Post/Author/DateTime	Post
igotsmeakabob!! 12-22-05, 03:28 AM	I don't hang around these forums often (though I should, I love dnd heh) and I've never DMed succesfully, one attempt of me doing a premade adventure and I was bored to death, but I see alot of threads where people detail the classes in their parties... I've noticed a surprising lack of healers. Is this due to eberron and the availability of healing potions, or are they actually not needed? Please, leave as much info as you like and go on long paragraphs, im sleepy and i want a long read by the time i wake up. Oh lemme just I've been playing since I was 10 and have been playin for 8-9 years, and I can't remember a time a party didn't have any kind of healer.
Straylight 12-22-05, 04:21 AM	In Eberron, the presence of Artificers and Warforged takes a lot of the pressure off the healers. Artificers can hand out Cure and Repair wands like candy and Warforged don't get full benefit from healing subschool spells anyway, making Clerics overall less critical to the party. Another facet of Eberron that lends to the relative lack of clerics (besides fluff) is the nature of the game's style. It is a style that puts much more emphasis on plot and lessens or eliminates random encounters altogether, making it much more likely that PCs aren't going to need extended in-combat healing -or at least not as much as they normally would holding to the 13.3 rule. Besides, while I do know a few people who actually like playing a healbot, I certainly don't, and I don't think the majority of fans attracted to the dynamic aspects of Eberron will either. So, yeah, that's three possible reasons why you may be seeing fewer Clerics in Eberron, or I could be crazy. Who knows?
Kori 12-22-05, 04:42 AM	But I like playing clerics! :(
aelryinth 12-22-05, 05:14 AM	If you compensate for it, you can get by without it. Basically, you spend gold for quick healing instead of having someone cast the spells. It uses up party resources, but it IS a viable source. Plenty of classes with minor healing ability, too. ==Aelryinth
Saurenda 12-22-05, 05:40 AM	But I like playing clerics! :( PCs can always be rare base classes. There are no reason why a player cannot be a cleric in Eberron if that is what your worrying about. EDIT: Pending DM dissaproval before hand for campaign reasons.
Ath'kethin 12-22-05, 07:56 AM	I see alot of threads where people detail the classes in their parties... I've noticed a surprising lack of healers. Amusingly, according to an answer a friend of mine and I got from WoTC Customer Service, this is why the cleric class is overpowered: nobody wants to play healers. They beefed up the class to the point of being almost 'broken,' just to make it more appealing.
DarkWarriorKarg 12-22-05, 08:10 AM	Because many people dislike playing what they view as "support" characters. The ones that I know who enjoy playing clerics have never viewed their clerical characters that way. Yes, they support the team (the cleric's strength), but they also put personality to them, buff themselves up a bit, and wade into melee to support the fighter.
Delgar 12-22-05, 09:19 AM	You definately don't need to have a healer in a home game. The best game I ever ran (it was Eberron too) involved a: Warforged Fighter Kalshtar Psion Changeling Rogue Elven Bard It was a blast and they totally lacked healing. But they all roleplayed so well it was so much fun. The Elven bard was dragonmarked (Pharlarn) and she had delusions of grandeur to the sense that she was going to take over the house at whatever costs and she was not above eliminating the competition. She got the group in so much trouble. Highlights from the game: - The Bard killed their patron because she kept making her do hard labor - The group stole a royal airship - They spent thousands of gold pieces on clothing because when clubbing all night you have to look cool - They tried to blackmail the prince of Breland, failed and tried to stir up other factions The group basically followed her along like little puppies, any time they ever questioned what she did, she had a perfect logical explanation. It was great. No healer and by far the most fun I've ever had in DnD. Too bad I had to move away for work.
(Psi)SeveredHead 12-22-05, 11:07 AM	I don't hang around these forums often (though I should, I love dnd heh) and I've never DMed succesfully, one attempt of me doing a premade adventure and I was bored to death, but I see alot of threads where people detail the classes in their parties... I've noticed a surprising lack of healers. Is this due to eberron and the availability of healing potions, or are they actually not needed? Please, leave as much info as you like and go on long paragraphs, im sleepy and i want a long read by the time i wake up. Oh lemme just I've been playing since I was 10 and have been playin for 8-9 years, and I can't remember a time a party didn't have any kind of healer. You don't need a healer. But it helps. A lot. I've been in a few campaigns without a healer. We had a 2e campaign, 1st-level, where the only healer was a paladin. We were falling unconscious every other encounter, and the DM had to have us "find" a ridiculously huge number of potions. *Groan* We spent a lot of time walking around at negative hit points (another necessary house rule). I've had the misfortune of DMing a DnD 3.5 campaign without a cleric. They had a psionic healer instead. It didn't work. Psionics can't be used to heal party members at range, which led directly to the death of the barbarian. Mind you, this wasn't a big problem with softball encounters, since the psychic healer was actually slightly better at healing out of combat. Finally, we got a new player who wanted to be a cleric. An evil rogue/cleric, who of course ends up with fewer caster levels. I made him take a custom feat that let him convert spells into healing spells even though he was evil. It's extremely hard to play without a healer. However, you don't need a cleric to be the healer - they're just the best at it. A druid of level 7+ makes a good healer - summon unicorns! You can also have a PC be a member of House Jorasco, but note this is an RP as well as a mechanical choice, so you can't count on having one in your party. House Jorasco healers can never match a cleric or even a druid in terms of raw magical healing ability, however. They can't heal at range, and can only cast healing spells a limited number of times per day. They can't heal a wide range of conditions, either. Finally, there's the artificer solution. I suppose that works - I haven't seen it in play. I wouldn't want to be stuck for time making or buying magical healing items, as sometimes the plot doesn't work that way.
Euangelion 12-22-05, 12:27 PM	Another aspect that hasn't been mentioned is that the healers extraordinaire of Eberron are the halflings of House Jorasco. Thus the clerics aren't really seen as healers according to the tone of the setting. One could argue that they don't really heal, the just channel positive energy which has the side effect of healing. It's real purpose might be to put the hurt on undead! So if someone really wants to be a healer, the best roleplaying option that's as faithful to the setting as possible is to play a Jorasco halfling. However, that may not be the most popular choice when it comes to playing a member of a Dragonmarked House. On the other hand, the Heroes of Battle Eberron Expanded article mentions that several armies used combat medics, which is a pretty flexible PrC wth its full spell progression. A 1st level cleric or bard could represent a warrior who has been in training to become a combat medic. This whole issue might be reason enough to get WOTC to redesign the divine spellcasting classes to make them more interesting. In other words, why should druids and archivists be the only divine spellcasters with full progression to have more than 2 skill points per level? Do all clerics really need to know how to use full plate? Why can't warrior clerics receive proficiency in their deity's favored weapon? Why do favored souls, who have no formal training, receive proficiency in their deity's favored weapon? There's a lot of great divine spellcasting classes now (I really like the Archivist from Heroes of Horror), but they really need to be sifted through with some abilities/qualities being exchanged for others. That way they can lose their "healer" label, and be more interesting to play.
a_psh 12-22-05, 04:06 PM	The way I see it, there's two kinds of healing: - In-combat healing. The cleric is the best at providing this. Nothing else quite compares. In-combat healing = staying power. The group can get mired in a ridiculously long battle where they're constantly losing hp and still stay alive. The big thing here is output: the group is probably losing a lot of hp, so they have to get a lot of it back. - Out-of-combat healing. This is any situation where hp-per-round doesn't matter very much. Any time the PCs have a minute or two to rest, even a cheapo CLW wand can heal them all the way back up to full. Cleric, bard, druid, paladin, ranger, artificer, UMD rogue... almost anyone can handle this job. Out-of-combat healing allows a group to take multiple encounters. In-combat healing allows a group to take some particularly bloody ones. Not all encounters can be thought of in terms of hp as the primary resource, however. I've seen groups work very well without any in-combat healing and with very little out-of-combat healing. With the ones that were successful, the main trick seems to be control: the group has to control when, where, and how combat happens, such that they can quickly leverage a victory out of every fight. Surprise, ambush, &c. Barring that, the best results that I've witnessed as a DM come from situations where the group rushes to neutralize the damage potential of any challenge: whereas they could actually end the battle quicker if they just took a few hits/fireballs to dish out their own, the party instead starts off a battle by piling on things like silence and globe of invulnerability and maneuvering for positional advantage, minimizing how much damage they take.
igotsmeakabob!! 12-22-05, 04:56 PM	Nice thoughts and tips/advice... not sure... quick question, favored souls are in complete divine correct? How do they stack up to paladins and clerics? Are they more fightery clerics? I have the book just not on me... anyone? I was thinking of doing a Warforged Favored Soul and if he could fight and heal.. well that'd be nice.
Sieylianna 12-22-05, 05:11 PM	Nice thoughts and tips/advice... not sure... quick question, favored souls are in complete divine correct? How do they stack up to paladins and clerics? Are they more fightery clerics? I have the book just not on me... anyone? I was thinking of doing a Warforged Favored Soul and if he could fight and heal.. well that'd be nice. Favored souls are weaker than paladins or clerics. They can't turn undead so they can't take advantage of the divine feats. This also closes out a lot of clerical prestige classes. They don't get knowledge - religion as a class skill, so they can't take the rest of the clerical prestige classes. They have a single good weapon and good saving throws. Everything else is inferior to a cleric. That said, a warforged with the adamantine body feat could be decent. You're going to need to max your UMD, unless another PC can cast repair light damage. You'd want to be a healer/buffer because your spells per day are based off of Charisma and the spell DCs are based off Wisdom. So you're going to have to live with lower ability scores than you may like. Ed
taski 12-22-05, 06:17 PM	Why don't people like playing healers? I love 'em. I don't see there being a lack of glory in it, either. The party can hit more difficult stuff with you around, and you're important to their survival. There's a lot of power in that role, though I suppose it is subtle power. Maybe you can't chop through the goblins to save the Princess as easily as a fighter could, but you can save your own party from the goblins. Also, a good healer will be noticed by the powers that be. Perhaps the healer could find out what's wrong with the Prince, and heal him? Would the healer pretty please save this village from a plague before the plague spreads? We've been in this prison for weeks without good food or clean water, can you help us? While your party was taking forever to get here, the kidnappers killed the Princess; raise her! With a good DM, the whole party can see how much influence a healer can have (even without wading into combat), not to mention getting in the newspapers.
(Psi)SeveredHead 12-22-05, 10:57 PM	Why don't people like playing healers? I love 'em. I don't see there being a lack of glory in it, either. The party can hit more difficult stuff with you around, and you're important to their survival. There's a lot of power in that role, though I suppose it is subtle power. Maybe you can't chop through the goblins to save the Princess as easily as a fighter could, but you can save your own party from the goblins. Also, a good healer will be noticed by the powers that be. Perhaps the healer could find out what's wrong with the Prince, and heal him? Would the healer pretty please save this village from a plague before the plague spreads? We've been in this prison for weeks without good food or clean water, can you help us? While your party was taking forever to get here, the kidnappers killed the Princess; raise her! With a good DM, the whole party can see how much influence a healer can have (even without wading into combat), not to mention getting in the newspapers. It's an opinion/personality thing. You're in the minority on this one, I believe. It seems to me that cleric players hate giving up actions to heal, when they could have been buffing or kicking @ss during that round. (A big problem in big groups, where combat slows to a crawl.) Furthermore, they might have just given up their only remaining divine power to prop up the barbarian again. Other classes get to control their actions and resources a bit more.
Sieylianna 12-23-05, 09:14 AM	With a good DM, the whole party can see how much influence a healer can have (even without wading into combat), not to mention getting in the newspapers. The "with a good DM" is the whole problem. Dungeon crawls and combat is a much larger portion of D&D 3.X than it was in 2nd edition. In many cases, it's a tactical miniature combat game. In that sort of environment, one and all, expect the cleric to stay in back and keep the fighters healed. Ed
Delgar 12-23-05, 10:20 AM	Basically you don't need a healer to have a fun DnD game. This all depends on your DM. If he's running store bought modules then you'll probably not fair as well without one, but if he's really into running a good game, then you can be challenged without having a cleric. It's all going to depend on the style of the game. Having played with a lot of fighter clerics and multiclassed clerics all I can say is for optimal performance a group is much better off if each player specializes in an area. Sure a cleric can buff himself, but odds are if he buff's the raging barbarian that barbarian is going to accomplish way more. Throw a heal on that barbarian so he can keep doing 30-40 points of damage per attack, and that he can soak up more attacks. Problem is, not a lot of people like playing a support role. I myself love it, I love supporting the group and leading them to victory. But I think of it as a group victory rather than an individual accomplishment. It all depends on the style of game your playing. I'm going to be running a group soon that won't have a healer, but that won't matter because really it's going to be all the mysteries and intrigue that will make the game. Not whether they can grind through another encounter. :) It's an opinion/personality thing. You're in the minority on this one, I believe. It seems to me that cleric players hate giving up actions to heal, when they could have been buffing or kicking @ss during that round. (A big problem in big groups, where combat slows to a crawl.) Furthermore, they might have just given up their only remaining divine power to prop up the barbarian again. Other classes get to control their actions and resources a bit more.
talion09 12-23-05, 02:26 PM	It's an opinion/personality thing. You're in the minority on this one, I believe. It seems to me that cleric players hate giving up actions to heal, when they could have been buffing or kicking @ss during that round. (A big problem in big groups, where combat slows to a crawl.) Furthermore, they might have just given up their only remaining divine power to prop up the barbarian again. Other classes get to control their actions and resources a bit more. That pretty much nails it for my group. We have 6 regular players and a DM, and once you toss in a few monsters and an NPC or cohort or two, the combats can sometimes slow to a standstill with 12+ people acting in a given turn. So if I only get to act once every 10 minutes or so (IMHO, figure 1 min per action per combatant as a good rule of thumb) then I usually don't want to spend my actions/time healing someone during the combat. Out of combat it isn't a big deal, takes no time at all really. But in combat, if I spend 2 or 3 rounds healing during the fight, then that is around half an hour I spent at the table basically as a spectator to the action. Which may or may not be fun depending on whats going on, etc... Basically when I'm a cleric (or any character) I want to be involved in the action, that is what is fun for me. If its a matter of life or death (ie. negative HP) to heal someone, thats fine. But if its a case of they are getting low on HP... then either play with better tactics, or pack a potion or two, cause I'm not here at the table to spend all my time supporting you by dropping what I'm doing to run over and heal you every time you get hit.
Arcane Guyver 12-23-05, 07:30 PM	Heh, my group is never without a healer. More often than not, we don't have any straight-up warrior-types. And I just want to say, it's a joy to tell players to make whatever they want. It can also be a hair-pulling experience when they just don't have basic abilities on hand.
igotsmeakabob!! 12-23-05, 08:46 PM	The way our groups usually work out is at character creation everyone agonizes over what class they have to take, I usually end up telling my fellow players to pick whatever they want and we'll work it out later, but usually someone bites the bullet and takes a healing class.
Wren 12-23-05, 09:46 PM	Favored souls are weaker than paladins or clerics. They can't turn undead so they can't take advantage of the divine feats. This also closes out a lot of clerical prestige classes. They don't get knowledge - religion as a class skill, so they can't take the rest of the clerical prestige classes. They have a single good weapon and good saving throws. Everything else is inferior to a cleric. **SNIP** Ed I've played a favored soul. The main trick is picking up the augment healing feat. Funny thing was... here I am playing a Multi-class Favored Soul/Psion and my caster level progression is more or less shot... but because of the fact that I had rolled fairly high stats and because I had taken the Augment Healing feat I was able to serve as primary healer in a group of like 7-8 people as long as I had a wand 'o cure light wounds to act as a back up. I was also able to serve as the voice of reason for the group. My psion levels provided me with a few tricks to move around with (I took Up the Walls as one of my feats) so I could get to nearly anywhere on the battlefield.
Pinky's brain 12-23-05, 09:54 PM	The problem with healing in combat is that without the heal spell it just doesn't do an awfull lot, there are some classes and prestige classes which can change that ... but on the whole damage outstrips cure spells so much that you are almost always better off doing healing outside of combat, and using your actions in combat for something more usefull. Since wands of cure light wounds or lesser vigor are very cheap all you really need is people in the party which can use those wands.
Psionycx 12-24-05, 12:36 AM	I tend to agree with the position that many players dislike playing clerics because they are perceived as simply being the First Aid squad of the party and not as full characters unto themselves. Now, in Eberron society the majority of healing does not get done by clerics. If you look through some of the game materials you find that many religions (especially the Sovereign Host) make use of what we would consider "lay clergy", in essence individuals that do not have any levels in the cleric class. This reflects the more abstract nature of religion in Eberron. Often, spellcasting clergy are adepts, not true clerics. The upside is that this can give a PC cleric more room to shine (just as widespread use of NPC classes benefits other classes). A cleric in Eberron should reflect their religion all the more strongly because society doesn't view them as doctors and nurses as they often are in other settings. When you say "healing" in Khorvaire, most people immediately think of House Jorasco, not their local temple.
igotsmeakabob!! 12-24-05, 03:14 AM	Psionycx the problem with what you said doesn't change the needs of the party. Yes, you are right that Jorasco is the main source of healing, not the temples. But how does that effect non-downtime healing in the party? The cleric class doesn't change with eberron. The gods change, and it can give the cleric more reason to smite than heal, but that doesn't change the fact that the party wants/needs a healer.
nastynate 12-24-05, 05:02 AM	If you don't have a regular healer however, things get a little skewed. Not having a cleric, puts the party in a position where they do not have the staying power necessary to survive multiple combat based encounters in a 24 hour period. So the DM compensates by putting in more traps, puzzles, politics etc; this is a good thing from my point of view. Less hack and slash, means more roleplaying...yay! The problem is that eliminating healers, and reducing the number of combat encounters, makes warrior type PCs far less useful. This problem is then compounded by psionic and arcane characters. No longer worried about a buch of little battles that slowly drain their resources, Psions and Wizards, can let loose during combat. They can now drop all their biggest bombs in one encounter w/o worrying about running out. When your wizard can shoot all of his lightning bolts, and quickened flaming bolts off in one encounter, your fighter who has been waiting all session just for the one fight, will get totally out-classed at the only thing he was built to do. Thus elminating divine characters also elminates, fighters and barbarians. Your left with a party of psions, wizards, and utility characters, which can be cool, but it's kind of restrictive. The warforged offer you an alternative to this of course. If you've got a warforged warrior in your party, your wizard or artificer, can shift roles to become the primary healer. So your wizard becomes your cleric, and your psion becomes your wizard. While the rogue and warforged fighter stay virtually the same. By running a party like this, you can stay true to the traditional core D&D party philosophy, with some new twists. None-the-less, if you have a party without a large warforged contingent, you want to keep the cleric around.
Sieylianna 12-24-05, 10:19 AM	I've played a favored soul. The main trick is picking up the augment healing feat. Funny thing was... here I am playing a Multi-class Favored Soul/Psion and my caster level progression is more or less shot... but because of the fact that I had rolled fairly high stats and because I had taken the Augment Healing feat I was able to serve as primary healer in a group of like 7-8 people as long as I had a wand 'o cure light wounds to act as a back up. Of course, clerics can also take Augment Healing. That's what I ended up doing when I was stuck playing the cleric for the Dungeon Shackled City adventure path (we're still early in the series). I created a cleric of Pelor with Augment Healing and the healing domain. I'm planning to go into Radiant of Servant for Pelor for free empowered and maximized healing. There is a high probability that I'll take the Sacred Healing feat. My theory is that if I can heal damage more efficiently, I won't end up having to convert all my spells to healing. In one local group, no one likes playing healers, so we have 8 Gestalt characters with one PC who has druid levels. That's it. In another group, no one likes playing clerics, so once the other PCs are set, one person gets stuck playing the cleric (because we realize we need one even if no one wants to play it, decided by low dice roll last game). The last game I'm playing a cleric, (Cleric 6/mystic wanderer 1/contemplative 1/heartwarder 7). The PC is a priestess of Sune with a 35 Charisma and adds her Charisma bonus to armor class and saving throws). Due to certain house rules, the PC is the party "Face" and can heal, but isn't any good against undead or in a fight (Heartwarder has d4 hit points). Ed
Psionycx 12-24-05, 10:59 AM	Psionycx the problem with what you said doesn't change the needs of the party. Yes, you are right that Jorasco is the main source of healing, not the temples. But how does that effect non-downtime healing in the party? The cleric class doesn't change with eberron. The gods change, and it can give the cleric more reason to smite than heal, but that doesn't change the fact that the party wants/needs a healer. The party probably wants/needs a lot of things. The problem isn't unqiue to Eberron. I've played and DM'd in other campaigns where nobody wanted to play a cleric because they felt like their PC would just be there to patch up the other PC's after fights, though I'm fond of playing clerics myself. Again, there's fundamental role-playing problem here, but it's a lot like the question of raising the dead. If such powers are readily available PC's will take more extreme risks, and the DM can design encounters that involve lots of melee combat. But if such magic is less available PC's aren't going to charge off quite so casually. The problem is not limited to clerics. The same thing tends to happen in parties lacking wizardly (or sorcerous) firepower as well. Not many players want to play a character whose sole purpose is to service the needs of other players' characters. I think that this is one reason why Keith may have introduced themes into certain traditional classes. For example, the druid sects help add some thematic direction to this class. A druid in Khorvaire doesn't just a generic tree-hugger, they also have sect-specific goals that drive their character. So a Gatekeeper in the party will primarily be focused on combating aberrations and otherplanar incursions. But just as a bonus they also have access to healing magic. A player may be interested in this class based on this much more interesting primary goal. The use of PrC's can help make clerical life more interesting as well. The Exorcist of the Silver Flame is an interesting PrC with some very impressive powers, and a clear mission that goes beyond casting Cure spells on people. The characters real mission is to seek out and combat supernatural evil, with healing simply being a useful tool in that quest rather than the character's primary reason for being. From an in-game perspective, true clerics are rare enough in Khorvaire that one is not going to follow the party around just to heal their wounds. I would say that even hiring one as a mercenary would be quite difficult, since their skills would be in high demand by others, such as churches and governments. Thus does House Jorasco flourish. From a DM perspective, you won't have much luck getting someone to play a cleric if you and the players are making it so abundantly clear that their character will be there to play nursemaid for the rest of the party. You therefore have two options really. First, provide some kind of magical item that provides enough healing to handle between-combat-Jorasco-not-available needs. Or else make a concentrated effort to make playing a cleric (or perhaps a druid) more appealing.
waper9 12-24-05, 01:11 PM	I havent had an issue getting clerics, but mainly because they don't play healers. If the party invests in eternal wands, or just wands in general of lesser vigor, its a cheap way to get downtime healing. And like others have stated, that's really all you need in the group unless you have the heal spell itself. Really, the group that doesnt want to invest in an item to heal, is probably the group thinking that clerics are only bandaids.
Psionycx 12-24-05, 02:44 PM	Indeed. What they're really looking for is free healing services. A cleric in the party means not having to "waste" good coin on magical items for healing. This is something I have role-played in the past, clerics refusing to heal party members with religious or alignment differences, or who simply didn't appreciate it. A properly role-played cleric should be deeply offended by other characters seeing their god's gift as a mere service that is expected. A cleric might demand a tithe from other characters that they heal, either in the form of a larger share of group treasure (owing to the cleric's church presumably) or simply in direct payment for healing services rendered. After all, most wizards and sorcerors do not load up their entire spell lists with spells that primarily serve to benefit other members of the party. They tend to take spells that serve their needs first and the rest of the party's second. A wizard might cast Bull's Strength on a PC barbarian or fighter in serious combats. But they would probably take exception to the suggestion that they load up on Bull's Strength spells so that they can cast it on those characters in every melee.
Euangelion 12-24-05, 03:52 PM	One other important thing to remember is that one cleric is not necessarily like another cleric. A cleric of Dol Arrah would probably be pretty offended if the party just looked to her for healing, but a cleric of Olladra may see that as their calling. A cleric of Kol Korran may very well demand payment for their healing even from the other party members. A templar cleric of the Silver Flame may view healing differently than from the (rare) friar cleric. Each would be faithful to their faith perspective, and have much different attitudes towards healing.
(Psi)SeveredHead 12-24-05, 09:42 PM	One other important thing to remember is that one cleric is not necessarily like another cleric. A cleric of Dol Arrah would probably be pretty offended if the party just looked to her for healing, but a cleric of Olladra may see that as their calling. A cleric of Kol Korran may very well demand payment for their healing even from the other party members. A templar cleric of the Silver Flame may view healing differently than from the (rare) friar cleric. Each would be faithful to their faith perspective, and have much different attitudes towards healing. I think the party would be pretty offended by the cleric of Dol Arrah and Kol Karran, throwing them out of the party. Unless there was another cleric to take up the slack.
Psionycx 12-24-05, 10:46 PM	I think the party would be pretty offended by the cleric of Dol Arrah and Kol Karran, throwing them out of the party. Unless there was another cleric to take up the slack. Two very important things to remember about clerics: 1) Clerics are generally strong-willed, as reflected by the significance of Wisdom to their class. 2) Their religion comes first in their lives, that's why and how they're clerics. A party that tries to bully a cleric into submission as their resident paramedic is probably going to be dismissed as infidels by any properly role-played cleric. They will not tolerate such a callous attitude towards their faith. Which might explain why a party with such an attitude is lacking a cleric. Because of their strong wills and devout faith true clerics are not going to knuckle under to such contempt. I honestly doubt that most wizards would either if, for example, a party demanded that they devote their entire memorized spell load to spells that enhance or benefit the other members of the party. This could get especially ugly for players given the way that clerics are even more strongly aligned around their churches in Khorvaire. A party that tells a cleric of the Silver Flame to take a hike because he wasn't being their obedient healer may find themselves having problems getting help from any church of the Silver Flame within a wide area. If your PC's operate in an around a city like Sharn they may find themselves blacklisted by local clergy virtually overnight. From a role playing perspective this is very important. I remember way back in 1E having a similar problem playing the party wizard with this one group. Once we got into fairly high levels (12+) the other party members started developing the expectation that my job was to outfit them with magical items. The thief's player was especially vociferous in demanding scrolls (which thieves of that level could read). Their argument was that I should produce such items at cost of goods for them since it "was good for the party". The idea that my character might have his own goals for magical research was not of interest. It got to be a big fight and the DM had to put the whole thing down. The point being that not many players like being dedicated servants of other players. This is sometimes why it is hard to fill demands for certain classes in a party. I don't think that healing is less necessary in Eberron than in other settings, I just think that fewer clerics and druids self-identify as healers there. And I think that many players will simply not play clerics rather than deal with flack from other players seeing them as a bottomless pool of free healing spells.
nastynate 12-24-05, 10:48 PM	I think the party would be pretty offended by the cleric of Dol Arrah and Kol Karran, throwing them out of the party. Unless there was another cleric to take up the slack. I'm sure what he meant is that these two faiths are not primarily focused on healing. Dol Arrah is the goddess of war, for crying out loud. If anything her cleric would want to be smashing face on the front lines with a spinning halberd of doom. However given that clerics were granted spontaneous healing just to avert this conundrum, I do not see the problem. This particular cleric is also probably of good alignment and would not want payment or considerations for healing them, when it is simply the right thing to do. Why is this even an argument? Doesn't everyone turn to the wizard to identify their magic items, or to the rogue to disarm traps, or heaven forbid expect the fighters to draw their swords in melee. Playing a good aligned cleric one should expect to cast a few healing spells here and there. It's kinda your primary purpose in this funny little game we play called D&D. :D Besides once you get to higher levels you'll just cast a persistent divine might on yourself everyday, and magically become another fighter. Then you can wade into melee like everyone else, and patch people up as needed.
Psionycx 12-24-05, 10:59 PM	But a rogue who's always been used as a living crash test dummy to spring any hidden traps or a wizard who's always being told to load out their spell list with spells that benefit other PC's is probably going to refuse. After being stabbed, poisoned and fried a few times the rogue will probably start demanding that someone else take a turn walking through suspicious archways. The wizard will probably demand that other characters learn to wait until they're safetly back at an inn before checking out magical items rather than demanding that he load down with Identify spells so that they can check out every piece of plunder as soon as they find it. And just because a cleric is Good doesn't mean they'll feel obliged to dole out free healing. Spontaneous healing still requires the sacrifice of memorized spells, so it doesn't eliminate the cost. And especially if the subject needing healing shows little respect for the cleric's faith they're likely to be prone to limit what they are prepared to offer in the way of healing. They may decide that they will only heal the unbeliever from life-threatening damage for example. They may not see it as their obligation to bring the character all the way back to full hit points. If the character contracts a disease that isn't immediately fatal the cleric may politely but firmly suggest that the character visit a Jorasco clinic. Being Good doesn't mean being willing to be exploited.
Gurv 12-24-05, 11:06 PM	However given that clerics were granted spontaneous healing just to avert this conundrum, I do not see the problem. This particular cleric is also probably of good alignment and would not want payment or considerations for healing them, when it is simply the right thing to do. Why is this even an argument? Because you made an incorrect assumption. Not all "good" clergy members consider healing adventurers (read: extremely reckless, nearly suicidal people) on a constant basis to be a wise use of divine resources. Is healing people for no cost really is the right thing to do? Sure it is, sometimes. Other times, you'd be better off using those spell slots for other things. But where do you draw the line? How much is too much? And who gets to make that call...the cleric, or the party? Doesn't everyone turn to the wizard to identify their magic items, or to the rogue to disarm traps, or heaven forbid expect the fighters to draw their swords in melee. Playing a good aligned cleric one should expect to cast a few healing spells here and there. It's kinda your primary purpose in this funny little game we play called D&D. :D That is kinda the point of the thread. People don't like to play clerics because their primary purpose is often to service the needs of others. The wizard might have to use a spell slot to cast identify, but not as often as a cleric needs to use (often his highest level) slots to heal others. And the identified item always has a chance of being useful to the wizard anyway. The benefit to the cleric is secondary, as his actions benefit the "party as a whole", and not him personally. Although the rogue and wizard also benefit the "whole" the cleric often spends more of his own resources to do so.
allenchan 12-24-05, 11:13 PM	As a cleric, if the the fighter drops in combat, either A) Cast a cure minor on him and deal with his sorry butt later or B) hope you can slaughter the rest of the enemies before he drops to -10. Blowing your higher level spells on cures in the middle of combat is not only boring, but extremely ineffectually. Maybe its the fighter that should run around administering potions, and let the cleric wreck havoc on the enemies. -That- is a better use of resources, but YMMV.
Korhal_IV 12-24-05, 11:17 PM	A session ago, as my party tallied the results of the last dungeon crawl, I pondered momentarily and said "You know, I think I'm the only character that never hit zero HP in that adventure." The monk's player looks at me and says, "Yes, we made sure of that." There are advantages to being the party's most precious member. :D
nastynate 12-25-05, 12:55 AM	People may not enjoy playing a character who's primary purpose is to serve the needs of the other players, but that is the primary purpose of a cleric. Sure the cleric may be able to drop flame strikes, and holy smites on people. But will he ever deal more damage than a combined effective party? Absolutely not. The most effective tactic at his disposal is to keep his buddies alive. In a party of four characters, three fighting and one healing is clearly better than four fighting, one dying, three fighting, one dying, two fighting, etc. You don't have to play one, if you don't like that role. On related note, if you get killed in combat, due the lack of a cleric in the party, well somebody should have played one. Sometimes you may play a character archtype that isn't your favorite, just to fill a need. It doesn't mean you can't have fun doing it. I've got a kalashtar right now, that I fully intended to be a telepath. Until I saw what the rest of our group consisted of...a rogue, a psionic artificer, a mage, and a cleric. Realizing that our cleric would end up being the front-line fighter (which could lead to serious problems if he were killed) I decided too play a kalashtar fighter instead. I took the education feat, and intend to multiclass into warmind later. I didn't want to play a warrior, but somebody had to. An imbalance within a party can sometimes lead to interesting situations in game; like having to carry a corpse several hundred miles to have a party member resurrected, because you have no wizard to teleport there, and no cleric raise him (true story). But these interesting situations can often end up turning into a persistent inconvenience. When everyone in the party is sharing a ring of regeneration because you've completely run out of potions, and your deep within the bowels of a dangerous dungeon, you start to wish you played a cleric. I will make a personal sacrifice, and play something I didn't initially intend to for my the sake of all my friends' roleplaying enjoyment. Your clerics don't want to make personal sacrifices for the lives of their adventuring companions, or for strategic advance? That seems...wrong. Redgar: "Help me Jozan, I'm getting overwhelmed! I don't know if I can hold out much longer!" Jozan: "Hold your horses! I'm busy dropping flame strikes over here. Besides I can kill these things faster than you. I'll just raise you later!" Redgar: "Gulp....oh crap!" :ghosted:
Edymnion 12-25-05, 01:14 AM	Actually, I rather enjoy a cleric archer. Especially if you can talk your DM into letting you make something like Arrows of Cure X Wounds. But yeah, you give the artificer a Wand of Cure X Wounds, and the need for a cleric just drops right out. Actually, what you do is play a Cleric in the same campaign as an artificer. They make the wand, you cast the Cure spell into it, and then declare that the Artificer is now in charge of primary healing, and you focus on combat, with healing as a secondary ability.
aelryinth 12-25-05, 01:24 AM	Agreed, as far as party power and influence goes, the cleric who keeps the party alive has the main say. If he wants the party to do something...they have a choice. Alienate the ones who heal them, or do what he wants. The above example is very good...most parties will take pains to keep the cleric alive, because they can keep the party alive, or failing that, bring them back to life. The cleric is perfectly in his rights to abandon his healing role and embrace the fact he can out melee the fighter, nuke the enemy, and endure things which the rogue would shrink from. The cleric and the druid are the two most self-contained members of any party. Never underestimate the party influence of playing the cleric. As soon as you get persistent spell, the game is your playground...being the healer is purely a convenience. You can tell the fighter to retire if you need to, shrug off the wizard, and lose the rogue. Once you show the party you don't need THEM...they will probably get more reasonable with their demands. Remember, the cleric was redesigned to actually BE rather overpowered, because of the expected role as the party healer. There's also considerably more alternatives available to get the party healing then there was before precisely because of this restriction of roles. Of course, this helps mechanics-minded people take advantage of the raw power of the cleric...but it does mean the party doesn't have to rely on healing power to suffer through a battle, and can use the incredible offensive power the cleric now has to make the fight much faster and less dangerous. ==Aelryinth
Korhal_IV 12-25-05, 01:44 AM	People may not enjoy playing a character who's primary purpose is to serve the needs of the other players, but that is the primary purpose of a cleric. Wrong. That can be a purpose of a cleric. In the same way that the mage's purpose is to Identify items, the rogue's purpose is to disable traps, and the fighter's purpose is to take damage. A cleric is arguably stronger than any individual character except (possibly) an artificer. The party is better served if the cleric focuses on his truly powerful spells - buffs and single-target damage. Stabilize the fallen with a wand (wielded by: rogue, ranger, druid, artificer, paladin), keep them swinging if you really need them right now, but otherwise expect them to play smart and keep themselves alive. Very rarely have I seen a PC go from full to negative, and that's only at low levels (1-2). So if your party members are getting hammered, they fall back. If they don't, they're taking a risk and they know it. You wouldn't expect Jozan to keep Curing Regdar if Regdar kept trying to exchange full attacks with the Tarrasque. You'd expect Regdar to hightail it out with a Potion of Flying and pull out his longbow, and let Jozan put a Divine Favor and Greater Magic Weapon on him.
Adhevan 12-25-05, 02:08 AM	Indeed. What they're really looking for is free healing services. A cleric in the party means not having to "waste" good coin on magical items for healing. And what you're really looking for in a fighter is a free damage sponge. And what you're really looking for in a barbarian is a free damage dealer. This is something I have role-played in the past, clerics refusing to heal party members with religious or alignment differences, or who simply didn't appreciate it. A properly role-played cleric should be deeply offended by other characters seeing their god's gift as a mere service that is expected. Have the tanks in your group ever roleplayed stepping aside and letting the BBEG bull rush you because they didn't feel you appreciated the role they played in the group? A cleric might demand a tithe from other characters that they heal, either in the form of a larger share of group treasure (owing to the cleric's church presumably) or simply in direct payment for healing services rendered. A cleric could then discourage rogues from joining the group so that more traps would go off and the party would require more healing which they could be charged for. After all, most wizards and sorcerors do not load up their entire spell lists with spells that primarily serve to benefit other members of the party. They tend to take spells that serve their needs first and the rest of the party's second. A wizard might cast Bull's Strength on a PC barbarian or fighter in serious combats. But they would probably take exception to the suggestion that they load up on Bull's Strength spells so that they can cast it on those characters in every melee. Which is really short-sighed on the part of those wizards. If they were thinking properly they could be clearing rooms with their fireballs and charging the party for services rendered. Unless the party is dysfunctional, each member should pull his own weight. And he shouldn't charge the rest of the party for doing so. Imagine for the moment the fighter saying something along the lines of, "Hey guys, I was thinking about drawing my sword for this fight, but I'm agnostic and all of you are big into that whole sovereign host thing, so I was thinking that if I don't get an extra share of the treasure, I'll just sit back and watch this one." If you don't want to be a walking band-aid, then don't be. But don't make a character to fill a particular niche and then be indignant that you are called upon to actually do so. You make it sound like groups commit some kind of crime by asking for healing from the character who can actually do it. Sure, they could, instead, spend money on healing potions or wands. But, by the same logic, you can use your gold on wands and scrolls of creature summoning to handle the melee duties. If you want to be a cleric and do something in combat besides stand around and heal, then the onus is on you, not the party. The more quickly the fight ends, the fewer healing spells you need to cast, anyway. The last time I checked, clerics could wear any armor, wield decent weapons, and cast some combat spells. Get in there and whack some bad guys or call down the wrath of the gods on them. Show them that you ARE actually more useful than a wand of cure lights. And, in closing, remember that at the end of the journey, once the spoils have been divided, a couple of melee types would be perfectly reasonable to roleplay that they really want a less mercenary healer with them next time, and since you'll be parting ways anyway and are low enough scum to charge a companion for aiding him in combat, they have no qualms about dumping your corpse in the river and taking an extra share of the treasure for themselves.
Rechan 12-25-05, 03:56 AM	Um, last time I checked, no one has to play any niche. If you *don't* have a rogue, then the DM shouldn't punish the party by loading the dungeon full of traps. Having a few traps is fair game, but still. If the party wizard is an illusionist, it's just Not Fair as a DM to just throw Undead and constructs at the party. Just the same, if you have no cleric, then tougher, single encounters should be possible, and a party with a few healing potions can survive the encounter and then lick their wounds out of combat. Or you have characters die, and new ones have to be made. Boo Hoo.
nastynate 12-25-05, 05:13 AM	Wrong. That can be a purpose of a cleric. In the same way that the mage's purpose is to Identify items, the rogue's purpose is to disable traps, and the fighter's purpose is to take damage. No I am not wrong. No other class comes remotely close to the cleric in this ability. That is their primary purpose. They have been pushed to the limits of broken-ness to encourage people to play them. Why? Because they keep parties alive with their healing magic; they are almost essential to the success of a party who expects to face the recomended number of daily encounters, as suggested in the DMG. However this particular role is boring. So 3.5 has really pushed the envelope with the cleric to ensure that they can do other things. It's incentive. I've been playing D&D since the mid eighties. This new-found ability to do other things, has been implimented to encourage people to be clerics. They have a 20+ year history of pure back-ground figures, when it comes to combat. Sure in roleplaying situations, they are just as useful as the player running them, but in combat which is a huge part of D&D they have always been sub-par warriors, and underpowered offensive casters in comparison to their arcane comrades. Now they can stand toe to toe with the best of them, but that does not diminish their value as healers. A wand of curing has at most 50 charges. What's that good for? A cleric can heal that much damage with like five spells. A wand of healing is garbage in comparison to a cleric. Of course players can play whatever they want. Sure DMs can adjust their adventures, to make it easier on their groups who lack certain components within their party. But by refusing to pull your weight as a healer when you have the potential to do so, is selfish. So what if if you can dish out more damage than your fighter; that's all he can do. Wade into melee at his side, and when he needs you, be there to keep him going. If all PCs were expected to fend for themselves, there wouldn't be adventuring parties, and the game as we know it wouldn't exist. I cannot fathom how friendships can be maintained without cooperation. Both in the game, and in real life. Charging your party money for healing! Charging your party for any basic service! What kind of game are you playing. Now maybe if they expected you to go sacrifice all your time, experience, and hard earned treasure on crafting magic items for them I could understand the resentment. Healing spells cost you nothing. You don't even have to memorize them any more! You get them every day, and they cost you nothing. Why should your friends have to pay for it? Have the tanks in your group ever roleplayed stepping aside and letting the BBEG bull rush you because they didn't feel you appreciated the role they played in the group? Exactly! A cleric could then discourage rogues from joining the group so that more traps would go off and the party would require more healing which they could be charged for. I'm glad somebody gets it. If you don't want to be a walking band-aid, then don't be. But don't make a character to fill a particular niche and then be indignant that you are called upon to actually do so. You make it sound like groups commit some kind of crime by asking for healing from the character who can actually do it. Sure, they could, instead, spend money on healing potions or wands. But, by the same logic, you can use your gold on wands and scrolls of creature summoning to handle the melee duties. Totally agreed. And to give another exaple along these lines, Sure they could, instead, spend money on healing potions or wands. But, by the same logic, they could replace you, with a cleric of less mercenary selfishness, who wouldn't hesitate to use his god-given gifts of healing for the very purpose that they were intended. Even evil PCs cooperate tactically. Having healing abilties, does not empower you act as though they owe you something special. Even though it is tactically sound to offer your support, you would rather deny them that support, to take a more active role in bashing bad guys. Guess what, zealots often are the bad guys. :rant: You wouldn't expect Jozan to keep Curing Regdar if Regdar kept trying to exchange full attacks with the Tarrasque. You'd expect Regdar to hightail it out with a Potion of Flying and pull out his longbow, and let Jozan put a Divine Favor and Greater Magic Weapon on him. I would never suggest that having a cleric around, excuses people from sound logic. I do think that having a cleric around helps you survive multiple encounters, and makes it far more possible to enage foes you would otherwise not risk fighting, but only if the cleric also abides by the same sound logic. Just because the cleric is more powerful, doesn't mean he's more valuable. The fighter is still one player, and the cleric is another. Each player should be held equally accountable for helping each other in the most effective manner possible. Ideally all the characters contribute equally. Um, last time I checked, no one has to play any niche. If you *don't* have a rogue, then the DM shouldn't punish the party by loading the dungeon full of traps. Having a few traps is fair game, but still. If the party wizard is an illusionist, it's just Not Fair as a DM to just throw Undead and constructs at the party. Im not suggesting railroading anybody into a charcter they don't want to play. I am stating as fact, however, that without dedicated healing magic, a party is weaker. If your DM uses random encounters at all, you will (with an incomplete party) run into things for which you have no direct answer. When it comes to any conflict which has the potential to inflict damage upon the PCs, it is easier with a cleric on your side.
Rechan 12-25-05, 07:24 AM	Im not suggesting railroading anybody into a charcter they don't want to play. I am stating as fact, however, that without dedicated healing magic, a party is weaker. I've got a kalashtar right now, that I fully intended to be a telepath. Until I saw what the rest of our group consisted of...a rogue, a psionic artificer, a mage, and a cleric. Realizing that our cleric would end up being the front-line fighter (which could lead to serious problems if he were killed) I decided too play a kalashtar fighter instead. I took the education feat, and intend to multiclass into warmind later. I didn't want to play a warrior, but somebody had to. I will make a personal sacrifice, and play something I didn't initially intendo for my the sake of all my friends' roleplaying enjoyment. Somebody sure sounds railroaded.
nastynate 12-25-05, 08:06 AM	I wanted to play the character that would help the most. Railroading, is when you are pushed into doing something by somebody else. It was my choice to fill a more important role. I recognize when something is more valable to the whole group, and the fighter, though not my first choice, was a much better fit. I am also perfectly comfortable with many different kinds of characters, so take that as you wish. rail·road [ ráyl rd ] verb (past and past participle rail·road·ed, present participle rail·road·ing, 3rd person present singular rail·roads) Definitions: 1. transitive verb force something through quickly without discussion: to push something through a legislature, committee, or other decision-making body quickly so that there is not enough time for objections to be considered ( informal ) 2. transitive verb force somebody to act hastily: to force a person or group to make a decision or take action quickly, without time for consideration or discussion ( informal )
Uller999 12-25-05, 08:27 AM	A person in my party went from playing an artificer (he was sort of a newb and so found the class to be far too daunting) but when he started playing a cleric he went from being confused and feeling useless to arguably being the most useful member of the party. He didn't have a problem being a healer, compared to being an artificer he had full-plate and a halberd and was well chuffed just to wade into combat, at least he wouldn't get dropped in the first couple of rounds. He also got a lot more political power as far as the group was concerned, he's a Lyrander cleric of Dol Arrah and when the party jacked an airship he suddenly gained all the power of the party healer, as well as being the ship's pilot(tactically speaking, he's the one guy you as the tank want to keep up and running, its been my expierence that people protect the cleric who does alright to hold his own rather than other way around). The point is this, cleric's in 3.5 work beautifully as backup tanks, they can force the party to tactically forcus on cleric's position for survivability. They have good armor, some offensive spells and good saves. Personally I think people who only look at cleric's as "healers" or "support characters" really aren't playing them to their full potential Also whoever made that quip about 3e being more combat heavy or dungeon focused than 2e I'd have to say I vehemntly disagree. There is a far more intricate establishment of rules and prescedences set in 3e for social stuff, and political campaigns than I recall TSR really putting out for 2e. I checked my 2e books (and I have far too many) and I just didn't see much in the 2e RAW for dealing with social encounters
nastynate 12-25-05, 09:32 AM	It took me a while to find this. R&D's opinion on clerics seem pretty close to my own. I wish I could find the old Q&A about the 3.0 revision, which really goes into depth, about the revisions to the cleric class, and why it was suped-up to such a degree. And while no individual role is impossible to live without, the cleric's is the most essential and thus the most difficult to replace. I did also mention on the first page of this thread things that alleviate the need of clerics, but that do not supplant them altogether. Take a look. I posted a link to the entire article at the end of my post. My Take No I am not wrong. No other class comes remotely close to the cleric in this ability. That is their primary purpose. They have been pushed to the limits of broken-ness to encourage people to play them. Why? Because they keep parties alive with their healing magic; they are almost essential to the success of a party R&D's Take 1. In D&D, class and race are crucial elements that define a character's role in the party and his place in the world. It's no coincidence that they're among the most important game mechanics for developers to understand. a) What is the most powerful class in the Player's Handbook, and why is it the most powerful? Mike Mearls: The cleric is the most powerful class. Aside from its mechanical advantages – its access to divine spells, ability to wear heavy armor, average base attack, turning/rebuking undead, and two good saves – the cleric's role within the party is perhaps the most vital to the players' success. The cleric is responsible for keeping the other players active with its ability to heal. While magic items can cover this gap, most items that a party can afford don't provide enough healing on a round-to-round basis. The person playing the cleric can exert a lot of control over the party's decisions. For example, during a battle, the cleric moves away from the monsters and announces that if anyone wants healing, they have to move back to his position. The players must follow the cleric if they want their characters to survive. While the cleric is the strongest class, I would argue that it is not unbalanced. Its abilities are fundamentally passive – they remove conditions rather than inflict them. The cleric needs to be powerful in order to attract players to the role. I think the cleric illustrates that mechanics must sometimes be judged according to criteria other than pure mathematical analysis. Link to the whole article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051007a)
(Psi)SeveredHead 12-25-05, 01:20 PM	But a rogue who's always been used as a living crash test dummy to spring any hidden traps or a wizard who's always being told to load out their spell list with spells that benefit other PC's is probably going to refuse. I think this is silly. The rogue has the skills to find and avoid traps. If no one else has the skills - and this is likely the case - then it only makes sense that they'll do the searching. As for the wizard - let me think about this - any spell he casts that kills or hinders an opponent is supporting the party. I wouldn't expect to wizard to submit to demands to prepare buffing spells, but the party would be offended if his idea of adventuring was to shoot his crossbow at people. And just because a cleric is Good doesn't mean they'll feel obliged to dole out free healing. Spontaneous healing still requires the sacrifice of memorized spells, so it doesn't eliminate the cost. And especially if the subject needing healing shows little respect for the cleric's faith they're likely to be prone to limit what they are prepared to offer in the way of healing. I wasn't talking about disrespect. Parties have to work together, so they shouldn't disrespect the cleric. The cleric is the best healer, however, so they should cast some healing spells.
Edymnion 12-25-05, 02:38 PM	Funny, I've got a player with a Cleric in my homebrew. Its been about a year now, and I can only think of two occassions where he's ever cast a Cure X Wounds spell. Instead, he's a full plate wearing, greatsword weilding half-orc cleric of Kord with the War domain. He keeps the party alive by keeping the badguys dead before they can do any damage.
nastynate 12-25-05, 03:42 PM	Funny, I've got a player with a Cleric in my homebrew. Its been about a year now, and I can only think of two occassions where he's ever cast a Cure X Wounds spell. Instead, he's a full plate wearing, greatsword weilding half-orc cleric of Kord with the War domain. He keeps the party alive by keeping the badguys dead before they can do any damage. Does sombody else provide healing magic or do you just never need it? If there are multiple clerics within the same party, I could see this happening pretty easily. If you never need it, I don't think your party is being challenged. If you do need healing, and your rogue (just an example, it could be anyone really) has taken over as the primary healer, are you certain you are utilizing your party resources efficiently? I think my position is pretty solid, with strong supportive evidence. I provided a quote from wizards, who clearly feel almost exactly the same as I do, in addition to a link to the article from which I drew it. My point is, and remains that clerics are designed to heal, and that their other abilities are simply an incentive to get people to play them. Spontaneous healing was created solely for this purpose and no other. Simply stating that you have a cleric who never casts "cure x," spells doesn't paint a clear or complete picture. Nor does it override a blanket statement about the purpose of an entire mechanic, and the class that provides the greatest source of it. The best warrior in your party could also be a bard, but that doesn't mean bards were designed with that role in mind.
Edymnion 12-25-05, 05:24 PM	No, they just play smart and generally are able to avoid taking lots of damage. But the point is that a Cleric doesn't have to be a healer if they don't want to be. You can play a very effective, very beneficial cleric that never casts a single healing spell. Its like saying you can't play a Rogue without maxxing out Pick Pocket/Sleight of Hand and try to steal everything that isn't nailed down. Just because thats the stereotype doesn't mean you have to actually follow it.
Arcane Guyver 12-25-05, 05:58 PM	But the point is that a Cleric doesn't have to be a healer if they don't want to be. You can play a very effective, very beneficial cleric that never casts a single healing spell. If you're unconcerned about healing, you might as well be a Favored Soul. That way you get Weapon Specialization and can spontaneously cast the blasty/buffy spells all day. From my experience, every party needs healing, otherwise something is very wrong. One time in my group somebody played a cleric who was mostly concerned with healing himself and actually charged others for it (if he felt so inclined to even do as asked). I'll just say that the party did everything short of directly killing that guy in the middle of the night out of frustration. And I'm willing to bet they would have done it too, if fate hadn't intervened. And would you believe the cleric player was surprised when the party refused to pay to have his character raised?
igotsmeakabob!! 12-25-05, 06:12 PM	Arcane Guyver we had one of those, except instead of charging he would only heal himself, and very very rarely anyone else.. 'cept it wasn't much of a serious game so we thought it was fine. Plus we always screwed with his character, it all came out even.
ekomega 12-25-05, 06:42 PM	If you're unconcerned about healing, you might as well be a Favored Soul. That way you get Weapon Specialization and can spontaneously cast the blasty/buffy spells all day. From my experience, every party needs healing, otherwise something is very wrong. One time in my group somebody played a cleric who was mostly concerned with healing himself and actually charged others for it (if he felt so inclined to even do as asked). I'll just say that the party did everything short of directly killing that guy in the middle of the night out of frustration. And I'm willing to bet they would have done it too, if fate hadn't intervened. And would you believe the cleric player was surprised when the party refused to pay to have his character raised? I think the real issue is what the party's expectations of the cleric are. Obviously, everyone who has posted on this thread is very divided on the subject. And everyone has their expectations as soon as a party is formed, or someone says "I want to play a cleric". If you've played DnD for a long time, you're probably used to the cleric being the healer. Clerics used to be only good for that (unless you tricked them out with Skills and Powers, and even then not really). It is important for the DM and the other players to express what they feel the cleric's role is, BEFORE anyone decides to play one. I know I'd be very upset if I wanted to play a warrior cleric, but then everyone expected me to just heal all the time. In theory, a player could make a cleric and put a 9 in Wisdom (or even levels in Expert in Eberron). Then he could cast no spells. Ask yourself how your party would respond to that situation? This guy is a priest, he prays every day, he believes really strongly in something, but he never gets any miracles. Does that make him any less valuable as a player or character? Some of you would kick this character out of the party, and try to find someone "useful". I think this judgement of usefulness quickly becomes a game of which character is optimized more, or has the stronger build, and which character is the "best". Even discussing the cleric as the most powerful class does this, as if there is a rating system and you should make your judgment on what to play based on which guy you can make the strongest. I think it's childish and immature to consider the game in this way. I strongly discourage this kind of behavior in my games. Every character has value, it's just a game. Even if the rogue can't pick every trap, since he only has half the max ranks in Disable Device, and if he had just put more ranks in Disable Device he'd be the best, maybe the player doesn't want to do that. Your character decisions shouldn't be based in this manner. Granted, no one really plays a "weak" character because they're usually not fun. But if a player can play a weak character and still enjoy it, that's great. It's about your values in the game and why you play. It's not wrong to kill monsters and be good at it, but if everyone in the group is trying to play the best character and outmatch each other, that can be very not fun. And it seems like many of you play this way. I don't agree with charging people for money, as long as the cleric lays down the rules ahead of time. That's selfish as well, just as the other immature things I've mentioned. I really strongly feel that people should be able to play whatever character they want, even if it's a stupid build that won't last an encounter. It's the DMs job to accomodate this game, and keep it fun for everyone. If a person keeps making characters that are so difficult it is not fun, obviously the DM needs to stop that problem. But a party without a cleric or a wizard or a fighter can still manage to adventure just fine. My Eberron group has survived to level 11 without a cleric, and without a wizard until 9th level. They didn't even have a fighter until 6th level. They were almost all support classes for the beginning of the game. But they all had fun. Having fun is what's most important. Not some childish character strength ******* contest.
Sieylianna 12-25-05, 09:35 PM	No, they just play smart and generally are able to avoid taking lots of damage. Healing ability damage can be a bigger problem than healing hit point damage. It's not a problem if you have all the time in the world, but it's a major problem if the party is operating under a tight deadline. Ed
Korhal_IV 12-25-05, 10:15 PM	The cleric is responsible for keeping the other players active with its ability to heal. While magic items can cover this gap, most items that a party can afford don't provide enough healing on a round-to-round basis...Its abilities are fundamentally passive – they remove conditions rather than inflict them. That's the key point that I bolded. On a round-by-round basis. How many rounds do you usually have in a combat? Three to five, depending on relative CR. My party's battle with Lucan in Whispers took us five rounds, the battle with Cutter in Forgotten Forge took us two. The question is, can you survive three to five rounds in combat without healing? The vast majority of PCs can. Fighter types survive with HP/AC, wizard types with defensive spells, and monk/rogue types with increased maneuverability. So long as you have a good Con score and don't do something stupid, you can make it through a dungeon without in-combat healing! I will provide an example - WARNING - this is an account of our doings throughout Whispers of the Vampire's Blade, so don't read if you're going through that! :) Our party entered the ziggurat in Whispers with two warforged, myself as combat cleric and another as barbarian. The remaining PCs were a shifter monk and a half-elf bard, neither of which suffered more than a handful of HP damage throughout the dungeon, the bard by hanging back, the monk through Tumble and high AC (and the fact that the barbarian and I were much more threatening). Knowing the foe ahead, I had prepped all anti-undead spells. I very much wanted to use them, and didn't want to use any healing. So in the town before, we bought a Wand of Repair Light Wounds (d8+1 per charge). Throughout the dungeon, I never once had to drop a Cure Light or Repair Light (which my DM had generously allowed me to add to my spell list) to heal someone, even though the barbarian finished several combats in the single digits of HP. I did, however, do a number of impressive things. 1) I dropped Magic Stone on some of the bard's silver coins, giving us a way to beat the villain's DR with 2d6+2 damage per shot. 2) I put Bull's Strength on the barbarian, allowing him to reach 2d6+12 damage with his +1 greatsword (thanks also to the bardsong) when raging. 3) When the barbarian failed his save against Dominate, I immediately dropped a Magic Circle Vs. Evil to suppress the effect, saving our party from a TPK. 4) I had Wind Wall to catch the vampire as he fled (although when he did, I wasn't ready because I'd been forced to drop the Magic Circle instead). 5) I put a Divine Favor on the monk so that his bludgeoning fists could overcome the yellow ooze, where my piercing morningstar and the barbarian's slashing greatsword were useless. If I had played the traditionally passive cleric, we would've been utterly shafted, because Magic Circle is usually one of my most useless spells (especially earlier in the dungeon, when you find a number of oozes and other neutrally aligned challenges, Magic Circle starts looking like a Cure Moderate in disguise). Instead, we relied on the wand for out of combat healing, and it worked like a charm (even though we did expend thirty charges on a fifty charge wand, we can easily afford another one). As it was, the only times I resorted to Cure spells was to harm undead. I respect the 3e devs a lot, but their thinking overemphasized round-by-round healing, perhaps a holdover from 2e. Patching people up after combat is much more useful - especially at higher levels when a cleric has harmful spells like Flame Strike, and extremely potent buffs like Divine Might and Righteous Might. Stacked, on a combat cleric, the result is now much more formidable in combat!
igotsmeakabob!! 12-25-05, 10:27 PM	Damn looks like I created quite the popular thread. Yay me!
Adhevan 12-25-05, 11:49 PM	It is important for the DM and the other players to express what they feel the cleric's role is, BEFORE anyone decides to play one. I know I'd be very upset if I wanted to play a warrior cleric, but then everyone expected me to just heal all the time. There is a distinct difference between expecting someone to just heal all the time and expecting someone to not charge the party for using his/her abilities. The part that irked me to the point that I stopped lurking and started replying to this thread was the farcical roleplaying. That is, the post where the player played the victim card and then claimed it was reasonable rp for a member of the party to charge for working for the common good of the party. In theory, a player could make a cleric and put a 9 in Wisdom (or even levels in Expert in Eberron). Then he could cast no spells. Ask yourself how your party would respond to that situation? This guy is a priest, he prays every day, he believes really strongly in something, but he never gets any miracles. Does that make him any less valuable as a player or character? It's really impossible to give that a straight yes or no answer without knowing much more about the campaign. If the style of the game is one that involves mostly politics and intrigue in the area where the priest's church has strong influence, then yes, he'd be a valuable asset to the group. If it is a combat oriented game, then the guy with sub-par fighting skills and no spell abilities and no compensating special abilities would be much less valuable. Some of you would kick this character out of the party, and try to find someone "useful". I think this judgement of usefulness quickly becomes a game of which character is optimized more, or has the stronger build, and which character is the "best". Even discussing the cleric as the most powerful class does this, as if there is a rating system and you should make your judgment on what to play based on which guy you can make the strongest. I think it's childish and immature to consider the game in this way. I strongly discourage this kind of behavior in my games. It really depends on if your game is oriented more towards the social aspects or the adventuring aspects. I'm really not sure how it is an example of mature roleplaying, though, for characters to have no concern about their survivability. "Hey Bob! We just got hired for an expedition to Xen'drik. From everything the bards say, it's a very dangerous place with death waiting around each corner. You can't fight, you can't cast spells, you can't wear armor, your church has no outpost there for you to apply your influence to... It's likely that you'll be dead before we even make landfall. But I'm feeling mature today, so why don't you come with us anyway?" A character does not have to be of an optimal build to be useful. But purposely making a character that has no combat value and very limited value outside of combat in no way proves your superiority as a roleplayer. In fact, it can lead to in character actions being taken for out of character reasons, such as the party keeping a character around who is mostly a liability simply because the player is a friend out of character. Every character has value, it's just a game. Even if the rogue can't pick every trap, since he only has half the max ranks in Disable Device, and if he had just put more ranks in Disable Device he'd be the best, maybe the player doesn't want to do that. Your character decisions shouldn't be based in this manner. What manner should your character decisions be based in? Granted, no one really plays a "weak" character because they're usually not fun. But if a player can play a weak character and still enjoy it, that's great. It's about your values in the game and why you play. It's not wrong to kill monsters and be good at it, but if everyone in the group is trying to play the best character and outmatch each other, that can be very not fun. And it seems like many of you play this way. I don't agree with charging people for money, as long as the cleric lays down the rules ahead of time. That's selfish as well, just as the other immature things I've mentioned. A game where everyone is competing in some power struggle to prove who is the best is not very fun, I agree. But the game where you have a couple of people playing weak characters to prove what great RPers they are and the rest of the party has to work very hard to keep them alive is not very fun either. And both games are not fun for the same reason, because of the lack of cooperation and team spirit. Which is the same thing lacked by the player who wants to charge people for casting his healing spells. I really strongly feel that people should be able to play whatever character they want, even if it's a stupid build that won't last an encounter. It's the DMs job to accomodate this game, and keep it fun for everyone. If a person keeps making characters that are so difficult it is not fun, obviously the DM needs to stop that problem. But a party without a cleric or a wizard or a fighter can still manage to adventure just fine. Actually, it's a two way street. Yes, the DM's job is to run a fun game. It is the job of the players to not purposely make this more difficult, or even impossible. If you, as a player, want to have your character do things that make the game miserable for everyone else, then it is your fault for doing so, not his fault for giving you the benefit of the doubt and letting you play. If one character wants to go to Sharn and the rest all want to go to the Mournlands, it is not the DM's job to run a separate campaign for that one player. A party can survive without any particular character class, depending on the skills and unity of the players. In a few rare instances, I have run across players who ran characters that most would consider to be sub-optimal builds, and yet the players still managed to be a valuable asset to the party by having the characters be clever (which by default requires the player to be). The overhwelming majority of the time I have encountered characters like this, though, they have not been assets to the party. I think the difference is between players who get fun from the game by challenging themselves and trying to do more with less, and the players who derive fun from making everyone else miserable. The other answer could be the people who just can't grasp game mechanics and instead of just admitting it and asking for help from someone who does, they become poseurs and claim to be great roleplayers and point to their useless characters as proof of this. The sad thing is that this argument manages to convince some people. My Eberron group has survived to level 11 without a cleric, and without a wizard until 9th level. They didn't even have a fighter until 6th level. They were almost all support classes for the beginning of the game. But they all had fun. Having fun is what's most important. Not some childish character strength ******* contest. If they all had fun, that's wonderful. But the point of the thread really wasn't which class has the biggest... sword. It was whether or not you need a healer. And the answer is that it makes life easier but is not an absolute necessity. At some point we got off topic with someone playing the cleric victim card and now even further off topic with the "you don't have to be useful to have fun" discussion. I will agree that the party as a whole, and the characters as individuals, do not have to be optimally built for the players to have fun. Some internal power struggle within the party is not fun either. But purposely making weak characters does not in any way guarantee fun. Your mileage may vary, but I have the most fun when playing in a group that works together, not at cross purposes.
talion09 12-26-05, 02:20 AM	That's the key point that I bolded. On a round-by-round basis. How many rounds do you usually have in a combat? Three to five, depending on relative CR. My party's battle with Lucan in Whispers took us five rounds, the battle with Cutter in Forgotten Forge took us two. The question is, can you survive three to five rounds in combat without healing? The vast majority of PCs can. Fighter types survive with HP/AC, wizard types with defensive spells, and monk/rogue types with increased maneuverability. So long as you have a good Con score and don't do something stupid, you can make it through a dungeon without in-combat healing! Thats a key point I think, at least in my experience. Most fights against an equivalent CR are over in around 6 rounds, give or take a round, and usually the opening round(s) are spent maneuvering for position, etc After those opening round(s) of manuevering and a few rounds of actual full out combat, the party should either be victorious or beating a tactical withdrawal because they are overclassed or unlucky. And I'd expect any of my PC's to be able to act intelligently enough and play towards their strengths enough to be able to contribute to defeating the encounter AND stay alive for those 5-6 rounds. Roughly 90% of our healing came out of combat situations. Which as stated by others, can be handled by a variety of classes/items, not just clerics or other healing oriented spellcasters. And that 10% that came in combat didn't just come from clerics casting Cure X spells... it came from paladins using Lay on Hands, potions, wands, etc. So do you need a dedicated healer? Not in the campaigns I DM or play in, at least not if you use tactics and play intelligently. Would a dedicated healer be a nice addition? Sure, but so would a lot of other classes too. Note: Not sure if this is a houserule or in the ECS, but we allow PC's to spend an action point to stablize a dying character... thus removing another situation when healers are typically needed. Well, at least as long as you have APs left anyways.
Korhal_IV 12-26-05, 02:55 AM	Note: Not sure if this is a houserule or in the ECS, but we allow PC's to spend an action point to stablize a dying character... thus removing another situation when healers are typically needed. Well, at least as long as you have APs left anyways. It's in the ECS. Rarely do we have it come into play, though - as cleric, I consider APs important enough to spend an action. :D
talion09 12-26-05, 03:04 AM	It's in the ECS. Rarely do we have it come into play, though - as cleric, I consider APs important enough to spend an action. :D True. I meant it more along the lines that if the fighter (or whoever is dying) has AP left, they can take the option to stablize automatically without having the designated healer have to drop everything and rush to thier side to cast a cure spell, possibly incurring an AoO or two along the way. Not to say that AP couldn't be better spent on other actions, but it sure is nice that there is another way to stabilize besides luck with the dice or having another PC immediately rush to your aid, thereby taking 2 of the PC's out of the battle.
nastynate 12-26-05, 06:58 AM	At some point you are bound to fight an encounter, or maybe a few in a row, where you suffer from the lack of a cleric. What happens if there are some big monsters dealing large amounts of damage, or poison, or paralysis, or dealing ability damage, level damage, etc. Tactics may be flawlsess, but sometimes encounters aren't controlled by the PCs. Dare I say most times? When PCs are dropped to negatives, even if they can stablize on their own with action points, that's one less sword arm on your side. Clerics can prevent people from reaching that point. They don't have to by any means, but sound tactics often dictate they should prevent such an occurance. If the cleric better serves the party by letting those around him drop, because he's the best warrior, then your party is out of balance. First in order for that to be true, the cleric has to be dealing more damage on his own, than he and the fighter can combined. Which is almost impossible, unless the fighter is completely inept. Second, that also means that the cleric is a better warrior than your fighter, but he also has better saves, turning ability, and spells. That's an imbalance within your own party, that needs to be adressed or your fighter PC is going to lose relevence. He no longer serves a purpose at all... As for underpowered characters, or unorthodox skill selections, etc. Sure these things often lead to memorable and unique characters, however, if your rogue decides that he going to be a scholar, and never take ranks in disable devise, open lock, search, etc, perhaps somebody else is going to need those skills. A cleric with a nine wisdom, may seem interesting, but he's not nearly as effective as he could be. The best tactics happen during character creation, skill selection, and spell selection. Having the resources you need to answer a problem, is infinately superior to improvising on the spot. I don't think PCs are being challenged nearly enough, by people citing examples of four rounds and done combat. If they deal with every encounter without the need for in-combat healing, then they have little chance of defeat period. Playing with kid gloves, and leaving things out like traps, just because nobody played a rogue, is not the answer either. Creative PCs will find solutions to the problems that they face. Maybe their mage will cast passwall to make a safer passage, and circumvent the deadly trap, or maybe they'll hire an NPC for a while for just such a possibility. The PCs are heroes, especially in Eberron. If nothing ever presents an obstacle, how heroic is it? I firmly recommend you push the players to their limits, and even have them lose battles from time to time, in order to keep things interesting. Knowing that there are things out there tougher than them, is one thing, knowing that your fighting one right now, is another! After those opening round(s) of manuevering and a few rounds of actual full out combat, the party should either be victorious or beating a tactical withdrawal because they are overclassed or unlucky. And I'd expect any of my PC's to be able to act intelligently enough and play towards their strengths enough to be able to contribute to defeating the encounter AND stay alive for those 5-6 rounds. In-combat healing will prolong those 5-6 rounds. The PCs can defeat greater foes. PCs playing to their strengths, often means having clerics casting curative magic while in combat. That is and has always been their greatest strength. There will be times, when it is more effective for a cleric to just draw his weapon and wade in too. Those are the easy encounters, in which the enemy doesn't have the ability to kill the PCs before the PCs kill them. If however the enemy is on par with the PCs, there should be some risk of death, and the cleric's spontaneous healing abilities, will turn the tables in their favor. For heroic action to have any meaning, there must be some danger, or potential for loss of life. The PCs should sometimes feel lucky to have survived at all. There should almost always be the underlying fear that someday their reckless adventuring could be their undoing. Hard fought battles where the PCs feel like underdogs, are much more satisfying than smiting their foes mercilessly. Sometimes you don't want to run away. Maybe you've finally reached the climax and are fighting the BBEG, and his horde. In a good climax, the PCs are tired, low on resources, and have been beat up. The clerics spontaneous healing will make the difference in living or dying facing an encounter like this.
Endless_Helix 12-26-05, 10:16 AM	Oh boy... This is a classic argument in DnD; almost as classic as the paladin burning babies out of spite argument... It's also one of those that goes round and round and never stops. Going back to the original point of the thread, Healers aren't a necessity. They are a luxury. Normally people are willing to sacrifice to have this luxury, but sometimes people aren't. In games without healers the focus shifts. Summoning spells become much stronger, as it creates more creatures to deal with for the enemy. Combat tricks become more important, i.e. the goblin can't really attack you if they don't have a weapon. Web becomes godlike at low levels, as does hold monster. At higher levels you have better summoning spells and globes of invulnerability and walls of force and stuff. Rogues and flanking become really important for taking out bosses. In Eberron specifically you have the artificer which can take up the slack, but generally doesn't. Also this isn't the optimal use for an artificer anyway. They should be buffing the party's weapons and armor, as well as making scrolls of web and targeted damage spells. Action points also lighten the load as they mean more chances of killing enemies and staying alive without cure minor wounds. just my two cents
DarkWarriorKarg 12-26-05, 11:22 AM	So Instead of a cleric providing support, you relegate the artificer to it. Same difference.
Psionycx 12-26-05, 02:51 PM	One has to remember that in the course of role-playing you have to factor in a character's motivations to the makeup of a party. It's also key to remember that you are unlikely to ever have enough players around the table to play all the desired class (and prestige class) options that all the players want. So the basic demand here, that a cleric be present in the party simply to serve as medic for the other characters, is fundamentally a selfish one. Not wanting to pay out money to stockpile healing magic, which can most definitely be purchased in Eberron, underlines that what is really being sought here is free healing, not a role-playing opportunity for another player. So for those who think that a cleric character demanding payment for their services being out-of-line, as yourselves this: why should they give away for free something that the characters would normally have to pay for? That is important to bear in mind. Because even if you are a follower of the Sovereign Host you cannot simply march into one of their temples and demand that the resident adepts and clerics cast spells for you free of charge! If you worship Aureon you cannot simply demand that groups like Esoteric Order of Aureon craft magical items for you for free or at cost-of-goods. They will all demand that you pay market price. Or else owe them some service. If a group is lacking a needed resource, typically a magical item or member of a particular class they can either buy the item or hire a mercenary. PC's are often loath to hire mercenaries because ones with valuable class skills commonly demand more than just a cut of the treasure. A cleric is likely involved in the party for some reason related to their religion. Therefore they are going to consider their religious goals as their primary mission. Things like their use of their spellcasting abilities are going to reflect that. A cleric of the Silver Flame whose goal is to battle fiends is probably going to be very generous with the healing if they are with a party that is hunting fiends (especially if the other party members are worshippers of the Flame). But if the party's goal is looting Dhakaani tombs the cleric is probably going to be less generous. Again, it boils down to how characters are expected to expend their personal resources. A cleric of Dol Arrah is expected to be a front-line crusader against darkness and evil, not a support mechanism for others. If a player chooses to play someone who is explicitly a healer then you have fewer issues. But in a party of 4-6 people, nobody wants to take the short end of the stick and play a "backup" character just so that the other players can have more fun. And if that happens and nobody opts to play the healing cleric, then guess what? The party will have to pay for healing anyway!
Adhevan 12-26-05, 04:12 PM	So the basic demand here, that a cleric be present in the party simply to serve as medic for the other characters, is fundamentally a selfish one. Actually, the basic demand is that if a cleric is present in the party, that he act as a member of the party instead of a merchant who not only takes a share of the treasure, but also charges the other members for pulling his weight. Not wanting to pay out money to stockpile healing magic, which can most definitely be purchased in Eberron, underlines that what is really being sought here is free healing, not a role-playing opportunity for another player. By this same logic, not wanting to pay out money to hire House Deneith mercenaries, which can definitely be purchased in Eberron, underlines that what is really being sought from the fighter and barbarian is free fighting, not a role-playing opportunity for another player. So for those who think that a cleric character demanding payment for their services being out-of-line, as yourselves this: why should they give away for free something that the characters would normally have to pay for? Why should any of the characters use any of their abilities for the good of the party for free, then, when all of these things are something that the characters would normally have to pay for? Your argument is based entirely on the assumption that what the rest of the characters contribute has no value. That is important to bear in mind. Because even if you are a follower of the Sovereign Host you cannot simply march into one of their temples and demand that the resident adepts and clerics cast spells for you free of charge! If you worship Aureon you cannot simply demand that groups like Esoteric Order of Aureon craft magical items for you for free or at cost-of-goods. They will all demand that you pay market price. Or else owe them some service. Even if you are a member of House Deneith, you can't just march into the local guild house and demand that they provide you with free bodyguards, either. A cleric is likely involved in the party for some reason related to their religion. Therefore they are going to consider their religious goals as their primary mission. Things like their use of their spellcasting abilities are going to reflect that. A cleric of the Silver Flame whose goal is to battle fiends is probably going to be very generous with the healing if they are with a party that is hunting fiends (especially if the other party members are worshippers of the Flame). But if the party's goal is looting Dhakaani tombs the cleric is probably going to be less generous. In other words, the cleric is going to be a hypocrite. Even though going around looting Dhakaani tombs is detracting from his goal of hunting fiends, he isn't going to drop the tomb raiding and go off after the fiends, he's just going to be passive-aggressive about it and charge his companions for helping him gather treasure. This makes the cleric sound less motivated by religion and more motivated by greed. Again, it boils down to how characters are expected to expend their personal resources. A cleric of Dol Arrah is expected to be a front-line crusader against darkness and evil, not a support mechanism for others. If a player chooses to play someone who is explicitly a healer then you have fewer issues. But in a party of 4-6 people, nobody wants to take the short end of the stick and play a "backup" character just so that the other players can have more fun. And if that happens and nobody opts to play the healing cleric, then guess what? The party will have to pay for healing anyway! And if no one bothers to play a ranger or a druid, the party will have to pay to hire a guide to lead them through the tangled forest. This does not mean that if the party does have a druid or ranger that they should then pay them what they'd have to pay a hired guide. Mostly because they party already pays them. That's what your share of the treasure is: pay for contributing to the group.
nastynate 12-26-05, 07:20 PM	Adhevan, you are the man. I'm glad sombody sees the completely hypocritical nature of these folks who seem to think their clerics are entitled to special treatment by virtue of their contribution of healing magic. nobody else charges the other PCs for providing the abilities granted to them by their classes. I'd also like to add, seeing as (generally speaking), clerics are not as good in melee as fighters, or as good as wizards in offensive firepower, but they exceed everyone else in the ability to heal...that their most effective role is... The cleric is the primarily healer, and back-up to the fighter or wizard as the circumstances warrant. I think there is nothing more efficient than a cleric with a good ranged weapon (favored weapon of the silver flame is long bow too :) ), so that they can remain involved in battle, but jump into any position necessary to either help in melee, with offensive spells, or to heal their companions when they get injured. They are not back-ground players by virtue of the versatility, they are awesome! The only thing they cannot do well is provide the abilities that a rogue generally provides. Nobody can replace the cleric however. That's why everyone protects him. You are not a background character, when you are the most important member of the party. Maybe all the glory goes to the guy who lands the killing blow on the BBEG, and that guy is most often a warrior, but the rest of the party knows how valuable the cleric was in surviving the battle with him, and those that led up to it. Even the cleric of Dol Arrah knows that he is not going to more efficient than a true fighter at doing what a he does best. Cleric of war or not, you have devoted yourself to a much more versatile profession, with skills beyond simple martial prowess. If you wanted to be on the front lines every battle hacking away with your halberd, wouldn't you have just chosen to be fighter too? In a war aren't curative spells valuable? I have never suggested that all the cleric is good for is healing other PCs. I have simply tried to state that healing other PCs is what they do best. They are built for it. You can choose to do other things, but often the other PCs don't have a choice; they can't, so let them do what they do best. The fighter can't drop a flamestrike, turn undead, or cast restoration on his fellow party members. He can swing around a melee weapon, and take damage...period. If you want to deny him healing magic so that you can steal his thunder, by all means do so, but don't try to claim that's an effective use of your abilities.
igotsmeakabob!! 12-26-05, 07:23 PM	Yer not alone, I also agree with Adhevan's very well put post.
Psionycx 12-26-05, 07:34 PM	Actually, you're only highlighting my point. The ranger reference is a great one for example. I keep circling back to the role-playing element here because many people here are ignoring it is irrelevant in the face of stats and figures. A ranger of the Eldeen Reaches possesses class abilities useful to operating in a woodland environment. These abilities would be of great use to many people. But who would they be useful to? The ranger generally has to have a motivation for being a ranger (i.e. why the character took this class to begin with) and then a motivation for their involvement with their current set of companions. An Eldeen Ranger associated with the Wardens of the Wood, for example, is very likely to use their abilities to support a group committed to fighting threats to the land. They are less likely to use their abilities to help, for example, Aundairans looking to undertake deforestation with the intent to "take back" Eldeen lands and turn them into farmland for Aundair. They are also likely to come into conflict with other characters in an adventuring party over abuse of the land. If, for example, a fire-loving wizard in the party tosses around fire spells regularly, starting forest fires, then the ranger may decide they're an enemy not a friend. They may try to tell the wizard to stop. If the wizard refuses the ranger may a) fight them, b) leave the party or c) turn the other way the next time they see some monster about to get the jump on the wizard. If the ranger did not do so then they would probably very quickly find themselves in trouble with their sect. The Wardens of the Wood would not take kindly to a ranger that aids individuals that inflict such harm on the land and a DM could very reasonably have the Wardens declare the ranger an outlaw along with his party, to be hunted and arrested (or killed) by any loyal Wardens. Likewise, a cleric is expected to use their abilities in the support of their church. Adhevan unthinkingly underlined my point here. While Eberron has less divine oversight of clerics' morals and activities that only increases the likelihood of issues. In short, a cleric will probably be motivated either by their religion or by selfishness. If it is by their religion then the question of who they dole healing out to and how much they dole it out is open to debate. A cleric of the Silver Flame may not feel obligated to do much for "heathens". When I mentioned additional payment (notice how upset everyone got over the perceived assault on their wallets), remember that I said that such might be expected as tithes. A cleric might consider non-life threatening damage to not merit dumping any of their spell slots on. They can, after all, use those spells for other things. Especially if someone else is not a follower of the cleric's church they may very well feel that it is not incumbent upon them to use their spells for that person without something in return. If the wounded character would have to pay for healing in the cleric were sitting in a church, why should it be free just because they're in a cave? The cleric is probably going to want something for their church in return for the service. Indeed, their church will probably question their activities if they are not seen as being as beneficial to the church as they ought to. If the cleric is motivated by selfishness then they'll want something for personal reasons. Mind you, this is also true of wizards and sorcerors. The party's non-spellcasters could easily argue that the party's wizard should memorize only spells like Bull's Strength, Haste and such. Spells that could augment the party's fighter types. But wizards, and even sorcerors who can cast spontaneously, would probably balk at using all their spell slots to soup up the other members of the party. In addition, they may want something for their trouble in other situations. A rogue that selects a cursed item from the treasure haul could certainly ask the party wizard to cast Remove Curse for them. But the wizard might not be willing to do it for free depending on their relationship with the rogue. Adventuring parties are just like real people. Their are group dynamics and motivations to take into account. A cleric (or wizard) might not want to devote their entire spell load to servicing the other players. Bear in mind that other players may act with selfish intent. The rogue may get the party into trouble while trying to gain some choice treasure, a wizard may lead his peers into peril in pursuit of a spellbook that is of no interest to anyone but him, etc... The challenge in role-playing (as opposed to roll-playing) is that these motivations tend to come out. Just like a wizard may not want to allocate all of his 2nd level spell slots to Bull's Strength for the party's fighter, the cleric may not always want to use up their spell slots on healing. From a role-playing perspective they have personal goals that may make doing so unacceptable, just as for the wizard. When other players just see another player's character's abilities as simply a way to supplement their own gaps, then odds are nobody will play that class. But if they do they may not choose to play their character as everyone else's servant.
igotsmeakabob!! 12-26-05, 07:39 PM	I don't think that wizards and sorcerers are best used in supporting the party by buffing, but rather by nuking. A buff here or there for an important fight is fine, but totally devoting yourself to buffing others is making your character LESS effective to the party. +2 to hit and Damage doesn't stack up to something that can disable/kill an entire room of baddies, or 10-20 damage a round on a single boss, so that point is moot. In healing the party and keeping its members up (keep in mind that you don't have to spend every round healing, if thats the case the encounter may be a bit too difficult, unless its a boss) you are only using about 1/3 of your actions. That leaves you a few fireballs from the sky, a few magic weapons flying around the air smacking things, and some melee/ranged combat for yerself.
nastynate 12-26-05, 08:15 PM	In short, a cleric will probably be motivated either by their religion or by selfishness. If it is by their religion then the question of who they dole healing out to and how much they dole it out is open to debate. A cleric of the Silver Flame may not feel obligated to do much for "heathens". Would the cleric choose to adventure with those same "heathens'" for her entire career. Would she also expect the "heathens" to fight on her behalf without obligation. I think the adventuring companions, must be working towards common goals with the cleric, or they would not be adventuring together. When I mentioned additional payment (notice how upset everyone got over the perceived assault on their wallets), remember that I said that such might be expected as tithes. A cleric might consider non-life threatening damage to not merit dumping any of their spell slots on. They can, after all, use those spells for other things. Especially if someone else is not a follower of the cleric's church they may very well feel that it is not incumbent upon them to use their spells for that person without something in return. If the wounded character would have to pay for healing in the cleric were sitting in a church, why should it be free just because they're in a cave? The cleric is probably going to want something for their church in return for the service. Indeed, their church will probably question their activities if they are not seen as being as beneficial to the church as they ought to. The cleric is adventuring with these people, who are working with her for free towards whatever goal they undertake as a group. That and equal share of treasures found is their payment for services rendered. If they do not share her faith, they are not obligated to "tithe," to her church. The other charcters aren't charging the cleric for their mercenary skill, or expecting her to submit "tithes," to their religions or dragonmarked houses. Additionally if the cleric does not feel that healing her adventuring companions is a good use of her spells, what is? These people are helping the cleric as well. Chances are pretty good that the cleric has joined with them for a reason, beyond milking them for wealth. They probably help her achieve her objectives as well. the location of the adventuring party has nothing to do with the cleric's abilities, and despite her affiliation with the church, she is not administer of the entire organization. The cleric is not responsible for funding the entire religion. The faithful followers of the church handle that responsibility. She can contibute her own money in "tithes." Mind you, this is also true of wizards and sorcerors. The party's non-spellcasters could easily argue that the party's wizard should memorize only spells like Bull's Strength, Haste and such. Spells that could augment the party's fighter types. But wizards, and even sorcerors who can cast spontaneously, would probably balk at using all their spell slots to soup up the other members of the party. In addition, they may want something for their trouble in other situations. A rogue that selects a cursed item from the treasure haul could certainly ask the party wizard to cast Remove Curse for them. But the wizard might not be willing to do it for free depending on their relationship with the rogue. The cleric however will never memorize healing spells. She will memorize whatever spells she feels will help the most in whatever she is currently undertaking. When the need arises she will heal the injured party members, by sacrificing unneeded spells for that purpose. Wizards and sorcerers who could cast healing magic, probably would. Bull's strength may be useful, but so is magic missile. Both spells help defeat the enemy. No enemies can be defeated if your party is dying from their injuries. If I were playing a fighter who was badly wounded and the cleric I adventure with refused to heal me, I may just switch sides when the BBEG shows up, and stab him in the back. If you have poor relationships within your party, then they will not work well together no matter what their class is. If the wizard and the rogue don't like each other, and cannot rely upon one another, then they should probably seek alternate adventuring companions. Adventuring parties are just like real people. Their are group dynamics and motivations to take into account. A cleric (or wizard) might not want to devote their entire spell load to servicing the other players. Bear in mind that other players may act with selfish intent. The rogue may get the party into trouble while trying to gain some choice treasure, a wizard may lead his peers into peril in pursuit of a spellbook that is of no interest to anyone but him, etc... Selfish characters are often the direct result of selfish players, and not the result of good role-playing. Even evil characters cooperate to accomplish goals. If you are expecting your adventuring companions to help you, you will help them. If you expect them to trust you, you had better act in a trustworthy manner. Sure people may pursue their own ends, but when this happens with frequency, at the expense of the well being of their fellows, relationships degrade, and good roleplayers know when their characters should move on too. If a particular character has caused problems on a consistent basis, logic dictates, you'll rid youself of the problem, and find a replacement who will not do so. None of us is as good as all of us. EDIT: How did this debate degenerate from "healers aren't a necessity?" to we have healers, but they don't want to heal? And how can that even be debated?
Korhal_IV 12-26-05, 09:31 PM	At some point you are bound to fight an encounter, or maybe a few in a row, where you suffer from the lack of a cleric. What happens if there are some big monsters dealing large amounts of damage, or poison, or paralysis, or dealing ability damage, level damage, etc. That's a risk you're going to have to take. You can acquire potions or scrolls of lesser restoration, but poison/level drain is no worse than running into a fire immune monster when the wizard's only prepped fireballs. You've got ways around it (poison, for instance, allows a save, as do most paralysis/level drain effects - party members should work on their saves anyway, but it becomes paramount when there's less divine forgiveness to go around). "Large amounts of damage" is a mirage. Very few monsters, I reiterate, are designed to drop a PC from hit point damage in one shot. A one-hit-kill monster is bad game design, because that is not fun - it's "Oh, you lose initiative, you die. Go sit over there and roll up a new character while we play." If you take a lot of HP damage in one hit, that is a sign that you need to change your tactics to adjust - trip or grapple the enemy, disarm them, or simply rotate out and let another guy into the front lines. You could even just pull full defense, let the guy hammer on you, and pray that the wizard or archer behind you can disable him before you run out of hit points. Remember, we're not talking about three people versus three people with a cleric. The combat cleric has a lot of cool stunts he can pull off - a Str 16, 10th-level Cleric with Divine Might, Righteous Might, and a Martial Weapon Proficiency can pull off 2d6+10 on each of his +15 swings, with a reach of ten feet - and that's not even counting the fact that his weapon is probably magic, or that he's probably wielding a greatsword (2d8+15). Your average fighter probably has a similar Str of 20, so he's doing 2d6+15, but no reach and slightly lower damage. If he's a sword-and-board or two-weapon-fighting fighter, he's doing much less. In addition, the cleric's size gives him a considerable bonus on special attacks such as grappling, tripping, disarming, or bull-rushing, all of which impact an enemy's ability to fight back much more immediately than just swinging for hit point damage. Tactics may be flawlsess, but sometimes encounters aren't controlled by the PCs. Dare I say most times? When PCs are dropped to negatives, even if they can stablize on their own with action points, that's one less sword arm on your side. Clerics can prevent people from reaching that point. They don't have to by any means, but sound tactics often dictate they should prevent such an occurance. Tactics doesn't mean controlling encounters. It means identifying threats and how to deal with them quickly - if the enemy wears robes and just cast a spell, run in and grapple him. If the enemy wears full plate and just hit you with a greatsword, Entangle or Web him (and then pick him apart from ranged). Again, it is very few combats in which the first round is devastating. Have good Spot/Listen, and play smart, and you will rarely be caught off-guard to that extent (most dungeons, for instance, have intelligent critters, and you can capture or converse with these to get a better idea of what lies ahead). Most combats I've seen in which a party member went down on the first turn, it was nothing the cleric could do to stop it - it's usually an enchantment or save-or-die spell. At first level, I've seen a couple occasions on which an arrow or sword slash instantly dropped a rogue or caster, and there in-combat healing is definitely justified, but that's first level. It's not the template by which you should play for all twenty levels. It's not even the template by which you should play third level, if you can afford better. If the cleric better serves the party by letting those around him drop, because he's the best warrior, then your party is out of balance. First in order for that to be true, the cleric has to be dealing more damage on his own, than he and the fighter can combined. Which is almost impossible, unless the fighter is completely inept. Second, that also means that the cleric is a better warrior than your fighter, but he also has better saves, turning ability, and spells. That's an imbalance within your own party, that needs to be adressed or your fighter PC is going to lose relevence. He no longer serves a purpose at all... Sometimes, the party doesn't even HAVE a fighter. My current group started as: rogue, monk, bard, cleric. I, as a warforged (Adamantine Body) cleric, and the monk, thanks to his great starting scores, tanked through the pregen modules all the way to the ballroom in Whispers, where the rogue died (and came back as a barbarian only because he rolled two stats as 15s and nothing else above 13, so MAD classes were out and most casters were too). In that case, I really did need to be buffing myself (though I handed out Magic Weapon and Divine Favor spells pretty liberally). We played the PCs we wanted and had a great time. Examples of smart play included the monk running up and stunning our foes, so that they could fight back less effectively, or the rogue using Hide to scout out the tunnels ahead. As for underpowered characters, or unorthodox skill selections, etc. Sure these things often lead to memorable and unique characters, however, if your rogue decides that he going to be a scholar, and never take ranks in disable devise, open lock, search, etc, perhaps somebody else is going to need those skills. A cleric with a nine wisdom, may seem interesting, but he's not nearly as effective as he could be. The best tactics happen during character creation, skill selection, and spell selection. Having the resources you need to answer a problem, is infinately superior to improvising on the spot. The nine wisdom cleric is ridiculous, and is the complete opposite of what I mean by smart play. If you don't have a lackey cleric willing to heal on command, figure out alternative ways to get hit points when you need them. Nearly all of my non-cleric PCs start with healing potions if I can afford them, and I always try to maximize my saves, so that I have less need of healing and assistance. I don't think PCs are being challenged nearly enough, by people citing examples of four rounds and done combat. If they deal with every encounter without the need for in-combat healing, then they have little chance of defeat period. My party has dealt with a foe four CRs above us, without in-combat healing, and won. This was Lucan from WotVB. It took five rounds, and was very nearly a TPK when the barbarian was Dominated and both the bard and monk got level-drained to third. However, between my non-healing spells, the monk's high AC, and our great damage output as a party, Lucan went down. At your next session, I suggest you keep track of how long combats go, marking them off with tally marks. Unless it's a very epic encounter with fresh PCs, it should not go over six rounds. If the enemy is focus-firing on one PC for all six rounds, that may require in-combat healing, but the PC should know to use a full move or Tumble to pull back, while another combat-type PC moves in to threaten AoOs if the enemy pursues. Playing with kid gloves, and leaving things out like traps, just because nobody played a rogue, is not the answer either. Creative PCs will find solutions to the problems that they face. Maybe their mage will cast passwall to make a safer passage, and circumvent the deadly trap, or maybe they'll hire an NPC for a while for just such a possibility. Traps with a DC over 20 cannot be found by anyone who isn't a rogue. So after about 6th level, traps are effectively invincible (because a DC under 20 means the rogue can find it just about every time). Your mage won't know to cast Passwall until after he's taken 10d4+10 and made his Fort saves against ten different types of poison. Hiring an NPC is distasteful to me, as it frequently evolves into a) the meat-bag scenario - the NPC is thrown in to every possible hazardous situation to test it, and b) the DM ends up running it. The DM has enough to do already; being forced to run an additional critter in every fight simply because I have a fetish for booby-trapped doors seems like a bad trade-off. I don't believe traps should be entirely removed - it is appropriate, for instance, for fleeing orcs to weaken a bridge so that the raging barbarian plummets to a humiliating end, but they should be downplayed. Maybe one or two per dungeon instead of eight. Enough to make the PCs keenly appreciate the lack of a rogue, but not so many as to punish them for their character choices. The PCs are heroes, especially in Eberron. If nothing ever presents an obstacle, how heroic is it? I firmly recommend you push the players to their limits, and even have them lose battles from time to time, in order to keep things interesting. Knowing that there are things out there tougher than them, is one thing, knowing that your fighting one right now, is another! Heroes should face challenges appropriate to them. Hercules' labors required him to utilize his great strength, Odysseus' challenges required him to use his cunning. If Odysseus was so strong he could pulp the Cyclops, it would not have been an interesting story. What you are proposing is exactly the opposite of heroic - that the cunning thief be presented with many large burly men to pummel him senselessly over and over, that the muscle-clad barbarian be reduced to a caricature screaming "OUCH*******IT!" every two steps as rocks fall on his head. Instead, the barbarian should be able to heroically engage other muscle-bound types, proving his supremacy, while the cunning thief will note that it is the even-numbered bricks that provoke rocks to fall - and not only does he avoid this trap but he then craftily leads his foes back into it. In-combat healing will prolong those 5-6 rounds. The PCs can defeat greater foes. PCs playing to their strengths, often means having clerics casting curative magic while in combat. That is and has always been their greatest strength. There will be times, when it is more effective for a cleric to just draw his weapon and wade in too. Those are the easy encounters, in which the enemy doesn't have the ability to kill the PCs before the PCs kill them. If however the enemy is on par with the PCs, there should be some risk of death, and the cleric's spontaneous healing abilities, will turn the tables in their favor. Yes, in-combat healing prolongs combat. THIS IS A BAD THING! Combat gets worse for PCs the longer it drags on - the NPC monsters are essentially dead already, but the PCs are burning up precious resources in one room of many. What's that saying? The best defense is a good offense? It applies in D&D too. You earn nothing by healing somebody except giving the monster another chance to whack them. Like I said, I've had my party tackle a CR 4+ above their level and beat it. Without in-combat healing. And it was precisely the offensive use of my spells that allowed us to carry the day. For heroic action to have any meaning, there must be some danger, or potential for loss of life. The PCs should sometimes feel lucky to have survived at all. There should almost always be the underlying fear that someday their reckless adventuring could be their undoing. Hard fought battles where the PCs feel like underdogs, are much more satisfying than smiting their foes mercilessly. Sometimes you don't want to run away. Maybe you've finally reached the climax and are fighting the BBEG, and his horde. In a good climax, the PCs are tired, low on resources, and have been beat up. The clerics spontaneous healing will make the difference in living or dying facing an encounter like this. Out of combat healing. A Wand of Cure Light Wounds averages 5.5 HP healed per charge, which means a fully charged Wand can heal 275 HP! It can also be used by: paladin, ranger, druid, rogue, bard - i.e., over half the classes in the PHB! Out of twelve base classes available in Eberron, only five can't use a Cure wand. You will never reach a climax in a condition that could be described as "beat up", if only you take a minute - literally a minute - to Cure yourself. I find it difficult to imagine what fiendish plots the villain could accomplish in that minute, but if time is so VITALLY important, THEN the cleric can drop his spells for Cures. Meanwhile, the cleric has all those other handy spells prepped - Protection from Energy, Bull's Strength, Spiritual Weapon, Inflict Critical, Divine Favor. When you run into an enemy with DR, you will be glad the cleric has Inflict and Bull's Strength. When you run into an enemy with high AC, you will be glad he has Divine Favor. When the enemy is firing arrows from a ledge, Spiritual Weapon will force him to stop. When the enemy is brandishing a flaming longsword, your cleric will snicker as he immunizes the tank. You're also ignoring the issue of versatility, which my last paragraph starts to touch on. You'd never buy a hundred and one scrolls of clerical spells, because that's just too much gold to cover every contingency (Protection from Energy in all flavors, Wind Wall against archers and vampires, Restoration...). BUT you can guarantee that you will suffer HP loss in just about every adventure. So pick up a Cure wand to cover that contingency, and let the cleric prepare his spells so that he can cover all the others. Finally, the heal-bot is just not fun to play. I've seen a combat where there were three participants, due to casualties. The cleric, the fighter, the villain. They were lined up exactly in that order, where the fighter and the villain exchanged blows, and the cleric just sat there Curing. That was the most boring and painful combat to watch. The fighter player was really into it, but the cleric was going out of his mind. It's not like HE was going to get the credit for killing the villain, where the fighter guy was going to be ecstatic over the win. He was calculating the odds of tripping, disarming, criticalling, even grappling. I suppose the cleric could've gotten all happy about rolling double 8s on his Cure Moderate. WOO! WOO! WOO! Attitudes and playstyles like yours, nastynate, are exactly why the cleric class is considered the low man on the totem pole. My first campaign, the veterans made me play cleric, precisely because they thought like you. I picked up a greatsword, Strength domain, and Weapon Focus, and went on to crush evil like nobody's business. *They* were the ones trailing behind me, not vice-versa. Concentrating on maximizing your fun, not some theoretical "party balance" concept invented by a guy who's never played in your group.
Calibim 12-26-05, 09:36 PM	EDIT: How did this debate degenerate from "healers aren't a necessity?" to we have healers, but they don't want to heal? And how can that even be debated? Disclaimer: This Post was done without the use of spellcheck.....ANd my speling can be pretty bad. Are "Healer" Clerics needed? No Are Artificers needed? No Fighters? Nope Wizards? No agian Are you seeing what I'm getting at here? You can have a fighter, bard, artificer, ranger party....or a wizard, cleric, barbarian, rouge party.... The make up of each party may be diffirent from the next...this is not Gauntlet for Pete's Sake!!! Healing can be achieved from several diffirent sources, especially with Eberron. Now, should a Cleric "charge" for his healing services? Well that depends on their alignment now doesn't it? Me, I like playing Lawful Evil Clerics. Which means I MIGHT want some type of reconciliation for healing your sorry butt! Does that make me selfish? Heck yeah it does, I'M EVIL!!!!! Does that mean I'm going to let you die? Depends...are you furthering my cause in some way (Dupe, Pawn, Protection, etc.) ? No? Are you getting in my way (Always yammering on about how we have to save the villiage and we should not ask for money and we should not just kill a few villiagers on the sly...turn them in to zombies....and then use them to help take out what ever is pestering the villiage....)? Yes? Then I suggest you spend an action point a stabalize yourself there buddy, cause your bleeding pretty bad. THAT is called role-playing! It's not always about helping the team. It's about staying in character. Sometimes there is conflict. Now granted not everyone is used to that style of play. But just cause your not used to it does not mean it's wrong. Heck some of the most fun games I've played in my 2 plus decades of gaming are the ones where every one is at each others throats. Where your relying on the other adventures because you need to not cause you want to. Where you get to say lines like "Some day.....when your lying bleeding on the ground, we are going to have this discussion again...." So back to the original question, some type of healing in a group is a good thing. Whether it's potions, A Cleric/Druid/or Bard, or an artificer with a cure wounds wand you will need healing. The thisng that is changed is that that does not have to be that players PRIMARY function. ~ Calibim Out!
ekomega 12-26-05, 09:42 PM	Selfish characters are often the direct result of selfish players, and not the result of good role-playing. Even evil characters cooperate to accomplish goals. If you are expecting your adventuring companions to help you, you will help them. I still argue that a fighter expecting (or demanding) to be healed by the party cleric, at the expense of whatever the cleric was going to do, is selfish. You can't counter selfishness (the cleric wanting to do his own thing) with more selfishness (the fighter wanting to be healed). It's usually in the cleric's best interest to heal the fighter, but not when people start demanding or expecting things without asking first. I agree that a party does cooperate to accomplish goals, and that each member in a party throws his own weight. I also strongly disagree with charging money for healing services, even if a cleric could open shop somewhere and charge. But a cleric who is expected to heal everyone is quickly forced into a role that they don't want. For me, it'd be as simple as asking the cleric nicely or showing him some appreciation. Maybe give the cleric first pick of the treasure since he saves your ass all the time.
nastynate 12-27-05, 07:09 AM	I give up. 1.In-combat healing clearly is completely over-rated. I must be wrong. It isn't possible for a tenth level warrior to dish out more damage in a single round, than he could possibly take. Even if he could, why would he be fighting the PCs? Impossible. Nothing should ever threaten a PCs life within the first 5-6 rounds of combat. 2. Clerics should charge their buddies for healing them. They provide a service that nobody else can, so they should extort money out of the other PCs, and give it away to their church. It only makes sense that they get special treatment, for using their class abilities, and nobody else does. It also isn't selfish to expect it; it's good role-playing. 3. Refusing to cooperate with your adventuring companions is also good role-playing. Evil PCs shouldn't get along, because all evil people are loners with no friends (stereotypes are good role-playing right?). People with different philosophies cannot possibly live together or work together as a team. I mean here in the U.S. I've never seen somebody of different faith, let alone worked with them as an equal. :nonono: 4. Fighters are suicidal fools when charging into melee, if they expect to be healed by the cleric. Clearly the fighters should hold back and search for the traps they cannot find, or heal the rogue with a wand, rather that try to do what they've trained their whole lives for. They are stupid for risking their lives in combat, and too demanding of the cleric's healing powers. 5. Clearly the suggestions I have made about design, and intended purpose could not possibly apply to actual game play. I am not telling anyone how to play their characters!...I am telling people that clerics were designed to heal people. I am not wrong. It is spelled out in their mechanics. You may choose to play a cleric in any way you wish, but if you don't provide healing, somebody else probably should. I have fun playing D&D. My friends and I cooperate as a team, regardless of alignment, while engaged in dangerous situations. Role-playing happens mostly outside of combat, when your life isn't hanging in the balance. Our clerics have always healed us without ever demanding anything in return, just as everyone else participates without demanding anything in return. Those that demand too much, aren't pulling their fair share. If you play differently, that's your choice, but I ask you this. How many of you have had the same players at your table for 18 years? I challenge you to do so with back-biting, self serving players, and glory hounds. Most of our parties are not good aligned, but we reserve role-playing inter-party problems with one another, for appropriate times, rather than combat situations. You may choose to disagree with our style of play, but it seems that in looking at the link to the article I provided a few posts back, I play as the game is generally expected to be played, by those who publish it. Play testing has proven the effectiveness of our techniques, and we have done well. The longevity of our team, and the strength of our friendship seems to support my point fairly well. Perhaps you don't like the role of healer, and feel that it detracts from the game...I cannot understand this, but I won't argue in favor of it any longer. I will not defend the cleric from those who choose to ignore their most important ability. how you play your cleric is your choice. Originally Posted by R&D The cleric is responsible for keeping the other players active with its ability to heal. While magic items can cover this gap, most items that a party can afford don't provide enough healing on a round-to-round basis...Its abilities are fundamentally passive – they remove conditions rather than inflict them. I have no problem playing a cleric like this, if it furthers the goals of my adventuring party; apparently some people do. It's certainly not relegating you to an unimportant role, or preventing you from involving your character in combat. But a cleric who is expected to heal everyone is quickly forced into a role that they don't want. For me, it'd be as simple as asking the cleric nicely or showing him some appreciation. Maybe give the cleric first pick of the treasure since he saves your ass all the time. I applaud your good manners, and treatment of the cleric. But I question what the player of the cleric does expect. Unless there are multiple such sources of healing, the other PCs have no one else to turn to. It's a simple matter really, nobody else has the ability to do so, in even close to the same capacity. It’s almost the same as the fighter, being surprised when people expect him to fight. You don’t have to gaud him into action, or offer him the first pick of the treasure, to use his class abilities. At least the cleric has the option of doing something else, but claiming the fighter is selfish for calling upon him for help, seems wrong. By virtue of his class, he can do only one thing, and the one thing he does, will often get him injured...that's why he's calling for healing. Getting hurt isn't his fault, it's his job, but even the tank can take only so much. Selfishness is not interupting the cleric when he's occupied. Selfishness is serving your own needs or desires above those of others. Given the limited abilities of the fighter, it is much more challenging for him to do anything selfish in the battle itself. Given the multitude of options available to a cleric, is easier to make a decision that could be interpretted as self-serving. Wizards are frequently put in the same position, but at least they're fragile, and so if they spend a few rounds casting stoneskin, and spell resistance, most warriors will forgive the puny girly men. The heavily armored cleric with persistant divine might, has far fewer excuses not to run into the melee to save the injured fighter. He is equiped to survive. -Later-
Uller999 12-27-05, 08:40 AM	I find that a cleric's motivation is at least somewhat relevant to what spells they are both likely to have learned and what they are likely to use on their party. When I played a cleric of mask I seldom used healing and instead concetrated on social and infiltration spells. If the group wanted healing I would usually steal something and give it to them rather than actually use my spells. I was LE I would only do what was benificial for the group if and only if it was benificial for me. If the tank buys it but we'll still likely survive, oh well. Now granted, a more postively group-oriented cleric is likely to heal and buff other members of the part wether he's a cleric of Dol Dorn or the CotSF because like fighters and druids those spells are a central part of the cleric's abilities. Are they the only part? no. But they are the part a cleric has that no one can really match. Druids can get healing sure but not to the extent that a cleric can. All I'm saying is this, if I were in a party and the member of the party was lax with healing and demanding money and all that I would be weary of his real intentions. Cleric of Dol Arrah, who won't heal the party who is fighting evil? perhaps he's really a Dragon Below cultist. I understand motivations for character and all that and that's great but the bottom line is a player needs to make a character that's integrationist with the group. The righteous paladin of the Church of the Silver Flame who believes all other gods are sorts of demons is probably not going to get along all that well with the group; moreover he probably won't help with healing the "infidels" but as has been said his self-righteous butt wouldn't be in the party. So its not an issue. You can make a cleric form whom healing isn't what you do but at the same time you'll have to work to avoid and when all is set and done you're still going to be able to spontaenous cast
Adhevan 12-27-05, 10:14 AM	Actually, you're only highlighting my point. The ranger reference is a great one for example. I keep circling back to the role-playing element here because many people here are ignoring it is irrelevant in the face of stats and figures. Actually, I'm not ignoring roleplaying elements. I am questioning the validity of the professed faith and devotion to a particular cause that can be so easily set aside with a few coins. "Hey guys, the current goals and actions of the party are diametrically opposed to the tenets of my faith. Oh, don't worry, I'm going to keep helping you achieve said goals, ensuring the damnation of my own soul, but I'm going to charge you for it." If the wizard refuses the ranger may a) fight them, b) leave the party or c) turn the other way the next time they see some monster about to get the jump on the wizard. All of those seem valid enough. What doesn't seem very valid in this situation would be d) charge the wizard for continuing to contribute to the party. If the ranger did not do so then they would probably very quickly find themselves in trouble with their sect. The Wardens of the Wood would not take kindly to a ranger that aids individuals that inflict such harm on the land and a DM could very reasonably have the Wardens declare the ranger an outlaw along with his party, to be hunted and arrested (or killed) by any loyal Wardens. It doesn't seem very likely to me that the ranger could get the Wardens off his back by saying, "It's ok, man. I charged them extra for it." In short, a cleric will probably be motivated either by their religion or by selfishness. If it is by their religion then the question of who they dole healing out to and how much they dole it out is open to debate. A cleric of the Silver Flame may not feel obligated to do much for "heathens". One has to wonder why exactly he has joined together in an adventuring band with the heathens, then. When I mentioned additional payment (notice how upset everyone got over the perceived assault on their wallets), remember that I said that such might be expected as tithes. A cleric might consider non-life threatening damage to not merit dumping any of their spell slots on. They can, after all, use those spells for other things. Especially if someone else is not a follower of the cleric's church they may very well feel that it is not incumbent upon them to use their spells for that person without something in return. If the wounded character would have to pay for healing in the cleric were sitting in a church, why should it be free just because they're in a cave? The cleric is probably going to want something for their church in return for the service. Indeed, their church will probably question their activities if they are not seen as being as beneficial to the church as they ought to. For me, it is not about the assault on the wallet. It is about having someone in the party I can't trust. If he is only concerned about the health of party members when paid to be, I wonder if someone else has paid him more to see to it that we don't survive. And I also wonder, out of character, if the player thinks we won't toss his character out of the party just because the player is our friend. It would seem very possible to me that at least one of the characters in the party would be pragmatic enough to say, "Hey, if we're going to pay for healing anyway, why don't we just buy some wands. They at least have the added benefit of not being condescending. Plus, we only pay the cost of the wand, not a full share in addition to that." The cleric does get something in return for the service. Unless this is some really strange party where the cleric not only heals, assists in melee, and contributes combat magic, but actually does all of the fighting, all of the negotiating, all of the trap disarming, all of the puzzle solving, etc. How exactly would you respond to the party member who says, during combat, "Wow, good thing I moved up and engaged this guy. That swing almost connected. I'm just a wee bit harder to hit than you are, too, so I think it would have tagged you. Oh, by the way, how much do you charge for healing the damage from an average sword stroke? Cuz, I figure since I just saved you from taking one, that's how much you owe me. I'm serious, man. The gods created the spark that became my soul and breathed life into my body, so any blood I shed in your defense is a divine resource I'm wasting on you." If the cleric is motivated by selfishness then they'll want something for personal reasons. Seems like valid reasoning. I still question why the party would want him. If you're paying someone to perform a role in the party, he's not really a full member of the party, he's a hireling. Mind you, this is also true of wizards and sorcerors. The party's non-spellcasters could easily argue that the party's wizard should memorize only spells like Bull's Strength, Haste and such. Spells that could augment the party's fighter types. But wizards, and even sorcerors who can cast spontaneously, would probably balk at using all their spell slots to soup up the other members of the party. In addition, they may want something for their trouble in other situations. A rogue that selects a cursed item from the treasure haul could certainly ask the party wizard to cast Remove Curse for them. But the wizard might not be willing to do it for free depending on their relationship with the rogue. OOCly, that argument might be a little more valid. ICly, it seems like entirely different orders of magnitude for a character to say, "Man, could you cast that bull spell thingy on me? I just love how it makes me fight!" and "Man, I have a sucking chest wound here, think you could help me out?" As for remove curse, good leader type, depending on his wisdom (meaning common sense, not the game mechanic), might think to encourage the wizard to remove the poor rogue's curse, since the rest of the booty in that chest was valuable and beneficial to the entire party and wasn't turned to slag by the acid in the trap because, well, the rogue disarmed it. Adventuring parties are just like real people. Their are group dynamics and motivations to take into account. A cleric (or wizard) might not want to devote their entire spell load to servicing the other players. Bear in mind that other players may act with selfish intent. The rogue may get the party into trouble while trying to gain some choice treasure, a wizard may lead his peers into peril in pursuit of a spellbook that is of no interest to anyone but him, etc... Yes, characters are like real people. And when a member of the party turns mercenary, it can, and usually does, lead to resentment from the other characters. The challenge in role-playing (as opposed to roll-playing) is that these motivations tend to come out. Just like a wizard may not want to allocate all of his 2nd level spell slots to Bull's Strength for the party's fighter, the cleric may not always want to use up their spell slots on healing. From a role-playing perspective they have personal goals that may make doing so unacceptable, just as for the wizard. Unless the rest of the players are all challenging themselves by playing suicidal characters, what personal goals and motivations are they following by continuing to keep as a travelling companion someone who sees their suffering as a way to make cash? The characters don't see hitpoints, they see scratches and gashes and bruises and seeping wounds, wounds that the cleric could heal with little effort. Sure, it is not a limitless resource, but it is a very renewable one. What are their reasons for remaining with someone who very obviously discounts their contributions while holding his own in such high esteem that he feels he deserves to be paid for them, in addition to the full party share he draws for, apparently, nothing more than his somewhat questionable companionship? When other players just see another player's character's abilities as simply a way to supplement their own gaps, then odds are nobody will play that class. But if they do they may not choose to play their character as everyone else's servant. Technically, the guy you pay for providing a service is a servant. And after all this discussion, I'm still not sure how being mercenary about healing is the answer to the walking band-aid syndrome. I actually do not advocate clerics being characters who just sit back and cast healing spells. Honestly, I find those characters boring to play with. But when a character's life hangs in the balance and the character who is either the only healer or the best healer still refuses to heal, I have trouble finding in-character motivation for remaining in the same group. I find party unity to be much more of a role-playing issue than a roll-playing one, personally. The roll-playing issue goes something like, "Yeah, Bob's character really sucks, but he's a lot of fun to game with, so what's the big deal? It's supposed to be fun, right?" The role-playing issue can be more like people who are being hunted by some insane and powerful cultists bent on their destruction, or hidden agents of some powerful mercantile guild or government who want something the characters have and are willing to do anything to get it, and who would probably prefer if the characters aren't around afterwards to tell the story of the thing actually existing. And the characters know they are in it up to their ears and have a meager chance of survival even if they all work together and look out for each other, and probably no chance at all if they don't band together. And now they've discovered that one of their companions just wants to make a buck off them. You know... it is kind of fishy that these people always seem to know where to find us. There are rumors about corruption in the church... wonder if our resident priest has been selling us out all along? Or something along those lines, anyway.
Euangelion 12-27-05, 10:45 AM	I'll once again raise what I consider to be an important point: in Eberron, a typical person is probably not going to think of a religious person as a healer, unless they're a follower of Olladra, because the healers of Khorvaire are the halflings of House Jorasco. No one is going to second guess a cleric/adept of Kol Korran for charging a fee (even if it is nominal) for spells, because making money is at the heart of that faith (and why Kol Korran is ture neutral, not good.) No one should be surprised that a cleric of Dol Arrah will be offended if the party looks to them just for healing, since its a religion of war and warriors, not stinkin' halfling healers. The presence of Jorasco and the Mark of Healing is truly a paradigm shift in Dungeons and Dragons, and it appears many have not caught on to the full implications of the change. With the exception of Olladra (and many clerics/adepts of Olladra are in fact associated with House Jorasco either as members of the House or as its employees), clerics/adepts/experts of the religions do not see themselves as healers. They will heal because they can, but only as a small part of their regular activities. It would be like if in the American culture there was not a tradition of weddings being held in churches, even if pastors were legally empowered to perform them, and then going to a pastor and expecting him/her to do a wedding at the drop of a hat, even if it's on a high holy day of their church. An adventuring cleric is probably going to be more willing to cast healing magic than one that is leading a local congregation, but if that's the only thing the party looked to them for, they would most likely be very insulted. Let's put it another way, unless the cleric in your Eberron adventuring party has the Healing domain, healing should only be a small part of their total contribution to the party. If you want a pure healer in the party, hire a member of House Jorasco to go with you. Edit: this changes in areas where Jorasco is not prominent, such as in the Eldeen Reaches (druids, rangers, and especially adepts and experts being the primary healers) and the Dhakaani clans (bards being their healers).
nastynate 12-27-05, 11:10 AM	Adhevan, how have you remained composed? I'm ready to throw things. :banghead: It seems as though Psionycx has been the only one arguing in favor of his cause, and yet he continues to try justify a lack of teamwork as good roleplaying, while dismissing our desire for teamwork as poor roleplaying. Psionycx, asking a cleric to contribute healing magic to the party is perfectly justifiable. The cleric benefits equally from the other characters' contributions does he not? I question your commitment to the teamwork expected in successful parties. In a simplified world (like a video game) where you control all the characters, I bet your cleric would have no trouble healing his fellow party members, because you benefit. Do you not benefit in D&D from the same circumstances? The only time a cleric could justify refusing to use his class abilities for the benefit of his party, would be if he was diametrically opposed to their objectives; in which case he would not be adventuring with them. It sounds to me like you are advocating inter-party strife, as an example of good roleplaying. I feel that inter-party conflict is a recipe for campaign implosion, an end to all opportunity for roleplaying. EDIT: Euagelion, the impact of House Jorasco is no more significant to the impact of the role of clerics, than magewrights are to wizards. Clerics still possess a far greater aptitude for healing than any House Jorasco Adept. Just as a magewright isn't changing the role of your wizard. House Jorasco impacts common people, and their view of healing magic, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the dynamic of an adventuring party. You don't take a bunch of magewrights and halflings with you on an adventure, in place of a wizard and a cleric. They are common, yet fragile, and they serve the public, not an individual cause, like the goal of an adventuring party. Regardless of the domains your cleric has, if they possess the ability to cast spontaneous healing, they completely outclass any Jorasco halfling in healing capabilities. Adventurers are not ignorant, and they should know this too. Also I doubt a cleric of Dol Arrah would feel insulted if her adventuring companions acknowedged her healing talent, if they also recognized her other talents. None of us has ever implied that is all a cleric is good for. Those days are long behinds us, with second edition. :)
Adhevan 12-27-05, 11:53 AM	I'm glad sombody sees the completely hypocritical nature of these folks who seem to think their clerics are entitled to special treatment by virtue of their contribution of healing magic. nobody else charges the other PCs for providing the abilities granted to them by their classes. There were a lot of different stereotypes involved that irked me into posting. But yes, the main one was the implication that the rest of the party lacks value. Having the difference between roll-playing and role-playing explained to me again never hurts either.
Adhevan 12-27-05, 12:10 PM	Adhevan, how have you remained composed? I'm ready to throw things. :banghead: I am still awake several hours after finishing a 12 hour shift at work. Way too tired to be anything but calm. But before I retire for the day, I'd just like to add that all the talk about D&D characters having motivations like real people and party dynamics and such just makes me think about Terrell Owens.
igotsmeakabob!! 12-27-05, 12:21 PM	Mind filling me in on who he is? And its 12:30pm here in new york, US and i'm tired anyway (damn mono). mono sucks.
nastynate 12-27-05, 12:22 PM	T.O. is a cleric! :rofl: Woah...are you really from the U.S.? Terrel Owens is the best wide receiver in the NFL, but he's essentially been terminated for behavior detrimental to his team. Even my GF knows who T.O. is...LoL.
Calibim 12-27-05, 03:32 PM	It sounds to me like you are advocating inter-party strife, as an example of good roleplaying. I feel that inter-party conflict is a recipe for campaign implosion, an end to all opportunity for roleplaying. Nate, Nate, Nate :nonono: ….I see your problem. I see why you feel ready to throw things. I see why you and Adhevan are so frustrated. It’s because YOUR gamers, that YOU play with would never do such a thing. They would not tolerate having a cleric ask for reconciliation for healing them (notice in this and my previous post I never stated that reconciliation should be in gold…”favors” are so much more lucrative) because in your experience it would cause strife which campaign implosion. And that is COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE…..for your group. If I played in your group I would pick up on that “dynamic” and play accordingly. But if I played with the guys I normally play with I would go back to being the self-serving Cleric of The Dragon Below with a massive Dr. Doom / Darth Vader complex (I mean where else can you get away with line like “I find your lack of faith…disturbing.”) :devil: Me, I like a little inner-party strife. I like a little conflict. Especially in Eberron, with the Pulp Noir feel, and the amount of intrigue going on, you never know if one of your party members is secretly an apprentice to The Twelve’s Acquisition Group, or is in league with The Dark Lanterns, or is a Daelkyr half-blood who has hidden his Symbiot and is reluctant to use it but fails to act at a pivotal moment to save you because he is wrestling with his inner- turmoil. And, as I’ve said before, in my 2 decades plus of gaming the ones that are most memorable are the ones that have that inner turmoil among the group. IMO it leads to great exchanges between characters, both in combat, and non-combat situations. Like the time I healed the Sorcerer just so I could punch him. I mean I told him not to open the freakin bottle with the magiky runes on it, but noooooo he just had to open it. :banghead: So after we defeated the Hezarou (sp?) that was imprisoned in the bottle, I promptly healed the sorcerer who’s HP were in the negatives….then punched him in the face. Now on to the Magewright / House Jorasco thing. I actually do think this can effect the adventures as much as the “common folk”. Not EVERY adventure is crawling through Xen’drik ruins or fighting off lizard folk in Q’barra. Some adventurez may take place in Wroat, or Sharn, or any of the other metropolitan areas in Eberron. And in this we find the reason having a dedicated healer may not be needed. Let’s say your in Sharn beginning an adventure by getting jumped by Daask thugs. You get out of the battle but your pretty banged up, what do you do. Do you go looking for a church to ask a cleric for some healing? You have to be “one of the faithful” per the ECS, before they heal you. And that’s if they even have a cleric on the premises!! In Eberron clerics are just sitting around waiting for some one to come stumble in for some healing. Yep, it’s much easier to find a House Jorasco house of healing and get patched up. Not to mention that a good aligned cleric may feel inclined to mention to the local constable that some adventure types came in all banged up and they may want to find out why. The Jorasco halflings could care less how you got hurt…long as you have the money to pay for getting healed. Also House Jorasco would be the place to get potions of healing and wands of healing and such. The Churches would not be inclined to sell some grubby adventures such “divine” items, unless of course one of the adventures just happens to be a cleric of that particular church. (Hey! There’s a good reason to have a cleric around!! Ability to get healing items…maybe even on the cheap!!) So let’s recap shall we: Q: Do you need a “healer” in Eberron? A: You really don’t need someone who’s dedicated role is HEALER with great big neon glowing letters that float above their head. And it’s a good thing to because if I was a NPC villain I would introduce “stabbity death’ unto said healer. This frees up your cleric to take on other roles. Especially if there is an artificer in the group who can make wands of “Cure Moderate Ouchies”. Q: Should the healer “charge” for doing the ol Mister Myaugi (R.I.P) on someone? A: Depends on your group and its style of play. If your group is like the A-Team™ then this may not sit well with you. But if your group is more like “The Legion of Doom”™ it would fit juuuust fine. But remember, “charging” does not mean “give me gold or you bleed to death!”. The "charge" could be favors. Nothing is more fun than the old guilt trip (I.e. “I mean yeah you go ahead and take the ring of “I don’t know what it does, but it’s wicked kewl”, I mean heck it’s not like I need it or anything. It’s not like I HEALED your sorry butt to make sure you didn’t DIE or anything like that. Note: this works best if your not a “good” cleric.) Q: Does House Jorasco figure into all this? A: IMO the answer to that is “yes”. Unless you have a cleric or an artificer in your group to can make and use potions/wands of curing (and that they don’t mind spending the time, gold, and XP to make them) the best place to get these items is House Jorasco. The churches might only sell these items to there faithful, or in the case of the more evil aligned churches they may as for a favor you can’t refuse. Better to deal with the halflings of Jorasco, fork over the crowns and get patched up. Also if your in a more cosmopolitan game, Jorasco Houses of Healing are more accessable than the Churches. This is good especially if you don't have a resident healer in your group. There, I hope that clears things up. Edited: For Spelling
nastynate 12-27-05, 04:08 PM	Calibim, that is a much better explaination of things, than has been previously stated, on your side of the argument. I can actually appreciate your opinion. Of course House Jorasco can be a huge convenience for injured PCs near a house of healing, but it also stands to reason, that if you have down time to seek a healers guild, your party cleric may have unused spells that can serve the same purpose without costing the party a dime. In Eberron if a party lacks a cleric, it is far more likely to expect them to go to the healers guild to seek curative magic, than to a church with whom they share no affiliation. I agree with you, yay! As for your Legion of Doom vs. my A-Team, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. My groups are much more tight knit than most. Even when we have evil characters, they tend to be more of the lawful evil type, than the chaotic evil type. They may not trust one another with their darkest secrets, but they don't expect their buddies to turn on them at the drop of a hat, either. Our evil plots are a collaboration or conspiracy, not a secret agenda, against their fellows. When we want that kind of environment we play Vampire, which is geared towards that style of play, far more than D&D IMHO. You have finally given me hope that the gaming world is not full of immature munchkins who view the power of their characters as an extention of their member. :clap:
Korhal_IV 12-27-05, 04:27 PM	I give up. 1.In-combat healing clearly is completely over-rated. I must be wrong. It isn't possible for a tenth level warrior to dish out more damage in a single round, than he could possibly take. Even if he could, why would he be fighting the PCs? Impossible. Nothing should ever threaten a PCs life within the first 5-6 rounds of combat. 10th level warrior with 14 Con has 65 HP. He has two attacks, with a +3 greatsword, Str 18, he's doing an average of 2d6+9 per hit. Someone tell me if that's offbase? It sure sounds like it's harder for him to dish out more damage than he can take. Did you mean a 10th level fighter? :) I've seen lots of PCs die. Just not to hit point damage. Petrification, failed Will saves, ninjas dripping poison into your open mouth while you sleep (not kidding! Only the cleric woke up to save the day!), etc. 2. Clerics should charge their buddies for healing them. They provide a service that nobody else can, so they should extort money out of the other PCs, and give it away to their church. It only makes sense that they get special treatment, for using their class abilities, and nobody else does. It also isn't selfish to expect it; it's good role-playing. You get a lot less confused and angry if you try to separate arguments by who posts them. Like right now, I'm not arguing with all the posters, just you. So I try to address points you bring up. If you could tag your points by whom you're answering, that would help. :) 4. Fighters are suicidal fools when charging into melee, if they expect to be healed by the cleric. Clearly the fighters should hold back and search for the traps they cannot find, or heal the rogue with a wand, rather that try to do what they've trained their whole lives for. They are stupid for risking their lives in combat, and too demanding of the cleric's healing powers. Fighters, with an AC that beats 20 by level 2 or 3 at most, and usually an average of 8.5+ HP/level, don't need healing much - see the 10th level warrior stats I guesstimated above. I'm fairly sure a 7th level fighter could handle him pretty well, and that (2d6+9) x 5 is less than the HP he has (well, maybe not, but we're assuming the warrior never misses with his primary attack). Once he bites the dust, our fighter buddy will be back up to full HP. :) And, of course, the fighter should be using tactics like tripping, disarming, or grappling, since it will reduce the warrior's number of attacks (but not the fighter's, since the fighter gets AoOs). 5. Clearly the suggestions I have made about design, and intended purpose could not possibly apply to actual game play. I am not telling anyone how to play their characters!...I am telling people that clerics were designed to heal people. I am not wrong. It is spelled out in their mechanics. You may choose to play a cleric in any way you wish, but if you don't provide healing, somebody else probably should. The post from you that drew my fiery wrath went like this (page 2, middle): "People may not enjoy playing a character who's primary purpose is to serve the needs of the other players, but that is the primary purpose of a cleric... You don't have to play one, if you don't like that role." That's sounding pretty authoritarian to me. Flame on! :D I have fun playing D&D. That's very nice. If you play differently, that's your choice, but I ask you this. How many of you have had the same players at your table for 18 years? Ah, the age card. I'm surprised it took three pages to play. I admire your modesty, sir! For what it's worth, I've had the same players at my table for five years now. Rather embarassingly, we've been unable to back-bite and bicker ourselves into sullen hatred yet. You may choose to disagree with our style of play, but it seems that in looking at the link to the article I provided a few posts back, I play as the game is generally expected to be played, by those who publish it. Play testing has proven the effectiveness of our techniques, and we have done well. Playtesting didn't show how utterly broken Haste was, or how easily Polymorph could (and still can) be abused by a player who flips through the Monster Manual. Isn't the spiked chain still banned in a lot of groups? It is in mine. 3.0 was a completely different edition, and although well playtested, the designers missed a lot of important holes (to say that Haste was not primarily used as a *fighter* buff is a humorous understatement). The designers came at this with the 2e viewpoint, and so do you. When you look at healing as a plus instead of a primary purpose, the situation looks quite different. Saying that a cleric's main purpose is healing because he can spontaneously heal is like saying that a druid's main purpose is summoning, because he can spontaneously summon!
Calibim 12-27-05, 05:08 PM	Our evil plots are a collaboration or conspiracy, not a secret agenda, against their fellows. When we want that kind of environment we play Vampire, which is geared towards that style of play, far more than D&D IMHO. Ah you were right in that assumption before Eberron. Now with Keith Baker's setting you can have the best of both!! The intrigue of Vampire with out having the urge to smack the :censored: out of some snaggle toothed fop that doesn't know the diffrence between Reality and freakin Fantasy...... Reality....Fantasy....BARRIER :looloo: You can also have a DnD game that does not revolve around just kicking in the door and killing everything in sight....although every once and a while that can be fun :P You have finally given me hope that the gaming world is not full of immature munchkins who view the power of their characters as an extention of their member. :clap: Ok your right I'm not immature (most of the time) or a munchkin... But.... My Character is not an extension of my member? :bigeyes: But...he has a big "sword", a potion of Natural Male Enhancement and everything....*ducks* :gah: Ok...we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread now in progress
Sieylianna 12-27-05, 05:30 PM	10th level warrior with 14 Con has 65 HP. He has two attacks, with a +3 greatsword, Str 18, he's doing an average of 2d6+9 per hit. Someone tell me if that's offbase? It sure sounds like it's harder for him to dish out more damage than he can take. Did you mean a 10th level fighter? :) A 10th level fighter using a greatsword will be using power attack and have weapon focus and weapon specialization. So his attacks (before power attack) are +18/+13 for 2d6 +11 damage. Say he power attacks for 5, that gives him +13/+8 for 2d6+21 damage. (So two hits for max damage and he drops). Add in improved critical for more damage. (An 18 Strength is low for a 10th level melee fighter. Figure minimum starting 16 + two stat points + +2 stat item for 20). Ed
igotsmeakabob!! 12-27-05, 06:30 PM	T.O. is a cleric! :rofl: Woah...are you really from the U.S.? Terrel Owens is the best wide receiver in the NFL, but he's essentially been terminated for behavior detrimental to his team. Even my GF knows who T.O. is...LoL. Yeah yeah yeah... well lets just say that I have never been a fan of many major professional sports.
Arcane Guyver 12-27-05, 08:51 PM	"Large amounts of damage" is a mirage. Very few monsters, I reiterate, are designed to drop a PC from hit point damage in one shot. A one-hit-kill monster is bad game design, because that is not fun - it's "Oh, you lose initiative, you die. Go sit over there and roll up a new character while we play." The very first encounter in the introductory adventure took down two characters before dying, each with one hit. This was simply an ambush by a 1st-level barbarian. Granted, they didn't DIE, but they were in the negatives. From what I've seen in my games, a party without some form of dedicated healer is a fragile thing. On the issue in-party conflict...great. A party of adventurers don't need to get along, and some might flat-out dislike eachother. This makes for an interesting team dynamic, and it's entertaining for me as a DM. But when this starts impinging on a characters ability to contribute to the group (such as acting sort of like Sawyer from Lost), they typically don't last very long. And kicking characters out of a party (or just killing them) isn't very conductive to this sort of shared hobby.
Teydyn 12-27-05, 09:39 PM	I still argue that a fighter expecting (or demanding) to be healed by the party cleric, at the expense of whatever the cleric was going to do, is selfish. Oh, and the cleric is selfish when he expects the fighter to jump into the mass when he (the cleric) is beaten to pulp by that monster. But why should the fighter risk his live? Is he a bodyguard? The fighter should haggle with the cleric for the amount of gold he has to pay why that big monster beats him to goo...
Psionycx 12-27-05, 09:54 PM	[QUOTE=nastynate]Psionycx, asking a cleric to contribute healing magic to the party is perfectly justifiable. The cleric benefits equally from the other characters' contributions does he not?[/B] Not always, and that is the point. The cleric's particular goals may or may not be getting met by the party. Just because the party hauls in coin doesn't mean the cleric gets what they, or their church, wants. Also, I am being misinterpreted here. I never said that a cleric should not heal other members of a party, nor did I ever say that they should always charge for it. However, there is an arrogant position being taken here that because clerics can cast healing spells then it is their obligation to do so. A lot of people tend to avoid playing clerics specifically because it is expected that they will simply dump their entire load of spell slots into patching every nick on the other members of their party simply because they can. The attitude being expressed here by many people towards the party cleric is that they are a kind of pet. "You just hang back, we'll cover you and when the melee is over you can do your thing." It's condescending and quite frankly explains why some parties don't have players willing to play clerics. Other players frequently may decide to take stupid risks because they assume that the party cleric can simply dump some of his spell load into repairing the after-effects. But then very quickly the cleric ends up sacrificing his entire spell load on post-combat repair jobs. The cleric's player quickly find that they no longer get to use their spellcasting for cool stuff because the decision of how their spell slots get used is really being made by the other players rather than themself. And at that point the situation becomes untenable. The usual response is for players to simply stop playing cleric characters. Then, guess what, the party is going to have to start paying for healing anyway! At that point some "tough love" may become necessary. If I were really a cleric and in an adventuring party where my fellows were regularly doing stupid things because they figured I'd fix them up afterwards I would probably eventually decide that they're becoming stupid and need a values lesson. Also, the base assumption here is that the cleric is Good. But there's no reason to leap to such a conclusion. The party could easily be made up of characters with Neutral alignments. And such individuals are usually not utterly selfless. As has been pointed out by others besides me, a cleric of Kol Korran for example will be looking for any profit opportunity they can find. This isn't Dragonlance and we're not assuming that every cleric is a healing-centric cleric of Mishakal. And what of cases where the party and the cleric are in conflict? A cleric of the Silver Flame that wants to hunt down a fiend will probably be less than ecstatic if the rest of the party votes to hunt down a treasure horde instead. The cleric is likely to be somewhat less cooperative in this case. So there are a lot of reasons why even when there's a cleric in the party that healing might not be readily available. Certainly with a lot of the arrogant attitudes being taken here, I know I wouldn't play a cleric in a party with some of the people on this board. I'd go with one of my other preferred classes. And I suspect others would feel the same way. And that's why some of these parties wouldn't have a cleric, and would end up paying for healing anyway.
Majorafire77 12-27-05, 10:35 PM	I only read the first page of this thread, so if anyone has already mentioned something like my upcoming idea I'm sorry. It's clear to me that, especially in large groups, playing as the party healer kind of stinks because you act as a sort of spectator as opposed to someone who is actually taking "real" actions and leading the party to victory. Focusing on healing decreases the amount of other useful actions that you take per encounter. Recently, in the new set of Magic: the Gathering, WotC produced a new card (Lightning Helix, for those of you that play the game) that hits the opponent for 3 damage while healing you for 3 at the same time, a spell that both blasts the opponent and helps you out at the same time. What if this idea could be adapted to a spell for healer types? Healers are generally focused on supporting others in combat, so this spell could be changed to "hurt some guy within range while healing someone else within range" instead of the standard vampire effect. While I haven't tested it yet, I'm almost positive that a spell like this could help healers take a more active role in battle while still doing what they do best, which is healing.
(Psi)SeveredHead 12-27-05, 10:58 PM	Recently, in the new set of Magic: the Gathering, WotC produced a new card (Lightning Helix, for those of you that play the game) that hits the opponent for 3 damage while healing you for 3 at the same time, a spell that both blasts the opponent and helps you out at the same time. What if this idea could be adapted to a spell for healer types? Healers are generally focused on supporting others in combat, so this spell could be changed to "hurt some guy within range while healing someone else within range" instead of the standard vampire effect. While I haven't tested it yet, I'm almost positive that a spell like this could help healers take a more active role in battle while still doing what they do best, which is healing. That would be amazingly cool! It kind of sucks how the only mage spell that can do that is so risky, or requires casting another spell to make it useful. Maybe making more than one non-5th Wheel class a capable healer would help. At least then they could share healing duties.
Adhevan 12-28-05, 02:20 AM	And kicking characters out of a party (or just killing them) isn't very conductive to this sort of shared hobby. Right. But if the players were all accurately portraying their characters, these things would be very likely. That is why I look askance at someone when he tries to justify something detrimental to the party as being good roleplaying. Because it is usually just a thin disguise for player motivation, and only done because he thinks the other players, not characters, won't retalliate.
Adhevan 12-28-05, 02:26 AM	Mind filling me in on who he is? And its 12:30pm here in new york, US and i'm tired anyway (damn mono). mono sucks. I'm sorry. T.O. was, earlier this year, a wide receiver for the Philadelphia Eagles. He went around claiming to be the best thing since sliced bread, saying that his team sucked and couldn't live without him and such as that. They promptly fired him. Well, actually, that's too simple. They fired him in such a way that he didn't get to play for anyone else this season, either.
Adhevan 12-28-05, 03:33 AM	Nate, Nate, Nate :nonono: ….I see your problem. I see why you feel ready to throw things. I see why you and Adhevan are so frustrated. It’s because YOUR gamers, that YOU play with would never do such a thing. They would not tolerate having a cleric ask for reconciliation for healing them (notice in this and my previous post I never stated that reconciliation should be in gold…”favors” are so much more lucrative) because in your experience it would cause strife which campaign implosion. And that is COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE…..for your group. If I played in your group I would pick up on that “dynamic” and play accordingly. I'm not really frustrated. If I were, I'd just change my settings so that I don't get notified when someone replies to the thread. I have played in campaigns where the characters were thrown together by circumstances instead of choice and cameraderie. Some people adapted and succeeded, some didn't. One campaign that stands out in my memory was a particularly brutal and cut-throat game. The encounters were designed to be difficult. Not just a challenge, but hard enough to kill at least one member. The number of players varied from six to eight from week to week. In the early going, we'd often have three people having to roll up new characters. Two of us in the party were playing cooperatively, while everyone else were purely out for number one. Tommy and I watched each other's backs. We'd help out others, too, but if it came down to a choice between saving each other or saving someone else, well, we smartly chose to protect the one who would do the same in return instead of the one who was just waiting for us to die so he could get a share of our equipment. Some of the others gradually joined in on the "team spirit" idea when they noticed that Tommy and I were the only ones who were still playing our original characters. When I say that they got team spirit, I don't mean that they become our devoted heal-bot slaves. I mean that they picked up on the idea that if they watched our backs, we'd watch theirs, and that if they did things to make themselves useful and not things to make themselves resented, we'd be more likely to help them, too. A few never learned that, though. But if someone decided to play a healer, something we were very often lacking, and tried to use this fact as leverage for a larger split of the treasure or as the sole reason we should strive to keep him around, he'd not be successful. See, just having an ability that he could use wouldn't make him valuable to me. And yes, I was just as self-centered as the rest of the party. Had I been an altruist, I would have been blindly trying to save everyone instead of just the ones I shared loyalty with. And I honestly do not recall the roleplaying in that campaign being any more challenging or of any higher quality than other campaigns I've played in. Giving a character a real personality and keeping his motivations separate from my own, and not just coming up with some lame in-character justification for the character's action, but having his actions flow from his personality... these things are the challenge and measure of roleplaying ability and are independent of race, alignment, class, and build optimization. Oh, but if I were frustrated, I'd do a two or three page rant in response to one of the posters whose reasoning was something like, "You disagree with me, obviously you are a roll-player instead of a role-player." Me, I like a little inner-party strife. I like a little conflict. Especially in Eberron, with the Pulp Noir feel, and the amount of intrigue going on, you never know if one of your party members is secretly an apprentice to The Twelve’s Acquisition Group, or is in league with The Dark Lanterns, or is a Daelkyr half-blood who has hidden his Symbiot and is reluctant to use it but fails to act at a pivotal moment to save you because he is wrestling with his inner- turmoil. And, as I’ve said before, in my 2 decades plus of gaming the ones that are most memorable are the ones that have that inner turmoil among the group. IMO it leads to great exchanges between characters, both in combat, and non-combat situations. Like the time I healed the Sorcerer just so I could punch him. I mean I told him not to open the freakin bottle with the magiky runes on it, but noooooo he just had to open it. :banghead: So after we defeated the Hezarou (sp?) that was imprisoned in the bottle, I promptly healed the sorcerer who’s HP were in the negatives….then punched him in the face. My experience has been different. When I want to experience internal conflict and the players working at cross purposes, I usually play Amber. But that's an entirely different thing. That game doesn't actually involve parties of characters.
Adhevan 12-28-05, 06:00 AM	[QUOTE=nastynate]Psionycx, asking a cleric to contribute healing magic to the party is perfectly justifiable. The cleric benefits equally from the other characters' contributions does he not?[/B] Not always, and that is the point. The cleric's particular goals may or may not be getting met by the party. Just because the party hauls in coin doesn't mean the cleric gets what they, or their church, wants. Then what is he doing in the party? If coin isn't what he wants, then how does charging ... um, coins, for using his abilities in the party change that? If he is so devout and all his motivations are based around what his church wants and the party is not working towards those goals, why is he IN the party? I'm not saying he should be the party's slave. I'm saying that for all the talk about roleplaying, you have never shown how it is good roleplaying for him to even BE with the party. I mean, is the cleric hanging around because the characters are his friends? No, the mercenary attitude sorta flies in the face of that one. Is he around because even though this particular adventure doesn't directly support his goals, other things the party has done and will do in the future do support his goals and he isn't so arrogant as to think that every action the group takes should be subservient to the needs of the cleric? When the party does go on that crusade for the cleric's church, is the cleric going to be forced to pay each party member each time that party member does something in furtherance of that cause? And if the party does not work that way. If it always revolves around what just one character wants to do, why do the other members go along? If you are not working to further each other's goals, and only doing what one person wants, you're not an adventuring group, you're hirelings. If that is the case, then yes, you should speak up and do something about that, or if you prefer the roleplaying avenue, part company. But going along with a party you disagree with and then charging them for healing is hardly sound RP, it's just passive-aggressive behavior. It is no different than deciding you don't want to go to a new year's eve party with your girlfriend, but instead of telling her so, you just go and act like a jerk and make her miserable for "making" you go, even though, of course, you never told her you didn't want to go and, in fact, went voluntarily. Also, I am being misinterpreted here. I never said that a cleric should not heal other members of a party, nor did I ever say that they should always charge for it. However, there is an arrogant position being taken here that because clerics can cast healing spells then it is their obligation to do so. No, the arrogant assumption is that the cleric should only be a contributing and full member of the party when it suits him and that the actions and abilities of the other members of the party have absolutely no value. It actually reminds me a lot of the story about the housewife who presents her husband with a bill for cooking, housecleaning, child care, etc. And the husband turns around and charges her for rent, lawn services, house repair, car repair, etc. It's a very blind perspective. You see the value of the cleric, but just because he has value is not proof that no other character does. A lot of people tend to avoid playing clerics specifically because it is expected that they will simply dump their entire load of spell slots into patching every nick on the other members of their party simply because they can. I really don't like the passive voice in that sentence. "because it is expected." Because who expects it? If it is the group you normally game with, then that is where you should squarely place that blame. The way it is worded though presents the picture that the entire gaming community, with the exception of those enlightened few who actually consider playing clerics, feel this way. Do you ever ask your group to do a mission for your cleric's church? Or do you never bother, because you just assume they'd say no? See, if they do say no, then you have every right to feel that they're just treating you as a hireling. If you don't ask, then it is your fault, not theirs, and you are treating them as guilty of a crime they not only haven't commited, but have never even had the opportunity to commit, and might not commit even if they were given the opportunity. It is pretty slick, really. Playing the victim card because there exists a possibility that you could become victimized. The attitude being expressed here by many people towards the party cleric is that they are a kind of pet. "You just hang back, we'll cover you and when the melee is over you can do your thing." It's condescending and quite frankly explains why some parties don't have players willing to play clerics. Where in the past two pages has anyone expressed that attitude? You say "being expressed," so I assume you mean that people are currently, actively promoting that attitude. So show us a quote. Or are you even trying to prove this to us or just scrambling to justify it to yourself? Other players frequently may decide to take stupid risks because they assume that the party cleric can simply dump some of his spell load into repairing the after-effects. But then very quickly the cleric ends up sacrificing his entire spell load on post-combat repair jobs. The cleric's player quickly find that they no longer get to use their spellcasting for cool stuff because the decision of how their spell slots get used is really being made by the other players rather than themself. Other players may decide to jump off bridges just to yank the cleric's chain and make him heal them, too. They may decide to sit around the campfire stabbing themselves with knives just to make the cleric heal them. They may even decide to wear their underwear outside their armor. The possibility, no matter how slim, exists that the players may demand healing from the cleric even when they are already at full hitpoints just because he isn't doing anything else at the time. Any of these things could happen. And you can justify anything you want if you allow yourself to be offended by whatever cruel or heinous things the party could do instead of what they actually have done. And at that point the situation becomes untenable. The usual response is for players to simply stop playing cleric characters. Then, guess what, the party is going to have to start paying for healing anyway! This point has been addressed many, many, many times in this thread. Every character in the party has abilities that would have to be paid for anyway if they didn't already exist in the party. At that point some "tough love" may become necessary. If I were really a cleric and in an adventuring party where my fellows were regularly doing stupid things because they figured I'd fix them up afterwards I would probably eventually decide that they're becoming stupid and need a values lesson. This really contradicts your ealier point where you used the fact that they might do such things as a reason for being offended and leaving the party. Which is it? Is it something you should deal with if it happens or that you should be resentful about even if it has never happened? Personally, it wouldn't take a regular pattern of stupid behavior for me to say something. And "tough love" works both ways. I would take a passive-aggressive cleric aside and ask him what his problem is and explain to him that my survival is actually important to me and that I have personal goals I'd like to live to see completed and that it strongly angers me that my life is being put at a greatly increased risk because he's standing around in the back pouting and having a personal pity party because he thinks, even though he never asked, that we all think that ALL he should do is stand around and heal, when in truth we thought he was doing that because he was just completely tactically inept and didn't know any better. Said anger was kept in control until he decided to impose a surcharge for eating a fifth of our food, taking a fifth of our spoils, and providing a service that could easily have been done by a wand bought off the rack at J-Mart. Also, the base assumption here is that the cleric is Good. But there's no reason to leap to such a conclusion. The party could easily be made up of characters with Neutral alignments. And such individuals are usually not utterly selfless. As has been pointed out by others besides me, a cleric of Kol Korran for example will be looking for any profit opportunity they can find. This isn't Dragonlance and we're not assuming that every cleric is a healing-centric cleric of Mishakal. Actually, I haven't assumed very much about alignment at all. I don't even use alignments. That's probably a discussion best reserved for another thread, but I personally feel that alignment is the worst metagaming crutch ever allowed into roleplaying. The assumption I have made is that adventurers aren't dumb as rocks because I think at least a little bit of cleverness is a necessary survival skill. If I were to use alignments, though, I would not assume that neutral or evil characters are stupid or work against their own survival. And I'm really not assuming that the cleric is a dragonlance transplant. I am assuming that the cleric can heal though, because it'd be very difficult for him to charge for it if he can't do it. And I am assuming, since it is an adventure game in general and a pulp (even if noir) game in specific, that he and his group will face dangerous and even deadly encounters where survival is incumbent upon them all acting together if they want to meet the self-centered goal of saving their own individual skins. And honestly, I think in a non-good party, group unity can be even more important. If you throw a fit about healing the paladin when he's bleeding to death, he's a good guy and will give the benefit of the doubt and assume poor judgement instead of open malice. The evil rogue in the same situation is more likely to figure you're just out to get him and slit your throat while you sleep. And what of cases where the party and the cleric are in conflict? A cleric of the Silver Flame that wants to hunt down a fiend will probably be less than ecstatic if the rest of the party votes to hunt down a treasure horde instead. The cleric is likely to be somewhat less cooperative in this case. I think that is addressed earlier in this post. If the party works on the cleric's goals as often as it does each of the other members, then he's got no reason to pout. If this is the first time they've taken a break from fiend-hunting to follow their goals, he really has no room to talk. And if they never follow any of the cleric's goals, then what in the name of all that is holy is he doing with them to begin with? So there are a lot of reasons why even when there's a cleric in the party that healing might not be readily available. Certainly with a lot of the arrogant attitudes being taken here, I know I wouldn't play a cleric in a party with some of the people on this board. I'd go with one of my other preferred classes. And I suspect others would feel the same way. Honestly, it doesn't matter what the class of the character is if the character is a self-important whiner. I'd react just as strongly to the rogue or other melee type who decides to check out the treasure hoard while the rest of the party is still fighting. Especially if he flippantly says, "Well, if you want me to keep helping with the combat, then you'll have to pay me extra." And I really, truly, honestly want you to explain to me how feeling that every member of the party is important, not just the cleric, is an arrogant attitude. Every argument you've made so far implies the opposite, that the cleric is the only important member. That seems more arrogant to me. And just for the record, I have played clerics. I've played them in original D&D, AD&D, 2nd edition, Neverwinter Nights, EverQuest, Warhammer FRP and on MUDs. I've played characters with healing abilities in Star Wars, DragonQuest, Elric, Beyond the Supernatural, WoT, GURPS, and possibly others I've managed to forget along the way. Even when I was a raw beginner, I was not the type to meekly stand in the back and only provide healing spells. Perhaps your view on deigning to heal someone is different than mine, but in my experience casting a heal spell has never defined a character of mine or stripped them of all their other abilities or turned them into a slave. And that's why some of these parties wouldn't have a cleric, and would end up paying for healing anyway. That sounds familiar.
nastynate 12-28-05, 06:01 AM	Now that I've cooled off and feel calm and rational again, I'll try to ram home any final points I think I have tried to make throughout this long debate. Game Design: Each character class was created with a particular design in mind. While conforming to the design for which your core class was built, is not required or even expected, it is important to realize what the fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard were designed to do. It is important because there are only four basic functions mechanically in the game. There are damage dealer/takers, healers, skill monkeys, and blasters. A mechanically complete party has representatives of these four archetypes. A mechanically complete party stands the best chance of overcoming any obstacle the game can throw at them. Because there are just four core mechanics, clerics who would rather be blasters (or damage dealers/takers) diminish the importance of the wizards and fighters designed for these purposes. Clerics are powerful enough to fill these roles, but that is not their design. Why? because the fighter and wizard are unable to shift roles with the same ease. The power of the cleric is intentionally disproportionate, because healing is not as fun as sword swinging or spell slinging. However this difference in power does not change the role, for which the cleric was created. What it enables the cleric to do, is fight side by side with a fighter, or hang back with the wizard and smite people with spells until they are called upon to heal somebody. Healing other characters doesn't make you subservient to them, any more than than the fighter taking most of the damage makes him subservient to the rest of the party. The cleric was altered in third edition to be able to do much more, because their primary role is less fun. However, if you view your cleric as a warrior first/healer second, then you have chosen to go against the design of the class. There is nothing wrong with that, from a roleplaying point of vew; it is a mechanical reassignment of role however. The clerc's versatility is direct incentive to play a healer, not an excuse to relegate their most important ability (boring though it may be) to the back burner. Role Playing: Each player is expected to take the character classes and assign them to a person. This person (your character) should have motivations, goals, personality, and a background that reflects the choices you make mechanically. It is through roleplaying that a cleric becomes "Jozan," and not just a healing machine. Because older editions were much more rigid mechanically, it was more difficult to rationalize different personalities that could be reflected flavorfully in the mechanics of your character. Third edition has attempted to address this flaw by making not only the core classes more flexible, but by offering many more aspects within the rules to make unique characters. This is why we have feats and prestige classes. What happens as a result is actually kind of interesting. By offering the flexibility to do more things, people lose sight of the four core mechanics upon which the game is built. While it is perfectly possible to run a party lacking some of these mechanics, it is never advantageous to do so. Imbalances within the core mechanics of your party will make some challenges more or less difficult. If you lack a blaster some challenges will become more difficult, than they were inteded to be. Likewise if you have an extra blaster some challenges will be less difficult than they were inteded to be. Challenge ratings assume all elements within a party are in balance. No doubt everyone here has had some encounters seem incredibly easy, while other are exceedingly difficult, despite having the appropraite CR. That is indicative of imbalance within the party. Good roleplayers do not have to care less about mechanical balance within the party, in order to play interesting characters. Imbalance of role assignment within your party does not make you a good role-player; it makes your party less efficient. Likewise the efficiency of your party mechanically has nothing to do with your ability to role-play. These are seperate aspects of the game. Role-playing a character correctly is often difficult. In order to play the game, some measure of cooperation is required between party members. A lack of cooperation makes otherwise simple problems very difficult. Playing your character correctly can often put you at odds with your own party members. Differing goals, alignments, and philosophies will lead to these scenarios. If the party has voted to loot a tomb, rather than pursue the demon they just freed, the lawful good cleric of that party will find himself at odds with his adventuring companions. Perhaps this time, he decides that alone he cannot defeat a Balor, so he goes with the party anyway, against his better judgement. Once in a while this is alright. However if this cleric constantly finds himself treasure hunting, rather than demon hunting, it is only logical that he leave the party to find more suitable companions. This is where good role-playing breaks down. As a player you know that your character should leave, but you also know that by leaving you are preventing yourself from playing. Refusing to cooperate with your companions is not the correct answer. Tagging along anyway and disrupting the dynamic of the party with your philosophical differences, is tantamount to admitting that you have forsaken good role-playing to act out against your fellow players for their incompatability with your character. It is a sacrifice you make to remain in the game and a scrifice you force upon the other players; you have chosen to act in a manner your character would not have, and in a manner that only makes the game less fun for the other players. Unless of course you enjoy the high school cheerleader drama. :D If role-playing were a concern from the beginning, you should have collaberated with the other players during character generation, to ensure compatability. If you saw that everyone one else was playing chaotic neutral tomb raiders, perhaps you would have chosen a different personality for your character that would mesh with the group. A party that hates each other, shouldn't stay together; that is poor roleplaying. ________________________________________ _________________________ You get a lot less confused and angry if you try to separate arguments by who posts them. Like right now, I'm not arguing with all the posters, just you. So I try to address points you bring up. If you could tag your points by whom you're answering, that would help. I was getting angry, but not confused. I refrained from posting quotes to avoid directly flaming those who were inciting my ire. A flame war doesn't help either side of the argument prove anything. That's sounding pretty authoritarian to me. Flame on! See... :) Ah, the age card. I'm surprised it took three pages to play. I admire your modesty, sir! For what it's worth, I've had the same players at my table for five years now. Rather embarassingly, we've been unable to back-bite and bicker ourselves into sullen hatred yet. The relevence of the age card here, is that my friends and I have remained friends and continue to play D&D because we have a good dynamic. Sure I'm proud of our great friendships. I am proud of our ability to remain close, even after we have all grown up, gotten married (everyone but me that is), and begun families (again I have escaped this fate). However, few people understand how important that really is. This game brings people togother for common enjoyment. If you don't get along, you won't have fun. Back-biting and bickering does indeed eventually degenerate into sullen hatred. Other groups I've had the displeasure of playing with, have completely fallen apart under those circumstances. Unsavory and uncooperative PCs are a good change of pace, and even entertaining from time to time, but not a good recipe for long term success. Playtesting didn't show how utterly broken Haste was, or how easily Polymorph could (and still can) be abused by a player who flips through the Monster Manual. Isn't the spiked chain still banned in a lot of groups? It is in mine. 3.0 was a completely different edition, and although well playtested, the designers missed a lot of important holes (to say that Haste was not primarily used as a *fighter* buff is a humorous understatement). The designers came at this with the 2e viewpoint, and so do you. When you look at healing as a plus instead of a primary purpose, the situation looks quite different. Saying that a cleric's main purpose is healing because he can spontaneously heal is like saying that a druid's main purpose is summoning, because he can spontaneously summon! However playtesting has had far more success than failure. Otherwise the entire sytem would be a useless mess of broken effects. Your cited examples are well known by all of us. Some things are not perfect. This has never been part of my argument. If you look at healing as a plus, rather than a primary purpose, than what is it that the cleric is designed for? Why didn't they assign healing abilities in greater capacity to other classes? As for druids, summoning was supposed to be their primary function, it just so happens that wild shape is one of those broken mechanics missed by the playtesters, that you were so gracious in pointing out. That mechanic is what makes druids so over powered. Citing broken mechanics, does not exemplify the roles as intended for the classes. The roles as intended are very important, as I hope you have learned from the beginning of this post.
Adhevan 12-28-05, 07:26 AM	Good roleplayers do not have to care less about mechanical balance within the party, in order to play interesting characters. Imbalance of role assignment within your party does not make you a good role-player; it makes your party less efficient. Likewise the efficiency of your party mechanically has nothing to do with your ability to role-play. These are seperate aspects of the game. Amen brother. Someone say halelujah! Unless of course you enjoy the high school cheerleader drama. :D Of course I enjoy high school cheerleaders. We all do. That's why they're illegal! j/k If role-playing were a concern from the beginning, you should have collaberated with the other players during character generation, to ensure compatability. If you saw that everyone one else was playing chaotic neutral tomb raiders, perhaps you would have chosen a different personality for your character that would mesh with the group. A party that hates each other, shouldn't stay together; that is poor roleplaying. I just dislike when people try to justify the unjustifiable by tossing out "role-playing" as if it is some magical trump card that excuses any kind of behavior. I'm not sure why I even argue, really. It is not like winning is possible. The ability of someone to believe his own faulty logic when he is trying to justify doing something that he wants to do is incredibly strong, as is his ability to resist or ignore any points that attack the holes in his logic.
Sieylianna 12-28-05, 07:47 AM	Recently, in the new set of Magic: the Gathering, WotC produced a new card (Lightning Helix, for those of you that play the game) that hits the opponent for 3 damage while healing you for 3 at the same time, a spell that both blasts the opponent and helps you out at the same time. What if this idea could be adapted to a spell for healer types? Healers are generally focused on supporting others in combat, so this spell could be changed to "hurt some guy within range while healing someone else within range" instead of the standard vampire effect. While I haven't tested it yet, I'm almost positive that a spell like this could help healers take a more active role in battle while still doing what they do best, which is healing. There is something along these lines in "Races of the Wild". The "Magic of the Land" feat allows most spells you cast to heal the target, in addition to the normal effect. So you could buff and heal the fighter at the same time. Unfortunately, it's not that useful because it keys off Knowledge - Nature (?) to determine the result and that's not a class skill for most clerics. Ed
nastynate 12-28-05, 07:51 AM	The ability of someone to believe his own faulty logic when he is trying to justify doing something that he wants to do is incredibly strong, as is his ability to resist or ignore any points that attacks the holes in his logic. I am so tempted to make comparisons to our commander in chief, but I shall instead refrain and keep politics out of this. Anyone can justify anything, if they want to. It is much easier than accepting the possibility that that you could have made a mistake, or an error in judgement, or that you may have caused the situation in question. Recently, in the new set of Magic: the Gathering, WotC produced a new card (Lightning Helix, for those of you that play the game) that hits the opponent for 3 damage while healing you for 3 at the same time, a spell that both blasts the opponent and helps you out at the same time. What if this idea could be adapted to a spell for healer types? Healers are generally focused on supporting others in combat, so this spell could be changed to "hurt some guy within range while healing someone else within range" instead of the standard vampire effect. While I haven't tested it yet, I'm almost positive that a spell like this could help healers take a more active role in battle while still doing what they do best, which is healing. Actually a wrathful healing weapon does exactly this, but the mechanic is terribly imbalanced. Fighters that can heal themselves while simultaneously killing their enemies, make healing magic useless altogether. This makes a fighter almost unkillable in melee combat, and thus forces the DM to challenge him with other effects. While that may not seem terribly imbalanced, it is. If your fighter is uncontested in melee prowess, the only thing the DM can challenge him with are things that he cannot resist at all. So you are forced to either allow him to run rampant, or throw death spells at him; The fighter becomes so good at his one ability, that you must prevent him from perfoming his only function, or allow him massacre his foes. It turns into an all or nothing affair. The same mechanic existed in 2E in the ring of vampiric regeneration. It was intentionally removed from 3.5 for it's game-swinging horror, and yet the designers let it slip through the cracks in a sidebar of enemies and allies, and thus we are still plagued by it today.
Euangelion 12-28-05, 11:34 AM	First of all, there's no reason for anyone to get upset. It's just a game. Second, there's no need for more than one poster to pile on against another. Third, and I'll keep it simple, Adhevan and nastynate, there is very little if anything that you are saying that could not be said on the general D&D boards. This is the Eberron board. In Eberron, clerics are knights in shining armor, not doctors in white labcoats. Even if mechanically they can heal better than most, that is not what clerics in Eberron are about (except those with the Healing domain). If you want to have a general discussion on the role of clerics in a D&D party, perhaps the General boards would be a better place. Don't get me wrong, I think this is an important discussion, especially because of the radically different way that Eberron presents religion, so let's keep it up. But let's keep it civil and Eberron-specific as well.
Adhevan 12-28-05, 12:13 PM	First of all, there's no reason for anyone to get upset. It's just a game. Second, there's no need for more than one poster to pile on against another. Third, and I'll keep it simple, Adhevan and nastynate, there is very little if anything that you are saying that could not be said on the general D&D boards. This is the Eberron board. In Eberron, clerics are knights in shining armor, not doctors in white labcoats. Even if mechanically they can heal better than most, that is not what clerics in Eberron are about (except those with the Healing domain). If you want to have a general discussion on the role of clerics in a D&D party, perhaps the General boards would be a better place. Don't get me wrong, I think this is an important discussion, especially because of the radically different way that Eberron presents religion, so let's keep it up. But let's keep it civil and Eberron-specific as well. A few points. I've already noted that the discussion has gotten off topic, but my role in this was responding to the off-topic issue of clerics charging their party members. The depiction of religion in Eberron is radically different from the D&D norm, the role of clerics not so much. Clerics are not doctors in white labcoats in any of the D&D settings with which I am familiar. The original inspiration for the class was the Knights Templar, so I'm a little confused here how the knights in shining armor thing is a radical departure from that. Beyond that, I'm a little curious why, if you were going to choose particular names to decry as being off topic, you only chose ones from one side of the argument, the side that your comment about lab coats tends to suggest you disagree with. EDIT: I apologize if that seems snarky or combative. The lack of a tone of voice for reference sometimes makes it difficult to tell.
Logos7 12-28-05, 12:53 PM	Just speaking from personal Experiance (as a Dm and a player) A party doesn't need a cleric and if they have one they dont need to drop everything to heal ,I'm running two groups (one rl and one Online) and neither are dropping dead from lack of healing, I'm not pulling punches etc Secondly Should not be how i contribute to the party as a cleric be my decision, If im a cleric of greed or the undead should i not be expected to do that than to drop everything to heal, If i spend my skill points and feats on being the biggest baddest ass (yes still spontaneus curing for the sake of argument) master of the undead, should i be nagged for healing spells? And am i not contributing to the party if i don't give healing spells ( me and my 10 skeletons would like to argue that point... Rouge) I think the point everyone is trying to make is that sometimes the cleric will have to heal ... Yes( that's what cure minor's are for Lol), But should the cleric be expected to drop their focus ( and more importantly where their feats and skills lie) to constantly ensure everyone is at full Hp ... No and if the party would kick me out for playing a character as my character and not expressly there to help the party with healing. well nuts to them I'm not the one being rude there Logos
nastynate 12-28-05, 01:21 PM	The problem is that in order to address weather clerics are needed in a party in Eberron, on has to understand what purpose a cleric serves at all. There are clearly very different opinions on that here. While my opinion on the function and role of a cleric may seem much more traditional, and conservative than most, it is founded upon game mechanics, and seconded by not only Adhevan, but by wizards themselves. I have strong grounds for my beliefs, and they have been attacked, by those who wish to play clerics differently than I describe them. Yet the way somebody plays a cleric has nothing to do with the mechanics of the class. A person can play a cowardly fighter, or a brazen druid if they wish, but that will not alter their abilities. I feel that the although the faith of Eberron is quite different than other settings the function of clerics is the same. They still function just as they do in the PHB. I do not think of clerics as knights in shining armor; I think of paladins as knights in shining armor. I also feel that your selection of domains may effect the way you role-play your cleric, but domains do not alter your spontaneous healing abilities. Therefore even if you have the fire and travel domains, you will as a cleric of good alignment, be a superior healer than any other character in the party. No you won't be a doctor in a lab coat; nor would a cleric in any setting, but you'll be able to cure peoples ailments faster and with less effort than a doctor in a lab coat ever could. The other aspect of this debate that people seem to glaze over, is that most clerics who possess the ability to cast healing magic are of good alignment. A player may not want to drop what they are doing, to run and save the fighter in combat, but a cleric of good alignment with the ability to do so, probably would. Thus it is not only within the cleric's capabilities, but also within their ideology to do so. People are kidding themselves if they think choosing to let a party member die, rather than healing them is helping their group. Ultimately in-combat healing is all about preventing the injured from dying while the fight rages on, because from a tactical standpoint the more people on your side fighting, the more quickly you will slay the enemy. I think even evil clerics would understand that as long as your fighter lives, he's not only going to take some of the heat off of you in battle, but he'll be killing enemies as he continues to fight on. There is no need to try to keep your party at full HPs. That would be an inefficient use of your magic, but you don't want everyone hovering on death's door either. A balance has to be struck. This is how I envision the cleric at his finest. A cleric should find himself varying his tactics on the battlefield. He may find he casts flame strike one round, moves to engage something in melee the next, and when his opponent in melee has been slain, he may find that the fighter who has been engaging three enemies simultaneously is seriously wounded, so he moves to heal the fighter. Is my expectation unreasonable? Is this a background role? Is this unfair exploitation of his healing abilities? Is this a poor tactical decision? I say no to all four questions. Beyond that, I'm a little curious why, if you were going to choose particular names to decry as being off topic, you only chose ones from one side of the argument, the side that your comment about lab coats tends to suggest you disagree with. This doesn't sound any more snarky to me than the post you have responded too.
Euangelion 12-28-05, 01:37 PM	A few points. I've already noted that the discussion has gotten off topic, but my role in this was responding to the off-topic issue of clerics charging their party members. There are clerics in Eberron who would be entirely faithful to their calling to charge for healing, i.e. followers of Kol Korran. This is the only specific example anyone has given for that practice. There are others as well who might, such as followers of the Keeper. The only reason for bringing it up was to show the range of possible attitudes towards healing that clerics in Eberron could have. The depiction of religion in Eberron is radically different from the D&D norm, the role of clerics not so much. I completely disagree. In Eberron, the halflings of House Jorasco are primarily the healers, rarely the clergy of the churches. This is a very different take on healing, one that directly impacts the role of clerics in the setting. Clerics are not doctors in white labcoats in any of the D&D settings with which I am familiar. The original inspiration for the class was the Knights Templar, so I'm a little confused here how the knights in shining armor thing is a radical departure from that. A knight in shining armor is not the person standing behind the party providing backup for combat and healing a person as they drop off the frontline after being wounded. A knight in shining armor is the first in the charge, the last in retreat, for the glory of their religion. In Eberron, there are relatively few clerics, because this archtype does not fit all of the religions. In fact, it's really only appropriate for Dol Arrah, Dol Dorn, the Church of the Silver Flame, and maybe Aureon (in a lawful sort of way) and Boldrei (for the good of the community). On the evil side, maybe only clergy of the Blood of Vol would fit this image. The religious leaders of the rest of the religions would probably be better served with adepts, experts, druids, monks, favored souls (and the other two from Complete Divine), and even bards in some cultures (Dhakaani, for example). Edit: the presence of the paladin class complicates things, since it too is of the "knight in shining armor" archtype. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the way that divine spellcasting classes are set up mechanically and flavor-wise doesn't really fit Eberron as well as it might in other settings. Beyond that, I'm a little curious why, if you were going to choose particular names to decry as being off topic, you only chose ones from one side of the argument, the side that your comment about lab coats tends to suggest you disagree with. You're not off-topic, and I never claimed you were. I claimed that you were ganging up on a particular poster, and that you comments were not specific enough to Eberron to really be appropriate for a discussion of clerics/healers in the Eberron setting. In fact, you could argue that you're on-topic, since the OP was a general question and not specifically asking about healers in an Eberron adventuring party.
Streamweaver 12-28-05, 01:42 PM	I don't want to get involved in the argument that's evolved here but to address the original point, I do think Clerics are helpful but Eberron does provide additional ways for healing to occur so while I think they are still nessisary I don't think a party is as obligated to have a cleric as they may otherwise be. Overall though I don't think a cleric is every absolutly nessisary. They are always helpful yes, but you shouldn't absolutly have to have one because we're not playing a computer game here. Tabletop rpgs don't play out as some prewritten set of code, they are run by DMs who should be able to adapt the campaign to the players. So in any game if a group doesn't go with a cleric a good DM should be able to adapt to keep things fun and exciting.
Majorafire77 12-28-05, 01:47 PM	There is something along these lines in "Races of the Wild". The "Magic of the Land" feat allows most spells you cast to heal the target, in addition to the normal effect. So you could buff and heal the fighter at the same time. Unfortunately, it's not that useful because it keys off Knowledge - Nature (?) to determine the result and that's not a class skill for most clerics. Ed While I see what you mean, the feat apparantly only works on the targets of your original spell, simply hurting undead more or healing an ally more than you would otherwise. I feel that a spell (or series of spells) that targets two combatants (an ally and an enemy), healing one while draining the other, could help healers play more of a real role in the party as opposed to the doctor who follows them around. Actually a wrathful healing weapon does exactly this, but the mechanic is terribly imbalanced. Fighters that can heal themselves while simultaneously killing their enemies, make healing magic useless altogether. This makes a fighter almost unkillable in melee combat, and thus forces the DM to challenge him with other effects. While that may not seem terribly imbalanced, it is. If your fighter is uncontested in melee prowess, the only thing the DM can challenge him with are things that he cannot resist at all. So you are forced to either allow him to run rampant, or throw death spells at him; The fighter becomes so good at his one ability, that you must prevent him from perfoming his only function, or allow him massacre his foes. It turns into an all or nothing affair. The same mechanic existed in 2E in the ring of vampiric regeneration. It was intentionally removed from 3.5 for it's game-swinging horror, and yet the designers let it slip through the cracks in a sidebar of enemies and allies, and thus we are still plagued by it today. Vampire effects that can be used multiple times per turn (4+ swings per full attack action for a level 20 fighter) are obviously at least a bit imbalanced, especially considering the damage output of the fighter per full attack. I, however, am suggesting a spell, usable once per round under normal conditions. This is more balanced than unlimited-use vampire effects not only because, as stated before, it can only be used once per round, but also because every time you fill up a slot with said spell it takes away from the number of slots you could fill with other spells. Other possibilities besides for a Healing + Damage spell are also possible. Other ways to make healers more interesting are to make spells that, for example, take away paralysis from an ally and transfer the effect to an enemy or buff an ally and drain an enemy. I'd be interested to see healer spells that damage the caster him/herself and heal an ally as well. Here's a level 1 spell comparable to Cure Light Wounds. Donate Life Energy Conjuration (Healing) Level: Brd 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Healing 1, Pal 1, Rgr 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless); see text While casting this spell pay X hit points (maximum 8). The targeted creature is healed 1d6 + X/2 + 1 hit point per caster level (maximum +5). This could be made into a spell chain the way Cure Light Wounds had been, allowing for a greater "free" healing effect and a larger cap on how big X can be as the spell progresses in level. Any ideas?
nastynate 12-28-05, 02:01 PM	In Eberron, the halflings of House Jorasco are primarily the healers, rarely the clergy of the churches. This is a very different take on healing, one that directly impacts the role of clerics in the setting. I partially disagree. House Jorasco healers are more common, and they the primary healers on a larger scale. Khorvaire turns to House Jorasco for healing, not to individual clergymen. Clerics individually are still superior healers, they know this, and any person adventuring with a cleric knows this. They may not view themselves as healers, but that doesn't change their aptitude in the divine healing arts. I also doubt a cleric views himself as a superior warrior than a fighter dedicated purely to a martial skill. Even a cleric of Dol Arrah. the presence of the paladin class complicates things, since it too is of the "knight in shining armor" archtype. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the way that divine spellcasting classes are set up mechanically and flavor-wise doesn't really fit Eberron as well as it might in other settings. This I completely disagree with however. A paladin exlempifies exactly what you are describing. A paladin is the holy warrior, knight in shining armor, and champion of Dol Arrah you are looking for. Clerics from the PHB are perfectly suited to their roles as described by the religions of Eberron. They are devoted to their faith and draw divine power from that devotion. Just because the cleric of the Church of the Silver Flame doesn't worship a god, doesn't mean they are different mechanically than a cleric who does. The primary effect of the unique approach to religion in Eberron is that clerics themselves are much more free to pursue their own particular interpretation of the tenets of their faith. There is no higher power to which they are held accountable for their actions. The effect this has on the setting is that clerics may deviate from the alignment of their church and yet retain their abilities. They may use their divine power as justification for their actions, even if said actions are totally against the teachings of their religion. This why we have chaotic good clerics of the Blood of Vol, and lawful evil clerics of the Silver Flame. People can no longer make base assumptions about the motivations of any cleric based solely upon their religion, and why people can get wrapped up in crusades against innocent foes. Religion is a powerful tool of control in Eberron. But just as it is in our own world, the religious leaders of Eberron may not have the best interests of their followers in mind. While a great plot device and interesting twist upon religion in D&D, there is nothing within this unique approach that dictates any change needs to be made to the cleric class. Keith Baker has echoed these sentiments as well. Mechanically nothing in Eberron needs to be changed from the core rules. Changing the flavor of the setting does not necessitate any change in the rules to reflect it. Donate Life Energy Conjuration (Healing) Level: Brd 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Healing 1, Pal 1, Rgr 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless); see text While casting this spell pay X hit points (maximum 8). The targeted creature is healed 1d6 + X/2 + 1 hit point per caster level (maximum +5). This could be made into a spell chain the way Cure Light Wounds had been, allowing for a greater "free" healing effect and a larger cap on how big X can be as the spell progresses in level. Any ideas? While I applaud your attempt at creating a new and useful mechanic, this does not address any of the original poster's concerns, nor the larger "off-topic," issue at hand. This should be in its own thread, where I would be happy to voice my opinion on it. :D
Euangelion 12-28-05, 02:09 PM	EDIT: I apologize if that seems snarky or combative. The lack of a tone of voice for reference sometimes makes it difficult to tell. No problem at all. This is a good discussion, and a needed one, because there are far reaching implications from the way that Eberron handles religion, healing, and alignment that impacts the way that the classes are set up mechanically. For instance, if clerics aren't really supposed to be the healers of the world, does it make sense that they can spontaneously cast healing spells? Maybe summon monster X (sort of like druids) would make more sense for most Eberron clerics. If they are "knights in shining armor," maybe receiving weapon proficiency in their deity's favored weapon makes more sense for clerics than it does for favored souls. And so on. I've felt for a while that fitting clerics in particular into certain religions in Eberron is the proverbial "square peg in a round hole" routine.
Majorafire77 12-28-05, 02:22 PM	While I applaud your attempt at creating a new and useful mechanic, this does not address any of the original poster's concerns, nor the larger "off-topic," issue at hand. This should be in its own thread, where I would be happy to voice my opinion on it. :D Here ya go (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8101881#post8101881).
Karlos 12-28-05, 02:30 PM	Actually, I rather enjoy a cleric archer. Especially if you can talk your DM into letting you make something like Arrows of Cure X Wounds. I'd allow this, but I'd make the player roll arrow damage at the same time as the cure amount. :D
Chiyo 12-28-05, 02:58 PM	I think for Clerics in Eberron you have several issues. First, is setting specific. The Gods are distant forces not really impacting the world. The clerics are rare. A lot of the healing is made via House Jorasco, alchemists, artificers, magewrights, adepts, ... Clerics are no longer the main source of healing in the setting like they are in say Forgotten Realms or other typical settings. That doesn't put an emphasis on clerics in the world of Eberron itself. Secondly, what makes Eberron unique is a lot of the things it does differently from other campaign settings. Between the new races, the new classes, the new outer planes and the way the setting differs from traditional fantasy settings, I think a lot of interest from players/DMs in the setting, comes from how it's not bread and butter fantasy. That departure from old-time favorites is also not encouraging everyone to come up with the ubiquitous healer role especially in its stereotype perception of healing machine supporting the rest of the party who are really the ones having fun. That's true for me as player and DM. I definitely didn't want to run a regular fantasy game but build more intrigue in my game and as player I picked artificer - knowing next to nothing about them - just because that sounded different and new. Effectively, given cheaply crafted wands (and soon staves), my artificer could out-heal the party cleric. Sure it's not free but I'll give you a discount. ;) Finally, as mentioned above, I don't think this is an Eberron-only issue. Players hate healing because it puts them in a reactive directed role. You keep your spells because they might be better used to heal someone. You don't fight in melee because someone might require you elsewhere to heal. You're reactive because you heal after damage is done. You're also reactive because its the actions of others (players and NPCs/monsters) that dictate what you have to do (when and how much to heal). If you don't heal and melee instead as cleric, someone whose character died will call you on it saying you don't know how to play or they hate the campaign where everyone is looking after themselves only, yada yada. Bottom line is as cleric, your support role is a reactive one instead of pro-active and one of leadership in battle. For many players, that's just not a very enticing role. It's not as heroic, at least in many player's perception, to be the healer. Look at the CO boards and it's a lot about damage dealing, skills, abilities, etc... Clerics for all their power get to shine on those boards in non-healing roles (archer clerics, persistent clerics, etc). To me, that's just evidence that many people don't enjoy being mere support and always being tied to the action/decisions of others. One of my previous characters was a cleric and I'd spend entire encounters doing nothing but heal every round because someone gave out AoOs left and right (instead of tumbling say) or didn't bother to flank (so fight got longer), etc ... It's very trying to be in that role sometimes. I wished I could more often have loaded up righteous might, divine power and divine favor and had some fun in melee rather than sitting it out as walking first aid kit. I totally believe the argument that the cleric's "other" class features were made very strong to compensate for the drudgery of healing. Because often, it feels like the healer role make you the designated driver of D&D gaming. Vital but not really fun.
nastynate 12-28-05, 03:47 PM	Chiyo you are precisely right in every aspect of your post. First, is setting specific. The Gods are distant forces not really impacting the world. The clerics are rare. A lot of the healing is made via House Jorasco, alchemists, artificers, magewrights, adepts, ... Clerics are no longer the main source of healing in the setting like they are in say Forgotten Realms or other typical settings. That doesn't put an emphasis on clerics in the world of Eberron itself. This is compounded by a complete and utter lack of material pertaining to the religions of Eberron. Which also leads to a misunderstanding of how this new approach effects clerics in the game. Which more specifically means that people believe clerics are different here, just because the gods are different. Secondly, what makes Eberron unique is a lot of the things it does differently from other campaign settings. Between the new races, the new classes, the new outer planes and the way the setting differs from traditional fantasy settings, I think a lot of interest from players/DMs in the setting, comes from how it's not bread and butter fantasy. That departure from old-time favorites is also not encouraging everyone to come up with the ubiquitous healer role especially in its stereotype perception of healing machine supporting the rest of the party who are really the ones having fun. That's true for me as player and DM. I definitely didn't want to run a regular fantasy game but build more intrigue in my game and as player I picked artificer - knowing next to nothing about them - just because that sounded different and new. Effectively, given cheaply crafted wands (and soon staves), my artificer could out-heal the party cleric. Sure it's not free but I'll give you a discount. Exactly right. Emphasis placed on new and different things makes old run of the mill clerics even less appealing. So what if he worships a big funeral pyre in a cathedral, he's still just a cleric. Finally, as mentioned above, I don't think this is an Eberron-only issue. Players hate healing because it puts them in a reactive directed role. You keep your spells because they might be better used to heal someone. You don't fight in melee because someone might require you elsewhere to heal. You're reactive because you heal after damage is done. You're also reactive because its the actions of others (players and NPCs/monsters) that dictate what you have to do (when and how much to heal). If you don't heal and melee instead as cleric, someone whose character died will call you on it saying you don't know how to play or they hate the campaign where everyone is looking after themselves only, yada yada. Bottom line is as cleric, your support role is a reactive one instead of pro-active and one of leadership in battle. For many players, that's just not a very enticing role. I have been arguing this point for some time. It's not as heroic, at least in many player's perception, to be the healer. Look at the CO boards and it's a lot about damage dealing, skills, abilities, etc... Clerics for all their power get to shine on those boards in non-healing roles (archer clerics, persistent clerics, etc). To me, that's just evidence that many people don't enjoy being mere support and always being tied to the action/decisions of others. I will say however that archer clerics are a fantastic innovation, with a perfect fit in Eberron. Archer clerics get to use a full attack every round, while still remaining mobile for healing duties. The long bow is the favored weapon of the Silver Flame, and the Exorcist of the Silver Flame is a CO archer's dream prestige class. I highly recommend people try this out. One of my previous characters was a cleric and I'd spend entire encounters doing nothing but heal every round because someone gave out AoOs left and right (instead of tumbling say) or didn't bother to flank (so fight got longer), etc ... It's very trying to be in that role sometimes. I wished I could more often have loaded up righteous might, divine power and divine favor and had some fun in melee rather than sitting it out as walking first aid kit. I totally believe the argument that the cleric's "other" class features were made very strong to compensate for the drudgery of healing. Because often, it feels like the healer role make you the designated driver of D&D gaming. Vital but not really fun. Good tactics do make this less of a burden. Provoking fewer attacks of opportunity, and flanking with your party rogue go a long way towards rectifying this drudgery. Some have argued that dedicated healing is not vital. While I can understand the argument that no role is vital, healing is still very important, whenever fighters play a prominent role in your party.
Adhevan 12-28-05, 04:08 PM	There are clerics in Eberron who would be entirely faithful to their calling to charge for healing, i.e. followers of Kol Korran. This is the only specific example anyone has given for that practice. There are others as well who might, such as followers of the Keeper. The only reason for bringing it up was to show the range of possible attitudes towards healing that clerics in Eberron could have. If people, for some reason, are coming in off the street to seek a priest in the temple to heal their ailments, then all of them would probably require some kind of offering. I believe that the early success of House Jorasco was based on the fact that they would provide such services for a lower cost than clerics in temples would. That is an entirely different situation, though, from a travelling companion in the midst or aftermath of a combat. I completely disagree. In Eberron, the halflings of House Jorasco are primarily the healers, rarely the clergy of the churches. This is a very different take on healing, one that directly impacts the role of clerics in the setting. Yes, house Jorasco has taken over the role of public healing. The general populace goes to a house Jorasco infirmary instead of to the nearest temple. I really don't see how this in any way impacts on the dynamics of an adventuring party. I don't recall if house Jorasco makes house calls, but I'd be willing to bet that they don't randomly show up during the middle of a combat to offer their services for a fee. A knight in shining armor is not the person standing behind the party providing backup for combat and healing a person as they drop off the frontline after being wounded. A knight in shining armor is the first in the charge, the last in retreat, for the glory of their religion. In Eberron, there are relatively few clerics, because this archtype does not fit all of the religions. In fact, it's really only appropriate for Dol Arrah, Dol Dorn, the Church of the Silver Flame, and maybe Aureon (in a lawful sort of way) and Boldrei (for the good of the community). On the evil side, maybe only clergy of the Blood of Vol would fit this image. The religious leaders of the rest of the religions would probably be better served with adepts, experts, druids, monks, favored souls (and the other two from Complete Divine), and even bards in some cultures (Dhakaani, for example). Personally, I've never depicted a cleric as one who stands in the back of the party and just heals. Just because many people seem to believe that doesn't make it true. The inspiration for the cleric class in the original D&D game was the christian military orders that formed during the crusades, more specifically the Templars and Hospitallars. And the class really hasn't changed all that much with the different editions of the game. They can still wear plate armor. They can still call down divine wrath and cast healing spells. Their melee skills still lag behind those of the fighter and fighter subclasses, but not far enough to make them suck at it. There is very little reason for the cleric to not become involved in the fight in an active role. There will, however, be times when someone in the group is in dire need of healing and the cleric is the one best suited to provide it. If you're fighting in the jungles of Xen'drik, I really don't think telling the dying companion that he should try to locate a Jarasco halfling is at all an acceptable action. But judging from many of the comments I have read in this thread, if the cleric does actually take the time to heal his companion, he's suddenly become nothing more than a slavish support character. And I disagree that the reason there are not as many clerics in Eberron is because the archetype doesn't fit the religions. I honestly think that the way religion is set up in Eberron makes more sense than it does in the other settings. As I said, the model clerics are based on is that of the Templars. Every priest of the Catholic church during the crusades was not a Templar or a Hospitaller. Most weren't. The Benedictines, although members of exactly the same religion, just priests of a different order within it, were hardly armored knights. And the leader of the church, the pope, was not one either. The way church hierarchies are set up in Eberron fixes something I've always found kind of silly in the other settings, the fact that the highest level priest was also the highest ranking one. That's just as silly an assumption as saying that the toughest fighter in the army is automatically the highest ranking. I'm sure the army is full of PFCs who could easily kick the butt of any four star general you wanted to pit them against. Now, you could easily argue that priests of certain gods shouldn't get healing spells. I mean, the ability to wear heavy armor is a result of training, so that ability can be gained because someone just happened to misinterprete doctrine to allow it. The god's decision on which spells to grant his followers wouldn't be subject to interpretation, though. He'd just grant the ones he wanted to. I would fervently agree with that argument. Domains supposedly address this issue, but all they really do is grant a cleric extra powers based on the deity, instead of drastically altering the entire spell list. This is not really any more or less of a problem in Eberron than other published settings, though. As for militant knights not fitting some of the gods in the pantheon, that sounds reasonable on the surface. But I'd venture to guess that the religions in Eberron are as complex as those in our own world, though. Doctrinal differences arise in the same religion. I have seen people say, and obviously believe, "All life is sacred, so murderers should be put to death." I'm not going to say whether I agree or disagree with either of those statements, but no matter how I try, I can't see them not contradicting each other. In light of that, the god of bankers, wealth, and thieves having followers who believe they should smite the unbelievers (people who give to charity instead of hoarding their wealth, maybe?) so fervently that they gain divine powers from that belief doesn't seem so far-fetched. Edit: the presence of the paladin class complicates things, since it too is of the "knight in shining armor" archtype. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the way that divine spellcasting classes are set up mechanically and flavor-wise doesn't really fit Eberron as well as it might in other settings. The presence of the paladin class complicates the holy warrior aspect of clerics in any setting, really. This is because at the heart of it, the paladin is a fighter/cleric multiclass whose mechanics have been tinkered with to make it into a single class. You're not off-topic, and I never claimed you were. I claimed that you were ganging up on a particular poster, and that you comments were not specific enough to Eberron to really be appropriate for a discussion of clerics/healers in the Eberron setting. In fact, you could argue that you're on-topic, since the OP was a general question and not specifically asking about healers in an Eberron adventuring party. Thanks for that clarification. I don't really agree it was ganging up, but the "attaboy" posts were probably inappropriate. Ganging up implies a concerted effort, and I never consulted anyone, I just responded to the posts as they were written.
nastynate 12-28-05, 04:31 PM	Thanks for that clarification. I don't really agree it was ganging up, but the "attaboy" posts were probably inappropriate. Ganging up implies a concerted effort, and I never consulted anyone, I just responded to the posts as they were written. Yeah, while we have agreed on more than one occasion. Neither of knows each other. Our only interaction thus far, has come on this one forum topic. The "attaboy," posts for my part were acknowledgement of a kindred opinion, shared upon the topic at hand. Never was it inteded as an insult or a conspiracy to dominate another person into submission. I must say however that some of our views share an uncanny similarity. :)
Adhevan 12-28-05, 04:47 PM	I must say however that some of our views share an uncanny similarity. :) Yeah, but everyone likes cheerleaders, so that doesn't really count. Er... that is what you meant, right?
nastynate 12-28-05, 05:05 PM	Yeah, but everyone likes cheerleaders, so that doesn't really count. Er... that is what you meant, right? Der, what else would I be refering to? :cheer: Ooh baby! Edit: My girlfriend just looked over my shoulder and after I posted this, and I think my smiley just made her jealous...I might be in trouble...
Adhevan 12-28-05, 05:29 PM	Edit: My girlfriend just looked over my shoulder and after I posted this, and I think my smiley just made her jealous...I might be in trouble... Oops.
Korhal_IV 12-28-05, 07:02 PM	The very first encounter in the introductory adventure took down two characters before dying, each with one hit. This was simply an ambush by a 1st-level barbarian. Granted, they didn't DIE, but they were in the negatives. From what I've seen in my games, a party without some form of dedicated healer is a fragile thing. That's first level. It's the exception that proves the rule. For things to keep going like this, a 5th level barbarian would have to deal 30+ in one hit, every hit. A 10th level barbarian would have to deal 60+ in every hit (and these are low numbers - a one-hit kill on a fighter type is 5.5+Con/level, or even more if you allot max HP at first) Power Attack makes these numbers possible, but a good AC will heavily penalize a Power Attacker's average damage per round (there's always the random crit, but let's not rely on that). A 10th level fighter using a greatsword will be using power attack and have weapon focus and weapon specialization. So his attacks (before power attack) are +18/+13 for 2d6 +11 damage. Say he power attacks for 5, that gives him +13/+8 for 2d6+21 damage. (So two hits for max damage and he drops). Add in improved critical for more damage. (An 18 Strength is low for a 10th level melee fighter. Figure minimum starting 16 + two stat points + +2 stat item for 20). Well, if we wanted to run this properly we'd need to get into AC, and average damage, and all that. Power Attacking for 5 is cool up until your enemy has AC 30. I'm not interested in measuring out particulars, just in getting the principle across. I'd also like to note that a 10th level fighter is a CR 10, so he is facing the full party by himself, with an average of 95 HP (assuming 18 Con), and there are enough magic effects that ignore AC that we can be reasonably sure a 10th level party will run roughshod over him in less than five rounds. An 8th or 7th level party will have considerably more difficulty, though. If you look at healing as a plus, rather than a primary purpose, than what is it that the cleric is designed for? Why didn't they assign healing abilities in greater capacity to other classes? As for druids, summoning was supposed to be their primary function, it just so happens that wild shape is one of those broken mechanics missed by the playtesters, that you were so gracious in pointing out. That mechanic is what makes druids so over powered. Citing broken mechanics, does not exemplify the roles as intended for the classes. The roles as intended are very important, as I hope you have learned from the beginning of this post. But see, here's the thing, you're reinforcing my analogy. Healing is to summoning as buff spells are to wildshape. The designers overpowered the cleric's spells to the same extent that they overpowered the druid's wildshape, making a clerical healer about as useful as a druidic summoner - it's not a bad use, but it's not the best use. There are damage dealer/takers, healers, skill monkeys, and blasters. A mechanically complete party has representatives of these four archetypes. A mechanically complete party stands the best chance of overcoming any obstacle the game can throw at them. I would argue that your archetypes are too narrow. For example, under what heading does a bard fall? A druid? A ranger? A monk? I could make easy cases for putting bard under healer (Cure spells), skill monkey (6+Int/level), or blaster (high Cha + UMD + Wand of Scorching Ray). A druid could fall under damage dealer/taker (wildshape), healer (Cure spells), skill monkey (Climb, Jump, Tumble, Balance, and Swim are all made fairly irrelevant by wild shape, and the druid also gets 4+Int/level), or blaster (Fire Seeds, etc). Finally, there's a huge range of actions in D&D that don't clearly fall under any of your archetypes, and in particular you have no classification for characters devoted to augmenting another character's power, i.e., buff spells. Since this is the very role I'm arguing that clerics take, your archetype system by default kicks my position out of the argument! Example: If I take an action that reduces an enemy's AC by 4 (a variation of Bestow Curse or a Trip attack), am I dealing damage, am I healing, am I blasting? I'm doing none of the above! Yet the enemy is significantly weaker because of my actions. This AC reduction makes damage more significant than attack bonus, so the rogue now deals more damage than the fighter (1d6+Str+Xd6 versus the fighter's 2d6+1.5xStr is balanced because the figher has a higher to-hit and doesn't rely on inconstant tactical situations for damage - I've just eliminated one of those variables). Have I suddenly turned the skill monkey into a damage dealer? Accepting for now your archetypes, I would then like to contend that it is not necessarily true that a mechanically complete party stands the best chance of overcoming any challenge. I'm having difficulty accessing the Order of the Stick site, or I'd provide a handy link to the "Team Cleric!" comic. Essentially, a healer's role is passive. He does not negatively affect the enemy. I'll run an example with bogus numbers because I'm having difficulty articulating this concept in writing - I wish we could have this conversation face-to-face! Fighter Bob has 10 HP, and always deals 2 HP with his one attack, which always hits. Fighter Bob has the ability "Monster Bait", which means all monsters automatically engage Fighter Bob first. The average monster has 10 HP, and always deals 1 HP with his one attack, which always hits. He also has "Player Hate", meaning he always goes first. When Fighter Bob engages the monster, we can tell that it will take 5 rounds for Fighter Bob to kill the monster, and 10 rounds for the monster to kill Fighter Bob. We can then assume that in five rounds, the monster will be dead, and Fighter Bob will have 5 HP. Cleric Joe has 5 HP, and can cure 10 HP total. Cleric Joe cannot attack. If Cleric Joe joins Fighter Bob, they can take one monster no problem, and probably three. After that, Bob is dead. Wizard Tim has 1 HP, but he deals 4 HP with every attack. If Wizard Tim joins Fighter Bob, they can kill a monster in two rounds. They can engage four monsters before Bob drops, and after that Wizard Tim is toast. If you had a party of three, which could kill more monsters in a day: a) Fighter Bob, Cleric Joe, Wizard Tim b) Fighter Bob, Wizard Tim, Wizard Tim c) Fighter Bob, Fighter Bob, Wizard Tim Party A can fight for twenty rounds before Fighter Bob drops dead. They kill a monster in two turns. They kill 10 monsters a day. Party B can fight for only ten rounds before Fighter Bob drops dead. They kill a monster every turn. They kill 20 monsters a day. Party C can fight for twenty rounds before (the second) Fighter Bob drops dead. They kill a monster in 1.2 turns. They kill 24 monsters a day. The comparison is artificial, but it holds true in D&D. If you can retool Cleric Joe to equal Fighter Bob or Wizard Tim, you're better off. A good offense is the best defense! Because there are just four core mechanics, clerics who would rather be blasters (or damage dealers/takers) diminish the importance of the wizards and fighters designed for these purposes. This is a statement I really can't comprehend. If Wizard Tim casts Scorching Ray on a burly fighter, and Cleric Joe follows up with an Inflict Critical Wounds, Cleric Joe just diminished Wizard Tim's importance? No! No more than a rogue sneak-attacking an enemy diminishes a fighter's importance! While it is perfectly possible to run a party lacking some of these mechanics, it is never advantageous to do so. Imbalances within the core mechanics of your party will make some challenges more or less difficult. If you lack a blaster some challenges will become more difficult, than they were inteded to be. Likewise if you have an extra blaster some challenges will be less difficult than they were inteded to be. What if these challenges average out? Seriously. You have one easy fight (two blasters, a skill monkey, and a damage dealer versus a large group of weak enemies) and one tough fight (two blasters, a skill monkey, and a damage dealer versus a powerful golem). This expends as many resources as two average fights. Or, what if they don't? Flip through the Eberron modules, which are fairly typical of low-level Eberron play. There's a lot of warforged, living spells, undead, and swarms/oozes. It is a very ****** deal to play a rogue through this adventure path, I know because I watched my friend do so. Because many of these enemies cannot be critted or sneak-attacked, your weapon and strength damage becomes far more important than bonus damage such as sneak attack. The rogue died and rerolled as a barbarian (Str 15, Con 15 were relevant starting stats, not terribly above average). He's been ripping enemies in half! He's much happier as the barbarian than as the rogue. Likewise, we could probably substitute the monk in our party for another barbarian and do even better. Most DMs or campaign worlds have enemy preferences; it's not difficult to figure these out sometimes. Even if you can't, you can make educated guesses. After 8th or 10th level, for example, mages are generally superior to every other character class, so even if your party already has a wizard, you can rarely go wrong by selecting a mage for your new character. After all, your DM will not turn every other encounter into an iron golem, and your magic can affect anything else. A party that is exclusively mages will have great problems if they lose initiative, but a party that is 2 mages, 1 healer, 1 damage dealer/taker will not have many problems. However playtesting has had far more success than failure. Otherwise the entire sytem would be a useless mess of broken effects. Your cited examples are well known by all of us. Some things are not perfect. This has never been part of my argument. I wouldn't argue that playtesting has had more success than failure. There is a very clear trend that arcane spellcasters are enormously more powerful than combat classes at high levels, and that divine spellcasters are at the top of the heap at all levels. Even at the low levels, where combat types supposedly rule, a bad Will save will still completely eliminate a fighter (such as with Sleep), making it almost a 50-50 fight that's dependent on initiative. The fact that my examples are well-known is not a reason to invalidate them, it's a reason to cite them. Like so many other well-known failures, the cleric's healing is NOT the supreme reason to have one (not in the least because 7 of the 12 classes also have healing). As for the commander-in-chief comparison, I get the feeling our politics may be closer than our characters. :P This is how I envision the cleric at his finest. A cleric should find himself varying his tactics on the battlefield. He may find he casts flame strike one round, moves to engage something in melee the next, and when his opponent in melee has been slain, he may find that the fighter who has been engaging three enemies simultaneously is seriously wounded, so he moves to heal the fighter. Is my expectation unreasonable? Is this a background role? Is this unfair exploitation of his healing abilities? Is this a poor tactical decision? I say no to all four questions. This is a tremedously watered-down version of the role you have been presenting in earlier posts. That a cleric "may find" it "reasonable" to heal once every five or six rounds is a far cry from claiming that a cleric's primary role in the party is to heal - your sample cleric does just as much blasting, and more rounds of damage dealing/taking than he does healing! I feel very disappointed - I've apparently been arguing against someone whose opinion is so close to mine that it's nearly irrelevant. For shame, you deceiver! (Flame Strike, by the way, is a good argument for the cleric blaster - not only is it a great AoE spell, but its funky divine energy type means you can bypass the usual elemental guessing-game mages fall into with unknown or outsider type enemies.) I also think there's some straw-manning going on here; a lot of these latter posts defending the healing cleric refer to letting your companions die so you can get in a full attack. Obviously that's not what the sensible posters are arguing (though I like Adhevan's image of "...fighting in the jungles of Xen'drik...telling the dying companion that he should try to locate a Jarasco halfling" :P). I'm arguing that through the sound use of tactics and game mechanics, your associated party members can survive a fight and let you heal them out of combat, which will bring in the amazingly cost-effective Wand of Cure Light. This includes focus-fire, Tumble, flank, fighting defensively, disarm/grapple/trip attacks, good Spot/Listen checks on as many party members as possible, and distributing wands across the party so that if absolutely necessary, nearly anyone can heal in combat. Most other posters on this thread seem to be describing variations on the same theme (though with less of an emphasis on wands). edit: random OotS link: http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=77
Just another user 12-29-05, 03:15 AM	Cleric is the only base class (with the possible exception of the druid) that not only can make work a single class party, but can make it overpowered, too. Or too put it better a only clerics party is more powerful, on the average, that any other class combination, oh, there could be some specific situation where another mix of classes could works slightly better, (fighters or rogues in a dead magic zone, for example) but there is not a single situation where the "clerics team" would be totally outmatched like rogues against undead or wizards in a dead magic zone, would be. Maybe a group can work without a cleric, but more often a cleric can replace any other class, expecially if you use other material than the core books
Kalanth 12-29-05, 03:54 AM	Clerics are the bread and butter, meat and potatoes of D&D. They are the best class, and have been for years (even before 3rd ed). And not just for buffs and healing, but solid combat in both spells and brute force. Ok, 3rd ed brought down their Attack Bonus (In 2nd ed their thac0 was close to being on par with the fighter), but thats no big deal. Anyone that looks at a cleric and says no because they do not want to be the support character definetly does not know how to use a cleric. A spell caster that can wear full plate without spell failure, fights nearly as well as the fighter, has great saving throws, can turn/rebuke undead, spontaneously cast healing spells, granted bonus powers from their domains, and a nearly endless list of buffs, heals, and attack spells? Even a cleric with a paultry strength score (10 or less) can be the party tank because of all these things. And with their aray of spells at their disposal it is just pathetic for a cleric to walk into something unprepared or caught off guard. Sorry, but if you know that you are going to be fighting against the undead in the next couple of adventures, just prep some spells for the occasion. Add in Complete Warrior (I believe) for the feats that allow them to add to their other abilities by dumping one or two turns, and you have an insane beast before you. The barbarian has their rage, but a cleric can duplicate that, a fighter has that BAB, but a cleric can buff themselves to compensate, the ranger has the two weapon or archery feats, but clerics can still compensate there, druids have wild shape and summoning spells, but clerics can summon as well, wizards and sorcerers have all sorts of attack spells and other such things, but clerics have decent equivalent spells, bards can motivate, but clerics have ways to duplicate that too, and rogues can sneak and hide, but even that can be duplicated with clerical abilities. Really, for many, the argument of the cleric being support is a cover up because they do not want to play the religious character in the group. Damn shame, too. Even that has its own benefits, such as room and board at the temple, but it is usually that hurdle that causes the biggest problem for players. - Kalanth, Cleric lover for 20 years
nastynate 12-29-05, 05:52 AM	I just lost my whole post. :censored: Originally Posted by nastynate Edit: My girlfriend just looked over my shoulder and after I posted this, and I think my smiley just made her jealous...I might be in trouble... I turns out she just thinks I'm an idiot. I can live with that. Korhal_IV: The four basic archtypes I described are the only indispensible mechanics within the game. That's why they are core. You cannot remove combat, skills (rogue stuff), arcane magic, or divine magic from D&D without drastically altering the way everything in the whole world functions. No other mechanics in the game have such serious implications on the world in their absence. A healthy balance between these abilities ensures mechanical balance within your party. Mechanical balance within your party ensures the ability to deal with more kinds of threats. No, things will not even out in the end. A party overloaded on wizards will make minced meat out of hordes of lower level foes, but if that same party has a shortage of melee fighters, they get wrecked by the iron golem encounter you used as an example. The balanced party will have an equal chance of winning both encounters. Think of it like a football team with pretty good offense, defense and special teams, vs a football team with great offence, pretty good special teams, and below average defense. The well rounded team has fewer weaknesses for their opponents to take advantage of. But see, here's the thing, you're reinforcing my analogy. Healing is to summoning as buff spells are to wildshape. The designers overpowered the cleric's spells to the same extent that they overpowered the druid's wildshape, making a clerical healer about as useful as a druidic summoner - it's not a bad use, but it's not the best use. You are underestimating the value of healing which is always useful, vs, summoning which is only sometimes valuable. The cleric is intentionally over-powered to encourage people to play a boring healer, because curative magic is a key mechanic. The druid on the other hand is unintentionally overpowered, because of flawed design. Druids were not given powerful shapeshifting abilities to encourage people to summon animals... Your damage analysis though perfectly viable doesn't take into consideration the numerous variables between builds. While that is mathmatically logical it doesn't paint a clear picture of the abilites of a good build. A tenth level fighter with a simple well known combination of feats can deal far more damage than your formula lets on. With heedless charge, and karmic strike, it is entirely possible for a 10th level fighter to kill a player character in a round or two. A single war troll can easily slay a PC in one round. In encounters with foes such as these, the value of healing magic is greater than any other mechanic in the game. When PCs lose large chunks of HP in short periods of time, someone will die during combat without dedicated healing ability. This is where the cleric becomes so important. In this case a good offense will kill the enemy faster, but not faster than the enemy can kill one of the characters. So a good offense is only sometimes better than a good defense. Having the flexibility to shift tactics with a versatile party is key. This is a statement I really can't comprehend. If Wizard Tim casts Scorching Ray on a burly fighter, and Cleric Joe follows up with an Inflict Critical Wounds, Cleric Joe just diminished Wizard Tim's importance? No! No more than a rogue sneak-attacking an enemy diminishes a fighter's importance! The diminished importance, I refer to is this. If the cleric decides to wade into melee every battle, and bash foes with his war mace, then he has become a fighter. He has commited himself to an action that removes his versatility from the conflict. Now that he has tied himself to his opponent, he cannot shift roles, to either heal, or turn undead, or cast a spell. He has to either kill his opponent or provoke attacks of opportunity against himself, in order to do anything else. Essentially he has commited himself to a role that should be occupied by somebody, who can do only that. The fighter cannot replace the cleric, even if the cleric can replace the fighter. When the cleric lets out a war cry and charges into battle, the fighter scratches his head, sighs, and does the same, because that's all he can do. Now the portion of the conflict designed for the fighter is being shared, with another character. The cleric has diminished the small portion of the game, that was actually intended for another player. But when the next encounter is a room full of zombies, the fighter isn't going to push the cleric aside and say, "don't bother turning them...I'll handle this!" If he did, people would chastise him for his stupidity. Diminished the importance of any character occurs when aspects of the game designed for them are stolen by other players. The classic example is the party of three fighters, and one mystic theurge. The only essential character in the party is the one who cannot be replaced. Three quarters of the encounters faced will be handled by one quarter of the party. The fighters are relagated to body guards for the theurge, and the whole story revolves around him. See what I mean? This is a tremedously watered-down version of the role you have been presenting in earlier posts. That a cleric "may find" it "reasonable" to heal once every five or six rounds is a far cry from claiming that a cleric's primary role in the party is to heal - your sample cleric does just as much blasting, and more rounds of damage dealing/taking than he does healing! I feel very disappointed - I've apparently been arguing against someone whose opinion is so close to mine that it's nearly irrelevant. For shame, you deceiver! Just because the cleric only needs to heal every five or six rounds doesn't mean it's not his primary role. How many traps does a rogue disarm per adventure? Far fewer than the number of healing spells cast by the cleric, I venture. Yet it is skills just such as these that define the role of a rogue. I never once advocated that a cleric do nothing but heal...that assertion has been assumed by others who disagree with me, because they do not understand. My statements decree that a cleric should heal, and that healing is the most important class feature of the cleric. I have likewise stated that a cleric who doesn't make himself available to heal, or asks for extra consideration for doing so, is cheeting the other PCs who contribute their abilties for no extra consideration at all. I also think there's some straw-manning going on here; a lot of these latter posts defending the healing cleric refer to letting your companions die so you can get in a full attack. Obviously that's not what the sensible posters are arguing (though I like Adhevan's image of "...fighting in the jungles of Xen'drik...telling the dying companion that he should try to locate a Jarasco halfling" ). I'm arguing that through the sound use of tactics and game mechanics, your associated party members can survive a fight and let you heal them out of combat, which will bring in the amazingly cost-effective Wand of Cure Light. This includes focus-fire, Tumble, flank, fighting defensively, disarm/grapple/trip attacks, good Spot/Listen checks on as many party members as possible, and distributing wands across the party so that if absolutely necessary, nearly anyone can heal in combat. Most other posters on this thread seem to be describing variations on the same theme (though with less of an emphasis on wands). The thing about in-combat healing is that it isn't needed all the time or even most of the time, but when it is needed a wand of cure light wounds isn't going to cut it. An 8th level fighter hovering around 10 HP, needs far more help than a wand of cure light wounds can provide. Any reasonably challenging opponent to a fighter of this level, will kill him this round or the next while he's in that condition. He needs the kind of healing provided by much more powerful spells. Somebody mentioned 10% of the time you get into an encounter in which you'll need in-combat healing. Going with that arbitrary figure, for the sake of argument, means a fighter has a 10% chance of death every battle! It seems pretty important then, that a cleric be ready with some healing magic, should such circumstances come up. If your cleric is commited to melee, then yes, the fighter will die before he can help. There is often a very small window in which to react to someone's injuries during combat, before it's too late. Is that straw-manning? Clerics are the bread and butter, meat and potatoes of D&D. They are the best class, and have been for years (even before 3rd ed). And not just for buffs and healing, but solid combat in both spells and brute force. Ok, 3rd ed brought down their Attack Bonus (In 2nd ed their thac0 was close to being on par with the fighter), but thats no big deal. I dispute your 2E claims. IIRC clerics only ever got 1 attack per round, and no way to gain proficiency in a decent weapon. They got far fewer high level spells than wizards, their BAB at level 20 would have been +12. At the time there were really only a couple effective offensive spells in their entire arsenal. Sure they could wear armor, and get a good AC, but they were far less valuable in melee than thieves were. With no offensive spells, and one pathetic bludgeoning attack per round, clerics were armored heal-bots in second edition. They do rock now though!
aelryinth 12-29-05, 11:59 AM	i'LL DISPUTE THIS on one point...in 2E rogues sucked in combat a lot more then clerics did. Rogues had less armor and their backstab was useful maybe once a fight...maybe. Without all the armor options open to characters now, theives in 2E were the most superfluous of the classes. ==Aelryinth
Euangelion 12-30-05, 10:59 AM	One small point about clerics wading into battle... turning undead does not provoke AoO. Also, healing is not necessarily the most important ability of a cleric, especially ones that channel negative energy. Also, clerics are indeed designed for fighting, not to the extent that the classes with full BAB progression are of course, but they are meant to fight to certain extent, as all classes with the "medium" BAB are. Otherwise they'd just be given the poor BAB and little if any armor proficiencies and have done with it (this would fit some clerics just fine in fact, like the cloistered cleric as described in Unearthed Arcana.)
Aldarc 01-03-06, 08:45 PM	The four basic archtypes I described are the only indispensible mechanics within the game. That's why they are core. You cannot remove combat, skills (rogue stuff), arcane magic, or divine magic from D&D without drastically altering the way everything in the whole world functions. No other mechanics in the game have such serious implications on the world in their absence. A healthy balance between these abilities ensures mechanical balance within your party. Mechanical balance within your party ensures the ability to deal with more kinds of threats. No, things will not even out in the end. A party overloaded on wizards will make minced meat out of hordes of lower level foes, but if that same party has a shortage of melee fighters, they get wrecked by the iron golem encounter you used as an example. The balanced party will have an equal chance of winning both encounters.You're right, there are four basic core elements to the standard D&D party: warrior, thief, healer, and mage. But in truth, one of those core elements is in some ways more secondary than core. Can you make a guess which one? That's right, the healer is secondary. An even more basic core party would simply be the warrior (the brawn), the thief (the brain), and the mage (the magical). The healer is simply the add-on used to keep the other three going, and the role of healer can easily be merged with the role of the mage. But why isn't it? Because people want their mages blasting and would rather have someone else do the magical sensationalism of buff, healing, and support. And an underlying reason for that is the "fire-and-forget" system of magic. And this is why my Eberron campaign will be converted to use with Arcana Evolved, which incredibly eleviates pressures from established needed classes to fulfill certain roles within a party. The fighter fights, the cleric heals, the wizard launches magic missile, and the rogue disables traps. AE's universal magic system allows for the arch-mage to, or the fighter-mage, or the rune-mage, or the innate-mage, or the nature-mage to have access to healing spells so that a single class does not become a "Healing Crutch" to the composition of the rest of the party. The magical system eleviates the problems since you can spontaneously cast any spells that you prepared from your list of known spells (a combination of the wizard and sorcerer style). In addition the skill distribution and the defining of classes more by playing-styles than cultural archetypes allows for greater flexibility in party composition. And oddly enough, AE actually seems to fit more naturally with the innate magical world of Eberron than standard D&D. It of course requires modifications of the new elements (new races, artificers, etc), but the benefits are worth it. Espeically since with a universal magical system -- in other words, no difference between divine or arcane magic only spell type and complexity -- the source of magic becomes far more ambiguous which fits in nicely with the ambiguous nature of deities and arcane magic in Eberron. Bottom Line: I don't care about what the desired balanced party-of-four is if it forces players to take upon roles that they don't want to. If you force someone or change your own desired character to suit the "party need" you are essentially turning your party into a standardized hack-and-slash video game and not an interactive world with unique challanges.
Setherial 01-04-06, 05:28 AM	Clerics is a pretty cool class with a lot of possebilities but most of the time they end up spending all their cool spells for healing, that or they are dispised by the others for not healing them. This is a reputation that tends to make some players choose a different class. In our group clerics are very rare, at the moment there is a cleric/rogue in the party but he has his own agenda. He is not exactly what you would call the mercifull healer. Our DM throws is healing potions or a wand of healing to make up for it. Personaly I think clerics are the coolest class in the game, the domains open a world of variaty and flavor. They are ok fighters and they have spells. As a DM I love clerics as bad guys.