| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Outlaw Pope
Acolyte
43 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Nov 2022 : 14:07:59
|
So between 1e and 2e they had the Time of Troubles to really fill out a lot of new mechanics tweaks the clergies of the various Realmsian powers received a bunch of new fluff and entries about the various classes involved with them.
A lot of specifics were laid out with matters of about clerics, subclasses, and particularly with Druids as Specialty Priests (mostly benign or benevolent nature gods) and Specialty Priests in some cases replacing normal clergy.
It might have been a lot to keep track of but was given a lot of meta-narrative alongside the mechanics as being this great shift occurring throughout the world due to the "new rules of gods caring about their followers" and the trauma done among believers do to the godswar.
There were also a lot of racial and cultural limitations/bonuses on clergies.
3e's transition, however, doesn't really seem to have much of this and a whole lot was swept under the rug I assume to simplify things / the transition into ownership from TSR to WotC/Hasbro. We go from these flavorful writeups where there are notes about how these religions are organized, different classes and how they are involved - to just a few paragraphs.
The explanation this time only tangentially is related to the Realms - the Die Vecna Die canon ending effectively causes large disruptions of the multiverse and so magic, gods, powers and so forth get weird.
While things changed for 3e realms, it was never given any "in world context" as far as I am aware.
We lose every single sub-variant, specialty priests largely go unmentioned, shamans only come back later as a PhB addition. Evil nature powers like Malar and Talona explicitly get druids (though had speciality clerics that were LIKE them but not entirely) where previously they opposed and even killed them by their dogma. Things like crusaders end up being either other books or their concept put onto divine champions and blackguards and whatnot.
I know quite a few specialty priest titles and specific holy orders got made into PrC kits.
But does anyone know what happened for all of the cults and clergies between 2e and 3e that explains exactly why all of that content is consolidated into the "cleric class", druids, and paladins?
Like "in world", I know a lot of it was probably to advertise 3e's more modular "build it how you want it" approach, but some of these changes are jarring when the language between editions is basically the same but a lot of it disappears.
For later editions and other calamities 4e/5e I do not think it really gets addressed either. Though with subkits built into a lot of them we kind of go back to more classic approaches.
A few questions are basically:
What happened to the "clergy culture"? Do clerics of Mystra now just thug about the realms in arms and armor instead of their clear fashion of being mage-like, lightly garbed?
Are all clerics now graduated to specialty priest?
Are the subvarieties (like shaman, mystic) and converted to clerics who you just "build" into those things or did those clergies just abandon all of that? I know in 2e a lot of the religions seemed to be just morphing their priesthoods into specialty only.
(This is important because for say- the religion(s) based off Ubtao in Chult more or less get obliterated by the loss of shaman but this is never addressed.)
----
Obviously I have more questions but what do you fellow scholars think about this?
Does anyone have any answers or ideas to adapt/explain the huge gap in the 2e ---> Beyond classes/kits lore? Anyone know of sources that explain it if they do?
|
Edited by - Outlaw Pope on 01 Dec 2022 01:17:11
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11696 Posts |
Posted - 30 Nov 2022 : 15:07:16
|
| The quick and easy answer is that they didn't try to adapt those things that were in 2e based on rules into specific mapping to new rules in 3e, and to a degree that's a good thing. The ToT changes just because editions changed came with a cost that are debatable (for instance, death of all assassins). However, you CAN do so yourself. For instance, the spirit shaman class that came out for 3e was never specifically tied to any religions (except maybe the Tom Costa web articles), but I can see such occurring. Crusaders in 2e might be replaceable with the Crusader option from Tome of Battle, etc... The individual specialty priests might be mappable instead to certain prestige classes in 3e (for instance, I definitely see followers of Azuth and Savras going mystic theurge with cleric, Leirans doing multiple options of "theurging" with wizards,beguilers,etc..., Velsharoon's followers definitely being interested in both mystic theurge and true necromancer.... I can see Deneirrans doing the mystic theurging with wizard and archivist instead of cleric ). This is an issue every time that editions change, but its also a problem just within an edition when new rulesets come out and then people go "oh well this clergy would obviously have a lot of X". |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 30 Nov 2022 15:08:01 |
 |
|
|
Outlaw Pope
Acolyte
43 Posts |
Posted - 30 Nov 2022 : 15:35:23
|
Yeah for us as the the game masters we can do whatever we want. It's just kind of... abrupt though, especially the 2e into 3e. Entire "cultures" are just gone and its never explained or acknowledged so while that does give you freedom it still is jarring - a 3e cleric can be made to resemble some of those variances. The later Spirit Shaman quite honestly is almost entirely like a 2e shaman, thematically. Its just a lot of that stuff didn't exist at the beginning and some people just got strapped into it. Like the Uthgardt never had clerics- only shamans, but then in 3e- now they only have clerics. So in the mechanics-meeting-worldbuilding it either means we just "don't use everything the kit offers to RP the vibe" but a lot of those proscriptions/limits aren't even mentioned anymore.
The stuff I'd mentioned about Ubtao especially is kind of crazy because his entire religion in 2e is described as 3 unique religions that either directly or obliquely worship him. Each with a different class that heralds a sort of sect. But in 3e not only is that not possible (until later) - they also never mention any of that. It just sort of becomes difficult for me to parse out... was there some sort of apocalypse that happened between then or there or is it a "fill in the blanks yourself because we're in the book printing business"?
I know in 2e though a lot of the limitations in clergies like race, gender were disappearing due to the ToT. We do get a little world building in 3e on that end with clerics of racial pantheons being possible outside of their race (human followers of dwarven and elven gods in places where it makes sense), explicitly male NPCs who are clerics of Lolth, and so forth. So there is some "noticeable progress".
---
Like I've always just filled in the blanks myself. But some of my recent lore dives have had me questioning this meta-mechanical meets lore/worldbuilding to the shifts between settings and the kind of silence on this as we never did get much conversion. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 30 Nov 2022 : 21:45:00
|
The D&D game has different editions.
The Forgotten Realms has different editions.
TSR/WoTC always advanced the two together, the stories described cool new features working in cool new ways. There's really no reason to adhere strictly to published canon - if you like one set of rules and you like one setting period then go ahead and use them together. Diegetic and "meta" inconsistencies can be replaced with handwavium. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
297 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2022 : 02:52:23
|
1.There is really nothing in world about the sudden change between 2E divine classes and the 3E divine classes. It just happens. Some got made into prestige classes. The rest were just forgotten in lore lite 3E. Though a "class" is a game thing, so it is easy to say "classes" changed around. In 3E, everyone starts as a generic cleric as everyone gets the same mix of spells and powers. A cleric of Bane and Tyr both cast the exact same spells and can pick the Law domain for the same domain power and spells. Though eventually they can take feats and prestige classes to become more unique to each faith.
2.Not really. A 2E specialty priests are sure not the generic 3e Cleric.
2A. For Ubtao in Chult, there are plenty of "savage" and/or "shaman-like"
The "easy" answer is just to say "there are LOTS of divine spellcasters with LOTS of abilities.....not all easy to explain.
3.In general 2E divine classes just became the generic 3E cleric, though you could "spice" them to your flavor. By 3.5E, you had more divine classes to pick from and lots of feats and prestige classes to mix in. |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1287 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2022 : 10:07:06
|
Specialty Priests simply became Prestige Classes in 3e/3.5, while retaining most of their flavor. Battle-Priests of Tempus, Justicars of Tyr, Morninglords of Lathander, Doomguides of Kelemvor, etc.
Then you have the alternative class features found throughout. Clerics of Denier, Oghma, and maybe even Mystra would definitely benefit from being Cloistered Clerics. Cleric of Lathander and Followers of "dead" Amaunator might take True Daylight alternative feature (replaces domain power with the ability to create true daylight in a small area).
As for things like what priest's wear or things like their culture, I assume it remains mostly unchanged even if it's not addressed. A Cleric of Mystra might roam in light wear like a mage, but probably only if there's a reason (avoid spell failure checks if they can also cast arcane spells), otherwise full-armor is plainly smarter. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11696 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2022 : 13:24:09
|
| Diffan kind of brings up a very good point, albeit in a not so obvious way. The 2e specialty priests were "all the same".... and by that I mean that two specialty priests of the same level were to a degree the same character (minus ability score difference, magic items, hit dice rolls, racial differences, etc...). The one thing I really liked about 3.5 was its flexibility to make a very unique version of a character. I still favor that version of the game for that aspect of it, but I respect that its major flaws show up at higher levels because the point spread got overwhelming. I wait to see what the new changes to 5e will bring and I hope that they involve giving more flexibility. That being said.... haven't been playing as much, so I'm acting as an armchair designer, and I don't see the flaws as well as an active player. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1287 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2022 : 14:05:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Specialty Priests simply became Prestige Classes in 3e/3.5, while retaining most of their flavor. Battle-Priests of Tempus, Justicars of Tyr, Morninglords of Lathander, Doomguides of Kelemvor, etc.
Some were preserved while others were not; there are definitely large gaps (especially concerning the demihuman religions). Problematically, you'd have to travel across several supplements to "catch them all", whereas 2e kept all the SPs in three books (one for the main "human religions", one for demihuman religions and one for demigods/non-Faerunian pantheons).
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Diffan kind of brings up a very good point, albeit in a not so obvious way. The 2e specialty priests were "all the same".... and by that I mean that two specialty priests of the same level were to a degree the same character (minus ability score difference, magic items, hit dice rolls, racial differences, etc...).
Certain religions only allowed Specialty Priests in place of the regular Priest, but they were few in number; otherwise, you could play the base Priest, an SP (maybe even two or three varieties, depending), a Mystic, a Shaman, et cetera. Also, different SPs had different "forks in the road" (i.e, moments when you have to choose one set of class abilities over the others); the Specialty Priest of Mystra, for example, lets you pick three spell immunities. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2022 : 15:24:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Specialty Priests simply became Prestige Classes in 3e/3.5, while retaining most of their flavor. Battle-Priests of Tempus, Justicars of Tyr, Morninglords of Lathander, Doomguides of Kelemvor, etc.
Some were preserved while others were not; there are definitely large gaps (especially concerning the demihuman religions). Problematically, you'd have to travel across several supplements to "catch them all", whereas 2e kept all the SPs in three books (one for the main "human religions", one for demihuman religions and one for demigods/non-Faerunian pantheons).
I'm not well versed in 2e Specialty Priests abilities, but you're right that it most likely spans many books. From the Complete Books (Divine, Champion), Races of the _____ Books, and Forgotten Realms books (Faiths and Pantheons, etc). However most have probably seen some sort of adaption or another. Whether it's a special Domain power for Dwarves, a Prestige Class, class feature, or even some of the Initiate of insert deity here feats we've seen. Most likely, they were afraid of putting all their mechanics under one style, whether it was a Feat, PrC, or something else. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11696 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2022 : 16:44:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Specialty Priests simply became Prestige Classes in 3e/3.5, while retaining most of their flavor. Battle-Priests of Tempus, Justicars of Tyr, Morninglords of Lathander, Doomguides of Kelemvor, etc.
Some were preserved while others were not; there are definitely large gaps (especially concerning the demihuman religions). Problematically, you'd have to travel across several supplements to "catch them all", whereas 2e kept all the SPs in three books (one for the main "human religions", one for demihuman religions and one for demigods/non-Faerunian pantheons).
I'm not well versed in 2e Specialty Priests abilities, but you're right that it most likely spans many books. From the Complete Books (Divine, Champion), Races of the _____ Books, and Forgotten Realms books (Faiths and Pantheons, etc). However most have probably seen some sort of adaption or another. Whether it's a special Domain power for Dwarves, a Prestige Class, class feature, or even some of the Initiate of insert deity here feats we've seen. Most likely, they were afraid of putting all their mechanics under one style, whether it was a Feat, PrC, or something else.
Yeah, I see it more a "discovery process" for new ideas that happened throughout 3e/3.5e. That edition did a lot of playing around with giving you new ways to "spend point type X to get ability Y". That point type may have been a regular feat, it may have been having to enter a prestige class and put certain levels in, and then later they started developing new types of feats like Metamagic feats, Item Creation feats (for instance, contingent spell feat), divine feats, initiate feats, and/or new types of base classes. Of all the editions, that one saw the most experimentation of that sort, and several good ideas grew from those roots. What the initial warlock was like for instance, versus what they did in 5e, I feel like the 5e version is better. I can actually see some "priesthoods" actually including warlocks amongst their "clergy" as well, especially demonic cults, etc... So, in my view, not all "divine" power needs to actually be "divine"... it just needs to be in service to some being that's effectively worshipped in some form. Having 3 "priests" in a temple that have vastly different methods and/or powers in my view just reflects that the gods work differently with different individuals. Having the head of an Azuthan shrine/temple be a wizard with the arcane disciple feat and some levels in the arcane devotee prestige class, rather than having to be a pure priest or some form of theurge mixing cleric and some other spellcasting class, would make total sense in my view, and he may have priests that report up to him. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Outlaw Pope
Acolyte
43 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2022 : 19:43:40
|
Yeah this is sort of my take outside of my question. I wanted to know if they ever treaded that ground with answers and maybe I missed something. I think it's a shame they abandoned the work of so many of the great names that visit and talk to us here in doing that though. Not that they (until recently) try to deny past products/lore as being valid in any way. But even with that (on some twitch stream with Greenwood) apparently Wizards/Hasbro legally cannot ignore the history and past content of the realms unless they explicitly make new stuff to take its place.
Idk why businesses always want to acquire some previous IP with this idea of being a businesses... take all its past content and then go damnatio memoriae when its a type of service industry, already has fans of that stuff, and their way of "adding new" is saying "thing we did not make ourselves so we can make 100% profit bad".
----
I know between the eras we get a lot to play with that we can lay on the 2e bones. I just wish we didn't have to do every single thing ourselves these days - not so much to stifle my own creativity but so we can lay stuff out for other people. We ultimately always spin off or make our own stuff - but those old blurbs about Places in the Realms, or the descriptions of a religion as a whole make really good inspiration for indecisive players to latch onto something. I believe I had someone want to be a Waukeenar because they read that weird/funny ritual involving honey and milk being poured on people.
Ah well. |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1287 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2022 : 06:58:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
So, in my view, not all "divine" power needs to actually be "divine"... it just needs to be in service to some being that's effectively worshipped in some form. Having 3 "priests" in a temple that have vastly different methods and/or powers in my view just reflects that the gods work differently with different individuals. Having the head of an Azuthan shrine/temple be a wizard with the arcane disciple feat and some levels in the arcane devotee prestige class, rather than having to be a pure priest or some form of theurge mixing cleric and some other spellcasting class, would make total sense in my view, and he may have priests that report up to him.
This was true long before 5e. Below is an excerpt from 2e's Faiths & Avatars.
quote:
Azuth
The Church
CLERGY: Wizards, clerics, specialty priests, monks
...
Azuthan clergy tend to be folk who love magic for its own sake. They do not exult in power, for that is the tendency of those who enjoy what magic can allow them to do to others, but in elegance, complexities of dweomer, and deft use of spells. Wizards, clerics, specialty priests, and monks serve in the clergy of Azuth. Within the church hierarchy, 45% of the titled clergy are wizards. Another 30% are clerics, who form the strong right arm of the faith, 20% are specialty priests, and 5% are monks. Relationships between the three groups are good, though there is some resentment against a current trend to promote specialty priests into positions of power. However, because of this trend, more novices of the Azuthan faith have chosen the path of a specialty priest than a cleric. Specialty priests of Azuth are known as magistrati.
I suppose there is no reason why there can't be dual-classed or multi-classed Priests/Mages represented among the faithful. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11696 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2022 : 22:20:57
|
| And therein shows just how much times change, but things basically stay the same.... except that I forget all these little excerpts like that (small anecdote, my example would have been 3e/3.5e not that it matters). So, yep, even back in 2e "the clergy" wasn't cut and dried then either. Back in 1e the original "warlocks" were just another term for "witch", which was a class that was devoted to a "power" (demon, faerie, god, etc....) and gained a different set of powers (how they were different... can't remember). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Mechanics & Lore of Clergies between editions
