D&D 5E How I would have done the Priest/Cleric class differently with Hindsight

[wingsandsword]

I just wish there was also a priest class. A divine wizard, essentially.

The closest there has been to that in D&D, that I am aware of, would be the Archivist class in D&D 3.5e.

It lost the heavy armor proficiency, and the undead turning, for more knowledge-based abilities and a bigger skill list and more skill points, and it had intelligence-based casting and needed a prayer book (a renamed spellbook) to cast from the Cleric spell list.

It was pretty literally a "divine wizard", and I found it fit the "parish priest" archetype better than the typical Cleric class.

 

[GlassJaw]

Some cool ideas in this thread. I love this kind of discussion - bringing more customization to 5E - and there has certainly been a lot of discussion on it.

When you see a lot of design work that begins to overlap, it means that a) a lot of people are thinking along the same lines and b) it's probably good design.

It illustrates that 5E (because of bounded accuracy and a host of other reasons; the UA articles have given a lot of insight as well) is ripe for an a la carte character creation system. The lines between the classes have been already been blurred (arcane vs divine for example) and abilities across the board are extremely modular. Balance is so much easier with 5E's core mechanics and numeric scale.

So when I hear "mystic" I think light armor, simple weapons, full caster, mix of druid and cleric spells, combination of abilities from the Knowledge domain and wizard Divination school but without turn undead or channel divinity, etc, etc. Could even sprinkle in some monk or nature abilities. It's so easy in 5E and I wouldn't be worried about balance at all.

The hard work is a) coming up with a universal progress path for all classes and b) categorizing and organzing every single ability.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm sure there are Cleric and Priest revamps on DMs Guild that will suit people's needs if they do not wish to design them themselves.

 

[Horwath]

I would like much stronger separation of spell lists. I think that common cleric spells should be the least, and domains should be the primary. I've seen too many clerics of various gods that all gravitate to the same "best" spells like Spirit Guardians, Spiritual Weapon, etc.

I'd hate to bring all casters together and see everything echoing the best spells for even less differentiation. Because in the real world, players pick the best spells. Which makes sense - in world you want to pick the spells that work best for you.

with more spell list, you will see more and more useless spells.

As spells will be written so you will get some illusion of choice and diversity, when in reality you have none.

There will always be the "go to" spells, but if you split too much all the spells into too much spell lists/class, there will be classes that will just get glanced and be forgotten because of bad spell list.

I do not see a problem with every caster having cure wounds and fireball.

Domain/specialization is enough to make them diverse.

Caster who has a divine connection with a deity that has healing domain might get +2 healing per spell level of all healing spells and pyromaniac mage might get +1 damage per damage die of fire spells.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When was the last time you saw a RW Priest or Cleric in armour?

I agree with everything else you're saying but this point is spurious. Clerics don't exist in the real world. RW Priests aren't magic-users (not in any D&D sense anyway). That's like saying "When did you last see a Beholder in RL?!" to justify Beholders not being in your game. It makes no sense.

As for the general point re: armour, if you have some Cleric subclasses not having armour, that is going to need to be balanced somehow. Currently only one two classes in 4E who don't have armour by default - Wizard and Sorcerer. They also both have d6 HP, limited weapons, and better access to offensive spells, particularly ranged damage ones. It's also problematic because the main class' armour access is the base for the subclasses, so the Cleric would need to go having no armour as a base, and subclasses all adding it. This would be a bit of a nightmare.

That's why the suggestion of two separate classes is a lot better. Cleric, which we could leave alone, frankly - perhaps just add one "Generic" domain (name it however) which offered generic Cleric abilities roughly equal to the specialized ones. Then you have another class, probably called Invoker or Priest something like like that, and that has a base of zero armour, and better access to offensive spells like a Sorcerer/Wizard.

 

[Undrave]

4e had the Invoker that fit the Divine Wizard idea better >.>

 

[Horwath]

I agree with everything else you're saying but this point is spurious. Clerics don't exist in the real world. RW Priests aren't magic-users (not in any D&D sense anyway). That's like saying "When did you last see a Beholder in RL?!" to justify Beholders not being in your game. It makes no sense.

As for the general point re: armour, if you have some Cleric subclasses not having armour, that is going to need to be balanced somehow. Currently only one two classes in 4E who don't have armour by default - Wizard and Sorcerer. They also both have d6 HP, limited weapons, and better access to offensive spells, particularly ranged damage ones. It's also problematic because the main class' armour access is the base for the subclasses, so the Cleric would need to go having no armour as a base, and subclasses all adding it. This would be a bit of a nightmare.

That's why the suggestion of two separate classes is a lot better. Cleric, which we could leave alone, frankly - perhaps just add one "Generic" domain (name it however) which offered generic Cleric abilities roughly equal to the specialized ones. Then you have another class, probably called Invoker or Priest something like like that, and that has a base of zero armour, and better access to offensive spells like a Sorcerer/Wizard.

having a "mage" access to all spells and armour might not be a problem when you combine it with d6 hit die and make a variant that all armor needs min str and fullplate needs 18.
And somewhere sorcerer-like spells known amount. plus any of domain spells known as a bonus.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Grace Domain

Sample abilities (not saying all of these, in this order; this is just a brainstorm):

• Cast Sanctuary on yourself as a ritual. You cannot do this if you are wearing armor or holding a weapon other than your spell focus, and the effect is canceled if you do either.
• Domain spells
  • Sanctuary, healing spells, protection spells, etc. Maybe Shield. Nothing that would be game-breaking combined with....
  • ...when not wearing armor, you may cast your domain spells as a bonus action.
• You may cast mage armor at will.
• When casting a spell on a willing target (or targets), choose one of the following (probably not have the entire list):
  • Re-roll any 1's or 2's on dice that you roll
  • Double the duration
  • Grant temp HP equal to your twice your level (or something)
  • If it's a concentration spell, get Advantage on any concentration checks
  • Make a (something) roll. If successful the spell slot is not expended
• You know the light cantrip, if you don't already. When (something bad happens) to an ally who is brightly illuminated by your light cantrip, as a reaction you can (do something cool). After you use this ability (x times?) you must take a (long|short) rest before using it again.
• Dispel magic (x/rest) without consuming spell slots.
• Advantage on saving throws against necromancy.
• Channel Divinity: negate various conditions from allies (exhaustion, poisoned, madness?)
• "Chastise": not sure how this works, but I'm picturing the scene in Blues Brothers where the nun starts smacking Elwood and Jake. You go all Mother Superior on an enemy, who must pass a saving throw or is so thoroughly cowed that its attacks have disadvantage, plus some other penalties.

 

[Blue]

with more spell list, you will see more and more useless spells.

As spells will be written so you will get some illusion of choice and diversity, when in reality you have none.

There will always be the "go to" spells, but if you split too much all the spells into too much spell lists/class, there will be classes that will just get glanced and be forgotten because of bad spell list.

I do not see a problem with every caster having cure wounds and fireball.

Domain/specialization is enough to make them diverse.

Caster who has a divine connection with a deity that has healing domain might get +2 healing per spell level of all healing spells and pyromaniac mage might get +1 damage per damage die of fire spells.

Domain/specialization is not enough to make them unique right now. Putting more go-to spells on their common lists will not increase that fact.

I do not find your assertion without supporting evidence to be compelling. Please give reasons why domain/specialization spells that no one takes because the common lists have all of the top spells will be enough differentiation instead of just stating that it will be.

 

[DammitVictor]

What's wrong with Domains, besides the weird implementation? My only issue with it is that I wish Clerics had gotten two of them, like in 3.X.