Help me convince my players that the Cleric is cool

[The Thayan Menace]

Anticlerical Rehash & Ghoulish Recaps

Saeviomagy:

You have some good points; I too believe that no one character can solve everything.

However, your consistent downgrading of clerical might is oversimplified.

Keep in mind that a cleric does not need to cast remove paralysis on everyone to be effective in a ghoul-laden combat.

All the cleric needs to do is use remove paralysis judiciously (on one, or perhaps two, downed allies), turn some (or all) of the ghouls, and whoop on the rest in melee.

Now, I agree that a cleric is not always the perfect solution to a ghoul infestation, but it is the easiest one that D&D provides.

For the record:

1. I believe that a cleric is the a key component of a balanced party.

2. I, like you, feel that turning makes any undead encounter easier.

3. My ghouls are guaranteed to bathe in the blood of your PCs ... or, evisceration notwithstanding, provide you with a memorable (and fun) encounter.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Anticlericalism & Ghoul Bashing Aside

Hmm. lemme get this straight. You're going to take a cleric, who may or may not have a level 2 spell with very restricted use, and who will most likely be one of the first party members paralysed(due to being a front line combatant when compared with, say, a rogue or wizard) over someone who will not be paralysed.

Very restricted use?

Remove paralysis EITHER nullifies paralysis for one target OR grants mutiple targets renewed saves with circumstance bonuses.

I say that's pretty handy against ghouls, carrion crawlers, paralytic poisons, and the ever-popular hold person spell.

Ghouls are a low-level threat to a low-level party, who are quite competently handled without a cleric.

Add one cleric, and ...basically nothing changes.

Except the body count.

No. At least two party members don't have wisdoms of under 10. That's fairly common believe it or not.

I do not believe this allows them to treat ghoul fever (Fort DC 12) by taking 10.

And I suppose your ghoul-hunting parties use up multiple remove paralysis spells, remove disease spells and the like every combat? Never mind the fact that you're fighting CR 1 threats at... hmmm... 5th level.

You know how to calculate EL, right? The use of multiple opponents can change encounter difficulty dramatically. If you add class levels or templates, it also keeps increasing.

Besides, my parties do not hunt ghouls ... my ghouls hunt the party.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Enough Cleric Bashing Already

Keep track of your own argument. You gave a list of tactics for fighting level-draining undead without a cleric, and were relying on the undead never giving you a negative level in the first place. In other words - the undead never reaching you.

I never said that; I just said that not getting hit is usually a good plan.

Let's face it, if you simply get ambushed by hardcore undead without a cleric ... you are probably meat.

Still, I do concede that a well-prepared party could take hardcore undead (w/o clerical aid), if they took the right precautions.

By the way ... I trust you realize that the purpose of this thread is to promote clerical potential for Trainz's campaign and not to provide you with an outlet to disparage an archetypal class.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Don't Be a Cleric Hater

My argument is that the only reason clerics are essential in a party is negative levels, and when negative levels are present, the fun of all is decreased, because the cleric HAS to deal with them or else.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept your argument.

Even if we ignore turning, domain powers, and armored spellcasting, we cannot simply dismiss the relevance of death ward and searing light.

For the love of sanity, please stop your cleric bashing.

 

[Arnwyn]

C'mon then, tell me of a way to handle level-draining undead in their typical environment (ie - close quarters) without needing a cleric.

I have no idea how what you said above ties with my original quote (below)... I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make.

Actually, it's more like "a cleric isn't essential in a party unless the players make inappropriate decisions based on their character selection and party make-up".

And the rules are the rules... no 'conspiring' there.

 

[taliesin15]

yet another milieu-based solution for the problem of getting players to choose Cleric class: create something along the lines of the Street of the Gods that Fritz Leiber describes in "Lean Times in Lankhmar" (in the 3rd Fafhrd Grey Mouser book, I think Swords In the Mist)--here you have a situation where there are established deities of a kingdom/world with all these priests trying to promote their own deities they have championed or created--it might add some flavor missing from yr campaign

 

[Saeviomagy]

Here are my points. Pay careful attention:

1. The presence of level draining undead MANDATES the presence of the restoration spell. There is NO other situation which is this restricted - there are usually alternatives to magic, or if not, there are other magical alternatives to a given spell. In this case, restoration is the ONLY spell that does it. Which means if you face level-draining undead, then either
a) You never get hit
b) You use a restoration
c) You get real lucky on all your fort saves
d) You're too low level to continue contributing to the group/the group is too low level to continue the adventure.

2. The only class with restoration is a cleric. Which means the presence of level draining undead mandates the presence of a cleric in the party or the area that the party operates in. This is the ONLY situation within the core rules that mandates a cleric.

That's pretty much it. You don't NEED a cleric unless the DM pitches you against level draining undead (or a wizard with energy drain). In all other situations, other characters will suffice.

That's my core argument. That's my "the rules conspire to make clerics essential". That's the relevance to the original post - you don't need to have a cleric unless you put in level draining undead.

Beyond that:
I think the impact that a single remove paralysis is going to have on a fight versus ghouls is minimal. There's a good chance that anyone unparalysed will become paralysed again. There's a good chance that the cleric never had the spell memorised. There's a good chance that the cleric is the one paralysed. Etc.

Finally:
Heal check, no bonus, take 10 - result: 10
Second heal check. Aid another. no bonus. roll. get a 10 or better: add 2 to previous check result.
Third heal check...
fourth heal check...

etc.

Total result: 12

DC of ghoul fever? 12

I admit that I made a mistake earlier - you cannot take 10 to aid another - however there are no limits on how many people can attempt to aid in a task.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Well Played

That's pretty much it. You don't NEED a cleric unless the DM pitches you against level draining undead (or a wizard with energy drain). In all other situations, other characters will suffice.

Agreed; I validate and endorse your viewpoint.

However, I do believe that having a cleric makes most (if not all) undead encounters significantly EASIER.

Still, I believe you have already stated the same thing.

I am glad that you have taken the time to explain this to me, though you certainly did not have to.

Thank you for engaging in meaningful discourse; if more people had the patience for it, I'm sure the world would be a better place.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Use Magic Device

You don't NEED a cleric unless the DM pitches you against level draining undead (or a wizard with energy drain). In all other situations, other characters will suffice.

Actually, you do not need them even then if you have a character with a clerical wand and a sufficient Use Magic Device skill.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Limitations [Simulationist & Gamist Perspective]

I admit that I made a mistake earlier - you cannot take 10 to aid another - however there are no limits on how many people can attempt to aid in a task.

You made two mistakes. A DM can always ad-hoc a limitation on the number of PCs who can treat the same wound.

The example of Krusk the Barbarian on p. 66 of the PHB is a case in point:

For instance, if Krusk has been badly wounded and is dying, Jozan can try a Heal check to keep him from losing more hit points. One other character can help Jozan. If the other character makes a Heal check against DC 10, then Jozan gets a +2 circumstance bonus on the Heal check he makes to help Krusk. The DM rules that two characters couldn't help Jozan at the same time because a third person would just get in the way.

Also, unless the PCs roleplayed creative new ways of treating a disease, I would rule against having more than one person assist in treatment. After all, if a third person tried to help out with the same methods, he would not change the circumstances of the bonus and thus not be eligible for a stacking bonus.

In other words, a nurse is helpful ... however another physician needs a fresh diagnosis in order for treatment to progress beyond its current state.

Furthermore, I find it very difficult to believe that any wounded fighter would request medical assistance from his entire party before moving out; it's just not realistic ... or heroic.