Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreatLemur" data-source="post: 5893168" data-attributes="member: 28553">Oh, man, that's an interesting angle.  And I think it fits with certain oldschool possibilities regarding the DM assigning a Cleric's spells at will.One way I've been looking at it, though, it that a divine caster's powers—coming as they do from an immensely powerful external source—should be less limited than those of an arcane caster.  The limits I'd use would be in terms of flexibility (so, divine casters would be limited to much shorter, inflexible, domain-centric spell lists) and enduranace.  That is, there's no limit to the power available to you, just in your ability to withstand it.  So maybe you pay hit points when you cast, or make some kind of True20-style fatigue check, something like that.  Or, hell, maybe you've just got 3e Warlock-style invocations that you cast at will, supplemented by few bigger abilities that leave you drained, hurt, or somehow cursed after using them.I think that's valid if arcane and divine magic work the same, as they typically have in the past.  I'd really like to see that end, myself.I dunno, man.  I'm actually seeing a surprising amount of accord as I ask this same question in different places.  I don't know what you think gamer culture typically looks like, if not RPGnet.  I've been all over, and that place seems like a good representative (albeit with better spelling than some other communities).Sure, I'm not saying there's a majority will to drastically change the Cleric, out there.  I'm just surprised at how many people would be okay with it.  It definitely seems clear that the correct, make-the-most-people-happy decision is to offer both martial and non-martial options, either through separate classes, builds, or themes.</blockquote>

Verification