D&D 5E Why ever play a cleric?

[steeldragons]

The Cleric is the first/original "support" class. Wanting to play a cleric has, in almost all instances for me, been a result of wanting to play that pseudo-religious/priestly character who is supportive of their companions.

Understanding that D&D is a cooperative game, a "team" effort and my role is to support, bolster, further the aims of that team...and do so with degree of spirituality, an interest in the esoterra/deities/religions created for the fantasy setting, a wise counsel, an enlightened serenity, a crusading fervor, a simple strength of "belief" in the need for good to triumph over evil,...and/or any combination thereof.

Oftentimes that includes "healing", yes. But only once, when I consciously chose to be a cleric of the goddess of life & healing, has my wanting to play a cleric resulted/"mandated" in being "the group healer."

In 5e, moreso than any other edition, I feel, between the cleric, the druid, the paladin, the bard, and even the monk (self-healing), the idea/concept that "being a cleric means I have to be the healer" or as the OP states, "the only reason to want to be cleric is to be a healer" is simply some bygone fallacy people want to continue to hold onto/complain about.

Roleplaying a cleric is the same as roleplaying any other character...with a bit of extra "religious/belief" fluff.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The answer to your question is, "for the same reason anyone plays any other class." Why do you play a fighter? or a Paladin? or a Barbarian?

Right now my highest level PC is a tempest cleric (level 12). It does way more than an eldritch knight can do. In fact, I don't do very much healing at all. I'm a tempest cleric dangit, so I make sure my enemies feel my storm wrath!

Seriously though, most of the things I do are:

*spirit guardians as I am in the front line with my heavy armor
* destructive wrath for when I get really mad
* warding bond with the fighter for when I'm not in the front line and she is
* heroes feast before we ventured into the green dragon's lair
* call lightning when outside during longer battles
* storm sphere (my DM allowed me to swap icestorm for that more appropriate spell)

None of those things can an Eldritch knight do. I would say 90% of the time when I do heal, it's prayer of healing out of combat. Only in rare emergencies to I have to drop something like revivify.

 

[krakistophales]

The answer to your question is, "for the same reason anyone plays any other class." Why do you play a fighter? or a Paladin? or a Barbarian?

Right now my highest level PC is a tempest cleric (level 12). It does way more than an eldritch knight can do. In fact, I don't do very much healing at all. I'm a tempest cleric dangit, so I make sure my enemies feel my storm wrath!

Seriously though, most of the things I do are:

*spirit guardians as I am in the front line with my heavy armor
* destructive wrath for when I get really mad
* warding bond with the fighter for when I'm not in the front line and she is
* heroes feast before we ventured into the green dragon's lair
* call lightning when outside during longer battles
* storm sphere (my DM allowed me to swap icestorm for that more appropriate spell)

None of those things can an Eldritch knight do. I would say 90% of the time when I do heal, it's prayer of healing out of combat. Only in rare emergencies to I have to drop something like revivify.

So do you think you're better at melee than the eldritch knight, who at that level has 3 attacks with a fighting style and 20 STR backing his attacks? Or do you think you're better at casting storm magic? I understand the utility part of it with heroes' feast and warding bond and stuff like that, but beside that aspect, isn't the eldritch knight a better mix of caster/melee?

 

[feartheminotaur]

Because I select my class, feats, and other attributes based on the character I want to play and not what's "best". I could care less if I'm leaving .012345 DRP on the table by not taking a class dip plus feat plus loose interpretation of a rule...

In general, I don't feel I need to be beholden to what someone subjectively claims is "better" - otherwise I'd have married a supermodel instead of the woman I love and been a phsycist/jet pilot/neurosurgeon/rock star instead of an IT consultant.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, I just simply cant wrap my head around why someone would play a cleric other than filling the healing role in a party. I understand domains help them specialize and give them interesting options, but why choose a cleric with a certain domain over a class that functions the same way, just better?

If you want to be a capable warrior with divine magic, go paladin.
If you want to be a capable caster, why go light domain cleric over, say, warlock/sorcerer/wizard?
If you want to be a gish, like tempest or war domain clerics, why not just go eldritch knight?

I look forward to being enlightened and perhaps converted to actually trying a cleric one of these days.

Because some of us don't just look at mechanics and those other classes fail to fulfill the roleplay needs of our character..

 

[krakistophales]

Because I select my class, feats, and other attributes based on the character I want to play and not what's "best". I could care less if I'm leaving .012345 DRP on the table by not taking a class dip plus feat plus loose interpretation of a rule...

In general, I don't feel I need to be beholden to what someone subjectively claims is "better" - otherwise I'd have married a supermodel instead of the woman I love and been a phsycist/jet pilot/neurosurgeon/rock star instead of an IT consultant.

Sure, but is it wrong of me to want to min/max and try to see the wisdom/extent of how a cleric can be min/maxed? I'm just looking for some dialogue here and maybe see something from a different perspective, but everyone seems so salty about it like I'm kink shaming you. Relax.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In 5e, moreso than any other edition, I feel, between the cleric, the druid, the paladin, the bard, and even the monk (self-healing), the idea/concept that "being a cleric means I have to be the healer" or as the OP states, "the only reason to want to be cleric is to be a healer" is simply some bygone fallacy people want to continue to hold onto/complain about.
.

This is truth. And I love it. 5e did a great job with the cleric. Also, none of those other classes can outright destroy undead or call down your diety's favor. Yeah, the paladin and EK can get spells, but not until much higher levels, and not nearly as many, and are more limited in their choices as to what they can cast. Even though I only get one attack, I also add 1d8 damage to that attack. When you factor in things like that, spirit guardians, or the wrath of the storm retributive strike, I have not seen any detriment in the amount of punishment I can deal out compared to the fighter. What detriment there is on an attack per attack basis, I more than make up for with something like destructive wrath. Especially when you max out lightning/thunder damage using channel divinity

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but is it wrong of me to want to min/max and try to see the wisdom/extent of how a cleric can be min/maxed? I'm just looking for some dialogue here and maybe see something from a different perspective, but everyone seems so salty about it like I'm kink shaming you. Relax.

Who really cares if you want to min-max or not. You didn't ask about min-maxing. You asked a question about why we would play a cleric. Your personal desire to min-max has no bearing on why people would play a cleric instead of paladin, sorcerer, etc.

 

[ThirdWizard]

So do you think you're better at melee than the eldritch knight, who at that level has 3 attacks with a fighting style and 20 STR backing his attacks? Or do you think you're better at casting storm magic? I understand the utility part of it with heroes' feast and warding bond and stuff like that, but beside that aspect, isn't the eldritch knight a better mix of caster/melee?

You might as well ask besides all that spellcasting why would you play a wizard over a fighter, since the wizard doesn't get as many good attacks.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So do you think you're better at melee than the eldritch knight, who at that level has 3 attacks with a fighting style and 20 STR backing his attacks? Or do you think you're better at casting storm magic? I understand the utility part of it with heroes' feast and warding bond and stuff like that, but beside that aspect, isn't the eldritch knight a better mix of caster/melee?

Our D&D games cover a lot more than just melee combat. Who cares if the EK can do more DPR per attack over the long run. That's not what I want to do. All the other abilities more than make up for it in the exploration and interaction pillars of the game. Even in combat, with the aforementioned spirit guardians and nova spells, I am more than keeping up with the EK or paladin. A 12th level EK isn't going to have nearly the access to spells like my 12th level cleric does.