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

[jrowland]

I didn't warm to the warlock class in 3E, but in 4E I think I finally figured out its "schtick" so-to-speak. But having done so, I felt the warlock would be better (in 4E) if the warlock had more of an active role in gaining power from these powerful, non-god entities. I feel warlocks should be "fighting" for these powers as the entities fight for more...something...from the warlock.

Then comes the 5E playtest and this notion of transformation is in play.

AHA! says I.

Warlocks are in a struggle to steal/cajole/beg/trick powerful non-god entities into giving them power and to resist the demands (transformations) placed on them.

Then I come across this thread.

Clerics, in some way, are like warlocks who don't fight the entities, but rather fully submit. And they don't submit to weak non-god powers, but to full-on gods.

Perhaps, clerics should look more like warlocks. I am not talking a direct port, but the loose outlines. Rather than "Pacts" they have "Domains". Clerics can have maybe 2 or 3 "domains" at higher levels, representing their devotion and submission to their god. They can be transformed (into saints - using a real world term), etc.

Warlocks might need some tweaking too, perhaps warlocks can attempt to use higher level powers than their level suggests, but with a sever cost, or play it safe, and keep to the small stuff. Perhaps a "corruption" meter, something like 4E concordance. High corruption means more transformation.

In a similar vein, and to bring me back to the OP, a concordance "piety" might be good thing (module of course) for D&D Next, but even without it, a more warlock (pact-power based) cleric might be a better design.

Food for thought anyway.

 

[bbjore]

I'm afraid a fairly large segment of the fanbase is supremely attached to a particular ruleset. The success of Pathfinder stands as evidence of that. And, it's that segment that prompted the destruction of 4e and the early announcement of 5e. 5e's goal of re-unification rests on appeasing that segment - and they do not seem easy to appease...

Agreed. I really believe in the the goal of reunification, and want to see it work. But I think it's going to be hard to create game that does that and is also the kind of game pathfinder players see as an improvement on what they already have.

 

[jrowland]

Agreed. I really believe in the the goal of reunification, and want to see it work. But I think it's going to be hard to create game that does that and is also the kind of game pathfinder players see as an improvement on what they already have.

I don't think 5E necessarily has to be an improvement over Pathfinder/3E. It does need to be compelling enough to play in addition to pathfinder/3E. You don't have to destroy pathfinders base, but you do need to get enough of them interested to sit down at the 5E gaming table once in a while.

 

[SageMinerve]

I didn't warm to the warlock class in 3E, but in 4E I think I finally figured out its "schtick" so-to-speak. But having done so, I felt the warlock would be better (in 4E) if the warlock had more of an active role in gaining power from these powerful, non-god entities. I feel warlocks should be "fighting" for these powers as the entities fight for more...something...from the warlock.

Then comes the 5E playtest and this notion of transformation is in play.

AHA! says I.

Warlocks are in a struggle to steal/cajole/beg/trick powerful non-god entities into giving them power and to resist the demands (transformations) placed on them.

Then I come across this thread.

Clerics, in some way, are like warlocks who don't fight the entities, but rather fully submit. And they don't submit to weak non-god powers, but to full-on gods.

Perhaps, clerics should look more like warlocks. I am not talking a direct port, but the loose outlines. Rather than "Pacts" they have "Domains". Clerics can have maybe 2 or 3 "domains" at higher levels, representing their devotion and submission to their god. They can be transformed (into saints - using a real world term), etc.

Warlocks might need some tweaking too, perhaps warlocks can attempt to use higher level powers than their level suggests, but with a sever cost, or play it safe, and keep to the small stuff. Perhaps a "corruption" meter, something like 4E concordance. High corruption means more transformation.

In a similar vein, and to bring me back to the OP, a concordance "piety" might be good thing (module of course) for D&D Next, but even without it, a more warlock (pact-power based) cleric might be a better design.

Food for thought anyway.

I agree that the warlock is something to keep in mind when striving to make clerics distinctive.

It doesn't have to be a game-mechanic overhaul to really give clerics that je ne sais quoi that will really drive the point home that clerics are not wizards wannabes.

That doesn't mean that a more heavy-handed change, game-mechanics wise, cannot be explored in a module.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Agreed. I really believe in the the goal of reunification, and want to see it work. But I think it's going to be hard to create game that does that and is also the kind of game pathfinder players see as an improvement on what they already have.

I don't think /improvement/ is the issue.

 

[Li Shenron]

*A cleric following a divinity has a "Code of conduct" that's determined by that divinity's spheres, agenda and beliefs.

I think a CoC is a must-have for any serious player of a Cleric or Paladin character.

*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?).

It could be an interesting system, tho not very D&D traditional, and it gets heavily into the way of how Cleric spells work in the core.

How about a lighter version, totally optional (also in the sense that doesn't require any modification to the class as-written), where you track Karma but this doesn't have any immediate effect, something happens only when your Karma falls below a certain threshold.

If you are familiar with 3ed Oriental Adventure, I here mean something similar to the Honor system: imagine that you have a Karma score that can go up and down depending on your actions, and thresholds that might for instance define if you can cast spells of a certain level (never beyond the max level for your current Cleric level tho).

Simplest example on the fly: threshold (minimum Karma points) for casting clerical spells of level N is equal to 10 x N.

Spell level Min Karma points
0th 0
1st 10
2nd 20
3rd 30
...

So whenever you do a (significant) action that syncs with your deity's values and CoC, the DM grants you some Karma points*. You can assume that a starting Cleric PC already has 10 Karma points, thus can cast 0th and 1st level spells normally. You need to gain 10 more points to be able to cast 2nd level spells before you reach your 3rd level in the Cleric class. If you do something "bad" for your CoC, you lose Karma points*.

*how many? depends on the magnitude of your sacrifice or accomplishment, or infringement

I think this would be much simpler than a daily tracking of Karma points, and you could just slap this optional rule on top on a Cleric of ANY edition without any adjustment needed. What do you think?