Where did all the specialty priests go?

[ericlboyd]

"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

 

[Bragg Battleaxe]

One thing I hated in 2nd Edition in books like Faiths and Avatars was the percentage of a church that were Clerics, Specialty Priests, Crusaders, Mystics, or whatever else they came up with by the end of that mess. I never understood why ANYONE would play a Cleric. I also think that we are confusing Roleplay and Combat. Most of the influence of a particular god should be in a character's bearing and behavior... his views on life. This is not necessarily what he can do in combat; there are only so many ways to fight a dragon. I like the new streamlined approach with Domains used to individualize things just a bit. The old Specialty Priests reminded me of the Superfriends... they were just too "special" sometimes. I think you should distinguish your character's faith, Cleric or not, through roleplay.

 

[LokiDR]

Players Option and Custimizablity

I once used Players option to create a character I really like. Named Odo Kismet, he was a drow worship of the sun god who was afraid of the dark. I started as "bard" even though I didn't have the charisma. I need a first level character who studied magic, had been a pseodo-fighter, and lived by stealing. I had a ton of fun creating the character, who eventually "dual classed" to wizard who cast healing and protection spells. The DM set aside several rules so I could play Odo.

On the other hand, I out-fought the fighters, cast the most spells in the party, and could do almost any job I needed to. Odo was a broken character, but fun. Players option and specialty priest allowed for that fun, but allowed broken characters.

I am currently playing a cleric of Kord. I take stat buff spells and wade into combat. I don't take many offensive spells, unless you count the summoning spells I only use for hard encounters. It still feals like I am a generic cleric though, more than a cleric of Kord. If I had the choice before the character got to this point, I would have tried to get fighter BAB, a much smaller spell selection, proficientcy with greatsword, no turning, and maybe a few other choices. Those options weren't open because of the potentail abuse, but they could have been fun.

The nature of multiclassing in d20 forces you to not maximized certain aspects of a class unless you find a PrC. A spell casting based cleric who also picks up arcane magic. You can not maximize the cleric casting and add the arcane. One has to suffer, even if the combination makes sense.

sorry 'bout the rant

 

[jmucchiello]

One thing I hated in 2nd Edition in books like Faiths and Avatars was the percentage of a church that were Clerics, Specialty Priests, Crusaders, Mystics, or whatever else they came up with by the end of that mess. I never understood why ANYONE would play a Cleric.

The cleric could cast any cleric spell. The specialty priest was limited to only certain domains. There were many times in 2e when we would have a cleric and a specialty priest in the same game. I think the only mistake we made was allowing the specialty priests use the druid advancement chart. Since we didn't use the druid/archdruid/etc rules, druids and specialty priests should have used the cleric chart. This is no longer an issue as the only 2e game we have going is high enough in level (12th or so) that being a druid is not worth it.

I liked specialty priests. Some of them we unbalanced. But that could be said about any add-on to a game. Parts are too powerful, other parts aren't.

Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games
http://www.throwingdice.com

 

[trix]

Cleric Mod

Well, since everyone is saying that there is no reason to follow a setting related deity/ethos, because every cleric is, on a base level, like every other cleric.... lets try come up with something that makes each cleric a bit unique.


1) Non-deity dedicated clerics do not get spells beyond 1st lvl spells
2) All clerics have access to all 1st level spells
3) All clerics must tithe 10-20% per level to learn 10 new prayers. These "prayers" may be spells higher than they can cast. The fact that they know them, and are unable to cast them is a different matter.



---

If you think about it carefully, you can only reasonably "weaken" the PHB cleric to customize them to an appropriate deity without having the cleric becoming more powerfull then the other standard classes.

At the same time: Having every 1st lvl spell and 30 higher level spells at 4th level is quite significant.

-Tim