Iconic D&D Clerics (Blog)

[El Mahdi]

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

AFAIK, No. The only real aspect that comes from Charlemagne is the name, and the use of Roland (Orlando) as one of the models for the Paladin Class. Roland though is really the only one of Charlemagne's Peers that truy resembles the D&D Paladin (the Paragon of the Archetype). Though the list of the peers varied from author to author, and the various lists included other Knights (but none with a comparable adherence to Knightly and Christian Virtues as Roland), they also included as "Paladins": Ogier the Dane (a Norse Pagan/Barbarian Warrior converted to Christianity); Archbishop Turpin (a Priest); Fierabras (a Saracen Warrior converted to Christianity); Ganelon (the Evil Knight that betrays Charlemagne and the Peers); and Maugris the Sorcerer.

Actually, Clerics are more based on the Fighting Priest archetype of Archbishop Turpin (one of Charlemagne's Paladins) than they are Mendicant Crusading Knights, and is where the idea of using weapons that don't draw blood comes from (such as Clubs, Maces, etc.)*. Templars and Hospitalers most certainly used swords, and predominantly so.

Though to be honest, even the original roots of these classes were a bit muddled, with a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and both dipping from some of the same sources. Paladins had aspects of Charlemagne's Knights, the Knights of King Arthur, etc., as well as aspects of Crusading Templars Clerics were similar to Templars, except for the use of bludgeoning weapons only, and the addition of turning undead (which comes from other sources entirely).



*...which by the way, is absolutely silly. Maces left behind horrific wounds, which most certainly drew blood. By comparison, a sword left behind realtively clean wounds (though very lethal).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, I always saw the mace as philosophical, not practical. Like druids with their sickles, it was about the idea behind the weapon, not the weapon itself.

Idea behind the mace: a staff of authority, a ceremonial mace that represented the cleric's leadership qualities (and, originally, the lordship of their church).

 

[El Mahdi]

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

Actually that's incorrect. The Cleric Class is based on the fictional* Archbishop Turpin (one of Charlemagne's Paladins) from the chansons de geste of the 11th and 12th centuries (and later French and Itallian stories well into the 14th and 15th centuries). It does however include aspects from other sources also.


*fictional as opposed to the real-life Archbishop Turpin, who was the Archbishop of Reims in the late 700's, and the inspiration for the character of Bishop Turpin (one of Charlemagne's Paladins).

 

[Zaukrie]

I just want priests/clerics/proselytizers/whatevers of different ideals/deities to have the flexibility to be different from each other.

The role of a priest of lust and a priestess of war are very, very different.

I could see holy warrior/paragon being a theme, that might work.

I just don't want all clerics to be mace wielding heavy armor wearing fighters with healing magic. That's fine as an option, but in a polytheist world seems off.

 

[Nimblegrund]

I think the question is more of a matter of what mechanics the system can bear.

If the "Cleric" class can cover the mace-weilding, armor-wearing support character, as well as the staff-leaning, robed divine caster, then sure, why not.

But if the game works better with a "Cleric" and a "Priest" class, then I am all for it.

I would be pretty opposed to the Cleric being absorbed by the Paladin class, however, or vice versa. I think the two concepts are separate enough to justify separate classes, and I can see no forseeable benefit besides creating a bunch of players who will bemoan the loss of their beloved cleric (or paladin).

 

[gyor]

Here's the way I see it realistically the Cleric and Paladin are in going to be in as seperate classes, this is simple too much D&D history with both and each has a large fan base who will be pissed off if thier not their not thier, so just from a business perspective we know they aren't going anywhere.

Now the priest according to the poll appears to be a popular class, surpisingly so, with 5% wanting it to replace the current cleric, 39% wanting to have both options as seperate classes, and 40% wanting both clerics and priests as options within the same class. Only 12% exclusively want Clerics as a choice. That's a large majority for including the Priest in one form or another.

So given these numbers this gives Bruce democractic premission to create the Priest class he wants to create, because he knows thier is enough interest to support it.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'd like cleric to be a true divine agent. A dude working in a close relationship with a deity doing something to further the cause. Somehow the deity is prevented from stepping in personally so the legwork is perfomed by agents. Just like Bond gets an Aston Martin from Q and Perseus gets a polished shield from Athena a cleric should be given something from his god to use during a mission that works both as foreshadowing and as a major boon. Clerics should not have spells at all. But what they'd get should be chosen with the prescience of a DM/God. It should be like "I got onto the mountain while you guys slept and found this hear silver dagger. I wonder what awaits us in those deep woods we are headed?"

 

[am181d]

I've always thought that the classic Cleric was fairly ridiculous:

• The inspirations for the class are almost all Christian, but they're wedged into D&D's pantheistic fantasy paradigm.
• Despite being essentially invented as an archetype for D&D, they're expected to make-up 20-25% of all adventuring parties.
• In a lot (maybe most?) game worlds, there's the assumption that most/all priests are Clerics, meaning they've all got the combat training and the crazy spell selection.
• Cleric spellcasting is based on the concept that if you pray to the gods in the morning, they will grant you the power to cast spells like a Wizard, but if you pray again later in the day, they will ignore you.

I could go on.

I feel modestly better about 2nd Edition style Priests, who at least aren't as stubbornly locked into the same look & feel.

But what I'd *really* like to see is better support for a Cleric-less game. I'm a 3e guy, but one of the things I like about 4e is the Warlord and the attempt to rethink how healing works in the game.

 

[El Mahdi]

Yeah, I'd like to actually see the Cleric disappear.

Keep the Paladin as the Chivalrous and Virtuous Holy Warrior, and the Priest defined by their deity. If it's a Deity of War, then it's Cleric-like. If it's a Diety of Healing, then it's a Healer type. With each Priest's class attributes determined by the God they choose (determining theme, weapons, armor, feats, skills, etc., etc., etc.).

Or, get rid of the Paldin class entirely. Make the Paladin just a specific War Deity's Priests, then make the Knight or Chevallier a Fighter build.


But I have a feeling those are sacred cow's a large portion of gamers would not accept seeing slain...

 

[PTHoorah]

Something similar to what Kamikaze Midget said is the way to go. Take the four core/base classes and tie them to power sources like in 4e. So the fighter (martial exploits), the thief (tricks, or whatever you want to call them), cleric/priest (divine powers) and magic-user (magic). The specialization should come from the race, theme, feats, powers, skills and whatever other character options are in 5e. The core/base classes need to be playable as are, but should be flexible for players to make characters as they imagine them.

For the cleric/priest argument: Both are the divine power class. The cleric takes feats/options/themes that allow him to wear armor, wield heavier weapons and use a shield, but gets fewer spells -- either in number or access to different spheres. The priest is more limited in weapons and armor, but has more spells. If a player wants a divine character that wields a two-handed hammer and no shield, then he doesn't take the shield feat, but maybe gains something else instead. (But doesn't lose out on a class perc by not having the shield.) Likewise, if a player wants a priest who's got a lot of spells but can every now and then jump into the fray and pull off one cool attack with his wood staff, he should be able to take a combat power/feat/option that is more cleric-like. If the themes are good, they could really support this: temple keeper (for more priest-like characters), student (priest-like), defender of the faith (cleric-like) or just veteran soldier (cleric-like). And in the end, one player's priest or cleric is going to be much different than another player's priest or cleric.

This could work for rangers too: fighters who choose feats/powers/options that make them bow specialist or two-weapon fighters, and skills that let them sneak or track. And if they want access to divine spells at later levels, they multi-class a level of divine caster and take nature sphere spells. If they want to be even sneakier rangers, they take the thief class and feats/powers/options for bows or two weapons. The themes could be the same no matter the class: raised by wolves, hermit, tree hugger, sworn defender of the wild. The themes could provide some of the unique ranger-type abilities.

If the classes are minimized at first level (meaning the normal class powers build between 1st and 3rd level, as is being discussed) then multi-classing should be easier, and a sword-mage shouldn't have to be its own class; the player takes a couple levels of mage and a couple levels of fighter and options to make the character be who they want it to be. Rather than being stuck with what the creaters think a sword mage should be. (Or if an entire party wants to be "barbarians" but one's playing the warrior, one the sneak and one the shaman, they should all be able to take rage-based feats that lets them add damage or gain temp hp at the expense of ac or something. Why should all raging barbarians be fighters?)

Players should be able to pick fictional or historical figures and create them easily in d&d in a way that matches how they see the character, not how the class tells them they should see the character. That requires generic classes and flexible options in those classes.

Anyway, that's my two cents. It's my first time posting. 5e's got me that excited.