PF2 - Paladin vs Cleric: Where's the thematic difference?

[Neo2151]

So I'm not interested in alignment issues or mechanical issues (though some mechanics will come up) - this is purely about thematics within Golarion with the information we know.

A Paladin has been described as:

Paladin Blog wrote:

divine champions of a deity

How does this not equally describe a Cleric?

So the traditional response (I would guess) to this is that Clerics are the "spell-casters" to the Paladins "warrior."
The issue I see with this is that Clerics have always been warriors. There is no "wizard-like robed priest" class; there is only the "wears armor and wields their deity's favored weapon in battle" class (Archetypes aside).
(I'd even say that the only reason we ever saw the Warpriest come into existence is that the Cleric was simply bad at doing it's job, through no fault of it's own, because of combat mechanics; ie, the buffing took too long in actual combat because PF combat is extremely quick. Were it not for that particular unfortunate circumstance, the Cleric would fill it's role just fine and Warpriest would have been unnecessary.)

And now, with BAB being replaced with Proficiency, the gap closes even more!

I understand that mechanically they work differently and Paladins have an extra code they must follow, but thematically, in-world, they seem to serve the exact same purpose; champion the cause of their deity. And they do it in essentially the same way; a combination of spells and fighting.

[Milo v3]

I imagine this is one of the reasons why Paladins didn't need a patron deity in 1e. Having a different power source meant it had abit different flavour compared to a LG cleric.

[CraziFuzzy]

I don't think the cleric should be defined as a 'champion' of a deity - more like an ambassador.

[Gorbacz]

Barbarians and Fighters serve exact the same purpose: hitting things hard. If they can exist as separate classes, so can Clerics and Paladins.

[avatarless]

Neo2151 wrote:

So I'm not interested in alignment issues or mechanical issues (though some mechanics will come up) - this is purely about thematics within Golarion with the information we know.

A Paladin has been described as:

Paladin Blog wrote:

divine champions of a deity

How does this not equally describe a Cleric?

So the traditional response (I would guess) to this is that Clerics are the "spell-casters" to the Paladins "warrior."
The issue I see with this is that Clerics have always been warriors. There is no "wizard-like robed priest" class; there is only the "wears armor and wields their deity's favored weapon in battle" class (Archetypes aside).
(I'd even say that the only reason we ever saw the Warpriest come into existence is that the Cleric was simply bad at doing it's job, through no fault of it's own, because of combat mechanics; ie, the buffing took too long in actual combat because PF combat is extremely quick. Were it not for that particular unfortunate circumstance, the Cleric would fill it's role just fine and Warpriest would have been unnecessary.)

And now, with BAB being replaced with Proficiency, the gap closes even more!

I understand that mechanically they work differently and Paladins have an extra code they must follow, but thematically, in-world, they seem to serve the exact same purpose; champion the cause of their deity. And they do it in essentially the same way; a combination of spells and fighting.

What I'd like to see for the divine powered character classes:

Paragon as the heavy armored martial with a bunch of extraordinary, supernatural divine abilities and little to no spell casting. Paragons would be a Deity's elite troops. The current Paladin would be a LG aligned Paragon. Paragons of other alignments for non-LG aligned Deities would work similar to the Paladin.

Cleric would be a Divine "gish" class mixing martial ability and spells (Vancian casting, not spontaneous) with good abilities in both power silos -- more of a Warpriest than the conventional Cleric. While Clerics would be good martial combatants and effective spellcasters, Paragons would be better in pure martial combat ability. Similarly, while Clerics would be effective spell casters, but not as powerful as a Deity's Oracles and Priests.

Inquisitor would be the Divine "expert" class mixing effective martial combat skills with exploration, investigation and utility skills. Inquisitors would be a Deity's troubleshooters and investigators with limited extraordinary abilities and spells. Inquisitors would be spontaneous casters.

Oracles and Priests would be a Deities primary spellcasters with moderate exploration skills and limited martial abilities. Oracles would have more supernatural Deity granted boons while Priests would be primarily spell casters. Oracles would be spontaneous casters, while Priests would use Vancian casting.

[CraziFuzzy]

avatarless wrote:

What I'd like to see for the divine powered character classes:

Paragon as the heavy armored martial with a bunch of extraordinary, supernatural divine abilities and little to no spell casting. Paragons would be a Deity's elite troops. The current Paladin would be a LG aligned Paragon. Paragons of other alignments for non-LG aligned Deities would work similar to the Paladin.

Cleric would be a Divine "gish" class mixing martial ability and spells (Vancian casting, not spontaneous) with good abilities in both power silos -- more of a Warpriest than the conventional Cleric. While Clerics would be good martial combatants and effective spellcasters, Paragons would be better in pure martial combat ability. Similarly, while Clerics would be effective spell casters, but not as powerful as a Deity's Oracles and Priests.

Inquisitor would be the Divine "expert" class mixing effective martial combat skills with exploration, investigation and utility skills. Inquisitors would be a Deity's troubleshooters and investigators with limited extraordinary abilities and spells. Inquisitors would be spontaneous casters.

Oracles and Priests would be a Deities primary spellcasters with moderate exploration skills and limited martial abilities. Oracles would have more supernatural Deity granted boons while Priests would be primarily spell casters. Oracles would be spontaneous casters, while Priests would use Vancian casting.

Good general consensus of the types of characters that should be available - but I think that is far too many 'classes'. For instance, the difference between the Cleric and the Inquisitor in your description appears to focus on trading out some martial ability of the cleric with the skill abilities of the inquisitor - that is likely not necessary in the context of pf2e, as there can simply be some more 'skill' focused class feats available to the cleric to build an inquisitor.

[Neo2151]

Gorbacz wrote:

Barbarians and Fighters serve exact the same purpose: hitting things hard. If they can exist as separate classes, so can Clerics and Paladins.

I think it'd be totally reasonable to have that thread too, since a Barbarian is just a specific type of Fighter anyway. There could very easily be Fighter Feats one could take to re-create the traditional "light armored/rage-powered" Fighter.

...
But this thread is about Clerics/Paladins, not Barbarians/Fighters. ;)

[Gorbacz]

Neo2151 wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Barbarians and Fighters serve exact the same purpose: hitting things hard. If they can exist as separate classes, so can Clerics and Paladins.

I think it'd be totally reasonable to have that thread too, since a Barbarian is just a specific type of Fighter anyway. There could very easily be Fighter Feats one could take to re-create the traditional "light armored/rage-powered" Fighter.

...
But this thread is about Clerics/Paladins, not Barbarians/Fighters. ;)

Yeah, but you can't have Paladins merged into Clerics without having Barbarians and Rangers rolled into Fighters as well as Sorceres into Wizards.

Which brings to the point where doing it is not feasible, because at this point people walking into D&D expect Paladins and Barbarians.

[Milo v3]

Gorbacz wrote:

Yeah, but you can't have Paladins merged into Clerics without having Barbarians and Rangers rolled into Fighters as well as Sorceres into Wizards.

Except wizards have completely different fluff to sorcerers?

Quote:

Which brings to the point where doing it is not feasible, because at this point people walking into D&D expect Paladins and Barbarians.

PF2e isn't D&D.

[CraziFuzzy]

I feel there should be:

Cleric
- This class is primarily a caster. They are the ambassadors for their deity and/or faith. Lightly armored (as the base chassis), proficient in simple weapons plus their deities favored weapon, they have only moderate martial capabilities, most often used to stay alive on the battlefield long enough to heal their allies and wield their spells. Their spells and powers are granted to them via worship of their deity.
- Domain powers are selected via class feats from the options provided by their chosen deity. These are spell point fueled.
- Their choice of Deity also allows them to choose bonus proficiency boosts from the options granted by their deity.
- They must themselves be within the alignment restrictions set forth by their deity, and must adhere to their deity's anathema.

Champion
- This class is not a caster, but is instead someone striving to embody the essence of their chosen Deity (or Ethos). Since they are quite often found to be at the front of any tense situation, they are very capable on the battlefield, though the style of their impact will vary considerable from Champion to Champion, depending on the deity of ethos they serve. They have extensive powers granted to them by their deity, or from sheer force of will and strength of their conviction to their ethos.
- Oath powers are selected via class feats from the options provided by their chosen deity or ethos. These are spell point fueled, and are plentiful in number.
- In base form, they are proficient with Medium armor, shields, and martial weapons, and able to grow to legendary levels with their oath's favored weapon.
- They gain all the bonus proficieies listed in their Deity or Ethos description.
- They must match their deity or ethos' alignment, and must strictly adhere to the deity or ethos's anathema AND their oath.

[Nox Aeterna]

Paladins transcend whatever god they serve, they did so in PF1, now they do so in PF2.

If a cleric concern is to follow a god, a paladin concern is to follow a god AND a set of ideals.

The cleric class has anathema, which means it has a concern to keep in line with their god, whatever god that might be,

The paladin class on the other hand present 2 levels here. It has the anathema like the cleric, which means it has a concern to their god, it also has a code, which shows a concern to the paladin class ideals themselves.

Simply put, you can have paladins of 5 different LG gods, they all will have one level of concern for their gods ideals, but they all will also have a mutual concern for what any paladin would defend, which goes beyond their gods following.

[Neo2151]

Gorbacz wrote:

Yeah, but you can't have Paladins merged into Clerics without having Barbarians and Rangers rolled into Fighters as well as Sorceres into Wizards.

Which brings to the point where doing it is not feasible, because at this point people walking into D&D expect Paladins and Barbarians.

I'll give you Barbarians and Fighters because both are just different sides of the same coin.

I won't give you Rangers however, as they are fundamentally more skill/survival based than simply another fighting style.
Also I can't give you Sorcerers and Wizards, as they are thematically entirely different. Ditto Oracles and Clerics.

These things fill difference places in the world thematically, even though they are similar mechanically.
Clerics/Paladins (as well as Fighters/Barbarians) fill the same places in the world thematically, as well as being similar mechanically.

[Nox Aeterna]

Neo2151 wrote:

These things fill difference places in the world thematically, even though they are similar mechanically.

Clerics/Paladins (as well as Fighters/Barbarians) fill the same places in the world thematically, as well as being similar mechanically.

Well, i can only say that is when you are GMing honestly, cause when im, they certanly do not fill the same theme.

Actually, i never played with a GM which a paladin and a cleric were about the same, but i guess different folk different strokes.

[Neo2151]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Actually, i never played with a GM which a paladin and a cleric were about the same, but i guess different folk different strokes.

Well sure! Outside of the Forgotten Realms, I'd imagine most people haven't. ;)

But Paladins seem to be much more closely tied to deities this time around.

[Milo v3]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Actually, i never played with a GM which a paladin and a cleric were about the same, but i guess different folk different strokes.

I've never played with a GM that houseruled paladins to get their power from worshipping a deity, so it never was possible for it to be an issue to confuse Paladins and Clerics. Paladins had more focused powers and a completely different power source to cleric, they weren't related until now.

[Weather Report]

Milo v3 wrote:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Actually, i never played with a GM which a paladin and a cleric were about the same, but i guess different folk different strokes.

I've never played with a GM that houseruled paladins to get their power from worshipping a deity, so it never was possible for it to be an issue to confuse Paladins and Clerics. Paladins had more focused powers and a completely different power source to cleric, they weren't related until now.

Is that a PF1 or Golarian thing, because paladins have always been able to serve/get their powers from a deity (Planescape demands it).

[Steve Geddes]

It’s not explicit in the CRB. I seem to remember it being heavily implied (if not explicit) in Champions of Purity (or somewhere...).

Then again, clerics don’t need a deity in the CRB, so perhaps the classes are the same after all. :o

[The Eternal Keeper]

I always imagined Clerics as the kind of bishop that donned armor and led armies, which is a historical thing. Whilst the paladin could be equated to Holy Knightly orders like the Knights Templar or Knights Hospitaller

[gustavo iglesias]

Paladin and Cleric are FAR more different than sorcerer and wizard are.

So I see why adding both is nice

[Milo v3]

Weather Report wrote:

Is that a PF1 or Golarian thing, because paladins have always been able to serve/get their powers from a deity (Planescape demands it).

PF1 (since the CRB), Golarion, 3.5e, and 3e all have paladins not needing a deity. I cannot speak about editions before 3e, as I have not read them.

"Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells."

Quote:

Then again, clerics don’t need a deity in the CRB, so perhaps the classes are the same after all. :o

Clerics need to follow a philosophy or a deity, paladins didn't need to dedicate themselves to any religious or philosophical practices.

[Steve Geddes]

Yeah, sorry I wasn’t really arguing. It was just a thought that struck me midpost.

Paladins needing a deity is not going to be a thing at my table, I suspect (I’d prefer they served all good deities, rather than one, specific one).

[The Eternal Keeper]

I feel like the difference between the two classes are like this:
Cleric: Priest that dedicate themselves to a god and takes up arms in it's name. Similiar to the medieval bishops that took up arms, though often for more selfish reasons such as protecting their land.
Paladin: A Holy Knight, not a priest, but blessed by their god non the less. Think more like the crusader orders, like the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller

[johnlocke90]

The difference is that the cleric can go to other alignments.

If you want to be a Neutral Good divine champion, you have to play Cleric.

[Ryan Freire]

Paladin: Champion of a god
Cleric: Servant of a god

Where I differ with a lot of people is with the idea that the paladin chassis should be the base chassis for all champions of a god.

Calistria's champion should probably be a ranger or bard
Norgorber's should be a rogue
Nethys' should be a wizard or sorc
Rovagug's should be a barbarian

[CraziFuzzy]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Paladin: Champion of a god

Cleric: Servant of a god

Where I differ with a lot of people is with the idea that the paladin chassis should be the base chassis for all champions of a god.

Calistria's champion should probably be a ranger or bard
Norgorber's should be a rogue
Nethys' should be a wizard or sorc
Rovagug's should be a barbarian

I'm not sure that's necessarily correct. I think there should be a definite difference between a Rogue who worships Norgorber, and a Champion of Norgorber. That said, if the Champion's proficiencies are partly from the deity or ideal they are devoted to, then I think they would end up being fairly close in many ways, while still having some key gameplay differences.

[Ryan Freire]

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Paladin: Champion of a god

Cleric: Servant of a god

Where I differ with a lot of people is with the idea that the paladin chassis should be the base chassis for all champions of a god.

Calistria's champion should probably be a ranger or bard
Norgorber's should be a rogue
Nethys' should be a wizard or sorc
Rovagug's should be a barbarian

I'm not sure that's necessarily correct. I think there should be a definite difference between a Rogue who worships Norgorber, and a Champion of Norgorber. That said, if the Champion's proficiencies are partly from the deity or ideal they are devoted to, than I think they would end up being fairly close in many ways, while still having some key gameplay differences.

I definitely don't mean "generic rogue" but the base chassis should be far more roguelike than a heavy armor focused fighter. (continues to lobby for divine champion archetypes tailored to each god rather than "paladins for all")

[Emeric Tusan]

I think it is important to consider that not all clerics are adventures. I could easily see a cleric hitting levels 3-5 without every seeing combat just by spending years resloving conflicts between the faithful l, healing and tending to the other parts of dieties portfolios.

[Malachandra]

If I understand correctly, there are going to be archetypes that can be applied to multiple classes. I wonder if a "Divine Champion" archetype could be made that could be equally applicable to all classes? Then if you want a champion of Norgober, you can be a rogue with the divine champion archetype.

[CraziFuzzy]

Ryan Freire wrote:

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Paladin: Champion of a god

Cleric: Servant of a god

Where I differ with a lot of people is with the idea that the paladin chassis should be the base chassis for all champions of a god.

Calistria's champion should probably be a ranger or bard
Norgorber's should be a rogue
Nethys' should be a wizard or sorc
Rovagug's should be a barbarian

I'm not sure that's necessarily correct. I think there should be a definite difference between a Rogue who worships Norgorber, and a Champion of Norgorber. That said, if the Champion's proficiencies are partly from the deity or ideal they are devoted to, than I think they would end up being fairly close in many ways, while still having some key gameplay differences.

I definitely don't mean "generic rogue" but the base chassis should be far more roguelike than a heavy armor focused fighter. (continues to lobby for divine champion archetypes tailored to each god rather than "paladins for all")

My 'Champion' proposal (posted somewhere else around here) only had Medium armor in the base chassis, but the deity/ethos granted proficiencies as appropriate. makes for a very versatile chassis.

[N N 959]

Neo2151 wrote:

So I'm not interested in alignment issues or mechanical issues***

How does this not equally describe a Cleric?

I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. In PF, as it was in AD&D, the theme of a class is wholly defined by the mechanics, which include alignment.

Any character, regardless of class, can be a champion of their deity. But look at how you framed the question:

Quote:

divine champions of a deity

Divinity is a mechanic in PF. It's simply a label for any class which gets its spells or abilities from a divine source as opposed to an arcane source (and I'm currently working on the Golarion Unification Theory "GUT" where we hope to show that both arcane and divine energy can be explained with one mechanic, albeit at a higher energy level).

While lore can help frame the mindset of the player, mechanics are required to provide a degree of consistency for any who play with or alongside each class. Monk's being Lawful and Barbarians not, and Druids being neutral are examples of the game using mechanics to create a theme for the character. If game designers want the Druid class to present the theme of a champion of nature, then it would make less sense for them to be lawful or chaotic.

As others have no doubt observed, it's very important to stress that this isn't real life, it's art. The mechanics/alignment aspects are there to facilitate the game working in a specific manner. The mechanics are employed as tools by the designers to engender a specific experience, that they think is worthwhile. I think this is lost on many players who see these design choices as being arbitrary and unrelated.

It's completely valid for someone to say, "I don't like the experience that it creates" or "It doesn't create the experience I am looking for" or "They could do it better using X." But recognizes that there is no way to know that any set of changes is a net improvement for the community at large. Paizo can't know with any certainty that doing X is "better" than Y on the whole. More importantly, neither do any of us. So to the extent any of us ultimately disagrees with some decision, its our judgement against Paizo's, with no reliable way to know whose method would have brought in more revenue.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's valuable for Paizo and us as individuals and a community to wrestle with many of these questions, but I also think we need to ask questions from the right framework.

Perhaps the question could be phrased as "what is the important thematic distinction between a cleric and a Paladin and what are the minimal mechanical elements needed to achieve that?" I should think the game is better if there is a distinction and so the question is what are the mechanical things that are needed to create that distinction?

[doc roc]

IMO its when you see thread like this, it emphasises the PF1 and PF2 flaw regarding the cleric in general.

Paladins, Warpriests, Inquisitors are all divinely appointed warriors, granted specific powers linked to their warrior role.

Having clerics as gish serves no purpose either thematically or mechanically. It not only makes the cleric less effective but it clouds the water for the actual divine warrior types..... hence why thread like this crop up!

The fact that you CAN design the cleric as gish is not proof that you SHOULD design it as such. It is a completely redundant concept. Its like having a company and making your accountants spend time improving their skills in buildings maintenance.... yes you can do it... but should you?? Nooooo....

The game has moved on massively since D&D 1st ed....

[Rob Godfrey]

Neo2151 wrote:

So I'm not interested in alignment issues or mechanical issues (though some mechanics will come up) - this is purely about thematics within Golarion with the information we know.

A Paladin has been described as:

Paladin Blog wrote:

divine champions of a deity

How does this not equally describe a Cleric?

So the traditional response (I would guess) to this is that Clerics are the "spell-casters" to the Paladins "warrior."
The issue I see with this is that Clerics have always been warriors. There is no "wizard-like robed priest" class; there is only the "wears armor and wields their deity's favored weapon in battle" class (Archetypes aside).
(I'd even say that the only reason we ever saw the Warpriest come into existence is that the Cleric was simply bad at doing it's job, through no fault of it's own, because of combat mechanics; ie, the buffing took too long in actual combat because PF combat is extremely quick. Were it not for that particular unfortunate circumstance, the Cleric would fill it's role just fine and Warpriest would have been unnecessary.)

And now, with BAB being replaced with Proficiency, the gap closes even more!

I understand that mechanically they work differently and Paladins have an extra code they must follow, but thematically, in-world, they seem to serve the exact same purpose; champion the cause of their deity. And they do it in essentially the same way; a combination of spells and fighting.

Clerics also do traditional priestly things, they minister, they inspire, they deal with the day to day running of temple business. Paladins don't they are the warrior fanatics of their deity, they kill the unbeliever and heretic, and fight the unclean things from hell or beyond the stars. It's the difference between Bishop Odo and a Teutonic Knight. This is reflected in mechanics via Paladins being instinctive almost, they have certain abilities to sense if something is unclean, to punish the deities enemies and to do minor miracles of healing. Clerics are more studied, they can tell you exactly what spell does what, the correct rituals and materials to cast it and probably how it fits in theology.

[wraithstrike]

Milo v3 wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Yeah, but you can't have Paladins merged into Clerics without having Barbarians and Rangers rolled into Fighters as well as Sorceres into Wizards.

Except wizards have completely different fluff to sorcerers?

Quote:

Which brings to the point where doing it is not feasible, because at this point people walking into D&D expect Paladins and Barbarians.

PF2e isn't D&D.

It's a spiritual successor. If not there'd be no PF2 because there'd be no PF1.

As for sorcerer and wizard flavor difference that also applies to every other class such as the paladin and cleric.
Both of them worshipping a deity doesn't make them any less different than a sorcerer and wizard.
The paladins thing has is to get rid of evil. The cleric is more of an extension of his deity, and due to their varied nature are stuck evil. Even good cleric are built around taking care of evil like paladins are.

[Weather Report]

wraithstrike wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Yeah, but you can't have Paladins merged into Clerics without having Barbarians and Rangers rolled into Fighters as well as Sorceres into Wizards.

Except wizards have completely different fluff to sorcerers?

Quote:

Which brings to the point where doing it is not feasible, because at this point people walking into D&D expect Paladins and Barbarians.

PF2e isn't D&D.

It's a spiritual successor. If not there'd be no PF2 because there'd be no PF1.

Yes, I don't see the vast difference between 3.0, 3.5, and PF1, that some seem to. Less different than 1st Ed to 2nd Ed AD&D, and those are pretty much completely compatible.

[Neo2151]

doc roc wrote:

IMO its when you see thread like this, it emphasises the PF1 and PF2 flaw regarding the cleric in general.

Paladins, Warpriests, Inquisitors are all divinely appointed warriors, granted specific powers linked to their warrior role.

Having clerics as gish serves no purpose either thematically or mechanically. It not only makes the cleric less effective but it clouds the water for the actual divine warrior types..... hence why thread like this crop up!

The fact that you CAN design the cleric as gish is not proof that you SHOULD design it as such. It is a completely redundant concept. Its like having a company and making your accountants spend time improving their skills in buildings maintenance.... yes you can do it... but should you?? Nooooo....

The game has moved on massively since D&D 1st ed....

I disagree that it's a flaw.

Clerics have always been divine gishes. They're not simply clergy, but are champions of their deity's cause in all areas, peaceful or combative.

On the other hand, the Paladin has always been Warrior/Fighter based. A hard-coded connection to a deity is new for them which is why I feel the question is more relevant than it may have been in the past.

I also firmly believe that the Inquisitor and Warpriest only exist to fix the system flaws the Cleric faces and are not necessary in a system without those flaws.
For example, a skill-based Divine character is basically impossible to do well in 3.X/PF because of how both Skills and the Cleric spell list work (we all know the Trickery domain has always been garbage, regardless of edition).
Inquisitor fixes this by adjusting the spell list and adding a bunch more skills per level.
In a system where skills work differently and more consideration is placed on Divine Spells, the necessity of the class vanishes and the Cleric, built properly, can fill the role.

Warpriest, on the other hand, is the solution to the Cleric's BAB/Action Economy problem. A standard Cleric has all the tools it needs to be a combat machine, just not enough time to employ them before the fight is nearly over. Also, it must utilize these buffs or it won't compete well, even though it has the initial combat proficiencies to suggest it should.
Warpriest fixes these issues by letting it "cheat" it's way into Combat Feats and "cheat" the action economy by activating spells faster than normal.
In a system where BAB doesn't exist and spells are designed in a way where they can be cast faster or slower based on need in the moment, the necessity of the class vanishes and the Cleric, built property, can fill the role.

I say all this to say that, as it stands with a strong connection to a deity, a Paladin becomes just a LG Warpriest following a particular code, but we're about to get a new system where the Warpriest may not even be necessary; the changes to attack bonuses and spellcasting may finally allow the Cleric to fill it's role as gish better than it ever has before.

[gustavo iglesias]

I think both the Warrior priest and the Priest in a Robe should be valid options, because both are tropes of the genre. I don't know if both should be archetypes of the cleric, or if cleric should be one of them, then the other should be a different class (the one Cleric does not cover), but both the should exist