Cleric Won't Heal?

My oldest son, in our AD&D 2nd edition and 3.0 games, was notorious for always wanting to play a cleric and then running him like a front-line fighter. It was one thing to never cast any healing spells until the current battle was over (his PCs all tended to be glory hounds), but it was another thing altogether to not pay attention to his other abilities or what he was fighting. Case in point: he'd rush in to attack skeletons with a sword (instead of a bludgeoning weapon which would have overcome their damage reduction) when he was high enough that a turn undead would almost be a guarantee of success. It used to irritate his younger brother to no end.

Come to think of it, though, this wasn't entirely a cleric thing; he once ran a female elven wizard/thief and he played her as a front-line fighter for the most part.

Johnathan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is why I like playing an order cleric. Heal my ally and they get to make an attack. If its with healing word then I'm also able to make an attack. Works really well with the party rogue.

Yeah next cleric I play probably going to be an order cleric.

Or death.
Shrugs.
 

Yeah, actually I was just thinking about home brew vs modules before reading this.

agreed that there can be more assumed by other authors.

i can see discussing and filling a need somehow as a party. But if I play cleric (about to do so soon!) I just can’t stand the passive role.

I have a high strength arcana cleric in heavy armor planned. Looking to grapple and shove and mace (gfb) my way to not heal as much.! Looking to hold folks in spirit guardians!

but of course if someone is diseased or barely hanging on, of course I would toss them a heal before the next room.

but I plan an active role in the fighting as a primary concern. Going with a cleric of wee Jas and plan to get some skeletons to help the party as we go.

that was actually a discussion I had to have. No use in having LG paladins go apesh*t on me! I made sure the PCs involved could tolerate that especially if we destroyed them after use.

but that is back to alignment and personality more than class discussion....which has needed discussion in my group more than roles per se.

She's an arcane cleric using GFB and shillelagh.
 


You'll get to show up at session 0 chanting, "Healing or death!"

I would probably take healer feat in that scenario.
Basically if I roll half decent stats I'm more likely to take something like healer as there's more room to take something like warcaster as well.
 


Reminds me of PUG in DDO where a cleric player got mad because my bard let his cleric die. That was back when we still needed the installation CD. He wouldn't heal anyone, not even himself.

As for 5e, healing in combat is generally a worse option than preventing damage. That doesn't mean it's not something that still needs done at times, and better outside of combat.

If a cleric doesn't want to heal then plan around it. I find there are enough alternatives.
 

It depends on your individual views. My cleric almost never heals in combat, except myself or the bard; I use Cure Wounds, while the bard uses Healing Word. Cure Wounds sucks to use in combat, but is far more efficient, especially if upcast. Healing Word is great for getting a fallen PC back up, but isn't really great for keeping people up. I make sure he's always okay, if I can, because if either of us falls, the other has to bring the up. If we're both down, we're likely not getting back up until the fight's over, if at all. The rest of the party has adapted to this, with only the barbarian losing the occasional rage (she's got a 20 Con, so this is really, really rare).
 

Raw cleric healing is slower than incoming damage in any challenging fight.

Generally using spells to drop foes makes survival work better than attempting to heal it.

There are cleric subclasses this isn't true; life clerics with significant boosts to healing efficiency, and order clerics whose heals also act as attack granters.
 


Remove ads

Top