clerics, especially as NPCs, but especially as PCs. :)
I love the hodge-podge of abilities; like the wizard you can change faces daily, going from healer, to commander, to sword-slinger just by choosing spells. Except unlike wizards, you also get to wear cool full-plate and have a shield with your holy symbol emblazoned on the front.
But I think most of all is a connection to classic horror themes. I love monster movies, but love them more when there are religious overtones to the scenarios. Vampires reeling in horror from a cross, zombies being a curse, plagues, fires, etc. I'm not such a fan of movies that play too much with the conventions or blatantly dismiss religion as a power for or against the monsters (Romero is cool - he always left it open, or used religion like in the Night of the Living Dead re-release with new scenes).
So something just resonates about a character who can raise their deity's symbol in the air and literally blast their enemies with holy (or unholy) power.
That, and flamestrike is such a cool spell.
This reminds me: Can we get holy symbols for shields in PRPG? I'm hoping it is a common enough tactic for players that we could support inclusion in the core book.
|
Ah Clerics I have to say my not wanting to play a cleric was because I had played 1 through Age of Worms and one in a campaign to 11-12 not that long before that and fancied something differant, plus the holy symbolled shield yes would be for putting that somewhere in the core equipment because it really is a common tactic (so much so in Age of Worms that I had a handfull of shield fighting feats as the dice seemed determined that I would be smiting down enemies with either magic or the shield, go go Chaplain Lathander :-)), but yes people expect heal botness generally (a role I didn't really play but that came down to the brokeness of Initiate of Lathander plus spell compendium), and don't like tobe forced into doing that kind of thing.
IMO because they dont get the glory of smashing mosters
My personal solution for the cleric players is to have 2 clerics in the party if at all possible. That way neither individual has to be the healer all the time, and clerics have a great range of other abilities.
As it's been stated already, playing a cleric can feel like playing a Medic in Team Fortress 2. Sure you're more versatile and have more toys to play with, but everyone still has the same expectations of you and keeps spamming the "MEDIC!" key.
I usually shout "CLERIIIIC!" and "EXCUSE ME, I'M IN NEED OF MIRACLE ATTENTION!" in the best TFC voice I can manage.
I think the BandAid Syndrome is the main reason people dislike clerics. Sure they're powerful, but they need to use a lot of their potential power to heal others.
I guess that if that problem can be rectified, they will become more popular. Maybe a feat or class ability that lets you quicken cure spells and/or channel energy with reduced cost (maybe even without extra cost).
I'm a cleric-lover, too. But from a role-playing point of view I find it can pose some extra challenges in terms of motivation.
First, there aren't very many "adventuring priest" characters in fantasy literature. I can think of some from Michael Moorcock's works, although his idea of a priest is a bit different than the D&D "heal-bot".
Second, somehow it makes more sense to me that a fighter or a rogue might be wandering from place to place, killing monsters and looking for treasure. But I always have a sneaking suspicion that a cleric should really be managing a cathedral someplace and adminstering to the faithful (or scourging the heathen, maybe).
(Please, do NOT give me a zillion motivations for why a cleric would be an itinerant adventurer; I've got enough, thanks. But the point is that I think a cleric needs a particular motivation more than a simple fighter or rogue.)
Players don't like clerics because they want to be "teh r0x0rz", which is actually a contradiction in and of itself given how the cleric is the most ridiculously overpowered character class in the game (second only to the Jedi Guardian for the most ridiculously overpowered class in d20):
- The best buffs in game (Bard? What's a bard?).
- The best saving throws in game.
- Fighter BaB as soon as they can cast Divine Power.
- Since 3E, clerics and sor/wiz share parhaps half the spells, except that clerics can cast them in a full plate and shield (in which they are proficient right out of the box, thank you very much).
- Dominant class in both halves of the game (where all other classes only dominate in either the first OR second half of the game).
- Turn undead
- ...and if all that wasn't enough... heals, and Spontaneous Cure, so you don't have to sacrifice slots of r0x0rz actually memorizing any heals, cast heals only on a need-basis.
It's evident 3E did this in hopes to make more attractive a class that players used to avoid like the plague... ironically, the community keeps avoiding clerics, even when (used egotistically, just make a cleric of war) they make almost every other character class obsolete (or at least they used to, before Pathfinder's extra love to the rest of character classes).
Also, the Cleric is not only overpowered, it's redundant. If TSR's original role model for the cleric (which stands to this day) were orders like the Knights Templar then, what do we have Paladins for? Contextually, the cleric is already a Holy Warrior. Mechanics-wise, the Paladin's resources pale next to those of the Cleric. While Pathfinder's Paladin is way more compelling than old d20's version, I dare anyone reading to list three things a Paladin can do that a Cleric can't do better.
Still... other than Neverwinter Nights, to date I still haven't had the chance of play a cleric myself (I've assisted other players in my table into becoming powerhouse clerics however, one of which became so enamoured with the class' potential that he said he'll now play only Clerics). I'd like to play one who actually oficiates mass, brings water to dry wells, and performs other miracles that convert commoners into believers. That's something I haven't seen so far in any of the tables I've been at.
|
|
Teh constant need for a cleric to heal to me seems like a flaw in the design of the opposition, rather than the cleric class.
To me, initial skirmishes in a scenario should never be life threatening unless you get some weird dice rolls (multiple crits inflicted on the party for example), instead they should simply result in a few spell slots having to be used, and a few HP lost - but nothing that would prevent the party carrying on without having any magical healing.
Maybe its just me but I like a grittier feel, where PCs don't magically recover from near death to full health after every fight. This is the main thing that turned me off 4e - the high number of healing surges and that a nights rest heals you completely.
When I run D&D I never require the party to contain a cleric - I always tailor the opposition and challenges to the characters.
I will soon be running a Pathfinder Organised Play scenario and I really hope it isn't written so that every combat is life threatening - meaning a cleric is required.
|
|
Oh and the reason I got slightly frustrated playing a cleric in the last FR campaign? First of all the band aid problem as everyone else has mentioned - I burned all my spells to heal. The GM wasn't really at fault here as he was running a published campaign so the threat level was pre-determined.
The other problem I had was having too many spells to choose from! If I could cast all the spells spontaneously, fine, but having to choose all my spells at the start of the day from a huge list was cumbersome. In the end I just came up with a default list that I always used. Personally I woudl prefer to play a sorcerer!
|
|
Also, the Cleric is not only overpowered, it's redundant. If TSR's original role model for the cleric (which stands to this day) were orders like the Knights Templar then, what do we have Paladins for? Contextually, the cleric is already a Holy Warrior. Mechanics-wise, the Paladin's resources pale next to those of the Cleric. While Pathfinder's Paladin is way more compelling than old d20's version, I dare anyone reading to list three things a Paladin can do that a Cleric can't do better.
I don't know, I've always thought of Paladins as filling the "Knights Templar or Teutonic Knight" role, while clerics were more "Hospitallers".
If you want to see Paladins and Clerics in action, I highly recommend the Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven. Not entirely accurate, but they did a good job of portraying the distinction of the various orders.
The other problem I had was having too many spells to choose from! If I could cast all the spells spontaneously, fine, but having to choose all my spells at the start of the day from a huge list was cumbersome. In the end I just came up with a default list that I always used. Personally I woudl prefer to play a sorcerer!
That's a good point. I find that players are usually just as reluctant to play a wizard (or a druid, for that matter, but druids aren't as "iconic" as clerics and wizards) as they are to play a cleric; they both involve leafing through the PHB/Spell Compendium and trying to figure out what to memorize each day. For some people that's too much like homework.
|
|
The other problem I had was having too many spells to choose from! If I could cast all the spells spontaneously, fine, but having to choose all my spells at the start of the day from a huge list was cumbersome. In the end I just came up with a default list that I always used. Personally I woudl prefer to play a sorcerer!That's a good point. I find that players are usually just as reluctant to play a wizard as they are to play a cleric. Of course, there's always one guy (like me) who always plays a spellcaster of some kind.
I've been considering for some time that clerics should have a holy book from which they may prepare their daily prayers. I think this would go a long way towards toning down clerics. It would work just like a wizard's spellbook, but still using Wisdom for spells/day. Spell Mastery would open up to clerics as well. Biggest benefit is added flavour to the class. Holding daily prayers while intoning from a book is much more interesting than meditating in a corner.
Slightly divergent: This doesn't really tone down druids, but their problem is wild shape, which PRPG has already changed.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
As Jal can attest, you don't always have to play a Cleric as a Healer. Vykos the Deathless. Although in saying that, someone else did step up to play a Normal Cleric in the group, so that does dull my argument somewhat. Jal did accept my character concept before that happened though, so that is a tick on the non-healer side.
I've been considering for some time that clerics should have a holy book from which they may prepare their daily prayers. I think this would go a long way towards toning down clerics. It would work just like a wizard's spellbook, but still using Wisdom for spells/day.
I love spellcasters (more capabilities = good), but I hate managing a wizard's spellbook. It just seems like arbitrary micromanagement to me, and I don't like the flavour of having to lug a book around either. Some people love dicking around with copying spells, stealing another wizard's spellbook, putting traps on their book (like Secret Page or Illusionary Script), etc. Go figure!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I've been considering for some time that clerics should have a holy book from which they may prepare their daily prayers. I think this would go a long way towards toning down clerics. It would work just like a wizard's spellbook, but still using Wisdom for spells/day.I love spellcasters (more capabilities = good), but I hate managing a wizard's spellbook. It just seems like arbitrary micromanagement to me, and I don't like the flavour of having to lug a book around either. Some people love dicking around with copying spells, stealing another wizard's spellbook, putting traps on their book (like Secret Page or Illusionary Script), etc. Go figure!
Yeah the concept behind a Spellbook is great, but the micro-management of which spells to choose each day does become tiresome. Unless the party knows something of wht's to come the Wizard inevitably has exactly the same spells memorized at every re-choosing (Fireball anybody).
I find that Clerics aren't as much of a problem because most players will just take a core of spells (once again, unless the party knows what to expect) as most of the time these spells will be spontaneously converted to healing. Therefore the choice doesn't take on the same importance that a Wizard's spell choices do.Now that I've said that though, I do agree that there is definately a problem from that perspective (the fact that most clerics will just use up their allotted spells as healing without ever casting a "real" spell).
|
The question I have had from the beginning of 3e is. "Why would it be so bad if Wizards could also cast cure spells?"
Cleric is still a great class no matter what. If the Wizard could help cover the duties of healing, think of the freedom a Cleric could really have.
Even if the Wizard only had Cure Light Wounds it would open the door to using a Wand of CLW, which in turn could keep a low level party going for some time. Conversely, Fantasy Flight games gave cause light wounds to wizards for "Dragonstar". Which is kinda cool.
I have yet to implement wizard cure spells. But I have often wondered why I don't. I think I'd still limit raise dead and above to divine spell casters, but cure spells don't seem very "divine only" to me.
Given the thousands of years arcane spell casting has existed in most game worlds, it would seem to me that channeling positive/negative energy would be something that wizards would have learned to do, especially since the spell lists have so many shared spells already.
(Side note: I don't want to derail this topic with a discussion on how arcane casters can heal with certain spells. I concede that point and agree with those arguments. IMHO most players don't consider those options to be viable, but I am certain that there are people right here on these boards who players in their games that do.)
Right now I would think that healing Wizards would be a fresh breath of air, but would like to hear from some of the game designers on why it's a bad idea, my mind could be changed.
Oh and I think that Animate Object should also be both arcane and divine. (Sorcerers Apprentice anyone?) But that's a topic for another thread.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
The question I have had from the beginning of 3e is. "Why would it be so bad if Wizards could also cast cure spells?"
Cleric is still a great class no matter what. If the Wizard could help cover the duties of healing, think of the freedom a Cleric could really have.
They opened the door up to Arcane Healing with the Bard. There is no need to also give it to Wizards/Sorcerers or it would diminish from the Bard (which I find from my expereience is an underplayed Class). They make an excellent secondary healer and their healing doesn't take away from their other spell-like uses so much like it does with a Cleric, because they still have their Bardic Music.
Just my 2cp
Well, I like to play clerics, though i traditionally play neutral clerics of necromantic gods that rebuke (fate, time and death gods).
One thing nobody has really mentioned is the roleplay aspect and I think it is important to touch on. A cleric is not just a bunch of spells like a wizard, nor is a cleric something else that also has spells, like a bard or ranger. A cleric is an ambassador to its God.
Having a personal connection to one of the beings that controls the world is quite a roleplay experience. Paladins get a lot more independence, but when the god wants influence over the locals, it more than often sends a cleric to convey the word.
One of the reasons that people don't play clerics is that GM's are not playing up the influence of the divine in their games. It's not a player issue, its that the roleplay aspect is being forgotten. I had a great GM, back when i was a Cleric of Chronepsis, dragon god of fate. Once, when i cast a particularly awesome spell, Chronepsis himself was seen in the clouds and it became the talk of the entire region. When i walked into the Royal Courts, people took note and wanted to know what i had to say.
Clerics, even lower level clerics, have a relationship that leaves even the most impressive wizard out in the cold. Your God loves you, even if its an evil god, it invests significant interest in its Clerics. The portfolio of your god becomes of primary roleplay interest and offers unusual ways of thinking that can be much fun to play out. As a Neutral Cleric especially and one linked to fate and death, I could make some major world decisions, sacrificing whole villages that they might be raised as undead warriors, knowing that this decision would save the lives of hundreds of other innocents. You can think as a God thinks and have an epic agenda.
The biggest smack in the face to me was the severing of this link by the 4th edition rules change. I suddenly had players in my group whose characters *did not believe in the gods*. In 3.5 I had stats for them, they had personalities and feats, but now....they had faded into unbelief and loyalty was no longer required. They were powerless to influence their followers and the one cleric in the party kept religion to himself and thus the faith his god needed was not being spread among the people. A very sad state of affairs.
Pathfinder, however, is closer to 3.5 and thus the gods and their clerics are close once again. Paladins, likewise, have their loyalty and commitment restored. If the GM in a game really shows the party how miraculous and incredible the divine connection can be, then there will be players who wish to learn more.
The Gods are real and the Gods want *you*
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Well, I like to play clerics, though i traditionally play neutral clerics of necromantic gods that rebuke (fate, time and death gods).
One thing nobody has really mentioned is the roleplay aspect and I think it is important to touch on.
I sort of alluded to this on my post above about my character Vykos the Deathless.
The biggest smack in the face to me was the severing of this link by the 4th edition rules change. I suddenly had players in my group whose characters *did not believe in the gods*. In 3.5 I had stats for them, they had personalities and feats, but now....they had faded into unbelief and loyalty was no longer required. They were powerless to influence their followers and the one cleric in the party kept religion to himself and thus the faith his god needed was not being spread among the people. A very sad state of affairs.
Do you happen to know by any chance how this relates into the Forgotten Realms, where a God's standing is determined by the number and power of their worshipers and Clerics?
Thed has good points, and brings in one of the top reasons why I enjoy clerics: roleplaying and philosophy is/should be built-in in the class.
For this and spell selection dilemma, I would point in direction of one thing 2e rules got right: specialty priests. Many with slightly different powers, all of them with spheres which in some cases really cut down/focused the list of possible spells...
In my campaign this problem does not exist. Usually someone wants to play a cleric, but usually makes an original concept and worships an unusual god. This even made me make new domains.
|
|
The question I have had from the beginning of 3e is. "Why would it be so bad if Wizards could also cast cure spells?"
Cleric is still a great class no matter what. If the Wizard could help cover the duties of healing, think of the freedom a Cleric could really have.
They opened the door up to Arcane Healing with the Bard. There is no need to also give it to Wizards/Sorcerers or it would diminish from the Bard (which I find from my expereience is an underplayed Class). They make an excellent secondary healer and their healing doesn't take away from their other spell-like uses so much like it does with a Cleric, because they still have their Bardic Music.
Just my 2cp
Most of my players won't even play a Bard. I do see your point and agree. But honestly, I would never play a bard to be a healer, it doesn't really make a good party fit. Most players I know would rather have a rogue with a CLW wand than a bard. Sorry I don't want to be hating on the bard,they do other cool things, but in my experiance when getting groups together, they almost always get discounted.
The new abilities that Pathfinder makes does give them some bang for the buck though. I'd rather they has some bardic spell like healing ability then the actual spell.
I guess here is another question. 4e brought about healing in many differant ways. Would it be so bad that "Cure spells" be spread out to all Arcane Classes? IMHO a small subset of spells is not what should make a class special.
What make the Cleric so special to me is the fact that they can spontaneously cast cure spells. That's a great special ability.
I think it probably has more to do with that mindset that says you have to havea "balanced" party (must be at least one "healer"), as opposed to simply making interesting characters. This mindset immediately pigeonholes certain classes.
As a GM I encourage the party to make interesting characters they want to play, and let the cards fall where they may. Makes for a -much- more interesting campaign, and you can always compensate for any weaknesses that show up.
Do you happen to know by any chance how this relates into the Forgotten Realms, where a God's standing is determined by the number and power of their worshipers and Clerics?
Well, i`m a big fan of the 3.5 realms setting and my main cleric was affiliated to Cormyr. I think the realms had it right with the way the gods worked there and again, 4th ed rather wrecked that. The goddess of Rivers and streams, for example, does have value...or rather did, as 4th ed vaporised her for being "unimportant". Water, one would have thought, is rather important for survival and civilisation, but clearly in 4th ed they drink "pure manly warfare" or somesuch.
The only solid rules I used for deities were from the "deities and demigods book", which was rather good. It gave divine ranks based on followers and influence. It also offered some very interesting reading on the matter of portfolios and pantheons, including if you wanted to make your own. I had the Realms book "faiths and pantheons" which was also very good.
It is a very liberating thing to have access to a god's stats and feats. It lets you know just what a god can sense and what they can do if their followers need help. Temples and shrines, for example, extend the sensory range of a god, explaining why building them is a good thing and why lone cleric in the wilderness may not get any form of divine support (ie adventurers far from home). A deity who sets out a little portable shrine is a very sensible person, despite the group thinking he or she may be a bit eccentric.
I still haven't made up my mind on the pathfinder gods. Largely as we haven't encountered much of them and their works in our campaign path yet and we lack a dedicated clerical character ( i chose to play a barbarian, much to everyones surprise). I find that the character art for them really helps, so when more pictures appear, i will look them over.
|
|
Thank you all for your thoughts.
You all have brought up lots of good points. I can see how people most people would prefer to be the person dealing direct damage to the enemy and killing them. And as Mr. Jacobs mentioned the rewards are much more subtle.
I have read many of the Elis Peters Brother Cadfael Mystery books, and I have watched the PBS Cadfael mystery series as well. Derek Jacobi played Brother Cadfael. I found Brother Cadfael was a very informative role model for my clerics. I have often stolen the character whole cloth, and simply called my clerics Brother Cadfael.
I would often play a Neutral Good cleric of Pelor with the Healing and Sun domains. I know people will groan heal-bot. As for skills I would often pick Concentration, Heal (for the setting of bones, lacerations and surgery), Knowledge religion and if I could afford it, Profession Apothecary (for the herbal remedies), and Craft Poison making (for the antidotes). I find that using the recitation, or prayer, bless and Doom in my opinion does as much to sway the battle in our favor as a well-placed fireball. This combination is not as flashy but very effective in my opinion. Being a competent combatant, I can move into fill gaps where necessary, or help the rogue with flanking etc. The healing is always welcome. And there are few things as satisfying as a flame strike spell. I know you can clear a room of goblins with a fireball spell, but with a flame strike, you have called down the wrath of your god upon your enemy.
In terms of healing, this extends beyond the party. Whenever we could come into the a new village, my character would find the local temple, and if it was an allied temple, he would roll up his sleeves and help the local priest with tending the sick etc.
This was an excellent way to a) generate good will for the party within the community and b) gather all sorts of information. As a competent healer, most doors were open to him. There was always a noble’s cough to recommend a tea for, or a peasant to heal.
Although my character never asked for payment, he saw his healing as an act of prayer itself, he and by extension his party, were often offered a place to stay, Dinner, and if the patients could pay, they would pay in chickens, coppers, silver (silver pieces are great for grinding down for the powdered silver for making holy water, and magic circles against evil). This often was a great source of adventure hooks.
In addition to healing, there were often marriages to perform, Babies to baptize, and often funerals to preside over. In addition to that there were confessions to hear. Luckily in my experience, there were lots of role-playing opportunities for the priest. The Dm also allowed me to cast Cure light wounds whenever I wanted to as long as it was a role-playing situation. If it was a combat situation, I had to keep track of my spells as normal.
I could heal skinned knees, broken legs to my hearts content, but if we were fending of an Owl bear, I had to keep track of the spells I cast in that battle.
Anyways thank you all for your thoughts
I look forward to what anyone else has to say.
I like playing the cleric. So clearly you're all just wrong.
I love playing Clerics! It is important to mention, I believe, that not everybody wants to play in the frontline and hog the spotlight. Some people just like to participate in the group experience of gaming and be useful, but remain more lowkey and in the background. Not every class has to appeal to those with more outgoing personalities, so for a number of people a caster concentrating on support is the perfect class. Whereas I am by no means always like this, I do relatively often appreciate playing in such a fashion and clerics appeal to me for that.
That said, though, if you don't have such a player in your group and the Cleric is perceived as essential due to his healing abilities, then yes, there is a problem.
A several step solution for the Cleric:
1) Remove spontaneous casting of healing spells from the Cleric. Either replace this with the spontaneous casting of domain spells (I guess we would have to reintroduce them into Pathfinder for this purpose) or alternatively remove spontaneous casting from the Cleric altogether, as it he is already considered to be rather powerful compared to other classes.
2) Nerf the power-level of Channel Energy to scale approximately with the cure X wounds spells in the appropriate level range, but retaining the additional effect that drives away undead.
3) Increase the frequency with which energy may be channeled by a significant amount - either many more times per day or perhaps even make it at will with some kind of limitation on how quickly in succession Channel Energy may be used, though greatly increased uses per day are probably best.
4) Give some kind of option to Channel Energy as a swift action. A "Quicken Channel Energy" feat would do the trick.
This modification of the cleric would ensure that:
1) Cleric does not use up his spells by spontaneously converting them to healing spells.
2) Cleric does not need to memorize healing spells to any significant degree, because his primary healing is done by the usage of Channel Positive Energy. Most healing spells he would memorize would not be the 'Cure' spells but rather higher order healing spells such as Restoration that don't merely heal hit points.
3) Channel Positive Energy would not be overpowered, due to it being brought down in scale to "Cure" spells of the appropriate level. (For those interested how it could work, see the second post in this thread: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/playtest/channelEnergyPlaytestReport)
4) If the Cleric wanted to, healing could be done without taking away actions from the cleric (other than swift actions, which is fair I believe).
I am another who enjoys playing clerics, but I'll note a few things:
1. I don't mind the buff/healbot thing, as I like playing supportive classes. I like being part of a team and having something important to contribute. Some people get their egos stroked by dealing the most damage, I'll own up and say I like feeling needed by the rest of the party. Because when people are screaming for healing, it's cause you can do the one thing they can't. (And, I'll note, even so I have never felt especially overused as the buffbot; I've certainly had my chance to shine.)
And here's the thing--in a fantasy game, you need healers. Whether they're battle-buffers like the cleric or, I don't know, the wimpy final fantasy Staff Chicks who can do NOTHING but heal, which the cleric at least has a major leg up on.... it doesn't matter, but in a world where people are pointing at you and shooting death rays out of their fingers and dragons are breathing heavily corrosive acid onto your soft baby-butt-like flesh, you need someone to help relieve that damage.
So if you "fix" the cleric by minimizing their healing ability, you're just gimping some function of the game itself. That's not the answer. Instead, you need to do three things:
a) In game documentation and in you the players teaching newbies, emphasize the point that D&D (and other RPGs) involves cooperative gameplay, and that it's okay not to be the one who shines all the time. On one hand if someone just doesn't like the cleric's flavor, fine, but on the other hand, if it's a matter of, "Well, I'll only play the class which allows me to win D&D," you're doing it wrong.
b) Improve options for non-magical healing--make the Heal Skill more immediately useful (even if it does something like 1d4+level HP at DC 20, it's still more useful than it is now) and improve healing rates at rest. Don't make magical healing the only option for survival (though it should still be the more powerful option).
c) Make healing abilities of other classes more viable alternatives; even though bards, paladins, rangers, and druids ALL have healing abilities, people still think of the cleric as "the healing class" (and honestly, in Pathfinder, keeping spontaneous casting and the Positive Energy Surge doesn't help with that; EDIT: ninja'd by Roman who details this beautifully). Boost Lay on Hands, maybe make a "Bardic Healing" song. If you're keeping Spont Casting for Clerics, maybe let that be an option for Druids too (after all, someone wanting to play the St Francis type might want to go for the nature oriented class but still help and heal things)--they could choose between that and Summon Nature's Ally.
Back to the Cleric:
2) I agree with what a poster above said about Skill Points--2 are not enough! If you're playing an actual ordained priest, you'd have likely received a good education, and likewise if you're some kind of errant wild prophet or holy avenger, you've got some survival and other abilities gained from experience. And depending on how you generate your stats, you may not be able to afford a high Int--but a skilled cleric just makes sense to me.
As someone who enjoys clerics and all they could do, I would totally be willing to get rid of, say, Heavy (and even Medium) armor proficiency or take a lower hit die to get 2 more skill points per level.
3) I also agree with other posters above that the Cleric spell list is too long. It took me forever to decide what I was going to prepare... and ultimately I often ended up choosing the same ones over and over. Paring that down or making a clerical "Spellbook" in the way of wizards would be fine with me.
I'll also note I was in a rare situation once as GM to have a blind player, who played a cleric. Paging through the cleric spells on her laptop to have her screenreader read them to her took forever--and she was exceptionally good at memorizing things like game abilities and mechanics, but she had trouble with the cleric list. I'm not saying "pare down the list for blind people" but noting that if someone who is used to memorizing abilities and keeping whole character sheets in her head is having trouble with the spell list, it's too long.
|
|
Clerics are my 2nd favorite class to play; bards being 1st. That said... the fun I get out of playing clerics is the role playing stuff and the feeling of being able to really buff up and protect the other PCs and to fix them up. Clerics (and bards too, of course) also make great diplomats and leader types. A cleric's spells do things in combat indirectly; they don't do direct damage, but with the right combo of buff spells you can be responsible for a LOT of stuff in combat.
Psssh. You just like clerics because you have a cleric that's the stuff of legends. :)
|
|
3) The cleric (like the paladin) has to worry about the DM's interpretation of their actions. There is an extra role-playing challenge involved in playing a cleric: They have to abide by a code of action that supports their diety's portfolio/teachings; their spellcasting ability is dependent on keeping their cosmic boss (as run by the DM) happy with them. This constraint on the player's possible actions is one that some are not willing to take on.
that is why Iomedae and Saracene are great, ok... you need to heal people, but first and foremost you have bring justice or protect people...
if it does it moreefficiently bringing down a great evil than healing a comrade... then the decision is easy
yes... you get lots of complains if you play the buffing holy warrior instead ofthe healing machine... they DID complain "why i was expending my spells in such actions when they could be used to heal them!"
Justice first, Healing Later...
Positive Channeling now offers a new option... ok don't need to spend any spell to keepmy comrades from their final destination, i just need to be closs,let energy move and heal many of them... then they move away while i keep fighting.
another great combination is theue of one of the Traits from "Second Darkness Companion": "Sacred Hand" with a meretouch you can stabilice any dying character... meaning you need nothing but a move action to stabilize them, while you can keep fightingor casting... i say this is fine by me :D(idon't think i wouldhave lotsof problems convincimg my DM... i hope)
|
|
So something just resonates about a character who can raise their deity's symbol in the air and literally blast their enemies with holy (or unholy) power.
That, and flamestrike is such a cool spell.
This reminds me: Can we get holy symbols for shields in PRPG? I'm hoping it is a common enough tactic for players that we could support inclusion in the core book.
thatis whyi love Iomedae... you can make of your sword a holy symbol :D
and yes thereis nothing as the feeling ofbeing able to destroy the darkness with a call of faith.
and you are right Jal and James, the posibilities of the cleric being the leader its definitively big, at least 2 of the times i have used a cleric they have been in the fore front of battle, planning and diplomacy... but at the same time theyknewi willboost them a bit (bless and similar spells) and theni would be the first in the battle fry.
At least my new cleric has earned a reputation for being able to scare goblins to their death, oppose oppresion, and taking care of everyonehurt she sees (and she uses positive channeling as a kind of blessing to the people,they feel betterand feel the direct power of her goddess... it does great things for politics)
Also, the Cleric is not only overpowered, it's redundant. If TSR's original role model for the cleric (which stands to this day) were orders like the Knights Templar then, what do we have Paladins for? Contextually, the cleric is already a Holy Warrior. Mechanics-wise, the Paladin's resources pale next to those of the Cleric. While Pathfinder's Paladin is way more compelling than old d20's version, I dare anyone reading to list three things a Paladin can do that a Cleric can't do better.
I don't know, I've always thought of Paladins as filling the "Knights Templar or Teutonic Knight" role, while clerics were more "Hospitallers".
If you want to see Paladins and Clerics in action, I highly recommend the Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven. Not entirely accurate, but they did a good job of portraying the distinction of the various orders.
2nd Edition Description of Cleric is clear... Clerics were based in Templars, Teutons and Hospitalers...
Palladins were based more accurately in charlemagne's or King Arthur's Knights
(i still have those books :D)
And Dogbert... youhaven't seen Jordan giving theMass because there is already a priest in town :P
also she needsabit more of power for some ofthose things... butright now i have been thinkling how to abuse some orisons... like create waterand mending to give the town more water and haveevery street kid with decent clothes in Sandpoint :P
The other problem I had was having too many spells to choose from! If I could cast all the spells spontaneously, fine, but having to choose all my spells at the start of the day from a huge list was cumbersome. In the end I just came up with a default list that I always used. Personally I woudl prefer to play a sorcerer!That's a good point. I find that players are usually just as reluctant to play a wizard as they are to play a cleric. Of course, there's always one guy (like me) who always plays a spellcaster of some kind.I've been considering for some time that clerics should have a holy book from which they may prepare their daily prayers. I think this would go a long way towards toning down clerics. It would work just like a wizard's spellbook, but still using Wisdom for spells/day. Spell Mastery would open up to clerics as well. Biggest benefit is added flavour to the class. Holding daily prayers while intoning from a book is much more interesting than meditating in a corner.
Slightly divergent: This doesn't really tone down druids, but their problem is wild shape, which PRPG has already changed.
absolutely no
they ask a miracle from their gods... they get a miracle from their gods... its not about... how you pray for it...but the faith you have behind a petition... for me clerics should cast spontaneously... not memorize...|
|
Thed has good points, and brings in one of the top reasons why I enjoy clerics: roleplaying and philosophy is/should be built-in in the class.
For this and spell selection dilemma, I would point in direction of one thing 2e rules got right: specialty priests. Many with slightly different powers, all of them with spheres which in some cases really cut down/focused the list of possible spells...
indeed
we need something unique for the clerics of each gods... for what i have heard it will come in Gods & Magic...and yes Thed you are right... but it depends in the agenda...
2 of my clerics teach by example, and at least the dms had people caming to them, thanful for their blessings and protection. in every chargethey screamed the name of their god/goddess, they thanked every victory, when poeple thanked them, they said they don't have to thank them, but their god/goddess for putting them there... one walked along, following apath of injustices to correct... the other one follows the designs of her goddess to protect and bring justices to a place that is in danger.
-at the same timethey are different... the first one, the father fighted directly and went against a system directly to deliver justice asit should... there he put a church that grew in time, he was focused on religion and fighting. Domains: War, Sun
-the daughter while always in the forefront of battle, is much better talking with people, getting the truth and combating consopiracies... she is an eclesiastical investigator andshe works her role well... to the point now that she learned some problematic truth thatsilencingit would be in the best benefit for all of the town... she is worried because she will be unable to nottell it, if asked directly :S or even if she lies it will be noticeable. Domains: Glory, Sun
another cleric i did was a cleric/wizardwho was going to become sort of Kelemvor Necromancer... her mission was to return the dead to their rest, she didn't talked a lot about it...butshe walked other's path in this purpose. Domain: Death, Healing
1 was a rogue/cleric of a trickster god... his purpose was tor ecover lsot artifacts to offerthem to his gods,, aside of that, to travel, drink, havewomen and in the end... have a great time... Domains: Trickery, Travel
another one wasa ranger/cleric, a really focused hunter of the dead, he venerated her goddes even before being a cleric... he took the ashes from destroyed undead and let them escape from his hand... whichever side they flow... he headed in that directon to do her goddes grim job. he talked against undead, he studied them, he killed them... that was his main focus... that iswhathefelt the poeople needed to know about her goddess... and with each victory he prased her. Domains: Sun, Moon
****
anotherof my players loved to make a dwarven cleric of St. Cuthbert... he loved the part of Punishthe evil doers... he took the light of cuthberth to the evil people.... *leaving them looking lights with each attack with his morningstar*
|
|
they ask a miracle from their gods... they get a miracle from their gods... its not about... how you pray for it...but the faith you have behind a petition... for me clerics should cast spontaneously... not memorize...
I can agree with that. I would prefer clerics have the same low number of spells per day but be able to request of their deity any spell they like. Unfortunately, that severly overpowers the cleric in terms of handling situations. Giving them a limited number of spells known doesn't seem appropriate, so perhaps they should be using "faith points"...which just seems like spell points.
Perhaps this:
Faith Points
Clerics (and Paladins) receive faith points equal to their level plus their Charisma modifier. These faith points are recovered every 24 hours, when the cleric prepares her spells.
A cleric may cast any spell on her spell list spontaneously. In order to cast a specific spell, the cleric must expend 1 faith point. If the cleric has no faith points remaining, they may still cast spells but cannot request different spells from those already cast during the last 24 hours.
Casting a Conjuration [healing] spell does not require a faith point.
The cleric must have a spell slot available in order to cast a spell. Thus it is possible to have spell slots remaining, but without faith points the cleric cannot cast the spell if it is a new spell for the day. It is also possible to have faith points remaining but no spell slots available to cast spells.
For example, Cleric has 0 faith points. She has a 3rd level spell slot remaining for the day but has not cast any 3rd level spells. She can cast cure serious wounds as that does not require a faith point, but could not cast invisibility purge as she cannot expend the faith point to cast a new spell.
|
|
Is there a reason to rework clerics? I think that they really do work fine as per pathfinder rules. Wouldn't taking the presure off being the primary healer be enough to make being a cleric a better option?
I just thing that that if cure spells were both arcane/divine. We would actually see more of the cleric spell list used.
All we are talking about is 8 spells. (If you include the mass versions too)
Given that your typical party is Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard it doesn't sound like such a bad option. If you still need some benefit for divine to arcane casters you could stagger the the levels.
EXP:
Cure Light Wounds
School conjuration (healing); Level bard 1, cleric 1, druid 1, paladin 1,ranger 2, Wizard 2.
Conjurers could become known as "White Wizards" for their healing ability, but would still not be as good as a Cleric with the healing Domain.