I never "got" the Cleric

[trancejeremy]

Well, I think there are two ways to answer this

Firstly, D&D should simply focus on providing rules for adventuring classes. Non-cleric class priests and such should exist, but they don't need any special stats, since they won't be fighting or adventuring.

For instance, there isn't an specific class for Blacksmith or Sailor

Secondly. highly skilled NPCs should have some sort of class tailored to their ability. Which would include priests.

2e actually tried to address this to a degree, with the Specialty Priest, which were dramatically different depending on the god.

And even before that, in 1e, Len Lakofka came up with non adventuring clerics in Dragon Magazine #68

The AD&D game models its cleric after the medieval fighter cleric, à la Templar or Hospitlar. Yet we are all aware that all clerics, then and now, do not meet that standard. The AD&D game does not take into account scholarly (sometimes called cloistered) clerics, or brothers who are not ordained but have some clerical functions. I would like to fill in those two gaps and allow for regular clerics, as non-player characters, who do not meet the ability-score minimums for player character clerics.

And proceeds to give a non-adventuring cleric, and a cloistered one, which doesn't fight well, but has some spell casting ability as well as sage abilities...

But Dragon did also have classes for a Smith

And people like to drag Paladins into this argument, but they were really knights, not "holy warriors". They were the peers of Charlemagne, essentially like the Knights of the Round Table.

One, Archbishop Turpin, was probably both. But Roland, Ogier the Dane and the others had no role in the Church.

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

Read Poul Anderson's 3 of Hearts, 3 of Lions, which is one of the most D&D novels there is. That is where the Paladin is from (as is the alignment system)

 

[Rogue Agent]

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

Dracula was pretty pulpy, actually.

 

[frankthedm]

If the squishy spell slinger wants to say he has a god on his side, let him. He doesn't deserve a free upgrade to a well armed and armored Warrior-Mage because of it.

 

[wingsandsword]

Firstly, D&D should simply focus on providing rules for adventuring classes. Non-cleric class priests and such should exist, but they don't need any special stats, since they won't be fighting or adventuring.

Every being in the game world should either have stats, or be able to be depicted with the game system. If a character is going to interact with the game world, it needs the framework of that interaction: i.e. rules. It is a sloppy, poorly designed game system (IMO) that is unable to depict 90+% of the people in the game world it depicts.

If a DM is running an adventure where a town is under siege by undead and what little help the PCs have is in a handful of town guards and the local priest. . .are we to assume he cannot participate in combat because he's not a Cleric, or does he magically become a Cleric once combat begins? If the PC's need advice about a strange religious symbol they found, is the NPC more or less knowledgeable about religion than (How many NWP's/skill points does he have, what is his INT and WIS score, ect?) What are his saving throws (if the PCs are going to try to Charm Person or Suggestion him if they can't talk him into something normally, for example)?


If a PCs character background is that they were a humble, novice parish priest before being caught up in adventuring, and not a pseudo-Templar. . .do they get an underpowered class for having this background, or do they somehow automatically get the full Cleric power set including being skilled in the wearing of heavy armor. . .despite never training for it before those orcs attacked his temple?

For instance, there isn't an specific class for Blacksmith or Sailor

3.x gives us the "Expert" class for these people. 2e did have a Blacksmith class, in the supplement "Sages and Specialists", for specialist classes meant mostly for NPCs, it also had a "Guide" class which it noted could be used for maritime navigators. IMO, the Commoner, Warrior, and Expert classes were some of the good design decisions of 3.x.

3e also gave us the Adept class, which in some ways was meant for non-adventuring Clergy, but as it tried to be the alchemist, tribal shaman, witch AND parish priest roles in one class it did most of the former better than the latter: a spell list blending the druid, Cleric and Wizard/Sorcerer lists, casting off of WIS, but getting a familiar, ect.

And people like to drag Paladins into this argument, but they were really knights, not "holy warriors". They were the peers of Charlemagne, essentially like the Knights of the Round Table.

One, Archbishop Turpin, was probably both. But Roland, Ogier the Dane and the others had no role in the Church.

The cleric class is similar to certain religious orders of knighthood of the Middle Ages: the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templars, and Hospitalers. These orders combined military and religious training with a code of protection and service. Memberswere trained as knights and devoted themselves to the service of the church. These orders were frequently found on the outer edges of the Christian world, either on the fringe of the wilderness or in war-torn lands. Archbishop Turpin (of The Song of Roland) is an example of such a cleric.

The 2e AD&D PHB said that the Cleric was derived from the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaler, with Archbishop Turpin as an example (never mind the anachronism that the historic Archbishop Turpin lived about 300 years before those orders were founded. The Cleric class was written to be a Knight, and treated by players and later authors as a parish priest, but keeping the Knight Templar skill set with the parish priest/party healer role.

If a PC would rather play Friar Tuck (robes & staff, lots of support & healing abilities, modest melee ability) than Archbishop Turpin (Knight ordained to the Priesthood, hard-hitting melee fighter with combat/healing oriented spellcasting), he doesn't have much rules support.

The 2e AD&D PHB explicitly used Robin Hood as a good example of a Ranger, Alan-a-Dale as a good example of a Bard, and Little John as a good example of a Fighter. It's funny that they have no class to support Friar Tuck, since he's so unlike the typical Cleric.

 

[TKDB]

Dracula was pretty pulpy, actually.

I don't recall it featuring anything resembling the D&D cleric...Van Helsing uses religious items to combat Dracula, but he's a lay member in the church (albeit a devout one). He may be the archetypal undead hunter, which is certainly one niche the D&D cleric fits well in, but he's really more like a gothic horror Indiana Jones than a typical cleric -- an adventurous scholar, not a combative holy man.

 

[MGibster]

If a PCs character background is that they were a humble, novice parish priest before being caught up in adventuring, and not a pseudo-Templar. . .do they get an underpowered class for having this background, or do they somehow automatically get the full Cleric power set including being skilled in the wearing of heavy armor. . .despite never training for it before those orcs attacked his temple?

The PC probably needs to come up with a background that fits within the framework of the game being played. The same criticism could be thrown at any of the other classes. What if the PC background is that he was a humble baker before being caught up in adventuring, and not a Fighter? Does he automatically start out underpowered because of his background or is he suddenly skilled in combat and can wear heavy armor with ease?

 

[DragonLancer]

For me it's the difference between a cleric (as the class) and a lay priest. The cleric is the militant or adventuring priest who is trained to fight and wields magic sent from the divine. The lay priest is the 90% who just serve in temple and probably don't have magic or at least nothing more than 1st level spells. That's how I handle it anyway.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I've played the occasional cleric under the "holy warrior" theme (War domain), but for the most part I agree -- they've never been a favored class of mine and I don't fully grok them.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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?s to their faiths. They were less "cookie cutter" than any before or since.

IMO, that's just two different sides of the same coin.

Many of the King Arthur knights were paladins of Celtic gods, before the stories were rewritten to make them Christian instead. Same class, different paladin domains

The paladins of later on (the knights templar, for instance) might have been more organized, but that's a function of, well, being a member of a lawful religion. They weren't "ordained" but then, in real life, they didn't have special powers.

For me it's the difference between a cleric (as the class) and a lay priest. The cleric is the militant or adventuring priest who is trained to fight and wields magic sent from the divine. The lay priest is the 90% who just serve in temple and probably don't have magic or at least nothing more than 1st level spells. That's how I handle it anyway.

IMO, lay priests should (also) get rituals. I have no problem with Mother Superior Linora, 8th-level minion armed with a stick, being able to raise people from the dead. She's still a minion.

 

[Doug McCrae]

To me, D&D should be able to emulate reasonably well any mainstream fantasy fiction.

That's a perfectly reasonable aim, though it wasn't the original intention of D&D.