Cleric lovers appreciation thread.


log in or register to remove this ad

Give me a cleric of war, magic, nature, or whatever else that isn't life.
I played an OA Shaman/Necromancer in one game who was essentially a houngan. I leaned into the martial arts (capoeira), spirits, etc. to up the flavor.

3.X really gave clerics & other divine casters a lot more mechanical & RP options.

Especially if you looked into 3rd party products, like Green Ronin’s Book of the Righteous.
 

I played an OA Shaman/Necromancer in one game who was essentially a houngan. I leaned into the martial arts (capoeira), spirits, etc. to up the flavor.

3.X really gave clerics & other divine casters a lot more mechanical & RP options.

Especially if you looked into 3rd party products, like Green Ronin’s Book of the Righteous.
Yeah. No edition can match 3e/3.5e for flavor and ability to make neat characters.
 

So what would be the point of playing a Wizard if a Cleric can do exactly the same thing?

Basically, what @Fenris-77 said.

Please note, I'm not coming at this from a DnD perspective. I don't like class based systems.

For me the difference between a cleric and someone of secular learning is just their attitude. The cleric has faith in some sort of higher being. The secular person does not. The powers they can access are very much the same, but perhaps limited by their interests and/or the tradition they follow.

For instance take my home brew HERO system. The magic is all based on the Laws of Magic. Different traditions emphasise different laws. So a priestly sorcerer* might focus on Names. An elementalist focus on the laws of Sympathy and Contagion. But there's no reason they have to, it's just the different academic traditions they've grown up in.

* I use sorcerer to refer to spellcasters generically.
 




I don't think I've ever run into a person, in real life, who dislikes the cleric. Maybe some criticisms of their balance in older editions, or the expectation they'll exist to just be a healbot, but never the class itself. That topic is....weird, from the little I read before dipping out.
Yeah. Most of the issues I hear brought up revolve around the 'have-tos' -- that in many-to-most editions you have to* have someone play the dedicated hp-restorer/negative effects remover; that in many-to-most of those your healer needs to be religion-themed; and so on.
*and yes, in nearly every edition you can theoretically have a party without a cleric with the right planning and risk limitation, you still understand the complaint, though.
 

I enjoy Clerics quite a bit. Historically my main preference for characters has been ones who can both fight and cast. While when I was younger I wanted more offense than Clerics usually provide, as I've seasoned I grew to appreciate the glory of saving someone's butt, of being in place with the clutch spell to help out another party member.

I don't think I've ever run into a person, in real life, who dislikes the cleric. Maybe some criticisms of their balance in older editions, or the expectation they'll exist to just be a healbot, but never the class itself. That topic is....weird, from the little I read before dipping out.
I've certainly played with lots of folks over the years who just didn't want to play them. Either due to flavor, or the sense that it's a class with inferior offense/butt-kicking/problem-solving ability compared to others, relegated to a support role and helping other people reactively with healing and restorative spells.

I'm sympathetic to Delta's arguments against having the class in old school D&D. I think I'd rather tweak it than remove it entirely, though.
 


Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top