goodbye clerics... and paladins

[GuardianLurker]

Hoo-boy.

I tried this, back in the days of 2e. It sounds really cool, and honestly converting the spells wasn't that hard.

HOWEVER -

1) You are committing yourself to a *completely* homebrew game. No modules, ever. That's because you'll probably find that it's just as easy to write your own as replace the clerics with wizards.

2) Be prepared to give out *lots* of healing one-shots.

3) Undead are *much* tougher, worth at least a 2 CR bump, since there's no turning.


For me, it became such a hassle that when I migrated to 3e, I put Clerics (etc) back in. It's a viable model, but a LOT of work.

 

[Drawmack]

Sorcs don't need spellbooks either. Your point is?


BTW, has anyone mentioned to you yet the silliness of rules lawyering in the House rules forum?

No but they do have spell's known which is a limited subset of their classes list. I am making the point that devine casters simply select spells each day from their complete class list. The point is that I said I didn't think it a good idea because there are major differences between divine and arcane magic and he said there was no such difference and I'm just proving him wrong is all.

 

[shivamuffin]

It's tough tweeking the rules like this...In 2e, it wouldn't have been so tough, but 3E is so arcade game-like, that if you don't carefully make your changes...the whole program collapses.

I would just make sorcorers exclusively ( Damn class is too powerful anyway ) clerics...Being " Touched by the Divine "...Make the clerical spells the only spells that can be cast by them, and you should be fine...Just a suggestion from a D20 Maverick...

 

[Ciaran]

Azzemmell wants to run a game without divine magic, and is asking for help in doing so. Telling him that you don't like the idea doesn't do him any good.

I'm planning to run a game without divine magic at some point, so I've put some thought into the idea. I'd simply incorporate healing magics into the arcane repertoire; this makes wizards more flexible, but since they have to sacrifice other spell slots to make room for healing, I don't think that it increases their power level significantly. Certainly they won't tread on the toes of the clerics, since there are no clerics in the setting. Convenient, eh?

As to the proposed Devotee feat, I think that it defeats the purpose of the whole exercise. Putting that in simply allows for a kind of "divine" magic under another name. If you want to differentiate priestly magic from arcane magic, then domain spells don't really help; you're still using spells. Try checking out the Swashbuckling Adventures rulebook; there's no divine magic in the setting, but there are rules for miracles and faith-based powers.

The advantage to removing "divine" magic entirely is that you gain access to a whole slew of morally grey plotlines, such as church corruption, that are very difficult to accomplish in a standard D&D setting without complicated workarounds. Here, "priestly" magic is just the work of wizards who happen to be pious members of a church, and you can't assume that any powerful churchman in a "good" church will be a good guy (or a Secretly Disguised Potent Villain) that you can rely on for help without question.

- Eric

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that probably the best way to handle it would be to just add (some of them anyway - just dump divine power for instance) the cleric spells to the wizard and sorceror list.

Will this result in a significant increase in the power of wizards? Yes, but only if your wizards routinely know every spell of every level they have access to. In my experience, the average wizard tends not to go far beyond the free spells he gets from levelling up - He'll tend to buy one or two extra spells at each level, and that's it. This'll just cause him to have a couple more. He's still limited in his use of them by his slots per day.

It'll let him utilise some of the divine magic items, which will tend to benefit the party rather than the mage himself.

It'll reduce the lameness of trying to be a 'master of magic' by multiclassing wizard and cleric.

It'll destroy all the arguments that "clerics are overpowered". If you want a traditional fight-and-magic cleric, you can multiclass with fighter. I'd suggest that if you want this to be possible, that you remove the S component from divine spells (then you don't have to justify the 'no failure from armour' rule which divine magic currently benefits from) - all you have to do is pray out loud, no complicated gestures etc. Spectacles, T, Wallet and Watch isn't exactly difficult...

The source of the magic becomes purely a matter of flavour - people already play sorcerors or wizards who claim their power is divinely granted. Why should their abilities be so different from those who are clerics?

The only real disadvantage I can see is that, in the minds of some, it'll detract from the bard - he'll no longer be the only arcane caster who can also heal.

 

[hong]

No but they do have spell's known which is a limited subset of their classes list.

As does the shugenja. The defining characteristic of divine magic is that it doesn't use the arcane spell failure percentage. That's it.

I am making the point that devine casters simply select spells each day from their complete class list.

This must be some new meaning of "devine [sic] casters" that I wasn't previously aware of.

The point is that I said I didn't think it a good idea because there are major differences between divine and arcane magic and he said there was no such difference and I'm just proving him wrong is all.

The only major differences are those in your head.


Hong "mmm, pointy" Ooi

 

[Azzemmell]

Ok, thanks for all the replies; I feel I need to do some clarifing...

I don't think I made a corrct impression of what I am actually doing... being as I left out some things, in the interst of time... mine, that is.

Also, excuse my enebriation.. and yes, I know I spelled that wrong. Hey, it's friday night.

First...

Drawmack: The difference of Divine magick vs. arcane. I've already discussed this w/ the players and they are in favor of illeminating it for logic reasons as opposed to game balance stuff; we've decided that magic is one thing, source, etc. The difference between magick users is the way that they gain accesss to it; study, spirits(shaman), musical manifestation(bards), blood(sorc.), etc.

Haiiro: Yes, I know that at this point, this devotee feat is overpowered, that's why I posted on it here, I'm looking for ideas for balance. I forgot to include in my original post that part of the reqs. is Knowldg (rlgn) 4 ranks. This doesnt balance it, but it is a step in the right direction. Also, all Knowledge skills are class skills for any PC that can read and write. Why can't anyone learn something, given time and books? Maybe a WIS 11+ or something might also be in order, but I wanted to make the feat available at 1st level to everyone, including PC classes.

mypetslug: Exactly!! I don't think I will make a separete school for healing; they already have school descriptors, and as you stated not all spells fit the healing school idea. I've been thinking of a way, for some time, to change or eliminate the cleric. The class has always bugged me for some reason... "you are so devoted to your god, why aren't you in church as much as the other (read NPC) guys?" maybe this is a RP issue, but you get what I mean?

Drawmack(post 2&3): I agree that clerics have a HUGE advantage in spell selection and casting options, and that is one of the things I havent' liked about them; "you mean I have to keep track of ALL of the cleric spells for EACH level... I can cast ALLL of them?" Lots of book work given the numerous supplemants I've added to the PCs options. The one thing I do have going for me is that none of the players have taken any levels in cleric or paladin. Also, those players divinely inclined will have a prayer book. Not spells exactly, rather parables, stories, metaphisical ideas, etc. that serves as a kind of spell book. In game terms, yes, a spellbook. And don't forget living up to the god's ideals and standards, the feat will have some restrictions on RP, sort of like the Paladin's codes... hmmm.

Guardian Lurker: Ya, this will change the mechanics of my campaign significantly. However, it will fit with the style that my players have been pursuing; no clerics (only a druid), no fanatical devotion but some interest in spirituality. As for undead... turning will be a feat that can be taken at 1st level, it's only req being the devotee feat.

Shivamuffin: I hear what you are saying. I know that this may really mess things up, but I'm will ing to try it and see if we can get it to work. On spell lists: they are gone with the cleric, any class can learn and cast any spell.

Ciaran: THANK YOU. 'zactly, I'm looking for help in game balance. The story or setting ideas behind doing this are already settled. IT's a mixture of removing the class system "why can't ANYBODY do this or that?", and keeping the classes because I like the distinctions and because they are usefull. I don't want to go to a skill or ability system, I like classes. Just so happens that the cleric, in my game, has the least reason to exist and is the dividing line between other classes and spells that, logicaly, anybody should be able to learn, and all the other classes. Man, that sentance was messsed up. SOrry, hople Im making sencse.

Saeviomagy: Like I mentioned, no more spell lists. Wizards more powerfull? I don't see it happening yet. Other spell casters will also have access to healing spells (as will any other class who may take the feat for the healing domain). I don't think the bard is diminished: he still has more HP than the wizard, better BAB, and his music ablts. Will I find that EVERYONE and their familiar will take this feat just to get a few magic spells each day? Maybe. But the feat becomes less powerfull at higher levels. In order to duplicate the cleric powers one will have to dedicate oneself to the feat chain at a significant sacrifice to other abilities.

We'll see. And I thank you all for comments made so far and for those to come. I think this is a subject that many people would like to see a balanced resolution on. It, IMHO, would allow for greater flexibility for GMs in the use of Gods in hombrew worlds.


Thanks, AZz