Does anyone miss the generic cleric?

[diaglo]

Actually, 3 alignments and races as classes was Basic D&D, not Original D&D - there were some differences even there. Original D&D is a creature that is half a stride between AD&D and Basic D&D.

3 alignments. Law, Chaos, and Neutrality

dwarves although not a class in OD&D were fighting men only...so in essence they were more similar to Basic. same with elves with regards to magic-user and fighting men. and hobbits with fighting men.

 

[Henry]

players in my campaign...pre-Supplement IV.

(SNIP)
so as each player built his character they took on a role much different from any other. yet mechanically they could appear similar.

Once again proving that the mechanics are not as important as what the people are doing with it.

3 alignments. Law, Chaos, and Neutrality

dwarves although not a class in OD&D were fighting men only...so in essence they were more similar to Basic. same with elves with regards to magic-user and fighting men. and hobbits with fighting men.

Doh - I forgot - I was thinking the mechanics from Blue Cover were the same in White Box. I stand corrected in my correction!

The Dwarves and Elves and Halflings still weren't "classes", though they functioned like them. I'll still never figure out what Gary's thought processes were with the whole "Elves are mages this week, and fighters next week" thing, though...

 

[diaglo]

Once again proving that the mechanics are not as important as what the people are doing with it.

true. my original statement was after experience with gaming with non-Original D&Ders over the last three years and with visiting various message boards. i honestly have finally seen the same character repeated.

I'll still never figure out what Gary's thought processes were with the whole "Elves are mages this week, and fighters next week" thing, though...

wargaming...go reread your Chainmail booklet.

you set up to wargame one session at a time. and it made sense so you didn't forget what class you were playing that session. to pick one at the beginning so all involved would know.

 

[Ranes]

true. my original statement was after experience with gaming with non-Original D&Ders over the last three years and with visiting various message boards. i honestly have finally seen the same character repeated.

Fair comment. And I don't have a problem with your (or anyone else's) favoured edition. In fact, because you're the only person here who regularly carries the flag for oD&D (and I know that edition ), I actually think these boards are better for the voice in the wilderness you add to them. But even if the release of 3rd edition did coincide with your initial exposure to such a thing as a 'generic' cleric, to attribute it to any edition, after playing any version of the game for twenty-six years, is just a little disingenuous on your part, I think.

 

[diaglo]

Fair comment. And I don't have a problem with your (or anyone else's) favoured edition. In fact, because you're the only person here who regularly carries the flag for oD&D (and I know that edition ), I actually think these boards are better for the voice in the wilderness you add to them. But even if the release of 3rd edition did coincide with your initial exposure to such a thing as a 'generic' cleric, to attribute it to any edition, after playing any version of the game for twenty-six years, is just a little disingenuous on your part, I think.

i can only honestly relate my own experience.

i could guess at others, but it doesn't make it true.

 

[WizarDru]

i can only honestly relate my own experience.

i could guess at others, but it doesn't make it true.

And I'm not telling you your experience is wrong, but it certainly doesn't match mine. What I am saying is that the idea that, mechanically, OD&D clerics were less generic than 3E clerics is a logical fallacy. That you play with unimaginative minmaxers and then use examples of creative non-rules clerical character RPing only reinforces my point. That has nothing to do with the game, and everything to do with the gamers.

My experience with every edition of D&D has proven that to be true. The cleric and the fighter of OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D all were the same, and still very highly tied to their initial wargame conceits, as Henry and other note examples of above. I took a pass on 2e, as did every gamer I know, but I understand that specialty priests and some kits allowed for a level of variety that was quite satisfying to most. With 3e, you can make your cleric or fighter as varied as you desire. Now you have the option to build sub-optimal characters, instead of inventing role-playng reasons for them.

My cleric of Fharlangan is nothing like one of my player's clerics, who follows Pelor, neither of which are like another player's cleric of Boccob. My cleric is closer to a ranger, a travelling naturalist who cares for travellers. The follower of Pelor is a holy man, noble and expert on destroying the undead, which an emphasis on politics. The cleric of Boccob is almost a wizard, touchy, secretive and even slightly avaracious. The biggest difference between OD&D and 3e versions of them would be that under 3e, they are also MECHANICALLY different, not just different under some self-imposed RP restrictions.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

One thing I don't like about the 3E cleric (which another poster mentioned) is that they all get heavy armor. A less militant cleric should at the very least be able to swap heavy armor proficiency for a less combat oriented feat, IMO.

 

[Ranes]

I owe it to the original poster to balance out my posts with a topical thought or two. Generic - in the sense I infer from the original post - and godless clerics have served me well both as a player (though I never played a cleric, there has always been a cleric player in my game) and, to a lesser extent, me as a DM, especially when I've run games in which players worried about the abilities of evil demigod-worshipping adversaries far more than the question of which philosophy or deity the party cleric followed.

You can still play that way. What's to miss?

If you get to stage where your party's cleric is an existentialist NPC, you have the ideal opportunity to introduce possession or corruption campaign twists with minimal risk of the players catching you at it.

 

[diaglo]

What I am saying is that the idea that, mechanically, OD&D clerics were less generic than 3E clerics is a logical fallacy. That you play with unimaginative minmaxers and then use examples of creative non-rules clerical character RPing only reinforces my point. That has nothing to do with the game, and everything to do with the gamers.

we always looked at it like if it's not explicity in the rules we can do it so it fits the campaign. which in turn meant it was in essence in the rules already.

we, the players and the referee, played together to create the campaign and the fun. most of the ideas came from the players. while i dealt with giving them a challenge to overcome and roleplaying the NPCs/monsters.

that was our OD&D game.

i have found many if not most of the new edition players would rather have it in the books. and for them to show to the DM. (ie...no imagination). i have also found that this requires me to spend alot of time playing catch up on rules (not the ideas, but the page numbers and references)...even though, i'm just a player. ergo...i'm here, WotC, MonteCook, etc...just reading rules already poorly written or interpreted.

 

[WizarDru]

we always looked at it like if it's not explicity in the rules we can do it so it fits the campaign. which in turn meant it was in essence in the rules already.

So all this time, you've been arguing how your house-rules and free-form play were better than 3e? Yikes.