I’ve noticed when it comes time for our group to prepare spells the game will grind to a halt. We have a player, the cleric, who will scourer through every book to find the perfect most powerful spell. I don’t mind him using all the books we have, but I wish he could quickly pick them out. I have talked to him about it, but he said he needs to see all of them. I’m thinking about saying that clerics and druids to be fair get 10 spells per spell level not counting domain spells or summon nature’s ally, so 11 spells per spell level. I think this is fair and will hopefully speed up game play.
And keep the druid who uses the same handful of spells and the sorcerer who is well a sorcerer, from killing the cleric.
'Zola
|
I’m thinking about saying that clerics and druids to be fair get 10 spells per spell level not counting domain spells or summon nature’s ally, so 11 spells per spell level.
I think that 10 spells is pretty limiting. One suggestion might be to allow all the spells from the PHB and then allow the cleric to add one spell per spell level per character level to his/her list of known spells.
So at first level he would get to choose one additional spell that he can add to his list for 0 and 1st level spells. At 5th level, he would be able to add a 0, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spell to his list of spells.
That way it still keeps it fairly limited and he gets to learn the new spells as he gains levels. And he also doesn't take up time every play session sifting through books.
At least that is my thought on it.
Well... I am not for limiting the Cleric spell list. But you didn't ask my opinion. So:
As a player of a high level Cleric (before the Spell Compendium), I had a habit of filling out two spell lists. One was my everyday list, and the other was more fluid as I adapted it to our situation. I changed the list "as we went," rather than at the prayer time.
I also made my own reduced spell list, eliminating the spells I found useless, or at least less useful for their level.
So, while I can see your interest in doing this... I firmly believe it is the players duty to reduce his game stalling time.
If your player did this, you wouldn't feel the need to limit the spell list.
So, it ends up being all your decision. You know your player better than we do.
Personally, I never found many spell levels where I needed more than 10 spells... Then again, this was before the SC.
One suggestion I have, if your players have a habit of dumping to Charisma (and a Cleric shouldn't), you could limit the spell list to 3 times the Charisma modifier - to simulate the deities feelings toward the cleric - plus Domain Spells.
That is all I can add. But I still think your player should put in more effort.
I pretty much agree with Disenchanter. The cleric spell list is not the problem here. The player is the problem here. Though the way the class works is definitely contributing to the issue. Your going to have to work with the player to get them to make some kind of standardized list of spells and some way of getting the player to choose spells quickly if its necessary to swap spells around at daybreak to deal with a specific threat.
Maybe get the player to come to the game early to pick their spells. I'd talk to the player and point out that holding up the game for 45 minutes while the player goes through every book is simply not OK - 10 minutes is OK. See if the player can come up with suggestions and put out some yourself.
On a side note the cleric with a limited spell list already exists - Favored Soul.
|
I'd say that depending on when he's doing this, even 10 minutes isn't okay.
Certainly, if the other players are doing stuff to prepare for a big fight, 10 minutes is fine. If, however, everyone else is waiting, and it's not a good spot for a break, 2-3 minutes is about the max I'll allow.
Part of this depends on player attention span. I know my fighter and rogue are likely to get distracted if the game stops moving, so I try and keep that from happening. Fortunately, my casters have pre-prepped lists for 'blast stuff', 'heal stuff' and 'town utility'. They can adjust quickly on the fly.
I would strongly suggest having the cleric draw up a couple of standard lists. It should help. But also explain from an out of game perspective why what he's doing is a problem.
I certainly agree that 10 minutes is far from ideal. No prep time in this area is ideal. That said one does have to give out a reasonable amount of time if the situation is expected to be different. My experience is that 2 minutes is jut not a reasonable amount of time for the casters to adjust their spells if they know that today Red Dragon is probably on the menu. If they have no clue whats up then a standard list is probably the best solution but I think one needs at least 10 minutes if their going to actually change that list based on information they have obtained about the coming adventure. 45 minutes is what they would like - 10 minutes is a compromise.
The rest of the players can take a breather and discuss who is getting married or having a baby.
|
|
Well, for someone who needs to look stuff up, ten minutes is about right.
My cleric and druid players are both sufficiently familiar with their spell lists by now that swapping out for Red Dragon actually only takes them about three minutes.
Something to note: My players (and I) write up all spells a character can use on quick reference index cards. These cards have all the basic range and area of effect on them as well as what the spell does. More complex spells have page numbers on 'em.
It makes shuffling in new spells pretty easy to do on the fly.
Director of Narrative
|
The posters above are totally correct. This isn't an issue with the cleric spell list, but rather it is an issue with the player.
You could limit the number of sources the player can use or assist the player in adapting a more organized approach to choosing spells such as the above mentioned idea of preparing multiple spell lists ahead of time.
I've found that a well-played cleric already has a limited selection of spells. There are heaps of spells that can be immediately thrown out for no other reason than flavor. Cheap example: While a Pelorian cleric can cast darkness, it's not terribly in character to do so.
This is something I have done for the past couple of clerics I've played. I go through the sources I will be using for spell selection and find the spells I would most likely choose for that particular character. I list them in alphabetically with each spell level and note each one with the sourcebook and page number. This alone helps also in finding the spell quickly while in game.
Well, for someone who needs to look stuff up, ten minutes is about right.
My cleric and druid players are both sufficiently familiar with their spell lists by now that swapping out for Red Dragon actually only takes them about three minutes.
Something to note: My players (and I) write up all spells a character can use on quick reference index cards. These cards have all the basic range and area of effect on them as well as what the spell does. More complex spells have page numbers on 'em.
It makes shuffling in new spells pretty easy to do on the fly.
We use something not so different. Each player has a list of spells known arranged by level and then alphabetically including all the header information and a brief description of what the spell does. The clerics spell list runs to something like 16 pages with about 15 spells to a page.
What we did was we bought all the PC Gen Data Sets. If you go into their combined spell list data base its essentially just a spread sheet. At this point you just cut and paste the spread sheet into your own spread sheet program and go through it cleaning it up. Once done you have every spell in the game that was released as a PCGen data set with all the mechanical information you need about the spells. You can use it to sort out the specific spell lists of any of the classes. My group (or more specifically one of my tech savy players and myself) had to add all the PHB II spells in by hand as that could not be bought. Then we compiled the specific spell list for each possible class, formatted it until it would only be a single page in width** and exported it to PDF. If you pick up a Hexblade level I send you the Hexblade Spell List PDF.
Quick index cards sounds cool but I'd be concerned that 300 cards (or however many their are) would start to get mixed up.
**Why don't spread sheets make it easier to force the width down to 1 page? Who in the world would print out something that was longer then 1 page in width?
|
|
Quick index cards sounds cool but I'd be concerned that 300 cards (or however many their are) would start to get mixed up.
This is why each character has a spell box sorted by level. We also color code the cards by level.
And you're talking about Veteran M:tG Players. Keeping track of a lot of cards is... well. Not much of a problem.
Initial setup takes a while, but once they get it set up and set up a 'sideboard', it's usually pretty quick.
I also have couple of set lists...regular list to prepare when I am not expecting anything specific or don't know what to expect, on which I make modifications if I have some idea what is coming (I have also prepared a "downtime" list for days when my cleric is not adventuring, but that is more for roleplaying purposes, it doesn't see much action).
But also otherwise, I am pretty much sticking to what spells PHB has to offer. Every other spell from other sources needs to be ok'd by DM to get to spell list of the cleric...the spells which have suitable flavor are a shoo-in, others need discussion. But this discussion doesn't take place during game, it happens between games: "I found this nice new spell from source X, this is how it looks like, can my cleric get it?" If the answer is yes, then I can prepare it if I want.
I have come across players like that who need to go through all the sources before making decisions, they tend to get better with experience :) But the problem is the player, not cleric spell list :)
well, I think you should let the guy play his character and not give him a hard time; go to the bathroom or something; his guy in game is spending a few hours praying or somesuch so he should have the time; it is not like it is spur of the moment.
as an option; you could just do away with him memorizing specific spells; the idea is fairly silly for clerics anyways, but opens a different can of worms; you could just play that the cleric prays for aid from a diety with a certain effect; you could have him pick the spell when needed or control it a little more and pick the spell yourself as the gm deciding what aid the diety would give; this is doable as a cleric should never get the idea that the diety works for him; it is the other way around and he should trust that the diety will give him the necessary aid for the task. There is no perfect solution to a slow player, but there are lots of options that should not punish the guy for playing a character that requires real time thought.
|
I dont think they have handled the cleric correctly...The Cleric must pray for their spells as they require their use. Those Domains actually need more spells, so that BILLYBOB the god of Humor can hand out attack spells like field of Bananna Peels or cream pie fury...WHile SUZIE goddess of PMS can hand out Spells to her female clerics like Hail of Furious words or Brooding Silence.
|
|
Emma's character sheets has spell sheets that you can add in whatever sourcebooks you are using and it will print out a spellsheet for the cleric with all spells from those books, discriptions of each spell and abbreviated info on the spell. I find this to be a great time saver because you don't need to scour the books, just check your sheet for a compiled list.
If you wanted to limit the list he knows I would start tracking how many different spells per level he actually uses and double or triple that number. If he decides later that he wants to use something not on his list, tell him he has to pray for an extra 15 minutes to get it.
But the spell list will definately help speed up his turns.
FH
As someone who has really just started playing a cleric, I understand the frustration of shuffling around prepared spells. When I do play a spellcaster it's normally a sorcerer, so when I started the Cleric it seemed a bit daunting. But as time went on I found that there were indeed spells that I really didn't cast, and never even looked at when I prepared my spells. But my DM sent me some spell lists that he'd found that were great. I can't pull up Ema's character sheets, but I'm sure they are something like that. I like the idea of preparing two separate sheets (at least), a "battle" sheet and an "everyday-who-knows-what's-coming-next sheet".
They have spontaneous divine spell casters called the Favored Soul from the Complete Divine. I believe (as I currently don't have the book in front of me) that they don't have access to Domains and can't spontaneously heal unless they take the spontaneous healer feat, but they have spells known and spells per day as a sorcerer. They lose the ability to rebuke undead but gain other abilities as they progress in level. I'd suggest that if this player wants to continue playing divine spell casters in the future then he might want to look at this. Or you could just rework the cleric spells per day to reflect this class's ability. Which might work since it seems you are in the middle of a campaign.
A bit from my Hoarde
well, I think you should let the guy play his character and not give him a hard time; go to the bathroom or something; his guy in game is spending a few hours praying or somesuch so he should have the time; it is not like it is spur of the moment.
as an option; you could just do away with him memorizing specific spells; the idea is fairly silly for clerics anyways, but opens a different can of worms; you could just play that the cleric prays for aid from a diety with a certain effect; you could have him pick the spell when needed or control it a little more and pick the spell yourself as the gm deciding what aid the diety would give; this is doable as a cleric should never get the idea that the diety works for him; it is the other way around and he should trust that the diety will give him the necessary aid for the task. There is no perfect solution to a slow player, but there are lots of options that should not punish the guy for playing a character that requires real time thought.
Something like this had recently just happened to my Cleric. He put himself in a no win situation and the first response given was "I cast slay living." The situation was that I was trying to Dominate an evil Wizard to give me fair prices on goods, it failed, and I cast slay living with him being unable to see me (as I was also invisibile). For those of you that read the Savage Tide posts, I am the PC from "PC assassinates Kedward Bone". The DM finally ruled that although my alignment wouldn't change from CN to CE, I would lose access to my [Good] descriptor spells until I recieved atonement, which I believed was a fair ruling. Unfortunately the character died in our session last night after recklessly trying to talk to Ahazu in the Abyss.
A bit from my Hoarde
Try that page for size, print out the list from what books you think he should be using. It includes nifty stuff like domain spells and extra empty lines, just about everything about the spell and a short description too.
Works like a charm for me. And my terribly lazy druid player.
I hate clerics - but love spec. priests....
Talk it through with your player. If he's not onboard with it ...eh.
If he is
, ditch some domains (3-4)- keep only those directly tied to the diety he's worshipping
Give keewwwl granted powers (1-3), maybe tied to level advancement.
And involve the player in fleshing out the powers his diety would give him -
Its great fun , I promise :)
The cleric spell list is not the problem here. The player is the problem here.
How many proposed rules changes have I seen where this is the case?
See, I dont understand this at all; why would a diety grant a spell to a guy then penalize him for casting it; it is just stupid; if the diety didnt want the slay living to kill someone then he wouldnt grant the spell; the cleric can only ask; he doesnt have any power; it comes from the diety; the whole atonment thing is just bad judgement on the part of the gm and is pretty two faced; I know this sound a bit like a flame, but I dont mean it that way; it is just bad policy and terrible playing. I can just see a gm like this giving out a holy sword to a paladin and saying; this is sharp and is dreaded by our foes, make sure you dont hurt anyone with it or you loose your good status. i guess you can deal with it ok; but I just cannot wrap my head around it.
-Val
Something like this had recently just happened to my Cleric. He put himself in a no win situation and the first response given was "I cast slay living." The situation was that I was trying to Dominate an evil Wizard to give me fair prices on goods, it failed, and I cast slay living with him being unable to see me (as I was also invisibile). For those of you that read the Savage Tide posts, I am the PC from "PC assassinates Kedward Bone". The DM finally ruled that although my alignment wouldn't change from CN to CE, I would lose access to my [Good] descriptor spells until I recieved atonement, which I believed was a fair ruling. Unfortunately the character died in our session last night after recklessly trying to talk to Ahazu in the Abyss.A bit from my Hoarde
See, I dont understand this at all; why would a diety grant a spell to a guy then penalize him for casting it; it is just stupid; if the diety didnt want the slay living to kill someone then he wouldnt grant the spell; the cleric can only ask; he doesnt have any power; it comes from the diety; the whole atonment thing is just bad judgement on the part of the gm and is pretty two faced; I know this sound a bit like a flame, but I dont mean it that way; it is just bad policy and terrible playing. I can just see a gm like this giving out a holy sword to a paladin and saying; this is sharp and is dreaded by our foes, make sure you dont hurt anyone with it or you loose your good status. i guess you can deal with it ok; but I just cannot wrap my head around it.
-ValIt seems like a great solution to me. Try thinking about it this way. The diety is not omniscient and expects that his cleric will play by his (the diety's) rules. Slay living is given with the expectation that it will be used for the diety's benefit. It's kind of like when I gave my boy the football with the expectation it would be used outside ..... :)
Sorry about the threadjack.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Valegrim, you wrote:
"See, I dont understand this at all; why would a diety grant a spell to a guy then penalize him for casting it; it is just stupid; if the diety didnt want the slay living to kill someone then he wouldnt grant the spell; the cleric can only ask; he doesnt have any power; it comes from the diety..."
Here's my take on this:
Gods have a deal going on with their clerics: each god grants the clerics supernatural powers, and the clerics use that power in furtherance of the god's agenda. From the deity's point of view, it's like an investment.
But the clerics have control over how they use that power. A cleric of Lathander who becomes dominated or conned by some nasty rogue, or for that matter just turns against Lathander himself, doesn't automatically lose his spells for the day.
There's a certain level of trust involved. The gods start their clerics out with very limited abilities, which will not cause dramatic damage if the clerics mess up or turn against their patron. As the relationship continues and the clerics have earned the god's trust, they get greater access to more powerful miracles.
A side-effect of this interpretation is that most gods hold clerics to be responsible not only for their spells, but also for the spell-storing items (scrolls, wands, etc) they create.
I agreed with my DM's decision. His first reaction was to change my alignment to CE, but after hearing my arguments and asking some other DMs for their advice, he decided against that. The two reasons my DM gave for the loss of the spells were that 1.) I had put myself in the situation by trying to dominate him to get the fair item prices. And 2.) I killed him when instead I could have easily left the situation since he couldn't see me. And 3.) Like any adventurer I searched the body afterwards and took what he had on him. The big reason for the loss of spells and not an alignment shift was that he was an evil wizard, and if given the chance would have slaughtered me, and probably quite easily. In the end I thought it a fair deal. If I had been a Cleric of say Wee Jas or Vecna instead of Olidamarra, the the issue would have been a moot point and there would not have been a problem. But since I was the cleric of a Neutral Deity who cast good spells then I could understand his reasoning.
See, I dont understand this at all; why would a diety grant a spell to a guy then penalize him for casting it; it is just stupid; if the diety didnt want the slay living to kill someone then he wouldnt grant the spell; the cleric can only ask; he doesnt have any power; it comes from the diety; the whole atonment thing is just bad judgement on the part of the gm and is pretty two faced; I know this sound a bit like a flame, but I dont mean it that way; it is just bad policy and terrible playing. I can just see a gm like this giving out a holy sword to a paladin and saying; this is sharp and is dreaded by our foes, make sure you dont hurt anyone with it or you loose your good status. i guess you can deal with it ok; but I just cannot wrap my head around it.
-Val
'Cause dominating even evil shopkeepers in order to force them to offer their goods at a price you'd like to pay is pretty iffy. Deciding to then murder them in cold blood when your mind control fails is even more iffy. Deciding to murder them in cold blood and then rob their corpses starts to sound like the act of an evil individual.
I'm pretty sure a Paladin - even one with a shine +5 Holy Avenger is not allowed to run shop keepers through for failure to sell to him at a price he wants to pay. Does not matter if the shop keeper reads 'evil' on a detect evil check.