test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
The d&d cleric (and why cleric wears heavy armour)
denkasaeba
Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 0 Arc User
This is based on the whole d&d history: clerics have always been "battlefield priests", since the first d&d edition. This is why they are allowed to wear the heaviest armours and, often, to bear shields. This is because they are present in the front lines of the battlefield, inspiring and healing. They are not ranged casters by default, but melee casters.
Their weapon proficiency is limited by the time they can train weapons (which is little, since they must pursue their holy service) and limited by "fluff" choice: since the classical templars in XII-XIII century used only blunt weapons (as a form of possible mercy), the blunt weapon (like the mace, or the morningstar) has become often the "mandatory" weapon for clerics.
These specifics has changed a lot during the history of d&d: for instance some 3.5 clerics of various domains (for instance war domain) was able to use longswords or other superior weapons. In ad&d kits dramatically changed the cleric class, making the player able to create a whole serie of different templates.
In 4th edition, initially, the cleric was able to wear only chain armour, and to use simple weapon and the holy symbol. While the holy symbol is the best implement in the game (at least space-wise), the lack of shield proficiency and scale armour proficiency hurt a lot melee cleric builds. This is why 99% of the builds, at the start of 4e, were "lazer clerics": ranged casters wearing chain armour; anyway, since chain AC is (strangely, but unfortunately) one of the lowest in the game, clerics were basically forced to buy shield or scale proficiency with feats. This has changed by the addition of new (and better) feats designed to help clerics: battle (melee) clerics were able to buy weapon and shield proficiency with only one feat, and devoted clerics got a whole new build that buffed incredibly the control-side of the class. With dragon 400, finally, clerics can easily get scale armor + light shield proficiency without any cost, making them one of the most bulkier leader.
If you're interested, i can add other informations about the cleric class in 4e
Their weapon proficiency is limited by the time they can train weapons (which is little, since they must pursue their holy service) and limited by "fluff" choice: since the classical templars in XII-XIII century used only blunt weapons (as a form of possible mercy), the blunt weapon (like the mace, or the morningstar) has become often the "mandatory" weapon for clerics.
These specifics has changed a lot during the history of d&d: for instance some 3.5 clerics of various domains (for instance war domain) was able to use longswords or other superior weapons. In ad&d kits dramatically changed the cleric class, making the player able to create a whole serie of different templates.
In 4th edition, initially, the cleric was able to wear only chain armour, and to use simple weapon and the holy symbol. While the holy symbol is the best implement in the game (at least space-wise), the lack of shield proficiency and scale armour proficiency hurt a lot melee cleric builds. This is why 99% of the builds, at the start of 4e, were "lazer clerics": ranged casters wearing chain armour; anyway, since chain AC is (strangely, but unfortunately) one of the lowest in the game, clerics were basically forced to buy shield or scale proficiency with feats. This has changed by the addition of new (and better) feats designed to help clerics: battle (melee) clerics were able to buy weapon and shield proficiency with only one feat, and devoted clerics got a whole new build that buffed incredibly the control-side of the class. With dragon 400, finally, clerics can easily get scale armor + light shield proficiency without any cost, making them one of the most bulkier leader.
If you're interested, i can add other informations about the cleric class in 4e
Dilige, et quod vis fac (Love, and do what you will)
St. Augustinus
St. Augustinus
Post edited by denkasaeba on
0
Comments
Nicely done, except the clerics and domains really started in 2e actually under the "spheres," Faiths and Avatars locked the FR "Specialty Priests" we think of which makes a cleric a cleric but a follower of Kelvanor a Doomguide wielding a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> Sword, and Faiths and Avatars pretty much caused what we saw for the 3rd ed Domains and the remaining specialty classes like then monks and cavaliers. But semantics.
Spheres, Domains...the idea is the ever changing cleric from no edged weapons, to diety specialty to specialized classes to clerics of mythos to the 4th ed ranged cleric and finally the scale armor they so rightly deserved!
About Spheres & Domains: yeah, we can say that the cleric is a collection of different classes, at very least from 2nd edition. A Cleric of Shar is very different (not only fluffwise) from a Cleric of Helm. The difference in domain spells and features changed drastically how a character was built in 3.5 and, even in 4e, domains changed a lot how a character was built.
About the scale armour: yeah, they badly needed it. As i said, Chain armour is great at level 1, but it decays slowly. Since most wizards take Leather Proficiency (or Unarmored Agility, that is basically the same stuff) as one of the first feats, Clerics usually had one of the worst AC in the game. The short range of the spells and the usually low initiative (but that was fixed) didn't help either. Overall the Cleric class in this edition is trumped, and trumped hard, by the Warlord (and some people say that Shamans and Bards are superior too).
St. Augustinus
St. Augustinus
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
in RL..
blunt weapon works better on armored opponents then blades
so templars arming themselfs with blunts just as a form of mercy is highly debatable =/
Hehe true! After seeing what a mace can do to a piece of plate armor, and its occupant! Cleric's could well be known as pain bringers as well as pain healers. I recall Gary Gygax saying once that his initial vision for the Cleric class came from groups like the knights Templar and the Order of St. John (I think). Battlefield healers, able to stand amid a raging battle and heal.
Via this thread - http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?22601-Selection-screen
It appears to show clerics wearing chain. We can hope that they can upgrade later on?
Now, a paladin is a totally different fish...
In 4e Scale is better. It actually has no penalties other than one less square of movement.
i tot they look so star trek-ish
Hopefully battle clerics will be upgraded to Scale+Light Shield.
St. Augustinus
That's true, the cloak clasps and design of the tunics do resemble a Starfleet uniform.
feats available
Armor Proficiency (Plate)
Prerequisites: Str 15, Con 15, training with scale armor
Benefit: You gain training with plate armor.
o wait.. plate would be like full armor.
hmm not sure if heavy needs another feat
Clerics doesn't have scale armor proficiency by default, only after rules compendium (which, i hope, will be implemented). So you would need to buy 2 feats for Plate, which actually doesn't add a lot and requires Con and Str, which isn't the best for Wisdom builds.
St. Augustinus
This is probably due to extensive design in divine classes.
Heavy armor(aka fighter) - Paladin
Light armor (aka Warlock) - invoker
No armor (aka divine assassin) - avenger
Medium armor (aka mix of all above) - cleric
Dwarven armor (aka short height) - Runepriest (lol jk)
Some notable divines:-
Knights of Nii(MP&tHG) - Invoker
Van Helsing (Movie) - Avenger
Green Lantern - Runepriest
Doctor Danger - Cleric
...
...
I think you can recognize more if you look carefully.
The divines have been completely revised so the changes.
St. Augustinus
If he ever does anything evil, Selune has ordered me to smite him down - being an anti-evil-shapshifter deity.
So as he was shapeshifter as shown afterwards - and shapeshifting is a race too, perhaps he was not a wizard but half-wizard,half-shapeshifter with a different class...
(jk)
Back to the topic though. If you decided to spend feats on Plate or what not I wonder how it would affect your mobility in game? Or maybe it will just affect your offensive healing abilities because you will have to allocate more attribute points to STR and CON and more feats for Armor?
Four:- White, grey, brown and blue.
Irrespective of number of wizards, only four positions are regarded as wizard. So if me and grumpy paws were to kill Gandalf who was grey first and white later, and then we steal and absorb his essence like asmodeus did to Azuth, we both will be white wizards. So we will be one wizard - me and grumpy.
Galadriel? NO! She is just an elf! Wizard is a race remember, being elf considers her possibility out by definition.
Wizards are: -
Gandalf [Shapeshifted from grey to white]
Saruman - killed
Radagast (did I spell it right?) - Brown, most powerful wizard whom none can catch but too forgetful. They said one way was to give ring to Radagast and Sauron will never be able to catch him! But the fellowship decided that he will forget where he kept the ring so NO!
Blue wizards were not in any of the finished work of Tolkien. There were supposed to be two I think.
So in the end, we have four physical wizards left alive, but only 3 positions filled - grey having shape shifted.
green power ring - Runepriest
i don't know why allways a friend of mine goes for runepriest, human (black&bald) unarmed and wearing only one ring....hmmm never understand why he allways do that...
#1: Clerics as a concept were originally conceived as being Holy Knights, and intended to fill that role. The "Paladin" as we know him didn't come to be until much later on down the line in the evolution of the game. The basic idea was that the Cleric was getting a few special abillities he could use during a dungeon crawl in exchange for less of a chance to hit, and being made to use a less powerful weapon, the whole "weapons that won't shed blood" ie "blunt" weapons was largely because such weapons generally did 1d6 damage as opposed to the 1d8 of a sword. Clerics in the verrrry beginning were an "optional" thing and a "new and exciting class" as opposed to being quite as much a part of the core as many people like to think.
Later when Paladins were introduced, and the spellcasting system became increasingly robust, the design of the Cleric fell into question. As more and more offensive spells started to appear, it basically became the original "Munchkin" character as it had good saves, unlimited armor use, and the second best attack table in the game.
With 2E things like specialty priests were intended to get away from this and while they inevitably became even more Munchkin the idea was to try and force an "every priest is a specialty priest" mentality (and I believe there were contridictory statements between supplements as to whether general "clerics" existed in FR in between various supplements, but that's a whole differant discussion that has no bearing on anything). The idea here was that specific priests following a warrior ethos would wind up giving up things like turning undead, have comparitively limited spell sphere access, but decent combat tables, other priests would be more mage-like intended to wear priestly robes (giving up armor use) and have increased access to magical spheres, and perhaps even deity-specific spells. In the long run though this turned into a munchkin-maker as "logic" lead to certain types of priests that were basically one man parties that could do pretty much anything well excpept maybe thieving abillities (and you can always force doors, and cast "find traps" as some people have grumpily pointed out).
3E pretty much decided to give up the entire practice of even trying to balance this, and pretty much decided to give the Paladin a better range of powers and spells.
4E where we are now is something I prefer not to talk about at all. To be honest despite the game balance issues 2E was my major "edition" when I played seriously, and the one I still prefer today simply due to the range of options.
To be honest, it strikes me as being one of the hardest characters to balance for this kind of a game because by it's very nature it's never exactly been balanced. The "Cleric" has always been the problem child of AD&D among people who know what they were doing. While the stereotype of noone wanting to play one and be a walking "cure light wounds" endures, that's usually just among beginners at the lowest levels of play.
For this reason it doesn't surprise me that this class might be taking longer than some others to get a full work up for an MMO, if they want it to be D&D-like. By going the whole JRPG-esque "White Mage" route (ie casters with a differant spell set) root in other MMOs it was a bit easier to balance which is probably why the "Warcraft Style" of priests and healers has generally been dominating.
#2: D&D is heavily based around vintage fantasy that was popular in the 70s and 80s. Alignment came from Michael Moorcock, and spellcasting came from a guy called Jack Vance... a writer whose work didn't really endure as long as the guys cribbing from him probably thought it would. Arguements about wizards in fantasy wearing armor and such don't really apply to the system being used since D&D is defining it's own world based on other sources. I can see why D&D has been gradually moving away from the whole "memorization" system and towards "at will" abillities like you see in 4E as that's a more popular way of viewing magic nowadays, and also a bit easier to balance.
Despite the comments of casual PnP gamers and newbies talking about how "uber" mages were in D&D, this class was always kind of the dog of the D&D game stable (even if my favorite to play). Being baggage capable of cheezing one encounter with a sleep spell at the low levels, and evolving into a character with a greater library of spells, but the recurring problem that by the time a mage has certain spells there is a tendency for equally powerful monsters to have very good saving throws (leading to the basic arguement that any spell negated by a save is a waste) or tons of magical resistance. Uber-mages work very well as NPCs and opponents, but as a rule of thumb when it comes to player mages is that by the time you max out and finally get to throw your "Meteor Shower" or "Time Stop" everything you run into will be so loaded with magic resistance to make it kind of pointless.
As time has gone on the plight of mages has slowly gotten better, with new systems for comparitive level to resistance comparisons making high level spell vs. high level target a bit more favorable to the mage. I still think it remains something of an "all or nothing" character though because at the high levels in general everything resists, or goes down, which usually leads to the mage having to "take one for the team" and be baggage or support so everyone else can have an adventure.
To be frank I became fond of various mage-warrior classes (Bladesingers and the ilk) largely because they gave me something to do when inevitably there was always a reason why I couldn't use my magic, or everything was so heavily protected I might as well not bother ( Drow in part became stock high level enemies because of their magic resistance ).
At any rate the classic logic with mages and armor was originally that if mages had armor it would become too difficult for someone to disrupt their spells. That's true at the lowest levels where say a level 1 mage can drop a level 1 fighter (and five of his buddies) with a sleep spell (which casts pretty quick) with the target needing to roll like a 19 or 20 to save. The problem of course is that as time goes on those saving throws get better, say by 15th level your typical target probably only needs to roll a 10 to save, and probably has bonuses on that, then might have magic resistance. So if you've got a 50% base chance of failure, with a secondary 30% chance of failure before you even roll that chance from MR, magic could quite frequently become a wasted action.
Yes, some people might want to argue about this, but it's all long term observations. In NWN / 4E though they have turned magic largely into just another weapon, and despite the flashy FX it's pretty much used as one, and as often as the mage needs, much like a fighter with his sword or an archer with their bow. That does address a lot of the problems. In this case you might wonder why mages still don't wear armor, and I'd guess it's a stylistic thing as much as anything, after all if you can use your defensive spells that much more often, why bother? I mean if you can conjure a force field around yourself and keep it there more or less constantly, why walk around lugging heavy armor? Thinking that way, why would mages practice with it, not to mention that there are only so many hours in the day and running through tires (or wagon wheels or whatever) in plate mail to get good at wearing it takes time away from practicing the "zap enemy in the face" spell or how to maintain a good force field. Training time (and keeping in practice) does become an issue.
That said for stylistic reasons I do hope they find a way to bring the good old fashioned Warrior-Mage into the game. I love my dedicated casters (and made them work devestatingly well despite everything I've said about the problems you need to deal with), but I've had hundreds of hours of enjoyment playing Bladesingers and the ilk.
At any rate this turned into a rant about mages (in this very long post) since someone mentioned the old "Merlin wore a breastplate" thing, and went from there. The bottom line in the initial point is that Clerics wearing armor has been a touchy subject for a while, and is kind of something that is worked around on a 'grandfather clause'. In the terms of Neverwinter I'd imagine they should probably work around creating types of clerics that do, and types that don't. If your a Paladin of Tempus or Tyr being heavily armored is fine, but if your a priest of Lathander, despite years of working around it and drawing them that way, you probably should be wearing vestments and not armor and be largely protected by magic as a matter of concept.