I never "got" the Cleric

[wingsandsword]

Within the framework of D&D, this novice priest is going to be a 1st level Cleric with the ability to use certain weapons, wear armor and have access to certain spells.

Part of my objection is the fact that the ability to wear heavy armor is not something that would plausibly be learned by somebody not specifically training for war.

In 3.x, only 3 out of 11 core classes get Heavy Armor Proficiency: Fighters, Clerics, and Paladins. Most other classes have abilities that would suffer if they took the feat (only exception I can think is Druids, if they could get a non-metallic heavy armor). It's a 3-feat chain.

Also, I know from real-life experience that wearing armor takes some getting used to. Knowing how to wear light armor is quite plausible for anybody. In d20 Modern they consider biker's leathers and football helmet & padding to be examples of light armor. I am a peace officer, and sometimes on duty I wear a bullet-resistant vest under my uniform (of a kind that d20M would call medium armor. It's a little awkward, but you get used to it after a while. I am also in the National Guard. The body armor worn as combat gear by the modern US soldier would probably count as heavy armor (reenforced wraparound vest with inch-thick ceramic plates on the front and back, a kevlar helmet, and hard-shell elbow and knee pads). Getting used to wearing that "full battle rattle" takes some time and effort, and in Basic Training you spend a decent amount of time just wearing it around for training to get you used to wearing it. After probably a couple dozen days (at least) spent wearing that armor on an everyday basis during the 10-week span of Basic Training, you're fairly able to move around in it and shoot accurately in it (the concept of armor-check penalties to your to-hit rolls for nonproficient armor made complete sense to me after going to the firing range the first time in full armor, you spend about a week going to the range every day learning to shoot while wearing armor)

To me, heavy armor proficiency denotes that somebody has engaged in fairly extensive and dedicated training in the wearing of armor for a period of weeks of wearing it everyday, or otherwise racked up a couple-hundred hours or so in armor. Are all fantasy seminaries (or apprenticeships at local temples) supposed to throw this in as part of the training?

Also, I don't expect D&D to emulate the many fantasy books I read growing up. Trying to make D&D fit into those molds is just an exercise in frustration.

I'll fully admit that D&D is its own creature with its own quirks, but it was also put together out of bits and pieces of a lot of fantasy and historic elements. Races from Tolkien, Arcane Magic from Vance, Paladins and Trolls from Anderson, Monks from 70's Kung Fu films, Barbarians out of Howard, Thieves out of Lieber's Lankhmar series, Clerics from the Song of Roland, ect.

I think it's not unreasonable to want D&D to be able to be able to make a somewhat plausible imitation of most mainstream fantasy fiction or pretty much any historic era (2e AD&D had a great series of sourcebooks on how to refit D&D to any era from the ancient world to the Renaissance). . .especially since D&D was pieced together from bits & pieces of .

D&D presumes that everyone has had some training of some sort.

Does it now?

Sorcerers, and Wilders (if you're using Psionics) are innate in nature and untrained in their power. I've seen many Rogues/Thieves that had a background of being a street urchin or petty crook that learned as they went. Do Barbarians have to go to Barbarian Academy or have a Barbarian apprenticeship before they can Rage? If you're using Warlocks, then once you make that initial pact, it's just something you can now do.

Some classes imply training, some more than others. Wizards obviously require training. Monks strongly imply training too, Druids probably have had at least some mentoring (to learn the Druidic language if nothing else). On the other hand, Barbarians, Sorcerers and Wilders are things that people just do. Thieves/Rogues or Fighters can go other way, with learn-as-you-go or some kind of apprenticeship.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IMO, that's just two different sides of the same coin.

How so?

One is a volunteer (usually), one is drafted (usually).

One is a member of the clergy and the faith's hierarchy, the other- special though he is- is not a member of the clergy and has no hierarchical authority.

One can perform all the sacred rituals of the faith, the other cannot.

 

[David Howery]

I always thought that the 1E/2E cleric was a basically good character idea, but needed a LOT of modification by the DM. Basically, they should have been tailored to the deities in his campaign. If the local god of war carries a spear, then let his clerics carry a spear (it would be rather sacriligeus not to). Some spells would be forbidden to some clerics. Etc. Basically, I always thought of them as not so good for a 'lazy' DM....

 

[Kunimatyu]

It's too late now that we have D&D's historical precedent, but I strongly prefer to just have Magic-Users, who may get their powers from study, heritage, or perhaps a deity/patron. You could also have a hybrid class with some fighting training and some magic.

I've often wondered if in 3.5/PF, you could just give wizards and sorcerers access to cleric/druid spells and drop the divine classes altogether. I suspect it wouldn't break anything at all.

 

[Loonook]

Clerics need a higher die so they can survive just a bit longer. Personally I have never played a Cleric with heavy armor, but to each their own... Also don't think I've run more than a few full-metal-clerics as a DM of quite a few campaigns.

I just don't see the problem. Because a character can do it they should do it? Seems silly that the Cleric must be overpowered because it has heavy armor proficiency because as we know all fighters wear full heavy armor all the time .

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[wingsandsword]

It's too late now that we have D&D's historical precedent, but I strongly prefer to just have Magic-Users, who may get their powers from study, heritage, or perhaps a deity/patron. You could also have a hybrid class with some fighting training and some magic.

I've often wondered if in 3.5/PF, you could just give wizards and sorcerers access to cleric/druid spells and drop the divine classes altogether. I suspect it wouldn't break anything at all.

That's more-or-less what Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved did with its Magister class.

As for actual D&D, the Mystic class from the 3.5e Dragonlance Campaign Setting was essentially a slightly modified Sorcerer:

Sorcerer except:
Increase HD to d8's
Add Light and Medium Armor Proficiency and Shield Proficiency
Wisdom-based casting from Cleric spell list
1 Cleric Domain (Granted ability plus bonus domain spell per day)
Add Knowledge: Religion and Knowledge: Nature to the skill list.
Swap out Bluff for Diplomacy and Heal on the skill list.

If they take Sun Domain they get Undead Turning per Cleric as special ability instead of 1 Greater Turning per day.

Personally, I think that would work quite nicely as a general-purpose Priest class that isn't specifically from a militant order. Some people have complained it's less powerful than Clerics, presumably because they have to take a specific domain to get undead turning, don't get heavy armor, and only get one domain. I never saw it as much of an issue to be honest.

 

[MGibster]

Part of my objection is the fact that the ability to wear heavy armor is not something that would plausibly be learned by somebody not specifically training for war.

You and I might be getting hung up on the word novice. I see a cleric as having received the training to fight (wear armor, swing a weapon, etc., etc.) but at 1st level he's still a novice. Just like a soldier who finishes basic training is still a novice. I don't think of a novice as someone who literally has no training.

Are all fantasy seminaries (or apprenticeships at local temples) supposed to throw this in as part of the training?

In D&D, it would appear so. Or maybe they have tutors from outside the church who teach new clerics. Or, alternatively, maybe it's some sort of divine knowledge. Like how Paul Atreides already knew how to put on a still suit even though he had never worn one in his life.

I think it's not unreasonable to want D&D to be able to be able to make a somewhat plausible imitation of most mainstream fantasy fiction or pretty much any historic era (2e AD&D had a great series of sourcebooks on how to refit D&D to any era from the ancient world to the Renaissance). . .especially since D&D was pieced together from bits & pieces of .

I'm not quite sure how to answer this. I think it's unreasonable to expect D&D to do certain things unless you're willing to fiddle around with the rules. When I want a different fantasy gaming experience I play something besides D&D. When I want something besides a literary Arthurian game I play something besides Pendragon.

Sorcerers, and Wilders (if you're using Psionics) are innate in nature and untrained in their power. I've seen many Rogues/Thieves that had a background of being a street urchin or petty crook that learned as they went.

You know, learning it as they went sure sounds like training to me. Training doesn't have to come in the form of a formal school or setting. I assume the Sorcerer practiced how to use magic and has it all under control by 1st level. I assume the Warlock made a pact with some force that taught him how to cast his spells. I never thought much about the Barbarian but I figure someone taught him how to focus his rage into something useful.

Of course that's just how I look at it.

 

[Rogue Agent]

I don't recall it featuring anything resembling the D&D cleric...

That's nice. But completely irrelevant. Mike Mornard, on the origins of the cleric:

"Then there was Dave Arneson’s first miniatures/roleplaying campaign. Some players were ‘good guys’ and some players were ‘bad guys’ and Dave was the referee.

One of the ‘bad guys’ wanted to play a Vampire. He was extremely smart and capable, and as he got more and more experience he got tougher and tougher.

This was the early 70s, so the model for ‘vampire’ was Christopher Lee in Hammer films. No deep folklore .

Well, after a time, nobody could touch Sir Fang. Yes, that was his name.

To fix the threatened end of the game they came up with a character that was, at first, a ‘vampire hunter’. Peter Cushing in the same films.

As the rough specs were drawn up, comments about the need for healing and for curing disease came up.

Ta da, the “priest” was born. Changed later to ‘cleric’."

The origin point of the D&D cleric is literally the character of Van Helsing.

Like pretty much everything in D&D, the class was transformed as it moved from its pulp origins to game mechanics. But the closer you stick to the pulpy origins of the character (holy warrior who gets a little "help from above"), the more sense the class makes sense. The more you try to think of them as ordained priests, the less sense the class makes.

Personally, in my campaign, most clerics had little or no connection to the official hierarchy of the church. At best, they're like U.S. Marshals in the Old West: Vested with some official recognition from the church, but mostly free agents.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I never thought much about the Barbarian but I figure someone taught him how to focus his rage into something useful.

All it takes is throwing some armor in the annoying ill-tempered teen before the big battle, giving him a big axe and telling him to charge. If he comes back alive (to everyone's surprise and/or annoyance), he's the tribe's new berserker. He'll train himself.

 

[DEP]

Remember the origins of the class: one of the Blackmoor players had a vampire character called Sir Fang, so another player invented a character based in part on Dracula's Van Helsing: a scholarly monster-hunter. Gary then added the medieval religious trappings to the class. But as a monster hunter, the character would use religious lore only as a tool; the goal was to destroy the undead, not to spread or protect the faith. So those spells weren't necessarily granted by a deity; they were the same kind of spells used by magic-users, only from religious sources.