|
In a general sense, clerics have an edge over most of the other base classes. They have average attack progression, average hit die, get full caster progression and can cast all their spells in heavy armor. They also get arguably the best restorative spells, which if used judiciously can help a cleric outlast even full melee characters. Domains often let the cleric dip into some of the best spells and tricks of arcane or other classes, too. About the only thing they can't do is act as a skill monkey (once Wieldskill got fixed), but at least they usually max out Diplomacy.
This is my interpretation of the general impression of clerics being powerful, but others may think so for other reasons.
Cleric's are very, very powerful, but there are only a few spefic things that make them "broken". The main one being divine metamagic (either persistant or quicken). There might be one or two other if you look over the books carefully.
Outside of those few points they are powerful, but not over powered. They have a good BAB and HP, but not as good as a fighter or barbarian. They can use their spells to buff themselves to the point where they are more powerful than fighter, but by then the fighter is usually busy wiping the blood off his blade going "what kept you?"
Powerful? yes. Incredibly easily broken with a few feats that I personally would ban? Hell Yes! Broken if the GM is smart enough to restrict one or two things? No.
Well, I DM for the OP and he's been very understanding of the insanely overpowered stuff being far, far removed from the table. He's just been venting at me lately about the 'cleric brokenness' everybody online seems to gripe about (and the fact there's been an unfortunate lack of undead in the past few sessions upon which to take out his rage, cough cough) and I asked him to get some outside opinions (i.e. ask others about it as I'm still a novice too and I'm ignorant).
One thing I've pointed out to him that I've never seen mentioned but seems somewhat relevant is that Clerics (along with Druids) get their entire spell list open to them, as opposed to the Sorcerer/Bard and their limited spells and the Wizards less-limited but still limited and time/GP consuming spells. It's somewhat innocuous with the core as many of their spells are much more utilitarian in nature and generally not the sort of things an adventurer is likely to bust out all the time (as opposed to a fireball or fly or the dreaded haste/slow spells - one of his fellow players was a Sorcerer who seemed to have the ability to ensure that no enemy rolled over a 5 on his Will saving throw).
I can imagine that a lot of DMs just blanket-allow spells from whatever source and then things can get a little maddening, particularly considering some such spells are already troublemakers in and of themselves. I'm not sure how hurtful it actually is, but it seems like something that's on the table as a bone of contention.
While a lot of the cleric's power is tied up in a nice bundle of respectable hit dice, casting spells in heavy armor, and decent BAB, I'm finding that their magic can really make the difference. I'm playing a cloistered cleric right now, and the power of clerical magic available to me hasn't been fully tested yet. I've blasted frost giants with spells that made the survivors weep-few that they were, then healed the whole party from grave injury to full health, and finally whisked us all home in the blink of an eye. So let's not discount their spells as another source of power.
Oh, and FYI, I'm only using the PH plus one spell (Surelife from the PGtF, from the Repose domain).
Back in the days of 1e, clerics started with good armor, moderate hit dice, moderate attack progression, and weak spells.
Third edition kept the good armor, moderate hit dice, moderate attack progression, and got much stronger spells. There may not be many attacks as wizards/sorcerers, but when you start adding books like the Spell Compendium they add up, particularly because they have their whole list available to them to prep on a daily basis.
And even when you consider just the buff spells, clerics have some that stack to a potent degree. With a couple rounds of casting, they can have +10 to Strength, a full BAB, reach, damage reduction, a Con bonus that escapes me at the moment. Add another round or two and add another +3 to hit and +3 or +4 to AC easy. It takes time, but with the sort of scry-buff-teleport-kill strategy that people talk about a lot, the cleric assault machine wasn't exactly rare. And it was powerful.
I'm content with good armor, moderate hit dice, moderate attack progression, and full casting. I just want the spells toned down and tightened up. Too many things stacked together. Too many things were designed to make a cleric a one-man killing machine.
Heh. Compared to clerics, druids ain't so bad, are they?
*Opens can of worms*
Heh... I started a thread like this when I started posting here too. The thread was titled "Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before..."
It got quite long. When I started back to DnD I checked various forums and they all screamed how broken the cleric is. Some say it's way too powerful and others claim it's way too weak. And most forums promote a "groupthink", playing follow the leader as far as opinions. Which is why I love this site. They CAN be very strong. With prep time they could probably take a fighter of the same level. Without it...
I believe clerics are fine. Power wise they can be very strong and offensive, or stand back for support. I think DMs should limit what spells a deity will allow their clerics, which takes away a few options, but still leaves the world open.
With ONE SPELL (Divine Power), a cleric has the base attack bonus of a fighter, a +6 to strength, and +1 hp per level. And UNLIKE Tenser's Transformation, he CAN STILL CAST. In heavy armor. With two good saves, healing ability, D8 hit die, fantastic buffing, and the WEALTH of new attack spells presented in books like the Spell Compendium, the Cleric DEFINITELY has the potential to be overpowered. I'm not even taking into account divine metamagic.
This is the reason people say dumb things like "fighters suck". No, they don't. Some casters just have the potential to be VERY munchkin-friendly.
From my own experience of playing a dwarf cleric of the war god (Clanggeddin?) with strength and war domains back under 3.0 rules up to level 17 or something like that, I see cleric as potentially very powerful. I remember a fight against a high-level ogre barbarian or something similar, who dealt tremendous amounts of damage. I had cast divine power and stoneskin and one or two other buffs (I think enlarge was among them) and stood easily against that ogre in melee. But I needed several rounds to prepare properly, time the other PCs had to buy for me.
In the 3.5 campaign I DM I have a 9th level cleric specializing on turning undead and healing - he is tremendously effective in both areas already.
So, I can see why the cleric can be seen as very powerful or even overpowered. It is the DMs task to keep an eye on that.
As an aside, the cleric in 1e or 2e (not to mention Basic D&D - come on, _no_ spell at first class level? You got to be kiddin´) were somewhat weak IMO. Healing spells started to get interesting at 4th spell level, buff spells were weak overall. Decent HD and Thac0 were ok, but relegated the cleric to the role of secondary fighter if he had no useful spells prepared. The Saves were good, though. Skills? What´s that? I agree that 3.x went a little over the top with spells, but 1e+2e was weak in that regard.
Stefan
|
With ONE SPELL (Divine Power), a cleric has the base attack bonus of a fighter, a +6 to strength, and +1 hp per level. And UNLIKE Tenser's Transformation, he CAN STILL CAST. In heavy armor. With two good saves, healing ability, D8 hit die, fantastic buffing, and the WEALTH of new attack spells presented in books like the Spell Compendium, the Cleric DEFINITELY has the potential to be overpowered. I'm not even taking into account divine metamagic.
This is the reason people say dumb things like "fighters suck". No, they don't. Some casters just have the potential to be VERY munchkin-friendly.
To provide a concrete example, take the 10th level version of Kyra from PF #4. We'll swap her Iron Will feat for Quicken Spell, but otherwise leave her stats alone. She changes her prepped spells to include divine power (4th level), righteous might (5th level) and quickened divine favor (5th level).
Her attack bonus begins like this:
Melee +1 holy scimitar +10/+5 (1d6+2, 18-20/x2)
With one round's worth of actions (divine power and quickened divine favor), she goes to this:
Melee +1 holy scimitar +18/+13 (1d6+8, 18-20/x2)
If she takes a second round's worth of actions (to cast righteous might), she gets up to:
Melee +1 holy scimitar +19/+14 (1d8+10, 18-20/x2)
and she has reach.
For comparison, the 10th level fighter has this combat statline:
Melee +1 frost longsword +17/+12 (1d8+7, 17-20/x2, plus 1d6 cold) or
+1 frost longsword +15/+10 (1d8+7, 17-20/x2, plus 1d6 cold) and +1 shortsword +14/+9 (1d6+3, 19-20/x2)
And Kyra is not exactly melee-focused to begin with (she only has a Str 13 to start). Someone setting out to build a melee combatant with a cleric chassis could do much, much better still.
To a certain extent, the problems of the ubercleric are exaggerated, inasmuch as they tend to be nova effects - there is a definite limit to how many times per day you can pull a trick like this off. That said, however, a cleric can, without even trying very hard, outfight a fighter in limited circumstances, and that's more than enough to really, really annoy some people.
(Note: Pathfinder RPG has removed some of the cheese possible in the spell combinations given here - I haven't yet figured out how much of a nerf we're looking at, however.)
To a certain extent, the problems of the ubercleric are exaggerated, inasmuch as they tend to be nova effects - there is a definite limit to how many times per day you can pull a trick like this off. That said, however, a cleric can, without even trying very hard, outfight a fighter in limited circumstances, and that's more than enough to really, really annoy some people.
Indeed, they do tend to be nova effects. I suspect that the attractiveness of using these spells as a strategy (because of their uberness, if I may use that word) contributes significantly to the 15-minute day problem that some tables report.
|
|
Indeed, they do tend to be nova effects. I suspect that the attractiveness of using these spells as a strategy (because of their uberness, if I may use that word) contributes significantly to the 15-minute day problem that some tables report.
I tend to agree. The players that never use anything less than their most potent effects are quickly going to want to stop and rest so that they can get those effects back again. It is an absolute truism that the fewer encounters you have per day, the more problematic spellcasters become balance-wise.
I think that the cleric could be mostly remedied with only two changes.
The first is domain powers. If you take a look at, say, the ECS's 'Passion' domain, the cleric gets a rage that's as powerful as the second-level spell. Given that both the domain power and rage spell last much longer than a barbarian of a much higher level, the domains need to be brought down a tad.
The other is the BAB/Weapon Proficiencies. Take a look at a D&D church. Do you see the clerics in it all wearing armor and maces? Do you see them training to use weapons and all? No! So where do they learn it? And where do they learn to have better BABs than monks, who have a much lower BAB (not that I think it should be higher. If it was, the monks would be pretty broken and it'd cause a lot of trouble. It just doesn't make any sense that a pretty combat-geared class would have a lower BAB than a priest!). This makes no sense. I think that changing these two things could help a lot. Maybe not everything, but a lot.
I think that the cleric could be mostly remedied with only two changes.
The first is domain powers. If you take a look at, say, the ECS's 'Passion' domain, the cleric gets a rage that's as powerful as the second-level spell. Given that both the domain power and rage spell last much longer than a barbarian of a much higher level, the domains need to be brought down a tad.
The other is the BAB/Weapon Proficiencies. Take a look at a D&D church. Do you see the clerics in it all wearing armor and maces? Do you see them training to use weapons and all? No! So where do they learn it? And where do they learn to have better BABs than monks, who have a much lower BAB (not that I think it should be higher. If it was, the monks would be pretty broken and it'd cause a lot of trouble. It just doesn't make any sense that a pretty combat-geared class would have a lower BAB than a priest!). This makes no sense. I think that changing these two things could help a lot. Maybe not everything, but a lot.
I've toyed around loosely with the idea of making a Priest class to replace the cleric. They would basically be the divine equivalent of wizards and sorcerers, with no armor or weapon proficiencies to speak of while retaining the cleric's spell list, turning, and perhaps some other powers. But of course, that would take some work to balance out, and I'm sure the players would never stand for it.
I think that the cleric could be mostly remedied with only two changes.
<some stuff about domains>
The other is the BAB/Weapon Proficiencies. Take a look at a D&D church. Do you see the clerics in it all wearing armor and maces? Do you see them training to use weapons and all? No! So where do they learn it? And where do they learn to have better BABs than monks, who have a much lower BAB (not that I think it should be higher. If it was, the monks would be pretty broken and it'd cause a lot of trouble. It just doesn't make any sense that a pretty combat-geared class would have a lower BAB than a priest!). This makes no sense. I think that changing these two things could help a lot. Maybe not everything, but a lot.
Monks and Clerics have the same BAB. Monks just have the option of using Flurry of blows, sacrificing some accuracy (which comes back at higher levels anyway) for an extra attack at the highest attack modifier. A Monk could just as easily choose to use his regular attack modifier(s), and still use his Monk unarmed damage value.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Take a look at a D+D church ..." I can easily imagine a church's seminary offering some martial training to its novices, before sending them out (whether to adventure, to serve at one of the faith's cathedrals, or to tend a village church). Just because the local priest doesn't walk around in his plate mail (if he can afford a set) with a morningstar at his side, it doesn't mean that he can't have it stashed away somewhere.
I've toyed around loosely with the idea of making a Priest class to replace the cleric. They would basically be the divine equivalent of wizards and sorcerers, with no armor or weapon proficiencies to speak of while retaining the cleric's spell list, turning, and perhaps some other powers. But of course, that would take some work to balance out, and I'm sure the players would never stand for it.
You might want to take a look at the Cloistered Cleric, found in Unearthed Arcana. It has reduced combat abilities (in comparison to a regular Cleric), balanced with an extra domain (Knowledge), some more spells which fit the flavour of the class, and some more skill points (and more skills on which to spend them).
Another option is the Archivist, in Heroes of Horror. That base class also has reduced combat effectiveness. On the other hand, the Archivist runs around with a prayerbook which functions as a divine version of the wizard's spellbook, and the Archivist has to find/buy Cleric or other divine spell scrolls in order to add spells to his prayerbook (beyond the starting freebies and the two freebies per casting level achieved). He also has a nifty Knowledge class feature, which helps both himself and his allies when fighting certain monster types. The Archivist also has more skill points than a Cleric, but not as many as the Cloistered Cleric.
I'm personally against the idea of decreasing the Cleric's base combat abilities. Coming from the 'video game' generation, I find it a lot more interesting that the most effective healer is a middling melee combatant as well instead of a back-line guy ready to melt into a pile of goo after a couple of attacks. If asked in my humble DM opinion, all the guys in a church are Adepts or Cloistered Clerics (or as Bellona mentioned, 'off-duty' normal Clerics); PC Clerics (and NPC ones that harass/work with them) are the crusaders of their faith, having learned some degree of martial prowess so that they can evangelize / smite their enemies / what-have-you.
To some degree that's what the Paladin is about, though I believe the fluff in the PHB (3.5's anyway; 4e took the opposite route if memory serves) states that they're champions of good that tend not to be directly tied to any deity. I've always had more of a vision of that class as the knight-errant, championing the cause of good with no particular regard to ethics (or whatever you call the Law/Chaos axis). But that's another argument entirely.
As far as balance with spells I really can't speak to anything mostly thanks to inexperience, except the general consensus that the DM should be keeping an eye on things.
I think that the cleric could be mostly remedied with only two changes.
<some stuff about domains>
The other is the BAB/Weapon Proficiencies. Take a look at a D&D church. Do you see the clerics in it all wearing armor and maces? Do you see them training to use weapons and all? No! So where do they learn it? And where do they learn to have better BABs than monks, who have a much lower BAB (not that I think it should be higher. If it was, the monks would be pretty broken and it'd cause a lot of trouble. It just doesn't make any sense that a pretty combat-geared class would have a lower BAB than a priest!). This makes no sense. I think that changing these two things could help a lot. Maybe not everything, but a lot.
Monks and Clerics have the same BAB. Monks just have the option of using Flurry of blows, sacrificing some accuracy (which comes back at higher levels anyway) for an extra attack at the highest attack modifier. A Monk could just as easily choose to use his regular attack modifier(s), and still use his Monk unarmed damage value.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Take a look at a D+D church ..." I can easily imagine a church's seminary offering some martial training to its novices, before sending them out (whether to adventure, to serve at one of the faith's cathedrals, or to tend a village church). Just because the local priest doesn't walk around in his plate mail (if he can afford a set) with a morningstar at his side, it doesn't mean that he can't have it stashed away somewhere.
*Shrugs*
Alright, I guess it just didn't come easily to my mind. How about modern-day churches, is it regular to see Christians, Muslims and Buddhists walking around practicing with guns? ;)That question was a joke, by the way, I know that they're pretty different. Most modern-day religions are about peace.
But surely clerics of, say, the god of harvest wouldn't train combat? Most priests of a god like that wouldn't expect to have to ever really fight. Just heal guys and remove diseases and stuff. I think that unless someone has the War or Protection domain, they shouldn't have so many weapon proficiencies. Or something. I'm not really sure.
But surely clerics of, say, the god of harvest wouldn't train combat? Most priests of a god like that wouldn't expect to have to ever really fight....
Oh I don't know, about that. The implements of harvest are pretty wicked really. Sickle and scythe. Ouch. And swinging them builds up an awful lot of muscle.
Oh I don't know, about that. The implements of harvest are pretty wicked really. Sickle and scythe. Ouch. And swinging them builds up an awful lot of muscle.But surely clerics of, say, the god of harvest wouldn't train combat? Most priests of a god like that wouldn't expect to have to ever really fight....
Plus, you have to realize that they'd be farmers/farming community priests. That means they should be fairly physically fit, fairly resilient. They'd have a reasonable chance of having to deal with pastoral predators and other challenges that plague the peasantry.
One thing I always keep in mind is that clerics can be expected to fight for their flocks from time to time and wouldn't neglect a little bit of training and practice. They may not be particularly violent, depending on the faith, but they shouldn't be wallflowers as a general rule.
The "problem" is that clerics were meant to be the knights templar archetype of the game, before the paladin was introduced. Then when the latter class actually came about, the game kept the cleric's previous abilities and role, leading to somewhat of a conflict. I have to agree that I don't think harvest priests should have the level of martial training a typical cleric possesses. It screams too much of a world designed from an adventurer's perspective, which breaks verisimilitude for me.
As a further matter of taste, I don't like the concept that everybody working at a church or temple has levels in cleric. That puts waaaay too much magic in general, and divine magic in specific, floating around the world. I don't give every sage and scholar levels in wizard, but everyone who wears a holy symbol or learns the lore of a god can cast spells? Seems unbalanced to me, and too high magic.
I prefer both sages and priests to be Experts, with no spellcasting ability whatsoever. True clerics are as rare as wizards; they are miracle workers, and awarded fear and respect because of it. It also helps explain why they are out adventuring; if every clergyman is a cleric, then it makes little sense to me why first-level cleric PCs are out adventuring rather than being saddled with acolyte duty. On the other hand, if the actual ability to wield and manifest the will of the deities is a rare and wondrous thing, it makes far more sense why the church would send the PC out and even grant them the kind of freedom necessary to go on adventures.
Finally, it also alleviates some of these issues regarding clerics and their martial training. As genuine and rare miracle workers, I find it easier to understand why their churches would invest them with those skills; to make them truly capable and expectional servitors of their god.
Saern, I can appreciate the desire to play in a low magic world. It can be very interesting, and challenging in ways that you don't see as much in a high magic game. But I like high magic games too. Both ways are fun at different times.
As far as the harvest priest, I think that's a really poor choice to show as someone who shouldn't be as good at combat. Both of my grandfathers were farmers. Seriously, the people who did this before the invention of tractors and other farming machines had to be seriously physically fit. Even with that both of my grandfathers were very strong an fit. The one who is still living is in his late eighties and still walks five miles a day. Between harvesting the crops and butchering the livestock for food, it's not really a big stretch to transfer those skills to how to fight.
Now if the god of love and beauty is training clerics to be warriors, yeah, that's weird. :)
That is the issue clerics are holy warriors, they were not meant to be 90% of the church, and it's foolish to have all high ranking members of a church the cleric class. most would be , experts, adapts or nobls more then clerics.
They are the military arm of the church not the main part of a church
As far as the harvest priest, I think that's a really poor choice to show as someone who shouldn't be as good at combat. Both of my grandfathers were farmers. Seriously, the people who did this before the invention of tractors and other farming machines had to be seriously physically fit. Even with that both of my grandfathers were very strong an fit. The one who is still living is in his late eighties and still walks five miles a day. Between harvesting the crops and butchering the livestock for food, it's not really a big stretch to transfer those skills to how to fight.
Which I can understand, yet the game seems to operate under the default assumption that those same farmers are no more than first level commoners with perhaps a 12 Strength, at best. So, given the real world example, a strong and militaristic harvest priest makes sense. Given the norm in a D&D world, not so much. I suppose what's really at fault here is, once again, the default assumption of the D&D game. I should try making a list of every guideline and flavor element of the game that strikes me as nonsensical and compels me to revise and reorder things. It would only take me, oh, a couple of years.
Which I can understand, yet the game seems to operate under the default assumption that those same farmers are no more than first level commoners with perhaps a 12 Strength, at best. So, given the real world example, a strong and militaristic harvest priest makes sense. Given the norm in a D&D world, not so much. I suppose what's really at fault here is, once again, the default assumption of the D&D game. I should try making a list of every guideline and flavor element of the game that strikes me as nonsensical and compels me to revise and reorder things. It would only take me, oh, a couple of years.
That default assumption is not necessarily a good one on the game's part. The brilliance of the leveled NPC classes runs smack into the demographics suggested in the town-building rules and really doesn't add up very well.
If you take a look a the tables, the highest level commoner is actually pretty likely to be high. It even tops out higher than other classes and averages higher than many can achieve. The problem is the way the rest of the algorithm works because it creates this long tail of potentially high level guys, little to support them on the way, and an enormous hump at the bottom. And, in that enormous hump of 1st level commoners, you are representing otherwise undifferentiated men, women, and kids.Personally, I fill in a broader taper and advance more NPCs some levels assuming that they gain enough XPs to advance in level every 3-5 years or so.
*Shrugs*
Alright, I guess it just didn't come easily to my mind. How about modern-day churches, is it regular to see Christians, Muslims and Buddhists walking around practicing with guns? ;)That question was a joke, by the way, I know that they're pretty different. Most modern-day religions are about peace.
But surely clerics of, say, the god of harvest wouldn't train combat? Most priests of a god like that wouldn't expect to have to ever really fight....
I played in a d20 Modern campaign where the PCs were all Roman Catholics priests who fought demons and undead. Basically Buffy without girls.
I played a Jesuit Priest who was surgeon...and kept an extra medical bag full of Uzis and ammo. (Dedicated Hero with an 18 Int and Wis!!! Really lucky rolls!!!!) We also had a Tough Hero who eventually became an Acolyte or whatever (divine caster) and a Strong/Fast swordsman-type.
Also, priests of the harvest might have to take on evil priests of famine.
|
|
*Shrugs*
Alright, I guess it just didn't come easily to my mind. How about modern-day churches, is it regular to see Christians, Muslims and Buddhists walking around practicing with guns? ;)
That question was a joke, by the way, I know that they're pretty different. Most modern-day religions are about peace.
Break into the Vatican. The clergy there can cut you down with automatic weapons, then give you Last Rites.
|
I always wanted to make a class similar to the White Wizard from Final Fantasy. The Archivist is a neat concept, but it always seemed like they were much darker (due to the Dark Knowledge class feature and the fact that it's from Heroes of Horror) than I like in a healer.
I think I would take the route of the Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer in approach, but based on healing and buff spells. 4 skill points/level, wizard proficiencies, set spell list, sorcerer spells/day, yadayada. And to top it off, I'd make them be arcane casters just because I've always wanted to see some powerful arcane healing (and to deter them from covering themselves in platemail).
But I digress. I think the cleric has gotten too close to the "Warpriest" stereotype. The Cleric and the Paladin fill much of the same role at later levels, with the Cleric being much more badass due to his spellcasting, and the Paladin being the most annoying addition to the party since his class features are dependent on other people's behavior...
I always wanted to make a class similar to the White Wizard from Final Fantasy. The Archivist is a neat concept, but it always seemed like they were much darker (due to the Dark Knowledge class feature and the fact that it's from Heroes of Horror) than I like in a healer.
I think I would take the route of the Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer in approach, but based on healing and buff spells. 4 skill points/level, wizard proficiencies, set spell list, sorcerer spells/day, yadayada. And to top it off, I'd make them be arcane casters just because I've always wanted to see some powerful arcane healing (and to deter them from covering themselves in platemail).
But I digress. I think the cleric has gotten too close to the "Warpriest" stereotype. The Cleric and the Paladin fill much of the same role at later levels, with the Cleric being much more badass due to his spellcasting, and the Paladin being the most annoying addition to the party since his class features are dependent on other people's behavior...
I house rule that the Healer from the Miniatures Handbook casts like a Warmage/Beguiler. And they have an oath against metal armor AND are only proficient in Light Armor, so they're pretty much in leather, usually. They lack most buff spells, but are REALLY good at healing. I gave out a DMPC aasimar healer as "treasure," (a girl in a box a la "Firefly") and she's saved the PCs butts loads of times.
But her personality is more like Inara's (and Jayne's!) than River's.
|
|
This thread has inspired me. I'm thinking of a Cleric's equivalent to the Wizard's spellbook for Tegara. Instead of just having a prayer book I have a slightly different idea: Prayer Beads. They serve the same function as a spellbook, but they obviously have a more religious overtone. Then the Cleric can learn spells as a Wizard.
I always wanted to make a class similar to the White Wizard from Final Fantasy. The Archivist is a neat concept, but it always seemed like they were much darker (due to the Dark Knowledge class feature and the fact that it's from Heroes of Horror) than I like in a healer.
I think I would take the route of the Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer in approach, but based on healing and buff spells. 4 skill points/level, wizard proficiencies, set spell list, sorcerer spells/day, yadayada. And to top it off, I'd make them be arcane casters just because I've always wanted to see some powerful arcane healing (and to deter them from covering themselves in platemail).
But I digress. I think the cleric has gotten too close to the "Warpriest" stereotype. The Cleric and the Paladin fill much of the same role at later levels, with the Cleric being much more badass due to his spellcasting, and the Paladin being the most annoying addition to the party since his class features are dependent on other people's behavior...
I house rule that the Healer from the Miniatures Handbook casts like a Warmage/Beguiler. And they have an oath against metal armor AND are only proficient in Light Armor, so they're pretty much in leather, usually. They lack most buff spells, but are REALLY good at healing. I gave out a DMPC aasimar healer as "treasure," (a girl in a box a la "Firefly") and she's saved the PCs butts loads of times.
But her personality is more like Inara's (and Jayne's!) than River's.
I've done a similar tweaking of the Healer class from Miniatures Handbook. I ditched one class ability (unicorn companion at L 8), gave them the ability to use wooden shields, reduced their weapons (to dagger, sickle, club, and quarterstaff), and made them spontaneous casters with a spells/day table like the Warmage. Their spell list has also been extended, following the guidelines set out in the beginning of the Spell Compendium (healing/restorative magic, buffing things like saves and AC, but not attack or damage bonuses, protective spells, plus some like Leo's Secure Shelter).
They can't turn undead, but they sure can deal them a lot of damage when they "cure" them!
I'm not sure what you mean by "Take a look at a D+D church ..." I can easily imagine a church's seminary offering some martial training to its novices, before sending them out (whether to adventure, to serve at one of the faith's cathedrals, or to tend a village church). Just because the local priest doesn't walk around in his plate mail (if he can afford a set) with a morningstar at his side, it doesn't mean that he can't have it stashed away somewhere.
I think this may be referring to the identity crisis Clerics have. They aren't very priestly running around in heavy armor, and aren't holy warriors (that's what paladins are for) so they fall between. In part, I think this adds to the debate on if they're "broken". To be fair, it's hard to pin down what they are supposed to be, or their role in the world.
This is my primary complaint about clerics.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
(just went through UA again)
I think I'll probably be using the Cloistered Cleric variant from Unearthed Arcana from now on. I always liked skill points more than armor and BAB anyways
I looked at the CC and never looked back. Besides, if I actually need to wade into combat, that's what Divine Power is for :-)