Dragon 379 - Cleric Essentials

125 posts / 0 new
Last post

So the article is up, and right off the bat it looks very interesting.


 


Though naturally there are some problems- the power 'Sacred Armistice' has an erroneous sustain line that it appears to have stolen from the power 'Angelic Witnesses', which is missing it.

Oh Content, where art thou?

Hmm yes I’d agree it mostly just seems interesting so far, the powers don’t seem great but I like some of the feats. I do like the Assured Healing feat, I suspect I’d pick that up for my Pacifist Cleric. The Pacifist’s Reward isn’t bad either.


Here’s my thoughts on the new feats.


Heroic Feats


Battle Cleric Armaments – Proficiency with Light Shields and with one military weapon of your choice. A cheap way to improve both your weapon and AC/Ref, wouldn’t you rather have a superior weapon though?


Domain Synergy – + 2 to attack rolls with the associated at will, after you’ve used the domains CD. This is actually really good but you do need both the domain feat and the domain’s divinity feat something that not all characters would want. (I’ll admit one of my clerics has both of the sun feats) Note this is a feat bonus.


Greater Divine Fortune – Makes Divine Fortune +3 which is reasonable, I think there’s better Channel Divinities out there though.


Harbinger of Rebirth - +2 to heal and allies with 5 get +5 to death saves, this is ok if you have a cleric who doesn’t focus on healing as much, but your allies shouldn’t really be dying on the floor in the first place if you’re doing your job healing them right.


Pacifist’s Reward – 2 temps when you hit an enemy but don’t damage them + 1 per tier. Nice but it doesn’t seem like enough temps to be massively worthwhile. That being said it combos quite well with powers like Life Transference and Stream of Life, reducing the damage you take nicely.


Word of Retaliation – You healing word heals extra hit points equal to the number of enemies adjacent to the target. I like this, I doubt a pacifist cleric would need it, but for others it can add a decent extra bit of healing.


 


Paragon Feats


Assured Healing – when you miss with an attack with the healing keyword that has no effect on a miss (read astral seal or healing strike) you or one ally within 5 squares regains hit points equal to Charisma mod. WOW this is awesome for Shielding Clerics. I really like this and will definitely get it for my pacifist cleric. On an aside can anyone see anything that would increase the healing on this? All the feats/items I’ve looked at only improve powers not feats.


Gambler’s Word – If you crit you gain an extra use of Healing Word. Nice, although the party only has so many healing surges. The wording is a little ambigious is it meant to give you an extra use of Healing Word which every single crit? With the right PP a cleric can be criting on a 18 or 19+, this would seem to be excessive. As noted above though the party only has so many healing surges, which would stop this from getting to silly.



Daniel. 



 


 


 

And yet again they miss the opportunity to please us elven bowclerics =(


When will we get a feat/magic item bow that counts as a holy symbol?


Our bard and warlock cousins do and several other races already have weapon implements.


That dex aint even mentioned in this article is an afront to our elven race!


I bet its written by a mere human no less! ;)


 


(and yes I know about the PP, but not all of us follow the seldarine! :p)


Other then that I found the article quite ok if hardly ground breaking.


Cheers

I had high hopes for this article but I found it somewhat underwhelming.


Domain Synergy is very nice if you possess both the feats for the domain.  Unfortunately, not all the domains have both domain and divinity feats worth taking.


Assured Healing is very potent if you have Recovery Strike, since it is an at-will with the Healing keyword.  Assured Healing means you can heal with Recovery Strike regardless of whether you hit or miss.


Greater Divine Fortune is a joke.  Divine Fortune should have given +3 as it was, and spending a feat to get it there is just wrong.


Some of the other pacifist build options are nice, but don't personally interest me.


I play a balanced cleric, and it looks like they just got kicked in the teeth again ("...taking both Strength and Wisdom powers probably isn't worth it").  Come on, Wizards.  With a +3 proficiency bonus weapon and a decent race choice, you can do just fine with both types.  It's like the designers don't even consider it a valid option.  In a smaller party where characters have to fill multiple roles, the balanced cleric is very nice.


It's interesting that all of the cleric builds tank Dex.  Why is having good Int so much better than Dex other than skills and rituals?  Some builds can benefit a lot more from Dex -- Astral Fire needs Dex 13 (and is pretty much designed for clerics), and if you go the Polearm Gamble route, there are a few nice feats related to OAs that need Dex.  Dex also adds to initiative, where Int does not. 


I see Lance of Faith was left off of the domain attacks list in the article. 


I was really hoping for some more cool powers like Gaze of Defiance and what we saw in Divine Power.  I can't really see myself taking many of the powers in this article.  It really annoys me that Gaze of Defiance and Sacred Flame totally got shafted in domain support, and this article even recommends that you take it because it's so cool.  I know that Gaze of Defiance and Sacred Flame didn't really need a lot of extra help, but it's not like Righteous Brand did either (which is arguably even more powerful). 


I like the domain support feats to boost at will powers, I think it would be great to have more domain-focused feats and abilities instead of god-specific ones (especially since then you could interchange pantheons without affecting anything).   This would be great for a future article.  The only problem with the domain feats is that you get rewarded only for certain combinations of power and domain choices.

I was really hoping there'd be a paragon path for strength clerics who don't use shields, aren't dwarves, and don't worship the dwarf god.  Because there isn't one yet.  I guess they don't think strength clerics should have paragon paths for some reason.  Oh well, I guess they really want us to use Pit Fighter.

Domain Synergy is very nice if you possess both the feats for the domain.  Unfortunately, not all the domains have both domain and divinity feats worth taking.

SOunds to me like not every cleric would have need of this feat. That makes it a good feat. If it was good for every cleric, then it would practically be a must-have feat. I don't like must-have feats.
Assured Healing is very potent if you have Recovery Strike, since it is an at-will with the Healing keyword.  Assured Healing means you can heal with Recovery Strike regardless of whether you hit or miss.

You say that as if it is a bad thing. If you have Recovery Strike, this is a good feat for when you use that power.
Greater Divine Fortune is a joke.  Divine Fortune should have given +3 as it was, and spending a feat to get it there is just wrong.

Divine Fortune doesn't have the +3. For those who want a +3, this feat is available. For those who feel it is not worth the feat, they need not take it.

I liked this article *because* nothing stood out as "must-have". It offers a little bit of something for everyone, but not any one thing for everyone. (Even elven bow clerics can find something useful in this article. Just nothing for their elven bow.)

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.

Not much there for my cleric.


I'm still hoping for a cloth-caster build at some point.

I'm still hoping for a cloth-caster build at some point.

As am I.  Unfortunately we'll likely have to wait untill divine power to see such a build, unless PH3 gives us a new class that funtions as a cloth garbed divine caster.

In the mean time, now that Divine Power has provided the avenger with a useful selection of implement powers and a sub-leader build, I've found that hybrid cleric|avenger or invoker|avenger can function as reasonably well in fulfilling that concept.


Domain Synergy is very nice if you possess both the feats for the domain.  Unfortunately, not all the domains have both domain and divinity feats worth taking.

SOunds to me like not every cleric would have need of this feat. That makes it a good feat. If it was good for every cleric, then it would practically be a must-have feat. I don't like must-have feats.
Assured Healing is very potent if you have Recovery Strike, since it is an at-will with the Healing keyword.  Assured Healing means you can heal with Recovery Strike regardless of whether you hit or miss.

You say that as if it is a bad thing. If you have Recovery Strike, this is a good feat for when you use that power.
Greater Divine Fortune is a joke.  Divine Fortune should have given +3 as it was, and spending a feat to get it there is just wrong.

Divine Fortune doesn't have the +3. For those who want a +3, this feat is available. For those who feel it is not worth the feat, they need not take it.

I liked this article *because* nothing stood out as "must-have". It offers a little bit of something for everyone, but not any one thing for everyone. (Even elven bow clerics can find something useful in this article. Just nothing for their elven bow.)




With Domain Synergy I was thinking at first it might be case of the rich getting richer and that characters with good domain and divinity powers (the Sun domain being one) get a really nice benefit without giving up much.  But thinking some more, it might function as compensation for those who have a domain whose divinity power is not as great.  No doubt, it's a very nice feat, and not for everyone as you said.


Assured Healing is definitely a good thing -- it seems quite powerful and I was a bit shocked at the power level.  I am totally taking this feat.  Even on a miss, you can revive a dying ally.


I'm just saying that Divine Fortune should have been +3 all along.  A +1 to one roll per encounter (in exclusion to using another channel divinity feat) is way too weak.  They should have just errata'd it instead of trying to apply a feat patch. 


I agree there there is probably something for everyone and I like game balance as much as the next guy.  With Divine Power out, there's a lot of healing feats and powers now.  I was just hoping to see something a little different. 

Bah! IMO clerics didn't need an essetials artical yet.

I'd get along more with people if they didn't jump onto a hyberbole every single time you say something they don't understand.

The Battle Cleric armaments feat and the picture that went with the Hammer of Moradin Paragon Path gave me this concept for a Dragonborn Battle Cleric. Not sure how far I'll flesh him out, but I highly doubt I would have really given the concept serious thought if this article hadn't come out.


Also, Assured Healing and Gambler's Word look rather nice.

The illustration on page 45 seems to be of the long-rumoured D&D / Saturday Night Fever disco crossover.


I'm still hoping for a cloth-caster build at some point.

As am I.  Unfortunately we'll likely have to wait untill divine power to see such a build, unless PH3 gives us a new class that funtions as a cloth garbed divine caster.


I've found it takes remarkably little to make a cloth caster out of the cleric, such that I wonder why it hasn't been done. Give a cleric Wis-to-AC and 5 more squares on heals and attacks and you're basically done.  Perhaps WotC really is saving it up for the PHB3, as you suggested.

Regarding flavor, Im tired of the heavy-handed references to the 'gods'. Id like the flavor text to acknowledge other *kinds* of religion besides polytheism, especially (Divine-Psionic?) transcendental mystical traditions and (Divine-Arcane?) abstract philosophies. A nod to (Divine-Primal) animistic traditions, and perhaps (Divine-Shadow?) ancestor worship, would be appropriate too.


The constant references to 'gods' - even when discussing mechanics - makes it seem as if illegal if a Cleric doesnt worship a polytheistic god.


I want more diversity with regard to how different cultures engage the sacred.


Regarding flavor, Im tired of the heavy-handed references to the 'gods'. Id like the flavor text to acknowledge other *kinds* of religion besides polytheism, especially (Divine-Psionic?) transcendental mystical traditions and (Divine-Arcane?) abstract philosophies. A nod to (Divine-Primal) animistic traditions, and perhaps (Divine-Shadow?) ancestor worship, would be appropriate too.


The constant references to 'gods' - even when discussing mechanics - makes it seem as if illegal if a Cleric doesnt worship a polytheistic god.


I want more diversity with regard to how different cultures engage the sacred.




They do so with shamans if the culture worships the primal spirits. I imagine the elemental power source will have somehting for people who worship the primordials or demon lords. The fluff of the divine power source is that it comes from the astral sea and the gods. That's what it is, the power of the gods. If you don't like that fluff, it's just a power source. It doesn't matter.

Divine/Primal: Historically speaking, the nature spirits correspond to paleolithic hunter-gatherers.


Divine/Elemental: The giants-titans-jotuns (= D&D Primordials) correspond to the Neolithic Revolution, where the sky deity and the land deity came to be understood as the father and mother of the rest of the nature spirits, including those that personified order and those that personified chaos.


Divine/Martial: Polytheism is the organization of nature spirits into a heirarchical bureaucracy, and corresponds to the Bronze Age townships, with the rise of urbanization, specialization, military, warfare, predatory economies, and slavery.


Regarding flavor, Im tired of the heavy-handed references to the 'gods'. Id like the flavor text to acknowledge other *kinds* of religion besides polytheism, especially (Divine-Psionic?) transcendental mystical traditions and (Divine-Arcane?) abstract philosophies. A nod to (Divine-Primal) animistic traditions, and perhaps (Divine-Shadow?) ancestor worship, would be appropriate too.


The constant references to 'gods' - even when discussing mechanics - makes it seem as if illegal if a Cleric doesnt worship a polytheistic god.


I want more diversity with regard to how different cultures engage the sacred.




Do you have to bring this up in EVERY divine-power-source related thread on the entire boards?

Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

Do you have to bring this up in EVERY divine-power-source related thread on the entire boards?

Maybe. Surprised
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.


Regarding flavor, Im tired of the heavy-handed references to the 'gods'. Id like the flavor text to acknowledge other *kinds* of religion besides polytheism, especially (Divine-Psionic?) transcendental mystical traditions and (Divine-Arcane?) abstract philosophies. A nod to (Divine-Primal) animistic traditions, and perhaps (Divine-Shadow?) ancestor worship, would be appropriate too.


The constant references to 'gods' - even when discussing mechanics - makes it seem as if illegal if a Cleric doesnt worship a polytheistic god.


I want more diversity with regard to how different cultures engage the sacred.




But you have to remember that D&D has a sort of "default setting."  The flavor text plays to that set up.  That certainly doesn't mean that you're tied to that fluff.

Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf

Polytheism so saturates the *mechanics* of the Cleric class, it seems impossible to use alternative fluff ... while still remaining official.


Unlike every other class that really is suitable for any campaign setting, the polytheism of the Cleric class is too too much.


For crying out loud, just give us some breathing room, for *US* to decide what the spiritual background of our Cleric character will be.


*Gods or nothing* isnt flavor, but the crushing of a players creativity. It makes it impossible for a player to identify with ems character. It is the worst campaign 'railroad' that has ever existed in D&D.


Just some room to breathe. Thats all Im asking for.


Just ... 'not necessarily' ... polytheism!


The default setting needs to include a variety of *kinds* of spirituality. Each kind can have a specific tradition associated with it, with its own value system, notable persons, customs, organizational structure (or lack thereof), history, etc.


The simple acknowledgement of different kinds of spirituality will force the mechanics of the Cleric class to be more usable for a player to design ems own character concept.

Polytheism so saturates the *mechanics* of the Cleric class, it seems impossible to use alternative fluff ... while still remaining official.

Unlike every other class that really is suitable for any campaign setting, the polytheism of the Cleric class is too too much.


For crying out loud, just give us some breathing room, for *US* to decide what the spiritual background of our Cleric character will be.


*Gods or nothing* isnt flavor, but the crushing of a players creativity. It makes it impossible for a player to identify with ems character. It is the worst campaign 'railroad' that has ever existed in D&D.


Just some room to breathe. Thats all Im asking for.


Just ... 'not necessarily' ... polytheism!


The default setting needs to include a variety of *kinds* of spirituality. Each kind can have a specific tradition associated with it, with its own value system, notable persons, customs, organizational structure (or lack thereof), history, etc.


The simple acknowledgement of different kinds of spirituality will force the mechanics of the Cleric class to be more usable for a player to design ems own character concept.




So if I understand you right, you want to change the polytheistic system that is a part of D&D as long as I know it?

If you think a cleric in a polytheistic world doesn't fit your campaigns, than it either is a problem with your campaigns or you should look for other settings. I think Dark Sun was a setting with very little deific influence.


But maybe you have a lack of understanding, what cleric means in general? A cleric is a trained and educated spokesman for a certain religion. When you have a religion, you have a system of organized belief, involving one or more deities. (I think buddhism is the only realworld exception.)


For animistic cultures you don't need the cleric, as they already have the shaman class, which is much more suitable, since their religion is not that hierarchic and structured. And even then you can flavor the shaman as being more of a divine class, regardless of the known pantheons of gods. They could worship certain aspects of the gods (power of the sunlight from pelor, power over storm from kord, etc) without even knowing, that they exist as specific entities.


 


Don't blame the system, if you're not able to understand it! The classes and concepts are not there to cover every viewpoint, as this would not be possible. So for the cleric they drew the line where it has been since the first days of D&D.

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg)

Torian: So if I understand you right, you want to change the polytheistic systeYm that is a part of D&D as long as I know it?


You misunderstood what was written.


Rather, the polytheistic traditions of D&D can stay exactly the way they are now. They dont need to change.


But in addition, there also needs to be spiritual traditions that arent polytheistic.


A variety of kinds of spirituality. So players can play different kinds of Cleric concepts.


 


A cleric is a trained and educated spokesman for a certain religion.


Exactly, a spokesperson for a 'certain religion' - and that religion doesnt need to be polytheism. It can be other kinds of religion as well, or any sacred way of life.


 


For animistic cultures you don't need the cleric, as they already have the shaman class.


There will be characters who come from an animistic culture and who choose to be a Cleric. These animistic Clerics wont worship new gods, but will continue the sacred worldview of their ancestors.


There will be characters who come from a culture of mages and who choose to be a Cleric. These philosophical Clerics wont worship new gods, but will celebrate magic as a sacred way of life.


And so on.


The same is true for Avenger, Invoker, and Paladin. They will come from many different cultures and many different spiritual traditions.

Rather, the polytheistic traditions of D&D can stay exactly the way they are now.

But in addition, there also needs to be non-polytheistic religious traditions.


A variety of kinds of spirituality. So players can play different kinds of Cleric concepts.


And the system already handles that just fine, or else the religions of Eberron wouldn't work.
  • Polytheism: the Sovereign Host

  • Monotheism: the Silver Flame

  • Spiritualism: the Path of Light

  • Ancestor Worship: the Undieing Court

  • and others...

What you keep complaining about has nothing to do with the mechanical system of D&D and is entirely related to the settings of individual campaigns.  If you want a world with a diversity of religious beliefs and you're the DM then its up to you to make a world were that is true.  If you're a player than talk with your DM about including such elements.

Eberron flatly rejects the official mechanics of the Cleric class.


In the Players Handbook, the *mechanics* includes unfortunate wording, like,


You MUST choose a deity compatible with your alignment.


All clerics choose a specific faith. Usually this faith is the worship of a specific patron deity. Sometimes clerics are devoted to groups of deities.


Channel Divinity: Once per encounter you can invoke divine power, filling yourself with the might of your patron deity.


And so on, ad nausium.


What do we see? Mechanics like 'once per encounter' that cant separate itself from the oppressive polytheistic fluff of a 'patron deity'.


Apparently, it is illegal if a Cleric doesnt worship polytheistic gods. Apparently, anything except worshiping polytheism is unofficial homebrew. Apparently, the Eberron setting is illegal.


The Cleric class needs to remove the polytheism from the mechanics. The Cleric class needs fluff that acknowledges the existence of other kinds of spiritual traditions besides polytheism.


 


The polytheism is so overbearing. Players like Torrian are, understandably, under the impression, characters who are animistic spiritual leaders CANT be Clerics and MUST be Shamans, because they arent polytheists.


I am so sick of the tyranny of polytheism.

In the Players Handbook, the *mechanics* includes unfortunate wording, like,

You MUST choose a deity compatible with your alignment.


All clerics choose a specific faith. Usually this faith is the worship of a specific patron deity. Sometimes clerics are devoted to groups of deities.


Channel Divinity: Once per encounter you can invoke divine power, filling yourself with the might of your patron deity.


And so on, ad nausium.


What do we see? Mechanics like 'once per encounter' that cant separate itself from the oppressive polytheistic fluff of a 'patron deity'.


Apparently, it is illegal if a Cleric doesnt worship polytheistic gods. Apparently, anything except worshiping polytheism is unofficial homebrew. Apparently, the Eberron setting is illegal.


The Cleric class needs to remove the polytheism from the mechanics. The Cleric class needs fluff that acknowledges the existence of other kinds of spiritual traditions besides polytheism.


No, no, no.  You're completely misinterpreting the text by adhering to an overly literal reading, instead try a change of emphasis (and finsihng the text while you at it wouldn't hurt).

All clerics choose a specific faith. Usually this faith is the worship of a specific patron deity. Sometimes clerics are devoted to groups of deities.


Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of deities or even philosophies.


Furthermre, the terms deity and religion are often used synonymously within the game.  When the PH1 tells the cleric to pick a deity it also means pick a faith or religion.  This is exactly why Eberron works, because each of the different religious faiths of that setting serve the same function as the deities of the default PoL setting. 


The reason you consistently fail to find mechanics to support different types of religion is because what your looking for isn't a mechanic, but mere setting fluff.  The game makes no mechanical distinction between whether a cleric worships a specific deity, an entire pantheon, or just a philosophical principle.  A types of faith are equal with the context of the game as a system and so they are all represented by the same rules.

These are *mechanics*. The rules. They require an 'overly literal' reading. Apparently, your character cant use 'Channel Divinity' once-per-encounter, unless em worships a polytheistic 'patron deity'.


The Cleric class lacks sufficient examples of alternative spiritualities. It isnt clear, non-polytheistic choices are legal too. As far as the word 'philosophies' goes, the rest of the suffocating polytheistic descriptions would lead one to interpret, these must be 'polytheistic philosophies'.


 


Furthermre, the terms deity and religion are often used synonymously within the game.


The word 'deity' strictly means a polytheistic deity, when it occurs in the unambiguous context of plural 'deities'. By contrast, the words like 'divinity', 'divine power source', 'divine power', 'spiritual tradition', 'sacred tradition', 'religion', 'religious tradition', 'the sacred', 'enlightentment', 'divine light', 'the radiant', 'radiance', 'the numinous', 'the holy', and so on, would be more inclusive of other kinds of 'spirituality'.

These are *mechanics*. The rules. They require an 'overly literal' reading. Apparently, your character cant use 'Channel Divinity' once-per-encounter, unless em worships a polytheistic 'patron deity'.

Not everything in the books is rules.  The text is laced with loads of fluff.  4e does a generaly good job of making it clear what is what, but there are slip ups, especial in the PH1.  Most of the text under the heading Clerics and Deities is fluff not rules.

The Cleric class lacks sufficient examples of alternative spiritualities. It isnt clear, non-polytheistic choices are legal too. As far as the word 'philosophies' goes, the rest of the suffocating polytheistic terminology would lead one to interpret, these must be 'polytheistic philosophies'.

The answer is simple.  What choices of faith does a claric have?  Whatever the setting allows for.  The rest of the polythesitic text isn't meant to be suffocating, it simply is writen to cater to the default pantheon presented in the same book.

The word 'deity' strictly means a polytheistic deity, when it occurs in the unambiguous context of plural 'deities'. By contrast, the words like 'divinity', 'divine power source', 'spiritual tradition', 'sacred tradition', 'religion', 'religious tradition', 'the sacred', 'enlightentment', 'divine light', 'the numinous', 'the holy', and so on, would be more inclusive of other kinds of 'spirituality'.

Except that the language of the game does not necessarily coincide with its use in common speech.  What you say is true of the English language in general, but D&D is a game with its own unique terminology.  The game choses to use the term deities because most settings use a polytheistic pantheon (notably the default setting that was used when writing the PH1).

As noted, per the *mechanics*, the Cleric class can ONLY be polytheistic. The Cleric description LACKS alternatives to suggest otherwise. It is oppressive.


 


Not everything in the books is rules. 


But rules are rules.


The text is laced with loads of fluff.


Rather the Cleric text is ONLY laced with polytheism.


4e does a generaly good job of making it clear what is what, but there are slip ups, especial in the PH1.


In 4e, the entire Cleric class is a slip up. It does a poor job of making clear non-polytheistic options. In fact, per its description, it is absolutely clear that a Cleric MUST worship polytheism.


Most of the text under the heading Clerics and Deities is fluff not rules.


Except ... the rules themselves require polytheism.


 
The answer is simple.  What choices of faith does a claric have?  Whatever the setting allows for.


In the PH1, the Cleric class GIVES NO CHOICE. The character must worship polytheism. The PH1 doesnt allow other settings. Other settings must contradict the official wording of the Players Handbook in order to provide non-polytheistic options.


The rest of the polythesitic text isn't meant to be suffocating


Whether the authors 'meant' it or not, the polytheism *is suffocating*.


It simply is writen to cater to the default pantheon presented in the same book.


The official text makes non-polytheistic spirituality impossible.


 
Except that the language of the game does not necessarily coincide with its use in common speech.


'Deities' means polytheistic deities. There is no other meaning. The texts actually name these polytheistic gods, one by one. There are no alternatives.


What you say is true of the English language in general, but D&D is a game with its own unique terminology.


You are wrong. Rather, deities indeed means polytheistic deities. I wish the Cleric description made any kind of spirituality possible, but it doesnt.

As noted, per the *mechanics*, the Cleric class can ONLY be polytheistic. The Cleric description LACKS alternatives to suggest otherwise. It is oppressive.

Eberron begs to differ, and while you may try to argue otherwise, its diversity of faiths functions just fine under the rules.  You might not be able to comprehend the way the game choose to linguistically communicate its concepts, but that doesn't change that the game treats the terms deity and faith with the same meaning (which is why why faiths like the Path of Light and the Blood of Vol appear in the Compendium under the deities tab).

Further more the choice of "deity" doesn't have nearly the overpowering mechanical impact you make it out to.  The only particularly important mechanical relevance of a cleric's choice of "deity" is in determining whether or not the cleric meets requisites, such as for divinity and domain feats.

Eberron is illegal.


The official Cleric class forces characters to worship polytheism.

Then I wish you more luck with another game. It is obvious that you ignore any help (hints at Eberron) and only argue for the sake of argueing.


I think it would be healthier for you to quit playing D&D, otherwise you might not only suffocate virtually.


 


Your concepts are weird, at best.


The animistic guy who wants to become a cleric? Yes, sure ... the culture might have existed in this animistic tradition for centuries, and now this wet-behind-the-ears comes, breaks with their tradition of shamanism? How should the need for a clerical approach should have been introduced? Even if there could be a reasonable way to get someone of such a culture to become something like a cleric and be accepted among his kind, what would you think would be the ratio to the polytheistical clergy?


0,1% to 0,01% maybe?


Why should a ruleframework even touch those overspecific concepts?

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg)

Eberron is illegal.

Oh really?  But didn't you say...

But rules are rules.

Eberron is an official WotC setting with two offcial rule books, so "rules are rules". 

The official Cleric class forces characters to worship polytheism.

No, the class "forces" characters to worship something, but leaves what that something is to the joint discretion of players and their DM.

Eberron is an official WotC setting with two offcial rule books, so "rules are rules".


Eberron is *optional*. Its rules are in no way binding. It has the same status as homebrew, nothing more than DM rule-zero.


The official Cleric class legally forces Clerics to worship polytheism. It is oppressive.


 


No, the [Cleric] class "forces" characters to worship something, but leaves what that something is to the joint discretion of players and their DM.


You are wrong. Reread the Cleric class. There are no options except polytheism. D&D 4e forces Clerics to worship polytheism.

Thorian: Why should a rule framework even touch those overspecific concepts?


Thats my point. The 'rule framework' of the Cleric class 'touches' ... actually shoves down the throat ... the 'overspecific' concept of polytheism.

Thorian: Then I wish you more luck with another game. I think it would be healthier for you to quit playing D&D.


You must be the one who leaves D&D, since you cant enjoy a game that strives to accommodate the desires of other players besides yourself.

Here's a brilliant thought, then.  Don't play clerics if they bug you so much.

Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

Salla: Don't play clerics if they bug you so much.


Especially with the Divine Power book, the 4e Cleric class preserves its monopoly over healing. Nobody can heal better than a Cleric. D&D 4e forces healing-specialists to be Clerics and forces Clerics worship polytheism.


In case you missed the point, anybody who wants their character to specialize in healing, must play a Cleric. Thus, the polytheism is oppressive.

Had you not taken the phrase "must worship a deity" out of the context that you are not allowed to worship a deity that contradicts your alignment, especially connected to the fact that your citation is directly under the gods according to their alignment.


So we get:


1. It is no rule!


2. Even if it was a rule, the context of the phrase refers to alignment.


 


So please stop here and also stop your double- and triple-posting.

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg)

Torian, now you are saying Clerics dont need to be polytheists? So animistic cultures have Clerics who dont worship gods? You contradict yourself. You got it right the first time. Now your wrong. In context, there ARE NO ALTERNATIVES to suggest any interpretation other than polytheism. You cant use Divine Channeling UNLESS you worship a 'patron deity'. And so on. The Cleric class doesnt supply alternatives to polytheism, and thats the problem.


The problem is WotC double-publishing and triple-publishing Divine material (PH1, PH2, DivP1, etc.) with oppressive, railroading, polytheism. It is unfun. It is uncool.

Really, the PH1 itself must be errataed to make campaign settings like Eberron legal.


But in the meantime, Cleric material in Dragon articles must be written with the reality, even players in the default PoL setting already use a diversity of forms of spirituality.

Polytheism is the default standard.  Campaign settings can make exceptions.  Your campaign setting can as well.


Also in other news, no one cares