Reading this thread makes me think that the classic Cleric really ought to be seen in light of the historical fact that it's partly derived from the need to counter undead. Think of Mr. Cleric not as a boring medic+windbag priest, but as a studly ghost hunter...in fact a member of an order devoted to combating undead, first and foremost.

(In a similar vein I think it's helpful to regard Rangers primarily as commandos in the fight against evil humanoids. Paladins are unlike Clerics in that they specialize more in protecting the weak, and they aren't part of an institution. They're a lot more "wild"; their Lawfulness reflects honesty and devotion to a personal code rather than supporting the laws of men.)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;372788Reading this thread makes me think that the classic Cleric really ought to be seen in light of the historical fact that it's partly derived from the need to counter undead. Think of Mr. Cleric not as a boring medic+windbag priest, but as a studly ghost hunter...in fact a member of an order devoted to combating undead, first and foremost.

(In a similar vein I think it's helpful to regard Rangers primarily as commandos in the fight against evil humanoids. Paladins are unlike Clerics in that they specialize more in protecting the weak, and they aren't part of an institution. They're a lot more "wild"; their Lawfulness reflects honesty and devotion to a personal code rather than supporting the laws of men.)

It's a little confusing to me.  If someone complained that a 4e Rogue was boring as hell after mentioning that their group stripped out the movement effects from all powers, they would be soundly ridiculed.  But when someone gripes about how boring Fighters (for example) used to be, and it is pointed out that they aren't using the Weapons vs AC chart, people get their nose out of joint and argue that no one used that anyway.

Quote from: Imp;372783Ok this is where you guys went off the rails. The standard reason to fix the cleric in 1e isn't because they're useless, it's because they suck, they're one-note, and they're boring. They're the worst PC class in the game. "Why do I have to be the cleric?" remember? 2nd and 3rd edition did a pretty good job of making them suck less, that way.

Exactly my point.

The aim of an RPG to me is to play a character in the game setting not to play a system or kill stuff.
So if you have a system where all clerics must be sturdy ghost hunters willing to heal the party and fight undead and if all rangers have to be commandos in the fight against evil humanoids etrc then you are restricting me too much both as a player and a GM. You may as well create 7 or 8 character templates and each PC picks one of them and throw everything else away.
If I want the forces of to have an elite cadre of scouts and outriders trained in tracking, who secretly investigate magic and at their higher levels undergo an initiation into the magical arts, then I can do that and look rangers.... If I want my priests to wander round in brown robes wearing no armour and quoting the scripture of that preaches that elves are an ambomination in his eyes and should be driven from the land at all costs then .... up to me really....

Quote from: Imp;372783Ok this is where you guys went off the rails. The standard reason to fix the cleric in 1e isn't because they're useless, it's because they suck, they're one-note, and they're boring. They're the worst PC class in the game. "Why do I have to be the cleric?" remember? 2nd and 3rd edition did a pretty good job of making them suck less, that way.

Cleric was one of the most popular character classes in my 0e, 1e, and B/X/BECMI games. They were almost as good in combat as a fighter, got some spells, and were powerful against undead. Their main weaknesses were that their saving throws were not as good as a fighter (so at high levels they could not laugh at high level wizard opponents as they waded through their spells almost automatically saving to gut them) and their weren't many nifty cleric-oriented magic items listed in the rules.  I guess people who thought of them as boring healing machines thought of them as mages with a poor spell list instead of as fighters with some spells.

Quote from: StormBringer;372786Actually, I think this is the exact difference in play style or interpretation that 4e addresses.  

It's not the abilities that make a character distinct, it's how you play that character.  All character classes were pretty much the same in AD&D.  Spell selection differentiated casters, Fighters could take different weapons, but one Thief was pretty much the same as the next as far as abilities went.  Even with some differentiation, a 3rd level Magic User chose from the exact same list as any other 3rd level Magic User.  Somewhere along the line, it became important to mechanically differentiate characters also.  I think that is where the law of unintended consequences started creeping in.

For the record, I don't recall anyone really complaining about playing the Cleric.  Or any class, in fact.

I know I didn't. I used to enjoy playing the cleric. Some great RP potential in clerics just by virtue of being able to preach and get away with it

Quote from: RandallS;372805Cleric was one of the most popular character classes in my 0e, 1e, and B/X/BECMI games. They were almost as good in combat as a fighter, got some spells, and were powerful against undead. Their main weaknesses were that their saving throws were not as good as a fighter (so at high levels they could not laugh at high level wizard opponents as they waded through their spells almost automatically saving to gut them) and their weren't many nifty cleric-oriented magic items listed in the rules.  I guess people who thought of them as boring healing machines thought of them as mages with a poor spell list instead of as fighters with some spells.

You are missing the point. the problem with clerics was not that they were underpowered (in fact there is a strong case for the converse) the weakness with clerics is that the trad cleric has a very narrow range of Roleplay options.
Try to play a cleric in a 1e game who doesn't heal and see the reaction you get from the other PCs. Better still try to play a neutral cleric who doesn't heal and who has no power over undead. Now you are going to say to me but those are two of the clerics key powers why would you nerf yourself by choosing a class and then not using 2 of their key skills. It would be like playing a fighter that wore no armour and pranced about with a rapier, or a wizard that didn't have fireball, or a thief that was claustraphopic and had a fear of heights. At that point I would sigh shake my head and say 'exactly' quietly under my breath.

Quote from: jibbajibba;372819You are missing the point. the problem with clerics was not that they were underpowered (in fact there is a strong case for the converse) the weakness with clerics is that the trad cleric has a very narrow range of Roleplay options.
Try to play a cleric in a 1e game who doesn't heal and see the reaction you get from the other PCs. Better still try to play a neutral cleric who doesn't heal and who has no power over undead. Now you are going to say to me but those are two of the clerics key powers why would you nerf yourself by choosing a class and then not using 2 of their key skills. It would be like playing a fighter that wore no armour and pranced about with a rapier, or a wizard that didn't have fireball, or a thief that was claustraphopic and had a fear of heights. At that point I would sigh shake my head and say 'exactly' quietly under my breath.

If ya didn't want to heal and turn undead, don't play a cleric, play another class. The problem you're describing isn't unique to one edition, it's true of D&D in general. It's a class-based game, so there ya go. Even in 3e or I dare say 4e, playing a cleric that doesn't want to heal is going to get grumbling and moaning from the group. It's the game's design, and one that's hard to bypass effectively without just playing a different game. It it's something that really bothers ya a different game would be your best bet. I know True20 is a d20 based game that lets ya customize characters to your heart's content, so playing a priest in that might be more your style, and then of course there's the whole spectrum of other fantasy games to choose from as well.

This is an actual example of how worked the 2E spheres thing into a campaign.
The game was priest centric.

The dominant population had one god, The Flame.  There were three priestly options within the one true religion, other religions existed but were persecuted and their practionieers clensed by the holy fire.

So option 1. The Crusaders. These guys represented the destructive power of fire. They were the militant arm of the church they fulfiled the role of the Church's political arm they were most like The SS.
Alignment - any Lawful
D8 HP Cleric thaco
Armour - any
Weapons any
Spell progression was 2/3 of a standard cleric (a whole progresion list was written out for ease) max spell level 5th
Spheres - All, Combat (spells had a firey twist), Elemental Fire, Protection, Sun, War

Option 2 - the Clergy - these guys represented the homley, comforting power of flame, the home and hearth. They were the most common and the ones you would find in most churches
Alignment - any lawful
D6 HD Thief Thaco
Armour - Chain
Weapons - blunt (standard cleric restriction), and daggers
Spell progression - standard cleric
Spheres - All, Astral, Creation, Elemental Fire, Healing, Sun, Wards

Option 3 - The Inquisition - these guys represented the purifying clarity of fire, its relentless pursuit of true and its power ro reveal the hidden. They were the Gestapo of the setting
Alignment - any Lawful - mostly lawful neutral
d6 HD Thief thaco
Armour - leather
Weapons - light subset of the clerical list, most common was a staff or dagger.
Spell progression - additional spell at each level (1-4th)
Spheres - All, Astral, Divination (firey twist on somantics), Elemental Fire, Law, Sun, War, Wards


We added a few new spells to bulk up some of the weaker spheres.
All the different arms of the priesthood had power against undead.
it meant that there was alread a much wider range of clerical options you want the fighter with a few spells option sure, you want a healer sure, you want a 'commander' type np and added way more roleplay depth evil priests and good priests tied together by their faith but each seeign thei role in a different way.

see 2e Priests .... great.

Quote from: jibbajibba;372822snipped for space

I agree with ya, but IME, groups I played with would still have grumbled some, complaining that they would then have to have 2 clerics because we had to have a healer, and that's the cleric's job. My favorite cleric was a dwarf priest of Clangeddin that was able to use a battleax, and he mixed it up toe-to-toe all the time. In fact he kicked our group's barbarian's ass in melee when the barbie was being controlled. He still had to heal.

Quote from: jibbajibba;372819You are missing the point. the problem with clerics was not that they were underpowered (in fact there is a strong case for the converse) the weakness with clerics is that the trad cleric has a very narrow range of Roleplay options.

I've never had that problem. Early edition characters were wide open for roleplaying just about any way the player wanted. They didn't need to worry about picking mechanical options to match their character's personality and goals. They just picked a class (set of background abilities) and played the character as they wanted.

QuoteTry to play a cleric in a 1e game who doesn't heal and see the reaction you get from the other PCs. Better still try to play a neutral cleric who doesn't heal and who has no power over undead.

I've had characters like those in my games. The other players did not mind. Of course, my game sessions are seldom based mainly around tactical combat. Even dungeon exploration isn't usually a tactical combat fest, but an exploration fest. We use reaction rolls as well which means that there are often options other than fight even when monsters are encountered.

Player in my campaigns are generally more likely to get upset with a character with an annoying personality than one who did not conform to the RAW class behavior expectations.

QuoteNow you are going to say to me but those are two of the clerics key powers why would you nerf yourself by choosing a class and then not using 2 of their key skills. It would be like playing a fighter that wore no armour and pranced about with a rapier, or a wizard that didn't have fireball, or a thief that was claustraphopic and had a fear of heights.

I've had most of those over the years. In old school play, your character isn't limited to the abilities written on the character sheet. I've had pacifist fighters, thieves who never used most of their thief abilities because the character was a wannabe criminal mastermind who was trying to make connections with aristocrats to feed info to the ban of thieves he had hired, mages who would only cast spells after all mundane methods had been tried because she believed every spell cast shortened the life of her deity, clerics who would only heal if a donation was made to their god because that's what the deity required, etc. These characters were still useful to the party in other areas.

Quote from: Sigmund;372823I agree with ya, but IME, groups I played with would still have grumbled some, complaining that they would then have to have 2 clerics because we had to have a healer, and that's the cleric's job. My favorite cleric was a dwarf priest of Clangeddin that was able to use a battleax, and he mixed it up toe-to-toe all the time. In fact he kicked our group's barbarian's ass in melee when the barbie was being controlled. He still had to heal.

That whole the party have jobs thing was what was pissing me off though
Well the whole party were priests in any case but I changed hitpoints anyway.
So that you recover 10% +con bonus per hour. But you can only take 25% of your total hp in any one blow (and none if you are asleep/shot at point blank range in the back with a crossbow etc etc) the rest go through to wounds. You have 4 +con bonus wounds and they heal 1 point per weak and come with descriptions and penalties.
This meant in most combats (after about 4th level) people didn't get wounded only knackered and rest was sufficient or they were dead and it didn't matter #;)

This HP system has been my standard since about '89.

Quote from: jibbajibba;372826That whole the party have jobs thing was what was pissing me off though
Well the whole party were priests in any case but I changed hitpoints anyway.
So that you recover 10% +con bonus per hour. But you can only take 25% of your total hp in any one blow (and none if you are asleep/shot at point blank range in the back with a crossbow etc etc) the rest go through to wounds. You have 4 +con bonus wounds and they heal 1 point per weak and come with descriptions and penalties.
This meant in most combats (after about 4th level) people didn't get wounded only knackered and rest was sufficient or they were dead and it didn't matter #;)

This HP system has been my standard since about '89.

Well of course that changes things a bit I honestly didn't mind being the healer. We always looked at like it was the gods who had power over the force of life so no matter their sphere, godly power was used to preserve and restore life (and maybe remove or control life too). Just a flimsy excuse, but it worked for us We didn't think about it too hard, just made the characters and rolled the dice mostly

Quote from: StormBringer;372790It's a little confusing to me.  If someone complained that a 4e Rogue was boring as hell after mentioning that their group stripped out the movement effects from all powers, they would be soundly ridiculed.  But when someone gripes about how boring Fighters (for example) used to be, and it is pointed out that they aren't using the Weapons vs AC chart, people get their nose out of joint and argue that no one used that anyway.

Not sure this is the greatest example. I've no argument with Weapon vs. AC, but it's not core to the game, it was introduced in Greyhawk. Also, it only applies to actual armor, so it's hard to apply except when fighting people.

A better example as suggested by some recent posts on this site would be someone griping about how boring Fighters used to be, and then it's pointed out that they skimped on magic items in their campaign. Because magic items gave everyone variety, and some of the most interesting ones could only be used by Fighters.

Still, I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my suggestion re: Clerics. Personally I've always found them problematic, and I'd never use a D&D-type Cleric in any game outside of D&D, while most of the other classes can easily be mapped to common character concepts in other fantasy games. Still, I had players back in the day who always played Clerics.

For me, though, the problem is probably amplified by the fact that I've tended to dislike using undead. (I won't go into the reasons.) But if you turn that around and include undead in the game with some regularity, then Clerics start to kick ass.

Quote from: RandallS;372824I've never had that problem. Early edition characters were wide open for roleplaying just about any way the player wanted. They didn't need to worry about picking mechanical options to match their character's personality and goals. They just picked a class (set of background abilities) and played the character as they wanted.

Likewise, once I started emphasizing character backgrounds this issue never cropped up. Players were more concerned about making their way in-game rather then the mechanics of the game. If there was a tactical weakness in the party more often than not they recruit a hireling or henchmen to plug the gap.

Quote from: RandallS;372824Player in my campaigns are generally more likely to get upset with a character with an annoying personality than one who did not conform to the RAW class behavior expectations.

Yup my experience as well. Once a fireball happy elf was turned into a donkey to and require to stand outside of the gates of the Elven King to provide rides to visitors for a century. He torched one village too many.

What made the situation even more memorable that not one of member of the party defended him even his OOG best friend. The player of the elf looked at him and said "Dude aren't you going to say something?". His friend shrugged, "What can I say?  "You torched whole fucking place because you didn't want to pay a 1 sp toll."

Quote from: RandallS;372824I've had most of those over the years. In old school play, your character isn't limited to the abilities written on the character sheet.

You got that right. Although most of my Majestic Wilderlands was run using GURPS I ran it for nearly 8 years using AD&D with the same range of options. Only with GURPS the players got a mechanical benefit for the stuff they were roleplaying anyway.  Now that I returned to using Swords & Wizardry my current campaign runs pretty the way it did under GURPS. (except combat runs a whole lot faster).

Quote from: Imp;372783Ok this is where you guys went off the rails. The standard reason to fix the cleric in 1e isn't because they're useless, it's because they suck, they're one-note, and they're boring. They're the worst PC class in the game. "Why do I have to be the cleric?" remember? 2nd and 3rd edition did a pretty good job of making them suck less, that way.

I actually completely and utterly disagree with this. It's boring and one-dimensional only if you, the player, let it be. There are zillions of ways in which to play a character differently, not only in actual role playing, mind you, but also mechanically, in 1E. Weapons and Spells selections, actual tactics as they're being played in the game, do matter. It's an instance where you have an emphasis on Player Skill as opposed to Character Skill. You, player, are ultimately using your character in ways that are unique. That's what matters in this game.

As for being the worst PC Class in the game, I certainly disagree. You are aware that you're supposed to generate your ability scores randomly in 1E, correct? You also do realize that a Paladin in 1E, for comparison, needs Str 12, Con 9, Int 9, Wis 13 and Cha 17, compared to a Cleric that needs only Wis 9 to be selected? That amongst the "lay adventurer classes" (those requiring a single ability score at 9: Cleric, Fighter, Thief and Magic User), the Cleric is the only character class able to reasonably sustain injuries and cast spells on the battlefield? That's what I mean by a different logic sustaining the rules.

The Cleric is actually one, if not my favorite, character class in 1E.

For the rest, Stormy got it right:

Quote from: StormBringer;372786Actually, I think this is the exact difference in play style or interpretation that 4e addresses.

It's not the abilities that make a character distinct, it's how you play that character. All character classes were pretty much the same in AD&D. Spell selection differentiated casters, Fighters could take different weapons, but one Thief was pretty much the same as the next as far as abilities went. Even with some differentiation, a 3rd level Magic User chose from the exact same list as any other 3rd level Magic User. Somewhere along the line, it became important to mechanically differentiate characters also. I think that is where the law of unintended consequences started creeping in.

And that's basically why I'm trying to explain where these concepts fit in the history of the game, to put some perspective on the changes in view points, and logic, when approaching the game system. The claim that a Cleric in 1E is one-dimensional and boring depends on your own outlook on the game, the way you look at it and choose to use it. The design intent and logic sustaining First Edition rules does not match your viewpoint here, that's all I'm saying. Implying that somehow your viewpoint is positively, objectively obvious, is just not true, but in the end, you can choose to either not care and stay at your position, which is totally fine by me, or choose to look at it differently. It's your choice.