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


log in or register to remove this ad

Hmm. I never realized one of these houserules since both players in my group use either medium (mithral) and light armour... They're the traditional "I hit you harder and heal up afterwards" tank type.

But I'll add it to my list :D
 

irdeggman said:
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.
...............

(and UA).

Well, except for improving his extremely useful "turn undead" ability - unless you can use the "turn attempts" for something else ( "Divine Power" etc. spring to mind ), that ability will quickly with away to a rather useless toy (as any undead's you can still blast to pieces, you could equally well beat to pieces anyway.
Personally I tend to play undead slaying priests, so it may be a rather personal prejudice, but nothing is more fun than to see the look on the GM's face when his evil Arch Lich gets blasted into cinders by a "Sun" domained charismatic cleric before even getting up from his throne to properly threaten the party, hehe !

But basically, yes, the cleric is rather front loaded (like most other classes ).
 

Trainz said:
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.

Another good example is Archbishop Turpin in The Song of Roland. While not all priests/clerics/etc. were armored knights, there is plenty of precedent in history and medieval myth.
 
Last edited:

Henry said:
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.

We tried--just for kicks--running a party consisting of nothing but clerics. It was ridiculous: we were wiping the floor with everything.
 

I have a houserule just like Shilsen.

"Clerics do not receive the heavy armor weapon proficiency."

The cleric in my game went ahead and bought it anyway, because he wanted it badly enough. It made sense for his cleric anyway.
 

Well, if someone does not want to wear/use heavy armour (or medium one at that) - his choice. But I don't think clerics need something else to compensate for a player's choice. The "Unearthed Arcane" cloistered cleric trades HPs (d6) for getting more skillpoints at least. - because - if the full-platemail +5 of holy preaching is going to be found,, someone will be quick to rationalize just why that light armour cleric needs it ...

As for an all-cleric group - well besides such a group being anything but unbeatable with monsters/opponents - I think that four (4 !) clerics of ( likely differeing ) faiths would be as close to ethical chaos and rule by comitee as D+D is ever going to approach. Probably would never get any adventuring done due to the ongoing debate over the predominance of just which diety etc etc etc... 4 clerics = 5 opinions. :D :D :D

'nuff said
 
Last edited:

You want a cleric with no armor? Then play one. The class itself needs no change for this.

I played a monk1/cleric 9 who did very well indeed. His armor class was good, and his touch AC was very good indeed.

No need to change the class at all, though variants are out there if you want them.

WHY they are allowed to wear armor has been explained. No one says they MUST wear armor, though.
 

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

That's great, but:

1. Gygax's word isn't law.

2. The historic Templars & Hospitalers probably (if not definitely) did wear armor. HOWEVER, they definitely DID NOT cast spells!
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top