I'm still scratching my head over Mike Mearls' latest column talking about clerics. There were a lot of great comments from the readers of this blog, and I really appreciate all of them.
Of course, now I've got some questions for Mike:
WTF do you care about how other RPGs define the cleric class or role?
Dungeons & Dragons was the first RPG, as I said earlier it is the precedent that other class based RPGs tend to follow. Look at every fantasy based MMORPG - their clerics look like D&D clerics, from the armor and shield to the mace and hammer. Boom, buff and healing spells. Hell, D&D invented the cleric class, so why look further than the class's own history to define it in DnD 5e?
(D&D has influenced MMORPGs more than they have influenced D&D - and yes, I include 4e in that statement)
Why are you looking at modern fantasy fiction for inspiration on the cleric class?
Think about it - a spell casting cleric only entered the realms of fantasy fiction after D&D introduced the class to millions of gamers (warrior priests existed before, but spell casting warrior priests I believe is relatively new)
Heck, most fiction that has a cleric as a character is probably published by WotC or is derivative in nature and is using the D&D cleric for inspiration. Why use a shadow of your own concept for inspiration? How lame is that?
Maybe I'm confused, but Mike says "D&D is fairly unique in that the divine caster wears armor and totes a weapon". I'm not going to address the armor aspect of this statement, because I do not know which games Mike is referring to, but EVERY class in D&D "totes a weapon". Heck, in every fantasy RPG I've every played or read, even wizards get access to a dagger or staff. Since when are clerics supposed to go unarmed?
Mike, every time you post, you fill it with contradictions. I see the future of 5e with less clarity each week, which shouldn't be. If the future of 5e is still this cloudy, maybe it shouldn't have been announced until the picture was a bit more defined.