Iconic D&D Clerics (Blog)

[Janaxstrus]

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.

Then why don't we have a base system Melee Wizard, as well as the bard, who is "sort of" a rogue-wizard? If we are going to expand the divine into all of the niches, why not with arcane as well?

The core should be basic, priests or melee-wizzos, etc etc can come later.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?

Personally, I think this problem is largely born out of the idea of D&D polytheism. In that context, it doesn't work -- the goddess of lust probably doesn't have stick-in-the-mud paladins, and the god of thieves probably looks at chain mail and maces and laughs, and the god of wealth and luxury would not care about studying esoteric magical theological whatisis at a monestary somewhere. A typical judeo-christian kind of civilization-and-helpfulness god works for any of them, but change that assumption, and suddenly there is a tremendous mismatch.

So lets go with this assumption to see it in a different light: in Campaign Setting X, there is no such thing a god. Everyone's an atheist, and they are all absolutely correct. There are still cleric and paladin and "priest" classes. How do they look?

See, Paladins are about bringing light to the darkness. In Campaign Setting X, paladins are knights in shining armor who serve as great examples of what a community member should be. They're probably nobles, aristocrats, and they are certainly benevolent with their authority. They're still ardent atheists, but they see the value in uniting the intelligent races to build something greater and more equitable than any civilization so far has yet managed to achieve. They go forth into the wilderness, they unite the enslaved, they fight against the problems society has directly. This is why the get horses and have expensive armor and are all brave and smitey and charismatic -- they're leaders of the charge! Some evil baby-killing orcs invading? Send them an army, with a paladin at the forefront! (the Combat pillar!)

And Clerics? They're about keeping the home fires lit. In Campaign Setting X, clerics are defenders of the home front who nuture and protect those in their care. They may not be aristocrats, but they are linked to the greater society, and they tend to people by protecting them -- dressed in chain mail, with a shield, and a mace. The mace is symbolic: clerics prefer peace, and would rather not kill, so they try not to draw blood as a symbolic way to represent that. They keep watch over the flock, they protect the townsfolk, they fight against the problems that those in their care have. They're ardent athiests, but they recognize that people are generally weak, and that they have special abilities to help care for the weak. This is why they have healing powers, and why they turn undead (a common problem in civilized areas: your buried dead not staying that way). Some ghost or demon possibly swaying the king? Send in the Cleric, with a support group! (the Social pillar!)

And "Priests"? They try to discover the nature of light itself. In Campaign Setting X, while there are no gods, there IS magical power all about, and priests are those who seek to gain that magical power through various rites, rituals, and observances. They are ascetics who sit atop pillars for years without eating. They fast, they refrain from pleasure, they live on islands in cloisters of people who never speak. They dance until they're in a trance. They take odd substances, hallucinate, and call it a revelation. They're trying to discover the mysteries of the universe and of the essence of magical power. That's why they have abilities of insight and interdiction: powerful, but at a great cost. Got a mysterious koan that some wandering witch gave you? Send in the Priest and his buddies, they can help out. (the Exploration pillar!)

So now we bring back gods, and we find that paladins, clerics, and priests as we have defined them above are only relevant to certain gods. The goddess of lust doesn't care about them (she's more into bards and rogues!). The god of the sea doesn't care about them (more rangers, fighters). The god of wealth might take kindly to an aristocratic paladin, though. And any god of protection, civilization, knowledge, or light would be eager to claim them.

Not every god has a cleric, or a paladin, or a priest. The divine gifts of the god of the wilderness might be bestowed on druids or rangers; the divine gifts of the goddess of lust might be bestowed on bards or enchanters; the divine gifts of the gods of protection and nobility and civilization fall onto the shoulders of those three classes.

A paladin is not a warrior of a god, he is a military champion of the people. A cleric is not a warrior of a god, she is a defender and nurturer of the people. A "priest" is not a mystic of a god, she is a mystic in general, as much wu-jen as anything else.

If you define the classes in this way, you can't keep them tethered to the ever-shifting, ever-changable D&D pantheon. If you want to play someone devoted to the goddess of lust in this game model, you don't play a cleric of the goddess of lust. You play a bard. The goddess of lust doesn't care about clerics (except maybe to guard her harems).

 

[dkyle]

Then why don't we have a base system Melee Wizard, as well as the bard, who is "sort of" a rogue-wizard? If we are going to expand the divine into all of the niches, why not with arcane as well?

I don't think we necessarily need Palis, and both melee and caster Clerics as core classes. And for core, I think melee Clerics make more sense than caster Clerics, so that there's some kind of melee/caster middle ground in core.

And ultimately, I definitely do want to see a melee-Wizard hybrid done right in 5E.

 

[Gryph]

Then why don't we have a base system Melee Wizard, as well as the bard, who is "sort of" a rogue-wizard? If we are going to expand the divine into all of the niches, why not with arcane as well?

The core should be basic, priests or melee-wizzos, etc etc can come later.

The last 2 editions did exactly that with Bards, Sorcerors, Swordmages, and Warlocks.

There has always been a nebulous deviding line between the Fighter, the Ranger and the Barbarian.

I don't want the core to be four base classes and its up to me to flavor them as I want. D&D is a class archetype based game and I want every class to have enough flavor, with no other rules elements added, to be distinct and interesting.

A holy crusading knight does not feel like a cleric who takes up arms in service to his god, to me; and the miracle working prophet is even more distinct. Give me all three, or abandon classes all together.

 

[Quickleaf]

A paladin is not a warrior of a god, he is a military champion of the people. A cleric is not a warrior of a god, she is a defender and nurturer of the people. A "priest" is not a mystic of a god, she is a mystic in general, as much wu-jen as anything else.

Interesting thought experiment. So the way you've laid it out the Paladin is a "take the fight to thine enemy" kind of guy (a striker, or if you prefer, someone more concerned with dealin out hurt than laying on hands and holding the line). While the Cleric is hard pressed to become an adventurer, but if that is the path they must take then they look after the other PCs as their "flock" (a leader/defender if you will, much as they've always been).

That's a clear distinction and works for me

If you define the classes in this way, you can't keep them tethered to the ever-shifting, ever-changable D&D pantheon. If you want to play someone devoted to the goddess of lust in this game model, you don't play a cleric of the goddess of lust. You play a bard. The goddess of lust doesn't care about clerics (except maybe to guard her harems).

So I guess this is an argument against specialty priests?

 

[Minigiant]

Personally I'd have the paladin, cleric, and priest as 3 very different classes.

The paladin is a blessed warrior. They are gifted raw blessings from a deity or ritual. A paladin is protected by divine plot armor and is as supernatural as a wingless angel.

A cleric on the other hand is a basic divine caster. Since divine spellcasting requires less training and isn't interfered by armor, a cleric know basic combat training. Nothing special but they can take care of themselves.

A priest puts full devotion into divine spellcasting and thus has no time to learn to fight. They can however more attuned to their deity's portfolio.


TLDR

Paladin: Wingless minor angel
Cleric: Aristocrat who can cast divine magic
Priest: Devoted full spellcaster

 

[I'm A Banana]

So I guess this is an argument against specialty priests?

Only sort of.

Actually, I think it opens up an interesting possibility: specialty priests that come from all classes.

What if "Priest of Kord" is something that any fighter, barbarian, or tough-looking street brute can become? What if the bard goes well with the goddess of lust? What about priests of the god of thieves that are ACTUAL THIEVES?

I think it might make a brilliant theme: a few divine powers related to your deity of choice, regardless of class.

You'd have paladins and clerics who are specialty priests, too -- but only of certain gods, not of everything.

 

[Rhenny]

To me Paladin and Cleric are different although they are both holy warriors to some extent. I always see the Paladin as a holy knight, definitely more martial than the Cleric. The Cleric more like the defender, healer, buffer, less martial, but armored enough to stand toe-to-toe with in the front lines.

The iconic Cleric is definitely the mace toting, shield bearing armored PC, but when D&D begin to add different weapon choices for different deities (in 2nd Edition), that was a step in the right direction.

I don't see why the Cleric can't have more than one version...the armored defender, healer - The robed spell-slinger. I don't think we need Cleric and Priest. Perhaps giving them theme titles is good enough. Priest might just be a theme of Cleric - like a Battle Cleric, a Sun Cleric, a Sky Cleric, etc.

Isn't it interesting how in Dr. Who, the Clerics, who keep Rivers Song and accompany her in the Weeping Angel episode with Matt Smith, are basically soldiers. This interpretation would enfold Paladin and Cleric and Warrior all into one package. (Not what I'd advise).

 

[Mattachine]

I wish the "iconic" D&D cleric would go away. Myself and most of the players I have had over the years dislike them.

Since that isn't going to happen, I sincerely hope that priests of specific deities is given as an option out of the box. They match the fantasy and mythological archetypes that I prefer.

 

[Mouseferatu]

What if "Priest of Kord" is something that any fighter, barbarian, or tough-looking street brute can become? What if the bard goes well with the goddess of lust? What about priests of the god of thieves that are ACTUAL THIEVES?

I think it might make a brilliant theme: a few divine powers related to your deity of choice, regardless of class.

Could someone XP KM for me? I can't as of yet.

But I like the idea of at least examining things further in this direction.