Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Cleric design goals . Legends and Lore April 23
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5889234" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>Very nice article...</p><p></p><p>I want to focus on the three explicit definitions of Cleric (of course the religious aspect is also a major definition, but not so directly into the mechanics):</p><p></p><p>1. The Cleric Is a Healer</p><p>2. The Cleric Is a Divine Spellcaster</p><p>3. The Cleric Is an Armored Warrior</p><p></p><p>I think what has actually caused some problem and controversy is point 3. Personally I used to think that the Cleric was originally given armor more as a compensation for the fact that he lent the healing services, often to be done performed in the middle of a battle (hence the extra defenses, so that he doesn't need to risk too much), rather than really making him a good fighter. I strongly believe that as soon as you have enough spells per day, you can play a totally powerful Cleric without fighting in melee, just casting your spells.</p><p></p><p>But given the armored warrior concept, I think too many people focus on this aspect of the Cleric as if it was the most important, and then of course they complain that "healing wastes my time, I should be rather fighting", and also choose too many combat/buffing spells to become even better at that. What is even worse, they use all their buffing on themselves, instead of supporting others, and then the others complain about the CoDzilla problem. </p><p></p><p>All this in light of the fact that at the same time many other gamers are unsatisfied by the lack of a Cleric more similar to RL priests, hence less battle-oriented.</p><p></p><p>I'm going to stretch my opinion here, and say that perhaps it would be for the best of all that the Cleric would be given very good <em>defensive</em> melee abilities, but very poor <em>offensive</em> melee abilities, so that even when self-buffed it could not outshine the fighter-types, and that in general fighting (i.e. attacking) would not be normally more convenient than spellcasting, unless of course you're out of (useful) spells.</p><p></p><p>See also my next point...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this is an important remark!</p><p></p><p>What bothers me, is that not only few players want to heal the party... but also not so many players want to buff the others, or directly shield the others, or aid/support the others...</p><p></p><p>Personally I think it's about time that D&D would promote more <strong>teamplay</strong>, but it has to be proactive not "automatic-in-the-background", which is quite the opposite in fact... having a PC with an ability that all the time grants +X to all comrades or that automatically heals a wounded friend is not what I like, because <em>if you're not paying a price</em> for using it (e.g. give up your action) then it's not really teamplay, it's the opposite, it's "I don't need to bother because the game does it for me, so I can focus on me, myself and I".</p><p></p><p>I understand that this idea is controversial, and most gamers would very much prefer to go the other way. In my case, I think it comes from having in the past years promoted RPG even at work, as an exercise to develop cooperation and teamwork, and "unfortunately" these are things that require care and effort... although I probably would like if in my profession I could have some "automatic-in-the-background" abilities that take care of my workmates requests for help and answer their questions while I can keep posting undisturbed on ENWorld... I mean while I can keep working. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 5889234, member: 1465"] Very nice article... I want to focus on the three explicit definitions of Cleric (of course the religious aspect is also a major definition, but not so directly into the mechanics): 1. The Cleric Is a Healer 2. The Cleric Is a Divine Spellcaster 3. The Cleric Is an Armored Warrior I think what has actually caused some problem and controversy is point 3. Personally I used to think that the Cleric was originally given armor more as a compensation for the fact that he lent the healing services, often to be done performed in the middle of a battle (hence the extra defenses, so that he doesn't need to risk too much), rather than really making him a good fighter. I strongly believe that as soon as you have enough spells per day, you can play a totally powerful Cleric without fighting in melee, just casting your spells. But given the armored warrior concept, I think too many people focus on this aspect of the Cleric as if it was the most important, and then of course they complain that "healing wastes my time, I should be rather fighting", and also choose too many combat/buffing spells to become even better at that. What is even worse, they use all their buffing on themselves, instead of supporting others, and then the others complain about the CoDzilla problem. All this in light of the fact that at the same time many other gamers are unsatisfied by the lack of a Cleric more similar to RL priests, hence less battle-oriented. I'm going to stretch my opinion here, and say that perhaps it would be for the best of all that the Cleric would be given very good [I]defensive[/I] melee abilities, but very poor [I]offensive[/I] melee abilities, so that even when self-buffed it could not outshine the fighter-types, and that in general fighting (i.e. attacking) would not be normally more convenient than spellcasting, unless of course you're out of (useful) spells. See also my next point... I think this is an important remark! What bothers me, is that not only few players want to heal the party... but also not so many players want to buff the others, or directly shield the others, or aid/support the others... Personally I think it's about time that D&D would promote more [B]teamplay[/B], but it has to be proactive not "automatic-in-the-background", which is quite the opposite in fact... having a PC with an ability that all the time grants +X to all comrades or that automatically heals a wounded friend is not what I like, because [I]if you're not paying a price[/I] for using it (e.g. give up your action) then it's not really teamplay, it's the opposite, it's "I don't need to bother because the game does it for me, so I can focus on me, myself and I". I understand that this idea is controversial, and most gamers would very much prefer to go the other way. In my case, I think it comes from having in the past years promoted RPG even at work, as an exercise to develop cooperation and teamwork, and "unfortunately" these are things that require care and effort... although I probably would like if in my profession I could have some "automatic-in-the-background" abilities that take care of my workmates requests for help and answer their questions while I can keep posting undisturbed on ENWorld... I mean while I can keep working. :p [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Cleric design goals . Legends and Lore April 23
Top