Quote from: Fheredin on March 20, 2025, 08:02:42 PMIn human terms, we would call them special needs

In human terms, "special needs" means something that is probably not what you intend.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 20, 2025, 09:58:02 PMHealing is just too important.

Less so in 5e though. There's very few injuries that can't be slept off with a Long Rest.

I always liked the idea of portfolios and special, deity / pantheon specific features but, I can appreciate the OSR healbots / undead blasters with all their limitations.

It seems to me though that if you want something very specific, just create another appropriate class. I seem to recall NPC class alternatives like "Shaman" that get both cleric and mu spells, but only up to a certain level.

Quote from: tenbones on March 20, 2025, 07:19:57 PMWhat do you all think of these ideas: healing and undead manipulation being traded out for God-specific other abilities appropriate to their creeds where applicable?

Personally in my D&D like hacks I've more and more advice players that healing magic is unnecessary as a role, mostly due to in combat healing only slowing down combat and out of combat healing only increasing the number of encounters per day for a average group.

The first is bad for the pacing of a session, my idea these day is keep fights short and brutal. The second is bad for the number of potentially trash encounters that need to be inserted by the GM.

Clerics are also much more fun playing when mirroring the actual interests/domains of their gods then interchangeable heal bots.

Quote from: HappyDaze on March 21, 2025, 12:28:24 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 20, 2025, 09:58:02 PMHealing is just too important.

Less so in 5e though. There's very few injuries that can't be slept off with a Long Rest.

Yeah, in 5e I've found my players' clerics being less healbotty than expected. If they haven't chosen the Life domain, they have other kewl powers they want to use, and healing is an afterthought / emergency option / out-of-combat activity. I think my current campaign's Paladin does more healing than the Cleric ever has - the cleric originally wanted to be Twilight, then when after a couple of sessions I said "No, this has proved there's a reason Twilight wasn't in the list of subclasses available", ended up as a Trickster - which was also not in the initial subclass list but wasn't too much of a stretch to fit into the cosmology & a more appropriate power-level.

Cleric as healbot is boring and a losing strategy, but somehow persists.

Interestingly, I never saw this phenomenon until 3rd edition. The clerics in my AD&D games were much more, and I think this was because healing was limited appropriately. It was one of many things you had in your one-off bag to use judiciously. In those games, healing would be used on the one character who was actually in the process of dying that round. It was life-saving emergency magic.

Later it became an endless squirt gun of PC preservation; a secondary well of HP for the entire party. Yawn. Just give everyone more HP to start with if you really want a slower game, instead of making one of the PC's essentially sit out the adventure to do it.

To the OP, yeah, priestly abilities should match the deity and setting. The original Cleric makes sense to the extent that their deity is pseudo-Christian and a "Van Helsing" type jives in the setting. If your setting is otherwise, then yes it needs its own priestly magic.

(Frankly, the cleric never worked well for me in D&D either for this reason -- it often felt out of place in the setting to me. Could be that's because my group tended towards more rural and pagan adventures, while others lean urban and Christian? For me "Fighter, Wizard, Druid, Ranger" makes a much better core four for D&D.)

As far as I'm concerned, not many players wanting to play a cleric is a feature, not a bug.  It makes the ones who do play a cleric stand out more, and makes it that much easier on the GM to manage all the role playing bits you all are discussing. 

It's funny to me when the relative rarity of "clerics" in any system comes up, because any time I run a long game in old school style, the net effect is that whatever the equivalent of cleric is becomes more popular than wizard.  I've seen the same pattern for over 40 years now, though admittedly since those are all my games, maybe it's just me and/or those players.  It's a large sample size of players, though.

The exception seems to be when the healer abilities are more fluid, as in my system.  Then it's not uncommon for someone to go the robed "priest/healer" route instead of the armored fighting healer route, though I do have one of those in my current game that is enjoying it.  She rarely heals during a fight, either. 

It's funny. One of my first successful characters was a cleric...only because nobody in the group wanted to play one. Over time, the cleric has become my favorite class to play for several reasons. With the standard cleric:

-the ability to turn or destroy undead
-healing
-a decent secondary in combat

Now, that's with the standard cleric as written. Over the years, after playing several variations of the cleric class, I like having options available in the game I run if somebody wishes to play a cleric. It doesn't mean that a player can't play the standard cleric. In fact, I highly recommend playing a standard cleric at first to get a feel for the class.

With that being said, the things I've introduced into my game are influenced from several sources. I'd say the primary ones being The Complete Book of Clerics for 2e AD&D and the Zealot's Guide to Wurld Conversion for Hackmaster 4e. TBH, the HM version is almost entirely the same as the 2e book.

Other source for inspiration I utilized as the Greyhawk Adventures book for 1e/2e and the original DeityBase for the World of Greyhawk. A link to the Deitybase is right here, in case anyone is interested:

Deitybase

Also keeping with a more generic type of cleric, but with some flair, Dragon magazine issue #115 has a breakdown of all the gods in the DDG book and their preferred weapon of choice for their clerics.

So, some of the things I've incorporated into my game for clerics:

- weapon of choice for god: this might include weapons that are edged (OH NO! GASP!) and bows and crossbows (WHAT?), depending on the god one choses to worship. For my game, the cleric is +1 to hit and damage with his god's weapon of choice.

-ability to turn/command undead: if it's the WoG, it's based right off of the Deitybase. If it's a god out of DDG, it's very simple:

good aligned: as per PHB
good aligned, apposed to evil as per description: turn one level higher
neutral deities: clerics cannot turn or control undead
evil aligned: control undead as per PHB
evil aligned, apposed to good as per description: control one level higher

-healing/damage ability:

if the god is a god of healing/health, the cleric's healing spells work as if one level higher.
if the god is a god of death/decay/rot/disease, the cleric's reverse healing (cause damage) spells work as if one level higher.

Druids: there have been some debate over the years if druids worship any gods, which I find amusing. With what we know about the druids in the historical record, they absolute did worship gods. The Celtic ones in particular, because the druids were the religious leaders of the Celts. So for my games, if the player is playing a druid, they may choose to worship a neutral nature god of their choice. Otherwise they just...pray to the trees...I guess...Because nobody knew where they came from, or where they were going...(what? you didn't think I wasn't going to have a Spinal Tap reference about the druids here? That's too easy to pass up.)

I think 5E missed a bit on their Cleric. They have the concept of archetypes that plug in at certain levels, they should have removed all healing from the base cleric and put that all into the Healer Archetype. As is the Battle domain Cleric isn't different enough from the Healer Doman because they both have that base-level healing.

I never played 3E but the srd has some interesting domain level powers for different clerics, they should have worked from that.

In my own setting Cleric/Religious is a Background not a Class.

A warrior can be a priest. A spellcaster can be ptiest. A non-combatant with no magic can be a priest.

Relatedly, outside of some rare exceptions, magic is just a learned skill akin to becoming a neurosurgeon or rocket scientist.

And organized religions are one of the few institutions in the setting where one can learn to use magic if you aren't wealthy or talented enough to become an independent wizard's apprentice.

And just as the wizards can only teach their apprentices the spells they know, so too do the religious institutions focus on teaching magic appropriate to their faith's dogmas.

A student could go outside the faith to learn other spells, but do you really want to risk being labeled a heretic or infernalist for it? Especially when you're required to receive extensive instruction on the tenants of the faith and be passed by an instructor on those aspects before you even learn your first cantrip-tier spell?

How badly do you want the magic?

Greetings!

I think that Clerics can be very diverse and interesting characters. In my Thandor world, the various priest characters all have special spells and abilities based upon the particular pantheon of deities that they worship. So, many different Pagan religions have priest characters that are very different from one another. Then, of course, the different monotheist religions have their own priest characters, which are likewise distinctive and different from the Pagan priests. "Healing"--such as it is, is more of a mystical power than a particular "job" per se. Individual priest characters may or may not have specialization in Healing. Beyond that, I have diffused Healing amongst several other character types, such as Mystics, Witches, and Druids, for example. Even Alchemists can specialize in healing, and provide some interesting and useful healing abilities.

I certainly think that a "Van Helsing" type character is a formidable and prominent archetype, though by no means is it the only worthwhile expression for a priest character. Likewise, having a specialization in destroying and fighting Undead hordes is very useful and powerful, but it is one specialization amongst many. I have developed religious organizations, systems, and religious culture, as well as overarching theological world views to a great extent of detail for my world of Thandor. Religion, and spirituality, unlike much of typical D&D milieus, is very prominent throughout virtually every society in the world of Thandor. Religion is an absolutely prevailing factor in people's views of the world, their behavior, customs, and influences their social interactions through many levels and aspects of life. I think that key aspect is crucial in highlighting the importance and prominence of any kind of priest character, of whatever religion or faith. Thus, priest characters in the world of Thandor are never "Healbots".

Priest characters can and should be far more than such "Healbots"--but such prominence and effectiveness must be fleshed out by the DM. The DM really must do the work in developing the region's religions, theologically, on one hand, but then also the earthly, mundane religious organization so as to establish not just the spiritual foundations of the faith, but the social and political foundations for priest characters. Priest characters in every society based upon their religion, have many aspects in common with one another, regardless of faith. Such priest characters are involved in many different activities, interests, and specializations, and the possibilities are very broad and inspiring!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Lynn on March 21, 2025, 01:41:02 AMI always liked the idea of portfolios and special, deity / pantheon specific features but, I can appreciate the OSR healbots / undead blasters with all their limitations.

It seems to me though that if you want something very specific, just create another appropriate class. I seem to recall NPC class alternatives like "Shaman" that get both cleric and mu spells, but only up to a certain level.

I agree here. If you want clerics to not be healers / undead-blasters / secondary fighters, then they aren't really a class any more. If there's no center, then it's not a class. It's better to get rid of the class and have multiple different classes instead.

In my old vikings campaign, I had a prophetess (gyðja). Her main function was to read omens and talk to spirits. In combat, she would grant rerolls to other players. She could also do some more serious magic when comatose on a raised platform, like venture forth in animal form or send curses, but in practice she didn't use that much.

It really depends on the world one is using. I like the idea of having druid and shaman as core priestly classes, maybe adding on others like mystic and witch.

because I run sandbox, it's important for there to be inherent consistency in how the world is presented regardless of the PC's presence (who are free to change things via their own agency).

For example - if I allow a class like the Cleric from D&D/Pathfinder to be representative of "Clerics" writ-large regardless of the God(s) in the world, the world would *not* look like a D&D world. That's the problem. Much like having Vancian Wizards running around - shit in a forest city like Arabel, in Cormyr, there's three Archmages. One is like 24th level.

Having all Clerics be able to be healbots would massively change how the world would operate where such abundance of healthcare would be readily available. Sure you could require tithing or payment etc. But the ethos of Gods (especially good gods) wouldn't necessarily be in it for the money, obviously. Money is another issue entirely to be honest.

But the fact that in the early days of D&D the spells for Clerics and Wizards were designed for specific flavors of play - not *necessarily* what we'd call sandbox today, which has different demands than dungeoncrawling. *We* are the ones, along with the designers, that injected these assumptions into the game.

So while I appreciate the Savage Worlds Pathfinder Core Rules a LOT. The problem I have with them is it's a direct translation of the *assumptions* of the d20 system. So yes, it's absolutely D&D style fantasy. But it leans towards the elements I *dislike* about D&D fantasy that are purely mechanical.

i.e. they introduce Classes as Class Edges and with that they slide in all the "fat" for those classes. Clerics in Pathfinder *are* healbots, and their Deity portfolios matter a bit, but not too much.

Since I want that "1e/2e Realms feel" I've been leveraging the SWADE rules to tweak the Cleric class specifically with the making it more "God specific". I'm practicing my layout skills (or lack thereof) to make it presentable and it will be free.

But I suppose this is less of a direct translation, than it is an inspiration of Graybox as I feel it should be in Savage Worlds.

I was very curious if others felt the same about this idea about the Cleric. I'm kinda pleased at everyone's feedback.

@Shark yeah that's my feeling how it should be done.

@jhkim - the *Cleric Class* shouldn't be centered on what the role is for the party in a game-specific scenario. It is, in sandbox terms, centered on being the living representation of the Gods on this plane of existence in whatever capacity the mechanics support that role. A cleric is an agent that has been vested with the powers of a deity. What that agent does, should ideally, be to further the creed and motives of their god. This is what distinguishes them from other members of the faith. they are actual miracle-workers. This is a narrative shift from the gamey-notion that Cleric are healbot wizards that mechanically are no different than the Wizard class. These are both true - but the emphasis needs to be on the GM to make that distinction in play.

This serves to preserve roles as well as narrative insulation against game mechanics over setting conceits. i.e. Clerics and Wizards use the same casting rules, but in-game their roles have significantly different demands and requirements to meet them that have nothing to do with the mechanics. This ideally should be true of all "classes".

I think the only issue is that some D&D like games have "cleric healbot' built in, so you'd need to figure out the impact of that.

Quote from: tenbones on March 21, 2025, 04:12:13 PM@jhkim - the *Cleric Class* shouldn't be centered on what the role is for the party in a game-specific scenario. It is, in sandbox terms, centered on being the living representation of the Gods on this plane of existence in whatever capacity the mechanics support that role. A cleric is an agent that has been vested with the powers of a deity. What that agent does, should ideally, be to further the creed and motives of their god. This is what distinguishes them from other members of the faith. they are actual miracle-workers. This is a narrative shift from the gamey-notion that Cleric are healbot wizards that mechanically are no different than the Wizard class. These are both true - but the emphasis needs to be on the GM to make that distinction in play.

Sure, I think it makes sense that all miracle-workers are in the same category in a sense - but not necessarily the same mechanical class.

In the mechanics of a class-based system, members of a class should have some common features. In standard D&D, clerics have in common things like weapon proficiencies and armor allowed, along with Hit Dice and THAC0 - as well as undead turning, spellcasting and a core set of spells.

But the gods truly are different, then two different representations might be as different in practice as a Druid and a Paladin, for example. Those might be good classes to represent a God of Nature vs a God of Righteous War, say.

Other representations might be even more different, like a Norse prophetess or a Chinese taoist.