| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was inspired by discussion of the inquisitor and the notion that the new class is redundant because the cleric has it's bases covered.
But does it really?
The inquistor is something we can point to throughout history and say "yep, that sounds analogous". The Agents of Daoist Mandarins, the Spies of the ruling Brahaman, The Inquisition of Spain, The witchhunters of New England, the list goes on. Any culture with zealots willing to spy for the cause has inquisitors.
And the paladin: A crusading warrior who fights for the faith. Classically european, the paladin also fights a jihad, is a suitable analogy for the samurai or the wuxia and even tribal totem warriors. The paladin is the spirit warrior.
Which brings us to the cleric. Why, they're the priest! History and fiction are abound with this archetype.
Except, perhaps they are not.
Really, think about it: Aside from those who we would call paladins, who are these chainmail wearing warriors who wield clubs and invoke the deity?
The priest and the white wizard are certainly fantasy tropes, as are the shaman and the martial arts Monk.
But where are the clerics? Friar Tuck perhaps. The crusaders (from whom the paladins also derive inspiration). Where else is the heavy armour battle priest common, where the trope also doesn't scream paladin?
Fact is, when Gygax and Arneson came up with their undead killing healer, they really pigeonholed the class. Not truly an archetype for priest (most fantasy eschews armour and weapons, making them more like white wizards) and the existance of the Druid and the Monk kind of kill the counterparts of other cultures, save perhaps medieval Muslim cultures?
The cleric, as a class, is bogged down with legacy trappings and really fails to cover what literature and history have painted the mystic to be.
If they ever do revamp the class, I'd love to see: Wizards BAB, light armour at most, more channelling mechanics, more customization based on their gods.
Lose the armour and weapons, unless the god calls for it. Lose the martial competency: most priests were not warriors. Give them more magic powers: this is what the holy magician is known for.
Let's let Paladins be Paladins and Inquisitors be Inquisitors. Let's carve a new niche for Clerics.
The cleric is pretty much modelled on the Bishop Ode of Bayeaux. He is depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry fighting alongside William the Conqueror during the invasion of Britain, wielding a mace or sceptre.
Having clerics fighting was not an unusual occurence. Younger brothers of nobles would often enter the clergy, and were lords in their own right. They were bascially knights.
|
In the early medieval period, fighting clergy was more common. But in the later Carolingian period and thereafter, there was a reform movement to get the clergy to focus on purely spiritual matters and leave the fighting to the seculars.
Inquisitors meanwhile get cast in PF as "ignoring the rules of the faith to hunt down its enemies using any means necessary", while historical inquisitors were all about enforcing orthodoxy and correcting people who think they can bend the rules.
I always thought that Paladin + Cleric was a bit redundant.
I would like to have a "white mage" armor-less Priest.
Then Multi-class with Fighter, and call yourself a Paladin.
I am too in "get rid of cleric and replace them with decent cloth-wearing priest" camp.
Your PC can restrict itself to light armor and have a mediocre Strength. Voila! Instant light armor, low BAB cleric. Not sure what you want for channeling options (there are a few out there), and you can always dip into wizard or rogue to open up skill options.
|
I have always thought the paladin+ cleric redundant as well.
Perhaps the Priest is what you are looking for.
I myself would like to align spell casting access with base attack bonus, just has hit dice has been aligned with base attack bonus
.
+1 good base attack bonus=d10 hit dice= Paladin/ranger spell schedule
+3/4 Medium base attack bonus=d8 hit dice=Bard/Magus/inquisitor spell schedule
+1/2 base attack bonus=d6 hit dice= wizard sorcerer (cleric druid) spell schedule
I would like to replace the paladin with Green Ronin's Holy Warrior
The "Holy Warrior" is a 20 level base class, which Green Ronnin developed in their sourcebook "The Book of the Righteous". They did a PDF called "holy Warrior" to update the class to 3.5.
The class had the same basic structure as the Paladin, in terms of Base Attack Bonus, Saves, Skills, Hit dice, and Spell progression.
The change was in the "Class Abilities" you picked two "domains" offered by your Deity, and they gave you a set of special abilities, which you gain over a spread of levels. With this class if you picked the right two domains, you had a paladin.
I would like to cut the cleric druid and oracle's full spell schedule out and replace their spell schedules with the spell schedule of a Alchemist/ Bard/Magus/inquisitor/summoner spell schedule but this would mean crafting new spell lists for a 3/4 bab clerical divine spell caster and druidic spell caster. I want to make this change because i think the Cleric/Druid/Oracle are a cut above the other classes, and I want to bring them "back in alignment" with the other classes in the game.
But yes In short i would like to yank out the paladin, cleric, oracle and druid..and replace the paladin with the holy warrior, the cleric oracl and druid with two classes, a 3/4 bab d8 hd with the Bard spell progression ,And the cleric with the priest.
its a work in progress
A heroic clergyman from "The Song of Roland":
Turpin - The archbishop Turpin, who fights and dies alongside Roland at Roncesvals, represents Christendom's turn towards militant activity at the time of the Crusades. The way he battles against the pagans reflects the views put forth in Pope Urban II's famous speech at the Council of Clermont in 1095, the direct inspiration for the First Crusade. He is a stout and valiant warrior—"[n]o tonsured priest who ever sang a mass/performed such feats of prowess with his body" (121.1606-1607). He is the last to die besides Roland; when he sees Roland faint, Turpin tenderly sets out for a stream to fetch some water for his dear comrade, but, mortally wounded, he falls down dead before reaching the water. Along with Olivier and Roland, he is taken by Charlemagne's men back to France for burial.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/songofroland/characters.html
Wiat you need sparknotes to know who Turpin is?
I'm ok with some of the turf the cleric/paladin/inquisitor share. If I have a specific concept for a divine character, I have plenty of places to turn to
I personally don't think any of the classes are redundant theme wise. Even the cavalier is a representation of a warrior of conviction and ideals that does not necessarily revolve around a god.
Also keep in mind in a fantasy setting your notions of what an occupation means is rather pointless. They help build your expectations but it is the differences from those expectations that make fantasy.
|
|
Hmm, that Priest class is an interesting take on it. But how about actually making the priest suffer "divine spell failure chance"? We've already got the mechanics; all we need is some interesting power that makes up for it.
Although I also like the idea of clerics fighting, but (hypocritically) avoiding edged weapons.
I like Adamant's Priest, but I feel that it's a bit too overpowered. Three domains, a die higher channel than a Cleric, free Weapon Focus, and the equivalent of Bardic Knowledge?
I would probably make the following adjustments:
-To reflect his focus on knowledge, a Priest receives 8 + INT skill points at each level
A Priest automatically receives the Knowledge domain even if it is not on the domain list of his chosen deity; he then can select one other domain from his deity.
-A Priest's channels are a d8, but total number of channels is calculated like an Oracle of Life, at 1 + CHA mod.
-The Priest gains proficiency with light weapons and his deity's favored weapon.
I feel like the light armor proficiency doesn't fit with the class, and should probably be replaced with some sort of sacred\profane bonus to AC that increases with level.
So we've got Turpin, Odo and Friar Tuck, a trio of Norman battle-priests.
And Turpin and Odo qualify for Paladin, while an argument for Monk could be made for the good Friar.
I'll say it again, the mechanics of the cleric have no real basis as an archetype, especially now the Inquisitor has come along.
Even in Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, the major clerics are robes, staves and wisdom more than chainmail, battle and maces.
Really, are there good examples of clerics outside of 11th century Normandy? Even in D&D?
|
Because non-edged weapons kill people almost just as good? And burning people with holy fire isn't much nicer than cutting them open?
Well, if you put into historical context, it makes a lot of sense. Particularly at the time period, when the Church is becoming something of a world-wide entity, and Europe has been in bloody battle after bloody battle. The warrior class has been becoming exceptionally prestigious because of their specialized need, (extended wartimes), and it's also a noteworthy brutal time, where life didn't mean much, and death was very common. Now we come to a point, where in a lot of ways, the church has sort of begun to put a stop to the prevalent conflict, (probably indirectly, and by incorporating various feudal countries under their banner), which begins to leave many of the knights and other warrior classes without a purpose. That's a major reason that jousting and games become so popular, as it allowed for them to continue to train, to still win glory and reward, but was not focused on killing (still happened though). The Church also instituted a rule that their more faithful would take up less deadly weapons, both because while yes, they could still be used to kill, it was a lot less likely to happen if it wasn't on purpose. Accidental cuts and piercings could easily become fatal, but blunt weapons where actually designed for a few specific tactics in combat. To show that one was serious, to be able to bypass armor, but still preserve it, to inflict less grievous wounds, but still very much ones to be weary of, and to preserve the fighting forces when not in conflict, as well as to offer the opportunity for a defeated foe to be able to change their mind, convert, and/or tell the tail.
This is actually a huge reason for the Crusades as well, where all of these warriors, notably a lot of them who as 3rd or 4th sons, now have almost no hope of inheriting any land or wealth, and have no wars to fight. The religious call to arms was (more than likely) an excuse, a way to channel the all those away from another conflict at home and send them off.
It's also sort of why in modern days, most officials typically use a similar weapon in their duties. Judges have the hammer (gavel), police have the club, etc. . . because their job isn't to be lethal, normally, but more as a last resort. Modern day medical soldiers (are supposed to) carry handguns rather than AR's, more as a personal defense and that of their patients rather than for aggressive actions.
There is also the various religious traditions which the class does draw from, where for example the shepherd's staff, scepter, and sling & stone have Biblical purposes, as well as many other traditions. Ina generic sense, many "eastern" beliefs also hold the staff and unarmed combat to be the height of spiritual mastery and a key to understanding other arts.
I can picture quite a few historical and mythical religious militants of the type that the cleric was meant to emulate, but most of the examples are as non-European as the monk. The priest caste of the Aztecs;
Not really battle priests. Charasimatic community leaders, teachers, magicians, certainly. But the priest and warrior caste were fairly distinct in meso-america.
the medicine men of the North American tribes (the Ghost Dance cult are a relatively recent example)
These scream druid. Again, not really heavy armour martialists either. Why do they have the BAB of a rogue?
the various priests of pre-Buddhism India, Chinese sohei orders, and the Buddhist exorcists of Shogunate Japan...
Brahaman were not warriors. The Sohei look like a winner though.
even a lot of the Achaean priests in Greek myth were militants. Religious pacifism has coexisted alongside it in most cultures, of course, but that's a much less entertaining kind of religious figure to play in a game where everybody else is racking up a body-count.
Far more priestly characters in greek myth and history were not martialists: Cassandra, the Oracle at Delphi, Tiresias are clear standouts of "non-cleric" clerics.
So the Templar and the Sohei? Both of whom sum up the Paladin class pretty well?
Even in the bible, perhaps David and Joshua qualify for the "militant holyman", while Jesus, Moses, Paul, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Abraham, etc. do not.
Doesn't this argue for a Priest class with a "battle priest" archetype?
Far more holypersons of history come off as wizards and seers than warriors and crusaders.
The EGG cleric is an antique.
The cleric is pretty much modelled on the Bishop Ode of Bayeaux. He is depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry fighting alongside William the Conqueror during the invasion of Britain, wielding a mace or sceptre.
You described a Paladin.
What about Moses? He wasn't trained in armor, but he casts the divine magic of turning sticks to snakes. His weapon a staff though (sounds like a divine Wizard actually)..
Origin of the Cleric
So apparently, Cleric were vampire hunters as an archetype. Gygax added the weapon restriction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still miss the old days... when Paladin & Druid were prestige classes that you had to earn throw, word & deed of action, and could not start off with. If you could not play them correctly, then you were not allowed to have them in the first place.
For every 50 commoner, you might have one priest.
For every 10 Priest, you might have one Cleric
For every 100 clerics, you might have one paladin.
Some location might have a high number in one location, while in other location you might have almost none for the area.
|
|
@Devil's Advocate:
Your historical points seem sound to me, but I'm not sure they translate properly into PF;
- Bludgeoning weapons aren't really non-lethal weapons in PF; the difference in damage is quite small. Most of the damage tends to come from damage bonuses like Strength and buff spells, after all. This is mostly a game-mechanics phenomenon getting in the way of fluff.
- This whole drive towards a less-violent society, in which the church is giving the good example by not going around armed to the teeth - is that really applicable to PF? In a world where dragons actually threaten the faithful, is categorical pacifism really all that virtuous?
|
|
I like Adamant's Priest, but I feel that it's a bit too overpowered. Three domains, a die higher channel than a Cleric, free Weapon Focus, and the equivalent of Bardic Knowledge?
I would probably make the following adjustments:
-To reflect his focus on knowledge, a Priest receives 8 + INT skill points at each level
A Priest automatically receives the Knowledge domain even if it is not on the domain list of his chosen deity; he then can select one other domain from his deity.
-A Priest's channels are a d8, but total number of channels is calculated like an Oracle of Life, at 1 + CHA mod.
-The Priest gains proficiency with light weapons and his deity's favored weapon.I feel like the light armor proficiency doesn't fit with the class, and should probably be replaced with some sort of sacred\profane bonus to AC that increases with level.
when I have played a priest class in a home game, we simply dropped the d8 channel positive energy down to a d6.
If you are looking to drop the armor completely, why not simply ad the Monk's unarmed AC bonus and progression? that would give the priest a nice tidy AC boost with an already tried and true class feature?
just a thought.
Cleric/Priest draws inspiration from the battle clerics of the middle ages, not Friar Tuck. More akin to the Knights Templar. Paladins on the other hand take inspiration from Lancelot, Galahad, Roland, etc. more based in literature than history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Adamant's Priest, but I feel that it's a bit too overpowered. Three domains, a die higher channel than a Cleric, free Weapon Focus, and the equivalent of Bardic Knowledge?
I would probably make the following adjustments:
-To reflect his focus on knowledge, a Priest receives 8 + INT skill points at each level
A Priest automatically receives the Knowledge domain even if it is not on the domain list of his chosen deity; he then can select one other domain from his deity.
-A Priest's channels are a d8, but total number of channels is calculated like an Oracle of Life, at 1 + CHA mod.
-The Priest gains proficiency with light weapons and his deity's favored weapon.I feel like the light armor proficiency doesn't fit with the class, and should probably be replaced with some sort of sacred\profane bonus to AC that increases with level.
The Priest is an update of Unearthed Arcana's Cloistered Cleric variant class. That's why it gets the Knowledge domain. Unfortunately, Paizo's Cloistered Cleric archetype is pitiful in comparison.
I am all for it, but I like my priests in robes for similar reasons anyway; the mystics and such I remember from books and stories are more like that, and I'd rather have an emphasis on spellcasting than on 'I can fall back on hitting things.'
...And the current cleric is hard to do that with because I feel awful for not using class features. Which is a personal problem, yes.
Of course, I don't necessarily see a need to replace, though keeping the old one as an archetype works a_OK.
I like the traditional D&D cleric or priest. I agree with whoever pointed out the hospitalers.
I would suggest that the Hebrew scriptures also have some examples of fighting clergy; Elijah single handedly spanked 300 priests of Baal after calling down the fire on Mt Carmel. While he was considered a prophet he was formally a priest, Samuel also a priest was commonly at or near the battlefield.
I think it's a bit wrong to assume that clerics are the same thing as local officiating priests. For me, Clerics represent entirely the PC type of adventuring and semi-martial priest, and does not represent normal officiating priests. To me, there's no reason to assume that the entirety of the NPCs that the PCs encounter can be encapsulated by the Classes (either NPC or not) that are published by either Paizo or even third-party publishers. No class has a 0 BAB progression, but there are plenty of concepts that would require several skill ranks, but absolutely no combat effectiveness.
This is why I think it's insanely stupid to require NPCs to follow the same construction as PCs. At best, I'd probably represent them using the Priest class, by Adamant Entertainment, but I haven't built an NPC using class levels in a long time.
|
But the real question was ...
"Do we really need Inquistors as a separate class?"
My answer would be
Yes. For variety's sake.
Yes. Because if we don't allow this as a separate class, a player could still build pretty much the same type of character, based on the Cleric class, maybe multi-classing for a better Feat progression or Skill bonuses, selecting appropriate Spells, Feats, and Skills to do what they would consider "appropriate" for that character. It will just take you longer (more levels) to get your character fully developed, and you might not get quite everything that they put into the Inquistor class. You would still be able to perform the Inqusitor's special "duties". That is, you could act and function as an Inquistor, even if there were no such class. So might as well set it up so that the palyer can be an Inquistor from day one.
Personally, I would rather see it as a Prestige class, requiring about 5 levels of Cleric as a pre-req. Sort of like a holy Assassin, which is another Prestige class or archetype that should exist if it doesn't already. It is so hard to keep track, there are so many classes and archetypes out already, and new ones coming out all the time.
On the other hand. No. We don't really NEED the Inquisitor, any more than we need Rangers, or Druids, or Monks, or Sorcerers, or Witches, or Barbarians, or Assassins as separate classes. These are all just hooks to hang your character on, like saying you're a waitress or a cook. It helps define what it is that your character is good at, so that other people know what to expect.
|
|
The cleric is about the least "fighty" of the divine casters, but it's still pretty fighty. It might be interesting to build a class that's more like a divine wizard; slow BAB, "divine spell failure chance" and all that; we've got the game elements to build such a thing. A divine bonus to AC that depends on not wearing armor isn't all that novel either.
The problem is: what does the "robed priest" get in return for giving up decent fighting? All the self-buff in combat cleric spells become less relevant, and with that removed, the cleric list is a bit too weak, compared to for example wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cleric is about the least "fighty" of the divine casters, but it's still pretty fighty. It might be interesting to build a class that's more like a divine wizard; slow BAB, "divine spell failure chance" and all that; we've got the game elements to build such a thing. A divine bonus to AC that depends on not wearing armor isn't all that novel either.
The problem is: what does the "robed priest" get in return for giving up decent fighting? All the self-buff in combat cleric spells become less relevant, and with that removed, the cleric list is a bit too weak, compared to for example wizards.
True story. Changing the cleric to be a holy wizard with spell failure, crappy hit die, etc just means you've set the class up to be ignored (more than it already is). It's already a class the doesn't get a lot of loved and too often is roped into playing the bumbling healbot. As a melee combatant they're a secondary consideration, perhaps on par with the likes of the bard. If they focus enough on melee to be decent, then their spellcasting will suffer. If you want to lower their HD, take away armor and make them worse at melee combat then you've got to give them a big boost to their spellcasting. Sure make them have a spell failure chance, but their spell list would need a huge overhaul to give them a lot more options like a wizard and a lot less buffs. Of course, then all you've done is make a wizard that prays to his god instead of to himself, and thats not particularly interesting or helpful to the game either.
Leave it the way it is.
Edit: Also as a side note, all divine magic is free of spell failure chance. Thats the thing about divine magic. If you want clerics to incur spell failure, then you have to add it to the inquisitor, paladin, oracle, druid, ranger. Did I miss anyone? All those classes will be very happy to have their spell casting nerfed to pointlessness by wearing armor.
It doesn't really logically follow that you'd have to make no divine spellcaster able to cast in armor just because you make one divine spellcaster who doesn't cast in armor. That's not really how logic works.
It is true that they'd need a little adjustment to their spellcasting or class features, but it's not as if any of the full casters are particularly hurting for effectiveness.
Probably the reason the cleric is set up the way it is is a bit of a 'consolation prize' for being stuck as the healer, but I think this thread displays there is at least a little bit of demand for a robed priest type.
...And comparing something to the wizard and saying it's weaker is pretty much going to be true regardless.
I like the idea of a divine cloth caster. That doesn't mean that the Cleric needs to go away.
I think an intriguing idea would be to sort of take the track that Adamant went with their priest class, but combine it more with Bard; give them a class feature called Prayer, that is basically an ongoing 'performance' that grants buffs; instead of focusing on channel to heal, take away the priest's channel and let those affected by its Prayer gain Fast Healing.
|
|
I don't see the obstacle to describing this Robed Priest as subject to "Arcane" spell failure chance. Bards play fast and loose with it, why not apply it to a divine caster type? The strict separation of arcane and divine is soooo 3.x
So ASFC, no armor proficiency, and weapon proficiency only with some non-edged (simple) weapons. Basically operating under the same limits as wizards, with focus on "nice" rather than "really easy" weapons.
If you're operating under the same bad stuff as a wizard (or sorcerer), it's fair if your good stuff is also at a similar level. But that's tricky with the cleric list, since a significant portion of the spells are about (self)-buffing for combat, which you're not going to do.
We're trying to avoid becoming a pure healbot/support class here because it's also fun to do stuff yourself.
I'm not sure a Bardic Performance feature is really the way to go - stealing core features from other classes tends to cause sadness. Look at that poor rogue, he's got nothing unique left.
I think a feature modelled on Hexes might be more fruitful; let's call them Sacraments (because that sounds much more priestly). Sacraments don't run out (unlike spells per day), but there's (often) a limit to how much an individual can be hurt or helped with a given sacrament per day.
Sacrament effects could be drawn from some of the more cinematic priestly abilities; smiting evildoers and outsiders with holy flames and all that; inspiring allies and removing nasty conditions. But like the Hex feature, there's also room for some new and odd stuff.
It doesn't really logically follow that you'd have to make no divine spellcaster able to cast in armor just because you make one divine spellcaster who doesn't cast in armor. That's not really how logic works.
I'm saying that divine magic as a whole, as a rule doesn't ever incur a spell failure chance from casting in armor. If you want to break that rule you are rewriting how divine magic works in general. If you add the spell failure chance to the cleric, I see it as adding it to all divine magic. Now you could just say that the other classes get feats that are similar to Arcane Armor Training and Mastery, but the Paladin would for example get a version that reduces it to 0% in heavy armor, the Ranger would get a version that reduces it to 0% in medium (but still has some chance if they wear heavy), but then what do you do about the Druid? He's a full caster like the Cleric. if the Cleric incurs full failure chance, shouldn't the Druid?
To me there is no logic in giving divine spells a failure chance to one class without giving all divine spells a spell failure chance.