The Cleric, The Paladin, and Multisysteming
- Thread starter Scribble
- Start date
Doug McCrae
Legend
They're almost there, they just need to get rid of the cleric.
I agree with True20 that there are only three major divisions in D&D - fight guy, skill guy and magic guy. D&D Next seems to agree that the rogue is the skill guy, and the fighter is the fight guy. The cleric then should just be a combo of fight guy and magic guy.
The way I see it is that the base classes are very generic, with the combo, or derived, classes being a lot more specific.
EDIT: To explain my system idea a bit more - the base, generic, classes and the specific classes would be equally powerful, but members of the generic classes choose from a lot more options. So a wizard and druid at 1st level would both have, say, three powers/spells, but the wizard would have chosen his three powers from a list of 30, while the druid chose from a list of 6. There would be notes for the GM that this does make the base classes slightly more potent, due to being able to cherrypick the best options, with a suggested houserule being to only allow specific classes.
I agree with True20 that there are only three major divisions in D&D - fight guy, skill guy and magic guy. D&D Next seems to agree that the rogue is the skill guy, and the fighter is the fight guy. The cleric then should just be a combo of fight guy and magic guy.
I think a ranger is a fighter/rogue, in the sense of a fight guy/skill guy - tracking, animal handling/empathy, wilderness survival, etc. The paladin, to me, is mostly a fight guy, with some magic. So, yeah, he is a fighter/cleric. I don't know what they're thinking with druid as rogue/cleric though, skills have never been a major part of the class. The druid's just a different flavor of magic guy.
The way I see it is that the base classes are very generic, with the combo, or derived, classes being a lot more specific.
EDIT: To explain my system idea a bit more - the base, generic, classes and the specific classes would be equally powerful, but members of the generic classes choose from a lot more options. So a wizard and druid at 1st level would both have, say, three powers/spells, but the wizard would have chosen his three powers from a list of 30, while the druid chose from a list of 6. There would be notes for the GM that this does make the base classes slightly more potent, due to being able to cherrypick the best options, with a suggested houserule being to only allow specific classes.
Last edited:
Andor
First Post
As written this article is terrible. 
Classes as a mix of the attribute of the primary four classes is fine, to a point.
A ranger is more skilled in a skill system-ish way than a fighter and more 'hulk smash' than a rogue. But his also has a different skill set than a rogue with only some overlap in the stealth/perception area.
Which gets back to where I'm going: It is not enough for a 'secondary' class to mix attributes of the primary 4. They must have their own unique identities and abilities.
A Druid is NOT and has never been a less casty-more skilled cleric. He worships a different set of deities, draws from a different cultural milleau, and has always had his own unique powers. In AD&D through 2nd and 3e he has his own spell list, weapons and wild shaping. In 4e he had the primal power source instead of the clerics divine power source (Not sure I have that right, don't have books by me.)
Trying to cram Druids into a cleric/rogue hybrid without their own distinct identity would be an appalling lapse in judgement on the part of the designers.
Why on earth would they be willing to split the cleric up into multiple classes and then deny the Druid his own identity? The Druids powers were iconic and distinct for 3 editions of the game! (I'm not really clear on what happened to druids in 4e, so I can't speak to their identity in that system.)
While I'm not a huge fan of 4e, power sources are a useful design tool even if only as fluff, instead of mechanically. And fluff matters.
The iconic 4 are not the only base classes. If I had to identify primary classes (in the color sense of not being sub-dividable) I would say it is Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Druid, Monk, possibly psionisict.
From there you can mix and match. Maybe ranger is a mix of rogue and fighter with just a dash of druid. Likewise a Paladin class based off of a mix of fighter and cleric attributes/powers is fine as long as he has his own schtick. And that's the key. I think every class needs at least one thing that they do that nobody else gets. Ever. Especially including the primary classes.
And this does not means feats that say fighter only, or swords that only work for paladins. I mean if the Paladin gets Holy Smite the nobody else does. If the Fighter gets "Hack them down" then nobody else gets it.
These abilities need not be there at first level, indeed maybe they should not be. Perhaps there really is nothing a 1st level fighter can do that Joe the Plumber cannot, if he gets lucky. But by 3rd or 4th level those iconic abilities should unlock and the heros move beyond the abilities of anyone without their fierce dedication to their chosen path.
Classes as a mix of the attribute of the primary four classes is fine, to a point.
A ranger is more skilled in a skill system-ish way than a fighter and more 'hulk smash' than a rogue. But his also has a different skill set than a rogue with only some overlap in the stealth/perception area.
Which gets back to where I'm going: It is not enough for a 'secondary' class to mix attributes of the primary 4. They must have their own unique identities and abilities.
A Druid is NOT and has never been a less casty-more skilled cleric. He worships a different set of deities, draws from a different cultural milleau, and has always had his own unique powers. In AD&D through 2nd and 3e he has his own spell list, weapons and wild shaping. In 4e he had the primal power source instead of the clerics divine power source (Not sure I have that right, don't have books by me.)
Trying to cram Druids into a cleric/rogue hybrid without their own distinct identity would be an appalling lapse in judgement on the part of the designers.
Why on earth would they be willing to split the cleric up into multiple classes and then deny the Druid his own identity? The Druids powers were iconic and distinct for 3 editions of the game! (I'm not really clear on what happened to druids in 4e, so I can't speak to their identity in that system.)
While I'm not a huge fan of 4e, power sources are a useful design tool even if only as fluff, instead of mechanically. And fluff matters.
The iconic 4 are not the only base classes. If I had to identify primary classes (in the color sense of not being sub-dividable) I would say it is Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Druid, Monk, possibly psionisict.
From there you can mix and match. Maybe ranger is a mix of rogue and fighter with just a dash of druid. Likewise a Paladin class based off of a mix of fighter and cleric attributes/powers is fine as long as he has his own schtick. And that's the key. I think every class needs at least one thing that they do that nobody else gets. Ever. Especially including the primary classes.
And this does not means feats that say fighter only, or swords that only work for paladins. I mean if the Paladin gets Holy Smite the nobody else does. If the Fighter gets "Hack them down" then nobody else gets it.
These abilities need not be there at first level, indeed maybe they should not be. Perhaps there really is nothing a 1st level fighter can do that Joe the Plumber cannot, if he gets lucky. But by 3rd or 4th level those iconic abilities should unlock and the heros move beyond the abilities of anyone without their fierce dedication to their chosen path.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I've been in a lot of dungeon-crawl and dense-forest type settings. Mounts are more of a hindrance.
But again, this is something any player should be able to train into. It shouldn't be a class feature.
Tallifer
Hero
That is contrary to every edition of D&D prior to the Fourth: the cleric is the miraculous healer. In those editions, the magician, the fighter and the skilful man are not supposed to be able to heal grievous wounds in an instant. Moreover since healing always used to take a Standard Action and a Spell Slot, the clerical fighting ability was moot.
I agree however that the "cleric" should disappear and be replaced by the priest, who does not wield a mace and wear platemail.
Doug McCrae
Legend
That's true, I've never found the arcane/divine split very satisfying though. There was a lot of overlap, such as fireball/flame strike. Healing just wasn't enough to make divine magic special imo.
The cleric and druid were badass fighters in 3e. In fact they were better than the fighter, due to buffs/wildshape. Prior to getting Heal, casting cure spells in combat wasn't a good option. I think in 1e/2e the cleric/druid was more of a caster class, though.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Scribble said:
To a certain extent, yeah, this is a bit of a "leap forward." A paladin has been 90% combo-fighter-and-cleric-guy. But there's a few unique paladin mechanics that I'd like to see preserved and maybe made more powerful or central.
- Lay On Hands (heals HP, could be expanded to heal other stuff or give buffs)
- Detect Evil (mostly ferrets out shapechanging devils, but also powerful evil artifacts & junk)
- Cure Disease/Immune to Disease (that 1/week thing might need to be scaled up, though)
- A Mount (and improved mounts -- your warhorse should gain levels and abilities!)
- Divine Grace (ie: Better magical defenses than a straight fighter)
You could add some other options -- auras, smites, whatever. And I'd probably retain some spellcasting, and the turn undead stuff. And, sure, bop in a few fighter manuever thingies (especially for mounted combat!) as options. No problems.
But let us please not say that paladin = fighter/cleric. That seems...kind of needlessly reductive to me.
Similar Threads
