Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
Talking Clerics? OK then.
Firstly, it's important to establish that Clerics were a Hack Job from the start. They were implemented as a kind of patch, because one character from Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign, a vampire by the name of Sir Fang, was getting out of control. They created a Vampire-Hunter character, and added some ways to cure HP and Disease, as it was kind of a necessity at the time. And thus the Priest (who would be later become the Cleric) was born.
Being born of a Hack Job has tainted the class ever since. Getting stuck with all the healing spells made the class both "necessary" to smooth out the problems with HP management, and feel as if a more passive support roll was the proper way to play it (because you "needed" those healing spells to heal, and thus needed to keep them for when others started bleeding). The end result being a class that not very many people wanted to play. 3rd Edition tried to rectify this, by giving the Cleric more power, but ultimately that just lead to balance problems in extreme cases, with most playing the Cleric the same way it always had been. 4th Edition alleviated the need for a Cleric-healer, both by making it easier for a party to heal without any kind of healer, and adding way more official leaders (who are healers) to the class roster. Although Clerics themselves were still stuck in the leader role, at least they could now heal and shoot lasers or bash people's heads in at the same time. Making them both less desirable (from no longer being a necessity), and more desirable (due to being less passive) at the same time.
Before I get into what 5e did with Clerics, it's also necessary to note that Clerics have a heavy handed RP side of them as well. They are, well Clerics, and members of importance within their religion. Often sporting a direct connection to their patron deity (at higher levels). It sounds rather flavorful and evocative. Mind you, every class can worship a god, and in some settings everyone is encouraged to do so (looking at you, Wall of the Faithless), but in general, most don't get powers or connections as a result of it until splatbook bloat or DM fiat comes into play. However, the connection was quickly undercut by another class, their brothers in the cloth no less, Paladins. Paladins, while limited to only a handful of gods at first, have arguably an even stronger connection to their patron deity, and a more active roll in enacting their will. Later editions expanded the list of Divine spell-casters significantly, vaguely representing other types of religion. 4th edition went as far as homogenizing all divine casters into the same power source, implying that they were all more-or-less equal in their divine calling, and leaving the class itself to represent their roll in a party. All these classes getting power the same way attributed to the flavor of the Cleric being diluted.
Now that we are all caught up, it's time to talk about 5e and what's the deal with Clerics.
Clerics have an incredibly boring chassis. Distinctly middling in every capacity except for spell casting. They have one unique ability (Divine Intervention) that doesn't come online until level 10, and features an incredibly low chance of working to begin with. Channel Divinity is shared with every Paladin subclass. The subclasses are all over the place in terms of what they are supposed to be (like the gods they represent). This causes Clerics to vary too much. Unlike Fighters, who can always just pick up a shortsword can function at a competent level, you really can't pin down what a Cleric does. Some would argue that to be a good thing, as variety is nice. But really, without a unifying thread, the Cleric feels disjointed.
Taking a quick glance of their spells, they have a list that is arguably worse than their full caster piers, despite having a few of the numerically superior buffs and healing spells. They have no cantrip weapon support, and are lacking in attacking cantrips (at least until the UA spells become official, anyway). Also worth noting about their spell list, it is both expanded on, and poached on, depending on subclasses. But that just lends itself to the disjointed feeling.
I'm actually worried that Xanathar's Guide to Everything is only going to cause more problems for the desirability of the Cleric. Lots of the Subclasses from the UA articles we have reviewed over the last year have taken the theme of "servant of the gods" and applied it to even more classes. In 5E right now, the Paladin, Druid, Ranger, and even Warlock also cover that theme to various degrees. Opening it up even more classes will only give rise to the question "Why do we still have Clerics anyway?"
Firstly, it's important to establish that Clerics were a Hack Job from the start. They were implemented as a kind of patch, because one character from Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign, a vampire by the name of Sir Fang, was getting out of control. They created a Vampire-Hunter character, and added some ways to cure HP and Disease, as it was kind of a necessity at the time. And thus the Priest (who would be later become the Cleric) was born.
Being born of a Hack Job has tainted the class ever since. Getting stuck with all the healing spells made the class both "necessary" to smooth out the problems with HP management, and feel as if a more passive support roll was the proper way to play it (because you "needed" those healing spells to heal, and thus needed to keep them for when others started bleeding). The end result being a class that not very many people wanted to play. 3rd Edition tried to rectify this, by giving the Cleric more power, but ultimately that just lead to balance problems in extreme cases, with most playing the Cleric the same way it always had been. 4th Edition alleviated the need for a Cleric-healer, both by making it easier for a party to heal without any kind of healer, and adding way more official leaders (who are healers) to the class roster. Although Clerics themselves were still stuck in the leader role, at least they could now heal and shoot lasers or bash people's heads in at the same time. Making them both less desirable (from no longer being a necessity), and more desirable (due to being less passive) at the same time.
Before I get into what 5e did with Clerics, it's also necessary to note that Clerics have a heavy handed RP side of them as well. They are, well Clerics, and members of importance within their religion. Often sporting a direct connection to their patron deity (at higher levels). It sounds rather flavorful and evocative. Mind you, every class can worship a god, and in some settings everyone is encouraged to do so (looking at you, Wall of the Faithless), but in general, most don't get powers or connections as a result of it until splatbook bloat or DM fiat comes into play. However, the connection was quickly undercut by another class, their brothers in the cloth no less, Paladins. Paladins, while limited to only a handful of gods at first, have arguably an even stronger connection to their patron deity, and a more active roll in enacting their will. Later editions expanded the list of Divine spell-casters significantly, vaguely representing other types of religion. 4th edition went as far as homogenizing all divine casters into the same power source, implying that they were all more-or-less equal in their divine calling, and leaving the class itself to represent their roll in a party. All these classes getting power the same way attributed to the flavor of the Cleric being diluted.
Now that we are all caught up, it's time to talk about 5e and what's the deal with Clerics.
Clerics have an incredibly boring chassis. Distinctly middling in every capacity except for spell casting. They have one unique ability (Divine Intervention) that doesn't come online until level 10, and features an incredibly low chance of working to begin with. Channel Divinity is shared with every Paladin subclass. The subclasses are all over the place in terms of what they are supposed to be (like the gods they represent). This causes Clerics to vary too much. Unlike Fighters, who can always just pick up a shortsword can function at a competent level, you really can't pin down what a Cleric does. Some would argue that to be a good thing, as variety is nice. But really, without a unifying thread, the Cleric feels disjointed.
Taking a quick glance of their spells, they have a list that is arguably worse than their full caster piers, despite having a few of the numerically superior buffs and healing spells. They have no cantrip weapon support, and are lacking in attacking cantrips (at least until the UA spells become official, anyway). Also worth noting about their spell list, it is both expanded on, and poached on, depending on subclasses. But that just lends itself to the disjointed feeling.
I'm actually worried that Xanathar's Guide to Everything is only going to cause more problems for the desirability of the Cleric. Lots of the Subclasses from the UA articles we have reviewed over the last year have taken the theme of "servant of the gods" and applied it to even more classes. In 5E right now, the Paladin, Druid, Ranger, and even Warlock also cover that theme to various degrees. Opening it up even more classes will only give rise to the question "Why do we still have Clerics anyway?"
