Leader Role: The end of the cleric?

[Frostmarrow]

An encounter is an obstacle that a party with a leader (cleric or warlord) will be equally apt to pass through. Recent design articles suggests rangers and rogues will be equally good strikers, for example.

If warlords add bonuses to attack and clerics add bonuses to defense (healing) to the group it stands to reason warlord lead groups will have shorter fights than cleric lead groups. Warlords kill the enemy quicker than clerics but clerics can do it longer.

 

[Gort]

If you see "warlord," think "Marshal" or "Bard", because that's what he sounds like.

I think the point they're trying to get across with the name is that the character is more than just group buffs - warlord implies that the character can fight well alone, while bard... really doesn't.

I hope the "Leader" role does see the end of the cleric... as a REQUIRED class of a party. Even the other divine caster, the druid, lacks the range of condition removal spells that the cleric has, and is significantly worse at healing. (partly due to not being able to swap-out for healing spells, and partly due to getting said spells later)

I was very pleased when I saw that the beguiler could disarm traps, because it meant that you didn't always have to have a rogue in the party for that stuff, you could have a rogue OR a beguiler. Likewise it's nice that you can have a paladin, fighter or barbarian for up-front fighting and trading hits. And then there's a range of options for ranged striking. However, there really only was the cleric when you wanted a good healer.

Hopefully 4e will change that.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think the point they're trying to get across with the name is that the character is more than just group buffs - warlord implies that the character can fight well alone, while bard... really doesn't.

It's funny how the bard has gone from warrior-skald to complete whimp. In 1 ed I envisioned the bard to be quite like Slaine. Now Bard is synonymous with Elan.

 

[Gort]

It's funny how the bard has gone from warrior-skald to complete whimp. In 1 ed I envisioned the bard to be quite like Slaine. Now Bard is synonymous with Elan.

Well, he went through hard times in 2nd ed, with the not being able to wear armour and cast spells. This continued into 3rd ed, only rectified in 3.5.

I think a lot of the problem comes from his MADD. I mean, I suppose a bard could kick some ass in hand-to-hand, but since when did they have enough points to really pump their strength? Likewise, their spells are really lame. I preferred it in 2nd ed where they could chuck fireballs and the like.

 

[jasin]

the term "warlord" strikes me as someone who has elevated himself above others either through a high CHA or fear or intimidation. I have a hard time seeing a 1st level character with an average Charisma doing this very well.

Why in the world would you assume average Cha? Fighters don't have average Str, wizards don't have average Int. It's very likely that warlords won't have average Cha either.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I've never liked the cleric. It's much too similar to the paladin. I'd prefer something closer to the cloistered cleric or WoW priest.

The cleric was there first, and the paladin came along and stepped on his toes.
For a long time, the paladin was differentiated by his code, but it looks like 4e is getting rid of this. As a result, there will be TWO classes that are "martial champion of a god or cause."

 

[Jer]

The concept of a cleric is rather unknown outside of D&D. The warlord is very much documented in fiction.

Example: There are no clerics in Lord of The Rings (unless you cram some of the characters in to that class). There are no clerics in Dragonlance 4th age either. However, warlords are common in both.

You're right that there aren't any clerics in Lord of the Rings - but then there aren't really any wizards either, at least not how D&D players envision the wizard. The cleric comes from history -- the militant Knights Templar are the historical base for the cleric, with a dash of fantasy from the miracles-as-spells system that D&D has. (Honestly, the worst thing to happen to the cleric was the creation of the paladin back in the day -- once people saw paladins as holy warriors, the cleric's role was reduced from militant church warrior to healer guy).

There aren't any clerics in Dragonlance 4th age because of a specific plot point of that setting - the removal of the gods from the world. And Dragonlance from the beginning was very much a "clerics must have gods" setting. Other versions of Dragonlance kind of depend on there being clerics around, or at least on there having once been clerics around.

I like religion in my game but I don't feel the cleric is a must have. I think the cleric may just slide into oblivion - at least in my game.

I think the cleric will stick around in many games. I suspect that the Warlord-as-leader will have some bennies that the Cleric doesn't, but I suspect that the reverse will also be true. Also, while the cleric may not be prevalent in generic fantasy, the militant cleric is very much used in "influenced-by-Dungeons-and-Dragons" fantasy, so there's a certain amount of "D&D"-ness involved in having a cleric in the party. I do hope that the "we NEED to have a cleric" aspect goes away, and I also hope that the "you stand in the back and heal people" aspect of the cleric diminishes (Bias note: I've almost always played the cleric in almost every game I've ever been in. Part of that is because I like clerics, but MOST of it is because I tend to play with people who hate playing clerics).

Now, what I'd REALLY like to happen is for the assumption that "priest == cleric" would go away. All priests in a campaign world should not have to be clerics, though the D&D rules have never been good about this. The vast majority of priests should be something like the adept NPC class, but with a more interesting spell list. Back in my "Rules Cyclopedia" D&D days, I even went so far as to create a "church priest" class for NPCs - wizard attack progression, d4 HD, spell list made up of mostly healing, protection and divination spells. I even had a player want to play one though we had to tweak the spell list to make it worthwhile as a PC adventuring class. I suppose that in the new game I could see tweaking the spell list and making something like that to fill the role of a "divine controller"-type class.

 

[Gort]

The cleric was there first, and the paladin came along and stepped on his toes.

I'd like the division, if it was that paladins were the soldiers of their god, and clerics were the spellcasting backup, kind of like divine wizards. As it is, the cleric is too good at hand-to-hand for that.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I'd like the division, if it was that paladins were the soldiers of their god, and clerics were the spellcasting backup, kind of like divine wizards. As it is, the cleric is too good at hand-to-hand for that.

And I'd prefer that the cleric keep his "holy warrior" role, suitable for any god, with the paladin reserved as a unique champion that Lawful Good gets, to reflect a mythic/legendary archetype. Non-LG paladins as a core rule MAY be a deal-breaker for me switching to 4e.

 

[jasin]

Yes, the name isn't that great. Marshal is better and after all, it was already used in 3e.

Why is marshal better, other than having precedent in 3E? The meaning it implies to me are much the same as warlord: a fighting leader of men. Perhaps marshal has implications of legitimacy and military rank, while warlord seems more rough and tumble... which would actually make warlord a more appropriate name for a member an adventuring party.