Where did all the specialty priests go?

[garyh]

So, basically he was a fighter who could also cast cleric spells. The Player's Option system was not exactly balanced, no.

I wouldn't go that far. He was simply a very martial Cleric. Instead of the "do everything" 3E cleric, he had a VERY focused list of spells and was better in combat.

Perhaps another way to look at him would be a NG paladin, with the Charisma related stuff traded for more spells.

 

[Staffan]

I wouldn't go that far. He was simply a very martial Cleric. Instead of the "do everything" 3E cleric, he had a VERY focused list of spells and was better in combat.

Hmm. Perhaps yours wasn't all *that* martial, but I recall experimenting with the generic priest design system in Spells & Magic (as opposed to the one in Skills & Powers which had one set of stuff for clerics, another for druids, and nothing generic). I managed to design a specialty priest that had Warrior THAC0, d10 hp/level, allowed exceptional Strength and Con, could use all weapons and armor, and could specialize in one weapon - pretty much all the things a 2e fighter got. In addition, there were a few points to spare, so I could get 3-4 spheres as well.

*That* system was broken.

Come to think of it, there was a steady increase in the power of the specialty priest over the course of 2nd edition. The first source to do specialty priests was the Complete Priest's Handbook, I think. In that book, they made a concerted effort to reduce power - probably the only splatbook that ever did. When I reverse-engineered CPH priests with the S&M system, most of them turned out to be built with 70-100 points or so. Spells & Magic itself built priests on 120 points - in addition to the usual Cleric and Druid, it also had Crusaders, Shamans, and Monks. Finally, Faiths & Avatars was released, and let me tell you that those specialty priests redefined "broken". For example, the Dweomerkeeper of Mystra had either major or major access to every priestly sphere except for War (major for most), could still turn undead as usual, could use standard clerical arms and armor, was immune to the effects of wild and dead magic areas, and had quite a few other granted powers. IIRC, when reverse-engineered with Spells & Magic, most F&A priesthoods came out at over 200 points. I think most F&A priesthoods are a bit more powerful than the ones from the early 2nd ed Forgotten Realms adventures as well.

I'm not sure exactly why I wrote this little rant, but I think it was because I do not want to see this kind of power creep in 3rd edition as well and I have come to associate specialty priests with it.

 

[buzzard]

Fair enough. The standard DnD punter doesn't care about ethos, background, dogma, rituals, saints or prayers. He plays a cleric because he wants to be able to bash baddies and heal mates. He grabs a couple of domains he thinks will be good and hey presto- we have another machine-made, candy-floss generic cleric. So I didn't blame WotC for catering to the masses.

As I would often say there are a number of characteristics of the 'purist roleplayers' that irritate me. The first is the elitist stance. Being a "standard D&D punter" who actually likes the current clerics and found 2nd Ed spec. priests to be a munchkin's delight I find your rant tedious. Many a 'role player' is exposed to be a power gamer when one scratches off the surface layer.

Let's play a game. Let's try to roleplay out that character class you so desire. You want a 3rd Ed. cleric to be like a 2nd Ed Spec priest? Impose the restrictions yourself. For example if you follow a sun god, only choose appropriate spells like searing light, no darkness, no water type, etc., and restrict other things as you would deem appropriate based on the faith of the god in question.

You say you have a good write up of what a cleric of Wee Jas would do and be -well bloody well use it. No one is going to stop you. This might only consist of limitations on your abilities, but you want depth and such right? Not freebees? Or is it the high powered freebees of 2nd Ed that you miss? Second Edition specialty priest were by and large overpowered.

You don't need a special set of rules to make a cleric into a specialty priest you just need common sense and a willingness to give up a little for the sake of the character.

Buzzard

 

[ForceUser@Home]

Re: Re: Where did all the specialty priests go?

You don't need a special set of rules to make a cleric into a specialty priest you just need common sense and a willingness to give up a little for the sake of the character.

Good point. While I personally enjoy the standard cleric, I have a friend who enjoys playing her cleric more like an arcane spellcaster. She wields a simple staff, wears no armor, and casts few spells other than heals and group support buffs. She CAN wear armor, wield a mace, wade into melee and toss down flame strikes (as I'm wont to do), but that's not in her character concept. If it's all about the roleplaying, then denying oneself an aspect of your class for the sake of your concept would be inconsequential and irrelevant, wouldn't it?

Anyway, as a DM I'd have no problem if a player wanted to lose Heavy Armor Proficiency for Scribe Scroll, for example, as long as he explained his character concept and it fit within my campaign. I really don't see the need to resurrect that old 2E beast.

 

[Nightfall]

I don't need a specialty cleric to be the ultimate bad ass in my book.

CE cleric 5/barbarian 5/Horseman of Vangal 10.

Give me two battle axes and I'm ready to rip some tail!

 

[garyh]

*That* system was broken.

Okay, I'll gladly concede that the 2E: Player's Option books were broken.

However, I still think the "menu style" way to build classes is fun and flexible. Now, if only it could be balanced.

A lot of these "swap Armor (Heavy) for Scribe Scrolls" type suggestions (and they're good suggestions!!) are pretty much point buy with everyone guesstimating points (or at least assuming all feats are created equal).

 

[Humanophile]

Why does every devoutly religious person in D&D have to be a cleric? I do agree that some tweaks for dogma are appropriate, but on the whole, if you want a religious character who operates outside the standard religious orders, make him something else. I'm sure you could talk your DM into letting you fidget with your Necromancer to make him a little more Jasidian, which strikes me as more "appropriate" for a Wee-Jas worshipper than a cleric with Death and Magic domains, even if said Necromancer does end up spontaneously swapping out for Inflicts and storing up on Cure spells.

The problems with specialty priests are twofold. First, everyone agrees the core cleric is powerful, and if that power were focused into a specific area (as specialty priests are almost expected to do), they'd stand a very real risk of outdoing the other classes. Think what you could have if you "swapped around" the cleric's class abilities to re-make the fighter or bard, for example, and those are just the easier cases. Heck, they're overpowered no without letting them muscle inth everyone else's shtick, too. Second, there are a whole lotta gods. Lots and lots of them. The budget to playtest all of them would really cut into WOTC's pockets, and not playtesting would produce results like Faiths&Avatars. So while I'd like to see the cleric be a little more customizable (and toned down just a tad), that'll have to be a process of individual house rules and playtesting them the hard way. I'm sure there are specialty priest PRC's around on fan sites and the like, so try looking there, and giving them a spin.

 

[Junkheap]

I miss specialty priests from 2e. They made everything and every priest prety much different. But the way i think they should do it in 3e is to make prestige classes(high priests)for each god, and make the restrictions high. It would show more devotion on the part of the cleric, and be a step above the rest of his fellow clerics.

quote from buzzard:
You don't need a special set of rules to make a cleric into a specialty priest you just need common sense and a willingness to give up a little for the sake of the character.

You are kiddin me right? Do you "roleplay" your prestige classes instead of taking them? Do you impose those restrictions yourself? I highly doubt it, because there would be no need of taking a prestige class ever in your campaign. Specialty priests in my mind are like prestige classes. It helps differentiate you from the rest.

 

[vorpan]

Well one thing has to be said. Balance is a big thing in any of those changes. IMO, the Cleric is already a very strong class, maybe only weaker than the Wizard, and even so only in high levels. So, i guess it IS fun to play the cleric the way it is currently designed. But, again, I ca't help feeling all my clerics look the same. As for the wapping of the spell list, that was a good idea. I'll bring it to my DM. Let's see how he feels about it.

 

[ninthcouncil]

I think the answer to this really depends on whether you are DM'ing or playing. If you are DM'ing, and you find the clerics too vanilla, then the Prestige Class route which has been mentioned is a good way to make the clerics of different religions more "characterful". You could possibly restrict availability of higher level spells to these PrCs, to emphasise their importance.

For priests of non-aggressive cults, it may make sense to develop the variant Cleric who swaps certain proficiencies for bonus feats.

As a player, you have less ability to tailor the class in this way, and may have to flavour the character yourself by consciously restricting your spell selections, taking levels in other classes, etc.

For a lot of NPC clerics I go with a couple of levels of Cleric mixed up with Expert or Commoner. Most priests just don't go out and mix it like the "adventuring" Cleric of the core class.