Why are people reluctant to play clerics?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Personally, I happen to enjoy playing clerics/divine casters. In PFS I have a 13 level Mystic Theurge, a 9th level Cleric of Asmodeus, and a 6th level Cleric of Sarenrae.

I think the cleric gets a pretty good deal with a medium base attack bonus, d8 hit points, use of medium armor, the ability to cast spells in armor, a full caster spell progression, except for alignment restrictions access to all spells on the class list, spontaneous casting of cure spells, channel energy, and 2 Domains with powers and extra spells. All in all I think a great deal.

So I wonder why do you all think are people so hesitant to play a cleric? More often then not I see people play everything but a cleric. In my experience the cleric is the most often used “NPC” made up to help out an adventuring party.

So why are there reservations, and why do people dislike playing the cleric class? What do you think?

Thanks

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I have no idea. Cleric is my go to class when I have nothing else in mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am tired of looking through rulebooks for spells. And Cleric gets them all selectable on a daily basis (unless GM specifically restricts access).

Preparing spells is now a great turn-off for our party former cleric (she was cleric in previous campaign and is wizard in current). She repeats that she will never again play anything that prepares spells about every session.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

out of my experience in playing and Dming i find people just see clerics as a class just to keep the other players alive... which depending on the build can be very much wrong but it has become an expectation.

I myself love playing clerics as i get to look at my party and go "damn you guys suck" as i heal them.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Drejk wrote:
Preparing spells is now a great turn-off for our party former cleric (she was cleric in previous campaign and is wizard in current). She repeats that she will never again play anything that prepares spells about every session.

She does know she can just prepare one list of spells and never change it, right?

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Many inexperienced players view clerics as a healbot. This is wrong and they should be punished severely for it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My players tend to pick Oracles and Witches over Clerics due to the restaurant menu problem that prepared casters have.

Also, there's this whole "gotta RP the religion" thing that doesn't gel with my players well - they tend to be rabidly Chaotic Whatever and few deities, if any, float their boat (Cayden being one exception).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well, while I believe that the cleric is easily the most versatile and capable of classes, it is also the primary healer of any group. Instead of actually taking down opponents, many times a cleric simply heals everybody else. Now if the party is willing to take a little damage for a while and heal mostly between encounters (except in emergencies) then the cleric is a lot of fun. If not they could get boring really quickly.


It's the action economy.

After playing 4e, going back to Pathfinder and being a druid (not quite the same thing...) and seeing an oracle in the same campaign, I realized I would never want to be a cleric.

In-combat healing is horribly inefficient. You have to use a standard action to cast a healing spell, but you also use a move action to get next to the wounded PC because it's a touch spell, so you waste a whole round healing a PC.

Out-of-combat healing works far better, of course, if only because of the Wand of Cure Light Wounds (which my druid uses the heck out of).

The cleric can "do it all" which is boring. Picking spells becomes a chore. Should I prep Cause Fear? Party buffs? Self-buffs? Blasting spells like Searing Light or Spiritual Hammer or even Destruction and Implosion at higher levels? (And since you're "expected" to self-buff, it forces you to put your 2nd and 3rd highest scores into Strength or Con. If you wanted to be a cleric of Corellon-equivalent, well, you're going to be a wimp.)

While wizards have more spell choices, they generally channel into blast, control, protection and utility. There's no self-buffs to go with that.

Or even contrasting my druid to a cleric, the only time I have trouble is when I need to pick 2nd-level spells, since there's so few good options there.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Preparing spells is now a great turn-off for our party former cleric (she was cleric in previous campaign and is wizard in current). She repeats that she will never again play anything that prepares spells about every session.
She does know she can just prepare one list of spells and never change it, right?

Yup, she often ends doing that. But doing so (at least in my opinion) partly misses the point of playing prepared spellcaster in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Many people do not like the expected (and most say not-needed) healbot role.

2) Many GM's really encrouch on the players free will because of the religion. "Your god wouldn't allow that." Some is ok and helps immersion. Too much is annoying and frustrating. Even if the GM doesn't do it, some players feel like they should be severly limiting themselves (I do this sometimes).

3) Some that decide to play a full caster want the full on power of a wizard or sorc. The arcane spells have a reputation (deserved or not) that on average they are more powerful.

4) For us old guys that remember the old editions. They weren't very fun back then except being very survivable. The healbot really was necesary. So you couldn't put too much effort into being any other kind of caster unless someone else was willing to be a cleric/healbot at the same time. So they bring back memories of, "Carp, I guess it's my turn to be stuck with the cleric."

5) Some people still get a bit of a guilty/sin feeling for roleplaying the worshiping another religion. I have seen this several times. They are somtimes more open to it if the GM is willing to add modern religions into the game that they can chose and try to gain converts.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Preparing spells is now a great turn-off for our party former cleric (she was cleric in previous campaign and is wizard in current). She repeats that she will never again play anything that prepares spells about every session.
She does know she can just prepare one list of spells and never change it, right?

I think sorcerers and oracles have just about completely replaced wizards and clerics in our group exactly because of this. Witch might stay alive because the hex is unique (we haven't tried it yet). Druid is still in the list because of the shapechanging.


I like the options picking spells provides. I'll have a list of spells I prepare on a daily basis, and I'll only make changes when I need to prep for specific instances. It's both structure and versatility. The channel energy is a great edition to Pathfinder. The double domains with domain powers is also awesome. And I like the wide variety of deities, as I'm not confined to only playing CN characters.

In my group we almost always have a cleric in the party, with Cayden Cailean, Iomedae, Torag, Pharasma, and Asmodeus being the most popular options.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They have nothing cool. Closest ive gotten is to choose growth and animal domains and pretend to be a Druid. Or briefly get excited over one domain power.

I keep trying to get excited about them and failing. Flavor is greater than usefulness.

If there is a way to get more domains please let me know.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


5) Some people still get a bit of a guilty/sin feeling for roleplaying the worshiping another religion. I have seen this several times. They are somtimes more open to it if the GM is willing to add modern religions into the game that they can chose and try to gain converts.

I wouldn't game with the player in your #5 example who wants to worship a modern deity. Its meant to be a fantasy game, and I would have it stay that way.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I once played a half-orc cleric of Tempus with the idea of being a war priest. I figured I would heal the party some but that wouldn't be the main focus of my character. The DM looked at me and saw hit points recharging. "The villagers come to you for healing." "Where am I during this important conversation with the king? Oh, you're healing people in town." Sure, you see a six and a half foot half-orc with heavy armor, a battle axe, and a symbol of the war god on him, and your first thought is "Man, I wonder if he can clear up this rash."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Drejk wrote:
Yup, she often ends doing that. But doing so (at least in my opinion) partly misses the point of playing prepared spellcaster in the first place.

Classes have points? I thought that was limited to the monk and magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There could be number of reasons.

The prepared vs. spontaneous issue is one. I myself have grown to prefer spontaneous casters because I don't enjoy making so many selections every single adventuring day.
A related factor is that a cleric, unlike a wizard, is often held strongly accountable by the rest of the group for his or her spell selection. I can't tell you how often I've heard players say stuff like: "You only prepared TWO restorations?! But you knew we were going into the crypt today!" or "You didn't prepare Break Enchantment? Guess it's your faults that we have to haul the petrified wizard back to town!". That's unfair, of course, but cleric spell selection tends to be heavily evaluated by the rest of the party, which can add extra pressure.

Another issue is that - in Pathfinder - cleric can seem like a "bland" class in the midst of all the cool and flavourful options most other classes get. They get domains, and that's basically it. Some domains are nice enough, but many of them are just weak or boring.
Compare with the Oracle: There's a ton of customization available within each mystery with all the revelations, and power-wise every single mystery has *some* great revelations.

And of course there's the issue of being shoehorned into a healing role, as well as the sometimes rather boring divine spell list (oracles share this to an extent, but with mysteries oracles can branch out their selection more easily).


a wizard should never beat a cleric.

clerics have silence, and dispel magic.

we have better HD, better BaB.

I love clerics, and the channel. Makes healing super easy. Why waste spells when you have channel. Selective Channel.

AND THE LUCK DOMAIN. GEZUS CHRIST! have you read that. rerolls galore, and the knowledge domain is just as awesome.

stupid arcance casters dont know what they are missing.


Like many have said, i believe it really does come down to the healbot roll. And its not just unexperienced players. There is also a very vocal contingent that cary it over as a relic from previous editions. Many groups put extensive pressure on the cleric player to drop whatever they are doing to heal even the smallest wounds. My group isnt even bad about this and I shy away out of habit. One tweak you could make in a home game, my DM offers a feat that allows channel as a move action with selective channel as a pre-req. Its certainly not game unbalancing and it really frees up the cleric to be a caster or melee combatant while still requiring a bit of strategy to maximize action economy.


Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
One tweak you could make in a home game, my DM offers a feat that allows channel as a move action with selective channel as a pre-req. Its certainly not game unbalancing and it really frees up the cleric to be a caster or melee combatant while still requiring a bit of strategy to maximize action economy.

Like Quick Channel feat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really want to play a cleric, but every time I look at the class I struggle not to fall asleep. They are so <i>boring</i>.

It doesn't help that they have the worst selection of archetypes of all classes. The only acceptable one is the crusader, but the most interesting one, flavorwise (the cloistered cleric), gets stumped by diminished spellcasting.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Yup, she often ends doing that. But doing so (at least in my opinion) partly misses the point of playing prepared spellcaster in the first place.
Classes have points? I thought that was limited to the monk and magus.

Points, channels per day? What's the difference anyway?

Sczarni

This is why you pick negative energy channeler and bath in the aoe damage. Oh it feels so nice...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Drejk wrote:
Points, channels per day? What's the difference anyway?

I keep telling people that slots are just points with a different name, but no one listens.


I don't like the idea of organized religion, fantasy or not


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Points, channels per day? What's the difference anyway?
I keep telling people that slots are just points with a different name, but no one listens.

What did you say? I can't hear you over the sound of sacrifice to my demon-god patron screaming.


Oracle gives me the spont-casting goodness while still keeping the Cleric spell list. So I stopped playing them for the same reason I don't like wizards and have always played Sorcs: Vancian casting.

Give me a spont-casting Druid equivalent and I'll probably write all three base Vancian casters out of the game (and rewrite Witch, I like the flavor of the class and the Hexes to much to drop, just need to make them a spont-caster). Paladin and Ranger I've already STRONGLY considered converting into spont-casters, their list is small and manageable enough that I don't mind them being able to spont-cast from the whole thing. Replace the lot of the rest with Psionicists, maybe, for some variety.

*waits for the wizard fan to freak out*


Since the clerics got spontaneous healing, I haven't had any objection to playing a cleric. I didn't even see any back in 2e as long as specialty clerics were an option to play. It was mainly back in 1e that I saw a significant lack of desire to play clerics. You ended up having to memorize a lot of healing magic and didn't have a lot of freedom to try anything else and your fighting (after level 2) just fell behind, despite doing a lot of it. It felt a bit lackluster.


Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
... my DM offers a feat that allows channel as a move action ...

Quick channel already exists.

ninja'd again


Orthos wrote:
*waits for the wizard fan to freak out*

Freaks out!

Kidding aside: I like Vancian magic, but the problem with the system is that it worked fine when the rules covered levels 1-5 and a handful of daily slots. Then it spiraled out of control into lots and lots of spells per day and hundreds of spells with lots of unneeded redundancy between spells.

The original Vancian Magic from Dying Earth worked on assumption that great wizards can prepare a few spells and there is about one hundred of spells still in existence around. Spells were powerful but there were less of them.

Sovereign Court

Clerics are awesome.

Sometimes other people ruin them.

I educate those folk and keep playing clerics.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Drejk wrote:
Kidding aside: I like Vancian magic, but the problem with the system is that it worked fine when the rules covered levels 1-5 and a handful of daily slots. Then it spiraled out of control into lots and lots of spells per day and hundreds of spells with lots of unneeded redundancy between spells.

So you're saying casters should have a static number of spells per day and just prepare higher level spells as they level up?

Dark Archive

ElyasRavenwood wrote:
So why are there reservations, and why do people dislike playing the cleric class? What do you think?

There is a mentality that the cleric is going to end up spending all their time healing the other PCs instead of getting to do anything cool. Also they lack a specific attack method that makes them pop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


5) Some people still get a bit of a guilty/sin feeling for roleplaying the worshiping another religion. I have seen this several times. They are somtimes more open to it if the GM is willing to add modern religions into the game that they can chose and try to gain converts.
I wouldn't game with the player in your #5 example who wants to worship a modern deity. Its meant to be a fantasy game, and I would have it stay that way.

That's pretty harsh to say someone can't play in your games just because they take their real world religion seriously.


god of drinking and revenge!


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

1) Many people do not like the expected (and most say not-needed) healbot role.

2) Many GM's really encrouch on the players free will because of the religion. "Your god wouldn't allow that." Some is ok and helps immersion. Too much is annoying and frustrating. Even if the GM doesn't do it, some players feel like they should be severly limiting themselves (I do this sometimes).

3) Some that decide to play a full caster want the full on power of a wizard or sorc. The arcane spells have a reputation (deserved or not) that on average they are more powerful.

4) For us old guys that remember the old editions. They weren't very fun back then except being very survivable. The healbot really was necesary. So you couldn't put too much effort into being any other kind of caster unless someone else was willing to be a cleric/healbot at the same time. So they bring back memories of, "Carp, I guess it's my turn to be stuck with the cleric."

Wholeheartedly agree with those first 4. (Never had #5 in my groups)

my 5) Clerics in all editions, except AD&D2, are basically copy&paste no matter what deity you have... sure in 3rd and up you have domains and feats to fluff it a bit. But the impact for wizards choosing their school is waaaay bigger then clerics choosing their god.
In AD&D2 a cleric would get spell lists (plural!) according to the portfolio of the deity (spheres). Basically each domain has 1-3 spells of each level and a cleric gets all domain spells of his deity. Thus a war-god's cleric would have a completely different spell list from an elemental-god's cleric.
I <3 spheres back in old AD&D2 days, I used to play clerics all the time back then... now? meh... carbon copies with fluff...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyoni wrote:
I <3 spheres back in old AD&D2 days, I used to play clerics all the time back then... now? meh... carbon copies with fluff...

I find allowing a Cleric to spont-cast their domain spells (all of them, no limits except your spell slot amounts) and treating the extra domain slot as just another regular spell slot to be filled or spont-cast away went a long way toward helping with this. Not quite the same, but a step that direction.

Allowing an Oracle to take a Domain and all its associated bonus spells and nifty tricks in place of a Mystery and Curse might be an interesting idea. I think I'll try that.

Silver Crusade

If your goal is to JUST be a healbot, you should play a Oracle. They are just better at healing I think.

However, if you want to be an awesome caster who can wade into battle, play a cleric.

My best cleric ever was a Half-Orc Cleric of Desna.

So my group had decided since I was a cleric of the Butterfly god, my Half-orc had a Mid-drift breastplate to show off the butterfly tramp stamp on my lower back (which the GM decided was my Holy Symbol that I channeled energy through) and I had butterfly clips in my hair.

But to contrast that, I had the following:

50 Ft move speed
Greatsword
Summoning spells
At will Freedom of Movement
Ignore difficult terrain
30-ft aura of Freedom of Movment
Teleport, Dimension door, and other great Travel Domain spells
A Lilend Azata planar ally

he was an awesome combatant. Could throw up stoneskin on himself and often had shield ally up with the archer to prevent himself from getting killed.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's definitely the heal monkey perception. Last time I played a cleric, every time one of the other characters got so much as a paper cut, they started crying "heal me! heal me!"

The other thing is that clerics are too generic. Other than domains, there isn't much to separate a cleric of a god of war from one who worships a god of love.


Elamdri wrote:
However, if you want to be an awesome caster who can wade into battle, play a cleric.

No reason an Oracle can't do this either. They get the same armor and weapon proficiencies (minus the favored weapon thing, but a lenient GM will allow even that) and the same spells, minus only the Domain tricks and replaced with the various Mystery abilities. Still just as possible =)


Clerics have been my favourite class for 30 years. But I can see why some people aren't interested in them:

(1) Out of the "original" four classes (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric), the cleric is by far the least represented in fantasy fiction.

(2) Some people aren't interested in playing spellcasters, and even if a person is interested in playing a spellcaster, wizards spells are more flashy on average than cleric spells.

(3) Some people don't like the fluff of being a flunky for a higher power.


Orthos wrote:
Kyoni wrote:
I <3 spheres back in old AD&D2 days, I used to play clerics all the time back then... now? meh... carbon copies with fluff...
I find allowing a Cleric to spont-cast their domain spells (all of them, no limits except your spell slot amounts) and treating the extra domain slot as just another regular spell slot to be filled or spont-cast away went a long way toward helping with this. Not quite the same, but a step that direction.
rules wrote:
Each domain grants a number of domain powers, dependent upon the level of the cleric, as well as a number of bonus spells. A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a cleric can prepare one of the spells from her two domains in that slot. If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in her domain spell slot. Domain spells cannot be used to cast spells spontaneously.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Kidding aside: I like Vancian magic, but the problem with the system is that it worked fine when the rules covered levels 1-5 and a handful of daily slots. Then it spiraled out of control into lots and lots of spells per day and hundreds of spells with lots of unneeded redundancy between spells.
So you're saying casters should have a static number of spells per day and just prepare higher level spells as they level up?

Should is too strong word here. More, I would like to see that.

Not fixed number of spells, but growing much slower, like, maybe 2 plus one at every even level for a total of 12 at 20th level (EDIT: with some extra spells stored within bonded item/implement/familiar and a few more slots bought with feats). Plus a small number of at-will cantrips for general utility, including some sort of weak attack, like Dragon Age energy bolt generated from staff/wand/implement.

Instead of preparing higher level spells the spells itself scale themselves with power of the caster with certain more powerful spells available after reaching required levels. Actually, the very concept of spell level could be possibly dropped - some spells would just require certain caster level to learn and use.

And ritual casting for effects with extended casting.

Yes, I know, I described something that on a passing glance looks like D&D 4th edition. However, the 4th edition implementation was terribly botched for me. The designers spawned much larger amount of redundant powers than was actually required instead of making the spells scalable with customizable effects and made them almost purely combat oriented. Wizards completely lost their magic for me, especially with using the same mechanics for spells and martial maneuvers.


Drejk wrote:
Yes, I know, I described something that on a passing glance looks like D&D 4th edition.

Actually to me it looks more like Psionics, with Cantrips added in. Higher-level caster still has a more limited variety of spells, but has more raw power to pour into them and increase their capability beyond that of a lower-level caster.


My favorite class.


Orthos wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Yes, I know, I described something that on a passing glance looks like D&D 4th edition.
Actually to me it looks more like Psionics, with Cantrips added in. Higher-level caster still has a more limited variety of spells, but has more raw power to pour into them and increase their capability beyond that of a lower-level caster.

For me psionics and preparation of powers in daily slots are thematically completely incompatibile.


Clerics (along with inquisitors), to me, are the only truly offensive aspect of the game. I don't mind religions in games--the associated drama can be fantastic--but when a game attaches mechanics to an "existing" deity it becomes a different issue. And it's not just the patron requirement: deities in most settings are untouchable by even the highest HD mortal around. "Faith" is not magical and I'm sick of seeing mundanes drawing power from it.


hogarth wrote:

Clerics have been my favourite class for 30 years. But I can see why some people aren't interested in them:

(1) Out of the "original" four classes (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric), the cleric is by far the least represented in fantasy fiction.

(2) Some people aren't interested in playing spellcasters, and even if a person is interested in playing a spellcaster, wizards spells are more flashy on average than cleric spells.

(3) Some people don't like the fluff of being a flunky for a higher power.

This.

I just can't get into that, I try sometimes but it's a big issue to me. With a Wizard, I can feel like the power is "mine". The smarter, harder working the wizard is, the better at magic he is. It speaks to the "pull yourself up by the boot-straps" metaphor we have in the US.

In contrast, clerics seem meek and servile to some nebulous being. Perhaps not surprisingly, I prefer campaign worlds where gods are either dead or absent. Having the divine interact with the physical in a half-ass way doesn't jive with me.

Not that my opinion is definitive or anything. Just my personal preferences.

Silver Crusade

Necromancer wrote:
Clerics (along with inquisitors), to me, are the only truly offensive aspect of the game. I don't mind religions in games--the associated drama can be fantastic--but when a game attaches mechanics to an "existing" deity it becomes a different issue. And it's not just the patron requirement: deities in most settings are untouchable by even the highest HD mortal around. "Faith" is not magical and I'm sick of seeing mundanes drawing power from it.

Atheism in a game where the gods can and sometimes do smite you is probably not a wise idea

;)

1 to 50 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why are people reluctant to play clerics? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.