Does this sound like an Über caster to you?

Why does every priest have to use a Bless spell? Can't you be a priest that grants a follower great strength (or siphons it from enemies)? Or grants a follower a glowing sphere of protection (or whatever Mage Armor does)? The Shield spell, Burning hands, Summon Monster, Endure Elements, Protection from X, Feather Fall, Disguise Self and many other first and second level Sorcerer spells (really probably all Sorcerer spells) could easily be imagined as having come from a divine source (and really, if we're talking someone born with their powers, those powers could be considered to have been gifts from the divine).

There's no reason that commoners would be expecting a priest to cast a specific spell, especially when the spell lists overlap as they do (and considering the effects of a Bless spell are less than useful to a farmer that's plowing his field). Most likely a blessing would be similar to what we have today, not an actual Bless spell.

Also, it sounds like you hide the class you're playing from your fellow players? I'm not sure why this would be but why not just tell people you're a Sorcerer who believes you got your inherent power from a divine source (an easy conclusion to draw from a character's perspective), and then play him as his priestly self. No misunderstandings about turning or healing.

And hey, if you can't be a priest (due to DM fiat), be a prophet. Breathe underwater, shrink an enemy, enlarge a follower. Go into the heart of the desert or the deepest chasm of a glacier for days and come out unscathed. Depending on the setting, you could perform miracles every day. Especially in a setting where all priests are divine casters, your different miracles could really stand out.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

You misunderstand- the layman wouldn't be suspicious of the person claiming to be a lay minister while having no divine spells at his power, but the person claiming to be a fully-fledged priest who does so while being unable to cast divine spells. (And AFAIK, nearly every faith on earth distinguishes between the two with titles, physical symbols of office, and so forth.)

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.

None of which this PC could do either.

And besides, the party already had a guy who could do that, and was called a "wizard."

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.

Did you ever see Eric the Viking?

The Christian priest couldn't even perceive the evidence of the polytheistic world around him- the Norse gods, monsters from their legends- all invisible to him because his faith in monotheism was so strong, he couldn't accept any of their belief system at all.

While not going quite that far, I have no problem with a religious culture that has no exposure to malevolent undead having no power over them.

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

and

Really? How does a commoner distinguish between...

...and similar queries.

Metagaming has zero to do with it.

Even in 1Ed, there were discussions about how regular people in a campaign world distinguished between arcane and divine magic. They don't distinguish between the two by what they can both do, but rather on the evidence of what one can do and the other can't. Even a barbarian, it was said, could tell the difference between what his village shaman could do and what a mage could...and one was good and the other was bad.

Even in the real world where magic does not exist, certain powers and abilities were ascribed to priests and other holy persons, others to warlocks, witches, sorcerers, wizards and the like...and there was seldom a question as to which was which. All without real, repeatable evidence such as what you'd have in an FRPG.

Religions and those who form their heirarchies have certain powers & duties- they minister to their flock of believers and seek to expand it through demonstration of their god's powers, and not all of it is in combat.

When you need a blessing, a religious ceremony, healing and so on, you go to your priest. When you need a good harvest, you go to your priest. When you want someone brought back from the dead, you go to your priest. When you have comitted a sin against your faith, you have to go to your priest to attone (with a little AND a big "A").

Why? Because TSR and its subsequent IP holder, WotC, both encoded a lot of real world functions of religion into divine spells- Bless, Attone and others are religious ceremonies or "miracles" from various faiths that have been mechanically encoded into spells... Every faith has their own rituals- some might not have the equivalent of "Bless" per se- but if you look, you will find some equivalent to a faith practice from the divine spell list- and it won't be on the arcane list.

When you need an enemy brought low, you'd go to the scary woman on the edge of the marsh. When you need somebody to blast a powerful monster, you find that guy with the beard who lives in that tower in the foothills. You need a potion, you go to the alchemist over in the scholar's section of town...
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.

But it does have something to do with the candidate's abilities.

Holy Orders and other sacraments (or their equivalents in other religions) aren't just secular rituals like handing out a college degree. They are both recognition of achievement and devotion and also the bestowing of powers and responsibilities. Now, you may not believe in this because it is not your faith, but a person who has had Holy Orders (or its equivalent) bestowed upon him has a connection to the divine that lesser members of the faith do not. It is a divine blessing that sets him apart from others, but also gives him certain responsibilities.

In a game where divine Avatars and unholy Demons could potentially walk the earth, a candidate for initiation into full priesthood would certainly show evidence of his deity's blessings (before or after the ceremony, depending upon the faith), the most common form of that would be in the casting of divine spells.

Deficit of imagination.

Or perhaps they take religion a bit more seriously than you do.
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
You misunderstand- the layman wouldn't be suspicious of the person claiming to be a lay minister while having no divine spells at his power, but the person claiming to be a fully-fledged priest who does so while being unable to cast divine spells. (And AFAIK, nearly every faith on earth distinguishes between the two with titles, physical symbols of office, and so forth.)

And how does he know the individual cannot cast divine spells? How does he distinguish between a bard casting cure light wounds and a cleric casting the same spell? How does he distinguish between an arcane caster casting bear's endurance and a divine one casting the exact same spell? If he carries the same symbols of office, calls himself the same thing, and so on, how does anyone tell the difference? Not even the use of Spellcraft tells the difference.

...and similar queries.

Metagaming has zero to do with it.

Even in 1Ed, there were discussions about how regular people in a campaign world distinguished between arcane and divine magic. They don't distinguish between the two by what they can both do, but rather on the evidence of what one can do and the other can't.

And my examples were about arcane and divine casters casting the exact same spells. How does the "commoner" tell the difference? They have the exact same effect. How do you tell the difference?

Furthermore, staying true to the source material, exactly why do you think there is a distinction between arcane and divine magic? Vaniamoinen certainly would not have seen such a difference. Magic was magic. There was no "divine" magic or "arcane" magic.

Even a barbarian, it was said, could tell the difference between what his village shaman could do and what a mage could...and one was good and the other was bad.

Even when they cast the exact same spells? How so?

When you need a blessing, a religious ceremony, healing and so on, you go to your priest. When you need a good harvest, you go to your priest. When you want someone brought back from the dead, you go to your priest. When you have comitted a sin against your faith, you have to go to your priest to attone (with a little AND a big "A").

Or you go to a wizard or bard, who can pretty much take care of most of those things with arcane spells.

Or perhaps they take religion a bit more seriously than you do.

Or perhaps they are worrying over semantic distinctions that have no actual meaning in-game.
 

The Hypertext d20 SRD - the ultimate d20 system reference
Bless
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Clr 1, Pal 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 50 ft.
Area: The caster and all allies within a 50-ft. burst, centered on the caster
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

Bless fills your allies with courage. Each ally gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls and on saving throws against fear effects.


Inspire Courage (Su)

A bard with 3 or more ranks in a Perform skill can use song or poetics to inspire courage in his allies (including himself), bolstering them against fear and improving their combat abilities. To be affected, an ally must be able to hear the bard sing. The effect lasts for as long as the ally hears the bard sing and for 5 rounds thereafter. An affected ally receives a +1 morale bonus on saving throws against charm and fear effects and a +1 morale bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls. At 8th level, and every six bard levels thereafter, this bonus increases by 1 (+2 at 8th, +3 at 14th, and +4 at 20th). Inspire courage is a mind-affecting ability.



Why, it looks like they're IDENTICAL. (Well, the bard does a better job of it than the cleric, actually). And it has the same subjective effects on the targets, unless you think that "inspiring courage" is different than "filling with courage.

So, in short, here are two scenerios (They're combat scenerios, as bless/inspire courage doesn't give any other benefits):


Bob the farmer and his farmer friends need help fighting against some dire rats or something. They decide to get help from their local "priest". The "priest" increases their combat ability by:

A) Taking out the Holy Writ of Zothmar the Unquenchable, and reciting sections from it, giving the farmers the courage to kill the vermin.

B) Taking out the Holy Symbol of Zothmar the Unquenchable, and chanting a prayer to him, giving the farmers the courage to kill the vermin.

How are these "blessings" different, except in metagame terms?

And, if you have such a huge houseruled divine/arcane gap, why don't you just ask your GM if your bard can be a divine caster. It has no mechanical differences in the RAW, so it can't be unbalancing.
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
You misunderstand- the layman wouldn't be suspicious of the person claiming to be a lay minister while having no divine spells at his power, but the person claiming to be a fully-fledged priest who does so while being unable to cast divine spells. (And AFAIK, nearly every faith on earth distinguishes between the two with titles, physical symbols of office, and so forth.
I misunderstand nothing. You require your "fully fledged priests" to be able to cast divine spells. You do not link the badge of office to the knowledge retained by the individual, nor their ability with people, nor their skill in healing the sick and comforting the dying, nor the quality with which they give sermons or spread the word. You instead only require spells. I think that there are more interesting ways of determining someone's fitness to be a priest than rubber-stamping them if they can cast Bless.

I suggest that your campaign world will be overrun with PC classes; if every religion's heirarchy required the casting of divine spells, then there would either be very few religions indeed because all of the Cleric classed NPCs were filling the ranks of one church, or there would be hardly any heirarchies at all. Or you wouldn't be able to swing a cat by the tail without hitting a PC classed NPC.

And besides, the party already had a guy who could do that, and was called a "wizard."
And he didn't do a very good job at killing the undead from a distance with his bang-bang spells. Why don't you have your poor melee PC's player compain to him. Or to the archer. Or maybe realize that priest (in-game, profession) =/= cleric (class, game mechanic), and he made a calculated risk by charging undead. And if he keeps whining, then tell him to roll up another elf and grow up.

Did you ever see Eric the Viking?

The Christian priest couldn't even perceive the evidence of the polytheistic world around him- the Norse gods, monsters from their legends- all invisible to him because his faith in monotheism was so strong, he couldn't accept any of their belief system at all.

While not going quite that far, I have no problem with a religious culture that has no exposure to malevolent undead having no power over them.
So you don't have a problem with a culture that never encounters undead.

And your problem with the cleric class is that when you do encounter undead, your fellow players will be upset with you for not turning because now they've died.

And you're unwilling for your cleric to discover that he does have power over undead, but he simply never realized it because he's never encountered them before.

Ok. But it's you that's making that choice to hobble yourself.
I have no problem with a religious culture that has no exposure to malevolent undead having no power over them.​
This is not all you do. You also reject the notion that priests of a god whose worshippers have had no exposure to undead may discover powers they had hitherto had no opportunity to use. You say that because your character has had no exposure, he must not have power over them.

Metagaming has zero to do with it.
Unless a commoner can tell the difference between the mechancis of a Bard's Break Enchantment and a Cleric's Remove Curse, which is metagame knowledge, then that commoner won't be able to discriminate that the two were different at all.

The commoner has no knowledge of spell lists. Or material components. Or the mechanical difference twixt arcane and divine. The only thing he can see are the effects. And if the effects are the same, as they would be with those two spells confronting a Bestow Curse, then how does the commoner "out" the bard as a liar?

Even in 1Ed, there were discussions about how regular people in a campaign world distinguished between arcane and divine magic. They don't distinguish between the two by what they can both do, but rather on the evidence of what one can do and the other can't. Even a barbarian, it was said, could tell the difference between what his village shaman could do and what a mage could...and one was good and the other was bad.
A first level cleric can't cast Ressurection, and may be killed by a magical mishap if he triest to cast it from a scroll. Does his inability to cast it make him less of a priest? Does his death at the hands of divine magic too powerful for him to control make him a liar?

If you're going to define things by what people can't do, then that 1st level cleric suddenly isn't a real priest.

Even in the real world where magic does not exist, certain powers and abilities were ascribed to priests and other holy persons, others to warlocks, witches, sorcerers, wizards and the like...and there was seldom a question as to which was which. All without real, repeatable evidence such as what you'd have in an FRPG.
The abilities ascribed priest and holy persons were to protect, to inspire, and to heal, among others. Thus the cleric's spell list is littered with spells that do those things. After a while, clerics get to smite, too.

So if the power to protect, inspire and heal are present, then would that person be treated more like a priest? Would it seem likely that they are blessed?

If in the DnD magic-is-real-world they could cast:
Cure Light Wounds
Remove Fear
Summon Monster X
(Celestial Beings)
Calm Emotions
Cure Moderate Wounds
Delay Poison
Heroism


Would they seem like a priest? Because every one of those spells is on the Bard spell list.

they minister to their flock of believers and seek to expand it through demonstration of their god's powers, and not all of it is in combat.
I've been mentioning Diplomacy, Profession (Priest), Knowledge (Religion) and Knowledge (History) for a reason.

And what proportion of your NPCs are classed with PC classes that every priest can cast spells?

When you need a blessing, a religious ceremony, healing and so on, you go to your priest. When you need a good harvest, you go to your priest.
  • "Bless you and yours, my child." Easily said. And said by an ordained bard makes it none the less a blessing.
  • Religious ceremonies are rituals more do to with Knowledge (Religion) than spellcasting.
  • Healing? There is a Heal skill.
  • A priest can pray for a good harvest like Army padres can pray for clear skies.

    Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies and establish Thy justice among men and nations.

    Was Patton's 3rd Army Chaplain any less a priest because he couldn't cast spells?

When you want someone brought back from the dead, you go to your priest. When you have comitted a sin against your faith, you have to go to your priest to attone (with a little AND a big "A").
A bard priest would not be able to do this, no. But if commoners saved up enough coppers to afford a Raise Dead, I'm sure the bard would be able to take them to someone who could. Same for Atonement.

But unless you populate your world with 90% PC classes level 9 or higher, then most priests arn't going to be able to cast Raise Dead either.

When you need an enemy brought low, you'd go to the scary woman on the edge of the marsh. When you need somebody to blast a powerful monster, you find that guy with the beard who lives in that tower in the foothills. You need a potion, you go to the alchemist over in the scholar's section of town...
All of these are true. And none of them necessitate particular classes, though you seem to think they do.

The scary woman needs not be a witch (sorcerer w/ DMG spell list). The bearded guy need not be a sorcerer. The alchemist need not be a wizard. Saying so is like saying the alchemist must be a gnome; simply because it's likely doesn't mean it must be the case.

Now, you may not believe in this because it is not your faith...
I am catholic too, since you ask.

But it does have something to do with the candidate's abilities.

Holy Orders and other sacraments (or their equivalents in other religions) aren't just secular rituals like handing out a college degree. They are both recognition of achievement and devotion and also the bestowing of powers and responsibilities...

...but a person who has had Holy Orders (or its equivalent) bestowed upon him has a connection to the divine that lesser members of the faith do not. It is a divine blessing that sets him apart from others, but also gives him certain responsibilities.
Yep. That connection is the strength of his faith, is it not? And his responsibilities include supporting and strengthening the faith of the community; something better done with Diplomacy and Knowledge (Religion) than with Blade Barrier.

In a game where divine Avatars and unholy Demons could potentially walk the earth, a candidate for initiation into full priesthood would certainly show evidence of his deity's blessings (before or after the ceremony, depending upon the faith), the most common form of that would be in the casting of divine spells.
This is also a game where the vast majority of individuals take NPC classes.

Or are the blacksmiths and farmers and merchants in your game classed with PC classes?

Yes, avatars can be running around. Yes, people can summon unholy Demons to walk the earth. And yes, some of the priesthood will be able to cast spells. They are the exceptional people, not the rule. At least they are in my game and incidently in the recommended DMG breakdown of NPC classes.

Or perhaps they take religion a bit more seriously than you do.
I take religion in my campaign world very seriously. I'm just don't restrain my thinking to, "He's a priest, so there is no way he could be anything but a cleric." As a matter of fact, like real world religions, most priests can't cast spells. Most are experts with ranks in Knowledge (religion), Diplomacy, Knowledge (History), Sense Motive among other skills. Most priests busy themselves with spreading the word of their religion and advocating on behalf of their church. They do indeed have something that sets them apart from the lay community, and that is the intensity and the intelligence of their faith.

It is the rare and blessed (or cursed) that can cast spells. Most of these people are indeed priests, and they rise quickly through the heirarchy, but they are far and away the minority.
 

Here is something I have noticed. DA is very adamant that a character of, say, the bard class could not be a "priest" because he uses arcane magic, and not divine magic and therefore cannot produce the all of the same spell effects that a standard cleric could.

But the alternative jerry rigged character that he is using as his example cannot produce many of the same spell effects that a standard cleric could either. So, how are these two situations different? Since you can tell a divine caster from an arcane caster by what he can do, why is this jerry rigged guy who can do lots of things an arcane caster can do, but not lots of things a divine caster can do, still considered a priest?

I'm seeing a conceptual disconnect here.
 

Storm Raven said:
So, how are these two situations different?
I think the difference is not in the effect of the magic, but rather the source; his jerry-rigged PC would still be a divine caster, and I think that is what satisfies him as to his character's ability to be a priest.

Mechanically, they are identical and the difference between the two arbitrary. But the flavor difference between the two is that divine magics' source is the caster's god (or nature), and arcane magics are self-realized.

Of course, the response to that is that the gods have gifted the arcanist with the ability to self-realize magic and the faith to use it in the god's name.
 

But the alternative jerry rigged character that he is using as his example cannot produce many of the same spell effects that a standard cleric could either.

Which ones?

While his healing is limited, he can cast classic divine spells like Bless, Orison, Purify Food/Drink, Remove Curse, Tongues, Atonement, Quest, and True Seeing (as well as the reversible versions of them of course). Most of those are derived from analogs within RW religions and legends, "cast" by divine beings or their agents.

Few of those spells, to addresss another poster, are available to arcane casters.

And, as I've pointed out- this is not really a jerry-rigged PC- it is nearly identical to the 2Ed Shaman.

Was Patton's 3rd Army Chaplain any less a priest because he couldn't cast spells?

1) Patton's 3rd Army Chaplain was an ordained minister-IOW, a priest- not merely a soldier. Here are the requirements for the US Army Chaplaincy program.( http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/requirements.jsp ) Other branches have similar requirements.

2) Were Patton's 3rd Army traipsing through a FRPG, it is likely that some being would be answering (or at least listening to) that Chaplain's praryer.

Merely saying "Bless you, my child" may only seem to be words in the RW, but in an FRPG, the commoner is expecting something a little more concrete.

Re: Distinguishing between Arcane and Divine magic.

Obviously, some people missed my point.

Of course you can't distinguish between an arcane and divine spell of the same kind without special magics yourself.

I said:

They don't distinguish between the two by what they can both do, but rather on the evidence of what one can do and the other can't.

IOW, you distinguish between the arcane and divine casters by what the casters cannot cast that they ought to be able to.

For example, a divine caster of a certain level ought to be able to absolve you of wrongdoings against your faith that have actual game mechanical effects- actions that shift your alignment, cost you class powers, etc.- by casting Attonement. No arcane caster will ever be able to do that.

While not every priest will be able to cast Attonement (due to the structure of the game that links spells to class level), at any class level, you can find at least one spell that a priest can cast that an arcane caster cannot. One could start with Purify Food and Drink and be done with it, or you could continue into spells like Consecrate, Regenerate, Remove Blindness/Deafness, etc.

You do not link the badge of office to the knowledge retained by the individual, nor their ability with people, nor their skill in healing the sick and comforting the dying, nor the quality with which they give sermons or spread the word.

And there is a reason- everything you've described up to that point has a RW analog in the duties of lay ministers and seminarians. (Plus, if you've ever been to Dallas/FW, I can point to at least 3 priests who give horrible sermons...)

Even though he's not a Priest, a Deacon can give a sermon. He can even perform certain sacraments...butonly in the absence of a Priest.

Even though he's not a Priest or a Deacon, a Eucharistic Minister can distribute the Eucharist- handling a manifestation of God on Earth.

My church's Music Minister has composed some awesome songs of praise. He's even been involved with certain Papal masses on an international scale. He is a great motivational speaker. He'd clearly be a Bard in D&D, probably even considered one of the lay ministry, nobody would ever mistake him for being a Priest (especially since he just got married this Sunday).

But only a priest can hear confession and similar higher duties of the clergy. Why? Because Holy Orders- that connection with the divine- is a neccessary prerequisite.

I personally know several people with degrees in Divinity who are not priests- were you to call them such would bring a swift correction. Despite their education, despite their training, despite their skills, they haven't taken that final step.

And in an FRPG, that final step is codified into the game mechanics by taking levels in a class like Cleric or Druid, which perforce means the PC will cast spells.

your problem with the cleric class is ...

Yeah- I'll cop to that.

One of my main problems with the Cleric class in general- going all the way back- is that Turn Undead is granted to faiths that really don't have any reason to have such abilities. Worship a god of life? Sure! Turn those undead.

A god of Love? Chaos? Elemental Fire? Weather? What possible interest do deities of those portfolios have in affecting undead in such a manner?
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
And in an FRPG, that final step is codified into the game mechanics by taking levels in a class like Cleric or Druid, which perforce means the PC will cast spells.
In which rulebook is this?

What possible interest do deities of those portfolios have in affecting undead in such a manner?
Clerics channel positive energy (or negative energy) regardless of their deity's portfolios; that has to do with their ability to cast divine spells. Does that not link them to undead, and their turning?
 

Sorry I've been absent so long- I've been so sick, I haven't even seen my computer since the last post. Some kind of nasty virus made me close friends with my porcelain throne.

In which rulebook is this?

Its obviously not an explicit rule.

However it is the one difference that distinguishes between a RW lay priest and a fully vested member of the clergy and their RPG counterparts.
Clerics channel positive energy (or negative energy) regardless of their deity's portfolios; that has to do with their ability to cast divine spells. Does that not link them to undead, and their turning?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only places in which the channeling of positive or negative energy are mentioned in depth are in the various Turning rules sections and the spontaneous casting rules...

But that just begs the question- Why do all clerics channel positive or negative energy? Why shouldn't a cleric of a god of elemental fire channel elemental fire instead of positive or negative energy? Why can't some do both, or others neither? The answer is purely game mechanics- the designers designed them that way.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top