Clerics: Essential Class or Sacred Cow?

[Pale]

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).

But really, couldn't you say the same thing of Paladins, or any other rigid thinkers within a group? Do all Clerics have to be rabid fanatics with agendas handed down to them by their god(s)? Or isn't it more realistic to think of them as going out into the world to find where they can further their own god's agenda without a checksheet of accomplishments that "NEED BE DONE" handed to them during their daily oblations?

 

[Delta]

Clerics are a problematic class. Mechanically: Indispensible (due to healing in-game). Archetypally: Very poor fit for medieval fantasy.

The archetype in most fantasy would be a healer who doesn't fight, wear armor, carry heavy weapons, or use blasting spells (which doesn't resemble the D&D cleric at all). The additional problem is that clerics have shifted from Christian priests (OD&D) to pagan pantheistic agents, the only kernel class to make a shift so radical (requiring supplement "deity" books) which demonstrates what an uncomfirtable fit they are in the rest of the medieval fantasy setting.

More: http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2007/03/class-trouble-ii-clerics.html

 

[kaomera]

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

ZOMGswiped...

Seriously, tho. You can play D&D without any / all of the classes. It's not the same thing (as playing with them), but that's usually the point.

 

[Imp]

But really, couldn't you say the same thing of Paladins, or any other rigid thinkers within a group? Do all Clerics have to be rabid fanatics with agendas handed down to them by their god(s)? Or isn't it more realistic to think of them as going out into the world to find where they can further their own god's agenda without a checksheet of accomplishments that "NEED BE DONE" handed to them during their daily oblations?

Sure! But paladins are an extremely optional class. Clerics aren't, and on top of that, the default archetype is that they are members of a religious organization and representatives of a real and active god, things that ought to tilt the decision-making in a party heavily in their favor, except that since the class is so necessary for D&D parties to function, people are used to making a wide swath of counter-assumptions to relegate the cleric to humble little healbot, groping along with a band of sword-wielding hoboes in the hope that enough cure spells for their friends will make a positive difference in the world.

Unless you rationalize it away, the whole point of a cleric is they have the power of a god and a mission from a god. This is built-in. No other main class has a built-in mission. And I think this sort of archetype would be more powerful if it wasn't assumed that every group has to incorporate one, and thus developed various subtextual ways for ignoring the cleric's mission.

I mean, in a quasi-medieval setting, a cleric is going to be a saint or a prophet. Maybe on a small scale, whatever. These types do not tag along behind strongarms. I would think at the very least the presence of a cleric would change the direction of a group.

 

[Ferrum]

The campaign in which I play has a Magiocracy that assassinated all the gods 700 years ago. It wasn't a big deal to us, being the rebels who were attempting to resurrect the gods, and having a druid play healer during the interim. However, the DM ran some side games where we play low level members of the opposition, and the lack of healing quickly became a problem.

So, let me pimp is system: Nareau's house rules for heal checks

He gave the heal skill to wizards, and it worked out quite well.

 

[Felix]

Warlock Lord,

It seems you assume the characters, and everyone else, knows what class they are. So a character trains in the army; he doesn't think, "I'll take a level of Fighter", he thinks, "I want to get better at fighting". Similarly, a character classed as a Sorcerer can be an ordained priest, though he can't heal or turn undead; a bard may pass himself off as a powerful Wizard, and who would gainsay them?

Class levels, PrCs, HD, etc are metagame knowledge, and thus completely unknown to the character, or anyone immersed in the story of the action.

You say "All wizards can heal", but as the reader of these stories we are only privy to in-game knowledge. We don't know if Gandalf is a Wizard, Druid, or Cleric. We don't know if the Grey Mouser is a Fighter/Rogue, or a Bard, or a Rogue/Wizard. Even if they use a specific term like, "Sorcerer", we can fairly easily say that the term is not a game-term but an in-game appellation.

The Point: don't equate literary terms with game terms.

In every fantasy story, the wizards/sorcerors/arcanists of the land can heal injuries.

Hyperbole.

A character classed with levels of Cleric can call himself a wizard.
A character classed with levels of Druid can call herself a witch.
A character classed with levels of Bard can call himself a sorcerer.

You now have literary precident for wizards, witches, and sorcerers healing people, even though it has nothing to do with their class levels.

--------------

Is it essential that a class be able to heal? Yes.

Are the arcanist classes powerful as-is? Yes.

Would granting arcanist classes healing ability make them more powerful? Yes.

Would seperating the healing ability from arcanists make them less powerful? Yes.

Get the drift?

-------------

By the by, it seems ironic that you seemingly condemn classes as "Sacred Cows" that exist merely by virtue of having existed in the past, and then go on to cite past precident which you think should be followed... which if it were, could very easily be ridiculed as a "Sacred Cow". Why? Because it's merely a continuation of what happened in the past. Hmmm.

 

[hong]

Warlock Lord,

It seems you assume the characters, and everyone else, knows what class they are. So a character trains in the army; he doesn't think, "I'll take a level of Fighter", he thinks, "I want to get better at fighting". Similarly, a character classed as a Sorcerer can be an ordained priest, though he can't heal or turn undead; a bard may pass himself off as a powerful Wizard, and who would gainsay them?

Class levels, PrCs, HD, etc are metagame knowledge, and thus completely unknown to the character, or anyone immersed in the story of the action.

You say "All wizards can heal", but as the reader of these stories we are only privy to in-game knowledge. We don't know if Gandalf is a Wizard, Druid, or Cleric. We don't know if the Grey Mouser is a Fighter/Rogue, or a Bard, or a Rogue/Wizard. Even if they use a specific term like, "Sorcerer", we can fairly easily say that the term is not a game-term but an in-game appellation.

The Point: don't equate literary terms with game terms.


Hyperbole.

A character classed with levels of Cleric can call himself a wizard.
A character classed with levels of Druid can call herself a witch.
A character classed with levels of Bard can call himself a sorcerer.

You now have literary precident for wizards, witches, and sorcerers healing people, even though it has nothing to do with their class levels.

... or you could just let wizards, witches and sorcerers cast healing spells. Seems to save an awful lot of trouble.

 

[Nyeshet]

We already have some arcane healing in the bard and some PrCs for wizards and sorcerers. I see no problem with moving the healing spells over to the arcane list - or, better yet, consolidating the spell list so that nearly all spells can be learned by nearly any caster. (I can see the clerics, if they still exist as a class, perhaps getting in their domains a set of "unique to this domain" spells.) If you are uncomfortable with arcane healing, move all the healing spells up a level or two. Also, allow the Heal skill to also cure some hp.

Now, we no longer need a cleric class for healing, and second line combative classes are a dime a dozen so we no longer need the cleric class for that either. In such a situation, I can see clerics existing still, but they would be wizards and sages and sorcerers and warlocks who attribute their ability to cast to deities rather than to themselves.

The Cleric is truly a sacred cow of D&D, but I see no problem with removing it - or at least relegating it to second tier (such as the warlock, spellthief, and other post-core book classes).


Hmm, actually it would be interesting to play in a game where all healing spells were raised a couple levels and the Heal skill was the only means of healing hp at lowest levels. Could be a bit more gritty, but should also be a bit more interesting to play. Maybe it would encourage more strategy in combat from those that prefer rushing in to hack and slash?

 

[green slime]

No, no, no! Not that cow!

Sheesh. If you want something done properly, you have to do itself around here!

g'dang'nambit.

 

[Midknightsun]

Honestly, I've seen more than a few d20 systems even that pretty much dispense with the cleric and spread healing abilities out among several other classes. Arcana Evolved comes to mind, for one. It has actually worked very well. Healing magic was less powerful overall, but you don't have a class that is all but a "must have" in a group. (as in, the dynamics and effectiveness of the group changes radically if you don't have one) Various other characters can take on that role when needed, and "Priest" becomes something you may call yourself, but is not in and of itself your class.

Or there's systems that completely throw out the idea of healing magic (for the most part) like Iron Heroes. The tweaks it applies also work out just fine.

And I'm sure there are several others. But I suppose my feeling are that the Cleric could easily be stripped down and split out, or removed entirely from a fantasy system. I think this also keeps one character from being pushed into the role of the less than gratifiying heal-bot.

I'll admit, its a personal preference of my own to see the cleric disappear from D&D, but I think its far too iconic to the game for that to ever happen in anything other than a variant system. Of course, Like I said, many of those other systems seem to work just fine.