Cheerful Coffin
First Post
Dr@gon has the alternative rage cleric, which is cooler then the undead turner..
Suggestions to have players play a Cleric.
- Thread starter Jeb McDonald
- Start date
ThirdWizard
First Post
If the PC party has no cleric or druid or other such main healer I introduce an NPC party member to be the healer. However, to make it seem like a get out of jail free bonus, I make sure that the healer isn't extremely powerful. Right now their healer is a favored soul, so they don't have access to the wide array of cleric utility nor the turning ability, but they do have the cures. Earlier, I had them party with an Aasimar cleric, so it was an LA +1 race making the cleric one level behind everyone else.
They know the power of the cleric and druid. It isn't about that. It's just that often they want to play other things.
They know the power of the cleric and druid. It isn't about that. It's just that often they want to play other things.
Cheerful Coffin
First Post
The newest one, #333..Emirikol said:
Trickstergod
First Post
Do I have that sort of problem...?
No, not really. I usually end up GM'ing and I don't particularly try encouraging anyone to play any certain class. I have my restrictions (no monks or psionics, for example), but what I allow...I allow.
In fact, while I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to try to encourage certain classes before the game, I do believe anyone who starts throwing encounters at a party with no other purpose than to make someone play a certain class is a bad GM indeed.
"You lack a cleric? Well, have some undead!"
Bad GM, bad.
I don't bother trying to make my players play one thing or another. I prefer they play what they want. Heck, my Ravenloft game - where it's arguably even more important to have a cleric - has no cleric. It has a Ranger/Bard, Rogue, Aristocrat/Fighter, and an Aristocrat/Wizard. The party healer's the multi-classed Bard. The undead smacking is nearly non-existent.
A game should, after all, reflect the party, at least in part. It's supposed to be fun for everyone. So I shoot for a compromise, if I can. Run the sort of story I want and mesh that up with what the party's playing.
Of course, they may not be prepared for all encounters - but it's because it makes sense for the encounter to be however it is, not some set up based on what the party does or doesn't have.
There's no denying that a party without a cleric is lacking someone important. But it's more important that everyone's playing what they want as a PC. A GM has the entire game world to suit to their tastes. A player should at least be able to play what they essentially want instead of someone being pigeon-holed into the Cleric.
Of course, a party death or two may change their minds. But I never run encounters specifically encouraging a certain class to be played should a death occur and think it's in poor taste to do so with that specifically in mind.
No, not really. I usually end up GM'ing and I don't particularly try encouraging anyone to play any certain class. I have my restrictions (no monks or psionics, for example), but what I allow...I allow.
In fact, while I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to try to encourage certain classes before the game, I do believe anyone who starts throwing encounters at a party with no other purpose than to make someone play a certain class is a bad GM indeed.
"You lack a cleric? Well, have some undead!"
Bad GM, bad.
I don't bother trying to make my players play one thing or another. I prefer they play what they want. Heck, my Ravenloft game - where it's arguably even more important to have a cleric - has no cleric. It has a Ranger/Bard, Rogue, Aristocrat/Fighter, and an Aristocrat/Wizard. The party healer's the multi-classed Bard. The undead smacking is nearly non-existent.
A game should, after all, reflect the party, at least in part. It's supposed to be fun for everyone. So I shoot for a compromise, if I can. Run the sort of story I want and mesh that up with what the party's playing.
Of course, they may not be prepared for all encounters - but it's because it makes sense for the encounter to be however it is, not some set up based on what the party does or doesn't have.
There's no denying that a party without a cleric is lacking someone important. But it's more important that everyone's playing what they want as a PC. A GM has the entire game world to suit to their tastes. A player should at least be able to play what they essentially want instead of someone being pigeon-holed into the Cleric.
Of course, a party death or two may change their minds. But I never run encounters specifically encouraging a certain class to be played should a death occur and think it's in poor taste to do so with that specifically in mind.
Nightfall
Sage of the Scarred Lands
*thinks it's only bad IF the party thinks by traveling to defeat the Ghoul King they won't find...well ghouls for starters! 
*
In any case Trick, it's all a matter of perspective. I'll allow Warlocks, psionics, and even the occasional Half fiend paladin. But I'll probably NOT allow the idea that casting Animate dead is an inherently evil act. Just not right IMHO.
* In any case Trick, it's all a matter of perspective. I'll allow Warlocks, psionics, and even the occasional Half fiend paladin. But I'll probably NOT allow the idea that casting Animate dead is an inherently evil act. Just not right IMHO.
As a DM, I don't try to force players to play classes they don't like, but I don't alter my adventures to fit party makeup, either (exception: published modules that would be otherwise unplayable).
If they get tired of undead kicking their butts in one of my campaign, someone will either take levels in some kind of divine spellcaster or they will invest their resources in anti-undead magic items. If they get tired of just getting their butts kicked in general, someone will take levels in a divine spellcaster or they'll invest in healing magic.
But the best way to get players to play clerics is to play one yourself- either as a player or as an NPC (foe or ally) when you're the DM, and (pardon the expression) play the hell out of it. A cleric with "sword & board" and appropriate domains (strength, destruction, war, death, etc.) can be a terrible foe. One who is optimized for healing can keep his minions coming at the party. And so on...
If they get tired of undead kicking their butts in one of my campaign, someone will either take levels in some kind of divine spellcaster or they will invest their resources in anti-undead magic items. If they get tired of just getting their butts kicked in general, someone will take levels in a divine spellcaster or they'll invest in healing magic.
But the best way to get players to play clerics is to play one yourself- either as a player or as an NPC (foe or ally) when you're the DM, and (pardon the expression) play the hell out of it. A cleric with "sword & board" and appropriate domains (strength, destruction, war, death, etc.) can be a terrible foe. One who is optimized for healing can keep his minions coming at the party. And so on...
GlassJaw
Hero
It's funny that no one seems to jump at playing a cleric because in every campaign I've played in, they are consistently the one of the more "powerful" classes, even just a single-classed cleric. As powerful as they are though, I will agree that it's rare for someone to have cleric at the top of their PC list.
As far as how necessary it is to have a cleric in a group, if you are playing published material, I would highly recommend having a cleric in the group in almost all cases. I've played in the RttToEE, run part of CotSQ, and currently running the Shackled City AP, and I couldn't imagine not having a cleric in any of those groups.
If you are running a homebrew, you can certainly tailor things if there isn't a cleric in the group.
As far as how necessary it is to have a cleric in a group, if you are playing published material, I would highly recommend having a cleric in the group in almost all cases. I've played in the RttToEE, run part of CotSQ, and currently running the Shackled City AP, and I couldn't imagine not having a cleric in any of those groups.
If you are running a homebrew, you can certainly tailor things if there isn't a cleric in the group.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
I've played a Cleric, a Druid, and now both a Cleric and a Psion in the one campaign where I'm actually a player. Cleric is a fine class, so long as you remember the purpose is to PROSELYTIZE!!! 
In the campaign that I DM, the PC know that I sometimes throw a lot of undead at them, and still no-one wanted to be a Cleric... they've got two Wizards, a Ranger, and a Paladin (and occasionally a Rogue/Aristocrat/Duellist). They do fine.
-- N
In the campaign that I DM, the PC know that I sometimes throw a lot of undead at them, and still no-one wanted to be a Cleric... they've got two Wizards, a Ranger, and a Paladin (and occasionally a Rogue/Aristocrat/Duellist). They do fine.
-- N
Similar Threads
Enchanted Trinkets Complete
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
December 9 2025 -
June 18 2026 -
October 1 2026
