Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion aren't clerics and druids pretty much the same thing?

class: cleric
domain: nature
deity: silvanus
background: outlander

is this not, in fact, a druid? druids literally cast divine magic, therefore granted by gods.
aren't druids just clerics who worship a nature deity, say silvanus or mielikki?
now im not familiar with dnd worldbuilding but you can literally see the druids in the grove worshipping silvanus and acting like a specific flavor of clerics, pretty much.
what gives?

i know it's not any of larian's business fixing the worldbuilding of dnd, but here's how i would handle it instead:

priest class, with 3 subclasses:

cleric (good alignment deities)
druid (neutral alignment deities)
something something (evil alignment deities)

based on the aligment of your chosen deity you get access to one of these 3 spell lists.

cleric spell list should be pretty much current cleric: radiant damage spells, healing spells, buff spells.
druid spell list should be similar to current druid: focus on animal summons, shapeshifting, barksin, vines, thorns, and the likes. possibly situational elements***
now for the evil alignment spell list, they should get all the spells that deal necrotic damage, debuffs like bane, spells like animate dead and inflict wounds.

shadowheart for example should have the evil list. cause why on earth would shar give her the ability to cast guiding bolt? i don't think she would even be able to do that. you could literally just recolor it green and make it deal necrotic damage instead, same with sacred flame. think spirit guardians, but instead of choosing the variant, good and evil spell lists get one of the two.


issues:
the evil domain would conflict a little bit with the idea of a necromancer raising skeletons and whatnot.
while the druid, in its current state, conflicts with wizards. wizards control the elements: they cast fireballs, thunders, rays of frosts. but druids are also supposed to control the natural elements.
how to solve that? i don't know. maybe wizards should only be able to use arcane magic like magic bolt rather than elemental magic, and leave that to the druids.

otherwise, ***the druid should only control the elements from the environment. say you have a control element spell, if you use it then click on a torch you can cast fire spells, but within the range of the torch instead of the character. same with water puddles, etc. spells like gust of wind or solar beam are greatly designed imo, as they don't conflict with the idea of a wizard despite being elemental. there could also be other creative solutions like spore druids, which i think is very original and gives the druid a more defined identity.

thoughts?

Druids and Clerics should be the same. But DnD was invented in the 1970s, when the unwashed druggie movement was still quite popular. And thus various hippie silliness is hardwired into the setting.

BTW - Bard started off as subclass of Druid - the musical backup to shamanistic rites - hence the odd mix of Divine and Arcane spells.

Druid and Cleric are truly different classes. Nature Domain gives a Cleric a few Druid-specific spells, but that is not enough to turn a Cleric into half of a Druid (far from that).

Classes are not like divisions of labor, divisions of magic, different departments of a single university, different types of sports, etc. Different classes are different, yet they share a lot of things. It is really due to historical reasons that they happen to have evolved into the classes as we know today, into the classes as adopted and implemented by this game. In turn, this game will inevitably also affect the further evolution of these DnD classes.

"shadowheart for example should have the evil list. cause why on earth would shar give her the ability to cast guiding bolt?" --- Spells are just like weapons: they don't have alignments. We cannot say a dagger is evil or a mace is good. We cannot point to any spell and say that the spell is evil/good/neutral. Actually, in this BG3, the concept of alignment has been dropped. When we say Shadowheart is good or evil, we are commenting what she does (based on player choices). The game itself won't judge Shadowheart based on the concept of good or evil or neutral. We, as players of this game, do. The game itself has no concept of good or evil or neutral. You may kill Shadowheart a thousand times in the game, yet the game won't judge you - a player who has been doing that.

I think something key to understanding that question is taking into account the idea of class fantasy in designing classes. Sure there are aspects of druids that do come off cleric-y (though it's worth remembering that it's assumed all people in the setting worship a god, so of course someone devoted to nature would also worship the nature god, same as Gale loving magic and worshipping the magic god) but the fantasy of being a cleric and being a druid are different things. People play a druid because they want to play someone who's first and foremost in tune with nature. That could certainly come with deep devotion to a nature deity but that's secondary to being devoted to NATURE itself, something that isn't displayed so much in the druids we see in BG3. Someone plays a cleric because they want to be someone for whom their relationship with their god is central. I think saying druids should be folded into clerics would be like saying paladins should be folded into clerics or fighters. Yeah you could do that and logically it wouldn't be crazy. After all, wouldn't it just be the equivalentof an arcane warrior fighter but with divine spells? Or a cleric with some extra fighter flavor? But they're all different classes because they fulfil different fantasies in terms of roleplay (and while we're on the subject, I would argue that Arcane Warrior should be its own subclass instead of just a subclass of Fighter as well).

that... makes so much sense actually.
i only suggested an alignment system because each deity granting its own spell list wouldn't be feasible.
but explain to me, how does the goddess of darkness, loss, deception and night, have the ability to grant people the power to shape and command light? or heal wounds? it literally doesn't make any sense. it's not in her powers. this isn't the abrahamitic god we're talking about, who's omnipotent, the gods in dnd are more like the greek gods. they are fallible, can die, each have their own skills and abilities and personalities. shar simply does not possess the authority to give someone the power to control light.

I thought Shart being the designated healer with a lot of light spells odd too, damage absorption instead of healing would make more sense in her case. The argument that spells don't have alignments makes more sense when you approach it from a neutral stand point than from a clerical one. You can have a conversation with Gale on this subject in regards to Sharan shadow magic - and when you play his origin and put his theory to the test, you'll find out that many of the other companions disagree with his opinion.

Agree! I like druid being a separate class. Druid and sorcerer are my favorite classes in BG3!

They are not the same, but you mostly have to have played TT and be a bit of a lore nerd to understand the fundamental differences. All except the faithless in the forgotten realms worship a god; worship alone doesn't mean much.

Clerics are vessels of divine power who gain their power directly from a single god. They work toward their god's agenda and take on their alignment of their god. Radiant damage is not light, it is holy power and more akin to fire; the source books often refer to it as "holy fire." But clerics can also do necrotic damage. The spell "Heal" is not by nature good, it is neutral: it can be used to heal good or evil people. Regarding Shadowheart's alignment, she is a cleric of an evil god. Part of her character conflict is that her alignment doesn't match Shar's, so much so that Shar specifically punishes her for it.

Druids gain their power through connection with nature itself and serve the concept balance. Their connection with nature is so deep that the most powerful of druids have dramatically slowed aging. Death and decay are as natural as new life. Those are neither good nor evil from a druid perspective. If something is unnatural, like mindflayers or undead, they are against it. Druids are traditionally true neutral, although that has changed in the underlying rules, and I think it's fair to argue Halsin is neutral good. Aside from Halsin's comments and the existence of spore druids, BG3 doesn't really delve into this.

Mechanically speaking, nature clerics try to be both and that's why they are C tier at best.

Ultimately, as Gray Ghost says, it's about power fantasy, the same as any other class. All the classes in DnD share commonalities with others. If we are looking at similarities, you might as well argue that Cleric should be a subclass of Paladin.

their spells are classified as "divine spellcasting" though, and divine spellcasting itself is described as powers being granted to oneself from a god, as opposed to manipulating the weave like arcane spellcasters.
there's nothing about nature giving powers to people, unless they retconned stuff and made something like a natural version of the weave.

Druids have wild shape which makes them them unique to other classes and Druids are less religious than Clerics and Paladins, sure they may worship silvanus but it's not to same degree of religious zeal as Clerics and Paladins, plus most people I've met tend to play druids as drug dealers anyways,

They're pretty much hippies in a sense.

Druids in TT have some differences, besides the glaringly obvious "Druids can shapeshift, Clerics cannot" (Of course, the jankness that is BG3's implementation of Wildshapes kind of detracts from that)

Druids in TT cannot use metal equipment. Their armour and weapons have to be made of wood/leather to retain their connection to nature.

Druids in prior editions were required to maintain a neutral alignment (Neutral Good/Neutral Evil/Chaotic Neutral/Lawful Neutral), while Clerics alignment was dictated by their deity (And also influenced their Channel Energy ability and their auto-memorized spells, either healing living targets/harming undead with all "Cure Wounds" memorized for "Good" deities and dealing damage to living targets/healing undead with all "Inflict Wounds" memorized for "Evil" deities)

In prior editions, Druids have also been able to have animal companions too, with them being the defacto animal companion class with their companion scaling 1:1 with their own level.

Clerics and Druids tended to get different spell lists. With Clerics getting more "Divine" spells (Like Inflict Wounds, Harm, Holy Weapon, Dispel Evil and Good etc) while Druid gets more element/nature themed spells (Including some spells that are also in the Arcane Spell lists) like various Evocation spells dealing Fire/Lightning/Cold damage as well as Transmutation spells to change the physiology of themselves/allies.

While a Nature Domain Cleric can obtain a few spells from the Druid list, they maintained a distinct flavour to that of a Druid. Notably, being more of a "Nature Paladin" due to their ability to use metal equipment so plate armour, their deities favoured weapon and a metal shield and their innate list of Radiant/Necrotic based spells made them feel Paladin-esk (Especially in Undead prominent campaigns where their plethora of anti-Undead tools that Druids lack can shine)

Meanwhile, the flip side would be the Blight Druids which could access Death, Destruction and Darkness domains for some Cleric spells. But they end up being more of a "Plaguemancer" than a Cleric with their focus on vermin and disease as opposed to divine powers.

My Nature Domain Cleric fights with a magic boosted Salami for that "hippie" feeling.

LOL!
There is an amusing SI DnD fic (1st or 2nd ed ruleset) on Space Battles where one of the characters is a Necromancer and ex-Druid. He resigned from druidism when it dawned on him that most of his collegues were using shapeshifting for their furry-lusting perversions ...
That character retained his love for nature and keeps potted plants in his office. He also dresses in bright colours - none of that cheap black doom and gloom (you hear that, Shadowheart?) of all those other necromancers for him!
That was written quite a few years ago :P

i understand and that's a good analysis of the gameplay differences. but im trying to think of it lore wise, not gameplay.
in universe, it's not like people have a character creation screen and they decide what class they're gonna be.
maybe someone is really devoted to their god and therefore you would call it a cleric, someone decided to make things right in the world and get some training in fighting skills and you would call that a paladin. but the lines are blurred.
in the situation described in the op though, it seems like the game is pretty much describing a druid, except that it's not.

it's like saying: my character is a paladin. he's proficient in daggers and short swords, sleight of hand, has high dexterity and low strength, he's also really good at sneaking around and is able to decieve people efficiently.
sir, that's a rogue.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

let's say someone meets the character described in op.
he's an outlander, so he lives in the wild away from civilization.
he worships silvanus, god of nature. he's REALLY into him, so he would follow his beliefs and live a lifestyle to reflect that.
he casts divine spells of a druid, granted by his god (silvanus)
how is that not a druid? silvanus wouldn't even have a church in cities, he would have groves and temples curated by druids. in fact, a cleric of silvanus is literally a druid.

My entry point was AD&D and 2E. Main difference there was that Clerics have their churches and cloisters and such with rites specific to their deity and spells granted as part of the divine portfolio, but also with the internal factions and the sort of ecclesiastical politicking one might expect. Just going off what they had in the Complete Priests handbook.

Druids by contrast had a much more uniform organization that was supposed to extend across the realms with a sort of vague hierarchy of circles within greater circles. They were kinda interesting in that the lvl progression included set roles that the player character would then adopt. So for example to be a High Druid meant that you were lvl 12 and one of only 100 druids in all of Faerun under the Arch druids (30) under the Great Druids (9) and then there was only 1 druid in all the realms who could be the Grand Druid. This required a moot or a challenge in order for the player to become that Druid and then deal with whatever current cataclysm was threatening the greater balance worldwide. After lvl 16 the player character becomes a Hierophant Druid. These were the most powerful druids in the realms and they cease to age, but they exit the whole structure and basically go free agent at that point.

In addition to speaking with Animals and communing with plants, Druids also have their own secret language in D&D based on stuff like ogham, to communicate with each other in cypher. I always thought that was a cool idea.

These classes were both part of the priest archetype in the big 4, but the divides back then were mostly down to things like equipment which was tied way more to class than it is now. You know stuff like Clerics using blunt weapons and heavy armor, whereas druids got the bladed weapons like scimitars and daggers but had to keep it in leathers. Then their spell lists also reinforced the division by type, so Druids get different sorts of immobilizing spells and summons spells. All that elemental flavor and the animal pals.

Clerics I always got a vibe like that was more flexible for what might constitute their churches and such, but Nature Cleric might have seemed a bit curious since there's so much overlap. I kind figure that those would be the Ranger/Clerics or the Fighter/Druids of previous editions, which were the two multi/dual class combos that sorta filled out that niche. Sorta like Bards would sub in for Mages on the arcane front, or Rangers might sub in for Rogues for the scouting/utility stuff.

If the type of spellcasting were the definition, there would only be 3 classes in total. The idea of getting power explicitly from nature has been around for a few editions.

From the PhP:

WotC approved everything in BG3. BG3 homebrews some things, but they would not have been allowed to create a new class or a hybrid class.

But why stop there?

Is an Oath of the Ancients Paladin not basically a nature cleric?

Is a Ranger not basically a circle of the land druid?

Why have one concept in multiple forms?

I imagine a beast master ranger, a druid, a nature cleric and oath of the ancients paladin would not have the same backstory. It works when you simplify them to bare bone tags, but it falls apart when attempting roleplay... or introducing "subclasses of a subclass".

my point is that the classes' names are arbitrary categorisations made for the players. they don't exist to that degree in universe.
it's not like characters have the name of their class stamped on their forehead.
if you met someone who lives in the woods, worships silvanus, casts druid spells, *really* loves nature... you would call that a druid.
just like if i met someone with a white coat working in a hospital and giving medicine to people i would call it a doctor.
i don't check his degree in medicine or care if actually he's a "herbalist with a specialization in hospital doctor stuff"

Except, druids and nature clerics have a completely different lifestyle. Not only is their actual worship tradition different (druids don't worship one god in particular per default), they have different living arrangements (circle vs solitary), different dominance hierarchies (only so many arch druids), etc.

If a nature cleric is the same as a druid, a Paladin is the same as a cleric. Clerics don't smite and clerics don't wildshape. There is a good reason for both if you look at the fine print.

Paladins are more martial and less versatile than clerics. They serve a cause above being loyal to a god. Druids are a far more extreme form of a nature cleric, if you will. Their connection to nature is not based on belief in a specific deity. Worship is a much, much smaller part of their lives, while they're more in tune with animals than humans.

doesn't that depend on the deity though? i mean, i don't think silvanus is the type that would want his clerics to build churches or monasteries dedicated to him in the cities. so the stereotypical cleric lifestyle you're thinking of wouldn't be a thing for a follower of silvanus.
rather, clerics followers of silvanus would live in... a grove, right?
and the dominant hierarchies would depend on the specific religion/deity. it's not like tempus necessarily has his own version of dark justiciars like shar does.

It probably also depends on the cleric and on what the characters define themselves as. There is an NPC named Lenore who's home you can visit, she is a cleric of Mystra but from everything in her tower and everything you can learn about her, her being a wizard would have probably been everyone's first guess.