Thursday, November 13, 2025

Retrospective: The Complete Priest's Handbook

When the second edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons appeared in 1989, one of its implicit goals was to make the game’s classes more flexible and setting-driven. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the treatment of clerics. First Edition AD&D more or less followed the template laid down by OD&D, where the cleric was an odd hybrid of Templar, exorcist, and battlefield medic. This was a pragmatic invention designed to plug holes in early play (someone had to turn undead and heal wounds). The cleric class was thus foundational to the game, but rarely inspiring. If my experience is anything to go by, few players aspired to be a cleric and would only acquiesce to doing so because the party needed healing.

The Complete Priest’s Handbook, published in 1990, represents TSR’s most serious attempt to rethink the cleric, building on what had already been established in the 2e Player's Handbook. Written by Aaron Allston, it stands as one of the most conceptually ambitious entries in the “Complete” series, as well as one I really liked at the time of its release. The supplement's title is significant. Second Edition, you may recall, replaced the term "cleric" with "priest" as the name of the broad class category. “Cleric” became only one example within that category – a type of priest, much as the druid was another. This terminological shift heralded a new approach to divine spellcasters. Where 1e’s cleric was monolithic, 2e’s priest was varied. There could be hundreds of priestly archetypes, each distinct to its faith and overall ethos. Allston’s book took that conceptual flexibility and attempted to make it practical.

At the heart of The Complete Priest’s Handbook lies 2e’s concept of specialty priests as a flexible framework for portraying the servants of specific gods or cosmic powers. Rather than treating every priest as a lightly re-skinned version of the same armored miracle-worker, Allston provided Dungeon Masters with clear guidelines for customizing spell access, weapons, armor, granted powers, and restrictions to reflect each deity’s nature. A priest of a war god might wield swords and command battle magic, while one devoted to a god of secrets could be forbidden to fight openly but gifted with divinations and hidden knowledge. The idea had its roots in Dragonlance Adventures (1987) and the 2e Player’s Handbook, of course, but Allston expanded and refined it in meaningful ways. He demonstrated that the faiths of a campaign world should shape the rules of divine magic, not the other way around.

Much of the supplement reads less like a player’s guide than a campaign design manual. Allston encouraged DMs to think about pantheons, from who the gods are, what their worshippers are like, and how their clergy interact with worldly institutions. He presented religions as social, political, and metaphysical forces, not merely sources of spells. From here, he moves on to designing priesthoods, walking the reader through the process of defining a faith’s beliefs, organization, duties, and other details, with each choice shaping both flavor and play. Allston even made space for philosophical or non-theistic priests, who draw power from devotion to an ideal or cosmic principle. That idea was barely hinted at previously, but, in this supplement, it's offered as an unambiguous possibility (one that I embraced wholeheartedly in my Emaindor campaign from high school).

In many ways, The Complete Priest’s Handbook was TSR’s first real attempt to treat religion as a serious worldbuilding concern rather than an afterthought. The gods and their faiths were no longer just color for the background; they became engines of conflict, patronage, and adventure. The priest was not simply a healer or support character but a representative of a larger belief structure and institution. One can argue that this was always true in AD&D and perhaps it was, but, for many of us, it took books like this to make us think seriously about what that actually meant in play.

Like all entries in the “Complete” line, The Complete Priest’s Handbook included a selection of kits, optional templates meant to add flavor and specialization. Ironically, I never found most of them especially interesting. Too many represented vague social roles, like the Nobleman Priest, the Peasant Priest, and so on, rather than more distinctive archetypes like the Crusader or the Missionary. Arguably, 2e priests didn’t need kits at all. Between their spheres of magic and granted powers, the class already had plenty of built-in flexibility. However, compared to what other classes received in their "Complete" books, this section felt oddly underbaked.

What truly stands out, though, is how The Complete Priest’s Handbook reflects a broader shift in TSR’s design philosophy. Second Edition was increasingly interested in building distinct, coherent settings for AD&D. One could reasonably argue this was motivated by a desire to sell more products, but, even so, it had an intriguing creative side effect: it pushed the rules toward flexibility and world-specific interpretation. Instead of assuming a single “cleric” archetype for every world, 2e encouraged Dungeon Masters to make each campaign’s religions – and thus its priests – unique.

Of course, the book is not without its flaws. Balancing specialty priests was left largely to the DM’s discretion and the examples varied widely in quality. Allston’s approach assumed a polytheistic setting where divine diversity was the norm, leaving monotheistic or dualistic campaigns to do some extra work. Yet, these are minor quibbles compared to the book’s larger accomplishment. The Complete Priest’s Handbook encouraged DMs to shape faith to fit their worlds and, just as importantly, to let their worlds shape faith in return. For a game as rule-bound as AD&D sometimes was, that felt genuinely liberating.

For all my reservations about the "Complete" series as a whole, I still regard The Complete Priest’s Handbook as one of its true high points, a book that took a neglected class and made it central not just to the mechanics of the game but to the presentation of the setting in which it was played.

13 comments:

  1. I started using clerics in my fantasy campaigns. I made up my own rules they consisted of a chance to stop a magic attack and to cause Undead to crumble. There was a higher class of High priest or Arch Bishop who had a greater chance of protecting his flock. Proximity to a temple of the priest's faith could further enhance his power of prayer.
    Unlike sorcerers they do not have he range of spells.
    Crusaders also have magic resistance - a chance to block spells cast on them.
    In our last campaign my Germanic human 18thc century level power, Beerstein, was at war with Necrolia (the Undead). Clerics and Crusaders were very useful. It was also handy that many had retained medieval armor.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim Hodges----
    "Few aspired to be clerics" made me smile. None of us Reagan-era, survival-knife toting red-blooded '80s teens in the Midwest/Uppermost-South borderland we called home would've been caught dead playing that class. ("Wussy like soccer!" our semi-psycho barbarian berserker buddy Dan remarked circa 1984.) We knew the character class was useful so ultimately got around our impasse by the DM (usually me) always bringing one along as an NPC. Looking back clerics had the potential to be interesting if we'd only lost our prejudice but I think we all envisioned a cleric as being a cross between Jerry Falwell and Mr. Belvedere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess growing up in chicago or some of us in the burbs we had a different experience as choosing a cleric as a character was not something to be shunned. But as i write this; i forgot most of the midwest was protestant and instead of televangelists we used greco roman or near eastern or arthurian stuff as the archetypes

      At the largest point our group had kids from these background; assyrian italian mexican polish and of course our sicilian jewish (go america!!) fearless leader

      Very interesting that the rest of the midwest avoided the cleric class?

      Delete
    2. That is so weird. The contention that clerics were unpopular as a class is boggling to me, especially past the original OD&D stage. If anything the groups I played with tended to have too many of them, resulting in "church politics" and clashes between divine entities and servants taking over the campaign. They were already strong in AD&D 1e, and by the WotC 3.0 days they had so many improvements they really rose to the upper tiers.

      Delete
    3. I ran into the same thing. No one wanted to play a cleric. As a DM who spent a lot of time working on specialty clerics, that broke my heart. Lately though I haven't had that problem.

      The Heretic

      Delete
  3. I had the same reaction to this book. It was awesome. I spent a lot of time updating my homebrew campaign to use the ideas in this book.
    I went even further with Player's Options: Skills and Powers. I started making alternate clerics for each deity using the point buy system in that book, but eventually it became too much work.
    The cleric:priest relationship was always fuzzy to me. IIRC this book suggested giving clerics two minor and two major spheres, which seems like a major downgrade. I'm not sure if the confusion was just with me or if they didn't do a good job describing the changes.
    The move to 3.0 was a shock. I was expecting spheres and instead they started using domains (which were much more limited). It took a while to adjust.

    The Heretic

    ReplyDelete
  4. "For all my reservations about the "Complete" series as a whole, I still regard The Complete Priest’s Handbook as one of its true high points, a book that took a neglected class and made it central not just to the mechanics of the game but to the presentation of the setting in which it was played."

    Well, yeah. There reason for that is obvious. It was written by Aaron Allston. His name's a better guarantee of quality than Gygax.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'd say the cleric/priest was always a favorite class of mine, even back in my 1E days.

    I was playing a cleric in a 1E game at my favorite game & hobby store, Star Realm. There was no cleric in the party and I wanted to play, so there I was rolling up a cleric.

    I don't remember when, but it must have been after we all gained a few levels, where we were in a desert...and was attacked by a blue dragon.

    Everyone was freaking out. We knew we were in trouble because it yelled something at us in Common, and I believe it cast a spell.

    I had to do something. Looking at my sheet I saw the only spell I thought might work: Silence 15 ft radius. I asked the DM "Can I cast Silence 15 ft Radius on its head?" He said to give it a try. The dragon failed it save and it couldn't cast spells!

    From then on, my favorite class has been the cleric. Versatile spells with no spell book needed, good second line fighter, and keeps the party alive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, spells, second line fighter, and healing, what's not to love? The few times I get to join D&D as a player I usually pick the cleric.

      The Heretic

      Delete
  6. "Few players aspired to be a cleric and would only acquiesce to doing so because the party needed healing."

    That was us back then, but I have since grown fond of the old school cleric.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not me. The first character I ever played was a cleric, and I would guess that not only were human clerics my most frequent class chosen but probably were a narrow majority of my PCs overall. The only reason I even played monks at all was that I had mistaken them for a specialized cleric.

    I LOVED playing someone on a literal "Life" mission: against the undead. My clerics almost always had lesser saints of unknown gods as their patrons. I was not Catholic, but I basically mashed them up as fightin' unknamed Roman Catholics (although I had at least one who was more into a fantasy pastiche of Greek Orthodox) who were REALLY into cleansing the undead and putting their bodies to rest.

    Keentolk of St. Crispian was a straight up predecessor to the Frog Brothers, if they had been devout Catholic youth group kids. Mace, helm, cure light wounds, crafty with first aid, and his holy symbol was a crucifix. An atheist at the time, I thought nothing of a crucified Christ in a Christless fantasy. I just knew it stopped vampires in their tracks, and Keentolk was a "true believer."

    Then again, I enjoyed playing characters who had combat handicaps and weird side interests.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As an aside, it should be noted that Allston has been dead for more than a decade. He was in his 50s when he passed. It is kind of remarkable that D&D game designers appear to have a similar life expectancy to WWF wrestlers of the 1980s. Allston's Rules Cyclopedia was really brilliant for both its time and its source material.

    ReplyDelete
  9. One word: Glorantha

    ReplyDelete