Community

It depends. Option 3 and 4 both have their pros and cons. I'd prefer one class with multiple class feature choices, but depending on how the game is structured two different classes might be better.

Mar 16, 2012 -- 6:14AM, kimli wrote:

Mar 15, 2012 -- 11:53AM, Jharii wrote:

Personally, I would prefer less classes with more options within that class as to provide plenty of diversity.  This poll personifies that.

A Cleric, to me, is a character that carries his devotion to a deity to a completely different level than the average worshipper.  Devout would be another word to describe that relationship.  A Priest could then be a theme of the Cleric with some predefined options already chosen from the Cleric class.

+1 all the way. This, to me, makes the most sense. Keep everything nice and tight.  Few classes, many themes and options to make things diverse. It would be nice say just pick cleric, then a theme, then some powers or abilities, either based on that theme or flavor.

I agree with both of these. I'd far prefer to have a few base classes to choose from, but with a wealth of options and customizability within those classes. Not just clerics, but all the class types.

Mar 16, 2012 -- 7:43AM, Jim11735 wrote:

Mar 16, 2012 -- 7:07AM, SteeleButterfly wrote:

Mar 16, 2012 -- 6:14AM, kimli wrote:

Mar 15, 2012 -- 11:53AM, Jharii wrote:

Personally, I would prefer less classes with more options within that class as to provide plenty of diversity.  This poll personifies that.

A Cleric, to me, is a character that carries his devotion to a deity to a completely different level than the average worshipper.  Devout would be another word to describe that relationship.  A Priest could then be a theme of the Cleric with some predefined options already chosen from the Cleric class.

+1 all the way. This, to me, makes the most sense. Keep everything nice and tight.  Few classes, many themes and options to make things diverse. It would be nice say just pick cleric, then a theme, then some powers or abilities, either based on that theme or flavor.

I agree with both of these. I'd far prefer to have a few base classes to choose from, but with a wealth of options and customizability within those classes. Not just clerics, but all the class types.

Class bloat should be a lesson learned from 4E.  Three PH books with too many unsupported classes followed by Essentials which laughabley renamed most of those original (and iconic) classes. 

Why can't Option 1 classic Cleric just take his armor off?  Put down the mace? 

I am all for supporting different concepts, but like these guys suggest, create an Optional Rule or maybe a Theme where the cleric loses armor proficiency and gains some other Priestly whatever.

To make a new whole Class on this would probably mean WotC makes lots of changes and new submechanics that would be further and further this class from any recognizable idea of cleric.

For the most part, I really did like how AD&D handled classes.  The "Complete..." series was excellent and expanded greatly on each class while keeping them under the same umbrella.

I would certainly welcome a robust set of options for each class in the PHB with 2-3 kits/themes for each, and then later down the road, have a "Complete..." book for each class which takes it to the next level.

When I play any class, I still want there to be an air of mystery about my character.  I don't want everyone to respond with "Oh, a cleric, cool we got our healer."  Instead, I want, "Hmmmm, a cleric...  I wonder what his story is."

Mar 16, 2012 -- 8:04AM, Seroth wrote:

If the Paladin is the holy warrior, then the Cleric is redundant as a concept. 

But if the Paladin is the incarnation of Virtue then we're talking about diferent classes.
 
I like the approach of the Cavalier build to the Paladin class, it reminds me so much of the Virtues in the Ultima series (Honesty, Compassion, Valor, Justice, Sacrifice, Honor, Spirituality, and Humility.)

Interesting, I find the paladin to be redundant in respect to the cleric.  I would not mind the cleric absorbing the paladin class and the paladin becoming a kit/theme of the cleric.

I see a cavalier as a fighter kit/theme, as I would a knight, since their allegiance has historically been with a political/personal entity.  A paladin is similar, but that allegiance is with a religious entity, thus falls under the cleric umbrella.

I agree with all the comments about LESS classes but more options of what people can do with those classes. 
So option 3 for me.  They armor wearing, mace weilding cleric is the iconic D&D cleric BUT I like the idea that people could have the OPTION to make that cleric not wear armor but gain something spell like instead.
I think this should be the same for all the classes.  I don't think we need an Assassin class but rather a thief/rogue with  Assassin as a "kit" or specialty.

However it gets a bit wierd around the Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin and Bard classes.  While they sort of fit under the other classes they seem to need their own core class.

On the other hand, I LOVE the idea of the AD&D Bard class.  You had to have so many levels of fighter and thief and magic user and then you could become a Bard.  I'd love to see some sort of return to that.  Classes that can only be accessed after a long, hard journey.  Not that same as prestiege classes something harder to get.