Oh cleric what are thou? When most classes can heal...

Henry · May 16, 2018

TheSword said:
I always thought the phrase came from [Cleric Or Druid]-zilla.

[MENTION=6879661]TheSword[/MENTION] is correct about the CoD thing.

Second, I think the Cleric still has a role as primary buffer/debuffer, as spells like bless, aid, lesser restoration, remove curse, etc. can attest. The Druid shares some of this, but the druid’s Focus is split in an average party between buffing/debuffing and something else (area control, front line for Moon Druid, etc.)

But in truth, no class in 5e is niche exclusive - even wizards are partially usurped by druids and sorcerers, rogues by bards and to a lesser extent warlocks, etc. so if cleric shares some of its niche, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. I still see plenty of people clamoring to be clerics in 5e, so a good balance is still being struck IMO.

Connorsrpg · May 16, 2018

Everyone can fight, but we still have fighters.
Everyone can interact with NPCs, but we still have bards.
Everyone can trek through the wilderness, but we still have rangers.
etc.
I would not focus too much on roles. ALL classes do something a little better or different. TBH, we have had many clerics on our groups that were NOT good healers too. (We always choose restricted spell lists that model the cleric's deity). I agree with others - clerics are no longer required in the party, but they still make the best healers (if that is what you want - otherwise they can fulfill MANY roles in a party, and that is great. I hated the pigeon-holed idea of roles anyway, especially when a fighter flat out stated is not there to do the most damage. Anyway... another time). I like the cleric, and I like other subclasses offering some healing too.

Tony Vargas · May 16, 2018

Yaarel said:
I appreciate the ‘secularization’ of D&D healing. More options are available for healer archetypes. It is healthier for the game.

Not that healer archetypes are really a thing - every character than can heal in D&D can do more than just heal - but 'more' relative to what? In 5e, the Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, & Ranger can all heal, in about that descending order of effectiveness. In 3.5, the Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Bard, & Ranger could all heal, in about that order. The Bard's a significantly better healer in 5e, that's about it. In 5e you get enough HD to approximately recharge your hps, if you rest an hour. In 3e, you could get a trivially cheap WoCLW and recharge 275 hps in 5 minutes. That's about the same, really (HD aren't up to the crazy of Wands, but wands were arguably unintended, and not everyone could use then, though everyone could benefit as long as one willing ally could). In 4e, the Cleric, Paladin, Warlord, Bard, Shaman, Artificer, Ardent, Rune Priest, & Druid (Sentinel) could all heal, and you got enough surges to heal yourself completely a minimum of 1.5 times, quite possibly 3+ for a tough defender type, with a 5 min rest, or you could spend a surge to 'Second Wind' for 1/4 your hps in combat.

Heck, even in 1e, the Cleric, Paladin, Druid, Bard & Ranger could all heal - that's the same classes, the Bard & Ranger just didn't get any healing until quite high level, and the Druid, critically, didn't have CLW at 1st level. You couldn't use your 1e HD to heal, though, I suppose you might find a ring of regeneration some day....

Ancalagon said:
Remember, many of us haven't played 4e,

All the more reason to keep the record straight on the game's direction.

Ancalagon · May 16, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
All the more reason to keep the record straight on the game's direction.

I'll reiterate what I said: it is as if 4e didn't exist

Tony Vargas · May 16, 2018

Ancalagon said:
I'll reiterate what I said: it is as if 4e didn't exist

You already got one laugh from me.

Sacrosanct · May 16, 2018

I admit I have a hard time wrapping my head around people who say they want to play a cleric with no ties to the religious part. I mean, it's in the title. The word "cleric" has a clear definition: a priest or religious leader. That's sort of the core feature of the class, like magic users using spell books. If you want to play a class that has similar abilities but not the religious part, I get that, but it should be a different class altogether. Kind of like the sorcerer is to the wizard.

Saying you want to play a cleric without the religious part is like saying you want to play a Colonel without dealing with any military stuff. It's counter to what the word literally means.

Tales and Chronicles · May 16, 2018

Sacrosanct said:
I admit I have a hard time wrapping my head around people who say they want to play a cleric with no ties to the religious part. I mean, it's in the title. The word "cleric" has a clear definition: a priest or religious leader. That's sort of the core feature of the class, like magic users using spell books. If you want to play a class that has similar abilities but not the religious part, I get that, but it should be a different class altogether. Kind of like the sorcerer is to the wizard.

Saying you want to play a cleric without the religious part is like saying you want to play a Colonel without dealing with any military stuff. It's counter to what the word literally means.

Yup. To me the power of belief, of faith into a concept, of a inner secret sits deeply into the ''psionic'' department; a ''cleric'' of a philosophical mystery that grant power is called an Ardent. But if Paladins can fuel divine-like powers with self-conviction, I guess the same can be done with a cleric.

cbwjm · May 16, 2018

Sometimes I like to treat clerics as individual representations of the domain. Rather than worshipping Zeus, the tempest cleric is the embodiment of the tempest domain. Rather than worshipping Ares, the cleric is an aspect of War bringing strife to the world.

The Crimson Binome · May 16, 2018

Ancalagon said:
So where does this leave the cleric? Does he still have a role, an identity? Role Playing wise, absolutely (worshiper of a deity is a pretty strong "identity") but "rule-wise", "party role wise" - what does the cleric do?

The cleric in 5E (or 4E) is a lot like the bard in 3E, in that it amplifies what everyone can already do for themselves. The fighter doesn't need healing from the cleric, but it helps. The fighter doesn't need +2 to hit or saves, but it helps.

But the same is true of the bard, transmutation wizard, and every other healer. Magical healing, as a whole, is strictly unnecessary in this edition. The existence of Hit Dice (or Healing Surges) is far more significant than the wide availability of healing magic.

Draegn · May 16, 2018

Ancalagon said:
...

So where does this leave the cleric? Does he still have a role, an identity? Role Playing wise, absolutely (worshiper of a deity is a pretty strong "identity") but "rule-wise", "party role wise" - what does the cleric do? ...

For my game I have limited what arcane healing can do. Arcane casters use a "slot", they roll for a random amount of healing, a lessening of conditions due to disease, poison, toxins, etc... Under no circumstance can they bring back the dead, reattach limbs, or perform other "miracles". Arcane healers can only use one spell per wound or condition.

Divine casters use "points", they do not roll for random healing and can perform miraculous things through prayer. Prayer points have to be earned. Pray to the appropriate deity in an acceptable way. Make proper offerings. Behave accordingly.

If Fighter Harry was wounded three times for 10, 20 and 30, the arcane caster would cast three spells and may or may not heal all of the damage. The divine caster would use three points and all the damage would be healed.