Are Clerics strictly necessary?

In the process of stripping down bits of my favorite systems, stitching them back together, and
pumping them full of reagent, I started thinking about the unique role the Cleric fills in a system.
And it's turning the undead and healing. And being a backup/second rate Fighting Man. And
obviously the religious fluff.
But, why isn't the Magic-User just doing that? And I know what you're going to say "The Magic-User
definitely needs *more* to do" and I appreciate your sarcasm but also, why not? Healing and turning
the undead are essentially performing magic, but magic bestowed by a divine power instead of
teased from beyond the veil or learned from demons in exchange for goat's blood.
I'm tempted to suggest something like Final Fantasy with black and white mages with their own
specialties (arcane firepower and healing/debuffing respectively), but then it just feels like the same
class twice with a fresh coat of paint.
Do you take aspects of the Paladin from later additions and apply them to the Cleric instead? What
can you do that really makes them feel like a necessary role instead of a collection of half roles and
situational utility?
Just a little musing I decided to do- ultimately I'd probably leave the Cleric as is or with minor tweaks
but the thought of folding them into Magic-User has intrigued me.
50 Comments
Award
Share
Save
Hide
Report
69% Upvoted
Comment as Mentalic_Mutant

Comment
Markdown Mode
Sort By: Best
level 1
Alistair49
·1 yr. ago·edited 1 yr. ago

I basically agree with u/Calum_M -- I've certainly enjoyed playing Clerics, and next to Fighter types
they're my favourite class. However, I don't think they're necessary, and I'm thinking in the next
"D&D" style game I run I'll just have Mages, but I'll be borrowing ideas I've seen online inspired
somewhat by the Lankhmar stories and old AD&D setting of Lankhmar.
 Mages will be Red Magicians or White Magicians (in Lankhmar they were Black and White).
 A Red Mage gets normal MU spells etc, but can access Cleric spells as if they're one level
higher. So, when a Red Mage gets to be able to learn 2nd level spells they'll also be able to
learn 1st level Clerical magic - which for them is 2nd Level.
 As you may have guessed, White Mages cast Clerical spells as if they were normal mages
but working off the cleric lists, and only when they can cast 2nd level spells can they access
the traditional 1st level M.U. Spells.
...so, more flexible than in the Lankhmar AD&D 1e supplement if I remember correctly, and not quite
as 'dark' and 'evil'.
18
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

I've always thought "Why do Clerics even have to be martial? Why couldn't a Priest fulfill the role?"
which leads me to considering a Priest as class, which ends up feeling like a Magic-User with a
more focused spell list.
I've also considered just making divine favor an entirely separate mechanic for that purpose. That
way you can have a Magic-User who wields divine magic but is non-martial, a Fighting Man who
wields a holy symbol and has divine magic for assistance in facing the unholy head on, and even a
Thief who ferrets out evil in the same way a Thief seeks riches.
I do like the White Mage/Red Mage thing. I think it's a good alternative if you think giving the Magic-
User all the Cleric spells makes it *too* robust a class.
7
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 3
Alistair49
·1 yr. ago

I've been impressed by what I've seen of the recent Carcass Crawler 'zine, for OSE. It has an
Acolyte class that is a potential replacement for Clerics, and it has clerical abilities done as skills
analogously to how Thief's skills work - I think you might find that worth while checking out. When my
next payday comes I'm seriously thinking of getting this so just on the strength of that alone, as that
fits certain game world concepts I'd like to run. Other game worlds work better with Clerics as is.
Some work better when the Cleric is interpreted more like a Knight's Templar or Hospitaller, which is
how they were played in at one campaign I played a very long time ago now.
8
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 4
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

I'll have to check it out!

I've thought about running the Cleric with a Faith system, in that the more piously you adhere to your
religious doctrine, the greater the chance you have of succeeding on casting divine spells. And that,
without having read it, sounds like it could be similar to the system you described, so I'll definitely
check it out. Thanks!
4
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 2
fizzix66
·1 yr. ago

As you may have guessed, White Mages cast Clerical spells as if they were normal mages but
working off the cleric lists, and only when they can cast 2nd level spells can they access the
traditional 1st level M.U. Spells.
But that just sounds like having Clerics with extra steps
4
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 3
Alistair49
·1 yr. ago

No, its not the same. A Cleric isn't just about the spells, nor the ability to wear armour and use more
weapons than a mage. There should be a roleplaying component based on the world and their
religion that is additional to the simple bald statement of game mechanics, particularly in a game
played in a more old school fashion, IMO. Clerics would have different goals from Mages.
They have no power to turn undead (unless you're going the LotfP route and make turning undead
into a spell - in which case, I'm down with that). No tie up with a religion or a church or a faith or
following certain behavioural principles. No ability to wear more armour, nor use more weapons, or
be 'second best' of the group in melee combat. Just a mage with different spell selections.
7
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
Calum_M
·1 yr. ago

Strictly necessary? No.

Do I think it's a great class? Yes.
12
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
White_Pilled
·1 yr. ago

Hm. The cleric is a role I didn’t appreciate as much as I do today. I understand its purpose as a
dedicated assistant with supportive and defensive casting capabilities, but it also opens a unique
role playing perspective as a “holy” figure and how their deeds represent their deity and local places
of worship throughout the land.
Sure, some of their abilities such as minor healing could be given to a magic user archetype,
especially one that by chance focuses on such a school of magic; but I believe that that eliminates
and truly reduces the point of the class to begin with.
I’ve been wanting to play a clothes only wearing cleric that wields a shepherd’s crook as a “quarter
staff” for some time now, so I’m a little biased, and also for other IRL reasons. You’re the game
master, do what you see fit. Could make it interesting and require visits to NPC temples for healing
or resurrections to do away with any extra lore needs or party infighting or discomfort over lore
infighting or making players uncomfortable over fictitious religious discussion even being in game.
10
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

I like the holy figure thing. I think, especially given the general setting most medieval fantasy goes
with, it makes sense to have holy men as heroic figures.
I think about Simon Belmont when I consider the necessity of one class to be represent the "holy
figure" archetype.
If you're not familiar, Belmont is not a priest or cleric, but more like a fighter or barbarian. However,
he very specifically seeks to destroy undead and unholy creatures. He wields a whip (not much of a
weapon against the mundane) that specifically wounds unholy creatures. He brandishes (throws, but
it is a video game) crosses to ward off the undead. He throws holy water like grenades.
Belmont may not have gone the path of the Cleric as far as giving himself to the church, but he has
dedicated himself to a similar role as far as D&D goes. He doesn't heal (via magic, he eats chicken
hidden in the walls), but again- why couldn't a Magic-User do that?
Commitment to a holy cause does not feel like enough, to me, to justify an entire class. If anything,
as I said in another comment, I could see every class take a holy oath and devoting themselves to a
religious cause and being granted divine favor in return.
5
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 3
White_Pilled
·1 yr. ago

I’m familiar with Castlevania games and the Netflix show with Trevor. Haha. Indeed, characters can
be devoted to holy or unholy causes (Paladins/Fallen). What separates the clerics are acting as
clergy for their deities. Not every figure that takes up such causes is a person of the cloth or living
the life religious, like a monk, nun, shaman, Druid (classical sense), etc. A fighter can easily take up
a deity’s cause, but would they be the same performing funerals or weddings for the deity? Likely
not. They’d look to someone life dedicated to that deity to do so. In my youth I really paid them little
mind, mostly loving fighters and barbarians (while jamming Manowar) or wizards (Gandalf and
Merlin coming to mind). Being older now, and discerning priesthood IRL at this later stage in life, I’ve
sort of had my eyes opened to the significance of the cleric role over the years. Like I said, I’m a little
biased these days. Haha.
5
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 4
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

Without question a Cleric would fill a vital role in society. I would argue that some cultures would use
someone more similar to a Magic-User (a shaman, for instance) for the same purpose, but I see
your point.
My question is, is this purpose relevant to your standard campaign? For some, absolutely yes. I
personally love the idea of the party halting their advancement toward The Dungeon so that the
Cleric can perform funeral rites for a farmer's eldest son who died defending the homestead from a
goblin raid.
From my experience, a lot of people looking for a classic dungeon crawl are less engaged by these
moments. Which obviously leads me to feel like the more "fluff" aspects of a Cleric are superfluous,
and has led me to attempt to bring a mechanical purpose to faith in the types of games I find myself
in (which creates its own problems).
But absolutely, if you are part of a campaign where the Cleric's greater purpose beyond "backup
fighter/healer" is of value and appreciated, I definitely think a Cleric is great and valuable inclusion.
4
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 5
White_Pilled
·1 yr. ago

I far better understand your framing of things now! In many and most instances I’ll offer a resounding
“no.” That’s the real fact of the matter. Unless a party member was specifically playing a GM
designed role to pray or perform rituals inside a temple coinciding with a brief campaign, complete
with a percentile chart to roll upon determining if they gained favors for the party or banes… Even
that is handled just as well by an NPC, although the RP aspect seeing it played out sounds hilarious.
In more realistic senses, it would be more akin to my first comment of having
temples/churches/dwellings with such roles that could be visited in towns and used for a fee, for any
lost limbs, stat points, etc. Huh. I guess I’d never thought of it that way, I don’t think. I’d always
accepted them as just being there for someone else to play, and being a support role necessity. Not
a hero, not the badass, just there to mend HP and keep things moving.
Well if you fashion yourself a campaign based on this principle, I’d love to provide at least a name
and short personality bio for an NPC fulfilling those services in a cathedral somewhere under a
benevolent deity. Haha.
3
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
fizzix66
·1 yr. ago·edited 1 yr. ago

Depending on the campaign, no class is strictly necessary. In a typical campaign, a party of only
fighters suffices.
But, why isn't the Magic-User just doing that?
Jeff Goad at the Spellburn podcast makes that point a lot. Especially within Appendix-N literature,
magic-users are able to cast healing spells, and there are almost never any cleric figures of note. So
why not just let wizards heal?
I think a lot of the problem is that clerics as a concept normally lack verisimilitude and so feel fake. In
your standard flavor AD&D, a cleric follows a religion that is a weird mashup of monotheism and
Greek mythology that never existed. The cleric is fervently devoted to a single god, yet in a world
where it's a known fact that dozens of gods exist. And the cleric is the only one in the party that ends
up believing in this god, or any god, with the rest mildly indifferent to deities (at best). It ends up that
the clerics' god is sort of an in-world excuse to explain how the cleric can cast spells, and your
standard-issue cleric is just a battle mage -- a magic user without armor restrictions who can use
both spells and weapons in a fight.
Thus, a cleric can feel like it's two half-roles stuck together. The only sense in which its a base class
is that clerics heal, but healing is just a kind of magic.
There are ways to fix a cleric, but you have to fix the understanding of what the cleric even is and
maybe adjust the setting.
9
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

Exactly! Part of what makes the Cleric more superfluous to me is that it is so intrinsically tied to
setting, and even then their function (like you said) sort of clashes with how religion works in many
settings.
It sort of "game-ifies" religion- why be righteous or religious if the only people who get any tangible
benefit for it are Clerics? I think it naturally lends to murderhoboism.
7
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 3
fizzix66
·1 yr. ago
Well, especially in a S&S setting. It makes sense that priests exist, and it would even make sense
that a priest would go on an adventure, but it doesn't make sense that the cleric can also heal. It
doesn't make sense that any deity is willing or able to heal, except for maybe within the walls of its
own temple.
In a Tolkien-esque setting, it doesn't make sense that priests exist at all. There is (ironically...) no
organized religion in Tolkien's world.
In a Greco-Roman setting, it makes sense that priests exist, but it doesn't make sense that the
priests are limited to individual deities rather than being general purpose go-betweens for gods and
men, nor why the priest is wandering the wilderness instead of in the temple performing the rituals
needed to ensure good harvests and military victories.
In an Aurthurian setting, it makes sense that priests exist, are devoted to a single deity (since there's
just the one of 'em), and can perform miracles of healing and making food and everything else, but it
doesn't make any sense why the priest is crawling around in a cave fighting bugbears with a
hammer, rather than in a church administering sacraments.
What we get in early D&D is a kind of mashup of S&S, Greco-Roman, and Catholic priests that don't
make sense in any setting.
8
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 2
MonsterHunterBanjo
·1 yr. ago

And Jeff Goad is notoriously wrong about getting rid of clerics, he's a naughty boy.
3
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
Skywalker437
·1 yr. ago

Beyond the Wall does this - class options are the warrior, the rogue, and the mage.
9
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

I really feel like Thief fills a niche better than a Cleric, with more broad non-combat utility and unique
combat mechanics so he doesn't intrude too much on the Fighting Man's role.
I think the Thief's ubiquity in fantasy roleplaying as compared to the Cleric supports that as well.
 6
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 2
nuclear_cossack
·1 yr. ago

One of the playbooks for BtW is called The Novice Templar. Mechanically it's a Warrior/Mage hybrid,
but the feel it's supposed to invoke is pretty much of a traditional Cleric/Paladin.
3
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
Comment deleted by user·1 yr. ago
level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

Precisely! I think part of this stems from those exact thoughts- what of folk healers and "white
witches" and shamans? Are they just clerics without the Catholic regalia or are they more like Magic-
Users who use their learned and innate abilities to help (and in many cases literally heal) people in
their community?
5
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
ImpulseAfterthought
·1 yr. ago

I'm generally opposed to baking role-playing and ethos restrictions directly into classes.
IMO, classes describe what a character can do, not what s/he believes.
The Fighter can be a holy champion if his player decides to play him that way. He can adopt a deity's
ethos, evangelize the faith, etc. These decisions place RP restrictions on him, but they're derived
from his background and personality, not his class.
Likewise, the Thief/Rogue can be a larcenous crook, a scrupulously honest security specialist, a cold
assassin, a freewheeling scout, etc. as her player wishes. The class is just a package of abilities; the
character comes from the decisions made by the player.
The Wizard has magical powers and is presumed to want to seek out opportunities to expand them,
but the player can still decide how that process works. Will the Wizard delve into dungeons in search
of scrolls, or seek out hidden libraries, or slay exotic creatures for their magical body parts, or sell his
talents for gold so he can pay others to do all the dangerous stuff?
The Cleric, though, is stuck. She must be a devotee of a god or stop being a Cleric. Her ethos must
match her god's. She has (or should have!) responsibilities that don't line up with the priorities of an
adventuring party. All this is baked into the character before the player gets a chance to do anything.
I ran into this problem in a 5e game with an Oath of Vengeance Paladin. After an adventure in which
the other party members assisted him in tracking down an evildoer, they set out for a distant port city
and took temporary jobs as caravan guards to pay their expenses. This had nothing to do with
punishing evil, wreaking vengeance or serving anyone's god or ethos...so what motive did the
Paladin have to accompany them?
The same question would apply to a Fighter who'd sworn an oath of vengeance, but that would be
the player's choice. No one's saying, "You must be dedicated to the cause of vengeance to be a
Fighter!"
8
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
gorrrak
·1 yr. ago

the AD&D Lankhmar books had no clerics or priests and instead had white, red, and black mages.
5
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
JaredBGreat
·1 yr. ago

I don't see where you get that turning undead would be something the magic-user would do, and it
doesn't really seem to be magic per se anyway. Still, in the experimental system I'm putting together
clerics have slightly nerfed magic but can use any weapon, since they were supposed to be holy
warriors, something closer to a paladin. Then, I'm changing the game pretty radically -- basically a
new game with new rules that just barrows the monsters, class, ability scores, and spells.
When it comes down to it, though, I don't think any class is strictly necessary, other than perhaps
some variant of a fighter -- but I've seen all-thief parties, so no one is required.
4
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

If a Necromancer can command the dead, why shouldn't he be able to turn it away? If a Wizard is
dabbling in profane magics and trafficking with demons, why wouldn't he find a way to protect
himself from the unholy?
Alternatively, why can't anyone turn the undead? I don't think a Fighting Man should necessarily be
able to make holy water, but why can't he wield it? Why can't he brandish a cross from the Great
Church of St. Walter to turn undead away? Mundane men in fiction use religious symbols all the time
to ward off the unholy.
I think anything that isn't strictly mundane could just as easily be considered magic.
4
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
81Ranger
·1 yr. ago

Well, in traditional D&D, as in the older editions, the Cleric filled the healer role as well as dealing
with undead - just as you state.
Is the class itself necessary? No. Can you have a different class fulfill those duties? Sure.
I believe in some games, like Whitehack, for example, the Magic-User and Cleric are essentially
folded together. I think this concept goes back to older games as well, so it's not a new idea.
What can you do that really makes them feel like a necessary role instead of a collection of half roles
and situational utility?
Personally, as someone who doesn't play 5e, 4e, or Pathfinder, games that give a lot of classes and
character access to healing - I don't see healing and turning undead as "a collection of half roles"
and more of primary role.
In my experience, parties in older editions and OSR games that don't have healing, generally seem
to have a hard time.
Basically, I don't really get what you're on about in this post. The Paladin is much more of a
collection of half roles (part fighter guy, half baked cleric) along with the Ranger (party outdoorsy
rogue, part fighter person). In contrast, the Cleric is one of the base classes - whose role and
function is pretty clear. Also, the "religious fluff" isn't "fluff" for all games or settings.
That doesn't mean you need them or can't reflavor or fold them into other classes. You do what you
want. I just don't quite get your perspective, which is fine.
4
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

That's the thing- I don't think healing is unnecessary or can't be the primary function of a class. I
think having a healer is great, but I don't see a reason why the Magic-User shouldn't be able to heal
(and turn undead, for that matter).
As I said in a comment above, what of folk magicians, "white witches", and shamans? Are they
simply Clerics, or are they Magic-Users that often use their magic to help and literally heal their
community?
I also agree that the Paladin feels like a collection of half-roles, same as the Ranger. But if you
concede that magical healing could be done by a Magic-User, and that turning the undead should
presumably be done by one as well, what you have is a half-Fight Man/half-Magic User.
Which is ultimately why it feels like they're the odd man out in the original 4 (I know it's original 3 but
I think the Thief has earned an honorary spot).
That said, I too quite like the religious warrior aspect of the Cleric. I like the class even! But when
really trying to strip things down to the roots, it feels (to me) like Cleric is more of a hybrid class than
a class that fills an individual niche.
2
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
EmmaRoseheart
·1 yr. ago

I really don't like clerics tbh, because of the healing (gets rid of the gritty natural healing I love) and
the religious stuff (my world doesn't have the kind of gods that grant spells, not to mention how
aggressively Christian clerics are). So I just take them out and don't replace them with anything.
7
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
Captain_Uber
·1 yr. ago
I think that if you really want to abstract the classes you have to break them all down and look at the
pieces. In a very broad sense one could argue that only two classes are needed. One “body” expert
and another focused on the “mind”. Maybe an agility based class too… I don’t know.
What I’m trying to say is that I think that removing one of the core classes are tricky. That you would
have to rebuild the other classes to cover up for, ex the healing, hybrid warfare and the situational
expertise.
3
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
doctor_roo
·1 yr. ago

No class is strictly necessary.

If you are willing to shuffle round abilities or tweak the way the setting works you could drop any
class.
Fighter would be the hardest one to drop, but it could be done by having a different type of fighter or
taking the 5E route and giving every class the fighter's attack progression.
Rogues are easy to drop, simply add a skill system and let others pick up rogue skills as they
advance. Any of the D6 based skill systems for thieves skills are easy to adapt.
Mages are easy to drop too. You can do it as a style choice or you can make scrolls and wands
usable by any class to keep the magic effects but do without wizards.
Even without changing the other classes you can play the game with one of the basic four missing,
you just have to change how you approach challenges. Without a cleric you need to stock up on
healing potions, learn when to leave the dungeon to heal up and be more careful about dealing with
the undead. Every class has challenges they are the best to handle but those challenges can be
handled, or avoided, by any class.
3
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

Oh boy, have I tried really hard not to go down that rabbit hole.
I actually really love classes! I think there should be a million of them and every one has something
special about them. But if I'm going to break it down into what is absolutely necessary, it feels like
the Cleric is the least necessary as far as another class being able to realistically fulfill that niche.
2
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
M3atboy
·1 yr. ago

I personally feel the cleric, or something similar, is needed. Not because of their spells or powers per
se, but because they fill the roll of the half-caster.
Some armor, some spells, better weapon load out than the Magic-user.
I think you could play around with spells for both classes and not break the game. Personally I think
class based games benefit from having a secondary fighter/caster of some description.
2
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

But then why not a Battle Mage? Why does a half-caster have to be limited to divine magic? Why
can't he cast a fireball as an opener and then charge in with his mace to clean up the survivors? It's
probably because a Battle Mage would step on too many toes and could maybe be exploited.
1
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 3
M3atboy
·1 yr. ago

By making it a support role it gives others a chance to shine.

I do think there’s a need for a pew pew blaster type magic user that most per games lack.
1
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
impossibletornado
·1 yr. ago

In the game I’m working on there’s a Healer class who can be a scholar, a shaman, or a cleric
depending on what the player chooses. But I let the Spellcaster take a healing spell if no one else
chooses to be a Healer so the party isn’t without some kind of healing. I might start offering Turn
Undead as a spell option too.
2
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

I've thought about swapping the Cleric out for a Healer, but then it starts to feel a lot like a Magic-
User with little-to-no offensive utility again. And what is the incentive to play the class? Obviously
healing is important to the group, but where is the glory? Fighting Man slays beasts, Magic-User
produces wonders from nothing, and Thief infiltrates and nails critical hits.
And there is glory in keeping the group alive, for sure. But not every group is going to have someone
who feels that way, as it can end up being sort of thankless and feel like babysitting depending on
your party.
1
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
[deleted]
·1 yr. ago

I've been playing and DMing for more than 40 years and find it interesting this class is typically the
last one chosen by a group of players. In fact it's the only class I have heard players say "I'm not
playing the cleric this time!"
YMMV, but in my opinion a cleric is only as important as the DM/GM makes it. A player's ability to
infuse their character with a sense of holy and righteous justice also has something to do with it.
To reduce a cleric to healing is to reduce a rogue to removing traps and sneaking around. Yet in my
experience people love playing rogues. I once DMd a player whose religion defined much of his life.
He played Clerics and Paladins with a passion and vengeance that made him the party's defacto
leader.
2
Reply
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
VinoAzulMan
·1 yr. ago

Delta's D&D Hotspot i linked one article but his blog is a) amazing and b) littered with reasons not to
have clerics in your game and workarounds to not having them in your game.
He's put time and thought into it. There is something to just rolling it into the MU but as Delta pointed
out in one of his podcast- HP is such a valuable resource that it becomes the only spell worth
picking. Then he tells stories on convention players getting ANGRY when the cleric sits down at the
table with spells other than heal lol.
Just a lot of good relevant musings over many years on that blog, thought I would drop it.
2
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

Enjoyed the read- thanks for sharing!

1
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 2
[deleted]
·1 yr. ago

The comments are closer to the truth than the article itself.
Clerics/priests existed in the Bible. Real life has healers, voodoo, and shamans.
The author claims that clerics do not exist in mythology, when indeed they existed as
prophets/witches/priests. Cultists (evil clerics) were also the big enemy in pulp fiction. See voodoo
as well. These spellcasters are not Merlin, Gandalf, or Faustian types.
And yes, I thought it was a mistake when Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes did not have many cleric
classes, but does it really matter when everyone was overpowered and it was played as Monster
Manual?
1
Reply
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 3
VinoAzulMan
·1 yr. ago

In other places in the blog you see a fuller view where magic users better fill the role of witches,
cultists, priests, etc in tone and ability. Clerics are Van Helsing
1
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
UncarvedWood
·1 yr. ago

I once wrote a post (that is way too complicated for your game tastes I'm guessing) trying to
democratise what the cleric does (i.e. commune with the gods), which is not at all a gameplay
consideration but a roleplay/setting consideration. I don't like the cleric because he has exclusive
access to the gods and that feels phony to me. Ritual and religion are courses of action available to
everyone in most societies, so why not my fictional one? You might like it.
2
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 2
SilkyZubat
OP·1 yr. ago

Really, really good reads. I quite enjoyed them so thanks for sharing!
It's funny actually, I had a similar idea as far as representing divine favor in game. Yours is definitely
more fleshed out than mine, though!
2
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 3
UncarvedWood
·1 yr. ago

Oh thank you! I thought with how your original post spoke of streamlining my cleric re-thinking (what
with all the Favour stats and Taboos and Edicts to keep track of) wouldn't be up your street. I like
what this system does, but I don't like how many moving parts it has. I think it ought to be simplified,
but I'll have to work on it.
2
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
[deleted]
·1 yr. ago

I enjoy clerics in old school video games if they are the only ones who can heal HP and cure status
effects. The moment anyone else could heal or even have access to as many healing potions as
needed, clerics become useless.
Although in D&D they were pitched more as a vampire hunter/ghoul turner, I think world history
supports a shaman/healer/druid/witchdoctor/miracle worker class, which are different than high
fantasy wizards. Fantasy wizards are occultists, the evil ones deal with demons, the good ones
defend the kingdom, and both are basically the scientists of the day.
IMHO if you are viewing an RPG system with a reductionist viewpoint, I would try to simulate real life
heroes/myths/history. Just because DnD was indeed a mashup of a bunch of 1970s guys' favorite
novels, movies, and TV shows, and not a simulation of history, it doesn't mean we have to repeat
their tropes.
If I was designing D&D back in the day, I would have never had overlapping spells with Clerics and
Magic-Users, implied that Clerics be played passively, or injected religion into it by having them as
"priests" getting powers from specific gods who happen to all agree not to use swords and have the
same spell lists. Would limit using magic items as well.
 1
Reply
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
charlesedwardumland
·1 yr. ago

No. Turn undead can be a spell... Or your could just get a chance with any holy symbol, a test of
faith. Healing can come from anything you want. You could easily run a game with no gods or the
gods could be a shame.
1
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
Original_Chris
·1 yr. ago

As a DM I think they are not necessary at all and could be replaced easily (many good ideas in this
thread.)
As a player, I like having a Cleric around (or even playing one.) I don't play OSR for a
mechanical/tactical advantage (I would go with 3ed/PF for that), I like the roleplaying, story, and
puzzle solving as much as the combat.
I don't want a world with only the necessary things in it, I like having choices and options. I would
rather have too many classes and races with overlap than to try and keep it to 3 classes.
1
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
mdillenbeck
·1 yr. ago

I like Rolemaster's magic division: essence for pu l king magical energy from the environment,
mentalism for harnessing the magical power with your self, and channeling for transmitting your
power to another (where typically you are the receiver from a powerful god and not the sender).
As to cleric versus magic user, it was a distinction to "relies only on magic and avoids armor and
weapons" versus "a hybrid using granted magic and using weapons." Strip out clerics as redundant
and you night as well strip out magic users and replace them with "fighters who use spells instead of
physical objects as weapons and armor." Heck, fighters are just rogues who specialize in combat.
Better yet, go GURPS or Hero System and do away with classes and levels. That, ultimately, is
where I'd prefer to be. Old wized wizard point balanced with the young lucky warrior or that middle
aged experienced thief.
1
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
MonsterHunterBanjo
·1 yr. ago

Ultimately, I think the magic-user needs removed and all the stuff it does gets folded into the Cleric. I
mean, the cleric already handles so much spell casting, magic-users are just not really needed on
top of what the cleric does. /sarcasm.

I have my own setting I'm working on, has a man-at-arms, has a huntsman (kinda like..
tracking/setting&finding traps, setting up ambushes, etc), alchemist (chemistry stuff), and saint
(miracles, divine stuff)
Which is one round-about way to say, on that subject, I do wonder why a lot of people have the
impulse to break spell casting away from cleric and only have wizards/magic users, instead of going
the opposite direction where wizard just gets relegated to a a wise/crazy man who can maybe make
potions/salves and powder mixes based on olde alchemy, and leave the spells to only being divine.
There's certainly an older history of tales and stories of only divinely associated beings performing
miracles or other things you might call magic. Where as there really aren't that many "wizard spell
casting" examples in history/folk tales I can think of other than Merlin, at least like I said, not that I
know of, any other "magic using" I can think of is more modern fiction like gandalf, or creatures such
as elves, dwarves, pixies, etc.
1
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow
level 1
[deleted]
·1 yr. ago
You might want to try The Fantasy Trip (no Clerics)
another game with no stinking clerics and it's Free
SpaceGamer dot com's One Ring https://spacegamer.com/sgpage.aspx?id=37
1
Reply
Share
ReportSaveFollow

level 1
LoreMaster00
·1 yr. ago·edited 1 yr. ago

i've kinda cut them from my games. they are a option and if a player wants to use them, its cool and i
also have paladins (regular OSE clerics, but replace turn undead with lay on hands: heal 2HP per
level, once a day) as a option... BUT they are not prevalent in my homebrew setting. for healing
there are various options:
 healing potions are a common thing that's sold in market places and in bulk
 players can go to churches and pay to get healed
 players get minor healing from a night's rest (1HP per night, 4HP for Dwarfs)
 players get "second wind": once every level they get to heal themselves 1HD+Level. they
can't do that again until they level up.
1
ReplyGive Award
Share
ReportSaveFollow