The Priest: a Cleric alternate class feature

.
.
.
.
.
Boilerplate:

The Concept:

The Mechanics:

Thought Process:

Comments?

Here's a suggestion for the Priest:

Armor, saves, etc. as a wizard.

Spells per day as a sorcerer.

Wisdom is your relevant stat for spells.

You do not have domain spells, but all the spells from your god's five (5) domains are your spell list and you may cast any of them at will if you have an appropriate spell slot.

Your Holy Symbol acts like a wizard's bonded object, usually something in the amulet slot but it can be something else. Once per day you can beseech your god for a special miracle and cast any divine spell up to the maximum level you can cast, even if this is not a spell from one of your god's five domains.

You may also pick one of your god's domains and gain the domain powers from those.

You also gain one sorcerer bloodline, including spells and powers, that fits thematically with the powers of your god. Spells you cast from this are considered divine, not arcane.

You gain orisons as with a regular cleric.

You can channel energy as with a regular cleric.

Note that this will give a priest spontaneous healing, but only if s/he is a priest of a god with a healing domain. Then again, it would be kind of odd if the priest of a healing god couldn't spontaneously heal.

That goes a little far afield from my goals. That's a new base class, for all intents and purposes, which isn't really warranted IMO. It's not really at all relevant to this thread, either. Congratulations on taking it entirely off-topic in the first response, though.

I feel that this Priest option gives up far too much for an extra Domain and an extra Domain spell slot.

Folding in at least a little bit of Kevin's feedback might help to justify the fairly extreme cutback. The idea of being able to cast spells spontaneously from all five of the diety's Domains (or four, for an Empyreal, Demon Lord, Archdevil, etc.) is definitely something I'd want to include, and perhaps the Holy Symbol as Arcane Bond concept.

If, on the other hand, you want to go the direction of making the cutbacks less severe;

The Cleric spell list, unlike the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list, with mage armor and shield right there at 1st level, seems more geared towards an armored caster, and I'd consider allowing a Priest to at least wear light armor.

Alternately, a good Fort save might be justifiable due to the amount of time priests spent performing hours-long daily rituals as part of their priestly duties and ministering to the sick and even going on pilgrimages, tasks that arcanists aren't really required to do.

As a side-note, if you don't really want feedback, avoid asking for it. Biting the head off of the first person to reply with constructive feedback is probably not the best tack.

As a side-note, if you don't really want feedback, avoid asking for it. Biting the head off of the first person to reply with constructive feedback is probably not the best tack.

That wasn't constructive feedback, that was an entirely separate class completely unrelated in anything but name to my alternate class feature. He did not address anything in my post, made no commentary on what I posted, and instead presented something that I specifically said I did NOT want (an entirely new class). That's considered very rude and disruptive where I come from, most especially when it's the very first reply in the thread. He essentially said "Your idea is utterly without merit, so much so that I won't even deign to address it. Here's a dramatically superior concept. Your thread is now about my idea. Have a nice day."

Your feedback on the other hand, is constructive, and I do like the ability to cast any of the domain spells that the deity grants. With that in mind, here's a proposed alteration to the ACF:

Set wrote:

As a side-note, if you don't really want feedback, avoid asking for it. Biting the head off of the first person to reply with constructive feedback is probably not the best tack.

That wasn't constructive feedback, that was an entirely separate class completely unrelated in anything but name to my alternate class feature. He did not address anything in my post, made no commentary on what I posted, and instead presented something that I specifically said I did NOT want (an entirely new class). That's considered very rude and disruptive where I come from, most especially when it's the very first reply in the thread. He essentially said "Your idea is utterly without merit, so much so that I won't even deign to address it. Here's a dramatically superior concept. Your thread is now about my idea. Have a nice day."

Your feedback on the other hand, is constructive, and I do like the ability to cast any of the domain spells that the deity grants. With that in mind, here's a proposed alteration to the ACF:

** spoiler omitted **

Where I come from, it's called brainstorming. And it's successful in that it did bear fruit: the domain spell idea that you liked that Set also liked was in my initial post. Though to be fair, it's based on an idea I saw in someone else's house rules thread.

The object bond with the holy symbol was my idea, though of course obviously based on the new Pathfinder wizard rule, so something reasonably obvious.

I didn't critique your original design because honestly there didn't seem much there to critique. You'd taken a regular cleric, stripped off the healing power, the fancy armor and melee abilities and pretty much left him there in his underwear needing some extra umph. I put out a laundry list of what I'd consider appropriate powers for a priest. Glad you liked at least one of them.

You'd taken a regular cleric, stripped off the healing power,

Uhh... no, I didn't. I removed the martial stuff. I didn't touch spontaneous spells, and even pointed out that they still had spontaneous spells in my Thought Process section. I also didn't touch Channel Energy.

Anyway, if you'd even done as much as said "I think that's way too weak, here are some suggestions:", that would have been a lot less rude and irritating. The way you presented it wasn't as a collection of suggestions but rather as a single unified base class, which is something I was explicitly trying to avoid.

Zurai this is interesting, and I kind of like the mechanic of getting another domain, however I see a large problem with this personally: The continued existence of Divine Might, Righteous Might, et al. With these spells 'giving up' the BAB and HD doesn't really matter as much. You can change into "battle form" still and if it gets down to it heal yourself as well. Depending on the god followed you might even end up doing this with a great sword.

I realize there is a "But that's at higher level" but the problem still exists at level 1. With Shield of Faith, Divine Favor and the other spells they get at low level it is still entirely possible to not really lose anything by taking this class and gaining an extra domain.

I'm not saying that this would happen with every character, however it is still there.

I really don't have anything to offer right now beyond the obvious that I have posted.

I did consider that, and in 3.5 it'd be a dealbreaker, but it's not a big deal IMO in Pathfinder. Pathfinder changed the worst of those spells so that they add to the Cleric's already existing stats, rather than replacing them.

The 3.5 version of divine power (which was always the biggest problem of the cleric self-buffing spells) actually changed your BAB, which explicitly could provide extra attacks that stacked with haste. The Pathfinder version instead adds +1/3 level as a luck bonus to attack rolls and grants a haste attack. Since the Priest gets poor BAB in the first place, it doesn't do much to help them in melee combat.

I'm OK with having Priests of a martially-inclined deity be able to make themselves not quite as sucky in melee combat (in much the same way that wizards can cast Tenser's transformation, body of war, etc to make themselves not so sucky in melee combat); I just wanted to provide an option for characters that aren't the martial arm of the church to start with.

And, they still lose their bonus spell if they wear armor. Divine power and the like don't include any defensive bonuses because they were made with the assumption that all clerics are going to wear the heaviest armor they can get away with.

EDIT: Also note that Priests don't get proficiency with their deity's weapon if it's martial or exotic, so they wouldn't be using greatswords, either. At least not without taking a -4 penalty to hit or spending a feat on proficiency.

Bleh, in all that I forgot the reason I checked back in the first place: I forgot to mention something in the original post.

Just like with Cloistered Clerics, Priests get 6+Int skill points per level. Priests don't spend nearly as much time as Clerics practicing their martial skills, so they have more time to study scriptures, histories, manuals, and the like.

I havn't decided whether to expand the class skill list along with those bonus skill points or not. It's not really as important in Pathfinder, so I'm inclined to leave it alone.

Well, the class skill list in Pathfinder is basically "What skill do I get a +3 in if I spend just one point on it?"

No automatic proficiency in a deity's weapon is a sensible change, especially for a non-martial priest. Though it should be stressed that your holy symbol is a symbolic representation of your faith, not an actual functioning model, ie. the little gold cross you wear around your neck is not intended to be used for crucifixion, and is a little small for that purpose even for pixies. A sword-shaped pendant is more than sufficient for a deity with a sword, and moreover will not cause an incident if you wear it to a dinner party.

I think the double-domain slots with the ability to choose from the whole domain menu is a good patch, but there may need to be a bit more power or some extra perk to make it truly balanced with a regular cleric. Maybe being able to burn their regular spells into their domain spells if needed? It's more versatile than the fountain o' healing regular cleric, but would still be a big limit on the sorts of things they can cast spontaneously.

Congratulations, you've almost exactly duplicated the Priest Class from Tome of Secrets, to the T.

I have no problem with this conversion and I'd use it as is.

Congratulations, you've almost exactly duplicated the Priest Class from Tome of Secrets, to the T.

I have no problem with this conversion and I'd use it as is.

I was going to come here to say that, but I got (late) ninja'd. I like it, Zurai. I think the only difference with the one in Tome of Secrets is that their Channel Energy used d8's instead of d6's, which seemed nifty to me.

With the skill points I think I would be good with it. A few more spells really helps make up for the lack of swinging, and they'll be noticed every time you hit a new spell level so you'll still have something to do, in addition to your extra abilities.

two things I think might fit in instead of the skill points:

Paladin Mercies, with the ability to focus the channel energy on one target to get the effects, and Divine Grace... A little help from god so to speak.

This would free up a few more spell slots, give an option on either bursting for everyone, or cleaning one person off, and the Divine Grace just makes sense to me.

.

BAB equal to a wizard
d6 hit points
Poor Fort save
No armor or shield proficiencies
Not proficient with deity's favored weapon if it is martial or exotic

One extra domain, chosen as normal
One extra domain spell slot (2 total)

I think the extra domain and spell slot is nice but just giving up armor and shield should be sufficient for those benefits.

Loss of Hit points and saves are a huge deal. I would be against the weapon restriction just on role playing reasons. Without armor and shield getting into combat with that weapon is foolish.

Bleh, in all that I forgot the reason I checked back in the first place: I forgot to mention something in the original post.

Just like with Cloistered Clerics, Priests get 6+Int skill points per level. Priests don't spend nearly as much time as Clerics practicing their martial skills, so they have more time to study scriptures, histories, manuals, and the like.

I havn't decided whether to expand the class skill list along with those bonus skill points or not. It's not really as important in Pathfinder, so I'm inclined to leave it alone.

Just to be clear -- this class is the same as the cloistered cleric except

• you get to pick any second domain (not just Knowledge) and you get an extra domain spell slot
  
• you don't get armor proficiency, and you're "encouraged" to not use armor

I'd give the class arcane spell failure if you really wanted to discourage wearing armor. With that proviso, it sounds OK.

Just to be clear -- this class is the same as the cloistered cleric except

• you get to pick any second domain (not just Knowledge) and you get an extra domain spell slot
  
• you don't get armor proficiency, and you're "encouraged" to not use armor

I'd give the class arcane spell failure if you really wanted to discourage wearing armor. With that proviso, it sounds OK.

No, you also get to cast domain spells from any domain granted by your deity.

And arcane spell failure is just that -- arcane spell failure. There are no divine casting classes with any kind of spell failure. There is, on the other hand, precedent for divine characters losing spellcasting for wearing armor (druids can't cast spells for 24 hours after wearing metal armor).

I prefer the "soft" deterrent of losing the extra domain spell slot rather than the "hard" deterrent of potentially losing every single spell you try to cast. There's also the issue of spells without somatic components not being subject to spell failure. There's no "get out of jail free" card for losing access to your bonus spells.

I prefer the "soft" deterrent of losing the extra domain spell slot rather than the "hard" deterrent of potentially losing every single spell you try to cast. There's also the issue of spells without somatic components not being subject to spell failure. There's no "get out of jail free" card for losing access to your bonus spells.

But what's the "fluff" for this mechanic? If you wear armor, your god hates you, but just a little bit?

The idea that you're not trained in casting in armor and it makes you a bit clumsy (i.e. a failure chance) makes more sense to me, somehow.

I think the "fluff" (and how I hate that word) would be that your god expects you to be wearing your sacred ecclesiastical vestments at all time, so you look like a priest rather than random dude in armor. It can be a clerical collar, a nun's habit, or a Vegas showgirl outfit depending on the god, but it's specific priestly vestments, not something suited for bashing orcs in.

So you can wear armor under those vestments? What about all those other deities that have Paladins, Blackguards, and Clerics?

I kind of like the Divine spell failure, (which a few classes actually do have) verses the Druidish penulty. For one, it leave a character free to try to overcome it (with a variant Divine gish PC), or allows them to risk the failure and wear armor. Your still probably not going to want to go higher than light armor though.

Secondly, there is no good reason not to, just a personal desire to say no, and that is not a good reason. Ever. With the spell failure, them not being trained to cast in armor works a lot better.

One last idea. What is the point of this calss? I mean what gap is the class suppossed to fill?

One last idea. What is the point of this calss? I mean what gap is the class suppossed to fill?

A divine spellcaster that focuses more on skills and spells than armor and weapons. (Like the very popular cloistered cleric variant from Unearthed Arcana.)

Than why not just use the Cloistered Cleric. That was my point. Why make one more class when there is no need?

Than why not just use the Cloistered Cleric. That was my point. Why make one more class when there is no need?

Maybe Paizo's new "oracle of Strength" inspired him to create a "cloistered cleric of Strength" to go along with it? ;-)

Than why not just use the Cloistered Cleric. That was my point. Why make one more class when there is no need?

The OP mentioned in his original post that he didn't want a specifically Knowledge-centric priest.

I like it. I was thinking along similar lines with having no armor proficiency but what happens when this variant multi-classes as a Fighter or Paladin and gain the AP feats? Again we lose our archetype of the cloth-wearing divine spellcaster to fullplate. You might reconsider making use of arcane spell failure afterall. Its the only way to keep the divine caster out of armor as he has little incentive to do otherwise. To balance this I would add a divine armor spell for a 1st level spell defense of some kind. I would try and make this spell unique to the variant class for flavor purposes so it isn't just a copy & paste of mage armor.

The loss of Fort SV was a good choice too. Makes a lot of sense given the caster nature of the variant.

I would stay away from spontaneous casting of the domain spells as the ToS priest class went. It makes the Fire Domain crazy good compared to the other domains as it would allow the "Priest" to wield fireballs spontaneously. The ToS is a bit overpowered due to this and other add-ons IMHO.

You might consider making the variant a bit more wizard-like in the sense of adding bonus feats to be used only for: Channeling/Divine feats, Metamagic Feats, and Item Creation feats to represent the greater emphasis on magic/casting mastery for the variant over the Cleric.

I just don't see that as a bad thing, though. Not giving them the armor should be good enough to keep those that want a cloth wearing priest, (archetypal???) but why would you want to enforce it for anyone else? At the very most, the Divine Spell failure, because that is something that can be overcome.

Oh I see it now, the loss of domain spell slots when wearing armor as a deterrent. Gotcha. That is pretty "soft" though and nothing replaces the variant's ability to increase their AC so it isn't extremely low for their level. Other caster classes will have higher ACs due to their spells at least.

Than why not just use the Cloistered Cleric. That was my point. Why make one more class when there is no need?

One, it's not a new class. It's a class variant or alternate class feature.

Two, because there is a need. Cloistered Cleric still has a high fort save, still allows light armor, and gains powers that are only relevant to a character devoted to the Knowledge domain (they get Knowledge domain as a bonus even if their deity doesn't grant it, bardic knowledge, and a handful of extra knowledge-related spells on their spell list). Cloistered Clerics are not a generic class variant suited to use of a standard priest. They're a very specific concept, that of a cleric that lives/lived apart from the world in a cloister devoted to knowledge as a sacred ideal. Priests, on the other hand, don't necessarily have any special interest in the Knowledge domain and shouldn't automatically get Knowledge-domain-related class features.

good ideals here, but if you change BAB and HD it is in fact a new class and not a variant that swaps ability. Not that I mind really but it's a new class and the armor less priest is something the game is missing.

Myself I would just use a wizard, give him the cleric's spell list and maybe some domains and call it a day

I kind of like the Divine spell failure, (which a few classes actually do have)

Please cite me an official Paizo or WotC class that has "divine" spell failure. I've never seen such a thing.

I would stay away from spontaneous casting of the domain spells as the ToS priest class went. It makes the Fire Domain crazy good compared to the other domains as it would allow the "Priest" to wield fireballs spontaneously. The ToS is a bit overpowered due to this and other add-ons IMHO.

He can't cast his domains spontaneously. He can fill his domain spell slots with any domain spell of the appropriate level that his deity (or ideal, etc) grants, not just from the domains he gets the granted powers for. He still has to prepare them ahead of time.

Take for example a Priest of Sarenrae with the Healing, Good, and Glory domains. Let's say Glory was his Priest bonus domain. As a 5th level Priest, this character could use touch of good, rebuke death, and touch of glory and can fill his two third-level domain slots with any combination of fireball, searing light, magic circle against evil, or cure serious wounds (he only gets four choices because both the Glory and Sun domains grant searing light as a 3rd level domain spell). If he were a Cleric instead, he could not use touch of glory and would only be able to fill his single domain spell slot with cure serious wounds or magic circle against evil.

Even as a Priest, he can still only cast a maximum of two fireballs per day (unless he prepares them in higher-level domain spell slots, but that's not really optimal anyway) and he still has to choose to prepare those two fireballs to the exclusion of the other three spells he has the choice to prepare in those slots.

As an aside, I'm not really too worried about "but what if the Priest picks up a level in Fighter and starts wearing armor?". If he does so, he's effectively turned himself into a Cleric with one extra domain, the ability to fill his single domain slot with a couple extra spells, a few extra skill points, one caster level and half a spell level behind, low BAB, d6 HD, and a poor Fort save. He'd have almost certainly been better off fulfilling his character concept by taking Cleric in the first place.

There's very little mechanical reason to do it this way (extra domains are easy to get with prestige classes) and the only character concept I can think of that computes is a Priest that starts out bookish and tame but grows into a more warlike individual, which is fine because it's a valid character concept and he sacrifices considerable power by starting with Priest instead of Cleric.

EDIT: I'm also not too worried about Priests having low AC. They can wear Bracers of Armor just like Wizards can, and there are Cleric spells that grant Armor and Shield AC bonuses (though they're splatbook spells, admittedly).

I think the "fluff" (and how I hate that word) would be that your god expects you to be wearing your sacred ecclesiastical vestments at all time, so you look like a priest rather than random dude in armor. It can be a clerical collar, a nun's habit, or a Vegas showgirl outfit depending on the god, but it's specific priestly vestments, not something suited for bashing orcs in.

I could understand removing all spell-casting when in armor (sort of) -- somehow you swore a vow to not wear armor, or to wear your superhero pyjamas.

But removing one spell? That just seems weird. So if you already cast your domain spells for the day, your god doesn't care if you wear armor or not? Uh-huh.

It just seems like a mechanic without much of an in-game rationale.

But removing one spell? That just seems weird. So if you already cast your domain spells for the day, your god doesn't care if you wear armor or not? Uh-huh.

Easy enough fix. You lose your domain slot for as long as you wear armor and for 24 hours after removing it, just like druids and metal armor. Thanks for the loophole detection.

As for the "fluff", it has just as much rationale as druids and metal armor. Actually, IMO, Kevin's suggestion is a much better rationale than druids and metal armor (which has never made a lick of sense to me) and I'll adopt it.

it should be more then that. a druid loose all spellcasting and granted ability your cleric should as well, no spells, no domain powers

it should be more then that. a druid loose all spellcasting and granted ability your cleric should as well, no spells, no domain powers

No. Like I said, it's intended as a soft deterrent. Choosing to wear armor as a priest is a dumb idea because Clerics are a much stronger mechanical choice for a divine caster that's going to go around in armor and shield with a martial weapon. Losing the extra domain slot is the perfect level of deterrent, IMO; it doesn't prevent the class from working at all, but it does make it a very poor idea mechanically. That's the type of game balance I favor.

EDIT: And for the record, no, changing the BAB and HD doesn't make it a new class. It makes it an alternate class feature or class variant. The Cloistered Cleric, for example, changes the Cleric's BAB and HD exactly like the Priest does (wizard BAB, d6 HD) and is a class variant according to WOTC.

up to you, it just seems inconsistent and well a bit odd.

How about using a carrot instead of a stick to promote the armorless priest ideal?

Give them the monk bonus to AC (including Wisdom bonus to AC). Specify it doesn't stack with the monk's bonus.

HERE is something that Grindor, Dragonmann, and myself developed a couple years ago for 3.5 -- it could easily be adapted to Pathfinder. The idea is to have a single cleric class with a range of options, rather than simply have two "endpoints."

HERE is something that Grindor, Dragonmann, and myself developed a couple years ago for 3.5 -- it could easily be adapted to Pathfinder. The idea is to have a single cleric class with a range of options, rather than simply have two "endpoints."

That's freaking *sweet.* Thanks for sharing!

Of course, being me, the first thing I want to do is go outside of the lines and make a Priest who spends his 4 pts on +2 skills / level and the other three Domains of his diety, which is one more than allowed. :)

Give them the monk bonus to AC (including Wisdom bonus to AC). Specify it doesn't stack with the monk's bonus.

That's not a good fit at all IMO. That makes them better-defended than a martial cleric, by a very considerable margin. They're intended to be worse on both physical defense and physical offense.

Bumping this for reference.
With the catch on the extra skill points, I'd consider using this.

Zurai, did you ever decide if you wanted to expand the class skill list?
If so, I can see it being different for each diety.
That could result in long, campaign-specific laundry-lists, or a table of suggested equivalent skills based on domains, that could be applied to any campaign.
You could always add a line to 'pick any four skills as being new class skills that fit the deity's core values', though the temptation there is for players to simply cherry-pick the most meta-game-useful skills for adventurers in general.
The thought of every single Priest performing backflips is something I'd like to avoid ("Oh, I say. Your god reveres Acrobatics, too? Small world!").

Zurai, did you ever decide if you wanted to expand the class skill list?

If so, I can see it being different for each diety.
That could result in long, campaign-specific laundry-lists, or a table of suggested equivalent skills based on domains, that could be applied to any campaign.
You could always add a line to 'pick any four skills as being new class skills that fit the deity's core values', though the temptation there is for players to simply cherry-pick the most meta-game-useful skills for adventurers in general.
The thought of every single Priest performing backflips is something I'd like to avoid ("Oh, I say. Your god reveres Acrobatics, too? Small world!").

Yeah, I decided to leave the skill list as-is. It's not nearly as harsh in Pathfinder to invest in non-class skills. A Priest of a deity that valued Acrobatics could just spend skill points normally and have a higher Dex than usual and be good enough at the skill not to worry about it.

That wasn't constructive feedback, that was an entirely separate class completely unrelated in anything but name to my alternate class feature. He did not address anything in my post, made no commentary on what I posted, and instead presented something that I specifically said I did NOT want (an entirely new class). That's considered very rude and disruptive where I come from, most especially when it's the very first reply in the thread. He essentially said "Your idea is utterly without merit, so much so that I won't even deign to address it. Here's a dramatically superior concept. Your thread is now about my idea. Have a nice day."

...

:|

WTF?

Zurai wrote:

That wasn't constructive feedback, that was an entirely separate class completely unrelated in anything but name to my alternate class feature. He did not address anything in my post, made no commentary on what I posted, and instead presented something that I specifically said I did NOT want (an entirely new class). That's considered very rude and disruptive where I come from, most especially when it's the very first reply in the thread. He essentially said "Your idea is utterly without merit, so much so that I won't even deign to address it. Here's a dramatically superior concept. Your thread is now about my idea. Have a nice day."

...

:|

WTF?

Dood, don't disturb the graveyard. That argument has long since expired.

Zurai, I might take a suggestion or two for my rewrite of the cleric, thanks.

I prefer the idea of a priest, as when (rarely) I've been inclined to play a cleric I play the casty, buffy, summoner and battle-healer type, but don't participate in the melee. Conceptually I always though the distinction between clerics, who are holy warriors modeled after the knights templar, and the paladin class was too fine a line to be two separate classes.

I like this and I'll probably incorporate it in my game. Third domain, and thus another doman power, is a little strong for me, but a domain slot for each domain seems about right. I might even be inclined to give it 4+ int skills, and throw a couple more knowledge skills in the mix.

I like this variant, more so than the cloistered cleric although they are very similar.

I think the armour restriction could be summed up with the statement: My faith is my armour.

Besides, a few extra spells could provide adequate protection. As I recall, the original cleric class was inspired by the 'fighting priests' of the middle ages, who went into battle alongside heavily armoured knights. The original weapon restrictions were because these priests were at one stage forbidden to shed blood by papal decree, so they used maces and flails instead (just as effective against heavily armoured opponents).

That said, a more, well, clerical cleric is a must-have variant as far as I am concerned.

...a more, well, clerical cleric is a must-have variant as far as I am concerned.

Agreed. I work in an office, and I'm sure I'm not the only one here who does, and gets a wry smile when asked to concentrate on clerical work.

"Hmm, who been injured, then? Zombies in the basement? Disease in the canteen? Where should I start?"

I think the priest should have a few priest abilities away from the cleric.

Priest can channel energy as a free action and without utilizing a holy symbol when unarmored.

Priest can utilize channel energy and a one minute ceremony to perform "last rites" on a fallen creature, PC, or NPC. The soul may not be returned to the body, by any means short of a wish.

I think the priest should have a few priest abilities away from the cleric.

Priest can channel energy as a free action and without utilizing a holy symbol when unarmored.

Priest can utilize channel energy and a one minute ceremony to perform "last rites" on a fallen creature, PC, or NPC. The soul may not be returned to the body, by any means short of a wish.

A friend and I are working on a brand new Priest class (rather than a class variant, as I presented here), which does include things like rituals and so on. This particular class variant was designed to be just a non-martial Cleric. The separate base class is designed to be an actual no-armor divine caster.