| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Igwilly’s Blog: Cleric as Warrior-Priest
Hello, people!
I would like to start a blog here, but I’m not seeing an option for forum members, so I’ll make it a series of posts made for the forums (if there’s a way to publish blogs here, please let me know and I’ll start to use it).
This post is about a very special class, which I would like to comment about the background and the tradition behind it. I’m talking about the Cleric.
What? Did you think it was about the Paladin? I’m sure there are plenty of threads to discuss that, already ^^
My wish here may already be realized, but I think it’s something I need to say, anyway.
There’s something that has become a common theme around all these alignment/paladin/whatever discussions; a theme that needs to be rightfully addressed in the new game. A common request of players and DMs is the existence of a “Holy Warrior”. Basically, a specially blessed warrior dedicated to his/her church. Someone to protect the faithful, fight the holy wars, be a bastion of faith.
This is actually a common trope: The Warrior Monk.
However, we actually already have a Warrior Monk for our fictional religions: The Cleric!
Nowadays, perhaps due to video-game influence and metamagic effects, people many think of the Cleric as a pure spellcaster, but at its conception, it was pretty much a Warrior-Priest. Take a look at this quote, from AD&D 2e’s Player’s Handbook (pg 48, 2013 version):
The cleric class is similar to certain religious orders of knighthood of the Middle Ages: the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar, and Hospitalers. These orders combined military and religious training with a code of protection and service. Members were trained as knights and devoted themselves to the service of the church. These orders were frequently found on the outer edges of the Christian world, either on the fringe of the wilderness or in war-torn lands. Archbishop Turpin (of The Song of Roland) is an example of such a cleric. Similar orders can also be found in other lands, such as the sohei of Japan.
So basically, the class simply isn’t a video-game priest, wearing robes and slinging spells at the backline. Looking at its stats, and pretending class-and-math balance in 2e works (this is another discussion), Priests (and therefore, also Clerics) have a very good THAC0 – that is, BAB. The group was the second best at this, behind the Warrior Group (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) and above the Rogue group (Thief, Bard) and of course Wizards. They also had proficiency in all armors. They were limited to blunt weapons, which deal less damage but actually have a very good damage type to armor (weapon type vs armor table). Of course, their main weapon were their spells. However, that were mostly healing and support stuff (barring the weird reverse healing spells), so the result was a capable Combat Medic: heals and fights. The picture also looked like a religious knight, with heavy armor, a shield, a mace and white mantle.
Or that was the intention, anyway. Looking at other old-school editions, anyone can see the same pattern.The class, being a legitimate Warrior Monk as well a blatant reference to Christianity, could have a better name. However, if you look closely to the 3 first classes of the entire game, one can see why the name was chosen: there was the Fighting-Man, the Magic-User and the Cleric. Apparently, D&D’s creators wanted very generic names for their classes, so this class was named Cleric.
Now, I will not ask for the elimination of caster laser-focused Clerics – I remember the 4e guys calling this build a “Laser Cleric”. They are very popular and should remain as an option. I also understand that the playtest document is finished and any changes would be for the final core rulebook or splatbooks. However, I believe the Warrior-Priest Cleric should be an option to Clerics of every faith, not just War deities or similar stuff. I actually believe this is very possible in the new edition: remember, how the math works will change, and characters are very customizable with class feats, and we have 3 actions per round, and so on. I can easily imagine this option being available through feats or similar customization mechanics. You can even add some Charisma-based abilities, if we don’t have them yet.
I think this is the perfect solution for the “Holy Warrior” problem. This way, we don’t need to change or destroy other classes, we don’t make any significant changes to the Cleric other than allowing something the old Cleric could already do, the entire theme remains the same and every deity has immediate access to very capable Holy Warriors. It’s a win-or-win situation. Therefore, I invite the designers and players to think about this setup and consider it for a while. It can be just what we need.
So, what are we doing in the back row? Ahead of the battlefield! The gods favor us today and that’s all we need!
Note: I may enjoy old-school (or medium-school) systems, but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in Pathfinder 2, nor that I want PF2 to be exactly like an OSR game or 2e-clone. It’s a serious suggestion that could improve the game a lot ^^
Sorry, no, they have way to much casting the point of the Holy Warrior (not warrior priest those are totally different concepts) is to have some blessings, the power of their faith and a big stick, not to be casters who hit things, they don't fill that niche, neither did war priests, they keep missing the point and making gishes, Paladins, Hell Knights etc are nor gishes, and can drop the casting and still work, a Cleric who hits things is a warrior priest, not a holy warrior, and that difference is central. Not that warrior priest is an invalid archetype, it isn't, but it is not the solution you seem to think.
Well, I do not realize much thematic difference between a Warrior Priest and a Holy Warrior. Someone could explain that better to me :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically it comes down to what form their being empowered by the Divine takes. Largely it comes down to casting. If you can take the casting out entirely and they still function just fine, it works as a Holy Warrior. If not, they're a Warrior Priest. Basically people want the Divinely-Empowered Warrior with minimal if not 0 spellcasting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, no, they have way to much casting the point of the Holy Warrior (not warrior priest those are totally different concepts) is to have some blessings, the power of their faith and a big stick, not to be casters who hit things, they don't fill that niche, neither did war priests, they keep missing the point and making gishes, Paladins, Hell Knights etc are nor gishes, and can drop the casting and still work, a Cleric who hits things is a warrior priest, not a holy warrior, and that difference is central. Not that warrior priest is an invalid archetype, it isn't, but it is not the solution you seem to think.Well, I do not realize much thematic difference between a Warrior Priest and a Holy Warrior. Someone could explain that better to me :)
Same difference than between a Warrior Priest and a Paladin, except for other aligments.
Can you expand on that? If you mean Paladins are Holy Warriors, yes they are. So are Order of the Godclaw Hellknights imho.Well, I do not realize much thematic difference between a Warrior Priest and a Holy Warrior. Someone could explain that better to me :)Same difference than between a Warrior Priest and a Paladin, except for other aligments.
I think you two are saying the same thing. A paladin is a holy warrior. So is a Hellknight. So is an Antipaldin. So are certain kinds of rangers, if you squint.
Well, I guess you cannot get everything right in the first try XD
Rob Godfrey, I especially liked your explanation because an extensive, in-world description is much better for me then "mechanics this, mechanics that". The later sounds a little petty, in my honest opinion.
I still want the Cleric class to support the Warrior-Priest option in a more extensive way than the previews show. In this new design environment, such a concept is easy to put without having to deal with multiclass and such.
I don't think we even know how multiclass is going to work on PF2... Weird.
I just don't want to make this thread another Paladin thread, to be honest. I was really talking about the Cleric, and all this Paladin issue is giving me headaches, to the point I left the discussion relatively early after Paizo's blog post.
I'll just think about this dichotomy presented here, and how this affects other stuff :)
Well, one of the developers said it would be relatively easy to approximate a Warpriest a la the Advanced Class Guide out of core options, so you'll probably get your wish for a Warrior-Priest for every faith.
And, eventually, we'll almost certainly get a Warpriest as a class or subclass at some point, as well as an inquisitor. Hopefully we'll also get a subclass or class that ditches the clanking armor for robes and gives us a laser-cleric.
But, yes, more information on how multiclassing will work is needed to make solid guess on how to pull all this off.
Rob Godfrey, I especially liked your explanation because an extensive, in-world description is much better for me then "mechanics this, mechanics that". The later sounds a little petty, in my honest opinion.
Comments like this are why ya'll arguing for LG-only paladins are being accused of telling others they're having badwrongfun. Do you not see that? You just called mechanical attention to concept "petty." Do know what a wizard-flavor character without spellcasting mechanics is? A deranged commoner. Some of us care a great deal about being able to realize our character concepts. As in, our character's capabilities match our vision for them.
When you insult any other explanation than an in-world one, do you know why some of us see that as petty? I'll give you a hint, it's not because we're powergamers who have no taste for real roleplaying or immersive settings. It's because you said "in-world," singular. Some people play in other worlds, with other assumptions and cosmologies. Why would I want to play in the same world every campaign when I could instead explore many? Why would I want to buy and learn a whole new RPG system each time I change settings? Why would I want to play in only the published setting that accompanies my favorite game system?
From my perspective, the concept of an in-world explanation of a mechanical class makes no sense. Classes to me are a rough framework used as the foundation of a character concept, and nothing more. The difference is that I acknowledge that other play styles exist and don't find them inferior just because they aren't mine, so I don't call other people's concerns "petty." You might find more success in these conversations if you employed a more open-minded approach.
Comments like this are why ya'll arguing for LG-only paladins are being accused of telling others they're having badwrongfun. Do you not see that? You just called mechanical attention to concept "petty." Do know what a wizard-flavor character without spellcasting mechanics is? A deranged commoner. Some of us care a great deal about being able to realize our character concepts. As in, our character's capabilities match our vision for them.When you insult any other explanation than an in-world one, do you know why some of us see that as petty? I'll give you a hint, it's not because we're powergamers who have no taste for real roleplaying or immersive settings. It's because you said "in-world," singular. Some people play in other worlds, with other assumptions and cosmologies. Why would I want to play in the same world every campaign when I could instead explore many? Why would I want to buy and learn a whole new RPG system each time I change settings? Why would I want to play in only the published setting that accompanies my favorite game system?
From my perspective, the concept of an in-world explanation of a mechanical class makes no sense. Classes to me are a rough framework used as the foundation of a character concept, and nothing more. The difference is that I acknowledge that other play styles exist and don't find them inferior just because they aren't mine, so I don't call other people's concerns "petty." You might find more success in these conversations if you employed a more open-minded approach.
I think a class is much more than a mechanical framework. The reason I want a class-based system is because they represent concepts, and they're fairly easy to move to your own home-world (just like I do ^^)
If classes are only mechanics, I think I would prefer class-less systems. They're much more focused and better at expressing a pre-made perfect character from one's mind into mechanics. Class-based systems are more like creating a character in and for the game world.Sorry if you felt offended by anything I said. I just think such a discussion should always consider flavor, not mechanics only. That's why an explanation which deals with flavor is much more appealing to me :)
Also, I asked for a conceptual difference between a Warrior-Priest and a Holy Warrior, not a purely mechanical one. I just threw at Google translator a word in my native language and that was the result. It was in no way intended to be offensive, only that this causes a bad reaction from my part.