|
Here's the problem with that statement, it's entirely untrue. It should read,By the time you are 11th level you should much more than Cure Light Wound wands at your disposal! You should have wands of Cure Critical Wounds, everyone in the party should have potions of Cure Critical Wounds at least. If you need to heal during combat, it is just as valid to pull back, chug a potion or two as it is to call the cleric over
Well, I think simply dismissing my comment as untrue is a bit of an unnecessarily blanket statement but I get your point. I probably should have said by the time you are 11th level, in what most would consider a typical D&D game, you should have much more than Cure Light Wound wands at your disposal!
Having said that, I also tend to like lower magic games. Even so, the game really kind of assumes as a baseline that you are going to have access to things like potions of cure etc. If that access is more limited, the DM needs to take that into consideration when designing or modifying encounters.
I was looking at numbers people posted about the DPS olympics and how a 10th lvl guys was dishing out 50 points a round on average and how a cleric cannot keep up doing far less then that in healing.
Really?!?! did you not take the healing domain, and if you are using 3.5 stuff not take augment healing?
Spell Dice Average Healing Domain Healing Domain & Augment Healing
cure light 1d8+5 9 13.5 16.5
cure moderate 2d8+10 19 28.5 34.5
cure serious 3d8+10 23 34.5 43.5
cure critical 4d8+10 28 42 54
cure light, mass 1d8+10 14 21 36
breath of life 5d8+10 32 48 63
Sorry for the bad table, but my 10th lvl cleric can on average cure crit for 54, and his cure light mass for 36 on a 5 man party for 180 healing with 1 spell is not a waste in combat (If the party has a henchman and some pets say a total of 10 guys for optimal casting average halign of 360 with a 5th level spell). When the party is getting a beat down; bang a huge boost to HP for one action is not a waste.
A cleric built to heal is annoying to a DM. Get the party beat down looks good for the bad guys then bang the party is full healed in a round or two!
Oh not including channel energy which he should have at least 7 a day for 5d6 (excluding bad guys with selective channeling) 17 on average for the 5 peeps for 85 healing 7 times a day.
A well built healing battery can be awesome in and out of combat.
Though my next campaign we are actually deliberatly designing the group to not have a cleric since our last group had a healing cleric above so we want a change of pace, something that feels different then, "oh I am almost dead, no wait I am at full thanks cleric".
Really?!?! did you not take the healing domain
So your position is that only one specific sub-build of one class (Druids cannot get the Healing domain) can keep up pre-heal?
Why, thank you for making our point for us.
Bottom line is that the Ranger and the Bard need to take UMD
Bottom line is that the Ranger and the Bard need to take UMD
Why? They can already use any spell-trigger or spell-completion items with up to cure serious wounds (and the bard can use up to mass cure moderate wounds) without UMD.
|
Here's the problem with that statement, it's entirely untrue. It should read,By the time you are 11th level you should much more than Cure Light Wound wands at your disposal! You should have wands of Cure Critical Wounds, everyone in the party should have potions of Cure Critical Wounds at least. If you need to heal during combat, it is just as valid to pull back, chug a potion or two as it is to call the cleric over
Well, I think simply dismissing my comment as untrue is a bit of an unnecessarily blanket statement but I get your point. I probably should have said by the time you are 11th level, in what most would consider a typical D&D game, you should have much more than Cure Light Wound wands at your disposal!
Having said that, I also tend to like lower magic games. Even so, the game really kind of assumes as a baseline that you are going to have access to things like potions of cure etc. If that access is more limited, the DM needs to take that into consideration when designing or modifying encounters.
Well, I was more exagerating, and you'll notice that I only quoted the one line as the rest of your post I mostly agreed with, I just have a problem with blanket statements about what a party "should" have, as if it's doing it wrong if they don't. And maybe completely untrue was a bit of an exageration, but that's what I do, I'm an exagerator.
I agree with those who say "You don't need a Cleric to survive." You don't... you really, really don't. If the party doesn't have one and no one wants to play one, it's the DM's job to adapt the campaign to suit the players. Of course, having a Cleric in your merry band sure makes it easier to get through many-a combat with a semi-whole skin. Now, one thing struck me after reading the many posts above: Your party as listed has SEVERAL characters in it that can heal/cure wounds. Therefore, there should be no need for you, specifically you, to create and play a Cleric if you don't want to. If you want to... go for it, more power to ya, I enjoy playing Clerics too! If you don't feel like playing the Cleric anymore, then don't. Let someone else shoulder the burden. Or perhaps a better word than burden is "responsibility." Because playing the Cleric is often a huge responsibility as the other party members often rely on the Cleric to patch them up, both during a battle and afterward as well. Does it have to be that way? Absolutely not! There are many, many other options in the game to allow healing. Does it usually work out that way anyway? Yes, of course... because having someone in your party that can conveniently abort any spell they've memorized and turn it into a Cure spell is far simpler than many of the alternative options.
The one thing I don't understand though... if your DM is actually playing an NPC, why isn't HE/SHE playing the Cleric? If he runs a game that requires a Cleric's power to succeed, and no one else wants to do it, then why doesn't he run the Cleric him/herself? As a DM, when I do run an NPC, I almost always have the NPC fill a role that the party otherwise lacks, and they never, NEVER step on another player's toes. Also, it's my belief that NPCs should generally lack initiative and be less "front-runners" than the PCs. PCs are the star of the show, the NPC is a supporting cast character. Clerics make a great NPC class because often their role can be a supportive one. It doesn't have to be, but it often is. I find it difficult to NPC a major toe-to-toe Fighter because they are so frequently in the thick of every battle, the focus of attention, and the primary target of enemies. That's a full time occupation, a starring role, and really should go to a player more than an NPC. Obviously there may be those who disagree with me, but that's my opinion.
So, my suggestion? If you don't want to play a Cleric anymore, scrap him and create a new character that you are EXCITED to play! Then let the DM take care of adding a new Cleric to the mix if the campaign demands one. That's his job, after all... making a campaign that is fun and challenging, but also supplying the players with the tools they need to carry out the tasks he creates for them. And as someone else suggested, there's always the Leadership feat... take a Cleric for your sidekick!
