Iconic D&D Clerics (Blog)

[DEFCON 1]

This could make it possible for potential new players to "just play a cleric" for several levels while allowing the experienced player to start customizing just after creation, but both start at the same point.

You don't even need to hotwire that evolution into the game. It seems like both concepts will exist using the exact same framework, so you could play the generic cleric an entire campaign, a specialty cleric the entire campaign, or evolve a generic cleric into a specialty one at some point.

What is the generic Cleric? The archetypical Cleric?

It's a specialty priest that has all the stuff from the optional character generation modules pre-bought. That's all. Rather than each level the player getting some feats to spend for example... they get assigned standardized 'cleric abilities'. While Turn Undead might be one of several clerical features the specialty priests of specific gods might be able to select... for the archetypical Cleric class, they get it automatically (the assumption being it got selected 'behind the scenes' by what would have been a feat slot had it been built from the ground up using other chargen modules). Same with chain armor proficiency. Maybe specialty priests could spend a feat to get it (if that's how they chose to spend one of their feats), whereas the Cleric just gets it as part of the class.

And you can do this across the board. Despite some people saying that having 'race as class' versions of the dwarf, elf and halfling was a bad idea... it actually seems extremely simple to do. For the Elf, you pre-build an elf fighter/wizard multiclass (using the race and class modules as needed) and you call this pre-built package the Elf class. And it could match up pretty well the Elf from Basic. You can also have this type of Dwarf (dwarf fighter pre-build), Halfling (halfling rogue pre-build) and the generic Fighter, Thief and Wizard (human fighter, thief, and wizard pe-builds respectively).

So the game can include these Basic-esque 'quick and easy' character classes for players to select if they want them... but can easily put the more advanced character generation rules right after so that players could make specialty builds that aren't like the archetypical ones as wanted.

This is what having a solid design can get you. Things that can look and play simple, even if everything under the hood is more advanced than you realize (thus being more likely to retain game balance since they are built using the same rules as 'advanced' characters would be.)

 

[CleverNickName]

In my sandbox 3.5E game, I allow sorcerers and wizards to choose the spell list they want to use (bard, cleric, druid, or sorcerer) at first level. Regardless of which list they choose, the spells are considered to be arcane spells, and bonus feats, school specialization, spontaneous casting, familiars, etc., all remain the same.

It has done wonders for spellcaster versatility.

If someone wants to play a "righteous warrior" type of character, the Paladin or the Cleric is the obvious choice. But if someone wants to play a "cloistered priest" or an "academic healer" type of character, they choose the Wizard or Sorcerer class and use the cleric's spell list. Want an academic, druid-like "eco-mage" who studies earth magic? How about a Professor of Music Studies at the local Mage Guild? All covered.

I've considered giving the Ranger the same treatment, for players who want a lot of combat and just a splash of magic. But so far, nobody has expressed any interest in that idea.

 

[drothgery]

In my sandbox 3.5E game, I allow sorcerers and wizards to choose the spell list they want to use (bard, cleric, druid, or sorcerer) at first level. Regardless of which list they choose, the spells are considered to be arcane spells, and bonus feats, school specialization, spontaneous casting, familiars, etc., all remain the same.

It has done wonders for spellcaster versatility.

If someone wants to play a "righteous warrior" type of character, the Paladin or the Cleric is the obvious choice. But if someone wants to play a "cloistered priest" or an "academic healer" type of character, they choose the Wizard or Sorcerer class and use the cleric's spell list. Want an academic, druid-like "eco-mage" who studies earth magic? How about a Professor of Music Studies at the local Mage Guild? All covered.

Well, if your players are so into role-playing that they'd actually do this, that's one thing; otherwise, anyone who wants the cleric list or the druid list will just play the cleric or druid, who can cast just as many spells and has much better other abilities.

 

[CleverNickName]

Well, if your players are so into role-playing that they'd actually do this, that's one thing; otherwise, anyone who wants the cleric list or the druid list will just play the cleric or druid, who can cast just as many spells and has much better other abilities.

True...and it makes some pretty interesting NPCs as well.

But not every D&D game uses the default setting, and a DM might not want wild-shaping, armor-wearing, primal druids in his campaign. (Maybe he wants druids to be more like those in the "Shannara" books.) Rather than drop the Druid class outright, the DM could make the Druid class a variant of wizard or sorcerer instead. (See also: bard, cleric.)

Interchangeable spell lists are a simple way to add many layers of versatility. I hope that the 5E rules allow this kind of modularity. It would solve the "problem" of the armor-wearing, mace-wielding cleric, anyway.

 

[PTHoorah]

You don't even need to hotwire that evolution into the game. It seems like both concepts will exist using the exact same framework, so you could play the generic cleric an entire campaign, a specialty cleric the entire campaign, or evolve a generic cleric into a specialty one at some point...

... This is what having a solid design can get you. Things that can look and play simple, even if everything under the hood is more advanced than you realize (thus being more likely to retain game balance since they are built using the same rules as 'advanced' characters would be.)

This is what I want. WOTC can create and present a cleric and priest class that is fully playable as is. But, they should also let us under the hood so we can take the "divine power class" (or whatever) and fine tune it through options/powers/skills/themes to what we want our divine power character to be.

This should work across all the core classes. If I'm playing a wizard and at 5th level I'm supposed to get a familiar and I don't want one, I shouldn't just lose out. I should have something else -- lots of something elses -- to choose from. And if I'm a fighter hitting 5th level and I want a dog familiar/companion, I should be able to get one. Or if I'm a thief that wants a dog (or a rat). The core wizard class could get a familiar/companion at 5th level. But that should also be an option available to any class at 5th level, and the wizard should have other options should they not want this one. (Later level options could modify this ability, providing telepathy, or combat options, or shared senses. This could be built into core for a ranger class, and used for the paladin and mount. But if a player wanted the bond between a character and companion to be a defining part of that character, and become supernatural as the character leveled up, then that should be allowed for all classes.)

For this to work, the options/powers/feats need to represent the character as a whole, not just the character in combat. In 4e, the options were almost all combat driven. Usually they were picked based on how you wanted your character to play in combat. If the options -- even the combat specific ones -- are more character centric, then even if they aren't perfectly balanced, some players may select less optimum options because it's evocative of the character they want to create. (Example for combat options: if you could only use a Split the Tree type power with a bow, but a slightly different power existed if you were armed with two crossbows, or two ranged weapons; or if a burst 1 type attack that let you hit everyone adjacent was slightly different if you were armed with two weapons then if you were armed with a two-handed weapon, and not available if you were armed with only one one-handed weapon. Then attack powers would be selected based on how the player pictured their character, not which did the best damage. I would hope.)

 

[gyor]

What set of domains for priests would you like to see them start out with? More the merrier, but some ideas are passion, sun, moon, war, alignment, Arcane, Shadow, nature, Lore, creation, Sin, thieves, just for starters.

 

[tuxgeo]

What set of domains for priests would you like to see them start out with? More the merrier, but some ideas are passion, sun, moon, war, alignment, Arcane, Shadow, nature, Lore, creation, Sin, thieves, just for starters.

"alignment"? How did that get in there? Alignment isn't a priestly domain, it's a railway station.
(Or was that Rugby that isn't a school, it's a railway station? I forgets, now. . . .)

Start with these: Air, Animal, Chaos, Death, Destruction, Earth, Evil, Fire, Good, Healing, Knowledge, Law, Luck, Magic, Plant, Protection, Strength, Sun, Travel, Trickery, War, Water.

If it pleases you to do so, also add: Artifice, Charm, Community, Creation, Darkness, Liberation, Madness, Nobility, Repose, Rune, Weather.

If you want to go really crazy, toss in: Balance, Cavern, Celerity, Craft, Drow, Dwarf, Elf, Family, Fate, Gnome, Halfling, Illusion, Mentalism, Metal, Moon, Ocean, Orc, Portal, Renewal, Retribution, Slime, Spell, Spider, Storm, Suffering, Time, Trade, Tyranny, and Undeath.

.........,.........,.........,.........,

Here, I'll add a "homebrew" domain just to spice things up a bit:

The GOODALE Domain (for Clerics of Fermentation):
1. Create Malt (to a supply of grain, apply water and darkness over time)
2. Dry Hops (hang 'em high)
3. Boil Water (not excessively difficult)
4. Pitch Yeast (toss the yeast atop the malt, hops, and boiling water)
5. Wall of Kegs (decant into manageable containers)
6. Lager Time (let the stuff age for more than a week)
7. Bottlecapping (for off-site sales)
8. Power word, wort (because I could, for bragging rights)
9. Bejoinder's Public House (instant tavern in-a-spell)

 

[gyor]

Some ideas for domains Fertility, Far Realms/Abberations, Song, and Revenge.

 

[Aeric]

In my experience, clerics (healers) are the one core class that is essential to every party.

You can run a game without a fighter; just throw weaker monsters at the party.

You can run a game without a rogue; just minimize the number of locked doors and traps between the party and their goals.

You can run a game without a wizard; cut out any problems that can only be solved by magic (scrying, levitation, etc.).

However, unless you run a game with no combat, or load the party up with potions and wands of healing, you will always need a healer.

What I would like to see in 5E is the removal of a need for a dedicated healer in the party. Healing surges were a step in the right direction. In my nearly 30 years of playing D&D, cleric has always been the least popular class. I've often found myself playing a cleric because "someone has to."

What is it about clerics that makes them so unpopular? Is it the "servant of a god" fluff? Or is it the support nature of the character? In a lot of settings, paladins are considered servants of a god, and they are popular because they are proactive heroic types. Clerics can't really charge forward and be heroic because, if the cleric falls, who's going to heal the party? The cleric is the Designated Driver of the D&D party. Everyone else gets to charge in and have fun, while the cleric waits in the back to pick up the pieces afterward.

No one class should be essential to the group. The presence of a cleric should be a bonus to the party, instead of its absence being a penalty. I think the simplest way of doing this is to rig up a new mechanic for regaining HP like healing surges and second winds, possibly even remove Cure spells entirely. The cleric becomes a caster of buffs, utility spells, and the occasional Remove Affliction (neutralize poison et al.) spells. Still a support role, but if the cleric is feeling frisky and wants to swing his mace for a while, he can. Nobody ever died from the lack of a Bull's Strength spell.

 

[Janaxstrus]

In my experience, clerics (healers) are the one core class that is essential to every party.

You can run a game without a fighter; just throw weaker monsters at the party.

You can run a game without a rogue; just minimize the number of locked doors and traps between the party and their goals.

You can run a game without a wizard; cut out any problems that can only be solved by magic (scrying, levitation, etc.).

However, unless you run a game with no combat, or load the party up with potions and wands of healing, you will always need a healer.

What I would like to see in 5E is the removal of a need for a dedicated healer in the party. Healing surges were a step in the right direction. In my nearly 30 years of playing D&D, cleric has always been the least popular class. I've often found myself playing a cleric because "someone has to."

What is it about clerics that makes them so unpopular? Is it the "servant of a god" fluff? Or is it the support nature of the character? In a lot of settings, paladins are considered servants of a god, and they are popular because they are proactive heroic types. Clerics can't really charge forward and be heroic because, if the cleric falls, who's going to heal the party? The cleric is the Designated Driver of the D&D party. Everyone else gets to charge in and have fun, while the cleric waits in the back to pick up the pieces afterward.

No one class should be essential to the group. The presence of a cleric should be a bonus to the party, instead of its absence being a penalty. I think the simplest way of doing this is to rig up a new mechanic for regaining HP like healing surges and second winds, possibly even remove Cure spells entirely. The cleric becomes a caster of buffs, utility spells, and the occasional Remove Affliction (neutralize poison et al.) spells. Still a support role, but if the cleric is feeling frisky and wants to swing his mace for a while, he can. Nobody ever died from the lack of a Bull's Strength spell.

Pre-3x, I would agree, Clerics were unpopular. However we have managed to have at least 1 if not more Healer types as CHOSEN, rather than "welll I guess I play the healer" in every campaign. Between Spirit Shaman, Favored Souls, Clerics and Druids, some sort of healer is always one of the first choices.