No one likes playing a Cleric. Why?

[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