Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Playing non-healer clerics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8911121" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>And this is why I am saying there is a problem with the current design...</p><p></p><p></p><p>I hate to say "um, actually" but...you actually can do that using Tasha's. Paladin can choose to get a cantrip (or two?) as a fighting style option. And there are a few (not many, but a few) Paladin spells that do thunder and/or lightning effects.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Even when it is not as good? Because that's my whole point here. You are <em>settling</em> for what you can get. An actual class, legitimately designed to do the thing you want, <em>would</em> be a better fit...by definition. Because it would literally be designed to do what you are wanting to do! That's very specifically what the Swordmage class was <em>for.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it isn't. It has a subclass that can fake it a few times a day. Very big difference.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This statement is either trivial (because of course a class is designed to do what you can do with it... that's literally what being "designed" <em>means</em>) or contradicts your previous assertion that you don't want every class to be everything to everyone.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay.</p><p></p><p>Now imagine a class, built from the ground up, which gives you <em>both of those things.</em> Because that's what I am talking about. It can be done; it <em>has been</em> done.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And I am asserting that you are <em>still settling</em> because we have <em>seen</em> that it is possible to do better.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So the letters "C L E R I C" actually have mechanics inside them? Which letter contains channel divinity? Which one contains the spell list? If I went back in time and replaced every instance of the letters "C L E R I C" with, say, "P R I E S T," then all of the mechanics would be completely erased and you would never have found the joy you've found in playing it?</p><p></p><p>I hope, from my facetious tone, you understand how ridiculous this sounds. The <em>English letters</em> "C L E R I C" <em>are not</em> the mechanics. They are just a label. That label could be <em>anything.</em> It is the mechanics that matter, and the mechanics <em>could</em> actually be a better fit, or at the very least, you can agree that the fact that the class labelled "C L E R I C" (note how I keep presenting it this way) could have been given any other label because it is <em>fictitious</em>. It could have been labelled "T E M P L A R" or "P R I E S T" or "V I C A R" and would otherwise be, in both mechanical <em>and thematic</em> significance, exactly 100% the same. The letters written at the top of the sheet are literally just a label and not one iota more.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It is absolutely, positively NOT like that and I am frankly insulted that you would say so. "Female" is not fictitious. Nor are the actual names that belong to people. These things are both part of who a person is. "C L E R I C" isn't, because they're not always called that, and yet the theme and even at times mechanics remain. (Consider PF2e renaming "P A L A D I N" to "C H A M P I O N." Change of label, but the mechanics remained.) The label is not where your agency lies; it lies in <em>choosing the mechanics.</em> So what happens if you dislike the label of something, but you can see, point blank, without doubt, that the mechanics to which that label has been applied are ideal for your interests? Will you surrender and accept something inferior simply because a handful of letters are not to your liking when <em>everything else</em> is?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. Because you could write any other label you wanted, or indeed <em>no label at all,</em> and yet still use those mechanics. The mechanics of Channel Divinity and Domains and the like are not, in any way, <em>inherently</em> linked to having the letters "C L E R I C" written across the top of your sheet. It is simply a convention. No different from whether one labels the hit points in a video game with green or red color: both conventions exist (and some straddle the line, with green being high HP and slowly descending to red at low HP.) The convention is not the mechanics. The map is not the territory.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have already addressed name and gender above. A D&D deity is, like class, fictitious. Do you <em>seriously</em> mean to say that if Bahamut were instead called Abzu, but literally 100% unchanged otherwise, you would never be able to accept worship of Abzu?</p><p></p><p>Are we really going to say that worshiping Hesperus is heretical while worshiping Phosphorus is holy? <em>They're the same thing!</em> The label is not the deity, and both the label and the deity are fictitious. Even when one uses a deity inspired by one from a real-world religion, the depiction is necessarily fictitious.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And that's my point. We <em>can</em> design better. At least one prior edition <em>has.</em> It was the Swordmage, and it was excellent at exactly the things you ask for (and more! It had all sorts of cool tricks up its sleeves.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>But do the <em>letters</em> "C L E R I C" do that? Or is it the mechanics which, coincidentally, happen to have that label? If they had a different label, would you refuse them solely because the label was different?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, but <em>many fans</em> require it. Therefore every Fighter must have that, <em>and</em> ranged, <em>and</em> charisma, etc., etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You carved out so many exceptions and caveats, I rest my case. Every caster can do <em>nearly</em> everything pretty well--and many can do it, by your own admission, better than the classes actually designed to do it! <em>That's a huge problem.</em> It makes the classes actually designed to do it suck!</p><p></p><p>Investigation is an Int skill, and Divinations are powerful investigative tools. I'm not sure what would <em>prevent</em> a Wizard from doing it. And you now seem to be agreeing that Wizards (and to a lesser extent other casters) <em>are</em> empowered to be everything to everyone like I said...?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes! And I am saying this design is bad for several reasons! You are either repeating a truism (things are designed to be what they are designed to be) or an irrelevancy (it <em>could</em> have been designed differently but it wasn't and we never ever should think about how it <em>could</em> be designed.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And if we apply the same standard to, I dunno, 4e characters...suddenly these alleged straightjacket roles are not even remotely limiting!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Only in the most trivial sense. You act like this statement is more than a vacuous truth. It is not. It also says absolutely nothing about whether the class is <em>good</em> at what it was designed for. 3e's Monk was designed for a handful of things and was <em>objectively awful</em> at doing most of them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8911121, member: 6790260"] And this is why I am saying there is a problem with the current design... I hate to say "um, actually" but...you actually can do that using Tasha's. Paladin can choose to get a cantrip (or two?) as a fighting style option. And there are a few (not many, but a few) Paladin spells that do thunder and/or lightning effects. Even when it is not as good? Because that's my whole point here. You are [I]settling[/I] for what you can get. An actual class, legitimately designed to do the thing you want, [I]would[/I] be a better fit...by definition. Because it would literally be designed to do what you are wanting to do! That's very specifically what the Swordmage class was [I]for.[/I] No, it isn't. It has a subclass that can fake it a few times a day. Very big difference. This statement is either trivial (because of course a class is designed to do what you can do with it... that's literally what being "designed" [I]means[/I]) or contradicts your previous assertion that you don't want every class to be everything to everyone. Okay. Now imagine a class, built from the ground up, which gives you [I]both of those things.[/I] Because that's what I am talking about. It can be done; it [I]has been[/I] done. And I am asserting that you are [I]still settling[/I] because we have [I]seen[/I] that it is possible to do better. So the letters "C L E R I C" actually have mechanics inside them? Which letter contains channel divinity? Which one contains the spell list? If I went back in time and replaced every instance of the letters "C L E R I C" with, say, "P R I E S T," then all of the mechanics would be completely erased and you would never have found the joy you've found in playing it? I hope, from my facetious tone, you understand how ridiculous this sounds. The [I]English letters[/I] "C L E R I C" [I]are not[/I] the mechanics. They are just a label. That label could be [I]anything.[/I] It is the mechanics that matter, and the mechanics [I]could[/I] actually be a better fit, or at the very least, you can agree that the fact that the class labelled "C L E R I C" (note how I keep presenting it this way) could have been given any other label because it is [I]fictitious[/I]. It could have been labelled "T E M P L A R" or "P R I E S T" or "V I C A R" and would otherwise be, in both mechanical [I]and thematic[/I] significance, exactly 100% the same. The letters written at the top of the sheet are literally just a label and not one iota more. It is absolutely, positively NOT like that and I am frankly insulted that you would say so. "Female" is not fictitious. Nor are the actual names that belong to people. These things are both part of who a person is. "C L E R I C" isn't, because they're not always called that, and yet the theme and even at times mechanics remain. (Consider PF2e renaming "P A L A D I N" to "C H A M P I O N." Change of label, but the mechanics remained.) The label is not where your agency lies; it lies in [I]choosing the mechanics.[/I] So what happens if you dislike the label of something, but you can see, point blank, without doubt, that the mechanics to which that label has been applied are ideal for your interests? Will you surrender and accept something inferior simply because a handful of letters are not to your liking when [I]everything else[/I] is? Nope. Because you could write any other label you wanted, or indeed [I]no label at all,[/I] and yet still use those mechanics. The mechanics of Channel Divinity and Domains and the like are not, in any way, [I]inherently[/I] linked to having the letters "C L E R I C" written across the top of your sheet. It is simply a convention. No different from whether one labels the hit points in a video game with green or red color: both conventions exist (and some straddle the line, with green being high HP and slowly descending to red at low HP.) The convention is not the mechanics. The map is not the territory. I have already addressed name and gender above. A D&D deity is, like class, fictitious. Do you [I]seriously[/I] mean to say that if Bahamut were instead called Abzu, but literally 100% unchanged otherwise, you would never be able to accept worship of Abzu? Are we really going to say that worshiping Hesperus is heretical while worshiping Phosphorus is holy? [I]They're the same thing![/I] The label is not the deity, and both the label and the deity are fictitious. Even when one uses a deity inspired by one from a real-world religion, the depiction is necessarily fictitious. And that's my point. We [I]can[/I] design better. At least one prior edition [I]has.[/I] It was the Swordmage, and it was excellent at exactly the things you ask for (and more! It had all sorts of cool tricks up its sleeves.) But do the [I]letters[/I] "C L E R I C" do that? Or is it the mechanics which, coincidentally, happen to have that label? If they had a different label, would you refuse them solely because the label was different? Ah, but [I]many fans[/I] require it. Therefore every Fighter must have that, [I]and[/I] ranged, [I]and[/I] charisma, etc., etc. You carved out so many exceptions and caveats, I rest my case. Every caster can do [I]nearly[/I] everything pretty well--and many can do it, by your own admission, better than the classes actually designed to do it! [I]That's a huge problem.[/I] It makes the classes actually designed to do it suck! Investigation is an Int skill, and Divinations are powerful investigative tools. I'm not sure what would [I]prevent[/I] a Wizard from doing it. And you now seem to be agreeing that Wizards (and to a lesser extent other casters) [I]are[/I] empowered to be everything to everyone like I said...? Yes! And I am saying this design is bad for several reasons! You are either repeating a truism (things are designed to be what they are designed to be) or an irrelevancy (it [I]could[/I] have been designed differently but it wasn't and we never ever should think about how it [I]could[/I] be designed.) And if we apply the same standard to, I dunno, 4e characters...suddenly these alleged straightjacket roles are not even remotely limiting! Only in the most trivial sense. You act like this statement is more than a vacuous truth. It is not. It also says absolutely nothing about whether the class is [I]good[/I] at what it was designed for. 3e's Monk was designed for a handful of things and was [I]objectively awful[/I] at doing most of them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Playing non-healer clerics
Top