RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question is at the end of the day when the cleric could heal and doesn't is he/she being a dick?
The answer depends very largely on what game you're actually playing.
For example, if we hop in our time machine and go play the original Final Fantasy (or more likely, the later re-release), where the cleric white mage's attack power is rather feeble but his healing ability to potent and efficient beyond any other option in the game, then for that character not to heal would be ridiculous.
Or if we're playing original D&D and our characters die instantly at 0 HP and our campaign doesn't give us access to any other feasible healing options (impractical resting, no shops selling potions, etc), then a cleric refusing to heal basically ends the campaign.
But if we're playing Pathfinder, where cure spells are intentionally designed to be mostly impotent, item-based healing is plentiful and cheap, and the cleric class is powerful in other ways, then nine times out of ten "refusing to heal" means "playing a cleric competently".
It matters which game you're playing, because "cleric" is not as universal in practice as it is in presentation. The inability to look at whether a given game works the way you think "clerics" work in general is what I was talking about before.
The issue is that many people look at a mechanics role first, and a roleplaying setup second. Clerics are the direct representative of deific powers or ideals, not just a convenient source of healing damage and buffs. They should be played that way. A cleric of Gorum should be in the front line, laying down bless spells to aid the group in combat, encouraging bloodshed, tactical thinking, and being a good war leader. A cleric of Abadar should aid in building up communities the group stays in, investing in local businesses, working to help people come up the economic ladder, and supporting the adventuring group via ranged combat, healing, and using spells that enhance the group as well-designed cities hold up each other. And so on.
The cleric's deity and the player's interpretation of that deity's wishes/dogma is what should drive the cleric in spell selection, etc. Not some silly old assumption that the cleric will heal my wounds. In my games, I have even stripped out healing magic from gods that don't heal their followers, or require sacrifices from the cleric or others desiring their wounds and conditions be mended. Worshippers of that same god get preferential treatment, of course, depending on the nature of the god.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They should be played that way.
When you find yourself saying things like this about any aspect of gaming, it's probably time to take a step back and do some introspection regarding how you look at people who are different from you.
Nope, it's not. It goes back to the one great drawback of 2.0 and editions onward with skills and powers/kits/etc to 3.x and beyond, IMO. I have seen too many people be concerned with mechanical builds and plans rather then a good roleplaying concept to bring a character to life. The rogue doesn't mechanically stand up to the bard, or the sorcerer is too inflexible compared to the wizard, and so on. People become so focused on this path to play their character they lose sight of the entire idea of roleplaying, which is not to get bogged down in rules but enjoy and react to the situations the GM of said game presents to you.
Clerics are a great example of this. A lot of players look at them and say, buff/heal bot. When obviously they are designed to be more then that, with domain spells and feats that enhance channeling, or various aspects of their deity that you can explore in a roleplaying context, but add depth to your mechanical ability to express it. That's what a good archetype or class does. Not fulfilling a standard role, when there are now 43 different classes that can provide trapfinding, arcane spellcasting, divine spellcasting, fighting, skill usage, and so on. And also not counting the hundreds of 3rd party classes out there to add more depth (many of which are often better designed then Paizo's own material.) When the advice forum for this site became the new home of the 3.5 optimization forum from WOTC's portal, that's when I knew I wouldn't provide advice on builds anymore and that things were moving back into builds, not ideas.
Honestly I think it's because even when groups don't expect you to be a healbot you are expected to mostly cast buffs. The martials are killing anything that stands next to them in a few swings, the arcane casters are either casually incapacitating their enemies, blasting them to hell or conjuring stuff (admittedly you could do some of that as a cleric, but those guys get fun stuff like bloodlines, hexes, schools and familiars while all you get is domains, and they can flip off the gods and keep their magic) oh and they're probably flying while they do this. Clerics are good, but other classes are good and flashy and don't even have to keep their gods happy.
That how clerics mechanically operate and have good mechanical play is based on the rules set you play with. However, that should not be what defines the character or how you play them in a game, IMO.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That how clerics mechanically operate and have good mechanical play is based on the rules set you play with.
That's what you got out of my post (the post right above your own)? I want to make sure we're on the same page here. So you read THIS POST and the message you heard from me was in regard to "how clerics mechanically operate and have good mechanical play is based on the rules set you play with"?
No not that previous post, 154. That was the one I first responded to. The second one to 156 was a continuation of my previous post based on my opinion and experience with rules driven play and builds. I've played a long time like I am sure many on the boards have, and that's the way I believe you should play clerics or any other character, from a roleplay aspect first rather then a mechanics driven approach. Mechanics that enhance that roleplay concept should be considered, even if they're "suboptimal", because it helps avoid cookie cutter character design, especially blaster/striker/etc roles. Otherwise you always have half-orc barbarians or elven wizards, or what not, because the players set out to be the best they can be and never look at the other available choices.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No not that previous post, 154. That was the one I first responded to. The second one to 156 was a continuation of my previous post based on my opinion and experience with rules driven play and builds. I've played a long time like I am sure many on the boards have, and that's the way I believe you should play clerics or any other character, from a roleplay aspect first rather then a mechanics driven approach. Mechanics that enhance that roleplay concept should be considered, even if they're "suboptimal", because it helps avoid cookie cutter character design, especially blaster/striker/etc roles. Otherwise you always have half-orc barbarians or elven wizards, or what not, because the players set out to be the best they can be and never look at the other available choices.
So am I to understand that you were not at any point replying to the post I linked? The post you made immediately after the one I linked wasn't actually a reply to it?
No not that previous post, 154. That was the one I first responded to. The second one to 156 was a continuation of my previous post based on my opinion and experience with rules driven play and builds. I've played a long time like I am sure many on the boards have, and that's the way I believe you should play clerics or any other character, from a roleplay aspect first rather then a mechanics driven approach. Mechanics that enhance that roleplay concept should be considered, even if they're "suboptimal", because it helps avoid cookie cutter character design, especially blaster/striker/etc roles. Otherwise you always have half-orc barbarians or elven wizards, or what not, because the players set out to be the best they can be and never look at the other available choices.So am I to understand that you were not at any point replying to the post I linked? The post you made immediately after the one I linked wasn't actually a reply to it?
No it was a reply to that and a continuation of 154 clarifying my opinion.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No it was a reply to that and a continuation of 154 clarifying my opinion.No not that previous post, 154. That was the one I first responded to. The second one to 156 was a continuation of my previous post based on my opinion and experience with rules driven play and builds. I've played a long time like I am sure many on the boards have, and that's the way I believe you should play clerics or any other character, from a roleplay aspect first rather then a mechanics driven approach. Mechanics that enhance that roleplay concept should be considered, even if they're "suboptimal", because it helps avoid cookie cutter character design, especially blaster/striker/etc roles. Otherwise you always have half-orc barbarians or elven wizards, or what not, because the players set out to be the best they can be and never look at the other available choices.So am I to understand that you were not at any point replying to the post I linked? The post you made immediately after the one I linked wasn't actually a reply to it?
Oh.
Er... So... What part(s) of your post was/were replying to the post I linked? I'm struggling to find any connection whatsoever between the post I linked and the post of yours that immediately follows it.
The response is in the first line. I suggested that it wasn't time for me to reconsider my differences with other people gaming. And then I went into a explanation clarifying my particular beliefs on character development and the focus on mechanical builds over roleplay concepts for characters, which relates back to post 154 and this particular thread. Not as an attack or a logical trick to deconstruct the path of the discussion.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The response is in the first line.
Ah, okay. So your reply was just "no". Glad I went to all the trouble to try and understand you. :/
Anyway, as to your points, I have only this to say: It's fine to speculate (as you did) that mindset X could be leading to phenomenon Y. It's fine to express (as you did) that approaching the game in a certain way has been very rewarding to you and you would recommend it to others. It is NOT okay to assert (as you did) that there's a certain way other people should be playing the game. In fact, your doing so is downright s$&!ty and a total dick move. You don't get to decide how other people should game. Discuss cause and effect all you like. Express your likes and dislikes freely. But telling other people how they should game? Seriously not cool.
People tell me all the time how to game here and other places. If people don't like my suggestion, they have no need to follow it. And I never asserted that there is only one way to people to play the game. I said that clerics should be played a certain way based on my experience, as I continued to explain in other posts.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People tell me all the time how to game here and other places.
Doesn't mean it's okay. Tell them to stop. I know I will.
And I never asserted that there is only one way to people to play the game.
You did exactly that, multiple times. You even do it in your very next sentence:
I said that clerics should be played a certain way
All these places where you say there's a certain way the game "should be played" is exactly the kind of "telling people there's one way to play" that you just said you're not doing.
Claiming "I'm not telling people there's only one way to play, I'm just saying this is the way it should be played" is self-contradictory. Telling people there's one way to play and telling people the way they should play are the same thing.
Maybe you just didn't realize that? Words mean things. Your words mean "this is the one way to play". If that's not what you wanted to communicate, use different words; words that do mean what you intend.
But what you're currently actually saying is unacceptable.
saying someone SHOULD play a certain way isn't a suggestion and does say that it's the one way to play.
I have seen too many people be concerned with mechanical builds and plans rather then a good roleplaying concept to bring a character to life.
I remember my most recent clerics: a bigoted elf archer cleric of Corellon Larithien who was too wise to openly express his contempt for lesser races except when he became frustrated at the party's inability to properly defend themselves, and a melee-based cleric of Pelor, buff and swing a mace, who loved to quote inspirational lines from his favorite book, "Travels with Pelor," which I was totally making up on the spot.
Both of them were in D&D 3.5, because I have been too busy sampling the new Pathfinder classes, including good healers such as alchemist and oracle, to find much time for familiar classes. Yet I have seen my fellow players roleplay Pathfinder clerics. Rise of the Runelords had a charismatic human cleric of Pharasma whose ultimate goal was to rally the people of Sandpoint to build a temple to Pharasma. Jade Regent had a mischievous gnome cleric of Calistria who once taunted eight skeletons into chasing him, let them surround him, and then channeled positive energy to drop them all in a single turn.
Clerics have a lot of flexibility for roleplaying.
When obviously they are designed to be more then that, with domain spells and feats that enhance channeling, or various aspects of their deity that you can explore in a roleplaying context, but add depth to your mechanical ability to express it.
This sentence seems a 180-dgree turn, saying that mechanical abilities define roleplaying. Perhaps it was supposed to say that mechanical abilities give options that support roleplaying, but I see why Jiggy asked for clarification.
Pathfinder characters are a symbiosis of mechanical abilities and roleplaying. It makes no sense to roleplay a character proud of his archery when he cannot hit the broad side of a barn. But Pathfinder gives options to specialize to match the character concept. A good cleric need never memorize an evil spell, and won't suffer mechanically because of that choice. A combat-oriented cleric might never cast Cure Light Wounds, because he wants his spells for buffing and thinks channeling is sufficient healing after combat. For some strange gods, such as Brigh or Cayden Cailean, the cleric spell list does not fit the priorities of the gods, but we can shrug and gloss over the discrepancies with other roleplaying.
A) Should does not imply following. It is a suggestion, but if you see it as demanding this way is the only proper way to play, then I apologize for creating that impression. Then I will adjust my statement to my suggestion is playing this way has led me to greater enjoyment with clerics/divine casters, and then people are happy about better wording.
B)I was explaining that roleplaying concepts should drive access to mechanical abilities, not that mechanical abilities define roleplaying. Clerics are excellent in that regard due to their very nature as servants, mouthpieces, and representations of the gods or the ideals they support. They are not just designed to be heal or buff bots, just as arcane casters are not designed to throw fireballs all day.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A) Should ... is a suggestion
/SHo͝od,SHəd/
verb
1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
Then I will adjust my statement to my suggestion is playing this way has led me to greater enjoyment with clerics/divine casters
This is a different message entirely, as it speaks only of your own experience rather than trying to enforce anything on others. Much better. :)
|
People tell me all the time how to game here and other places. If people don't like my suggestion, they have no need to follow it. And I never asserted that there is only one way to people to play the game. I said that clerics should be played a certain way based on my experience, as I continued to explain in other posts.
If that's the case, perhaps it's time that you got better experiences.
A)
should isn't a suggestion. Should = correct way, wrong if not.
"Could" is a suggestion. "Maybe" is a suggestion. "Something else you could do/try" is a suggestion.
"Should" isn't a suggestion.
B)
There's nothing wrong with getting mechanical abilities first and using that to derive roleplay.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A)
should isn't a suggestion. Should = correct way, wrong if not."Could" is a suggestion. "Maybe" is a suggestion. "Something else you could do/try" is a suggestion.
"Should" isn't a suggestion.
Jumping in on this tangent while it's going: Interpretation can and will vary. For example, in the engineering field, the convention is as follows:
- Should: A course of action that is recommended, but not mandatory. Aka Optional and subject to discretion.
Shall: A course of action that is a mandatory requirement
Of course, when talking about how to build pressure vessels that don't explode or bridges that don't collapse, stronger language is to be expected compared to when discussing a roleplay game. And I am digressing.
~~~~~~
I still maintain that, regardless of whether the player is trying to roleplay a priest of a church (if that is their groups preferred playstyle) or simply use the class mechanics to overcome obstacles (if that is their groups preferred playstyle), the aversion that many people have towards the cleric is not based off their 3.5/PF mechanics** and how they rank up to what the player wants to do with the character. The expectations of the other players, in my experience, is what creates and drives the aversion to playing clerics, because it creates an environment where some or all of the others at the table are telling a player how they should play their character (referencing 3.5 a lot here):
- "Dude, I'm under half hit points. Can you heal me please?"
- "We need you cast bless as we go into the dungeon, as +1 to hit is great for everyone."
- "We need you to cast recitation when the combat starts, as giving everyone +2 to attack, saves and AC is amazing."
- "Dude, why are you casting bull's strength on yourself? Cast it on the fighter!"
- "Hey, can you put resist energy on everyone before we head into this fire themed dungeon? We should keep the wizard's spell slots for later."
- "What did you prep searing light for? Casting prayer would actually be way more effective!"
- "I failed the Fort/Will save, can you cast remove disease/blindness/curse/etc on me?"
- "I know I charged off on my own without my armour, but if I go down this could easily be a TPK, so can you come here and heal me?"
And so on. The majority of tables I've sat at have had a number of people (sometimes the majority) invariably have "Helpful advice" about what the cleric should be spending their spell slots on at any given time. And unsurprisingly that fosters the sense that playing a cleric isn't "playing your character" so much as "doing a favor for the party", which makes it a chore.
**Addressing Jiggy's point about other systems. Not that I fully understand why that point needed to be made in a Pathfinder thread, where the question of "what game are you playing" is pretty strongly implied.
A GM here awards exp by damage inflicted, effectively crippling several classes. Not playing in that game, but always handy with a monkey wrench, I remembered this being a thing 'back in the day, but Clerics got exp for healing! More for higher levels, etc.
It was a BAD thing.
A)
should isn't a suggestion. Should = correct way, wrong if not."Could" is a suggestion. "Maybe" is a suggestion. "Something else you could do/try" is a suggestion.
"Should" isn't a suggestion.
Jumping in on this tangent while it's going: Interpretation can and will vary. For example, in the engineering field, the convention is as follows:
Should: A course of action that is recommended, but not mandatory. Aka Optional and subject to discretion.
Shall: A course of action that is a mandatory requirementOf course, when talking about how to build pressure vessels that don't explode or bridges that don't collapse, stronger language is to be expected compared to when discussing a roleplay game. And I am digressing.
~~~~~~
I still maintain that, regardless of whether the player is trying to roleplay a priest of a church (if that is their groups preferred playstyle) or simply use the class mechanics to overcome obstacles (if that is their groups preferred playstyle), the aversion that many people have towards the cleric is not based off their 3.5/PF mechanics** and how they rank up to what the player wants to do with the character. The expectations of the other players, in my experience, is what creates and drives the aversion to playing clerics, because it creates an environment where some or all of the others at the table are telling a player how they should play their character (referencing 3.5 a lot here):
...
- "Dude, I'm under half hit points. Can you heal me please?"
- "We need you cast bless as we go into the dungeon, as +1 to hit is great for everyone."
- "We need you to cast recitation when the combat starts, as giving everyone +2 to attack, saves and AC is amazing."
- "Dude, why are you casting bull's strength on yourself? Cast it on the fighter!"
- "Hey, can you put resist energy on everyone before we head into this fire themed dungeon? We should keep the wizard's spell
I would have to agree with this summary, in general. It isn't as much about "healbot" as it is being asked to be a nursemaid.
In one of the worst cases of it, I had a player try cussing me out once because I wouldn't heal them. Well, they were also cussing out my PC's deity...but the basic "you're here to support me" mindset was there.
I myself have a problem playing a character because in all the various ways to play a cleric, there's one basic underlying theme- they are all religious. Usually very. I'm not going to lie, I'm atheist, and while I've got nothing against playing characters that happen to be religious (after all, I play characters, not myself), I find playing characters that revolve around religion to be a tad bit... dreary. I mean, even in the best case scenario- a cleric of, say, Cayden Cailean who is crazy chill and has a crazy chill god, that character is still an instrument of a god's will and that just makes the character a bit less of an... individual, I guess?
I mean, there's definitely ways to spin it around. The reluctant cleric, The evil cleric, The delusional cleric who thinks he's casting arcane magic,(though that sort of thing REALLY feels like cheating). But ultimately I just can't get as excited about cleric characters as other characters because they are servants of gods.
It may seem petty, but it's true and it's a reason I shy away from clerics. And if it's true for me, IDK, it might be true for some others. And it hasn't been brought up yet.
They aren't servants. They just get their power from them. Your interaction can be as limited as the hour getting your spells from them, and then not doing something to grossly offend them. They're cool with you doing things they don't approve of, as long as it's not all the time, nor serious offence to them.
Plus if non-PFS you can always go with the Ideals route
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
**Addressing Jiggy's point about other systems. Not that I fully understand why that point needed to be made in a Pathfinder thread, where the question of "what game are you playing" is pretty strongly implied.
It's a relevant point to make because—in Pathfinder—the roles capable of being filled (at least, with any kind of efficacy) by a cleric are pretty different from the general trope produced and reinforced by other games that include fantasy classes or related themes. That is, I believe a large portion of the "nobody wants to play a cleric"/"is the cleric who doesn't heal me being a dick?" issue is grounded in the carrying of assumptions about what a "cleric" is from other parts of fantasy gaming into a system (Pathfinder) where those assumptions don't match reality. For some folks, the notion of a given class having vastly different strengths/weaknesses/roles depending on which specific game you're playing is difficult to absorb even when shown the facts, so raising the inter-system distinction as a part of the discussion is very relevant to Pathfinder's clerical dilemma.
I go into a bit more detail about this here.
They aren't servants. They just get their power from them. Your interaction can be as limited as the hour getting your spells from them, and then not doing something to grossly offend them. They're cool with you doing things they don't approve of, as long as it's not all the time, nor serious offence to them.
Plus if non-PFS you can always go with the Ideals route
On the pathfinder SRD, at least, the description implies otherwise
"In faith and the miracles of the divine, many find a greater purpose. Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people. Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods. Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith."
Then it goes on to mention that different clerics act differently, but THAT is the core similarity- they preach, they work the will of their diety, and they are devoted to the religion.
That's what I mean by servant of the gods.
Now, I don't have my copy of the core book with me, maybe the original description wasn't quite as suggestive, but the flavor of the class strongly implies they are servants of the gods, and to play them otherwise feels like you are twisting the class a bit, at least to me.
Have you read the descriptions for the other classes? At best those are just describing a stereotype of the class. As worse they are describing what the class name means but that can't be supported by the classes mechanics. I don't look at those descriptions at all when thinking how my character will play out.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But are they really clerics? You mentioned the final fantasy white mage, but it's no more reasonable to carry white mage expectations over to a cleric than to knight expectations over to a fighter. No one expects chivalry, romance, or cavalry charges from a fighter.
I know it's not reasonable; that's the point. There are some general themes across fantasy gaming as a whole, but each game is different. What I'm saying is that I think the source of the "Hey cleric, heal me!" phenomenon is when people fail to recognize that difference.
The misconceptions can't be coming from MMOs.
And I never suggested they were. So why are you bringing that up?
They are describing the intention of the class, though. I'm not saying it's mechanically impossible to play a... remarkably less devoted cleric, I'm just saying it goes against the intended flavor of the class.
Plus, Clerics have the strictest RP requirements next to Paladins. So that flavor text is a bit more important than it is with most classes. If other classes play the class different than intended, then no biggie. If the Cleric plays his class differently, then depending on GM fiat and how strictly he interprets "code of conduct", he could lose his powers. Now, I'd hope most GMs would be reasonable about that but it makes me a bit more hesitant to stray from the "average" than with most classes.
I want to be clear- I know it's possible to play a different sort of cleric, I just feel a bit like I'm cheating when I do so. And if the GM doesn't agree with me, my character could be neutered.
PS: I'm not ignoring your comment about Ideals, I actually agree with you there, it's always an option if the GM is cool with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off it is my firm opinion that you should never let a player control more than one character. Even animal companions, familiars, eidolons, mounts, and cohorts should only be controlled by the GM.
Secondly, I find the need for "missing" character types are usually worked out by the players in some fashion sooner or later. I've had parties that were missing martial, healer, arcane, and roguish types. Yes, the party suffered more than they should for a while, but they eventually worked it out.
- The wizard in a party without a rogue started putting ranks in Disable Device.
- The druid's shapeshifting and animal companion became the "tanks" of a party of nothing but full casters and rogues.
- The monk put ranks in Heal and bought a bunch of healing potions in a party missing a cleric.
- The rogue beefed up Use Magic Device and became a de facto wizard/cleric in a party missing casters.
Don't change anything. Continue with the campaign exactly as if the cleric was still there, but have that character leave. Let the remaining party members figure out a solution.
I still champion killing your player's characters until they figure out that they actually need a healer of some description. A party does not need a dedicated healer, and there are plenty of classes that can partially cover the role: If you have a paladin and an alchemist, for instance, then you're set).
You could also just give each of them a pearly white spindle ioun stone: it allows them to heal 1 hit point per 10 minutes, hence making it useless in combat but able to regenerate 144 hp per day (or 48 after an 8-hour rest).
There is also Life Link (Su) which can be absurdly useful, and Gnomish Oracles of Lunar with the Spirit Guide [Life] Archetype are pretty much the apex of the class as far as being a healer that can do cool stuff goes: you can choose a Tiger as your animal companion, then just buff the crap out of it. Life Link does not have a save associated with it, so you don't even have to worry about having low wisdom. You can even dump Dex since lunar lets you use Cha in place of Dex.
If you really want to have fun with this, max out your ride and negate as many attacks against your tiger as possible to force enemies to attack you instead of the pet that is both crowd control and damage. One on One, you will be death since the Tiger will grapple everything. Whenever the tiger takes damage, you'll heal it each round with your absurdly high HP. When your allies take damage, you'll heal them much the same.
The primary reason people don't want to play healers is because they feel that is the only thing they do. You want to try to find builds that make you optimal at doing what you do while also letting you do things you are not a god at. The tiger is not only faster than you (if you play a gnome), but it is also far more dangerous than you are as well.
The animal companion will become less relevant as time goes on, but by then your party will have filled in a lot of things to make their collective reliance on you less pronounced. Furthermore, your animal companion will transition from combat focused to being a mount that keeps you from getting swarmed. IF you get your hands on a ring of invisibility, you can basically sit in the back and invisibly keep your party healthy while playing the Tiger as your effective character. If you establish a mind link with it, you can do this plausibly. If you equip it with gear that lets you hear and see out of its eyes, you can even direct it as your character probably would. Granted, you'll want a stupidly high Handle Animal skill.
One big issue I think, is that some kind of healer really is indispensable to a group, and not even for healing hps. There are many different ways to regain hit points, but a healer is needed for restoration, remove curse, neutralize poison, remove disease, etc., so somebody needs to play that role.
However, unlike every other role in the group, all the healing options look pretty much the same. Cleric, Oracle, Shaman, all fairly similar classes. So if you don't like one of them, chances are you're not going to want to play the others either. Whereas if a player needs to be a skill monkey, there are plenty of options: Rogue, Ninja, Hunter, Ranger, Bard, Slayer, etc. If a player needs to be a melee buiser, again there are plenty of options. Not so with healers.
One thing 4E did very well was create different classes with different feels for the same role. My fave class was the Warlord, which is a healer. I typically despise playing the healer in a group but I LOVED playing a Warlord. Why? Because it felt different. Paizo needs to create a healer that plays differently than the Cleric or Oracle.
That said, I'm not a fan of forcing anyone to play a specific role, just pay an NPC to do it and have the GM play the NPC if nobody wants to be a cleric.
I love the way pathfinder does clerics. I kind of get why people didn't used to want to play clerics, but now there are a ton of options and no one cleric needs to look like any other.
In PFS now I've got 4 active characters. 1 of them is a cleric (separatist cleric of Lamashtu), and of the other 3, two of them are divine casters (an oracle and a divine verminous hunter). There's so much variety available.
I also have a number of cleric (or multiclass cleric) concepts I'd love to try out:
lava gnome theologian variant channel (rulership) cleric of Ra
urgathoan "opera singer" cleric with variant channel + shatter resolve
cleric of Erastil (multiple versions: Growth + Feather domains for standard reach tactics, or evangelist prestige class, or multiclass with Barbarian and use variant channel for rage cycling)
cleric/monk of Shizuru with katana flurry and repose domain strike
Summoning cleric of Ghlaunder with Animal and Destruction domains for Cyclops plus aura of destructionSo I'm not really sure why so many people still have a bad opinion of such a versatile, interesting class.
Clerics don't really have a lot of options though aside from spells. Now I don't want to undersell spells, because they are an amazing source of options, but ignoring their spells, Cleric are depressing in regards to options. You get to choose 2 domains, that might give you all of 4 abilities, and of which only a small number of are actually useful.
Your only other ability is Channel, which is even *more* depressing, unless you are using a few very specific variant channels. The most depressing thing about Channel is that it begs for you to invest feats in it if you want to use it as anything more a quicker, but less efficient wand of cure light wounds. And it scales at a glacial pace that doesn't keep up with damage.
You only get 2 Skill points per level, so you are lacking interesting options there as well. And of course you lack a capstone. Which sure, most people do...
The problem with ignoring the spells of a cleric is that it's much like ignoring the spells of a wizard. Spells are the synergistic engine of the class. Outside of the stereotypical healing/condition removal uses, they can redefine the battlefield with summons, and be a major boost in your melee capabilities. Clerics used to dominate all over fighters in 3.X and earlier for this reason.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The misconceptions can't be coming from MMOs.And I never suggested they were. So why are you bringing that up?
Because you brought them up.
Yes, they have. Heck, they are, right now, in some current games. Maybe not in the handful you've played, but the fantasy gaming genre is HUGE, and has been for a while.
I'm really curious to hear what it is you think the post you're referencing says.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One big issue I think, is that some kind of healer really is indispensable to a group, and not even for healing hps. There are many different ways to regain hit points, but a healer is needed for restoration, remove curse, neutralize poison, remove disease, etc., so somebody needs to play that role.
I think the only reason for that is the addition of the CL check to overcome the affliction. Potions/scrolls of lesser/restoration still work, but for disease and poison you still want someone with a high caster level. For the most part, paladins can handle that. 6th level mercy can remove disease, 9th can take care of curses or poison.