Limited spell lists for divine casters?

Allanon · Apr 6, 2003

I'm currently running a Scarred Lands campaign setting, and I recently got a player who wanted to play a cleric (he's the first).

Now I want to give him a limited spell list. Tailored to his character and his god (in his case Madriel) and his alignment. Now my question is simple.

How many spells should he know per spell level? Should he have acces to spells of the Evil descriptor for instance? Should I allow him to learn new spells?

Currently I'm thinking of giving him 10 0-level, 13 1,2,3,4 level, 11 5,6,7 level and 9 8,9 level spells... Is this to limiting? Or to much?

Thanks in advance for the feedback

Allanon · Apr 6, 2003

*BUMP*

cause I still want to know

Destil · Apr 6, 2003

I use a slight modification of the Piratecat system, which is explained as follows:

a) The PH cleric is balanced with the assumption that the PH cleric spell list is balanced
b) A new cleric spell, if assigned the proper spell level, is balanced against other cleric spells of the same level
c) Therefore, if you allow a cleric to exchange PH spells for non PH spells, they should remaind ballanced.

Personaly, I modify this by adding a small number of spells to the base cleric list first, things that are needed. For instance, the spell burial blessing, if there's a lot of undead in the world. Or some of the basic planar spells (ones that let you survive on other planes) from the Manual of the Planes if there's a lot of planar travel in the game. Then spells can be swapped out of the base list for other cleric spells.

fba827 · Apr 7, 2003

I have been thinking a lot about doing something similar. While I am not saying to do or not do it, I did want to mention not to jump into this too quickly (unless you're really really sure).

The proverbial can of worms can be opened with this...

1) You'll have to do this for every single cleric character if you want to keep any form of consitancy (this may slow ppl down from choosing the cleric in the future if they think you may yank some spells they really are looking forward to).

2) To be most fair to all players (so that everyone knows what's going on ahead of time) the burden would be upon DM (you) to list out / prepare all the spell lists for all the faiths at the start of the campaign. This way when someone (say 1 month into the game) wants to play a cleric and wants to know about the spell list it would already be available and no "surprises" when they find their favorite spell won't be available.

3) Need to have a firm grasp on balancing mechanics of spell lists (is the spell list for one group "fair" when compared to the spell list of another clerical group)

4) Do you NEED such a system in the rules? If the character is any sort of "good" cleric (per their faith) then they are already going to shy away from the "bad" spells. So (basically what I am trying to say) do you need to do the work to develop something that the players will already inherently do? (again, presumption that the clerics are "good" with respect to their faith, already).

5) And you'd need to be willing to revisit the topic everytime a new supplement comes out with new spells, etc.

And regarding the evil spells, the basic concept already nixes out that option if the character is of opposed alignment (good) so that may be less of an issue for you than you think

now, having said all that, I never was fond of a general clerical spell list for all clerics because I can't some granting access to some of these. I think it also offers distinction between the clerical faiths and a sense of uniquness to your campaign. As said, custom spell lists per faith (and that will probably morph into customer base cleric classes so as to alter skill lists, spell progression, etc) is something I'm still pondering and more than likley do if I ever have the time prior to next campaign. If I don't have time I won't feel it a HUGE loss since #4, above.).

Allanon · Apr 7, 2003

Well, I feel that it's more fair to the wizards and sorcerers.
The amount of spells a cleric has is staggering.
With spells in the PHB, DoF, MotP, R&R, R&R2, DatD and Dragon Magazines not to mention the Book of Hallowed Might I have an incredible amount of spells. I can't just say, 'sure use them all' , a cleric would just become too powerfull then. But for the flavor alone I need to use a lot of the R&R and R&R2 spells. I just want to prevent making the cleric too powerfull.
This same goes for the druid, who also gains a lot of spells.

I just wanted to see how other people solved this.

But as you pointed out balancing this all is a huge task. I'll think I'll restate this question in General. Thanks for the replies

Destil · Apr 8, 2003

fba827 said:
1) You'll have to do this for every single cleric character if you want to keep any form of consitancy (this may slow ppl down from choosing the cleric in the future if they think you may yank some spells they really are looking forward to).

Why do extra work? Until it comes up ignore it, just toss in an extra spell or two that 'feels right' for NPCs and don't sweat the details.

2) To be most fair to all players (so that everyone knows what's going on ahead of time) the burden would be upon DM (you) to list out / prepare all the spell lists for all the faiths at the start of the campaign. This way when someone (say 1 month into the game) wants to play a cleric and wants to know about the spell list it would already be available and no "surprises" when they find their favorite spell won't be available.

Again, why bother? At least in my games, all my players are reasonable, and have a fair sense of balance (Just today one noted that the pre-eratta Ninja of the Crecent Moon was a bit much and called me to ask how I'd tone it down, and a second one agreed that the rehnzoemath's 10d10 heat damage was way too much given his new shifter). They also tell me if they want to take levels of other classes, generaly. Just tell them "And we'll be using this system for extra divine spells." and leave it at that. If someone aproaches you about playing a divine caster then they can help you put togteaher the spell list, which helps further involve them (in a meta-game sense) in the world. Always a good thing, IMHO.

3) Need to have a firm grasp on balancing mechanics of spell lists (is the spell list for one group "fair" when compared to the spell list of another clerical group)

If you only allow balanced spells this should, in theroy, take care of itself. Weird synergy (like the issue with Biocurrent and Favored of Illmater) could be a problem, but should be somwhat appearant.

4) Do you NEED such a system in the rules? If the character is any sort of "good" cleric (per their faith) then they are already going to shy away from the "bad" spells. So (basically what I am trying to say) do you need to do the work to develop something that the players will already inherently do? (again, presumption that the clerics are "good" with respect to their faith, already).

While I understand the idea of not doing more work than you have to, unless you have players wanting to make clerics of donzens of sepsrate faiths and also multiclass into druid, ranger and palidin it shouldn't really be more troubble than it's worth.

Chacal · Apr 8, 2003

Destil said:
c) Therefore, if you allow a cleric to exchange PH spells for non PH spells, they should remaind ballanced.

This works for us. It's also a good way to adapt the spelllist to the divinity and the PC. choosing those replacements help fleshing the PC and divinity concepts. And you can have different clerics following the same deity. Much better for differenciation than just domains.

Chacal