Tuesday, June 24, 2025

REPOST: The Articles of Dragon: "Special Skills, Special Thrills"

Of all the iconic classes of D&D, the cleric is the one that sticks out like a sore thumb. Whereas the fighting man, the magic-user, and even the thief are all pretty broad archetypes easily -- and non-mechanically -- re-imagined in a variety of different ways, the cleric is a very specific type of character. With his heavy armor, non-edged weapons, Biblical magic, and power over the undead, the cleric is not a generic class, recalling a crusading knight by way of Van Helsing. There's thus a distinctly Christian air to the cleric class, an air that increasingly seemed at odds with the game itself, which, as time went on, distanced itself from its earlier implicit Christianity and embraced an ahistorical form of polytheism instead.

For that reason, there were growing cries among some gamers to "fix" the cleric. In this context "fix" means change to make it less tied to a particular religion, in this case a particular religion the game itself had eschewed. The first time I recall seeing an "official" answer to these cries was in Deities & Demigods, where it's noted that the clerics of certain deities had different armor and/or weapon restrictions than "standard" clerics. A few even got special abilities reflective of their divine patron. This idea was later expanded upon by Gary Gygax himself in his "Deities & Demigods of The World of Greyhawk" series of articles, which I credit with giving widespread attention to this idea. I know that, after those articles appeared, lots of my fellow gamers wanted to follow Gary's lead and tailor their cleric characters to the deities they served, an idea that AD&D more formally adopted with 2e in 1989.

In issue #85 (May 1984) of Dragon, Roger E. Moore wrote an article entitled "Special Skills, Special Thrills" that also addressed this topic. Moore specifically cites Gary's articles as his inspiration and sets about providing unique abilities for clerics of several major pantheons. These pantheons are Egyptian, Elven, Norse, Ogrish, and Orcish – a rather strange mix! Of course, Moore intends these to be used only as examples to inspire individual referees. Likewise, he leaves open the question of just how to balance these additional abilities with a cleric's default ones. He notes that Gygax assessed a 5-15% XP penalty to such clerics, but does not wholeheartedly endorse that method himself, suggesting that other more roleplaying-oriented solutions (ritual demands, quests, etc.) might work just as well.

Like a lot of gamers at the time, I was very enamored of the idea of granting unique abilities to clerics based on their patron deity. Nowadays, I'm not so keen on the idea, in part because I think the desire for such only underlines the "odd man out" quality of the cleric class. Moreover, nearly every example of a "specialty cleric" (or priest, as D&D II called them) still retains too much of the baseline cleric to be coherent. Why, for example, would a god of war be able to turn the undead? Why should almost any cleric wear heavy armor and be the second-best combatant of all the classes? The cleric class, even with tweaks, is so tied to a medieval Christian society and worldview that it seems bizarre to me to use it as the basis for a "generic" priest class. Far better, I think, would be to have individual classes for priests of each religion or, in keeping with swords-and-sorcery, jettison the class entirely.

17 comments:

  1. There are plenty of priests in Conan, arguably the ordination od swords and sorcery.
    I’m not sure why a priestly magic can work through armour but wizard magic can’t.
    If being a priest is a job then you would practice the skills of that job. A orient would only wear armour when going to war against someone who is not going to respect their status as a representative of their god.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't run a campaign with D&D-style polytheism in a very long time, and I think my attitude toward the cleric is a large part of the reason why. Viewed through the lens of "D&D religion," the cleric is basically a subscriber to a particular spell-delivery service that has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or belief at all. *Everybody* believes in the gods -- all the gods -- because they're always wandering around down here on Earth and involving us in their squabbles! So clearly the cleric's spells don't come via his faith, but as part of some bizarre transaction. I don't like that.

    In my games, there is only one god, and, while I generally stay shy of using actual for-reals Christianity, it's typically a fairly tight stand-in. There are, of course, plenty of cults and the like, but their gods are either entirely nonexistent or else they're some type of demon or monster masquerading as a god. In this sense, I like 2e's shyness about the word "god;" I find the concept of "powers," as it called them, helps to conceptualise major spiritual entities who play at being god while keeping them terminologically distinct from the one true god.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do this as well. especially for ravenloft

      Delete
    2. This is an interesting approach; i have been thinking more recently that the ‘implicit Christianity’ approach might have more traction than i thought when young. I know a lot of settings have pantheons included but i would love to read more about campaigns with (eg) a fictionalized dark-ages-Europe church.

      Delete
    3. The transactional nature of clerical powers is consistent with ancient polytheism though, and the idea that a priest's powers operate independently of his personal faith is the norm in sacramental forms of Christianity.

      Delete
  3. You seem to forget the curative function of clerics, though.

    Removing the class entirely would probably be the best idea, from an "architectural" standpoint, but then parties will have to look elsewhere for hit point restoration.

    And while you can surely have whole campaigns where undeads do not play a big role... you are pretty guaranteed to need to restore hitpoints one a regular basis.

    (Glorantha had a much better take on cults and religions, but this would make very difficult to divorce rules from setting, and lots of "casual gaming" groups would have problems handling that, IMHO.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Give Cleric spells to the Magic User and let them choose if they want to be healers or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Final Fantasy (most versions) uses a dichotomy of White Mage/Black Mage for curative/offensive spells, nothing really religious about it. I wonder if a White Mage in D&D setting would just be too underpowered?

      Delete
  5. As I continue to mess around with my own retro clone where I am highlighting newer mechanics that I enjoy around the classes, Cleric remains the biggest obstacle to a clean design. It’s a bit Fighter, a bit scholar/arcane magic as it shares spells with Magic-User, and then its own set of rules for restoration and exorcism. Never mind to your point of being so Christian-coded.

    My current leaning is using the Turnong mechanic as a channeling divine presence, and the characters are superior combatants not from a limited amount of martial training but because they are favored by/bloodline of divinities. So something very Greek Hero.

    I’m still deeply torn on multi or dual classing but it’s easy to see the major Greek heroes being Fighter/Clerics where it’s just their father or mothers divine presence is making them more charismatic, lucky, resistant to enemy magic or fear, able to inspire (ie boost HP of) allies, etc. without being quite so tied down to a crusader/exorcist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 5E got it mostly right, the archetypes are a good way to differentiate priests from different gods. Unfortunately they made it so all clerics get the healing stuff and clerics of the healing god get more which is daft.
    LotFP did better by taking those Cleric abilities and making them spells. Now if you just sorted the spells into Domains the way 3E did you would have something.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jim Hodges---
    I was always enamored with druids and used to get pissed at one particular DM who liked to refer to druids as clerics. He said all druids were clerics so why not just call them that?Bugged me to death but since he was one of three main DMs we had to RPG with, and he had the hottest mom on the block we were all semi in love with, I mostly let him get away with it.

    In light of how D&D went on to diversity clerics, he's probably somewhere out there today feeling justified by his assertions about druids.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I disagree with your last sentiment about jettison the class entirely, because D&D is not entirely S&S, being an amalgam of genres.

    Secondly, you just have to keep it simple. Give the cleric of a god their weapon or weapons of choice as per Dragon issue 115. Other than that, just follow the rules for turning undead as per the DMG based upon alignment. That's it. You don't need anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Clerics are weird from an in-game lore point of view, but mechanically the idea of party roles including a healer is baked into how people understand games. That has been reinforced via video games where you have tanks, healers, crowd control, and damage-dealing roles (with finer distinctions in some cases). That way of looking at things became explicit for tabletop games in D&D with 4th edition, but has been around in one form or other since the beginning. A balanced party traditionally has a fighter, magic user, cleric, and thief. If you are missing any one of those, there will be weaknesses that need to be planned for in some way.

    4th edition tried to do this by creating non-cleric healing classes, and within the overall approach of the edition, it worked. It just didn't play like classic D&D for most people. But any version of the game without clerics needs to account for how the party heals, and how other classes interact with religious ideas and the powers of gods if they are assumed to take an active interest in the fantasy world.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I came to terms with this a while ago. Yup, clerics are members of The Church. They’re Lawful, they work for the bishop, they have abbeys and fighting orders, etc. Their Church is a far-reaching political power, just like the Middle Ages.
    Neutrals? They’re Lawful worship the Old Gods and their “priests” are Druids. Chaotics? They worship demons, Orcus, the Great Old Ones, etc. Their “priests” are sorcerers.
    In any setting other than that, yeah, eliminate or totally rework the class.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think you need to rework the class, but, rather, think it and its implications through. They don't have spells, nor a spell book. They have prayers, which their god grants, or does not grant. They carry weapons, but, again, in service of a god. Is this a god of war? Is the god associated with a weapon? And so on.

    In other words, role play it out, find out what the cleric does for the god, and make it a part of the character. Are they part of a gods order militant, or do they wander and tend to the flock? Would healing be against the god, turning undead? Then they might not have those prayers answered.

    In much the same way that a lawful good mage wouldn't choose any spells relating to necromancy, a cleric wouldn't take "spells" his god would not approve of.

    The Upright Man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel like what you’re describing is a reworking of the class….
      Dependent on what deity is worshipped, etc.
      Or, what you are describing doing is what I meant when I said rework the class. As opposed to the Cleric as presented in older editions. I’m not very well-versed in whatever Wizards of the Coast has done.

      Delete
    2. My knowledge stops at the end of 1st edition, so I have no idea what WotC has done. But, it just seem logical to me to make the class, which is presented as an archetype, to fit the situation better. For example, Druids do not need to be a separate class, they are just an example of the cleric put into context of ancient England. The cleric as presented would be an example of Christian priests, but not a priest of Set, or Crom, for that matter.

      Really, this can be applied to all of the classes and the spin of classes that can in the Players Handbook; no need for a paladin, just configure your fighter in that direction (with a little multiclassing), no need for an illusionist, just a different spin on a Magic User. And so on.

      Delete