So I tried to dig up some old threads on cleric love at the TBP that I dimly remembered, and instead the Google results kept getting drowned out by some big clusterfuck 600+ post "I Hate Clerics" thread.

Now I see somethread from Cal in which he yanks them out of OD&D.

And damnit, I'll not have it!

I enjoy playing clerics, they're my absolute favorite class.  I like the holy warrior angle, I like that they're a caster class that isn't completely pussified, and I like that they can actually survive decently in melee without relying on other party members to keep the heat off them.

I read a lot of the bitching about them, in I think the real issue is that people get the problems with the system backwards.

Like the Clerics vs. Paladins issue.  Lots of folks get hung up on the names, and start talking about banning Clerics to give Paladins their due, when the better solution is just dumping the worthless class that is the Paladin because the Cleric does the holy warrior job already, and it's basically redundant.  I have similar thoughts about Rangers.  It seems that fighter-hybrid classes in 3.0 were expressly designed to somehow suck worse than both the classes they supposedly combine, and even worse than what you'd get if you just multiclassed Fighter and either Cleric or Druid.

Or they go on about how they're too tough, and can "melee like a fighter" (not really true, the melee more like a sub-par rogue who never gets sneak attacks 'cause his group doesn't understand flanking).  I don't think that's a problem with the Cleric, I tihnk it's a problem with the Arcane casters being so lame that Clerics look overpowered by comparison because they weren't designed under the same operating principle that casters must be gimped in every way and spend level after level being frightened by small rodents until they get the real power.  This has been a problem since well back in AD&D, I hated it then, and I still hate it now, though it has gotten a lot better in 3.0.  Hennet the sorceror is an unbelievable character not because his clothes are made out of belts, but because no real sorceror is ever that buff.  

I mean, where the hell is Gandalf?  Dude could whip the piss out of some orcs in his day, buy you have to multiclass to make him in 3.0.  The quintessential wizard and you can't even make him stock in D&D, the king of all fantasy games.

Anyway . . .

I like clerics.  They're lots of fun for me, because I get to be a caster, without feeling utterly left out of everything else.

Eh, they can't use swords.

Well, prior to 3e anyway.

That was my whole beef with them right there.  I was playing one in our RC game and it kept coming up, someone asked why I couldn't shed blood as I hit orcs with my flanged mace.

I told them that god only permitted his holy warriors to cause internal bleeding.

Allow swords and I'm cool with them.

Interestingly most of your points are about the mechanics. Which is inevitable, as the cleric is a relic of the D&D system, not a representation of a general archetype. Which is one of his faults. The current implementation is also not flexible enough, overpowered and not even a good legacy of the original clerics.

So, to summarize: Yeah, I kinda fuckin' hate fuckin' clerics. Almost as bad as I dislike the word "hater".

Quote from: BalbinusEh, they can't use swords.

Well, prior to 3e anyway.

That was my whole beef with them right there.  I was playing one in our RC game and it kept coming up, someone asked why I couldn't shed blood as I hit orcs with my flanged mace.

I told them that god only permitted his holy warriors to cause internal bleeding.

Allow swords and I'm cool with them.

One of the first things I always do with clerics is give them a martial weapon proficiency.  Or take a deity with a decent favored weapon.  It's an easy problem to get around in 3.X, and an easy one to houserule in older D&D versions.

I never understood the maces only thing either, and it's just cooler to have a sword.

I'm more down with clerics when the gods are awesome.  Thor?  Shub-Niggurath?  Sign me up!  Bog standard vanilla fantasy gods?  No thank you.

Quote from: J ArcaneOne of the first things I always do with clerics is give them a martial weapon proficiency.  Or take a deity with a decent favored weapon.  It's an easy problem to get around in 3.X, and an easy one to houserule in older D&D versions.

I never understood the maces only thing either, and it's just cooler to have a sword.

Excellent.  If I move to the US, you're GMing.

Quote from: jrientsI'm more down with clerics when the gods are awesome.  Thor?  Shub-Niggurath?  Sign me up!  Bog standard vanilla fantasy gods?  No thank you.

I've been playing Titan Quest recently, and it's got me wanting to play/run an ancient Greek mthology based D&D game.

Quote from: BalbinusExcellent.  If I move to the US, you're GMing.

If you move to the US, the moon will turn blood red.

-clash

I personally LIKE maces. And Hammers. Of course, D&D gave hammers absolutely bullshit damage capability as I recall.  

Hey, I even like the holy warrior thingy too.


Of course, my current cleric is modeled on King Leonidas and crew from 300, so what do I know?

Being allowed to use swords doesn't prevent you from using maces.

Personally, the gaming is the key thing that attracts me to living in the US, but I doubt I ever shall.  I fear that it might not live up to the promises made to me by CSI and Bones.

I think Wee Jas is a pretty cool Godess to worship and evangelize over.

Clerics rock.
They are idiosyncratic to D&D.

Quote from: BalbinusEh, they can't use swords.

Well, prior to 3e anyway.

That was my whole beef with them right there.  I was playing one in our RC game and it kept coming up, someone asked why I couldn't shed blood as I hit orcs with my flanged mace.

I told them that god only permitted his holy warriors to cause internal bleeding.

Allow swords and I'm cool with them.

You may or may not be aware of the old RC houserule that allows character classes do damage according to their hit die. A cleric could wield a sword, but would only do 1d6 damage with it, for instance. The rule can be expanded to include -1 damage for small weapons and +1 for two handed.

I know it's not much use to you now, but I always thought it was a neat soloution.

I always had a soft spot for pre-3e druids.

Still do really.

Quote from: DrewYou may or may not be aware of the old RC houserule that allows character classes do damage according to their hit die. A cleric could wield a sword, but would only do 1d6 damage with it, for instance. The rule can be expanded to include -1 damage for small weapons and +1 for two handed.

I know it's not much use to you now, but I always thought it was a neat soloution.

Ooh, I'll suggest that to Dan if he runs more RC, which hopefully he will.

Quote from: BalbinusBeing allowed to use swords doesn't prevent you from using maces.

Personally, the gaming is the key thing that attracts me to living in the US, but I doubt I ever shall.  I fear that it might not live up to the promises made to me by CSI and Bones.

Oddly, with Tony Blair out, I'm tentatively curious about how things start turning over there, as I've long considered a move to Britain, but the state of the government has been moving in even scarier directions than the one over here.

Especially this newfound love affair with pervasive CCTV monitoring.