I'm a pretty strong believer that the rules of any D&D campaign should be tied to the setting. Any rules-set that Wizards comes up with for the 5th edition (or a retro-clone, or any other rules set) implies some kind of default setting with its take on magic and the magical classes. The very way that classes are designed has setting implications.
But the implementation of magical archetypes is a bit more likely to change than physical ones. Al-Qadim redoes wizardry as elemental and genie based magic, just like Dark Sun uses elemental clerics and templars priests alongside defiler and preserver wizards. Since deities are almost certainly likely to change, each setting yearns for a way to customize the priestly class(es), at least in some small way. Priests of a Specific Mythoi were the way second edition handled this. (I'll get into wizarding ways another time.)
By altering weapon/armor restrictions and spells granted (via the Spheres of Influence spell lists) it was really easy to customize priesthoods. The sphere system was somewhat balanced too, as one could just swap a few spheres here and there. Granted powers, of course, were easily abusable but most DMs have enough sense not to let something too overpowering into the game. So second edition had an endless array of distinct priests for distinct religions. And it was pretty awesome. Specialty priests might be one of those extravagant excesses that second edition is fameous for though, so I can see the point of view that wants a smaller number of well-defined classes.
This level of customization was lost after second edition, never to be seen since (or before the system first arrived with the first edition Dragonlance Adventures book). The downside is that people are likely to spend hours designing every potential religion in their home campaign rather than just the ones that need to be portrayed. It also makes constructing a spell-list potentially unweildly. Since priests (both PC and NPC) were free to choose from any spell their deity granted, that might require consulting lists of a dozen different spheres.
Instead of an infinitely customizeable priest class, can you create a cleric class that is broad enough to encompass knights-templar and cloth-casters? Apparently the designers think so. Or at least they got poll results that suggest people might want one really broad cleric or two distinct classes. Assuming we're going to end up with a core set of classes similar to that found in First, second, and third edition (or even 4th where everything is core), I'd prefer more than two in a generic rules-set. I'd love to see a completely customizeable priest class as well, but I think four priestly classes can cover most priest archetypes from the start. Having four basic priestly classes in the game also goes a bit beyond stereotypical western fantasy as well.
Even in the earlier days of AD&D, Gary Gygax was thinking about a less combat-oriented cleric alongside the druid. There are early NPC classes in Dragon Magazine like the Cloistered Cleric and Oracle. The Cloistered Cleric was a great class variant in third edition. And those are some of the few that might be worthy of actually being a class in the game. Third edition tried merging the Cleric and Priest with its domain system, but I think that fell pretty far short of the mark. I wanted domains that were a little more extensive, granting favored weapons, more armor proficiencies to the warlike deities, and more spell options to represent crazy theurgy added onto a more vanilla general priest list of blessings.
So we're down to four priestly classes: Cleric, Druid, Mystic, and Shaman. This covers a lot of ground in terms of in-game religions. No need for new classes in a new Oriental Advantures book, because we have a Cleric (Sohei), Mystic (Shugenja) and Shaman (Onmyouji). One could even unfold the Crusader as a warpriest archetype again, but I'm not sure that wouldn't just step on the Paladin's toes (though I'd prefer Paladins to be less divine and more knightly, so it could be doable). So add these two additional classes to the 11 presented in third edition alongside the a likely assassin, warlord and warlock, and we've got a core of around 16 classes that each cover distinct archetypes. It'd make for a nice retro-clone or reimagining at the very least.
The only issue is the a mystic class might step on the toes of what I'd like to see the psion become. Ideas of unifying mind, body, and spirit; ki; yogis, swamis, and gurus; and certain other eastern traditions all would fit well as a fantasy-archetype psion and help free psionics from the spectre of sci-fi (or sy-fy even). The Ardent (3.5 version, not 4e) also might swim in similar seas. I like the idea of the ardent as a psionic class who draws psionic power from philosophical belief, and maybe leaving priestly classes to deal with divinities. I think the archetypes are there, its just in the implementation.
Four religiony classes for the game is not quite as expansive as having specific priest classes for each deity or a really broad and flexible priest class, but a modular domain or sphere system could help customize things a bit more before that build-your-own priest system shows up (alongside the generic warrior, expert, and magic user classes). At any rate, I think these four base classes represnet a nice generic-rules compromise. Any individual setting would be free to disallow/modify these classes. I can imagine these classes working well in an Al-Qadim game set in the ruined kingdoms, with the divine (cleric & mystic) classes representing the enlightened religions while the primal (druid & shaman) classes represent the savage old religion.
While D&D will probably still need someone to be a cleric, they could fill that role without being a Cleric per se. I'm sure that role could be fillable with paladins, warlords, bards, and druids, but the shaman and mystic represent broad archetypes and would make solid additions to the core.
But the implementation of magical archetypes is a bit more likely to change than physical ones. Al-Qadim redoes wizardry as elemental and genie based magic, just like Dark Sun uses elemental clerics and templars priests alongside defiler and preserver wizards. Since deities are almost certainly likely to change, each setting yearns for a way to customize the priestly class(es), at least in some small way. Priests of a Specific Mythoi were the way second edition handled this. (I'll get into wizarding ways another time.)
By altering weapon/armor restrictions and spells granted (via the Spheres of Influence spell lists) it was really easy to customize priesthoods. The sphere system was somewhat balanced too, as one could just swap a few spheres here and there. Granted powers, of course, were easily abusable but most DMs have enough sense not to let something too overpowering into the game. So second edition had an endless array of distinct priests for distinct religions. And it was pretty awesome. Specialty priests might be one of those extravagant excesses that second edition is fameous for though, so I can see the point of view that wants a smaller number of well-defined classes.This level of customization was lost after second edition, never to be seen since (or before the system first arrived with the first edition Dragonlance Adventures book). The downside is that people are likely to spend hours designing every potential religion in their home campaign rather than just the ones that need to be portrayed. It also makes constructing a spell-list potentially unweildly. Since priests (both PC and NPC) were free to choose from any spell their deity granted, that might require consulting lists of a dozen different spheres.
Instead of an infinitely customizeable priest class, can you create a cleric class that is broad enough to encompass knights-templar and cloth-casters? Apparently the designers think so. Or at least they got poll results that suggest people might want one really broad cleric or two distinct classes. Assuming we're going to end up with a core set of classes similar to that found in First, second, and third edition (or even 4th where everything is core), I'd prefer more than two in a generic rules-set. I'd love to see a completely customizeable priest class as well, but I think four priestly classes can cover most priest archetypes from the start. Having four basic priestly classes in the game also goes a bit beyond stereotypical western fantasy as well.
Even in the earlier days of AD&D, Gary Gygax was thinking about a less combat-oriented cleric alongside the druid. There are early NPC classes in Dragon Magazine like the Cloistered Cleric and Oracle. The Cloistered Cleric was a great class variant in third edition. And those are some of the few that might be worthy of actually being a class in the game. Third edition tried merging the Cleric and Priest with its domain system, but I think that fell pretty far short of the mark. I wanted domains that were a little more extensive, granting favored weapons, more armor proficiencies to the warlike deities, and more spell options to represent crazy theurgy added onto a more vanilla general priest list of blessings.
If we had a small number of cleric-like classes, we could at least represent a few different types of priests in a generic way. Militant priests, nature priests, prophets, scholars, or mystics. Heck, the AD&D Complete Priest's Handbook lists quite a few kits (Amazon Priestess, Barbarian/Berserker Priest, Fighting-Monk, Nobleman Priest,Outlaw Priest, Pacifist Priest, Peasant Priest, Prophet Priest, Savage Priest, and Scholar Priest), though it was one of the less inspiring Handbooks. I think a slightly better place to look, though, is in the Spells & Magic or Faith & Avatars books. They give us a nice list: Cleric, Crusader, Druid, Monk, Mystic (Faith & Avatars only), and Shaman.
We could condense that a little bit. The Crusader was even more of a warpriest than the Cleric is now. So maybe the Cleric can fill that role, while the Monk and Mystic merge into a new casting-oriented priestly class. The monk suffered legacy problems from earlier editions (unarmed combad) while the mystic suffered from strange new-agey potion-brewing and candle-magic powers, so they can be slightly fixed up and merged. This comes close to filling the 4e Invoker's shoes as a misunderstood prophet, as well as the 3.5 Favored Soul and Al-Qadim's Hakima kit. Druids are a staple of the game, so they're in. Finally the last two versions of the Shaman in AD&D (alongside the 4e Shaman and 3.5 Spirit Shaman) provide a spirit-oriented priest class which is still unique and different from the Druid and other priest-type classes. The spirit-centered shaman fills a much different religious role than the earlier (and slightly offensive) shaman and witch-doctor "primitive" caster options which were really just clerics and wizards. A shaman who makes deals with various spirits might even share some mechanics with the warlock/witch class.
So we're down to four priestly classes: Cleric, Druid, Mystic, and Shaman. This covers a lot of ground in terms of in-game religions. No need for new classes in a new Oriental Advantures book, because we have a Cleric (Sohei), Mystic (Shugenja) and Shaman (Onmyouji). One could even unfold the Crusader as a warpriest archetype again, but I'm not sure that wouldn't just step on the Paladin's toes (though I'd prefer Paladins to be less divine and more knightly, so it could be doable). So add these two additional classes to the 11 presented in third edition alongside the a likely assassin, warlord and warlock, and we've got a core of around 16 classes that each cover distinct archetypes. It'd make for a nice retro-clone or reimagining at the very least.
I think the runecaster (Vikings or Giantcraft sourcebooks) and the totem-sister (Elves of Evermeet)--or 4e's poorly designed and supported runepriest--could also make a nice addition, but I'd be content leaving that out of a core and generic rulebook if it means it would be well designed later.
The only issue is the a mystic class might step on the toes of what I'd like to see the psion become. Ideas of unifying mind, body, and spirit; ki; yogis, swamis, and gurus; and certain other eastern traditions all would fit well as a fantasy-archetype psion and help free psionics from the spectre of sci-fi (or sy-fy even). The Ardent (3.5 version, not 4e) also might swim in similar seas. I like the idea of the ardent as a psionic class who draws psionic power from philosophical belief, and maybe leaving priestly classes to deal with divinities. I think the archetypes are there, its just in the implementation.
Four religiony classes for the game is not quite as expansive as having specific priest classes for each deity or a really broad and flexible priest class, but a modular domain or sphere system could help customize things a bit more before that build-your-own priest system shows up (alongside the generic warrior, expert, and magic user classes). At any rate, I think these four base classes represnet a nice generic-rules compromise. Any individual setting would be free to disallow/modify these classes. I can imagine these classes working well in an Al-Qadim game set in the ruined kingdoms, with the divine (cleric & mystic) classes representing the enlightened religions while the primal (druid & shaman) classes represent the savage old religion.
While D&D will probably still need someone to be a cleric, they could fill that role without being a Cleric per se. I'm sure that role could be fillable with paladins, warlords, bards, and druids, but the shaman and mystic represent broad archetypes and would make solid additions to the core.
No comments:
Post a Comment