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

[green slime]

Bishop Odo.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Right now, nothing prevents anyone from playing a "less combat heavy cleric." Not heavy armor proficiency, not 3/4 BAB, not simple weapon proficiency, nothing. In fact, if you try creating a cleric with an 8 or 10 strength or a 10 constitution, I guarantee you, you WILL end up playing a cleric whom nobody will ever mistake for a fighter. (And if you really want to play a non-combat cleric, spend your feats on things that don't increase melee combat ability--Improved Turning, Extra Turning, Scribe Scroll, Craft Wand, Empower Spell, etc).

At the moment, it's easy to make a cleric who focusses on melee combat. And rightly so I think when you consider the number of war god priests people play. However, nothing prevents anyone from playing a "less combat-heavy" cleric except the lack of desire to do so.

Sure, the default cleric has stats that look like 14, 10, 12, 11, 15, 10 and wears good armor and carries a morning star. That's D&D tradition. However, if you create a cleric with 8, 10, 14, 10, 17, 13 for stats, you can wear leather armor (or no armor) and carry a quarterstaff without impeding your effectiveness significantly.

Anyway...

My big problem with the fighting-cleric class in 3e is that, since 3e multiclassing enables clerics to pick up a point of BAB, all weapon and armor proficiencies, a fighter feat, and a larger HD by taking a single level of fighter, it seems that the cleric's combat ability should be powered down to allow for a less combat-heavy default cleric. After all, while it is true that priesthoods have been involved in military conflict in a variety of cultures, it's also true that the individuals actually doing the fighting tend to be members of specific knightly orders attached to the church, or priests from military backgrounds (family, former service, etc.), or zealots with specialized combat training. OTOH, there are many (most?) examples of semi- or non-combatant priests, even in religious traditions with a heavy involvement in warfare (12th c. Christianity, 8th c. Islam, etc.). It seems to me that all these concepts of "priest" or "cleric" would best be handled by a less combat-oriented base class that nonetheless has the option of pursuing more combat-oriented routes through PrCs or light multiclassing. For instance, a level of fighter or paladin doesn't really delay spellcasting progression much, and some more militant PrCs (warpriest, for instance) actually add caster levels.

 

[Epametheus]

I'd just like to point out that 1st Edition fighter/clerics had no weapon restrictions.

2nd Edition is the only place I've actually seen the "clerics can only use blunt weapons, ever" rule.

 

[DarkMaster]

I'd just like to point out that 1st Edition fighter/clerics had no weapon restrictions.

2nd Edition is the only place I've actually seen the "clerics can only use blunt weapons, ever" rule.

I don't remember seeing cleric with 2 handed sword in 1st, but in second with the proper sphere or kit or god or was it the speciality priest, you could (Not sure anymore).

 

[Epametheus]

I don't remember seeing cleric with 2 handed sword in 1st, but in second with the proper sphere or kit or god or was it the speciality priest, you could (Not sure anymore).

A single class cleric had the classical cleric list of bludgeoning weapons, but a multiclassed fighter/cleric got access to the full weapon list, and could use all of them.

The default cleric class in 2nd Edition could only use bludgeoning weapons, but specialty priests were allowed access to whatever weapons were appropriate for the god. The Faiths and Avatars book for FR had a huge number of specialty priests, that ran to the extremes -- a priest of Tempus could use pretty much whatever he wanted, while the most damaging weapon permitted a Priest of Eldath was a club (and that could only be used in self-defense).

 

[Endur]

Paladins were not one of the original character classes. The Cleric was the original templar class. The original cleric class didn't even give spellcasting to first level clerics.

The Hospitalers and Templars were not priests; they were laymen who took monastic vows. Moreover, paladins already fill the role you describe. The idea that all clerics should be militant is nonsensical to me.

 

[gravyboat]

The Hospitalers and Templars were not priests; they were laymen who took monastic vows. Moreover, paladins already fill the role you describe. The idea that all clerics should be militant is nonsensical to me.

I agree. Paladins already fill the heavily armored holy man role. Clerics should get light armor proficiency only and by default not be considered so militant in their role. If a cleric wants heavy armor proficiency, he should have to multiclass to fighter or paladin, or purchase the appropriate feats.

 

[jasper]

Yes but how many of us first edition single class clerics used a luciern hammer?
for those not in the know it was really an edge weapons. ooppps.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Right now, nothing prevents anyone from playing a "less combat heavy cleric." Not heavy armor proficiency, not 3/4 BAB, not simple weapon proficiency, nothing. In fact, if you try creating a cleric with an 8 or 10 strength or a 10 constitution, I guarantee you, you WILL end up playing a cleric whom nobody will ever mistake for a fighter. (And if you really want to play a non-combat cleric, spend your feats on things that don't increase melee combat ability--Improved Turning, Extra Turning, Scribe Scroll, Craft Wand, Empower Spell, etc).

At the moment, it's easy to make a cleric who focusses on melee combat. And rightly so I think when you consider the number of war god priests people play. However, nothing prevents anyone from playing a "less combat-heavy" cleric except the lack of desire to do so.

I think you may have misinterpreted me. IMHO, the default cleric is overly skewed towards a fighting-priest archetype for my tastes, the more so because fighting priests are easily created in 3e via fighter-cleric, paladin, warpriest, or divine champion-type builds. I just don't see why the cleric has to be the one primary spellcaster in the game who is a good fighter by default. The cleric example you're talking about is simply refusing to use all of his class abilities. (Incidentally, a combat cleric will take Extra Turning for divine feats, Empower Spell for buffs, and probably Scribe Scroll to free up utility spell slots for combat buffs; clerics' feat choices don't vary that much IMX, assuming a reasonable desire to optimize.) It's mainly the combination of d8 HD, heavy armor, AND the best combat buffs in the game that bothers me. Divine power is a lot easier to use than Tenser's transformation, and can make even a wussy turning-specialist type into a combat machine.

Anyway, I'm in favor of a more customizable cleric; start 'em with medium armor proficiency and a more customized spell selection based on domains first and a universal spell list second, and go from there. But this isn't the house rules forum, of course...

 

[DarkMaster]

A single class cleric had the classical cleric list of bludgeoning weapons, but a multiclassed fighter/cleric got access to the full weapon list, and could use all of them.

Yes, but multi-classing was a mess in the previous edition, especially for humans.

The default cleric class in 2nd Edition could only use bludgeoning weapons, but specialty priests were allowed access to whatever weapons were appropriate for the god. The Faiths and Avatars book for FR had a huge number of specialty priests, that ran to the extremes -- a priest of Tempus could use pretty much whatever he wanted, while the most damaging weapon permitted a Priest of Eldath was a club (and that could only be used in self-defense).

They also had limitation on the armor they could wear, In the campaing I ran in 2nd nobody was playing a cleric, everybody was playing speciality, balancing and keeping track of the different priest was a mess, but it added flavour to each religion. I guess that's what some people on this thread would like to see in 3.XE, different type of Cleric for different religion. A cleric of a war god should wear heavy armor and damaging weapon as a cleric of a god of fertility and love should not. But the lattest should have increased powers to lack this weakness. I guess 3.X lost some to 2nd on that aspect.

I think this is mostly due to the ease of multi-classing in 3.X, it could lead to major min/maxing situation.