Do non-spellcasting, non-adventuring priests exist in D&D?

[Mouseferatu]

There's more than one currently being played.

As they are more than welcome to do. And I'm happy to get involved in a discussion regarding an old edition--or cross-editions--as the situation warrants.

But I'm just not prepared to preface every topic or every answer to every question with "Well, in the current edition..." So yeah, if/when someone doesn't specify otherwise, I'm assuming the latest.

In any case, we've gotten rather far afield. (Funny how that happens.) So to directly answer the OP's question, yes, non-cleric priests are explicitly said to exist.

In the current edition.

 

[Obryn]

In Arcana Evolved, Priest is a feat, not a class. Anyone can be a Priest.

-O

 

[Chris Knapp]

There is a 3.5E sourcebook by Sovereign Press/Margaret Weis Publishing for the Dragonlance setting called "War of the Lance" that has a base class called the Master. Its basically an enhanced version of the Expert who can specialize in 1 of 4 "professions:" Craftsman, Performer, Professional, and Sage. Its a great way to make those who excel at certain skills, whether it be making armor, acting, or just being the smartest guy in the village. They are pretty gimpy in combat but are great roleplayer's. A few famous DL personalities have been classified as Masters: Flint Fireforge and Theros Ironfeld to name two.

 

[Delta]

As they are more than welcome to do. And I'm happy to get involved in a discussion regarding an old edition--or cross-editions--as the situation warrants.

But I'm just not prepared to preface every topic or every answer to every question with "Well, in the current edition..." So yeah, if/when someone doesn't specify otherwise, I'm assuming the latest.

Ari, I've got to say that you're the person who in their first post said "This is explicit in 4E and in 3E Eberron, but it's at least implicit in other settings as well."

Mentioning multiple prior editions definitely made me think that a pan-edition discussion had been initiated.

 

[jdrakeh]

I can't think of any setting where it's specifically stated that all priests are Clerics or other Divine casters, but in many city sourcebooks and such all the detailed/statted priests are Clerics, implying you must be one to be important.

I'll take this one step further by noting that, prior to the introduction of Expert classes in D&D 3x, the vast majority of NPCs (to say nothing of priests specifically) in offical AD&D/D&D supplements were actually classed characters (e.g., Clerics, Magic Users, Fighters, etc).

Every city guard, serving wench, and barkeep had levels in something.

I personally never cared for this, but I'll be damned if there were rules for detailed non-classed NPCs in the core books prior to D&D 3x. The most in depth exploration of the concept that I can recall was the introduction of 0-Level characters in the much maligned Greyhawk Adventures hardcover (which, while clumsy, I still liked).

This is one area in which I think newer editions of D&D have vastly improved upon older editions (at least with regard to core rules).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...the vast majority of NPCs (to say nothing of priests specifically) in offical AD&D/D&D supplements were actually classed characters (e.g., Clerics, Magic Users, Fighters, etc). Every city guard, serving wench, and barkeep had levels in something.

Yeah, sad but true. This especially annoys me in Wilderlands products, where it's ubiquitous.

T1 had a few examples of the approach I prefer. There were too many high-level NPCs (although there's the justification of the nearby Temple, of course), but there were also a lot of 0-level NPCs. And even some "normal man" NPCs with special abilities added: "This individual [the tailor] is not in the village militia, but he is an expert at throwing a knife and shooting a crossbow, both of which he has, using them at 7th level fighter level and causing +2 damage when a hit is scored. He has 2 hit points..."

...I'll be damned if there were rules for detailed non-classed NPCs in the core books prior to D&D 3x...This is one area in which I think newer editions of D&D have vastly improved upon older editions...

I disagree. I don't disagree with your assertion that newer editions have included such rules, but I disagree that it's an improvement. Personally, I don't think such rules are necessary for most NPCs. I think detailed rules for advancement and powers are appropriate for possibly long-term characters (like PCs), but are useless overhead for most NPCs (and monsters). Non-classed NPCs don't need rules to regulate their advancement or capabilities, they just need whatever collection of stats, abilities, and powers are appropriate. The DM can assign those without having to follow a progression or formula. I think rules for this just get in the way and encourage make-work.

 

[Noumenon]

"This individual [the tailor] is not in the village militia, but he is an expert at throwing a knife and shooting a crossbow, both of which he has, using them at 7th level fighter level and causing +2 damage when a hit is scored. He has 2 hit points..."

This is from that module about the seven highwaymen who are not tarrying, nor singing, isn't it? The one where as they charge you 14% of them are in their lair? The style is really familiar and still funny.

 

[S'mon]

But a question that doesn't specify an edition can and should be assumed to be about the current edition.

No, it should be assumed to be about all editions, from OD&D to the current one. IMNSHO.

 

[S'mon]

It would be the same as if someone asked "Is Dave Arneson a D&D writer?" Well, no, he's not. He was, and I am in no way disparaging his contribution to the game's history--it wouldn't exist without him, and I'm grateful--but that doesn't change the fact that at the present time in the game's current incarnation, he is not a D&D writer.

But to answer simply "No" would be an incorrect and misleading answer. I mean, I just bought 'The Dungeons of Castle Blackmoor' 2 weeks ago!

 

[S'mon]

But I'm just not prepared to preface every topic or every answer to every question with "Well, in the current edition..."

"In 4e" would be fine, mate.