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

[Plane Sailing]

The Cleric has always existed in the D&D game as the third Class (preceded by Fighting Man and Magic-User, and slightly earlier than the Thief).

I'm curious as to where you get this impression from.

The original white box set had the fighting man, cleric and magic user. The original three

Supplement 1 (Greyhawk) introduced the thief and the paladin (making them peers)
Supplement 2 (Blackmoor) introduced the monk and the assassin
Supplement 3 (Eldritch Wizardry) introduced the druid

Various issues of the Strategic Review introduced the Ranger and the Illusionist, but I can't be sure of the order there I'm afraid.

Anyway, you should really either talk about the original three or original five

Cheers

 

[Leatherhead]

the Cleric is (once we get away from van Helsing) a gameplay patch caused by the unashamedly gamist innovation of hit points.

As I understand it, even the van Helsing original cleric was a patch to combat vampires that got out of hand.

 

[DaveDash]

In 5E, Lore Bards who steal Aura of Vitality are better healers than almost any cleric. They still don't have the flexibility of the cleric (are less likely to have access to Speak With Dead/Death Ward/etc.) but they have their own perks like Bardic Inspiration, Hypnotic Pattern and Vicious Mockery. My experience with 5E is that it is possible to survive and thrive with a bard or druid in lieu of a cleric. (Theorycraft says it is even possible to survive and thrive with no magical healer at all, due to the Short Rest Healing mechanic and things like the Healer feat, but so far every party I've played with has had at least a druid in it.)

In my game we have a Lore Bard and a Light Cleric (and a Paladin). They both do the same amount of healing - that is - not much. 90% of healing now is done OUT of combat.

The Cleric is there for those 'oh sh*t' moments, but generally spends more time casting offensive spells, buffing spells and removing debuffs. Offensively opening with a fireball, then running Spiritual Weapon plus Spiritual Guardians means she can do A LOT of damage, and her potent cantrip ability means her base damage rate is quite high.

The Bard fills more of a crowd control and buffing role. He helps people make their saves, prevents them from getting hit, and locks down enemies. He also chimes in with counterspells and dispel magic every now and again.
I know if The Bard was to die or whatever, the party would miss his extra healing buffer (which also includes Song of Rest).

Their roles do overlap a bit I suppose.

 

[Henry]

All of my characters have the confident "freedom in duty and obligation" you ascribe solely to clerics except the ones who are deliberately created to feel differently (e.g. fiendish warlock/bards who secretly feel very uneasy about their life choices but try to avoid thinking too much about it).

The reason the cleric (at least in most campaigns I've played) have that special insight is that they have that "hotline to god" - if he screws up the message, he no longer gets granted abilities, full stop. But note I didn't ascribe that ONLY clerics have a certainty through obligation - it's just one role-playing hook among others, and one that I enjoy.

And I agree that just as compelling is the "John Constantine" model -- he knows he's damned regardless, but keeps on doing the Right Thing anyway, because it's the Right Thing. (Damned shame the TV version was canceled, it was getting really good!)

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'm curious as to where you get this impression from.

The original white box set had the fighting man, cleric and magic user. The original three

Supplement 1 (Greyhawk) introduced the thief and the paladin (making them peers)
Supplement 2 (Blackmoor) introduced the monk and the assassin
Supplement 3 (Eldritch Wizardry) introduced the druid

Various issues of the Strategic Review introduced the Ranger and the Illusionist, but I can't be sure of the order there I'm afraid.

Anyway, you should really either talk about the original three or original five

Cheers

The Cleric was apparently a later addition/inclusion to the original game (noting that Chainmail and other antecedent versions of D&D had been around for some years before D&D was officially released), while the Thief was introduced shortly after it was released in a newsletter. It was then reprinted in the first supplement (Greyhawk). So, in order: Fighting Men and Magic-Users, followed by Clerics and then Thieves - as stated. The term ‘core four’ is possibly just a late one that came with the D&DNext play testing. Or maybe I dreamt it.

 

[Minsc]

My mileage does - Cleric used to be one of my favorite classes prior to 3e. From the mechanical side, it was indispensable - no sane party in AD&D left the front door without a cleric. Every PC knew better than to be abusive to the cleric, because that meant they were last in line to get healing from me. "oops, sorry, i just used my last cure light wounds on the rogue. You'll have to dig up that healing potion you've been saving or wait till tomorrow."

From a role play perspective, I always liked to be the character who KNEW what the afterlife held for him. There is a certain freedom in duty and obligation, and knowing the right thing according to doctrine - and being able to tweak the villain's nose in what the villain was doing was only going to set him up for Afterlife as a lemure, or dretch, or some devil's plaything has a set of reassurance all its own.

nice post! Clerics were long my favorite class as well (and I still really like them, to a certain extent).

In basic D&D (the game I spent a large part of my elementary school days playing), nobody else wanted to be a Cleric. I wanted in on the game, so I made one.

I found that, although I had slightly fewer HP, did slightly less damage, and had a slightly less impressive THAC0 than the Fighter, I was pretty close. On top of that, I had spells. Lots of spells. Maybe they weren't as flashy as the Magic User, but he was a squishy punk in bathrobes. At least I could still function as a useful character when I ran out of spells.

When I played a little 1e, and a whole lot of 2e, my eventual favorite character was a Dwarf Fighter/Cleric (I had to add Fighter because now they would start to get extra attacks!).

3e came along, and I tried a lot of quirky classes. But I came back to the Cleric. Now I didn't even have to prepare curing spells, I could just drop any spell for a cure!

Clerics can be a lot of fun if you know how to play them. The fact that nobody else wants to play them makes it even better.

 

[ren1999]

I don't think any class is part of the original 4.
A bard and paladin can heal as effectively as any cleric.
The sorcerer, or warlock is as good as any wizard.

http://dnd5.weebly.com

 

[Staffan]

I'm afraid I must confess I am confused by the premise/assertion that the cleric's place as a "core four" class is somehow forfeit because there are druids and bards and paladins.

One just as easily can say Fighter's are no longer core 4. If you want a frontline damage dealer/guy who relies on weapons, you have a barbarian, ranger, paladin...to a secondary extent bards, monks, and assassins.

This. I don't want any one class to be "required" for adventuring the way the cleric used to be. One of the things 4e did right were the roles - you could easily have a party of "savages" consisting of a warden, barbarian, shaman, and druid instead of the archetypical fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. (Though as an aside, I would have liked it if some classes had multiple possible roles, so you could do a nuker-shaman or a healer-shaman.) I'm perfectly all right with not all parties needing a cleric - it's actually better if they don't, because that way you don't need to have gods and religion front and center, and it seems weird to me that every dungeon-delving expedition needs a chaplain.

 

[Ashrym]

In 5E, Lore Bards who steal Aura of Vitality are better healers than almost any cleric. They still don't have the flexibility of the cleric (are less likely to have access to Speak With Dead/Death Ward/etc.) but they have their own perks like Bardic Inspiration, Hypnotic Pattern and Vicious Mockery. My experience with 5E is that it is possible to survive and thrive with a bard or druid in lieu of a cleric. (Theorycraft says it is even possible to survive and thrive with no magical healer at all, due to the Short Rest Healing mechanic and things like the Healer feat, but so far every party I've played with has had at least a druid in it.)

The benefit of aura of vitality is the out of combat healing efficiency that comes with the spell compared to other cure spells of similar or lower level. Prayer of healing, however, heals more total hit points and the only drawback is not in selecting to whom the hit points are to be applied and the 10 minute casting time. The druid spell that's better than it first appears is goodberry. A person simply spends unused spell slots the previous day before bed because the berries last 24 hours at 10 berries per spell. By 6th level when a lore bard can acquire aura of vitality that means 10 goodberry spells before the starting the adventure with a day of preparation for 100 hp worth of healing instead of 70 and the druid still has that 3rd level spell slot to use.

Lore bards are generally better healers than most clerics regardless, because they have most of the same spell options already, and can add the additional cleric options but also have song of rest and better controlling and status effects.

If you want to make a really solid bard healer, make it a variant human with the healer feat at first level, splash 1 level of cleric for life cleric, at 6th level pick up goodberry and revivify. You can bring back the dead that way, and the life cleric ability also applies to goodberry, so you start with 100 of them for 300 hp in healing and get 30 hp healing out of a first level spell slot. That leaves you with those 3rd level slots to cast things like hypnotic pattern because with aura of vitality it's either / or but with goodberry (or prayer of healing) it's not. Then pick up inspiring leader later. You will be a phenomenal healing bard.

Just some food for thought.

In my game we have a Lore Bard and a Light Cleric (and a Paladin). They both do the same amount of healing - that is - not much. 90% of healing now is done OUT of combat.

The Cleric is there for those 'oh sh*t' moments, but generally spends more time casting offensive spells, buffing spells and removing debuffs. Offensively opening with a fireball, then running Spiritual Weapon plus Spiritual Guardians means she can do A LOT of damage, and her potent cantrip ability means her base damage rate is quite high.

The Bard fills more of a crowd control and buffing role. He helps people make their saves, prevents them from getting hit, and locks down enemies. He also chimes in with counterspells and dispel magic every now and again.
I know if The Bard was to die or whatever, the party would miss his extra healing buffer (which also includes Song of Rest).

Their roles do overlap a bit I suppose.

From Legends and Lore: http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140310

"The bard created by this array of class features is a talented leader who combines spellcasting with a flair for skill use. A bard can easily take on the role that a cleric fulfills in a party, or can even stand in for a wizard. Though the class misses out on some of the wizard's signature combat spells, a bard's ability to extend the effectiveness of other characters in combat can easily make up the difference."

That was from 3/10/2014, and I think the class that was released lived up to the easily taking on the role of a cleric. It really is easy to select the correct spells to match the concept. There are definitely some mechanical differences, but the main roles clerics perform are pretty much covered. A bit less overt damage and armor so one's a bit more combat oriented but it's really not a huge difference. Generally, it doesn't matter if it's a bard or a cleric or a druid; or a wizard or a sorcerer or a warlock; or a barbarian or a fighter or a paladin. Generally, any class can be substituted with something.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The benefit of aura of vitality is the out of combat healing efficiency that comes with the spell compared to other cure spells of similar or lower level. Prayer of healing, however, heals more total hit points and the only drawback is not in selecting to whom the hit points are to be applied and the 10 minute casting time. The druid spell that's better than it first appears is goodberry. A person simply spends unused spell slots the previous day before bed because the berries last 24 hours at 10 berries per spell. By 6th level when a lore bard can acquire aura of vitality that means 10 goodberry spells before the starting the adventure with a day of preparation for 100 hp worth of healing instead of 70 and the druid still has that 3rd level spell slot to use.

Lore bards are generally better healers than most clerics regardless, because they have most of the same spell options already, and can add the additional cleric options but also have song of rest and better controlling and status effects.

If you want to make a really solid bard healer, make it a variant human with the healer feat at first level, splash 1 level of cleric for life cleric, at 6th level pick up goodberry and revivify. You can bring back the dead that way, and the life cleric ability also applies to goodberry, so you start with 100 of them for 300 hp in healing and get 30 hp healing out of a first level spell slot. That leaves you with those 3rd level slots to cast things like hypnotic pattern because with aura of vitality it's either / or but with goodberry (or prayer of healing) it's not. Then pick up inspiring leader later. You will be a phenomenal healing bard.*snip*

This sort of thing is heavily impacted by playstyle: whether it really is plausible for the druid to spend all of his spell slots casting goodberry every night (thus guaranteeing that he has no spells available at night), how big your party is, whether damage tends to spread evenly around the party or to concentrate on one or two melee guys and/or whoever got unlucky last combat, whether you have undead/constructs in the party (Aura of Vitality can heal undead/constructs but other Prayer of Healing cannot), how consistently you take damage. Aura of Vitality also has better combat usage in that you can use it to keep someone alive and fighting for up to ten rounds of combat and also heal them up to full afterwards. Additionally, it relies on a particular interpretation of Disciple of Life that I happen to disagree with: that it works with any HP-restoring effect including Goodberry (presumably also including Vampiric Touch?) as opposed to with spells that restore HP as a spell effect.

I can imagine a scenario where Prayer of Healing is better but it is a scenario that I hate playing: a party full of melee fighters focused on DPR instead of tactics, who just charge into melee and try to kill-or-be-killed. (It works great as long as you only ever experience "balanced" encounters by the book guidelines, but I don't like relying on that caveat.) In that case damage gets spread pretty evenly. If you have however e.g. a scout (Shadow Monk) who also acts as the hammer, and an anvil (polearm sentinel fighter + Necromancer with skeletons) who like to take on foes that are tougher than they are, damage is liable to be distributed disproportionately on those taking the most risk, and in that scenario Prayer of Healing becomes garbage compared to Aura of Vitality. So YMMV based on play style and group composition.

Mechanically, splashing life cleric as you suggest is great: it gets you heavy armor, possibly better save proficiencies, access to Bless and less pressure on your Bard spells known, and it makes Aura of Vitality (if you choose to take it) restore 120 HP per cast instead of 70. And it doesn't even cost you an ASR! For RP reasons I couldn't bring myself to do it that way but mechanically it's great.