Bendris Noulg
First Post
That's about the best description of the Cleric's shortcomings I've read to date. Well said.Kamikaze Midget said:
Where did all the specialty priests go?
- Thread starter Al
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
...which is why I decided to solve the problem in Philosophies and Falsehoods, a pdf available soon from Silicon Phoenix Gaming. 
You'd be surprised, I think, to find how close some posters are on this board to the method I went with when designing the class, and it was, as I've said, basically inspired by the fact that, in D&D Cleric = Healer/Buffer, and not religious figure. I needed someone who's abilities were more defined by what they believed. Hence, the new class.
And it works *perfect* as a generic specialty priest class, because it's as customizable as a Fighter or Rogue, and very much balanced with the existing classes in mind.
You'd be surprised, I think, to find how close some posters are on this board to the method I went with when designing the class, and it was, as I've said, basically inspired by the fact that, in D&D Cleric = Healer/Buffer, and not religious figure. I needed someone who's abilities were more defined by what they believed. Hence, the new class.
And it works *perfect* as a generic specialty priest class, because it's as customizable as a Fighter or Rogue, and very much balanced with the existing classes in mind.
Al said:
I too think Wee Jas is an excellent deity, loads of flavour and far more interesting than Boccob, who is the more generic god of magic in Greyhawk. What was the article you read? I decided that I really liked Wee Jas after reading one of the Oerth journals (no. 7 I think).
Junkheap said:
Prestige classes do indeed seem to be tailor made for creating speciality priests. And while some could be virtually a different class from standard clerics of the same faith, some might need just a few powers and restrictions to give the desired flavour. Following the usual guidelines for creating prestige classes should help avoid the balance problems that plagued many 2nd Edition kits and speciality priests.
That said, I do think it is possible to impose restrictions and tailor spell lists to create the desired effect. I've seen it done very well.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Prestige Classes are great, but the do have a minor dillema: the fact that, in order to get to them, you need to fit the mould of the traditional Captain Heal Me for a while.
Also, if the PrC doesn't keep advancing in healing or defensive abilities, you run the risk of wounding a party who is light on divine magic. This can be a serious problem: the party needs a healer, and you're a cleric, regardless of whether you really like the idea of a focused cleric of a god of magic, for instance. In many ways, in the eyes of the party, you become a handicapped healer who will never be as good at other stuff as the mage is.
If you take restrictions, that can help, but it means you have to be weaker to be more flavorful -- not exactly a desirable outcome.
So if you never expect the class to be a healer and protector by nessecity, and if their powers are focused into one area of expertise to be balaced with the base classes, you can be a focused religious hero without jilting the party of something they do need. If nobody expects you to be the healer/buffer, then you don't have to let them down when you turn out to be more able to, say, relate to powers of fire as a worshipper of the fire god.
Basically, even if you use prestige classes, you get extra baggage that you either have to weaken yourself by getting rid of, or live with, in the first few levels, and then you give up on what the class was designed (and well designed) to be: a defensive spellcaster.
Also, if the PrC doesn't keep advancing in healing or defensive abilities, you run the risk of wounding a party who is light on divine magic. This can be a serious problem: the party needs a healer, and you're a cleric, regardless of whether you really like the idea of a focused cleric of a god of magic, for instance. In many ways, in the eyes of the party, you become a handicapped healer who will never be as good at other stuff as the mage is.
If you take restrictions, that can help, but it means you have to be weaker to be more flavorful -- not exactly a desirable outcome.
So if you never expect the class to be a healer and protector by nessecity, and if their powers are focused into one area of expertise to be balaced with the base classes, you can be a focused religious hero without jilting the party of something they do need. If nobody expects you to be the healer/buffer, then you don't have to let them down when you turn out to be more able to, say, relate to powers of fire as a worshipper of the fire god.
Basically, even if you use prestige classes, you get extra baggage that you either have to weaken yourself by getting rid of, or live with, in the first few levels, and then you give up on what the class was designed (and well designed) to be: a defensive spellcaster.
Celebrim
Legend
Kamikaze: That's great and all, but the party is still going to need a healer and protector.
In fact, if the party is reduced to one character, it is the healer that you want to be reduced too. So, while it might be interesting and reasonable to suggest that a cleric of a fire god needn't know healing, that still leaves a void in the parties list of essential abilities - no matter how good the cleric is at casting fireballs.
Don't you run the risk of the cleric replacing the wizard (or fighter or rouge or whatever) in the party AND you keep the more traditional cleric of healing and protection (not that healing and protection are particularly 'good' domains to choose if what you are interested in is maximizing your cleric's ability to heal and protect).
"If you take restrictions, that can help, but it means you have to be weaker to be more flavorful -- not exactly a desirable outcome."
This line of reasoning bugs me too some extent. Why must everyone insist that you are what you can do? Isn't this just a wee bit shallow? 'I'm the spell caster' 'I'm the fighter' and 'I'm the rouge' are not character descriptions. Right?
Regardless of whether I expect every religious type to be a healer, the party needs a healer whether every religious type is a healer or no. So, regardless of whether you as a religious type perform a nifty role, I'm still going to be wanting the cleric around when I'm hip deep in summoned monsters/surrounded by undead/or down to -8 h.p. and how are expecting to change my expectation of that?
Under the new rules I don't feel as a cleric that I've been reduced to 'Captain Heal You' the way you were in earlier additions. On the other hand, neither must I or the party give up this essential function as the price of my new versitility.
In fact, if the party is reduced to one character, it is the healer that you want to be reduced too. So, while it might be interesting and reasonable to suggest that a cleric of a fire god needn't know healing, that still leaves a void in the parties list of essential abilities - no matter how good the cleric is at casting fireballs.
Don't you run the risk of the cleric replacing the wizard (or fighter or rouge or whatever) in the party AND you keep the more traditional cleric of healing and protection (not that healing and protection are particularly 'good' domains to choose if what you are interested in is maximizing your cleric's ability to heal and protect).
"If you take restrictions, that can help, but it means you have to be weaker to be more flavorful -- not exactly a desirable outcome."
This line of reasoning bugs me too some extent. Why must everyone insist that you are what you can do? Isn't this just a wee bit shallow? 'I'm the spell caster' 'I'm the fighter' and 'I'm the rouge' are not character descriptions. Right?
Regardless of whether I expect every religious type to be a healer, the party needs a healer whether every religious type is a healer or no. So, regardless of whether you as a religious type perform a nifty role, I'm still going to be wanting the cleric around when I'm hip deep in summoned monsters/surrounded by undead/or down to -8 h.p. and how are expecting to change my expectation of that?
Under the new rules I don't feel as a cleric that I've been reduced to 'Captain Heal You' the way you were in earlier additions. On the other hand, neither must I or the party give up this essential function as the price of my new versitility.
Last edited:
sword-dancer
Explorer
Celebrim said:
If the only reason for a cleric is a healer, then use a healer core class.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I'm not nominating taking the regular cleric out or replacing them or anything. *every* party needs a healer and a buffer. It's an essential and vital (if not very showy) role, and the cleric does wonders at it.
What I am saying is that it may not be a bad idea to distance "religious figure" from "healer." They don't have to be the same thing.
I'm not saying the cleric is a bad class, I'm saying that it's mechanics (as a healer) have baggage that it's flavor (a religious figure) doesn't nessecarily entail. And that's where the desire for specialty priests comes from, methinks. You think it'd be cool to play a character who worships a war god, for instance. And then you have a cleric with baggage.
The cleric works great as it is, don't get me wrong. I love that is has any versatility at all. I'm not saying get rid of the healer. I am saying that there is a niche for a focused religious type without the baggage of also being the healer, because it can be superfluous to the character concept.
The designed specialty class certainly doesn't replace any other one. I mean, I'm not Fantabulous Rules Maestro, but I know well enough that no one who is not a fighter should be as good a fighter as a fighter. Ditto for others. The abilities that the class could gain that would mimic other class's powers are, as a rule, weaker than the powers that a class would get.
If you play a cleric that's been handicapped in some essential way (like in healing), you are forcing someone else to pick up that role. In essence, you have two clerics, one of which does all the essential healing roles and the other of which can't heal, and can't do much else vastly different or better than the other cleric, either.
If I'm going to make someone else pick up the healer, I may as well not be a cleric, even if it does fit my character idea as a religious archetype.
The class doesn't in any way replace or invalidate the need for a healer in the party. That's not a niche the specialty priest should be expected to fullfill. It does allow you to focus on what your character believes in and gain power from that, which may not fill one of the Classic Four Roles, but does fullfill the desire for a focused religious figure without forcing you to be a bad cleric in the process.
I think a lot of this problem could have simply been solved had the designers of 3e renamed the cleric "the healer" and given them less versatility and more buff/healing punch. Don't get me wrong, I love the versatility of the 3e cleric, but it's too much jammed into one tiny space. It's a healer, and it gains powers from the gods. These two don't have to be one in the same thing, and it results in a lot of healers with a bit o' baggage and a lot of people who gain powers from the gods with a lot o' baggage.
IMC, I've ditched the cleric in favor of this new class, and a class that focuses on healing (the white magician from FFd20). Two classes, one of which fullfills the need for healers, while the other one fullfills the desire for PC's who gain power from the gods.
I wouldn't recommend that universally (my current world has very very distant divinities, so this magic-lite class works well for the feel, and since the white mage uses arcane magic, it doesn't have to hail from the gods), but it does demonstrate a fairly minor flavor problem with the cleric...it tries to be both the reception of any and all religions, forces, and philosophies, and at the same time to be the healer. The two are not incompatable, but they are rather uncomfortable bedfellows.
What I am saying is that it may not be a bad idea to distance "religious figure" from "healer." They don't have to be the same thing.
I'm not saying the cleric is a bad class, I'm saying that it's mechanics (as a healer) have baggage that it's flavor (a religious figure) doesn't nessecarily entail. And that's where the desire for specialty priests comes from, methinks. You think it'd be cool to play a character who worships a war god, for instance. And then you have a cleric with baggage.
The cleric works great as it is, don't get me wrong. I love that is has any versatility at all.
I'm not saying get rid of the healer. I am saying that there is a niche for a focused religious type without the baggage of also being the healer, because it can be superfluous to the character concept.The designed specialty class certainly doesn't replace any other one. I mean, I'm not Fantabulous Rules Maestro, but I know well enough that no one who is not a fighter should be as good a fighter as a fighter.
Ditto for others. The abilities that the class could gain that would mimic other class's powers are, as a rule, weaker than the powers that a class would get.If you play a cleric that's been handicapped in some essential way (like in healing), you are forcing someone else to pick up that role. In essence, you have two clerics, one of which does all the essential healing roles and the other of which can't heal, and can't do much else vastly different or better than the other cleric, either.
If I'm going to make someone else pick up the healer, I may as well not be a cleric, even if it does fit my character idea as a religious archetype.
The class doesn't in any way replace or invalidate the need for a healer in the party. That's not a niche the specialty priest should be expected to fullfill. It does allow you to focus on what your character believes in and gain power from that, which may not fill one of the Classic Four Roles, but does fullfill the desire for a focused religious figure without forcing you to be a bad cleric in the process.
I think a lot of this problem could have simply been solved had the designers of 3e renamed the cleric "the healer" and given them less versatility and more buff/healing punch. Don't get me wrong, I love the versatility of the 3e cleric, but it's too much jammed into one tiny space. It's a healer, and it gains powers from the gods. These two don't have to be one in the same thing, and it results in a lot of healers with a bit o' baggage and a lot of people who gain powers from the gods with a lot o' baggage.
IMC, I've ditched the cleric in favor of this new class, and a class that focuses on healing (the white magician from FFd20). Two classes, one of which fullfills the need for healers, while the other one fullfills the desire for PC's who gain power from the gods.
I wouldn't recommend that universally (my current world has very very distant divinities, so this magic-lite class works well for the feel, and since the white mage uses arcane magic, it doesn't have to hail from the gods), but it does demonstrate a fairly minor flavor problem with the cleric...it tries to be both the reception of any and all religions, forces, and philosophies, and at the same time to be the healer. The two are not incompatable, but they are rather uncomfortable bedfellows.
MeepoTheMighty
First Post
Celebrim said:
Sorry, it's the rules, it has to be said...
ROGUE
Well, in the end I decided to make my own specialty priests. It's homebrew, and if you'd like to see it and make comments, just follow this link:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21289
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21289
"Specialty Priests" in 3e
I'm really glad that specialty priests came along in AD&D2. While many of them were "broken" (including some of the ones I wrote I'll freely admit), I think they really opened up the cleric class as interesting to roleplay.
However, in 3e, I think "specialty priests" are largely unnecessary, with certain exceptions. To put it another way, the idea of faith-specific clerics is still very important from a role-playing perspective but not from a rules-centric perspective. 3e is sufficiently flexible, IMO, that *most* clerical roles can be created through thoughtful use of multiclassing and deliberate feat and skill selection. Those that can't, for whatever reason, are possible candidates for a faith-specific prestige class, IMO.
For instance, when Erik Mona and I were deciding which of the 30 core gods in FR deserved faith-specific prestige classes, we went through each god and looked at what a "specialty priest" of that faith might do. In some cases (e.g. Torm, god of duty and honor), a simple multiclass combination was appropriate (e.g. cleric/paladin). In other cases (e.g. Sune, goddess of beauty and love), there wasn't a good fit, and we designed a prestige class (heartwarder).
In general, I think a DM designing the priests of a certain faith should look at the base options and design a "template" of classes, skills, and feats pursued by the "typical" priest. In those cases where no combination really fits the bill, then, and only then, consider designing a prestige class (with a hefty amount of skepticism).
--Eric
I'm really glad that specialty priests came along in AD&D2. While many of them were "broken" (including some of the ones I wrote I'll freely admit), I think they really opened up the cleric class as interesting to roleplay.
However, in 3e, I think "specialty priests" are largely unnecessary, with certain exceptions. To put it another way, the idea of faith-specific clerics is still very important from a role-playing perspective but not from a rules-centric perspective. 3e is sufficiently flexible, IMO, that *most* clerical roles can be created through thoughtful use of multiclassing and deliberate feat and skill selection. Those that can't, for whatever reason, are possible candidates for a faith-specific prestige class, IMO.
For instance, when Erik Mona and I were deciding which of the 30 core gods in FR deserved faith-specific prestige classes, we went through each god and looked at what a "specialty priest" of that faith might do. In some cases (e.g. Torm, god of duty and honor), a simple multiclass combination was appropriate (e.g. cleric/paladin). In other cases (e.g. Sune, goddess of beauty and love), there wasn't a good fit, and we designed a prestige class (heartwarder).
In general, I think a DM designing the priests of a certain faith should look at the base options and design a "template" of classes, skills, and feats pursued by the "typical" priest. In those cases where no combination really fits the bill, then, and only then, consider designing a prestige class (with a hefty amount of skepticism).
--Eric
Similar Threads
