Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pukunui" data-source="post: 8398891" data-attributes="member: 54629">I was wondering if this might have been the thinking behind it early on - that is, since the demon princes and archdevils aren't gods, they can't provide spells to their priests/cultists. Think about how priests of the various elemental cults in Princes of the Apocalypse are statted up as sorcerers rather than clerics.That said, warlocks and their pact magic weren't really a thing in older editions of D&D, so if you wanted evil spellcasting priests and didn't want to make them wizards, you didn't have much choice other than to make them evil clerics.But now I feel like the warlock does a good job representing evil cultists / priests who can use magic granted by their patrons, meaning there isn't as much of a need for bona fide clerics of evil deities.Also, 5e only really has one the "evil" cleric domain (Death, which is relegated to the DMG) anyway. The tempest and trickery domains in the PHB aren't for evil deities only. Contrast that with 3.5e, which had clerics domains of chaos, death, destruction, evil, and goodness knows what else. So in some respects, you can't even really have proper clerics of evil deities in 5e anyway. Bhaal can only offer the Death domain (which isn't necessarily that good of a fit), while Bane can only offer the War domain. Clerics of Shar are stuck with either Death or Trickery, neither of which really fit that well with her darkness theme mechanically.</blockquote>

Verification