Shadowdweller |
Waaah, the poor cleric. It's almost as if the devs of present and previous versions wanted the cleric spell list to be thematically different from other casters....
There ARE still more than enough cleric spells for different (clerical)characters to use completely different spells and still be equivalently effective. The cleric was never SUPPOSED to be the spellcasting equivalent of the wizard/magic-user. The whole POINT of the wizard type class is a character who has devoted their entire existence to studying spellcraft - at the expense of other areas of expertise.
Shadowdweller wrote:The cleric and the cleric spell list is very nearly the last thing in the game that needs any buffing whatsoever.Except that if you look at the cleric's spell list, 90% of it consists of:
Cure/Inflict Spells
Cure X condition spells
res spells
Protection from X spells
Buff melee combat spellsoutside of that... the only other option they get are a handful of mediocre blasts and the SM monster line...
Yeah, those are some useless categories. Of course, you forgot debuffs like Blindness/Deafness or Bestow curse. Information gathering spells like Augury, Divination, Speak with Dead and the like. All of the undead raising spells. Death spells (which admittedly have been reduced to direct damage in PF). Alignment-based spells like Align Weapon, Dispel Alignment, etc. Those poor, poor, limited clerics.
Kayerloth |
JoeJ wrote:Exactly. I want a class that receives power from different sources to reflect that in play. Not have all sources ultimately end up providing the exact same spells the vast majority of the time.I don't think it needs buffing, but it does need significant reworking for variety, so that clerics of different gods aren't all casting the same spells. Clerics of Aphrodite, Apollo, and Poseidon, for example, should not have the same spell lists. That was one thing that 2e did better than any version since, IMO.
This is precisely the only real problem I ever felt clerics and their spell lists ever had.
A plenty powerful, strong list for a "generic" cleric even for several different roles
Lousy list for giving any true variety and flavor for spells across a typical pantheon of deities (even a small one), at least while expecting each to be an effective participant in an adventuring group.
I once started attempting to convert a very thoroughly written and thematic pantheon of deities giving each respective cleric their own individualized spell list (and a very small pantheon of 9). Basically impossible without taking what I had and creating a bunch of new spells to fill in gaping holes that showed up. Dividing the wizard list into 9 different themes is certainly readily done (i.e. schools).
sunshadow21 |
The cleric was never SUPPOSED to be the spellcasting equivalent of the wizard/magic-user.
Late AD&D and it's spheres would disagree with that. Heck, the whole idea of domains, though weak in implementation, would disagree with that. PF has done better than 3.5 did, but there's still a lot of room for improvement, and that room will only come with rewriting the base spell list to something that gives that room for domains to shine while not overpowering the class as a whole.
K177Y C47 |
Waaah, the poor cleric. It's almost as if the devs of present and previous versions wanted the cleric spell list to be thematically different from other casters....
There ARE still more than enough cleric spells for different (clerical)characters to use completely different spells and still be equivalently effective. The cleric was never SUPPOSED to be the spellcasting equivalent of the wizard/magic-user. The whole POINT of the wizard type class is a character who has devoted their entire existence to studying spellcraft - at the expense of other areas of expertise.
Ecclesitheurge and the Cloistered Cleric greatly disagree with you...
The point of the Wizard/Sorcerer class was to provide the idea of the magic user who dwelled within Eldritch and Arcane secrets. They were the guys who studied the very fundamentals of magic.
The cleric was supposed to be the divinely gifted priest who could provide miracles (i.e. MAGIC). The fact that Clerics are FULL CASTERS should tell you that. The cleric IS THE DIVINE EQUIVALENT TO THE WIZARD. Oracles, druids, and (now) shamans are off shoots with specific focuses. The fact that both wizards and clerics lack many class features other than spell casting should be indicative of this (both have full casting/a "school" ability that provides something at 1 and one other ability at a later level / wizards get feats and clerics get channel)...
As for what you were saying about "well clerics get enough spells to fill any role" type deal, that is incorrect. Clerics are really only adept at 3 roles:
Combat Cleric (pretty much taking the fighter's job)
Heal/Buff bot (which the spell list will pretty much look exactly like the combat cleric because he is essentially a combat cleric casting his spells on someone other than himself).
Summoner (either by abusing the SM line or acting as a necromancer and summoning/raising undead)
Outside of that they are really not adept at much else.
Renegadeshepherd |
You can make blasty clerics but it needs careful domain choice and IMO the Samsaran race to get mystic past life..... but even then youre not really a blaster as such...youre a cleric thats good at blasting.
Not sure what your saying. The domain is 95% fire domain. And your as good and probably better than your competition. Only a sorcerer will compete because his bloodline powers and his spontaneous casting but even this is t enough to make him a clear winner. If both sorcerer and cleric use the exact same spell (fireball) and all the usual metamagic and tricks they are practically identical with but 3 differences....
1) the fire domain features versus sorcerer bloodline features. Being immune to fire damage wins unless the bloodline grants some kind of immunity.
2) the number of feats. Got to crunch numbers here but essentially cleric has intensified spell for free and doesn't count against spell level and doesn't have to pay feat tax that sorcerer does to not take full round for metamagic. Sorcerer gets more feats total but again depending on bloodline they might be crap.
3) channeling. Cleric has ability to heal, debuff, daze lock, and other goodies when the situation is in hand and not use precious spells (that the sorcerer gets one level late). This means cleric has more resources even if it doesn't scale well.
sunshadow21 |
Channeling is not much better than the spell list as far as customization is concerned. It's biggest strength is that it frees up spell slots, and it doesn't really do much else. The alternate domain channeling abilities are nice, but many of them are lacking in usefulness in actual play, and they still don't really get beyond what the spell list allows except in a few cases.
Serisan |
i was comparing to the wizard's spell list
I just want a cleric that can blast stuff.
And have more flavorful spells like a cleric's version of Mage's Magnificent Mansion that creates a planar temple.
Aasimar Cleric with the ARG channeling feats = Darth Vader.
Just let that sink in for a minute.
K177Y C47 |
Silver Surfer wrote:You can make blasty clerics but it needs careful domain choice and IMO the Samsaran race to get mystic past life..... but even then youre not really a blaster as such...youre a cleric thats good at blasting.
Not sure what your saying. The domain is 95% fire domain. And your as good and probably better than your competition. Only a sorcerer will compete because his bloodline powers and his spontaneous casting but even this is t enough to make him a clear winner. If both sorcerer and cleric use the exact same spell (fireball) and all the usual metamagic and tricks they are practically identical with but 3 differences....
1) the fire domain features versus sorcerer bloodline features. Being immune to fire damage wins unless the bloodline grants some kind of immunity.
2) the number of feats. Got to crunch numbers here but essentially cleric has intensified spell for free and doesn't count against spell level and doesn't have to pay feat tax that sorcerer does to not take full round for metamagic. Sorcerer gets more feats total but again depending on bloodline they might be crap.
3) channeling. Cleric has ability to heal, debuff, daze lock, and other goodies when the situation is in hand and not use precious spells (that the sorcerer gets one level late). This means cleric has more resources even if it doesn't scale well.
Um.. no... Sorcerers make crap blasters... you really don't know how to play blasters do you?
Ok here is how you make a true Blaster:
Human (racial Heritage Wayang)
Crossblooded Sorcerer (Orc Dragonic Red) 1/Admixture Evocation Wizard X
Magical Lineage (Fireball)
Wayang Spellhunter (fireball)
With that basic Skeleton, the Admixture wizard gets a huge flat bonus to Fire (+2 per dice damage of the spell)+can manipulate the spell damage type... Combine with Spell Perfection and some saucy Ioun Stones and you get a nasty blaster...
KaiserDM |
I thought a cleric's domains and the availability of archetypes is what helped give clerics their flavor. I don't disagree with the sentiment that individual spell lists would be impressive, but wouldn't separate spell lists for every deity be rather intensive? The page count for the cleric spell section could fill its own book. That's not to mention spells for Infernal/Demonic patrons and Empyreal Lords.
K177Y C47 |
I thought a cleric's domains and the availability of archetypes is what helped give clerics their flavor. I don't disagree with the sentiment that individual spell lists would be impressive, but wouldn't separate spell lists for every deity be rather intensive? The page count for the cleric spell section could fill its own book. That's not to mention spells for Infernal/Demonic patrons and Empyreal Lords.
It would not be a seperate spell list. Essentially you would have basic spells every cleric knows (i.e. "univeralist" spells) then the other spells would have tages depending on domain (i.e. "fire" or "evil") kind of like spell schools.
I would think that a cleric would essentially get all spells that fall within their dieties domains (regardless if they actually HAVE the domain as one of their 2).
I don't know about you but it seems weird having a Deity of say... fire granting water spells.. Heck, the only Deity in Pathfidner that is aknowledged as odd and having a modified domain spell list is Pharasma.
Shadowdweller |
Ecclesitheurge and the Cloistered Cleric greatly disagree with you...
The cloistered cleric being the archtype that is even LESS focused on spellcasting than the normal cleric. And the Ecclesitheurge retaining medium BAB, two good saves, and D8 hit dice over the wizard...representing LESS of a focus on spellcasting. Was what I wrote somehow unclear?
The cleric was supposed to be the divinely gifted priest who could provide miracles (i.e. MAGIC). The fact that Clerics are FULL CASTERS should tell you that. The cleric IS THE DIVINE EQUIVALENT TO THE WIZARD.
WRONG. Gygax explicitly described clerics as warrior-priests in earlier editions of D&D, citing the Knights Templar as an inspiration; and the class has retained this focus up through Pathfinder. Second edition D&D books even pointed out the existence of non-adventuring spellcasting (or miracle-working) priests who did not have skill with arms and weaponry.
In case you are still having problems with this conceptually, the cleric retains: Medium armor and simple weapon proficiency, two good saves, superior hit dice, medium base attack bonus progression, and the ability to cast spells without problem in heavy armor over full arcane casters (traits which have become incorporated into divine magic as a whole). These are elements that represent less focus on study and spellcasting. Or one could alternately point out that full arcane casters typically get the worst hit dice, base attack bonus, etc to represent their spellcasting focus.
Combat Cleric (pretty much taking the fighter's job)
Heal/Buff bot (which the spell list will pretty much look exactly like the combat cleric because he is essentially a combat cleric casting his spells on...
And...this just suggests to me that you are in need of some more play experience.
Robert Carter 58 |
Shadowdweller wrote:Waaah, the poor cleric. It's almost as if the devs of present and previous versions wanted the cleric spell list to be thematically different from other casters....
There ARE still more than enough cleric spells for different (clerical)characters to use completely different spells and still be equivalently effective. The cleric was never SUPPOSED to be the spellcasting equivalent of the wizard/magic-user. The whole POINT of the wizard type class is a character who has devoted their entire existence to studying spellcraft - at the expense of other areas of expertise.
Ecclesitheurge and the Cloistered Cleric greatly disagree with you...
The point of the Wizard/Sorcerer class was to provide the idea of the magic user who dwelled within Eldritch and Arcane secrets. They were the guys who studied the very fundamentals of magic.
The cleric was supposed to be the divinely gifted priest who could provide miracles (i.e. MAGIC). The fact that Clerics are FULL CASTERS should tell you that. The cleric IS THE DIVINE EQUIVALENT TO THE WIZARD. Oracles, druids, and (now) shamans are off shoots with specific focuses. The fact that both wizards and clerics lack many class features other than spell casting should be indicative of this (both have full casting/a "school" ability that provides something at 1 and one other ability at a later level / wizards get feats and clerics get channel)...
As for what you were saying about "well clerics get enough spells to fill any role" type deal, that is incorrect. Clerics are really only adept at 3 roles:
Combat Cleric (pretty much taking the fighter's job)
Heal/Buff bot (which the spell list will pretty much look exactly like the combat cleric because he is essentially a combat cleric casting his spells on...
Clerics can also do Divination well- an under-appreciated skill- it doesn't relate directly to combat, but it does relate to problem solving within an adventure and can be very useful. And They have useful utility. And if they don't need those spells- well, they just trade them out. No biggie.
Edit: Ninja'ed by someone else. Anyway, clerics have a very good list- the ability to trade out a spell they don't need for healing, which is always useful is nice- gives some flexibility to spell selection. I never mind playing a cleric.
K177Y C47 |
One other issue I have run into a lot from the Cleric's spell list is the Oracle...
The Oracle is like the divine sorcerer, having to pick spells it knows (more or less) forever. The problem is, the Cleric Spell list is not like the wizard's spell list. The Sorcerer does not run into issues of finding spells to pick because there are so many spells with so many effects that there are always cool thematic things to pick.
With the oracle though...
The Cleric's spell list was made with the CLERIC in mind. It was made with the thought of a class who has access to ALL THEIR SPELLS without having to find them. So many spells are tailored for the Cleric Chassis (combat buffs like "create-a-mini-paladin" and such) or with the idea of bringing to bare situational answers (the cleric is the reactive class). But their spell list creates issues for people who can't jsut access eveything all the time (well every day). As an Oracle (I know,,, I play lots of oracles) you end up with an awkward scenerio where many oracle's spell lists (not including Mystery Spells) look the same because many other spells (like Cure X ailment)are jsut too situational for a spontanious caster...
Truth be told I wish Oracles were more like Divine Arcanists because of the stupid cleric's spell list.
sunshadow21 |
KaiserDM wrote:I thought a cleric's domains and the availability of archetypes is what helped give clerics their flavor. I don't disagree with the sentiment that individual spell lists would be impressive, but wouldn't separate spell lists for every deity be rather intensive? The page count for the cleric spell section could fill its own book. That's not to mention spells for Infernal/Demonic patrons and Empyreal Lords.It would not be a seperate spell list. Essentially you would have basic spells every cleric knows (i.e. "univeralist" spells) then the other spells would have tages depending on domain (i.e. "fire" or "evil") kind of like spell schools.
I would think that a cleric would essentially get all spells that fall within their dieties domains (regardless if they actually HAVE the domain as one of their 2).
That's essentially how I would do it. There wouldn't be a core list; rather, each domain would have a spell list of one to two dozen spells. I would then give clerics access to a three or four common domains, such as healing, plus whatever domains their deities have. Domains would also have powers like they do now that individual clerics within that religion could tap into (this is where selecting 2 domains would come into play). This would give each cleric access to the four domains of their deity, another 3 or 4 common ones that all clerics would have access to, and put them in line roughly with a specialist wizard in terms of available spells and flexibility, a good place to be. Not only does this give more power to domains without overpowering the class, but it creates a certain amount of customization within the religions that DMs can play with. It also makes druids and oracles a breeze. Druids get a list of all the nature, plant, animal, and elemental type domains without needing a separate list, and could easily become an alternate class of the cleric, saving further space. Oracle mysteries would each grant access to specific domains, helping make each distinct, and still not requiring special lists beyond the lists for the domains themselves. You could even throw in a few basic common domains for oracles, but I would limit the number of them to only one or two, and I would not automatically make healing one of them.
It would be a lot of upfront work, but the payoffs are big. Power levels remain the same, domains and customization take a big step forward, and designing other full level divine casters becomes easier.
KaiserDM |
KaiserDM wrote:I thought a cleric's domains and the availability of archetypes is what helped give clerics their flavor. I don't disagree with the sentiment that individual spell lists would be impressive, but wouldn't separate spell lists for every deity be rather intensive? The page count for the cleric spell section could fill its own book. That's not to mention spells for Infernal/Demonic patrons and Empyreal Lords.It would not be a seperate spell list. Essentially you would have basic spells every cleric knows (i.e. "univeralist" spells) then the other spells would have tages depending on domain (i.e. "fire" or "evil") kind of like spell schools.
I would think that a cleric would essentially get all spells that fall within their dieties domains (regardless if they actually HAVE the domain as one of their 2).
I don't know about you but it seems weird having a Deity of say... fire granting water spells.. Heck, the only Deity in Pathfidner that is aknowledged as odd and having a modified domain spell list is Pharasma.
Yes except there are over 30 domains I just counted in SRD. It would seem clunky to break out that many "tags" and determine which spell would be diametrically opposed to X deity, etc. I do agree with your example, but certain deities have different portfolios to them. For example, if your Fire deity happened to also be the deity of war and destruction, why could I not cast a Hurricane type spell to wipe out a coastal town (not the best analogy, but I hope you can see what I'm saying)? To my earlier point, if I did have the fire domain, from a flavor stand point, it would stand to reason I would not be granted water spells, but that should be between the DM and player.
K177Y C47 |
K177Y C47 wrote:Ecclesitheurge and the Cloistered Cleric greatly disagree with you...The cloistered cleric being the archtype that is even LESS focused on spellcasting than the normal cleric. And the Ecclesitheurge retaining medium BAB, two good saves, and D8 hit dice over the wizard...representing LESS of a focus on spellcasting. Was what I wrote somehow unclear?
Quote:The cleric was supposed to be the divinely gifted priest who could provide miracles (i.e. MAGIC). The fact that Clerics are FULL CASTERS should tell you that. The cleric IS THE DIVINE EQUIVALENT TO THE WIZARD.WRONG. Gygax explicitly described clerics as warrior-priests in earlier editions of D&D, citing the Knights Templar as an inspiration; and the class has retained this focus up through Pathfinder. Second edition D&D books even pointed out the existence of non-adventuring spellcasting (or miracle-working) priests who did not have skill with arms and weaponry.
In case you are still having problems with this conceptually, the cleric retains: Medium armor and simple weapon proficiency, two good saves, superior hit dice, medium base attack bonus progression, and the ability to cast spells without problem in heavy armor over full arcane casters (traits which have become incorporated into divine magic as a whole). These are elements that represent less focus on study and spellcasting. Or one could alternately point out that full arcane casters typically get the worst hit dice, base attack bonus, etc to represent their spellcasting focus.
Quote:And...this just...Combat Cleric (pretty much taking the fighter's job)
Heal/Buff bot (which the spell list will pretty much look exactly like the combat cleric because he is essentially a combat cleric casting his spells on...
1) The Ecclesitheurge loses armor and weapons and gains more spell casting utility.. IT IS A FREAKING CASTER. Regardless of BAB/HD. Also, there is no archetype that changes BAB/HD. At all...
2) BAB/HD mean nothing when it comes to describing the class as more or less spell casting focused. HD and bab are tied together. They are all a basic formula:
Full Caster Divine? d8, 3/4 BAB
6-level casting? d8 HD, 3/4 BAB
Full Arcane? d6 HD, 1/2 BAB
1/2 Casting? d10 HD, Full BAB
0 casting, martial? d10 (or d12 for barb), Full BAB
0 Casting, more skill? d8, 3/4 BAB
Simple as that. Every... single... class follows this paradigm. And you cannot say that an oracle of life is less spellcasting focused that a sorcerer...
3) IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT GYGAX SAID... REPEAT AFTER ME. IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. 1e and 2e are NOTHING like 3.x. AT ALL. EVERYTHING is different. Saves, BAB, THAC0 vs BAB... Heck, back in 2.5 clerics cast up to 7th level spells and Wizards cast 9th... There is NOTHING similiar.. the only reason cleric's still have armor profiency and weapons is because:
a) Legacy. People got used to it from 1e and 2e
b) balance. The Wizard/Sorcerer have much more powerful and robust spell lists. The cleric's spell list is very reactive and not quite as powerful, so they didn't suffer spell failure in armor and gained martial abilities to compensate
c) Role Filling. The classic role of the cleric is buffer and healer. In order to accomplish that role, the cleric often needs to get up to the other martials. This requires him to be able to survive melee combat to not become a liability himself. So, armor was given to the cleric.
4) Now talk about rude. The simple fact of the matter is that the only roles a Cleric fulfills is that of the Combat Cleric, the Buffer, or the playing a summoner type role. Every other role (like blaster) is horridly sub-par...
K177Y C47 |
Is it possible that the cleric is ok as is, if people want their buffer/healer type? And if we really want a strong, divine, pure caster, advocate a new class like we got in ACG?
I've always wanted a separate "Priest" class myself.
Honestly, I have always felt that the cleric, as it is, should not exist. The Cleric that we know of is just TOO GOOD as a whole. Additionally, it has aritificially pumped up every other divine.
Why do I say this?
Because with 2 good saves, 3/4 BAB, and a d8 HD with FULL spellcasting, it is too strong. Additionally, the cleric breaks the typical trend of:
d8 HD=6-level casting.
The cleric is just too good at combat as it is and drives the warpriest into very tiny niche catagory (honestly, the cleric is just a beast in melee combat).
And by consequence of the cleric's existance, every other divine full caster had to become d8, 3/4 BAB (i mean the shaman and the oracle are kinda odd looking like that).
I feel like the cleric should have been broken into 2. One class is the "priest" who is a full caster but with stronger spell casting focus than the cleric we have now and the other class should be the "cleric" or warpriest, that features 6 level casting but more powerful melee.
Renegadeshepherd |
Renegadeshepherd wrote:Silver Surfer wrote:You can make blasty clerics but it needs careful domain choice and IMO the Samsaran race to get mystic past life..... but even then youre not really a blaster as such...youre a cleric thats good at blasting.
Not sure what your saying. The domain is 95% fire domain. And your as good and probably better than your competition. Only a sorcerer will compete because his bloodline powers and his spontaneous casting but even this is t enough to make him a clear winner. If both sorcerer and cleric use the exact same spell (fireball) and all the usual metamagic and tricks they are practically identical with but 3 differences....
1) the fire domain features versus sorcerer bloodline features. Being immune to fire damage wins unless the bloodline grants some kind of immunity.
2) the number of feats. Got to crunch numbers here but essentially cleric has intensified spell for free and doesn't count against spell level and doesn't have to pay feat tax that sorcerer does to not take full round for metamagic. Sorcerer gets more feats total but again depending on bloodline they might be crap.
3) channeling. Cleric has ability to heal, debuff, daze lock, and other goodies when the situation is in hand and not use precious spells (that the sorcerer gets one level late). This means cleric has more resources even if it doesn't scale well.
Um.. no... Sorcerers make crap blasters... you really don't know how to play blasters do you?Ok here is how you make a true Blaster:
Human (racial Heritage Wayang)
Crossblooded Sorcerer (Orc Dragonic Red) 1/Admixture Evocation Wizard X
Magical Lineage (Fireball)
Wayang Spellhunter (fireball)With that basic Skeleton, the Admixture wizard gets a huge flat bonus to Fire (+2 per dice damage of the spell)+can manipulate the spell damage type... Combine with Spell Perfection and some saucy Ioun Stones and you get a nasty blaster...
Sigh. And what was there that a cleric couldn't do or got something of equal quality in exchange? The cleric even has advantages of being immune to fire late game (resist till then) and free intensified. Ur wizard dipped for damage the cleric dips for admix ability. Cleric has a level to give with no loss in his 20th level class feature (immunity to fire) but ur wizard lost it unless you pay money for it.
Trust me a cleric is just as good as any fireball based blaster u name. Find a blaster based on another spell and I can give ground because the wizard had a spell the cleric did not, as the original subject is about. If the theologian allows a spell to be brought into the cleric world then things get messy for those that are supposed to take advantage of their own feature.
K177Y C47 |
K177Y C47 wrote:...Renegadeshepherd wrote:Sigh. And what was there that aSilver Surfer wrote:You can make blasty clerics but it needs careful domain choice and IMO the Samsaran race to get mystic past life..... but even then youre not really a blaster as such...youre a cleric thats good at blasting.
Not sure what your saying. The domain is 95% fire domain. And your as good and probably better than your competition. Only a sorcerer will compete because his bloodline powers and his spontaneous casting but even this is t enough to make him a clear winner. If both sorcerer and cleric use the exact same spell (fireball) and all the usual metamagic and tricks they are practically identical with but 3 differences....
1) the fire domain features versus sorcerer bloodline features. Being immune to fire damage wins unless the bloodline grants some kind of immunity.
2) the number of feats. Got to crunch numbers here but essentially cleric has intensified spell for free and doesn't count against spell level and doesn't have to pay feat tax that sorcerer does to not take full round for metamagic. Sorcerer gets more feats total but again depending on bloodline they might be crap.
3) channeling. Cleric has ability to heal, debuff, daze lock, and other goodies when the situation is in hand and not use precious spells (that the sorcerer gets one level late). This means cleric has more resources even if it doesn't scale well.
Um.. no... Sorcerers make crap blasters... you really don't know how to play blasters do you?Ok here is how you make a true Blaster:
Human (racial Heritage Wayang)
Crossblooded Sorcerer (Orc Dragonic Red) 1/Admixture Evocation Wizard X
Magical Lineage (Fireball)
Wayang Spellhunter (fireball)With that basic Skeleton, the Admixture wizard gets a huge flat bonus to Fire (+2 per dice damage of the spell)+can manipulate the spell damage type... Combine with Spell Perfection and some saucy Ioun Stones and you get a nasty blaster...
1) The cleric being immune to fire is very minor... there are spells that give you that... or items, take your pick.
2) Admixture is stronger than any domain ability for blasting
3) The Admixture+Sorcerer Dip gets very strong.
4) Clerics (prior to the Ecclesitheurge) could not prepare domain spells in normal slots, so there is that...
Silver Surfer |
I feel like the cleric should have been broken into 2. One class is the "priest" who is a full caster but with stronger spell casting focus than the cleric we have now and the other class should be the "cleric" or warpriest, that features 6 level casting but more powerful melee.
I disagree with a lot of your other comments... for example one of the very best anti-caster builds I've seen was a cleric. And making your cleric Samsaran DOES DEFINITELY make things very interesting.
But I do absolutely agree with your above comment... IMO the Inquisitor is actually what a cleric should be.... a divine warrior rooting out unbelievers.
There should most definitely be a D6 priest as well but Paizo seemed determined to avoid this.... the Ecclesitheurge being their latest &^%$ poor attempt at paying the idea lip service!
The fact that several 3PP (the latest being Flaming Crabs Priest) are having a go makes it even more infuriating!!
DM Beckett |
4) Clerics (prior to the Ecclesitheurge) could not prepare domain spells in normal slots, so there is that...
Actually, that's not true. One of the very first Cleric Archtypes, (though there are only a small handful of them), the Theologian granted that ability, and it's probably all in all better then the Ecclesitheurge in all honesty.
Granted, this should probably be a Cleric Class Feature, as it's been a complaint from the beginning that the 1/Day Domain spells was just a bad idea, and simply adding Domain Spells to the Cleric Spell List for an individual Cleric solved so many issues, but they chose not to.
K177Y C47 |
K177Y C47 wrote:
I feel like the cleric should have been broken into 2. One class is the "priest" who is a full caster but with stronger spell casting focus than the cleric we have now and the other class should be the "cleric" or warpriest, that features 6 level casting but more powerful melee.
I disagree with a lot of your other comments... for example one of the very best anti-caster builds I've seen was a cleric. And making your cleric Samsaran DOES DEFINITELY make things very interesting.
But I do absolutely agree with your above comment... IMO the Inquisitor is actually what a cleric should be.... a divine warrior rooting out unbelievers.
There should most definitely be a D6 priest as well but Paizo seemed determined to avoid this.... the Ecclesitheurge being their latest &^%$ poor attempt at paying the idea lip service!The fact that several 3PP (the latest being Flaming Crabs Priest) are having a go makes it even more infuriating!!
Definetely agree.
Oh and I avoided adding the Samsaran because those guys can muddle a lot of thing with MPL. The best Anti-caster I have found (barring race shinanaigans) is the Arcanist. Their counter spell, counter drain, spell drain, spell thief, and spell tinkerer abilities are just mean to casters.
Oh and I love the 3PP varients on clothie clerics. Like Rite's Divine Channeler.
K177Y C47 |
K177Y C47 wrote:4) Clerics (prior to the Ecclesitheurge) could not prepare domain spells in normal slots, so there is that...Actually, that's not true. One of the very first Cleric Archtypes, (though there are only a small handful of them), the Theologian granted that ability, and it's probably all in all better then the Ecclesitheurge in all honesty.
** spoiler omitted **
Granted, this should probably be a Cleric Class Feature, as it's been a complaint from the beginning that the 1/Day Domain spells was just a bad idea, and simply adding Domain Spells to the Cleric Spell List for an individual Cleric solved so many issues, but they chose not to.
huh, I completely forgot that archetype existed xD
Riuken |
DM Beckett wrote:huh, I completely forgot that archetype existed xDK177Y C47 wrote:4) Clerics (prior to the Ecclesitheurge) could not prepare domain spells in normal slots, so there is that...Actually, that's not true. One of the very first Cleric Archtypes, (though there are only a small handful of them), the Theologian granted that ability, and it's probably all in all better then the Ecclesitheurge in all honesty.
** spoiler omitted **
Granted, this should probably be a Cleric Class Feature, as it's been a complaint from the beginning that the 1/Day Domain spells was just a bad idea, and simply adding Domain Spells to the Cleric Spell List for an individual Cleric solved so many issues, but they chose not to.
It's surprising to hear that, since it's usually my go-to archetype for cleric for the exact reason this thread was created. Maybe I was the only one that got that excited about it.
Renegadeshepherd |
DM Beckett wrote:K177Y C47 wrote:
huh, I completely forgot that archetype existed xD
Now I believe we are the same page. I actually have a real problem with this archetype as it brought a big piece of being an arcane caster into the world of cleric but the arcane caster has VERY little if anything that will bring cleric list into their world. And this problem Is t limited to blasting but is also possible with say darkness or madness domain (though not as badly). With darkness and or madness you can be a battlefield controller at least as good as any arcane controller. And do t get me started on phantasm killer build.
Though it is not the case, sometimes I think to myself that the only reason to play an arcane caster is so I can turn into a dragon. I feel this way as a gamer because the cleric has his list and it isn't shared among a dozen classes but I as the cleric have my own list and can get whole chunks out of other classes list. It makes me as a gamer search for a reason to NOT play the cleric. With more archetypes like war priest we have even more reasons to play em.
DM Beckett |
Huh? The vast majority of the Cleric list is shared with everyone else. In fact, I don't think that there is a single Class Feature or spell that the Cleric has that someone else also doesn't, and others can generally do it better than the Cleric to some degree.
Heck, the vast majority of the Core Cleric list is also on the Wizard list, and usually at a lower level. Those that are not are, however on the Witch list, the Summoner, the Inquisitor, or something, generally many of these.
Even the unique Cleric spells added with the various deity articles are opened to everyone that qualifies as a priest of said deity, which can be any spellcaster, arcane, divine, whatever.
Shadowdweller |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT GYGAX SAID... REPEAT AFTER ME. IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. 1e and 2e are NOTHING like 3.x. AT ALL. EVERYTHING is different. Saves, BAB, THAC0 vs BAB... Heck, back in 2.5 clerics cast up to 7th level spells and Wizards cast 9th... There is NOTHING similiar.. the only reason cleric's still have armor profiency and weapons is because:
a) Legacy. People got used to it from 1e and 2e
I'm sorry, but the historical roots of the game are not at all irrelevant to the present. Most particularly (i.e. by definition) if the game suffers from 'legacy issues' as you put it.
c) Role Filling. The classic role of the cleric is buffer and healer. In order to accomplish that role, the cleric often needs to get up to the other martials. This requires him to be able to survive melee combat to not become a liability himself. So, armor was given to the cleric.
This is a fiction. The devs could, for example, have given the class ranged healing if Pathfinder is supposed to be a wholly separate creature. They did to an extent in the form of Channel Energy. They could have given the class equal capacity to inflict spell damage with arcane casters. They did not. They could still create a class with a divine spell list that was a match in potency for dedicated arcane casters. I'd wager if they did so it would ALSO be low HD and BAB regardless of convention.
b) balance. The Wizard/Sorcerer have much more powerful and robust spell lists. The cleric's spell list is very reactive and not quite as powerful, so they didn't suffer spell failure in armor and gained martial abilities to compensate
Indeed - it's almost as if the classic divine spell list is INTENTIONALLY inferior to counterbalance the benefits...
2) BAB/HD mean nothing when it comes to describing the class as more or less spell casting focused. HD and bab are tied together. They are all a basic formula:
If we compare two classes, A and B, where class A gets weak abilities and full spellcasting and class B gets...stronger...abilities and full spellcasting then: In which class does spellcasting represent a greater proportion of class power or resources?
4) Now talk about rude. The simple fact of the matter is that the only roles a Cleric fulfills is that of the Combat Cleric, the Buffer, or the playing a summoner type role. Every other role (like blaster) is horridly sub-par...
I'm sorry, that was indeed unnecessary. These threads makes me angry. I seem moreover to have missed the fact that you included summoning in that list originally. That said, I've certainly seen debuff-based clerics that were viable. Or at least killed off parties of PCs. As a whole the cleric is not as good at debuffing as an arcane caster, certainly, but makes up for it to an extent with defenses and general robustness.
Malignor |
Malignor wrote:darkwarriorkarg wrote:So I'm not the only one who feels that 7th level spells are mostly "meh". Yes, you do get summon monster, but a fair number are things like resurrection, which, although powerful, are not spells you normally carry.Whoah, whoah... since when is Destruction a "meh" spell?
[trimmed for space]
Now... any class who has access to the cleric list has 3/4 BAB, can cast spells in armor, has okay weapon proficiencies, domains and/or oracle mysteries, and d8 HD... contrast that to a wizzy or sorc and it's not such a bad deal.That is the problem though...
The Cleric Spell list was made with the CLERIC'S frame in mind. I.E. the war priest guy (not the class, the trope). This is evident in the fact that many of the spells in the cleric's spell list are heals, buffs, and melee touch attacks. They are meant to get in close and hit things. The problem is, this does not work so well with things like the the Eccleisatheurge who is a casty guy... since he is left not able to do much with is spell list.. or oracles who are not the support types (like Dark Tapestry).
So it's the spell list's fault?
I disagree. Your problem is with the design of those particular class designs, not the spell list.Even so, the cleric list is arguably on par with the sorc/wizzy list for
- buffs and party buffs
- battlefield control
- summons
These are valid and highly effective (perhaps even the most effective) playstyles for any primary spellcaster. So... Clerics are supposed to be blasters now too? and have no spell failure in armor? and have better saves and BAB? Just because of a handful of additional subpar class choices (which are still more flexible than a noncaster, mind you)?
EDIT/ADDENDUM: What about the Dark Tapestry oracle prevents it from being support? I'm looking at it and it has some interesting abilities which make for a flexible character. Nothing about limitations on spells known...
Dark Immortal |
@renegadeshepard You keep putting your replies in the quoted text, making what you say easily dismissed and ignored (as people overlook that imbedded within the quoted text is an actual reply to something that was quoted). Try putting your replies outside the quote tags so people don't ignore your replies.
@Kittycat, Sorry, I think it does matter what Gygax said. What he thought matters, too. You proved this when you pointed out legacy being an issue. If it hadn't been for the lagacy of his ideas, statements and thoughts and their impact on his games design, then we would not have been modeling future incarnations after those archetypes. But we did. Sure changes were made between editions, but core concepts (legacy) remains. So yes- what he said does matter.
Also, you may personally feel that clerics can do those 2-3 things you described but I've seen controllers and debuffers and more refined models of clerics like tanks (the kind that can't deal damage like the boards say they should) and 'enchanters'. I've seen them all played well. Then there are utility clerics who merely solve problems with plenty of underused spells that do not necessarily have combat apllications and as someone else mentioned above, there are those who use divination quite well.
My personal opinion is that clerics can do a lot of things better than you are giving them credit for and can do those things very well. However because few players today endeavor to experiment and break out of popular frameworks, these styles of play would be uncommon. Moreover, if someone wanted to theory craft or get an opinion on how to optimize these features on a cleric, members here like to go out of their way to give advice to do something else. I don't have enough time to make all the links to prove that statement but I direct you to any thread where someone asks for advice in making an uncommon concept that *may* be unoptimized and watch as the idea makes negligible progress as people suggest they play entirely different classes, and things the op may have specifically and directly told them not to bring up or say in the thread. When you advocate a commonly held opinion with the vehemence you displayed above, you may just be closing the doors on a vast number of opportunities you failed to see.
I have been told that monks flat out could not do various things or do them well before the ACG. I intentionally designed monks that could-in fact, do those exact things and do them very well. They've even been posted.
So when you claim that clerics can only do x, y, and z well, I wonder how much legitimate consideration you gave to that statement before making it.
If I were a betting person, I'd be very tempted to wager that I could make a -highly effective- cleric who intentionally does not use -any- of the most commonly used spells on their list. I think it is very possible, though I might be wrong. That's why it would be an interesting bet.
BadBird |
If you get creative with the Seperatist archetype and other things there's a ton of stuff you can do with a Cleric rather easily. I posted a Hei-Feng Cleric/Monk1 a while ago that can: melee with guided hand and flurry-of-nine-ring-broadsword while defended by some very hefty wisdom-AC, dropping touch of chaos on his broadsword victims; walk around with aura of doom and/or aura of chaos debuffing things without requiring any action at all; throw high-DC confusion and hold person; etc.
For that matter, Half-Elf Oracles are able to take the Ancient Loremaster archetype while taking any racial attribute bonus they like, and then cherry-pick one wizard spell of each level to cast as a divine spell. They also have access to super-charged revelations through favored class, and Oracle mysteries that let them make their casting stat into their dex/reflex stat if they're so inclined.
Whatever the Cleric list may be lacking, there's some fairly easy ways to grab spells off of other lists for some pretty awesome versatility, so the cleric list itself shouldn't be considered in a vacuum.
Dark Immortal |
And as some of you here already know, there is this thread which was inspired by some of the extremely prejudiced views right here on this one, regarding the class and its spell list and went out of its way to prove those opinions wrong in several ways and counting.
You can make several clerics with completely different stat priorities, spell lists that have 0 overlapping spells, and don't fulfill the four roles someone listed here as being what all clerics have to be if they are to be good, and you can still come up with an optimized cleric who is good at doing whatever you built it to do. Considering optimized clerics can be made (now proven, repeatedly) while favoring all arguments to the contrary stated on this one, I consider all further naysaying as utter nonsense. You don't have to play what is popular in the way it is suggested for it to be good (or even really, really good).
Renegadeshepherd |
And as some of you here already know, there is this thread which was inspired by some of the extremely prejudiced views right here on this one, regarding the class and its spell list and went out of its way to prove those opinions wrong in several ways and counting.
You can make several clerics with completely different stat priorities, spell lists that have 0 overlapping spells, and don't fulfill the four roles someone listed here as being what all clerics have to be if they are to be good, and you can still come up with an optimized cleric who is good at doing whatever you built it to do. Considering optimized clerics can be made (now proven, repeatedly) while favoring all arguments to the contrary stated on this one, I consider all further naysaying as utter nonsense. You don't have to play what is popular in the way it is suggested for it to be good (or even really, really good).
and even in the same role they can be very different.
Undone |
And as some of you here already know, there is this thread which was inspired by some of the extremely prejudiced views right here on this one, regarding the class and its spell list and went out of its way to prove those opinions wrong in several ways and counting.
You can make several clerics with completely different stat priorities, spell lists that have 0 overlapping spells, and don't fulfill the four roles someone listed here as being what all clerics have to be if they are to be good, and you can still come up with an optimized cleric who is good at doing whatever you built it to do. Considering optimized clerics can be made (now proven, repeatedly) while favoring all arguments to the contrary stated on this one, I consider all further naysaying as utter nonsense. You don't have to play what is popular in the way it is suggested for it to be good (or even really, really good).
I'm of the opinion that the core cleric does not have a great spell list and most of his good magic comes from his domain.
Reasons
Level 1 Spells: It's ok but most of the power comes from splat spells like murderous command. The original list is very bad.
Level 2 Spells: The best early level hands down with resist energy and other goodies.
Level 3 Spells: This might be the worst spell level of all lists, in the entire game. There are less than 4 spells you'd ever want to prepare on a normal adventuring day and they are all spells from a previous edition which didn't get nerfed.
Level 4 Spells: When it starts to get good FOM and blessing of fervor and a few other greats carry this level from average to super awesome.
Level 5 Spells: Good but can't compare to overland flight and any of the arcane or even druid lists.
Level 6 Spells: Same as above except heal comes early compared with the druid list which makes this level better for you than the druid.
Level 7 Spells: The Worst level 7 spell list in the game is still powerful.
Level 8 Spells: Very good.
Level 9 Spells: They're level 9.
The problem isn't that the list is bad. The problem is the list is swiss cheese. There are levels with nearly nothing and there are levels with like 20 spells you want to cast on every party member.
Dark Immortal |
Core clerics and druids have tiny spell lists, especially when compared to the Sorceror. The cleric edges out an advantage over the druid list in a few ways but one of them is that, per level, they have more. People don't often complain about the druid list despite it being smaller. Perhaps because it is more visually satisfying.
Having such small lists in core naturally limits spell preparation variety to heavily depend on domain access, yet there are still spells that a cleric can take of each level which are fine and not often used nor are they limited to being only circumstantially useful or if they seem that way, they are circumstances that in real games, come up more than often enough.
1.) Bane and Doom.
2.) Calm Emotions, Augury, Enthrall, Consecrate, Eagles Splendor, Hide From Undead, Detect Undead.
3.) Contagion, Wind Wall, Speak With Dead, Locate Object, Water Walk, Water Breathing.
4.) Divination, Giant Vermin, Imbue With Spell Ability, Repel Vermin, Sending, Control Water.
5.) Commune, Scrying, Slay Living, True Seeing, Spell Resistance, Symbol of Pain.
6.) Animate Objects, Find the Path, Mass Inflict Moderate Wounds, Symbol of Persuasion.
These spells are difficult to want to prepare when you could have all the usual suspects and are sticking strictly to core. But a quick look at the list above shows that a cleric intentionally avoiding common spells can make a rather useful and potent list still that allows for plenty of methods for approaching and resolving a variety of encounters that any given adventurer could be expected to deal with at such a level. Once you consider domain spells and the larger list of more popular spells, you end up with some decent variety with purely core clerics. But it is much more difficult with only core. Once you step outside of that, you have too many useful standard and non-standard options to even begin to justify the list as limited and dry.
sunshadow21 |
I personally prefer the druid list, and have houseruled it as the basis for many of the oracle mysteries instead of the cleric list because the core cleric list is decent for what it is designed to do, but for many of the mysteries, especially the nature and elemental based ones, the druid list is a far better base. I also like that it's more balanced. It covers a better mix of ranges, targeted saves, and overall types of effects. The cleric list is almost exclusively, even with the inclusion of non-core sources, touch spells and will saves until you get to the higher level spells, where touch spells and will saves are still very prominent. In the end, it's not so bad that it needs an complete rewrite right away, but if and when they get around to making a "new" edition, it's one of the things I would have high on my wishlist to see changed. It would help boost the role of domains and make it easier to design other full casting divine classes like the oracle and druid without increasing the amount of space required for separate spell lists.
Malignor |
I'm of the opinion that the core cleric does not have a great spell list and most of his good magic comes from his domain.
Reasons
Level 1 Spells: It's ok but most of the power comes from splat spells like murderous command. The original list is very bad.
[trimmed for space]
The problem isn't that the list is bad. The problem is the list is swiss cheese. There are levels with nearly nothing and there are levels with like 20 spells you want to cast on every party member.
That last part there is key, so consider also the following facts:
1: A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell.
2: Metamagic feats exist and are useful.
Those (to quote you) 20 spells you want to cast on every party member are the ideal sort of candidates for higher level slots, either via metamagic feats, or simply because they're better choices than that of the same level spell as the slot you're filling.
Sorry, that was a long sentence.
One other thing I like to point out, as one who has played a few sorcerers, is that many spells fall into one or more of these categories:
Such spells are ideal candidates for wands and scrolls.
The last cleric I played used these principles and too Scribe Scroll. He kept alot of scrolls around for spells like Remove Paralysis, Remove Blindness, etc. and so didn't prepare those spells unless anticipating the condition to come up alot (like raiding a place swarming with Spider Eaters or similar status-inflicting critters). He also kept wands of Bless (how often does combat last over a minute?), Obscuring Mist and other low level spells which were perfectly functional at minimum caster level.
This freed up slots for spells worth preparing because of their save DC, caster level value, or frequent use. There's also the benefit of spontaneous healing/harming, which provides some level of forgiveness if you pick a couple bad spells.
Undone |
Undone wrote:I'm of the opinion that the core cleric does not have a great spell list and most of his good magic comes from his domain.
Reasons
Level 1 Spells: It's ok but most of the power comes from splat spells like murderous command. The original list is very bad.
[trimmed for space]
The problem isn't that the list is bad. The problem is the list is swiss cheese. There are levels with nearly nothing and there are levels with like 20 spells you want to cast on every party member.That last part there is key, so consider also the following facts:
1: A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell.
2: Metamagic feats exist and are useful.
Those (to quote you) 20 spells you want to cast on every party member are the ideal sort of candidates for higher level slots, either via metamagic feats, or simply because they're better choices than that of the same level spell as the slot you're filling.
Sorry, that was a long sentence.
One other thing I like to point out, as one who has played a few sorcerers, is that many spells fall into one or more of these categories:
caster level doesn't matter much
really only need it once in a blue moon
save DC doesn't apply or isn't important Such spells are ideal candidates for wands and scrolls.
The last cleric I played used these principles and too Scribe Scroll. He kept alot of scrolls around for spells like Remove Paralysis, Remove Blindness, etc. and so didn't prepare those spells unless anticipating the condition to come up alot (like raiding a place swarming with Spider Eaters or similar status-inflicting critters). He also kept wands of Bless (how often does combat last over a minute?), Obscuring Mist and other low level spells which were perfectly functional at minimum caster level.
This freed up slots for spells worth preparing because of their save DC, caster level value, or frequent use. There's also the benefit of spontaneous healing/harming, which provides some...
1) This is the same as conceding they don't get a spell level. That's functionally pathetic.
2) Sort of? Extend spell is actually functionally terrible usually. I've seen it trumpeted in so many guides and situations but the thing is buffs with >1 hour duration are functionally the same as 2 hour duration buffs. Durations are really rounds, 1 combat, all day in my experience 90 minutes is functionally the same as 180 minutes since you walk in and clear somewhere in under 30 minutes usually in game. The best extended spells are spells like murderous command.
caster level doesn't matter much
It matters, a lot. Remove disease on mummy rot being a prime example. Vestment/weapon spells.
DC is also super important for your good spells like murderous command, destruction, and more which are some of the best spells on the lists.
Malignor |
1) This is the same as conceding they don't get a spell level. That's functionally pathetic.
Pathetic? For some reason I'm detecting hostility.
How is it pathetic? Please explain your claim.2) Sort of? Extend spell is actually functionally terrible usually. I've seen it trumpeted in so many guides and situations but the thing is buffs with >1 hour duration are functionally the same as 2 hour duration buffs. Durations are really rounds, 1 combat, all day in my experience 90 minutes is functionally the same as 180 minutes since you walk in and clear somewhere in under 30 minutes usually in game. The best extended spells are spells like murderous command.
oftentimes you are correct. IMO, Extend Spell is only useful for round/level spells at low levels to ensure they last the combat, for hour/level spells that you want to have running all day, or for the rare day/level spells to save you a whole spell slot for a few days (wah.... hoo).
It matters, a lot. Remove disease on mummy rot being a prime example. Vestment/weapon spells.
DC is also super important for your good spells like murderous command, destruction, and more which are some of the best spells on the lists.
I think you misunderstood me, so I'll restate with emphasis:
... many (but not all) spells fall into one or more of these categories:
Such spells are ideal candidates for wands and scrolls.
how is that?
Now do the examples I provided (Remove Paralysis, Remove Blindness, Bless, Obscuring Mist) make more sense?
LazarX |
I wouldn't say the cleric list sucks, but I think it was written by a writer who was very aware of the knowledge that the cleric gets access to every spell on his list automatically. That means there's a lot more room to design "narrow" spells or divide spell effects up between different spells.
Which in turn is kind of frustrating when you're trying to make the Oracle's limited spells known cover everything a cleric is expected to handle.
Just as trying to wizard as a sorcerer is a task asking for trouble, the same is said for oracles trying to do the same thing with clerics. You have to be a focused caster with limited room for flexibility.
Serum |
Kudaku wrote:Just as trying to wizard as a sorcerer is a task asking for trouble, the same is said for oracles trying to do the same thing with clerics. You have to be a focused caster with limited room for flexibility.I wouldn't say the cleric list sucks, but I think it was written by a writer who was very aware of the knowledge that the cleric gets access to every spell on his list automatically. That means there's a lot more room to design "narrow" spells or divide spell effects up between different spells.
Which in turn is kind of frustrating when you're trying to make the Oracle's limited spells known cover everything a cleric is expected to handle.
Both the sorcerer and oracle need to cherry-pick from their own respective lists, true, but the oracle's choices very quickly boil down to "Which incredibly niche spell do I want to be able to spam?", while the sorcerer still has loads of good multi-purpose or generic spells to choose from.
Malignor |
Both the sorcerer and oracle need to cherry-pick from their own respective lists, true, but the oracle's choices very quickly boil down to "Which incredibly niche spell do I want to be able to spam?", while the sorcerer still has loads of good multi-purpose or generic spells to choose from.
That seems an exaggeration to me, even if you're pretty much correct.
Whenever selecting the first spell for a new spell level, I choose one worthy of spamming which could see frequent use; since you have 3+ uses per day, it's a good idea to make the most of them.
For the 2nd or 3rd spell known for that spell level, you can select with more diverse criteria in mind. I prefer spells which do more than one thing, or solve multiple problems, as the choices are limited. In this, the Cleric list indeed seems lacking. Still, I would take cleric spells over fighter feats or rogue traits any day.
Something else worthy of note is that even if you have limitations on the spells known, you still (as a sorcerer or an oracle or bard) have the spell list, and thus qualify to use wands and scrolls from that same list. You can thus select your gear to compliment your spells known.
TarkXT |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Serum wrote:Both the sorcerer and oracle need to cherry-pick from their own respective lists, true, but the oracle's choices very quickly boil down to "Which incredibly niche spell do I want to be able to spam?", while the sorcerer still has loads of good multi-purpose or generic spells to choose from.That seems an exaggeration to me, even if you're pretty much correct.
Whenever selecting the first spell for a new spell level, I choose one worthy of spamming which could see frequent use; since you have 3+ uses per day, it's a good idea to make the most of them.
For the 2nd or 3rd spell known for that spell level, you can select with more diverse criteria in mind. I prefer spells which do more than one thing, or solve multiple problems, as the choices are limited. In this, the Cleric list indeed seems lacking. Still, I would take cleric spells over fighter feats or rogue traits any day.
Something else worthy of note is that even if you have limitations on the spells known, you still (as a sorcerer or an oracle or bard) have the spell list, and thus qualify to use wands and scrolls from that same list. You can thus select your gear to compliment your spells known.
Another option not being pointed out here is simply leaving a slot or two open. It only takes a few minutes to fill a slot or two in the dungeon once you understand what specifically you need.
This is a rather powerful ability because while clerics do have an overabundance of situational and awfully specific spells those spells also tend to be quite powerful at what they do. If you're the type of cleric who prays once a day and only gets what's needed than you might not be as successcul as a more devout cleric who "prays" multiple times per day.
Riuken |
Malignor wrote:Serum wrote:Both the sorcerer and oracle need to cherry-pick from their own respective lists, true, but the oracle's choices very quickly boil down to "Which incredibly niche spell do I want to be able to spam?", while the sorcerer still has loads of good multi-purpose or generic spells to choose from.That seems an exaggeration to me, even if you're pretty much correct.
Whenever selecting the first spell for a new spell level, I choose one worthy of spamming which could see frequent use; since you have 3+ uses per day, it's a good idea to make the most of them.
For the 2nd or 3rd spell known for that spell level, you can select with more diverse criteria in mind. I prefer spells which do more than one thing, or solve multiple problems, as the choices are limited. In this, the Cleric list indeed seems lacking. Still, I would take cleric spells over fighter feats or rogue traits any day.
Something else worthy of note is that even if you have limitations on the spells known, you still (as a sorcerer or an oracle or bard) have the spell list, and thus qualify to use wands and scrolls from that same list. You can thus select your gear to compliment your spells known.
Another option not being pointed out here is simply leaving a slot or two open. It only takes a few minutes to fill a slot or two in the dungeon once you understand what specifically you need.
This is a rather powerful ability because while clerics do have an overabundance of situational and awfully specific spells those spells also tend to be quite powerful at what they do. If you're the type of cleric who prays once a day and only gets what's needed than you might not be as successcul as a more devout cleric who "prays" multiple times per day.
What you replied to was in reference to Oracle/Sorcerer. Your response makes no sense in that context.