I never "got" the Cleric

[wingsandsword]

I'm normally a big fan of the D&D "sacred cows". I was one of the people to shout loudly when 4e turned a lot of cows into hamburger. There are just certain quirky things that make D&D, well, D&D.

The one thing I can't get is the Cleric. That's the one sacred cow that I always felt awkward about.

I don't mean divine magic, or even priestly characters. I mean the classic D&D Cleric of the battle-priest swinging a mace while wearing heavy armor and is particularly good at fighting (or commanding) undead. Why is the parish priest at the local temple trained to wear heavy armor? Why are evil Clerics so concerned about not spilling blood? Why would a Chaotic Evil cleric of a Chaotic Evil Gods of War and Slaughter follow the same combat ethos as a medieval Catholic priest (i.e. Lawful Good ethos).

Why could a Cleric lose his spellcasting if he picked up a sword and swung it at a foe. . .but in the same fight a Paladin of the same faith wearing the same armor, praying to the same deity, casting some of the same spells he's probably expected to use big swords?

Yeah, 3e muted this just a little with the Adept class for non-adventuring NPC priests and letting Clerics use heavier weapons through feats and multiclassing, but it feels like an incomplete addressing of the situation.

To me, D&D should be able to emulate reasonably well any mainstream fantasy fiction. Additions in later editions like Sorcerers went a long way to this goal. Fantasy priesthoods outside of D&D and D&D-inspired fiction seldom depict the clergy as plate-clad, mace swingers. A Fantasy priest clad in plate armor and a shield and swinging a mace around while repelling or commanding the undead. . .just isn't found outside D&D and D&D derived media.

The source for it was obviously Crusade-era clergy (the Knights Templar influenced both the Paladin and Cleric). . .but why should almost every fantasy priest (i.e. all except Druids) be modeled on a medieval Christian religious order? The AD&D 2e PHB even cited Archbishop Turpin from the 11th Century work The Song of Roland as a main source for the class.

In my mind, an evil Cleric nemesis should be more like Thulsa Doom than Archbishop Turpin.

Much like Sorcerers added core-rule support for arcane spellcasters that weren't bookish sages and instead worked magic by will and talent (more common in fantasy fiction), would D&D be better served to have a priestly class that was less armored and less focused on dealing with undead but had other abilities? The Mystic from the 3.5 DLCS was a good idea in this direction, the Favored Soul in 3.5 was a step in this direction, but stayed in the "armored healbot" mold, and the whole sprouting-wings-at-high-level bit lost me.

I'm curious how my fellow ENWorlders think about the cleric: Love it or hate it, needs to go, needs to stay, or needs to be supplemented with another class?

 

[Kunimatyu]

The Cleric is the only one of the core four classes that isn't pulp. That's why it feels off.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

WotC actually did a poll on this for D&D Next. (I don't follow it, but still knew about it.)

I think the cleric never had a role beyond "bandaid". In 2e, I didn't get the cleric. In 3.x, I never "got" the cleric either.

In 2e, the standard cleric was a class with decent but not great "fundamentals" (THAC0, Hit Dice, armor proficiencies, weapon proficiencies). The spells were all over the place. (Why did clerics get Hold Person but not Hold Monster? Why did they get Hold Person before wizards?)

The various subtypes (non-core, though) only muddled clerics even more. You could, for RP purposes, play a cleric of Sune, goddess of love, with no useful spheres beyond maybe healing. You shouldn't (although I think you did) get a good THAC0, hp score or armor proficiencies because clerics that make love and not war, so why are they training for that kind of combat ability? Such a PC wouldn't be useful to the party. You could also play a cleric of an evil deity, so either you shouldn't get healing (which made you a much weaker PC) or you did (which didn't match the flavor). Plenty of players refused outright to have PCs that worshipped deities that didn't give Flame Strike. *Sigh*

IMO, the best solution would be two-fold:

1) Priests get whatever suits them. So a priest of Gond might have lots of tech spells but weak fundamentals.
2) PC priests must be "special". For whatever reason (frankly, game balance) they get a standard set of spheres (before any special deity-based spheres) which would include healing, combat, and all the spheres necessary to fill their combat role and they get the weapon training.

So, an evil NPC cleric of Vecna doesn't need to have the healing sphere. The DM is free to balance that encounter as they see fit. But a PC cleric of Vecna has healing, because otherwise they're just a drag on the party.

In 3.x, clerics' role got defined a bit more, based on spell selection (and domains!). Alas, every low-level cleric I've ever seen used spells like Cause Fear, graduating to Righteous Might at mid-levels and Destruction at high levels. I don't think any of those spells were unbalanced (compared to the rest of 3.x) but it ended up with every cleric feeling the same. Every cleric maxed Wisdom, then put their next best scores in Strength and Con (because you knew you would be buffing at mid-levels).

In 4e, I think the cleric's role got even better. Beyond the healing (which is greatly superior; no more wasting a full round moving up to a wounded ally and then spending a standard action to heal them) most of the "laser cleric's" abilities give one turn buffs. I really like that.

I don't like the E-cleric, because it's basically a paladin.

I don't know the invoker class that well, but it seems like it could work for a less "healy" priest, sort of like a cleric of Vecna or some such. Of course, any party would want a leader, but that's starting to get separate from the priest RP role.

 

[jonesy]

The cleric is the original holy warrior. I never got the paladin. Paladins were the worst thing that ever happened to the cleric class.

 

[TKDB]

The thing that always bugged me most about clerics is the relative lack of distinction between clerics of different deities. Even with domains, the vast majority of your spells are still drawing from the same pool as every other cleric, even those of deities diametrically opposed to your own. Of course, a player with an eye for RP can selectively use only spells that fit their deity's ethos, but that still only goes so far.

Broadly speaking, I think it would be best to split the cleric into probably three variants: the templar-esque warpriest, the less combative benevolent parish priest type, and the dark cult leader type. The warpriest would be similar to the current cleric -- decent personal combat abilities, heavy armor and weapons, spell list mainly composed of buffs (both group and personal) and smiting-type stuff like Flame Strike. The parish priest would be a backlines support role, specializing in group buffs and healing. The dark cultist would be more of a debuffer, dealing in curses and the like. And maybe there could be a fourth variant for ascetic mystic/prophet types that get a sort of eclectic spell list with esoteric stuff like summoning and divinations. The spell lists within each subtype would be further specialized based on deity. All of them would be good at dealing with stuff like demons and undead, because most every culture throughout history has trusted in religious figures to ward off supernatural dangers (though they might handle these foes differently -- where a warpriest would smite, the parish priest would ward or exorcise, and the cultist would control or coerce).

 

[tuxgeo]

< . . . snip . . . >
I don't know the invoker class that well, but it seems like it could work for a less "healy" priest, sort of like a cleric of Vecna or some such. Of course, any party would want a leader, but that's starting to get separate from the priest RP role.

The Invoker is very far separated from the priest RP role: it isn't even a "leader" class. Instead, it's designed as a "controller," hence the lack of healing.

They get no priestly spheres or clerical domains; but they do get Ritual Caster and Channel Divinity.

Think Old Testament: they use Rods and Staffs as implements, not Holy Symbols. The choice of deity they follow doesn't make much mechanical difference that I can see.
(Kind of a "divine" counterpart to the Wizard, but with less followup.)

 

[Loonook]

Adepts are to:

What Clerics are to:

or

The Cleric fights beside his men. He has to serve the purpose of faith, healing, and spiritual guidance to guys who have to watch their best friend die to a dragon one day and then pillage a hobgoblin den the next. Now... There are the occasional times when you have to stand up as a parish priest...

So occasionally you find a Cleric in the parish .

Clerics serve the roles of medic and chaplain, providing spiritual guidance and powers over the Dark that they have been trained to battle. They fight the good fight because they know their god or gods are on their side. And they use that font of divinity to draw on martial and curative powers to preserve and protect their flock.

I really did like the idea of the Specialist Priest in AD&D, but always felt that Healing was, well, kind of the first thing you learn as a Priest as it seems to be pretty basic (channeling pure energy into the flesh). Even a priest of a completely evil deity should be able to heal, because as long as the god serves the living they are going to want to keep their followers hale and hearty.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The cleric/priest is based less on the village vicar and more on the European warriors who took holy vows in the Crusades- vows that frequently included restrictions on what kinds of weapons they could use. They were, to a certain extent, part of the hierarchy of the Church, though the spell list in the game would have been more appropriate of the aforementioned village vicar.

In comparison, the Paladin is based on the legends of those who took up arms because they were directly called by God to do so- typically for a specific mission. They are the hand-picked holy warriors of the divine, and as such, usually have not been ordained in any way, so are not part of the Church hierarchy.

IOW, one is modeled after a warrior who chose to enter the priesthood, the other is modeled after those the divine personally elevated to be a holy warrior- essentially a saint with a sword.

Why? 'Cause that's what the OGDs went with. A good part of their inspiration for the game was based on European history, myths, legends and fiction. Why would the cleric be different?

FWIW, although I like what 3.X did with the clerics, I always liked the 2Ed specialty priests & Player's Option take the best. It really let you tailor your clerics to their faiths. They were less "cookie cutter" than any before or since.

 

[griffonwing]

I'm normally a big fan of the D&D "sacred cows". I was one of the people to shout loudly when 4e turned a lot of cows into hamburger. There are just certain quirky things that make D&D, well, D&D.

The one thing I can't get is the Cleric. That's the one sacred cow that I always felt awkward about.

I don't mean divine magic, or even priestly characters. I mean the classic D&D Cleric of the battle-priest swinging a mace while wearing heavy armor and is particularly good at fighting (or commanding) undead. Why is the parish priest at the local temple trained to wear heavy armor? Why are evil Clerics so concerned about not spilling blood? Why would a Chaotic Evil cleric of a Chaotic Evil Gods of War and Slaughter follow the same combat ethos as a medieval Catholic priest (i.e. Lawful Good ethos).

Why could a Cleric lose his spellcasting if he picked up a sword and swung it at a foe. . .but in the same fight a Paladin of the same faith wearing the same armor, praying to the same deity, casting some of the same spells he's probably expected to use big swords?

Yeah, 3e muted this just a little with the Adept class for non-adventuring NPC priests and letting Clerics use heavier weapons through feats and multiclassing, but it feels like an incomplete addressing of the situation.

To me, D&D should be able to emulate reasonably well any mainstream fantasy fiction. Additions in later editions like Sorcerers went a long way to this goal. Fantasy priesthoods outside of D&D and D&D-inspired fiction seldom depict the clergy as plate-clad, mace swingers. A Fantasy priest clad in plate armor and a shield and swinging a mace around while repelling or commanding the undead. . .just isn't found outside D&D and D&D derived media.

The source for it was obviously Crusade-era clergy (the Knights Templar influenced both the Paladin and Cleric). . .but why should almost every fantasy priest (i.e. all except Druids) be modeled on a medieval Christian religious order? The AD&D 2e PHB even cited Archbishop Turpin from the 11th Century work The Song of Roland as a main source for the class.

In my mind, an evil Cleric nemesis should be more like Thulsa Doom than Archbishop Turpin.

Much like Sorcerers added core-rule support for arcane spellcasters that weren't bookish sages and instead worked magic by will and talent (more common in fantasy fiction), would D&D be better served to have a priestly class that was less armored and less focused on dealing with undead but had other abilities? The Mystic from the 3.5 DLCS was a good idea in this direction, the Favored Soul in 3.5 was a step in this direction, but stayed in the "armored healbot" mold, and the whole sprouting-wings-at-high-level bit lost me.

I'm curious how my fellow ENWorlders think about the cleric: Love it or hate it, needs to go, needs to stay, or needs to be supplemented with another class?

HackMaster does Clerics quite differently. There are 43 gods in the Kalamar system, and there are 43 cleric classes. Each class will have its own ethos, its own spell list, their own special leveled abilities, bonuses, traits, talents, skill selection, etc..

For example: The Cleric of the Caregiver is your typical healer cleric. He will gain access higher level healing spells faster than all of the other clerics. The Cleric of the Eternal Lanters is the holy anti-dead fighter. The Cleric of the bear is a neutral worshiper of the god of nature, and has access to animal power, shapechanging abilities. These last two will also gain healing spell access, although not as quick as the first. The cleric follower of the House of Knives is an evil holy assassin.

As for 3.x, yeah, the core classes (3.0 and the PHB1 of 3.5, I liked. Afterwards, power creep set in and the core classes got more powerful with every splatbook until there was really no reason to play anything in the main book.

 

[Stormonu]

I think 2E was on the right track to getting the cleric where it should have been with specialty priests, but it took a hard right turn in 3E back toward "armored crusader", bumping shoulders with the paladin.

It's a hard tightrope to walk; make him the dude in robes with divine spells and how is he different than the wizard other than the fact he can heal (in many ways, making him better)? Put him in the heavy armor and give him decent combat and spell capacity and it weakens the paladin's role. The cleric can't be pushed too far in one direction or another or it just start stepping on other niches. What the cleric really seems to have than no one else had for the longest time was the only way to heal in the game, and he's slowly loosing his grip on that.

I'd like to the "messenger of the gods" class remain; there's certainly room for it in the game. However, I don't think it needs to be as fighty as it's been - personally, I'd like to see them utilizing simple weapons, no better than medium armor, 2nd best attack progression and their spells only go up to 7th level (if we go back to 0th - 9th level spells). Let them keep the spontaneous healing and some option they can select to deal with undead (but not require them to have the ability).