Why Is the Cleric Unfun?

[Numion]

I disagree.

There is a difference between co-operative and team-based and being forced to be a healing bot.

It means not being to use the characters full potential. Healing all the time means no chance to explore the other domain spells. Or other spells. Like at low level say shield of faith to maybe prevent the frenzying barbarian from being HIT as opposed to healing the damage later on. And other stuff.

Exactomundo!

Clerics are quite adept at ass-kicking. With the right buffs they will kick more ass than the fighter. This cleric un-funness was never an issue in our games.

And yes we had the group tactics pegged down quite well. Its just that all things considered healing is usually the least efficient action the cleric can perform. The monsters damage output in 3E is quite high - more than the cleric can match with the puny healing (now Heal and Mass Heal are different) - so its usually more efficient to try to put down the enemies as fast as possible.

That will even reduce the need for healing - when battle is over quickly, less damage is dealt. Cleric actively spending rounds healing 20 points instead of dealing a 100 points of damage just isn't very practical.

Teamwork is D&D combat is much more than clerics being obliged to cure. And I don't feel that just by virtue of choosing a cleric the player would be obliged to heal. 3E has a lot of different types of clerics - you can be a 2-h sword swinging bad ass as well as a healer. If my group demanded that I heal all the time, I'd just make a fighter or wizard and kick ass with that - in any case they'd waste their effort in trying to get me to heal all the time.

Now, I'm not saying I'd actively oppose healing - there are situations where healing is the best choice. Usually that is between combats (from Cure Wands), and sometimes during combat. A cleric optimized for kicking ass is usually most effective when he's doing just that. And in my experience a group with the standard wizard, fighter, rogue and healer cleric will fare worse than the group with wizard, fighter, rogue and ass-kicker cleric.

In short: the problem never materialized for our group once some wise-ass munchkin generated the legendary Dwarven cleric "Hathar", who happily kicked more ass than any fighter ever had. I think I banned a couple of spells because of that character (he used miracle to emulate polymorph and went around in stonegiant form )

 

[frankthedm]

Clerics are quite adept at ass-kicking. With the right buffs they will kick more ass than the fighter.

That is the problem 4e will be fixing!

 

[cougent]

Again, I didn't say that.

It's not EVERY round. It's just that it's often enough to be annoying. It doesn't even have to be the majority of rounds to be annoying. If I'm spending 1 round in 3 healing, I could see players being annoyed about this.

Actually I was answering Gort, but I should have been clearer.

However, you did come pretty close to saying that:

Cougent - note, I said "Capability" not guarantee. If I'm at full hp's, the chances of me getting whacked in a single round are fairly low. That chance only increases with damage. So, in effect, by not healing the nickel and dime stuff, you are increasing the lethality of an encounter.

Generally not something other players are going to be happy with.

Cleric PC: Naw, you're only down 10 hp. Suck it up, I'm saving this Command spell.
DM: You take 47 damage. You have 47 hp's right?
Fighter PC: When I'm at full I do... :\

Anyway, regardless of your position on clerics I still maintain that:
1) They are fun to play
2) They do not have to be heal-bots
You are of course free to dissagree with that.

Exactomundo!

Clerics are quite adept at ass-kicking. With the right buffs they will kick more ass than the fighter. This cleric un-funness was never an issue in our games.

And yes we had the group tactics pegged down quite well. Its just that all things considered healing is usually the least efficient action the cleric can perform. The monsters damage output in 3E is quite high - more than the cleric can match with the puny healing (now Heal and Mass Heal are different) - so its usually more efficient to try to put down the enemies as fast as possible.

That will even reduce the need for healing - when battle is over quickly, less damage is dealt. Cleric actively spending rounds healing 20 points instead of dealing a 100 points of damage just isn't very practical.

Teamwork is D&D combat is much more than clerics being obliged to cure. And I don't feel that just by virtue of choosing a cleric the player would be obliged to heal. 3E has a lot of different types of clerics - you can be a 2-h sword swinging bad ass as well as a healer. If my group demanded that I heal all the time, I'd just make a fighter or wizard and kick ass with that - in any case they'd waste their effort in trying to get me to heal all the time.

Now, I'm not saying I'd actively oppose healing - there are situations where healing is the best choice. Usually that is between combats (from Cure Wands), and sometimes during combat. A cleric optimized for kicking ass is usually most effective when he's doing just that. And in my experience a group with the standard wizard, fighter, rogue and healer cleric will fare worse than the group with wizard, fighter, rogue and ass-kicker cleric.

In short: the problem never materialized for our group once some wise-ass munchkin generated the legendary Dwarven cleric "Hathar", who happily kicked more ass than any fighter ever had. I think I banned a couple of spells because of that character (he used miracle to emulate polymorph and went around in stonegiant form )

QFT
It was never an issue in games I played or DMed either.

 

[Hussar]

Anyway, regardless of your position on clerics I still maintain that:
1) They are fun to play
2) They do not have to be heal-bots
You are of course free to dissagree with that.

Thing is, I don't disagree with you. I agree 100% with you. I love playing clerics. Always have. But, I can also see that stripping out the need to heal at higher level play would make playing a cleric a lot more fun as well.

Sure, you can buff the crap out of yourself and fight as well or better than a fighter, but, then, why not just play a fighter? Or, if you still want the religious angle, a paladin? Also, the buff the crap out of yourself thing gets very, VERY annoying at high levels when you have to start doing all the math for it. I've seen groups take over an hour just crunching the numbers prepping for a fight. That's not a whole lot of fun for a fight that lasts fifteen minutes.

Never mind what happens when you get whacked with a dispel magic. :\

But, in any case, I fully agree that clerics are a riot to play. Love them to pieces.

 

[Gort]

I don't think anyone ever said that clerics weren't powerful. Obviously if you play them for damage you can get stupidly good - too good, I would say. If you fight better than a fighter AND you can heal yourself to full every round if you need it, you're overpowered, certainly compared to the fighter.

However, whatever class is best at healing is gonna get shoehorned into the "healer" slot, just because of the heal spell. Clerics kinda reap what they sow on that one

 

[Numion]

Sure, you can buff the crap out of yourself and fight as well or better than a fighter, but, then, why not just play a fighter? Or, if you still want the religious angle, a paladin?

Playing a cleric well is more demanding than playing a fighter or a paladin, but it's also much more rewarding.

Also, the buff the crap out of yourself thing gets very, VERY annoying at high levels when you have to start doing all the math for it. I've seen groups take over an hour just crunching the numbers prepping for a fight. That's not a whole lot of fun for a fight that lasts fifteen minutes.

Never mind what happens when you get whacked with a dispel magic. :\

You're half right here. It takes an hour for a player who doesn't know what he is doing, or is inexperienced with clerics. Dispel Magic hasn't caused much trouble in our games time-wise - a couple of spells get dispelled, you mark off a few bonuses, game on.

But yeah, that could be improved.

But, in any case, I fully agree that clerics are a riot to play. Love them to pieces.

Amen, bro. I've been stuck as the designated DM for a while now, but I think I've always played a cleric when I've had the chance. Elven archer cleric, half-orc 2-h cleric etc.. so much variety, and the religion angle is always good for roleplaying ideas.

 

[frankthedm]

Never mind what happens when you get whacked with a dispel magic. :\

'Whacking' someone with dispell magic is taking down Water breathing while deep underwater. Dispelling a cleric's stacked buffs is 'restroring sanity'.

 

[Fishbone]

Could a Cleric be unfun to play with because its too good?
A few times I've just felt "cheap" playing them.

 

[cougent]

I don't think anyone ever said that clerics weren't powerful. Obviously if you play them for damage you can get stupidly good - too good, I would say. If you fight better than a fighter AND you can heal yourself to full every round if you need it, you're overpowered, certainly compared to the fighter.

However, whatever class is best at healing is gonna get shoehorned into the "healer" slot, just because of the heal spell. Clerics kinda reap what they sow on that one

Bordering on being totally off topic here, but I have always felt that the "Fighter" should be a weak-strong class. Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, any specialized type of fighter should be strong, but plain Jim fighters not so much, and to get back closer to topic a "divine" fighter type (yes there is the paladin, but just bear with me) should be uber-strong. After all, he is divinely powered, not just muscular and well trained. I have also always felt there should be a base class magically enhanced fighter class to balance the scales also. I fully admit this is a personal prejudice of mine and probably has a lot to do with my fondness for clerics as warriors, instead of support medics.

Maybe Monks should be able to heal? Just a stray thought that jumped into my head.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Psychologically....

The cleric is un-fun because the human mind loves to change things. Changing things is active, controlling, manipulating, forcing the world to obey your commands.

The cleric's core schtick is to PREVENT change. To be reactive. To stop others from being able to control, manipulate, and use others. It's the exact opposite of what the human brain naturally delights in doing. It's important. It's effective. But being the cleric means being the "buzzkill," to keep the status quo, to stop interesting things from happening.

Psychologically, that's a lot less fun.

I mean, what would you rather do? Rend flesh from those who oppose you with arcane power? Or repeatedly hit the "undo" button and take back the rending that others do to you?