D&D (2024) The Cleric should be retired

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And lets stop ignoring that there's plenty of clerics that don't use the mace in D&D anymore either. So....

We're talking about archetypes, your holiness.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Believing that a character class you don't personally see interest in should be entirely removed from the game belies an extreme degree of narcissism and selfishness.

Oh, man, you should see some of the threads we've had about halflings and gnomes over the years.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

So much nope

 

[Yaarel]

The deepest problem with the Cleric class is its cosmological setting assumptions. Other settings need to use this core class as well.

Religion is a session zero topic, to ensure all reallife players are comfortable.

The Cleric class must allow the player to decide the sacred tradition for ones own character concept. The class requires narrative flexibility with a fluid, inclusive, and customizable approach to sacred traditions. Any kind of sacred tradition: polytheism, monism, animism, whatever.

In D&D, Divine power is the magic of the Astral Plane, including its thought stuff, alignments, concepts, symbols, paradigms, and mindcapes.

The Cleric class is a Gish - a full caster that is competent in melee combat. The spell schools that this class is known for are: Abjuration including Healing, Divination, Planeshifting, and Necromancy including Undead and Fiends. This is a distinctive thematic for a kind of Mage, an Astral gishy one.

 

[MGibster]

Believing that a character class you don't personally see interest in should be entirely removed from the game belies an extreme degree of narcissism and selfishness.

Eh, that's a bit far. Having a different opinion on what should or shouldn't be in the game isn't evidence of narcissism or selfishness. Sometimes a difference of opinion on what should be in D&D is just a difference of opinion.

Although I'm sure we're all in agreement that Gnomes are to D&D as ants are to a picnic.

 

[Stalker0]

I see what you mean, but I would strongly prefer that those organizational connections be excluded the class descriptions. Define them in the setting materials and in the PC background. [Note: it's probably worthwhile to have some examples in the PHB or DMG without locking it into the class itself.] I think that allows for a much broader range of interpretations of the class, which is only a benefit to the game.

Which to me is a support for the OPs position. The very thing that is the RP tie for the cleric is something we don't want to hammer down but leave vague and open. So maybe that isn't a good foundation for a class.

 

[Horwath]

This leads me to an interesting thought exercise... You could have three Base Classes with four subclasses organized around Martial, Primal, Divine, and Arcane.

Warrior (Battlemaster, Ranger, Paladin, Hexblade)
Expert (Assassin, Scout, Priest, Bard)
Spellcaster (Evoker, Druid, Cleric, Wizard)

Or something like that!

you can have 4 classes based on martial/magic aptitude:

martial:
d12
no spellcasting
extra attacks at levels 5,9,13,17,20

gish:
d10
half-caster
extra attacks at levels 5,11,19

adept:
d8
2/3rd caster: 7 spell levels, gained at class levels: 1,4,7,10,13,16,19
extra attack at levels 5,

caster
d6
full spellcasting
no extra attack,


OFC, PHB can come with 3 or 4 build examples for every of 4 classes that somewhat resemble current classes.

 

[Amrûnril]

Yeah. Let D&D be D&D. I don't expect it to be Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Xanth, or Conan the Barbarian. I find D&D has a charm its own and why would I want to abandon something that makes it unique?

To some players, D&D's charm comes more from the ability to accommodate diverse settings than from it's own tropes.

Now, I think having a diverse range of classes helps it do that, and while Cleric might not be a class I'd include if I were redesigning things from scratch, it's clearly been implemented in a way that a lot of players find compelling.

And whatever I agree with the argument, or not, a hypothetical discussion of the Cleric's merits is a very welcome break from reiterating the same sets of Fighter vs. Wizard arguments.

 

[Imaro]

Which to me is a support for the OPs position. The very thing that is the RP tie for the cleric is something we don't want to hammer down but leave vague and open. So maybe that isn't a good foundation for a class.

So where does that leave the fighter?

 

[Umbran]

Believing that a character class you don't personally see interest in should be entirely removed from the game belies an extreme degree of narcissism and selfishness.

Mod Note:
That's enough.

If you cannot find a more constructive way to handle folks who disagree with you than by insulting them, you will have to find another venue for your discussions.