Cleric design goals . Legends and Lore April 23

[Herobizkit]

For the record, in my 3.x homebrew campaigns, I threw out the Standard cleric and replaced it wit the Cloistered Cleric. Armored faith-healer-warriors are Paladins.

Perhaps this is too 'game-y', but here's how I look at character classes:

a) Weapons: Heavy (d10 or more), Light (d6-d8), "None" (d4-d6)
b) Armor: Heavy, Light, None
c) Spells: "Heavy" (full caster), "Light", (partial caster), None.

Clerics fall into "WAS" like so: Light, Heavy, Heavy.

Depending on their God/dess, they can easily change their weapon to a "Heavy" type. I should think that their choice of God/dess should affect their Armor and Spell selection as well.

IMO, 2ed Specialty Priests and to a lesser extent, the Priest's Handbook did Priests correctly.

I'd like to see that kind of thing come back.

 

[howandwhy99]

Here are five descriptors for a cleric:

1. "The cleric serves to fortify, protect, and revitalize."
2. "The cleric also has a limited number of attack spells, some of which are simply the reverse form of curative incantations."
3. "The cleric has the ability to wear armor, carry effective weaponry, and engage in hand-to-hand (melee) combat with a reasonable chance of success."
4. "Another important attribute of the cleric is the ability to turn away (or actually command into service) the Undead and less powerful Demons and Devils."
5. "The class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times."

The first describes not only the spells a cleric has available, but all potential abilities. I strongly suggest clericism is not about being a healer in combat, at least not only literally. Let's stop thinking about this class as just another warrior class with every feature geared towards fighting. That's how we can make it unique. Adventuring wizards are the masters of their environment, not war. What adventures does a group of only clerics go on? Historically speaking? Mythological, in legend, in literature, in actuality? The original configuration of a cleric is medieval holy men and women, the priests, shamans, and wise men of their time. Their adventures are divine quests and self-guided missions in nature.

When it comes to spells clerics, like M-Us, have a vast scope to design within. However, beyond the usual limits of spell creation they do not need to find or attempt to learn spells. So they are primarily limited by divine scope and total available spells. I believe clerics should have a finite list of known spells. These could be custom designed or selected from a list of divine spell suggestions. This total is received all at once with the advent of every new spell level. How many can prepared at any one time however is much less. I would even give clerics fewer spells per day than a M-U.

Spell selection can define a cleric in the manner of a specialty priest, but so can the mix of other abilities. Monks and Druids are Clerics too. We can carve out another niche here for all of them, going beyond combat, magic, and larceny. For me, a class defines the scope of behavior that advances certain abilities leveraged in performing well within that scope. The specific abilities can be changed out, at least to some degree, so long as they are similarly focused. The standard cleric focuses primarily on the behavior of intelligent creatures. Druids focus on animal and semi-intelligent ones. Monks turn inwards and focus on the self and small enclaves rather than whole societies. This is where their adventures lie, what will gain them XP, advance in their classes, and further the class as well.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I found myself in major disagreement with most of the design goals they expressed in this article.

"1. The Cleric is a Healer"
Oh boy. This is one thing I really did not want to see in 5e. It's not that I didn't want clerics to have healing spells, it's just that I have always hated how they've been pigeonholed into healing as their primary role. This also probably means that every party will once again absolutely have to have a cleric to survive, and I've always hated that. People should be drawn to play clerics because they're awesome, not because every group is obligated to have one or else die.

"3. Divine Magic is Subtle and Indirect."
Making someone's wounds magically disappear before everyone's eyes, or raising the dead to life, inpsiring awe and reverence from the entire village that witnessed the event, those things are anything but subtle. I really hope they don't go too far with this. If I can't cast flamestrike or animate dead as a cleric or bring down biblical plagues upon my god's enemies, and can do nothing but heal and buff, count me out.

"4. The Cleric is an Armored Warrior."
It looks like my hopes of cloth-wearing priests being an equally viable option have been shattered. They really need to get past the whole knight templar/hospitaler thing. Clerics should be first and foremost priests, and the divine warrior role should belong mostly to paladins. The vast majority of priests, in real life or fantasy, don't go around in plate mail whacking things with a mace. That option should exist, of course, but let us play a robed priest that doesn't get into melee too!

 

[Leatherhead]

* a quick preface,no offense is intended from real world religious examples that are used*

To be blunt, because there is no other way to do this at this point without dragging the discussion down into a religious debate:

D&D emulates the stories of the real world, not the real world proper. A fighter taking on 5 guys in the real word is an astounding feat. In stories, you have fighters taking on armies. This is the kind of scale we are working with here.

Also, I recall a story where someone split a sea in half. If you don't consider that a "flashy" and awe inspiring sight to behold, then we aren't going to agree on the subject at all.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you allow this degree of customization then why even bother starting with a class based system? Why not just have a set of options that one can use to build a character, together with a set of pre-built packages to make life simpler for those who want it?

I would have absolutely no problem with such a system and it sometimes almost sounds like that is what 5th ed may be. And the whole "class based" is now basically just marketting hyperbole, a nod to nostalgia.

The class is still the main source of your abilities. Giving fighters the occasional ability to cast a fire spell (if they choose to) via some source (such as being dedicated to the Goddess of Fire) isn't any more class-violating than giving the ability to clerics via domains, or giving the ability to a rogue via Use Magic Device and wand. Because class isn't defined by what you cannot do, it's defined by what you're especially good at, and even if the fighter shoots fire from his fingertips (or his magic sword or his horribly charred hand that was anointed by the Goddess in his initiation rite, or whatever), that doesn't mean he isn't the dude who is the best in the party at hitting things really hard.

Ultimately, any class based system is just an ability package centered around a particular archetype. There's little in-game difference between saying "You're a fighter, so you have heavy armor proficiency and +1 to attack rolls with a weapon of your choice" and saying "As a Fighter, you have a +1 to attack rolls with a weapon of your choice, and the Defender theme, which gives you heavy armor proficiency."

The difference is mostly that you can swap out that theme for something else if you want, rather than having it as part of the class's baggage automatically.

I don't disagree that this has the potential to weaken the "purity" of a class. If someone is a fire-worshiping fighter who studied as an apprentice wizard and has the Arcana skill, the Produce Flame spell once per day, and a +1 bonus to attack rolls with a weapon of their choice, that doesn't resemble the archetypal fighter as much anymore, but when you've decided that your fighter is loyal to the goddess of fire and studied as a wizard, you're already well out of the realm of the classic fighter archetype, so I don't see why that's much of a problem.

And if you want that strong archetype? That's why the default fighter has a background that gives them the Athletics skill, a Theme that gives them heavy armor proficiency, and a class that gives them a weapon focus. That's the archetype, built right into the class, for those that want the fighter archetypal.

I don't think the inability to cast magic is a defining trait of the fighter just like I don't think the inability to use a sword is a defining trait of the wizard. My mind easily welcomes sword-using wizards and magic-using fighters. I don't hear many objections about the former. Why is that one OK, but the other one verboten? Why can a wizard train a bit as a warrior and learn to use a sword without being defined by the concept, but a fighter can't train a bit as a fire priest and learn to use holy flame without being defined by the concept?

 

[The Little Raven]

I guess Mosses was just not Awesome enough for you. Humanity has given the concept of Miracles quite a bit of attention, and most are subtle, from a certain point of view. I do not care for "Gamist" Miracles myself.

While modern day people talk about subtle miracles, Moses and Biblical miracles are definitely nowhere near a model for that philosophy. We're talking about a guy that got marching orders from a talking, burning bush. Who parted the Red Sea. Who called down plagues of locusts, flies, diseases, darkness, blood-to-water, and then topped it all off by having every firstborn son of Egypt killed by the angel of death. There was nothing subtle about the miracles that Moses called down. It was less "God works in mysterious ways" and more "God has a special effects budget that would give Michael Bay serious wood."

 

[pauljathome]

Ultimately, any class based system is just an ability package centered around a particular archetype. ?

I think that I'm about to break an internet law or something by admitting that this discussion (with you and others) is altering my opinions .

You're quite right. And I was wrong. A highly customizable class system does have the potential of being useful for many different types of players, including people like me who really like to tinker. It can make a very good foundation on which one can tinker if one wants.

What this discussion has shown me is that the fluff is hugely important to me. A fighter who can throw fireballs is just wrong. But a fighter who worships the God of Fire and has been granted some divine power to throw an occassional fireball? That is just fine with me. That fireball that the fighter throws has to have an in world explanation that makes sense. Whether that be divine power or the residue of magic training or the fact that he has fire spirits as allies doesn't matter as long as, in world, it makes sense.

 

[Hussar]

But, wouldn't the simplest solution be to take a wizard, smack on the Divine theme and now you have your flashy/blasty priestly type?

There needs to be some distinction made between wizards and clerics. If both of them can do the same thing, but cleric's get to heal, that's kinda sucky all the way around. There's nothing wrong with a bit of niche protection.

 

[Leatherhead]

But, wouldn't the simplest solution be to take a wizard, smack on the Divine theme and now you have your flashy/blasty priestly type?

There needs to be some distinction made between wizards and clerics. If both of them can do the same thing, but cleric's get to heal, that's kinda sucky all the way around. There's nothing wrong with a bit of niche protection.

Why should wizards be flashy? I don't recall Gandalf or Merlin throwing around fireballs. They should be mysterious and sagely.

In fact, why do wizards have fireball in the first place, and why is everyone saying "Wizards should throw fireballs"? Fireballs aren't very magical, and mechanically they aren't even all that effective. Heck I even remember some D&D novels bemoaning fireballs as something wizards shouldn't be using as a matter of habit.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why should wizards be flashy? I don't recall Gandalf or Merlin throwing around fireballs. They should be mysterious and sagely.

In fact, why do wizards have fireball in the first place, and why is everyone saying "Wizards should throw fireballs"? Fireballs aren't very magical, and mechanically they aren't even all that effective. Heck I even remember some D&D novels bemoaning fireballs as something wizards shouldn't be using as a matter of habit.

Technically, Gandalf was a sorcerer. And he was myterious and sagely because he was like, 1000 years old and essentially a deva.