|
As DMs or GMs we always love to tinker with game mechanics and classes.
With the Pathfinder game, the designers decided to tie Hit Dice to Base Attack Bonus.
So those with the +1 BAB have a d 10 HD, these with the ¾ BAB have a d8 HD, and those with a ½ BAB have a d6 HD. Of course the exception to this pattern is the lovable Barbarian with his d12
I am contemplating doing something similar to Spell casting.
I am not re inventing the wheel here.
If a base class has +1 BAB, they have the Paladin/ ranger spell casting progression
If a base class has +3/4 BAB they get the Bard’s spell casting progression
If a base class has a +1/2 BAB they get the Wizard/ Sorcerer spell casting progression.
Here are some pre existing examples
+1 BAB Paladin, Ragner, Hex Blade
+3/4 BAB Alchemist, Bard Inquisitor, Bladesinger (Magus)
+1/2 BAB Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch
This means that I plan to attack the Cleric, Druid, and Oracle class with a scalpel to see if I can fit them into that pattern.
Im going to start with the cleric. I am suggesting 3 variants.
Combat oriented Cleric.
+1 BAB, Good FT save, Bad RF save, Good will save, Spell casting as Paladin.
Special: Two Domains as cleric, Channel Energy as Paladin.
I have in mind the Holy Warrior from Green Ronin.
+3/4 BAB, Good FT save, Bad Rf Save, Good will Save, Spell Casting as Inquisitor.
Allow acesss to the Cleric/ Oracle spell list. Skills, inspire courage as bard.
I have in mind here, a socially oriented, community leader Parish Priest type.
½ bab, Good FT save, Bad Rf save, Good Will save, Spell casting as cleric/ oracle
Channel energy. Two domains.
A spell casting oriented Cleric or “priest” with the armor and weapon proficiency of a wizard. I am also strongly tempted to give the priest a spell book like a wizard. I am thinking in terms of a monk who is tonsured, cloisterd, and illuminating manuscripts.
I understand I am intentionally replacing the cleric with weaker variants, but I think the cleric is more powerful then most of the other classes.
This is just a bare bones idea, and I am curious to see what other people think. I understand it can use allot of work.
I would appreciate any thoughts or ideas. Thanks.
Personally, I always thought the cleric should have had poor base attack bonus, D8 hit die, but all armor and shields, including tower shield.
I think the combat orienty cleric and the 3/4 bab cleric would almost be pointless. The paladin and inquisitor already do this quite well. You will also find people very hesitant to play your priest version of the cleric.
I wouldnt doubt that the cleric is powerful when optimized, but with 1/2 bab clerics at low level especially will find their contributions in combat extremely limited. The divine spell lists dont have the low level 'impact' spells like grease, sleep, color spray that let them have that big moment of impact. Most low level clerics in my experience cast 1 buff spell and then try to wack things, its only at higher levels when they turn into beasts.
Cut their bab (and thus there HD) and they have to stay out of combat like the wizard. Take a look at the core cleric spell list for 1st and 2nd level spells and imagine if it would be fun if that is essentially all you did in combat. Your full caster cleric becomes entirely a walking bandaid until higher levels when some of the more interesting offensive spells come into play.
If you dont want to have the cleric be able to do both full casting and combat thats your preference, but you need to then give them actual class abilities so they have interesting things to do (especially at low level) during fights.
This also presumably has a HUGE impact on oracles(some of the revalations become essentially pointless) and druids (combat wildshapping becomes more or less pointless and it become exclusively utilitarian).
|
I think the combat orienty cleric and the 3/4 bab cleric would almost be pointless. The paladin and inquisitor already do this quite well. You will also find people very hesitant to play your priest version of the cleric.
I wouldnt doubt that the cleric is powerful when optimized, but with 1/2 bab clerics at low level especially will find their contributions in combat extremely limited. The divine spell lists dont have the low level 'impact' spells like grease, sleep, color spray that let them have that big moment of impact. Most low level clerics in my experience cast 1 buff spell and then try to wack things, its only at higher levels when they turn into beasts.
Cut their bab (and thus there HD) and they have to stay out of combat like the wizard. Take a look at the core cleric spell list for 1st and 2nd level spells and imagine if it would be fun if that is essentially all you did in combat. Your full caster cleric becomes entirely a walking bandaid until higher levels when some of the more interesting offensive spells come into play.
If you dont want to have the cleric be able to do both full casting and combat thats your preference, but you need to then give them actual class abilities so they have interesting things to do (especially at low level) during fights.
This also presumably has a HUGE impact on oracles(some of the revalations become essentially pointless) and druids (combat wildshapping becomes more or less pointless and it become exclusively utilitarian).
I think I tend to agree with most of these points
I worry for your Druid, who already took a HUGE hit from 3.5 to 3.PF. Between the 5 main casting classes, Druid already shores up last place with a sub par spell list. Taking away his ability to ever use wildshape in an offensive manner (reducing BAB & HD) or removing his ability to ever cast offensively (reducing his spell access) would really cripple the class.
Also, keep in mind that the Bard/Inquisitor/Summoner/Alchemist spell lists are built on the assumption that they gain access to spell levels at certain levels. This is why many spells appear earlier on these lists than they do on the "core caster" lists- they'd be getting access to them at the same time. If you change the casting progression of the core casters in any way, just be aware that you *are* upsetting the delicate balance of the game.
It's also worth noting that you are doing significant damage to clerics & druids who choose to play as full casters. Low level cleric magic is very lacking in terms of offensive magic, and druids of all levels will have animal companions that are stronger than themselves- which really means that a druid is losing even more to give up her companion to gain a domain.
I don't inherently disagree with the notion of powering down your divine casters, but you really should be aware of how you're changing the classes at their core. Druids & Clerics won't feel the need to invest in strength at ALL, since they'll never (ever) be useful in melee combat.
I'd suggest offering an additional low level goodie to both classes if they choose to go full caster. Offering both classes an additional domain would be a great, easy solution. Clerics would have the opportunity to grab an offensively oriented domain with a 1st level feature that grants an attack or something. Druids, however, would have the option of an animal companion & a domain or two domains. Clerics would still be losing power, but druids would arguably be about as strong as they are (casting focused, I mean).
I worry for your Druid, who already took a HUGE hit from 3.5 to 3.PF. Between the 5 main casting classes, Druid already shores up last place with a sub par spell list.
How is it sub-par? I'd say between spells like entangle, wall of thorns and whirlwind they have possibly the best crowd control spell list of all (or maaaybe beaten by sor/wiz, but only barely), they've got plenty of decent-to-good buffs and heals, and good utility spells like warp wood and wall of stone. The only department in which they are really lacking is the single target SoS/SoD.
That said I agree it doesn't need a nerf.
I worry for your Druid, who already took a HUGE hit from 3.5 to 3.PF. Between the 5 main casting classes, Druid already shores up last place with a sub par spell list.How is it sub-par? I'd say between spells like entangle, wall of thorns and whirlwind they have possibly the best crowd control spell list of all (or maaaybe beaten by sor/wiz, but only barely), they've got plenty of decent-to-good buffs and heals, and good utility spells like warp wood and wall of stone. The only department in which they are really lacking is the single target SoS/SoD.
That said I agree it doesn't need a nerf.
Well I agree it isnt sub par, but I disagree about them matching the wizard for battlefield control. Entangle only works in areas where there are plants (lot of urban and dungeon environments lack vegitation), and wall of thorns is a 5th level spell. This doesnt even come close to the flexibility and power of the wizard in terms of battlefield control.
I've been playing what is essentially the 1/2 bab, d6 hd cleric for the past few years as a cloistered cleric. Without the ability to function in melee, you spend your combat rounds casting buffing spells, some debuffs, and healing largely. The best self-buffs lose their effectiveness because you don't want to be in melee; that rids you of much of the use of righteous might, divine power, etc. While I enjoy playing my character, it's been a true voyage of discovery figuring out how to remain useful in every combat. I had serious issues with some iron golems because I cannot function in melee, while the standard cleric can. While the clerical spell list is powerful, it lacks the versatility of the wizard's list in terms of what the spell list lets you do. This kind of cleric needs to be prepared to do lots of buffing and general support, because there isn't necessarily much else you can do.
Well I agree it isnt sub par, but I disagree about them matching the wizard for battlefield control. Entangle only works in areas where there are plants (lot of urban and dungeon environments lack vegitation), and wall of thorns is a 5th level spell. This doesnt even come close to the flexibility and power of the wizard in terms of battlefield control.I worry for your Druid, who already took a HUGE hit from 3.5 to 3.PF. Between the 5 main casting classes, Druid already shores up last place with a sub par spell list.How is it sub-par? I'd say between spells like entangle, wall of thorns and whirlwind they have possibly the best crowd control spell list of all (or maaaybe beaten by sor/wiz, but only barely), they've got plenty of decent-to-good buffs and heals, and good utility spells like warp wood and wall of stone. The only department in which they are really lacking is the single target SoS/SoD.
That said I agree it doesn't need a nerf.
Plants are common, though I guess it's up to the DM how much vegetation is needed. I can see in many urban and dungeon settings how it could still be used, for example in "suburban" areas where the streets aren't the best or in a shallow dungeon where roots and the like might hang down. Not to speak of the old "overgrown ruin" kind of dungeon. But yes, there's times when you can't use it; you usually have an idea of that before it happens. And when you can use it, it's IMO one of the best CC spells in the game, considering it's level.
While many druid spells are somewhat circumstantial, the circumstances are often fairly common and you usually have an idea on what to expect. You have to prepare tactically, which I agree is a bit harder for a divine caster who can't prepare in the middle of an adventure, but it's usually quite easy to figure out.
1st level CC spells that are often useful: In foresty areas: Calm animals, entangle. Any time during night, in dungeons, or about any other dark setting: Faerie Fire. In confined spaces (like dungeons): Hydralic Push from the APG. Anytime: Obscuring mist. On 2nd level you have fog cloud, gust of wind, animal trance, summon swarm, and soften earth and stone.
There's a LOT of great druid CC spells, and some of the best aren't on the sor/wiz list.
Realistically, if a 20th level cleric finds himself engaging in melee, there's something very wrong -- either there's no credible threat present and he's just doing it for the exercise, or else he's actively trying to get the party killed. Therefore, whether he has a 3/4 BAB or a 1/2 BAB is almost totally irrelevant.
In 3.5, it mattered a bit more for druids, but now that wild shape has been nerfed, druids really don't need to be engaging in melee, either -- their pets can do it for them, and they're still full casters to boot. Chopping their BAB to 1/2 wouldn't hurt them at all, in any way that would really make a difference.
Realistically, if a 20th level cleric finds himself engaging in melee, there's something very wrong -- either there's no credible threat present and he's just doing it for the exercise, or else he's actively trying to get the party killed. Therefore, whether he has a 3/4 BAB or a 1/2 BAB is almost totally irrelevant.
In 3.5, it mattered a bit more for druids, but now that wild shape has been nerfed, druids really don't need to be engaging in melee, either -- their pets can do it for them, and they're still full casters to boot. Chopping their BAB to 1/2 wouldn't hurt them at all, in any way that would really make a difference.
First of all, I disagree entirely with your idea that druids don't belong in melee. Wildshape, as a class feature, is much weaker than the 3.5 version of it, but still remains a valid choice for character development. With a nerf to BAB it is limited to movement bonuses and various boons.
Secondly, I do agree with 20th level clerics in melee. However, there are 19 levels before that, with the crucial ones being between 1 and 8ish. This nerf reduces the class to a firm supporting role, which destroys a good portion of the cleric's versatility. Also, the lower hit die for both classes is a significant nerf removing roughly 1/4 of their average base hit points.
First of all, I disagree entirely with your idea that druids don't belong in melee.
Like clerics, they have better things to do. They can summon a nature's ally to fight for them -- better than they can do themselves, regardless of BAB -- and still throw battlefield-control spells. A well-played druid is terrifyingly formidable, even with 1/2 BAB, d6 HD.
This nerf reduces the class to a firm supporting role, which destroys a good portion of the cleric's versatility.
In my estimation, that could only be a good thing. When your yard stick for classes is the ranger or bard, no class should be as good at as many things as the cleric is.
Realistically, if a 20th level cleric finds himself engaging in melee, there's something very wrong -- either there's no credible threat present and he's just doing it for the exercise, or else he's actively trying to get the party killed. Therefore, whether he has a 3/4 BAB or a 1/2 BAB is almost totally irrelevant.
In 3.5, it mattered a bit more for druids, but now that wild shape has been nerfed, druids really don't need to be engaging in melee, either -- their pets can do it for them, and they're still full casters to boot. Chopping their BAB to 1/2 wouldn't hurt them at all, in any way that would really make a difference.
Realistically a statistically small portion of campaigns reach 20th level. So claims that Start with 'if a 20th level X...' mean very little to the majority of games.
And whether or not they NEED to engage in melee is not the issue. There is a large portion of the options for both classes that are geared towards it. Calling combat buff spells like divine might, or the wild shape feature irrelevent to the cleric and druid respectively is nonsesne. Yes both classes are perfectly able to focus on non-fighting things at higher levels, but not all clerics and druids do so, and at early levels it is very difficult to do so effectively.
In reading the original 3e DM's manual, divine spells (or at least cleric and druid spells) are designed to be a step behind arcane (Wizard/Sorcerer) spells on purpose.
It's usually a factor of being a spell level behind in range (touch, to close range, to medium, etc), damage (it even had a chart for that), and number of targets they affect.
This means Clerics tend to have single target touch spells, at the level that a Wizard might have a single target ray, or a short ranged cone.
These factors make a non-combat focused Cleric feel hobbled. He is more likely to need to be in close combat (healing, touch attacks, etc), but now has a 1/2 BAB and low HD, and likely low/no defenses.
Also... no normal access to the quick and dirty defenses like Blink and Mirror Image.
If you make a "pure caster" version of a Cleric (which is a laudable goal, we have the 3/4 variant in the Inquisitor, and full BAB version in the Paladin), my suggestion would be to do a massive overhaul of the divine spells.
Basically, the need to be "a step behind" is gone: they are now in the same boat as the wizard/sorcerer: combat weak. There should also be the option to bring up some "automatic" defenses.. expand the Shield Other spell into a themed line of spells (only, for offloading damage to a meat shield, instead of the other way around), etc.
A biggie: add range to the curative and buffing magic right off the bat (this includes things like Bear's Endurance as much as Cure Light Wounds, etc). If getting into the thick of things is going to be painful, then you shouldn't have to wait until high levels when you get "group affecting" magic to get the side benefit of ranged versions of these spells.
We don't see magic missile or color spray being touch range magic, right?
.
Regarding the Druid...
If wildshaping never (and I do mean NEVER) had the opportunity to be mixed with spellcasting (it's an either/or situation), then I can see getting an attack and hitpoint boost from the effect to offset the 1/2 BAB would be adequate.
As an animal, you aren't looking for iteratives anyways, so if you have 1/2 BAB, but a +10 bonus to attack rolls, you are effectively a full bab attacker with your natural attacks.
Now, I'm not sure if he should get the equivalent of a full attack bonus, but perhaps a +1-5 bonus scaling with level, and the option (feats?) to get a higher bonus if you decide to focus on being a combat terror.
Yes, it gives the Druid a fairly large bonus in versatility, a sort of Jekyll and Hyde situation, however his spell list is quite situational already, so if we keep it the way it is (instead of boosting it like I suggest with the cleric), we can justify having this secondary powerful option.
Quite honestly, I never had a problem with the original 3e Druid... even with his 20-30 point bonus to strength or constitution sometimes, however that was before the Natural Spell feat and wildclasped armor and items.
In the effort to 'one-up' the awesomeness of the classes, they accidentally gave the Druid "gamechanger" stuff (completely changed how you played the class abilities), rather than just a neat trick or boon that they gave most other classes. Divine metamagic was a similar situation with the Cleric... I prefer having turn uses means something, rather than need to get an ability that makes them worthwhile.
.
Anyways, that's my stream of thought on the subject.
And whether or not they NEED to engage in melee is not the issue. There is a large portion of the options for both classes that are geared towards it. Calling combat buff spells like divine might, or the wild shape feature irrelevent to the cleric and druid respectively is nonsesne.
You'd be OK with fighters getting spells, then, too? Maybe 3/4 casting, as long as they were still slightly better off in melee, against level-appropriate encounters?
Just checking.Clerics and druids are most effective when NOT in melee. Nevertheless, Monte and Skip loaded them up with melee features. Removing those features wouldn't gimp them pointlessly -- it wouldn't affect the things they're best at (full casting) and would merely limit the secondary things they also do extraordinarily well, a perk which no other class (except debatably the oracle) gets.
|
|
Thank you all for your thoughts. I remember, in 2003, is that now seven years ago? I was at a convention at Stoneybrook College in Long Island NY called I Conn I think. I remember attending a panel discussion with Bill Slavisack, Skip Williams and Monte Cook. I think it was in Feburary, im not sure.
I remember being shown new art for “gimbel” the bard. I remember being told that 3.5 D&D was going to be an improvement over 3.0.
What else, I remember there was an interesting Q&A session after the presentation.
I remember asking Skip Williams if the cleric was more powerful and if that was by design. I admit I don’t remember my exact words, nor do I remember Skip Williams exact words. But I seem to remember he said something like “ yes the cleric is more powerful. It is by design. After all the cleric is the last character roll that is filled, and the DM often has to run one. We gave it more goodies to make it more attractive to play”
Kolokatroni thank you for your suggestions. I agree people would be very hesitant, well they proboboly would not want to play any of the varienats at all.
Your suggeison to give them some more classa ablitleis to give them something else in combat is a good one.
Lathiera thank you for your thoughts as well. I also have been playing “cloistered clerics”.
And yes apart from healing and buffing, their roles in combat is seriously limited.
SimonFitzsimon,
Thank you also for your thoughs. Im not sure what to do with the druid.
Thank you again for all of your thoughts, again this is a hypothetical exorcise in tinkering.
I realize there are lots of problems that can emerge.
One problem I can think of, is that in a traditional four man party, the fighter, cleric, thief and mage ( oops fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard)
Well in a traditional party, the cleric often works as a back up combatant who helps fill in with the fighter, can be an effective rear guard etc.
Thank you for your thoughts. Ill post more when I come up with it.
I also realize it isn’t as simple as giving a character a “bards “ spell casting progression, those characters and paladins and rangers have carefully balanced spell lists.