How would D&D have evolved if there was no Cleric?

[Cynic]

From a Hindu perspective: priests as heroes are very unique and almost non-existent.

You have the Kshatriya/warrior-priests who are basically fighters but can invoke gods to give them a one-time arrow.

You have specific priests who become errant fighters but those are very rare.

But I really don't see the Cleric from d&d land being the same if based off of Hindu myth.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

It wouldn't have.

[Lokathor]

So quick, someone make an OSR version of DnD 1e without clerics and evolved to match the new lack of clerics.

Already done.

That's... not quite the same. That's just taking the Cleric out. I want something that takes the Cleric out and then expands the game a bit from there.

I lost a lot of energy to do RPG stuff since I've no one to play with locally any more, but I think it might be fun to do a mock up of such a thing.

[tussock]

It's hard to retro-remove the Cleric and expand, because the reasons for the Cleric existing are multitude. Not just the permanent damage dealt by the Vampire, but disease and poison, paralysis, death traps, hard-mode devils and summons, ....

If that's all being dealt with, it's as likely through magic items and rule changes as a class at all. Healing and recovery generally sped up for long-duration adventuring. You might even heal by mixing ground monster organs with rare herbs, a crafting system. Probably as abstract %-based alchemy, for a gunpowder-grenade-using Alchemist, eventually becoming skill-based in d20.

You might get the Cultist or Witch as fully fledged designs, rather than folding their early spell lists into the Magic-User. Paladin would take up the sole role of holy warrior.

The first Druid published is just a Mage/Cleric, so they'd be gone too, which in turn takes out the Bard because they start as a Fighter/Thief/Druid. Ranger would look different too without his Fighter/Thief/Mage/Druid start. Maybe EGG's Mountebank, Jester, and Spy get in earlier.


OD&D classes drop to Fighting-Man and Magic-User with item-based healing. Greyhawk adds Thief, Alchemist, and Witch.

By AD&D you've got ...

[*]A Paladin brewing bombs and healing pots and undead-slaying.
[*]A Ranger with his evil-eye and flame-based magic and giant-slaying.
[*]A Cultist with fire-wards-and-death-magic, and poison.
[*]The Fighter having some ability to brew heals and forge weapons.
[*]The Abjurer, Illusionist, and Witch as your three spellcasters.
[*]A Thief with a more reliable trapspringing mechanic.
[*]A mad Monk with laying hands, tripping the ether, berserking, and talking with the dead.

Cultist replaces Assassin and anti-Cleric. Witch replaces Druid (more charms, less fire).

UA adds the Cavalier, Mountebank, and Inquisitor.


2nd edition leaves us with
[*]Fighter/Ranger/Paladin.
[*]"Alchemist" to replace the loaded terms of "cultist", "witch", and "inquisitor".
[*]Mage with all the spells of Ilusionists and Abjurers, and most everyone else's too.
[*]Thief and Mountebank.


3e brings back Cavaliers, Inquisitors, Madmen, and Witches, as well as adding the Sorcerer for spontaneous Wizardly spellcasting.

Healing is skill-based for brewing items, which decay on a daily basis and compete slot-wise with grenades and fog clouds and polymorphs and charm potions and so on. Buying healing doesn't really work, because it all rots so quickly. The only healing spell you can buy in a wand is Vampiric, which is expensive and hard to use.