Clerics & Druids: musings

[Aus_Snow]

Did you or did you not ask for opinions?

Yes. But I thought it unnecessary to explicitly state anything like: 'Helpful or insightful (or amusing, I guess) posts are the only kinds welcome in this thread, thanks.' I'll know better next time. Note: it's not that I haven't come across 'pro-core' zealotry many a time before, but it still often irritates me.

Are you wanting to change these classes because they're "broken" and you can't handle them? Or because they don't gel with what you think they should be thematically?

I realise that I responded aggressively to your hm.. previous post, let's just say. That was probably the wrong thing to do, of course. Nonetheless, must you continue to put things in such terms as "can't handle them" or the like? Honestly, it just seems pointlessly antagonistic to me, and I really don't want this to be dragged down any further. Generally, I am quite easygoing, as anyone who knows me could tell you. It irks me that I've been irked, as much as anything. :\


Anyway, in response to your last paragraph in general: It's the latter.

I would prefer Clerics to be something closer to clerics, rather than say, templars. In fact, I might tinker to make another class which fits the 'templar' bill even better than the standard cleric can (for my campaigns' purposes).

And I would prefer even more distinction between the Druid and the Ranger. The fact that one is a 'full-on' spellcaster and has d8 HD, whereas the other is a 'lite-on' spellcaster at best, and also has d8 HD, doesn't make any sense at all to me. Other changes have been, and will be made to my Rangers, to further accentuate this distinction (and, more importantly, to make Rangers much closer to the concept I have in mind for that class).




Additional note: Apparently, the Cleric and Druid classes are 'more powerful' than the rest, at any rate (so I've heard repeatedly). Therefore, I thought there would be less ah, 'issues' arising at the mention of weakening them a tad. However, be aware too, that I did clearly state an interest in balancing factors, in my very first post.

 

[The Druid Merlin]

Losing the armor proficiency wouldn't bother me, and it hasn't bothered my players. I removed heavy armor (War domains gets it), and everything's good. I don't know about the hit die reduction though. I'd have to ask my players what they thought about that.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Selvarin]

Hmm

Anyway, in response to your last paragraph in general: It's the latter.

I would prefer Clerics to be something closer to clerics, rather than say, templars. In fact, I might tinker to make another class which fits the 'templar' bill even better than the standard cleric can (for my campaigns' purposes).

And I would prefer even more distinction between the Druid and the Ranger. The fact that one is a 'full-on' spellcaster and has d8 HD, whereas the other is a 'lite-on' spellcaster at best, and also has d8 HD, doesn't make any sense at all to me. Other changes have been, and will be made to my Rangers, to further accentuate this distinction (and, more importantly, to make Rangers much closer to the concept I have in mind for that class).

Additional note: Apparently, the Cleric and Druid classes are 'more powerful' than the rest, at any rate (so I've heard repeatedly). Therefore, I thought there would be less ah, 'issues' arising at the mention of weakening them a tad. However, be aware too, that I did clearly state an interest in balancing factors, in my very first post.

I wouldn't mind the loss of heavy armor, that would make the fighter look a little better in the process. Clerics don't necessarily need it anyway (IMHO), if they want to go 'templar' they could take a level of Fighter or join a prestige class with that flavor. No harm there. But giving clerics something in return for losing heavy armor would be nice, too. 2 domains, spontaneous cure/inflict is okay buuuut perhaps a bonus feat (such as the "Initiate of" feats found in FR) at 5 or 6th level. Or the ability to sanctify/desecrate (and I'm usinga generic term,not bothering to look in the book) 1/day at a certain level. Something.

With regard to hit points, eh.....no. I like my priests with some meat on their bones, figuratively speaking. There's nothing wrong with letting that be (the better to endure the trials and tribulations while in service to their deity or philosophy, I say). On the other hand, dropping it to d6 in return for another ability.....ehhh, still no. Perhaps rogues deserve d8 more than clerics because of the inherent danger of their line of work.

Hmm, interesting.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I've always felt clerics and druids were too combat oriented and too good at spell casting. I've always felt one area (combat imo) needed to be scaled down. So I agree with your changes.

 

[the Jester]

Interestingly enough, in my low-magic campaign experiment I made some similar changes to the cleric: renamed them priest, reduced their HD to a d6, and took away heavy armor proficiency. I also reduced them to one domain, but added the spells of that domain to their spell list (and took away the granted powers); gave them spontaneous casting (though I retooled their spell list to eight per level or less, plus domain spells); and gave them bonus feats (from a specific list) at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th and 20th levels. The bonus feats I made available are Armor Prof (heavy), Combat Casting, Consecrate Spell, Corrupt Spell, Eschew Materials, Extra Turning, Greater Spell Focus, Greater Spell Pen, Heighten Spell, Iron Will, Leadership, Persuasive, Scribe Scroll, Skill Focus (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, knowledge- religion or spellcraft), Spell Focus and Spell Pen.

Oh, I also added Bluff and Intimidate to their skill list.

The entire campaign's ruleset is heavily tweaked in a lot of ways- everyone gets +2 skill pts/level, feat and ability increase acquisition is sped up, etc.- but other than that, this is my take on what you're doing.

 

[Drowbane]

Yes. But I thought it unnecessary to explicitly state anything like: 'Helpful or insightful (or amusing, I guess) posts are the only kinds welcome in this thread, thanks.' I'll know better next time. Note: it's not that I haven't come across 'pro-core' zealotry many a time before, but it still often irritates me.


I realise that I responded aggressively to your hm.. previous post, let's just say. That was probably the wrong thing to do, of course. Nonetheless, must you continue to put things in such terms as "can't handle them" or the like? Honestly, it just seems pointlessly antagonistic to me, and I really don't want this to be dragged down any further. Generally, I am quite easygoing, as anyone who knows me could tell you. It irks me that I've been irked, as much as anything. :\


Anyway, in response to your last paragraph in general: It's the latter.

I would prefer Clerics to be something closer to clerics, rather than say, templars. In fact, I might tinker to make another class which fits the 'templar' bill even better than the standard cleric can (for my campaigns' purposes).

And I would prefer even more distinction between the Druid and the Ranger. The fact that one is a 'full-on' spellcaster and has d8 HD, whereas the other is a 'lite-on' spellcaster at best, and also has d8 HD, doesn't make any sense at all to me. Other changes have been, and will be made to my Rangers, to further accentuate this distinction (and, more importantly, to make Rangers much closer to the concept I have in mind for that class).




Additional note: Apparently, the Cleric and Druid classes are 'more powerful' than the rest, at any rate (so I've heard repeatedly). Therefore, I thought there would be less ah, 'issues' arising at the mention of weakening them a tad. However, be aware too, that I did clearly state an interest in balancing factors, in my very first post.

My bad, I guess I should refrain from posting when I just get off work. Seems to put me in a semi-nasty mood. So, apologies all around.

So is your issue with the Druid more about the Druid or the Ranger? I'm of the mind that the Ranger is the one stepping into the Druid's niche (badly, I must say)... not the other way around.

As to the Cleric issue. Isn't that what the Cloistered Cleric is supposed to be? More of a Priest as opposed to a Templar. Would you be opposed to just removing the Cleric in favor of the Cloistered? (and tacking on the name "Priest", a la 2e)

As I rudely mentioned before (again, my bad) I generally don't think they need to be altered. But then, my group tends to play more Arcane and Tank types, so we rarely have more than one healer-class at a time. I'm playing a Druid lvl 5 currently who has the Natural Bond feat. Out in the wilderness I shine... but alot of the campaign has been centered around Sharn.... (doh!)

Tell me of your proposed Templar class. Prestige class or Base? Would this be kind of an Alternate Paladin as well? I tend to favor the Paladin, Ranger, Bard as Prestige Classes (though not exactly as presented in the UA) as I believe all three to be badly written.

 

[Aus_Snow]

My bad, I guess I should refrain from posting when I just get off work. Seems to put me in a semi-nasty mood. So, apologies all around.

Ha, there's a coincidence (i.e., similar circumstances were mirrored here). Not just your bad; I was out of line, and had you incorrectly 'typecast'. It's not the first time I've done that, I'll confess. So that was definitely my bad.

So is your issue with the Druid more about the Druid or the Ranger? I'm of the mind that the Ranger is the one stepping into the Druid's niche (badly, I must say)... not the other way around.

Mostly I run non-magic rangers, but I keep the standard PHB version (with a few tweaks) around as another option, as well as various UA, Dragon magazine (and so on) variants.

Druids are the ones I'd rather alter in this case. So I'm thinking d6's for them, too. Of course, they may well need some pretty noticeable counterbalancing. That's the bit I'm stuck on, really.

As to the Cleric issue. Isn't that what the Cloistered Cleric is supposed to be? More of a Priest as opposed to a Templar. Would you be opposed to just removing the Cleric in favor of the Cloistered? (and tacking on the name "Priest", a la 2e)

Hm. Well, I have that class available already, but I'm thinking of redusing their HD to d4's (in line with the other ascetic casters). Again, they might well need something in return. But I see your point. Actually, I was thinking about that very option yesterday. Of course, then I would have blathered on for ages, made an idiot of myself, and pissed some people off, all for nothing. Can't have that, now.

As I rudely mentioned before (again, my bad) I generally don't think they need to be altered. But then, my group tends to play more Arcane and Tank types, so we rarely have more than one healer-class at a time. I'm playing a Druid lvl 5 currently who has the Natural Bond feat. Out in the wilderness I shine... but alot of the campaign has been centered around Sharn.... (doh!)

Yeah, makes sense. My original post was vague, and was put too much in terms of a question, rather than a statement of intent on my behalf. That was also my mistake. It had something to do with timing and life in general (the vagueness), which I also shouldn't subject people to.

Tell me of your proposed Templar class. Prestige class or Base? Would this be kind of an Alternate Paladin as well? I tend to favor the Paladin, Ranger, Bard as Prestige Classes (though not exactly as presented in the UA) as I believe all three to be badly written.

Again, fair enough, re: the prestige paladin & co. preference. I tend to favour as many options (er.. the good ones, I hope) for *base* classes as are plausible and supportable. No good reason, really. Just a preference.

If I'm going to go ahead with this whole idea, I think the templar will be more similar to a Paladin (or even Sohei) than the unaltered Cleric, but maybe with one domain, more skill points... meh, I haven't thought about their abilities at all yet. :\

This is my first foray into tinkering so heavily with a core base class. I tend to just chip away at the edges and reshape stuff a bit, normally. I think it's safe to assume that a sane person would leave it at that. But hey, what the heck. I'll see how it goes.


So, the Cleric. I've been thinking that a progression of class abilities every say, three levels might do it (2nd, 5th, 8th etc.) - though I'm not sure. If these were fairly strong abilities, that fit the whole 'priest as divine messenger/channel' theme, would that compensate for the reduced hit die (assuming the loss of heavy armour is negligible) ? I'm thinking it might, but (believe it or not) I would appreciate more feedback, or input.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Interestingly enough, in my low-magic campaign experiment I made some similar changes to the cleric: (...)

These look good. Thanks, I find accounts of others' experimentation invaluable, as some of what I'm attempting is unfamiliar ground, to me.

Oh, I also added Bluff and Intimidate to their skill list.

'Mine' get Sense Motive already (which I forgot to mention before). It struck me a grievous oversight on behalf of the creators / remodellers.

everyone gets +2 skill pts/level

Same here!

But not with the other things.


Sounds pretty cool overall. Any particular pros or cons from the changes?

 

[Nyaricus]

I have a campaign of my own design (a low magic one, for those who care; and btw jester, i think you campaign sounds brilliant man, just brilliant > i read your other post), and for the moment, i am using the PHB cleric (named priest, because the cleric name makes no sense whatsoever) and druid classes as stated, much to my dismay. I am working on creating monsters, adventures, areas and people that my guys can meet and interact with (on top of the fact that that is one out of two campaign that i run, the other being in the Realms, so for actualy gameplay, i am just going as is.

The main problem with the cleric is that it tries to be a "holy warrior" (more holy though) and then the Paladin is the other side of the coin, but he is more warrior.

what i am planning to implement is having my Priest be, essentually, a divine "mage" in terms of spells. that is his forte. he still gets a d8 HD, has bad BAB, as for Saves, i have an interesting system. Will is always good, but depending on his gods' portfolio, his reflex or fort could be the other good save. if the deities portfolio doesnt apply to fort of ref (say, a deity of peace) then the Priest gains Iron will as a bonus feat at first level. for a class skill list, he has the following: Concentration, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy (called Persuade in my campaign), Heal, Knowledge (all sub-skills, called Lore in my campaign), Profession, Sense Motive and Spellcraft. he gets (4+int mod)x4 at first, and 4 + int mod after that. As for class abilities, i am thinking a list of bonus feats be in order (1st, 6th, 11th, 16th, specific feats have not been decided, but for low-magic, see Jesters commentary before) and furhtermore, in my campaign, its low magic, adn so the Turn Rebuke Undead may also affect Demons/Devils/Fiends (if you are good) or Angels/celestials (if you are evil). for Low Magic, that is balanced, because at higher levels, you are more likely going to faceing magical beasts/giants, etc rather than evil invaders from Hell (and besides, arent Priests already attributed with the banishing of evil via excorcism? this kinda brushes over the fine details of excorceis itself, but i have yet to find time to get into excorsim in my campaign.

so, theres my Priest, a non-combatant whos spells (of which are already greater in number per day than the wizard, fantasys premier spellcaster) and skills help him out alot.

btw, i think the idea of spontaneous spellcating for Priests and Druid be appropriate. they are calling for divine intervention, and since his god will have "just the right spell" to help him out, it makes sense, from a non-gameplay veiw, and wont affect gameplay too much.

my comments on the druid are coming next . . . .

--------
btw how do you get those messages at the bottom of you screen? i am sure that it is an automated process, because who is going to spend the time hyperlinking it all, etc, adn remember to put it at the end of each post. thank you for any feedback.

 

[Jraynack]

I haven't felt the need to change anything from the core rule books. As long as I can challenge my players, I don't not feel the need to restricted them.

As for the cleric - The heavy armor does them good as it allows them to be in the thick of it casting healing spells on fallen comrades or those about the fall. Casting spells in combat is a dangerous matter (attacks of opportunity, being a viable target) and with only 2 skill points per level (remember most clerics will have their main ability be Wisdom not in Int) it leaves them very little in way of putting ranks into Concentration.

Instead of restricting players look at ways you can challenge them more than you do now. I will say that any character is powerful when augmented to suit a particular game (I speak from many years of experience with plenty 17th+ clerics running about in my many campaigns) but as a DM it is your job to challenge them not to restricted them (I am in no way implying that you don't challenge your players since I have never played in one of your games - just look outside the box and throw a few curve balls at your players before tinkering with a well developed core class that has been playtested for a number of years).

In the end, you are the DM and it is your game - but remember it is the players' game too.