D&D 5E Divine Casters

[jrowland]

Every change made to cleric since OD&D has been to add more specificity in the form of abilities themed to a patron diety or focus of worship, and to attach them the central core of patching up hit points and status ailments.

I think the D&D cleric has an identity as a support character - healing, buffing, divining, usually heavy armor and a shield but not often heavy weapons. Currently, that identity informs the cleric chassis independent of domain - clerics of life, clerics of trickery, clerics of death, clerics of war, clerics of light, all have access to solid defenses, and healing, buffing, and divining ability. They protect and enhance their party members.

The game has made many strides in making other classes able to heal, and 5E is arguably the most...uh...liberal in that regard. As a result, that core identity is softened and so Domains pick up that slack.

If a player/DM/table want to add more specificity to the Cleric by creating specialized spell lists for each Domain I don't see that as a bridge too far. A Paladin, A Cleric of War, A Cleric of War with a specialized spell list, and a Fighter with the Acolyte background and the Magic Initiate (cleric) feat are all very similar, but they are also different enough not to worry about it.

If instead we renamed the Cleric the "Healer" class, made sure the domains/spell lists were different ways to buff/heal that would be better, IMHO. For example: War Clerics would heal and buff with attacks (splash heals, warlord-ish like abilities), Life Clerics would be the ultimate healer, Nature Clerics would heal with poultices and alchemy, Death clerics would heal by "life-tapping" enemies, for example. and so on.

That is, clerics would be better served as healers with different expressions of healing.

 

[TwoSix]

If instead we renamed the Cleric the "Healer" class, made sure the domains/spell lists were different ways to buff/heal that would be better, IMHO. For example: War Clerics would heal and buff with attacks (splash heals, warlord-ish like abilities), Life Clerics would be the ultimate healer, Nature Clerics would heal with poultices and alchemy, Death clerics would heal by "life-tapping" enemies, for example. and so on.

That is, clerics would be better served as healers with different expressions of healing.

To be clear, I have no problem with the cleric class being a healer/support character. I have an issue with the fact that the concept of divinity as a whole is associated with dispensing healing and protective magic to its agents, no matter the nature of the divinity in question. To my mind, stating that godly gifts = healing tells us something about the cosmology that doesn't make a good tonal fit with settings with gods of destruction, blacksmithing, and thunderstorms.

Edit: To be even more succinct, clerics = healing, and clerics = gods, but why does gods = healing?

 

[dmnqwk]

Since Arcane and Divine Magic has been diminished as a focus in 5th edition as well as Cure Wounds given away to many more classes, I feel 5th edition Clerics are lacking in a focus to make them an effective participant in combat. They can be amazing healers, granted, but I think they lack any semblance of offense in most situations.

I don't think Clerics receive enough offense to consider pruning their spell list advantages, not when you consider Wizards can theoretically buy scrolls to gain an overwhelming number of spells, but honestly in 5th edition I played a cleric and I just felt like I was playing a weak Bard (especially as Clerics lack any Healing Cantrip, even one limited to only healing players as a reaction, or up to half their health). Offensively Clerics bring little to the table with how damage stacks up and their Cantrip is among the worst out there, requiring a Dex saving throw instead of an attack roll is crazy in design.

I would be hesitant to try and fix the idea Clerics get utility in spellcasting until I fixed their offensive power level to bring something to the table to justify having one along instead of a Druid or Bard.

 

[jrowland]

Edit: To be even more succinct, clerics = healing, and clerics = gods, but why does gods = healing?

I suspect you know why, but just in case: Because that is the way the game has defined clerics as you logically point out (what I quote here): If A = B and A = C, therefore (logically) B = C.

Granted, it doesn't have to be that way, but it is.

Personally, I'd kill the cleric, create a "healer" class (because the game, if not the narrative, requires one) and add "god" archetype options for existing classes: (un)holy fighter, rogue, wizard, etc. What we classically call a cleric (OD&D, 1E) might be a paladin with the (un)holy archetype, or a (un)holy archetype Fighter, for example. A lot of newer cleric types (Life Domain, Arcane Domain) might be Healer with Holy archetype or a wizard with a holy archetype.

 

[TwoSix]

I suspect you know why, but just in case: Because that is the way the game has defined clerics as you logically point out (what I quote here): If A = B and A = C, therefore (logically) B = C.

Granted, it doesn't have to be that way, but it is.

Personally, I'd kill the cleric, create a "healer" class (because the game, if not the narrative, requires one) and add "god" archetype options for existing classes: (un)holy fighter, rogue, wizard, etc. What we classically call a cleric (OD&D, 1E) might be a paladin with the (un)holy archetype, or a (un)holy archetype Fighter, for example. A lot of newer cleric types (Life Domain, Arcane Domain) might be Healer with Holy archetype or a wizard with a holy archetype.

I agree with the fact that gods = healing because clerics heal and clerics worship gods. But I feel like that imposes a constraint on the cosmology that the standard mythology of a D&D setting strains against.

In my own 5e hack, I'll definitely be getting rid of clerics. But in my setting, the "gods" are objects of worship, myth, and tradition, but don't actually provide any real power.

I was noodling around with restricting clerics to elves, since clerical magic has always seemed rather "elfy" to me. And trancing being a meditation into a shared elven racial mind seemed a good way to justify every cleric having access to a shared set of magical effects.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Okay, to continue the complete side track, since 2E our group have NEVER just seen the cleric as a healer. To write it off as that would be a huge disservice. In fact with 2E spheres and our 3E descriptors we have many clerics that did not get the 'cure' spells.

I like the focused cleric that represents the actual sphere of dominion of the deity.

However, with this simple rule, this is the best of both worlds. The spell list is not enforced. You can keep healing in your choices, or you can discard them. Player's choice. There is still some specialisation through domains - it is up to the player if they wish to continue this focused spell list idea.

But I too have an issue with all gods = healing, so, no, a cleric is not only 'a healer' in my settings/our games.

 

[SkidAce]

Edit: To be even more succinct, clerics = healing, and clerics = gods, but why does gods = healing?

Because divine power is the manipulation of spirit, faith, and life energy, etc?

Just a way of looking at it.

 

[SkidAce]

Hmmm maybe the gods are "Lifeforce" style vampires....or devils...

 

[TwoSix]

Hmmm maybe the gods are "Lifeforce" style vampires....or devils...

View attachment 72478

Hmm...I could get attached to the idea of the gods as a channel for Life Force, or in specifically D&D terms, the Positive Material Plane. The gods exist at the juncture where the raw creative power of the Positive Material is shaped into conceptual form. If the Positive Material is the fire, the gods are the figures casting the shadows of their concepts (or portfolios, to D&D it up again) onto the cave. Since the gods all share the same origin and purpose, it makes sense that clerics access magic that's similar in function and form. And since the gods embody life and creation, it makes sense that their powers are so effective against the undead.

 

[dmnqwk]

For the number of spells I would've just used the Sorcerer level of spells known (not the bard, because theirs includes magical secret numbers which counteract the cleric domain bonuses). As for Paladins, they just use the spells known of the Ranger class (for numbers, this is, nothing else.)

I definitely agree creating a "spells known" system for divine casters would've been excellent in 5th edition, it's a lot of work on my druid to record all relevant information concerning every spell I could possibly cast, then to ignore 75% of them because they're so situation I can't usually plan for it!