Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5687881" data-attributes="member: 19675">I understand what you're saying, and here's where I lay the blame: Gary did a good job of modeling the source material with he Paladin, but he conflates a LOT of different things into the Cleric, making it much more than it should have been.The loss of powers for violations of the code is actually in many of the source legends about paladins.  They got that right.However, the actual priests of medieval Europe were (mostly) men who were not trained to fight at all.  Sure, a wandering friar might have a weapon and know how to use it, but he would have learned such skill by himself as opposed to it being part of his training in the priesthood.  And even he would be lightly armored...if at all.  IOW, the Cleric class should have more closely resembled the magic-user.In combat terms, the closest things to D&D Clerics in the Western Euopean RW were knights- actual trained, lifelong warriors- who had sworn certain vows.  While not fully priests, they were able to act as deacons, not full priests at all.  In D&D, that would mean spell-like abilities or half-casting at best. This could have been modeled by a less restricted version of the paladin (Paladin of the Lesser Rite? Knightly Brother?) or in 3.XEd, by a Feat with a BAB requirement.</blockquote>