Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3876781" data-attributes="member: 32164">The cleric's &quot;unfun&quot; because he's been statted so that he can heal, spellcast and fight.Ideally, a cleric should be operating at a much lower &quot;burn&quot; rate than a wizard. Why? Because he can do things in combat other than cast spells.A wizard who gets into melee is wasting his time. A cleric is doing his job. Ignoring their role as &quot;heal-bot&quot; the cleric should be going into melee and casting the occasional spell to buff themselves or damage their opponent.In OD&amp;D, the cleric was a half-step between &quot;fighting-man&quot; and &quot;magic-user&quot; - the original hybrid class. They should NEVER have been the exclusive province over healing - which is what made them the &quot;walking band-aid&quot; class.Out-of-combat healing should be different than in-combat healing. I'd venture to say that the former should only be limited &quot;per character&quot; (for realism reasons) whereas the latter should be far more restricted - forcing the cleric to sacrifice actions or &quot;get the blessing of his deity.&quot; By the way, the latter could be modeled as &quot;whenever the cleric rolls a 20, he has the blessing of his deity - allowing him to channel a wave of divine energy that can be used to heal an ally.&quot;In 3e, the cleric has become such a primary caster that he can compete with the wizard. Ditto the druid. As such, I think it's finally time we did away with the notion of &quot;no arcane healing&quot; spells being a &quot;balance issue.&quot; Want a wizard who heals? Play a druid. He also gets better armor, a better familiar (animal companion), and the ability to shapeshift. Personally, I'd like it if wizards gained the ability to provide out-of-combat magical healing.Aside: do you suppose they dumped the druid class so that they can give wizards a decent ability to shapeshift like they SHOULD? After all, since they don't (usually) worship gods, why is a druid not just a different flavor of wizard?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 3876781, member: 32164"] The cleric's "unfun" because he's been statted so that he can heal, spellcast and fight. Ideally, a cleric should be operating at a much lower "burn" rate than a wizard. Why? Because he can do things in combat other than cast spells. A wizard who gets into melee is wasting his time. A cleric is doing his job. Ignoring their role as "heal-bot" the cleric should be going into melee and casting the occasional spell to buff themselves or damage their opponent. In OD&D, the cleric was a half-step between "fighting-man" and "magic-user" - the original hybrid class. They should NEVER have been the exclusive province over healing - which is what made them the "walking band-aid" class. Out-of-combat healing should be different than in-combat healing. I'd venture to say that the former should only be limited "per character" (for realism reasons) whereas the latter should be far more restricted - forcing the cleric to sacrifice actions or "get the blessing of his deity." By the way, the latter could be modeled as "whenever the cleric rolls a 20, he has the blessing of his deity - allowing him to channel a wave of divine energy that can be used to heal an ally." In 3e, the cleric has become such a primary caster that he can compete with the wizard. Ditto the druid. As such, I think it's finally time we did away with the notion of "no arcane healing" spells being a "balance issue." Want a wizard who heals? Play a druid. He also gets better armor, a better familiar (animal companion), and the ability to shapeshift. Personally, I'd like it if wizards gained the ability to provide out-of-combat magical healing. Aside: do you suppose they dumped the druid class so that they can give wizards a decent ability to shapeshift like they SHOULD? After all, since they don't (usually) worship gods, why is a druid not just a different flavor of wizard? [/QUOTE]

Verification