Not if your GM says no
That's true of everything, though. If the GM says that Fighters aren't allowed to use melee weapons, then in this campaign they aren't allowed to use melee weapons. But that doesn't mean Fighters inherently suck at melee because they're only allowed to use ranged weapons.
From what I've seen, while the No Devotion isn't used all that often, it's not banned very commonly either - certainly not to the extent of something like Leadership or Master Summoner.
Not if your GM says noThat's true of everything, though. If the GM says that Fighters aren't allowed to use melee weapons, then in this campaign they aren't allowed to use melee weapons. But that doesn't mean Fighters inherently suck at melee because they're only allowed to use ranged weapons.
From what I've seen, while the No Devotion isn't used all that often, it's not banned very commonly either - certainly not to the extent of something like Leadership or Master Summoner.
It's a way for players to cherry pick domains and not worry about your deity getting p*ssed of and stripping you of your powers. It also a way to ignore alignment and play true N and still getting "the best" domains.
So yes, I have no problem see if a GM says no.This thread is not about winning, I hope. Nor is it a 'Cleric suck thread'. It about understanding why some don't like to play the cleric. Not everybody have to like the Cleric or want to play one. Some obviously don't and if you and others pay attention you might learn why.
I honestly don't understand it. I guess it comes from a perceived role the cleric is supposed to play("stand back and heal the real heroes").
In our groups we don't pigeon hole a cleric into anything. We almost have one. Yes we love the heals if that's what the character wants to do. But we just as often have a cleric who uses CC/Buffs, or a melee powerhouse. Clerics are a great class. Mid BAB, Full Casters, Easy Spell selection, and great RP based on your Deity.
The only thing I can think of is the "expected roll" thing.
I love clerics. Always have. I guess I enjoy the idea of having some personal connection to something bigger than my character. Not being a particularly religious person in real life, I found it fun to play a character who did, in fact, have unshakeable faith in some entity, even if he didn't get to directly communicate with said entity (until he could cast Commune).
A great deal of variety exists in possible character types for a cleric, too. I had a Forgotten Realms cleric/Techsmith(a unique PRC for the faith) who was a human (raised in a Gnomish community) worshiper of Gond who walked around with a +2 Holy Musket and a construct sidekick named Lucky.
And, lets be honest, I love having the power over life and death. Good times.
Orthos, if you're looking for a spontaneous casting druid, check out The Expanded Shaman from Open Design.
Give me a spont-casting Druid equivalent and I'll probably write all three base Vancian casters out of the game (and rewrite Witch, I like the flavor of the class and the Hexes to much to drop, just need to make them a spont-caster).Sorry, I'm catching up on this thread and going back to page 1 but I gotta answer this:
Orthos, the spont-casting Druid equivalent is called the Shaman. It's been around for a bit, with good reviews, and it does exactly what you are asking for.
Danke!! Purchased! =D
So much potential in clerics, I too have to play them more. Especially Golarion's minor faiths, they are very good and far more interesting than the major ones.
I honestly don't understand it. I guess it comes from a perceived role the cleric is supposed to play("stand back and heal the real heroes").
In our groups we don't pigeon hole a cleric into anything. We almost have one. Yes we love the heals if that's what the character wants to do. But we just as often have a cleric who uses CC/Buffs, or a melee powerhouse. Clerics are a great class. Mid BAB, Full Casters, Easy Spell selection, and great RP based on your Deity.
The only thing I can think of is the "expected roll" thing.
Yeah, they are sometimes assumed to be the heal-bot. I've seen nasty offensive clerics done well, with some scary spells and summons. Also seen the old fighter cleric reliant on self-buffing, that went well too until he got crushed by a giant snake. Cleric rogue is a treasure hunter for his church, with some added abilities over the standard rogue. Cleric barb works for Lamashtu and Rovagug.
... Kydeem De'Morcaine, Please forgive my ignorance...but I am not sure I quite understand why some people would feel guilty for roleplaying a cleric? How does adding modern religions to the game help?
I suppose my base assumption would be, by keeping the elements of a game world imaginary or rather made up, rather then using a real world religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, (I am sure there are many others) you would avoid inadvertently offending another player.
I remember one time a few years ago, I was playing a 3.5 D&D game at my local gaming store, and I made a dread necromancer, i decided to call him Shaitan. I remember that was the name of the big bad evil god in the Wheel of Time book series.
One of the players next to me told me that I had used the arabic name for Satan. He was a Muslim. I asked him if the name i had picked for my character made him feel uncomfortable. He said yes.....so I picked another name....Mr. Morden.....or something like that.
I just thought it was a good idea to steer clear of real world religions.
So I am curious would some people feel guilty for roleplaying a cleric? How does adding modern religions to the game help?
please forgive this stupid qusiton...thanks ...
Not a stupid question and I probably did not explain it well.
I know for a fact that at least 5 people that I have gamed with over the last 25+ years have a problem with this. I wouldn't call it wides spread, but it does occur.Some people may not want to get involved with this discussion so:
They have just said they don't like clerics, paladins, inquisitors, rangers, etc... When you actually get them talking (often after a couple of beers). They feel guilty pretending to worship something other than their real life religion. Maybe they had real judgemental families, fire-n-brimstone preachers, listened to to many stories about DnD leading to devil worship, whatever. I don't know. But the pretending to worship something seemed a bit too close to blasphemous for them.
On 2 occasions we had added in a way to sort of address this. Jimmy Joe made cleric Bob. Bob believed that all the good 'gods' were just angels working with the real God named Jehovah. All the good religions were just various religious orders like the Hospitaliers.
Flip for the evil gods. It's been a few years and I don't remember how we handled all the neutral dieties.
JJ did some research and tried to run Bob as close to the old Jesuits as he could figure. He would quote bible passages in discussions. Bob would try to 'educate' those 'slightly misguided' short people that worshiping Moradin isn't quite right. He is really a servant of the Great All-God Jehovah. But Moradin still deserves veneration for his service to Jehovah. Etc...
I'm sure it won't work for everybody. But it seemed to work for 2 out of the 5 that I know were having the issue.
I had a player pretty much exactly like Kydeem describes, except he wasn't even okay with the "they're servants of a higher power" thing. He just never played divine casters or overly-religious characters as a result. He tried playing one a few times, but always eventually got uncomfortable with it and switched.
|
THat sounds strangely similar to what my parole officer told me.That restriction is common to several published campaign settings. It's not unreasonable for a GM to impose it on a custom campaign setting either. If you can't live with that sort of minor setting based restriction you may not be cut out to play a social game like Pathfinder.Not if your GM says noThere is also the 'No Devotion' option.Not if your GM says no.
You can be an Atheist cleric
Then the GM is a dick and those kind of restrictions would be why nobody plays clerics.
I have seen a group where noone plays a bard because the GM makes them sing songs in order to use the bard performance ability. Stupid restrictions makes people not want to play.
It's nice to see such high-minded debate.
I think many GMs don't permit nondenominational clerics because it just seems hollow and weird. Like someone wanted the powers but not the related RP. It also implies that the believer clerics' power might also not actually be coming from the god, just the alignment niche the god set up his home in. I'm one of those GMs.
On the other hand, when playing a cleric, you don't want to be playing the GM's religious script. It's important to have room to find your own take on your faith. The most enjoyable priest I ever played was with a GM that gave me a lot of free room to interpret my faith. He did likewise with other clerics; we had several priests of the same faith in the party (with some fatalities in between), and they had some similar and some quite different points of doctrine/style.
Of course, that was in a second edition game, where priests had radically different spells per god, due to selecting spells from spheres. I do regret that idea hasn't been used in PF.
In a setting like Eberron where the deities are more vague and impersonal forces, non-religious clerics are somewhat fitting; likewise in settings where the individual deity is less important than the ethos they represent, and one can have the moral or ethical faith without the dogma or religious indoctrination of a church.
In other settings where the gods are more involved, such as Golarion, Forgotten Realms, or my own custom setting, divine power is pretty firmly in the hands of the powers that be, minus a few plot-relevant exceptions. Thus if you're going to play a divine caster, you need a conduit from which to draw - and usually the gods will require at the very least acts of devotion before they start handing you power on a silver platter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in some cases, "divine" magic can be thought of as not being "Faith based" at all. But it really depends on how it's explained. And some methods of explanation that don't count as "Faith" happen to make my eyes roll.
Here's a couple of examples off the top of my head:
-The cleric Contacts the god for Boons, the god says yes. And thus the Cleric becomes a glorified phone line to the gods... It's not based on "Faith" but rather the ability to convince a higher power to help out... *sigh*
-The cleric gains powers through understanding, channeling and manipulation of the workings of another plane of existence, and they are allowed access to it by a higher being who shares a philosophy with them.Technically neither of those examples run off of "Faith"... But now that I think about it, one essentially makes Clerics useless pawns that need divine intervention to get anything done, and the other essentially makes them glorified Wizards that need permission to perform magic.
...
Well... it's always possible to have clerics be without a god. And they get their powers by studying a concept which they get powers from by their understanding of it... In which case they would be Oracles, except working with their powers in the same way as a wizard... Oh wait, that really would make them glorified wizards wouldn't it?
GAH! I may as well have my campaigns give up all pretense and just call Clerics "white Wizards" who gain their "divine" powers by channeling magic from a mass of energy from the outer planes being held inside a gyro-scope! or glass sphere! Or stored inside their Body!
-Actually that doesn't sound so bad.
The bolded text describes an alternate cleric class that I've been working on periodically since I bought the APG and saw the antipaladin. I don't see "divine" magic (mostly defensive & utility spells cast through armor) as originating from deities, but rather from the cosmos. Could be a natural resource floating through galaxies or some weird Lovecraftian connection--either way the caster receives their spells through meditation as this unusual energy is drawn in.
I have a problem with any class pulling their power from an entity that can cut them off; nothing is appealing about a class like that. I've had to rework the logic behind summoners and witches to sort out such problems as well. For many, fantasy gaming is empowerment and nothing detracts from that like becoming a servant of something just to cast spells.
|
|
In the setting I'm working on, the gods are pretty distant. In fact, they can't directly interfere in the world, they have to act through clerics.
Clerics are people trained in receiving and directing divine power. A cleric can actually defect to a different god; getting a high-level cleric to convert is actually a real coup for a god.
I'm looking to create clerics that can actually talk back to their deity, that have a bit of a negotiation position.
|
I'm looking to create clerics that can actually talk back to their deity, that have a bit of a negotiation position.
Some real world religions had priests not just imploring their gods, but flat out commanding them to perform various tasks, and appealing to various gods, even antithetical gods, in the same 'prayer.'
The notion of a priest as being a doormat or lickspittle is certainly not the only possibility for role-play. Being a cleric/druid tends to require a high willpower, and it wouldn't be out of line for at least some of them to be pretty arrogant, in a world where 'gods' are known to sometimes be uppity outsiders done good, and sometimes be drunk mortals who staggered into the wrong building looking for a place to throw up.
This thread feels odd to look at. My first ever character was a Half-Elf Cleric of Pelor back in the days of 3.5e, and I've made a Pathfinder version of her that worships Sarenrae as well. Hell, I'm jewish and I see no problem with playing characters who have faith. Then again, my own lack of faith (somewhat cynical agnostic that I am) might just make it that much easier.
|
... Kydeem De'Morcaine, Please forgive my ignorance...but I am not sure I quite understand why some people would feel guilty for roleplaying a cleric? How does adding modern religions to the game help?
I suppose my base assumption would be, by keeping the elements of a game world imaginary or rather made up, rather then using a real world religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, (I am sure there are many others) you would avoid inadvertently offending another player.
I remember one time a few years ago, I was playing a 3.5 D&D game at my local gaming store, and I made a dread necromancer, i decided to call him Shaitan. I remember that was the name of the big bad evil god in the Wheel of Time book series.
One of the players next to me told me that I had used the arabic name for Satan. He was a Muslim. I asked him if the name i had picked for my character made him feel uncomfortable. He said yes.....so I picked another name....Mr. Morden.....or something like that.
I just thought it was a good idea to steer clear of real world religions.
So I am curious would some people feel guilty for roleplaying a cleric? How does adding modern religions to the game help?
please forgive this stupid qusiton...thanks ...
Not a stupid question and I probably did not explain it well.
I know for a fact that at least 5 people that I have gamed with over the last 25+ years have a problem with this. I wouldn't call it wides spread, but it does occur.Some people may not want to get involved with this discussion so:
** spoiler omitted **...
Kydeem thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
I think i have seen something like what you have mentioned with cleric "bob". From reading the Chronicles of Narnia, i think that Aslan the lion was essentialy Jesus he was just known by a different name in a different world. I seem to remember Aslan turning into a lamb at the end of Voyage of the Dawn Treader. In that series all of the more "minor" gods like Baccus, and all of the tree spirits, the dryads and nyads, the "river" god, they all were servants of Aslan son of the Emperor Beyond the sea". I seem to remember Korearkin, a wizard, ( and a fallen star), in the voyage of the dawn treader, referred to himself as the "least of your servants' when talking to Aslan.
Anyways, thank you for taking the time to answer my question
In our group, it's mostly because the players view clerics as 'the bible thumpers'. Considering that none of them are overly interested in the religion aspect of the game, it tends to be overlooked.
Personally I love clerics, but maybe I'm crazy.
In our group, it's mostly because the players view clerics as 'the bible thumpers'. Considering that none of them are overly interested in the religion aspect of the game, it tends to be overlooked.
That is my feeling as well and most of my group's. I also cannot stand Paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed playing my negative energy, madness/repose domain cleric. I used touch attacks with the madness/repose and de-buffed the enemy easily. He was well loved by the party, the mages got the save or sucks off better, or the fighter only had 1 attacks to worry about.
But that is the only type of cleric i like. Healbots are hideous IMO. And i hate the idea of casting 1-4 spells prior to getting into combat, so melee clerics don't appeal to me. If it wasn't for the de-buffer, i would not touch the cleric with a 10' pole.
The other problem the cleric has is a lack of zest when gaining a level. Paladins (as an example)get mercies, grace, enchanted weapons, etc everytime they gain a level. This gives you something to look forward to. Clerics get an extra spell, and upgrades to abilities they got at 1st level. that isn't very exciting.
I enjoyed playing my negative energy, madness/repose domain cleric. I used touch attacks with the madness/repose and de-buffed the enemy easily. He was well loved by the party, the mages got the save or sucks off better, or the fighter only had 1 attacks to worry about.
But that is the only type of cleric i like. Healbots are hideous IMO. And i hate the idea of casting 1-4 spells prior to getting into combat, so melee clerics don't appeal to me. If it wasn't for the de-buffer, i would not touch the cleric with a 10' pole.
The other problem the cleric has is a lack of zest when gaining a level. Paladins (as an example)get mercies, grace, enchanted weapons, etc everytime they gain a level. This gives you something to look forward to. Clerics get an extra spell, and upgrades to abilities they got at 1st level. that isn't very exciting.
I had a character that was very similar to that except he was a Witch. I find that any concept (even healbot) other than armored priest can be done better by the Witch class.
I had a character that was very similar to that except he was a Witch. I find that any concept (even healbot) other than armored priest can be done better by the Witch class.I enjoyed playing my negative energy, madness/repose domain cleric. I used touch attacks with the madness/repose and de-buffed the enemy easily. He was well loved by the party, the mages got the save or sucks off better, or the fighter only had 1 attacks to worry about.
But that is the only type of cleric i like. Healbots are hideous IMO. And i hate the idea of casting 1-4 spells prior to getting into combat, so melee clerics don't appeal to me. If it wasn't for the de-buffer, i would not touch the cleric with a 10' pole.
The other problem the cleric has is a lack of zest when gaining a level. Paladins (as an example)get mercies, grace, enchanted weapons, etc everytime they gain a level. This gives you something to look forward to. Clerics get an extra spell, and upgrades to abilities they got at 1st level. that isn't very exciting.
I tihnk I wuold add archer cleric to that list as well.
My favorite cleric in recent memory was a bad touch cleric. I went with the chaos domain and death. I could self heal while damaging others, inflict bleed on touch attacks, and cause the DM to hate me when ever he tried to make saves against the wizard.
|
Clerics tend to have the least amount of new options/toys of any class in any new book, too, which doesn't help. Their mechanics are pretty boring, and there are entire spell levels that are very unappealing.
I like Clerics, because I like playing the concept of a divine warrior, but I really don't like how Paizo handled it. I think that Paizo really dropped the ball when it comes to the Pathfinder Cleric.
In my opinion, 4E has done it th best to date, (and I really do not like 4E), followed by Eberron, (again, not really a fan), and Pathfinder Beta. 3E has always kind of placed the Cleric class intoa really wierd gap.
They are not enough full casters to really utilize most caster related options, (metamagic outside of like 2 options), do not get any bonus Feats, and are so limited in Skills, BaB, <Class Features>, and are the most MAD dependent class in the game, that it makes it both difficult to focus (while still maintaining their base role), and also tends to mean the gain Feats too late to really be effective. Add in that they essentually have a few Feat Taxes, (Selective Channeling, Heavy Armor, Extra Channeling, Combat Casting, depending on your build), is very unappealing, mechanically.
And essentually, all the choices are made at level one, again, I think bad design. But like I said, I still like the concept. I'm not at all a fan of mandaiting a setting deity, as that robs me of a lot of the fun for creating a character.
After reading four pages of posts, I think I'm coming to a new conclusion:
People are reluctant to play clerics because they're bad at building them.
I know I am!! :D
I like Clerics, because I like playing the concept of a divine warrior, but I really don't like how Paizo handled it. I think that Paizo really dropped the ball when it comes to the Pathfinder Cleric.
I am of exactly opposite stance. I disliked Clerics for along time as some sort of divine warrior and would much prefer to get decent robe-wearing Priest more similar to full casters like Wizards, Witches and so on instead. I think that Pathfinder did a few steps in the right direction but not nearly enough.
In my opinion, 4E has done it th best to date, (and I really do not like 4E)
Here I agree... Invoker!
I'm not at all a fan of mandaiting a setting deity, as that robs me of a lot of the fun for creating a character.
I think that gaining power from deity is the core part of the cleric - so wanting to play deity-powered class without deity is a bit like wanting to play magic-less wizard, IMO. Of course deity does not have to be a personal god, depending upon world the game takes place.
... 3E has always kind of placed the Cleric class intoa really wierd gap.
They are not enough full casters to really utilize most caster related options...
I've always felt that clerics/oracles really need to be split into 2 classes.
One a full caster on par with wizards/sorcerers. Little armor and weapons full casting with bonuses to it.
One a hybrid more like the magus. Armor, weapon, and fighting options to go alongside some spells.
Instead what we have is:
Cleric which is almost a full caster. But without alot of the benefits we are growing to expect casters to have.
Paladin which is (imo) to close to a straight martial. They get a few neat spells, but by the time they get them the character is solidly into weapon fighting world almost exclusively.
I understand how it grew to that point from 1st edition. But I think it could be done better.
1. When they are represented they are often the bad guy. Also, when Salvatore made one a 'hero', he made him -- words fail me. And when you read those cleric books you wonder if Salvatore was just filling word count. Drizzt was at least a little entertaining.... Really? I enjoyed Cleric Quintet MUCH more than the Drizzt stuff. Granted that was mostly for Danica and the Bouldershoulder brothers, but Cadderly had his moments.
I really hated Salvatore's naming conventions. A (brain-damaged) dwarf druid named "Pickle" I guess I can overlook. But....
Cordio
Muffinhead.
I put the book in the fireplace. Literally.
No dwarf worth his beard will name their child like that. Ever. And no dwarf child will accept such a horrid name. Blood will run in the Halls before such an abomination occurs again.
I don't recall either of those two, but it's been years since I read.
|
|
I am of exactly opposite stance. I disliked Clerics for along time as some sort of divine warrior and would much prefer to get decent robe-wearing Priest more similar to full casters like Wizards, Witches and so on instead. I think that Pathfinder did a few steps in the right direction but not nearly enough.
Yes! Robes, not plate, and full-on magic/inspirational speaking abilities instead of weapons.
Maybe an interesting idea for an Archetype? Give up Light/Medium Armor Proficiency, apply Arcane Spell Failure Chance to spellcasting, but get enough non-weapon stuff to do to never run out. More channeling, channeling in cone or line shapes, preaching abilities along the lines of bardic performance, exorcism...
|
|
[guote=Drajk]
I'm not at all a fan of mandaiting a setting deity, as that robs me of a lot of the fun for creating a character.I think that gaining power from deity is the core part of the cleric - so wanting to play deity-powered class without deity is a bit like wanting to play magic-less wizard, IMO. Of course deity does not have to be a personal god, depending upon world the game takes place.
I disagree.I rhink there are plenty of options outside of a deity, and Paizo already has a few that where retroactively changed ro no longer exist. But Im talking about something else really. What Im suggesting was to leave the particulars of the faith in the hands of the player similar to how a Wizard or Fighter has free reign to create their own schools or means of training. The base assumption, in my opinion should be that a Cleric and the DM (and Paladin, Druid, etc. . .) should work together to establish the religion/deity/etc. Thats part of the fun of character creation. I also really do not care for the vast majority of Golarion deities.
... in my opinion should be that a Cleric and the DM (and Paladin, Druid, etc. . .) should work together to establish the religion/deity/etc. Thats part of the fun of character creation. I also really do not care for the vast majority of Golarion deities.
Well I'm not really enchanted with the Golarian dieties either, but I just do not have the time to devise my own pantheon along with churches, dogma, teachings, practicies, expectations, etc...
Now if one of my players wants to design his own faith (or modify existing) that is in line with the current ones, I have no problems incorporating that into the campaign.
The key here is 'in line with the current ones.' However, every time it was just an excuse to get all the 'best' domains, with no restrictions on behavior, and no significant responsibilities that the characters wouldn't be doing already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree.I rhink there are plenty of options outside of a deity,
This is a matter of personal view of the divine magic. Myself I would gladly see the division between arcane and divine magic gone with divine casters being those who made a pact with deity of sorts (probably represented by a feat granting access to deity-specific spells and tree of deity-related abilities).
Want to be a caster that follows some weird philosophy? Suit yourself.
and Paizo already has a few that where retroactively changed ro no longer exist.
Generic Pathfinder Cleric does not have to worship deity, he can worship certain ideal of philosophy. Only Golarion-specific clerics have to worship specific deities.
But Im talking about something else really. What Im suggesting was to leave the particulars of the faith in the hands of the player similar to how a Wizard or Fighter has free reign to create their own schools or means of training. The base assumption, in my opinion should be that a Cleric and the DM (and Paladin, Druid, etc. . .) should work together to establish the religion/deity/etc. Thats part of the fun of character creation.
Really, this is matter of (a) level of development of particular setting and (b) the degree of free form play the GM wants to introduce. I am not adverse to the idea itself. I am just currently focusing on pre-estabilished settings (mostly Forgotten Realms, with eye on Eberron). Still, I am quite open to players inventing rituals, codes and even sects within preestabilished faiths.
Also, you might find 13th Age interesting - it's "setting" is intended to be more open than "conventional" settings like Golarion, Toril, Krynn or Oerth and the very character creation process gives players greater influence ona shape of the setting as the players and GM negotiate PCs links to the settings iconics - legendary people and entities of the 13th Age world.
I also really do not care for the vast majority of Golarion deities.
Yeah, also there is too few of them for decent pantheon ;)
I also really do not care for the vast majority of Golarion deities.Yeah, also there is too few of them for decent pantheon ;)
This is one thing I like about my setting. I can think of seven pantheons off the top of my head that have a decent presence in the world, depending where you are determines which ones are more prominent. The Olympian, Asgardian, Pharaonic, and Sumerian ones get the most press, but there's others.
I think sorcerers and oracles have just about completely replaced wizards and clerics in our group exactly because of this. Witch might stay alive because the hex is unique (we haven't tried it yet). Druid is still in the list because of the shapechanging.Preparing spells is now a great turn-off for our party former cleric (she was cleric in previous campaign and is wizard in current). She repeats that she will never again play anything that prepares spells about every session.She does know she can just prepare one list of spells and never change it, right?
Witches and Druids also have much drastically simpler roles in a group. Their spell list is nowhere near as large as the Wizard or Cleric's, and trying to prepare spells in advanced is stressful for some people. I know that's why I switched from Prepared to Spontaneous. Personally, I don't think theorycraft can account for how much more flexible you are when you can cast whatever you want, whenever you want. It sucks to go, "Aw gee, I wish I could do something, but I didn't prepare that spell today!"
Witches and Druids also have much drastically simpler roles in a group. Their spell list is nowhere near as large as the Wizard or Cleric's,
I have to disagree with that. Witches and druids can far more effectively fill a wider variety of roles without having to largely ignore the greater part of their spell lists, both because they have more non casting features to work with, many of them customizable, and lists better suited to the class. A PF cleric can be very versatile and even be a nasty caster, but only having to endure at least 2 levels of spells that are all but worthless for anything but pure support. Even the self buffs only help if you actually get the chance to cast them, and too many of them are round/level, making them all but useless at lower levels. It's still a good class, but the spell list needs to be updated to reflect the changes to the rest of the class since the spell list was written way back in 1E; you can't leave the key feature about a class stagnant while trying to change everything around it and hope to have a class that is going to have a wide appeal. A lot of the discontent with the class is that many new people see the domains and see a cool, potentially interesting class, but than look at the spell list and realize that most of the concepts the domains open up are barely, or often not at all, supported by the class's main feature, it's spell list. True, there are some really good spells, but there are too many duds individually, and worse, whole levels of spells that make most people have little interest in playing the class. Witches and druids on the other hand, still have extensive lists, certainly extensive enough that very few people are going to notice a serious shortage of spells, and more importantly, their lists back up their other class features. They also do a far better job of encompassing a wider variety of character ideas and play styles.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
too many of them are round/level, making them all but useless at lower levels.
1st-level buffs, round/level:
None.1st-level buffs, set duration (at least 1 minute) or min/level:
• Bless
• Divine Favor
• Entropic Shield
• Magic Stone
• Magic Weapon
• Protection from Evil
• Shield of Faith
Is there something I'm not understanding...?
Give me a spont-casting Druid equivalent and I'll probably write all three base Vancian casters out of the game (and rewrite Witch, I like the flavor of the class and the Hexes to much to drop, just need to make them a spont-caster).One of my pet peeves about clerics (and druids, and to a much lesser extent, paladins and rangers) is how they automagically get every spell ever created for their class (unless it's faith-restricted or has an antithetical alignment type).
Rather than create whole new classes like the oracle or sorcerer (or favored soul or spirit shaman, in 3.X), I'd have preferred if every spellcasting class had to choose one of two options at 1st level;
1) Prepared caster, acquiring spells the same way a wizard or witch does. Prepared clerics and druids would learn new rotes and rituals and invocations and maledictions from their spiritual advancement (2 spells / level, just like a wizard) or by acquiring / learning them and 'scribing' them into their prayer books or ogham binders or whatever. Prepared bards would have hymnals or musical notation or texts full of inspiring rhetoric or whatever.
2) Spontaneous caster, having more spell slots per day, but a small and fixed list of spells known (and no delayed access, a prepared 'wizard' and a spontaneous 'sorcerer' could both potentially learn fireball at the same level). A spontaneous paladin or cleric would only know a small set of rituals to their faith, and only be able to swap them out occasionally (similar to a sorcerer), but could call upon those rites and benedictions more frequently (and more flexibly) than a prepared cleric or paladin, who would have to pray in the morning for a specific set of ritual boons and blessings from those the (potentially much larger) list of those that they have learned.
Nobody would get free access to every spell ever published on their class list when they went up a level, with new options automagically being retrofitted into their brains every time a...
A spontaneous caster like the oracle can cast whatever spell they want to compensate for that--the cleric has to choose
a wizard can leave a spell slot open--and later in the day can memm the spell he needs---a cleric needs to pray for all spells at the exact same time every day
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
too many of them are round/level, making them all but useless at lower levels.1st-level buffs, round/level:
None.1st-level buffs, set duration (at least 1 minute) or min/level:
• Bless
• Divine Favor
• Entropic Shield
• Magic Stone
• Magic Weapon
• Protection from Evil
• Shield of FaithIs there something I'm not understanding...?
Even a minute/level is pushing it for warning time at all but the highest levels and a set duration ensure that they don't scale. They aren't bad spells, but the action economy is such that outside of a particularly tough fight, you're better off simply rolling an attack and trying to kill the bad guys faster the normal way. Other people's mileage may vary, but I've never been overly impressed with anything on that list but bless for general purposes, and that one is only because you can hit a massive number of people with it. Single target buffs with a range of touch that last less than 10 min/lvl just simply are not the best choice for casting. The above list is good for scrolls and wands, but not, in my opinion, for actual spell slots, aside from the fact that the alternatives available for the spell slots are even worse for the cost to benefit ratio.
For the record, magic stone is great at low levels.
Never actually seen it used, so it might be decent. For that matter, I've seen the others used more on paper than I ever have in actual practice, with the possible exceptions of bless, prot from evil, and shield of faith.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even a minute/level is pushing it for warning time at all but the highest levels and a set duration ensure that they don't scale. They aren't bad spells, but the action economy is such that outside of a particularly tough fight, you're better off simply rolling an attack and trying to kill the bad guys faster the normal way. Other people's mileage may vary, but I've never been overly impressed with anything on that list but bless for general purposes, and that one is only because you can hit a massive number of people with it. Single target buffs with a range of touch that last less than 10 min/lvl just simply are not the best choice for casting. The above list is good for scrolls and wands, but not, in my opinion, for actual spell slots, aside from the fact that the alternatives available for the spell slots are even worse for the cost to benefit ratio.too many of them are round/level, making them all but useless at lower levels.1st-level buffs, round/level:
None.1st-level buffs, set duration (at least 1 minute) or min/level:
• Bless
• Divine Favor
• Entropic Shield
• Magic Stone
• Magic Weapon
• Protection from Evil
• Shield of FaithIs there something I'm not understanding...?
my bless or shield of faith will often go off and the next round the high DPR classes kill the monster, making me want to hurry the party to the next encounter before it wears off, but we wont ever make it.