D&D (2024) 5e vs Oe Cleric...

[Stalker0]

So I’m not a big fan of the 5e cleric myself, I think it is insanely boring, relying on a few key spells to give it any oomph or interesting play.

The new cleric is a step forward, but not enough. It’s still fundamentally the same boring class

 

[Minigiant]

D&D lore has all clerics gain the same magic irregardless of deity. They only flavored it with their domain. Keep word is domain,

Zeus and Poseidon both give you Tempest. It's not a cleric of Zeus or cleric of Posiedon. They are just Tempest Clerics and their magic is the same. They both call lighting, heal wounds, and blast out light.

Cleric is the meat.
Holy Order is the veggies.
Domain is the seasoning.

Since every Cleric uses the same Cleric magic that can be swapped every night, the core cleric magic isn't really tied to the god that much. The deity is just the source.

Therefore it makes sense that it takes being a stronger cleric for the domain to visible within a divine channel.

 

[Vael]

But moving the Subclass to 3rd level really feels like a bad choice because of the specific narrative attachment of the subclass. This isn't "How you learn to fight" this is the -basis- of your belief system that you don't gain access to out of the gate at level 1. It means a cleric of Pelor and a cleric of Gruumsh gain the exact same powers and abilities with nothing to distinguish them for the first two levels. And to me that just feels weird.

I get it, and agree and disagree.

First, I'm a Sorcerer fan, and I'm assuming that class will also be moving it's subclass to third level, it is weird to not pick it immediately.

That said, I've seen many a PC built at first level already aware of what subclass they are going to choose and shaping their character towards it. So really, I can be a Life Cleric or Dragon Sorcerer well before I put that subclass choice on my Character sheet. Maybe it's just that the actual manifestations of that power don't kick in until level 3. And I can see design and clarity benefits to having all classes follow the same subclass progression.

 

[Clint_L]

I really like making all the sub-classes happen at level 3. I have no narrative problem with it, and I personally like to have a few games under my belt with a character before I decide which sub-class feels right for them. It's part of the journey (same with multi-classing later, if at all).

The other thing is I work with a lot of brand new players, and I always cringe when they want to play a cleric, wizard, or warlock because I have to try to explain a billion sub-options when they barely even understand what "cleric" is.

 

[Minigiant]

Plus nothing it stopping a level 1 cleric of a good of healing from preparing Bless and Cure Wounds. You just aren't getting it for free.

This seems to be only a problem for sorcerer as their spell lists were so narrow AND their spells know was so few. But that was not a subclass problem. Itwas a class problem. WOTC just used subclass to patch it in order to not errata the PHB.

 

[MockingBird]

I just want them to keep a fairly basic fighter class for those that don't want all the complexity.

 

[Gadget]

Lore wise, D&D clerics have always been pretty similar, no mater what deity, maybe excepting specialty priests from 2e. Sure, domain and sub-class have given a nice veneer over the top, but it was just that: a veneer.

As for the standardizing sub class choice at third level, I generally like it. It allows leeway in future design, knowing this is the case. It may, depending on implementation, cut down on the effectiveness of class dipping as well, which has been a problem in 5e to be honest (particularly with warlocks). That's part of the real reason for the delayed sub class choice I'll wager.

 

[James Gasik]

If they don't want to drop too many choices on new players, rather than push subclasses to level 3, maybe everyone should start at level 0!

 

[Minigiant]

I just want them to keep a fairly basic fighter class for those that don't want all the complexity.

My answer was always "That's what the barbarian is for".

Lore wise, D&D clerics have always been pretty similar, no mater what deity, maybe excepting specialty priests from 2e. Sure, domain and sub-class have given a nice veneer over the top, but it was just that: a veneer.

As for the standardizing sub class choice at third level, I generally like it. It allows leeway in future design, knowing this is the case. It may, depending on implementation, cut down on the effectiveness of class dipping as well, which has been a problem in 5e to be honest (particularly with warlocks). That's part of the real reason for the delayed sub class choice I'll wager.

I think the priority of reasons for moving subclass to 3rd was

1. Design space
2. Multiclassing balance
3. New Players

As we see with paladin and druid, there is barely any room at first level for core stuff. There's no way you can fit Subclass at 1st level to.

It's one of those "I know its a bad idea but I want it" things. Where you might love the flavor or mechanical expression of something but it would harm the game to do it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But moving the Subclass to 3rd level really feels like a bad choice because of the specific narrative attachment of the subclass. This isn't "How you learn to fight" this is the -basis- of your belief system that you don't gain access to out of the gate at level 1. It means a cleric of Pelor and a cleric of Gruumsh gain the exact same powers and abilities with nothing to distinguish them for the first two levels. And to me that just feels weird.

I mean you can (and in my game I will require) pick your god and rp it that way... I mean do you really NEED your domain for those 1st 2 levels to be a cleric of pelor or Rao, or Grumish or whatever?