Clerics: Essential Class or Sacred Cow?

[WarlockLord]

Why in the world do we have clerics? The archtype isn't common in fantasy. However, they are the only ones with healing magic.

Now, why can't wizards heal? In every fantasy story, the wizards/sorcerors/arcanists of the land can heal injuries. Now look at D&D. They can't (except for synostodweomer, which is quite weak and requires a high level), unless they imitate clerics (arcane disciple). Now, not many people want to play a cleric. Why not get rid of the cleric, give healing spells to the wizard, and introduce a skill that allow for efficacious healing?

 

[Crothian]

I've read fantasy in which the wizards didn't heal so it is not "every fantasy story".

Clerics represent the servants of the gods and that is not all that an uncommon archtype. Sure not all of the ones in fantasy are shown to have spells and everything the D&D cleric has but that doesn't make the archtype any less important.

 

[T. Foster]

Cross-posted from the "Rogues: Essential Class or Sacred Cow" thread:

The problem with literary models for the D&D cleric is that the role the class serves (glorified medic who provides healing and support but can also be a second-line fighter when necessary) is much more necessary in a game than in literature (where the author doesn't have to keep track of his protagonist's hp total). It's not hard to find saint/holy man/miracle-worker archetypes in myth and literature, but they don't look much like D&D clerics -- they aren't "adventurers," they don't fight, and they certainly don't go delving into dark caves looking for treasure. The knights hospitalers, St. Martin of Tours, Bishop Odo (depicted in the Bayeux tapestry), Archbishop Turpin (from the Song of Roland), Friar Tuck (perhaps) -- that's about it for fighting/"adventuring" holy men in myth/history, and significantly all of those are more post-hoc rationalizations for the D&D cleric class than archetypal models -- I find it hard to believe that anyone actually comes into the game thinking "I want to play someone like St. Martin of Tours" (which is also, presumably, why the cleric class is so famously unpopular among players, despite being overpowered (at least in AD&D and 3E)).

Therefore, I think the D&D cleric class is also a sacred cow that the game could survive without, at least archetypally. Mechanically you'd have to spread out the cleric's healing abilities to other characters -- include a first aid/chirurgery skill that anybody can use for "light" healing (hp recovery) and add an expert medic/surgeon class (mostly NPCs) who can perform more elaborate healing (cure blindness, disease, poison, re-attach severed limbs, etc.) and create healing potions and poultices; with that, the actual holy man class (ability vs. undead, resurrection and all of the other non-healing cleric spells) would become, essentially, a variant/specialty magic-user (i.e. without any assumed/inherent combat focus) and would have a much stronger and more familiar archetype. Somebody who wanted to play a "traditional D&D cleric" would do so by combining levels of fighter and holy man (and perhaps surgeon).

 

[WarlockLord]

True, but many wizards can. The amount of positive energy spells available to the wizard would make one wonder why they haven't developed healing (disrupt undead, positive energy burst, greater disrupt undead, doesn't seem to be any kind of positive energy inepititude).

 

[interwyrm]

Sacred Cow. Desecrate it.

You don't need a class for 'holy men' with spells. Instead you have a wizard who has dedicated himself to the deity of his choice. The healing spells make sense in that regard...

Stuff like prayer, bless, holy aura, blasphemy etc. make a little less sense from a wizard though.

 

[Pale]

It might be a sacred cow, but I really like the class. To me, it's just another casting class with a different spell list. Not to mention they're one of the most versatile classes in the game.

I say we just rename the class and don't tell anyone they're the same.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Just give the rogue a wand of cure light wounds and you don't need a cleric.

 

[Pale]

Just have the Cleric worship a god of thievery and you don't need a rogue.

Easy-peasy.

 

[Imp]

Yeah, because that's what you want in a default setting: all thieves are cultists.

My issue with the cleric/priest role is not that it exists but that it's such a non-optional standard in adventuring groups who so rarely are performing any particularly pious deeds, when it would seem that anybody who actually represented the power of a god would naturally dominate the direction of a party (if not, perhaps, personally being the most powerful member of a group). It would be nice if recovering hit points, at least - which usually mostly represent ablative luck - were a lot easier for characters to accomplish out of combat. But one of the hard things about removing the cleric is then you have to stare into the abyss of what hit points are when coming up with replacement mechanics for party regeneration.

I think I would like it if Turn Undead and the various Divine feats were made more broadly available, so that any class could tap into the benefits of strong faith or the favor of the gods.

 

[Pale]

Isn't a Thieve's Guild much like a cult anyway?

Tithing. Check
Devotion to a central figure. Check
In-fighting and politics to advance within the organization. Check

And, of course, I couldn't be joking to rebut the previous poster, could I?

This is all pretty damned silly, anyway. As I said in the other thread: Why look to remove options from a class-based system? It's already restrictive enough as it is being class and level based.