Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 3893570" data-attributes="member: 1465">In concept, maybe yes.But when you want the &quot;cleric of nature&quot; to:- have access to a lot of nature-oriented spells- have access to a lot of elemental spells- shapeshift into animals (but not monsters)- have some abilities that relate to feys- have some abilities that relate to animal and plants- have skills related to the wildernessthen you already have a major shift from the cleric of (almost) every other faith, which in the majority of cases is a more city-based or civilized-oriented character. If you design the cleric class so that different faiths result in seriously different clerics, then the cleric of nature is one option, and it can work elegantly. But if you keep the cleric as generic as it is in 3ed, with the same huge list of spells available to every priest, with every priest being battle-oriented and healers, then when you shoehorn druids into that, you would get a class and a subclass. At that point, it's better to just use a separate class.Now if they instead design the 4e cleric class so that some faiths have battle-clerics, some have healers, some have scholars, some have summoners, some have poisoning murderers, some have insane disease-spreading filth-loving cultists, and some have druids, then I'm totally fine with that. But I think that this idea at least certainly requires to get rid forever of the idea that &quot;all clerics know all clerical spells by default&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 3893570, member: 1465"] In concept, maybe yes. But when you want the "cleric of nature" to: - have access to a lot of nature-oriented spells - have access to a lot of elemental spells - shapeshift into animals (but not monsters) - have some abilities that relate to feys - have some abilities that relate to animal and plants - have skills related to the wilderness then you already have a major shift from the cleric of (almost) every other faith, which in the majority of cases is a more city-based or civilized-oriented character. If you design the cleric class so that different faiths result in seriously different clerics, then the cleric of nature is one option, and it can work elegantly. But if you keep the cleric as generic as it is in 3ed, with the same huge list of spells available to every priest, with every priest being battle-oriented and healers, then when you shoehorn druids into that, you would get a class and a subclass. At that point, it's better to just use a separate class. Now if they instead design the 4e cleric class so that some faiths have battle-clerics, some have healers, some have scholars, some have summoners, some have poisoning murderers, some have insane disease-spreading filth-loving cultists, and some have druids, then I'm totally fine with that. But I think that this idea at least certainly requires to get rid forever of the idea that "all clerics know all clerical spells by default". [/QUOTE]

Verification