If A Rogue Has The Ability To Use Any Magic Item...

[Blockader7]

Don't fight a lot of the undead, then?


"Hey, did you see that? It's a Bodak!"

(thud)

"Bob? BOB?"

Actually in 3e not much. In 1e and 2e, some. However, even then we usually had to end up fighting the ones that ran anyway.

 

[Blockader7]

[QUOTE

Next time just label this thread "I hate clerics," m'kay?

[/QUOTE]

Never assume anything too quickly about people. That only causes trouble. Especially for the wrongly self-righteous. It's too easy to assume things too quickly, especially when one doens't know anything at all about a poster. It's way too easy to make that assumption with many posts as well.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

While I disagree strongly that clerics are only useful for healing, 3E still puts players in a position where - lacking a cleric - an adventuring party will be at a severe disadvantage.

Druids don't get as many healing spells, and some are at higher level.

Bards get very few healing spells, and have a slower spell progression.

Bards and rogues can UMD on wands and scrolls, but a party depending only on items for healing will burn through them very quickly.

So while I think Blockader7 is wrong that the ONLY real reason to have a cleric is healing, curing the party is still a primary focus of the class (hence, as Piratecat said, the class is overpowered to encourage players to choose it).

 

[tonym]

There's only one real reason to have a Cleric in there, and that's for their healing abilities. I personally don't see any other reason to have a cleric in the party.

The guy running the cleric in the group I'm gaming with pretty much said the same thing, saying that he wanted to DO more in the game than just heal our characters--which is pretty much all he had been doing for quite a while.

So we made sure he got some good armor and magic weapons and encouraged him to cast Offensive Spells rather than 'save' those spells for healing, and we started asking his character to 'go first into the room' and stuff like that...

And now the cleric is a powerful, vital, blood-thirsty, monster-killing character--just like the rest of us.


Tony

 

[WizarDru]

Actually in 3e not much. In 1e and 2e, some. However, even then we usually had to end up fighting the ones that ran anyway.

Well, that explains a great deal, then. Except under battlefield conditions, the rogue and bard can cover some of the bases that a cleric could, but only for support magic, and only low level support magic at that.

Facing powerful outsiders or undead, a cleric is very effective. For sheer utility, clerics rock. One thing to consider about the Use Magic Device skill is that it is NOT an absolute. Utilizing the item is still a skill check, and skill checks can be failed. Moreover, most magic items are enchanted economically, that is to say to the lowest level possible. When you're going against CR 16 foes, that fireball wand that does 5d6 damage is going to be laughably underpowered. That scroll of Cure Minor Wounds isn't going to cut it, either, when a Girallon tears into you for 4 attacks plus a rend.

Don't get me wrong...UMD is a great skill that makes the rogue into a monkey wrench that can turn a combat on it's ear...but it's no substitute for a cleric or access to healing magic, IMHO. Can a party get by without the copious buffs a cleric can provide, and the turning, and the healing and the powerful divinations? Sure they can. That's what makes 3e so great, is that you don't have to have one. But it makes things much easier when you do.

 

[Numion]

Re: Re: If A Rogue Has The Ability To Use Any Magic Item...

So we made sure he got some good armor and magic weapons and encouraged him to cast Offensive Spells rather than 'save' those spells for healing, and we started asking his character to 'go first into the room' and stuff like that...

I don't get this. I almost never save slots to heal when I play a cleric. If someone wants to be healed, I'll use the wand of CLW he's bought for himself, but thats it. And I usually don't heal during combat either.

My character kicking ass for one round is usually better than my character healing for one round. Hmm.. thats my new motto!

Heal can turn a combat around though; if the party tank is down to single digits in hp, heal can really make a difference. Other healing spells just aren't that useful in combat. Enemies usually can deal far more damage in a round than you can heal.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

In an Iron Kingdoms campaign, I'm currently playing an ogrun cleric of the Devourer Worm, with the War and Death domains. In full plate armor and wielding a +1 keen greataxe, he's a monster in melee. And he heals. And he has a death touch. And he casts Hold Person as a 2nd-level spell. And he turns undead. (Turned undead can't fight back. They have to flee, or cower if they can't flee. Killing undead is a heck of a lot easier once they're properly turned.) And he can buff and un-buff (with Dispel Magic) as well as the wizard. And he can detect traps. And he could (though mine can't) channel turning attempts into other combat-related abilities (such as Divine Might or Divine Shield). And, and....

Clerics. These aren't your daddy's party healers.

 

[Carnifex]

Woah. With the right domains, clerics can exceed fighters as aclose combat monsters.

I think that the problem you might be facing is that you're *stuck* in thinking of them as healers and thus aren't seeing all the other possibilities. The new spontaneous casting ability means that most adventuring clerics (usually neutral or good) can blast away with their offensive spells (often pretty decent, I mean Flamestrike ain't bad), can buff like mad (and this is where clerics get really sick, as well as enhancing the entire party anyway), can do utility spells of all sorts *and* can heal like mad. Your rogue with a wand of cure x wounds will *never* match up to a cleric, bceause the cleric can cast the really good stuff like Heal and Healing circle, and the cost of wands for the rogue is rpetty high, not to mention that he a) spends time he sdhould be doing other things like sneak attacking on healing people instead and b) needs to make those Use Magic Device rolls. By the time he gets to a high enough level that Use Magic Device is particularly reliable, the cleric is a powerhouse anyway and still outdistances him on healing. Then there's undead and outsiders, against which a cleric is particularly good.

Let me put it this way. If your rogue with Use Magic Device is so good and replaces the cleric completely, then why aren't bards, who can do the same, and can also cast healing and some buffing, far moer popular than clerics?

 

[Olive]

As I've said, I've never seen a real use for Clerics except for their healing abilities. For 1e, 2e, and even 3e.

maybe because its fun to play religious nutters? in a roleplaying sense? just like its fun to play wizards as bookish power mad freaks, regardless of how many lightning bolts a day a sorcerer gets.

 

[Trip]

I must say that clerics are one of the 'funnest' to play. Of course that is a personal 'preferance' and I think fighters and barbarians are often the duller ones. But still, clerics can be an insanely powerful class, very fun to play, and always interesting to role play. The thoughts of an overly religious 'nutter' as olive put it...just presents great opportunities. Anywho....