Now they can kick some arse while helping out.
LOL, I remember the players asking the cleric player why he never did that in the old game. His answer was something like "Because you idiots made me sit in the rear with the gear until you decided you'd been bleeding enough."
Later I was hearing things like:
"Cleric!"
"What?"
"I'm bleeding to death!"
"So?"
"Heal me!"
"Spend an Action Point!"
"But I want to keep fighting!"
"Then you want to keep bleeding!"
It looks a lot less critical than it has been previously…a stack of healing potions, and you're in fairly decent shape.
Sounds pretty much exactly like previous editions to me. ;)
"Cleric!"
"What?"
"I'm bleeding to death!"
"So?"
"Heal me!"
"Spend an Action Point!"
"But I want to keep fighting!"
"Then you want to keep bleeding!"
In 3.x Clerics could also be really powerful if you built them right. This usually required you to stack up on potions though.
Later I was hearing things like:
"Cleric!"
"What?"
"I'm bleeding to death!"
"So?"
"Heal me!"
"Spend an Action Point!"
"But I want to keep fighting!"
"Then you want to keep bleeding!"
I lol'ed :D
There's a reason that "in-combat healer" was called "Waste of Space role" on the CharOp boards guides.
Furthermore, the last time I checked, the CharOps Boards had a term for a properly played divine caster: CoDzilla.
As for 4e, it is my understanding that, while characters have healing surges of their own, they can only use them in combat under specific conditions, many of which have something to do with a cleric or warlord's abilities. I can't say for sure, though, because I'm still getting a feel for the new mechanics and have not yet played under them.
Every time I see the opinion "Clerics are basically just walking first-aid kits," I immediately note that the person expressing this opinion has never played a proper cleric and is merely ignorant of the class's myriad wonders.
Furthermore, the last time I checked, the CharOps Boards had a term for a properly played divine caster: CoDzilla.
As for 4e, it is my understanding that, while characters have healing surges of their own, they can only use them in combat under specific conditions, many of which have something to do with a cleric or warlord's abilities. I can't say for sure, though, because I'm still getting a feel for the new mechanics and have not yet played under them.
CoDzilla has been coined by many, including me, as a very selfish type of build since the idea of clerics are that they are supportive. Hence why the leadership role is a good one, they help others do better. Also CoDzilla was a DRUID more often then a cleric. And they usually ended up being melee builds, which was more to point out the shortcomings of the fighter.
Healing surges can be used as much as the character wants when outside combat. When in combat they can only use one, and this maneuver is called Second Wind.
Clerics can buff, heal, and have some nice attacks of their own. Can you run group with out them? sure. But you will miss the buffing and healing, just like you would miss the damage without a striker, or the front line defense without a defender, etc. You bet.
Just be sure players adapt with good tactics when you don't have a leader class. They probably want to be a bit more conservative, bring out their own healing surge sooner rather than later in a combat, and not run so close to the edge, as there is not a cleric to put the defender back on his feet if he drops.
CoDzilla has been coined by many, including me, as a very selfish type of build since the idea of clerics are that they are supportive. Hence why the leadership role is a good one, they help others do better.
Even in a support role, though, the 3.5 cleric is far more than a walking band-aid. He can bless the party, doom the enemy, eliminate fodder enemies with cause fear, create on-the-fly weapon superiority with magic weapon and align weapon, give the fighter an easy target with hold person, ensure the rogue's sneakiness with silence, set up flanking opportunities with summon monster, control the battlefield with darkness and stone shape, reveal hidden threats with invisibility purge ... and mind you, all of this is just by 5th level. Need I dig out the 4th level spells and up?
I can only hope that my first 4e cleric will be able to hold a candle in light of the pure power that I wielded with my 3.5 clerics. Ahh, the good old days... :whatsthis
Compared to the Warlord? The cleric can pump out more healing per shot, but the Warlord heals more often. Also, in later levels, the cleric seems to rely on Healing Surges less, which is definitely handy.
Having a character with powers that heal you can go a long way to keeping you going through the day before you need to rest.
That said, however, Clerics are not the only class that can fill this role. There are 3 classes capable of filling this role: A Cleric. A Warlord. And a Paladin. Having one of these three classes in your party will extend how far you can go in a day. It helps if they are built for healing, but even if not, all three of these classes always have the ability to heal others.
CoDzilla has been coined by many, including me, as a very selfish type of build since the idea of clerics are that they are supportive.
Just to avoid any confusion: the term CoDzilla was coined by RadicalTaoist in a CO thread discussing the idea "core's balanced, noncore's broken", not you or anyone else.
You (and others) might have argued it to be a selfish approach to the cleric, though. However, even a fully self-buffed cleric still has the majority of his powers left for healing and party buffing. The obligatory DMM: Persist builds even more so.
In several of the 3.5 threads on DM/Player boards people have complained that their cleric PC was either doomed to be a walking band-aid, or that another player's cleric PC was not being the walking band-aid they wanted him to be, both of which is not very fun.
The good thing about 4.0 cleric PCs is that they are no longer doomed to such an existence of servitude, but that since everyone can heal a little, and since there's also the Warlord who can help out, cleric PCs have less peer pressure to deal with.
As others have said, clerics are still very useful, but the absence of a cleric doesn't have everyone say "uh-oh, we are doomed".
Even in a support role, though, the 3.5 cleric is far more than a walking band-aid. He can bless the party, doom the enemy, eliminate fodder enemies with cause fear, create on-the-fly weapon superiority with magic weapon and align weapon, give the fighter an easy target with hold person, ensure the rogue's sneakiness with silence, set up flanking opportunities with summon monster, control the battlefield with darkness and stone shape, reveal hidden threats with invisibility purge ... and mind you, all of this is just by 5th level. Need I dig out the 4th level spells and up?
"Can" is not the same as "does". Yes the Cleric had a passel of abilities available to him, but in practice most of the time the Cleric was reduced to little more than a healing spell vending machine.
"Can" is not the same as "does". Yes the Cleric had a passel of abilities available to him, but in practice most of the time the Cleric was reduced to little more than a healing spell vending machine.
Again I say: only if the player allows his character to be used that way. In the past year, between myself and the other player in our group who regularly plays clerics, we have probably used more spontaneous cure spells to deal damage to Undead than to perform in-combat healing. (For example, I killed Lady Vol with a heal spell. The DM almost cried.)
Out of combat, yes, naturally, we burn a lot of otherwise unused spells to patch people up. That's standard end-of-day practice - waste not, want not. But that almost never comes at the cost of throwing away vital spells like dispel magic or searing light, and only rarely costs us battle-changing spells like darkness or silence.
If you don't keep a sharp eye on balancing the versatility of your spells against the need for post-combat healing, then yes, it's easy to see how your party's cleric could quickly become nothing more than a band-aid dispenser. The 3.5 Cleric is not a class for players who lack resource management skills. However, it's not my fault - nor a fault with the class - if you and/or your players aren't up to playing the class to its full potential.
For instance, at 1st lv, your cleric could move into an appropriate spot, use healing word as a minor action on a PC, followed up with divine glow (dealing radiant damage to all enemies within blast3 radius while granting your party a +2 to-hit bonus).
One advantage of the 4e cleric is that he is able to heal, damage the enemies and buff his party all at the same time, so you no longer have to make agonizing decisions over which role to prioritize.
Sums up why I'm not playing 4e...
Again I say: only if the player allows his character to be used that way.
Yet the sterotype is over 30 years old and existed in every single edition up until this one, so it isn't as easy to avoid as you think.
CoDzilla has been coined by many, including me, as a very selfish type of build since the idea of clerics are that they are supportive. Hence why the leadership role is a good one, they help others do better. Also CoDzilla was a DRUID more often then a cleric. And they usually ended up being melee builds, which was more to point out the shortcomings of the fighter.
It is not our fault that the fighter was so poorly designed. Why should we play one, when the druid becomes the equivalent of a spellcasting fighter at lv6+, and gets a free fighter as a class feature?
I would say that it is your idea that a 3e cleric ought to be a buffer, but I know from personal experience that it can be an extremely boring style to play. Can you blame us for tweaking the cleric to suit our own personal playstyle, which is then more fun and powerful to play?:P
Healing can be made cleric-independent just by making a few adjustments to your party's strategy, so I don't see how it is necessarily the cleric's fault for refusing to assume the mantle of party healbot. It is his game, he should have the right to play the sort of role he wants, not to pigeon-holed into one by the other members.
I need to do that with a cohort someday.
Sums up why I'm not playing 4e...
Hah! Too true.
3.5 - You have potential to be one of the most powerful characters in the party, if only your party didn't complain if you were anything other than a healbot.
4e- You are about on par for power with everyone else, and if you can switch between healbot and beatstick as you wish. No one will complain this time.
In 3.5 they were the best at healing, not 100% needed, but they sure did help out a ton. In 4e, they are still best at healing, but the margin by which you are the best at it is smaller, especially because everyone has a small ammount of self healing.
The cleric? Not necessary at all. The leader role did away with this. Anyone who is a leader can fill the role of healing.
How necessary is a healer? That depends on how well your party works together. If they don't work together well, the extra healing provided by the leader role will be much needed, but to a seasoned group, I don't see why they couldn't get along well without it.
Although, having a warlord in the game that I DM is a noticeable cushion of being able to protect someone who's taking a lot of damage and put them back in the fight.
3e didn't need a healer. In 3e what you needed was someone with the ability to use a wand of cure light wounds or a wand of lesser vigor. In that respect, it's a lot less reliant on needing a leader because on a short rest you can spend healing surges without a leader.
Later I was hearing things like:
"Cleric!"
"What?"
"I'm bleeding to death!"
"So?"
"Heal me!"
"Spend an Action Point!"
"But I want to keep fighting!"
"Then you want to keep bleeding!"
LMAO, only thing I can see bad about this, if you were to change th keep fighting thing to I have none left and already used a healing surge this encounter, what would the claric have done? Better yet, what would they have been able to do if there was no cleric, run away?
One healing surge per fight doesn't cut it, you need any extra encounter access to your surges you can get, or you just die with 6 unspend (because they are unaccessable) surges left
From our experience the healer is just as necessary as ever. No matter whether it's a cleric or a warlord, but without one of them you're as screwed as in every previous edition.
One healing surge per fight doesn't cut it, you need any extra encounter access to your surges you can get, or you just die with 6 unspend (because they are unaccessable) surges left
Diddo, I have to say the same thing, I was bumped down to 7 HP in one attack (helpless because they attacked before I awoken)
I spened on healing surge, I only have 14 HP out of 29HP, not much HP in a battle vs 3 archers and 3 swordsmen, so our claric used the healing word to heal me up to full in one swing, and thats all the damage I took because used Eyebite to turn ivis and sneak behind the archers.
But anyway, our TWO clerics had it in for them, the had to heal us because we kept getting hurt and used our healing surge to heal. I had 9 healing surges, and to stay alive, I had to spend 3, but could only spend one on my own, so I really appreceated the cleric for that.
Any character is as necessary as the player playing. It seems you are seeing a cleric as a statistic more than a character.
Amen to that my friend.
To step out of the meta-gaming for a second, a lot of people forget that the first word in the description of D&D is ROLEPLAYING Game. The cleric is not just some person that chants a few words and thows some healing magic. This person is a direct conduit for the divine Powers that shape the universe in which your characters exist. If your campaign has an established and regimented pantheon of Powers then your cleric most likely is a devoted follower of one of these Powers sets of beliefs. Only some of those same Powers are dedicated to healing. Your cleric may be a dedicated follower to a God of battle. Perhaps they see the idea of healing as a crutch for the weak who cannot withstand the test of battle. Perhaps your path is along that of a nature deity who preaches that only the strong will survive.
There are plenty of spells listed under the cleric spell list that have nothing to do with healing. Some of the greatest protection magics and divination spells fall under the knowledge of an able cleric.
Add to this the martial skill and ability to wear the heaviest of armors without penalty then your priest becomes a frontline combatant of truly scary proportions.
Not to mention the divine power over the forces of undeath, either through the ability to turn them or rebuke them.
The cleric is more than just a walking healbot. They are someone deeply in touch with the knowledge of self-confidence in their goals and belief in their actions, who also has the magical and usually the physical might to back those beliefs up.
Like any other class in the game the cleric has their purpose and place in any adventuring group, and is just as necessary as they ever were.
More than most classes, Clerics have to co-ordinate their actions with the group to be effective. Do I use Sacred Flame or Lance of Faith? Depends if the Fighter is near dead or needs to hit the BBEG one-last-time.
Yet the sterotype is over 30 years old and existed in every single edition up until this one, so it isn't as easy to avoid as you think.
The stereotype that Lawful Good Paladins must obey every law of the land has persisted just as long. That doesn't make it right, nor intelligent.
I think the main diffrence between them is
3.5 - You have potential to be one of the most powerful characters in the party, if only your party didn't complain if you were anything other than a healbot.
Actually, if you are able to step up beside the Fighter (or potentially the Wizard) and dish out (and absorb) just as much (if not more) damage as him, and save the party a ton of resources by laying down battle-changing spells... Generally-speaking, they don't mind shelling out the thousand or two gold every few weeks to keep your wand of cure light wounds properly charged up after that.
I do like the 4e Cleric quite a bit, though. I'm not thrilled with the removal of the Domain concept (or technically, the transferal of it to the specialist Wizard), but I think I may end up house-ruling that anyway. (Who knows, maybe it will show up in the PHB2?) Beyond that, I can fully endorse Sphyre's comments about the Leader role in general.
If you ake sure that you have enough potions around or a healing wand around, you barely need it.
In 4.0, this even improved because every person has healing surges and second wind during battle.
If you ake sure that you have enough potions around or a healing wand around, you barely need it.
Of course, this takes for granted that you're playing in a campaign in which the DM is obliging enough to make such things available. Personally, I've played in campaigns that were somewhat magic reduced where a magical item, especially a rechargeable one, was quite rare. In situations like that it's not always so easy or affordable to obtain healing potions or curative wands.
But that's just one example. I know I've also played in other campaigns were such items were much more easily obtainable and yes, in those situations they can take the place of a clerics healing ability.
However, about half the Cleric abilities now rely on Strength and they have very decent proficiencies with armor and weapons. That should tell you something about their new role.
"Can" is not the same as "does". Yes the Cleric had a passel of abilities available to him, but in practice most of the time the Cleric was reduced to little more than a healing spell vending machine.
So? That's the fault of who ever was playing clerics that way.
One of the commonly-floated houserules elsewhere in the forums is that some DM or other wants to institute "serious wounds" which can't be mended except by long term rest (think weeks) or magical healing. It's always very specifically *magical* healing that they want being used to remove these "serious wounds".
This sort of thing very strongly pushes the game back towards being "cleric required" and also destroys a large part of the warlord's viability.
Nothings changed over the years/editions. There is no essential class that must be included in a party.
I disagree. I think with 4e, monster damage stacks up too quickly to dismiss the usefulness of a dedicated healer (basically your leader in 4e). As such, I feel that a cleric is still rather indispensable.
Old version cleric was mostly a 'on standby' dude with one role. Current cleric can choose how he wants to help, direct heal, direct damage at range, battlefield mods (popping up summons of guardians and stuff that block approach or do fun AoO attacks kinda like sustainable landmines). Paired with a good Controller, the cleric/wiz team can slow the oncoming rush of attackers to a trickle, forcing them to bottleneck and take 'safer' paths or risk plowing through damage fields that screw them up before they even GET to the fighter/paladin wall.
Actually, if you are able to step up beside the Fighter (or potentially the Wizard) and dish out (and absorb) just as much (if not more) damage as him, and save the party a ton of resources by laying down battle-changing spells... Generally-speaking, they don't mind shelling out the thousand or two gold every few weeks to keep your wand of cure light wounds properly charged up after that.
That was my point, in that you would think they wouldnt mind shelling out the money for some healing. But more often than not I would see groups demand the cleric provide the healing, or pay for the wand himself. "If you dont want to do your job, then you pay for all the healing wands"
Healing belts really convinced a lot of my players that the cleric wasnt the only one to heal, and they began to expand and let the cleric more. But before those, the cleric was almost always mandated to be a healer.
Moments like this could cause intervention of the divine source. And if those players didn't like how John Doe was playing his cleric, then tough friggin' noogies.
You play your character your way, and shut the hell up about how I play mine.
I disagree. I think with 4e, monster damage stacks up too quickly to dismiss the usefulness of a dedicated healer (basically your leader in 4e). As such, I feel that a cleric is still rather indispensable.
I've never dismissed the usefulness of a dedicated healer. I simply reject the flawed notion that class x is a mandatory role that someone must take on (PCs) or provide(DM).
If such were true the game would have come packaged with standard issue board game pieces & made so as to be un-playable were one not in use.
Thankfully this has never been the case.
Instead we have a variable game where each player is free to make wich ever type of character they want to play. So what types of characters they choose simply influances what types of games/stories end up getting told.
A party without a cleric will simply have to learn to respond to encounters differently is all.
I'm seeing the concept that groups would force their friends into the role of healbot (Lord I hate that term) just to satisfy their characters needs. In my opinion this is the place where a DM should step in and tell these whiny buggers to back off and let the player play their cleric as they so wish. I know if in my group, or even the one I played in for years as a player, if the other characters started ganging up and forcing the cleric into a role they didn't want to play then all Holy hell would break loose...literally.
Moments like this could cause intervention of the divine source. And if those players didn't like how John Doe was playing his cleric, then tough friggin' noogies.
You play your character your way, and shut the hell up about how I play mine.
You make it sound like groups grab the cleric's player's hand and force them to roll the dice, while he is tied to a chair unable to go home.
In reality it is usually something more like
"why is our healer not healing"
"Im not a healer, heal yourself"
"But you can heal"
" I could, but im not especially good at it"
" Then why play a cleric if you dont heal"
"Because I like clerics"
"grumble grumble"
10 min later
"Cleric, i need healing"
I mean sure, if they are tieing the guy up forcing him to do something against his will stuff flies. But in a friendly atmosphere where people are just trying to have some fun, a couple of complaints about how X isnt doing Y is to be expected. The "You play your character your way, and shut the hell up about how I play mine." part makes it sound like you are taking it way too seriously, beyond a recreational activity into the realm of a job.
You make it sound like groups grab the cleric's player's hand and force them to roll the dice, while he is tied to a chair unable to go home.
In reality it is usually something more like
"why is our healer not healing"
"Im not a healer, heal yourself"
"But you can heal"
" I could, but im not especially good at it"
" Then why play a cleric if you dont heal"
"Because I like clerics"
"grumble grumble"
10 min later
"Cleric, i need healing"
I mean sure, if they are tieing the guy up forcing him to do something against his will stuff flies. But in a friendly atmosphere where people are just trying to have some fun, a couple of complaints about how X isnt doing Y is to be expected. The "You play your character your way, and shut the hell up about how I play mine." part makes it sound like you are taking it way too seriously, beyond a recreational activity into the realm of a job.
Actually, just the opposite. Personally I've always been blessed to be in a group where nobody ever offers criticism about how someone else runs their character. As someone who played one of our campaigns main healers I can tell you that while I did offer to spend healing on other characters, if I wasn't immediately willing to sacrifice a spell that could be used later on for the sake of substituting a healing spell it was never questioned.
The comment was a little acidic on my part, I admit, but it seriously frustrates me that people will try to affect how another person decides to roleplay their character. Even if it's just the occasional subliminal hint.
But then again, I usually feel like I've been blessed with a group like mine and don't have to deal with those little problems.
Actually, just the opposite. Personally I've always been blessed to be in a group where nobody ever offers criticism about how someone else runs their character.
The comment was a little acidic on my part, I admit, but it seriously frustrates me that people will try to affect how another person decides to roleplay their character. Even if it's just the occasional subliminal hint.
But then again, I usually feel like I've been blessed with a group like mine and don't have to deal with those little problems.
Honestly, I'm glad you enjoy your group, but if your group doesn't tolerate a little friendly ribbing or grumbling I don't think I could stand it. When someone messes up most groups I play with will call them out on it. Its never in a mean way, but it is a serious thing. "Hey X good job there, way to spend your last daily power, good thing we are now in the boss fight and you are totally spent. Good planning" and the like.
Nobody ever offering criticism seems like a boring time to me. Half of the fun is getting on one of the people who mess up, and then messing up yourself.