The reason for the cleric class' lack of popularity?

[MoogleEmpMog]

I disagree that clerics are the most powerful class in 3.5 - in 3.0, yes, but the druid is now leagues beyond even the cleric. I run an essentially no-magic game and allowed druids to trade all their spellcasting for one aditional wild shape beginning at 2nd level - the druid player, who is far from an expert tactian, is simply superior to the rest of the party in and out of combat.

And, of course, the druid is traditionally known as the LEAST popular base class, even less than the cleric. I don't think the two are unrelated.

As to why players drift away from the cleric class, I'd say there are several factors.

Flavor-wise, a LOT of gamers I've known hold views that make them dislike clerics; those views aren't suitable for ENWorld, but suffice to say that they negatively impact those players' interest in playing a servant of a god in any but a sarcasting manner. On the flip side, some actually religious people are uncomfortable roleplaying a polytheistic priest.

Rules-wise, most gamers don't like healing because it takes them "out of the action." Only last-second saves are "star time," and those aren't encouraged by the rules until Heal becomes available.

Magic the Gathering illustrates a reason for tactically astute players to dislike the healer role. In that game, life gain is generally a very weak tactic because it just stops you from losing - it doesn't help you win unless the combo goes infinite and your opponent folds rather than trying to chip away at your 999999999999999 life.

D&D "life gain" (healing) never "goes infinite" - spells are heavily restricted, and you generally can't get above your max hp. Thus, healing spells are, nine times out of ten, HURTING THE PARTY if used in combat.

Replacing the healer cleric with, say, a blaster sorcerer who can spam rays and remove the enemy's ability to do harm is more useful in the course of a single combat. The healer cleric is only useful out of combat, where his spells serve the role of "restoring the player to 20 life for the next match" in Magic - something so boring and uninteresting that most games other than RPGs omit it entirely.

3.x D&D is designed not as a single match but as an average of four matches before reset. The optimal tactics for PCs are all about resource management (card advantage in Magic) rather than hitting power. The PCs succeed (and the players "win") when they optimize their use of resources (spells, limited use items and hit points) to lose the least amount possible over three to five encounters per day.

Even so, "burn" (save-or-dies, high damage attacks) and "card advantage" (summons, unlimited use magic items, regeneration) end up being more valuable than "life gain" (healing).

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Clerics aren't always easy for new players to play - when my best friend was first introduced to D&D, she had a lot of trouble with deciding whether to fight, cast, or heal. In her case, the cleric's power was almost a downside, because the choices overwhelmed her. As a preparation caster, too, they're complex to master.

I'm personally very interested in religion - with an Honours degree in it, I'd better - and so I've enjoyed playing clerics very much.

I tend to agree with those who ascribe the cleric's unpopularity to its complexity and to its perception as a "support" class.

 

[Turjan]

Flavor-wise, a LOT of gamers I've known hold views that make them dislike clerics; those views aren't suitable for ENWorld, but suffice to say that they negatively impact those players' interest in playing a servant of a god in any but a sarcasting manner. On the flip side, some actually religious people are uncomfortable roleplaying a polytheistic priest.

That's exactly what I observed. I have both, agnostic and religeous people in my group, and they all don't like to play clerics because of the opposing reasons you mentioned.

Rules-wise, most gamers don't like healing because it takes them "out of the action." Only last-second saves are "star time," and those aren't encouraged by the rules until Heal becomes available.

That's less of a problem in my group. The cleric player still manages to get his stage time, because the group wizard plays his character somewhat suboptimal.

 

[Kurotowa]

It's easier to respect the cleric when you break out of the field medic mindset.

Firstly, clerics are holy warriors. People forget this because of paladins, but compared to adepts and experts the cleric is someone who's damned good at taking his mission to the battlefield. There's time for healing after the fight. Right now you should be mixing it up with the rest of them.

Secondly, clerics are the most versatile caster in the game. They have access to their full spell list, unlike arcane casters, and have a wider selection than druids. With a day's warning a cleric can completely switch their spell selection and be prepared for any situation. You can't beat that sort of adaptability.

Thirdly, clerics don't have to be beholden to a church, or even try to convert others. Lots of holy folk just do their best to live according to the teachings of a divinity. A cleric of Wee Jas tries to gather knowledge, a cleric of Kord works hard to be strong and break heads, a cleric Fharlanghn just travels and explores the world. Don't think like a preacher, think like someone trying to follow an example set by your god and don't worry about everyone else.

Once you get these ideas down, clerics can be a joy to play instead of a pain. With spontaneous casting of Cure spells healing is an afterthought, not a responsability.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

And, of course, the druid is traditionally known as the LEAST popular base class, even less than the cleric. I don't think the two are unrelated

That's how it is with our group. We have ALOT more clerics than we have ever had druids..... one guy who couldn't really play one, another who had to drop out due to RL issues and the last one stopped playing the druid when the party ran into FR's deities and couldn't handle that..... and his character wasn't what he really wanted him to be due to him having to be the main healer as we didn't have a cleric, just my paladin, for healing duties.... And all were humans. The hardest class we can get is a rogue.... There's one campaign which is rogue-heavy but then the campaign itself is baised towards that...... Lots more intrigue and dealings with thieves guilds....

I don't mind playing clerics.... granted the first one was a fighter-turned-cleric and the next one was a cleric/divine champion who's main job was kicking ass and taking names, healing after that..... and the last is more along that line although she does more healing of those worthy in battle of being healed (although the one most worthy usually gets healed first by the Peloran cleric in the group...)

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Clerics aren't always easy for new players to play - when my best friend was first introduced to D&D, she had a lot of trouble with deciding whether to fight, cast, or heal. In her case, the cleric's power was almost a downside, because the choices overwhelmed her. As a preparation caster, too, they're complex to master.

I'm personally very interested in religion - with an Honours degree in it, I'd better - and so I've enjoyed playing clerics very much.

I tend to agree with those who ascribe the cleric's unpopularity to its complexity and to its perception as a "support" class.

Yes, they can be a complex class to play. There's just waaaay too many spells to keep track of, worse if you get alot of the supplemental books that keep adding spells to their repertoire that they already have in the core PHB..... I've done my own spell list so that I left out spells that our good-aligned clerics WON'T ever cast in their lives (that is, if they want to remain a cleric to that particular god- we don't do god-less clerics. It just doesn't match our POV of how a cleric is....)

I've considered my clerics as a main-line class (like the fighter-types) as opposed to the "support" class most classify them as. A friend of mine plays the "support-type" cleric mostly..... usually tossing a few offensive spells and saving most for healing but usually staying out of the thick of combat unless he *really* has to. Mine have usually been to "combat-heavy" type of deities: Torm and Thor.... and wouldn't dream of sticking to the back ranks and waiting until needed. Boring, IMO.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

That's exactly what I observed. I have both, agnostic and religeous people in my group, and they all don't like to play clerics because of the opposing reasons you mentioned.

My fellow players don't have a problem with playing clerics and we're either Christian or Pagan in our beliefs (I'm Christian). I'd rather play a cleric to a ficticious god so we can have fun with the whole thing (that and not offend anyone, the MAIN objective!) and can get away with silly comments about a character's religious beliefs..... I had a ranger who sometimes "mocked" the Peloran cleric's beliefs.... (like having to sunbathe to worship his deity...) That and DM interpretations of the various deities can vary.....

 

[Yami no Hon]

In our last campaign, I played a cleric for my group. I had fun thanks to two things:
1.) I never healed anyone during combat. My character's view is that if the rest of the party was to dumb to keep from getting themselfs killed, she probably didn't need to be associating with them anyway.
and 2.) If your character is the only party member capable of any significant healing, then the rest of the party will not let you die. No matter what stupid things you do, the rest of the party will bend over backwards to keep you alive, because you're the only one who can heal the rest of them. Like one time my character cought on fire (don't ask...) and before the encounter was over two party members were trying to help her put the fire out and all the others were attacking the mage who caused it. Of course, even rolling on the ground with two people trying to help extinguish me, I still rolled poorly and failed my saves, but the point is the rest of the party did try to help me.

 

[Gentlegamer]

OK then, he has to be 16th level in order to make permanent magic items (because that requires the permanency spell, which is 8th level, which has a level minimum of 16).

Don't forget, Sauron suffered a great reduction in power when he was defeated at the end of the Second Age and the Ring was taken from him. If you look at what overt magic he is reponsible for in The Lord of the Rings you'll see that his magic level is rather low, D&D-wise . . .

 

[Kaffis]

To the original poster: I would agree that there's a distinct lack of clericish characters in pre-RPG fantasy.

I posit that the reason for this is that heroes rarely get injured in fiction. Did Bilbo ever take a swipe from something, and get brought to near-death due to his low theif HD? Nah. Sure, Frodo takes a swipe, but he's tended to with some herbal lore and bedrest, for the most part (and even if you take the stand that Elrond used his power to aid in the healing process, it occurs off-screen and isn't the pivotal role of Elrond).

This lack of a common and well-defined (and admired) archetype contributes heavily to the difficulty in warming up to the cleric, or any other healing-oriented class. It's an archetype largely invented FOR gaming, to reconcile risk and danger (which a piece of authored fiction can present as tense situations and near-misses, as well as character relief and caution, but a game relies on the possibility of stuff actually connecting to draw the players in and reign in their actions) with the need for pacing and character survivability.

Nobody thrills at playing a game mechanic, so the best you can do is try to figure out ways to expand and broaden the class, and hope that people can get past the healing role and see some other merits and facets to enjoy in it.