Iconic D&D Clerics (Blog)

[paladinm]

This is getting back to what I've suggested in other threads. Classes can be boiled down to two: adventurer/warrior/fighter and spellcaster/mage. There is a fine line between fighter and rogue, especially in fiction. Was Indiana Jones a fighter or a rogue? Just have one "martial" class and allow skill/feat/weapon/armor choices determine the "sub class".

Likewise, there has always been "overlap" between "pagan" priests and "wizards". Were the priests in Pharoah's court that faced Moses priests or wizards? Are witches really arcane or divine casters? The "magi" of history were as much cleric as wizard; that's why the "magi" came to find the Christ Child. In the comics, Dr. Strange calls upon other-dimensional entities for power, so is he strictly an "arcane" caster? Many of his "magical" powers include "psionic" abilities too. Having one "spellcaster" class and choosing "power source(s)" and skills/feats allows an infinite number of "sub-classes".

Then of course, you can multiclass to your heart's content, and have infinite variety in swordmages/spellswords/warmages/paladins/"gishes"/duskblades/ yada yada yada.

 

[gyor]

They'll never go to the four basic class model with variants or two class model. They'd lose too much money, it would lose the feeling of D&D, so I just don't see it happening.

For Paladins, Clerics, and Priests to work before different armour and weapon choices they'll each need different mechanics, and fluff that explains thier different roles with in a religion. I did notice the use of the word Prophet in the poll which maybe used to decrease confusion which some may argue both a Cleric and Paladin already are.

 

[Janaxstrus]

They'll never go to the four basic class model with variants or two class model. They'd lose too much money, it would lose the feeling of D&D, so I just don't see it happening.

For Paladins, Clerics, and Priests to work before different armour and weapon choices they'll each need different mechanics, and fluff that explains thier different roles with in a religion. I did notice the use of the word Prophet in the poll which maybe used to decrease confusion which some may argue both a Cleric and Paladin already are.

Losing the feeling of D&D has never stopped them before, post 3.5 anyway.

I will continue to disagree that we need 3 divine oriented classes, in the same way that the sorcerer isn't needed.

Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Wizard, Druid, Ranger, Barbarian, Cleric(or priest), Paladin, and Monk. Done.

 

[grimslade]

Cleric: Combat Medic

Cleric is a healer in a can. He can dish out damage and hang on the front lines keeping his party in the fight. He can buff and boost morale. All his effects should be short range or auras. This gels well with AD&D and 4E clerics (non-laser). The 2E priests and spheres or 3E domains should be reflected in either a priest class or themes to other classes like kamikaze suggested (someone xp him for me).
The focus of the cleric should be melee combat and keeping the party up and able to act. Healing should be a big part of a cleric, but not the only thing they do in a round. Spells/prayers will probably be the power method in core, but a channeling mechanic like 3.5 with different effects with player choice would be great. It would be closer to a sorcerer system, limited spells known, but more casting opportunities. Turn Undead would become a spell with SoD to resolve. Build the kicker effects into the spell per Mearls' L&L.

 

[PTHoorah]

Re Gyor: I don't think wotc would lose money. Instead of publishing more specific classes -- some of which will later be inevitably under supported -- wotc could publish more feats/skills/themes/powers/options for the four (or five or six) base classes. So a Heroes of Shadow book wouldn't introduce new classes, it would add shadowy stuff to the ones that already exist. Same with Heroes of Elemental Chaos, etc. This should have wider appeal. I don't need to make a new character to use the new material, I can add it to the one I'm already playing. I don't think dif classes of divine caster will need dif mechanics: a cleric will "cast spells" the same way the priest will, and swing a mace the same way a fighter does. How they fit into the game world and a particular faith should be up to the player, not the class.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I think it is interesting. It makes at least as much sense as splitting up the ranger into Two-Weapon Fighter and Archer subtypes.

Bad analogy. That (the ranger thing) makes as much sense as "2+2=broccoli."

 

[Hassassin]

Bad analogy. That (the ranger thing) makes as much sense as "2+2=broccoli."

No, I think splitting rangers into TWF and archery makes about as much sense as splitting Witches by the color of their panties.

Certainly possible (unlike 2+2=broccoli), but... not the most important distinction.

 

[Aldeon]

Personally I believe that clerics should wear cloth and fight with magic with little melee ability. We already have paladins, so I don't understand why we should have "armored warriors of faith" and "heavier armored warriors of faith". We should have paladins and the wizard-like priest to have a clear separation.

With that, paladins can be these holy warriors charging into battle, with a priestly man supporting from the back, maybe charging alongside the paladin if he has a war-domain deity that gives him some martial prowess.

 

[CleverNickName]

Bad analogy. That (the ranger thing) makes as much sense as "2+2=broccoli."

Oh come now, it's not that farfetched. Look at it this way.

Rangers:
On one hand, you have an outdoorsy character who fights with two weapons.
On the other, you have an outdoorsy character who fights with bow and arrow.
Both can technically do both, sure, but each is better at one than the other.

Clerics:
On one hand, you have a religious character who wields weapons in the name of his god.
On the other, you have a religious character who wields magic in the name of his god.
Both can technically do both, sure, but each is better at one than the other.

Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe.

 

[drothgery]

Personally I believe that clerics should wear cloth and fight with magic with little melee ability. We already have paladins, so I don't understand why we should have "armored warriors of faith" and "heavier armored warriors of faith". We should have paladins and the wizard-like priest to have a clear separation.

I'd like that, and have advocated for something like that in the past. But it's very clear that people do have serious emotional attachments to class names. You run into a similar problem if you suggest that it's okay that archers should be rangers, single weapon melee guys should be rogues, and the guy who wants to command troops should be a warlord rather than them all being fighters.