This is not particularly new.
It is not particularly common.
It does not have a particularly large effect.
Do you really think that priests should be able to wander around carrying thousands and thousands of gold all the time without any risk?
No, wait—that's right; in The World According to Chénier, priests should be supermen, able to do whatever the hell they want.
I didn't say all the time, nor no risk at all. But seriously, how "broken" was this advantage? The most common use is going to fund temples... How game-breaking is this?
Was bothers me is that to "fix" a minor advantage that a seriously underpowered class had, you implemented a serious vulnerability with no ability to compensate or reduce the risk in any way (carrying less gold is NOT a solution). Yes priests were the best suited to carry large sums of gold (woohoo, look at me, I can CARRY GOLD! zomg!). So what? Did they really need to become the worst? Now, if my priest character wants to withdraw a large sum of gold at the capital to go expand a temple next door, he risks being attacked by mobs unless you does 5 treks to fund the temple? What if he wants to travel two weeks away to do this (common on Dwilight)?
Priests are an endangered species. The religion game, as I witness it, has seriously declined in interest over the years, overall. I don't see how removing the few minor perks priests had does anything to improve the game. Even when old priests still got all of their hours, travel was never longer than 16 hours and bandits were of no concern, priests were far from overpowered, and nobody was complaining about the perks.
As for "without any risk", priests are the only characters that other nobles can actively arrest. They are far from invulnerable.
I just really don't see the point.