Cleric design goals . Legends and Lore April 23

Jack99 · Apr 23, 2012

Zireael said:
Turn Undead was not mentioned in the article.

They mentioned in the most recent podcast that they had taken TU away from the cleric only to put it back in after playtest feedback. Sounds as if it is fairly safe to assume that the cleric can turn undead, even though it is not mentioned in the article.

pauljathome · Apr 24, 2012

BobTheNob said:
I liked point 3 : Divine Spells are subtle. .

That was the point that I loathed. I want my cleric with a Fire motif to be able to throw fireballs. I want my vanilla cleric to be able to call down Flame Strikes or put up his Wall of Blades.

I'm A Banana · Apr 24, 2012

pauljathome said:
That was the point that I loathed. I want my cleric with a Fire motif to be able to throw fireballs. I want my vanilla cleric to be able to call down Flame Strikes or put up his Wall of Blades.

What if "Fire Specialist" is a theme that any PC can take that gives you access to a bunch of fire spells (like fireball, flamestrike, whatever)?

leatherhead said:
It should the the opposite imo.

That's all well and good, but it's not very D&D, I think. Divine magic is for healing and buffing and protection and divination, largely speaking, and though there's a few blasting spells in there too, they're not as potent as a wizard flipping around lightning bolts and fireballs.

I bet, though, if you want a flashy divine mage, it'd be easy to be a Priest-themed Wizard or somesuch.

pauljathome · Apr 24, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
What if "Fire Specialist" is a theme that any PC can take that gives you access to a bunch of fire spells (like fireball, flamestrike, whatever)?

Unfortunately, that also doesn't work for me. I don't want my fighter to be able to throw a fireball, even if he worships Saranrae (martial god with Fire domain in Golarion, the default Pathfinder world).

And if Themes and Backgrounds go that far then D&D will really not be a class based system any more. Which is fine with me in one respect (I like non class based systems) but would be a pretty egregious step away from their "its still D&D" theme.

GMforPowergamers · Apr 24, 2012

I really want the cure spells, the inflict spells, harm and heal all in the game. I also think we need flame strike, blade barriar, contagion, and PLANAR ALLY.

Divine power, aid, Bless, wrightus might, Divine favor, and the like are all clasic.

I have gone on the record saying every caster should get dispel magic, but I would love to see

Tallifer · Apr 24, 2012

I think the goal for designing a good cleric class should be making the Healer as attractive as possible.

Few players want to heal the party, but they all want someone to heal them. Reward the person who is willing to be a team player and heal the party. (I do in fact take one for the team often and heal the party.)

By that, I do not mean give the Cleric great combat and buffing skills. That only makes him even more reluctant to heal. Pathfinder clerics are pretty strong, but most of the Pathfinder clerics with whom I have played have vehemently denied being a healer. "I don't want to be a healbot!" they wail, because they actually just want to be a Fighter with Spells or a Necromancer.

The minor action healing of the Fourth Edition and also the healing effects stacked onto attacks were good for the Healer. The Pacifist healer's benefits were a good idea too.

How about a mechanic whereby Healers get temporary hit points or defense bonuses for themselves (divine favour) when they heal others? Or experience points.

GMforPowergamers · Apr 24, 2012

Tallifer said:
By that, I do not mean give the Cleric great combat and buffing skills. That only makes him even more reluctant to heal. Pathfinder clerics are pretty strong, but most of the Pathfinder clerics with whom I have played have vehemently denied being a healer. "I don't want to be a healbot!" they wail, because they actually just want to be a Fighter with Spells or a Necromancer.

If in the last 15 years I heard the phrase "Not all clerics heal" once I heard it 100 times.

Infact in 3e when clerics could swap for healing I think I saw LESS healing becuse no one wanted to prep one spell then "loose" it.

then in 4e I saw almost no clerics... I saw healer 4 warlords, 3 ardents, and one shaman, and only 2 clerics

n00bdragon · Apr 24, 2012

Another article that says nothing substantive. Woo, clerics wear armor and have spells. When has this ever NOT been the case? I realize they are trying to make a product that resonates with all editions of D&D but how many articles do we need declaring that the sky is also blue?

BobTheNob · Apr 24, 2012

pauljathome said:
That was the point that I loathed. I want my cleric with a Fire motif to be able to throw fireballs. I want my vanilla cleric to be able to call down Flame Strikes or put up his Wall of Blades.

Yea, Im getting the impression alot of people agree with your perception more than mine. I acknowledge this.

I will however clariffy why I like point 3.

My perception of the wizard is that of the opening scene from "Template of elemental evil" (game remake from a couple of years ago...so so game, great opening scene) when all the great wizards of D&D turn up (including Tenser, Melf , Otiluke e.t.c.) and start laying waste to the armies of evil. Fire balls explode, lightning erupts, meteors crash. The wizards are spectacular and destructive. This is how I see the arcanist....he doesnt worhsip a god, he aspires to be one.

Then I think of a cleric, casting something like "Create Water" and ask myself "how would a god make that manifest?". Would it be a flash of light with water magically appearing in the sky, or would it be that the cleric looks up and happens to see a trickle of water from a crack in the mountain stone nearby? Im more for the later, the god subtly delivers on the prayer. Its a precept of faith...faith isnt needed where proof of existence is irrefutable. So the god provides in that explainable kind of way.

Thats why I like subtle for clerics, its far better suited to the concept of faith being the strength of the cleric. At the same time, it allows the cleric to be something different from the arcanist and the arcanist to have the more spectacular spell set (cause he is the guy who gave up everything for the better spell list).

Mouseferatu · Apr 24, 2012

I'm torn.

On the one hand, I've played lots of fiery-smitey clerics, and I really enjoy them.

On the other, the more flashy combat spells you give the cleric, the more you blur the difference between the cleric and the wizard. And that very easily--not automatically, but almost--to the CoDzilla issue. If a cleric can be just as good a blaster as a wizard, and can wear armor and has better HP and BAB--then unless a game is remarkably non-combat-centered, the wizard becomes an absolutely inferior option in any/all mechanical and effectiveness measurements.

So even if one doesn't strip away all the overt/flashy combat spells from the cleric, one does need to A) seriously limit their number, and B) make them notably less effective than arcane spells of the same level.

Of course, one could instead balance it by giving wizards some other massive advantage, beyond their spells, but that risks taking the class outside the bounds of what most D&D players expect. Doesn't mean it can't be done, of course.

(And all this leaves aside the flavor issue. A lot of people, myself included, want arcane and divine magic to feel different. One of the only ways to do that is to have a relatively firm line of demarcation between what one or the other can do.)