D&D 5E Cleric Houserules

[Li Shenron]

I had actually started work on splitting the cleric into subclasses independent of their domain. I had crusader (melee) and priest (caster) splitting the base cleric and a couple of others shaman and rune-priest. I should look up the work again and see how far I got with it.

If you take a different look at domains, it's already there.

You have the crusader archetype = War Domain, the sage/cloistered priest archetype = Knowledge Domain, and the healer archetype = Life Cleric, to cover the basics.

Then, try not to interpret the list of domains per deity too strictly. In fact, the deities list in the PHB even says suggested domains, not available domains, so there is no reason to think it is utterly forbidden for almost any deity to have healers, sages and crusaders (could be a more complicated to justify a Storm domain for many).

 

[Coroc]

Why not give 10 + CHA + WIS for the AC? I see no problems in that. It is not more powerful than monks or barbs unarmored defense.

 

[Einlanzer0]

If you take a different look at domains, it's already there.

You have the crusader archetype = War Domain, the sage/cloistered priest archetype = Knowledge Domain, and the healer archetype = Life Cleric, to cover the basics.

Then, try not to interpret the list of domains per deity too strictly. In fact, the deities list in the PHB even says suggested domains, not available domains, so there is no reason to think it is utterly forbidden for almost any deity to have healers, sages and crusaders (could be a more complicated to justify a Storm domain for many).

It is to a point, but I find it unsatisfying that it was done this way as I just don't see it as giving the cleric class the flexibility it should have. Look at how Wizards initially had the schools of magic as subclasses but have since evolved into incorporating different traditions like bladesinging and war casting.

Maybe all that's needed are just a couple of more radical subclass options that sort of untie the class from the domain concept, but I think there's a reason that hasn't been done already - it's just too baked into the class, which is represented by how they choose a Domain at 1st level. Sorcerer is the only other class that's designed this way - but that's for obvious reasons. If feels arbitrary with the cleric, and I think that was a design mistake.

What's needed is a cleric/priest class that can serve not only any number of gods' portfolios, but any number of religious/spiritual archetypes in a much broader sense.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't know that they "dropped the ball" on Cleric design, but looking through the subclasses in the PHB I found it odd that certain domains gained heavy armor proficiency, such as Life, Nature, and Tempus. IMO as far as the PHB goes, I can only really seeing the War Domain, and the Forge Domain from XGtE makes since given working with metal at a forge. For most of those domains, I think the medium armor proficiency is sufficient.

So, it does place an unfair burden on those domains to have a high enough STR to utilize the heavy armors, when otherwise STR might not be a concern.

Faith Armor is a nice way to implement the protection of other domains where heavy armor really isn't in the flavor of the typical concept. However, whether you use CHA or WIS, I would still make it partially DEX dependent since it is a combat feature and variants of unarmored defenses still rely on DEX, along with another ability score.

 

[NotAYakk]

Faith Armor is a nice way to implement the protection of other domains where heavy armor really isn't in the flavor of the typical concept. However, whether you use CHA or WIS, I would still make it partially DEX dependent since it is a combat feature and variants of unarmored defenses still rely on DEX, along with another ability score.

That is one of the reasons I want to drop DEX.

DEX can be used for saves, attacks and initiative. It is really strong.

By making it WIS+CHA instead of WIS+DEX, we in effect make this ability worse for a combat character.

Now, DEX+CHA vs WIS+CHA is more interesting. But DEX+CHA makes the feature a tempting dip for CHA casters who also want to use DEX for weapons, which isn't rare (every bard). WIS+CHA is a pair of stats that nobody uses for an attack/defend pair. I mean, maybe you could build a hexblade ranger cleric triple dip that uses wis for casting?

And it does open up a strong Cleric|Hexblade.

 

[Undrave]

I don't know that they "dropped the ball" on Cleric design,

I don't think they dropped it, certainly not as bad as the Ranger, but they sure as heck fumbled a bit. I think they didn't went far enough with the design to make an INTERESTING class instead of a functioning one.

They went too traditionalist by not looking further than Domains. Same thing I would say with Wizards and their Schools. (I think they should have conflated all the School Specialists into one subclass with options instead of 8 nearly identical ones, giving us room for more out of the box Wizard subclasses,but that's for a different thread).

 

[NotAYakk]

I don't think they dropped it, certainly not as bad as the Ranger, but they sure as heck fumbled a bit. I think they didn't went far enough with the design to make an INTERESTING class instead of a functioning one.

They went too traditionalist by not looking further than Domains. Same thing I would say with Wizards and their Schools. (I think they should have conflated all the School Specialists into one subclass with options instead of 8 nearly identical ones, but that's for a different thread).

So a Mage class with a Wizard subclass who has Schools.

A Priest class with a Cleric subclass who has Domains.

Now, interestingly, you can do this retroactively. That is one avenue for a "5.5", where they reword the existing base classes into subclasses. 4e did this with "essentials" in a sense. (note that they didn't do a great job in 4e with the essentials retroactive subclasses, but that doesn't mean this approach isn't possible to do well)

That permits existing 5e characters to continue to work exactly as before, but opens up a new design space.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That is one of the reasons I want to drop DEX.

DEX can be used for saves, attacks and initiative. It is really strong.

By making it WIS+CHA instead of WIS+DEX, we in effect make this ability worse for a combat character.

Now, DEX+CHA vs WIS+CHA is more interesting. But DEX+CHA makes the feature a tempting dip for CHA casters who also want to use DEX for weapons, which isn't rare (every bard). WIS+CHA is a pair of stats that nobody uses for an attack/defend pair. I mean, maybe you could build a hexblade ranger cleric triple dip that uses wis for casting?

And it does open up a strong Cleric|Hexblade.

DEX became strong because of things that were added to it:
1E: AC, missile attacks, initiative bonus to missile attacks only and surprise, some saves at DM discretion IIRC
2E: AC, missile attacks, initiative bonus for all, surprise, again... some saves IIRC
3E: AC, missile attacks, initiative bonus for all, surprise (?), finesse weapons, saves (did it modify Reflex?, I don't recall...)
5E: AC, missile attacks, initiative bonus for all, finesse weapons, DEX save

CHA is becoming the same way with all the classes so dependent on it and I don't like seeing yet another feature based on it. You are basically tying non-physical ability scores to a physical thing like combat. Now, a character can have a great defense and dump DEX as well as STR?

Given Paladins already use CHA, I could more see them having a DEX + CHA combo for unarmored defense.

At any rate, with your logic Wizards should have a AC of 10 + DEX + INT to represent their use of logic, tactics, and quick thinking to make them hard to hit. Where does it end? I can argue just about any combination and just remove armor from the game.

Anyway, of course try out whatever variant you like. I like the concept, I am just sure about the execution.

I don't think they dropped it, certainly not as bad as the Ranger, but they sure as heck fumbled a bit. I think they didn't went far enough with the design to make an INTERESTING class instead of a functioning one.

They went too traditionalist by not looking further than Domains. Same thing I would say with Wizards and their Schools. (I think they should have conflated all the School Specialists into one subclass with options instead of 8 nearly identical ones, giving us room for more out of the box Wizard subclasses,but that's for a different thread).

Yeah, I completely agree with that.

So a Mage class with a Wizard subclass who has Schools.

A Priest class with a Cleric subclass who has Domains.

Now, interestingly, you can do this retroactively. That is one avenue for a "5.5", where they reword the existing base classes into subclasses. 4e did this with "essentials" in a sense. (note that they didn't do a great job in 4e with the essentials retroactive subclasses, but that doesn't mean this approach isn't possible to do well)

That permits existing 5e characters to continue to work exactly as before, but opens up a new design space.

Sure, subclassing Wizard (school-focused) and Cleric could work. But then again you could subclass Barbarian, Ranger, etc. into Fighter, and so on until you have just the basic four classes.

To me all that is needed is a bit of tweaking with some of domains. For many of us, IMO, the traditional "cleric" is the War Domain as the front-liner type from 1E. It would be nice if the other domains more strongly focused in other directions. I think you've hit that on the head, no doubt!

 

[NotAYakk]

DEX became strong because of things that were added to it:
1E: AC, missile attacks, initiative bonus to missile attacks only, some saves at DM discretion IIRC
2E: AC, missile attacks, initiative bonus for all, again... some saves IIRC
3E: AC, missile attacks, initiative bonus for all, finesse weapons, saves (did it modify Reflex?, I don't recall...)
5E: AC, missile attacks, initiative bonus for all, finesse weapons, DEX save

CHA is becoming the same way with all the classes so dependent on it and I don't like seeing yet another feature based on it. You are basically tying non-physical ability scores to a physical thing like combat. Now, a character can have a great defense and dump DEX as well as STR?

Those things are already on DEX.

A character with heavy armor proficiency can dump DEX and STR already. Just wear some mithril plate.

Given Paladins already use CHA, I could more see them having a DEX + CHA combo for unarmored defense.

I'm not certain there is a "unarmored Paladin" archtype. I mean there was the 4e Avenger?

At any rate, with your logic Wizards should have a AC of 10 + DEX + INT to represent their use of logic, tactics, and quick thinking to make them hard to hit. Where does it end? I can argue just about any combination and just remove armor from the game.

I'm trying to make a viable unarmored cleric who has "armor of faith". The reason I'm removing DEX is both it already being a super-stat, and because the "old man who is protected by a diety" who doesn't dodge is worth emulating; the "cleric who dodges but has faith in protection" is a different archtype that admittedly works better for the avenger-paladin 4e "assassin librarian".

And if we where making a Swordmage 4e defender type, AC of 10+DEX+INT could be an appropriate ward. It would be stronger than mage armor (AC 13+DEX).

Although in 5e, I might give them free mage armor, and a limited number of free castings of Shield that last an extra round (!) per short rest. It models something similar, but does it with 5e-ish mechanics.

Sure, subclassing Wizard (school-focused) and Cleric could work. But then again you could subclass Barbarian, Ranger, etc. into Fighter, and so on until you have just the basic four classes.

Yes; OTOH, I consider Ranger to be a hybrid Trickster|Warrior, Paladin to be a Priest|Warrior, Warlock to be a Trickster|Sage. (where the 4 core class concepts are Warrior, Priest, Sage and Trickster).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Those things are already on DEX.

A character with heavy armor proficiency can dump DEX and STR already. Just wear some mithril plate.

I'm not certain there is a "unarmored Paladin" archtype. I mean there was the 4e Avenger?

I'm trying to make a viable unarmored cleric who has "armor of faith". The reason I'm removing DEX is both it already being a super-stat, and because the "old man who is protected by a diety" who doesn't dodge is worth emulating; the "cleric who dodges but has faith in protection" is a different archtype that admittedly works better for the avenger-paladin 4e "assassin librarian".

And if we where making a Swordmage 4e defender type, AC of 10+DEX+INT could be an appropriate ward. It would be stronger than mage armor (AC 13+DEX).

Yes; OTOH, I consider Ranger to be a hybrid Trickster|Warrior, Paladin to be a Priest|Warrior, Warlock to be a Trickster|Sage. (where the 4 core class concepts are Warrior, Priest, Sage and Trickster).

They are on DEX now, hasn't always been that way as I pointed out. Finesse weapons are the greatest offender to making DEX too strong IMO. We play finesse can apply to attack rolls, but not damage, STR still mods damage, even for missile attacks.

So, your answer is magic plate? Mithral is only under magic items... so not very common IMO.

I know what you are trying to do, I just don't agree with it. A priest who relies on faith to protect him and doesn't work to protect himself (i.e. DEX) is going to get hit and die.

Now, if you wanted to create a feature similar to Warding Flare, where you could get a temp boost to AC or impose disadvantage, that would be better. Even the Bladesinger's AC boost from INT is temporary. The War Mage's Arcane Deflection requires a reaction for a +2 AC bump. But a permanent feature, especially one that removes dependence on DEX in combat, is too strong.

Still, you do you and let us know how it works.

The "swordmage" is basically the bladesinger, just for non-elves.

Yes, Trickster or Rogue or Scoundrel, same difference IMO. And mage, not sage, since a priest can easily be a sage. As others have said in the past, you can pair it down to nothing but caster vs non-caster.