Simple cleric changes.

[Merlion]

I think it's good that the 3e cleric gets more than its AD&D predecessors. Most people don't want to play purely support characters: most people don't want to step back, heal and buff everyone, and let the rest of the party shine

First, I disagree...theres plenty of people who like to play support.

next, theres no reason you cant have a class that is primarily a support class, but has some degree of offense to keep it interesting. The Cleric just takes the offense to far, and also has to few weaknesses.

. People worry about the cleric's domain spells -- it can seem like it allows the cleric to step on the wizard's toes -- but I think, broadly, they're a good idea. Letting clerics of a storm god drop a lightning bolt or something once a day is flavorful and appealing, and it gives the cleric's player a chance to have a couple of unexpected tricks up his sleeve. It helps make clerics into more interesting and complex characters.

Well, the trouble is they get the Domain spells in addition to the entire Cleric spell list, and many of the Domain spells are among the few effects that Clerics can access that Wizards cant.

However, mechanically its not to bad. As long as you dont allow Domain Spontaneity.

However to me on the level of being a real "priest" class, it would work better to have individualized spell lists.

But I really, really don't like what I called in the original post the "buff and bash" cleric. It should be received wisdom by this point that, given a round or two to prepare, a mid-to-high-level cleric can imbue herself with combat abilities that match or even exceed those comparably experienced fighters or barbarians. All of this has to do with the three spells I pick out in the original post: the first-level spell that gives the cleric massive, and readily stackable, bonuses to attack and damage; the fourth-level spell that gives her a fighter-grade base attack bonus and helpful ability bonuses; and the fifth-level spell that gives her added size and powerful DR. Eliminating these spells doesn't cripple the cleric, who still has lots of very useful buffs -- think of shield of faith, prayer, or bull's strength -- but it means that she is not going to be upstaging the party fighter. Clerics, even without heavy armor, can still play their traditional role as defensive, supporting melee participants.

Certainlly removal of those spells and removal of heavy armor takes the edge off. I would still reduce the hit die to a d6 however, and reduce the Fort save. A Primary caster with a spell list as useful and extensive as the Clerics doesnt really need these things.

Is eliminating these three spells, and immediate access to heavy armor (note that IMC nobody gets heavy armor for free, though fighters and paladins get easier ways to access it), enough to justify increasing the cleric's skill points? I think so. It probably, in an objective sense, gives the cleric more than she had earlier, but what the cleric gets is largely orthogonal to her traditional concern with helping her party succeed in combat

Well, in terms of game balance, I dont see skill points as an especially big factor...they dont often come into play in combat.

I see no problem with your propsed changes, accept I'd say they dont go far enough


And they dont really address the issues of the "priest" archtype at all, but thats a matter of taste.

 

[Panask]

This is what I've been trying out - still somewhat tentatively - IMC, for a less combat-oriented, more skill-oriented and social cleric:

THE WAYPRIEST
The waypriest class is identical to the cleric class except for the following:

Hit Die: d6

BAB: As rogue

Class Skills: As cleric, plus Decipher Script, Gather Information, all Knowledge skills, and Sense Motive.

Skill Points: 4 + Int modifier per level. (x 4 at 1st level.)

Weapon Proficiency: Any three simple weapons of the character's choice, plus the deity's favored weapon.

Armor Proficiency: All light armors.

Divine Spell Failure: A waypriest wearing medium or heavy armor, or carrying a shield, suffers a chance of spell failure as though he were casting an arcane spell.

Domains: The waypriest chooses three of his deity's domains, rather than two. He does not get to cast more domain spells per day, but has a wider choice of domain spells. He also gets the domain powers of all three domains.

Divine Resistance (Su): A 1st-level waypriest receives a +1 luck bonus to all saving throws. This bonus increases by 1 for every 4 additional levels (+2 at 5th level, +3 at 9th level, +4 at 13th level, +5 at 17th level). This benefit only applies if he is wearing light armor or no armor.

I've been playing one of these guys for a while, and it's been fun. I've never been one much for heavy-armor characters anyway. But for the next time I think I'll make the following changes:

Weapon Proficiency: All simple weapons, plus deity's favored weapon. (My current character is multiclassed rogue, which added a lot of weapon choices.)

Domains: The waypriest starts out with two domains, and acquires a third one at 3rd level. (Otherwise it's too front-loaded, and the temptation to take one level for all the domain powers, along with the skill points, is strong.)

Divine Resistance: This would apply to his AC also.

All opinions welcome.

Panask
Servitar to Baldur

 

[Merlion]

Divine Resistance (Su): A 1st-level waypriest receives a +1 luck bonus to all saving throws. This bonus increases by 1 for every 4 additional levels (+2 at 5th level, +3 at 9th level, +4 at 13th level, +5 at 17th level). This benefit only applies if he is wearing light armor or no armor.

Ok first let me ask, what is the classes base save progression? If its the same as the Cleric (Good Fort/Will, Poor Reflex), I'd say this is a bit much. Even if you eliminate the good Will save, this seems a little much for a primary caster.

Domains: The waypriest starts out with two domains, and acquires a third one at 3rd level. (Otherwise it's too front-loaded, and the temptation to take one level for all the domain powers, along with the skill points, is strong.)

Good idea.

Divine Resistance: This would apply to his AC also

This also seems a bit much. It seems to partly negate the point of limiting armor proficiency

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

First, I disagree...theres plenty of people who like to play support.

Really? You must hang around a lot of good samaritans. My friend's running a game right now. For a while he had too few players (3 or 4 with some not showing up consistently). What was worse, none of those players "took the cleric bullet", nor druid, and thus there was no healer. So, he allowed every player to create a secondary character. Everyone made a cleric. Then, last week, about 3 new people joined so he told the original players to pick one character and drop the other. All of the players promptly dropped their clerics. The party now has a monk, an alienist, a necromancer, and some other arcanists and meatshields which I don't remember. Come to think of it, I don't think they have a rogue-type either. ^_^

 

[Nyaricus]

Really? You must hang around a lot of good samaritans. My friend's running a game right now. For a while he had too few players (3 or 4 with some not showing up consistently). What was worse, none of those players "took the cleric bullet", nor druid, and thus there was no healer. So, he allowed every player to create a secondary character. Everyone made a cleric. Then, last week, about 3 new people joined so he told the original players to pick one character and drop the other. All of the players promptly dropped their clerics. The party now has a monk, an alienist, a necromancer, and some other arcanists and meatshields which I don't remember. Come to think of it, I don't think they have a rogue-type either. ^_^

Honestly, thats why we have Potions of Cure Serious Wounds

Anyways, I don't think it's right to pick 3 spells and be like "NERF 'EM!!!" Clerics can be many different things - but traditionally (as in the real world, not D&D) they were NOT better than fighters in melee. And that is why i don't like Clerics as is. They should be less combat-oriented by a long shot. Oh well. Lets see where this leads us . . . .

 

[Kristivas]

I really dislike reading all of the 'nerf cleric' posts. For years in nearly all of the campaigns I've played in, the clerics had to be NPCed as heal-bots. They pretty much just casted bless and ran around healing as needed. Now, with the adjustments since 3.0 to 3.5, they're actually a class that can shine.

Even from a role-playing perspective, look at the cleric. He's an armored priest with a direct connection to his god. Does that deserve to be a little overpowering? Yes, I'd think so. I actually like to see my players not afraid to pick a cleric and "buff-n'-bash", as long as they're willing to heal as well.

If you don't want to see that whole "Divine Metamagic - Persistant Spell - Divine Favor (or the like)" then don't allow that combination. Otherwise, taking away the spells that can let a cleric shine and turning them back into heal-bots can assure that a lot of people will just stay away from playing a cleric.

 

[ed.han]

i see no reason why balance and desirablity need be mutually exclusive.

i think that the great flaw in 3.0/3.5 clerics is that they're all the same. the domains simply don't change enough things. w/ crappy skill point selection (2? c'mon, who isn't blowing that to max out know (religion) and spellcraft or heal?), one cleric character cannot often be meaningfully distinguished from another.

now, if domains incorporated something like access to spells of [descriptors] and restrictions against [opposed descriptor], that would be interesting. clerics would still be interesting, but a restricted spell list would help balance them out considerably. of course, that would require throwing descriptors onto practically everything, though.

ed

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ohhhhh, I see now... This is really about using the spells in broken combinations with feats from complete divine. It's the only complete book I've yet to read. After all I've seen people here say about it, have no intention to read it. If that's your problem with these spells (which don't seem much worse than tenser's transformation, which they SHOULD be better than, since the cleric starts out better suited for melee than a wizard anyway) then just don't allow the extraneous stuff that makes them broken. No need to erradicate core spells over a horrible feat like divine metamagic.

As far as skills, I agree. As I pointed out in a previous thread, Knowledge: religion is at best the 3rd most important skill for a cleric, far behind concentration and spellcraft. I really don't think I need to explain why this is. Now, Joe Cleric will probably have at best a 10 int, as wis, con, cha, and str are all usually more important. Thus, your average cleric has 2 skill points per level and not a point ever goes into K: religion if he's maxing out the other two. The idea of the typical cleric (except humans, for their bonus skill points) not knowing anything about religion bothers me. Greatly.

 

[Nyaricus]

I really dislike reading all of the 'nerf cleric' posts. For years in nearly all of the campaigns I've played in, the clerics had to be NPCed as heal-bots. They pretty much just casted bless and ran around healing as needed. Now, with the adjustments since 3.0 to 3.5, they're actually a class that can shine.

If you don't want to see that whole "Divine Metamagic - Persistant Spell - Divine Favor (or the like)" then don't allow that combination. Otherwise, taking away the spells that can let a cleric shine and turning them back into heal-bots can assure that a lot of people will just stay away from playing a cleric.

Cleric treads too much on the Wizards heels for versitility in spells and on the fighters for combativeness. A clerics is NOT supposed to be a heal-bot, nore a buff 'n basher. What he is supposed to be is a servant of his or her goddess or god who is a mortal representative of that deities ideals and portfolio. The obvious problem is that D&D doesn't do this justice with it's "healbot" (1 and 2e, i suppose) and "buff 'n basher" (3e).

Clerics are truely neither - they simply may have access to those spells or abilities. Personally, the name "cleric" is so wrong it isn't even funny. Priest should be the name for servitors of the divine, and they should have spells properly suited for that role. Alas, I have yet to see a build to truely support this. I am not saying "nerf 'em" or "save 'em" as is, but no one has put forth an appropriate solution to this quandry in D&D.

Even from a role-playing perspective, look at the cleric. He's an armored priest with a direct connection to his god. Does that deserve to be a little overpowering? Yes, I'd think so. I actually like to see my players not afraid to pick a cleric and "buff-n'-bash", as long as they're willing to heal as well.

Again, i disagree - Armoured Priests? "direct connection"? ha. the direct connection is only really represented in domain selection, and positive/negative energy connections (cure/inflict; turn/rebuke). Thats not enough for my tastes - and it makes every other cleric the similar - and most clerics of a given religion the same. As for Armoured Priest - i don't think either of those words deserve to be in the same sentence, except as opposing topics. Crusaders and Knights (paladins and pious fighters) are supposed to fill the role as martial servitor of a deity. Not Priests.

 

[Kristivas]

Cleric treads too much on the Wizards heels for versitility in spells and on the fighters for combativeness. A clerics is NOT supposed to be a heal-bot, nore a buff 'n basher. What he is supposed to be is a servant of his or her goddess or god who is a mortal representative of that deities ideals and portfolio. The obvious problem is that D&D doesn't do this justice with it's "healbot" (1 and 2e, i suppose) and "buff 'n basher" (3e).

Clerics are truely neither - they simply may have access to those spells or abilities. Personally, the name "cleric" is so wrong it isn't even funny. Priest should be the name for servitors of the divine, and they should have spells properly suited for that role. Alas, I have yet to see a build to truely support this. I am not saying "nerf 'em" or "save 'em" as is, but no one has put forth an appropriate solution to this quandry in D&D.

Again, i disagree - Armoured Priests? "direct connection"? ha. the direct connection is only really represented in domain selection, and positive/negative energy connections (cure/inflict; turn/rebuke). Thats not enough for my tastes - and it makes every other cleric the similar - and most clerics of a given religion the same. As for Armoured Priest - i don't think either of those words deserve to be in the same sentence, except as opposing topics. Crusaders and Knights (paladins and pious fighters) are supposed to fill the role as martial servitor of a deity. Not Priests.

I guess it's just how we view clerics differently, and that's cool. The kind of priest I see when I look over the original post changes to the class is the.. little cultist priest, scurrying around in his robes with a dagger ready to sacrifice a virgin to soothe his Dark God.

I play (and usually see) clerics played along with the type of deity they have. Using Forgotten Realms for example (yes, I know, people don't like FR..) A cleric of Mystra would likely be multi-classed as a wizard and not wearing armor. A Battle-Priest of Tempus would be in Full Plate and weilding a Battle-Axe. A Cleric of Lathander may also be found in heavy armor, due to his God's hatred of undead (thus expecting him to go on an Undead-slaughtering spree). A cleric of Malar would probably be wearing hide armor or none at all, while a cleric of Mielikki would likely be multi-classed Ranger as well, so he's also wearing light armor.

If, in your own campaign, you'd want to take the "Battle-Priest" version out then I'd say more power to ya. If my DM came to me and made such a proclaimation, I (and the other guys) would just find something more interesting to play.