Wish vs. Miracle


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm trying to understand why an arcane caster has to pay a 25,000gp diamond to duplicate a spell using Wish when the cleric doesn't have the same restriction using Miracle. I'm not concerned about whether the cost is or is not appropriate per se but more interested in the decision to favor one class over the others on an almost identical ability. If anyone has any thoughts, opinions, or insight about this, I'd love to hear it.

Thanks!


Okay the cheap-skate arguement for this is that that's the way it's always been. I personally think that it is the eventuallity of divine spells being cheaper than arcane spells because the arcane casters just have a bigger spell selection (if my memory serves me correctly). Now as far as in game goes: let us, for arguements sake, say that you are a divine caster. Would you choose to worship a god that bankrupts an entire population (probably equivelant to about a modern suburb) in order to cast a spell that may only benefit one person (sorry, I was assuming you were good or, at least neutral)?
On the other hand, an arcane caster finds the components to cast spells in the old ways. From the times when there were no humans, when resources were given to those in power and only to them so they would rule supreme over other races that were battling them. These resources now cost a lot of money.
It makes sense to me, but I understand what you are saying.


A long long (long long long) time ago Wish and Miracle were balanced because Miracle had the 'Rp requirement" that the deity in question had to approve of the miracle, and thus the DM didn't have to worry about the PC running around blowing his 9th level spell selection on Miracle spells every day.

Needless to say, "RP requirements" have gone away and we're just left with the base spells.

Its also worth noting that both spells used to cost an elephants weight in XP.


I never could explain this either and often house rule away the component.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Selgard wrote:

A long long (long long long) time ago Wish and Miracle were balanced because Miracle had the 'Rp requirement" that the deity in question had to approve of the miracle, and thus the DM didn't have to worry about the PC running around blowing his 9th level spell selection on Miracle spells every day.

Needless to say, "RP requirements" have gone away and we're just left with the base spells.

Its also worth noting that both spells used to cost an elephants weight in XP.

Although IIRC the XP component also didn't apply to the cleric's spell duplication, only the arcane caster.

I don't know if I can consider removing the spell component from Wish since the Wish spell has the whole +1 inherent bonus to stats ability. I'm sure my player's first reaction would be to figure out how long it would take to give everyone +5's across all stats and then prioritize said distribution.


This is exactly why I don't play games where clerics can run without deities. It just doesn't make sense, especially when the spell list is balanced by the fact that you have to basically ask your god(ess) for spells.

The short of it is that Miracle is subject to DM approval, since it's divine magic, and all your DM has to say is "You don't have the faith required to create such an effect," or "Madriel says no."

Contributor

Basically, wish is prepaid free-and-clear, whereas Miracle is not only subject to approval by the cleric's god, but is also subject to divine auditing.

It would be completely in character with any god, if their cleric messes up to the point where they'd cut them off, to simply revoke any miracle they previously granted. That wisdom bonus? *POOF!* Sir Bob brought back from the dead after the lich disintegrated him? *POOF!* That battle I turned in your favor, and all the political fallout thereafter? *POOF!*

If the DMs not bothering to roleplay the gods, that's the DMs failing.

Shadow Lodge

Well, Wish can accomplish more. It is not more powerful, but at it's base state, it can do more. Miracle is unlimited, to a point. As they've pointed out, it is completely up to the deity or religion to dictate what is and not granted. Not so with Wish. Alignment and deity are irrelevant, (for the most part).


Sean FitzSimon wrote:

This is exactly why I don't play games where clerics can run without deities. It just doesn't make sense, especially when the spell list is balanced by the fact that you have to basically ask your god(ess) for spells.

The short of it is that Miracle is subject to DM approval, since it's divine magic, and all your DM has to say is "You don't have the faith required to create such an effect," or "Madriel says no."

Funny, I'm getting ready to play a godless cleric. My story is that I was picked up by some other god or powerful creature. I've already told him that he has the power to veto any spells off my list he wishes and he has control over any divine abilities that I have. I'm actually hoping that there are times when my power fails because it goes against the wishes of my unknown sponsor. I look forward to solving the mystery and seeing where things go from there.

Of course, this is a little different from someone who just chooses a generic concept but doesn't really have to be. Just because you don't choose a god doesn't mean that one that matches your ideals doesn't choose you instead. In either case, your options should be more limited and not less IMO.

Shadow Lodge

I prefere clerics without deities. That doesn't mean that they should get away with anything special, but it is almost always a lot more fun and interesting to come up with your own "religion" and philosophy, and also to pick the options that you actually want, rather than "well, I don't really like any of them particularly, but this and that Domain are the one I dislike the least".


Beckett wrote:
I prefere clerics without deities. That doesn't mean that they should get away with anything special, but it is almost always a lot more fun and interesting to come up with your own "religion" and philosophy, and also to pick the options that you actually want, rather than "well, I don't really like any of them particularly, but this and that Domain are the one I dislike the least".

Well, technically one's domain's should match their character concept even if they suck. My main one is Destruction. It's pretty bad. My other one is up to the DM. I'm guessing you weren't talking specifically to me. Just thought I'd throw that in there, though.

EDIT: Whoops, I totally misread you're post. Thought you said "prefer clerics with deities. In fact, scratch everything I said because it doesn't relate to your post in any way. Guess I'm a little off today.

Shadow Lodge

That's true, but deity should have little or nothing to do with it. I don't mean to say a mechanically better or more powerful Domains, but rather that they do what the player wants for a concept. However, if you look at Deity first, than concept, it cuts down options, but not always logically, just mechanically.

Originally, the concept of a non-deity Cleric was so that 1.) to help bypass real life religious issues, and 2.) to allow for religions like Buddhism, which does not worship any deity, (not specifically, nor in a D&D pantheon sense). They just never did much with it. In the 3E Deities and Demigods, they presented a philosophical group for how it was suppossed to work, but I don't think they ever did another afterwards.


Beckett wrote:
Well, Wish can accomplish more. It is not more powerful, but at it's base state, it can do more.

The bases are very different.

Miracle's base can accomplish more than wish's, because wish doesn't have a "do this stuff at no cost whatsoever" base.

Beckett wrote:


Miracle is unlimited, to a point.

So is wish.

Beckett wrote:


As they've pointed out, it is completely up to the deity or religion to dictate what is and not granted. Not so with Wish.

Well, ultimately, the GM decides what deity/religion will allow. And the GM decides how a wish that goes beyond the standard methods will work. So the difference isn't that big.

I was surprised they didn't fix wish. There should be a basic list of abilities the spell can copy without a cost, and that basic list should be very similar to wish's. then have another list that costs money, but is still mostly guaranteed to work. Everything beyond is GM fiat.

I can see only two reasons why this wasn't fixed: The first is simply oversight, and the second is that maybe, this sort of stuff should not get into the hands of spontaneous casters (but that would be a jury-rig at best, as there are already spontaneous divine casters out there, like favoured souls or variant clerics. Not to mention future developments).

Contributor

Beckett wrote:

That's true, but deity should have little or nothing to do with it. I don't mean to say a mechanically better or more powerful Domains, but rather that they do what the player wants for a concept. However, if you look at Deity first, than concept, it cuts down options, but not always logically, just mechanically.

Originally, the concept of a non-deity Cleric was so that 1.) to help bypass real life religious issues, and 2.) to allow for religions like Buddhism, which does not worship any deity, (not specifically, nor in a D&D pantheon sense). They just never did much with it. In the 3E Deities and Demigods, they presented a philosophical group for how it was suppossed to work, but I don't think they ever did another afterwards.

I'd have no trouble with clerics, or for that matter paladins, empowered by a philosophy, except for the trouble that that philosophy generally gets interpreted by the player, rather than the DM. And what this means is that the players who gravitate towards power concepts will suddenly have Clerics of Cheesemonkeyness and Paladins of Brokenation.

That said, I'd allow it if I saw somebody actually wanting to roleplay it, rather than just using it as an excuse to smite everything they don't like.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

PaleRyder wrote:
I'm trying to understand why an arcane caster has to pay a 25,000gp diamond to duplicate a spell using Wish when the cleric doesn't

It was that way in 3.5 edition and Cleric often have a god who performs the miracle?

PaleRyder wrote:
my player's first reaction would be to figure out how long it would take to give everyone +5's across all stats and then prioritize said distribution.

I do this (as a player) in every 3.5 game I've ever played (getting a +5 to one as often as I had 25k over my 17th level.) Which almost always resulted in me being 2 - 3 levels below everyone else.

Making it gold instead of xp severely limits me doing so. Gold is a LOT less readily available as xp.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
PaleRyder wrote:
I'm trying to understand why an arcane caster has to pay a 25,000gp diamond to duplicate a spell using Wish when the cleric doesn't

It was that way in 3.5 edition and Cleric often have a god who performs the miracle?

PaleRyder wrote:
my player's first reaction would be to figure out how long it would take to give everyone +5's across all stats and then prioritize said distribution.

I do this (as a player) in every 3.5 game I've ever played (getting a +5 to one as often as I had 25k over my 17th level.) Which almost always resulted in me being 2 - 3 levels below everyone else.

Making it gold instead of xp severely limits me doing so. Gold is a LOT less readily available as xp.

Right. This is why I'd be concerned about removing Wish's component cost. If you could cast Wish without a component cost at all and had 2 weeks of "downtime" where you could theoretically cast Wish x number of times per day during that downtime I think my players would be using it to buff all their stats for free.

I do understand that the cleric's god is the one who adjudicates the Miracle. However I think it would be rather difficult for the DM to suddenly undo the effects of duplicated spells that were made using Miracle especially if there are quite a few. I believe one of my clerics is planning on memorizing Miracle every day to be used as a flexible spell slot. This is another reason I find it odd that the Cleric doesn't have a component cost to duplicate a spell. The way it stands now, a high level cleric can "dial up" his god X number of times per day and ask him to cast a spell for him. It feels like it cheapens the power and awe of a Miracle to use it like that.

I'm considering creating a separate spell that only mimics the spell duplication portion of Miracle and Wish (that has a much cheaper component cost) for clerics and arcane casters to use and keep the rest of the different uses for the respective spells the same with the high component cost. You could then still duplicate a spell using Miracle or Wish; but it would cost you the hefty component (for both clerics and arcane casters) or you could memorize and cast the other spell at a cheaper price without the high component price (and the resulting class inequality that comes with it as it is written). Does anyone foresee any problems with splitting the spell like that?


PaleRyder wrote:


Right. This is why I'd be concerned about removing Wish's component cost. If you could cast Wish without a component cost at all and had 2 weeks of "downtime" where you could theoretically cast Wish x number of times per day during that downtime I think my players would be using it to buff all their stats for free.

They wouldn't, because that part of wish wouldn't be free.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have wondered about this myself.

If there is supposed to be a RP component to the Miracle then it should be spelled out in the spell description. Any RP reasoning is going to be very subjective to each DM and player.

Ok so the cleric of Desna wants to use miracle duplicate a cloud kill. Sorry that will make the giant butterflys sad.
Oh Cleric of Asmedeus wants to send a plague on a village that refuses to pay tribute? Bring Popcorn.


I did eventually add the xp cost of Limited Wish to Miracle when spell-replicating (300 xp, instead of 5000 xp for the bigger stuff or for Wish). That seemed to work well.

Kinda depends on your player - if they use it a lot (particularly for things like casting the Druid spell "Spellstaff" to have an extra Miracle or Mass Heal around) - it gets to be a bit much.

I can't answer the question of "why is it so", but for anyone having a problem with it, I'd suggest talking to the player, and saying as it is a *miracle* directly from divine sources, it may change in cost with use.


dulsin wrote:

I have wondered about this myself.

If there is supposed to be a RP component to the Miracle then it should be spelled out in the spell description. Any RP reasoning is going to be very subjective to each DM and player.

Ok so the cleric of Desna wants to use miracle duplicate a cloud kill. Sorry that will make the giant butterflys sad.
Oh Cleric of Asmedeus wants to send a plague on a village that refuses to pay tribute? Bring Popcorn.

Technically (and I do mean technically...) a Clerics spells inherently have an RP component. Its called following a god (or these days, an ideal by RAW, although I will admit I'm a jerk, clerics in my game have to follow a god). Most of the time they probably won't mind what your doing...but thats assuming your following your beleifs...been a bad cleric lately, or doing something diametrically opposed to your gods wishes...why should the god allow it?

I dunno...alot of this probably stems for me, from playing for a while, and being a little set in certain beleifs. But daym, Wish is Wish...its something your wishing for. Not divine intervention, not good fortune...just a pure wish.

Miracle on the other hand..."Sarenrae, we are kinda banged up, and that cleric of Asmodeous is really mad...could we get a hand?" And BAM!!! Mass Heal kicks in when you didn't memorize it...divine intervention.

Again, not saying I can point to any one place in RAW to support that, but thats the way my group plays it, both those of us who DM and those of us who don't, since we feel thats whats intended.

Dark Archive

Krigare wrote:
dulsin wrote:

I have wondered about this myself.

If there is supposed to be a RP component to the Miracle then it should be spelled out in the spell description. Any RP reasoning is going to be very subjective to each DM and player.

Ok so the cleric of Desna wants to use miracle duplicate a cloud kill. Sorry that will make the giant butterflys sad.
Oh Cleric of Asmedeus wants to send a plague on a village that refuses to pay tribute? Bring Popcorn.

Technically (and I do mean technically...) a Clerics spells inherently have an RP component. Its called following a god (or these days, an ideal by RAW, although I will admit I'm a jerk, clerics in my game have to follow a god). Most of the time they probably won't mind what your doing...but thats assuming your following your beleifs...been a bad cleric lately, or doing something diametrically opposed to your gods wishes...why should the god allow it?

I dunno...alot of this probably stems for me, from playing for a while, and being a little set in certain beleifs. But daym, Wish is Wish...its something your wishing for. Not divine intervention, not good fortune...just a pure wish.

Miracle on the other hand..."Sarenrae, we are kinda banged up, and that cleric of Asmodeous is really mad...could we get a hand?" And BAM!!! Mass Heal kicks in when you didn't memorize it...divine intervention.

Again, not saying I can point to any one place in RAW to support that, but thats the way my group plays it, both those of us who DM and those of us who don't, since we feel thats whats intended.

I really like this stance on both spells. I would rule (in my game) that you must explicitly speak out your wish in character, starting with the words, "I wish...". then as DM I'll apply the effect to the current situation based upon the spell description and how well the player worded their wish. My players will (generally) NOT be able to specify exactly what effect the spell does in game terms. That's the fickleness of the delightfully universal Wish.

Miracle should be similar (the player doesn't get to specify the effects, only that a Miracle happens), so the effect will be subject to the god's whims, how good of a cleric the player has been in service to said god, and the direness of the situation that brought the request for the miracle forth in the first place.

Shadow Lodge

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
I'd have no trouble with clerics, or for that matter paladins, empowered by a philosophy, except for the trouble that that philosophy generally gets interpreted by the player, rather than the DM.

If you think about it though, isn't that the way it should be? Patron deity is one of the few time when the DM has some sort of control of a players character's view of their own character. It should be, to a point, up to the players interpretation, not the DM's, because it is the player's character.

There is a difference between the DM maintaining a sense of balance (which they should do) and how many times DM's overstep their "control" (mostly minorly in this case), also over interpret what the player should have mostly free reign over.

Shadow Lodge

Krigare wrote:
Most of the time they probably won't mind what your doing...but thats assuming your following your beleifs...been a bad cleric lately, or doing something diametrically opposed to your gods wishes. . . why should the god allow it?

1.) bacause that is how people grow, spiritually and in wisdom, by doing something wrong and realizing it, not by being told "DO NOT DO THIS".

2.) while I do agree to a point, that should be true for all classes.

3.) just because a deity may not agree specifically with something a cleric does, doesn't mean they automatically strip away power. Maybe the deity might think it is unconventional, but works, or maybe wants to see how it works out. Maybe they want the cleric experience it, or maybe the deity understrands exceptions to the rule.

As a player, this idea has always irked me because it cuts down on conceptual options for Divine characters, (mostly). I also really don't like it because one, it cuts down on RP ways for a chartacter to grow, and I really don't think any DM should have that sort of power over a player's character. They don't understand the deities mindset. I am not suggesting that the DM should let divine characters do whatever they want, mind you, but to take a step back. A cleric of Pelor shouln't be raising undead almost ever. So a cleric of Pelor that tries to make a bunch of zombies, uh NO.

But a Cleric of Pelor that as a last ditch effort to save a city raising a few of the dead soldiers, well maybe this once. That to me, is much more fun for both sides, and give the Cleric in question a good in game reason for hating evil necromancy.


Beckett wrote:
Krigare wrote:
Most of the time they probably won't mind what your doing...but thats assuming your following your beleifs...been a bad cleric lately, or doing something diametrically opposed to your gods wishes. . . why should the god allow it?

1.) bacause that is how people grow, spiritually and in wisdom, by doing something wrong and realizing it, not by being told "DO NOT DO THIS".

2.) while I do agree to a point, that should be true for all classes.

3.) just because a deity may not agree specifically with something a cleric does, doesn't mean they automatically strip away power. Maybe the deity might think it is unconventional, but works, or maybe wants to see how it works out. Maybe they want the cleric experience it, or maybe the deity understrands exceptions to the rule.

As a player, this idea has always irked me because it cuts down on conceptual options for Divine characters, (mostly). I also really don't like it because one, it cuts down on RP ways for a chartacter to grow, and I really don't think any DM should have that sort of power over a player's character. They don't understand the deities mindset. I am not suggesting that the DM should let divine characters do whatever they want, mind you, but to take a step back. A cleric of Pelor shouln't be raising undead almost ever. So a cleric of Pelor that tries to make a bunch of zombies, uh NO.

But a Cleric of Pelor that as a last ditch effort to save a city raising a few of the dead soldiers, well maybe this once. That to me, is much more fun for both sides, and give the Cleric in question a good in game reason for hating evil necromancy.

I'm not saying that the DM should be totalitarian in respects to divine characters. I'm not even saying players need to even play clerics as being particularly reverent (especially considering I had one hell of a time playing a smacktalking half elven dweomerkeeper/mage before...even smacktalked Mystra), but I do think that there comes a point when the Dm does need to step in and say "You say your prayer, wave your hands, brandish your holy symbol...and you hear crickets..." because the player is stepping outside the bounds of their ethos.

For example, I had a player in a game playing a cleric devoted to a god of families and protection. The group walked into a bar, saw a couple of thieves ransaking the place, and without looking around for innocents, flamestriked the bar. When he got put up on trial for killing the barkeep and his family, and reckless destruction, he went along, thinking the townspeople would just let him of...when they didn't, he tried to flamestrike the magistrate...yeah, his god told him no...

Thats an extreme case, but it does happen. Gods have a certain outlook, a moral code, and goals. They more than likely don't want their clerics being brainless worshippers (thats what lay people are for...), but I'm fairly certain they do expect a cleric to keep in mind where that power comes from, and not to push things to far.

And by the way...totally dig the cleric of pelor thing, since I've had to do it before myself...like I said...clerics should have some leeway, but not carte blanche.

Shadow Lodge

I agree. I think at worst, it should honestly be an agreement between the player and the DM, unless the player is just completely unreasonable).

I also really like how in earlier editions, it was not suppossed to be an all at once thing. A cleric that kept doing inappropriate things slowly started losing power as a warning. The deity also had less control from the start on what the cleric did. The deity granted the spell to be memorized, not how it was later used.

3E, while it doesn't specifically say this has changed, it implies it more so than against it.


Beckett wrote:

I agree. I think at worst, it should honestly be an agreement between the player and the DM, unless the player is just completely unreasonable).

I also really like how in earlier editions, it was not suppossed to be an all at once thing. A cleric that kept doing inappropriate things slowly started losing power as a warning. The deity also had less control from the start on what the cleric did. The deity granted the spell to be memorized, not how it was later used.

3E, while it doesn't specifically say this has changed, it implies it more so than against it.

Well, I think alot of that has to do with the fact that starting in 3e, they kinda divorced clerics from the need to worship a god. In doing so, they removed the RP check on a clerics powers. Since any cleric could gain their power from worshipping a concept instead of a god, why stick the ones who do follow a god with some burden...

Of course, that leads to discussions like these, so maybe its not all bad...but I think allowing godless clerics was one of the steps into turning the cleric into what it was in 3.5 (which in my opnion, was way overpowered, and I say that having played more than a few 3.5 clerics at a variety of levels). Meh...different groups mileage may vary, but I really think they should have at least tried to stick the genie back into the bottle, and said clerics have to follow a god, with all that entails, and called it a day =)


I had a case once where the I said, "I would like to pray for these spells." and the DM replied, "Yeah um no. This is your spell list for the day, when you recieve these spells a (i don't remember which one) archon comes down from out of nowhere and tells you that (deity) wants you to use these spells today."

I was a little irked, but when I looked I noticed the DM had also given me a few extra spells than normal, and two of higher level than I could normally cast. I almost asked but he gave me a hard look first so I didn't.

Turns out that he gave them because he knew we would need them. Gave me and the other players a bit more of a look at the RP side of things too.

(To be fair the day before when we found a discecrated altar to my god (a battle god) I cleaned it fixed it up then proceeded to scantify it again by having my cleric cut himself to bleed on it (BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!), DM liked)

// back on topic now, just hitting the DM/RP for clerics side issue.

Shadow Lodge

Krigare wrote:
Well, I think alot of that has to do with the fact that starting in 3e, they kinda divorced clerics from the need to worship a god. In doing so, they removed the RP check on a clerics powers. Since any cleric could gain their power from worshipping a concept instead of a god, why stick the ones who do follow a god with some burden...

That's not entirely true. 1st, in the 1st and 2nd ed (core) books I own, there are no deities listed. (There is a small table of example deities for alternate clerics). It does talk about a Cleric's deity, but it is always a very secondary aspect, and does not exclude the idea of getting power from another source. So older D&D concepts, didn't put infaceson the deity at all, it was mostly an alignment thing, and actually a lot more similar to the 3E "philosophy" than patron deity.

Specific worlds, like Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms were the exceptions, where Clerics had to pick a specific deity and deities were listed. However, there are just as many other settings that either had no deities, or did not require it. Ravenloft, Planescape, and Dark Sun come to mind.

In 3E, the intention for divine characters to draw from a philosophy was always intended to be just as restrictive as an established deity worshipping religion. It just that no one ever did anything with it, and most DM's do not require the players to go into depth about what the new faith hold dear.


Beckett wrote:
Krigare wrote:
Well, I think alot of that has to do with the fact that starting in 3e, they kinda divorced clerics from the need to worship a god. In doing so, they removed the RP check on a clerics powers. Since any cleric could gain their power from worshipping a concept instead of a god, why stick the ones who do follow a god with some burden...

That's not entirely true. 1st, in the 1st and 2nd ed (core) books I own, there are no deities listed. (There is a small table of example deities for alternate clerics). It does talk about a Cleric's deity, but it is always a very secondary aspect, and does not exclude the idea of getting power from another source. So older D&D concepts, didn't put infaceson the deity at all, it was mostly an alignment thing, and actually a lot more similar to the 3E "philosophy" than patron deity.

Specific worlds, like Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms were the exceptions, where Clerics had to pick a specific deity and deities were listed. However, there are just as many other settings that either had no deities, or did not require it. Ravenloft, Planescape, and Dark Sun come to mind.

And do you note, that in all three of the ones listed, clerics...indeed, magic and quite a few other things, functioned differently than they did even just out of the core books?

Theres always going to be an exception to any rule, its the nature of exceptions (and indeed, rules!). But rules are written with an intent, and I think on message boards, people probably aught to look at RAI a little more...RAW is fine, but as has been proven countless times over in the past few years, RAW can lead to some serious balance issues, because RAI got thrown out the window.

Shadow Lodge

I think you misundertand what I meant. 1st and 2nd Ed were designed to be played in any setting. Or without a "setting". It's not so much that Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Planescape are exceptions, as (they kind of are now), as much as it wasn't taken for granted that there was a pantheon to choose from. It was just as likely that there was no deity, a single or dual deity, or a pantheon. So the deity cleric link was (probably) deliberatly left vague so it could be used as needed for individual games.

Dark Sun flat out had no deities. In 3E, it required that that be explained in relation to Clerics. In 2Ed, it didn't as much, they just got their powers from an elemental plane.


Beckett wrote:

I think you misundertand what I meant. 1st and 2nd Ed were designed to be played in any setting. Or without a "setting". It's not so much that Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Planescape are exceptions, as (they kind of are now), as much as it wasn't taken for granted that there was a pantheon to choose from. It was just as likely that there was no deity, a single or dual deity, or a pantheon. So the deity cleric link was (probably) deliberatly left vague so it could be used as needed for individual games.

Dark Sun flat out had no deities. In 3E, it required that that be explained in relation to Clerics. In 2Ed, it didn't as much, they just got their powers from an elemental plane.

I got what your point was. And yes, 1st and 2nd ed were very much so more generic than 3rd in the core books (in terms of not referencing a specific game world as default). But that being said, going from memory here, since I don't feel like checking every single one of them, most of the game settings required clerics to follow dieties. You named the most prominent one I can think ofthat didn't, that being Dark Sun...where there are no gods, but then again, Dark Sun rewrote a large portion of the game as far as powerlevel and such went (for the record, Dark Sun was one of the more fun non-standard settings for me, along with Planescape).

Even so, I don't think divorcing the concept of the cleric, a divinely power character, from the divine should be done. Its an opinion, granted, but its mine, so I'm kinda attached to it =)

Shadow Lodge

Krigare wrote:


Even so, I don't think divorcing the concept of the cleric, a divinely power character, from the divine should be done. Its an opinion, granted, but its mine, so I'm kinda attached to it =)

I don't either. This statement though is I think the difference for us. To me, the Divine doesn't = deities. They are part of it, but not the same thing.


Beckett wrote:
Krigare wrote:


Even so, I don't think divorcing the concept of the cleric, a divinely power character, from the divine should be done. Its an opinion, granted, but its mine, so I'm kinda attached to it =)
I don't either. This statement though is I think the difference for us. To me, the Divine doesn't = deities. They are part of it, but not the same thing.

Well, thats more of a metaphysical and philisophical debate...

That being said...if a player wanted to follow a concept or philosophy and derive divinely granted benefits from it, I'd expect them to adhere to those beliefs and philosophies even moreso than a cleric who gets his power fom his god, since concepts and philosophies, on a cosmic divine level, aren't subject to things gods are, like mood changes, having a bad day, or even caring about mortal followers (not that all gods care about mortal followers, but they probably like having their servants around to...like...serve). So I'd say they would be harder to keep happy, since its hard to convice (for example) the concept of Good, that casting an evil spell was justified...its probably not even going to care about your intentions, or even you really...which all leads back to my basic problem with it all...why would they even grant a worshipper power, since they don't need worshippers?

Then again, you could just be a Signer...but I think I threadjacked enough without opening that can of worms =)


I never got the feeling that clerics didn't need a god in any other edition of the game before 3rd. Dark Sun and Planescape were kind of unique in that regard (although I know the Complete Priest's Handbook mentioned clerics of a "concept").

To me, divine does indeed equate to deities, or at least really freaking powerful beings that can alter the universe without thinking about it much. Otherwise I'm not really sure what the point of there being a difference between divine and arcane magic is.


In my game I keep it simple. I remove the component cost for effects that duplicate 8th level spells and under. 25,000 for an Invisibility spell or the like cause you have a wish you havent used but need a much lower power spell you don't currently have access to is too much by far.

So duplicating spell effects 8th and below free just like the divine casters. Now if you want to never breathe again, grow wings permanently, increase a stat or the like, or to really test the GMs patience with something grander. 25,000 seems fine.

Just saying "Its a god granting the spell and a wizard isnt a god" doesnt quite cut it when either can cast a spell of 9th level which the game designers have stated clearly that they believe Wish and Miracle are THAT power level without divine intervention. The priest draws power from the outer planes, the mage from his own force of will, but they can , in EVERY SINGLE OTHER CASE, perform the same feats of magic at the same levels. There is no reason arcanes should get such a massive penalty to what can otherwise be a very handy spell.

either case. Reasonable power , reasonable cost. Major power, Major cost. Simple.


zzzzBUH?


I think it's mostly because clerics already have access to their entire spell list, so spending a 9th to duplicate a lower level spell is less valuable, rather than only have what they've collected for wizards/sorcerers.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Wish vs. Miracle All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.