D&D (2024) The Cleric should be retired

[MGibster]

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

At the risk of being accused of gatekeeping, someone who is uncomfortable with the idea of a fictional religion and gods should probably steer clear of D&D. These concepts are simply baked into the game itself. What next? Do you session zero magic because there are people who are uncomfortable with it in real life?

 

[dave2008]

The cleric has three fundamental problems as a class. The first is that there are basically no fictional clerics outside near-explicit D&D fiction that match D&D clerics.

That is a fundamental reason to keep. It is a fiction created by D&D for D&D and it works so well that a lot of other fictions have copied it (particularly anime and manga)

The second is that their holy spellcaster schtick is pressed on from all sides by people who do it better.

That is an argument to improve the class, not remove it IMO

And the third is that thanks to the nature of prepared casting that their magic is very cookie cutter with, other than domain spells, all clerics being able to prepare the same spells..

Personally I don't think clerics should be prepared casters. Again, this is an argument to revise/improve the class, not to get rid of it

 

[payn]

Me: This is madness!
Players: THIS IS D&D! <kicks me down the hole>

I learned a very, very long time ago that D&D is good for running one game, D&D. That's fine, because it's very, very good at running D&D games. I kind of get the feeling as though the rules are designed to run D&D games. The rules aren't very good for diverse settings outside of it's own tropes and I came to that realization way back in 1991 when I foolishly attempted to adapt the Wheel of Time to 2nd edition. That D&D divides magic into the Divine and the Arcane is just one example of how ill suited the rules are for fantasy settings other than D&D. Attempting to adapt D&D to other non-D&D settings is a lot of work and you'd be better of with GURPS or some other system. i.e. It's a fool's errand.

Granted, this is just one person's opinion. And if it has offended you, remember it simply as a dream. That you have but slumbered here while this vision did appear.

This. We need to let D&D be its own thing, and have more RPGs out there.

 

[Clint_L]

There really isn't any advantage to keeping the Cleric around, it only serves to pidgeonhole most religious characters into one class.

The obvious advantage is that it is a fun class that has been around almost since the inception of D&D, it has a clear class identity replicated in pretty much every RPG, and it is popular. Nor does it pigeonhole anyone into anything. In D&D 3/13 classes are predicated on one's religious beliefs (cleric, paladin, druid) and a 4th is religion adjacent, depending on the nature of the warlock's relationship with their patron. Plus there are backgrounds such as acolyte available to everyone. Plus there are tons of examples of religious people who are not clerics, including in the MM. Plus you can RP however you like and we've all seen examples of people choosing to RP characters for whom religion plays a significant role, despite not being cleric.

This thread has yet to present a single convincing premise in support of the ridiculous, clickbait-ish title. Also, it doesn't belong in this subforum because obviously.

 

[Clint_L]

At the risk of being accused of gatekeeping, someone who is uncomfortable with the idea of a fictional religion and gods should probably steer clear of D&D. These concepts are simply baked into the game itself. What next? Do you session zero magic because there are people who are uncomfortable with it in real life?

Totally disagree with this as well. I have players with zero interest in religion, fictional or otherwise, who enjoy playing D&D, and if players want to express any concerns about content Session 0 is the best time to do it, so we all know we are on the same page. Maybe we will agree, and maybe we won't.

Edit: That said, I've never, in more than 40 years, encountered a single player uncomfortable with the idea of religion in a fictional setting, and I live in a very secular part of the world. So I don't think this is an actual issue, either, much like retiring cleric as a class.

 

[MGibster]

Totally disagree with this as well. I have players with zero interest in religion, fictional or otherwise, who enjoy playing D&D, and if players want to express any concerns about content Session 0 is the best time to do it, so we all know we are on the same page. Maybe we will agree, and maybe we won't.

I’ve played Clerics when I had zero interest in religion. In my experience, most players who play a Cleric have little interest in the religion. To them, it’s no different than playing a Fighter. But they’re not uncomfortable with the setting which I think is the salient point here. If someone is uncomfortable with fictional religions and gods, they should choose a different game.

 

[CleverNickName]

While we are at it, I want a subclass for rogues that cast cleric spells. We have Arcane Trickster, so why not? He can heal you or backstab you- call it the Holy Roller.

This is already in the game: just give your rogue the Magic Initiate feat, and choose 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell. If you choose them from the Cleric list, you can start with two of the three must-have "healer" spells right out of the gate (Spare the Dying + any other cantrip + your choice of Healing Word or Cure Wounds).

There's no need to build an entire subclass around "rogue, but with healing" (or "fighter, but with green flame blade," "monk, but with eldritch blast" etc.) Just bolt on a feat. This is a key feature of the 5E rules framework--we should use it more often.

 

[Yaarel]

At the risk of being accused of gatekeeping, someone who is uncomfortable with the idea of a fictional religion and gods should probably steer clear of D&D.

That gatekeeping sounds noninclusive toward reallife players.

D&D is for everyone, from any culture.

The pain points are obvious and easy to resolve. Also, session zero can doublecheck anything more specific to help players at the table to feel more comfortable.

 

[Pedantic]

This is already in the game: just give your rogue the Magic Initiate feat, and choose 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell. If you choose them from the Cleric list, you can start with two of the three must-have "healer" spells right out of the gate (Spare the Dying + any other cantrip + your choice of Healing Word or Cure Wounds).

There's no need to build an entire subclass around "rogue, but with healing" (or "fighter, but with green flame blade," "monk, but with eldritch blast" etc.) Just bolt on a feat. This is a key feature of the 5E rules framework--we should use it more often.

Or, we could just have more rules to play with, and it would be fine. I'm using Purple Martin Game's material liberally in my Level Up games, and they have a solid 1/3 caster style divine rogue subclass with some cool abilities, my favorite being they can do the "slap a scarf around your face, and magically no one can quite remember who you were" thing.

 

[Irlo]

If someone is uncomfortable with fictional religions and gods, they should choose a different game.

It’s not all or nothing. One can be uncomfortable with particular ways religion is represented in a game without being opposed to all representation of fictional gods. That’s why session 0 is useful. I don’t feel the need to drop out if the hobby just because I don’t want to play a fantasy game with close analogues or parodies of real world religions and cultures.