Do non-spellcasting, non-adventuring priests exist in D&D?

[underthumb]

I've always had the impression that D&D worlds (e.g. Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc.) are populated by at least some non-adventuring priests that are incapable of casting spells. These priests tend to flocks and officiate over rituals, but little else. However, recently I spoke to someone who did not have this impression at all. He stated that all priests of a given church can cast spells.

Is he right? Am I right? Help me with my confusion.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You are correct. Not only do non-spellcasting priests exist, they make up the overwhelming majority of priests in D&D's default and major settings. (This is explicit in 4E and in 3E Eberron, but it's at least implicit in other settings as well.)

 

[Thanee]

In Keep of the Shadowfell (the first 4E adventure) there is one such priest.

She does know rituals, though, but no spells, prayers or such.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Psion]

I don't know of any FR or generic D&D products that play it that way. Eberron does have a heavier focus on non-adventuring-class NPCs.

I do know some Story Hours (Sepulchrave's) and some third party products (Auran d20) that assumed that some or most of the clergy were actually experts.

 

[justanobody]

Priest/cleric is a class and gets all class abilities including casting spells.

If you want a "friar" or something that preaches the gospel of Umberlee but does not cast spells, then you can do so with any NPC you want.

Not all NPCs need to have a PC class.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Priest/cleric is a class and gets all class abilities including casting spells.

Not quite.

Cleric is a class.

Priest is simply a title of someone's position.

While many players use "priest" and "cleric" interchangeably, the rules do not. Someone can be a priest without being a cleric.

 

[Psion]

While many players use "priest" and "cleric" interchangeably, the rules do not. Someone can be a priest without being a cleric.

Hmmm. I seem to remember one of the completes described a mage as a full (i.e., 9 spell levels) arcane casting class and priests as any full divine casting class.

EDIT: I guess not. CArcane distinguishes between mages, arcanists, and the like, but no mention of priests.

 

[justanobody]

Not quite.

Cleric is a class.

Priest is simply a title of someone's position.

While many players use "priest" and "cleric" interchangeably, the rules do not. Someone can be a priest without being a cleric.

Check all the editions again real quick. (Yeah druids are also priests of nature)

Point being... a classed character should get all those class skills. A non-classed character doesn't need any of them.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hmmm. I seem to remember one of the completes described a mage as a full (i.e., 9 spell levels) arcane casting class and priests as any full divine casting class.

While I don't recall that particular reference, even if it's the case, it's vastly overwhelmed by the number of references that use "priest" as a generic title, without reference to class or level.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Check all the editions again real quick. (Yeah druids are also priests of nature)

I don't have any real interest in bringing 2E into this discussion. Unless someone specifies otherwise, I tend to assume they're playing either the latest edition, or at least the most recent OOP edition. IOW, either 3E/3.5 or 4E.

If you want to start arguing definitions throughout every edition, there's absolutely zero common ground on which to discuss, since NPC rules and habits changed dramatically throughout.