Why Is the Cleric Unfun?

[Driddle]

Oh, I've experienced so called TPKs, or indeed character deaths only very, very rarely, and really only when someone or a whole group was getting bored with the characters. In fact, as a DM, I'm probably too lenient, never using Save_or_Die effects for instance.

However, judging from the threads about Save_or_Die, it seems that every second session of every second ENWorld member involves a TPK, so I assume that my experiences are out of the ordinary.

It's been proven out that people who are unhappy with something are more likely to make a big fuss than people who are happy with it. That doesn't mean they are the majority.

 

[FireLance]

Interesting observation. I also mostly DM.

I wonder how many of the 'Clerics are fun to play (anyway?)' people are also mostly DMs.

My group shares out the DMing job, so I don't "mostly" DM, but I'm one of the more active ones. And I think clerics are fun to play.

 

[Hussar]

I've never lost against any hard encounters.

If a situation is more difficult than you have resources to tackle immediately, you back off and replan or restock or reroute around it. That's a core assumption of the roleplaying gaming experiences I've been in: creative solutions, no matter how tough the challenge. You don't lose, per se, you just work through it. ... Kinda like life. After all, it's not as though we're playing a scripted computer game with only one way to force a "win."

Again, the cleric class is not unfun. The people playing clerics are.

I'm sorry, but, I don't believe this. You've NEVER lost against a hard encounter. And you absolutely trust that your DM didn't fudge? I'm calling shenanigans. I've run more than enough 3e combat to know how lethal it is. If you're facing EL+ encounters regularly and never dying, someone's playing silly buggers with the numbers.

That this surprises you makes me sad for your own experiences.

Driddle, how you account for encounters where monsters can kill PC's in a single round? It's all very good to say "play smart" but, that means you have to "play smart" in every single encounter. If you lack a healer, how do you do combat past about 10th level?

I really wonder if those who talk about how fun the cleric is to play don't play high level games.

 

[Henry]

Driddle, how you account for encounters where monsters can kill PC's in a single round? It's all very good to say "play smart" but, that means you have to "play smart" in every single encounter. If you lack a healer, how do you do combat past about 10th level?

I really wonder if those who talk about how fun the cleric is to play don't play high level games.

The Planescape game I played in earlier this year involved a cleric/servant of Pelor from 10th level up to 18th. He was a blast to play, as much for his healing as his ability to whip the snot out of undead and blow away evil outsiders with bolts of glory. One cleric before that in a 3E game in 2005 was played to 17th level.

But I will admit in the old days (AD&D) we almost never played past 9th level or so. That seemed to be a near-universal experience though, so the game never really needed that much robustness. The one time I did play, though, the cleric kicked butt especially after 16th level, and he got his multiple destruction, earthquakes, blade barriers, etc.

I've noticed several comments about the weakness of clerics in AD&D, and I really didn't see it - but then, we were always cautious about our progress, and never went more in an in-game day than we felt we could handle, which meant I could pack a couple of "high damage" spells on the 4th, 6th, and 7th level spells. Clerics could do more damage than the fighters, rangers, and paladins if they used their spells to good effect.

 

[Hussar]

All right Henry. Fair enough. Actually, I agree that clerics are a blast to play. My priest of Cuthbert was a load of fun.

But, that's a little beside the point. The question is really, if you take away the schtick of healing from the cleric, does the class become more or less fun or no difference?

 

[Ahglock]

The entire reason I never cared for clerics is there power source. I never liked the idea of a character getting there powers because they are begging for scraps at the dinner table. All the other classes gain there abilities through there own merits and efforts. Clerics get there abilities because they kissed enough butt that superman gives them a few gifts.

Outside of that I have no problem with them. In campaigns where clerics get there powers from internal discipline and study I can like them.

 

[Henry]

All right Henry. Fair enough. Actually, I agree that clerics are a blast to play. My priest of Cuthbert was a load of fun.

But, that's a little beside the point. The question is really, if you take away the schtick of healing from the cleric, does the class become more or less fun or no difference?

I'd say less fun -- one of the reasons clerics were cool to me were that they were the only class in the old days that could "solo," basically. They were self sustaining. They made their own food and water, healed their own wounds, and could find their way into and out of a sticky situation (thanks to find traps, locate object, augury, and communues). Taking away the ability to heal takes away not only that "solo" ability, but detracts from their support role. I never had a problem playing a support role, the "shadow" or "mentor" to the "hero" if you will, and I never felt that they should have been trying to make it a "sexy" class anyway. (Wow! Too many quotes!)

 

[FireLance]

But, that's a little beside the point. The question is really, if you take away the schtick of healing from the cleric, does the class become more or less fun or no difference?

I think it's less a case of taking away the schtick of healing as it is reducing the advantage of having a cleric in the party by allowing a wider range of characters with significant healing ability (e.g. the warlord), and by reducing the power level of the cleric compared to the other classes.

This means that there will be less arm-twisting of players to run a cleric unless they really are interested in doing clericy support stuff like buffing and healing. The cleric is fun when you really like playing a cleric. The cleric is less fun when you'd rather be playing something else, but you feel you have to play one or the party will be at a disadvantage.

When it is no longer such a significant advantage to having a cleric in the party, there will be more people playing clerics who actually want to do so, and on average, the people playing clerics will be having more fun.

 

[FireLance]

The entire reason I never cared for clerics is there power source. I never liked the idea of a character getting there powers because they are begging for scraps at the dinner table. All the other classes gain there abilities through there own merits and efforts. Clerics get there abilities because they kissed enough butt that superman gives them a few gifts.

*Rips up first draft of the beggar and courtier classes* :\

 

[Ahglock]

*Rips up first draft of the beggar and courtier classes* :\

Hey everyone likes different things besides I eat Peanut butter, mustard and liverwurst sandwiches I'm hardly a barometer of taste.