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

[Celebrim]

So the real question might be, when did wizards and clerics become something separate (in history)? When were wizards disconnected from the gods?

Late 19th century esotericism.

The rest of your analysis is basically correct. Until that time, magic was grounded explicitly in spiritualism. Wizards had power because they were able to control spirits and get them to do their bidding. In the late 19th century you see the first attempts to ground the occult in pseudo-science rather than religious beliefs. This gives birth the notion of wizard as it pertains to D&D, and eventually leads to the non-occult wizard of fantasy.

If you are playing most magic-users in an pre-modern setting, the cleric (or shaman) IMO is a better fit for the concept than the wizard is.

 

[Mercule]

What is the relationship between Clerics and Paladins, or Druids for that sake?

The Cleric is a militant priest -- Knights Templar or Knight Hospitaler. At least some of these orders took vows to avoid shedding blood. In true rules-lawyer fashion, creatively interpreted these vows in a way that allowed them to use bludgeoning weapons, thus the restriction on clerical weapons in earlier editions. In most ways, the cleric is priest first, but a priest that prays softly and carries a big stick. They are ordained, and have the rights and privileges of such. This interpretation screams for an NPC priest class, though, that's better at casting but not as good at fighting.

The Paladin is the "knight in shining armor". They're really a Fighter, but they are so pure of heart and full of faith that "the powers that be" bless them in a number of ways. If you're familiar with WoD or Ars Magica, a Paladin is just a Fighter with True Faith. Anything the Fighter gets that the Paladin doesn't is either for game balance or because the Fighter is more interested in winning than keeping his hands clean.

Druids are pagan priests that are, compared to the Cleric and Paladin, rural and wild. They could be animists (which is how I use them), but really make more sense as followers of the Old Gods. Most of the Druid abilities are to differentiate them from the Cleric. They get Reincarnate, rather than Raise Dead. They can't draw on the power of God to turn undead, but are resistant to scary things of the woods and can change shape.

The further away from the pseudo-Medeval, pseudo-Christian settings, the less sense the divisions make. That's why I tend to use Druids as animists and Clerics as god-followers. With the 5E green Paladin, it could be an exemplar of either.

I like that much better than making the Ranger the Druid-Paladin. The original niche of the Ranger was a Fighter who was focused on skirmishing and protecting the borders of civilization. They were "part" of civilization, if apart from it, and not barbarians or pagans. They learned spells because they were exposed to hidden lore and their survival depended on making some use of it -- which is why they had wizard spells in 1E. Personally, I always saw the Ranger as the Mage-Paladin, not the Druid-Paladin, but I digress.

Answer to the original question: The Cleric is tied to an implied setting that is no longer used. We may need something in that role, but the Cleric is a poor fit.

 

[MacMathan]

Clerics are definitely back to core in 5e. The basic rules has them as the only in combat healer and that is a big deal just as it was in 1e-3e. Keeping a party member in the fight is a huge advantage, especially in a game that has no penalties to bouncing back up from 0hp ( it is like being a punching clown a 1st level). From what we have played so far no one touches a Cleric of Life in this regard. Of the basic four the skill user/rogue archetype is the least necessary to the core in this edition as not every DM relies on the exploration or social pillars and Fighters, Wizards and Clerics can cover those roles well enough oft times.

The only edition you could run out of the box without a healer and make it was 4e as most classes had some self healing in combat abiltites.

 

[aramis erak]

Clerics are definitely back to core in 5e. The basic rules has them as the only in combat healer and that is a big deal just as it was in 1e-3e. Keeping a party member in the fight is a huge advantage, especially in a game that has no penalties to bouncing back up from 0hp ( it is like being a punching clown a 1st level). From what we have played so far no one touches a Cleric of Life in this regard. Of the basic four the skill user/rogue archetype is the least necessary to the core in this edition as not every DM relies on the exploration or social pillars and Fighters, Wizards and Clerics can cover those roles well enough oft times.

The only edition you could run out of the box without a healer and make it was 4e as most classes had some self healing in combat abiltites.

Druids also have in-combat healing spells.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The Cleric is a militant priest -- Knights Templar or Knight Hospitaler. At least some of these orders took vows to avoid shedding blood. In true rules-lawyer fashion, creatively interpreted these vows in a way that allowed them to use bludgeoning weapons, thus the restriction on clerical weapons in earlier editions. In most ways, the cleric is priest first, but a priest that prays softly and carries a big stick. They are ordained, and have the rights and privileges of such. This interpretation screams for an NPC priest class, though, that's better at casting but not as good at fighting.

The Paladin is the "knight in shining armor". They're really a Fighter, but they are so pure of heart and full of faith that "the powers that be" bless them in a number of ways. If you're familiar with WoD or Ars Magica, a Paladin is just a Fighter with True Faith. Anything the Fighter gets that the Paladin doesn't is either for game balance or because the Fighter is more interested in winning than keeping his hands clean.

Druids are pagan priests that are, compared to the Cleric and Paladin, rural and wild. They could be animists (which is how I use them), but really make more sense as followers of the Old Gods. Most of the Druid abilities are to differentiate them from the Cleric. They get Reincarnate, rather than Raise Dead. They can't draw on the power of God to turn undead, but are resistant to scary things of the woods and can change shape.

The further away from the pseudo-Medeval, pseudo-Christian settings, the less sense the divisions make. That's why I tend to use Druids as animists and Clerics as god-followers. With the 5E green Paladin, it could be an exemplar of either.

I like that much better than making the Ranger the Druid-Paladin. The original niche of the Ranger was a Fighter who was focused on skirmishing and protecting the borders of civilization. They were "part" of civilization, if apart from it, and not barbarians or pagans. They learned spells because they were exposed to hidden lore and their survival depended on making some use of it -- which is why they had wizard spells in 1E. Personally, I always saw the Ranger as the Mage-Paladin, not the Druid-Paladin, but I digress.

Answer to the original question: The Cleric is tied to an implied setting that is no longer used. We may need something in that role, but the Cleric is a poor fit.

The thing is the Knights Templar seem to be closer to my perception of what the Paladin is, rather than the Cleric. Indeed, Clerics in D&D do not need to be especially militarised. They could focus on the Domains of Trickery or Knowledge instead, for example. Paladins are more obviously militarised, and well, ‘Knightly’. And of course, it is worth mentioning that the Knights Templar were technically monks…..but there ya go!

I agree about Druids being animistic, although I would like to see a few more spirit style spells in their lists. I get the notion of Ranger’s as ‘Druid-Paladins’ although I don’t see them being of the same religion as such, and are more part of ‘civilisation’ than Druids and Barbarians (as you said). Ranger’s are ‘wardens of the wild’ although the reasons as to why they do that may be varied.

 

[Ashrym]

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.

The goodberries can be stocked before the adventure begins. A paranoid druid who might need spells at night might only prepare some of them but it's still a valid tactic for additional healing. Prayer of healing heals more hit points in a 2nd level slot than aura of vitality does in a third level slot, much more in the same slot, and much much more in higher level slots. Aura of vitality can only be cast with the benefits of a 3rd-level slot, and as mentioned, using it as such directly competes with the spell you previously recommended in hypnotic pattern. Casting hypnotic pattern means aura of vitality is spent on that share finite resource and a spell with no slots heals 0 hp.

Also, the development team confirmed disciple of life can work with goodberry on twitter. This can be found in the sage advice page.

Clerics are definitely back to core in 5e. The basic rules has them as the only in combat healer and that is a big deal just as it was in 1e-3e. Keeping a party member in the fight is a huge advantage, especially in a game that has no penalties to bouncing back up from 0hp ( it is like being a punching clown a 1st level). From what we have played so far no one touches a Cleric of Life in this regard. Of the basic four the skill user/rogue archetype is the least necessary to the core in this edition as not every DM relies on the exploration or social pillars and Fighters, Wizards and Clerics can cover those roles well enough oft times.

The only edition you could run out of the box without a healer and make it was 4e as most classes had some self healing in combat abiltites.

The only class in the basic rules lacking in-combat self healing is the rogue, and that has uncanny dodge, evasion, and hit-and-run mechanics to offset the damage. Fighters have second wind and can add rally as a battlemaster. Wizards, eldritch knights, and arcane tricksters can access false life and eventually vampiric touch. Necromancers have grim harvest. Abjurers have arcane ward. Transmuters have master transmuter. Any of them can have healing potions and wizards do have some high level options like clone or wish.

I agree the cleric is pretty standard for the basic rules but it's possible to do without.

The basic rules aren't the standard game, however; they are a free version to allow new players to get started or participate. The game we pay for includes several options to a cleric for combat healing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The goodberries can be stocked before the adventure begins. A paranoid druid who might need spells at night might only prepare some of them but it's still a valid tactic for additional healing. Prayer of healing heals more hit points in a 2nd level slot than aura of vitality does in a third level slot, much more in the same slot, and much much more in higher level slots. Aura of vitality can only be cast with the benefits of a 3rd-level slot, and as mentioned, using it as such directly competes with the spell you previously recommended in hypnotic pattern. Casting hypnotic pattern means aura of vitality is spent on that share finite resource and a spell with no slots heals 0 hp.

Also, the development team confirmed disciple of life can work with goodberry on twitter. This can be found in the sage advice page.

1.) I can't find any "confirmation" on the goodberry thing as RAI. The closest I can find is this: "I would allow it."

2.) When you say, "Prayer of healing heals more hit points in a 2nd level slot than aura of vitality", this is incorrect in the case under discussion (Disciple of Life) even under the most generous assumptions. If you have 6 wounded creatures and a spellcasting modifier of +5, Prayer of Healing will heal each creature for 18 points of damage (on average), or 108 damage total, whereas Aura of Vitality will heal a creature for 12 points of damage ten times, or 120 total. Prayer of Healing heals less, not more. When cast at 3rd level, Prayer of Healing would heal 22.5 per creature, or 135 damage, which is barely more--and if you have fewer than six wounded PCs it falls behind again anyway.

3.) We already agree that in the best case scenario for Prayer of Healing (many, many moderately-to-seriously-wounded non-undead/construct creatures), Prayer of Healing III (i.e. 3rd level slot) heals slightly more total HP than Aura of Vitality. That's not dispositive, because in the worst-case scenario where only one creature is wounded it heals less than 1/5 as much. (Well, the actual worst-case scenario is where it heals 0% as much due to the only wounded creatures being constructs/undead, but that's not a common scenario for most campaigns. If you're running a zombie- or Warforged-heavy campaign though, Aura of Vitality becomes an absolute no-brainer.)

4.) You're correct that Aura of Vitality is unable to make use of 2nd level spell slots. Whether this is a great concern or not is chiefly a matter of what level your bard is (i.e. the fraction of his spell slots that are level 3+) and what your playstyle is (if you've already got lots of pressure on your 1st and 2nd level slots from Heat Metal/Suggestion/whatever this is a non-issue, but if you've got nothing to do with your 2nd level slots then finding a use for them is great).

Again, it depends on playstyle, but for me personally, the only campaigns wherein Prayer of Healing is actually a good spell are large-party melee-heavy campaigns that I hate--and even then it's only 11% more efficient for a Disciple of Life in addition to being unusable during combat. If you're a bard dipping Life Cleric, I honestly can't imagine a scenario where I'd think it worthwhile to steal Prayer of Healing at all.

That's about all I've got to say on the subject. Hopefully the discussion above between me and Ashrym is useful to readers.

 

[Ashrym]

1.) I can't find any "confirmation" on the goodberry thing as RAI. The closest I can find is this: "I would allow it."

It wouldn't be allowed if it cannot work, and because it can be allowed it can work. I was deliberate in my use of the word "can".

"Disciple of Life
Also starting at 1st level, your healing spells are more effective. Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell’s level."

It is a spell of 1st level or higher that restores hit points to a creature. It's works following the text literally. If the text supports it and the lead designer who determines the rules supports it then it's supported. Any other choice to not follow that is a house rule.

2.) When you say, "Prayer of healing heals more hit points in a 2nd level slot than aura of vitality", this is incorrect in the case under discussion (Disciple of Life) even under the most generous assumptions. If you have 6 wounded creatures and a spellcasting modifier of +5, Prayer of Healing will heal each creature for 18 points of damage (on average), or 108 damage total, whereas Aura of Vitality will heal a creature for 12 points of damage ten times, or 120 total. Prayer of Healing heals less, not more. When cast at 3rd level, Prayer of Healing would heal 22.5 per creature, or 135 damage, which is barely more--and if you have fewer than six wounded PCs it falls behind again anyway.

That was my bad. I did forget to add the disciple of life bonus. Average healing on prayer of healing for 6 party members should be 9+5+4 in a 2nd-level slot for 108, correct, and aura of vitality would be 13 per round for 120 hp (7+5 as a 3rd level spell). Prayer of healing in the same 3rd-level slot would be 120 and in a 4th level slot would be 132 hp. Prayer of healing in a 5th level slot would out heal mass cure wounds out of combat for 207 hp while aura of vitality doesn't scale in higher level slots. You might have me more convinced in the cleric splash, but not without the splash, which is what you are using and in that case the 2nd level slot inches out the 3rd level aura.

3.) We already agree that in the best case scenario for Prayer of Healing (many, many moderately-to-seriously-wounded non-undead/construct creatures), Prayer of Healing III (i.e. 3rd level slot) heals slightly more total HP than Aura of Vitality. That's not dispositive, because in the worst-case scenario where only one creature is wounded it heals less than 1/5 as much. (Well, the actual worst-case scenario is where it heals 0% as much due to the only wounded creatures being constructs/undead, but that's not a common scenario for most campaigns. If you're running a zombie- or Warforged-heavy campaign though, Aura of Vitality becomes an absolute no-brainer.)

The playtest warforged were healed normally, possessing the "living construct" trait. I'm not sure what that will look like if we ever see a released version. I would be likely to just make more zombies and save the healing for party members. A 4th-level slot on corpses for 3 fresh zombies is almost as much as the 3rd-level slot to heal them, and animate dead can be scaled into higher slots too. Using this method also allows for the use of undead fortitude.

4.) You're correct that Aura of Vitality is unable to make use of 2nd level spell slots. Whether this is a great concern or not is chiefly a matter of what level your bard is (i.e. the fraction of his spell slots that are level 3+) and what your playstyle is (if you've already got lots of pressure on your 1st and 2nd level slots from Heat Metal/Suggestion/whatever this is a non-issue, but if you've got nothing to do with your 2nd level slots then finding a use for them is great).

The problem there is hypnotic pattern is a really good spell for damage mitigation and can prevent more damage than the same slot heals, while neither spell scales using higher level slots. Prayer of healing can be used in a lower level slot, goodberry shouldn't be used outside of a first level slot other than burning previous day slots before long rest (also doesn't scale in spell slots), and aura of vitality does nothing in a higher level slot. Prayer of healing is the best group spell in higher level slots until mass heal at 17th level (cleric) or 18th level (magical secrets), which is only once per day.

Scaling at higher levels is what makes it useful, and lack of scaling in other spells means limited 3rd-level slots for how effective they become regardless of he bard's level.

Again, it depends on playstyle, but for me personally, the only campaigns wherein Prayer of Healing is actually a good spell are large-party melee-heavy campaigns that I hate--and even then it's only 11% more efficient for a Disciple of Life in addition to being unusable during combat. If you're a bard dipping Life Cleric, I honestly can't imagine a scenario where I'd think it worthwhile to steal Prayer of Healing at all.

That's about all I've got to say on the subject. Hopefully the discussion above between me and Ashrym is useful to readers.

In a party of 4, it's still better healing from prayer of healing, but possibly in higher level slots (5th-level through 8th-level), and every character takes damage. A spell that can do bigger group healing up until level 18 has it's advantages. Particularly if I've got my 3rd-level slots earmarked for crowd control.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.
<snip>

Or maybe I dreamt it.

I'm tempted to think the latter

I was into D&D from the very beginning, the only newsletters I remember being published were the Strategic Review that I mentioned. People put far too much interest in 'chainmail' nowadays, back in the 70's it was considered inconsequential and ignored by everyone in every gaming community I knew of, since it was 'just some tabletop rules' and not much different from a bunch of other table top rules.

In those days it was always clear that there was the big three (FM, Cl, MU), who was quickly joined by Thief and Paladin together, and the others as I stated.

Cheers

 

[GSHamster]

Narratively, I would say that there are three archetypes:

1. The Physical Hero
2. The Smart and/or Charismatic Hero
3. The Hero with Special Powers

Most books use combinations of these, and it loosely ends up mapping onto fighter, rogue, and mage.

Game-mechanics-wise, there are three major archetypes:

1. Hero who can take a lot of damage
2. Hero who can deal a lot of damage
3. Hero who can restore or heal a lot of health

We can think of this is a Tank, Striker, Healer.

The two sets of archetypes don't really map to each other. As well, the Healer archetype tends to not appear in the literature. I think this is mostly because it can't really exist on its own, but needs another character to work to its fullest. Healers are very reactive, not proactive, and I think that makes it harder to use them as protagonists.