Aren't Priests and Paladins basically the same class?

68 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aren't Priests and Paladins basically the same class?

I don't understand, and haven't since the beginning in 1e.  Priests are holy warriors who wear mid-heavy armor and can use melee weapons and heal and cast buffing spells.

Paladins are holy warriors who cast spells and can heal in melee combat.

They seem exactly the same to me.  In early D&D, they were even more similar, both wore heavy armor and shields, and were in melee combat.  Sure, Paladins cast fewer spells back then, but they were still basically the same type of character.

Now, they're even MORE similar.  Depending on how you spec your priest, you are basically an armored, holy warrior.


I'm not JUST questioning what the differences are based on mechanics, I'm wondering why both of these classes even exist.  D&D just has two different core classes that have the exact same concept.  They're both warriors fighting for their gods, often times in incredibly similar ways.

I've been playing D&D for about 21 years now, and while I have played both classes extensively, I still don't understand why they are two classes.  

It seems that they should just be different builds of the same class.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?  Am I the only one who has this question? 
Ones a defender who dabbles in healing, ones a healer with a good AC.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
SImilar concepts, radically different mechanics.

The Paladin is a defender, who protects his squishier allies with the threat of divine vengeance.  The Cleric (not Priest) is a Leader, who heals and buffs his allies, and is commonly a squishy ally of defenders.

However, there's definitely a strong argument to my mind for an overall Divine class (and similarly for other power sources) which could then be further subdivided into roles, and different treatments and feels thereof (e.g. the Blackguard and the Avenger are both Divine Strikers, but with very different mechanics and feel in play).
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
The main problem is that I don't understand why they even invented the two different classes then they are EXACTLY the same concept.

And Clerics don't have to be squishy at all.  A huge number of the cleric's powers are melee powers and require high strength.  With a single feat, you can have good armor.

But that's all mechanics.  Most core classes are at least based on different concepts.

In fact, if you will remember, the Druid was originally just a subset of cleric.  There seemed to be a good reason to split them off into completely separate classes.  Blackguard and Avenger may both be Divine strikers, but at least they have different concepts.

There still is no answer as to why Clerics and Paladins are essentially the same. 
I've always thought that the PHB1 split stat divine classes were a hashup. Paladin should have been your STR based warrior type and cleric should have been your WIS based divine miracle worker type. I never understood why it was not done that way. That would have basically done away with the 'overlap' between clerics and paladins that has always existed and given each one a single clear archetype to be built on. Clerics are your preacher types, your Von Helsings, the wielders of direct divine power. The paladin is then free to be the divinely inspired devout warrior who's combat prowess is enhanced by faith.

And yes, this oversplitting and overlapping has existed since 1e. Basically the original OD&D cleric was all of these things, but for whatever peculiar reason (an attempt at class balance basically) meant that the original cleric was peculiarly limited to weapons that didn't really let you make a 'paladin', thus another class was invented, but it was never really that distinct conceptually. The mechanics were different, but with 4e's move to more consistent mechanics even this difference got reduced a lot.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
The main problem is that I don't understand why they even invented the two different classes then they are EXACTLY the same concept.


Because it is not the exact same concept, they are SIMILAR concepts, with a common origin. 
From a real world perspective :
Paladin is closer to the Knights Templar in concept. a holy warrior highly trained in combat
Cleric is a member of the cergy.  More focused on connecting to their diety, with less martial training. 

In fact if you go back to 1st and 2nd editions the difference becomes incredibly clear if you actually read the classes and look at the differences in what the do. 
Though in 4e it is basically just renaming the different source/role combinations.
 
Clerics are roughly based upon the Knights Hospitaler or Knights Templar.  Paladins are roughly based upon Charlemagne's Paladins or the Knights of the Round Table.

Yep, the concepts are very close. 
paladins are warriors, clerics are combat medics
The main problem is that I don't understand why they even invented the two different classes then they are EXACTLY the same concept.

And Clerics don't have to be squishy at all.  A huge number of the cleric's powers are melee powers and require high strength.  With a single feat, you can have good armor.

But that's all mechanics.  Most core classes are at least based on different concepts.

In fact, if you will remember, the Druid was originally just a subset of cleric.  There seemed to be a good reason to split them off into completely separate classes.  Blackguard and Avenger may both be Divine strikers, but at least they have different concepts.

There still is no answer as to why Clerics and Paladins are essentially the same. 


Squishiness is about more than just AC.  Sure, Clerics can get good AC.  Paladins can get good AC, good NADs, Heavy Shields, Plate armour, substantial THP generation on a per-encounter basis, and more crucially, have substantially more Hit Points and Healing Surges.  Being hard to hit doesn't stop you being squishy, it just stops you being squished as often.

And yeah, if you call 'divine warrior' a concept, then yeah, Paladins and Clerics are similar.  However, I'd call the concept of Paladin 'Divine Protector', and the concept of Cleric 'Divine Healer'.  We could split hairs about it all day - it wouldn't change the fact that the differences are primarily mechanical, in how the play in combat, metagame in nature, rather than conceptual, story-based, in-world.  In-world, there might be little to tell between a paladin and a cleric in terms of how they seem, how they act.

You seem to be setting the goalposts so that they cannot but be the same.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
I think another aspect is how the respective classes represent their god. The Paladin is a champion, whereas the Priest/Cleric is more of a representative. The Paladin shows his god is awesome through example; killing evil things and whatnot. The Priest/Cleric shows his god is awesome through intercession; calling upon the power of his god to heal people/kill people/change the land/feed people/whatever.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
They're both holy warriors, yes.  It's another fine example of how a character is rarely aware of his class.  Both are 'champions' of their gods/philosophies/beliefs, both are kick-butt warriors who smash face in the name of whomever.  But the character can call himself a 'paladin' or 'cleric' or 'priest' or 'holy warrior' or 'avenger' or 'servant of (god)' or whatever he wants, regardless of his class (even if he isn't down with the divine power source).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'd like to see a Priest class, which use cloth, but gets a bonus to AC like the Avenger. It would fit the feel of biblical prophets who do magic without looking like a gladiator.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I'd like to see a Priest class, which use cloth, but gets a bonus to AC like the Avenger. It would fit the feel of biblical prophets who do magic without looking like a gladiator.



That would be the Invoker.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'd like to see a Priest class, which use cloth, but gets a bonus to AC like the Avenger. It would fit the feel of biblical prophets who do magic without looking like a gladiator.



That would be the Invoker.



Just like the "blaster wizard" is the class called "Sorcerer", right?

I am baffled at how many people do not understand that class restrains, but also allows for redirection and expansion by thinking outside the classic "this is the class I always played".

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Just like the "blaster wizard" is the class called "Sorcerer", right?

I am baffled at how many people do not understand that class restrains, but also allows for redirection and expansion by thinking outside the classic "this is the class I always played".


People associate the class name with their concept to strongly. 
They always have, and unfortunatly unless they have the opposite beaten in to them, they always will. 
 
Paladins are their own class for the same reasons as rangers, who don't have that much separating them from fighters or rogues. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

It would have pleased me greatly if the Warpriest subclass/build/what-have-you was the official "Cleric" and the LazerCleric build of O4E was tailored ala Essentials to be the official "Priest". -- There's plenty of design space for the Paladin, Cleric and Priest as such.

Danny

Paladins are their own class for the same reasons as rangers, who don't have that much separating them from fighters or rogues. 



Maybe you see it more similar to a Fighter or Rogue, but I see the Ranger more similar to a Seeker or Druid – the Sentinel kind, specifically. 

My point is that Ranger occupies a unique territory between Martial Warriors and Primal Warriors, and that's what flavours the class.  It's not quite a Fighter, not quite a Rogue, not quite a Druid, not quite a Seeker. 

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

A priest is somebody with a particular status within a religion who has trained in religion skill and rituals Though not necessarily any of the adventurer rituals, they have ones like marriage and death rites.

A cleric is a type of heavily armored miracle worker who is indeed very similar to a paladin but with different emphasis on the battle field one is a defender and the other a leader.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

This thematic (and now mechanical) overlap has bugged me in the past as well. I really like the Warpriest & Devoted Templar, but if I wanted to play a Str-based priest I'd go Paladin every time.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
The main problem is that I don't understand why they even invented the two different classes then they are EXACTLY the same concept.



Well, for one, the cleric has always been modelled after those like Friar Tuck - abiding by the "no edged weapons" policy, among the few who necessarily read and write in a medieval society, etc. etc. They're more "worshipper of the god" than "crusader" while a paladin is the inverse.

In older D&D while your cleric was capable of fighting reasonably well thanks to their d8 (I think?) hit points and chain and a shield, they were just nowhere near as tough as a paladin, and smart folks would not reasonably expect them to bodyblock for anyone except maybe the wizard since their healing was always much more substantial than a paladin's (IIRC paladins don't get cleric spells until level 3 or something like that in 1st ed AD&D) and healing was super important. Similarly their (probably a) mace wouldn't necessarily be the most effective thing for the job of hitting stuff, especially as editions went on.

A paladin was a super fighter who worshipped a god, a cleric was a super wizard who worshipped a god. That's more or less the difference. 
Paladins are their own class for the same reasons as rangers, who don't have that much separating them from fighters or rogues. 



Maybe you see it more similar to a Fighter or Rogue, but I see the Ranger more similar to a Seeker or Druid – the Sentinel kind, specifically. 

My point is that Ranger occupies a unique territory between Martial Warriors and Primal Warriors, and that's what flavours the class.  It's not quite a Fighter, not quite a Rogue, not quite a Druid, not quite a Seeker. 



I might be the only one (possibly from my lack of experience with playing much/any of past editions), but I really hate it when people assign primal power to rangers.  It makes me amazingly irritated.  They're martial type damage dealers with a focus on knowing about nature, but that doesn't mean they are magical/primal in nature like the druid, barbarian, etc.  At least, that's makes the most sense to me.  Then again, I've also said my peace on combined power sources in classes (I hate it).  Soooooo yeah. . . not sure what else to say.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I might be the only one (possibly from my lack of experience with playing much/any of past editions), but I really hate it when people assign primal power to rangers.  It makes me amazingly irritated.  They're martial type damage dealers with a focus on knowing about nature, but that doesn't mean they are magical/primal in nature like the druid, barbarian, etc.  At least, that's makes the most sense to me.  Then again, I've also said my peace on combined power sources in classes (I hate it).  Soooooo yeah. . . not sure what else to say.



Their power source was definitely never primal, but they knew a lot about it. Sort of like how, for some reason, the party wizard knows more about religion knowledge than the party cleric Tongue Out

I might be the only one (possibly from my lack of experience with playing much/any of past editions), but I really hate it when people assign primal power to rangers.  It makes me amazingly irritated.  They're martial type damage dealers with a focus on knowing about nature, but that doesn't mean they are magical/primal in nature like the druid, barbarian, etc.  At least, that's makes the most sense to me.  Then again, I've also said my peace on combined power sources in classes (I hate it).  Soooooo yeah. . . not sure what else to say.



I'm with you.  I hate the Ranger having access to primal crap, and won't ever select any of it for my rangers.   I much prefer them as a purely martial class.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'm with you.  I hate the Ranger having access to primal crap, and won't ever select any of it for my rangers.   I much prefer them as a purely martial class.



Ditto. I always envisioned them as fantasy light infantry, and I never liked the spellcasting they got. I was happy to see it gone in 4e.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
I'm with you.  I hate the Ranger having access to primal crap, and won't ever select any of it for my rangers.   I much prefer them as a purely martial class.



Ditto. I always envisioned them as fantasy light infantry, and I never liked the spellcasting they got. I was happy to see it gone in 4e.



Yeah, between the spellcasting and the animal target, there was a reason I never took more than 3 levels of ranger in 3e (until the substitution levels came along, at least).  The scout was like mana from heaven.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'm with you.  I hate the Ranger having access to primal crap, and won't ever select any of it for my rangers.   I much prefer them as a purely martial class.



Ditto. I always envisioned them as fantasy light infantry, and I never liked the spellcasting they got. I was happy to see it gone in 4e.



Yeah, between the spellcasting and the animal target, there was a reason I never took more than 3 levels of ranger in 3e (until the substitution levels came along, at least).  The scout was like mana from heaven.



Oh man. I had a wolf that died twice in the same session. That module with trapped staircases, and some gem that would make you walk out of the room if you didn't have a high enough will save....?

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
I'd like to see a Priest class, which use cloth, but gets a bonus to AC like the Avenger. It would fit the feel of biblical prophets who do magic without looking like a gladiator.



That would be the Invoker.



Basically an Invoker without chainmail. 

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I'd like to see a Priest class, which use cloth, but gets a bonus to AC like the Avenger. It would fit the feel of biblical prophets who do magic without looking like a gladiator.



That would be the Invoker.



Invokers wear chainmail. O_o
Play one based on intelligence, then pick up Unarmored Agility. Or ask your DM to trade that feat for all your regular armor proficiencies.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Aren't Priests and Paladins basically the same class?

I don't understand, and haven't since the beginning in 1e.


Because they really weren't different classes. See the article on the origins of the cleric class in D&D:


Dragon Magazine, Issue 52 (August 1981)
The cleric-adventurer is not a meek priest; he is a warrior who has spells and magical powers to aid him as he destroys the enemies of his god. Like Archbishop Turpin, he can use his powers to bless and support his comrades, and he is an able fighter in his own right, second only to a professional warrior in skill.
[...]
Clericadventurers are trained warriors; they fight better than trained men-at-arms, are comfortable with armor, and are bold enough to enter places no cynical mercenary would dare come near. They are warrior-priests, and it should show in their outlook. This warlike outlook is evident in a properly motivated cleric player character. Why does a cleric-adventurer go on adventures? Certainly not just to play medic; he could do that where it’s safe — people get hurt everywhere.
[...]
His motives are basically aggressive: he wants to destroy his god’s enemies, wrest away their wealth, and accumulate personal experience in a rapid but risky manner; and all for his god’s benefit. This is a cleric worthy of Turpin’s approval. After all, how meek can you expect a person who fights terrible monsters to be? Just descending into a dungeon is an act of uncommon boldness. The cleric-adventurer isn’t, and really can’t be, a meek healer. His purpose demands that he be a bold killer, a champion of his god.


The article also says that if more people had realized what the cleric class is supposed to be, that the paladin class may have never been necessary



 

Well, for one, the cleric has always been modelled after those like Friar Tuck - abiding by the "no edged weapons" policy,

Actually that was purely a game balance decision, as swords had better damage dice than maces and the cleric was too close in melee capacity to the fighter that they wanted to block access to weapons of the same damage dice.


The main problem is that I don't understand why they even invented the two different classes then they are EXACTLY the same concept.

Ah, but they aren't. (You are talking 4E here, correct?)

The Paladin is a defender with a bit of healing. Being a defender means he is hard to hit and can take a lot of hits; it also means that he gets to mess with enemies who attack his allies rather than him.

The Cleric is NOT a defender. He's a leader. A leader is not automatically squishy, or incompetent in melee. However he will usually be easier to hit than a defender, and not be able to take as many hits. And yes, he has healing - in the Cleric's case, probably quite a bit more than a Paladin - but that is only the beginning of what he does. He also grants saving throws; buffs his friends so they are more accurate and hit harder; weakens the enemy's defenses; moves creatures around and/or grants his allies extra movement; grants his allies extra attacks. Oh, and most leaders also do damage. Some leader classes are better at one of these things, some at another.


"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
The main problem is that I don't understand why they even invented the two different classes then they are EXACTLY the same concept.

Ah, but they aren't. (You are talking 4E here, correct?)

The Paladin is a defender with a bit of healing. Being a defender means he is hard to hit and can take a lot of hits; it also means that he gets to mess with enemies who attack his allies rather than him.

The Cleric is NOT a defender. He's a leader. A leader is not automatically squishy, or incompetent in melee. However he will usually be easier to hit than a defender, and not be able to take as many hits. And yes, he has healing - in the Cleric's case, probably quite a bit more than a Paladin - but that is only the beginning of what he does. He also grants saving throws; buffs his friends so they are more accurate and hit harder; weakens the enemy's defenses; moves creatures around and/or grants his allies extra movement; grants his allies extra attacks. Oh, and most leaders also do damage. Some leader classes are better at one of these things, some at another.





in basic 4th each class had only 1 role.
in esentials you got subclasses that have difrent roles then the main class does.

I think if the paladin would have been introduced after essentials they might have made it a sub class in the priest group.
But as is they are stuck with it being a seperate class a legecy from pre essentials 4th.

in a future edition they may go further with this subclassing.
basicly all martial characters sharing 1 feet and 1 power pool., and the same for the other power sources.
Actually that was purely a game balance decision, as swords had better damage dice than maces and the cleric was too close in melee capacity to the fighter that they wanted to block access to weapons of the same damage dice.




"Actually the cleric was based losely on Bishop Odo, brother of Duke William of Normandy, the fictitional Friar Tuck, and a religious proscription against the shedding of blood.

The paladin was likewise loosely drawn from the Paladins of Charlemagne and the Code of Chivalry.

Changes in both archetypes were mandated by the game system for which they were designed. As they two are quite different archetypes, criticism of these classes on grounds of similarity is fatuois. The purpose of each class in the campaign milieu is quite different.
" - G. Gygax

Re: "The cleric is not a priest" -

"As far as I am concerned the terms cleric and priest are interchangable for the AD&D class. Consider many of the spells available to the cleric--clearly meant to provide for the general population." - G. Gygax

Straight from the mouth of the creator. I'm not sure there's a much better answer than those.     
 
Re: "The cleric is not a priest" -

"As far as I am concerned the terms cleric and priest are interchangable for the AD&D class.  " - G. Gygax

Straight from the mouth of the creator. I'm not sure there's a much better answer than those.     


Meh, twer that creator - perfect and divine you would be right.
But one really should distinguish "game world" roles regarding characters and "classes".
Hell, the term priest corresponds to a profession and is as much a background choice as anything else.
There are many gods for whom the "cleric" makes a wholey inapropriate priest, hell one could argue this it true for the christian one (inspite of it being the inspiration). 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Meh, twer that creator - perfect and divine you would be right.
But one really should distinguish "game world" roles regarding characters and "classes".
Hell, the term priest corresponds to a profession and is as much a background choice as anything else.
There are many gods for whom the "cleric" makes a wholey inapropriate priest, hell one could argue this it true for the christian one (inspite of it being the inspiration). 



I'm pretty sure this is like arguing with JK Rowling about how spells work in Harry Potter Tongue Out

If the creator of a fictional world dictates that in that fictional world a cleric and a priest are basically the same thing then that's just what they are. We can say "well we don't like that" but that doesn't change the fact that it is. 
This is how I draw the difference:


The Cleric is your Dad
The Paladin is You.

The cleric does old man help the youngins stuff, the Paladin does Main Character Heroic stuff. That's why your dad gets a less cool weapon than your big bladed sword.

Cleric is wise (WIS), Paladin is brave and dashing (CHA)




Meh, twer that creator - perfect and divine you would be right.
But one really should distinguish "game world" roles regarding characters and "classes".
Hell, the term priest corresponds to a profession and is as much a background choice as anything else.
There are many gods for whom the "cleric" makes a wholey inapropriate priest, hell one could argue this it true for the christian one (inspite of it being the inspiration). 



I'm pretty sure this is like arguing with JK Rowling about how spells work in Harry Potter Tongue Out 



And I suppose if I played "grey hawk" that would be one thing... we dont. 

Hell npcs dont even have classes (by default).. must be damn few priests in that world.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

And I suppose if I played "grey hawk" that would be one thing... we dont.



He asked about the differences "since the beginning in 1e". That's the beginning. I never claimed that in the game you play in right now a priest is a cleric and vice versa, just that it was like that as 1st edition was conceptualized by its author.

As to your edit regarding the prevalence of clerics, he goes on in the same response to say the following -

"As a matter of fact in more recent times I have reconsidered the role of the cleric in a fantasy milieu with active deities. The ecclesiastics are much undervalued in most FPPG systems. They should be as prevalent and iat least as nfluential as were the churchmen in early medieval Europe. Not only do they guarantee much in regards social continuity, teaching, community health, weather, husbandry, and agriculture; but they provide a working link to higher powers that interact with humanity regularly and often not benignly save through their good offices."

(As a note I'm including typos for posterity's sake).         
And I suppose if I played "grey hawk" that would be one thing... we dont.



He asked about the differences "since the beginning in 1e". That's the beginning. I never claimed that in the game you play in right now a priest is a cleric and vice versa, just that it was like that as 1st edition was conceptualized by its author.

As to your edit regarding the prevalence of clerics  


I played AD&D and this game became no longer Greyhawk as soon as it was a public game in fact the game very early on encourages DMs to think of it in terms of there own world ... unlike the modern game with its pre-packaged gods in the players handbook (something that freaked me out a bit)

The prevalence was me being snarky if the world relied on pcs who are very rare and the majority of the world was classless and clerics were the only priests of the world and so on ;p


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I think of it as Gygax just talking about inspiration the result was already different as soon as it met each game table. And the game was presented in a way that intensionally lead to that.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Sign In to post comments