Quote from: jhkim;1061814I'm not an OSR person, myself. I started with D&D back as a pre-teen and I'm running D&D currently, but mostly I've played skill-based systems like Hero System, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, Amber, etc. I haven't used 2e's kits, but I've tried some other class-based options like True20.

Under the structure of 5e, a European-style knight and a Parthian horseman could in principle be handled as Fighters with different class options as well as different feats, skills, and proficiencies. To start with, one will have fighting style dueling vs. fighting style archery (a class option). Overall, there are a lot of ways to differentiate between two characters of the same class as compared to 1st edition AD&D.

Seems like True 20 should work for this idea? If you want a ranger, pick warrior and add the "ranger" feats. For Barbarian, pick warrior and add the "barbarian" feats. If you want a Paladin, alternate warrior/adept 3 to 1. Etc.

Quote from: jhkim;1061858The cleric is odd because in its current form, it isn't an adventuring archetype in fantasy fiction outside of D&D. Most of the other classes have clear examples in fantasy fiction:

fighter -> Lancelot, Gimli, etc.
paladin -> Galahad
ranger -> Aragorn
wizard -> Gandalf, Merlin
barbarian -> Conan
monk -> Iron Monkey

But for cleric, it is hard to see. There is Friar Tuck, but he doesn't have any spells, which is a very significant difference. I think the main inspirations are religious figures like Saint Patrick, Moses, Father Merrin (The Exorcist), and such - but none of those were into heavy armor and weapons.

Conan was a Fighter, pure and simple.  He raged all of TWICE in his adventures.  That's it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1061913Conan was a Fighter, pure and simple.  He raged all of TWICE in his adventures.  That's it.

I'd say fighter/rogue would be best myself, but it could be done with fighter alone.

Quote from: jhkim;1061858The cleric is odd because in its current form, it isn't an adventuring archetype in fantasy fiction outside of D&D. Most of the other classes have clear examples in fantasy fiction:

fighter -> Lancelot, Gimli, etc.
paladin -> Galahad
ranger -> Aragorn
wizard -> Gandalf, Merlin
barbarian -> Conan
monk -> Iron Monkey

But for cleric, it is hard to see. There is Friar Tuck, but he doesn't have any spells, which is a very significant difference. I think the main inspirations are religious figures like Saint Patrick, Moses, Father Merrin (The Exorcist), and such - but none of those were into heavy armor and weapons.

Nah, Galahad is the Cleric. That's the whole point. The cleric wasn't "it's current form" until the Paladin came along and usurped what the Cleric was supposed to be in the first place. See also Templars, Joan of Arc, etc. As for the other examples, I'm not buying that heavy armor and weapons are the key difference -- plenty of archetypal Fighters also use neither.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061920I'd say fighter/rogue would be best myself, but it could be done with fighter alone.

The only reason AD&D made Conan a multi-class character is because the designer had no idea how to make a Fighter get a Climb 'skill', but he's never shown to have any other 'thief like' abilities as per the AD&D rules at the time.

Quote from: Zalman;1061958Nah, Galahad is the Cleric. That's the whole point. The cleric wasn't "it's current form" until the Paladin came along and usurped what the Cleric was supposed to be in the first place. See also Templars, Joan of Arc, etc. As for the other examples, I'm not buying that heavy armor and weapons are the key difference -- plenty of archetypal Fighters also use neither.

In AD&D 2e, the only reference to the Cleric was the Knights Templar, and all they did, was point out they used blunt weapons.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1061982The only reason AD&D made Conan a multi-class character is because the designer had no idea how to make a Fighter get a Climb 'skill', but he's never shown to have any other 'thief like' abilities as per the AD&D rules at the time.

Move Silently? Hide in Shadows? (Or, in modern terms, Stealth?)

In terms of niche, was the cleric ever on par with the fighter as a warrior past the first few levels? Seems to me the fighter has always pulled ahead in terms of raw pain-dishing ability. Even in 5e, certain clerics is midway between the fighter and other full casters in melee...they can wear heavy armor, use martial weapons, typically have lower STR than a fighter, and eventually get an extra 2d8 damage on their single attack. So it's not as good as any of the full martials, but a bit more able to handle themselves up front than a wizard.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061998Move Silently? Hide in Shadows? (Or, in modern terms, Stealth?)

True, fair point.  In 5e, I'd make him a pure fighter, but he also has some pretty obscenely high stats.  Nothing under 12 for example.

Quote from: jhkim;1061858The cleric is odd because in its current form, it isn't an adventuring archetype in fantasy fiction outside of D&D. Most of the other classes have clear examples in fantasy fiction:

fighter -> Lancelot, Gimli, etc.
paladin -> Galahad
ranger -> Aragorn
wizard -> Gandalf, Merlin
barbarian -> Conan
monk -> Iron Monkey

But for cleric, it is hard to see. There is Friar Tuck, but he doesn't have any spells, which is a very significant difference. I think the main inspirations are religious figures like Saint Patrick, Moses, Father Merrin (The Exorcist), and such - but none of those were into heavy armor and weapons.

I'd list Fafhrd for the barbarian as well, although also not inclined to rage; the raging part is probably from the Norse berserker (and berserkers were in the OD&D books). And Caine of Kung Fu would probably be the most direct inspiration for the monk in the mid 1970s. Roland is probably a more archetypal paladin.

The fictitious version of Bishop Turpin might be the inspiration for the D&D cleric. I'd also list Van Helsing (turning undead, and actually arranges several successful blood transfusions before blood typing was known - surely a clear sign of divine favor). I was told when I started playing D&D that the cleric followed the Knights Templar or similar religious combatants, and could use blunt weapons only to parallel vows not to shed blood, but I have no idea if that information was even accurate, or would have been old hat or surprising news to Gygax or Arneson.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062001In terms of niche, was the cleric ever on par with the fighter as a warrior past the first few levels? Seems to me the fighter has always pulled ahead in terms of raw pain-dishing ability. Even in 5e, certain clerics is midway between the fighter and other full casters in melee...they can wear heavy armor, use martial weapons, typically have lower STR than a fighter, and eventually get an extra 2d8 damage on their single attack. So it's not as good as any of the full martials, but a bit more able to handle themselves up front than a wizard.

Clearly they were intended to be in between fighters and magic-users from a game balance point of view: the MU got more and better spells, and the fighter got more and better combat (HP, weapons, attack rolls). But the cleric also had some specialized spells and abilities that the MU did not (healing and related, turning undead), and so was not just directly on the continuum between all combat and all magic.

It used to be that clerics were not that popular in D&D campaigns; this could have been because they're not best at magic or combat, or the lack of inspiring exemplars in familiar works, or their tendency to be primarily a support role. 5e clerics seem more popular; a full spell caster with fairly good combat potential, and they can heal with Healing Word and not give up more direct attacks. Or maybe the tendency of inspirational fantasy literature lists in fantasy role playing games to include ever increasing numbers of D&D inspired books has added the cleric to fantasy archetypes familiar to players.

For specific paladin inspiration it's certainly Ogier the Dane, as imagined in Three Hearts and Three Lions. The abilities match far far far far far better than any other source.

For Conan in 5ed it's easy to give him the right abilities as a pure 5ed fighter without even especially high stats. Just give him a high enough level and sink some of his ability score increases in to the prodigy feat for the right skills, but you should be able to get a good range with the bonus skill that variant humans get, pick up some good ones from his background and have plenty of flexibility with the number of ability score increases that fighters get.

Quote from: rawma;1062077It used to be that clerics were not that popular in D&D campaigns; this could have been because they're not best at magic or combat, or the lack of inspiring exemplars in familiar works, or their tendency to be primarily a support role. 5e clerics seem more popular; a full spell caster with fairly good combat potential, and they can heal with Healing Word and not give up more direct attacks. Or maybe the tendency of inspirational fantasy literature lists in fantasy role playing games to include ever increasing numbers of D&D inspired books has added the cleric to fantasy archetypes familiar to players.

The main thing with older D&D is clerics were actually terrible at combat. Maybe not OD&D (I don't know, never played it), but with all the widgets they kept adding, they became terrible. First of all, if I roll 18 high STR, I'm probably not choosing a cleric. So the fighter probably has +1 or +2 to attack & damage over the cleric. Then the fighter's THAC0 falls faster. Plus he also gets multiple attacks. If you're using the proficiency system, the difference is even more pronounced On top of that, if you find a +3 mace, it sure as heck isn't going to the cleric if the fighter has a +1 sword still, no sense wasting it on the religious nerd. But then, the casting is also pretty boring. You don't have a lot of slots, so it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly the party is best off if you prepare Cure [X] Wounds in each one, with maybe a bless or two thrown in.

5e gets around this by giving fighters extra attacks and a fighting style rather than a much larger to-hit, and with flexible casting. Preparing Cure Wounds in 5e doesn't mean your L1 slots become unavailable to other effects if it turns out those would be more useful. You don't have to decide before you've run into a single monster what you're going to need, and the ability to use any slot of any level for healing (IIRC, AD&D didn't have a 2nd-level cure spell) mitigates that some more.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062001In terms of niche, was the cleric ever on par with the fighter as a warrior past the first few levels? Seems to me the fighter has always pulled ahead in terms of raw pain-dishing ability. Even in 5e, certain clerics is midway between the fighter and other full casters in melee...they can wear heavy armor, use martial weapons, typically have lower STR than a fighter, and eventually get an extra 2d8 damage on their single attack. So it's not as good as any of the full martials, but a bit more able to handle themselves up front than a wizard.

2e Clerics with certain Kits or Specialty Priests could *almost* stand-and-bang with a Fighter. War-god Specialty priests typically got Warrior HP/Proficiencies, Str./Con. bonuses, plus some got Weapon of Choice and Multiple Attack progression. I know Tempus and Anhur priests got 2 attacks per round at 13th and of course all their spells.

Quote from: tenbones;10621892e Clerics with certain Kits or Specialty Priests could *almost* stand-and-bang with a Fighter. War-god Specialty priests typically got Warrior HP/Proficiencies, Str./Con. bonuses, plus some got Weapon of Choice and Multiple Attack progression. I know Tempus and Anhur priests got 2 attacks per round at 13th and of course all their spells.

Yes, but they were delayed for several levels compared to the single class Fighter's Weapon Specialization, and could not go beyond one specialized weapon. Solid optional material that never really stepped too hard on the fighter's toes. I liked the design that ended up, delayed limited oomph, as a nod to another class' expertise.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1062250Yes, but they were delayed for several levels compared to the single class Fighter's Weapon Specialization, and could not go beyond one specialized weapon. Solid optional material that never really stepped too hard on the fighter's toes. I liked the design that ended up, delayed limited oomph, as a nod to another class' expertise.

Agreed.

They got their 2 attacks per round at 13th as I recall. But the conceits of 2e definitely allowed them the "feel" of being more martial - but not *quite* Fighter level.

Combined with their spell-casting and other special abilities they were very formidable and useful tactically for a party. Don't really get these dynamics from Clerics post 2e. But it's not just because of the class, it's due to the changes in the core rules across respective editions.

Edit: I would argue that if you scratched off the name and called them Paladins I wouldn't bat an eye. I don't remember being too impressed with the Paladin offerings of 2e... but I could be mis-remembering.

It seems to me, by looking back thru the years, that other versions of the Paladin existed that didn't adhere to the LG requirement.

Plethora of Paladin in 1e
The anti-paladin
Dragon #310 - Divine Champions (different alignment Paladins)
Unearthed Arcana - Paladin of Freedom, Slaughter, Tyranny
4e Paladins had to have the same alignment as their deity
5e Paladins adhere to their Oath, which are largely alignment-agnostic

When 5e was being playtested, they rolled out the Paladin and Monk class together. They both had the lawful alignment required. People on the message boards at wotc basically warred with one another about it. Threads for and against alignment requirements raged. WotC put out a survey about what to do and from what I remember reading, the vast majority of people who took the survey did not want any sort of alignment requirements as hard-coded rules.

Thus WotC kept them from the game, second time in a row.