Goodman Games

GnomeBoy wrote:Why not just "re-skin" the Cleric into 'White Magic'-User, jigger around a few little things here and there, and pretend it's a whole new class...?

I'm sure there will be gaming groups who'll do this but re-skinning the Cleric into a new class doesn't make it any more Appendix N than just keeping the class as a Cleric. I'm sure anyone who looks at the reskinned class would identify it as the Cleric class, maybe making the change a bit pointless. So I'd be against changing or dropping the class in the core rules.

Having played S&W using white/grey/black magic users I've not got a problem with folding the cleric into the MU class but it could be a bad move due to gamers' perceptions of it, as I wrote upthread. Some would see the game only contained 3 classes and without further study jump to the conclusion that it's incompatible with their D&D modules because there's no cleric.

smathis wrote:

blizack wrote:the cleric [doesn't] have much of a basis in the inspirational literature?

I don't think you're off the mark, blizack. Granted I've not read Appendix N in its entirety. But from what I have read the "D&D Cleric" seems to be a bit of a stretch.

I tend to the think of the Appendix N Cleric as closer to Solomon Kane or Van Helsing than anything else. Patron deities, yeah, okay. I'll grudgingly buy that. But I'd prefer the Cleric to be more of a Fighter that can turn Undead and evil Monsters and such. More Solomon Kane and Constantine than Moses and Joan of Arc.

Perhaps the key would be to have some sort of Paladin class. Solomon Kane is a Paladin, although not a traditional "Knight of Camelot" sort. Holger Carlson (Three Hearts & Three Lions) is clearly a Paladin. We traditionally think of Aragorn as a "Ranger" because that's what Tolkien called him, but he could heal, was very knight-like when the scruffiness came off, and he could control the Undead Legion.

So one option could be to ditch the actual cleric and replace him with a Paladin or Holy Warrior type. This might have the advantage that (1) it provides a healing and undead-turning class, (2) it removes a large number of random spells from the party, making spellcasting wizards more special, and (3) it seems to fit Appendix N better.

I like the Holy Warrior idea but I also like the breadth of interpretation that the original class allows - playing OD&D, I liked how Speak with Plants/Animals fitted in with Druids and Shamen, I didn't need the extra classes.

But I also think to allow a breadth of interpretation sometimes you cut things out. Maybe the only cleric spells/abilities should be those that are sharply focused upon alignment:

- Turning the unholy (anything of opposite alignment) using a holy symbol
- Healing (with the alignment link -as DCC looks to be doing).
- Warding and Protecting against the unholy.
- Bless another person/creature of same alignment, or curse one of opposite.

Originally, the cleric was more a holy warrior, than a priest, and the paladin was "simply" a champion of law. The cleric is an interesting mix of van Helsing and the templars.

- Turning the unholy (anything of opposite alignment) using a holy symbol

IIRC it was mentioned somewhere by Joseph, that clerics can turn anything that opposes her alignment/religion. Not just undead, but fey, demons, and so on.

Ravenheart87 wrote:Originally, the cleric was more a holy warrior, than a priest, and the paladin was "simply" a champion of law. The cleric is an interesting mix of van Helsing and the templars.

- Turning the unholy (anything of opposite alignment) using a holy symbol

IIRC it was mentioned somewhere by Joseph, that clerics can turn anything that opposes her alignment/religion. Not just undead, but fey, demons, and so on.

Cheers, found the quote:

goodmangames wrote:As for clerics, their alignment determines weapon choice and what they can turn. Clerics can turn unholy creatures, not just un-dead, and the definition of "unholy" is defined by, of course, what their deity considers holy. Yes, your lawful cleric can turn a basilisk...

One thing I've thought of doing before in Basic (which has race as class like dcc) is to change the Elf from being a mage/fighter into basically a cleric and ditching the cleric class. Up the xp (say 2000 to get to 2nd), allow any armor, and any weapon. Turning works on humanoids instead of undead. Now the Elf is more in line with LotR. He can fight, heal, do some other magic stuff, and scare away goblins.

^ Nice idea.

I could easily see divine magic being rolled in to magic in general. At least one "real world" magical tradition (Enochian magic) treats divine magic more as essentially formulaic. That's not to say that a magic-user can't have genuine faith, it's just that he doesn't need it to cast divine spells (a "secular" wizard could learn and use them, too).

In 4e, there's a divine spellcaster class called the invoker, and it's essentially a divine wizard. I think it makes a good model for any old school style magic-user class that focuses on traditionally divine magic.

I don't think the cleric should be "killed" necessarily. The traditional D&D cleric is kind of like a fighter/magic-user, with a bit more emphasis on the magic-user side. They have pretty good hitpoints, armor, and are decent with a weapon, but they have a wide repertoire of spells. So I'd keep them, I'd just make them a character archetype as opposed to a distinct class.

geordie racer wrote:

GnomeBoy wrote:Why not just "re-skin" the Cleric into 'White Magic'-User, jigger around a few little things here and there, and pretend it's a whole new class...?

I'm sure there will be gaming groups who'll do this but re-skinning the Cleric into a new class doesn't make it any more Appendix N than just keeping the class as a Cleric.

But surely a dude that uses magic, can heal folks, can frighten off monsters, and can swing a sword is kind of Appendix N-ish, isn't it? And sounds fairly badass to boot, put that way, IMO.

I was vague in my reference to 'jiggering' the character class, since I'm not entirely sure what the DCC RPG Cleric can and cannot do, and that vagueness may mean my suggestion is weightless. Mind you I played a cleric in February, but character creation was fast and furious, partially ready-made for the game, and didn't give me a lot of whatever flavor the class has in the rules. Campaign significance of the class was left for another day, but that's the kind of thing that should influence the shaping of the class.

But I'm not just saying 'swap out the name'; I just can't be too specific until June 19th or so...

Conan stories had some priests, although only a few of them was seen casting spells, and those few were more like wizards, than heavily armoured templars. Those black handed Seth priests were pretty good martial artists, though. So, the hyborian religions seem to be more like a group of believers, lead by some wizard and his minions.
The wizard's pact seems to make the cleric also irrelevant. Let the mage make pact with gods and demons, who give him the ability to turn their enemies and cast spells more safely! It would be even better, if warriors and thieves could make pact with such entities at a cost. But the cost should be high, otherwise DCC RPG could become a game with the highest rate of demon-worshipper or fanatic PCs.

There's also a conservative side of the coin too. Cleric has been a part of D&D since the beginning - unlike the thief. So, let him be part of the game, which D&D should have been. If you don't like it, tell the players that clerics are not available in your campaign.

Ravenheart87 wrote: It would be even better, if warriors and thieves could make pact with such entities at a cost. But the cost should be high, otherwise DCC RPG could become a game with the highest rate of demon-worshipper or fanatic PCs.

With the d20 rules I'm using at the moment any character can try for divine patronage, but there is a cost in terms of sacrifices and services, so these probably work better over a campaign than if just playing a standalone module. It's a good way to generate adventures and work missions into a sandbox campaign.

Ravenheart87 wrote:Conan stories had some priests, although only a few of them was seen casting spells, and those few were more like wizards, than heavily armoured templars.

That's a big part of my reasoning, as well. Seems like most of the "cleric" examples in Appendix N aren't really traditional D&D clerics at all, but basic dudes who hang out and pray to some shrine or another. When it's time for spells to fly, it's always some dark wizard who actually does it. Folks who stave off evil seem to be more like Paladins than Clerics.

Ravenheart87 wrote:The wizard's pact seems to make the cleric also irrelevant. Let the mage make pact with gods and demons, who give him the ability to turn their enemies and cast spells more safely!

This seems to be a lot like Elric (and others) who clearly have no connection to clerics but deal with the divine regularly.

Ravenheart87 wrote:There's also a conservative side of the coin too. Cleric has been a part of D&D since the beginning - unlike the thief. So, let him be part of the game, which D&D should have been. If you don't like it, tell the players that clerics are not available in your campaign.

And I can certainly appreciate this position. I'm not 100% sold on killing the cleric, even though I'm the one who started this thread. I think in general the cleric doesn't have a place in Appendix N, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be a part of the game. I'm just thinking that elimination of the cleric could accomplish a couple of key goals:
1. Trims out a lot of space in a rulebook we hope to be thin and compact.
2. Gives a "better" feel for the source literature.

It could be that cleric could be introduced in a later supplement, along with ranger or bard or druid or other classes that might not be called "core" but folks might want to play.

I've based pre-ordering on having the options set out in the first designer's blogs, so I'm totally against eliminating the cleric from core.

geordie racer wrote:I've based pre-ordered on having the options set out in the first designer's blogs...

That reminds me... Where's designer blog #4? It would be a good place to show us how DCC RPG's cleric is different from the magic user.

geordie racer wrote:I've based pre-ordering on having the options set out in the first designer's blogs, so I'm totally against eliminating the cleric from core.

I know that cleric is a part of the alpha playtest rules, but Joseph's blog #1 doesn't list off the classes, other than to say that race=class is an option. At least, it's not in the initial post of this thread:
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... =60&t=7154

I'd have to go back through the boards to see if there has been an official list of classes to be included. On the other hand, I've seen no indication that Joseph intends to get rid of the cleric; this was just a thought that I had based on what I know of the source material in Appendix N.

You're probably safe in your pre-order.

Joseph mentioned cleric quite a few time, so I'm 100% that the class stays. There was even a discussion and a preview about the new cleric mechanics in the Clerics and the DCC thread.

Ravenheart87 wrote:There's also a conservative side of the coin too. Cleric has been a part of D&D since the beginning - unlike the thief.

Not really. The story goes that the Cleric was added as a class to combat some other guy's vampire pc. So originally, D&D only had the fighter and the magic-user. And I bet if you go back far enough, D&D started off with only fighter pc's.

geordie racer wrote:I've based pre-ordering on having the options set out in the first designer's blogs, so I'm totally against eliminating the cleric from core.

Me, too. I want a cleric of Hephaestus that can turn a rust monster

mshensley wrote:

Ravenheart87 wrote:There's also a conservative side of the coin too. Cleric has been a part of D&D since the beginning - unlike the thief.

Not really. The story goes that the Cleric was added as a class to combat some other guy's vampire pc. So originally, D&D only had the fighter and the magic-user. And I bet if you go back far enough, D&D started off with only fighter pc's.

Well, for mundane people like you and me, D&D begins with the old whitebox, whit three little beige books. That had three classes, the fighting-man, the cleric and the magic user (plus demihumans). So it was available since the very first edition of D&D. Meanwhile, thief appered first in Supplement I.
But otherwise, your story is true. It's also interesting to note, what kind of characters appeared in Arneson's Blackmoor campaign.

finarvyn wrote:That's a big part of my reasoning, as well. Seems like most of the "cleric" examples in Appendix N aren't really traditional D&D clerics at all, but basic dudes who hang out and pray to some shrine or another. When it's time for spells to fly, it's always some dark wizard who actually does it. Folks who stave off evil seem to be more like Paladins than Clerics.

That's my take on it. I wouldn't mind if the DCC Cleric was more like a Paladin and less like Cleric McHealbot. I'd rather healing be representative of the different roles hit points play (fatigue, near misses, stress, actual wounds). I think having a Cleric around that just heals "wounds" all the time reinforces the misconception that "hit points = wounds". When actually, most of the time the Cleric is just "inspiring" people to keep fighting.

finarvyn wrote:And I can certainly appreciate this position. I'm not 100% sold on killing the cleric, even though I'm the one who started this thread. I think in general the cleric doesn't have a place in Appendix N, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be a part of the game. I'm just thinking that elimination of the cleric could accomplish a couple of key goals:
1. Trims out a lot of space in a rulebook we hope to be thin and compact.
2. Gives a "better" feel for the source literature.

It could be that cleric could be introduced in a later supplement, along with ranger or bard or druid or other classes that might not be called "core" but folks might want to play.

I think the traditional D&D Cleric is a bad fit for Appendix N. You have to take several different characters, focus in on some of the abilities they had and then kind of mash them together to make a justification for the D&D Cleric. But none of them, to my knowledge, is just a straight-up D&D Cleric. Contrast that with the Fighter and Magic-User. Or even the Thief or Ranger.

That said, I'm thoroughly against removing them from the core rules. I support drifting them back towards actual Appendix N types of characters which might mean limiting some of their abilities or expanding others. It also might require a rethinking of what a Cleric is -- like Gandalf who is a "wizard" but functions a lot like a D&D Cleric at times.

But I'd rather have Clerics in. Joseph's already gotten them mostly figured out. And I think not including them would be a turn-off for D&Dites who are just used to them being there.

DCC RPG definitely features clerics. One element of clerics that I like, independent of all mechanics, is the "advocacy" of cleric players in-game. The cleric is the only class that comes with a predetermined "opinion set." You can usually count on the cleric player to encourage the rest of the party to "do right," or, at the very least, get some intra-party discussion started around, "Sure, I'll heal you, but first let me tell you about the power of Gorhan..." Any wizard can have a patron; but it's the cleric that sits down the other party members and extols the virtue of their deity as a role model for day-to-day life...

In my experience, the best characters to "tut tut" the party are the barbarians: "That now we do it in Kralimoran, or Dark Steppes as you call it." Any "outsider" will do, but barbarians are always fun for that. "No, you must not take his (dead guy's) sword. He fought well and I would call him brother in Valhalla." "What about his purse?" "He has no need for money in Valhalla."

goodmangames wrote:"Sure, I'll heal you, but first let me tell you about the power of Gorhan..."

This is one of the things I like least about the way the class is usually played... but hey, that's just me.

blizack wrote:

goodmangames wrote:"Sure, I'll heal you, but first let me tell you about the power of Gorhan..."

This is one of the things I like least about the way the class is usually played... but hey, that's just me.

+1

Why would anyone need to proselytize in a fantasy game where the gods are all too real and usually in your face? Like real polytheistic times, your best bet would be to worship them all.

Also, the cleric usually seems far out of place in true S&S type adventures. What priest would take part in tomb robbing for example? IMO, the cleric and the paladin were the driving force behind pushing D&D from its roots of being a game about a band of roguish cutthroats to being a game of fantasy superheroes that spend their day rescuing villages from the Forces of Evil TM.

mshensley wrote:

blizack wrote:

goodmangames wrote:"Sure, I'll heal you, but first let me tell you about the power of Gorhan..."

This is one of the things I like least about the way the class is usually played... but hey, that's just me.

+1

Why would anyone need to proselytize in a fantasy game where the gods are all too real and usually in your face? Like real polytheistic times, your best bet would be to worship them all.

I'd like to see clerics as chosen by a deity, rather than choosing a deity (or choosing a patron, as wizards). There are many gods, and you'd be foolish to deny them all but one, especially since some of them are allied.

But if the deity chose YOU to be his operative in the world, well, that's a distinct class, is it not?

I'm no RPG encyclopedia, but I've never particularly seen that approach emphasized in a published work before, that I can recall...