D&D 5E A new way to see the cleric...

[SageMinerve]

D&D Next is an opportunity, IMO, to redefine how certain things have always been done; not just for the sake of change, but because it brings something to the game.

Expertise dice and advantage/disadvantage are some examples we've seen so far.

One thing that always bugged me is the divine class category: cleric, paladin, etc.
Take the cleric. Mechanically speaking, what is a cleric in D&D?

1) He's a spell-caster.
2) Traditionally, his spells and abilities mostly revolve around 3 axes: Healing, Self- and ally support (ex: Blessing), evil thwarting (ex: Turn undead).
3) He has good, but not great, combat skills.

What bugs me is the spell management aspect of the cleric. Learning and casting spells as a cleric should not feel the same as doing it as a wizard. You might as well play a wizard with Healing spells if that's the only thing that distinguish arcane and divine. This is spell-system agnostic, by the way: it's not a question of Vancian vs AEDU vs Spell points vs whatever...

Fundamentally, a cleric is a mortal representative of his deity. He's able to perform miracles BECAUSE (and this is key in my view) his deity allows him to. If a cleric doesn't act as his deity's credo, he won't be doing miracles. Period.

Keeping this in mind and using it as a means of building an original mechanic for clerics allows for, IMO, a wonderful way to have RP influence mechanics.

This would be my proposal (and by the way, the same logic can be applied to any divine class, such as the paladin):

*A cleric following a divinity has a "Code of conduct" that's determined by that divinity's spheres, agenda and beliefs.
*When the cleric acts according to this code, he gains favor. This is easily tracked with points, let's call them Karma points for the sake of discussion.
*When the cleric performs a miracle (ie he casts a spell), you lose some Karma (equal to the spell level maybe?). Spell level is capped by cleric's level.
*If a cleric does something that's anathema to his deity (a bad idea, I think!), he loses all Karma; there might be other consequences to (for example,
something to regain the favor of your deity before you're allowed to regain Karma).
*A cleric would gain some Karma each day (Wisdom mod?).

What would the Code of Conduct look like?

For those familiar with Vampire the Masquerade (the old game, anyway; I have no idea if it's the same in the newer game), that game has a way of tracking the Morality of the PCs: Humanity (for Camarilla characters) or a Path (for Sabbat characters).
Humanity, for example, would have 10 "actions", listed from the most inhumane (#1) to the most saint-like (#10). When a PC does something that contradicts your Humanity level, you lose a Humanity level (ie you're less Human and more of a beast).

That made me think that each divinity could have a list of core beliefs, in order of increased importance. It could be something like 5 or 10 beliefs.

Example inspired from Bahamut, as defined in 3rd ed Deities & Demigods:

1) Offer information or material support to someone who needs it.
2) Take care of an injured person.
3) Promote the ideals of Good in a subtle, non-overt manner.
4) Stop an evil act.
5) Protect someone from an evil dragon.

Anathemas (consequence):
1) Lying (lose 3 Karma)
2) Perform an evil act (lose all Karma, don't regain Karma before regaining Bahamut's favor)
3) Prevent the accomplishment of a good act (lose all Karma, atone for 3 days (by prayers and meditations) before regaining Karma)

(those are just examples...)

The beliefs are voluntarily broadly defined, so the DM and PC have some wiggle room in how they interpret the actions of the character.

If the cleric gives food to someone needing it (#1), he gains 1 Karma.
If the cleric defends a village against a red dragon (#5), that would be 5 points.

In short:

1) Every deity / belief / principle has a list of core beliefs and a list of anathemas.
2) If a Cleric acts accordingly to his deity's credo, he gains Karma, thus he'll be able to cast more spells.
3) If a Cleric performs an anathema, he has to deal with the consequences.

This way, playing a cleric becomes very different from playing any other kind of spell-caster, which was my main goal with this proposal.

What do you think?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

We already have problems with paladin codes, which (among other things) give DMs the ability to take away their powers right away. One way to lose these powers is to associate with dishonorable people, eg the other PCs, so the paladin player feels pressured to convert the other PCs (eg preach), which the other PCs don't like. That sort of stuff is RP, not rules, and it's not a good idea to introduce this kind of conflict to many gaming groups.

Since healing is currently required (there's not enough non-magic healing options) this means every party gets saddled with someone with an obstructive code of conduct. (It doesn't have to be lawful good; a cleric of a chaotic neutral deity might be worse!)

Clerics just need different kinds of spells. The cleric has Lance of Faith (or Radiant Lance) in D&DN. Alas, it's just a beam of light that attacks Ref and does high damage at-will. It's not much different from Magic Missile (it just does higher damage and can miss). Boring.

The 4e power has a micro-buff. Nearly everything the 4e cleric does has a micro-buff. Even Spiritual Weapon (the target grants combat advantage to the cleric's allies; so they get an indirect buff, and rogues really like it when you use this prayer). This is all because the cleric is a leader (apart from the healing) and so was structured this way.

Compared to previous editions, the cleric has fewer self-buffs, fewer control powers and as few powers that just do damage (eg Flame Strike).

Prior versions of D&D just gave clerics nearly everything. This was made worse with spheres; while it's great for flavor that clerics could pick and choose spheres, it meant any two clerics might have nothing in common, to the point where they shouldn't even be members of the same class, and leaving the DM less ability to prepare adventures to suit them.

On a note more related to the OP (eg distinguishing cleric types), I'm fully in favor of something like domains or Channel Divinity to distinguish clerics who worship different deities. A lawful good cleric might take the Sacrifice domain, for instance, quite a bit different from a cleric who takes domains like Slaughter or Tyranny.

For ease of play if for no other reason, I'm leery of trying to introduce too much flexibility to the cleric class. I don't think the same class can or should represent a priest of Pelor or deathpriest of Wee Jas or Orcus. These more "specialty priests" should be their own class, and not try to occupy the "leader" role.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Take the cleric. Mechanically speaking, what is a cleric in D&D?

1) He's a spell-caster.
2) Traditionally, his spells and abilities mostly revolve around 3 axes: Healing, Self- and ally support (ex: Blessing), evil thwarting (ex: Turn undead).
3) He has good, but not great, combat skills.

Combat-wise the cleric could (in 3e) self-buff up to about the power of a fighter, but with fewer feats. Divine Power, Divine Favour and Rightous Might did most of the heavy lifting here.

Party support is another area he did well, with protection spells, Greater magic weapon/armor.

The anti-evil side of a cleric was pretty good as well, but it was often underutilized.

The cleric obviously did healing as well, and could with spells like heal, mass heal double or triple the amount of damage a party could handle in combat.

For me, the cleric also had the opportunity to be the diplomat of a party with the Diplomacy skill. He would often have a social reason to be good at it - as opposed to the typical Rogue diplomat.

The cleric could also be a pretty strong blaster with flame strike, blade barrier and similar spells.

Anyway, the cleric couldn't be a self-buffed fighter, party buffer, healer and blaster all in the same encounter. He was really constrained by the amounts of action he had. I played a cleric from level 1-18 and as he got higher up more and more paths opened up. Like the healer or blaster roles. (In combat healing before the Heal spell is mostly a waste of time, while he doesn't get the blaster role before he has a good deal of spell slots available for flame strike or blade barrier).

It was possible to make some really insane builds with the cleric, but if you weren't optimizing the hell out of it, he was a very strong character shoring up the weak points of a party, making it more flexible. In any of the roles except as a healer, the other classes were usually stronger, but he would be a very good backup fighter, diplomat or blaster.

For me the cleric in 3e could in many ways be the most diverse character and extremely strong in many areas without taking the spotlight away from other classes. It was lots of fun to play and since quite a lot of the spells were support spells of some kind, he could often be an enabler for the rest of the party.

 

[kerleth]

I think your idea makes for a good game. I also think I don't want it in dnd. Vampire always seemed to be a very roleplay-centric game. That was built into the mechanics. I only played a couple of times, but it seemed cool. However, I think there needs to be room in dnd for a more hack-and-slash game. While I agree that I don't want the cleric to be a wizard with a different spell list, I also don't want to force that sort of play on those who don't want it. Putting it in as part of the core mechanics of cleric would do so. As a module, awesome. Core rules, absolutely not.

 

[SageMinerve]

Reading the posts following my OP, I realize I could have been clearer.

The main point was not the mechanical implementation of morality, it was that clerics should play differently, and not just from a spell list POV. My proposition with a Code of conduct was an example of how such a differentiation could be implemented.

I'll be satisfied with D&D Next on this aspect if we end up with a cleric that doesn't feel like a wizard that has different spells. The difference should be much more than that.

We already have problems with paladin codes, which (among other things) give DMs the ability to take away their powers right away. One way to lose these powers is to associate with dishonorable people, eg the other PCs, so the paladin player feels pressured to convert the other PCs (eg preach), which the other PCs don't like. That sort of stuff is RP, not rules, and it's not a good idea to introduce this kind of conflict to many gaming groups.

I think your idea makes for a good game. I also think I don't want it in dnd. Vampire always seemed to be a very roleplay-centric game. That was built into the mechanics. I only played a couple of times, but it seemed cool. However, I think there needs to be room in dnd for a more hack-and-slash game. While I agree that I don't want the cleric to be a wizard with a different spell list, I also don't want to force that sort of play on those who don't want it. Putting it in as part of the core mechanics of cleric would do so. As a module, awesome. Core rules, absolutely not.

I agree that such an implementation represents a HUGE change from status quo, and as such can't be for everyone. If such a thing gets developped, it should probably be put into a module.

Quick point on the Vampire thing. I'm not saying that I want to turn D&D into VtM. You are right [MENTION=84383]kerleth[/MENTION] when you say that VtM is very RP-centric. This is not the case with D&D, and trying to change that would be a mistake for me. D&D can certainly use better RP tools, but it should stay what it is: a hack & slash fantasy game with SOME aspects of RP and exploration.

I know they (WotC) have said that they want the three pillars to have equal importance but frankly, they never have and they never will, at least not with what we've seen this far from the playtests.

Clerics just need different kinds of spells.

Here I have to strongly disagree. Different spells don't make a different character. It should be much more than that.

Think about it. Contrary to almost everyone else, the cleric owes much of his power not to himself, but to a deity. It HAS to have an impact on how the character feels, acts and plays.

On a note more related to the OP (eg distinguishing cleric types), I'm fully in favor of something like domains or Channel Divinity to distinguish clerics who worship different deities. A lawful good cleric might take the Sacrifice domain, for instance, quite a bit different from a cleric who takes domains like Slaughter or Tyranny.

Yes, clerics that worship different ideas/entities should be differentiated, and Domains are a good way to do it. But differentiation between clerics is less important in my eyes than differentiation between clerics and other spell casters.

I agree that from a mechanical POV, clerics have always been interesting, much in the same way that the Rogue has been more interesting than the fighter.

But I wish that being a cleric and what that means for a character meant much more than just the mechanics.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The Dresden RPG named this concept "sponsored magic". Wizards (who really should be called sorcerers*, from the way they "read" in the books) have no mechanical restrictions on their magic. Breaking the laws of magic can get one's head chopped off, but the wizard can still choose that option. By contrast, sponsored magic has ... a sponsor. A priest can only use certain types of magic, and not for certain aims, same with a Winter/Summer knight (basically a fey-empowered character).

To an extent, you see this in 4e, although not really with clerics. More with warlocks. Your pact-based powers have a theme and your curse has a theme.

D&D is a game about freedom, though. If you have a deity (especially a lawful deity) putting too many restrictions on a cleric's abilities, you've just made an unfun class. (Worse if, like the paladin, it affects other PCs too.) Non-mechanical stuff is really up to the DM, and they need to use a light hand.

*D&D style, which Dresden isn't.

 

[Hautamaki]

I agree that forcing a cleric to RP (possibly against the interests of the rest of the party) in a certain way in order to get mechanical 'prayer points' is a non-starter. But I also agree that the cleric and divine casters in general need a different magic-using mechanic in order to set them apart from the arcane casters. A different spell list alone doesn't do it for me. Asymmetric design and balance should be the goal--done right it makes for a deeper and more interesting game.

 

[Pour]

I agree that forcing a cleric to RP (possibly against the interests of the rest of the party) in a certain way in order to get mechanical 'prayer points' is a non-starter. But I also agree that the cleric and divine casters in general need a different magic-using mechanic in order to set them apart from the arcane casters. A different spell list alone doesn't do it for me. Asymmetric design and balance should be the goal--done right it makes for a deeper and more interesting game.

Agreed, but I'm a little stumped as to how to go about it. There's several clerical archetypes I think could potentially translate, though:

1. There is the sort of Biblical vessel for God's will, that really has no freedom of direction, and more or less takes objective from above and is granted the power to see a divinity's ends met with limited leeway (even where the god directly intervenes in times of serious peril). Should these goes coincide with a party's quests and objectives, these people would be incredibly potent, but I don't quite see them as life-long adventurers from start to finish, unless the entire party's goals very closely aligned (save the world, perhaps; or in the process of adventuring make the presence of this god known and build up his or her church).

2. It's not quite the warlock's patronage, though, I more see that kind of thing staying with the warlock or some sort of divine-styled Cultist, and that's how demon lords, devils, and Great Old Ones operate with their followers. They use the power for their own ends, the bargain struck likely already heavily-skewed toward the patron, and no doubt with some terrible or costly end clause (soul, first born, sanity). As the bargain prolongs, opportunities arise to strengthen it, at still greater cost (which I imagine is leveling).

3. This skirts a more pagan concept of divine celebration and maybe even appeasing the gods, though there wouldn't be so much of an ultimate price or degradation as a kind of receiving of boons or wrath (instant reward or instant punishment)- men and women who perform rites, rituals, sacrifice, even murder in order to receive the blessings of the gods, or fend off their many plagues, famines, natural disasters, and invading enemies. The divine powers all become scary, maybe even adversarial, the priests not particularly loving their gods, but doing what they can to mediate their tempers and the mortal worlds, or maybe like abuse victims, loving them and excusing them despite their terrible works (they do good, as well, these holymen might say in defense).

4. Fourthly is a more medieval cleric which has no direct contact with their god. They operate with a modicum of divine power and follow through on what they believe their god wants based on their specific sects, doctrine, and their own morality. They are granted Divine power, but I do not believe this power should be limited by something like alignment. In this kind of a situation, say a kind of Catholic Church with all its devote and devious crusaders and Inquisitors and priests would have men and women who were good, neutral, and evil all receiving a god's blessing within the faith- leading to some gray area as to the nature of the divinity, and everything cycling back to individual doctrine and the man-made constructs around this unknowable being.

5. And call me crazy, but I think there might even be room for a fifth kind of cleric, one with no Divine power at all, and yet considered part of the clerical family, one whose power comes from wealth, political connections, and the incredible force of Tradition and established ritual, backed by considerable history and a vast church network. He would play on things like duty, piety, guilt, and I suppose fear, but also love and charity. Depends on the cleric, but yeah, these ones would be some of the most influential, I imagine, and like number 4, have no real connection to a divinity.

 

[GameDoc]

I think they were on the right track with Channel Divinity, particularly if you look at the way 4e granted different uses of it depending on the character's deity.

Admittedly the way it was implemented in the last play test was pretty dull, which might be why the dropped it.

I think if they go with the current generic deity options and link that to diffent themstic uses of CD instead of bonus spells, you'd get closer to giving the cleric a different feel.

You might even borrow a page from how they are doing maneuvers with the fighter and rogue and say all clerics know how to use CD to heal and turn undead, and then get a deity specific use at certain levels.

As a non-core module, it think to would be interesting to see clerics "charge up" CD by taking actions reflective of their deity's theme. This might a bit like warlock's curses in 4e. When a cursed enemy drops, the warlock can activate a power related to his pact. Similarly, a predefined trigger that a cleric has to work towards grants an additional use of his CD powers.

 

[Greg K]

This is not the case with D&D, and trying to change that would be a mistake for me. D&D can certainly use better RP tools, but it should stay what it is: a hack & slash fantasy game with SOME aspects of RP and exploration.

Well, for many groups (including every group I have known), D&D stopped being a hack and slash fantasy game during the mid-1980's. For such groups, there may be several sessions that have no fights what so ever and the majority have only one or two fights that are significant and take up less than 25% of the gaming time at the table.