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

[Greg K]

I prefer the 2e specialty approach. It was a little bit of work setting up pantheons, but it was worth it. The only reason, that non-warrior clerics would not work is the DM and the group focusing themselves to the dungeon or D&D being about lots of combat or the wrong environment (the god of sea when your campaign is on land or in a desert).

In 3e, I ended up writing the cleric and several of the domains.
I had a handful of shared spells which were 'universal'
The deity's domains became the equivalent of major spheres
At times, I also have "allied spells" based on alliances between deities. These would be the equivalent of "minor" since everyone acknowledges all of the deity's, and the allied gods have common interests that they want spread, but keep the more powerful spells as rewards to their dedicated priests and, by doing so, keeping more power and influence.

I also altered the cleric class to be less martial, but in between the Unearthed Arcana cloistered cleric and the PHB martial cleric. Then, I had three class variants: the cloistered cleric (UA), the healer, and the martial priest

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but...

IMO, the combat sphere might be a bit too broad. I haven't looked at spheres in so long I can't really recall them, but I would suggest these spheres as "required" for militant PC clerics - "combat" (things like Flame Strike), "buffing" (things like Lance of Faith or Bear's Endurance) and "healing" (the obvious stuff). There could of course be plenty of other spheres that players could choose from, but won't be shafted if they pick "the wrong one". Needless to say, this might bar a few deities, such as a selfish deity who refuses to let clerics heal those outside of its church or a cleric of pacifism, but I'm not seeing that as horrendous.

NPC clerics might not have all of these spheres, taking others instead, but if they're not intended to be a combatant (eg the local healer, who took only healing and divination) it would cause no balance problems. (The evil cleric who uses the necromancy sphere, by contrast, might be a dangerous opponent even if he didn't take the healing or combat spheres too.)

"Minor" spheres could be handled like domains, although it's not necessary to go down that route. It wouldn't cause balance problems if some clerics couldn't use some domains or minor spheres. A cleric of Gond being unable to use the Magic domain is flavor, and no balance concern.

 

[Zireael]

I don't really know 2e, but I like the 3e domains, with the ability to easily add more of them. Especially the granted powers are a nice touch.

2e specialty priests were brilliant, however, as far as I know them.

 

[Dykstrav]

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

There's the adept, which seems to fill the role of "primitive spellcaster." They do have some cure and protective spells and actually cast divine spells, but they also receive a familiar and have access to some spells with a traditionally arcane bent (invisibility, wall of fire, and the like).

You can re-concept an adept to function as a non-adventuring priest, and I've seen some GMs do exactly that. I don't like that approach myself. To me, it seems that a divine caster that was skilled and knowledgeable enough to serve at or lead a temple would be better at spellcasting and other divine powers than a cleric, not worse.

The solution I arrived at was to reduce the cleric's spellcasting to a more pre-3E style--maxing out at 7th level, slightly fewer spells per day, and giving them different uses for their turn undead ability (channel energy in Pathfinder) similar to the divine feats presented in Defenders of the Faith and later supplements. That became the crusader class.

I then made a "priest" class that was a strong spellcaster (full cleric spellcasting), but gained other abilities to make them better at divine things. They got a bardic knowledge type of thing to make them better scholars and the ability to grant attack and damage bonuses similar to the bard. They also gained their own suite of divine feat-style abilities.

All that being said... I realize that my take on the cleric class reflects my own opinions and preferences and that other players won't agree with me. That's fine. My cleric variants fit into my homebrew setting better than the standard cleric does in 3E and Pathfinder, and I allow the standard cleric class for my Greyhawk games (although many of my players still opt to play a crusader instead).

I've attached these variant classes in case you're interested in checking them out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Specialty priests & spheres were, IMHO, the best innovation of 2Ed, especially as refined in Players Options. I had hoped that 3Ed+ would have adopted the specialty priest model completely...albeit with better balance, of course. Which would have done things like making Druids back into a "subclass"- some kind of specialty priest of nature.

I also like Domain powers, too. Some are quite blah, though.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The 2E concept was pretty novel but frankly 3E balanced it better with the domain mechanics. I think you want clerics of different gods to have different flavors, but not be significantly restricted in power compared to one another. You don't want to have a "must have" sphere or domain from a power perspective.

Of course all of that is better than the OD&D or BECMI cleric, who didn't get healing spells until 2d level!

 

[Lwaxy]

But, speaking about flavor, why would every cleric of a god not interested in healing even have healing spells?

In a homebrew a long long time ago on a planet a bit backwater, we had priests who could not do healing if their god, and thus themselves, weren't much interested in it. Of course in this campaign we had arcane healing so it all balanced out.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But, speaking about flavor, why would every cleric of a god not interested in healing even have healing spells?

In a homebrew a long long time ago on a planet a bit backwater, we had priests who could not do healing if their god, and thus themselves, weren't much interested in it. Of course in this campaign we had arcane healing so it all balanced out.

There's nothing wrong with clerics who don't like to heal, as long as they're not PCs. Balance includes predictable character abilities, and the cleric's role includes healing. Said cleric is basically taking the fighter's or wizard's combat role, not the cleric's role.

There's nothing wrong with an NPC cleric who can't fight, heal, or even both. They've got no business being in a dungeon or working with a "spec ops" team though. They have their own role.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But, speaking about flavor, why would every cleric of a god not interested in healing even have healing spells?

I can see a god of death, destruction, entropy, etc. not being interested in healing, at least, not for those outside of its flock.

Which brings us to one thing I felt the 2Ed system had all over the 3Ed system: minor access. If you only had minor access to a sphere (or school) of magic, you could only gain access to spells of that kind that were 3rd level or lower. Very flavorful.

 

[On Puget Sound]

I liked the 2e customization for flavor, but did not like it for playability. Many of the options (e.g. Agriculture) were simply not adventuring material, and it was always problematic when a party member could not do what you expected them to. "Ow, I'm hit! Cleric, I need a heal!" "Uh, I'm not that kind of cleric. Would you like Grow Plants instead?"

3e's domain spells were weak sauce in terms of differentiation, but still miles better than 4e's Channel Divinity, which almost never sees play IME.

The Essentials approach of completely different power lists for each specialty is good, but if you can't cross-poach it leaves too little customization, and if you can freely cross-poach all clerics will still end up looking alike, as some spells are always better choices than others. It's also a lot of work to make a complete power suite for every deity or sphere.*

I think what I would like to see is a better-balanced version of the 2E approach: a menu of power lists linked by themes, with access to lists based on the deity's portfolio, but with all clerics able to do at least basic healing.

*Actually, maybe 4e is more like 2e's specialty priests than I thought. Isn't an Avenger just a specialty priest of Justice/Vengeance, and an Invoker a specialty priest of the Elements? For that matter, couldn't you call your Warlord a priest of Battle, or your bard a priest of Music or Trickery? Perhaps the more basic question is "what makes a character a cleric?" Is it healing? Divine magic? Specifically being a divine healer?