D&D 5E Benefit of Acolyte Background for a Wizard?

[Parmandur]

PHB is clear about not all priests being clerics. Whether or not all clerics are priests depends on how you read and regard the description in PHB. I would say it does not say that clerics are priests and also it does not count as rules anyway. But stressing a different word would make it say that clerics are special priests.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using EN World mobile app

The accruement of being a priest in an organized religion comes from the Acolyte background; the Cleric is, counterintuitively, not clergy per se but can be seen a a prophet or divine Chosen One...

 

[Al2O3]

The accruement of being a priest in an organized religion comes from the Acolyte background; the Cleric is, counterintuitively, not clergy per se but can be seen a a prophet or divine Chosen One...

The flavour text of cleric includes "No ordinary priest, [what makes clerics special]"
If you stress "ordinary" it reads as clerics being special priests. If you stress "priest" it reads as not really being priests. So if clerics are priests or not depends on what you/the DM/the group wants. As far as I am concerned it would be fine with variation within the same party.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using EN World mobile app

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

The flavour text of cleric includes "No ordinary priest, [what makes clerics special]"
If you stress "ordinary" it reads as clerics being special priests. If you stress "priest" it reads as not really being priests. So if clerics are priests or not depends on what you/the DM/the group wants. As far as I am concerned it would be fine with variation within the same party.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using EN World mobile app

True, kind of a world building question as to what a priesthood even entails?

Cleric, Monk and Barbarian seem to me to have been insufficiently divorced from flavor that I would place more in Background territory for my tastes...

 

[Al2O3]

I am less concerned with a final ruling on the Cleric/Acolyte question than I am on this-

Does the issue of a PC needing to perform wedding ceremonies come up so often that this is a major issue of contention?

Is this D&D, or General Hospital?

Weddings and burials are both things I would expect a priest to be able to handle. Burials do come up, while "I could perform a wedding too" might more come up as "I am not only a warrior". It could come up as part of winning the hearts and minds of a village.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

I played a fighter with an acolyte background a while ago. The only drawback was people telling me things like "Can't wait for 3rd level, when you get your spells" or "Why aren't you using your lay on hands?" I.e., they kept assuming I was a paladin because I acted like a holy warrior. Nope. And I actually like that. Not a fan of cookie cutter PCs, so the way 5e uses backgrounds is wonderful, and opens so many roleplaying doors. So there might not be so much of a mechanical benefit, but there certainly is added value to the overall game itself.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Al2O3]

eh.... burials are best handled by hobomurdering.

As for weddings, every campaign is different and people can do what they want, but ... marriage in a high-fantasy polytheistic society is likely very different, especially for a person in a village, than getting a priest to marry you.

In the Forgotten Realms I guess Chauntea might be called on to bless a wedding or something, or Torm being asked about helping them staying loyal to each other etc. So I can come up with reasons for an acolyte PC to be asked for such assistance in the right campaign, but in general I agree with you.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using EN World mobile app