I was helping you on the rogue thread, and just saw this.
I think the idea is that clerics aren't forced to be healers.
You can make fantastic healer/buffer-clerics, what with channel energy and the Healing domain and being able to spontaneously cast Cure spells (if you're good or chose the option if neutral, of course).
A cleric that focuses on buff spells to help their allies and has the Healing domain can make for a great character that is also useful in combat, especially if you grab an archetype like Evangelist or Herald Caller with Sacred Summons.
But having "cleric" on your character sheet doesn't automatically add the healer role to your character.
That depends on what you mean by "healing." Restoring hit-points between fights is best handled by a wand and can thus be done by almost anyone. For removing statuses, like blinded, poisoned, ability damage, etc; you need access to the cleric spell list.
If you mean in-combat healing, this is tricky. Healing spells generally don't heal very much. At level 1, you are healing for 1d8+1, so 5 health. A bandit with a greatclub is hitting for 1d10+3 at the least. So you are not actually helping very much. Instead of using your action to heal, you could have attacked that bandit and maybe killed him instead, preventing his damage.
If you want to heal in combat, you need to overcome the action economy problems. Check out the oradin guide for a build that does this quite well.
If you're looking to make a dedicated healer (where healing is what you do in combat) then Cleric is a poor choice. You want a Life Oracle.
Well, first, could you link the page again?
It doesn't work when I paste it into Google.
A cleric who is ONLY healing will have nothing to do in many rounds of many fights, and will contribute significantly less than a cleric who is capable of healing AND other things.
The domain powers of the healing domain are pretty good for a character that wants to have a significant healing role, and the subdomain powers are even better, but the main problem in my opinion is the domain spells. 5 out of 9 are ones that the cleric can cast spontaneously by converting any of her regular spells. That makes them a waste -- why would you ever prepare a cure spell if you're a cleric who can spontaneously cast cure spells? The only reason that, for instance, Kyra the pregen has cure spells in her prepared slots is that she's designed for use by newbies who may not know that a cleric can spontaneously cast cure spells. As noted by Dukai, the subdomains improve this a bit by having other spells than the cures as domain spells. Even so, you'll probably be prepping your other domain's spells in those slots instead, particularly if you choose one of the good ones where you get spells that aren't on the cleric spell list.
|
If you're looking to make a dedicated healer (where healing is what you do in combat) then Cleric is a poor choice. You want a Life Oracle.Doesn't have to be a dedicated in-combat healer.
Mostly just toying with the idea of cleric now.
If you're not gonna be primarily an in-combat healer, the Healing domain is probably not necessary. :)
Other Domains offer better things, generally speaking.
The page in question mentions you're not a healer, and marks the domain in orange to indicate it is not a preferable domain.
But you believe it can be OK to use?
Yes. If you play at a table with rather new players and a friendly GM, you don't have to care about 'wrong' domains. Pick any you like and have fun with it. Guides can lead to more fun (if they allow you to achieve something great), but also to less fun (if they talk you out of options you actually like).
As others said already: Just healing becomes dull on the long run. Adding buffs for your mates, debuffs for your enemies and some other stuff will make your character more fun to play.
A cleric who is ONLY healing will have nothing to do in many rounds of many fights, and will contribute significantly less than a cleric who is capable of healing AND other things.
The domain powers of the healing domain are pretty good for a character that wants to have a significant healing role, and the subdomain powers are even better, but the main problem in my opinion is the domain spells. 5 out of 9 are ones that the cleric can cast spontaneously by converting any of her regular spells. That makes them a waste -- why would you ever prepare a cure spell if you're a cleric who can spontaneously cast cure spells? The only reason that, for instance, Kyra the pregen has cure spells in her prepared slots is that she's designed for use by newbies who may not know that a cleric can spontaneously cast cure spells.
Because your other domain spell isn't good at all (or you don't like it), and you can't convert domain spells to Cures?
Or you like all the spells you've prepared normally, and don't like the stress of making the decision on which spell to burn this time?Or you're an Evangelist, or any other archetype with one domain, that only has the Healing domain?
Plenty of reasons to prepare one of the Healing spells in your domain spell.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of a cleric never healing in combat, but at the same time you need to be able to do something in combat when no one needs healing.
Taking the Healing domain (and even preparing a few of its domain spells) is perfectly fine and viable, as long as you balance it with other ways of being useful in combat (summon monster, bless, divine favor and a reach weapon, blessing of fervor, lots of options here).
|
|
Also, we never really took this into consideration when we played as teens, but if I'm in melee and try to cast a spell with a somatic component I'll need to drop my weapon and shield (probably a free action), and next round have to spend a move action picking them up (which likely should incur attacks of opportunity if an enemy faces me).
Actually, no. You only need one hand and a Light Shield explicitly leaves the hand free for spell-casting. A buckler does the same.
A Heavy shield would have the problems you suggest, so don't use one.
Also, we never really took this into consideration when we played as teens, but if I'm in melee and try to cast a spell with a somatic component I'll need to drop my weapon and shield (probably a free action), and next round have to spend a move action picking them up (which likely should incur attacks of opportunity if an enemy faces me).Actually, no. You only need one hand and a Light Shield explicitly leaves the hand free for spell-casting. A buckler does the same.
A Heavy shield would have the problems you suggest, so don't use one.
I'd still have to drop my weapon anyway would I not? Is there any further disadvantage for dropping a weapon and shield, instead of just weapon?
Edit:
I see, I can cast spells with just one hand free. So I'll just carry a shield till I need to cast, drop it, and not pick it up again. That way I'll have +2ac until I first cast my first spell in each battle.
Or use a light shield and never drop it.
If your GM does not believe that a light shield/buckler leaves the hand open for casting (which is 100% a real rule that really exists), then you can alternatively use a 2-handed weapon, using a free action to take off-hand off the weapon so you can cast while holding the object in one hand, then use another free action to grip it properly again (changing the status from "held" to "wielded" and all that entails).
|
Or use a light shield and never drop it.Also, we never really took this into consideration when we played as teens, but if I'm in melee and try to cast a spell with a somatic component I'll need to drop my weapon and shield (probably a free action), and next round have to spend a move action picking them up (which likely should incur attacks of opportunity if an enemy faces me).Actually, no. You only need one hand and a Light Shield explicitly leaves the hand free for spell-casting. A buckler does the same.
A Heavy shield would have the problems you suggest, so don't use one.
I'd still have to drop my weapon anyway would I not? Is there any further disadvantage for dropping a weapon and shield, instead of just weapon?
Edit:
I see, I can cast spells with just one hand free. So I'll just carry a shield till I need to cast, drop it, and not pick it up again. That way I'll have +2ac until I first cast my first spell in each battle.
Another option is to get a weapon cord so that you can retrieve a dropped weapon as a move action. That's what my bard does. It all depends upon how much in-combat casting you think you'll do.
Not actually necessary with a light shield or buckler: they leave your hand free.I see a martial weapon named "shield, light", do you instead me the "Shield, light wooden" or "Shield, light steel"?
What do these look like? How tall are they? I'm all about aesthetics. Things have to look a certain way (I'm extremely picky).
They can look however you want.
If your GM does not believe that a light shield/buckler leaves the hand open for casting (which is 100% a real rule that really exists), then you can alternatively use a 2-handed weapon, using a free action to take off-hand off the weapon so you can cast while holding the object in one hand, then use another free action to grip it properly again (changing the status from "held" to "wielded" and all that entails).
[citation needed]
That's like saying Shields aren't weapons, even though they're clearly mentioned and listed in the Weapons table, and don't have the Non-Lethal or Improvised qualities on them, unlike other weapons that otherwise do, and can be enhanced and attack just like any other weapon.
It even says in the Light Shield description:
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
You can switch your Mace into your Shield Hand, cast your spell, and then switch your Mace back into your open hand. Crisis averted.
It's been mentioned multiple times by Developers and other official Paizo members. Saying that the GM doesn't rule it that way is fine. Saying that it's the standard rule in the book is absolutely, without a doubt, false and misleading.
First of all, thanks for the link to the guide even though I've seen it before -- looks like it has actually been updated significantly at least after the Advanced Class Guide came out (meaning that the existing Cleric guides aren't all hopelessly out of date).
Second, what the guides usually mean (but sometimes forget to make clear) is not that you never want to heal in combat, but that you don't want to spend any more of your actions on it than you have to. If somebody is bleeding out or about to go down, by all means heal them; otherwise, instead do something to try to neutralize whatever threat your party is up against.
Also, you don't have to drop your weapon and your shield to cast -- as long as you have one hand free, you can cast. Depending upon your particular weapon and shield, you might not have to drop either of them, because if you can hold them in a way that doesn't actually wield them (like hold your weapon in your shield hand if it isn't one of those shields that totally encumbers your shield hand, or hold a two-handed weapon or ranged weapon in one hand), you can cast with your other hand, and it is a free action to switch your weapon between modes. In a minority of cases you might need to drop one thing to free a hand, so it is best to avoid those . . . Unless you can get yourself a prehensile tail or at least one extra arm.
Edit: Super-Ninja'd.
Cleric is a great class. It works well with most character concepts (except Rogue). They can be fearsome melee combatants, devastating casters, or superior buffers.
The whole healing in combat things is just looking at combat effectiveness. Usually PCs take damage faster than they can be healed so it makes more sense to kill or disable the enemy before they can do damage to you. That doesn't mean you don't toss a heal if someone is about to die and you just need to buy the party a bit more time to finish the monster off, but usually you have more optimal options than casting Cure spells until after combat is over.
Not actually necessary with a light shield or buckler: they leave your hand free.I see a martial weapon named "shield, light", do you instead me the "Shield, light wooden" or "Shield, light steel"?
What do these look like? How tall are they? I'm all about aesthetics. Things have to look a certain way (I'm extremely picky).
These shields, at a glance, are going to be bland and generic. Wood would probably be made out of generic trees found around the area, be it pine, birch, apple, etc. Steel would be made out of a dull, gray metal.
Of course, you can have these items specially commissioned with dyes, bossing, etc. to make them shine and match your outfit. I understand that there is the "roleplay" aspect to consider, but this stuff was generally left blank so as to leave its appearance up to the imagination of the wielder.
Also consider that not all shields will look the same. Certainly, a shield worn by a City Guard won't look the same as a shield worn by a typical Highwayman. Nor may it function the same (Heavy Steel Shield of the City Guard V.S. Light Wooden Shield of the typical Highwayman).
The melee weapon? I'm not sure I follow.You would never need to drop either. A light shield is strapped to your elbow, but it leaves your hand itself free for somatic components.Where would I find this rule?
Any idea what a light shield looks like visually? Exactly how small is a light shield?
Page 151 of the Core Rulebook has the Light Shield entry. I also quoted it above. Here it is again for convenience:
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
Page 152 of the Core Rulebook has a visual example of a Steel Shield, a Buckler, and a Tower Shield (all not to scale, of course). These will vary, as they are just general examples, but it does help paint a picture.
Page 151 of the Core Rulebook has the Light Shield entry. I also quoted it above. Here it is again for convenience:
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.Page 152 of the Core Rulebook has a visual example of a Steel Shield, a Buckler, and a Tower Shield (all not to scale, of course). These will vary, as they are just general examples, but it does help paint a picture.Someone mentioned being able to carry and light shield in one hand, a weapon in the other, and still cast. What rule supports this?
If instead I shift my weapon to my light shield hand, would that use up a movement action? It doesn't seem that much easier than drawing a weapon which does take a move action.
It's a free action to switch your grip on a weapon.
The developers on this forum have also said the same can be done with a one-handed weapon and a light shield.
It is stated here that you can carry things while still using a shield. It is clarified here (second question for Paladin/Cleric) that this indeed means you can use your shield hand for a somatic component of a spell.Is d20pfsrd.com an official Pathfinder website?
No. Pathfinder, published by Paizo, is released under what's called Open Gaming Licence. That means, among other things, that everyone is free to reproduce and make public all the rules (but not the setting) of the game.
d20pfsrd is the best rules resource out there, in many ways better than Paizos alternative.
It is, and I stress this, the official rules. The FAQ I linked mentioned a source - James Jacobs, the Creative Director for Pathfinder. It's not some nobody in a shed making things up.
However, my obsession with aesthetics is so extreme that I'll almost certainly use a heavy shield, because I prefer the look, and incur the inconvenience of having to drop the shield or weapon in order to cast.
Most other players would use the light shield for the more favorable game mechanics.
Most of the shields you could imagine could be considered "light" shields. But if you really want to use a heavy shield then take the Quick Draw feat - you can sheathe your weapon as a move action, cast a spell as a standard action, and then draw your weapon again as a free action. Hopefully you can take a step back before sheathing so you don't get attacked for it.
So d20pfsrd.com rulings are considered official when playing in Pathfinder sanctioned tournaments (if there are any) and Pathfinder Society games?
Those things posted on PFSRD are official rulings, they're just re-posted on the PFSRD website.
Cleric is a great class. It works well with most character concepts (except Rogue). They can be fearsome melee combatants, devastating casters, or superior buffers.
The whole healing in combat things is just looking at combat effectiveness. Usually PCs take damage faster than they can be healed so it makes more sense to kill or disable the enemy before they can do damage to you. That doesn't mean you don't toss a heal if someone is about to die and you just need to buy the party a bit more time to finish the monster off, but usually you have more optimal options than casting Cure spells until after combat is over.
In the least amount of words this is the most accurate way to put it.
The reason I did not nor still don't consider clerics good healers is because you do it so easily anyway it's not worth getting into big investment over it.
Functionally speaking with the stats you provided the difference between a cleric with the Good Domain and the Cleric with the Healing domain is that the healing cleric would have slightly better cure spells whereas the good cleric would have some interesting offensive spells, a solid single target non-spell buff, and a means to buff their weapon for some extra damage on a build not traditionally known for high strength anyway.
You'd have the same amoutn of spells, channle,s and everything else but the Good domain grants extra utility and stronger support options.
As for Sword+shield, if aesthetics are an issue you can always grab a longspear and simply let go with one hand to cast a spell.