Seriously. Why *do* Clerics get to wear armour?

[irdeggman]

I find the 3.5 cleric class lacking in one important factor. It is the only core class that doesn't any new abilities gained by level. Even the sorcerer gets the ability to swap out spells he knows. The cleric gets spell progression, but that is not the same, especially when one looks at prestige classes that grant +1 caster level/level. The cleric is essentially sacrificing nothing in order to gain those prestige classes.

The cleric class should be bumped up somehow. Not because it isn't balanced with the other core classes, it really is, but because it is the class that people avoid playing because of the walking band-aid role they fill. Allowing spontaneous casting of cure spells went a long way in mitigating this, but people still avoid playing the class, even though it is a class that almost every adventuring party requires to survive. Instead parties end up visiting the local temple almost regularly or stopping by to purchase several potions, just in case.

If someone would rather have a non-combat oriented cleric, then create a new class. There are guidelines in the DMG for it. I expect that in the complete divine WotC will have some more alternate cleric classes like they finally did in the complete warrior (and UA).

 

[Shadowdweller]

The cleric is based on the hospitalers, templars, and knightly priests of medieval europe. It's the perfect archetype of the priest who takes up fighting to pursue his god's dogma. I like it just like it is.

For those of you still doubting, this is what Gygax EXPRESSLY stated in 1e.

 

[Dthamilaye]

If someone would rather have a non-combat oriented cleric, then create a new class. There are guidelines in the DMG for it. I expect that in the complete divine WotC will have some more alternate cleric classes like they finally did in the complete warrior (and UA).

There is one already. It is called a Healer from Miniatures Handbook. I like that class concept and it does get benefits during its level progression.

 

[Flyspeck23]

I would never play a cleric without armor. Why should I be forced into the back lines when I need to be near the front to heal?

Exactly. The need for heavy armor would only change if the healing spells wouldn't be touch range anymore. And who'd want that?
Sanctuary doesn't help much. That's one of the reasons I don't really like the MHB Healer (nice concept, though...).

 

[shilsen]

Another vote for armourless clerics... I wouldn't even mind medium armours ... but I see too many threads like "The poor weak cleric class should get Weapon Specialisation!"

That's a house rule I use - clerics get light and medium armor proficiency and shield proficiency. Makes medium armor a lot more commonly used and doesn't seem to have hampered clerics any. The more militant cleric PCs or NPCs can use a feat for heavy armor proficiency.

 

[Ottergame]

I find the 3.5 cleric class lacking in one important factor. It is the only core class that doesn't any new abilities gained by level. Even the sorcerer gets the ability to swap out spells he knows. The cleric gets spell progression, but that is not the same, especially when one looks at prestige classes that grant +1 caster level/level. The cleric is essentially sacrificing nothing in order to gain those prestige classes.

Clerics do lose undead turning strength, which can be a pretty solid way of whiping out large numbers of undead, and most domain powers are based on the cleric level, not class level.

 

[Darklone]

I find the 3.5 cleric class lacking in one important factor. It is the only core class that doesn't any new abilities gained by level. Even the sorcerer gets the ability to swap out spells he knows. The cleric gets spell progression, but that is not the same, especially when one looks at prestige classes that grant +1 caster level/level. The cleric is essentially sacrificing nothing in order to gain those prestige classes.

The cleric class should be bumped up somehow. ...

I heard this already too often. Bumping up the most broken class in the game? Which "only" gets spellcasting in full armour each level?

I consider these prestige classes as broken, not the cleric class as bland.

Btw: I can't complain about players not wanting to play clerics. Quite the opposite.

 

[Henry]

I've got to say that in the default game world, full of magical beasts, aberrations, goblinoids, and evildoers bent on destroying the forces of good and even neutrality, armored clerics make PERFECT sense.

But from a rules perspective, the basic cleric is a VERY powerful class - either too powerful, or just on the edge of being so. The cleric can almost adventure by himself - the only thing he's missing is mass offensive spell support at low levels; at high levels, he even has that, too.

 

[dcollins]

I would actually be comfortable just taking the top-end heavy armor away from Clerics. For some reasons Clerics donning chainmail seems more in-flavor to me, and then you have a very nice regular core class progression:

Fighters: BAB +1, HD d10, Heavy armor.
Clerics: BAB +3/4, HD d8, Medium armor.
Rogues: BAB +3/4, HD d6, Light armor.
Wizards: BAB +1/2, HD d4, No armor.

 

[Red Baron]

That's a house rule I use - clerics get light and medium armor proficiency and shield proficiency. Makes medium armor a lot more commonly used and doesn't seem to have hampered clerics any. The more militant cleric PCs or NPCs can use a feat for heavy armor proficiency.

Agreed - I use an identical house rule, and it's caused no ripples.