D&D 5E Playing non-healer clerics

[Bill Zebub]

It's your privilege. Don't expect me to be impressed.

You seem to be missing the point that I AM SPECIAL. My refusal to act like a normal, well-adjusted human being is a sign of just how creative and unique I am, and how immersed I am in my character cliché I mean concept.

 

[aco175]

You seem to be missing the point that I AM SPECIAL. My refusal to act like a normal, well-adjusted human being is a sign of just how creative and unique I am, and how immersed I am in my character cliché I mean concept.

Goes back to my example of letting the player have fun and bring anything they want vs the PC showing up in a bar trying to be hired by the leader of the party and him having a checklist of what he needs to make the party.

 

[Clint_L]

A cleric who refuses to cast Cure Wounds on principle is like a wizard who refuses to cast Fireball on principle.

It's your privilege. Don't expect me to be impressed.

Except fireball is actually a really good spell. I didn't even take cure wounds with my last cleric. Healing word FTW!

 

[ECMO3]

I hate to say "um, actually" but...you actually can do that using Tasha's. Paladin can choose to get a cantrip (or two?) as a fighting style option. And there are a few (not many, but a few) Paladin spells that do thunder and/or lightning effects.

You can't keep up wuth a Cleric.

First off you can't get the cantrips you would want through blessed Warrior (or through most cleric subclasses for that matter).

The cantrips you want are booming blade, Green Flame Blade or shocking grasp, nothing in Blessed Warrior can give you this kick. Yos start as a high Elf for the free cantrip or a V. Human to take Magic initiate. In either case though you are WAY behind a cleric built for this because you do not get Divine Strike/Blessed Strikes/Portent Spell Casting, you have fewer channel divinity options, your CD options do not augment this play style as well and your subclass abilities do not augment these cantrips like a Warrior Cleric does. Additionally you have far fewer spell slots and you are going to have to use those for smites to come anywhere close to keeping up with a cleric.

Build a Paladin that is going to use cantrips in melee (no attack actions) and the Cleric I build will destroy that Paladin 10 ways to Sunday.

Even when it is not as good? Because that's my whole point here. You are settling for what you can get. An actual class, legitimately designed to do the thing you want, would be a better fit...by definition. Because it would literally be designed to do what you are wanting to do! That's very specifically what the Swordmage class was for.

The classes I use ARE designed for this. That is what you are not getting.

The Swordmage as presented in previous editions is not designed to be a tank, does not make for a good tank and if it was uplifted to 5E in a similar fashion it would not suit my needs.. The Wizard in 5E IS designed to be a tank and makes one of the best tanks in the game!

Sure you could design a Swordmage in 5E that does everything the Bladesinger does and then Swordmage would be designed to be a tank too, but that would be a departure from the stereotype of a Swordmage in the same fashion that the 5E Wizard is a departure from the stereotype of the Wizard.

No, it isn't. It has a subclass that can fake it a few times a day. Very big difference.

No it is not. When you get to tier 2 you can be dominant to include out of bladesong. You need to select spells specifically for this, but if you do you are very hard to hit, you have a ton of total hit points and you reduce the damage you take many of the times you take damage.

Sure if you want to run around with Shadowblade, or cast spells like Fireball, Synaptic Static and Psychic Lance then you are not going to be dominant in melee. If you don't waste slots on those things though you will.

If you have a Bladesinger that only ever uses slots to cast the following spells:
Shield, Absorb Elements, False Life, Protection from Evil and Good, Silvery Barbs, Catapult, Blur, Haste and Contingency.

If you only ever use slots for those spells you will be a dominant tank from level 6 to level 15. Not once or twice a day, but regularly. I played a Bladesinger that did not get hit by an attack in combat AT ALL for several levels (5-9 I think) and she was in the thick of melee every single fight. Not once or twice a day, but every single fight.

The Swordmage from previous editions can not do that and was not designed to do that.

A sword and board Eldritch Knight with Defense and Warcaster can make a really good tank but they will lose to a Bladesinger in that regard because they will run out of spell slots and don't have the higher-level slots. In tier 2 they are going to be missing Blur and Haste and in Tier 3 they will be missing upcast False Life and Contingency. This is despite having an "all-day" AC similar to a Bladesinger in Bladesong and a better AC out of Bladesong.

This statement is either trivial (because of course a class is designed to do what you can do with it... that's literally what being "designed" means) or contradicts your previous assertion that you don't want every class to be everything to everyone.

It is trivial, but you are arguinmg they are not designed to do that, so I am pointing out that they areas a point of fact designed to do that.

Okay.

Now imagine a class, built from the ground up, which gives you both of those things. Because that's what I am talking about. It can be done; it has been done.

The Wizard gives you both of those things (and more as you pointed out). I don't have to imagine the class - it is already right there on page 112 of the PHB. It has been done already in 5E.

And I am asserting that you are still settling because we have seen that it is possible to do better.

No I have not seen that. The Swordmage from previous editions is far worse IMO and the current design is pretty darn capable.

So the letters "C L E R I C" actually have mechanics inside them? Which letter contains channel divinity? Which one contains the spell list? If I went back in time and replaced every instance of the letters "C L E R I C" with, say, "P R I E S T," then all of the mechanics would be completely erased and you would never have found the joy you've found in playing it?

Yes the class you choose (and put on top of your character sheet) actually brings certain specific mechanics to the game.

Priest is not a class. If you put that on the top of your sheet it is meaningless, although I will point out that if you want to call your character a "Priest of whatever" you should be able to do that and you should be able to do that regardless of what is under the class section.

Nope. Because you could write any other label you wanted, or indeed no label at all, and yet still use those mechanics.

Ok. Talk me through how to get Cleric mechanics on my Roll20 character if I put something other than Cleric in the spot on the sheet for "class".

The mechanics of Channel Divinity and Domains and the like are not, in any way, inherently linked to having the letters "C L E R I C" written across the top of your sheet. It is simply a convention. No different from whether one labels the hit points in a video game with green or red color: both conventions exist (and some straddle the line, with green being high HP and slowly descending to red at low HP.) The convention is not the mechanics. The map is not the territory.

Yes they are.

And that's my point. We can design better. At least one prior edition has. It was the Swordmage, and it was excellent at exactly the things you ask for (and more! It had all sorts of cool tricks up its sleeves.)

The Swordmage from previous editions was no where close to as effective as a Bladesinger is for what I want to do.

You would have to change that substantially to make it as effective, and you could do that of course but it would not be the same Swordmage that it was in ptrevious editions just like Wizard is not the same as in previous editions.

To turn this Cleric word argument around on you - unlike Cleric the word "Swordmage" really has no mechanics associated with it in 5E, so why can't I just play a Wizard which has been designed from the ground up to do what I want to do and then write "Swordmage" on top of the sheet if that is what I want to call it?

You carved out so many exceptions and caveats, I rest my case. Every caster can do nearly everything pretty well--and many can do it, by your own admission, better than the classes actually designed to do it! That's a huge problem. It makes the classes actually designed to do it suck!

No it doesn't. I play those classes all the time (well not Barbarians, but I don't play Druids or often play Bards either). I play plenty of Fighters, Rogues and Rangers. I play more Rogues than any other class and they are extremely fun.

Investigation is an Int skill, and Divinations are powerful investigative tools. I'm not sure what would prevent a Wizard from doing it. And you now seem to be agreeing that Wizards (and to a lesser extent other casters) are empowered to be everything to everyone like I said...?

There is not a minimum intelligence for a Wizard and 20 is the maximum intelligence for every character. Any Character class can be built with an Investigation as high as you can possibly make with a Wizard and you can build a Rogue, Ranger or Bard with a higher investigation than a Wizard can possibly get without feats.

Just being a Wizard does not automatically make you good at investigation. Sure you can take that as a skill and having a high intelligence works well with your other abilities, but that is hardly class-specific and you can't be truely great at it an on par with other classes without getting a Feat.

Yes! And I am saying this design is bad for several reasons! You are either repeating a truism (things are designed to be what they are designed to be) or an irrelevancy (it could have been designed differently but it wasn't and we never ever should think about how it could be designed.)

Why does it matter how it could be designed. It does what I want it to do the way it is designed so I am going to use it!

Only in the most trivial sense.

It is the only sense that matters. Either the mechanics support a certain style of play (Wizards in melee) or they don't (Sorcerers in melee).

And you are completely wrong on design. Protection from Evil and Good is DESIGNED to make the target harder to hit, Blur is DESIGNED to make the caster harder to hit. Mage Armor is DESIGNED to make the caster harder to hit, Shield is DESIGNED to make the caster harder to hit, Silvery Barbs is DESIGNED to make an enemy reroll an attack, False Life is DESIGNED to give the target more hit points, Bladesong is DESIGNED to make the caster harder to hit, Extra Attack is Designed to let you attack more often in melee, Booming Blade, GFB and Shocking Grasp are DESIGNED to be used as a melee attack and Lightning Lure is DESIGNED to bring enemies into melee range.

How can you look at those and come to the conclusion that a Wizard, a class intentionally given access to all of that, is not designed to be in melee?

 

[ECMO3]

Its not 'spending slots on YOUR healing' any more than the Fighter is 'wasting' his Action Surge killing a monster before it kills you.

Well I could, but I could also use a slot to command them to lie down so the fighter makes his 4 attack at advantage or I could hit them with a lightning cantrip or spell and blow them over the side of a cliff.

It's a teamwork game, where the players help each other to achieve a common goal. Healing and buffing your allies is part of the role of the Cleric (other classes as well, but it's the Clerics main schtick).

See this is what I disagree with. My role is what I define my role as, and just because I could be better at something else, as long as I am good at what I am doing I should not be forced to change.

If the party absolutely needs someone to play the role of a healer than the character who wants to play that role should build a character to do it. If no one wants to play that role then we will have to get buy without it.

Healing the Fighter benefits the party as a whole (of which, you're a member) to achieve a common goal of the lot of you, just like buffing him with Bless does.

I don't use Bless a whole lot either, although I use it a lot more than healing.

I guess you can play it where it's every man or woman for himself, but that's not the sort of game I would find partiuclarly compelling to play in. Even my Evil campaigns I've played in featured teamwork (undermined by the occasional bit of backstabbing of course!).

I certainly don't play every man for himself and I am big on teamwork, but others should not define my role.

I am not suggesting that I should not contribute and even do that effectively, but others should not define what that role is.

 

[ECMO3]

A cleric who refuses to cast Cure Wounds on principle is like a wizard who refuses to cast Fireball on principle.

It's your privilege. Don't expect me to be impressed.

I have not played a Wizard with Fireball in her book in several years and in terms of contributing; using a spell slot on Fireball is usually not as good as what you could otherwise do with that slot.

Fireball is underpowered for a 3rd level spell. And yes I know people say it is overtuned in terms of damage, but when you look at the actual damage is mediocre and in terms of actual combat power it is not nearly as powerful as Fear, Counterspell, Slow, Summon Fey, Summon Undead or Summon Shadowspawn. It is generally weaker than Hypnotic Pattern, Sleet Storm, Haste and Fly as well.

Every time you cast Fireball you are going to miss out on one of those spells and if you want me to end a fight in one stroke, Fear will generally get closer to that than Fireball at the level you get it. There are situations when Fireball is going to be better, but most of the times one of those other spells I mentioned will outperform Fireball.

 

[ECMO3]

You seem to be missing the point that I AM SPECIAL. My refusal to act like a normal, well-adjusted human being is a sign of just how creative and unique I am, and how immersed I am in my character cliché I mean concept.

I would argue that the healing cleric is the cliche and I view all my characters as special. Some disappoint in actual play, but I have a concept and idea for every single one.

 

[DeviousQuail]

I DMed for a Life Cleric once (2016 I think) and it was impressive. The player wanted to be a healer focused cleric and absolutely nailed it. I've played a few clerics and none of them have been healer focused or expected to do a lot of healing. After a year or two I think we realized that having one or more people who can heal is really useful but we see it the same way as lockpicking. Someone should be able to do it but we don't expect that to be the best or most important aspect of a character.

 

[Greg K]

As a GM, when I run D&D, I tailor spell lists for clerics of each deity in my homebrew setting. As a result, most clerics either do not receive healing spellls or are limited in their ability to cast healing spells

 

[DMZ2112]

Except fireball is actually a really good spell. I didn't even take cure wounds with my last cleric.

I have not played a Wizard with Fireball in her book in several years

...Pholtus take the wheel.

It's a metaphor, folks. It's your prerogative to play a non-combatant utility wizard just like it is your prerogative to play a non-healer battle cleric. But leaving a chunk of your toolbox at home because "it's not what you do" smacks of the same sort of player entitlement as the "but it's what my character would do" phenomenon.

No, no one else at the table should define your role for you. You should define your own role so that it benefits the party, and doesn't arbitrarily rob them of their access to part of the ruleset.

By all means, play the character you want to play, but play the character. The game has a class that heals, and you picked it. Don't want to be expected to heal when it's needed? Reskin a different class as a priest. Really married to the idea of playing a cleric? Find a different game, where clerics don't get healing powers.