The 'On Your Spell List' thread reminded me of an idea that's been knocking around my head for a while. It's not 100% original on my part though I can't remember where the idea sparked. Anyway, it has been said that clerics arguably have 19 'dead levels'; it has also been said that druids and clerics are the most potent classes in the game in part due to their spellcasting versatility; it has also been said that Nerull and Pelor must be in kahoots with each other if they both grant their clerics the same basic spells on demand.
So what would you say to limiting druid and cleric Spells Known to this: all orisons known plus 12 1st level spells at first class level. Every level thereafter the character chooses an additional 4 spells known. (alternatively, each caster could have a 'prayer book' akin to a wizard's spell book, rather than a set-in-stone Spells Known list) This erases those supposed 19 dead levels by giving clerics something new at every level, takes away a little of the cleric/druid's versatility and creates differentiation in each divine caster.
I am particularly interested to know what you as a player would think of this rule--"yay, no more dead levels!" or "what?! I have to limit myself to a spells known list like a sorcerer?"
P.S. Oh yeah, paladins and rangers would obviously also follow this rule, though with fewer spells known per level.
This sounds very interesting, really. One of the reasons I started up the other thread is because Clerics & Druids seem to get it all for free when new books are published. Limiting the number of spells they know would be a nice way to limit this.
Although I'm not sure whether 4 spells would be a good start; the Cleric list should at least match the Wizard's one in size I think. It definately allows more variation in Clerics, especially with so many spells to choose from.
If you have time on your hands, you could even divide the list in 'Deity given' and 'Self picked'? IE: each Cleric gains certain new spells at every odd level from his Deity, and the rest he picks himself?
It would also help to identify Clerics from the same faith...
In my game I have made a house rule regarding clerics and druids for sanity's sake. When they gain the ability to cast a new level of spells, they can pick 30 from all of the WOTC books for that level and that is what they have access to. I'm actually thinking of limiting it to 20, but I think 12 is too much. It restricts them more like a wizard and I think takes away from the flavor of the class. They are supposed to be versatile, but I don't want it to be nuts and I do want clerics to be different from one another.
I have played with 'prayer books' before and it seemed more annoying than helpful in both my opinion and the player's.
When I realized that there are over 150 spells for some levels my head just hurt. This seems to have fixed it. I also for some reason have not had the problem with 'dead levels'...at least not with main spellcasters. Paladins on the other hand...
A 'dead level' is when you add a level to your class, but gain no new abilities. Basically, little about your character changes, which can dull the sense of achievement for many players, since they do not gain any new options.
Since Clerics have no new abilities whatsoever, most levels can be called 'dead' although arguably, gaining access to a whole new level of spells is quite a new ability.
The worst type of 'dead level' are once such as 5th level Fighter. No Feat, no Ability point, no increased saves... nothing. Just your amazing 2+int skill points and 1d10+con hp.
Yeah, Frats, I get that. I understand what dead levels are. I've just not encountered a problem with it with dedicated casters due to the reason you list.
The fighter level you mention or many paladin levels I have had issues with.
Frats: "Although I'm not sure whether 4 spells would be a good start..."
I don't understand; wizards get 2 spells per level, so how would 4 spells/level be less?
Frats: "you could even divide the list in 'Deity given' and 'Self picked'?"
Personally I think this would be more trouble than it's worth. Clerics of different faiths would be different enough based on the fact that individual preference for their spells will be influenced by their deity.
Shamgar: "I'm actually thinking of limiting it to 20, but I think 12 is too much."
Again, I don't understand; how is 12 more than 20? P.S. 30, heck even 20, is a lot of spells! Do your divine casters spend like a half hour at every odd level-up just on choosing spells?
Wizards can copy scrolls, and methinks they copy more then 2 spells from a scroll per level. Unless you want to allow Clerics to copy spells from scrolls, but that doesn't seem to be what you're after.
And yes, I was answering Tambryn's question :)
TS: yeah, I mistyped. I feel that 12 is too few, not too much as prev. written. oops.
Tam and Frats: My bad. I wasn't being snarky, just answering a thought I believed was directed to me. Oops, again. :)
TS: Yes, they do take some time every other level picking spells--narrowing down the list really. I ask that they make sense with the character and his deity which helps that process. The players seem to enjoy this process and certainly far more so than picking from over 100 per level every single in game day.
I'm open to other ideas. This is just what I have found to work best for us over the years.
The worst type of 'dead level' are once such as 5th level Fighter. No Feat, no Ability point, no increased saves... nothing. Just your amazing 2+int skill points and 1d10+con hp.
And +1 additional BAB.
Really, though, I don't have a problem with the so-called dead levels. You may not get a shiny new ability, but all level-based abilities do go up, along with skills and hp, and often saves, too. For casters, you also get another caster level, which means +1 more to SR rolls, as well as another die of fireball damage, or whatever. Spells last another round longer. And every other level, you get a whole new level of spells. My view is that players should just "get over" dead levels. Simply attaining another one is thrill enough, and sometimes recalulating things can be so hectic that it's a relief not to have to add something new.
As to the true question at hand regarding clerics, I don't have a problem with them as written, and wouldn't use the house rule in question. My thoughts are that it probably wouldn't limit them too much, but I'd expect player backlash. Also, this won't necessarily differentiate clerics at all, since the players are likely to choose the "essential" spells before frill ones, and still prepare those the most. So, while one cleric may technically know spells A, B, and C, whereas the other knows X, Y, and Z, it will rarely matter, because they both know and mainly use M, N, and O.
Wizards can copy scrolls, and methinks they copy more then 2 spells from a scroll per level. Unless you want to allow Clerics to copy spells from scrolls, but that doesn't seem to be what you're after.
Hm, well if the prayerbook idea were used, divine casters would have all the wizard's versatility plus 2 extra spells per level. Though somehow I can't imagine a druid with a prayerbook. Maybe a staff with holy runes carved into it that act as a prayer book?
Excellent topic. I too agree that divine spell lists can quickly get out of hand and here's how I address this in my campaign.
Divine casters get all the spells out of the players' handbook, and then for each spell level they may choose three spells from the other books to add to their spell lists. This selection is permanent. (Rangers, paladins and other "lesser" casters may only choose two spells per spell level).
This gives divine casters some variety but also keeps their spell lists under control.
Out of curiosity, to those that limit clerical spell lists, how do you handle incorporating newly published spells after a player has "finalized" that spell level?
As to the true question at hand regarding clerics, I don't have a problem with them as written, and wouldn't use the house rule in question. My thoughts are that it probably wouldn't limit them too much, but I'd expect player backlash. Also, this won't necessarily differentiate clerics at all, since the players are likely to choose the "essential" spells before frill ones, and still prepare those the most. So, while one cleric may technically know spells A, B, and C, whereas the other knows X, Y, and Z, it will rarely matter, because they both know and mainly use M, N, and O.
Another good reason to keep things more or less as normal is that the clerics are powerful for a reason. To make them more attractive to players. When one sees threads addressing this one almost never sees an example of a DM complaining that the players have too many clerics. No instead we get thread after thread dealing with what to do if no one wants to play the cleric. One can even say that D&D philosophy is split on the topic with some DMs advocating that the DM adjust adventures to suit the party (which almost invariably means adjust to deal with the lack of a dedicated cleric) and other DMs choosing to make the players pay if they are so foolish as to create an inherently unbalanced party.
Considering this it really seems to me that any idea that reduces the utility and power of a cleric simply makes a bad situation worse. Why anyone would want to do that eludes me.
Admittedly allowing the cleric to choose a limited number of spells makes life easier I think its really a rather minor gain. The players involved will quickly develop a standard suite of spells that are used with maybe some picking and choosing among them in the vast majority of situations. They'll only swap out when they know what they are going to come up against and their is the perfect spell for dealing with that. Hence I doubt that one really saves much in the way time with this.
Here is what I have been doing for my most recent STAP game. I consider the spell in the PHB as common to all Clerics with some spells taken off the list based on gods alignment (evil spell for good gods, fire spells for water gods). I then take a look through the other books and add spells to the clerics list based on the god. Spells that add to the theme of the god or just seem to fit for the god. The spells from the other books seem so specialized that I can't imagine that every god passes them out. Yeah the clerics get a few most spells this way, but really they can't cast anymore per day or per round so it's not a huge benefit. Granted my players are not always the most forward thinking bunch so maybe it seems less powerful because of that.
As for Druid, I don't have anyone playing them but I would do something similar. The Druid should have some sort of belief structure that they were brought up with that should help to identify what spells they should get.
Well we seem to have an even split between 'yay' and 'nay'. I'm starting a campaign soon; I'll talk to the players about it, paying particular attention to whoever plays a divine caster, and decide whether this rule is worth it from there.
Thanks All,
TS
So what would you say to limiting druid and cleric Spells Known to this: all orisons known plus 12 1st level spells at first class level. Every level thereafter the character chooses an additional 4 spells known. (alternatively, each caster could have a 'prayer book' akin to a wizard's spell book, rather than a set-in-stone Spells Known list) This erases those supposed 19 dead levels by giving clerics something new at every level, takes away a little of the cleric/druid's versatility and creates differentiation in each divine caster.
I have a player who loves divine casters but hates knowing all divine spells. He just chooses a bunch of divine spells equal to the number he can prepare a day, and calls that his "spells known". I do sort of the same thing, but I just prepare the same spells pretty much every day and never change them.
I do think that this aspect of clerics and druids unbalances them a bit.
Unbalances them? This, to me, is one of the (huge) perks of being a cleric. I just don't think there is a reason to do this except to make choosing spells easier. This adds even more versatility to a class that relies on it.
I have a player who loves divine casters but hates knowing all divine spells. He just chooses a bunch of divine spells equal to the number he can prepare a day, and calls that his "spells known". I do sort of the same thing, but I just prepare the same spells pretty much every day and never change them.I do think that this aspect of clerics and druids unbalances them a bit.
Well this, I think, is taking things a little to far but a slightly watered down version of this is probably what most cleric players do. They take a standard suite of spells and go with that. It might get adjusted a little here and there as things progress and in light of previous experience but it is not normally a case of the player contemplating every possible spell every time dawn comes along.
Now if one does want to just deal with a smaller sample of spells I would recomend the Divine Soul as an excellent class in this case. Less spells known but more castings of same. Though the class, as written, really is not on par with your standard issue cleric. Heck - none of the divine casters are really as good as the basic cleric.