Clerics & Druids: musings

[Aus_Snow]

I've changed Clerics in only one way, so far (other than by virtue of the fact that they've inherited general changes from broader house rules): they've lost Heavy Armour Proficiency (but have retained Medium).

First of all, would this change bother anyone here, hypothetically? Enough to put them off choosing the class for a PC? I'll just say now that I can't see why it would, but anyway...

I've also been thinking about giving them d6's for HD, rather than d8's. And the same goes for Druids, too. Cloistered Clerics would then have d4's, rather than d6's, to conform with the new pattern.

It would be justified along these lines: PHB Rangers and Monks (among other classes) have d8's, and are highly combative and very physically resilient types (i.e. more so than Clerics and Druids, I would say).

Thoughts? Suggestions for balancing factors, if you believe that they are required (as they probably are)?


edit --- finally changed the title, so it's accurate. my apologies once again for misunderstandings and so on,

 

[domino]

Clerics are highly combative as well. That's why they get heavy armor proficiency. And spells like GMW. And Martial Weapon Proficiency.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Clerics are highly combative as well. That's why they get heavy armor proficiency. And spells like GMW. And Martial Weapon Proficiency.

Heh, no.

Check your PHB / SRD.

They have Simple Weapon Proficiency.


Constructive replies are welcome.


edit --- oh, and the standard Cleric's Heavy Armour Proficiency is absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of defending your 'argument' there. Rangers don't have heavy armour. Neither do Barbarians. Or Swashbucklers. Or Monks. Or ... etc.

Gah.. and how could I miss this one: BAB. Check Ranger. Check Cleric. Compare.

 

[Ferret]

I wouldn't mind it (I think clerics are a bit too powerful), but a lot of people will feel cheesed off, because basically you've taken away something they could normally have had.

 

[domino]

Gah.. and how could I miss this one: BAB. Check Ranger. Check Cleric. Compare.

Oops on the weapon proficiency.

But I noticed you mentioned ranger BAB.

And not say, the OTHER d8 highly combative class you mentioned. The one that has the same BAB progression as the cleric.

I still say they're highly combative. Armor, monk/ranger Hit dice, strong fort save. As I see it, your changes use circular reasoning. Making them less combat oriented because you think they already ARE less combat oriented.

 

[Nifft]

IMC, Clerics lose Heavy and Medium armor. People still play them. If you want a battle-cleric, take the path known as "one level of Fighter".

-- N

 

[Nail]

Just to put this out there: Clerics are often the "support" role type of PC. I know many try to play them as one-man commando-teams, but they really are support characters.

Because of that, they're often not people's first choice. You need something in there to sweeten the deal.....and allow the support to hang around enough to do the "supporting". Heavy armor and d8's do that.

I currently play a Clr. To be honest, I've never gone the heavy armor route....but I'm glad that option is available....without having to take a hit to caster level by multi-classing.

 

[Ferrix]

Depends upon the flavor of your clerics.

Played out of the PHB, they are more of crusading warriors, rather than clergy or priests.

I'd say, if you drop them down to a d6 and knock off heavy armor, bump their skill points up to 4 to compensate. That gives them more of the priest/clergy aspect than the crusading warrior aspect.

 

[IndyPendant]

Nail...errr...hit it on the head, there.

If you look at the numbers exclusively, like an accountant, clerics are over the top. Too powerful.

However, if you look at them with a bit of humanity in there, and include the fun-factor, and you'll notice that people just generally don't like playing clerics. Listen to your players over time; you'll see that the majority of the time when someone plays a cleric they flat-out say it's "only because the party needs a band-aid" or some such. Nail's right. Clerics need the deal sweetened to appeal to players.

I mean, think about it. How often have you seen parties with two PC clerics?

Now think about how often you've seen parties with two PC tanks, or two PC arcane casters.

Uh huh. Clerics sure are over the top. That's why everyone...plays...them...oh, wait. They don't.

Muck around with clerics at your peril.

 

[Drowbane]

I've changed Clerics in only one way, so far (other than by virtue of the fact that they've inherited general changes from broader house rules): they've lost Heavy Armour Proficiency (but have retained Medium).

First of all, would this change bother anyone here, hypothetically? Enough to put them off choosing the class for a PC? I'll just say now that I can't see why it would, but anyway...

Thoughts? Suggestions for balancing factors, if you believe that they are required (as they probably are)?

Clerics are Druids are fine as is. Why do you feel the need to reinvent the wheel? That said, you're the DM of your campaign, scum up whatever you feel like scumming up.

[snarky]You know, Wizards are too good too! Lets drop thier HD to d2s and take away that blasted Familiar they get.... and those rogues,!! lets reduce thier sneak to 1d6 at 1st, and additional d6 every 5 lvls and give them d4s... because like wizards they should avoid melee combat! And....[/snarky]