I'm wondering because in 3.5 we already have trouble finding someone to play "cleric medic" and nobody in our group wants to do it all the time. Since the other classes are to be so much more interesting (sorcerer, rogue, fighter...) in Pathfinder and with the talk of giving only medium armor to clerics, who's "going to get stuck" playing the cleric? Let's make this a poll... Who is reading this and still planning to start a cleric in the new Pathfinder rules? Maybe I'm missing something... How do you make being a cleric less of a thankless job running around trying to touch everyone to keep them alive?
Get stuck? We practically jump each other for the opprotunity to play the cleric! In every game I've played in since 2nd ed, it's been that way.
|
im actually with the first poster, I have been the last person to make a character in three pathfinder games, and guess what? no one was playing divine. I have had to build 2 healers so far and i don't feel like doing it in the newest game. ( I'll get a template that fast heals and say f%&k you to my group ^^) its not just my gaming group either, whenever i go to an open gaming event at game stores, the cleric seems to be picked last, or everyone realizes that no one is playing a cleric and somebody gives in and drops there character.
I have a friend that moved away that LOVED to play clerics (he was a bit more of a self booster) but i think cleric fanatics are a bit rare ( just like in many MMORPG's)
Id advise swift turning and martial study ( crusader strike) to give the cleric some options rather than just cleaning up monsters messes. ( swift turning allows you to turn as a swift action, martial study: crusader strike is a Bo9s general feat that gives you a maneuver once per encounter, the effect is you hit some one and some one else (possibly self) heals for 1d6+1/2 level.
with these options you can do your job and still swing a mean cudgel!
|
I'm with the OP too.
I'm sorry, but I would bet an important body part that I could walk into any game running at the FLGS, ask if I could play, and receive 1 of 2 responses:
1) we're full up; start another game if you can cos there's 5 other guys who want to play (or something along those lines)
or
2)gosh, we could reeeeeeeeeally use a cleric.
I go so far as to give out the war domain for free, so the cleric can do something besides heal, turn, or miss with a crossbow bolt.
I'm actually really interested in the Pathfinder Cleric class, except that I'm currently the DM in the Pathfinder arc. Another group is playing the Demonweb pits, 3.5, and I'm a cleric of Athena and was desperately trying to get them to make the change to the (I forget the name) Emit Positive Energy ability from Pathfinder.
Currently, I cast about 2 spells in combat, then spend the remainder of combat keeping my players away from the negatives. With Pathfinder, I could spend a Turn action to send out a 30' radius of positive energy that heals everybody (even living villains) for a substantial amount. So rather than spending several turns healing, or one of my meager amount of 5th level spells to Mass Heal, I could take a single turn, heal a bit of the whole party and get back to casting my awesome cleric attack spells.
I'm just interested because the cleric gains the ability to use spells outside of healing magic.
Also, from a DM point of view, and NPC cleric with this ability is much easier to manage. You just need to watch how often their turn ability is used, rather than going through the usual routine of lvl 1 healing, lvl 2 healing, etc. A Pathfinder NPC Cleric is an easy alternative to twisting a friends arm, unless you know jiu-jitsu or some other deadly art.
JP
|
|
best cleric feats 1-5
number 5: intuitive attack,exalted deeds (my wisdom to attack with ALL simple weapons, that includes ranged weapons too you know)
number 4: extra turning,pathfinder ( give me more healing please)
number 3: martial study:crusader strike, Bo9S (attack and heal in the same action, friggin sweet! NOTE: pick up martial stance next to heal some one of your choice for 2hp for every successful hit)
number 2: swift turning, complete divine (frees up your combat rounds, welcome to choiceland )
and the number 1 best clerical feat in pathfinder.......
SELECTIVE CHANNELING: none of this magic can be done without this baby, and the reason charisma is the new clerics wisdom score. it allows you to turn without fear of healing the main baddy
|
|
I should agree to not look at this thread no more.
I mean, every time I go to play. Every time.
It's "hey, we could use a cleric."
And yet, every time this thread appears in it's latest incarnation, about a gazillion people show up saying "well I LOVE playing cleric! If I can play cleric,....I...I live for the chance. I wait with baited breath for the opportunity to play cleric! Every time the alarm clock wakes me in the morning, I....I....I WILL find a game today, and when I do, I WILL BE CLERIC!!!!!" It mystifies me.
I mean nothing against you guys, go for it; better you than me, and if you're having fun that's a bonus. I really don't mean to sound irate. These threads just DO NOT JIVE with any of my anecdotal (it's not empirical only because I haven't done a phd dissertation on it) evidence.
I play one in one of Aubrey's pbp's, and his combats are so good/menacing/whatnot that the simple challenge of keeping everybody out of the neg's is interesting in and of itsself. However, I think that that relies on an excellent level of tactical skill of the dungeonmaster, which I must readily admit to lacking. I hope that the PF cleric addresses this. I really do. Even the straight 3.0 cleric was almost fun, but then they had to wussify him because he was too powerful or something.
|
I mean, every time I go to play. Every time.
It's "hey, we could use a cleric."And yet, every time this thread appears in it's latest incarnation, about a gazillion people show up saying "well I LOVE playing cleric!
While I'm one of those people who has to put his foot down to prevent our parties from being a big 'ol divine-fest, with every experienced player wanting to play either a Cleric or Druid, I do think that this sort of anecdotal 'well *I* don't have that problem' response is worse than useless. (Counter-productive and even a bit insulting, as if *my* not having the same problem makes those who do have this problem defective somehow.)
Other people *do* clearly have this problem, and something should be done about it, *for them.*
Ideas;
1) In the Book of Experimental Might, Monte introduced a healing mechanic that allowed a Cleric to have a Healing Touch type ability that put the burden of healing on the other characters, as they would have to use *their* action to touch *him,* to receive the healing. He'd just go and do his thing, casting other spells, swinging his morningstar, smiting the unrighteous and so on, while others dash in with their grabby-hands and and cop a heal.
That's *one* possible solution to the 'I don't wanna cast a heal every roung' issue.
2) Another would be to have a positive energy channeling sort of mechanic that gives every ally in close range to the cleric a few hit points of healing every round (similar to a Dragon Shaman aura), although that would be a very different mechanic, and a single target taking a lot of damage would be hurting if the primary source of healing was an aura of fast healing.
3) Yet another might be to allow every Cleric to spontaneously cast Close Wounds type spells instead of Cure spells, with a range of spells (d4 at 1st level, d6 at 2nd, etc). All are swift actions, all have close range, and the Cleric could be up there swinging his mighty cod, while sending small bursts of healing as 'free actions' off to fortify his allies. He'd still have access to the bigger heals (standard action, touch required) of Cure spells, but he'd have to prepare them. The spontaneous Close Wounds mechanic would require everyone to get used to two things, A) in-combat healing is likely to come in smaller doses, B) the Cleric is going to be doing something other than healing in each and every round, and doesn't necessarily have to stand within touch range of the fighter (possibly provoking AoOs with every heal from other members of the encounter, or opponents with reach).
I think I like #3 best of all, at this point. The Cleric is still taking the actions to heal (unlike Monte's solution), but the actions aren't preventing him from doing anything else in the round, and his healing actions aren't requiring him to run around in melee trying to touch people.
|
|
I should agree to not look at this thread no more.
I mean, every time I go to play. Every time.
It's "hey, we could use a cleric."And yet, every time this thread appears in it's latest incarnation, about a gazillion people show up saying "well I LOVE playing cleric! If I can play cleric,....I...I live for the chance. I wait with baited breath for the opportunity to play cleric! Every time the alarm clock wakes me in the morning, I....I....I WILL find a game today, and when I do, I WILL BE CLERIC!!!!!" It mystifies me.
I mean nothing against you guys, go for it; better you than me, and if you're having fun that's a bonus. I really don't mean to sound irate. These threads just DO NOT JIVE with any of my anecdotal (it's not empirical only because I haven't done a phd dissertation on it) evidence.
I play one in one of Aubrey's pbp's, and his combats are so good/menacing/whatnot that the simple challenge of keeping everybody out of the neg's is interesting in and of itsself. However, I think that that relies on an excellent level of tactical skill of the dungeonmaster, which I must readily admit to lacking. I hope that the PF cleric addresses this. I really do. Even the straight 3.0 cleric was almost fun, but then they had to wussify him because he was too powerful or something.
oh no no no, im totally with you on this one, my feat idea is to make clerics TOLERABLE, nothing do i hate more in this world that a barbarian who doesnt pay attention to a little thing called ARMOR CLASS, nothing sucks more than to wait every 15 minutes as the order of initiative goes around the table, and know that you one action is going to be, to heal some f-tard who yells "MEDIC!" I really am pissed at the lack of respect that most gamers hold their cleric (if they disrepect the Fighter he will no enter rooms first, but no good aligned character can refuse a injured comrade due to metagame issues) i got this guy in one of my games that does nothing but belittle my characters god, and say that they are nothing more than imaginary friends. thats fine and dandy but my DM needs to step up and convert the next cure on him into an inflict.
next cleric i play is going to be a merc cleric, and i will heal those who give blessing to my character god. and ignore the cries of party members who dont what to think of me as anything more than a bandaid.
LN warcleric sound really good right about now "if you can walk, then you can fight"
It's the same thing with any class, really (in my experience); everyone has their favourites.
Me, I like holy symbols better than spellbooks or lockpicks.
|
|
Set; I like your #1 Monte Cook thing; that's sweet.
Sneaksy; I agree; though as dm I think the druid is a great self entertainer or if you will a cleric done right; I love the druid.
If he's overpowered, my druid anyway, is always concerned with armor class and he doesn't steal the show inordinately. I think everybody should be able to steal the show once in a while.
|
|
Is there a hole bigger than a missing cleric? that is the important question. for those who have no problems with clerics in the game, does your group have another class that you have a hard time filling? i could imagine having a hard time filling the rogue slot (lets be honest though, it is not NEARLY as important of a role as a clerics) Fighter classes, could be rare in a cleric heavy game.
i am honestly interested in what role is hard to fill in your games (if your gaming group is perfect bugger off^^)
|
|
hey heathen, i personally think the druid is ahead of the curve, give my beloved Fighter class some self healing ability and we will call it perfect ( i am not a great fan of "MMORPG" mentality, and wish every class was a bit more solo-able) I prefer a gaming system where the different classes affected the flavor of the game, but didnt mandate what you HAVE to have
|
|
Dont get me wrong Heathy, Im all about playing lots of varied characters...and I try and play a diferent character in each game I play.
My favorite character of all time currently is My Dwarven Fighter/Cleric. Hes 15th. 4 levels of fighter and 11 levels of cleric. Hes great for both role playing and a lot of fun to play.
I can see though, if someone isnt into 'not having the glory', where they would shy away from playing a cleric...but thats more the case of it not being a character that exemplifies any of the standard roles of heroic fantasy...
...and less that its not fun. My take anyway.
|
|
hey heathen, i personally think the druid is ahead of the curve, give my beloved Fighter class some self healing ability and we will call it perfect ( i am not a great fan of "MMORPG" mentality, and wish every class was a bit more solo-able) I prefer a gaming system where the different classes affected the flavor of the game, but didnt mandate what you HAVE to have
I've heard the druid is ahead of the curve enough to believe it, and I feel that having seen it in action, my next character will be one.
It doesn't feel broke enough to me to worry about.It's like an old engine with an oil leak to me; all old engines have oil leaks. It hasn't thrown a rod per se.
|
|
Dont get me wrong Heathy, Im all about playing lots of varied characters...and I try and play a diferent character in each game I play.
My favorite character of all time currently is My Dwarven Fighter/Cleric. Hes 15th. 4 levels of fighter and 11 levels of cleric. Hes great for both role playing and a lot of fun to play.
I can see though, if someone isnt into 'not having the glory', where they would shy away from playing a cleric...but thats more the case of it not being a character that exemplifies any of the standard roles of heroic fantasy...
...and less that its not fun. My take anyway.
That's cool; I felt like flagging my own last post due to dickiness, but it just had to be said. Don't feel like I was attacking you specifically.
I....just get this feeling that this particular problem gets mentioned, and then about 50 people show up to say it's not a problem, and then nothing gets discussed, because anybody who feels like it is a problem gets self conscious and clams up or something.
|
|
yeah. I understand. As I mentioned. I really think it has more to do with fewer examples in heroic fantasy than anything else...Folks like to play roles that 'jump out' at them...The Tired Mercenary Fighter, The Barbarian Hero, The Plucky Rogue, The Sneaky Ranger, The Heroic Knightly Paladin....Its hard to find a 'role' for the Cleric...
Even the Druid has examples that jump out...look at the Shannara series for an example.
You really have to look hard for a Cleric though.
Thats the limitation, and why many people shy away. There's less that 'grabs' you about how to play one.
|
|
I....just get this feeling that this particular problem gets mentioned, and then about 50 people show up to say it's not a problem, and then nothing gets discussed, because anybody who feels like it is a problem gets self conscious and clams up or something.
You're right, this is a problem. I've done it myself (hangs head), and the problem with that is, it's inherently dickish to say, 'Well, *I* don't have this problem, so there must be something wrong with *you!*'
I don't have this problem (nobody wanting to play the Cleric), but that *doesn't* mean that other people don't, and that nothing should be done to make the Cleric more fun (or less necessary, or a little bit of both) for everyone else.
I have this problem with Rogues. We haven't had anyone *want* to play a Rogue for 20 odd years. And if I bring it up, some yob is going to come out and say, 'It's all I play, it's my favorite class, we always have a couple of Rogues!' which changes *nothing* about *my* situation.
I....just get this feeling that this particular problem gets mentioned, and then about 50 people show up to say it's not a problem, and then nothing gets discussed, because anybody who feels like it is a problem gets self conscious and clams up or something.
I think that there's a lot of variation in how much healing is done in combat. Generally, the games I play reserve healing for after combat (with a trusty wand of Cure Light Wounds, for instance), in which case clerics aren't so much of a combat medic.
FWIW, the games that I play in/DM tend to have plenty of rangers and rogues and not so many wizards and clerics.
best cleric feats 1-5
number 5: intuitive attack,exalted deeds (my wisdom to attack with ALL simple weapons, that includes ranged weapons too you know)
number 4: extra turning,pathfinder ( give me more healing please)
number 3: martial study:crusader strike, Bo9S (attack and heal in the same action, friggin sweet! NOTE: pick up martial stance next to heal some one of your choice for 2hp for every successful hit)
number 2: swift turning, complete divine (frees up your combat rounds, welcome to choiceland )
and the number 1 best clerical feat in pathfinder.......
SELECTIVE CHANNELING: none of this magic can be done without this baby, and the reason charisma is the new clerics wisdom score. it allows you to turn without fear of healing the main baddy
Isnt it funny that three of the five are NOT even in PF? That is something that should be fixed right there....just make all those amazing feats, "core" and half the problem is solved. Especially for those groups (like mine) that do not use splat books.
Isnt it funny that three of the five are NOT even in PF? That is something that should be fixed right there....just make all those amazing feats, "core" and half the problem is solved. Especially for those groups (like mine) that do not use splat books.
No thanks, clerics are plenty powerful without adding a bunch of cleric friendly splat material to core. Swift turning maybe but I'd have to see it.
Overall the biggest problem is people are asking the right question. Instead of asking "How are we going to take care of healing". There are plenty of other healing options which can be distributed to other party members. Fully 3/4 of the classes in the game have healing abilities and can take care of themselves. Wizards, Barbarians, and Fighters are the sole standouts in this. So no one wants to play cleric? Then everyone needs to take care of themselves. Potions, wands, etc.
I would love to see the other classes get a little better healing options which would relieve the demand for clerics but absent that parties just have to work with what they got.
|
|
Fully 3/4 of the classes in the game have healing abilities and can take care of themselves. Wizards, Barbarians, and Fighters are the sole standouts in this. So no one wants to play cleric? Then everyone needs to take care of themselves. Potions, wands, etc.
Healing Rage! (Well, Regenerative Rage sounds more thematically appropriate...)
I wouldn't say that clerics need more, as much as everyone else needs to learn their lives are not in danger if they are not at full hp. Our group goes around with 1/2~3/4 hp regularly without really sweating it. Healing just isn't that much of an issue to us, so our clerics get to do more with their magic. Also around here we use the 1/2+1 for hit points, max at first level, just to clarify that we aren't taking huge amounts of HP from somewhere.
No thanks, clerics are plenty powerful without adding a bunch of cleric friendly splat material to core. Swift turning maybe but I'd have to see it.Overall the biggest problem is people are asking the right question. Instead of asking "How are we going to take care of healing". There are plenty of other healing options which can be distributed to other party members. Fully 3/4 of the classes in the game have healing abilities and can take care of themselves. Wizards, Barbarians, and Fighters are the sole standouts in this. So no one wants to play cleric? Then everyone needs to take care of themselves. Potions, wands, etc.
I would love to see the other classes get a little better healing options which would relieve the demand for clerics but absent that parties just have to work with what they got.
That usually leads to more pressure being applied to the person most likely to play a cleric, because potions cost money. A while after that person gives in (not if) that person burns out. IMO power balance doesn't matter as much as fun balance, which unfortunately is a lot more fuzzy.
my theory:
1. What most people find not fun about being a healing cleric is that your role is reactive, instead of proactive and allowing for initiative. It's like having to clean up other people's messes all the time.
2. The worst that could happen is to make healing spells ranged. As witnessed in DDO, that is the road to absolute healbot-dom, with the consequent scarcity of clerics and clerics logging on the game anonymously and staying in hiding due to constant solicitation.
I notice that the games where it's fun to play a cleric are those where the cleric mostly heals after the fight. Counter-intuitively, could the solution be to increase the casting time of the most potent healing spells to a point where they are impractical during combat, so nobody expects you to be healing? It's a bit like creative incompetence ;)
My Elven cleric with a longbow and a reluctance to stand directly behind the fighter when he could be, oh, 80ft away, was probably my favourite character.
My love of playing clerics is a great relief to the people i play with.
So you were healing after fights and not during them, correct?
|
|
Thats kind of how most parties do it, that Ive found anyway...the only time healing occurs in combat is if someone is dangerously close to falling, then the cleric rushes over to stop that...if he can.
The current party Im running
Dwarven Cleric (Party leader)
Human Ranger (secondary healer with wand)
Elven Warmage
Dwarven Fighter (who just requested that I allow her to multiclass as a cleric ;) )
Water Genasi Samurai (a role playing fun character)
Human Rogue (can use wand in a pinch)
kind of interesting dont you think?
i must add that i my group loooooves the druid and we have to limit access to it (no you cant play a druid in my city game!) but a druid in not a healbot. it has juuuuust enough healing to take care of itself (friggin solo druid BS)
The druid doesn't have spontaneous casting, which means nobody expects him to sacrifice his interesting, proactive spells to healing. Truly, less is more.
|
|
I wouldnt change the casting times on Healing though. It would change the whole dynamics of the game, and raise the CR's of encounters. The system is built around the idea that a cleric can keep a fighter up on his feet in combat....make it so it couldnt happen...and fighters would be dropping, and shortly thereafter TPK more often.
What you really need to do is just (as a party) understand the cleric only heals during combat in the utmost emergency....and allow the cleric to work his magic and be a secondary combatant ;)...but thats within a party and not within the rules.
Thats kind of how most parties do it, that Ive found anyway...the only time healing occurs in combat is if someone is dangerously close to falling, then the cleric rushes over to stop that...if he can.
The current party Im running
Dwarven Cleric (Party leader)
Human Ranger (secondary healer with wand)
Elven Warmage
Dwarven Fighter (who just requested that I allow her to multiclass as a cleric ;) )
Water Genasi Samurai (a role playing fun character)
Human Rogue (can use wand in a pinch)kind of interesting dont you think?
Sounds like a fun group. I could hazard that the request from the fighter is for the self-buffs more than for the healing (and of course, increase the number of things the character can do which makes it more interesting)?
|
|
What you really need to do is just (as a party) understand the cleric only heals during combat in the utmost emergency....and allow the cleric to work his magic and be a secondary combatant ;)...but thats within a party and not within the rules.
Which brings us back to the 'the class is fine, you're just playing it wrong' argument, which isn't really that helpful.
I wouldnt change the casting times on Healing though. It would change the whole dynamics of the game, and raise the CR's of encounters. The system is built around the idea that a cleric can keep a fighter up on his feet in combat....make it so it couldnt happen...and fighters would be dropping, and shortly thereafter TPK more often.
What you really need to do is just (as a party) understand the cleric only heals during combat in the utmost emergency....and allow the cleric to work his magic and be a secondary combatant ;)...but thats within a party and not within the rules.
Players needing to understand... sounds like material for a KODT strip ;)
I wouldnt change the casting times on Healing though. It would change the whole dynamics of the game, and raise the CR's of encounters. The system is built around the idea that a cleric can keep a fighter up on his feet in combat....make it so it couldnt happen...and fighters would be dropping, and shortly thereafter TPK more often. (...)
Adjust encounters; potions and self-healing capabilities (as pointed out by Mr. Ogre) can deal with emergencies. However, those sources of healing wouldn't be the main ones -- they would be used to survive the fight, after which the cleric can help. Then healing isn't an obstacle to participation.
Making players understand? I seem to recall a tale from the Art of War in which a general beheaded a formation for failing to learn after the third attempt at getting compliance.
Three questions:
Is the primary reason most folks don't want to play a cleric the problem of having to use their turn to heal other party members - who play recklessly, and get all the action? Is the amount healed viewed as weak?
Is it also a reason people don't want to play clerics the fact that they become poor fighters by mid level?
Is it the whole idea of playing a religious churchy guy just unappealing to some players?
|
|
What you really need to do is just (as a party) understand the cleric only heals during combat in the utmost emergency....and allow the cleric to work his magic and be a secondary combatant ;)...but thats within a party and not within the rules.Which brings us back to the 'the class is fine, you're just playing it wrong' argument, which isn't really that helpful.
Not my point. The issue asked by the op is 'whe dont more people play clerics' in a round about way. This is an opinion, that may be shared by others who have the same opinion, but its hardly everyones opinion. which brings back to 'the class needs work...in someones opinion' which is true of every class...in someones opinion.
Id rather deal with concrete's ...instead of asking people who 'dont play clerics', ask the ones who do. They will tell you if something really is out of whack or not.
People who dont will only tell you what would make them play it...which really only tells you what 'kind of class' they prefer.
I do not say anyone is 'playing it wrong'....nor did I say it.
Which brings us back to the 'the class is fine, you're just playing it wrong' argument, which isn't really that helpful.
I only now understand how having domain spells not subject to spontaneous casting was a great idea. It allowed clerics to keep some things "untouchable" by the healing demand, and allowed them to keep a "flavor". However, it was defeated by clerics selecting the healing domain as those spells were sure to be useful and the others were not.
I wonder if partitioning further the healing from other capabilities would not help. I think that if I was playing a cleric, I would gladly exchange spontaneous casting for extra, automatic "healing domain" spells, separate from other domains, that would have casting time in proportion to the damage healed. This is meant to stimulate ideas and discussion rather than being a polished solution. The goal is to avoid healing "cannibalizing" the other things clerics could be doing.
|
|
Making players understand? I seem to recall a tale from the Art of War in which a general beheaded a formation for failing to learn after the third attempt at getting compliance.
Three questions:
Is the primary reason most folks don't want to play a cleric the problem of having to use their turn to heal other party members - who play recklessly, and get all the action? Is the amount healed viewed as weak?Is it also a reason people don't want to play clerics the fact that they become poor fighters by mid level?
Is it the whole idea of playing a religious churchy guy just unappealing to some players?
Again...define 'most people' In my party i used as an example...2 of the 5 want to play clerics...that doesnt sound like 'most people don't to me...it sounds like the people who dont want to play clerics, are in no more abundance than the ones who dont want to play fighters, because they only sit and attack and dont do anything else...or the ones who dont want to play bards because they think they are weak...
Its an opinion. and we all know that opinions arent the end all be all of a debate.
As I said...if you are going to ask the folks that dont want to play clerics "why dont you want to play a cleric...what would make you want to"
Ask the players who do "why they do".......this then gives you abetter idea of the strengths and weakness' of the class...which every class should have a strength and a weakness.
Not my point. The issue asked by the op is 'whe dont more people play clerics' in a round about way.
Correct but partial, see below
This is an opinion, that may be shared by others who have the same opinion, but its hardly everyones opinion. which brings back to 'the class needs work...in someones opinion' which is true of every class...in someones opinion.Id rather deal with concrete's ...instead of asking people who 'dont play clerics', ask the ones who do. They will tell you if something really is out of whack or not.
People who dont will only tell you what would make them play it...which really only tells you what 'kind of class' they prefer.
I do not say anyone is 'playing it wrong'....nor did I say it.
How about asking people who *used* to play a cleric but stopped because they don't find it interesting or fun anymore? What could bring them back? I'm also afraid that the new rules will push more people away from playing clerics because, the new classes are even more fun to play.
Is the primary reason most folks don't want to play a cleric the problem of having to use their turn to heal other party members - who play recklessly, and get all the action? Is the amount healed viewed as weak?
As I said...if you are going to ask the folks that dont want to play clerics "why dont you want to play a cleric...what would make you want to"
How about asking people who *used* to play a cleric but stopped because they don't find it interesting or fun anymore?
You are looking at the problem wrong. Even if there are as many players interested in playing clerics as there are players interested in playing wizards there is a problem because they are not distributed evenly. The problem isn't the number of people who enjoy playing clerics, the problem is the perception that clerics are required in every party and the game mechanics that make them desirable in the party.
One group gets together and no one wants to play a wizard people shrug and play what they want.
One group gets together and no one wants to play a rogue people shrug and play what they want.
One group gets together and no one wants to play a fighter people shrug and play what they want.
One group gets together and no one wants to play a cleric the group breaks down and tries to figure out who's playing the cleric.
The supply of clerics is not the problem, it's the demand for clerics that is the problem.
|
|
Again...define 'most people' In my party i used as an example...2 of the 5 want to play clerics...that doesnt sound like 'most people don't to me...
You've got two players who like to play Clerics, so therefore, nobody in the world needs to do anything for the people who *don't* have two players who like to play Clerics? Is that your logic here?
I don't have cancer. But I recognize that the people who *do* have cancer consider it something of a bummer, and I'm not going to say, 'Well, it's not a problem for *me,* so let's just try to talk over those people who *do* have a problem with it, so that nothing gets done about their situation.'
Do you really, honestly believe that if something isn't a problem for you, that it isn't a problem for anyone else? 'Cause that's a fairly extreme viewpoint.
|
|
The supply of clerics is not the problem, it's the demand for clerics that is the problem.
While the 'Regenerative Rage!' comment may have sounded like a joke, I'd be cool with some sort of healing utility being available to the few classes that don't already have healing utility.
Improving the Heal skill to be able to be used for actual healing would be a nice start.
My group rarely ever have a cleric. No one wants to play one so they don't.
A party can get by without a cleric, just as a party can get by without a wizard. It's actually more difficult to compensate for the lack of a strong blaster/controller/troubleshooter arcane class than a strong buffer/healer divine class as the party goes up in levels. Various potions and other items can be used for buffs. Wands of cure light wounds are relatively cheap (15 gp per 1d8+1 hp of healing) and can be used by bards, paladins, rangers, or any character with a good Use Magic Device skill.
This topic was discussed in some detail last month here. The reluctance to playing a cleric is more of a player/party mindset issue than a mechanics issue. You can play a self-buffing combat cleric who is in the thick of melee, an archer cleric who stays at range, a (3.5) cleric with the Magic domain that uses arcane spell trigger items to act as a blaster/controller, etc. Many people, however, view the cleric only as a combat medic/healbot, which is a role that few enjoy.
I had a cleric character that I really enjoyed a while back. She had lots of good options and between a really good ability to disarm and some very useful enchantment spells was able to contribute meaningfully to combat on a consistent basis. Until we had a character join the party who had no tactical ability at all. He had an emergency pretty much every freaking round. Instead of helping the party win I had to spend every action on healing just to keep him from dying.
I would play a cleric again, but only if the party agreed ahead of time that they wouldn't be upset if I let them die if they consistently did stupid.
In the other game, the cleric gets a break because I'm playing a warlock and the ability to take 10 with Use Magic Device means I can automatically use a wand of cure x, so we can tag team on the healing thing. I think maybe adding in the ability to take 10 on UMD as a feat might go a long way to helping other classes help themselves and ease the pressure to always have a cleric on hand.
We just started our new campaign on a homebrew world. I'm trying out some of the Pathfinder rules-namely, the changes to spells so that XP isn't in use any more. I've already found playing the party cleric satisfying, as I designed the character to NOT be on the front-line (using the Cloistered Cleric from UA and Contemplative PrC from Complete Divine; we're starting at high level). I've already realized I have a LOT of magical power, but I'm relatively squishy. So being in the back row, so to speak, suits me. I also established that I have no problems with healing people in combat, that I want to do buffing when possible, and I absolutely shouldn't be in melee. The interesting (and unfinished) conversation so far is: "If we die, will you raise us?". So far, the answer is: "If you die in a pointless battle, such as a barroom brawl, then no. If you commit suicide (e.g. die in a pointless battle), then no. Otherwise, I'll ask questions of your corpse and we'll see from there." Then, I'm a worshipper of Death, and I don't see a need for a well-used revolving door to/from the afterlife . . . .
There have been some comments made in this thread and others that pretty much nail things down:
1) Those who want the glory often avoid the cleric class, as clerics are a powerful support class by design (along with other things).
2) Other classes do not have the same problem as the cleric: losing actions due to demands for healing.
3) Established archetypes are not as well-known or common for the cleric as compared to other classes (e.g. wizards, rangers, fighters), so finding a role can be done, but there's less inspiration out there.
Want the glory? Wizard for you at higher levels, fighters and barbarians at lower levels.
No one tells the wizard to throw spells the same way people order the cleric to heal them. Party/player dynamics are a factor here, as the cleric character has a direct impact on the fun of all other players via keeping the characters alive and fighting. Despite the raw power of a wizard (not that the cleric is a slacker here), there is an underlying idea that ANYONE can kill stuff, the wizard is just good at doing it fast and in groups, but despite the existence of other classes with healing there is a disparity in the minds of many that prevents people from calling other classes (druid, bard, ranger, paladin) for healing when there's a cleric around.
While historic examples of clerics exist, newer players might not be aware of them and/or not interested in studying history in order to build a character. Common media has made fantasy wizards, fighters, rogues, rangers, etc. well-known but not broadcast as many clerics to the general population, making the task of playing a cleric for newer players potentially more difficult (this a theory only).
For me, this is my first 3.E cleric, and by deliberately choosing to be buffer/healbot, I can't be upset with others for expecting that role of me, thus (hopefully) increasing my satisfaction with my character. But those extra skill points don't hurt either, let me tell you . . . .