How martial should the Cleric be?

[ArmoredSaint]

If the Cleric does not wear heavy armour and wield a mace, it will not be the D&D Cleric.

People complain about the Cleric treading on the Paladin's territory, but I see absolutely no need for yet another robe-wearing magic dude, like the hypothetical "priest" class; the Magic-user already has that squishy territory adequately covered, I think.

 

[BobTheNob]

If the Cleric does not wear heavy armour and wield a mace, it will not be the D&D Cleric.

So?

My concern is not that the D&D cleric comes across exactly as prescribed, just that the image of the old cleric can be re-produced. If you do that with priest+themes, good enough for me.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

So?

My concern is not that the D&D cleric comes across exactly as prescribed, just that the image of the old cleric can be re-produced. If you do that with priest+themes, good enough for me.

I think I'd prefer that the classic D&D Cleric be the default, with maybe the ability to turn it into yet another cloth-wearer "priest" with themes, backgrounds, etc.

 

[BobTheNob]

I think I'd prefer that the classic D&D Cleric be the default, with maybe the ability to turn it into yet another cloth-wearer "priest" with themes, backgrounds, etc.

Thats fine. Preference does mean alot. Personally Im very attached to the cleric in general, my most treasured character ever was a cleric (Darksun halfing).

Either way, we are talking the same thing, that a cleric is a spell caster at its core. Whether you add to the casting aspect and build on that on put armor and weapons on it is user preference.

p.s. What do you mean by "yet another" clothy priest. Only time I have ever played a clothy priest was in WoW, never in table top gaming (Maybe Rolemaster...jeeze I played a cleric when we played that too...I must really love clerics!...but I was wearing armor and weilding a mace in that one too).

 

[ArmoredSaint]

By "yet another clothy," I really meant "yet another clothy spellcaster." We already have the Wizard; I don't think we need another robe-clad spellcaster. If people are worried about the heavily-armoured Cleric and the Paladin looking too much alike and treading on each other's territory, the answer is not to make the Cleric look more like, and tread upon the robe-wrapped, squishy territory of the Wizard.

 

[KidSnide]

The traditional cleric is really a gish with a different spell list. Unlike the paladin, who has a strong melee-first combat approach, the cleric should be spending some rounds of combat casting spells and other rounds of combat swinging away with a mace.

Of course, some clerics will prefer casting more often while others would use casting as a supplement to weapon combat. Still, the idea of taking the pure-caster version of the cleric and putting that in a separate class is a good one. The class abilities and spell lists for the cleric need to reflect the gishy aspect of the class - the spells need to be weaker than the wizard or priest and the weapon use needs to be weaker than the fighter or paladin, and yet the class as a whole needs to be strong enough to be satisfying.

-KS

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm a fan of domains. The cleric gets a very shot and comparatively weak "universal" spell list, all presented in the PHB and that will only be added to if there are any glaring omissions. And then gets further spells and abilities from his domain(s) (I'd rather only one domain per cleric but two might be viable).

The "War" domain gives no spells or casting ability. What it does instead is gives heavy armour proficiency and a collection of weapons depending on the deity (and possibly the odd righteous might style ability depending on playtesting). And only the war domain contains self-buff combat abilities other than resilience or martyrdom (taking everyone else's wounds) effects. All other buffs the cleric gets are for allies.

 

[GreatLemur]

By "yet another clothy," I really meant "yet another clothy spellcaster." We already have the Wizard; I don't think we need another robe-clad spellcaster. If people are worried about the heavily-armoured Cleric and the Paladin looking too much alike and treading on each other's territory, the answer is not to make the Cleric look more like, and tread upon the robe-wrapped, squishy territory of the Wizard.

See, this strikes me as a really odd sentiment. You're seeing more redundancy between an unarmored divine caster and an unarmored arcane caster than you do between an armored divine caster-warrior and another armored divine caster-warrior?

I'd hope that divine and arcane magic look different enough to make the Priest / unarmored Cleric extremely different from the Wizard. Why performing miracles has ever used the same mechanics and terminology as casting spells is beyond me...

 

[GreatLemur]

I'm a fan of domains. The cleric gets a very shot and comparatively weak "universal" spell list, all presented in the PHB and that will only be added to if there are any glaring omissions. And then gets further spells and abilities from his domain(s) (I'd rather only one domain per cleric but two might be viable).

I'm with you, but I'd go further: domains all the way. No universal abilities. You should be able to build a Cleric that heals and turns undead with the right domain choices, sure—and those should be the defualt choices, for the non-customized version of the class—but you shouldn't be locked into that role. The priests of the winter goddess should be freezing people and making ice barriers, not healing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'd hope that divine and arcane magic look different enough to make the Priest / unarmored Cleric extremely different from the Wizard. Why performing miracles has ever used the same mechanics and terminology as casting spells is beyond me...

Agreed emphatically.

And for all I'm a fan of (limited) at will casting for wizards, it shouldn't exist for clerics. The wizard commands power, the cleric asks for it. And one of the most emphatic ways of showing this would be to only give the wizard at will powers - you don't treat your god as a servant. (Druids are a special case half way beween cleric and wizard - channeling the forces of nature).

Hmm... how about the cleric not getting to choose what spells they get at all - but instead getting random spells off a table each time they recover spells (that they can convert to heal/harm a la 3.x). The random spells represent the whim of the Gods? In 3.x terms, say you either roll against or draw cards from four basic spells per level plus two domain spells for each domain (ignoring war) with caster's choice on a natural 10 and no spell on a natural 1 (reroll on a double). With the DM having absolute and explicit license to rig the deck any time the God would want to nudge things along.

Cards of course proposed because the card has the whole spell description on it.

Edit: On reading the above post (cross-posted), the point of the chanelling to healing/harm is so that you don't have to outright waste spells on tough days. Heal/Harm should be the default, but should be changeable by deity so Pelor grants a burst of healing positive energy instead of a single target heal and a Goddess of Winter grants biting winds. Also of the four generic spells, one should be the heal of that level (and stronger than a channelled heal - I believe every priest can heal their flock occasionally), and one should be "Priest's aura" for the God or your primary domain - for Pelor that's light coming from you that heals slightly, grants diplomacy bonusses, and repels undead, whereas for a generic Goddess of Winter, it's effectively icy armour that causes you to be more intimidating and leave frosty footprints wherever you walk. A third should be a group blessing (again domain or God dependent). And that leaves only one spell to pick per level that isn't strictly domain dependent.