Seriously. Why *do* Clerics get to wear armour?

[Xeriar]

Here's another 'one': "The cleric is the most powerful class". Which is true, but it actually doesn't get a chance to be proven. Clerics who don't cure comrades in fights soon find players of dead comrades staring at them with hatred. So, clerics HAVE to be the healers. And they don't get to use their 'kewl skillz'.

Well, at least IMC. My players rarely want to play clerics anymore because of just that.

In games where the cleric really doesn't, or where the party is without a cleric and you have one as an adversary... It become apparent rather quickly.

I know that what D&D campaigns I still play are by no means typical, but I don't care for typical games anymore (so I suppose that's that).

 

[johnsemlak]

Can someone point me to a varient cleric that is sort of a be appropriate in a Egypt-like or similar setting, where clerics might be associated with arcane rituals. Such a cleric might wear little/no armor but have greater spellcasting ability.

As for the topic at hand, I do think it works fine in many games. It may not be appropriate for some settings, obviously.

 

[Darklone]

Another vote for armourless clerics... I wouldn't even mind medium armours ... but I see too many threads like "The poor weak cleric class should get Weapon Specialisation!"

I'd rather see them with simple weapons only. No war domain.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Can someone point me to a varient cleric that is sort of a be appropriate in a Egypt-like or similar setting, where clerics might be associated with arcane rituals. Such a cleric might wear little/no armor but have greater spellcasting ability.

As for the topic at hand, I do think it works fine in many games. It may not be appropriate for some settings, obviously.

I have not seen the cloistered cleric for myself, but based on what others have written about it I would suggest a cloistered cleric with the magic and spell domains (the latter is from FRCS).

 

[Brennin Magalus]

To you maybe, but for 30 years the companies that created and improved D&D seem to agree with me. So maybe not THAT nonsensical.

I believe clerics started out as a d6 class with light armor only (feel free to drag diaglo out of the mothballs if I'm wrong). Also, 2e had priests with varying armor proficiencies.

If you want a non-militant priest, there's one in Unearthed Arcana.

Everybody's happy.

I may not find that variant to my liking (although I will certainly check it out).

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Another vote for armourless clerics... I wouldn't even mind medium armours ... but I see too many threads like "The poor weak cleric class should get Weapon Specialisation!"

I'd rather see them with simple weapons only. No war domain.

Perhaps the war domain could give heavy armor proficiency instead.

 

[Darklone]

Nope, war domain should give war spells and some "Rally/Capture the flag" Ability comparable to bards songs.

 

[johnsemlak]

I believe clerics started out as a d6 class with light armor only (feel free to drag diaglo out of the mothballs if I'm wrong).

In Basic D&D the Cleric was d6 (remember then the strongest hit die was d8); any armor but only non-edged weapons (basically slings, maces, and hammers)

Don't know about OD&D.

 

[evileeyore]

I believe clerics started out as a d6 class with light armor only (feel free to drag diaglo out of the mothballs if I'm wrong). Also, 2e had priests with varying armor proficiencies.

2e had kits with varying armor proficiencies and combat utility.

Of course I only really ever played Theifs or Fighters back then (nothing ever changes), so I could be misremembering.

TTFN--EvilE

 

[Ottergame]

I would never play a cleric without armor. Why should I be forced into the back lines when I need to be near the front to heal?