Does anyone miss the generic cleric?

[diaglo]

I think the question is, if that's how you feel, why are you sitting here on a 3rd edition board instead of on Dragonsfoot, for instance? If he went over there constantly dogging older editions of D&D, then you'd have a comparable situation.

b/c i play this edition. and b/c it is out of habit. i've been here a very long time.

and people do come from here to dog Dragonsfoot.

but contrary to what some say size does matter. 1 vs. 5000 does not mean much. whereas 1 vs 100 may be troublesome.

i support this site. notice my title.

i direct people here from other sites, too.

i answer questions here.

it is only on threads like this one that i really drag my anti-this edition out.

edit: about the only thing i really overpush over here is my sig. i pimp my story hour. you will note it is this edition and others in the group add to it.

 

[Will]

Definition of fanatic: Someone who does what God would do, if He were aware of all the facts.

I had a bit in Spells and Spellcraft, talking about different modes of religion in D&D. The default assumption is a somewhat dualist polytheism, with opposed forces of good and evil but no clear 'head god.' Religions with one supreme and other lesser gods are henotheist... it's not hard to have a religion like this in D&D.

But other ideas are just as easy. Animist clerics, who talk to spirits and have better gifts (domains) with some than others. Pantheists, who see gods as part of the fabric of things rather than as separate entitities from the world. Some clerics champion their god, while others worship all gods and are simply annointed to one in particular. And ancestor worshippers appeal to those who came before. You can also have monotheism, dualism (good/evil), monotheistic henotheism (one god, but lesser agencies to appeal to), dualistic henotheism (god and the devil, but god is in charge), and so forth.

Or, of course, some mixture. Animist/ancestor worshippers are a common combination.

A simple way to expand the flexibility of clerics is to allow clerics to replace their turn or rebuke ability with another domain. So a pantheist who is dedicated to nature may have the plant Domain ability (turn/rebuke plants) as her primary ability, and Air and Water as her normal domains.

 

[Storm Raven]

and you think it's gotten better, i got it, OK?

reverse your argument and take a look at where i'm sitting.

Of course, the main problem is that seems to be the only contribution you ever make. Even if people agree with you that OD&D is a good game, your posts are like an annoying broken record: the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over . . . .

 

[swrushing]

if someone told me, as a potential player for a fantasy game of mine, that their religious beliefs would cause them to be uncomfortable or have troubles if I made the world's fantasy religion a significant element... i would advise them to find another GM.

I would explain that religion is usually a very significant element in my stories and one i enjoy running. They should find a game with another Gm whose gaming style and design views were more in sync with their own.

 

[Henry]

Ladies and gentlemen, anyone ever hear of "getting along" and "agreeing to disagree?" Let's relax a bit, and not get worked up over favored editions.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Never in all my years of playing previous editions did i have 2 clerics the same.

it wasn't until tur...3ed and the advent of feats,skills, domains, etc...into one mix. that i started to see players min/maxing the hell out of the game; where i saw the first generic cleric produced. i have seen a ton on the net and in game of generic clerics now. all with basically the same stats (thanks to point buy), the same hps (ditto), the same domains, the same choice of spells, the same equipment, the same....blah.

I thought you were leaving the boards?

Oh wait. I mixed up 'thought' and 'hoped'

1st ed was rampant with generic clerics. Your rose-coloured memory may not allow you to see it but they were there. Does the term 'battle medic' ring a bell perhaps.

Your continued harping on 'turd' edition is older than you now. Give it a rest (and us a break).

 

[Henry]

Perhaps I was missed in the shuffle.

Let's lay off the personals.


I will add one question of my own:

Diaglo, in what way were the 1st edition and original D&D clerics you saw less "generic" than the ones for 3E?



I've seen and played thunder priests, clerics of retribution, clerics of the elements - and all of them used their domain powers to good effect in unique ways. The only way I ever saw them more distinct was in 2nd edition with the spheres, which is a concept I wished was revisited in 4th edition in the future.

The OD&D and 1E clerics had the same problem to me that fighters had - each cleric had the exact same abilities, and the other players put pressure on the cleric player to stock up all 1st, 4th, and 5th level spells with cure wounds, or else they were harangued as "wasting" their abilities.

Similarly, Fighters all had the same hit dice and attack bonus, and the only thing that differentiated them was what weapon they picked (invariably a long sword, bastard sword, or two-hander) and their strength. Budgeons were looked down upon because the "mighty" warhammer did 1d4+1 damage - which could easily be matched with a bastard sword and percentile strength, even being halved for skeletons and the like.

 

[Aaron L]

Everyone, Diaglo champions 0 Ed. D&D, Not 1st. That is the realm of 3 alignments, clerics not getting spells until second level, and elf, dwarf, and halfling being classes. Not 1st edition. If your'e going to dog him, at least get his edition of choice right, plzkthx.

 

[Henry]

Everyone, Diaglo champions 0 Ed. D&D, Not 1st. That is the realm of 3 alignments, clerics not getting spells until second level, and elf, dwarf, and halfling being classes. Not 1st edition. If your'e going to dog him, at least get his edition of choice right, plzkthx.

Actually, 3 alignments and races as classes was Basic D&D, not Original D&D - there were some differences even there. Original D&D is a creature that is half a stride between AD&D and Basic D&D.

 

[diaglo]

players in my campaign...pre-Supplement IV.

made active choices for how they thought the religion of their characters worked. they spelled it out for those seeking their aid. whether it meant conversion to the religion or the price of the healing.

had one cleric use leeches and scarring (caused damage) before he cast cures. ouch. the cure could kill just as much as help.

used the choice of weapons. much like the introduction of "favored weapon"

some clerics avoided particular spells altogether. while others "invented" their own. magic-users weren't the only class to research spells.

we required a quest to gain the "next" level. which meant spells too. and we used much like 1ed did later the use of servants to answer prayers (aka angels) or demigods or gods for higher powered spells. all of these were gained thru quests.

so as each player built his character they took on a role much different from any other. yet mechanically they could appear similar.

edit: Plus we rolled 3d6 6 times in order. so even if your stats said be a fighting man. the player may still have picked cleric.