D&D 5E Is a Half-Caster -but still Magical- Cleric too different?

[steeldragons]

Could you talk a little bit more about the differences between @steeldragons' cleric and the PHB's paladin? After all, they're a divine half-caster with limited use low-level healing, delayed spellcasting pickup, etc.

Well, sure...For starters, as I said in the original post, this is about designing a cleric class for a homebrew system, not 5e. So, comparisons to the PHB paladin may be interesting, but would not be in direct competition...since this is not about playing 5e.

I think the primary differences, would be as follows:
1. As a Priest category class, versus a Warrior category class, the clerics will be limited (at least as default) to Light and Medium armors, Shields, and a limited selection of weapons. Paladins in general, and definitely the ones in the 5e PHB -even when such things would be introduced into the system (which I am also debating.. Paladins would not be presented as a class in the "basic/starter" material)- do not have those limitations.

2. It seems a good amount the Paladin spell list space is taken up with simply giving them different sorts of Smite attacks or other combat relevant abilities. A cleric's spell list -whenever it is implemented- would be a bit more broadly useful/utilitarian both in and outside of combat.

3. A Paladin's Channeling ability, though certainly more diverse in 5e than it has been, is still somewhat limited by their Oath. Now, what I'm talking about would include limited/individualized channel powers depending on deity, but that's a bit more granular and setting-specific than the PHB's Oaths.

4. Also a "World of Orea RPG" feature, as the default/poster child class of the "Priest" class group, they also begin with 8 + Con. hp and receive a d8 HD for each level after. Paladins, naturally, in the PHB -and, presumably it would be a Warrior class in WoOrpg- would start with 12 + Con. HP and receive a d12 HD. So that's another, perhaps obvious, distinction.

It is an interesting comparison, however. Between "how's it different than a warlock?" and "how's it different than a paladin?", (both legitimate questions!) it does rather beg the question if a "cleric" is necessary as a class at all?

My old school origins and game sensibility (BECM-1e-2e-skipped through to 5e), of course, say that it is. If things [abilities, flavor, etc...] overlap or step on toes, then it is for the Warlock and Paladin to change/justify their existence as different than the Cleric, not the other way around. But that's me, where I look/come at it from.

 

[Mad_Jack]

If paladins aren't going to be a thing in your game, you might want to consider hijacking some form of their Lay On Hands ability for the cleric...

 

[steeldragons]

That's another way to go...rather than have it be a channel, have it just be a magical feature in itself.

 

[ThePolarBear]

Just a random idea: Get rid of spellcasting.

You do not need spellcasting to have them being magical, Clerics just need to have abilities that create supernatural effects. Think about Warlock's invocations, featuring specific "paths" you could take to have, for example

• The more "militaristic" cleric, the one that stands in the frontline, insipiring allies to fight for what is right and good and holy (temp hps, bless effects... think blolstering and prevention, more than actual healing)
• The inquisitor, one that deals with demonic possession and presence, undeath and eldritch stuff under the holy orders' guidance to save the souls of people and faithful. The most magic oriented aspect but more than actually dabbling with magic, creates rites to prevent and expunge such magic (remove curses) and generating wardings (controller style)
• The healer... that is most self explanatory than everything, but also acting as the common priest "image" of spiritual guide.

This would also give possible access to different "main" stats that are not covered directly by just having 4 classes, keeping "magical" effects while also embracing the idea that spells = mage, bonks = warrior and skills = thief. Cleric would be the "support", or the "unique" that no other class has.

Btw, all considering a basic healing background for all the... builds?, prehaps with proficiecy of the healer's kit, Healer's feat or something, and a shared pool of choices that could take from base paladin, warlock and clerics features. Even bards could be considered.

 

[steeldragons]

There is something to be said for the idea that, in the interest of making the classes more unique/special than "this one's a divine magic-user, that one's an arcane magic-user", or that class A's "special thing" is X mechanic, while class B's special thing is Y mechanic, that one could remove spellcasting from the clerics.

...now, if that means the cleric is still the best option for the default/posterchild for a "Priests" class group or not...I don't know if I can say...or if there are enough classes to support a "Priest class group" at all, becomes another question...and down the rabbit hole we go. hahaha.

I tend to think that, given the set up and structure of the campaign setting, with the organizations, relations, histories, etc... of various types of magic and magic-users already being largely built into the setting, that spells need to stay on the proverbial table. "Channeling" magic or warlock-like "invocations" or, straight up innate "Magic Powers" totally work as well. But for sake of enough diversity to warrant a category of classes, that, perhaps, use some armor and some weapons and combine that with some version/type of magic power or ability, access to spells should remain to use, maybe not in all classes, but in some that might otherwise not fit within the class category.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Also, I'm not sure the question was "how is it different from a warlock/paladin/rottweiler?" It certainly wasn't mine. Particularly in the warlock's case, there is currently no pact or patron (of which I am aware) that provides healing magic.

What I was suggesting is that you either create a "healing power" patron and/or make alterations to the warlock spell list to suit your needs. Like the cleric, warlocks get a d8 hit die, simple weapons, and light armor. The class would feel/play differently from a cleric especially from a healing domain cleric, but that seems to be part of your goal. And the real meat and potatoes of the class would be in whatever you developed as it's "incantations" or "blessings" or whatever you chose to call them.

 

[steeldragons]

No no. Not that anyone was specifically asking that...but the [very plausible] ideas that you could use this or that class to be "a cleric" raises the question...in my head/for me, I suppose.

 

[steeldragons]

On the taking spells out of it idea...what about just taking what we think/know of Divine Magic Spells and just making them channeled effects.

So, for example, you would still have access to [e.g.]: Bless, Cure Wounds, Light, Resist Element, Sense Divine, Turn Undead.

Your class feature is actually "Channel: Divine Magic" and you get level + Wis. mod. times per day to channel whatever effects you happen to require.

Clerics still have a "spell list" of sorts. It's just a list of divine magic effects -which, really, in the vernacular should be "invocations"- versus spells [which could, more accurately, be referred to as "incantations"].

So, actually, Channel: Divine Invocation....with a per diem that increases with level. Would work out, maybe to less magic than having channels and magic features and a spell list/progression...or I guess you could make/keep them en par with the mages' spell progression. But that would go against the initial premise that they are not [at least not as default] primarily a caster, but are a supplemental caster.

 

[steeldragons]

Next thought...

Is mechanical distinction between the classes justified as a reason to slay the sacred cow of "Clerical Spells/Divine Spellcasting"?

That is, is making the cleric use a different magic-making mechanic than a mage uses a "good enough" reason to remove clerical spell progression and just make their magic a result of "channeling" divine energies? ...and, really, is that a mechanical distinction or a distinction without a difference? i.e. they're both creating magical effects, one we're going to call spells and one we're not. Would it matter at all? Would it play, "feel," different/distinct to have a cleric PC vs a mage PC?

Thoughts?

 

[Satyrn]

Clerics are my favorite class. I like them because of their mix of melee and magic, and because they are linked so inherently to the setting. That's where I'm coming from with this.

I'd be fine with you're changes, except that I'd feel a little left behind being being a full spell level lower than wizards (and bards and warlocks if you have them) unless those class features kept pace.


I really like the suggestion of using the warlock as the cleric. It's a different spellcasting mechanic, which nicely separates them from wizards. You just need to invent divine flavoured invocations (call them prayers) and map them to deities, either as requirements or suggestions, whichever makes sense to you.

And pacts, too. Maybe each deity gets a unique pact. If you can generate tbat much creativity.