Iconic D&D Clerics (Blog)

[I'm A Banana]

If multiclassing is done very well, this could be just a matter of having a few levels of Cleric.

Sure, it could be. But part of the thought experiment above that was to play with the idea of how "essential" to the model of a class the class's mechanical abilities are. If you disentangle the idea of "worships a god" from a cleric (e.g.: change the fluff), but leave them mechanically unchanged, what does it look like, and what function does it serve?

Turns out, the mechanics of a cleric are a bit too specific to just serve any god. While 3e and 4e have made some advances in that, having to multiclass into cleric still brings a lot of mechanical baggage along with it that might not fit the mode of the particular deity your character likes.

You have basically two choices: either make the class more mechanically generic (which has its problems, but also has its benefits), and/or kick the idea of "cleric = divine god worshipper" to the curb, to make it more specific flavor-wise, and to give it a better function that is unrelated to its god-worshipping capabilities.

If you do the second thing, you open up the field of "specialty priest" to be some other mechanic than the cleric class. You don't need to be a cleric to be an ordained member of the church of the god of thieves, or to call on divine power from that god. You can be a thief, and still have those granted powers. Or you can be a bard of the goddess of lust, and have the goddess of lust's granted powers without being a cleric.

I think, for D&D, I'm leaning a bit more towards removing the "cleric = divine god worshipper" flavor, and reinforcing the idea that a cleric is actually a particular sort of magic-user, one who uses a particular kind of magic in a particular way for a particular purpose, and that purpose may or may not line up with the goals of any particular god.

Not every god needs clerics. Not every cleric needs gods. You don't need to add a new class to gain divine power, or to be a saint. Clerics are no more inherently tied to a deity than, say, druids, or rangers, or assassins are.

It's a bit of a change, and, of course, I still think that there should be quite a bit of modularity involved (turn undead? How about turn whatever!), but for a class-based game, I like it better like that than going more generic, I think.

 

[gyor]

Here is here is how I'd divine the divine classes.

Paladin: Abilities- Lay on hands, choice of Virtue or Vice with benifits, Divine Challenge, Sacred Mounts, Plate Mail, many different smite powers, no spellcasting. AEDU.

Fluff: Knight Champion of an ideal, either vice or virtue, which acts as his or her path of the divine. Virtue/Vice acts a gestalt of mortal and Gods and is the Paladin's path to thier patron God. The ideal trumps the devotion to the God, but the God is seen as a role model of the ideal and worshipped and served as such. Those that choose a vice over virtue also draw on shadow magic. A Paladin is Knighted.

Cleric: The divine gish, healer, divine soldier. Spells, Healing, Turn Undead, mace and shield weilding,heavy armor like scale.

Fluff: Most common divine power user, serves many practical roles as needed, preacher, healer, soldier. Draws power from thier faith which connects them to thier God. Ordained.

Priest: Spells, different choices from clerics, domain powers/features, cloth armour, ritual casting. Maybe Dark Knowledge. Some healing magic.

Fluff: Prophets and well Priests. Theologeans, and the voice of thier God. Draws power less on faith and more from an innimate connection to a God. A personal covenant with a God. Instead of turn undead, an exorism power against demons, evil angels, and devils.

Also Clerics can pick a Philosohy instead of God, and while a Paladin needs not to chose a God, they do chose an ideal.

A Priest does need a God, thier is no abstraction or middle man in the relationship.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the 4e cleric templar is exactly how I want to have the cleric in 5e. The 4e warpriest is mostly not.

The 4e PHB wisdom build + invoker is how I imagine the priest.

I hope 5e will improve upon thos concepts. You can say a lot about 4e, but class design was outstanding. (At least on concept and balance)

 

[gyor]

the 4e cleric templar is exactly how I want to have the cleric in 5e. The 4e warpriest is mostly not.

The 4e PHB wisdom build + invoker is how I imagine the priest.

I hope 5e will improve upon thos concepts. You can say a lot about 4e, but class design was outstanding. (At least on concept and balance)

Realistically I think at best the cleric will be closer to the 1e to 2e cleric, will elements like healing word from 4e and ways or mods to make it more like 4e. Plus maybe a couple of new ideas.

The Priest probably will be more like an invoker/laser cleric, but with less armour and more focus on domain granted abilities. After all the idea is that Priests are closer to thier God then anyone else under normal circumstances, so Priests powers are influenced by diety choice.

 

[El Mahdi]

Here's a question I've been meaning to ask:

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

Yes, they are both Holy Warriors, but there are some significant thematic differences, and significant differences in practice. Simply calling them both "Holy Warriors" is like calling both Forward Air Controllers and Navy SEAL's just "Special Operators". Sure, they both are Special Operators, but they are significantly different in purpose and practice.

The Paladins thematic roots come from an amalgamation of a few sources. Firstly, they are based on the Crusader Mendicant Orders, such as Templars and Hospitalers. Knights that have taken Holy Vows...the same vows that priests and monks take (Piety, Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience). They are also combined with the ideals of Chivalric Knights (Loyalty and Obedience to their Lord, King, and God; Defence of the Innocent; and the proper Chivalric treatment of Women). Mix those in equal parts, then use the naming convention used in Medieval Literature for the Peers of Charlemagne, The Paladins, with Roland as the model. The name "Paladin" comes from Rome, and refers to an official of the Emporer that served or was connedted to the Imperial Palace on the Palatine Hill.

Paladins are Warriors first, and Priests second, but they are part of both...and come predominantly from Christian tradition (even when used in a polytheistic campaign world, as most D&D worlds are). It's a Christian Mendicant comcept applied to a Polytheistic D&D World premise.

The thematic roots of the D&D Warrior Priest (Cleric Class) are based on a polytheistic premise from the start. With each Warrior Priest as a Defender of their particular God.

They are Priests first, and Warriors second.

Then there are the non-Warrior Priests (Priest Class). The ones who primarily extoll and further the virtues, traits, and goals of their chosen God through proselytizing, practice, and example. They rely on the strength of their God, through Divine Channeling of their God's power only, for protection, attack, and support of their comrades...rather than the strength of their own arms.

 

[El Mahdi]

the 4e cleric templar is exactly how I want to have the cleric in 5e. The 4e warpriest is mostly not.

The 4e PHB wisdom build + invoker is how I imagine the priest.

I hope 5e will improve upon thos concepts. You can say a lot about 4e, but class design was outstanding. (At least on concept and balance)

I agree as far as balance is concerned, but not as concerns concept.

The concepts of these classes have strayed far from where they started originally in D&D, and far from the original inspirations for them. Each subsequent edition caused a little more deviation from those original roots, to the point where many people no longer recognize the original concepts at all. I would present the very need for some to inquire as to the roots and different thematic elements of them as proof of such drift.

I would very much like to see the concepts of these classes return back to their archetypal roots first, and then present ways in which to expand them, or present examples of derived concepts.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I think, for D&D, I'm leaning a bit more towards removing the "cleric = divine god worshipper" flavor, and reinforcing the idea that a cleric is actually a particular sort of magic-user, one who uses a particular kind of magic in a particular way for a particular purpose, and that purpose may or may not line up with the goals of any particular god.

I agree--I'd like to go back to the BECM/RC cleric who "is dedicated to serving a great and worthy cause. This cause can be an Immortal being dedicated to a specific goal or attribute; sometimes the cleric is serving only his alignment, and has no interest in immortal beings. The D&D does not deal with the ethical and theological beliefs of the characters in the game. . . . A cleric's spell powers come from the strength of the cleric's beliefs."--Rules Cyclopedia, 13. Change that 'not' to 'not have to', and we're good.

 

[WheresMyD20]

The real problem with the cleric class is that it lacks a fantasy archetype outside of D&D (and D&D-inspired fiction).

I don't view this as a problem. D&D has been around for 30+ years and clerics have been there since OD&D, so the cleric archetype has been firmly established. Whether or not it exists outside of D&D is irrelevant at this point. It is firmly entrenched in D&D and D&D wouldn't be D&D without clerics. Besides, the fact that it hasn't been seen much outside of D&D is one of those elements that makes D&D unique.

 

[Hassassin]

The Paladins thematic roots come from an amalgamation of a few sources. Firstly, they are based on the Crusader Mendicant Orders, such as Templars and Hospitalers. Knights that have taken Holy Vows...the same vows that priests and monks take (Piety, Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience). They are also combined with the ideals of Chivalric Knights (Loyalty and Obedience to their Lord, King, and God; Defence of the Innocent; and the proper Chivalric treatment of Women). Mix those in equal parts, then use the naming convention used in Medieval Literature for the Peers of Charlemagne, The Paladins, with Roland as the model. The name "Paladin" comes from Rome, and refers to an official of the Emporer that served or was connedted to the Imperial Palace on the Palatine Hill.

I thought D&D Clerics were originally based on Knights Templar and Hospitaller, while Paladins were based on Charlemagne and some other sources.

 

[howandwhy99]

Option 5: None of the above.

A Cleric is not a Fighting-Man
A Cleric is not a Magic-User

All of the classes are variations of adventurer more or less, which basically means the core 3 overlap. Clerics are not 0-level combatants or clueless about magic. However they are worse than each of the other two classes with combat or magic.

The iconic cleric is all about engaging with the clerical system. If you are going to keep Alignment and are bringing back Henchmen, Morale, and Loyalty, why not bring back the whole darn system for this class so they can be unique again?