A Cleric, by any other name, twould cast as sweet.

[steeldragons]

In BECMI and 1e, you had the cleric's spell list.

Any cleric anywhere had access to these various effects.

In 2e, we had the introduction of "Spheres of Influence" which made tailoring your cleric's religion/spell list to more specifically reflect their deity's area of interest/domain (small "d"). Including a distinction between what Spheres the cleric had "major" (all of them) and "minor" (I believe this was only up to 3rd level spells) access to. I don't recall how many Spheres there were, exactly, but I think it was only something like 8 or 10 or so. I may be mistaken not having a book in front of me.

In 3e, (was it not?) we had the Spheres were replaced by "Domains" (big "D") which afforded additional spells and powers as the cleric increased in level. Again, reflecting the specialization of areas that a god was..."the god" of. The number of "Domains" that I have seen listed in some places is...a bit ridiculous to my mind...but it is certainly detailed and thorough, to say the least.

[EDIT] I have absolutely no idea how clerics work/have access to in 4e. So I'll leave that to any of you all who'd care to comment on that system. [/EDIT]

From 2e on, I've always used the "specialty cleric" model, certain gods can effect certain areas over which that god "holds sway." Spells that the priest of the goddess of the sea are not the same as the god of fire, the god of war does not gain access to as many or effective healing spells as the goddess of healing or protection.

It makes lots of sense, imho, and allows cleric PCs and game world religions/temples to be very different from one another. I like it a lot and use the "Spheres/Domains" thing thoroughly.

What is/was your preference? Regardless of edition/system used. Do you rather "a cleric is a cleric is a cleric" for simplicity/ease of use's sake and the differences in religion and tone be done via Role-playing and world-building? Or do you prefer granting different clerics access to different things (which also, obviously, allows for role-playing and world-building to play their part)?

And, secondarily, I suppose, how far is too far? In theory, one could come up with a different set of spells and powers for any god of anything. What would you say is a "Covers all the bases" amount of different Spheres/Domains?

Cheers and happy Saturday, all.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Nagol]

I really liked the 2e concept. It helped drive strong differentiation for clerics and and through that helped tighten the campaign fabric for PC expectations and goals.

It was a lot of hellish work though if you were home-brewing. I remember picking pantheons, building spheres and assigning them, adding spells and making certain all spells ended up in at least one sphere, checking that all spheres were either represented or their exclusion from a particular pantheon was intentional, and then double-checking that the individual cleric choices were reasonably balanced and playable or intentionally not. An awful lot of work for a few PC roles and some world-building and it all had to be done "up-front" to cover the areas the initial PCs could reasonably be from.

The 3e system, while not as defining for clerics, was a happy compromise for me. Quite a bit less work and individual clerics still got some customisation.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Like many 2e concepts, spheres were great flavor but poor execution. I recall my group, which often played FR, refusing to play clerics of anything that didn't have the War sphere (Flame Strike) or Magic sphere (Anyspell, for copying Fireball, of course).

Yes, you can play a cleric of Sune, goddess of love, but said character isn't really suited for adventuring and maybe should be an NPC. Alternatively, they could get much stronger charm spells, give up some of their hit points, THAC0, armor and weapon proficiencies which represent their combat potential, on the grounds that they make love and not war. In effect, a "religious enchanter", but they'd be a lot weaker. *Sigh* IIRC, somewhere in 2e, the idea of "granted powers" were invented. They pushed the power level up, but were often pretty cool.

In 4e, there are still cleric specialties, but they're even narrower than in 3.x. Clerics get Channel Divinity, a class feature they can use once per encounter. That ability can be expended on Turn Undead, some minor feature that gives a boost to a single saving throw, or to a single deity-specific effect. Unfortunately, you have to pay a feat for the latter, and at least in the PH1, most of these effects are pretty weak. For instance, Bahamut's Armor lets you convert a crit into a regular hit, which sounds cool, except you'll probably not take a crit in each encounter. Kord lets you heal if you or an ally get a crit, which is a bit better. There were no "evil" Channel Divinities in the PH1, but to be fair, the NPC can easily invent deity-specific abilities for evil clerics.

In Essentials, the warpriest gets a single domain (the base book had Storm and Sun, but there are others now). However, the domain gives a wide list of powers integrated into the class, so depending on your domain your cleric seems quite different, at least in terms of flavor, than another one.

Do you rather "a cleric is a cleric is a cleric" for simplicity/ease of use's sake

Yes. If you're going to play a non-adventuring, non-baseline cleric, you probably need to invent a new class. In fact, it's entirely possible most clerics of most deities are not "adventuring clerics" so there's space for "clerics of Sune", etc, but most PCs should be useful to the party.

 

[Gilladian]

I really liked the 2e spheres, and while setting up a home pantheon took some work, it wasn't impossible.

3e's domains are a little too unspecialized for me. I made a slightly different system for my campaign. Not wanting clerics to have hundreds of spells to choose from, I allowed a cleric to take the PH spell list and swap out spell for spell from other sources, to create a personalized list. So a 1st level cleric's list was still 25 spells long, but it was HIS list. I had made some generic lists for particular clerics, for NPCs, and often a quickly generated PC would use one of those lists early on, and then customize higher level lists. I also allowed domains and domain powers, of course.

This sort of choice with limits is what I like.

 

[Herobizkit]

Yeah, Forgotten Realms had the snazziest Specialty Priests for this very reason. In fact, we used the Pantheon almost exclusively so we didn't have to make up our own Gods.

... until the Cleric's Handbook came out, and then we made our own Gods.

3e did take some of the flavour out of the Cleric, and in 4e, it's non-existent.

 

[Dykstrav]

In my 1E homebrew games, the cleric class represents a specific order of crusaders within a religious hierarchy--sort of like the Knights Hospitaller, Knights Templar, or the Order of Saint Lazarus. They are adventurers, not "priests" per se, although they are ordained and fully capable of conducting appropriate services.

In 2E, I kept the same basic concept. As far as sphere choices go, I based this more on a given cleric's function within their faith rather than the portfolio of the patron deity. Specialty priests gain a sphere or two germane to their faith and a few others based on their function within the hierarchy. For example, I gave all player character clerics full access to the healing and combat spheres, because they're supposed to be militant orders that take the fight to the enemies of the faith. Those that spent time in contemplation and deep communion with divine forces receive access to the divination and astral spheres, and missionaries gain access to the charm sphere.

In the 3E era, I actually became dissatisfied with the cleric class for two major reasons. One, it seems that the game embraced the concept that clerics were "priests" as opposed to being one order of martial crusaders. The friar in the village or the reclusive hermit were as adept in weapons and armor as an adventuring cleric. It's a bit of dissonance that stuck in my craw. Second... It's my opinion that the cleric class is deliberately overpowered. (Probably to make them more appealing to play, it's a classic gaming trope that most people despise getting "stuck playing the cleric.") They get full spellcasting and can wear all the armors and fight reasonably well?

For that reason, I divided 3E clerics in my homebrew into two separate classes: the crusader (like a cleric from older editions, good combat abilities but limited spellcasting) and the priest (focused on spellcasting and buffing allies, strong divine abilities, poor combat abilities). Crusaders have access to one domain and priests gained access to two, priests can also choose to gain access to additional domains as a class feature as they gain levels.

In 4E, I ruled that being a "priest" was only a social distinction and not one bestowed by game abilities. Priests of Ioun were just as likely to be arcane spellcasters as divine, for example. In order to qualify for priesthood, I required that a character have the Ritual Caster feat (they are expected to perform mystic functions for the faithful), trained in the Religion skill, and trained in one additional skill relevant to the faith (Arcana for a priest of Ioun and Nature for a priest of Melora, for example).

I've kept the crusader/priest divide in my Pathfinder homebrew games. People seem to enjoy playing crusaders, but always want someone to play a priest.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I favor domains for flavor/ease of construction reasons, but I like the domains to be fairly broad in scope.

In the 3E era, I actually became dissatisfied with the cleric class for two major reasons. One, it seems that the game embraced the concept that clerics were "priests" as opposed to being one order of martial crusaders. The friar in the village or the reclusive hermit were as adept in weapons and armor as an adventuring cleric. It's a bit of dissonance that stuck in my craw. [...]

Didn't 3e have the Priest NPC class for this purpose?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think that was the adept class.

 

[DragonLancer]

2nd ed did it well but I think the 3rd ed/Pathfinder domains work better.

 

[steeldragons]

I favor domains for flavor/ease of construction reasons, but I like the domains to be fairly broad in scope.

So with that, can I presume that something like the 2e Sphere of "Combat" suffices for you? Or is that a bit tooooo broad in scope?

Are separate Domains for things like "War", "Blood", "Destruction", "Dwarf" (if you were a dwarven cleric of a battle/war oriented god), "Kickin' Butt n' Takin' Names Every Second Tuesday" still beneficial/preferred for your ease of flavor and style of play?