Iconic D&D Clerics (Blog)

[Janaxstrus]

The problem is that traditionally, Paladins aren't really effective substitutes for Clerics as party healer. So either they break with tradition and give Paladins full (or near full) Cleric healing, or there's no true melee divine healer, which is also a break from tradition.

Tradition aside, I think there's enough difference between Paladin, and melee Cleric, to justify having both.

This is true, but I would rather see the Paladin expanded in spellcasting (as it's not what I would consider a strong class to begin with) than add an entirely new priest class. Make give them some support, buff and healing, but not the stuff like divine power/righteous might type spells.

I think Pathfinder started going the right way with the cleric, toning down their martial feel a little, and would like to see 5E/Next/whatevs go a little farther into removing some of the things they do that trample the fighter. If you make them a medium/poor bab (or whatever the new mechanic is) and keep them in light or medium armor, but let them have access to the divine powers, they can go toe to toe in a pinch, but won't be outright repalcing the standard fighter.

 

[JohnSnow]

The original cleric is based off of Van Helsing from Stoker's Dracula and was actually created to counter a powerful vampire pc in Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign.

Other good cleric models from Appendix N fiction are the Roger Bacon character from John Bellairs' Face in the Frost and Brother Parvus from Poul Anderson's High Crusade.

Funny, I don't remember Van Helsing casting spells.

I've never read the other two books you mention. Does either one of them actually make use of divinely-granted magical powers? And if so, which ones?

 

[Sunseeker]

What is the thematic/story difference between a paladin and a cleric? Aren't these both essentially holy warriors?

That depends largely on what edition you're asking about.

 

[paladinm]

Clerics can be of any alignment, depending on the deity they serve. Paladins were (originally) unique in that they were Only lawful good. And in OD&D, paladins did Not have any spellcasting abilities, nor could they turn undead; but they could "dispel evil" pretty much at will.

3.5 gave options for a non-spellcasting paladin. I could just about support this, being the grognard that I am, as long as paladins could still heal, dispel/smite evil, etc.

I personally loved specialty priests in 2e, as they seem to fit more of the "real life" priest roles of history. The only time there were seriously-armored-and-armed priests were in the Crusades; and one could argue that those guys were more paladins (if only they were lawful good.. sigh)

From a Christian/ Biblical perspective, a priest should be modeled after a prophet/ apostle type. St. Francis in plate mail? I don't think so..

 

[Quickleaf]

That depends largely on what edition you're asking about.

It's an open question, no particular edition or game system in mind. How do you differentiate clerics and paladins in your campaign for example?

Clerics can be of any alignment, depending on the deity they serve. Paladins were (originally) unique in that they were Only lawful good. And in OD&D, paladins did Not have any spellcasting abilities, nor could they turn undead; but they could "dispel evil" pretty much at will.

3.5 gave options for a non-spellcasting paladin. I could just about support this, being the grognard that I am, as long as paladins could still heal, dispel/smite evil, etc.

Yeah that's all the mechanical differences between them...

I personally loved specialty priests in 2e, as they seem to fit more of the "real life" priest roles of history. The only time there were seriously-armored-and-armed priests were in the Crusades; and one could argue that those guys were more paladins (if only they were lawful good.. sigh)

From a Christian/ Biblical perspective, a priest should be modeled after a prophet/ apostle type. St. Francis in plate mail? I don't think so..

This is more what I'm chasing. I think the holy man concept (what Bruce Cordell dubs the "priest") is a great archetype, provides thematic distinction from paladins, and suggests how the class might work mechanically.

OTOH if we want mace wielding chain wearing warrior type clerics, how are they differentiated - in terms of theme, archetype, and story - from a paladin?

 

[Gryph]

Clerics can be of any alignment, depending on the deity they serve. Paladins were (originally) unique in that they were Only lawful good. And in OD&D, paladins did Not have any spellcasting abilities, nor could they turn undead; but they could "dispel evil" pretty much at will.

3.5 gave options for a non-spellcasting paladin. I could just about support this, being the grognard that I am, as long as paladins could still heal, dispel/smite evil, etc.

I personally loved specialty priests in 2e, as they seem to fit more of the "real life" priest roles of history. The only time there were seriously-armored-and-armed priests were in the Crusades; and one could argue that those guys were more paladins (if only they were lawful good.. sigh)

From a Christian/ Biblical perspective, a priest should be modeled after a prophet/ apostle type. St. Francis in plate mail? I don't think so..

How about a Godi (should have a funny norse character) of Odin? Dedicated to his god and expected to lead his men into combat. Where do the old testament prohpets fit in? Moses may make more sense as a robe wearing caster but you could make a good argument that Joshua was both warrior and prophet, Gideon too.

I think D&D will be poorer if it tried to model from just one religious text.

The fantasy/mythic/semi-historic sources for Paladin's seem more likely an inspired warrior and righter of wrongs then a consecrated servant of god (whichever god). I would prefer that Paladins and Priests not get blended together just because they are both typically devout.

 

[dkyle]

This is true, but I would rather see the Paladin expanded in spellcasting (as it's not what I would consider a strong class to begin with) than add an entirely new priest class. Make give them some support, buff and healing, but not the stuff like divine power/righteous might type spells.

I think that's a significant change in what a DnD Pali is, which doesn't seem likely to happen in 5E. It also might draw "5E is WoW" style complaints if a Paladin becomes a bona-fide healer.

The 3.5 Pali sucked because it was primarily a melee class, and melee sucked. So naturally, making it more of a spellcaster would make it more powerful. With proper caster balance (which I certainly hope 5E will have), a class that's primarily melee, with some magic, should be possible to balance well. 4E Palis are certainly decent enough.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I think that's a significant change in what a DnD Pali is, which doesn't seem likely to happen in 5E. It also might draw "5E is WoW" style complaints if a Paladin becomes a bona-fide healer.

The 3.5 Pali sucked because it was primarily a melee class, and melee sucked. So naturally, making it more of a spellcaster would make it more powerful. With proper caster balance (which I certainly hope 5E will have), a class that's primarily melee, with some magic, should be possible to balance well. 4E Palis are certainly decent enough.

I've never played WoW, so I don't know if they fit what I am talking about. Either way, I don't think we need 3 types of holy man, especially when Clerics already do most of what a paladin can do in pre-4e editions, and do it better.

If we need a priest type, then it should be the cleric, imo, with the fighting holy crusader as the paladin.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I actually don't really care about the naming conventions per se (whether they use cleric or priest, wizard or mage, rogue or thief, fighter or... whatever)... but I DO think it's important to have "generic" class builds, as well the optional extended builds with things like domains, schools, weapon specializations, and expert fields.

At the very basic foundation of the system, for those people who didn't want to deal with all the optional "character building" stuff from 3E and 4E and instead just wanted to have a "Fighter", or "Cleric", or "Wizard", or "Thief" a la Basic D&D... it should be possible to create within the game these basic "iconic" builds of these four classes. Nothing fancy, nothing much different than what the four classes would have gotten at each level in BD&D. "Generic" fighters, clerics, wizards, and thieves. Pick one and go!

Conversely... I definitely believe there should also then be expandable systems in place to build out those four classes so that they CAN all be different from each other. So that a "cleric of the god of the sun" has different abilities and spells than a "cleric of the god of storms".

And whether or not you want to keep calling these expanded classes "clerics", or start calling them "priests" just to differentiate them from the basic version... doesn't really matter in the long run.

Personally... I would call them the different names. The Fighter is a generalist combatant who is good with weapons... the Warrior focuses on one or two special weapons, doing all manner of interesting maneuvers and exploits with them. The Cleric is a divine agent of the gods, spreading faith to the flocks while wearing armor and wielding a mace. The Priests each follow the tenets of a specific deity, gaining abilities that go along the domains and portfolios of the deity they worship. The Thief is a general adventurer and dungeoneer, skilled in your basic adventuring skills of locks, traps, and climbing walls. The Rogue is a specialist in any manner of adventure-- master cat burglar, diplomat, sword-swinging swashbuckler, assassin, pirate, cutpurse. And the Wizard is your generalist spellcaster, whereas the Mages all have a particular school of magic they specialize in-- the Illusionist mage, the Evoker mage, the Conjurer mage etc.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if the basic, easy-to-learn classes have the same or different names as the "built" ones... it just comes down to what's easiest for new and experienced players to understand.

 

[dkyle]

I've never played WoW, so I don't know if they fit what I am talking about.

Paladins are one of the primary healer classes in WoW. I don't play WoW either, but I do play DDO, and it's a frequent point of confusion for new players moving from WoW to DDO.

Now, I wouldn't want that kind of consideration to get in the way of a better design, but part of the response to 4E demonstrated, at least to me, that perception of the rules matters.

Either way, I don't think we need 3 types of holy man, especially when Clerics already do most of what a paladin can do in pre-4e editions, and do it better.

Well, we don't need them all, sure, but we don't really need more than Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard. But I think there's a clear "niche" for each of them:

Pali: Fighter that trades some martial prowess for minor spellcasting. Mostly buffs, but also minor healing.

Melee Cleric: Significantly weaker melee than Fighters, but still useful. Full healing capabilities, but little to no offensive casting capabilities.

Casting Cleric (or Priest): Little to no melee capability, and offensive casting that's weaker than Wizards, but still useful. Full healing capablities.

The balance between Melee and Casting clerics would come down to the moderate melee capabilities of the one vs. the moderate offensive casting capabilities of the other. They'd have essentially equivalent healing capabilities.