I’m not really sure what you’re saying regarding clerics in 4e. Every class has healing surges, every class can use a second wind. While clerics certainly remain healers, their powers seem more focused on smiting their foes. (Heck, Warlords can trigger healing surges, are they just Band-Aids too?)

I keep hearing people complain that 4e removed the role-playing. HOW? I haven’t played a session yet with any less role-playing than any other version of D&D I’ve played. The only similarities I find with “WoW” is that combat becomes more about collective group strategy where every class can contribute.

You lament not being able to create your own spells… Well, if you were a player at my table you wouldn’t have been creating your own spells to begin with, unless you were working with me. That hasn’t changed under 4e. You’re still not doing anything without your DMs blessing.

The core rules are just a guide that the DM uses, they’re not set in stone.

If there is a pantheon of gods, then characters should be able to draw upon them all, not just one of twelve. And while there may certainly be entities that hold one of those higher than the rest, they can still “practice” the teachings of them all.

2¢

If you want to do magic with a deity, you\’re a mage and not a cleric- plain and simple. Clerics are militant spreaders of their faith; think crusaders with the ability to perform miracles. \’nuff said.

The Recursion King´s last blog post..Banning magic weapons and armour

Also, 1e had the option of following a number of gods rather than a single specific one, and 2e introduced the idea of following a force or philosophy in the Complete Priest’s Handbook — that idea was only carried over into core 3e. (2e also featured various variants, like the Dark Sun clerics, who gained power from an element.)

It’s possible that the cleric is indeed intentionally being revised to minimize faith-related elements, but it’s not nearly as clear-cut as this article suggests.

Scott´s last blog post..Hanging in the Balance

I think what you’ll see more of in the future, is deity information going purely to the realm of “fluff”, while the “crunch” is applied to ALL clerics regardless of faith.

A bit of a rambling post, hope that made sense

However, I do think #2 is quite accurate, though I would frame it differently – society tends more towards pluralism, relativism, and a post-modern understanding of faith. Thus, note how the editions shift from spells being granted by divine beings as a reward for faith, to being expressions of the character’s inner faith/devotion. That practically makes the divinity irrelevant to the character’s spellcasting. In fact, heretics and believers in non-existent gods could equally receive spells under such a system. Not that that is a problem, but it does reflect a shift in thinking, that is not just about metagaming theory.

Wyatt´s last blog post..Religion In Eden (RPG Blog Carnival)

@Tauaru – If a player doesn’t want to choose a god from the book, I’m all for them making up one for themselves.

@jonathan – Oops! Didn’t mean to swipe your idea. Considering in 4E, wizards can heal people if they take the right feat, that’s not far off.

As to the post… Excellent summary! I think the metagame issue (theory #3) is most likely the reason. However, I still firmly believe that the DM should make a player come up with the ethos for their cleric prior to the beginning of play and use it as a tool for better roleplaying. The more a player adheres to their cleric’s ethos the better; whether that be a god’s religion, a philosophy or a godless religion, like Toaism, doesn’t matter. The point of religion, from a game design point of view, is to encourage roleplaying, tension, and conflict (resolution). Otherwise, the cleric might as well be a sorcerer or wizard who heals people. Am I right?

jonathan´s last blog post..THE CRS’TCHEN Debacle…

I don’t think Theory 2 is a factor at all.

Bonemaster´s last blog post..Creating an RPG Wiki (or things to consider before you start)