Xev20 Countdown - Class Uniqueness

[Xeviat]

Hey everyone. I've been largely away for a while. Before that, I was away for another while. I've been going through a lot, but that's neither here nor there for this thread.

As many of you know, I've been a constant rules tweaker for as long as I've been playing TTRPGs (since 2001). Like a Borg, I strive endlessly towards gaming perfection, stealing bits and pieces from things as I go along. But I'm also a fanatic for my first gaming love: D&D.

I loved 3rd, but it was an unbalanced love. I left 3rd for a newer model, 4th, but my friends didn't like 4th. Eventually, they swayed me to their side, and I left 4th too. I played around with M&M for a while, but it couldn't keep my attention. Then, the next D&D was on the horizon. I scrambled to run playtest games ... and found them lacking. Now the basic edition is out, and I feel like it's 3rd trying to win be back again. Pathfinder already tried to do that, and I didn't bite then.

So I've looked back to my copious notes. Returned is my desire to create something of my own. But as D&D is my first love, what I want to make is a form of D&D. A hybrid, or homunculus maybe, of 3rd and 4th is my goal.

One of the goals of the system will be to ensure that the different classes largely draw their abilities (spells for instance) from a largely communal pool. One of my group's chief complaints about 4th Edition was that classes felt like a pile of powers, and every class had their own powers rather than sharing the same thing. But while I want classes to draw many of their abilities from the same pool, I want to make sure that each class plays differently. I've picked my 12 classes (interestingly, the same classes that 5E D&D chose) as classes that are unable to be reproduced by multiclassing, yet are broad enough to represent multiple things in the world. Here's the classes, and their play style:

• Barbarian: Rage means barbarians weigh the decision of when or when not to rage.
• Bard: Bardic music is an effectively constant party wide bonus; their decision becomes which song to use at which time.
• Druid: Wildshape and Aspects allow the druid to take on different forms for different situations.
• Fighter: The fighter's lack of a unique mechanic is a unique mechanic; though their higher critical hit range gives them random damage spikes akin to other class's damage spikes.
• Monk: The monk uses stances as their unique mechanic. Switching between stances throughout an encounter creates a fluid play style.
• Paladin: The paladin uses divine challenge to single out opponents, either gaining bonuses against them or granting penalties to them; the paladin excels at fighting a single opponent at a time.
• Ranger: The ranger's animal companion gives them two units to utilize during combats, changing the way they play.
• Rogue: A rogue's sneak attack requires set-ups to perform, so a rogue will often switch round by round between setting up an attack with a skillful trick and then taking advantage of the set up.
• Sorcerer: A more combative mage, the sorcerer blends weapon combat and magical combat, effectively wielding two weaker actions each round instead of a single action.
• Warlock: The warlock's curse is largely a damage over time effect, which encourages the warlock to spread out their attacks among their foes, while other classes are rewarded for focusing fire.
• Wizard: The primary spellcaster, managing their spellslots is their uniqueness. Class abilities will make different school specializations play differently, though.

What about the Cleric? That's the current problem I'm having. I can't figure out a play style influencing feature for the Cleric. Traditionally, they are like the wizard; a primary spellcaster. Their difference with the wizard came down to their spells. Their spells were less focused on outright offense and more focused on buffs and debuffs; the trouble is the cleric has plenty of direct damage spells and the wizard has plenty of buffs and debuffs. Having different spells doesn't seem to influence their play style.

Now, as primary casters, if the Wizard and Cleric were to access their spells differently (like how a Psion plays differently because they use power points instead of spell slots), then they'd definitely play differently. This is a distinct possibility, but I've been too close to the material to see it objectively. The cleric is granted their magic from a deity, while the wizard wields their own powers. How this can be translated into a difference in the mechanics they use, I don't know. The traditional "clerics have access to all of their spells, and wizards have to learn them" doesn't seem like a difference so much as an outright benefit for the cleric.

So, what are your thoughts on differentiating clerics from wizards? How have you seen similar classes differentiated in other games?

[Steerpike]

Many religions have holy days, weeks, and months.  A Cleric's available spells might change depending on the day of the week or the month of the year or both.  Perhaps instead of renewing spells daily Clerics have to renew weekly.

You could remove the Cleric's direct damage spells (and migrate some to the Wizard) and remove the Wizard's buffs (and migrate some to the Cleric).

Clerics might have to do more than simply pray for spells.  They might need to perform rites or sacrifices.

Clerics might be spoken to by their deities, receiving periodic divine commands or tests of faith that they must pursue or temporarily lose their powers.  The potential for railroading and DM abuse obviously is huge here but it could be interesting.

Instead of casting traditional spells like a Wizard, Clerics might be ritual specialists whose spells all require much greater preparation and casting times.  Their greater combat utility would help make up for their lack of spells in combat situations.

[sparkletwist]

The fighter's lack of a unique mechanic is a unique mechanic

Poor fighters. :(

So, what are your thoughts on differentiating clerics from wizards? How have you seen similar classes differentiated in other games?

I like the idea of Clerics being more buff-focused while Wizards focus more on spells that do things. If you want to preserve some aspect of the Cleric's ability to directly damage, it has often been that they are at their best against undead. Clerics can also heal the party; the "healbot" role is kind of boring, but if the Cleric is able to heal other party members in ways that doesn't eat up actions, it could work. Then the Cleric's role could be a support spellcaster that heals and buffs allies, and possibly enters combat (probably against undead) when it's needed.

[Xathan]

Woo more Xev20! Any class I don't comment on, my comment is "I find this interesting to see but have no detailed questions or feedback"

Barbarian: Rage means barbarians weigh the decision of when or when not to rage.

Are you handling it 3.5 style or Pathfinder style or 4e style? I love rage, so I'm all for that.

Druid: Wildshape and Aspects allow the druid to take on different forms for different situations.

How are you handling Wildshape? And how are Aspects working?

Fighter: The fighter's lack of a unique mechanic is a unique mechanic; though their higher critical hit range gives them random damage spikes akin to other class's damage spikes.

I'm kinda "eh" on this one - so their unique mechanic is that they're rather bland? I feel like pretty much any other option would be more interesting - first thing that comes to mind is special attacks with different weapon groups, or the only ones with iterative attacks, or something. Then again, this is just theory - i'll be interested to see how it plays out.

Paladin: The paladin uses divine challenge to single out opponents, either gaining bonuses against them or granting penalties to them; the paladin excels at fighting a single opponent at a time.

Sounds pretty nice. Are they going to have group options, or be very much "I fight this one dude and that's it."

Ranger: The ranger's animal companion gives them two units to utilize during combats, changing the way they play.

Very interesting. Does this mean no animal companion for druids?

Rogue: A rogue's sneak attack requires set-ups to perform, so a rogue will often switch round by round between setting up an attack with a skillful trick and then taking advantage of the set up.

Sounds pretty cool in theory. Will they have other options for using the set up besides sneak attack? Will they want to stack tricks at time and then go for a super powerful attack, or is switching back and forth always the best option?

Sorcerer: A more combative mage, the sorcerer blends weapon combat and magical combat, effectively wielding two weaker actions each round instead of a single action.

So is the intention for the Sorcerer to go gish style? If so, I am 100% in favor. If not, clarify please?

Warlock: The warlock's curse is largely a damage over time effect, which encourages the warlock to spread out their attacks among their foes, while other classes are rewarded for focusing fire.

More DoTs! I like the change to encouraging Warlocks to spread things out among foes. Will they have decent options for single combat, or will they be fairly weak in a one-on-one.

What about the Cleric? That's the current problem I'm having. I can't figure out a play style influencing feature for the Cleric. Traditionally, they are like the wizard; a primary spellcaster. Their difference with the wizard came down to their spells. Their spells were less focused on outright offense and more focused on buffs and debuffs; the trouble is the cleric has plenty of direct damage spells and the wizard has plenty of buffs and debuffs. Having different spells doesn't seem to influence their play style.

Now, as primary casters, if the Wizard and Cleric were to access their spells differently (like how a Psion plays differently because they use power points instead of spell slots), then they'd definitely play differently. This is a distinct possibility, but I've been too close to the material to see it objectively. The cleric is granted their magic from a deity, while the wizard wields their own powers. How this can be translated into a difference in the mechanics they use, I don't know. The traditional "clerics have access to all of their spells, and wizards have to learn them" doesn't seem like a difference so much as an outright benefit for the cleric.

So, what are your thoughts on differentiating clerics from wizards? How have you seen similar classes differentiated in other games?

One thing to consider trying with Clerics is giving them a much lower number of regular vancian spells, limiting them mostly to buff/debuffs, and greatly add to the Turn Undead ability to be a wide range of miraculous powers granted by their deity - using either a separate resource from their normal spell slots, or even being at will abilities. Those would handle their primary combat techniques while the spells cover buffing and debuffing, which would play significantly different than a wizard - and you can have their "miracles" be determined by their deity, so it'll also be unique in that way.

(and if you don't do this, or even if you, I'll totally do so myself)

[Xeviat]

Many religions have holy days, weeks, and months.  A Cleric's available spells might change depending on the day of the week or the month of the year or both.  Perhaps instead of renewing spells daily Clerics have to renew weekly.

You could remove the Cleric's direct damage spells (and migrate some to the Wizard) and remove the Wizard's buffs (and migrate some to the Cleric).

Clerics might have to do more than simply pray for spells.  They might need to perform rites or sacrifices.

Clerics might be spoken to by their deities, receiving periodic divine commands or tests of faith that they must pursue or temporarily lose their powers.  The potential for railroading and DM abuse obviously is huge here but it could be interesting.

Instead of casting traditional spells like a Wizard, Clerics might be ritual specialists whose spells all require much greater preparation and casting times.  Their greater combat utility would help make up for their lack of spells in combat situations.

I'd rather not use strictly role playing "rules/guidelines" for differentiating a class; the stuff I'm thinking on here is how to make each class play a little differently. You did give me an interesting idea; what if there was some random roll that gave clerics minor objectives within encounters, and they gained a bonus for doing it? What if their spells prepared were random, ala the Crusader from "Book of Nine Swords", representing "divine inspiration" (as long as there was some way to force something, like at least always knowing your domain spells). Just a thought.

[Xeviat]

The fighter's lack of a unique mechanic is a unique mechanic

Poor fighters. :(

Don't worry, I'm not a fighter hater. As it currently stands, the fighter is the only class whose base damage grows at a scale to keep up with the baseline math; the other classes use limited use abilities to add in damage spikes. This higher than average baseline damage gives Fighters better use of the maneuver system. All weapon users use maneuvers (think trip, disarm, sunder, whirlwind, bullrush, multishot ... 4E powers even but statted as modifiers upon the basic attack), but the fighter has better versatility with them. Maneuvers typically require you to give up damage to add riders (rather than to-hit, which balances the same but reduces your chance to do stuff), so fighters can either use maneuvers without sacrificing damage (compared to others) or they can stack multiple maneuvers. I'm also thinking about allowing them to trade critical hit effects in for maneuvers after rolling a crit.

Fighters will have stuff to do, but they're the baseline for the weapon user classes (just like the wizard is the baseline for spell casters).

So, what are your thoughts on differentiating clerics from wizards? How have you seen similar classes differentiated in other games?

I like the idea of Clerics being more buff-focused while Wizards focus more on spells that do things. If you want to preserve some aspect of the Cleric's ability to directly damage, it has often been that they are at their best against undead. Clerics can also heal the party; the "healbot" role is kind of boring, but if the Cleric is able to heal other party members in ways that doesn't eat up actions, it could work. Then the Cleric's role could be a support spellcaster that heals and buffs allies, and possibly enters combat (probably against undead) when it's needed.

Another guiding principle of my alt-edition is any* class can be any* role (some classes are limited, but the core 4 can be anything). A healer fighter is a warlord, a healer rogue is a noble (maybe), and a healer wizard is an abjurer or a necromancer. Role is separate from play style. A barbarian, for instance, could be a meat shield, or they could be a maneuverable attacker.

Because of that, a "rain fire and thunder down from the heavens" cleric (or druid) could be too similar to the wizard if they don't have something unique that alters how they play the game.

[Xeviat]

*Cracks fingers*

Barbarian: Rage means barbarians weigh the decision of when or when not to rage.

Are you handling it 3.5 style or Pathfinder style or 4e style? I love rage, so I'm all for that.

The current thought is quite a bit more close to the Pathfinder style. But rather than having an "X rounds per day" timer, I'm flirting with the idea of having rage do damage per round. Going into a rage at the start of a fight would then be risky, especially if there's fatigue associated with ending a rage. I'm also considering some kind of benefits to raging when at half-hp (I love 4E's "bloodied" nomenclature), perhaps even eliminating the damage per round while bloodied, to encourage (but not require) barbarians to wait. I want a fighter vs. barbarian dual to be able to play out with a potential rope-a-dope strategy (okay, lets let him burn through his rage and then I'll fight him) and a potential tear open the tin can strategy (Hulk smash your armor and cut you to pieces with it!).

Druid: Wildshape and Aspects allow the druid to take on different forms for different situations.

How are you handling Wildshape? And how are Aspects working?

The current thought is that wildshape is an at-will thing (like 4E's), but that more powerful forms require spells. Aspects is a new idea to allow caster-focused druids to not be basically wasting a class ability on wildshape (and yes, this is sort of stolen from WoW). So a caster druid might take on the aspect of the storm to focus on destruction spells, or they might take on the aspect of the earth mother to strengthen their healing. Druids (and Bards) are classes that are designed to be multiple roles (but never in one round); this is an idea I had to allow Jack and Jills of all trades to actually shine.

Fighter: The fighter's lack of a unique mechanic is a unique mechanic; though their higher critical hit range gives them random damage spikes akin to other class's damage spikes.

I'm kinda "eh" on this one - so their unique mechanic is that they're rather bland? I feel like pretty much any other option would be more interesting - first thing that comes to mind is special attacks with different weapon groups, or the only ones with iterative attacks, or something. Then again, this is just theory - i'll be interested to see how it plays out.

Basically, you saw through the vagueness. In addition to having the highest base damage (giving them more freedom in using maneuvers), fighters will learn the most maneuvers (which are all balanced around being at-will, so learning more is just an increase in variety, not power).

Paladin: The paladin uses divine challenge to single out opponents, either gaining bonuses against them or granting penalties to them; the paladin excels at fighting a single opponent at a time.

Sounds pretty nice. Are they going to have group options, or be very much "I fight this one dude and that's it."

There will be options within it, but likely character build options. The standard "defender" paladin's challenge will likely do a 4E style "attack me or else" debuff, while an avenger style paladin would give a damage bonus against the challenged. Further options will exist within their smites; I liked how 4E (and Pathfinder if I remember correctly) have different riders for smites.

Ranger: The ranger's animal companion gives them two units to utilize during combats, changing the way they play.

Very interesting. Does this mean no animal companion for druids?

Pretty much. Druids become nature, Rangers befriend nature. I don't want rangers to just be "druid light", just like I don't want paladins to be "cleric light". I am thinking about a feat (or other resource) to allow anyone to have a useful pet (fighter's guard dog, rogue's helper-monkey ...), but the Ranger's the one who truly focuses upon it (other pet users, even most summoners, use their actions for their pets, rangers have more leeway).

And for the Ranger player that doesn't want to manage a pet, because I imagine that will come up in many groups, I've got that covered; small bird, like a falcon, that is basically plot immune and provides constant bonuses rather than acting as a mobile unit (it alerts you of danger and helps you land attacks on enemies).

Rogue: A rogue's sneak attack requires set-ups to perform, so a rogue will often switch round by round between setting up an attack with a skillful trick and then taking advantage of the set up.

Sounds pretty cool in theory. Will they have other options for using the set up besides sneak attack? Will they want to stack tricks at time and then go for a super powerful attack, or is switching back and forth always the best option?

I haven't thought about letting them stack set-ups, that could be interesting; an assassin rogue stays hidden and observes an opponents actions, playing their very own skill minigame, perceiving an opponents weak spots, determining what their next action will be, and then striking for the kill.

So the idea with set-ups is to simplify some advantage mechanics. A duelist rogue might feign an opening but really go into a defensive stance, drawing an opponents attacks so they can exploit an opening (a defender rogue), while an acrobat rogue might do some crazy parkour stuff to distract their foe. A rogue's allies could even use their own actions for set up (meaning the rogue gets extra advantages when their allies use "aid another"), or certain rogues could be built to perform setups for others (a more leader-oriented rogue maybe).

Like the fighter, I'm trying to avoid "X/encounter" mechanics with the rogue.

Sorcerer: A more combative mage, the sorcerer blends weapon combat and magical combat, effectively wielding two weaker actions each round instead of a single action.

So is the intention for the Sorcerer to go gish style? If so, I am 100% in favor. If not, clarify please?

Very much so. I've always disliked that there's no core gish class. Sure, you can use multiclassing, and a good multiclassing system could be made so you can just gish with the fighter/wizard. But I think a proper gish, from level 1, requires more. When I couldn't figure out what archetypal character fit into the mold (I tried "slayer", like "dragon slayer" or "vampire slayer", but it stepped on the Ranger's toes; I tried fitting the warlock into the mold, but it felt forced) I looked at the Sorcerer again. 3E's description of the sorcerer left one of my first players confused. The description said they were more physical and better with weapons than wizards, but that was realized in the stats by giving them all simple weapon proficiencies instead of the handful that wizards got. The player ended up growing his sorcerer into a sorcerer/fighter/eldritch knight.

I'm still keeping the bloodline aspect of the sorcerer (the sorcerer and warlock are arcane casters under the "blood" subcategory, since I love categorization oh so much), and it will end up manifesting as temporary buffs they use to take on features of their progenitor, but that didn't feel like a playstyle without growing it into something that would step on the druid's toes. Instead, I decided to liberally steal from 4E's Bladesinger wizard-alt. The sorcerer's innate casting ability lets them do it near effortlessly. I may even toss in a magically focused sorcerer that uses something akin to eldritch blast instead of weapon attacks for someone who doesn't want weapons.

Warlock: The warlock's curse is largely a damage over time effect, which encourages the warlock to spread out their attacks among their foes, while other classes are rewarded for focusing fire.

More DoTs! I like the change to encouraging Warlocks to spread things out among foes. Will they have decent options for single combat, or will they be fairly weak in a one-on-one.

I don't want anyone to be totally boned when out of their element (sorry Rogue, you're trapped in a room with a golem), but without some weakness, everyone might feel the same. I suspect their curse could be designed to let them stack curses, meaning a warlock's best bet in a one-on-one fight would be to stack curses and play defensively. Heck, that might not even be necessary, because they could curse and then kite and let the DoT wear their enemy down.

What about the Cleric? That's the current problem I'm having. I can't figure out a play style influencing feature for the Cleric. Traditionally, they are like the wizard; a primary spellcaster. Their difference with the wizard came down to their spells. Their spells were less focused on outright offense and more focused on buffs and debuffs; the trouble is the cleric has plenty of direct damage spells and the wizard has plenty of buffs and debuffs. Having different spells doesn't seem to influence their play style.

Now, as primary casters, if the Wizard and Cleric were to access their spells differently (like how a Psion plays differently because they use power points instead of spell slots), then they'd definitely play differently. This is a distinct possibility, but I've been too close to the material to see it objectively. The cleric is granted their magic from a deity, while the wizard wields their own powers. How this can be translated into a difference in the mechanics they use, I don't know. The traditional "clerics have access to all of their spells, and wizards have to learn them" doesn't seem like a difference so much as an outright benefit for the cleric.

So, what are your thoughts on differentiating clerics from wizards? How have you seen similar classes differentiated in other games?

One thing to consider trying with Clerics is giving them a much lower number of regular vancian spells, limiting them mostly to buff/debuffs, and greatly add to the Turn Undead ability to be a wide range of miraculous powers granted by their deity - using either a separate resource from their normal spell slots, or even being at will abilities. Those would handle their primary combat techniques while the spells cover buffing and debuffing, which would play significantly different than a wizard - and you can have their "miracles" be determined by their deity, so it'll also be unique in that way.

(and if you don't do this, or even if you, I'll totally do so myself)

So, reign in their vancian spells and make their "Channel Divinity" a larger focus of the class? I'd have to drastically rethink my class skeletons. I'd like their baseline to be the same as the druid's, but it's possible that the cleric/druid spells per day baseline could be significantly different from the Wizard (the wizard is already working well using 4E style "encounter spells" for their low levels, capping off at level 20 with level 0 and 1 at-will, 2-5 encounter, and 6-9 daily). Perhaps clerics and druids could not get the encounter recovery on their lower level spells, maybe ending up with 2/day of each, and use that extra design space for their own abilities. Clerics would still need something unique, and I'm not sure X/encounter (or day) channel divinity would fill that unless it was mechanically different than spells.

One early idea that I tossed aside, because it didn't seem like a play style, stemmed from looking at the cleric as a base multiclasser to some extent. War clerics have a little bit of paladin in them. Magic clerics have a little bit of wizard in them. Trickery clerics have a little bit of rogue in them. But I'm not sure if "plays a little like X" is really a playstyle.

[Xeviat]

Thanks for the very warm welcome back. I want to focus on more than just my own things; I feel like I've been a bit selfish in the past.

[Kindling]

Many religions have holy days, weeks, and months.  A Cleric's available spells might change depending on the day of the week or the month of the year or both.  Perhaps instead of renewing spells daily Clerics have to renew weekly.

...

Instead of casting traditional spells like a Wizard, Clerics might be ritual specialists whose spells all require much greater preparation and casting times.  Their greater combat utility would help make up for their lack of spells in combat situations.

Made me think of this and this.

... How about trying to find a way of making it more mechanically explicit that when clerics "cast a spell" they're actually just asking their god to do it for them? It's not them who are magically powerful in themselves, they're just a conduit for divine power.

Maybe expand the concept of domains so that their spell list as a whole is more determined by their god's portfolio? Maybe come up with some word of god type thing, with a focus on sacred texts or whatever, so that the actual writing of the holy words has power? Maybe have a way of expanding turn/rebuke undead to work, perhaps less effectively, on other things too? turn/rebuke outsider for instance, or even turn heathen/rebuke heretic?

[Humabout]

What about the Cleric? That's the current problem I'm having. I can't figure out a play style influencing feature for the Cleric. Traditionally, they are like the wizard; a primary spellcaster. Their difference with the wizard came down to their spells. Their spells were less focused on outright offense and more focused on buffs and debuffs; the trouble is the cleric has plenty of direct damage spells and the wizard has plenty of buffs and debuffs. Having different spells doesn't seem to influence their play style.

Now, as primary casters, if the Wizard and Cleric were to access their spells differently (like how a Psion plays differently because they use power points instead of spell slots), then they'd definitely play differently. This is a distinct possibility, but I've been too close to the material to see it objectively. The cleric is granted their magic from a deity, while the wizard wields their own powers. How this can be translated into a difference in the mechanics they use, I don't know. The traditional "clerics have access to all of their spells, and wizards have to learn them" doesn't seem like a difference so much as an outright benefit for the cleric.

So, what are your thoughts on differentiating clerics from wizards? How have you seen similar classes differentiated in other games?

Firstly, welcome back!

Secondly, what I've seen toyed around with is giving free access to cleric spells (for their level, of course) without daily limits with the caveat that the cleric must uphold certain values espoused by their god, partake in various rituals sacred to their god, and not abuse their god's favor in any way. It basically amounted to a pact between the player and the GM that the player would act like a cleric and not run amok in the game world. With the groups that used this rule, it worked. It wouldn't if the players were more unruly and less interested in roleplaying, just as it wouldn't if the GM didn't keep hold of the reigns and enforce the "if you don't do these things, God will hose you" end of the deal.  I'd call this approach highly optional, but perhaps you can squeeze something out of it. It definitely creates a different feel for clerics. They tend to be much more restrained in game because they have to consider their vows, their god, and if using a spell in that situation is suitable.

[Ghostman]

The list of play styles seems to be exclusively about combat. How do you intend to keep classes balanced considering non-combat activities? Try and give them all roughly equal non-combat play styles as well?

For the fighter class I'd emphasize their versatility. Make them the class that can adapt to ANY kind of combat challenge -- even when built to favour a particular set of equipment. They'd always have access to (or be able to devise) an effective tactic no matter what they're fighting against.

As for clerics, I second the suggestions to focus more on and expand their Turn Undead ability. Give 'em different kinds of turns (demons, fey, dragons, etc) and make them truly powerful, with secondary effects that kick in even if the primary effect is resisted. You could also endow the cleric with a divine aura that is always 'on' and affects friends and/or foes and/or the environment in appropriate ways, perhaps growing stronger via level ups. The exact nature of the aura could be based on the cleric's domain.

[Lmns Crn]

Clerics, you could differentiate them from wizards (and other baseline spellcasters) by giving them more "distance" between their will and their magic's effect.

Wizards get exactly what they want. They have a limited list of spells, from which they prepare an even more limited subset, and when crunch time comes they select from that pre-arranged list. For clerics, you could convert some or all of their spellcasting ability to a class feature called "Miracle" or "Call Down the Power of My God" or whatever, where the cleric initiates the power but the divine entity handles the smiting or whatever. The cleric would essentially be saying "hey big guy, little help here?" and standing back to see what happens.

Alternately, I had a thread a while back called "wyzzardes as gods" or something similar; it speculates on an alternate paradigm for spellcasters that may in fact work pretty well for your clerics.

[Xeviat]

Just a quick reply while I'm formulating my thoughts from the other posts: These play styles are focused on combat only because I find balancing combat to be the more difficult task. I want everyone to be able to contribute something always, but in combat imbalance has lead to more of my players feeling left out than out of combat imbalance. For instance, if you chose to play a dumb, uncharismatic barbarian, then you've kind of stated in advance that you don't really care about tense negotiation scenes (taken from an actual game experience; the barbarian would just stand guard and keep a look out for trouble, and I'd toss some trouble in every now and then).

But like how the 5E design diaries have been talking about the "three pillars" of roleplaying games, I am fully intending on having the skill system, and to a lesser extent class's non-combat abilities, allow them all to contribute something in all three pillars.

[Xathan]

So, reign in their vancian spells and make their "Channel Divinity" a larger focus of the class? I'd have to drastically rethink my class skeletons. I'd like their baseline to be the same as the druid's, but it's possible that the cleric/druid spells per day baseline could be significantly different from the Wizard (the wizard is already working well using 4E style "encounter spells" for their low levels, capping off at level 20 with level 0 and 1 at-will, 2-5 encounter, and 6-9 daily). Perhaps clerics and druids could not get the encounter recovery on their lower level spells, maybe ending up with 2/day of each, and use that extra design space for their own abilities. Clerics would still need something unique, and I'm not sure X/encounter (or day) channel divinity would fill that unless it was mechanically different than spells.

Channel divinity as it is would not really fill that. What I had in mind was more a pool of resources that includes Channel divinity that clerics have. Then, based on domain, you also get some other powers you could use that for as well. As far as what those would emphasize - to make them different from wizards but not step on the sorcerer's toes, you could make them based around fighting in the midrange (between 30 and 10 feet from their opponent) which would keep them in with the group so they can buff and heal, but close enough to the action that their superior defensive abilities actually matter.

One early idea that I tossed aside, because it didn't seem like a play style, stemmed from looking at the cleric as a base multiclasser to some extent. War clerics have a little bit of paladin in them. Magic clerics have a little bit of wizard in them. Trickery clerics have a little bit of rogue in them. But I'm not sure if "plays a little like X" is really a playstyle.

If you mixed in what I suggested above, you could actually achieve that while keeping it distinctly clerical as well - depending on your domain powers, you can do some things other classes can do, but are still a healer and buffer of others at the same time.

I do like the idea of clerics being a lesser jack-of-all-trades,-but-only-depending-on-build. It would benefit smaller groups and still be able to carry its own weight in larger groups, without really stepping on any classes toes.

Another option that occurs to me: drastically cut the cleric's spell list, and give them actual at will powers, moving them closer in terms of style to the 3.5 Warlock. It would radically alter how the class plays, but would be completely unique for what you have listed - and make sense thematically, because their god has plenty of power to spare.

EDIT: BTW, I will get to you responses on the other classes later, but since that's what you're struggling with I thought I'd toss in my 2cp.

[Seraph]

I definitely like the direction you are taking this.  I would like to see how you handle skills with this, and I hope that some of the neglected classes get some more skills that it would make sense for them to have.

I like several of the ideas put forth for the Cleric so far.  Limiting their powers to coincide with their god's portfolio makes a lot of sense.  There might be a few universal types of "miracle" that any cleric can do, but for the most part I think it's cool if there is a distinct difference in the powers of a priest of the Sun God and a priest of the god of War.

Rituals, votive offerings, and sacrifices of various sorts all seem good ways to go to me.