Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6315908" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Definitely. Although I have a soft spot for the traditional mace and shield cleric, I think 2e did a much better job of clarifying what a cleric should be with their specialty priests. 2e did what I basically recommended earlier: cleric = priest and priest = cleric.I tend to like opening up the class to different takes on it in order to allow other alignments their champions. Me and a friend--neither of us affiliated with WotC in any way--were working on our own version of D&D before we heard about 5e, and a lot of our ideas bore a striking resemblence to what they have actually done with 5e. In this case, we were having the exact disagreement over the merits of having a "champion" class, with paladin as a subclass (our system had everyone getting a subclass at 3rd level also!), or just calling the class "paladin" and then having there be a LG subclass (we were thinking "cavalier" as the name for it). My friend, much like many people, didn't like applying the name "paladin" to anything other than the LG class, while I thought it was more important for the list of classes to be recognizably traditional by not introducing a new "champion" class. In a case of parallel development, WotC apparently agreed with my take.It definitely doesn't work well both ways. I think that's a problem a lot of people have. If you fail to make a class identification for "priests" then the only real distinction between a cleric and a paladin is what weapons they use, which makes one wonder why both classes are even needed.</blockquote>

Verification