RANT - Obsession with Clerics

[Runesong42]

Now, I know I'm asking for trouble for bringing this up, but I'm starting to get a little tired with reading threads about parties without Clerics and people insisting Clerics are an essential part of an adventuring party.

More specifically, I've noticed a trend that DM's like to add a "tag-along" Cleric to bolster and heal the party where needed.

Here's the way I see it. If someone in the player's group really wanted to be a Cleric, or felt they needed one, they would play one. It's true that Clerics have fallen into the stereotype as healer and buffer, and it is a difficult stereotype to overecome unless you over-compensate by RPing religious issues out the wazoo. I know it's a role-playing game, and Clerics fill the "role" of healer, but it's just silly to suggest a party "needs" a Cleric just because they don't currently have one. That's what the PC's are earning their hard-earned treasure for - to keep themselves alive. Let them support their local economy by tithing to the church in exchange for magickal services. Let them hire a Cleric on a part-time basis. Heck, attracting cohorts is an excellent idea, but don't just tack on a Cleric because "they don't have one". Make the PC's sweat without having a safety net of magickal protection and healing. I would.

On a grander scale, one could even create a campaign where religion is on a decline, and healers are few and far between. They become too valuable within their churches to wander about and smite monsters. Then, if the players decide that being a Cleric is all that, they'll play one. I always want my players to play what they want, but I don't feel that a "tag-along" Cleric is a warranted addition. It creates more headaches for the DM, having to remember to bolster the PC's before they fight the very monsters the DM has set up for them to conquer! It's kind of like shooting yourself in the foot - having no cleric greatly increases the possibility of serious PC injury and/or even death. But again, that's what treasure's for, right?

Maybe it's just me; maybe it's just the mood I'm in. But I read post after post about Clerics being an add-on to parties and I just want to believe that there are some players who actually enjoy Clerics as an RPing class and not a healing battery.

[/RANT]

- Dru

 

[Crothian]

I let the people play what they want to play. I tell them not to worry about a typical balanced party, those have gotten boring and so predictible. And frankly, it isn''t needed.

 

[Greylock]

Been playing in a party without a Cleric for a year. Second game getting ready to start up with the same group. Lessee, first party lacks, in addition to the Cleric, a full-blown arcane caster, a Rogue with "proper" skills, a hand-to-hand combat type, and anything charisma-based (Pally, sorceror, char's with diplomatic finesse) and so on and such.

Think we placed dibs on who would play the Wizard? Oh no....

We want our band-aid.

 

[S'mon]

I let Sorcerers/Wizards cast the Cure spells - you'd be amazed how many problems this solves.

 

[Morrus]

More specifically, I've noticed a trend that DM's like to add a "tag-along" Cleric to bolster and heal the party where needed.

I've done this a few times in the past. The group seemed happy with it and were enjoying the game, so I don't think it's a bad thing.

 

[Empress]

We've recently started playing D&D, and our GM asked me to play a cleric. In our group, we have a fighter, a ranger, a rogue, a sorcerer, and me, the cleric. The Gm thought that we needed one. So I created a cleric, and I am having fun with it. Where's the harm in a GM suggesting character types? What would the GM do if the player declined? Ban him from the group? That's silly.

We also have a part-time monk, but that's not part of the question, is it?

 

[Jdvn1]

I think it's just easier to have a Cleric. You could apply a similar arguement to any other standard PC slot. Is a Fighter (or someone with a good BAB) absolutely necessary? No, but it's easier if you have one. Is a Wizard absolutely necessary? No, but it's easier if you have one..

 

[S'mon]

A group doesn't need a Fighter, but they'll suffer without a Meat Shield - Barbarian or Paladin will do. Likewise they don't need a Wizard, but they'll suffer without an arcane caster's area-effect attacks, Sorcerers can substitute. And they don't need a Cleric, but they do need healing magic - a Druid can usually fill this role, but is better employed otherwise.

 

[Jdvn1]

A group doesn't need a Fighter, but they'll suffer without a Meat Shield - Barbarian or Paladin will do.

That's why I specified, "(or someone with a good BAB)." I'm in two games, right now, without anyone with a goodo BAB. No Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, or even Ranger. We aren't suffereing, really.

Likewise they don't need a Wizard, but they'll suffer without an arcane caster's area-effect attacks, Sorcerers can substitute. And they don't need a Cleric, but they do need healing magic - a Druid can usually fill this role, but is better employed otherwise.

Well, of course the Cleric spot is better employed with a Cleric. Just like the Wizard spot is best employed with a Wizard. One of my two games has a Sor filling in for the arcane caster -- we're constantly having to bum around for scrolls of important spells. A Sor doesn't quite cut it.

 

[Gez]

My clerics are not healers, unless they have the Healing domain.

They don't get bonus domain spell slots, instead they can spontaneously convert spells into their domain spells.

And they can't spontaneously convert to cures or inflict by default.

On the other hand, if you want a true healer, there's the Healer class from the MiniHB. I even gave them the Lay on Hands ability of the paladin.