Should Clerics Have Heavy Armor Proficiency? (any edition)

[Tequila Sunrise]

Other: Clerics should have heavy armor prof only if required for balance. For example 3e clerics should not because they don't need it, but 4e clerics should because they need it to keep a viable AC.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Not if there's a paladin.

The cleric has always been weird, much less of an archetype than the fighter or wizard. The funny thing is, the 'party healer' is a stronger archetype now than it was in 1974, due to D&D's influence. With 4e D&D has now moved away from this terrain, ceding it, probably correctly, to videogames. It was a crap idea anyway, WoW notably suffers from 'Looking for healer'. D&D was right, in this instance, to become less videogame-y.

The other problem with the cleric is it was OK in 1974 but once the paladin showed up the two classes were too similar so something has to give.

So, party healer mostly doesn't work. Religious dude in plate is too close to the paladin. The obvious solution is to scrap the cleric altogether. The idea was never very good. The only reason to bring it back is if Lord Fang is dominating your game and needs a Peter Cushing style smackdown.

 

[roguerouge]

Poll options are lacking since each editions clerics varied greatly in power.

As the OP, perhaps I should clarify my intent. There's a huge fight over on Paizo's boards about the PRPG's removal of the heavy armor proficiency from clerics. One of the major arguments leveled is that clerics "have always used heavy armor" in every edition of the game as the second line warrior. Others have countered that paladins make that ability unnecessary and undesired. Hence, the (any edition) qualifier.

 

[lutecius]

Not if there's a paladin.

The cleric has always been weird, much less of an archetype than the fighter or wizard.[...]

The other problem with the cleric is it was OK in 1974 but once the paladin showed up the two classes were too similar so something has to give.

So, party healer mostly doesn't work. Religious dude in plate is too close to the paladin. The obvious solution is to scrap the cleric altogether. The idea was never very good.

Agreed.

I can see the cleric as a priestly wizard variant so I voted "no that's why we have paladins" but the healer archetype works better as a NPC.

4e healing on a successful hit may make that role less boring but story-wise it really doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Dykstrav]

What are you willing to give up for it? Is it worth say, a feat slot to you?

Absolutely, and I'd gladly pay a feat slot for some heavy armor action.

In all fairness though, I don't particularly dig 4E's feats. I'm typically looking for viable feats to take rather than wishing I had more feats.

In fact, I'm considering making a wizard character with heavy armor proficiency just for the fun of it. Since armor no longer involves any spell failure chance and there's no rules saying that you can't cast arcane spells in armor now, I'd like to do it just because it's an option that I've never had before. Might be fun...

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

(I answer based on my game.)

Yes, Clerics should have heavy armor. The Cleric class is not a generic priest, but a special type of crusading warrior priest. That is, the Cleric class represents the kind of holy warrior/priest that is most likely to be a PC and go adventuring: the kind that would need and wear heavy armor. (Indeed, in my game, I'd be much more likely to ask "do I really need a Paladin class" than "why should Clerics wear heavy armor.") Most priests and religious leaders in the game world are *NOT* Clerics.

 

[TessarrianDM]

Though we use the standard 3.5 cleric with heavy armor, I have always preferred the 2e "specialty priest" concept. A cleric's abilities, armor, spellcasting power (and spell selection), etc., should be a direct reflection of the deity they serve, not a generic concept of a "holy warrior".

 

[Aus_Snow]

The answer I gave (the Paladin one, like most of the rest of you out there, it seems) only applies for editions and versions of [and, possibly, analogues and/or derivatives of] D&D that include both Cleric and Paladin as 'core' (ugh) classes.

Anyway, for 3e-style D&D, Pathfinder gets it right, IMO.

 

[BryonD]

I lean toward "no", but can't honestly vote for any.

I do believe that removing a piece that can be easily restored with one feat from a class routinely pointed at as over powered is not a concern.

 

[drothgery]

Not if there's a paladin.

...

The other problem with the cleric is it was OK in 1974 but once the paladin showed up the two classes were too similar so something has to give.

Well, pre-4e, the paladin was restricted to the LG alignment, and 3.5 core rules meant he had to be within one alignment step of his deity. Which meant it didn't really work well as the generic 'holy warrior class'. In 4e... well, I kind of think the Strength cleric steps on the Paladin's toes a lot (divine melee type) and the Warlord's toes a little (strength-primary melee leader). If one of the divine classes in PH3 is an alternate Divine leader that's a 'pure caster' type, I think I might ditch the cleric if I ran a new-from scratch game.