On Clerical Casting (semi-rant-ish)

[Belteshazzar]

I tire of seeing people restrict clerics into the undead focused Wizard/Fighter/Medipack they have. Don't get me wrong I already love clerics, being religious myself I find it easy to identify with a person who has a strong motive and direct imperative to change the world for better or worse. However I desire more domain focused variety and so have a few proposals.

1. Bump down clerical hit dice to d6. This seems to represent the average persons ability to resist physical punishment and I don't see why clerics have more hit points on average unless their deity is specifically a god of not dying and is such a case clerics don't need the extra 2 points as they have a reliable healing source.

2. Lose most of the armor proficiencies for the same reason as above. I like being able to still cast in full plate but don't understand why every deity and higher power sudenly gives intimate knowledge of proper armor usage. I though it was called a "man of the cloth" not "man of the cumbersome admantium fullplate."

(I know that the two previous changes have been given as the alternate cloistered cleric please but bear with me.)

3 . Let recognize our roots, by which I mean WHY ARE DRUIDS A SEPARATE FRIGGIN CLASS MAN? is nature just that special or could the hippies not see the Plant,Storm ,Animal, and Nature, domains. Don't even get me started on the elemental domains either because obviously someone at Wizards needs to be forced to watch some Captain Planet because all they lack is the "heart" domain.

3. Domain based turning ONLY. I don't have a clue why every single cleric can make a zombie run for the hills. Only death, undeath, spirit and repose domains should grant that power. They partially did this with the elemental, ooze, and plant domains but why are we unable to turn or rebuke aberrations, animals, constructs, or japanese (I hope someone gets that).

4. Everyone heals EVERYONE. I once ran into a fighter who threatened to kill me when I didn't instantly tend his scratches like a healbot. It was the fact one my domains was Strength (as a half-giant) and was prepared to shatter his precious weapons and start some grapple if he tried that prevented him. What if a characters deity is not a a healer either? What if he followed a master of the forge? Wouldn't his deity find it easier to grant power over fire instead of say positive energy? I would let clerics spontaneously cast from their domain list simply because: it identifies you. "Hey that dude breathed poisonously corrupting flames at us. He must be one of those Dagoth Ur cultists again."

[Matthew]

Clerics are not Priests. They are Warrior Priests, loosely based on the Military Orders and other combined military and religious organisations (Templars, Sohei and such). That's why they get 1D8 HP and Armour Proficiency. The Cloistered Cleric variant presented in Unearthed Arcana is the alternative and makes the Monk roots of the Cleric are more explicit for 3.x. Essentially, the Cloistered Cleric is a Monk with magic and the Cleric is a Templar/whatever with magic.

The other stuff I can more or less sympathise with. Spheres of Magic are long gone, but many of us want them back. Druids are a separate Class for no really good reason. Once upon a time they were a Sub Class of the Priest Class, as was Cleric. All the Sub Classes were transferred over.

[ocato]

Well, the cleric exists to be a party healer. It's sort the reason they are around. And don't get me wrong, they can do other stuff. Infact, it is for this reason, I believe, they get those other neat abilities. Good HD, armor, and a bunch of other survivability buffs make them playable. A cleric can survive very well, and that is part of the attraction. If every fight was a race between the fighter and the monster on who can get to the cleric first, the cleric would feel a bit marginalized. Oops, that monster is faster, he one-shots the cleric, good night. When the cleric can stand up there with his shield and mace and be part of the situation, that is where he gets a lot of potency. Yes he's a healer, but he can play with the big boys too, unlike a lot of other games where you get a few cure spells and are expected to wait until the important warriors are done having their glorious fight, then you come and apply band-aids. Spontaineous casting of heals is pretty much a way to make it easier for Clerics to heal. I can prepare all of my strength/war spells and stand up front and mash faces, then I can pull a heal out of no where and keep the party chugging along. The primary goal is accomplished, and I'm having fun and participating.

As for undead fighting, I can see that as being odd. But if clerics are positive magic (or negative if evil) types, it makes sense that they can apply positive energy in a different way. Why waste a cure serious wounds on that zombie when you get some other special ability. Bam, spells are conserved for healing, you can be effective and still heal.

I think it boils down to that. Making sure clerics can be effective and have fun and still heal. It's part of the reason people are willing to play them so commonly. I mean, what video game can you think of where you list the primary healing class amoung the most powerful?

[SpiderBrigade]

I like this flavor. Basically making every cleric into a cloistered cleric, with automatic Domain Spontaneity and no regular spontaneous heal/harm. I would think about actually just giving Domain Spontaneity as a bonus feat, thus restricting this spontaneity to one of the cleric's domains. Otherwise it could be too good. Oh and remove the 1/level domain spells, since they'd be superfluous.

The turning is harder to handle, since some clerics would get lots of it, and others none, depending on the domains. Maybe allow more than 2 domains? You still have a problem where a plant/earth cleric would be able to turn/rebuke several things, while a war/strength cleric would turn nothing.

How about this: make turning work similar to the ranger's favored enemy, with the cleric picking what he turns (or rebukes) based on the god he worships. Each god would have a short list of allowed Turning/Rebuking targets. The domains that let you turn/rebuke weird things would instead give some sort of bonus -possibly similar to what the Sun domain gives vs. undead.

So for instance, a Kobold cleric of Kurtulmak with the Evil and Trickery domains would spontaneously cast from the Trickery list (as that particular character's emphasis) and can turn/destroy Gnomes by the power of Kurtulmak's hatred.

Meanwhile, the druid-like elf cleric of Obad-Hai has chosen the Animal and Plant domains, with an emphasis on Animal (he casts those spontaneously). He has chosen to rebuke/command plant creatures, and once per day may use a "Greater Rebuke," in which all creatures that would be rebuked are instead commanded. This is the granted power of the Plant domain.

[Dragonmuncher]

I really like the spontaneous domain spell variant, that I read about somewhere but for the life of me cannot find in the SRD. Only problem is that you have to be more careful about healing, but as long as you're aware of it, should be fine.

edit- Found it. It's an epic feat, oddly enough. Could've sworn it was an actual variant, but... whatever. It should be one, in any case.

[NEO|Phyte]

I really like the spontaneous domain spell variant, that I read about somewhere but for the life of me cannot find in the SRD. Only problem is that you have to be more careful about healing, but as long as you're aware of it, should be fine.

edit- Found it. It's an epic feat, oddly enough. Could've sworn it was an actual variant, but... whatever. It should be one, in any case.

Its an alternate class ability in the PHBII, you lose the ability to convert spells to cure/inflict, and instead convert them to spells from a chosen domain. Works well with the Healing domain, Heal > Mass cure moderate wounds.

[ArmorArmadillo]

By Point:
1. Reasonable, similar to the Cloistered Cleric variant. The theory behind Cleric's having decent melee capability is that a player is doing a service to the party by volunteering himself as the healbot, and should be rewarded by being able to stand on his own, so his gaming experience isn't just hanging back and dropping heals.

2. Again, reasonable; but you've said it yourself; Clerics can cover many domains, it'd make more sense for a Strength/Earth cleric to have heavier armor. Man of the Cloth isn't really a great analogue to be making to adventurers, as Priests don't tend to end up fighting monsters in their capacity as spiritual leaders.

3. You're argument doesn't make sense; you're saying that druids go against the roots of being clerics? Druid's follow the fantassy/RP roots of Shamans (Ironically not actual Druid's, beceause they were Celtic priests (usually of war) and had nothing to with the "nature power" later attributed to them by certain pseudohistorians) who have powers such as turning into animals; which Druid's exemplify. Cleric really doesn't do justice to this concept. (Note that you can make a Nature cleric with Plant and Earth domains, it's just a different concept than a druid.)
As for the Elements, what are you talking about? Earth, Air, Water, Fire: those are the classical elements. Captain Planet didn't make them up...

3a. Turning is an "iconic" ability that is given to Cleric's largely based on history. Note that almost all variant rules sub out Turning for other abilities.

4. First, that's not correct. Evil clerics don't spontaneously cast heals, they can only specifically memorize them. Second, party's need healers! The main purpose of the cleric class in party's is to heal wounds, if they can't at least optionally prepare spells to do so, party dynamics are totally crippled. I'm sorry if a bad player was threatening you, but cleric's healing is totally reasonable.

[Belteshazzar]

I like the idea of allowing more than two domains for some clerics in my setting because it lets you know how powerful some of the spirits, deities, or pantheons they get their powers from are. It could also help differentiate shrine keepers of local nature spirit who only grants one domain from a high priest of a more popular of storms, grain, and sun who grants three domains (making his his following mechanically more powerful). I would want to limit this effect to prevent unbalance of course but it would be interesting.

P.S. I know that evil clerics spontaneously harm I was simply not addressing that issue and lumping it with the spontaneous healing. I apologized if for neglecting to point that out. However, I did suggest that: A. Turning makes no sense for a deity who is unconcerned with undead. B. Druids are simply nature clerics no more no less. Wildshaping could be granted by some druidic domain but other than that and their animal companions (perhaps gained from domain animal or domain nature) they are mechanically a cleric with some funny yet easily bypassable armor restrictions. ("Metals natural ain't it? Otherwise why do you think we all wear these here gold torcs?")

[Lemur]

Well, you've given a nod to the cloistered cleric variant, so that sort of takes care of points one and two, which leaves points three, three again, and four.

In terms of the second point three, I get the sense that the turning mechanic isn't meant for ordinary sentient living creatures, which cuts out turning Japanese turning Japanese turning Japanese, and the rest (except for constructs, I suppose).

I'm going to address point three number one and point four at the same time. In the previous edition, clerics were essentially the "basic" version of the priest category. Unlike the warrior, mage, and rogue categories, it was implicit with priests that they could be sort of hobbled together from scratch. Druids, as a non-basic priest class, were in some ways an example of how one could construct an alternate priest class.

The point of screwing around with priests was to make them more specific, based on what exactly they were worshipping, which sounds like what you're after. The 2nd ed. handbook gave some examples on bonus powers that could be granted to specialty priests, and the Complete Priest's handbook provided a lot of ideas on how to create more specific priests. Back then, this centered more or less on:

-Assigning a list of weapons and armor the priest was allowed to use.
-Assigning a list of spells that the priest could draw from.
-Assigning special granted abilities.

The basic cleric was allowed to use bludgeoning weapons, but no slashing or piercing ones. Compared to specialty priests, he had the largest selection of spells available to them, although this doesn't mean he got all the best spells on the grand priest list. His special granted power could be considered turning undead.

The druid, in comparison, was a sort of specialty priest. The weapon selection allowed was the same as what the 3rd ed. druid gets as proficiency, his spell selection wasn't as large as the cleric, but he did get some good spells not available to the cleric. His granted powers were more or less based on interacting with nature, and shapeshifting into animals, and later, into elementals.

I think what you're after is specialty priests, with more specific spell lists and granted powers than granted to the normal cleric. Mainly what would be required is screwing around with spell lists for each priest type you're interested in having.

One more thing is worth mentioning, regarding the cleric. The original conception of the cleric was as a religious warrior, as per the Knights Templar, Hospitalers, or a similar order. They weren't monkish types (not kick-punch monks, the brown robe guys who wander around churches all day) like the cloistered cleric type that you seem more interested in. I'm saying this so you don't get too angry at clerics for being the way they are- there is a reason for it.

[Belteshazzar]

In terms of the second point three, I get the sense that the turning mechanic isn't meant for ordinary sentient living creatures, which cuts out turning Japanese turning Japanese turning Japanese, and the rest (except for constructs, I suppose).

However I already can turn "sapient" (even dogs are sentient, curse my grammar nazi upbringing) creatures, humanoids at that as well. Vampires, Litches, Mummies and the like are all sapient despite their posthumous status. Heck even average ghouls score higher on the S.A.T. than commoners so their is no problem there. Besides I was inspired to suggest these ideas by seeing the Shaman class in action as he surprised me by turning some deadly fey.

One more thing is worth mentioning, regarding the cleric. The original conception of the cleric was as a religious warrior, as per the Knights Templar, Hospitalers, or a similar order. They weren't monkish types (not kick-punch monks, the brown robe guys who wander around churches all day) like the cloistered cleric type that you seem more interested in. I'm saying this so you don't get too angry at clerics for being the way they are- there is a reason for it.

I understand where clerics come from but the Paladin or a Cleric of War/Strength covers that base these days and I was recognizing how odd it was that even clerics of Venus get an armor proficiency these days.

As to the point so many addressed about healing. There is nothing preventing this Cleric from preparing healing spells and using them judiciously, besides there are such a thing as healing potions, wands, and scrolls. I have been DMing for a party with no healer and it is not that much different. They know when to run and come back later. As DM I can simply say they rest up, get some healing and bed rest for a week and then they are back to adventuring one real time minute later.

[Cybren]

Clerics are not Priests. They are Warrior Priests, loosely based on the Military Orders and other combined military and religious organisations (Templars, Sohei and such). That's why they get 1D8 HP and Armour Proficiency. The Cloistered Cleric variant presented in Unearthed Arcana is the alternative and makes the Monk roots of the Cleric are more explicit for 3.x. Essentially, the Cloistered Cleric is a Monk with magic and the Cleric is a Templar/whatever with magic.

partly true. Clerics are warrior priests because clerics were boring to play when they were just medics

[Dausuul]

Regarding turning, how about this? Clerics lose the ability to actually turn undead. Instead, they get a bonus divine feat (which they can power with the turn attempts they would normally get). Then, add a new divine feat called Turn Undead, which lets you spend your energy channeling uses to, well, turn undead.

[Tor the Fallen]

I agree with the OP. Part of the cleric's power comes from his ability to do everything. He has a phatty list of spells, 3/4 BAB, wonderful buffs, armor prof, and the ability to cast in it. I feel like the cleric should be restricted far more by his domain/deity selection. Why is it that a cleric of Pelor is (outside of ability score/feat placement), identical to a cleric of Hextor, save spontaneous healing/inflicting, and access to a handful of domain spells? Sure, there can be the martial followers of Pelor that pick up power attack and the more martial domains, but his nonmartial followers will still be able to match him HP for HP, BAB for BAB, and AC for AC. Doesn't make sense.


You know what else doesn't make sense? A cleric of Erythnul can scribe a scroll that a cleric of Pelor can later pick up and use.
Duhhh....? How the hell does that work?

[ArmorArmadillo]

You know what else doesn't make sense? A cleric of Erythnul can scribe a scroll that a cleric of Pelor can later pick up and use.
Duhhh....? How the hell does that work?

Are you suggesting that the books would be better with 15 pages of specific rules to prevent all the specific Duhhhh situations that you describe, which don't present balance problems or even really serious roleplay problems.

[Tor the Fallen]

Are you suggesting that the books would be better with 15 pages of specific rules to prevent all the specific Duhhhh situations that you describe, which don't present balance problems or even really serious roleplay problems.

It doesn't make any sense how a cleric of, say, a lawful good deity, can cast a spell from a scroll that a cleric from a chaotic evil deity scribed.

Divine magic has a definite source, unlike arcane magic. Clerics are granted spells for behaving in the appropriate manner. How would a cleric be able to cast a spell from a scroll that his antithetical opponent scribed?

[Fourth Tempter]

Once a spell is cast or scribed, it is simply a spell. Deities grant spells; they do not personally reach down and do things--divine magic has a mechanism much like arcane magic does; it is the method of access which is different. Observe the Archivist class, which is based on this very principle.

Once a scroll is scribed, it is simply a magical scroll of a spell. Those who are familiar with the mechanics of divine magic may use it. A scroll is neutral, and a spell is the same regardless of whether an evil or a good god granted it.

[Vance_Nevada]

Why is it that a cleric of Pelor is (outside of ability score/feat placement), identical to a cleric of Hextor, save spontaneous healing/inflicting, and access to a handful of domain spells?

I don't think the two clerics ARE identical, any more than one Barbarian is identical to the other Barbarian. Barb A could be a murderous, vengeance crazed axe wielder dedicated to slaughtering elves because they killed his father - while Barb B could be a man dedicated to helping the common folk, channeling his anger at those who would take advantage of the weak into uncanny skill with his mace. But both Barbs will still have the same BAB, HP, etc. That's just the nature of a rules-based system like DnD.

A Cleric of Pelor CAN be identical to a Cleric of Hextor, but they shouldn't be. There's nothing stopping the Cleric of Hextor running around with Sanctuary cast on himself healing commoners defending their town in a siege, but is that something he'll really be doing?

[Tor the Fallen]

I don't think the two clerics ARE identical, any more than one Barbarian is identical to the other Barbarian. Barb A could be a murderous, vengeance crazed axe wielder dedicated to slaughtering elves because they killed his father - while Barb B could be a man dedicated to helping the common folk, channeling his anger at those who would take advantage of the weak into uncanny skill with his mace. But both Barbs will still have the same BAB, HP, etc. That's just the nature of a rules-based system like DnD.

Yet both are (presumably) illiterate and uncouth wild men, prone to fly into fits of anger. mechanically, they're the same. The difference between a cleric of hextor and a cleric of hextor is vastly greater. The source of their mechanics comes from different places, and should really grant different powers. As it is, clerics are cooky-cutter, and way too powerful. A really feasible way, both in terms of making sense, and by mechanics, to reign them in, would be to make their domains dramatically more important.

A cleric of, say luck and travel, who devotes his very being to these ideals, would probably not be solving every problem with divine persistent cheese. Heck, his patron deity would likely grant a different suite of spells to him, rather than the exact same spells every deity grants, regardless of alignment, power, or portfolio.

A Cleric of Pelor CAN be identical to a Cleric of Hextor, but they shouldn't be. There's nothing stopping the Cleric of Hextor running around with Sanctuary cast on himself healing commoners defending their town in a siege, but is that something he'll really be doing?

Contrawise, the cleric of pelor will be able to fight alongside mr. barbarian, cracking skulls in similar fashion. Doesn't mean he should, but he definitley can. And then after the barbarian drops 8 orc mooks with great cleave, the cleric opens up with a flamestrike, clearing the rest of them, and trashes the boss with a save-or-die spell.

Sure, you could explain it away. "My god wants me to further him in every way, even if that means acting in ways contrary to his principle and these two domains I picked for the mechanical advantage." To each their own, I guess.

[Matthew]

partly true. Clerics are warrior priests because clerics were boring to play when they were just medics

Actually, it's entirely true. The accompanying fluff in First and Second Edition overtly made this claim, though some might feel the mechanics didn't support it (I'm not one of those, though).

[AtomicKitKat]

Gogo Vapors!

[ArmorArmadillo]

Yet both are (presumably) illiterate and uncouth wild men, prone to fly into fits of anger. mechanically, they're the same. The difference between a cleric of hextor and a cleric of hextor is vastly greater. The source of their mechanics comes from different places, and should really grant different powers. As it is, clerics are cooky-cutter, and way too powerful. A really feasible way, both in terms of making sense, and by mechanics, to reign them in, would be to make their domains dramatically more important.

A cleric of, say luck and travel, who devotes his very being to these ideals, would probably not be solving every problem with divine persistent cheese. Heck, his patron deity would likely grant a different suite of spells to him, rather than the exact same spells every deity grants, regardless of alignment, power, or portfolio.



Contrawise, the cleric of pelor will be able to fight alongside mr. barbarian, cracking skulls in similar fashion. Doesn't mean he should, but he definitley can. And then after the barbarian drops 8 orc mooks with great cleave, the cleric opens up with a flamestrike, clearing the rest of them, and trashes the boss with a save-or-die spell.

Sure, you could explain it away. "My god wants me to further him in every way, even if that means acting in ways contrary to his principle and these two domains I picked for the mechanical advantage." To each their own, I guess.

There's no good reason why RP differences need to be spoon-fed to players in game terms.

You're completely wrong in your view of the Barbarians being identical; the entire point of core classes is to offer a lot of flexibility and concept differentiation into classical roles. If someobe thinks that every Barbarian or Wizard has to be a clone of Kursk and Mialee, they've shown a great lack of RP creativity.

[Dan_Hemmens]

There's no good reason why RP differences need to be spoon-fed to players in game terms.

There's a difference between "RP differences" and actual in-character metaphysical differences.

Hextor and Pelor grant 99% of the same powers. So does Yondalla, and every other damned deity in the pantheon.

Hextor and Pelor, though, are bad examples really. Uber-goodness and uber-evilness are things Clerics are reasonably well set up to do. But what about Clerics of Umberlee or Oldimarra? Should they still be dealing with healing and zombies?

[Lemur]

However I already can turn "sapient" (even dogs are sentient, curse my grammar nazi upbringing) creatures, humanoids at that as well. Vampires, Litches, Mummies and the like are all sapient despite their posthumous status. Heck even average ghouls score higher on the S.A.T. than commoners so their is no problem there. Besides I was inspired to suggest these ideas by seeing the Shaman class in action as he surprised me by turning some deadly fey.

I meant sentient when I said sentient, not sapient. I also meant living when I said living, something that vampires and litches don't qualify for. Also, the Spirit Shaman doesn't use the turning/rebuking mechanic for its abilities.

In particular what I was trying to say is that creatures without supernatural connections shouldn't be subject to the turning/rebuking system. That's the impression that I get, anyway, that turning is supposed to be a defense from the supernatural, not something that can be used against nonmagical entities.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I meant sentient when I said sentient, not sapient. I also meant living when I said living, something that vampires and litches don't qualify for. Also, the Spirit Shaman doesn't use the turning/rebuking mechanic for its abilities.

In particular what I was trying to say is that creatures without supernatural connections shouldn't be subject to the turning/rebuking system. That's the impression that I get, anyway, that turning is supposed to be a defense from the supernatural, not something that can be used against nonmagical entities.

Doesn't the Plant domain give you the ability to Turn/Rebuke Plants?

I'd argue that Turning could be defined as protection from things which are natural enemies of your Deity.

[Belteshazzar]

Wow a lot of good replies overnight to my late night typed rant. Lets address some of your responses.

Addressing Armadillo: I am surprised I messed up my captain planet elements joke up while addressing druids. Of course I know the Greek Classical Elements but I was trying to point out that the elemental domains (or spheres in old school game) cover nigh half of the Druidic spell list along with other listed domains(nature, animal, plant).

Addressing Lemur: I know my turning idea seems weird but there is already precedent for clerics influencing non-undead creatures in the RAW and my suggestion was to simply to expand on it and to restrict the focus on undead to those clerics who want it. I am not suggesting that clerics gain the power to command humans or the like, but mostly magical beings and common creatures(vermin, animals, and plants).

I would love to make threads on how I would make the other classes more customizable but I decided to do one on clerics first because they have the most potential (domains) yet are the most restricted into a cookie cutter frame (for previously listed reasons).

[ArmorArmadillo]

There's a difference between "RP differences" and actual in-character metaphysical differences.

Hextor and Pelor grant 99% of the same powers. So does Yondalla, and every other damned deity in the pantheon.

Hextor and Pelor, though, are bad examples really. Uber-goodness and uber-evilness are things Clerics are reasonably well set up to do. But what about Clerics of Umberlee or Oldimarra? Should they still be dealing with healing and zombies?

At the risk of not sounding snarky, you're correct. The Cleric's Domain lists offer very few spells or options for Storm God clerics or Thief God clerics. You could play a Druid and say you're a priest of the Storm God, but that really doesn't fit the bill.

As for Turning, someone once said that the problem with D&D is that it has too much history, Cleric's have turned undead for since the early times, and it's too iconic an ability for it ever to be gotten rid of officially. That's why almost all Cleric variants replace it with other things.


I'd say a reasonable, relatively easy fix for clerics would be to offer a choice of five domain spell lists and two abilities, grant those abilities, ditch the domain slot, add one more spell slot per spell level, and just make the domain spells standard cleric spells for that cleric. It would make the cleric more "domainy" without having to make excessive changes to the core class.

[Gavin Sage]

I have no major problems with the Cleric's mechanical build. Taking out healing also makes Cleric's somewhat redundant, do we need another variant of a mage? Yes a number of spells are exclusive to each, but its healing that mages ultimately can't do.

I do think the undead element is streching though. I mean okay they are the perversion of life while the gods are generally the creators of. Problem is I dare say undead shouldn't be so common that we really need such a major portion of a major class against them. I think it might be more appropriate to have the Turning vary by deity. So Pelor's clerics turn undead, but maybe Corellon's should work on let's say orcs? Just for comparasion, Rangers can take just about anything as a favored enemy. It's an easy way to give cleric more variety without reworking the whole class. Certain Domains already give different turning abilities.

What has always really bugged me is how clerics have such a monoply on religion in D&D. Tieing devotion so much to divine magic spreads something that should be very rare into something more mundane. Some of the biggest religions service entire races/civilizations. For any level of realism like our world all but the smallest of communities would have temples, for regular services etc. Even if only level 1, for any sizable faith I can't help but think that makes Cleric far more common then a PC class with magic should be. Spreading out miraculous power like that I feel devalues the depth of religion in D&D. Actual "Clerics" should be found only rarely among priesthoods and the various godly cults, blessed rare individuals who are so devoted that the gods reward the worshiper's faith with a share of their own power.

[Matthew]

Heh, that varies from Campaign to Campaign. The DMG is fairly clear that Clerics are a PC Class only. The Adept is the only NPC Class they offer as an alternative, though...

[Gavin Sage]

I'm sure there is some statements about Cleric being not your everyday priest. But what are the normal priests then, Experts or Aristocrats? And some high level priest NPCs who are not Clerics?

[Matthew]

No idea. I'm thinking Experts for the most part, maybe Adepts for some, but that's a bit of a stretch. Spell Casting is the key. If you accept that a Priest doesn't need to be able to cast spells, then it's Expert and Aristocrat for the most part, with a smattering of Clerics and Adepts.