D&D 5E Is the Cleric really one of the ‘core four’ anymore?

[SirAntoine]

I didn't limit myself to the index. I read the PHB.

You should know better, then.

But I disgress. The thread is about the cleric.

 

[SirAntoine]

And that leads back to my original question: should it be?

Why not? It has to depend on what we mean by core, but I can't see any harm from it. It's not like the four classes were ever being singled out as "better". I've always thought what they meant by core is like "there are four basic types of character class, each class will be like one of these four types". It's just organization. When it comes to vital abilities, they also have four different knowledge bases that make the game fun. You have the fighter, who knows about combat and all-things-war, the wizard who knows about the magic of the universe, the cleric who knows about the gods, and the thief who knows about the cheaters and the most devious out there, the underworld, and how to protect everyone from it. It's a perfect circle.

 

[Leatherhead]

And that leads back to my original question: should it be?

Now that is an interesting question.

The Cleric, in nearly every rendition I have seen in a game (be it D&D or Video game), is more a gameplay patch than an actual narrative archetype. This isn't to say that religious types aren't in literature, but rather when shown as the "hero" of the story they resemble something more akin to a Paladin or Magic-User (or I guess Warlock/Sorcerer nowadays) . In game they are used as a walking first-aid kit, to counter debilitating effects. While this is certainly useful, in stories it is often regulated to a side character who cares for a third character while the hero goes and slays some dragon for a magical cure potion ingredient, or as a plot device in stories because it can be kinda boring to read about. The reason it gets included as a role in games is because nobody likes to sit around the table for extended periods of time doing nothing while resting off the effects of whatever malady befalls them.

Personally, I hate their (now infamous) role in gameplay, combat healing is a self-justifying role: By adding combat healing you need combat healing because the baddies have to get badder in order to combat the combat healing and any team without combat healing has to compensate harder for it. But that has more to do with the nature of hit points and their effect on combat pacing than anything else.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Why not?

Mainly in relation to the fantasy literature, as I referred to before. However, there is also this notion of ‘common’ and ‘uncommon’ Classes (a term that was thankfully dropped from the playtest). As adventurers, it is easy to see Fighters and Rogues as ‘common’ types of adventurers, the Wizard too possibly (if we are to consider them as wanting to explore the magic in the world rather than just experiment in an ivory tower).

However, I wouldn’t necessarily see the Cleric as a common adventuring type as such. There would be some missionaries, sure, but many more would probably stay in the temple and/or provide guidance to their followers. Compare that to a Bard say, who can be seen as taking something of an adventuring vocation straight off the bat. Would a Cleric really be a more common adventuring Class than a Druid or a Monk?

 

[SirAntoine]

Their healing ability is a secondary aspect of the character, and always has been. That is why healing in the first editions was so hard. It's not meant to be quick, not even in the hands of a cleric. Druids can heal, too, but what unites them with clerics is the cleric's primary ability, which is to bring people into the favor of the gods. The original cleric couldn't even cast a single spell at 1st level. They were imagined like holy knights who would take the fight to enemies of the people.

 

[TrippyHippy]

So, were that made a bit redundant by the emergence of the Paladin?

 

[SirAntoine]

Mainly in relation to the fantasy literature, as I referred to before. However, there is also this notion of ‘common’ and ‘uncommon’ Classes (a term that was thankfully dropped from the playtest). As adventurers, it is easy to see Fighters and Rogues as ‘common’ types of adventurers, the Wizard too possibly (if we are to consider them as wanting to explore the magic in the world rather than just experiment in an ivory tower).

However, I wouldn’t necessarily see the Cleric as a common adventuring type as such. There would be some missionaries, sure, but many more would probably stay in the temple and/or provide guidance to their followers. Compare that to a Bard say, who can be seen as taking something of an adventuring vocation straight off the bat. Would a Cleric really be a more common adventuring Class than a Druid or a Monk?

Got it. I think the cleric would be, because it's a Medieval-themed game and because the influence of the gods is so pronounced.

 

[SirAntoine]

So, were that made a bit redundant by the emergence of the Paladin?

Well, the paladins were always the champions, the best of the best. I should they think they would be the rarest of characters. To do their job, they only need the spells they were given, but it could easily be argued they deserve the full cleric's spell list.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Got it. I think the cleric would be, because it's a Medieval-themed game and because the influence of the gods is so pronounced.

As a sideline debating issue, why does a Medieval-themed game include polytheistic religions as the norm? Why isn’t there a D&D setting that has monotheism as the norm for a Cleric?

 

[Leatherhead]

As a sideline debating issue, why does a Medieval-themed game include polytheistic religions as the norm? Why isn’t there a D&D setting that has monotheism as the norm for a Cleric?

That's a debate for a different forum, but it involves Catholicism and it's use of Saints as surrogate prayer receivers and the perceived nature of the Holy Trinity.