Comments on: Wizards Watch: Cleric Class Confusion & Designer Dismay

By: Roger L. Mills

Roger L. Mills — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:47:31 +0000

I agree that six L&L articles on this seems excessive. I understand the need to review all aspects of the game and to gather feedback, but as some of the commenters have pointed out it was the cleric archetype that finally became a fully fleshed out character type once 4E was released.

Ya know, Mike Mearls et al can just run a scan on their DDI database of player generated characters to determine the number and type of clerics and cleric-types that are actually used by players today? Maybe they have and have determined that something about Clerics is broken. Perhaps on the average are there “too many” healers per party and that has some affect on expected game play results.

By: Clerics as Goalies: A Medical Drama | The Next Project

Clerics as Goalies: A Medical Drama | The Next Project — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:02:48 +0000

[...] tearing the issue apart in D&D Next terms – check out some great posts by @Neuroglyph (post) and @EmbraDM (post) – who point out some of the flaws with the current direction Wizards is [...]

By: Editor-in-Chief

Editor-in-Chief — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:27:12 +0000

@Philo – I agree with the idea of other classes picking up the healing role, and certainly 4E did that by offering alot of variation. But sadly, I don’t think that’s going to work in Next if they are truly “getting back to basics”, which may be why the Cleric continues to be a conundrum – he’s going to be the only major healing class.
@Dave – Again, I think the reason its such an issue, is that there is no class “hero” or “champion” on the Design Team, and everyone wants the class to be as “fun” as a Wizard, Rogue, or Fighter. Ironically, the class will be fun if they add some decent cleric options, and not try and screw up the class and make it into something its not.
@Svafa – I’ve seen a few of the other 4E healers tried out, but none have had the awesomely potent healing that the Cleric. I hope that Next’s Clerics maintain that healing superiority, and not get shunted to the side by some other healer with powerful secondary powers.
@James – I was a fan of the 2nd Ed Priest, and for sure, I think they need to dust that class off as a Cleric alternative! After hearing how they talked at PAX East about modules, the designers might end up starting with the base Cleric, and with add a module, some few tweaks, and bam! – turn it into a Priest (ala 2nd Ed).

By: James Geluso

James Geluso — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:46:47 +0000

I think one key here is that Mearls insists that the iconic cleric, the one represented by the picture in the Red Box, is an armor-wearing mace-wielder. That makes the cleric shade toward the paladin. If armor and combat were optional and based on the god, not integral, then I think there wouldn’t be such a conundrum.

My preferred solution: Pull out the Second Edition PHB and look at the flexibility and options the priest had.

By: Svafa

Svafa — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:54:38 +0000

I’m somewhat in agreement that Clerics and Druids and Paladins could all perform similar functions for different deities. A Cleric of Chauntea, for example, just makes me wince- it should be a Druid, not a Cleric. At least in my mind, Clerics have always been tied to civilization and by extension lawfulness, so anything that strikes too much of wilderness or chaos leaves the realm of the Cleric.

On the other hand, a lot of people prefer that the Druid not be considered a divine class, regardless of its real-life origins, and I can agree with them as well. I’m not sure how to reconcile those two different views or that they can be reconciled.

I do think domains are key to giving the Cleric the flexibility it needs while keeping it a consistent whole. I think domains need to offer a basic package that fits their deity, but that there also needs to be optional extras as well. Whether that’s done like the 4E themes (the best way imo), through feat selection (not my preferred way), or by some other means, there needs to be support for the player that wants to go overboard on their Cleric’s theme/domain.

As for healing, I’m hoping that Clerics won’t be the go-to class for all your healing needs. Since 4E came out I don’t think we’ve had a single player roll a Cleric. We’ve had a Bard, Druid, Warlords, and now a Runepriest, but no Cleric. That’s not to say there’s anything wrong with the 4E Cleric, but that I think this sort of variety for support classes should be continued in the next iteration. The 4E skill utilities take it a step further even, allowing non-leader classes to turn a trained Heal skill into a viable support option.

By: Dave Wainio

Dave Wainio — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:27 +0000

First, your questions -
•Do you like to play a Cleric, or do you play them out of necessity with a party?- Two of my favorite characters are clerics and I occasionally play clerics just for fun rather than “somebody needs to”

•Is this a “class of last resort” for players? Actually my 4E campaign players did not take on ant divine class (paladin, cleric, avenger, etc.). I think it’s mainly because the experienced ones don’t like having a deity that ‘restricts’ their actions and the new to D&D made characters similer to a favorite fantasy MMO / computer game class.

•Why do you think that the design team is still working on the Cleric Class for D&D Next? They can’t see the forest for the trees. I contend it’s not a big deal, see below for more.

•What features would you like to see for the Cleric Class in the Next Edition? Maybe institutionalized main domain themes. War, Nature, Death, Healing, Knoweldge, etc.

I personally don’t understand why people are fixating on this. Design a cleric that fits into the presumed non adventure roles and duties of the fictional world. Make a second or third avenue of healing. (Druids for example, upgrade healing skills, etc.) Let people play who they want to play and don’t worry if few pick the cleric.

If people like the rules, but and play the game, then what does it matter is there is an “under used” class or two. As long as it is not obvious that one or two classes are far superior to all the rest, the idea should be to let a player create the alter-ego that they have in their head.

In other words: design, create and sell “fun”, not a “rationally balanced gaming experience”.

By: Philo Pharynx

Philo Pharynx — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:58:20 +0000

One issue I’d like to bring up is the articles talking about themes and backgrounds. This sounds like an excellent way to make clerics of different gods feel different on both the crunch and fluff levels. We also have 3e-style multiclassing, which allows a cleric to dabble with a couple of levels in an appropriate multiclass. If each god writeup lists appropriate themes, backgrounds and multiclass options, then you don’t need to do a lot of tweaking to the actual cleric class. Domains could be themes, or a separate level of customization.

I agree that I’d like to see some healing be available as a free/minor/swift action. That will help keep it from being a “class of last resort”.

I’d also like to have the flexibility to have other classes provide healing that is roughly equivalent to the cleric. 3e/3.5 never made it that far. Other classes could provide hit point healing but weren’t as flexible in healing other conditions. (I once had a character fail a save to Blindness in a party using a druid as the primary healer. Guess who doesn’t get Cure Blindness?) In older games, you often had somebody play a cleric because the party needed healing, and not because they actually wanted to play a cleric. By having other options for your healers, then we’ll get richer clerics. People will play them to explore the religious issues and the meaning of faith.

By: Editor-in-Chief

Editor-in-Chief — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:51:45 +0000

@Dominic – Personally, I think the archetypes are quite separate, particularly when you note that Paladins (and also Rangers) were designed as Fighter sub-classes. In early D&D, the Paladin and Ranger were hybrids, each containing a little Cleric and a little Druid in their class powers, respectively. Early edition class designs made Paladins as better fighters than their Cleric kin, but weaker in healing and turning undead. They were poor casters, with only a smattering of spells, no Wisdom spell bonus, and maxing out at Level 4 spells tops. However, they got increased attacks per round, fighter weapons, and later, access to fighter feats. And also consider that Paladins used to be a VERY restrictive class – it required certain ability score, a lawful good alignment, and only a human could be one. The class features and perks were huge for Paladins, including the Protection from Evil aura, the ability to detect evil, bonuses to saving throws, an immunity to poison, and a free magical warhorse.

So Paladins really were designed to be knights (before the Cavalier popped up in a Dragon Magazine), whereas Clerics are simply armored fighting priests, like the Hospitaller Order from the Crusades. So while I agree that superficially, the Paladin and Cleric might look the same charging down the hallway at you, there can and should be plenty of differences between them in what they can do once fighting gets underway.

By: Dominic Matte

Dominic Matte — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:33:57 +0000

I think the problem is that everyone knows the mechanical definition of the cleric, but it’s harder to sum up the concept or archetype in a way that makes people want to play it. It’s much harder to distinguish the cleric and paladin mechanically than conceptually. Both fight in melee with heavy armour, heal, cast spells, and destroy undead. But conceptually, the paladin is the knight in shining armour, the crusader for his god, while the cleric is… a priest, I guess?

By: Editor-in-Chief

Editor-in-Chief — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:32:51 +0000

@AK – Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that the Druid become a divine class, but rather that for certain deities, the druid makes a bit more sense for the god’s representative in the world. Just looking at Realms deities, gods like Silvanus, Chauntea, Selune, and Meiliki would have a greater relationship with Druids than with Clerics just because of their strong affinities to the land, forests, growing things, and the lunar cycle.

But honestly, the big thing I want to see is Clerics that remain true to their class, and don’t get metamorphosed into another class just because they worship one god or another. I still think Domains are the best way to bring in a particular god’s influence, offering a few bonus spells or god-specific powers which represent the deity’s nature, and maybe a weapon proficiency, and that’s all the changes you need to make to the base class. If you start redefining class abilities, skills, armor proficiencies, and everything else just for choosing a particular god, and you’re going to rip the heart out of the core of the class and create an amorphous schmoo.