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

[kerleth]

There are many players who still use Dnd for hack-and-slash. There are also many that want some hack-and-slash one sequence and some heavy roleplay another. The goal of next, and one that should come in at least as important to any other concerns, is to make a game both can play.

As far as channel divinity goes, I thought last playtest packet was a GREAT start. In fact, I think last playtest packet was really close to what I would want out of a cleric. Not necessarily in spells per day, but in how domain/deity choice really makes them feel different. Fold turn undead in with channel divinity by default to make that group happy, and I thought we had a winner (My opinion only, of course).

Not every cleric should be proficient with heavy armor. The idea of a robed priest with little combat training exists in the fiction and has it's place. And not all of these are particularly graceful so that they would want light armor anyways.

While on the subject, this is my take on healing spells. Do I want a cleric who can heal with one hand and smite with the other. Well yeah. Do I want to be able to infuse an ally with vigor, not only restoring his health but sending him back into the fray with even great strength. Yes. do I want to be able to call forth pure holy light from my holy symbol, blinding and harming my enemies while bringing surcease to my allies. Heck Yeah!!
But I also want the iconic "laying on of hands". (Not the class feature, the real world term that inspired it). I want to be able to play Goldmoon or Elistan, iconically kneeling beside a wounded ally while I focus on them, their wounds knitting slowly. WITHOUT having to make a suboptimal choice.

Just my thoughts.

 

[bbjore]

I think they need to divorce the cleric from the the just a divine wizard paradigm. Make divine casting substantially different from arcane casting. Arcane casting is about studying and preparation, divine casting is about faith. Spontaneous casting and words of power are great starts. But I would love to see the divine classes move to an encounter recharge implementation. I think it works well with their dual melee and caster status.

Imagine a cleric that can cast a certain number of encounter spells, and then at the end of every round, or every time they the perform certain acts that would please their deity, they can roll to recharge a spell. In this way they're encounter based, but they never truly run out of spells. This is a simple and useful distinction between faith based casting and arcane casting.

I like the way they do turn undead now, the only one attempt per day on an at-will ability is a great way to limit at-will abilities, and a good idea for other mechanics. But I miss channel divinity. Give each cleric a few things they can do with channel divinity based on domains. Then channel divinity becomes a mechanic that both ties the divine power source together and helps differentiate them.

I also think they really need to run with the domain abilities as a way to further differentiate clerics and tie worshipers of similar faiths together.

Right now they have a good framework, but it seems kind of blah. It'd be nice to see them take the current beginnings and really polish it with the intent to make divine classes feel divine, rather than just guy in armor who heals.

 

[Timmoth]

I agree the Cleric needs an overhaul. Boring class. Im working to redo the class right now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I have to disagree. The goal of D&D is not to re-define anything, but to find those existing definitions that are the least broadly offensive to past fans.

Doing things like 're-defining the Cleric' is at least a small part of what got them in trouble in the first place.

 

[Wepwawet]

I have to disagree. The goal of D&D is not to re-define anything, but to find those existing definitions that are the least broadly offensive to past fans.

Doing things like 're-defining the Cleric' is at least a small part of what got them in trouble in the first place.

Well, more or less. Personally I love this game, but I always hated the vancian spell system, as well as cleric cloning despite their deities.
I know those are staples of D&D, but they're simply not fun for me. I want options from the start! I would hate to have to wait for supplements to be able to play the fun classes I want...

 

[pemerton]

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.

Can't it be up to the player too?

In saying that, I'm not just envisaging the player "emoting" his/her PC's crises of faith and the like - "mere colour". I'm talking about a player putting his/her PC's faith into play - in 4e, this is via page 42 - and being able to expect that the GM will follow the lead.

A couple of examples of what I have in mind - though they relate to seeking divine boons, rather than complying with divine constraints - are described in the OP of this thread.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Can't it be up to the player too?

Not if it's harming the game for others.

A couple of examples of what I have in mind - though they relate to seeking divine boons, rather than complying with divine constraints - are described in the OP of this thread.

I couldn't find the stuff on boons in that thread.

I was thinking of the "rules" for artifacts in 4e. Their boons and restrictions are much more specific than any paladin code. IIRC, the Eye of Vecna gets upset with you if you destroy an undead creature (as befits an item serving the god of undead), but it's not going to get upset with you if you save a burning orphanage. It also gave bonuses to certain actions, such as uncovering and keeping a secret (something Vecna, as god of secrets, would like). I'm going to have to look for good-aligned rules as well.

"Codes" like that, being much more specific and much more adventurer-focused, might work much better than some vague flavor-as-mechanics tools, but I haven't tested such ideas, and maybe even those won't work.

 

[pemerton]

Not if it's harming the game for others.

But is there any reason to think that the player of a cleric or paladin playing out his/her faith will cause harm any more than (say) the player of a fighter playing out his/her fondness for hacking things, or the player of a rogue playing out his/her relationship with the thieve's guild?

I couldn't find the stuff on boons in that thread.

There was a prayer for aid (answered by the god calling attention to an allied NPC previously hidden from the PC), and the sacrifice of a magical healing belt to bring a just-killed ally back to life.

An example in the same post that is actually closer to applying a code is the consequence for the chaos sorcerer of trying to fortify himself by absorbing chaos energy, and ending up triggering the effect of the sigils tatooed on the inside of his eyelids, thus blinding himself (and his robe of eyes).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But is there any reason to think that the player of a cleric or paladin playing out his/her faith will cause harm any more than (say) the player of a fighter playing out his/her fondness for hacking things, or the player of a rogue playing out his/her relationship with the thieve's guild?

Putting aside obvious RP issues like recklessly hacking things (any PC can suffer from that, it's not a code-based thing), telling the PC fighter not to be an idiot by picking a fight with the city guard doesn't cost the fighter his feats, bravery, or whatever other abilities the fighter gets if the fighter listens. The fighter player is not incentivized to continue their bad behavior within the rules.

A paladin player pretty much has to preach. The rules don't give them much leeway... and being intelligent dishonorable PCs isn't bad behavior. (Being stupid or disruptive is, but that's another issue.)

 

[Greg K]

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.

That is one way to look at it. I disagree that it is about freedom. For the groups that I have played with over the years it is about exploring a setting. Setting can mean limitations on choices (PC races, classes, spells, monsters that exist, etc.) (In my opinion, this is a requirement for an interesting game/setting). This also means establishing the deities of the setting ahead of time if the setting has deities.
From our view, with the establishment of deities come restrictions on those classes that represent them (clerics, paladins, invokers, holy warriors, etc). The deities should be restricted to specific domains and have certain interests and causes. The interests and causes should place requirements on clerics and paladin in the form of tenets and doctrine while the domains should limit spell access and abilities like turn undead and healing. A player that can't handle that has the freedom to play another available class. YMMV.