Who else dosn't like clerics?

[Wraith-Hunter]

Just a little rant. Clerics kind of bug me. I never had a problem with them in 2e. Someone always wanted to play them in the groups I was in, though I was never really interested. But in 3.x I just don't like them. They get to cast in armor (though I have always though AFC was dumb) Get all the armor feats, get a decent BaB, full caster progression. Good spells for anything other than pure blasting, special abilities, etc. All in an effort to get people to play them. So that the party can have a walking bandaid. This bugs me.

What really bugs me are the people who play one not because they want to play a divine character but people looking for a power up. The real problem really is healing spells are divine only. Oh you can be a bard and heal but who wants to play a bard they suck (just a joke Bard lovers). But really the problem seems to be healing magic. D&D has the sacred cow that you have to have a cleric in the party so you can get healed and wizards are too powerfull at high levels. Even with the nerfs they are very powerfull and should be.

But the problem seems to be the healing factor. If the healing domain was opened up to all caster classes as universal, then there would be much less of a need for a cleric in the party, though still very welcome addition especially where undead are concerned. Nearly all the nonD&D specific fantasy I have read has wizard types capable of healing. From a game balance perspective this would make sorcerers a but more desired due to the spontaneous casting and dilute the power of a wizard in a party if he has to help heal.

I know it will NEVER happen in D&D so this is just an impotent rant. I just felt like getting it off my chest. I think I will have to stay off character optimination boards for awhile. Anyone else not like clerics? Or maybe better to say like how the class is in 3e?

 

[Sejs]

I like clerics.

I'm not terribly fond of the heavy armored pseudowarrior model for clerics that have been the D&D norm pretty much from day one.

Much more in preference of the cloistered cleric offered in UA. More monastic, but without any zany kung fu connotations.

 

[Ace]

I am not a cleric fan either.

The system is set up to almost require them although that is changing

You can use Healers (from minis HB) or the generic class of Spellcaster from UA if you don't want the religious crusader tanks in your game

 

[EricNoah]

I don't enjoy playing the support/healer role, and I find it hard to truly believe others do. It just doesn't seem like fun.

I too would prefer a cloistered cleric type of class, or to just allow wizards and sorcerers to cast healing spells.

 

[Ringan]

I like the warrior-priest-ness of clerics, and their stark contrast to mages/sorcerors.

However, I agree that healing should not be restricted to divine casters. I would like healing to be available to more classes; especially some sort of nonmagical healing for low-magic games.

 

[Nap]

We have a cleric in the party I'm DM'ing for, and he fits in quite well. I can see how some might feel that the cleric receives too many benefits to encourage people to play it, but it hasn't been an issue in our group.

Currently, our cleric is true to his class in roleplaying terms. He is the first to help the poor, and while he is sometimes a bit "crotchety", he is very humble when it comes to dining and accommodations.

I think that, if properly used, clerics can provide great roleplaying opportunities that other classes cannot. The connection with the Divine and their standing in the church can often place the cleric in a leadership role, and there should also be some due respect thrown towards the clergy when traveling in foreign lands.

 

[HellHound]

Huge cleric fan here. Been my fave class since YEARS. A lot of my campaigns have focused on them over the last 25 years.

 

[Henry]

I'm going to say something that always get disputed:

You do not need clerics in 3E.

You really don't. Between Druids, Favored Souls, Binders (Tome of Magic), Bards, Rangers, Paladins, Cure light wounds wands, and even Generous natural healing rules, The need for cleric as band-aid has NEVER BEEN LOWER in the game of D&D. Ever. Honestly, people don't know how good they have it now.

Over half of the base classes can do some form of healing (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Monk, and Paladin). Of these, only Monks cannot use various Cure wounds wands. The scarcity of cure potions and wands in the default-assumed game is pretty uncommon. Even if a person never had so much as a magic-caster in the party, then their natural healing restores their full hit points in (Hit Dice + CON bonus) days. A wizard at 1 hit point will be in tip top shape in 4 days, give or take a day; a fighter, in ten days.

With all the advantages, a party isn't going to be hurting for hit points for more than few days, rather than a few weeks, as in the older games.

 

[Henry]

I don't enjoy playing the support/healer role, and I find it hard to truly believe others do. It just doesn't seem like fun.

You'd better believe it's fun. *evil grin.*

Clerics have always been a favorite class of mine even as far back as 1st edition, and they've made 'em ten times as fun with 3E and beyond. Play a priest of an Archer-deity, or a priest of St. Cuthbert with Strength and Destruction, and you can lay out some carnage unlike any time in the past.

 

[WayneLigon]

I've never had a problem with the cleric. The spontaneous casting idea really made them stand out in 3E, since they didn't have to load up on only curing spells.