I can't say that i read the whole thread (some posts were too long), but i think i got the point, so here is my suggestions:
1)What if the cleric loses a "generic" spell slot from each spell level and gains one more domain spell slot (that can be filled by any of the 2 domain spells)?
2)What if the bonus spell slot from having a high wisdom score goes to the cleric's domain spell slot?
Maybe both suggestions could be combined and/or used together? i am not sure, i am just trying to find a way to make each cleric unique without the requirement of the DM's and/or the campaing's help.
|
Or just drop Domain spell slots and Domain spells are just part of the individuals spell list. The idea of not allowing Clerics to step on any other classes toes seems both hypocritical (not saying anyone is, just the idea) as every other class does just that to the Cleric, but also such an easy and good idea.
I've dropped the domain spell slot for clerics and in return let clerics cast their domain spells spontaneously. Players seem to enjoy it, and there is less bookkeeping.
That's a good idea. I can appreciate that rewriting the spell list is a new edition idea rather than an immediate fix, but something simple like your idea establishes a mechanical difference that everyone at the table has to take note of while still staying within the current framework.
There is an easy way around this, just use a higher level domain slot. If I want two Fireballs I'll put one in a 4th level Domain slot and the other in a 3rd level.
Only problem with that is that everyone can do that will all their spells. It does nothing to further the goal of making the domains have more effect on their casting ability than one spell slot/level/day, which is what many people have a problem with. One spell slot/level/day to differentiate your spell casting abilities from those of a cleric of another god is pretty weak mechanically. Fixes like Dr_Noface's go a long way to make the domain spells feel more relevant without overpowering them.
Let's be realistic, if there were that kind of advantages for being a Cleric of the god of Fluffy Bunnies as opposed to the god of Pink Hippopotami, within 6 months everyone would just be making Clerics of that god and nothing else.
I think the exact opposite is true from what people are saying. I think the limitation of mechanical advantages for choosing Fluffibunimus over Hippodaris makes the lesser known, and often more interesting, deities a valid choice, rather than instantly being overshadowed by their brethren.
Seriously, I've seen enough clerics of Pelor in my lifetime. I like Sarenrae a lot, and she's got cool fluff to her, but I don't want it to reach the point where every damn cleric I run across is a member of her clergy.
The "problem" with clerics being bland is not domain slots. Domain slots really are fine as is. They give you access to a little bit of stuff that's often outside of your reach. The things I'd really like to see is a larger selection of "signature spells" like in Gods and Magic, encompassing the smaller deities as well, and there needs to be a reintroduction of divine feats, but for all I know that's coming with Ultimate Magic.
healbot/buffbot
Those two are not the same thing. A good buffer cleric avoids a lot of trouble, and so uses combat time for what he wants most, instead of healing weak, unbuffed friends.
Those two are not the same thing. A good buffer cleric avoids a lot of trouble, and so uses combat time for what he wants most, instead of healing weak, unbuffed friends.
healbot/buffbot
Playing a buffbot is still boring as heck, though, since for most battles, you aren't going to have the luxury of prebuffing your party members, and you run into the problem of the fighter wanting that awesome buff spell with a range of touch, but refusing to stand still long enough for you to get it cast. Both buffbots and healbots tend to be highly abused by the rest of the party, at least in many of the parties I've been in. If you've had better luck, I'm glad to know that at least some players out there are capable of playing as a team rather a bunch of individuals who happen to be working together.
I believe the domains do a good job of seperating divine from other types of spells like arcane, and vice versa. If you were to implement a system where one could borrow from another spell list, it would need to keep the restrictions of the original class, and be cast at a lower level. But realistically, that is too much work, and I think people would settle on clerics having more choices in regards to what is offered by classes like the witch, oracle or inquisitor, where they have hexes, mysteries or judgements.
As to 4E, I like their approach even better (in regards to healing or domains), but that is an entirely different discussion, and is only supported by 4E mechanics and how recent changes affect it.
Or just drop Domain spell slots and Domain spells are just part of the individuals spell list. The idea of not allowing Clerics to step on any other classes toes seems both hypocritical (not saying anyone is, just the idea) as every other class does just that to the Cleric, but also such an easy and good idea.
Not a bad idea! Why not a feat that gives some flexibility...
Domain Spontaneity
Prereqs: Domain spell slots
Benefit: When preparing spells, you may expend any number of domain spell slots. For each slot expended in this way, choose a spell that could have been prepared in that slot. You may spontaneously cast these spells by expending appropriately-leveled spell slots, in addition to any other spells that you could already cast spontaneously.
|
|
I personally don't think a feat should be needed to do what the class aught to be able to do anyway. But that's just me. I can see it as a 2nd or 3rd level class feature, another issue I have with the class, but i really don't want another feat that 75%+ clerics basically need to take like selective channeling and combat casting. Might just be my opinion though.
I believe the domains do a good job of seperating divine from other types of spells like arcane, and vice versa. If you were to implement a system where one could borrow from another spell list, it would need to keep the restrictions of the original class, and be cast at a lower level. But realistically, that is too much work, and I think people would settle on clerics having more choices in regards to what is offered by classes like the witch, oracle or inquisitor, where they have hexes, mysteries or judgements.
*cough* the witch is an arcane class *cough*
Well it was just an example of in-class abilities versus a domain overhall.
Playing a buffbot is still boring as heck, though, since for most battles, you aren't going to have the luxury of prebuffing your party members, and you run into the problem of the fighter wanting that awesome buff spell with a range of touch, but refusing to stand still long enough for you to get it cast. Both buffbots and healbots tend to be highly abused by the rest of the party, at least in many of the parties I've been in. If you've had better luck, I'm glad to know that at least some players out there are capable of playing as a team rather a bunch of individuals who happen to be working together.
The range thing is more a player problem I guess.
Moreover, you are not forced to be only a buffer. Wanna be a wear cleric? take domains accordingly, and then buff yourself and allies. ALLIES SHOULD BEHAVE ACCORDINGLY OR JUST SHUT UP.
Then, bash in the head people and cure just in case of unluck, a row of crits and so on.
Wow. Really sold on the perfection of the cleric, huh?
Unfortunately, when I look at published adventures, AP, and the other options, its almost universal; clerics have one purpose: healbot. Even buffbot is only if you have a party that manages to avoid getting routinely slaughtered every fight. So, while it may be possible to create other types of clerics by the rules, it isnt practical. Unless you like seeing your character (and party) die. ALOT. Like so many other parts of the game, (*cough craft cough*) sure its cool as hell conceptually, but under the current rules and style of play, as the adventures and everything is set up, its as useful as nipples on a boar hog.
Well if that's what you want to be sure. I've seen other clerics do just fine, from battle clerics (with domains, not the campaign setting stuff) to 'pure caster' clerics, to 'jack of all trades' clerics, to 'ranged cleric' and even 'healbot/buffbot cleric' all of these I've seen successfully played and they all looked, played and acted completely different, with different domains, different deities and different feats, personalities, and outcomes.
I don't see how the cleric does any worse at playing differently than any other class.
I won't say the cleric is perfect -- it isn't -- but it is mechanically sound, filled with just as much role play potential as any other base class, such as barbarian, bard, monk, ranger, fighter, rogue, wizard, or sorcerer.
Since channel energy exists now, the cleric doesn't have to spend his actual spells on healing. And he shouldn't be performing much healing in-combat anyway; most things a cleric can do in combat will be more effective than casting a cure spell. After combat, if the channel energy isn't sufficient, most parties should have a wand of clw. And by then, the cleric will know which spells he didn't need during the combat, and can convert them to cure spells if necessary.
No reason to play a cleric as a healbot unless that's what you really want.
Well, its not what I want to be, no. In my group, we have to draw straws to see who's the gimp this campaign.
Because when we play a published adventure, clerics wind up with the same job they've had since 1st ed: healbot.
Hm... seems to be a problem at your table -- does the fighter complain if the monster doesn't fly in range of his great sword too?
War cleric?
As an example, a player of mine found a good combo with subdomains ( with destruction and strenght IRRC) to add 1/2 level 2X times /day to damages, or full level X times, where X is the wisdom modifier. A sort of smite.
This makes the Cleric good for a reasonable amount of time/day. One could complain to obtain more, but seeing buffs, heals, utility, conjurations, one could wonder about why should one play a fighter if the cleric were good as the fighter in fighting all the day long.
be careful of what you wish for. Efreet didn't teach you anything ;) ?
You originally said wear cleric. Just seeing if it was a typo.
ROTFL
my apologies :D
Now I want to figure out a Wear domain.. and if it has seasonal subdomains!
Well if that's what you want to be sure. I've seen other clerics do just fine, from battle clerics (with domains, not the campaign setting stuff) to 'pure caster' clerics, to 'jack of all trades' clerics, to 'ranged cleric' and even 'healbot/buffbot cleric' all of these I've seen successfully played and they all looked, played and acted completely different, with different domains, different deities and different feats, personalities, and outcomes.
I don't see how the cleric does any worse at playing differently than any other class.
I won't say the cleric is perfect -- it isn't -- but it is mechanically sound, filled with just as much role play potential as any other base class, such as barbarian, bard, monk, ranger, fighter, rogue, wizard, or sorcerer.
Well, its not what I want to be, no. In my group, we have to draw straws to see who's the gimp this campaign.
Because when we play a published adventure, clerics wind up with the same job they've had since 1st ed: healbot.
Are you kidding?
I am playing in Kingmaker (currently 4th book) and the cleric of our 4-man party was until recently* a waste of space healbot/wanna be battle cleric, and now it's just an uneeded battle cleric because he doesn't know how to play a cleric well, even if the character is sound.*(the DM let him re-make his character sheet, or rather let us re-make his character sheet)
I am going to stand with Abraham on this and say that there must be a problem in your table.
The urban druid has a very interesting ability.
"Spontaneous Casting: An urban druid can channel stored spell energy into domain spells that she has not prepared ahead of time. She can “lose” a prepared spell in order to cast any domain spell of the same level or lower. This ability replaces the ability to spontaneously cast summon nature's ally spells."
The interesting part comes from interpretation. Under the strictest interpretation, the urban druid can cast "any domain spell" in place of a prepared spell. The rules do not restrict the PC to domains they have, for example, or to druid prepared spells. For example, a urban druid 1 / wiz 7 could spontaneously cast a Chaos Hammer spell in place of a prepared Dimension Door, because the Chaos Hammer is "any domain spell" and the dim door is "a prepared spell."
If you limit "any domain spell" to "any spell from a known domain," then the urban druid 1 / wiz 7 could still spontaneously cast a 4th level spell from the druid's one domain in place of a wizard spell.
If you limit "any domain spell" to "any spell from a known domain that the PC can cast," then the urban druid 1 / wiz 7 could still spontaneously cast a 1st level spell from the druid's one domain in place of a wizard spell.
Even under this restricted interpretation, an urban druid 1 / cleric 7 could spontaneously cast all his cleric domain spells.
If you limit "a prepared spell" to "a prepared druid spell" then what about casting cleric domain spells using druid prepared spell slots?
But if you went to the player who tried this and told him, "This only applies to spontaneously casting druidic domain spells only in place of a prepared druid spell" ... well, would the player's howls of outrage be unjustified, as he cried, "The rules say ANY Domain Spell, ANY! How can 'ANY' mean 'from a single known druidic domain'? How can 'a prepared spell' mean 'a prepared druid spell'?"
How would you interpret the urban druid's Spontaneous Casting ability, and what would you say to a player who wants to use a literal interpretation of the rules as written?
|
IMHO, you understimate domains and what wake up in the morning choosing froma whole spell list really means. YMMV of course.
This is the critical point. Make clerics learn spells like wizards do. Have them pick two spells per level plus whatever they can pick up. Make the maintain a Prayerbook of spells. The two clerics will be very different. Then you can put your domain spell in any slot because your total spells are limited. All that and you can make any of your spells into a heal. Clerics have zero reason to complain. None. Full spell casting, full list access on leveling, 3/4 BAB, can wear even full plate (with a feat) and still cast, get all simple weapons, d8 HD. Waaaaa waaaaa waaaaah. Cry some more.
If I could as a wizard get just half of what clerics already get I would dance naked in the streets (which no one wants to see).
Dave Gillam says, "Unfortunately, when I look at published adventures, AP, and the other options, its almost universal; clerics have one purpose: healbot. Even buffbot is only if you have a party that manages to avoid getting routinely slaughtered every fight. So, while it may be possible to create other types of clerics by the rules, it isnt practical."
I suggest that if you make a non-healbot cleric ... maybe a diplomacy/enchanter cleric, or a tank/melee cleric, or any other build that de-emphasizes healing ... and if you are dying every adventure, then perhaps you need to talk to the DM, because clearly he is selecting / writing the wrong adventures.
Find a DM, I suggest, who takes PC capabilities in mind when crafting what the heck it is you do every Friday night. A party consisting entirely of rogues and bards should be just fine if the DM makes the right kind of adventures. Honestly, given the many many rogue and bard specialization options in the APG, I think a campaign like that, limited to just rogues and bards, would be extremely enjoyable.