Cleric design goals . Legends and Lore April 23

[Arytiss]

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.

IIRC, the Cleric was originally created as a holy warrior to be able to kill a particularly annoying vampire. Everything else came later.

 

[Andor]

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?

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

It is different in a couple of ways. First it's mechanically external to the character, in Hero system terms it has the obvious accessible focus disadvantage.

More importantly it's distinct in fluff. If magic is supposed to be rare and difficult (a common default assumption in D&D) then it should not be available to people who have not dedicated their lives to it.

In more common magic settings, where magical dabbling can result in some minor powers then a theme that grants spells would be fine.

The nice things about this set-up is a Gm can fine-tune the magic commonality of his settings by choosing which themes are available.

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

Not total exclusivity no, but each class does need some unique identity OR to be a flexible toolkit that can build a variety of archetypes. Combining these two approaches is how you get a fighter who is completely overshadowed by other classes that get everything he does plus extra stuff.

 

[SkidAce]

The President for Clerics using Maces is not elected. He is appointed by divine authority.

Some watery deity lobbing about maces is no basis for a form of government.






/sorry

 

[pauljathome]

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

Its not about exclusivity. Its about capability.

In my view, the main strength of a class based system is that it means that the class alone gives one a rough idea of what a character in that class is meant to be able to do. When you sit down at the table for a PFS session you can sum up your character with something like "I'm playing a cleric of Sarnarae" and that actually has significant meaning. It is NOT the entirety of the character or its capabilities but it is at least the larger portion of it.

So, a fighter hits things with pointy sticks. Really, really hard. Doesn't throw spells.

Personally, I actually prefer non class based systems because I love tinkering with characters. When I'm handed a class system I want a lot of flexibility.

But its not about my tastes. Its about what D&D is.

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 love Prestige Classes as they were originally conceived and the way that they can elegantly handle exactly this scenario. The fighter visibly starts down the path to becoming a HolyFireWieldingWarrior by their feat and skill selection and they then become a HolyFireWieldingWarrior.

At that point, the quick summary is probably HolyFireWieldingWarrior. It may be Fighter/HolyFireWieldingWarrior depending on the prestige class.

Unfortunately, Prestige Classes changed into a mini-maxing tool where the flavour and exclusivity got completely lost.

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?

It depends on how much themes and backgrounds affect the character.

If theme, background, race and character class all contribute roughly equal amounts to the character then I have to describe my character as Elf/Cleric/Lurker/Aristocrat. That probably leaves my fellow pick up players mystified as to exactly what my character can do

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?

That is overstating my position but isn't entirely wrong. It DOES bother me at some level if the purely vanilla fighter (the one who is NOT a HolyFireWieldingWarrior, who is NOT from a world where all characters are magical, etc) suddenly throws a fireball. It interferes with the versimilitude of the world.

That was a significant portion of the reason that 4th edition wasn't to my tastes. From various discussions, I think that I'm not alone in that opinion.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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...

Alternately, the cleric can get those very good defensive melee ablities, under the parameters you suggest--or can trade those good defensive melee abilities for more directly offensive magic, and take his chances if he needs to run up and heal in melee occasionally.

 

[I'm A Banana]

More importantly it's distinct in fluff. If magic is supposed to be rare and difficult (a common default assumption in D&D) then it should not be available to people who have not dedicated their lives to it.

Being dedicated enough to the goddess of fire that you sacrifice some other character benefit (such as, I dunno, weapon expertise) in order to be initiated into her mysteries isn't enough? Or in your view can only those with the cleric class be initiated enough into her cult to learn her secret powers?

In more common magic settings, where magical dabbling can result in some minor powers then a theme that grants spells would be fine.

I'm just shooting the mechanics, mostly. Mechanically, functionally, at the table, with the numbers, the difference between being able to cast Fireball once per day and being given an item that can cast Fireball once per day are negligible.

The fluff is different, but the fluff is flexible. Steve's game gives you magic spells, Paul's game gives you permenant, recharging magic items, Sarah's game gives you a hideous burn scar that channels her power, Jane's game makes you eat a special spicy curry in the morning...whatever. However it gets justified, the problem isn't inherently with fighters casting fireball because they worship the fire-goddess, it's with the in-world justification of that, and that's a pretty easy problem to solve for each campaign. There are multiple correct answers to that question.

In my view, the main strength of a class based system is that it means that the class alone gives one a rough idea of what a character in that class is meant to be able to do....So, a fighter hits things with pointy sticks. Really, really hard. Doesn't throw spells.

Being able to hit things with pointy sticks doesn't have to mean you also can't throw spells, does it?

In other words, a class describes what you are meant to be able to do, but it doesn't limit what you are able to do. Fighter hits things with pointy sticks, but if he gets some way to cast a spell, why can't he? Wizard chucks the spells, but if she gets some way to wear heavy armor (like, say, the Defender Theme, or the Bodyguard background, or a magic suit of plate mail that channels arcane magic, or dragon scales that function like plate mail), why can't she?

If theme, background, race and character class all contribute roughly equal amounts to the character then I have to describe my character as Elf/Cleric/Lurker/Aristocrat. That probably leaves my fellow pick up players mystified as to exactly what my character can do

Well, if we look at this historically, it might be something like this:

• Race: Basic ability score bonuses/penalties, and some minor abilities (stonecunning, skill bonuses, etc.), with perhaps one major ability (bonus feat, re-rolling a miss, special attack, etc.).
• Background: Basic proficiencies and skills (swords, heavy armor, wizard implements, Diplomacy, Nature, Intimidate, etc.)
• Theme: Feats and minor features and abilities (one spell/special attack every few levels, whirlwind attacks, ritual casting, familiars, companions, etc.)
• Class: Essential defining class features and at least one major ability per level.

So "fighter" describes most of what you can do, but "Dwarf" describes a bit, and "Fire Cultist" describes a bit. And "Priest" describes a bit.

That is overstating my position but isn't entirely wrong. It DOES bother me at some level if the purely vanilla fighter (the one who is NOT a HolyFireWieldingWarrior, who is NOT from a world where all characters are magical, etc) suddenly throws a fireball. It interferes with the versimilitude of the world.

A "purely vanilla fighter" probably wouldn't make worship of a goddess of fire a major part of his character. He's probably better served by the Defender or Slayer themes (takin' hits and killin' things).

But the option to switch that out for a bit of fire magic helps those who want to be HolyFireWieldingWarriors feel like their choice of a goddess of fire and their investment in her as part of their character creation means something big about their characters. It helps anchor that worship, if they want it anchored.

And if they don't, it also doesn't have to. Slayers can worship fire goddesses too. Those who take this fire-goddess theme instead just are particularly invested/initiated/chosen/blessed/scarred/cursed by the goddess (and have spent time developing that rather than developing their poking-things abilities).

That was a significant portion of the reason that 4th edition wasn't to my tastes. From various discussions, I think that I'm not alone in that opinion.

I'm as big an opponent of martial dailies and Come and Get It as you'll find in people who play 4e, probably, but this is a little different. We're not talking about changing what a fighter is. We're talking about giving every player a chance to customize what their character can do.

And, of course, those who don't want such customization can always not opt into it -- we've been told that there's "default" backgrounds and themes for the classes for people who (like me, usually) don't want to bugger about making all these fiddly little choices.

 

[pauljathome]

. We're talking about giving every player a chance to customize what their character can do.
.

The following is NOT meant to be snarky. Its an honest question.

If you allow this degree of customization then why even bother starting with a class based system? Why not just have a set of options that one can use to build a character, together with a set of pre-built packages to make life simpler for those who want it?

I would have absolutely no problem with such a system and it sometimes almost sounds like that is what 5th ed may be. And the whole "class based" is now basically just marketting hyperbole, a nod to nostalgia.

 

[Libramarian]

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".

This for sure.

This mindset of "well let's just make the cleric able to attack and heal at the same time, that satisfies the people who like to heal and the people who like to attack." really misses the point.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If you allow this degree of customization then why even bother starting with a class based system? Why not just have a set of options that one can use to build a character, together with a set of pre-built packages to make life simpler for those who want it?

I believe the answer is so that they can have their cake and eat it too. They want people who have never played any edition of D&D 1e AD&D(with only the PHB) to sit down and say "I want to play an elf thief" and to have there be an easy option to pick elf and thief and pick a theme like "Guild Thief" and then just write down the abilities those things tell you to write down and be done your character.

Meanwhile, they want someone coming from 3.5 Edition to be able to be able to say "I want to be a Grey Elf Thief who specializes in hiding really well and uses daggers. I want some cool throwing dagger tricks so I'm going to swap my first level Thief class feature for a different one. I like the Guild Thief theme, but it gives me a bonus to Streetwise and I'd rather have a bonus to Acrobatics, so I'm going to change that."

If you start with the second system then anyone expecting the first system is going to be lost entirely. But if you start with packages and then allow people to customize them, you can at least partially please both of them. From everything I've heard, this appears to be what they are doing.

 

[Balesir]

If you allow this degree of customization then why even bother starting with a class based system? Why not just have a set of options that one can use to build a character, together with a set of pre-built packages to make life simpler for those who want it?

I can't speak for KM's reasons, but here are some that seem clear and compelling, to me:

- I think a "class system" in the sense of Upper Class (gets to use cool, flashy powers called spells), Middle Class (gets to use some fairly neat special abilities) and Working Class (gets to be a grunt with a pointy stick) is a flawed way of looking at classes and not at all useful.

- I think 'classes' are at their most useful in the game when they split out adventuring roles and thereby encourage teamwork instead of being handwavy fluff "differences" of flavour.

- As a result of these two, having multiple elements to a class such that (1) roles in different situations (or "pillars") can be allocated separately and (2) roles can be supported with a range of flavour elements that can be swapped in without having a whole new class "core" could be really useful.

But, then, I think in 4e D&D finally got a fighter worthy of the name. Watching the fighters in the party I DM for they seem to embody the quintessential "fighting man" (even though they are both non-human; go figure ) far better than I have ever seen in D&D before.

But, each to their own...