Per yesterday's discussion on my blog, here's the Friar variant that I'm working on for my campaign. I realize it is a step down in overall power level from the Cleric, but that doesn't bother me a great deal, as I still see a niche for this. I'm very curious to see it playtested--let's hope someone chooses it!
 
Right now, I've just limited spells to 4th level. I'm not totally satisfied with that, as I want to give him some rough cantrips and lower-level spells, but don't want anything to high-powered in there. Suggestions welcome--oh, and this is for Castles & Crusades system (though you certainly don't need to be fluent in that system to comment--I'd love some outside views!):
 
Friar
A Castles & Crusades Variant Class (hopefully suitable for other Classic-Style RPGs as well)
 
While Clerics and Paladins tend more towards larger-than-life holy crusading, it is the Friar that humbly protects the common people of the land. This less-vaunted brother of the church is often found in rough homespun, spreading the word through assistance to the poor, sharing their burden, and, when necessary, stout defense against the wicked.
 
Friars are generally down-to-earth, practical, and less concerned with doctrine than emotional response. Some may even be illiterate, but still manage to spread the holy scriptures by word and by deed.
 
Abilities
 
Spiritual Discernment (Wis):: More instinctual than doctrinal, Friars have a proclivity for discerning the holy or unholy qualities of a person, place, or thing. Upon a successful check, a Friar can tell these qualities, which often come in the form of hunches as "off", "right", or "wrong".
 
Improvised Weaponry: A friar spends much time with the peasantry, and if defending a village or farm, he must use whatever is at his disposal. To that end, he may use any improvised weapon as its nearest analogue with any penalty (for example, a chair leg would do damage as a club, a boat oar can be used as a staff, and farm implements can be used as is, such as a scythe).
 
Magic: Only minor magics are the Friar's to command, and they mainly follow those of the Cleric. However, even minor magics can have a tremendous affect on the lives of everyday people. They progress as the Friar Spell Progression Chart, listed on this page. They do not have to memorize a spell to cast it, but may cast spontaneously from their strong belief and practical strength.
 
The Friar chooses spells from the Cleric list.
 
Prime Attribute: Wisdom
Typical Races: Human, Dwarf
Alignment: By Deity
Starting Gold: 1d4x10. Any unspent is lost.
Hit Die: d8
Weapons: Staff, club, sling, improvised
Armor: Any light or medium. Friars generally wear their rough robes, but are practical enough to know the value of leather or a chain shirt in dangerous times.
Abilities: Spiritual Discernment, Improvised Weaponry, Spells
 
(Ok, both of the below tables will look like poo. Sorry for the poor formatting).
 
Friar Level Progression
Level HD BtH EPP
1 D8 +1 0
2 D8 +1 1601
3 D8 +2 3350
4 D8 +2 7601
5 D8 +3 15001
6 D8 +3 30001
7 D8 +4 60001
8 D8 +4 120001
9 D8 +5 240001
10 D8 +5 450001
11 +3 +6 625001
12 +3 +6 800001
 
Friar Spell Progression (Spell Known/Daily)
Level 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1 2
2 3 1
3 3 2
4 3 2 1
5 3 3 2
6 3 3 2 1
7 3 4 3 2
8 3 4 3 2 1
9 3 4 4 3 2
10 4 4 4 4 2
11 4 4 4 4 3
12 4 4 4 4 4
 
Special thanks to Orlandia and Old Guard Gaming Accoutrements for inspiration:

 
http://oldguardgamingaccoutrements.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Friar
 
http://sites.google.com/site/ccorlandia/class-rewrites/friar

I put my finger on one of the main issues bothering me with Castles & Crusades while reading a thread on the big purple talking about the Fighter and how it got the short end of the stick in AD&D. This thread: Did Gary Hate Fighters?

The short answer to this is: Fighters in AD&D are supposed to get the short end of the stick, because it's easy to be one. It assumes you are rolling your stats, either 3d6 in order or 3d6 placed in the stats you want. Basically, the more the rolling method is harsh and selective, the more the Fighter's existence is validated. When asked why on earth a player would choose to play a fighter instead of a ranger, Gary once answered: "He won't." (can't remember where I read this, though) Classes in AD&D are balanced according to their prerequisites, which include stats, race, with corresponding level limitations, et cetera.

My problem with C&C is that the game basically kept the concept and relative "balance" of classes between each other intact but did away with some of the prerequisites, like minimum stat scores. There is no reason for a player to select a Fighter in C&C instead of a Ranger or Paladin beyond purely role-playing ones. (don't misunderstand me, though: I really like C&C for plenty of other reasons. Just to make that clear)

Now, when I read your Friar, I get the same sort of vibe than the fighter in C&C: why would a player choose to go with a Friar instead of a Cleric, beyond purely role-playing reasons? I can't really tell from what I see. My issue here carries over to AD&D, since to be a Cleric there, you only need a 9 Wisdom. So I would need the Friar to be different enough, with higher prerequisites, and abilities that make up for it, for me to consider adding it to the classes available in the game.

Unless of course we assume that the Friar is a purely NPC class, which is also fine.

Now, you indicate that you're not bothered by such considerations. That's perfectly fine by me! Just pitching in, here. I must say, I LOVE its flavor, so much in fact that I would consider playing one, for purely role-playing reasons.

Also, I was already thinking of coming up with some sort of Western monk class for my game, mainly because my campaign features an Abbey sitting on a huge megadungeon and monks are a very important part of the feel of the place. I need to come up with something that mechanically makes sense, and I appreciate your Friar in that sense: it provides me with clues of the direction I want to go with this.

So thank you for your post.

Quote from: Benoist;335580ow, when I read your Friar, I get the same sort of vibe than the fighter in C&C: why would a player choose to go with a Friar instead of a Cleric, beyond purely role-playing reasons?

Roleplaying work fine for balancing classes. For example a friar may very well outshine the cleric if the adventure is set in a rural community. The cleric would be respected as a big bad crusader type but not as the type of guy you sit down and have a brew with. In this case the friar would have a far easier time dealing with the locals.

Another aspect is that in a role-playing heavy campaign clerics (and paladins) are agents of their religion. In other words their agenda is not set by what the players want but what the religion wants. A friars are a mendicant order expected to wander ministering to those in need. The player gets to set his agenda.

Of course a DM can set up is campaign however they like with any type of assumption including wandering clerics.

My point is that there more to a RPG campaign than mechanical balance. In my own Majestic Wilderlands clerics have been the dominant magic using class because of the added mechanical benefits I gave them to reflect my cosmology. Yes players rarely play one because playing clerics means serving a religion.

I have other powerful classes that players can play, and price of roleplaying is the same for them.  I have other optional that have various trade offs between roleplaying and mechanical benefits.

The good news for my fantasy campaign is that when a players want to be X (like say a secret agent) I have a two or three distinct options for them to choose from.

Finally for those interested how this works is that before a campaign starts the player comes up with what he (or she) wants to play then I go over with them individually the various class, and background options If nothing quite clicks we talk about my campaign and find a niche I can write up to do what they want. Often times is winds up with a whole new and interesting set of options.

For example the my Montebank came about because of somebody wanted to play a magic-user in a campaign where everybody was a thief. As it turned out divination spells are a problem for high end jobs. So Montebanks (or "Foggers" in street slang) are specialized in spells that foil divination. Plus they have some illusion and other abilities that have to do with deception and disguise. They are called "Foggers" in street slang.

The class is weak compared to a magic-user or a thief. But a vital part of  the underworld of City-State.

Quote from: estar;335590My point is that there more to a RPG campaign than mechanical balance.

I utterly, completely agree. You are preaching to the choir, here, and I appreciate your post balancing my rather harsh, theoretical assessment of the Friar. It's also very important to me to understand the diversity of expectations for different players of the game.

All I can say is that my post was written from a purely mechanical standpoint indeed, and the mechanics alone are not the game.

Would you say, estar, that most old-schoolers out there would react to the friar in a similar fashion as you just did?

Quote from: Benoist;335600I utterly, completely agree. You are preaching to the choir, here, and I appreciate your post balancing my rather harsh, theoretical assessment of the Friar. It's also very important to me to understand the diversity of expectations for different players of the game.

All I can say is that my post was written from a purely mechanical standpoint indeed, and the mechanics alone are not the game.

Would you say, estar, that most old-schoolers out there would react to the friar in a similar fashion as you just did?

I know that I was warmly reminded of the elder days by the friar, a class made to suit a need and flavor, with the unspoken and implicit understanding that it was made to roleplay and add flavor, not to 'balance' with other classes.

Wasn't it D&D 2e where we learned that balancing things through roleplaying was a terrible idea?

As for the class itself - what, exactly, is stopping a cleric from behaving the way you picture the friar behaving?

"You want cure light wounds with that?"

Quote from: The Shaman;335606"You want cure light wounds with that?"

What is preventing a player from roleplaying a cleric in the same way that the friar is envisioned being RP'd?

Yes, the cleric has more abilities than the friar. So? A "good roleplayer" who was attempting to play a cleric as a friar wouldn't necessarily make use of them.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;335607What is preventing a player from roleplaying a cleric in the same way that the friar is envisioned being RP'd?

A low-wisdom cleric would make a good candidate for a friar, actually, at least in 1e AD&D: fewer spells overall (due to the absence of bonus spells), can't cast higher level magics. Choose padded armor and a cudgel or staff as your weapons, and voilà.

Quote from: The Shaman;335614A low-wisdom cleric would make a good candidate for a friar, actually, at least in 1e AD&D: fewer spells overall (due to the absence of bonus spells), can't cast higher level magics. Choose padded armor and a cudgel or staff as your weapons, and voilà.

I don't see why the spell access is such a big deal. Just because you can throw bigger spells around doesn't necessarily mean you have to.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;335618I don't see why the spell access is such a big deal. Just because you can throw bigger spells around doesn't necessarily mean you have to.

Well, you could also run a friar using a thief or a fighter or 0-level human; after all, most are lay brothers, not priests, so why have any magic at all?

Quote from: Benoist;335600Would you say, estar, that most old-schoolers out there would react to the friar in a similar fashion as you just did?

Back in the day yes a fair amount of groups would use the friar and run with it trusting that the roleplaying would make up for the mechanical deficit.

Today I don't know. The whole Old School scene is in a state of change with a lot of new blood coming in. A lot of new things being developed. I say old school fans today would be more receptive to using a Friar then say five years ago. Simply because the fan base grew larger and became more diverse.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;335607What is preventing a player from roleplaying a cleric in the same way that the friar is envisioned being RP'd?

Yes, the cleric has more abilities than the friar. So? A "good roleplayer" who was attempting to play a cleric as a friar wouldn't necessarily make use of them.

Because for many it not enough just "make it up" and pretend X or Y. Because if you dig into it the archtypes of a friar DO different things then the archetypes of the cleric. And some player feel the mechanics should reflect that. Even to the point where they wouldn't have fun if the mechanics didn't reflect the differences.

It is a bit of a black art to come up with the right mix of having the mechanics reflect the roleplaying for a particular group.

My best advice is listen to your players. If they want a friar to work differently then make it work differently. But that not absolute as you, the GM, should be also happy with how the mechanics reflect the campaign.

Quote from: The Shaman;335621Well, you could also run a friar using a thief or a fighter or 0-level human; after all, most are lay brothers, not priests, so why have any magic at all?

My understanding of the "old school" mentality is such that this is a totally reasonable suggestion.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;335618I don't see why the spell access is such a big deal. Just because you can throw bigger spells around doesn't necessarily mean you have to.

Because that Zach's vision of Friars. If you want to know more then ask him why friars have spells. Possibilities could be "Because I think it cool", "well it's because of how I look at D&D settings." or something else.