And for all I'm a fan of (limited) at will casting for wizards, it shouldn't exist for clerics. The wizard commands power, the cleric asks for it. And one of the most emphatic ways of showing this would be to only give the wizard at will powers - you don't treat your god as a servant. (Druids are a special case half way beween cleric and wizard - channeling the forces of nature).
Hmm... how about the cleric not getting to choose what spells they get at all - but instead getting random spells off a table each time they recover spells (that they can convert to heal/harm a la 3.x). The random spells represent the whim of the Gods? In 3.x terms, say you either roll against or draw cards from four basic spells per level plus two domain spells for each domain (ignoring war) with caster's choice on a natural 10 and no spell on a natural 1 (reroll on a double). With the DM having absolute and explicit license to rig the deck any time the God would want to nudge things along.
Oh, man, that's an interesting angle. And I think it fits with certain oldschool possibilities regarding the DM assigning a Cleric's spells at will.
One way I've been looking at it, though, it that a divine caster's powers—coming as they do from an immensely powerful external source—should be
less limited than those of an arcane caster. The limits I'd use would be in terms of flexibility (so, divine casters would be limited to much shorter, inflexible, domain-centric spell lists) and
enduranace. That is, there's no limit to the power available to you, just in your ability to withstand it. So maybe you pay hit points when you cast, or make some kind of
True20-style fatigue check, something like that. Or, hell, maybe you've just got 3e Warlock-style invocations that you cast at will, supplemented by few bigger abilities that leave you drained, hurt, or somehow cursed after using them.
Not exactly. I see more redundancy between an unarmored divine caster and an unarmored arcane caster than I do between an armored divine warrior/caster and an armored divine caster/warrior. To my eye, there is more to distinguish the Paladin from the Cleric (at least in their traditional incarnations) than there would be to distinguish a Wizard from a Priest (at least as the idea of a Priest is presented by its proponents).
I think that's valid if arcane and divine magic work the same, as they typically have in the past. I'd really like to see that end, myself.
It is also noteworthy that the poll comes from rpg.net, which community's culture does not accurately reflect gamer culture at large. Note also the small numbers of voters involved in the poll.
I dunno, man. I'm actually seeing a surprising amount of accord as I ask this same question in different places. I don't know what you think gamer culture typically looks like, if not RPGnet. I've been all over, and that place seems like a good representative (albeit with better spelling than some other communities).
Additionally, it is worth pointing out that the third option in the poll pretty much includes the first option--people who want the Cleric and the Priest to be distinct classes obviously want to preserve the Cleric as the armoured warrior. Combine the totals of option 1 and option 3, and option 2 is clearly in the minority. Thus, I don't think I'd read too much into that poll's results.
Sure, I'm not saying there's a majority will to drastically change the Cleric, out there. I'm just surprised at how many people would be okay with it. It definitely seems clear that the correct, make-the-most-people-happy decision is to offer both martial and non-martial options, either through separate classes, builds, or themes.
