4E Gods - Where's the crunch?

[CleverNickName]

I'm really trying to get on board with 4E, but 3.5 keeps calling me back. This weekend, I was invited to a 4E game, and I rolled up a human cleric. And the game went fine, I suppose, but my character didn't "feel" like a cleric...it felt more like I was playing a warmage.

One of the things I liked the most about 3rd Edition was the way that deities were handled. For divine characters anyway, the choice of a deity really matters in 3.x. A cleric of Pelor, for example, will play much differently than a cleric of Obad-Hai, even if they are of the same alignment. For divine characters, a deity is more than just backstory, or a template for behavior...deities have a direct impact on game mechanics.

I miss domains. I miss favored weapons.

 

[DandD]

I don't, because clerics as the most powerful characters (with druids) is something that the total majority of all D&D-players disliked. Also, I'm pretty sure you saw those Channel Divinity Feats. If you can't make a difference gameplay-wise with that from another cleric with another deity, than this is really only your problem.

 

[Hussar]

I'm really trying to get on board with 4E, but 3.5 keeps calling me back. This weekend, I was invited to a 4E game, and I rolled up a human cleric. And the game went fine, I suppose, but my character didn't "feel" like a cleric...it felt more like I was playing a warmage.

One of the things I liked the most about 3rd Edition was the way that deities were handled. For divine characters anyway, the choice of a deity really matters in 3.x. A cleric of Pelor, for example, will play much differently than a cleric of Obad-Hai, even if they are of the same alignment. For divine characters, a deity is more than just backstory, or a template for behavior...deities have a direct impact on game mechanics.

I miss domains. I miss favored weapons.

To be 100% honest, I miss spheres.

I really never saw a whole lot of mechanical difference between the clerics. I saw the difference coming more from the flavor that you put into the class rather. Thus a cleric of Cuthbert and a cleric of Pelor could be very different in play.

But, this entirely relied on the player, not the mechanics. Mechanically, there was extremely little to differentiate them.

Then again, "I swing a sword" while "I swing a mace" isn't a big differenc to me.

 

[Shadeydm]

I don't, because clerics as the most powerful characters (with druids) is something that the total majority of all D&D-players disliked. Also, I'm pretty sure you saw those Channel Divinity Feats. If you can't make a difference gameplay-wise with that from another cleric with another deity, than this is really only your problem.

Those feats stink speaking in general terms and I believe there is only one for each god so I suspect this doesn't really address the OP's concern IMHO. Oh, and btw the whole "only really your problem" thing is a bit on the nasty side don't you think?

 

[DandD]

No, they don't stink (that's truly your subjective prerogative), additional special powers that only clerics get due to domain selection was only one of the many complaints against the 3rd edition clerics, and no, there is nothing nasty about saying that it's only his problem if he's unable to make it a difference, when thousands of other people can do it easily. Heck, rumor tells that some people managed to play fighters much differently, in all edition of D&D. If these many thousands, perhaps even million people can do it, so can he, with the 4th edition clerics, who are far more diverse than the fighters of older editions.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm really trying to get on board with 4E, but 3.5 keeps calling me back. This weekend, I was invited to a 4E game, and I rolled up a human cleric. And the game went fine, I suppose, but my character didn't "feel" like a cleric...it felt more like I was playing a warmage.

One of the things I liked the most about 3rd Edition was the way that deities were handled. For divine characters anyway, the choice of a deity really matters in 3.x. A cleric of Pelor, for example, will play much differently than a cleric of Obad-Hai, even if they are of the same alignment. For divine characters, a deity is more than just backstory, or a template for behavior...deities have a direct impact on game mechanics.

I miss domains. I miss favored weapons.

Mechanically I think they are a lot weaker in terms of differentiation. Flavour wise though... I really like the way that the PHB gives "three commandments" for their followers - three really strong character hooks for the clerics (and any devoted followers of a religion).

Favoured weapons would be an easy thing to introduce for the clerics.

I'd ideally like to have seen something along the line of 'spheres' or 'domains' for cleric spells, but that would have needed an entirely different setup, so it wasn't really likely to happen with the current set of powers.

The "domain feats" are pretty weak and flavourless IMO (ironically the best one was the one in the FR playtest from DDXP - Amanatuars(sp?) one that could add 1d10 radiant damage to a radiant attack once it had hit.)

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you can't make a difference gameplay-wise with that from another cleric with another deity, than this is really only your problem.

It is not "his problem". Don't be rude.

and no, there is nothing nasty about saying that it's only his problem if he's unable to make it a difference

yes, there is something wrong with saying that. Don't talk down to other people. Don't belittle other people.

Thanks

 

[fba827]

Yeah, there really isn't much crunch difference now.

I am guessing that was done partially on purpose for the sake of someone not being pissed that their favored weapon is only a dagger (1d4) while someone else gets a mace (1d8) etc.

I'm also guessing that we wil probably see more deity-specific channel divinity feats in the divine power source book (or PPs specific to different deities), which probably won't be out until 2010.

So, yeah, aside from fluff (descripting the visual effects of prayers differently and the like) the only real crunch difference that you can do with the rules available is to house rule in something like clerics don't get turn undead and instead get the channel divinity feat for their deity for free, etc.

 

[Tervin]

I am lucky in that the 4E campaign I have planned will be as good as monoteistic. That way, I will not have problems with clerics for different gods behaving differently.

My favourite treatment of religion in D&D is 2E specialty priests. Two priests in the same party would often play completely different from each other. I don't think that setup really works for 4E though. I think a possible solution would be to link different cults to different multiclassing options, and then give the clerics a favored weapon as well if they take that route. If you want to do more work I guess the way would be to create subclasses (=multiclass only classes) that are unique for each cult, and create paragon paths to match them.

The feats that exist now feel a bit weak as a way to differ different cults' paladins from each other, for clerics it is worse.

 

[Set]

To a certain point, more information on fantasy gods tends to limit them more than expand them, IMO.

Once they get big multi-page write-ups, with variant sects and the like, they get a little 'roomier' and become useful for more than a single limited role, but the Domains & Favored Weapons approach of 3.X felt a little restrictive to me, particularly in light of real-world faiths, where a diety like Shiva 'the Destroyer' also has associations with fertility, rulership, fire, and pretty much everything else his faithful want to associate him with! (And I specifically chose Shiva as an example, because he's part of a pantheon of hundreds of dieties, which would be far more likely to have limited roles, compared to monotheistic dieties.)

Using the core dieties, for example, I might want to work up a priest from a farming community who is very concerned with natural laws and seasonal cycles and the whole life-and-death cycle, believing that magic should be used to both raise up what must be raised up, and put down that which should accept it's time in the sun has past. But instead of making a priest of Obad-Hai, I could go with a priest of Wee Jas. He's still a priest of a goddess of law, magic and death, but he's got a different focus, because of his farm-community roots. It might be neat to have him armed with a scythe, but the Favored Weapon of Wee Jas is a dagger. It might be neat to have him know spells of the Plant Domain, etc., but Wee Jas doesn't grant those spells, even if it would be in theme for this particular character.

A more open and freeform system for Clerics, IMO, is better, as the diety choice all-too-often is limiting. Alignment is a particular stickler for me, as the tiny sub-set of gods included in core books tends to lack certain roles, such as a good or chaotic god of magic. (Once larger pantheons, such as the ones in the LGG or FRCS are included, there's more likely to be 'something for everyone,' obviously, but when there are only a dozen dieties in a core book, choices get much more restricted.)

On the other other hand, I loved Specialty Priests and Spheres back in 2nd Edition, but I think that the game has moved very far away from that approach. Domains were a *much* smaller subset of those rules, and it looks like 4E is working to make Clerics even less distinctive than that.