No one likes playing a Cleric. Why?

[Whit]

In past editions up to 5th there has always been a lack of player interest playing a cleric in our game groups.
In my 3 groups now there seems to be a dislike of playing a cleric still.
Either a group has the one player who grudgingly plays the cleric or the closest we get is the paladin or bard for the group.
Anyone else have this issue and what can be the common factor?
Not doing the big damage seems the reason for me. What can be done if anything.

[iTreeby]

Tempest cleric or war cleric. Or trickery cleric. Don't worry about healing people.

[Mith]

I avoid Clerics because I keep thinking they operate like BECMI clerics and have set number of spell slots but spontaneously cast off of the entire Cleric spell list.

[Mjolnirbear]

Few people like to be the one sacrificing.

I'm one of them. When I have healing, it's for me. I plan on self-sufficiency. I have escape plans, or Luck, or high constitution, or whatever. I plan my resources for damage, or illusions, or controlling, or debuffs. I have zero problems tanking a hit (so maybe not entirely selfish) but spells are My Presciouses and not for the foolhardy rogue to get out of scrapes. At best, I use my abilities to benefit the team.

In Wow healing can be fun. You control players because if they do stupid things you just don't heal. It's also an amazing puzzle and challenge to raid heal. It's fun.

No such challenge exists in D&D. Its less or more resources spent on healing depending on your team's ability to stay out of trouble, but few teams make survival, minimum fuss or careful plans their priority.

Why should they? *They have a cleric along. Official dispensation to do stupid things.*

You can play a cleric with being the walking first aid kit, and if I do, I will be putting express limits on my healing. I anticipate the reaction to be less than happy, another reason I won't play a cleric.

TD:LR; would tank, but won't heal.

[ad_hoc]

Not at our table.

I would imagine there are underrepresented classes at each table. It just depends on their interests.

I would bet out of all tables Cleric is in the top half of classes played.

[SociopathFriend]

Because Cleric is a Spellcaster class that doesn't revolve around blowing stuff up and also has heavily lost its spot of, "I am the smiting arm of the gods" to Paladin even more than normal- ironically in an edition where the Paladins specifically do not have to draw power from gods. You can still make your battle Cleric but you'll always have that whisper in the back of your mind, "You're the healer bro."

Don't get me wrong, I love Cleric: walking around with that AoE slowing and damaging spell (I truthfully forget the name atm) that you can choose not to affect your allies, taking half the damage off a squishy and applying it to yourself, bringing back that dude from the brink of death (perhaps beyond) or removing those pesky diseases/curses/conditions the party is afflicted by?

This is all good stuff- it's just Clerics are (imo) much more firmly pushed towards being casters in this edition and that inherently means they get compared to other casters by way of-
Raw Dakka aka "Big damage"
Do the Things Magic aka "Utility"
Help me do the Things aka "Buff"
I'm Dying Man aka "Heal me"

And in all but healing the Cleric tends to fall short- coming comparable in buffing perhaps but mainly because buffing was so restricted in this edition. It's commonly thought of as the healer class and it's just a staple thing in games, nobody wants to be the healer.

As for your question- do you want Cleric to be more fun or do you want it to be more necessary?
Play Curse of Strahd without a Cleric and watch all the bad things just pile up on the party if you want them to appreciate Clerics more.
There's not much to be done for the fun angle- you're already more than capable of making a battle-cleric with existing sources.

[Naanomi]

Cleric has been my favorite class since at least Red Box

[Kyrell1978]

I love playing clerics, but I can't go in for the "playing one every time" role. If I play one from 1-20 I need a break for a month or two.

[No brains]

Cleric is my favorite class, albeit ironically because of this perception.

I started playing cleric because I thought nobody else would. I stuck with it because I enjoyed the feeling of (simulated) helping people.

Also Trickery cleric has tricks for all three of the game's pillars, especially if you're lucky rolling stats. It really makes you feel like your god is on your side.

Not to mention it's true when I say "I decide who lives and who dies." :smallcool::smalltongue:

[Laserlight]

In past editions up to 5th there has always been a lack of player interest playing a cleric in our game groups.
In my 3 groups now there seems to be a dislike of playing a cleric still.
Either a group has the one player who grudgingly plays the cleric or the closest we get is the paladin or bard for the group.
Anyone else have this issue and what can be the common factor?
Not doing the big damage seems the reason for me. What can be done if anything.

Someone on GitP did a survey a while back about player satisfaction with each class, and Tempest Cleric was the only class that had zero negative votes. You won't do big single-target damage, but between melee attacks (and Booming Blade if you optimize), Spiritual Weapon, Spiritual Guardians, AoE attacks including Call Lightning, a reaction attack, using Channel Divinity to maximize your damage...you'll do just fine.

[SteelArcana]

The cleric is one of my favorite classes, but there seems to be large misconceptions about them in general.

Some people try to apply MMO thinking to D&D in that they believe a cleric is little more than a heal bot. In reality, it is very inefficient to heal in combat unless someone has already dropped to 0.

I think some people tend to avoid playing the cleric because of this stigma.

[wilhelmdubdub]

I played a bard that did just about as good of a job at healing as a cleric can do. They get healing word and restoration spells, and with song of rest my party didn't miss having a cleric at all. I do want to try the zeal domain cleric from Amonkhet, however.

[Pex]

I had played a cleric in a campaign from level 1 to 9. I had cast a healing spell exactly once, the first session at 1st level. Afterwards we got by on healing potions and rests. At level 4 I took the Healer feat. That was all that was needed. 5E spreads the healing around, so the cleric can cast other spells. However, whether I'm playing a cleric or not we're a party, not individuals who just happen to be attacking the same opponents. If a fellow PC needs help we help and don't resent it. If that means a healing spell he gets a healing spell.

We like our clerics and our clerics like us. No one sacrifices anything.

[Keravath]

I think it is probably because most people fall into believing the "healer" hype which has been in existence since 1e. However, in 1e you pretty much did need a cleric since healing was often needed and no one could feasibly provide it besides the cleric. Then D&D evolved and even with the changes the cleric retained much of the "healing" and "support" roles while a lot of folks like to effectively attack opponents. However, in 5e, between guardian spirits, spiritual weapon, the level 8 damage enhancement feature that goes up again at higher levels ... as well as medium/heavy armor, shields and in some cases martial weapons ... a cleric can be a good front line combatant and be able to heal and support (bless is great) as fits the bill.

The other aspect that may dissuade folks from playing clerics is the religion aspect. They have to worship a divinity from whom they derive their powers. Someone who is religious might feel uncomfortable playing a character that worships some other god. On the other hand, other players who aren't religious might be similarly uncomfortable having to role play a character that does believe in a god.

So between the healer trope and the divine worship there are some reasons folks might decide to play other classes rather than a cleric.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, I know a lot of players don't like clerics because they dislike fantasy religions.

Also, but the books and rules, the cleric is just a warrior with some magic that can heal too. And that makes for a bit of a bland class.

[dejarnjc]

I don't even think clerics are one of the 3 least played classes...

[Mellack]

According to the D&D Beyond data they released a while back, Cleric was the 5th out of 12 most played. So I think the belief that nobody wants to play a cleric might just be your group.

[McSkrag]

According to the D&D Beyond data they released a while back, Cleric was the 5th out of 12 most played. So I think the belief that nobody wants to play a cleric might just be your group.

FWIW Here is that analysis by FiveThirtyEight:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/

[Naanomi]

There is reason to suspect the Beyond data isn’t representative of real table play trends; but I still would guess Cleric isn’t the least played class in 5e. Fighter has probably been the least played at tables I’ve run, but I don’t suspect that is representative either

[Tanarii]

I avoid Clerics because I keep thinking they operate like BECMI clerics and have set number of spell slots but spontaneously cast off of the entire Cleric spell list.BECMI clerics had to prepare specific spells in their slots, including multiple times if they wanted multiple casts, and forgot them after casting.

Same as BECMI magic-users except they had access to the full spell list to choose from. And their spells weren't as comparatively awesome to magic-user spells as they are now.

[Sigreid]

Clerics are pretty popular in our group, but we tend not to do the be really stupid and make the cleric spend all his or her resources healing us thing.

[DeadMech]

Clerics are generally powerful and fill a niche in the party that almost always needs to be filled. But that niche is the one that gets the most flak from the party. The party what doesn't tend to actually understand the mechanics of that niche. So they push the cleric to play in the least optimal and least fun way. Also it feels like an obligation instead of a choice.

The argument that clerics aren't fun to play because of the religious aspect I think has some truth to it. I can't speak for a religious person but as a non-religious one, the idea of playing a religiously themed character is somewhat off putting. I don't have much issue playing a believer when it comes to other classes. The mindset is easy enough to understand. There is proof of the afterlife and the gods in DnD. I can look up a handful of things off a wiki about my character's god that I can sprinkle about on occasion. But basing a character almost entirely off of those anemic entries means I have to make up pretty much every aspect of a religion and then wrap almost everything about my character around that.

One other thing is that I'm not terribly fond of playing dnd characters who don't own their own power. Most classes don't have to worry about stepping on the wrong toes once and loosing all their abilities. I might lose my spell book as a wizard but I can prepare for that with a backup. I'm generally not going to loose both at the same time. But a strict DM might decide to punish me for behavior completely justifiable to me but unforgivable to them.

I think it's very much worth noting that everything I posted has basically come down to the belief's and perceptions some people have about clerics more so than things that are 100% factual about clerics. Clerics don't have to be healbots. They don't have to be zealots who spend all day every day trying to convert people and who spend every waking moment living for and serving their god.

The breakdown of how many people play all the classes doesn't look that bad perhaps at first glance. And yes it's not 100% accurate as a scientific survey I'm sure. But consider this. Cleric is the 5th most played class in a game typically played with 4 person parties and cleric is the default assumption for the niche it's meant to fill. The other two primary classes that fill that niche...are 10 and 12.

Every table seems to have trouble filling out different niches. I once rolled up on a party that consisted of 3 squishy full casters. No trapmonkey, no meatshields.

[Willie the Duck]

I think it is probably because most people fall into believing the "healer" hype which has been in existence since 1e. However, in 1e you pretty much did need a cleric since healing was often needed and no one could feasibly provide it besides the cleric.

Agreed. There is probably a bit of in-game cultural baggage. Up until 4th edition, if you intended to have any form of significant healing outside of going back to town to recuperate, it was done through a cleric (to the point where in the BECMI basic D&D rules, there was no natural healing rules). Thus the cleric got seen as something of a hit point battery for the rest of the party. In 3e, they gave the cleric so much compensation to convince people to play them that they turned into highly exploitable characters. So they for 34 years or so, the cleric was either no fun to play, or so overpowered you were assumed to have chosen it for cheesy reasons. 4e happened and I forget what clerics were like, but like 5e, you didn't need one in your group.


Now, clerics are just fine. Good even. However, they are probably a little harder to pigeonhole than a wizard (predominantly a weapons-platform for their spell list), or a martial (predominantly finding add-ons to add to their 2+ attack rolls). They are like a rogue--you have to figure out how to make them effective as much as you can--but with a spell list instead of mostly at-will abilities. You have to do a lot of thinking, weighing of options, and rationing scant resources.

Even then, my experience is that clerics are pretty popular. I think fighters, rogues, and wizards get the most play in my group, and bards, paladins, warlocks, and sorcerers get a whole lot of spotlight time online. But I think Cleric is most players' 3rd or 4th choice of preferred class.

[AvatarVecna]

There's two giant reasons in my mind why cleric comes across as unfun to play - one that is a function of support roles in general, and one that is a result of the cleric fluff. The mechanical reason, of course, is complicated, though, so here's a few things that tie together into the larger mechanical point:

Firstly, the way D&D is set up, tanking is inefficient - enemies just deal far too much damage to just sit there and soak while people fire. Optimally speaking, the best ratio of DPRs to Tanks is infinite...that is, doesn't matter how many DPR, still don't take a tank. Paladin can take more hits than monk, and monk can avoid more hits than paladin, but neither is relevant if they can't deal damage and force the enemy to focus them. The only real way to be a tank in D&D is to be too dangerous for the enemy to ignore your attack routine. Aura abilities that boost the defenses of nearby teammates is the closest this game comes to real tank powers.

Secondly, it's well-known that D&D operates under "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", and the literal Cure spells are where it shows best: Cure Wounds heals {spell level}d8+{casting stat} HP to one target, while Heroism gives {casting stat} HP to {spell level} target(s) every round for up to a minute. Heroism prevents far more damage than Cure Wounds cures for an action you can take before the fight (meaning it's potentially an action economy advantage as well).

Thirdly, cleric has a medium skill floor, where doing well as cleric requires a good bit of tactical knowledge. Even in heavy armor, you have to worry about OAs, so venturing into melee to heal-touch a fallen ally is always risking that the action you're about to take will cost you more HP than you're healing, meaning you're effectively trading your HP for somebody else's. And you need to make sure that after you've moved, you're potentially in position to heal any of your allies that might go below 0 before your next turn. Meanwhile, most of the DPR classes have an inherently lower skill floor: barbarian, most fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlocks just slash/blast/fire away. Battlemasters, Monks, and Paladins tend to be a bit more involved tactically, as do the blaster-caster types, but you get the idea.

Fourthly, of all the ways you can support your degenerate teammates, giving them HP is the easiest for them to waste by being braindead. Buff spells like Shield Of Faith, Haste, Bless, Enlarge, and so on do all the work; all the teammate has to do is the one thing they were going to be doing anyway. But if you're spending a healing spell on somebody, it's probably because they went below 0, meaning they've maybe got 13 HP and they're one hit away from dying anyway. Maybe they'll play more defensively, and not waste the spell and action you spent getting them back in the fight. Or maybe they'll charge the dragon again, deal a tiny bit more damage, and need more healing.

The end result of all of this: your team needs DPR classes to win, and doesn't necessarily need a healer...but a healer makes it easier for the DPR classes to do their job without worrying about getting offed, meaning they can turn their brains off and duke it out for glory and victory. Meanwhile, cleric is a much more tactically-intensive job where you succeed or fail not on the merits of your own strategic skill but on the ability of your degenerate teammates to not **** up their simple job. Oh and you know that if they fail to kill the other side before the other side kills them, it's not gonna be their fault for not killing foes fast enough, it's going to be the cleric's fault for not healing them fast enough. Playing support in general, and healer in specific, is a difficult thankless job that's successful due to pure luck...and you can choose that, or you can choose a DPR class that's going to spend every round having fun and not worrying about half of that crap. Even if you want a non-DPR role, go for Wizard or Bard - at least that way, you're able to support more with buffs than healing, and you're still getting that tactical challenge you might love. But a cleric? If you're playing anything other than a healbot, expect endless ****ing whining, especially when they get hurt. Expect somebody to go Paladin or Bard so the team at least has a "real healer".

...oh, and I almost forgot the other side of things, the fluff reason cleric sucks. While they don't technically exist in this edition, and it's a **** move to mechanically enforce such a thing, the fact is that when you make a cleric (and to a far lesser extent, a monk or paladin), you are tying your fluff to a religion, to a faith, and almost certainly to a deity. Your power flows from your gods power, and if you wanna continue gaining it without suffering consequences, you're gonna be a good little zealot and following the ****ing scripture.

[CTurbo]

I've found Clerics to be really popular, and I really like the 5e Cleric too.

I believe the issue you're seeing, if there is one, is that healing is over-rated in 5e, but luckily Clerics can do so much more than just heal.

Most of them make great tanks, all of them are great at buffing and supporting, and some of them are down right brutal in dealing damage.

The Tempest Cleric is quite possibly my favorite in all of 5e, and properly setup, can be one of the highest dpr single class characters.

[Naanomi]

Its kind of a shame that in the process of making a heal-bot unnecessary (a good thing) they made it impractical at all. I *like* healer/support roles; I wish they could have found a better balance point to make it still viable without being demanded

[sithlordnergal]

I started playing a Cleric in a group with a Monk, Bard, and Hexblade. I eventually swapped to a different character with the DM's permission because I realized the only thing my Cleric really did was give out Guidance and use Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians.

Now I will readily admit part of the fact that I didn't have as much fun was because I wasn't optimized from the start. I went with a Half Orc race, so I only had a 14 Wisdom at level 1. And was only able to boost it up to 16 at level 4. But it quickly became apparent that having a DC 14 for spells was not going to cut it at levels 5-8.

To make matters worse, the Cleric spell list didn't have anything all that useful outside of Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. Due to our party composition my Cleric was the front line tank...only he didn't have the damage output a front line tank needs in order to be efficient. And the Bard had the better initiative, so nine times out of ten, if someone needed healing the Bard would toss a Healing Word. Which essentially negated any use for my healing.

With the exception of one battle against shadow demons, which were weak to Radiant Damage, my cleric did very little overall. And I eventually swapped to a Paladin/Druid that could tank effectively while still having the DPR to justify being up front.

[Mith]

BECMI clerics had to prepare specific spells in their slots, including multiple times if they wanted multiple casts, and forgot them after casting.

Same as BECMI magic-users except they had access to the full spell list to choose from. And their spells weren't as comparatively awesome to magic-user spells as they are now.

We must have had some mix up at the time, because we always had spontaneous casting from entire list. It was not as awesome of a spell list, but it was functional, and between spells and hitting things with a mace, you could do pretty well for yourself.

[R.Shackleford]

In past editions up to 5th there has always been a lack of player interest playing a cleric in our game groups.
In my 3 groups now there seems to be a dislike of playing a cleric still.
Either a group has the one player who grudgingly plays the cleric or the closest we get is the paladin or bard for the group.
Anyone else have this issue and what can be the common factor?
Not doing the big damage seems the reason for me. What can be done if anything.

Never heard of people not wanting to play clerics, i've seen more "one class" campaigns where everyone picks a cleric come up than I care to count.

Cleric is my favorite grappler caster and a knowledge domain MC rogue is straight up scary as a sabotage build.

[BoxANT]

current campaign I am running Knowledge Cleric (w/ 2 level wiz dip for portent), very powerful.

highest level Aid for buff, and healing word, all you need to do for support.

spirit guardians, spiritual weapon, and sacred flame (or word of radiance for more aoe), lots of damage


lots of utility, out of combat and in, fun, so i dont see the issue

[Xetheral]

Personally I find clerics "meh" in 5e. I think it's because they have a small handful of truly amazing spells that are great in a wide variety of circumstances. There's rarely a reason to cast anything else, so they become repetitive quite quickly.

They also don't have many features that make them appealing to multiclass, and those they do have are either at first level (e.g. Disciple of Life, domain-granted heavy armor proficiency) or come rather late (e.g. Potent Soellcasting). There really isn't any reason to take 2-5 levels in Cleric in a multiclass build, and that cuts down on how often you see the class at tables where multiclassing is encouraged. (Also, if you just want the good Cleric spells, Divine Soul Sorcerer is more appealing since it comes with Metamagic, or Lore Bard if you just need a particular spell or two.)

[Theodoric]

I think the dull religious servitude aspect is only as significant as people make it; you don't have to bring that sort of cultural baggage to the game if you don't want to. One of my players currently has a Tempest cleric who worships Thor in his aspect of a 'drunken lout who kills monsters with hammers and lightning', and who's never been a part of any established church.

[MeeposFire]

Never had an issue getting clerics in my games though back in older D&D the healing issue made the class not so much for a number of players who felt they got stuck into that role all the time. Thankfully that has not been a problem in 4e or 5e where a bit of the combat healing can be handled without costing you the ability to do something fun like attack. Also the caster cleric archetype (rather than weapon based cleric) is better supported now than back in pre 4e days so now for my players that did not want to smack somebody with a mace can actually feel ok about it and not feel like they are wasting something.

[MeeposFire]

Agreed. There is probably a bit of in-game cultural baggage. Up until 4th edition, if you intended to have any form of significant healing outside of going back to town to recuperate, it was done through a cleric (to the point where in the BECMI basic D&D rules, there was no natural healing rules). Thus the cleric got seen as something of a hit point battery for the rest of the party. In 3e, they gave the cleric so much compensation to convince people to play them that they turned into highly exploitable characters. So they for 34 years or so, the cleric was either no fun to play, or so overpowered you were assumed to have chosen it for cheesy reasons. 4e happened and I forget what clerics were like, but like 5e, you didn't need one in your group.


Now, clerics are just fine. Good even. However, they are probably a little harder to pigeonhole than a wizard (predominantly a weapons-platform for their spell list), or a martial (predominantly finding add-ons to add to their 2+ attack rolls). They are like a rogue--you have to figure out how to make them effective as much as you can--but with a spell list instead of mostly at-will abilities. You have to do a lot of thinking, weighing of options, and rationing scant resources.

Even then, my experience is that clerics are pretty popular. I think fighters, rogues, and wizards get the most play in my group, and bards, paladins, warlocks, and sorcerers get a whole lot of spotlight time online. But I think Cleric is most players' 3rd or 4th choice of preferred class.

I think if we are being honest the cleric had been "overpowered" as a means to get people to play far before 3e. The idea of giving the cleric additional power to compensate for being "boring" seemed to be prevalent pre 4e though it always seemed to me so backwards. If you want people to enjoy playing a class more why not just make it more fun which thankfully they really have done a better job of that in 4e and 5e (though spontaneous casting in 3e did help but it did not help the if you are healing you are not doing anything fun at that point problem).

[CTurbo]

I can see a Cleric being really boring if you're just playing it as a heal bot. I've played 4 Tempest Clerics, and healing has always been low on the priority list.

I've seen a War Cleric be awful since the guy tried to play him as a heal bot.

I've seen a guy get bored with a Life Cleric despite the fact that he always had a big hand in things because he felt like he had to heal and buff all the time.

I've seen a guy have a great time playing a Light Cleric as a blaster that hardly ever healed in combat.

I've always enjoyed my Tempests as all 4 of them have been very different and they all have had a huge hand in all pillars of the game. I'm even the party face in one campaign as a Protector Aasimar Tempest.

[Mikaleus]

I played a Forge Cleric in a one shot.

In my current campaign I’m a Ancients paladin do it kind of felt like a more caster -style paladin.

I enjoyed the class and I hope to play a Grave, nature or order domains next campaign.

[vexedart]

Played a v human arcana cleric with booming blade, would 1st round spirit guardians and spiritual weapon, round 2 I’d run in and take the dodge action, warcaster procs an Attack of opportunity with booming blade when they try to get out of spirit guardians range, either way, it’s going to hurt, staying in, or crawling out. Noticed that combo works best on melees to keep them away from your squishier team mates. Melees also seem to have weak wisdom saves.

Tier 1 clerics are good, tier 2 they’re quite possibly the strongest class or one of them, after that though, they get kind of boring. Tier 3 they’re solid but it’s hard to find something as nice as your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells. Tier 4 is kind of mediocre, the other full casters seem to be leagues ahead. I guess you’ve got a once a week get out of trouble card by asking your god for help. I find most of my slots are spent just upcasting spirit guardians and spiritual weapon with the occasionally desperate healing word.

[Arkhios]

Probably just me, but I think cleric is often rejected because of its implicit connection to being a worshiper of a deity. Doesn't matter which deity.
I've found that some atheistic/agnostic players (I know a few myself) frown upon anything related to gods, even if they are fictional gods, while they have no problem whatsoever to play a bard or druid which are second best to being the group's dedicated healers.

It's probably a bit far-fetched, but that's my hunch of the reason.

As to what could be done to that prejudice, I can only guess, because everyone reacts differently to these matters.

I'd probably try to drive the point home that playing a cleric doesn't mean you have to be a "preacher" who constantly tries to convert others to their faith.

FWIW, while I squarely fall into the agnostic-atheist category, I have played a cleric, multiple times. Most recently in a 5e one-shot, I had a 5th level Mountain Dwarf cleric of Moradin with the War Domain (the game was a coversion of a classic: The Battle of Emridy Meadows).

[Spore]

I dont like clerics because they seem to be forced into melee all the time. That is why I prefer alternate divine casters. Like Celestial Warlocks, or Divine Soul Sorcerers, Pathfinder's Oracles, Inquisitors, or just Paladins if I WANT to go melee.

I always found it weird that the churches went: "do you realize where our trickery cleric would be best placed on the battlefield? Right behind the frontlines. Yup, that's it." the vastly different dogmas of the domains would actually require a more modular experience. Why does my nature cleric get heavy armor? Have you even TRIED hunting, swimming or even foraging berries in a plate armor? Why is the trickery cleric as tanky as other clerics?

I prefer my clerics like the priests in Warcraft or Warhammer. Robes' wearing divine scholars. Maybe they just get Cha/Wis + Dex on their AC, and still the option for medium armor.

[Arkhios]

I prefer my clerics like the priests in Warcraft or Warhammer. Robes' wearing divine scholars. Maybe they just get Cha/Wis + Dex on their AC, and still the option for medium armor.

I can relate, somewhat. However, the class fantasy of a cleric in D&D derives from medieval crusades, where even the priests wore armor and fought side-by-side with the rest of the forces. A militant priest is significantly more likely to be adventurous than a robe wearing scholar, if you'd ask me.

That said, I could see the clerics as having only the light armor as default (I wouldn't give them anything related to Unarmored Defense on their own; it could be a domain feature though), while the medium and/or heavy armor proficiency would come from domain as it does now.

[CTurbo]

I agree about Nature Cleric. Giving them heavy armor is a real head scratcher for sure. I think only War, Life, Tempest, and Forge should get heavy armor.

[sophontteks]

Probably just me, but I think cleric is often rejected because of its implicit connection to being a worshiper of a deity. Doesn't matter which deity.
I've found that some atheistic/agnostic players (I know a few myself) frown upon anything related to gods, even if they are fictional gods, while they have no problem whatsoever to play a bard or druid which are second best to being the group's dedicated healers.

It's probably a bit far-fetched, but that's my hunch of the reason.

As to what could be done to that prejudice, I can only guess, because everyone reacts differently to these matters.

I'd probably try to drive the point home that playing a cleric doesn't mean you have to be a "preacher" who constantly tries to convert others to their faith.
Yeah, I think you have a point there. I've studied a lot of religious history, but unforuntately when I bring up anything positive about religion in front of some company, it like sets some people off. I'm not talking about faith, just straight history, but it stirs some incredibly violent reactions. Suffice to say, I can see people like this not wishing to play anything remotely like a cleric.

[Amdy_vill]

In past editions up to 5th there has always been a lack of player interest playing a cleric in our game groups.
In my 3 groups now there seems to be a dislike of playing a cleric still.
Either a group has the one player who grudgingly plays the cleric or the closest we get is the paladin or bard for the group.
Anyone else have this issue and what can be the common factor?
Not doing the big damage seems the reason for me. What can be done if anything.

It sounds like your players think in 5e they need a cleric, witch is untrue. In 5e unless you only have 2 players you don't need a cleric. even in 2 player groups there are other options, so it may be that your players feel there being forced to have a character in there party that they don't want to play.

In my groups we have only had 3 clerics. Our current game has 2, me as a thurgy(city domain) wizard witch is just a wizard cleric and we have a life domain cleric. Both of us love playing the class. but we play it because we like the flavor and roll. So we have never had a problem with people not liking or wanting to play cleric.

[Beckett]

Something else I would add is that even for 5E, Clerics seem to have do few good options.
There are not a lot of interedting or useful magic items for Clerics (Holy Avenger), and most of the ones Clerics will want are A.) kind of later game like magic Full Plate and B.) things half the other Classes will want to. Basically they are hoing to want the same rewards as either Martial Classes or other Caster Classes, but do not really have anything that is really that good for themselves.

Spell selection after 2nd Level Spells seems pretty bland, which means many Clerics, regardless of Domain will play very similarly, mechanically.

I am religious myself, and while I like the Cleric, (less so than 3E or prior), I do have issues with the religion aspect. If I can, I use archetypes for my faith, "follower of the light" or "of death", but for myself, I draw a line at playing a follower of real world dieties. Fake ones, like the FR pantheon is okish, and again I do more of a generic archetypal Cleric, but I wish they would straight up leave that aspect up to the individual to handle.

[DarkKnightJin]

My Dragonborn Death Cleric was a former Soldier, offered the setting's God of Death the souls of his enemies in exchange for his own continued survival.

It worked, because he's still alive. After a while, he started feeling a bit bad about the killing, and he started showing respect to the departed.

Now, he travels around to find glory, to become a figure of legend. And, apparently, his deity needs him to do some fighting to ensure things don't go down the crapper.

He's pious in the sense that he shows the deceased NPCs they find respect (and doesn't allow the party to desecrate coffins and such), but he has little qualms about defending himself or his friends when **** goes down. Though he prefers to talk things out amicably over wanton murder.

As long as you don't tick him off, he's about the nicest guy you're likely to meet.
But get on his bad side, and he'll use whatever he's got at his disposal to make sure you meet up with his god.

Tl;dr: I have fun playing my Cleric, and I made it very clear to everybody at the table that he will not 'waste' a slot on healing you unless he absolutely has to.

[Corran]

Every time I am thinking of rolling up a cleric, the mechanics pull me away from a heavily armored character build that is using a str-based weapon (partly due to how not all domains grant heavy armor proficiency; but that aside, I don't think there is any incentive for a cleric to invest points in strength). So, putting aside some very rare occasions when I have a certain concept in mind that deviates from what I consider to be a classic cleric (eg I once played an arcana cleric dressed in robes, posing as a wizard in a arcane-caster-less world), that's a deal breaker for me.

[Sigreid]

You could point out to some players that the way it's written in 5e you actually don't have to be a follower of a deity. In older editions your power came from your faith. In this edition the deity chooses to invest you with holy power for its own reasons. It's a little weird to think of a cleric vested with genuine holy power that doesn't follow the god granting that power, but it's technically an option. Perhaps said deity has enough foresight to see that this individual will advance its interests just due to his or her nature.

[MoiMagnus]

The main issues for me are:

1) People think they need a cleric. That's wrong. Sure, having a cleric in the world really help, but it can be a NPC (a mentor, the quest guy, ...). In the middle of an adventure, you won't need it, it will just change the way you play. (If you really want a healer, Druids with the "Healing spirit" spell are good healer too)

2) When there is a cleric in the team, people assume he is a healbot and should be a healbot. I had a cleric in my team, and he cast "animate dead" more frequently than healing spells. This issue is particularly important because most players don't like when the remaining of the team expect something from them. They usually like to help each others, but they don't like having the social dictate "you are supposed to heal other players".

3) Cleric are not as "flashy" as the other classes. But I found out (as a player), that cleric is a lot more interesting when the pantheon of gods was actually interesting. Whatever the edition of D&D, the few times I said to myself "I want to be a cleric", it was because "I want to be a cleric of THIS god". Everytime I was thinking the other way around, it was: "I may make a cleric, here are the domains I like, so what god can I serve? I don't want any of them."

4) Religion is often boringly represented in world building. Frequently, that's a boring "Good vs Evil". Sometimes, that's a as boring "Religion vs Arcane/Science". That's not appealing. Sure, that's not easy to come up with a world building where religion is interesting, but gods are not too powerful (powerful gods always cause the "why is this even a problem?"), but it does not help.
-Arcane has forgotten artifact, lost magic, forbidden magic, ...
-The non-magical world has political intrigue, war, guilds, ...

[mephnick]

Personally I find clerics "meh" in 5e. I think it's because they have a small handful of truly amazing spells that are great in a wide variety of circumstances. There's rarely a reason to cast anything else, so they become repetitive quite quickly.

I like Clerics but this is my main beef with them as well. I've played a few now and DM'd for probably a dozen and they all feel pretty similar. No matter how you build them, you're still casting Spirit Guardians/Spiritual Weapon/Toll the Dead every combat. I managed to slightly change it by casting Spirit Guardians/Spiritual Weapon/GFB every combat...

Also their high level spell list is boring as hell. There's like one good spell at each level past 5th, so everyone takes the same ones.

A lot of people praise the variety of domains, but in my experience those don't actually go very far to differentiate any given Cleric at the table.

[Millstone85]

You could point out to some players that the way it's written in 5e you actually don't have to be a follower of a deity. In older editions your power came from your faith. In this edition the deity chooses to invest you with holy power for its own reasons. It's a little weird to think of a cleric vested with genuine holy power that doesn't follow the god granting that power, but it's technically an option. Perhaps said deity has enough foresight to see that this individual will advance its interests just due to his or her nature.Those players could then point out that the PHB describes a cleric's powers as coming from "devotion".

When the PHB asks if the god chose you, "impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes", it could just mean that you did not seek to become a cleric and did not feel ready for the responsibilities that come with it, not that you weren't one of the faithfuls.

But I wouldn't be against an "I don't believe in Her but I guess She believes in me" kind of cleric. It sounds pretty fun.

Edit: Never use such a sentence about IRL faith or lack thereof, as it amounts to a bad pun on different meanings of the verb. It is different in a fantasy world where a god's existence isn't in question.

[Digimike]

Played a v human arcana cleric with booming blade, would 1st round spirit guardians and spiritual weapon, round 2 I’d run in and take the dodge action, warcaster procs an Attack of opportunity with booming blade when they try to get out of spirit guardians range, either way, it’s going to hurt, staying in, or crawling out. Noticed that combo works best on melees to keep them away from your squishier team mates. Melees also seem to have weak wisdom saves.

Tier 1 clerics are good, tier 2 they’re quite possibly the strongest class or one of them, after that though, they get kind of boring. Tier 3 they’re solid but it’s hard to find something as nice as your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells. Tier 4 is kind of mediocre, the other full casters seem to be leagues ahead. I guess you’ve got a once a week get out of trouble card by asking your god for help. I find most of my slots are spent just upcasting spirit guardians and spiritual weapon with the occasionally desperate healing word.

I played a near identical build as well. It was a blast.

[EvilAnagram]

You know, I've never had a bad time playing a cleric. They're useful and versatile, able to turn around a potential TPK with healing. On top of that, the cleric-god relationship is fun to play with. I played a priest of Umberlee who hated his job, but someone has to keep shipping lanes open, no matter how many baby animals it takes.

[Beckett]

I think if we are being honest the cleric had been "overpowered" as a means to get people to play far before 3e. The idea of giving the cleric additional power to compensate for being "boring" seemed to be prevalent pre 4e though it always seemed to me so backwards.

One of the hiven reasons that 3E boosted the Cleric was because the devs had been playing a game where a giant had dropped a character. The Cleric ran over to heal them and provoked, getting critted which unluckily killed the Cleric straight out, which activated Cleave and killed the other character as well. I can't remember the full story, but the implication was it was unexpected and there was little other choice besides just letting the character die. That was part of the rrasoning for boosting the class.
It was also an attempt to make it more general so it could be played as a White Mage, War Priest, or whatever right out of the box.

[Sception]

Im not a huge fan of clerics in 5e because they get saddled with the healer role based on player expectations if nothing else, and healer just isn't a fun or efficient in-combat role in 5e, just like it hasn't been in pretty much any edition with the notable exception of 4e. In 4e you had resources and actions exclusively devoted to healing outside of your normal power set, and many cleric powers simultaneously attacked enemies while healing your allies. And you healed for A LOT, and since regular heals worked by activating what are basically hit dice in 5e, your heals automatically healed more for the party tank who was typically taking more damage to begin with due to their marking abilities.

And enemies, especially in later monster manuals after formula tweaks, were doing a lot of damage, so that healing really mattered.

4e tank and support class design was fantastic. Almost as fantastic as its striker and controller design was shoddy and inconsistent, since over the entire course of that game the designers never seemed to successfully work out exactly how much damage a striker is supposed to be able to do or what exactly the "controller" role even meant, leading to drastic disparities in the usefullness of strikers and controllers from class to class that only seemed to get worse as new classes were released.

But back to healers, 4e was really only able to make healing a functional and rewarding combat role by basically making it obligatory. Every "leader", even those based more on buffing than healing, had a badeline of healing ability, and the game just assumed that you would have one in your party in a way that 5e doesn't. And since 5e doesn't assume that, maybe thats why combat heals in 5e are generally so weak? Hardly healing at all, almost never healing and doing something else in the same turn, apart from the healing word spell which restores such a lathetic amount of hp that its not good for much other than waking prone targets, and even then it's eating spell slots from other spells, unlike its 4e counterpart.


Cleric isn't a bad class. Basically being a more magic, less melee oriented paladin, with a significant amount of subclass variety. But it cant shake the combat healer association, and 5e is back to classic D&D healing mechanics, which just aren't good or engaging in combat.

[Sigreid]

Those players could then point out that the PHB describes a cleric's powers as coming from "devotion".

When the PHB asks if the god chose you, "impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes", it could just mean that you did not seek to become a cleric and did not feel ready for the responsibilities that come with it, not that you weren't one of the faithfuls.

But I wouldn't be against an "I don't believe in Her but I guess She believes in me" kind of cleric. It sounds pretty fun.

Edit: Never use such a sentence about IRL faith or lack thereof, as it amounts to a bad pun on different meanings of the verb. It is different in a fantasy world where a god's existence isn't in question.

Well, the holy man angry at the God that gives him power is a trope I've seen quite often.

[EvilAnagram]

I don't buy the, "Healing isn't effective," meme. My party tends to be 5-6 players, and my DM runs deadly encounters frequently. Healing, even relatively inefficient healing, has proven to be very successful at keeping people up. Yeah, killing creatures removes a threat from the board, but you can't always remove a threat on your turn, which makes protecting your allies a reasonable priority. Boosting the fighter to 62 HP before he takes 59 damage keeps him on the game another round, while pop-up healing rarely works well.

[Whyrocknodie]

Playing the hero or the villain, I want it to be my own power. Being the subservient mook of an extraplanar entity is for extras or ultimately pathetic villains that get eaten by whatever they just summoned.

[EvilAnagram]

Playing the hero or the villain, I want it to be my own power. Being the subservient mook of an extraplanar entity is for extras or ultimately pathetic villains that get eaten by whatever they just summoned.

Meh. Western literature is full of figures like El Cid, Galahad, and Roland who accomplish feats of great heroism in service to both their kings and their God. For fantasy equivalents, you can look to Gandalf, Moiraine Damodred, or Tavi. I understand that it may not be your cup of tea, but the "hero who serves" is a mainstay of Western literature.

Come to think of it, it's also a mainstay of East Asian literature.

[Willie the Duck]

I think if we are being honest the cleric had been "overpowered" as a means to get people to play far before 3e. The idea of giving the cleric additional power to compensate for being "boring" seemed to be prevalent pre 4e though it always seemed to me so backwards. If you want people to enjoy playing a class more why not just make it more fun which thankfully they really have done a better job of that in 4e and 5e (though spontaneous casting in 3e did help but it did not help the if you are healing you are not doing anything fun at that point problem).

I think it always will depend on gaming style. In oD&D, the 'no-magic swords' limitation, as compared to the fighting man, was supposed to be a big deal, since high-level fighters might well have had a golf bag full of intelligent magic swords, each of which granted him spellcasting powers on top of his fighting skill, etc., while the cleric just had their somewhat decent inborn gish talent. In AD&D, clerics had spellcasting and martial skill which was fairly decent... right up until you compared it to a fighter with 18/## strength. Of course, if your fighters didn't have 18/## strength, then their fighting skill was not that different from a cleric (maybe that says more about the fighter class construction). And of course 2e--boy, that's going to depend on which version of cleric (/priest) you were using, since those were all over the map.


One of the hiven reasons that 3E boosted the Cleric was because the devs had been playing a game where a giant had dropped a character. The Cleric ran over to heal them and provoked, getting critted which unluckily killed the Cleric straight out, which activated Cleave and killed the other character as well. I can't remember the full story, but the implication was it was unexpected and there was little other choice besides just letting the character die. That was part of the rrasoning for boosting the class.
It was also an attempt to make it more general so it could be played as a White Mage, War Priest, or whatever right out of the box.

Certainly sounds plausible. All my resources for interviews like that were wiped with the Wizards boards, so I can never recheck what I think I remember.

[Chaosmancer]

I think it is probably because most people fall into believing the "healer" hype which has been in existence since 1e. However, in 1e you pretty much did need a cleric since healing was often needed and no one could feasibly provide it besides the cleric. Then D&D evolved and even with the changes the cleric retained much of the "healing" and "support" roles while a lot of folks like to effectively attack opponents. However, in 5e, between guardian spirits, spiritual weapon, the level 8 damage enhancement feature that goes up again at higher levels ... as well as medium/heavy armor, shields and in some cases martial weapons ... a cleric can be a good front line combatant and be able to heal and support (bless is great) as fits the bill.

The other aspect that may dissuade folks from playing clerics is the religion aspect. They have to worship a divinity from whom they derive their powers. Someone who is religious might feel uncomfortable playing a character that worships some other god. On the other hand, other players who aren't religious might be similarly uncomfortable having to role play a character that does believe in a god.

So between the healer trope and the divine worship there are some reasons folks might decide to play other classes rather than a cleric.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Some people are stuck thinking in terms of healing and some don't like the themes.

But, Damage as a cleric isn't hard. Had a guy take shilelagh and green flame, 4d8+5 at will at level 11. And full casting plus heavy armor.

Clerics can be beasts

[Max_Killjoy]

The argument that clerics aren't fun to play because of the religious aspect I think has some truth to it. I can't speak for a religious person but as a non-religious one, the idea of playing a religiously themed character is somewhat off putting. I don't have much issue playing a believer when it comes to other classes. The mindset is easy enough to understand. There is proof of the afterlife and the gods in DnD. I can look up a handful of things off a wiki about my character's god that I can sprinkle about on occasion. But basing a character almost entirely off of those anemic entries means I have to make up pretty much every aspect of a religion and then wrap almost everything about my character around that.

One other thing is that I'm not terribly fond of playing dnd characters who don't own their own power. Most classes don't have to worry about stepping on the wrong toes once and loosing all their abilities. I might lose my spell book as a wizard but I can prepare for that with a backup. I'm generally not going to loose both at the same time. But a strict DM might decide to punish me for behavior completely justifiable to me but unforgivable to them.


Those would in general terms be my two reasons for hesitating to play cleric-type characters.

Warlock has a lot going for it, it's a really interesting class mechanically, but the whole thing with being utterly dependent on outside forces for your major abilities is a huge stop sign for me.

[Monktor]

Because many players view the game as them being the hero, and the hero needs to be the guy killing the villain, not saving their companions.

You can get more eloquent on that, or dive into the nuance of religion and such within the game, but that's the core of the reason.

[Waterdeep Merch]

This is so weird to me. Clerics are the #2 most popular class at all of my tables behind rogues, and have been since I started DM'ing back in 3.0.

But come to think of it, I never saw a cleric when I played in 2e.

...And I was the only one that played cleric in the 3.5 games I didn't DM.

...And I've seen exactly one cleric in the PF games I didn't DM.

...

That probably means I'm doing something different, but I'm not sure if I could put my finger on what. Even in established settings, I give the clerics a lot of free reign to 'design their faith', come up with customs and rules, and I like to roleplay their god talking to them from time to time. Usually in glowing terms, as their god functions more like a doting mother/father. Even the destructive ones. Especially the destructive ones, really.

Something in that, maybe?

[Xetheral]

I like Clerics but this is my main beef with them as well. I've played a few now and DM'd for probably a dozen and they all feel pretty similar. No matter how you build them, you're still casting Spirit Guardians/Spiritual Weapon/Toll the Dead every combat. I managed to slightly change it by casting Spirit Guardians/Spiritual Weapon/GFB every combat...

Also their high level spell list is boring as hell. There's like one good spell at each level past 5th, so everyone takes the same ones.

A lot of people praise the variety of domains, but in my experience those don't actually go very far to differentiate any given Cleric at the table.

Those were exactly the spells I had in mind. There's simply no room for interesting tactical choices when the most effective reply to any situation is always the same.

Sometimes that's fine: for character concepts that aren't focused on combat, having a single, powerful fallback ensures you can contribute, which frees up your other build choices for non-combat options. Warlocks are a great example: with Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast, the character can effectively contribute in combat for the rest of its career, and the entire rest of the character is available to customize to whatever ends you want. In constrast, Clerics' go-to abilities are leveled spells, tying down the majority of their daily resources, and they don't have many interesting non-combat options on their spell list in the first place.

[strangebloke]

Your assertion is a baititing title.

No, they aren't unpopular. They make up roughly 10% of all characters built on DNDbeyond, (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) which makes them the 5th most popular class in the game. Fighters, Rogues, Wizards, and Barbarians are all more popular, but Bards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Monks, Paladins, and Druids are all less popular. The Cleric is the least popular of the 'big four' but not by much.

Now, I have the temerity to assume that if someone plays a class, its because they like it. Its possible that there are swathes of people out there joylessly playing clerics, but I doubt it.

Look, the cleric isn't a heal-bot. They may not have much customization possible in their spell list, but their subclasses are a huge portion of their power base and they've got a lot of subclasses with a high degree of variety. If you're finding them too samey, that's... kinda on you. Try a light cleric or a knowledge cleric or an arcana cleric. Play a war cleric with Sharpshooter.

there's certainly more differentiation between two clerics than there is between two DPR-focused fighters.

[Beckett]

Something I always thought would be interesting is to build the Cleric almost off of the Druid, as the Druid, across most Editions, has plenty of circumstantial, but flavorful Class Feature bonuses.

Instead of things like a little bonus against Fey, Animals, or Plants, A Cleric could get a small bonus against either Fiends or Undead for interactions, or possibly saves for their protective spells or something.

[EvilAnagram]

Those were exactly the spells I had in mind. There's simply no room for interesting tactical choices when the most effective reply to any situation is always the same.

Sometimes that's fine: for character concepts that aren't focused on combat, having a single, powerful fallback ensures you can contribute, which frees up your other build choices for non-combat options. Warlocks are a great example: with Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast, the character can effectively contribute in combat for the rest of its career, and the entire rest of the character is available to customize to whatever ends you want. In constrast, Clerics' go-to abilities are leveled spells, tying down the majority of their daily resources, and they don't have many interesting non-combat options on their spell list in the first place.

I never had that problem with the cleric. Sure, sometimes I would use the spirit/spirit combo, but I also frequently used Call Lightning with my Tempest cleric, and I would usually use melee in melee because his melee was pretty useful. My Light cleric, in contrast, rarely entered the melee, playing like any fiery blaster, but with healing and Blessor Faerie Fire. In contrast, my Trickery cleric was focused on debuffing and healing, with some cantrips.

Sure, you can play a cleric as a cookie-cutter character, but that doesn't mean you have to.

[MThurston]

Clerics are awesome.

[Theodoxus]

Cleric has been my favorite class since at least Red Box

Me too! I play healers in every game I can. I even play one in Fortnite, as best I can.

In D&D, every time I've played anything else, I've gravitated back to cleric. It fulfills every niche I prefer to play, and then some.

Heavy armor tank? check - Life, Nature, Order, Tempest, War

Smarty smart skillmonkey? check - Knowledge

Dexy dex skillmonkey? check - Trickery

Blaster? check - Light, Tempest

Classic healbot? check - Life

One Stat to Rule them all? check - Nature

About the only legitimate playstyle that's difficult is a decent archer build. It's certainly not impossible, just sub-optimal.

[strangebloke]

I never had that problem with the cleric. Sure, sometimes I would use the spirit/spirit combo, but I also frequently used Call Lightning with my Tempest cleric, and I would usually use melee in melee because his melee was pretty useful. My Light cleric, in contrast, rarely entered the melee, playing like any fiery blaster, but with healing and Blessor Faerie Fire. In contrast, my Trickery cleric was focused on debuffing and healing, with some cantrips.

Sure, you can play a cleric as a cookie-cutter character, but that doesn't mean you have to.

Right. Spirit Guardians is good, but is it really all that much better than fireball? Or Plant Growth?

Hitting people with a sharp stick doesn't really even get bad until level 10 or so, so there's real cause for people who decry a cleric building into melee specialization. Heck, the Arcana Cleric can focus on booming blade or green-flame blade as her primary attack cantrip for levels 1-20.

Even spiritual weapon has to get in a certain number of hits before its worth the slot. To compare, scorching ray deals 6d6=21 fire damage. To best that a spiritual weapon has to attack 3 times. The spiritual weapon is more 'efficient' in terms of action economy, but its damage is also delayed. So in that scenario, if a scorching ray takes out two hobgoblins on the first round of combat, the scorching ray was much much better. Now, obviously that only applies to light clerics, but many clerics get some kind spell that competes with spiritual weapon. Tempest Clerics might prefer to upcast thunderwave or shatter instead of spiritual weapon.

[EvilAnagram]

Right. Spirit Guardians is good, but is it really all that much better than fireball? Or Plant Growth?

Hitting people with a sharp stick doesn't really even get bad until level 10 or so, so there's real cause for people who decry a cleric building into melee specialization. Heck, the Arcana Cleric can focus on booming blade or green-flame blade as her primary attack cantrip for levels 1-20.

Even spiritual weapon has to get in a certain number of hits before its worth the slot. To compare, scorching ray deals 6d6=21 fire damage. To best that a spiritual weapon has to attack 3 times. The spiritual weapon is more 'efficient' in terms of action economy, but its damage is also delayed. So in that scenario, if a scorching ray takes out two hobgoblins on the first round of combat, the scorching ray was much much better. Now, obviously that only applies to light clerics, but many clerics get some kind spell that competes with spiritual weapon. Tempest Clerics might prefer to upcast thunderwave or shatter instead of spiritual weapon.

To add to this, any cleric with Divine Strike can take a feat to get Booming Blade. At level 8, that's adding 2d8 thunder damage per melee attack. At level 14, you're adding 4d8 thunder damage to your melee hits that's third-level spell damage as a no-cost action.

[Xetheral]

I never had that problem with the cleric. Sure, sometimes I would use the spirit/spirit combo, but I also frequently used Call Lightning with my Tempest cleric, and I would usually use melee in melee because his melee was pretty useful. My Light cleric, in contrast, rarely entered the melee, playing like any fiery blaster, but with healing and Blessor Faerie Fire. In contrast, my Trickery cleric was focused on debuffing and healing, with some cantrips.

Sure, you can play a cleric as a cookie-cutter character, but that doesn't mean you have to.

True, although since Clerics have access to all the spells on their list you can't deliberately build a character not to have access to those options, which makes not using them somewhat harder (although certainly not impossible) to justify IC.

Out of curiosity, what was your melee cleric concentrating on in lieu of Spirit Guardians? And what did all four of the Clerics you listed do with their bonus actions? I've had a hard time thinking up bonus action uses for clerics that aren't Spiritual Weapon.

[Pex]

Its kind of a shame that in the process of making a heal-bot unnecessary (a good thing) they made it impractical at all. I *like* healer/support roles; I wish they could have found a better balance point to make it still viable without being demanded

You can do it with feats. Healer heals a lot more than a low level spell. Inspiring Leader provides more temporary hit points than Aid. If you choose to have both you're golden.

[Xetheral]

You can do it with feats. Healer heals a lot more than a low level spell. Inspiring Leader provides more temporary hit points than Aid. If you choose to have both you're golden.

Agreed. Healer and Inspiring Leader (and Gourmand!) can make for an amazing healer of any class. Add Guidance, Historian, and three levels of Mastermind Rogue and you've got a fantastic support character. Of course, only Guidance is Cleric-specific (or Druid, or Tome Warlock, or Divine Soul Sorcerer), so it doesn't do much to help make the class more appealing.

I once played a high-level Tome Warlock/Mastermind Rogue with that combination. His Book of Shadows was a cookbook, and his Rod of the Pact Keeper was a ladle. He was an obnoxious busybody who was constantly droning on with historical anecdotes (think an academically-minded Jans Jansen) that the other PCs tolerated because (1) he made very tasty stew, and (2) advantage and +1d4+4 on all non-reactive ability checks was rather potent, even at high level.

[Chaosmancer]

I'm kind of surprised at the number of "I'm my own man, I don't need help to be a hero" responses. It makes sense in a way, but I'd never considered that kind of independence as a reason someone wouldn't play a cleric.

One thing I agree with from earlier is that well made pantheons help. I've struggled a few times with devout characters (I like exploring religious and spiritual themes in game) because the god or goddess doesn't have more than a fortune cookies worth of lore to work with. Blank canvasses can be inspirational, but they can also be annoyingly too much work.

[Beckett]

I'm kind of surprised at the number of "I'm my own man, I don't need help to be a hero" responses. It makes sense in a way, but I'd never considered that kind of independence as a reason someone wouldn't play a cleric.

One thing I agree with from earlier is that well made pantheons help. I've struggled a few times with devout characters (I like exploring religious and spiritual themes in game) because the god or goddess doesn't have more than a fortune cookies worth of lore to work with. Blank canvasses can be inspirational, but they can also be annoyingly too much work.

I think it is more that people worry that a DM might strip a Cleric of their power if they disagree with a Character/player choice. 5E does not seem to allow it so much, but it was a common element in older editions. Besides the LG-Only Paladin, no other Class had anything like that.

I have seen it a few (rare) times personally, and heard a few horror stories, but would not say it is that common.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm not one for playing spellcasters, but If I were I'd choose Cleric, because they have only a few great combat spells. Then I'd prepare a load of utility spells for out of combat.

Pretty much the same way I'd play a Ranger or Eldritch knight.

Different strokes and all that I guess.

[strangebloke]

True, although since Clerics have access to all the spells on their list you can't deliberately build a character not to have access to those options, which makes not using them somewhat harder (although certainly not impossible) to justify IC.

Out of curiosity, what was your melee cleric concentrating on in lieu of Spirit Guardians? And what did all four of the Clerics you listed do with their bonus actions? I've had a hard time thinking up bonus action uses for clerics that aren't Spiritual Weapon.

There's this really silly idea out there that if you're not concentrating on a spell and you're not using all of your action economy, that you're somehow falling behind.

That's not accurate at all. Otherwise a TWF fighter would be the best fighter.

There are lots of spells a cleric can be concentrating on at any given points. TBH my cleric mostly used silence in combat and grappling as a way to nullify enemy spellcasting. Spirit Guardians isn't unique for being the best concentration spell. It is the cleric's best AOE but there's no reason you can't get fireball or plant growth or just let another spellcaster handle AOE. Spirit guardians is actually kind of a pain when you get down to it because it requires the cleric to be in melee range, and a lot of clerics don't care to be there.

Spiritual Weapon is... great, I guess. It's 1d8+WIS damage a round! For free! ...well, except that it doesn't do much on the round you cast it, its easy for the weapon to get outrun and in a position where it can't hit anything, and it potentially prevents you from casting some other excellent spell on the first round. As to other usages of bonus actions, well, you could pick up shield master, or use a War Cleric's bonus attack, or cast sanctuary, shield of faith, or healing word or... well, there's tons of options, aren't there?

[Millface]

I can see how some people are turned off by the class because of the whole "gods" thing. When I DM, I don't care if you're a cleric to a specific god or maybe just an ideal or set of principles and you pull your magic from all the gods as opposed to a specific one, you don't have to necessarily be religious at my table.

Still... You'll never catch me dead playing a cleric as long as the Divine Soul exists.

They're second in overall maximum healing output because of metamagic, their level one ability is bonkers good, and they have several strong offensive options as well. They Multiclass with Warlock 2-3 (Tome or Chain or Hexblade) to be ranged support with strong EB, or Paladin 2 for full plate and smites.

You can have heals and support spells available while also being one of the strongest DPR combos in the game... why wouldn't you do that? I don't think it's that Cleric is undertuned, either, I think Divine Soul is just too good. Sorlock and Sorcadin were already top tier, give them Spirit Guardians, Twinned Cures, and the ability to summon/planar bind a Couatl to follow you around all the time and nobody in their right mind is going to look at the two classes and think... hmmm... I'd rather have less I can do.

Don't get me started on other Classes that at least get heals/supports. Lore Bard, Sword Bard, and Shepherd Druid would all hit my list of "healer" classes I want to play far before Cleric. Shepherd especially. Conjure Animals with that temp HP from the totem is more support than anything any other class can do IMO. It tilts the action economy and total HP pool in the parties favor so hard I'm surprised the table doesn't tilt. The best healing is, after all, preventing the party from being hit in the first place.

[strangebloke]

Still... You'll never catch me dead playing a cleric as long as the Divine Soul exists.


Haha. enjoy your 16 spells known. I know my entire spell and can prepare a list of 35 spells in any given day.

Go ahead and multiclass to paladin for a level! You'll be a level behind in ASIs and spellcasting and I've had all that stuff since level 1.

Clerics are one of the strongest classes in the game. The Divine Soul has a better spell list and metamagics, and a few really good MC options, but claiming that it strictly outclasses the Cleric is ludicrous. The Divine Soul can't even ritual cast, and it certainly can't provide the flexibility and utility of a cleric.

To be clear, I like sorcerers. Divine souls are cool and potent! But they don't fill the same niche as a cleric at all. Clerics are generalists with lots of utility magic. Sorcerers are hyper-specialized casters with broken combo spells.

[Millface]

Haha. enjoy your 16 spells known. I know my entire spell and can prepare a list of 35 spells in any given day.

Go ahead and multiclass to paladin for a level! You'll be a level behind in ASIs and spellcasting and I've had all that stuff since level 1.

Clerics are one of the strongest classes in the game. The Divine Soul has a better spell list and metamagics, and a few really good MC options, but claiming that it strictly outclasses the Cleric is ludicrous. The Divine Soul can't even ritual cast, and it certainly can't provide the flexibility and utility of a cleric.

To be clear, I like sorcerers. Divine souls are cool and potent! But they don't fill the same niche as a cleric at all. Clerics are generalists with lots of utility magic. Sorcerers are hyper-specialized casters with broken combo spells.

*Shrug* I'll give you utility. I think that a Bard has arguably more out of combat utility, ritual casting is great, I'll give you that, too. I'm not in any way saying that Clerics aren't viable or even strong, almost every class in 5e can be strong.

Buuuut... there actually is support value in damage. If the monster dies one or two rounds faster the damage prevented needs to be added to the equation. At the end of the day, it's all down to Party Damage and effective HP > Monster Damage and Effective HP. If the monster does more damage, and you heal it off, that's good. If the monster is unable to do damage due to CC or because it's dead? That's better 100% of the time. That's the case in every game.

Healing and Utility are absolutely necessary, don't get me wrong. A healing word on a down character is about the same value as preventing a hit completely in many cases, but aside from the bare minimum needed to keep the party on two feet, any extra in combat healing is wasted value. Divine Soul can reach that threshold without issue while doing far more damage than the Cleric.

This is all from a min max standpoint, however, and I won't presume to have bottled fun and know the only recipe! The above are just the reasons why I wouldn't play a Cleric. 16 spells, capping at 8th level instead of 9th, and losing 1 ASI are worth it for me to be able to provide more value in combat. Outside of Combat I lean on Charisma, but in general there's not much our party ever seems to be lacking if we don't have a Cleric for rituals and other utility. The bard or wizard cover those things just fine.

Alternatively, I could just roll a Shepherd Druid and have similar spell ability and variety while still offering more value in a fight. No ritual casting, still, but straight classed Shepherd has a ton of ASIs to play with, you can make up for that with feats.

[Beckett]

Not so ludicrous really, if you keep in mind that there are a lot of Cleric spells you may never use and Sorcerer Spells that might do a better job at things.

Thats not to say one is strictly better or anything, but that it is probably not as bad as it seems.

[Naanomi]

You can do it with feats. Healer heals a lot more than a low level spell. Inspiring Leader provides more temporary hit points than Aid. If you choose to have both you're golden.
So the best way to be a dedicated healer is... heal before and between fights? Not exactly the feel I am going for. I don't want it to be *necessary* to heal people in combat, but I also would like the opportunity for it to be a good tactical choice to potentially specialize

[strangebloke]

snip

You don't understand the power of utility magic. Healing word brings an ally back into the fight. Protection from poison keeps the whole party standing after the Green Dragon's breath attack. Silence lets the party move through a castle without alerting enemies. Silence lets you nullify an enemy spellcaster. Identify lets you avoid getting yourself killed by a curse, detect magic lets you avoid magic traps, find hidden magic loot, and warns you of magical subterfuge (sometimes).

And yes, they also get preventative perks. But the thing to realize with clerics is that preparing healing word and prayer of healing in a given day is basically no overhead, and you don't even need to bother with that if you don't want to.

Damage isn't a debuff. Deadness is. Damage can get you there, sure, but any damage less than the monster's HP total has a low impact on the fight.

[Millface]

Not so ludicrous really, if you keep in mind that there are a lot of Cleric spells you may never use and Sorcerer Spells that might do a better job at things.

Thats not to say one is strictly better or anything, but that it is probably not as bad as it seems.

Cure Wounds, Bless, Healing Word, Shield, Scorching Ray, Spirit Guardians, Hex, Revivify, Remove Curse, Armor of Agathys, Banishment, Commune, Planar Binding, Magic Circle, Raise Dead, Heal, Conjure Celestial, and Teleport or Plane Shift are my planned spells for my Hexblade/Divine Soul currently. It's 18, because two of them are Warlock spells, but yeah.

I can Quicken, Twin, or Extend any of those. Create new spell slots barring that for more mileage. It's enough of a kit for me. I can't pick up every spell I want, of course, but I can pick up the important ones. If you're hurt after the fight, I got you. If you're dead after the fight, I got you. If we're stuck and need to Commune? I got you. Real Bad Monster that needs to go away for a bit? I got you. At 15th Level I have a Couatl bound that adds a both restorations and more healing.

While I'm doing that I'm also top tier in Nova from level 5-20. So yeah, if I can cover the Cleric basics and still dish out silly damage, I'm going to do that instead, and I think that's common and one of many answers for why people might not like cleric as much.

[MeeposFire]

I think it always will depend on gaming style. In oD&D, the 'no-magic swords' limitation, as compared to the fighting man, was supposed to be a big deal, since high-level fighters might well have had a golf bag full of intelligent magic swords, each of which granted him spellcasting powers on top of his fighting skill, etc., while the cleric just had their somewhat decent inborn gish talent. In AD&D, clerics had spellcasting and martial skill which was fairly decent... right up until you compared it to a fighter with 18/## strength. Of course, if your fighters didn't have 18/## strength, then their fighting skill was not that different from a cleric (maybe that says more about the fighter class construction). And of course 2e--boy, that's going to depend on which version of cleric (/priest) you were using, since those were all over the map.



Certainly sounds plausible. All my resources for interviews like that were wiped with the Wizards boards, so I can never recheck what I think I remember.

Yea in my experience the cleric was by far more likely to have that 18/xx str since they had a large number of spells that increase str to that level whereas you had to be lucky to get str that high with a fighter and honestly unless you did get str at that level I would not advocate going for high str with a fighter as it was a waste for the most part in AD&D unless you could get an 18/xx str (int was a much better stat assuming you used the languages for prof rules and used a wide assortment of carious weapon, NWP, and weapon style rules).

Yea the 2e priests were all over the place though the cleric itself was by far the most powerful on the whole unless you used some of the really nasty priests from the FR Faiths and Pantheons book. It even calls it out as such in the priest book.

As for the story while I do not doubt that the story happened but what they did does not follow the implied consequences of the story. A cleric provokes an opportunity attack and gets killed by a giant but as we know that is not something that they ever adjusted for in 3e as clerics always had that issue unless that is where they came up with defensive casting but that is not a cleric specific ability. I mean at the end the 3e still would have died in that scenario assuming they let themselves get into that situation nothing they added would have prevented it.

Really the 3e cleric is mostly the same as the previous clerics. The ability to wear good armor, effective weapons, fair attack bonus, decent hp, and more all came from the original cleric. The big things that 3e gave the cleric that gave it some more power was giving it up to 9th level spells (though this is not as big as you might think since previously they had quest spells that filled a similar niche and further while it has 9th level spells as we know 3e has a tendency to put spells in different levels despite being the same spell and some higher level spells in 3e would have been just 7th level spells before) and later divine feats so that turn undead could actually be useful. The turning abilities I do not like to count specifically as being designed to improve cleric power because from what I have seen is that the designers did not know how powerful they were making those feats and further considering their timing and how powerful the cleric is without them I do not believe they were put in to specifically buff the cleric (more likely if it was to buff anything it was put in to buff the paladin whose turning was almost completely useless otherwise).

[Millface]

You don't understand the power of utility magic. Healing word brings an ally back into the fight. Protection from poison keeps the whole party standing after the Green Dragon's breath attack. Silence lets the party move through a castle without alerting enemies. Silence lets you nullify an enemy spellcaster. Identify lets you avoid getting yourself killed by a curse, detect magic lets you avoid magic traps, find hidden magic loot, and warns you of magical subterfuge (sometimes).

And yes, they also get preventative perks. But the thing to realize with clerics is that preparing healing word and prayer of healing in a given day is basically no overhead, and you don't even need to bother with that if you don't want to.

Damage isn't a debuff. Deadness is. Damage can get you there, sure, but any damage less than the monster's HP total has a low impact on the fight.

Not if the monster dies a round sooner than it might have. The number of rounds a battle takes always adds to the monster's side of the equation, not the party.

Protection from poison is the only combat related situation up there that the Divine Soul can't also do. If it's not a life cleric in question, the Divine Soul simply outheals a cleric in combat healing because they can apply metamagic to the healing.

As far as all the other things you mentioned... I have Eldritch Sight to detect magic, every Wizard I've played with has Identify, and Silence, while cool, can cause just as many problems for the party as it does the enemy if you're chock full of casters. It does have it's uses, sure, but at that point... Bard. It's not at all that I undervalue utility, and I'm pretty sure there's not much about it that I "don't understand", it's just already present elsewhere on classes that can do those things AND are better at other important things like CC or pure damage.

I suppose my argument is that a party with a Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Fighter, and Rogue would be better from a min max standpoint to go with a Shepherd Druid or Sorlock Divine Soul in the Cleric spot. The only time I don't see this to be true is if there are no other casters in the party, at which point yes, the Cleric is going to have alot of shoes to fill and the more specialized Druid and Sorlock won't be able to offer the things the party needs them to.

[Beckett]

As for the story while I do not doubt that the story happened but what they did does not follow the implied consequences of the story. A cleric provokes an opportunity attack and gets killed by a giant but as we know that is not something that they ever adjusted for in 3e as clerics always had that issue unless that is where they came up with defensive casting but that is not a cleric specific ability.

I honestly don't remember the full details, but it was one of the reasons they buffed the Cleric before 3E was released, (to the Class that was released). I seem to recall it having to do with lower HP and no shields. Essentially they didn't want the Cleric to be like a liability that stood back as much.

The only point being that to encourage more people to play it was not the only reason, though probably is a bigger one.

[R.Shackleford]

Haha. enjoy your 16 spells known. I know my entire spell and can prepare a list of 35 spells in any given day.

Go ahead and multiclass to paladin for a level! You'll be a level behind in ASIs and spellcasting and I've had all that stuff since level 1.

Clerics are one of the strongest classes in the game. The Divine Soul has a better spell list and metamagics, and a few really good MC options, but claiming that it strictly outclasses the Cleric is ludicrous. The Divine Soul can't even ritual cast, and it certainly can't provide the flexibility and utility of a cleric.

To be clear, I like sorcerers. Divine souls are cool and potent! But they don't fill the same niche as a cleric at all. Clerics are generalists with lots of utility magic. Sorcerers are hyper-specialized casters with broken combo spells.

I love the Cleric, but the Sorcerer's Metamagic more than makes up for the lack of spells known.

After years of playing Sorcerers, the lack of spells known isn't actually noticed. More spells know is nice, but I many times I've found that I don't switch spells much when playing a wizard or cleric. I have my core spells and I (and others I know) don't deviate from those.

I think the cleric is one of the most versatile classes out there. You can go physical and magical or one or the other. Best grappler class in the game as they have some nice bonus action spells (and spiritual weapon is an Attack and no concentration). So I don't say this because I hate the Cleric.

But the Cleric doesn't have cool features outside of spells. Channel Divinity and their subclass features don't outweigh the Metamagic and Sorcerer subclass features. Subclasses* are about equal and metamagics are just amazing amd totally stomps on channel divinity.

When it comes to the strongest classes in the game, Sorcerer stands right next to the Cleric. Subtle Spell is one of the most broken abilities in the game. Might not come up all the time in battle, but in the social/explorative side of the game? I'll take subtle hold person, charm person, or whatever else in order to totally destroy my enemies.

[Tanarii]

Dexy dex skillmonkey? check - Trickery
.This is a common misconception. Trickery Clerics are neither exceptionally Dex-oriented nor skill monkey-ish.

They're defensive-oriented and social utility.

[Beckett]

Just out of curiosity, not that I have a huge amount of 5E experience, but do you think being able to Channel Divinity more often would help? 1+Wis/ Long Rest?

Personally, besides Turn Undead, Im not sure I have used it. Partially because the 1/Day aspect and partially it just didn't feel very good, (War).

[Daghoulish]

Just out of curiosity, not that I have a huge amount of 5E experience, but do you think being able to Channel Divinity more often would help? 1+Wis/ Long Rest?

Personally, besides Turn Undead, Im not sure I have used it. Partially because the 1/Day aspect and partially it just didn't feel very good, (War).

Channel Divinity is a short rest or long rest resource. Also at 6th, and 18th you get additional uses. Giving you 2/per rest most of the game and 3/per rest at the end of the game.

[kivzirrum]

Just out of curiosity, not that I have a huge amount of 5E experience, but do you think being able to Channel Divinity more often would help? 1+Wis/ Long Rest?

Personally, besides Turn Undead, Im not sure I have used it. Partially because the 1/Day aspect and partially it just didn't feel very good, (War).

I think they already get enough Channel Divinity as they level up. Even with a decent Wisdom score, I'm pretty sure they already get more than that!

Anyway, I've never played 5e, only DM'd, but one of my players is having a lot of fun with her cleric. She really likes healing but also is one of the bigger badasses in our group. If I played, cleric would rank pretty high in the classes I'd want to try.

[Millface]

Just out of curiosity, not that I have a huge amount of 5E experience, but do you think being able to Channel Divinity more often would help? 1+Wis/ Long Rest?

Personally, besides Turn Undead, Im not sure I have used it. Partially because the 1/Day aspect and partially it just didn't feel very good, (War).

I don't think they need to be better, really, it's just that they aren't what the majority of people think is fun.

Having a spell for every situation, good buffs, and healing is really great for any group, it's just not as fun to do those things as it is to bash monters in the face or explode them with fire.

[Keravath]

Played a v human arcana cleric with booming blade, would 1st round spirit guardians and spiritual weapon, round 2 I’d run in and take the dodge action, warcaster procs an Attack of opportunity with booming blade when they try to get out of spirit guardians range, either way, it’s going to hurt, staying in, or crawling out. Noticed that combo works best on melees to keep them away from your squishier team mates. Melees also seem to have weak wisdom saves.

....



A couple of comments ...

1) If you cast a bonus action spell (Spiritual weapon) you can ONLY cast a cantrip using your action. So casting guardian spirits and spiritual weapon in the same round doesn't work.

2) I think you didn't phrase your second point very well.

I think you are saying that you run next to an opponent and dodge so that on their next turn they have the choice of attacking you with disadvantage or moving away and taking an op attack from booming blade. However, the way it was written it sounds like you get the op attack when they run out of the spirit guardians spell which isn't correct.

[strangebloke]

I don't think they need to be better, really, it's just that they aren't what the majority of people think is fun.

Having a spell for every situation, good buffs, and healing is really great for any group, it's just not as fun to do those things as it is to bash monters in the face or explode them with fire.

And yet, they're far more popular than most other classes in the game.

Your unfounded assertion is completely contrary to all the data we have.

[Kite474]

Yeah this thread kind of feels like its falling into small reference pool syndrome. We have surveys from WotC and Cleric is shown to be an incredibly popular class.

Do people think there could be improvements? Absolutely. But its by no means an unpopular class

[Chaosmancer]

Spiritual Weapon is... great, I guess. It's 1d8+WIS damage a round! For free! ...well, except that it doesn't do much on the round you cast it, its easy for the weapon to get outrun and in a position where it can't hit anything, and it potentially prevents you from casting some other excellent spell on the first round. As to other usages of bonus actions, well, you could pick up shield master, or use a War Cleric's bonus attack, or cast sanctuary, shield of faith, or healing word or... well, there's tons of options, aren't there?

I wonder what you mean by "doesn't do much the round you cast it".

Are we talking 1d8+mod isn't much for a second level slot and the spell needs to be active a few rounds to be cost effective?

Cause if that's the case, I pretty much agree with the spells weaknesses. I find then mitigated by tightly packed battlefields and the fact we've had spiritual weapons count for flanking, but yeah, there are other good options.

[strangebloke]

Yeah this thread kind of feels like its falling into small reference pool syndrome. We have surveys from WotC and Cleric is shown to be an incredibly popular class.

Do people think there could be improvements? Absolutely. But its by no means an unpopular class

Druids get played 2/3 as much. Sorcerers and Monks are pretty low as well. Clerics are popular.

Now, admittedly part of that is the MMO/MOBA player base who immediately urge one player to pick up a healer.

The three clerics I have seen at my table had the following reasons:

1. Was deliberately trying to parody the 'my heals are not good enough' character type.
2. Wanted to play a support character for a bunch of newbs. Never healed though.
3. Multiclassed Wizard/Knowledge Cleric who was going for a character that knew everything.

And actually I don't think its even a small reference pool issue. I think most people here like clerics just fine.

[MeeposFire]

I honestly don't remember the full details, but it was one of the reasons they buffed the Cleric before 3E was released, (to the Class that was released). I seem to recall it having to do with lower HP and no shields. Essentially they didn't want the Cleric to be like a liability that stood back as much.

The only point being that to encourage more people to play it was not the only reason, though probably is a bigger one.

I do not doubt the veracity of the story but it still does not make much sense at least in terms of the problems brought up in the story and then what they did. For instance what you are talking about buffing is stuff the cleric had had for decades at that point. D8 hit dice and shields were both the standard for clerics in 1e and 2e AD&D so giving clerics those abilities is not a buff as it was keeping them the same. So what did they do to actually buff the cleric from that story? The story makes sense for the development of defensive casting but for specifically buffing clerics I just do nto see how it works.

However as a counterpoint I would remark that at least to me over the years it has become my opinion that the people in charge of making changes for 3e had no real idea of what they were doing and what the consequences were going to be. They had some good ideas such as such as simplifying things to being more of just one type of resolution method (D20) and making things all based off of addition and the like but they made a ton of little changes which alone do not seem like much but if you go back and start listing the effects of all the changes you start realizing how badly it hurt the game (my opinion the small changes that make for the biggest effects and in many ways problems in the game are the full attack action and the change of saving throws). Since they seem to have so little grasp on what they are doing I will say it is possible that they would make changes that now make little sense due to a situation such as this brought up in the story.

[EvilAnagram]

Out of curiosity, what was your melee cleric concentrating on in lieu of Spirit Guardians?
As I said, Spirit Guardians made its appearances, but so did Bless, Banishment, and Beacon of Hope (it was Curse of Strahd, and losing characters to domination was not fun). Of course, Call Lightning was probably my most frequent concentration spell because the damage and minor control were so useful.


And what did all four of the Clerics you listed do with their bonus actions? I've had a hard time thinking up bonus action uses for clerics that aren't Spiritual Weapon.
Well, War Clerics have an attack, but mine did not. When it seemed like a battle would consist of a bunch of people rushing to a single point, then Spiritual Weapon made sense. However, it often as not wasn't applicable because combat was mobile or I was operating at a significant range. Spiritual Weapon only works well if someone is there to lock the enemy in place, which isn't terribly useful to a buffy/blaster style of play. And, since my table tends to have longer combats that wear down the party, Healing Word and Mass Healing Word both made frequent appearances.

Oh, and there are like a half-dozen other bonus action spells in the first five levels of cleric spells. I don't personally go for any of them, but that's just me.


Just out of curiosity, not that I have a huge amount of 5E experience, but do you think being able to Channel Divinity more often would help? 1+Wis/ Long Rest?

Personally, besides Turn Undead, Im not sure I have used it. Partially because the 1/Day aspect and partially it just didn't feel very good, (War).
Well, you get to use it once or twice per short rest, so you should be using it six times per day at level 6.

And the War domain has a great Channel Divinity option! It's really hard to miss when you can arbitrarily add 10 to an attack roll, and after you hit level 6 you can use it to help a barbarian, rogue, or paladin hit for tons of damage.

[Trampaige]

Why I don't like clerics? Because I can't get over decades of 'SPILLING BLOOD IS A SIN ONLY BLUNT WEAPONS REEEEEEEEE' even though clerics can run around dual wielding short swords or swinging a great axe in 5e.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah this thread kind of feels like its falling into small reference pool syndrome. We have surveys from WotC and Cleric is shown to be an incredibly popular class.

Do people think there could be improvements? Absolutely. But its by no means an unpopular class

I'm working on an improvement for my groups. Won't be following the D&D ideology of the sorcerer.

I'm turning the sorcerer into a basic class. At first level you can choose thebtype of sorcery you have created/gained.

Cleric, Wizard, Warlock, Bloodline, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Bard will all be subclasses of the sorcerer... Maybe throw in the Monk too, I love the 4 element monk even if its less than stellar.

Depending on your choice, you get specific spell lists. Wizard subclasses get more spells known, spell book, but other subclasses have their own perks.

Will go spell points variant but Metamagic will be based around short rest, like once per short rest and then you must start paying thr point tax. No seperate point pools.

[carrdrivesyou]

I enjoyed playing clerics in earlier editions, but the 5e cleric seems to be strictly focused on spellcasting. Barring the Life domain, they aren't better healers than anyone else that has access to those particular spells, such as the celestial warlock and the lore bard. Even so, splashing a couple levels gets you everything you want out of the class as a whole. Even then, healing isn't so much a requirement as a suggestion in 5e.

While it does have solid offensive capabilities, they are all kind of bland and outdated. It doesn't bring anything new to DnD. its the same old tropes wrapped up in a neat package that just looks boring. Flamestrike, sacred flame, etc. Yawn.

Overall, the class is just tired and needs a fresh image. If WotC came out with a solid Necromancer cleric (akin to the Dread Necro of 3.5), I would totally be interested. But no, they keep adding the same old flavors and expect people to get excited about it.


TL;DR: The class is sub-par compared to other options in terms of both offense and defense. Yes, it has a few unique abilities, but nothing over the top or to get excited over. I'd rather play literally anything else with a spell list.

[Beckett]

I don't know. I enjoy my War Cleric, though I do wish there was a more melee Orison similar to Sacred Flame.

A little more variety would be nice, both in spells, but also as you said a good "Evil" or Necro Cleric.

Elemental Clerics too.

[R.Shackleford]

I don't know. I enjoy my War Cleric, though I do wish there was a more melee Orison similar to Sacred Flame.

A little more variety would be nice, both in spells, but also as you said a good "Evil" or Necro Cleric.

Elemental Clerics too.

They went so far toward pleasing the sacred cow that they forgot the thing that a lot 2e, 3e, and 4e players have in common. We love options.

I think some sacred cows need to be kept, but some sacred cows need to be slaughtered. Don't save a sickly cow if it means the healthy cows are going to start getting sick.

I love the Cleric, but it isn't thr best designed class and has been severely lacking in options.

[Tanarii]

Having a spell for every situation, good buffs, and healing is really great for any group, it's just not as fun to do those things as it is to bash monters in the face or explode them with fire.
I know a bunch of players that resemble this remark.

Not the majority by any means. But there's a large minority that will always play the guy with the huge sword, the stabby rogue, or the blast-y mage. Tanking or healing or support just isn't their thing at all.

Luckily 5e has the War, Tempest and Light Clerics. This types of players will totally play those characters once you point out what they can do.


And actually I don't think its even a small reference pool issue. I think most people here like clerics just fine.Yeah. OP is definitely begging the question.

[Beckett]

They went so far toward pleasing the sacred cow that they forgot the thing that a lot 2e, 3e, and 4e players have in common. We love options.

Im not sure what you mean? In what senses? I agree that 5E Clerics don't seem to have a lot of <at least good> options, but that seems more of a 5E thing.

Turn/Destroy Undead is really the only sacred Cow the Class has besides the generic Divine Spellcasting warrior concept, but so far 5E Turn Undead seems the most useful across levels. Not a bad thing.

[R.Shackleford]

Im not sure what you mean? In what senses? I agree that 5E Clerics don't seem to have a lot of <at least good> options, but that seems more of a 5E thing.

Turn/Destroy Undead is really the only sacred Cow the Class has besides the generic Divine Spellcasting warrior concept, but so far 5E Turn Undead seems the most useful across levels. Not a bad thing.

Turn/Destroy undead is so situational that I, as a Cleric lover, forget it's a thing.

The best way to expand the cleric would have been to make Channel Divinity a list of additional options that a player can take and then make some of those options short rest based. Take the channel divinity options out of the subclass and put them in this list too.

Basically, you know how Warlocks get Invocations? Some invocations are at-will, short rest, or long rest? Basically that. Put it through channel divinity and make turn undead a niche option that isn't taking up a class feature slot when people may never even see an undead.

The Warlock is the best designed cleric, it just doesn't have the right fluff or abilities to be a Cleric. I mean, both classes gain power from a powerful outsider by making a deal. Clerics just happen to be gaining power from gods while warlocks gain them from other creatures.

[Chaosmancer]

A big thing that helped Clerics was getting Toll of the Dead in Xanathar's.

The problem is, it is so much better than the other attack cantrips in 85% of all other situations that I never see them use anything else anymore.

I would love to see some melee cantrips as well as some more options, like anything that makes an attack roll.

Also, I've never seen a light cleric hit the table and I wonder if (for my players at least) they hit a weird middle spot between "I want to help the party"ie life and "I wanna wreck stuff" ie war and tempest. I know Light wrecks, but it doesn't sound like it would. I probably should rename it the Fire domain, since that is more accurate

[Tanarii]

A big thing that helped Clerics was getting Toll of the Dead in Xanathar's.

The problem is, it is so much better than the other attack cantrips in 85% of all other situations that I never see them use anything else anymore. Really? Con save vs Dex save (no cover) is usually considered to be in favor of Sacred Flame. Enough so to balance out the extra damage when someone is already wounded.

Edit: okay I did some rough math, Con mod needs to be about 3pts higher than Dex mod for it them to break even. So you're right, Toll is probably more powerful except against bruisers. Of course, those are the guys you want to kite or hide behind a tank and ranged attack if you can. Luckily Clerics are a tank-y kind of class in the first place.

[R.Shackleford]

A big thing that helped Clerics was getting Toll of the Dead in Xanathar's.

The problem is, it is so much better than the other attack cantrips in 85% of all other situations that I never see them use anything else anymore.

I would love to see some melee cantrips as well as some more options, like anything that makes an attack roll.

Also, I've never seen a light cleric hit the table and I wonder if (for my players at least) they hit a weird middle spot between "I want to help the party"ie life and "I wanna wreck stuff" ie war and tempest. I know Light wrecks, but it doesn't sound like it would. I probably should rename it the Fire domain, since that is more accurate

I wish Channel Divinity gave different changes to cleric cantrips or spells.

[Jophiel]

I don't think they need to be better, really, it's just that they aren't what the majority of people think is fun.

Having a spell for every situation, good buffs, and healing is really great for any group, it's just not as fun to do those things as it is to bash monters in the face or explode them with fire.
I commonly play support classes in multiplayer games and enjoy it a great deal. Being a somewhat subtle force multiplier is totally in my wheelhouse. 5e Cleric just doesn't feel like much of a support with its limited buffing (due to spell changes and concentration rules) and healing being so common across classes now so it's less fulfilling to play.

[Millface]

And yet, they're far more popular than most other classes in the game.

Your unfounded assertion is completely contrary to all the data we have.

The thread title doesn't say "No one plays a cleric." It says "No one likes playing cleric."

All we have are assertions and small reference pools because the topic is super subjective. Every cleric at my table has been either short lived or they stuck it out but wished they'd rolled something else. I've still seen more clerics than Monks/Barbarians/Druids/Bards, they get played, even at a table that finds them sort of boring. That's just my subjective, anecdotal experience. From that, I was proposing a couple of reasons why someone might not like playing clerics.

I hadn't intended to get into an argument about whether the Cleric or the Divine Soul could piss farther, but it was worth talking about and your points were thought provoking, so why not dance with it for a post or two?

[Beckett]

Turn/Destroy undead is so situational that I, as a Cleric lover, forget it's a thing.

The best way to expand the cleric would have been to make Channel Divinity a list of additional options that a player can take and then make some of those options short rest based. Take the channel divinity options out of the subclass and put them in this list too.

Basically, you know how Warlocks get Invocations? Some invocations are at-will, short rest, or long rest? Basically that. Put it through channel divinity and make turn undead a niche option that isn't taking up a class feature slot when people may never even see an undead.

I don't know. Coming from AL, Turn Undead gets pretty good use, and has saved us multiple times, but I almost never have a use for other Divinity Options.

[Beckett]

A big thing that helped Clerics was getting Toll of the Dead in Xanathar's.

The problem is, it is so much better than the other attack cantrips in 85% of all other situations that I never see them use anything else anymore.

For me, Sacred Flame is just generally better, and the at will Radiant Damage is very nifty. Plus, calling down a mini commet is pretty cool. Toll is ok, but I wish there where 3 or 4 other options.

[DarkKnightJin]

Really? Con save vs Dex save (no cover) is usually considered to be in favor of Sacred Flame. Enough so to balance out the extra damage when someone is already wounded.

Edit: okay I did some rough math, Con mod needs to be about 3pts higher than Dex mod for it them to break even. So you're right, Toll is probably more powerful except against bruisers. Of course, those are the guys you want to kite or hide behind a tank and ranged attack if you can. Luckily Clerics are a tank-y kind of class in the first place.

Toll the Dead targets Wisdom, not Constitution. You might be confusing TtD and Word of Radiance. Which -does- target Con.

[ad_hoc]

The thread title doesn't say "No one plays a cleric." It says "No one likes playing cleric."

Right, which is still begging the question.



All we have are assertions and small reference pools because the topic is super subjective.

No, we have a small reference pool because we have a small reference pool. There are a lot of 5e players. No one here has played with enough of them to have a large enough sample.

Then there is the relevancy of the reference pool. It is likely that players at this forum are from an entirely different demographic than the majority of 5e players.

We have assertions because people don't realize that their experience does not represent the norm and/or does not provide enough information.

[Chaosmancer]

Really? Con save vs Dex save (no cover) is usually considered to be in favor of Sacred Flame. Enough so to balance out the extra damage when someone is already wounded.

Edit: okay I did some rough math, Con mod needs to be about 3pts higher than Dex mod for it them to break even. So you're right, Toll is probably more powerful except against bruisers. Of course, those are the guys you want to kite or hide behind a tank and ranged attack if you can. Luckily Clerics are a tank-y kind of class in the first place.

Was there an errata I missed? Toll is a wisdom save by my memory.



For me, Sacred Flame is just generally better, and the at will Radiant Damage is very nifty. Plus, calling down a mini commet is pretty cool. Toll is ok, but I wish there where 3 or 4 other options.

At will necrotic is typically just as good, and good dex is more common than good wisdom.

Plus the difference between 1d8 and 1d12 is decently significant.

I could also have some observation bias. I rarely see Sacred Flame connect (had one cleric who missed with it every single time, except for one day when he threw money in a well. He started worshipping the well) but I've rarely had Toll miss.

Still more options is always going to be better.


Right, which is still begging the question.

No, we have a small reference pool because we have a small reference pool. There are a lot of 5e players. No one here has played with enough of them to have a large enough sample.

Then there is the relevancy of the reference pool. It is likely that players at this forum are from an entirely different demographic than the majority of 5e players.

We have assertions because people don't realize that their experience does not represent the norm and/or does not provide enough information.

I understand this point, but sometimes it frustrates me.

Yes, no one has statistically signifigant expeirence, but we still need to make assertions and claims if we want to have conversations at all

[GlenSmash!]

At will necrotic is typically just as good, and good dex is more common than good wisdom.

In most cases sure, bot more creatures have Necrotic resistance than radiant, and Necrotic won't shut down Vampire HP regen. Still that's very campaign/setting dependent.


Plus the difference between 1d8 and 1d12 is decently significant.

Still more options is always going to be better.


Both true.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not exactly sure what the intent of this thread is, or how accurate its statement is.

Find me someone who didn't enjoy the Tempest Cleric warrior.

Find me someone who didn't enjoy being a Knowledge Cleric skill monkey.

There's a few niche picks (Life Cleric, War Cleric) that are a bit specific and don't offer much outside of their cliché's, but I'm not sure why people wouldn't enjoy being a Cleric?

They don't care about roleplaying their devotion to a god? Because I see that a lot anyway.

They don't care about casting spells? That's fine, but I don't like playing Barbarian because I want something more complex than moving towards the closest badguy and punching them for 20 levels. That doesn't mean Barbarian is unpopular.

They don't care about healing? This is probably the most true situation that ties closely with the Cleric class, but with all of the options available, there's not much need for a Cleric to be a healer and there are many options to heal with, that I don't really associate Clerics as healers anymore. To me, they're versatile, medium ranged casters that can hold their own in combat and provide various roles for the team. I think they get a bad rap because they're religious, and people don't like being told what to do, but I still see plenty of Clerics beside that.

I see fewer Rangers, Paladins, and Warlocks than I see Clerics.

[MThurston]

Clerics should be a fun class to play for anyone. You can do everything. You can fight, heal, negotiate and many other things.

Don't like losing an attack, then cast a bonus action healing spell.

People not taking it for real life problems with religion is silly to me. You are role playing a character. Have fun with it.

I may believe in God, but with Fantasy games that God might not be in that world. So I pick something from the book and make it my own.

You could worship a way of life and not a force that has true power.

[EvilAnagram]

I don't understand people who have no use for the Channel Divinity options. Let's look at what some of these do:
Knowledge: Combination Suggestion and Detect Thoughts.
Life: Heal people.
Light: Deal damage.
Tempest: Improve damage of domain spells.
Trickery: Cast an illusion that you can use to cast spells.
War: Improve attack roll.

The only one that's remotely difficult to find uses for is the Nature domain, and it's still situationally useful.

[No brains]

I don't understand people who have no use for the Channel Divinity options. Let's look at what some of these do:
Knowledge: Combination Suggestion and Detect Thoughts.
Life: Heal people.
Light: Deal damage.
Tempest: Improve damage of domain spells.
Trickery: Cast an illusion that you can use to cast spells.
War: Improve attack roll.

The only one that's remotely difficult to find uses for is the Nature domain, and it's still situationally useful.

Even as a fan of the domain, Trickery's CD is a tough one because its definition of a 'perfect illusion' can cause some DM head-scratching. Also the actions needed to create and move it can cause some awkwardness.

Now Cloak of Shadows? That is a great option for whenever you want to chicken out after over-extending. 1 or 2 rounds of invisibility can help when moving between cover and misdirecting people looking for you.

[Tanarii]

Toll the Dead targets Wisdom, not Constitution. You might be confusing TtD and Word of Radiance. Which -does- target Con.
I am. Thanks.

[Chaosmancer]

I don't understand people who have no use for the Channel Divinity options. Let's look at what some of these do:
Knowledge: Combination Suggestion and Detect Thoughts.
Life: Heal people.
Light: Deal damage.
Tempest: Improve damage of domain spells.
Trickery: Cast an illusion that you can use to cast spells.
War: Improve attack roll.

The only one that's remotely difficult to find uses for is the Nature domain, and it's still situationally useful.

It was a long time til I "got" life's channel divinity. Being capped at 1/2 max is really limiting in a lot of ways since it seems like you want a lot of people heavily injured and you usually only ens up with one person near half.

Then a fellow player used it on a character who dropped and my mind was blown. So sometimes how useful an ability is is hard for people to see.

Plus, a LOT of players either forget they have it (can't count the number of times I've heard the grave cleric go "right, I should have used that") or they forget it is a short rest ability (once had an arguement with another player. They were a life cleric and wanted to do a long rest in the enemy castle instead of using their two uses of channel divinity and taking a short rest.)

[Man_Over_Game]

The only one that's remotely difficult to find uses for is the Nature domain, and it's still situationally useful.

It doesn't seem like much until you remember some of the other spells you get automatically prepared.

Good example is Speak With Animals.

You don't have to see the animals, they just have to see you. Step into a patch of forest and there's going to be a ton of birds, spiders, and squirrels who you can talk to and are willing to do you favors (channel divinity says they're friendly, Speak to Animals says they may be convinced to do favors).

The catch is that the Channel Divinity lasts a minute. They're too simple to consider that they've been tricked, and once they've started their mission, I doubt they'll be thinking too much about you. So, if I were the DM, I'd say they'd still act on whatever you asked of them.

[EvilAnagram]

It was a long time til I "got" life's channel divinity. Being capped at 1/2 max is really limiting in a lot of ways since it seems like you want a lot of people heavily injured and you usually only ens up with one person near half.

Then a fellow player used it on a character who dropped and my mind was blown. So sometimes how useful an ability is is hard for people to see.

Plus, a LOT of players either forget they have it (can't count the number of times I've heard the grave cleric go "right, I should have used that") or they forget it is a short rest ability (once had an arguement with another player. They were a life cleric and wanted to do a long rest in the enemy castle instead of using their two uses of channel divinity and taking a short rest.)

I think we've all seen more than a few players forget how their abilities work - or that the abilities exist - but I don't think we can judge the abilities by how often they're forgotten. From the tables I've seen, I'd have to disregard Bardic Inspiration, all Paladin spells, the bonus action Martial Arts attack, and the concept of showering.

[Tanarii]

Then a fellow player used it on a character who dropped and my mind was blown. So sometimes how useful an ability is is hard for people to see.I know the first time I had a Life Cleric use the ability right when I'd managed to get 2 characters down to 0hp in one round I was sure cursing. :smallamused:

[Chaosmancer]

I think we've all seen more than a few players forget how their abilities work - or that the abilities exist - but I don't think we can judge the abilities by how often they're forgotten. From the tables I've seen, I'd have to disregard Bardic Inspiration, all Paladin spells, the bonus action Martial Arts attack, and the concept of showering.

Fair enough, but it always feels to me like channel divinity is an after thought for a lot of players.

Actually, a lot of cleric abilities fall under that. I wonder about it, maybe a lack of fictional main characters that act like clerics? I mean, sure, plenty of side characters, but most main characters are either wizards, warriors or rogues.

[ad_hoc]

I understand this point, but sometimes it frustrates me.

Yes, no one has statistically signifigant expeirence, but we still need to make assertions and claims if we want to have conversations at all

Sure, I think it is just a matter of recognizing where the person is coming from.

'Players don't like to play Clerics' is different than 'my group are hobby gamers who like X style of games and we've found little interest in Clerics for Y reasons, has anyone else found that?'

Having greater specificity will result in a better conversation.

Framing the conversation is also important. A trend I have seen is that people don't like to play a certain style of character. Whether story, mechanics, or both and then go on to say that it is a problem with the game. For example, I've seen many people who don't like that Warlocks get fewer spell slots than other casters and to make up for it they are much more powerful. There are 5 other full casting classes which have more spell slots. I personally like having more high level slots than the other casters so I get my option and they get theirs. It isn't a fault of the class or game.

Similarly, there will always be classes which are the least played in any given group. 12 classes with 4-5 players means 8 or so will go unplayed at any given time. Some of them being less popular for a given group is, again, not a big problem. If we are talking about the player base as a whole then maybe that class isn't needed. That's why it is important to define what we're talking about. We're not talking about the player base as a whole, we're talking about an individual group. 5 or 6 people rather than 12+ million is a big difference.

[Zalabim]

3) Cleric are not as "flashy" as the other classes. But I found out (as a player), that cleric is a lot more interesting when the pantheon of gods was actually interesting. Whatever the edition of D&D, the few times I said to myself "I want to be a cleric", it was because "I want to be a cleric of THIS god". Everytime I was thinking the other way around, it was: "I may make a cleric, here are the domains I like, so what god can I serve? I don't want any of them."
I recently shared my experience making a cleric of Heironeous, but I had a second character inspired by Greyhawk's fate goddess, Istus. The inciting event for him was receiving the weaver's scrolls of fate when the cleric who bore them was killed nearby. Now he carries the scrolls and follows Her instructions, but he's far from a saint. He smokes, he drinks, he's rude, calloused, and cynical. Basically the priest/monk's personality from Saiyuki. Apparently this is a common attitude among her priesthood. Delightful. (Feel free to steal this character outline)

Before, I had an idea for a character in FR, basically playing an agent of karma to describe it quickly, but hated all the mandatory FR gods for the idea, so I just don't play there. Compelling gods and religions really makes a difference.

Me too! I play healers in every game I can. I even play one in Fortnite, as best I can.

In D&D, every time I've played anything else, I've gravitated back to cleric. It fulfills every niche I prefer to play, and then some.

Heavy armor tank? check - Life, Nature, Order, Tempest, War

Smarty smart skillmonkey? check - Knowledge

Dexy dex skillmonkey? check - Trickery

Blaster? check - Light, Tempest

Classic healbot? check - Life

One Stat to Rule them all? check - Nature

About the only legitimate playstyle that's difficult is a decent archer build. It's certainly not impossible, just sub-optimal.
A dex-based war cleric can do good work with a Heavy Crossbow, and is a killer (well, support-master) with nets. I throw a net. It hits. And using War Priest as a bonus action...

[Tanarii]

5 or 6 people rather than 12+ million is a big difference.
Its often a big difference from 30. I frequently see people make claims based on their small group play that dont check put in my campaign. That includes things from player preferences to modes or styles of play being "normal".

[redwizard007]

Party of Tempest Cleric, Knowledge Cleric, Trickery Cleric, and Arcane Cleric would be fine by me

[jaappleton]

First, let me say, there’s over 100 messages here in this topic by the time I’m jumping in. Haven’t read all of them. So, for the sake of full disclosure, I’ve stated that.

Clerics in 5E are easily my favorite class. I think they are incredibly well designed (second only to Bard), and I think each Domain grants every Cleric an incredibly solid identity and differentiates each Domain quite well. It’s perhaps the best class at doing that.

The common misconception with Clerics is that people see the Cleric as a healbot, that Healing is all they should be doing.

And that’s absolutely some of the stupidest line of thinking I have ever come across, and people need to stop it. Knock that off.

First, people need to understand that in 5E, it is FAR better to prevent damage than to heal after the fact. In-combat Healing should be minimal. If you’re healing a lot during combat, often times, something is wrong. (That’s not to say you should NEVER heal in combat)

Secondly, understand Clerics get at least Medium armor and Shields. They aren’t cloth wearers to be hiding in the back. They can get up close and wreck faces, in their own way. Between Spirit Guardians, Potent Spellcasting and Hand of Radiance? At lv11 using SG with a 4th Level Spell slot, thats 4d8 +3d6 +Wis Mod to every enemy around you (Note none of it harms allies). They can be in the front alongside the other Warriors if you decide to play that way.

They spell list is fairly decent. Now, some of what the holes in their spell list was fixed with XGtE. And IMO they should get the 6th Level spell Sunbeam. It’s by no means a perfect spell list, but it gets the job done and is further enhanced by Domain spells.

Also, Channel Divinity. Twice per short rest starting at 6th Level. Don’t ever forget about that, as although it’s Domain dependent, it’s pretty damn awesome.

[tchntm43]

I think the extensive conversation about cleric abilities and debating whether "tanking" works in 5E applies to people who are long-time players (probably most of this forum). I found that when I made my group consisting of all newbies, even then nobody seemed interested in playing the cleric. I got lucky and convinced someone to be a bard, so the group still has access to the Cure Wounds spell. If the party didn't have healing, I was just going to adjust the game world to be overflowing with healing potions.

But anyway, I think the reason in this case was the role-playing aspect of it. When we built characters, probably about 75% of the focus went into stuff like bonds, ideals, flaws, and only a little bit of the focus on the intricacies of their abilities. And I wanted to make sure that each player would pick a type of character that they would feel comfortable role playing. Frankly, I think it's the religion thing. A cleric derives power from a deity. That means being prepared to talk at length about what the deity has to offer if asked by other players or by NPCs. It means doing things to benefit the interests of that deity. I think that's overwhelming for a lot of people. If you're a wizard or a fighter or a rogue or a bard, you get to do cool stuff without having to believe in anything.

[R.Shackleford]

First, let me say, there’s over 100 messages here in this topic by the time I’m jumping in. Haven’t read all of them. So, for the sake of full disclosure, I’ve stated that.

Clerics in 5E are easily my favorite class. I think they are incredibly well designed (second only to Bard), and I think each Domain grants every Cleric an incredibly solid identity and differentiates each Domain quite well. It’s perhaps the best class at doing that.

The common misconception with Clerics is that people see the Cleric as a healbot, that Healing is all they should be doing.

And that’s absolutely some of the stupidest line of thinking I have ever come across, and people need to stop it. Knock that off.

First, people need to understand that in 5E, it is FAR better to prevent damage than to heal after the fact. In-combat Healing should be minimal. If you’re healing a lot during combat, often times, something is wrong. (That’s not to say you should NEVER heal in combat)

Secondly, understand Clerics get at least Medium armor and Shields. They aren’t cloth wearers to be hiding in the back. They can get up close and wreck faces, in their own way. Between Spirit Guardians, Potent Spellcasting and Hand of Radiance? At lv11 using SG with a 4th Level Spell slot, thats 4d8 +3d6 +Wis Mod to every enemy around you (Note none of it harms allies). They can be in the front alongside the other Warriors if you decide to play that way.

They spell list is fairly decent. Now, some of what the holes in their spell list was fixed with XGtE. And IMO they should get the 6th Level spell Sunbeam. It’s by no means a perfect spell list, but it gets the job done and is further enhanced by Domain spells.

Also, Channel Divinity. Twice per short rest starting at 6th Level. Don’t ever forget about that, as although it’s Domain dependent, it’s pretty damn awesome.

First, I just want to point out that I don't think any edition of D&D makes it where healing is the optimal choice. However, 4e and 5e do at least give minor/bonus action healing that can make it usable in battle without taking away from your offense and I really like these two editions for that.

But primarily... I really love the Cleric class and yet I find it to be the second worse designed class in the game (something I've comes to terms with recently).

Everything about them comes from their spells and sub-class. The one thing that does scream cleric, channel divinity, which is very niche/restrictive.

I look at Channel Divinity and all I see it some niche options that compete with each other. Even at 2/rest, channel divinity doesn't really make me feel like the Cleric is really doing anything special. I would have much preferred channel divinity to either be at-will options, 1/rest options, or daily options... Much like Invocations actually.

The other part of the cleric I would have liked to see get changed, mostly to distinguish its mechanics from the other full casters, is to make all their spells bonus actions. Make it where some spells can be cast as an action or rituals, but they get powered up when they do. Healing Word goes from 1d4 as a bonus action to 1d8 as an action. You could do this with a lot of cleric spells and it would make the class a lot more attractive to play as and a lot more fun.

Lastly... I would like to see more features that focus on Religion and Persuasion. Every Cleric should at the very least have advantage on religion rolls! I mean, how do you cleric without knowing religion?

[EvilAnagram]

I look at Channel Divinity and all I see it some niche options that compete with each other. Even at 2/rest, channel divinity doesn't really make me feel like the Cleric is really doing anything special. I would have much preferred channel divinity to either be at-will options, 1/rest options, or daily options... Much like Invocations actually.


How is dramatically increasing your attack roll of maximizing a damage roll niche? For that matter, how is dealing damage niche? Or healing? Or reducing damage? They're all fairly standard things a lot of classes accomplish in different ways.

[R.Shackleford]

How is dramatically increasing your attack roll of maximizing a damage roll niche? For that matter, how is dealing damage niche? Or healing? Or reducing damage? They're all fairly standard things a lot of classes accomplish in different ways.

You get one thing from your sub-class. But from your class, you get destroy undead. Niche.

For the most part even the sub-class options are so-so and niche. As a cleric you can give out bless and advantage (advantage from helping, from blinding a creature, or from guiding bolt). Furthering the attack roll of an ally isn't going to be needed except for rare occasions.

Maximizing your lightning or thunder damage? Nice, but you aren't really a striker and the times you will **need** to be will be rare. Charm animals and plants? Niche.

Light has a pretty fun nuke that has some utility tied to the light domain. Love it.

A lot of the cleric's channel divinity features are niche.

Also, I find divine strike/potent Cantrips should have been a cleric class feature and not religated to sub-class.

I love the cleric, but channel divinity could use a lot of work to make it a good cleric feature.

[EvilAnagram]

You get one thing from your sub-class. But from your class, you get destroy undead. Niche.

For the most part even the sub-class options are so-so and niche. As a cleric you can give out bless and advantage (advantage from helping, from blinding a creature, or from guiding bolt). Furthering the attack roll of an ally isn't going to be needed except for rare occasions.
You think missing with a potentially damaging attack roll is rare?


Maximizing your lightning or thunder damage? Nice, but you aren't really a striker and the times you will **need** to be will be rare.
I honestly used that ability every session. If I can deal a guaranteed forty damage, why wouldn't I?


A lot of the cleric's channel divinity features are niche.
I'll give you Nature, from what you've mentioned.


Also, I find divine strike/potent Cantrips should have been a cleric class feature and not religated to sub-class.
Strong disagreement here. That feature is a great way to differentiate between domains and how they affect your role ok n the party.

[Willie the Duck]

But primarily... I really love the Cleric class and yet I find it to be the second worse designed class in the game (something I've comes to terms with recently).
Everything about them comes from their spells and sub-class.

What specifically is wrong with that?

Each class has a different admixture of how much of the meat on their bones comes from archetype and how much comes from base class (one of the reasons, I suppose, why archetypes are class-specific as opposed to a 'choose from this list of classes, then choose from this list of archetypes' model). There doesn't seem to be an established 'right' amount for this.

Likewise, all spellcasters (to a greater or lesser degree) are launching platforms for their spell loadouts. Sorcerers obviously get a neat thing that defines them that is neither archtype dependent nor directly specific to their spells (although different spells will capitalize on them better or worse).

I guess I'm not seeing where they are designed poorly, so much as are a point on the spectrum within the established design parameters (they fit the curve, as it were). What specifically are you seeing that violates the otherwise extant design structure?

[jaappleton]

Regarding Potent Cantrip and Divine Strike...

I know sometimes you have to take what the designers say with a grain of salt. I also know that many times, if a lead designer comments on it, it greatly impacts someone’s ability to sway their DM to allow something. So I feel it’s pertinent to add this little bit of info.

I spoke with Jeremy Crawford over Twitter regarding this.

Q: Do you see anything unbalancing in allowing a Domain to swap Potent Cantrip with Divine Strike and vice versa, so long as you don’t get Heavy Armor with Potent Cantrip?

A: Not at all! Go for it!

[R.Shackleford]

You think missing with a potentially damaging attack roll is rare?


I honestly used that ability every session. If I can deal a guaranteed forty damage, why wouldn't I?


I'll give you Nature, from what you've mentioned.


Strong disagreement here. That feature is a great way to differentiate between domains and how they affect your role ok n the party.

Ok so I had a better response but I hit refresh on my phone instead of new tab and I just... Ugh...

Additional bonus to hit is niche because for the most part I have yet to see players have problems hitting creatures (except if they have disadvantage). If you're a cleric that wants to make their allies hit better... Bless and advantage is your game and that subclass bonus is going to be overkill. The times you will need it, is niche. Basically use it when you or an ally have disadvantage... Which you can just either give your ally advantage (negating the disadvantage) or cast a spell that calls for a save.

Just because you like something doesn't make it any less niche. I love the cleric grapple build, doesn't make it any less niche. A cleric damage dealing build is a niche build (people going to take like every other class before cleric) no matter how much fun it can be.

Divine Strike and Potent Cantrip are terrible ways to differentiate domains. First, it comes online waaay late (level 8), that's like end of the game for a lot of people and it ain't actually differentiating them for many. Secondly, forcing players into a specific bonus on say life cleric is weird. Nature cleric gains Cantrips at first, but then gains divine strike... Trickery is a magic based domain but gains divine strike... Weird... Now if the player can choose between the two, I can see some people wanting to go magical/melee but others would want to be magical/magical...

Setting up channel divinity differently would make the cleric much more appealing.

[DarkKnightJin]

Ok so I had a better response but I hit refresh on my phone instead of new tab and I just... Ugh...

Additional bonus to hit is niche because for the most part I have yet to see players have problems hitting creatures (except if they have disadvantage). If you're a cleric that wants to make their allies hit better... Bless and advantage is your game and that subclass bonus is going to be overkill. The times you will need it, is niche. Basically use it when you or an ally have disadvantage... Which you can just either give your ally advantage (negating the disadvantage) or cast a spell that calls for a save.

Just because you like something doesn't make it any less niche. I love the cleric grapple build, doesn't make it any less niche. A cleric damage dealing build is a niche build (people going to take like every other class before cleric) no matter how much fun it can be.

Divine Strike and Potent Cantrip are terrible ways to differentiate domains. First, it comes online waaay late (level 8), that's like end of the game for a lot of people and it ain't actually differentiating them for many. Secondly, forcing players into a specific bonus on say life cleric is weird. Nature cleric gains Cantrips at first, but then gains divine strike... Trickery is a magic based domain but gains divine strike... Weird... Now if the player can choose between the two, I can see some people wanting to go magical/melee but others would want to be magical/magical...

Setting up channel divinity differently would make the cleric much more appealing.

I agree with letting the Cleric pick between Divine strike or Potent Spellcasting at 8th level.
Something that will fit with their playstyle up to that point, rather than pigeonholing them into a class ability that's going to be largely wasted because.. well, they've been doing the other thing for 7 levels. And now they have to overturn their playstyle if they want to make use of their new class ability?

And honestly, I very much doubt letting someone have +1d8 on their melee attacks instead of +3-5 with their Cleric Cantrips is going to break anything.

[EvilAnagram]

Additional bonus to hit is niche because for the most part I have yet to see players have problems hitting creatures (except if they have disadvantage). If you're a cleric that wants to make their allies hit better... Bless and advantage is your game and that subclass bonus is going to be overkill. The times you will need it, is niche. Basically use it when you or an ally have disadvantage... Which you can just either give your ally advantage (negating the disadvantage) or cast a spell that calls for a save.
I don't want to sound aggressive, but you seem to be confused by the mechanics. The War Domain CD is a reaction. It's no more niche than Bardic Inspiration or Cutting Words. You're not using it to address a general problem with targeting AC, you just use it when you see your ally roll a single poor roll, which happens quite a bit in almost every session I've been part of.


Just because you like something doesn't make it any less niche. I love the cleric grapple build, doesn't make it any less niche. A cleric damage dealing build is a niche build (people going to take like every other class before cleric) no matter how much fun it can be.
Anyone who plays a Tempest Cleric is doing so because they want to deal lightning and thunder damage. As evidence for that, I point to how almost every domain feature and spell deals lightning or thunder damage. The CD improves lightning and/or thunder damage. You are treating a feature that supports the core competency of the archetype as though it's a confusing and strange ability that is difficult to weave into play. People pick that subclass to make books. The CD makes bigger booms. It's only niche if you want to write off the entire subclass as niche, in which case I don't think you can justify saying any archetypes are anything but niche builds.


Divine Strike and Potent Cantrip are terrible ways to differentiate domains. First, it comes online waaay late (level 8), that's like end of the game for a lot of people and it ain't actually differentiating them for many.
Continuing to differentiate as you go along is not a bad thing.


Secondly, forcing players into a specific bonus on say life cleric is weird.
You keep using unsupported axioms to justify your position. (E.g.: "No one thinks of clerics as damage dealing," "It's terrible that the subclass has all the important features," "This is weird") I don't think those add to the conversation.


Nature cleric gains Cantrips at first, but then gains divine strike... Trickery is a magic based domain but gains divine strike... Weird... Now if the player can choose between the two, I can see some people wanting to go magical/melee but others would want to be magical/magical...
I can see where you're coming from here, though the Nature Cleric can easily go all-in on melee with control spells and either Shillelagh or Thorn Whip.

On the other hand, War, Tempest, Light, Arcana, Forge, and Knowledge all gain thematically appropriate features at that level.

[Kaliayev]

Planar Binding, Conjure Celestial

At 15th Level I have a Couatl bound that adds a both restorations and more healing.

This doesn't actually work, at least not in terms of solo play. When you start casting planar binding, you break your concentration on conjure celestial. That being said, you can do this with two PCs who have conjuring/summoning x and planar binding between them.

[jaappleton]

This doesn't actually work, at least not in terms of solo play. When you start casting planar binding, you break your concentration on conjure celestial. That being said, you can do this with two PCs who have conjuring/summoning x and planar binding between them.

We’re veering off topic but wouldn’t Magic Circle rectify this?

[No brains]

We’re veering off topic but wouldn’t Magic Circle rectify this?

Maybe people don't like playing cleric because it tempts them into making demon-capturing Rube Goldberg machines. At 11th level I'm casting 6th-level spells and trying to use them to their fullest extent. The fighter gets to play outside with three attacks. :smalltongue:

To be serious for a second, I was really taken aback when I got to my first high-level cleric. I had some great powers that required some great responsibility and it was almost overwhelming. Other classes got to be the fun kind of heroes that punch Lawful Evils in the face, but I had to be a real hero and ponder how to use my powers to help everyone I could. That goes beyond healing and resurrection into divinations, buffs, and pre-preemptive strikes on enemies. Sure it's less unique to clerics, but I can understand why it would put someone off.

[Chaosmancer]

I will agree, I wish the cleric felt more like a holy man.

Getting off a destroy undead feels AWESOME but I wish you could get a few more abilities lke that. Auras maybe, despite being a paladin thing I could see a high level aura for clerics. Plus, they really need a reworked level 10 ability.

Not necessarily a power boost, but some thematic bits here and there could be fun.

[Kaliayev]

We’re veering off topic but wouldn’t Magic Circle rectify this?

It's somewhat off-topic, yes. However, he's arguing that divine soul sorcerer is inherently better than cleric, with one of the reasons being a combination that isn't possible through a single character with his build (warlock or paladin dip). It's certainly a powerful spell combination that can grant one significantly more spellcasting options for up to a year, but it's not one that a character can generally do on their own (requires spell slots available to a level 20 caster). The problem is that when one starts casting a spell that takes more than one action, one has to start concentrating on said spell as one is casting (i.e. break concentration on conjure celestial). Magic circle wouldn't solve this as the coatl disappears when the conjure celestial spell ends.


I'm currently playing an order cleric and am thoroughly enjoying it. It has just the right mix of increased city and combat utility to make cleric appealing enough for me to play. Hopefully, it's made legal in the next big book release.

[Eriol]

I'm sure it's been said before, but here it is again: they are the most likely to be told at the table that they're playing their class wrong. And you'll get second-guessed constantly if you do anything else but heal. If you spend ANY slots on ANYTHING but healing, unless in that exact moment it saved the party, you "wasted" the slot. Any slot you use, you could have been healing. You should have been healing. Your actions are subject to what's "good for the group" which means healing. Took damage? You were bad for not staying out of the way better, since now you'll be "wasting" your healing on yourself, and not on "the party" (code for the person SAYING this). We wouldn't need to try and take a rest if the Cleric hadn't "wasted" their slots and would just heal me (LOTS of this). And if somebody REALLY dies? It's the cleric's fault. ALWAYS.


It's not worth it. It's why a Moon Druid stays in animal form all the time, since they can't be "blamed" too much for not healing, and can use their slots between combats (they haven't "wasted" them in-combat). The Cleric? If they're not healing, they're doing the wrong thing. Bards get a bit of this too, though usually avoid most of it.


People wonder why others don't want to be clerics? Because of the expectations above, that's why. It's not right but that's the attitude at a lot of tables.

[Foxhound438]

(snip)
People wonder why others don't want to be clerics? Because of the expectations above, that's why. It's not right but that's the attitude at a lot of tables.

I'm sure that certainly can be a factor for some groups, but as a lot of people here have probably made clear, most people don't have an issue with playing a cleric, and most people probably also don't have an issue with being expected to be a heal bot. For anyone who has ran into that issue though, I can definitely see not wanting to play a cleric again, even at a different table.

As an aside, I've played a light cleric in a short, whimsical seafaring campaign, and I don't think I ever healed anyone. At a point I walked onto the command deck of an enemy ship and fireballed everyone there. That was way more fun for me than healing, way more productive to the party, and most importantly made the DM say "Holy sh** you can cast fireball???"

[R.Shackleford]

I will agree, I wish the cleric felt more like a holy man.

Getting off a destroy undead feels AWESOME but I wish you could get a few more abilities lke that. Auras maybe, despite being a paladin thing I could see a high level aura for clerics. Plus, they really need a reworked level 10 ability.

Not necessarily a power boost, but some thematic bits here and there could be fun.

Having class features centered around Religion and Persuasion would be nice. Maybe some sort of charm, calming, or enticing emotions?

[Chaosmancer]

Having class features centered around Religion and Persuasion would be nice. Maybe some sort of charm, calming, or enticing emotions?

That could be good, a sea of calm in a storm or rallying the people to a cause.

Just something evocative and interesting.

[Baptor]

I didn't have time to read all the posts before this one. I read the first page.

Here are my thoughts:

I never liked the cleric either until I took a test and that test told me the class I'd like best is cleric. I've taken it year after year, and though my answers change a little it always came back: cleric. So I played one, and I loved it.

I love all kinds of spellcasters, and I'd say even today my favorite all-time is still bard. But I've learned to like all of them for the differences they have.

That said, I can understand people's problems with the fluff.

In my games, we play in the Realms where there are like 200 gods or some nonsense. It's crazy. But the good side is that you can find a deity who will support just about any playstyle you want. What I tell my players is - figure out who your character IS first, THEN go pick a god who is just like that. You'll never go off track!

I mean I had one guy who wanted to be a good archer and there is a god in FR that is literally the god of archery and just wants his adherents to be the best darn archers they can be, and maybe not murder people doing it. That's it. He was a fine cleric - just keep shooting. ;)

But in the rare instance that a player feels like his character is changing to the point his current religion makes no sense, he can change allegiances. Gods in Faerun (or at least MY Faerun) are always playing to gain worshipers, and clerics are the absolute best worshipers. Gods get power from all forms of worship and clerics draw it in spades as they cast spells and do great deeds in their name. So a cleric of one god can go and pray at the altar of another and basically switch sides. It's a serious affair mind you, and takes some real effort, but I always allow it - even though it's actually never come up.

Because I'm NOT going to punish a player like that. NOPE.

I like to look at it from the Planescape perspective. "Gods" are just ancient, powerful, immortal beings who live in the Outer Planes. They feed off of what Primes call "worship" and in exchange they take care of their petitioners to an extent - but especially through those special servants called "clerics" to whom they bestow magic spells. These clerics get their spells from their god much like a soldier gets his weapons and armor from the government he serves. It's an alliance or an allegiance to a powerful being. It CAN be fearful servitude, it CAN be love, but it doesn't HAVE to be. It's a partnership, and a lucrative one.

TL:DR The best way to view clerics is through the Planescape lens. They are berks who form allegiances with gods to get spells. They tend to ally with gods they agree with. :)

Just my 2cp.

[GreyBlack]

Because of so called clerical duties. Having a cleric in the party makes the rest of the party feel they have free reign to be reckless, which makes the Cleric basically just be a box of band aids while running around the battlefield. Never mind the fact that the Cleric specced into buffs for the party, or is a melee monstrosity; the Cleric can't do what makes them special because they're too busy making sure everyone else can do their special stuff.

And, as a player, that sucks. It feels bad. And that makes people not want to play a cleric. Everyone else can be special; your job is to make sure everyone else can do that thing that makes them special. But you? You're not allowed to do that, because so many people have the misconception of what clerics do.

Besides that, there's all sorts of problems with thematic overlap between the Cleric and the Paladin, and most people would prefer to play the Crusading Knight archetype rather Catholic Priest. I've discussed that in the past here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?555832-What-Is-the-Cleric-RANT), but that's neither here nor there.

[EvilAnagram]

Because of so called clerical duties. Having a cleric in the party makes the rest of the party feel they have free reign to be reckless, which makes the Cleric basically just be a box of band aids while running around the battlefield. Never mind the fact that the Cleric specced into buffs for the party, or is a melee monstrosity; the Cleric can't do what makes them special because they're too busy making sure everyone else can do their special stuff.

And, as a player, that sucks. It feels bad. And that makes people not want to play a cleric. Everyone else can be special; your job is to make sure everyone else can do that thing that makes them special. But you? You're not allowed to do that, because so many people have the misconception of what clerics do.


I don't understand this sentiment. If you're not playing a heal bot, tell the other players that's not what you want to do. If they don't accept that, they're not going to be worth spending time with. Not respecting your wishes is a red flag.

[Arkhios]

I don't understand this sentiment. If you're not playing a heal bot, tell the other players that's not what you want to do. If they don't accept that, they're not going to be worth spending time with. Not respecting your wishes is a red flag.

Indeed. Show some proverbial balls and tell them "suck it". It's your character, not theirs. You do you. This isn't some MMO, where each and every class comes with a pre-determined 'role', such as tank, dps, or healer, merely because of your class (obviously some classes are better at one or the other, but that's no excuse to assume anything).

[Corran]

Because of so called clerical duties. Having a cleric in the party makes the rest of the party feel they have free reign to be reckless, which makes the Cleric basically just be a box of band aids while running around the battlefield. Never mind the fact that the Cleric specced into buffs for the party, or is a melee monstrosity; the Cleric can't do what makes them special because they're too busy making sure everyone else can do their special stuff.

And, as a player, that sucks. It feels bad. And that makes people not want to play a cleric. Everyone else can be special; your job is to make sure everyone else can do that thing that makes them special. But you? You're not allowed to do that, because so many people have the misconception of what clerics do.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB5Kg9qWHn0&t=

[ToastyTobasco]

I'm actually chomping at the bit to play a Forge or Tempest Cleric. The flavor and abilities of Forge are spot on and Tempest is a great damage caster. I'll take Revivify and a heal or two but I'm either frontlining or calling lightning

[GreyBlack]

I don't understand this sentiment. If you're not playing a heal bot, tell the other players that's not what you want to do. If they don't accept that, they're not going to be worth spending time with. Not respecting your wishes is a red flag.


Indeed. Show some proverbial balls and tell them "suck it". It's your character, not theirs. You do you. This isn't some MMO, where each and every class comes with a pre-determined 'role', such as tank, dps, or healer, merely because of your class (obviously some classes are better at one or the other, but that's no excuse to assume anything).

If this is a veiled attack on me, you may rest assured that I did bring this up with the group and wound up quitting the character because it wasn't fun. They learned quick how to deal without a healer. I'm now happily playing a Monk. It's fantastic.

Neither of those attacks, however, negate my point that group conceptions of what a cleric is supposed to do fouls players' perceptions of the cleric, and the fact that the cleric's potential roles tends to get overshadowed by a team that tends to need a pick me up more than anything else that they can provide, which can frustrate people.

[Chaosmancer]

If this is a veiled attack on me, you may rest assured that I did bring this up with the group and wound up quitting the character because it wasn't fun. They learned quick how to deal without a healer. I'm now happily playing a Monk. It's fantastic.

Neither of those attacks, however, negate my point that group conceptions of what a cleric is supposed to do fouls players' perceptions of the cleric, and the fact that the cleric's potential roles tends to get overshadowed by a team that tends to need a pick me up more than anything else that they can provide, which can frustrate people.

True, it sucks but peer pressure is a thing and a group can make playing certain classes unbearable if there is too much of an expectation

[Arkhios]

If this is a veiled attack on me, you may rest assured that I did bring this up with the group and wound up quitting the character because it wasn't fun. They learned quick how to deal without a healer. I'm now happily playing a Monk. It's fantastic.

Quite the opposite, actually. I know how it feels when your peers put pressure on you by expecting you to play in some specific way they think is the most appropriate given your chosen class. For my part, that was my sympathetic contempt showing towards the attitude of those other players. I literally hate it when people try to ply their strategies by trying to take control of your (character's) actions.
My point was that if Cleric was the class you wanted to play, you are free to do it your way, and never mind how the group thinks you should.

Can't say what EvilAnagram intended, though. But I doubt he intended to attack you personally.

[Kane0]

Funnily enough my father's last character was entirely positioned around the claim of 'I am NOT a healbot!'

Turned out pretty well until we figured out why he kept sneaking off during the middle of the night and took every holy symbol we came across.

[EvilAnagram]

If this is a veiled attack on me, you may rest assured that I did bring this up with the group and wound up quitting the character because it wasn't fun. They learned quick how to deal without a healer. I'm now happily playing a Monk. It's fantastic.

Neither of those attacks, however, negate my point that group conceptions of what a cleric is supposed to do fouls players' perceptions of the cleric, and the fact that the cleric's potential roles tends to get overshadowed by a team that tends to need a pick me up more than anything else that they can provide, which can frustrate people.
I was not attacking you in any way. I just think that, as with every other social environment, clear communication of desires and expectations is the best remedy to the problem you expressed. The fact that you ended up still quitting the character tells me that your group was not willing to listen when you expressed dissatisfaction with their behavior, and that's not okay. Your friends should be willing to listen to you and adjust their expectations.

And yes, the expectations of players can absolutely affect behavior, but in this case those expectations don't reflect the reality of the class.

[Pex]

I'm sure it's been said before, but here it is again: they are the most likely to be told at the table that they're playing their class wrong. And you'll get second-guessed constantly if you do anything else but heal. If you spend ANY slots on ANYTHING but healing, unless in that exact moment it saved the party, you "wasted" the slot. Any slot you use, you could have been healing. You should have been healing. Your actions are subject to what's "good for the group" which means healing. Took damage? You were bad for not staying out of the way better, since now you'll be "wasting" your healing on yourself, and not on "the party" (code for the person SAYING this). We wouldn't need to try and take a rest if the Cleric hadn't "wasted" their slots and would just heal me (LOTS of this). And if somebody REALLY dies? It's the cleric's fault. ALWAYS.


It's not worth it. It's why a Moon Druid stays in animal form all the time, since they can't be "blamed" too much for not healing, and can use their slots between combats (they haven't "wasted" them in-combat). The Cleric? If they're not healing, they're doing the wrong thing. Bards get a bit of this too, though usually avoid most of it.


People wonder why others don't want to be clerics? Because of the expectations above, that's why. It's not right but that's the attitude at a lot of tables.

You brought back bad memories of me suffering exactly this back in college in 2E. I was literally yelled at the following day after a game in the Student Union because I had cast a spell that wasn't Cure Light Wounds. The two yelling at me stopped being my friends right then and fhere.

Count me as thrilled the cleric is no longer the sole means of healing.

[EvilAnagram]

The two yelling at me stopped being my friends right then and fhere.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Those two sound like poisonous people to be around. I'm sorry you went through that.

[GreyBlack]

I was not attacking you in any way. I just think that, as with every other social environment, clear communication of desires and expectations is the best remedy to the problem you expressed. The fact that you ended up still quitting the character tells me that your group was not willing to listen when you expressed dissatisfaction with their behavior, and that's not okay. Your friends should be willing to listen to you and adjust their expectations.

And yes, the expectations of players can absolutely affect behavior, but in this case those expectations don't reflect the reality of the class.

Eh. Not really. My heart wasn't really into the character anyway and the only reason I ran it was because the DM asked me to run a Cleric. I did, I tried, it wasn't for me for many reasons including the aforementioned. So, I told the DM it wasn't fun and wanted to change characters, so I did.

[Pex]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Those two sound like poisonous people to be around. I'm sorry you went through that.

My 2E days were quite abusive. You can appreciate why I easily get riled up when the topic is about Jerk DMs or Jerk Players.

[Beckett]

I still encounter it a bit in 5E, where a party member or two go down and I have to burn through all of my spells to keep them from dying.

It does get annoying sometimes. It's not so much the old convention healbot it used to be, but at the end of the day, Cure Wounds spells being a universal Cleric spell option means you can either "be a jerk" by purposefully not prepairing it, (not that there is a huge amount of other viable options), or get stuck choosing between healing or what you want to do instead when Death Saves come in.

While I didn't care for 4E, I would say they handled at least that aspect of Cleric healing well, often having their attacks have secondary healing/buffing effects at the same time.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the healing being so tied to rests, but I hated the Pathfinder "happy stick" method as well.

Perhaps a Cleric Cantrip that allowed a melee attack as part of the casting that dealt +1 Radiant or Necrotic Damage (in addition to weapon damage) and also healed one target within 15ft for 1d2 HP. +1d2 HP at 5th, 11th, 17th.

[furby076]

In Wow healing can be fun. You control players because if they do stupid things you just don't heal. It's also an amazing puzzle and challenge to raid heal. It's fun.

No such challenge exists in D&D. Its less or more resources spent on healing depending on your team's ability to stay out of trouble, but few teams make survival, minimum fuss or careful plans their priority.

Why should they? *They have a cleric along. Official dispensation to do stupid things.*

You can play a cleric with being the walking first aid kit, and if I do, I will be putting express limits on my healing. I anticipate the reaction to be less than happy, another reason I won't play a cleric.

TD:LR; would tank, but won't heal.

Like in WoW, you keep the tank up in raids. I am the tank, if the group doesn't help keep me up, I have no issues with letting the BBEG who hits HARD walk by me and hit the cleric. Cause of the cleric doesn't heal me, then the cleric is the meatshield. Take your pick, but i recommend you don't let your tank di

[stoutstien]

I think once the order domain gets out it will open the options for buff/healing targets and allowing them to make an attack will allow a cleric to boss around the meat bags in the front

[Arkhios]

Like in WoW, you keep the tank up in raids. I am the tank, if the group doesn't help keep me up, I have no issues with letting the BBEG who hits HARD walk by me and hit the cleric. Cause of the cleric doesn't heal me, then the cleric is the meatshield. Take your pick, but i recommend you don't let your tank di

WoW ≠ D&D. In WoW, character classes have clear roles and everyone are expected to play their part in regards to those roles. In D&D, there are no actual roles (tank, healer, or damage dealer are not written in stone on each class or subclass. Fitting roles for each class or sub-class can be read between the lines, but they are not forced upon the player in the way they are in WoW), so everyone makes their own choices for how to react in each situation individually, and should be free to make up their own minds without having to fear how other players might react to their choices.

It's wrong to expect a cleric to commit their efforts only on healing, or punish them in any way if they don't. If you chose to become the tank, it was your choice. The role was not forced upon you by the rules or the other players. Why should the cleric be any different? How would you feel, if you played a paladin and your group members demanded you to commit your spell slots on healing others, just because you have access to spells (and Lay on Hands) that can do it, when you wanted to do something else (such as tanking)? The situation is the same. Paladin can be made into amazing healer, but people tend to choose another way because the class has tools for other than healing as well. But guess what, so does the cleric: they have a vast list of tools to use in the form of spells, and only a fraction of them all are designed for healing.

[Pex]

Like in WoW, you keep the tank up in raids. I am the tank, if the group doesn't help keep me up, I have no issues with letting the BBEG who hits HARD walk by me and hit the cleric. Cause of the cleric doesn't heal me, then the cleric is the meatshield. Take your pick, but i recommend you don't let your tank di

If you're a fighter you have second wind to heal yourself and action surge to nova your enemy to death. If you're a barbarian you take half damage. If you're a paladin you can touch yourself to heal.

You don't need a cleric to take care of you, but if you must have healing the bard and druid are over there. Maybe the wizard or sorcerer would be willing to give you 157 hit points. A cleric can be and is often willing to heal you but not if you demand it because you think yourself more important. Play with your party members, not in spite of them.

[dgnslyr]

Like in WoW, you keep the tank up in raids. I am the tank, if the group doesn't help keep me up, I have no issues with letting the BBEG who hits HARD walk by me and hit the cleric. Cause of the cleric doesn't heal me, then the cleric is the meatshield. Take your pick, but i recommend you don't let your tank di

On the other hand, from my experience in FFXIV, when other people get hit, it's the tank's fault for not holding aggro. So if you expect healing as part of your job meatshielding, then you need to actually be a good meatshield and take feats like Sentinel that make tanking actually feasible. Opportunity Attacks exist to disincentivize disengaging from melee, but without weight behind them, they're practically a slap on the wrist.

Furthermore, the healer's job is to keep the tank alive. Not topped off. Just alive. So as long as you're not dead, you should stop whining about heals. The faster the fight gets cleaned up, the less damage everyone will take and the less resources you'll have to spend on healing. Enemies don't attack when they're dead, which adds up to a lot of mitigation compared to letting things drag on. Out of combat healing is more efficient than in-combat healing anyways, so it's a better use of resources to fight during a fight and heal afterwards.

Lastly, most cleric domains give access to heavy armor anyways, so it's not like they're any softer of a target than the fighter.

Next time you scrape your way out of a fight, you should be happy enough if you're breathing - anything else is extra.

Sincerely, a long-time tank player.

[Beckett]

Like in WoW, you keep the tank up in raids. I am the tank, if the group doesn't help keep me up, I have no issues with letting the BBEG who hits HARD walk by me and hit the cleric. Cause of the cleric doesn't heal me, then the cleric is the meatshield. Take your pick, but i recommend you don't let your tank di

In WoW, you can crit with heals, and have more options to heal and do other things at the same time. Healers also get first pick and preference in rewards, generally, and have option to regain their full spell slots in seconds. There is also a lot more gear speced for healers and Priests.

On the other hand, and granted it has been a few years since I played, there was absolutely the same attitude among players if you played a Priest that didn't exclusively heal. Or telling them how to play their character as if they where just an NPC selling cheap buffs at will.

Of course, there tended to be a lot more tanks than healers, so when people got to be too much effort, healers could easily help someone else out instead, and poor crappy tank dies then gets kicked from group for throwing a fit. TTRPGs are designed more for group play, in a different sense than MMOs at least, so that doesn't really work the same, and this behavior is a bit more allowed and accepted, though you are also playing with actual people and not faceless people on a screen.

In many TTRPGs, the "healer" can also tank and/or blast fairly well. Sometimes better or on par with the Tank, sometimes less so. That usually doesn't work in MMOs, but can. (I remember a speced Druid in WoW being the best Tank and group healer in the game when I played).

Just out of curiosity, when you died and the BBEG got to the rest of the party, what happened? I would guess it was not everyone dying and getting mad at the healer.

[Mr.Spastic]

I think that the most prominent reason people don't play clerics is the fact that layers will blame the cleric for their characters dying. Having played a cleric it kills a lot of the fun because everybody else at the table has an opinion of what they want you to be doing. It can be stressful and demanding.

[Dudewithknives]

I have had problems with clerics in the past but not so much in 5e, just play one that channels negative energy and tell them to heal themselves.

[KorvinStarmast]

to the OP(Whit) No one likes playing a Cleric. Why?
Your question is fallacious. You assume answer in the question "no one likes playing clerics" and without support presume it's truth (which it is not) and then you ask why. The question, if you want it to be valid is better presented as "do people like playing cleric? Why, and why not?" See, that's an honest question, open to both the pro and con for an answer.

I don't know. Coming from AL, Turn Undead gets pretty good use, and has saved us multiple times, but I almost never have a use for other Divinity Options.My life clerics' use of channel divinity in various fights has been very handy. Turn undead: can't get enough of it.
I'm sure it's been said before, but here it is again: they are the most likely to be told at the table that they're playing their class wrong. And you'll get second-guessed constantly if you do anything else but heal. I don't have these problems, maybe you need to get a grip, or grow a backbone.

It's not worth it. It's why a Moon Druid stays in animal form all the time, since they can't be "blamed" too much for not healing, Stop playing with a-holes is step one. I'll temper that a bit, though. If your DM makes it hard to buy / find healing potions, there can be a problem in an extended trek. We have had a campaign like that: even though the PHB lists healing pots as a buyable item, they are hard as hell to come by.
Having class features centered around Religion and Persuasion would be nice. Maybe some sort of charm, calming, or enticing emotions? Yeah, the Charisma save, and the need to spread the word of (for example) Tempus or Lathander would suggest that a variety of people skills/abilities are up a cleric's alley. Mechanical support? Not a pile of that.
My 2E days were quite abusive. You can appreciate why I easily get riled up when the topic is about Jerk DMs or Jerk Players. Yeah. Bad table experiences can leave a mark, in memory if nowhere else.

I have made life and tempest clerics in 5e, and enjoy them.
Druid I've only had one, and enjoyed it. Druids are similar but different.
I had a chance to play in a Curse of Strahd campaign that eventually fell through; I had planned on a Light cleric for that one.

[dmteeter]

Just played my first 5e cleric last night.
only started at level 1 and made it to level 2.
Chose the life domain.
And i'm going to tell you that bless and guiding bolt got way more use out of me then cure wounds or healing word.


Stop expecting your clerics to be heal bots

And for the love of all that is divine stop comparing table top rpgs to crappy mmorpgs

[Mith]

A thought on Clerics being potential healers: What about modifying Spare the Dying to allow the target to spend up to Cleric's WIS modifier Hit Dice? That saves the spell slots but still burns through a resource.

[jaappleton]

A thought on Clerics being potential healers: What about modifying Spare the Dying to allow the target to spend up to Cleric's WIS modifier Hit Dice? That saves the spell slots but still burns through a resource.

It also craps all over the healing abilities of most other healers.

There's two dedicated 'healer' Cleric builds, and only two. Otherwise its like saying "Well, Lore Bard is super versatile but they should take Spells X and Y and be healers". No, that's not what the player wants to do.

The dedicated 'healer' Clerics are Life and........

Grave.

[Mith]

It also craps all over the healing abilities of most other healers.

There's two dedicated 'healer' Cleric builds, and only two. Otherwise its like saying "Well, Lore Bard is super versatile but they should take Spells X and Y and be healers". No, that's not what the player wants to do.

The dedicated 'healer' Clerics are Life and........

Grave.

Fair enough. I was thinking more of a different way of having healing options that doesn't have the auto healing problem, and has the cleric able to do some healing that saves their spell slots. Granted, the best way is probably bonus action Healing Surge rules.

[Pex]

Yeah. Bad table experiences can leave a mark, in memory if nowhere else.



It didn't stop there. Now I would never say a cleric should be a healbot, but I do and did agree for 2E a cleric should do some healing. During my 2E days it just so happened that when I didn't play the cleric the person who did would refuse to heal anyone but himself and one time herself. Every time. All the time. One time it was one of the players who yelled at me, before he yelled at me. It got to the point I had to play the cleric for personal character survival. One DM scolded players for refusing to heal and had to Deus Ex Machina my character not dying because I didn't have the hit points for a combat when both cleric players refused to heal. I became an expert at playing a cleric even unto 3E. I learned all the tricks, knowing when to heal and when to do something else. When I do something else I make sure it packs a punch. It's how I taught myself to be an optimizer. When I played the Pathfinder Life Oracle I was in heaven. I got to play the ultimate cleric I always wanted.

Thankfully I have not run into this problem in 5E. I've played many characters, only once as a cleric. Whoever was and is the cleric does his fair share of healing while doing other things. Even druid and bard players made their contributions. I'm so relieved I can play other classes without worry about personal survival. It also helps I've learned I don't have to play with jerks, but that hasn't been an issue. I also appreciate 5E provides means of healing without need of other PCs casting spells. However, this problem, so to speak, was never a game edition issue. It is solely a player attitude issue.

[SociopathFriend]

While it's not exactly a common occurrence- one thing is that if you're somewhere spellcasting won't be effective:
Anti-magic field
Wild magic area
Some sort of silenced zone
A region with restricted vision

The Cleric, unless they're a martial kind, will not be very useful. Clerics are based mainly on spellcasting over martial prowess.
However, unlike most spellcasters, they do not possess much in the way of long-ranged cantrips to get outside of a section where spells are less than useful. They cannot retreat a few feet and then fire a long-ranged spell past the problem at the enemy.
Many Cleric spells require sight of the target or are very close-range. Most of the other spellcasters can fire a spell off without vision and still have decent odds of hitting something- the Cleric does not.

And unlike some other spellcasters, the Cleric also has very few non-spellcasting yet still magical abilities that are useful. A Druid might still be able to wild-shape and a Bard able to use Bardic Inspiration for example- a Cleric has their Channel Divinity and this often is a much more limited application compared to the others.

This could be wrong but that's the idea I had as of the session we just got finished with. We were on a bridge with a room beyond it inhabited by Drow- you could use specifically no spells on the bridge. The party Cleric could not get off the bridge and so could use no spells while others for the most part could still function quite well: the Paladins could still smite, the Monk still use his ki abilities, the Druid could wild shape, but the Cleric for the most part simply could not contribute until we won free of the bridge.

We then did win free of it but the Drow filled the room with noxious gas and an insect swarm. Outside the room the Cleric could cast no spells while within (and outside of the spell block) he couldn't help but take damage. Granted that's an overly ideal scenario for the Drow but, at the same time, the Cleric simply was not able to contribute very well without magic.

[stoutstien]

While it's not exactly a common occurrence- one thing is that if you're somewhere spellcasting won't be effective:
Anti-magic field
Wild magic area
Some sort of silenced zone
A region with restricted vision

The Cleric, unless they're a martial kind, will not be very useful. Clerics are based mainly on spellcasting over martial prowess.
However, unlike most spellcasters, they do not possess much in the way of long-ranged cantrips to get outside of a section where spells are less than useful. They cannot retreat a few feet and then fire a long-ranged spell past the problem at the enemy.
Many Cleric spells require sight of the target or are very close-range. Most of the other spellcasters can fire a spell off without vision and still have decent odds of hitting something- the Cleric does not.

And unlike some other spellcasters, the Cleric also has very few non-spellcasting yet still magical abilities that are useful. A Druid might still be able to wild-shape and a Bard able to use Bardic Inspiration for example- a Cleric has their Channel Divinity and this often is a much more limited application compared to the others.

This could be wrong but that's the idea I had as of the session we just got finished with. We were on a bridge with a room beyond it inhabited by Drow. The party Cleric could not get off the bridge and so could use no spells while others for the most part could still function quite well: the Paladins could still smite, the Monk still use his ki abilities, the Druid could wild shape, but the Cleric for the most part simply could not contribute until we won free of the bridge.

So if the position were reversed and the pally was stuck without line of sight he/she would has been better off? When didn't the cleric just smack a drop with a weapon?

[SociopathFriend]

So if the position were reversed and the pally was stuck without line of sight he/she would has been better off? When didn't the cleric just smack a drop with a weapon?

The line of sight was specifically for other classes based primarily around spellcasting. Paladins are martial (imo) in that they're based more on walking up to an enemy and smacking them for smite-damages than casting spells. Once lack of sight or flight is introduced- martial classes without ranged weapons are all pretty equally screwed.

The comparison for sight is stuff like Bard, Sorcerer, Wizards, and Druids. Warlocks are their own special animal in that they also forfeit many of these same bonuses but make up for them with invocations and other passive magical additions to their characters while the Cleric has their channel divinity and whatever passive bonus their domain gives them.

[stoutstien]

The line of sight was specifically for other classes based primarily around spellcasting. Paladins are martial (imo) in that they're based more on walking up to an enemy and smacking them for smite-damages than casting spells. Once lack of sight or flight is introduced- martial classes without ranged weapons are all pretty equally screwed.

The comparison for sight is stuff like Bard, Sorcerer, Wizards, and Druids. Warlocks are their own special animal in that they also forfeit many of these same bonuses but make up for them with invocations and other passive magical additions to their characters while the Cleric has their channel divinity and whatever passive bonus their domain gives them.

Still at a lose on why the cleric sat down and started sucking their thumb. Cast day light and walk right into that room giving ever drow in a 60 foot range disadvantage on attacks. Wait that not even considering dropping spirit Guardian first.

[Beckett]

Could the party not fall back to draw the Drow out?

Guidance, Bless, Sacred Flame, Spiritual Weapon, nothing? I guess I just don't understand the situation, (not enough details).

[Millface]

It's somewhat off-topic, yes. However, he's arguing that divine soul sorcerer is inherently better than cleric, with one of the reasons being a combination that isn't possible through a single character with his build (warlock or paladin dip). It's certainly a powerful spell combination that can grant one significantly more spellcasting options for up to a year, but it's not one that a character can generally do on their own (requires spell slots available to a level 20 caster). The problem is that when one starts casting a spell that takes more than one action, one has to start concentrating on said spell as one is casting (i.e. break concentration on conjure celestial). Magic circle wouldn't solve this as the coatl disappears when the conjure celestial spell ends.


I'm currently playing an order cleric and am thoroughly enjoying it. It has just the right mix of increased city and combat utility to make cleric appealing enough for me to play. Hopefully, it's made legal in the next big book release.

I would argue that, if the creature is inside a magic circle, they'd be subject to the same charisma save for disappearing when the Conjure spell ends as any creature trying to teleport or plane shift out of it would be. But even if the DM doesn't go that route, the straight Cleric has always had the same access to this kind of companion. The argument wasn't that Divine Soul gets this and the Cleric doesn't, it was that with this the Divine Soul has fewer gaps.

It was also only a small part of my argument for why the DS can do nearly everything (and entirely everything necessary for a successful party) that a Cleric can, while being able to do far, far more damage and more combat healing than any Cleric subclass other than Life.

[stoutstien]

I would argue that, if the creature is inside a magic circle, they'd be subject to the same charisma save for disappearing when the Conjure spell ends as any creature trying to teleport or plane shift out of it would be. But even if the DM doesn't go that route, the straight Cleric has always had the same access to this kind of companion. The argument wasn't that Divine Soul gets this and the Cleric doesn't, it was that with this the Divine Soul has fewer gaps.

It was also only a small part of my argument for why the DS can do nearly everything (and entirely everything necessary for a successful party) that a Cleric can, while being able to do far, far more damage and more combat healing than any Cleric subclass other than Life.
To do that DS give up ritual casting and the ablity to change their spell list daily. they fill two entirely different roles within the party so I don't think they step on each other's toes too much.

[Citan]

In past editions up to 5th there has always been a lack of player interest playing a cleric in our game groups.
In my 3 groups now there seems to be a dislike of playing a cleric still.
Either a group has the one player who grudgingly plays the cleric or the closest we get is the paladin or bard for the group.
Anyone else have this issue and what can be the common factor?
Not doing the big damage seems the reason for me. What can be done if anything.
Hi!
I was no witness to the kind of rejection you're describing, but I do see less interest for those compared to other casters.
It's usually either because no appeal to spell list (lack of variety especially in damage), or, more often, because of the alleged ties in roleplay: you are supposedly serving a god after all.
And Cleric has the strongest roleplay ties of any class, even compared to Warlock.

With that said, there is nothing mechanically enforcing, so it's in truth as compelling as player (and DM) want it to be.


Few people like to be the one sacrificing.
Why should they? *They have a cleric along. Official dispensation to do stupid things.*

You can play a cleric with being the walking first aid kit, and if I do, I will be putting express limits on my healing. I anticipate the reaction to be less than happy, another reason I won't play a cleric.

TD:LR; would tank, but won't heal.
I'm sad for you, seems you rarely had proper teammates to play with...:smalleek:

[TheFryingPen]

What I don't like about cleric is that many domains have either too specific features or channel divinity options. Or they it just doesn't keep up with dmg / extra attacks. Also I'm not necessarily fan of the religious orientation RP-wise.

Arcana Domain: the basic domain feature and level 8 feature are amazing, but channel divinity and 6th level feature are too situational.
Forge Domain: Nice features but I just don't see the value in it's channel divinity.
Grave Domain: The buffed spare the dying still isn't very good. The other basic domain feature again does only something vs specific foes.
Knowledge Domain: Interesting for out of combat and RP, less so for combat.
Life Domain: one of the few where I don't feel like it features situational / wasted features, but it's the default heal bot.
Light Domain: another decent one, but I'd rather play a WL/Evocation Wizard/Sorcerer if I wanted area damage. Channel divinity use and basic feature are fine, but the warding flame taking your 1st level and 6th level feature slot is meh.
Nature Domain: very nice features imo, but the channel divinity is so situational.
Tempest Domain: This at first glance looks like a decent gish, but you need feats / MC to get SCAG cantrips, otherwise the lack of an extra attack just makes it sub par compared to the gish options I'd prefer.
Trickery Domain: basic feature is negating stealth disadvantage for one heavy armored character. Nice if the group needs it for exactly one character and wants to stealth, otherwise negligible. Duplicity is nice flavor-wise, but it doesn't have enough impact on fights to warrant using your short rest resource and an action. 6th level feature is nice, but again doesn't feel like having enough impact.
War Domain: Basic feature is available soon, but after level 5 it's just worse than extra attack. Channel divinity takes 2 feature "slots", and even with divine strike any martials or potent gishes will likely deal more sustained damage. I'd rather play a paladin or swords bard if I wanted a supportive melee.

It's not that clerics are bad, it just seems to me that most domains feature something I feel like I can rarely properly make use of or the feature's just not as impactful as I'd expect it to be. And that's something I just don't like. If I specialize in a subclass, I want to be able to use their strengths/style often and to their full extent and I don't like class features that are situational. If I could mix and match subclass features I'd probably play clerics pretty often, but as it stands, I don't really like any of it's subclasses enough due to one or more features they're stuck with. Cleric's not a bad package at all, but it lacks signature moves unless you're fighting undeads. Most clerics will just play pretty much like any other cleric (with the rough distinction between more caster like and more martial like cleric) and have a few situations they shine in. Compared to other classes, the subclass features have too little impact on the overall gameplay for my taste.

[Kaliayev]

While it's not exactly a common occurrence- one thing is that if you're somewhere spellcasting won't be effective:
Anti-magic field
Wild magic area
Some sort of silenced zone
A region with restricted vision

The Cleric, unless they're a martial kind, will not be very useful. Clerics are based mainly on spellcasting over martial prowess.
However, unlike most spellcasters, they do not possess much in the way of long-ranged cantrips to get outside of a section where spells are less than useful. They cannot retreat a few feet and then fire a long-ranged spell past the problem at the enemy.
Many Cleric spells require sight of the target or are very close-range. Most of the other spellcasters can fire a spell off without vision and still have decent odds of hitting something- the Cleric does not.

And unlike some other spellcasters, the Cleric also has very few non-spellcasting yet still magical abilities that are useful. A Druid might still be able to wild-shape and a Bard able to use Bardic Inspiration for example- a Cleric has their Channel Divinity and this often is a much more limited application compared to the others.

This could be wrong but that's the idea I had as of the session we just got finished with. We were on a bridge with a room beyond it inhabited by Drow- you could use specifically no spells on the bridge. The party Cleric could not get off the bridge and so could use no spells while others for the most part could still function quite well: the Paladins could still smite, the Monk still use his ki abilities, the Druid could wild shape, but the Cleric for the most part simply could not contribute until we won free of the bridge.

We then did win free of it but the Drow filled the room with noxious gas and an insect swarm. Outside the room the Cleric could cast no spells while within (and outside of the spell block) he couldn't help but take damage. Granted that's an overly ideal scenario for the Drow but, at the same time, the Cleric simply was not able to contribute very well without magic.

Antimagic field is actually one of the cleric's most powerful tools (e.g. antimagic field against an npc caster, grapple said caster, stab said caster to death by a thousand cuts) and damn near every pc takes a significant hit in such a field. A druid's wild shape winks out when he/she enters an antimagic field. Paladins cannot smite in an antimagic field, because divine smite is fueled by spell slots. Improved divine smite still works, but that puts them roughly on par with a martial cleric in the same position. Rogue, monk, barbarian, and fighter take the smallest hits to their combat capabilities in an antimagic field, but it's not exactly a picnic for them either, especially if they went with a magical archetype. You should talk to your DM about the oddity of an area where spells don't work but magic does.


I would argue that, if the creature is inside a magic circle, they'd be subject to the same charisma save for disappearing when the Conjure spell ends as any creature trying to teleport or plane shift out of it would be. But even if the DM doesn't go that route, the straight Cleric has always had the same access to this kind of companion. The argument wasn't that Divine Soul gets this and the Cleric doesn't, it was that with this the Divine Soul has fewer gaps.

It was also only a small part of my argument for why the DS can do nearly everything (and entirely everything necessary for a successful party) that a Cleric can, while being able to do far, far more damage and more combat healing than any Cleric subclass other than Life.

You're adding properties to magic circle that are not in its description. It doesn't state that conjured beings are kept in the circle despite the duration of a restricted conjuration spell. This is a case where comparison is necessary. With conjure celestial, the spell description specifically states that the creature disappears at the end of the duration. Now, let's compare to a less restricted conjuration spell. With summon greater demon, the creature doesn't disappear at the end on the spell's duration. It only disappears when it drops to 0 hit points. A summoned demon would be a valid target for a single character, obviously not a cleric, attempting to planar bind a creature. Of course, if the demon succeeds on its charisma save(s) and your magic circle runs out, you might have a problem.

In order for a single character to planar bind a couatl brought forth by conjure celestial, they would need glyph of warding and two seventh level spell slots (i.e. level 20 full caster). The character would have to prepare a spell glyph, with a very specific trigger, to conjure the couatl, prepare a magic circle to contain it, and then start casting planar binding on the trapped couatl as soon as the spell glyph is triggered. That being said, two appropriately classed casters could accomplish this feat of planar binding a conjured celestial as early as level 13, and it would be a good use of their downtime activity.

[Snails]

(Skipping ahead...)

The Cleric seems like a support character, someone whose overall relative power level has been great in every edition but tends to be less glamorous day to day play. You cannot really do better in terms of reliability and effectiveness, but in terms of grabbing the limelight with manifest awesomeness, no, not so much.

As for 5e (like 4e) the party is not tied by apron-strings to be a healbot. As I like battlefield control wizards in 3e, I think the transition to a not-your-healbot Cleric is pretty straightforward.

Yes, my Tempest Cleric does heal. But only a bit of healing here and there to smooth out bad luck suffered by a brave comrade. I am not healing up the whole party to kick down another door -- that is what your hit dice are for.

[DaveOfTheDead]

I actually enjoy playing clerics because the class itself is so versatile. There's so many different ways to to play the class, even without healing!

My next cleric is going to be a trickery cleric and I couldn't be more excited to **** with people.

[Trustypeaches]

The extent of healing I do on any of my clerics is tossing out a healing Word on a dying ally.

[Citan]

I love the Cleric, but the Sorcerer's Metamagic more than makes up for the lack of spells known.

After years of playing Sorcerers, the lack of spells known isn't actually noticed. More spells know is nice, but I many times I've found that I don't switch spells much when playing a wizard or cleric. I have my core spells and I (and others I know) don't deviate from those.

I think the cleric is one of the most versatile classes out there. You can go physical and magical or one or the other. Best grappler class in the game as they have some nice bonus action spells (and spiritual weapon is an Attack and no concentration). So I don't say this because I hate the Cleric.

But the Cleric doesn't have cool features outside of spells. Channel Divinity and their subclass features don't outweigh the Metamagic and Sorcerer subclass features. Subclasses* are about equal and metamagics are just amazing amd totally stomps on channel divinity.

When it comes to the strongest classes in the game, Sorcerer stands right next to the Cleric. Subtle Spell is one of the most broken abilities in the game. Might not come up all the time in battle, but in the social/explorative side of the game? I'll take subtle hold person, charm person, or whatever else in order to totally destroy my enemies.
That is very true, and one of the reasons I tend to jump hard when I hear/read people complaining so hard about "limited spell known"...
That statement is probably a bit strong on Wizards, because they have so many different spells to choose from that if you took 2 different Wizard with the same School barring the usual Shield/Absorb Elements/Fireball, you would probably have different enough choices not to tiptoe.
But as you say once you found the spells you're comfortable with on a daily basis, you will rarely change, if only because your friends learned how to work and plan ahead with the expectation of you using those same spells fight after fight.

On a Cleric it's even worse. Pick any Cleric lvl 6-7 that wants to be optimized, whatever the domain (hence the focus), you'll see they share the same Healing Words, Bless, Spiritual Weapon, Spirit Guardians, and probably one among Sanctuary, Revivify and Guiding Bolt.
So near half of choosable spells shared, and those will be the main chunk of what will be used over a day.

That's also why people love so much Tempest for a Domain, because it's one of the few that bring bonus spells that each go in a different direction (and bring things really different from base Cleric abilities).

And also why probably so many people would like to see Sorcerer getting bonus spells from Origin, which could certainly be justified ("you are of this origin because you naturally tend to shape your internal magic in such spells ^^).


But the bottom point is: most people use the same subset of 6-7 spells over days because it's on those parties built tactics on/around. So limited number of spells is a constraint, but usually not that hard of a contraint in actual play.

[Kaliayev]

That is very true, and one of the reasons I tend to jump hard when I hear/read people complaining so hard about "limited spell known"...
That statement is probably a bit strong on Wizards, because they have so many different spells to choose from that if you took 2 different Wizard with the same School barring the usual Shield/Absorb Elements/Fireball, you would probably have different enough choices not to tiptoe.
But as you say once you found the spells you're comfortable with on a daily basis, you will rarely change, if only because your friends learned how to work and plan ahead with the expectation of you using those same spells fight after fight.

On a Cleric it's even worse. Pick any Cleric lvl 6-7 that wants to be optimized, whatever the domain (hence the focus), you'll see they share the same Healing Words, Bless, Spiritual Weapon, Spirit Guardians, and probably one among Sanctuary, Revivify and Guiding Bolt.
So near half of choosable spells shared, and those will be the main chunk of what will be used over a day.

That's also why people love so much Tempest for a Domain, because it's one of the few that bring bonus spells that each go in a different direction (and bring things really different from base Cleric abilities).

And also why probably so many people would like to see Sorcerer getting bonus spells from Origin, which could certainly be justified ("you are of this origin because you naturally tend to shape your internal magic in such spells ^^).


But the bottom point is: most people use the same subset of 6-7 spells over days because it's on those parties built tactics on/around. So limited number of spells is a constraint, but usually not that hard of a contraint in actual play.

The advantage of prepped spells is that one has a lot more options when dungeon delving isn't on the table, and if one's DM isn't including those other aspects of play, one's table is losing out on a substantive chunk of the game and the value of those prepped spells caster classes. Any prepped spell caster worth their salt has spell lists for dungeon delving, travel, and towns/downtime, with minor alterations made for the very specific circumstances one might predictably find oneself in (e.g. preparing meld into stone when you know your party will be traveling through a mountain range or water walk when your party is traveling by boat). Sorcerers are a lot more limited in such scenarios, as they have a fairly limited number of spells known and most of those spells are going to be combat-oriented thanks to opportunity costs (i.e. corner case provided by the planar binding poster above is probably not representative of most sorcerers).

In these scenarios, clerics have a huge edge over divine soul sorcerers. If one has several days in a town, a cleric can use all of their spell slots on utility in addition to their usual downtime activities. For example, a cleric can prep a BoH full of water for the next adventure, improve relations with the local populace by curing diseases that might be afflicting them, commune with his/her god for yes/no answers to questions that have been nagging at the party, get intel on anything of legendary significance that the party has encountered or will likely encounter in the near future, throw out some enhance abilities to help other pcs with their downtime activities, etc. A sorcerer is more likely to be sitting on their spell slots during this time.

[Tanarii]

The pillars of player are Exploration, social and combat. Not dungeon, travel, and town/downtime. The latter shouldn't even be significant table time. Thats the entire reason its called downtime.

Ideally dungeon delving and wilderness adventures encompass all three pillars of play already. But they do tend to be lighter on social IMX.

Urban adventures tend to be light on exploration, and heavy on social.

So if you're switching between adventures heavily focused on a pillar of play, yeah, flexibility is very important. But also if you have adventures that incorporate them all to some degree or another.

[Pex]

When playing a spellcaster and I have spell slots left over before a long rest, I don't find that a wasted day. I don't need to have cast all my spells. Casting spells is my character's tool, not his reason to exist. I don't need a spell for every occasion, nor do I find it a requirement of a player to be considered worthy of playing a spellcaster.

[GreyBlack]

The pillars of player are Exploration, social and combat. Not dungeon, travel, and town/downtime. The latter shouldn't even be significant table time. Thats the entire reason its called downtime.

Ideally dungeon delving and wilderness adventures encompass all three pillars of play already. But they do tend to be lighter on social IMX.

Urban adventures tend to be light on exploration, and heavy on social.

So if you're switching between adventures heavily focused on a pillar of play, yeah, flexibility is very important. But also if you have adventures that incorporate them all to some degree or another.

I disagree with your assessment on downtime, but only because I may have a different view on it.

To my view, the "Pillars of Play" stuff is very much akin to the Avengers movies. There's a big bad when everyone gets together to go stomp on its face. Cool, that's great.

Then, downtime is where the characters themselves get to advance their own personal stories. This is akin to the individual Marvel movies like Doctor Strange and Iron Man. Sure, the stuff they're doing may affect what happens during the big fight, but they don't need to gather the rest of the team to take care of it.

As to, "it shouldn't take up significant table time"... I disagree here because, without spending table time on it, the players can begin to feel like they aren't having an effect on the greater story being told. Sure, they've killed Lareth the Beautiful, but towards what end? It's not as satisfying for some players.

Besides, downtime where they're acting towards their own goals can be where the players really shine. Sure, that fighter is doing their job in the dungeon, but now they've founded a town! In fact, nobility is coming to them to ask for their aid in this war against Nexttownoverdom! That's really cool! Oh, and that wizard? He just invented a new spell! How cool is that?

That said, your mileage may vary there. Just something that I've found from DMing through a couple of editions.

To tie this discussion back to Clerics, perhaps another reason people don't like Clerics is because of the (perceived) lack of downtime activities they can participate in? As a society, we have this perception that priests can't go out and carouse or found towns and such. That perceived lack of ability to do anything meaningful in the downtime could certainly lead to a certain degree of antipathy towards clerics.

[Kaliayev]

The pillars of player are Exploration, social and combat. Not dungeon, travel, and town/downtime. The latter shouldn't even be significant table time. Thats the entire reason its called downtime.

Ideally dungeon delving and wilderness adventures encompass all three pillars of play already. But they do tend to be lighter on social IMX.

Urban adventures tend to be light on exploration, and heavy on social.

So if you're switching between adventures heavily focused on a pillar of play, yeah, flexibility is very important. But also if you have adventures that incorporate them all to some degree or another.

I wasn't positing anything about the "pillars of play," just a general progression of play an adventuring party is likely to deal with. I avoid AL and most of the DMs I've played with are more free-form, preferring to avoid adventure modules and embrace personalized campaigns and one-shots, assuming that is what you're referring to with adventures. Therefore, my experiences may not be representative of play that occurs in those more regimented mediums (ignore last two sentences if I'm mistaken in what you're referring to). A general start to the progression of play is for a party to identify/select a dungeon/location they're going to explore. They will spend some time in a given town preparing for said dungeon, some time traveling between point A and point B (becomes less of a concern the higher level you get), and finally contend with the dungeon, though not necessarily in that order and allowing for a more roundabout approach in execution (e.g. party sets out from town a on an adventure to x and discover y along the way, deciding to explore y and stopping at town b before continuing on to x). A DM is welcome to ignore these aspects of play progression and focus solely on a given dungeon, but doing so discounts the overall utility of prepped spell classes, and party development to a degree.

Of course nobody wants to spend a significant amount of table time on irrelevant downtime. However, anything one might do that requires a roll or results in substantive campaign developments will require some table time and/or out-of-session communication with the DM. One can give the DM a list of reasonable things one wants to do while in town, with the DM requiring rolls and IC interactions when appropriate. This can take as little as a few minutes or as long as a couple hours, depending on campaign implications and what each player at the table wants to get done within a given allotment of downtime (e.g. if the evil characters in the party want to overthrow the king and spend their downtime recruiting and arming various rebel cells within the kingdom, this could take an entirely separate session or a few lucky rolls while handling downtime in various towns).


When playing a spellcaster and I have spell slots left over before a long rest, I don't find that a wasted day. I don't need to have cast all my spells. Casting spells is my character's tool, not his reason to exist. I don't need a spell for every occasion, nor do I find it a requirement of a player to be considered worthy of playing a spellcaster.

Sorry for implying that when I said, "all of their spell slots." The focus of my post was that the prepped spells caster has more options available for a given situation than a spells known caster, especially when comparing cleric and divine soul sorcerer. The spells known caster is more like the soloist in a band, while the spells prepped caster is more like the ensemble of a band (wizards kinda get the best of both worlds). They each contribute to the music.

[Dudu]

Well, I'll have to step in.

As someone who played as a cleric for half a dozen campaigns, some of which lasted 10 or more sessions, I gotta say cleric might be among the most miscomprehended classes of the 5th edition. Why? Two reasons mostly, one mechanic and other is fluff.

The mechanic one derives from the fact that a good chunk of the players are still trapped in the cleric=healer.

Someone in the thread said cleric suck at tanking because they are simply too harmless to be qualified as a threat, so enemies simply ignore him/her.
Well, that's a big misconception. Walk into a horde of enemies with your Spirit Guardians on and the Spiritual Weapon smacking and you got yourself not only a threatening target, but if the cirscunstance favors, the most threatening target in the party.
Top on that the fact that this cleric is the one who is bringing the other members back to action with a cheap lvl 1 spell and is not even bothering to use an action for that, and the enemies might put a big bullseye into the cleric.
Oh, and more about tanking, Spirit Guardians also slows down foes, which makes it harder to leave your death grasp.

Clerics are brutal DPRs. Single Targetwise, they fall behind the likes of fighters, rogues and barbarians, of course, but vs hordes, they are the king. Spirit Guardians alone might be the best blasting spell of the game, and even though it really is just one spell, it scales so well it's perfectly viable to burn your higher level slots for it (unlike, say, Fireball, which is only really effective at 3rd level).

Many people still think the cleric is too much garbage because, "hey, wouldn't it be better if I did more damage instead of wasting precious spell slots to cure my allies?". Yes, you would, and the cleric has the tools for it, plenty of them, on top of Spirit Guardians. Anyone who is trying to see the Tempest Cleric as a "gish" is completely missing the potential of maximizing a Destruction Wave in the middle of the fray.
Let me make this point very clear: clerics are casters with a barely acceptable weapon offense. Focus on the casting bit of your class and let your weapon "prowess" be what it's intended to be - secondary at best.

And...

About the fluff. Again, open your minds. Hell, I love playing clerics, and I'm an atheist.
But there are some few things completely new and exciticing about religion in every dnd setting I played that diverges noticeable from our world's religions.

One is that gods definitely exist, like, in an obvious way. If some real life priest said "In the name of Lord Jesus, I cast Banishment" and someone disappeared, you bet your ass I would be christian.

Two, gods are interestinly not omnipotent or even omniscient. They almost have those humanlike vibe of olympic and sumerian gods that's so charming. So your cleric can be this very steemed, respected champion of a god, which is a being that can have a very interesting personality, someone like OoTS' Thor, for example.

Or, you can 180 the whole thing and do what I did with a NPC cleric. This cleric was what I call an 'apostate', which in this specific campaign means he drains his power from a god, and is basically a number one enemy for everyone who follows this god. In the NPC case, he drained the power of a god of death after he learned what was the god's plan, which pronpted a elite sect of this god's faith to hunt him down. Be creative with the fluff and there won't be a dull class.

[Citan]

The advantage of prepped spells is that one has a lot more options when dungeon delving isn't on the table, and if one's DM isn't including those other aspects of play, one's table is losing out on a substantive chunk of the game and the value of those prepped spells caster classes. Any prepped spell caster worth their salt has spell lists for dungeon delving, travel, and towns/downtime, with minor alterations made for the very specific circumstances one might predictably find oneself in (e.g. preparing meld into stone when you know your party will be traveling through a mountain range or water walk when your party is traveling by boat).
What you say is extremely true overall, and it was indeed important to stress that. ;)

It differs a bit (or quite actually) from my experience though, as a player and as a DM, because in games I play rare are the occurences in which all three pillars aren't intertwined, whether planned or not. So "we" (as in people I play with both sides) tend to keep all the combat basics prepped whatever happens. Hence my pointing out of those 5-6 spells. ;)
(Which does not change the fact that yeah, Druid and Cleric are hugely better than all other casters in general because of that: at least they can afford to use situational spells whenever they can anticipate a bit -and why Druid is probably in my top three favorite classes ;)).




Clerics are brutal DPRs. Single Targetwise, they fall behind the likes of fighters, rogues and barbarians, of course, but vs hordes, they are the king. Spirit Guardians alone might be the best blasting spell of the game, and even though it really is just one spell, it scales so well it's perfectly viable to burn your higher level slots for it (unlike, say, Fireball, which is only really effective at 3rd level).

I'm really glad for you that you love this class, but your enthusiasm shouldn't blind you. ;)

Clerics aren't and will never be the best against hordes.* Even Light and with Fireball will pale down in the face of any decent Sorcerer, Bard, focused Bard or even Druids/ 4E / Sun Soul Monk.

And Spirit Guardians is a great spell in some situations, but a very crappy spell for many others.
It doesn't do squat against flyers (even if someone were to Fly you, 3D positioning is just a bitch).
It doesn't do squat against ranged attackers (who can just move back as they continue attacking you).
It doesn't do squat when you are under a movement reducing/blocking effect.
It doesn't do squat once you lost concentration (and considering you made yourself a prime target as you say it, it will be hard to keep concentration several rounds until/unless you get Warcaster feat or spend time Dodging or have someone else Warding Bond you).
It doesn't do much when enemies are spreaded out (you can count on a minimum one enemy at best, again, unless you have allies helping you herding people).
It doesn't do much either in general, once enemies realize that they risk being damage only when they get close to you (unless you spam Command to make them close in or can work with someone else).

Spirit Guardians is a great spell to use in some specific situations like making a tag-team with one (or several) resilient martial(s) (you help him damage, he helps you avoid hits and/or keeping enemies in area) or when party has to hold a choke-point and someone else can help you keep concentration as you make yourself a true meat shield, or where otherwise environments makes it easy for you to affect several creatures every round.
In all other situations, it's "just a good spell" (which is good enough for me ^^) but certainly not the best blasting. Not by miles.

And the only other example you give is the one Domain that can actually hold its own in AOE blasting thanks to Channel Divinity. Does take more than one exception to make a generality. :)

: yeah, it can be great, but for it to be really impressive you need to cumulate many conditions...
1) Have more than 2 enemies at the very least (4 recommended), otherwise it's probably a waste of spell.
2) Be in the center of the polygon they form (which means you have to be a tad lucky or have great movement to not risk your hide until you get there).
Those are not *that* hard to come by, but they aren't common in my experience either.
And with the Channel Divinity you can maximize the thunder part only, so you get an average of 30+21 instead of simply 21+21.
A Fireball of the same level will deal the exactly same average damage. Fire type is one inconvenience compared to Destructive Wave but on the other side...
- Sorcerer could use Empower to reroll half damage, Draconic could bump +5 on that.
So with both (Draonic + Empower) you actually easily reach or beat Destructive Wave average.
On next spell level some casters get Chain Lightning, which has several times better effective range and deals more damage.

IMO The really interesting thing of Destructive Wave is not its damage, which is average overall (although less resisted types than others), it's that there is guaranteed no friendly fire (unless you want it to ^^).
Whereas Fireball and even Chain Lightning can create serious collateral damage...

*Well, ok, undead excepted. Against those Cleric can be at least as good as others, provided he still has a use of CD. ^^

[Tanarii]

Then, downtime is where the characters themselves get to advance their own personal stories. This is akin to the individual Marvel movies like Doctor Strange and Iron Man. Sure, the stuff they're doing may affect what happens during the big fight, but they don't need to gather the rest of the team to take care of it.

As to, "it shouldn't take up significant table time"... I disagree here because, without spending table time on it, the players can begin to feel like they aren't having an effect on the greater story being told. Sure, they've killed Lareth the Beautiful, but towards what end? It's not as satisfying for some players.

Besides, downtime where they're acting towards their own goals can be where the players really shine. Sure, that fighter is doing their job in the dungeon, but now they've founded a town! In fact, nobility is coming to them to ask for their aid in this war against Nexttownoverdom! That's really cool! Oh, and that wizard? He just invented a new spell! How cool is that?

That said, your mileage may vary there. Just something that I've found from DMing through a couple of editions.
My views on this are definitely skewed by running an open table campaign. But I'm not saying that stuff shouldn't happen. Just take it away from the table. Unless you have a very small group, 2-3 players, you're using valuable table time for what needs to be figured out between the DM and the individual player. Until they need to pull a group of Pcs (or deven their one single group of Pcs that exists in the campaign) into a table-time worthy group addressed situation. At which point it's now an adventure!

That said, I do think there are some lines that can be drawn between the kinds of spells and features that will be useful in a Dungeon crawl adventure, a wilderness adventure, and an urban adventure.

[GreyBlack]

My views on this are definitely skewed by running an open table campaign. But I'm not saying that stuff shouldn't happen. Just take it away from the table. Unless you have a very small group, 2-3 players, you're using valuable table time for what needs to be figured out between the DM and the individual player. Until they need to pull a group of Pcs (or deven their one single group of Pcs that exists in the campaign) into a table-time worthy group addressed situation. At which point it's now an adventure!

That said, I do think there are some lines that can be drawn between the kinds of spells and features that will be useful in a Dungeon crawl adventure, a wilderness adventure, and an urban adventure.

And that's fine. Open table stuff isn't exactly my schtick, as I do prefer my characters feeling like they have a tangible sense of effect on the world around them. This isn't exactly possible when dealing with open table games, so doing downtime away from the table makes sense in those contexts.

So, in your context, I completely agree with the reticence towards using table time to do downtime stuff. D&D, at its heart, is a tabletop wargame with RPG elements*, so running a table in this adventuring style makes a lot of sense. To my preference, I prefer dedicating table time to these things as it lets the characters have a chance to breathe every so often and feel like they're having an effect on the world around them. But, again, this is just a stylistic preference. You're able to do what you like.

*Disclaimer: No. Stop. It is. It's in the original versions of D&D, it's in Gygax's original document. The rules were based on Chainmail. Just because the rules and intentions have evolved since then doesn't change what it was originally designed as. The 1974 original release even says, "DUNGEONS & DRAGONS will provide a basically complete, nearly endless campaign of all levels of fantastic-medieval wargame play." Emphasis mine. This is even where the term, "campaign" comes from. This is a neutral statement of fact, and does not diminish the roleplay aspect of the modern game. Disclaimer over.

[Tanarii]

And that's fine. Open table stuff isn't exactly my schtick, as I do prefer my characters feeling like they have a tangible sense of effect on the world around them. This isn't exactly possible when dealing with open table games, so doing downtime away from the table makes sense in those contexts. Not sure why you think that's the case. My players change the campaign world all the time.

[GreyBlack]

Not sure why you think that's the case. My players change the campaign world all the time.

Perhaps it's just that, in my experience, open table games can't allow that same level of impact that more closed games can. This is... kinda by design, too. At many tables, a character couldn't, for example, become a baron or a landed knight. With as many players who come and go into the game, it wouldn't make sense for the players to be able to change the geopolitical landscape of your game when they might not be there next month.

To my understanding, the great thing about open table games is that pick-up-and-play nature. You don't have to get super invested, you can just show up and kill some orcs and have fun at whatever adventure is happening at that time. Which is great! That's an awesome style of gaming! It's just not what I enjoy; I prefer the style of game where you can go and find different adventures to do and really make your own mark on the world. I've had a couple of DM's who have been able to make that work but I'll admit it's rather rare.

I'm actually going to be running my open world game in the next month. Originally, this group had been running with adventurer's league rules, so we'll see what happens from there!

[Tanarii]

IMO that tends to be more because the most common open table games arent single DM, they're official play.

But this is all pretty far afield :smallamused:

[GreyBlack]

IMO that tends to be more because the most common open table games arent single DM, they're official play.

But this is all pretty far afield :smallamused:



To tie this discussion back to Clerics, perhaps another reason people don't like Clerics is because of the (perceived) lack of downtime activities they can participate in? As a society, we have this perception that priests can't go out and carouse or found towns and such. That perceived lack of ability to do anything meaningful in the downtime could certainly lead to a certain degree of antipathy towards clerics.

And we're back. :biggrin:

[Tanarii]

And we're back. :biggrin:
Aye. The perception of Clerics as Priests as opposed to a kind of Holy Agent touched by their Diety definitely affects people's willingness to play them.

I've had a few players cast their Cleric as someone who, while devout, had nothing to do with being any kind of Priest. Either before or after their Diety started to channel power to them. They didn't preach, they weren't part of their Diety's organized (if any) church, they were someone who was devout and worked in their own adventuring way to accomplish what they saw as their Diety's aims.

Besides, many Dieties would approve of their Clerics doing some of the more less "Priestly" sounding downtimes. Including Carousing, Gambling, Pit Fighting, Crime, or Work (as an entertainer). Depends what their portfolio is.

[Dudewithknives]

To put it simply the issue is 3 fold.

1. If you want to play a holy warrior, you will play a paladin. Clerics are only ok front liners when they have spells left.

2. People are far too used to mmos where people have roles like tanks and healers, if you have the ability to heal and you don’t, the group will blame you when they failed. Using your action in combat to heal may be a tactically good idea but you will never be the highlight. Healing is either needed or not based on the whim of the dm. Also if anyone ever dies you get blamed.

3. Many classes do your job better than you do. Divine soul sorcerer can heal more unless you are life, even then a twinned big heal is better than anything you will do. Celestial warlocks can get an invisible familiar to deliver all their healing spells for them if they go chain, also they get a bigger pool of healing. Even a bard can do just as good, druids get the new broken healing light or whatever spell that makes out of combat healing a joke.

[Dudu]

And Spirit Guardians is a great spell in some situations, but a very crappy spell for many others.

[adressed below][/B]
If someone were to fly you, the 15ft radius could cover a large enough area.

It doesn't do squat against ranged attackers (who can just move back as they continue attacking you).
The ranged attacks can be troublesome in open areas. In closed areas they might not have somewhere to run. And even if they can run, they won't run very fast since they are slowed inside the Spirit Guardians.

It doesn't do squat when you are under a movement reducing/blocking effect.
Freedom of Movement is a cleric spell that lasts for a hour and doesn't require concentration.

It doesn't do squat once you lost concentration (and considering you made yourself a prime target as you say it, it will be hard to keep concentration several rounds until/unless you get Warcaster feat or spend time Dodging or have someone else Warding Bond you).
Hence why I usually grab Warcaster ASAP. Yeah, before any Wis bumps. And I do use my action to dodge, sounds like a waste, but it's a pain for the enemies to hit the cleric that way. As an added insult to injury, my last cleric dipped into Wizard for the Shield spell and had the Staff of Insects so I didn't even bother to dodge, but those are elements outside of the cleric class itself.

It doesn't do much when enemies are spreaded out (you can count on a minimum one enemy at best, again, unless you have allies helping you herding people).
I agree, it doesn't. But it's not like you are supposed to use Spirit Guardians in every situation, otherwise you wouldn't be called a cleric, but the "Spirit Guardians caster".

It doesn't do much either in general, once enemies realize that they risk being damage only when they get close to you (unless you spam Command to make them close in or can work with someone else).
You mean that, assuming they have room to escape, they have to scatter their position just to avoid you? Seems like you are already doing something. When I say I find Spirit Guardians the best blast spell, I'm not judging it purely on it's blasting aspect (which is superb) but also the battlefield control bit attached.


Spirit Guardians is a great spell to use in some specific situations like making a tag-team with one (or several) resilient martial(s) (you help him damage, he helps you avoid hits and/or keeping enemies in area) or when party has to hold a choke-point and someone else can help you keep concentration as you make yourself a true meat shield, or where otherwise environments makes it easy for you to affect several creatures every round.
In all other situations, it's "just a good spell" (which is good enough for me ^^) but certainly not the best blasting. Not by miles.
I still feel it is. Every blast spell will have a situation where it isn't the best option, Spirit Guardians is no exception. You can compare Spirit Guardians with Fireball using your 3rd level slot, but start heighning the spell and you'll start to see how Spirit Guardians shines. The spell slot versatility is one of the biggest advantages to me. The only reason to cast Fireball as a higher level spell is to spare your 3rd level slots for stuff like Counterspell, Hypnotic Pattern or Haste. But the way it scales is sad. At lvl 6, it's doing 11d6 fire damage, meanwhile Spirit Guardians is boasting 8d6, the average of the basic Fireball, per turn, no friendly fire, with slow effect, and a way better damage type.


And the only other example you give is the one Domain that can actually hold its own in AOE blasting thanks to Channel Divinity. Does take more than one exception to make a generality. :)

: yeah, it can be great, but for it to be really impressive you need to cumulate many conditions...
1) Have more than 2 enemies at the very least (4 recommended), otherwise it's probably a waste of spell.
2) Be in the center of the polygon they form (which means you have to be a tad lucky or have great movement to not risk your hide until you get there).
Those are not *that* hard to come by, but they aren't common in my experience either.
And with the Channel Divinity you can maximize the thunder part only, so you get an average of 30+21 instead of simply 21+21.
A Fireball of the same level will deal the exactly same average damage. Fire type is one inconvenience compared to Destructive Wave but on the other side...
- Sorcerer could use Empower to reroll half damage, Draconic could bump +5 on that.
So with both (Draonic + Empower) you actually easily reach or beat Destructive Wave average.
On next spell level some casters get Chain Lightning, which has several times better effective range and deals more damage.

IMO The really interesting thing of Destructive Wave is not its damage, which is average overall (although less resisted types than others), it's that there is guaranteed no friendly fire (unless you want it to ^^).
Whereas Fireball and even Chain Lightning can create serious collateral damage...

*Well, ok, undead excepted. Against those Cleric can be at least as good as others, provided he still has a use of CD. ^^
Well, really, if the enemies are all dispersed, it's not like Tempest has no access to Call Lightning.
Yeah, Call Lightning doesn't work indoors, but if they are indoors, they aren't that free to move, so we can go back to Spirit Guardians and Destructive Wave. Plenty of blasting tools for the Tempest Cleric.

[Psikerlord]

To put it simply the issue is 3 fold.

1. If you want to play a holy warrior, you will play a paladin. Clerics are only ok front liners when they have spells left.

2. People are far too used to mmos where people have roles like tanks and healers, if you have the ability to heal and you don’t, the group will blame you when they failed. Using your action in combat to heal may be a tactically good idea but you will never be the highlight. Healing is either needed or not based on the whim of the dm. Also if anyone ever dies you get blamed.

3. Many classes do your job better than you do. Divine soul sorcerer can heal more unless you are life, even then a twinned big heal is better than anything you will do. Celestial warlocks can get an invisible familiar to deliver all their healing spells for them if they go chain, also they get a bigger pool of healing. Even a bard can do just as good, druids get the new broken healing light or whatever spell that makes out of combat healing a joke.

Yes, this. Plus you are laden with religious codes etc which you dont have to worry about with most other classes (unless you want that RP aspect).

[EvilAnagram]

3. Many classes do your job better than you do. Divine soul sorcerer can heal more unless you are life, even then a twinned big heal is better than anything you will do. Celestial warlocks can get an invisible familiar to deliver all their healing spells for them if they go chain, also they get a bigger pool of healing. Even a bard can do just as good, druids get the new broken healing light or whatever spell that makes out of combat healing a joke.

Your other points are reasonable, but I would dispute this. Heavily.

If you want to focus on combat healing, then Life Clerics are far superior to every other class. Only Divine Sorcerers have access to as many healing spells (and spells that Aid in healing), and the bonus to hit points restored is phenomenal.

If your focus is on buffing, you again have a wealth of spells that dwarfs other buffing lists, and on top of that you can prepare daily to anticipate coming threats. Again, Divine Soul offers competition, but it becomes a question of versatility as the sorcerer has the larger list and metamagic, but will have far fewer spells known/prepared at any given point (it's 6 compared to 15 at level 5). It's hard to say which is better at any point.

For more niche builds, clerics can be fantastic. It's hard to find a stickier tank than a Nature Cleric with Thorn Whip and Shillelagh.

[furby076]

WoW ≠ D&D. In WoW, character classes have clear roles and everyone are expected to play their part in regards to those roles. In D&D, there are no actual roles (tank, healer, or damage dealer are not written in stone on each class or subclass. Fitting roles for each class or sub-class can be read between the lines, but they are not forced upon the player in the way they are in WoW), so everyone makes their own choices for how to react in each situation individually, and should be free to make up their own minds without having to fear how other players might react to their choices.

It's wrong to expect a cleric to commit their efforts only on healing, or punish them in any way if they don't. If you chose to become the tank, it was your choice. The role was not forced upon you by the rules or the other players. Why should the cleric be any different? How would you feel, if you played a paladin and your group members demanded you to commit your spell slots on healing others, just because you have access to spells (and Lay on Hands) that can do it, when you wanted to do something else (such as tanking)? The situation is the same. Paladin can be made into amazing healer, but people tend to choose another way because the class has tools for other than healing as well. But guess what, so does the cleric: they have a vast list of tools to use in the form of spells, and only a fraction of them all are designed for healing.

In a D&D group everyone takes up a roll. If the tank finds he is not getting support to stay alive, and is constantly going down. How long do you think the tank will stay the tank? I mean seriously, if you are defending the person who can cast stoneskin, but they cast stoneskin on themself and not you. At one point do you say "f it, they got stonskin" and let the BBEG walk right buy (with an AOO parting shot). That happens once or twice, and the parties tune changes. Happened in mine. Everytime my paladin went down due to healing, a 20 minute combat turned to 1-2 hours as the party was scrambling to survive. Then they learned healing and damage mitigation on the tank, me, might just do the trick. Also, LOH, does not keep up with damage and it's once a day (all or none, not worth it for only a few HP while in combat).
It's not about punishing the cleric, it's about the party being creative and them willing to blow their resources to help instead of looking for the biggest damage spell (cleric likes to do those too). It's party effort, healing doesn't keep up with dmg in dnd, but dmg mitigation, high AC PLUS healing do. Our cleric did choose to be a healer as he told the DM he would be a pointless cleric if he didn't get that 2nd level druid healing rain spell from xanathars (forget name). He was also a light cleric who picked fireball (but thats' cool) as a spell


If you're a fighter you have second wind to heal yourself and action surge to nova your enemy to death. If you're a barbarian you take half damage. If you're a paladin you can touch yourself to heal.

You don't need a cleric to take care of you, but if you must have healing the bard and druid are over there. Maybe the wizard or sorcerer would be willing to give you 157 hit points. A cleric can be and is often willing to heal you but not if you demand it because you think yourself more important. Play with your party members, not in spite of them.

Those are great options, but that would require the players to consider taking those spells or using those abilities, vs focusing on "save my biggest damage spell".

Paladin LOH, unfortunately, has not been keeping up. I try to use it as a burst.

But if the tank does not need party to take care of them, does the party not need the tank? I'd be OK sharing the hits.


On the other hand, from my experience in FFXIV, when other people get hit, it's the tank's fault for not holding aggro. So if you expect healing as part of your job meatshielding, then you need to actually be a good meatshield and take feats like Sentinel that make tanking actually feasible. Opportunity Attacks exist to disincentivize disengaging from melee, but without weight behind them, they're practically a slap on the wrist.

Furthermore, the healer's job is to keep the tank alive. Not topped off. Just alive. So as long as you're not dead, you should stop whining about heals. The faster the fight gets cleaned up, the less damage everyone will take and the less resources you'll have to spend on healing. Enemies don't attack when they're dead, which adds up to a lot of mitigation compared to letting things drag on. Out of combat healing is more efficient than in-combat healing anyways, so it's a better use of resources to fight during a fight and heal afterwards.

Lastly, most cleric domains give access to heavy armor anyways, so it's not like they're any softer of a target than the fighter.

Next time you scrape your way out of a fight, you should be happy enough if you're breathing - anything else is extra.

Sincerely, a long-time tank player.

1) Absolutely, a tank who doesn't hold aggro or have the right feats has no room to complain. They aint a tank. Plate does not equal tank. Aggro in D&D does not equal aggro in FF or WoW
2) Topped off two. Every time my character got healed in combat with a weaker level spell (when a more powerful slot was available, so the cleric could save it for later), my paladin went down by ONE hp. So when the mob can bring you down in one round, you don't want to be skirting with "save the slot for later". Considering my character drops about 60% of combat, while the healer didnt use his best heals or any mitigation spells...whining is acceptable.
3) Even clerics with plate typically don't want to go melee. Some do. But hey, if thte cleric wants to share the pain, refer to my earlier point about the tank should step aside. Not every cleric takes the domain that offers plate, mine did not
4) Next time the party kills the BBEG, they should be thankful the warlock, ranger, cleric or rogue in the group didn't take 50 points of damage in one round from a crit by the earth elemental and fire elemental in one round cause they all would have been 1 rounded. A tank is a combo of good AC, good HP and ability to prevent the BBEG from targeting the others

Sincerely, I've been doing this for a heck of a long time. And i'd be ok comparing my junks size to yours, but find it to be pointless, like your last comment


In WoW, you can crit with heals, and have more options to heal and do other things at the same time. Healers also get first pick and preference in rewards, generally, and have option to regain their full spell slots in seconds. There is also a lot more gear speced for healers and Priests.

On the other hand, and granted it has been a few years since I played, there was absolutely the same attitude among players if you played a Priest that didn't exclusively heal. Or telling them how to play their character as if they where just an NPC selling cheap buffs at will.

Of course, there tended to be a lot more tanks than healers, so when people got to be too much effort, healers could easily help someone else out instead, and poor crappy tank dies then gets kicked from group for throwing a fit. TTRPGs are designed more for group play, in a different sense than MMOs at least, so that doesn't really work the same, and this behavior is a bit more allowed and accepted, though you are also playing with actual people and not faceless people on a screen.

In many TTRPGs, the "healer" can also tank and/or blast fairly well. Sometimes better or on par with the Tank, sometimes less so. That usually doesn't work in MMOs, but can. (I remember a speced Druid in WoW being the best Tank and group healer in the game when I played).

Just out of curiosity, when you died and the BBEG got to the rest of the party, what happened? I would guess it was not everyone dying and getting mad at the healer.

In what WOW game did you play where healers get first pick? I played in the number 1 raid guild on my server, with a dedicated raid team, and we always used raid points and even had an app to track it and post it on our website. Before I joined them, the 2 other guilds I was in also used that system. Giving healers first pick, that woud be a KEK. Nobody got treated like crap, but in a raid you had a role to play. If people didn't play their role they were not invited to the raid. Playing your role is how you cleared raids. Want to be PVP specc'd in a raid?Sure, but you better do more damage or more healing (without pulling aggro) than others with your class. It's the same in a D&D party, everyone has a role to play. I know players like to say "don't tread on me, i'll play what i want and you cant tell me", but lets face it, when you play a certain class you are committing to a certain type of ability pool. Goodluck to the rogue who wants to be the party cleric without having cleric levels. Goodluck to the fighter or barbarian or paladin or ranger that wants to do mass area damage spells.

For the battles:
first) We were in corridor and walked into Orc warran (with Orc Barbarians). It is L shaped so only the front person and the person right behind him can see the orcs (so ranged is out). 3 Orc brbs in front of me at opening. The cleric was behind me, the rogue behind him, the warlock behind him, the dex fighter behind her, the ranger in the far back. Meaning, I couldn't move backwards as i didn't have enough movment to complete my turn in an empty space....plus, the orcs intiative was after mine. If i moved back, the cleri, with breastplate and maybe 30-40 hp would die. 1) I attack taking down an orc (got 2 crits out of 3 attacks). Feeling pretty good. 2) Another Orc steps up, and all 3 proceed to pound me (6 attacks 3 hit). I am down to 20 of 60 hp. The cleric, heals me with 2nd level cure wounds. Then goes to back most spot to allow the fighter to fill the space...i don't say anything (the player can be sensitive) but in my mind think "OH crap, would level 3 have killed ya". The ranger came up behind me, to plop off an arrow...except he is behind me blocking my ability go 5 feet back so only one orc can hit me at a time. 3) I lay on hands (full 25) and go to 45 HP. 4) 3 orcs hit me, 4 attacks, and 3 more orcs come in with ranged weapons taking 46 damage..and go down. The party then wakes up, scramble. With me down the orcs move in one space, and the DM suggests the party back up to funnel the orcs. It takes them 2 hours to finish the fight (Dm thought it would be 30-40 minutes). In that time, the orcs dragged my paladins body into the warran wear the children orcs were using his body as a pinata, and gouge his eye out. The DM fudged some rolls (yes i know this), the party wins, and revivfy is used on my on eyed pally (per disad on ranged and perception checks)

Second) We were in battle with hydra and won, I was down some HP. I was also half speed from exhaustion. I asked the cleric to heal me, and he said he would after he finished with the others. (i was about 50 feet from party as they ran to be at range from hydra). Giants appeared, I was closest to them. Really, at 15 movement, i had nowhere to run. I know what giants can do with boulders at range (they were 50-100 feet away) so I dodged.I asked him to come up and heal me, so he was bringing up his healing rain spell. By the time it got to me, I went down again...by 1HP (coincidence and annoying). The party used some ranged attacks, and the DM reduced the giants hp (i was keeping track on the side and noticed they had abnormally low hp).

Third) Final battle, against the BBEG. The warlock casts stoneskin on my paladin (an A HA moment). It was mass combat where we had to choose to attack the bbeg, or the mooks (8 HP enemy soldiers) who were going to off the villagers. With the BBEG (that ogre on a worg i mentioned earlier), trying to get by the paladin to get to the warlock and light cleric (fireball city), he had an issue: PAM/Compelled duel. So, the ogre "decided" to focus on me...between 24 AC (casted shield of faith) and stoneskin...if he hit me, it was half damage. THe rest of the party was able to kill the mooks and save the villagers, while the paladin was able to hold off the Ogre (got killing blow on ogre, and single handedly took out worg). At no point did the orgre/worg attack the other party members (unlike other battles). Battle ended in 30 minutes because we worked as a TEAM. Keep your tank healthy, and he will be your shield

Too little too late. I got really tired of spnding half the night watching people play while I rolled death saves, and lived most of my adventuring days with some level(s) of exhaustion. My character will be retired next session, and I am bringing in a mystic. I quoted to them the line from Braveheart. It's the scene where Wallace and the crazy irishman are about to engage in battle. A hail of arrows hit their shield, and one penetrates Wallace's shield (a few inches from his face). The crazy irishman says (paraphrase) "The lord tells me I am going to survive this battle, but I'm pretty sure you're f'd"....well they laughed, I laughed, and I reminded them their next highest AC was the warlock with 17 AC. Nobody laughed....Well, the DM did. And I built my mystic on being out of sight, so i giggle. I think the party will appreciate tanks better soon enough.

[Mith]

@furby076, I hope your game nights improve better than these stories. It isn't fun to play in a party with little cohesion.

With this line:

Also, LOH, does not keep up with damage and it's once a day (all or none, not worth it for only a few HP while in combat).

Do you mean that you have been using LOH as all or nothing, due to the damage you've been taking, or that it only works as 1 healing/Long Rest up to 5xPaladin Level HP? Because those points are yours to distribute however you feel over the long rest. You can up heal 30 people for 1 HP each if you so choose at level 6 over the course of a day if you decide to.

[Tectorman]

Yes, this. Plus you are laden with religious codes etc which you dont have to worry about with most other classes (unless you want that RP aspect).

This is one that really stands out for me. With other characters, I can have them worship a deity or not and in whatever method or level of engagement I feel comfortable with. And with other characters, everything they have to do to maintain their abilities (the Fighter has to exercise, the Wizard has to pore over his books and study) is something that can be engaged with or relegated to the background, again depending on what I'm comfortable with.

With classes like the Cleric, that freedom to roleplay just isn't there as much. It becomes less about experiencing the setting and more avoiding the looming Sword of Damocles hanging over your head.

[Arkhios]

In a D&D group everyone takes up a roll.
First things first: Roll ≠ Role. Take a close look at it. The correct word has an 'e' at the end.

However, while it's true that everyone takes up a role in a D&D group, those roles are not as defined as in WoW. There are no "tank" or "healer" roles defined in the rules. Those are in your head.


Also, LOH, does not keep up with damage and it's once a day (all or none, not worth it for only a few HP while in combat).
Incorrect on both cases. LOH is not "once a day" or "all or none". The whole amount of points (a pool of individual points equal to 5 x paladin level) you can distribute is available until you take a long rest to regain any points you may have spent before that. Forget the term "1/day" you seem to be clinging to from previous editions. It has no place whatsoever in 5th edition.


It's not about punishing the cleric, it's about the party being creative and them willing to blow their resources to help instead of looking for the biggest damage spell (cleric likes to do those too). It's party effort, healing doesn't keep up with dmg in dnd, but dmg mitigation, high AC PLUS healing do. Our cleric did choose to be a healer as he told the DM he would be a pointless cleric if he didn't get that 2nd level druid healing rain spell from xanathars (forget name). He was also a light cleric who picked fireball (but thats' cool) as a spell.
Literally expecting someone to do anything you would want them to do is putting peer pressure upon them. That pressure alone weighs heavily on that someone's shoulders and if/when they choose to do something other than what you expected, the peer pressure you put on them punishes the person without you having to do anything more about it.

On one hand you say you're cool about the cleric choosing the Light domain because it has Fireball, but on the other, you are implying that should the cleric do anything other than healing they are doing something wrong. Having Fireball in their repertoire - and using it - is the exact opposite of healing. Either it is ok for the cleric to spend their resources as they wish or it is not. Make up your mind already. They may have decided to take up the role of healing, but everyone makes tactical mistakes every now and then. Even you. In fact, your group would've had every right to be "angry" about you for not using Lay on Hands on a "point-by-point" basis as it can, Rules As Written, be used.


Paladin LOH, unfortunately, has not been keeping up. I try to use it as a burst.
As pointed out above, you've been using it "wrong" in a way. Yes, using it all as a burst is certainly powerful, but you seem to undervalue the potential of bringing back up a fallen ally with just one (1) hit point (which is quite enough to, for example, stand up and take the Disengage Action to escape from immediate danger). Or that any excess points you didn't use for that one burst are not lost. They are still there to be used later, until you take a long rest.


In what WOW game did you play where healers get first pick? I played in the number 1 raid guild on my server, with a dedicated raid team, and we always used raid points and even had an app [...]
FYI, WoW has been around since 2004. Raid Points, to my knowledge, are a fairly recent thing. Personally I didn't have an account back then, but my friends did, and really, back then, healers were the kings and queens of the raid, because they held the raid together and kept them alive. Tanks were, of course, valuable asset as well, because they kept the combat from spiraling out hands. But without healers to keep the raid group (that includes the tank) alive, the whole raids would've been killed. It goes without question why healers would have been given the first picks. The better their gear is, the easier it is for them to keep the raid alive. Period.

Don't think so highly of yourself just because you have played a tank in a number 1 raiding guild somewhere, sometime. There are lots of similar guilds around the world. And lots and lots of talented tank players. You are no special in that regard.

For example myself: I have played a tank almost the entire time I have played WoW (began in 2005 on my friend's account and bought my own account in 2007) and I know what it is about; I'm not a rookie by a long shot either (13 f-ing years as a tank, with experience from all tank classes by now should have some weight on that argument alone in regards to tanking in WoW; I'm not deluding myself saying that the same experience from tanking would apply to D&D because it just doesn't). Still, I'm not gloating about it and backing up my points with that irrelevant information. I prefer using facts grounded on the rules/mechanics of the game in question.

I repeat my earlier point: D&D ≠ WoW. Whatever is the case in WoW does not apply to D&D.
WoW has defined roles for classes. D&D has not. Just because WoW does, D&D doesn't have to.

And, it just occurred to me, just because Lay on Hands in WoW is a "all at once" ability, it's not so in 5th edition D&D. It certainly can be, but it doesn't have to be.

[Zalabim]

FYI, WoW has been around since 2004. Raid Points, to my knowledge, are a fairly recent thing. Personally I didn't have an account back then, but my friends did, and really, back then, healers were the kings and queens of the raid, because they held the raid together and kept them alive. Tanks were, of course, valuable asset as well, because they kept the combat from spiraling out hands. But without healers to keep the raid group (that includes the tank) alive, the whole raids would've been killed. It goes without question why healers would have been given the first picks. The better their gear is, the easier it is for them to keep the raid alive. Period.
Apropos of nothing, DKP predates WoW altogether, and while healers (clerics anyway) were vitally important to EQ raids, getting them 'better geared for better performance' was not a thing, at that time anyway. Actual useful caster gear did make it into the game eventually.

[Dudu]

To put it simply the issue is 3 fold.

1. If you want to play a holy warrior, you will play a paladin. Clerics are only ok front liners when they have spells left.

2. People are far too used to mmos where people have roles like tanks and healers, if you have the ability to heal and you don’t, the group will blame you when they failed. Using your action in combat to heal may be a tactically good idea but you will never be the highlight. Healing is either needed or not based on the whim of the dm. Also if anyone ever dies you get blamed.

3. Many classes do your job better than you do. Divine soul sorcerer can heal more unless you are life, even then a twinned big heal is better than anything you will do. Celestial warlocks can get an invisible familiar to deliver all their healing spells for them if they go chain, also they get a bigger pool of healing. Even a bard can do just as good, druids get the new broken healing light or whatever spell that makes out of combat healing a joke.
The way I see it, there's one problem that comes first.

People want to see the cleric as a healbot. Or healbots that also tank. Which isn't that accurate.
Indeed, they are not holy warriors. Like you said, you want a holy guy who tanks really well and hits like a truck? Paladin is the man.

Clerics are divine casters, though. Emphasis on the "caster" part, which many forget as soon as they grab heavy armor proficiency or even martial weapons. Being a divine caster includes healing, of course, but if you are using your spell slots just to keep everyone hitpoints up there, you're playing it poorly. They are also powerful buffers, early in your career you have what might be the most powerful lvl 1 buff, which is Bless. Some other powerful buffs include lategame Holy Aura, Deathward and Heroes Feast.

Also, utility spells. Many newbies make the same mistake with wizard, seeing the class as a fireball launcher most of the time. But utility spells might be one of the biggest features of full casters.
In clerics case, they boast some really staple divination spells, such as Augury, Clairivoyance, Zone of Truth, True Seeing, Divination, and my favorite, Commune. Also, Water Walking, Stoneshaping, Daylight and, in survival campaigns, the gamebreaking create water and purify food.

I already said a lot of their blasting potential. Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians can make you, easily, into the most damaging member of your group in a lot of situations. Tempest Cleric might be the best blaster class, depending on the campaign.

Oh, and yeah, healing. But I'd advise using healing for emergency. Focusing too much on in-combat healing can demote you from a complete and versatile caster into a healbot. And yet, healing can be very rewarding, when your buddy falls to zero HP and you cast that Healing Word using nothing more than a lvl 1 spell slot and your bonus action, but it's enough to let him keep pushing for at least one more round, it's great.

So, my advice for anyone frustrated with clerics: Get rid of the "cleric=healer" mentality (which all your 3 points seems to imply) and you'll see what I consider one of the strongest classes.

[Reynaert]

Maximizing your lightning or thunder damage? Nice, but you aren't really a striker ...

Yes you are. Tempest crerics are primarily strikers. They also want to tank (wrath of the storm) but don't have many abilities to goad enemies into attacking them over others.

[Arkhios]

Yes you are. Tempest crerics are primarily strikers. They also want to tank (wrath of the storm) but don't have many abilities to goad enemies into attacking them over others.

Says who? Again, this isn't an MMO (or 4th edition) where any given class or sub-class has a primary or secondary role set-in-stone for them as part of the class description. Controllers, Defenders, Leaders, and Strikers had a place in 4th edition, but not in 5th edition, RAW. None of these roles have been mentioned anywhere in the 5th edition books. It might be time to let the old editions be at peace and start fresh. :smallwink:

[Pex]

Those are great options, but that would require the players to consider taking those spells or using those abilities, vs focusing on "save my biggest damage spell".

Paladin LOH, unfortunately, has not been keeping up. I try to use it as a burst.

But if the tank does not need party to take care of them, does the party not need the tank? I'd be OK sharing the hits.




Personal opinion I think 5E in combat healing is bad. You cannot heal enough to mitigate the damage taken. At best it lets a party member last one more round to do stuff, which is significant so there is some value. To have worth in addition to the healing you have to hope the bad guy misses on his next turn. Still, I do support keeping someone up for one more round. I have experience that one more round to make a difference. That is what makes Healing Word so valuable. It's not the healing. It's getting someone up and the caster of Healing Word can still do something else for his Action that's meaningful.

I support clerics healing party members. I only object to the attitude that is all they should be doing or that plus Bless.

[KorvinStarmast]

Personal opinion I think 5E in combat healing is bad. You cannot heal enough to mitigate the damage taken. At best it lets a party member last one more round to do stuff, which is significant so there is some value. To have worth in addition to the healing you have to hope the bad guy misses on his next turn. Still, I do support keeping someone up for one more round. I have experience that one more round to make a difference. That is what makes Healing Word so valuable. It's not the healing. It's getting someone up and the caster of Healing Word can still do something else for his Action that's meaningful.

I support clerics healing party members. I only object to the attitude that is all they should be doing or that plus Bless.
I mostly agree with you on the above, but I'll add a caveat. The life Cleric has a channel divinity ability (resets on a short rest) that is very, very handy if the party takes a lot of hits early in a fight (particularly at low levels, when combat is very swingy).
Disciple of Life

...can restore a number of hit points equal to five times your cleric level. Choose any creatures within 30 feet of you, and divide those hit points among them. This feature can restore a creature to no more than half of its hit point maximum. At levels 2 and above, my life clerics have used this feature more than turn undead ... and my first campaign faced us with loads of undead.
Getting the two or three party members who took that initial volley back up to half HP at levels 2-4 can make a difference in keeping the fight going, or having to break off.

It does not burn a spell slot.

Your point on Healing Word is spot on. It can be combined with Disciple of Life for a nice 1/2: get the fighter up, and then boost him (and perhaps another) so that they don't just go down next round again.

[Pex]

I mostly agree with you on the above, but I'll add a caveat. The life Cleric has a channel divinity ability (resets on a short rest) that is very, very handy if the party takes a lot of hits early in a fight (particularly at low levels, when combat is very swingy).
Disciple of Life
At levels 2 and above, my life clerics have used this feature more than turn undead ... and my first campaign faced us with loads of undead.
Getting the two or three party members who took that initial volley back up to half HP at levels 2-4 can make a difference in keeping the fight going, or having to break off.

It does not burn a spell slot.

Your point on Healing Word is spot on. It can be combined with Disciple of Life for a nice 1/2: get the fighter up, and then boost him (and perhaps another) so that they don't just go down next round again.

I can concur. The cleric in my paladin game is a Life cleric. His healing, by spell or Channel, is making a difference. PCs are staying up for two rounds longer, except when we fight giants.

Personal anecdote in one campaign I played a Light cleric from levels 1 to 9. I had cast a healing spell exactly once in the first session. After that we got by on healing potions and short rests. At level 4 I took Healer feat. When needed PCs drank potions in combat while my spells made bad guys dead or buffed the party. I used Healer feat after combat. No one complained or even noticed I haven't been casting healing spells until I brought it up in conversation when we hit 8th level.

[Reynaert]

Says who? Again, this isn't an MMO (or 4th edition) where any given class or sub-class has a primary or secondary role set-in-stone for them as part of the class description. Controllers, Defenders, Leaders, and Strikers had a place in 4th edition, but not in 5th edition, RAW. None of these roles have been mentioned anywhere in the 5th edition books. It might be time to let the old editions be at peace and start fresh. :smallwink:

That's true. However, I was responding to somebody who *was* applying those roles and claiming that, given those roles, the Tempest Cleric is not a striker. So I put on the 'MMO-roles' glasses and looked at Tempest, concluding that he is indeed a striker in that context.

So, to answer your question: Says somebody looking at the 5e Tempest Cleric through MMO-colored glasses. :smallwink:

By the way: It turns out that looking at 5e through those glasses has a lot of weird effects. Such as people claiming their tank can stop an enemy from running past them to attack squishies. But maybe their DM has the same glasses, making him let the monsters attack whoever claims to be the tank?

[Dudu]

By the way: It turns out that looking at 5e through those glasses has a lot of weird effects. Such as people claiming their tank can stop an enemy from running past them to attack squishies. But maybe their DM has the same glasses, making him let the monsters attack whoever claims to be the tank?
Indeed, way too many people are trying to see the classes with a MMO mind frame.
So I agree with you and I feel some people need to take off their MMO glasses.

A full caster with a plethora of spells and some useful channel divinity options on top, and there are people wondering "is cleric bad because healing is sub-par?"

Amazing. To anyone who has this idea as cleric being a healer and pretty much nothing else deeply rooted in their minds, give a quick check at their spell list. Add the spell list added from domains. Still just a healer?


About what you said concerning tanks, when I DM I take into account the nature of the enemy. A disorganized band of orcs, raging beast or mindless undead will attack whoever is close or whoever dealt most damage. But if you are facing a squad of trained assassins, they will priorize the squishy, more dangerous targets

[Benny89]

In my opinion it is because:

1. If you are THE ONLY cleric in party- everyone will expect of you to have healing/support spells in your slots. There are so many fun spells on Cleric, but you are supposed to be "party healer".

2. If you want to be offensive "holy warrior" Paladin (especially Vengeance one) is just better for it.

3. If you have in party wizard, fighter/paladin, druid - you are pretty much reduced to big healing kit that should patch everyone up between fights or in the middle. Wizard have better offensive/control spells, fighter/paladin better offensive front line strength and moon druid is way tankier than you. So you do not feel like you really have "impact" as cleric. Not to mention new Lay on Hands are so good that if emergency happens- Paladin can do strong insta-heal too. And Fighters have Second Wind for themselfs. Not to mention Paladin Aura is just superb support ability which is always on.

Imo it's just Cleric doesn't have to "special" place in party anymore. He is not useless or weak or anything. It's just- he is not that needed anymore.

[Dudu]

Imo it's just Cleric doesn't have to "special" place in party anymore. He is not useless or weak or anything. It's just- he is not that needed anymore.
Which is a good thing.

Yet another myth about clerics, that you "need" one in the party. No you don't. Still strong af class though.
I think they designed cleric that way, with those specific goals, that is: not needed, strong, fun, flavorful.

In fact, they nailed those goals for most classes as far as I can tell.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yet another myth about clerics, that you "need" one in the party. No you don't.
Two words:
turn undead :smallwink:

[stoutstien]

I think 5e has done the best job of destroying "class role." Even in games with no feats 8 out of 12 classes have some form of healing prior to lv 5. be it spells, class features, or sub class features. 11 out of 11 classes can have good enough damage output to be a valid option. 11 out 11 can, in some way, attempt to be the primary target for incoming damage and have ways to avoid/ reduce incoming damage.
I've seen a rogue max out con and Dex go arcane trickster and "tank" with booming blade and self buffs like mirror image

I've seen a celestial warlock be 90% of the healing/ restoration in a 6 member party.

I've seen a cleric be the meat shield and most damaging person at the same time.

Start factoring in backgrounds and such I don't think you can say, "me tank cause I have an 8 in int," anymore than you can say, "you can heal so therefore you do heal."

[Benny89]

I think 5e has done the best job of destroying "class role." Even in games with no feats 8 out of 12 classes have some form of healing prior to lv 5. be it spells, class features, or sub class features. 11 out of 11 classes can have good enough damage output to be a valid option. 11 out 11 can, in some way, attempt to be the primary target for incoming damage and have ways to avoid/ reduce incoming damage.
I've seen a rogue max out con and Dex go arcane trickster and "tank" with booming blade and self buffs like mirror image

I've seen a celestial warlock be 90% of the healing/ restoration in a 6 member party.

I've seen a cleric be the meat shield and most damaging person at the same time.

Start factoring in backgrounds and such I don't think you can say, "me tank cause I have an 8 in int," anymore than you can say, "you can heal so therefore you do heal."

Yes, if we are talking from non-optimize perspective - 5e is absolutely best edition in that terms - you can do what you want with what you play. There are so many good combos, utilities, spells, feats etc.

However if talking from optimize perspective- cleric doesn't really have anything that Paladin, Fighter, Wizard/Sor or Bard do not do better or at least as good. He is simillar to Monk- it works but... does he do something better or special?

But in the end I think only Rangers got the real short stick in this edition.

[Dudu]

Yes, if we are talking from non-optimize perspective - 5e is absolutely best edition in that terms - you can do what you want with what you play. There are so many good combos, utilities, spells, feats etc.

However if talking from optimize perspective- cleric doesn't really have anything that Paladin, Fighter, Wizard/Sor or Bard do not do better or at least as good. He is simillar to Monk- it works but... does he do something better or special?

But in the end I think only Rangers got the real short stick in this edition.
That's just one way to evaluate classes, and in my opinion a shortsighted one.

Let's say, clerics can do a lot of stuff, but there's always a guy who can be better in that one particular stuff, and that's ok. Because clerics are superb in a lot of very important roles, and that's precisely their strenght. Healing, check. Tanking, check. Damage dealing, check. Utility, check. Buffing, and debuffing as well? Check, check. I feel the only aspect they most definitely suck is the skill department, and even that might not be true if you happen to be a Knowledge cleric. Their battlefield control potential is also way behind of wizards, sorcerers, druids and monks (and even Battlemasters).

And I wouldn't compare them to monks. Monks are mostly BC guys who are good at taking some targets out of combat. But they are way more specialized than a cleric. Stuff like tanking and healing, they are way behind the cleric. I struggle to see how they can be reliable damage dealers as well, meanwhile, such role is easy for a cleric to achieve. In fact, many times there was a monk on my team, and they were consistently the least impactful member of the party. Maybe it was only in my table.

Cleric does have a unique feature, but it's a weird one. That Divine Intervention thing I never bothered using in my 3 years playing 5e. Which is why I come back to my previous statement, cleric strenght is in being strong in a lot of crucial roles. I'd say in the average party that contains a cleric, chances are the cleric is the most vital member of the group.

[Pex]

That's just one way to evaluate classes, and in my opinion a shortsighted one.

Let's say, clerics can do a lot of stuff, but there's always a guy who can be better in that one particular stuff, and that's ok. Because clerics are superb in a lot of very important roles, and that's precisely their strenght. Healing, check. Tanking, check. Damage dealing, check. Utility, check. Buffing, and debuffing as well? Check, check. I feel the only aspect they most definitely suck is the skill department, and even that might not be true if you happen to be a Knowledge cleric. Their battlefield control potential is also way behind of wizards, sorcerers, druids and monks (and even Battlemasters).

And I wouldn't compare them to monks. Monks are mostly BC guys who are good at taking some targets out of combat. But they are way more specialized than a cleric. Stuff like tanking and healing, they are way behind the cleric. I struggle to see how they can be reliable damage dealers as well, meanwhile, such role is easy for a cleric to achieve. In fact, many times there was a monk on my team, and they were consistently the least impactful member of the party. Maybe it was only in my table.

Cleric does have a unique feature, but it's a weird one. That Divine Intervention thing I never bothered using in my 3 years playing 5e. Which is why I come back to my previous statement, cleric strenght is in being strong in a lot of crucial roles. I'd say in the average party that contains a cleric, chances are the cleric is the most vital member of the group.

In my monk game without even trying I tie for the best AC in the party, more if I choose as a Kinsei, and I can Dodge as a bonus action. I have the most hit points, even more than the fighter, thanks to Vhuman and choosing Tough instead of the stereotypical Mobility. I have the speed to get where I need to go and start pummeling. I use the katana (i.e. long sword two-handed). With martial arts and the occasional flurry I do comparable damage. I am the party's tank.

[Dudu]

In my monk game without even trying I tie for the best AC in the party, more if I choose as a Kinsei, and I can Dodge as a bonus action. I have the most hit points, even more than the fighter, thanks to Vhuman and choosing Tough instead of the stereotypical Mobility. I have the speed to get where I need to go and start pummeling. I use the katana (i.e. long sword two-handed). With martial arts and the occasional flurry I do comparable damage. I am the party's tank.
Might be my table then. The players who like to play monks at my table are lacking at optimizing.

And yeah, I remember the Ki dodge thing. Quite useful, tbh, makes the chances of being hit abysmal.

[Sigreid]

IMO using a spell slot for healing is a bad deal if the same slot can be used to avoid damage being taken rather than healed. This can take a lot of forms. Buffs, isolating enemies, or just plain eliminating a bunch of incoming attacks by killing the low level beasties that would launch them. Back when I played EQ2, my wizard easily prevented as much damage as the cleric healed by slaughtering enemies en mass.

Same principle applies in D&D5e. If you can prevent damage from coming in, that trumps healing by a good bit.

[stoutstien]

Combat Healing in dnd is alot like a fire extinguisher, in principle we all know what it does but forget it exists intil a fire. In case of a large fire some spells are worth it. A well timed mass cure wound/healing word could turn the tides. Now aid cast before hand..

[Tanarii]

Same principle applies in D&D5e. If you can prevent damage from coming in, that trumps healing by a good bit.
Depends how much damage it heals vs how much it prevents coming in.

One thing people often leave out of healing is its 100% success rate. A cure wounds heals 1d8+stat. Attacks are hit rate * damage. At first level, a cure wounds on a tank usually heals 6.5 average damage, when incoming damage from a goblin against your AC 19 Fighter Tank is .3*5 = .15, so your single cure wounds slot negates a whopping 43 goblin actions. Of course, you're more likely to need it on the AC 13 Rogue while the tank easily survives and uses HD. But even then you're negating .6*5 =3 DPR attacks, or 2 enemy actions for one of your own.

In short, the same slot needs to negate, either offensively or defensively, the same amount of incoming DPR on average as your healing could. And that's often woefully over-valued in comparison to healing.

[Sigreid]

Depends how much damage it heals vs how much it prevents coming in.

One thing people often leave out of healing is its 100% success rate. A cure wounds heals 1d8+stat. Attacks are hit rate * damage. At first level, a cure wounds on a tank usually heals 6.5 average damage, when incoming damage from a goblin against your AC 19 Fighter Tank is .3*5 = .15, so your single cure wounds slot negates a whopping 43 goblin actions. Of course, you're more likely to need it on the AC 13 Rogue while the tank easily survives and uses HD. But even then you're negating .6*5 =3 DPR attacks, or 2 enemy actions for one of your own.

In short, the same slot needs to negate, either offensively or defensively, the same amount of incoming DPR on average as your healing could. And that's often woefully under-judged against healing.

Yes, perhaps I should have been more clear that preventing the same amount of damage as you would have healed is better than healing. And if that resource can be counted on to prevent more damage, that's much better. In the example up the thread, I noticed a distinct lack of mention of the paladin casting any of his own spells that could drastically reduce the damage he was taking.

[Psikerlord]

Says who? Again, this isn't an MMO (or 4th edition) where any given class or sub-class has a primary or secondary role set-in-stone for them as part of the class description. Controllers, Defenders, Leaders, and Strikers had a place in 4th edition, but not in 5th edition, RAW. None of these roles have been mentioned anywhere in the 5th edition books. It might be time to let the old editions be at peace and start fresh. :smallwink:

Ugh the hardened roles - especially striker most of all - in 4e was my number 1 pet peeve.

Any PC should be able to be a good damage dealer if they apply their resources to it. Makes me shudder just thinking about it.

[darknite]

I put together an 'Ultimate Support PC' for Adventurer' League recently. Currently at 4th Level Cleric (Grave) / 3rd Rogue (Mastermind). Pretty much all he does is buff, heal and provide the Help action every round. Also has a Headband of Intellect and a bunch of skills from the Rogue side, to be useful.

Last game I played him in I got flak for not getting a Paladin who was at two failed death saves back on their feet. However we were up against a powerful wizard that had already dropped a couple of other characters, who were also making death saves. My choice was to assist the group's fighter with a Path to the Grave use of Channel Divinity as my Action and the Mastermind ranged Help Bonus Action for their upcoming attack.

My response to the criticism was that I had already included the Paladin in an earlier, active, Bless spell, which should help them make their next Death Save. In the circumstance I determined that downing the big threat was of more import to the team than a possible missed Death Save by a PC that was out of position to assist, anyway. Of course the fighter I had elected to assist was the Paladin-player's mother and elected to pour a potion down the Paladin's throat instead of taking the opportunity I set up. Oh, well.

I like playing clerics but it does wind up seeming like you're the street sweeper following up after the parade, sometimes....

[GreyBlack]

Soooooooo..... are we all in agreement that it's not that clerics suck, but rather that the expectations of other players on the cleric suck?

It seems a recurrent theme that when a party expects the cleric to run a certain way, even when the cleric is not supposed to be run that way, party expectations seem to make the Cleric less fun, which in turn makes people less want to play a cleric. By comparison, people who like playing the cleric have been either afforded the opportunity to play a cleric that doesn't just heal, or just actually enjoy being a healer (the psychopaths).

So, I posit that, as a community, we all need to now go out and play clerics who never memorize a healing spell. Buff the bejesus out of the party, sure, but never cast either cure wounds or Healing Word.

Who's with me?

[Dudu]

Soooooooo..... are we all in agreement that it's not that clerics suck, but rather that the expectations of other players on the cleric suck?
100% in agreement with you there.


It seems a recurrent theme that when a party expects the cleric to run a certain way, even when the cleric is not supposed to be run that way, party expectations seem to make the Cleric less fun, which in turn makes people less want to play a cleric. By comparison, people who like playing the cleric have been either afforded the opportunity to play a cleric that doesn't just heal, or just actually enjoy being a healer (the psychopaths).
One good policy to everyone playing cleric, and it's something I do, is being crystal clear about your playstyle to the party.

I usually just say: "I help those who help thenselves". So no, barbarian, I'm not healing you after you got smacked since you though going reckless at the middle of the fray was a smart move. If you go down, you'll stay down for a couple of turns, your problem. I've had players who were frustrated I wasn't devoting my spell slots to keep their hitpoints above 50%, then I explained to them how dumb it was to even bother spending spell slots for that purpose.

If you are that blunt about your playstyle, then it's mostly their fault if they consistently fall to 0HP, not yours. Clerics aren't babysitters.


So, I posit that, as a community, we all need to now go out and play clerics who never memorize a healing spell. Buff the bejesus out of the party, sure, but never cast either cure wounds or Healing Word.

Who's with me?
Nah man, Healing Word is simply too good. Party member back to fight with a snap of fingers? Yeah, big contender for best lvl 1 spell of the game to be honest, tied with Shield imo.

[Jophiel]

Apropos of nothing, DKP predates WoW altogether, and while healers (clerics anyway) were vitally important to EQ raids, getting them 'better geared for better performance' was not a thing, at that time anyway. Actual useful caster gear did make it into the game eventually.
Yeah, DKP ("Dragon Kill Points") or raid points is well older than WoW (another old EQ player here). I can't believe that they didn't immediately migrate into WoW when EQ raiders changed games.

But the talk of MMO style roles ignores the simple fact that those roles evolved because the AI is dumb and easily gamed. A simple "aggro points" system makes it easy to say "If we do A and B, then the critter will keep attacking me and you'll keep me alive" and hopefully your DM is smarter than that which makes strictly defined roles rather moot.

[furby076]

@furby076, I hope your game nights improve better than these stories. It isn't fun to play in a party with little cohesion.

With this line:

Do you mean that you have been using LOH as all or nothing, due to the damage you've been taking, or that it only works as 1 healing/Long Rest up to 5xPaladin Level HP? Because those points are yours to distribute however you feel over the long rest. You can up heal 30 people for 1 HP each if you so choose at level 6 over the course of a day if you decide to.

They should be. My last game, for a while, is in a month. Then baby 2 comes out so i will take a hiatus. But I will get to intro my mystic before I go on paternity leave :)

I know i can spread it out however i want, but when used that means 2 things 1) i am getting low rate of return, and 2) i can't attack (really good damage). So, in battle, I won't sacrifice 3 attacks to do 10 hp heal. I'll want to do all 25. If the monsters can't take me down half hp in one round, then thats an easy encounter which won't knock me down. if monsters can take me down from full to 0 in one round, then either i went full leroy jenkins, or the DM is getting the stink eye for making a bad encounter. 22(24) ac with 60 hp = hard to take down


First things first: Roll ≠ Role. Take a close look at it. The correct word has an 'e' at the end.
good grief. I'm tablet typing. get over yourself. i have a feeling the rest of your comments will be the same way


however, while it's true that everyone takes up a role in a D&D group, those roles are not as defined as in WoW. There are no "tank" or "healer" roles defined in the rules. Those are in your head.

oh, they exist in dnd. The ideal party composition has existed for as long as i have been playing (2e). Now, they may have made some things easier and allowed a bit of crossover, roles exist. But if you don't like labels, and refuse to believe, knock yourself out. Next game, see who is the person primarily taking the hits, primarily doing mass damage, the skill monkey, the primary healer. What class are they. Or heck, take it to the next level - build a sorc that stays in melee all day long, or a rogue who will play healer (combat medic)


B]Incorrect on both cases.[/B] LOH is not "once a day" or "all or none". The whole amount of points (a pool of individual points equal to 5 x paladin level) you can distribute is available until you take a long rest to regain any points you may have spent before that. Forget the term "1/day" you seem to be clinging to from previous editions. It has no place whatsoever in 5th edition.

I never said the rules say LOH is all or none. I said I use it as all or none. Really dude, this is your post, being pendantic and thinking you know more than me?


literally expecting someone to do anything you would want them to do is putting peer pressure upon them. That pressure alone weighs heavily on that someone's shoulders and if/when they choose to do something other than what you expected, the peer pressure you put on them punishes the person without you having to do anything more about it.

That's weak, really really weak. Expectations are a part of life. We expect people to do things, and if expecting your fellow player to play as a team wil "weigh heavily" on your shoulders, maybe you should stick to solitare, and not leave your moms basement.


on one hand you say you're cool about the cleric choosing the Light domain because it has Fireball, but on the other, you are implying that should the cleric do anything other than healing they are doing something wrong. Having Fireball in their repertoire - and using it - is the exact opposite of healing. Either it is ok for the cleric to spend their resources as they wish or it is not. Make up your mind already. They may have decided to take up the role of healing, but everyone makes tactical mistakes every now and then. Even you. In fact, your group would've had every right to be "angry" about you for not using Lay on Hands on a "point-by-point" basis as it can, Rules As Written, be used.

Actually no i never said or implied the cleric should only ever heal. I think it's great when he slings a fireball, or uses his light domain ability. When he heals, he needs to heal using his best. 2d8 heal vs monsters who just did 40 damage in one round when only half their hits landed does not cut it. And when the guy in front of you, with 22(24) ac goes down, guess who is next (with 16 ac).

My group would not want me to use LOH on point by point (they have even said this). Each use of LOH, in combat, equals 3 less attacks. They like those attacks. It kills things. Again, role. FYI, my group won't even ask me to heal (they are not shy for telling people want to do), because they know smites outweigh my paladins ability to cast 2nd level cure spells. They prefer he misty step into the backline too.


As pointed out above, you've been using it "wrong" in a way. Yes, using it all as a burst is certainly powerful, but you seem to undervalue the potential of bringing back up a fallen ally with just one (1) hit point (which is quite enough to, for example, stand up and take the Disengage Action to escape from immediate danger). Or that any excess points you didn't use for that one burst are not lost. They are still there to be used later, until you take a long rest.

Nope, I've been using LOH right. Again, me use LOH to bring someone up, is 3 less attacks. Also, nobody gets into melee with me. They are happy staying on my distant flanks. If i disengage, then i let the monsters walk right up to the other PCs. They have lower AC and lower HP. They would not stand a single round. The other PCs either have some potion or minor healing (ranger).


YI, WoW has been around since 2004. Raid Points, to my knowledge, are a fairly recent thing. Personally I didn't have an account back then, but my friends did, and really, back then, healers were the kings and queens of the raid, because they held the raid together and kept them alive. Tanks were, of course, valuable asset as well, because they kept the combat from spiraling out hands. But without healers to keep the raid group (that includes the tank) alive, the whole raids would've been killed. It goes without question why healers would have been given the first picks. The better their gear is, the easier it is for them to keep the raid alive. Period.

I started wow in 2004/2005. Raid points have been around since then. It's not a new anything. Healers were never the kings or queens of anything. Yes, you had to have a healer in a raid, but you had to have a tank, and you had to have massive damage. You also needed some classes to do some tricks (e.g., hunters to kite, paladins to debuff, shamans and ther totems, etc). You couldn't clear 40/25/20 man content without a good mix of all classes. The game was designed for that in mind. Heck, for the one raid in plague area (forget the name) you needed shadow priests for one of the fights. So, again, you are wrong dkp and g ear. BTW, in raids, most gear was specific to classes. Some gear crossed over, and their bonuses applied to multiple class types (e.g., staves that increased spell power). With raid points, you had to be able to buy it.


Don't think so highly of yourself just because you have played a tank in a number 1 raiding guild somewhere, sometime. There are lots of similar guilds around the world. And lots and lots of talented tank players. You are no special in that regard.
Never said i tanked in the #1 raid guild. I was actually a warlock, and their highest DPS, period. Played my role very well. I'm special in many regards, being the #1 DPS for the guild who was the number 1 guild on the server (raids) is pretty darn special. My tertiary character was a tank, but he only did 5 man and was a "take a break from the regular warlock stuff"


For example myself: I have played a tank almost the entire time I have played WoW (began in 2005 on my friend's account and bought my own account in 2007) and I know what it is about; I'm not a rookie by a long shot either (13 f-ing years as a tank, with experience from all tank classes by now should have some weight on that argument alone in regards to tanking in WoW; I'm not deluding myself saying that the same experience from tanking would apply to D&D because it just doesn't). Still, I'm not gloating about it and backing up my points with that irrelevant information. I prefer using facts grounded on the rules/mechanics of the game in question.[/qute]

You played wow since 2005 to now but think raid points are recent? You think priests were kings and queens? I'm calling fud on your wow experience. As for "special" don't think you are that special. I had demonolgy specced my warlock and tanked a few 5 man raids with blueberry in one of the 5 man raids when burning crusade came out. If blue can tank, it can't be that hard

[QUOTE=Arkhios;23474250]I repeat my earlier point: D&D ≠ WoW. Whatever is the case in WoW does not apply to D&D.
WoW has defined roles for classes. D&D has not. Just because WoW does, D&D doesn't have to.

And, it just occurred to me, just because Lay on Hands in WoW is a "all at once" ability, it's not so in 5th edition D&D. It certainly can be, but it doesn't have to be.

And I repeat my earlier point, to you, dnd does not = wow. Pretty sure i agreed with you before. For some reason you don't like to read.

D&D does have defined roles. Just look at the abilities of the PCs. Build a straight wiz or sorc that can tank a 5 encounter day with boss. Build a straight rogue who can do mass damage. Build a straight barb that can heal.

This LOH thing cannot be "just occurred to me", this is the 2nd time you brought up LOH in the same post

[Speely]

The great thing about clerics is that they can single class, be as MAD or SAD as they want to be, have full caster progression, build toward a gish, blaster, or support, etc.

They are like Paladins in that they almost feel like a multiclass build by default.

They are crazy-useful in almost any situation. "Our party would be better without that cleric" said no party ever.

[stoutstien]

I can't speak of other experience with WoW but I was on when plain strider was a racial ablity.
I'll accept the challenge of making a anti party in which all rolls are filled by classes not deemed fit.

Tank- high elf bladesinger. 23ac with proper stats, great buffs like mirror image, and you know what's better than resistance to fireball? Counter spell it.

Healer/battle band-aid- half orc devotion pally. Saving smite for crits on targets that are an actual threat free up tons of great buffing options. This guy cannot have his concentration broken by damage, charms, fear, and so forth. Loh, aura of vitality, and aura of life make this guy a solid Healing machine.

Skill monkey- lizard folks knowledge cleric. Floating expertise and skilled feat made a solid, incert skill here PC

Face/scout- goblin Dex
Ancestral barbarian. Who needs charm when you can bully and threaten your way?

I am for this party. I wrote the campaign using a platonic standard fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue respectively so in no way did I cater or change anything to help them out in there choices of avatars.
Facing up challenging enconters almost double the deadly xp limit they went from lv 1-14. I am not a "nice dm" I don't fudge rolls and I allow players to make mistakes that can and will get them killed.

[Arkhios]

good grief. I'm tablet typing. get over yourself. i have a feeling the rest of your comments will be the same way
Sorry, I was having a bad day. That was petty, even from me.


oh, they exist in dnd. The ideal party composition has existed for as long as i have been playing (2e). Now, they may have made some things easier and allowed a bit of crossover, roles exist. But if you don't like labels, and refuse to believe, knock yourself out. Next game, see who is the person primarily taking the hits, primarily doing mass damage, the skill monkey, the primary healer. What class are they. Or heck, take it to the next level - build a sorc that stays in melee all day long, or a rogue who will play healer (combat medic)
By defined role I mean something that has been literally spelled out in the class description. For example, in 4th edition a fighter was literally spelled out to be primarily a Defender (an actual thing that mattered ruleswise) and Secondarily either Controller or Striker (Wizards and Rogues were primarily Controllers and Strikers, respectively). I'm AFB, but I don't seem to recall if there was a secondary Leader role for Fighter as well. Probably not (Cleric fell into the Primary Leader category, funnily enough).

Ideal party composition, or that certain classes are better at something, still isn't spelling out that those classes must fall into specifically "defined roles". That's been my point all along. I'm aware it's a traditional thing -- from edition to edition, from generation to generation -- among players to assume certain roles, but there is no written rules forcing you to play as a "tank" or a "healer" etc. because of your class of choice. This is literally unlike in WoW: when you choose to play a class, that class has defined roles for you to play, depending on their Specialization (technically their sub-class equivalent). True, some classes (or their Specializations) can "bend the rules" so to speak to certain length, but that's more about mastering the system and less about what's intended in the long term.


I never said the rules say LOH is all or none. I said I use it as all or none. Really dude, this is your post, being pendantic and thinking you know more than me?
To be honest, I quoted you word for word for what you said. You said "once a day" and "all or none". That's where I based my argument previously. You may have intended to say otherwise, but I'm not a medium. I can't possibly know what you intended to say. I'm sorry that I came out as condescending. I did have a bad day, which isn't really an acceptable excuse, but it's all I have, so I apologize.


That's weak, really really weak. Expectations are a part of life. We expect people to do things, and if expecting your fellow player to play as a team wil "weigh heavily" on your shoulders, maybe you should stick to solitare, and not leave your moms basement.
I find it sad to see someone have that kind of attitude towards people of varying levels of self-confidence. I guess it's good for you that you wouldn't have a problem if someone did that to you. But please, try to see the possibility, that the other person next to you playing a cleric might not have your self-confidence about themselves. Regardless of our individual self-confidences, everyone at the table have an equal right to be there. Saying out loud, that if someone felt peer pressure more heavily than you do, they should "stick to solitaire and not leave their moms basements", is really, really disrespectful, mean, and morally questionable.


Actually no i never said or implied the cleric should only ever heal. I think it's great when he slings a fireball, or uses his light domain ability. When he heals, he needs to heal using his best. 2d8 heal vs monsters who just did 40 damage in one round when only half their hits landed does not cut it. And when the guy in front of you, with 22(24) ac goes down, guess who is next (with 16 ac).
I admit that I may have misunderstood you on this. My bad.


My group would not want me to use LOH on point by point (they have even said this). Each use of LOH, in combat, equals 3 less attacks. They like those attacks. It kills things. Again, role. FYI, my group won't even ask me to heal (they are not shy for telling people want to do), because they know smites outweigh my paladins ability to cast 2nd level cure spells. They prefer he misty step into the backline too.

Nope, I've been using LOH right. Again, me use LOH to bring someone up, is 3 less attacks. Also, nobody gets into melee with me. They are happy staying on my distant flanks. If i disengage, then i let the monsters walk right up to the other PCs. They have lower AC and lower HP. They would not stand a single round. The other PCs either have some potion or minor healing (ranger).
It's great that you and your group are in mutual understanding over what's tactically the best thing to do. Really, I mean it. Again, I may have misread something, or been guilty of reading too much into your words and assuming the rest. Actually, on hindsight, I think it's the latter.


I started wow in 2004/2005. Raid points have been around since then. It's not a new anything. Healers were never the kings or queens of anything. Yes, you had to have a healer in a raid, but you had to have a tank, and you had to have massive damage. You also needed some classes to do some tricks (e.g., hunters to kite, paladins to debuff, shamans and ther totems, etc). You couldn't clear 40/25/20 man content without a good mix of all classes. The game was designed for that in mind. Heck, for the one raid in plague area (forget the name) you needed shadow priests for one of the fights. So, again, you are wrong dkp and g ear. BTW, in raids, most gear was specific to classes. Some gear crossed over, and their bonuses applied to multiple class types (e.g., staves that increased spell power). With raid points, you had to be able to buy it.

Never said i tanked in the #1 raid guild. I was actually a warlock, and their highest DPS, period. Played my role very well. I'm special in many regards, being the #1 DPS for the guild who was the number 1 guild on the server (raids) is pretty darn special. My tertiary character was a tank, but he only did 5 man and was a "take a break from the regular warlock stuff"

You played wow since 2005 to now but think raid points are recent? You think priests were kings and queens? I'm calling fud on your wow experience. As for "special" don't think you are that special. I had demonolgy specced my warlock and tanked a few 5 man raids with blueberry in one of the 5 man raids when burning crusade came out. If blue can tank, it can't be that hard
For the record, the first time I replied to your post about raid points, I said "to my knowledge", which already implies it's likely incomplete. I also said that I played on my friend's account back in 2005, and bought my own account in 2007.
I didn't say I was raiding between that time period. My friends where, and it's quite possible that I didn't catch up the term Raid Points back then, or maybe they had a different term for it; which is likely, because in Finland we tend to speak Finnish, can you imagine? (jk). However, I did play a tank in dungeons so I would say my experience from tanking in WoW is quite valid; not Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt. Same responsibilities, only in a smaller scale. But I did tank in a few raids as well at a later point. Anyway, while I was reasonably talented (at least no one ever complained), I was mostly a casual due to my other responsibilities (I took my studies rather seriously).


And I repeat my earlier point, to you, dnd does not = wow. Pretty sure i agreed with you before. For some reason you don't like to read.

D&D does have defined roles. Just look at the abilities of the PCs. Build a straight wiz or sorc that can tank a 5 encounter day with boss. Build a straight rogue who can do mass damage. Build a straight barb that can heal.
It seems I didn't notice you agreeing to it before. On the rest, it's not that I don't like to read, it's just that from what I read (past tense), it seemed you were hung up on the assumption that character classes come with predefined roles, RAW, while they do not. Any role a player chooses to play, is the player's decision, made possible by their choices in-game, and on paper when selecting their characters' variable abilities (Stats, Feats, Fighting Styles, Spells, etc.)

However, it seems I was, again, guilty of assuming more than you said, for which I apologize.


This LOH thing cannot be "just occurred to me", this is the 2nd time you brought up LOH in the same post
Sure it can, and it did. I didn't come to that conclusion earlier when writing my post. It's as I said before, I tend to base my arguments into the rules of the game in question; in this case I had my mind set on D&D (5th edition) rules first, and WoW only after that.