I've finally figured out why 3rd edition bugs me

[Geoff Watson]

So, if you can cause someone to doubt, they lose their magic? If not, then it's not based on faith. Moreover, can someone who believes in a god that the GM knows doesn't actually exist in the world gain magic powers? If not, then it's not based on faith.

Whatever they believe in doesn't have to exist. The Silver Flame is the only Eberron 'diety' that actually exists anywhere in the Eberron multiverse, and it just burns.

Finally, i'm talking about a world where there is nothing that those who claim to receive power from the gods can do that those who don't believe can't. IOW, if you really want to keep the true existence of divinities a question, it must be possible for someone to do everything the faithful do without a single iota of faith or belief. So long as you keep the arcane/divine magic divide, and have other things that are "faithful-only" (like turning undead), you're undermining an "ambiguous divinity" paradigm, IMHO.

Well, they have to have faith in something.

IMHO, if you have game-mechanical (and thus "real") constructs that are only available to characters that believe (in some mechanical sense), then you don't have ambiguous divinity. Now, if you instead have game-mechanicl constructs that are divorced from the belief element (so, frex, anyone *could* learn to turn undead, even if most who do so claim to have divine inspiration), then it lends aid to the ambiguity.

Is that clearer?

It sounds like you have a circular argument, ie Clerics can't be ambiguous, therefore Clerics aren't ambiguous.

Geoff.

 

[MerricB]

Point is, there are basically two "vital" skills in D&D that only one class has: healing, and trap-finding.

Healing - can be performed by the Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger and Paladin. Also, magic potions, wands and scrolls. My group doesn't have a main cleric, but they go through wands of cure light and cure moderate wounds like crazy.

Trapfinding - can be performed by the Barbarian. Magic traps are much better detected and defeated by the Wizard, in fact.

It is very rare that a trap must be defeated in a certain way for the module to continue. Then too, Clerical "Find Traps" spell and Wizards with "Knock".

I wouldn't want to go through an adventure without either a Cleric or a Rogue, but missing just one will normally work.

Also: Artificers from Eberron can find/remove traps.

The thing to consider is what not finding a trap actually means - mostly, it's just damage, and that can be healed.

Cheers!

 

[velm]

As much as I like rogues, I really do think that a party could do without them. It might make certain situations a bit more dangerous but it could still be done.
They are a very useful overall class. But for having others detect and overcome traps, it is the thief. Yes, you can have the cleric cast detect traps, but only if he thinks there is a reason to do so. It is much easier for the thief to do it. The same for overcoming them. Some traps can do than just damage, a trap could do a debilitating effect, or incapacitate the party and while the party is incapacitated a group of kobolds could walk in and slice their necks.
It would NOT be advisable to travel without a Rogue, or Cleric, but it can be done. Others can cast healing spells, and there are magic items that can heal.

 

[SSquirrel]

Point is, there are basically two "vital" skills in D&D that only one class has: healing, and trap-finding. Now, D&D3E mollified this a bit by giving bards access to both of these. However, the basic point is still relatively valid: without a rogue (or bard) you can't find traps. Not, "you can't find traps very well"--you can't find traps. Similarly, without a cleric (or bard), you basically can't heal. This one's not quite as bad, because you also have paladins, rangers, and druids, on top of bards. There's also the "no turning" element of not having a cleric, but, in general, you can fight appropriate-challenge undead in other ways (spells, hacking), it's just not as easy.

Ya know, in the 17 years I've been gaming....I don't think I've had any DM that ever relied on more than the occasional trap a year. I'm talking MAYBE 1 every 6 months. Unless he had just bought a new Grimtooth's Traps book *grin* Then he just killed us basically. I can't be the only one who has had very little trap worry over the years.

This is actually one of the things I enjoy about AU. If you can cast spells, you can cast healing. I dug the 3E Bard specifically b/c they could heal and do illusions and every other knick knacky thing they can do. Now everyone can be a part time Cleric. Greenbond is the MAN for healing and Magister a close 2nd if he were to devote any real measure to healing. Champion of Life has a lay on hands ability to go with his spells. One of the witches...all kinds of things.

Hagen

 

[woodelf]

Whatever they believe in doesn't have to exist. The Silver Flame is the only Eberron 'diety' that actually exists anywhere in the Eberron multiverse, and it just burns.

I think we're talking about two different things--just skimmed the "Cleric" section of Eberron, and it seems clear to me that all clerics get their magic from some sort of external source of power--even if it's just the "pervasive spirit of the dragon". It is not purely belief-based. Yes, not all believe in "gods", but, or even higher beings but, game-mechanically, they all acknowledge the existence of those higher beings (even if only the dragon). So, yes, their beliefs can be misguided, believing they get their spells from one place, but actually getting them from another. But, as near as i can tell, Eberron only passes one of my tests (getting power with belief but no proof of power-source)--it still doesn't have people who can do everything a cleric can while professing no belief.

Well, they have to have faith in something.

No, they don't--and that's precisely my point. You could have a setting where having the faith is all that matters, not what they have faith in. But it'd be hard to do with D&D3E clerics-as-written. You could also have a setting where you don't have to have faith. Again, clerics-as-written aren't a very good match.

It sounds like you have a circular argument, ie Clerics can't be ambiguous, therefore Clerics aren't ambiguous.

I'd have labeled it tautological: clerics are defined as explicitly validating the notions of divinity/higher powers, therefore, by definition, their very existence eliminates the possibility of the answer being ambiguous. Which was really my only point: the D&D construct of "cleric" (not to mention some other classes) is not truly compatible with a setting where the very existence of higher powers is agnostic.

 

[woodelf]

Ya know, in the 17 years I've been gaming....I don't think I've had any DM that ever relied on more than the occasional trap a year. I'm talking MAYBE 1 every 6 months. Unless he had just bought a new Grimtooth's Traps book *grin* Then he just killed us basically. I can't be the only one who has had very little trap worry over the years.

Which is part of why "vital" is in quotes. In my experience, too, trap-finding has never been that vital--i can only remember one trap in our 2.5yr D&D3E game (probably were some others, but nothing significant). And, while it's been years, i don't think i used them very much when i DMed Back In The Day. In my case, because i think traps are to fantasy gaming what hacking is to modern/scifi gaming: boredom for everybody in the party but one.

However, if you need the trap-finding ability, there's really only one class (with bards as a back-up) that has it. Unlike the vast majority of abilities that have bunches of classes that can do them, perhaps to varying degrees of effectiveness.

 

[Geoff Watson]

I'd have labeled it tautological: clerics are defined as explicitly validating the notions of divinity/higher powers, therefore, by definition, their very existence eliminates the possibility of the answer being ambiguous. Which was really my only point: the D&D construct of "cleric" (not to mention some other classes) is not truly compatible with a setting where the very existence of higher powers is agnostic.

Well, if you take the standard god-worshiping Cleric and say that defines 'Cleric' then, of course they have to be god-worshipping.

IIRC, there have been god-less Clerics since first ed; only FR requires clerics to have a god.

Anyway, even if the rule-book says they get powers from the dragon above, what proof is there for the characters?

Geoff.

 

[Turjan]

Well, if you take the standard god-worshiping Cleric and say that defines 'Cleric' then, of course they have to be god-worshipping.

IIRC, there have been god-less Clerics since first ed; only FR requires clerics to have a god.

Anyway, even if the rule-book says they get powers from the dragon above, what proof is there for the characters?

I think you are missing the core of woodelf's argument. Why would, in a purely agnostic world, divine magic be constrained to believers (in whatever, in a god or some philosophy). If there were not a real divine power behind the divine spells, why should arcane casters be barred from using these spells? In this context, a divine power of some kind must exist, excluding an agnostic campaign world.

 

[Geoff Watson]

I think you are missing the core of woodelf's argument. Why would, in a purely agnostic world, divine magic be constrained to believers (in whatever, in a god or some philosophy). If there were not a real divine power behind the divine spells, why should arcane casters be barred from using these spells? In this context, a divine power of some kind must exist, excluding an agnostic campaign world.

If they want to cast Cleric spells, they can multiclass to Cleric.

Why do Cleric spells require that divine power exists? In Dragonlance, Wizard spells are granted by the three moon-gods. Should there be no wizards and they all be clerics instead?

Geoff.

 

[Turjan]

If they want to cast Cleric spells, they can multiclass to Cleric.

That doesn't work in D&D. At least, the result of that multiclassing is not a viable PC. The Mystic Theurge is some kind of lukewarm workaround.

Why do Cleric spells require that divine power exists? In Dragonlance, Wizard spells are granted by the three moon-gods. Should there be no wizards and they all be clerics instead?

What do your example and the answer you give have to do with your question?