D&D 5E (2014) Clerics and armor

[tuxgeo]

. . .
(Not getting the joke)

(That's a weapon, not armor. )

Probably just as well: it wasn't really much of a joke to start out with.
(Mainly, the joke is on me in the sense that Sailor Moon has little relation to D&D, and shouldn't influence the game's design more than a little bit.)

To stretch your point even further: Aside from the fact that the attack starts with S. Venus encircling herself with a glowing helix of chains, most of the art showing her wearing any of them are derivations, or fan art, or PGSM (live-action).

 

[Starfox]

I definitely want distinction between different priests/clerics - by domain or by making them different classes. So if they manage to do this in a good way, kudos to them. But make sure the clerics that can't use armor get something worthwhile in its place - either a different role (blaster/controller) or some magical defense that works out to about the same.

I don't want 2E's specialty priests back - because each specialty priest basically got about 1/2 of what a regular cleric got, with few real compensations. You had 2 choices, play a regular cleric, or gimp yourself.

 

[Kobold Stew]

So: more on Clerics.

I notice that the holy symbol is almost completely optional now.

It's in many of the standard equipment packets, but it seems only to be needed to cast Lance of Faith (unless, of course, you are also holding a weapon). So, it's only ACTUALLY required to cast the 7th level spell Destruction. So no need for a holy symbol until level 13.

Hmmm....

 

[Li Shenron]

So what do you think -- should all clerics have the same proficiencies? Are the differences they've introduced enough, or should there be more granularity? Is our human cleric a mistake? Should Lightbringers not have any armor proficiencies?

I am definitely a huge fan of the idea of clerics of different religions having different proficiencies, to the point that I'm starting to wonder how it would be to have the same applied to fighters of different styles, rogues of different schemes and wizards of different traditions.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am definitely a huge fan of the idea of clerics of different religions having different proficiencies, to the point that I'm starting to wonder how it would be to have the same applied to fighters of different styles, rogues of different schemes and wizards of different traditions.

It's entirely interesting, but could lead to a level of homogenization much like people complained about in 4e where everything was a "spell" just renamed to a "maneuver" or "prayer" or whatever. It would also require the creation of a great deal of orginizations for those classes that could be too world-connected.

 

[Sunseeker]

So: more on Clerics.

I notice that the holy symbol is almost completely optional now.

It's in many of the standard equipment packets, but it seems only to be needed to cast Lance of Faith (unless, of course, you are also holding a weapon). So, it's only ACTUALLY required to cast the 7th level spell Destruction. So no need for a holy symbol until level 13.

Hmmm....

Well, lets break it down.

What is a "holy symbol"? Traditionally D&D has represented it as a brooch-like object in size and design with a depiction of something representing your choice of faith or god.

But really all a "holy symbol" is is an object that has faith-related relevance. There's no real reason it needs to be a magic belt-buckle any more than it could be a hammer or a dagger or a scythe(a popular weapon among death-cults/gods).

Personally, the "holy symbol" should be treated like the Wizard's arcane-weapon bond.

 

[Herobizkit]

2e gave us Specialty Priests (via the Forgotten Realms setting) and Clerics of "concepts" (via the Complete Priest's Handbook) which varied armor and weapon proficiencies based on theme.

3e gave us the Cloistered Cleric (via the Unearthed Arcana) which is a more bookish, lore-focused Cleric. It also added the Knowledge domain for free. For me, THIS is what the Cleric class should have always been.

4e gave us "teh Cleric" which was the same no matter what God/dess you chose.

I think specialized patrons of God/desses is a great direction to go for 5e.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's entirely interesting, but could lead to a level of homogenization much like people complained about in 4e where everything was a "spell" just renamed to a "maneuver" or "prayer" or whatever. It would also require the creation of a great deal of orginizations for those classes that could be too world-connected.

A legitimate concern. I probably wouldn't suggest my own suggestion to the designers.

At least it won't probably be a problem if only some styles/schemes/traditions give some bonus proficiencies, which in fact we already have one example of! (check the Rogue's Assassin Scheme) I think it would be just fine to have e.g. an "Exotic Weapon Master" Fighter's Style which granted proficiencies in special weapons or a "Warmage" Tradition of Wizardry which granted proficiencies with some armors.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Well, lets break it down.

What is a "holy symbol"? Traditionally D&D has represented it as a brooch-like object in size and design with a depiction of something representing your choice of faith or god.

But really all a "holy symbol" is is an object that has faith-related relevance. There's no real reason it needs to be a magic belt-buckle any more than it could be a hammer or a dagger or a scythe(a popular weapon among death-cults/gods).

Personally, the "holy symbol" should be treated like the Wizard's arcane-weapon bond.

That's certainly one way to go.

If I were to "break it down", I'd frame it differently, though.

Here's one way that would make sense to me:

a. A Holy symbol is a non-consumable material component required for casting (all) Cleric spells.
b. A holy symbol must be wielded (i.e. it takes a hand).

These are just given as example, but they show the ways that a holy symbol could be implemented in a straightforward mechanical way.

I'm fine with getting rid of them entirely, though, but it does seem odd that it is presented as a part of the panoply of a cleric, but has no formal (mechanical) use. It's a great bit of flavour (however implemented), but it shouldn't just be cosmetic.

 

[Sunseeker]

That's certainly one way to go.

If I were to "break it down", I'd frame it differently, though.

Here's one way that would make sense to me:

a. A Holy symbol is a non-consumable material component required for casting (all) Cleric spells.
b. A holy symbol must be wielded (i.e. it takes a hand).

These are just given as example, but they show the ways that a holy symbol could be implemented in a straightforward mechanical way.

I'm fine with getting rid of them entirely, though, but it does seem odd that it is presented as a part of the panoply of a cleric, but has no formal (mechanical) use. It's a great bit of flavour (however implemented), but it shouldn't just be cosmetic.

Sure, if they're going to include it, it ought to be used. I'd be a nifty twist to give a holy symbol "charges" and you could periodically use it to replace the material component of a spell.

A legitimate concern. I probably wouldn't suggest my own suggestion to the designers.

At least it won't probably be a problem if only some styles/schemes/traditions give some bonus proficiencies, which in fact we already have one example of! (check the Rogue's Assassin Scheme) I think it would be just fine to have e.g. an "Exotic Weapon Master" Fighter's Style which granted proficiencies in special weapons or a "Warmage" Tradition of Wizardry which granted proficiencies with some armors.

Sure, you could roll a lot of "minor variant" classes into those kinds of "archetypes" for classes.