Who else dosn't like clerics?

[Wik]

Okay, is FR bashing a way to become "cool" here ?

I'm good for another ENWorld break...

Nah, I just hate FR. To each their own, though... I'm not a big fan of Greyhawk, either. I say, if you want a "typical" fantasy world, make yer own. But that's just me.

 

[Hussar]

Not having a primary healer in the party limits fights to ones where the opponent is going to die before doing enough damage to really kill someone. Not having a cleric do 150 heals or 200+ healed in mass cures every round means your opponents have to be significantly weaker or the rogue is burning 1650 GP every round using heal scrolls.

As for spreading around healing, yes, it should be done. Paladins should be stronger healers. Things like fast healing should be more common like the dragon shaman aura. The entire magic system needs to be totally scrapped though. Having a thousand pages of spell descriptions is utterly mad.

This is only true at very high levels. If your campaigns top out at say, 12th, then you really don't need any of that sort of healing.

IME, clerical healing isn't needed even at higher levels. It's called RUNNING AWAY. When that big critter bites you within a single round of damage of dying, LEAVE. The only reason you need a cleric to toss in so many hit points is if you stay fighting something that you shouldn't be.

 

[Warren Okuma]

The cleric mechanically is a character meant to serve. To heal others, to buff others, to think of others before yourself... of course people hate playing them. They are one of the the ultimate team players and sort of vital. Yes, I play clerics, but in 3.5 I prefer druids.

 

[Grog]

IME, clerical healing isn't needed even at higher levels. It's called RUNNING AWAY. When that big critter bites you within a single round of damage of dying, LEAVE.

So my choice is between running, and suffering a potentially fatal AoO, or withdrawing, and getting killed by a charge next round? I'd much rather get healed, thanks.

The problem with trying to run away from fights is that in 3.x D&D, it's almost impossible to escape from a battle without magic. But that's really a separate topic, so I'll leave that one alone for now.

 

[Shades of Green]

I like the RP potential of reigious characters, especially priests (of any kind), but I think that the core Cleric should be a very specific class - not every god is going to want this kind of crusader, and not every god gives spells in the same way. I'm thinking of creating a specific Priest class for each deity. Dwarven Clerics (monotheistic, inspired by the Hammer faith in the Thief computer games) are going to be similar to the PHB Cleric, though with a maul instead of a mace, but divine spellcasters of ther faithes are going to be quite different, and in many cases more similar to the Sorcerer rather than the PHB Cleric.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I love playing clerics. I love their power.

No, not all the rules advantages (well, not only). I like how you have your comrades' lives in your hand.

I'm playing a dwarven cleric right now. It's nice with persistant divine favour and quickened divine power, extended magic vestment and extended greater magic weapon.

Of course, I usually spend a lot of time healing our party demolition man, but that's okay.

 

[billd91]

I've always enjoyed clerics and I don't have any problem with them casting in armor. Their spells are divinely driven, not driven by any kind of mystical pseudo-science like a wizards. Wizards have to grab hold of the reins of the cosmic elements that are magical and bend them to their will by weird turns of logic, words of power, and elaborate manipulations of the body. Divine magic, being subsidized by a god or two, cuts through all that crap and makes it easier. Fair enough reason to let the armor restriction slide.

 

[CrimsonWineGlass]

I despise the 3.x cleric. They are far too overpowered in my opinion. Its true that nobody really wants to be a walking bandaid, but I know many people who absolutely love to be a cleric. They are fighters with more hp effectively. I mean, they can use the same armor, a single feat gives them a weapon to match, plus, while they go into combat at half the hp due to the lower HD and frequently a lower con, they have healing spells to fix that right up. On top of that, they don't just fall to the first mind affecting spell or similar that pops up, and though they have fewer feats, the buffs toughen them up. My games have had pvp over the years, and whenever a cleric is involved (assuming single glass pvp) it is highly rare for the cleric to loose. I can understand holy warrior with a dwarf, or most battle-focused races, but elves, halflings, humans, etc. Expecially clerics of semi-peaceful dieities. If I rule that you can't wear armor as a cleric of a peaceful diety, clerics of anything less than Tempus or Kord die out.

Clerics are far to strong and a lot like drugs, you avoid starting playing a cleric because you know its bad, but the peer pressure eventually gets you to give in, and after that, your addicted.

 

[AE020704]

I enjoy playing Clerics, but not exclusively. I like all the Divine types, and generally choose Clerics, Favoured Souls, Paladins and the like, even the occasional mundane class that takes a Divine PrC.

It's a roleplaying consideration, though, rather than the class itself. I've played Clerics in a number of ways, from the non-combatant support / healer to the tank that doesn't cast (which annoys the rest of the party at times ). Players who choose Clerics for the power are always going to choose something for the power, if you see what I mean. It just so happens that Clerics are easy to make into massively powerful characters in many aspects of play with little effort.

As always, and I mean ALWAYS, it comes down to the player, not the game. Oh dear Gods, did I just type the worst cliché ever!? BAD HANDS! PLAY DEAD!

 

[RFisher]

I have mixed feelings on the cleric.

As a DM, I hate it when a player chooses to play a cleric simply because no one else is. I'd much rather the players choose the classes they want & try to figure out how to get by without a cleric. As DM, I'll even be willing to make NPC clerics & healing potions more available if it will break the mindset that every party absolutely must have a cleric.

Don't get me wrong. I think picking your class based on helping to round out the party is generally a positive thing. It's the "who's going to sacrifice this time & play the class that nobody wants (especially the guy who used to like playing clerics but is burnt out on them) but that we have to have" thing that annoys me.

Clerics often don't fit in the worlds I imagine. Whenever I submit to my addiction of starting homebrew systems that never get finished, I seldom include cleric-ish characters. I guess they just tend to not be a part of my personal idea of fantasy.

(I'm also quite sympathetic to the point of view that such a character is better modelled as some sort of warrior/spellcaster multiclass.)

On the other hand, I've come to love playing them. They are the original munchkin class! It's the paladins that are intruding on the cleric's turf, not vice versa! I love the cloistered cleric, but I want a PC that adventures, not one that's cloistered! (Of course, the "cloistered cleric" should be named simply "cleric" & the "cleric" should be named "crusader" or "templar".) My clerics are not simply medics. They strive to be leaders in every way.

Despite being munchkin, though, they are a challenge to play. With all his capabilities, the cleric is still only one character. He still only gets one turn per round. With all those options comes tough judgements. (Which is why fighter remains my favorite class.)