Clerics and Spontinaeity

[BrooklynKnight]

damn spelling.

Ok, hows this for a concept.
It makes clerics even more powerfull, but with quite the drawback.

Let clerics cast all spells spontaneously, however, it becomes a true prayer type thing.

The spells are only granted if it suites the goals of the diety. The big picture. If the spell is truly needed. If not the cleric doesnt lose the spell or slot or what not.

This gives more power to the DM and PC playing a cleric, and inspires much more roleplay on the clerics behalf.

Opinions?

 

[green slime]

You could lengthen the casting time. Increasing the casting time of most divine spells by even as much as tenfold.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Opinions?

Sounds like House Rules to me

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Cbas10]

damn spelling.

Ok, hows this for a concept.
It makes clerics even more powerfull, but with quite the drawback.

Let clerics cast all spells spontaneously, however, it becomes a true prayer type thing.

The spells are only granted if it suites the goals of the diety. The big picture. If the spell is truly needed. If not the cleric doesnt lose the spell or slot or what not.

This gives more power to the DM and PC playing a cleric, and inspires much more roleplay on the clerics behalf.

Opinions?

In my opinion, it would make clerics EXTREMELY powerful as spellcasters are concerned. In spellcasters, the intelligent use of spells, large lists of spells to draw from, and the versatility of spontaneous casting would make for ungodly powerful characters when in challenges appropriate to their class level. I've never had any problem with players making sure that they play the cleric with the intentions and philosophies of their gods in mind, so I would rarely (if ever) have to enforce any denial of spells based upon "goals of the deity."

For example, let's say a 6th level cleric of Pelor is trying to root out and defeat minons of a cult to Nerull (not exactly a strange or specialized situation). With 3 or 4 3rd level spells per day, one must very carefully choose his spells in order to assist the party. However, with total-spontaneous lists of spells, he'd always have a Remove Blindness, Dispel Magic, Invisibility Purge handy, as well as a host of offensive spells like Summon Monster III, Searing Light, Blindness/Deafness, and others. Such versatility with complete access to the cleric spell list would be a bit overpowering. True, you did mention the DM judgement over what spells the deity would allow but that either (A) could give the DM too much control over the character or (B) creates too much direct-intervention of deities. This is not really true of all games, but it brings about possibilities that can frustrate players to the point of wondering, "Why Bother?" I cannot stand 3rd level games (for example) where they are supposed to solve problems spawned by direct deity involvement.

Instead, I like this idea (still following the theme of spontaneous casting along the wishes of the deity): spontaneous casting of Domain spells instead of the generic notion that all clerics are masters of healing. This is one house rule I have been thinking about. I'd like to give spontaneous access to 3 domains of spells, allowing a cleric to benefit from a single domain ability. This seems balanced and it creates in-game factions of Clerics. Using Pelor as an example, one 1st level cleric could perform a feat of strength once a day, one could be more effective at turning undead once a day, and a third would be a bit more adept at using his healing spells. A warrior, an undead hunter, and a healer. All of them can spontaneously cast Cure light wounds, Enlarge Person, and Endure Elements, but each one of them has a particular specialty.

 

[Darklone]

Hmm. Hard to balance.

A better houserule IMHO was proposed here three years ago: Clerics can't cure spontaneously, but they can convert any prepared spell into one of their domain spells.

 

[Umbran]

It has been noted by many game designers that, in general, you shouldn't use role-playing considerations as part of your balance. They then go ahead and break that with paladins, but it's still sound advice.

In this particular case, it injects a horribly subjective question into the mix. As if that were not enough, tying the cleric's power so closely to the deity's wishes pretty much squashes their individuality as a character. While that might make some sense, logically, it's not a good thing to play. It's like having a micromanager for a boss - you end up asking why the heck you're even there, if you don't actually get to make any decisions on your own...

Also, there's another consideration - player may very well be able to glean a great deal of information from what spells are granted at what times. Who needs divination spells, when you know that God will answer certain questiosn for free if you're just crafty with what spells you try to cast: "Hmm. I don't know if this guy is really an enemy. I'll try to cast Holy Smite, and if it works, I know he needs killing!"

 

[Emirikol]

For simplicity sake, clerics wouldn't need to be changed. What you could do instead is simply add access to all divine spells to the Sorcerer.

If you do this, which I did, you need to make ALL spells affected by encumbrance.

Yea, yea, yea, there's that over-explained essence of 'divine magic comes from the god' blah, blah, blah. So, now that all magic comes from the same source (arcane), it's actually easier to logically argue that the god's and mortals pull their 'abilities' from the same source: the fact that magic exists.

It sure solved a lot of problems in my lower-spell campaign and would be nice too in a higher spell campaign like GH or FR.

Thoughts?

jh

 

[Wolffenjugend]

IMC, we used to play with "open spellbooks" which meant clerics could freely cast any spell they had access to, wizards could cast any spell in their spellbook, etc.

It's great in terms of flexibility/creativity. Nothing's better than having a player cast a spell with creative effect in a situation which they wouldn't have otherwise memorized that particular spell. D&D has a stringent spell casting system that makes 25% of the spells used 75% of the time. An open spellbook system makes 100% of the spells used 100% of the time.

Yes, an open spellbook system makes spellcasters more powerful. Thus, the need to apply it equally to all spellcasters. Wizards aren't too difficult to manage b/c the DM has the final say on what spells are learned. It is also important to make clerics "earn" their spells (i.e. justifying their use). One of the biggest problems in D&D is players who take cleric spells as a given, as if they're entitled to the spells and their god(s) shouldn't intervene in their use. Part of this attitude comes from the modern distaste for religion and organized rules, but all power comes with limits. In an open spellbook system it's especially important to justify the use of spells.

When we switched to 3.5, we shelved the open spellbook system along with all the other house rules we had. We now play with the pure rules, mostly to assist new players.

The open spellbook system definitely works, but I would discourage novice DMs from using it if they can't get a handle on their players.

 

[green slime]

OA has a divine spellcaster that functions as a sorcerer; that is they choose their known spells from a list, and can spontaneously cast them.

You could use that mechanic.

 

[DaveStebbins]

I have to agree with what Umbran said. By making the spells I choose to cast subject to DM approval, it changes the class far too much for my liking.

It may be fine in some campaigns, but in my group we rotate DMing duties, so my cleric would seemingly become schizophrenic. When one guy DMs, he would likely impose no restrictions and the PC would become unbalancingly powerful. A different DM might impose restrictions totally opposed with my views of the religion and deity. Either one would make the PC less fun to play.

As a DM, I'm busy enough at the table, without having to judge a cleric's spells before and after they are cast.

As a player, it takes too much of the power away from me and places it into the hands of the DM.

Again, it may work fine in your campaign, or when the DM and the player both have a similar understanding of the goals of the deity in question. However, I'd rather play a straight cleric than this modification.