Does this sound like an Über caster to you?

[VirgilCaine]

Most of my fellow Player-DMs are not so open minded. No PrCls outside of the DMG...assuming any PrCls are allowed. No base classes outside of Core. No Unearthed Arcana, Psionics etc. Feats & Spells outside of the Core (WoTC only- no Paizo or any other 3rd party sources) approved on a case by case basis, and then only rarely. Alternative/HR are minimum- RAW carries the day for classes & races- what is interpreted is interaction of spells & feats or other odd interactions, and most of that is campaign-specific.

Only a couple of them besides me even run 3.5.

I think you should just get different DMs for this character. This group of DMs you describe seems extremely paranoid about changing anything, I doubt you will be able to make this character.

 

[Celebrim]

I think you should just get different DMs for this character. This group of DMs you describe seems extremely paranoid about changing anything, I doubt you will be able to make this character.

One has to wonder what has happened to make this group of DM's so paranoid about giving into any PC request, even one which should have no mechanical consequence. It almost makes you think that these DM's have been burned badly a time or two, that they are so anxious to squash any debate before it gets started. One wonders if they have ever had any players that argued that any bit of fluff they could argue for must of course have acompanying crunch. Anyone been there before?

Speaking as a DM, I could see how that would get old. I'd be interested to hear the DM's side of the story.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For the most part, these guys are actually good guys and decent players, and the ones who run games tend to be better than the rest. They take their gaming and campaigns very seriously.

The main reason given for dissalowing variance is an issue of time- most of them don't have much of it.

The logic goes like this: You allow one variance, you have to figure out how it impacts your campaign world. Then someone else wants one. Wash, rinse repeat. They don't want to take time they barely have fiddling with rules- they want to play. Plus, no variants means less book-keeping.

And this holds on the other side of the screen as well. Despite the merit of games like HERO, almost nobody else is interested, usually citing time constraints. I can't even convince most of them to play other good games based in D20 like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Midnight 2Ed, Spycraft 2.0 or Mutants & Masterminds*. Even D20 Modern is off the menu- I was going to run a Modern Fantasy (Urban Arcana/Dark*Matter/Second World, Neil Gaiman/Simon Green/Alan Dean Foster/Clive Barker novels and so forth) campaign...and got one tentative taker.

*One guy- someone I've gamed with since 1985- is strictly a D&D player. If we play any other RPG, he's not going to be a part of it. That sucks, but we do have 7 other players in the current group... Another gaming buddy of mine in a different group is the same way- D&D or no RPG.

 

[Felix]

Nonsense. Neither the PCs nor the NPCs must be aware of the game's mechanics; for them, an arcane caster can derive his casting ability from the gods just as easily as any cleric. Molehill.

My DMs would beg to differ.

What a character believes to be true and what is actually true can be two different things. A sorcerer is just as able to claim that his powers are granted by Pelor as any cleric; this may not be strictly true, and clerics in the game world might take exception, but that sorcerer can believe it.

And if you have a sorcerer, or any character, who believes he is something, he may very well be able to be that something. A bard who wants to guide his flock in the way of the Sun God? Ok. He takes Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (History), Perform (Oratory, Gospel), Diplomacy and Sense Motive. And now you've got a pretty good priest. Who gives a good gods damn if he doesn't cast divine spells? He's a good shepherd to his flock, and that's what matters.

So take your bard, multiclass, take spells that fit your concept, whatever; have your character believe that he draws his strength and abilities from his deity, and if your DMs "beg to differ", then tell them to frack off and quit telling you how your character thinks.

 

[Felix]

My DM's are generally disinclined to do things like that. A recent campaign opened up to 3.5 Core books- I asked to play a Warmage. I'm playing a Sorcerer.

Even if the PC did have access to turning Elementals, for instance, the PC wouldn't have the core power to turn undead removed or altered. The DMs simply wouldn't do that. Think I'm kidding? As I've already stated, I tried to have the Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, and other abilities of the original 2Ed version of this PC limited to wilderness only- but the DM wouldn't. I doubt that modifiying Turn Undead would be allowed either.

So, the first player to lose a PC due (in part) to the priest not turning undead and attempting to shift the combat odds will ask "Why didn't you turn undead- your PC is a Priest, right?" I'd respond "Yes- he doesn't turn undead, though." "Is he a Druid?" would come the next question, to which I'd answer "No." If I prevaricate, they'll try to pin me down- "He's a divine caster- meaning Cleric, Druid, Paladin, or Ranger- which is it?" If the answer is either Cleric or Paladin, then I get accused of being a jerk or worse for not using the power to turn undead.

That's what I meant about hard feelings at the table- its not the PCs being aware of the priest's abilities, its the players, including the DM who factors in the PC's ability to turn undead into his encounters.

Ok, I get that you won't accept suggestions from outside the PHB, MM, DMG. Right.

I get that you won't use turn undead; I don't think your reasoning for it is sound, but it's your character.

So the Cleric class is out, since the only way to use those Turn Undead uses is to power Divine Feats, which arn't core. So don't play a cleric. Right, next.

---

How much metagame knowledge leaks into in-character discussion? When an NPC says he's a priest, all I know is that he believes in a god, looks after his charges, and converts people to his faith; I do not know he is classed as a Cleric. Like Lord Shojo in the Order of the Stick comic, he could very well be an Aristocrat. Your fellow player asking you, "Your PC is a Priest, right?" isn't asking after your character's profession, which "priest" is, he's asking Character Class; a PC's character class can be wholly different from their profession; ordained Fighters can administer last rights to fallen comrades; monks may use their skills to burgle residences for their organizations; sorcerers may travel the land spreading the word of their god.

So if your upset player doesn't understand that in-character professions don't equal metagame mechanics, perhaps you should suggest that he become less obtuse.

Not quite- I dismissed 3.x Druids because of the rejection of them in 2Ed (for the level restriction involving combat) that, while absent in 3.X, probably held over as a mental idea of "The class didn't work before so it won't work now..." combined with my apparent misrememberance of Shapeshifting in the Kalevala- like I said, I simply don't recall that much of it, and that is apparently an incorrect perception.

So since you recognize it as a 2e-impression holdover and a misrememberance, perhaps you'd like to reconsider the Druid as a possible solution?

To be clear- I'm pretty lenient as a DM- HRs, tweeks & 3rd party stuff are all part of games I run. (Heck, even in 1 & 2Ed, I used Judge's Guild and HERO elements in my games for certain things.) I figure anything I allow a PC to do can be done by an NPC, so the game stays balanced.

Most of my fellow Player-DMs are not so open minded. No PrCls outside of the DMG...assuming any PrCls are allowed. No base classes outside of Core. No Unearthed Arcana, Psionics etc. Feats & Spells outside of the Core (WoTC only- no Paizo or any other 3rd party sources) approved on a case by case basis, and then only rarely. Alternative/HR are minimum- RAW carries the day for classes & races- what is interpreted is interaction of spells & feats or other odd interactions, and most of that is campaign-specific.

Only a couple of them besides me even run 3.5.

You don't need 3rd party stuff to fashion a concept. You rejected the idea of a bard acting as a church representative because he casts arcane spells: nowhere in any of the books is there such a restriction. Nowhere does it say, "Only clerics can be priests". Nor do the rules restrict the character's belief as to the source of his ability.

You want a character who casts spells, fights, is his community's priest, is close to nature but you refuse to use the cleric class?

Barbarian/Sorcerer.
Bard.
Ranger.
Druid.

Take ranks in Knowledge (Religion), Diplomacy, Heal and Profession(Priest)

Each one of those classes can be your man, and can satisfy your concept. Concepts are not builds; many builds may reflect one concept. How many "a world weary soldier back from the front" builds are there? Thousands, to be sure. The same is true for your concept.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How much metagame knowledge leaks into in-character discussion? When an NPC says he's a priest, all I know is that he believes in a god, looks after his charges, and converts people to his faith; I do not know he is classed as a Cleric. Your fellow player asking you, "Your PC is a Priest, right?" isn't asking after your character's profession, which "priest" is, he's asking Character Class; a PCs character class can be wholly different from their profession

An in game discussion would not neccessarily reveal a PC's class, true- we have a "Legitimate Businessman" AKA "Merchant" in our party, after all.

But you're still not quite getting it- it doesn't matter if its metagaming or not- its not the PC that is angry, its the player who is POed that your "Priest" either can't or won't turn undead when 99.99999% of all priests in the campaign can. The guy has just thrown his Fighter into the fray against Ghouls & Ghasts thinking your "Priest" is going to take some of them out of the combat only to find that support completely absent...

And telling him that your Priest is actually a Sorcerer or Bard with skill points in Religion isn't likely to improve things.

The hypothetical discussion I posted could occur either in game or after the game- it doesn't matter when the player finds out about that detail.

I get that you won't use turn undead; I don't think your reasoning for it is sound, but it's your character.

Where is the flaw? The source material is, AFAIK, devoid of dangerous undead of the kind that show up in D&D. I don't see how making this character unable to affect them is unsound- its consistent with the source material.

You rejected the idea of a bard acting as a church representative because he casts arcane spells: nowhere in any of the books is there such a restriction. Nowhere does it say, "Only clerics can be priests". Nor do the rules restrict the character's belief as to the source of his ability.

and:

a PC's character class can be wholly different from their profession; ordained Fighters can administer last rights to fallen comrades

One thing almost everyone in the group agrees upon is the strong distinction between arcane & divine. To us, its not mere mechanics. But its more than that. While it is true that a Bard or any other PC could be a member of a religion's heirarchy, the term "Priest" would properly refer to a person who is fully functional within the belief.

Realistically, the low-level spell lists are so divergent that even a commoner would be suspicious if the "Priest" he was talking to couldn't even "Bless" him (or perform all those other little magic rituals that demand divine magic)- it smacks of someone who doesn't actually have his god's ear*. A liar. An "oath-breaker"- perhaps someone sent by his god's adversary to twist the hearts and minds of the faithful...

Consider similar distinctions in real-world religions: in Catholosism (my faith), I could become an "Altar Server" or "Eucharistic Minister" with only a couple of training sessions (and a security clearance), or even "Deacon" with a year or so of training, but unless and until I take the proper classes (several years of study), take certain oaths, and recieve the sacrament of Holy Orders, I cannot call myself a "Priest" in the Catholic faith. Even a Nun, also bound by holy vows, cannot call herself a Priest.

Other faiths have similar distinctions- like Vicars and Vergers- or have distinctions between those who are "initiates" who may still be free to do some things (travel outside the monestary, get married & have a family), but will lose those rights while gaining certain duties once a certain set of vows is taken.

The fighter you mentioned would be analogous to a Deacon. He can do certain things within the faith, but not all of them, and as such, his advancement within the heirarchy would be limited.

In an FRPG, with spells and prayers, etc. having real effects, a "fully functional" Priest demands a connection to divine casting ability. Anything less than that is not a true Priest, but a member of the lay ministry. Its the difference between the guy who gives you some healing herbs and the guy who calls the storms down at just the right time to ensure a good harvest.

This is where I was aiming- someone who has made the commitment to faith strongly enough to be a true "Priest." He's made the sacrifices. He's done the studying. He's been through the rituals. Now, he's able to fully serve his people as a conduit to the divine...and vice versa.


(PLUS there is the other factor of the DM ruling that to be a priest in the campaign, you must be a divine caster. No bard or sorcerer priests- end of story.)

So since you recognize it as a 2e-impression holdover and a misrememberance, perhaps you'd like to reconsider the Druid as a possible solution?

Sure, and in such a case, I probably would build the PC with either some Bard or Sorcerer levels.

* The exception would be, of course, those faiths like the "Old Faith"- Druidism, which are centered around animal/plant/elemental magic. But the point stands- even a commoner can distinguish between arcane and divine magics by their effects alone.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The as yet unmentioned 2Ed Shaman in Player's Option

It exists.

If you love it, then convert it.

First, I brought it up to counter the implication that the PC I designed was somehow a munchkin PC. This official TSR class, as I pointed out, was so close to what I came up with using PO rules that I don't really know why I didn't use it and save myself a lot of headaches in designing the PC.

Second, elements of it exist in the OA Shaman, with the melding of certain monk features, as well as the Kingdom of Kalamar Shaman and the Spellsinger. Were I allowed to use those books, I'd probably use them instead of the Core classes.

But I can't use those books, nor are any of the DMs likely to let me convert the 2Ed Shaman into 3Ed- see previous posts about "time considerations" and variances.

 

[Slife]

Make the perform skill for the bard perform(scripture recitation). You now have a character who recites words from the holy works of their god, and by so doing can inspire his allies to fight better, or help a craftsman with his work, or get an enemy to listen to them instead of attacking. Make your "instrument" a copy of your religion's scripture. Done.

Why would a peasant think a person whose power is obviously derived from reading holy writ to be sent by evil?

After all, adepts (NPC class) are the priests the layman would be most likely to know. A bard has just about as much overlap with them as the cleric.

 

[Felix]

An in game discussion would not neccessarily reveal a PC's class, true- we have a "Legitimate Businessman" AKA "Merchant" in our party, after all.

But you're still not quite getting it- it doesn't matter if its metagaming or not- its not the PC that is angry, its the player who is POed that your "Priest" either can't or won't turn undead when 99.99999% of all priests in the campaign can. The guy has just thrown his Fighter into the fray against Ghouls & Ghasts thinking your "Priest" is going to take some of them out of the combat only to find that support completely absent...

Then you can tell him that "99.99999%" of all priests can't Fireball. Or Inspire Courage. Or do the combat support actions that not being a cleric has allowed you to do. If your group discusses party roles at all, then let them know that while you're a priest, you're not filling in the Walking Band-Aid/Get Rid of Ghosts role. This is not a hard problem to solve; if a player gets pissy at you for not doing what he wanted tell him to grow up.

And telling him that your Priest is actually a Sorcerer or Bard with skill points in Religion isn't likely to improve things.

Other than reminding him that you can do all those things that a Sorcerer or a Bard can do that a Cleric can't.

Where is the flaw? The source material is, AFAIK, devoid of dangerous undead of the kind that show up in D&D. I don't see how making this character unable to affect them is unsound- its consistent with the source material.

The flaw is that you're not playing Source Material d20, you're playing DnD. Undead minions were not an element of the source material and so nothing was said as to how heroes combat them. In DnD, undead are a reality, and part of the divine connection you talk about further down thread is the ability to turn those abominations away. But because it wasn't mentioned in the material, using it in a DnD game ruins the flavor somehow.

One thing almost everyone in the group agrees upon is the strong distinction between arcane & divine. To us, its not mere mechanics. But its more than that. While it is true that a Bard or any other PC could be a member of a religion's heirarchy, the term "Priest" would properly refer to a person who is fully functional within the belief.

Someone fully functional would be able to recite the rituals, know the scripture, have studied for years, and be ordained by the rest of the priesthood.

Nothing in there about having to be able to cast Bless.

Realistically, the low-level spell lists are so divergent that even a commoner would be suspicious if the "Priest" he was talking to couldn't even "Bless" him (or perform all those other little magic rituals that demand divine magic)- it smacks of someone who doesn't actually have his god's ear*. A liar. An "oath-breaker"- perhaps someone sent by his god's adversary to twist the hearts and minds of the faithful...

Your commoners can detect magic and are familiar with metagame class spell lists?

Consider similar distinctions in real-world religions: in Catholosism (my faith), I could become an "Altar Server" or "Eucharistic Minister" with only a couple of training sessions (and a security clearance), or even "Deacon" with a year or so of training, but unless and until I take the proper classes (several years of study), take certain oaths, and recieve the sacrament of Holy Orders, I cannot call myself a "Priest" in the Catholic faith. Even a Nun, also bound by holy vows, cannot call herself a Priest.

Other faiths have similar distinctions- like Vicars and Vergers- or have distinctions between those who are "initiates" who may still be free to do some things (travel outside the monestary, get married & have a family), but will lose those rights while gaining certain duties once a certain set of vows is taken.

So when does taking a particular character class come into all of this?

You say the priest needs to have studied.
You say the priest needs to have been trained.
You say the priest needs to take oaths.
You say the priest needs to recieve the sacrament of Holy Orders.

1. Knowledge (Religion)
2. Profession (Priest)
3. Speak Language. Come on man, anyone can take an oath. It doesn't take a divine spellcaster.
4. A ritual needs to be performed over the candidate by those already ordained. This has nothing to do with the candidate's abilities.

The fighter you mentioned would be analogous to a Deacon. He can do certain things within the faith, but not all of them, and as such, his advancement within the heirarchy would be limited.

In an FRPG, with spells and prayers, etc. having real effects, a "fully functional" Priest demands a connection to divine casting ability. Anything less than that is not a true Priest, but a member of the lay ministry. Its the difference between the guy who gives you some healing herbs and the guy who calls the storms down at just the right time to ensure a good harvest.

This is where I was aiming- someone who has made the commitment to faith strongly enough to be a true "Priest." He's made the sacrifices. He's done the studying. He's been through the rituals. Now, he's able to fully serve his people as a conduit to the divine...and vice versa.

If the duties of a priest in DnD are to go around casting Blade Barrier, then you're right. Only certain classes can be "fully functional" priests.

If the duties of a priest in DnD are to protect the worshippers, guide their lives in accordance with the god's tenants, execute church policy, study and live devout and pious lives, and strive to connect one's self with the god, then any class can be a good priest.

So if what makes a priest is not acting like one, but rather casting Blade Barrier, then let me know and I'll leave you to your game.

(PLUS there is the other factor of the DM ruling that to be a priest in the campaign, you must be a divine caster. No bard or sorcerer priests- end of story.)

Deficit of imagination.

Sure, and in such a case, I probably would build the PC with either some Bard or Sorcerer levels.

Well, there we are. Well done.

...even a commoner can distinguish between arcane and divine magics by their effects alone.

For DMs that don't allow a character's profession to matter, I'm suprised they give every commoner ranks in Spellcraft.

 

[Storm Raven]

One thing almost everyone in the group agrees upon is the strong distinction between arcane & divine. To us, its not mere mechanics.

So, what is it, other than an arbitrary split imposed for game purposes?

][/i] But the point stands- even a commoner can distinguish between arcane and divine magics by their effects alone.[/i]

Really? How does a commoner distinguish between a wizard casting bull's strength and a cleric casting bull's strength? Or dispel magic? Or summon monster?

How does a commoner distinguish between a druid casting fog cloud and a wizard casting fog cloud? Or water breathing?

And so on.

Because it certainly isn't from the effects.