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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8401308" data-attributes="member: 6855114">I got these, don't worry. But my point stands still. Banak was an exception. But that exception led to more and more exceptions which became a rule. At some point, if any god can give any spell, why would a cleric preach? What is its role? Spreading religion has always been something very important in Role Playing a cleric.I had cleric (both players and non players) denying a character healing because they were not "believers" or "followers" of their religion. A small cure light wound would all they would do so as not to put their ethos into danger. Having two clerics of opposing or not allied deity of the same mythos would lead to a friendly (and sometimes not so friendly) contest to which cleric would convert the most people to his/her religion! Druids were the main other source of healing and represented an "old" faith in nature or nature like deities. They were a bit less powerful on the healing side and had big trouble vs the undead but they too, were vying for faith and spiritual energy from the believers. This made them a good choice for those that did not want to lean to heavily on the "convert people" side.By moving this aspect away from the clerics and giving bards healing spells, they put the cleric in a strange place where they should be converting, but gain nothing by doing so. In fact, going this way means a lot of arguements from other players. Gods are supposed to be vying for worshippers (and thus the pantheons wars) but with no mechanics to give them a reason to do so, it becomes pointless. So at some point, do we really like that bards can heal? And what about artificers? They too can heal without a god... I sometimes wonder if bards and artificers should be removed from my campaign...</blockquote>

Verification