Cleric design goals . Legends and Lore April 23

Mouseferatu said:

On the other, the more flashy combat spells you give the cleric, the more you blur the difference between the cleric and the wizard.

Click to expand...

I think that this is an issue that Pathfinder (and 3.x to a slightly lesser extent) already solved.

While blasty clerics exist they're markedly less powerful at blasting than a blasty wizard. My fire domain cleric gets 1 fireball at L5 while the blasty evoker wizard gets 3. And his do more damage too.

Kamikaze Midget said:

So your cleric being able to call down fire isn't good enough -- you also need to make sure that no one else can? (which, let me say, is totally fair -- not like fighters in any e have been able to chuck around fire just 'cuz they worship something made of it)

Click to expand...

Pretty much. I want spell chuckers to be able to cast spells and non spell chuckers not to be able to. At least in D&D.

I'm happy with Earthdawn where EVERY PC is explicitly magical. But I hated 4th edition with supposedly Martial classes being able to do things that were very clearly magical in nature. Its all a matter of definition.

A few extra powers layered on top of what you can already do is pretty much exactly how the 3e cleric's domains worked. Expanding that to the entire party doesn't invalidate the class-based system, it just makes it more flexible and agile.

Click to expand...

The more that is available to characters from sources outside of their classes the less the game becomes a class based game. At some point it becomes a game that really isn't class based. The point at which this occurs is, of course, subjective and different people can reasonably disagree on it.

And, though I'm not sure it needs to be stated, nothing stops you as DM from limiting that agility and ruling that only clerics can take domain themes or whatever.

Click to expand...

Assuming that I'm the GM.

3E has the "Arcane Devotee" in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. It's a five-level Prestige Class for wizards who want to align themselves more closely with a specific deity.

I can foresee 5E accomplishing something similar with a Theme or Background.

I can't see how allowing traditionally non-caster classes minimal access to some spell energy is going to diminish the clear delineation of the classes, after all, the caster classes get at least the minimum access to martial attack abilities.

Of course if it's a deal breaker then that's up to you.

I give every character in my world the ability to use cantrips regardless of class or level. It fits with the level of magic energy that permeates my game world.

Tallifer said:

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.

Click to expand...

They could also go with an 'aura' effect where the players in the group trigger their own healing and get a bonus to the healing value if the Cleric is near enough to them when they do it.

It is an indirect bonus to healing that doesn't consume the Cleric's action for someone else's gain.

pauljathome said:

While I find your idea cool and interesting in the abstract, unfortunately D&D divine magic has never been subtle and rarely has much to do with real faith.

The Gods in the default D&D setting are very obviously very real. Only insane nutjobs would question their existence or power. In that context worshiping a God really isn't about Faith

Click to expand...

I worry very little if spells like Flame Strike, Blade Barrier, and Earthquake are not on the the 'Divine' list at release.

I'm sure that splat books or 3rd party sources will 'fix' the problem and produce spells as deadly as any arcanist selection within a year.

Very nice article...

I want to focus on the three explicit definitions of Cleric (of course the religious aspect is also a major definition, but not so directly into the mechanics):

1. The Cleric Is a Healer
2. The Cleric Is a Divine Spellcaster
3. The Cleric Is an Armored Warrior

I think what has actually caused some problem and controversy is point 3. Personally I used to think that the Cleric was originally given armor more as a compensation for the fact that he lent the healing services, often to be done performed in the middle of a battle (hence the extra defenses, so that he doesn't need to risk too much), rather than really making him a good fighter. I strongly believe that as soon as you have enough spells per day, you can play a totally powerful Cleric without fighting in melee, just casting your spells.

But given the armored warrior concept, I think too many people focus on this aspect of the Cleric as if it was the most important, and then of course they complain that "healing wastes my time, I should be rather fighting", and also choose too many combat/buffing spells to become even better at that. What is even worse, they use all their buffing on themselves, instead of supporting others, and then the others complain about the CoDzilla problem.

All this in light of the fact that at the same time many other gamers are unsatisfied by the lack of a Cleric more similar to RL priests, hence less battle-oriented.

I'm going to stretch my opinion here, and say that perhaps it would be for the best of all that the Cleric would be given very good defensive melee abilities, but very poor offensive melee abilities, so that even when self-buffed it could not outshine the fighter-types, and that in general fighting (i.e. attacking) would not be normally more convenient than spellcasting, unless of course you're out of (useful) spells.

See also my next point...

Tallifer said:

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.)

Click to expand...

I think this is an important remark!

What bothers me, is that not only few players want to heal the party... but also not so many players want to buff the others, or directly shield the others, or aid/support the others...

Personally I think it's about time that D&D would promote more teamplay, but it has to be proactive not "automatic-in-the-background", which is quite the opposite in fact... having a PC with an ability that all the time grants +X to all comrades or that automatically heals a wounded friend is not what I like, because if you're not paying a price for using it (e.g. give up your action) then it's not really teamplay, it's the opposite, it's "I don't need to bother because the game does it for me, so I can focus on me, myself and I".

I understand that this idea is controversial, and most gamers would very much prefer to go the other way. In my case, I think it comes from having in the past years promoted RPG even at work, as an exercise to develop cooperation and teamwork, and "unfortunately" these are things that require care and effort... although I probably would like if in my profession I could have some "automatic-in-the-background" abilities that take care of my workmates requests for help and answer their questions while I can keep posting undisturbed on ENWorld... I mean while I can keep working.

Li Shenron said:

Personally I think it's about time that D&D would promote more teamplay, but it has to be proactive not "automatic-in-the-background", which is quite the opposite in fact... having a PC with an ability that all the time grants +X to all comrades or that automatically heals a wounded friend is not what I like, because if you're not paying a price for using it (e.g. give up your action) then it's not really teamplay, it's the opposite, it's "I don't need to bother because the game does it for me, so I can focus on me, myself and I".

Click to expand...

I'm with you 100% on promoting teamwork in D&D, but I think healing and buffing are only one, relatively unsubtle and secondary, way to do it.

I'm running a 4e game for 7 players; they have no leader class character at all (although one is a Paladin, who secondary leader, and another is multi-classed to cleric). I see them engage in a huge amount of team play, though; maily in terms of moving enemies around the battlefield to set them up for others' attacks, but also things like the teleporty warlock rescuing others who have got themselves isolated and the wizard controlling sight lines and access to protect from missile attacks and outflanking.

Basically, teamwork is about having things to do other than just reducing the opponents' hit point pools (or directly arguing a point in social encounters or doing the actual searching and disarming/opening in exploration encounters). Things that either allow others to be better at what they do, or protect them from interference while they do it.

pauljathome said:

Pretty much. I want spell chuckers to be able to cast spells and non spell chuckers not to be able to. At least in D&D.

Click to expand...

What if the fighter, instead of being given the ability to cast fireball, was given, say, a necklace of fireballs with one bead that recharged every morning? Or if instead of flame strike, he was given a magic sword that could cast flame strike once per day?

And then your priest who worships the goddess of fire might get a necklace and a magic mace.

And then the rogue who worships the goddess of fire might get a necklace and a magic dagger?

&etc.

It is mechanically mostly identical, but the feel is different. Is that as annoying?

The more that is available to characters from sources outside of their classes the less the game becomes a class based game. At some point it becomes a game that really isn't class based.

Click to expand...

I don't personally think a class-based game is determined by exclusivity.

Like, let's say I make a PrC for a devotee of the goddess of fire that includes spellcasting from the Fire domain, regardless of your previous class.

Does that make the game any less class-based, even though Mr. Fighter can still pick up some magical tricks?

I don't really think so. Classes are a power-delivery system.

That said, the entire concept of "themes" that give you spells and abilities must certainly detract from your view of a class-based game, no?

Assuming that I'm the GM.

Click to expand...

And if you're not, then you don't take that theme, and you're still happy with life.

And if your party includes some guy who wants to take the theme, then he's happy with life, too.

It's not a problem if it exists for other people, is it? Or in your view, does D&D need to impose a certain sacrosanct class division on every single player, or loose something essential?

objectsession said:

It actually sounds like they need to dumb down the articles to reach people's reading comprehension levels.

Click to expand...

If 'see spot run' is right up your alley for an rpg book then enjoy. I didn't need that at age 10 and certainly not now.