Oh cleric what are thou? When most classes can heal...

[Staffan]

I admit I have a hard time wrapping my head around people who say they want to play a cleric with no ties to the religious part. I mean, it's in the title. The word "cleric" has a clear definition: a priest or religious leader. That's sort of the core feature of the class, like magic users using spell books. If you want to play a class that has similar abilities but not the religious part, I get that, but it should be a different class altogether. Kind of like the sorcerer is to the wizard.

Saying you want to play a cleric without the religious part is like saying you want to play a Colonel without dealing with any military stuff. It's counter to what the word literally means.

Religion does not necessarily mean a particular deity, however. For instance, Buddhists usually don't believe in gods, but you'd have a hard time claiming Buddhism isn't a religion.

That said, non-theistic religions shouldn't be a way to get around having some sort of behavioral restrictions on clerics. Again, using Buddhism as an example, the requirements of that religion on its disciples are at least as stringent as those of Christianity or Islam. The difference there is that they are phrased more as "This is how to lead a good life" than "Do what I say, or else."

 

[jgsugden]

Just to point it out - you don't need to be a cleric, paladin or druid to have faith in D&D. The most pious PC I've played was a long time ago - and he was a 'Priest' of a God with an unknown name... in Athas. I played him for about a year, preaching in the shadows as secretly as a Veiled Alliance member - but with no spells granted to him, ever. Yet, he was the PC I've played that had the most faith...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hello

It used to be that a cleric was almost mandatory in a party. However, in this edition of D&D, I've noticed how many classes have healing powers, that usually couldn't. A wizard (subclass transmuter) can heal with a philosopher's stone for example. In fact, more classes can heal than those that cannot.

Xanathar's guide has made this even more so by creating two subclasses that transformed two classes that couldn't heal (I think), the sorcerer and the warlock - into quite strong healers should a player choose to be so.

Of the 4 classes that still can't heal others (I think, I may have missed something), two can heal themselves (fighter, monk) and the last two have damage reduction (barbarian, rogue).

And don't get me started about fast natural healing, the healer feat, magic initiate...

So where does this leave the cleric? Does he still have a role, an identity? Role Playing wise, absolutely (worshiper of a deity is a pretty strong "identity") but "rule-wise", "party role wise" - what does the cleric do?

In 3e, the era of "COD-zilla" (COD standing for cleric of doom), a cleric could easily buff himself to become an absolute monster in melee combat and wreck everything. In 5e, this is less so, but spiritual weapon works really well in this edition (and doesn't require concentration), bless is superb and spirit guardian is just as good - if perhaps even better - than fireball. And most of the domains are pretty good and interesting, and allow cleric variety.

... but is it enough? I think it's great that no single class is "needed". The last thing I want is a game where one player has to "play class X" because no one else wants it and she's stuck with it. 3e's answer was to make the cleric extremely powerful. 5e's answer was to make the cleric not mandatory. But did 5e overshoot?

Some days, I wonder if it did...

Well, I think the same question can be asked about spellcasters in general since so many classes are spellcasters at 1st level.

But to me, you phrased your question perfectly because the answer lies within.

There is a misconception that each race and class needs to have a mechanical niche or role. And to some degree I think this perception arose because of the cleric, and to a lesser degree, the rogue (thief).

5e’s design does a great job of doing away with this myth by providing more mechanical options. Because the “role” a character plays is whatever role you want it to be. It’s a role playing game, so find the character, the personality, the “why” they are there.

There isn’t anything wrong with tying your character’s role to the mechanics of course. But it’s so very limiting. Your race and class can define your character, but they don’t have to.

So, no, I think that they’ve improved playability by not putting classes into such specific niches. Look beyond the mechanical role, especially the combat role, and into role playing the person themselves.

 

[Ancalagon]

You already got one laugh from me.

Ah, I had missed that, sorry.

Seriously speaking though... it's a weird situation. For people who haven't played 4e much (or at all), it's like a mystery edition, rather opaque (in part because it was so different). You might as well talk about the priests in warhammer frpg 2nd ed (incidentally, they work fine!). But for fans of the edition it must be frustrating to see people praise 5e for innovation that have their roots (or entirety) in 4e

 

[Tony Vargas]

it must be frustrating to see people praise 5e for innovation that have their roots (or entirety) in 4e

5e was openly intended to borrow from past editions, so I've no problem with it being credited with doing so. But when it's given props for something when it's actually done the reverse relative to a past edition, especially the one immediately prior, I feel the need to point out the actual trajectory.

In this case, 5e has not progressed appreciably from 3e. Really, we are talking quantity of player-facing options, here, and no edition quite holds a candle to 3.5, in that regard.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sometimes I like to treat clerics as individual representations of the domain. Rather than worshipping Zeus, the tempest cleric is the embodiment of the tempest domain. Rather than worshipping Ares, the cleric is an aspect of War bringing strife to the world.

That's actually a really cool concept.

Stealing it if you don't mind, though I don't know how often people will use it. Good for NPCs though.

Just to point it out - you don't need to be a cleric, paladin or druid to have faith in D&D. The most pious PC I've played was a long time ago - and he was a 'Priest' of a God with an unknown name... in Athas. I played him for about a year, preaching in the shadows as secretly as a Veiled Alliance member - but with no spells granted to him, ever. Yet, he was the PC I've played that had the most faith...

Oh yeah, one of my most pious characters would have been my Tiefling Storm Sorcerer. He believed that Waukeen pulled him out of a future as a street rat and gave him the chance to become a jewelers apprentice. He was a little zealous sometimes, but I had a massive amount of fun playing him. Even had a life goal of completing a massive arrangement made of platinum and pure diamonds to gift to the goddess. I think it ended up being worth half a million gold before I super charged it with magic and we had to wrap that plot line up.

 

[Li Shenron]

Reality check on: "the Cleric has no identity".

Does the Wizard have an identity, when more than 50% of the character classes cast spells?
Does the Fighter have an identity, when everyone kicks ass in combat anyway?
Does the Rogue have an identity, when everyone can try everything, and get any proficiency from a proper background?
Does the Barbarian have an identity, when all Rage does is just more damage?
Does the Sorcerer have an identity, when it is still considered a lesser Wizard?
Does the Druid have an identity, or is just a Cleric/Wizard hybrid?
Does the Paladin have an identity, or is just a Fighter/Cleric hybrid?
Does the Ranger have an identity, or is just a Fighter/Druid hybrid?
Does the Bard have an identity, or is just a Rogue/Wizard hybrid?
Does the Monk have an identity, or is just a naked Fighter/Rogue hybrid?
Does the Warlock have an identity, or is just a Wizard with alternative mechanic?

They all have enough identity to stand on their own.

 

[Kobold Stew]

forcing the Cleric to stand on it's own merits, while people slowly realize it had none to begin with.

Couldn't disagree more.

The cleric is the most diverse class in the 5e arsenal, and for me that makes it the best designed class in the PHB.

It can accommodate a wide range of playstyles,* and (unlike most classes) can be effective with the widest range of primary stats: Wisdom, Charisma, Strength, or Dexterity (depending on the subclass). You can be melee-focused, attack only at range, be support (including healing), or be the party's face.

[* The only option not available out of the gate, for my tastes, as the so-called Laser Cleric seen in previous editions: none of the attack cantrips required a to-hit roll (they were all reactive, needing saves). The Arcana subclass fixed that.]

The RP opportunities are as wide as with any other class, and explicit connection to a particular deity is not required, allowing people to sidestep the religious dimension if they wanted.

Additionally, 5e added a religious-background (the Acolyte) which is specifically focused on providing religious ceremonies. That was a brilliant move, I felt, as it separated being a religious functionary from the place of a cleric (as a divine adventurer). They could stil overlap (it was the suggested background for a cleric), but it was only optional. (They've since backtracked on this a little bit, since UA first presented the Ceremony starter spell, which is a (TM) Bad Thing.)

I get that not everyone wants to play a cleric. That's cool. But really, I think a lot of the antipathy is inherited impressions from previous editions. The 5e cleric has so much going for it.

 

[Warpiglet]

Well, I think the same question can be asked about spellcasters in general since so many classes are spellcasters at 1st level.

But to me, you phrased your question perfectly because the answer lies within.

There is a misconception that each race and class needs to have a mechanical niche or role. And to some degree I think this perception arose because of the cleric, and to a lesser degree, the rogue (thief).

5e’s design does a great job of doing away with this myth by providing more mechanical options. Because the “role” a character plays is whatever role you want it to be. It’s a role playing game, so find the character, the personality, the “why” they are there.

There isn’t anything wrong with tying your character’s role to the mechanics of course. But it’s so very limiting. Your race and class can define your character, but they don’t have to.

So, no, I think that they’ve improved playability by not putting classes into such specific niches. Look beyond the mechanical role, especially the combat role, and into role playing the person themselves.

Word to your mother!

And it is the way I like it! I must apologize outright and say I have never gotten into Warcraft (aside from the FIRST and SECOND ones in the early 90s!) and dislike the nomenclature of striker etc.

We make characters and play, period. I enjoy the idea of being able to be and play in many different ways. No restrictions are not my goal--that is boring and there is no playing against type--but having mandatory classes is not for me either and never has been.

We played TONS of AD&D (gygax version!) and often had no cleric. On other occasions we played antiheroes and the clerics were very stingy with healing.

In those cases we knew we had to be more careful and had to try and find, buy or steal healing potions and other means of healing.

Ironically, I always play warlocks but had one 5e cleric. This thread has given me the itch to play another fighting cleric! I am thinking Life cleric for the first time ever. A real zealous churchman sent to cleanse the lands of undead or other evil sh*t.

Maybe heavy armor master at first and (gasp) weapon master at 4th so I can swing a maul! He will be able to heal, no doubt but I am thinking more spiritual weapon and maul action than anything. Sounds fun! And to take on that holier than thou mantle again...its been ages!

 

[Satyrn]

Just to point it out - you don't need to be a cleric, paladin or druid to have faith in D&D. The most pious PC I've played was a long time ago - and he was a 'Priest' of a God with an unknown name... in Athas. I played him for about a year, preaching in the shadows as secretly as a Veiled Alliance member - but with no spells granted to him, ever. Yet, he was the PC I've played that had the most faith...

Aye. I don't think of the cleric as a hero who gains his power from faith. Rather, he's a hero who draws his power straight from the Divine.

Whatever the Divine is is up to the cleric and the setting. Perhaps it's a god, but it might be the spark that makes a god a god, the primal Influence of Law and Chaos that shapes the outer planes, or even the midichlor force that flows through all life that is better left unexplained.