PDA

View Full Version : Creating a melee cleric w/o pissing off the other PCs



Suzaku
2007-01-25, 08:23 PM
As soon as you say you're making a melee cleric everyone right away assumes you'll be a walking ban-aid. They seem to never understand that cleric is capable of doing respectable damage, instead every cleric is a healer only. Also convincing the party to share resources to purchase healing wands seems to be a no no, as everyone wants to save their gold for random magic item and dump the cost of the wands on the cleric.

When you refuse to heal another member even if they did something stupid like being a rogue/monk that tries to solo monster thus soaking up damage, will draw the wrath of not just of the rogue or monk but the rest of the party. Granted if someone take massive damage from unlucky event (such as a critical hit or all the attacks on a full attack hit) I'll rush over and heal. How do you make a melee cleric without attracting flak from other party members?

Rigeld2
2007-01-25, 08:28 PM
Play the "I'm not required to help you when youre stupid." card. Similar to the "An emergency to you is normally a 'when I can get to it'." card.

cupkeyk
2007-01-25, 08:35 PM
Ply a neutral Cleric with no Spontaneous casting to healing. LOLz Prepare them but say you are saving them

jjpickar
2007-01-25, 08:39 PM
Well, I think you could be a little more diplomatic with how you treat stupid people (the most populous people group on the earth in fact). But I always thought that the parties I've DMed through the years appreciated whatever help they could get vanquishing the horrible abominations that tried to rip them to pieces at every turn. If that came from a melee cleric then so be it.

Still, I like to be a healy cleric and have the PCs watch in awe as I put the overly curious rogue back together after he had been chopped into a thousand pieces by a trap shaped like food processor. And if you heal them more often they'll be grateful.:smallsmile:

Folie
2007-01-25, 08:47 PM
Easy! Convince someone else to be the band-aid this time, then make a character who's good at hitting stuff.

Seriously, though: when you play a cleric, people will expect you to conform to their idea of what a "cleric" is - i.e., a walking band-aid. Therefore, they'll go into battles with the assumption that they can take all kinds of crazy risks because you'll be there to patch them up: When you then fail to meet their expectations, they'll get upset. My advice is to make it clear to everyone from the get-go exactly what your character can and can't do (and, in your case, will and won't do).

It might help us give you advice if you were to tell us exactly what your character concept is, and what your fellow party members are playing as. Depending on what you want out of your character and what the party needs, it might be better for you to play something like a paladin or a druid or a ranger: someone who can easily function as both Mr. Stabby and Mr. Healy without surprising anyone too much.

Vance_Nevada
2007-01-25, 09:04 PM
Simple: Don't say "I'll play the cleric." When you say that, they assume you're going to make the healer, not the meatshield.

Instead, say "I'll play the fighter." Then make a melee cleric.

AmoDman
2007-01-25, 09:36 PM
Tell them you're playing a tank, that is all. Game time comes, "A cleric?" Well, did you say you were a fighter?

NullAshton
2007-01-25, 09:47 PM
In my campaign, there's a Favored Soul archer. Does massive damage, but when the party needs healing, he can cast mass heal and stop the damage for a while, letting the rest of the party work on it while he heals.

Of course, that's an archer cleric, kind of different from a melee cleric... you should be able to get a couple of rounds of smackage done before you need to start healing, though.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-25, 09:48 PM
As long as you have a wand of cure light wounds with plenty of charges and maybe one high level cure for in-battle healing you should be good. I tend to favor the full-spellcaster version of the cleric, so I don't ever want to have to spend all my spell-slots on cures. Remember, high level cures and heal are only important in battle, outside of battle you can just rely on wands. It will cost you a little extra money, but well worth it if you don't want to be the heal-only cleric.

Behold_the_Void
2007-01-25, 09:54 PM
Play a something-neutral cleric devoted to a god with some kind of business-like portfolio. Keep the spontaneous healing ability.

Next time someone calls for the medic, the first words out of your mouth should be "how much is this healing worth to you?".

Of course that may piss the other PCs off, but it WILL get the point across.

JaronK
2007-01-25, 09:59 PM
Divine Persistant Lesser Mass Vigor FTW. Just cast that at the beginning of the day and don't worry much about healing for the rest of the day, except in emergencies.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-26, 11:47 AM
Tell them you're playing a tank, that is all. Game time comes, "A cleric?" Well, did you say you were a fighter?

I like this. Does anybody play in a game where players don't tell other players metagame information about their characters?

I too plan on running a favored soul soon. He will announce himself to be a "Warrior of Moradin whose prayers are often answered." He doesn't think of himself as anything other than a warrior. Of course it helps that there already is a cleric in the party (err, when the player can make it) so that removes the healing pressure.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-01-26, 11:50 AM
Play a CoDzilla cleric. Wait, that might just piss them off too... <_<

moes247
2007-01-26, 11:56 AM
I was actually a Melee cleric in one of my very first big long games. I was a Half-orc and I basicly went in next to the fighter and bashed the monster till the fighter needed to be healed.

clericwithnogod
2007-01-26, 01:36 PM
This is a problem with your group, not you. Stick to your guns and play your cleric as the warrior he is.

A true warrior demands that his cleric be his peer in skill at arms - as that is the true measure of a man and anything less than a peer is a victim.

A true warrior exults in seeing his cleric call down the fury of his god in a firestorm that weakens his foes, allowing the warrior's blade to cleave through their flesh en masse as their bodies fall in a disjointed dance to the music of their dying screams - all the while breathing in the intoxicating, sweet smells of burnt flesh and victory.

A true warrior expects that his cleric stand by his side, sharing the kiss of their opponents steel as it bites agonizingly into their flesh, confident that their skill and strength will overwhelm their foe and that their god will close their wounds to ensure that they can win victory in battles to come.

A true warrior knows that his cleric shares in the satisfaction of seeing the pain and loss in an enemy's eyes as his lifeblood pours out over the blade upon which he is impaled.

A true warrior wants his cleric to match him blow for blow on the battlefield, beer for beer at the bar and babe for babe in the bedchamber.

I mean, come on... What kind of warrior wants his cleric to be a wimpy guy that stands behind him touching him a lot? Well, besides a paladin...

Vance_Nevada
2007-01-26, 04:59 PM
Play a something-neutral cleric devoted to a god with some kind of business-like portfolio. Keep the spontaneous healing ability.

Next time someone calls for the medic, the first words out of your mouth should be "how much is this healing worth to you?".

Of course that may piss the other PCs off, but it WILL get the point across.

In a word, NO. Not unless you want to encourage this sort of game, where the rogue demands payment before he disarms the trap, and the fighter stands back and lets the cleric be killed because he can't afford to buy the fighter's backup.

daggaz
2007-01-26, 05:07 PM
I just rolled up a melee cleric, the dm thought it was a great idea. I just found out tho that its core only so no divine persist/codzilla cheese for me.

JadedDM
2007-01-26, 05:22 PM
If the cleric doesn't heal, then who does?

Suzaku
2007-01-26, 05:27 PM
The wands that everyone shares the expense for.

JadedDM
2007-01-26, 05:29 PM
Are you telling me that 3E has successfully eliminated the use of a main healer in parties?

tarbrush
2007-01-26, 05:40 PM
Noooo, but wands of CLW are dirt cheap and it's much more fun for everyone. Being a portable bandaid blows.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-26, 05:43 PM
Are you telling me that 3E has successfully eliminated the use of a main healer in parties?

As long as you have someone who can cast divine magic (this includes paladins and rangers) or a bard (whose spell list includes cure spells), and enough money for wands of cure light wounds, yes.

In some ways it is actually better if players purchase and carry one or two higher level potions of cure wounds since the full-plate armour clad cleric may not be able to reach them in time for healing to make a difference.

JadedDM
2007-01-26, 05:46 PM
Can anyone use wands then? Or just certain classes? The "The wands that everyone shares the expense for" line kind of threw me, as it seemed to imply that fighters, thieves, and mages could do without clerics as they could just stock up on healing wands.

Starbuck_II
2007-01-26, 06:00 PM
Can anyone use wands then? Or just certain classes? The "The wands that everyone shares the expense for" line kind of threw me, as it seemed to imply that fighters, thieves, and mages could do without clerics as they could just stock up on healing wands.
Rogues/Bards: Use Magic Device (well bards get it as 1st level spell choice at level 1). Bards can use wand without UMD because it is on spell list so they can use at level 1.

Pals/Rangers: can wand use it at level 1 because while they can't casy they still have access to spell list.

Cleric/Druids: cast or wand

Warrior/most arcane classes can't use Wands as default.

clericwithnogod
2007-01-26, 06:13 PM
Are you telling me that 3E has successfully eliminated the use of a main healer in parties?

Focusing on some other aspect of your character rather than healing doesn't have much effect on your healing abilities, provided you channel positive energy.

The neutral cleric that channels negative energy is a social engineering tactic more than a mechanical tactic - people shouldn't complain about you not doing something that you can't do. But, I've seen people whine because the cleric didn't take the healing domain, so it's not a sure thing.

Healing in combat is usually a bad thing - it's something you do when someone takes a bad crit or series of attacks, someone fails a save, you have a battle in hand, etc. Otherwise, it is usually more efficient to either cast a buff, offensive spell or attack. It's hard to heal faster than damage can be dealt and you can get into a healing spiral of death where you keep dumping actions on healing someone (especially someone who has dropped to negative HP and is prone) who keeps taking more damage while you take more damage... 3E has eliminated the old combat grind of fighter take damage, cleric heal fighter, wizard deal damage, rogue do nothing. Well, except for the rogue do nothing, but that was fixed somewhat in 3.0 then broken in 3.5.

You still end up using a significant number of your actions on healing and removing adverse conditions if you're the only cleric in the group, but with the proper feat selection you can fight comparably to a fighter or cast effectively (though not comparably to a wizard) on your remaining turns. The problem comes when people use battery builds that need a full-time influx of HPs to survive...or are just tactically incompetent.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-26, 06:22 PM
The neutral cleric that channels negative energy is a social engineering tactic more than a mechanical tactic - people shouldn't complain about you not doing something that you can't do.

It's at this point that you remind them that if they had bought the Libris Mortis and played as an undead character you wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. So technically it's all their fault. After all you have to take the whole party into account when making a character.:smallbiggrin:

squishycube
2007-01-26, 06:24 PM
What's happened to good old talking about it like socially mature people? Just talk to your party about it. Tell them its not fair if you have to pay for the wand they will end up using most charges of. Tell them its not fun to do nothing but heal. If they don't listen and you still want to try to convince them, use one of the in-game tactics suggested: play a cleric of a death god, or a battle god. At least a deity that despises weakness and favours strength. Make him believe that healing during combat is weak and dishonourable.
If you don't feel like convincing your party, don't play a cleric. Play a rogue, get UMD and buy a wand of healing for yourself.
I really don't favour that situation though. The game is about having fun, with people that are fun to be with. If you have to use these political games it doesn't sound like you are having fun.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-26, 06:50 PM
What's so bad about playing a band-aid cleric? I'm not saying you should, but other people on this thread seem to say that it's a bad idea.

I find that in my group, the most useful thing I do during battle is heal. We've had people who are one hit away from dying and I bring them back to almost full health, and they keep attacking. I've had people knocked unconscious and stabilized by my spells. I've had two party members knocked out, with one stabilized and the other dying, while my only other party member was at 4hp and there was still a dragon next to me. I had to kill it.

That entire battle was difficult, but made easier by my anti-dragon aura. I had also had downdraft prepared in case it tried to fly away.

My group doesn't need me as a melee fighter. When I cast Righteous Might, the most useful thing it does for me is extend my reach so I can heal better.

My group gets buffs from me, you should see how much they like Enlarge Person. The monsters we face often have a reach of 10 or even 15 feet. Enlarged Ogres (which the DM allowed) make me useless as a melee fighter.

Dausuul
2007-01-26, 06:54 PM
As soon as you say you're making a melee cleric everyone right away assumes you'll be a walking ban-aid. They seem to never understand that cleric is capable of doing respectable damage, instead every cleric is a healer only. Also convincing the party to share resources to purchase healing wands seems to be a no no, as everyone wants to save their gold for random magic item and dump the cost of the wands on the cleric.

When you refuse to heal another member even if they did something stupid like being a rogue/monk that tries to solo monster thus soaking up damage, will draw the wrath of not just of the rogue or monk but the rest of the party. Granted if someone take massive damage from unlucky event (such as a critical hit or all the attacks on a full attack hit) I'll rush over and heal. How do you make a melee cleric without attracting flak from other party members?

Why are you refusing to heal the rogue/monk? I mean, it's no skin off your neck--a spell or two. Not like you're crippling yourself permanently there... unless you're talking about charging into serious danger that you wouldn't have been facing otherwise.

Now, the wands are another matter. Those should totally be "party items."

Matthew
2007-01-26, 07:11 PM
I have to agree. Party Healing is a shared reponsibility; purchasing magical items that do it should come from a Party Fund. Healing the other Party Members should not be the prime concern of a Cleric if other resources are available and he has other plans in mind for those Spell Slots.

squishycube
2007-01-26, 07:12 PM
What's so bad about playing a band-aid cleric? I'm not saying you should, but other people on this thread seem to say that it's a bad idea.
Well it takes all sorts. You enjoy being the healer. You take that quite far even, in my opinion (This is an observation, not a value judgment). I think the OP does not really enjoy being the healer. Apparently, more people here don't like to play the healer.

even if they did something stupid like being a rogue/monk
Actually, after reading that again, I don't think you can expect anything but judgment if you are so judgmental towards your fellow players.
1. Rogue/monks are so cool, wait till you see them in a grapple
2. That is totally not important. People play what they want to play to have fun.

You want to play a melee cleric, but your fellow players want you to heal them. They probably find it stupid you don't want to do that. One of your fellow players wants to play something you regard as stupid and refuse to heal him? See the problem here? As long as you continue judging your fellow players choices like that, they will do the same to you.

Like I said, the game is about having fun with people that are cool to be with. Make it fun then!

Comical note:
From the forum rules:

Use passive-aggressive insults, such as "Anyone who believes that is an idiot, [earns you a warning]".
Although that section of the rules refer to flaming other posters, that specific rule does not include that clause, so it could be read in a way that would include your remark "something stupid like being a rogue/monk" (implying that everyone who does play such a build is stupid).
This is exactly what I got my warning for too, which I think is sort of ironical.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-26, 07:17 PM
Why are you refusing to heal the rogue/monk? I mean, it's no skin off your neck--a spell or two. Not like you're crippling yourself permanently there... unless you're talking about charging into serious danger that you wouldn't have been facing otherwise.

Now, the wands are another matter. Those should totally be "party items."

I think it's more the principle of the thing. Everyone else gets to make their character however they want, even if it means doing a lot of sub-optimal things. Fine. What is unfair, however, is that after making said builds, everyone expects you to build your character a certain way "to make the whole party more effective" even though they are all doing the exact opposite.

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 07:49 PM
I think it goes with the territory. If you play the rogue, you expect to get lumped with the locks and traps. Thus, if you play the cleric, on some level, you are at least expecting to dish out the magical Elastoplast.

Suzaku
2007-01-26, 07:59 PM
Actually I mean low AC characters going off and soaking up damage, it was meant as an example, this would also include a fighter character that allows rogues to flank him to sneak attack him.

Caelestion
2007-01-26, 08:01 PM
Well, if you're a cleric of Arrogant Intelligence (Grey Elf ahoy!), you just say in a lofty tone, "my god does not require me to save the criminally stupid", and leave it at that.

jjpickar
2007-01-26, 08:16 PM
But it's you who ultimately decides how to use the wand. It's like a buff spell. If you cast it on yourself it only benefits you, if you cast it on someone else it benefits yu and the person receiving it. Unless you hate everyone else, there is a certain satisfaction in the fact that you helped someone. In fact that is why there is probably no true altruism in the world...:smallfrown:

But anyway, I agree with mikeejimbo. What's so bad about being a band-aid? I thought only power gamers became melee clerics. And that is only when they like to make the fighter feel so useless that he gets sick of his character and become a druid.

Dark
2007-01-26, 08:27 PM
I think the point of making a melee cleric is that you are "the fighter". Someone else should be playing "the cleric" :)

Suzaku
2007-01-26, 11:35 PM
Yea if you say melee cleric everyone else hears "Heal slave" and rolls anything that doesn't have healer stigma. Now when I start to roll a new melee cleric I say I'm playing a holy warrior like a paladin. However people are quick to pick up you're a cleric.

Sulecrist
2007-01-27, 01:34 AM
I'm calling my new Cleric a paladin. I'm sort of on my DM's good side, so they'll probably keep the metagame stuff a secret.

He IS a paladin, actually. He's a member of a holy order, striving for justice.

...One with full casting and Meta Cheese...

clericwithnogod
2007-01-27, 05:35 AM
But it's you who ultimately decides how to use the wand. It's like a buff spell. If you cast it on yourself it only benefits you, if you cast it on someone else it benefits yu and the person receiving it. Unless you hate everyone else, there is a certain satisfaction in the fact that you helped someone. In fact that is why there is probably no true altruism in the world...:smallfrown:


There is a difference between being a contributing member of the party and being abused by the other players at the table. Framing this so that the person who already has to sacrifice actions and spell slots to do things he'd rather not be doing on his turn is the selfish one for not wanting to sacrifice all of his actions and spell slots is unfair. There's a line past which team player becomes team flunky.



But anyway, I agree with mikeejimbo. What's so bad about being a band-aid? I thought only power gamers became melee clerics. And that is only when they like to make the fighter feel so useless that he gets sick of his character and become a druid.

People become melee clerics because it fits their god's portfolio, they like to do something heroic on their turn as opposed to just being a supporting character in the story, they're playing the cleric because they're the only player in the group willing to do so, or for any number of in-game or out-of-game reasons.

If you want to be a band-aid/healbot, the Healer class does that quite well. If you enjoy that, that's great. If you have a player in your group that enjoys that, that's great. Forcing a player to do it that doesn't enjoy that, that's not so great.

If the melee cleric is making the fighter feel useless, so is every other reasonably designed melee build in the game. You play a fighter or other melee-exclusive build because you want to fight and do nothing else. You get to do that. You don't need to spend your actions healing, buffing or otherwise attending to someone else except in those dire situations that you need to pour a potion down their throat to stabilize them or the party has members down and needs to retreat.

A fighter complaining about the fact that someone else can do something as well as the fighter when they're only getting to do it some of the time because the rest of the time they're doing something that needs to be done but that the fighter doesn't want to do seems kind of selfish.

daggaz
2007-01-27, 05:49 AM
Well in my campaign, I picked melee cleric because that way I could be useful in two things. We have a wizard, a rogue, and a druid. I was thinking going barbarian, but then hey, why not be a good aligned melee cleric? That way I can tank (and well), I can still spontaneously cast healing spells if need be, and I get to do all the other casting stuff as well. And in this case, the druid compliments me greatly, as he can pick up slack in both melee and healing as well.

Kantolin
2007-01-27, 06:15 AM
Personally, I find healer-clerics extremely dull.

Mostly because clerics get such lousy buffs. I mean, what... you spend your time just sitting around dully being a not-fighter, then once in awhile use an appropriately-leveled healing spell.

When I go full-support character, I go wizard; they get tons of interesting buffs to play around with. Cleric's just not very good at buffing other people.

Of course, if you enjoy playing the healer, that's fine also. Just isn't very fun for a lot of people.

When I play a cleric, I make this point up front: I do not want to sit in the back and become the heal-bot, as I do not find this interesting. As such, my friends tend to not expect that to be the case. Try being up-front and explaining this...

Saph
2007-01-27, 06:55 AM
Bear in mind that healing is very, very important in D&D, and clerics happen to be the best healers. So if you're a cleric, the party is going to expect you to be able to heal, in the same way that they're going to expect a fighter to be able to deal out damage. Doesn't mean you have to be a walking Band-Aid, but it's a good idea not to let other players down too badly.

Saying "I don't feel like casting heals" is fair enough, but don't complain if your party gets TPKed as a result. And don't laugh, I've seen it happen. We had a cleric and a paladin in the party, and neither could be bothered to make sure the party was fully healed between fights. Bad mistake. Dangerous encounter plus party at half health plus a few bad rolls equalled four dead PCs.

- Saph

Tengu
2007-01-27, 07:05 AM
Actually, since most clerics can deal a whole lot of damage rather easily, it's usually more effective to heal after the battle and concentrate on dealing damage in combat - this way the enemies will go down faster and thus will deal less damage to the meatshields. Heal in combat only if you see that someone's life, not hp, is endangered.

But I'm pretty sure someone made that point already.

Saph
2007-01-27, 07:27 AM
To be honest, my heart sinks whenever I'm rolling up a character and I hear the cleric player say something like "I don't want to have to heal you guys all the time." Because I know from experience that what that means is "I don't want to look after the party, I want someone else to do it", and I also know from experience that that someone else is likely to be me.

So I've had several games where my wizard or sorcerer or tank has had to go around after every fight and check on everyone's HP and then figure out who needs healing and then explain to the cleric that yes, healing the guy on 50% health before the next combat would be a good idea, and that yes, we probably will get more encounters before the day is over, and that no, Magic Weapon will probably not be as useful as making sure the fighter doesn't keel over from one hit.

It's gotten to the stage where when starting up a new game, I'll take a wand of cure light wounds for my character if at all possible, even if I have to max out Use Magic Device to do it, just so that the party won't be screwed if the cleric/druid player is unreliable.

- Saph

PinkysBrain
2007-01-27, 07:37 AM
I don't really see what the problem is with money. Unless you are really low level wands of CLW/LV fail to make a dent in standard reward levels. A wand of LV heals 550 hp for 750 gp, or 375 gp if you craft them yourself.

clericwithnogod
2007-01-27, 07:56 AM
If you have a problem getting the cleric to heal between combats, I think you have a viable complaint. Unless, of course, the party is flatly refusing to contribute anything toward wands, potions, etc. I've seen people complain about not getting healed when they had 10 or more cure moderate wounds potions on their character sheet and the party was deep into a dungeon where it was unsafe to rest.

Babysitting isn't the cleric's job. If your character is hurt and the cleric hasn't noticed, it's your responsibility to let him know. All groups should do a quick, informal, LACE report post-combat. If the cleric is the best option for fixing a condition, then he should step up and do it.

There is a difference between, "I don't want to be limited to doing nothing on my turns in combat but serve as a walking battery and be forced to use every single one of my spell slots on cures." and "I don't want to ever use any of my spell slots for healing/removing no matter how badly people are hurt and/or how low our other healing resources are."