D&D (2024) Sorcerer (Playtest 7)

[Yaarel]

Oh, absolutely. I'm not saying that no fantasy Wiccans map to e.g. nature clerics or even druids or warlocks. This is irrelevant to the point I was making.

What I am saying is that if both fantasy Wiccans and fantasy Catholic priests can commonly map to Life Cleric (or Light Cleric or whichever) with literally identical mechanics despite very different religious cultures then it's not "culture" that makes them. Very different cultures make for identical mechanical representation.

Clerics might be fuelled by gods and divine power, or they might be by prayer and ritual energy, or have some other commonality. But the commonality can't be something that is different between clerics, the clericsl part of which is mechanically identical.

Hypothetically, a European setting where all the reallife folklore is true, including witches and trolls and so on.

There are many saints, including miracle workers, some of them priests.

The Cleric would be a member of a specific church, with its local traditions, part of a regional diocese. Technically a "cleric" means a formal sacred responsibility, but this could be a priest, a nun, a deacon, someone appointed to bring food to the poor, someone appointed to be a librarian, a seminarian student, or a teacher, or anything really. Some appointed position that the community recognizes.

This particular "cleric" also happens to be a miracle worker. The miracles might involve various Cleric class domains. God is light. God heals. God visits the sick. God grants victory. Any domain is possible.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hypothetically, a European setting where all the reallife folklore is true, including witches and trolls and so on.

There are many saints, including miracle workers, some of them priests.

The Cleric would be a member of a specific church, with its local traditions, part of a regional diocese. Technically a "cleric" means a formal sacred responsibility, but this could be a priest, a nun, a deacon, someone appointed to bring food to the poor, someone appointed to be a librarian, a seminarian student, or a teacher, or anything really. Some appointed position that the community recognizes.

This particular "cleric" also happens to be a miracle worker. The miracles might involve various Cleric class domains. God is light. God heals. God visits the sick. God grants victory. Any domain is possible.

So what you're saying here is that clerics must be members of specific hierarchical traditions? And you must organise that way?

 

[Yaarel]

So what you're saying here is that clerics must be members of specific hierarchical traditions? And you must organise that way?

Technically, the word "cleric" refers to a formally recognized position. But there is no need for "hierarchy" if the sacred tradition lacks hierarchy.

You were specifically referring to medieval Catholicism which is hierarchical. So I was expanding on what you introduced. If the D&D Cleric class represents a character in a setting-specific Catholic church, then yes obviously, the character is part of a hierarchy.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Technically, the word "cleric" refers to a formally recognized position. But there is no need for "hierarchy" if the sacred tradition lacks hierarchy.

You were specifically referring to medieval Catholicism which is hierarchical. So I was expanding on what you introduced. If the D&D Cleric class represents a character in a setting-specific Catholic church, then yes obviously, the character is part of a hierarchy.

And I was also suggesting that there were other traditions and that cleric would be an appropriate representation for them. And if the cultural approaches are very different but the result is the same it is not the culture that provides the magic.

Something you are not engaging with.

 

[Yaarel]

And I was also suggesting that there were other traditions and that cleric would be an appropriate representation for them. And if the cultural approaches are very different but the result is the same it is not the culture that provides the magic.

Something you are not engaging with.

A Cleric character is built from choice of domain, a preference of spells, a choice of background, including choice of skills, languages, and a background feat, plus class choice of Divine Order.

Each of these can distinguish one Cleric from an other.

 

[Neonchameleon]

A Cleric character is built from choice of domain, a preference of spells, a choice of background, including choice of skills, languages, and a background feat.

Each of these can distinguish one Cleric from an other.

You mean that clerics can be different people? Sure. But skills, languages, feats, and backgrounds are all brought by everyone, almost independent of class.

But 100% of what is provided by the clerical class (with the arguable exception of the two skills every class gets as a minimum and the ability to choose a feat picked by all cultures) is identical between two clerics of the same domain. The spells are picked from the same list - and a cleric can pick the standard loadout of another cleric of their level and domain if they know it with just one night's sleep and a simple requisition order.

In the 5e setting every god and every culture that has clerics has the exact same base class. And even domains are almost entirely cross-cultural. A war cleric of Paladine a year after he started investing clerics again and wandered round Krynn as "Fizban" gets the exact same cookie cutter abilities bestowed on them by their class as a War Cleric of Gruumsh trying to bring down civilisation as a war cleric of The Silver Flame on Eberron despite spectacularly different gods, people, and cultures.

If clerics were powered by their culture or got their powers from their culture different cultures would at least have distinctive domains. And they don't.

 

[Yaarel]

You mean that clerics can be different people? Sure. But skills, languages, feats, and backgrounds are all brought by everyone, almost independent of class.

But 100% of what is provided by the clerical class (with the arguable exception of the two skills every class gets as a minimum and the ability to choose a feat picked by all cultures) is identical between two clerics of the same domain. The spells are picked from the same list - and a cleric can pick the standard loadout of another cleric of their level and domain if they know it with just one night's sleep and a simple requisition order.

In the 5e setting every god and every culture that has clerics has the exact same base class. And even domains are almost entirely cross-cultural. A war cleric of Paladine a year after he started investing clerics again and wandered round Krynn as "Fizban" gets the exact same cookie cutter abilities bestowed on them by their class as a War Cleric of Gruumsh trying to bring down civilisation as a war cleric of The Silver Flame on Eberron despite spectacularly different gods, people, and cultures.

If clerics were powered by their culture or got their powers from their culture different cultures would at least have distinctive domains. And they don't.

Part of this "cookie cutter" is the logistics of game design. D&D organizes options into classes and subclasses. But there is room for variation, including choice of Order (Thaumaturge, Protector, etcetera). Plus, new suppliments add new domains. A DM can trivially modify domain spells.

Also, the Cleric doesnt derive the magic from any gods. They derive the magic directly from "the realms of the gods", namely "the Outer Planes where gods dwell and channel that energy". There is no master-servant hierarchy if the player dislikes the concept. The character concept can be blessed by any "immortal entity" including love itself or any cosmic force.

"Clerics typically associate themselves with temples or shrines," namely a specific sacred space and the sacred community and traditions involving it, "dedicated to whatever ... immortal force unlocked their magical ability". "Harnessing divine magic doesnt rely on specific training, yet a Cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites" − FROM THE CULTURE − "that helps them focus their minds and spirits on drawing power FROM THE OUTER PLANES."

To derive power from an Outer Plane itself, is moreorless the same thing as saying, the Cleric gets its magical power from ethical behaviors.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Part of this "cookie cutter" is the logistics of game design.

No it isn't. You can have two 2014 warlocks, even with the same patron, that do not share one single spell or invocation. You can have two sorcerers with the same subclass that do not share a single spell or metamagic ability. You can have two bards that don't share a single spell. And although wizards can all in theory learn the same spells they need to swap spell books and study hard to do it.

That clerics are so cookie cutter and interchangeable is something that makes clerics distinctive. Or technically one of a group with druids and paladins (and even druids don't all know the same forms; they can all wild shape but what they turn into actually is cultural).

When something is restricted to under half of casters it's clearly not "part of the logistics of game design". It's part of what makes them distinct as a class compared to other classes. And any explanation of their power source that directly contradicts what makes them distinct from other classes is simply wrong.

In D&D 5e clerics and paladins are the two least culturally influenced or distinct classes and two most culturally independent classes in the game. And this fundamental interchangeability within the class is a big part of what makes them stand out as classes.

"Clerics typically associate themselves with temples or shrines," namely a specific sacred space and the sacred traditions involving it, "dedicated to whatever ... immortal force unlocked their magical ability". "Harnessing divine magic doesnt rely on specific training, yet a Cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites" − FROM THE CULTURE − "that helps them focus their minds and spirits on drawing power FROM THE OUTER PLANES."

Yes, learning is something that is from the culture. But wizards learn from their culture too. So do bards. And even druids. And in all three cases (although less so for druids) what the culture teaches them leads to different results. In the case of clerics it doesn't matter if you become a war cleric through a blood soaked orgy of looting and pillaging or aescetic meditation on the blade and fasting on a snow covered mountaintop. The result is the exact same as far as being a cleric is concerned.

Which means that the cultural part is entirely irrelevant. There are dozens of ways to open the door that lets you draw power from the outer planes and all the cultural component is is that different cultures have discoveted different methods of doing the same thing. They all get you the exact same place if they work - drawing the exact same power from the outer planes, and how you opened the door might be relevant to the person but makes zero difference to the class.

 

[Yaarel]

No it isn't. You can have two 2014 warlocks, even with the same patron, that do not share one single spell or invocation. You can have two sorcerers with the same subclass that do not share a single spell or metamagic ability. You can have two bards that don't share a single spell. And although wizards can all in theory learn the same spells they need to swap spell books and study hard to do it.

That clerics are so cookie cutter and interchangeable is something that makes clerics distinctive. Or technically one of a group with druids and paladins (and even druids don't all know the same forms; they can all wild shape but what they turn into actually is cultural).

When something is restricted to under half of casters it's clearly not "part of the logistics of game design". It's part of what makes them distinct as a class compared to other classes. And any explanation of their power source that directly contradicts what makes them distinct from other classes is simply wrong.

In D&D 5e clerics and paladins are the two least culturally influenced or distinct classes and two most culturally independent classes in the game. And this fundamental interchangeability within the class is a big part of what makes them stand out as classes.

Yes, learning is something that is from the culture. But wizards learn from their culture too. So do bards. And even druids. And in all three cases (although less so for druids) what the culture teaches them leads to different results. In the case of clerics it doesn't matter if you become a war cleric through a blood soaked orgy of looting and pillaging or aescetic meditation on the blade and fasting on a snow covered mountaintop. The result is the exact same as far as being a cleric is concerned.

Which means that the cultural part is entirely irrelevant. There are dozens of ways to open the door that lets you draw power from the outer planes and all the cultural component is is that different cultures have discoveted different methods of doing the same thing. They all get you the exact same place if they work - drawing the exact same power from the outer planes, and how you opened the door might be relevant to the person but makes zero difference to the class.

I dont really understand your argument. First, the Wizard is the most cookie-cutter class of all. Every Wizard can learn the exact same spells. The class lacks the design space for substantial subclasses.

Second, there can be many different Clerics who draw their power from the same Outer Plane, such as Good by Chaotic Good Beastlands, while each has distinctive Cleric mechanics to do this − War, Light, Protector, Thaumaturge, etcetera. Thus there are many different ways to derive from this source − namely different cultural approaches − and different styles of Clerics who do it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I dont really understand your argument. First, the Wizard is the most cookie-cutter class of all. Every Wizard can learn the exact same spells. The class lacks the design space for substantial subclasses.

Every wizard can in theory learn the exact same spells given unlimited time, money, and resources. But no wizard does learn all spells. Instead most have an individual spell collection. Meanwhile every trickery domain cleric has the exact same spell list to prepare from.

The wizard and cleric are the two most generic spellcasting classes in 5e - but what makes them more generic than anyone else is different in the two cases.

• There is almost no difference between wizard subclasses (ignoring illusionists and dunomancers) but there's a probably wider range of variety between wizards as there is between bards or sorcerers of one subclass as the spells they actually have vary
• There is significant difference between cleric subclasses, but within any given cleric subclass there's less difference than between Champion Fighters (thanks to fighting styles, an extra feat, and fighter feats being more influential)

Second, there can be many different Clerics who draw their power from the same Outer Plane, such as Good by Chaotic Good Beastlands, while each has distinctive Cleric mechanics to do this − War, Light, Protector, Thaumaturge, etcetera. Thus there are many different ways to derive from this source − namely different cultural approaches − and different styles of Clerics who do it.

They aren't "cultural approaches" when they aren't even vaguely connected to the culture and crop up again and again in unrelated cultures. They can arguably be called "personal approaches"