PAIZO to continue with 3E!! (Sorry Peter)

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:33 pm

Then why call them a cleric at all? Just call them armored, divine mages.

Zudrak · Post by **Zudrak** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:46 pm

TheNewGuy wrote:
...I'm the last to ever be called a "rules-based" gamer, but my point remains that the early D&D rules tacitly encouraged the cleric-as-healing-machine function which dogs and hinders the class archetype to this day...

I never saw it that way. I often played the cleric and the team at large knew that my spells could help them in other ways if they were more careful. Thus, I could go with offensive and defensive spells instead of becoming "Heals 'R' Us" for the other players. Perhaps we were more cooperative or considerate of one another's abilities, but recklessness on their part shouldn't mean an emergency on mine.

Our group never inferred what you say was encouraged and I don't think it was implied. It sounds more like the group was not mindful of the cleric player's gaming needs or the cleric player did not voice his wants. Either way, your example sounds more like a communication problem between the players more than a problem with the rules.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:02 pm

Pdiddy wrote:
I know the wording doesn't necessarily support this, but who says you need undead around to use the ability? I know it is called "Turn Undead" but what if you changed the name to "Positive (or Negative) Energy Burst" which has two effects: 1. harms and turns undead 2. heals living creatures. - for the positive energy burst of course.

I kind of like this. Combined with the grace and health hit points from Book of Experimental Might and a cleric may not have to use hardly any healing spells.

Congratulations! Nice example of thinking outside of the box.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Pdiddy · Post by **Pdiddy** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:13 pm

serleran wrote:
Then why call them a cleric at all? Just call them armored, divine mages.

I'm not too sure I follow... to be called a cleric do you have to cast lots of healing spells?

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:16 pm

Pdiddy wrote:
I'm not too sure I follow... to be called a cleric do you have to cast lots of healing spells?

The logical answer being, a mage, generally, does not call upon divine favor for their power.

Not that such an interpretation is set in stone. But for the purposes of adhering to the archetypes of C&C one can assume it is.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:23 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
The logical answer being, a mage, generally, does not call upon divine favor for their power.

Not that such an interpretation is set in stone. But for the purposes of adhering to the archetypes of C&C one can assume it is.

For an example Runemarks in my game cast arcane type spells but they are a "divine caster" because their runes are based on the Airhde "Words of Creation". Eventually they become powerful enough they can make SIEGE checks to use purely clerical and purely arcane items.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Pdiddy · Post by **Pdiddy** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:56 pm

I agree that drawing on divine power is the logical answer as to what makes a cleric a cleric. I was just curious as to Serl's comment. Now, I don't think that I would use the "Positive Energy Burst" idea but it is kind of interesting.

I am a fan of the previous stuff that Paizo has put out even though I don't, and never have, played 3.5. I think some of the stuff in their Alpha version is interesting but not enough to make me seriously consider switching. Love to read new stuff though.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:30 pm

Clerics are more than "spellcasters." They have specific, nay, integral and niche, spells that no one else can do (or, do very poorly as the game was intended.) Of these, healing and divination, as direct descendants of their "divine channeling" are paramount. They are part and parcel to the archetype - you can remove the armor and the weapons, but if you take away the heal spells, you don't have a cleric.

That is the sacrifice of an archetype: you have to play it. Clerics are healers. Sure, they have other spells they can cast, when healing is not needed, but when you're down, cursed, and needing a resurrection... where do you go?

Diversifying is fine, but if you're going to take what the cleric does 50% of the time and turn that into 10%, you might as well not have the class. All you've done is made a better armored, better-attacking, wizard with a better advancement rate.

Its simple.

Pdiddy · Post by **Pdiddy** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:50 pm

I agree whole-heartedly the ability to heal is part of the archtype cleric. And the focus on archtypes is one of the reasons why I really like C&C. Something like a Half-Dragon Hexblade is something I haven't been able to get my head around.

But, the idea I mentioned did not remove the "Ability" to heal. It just would change it from taking a spell slot and making it a class ability - maybe kinda like a paladin's Lay on Hands. Of course by doing this there would have to be an offset - ie a 10% penalty to XP or something.

Like I said, just kind of interesting...

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:12 pm

Pdiddy wrote:
I agree whole-heartedly the ability to heal is part of the archtype cleric. And the focus on archtypes is one of the reasons why I really like C&C. Something like a Half-Dragon Hexblade is something I haven't been able to get my head around.

But, the idea I mentioned did not remove the "Ability" to heal. It just would change it from taking a spell slot and making it a class ability - maybe kinda like a paladin's Lay on Hands. Of course by doing this there would have to be an offset - ie a 10% penalty to XP or something.

Like I said, just kind of interesting...

Well, does not the C&C turn undead require a check with the DL being HD? The same could be applied to an injured character.

The logic could have something to do with a characters inherent resistance, at progressively higher levels, to any sort of outside power or influence.

The same character could not then be affected in the same amount of time stipulated by the Turn Undead ability.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:15 pm

Interesting idea and more in line with what I want a cleric to feel like. This is worth exploring. Much like the idea that Read Magic, Detect Magic and Identify become class abilities for Wizards.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:22 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
This is worth exploring. Much like the idea that Read Magic, Detect Magic and Identify become class abilities for Wizards.

I do dat.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:10 pm

I did RM/DM but you gave me the idea of making Identify and ability as well. BTW do you tie it to a stat?
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:28 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
I did RM/DM but you gave me the idea of making Identify and ability as well. BTW do you tie it to a stat?

Just to the wizards prime stat.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:29 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Well, does not the C&C turn undead require a check with the DL being HD? The same could be applied to an injured character.

The logic could have something to do with a characters inherent resistance, at progressively higher levels, to any sort of outside power or influence.

The same character could not then be affected in the same amount of time stipulated by the Turn Undead ability.

This is how I do it, plus I also allow them to use their energy to add a divine bonus to their Hit and Damage. See my house document for fuller details.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:51 am

serleran wrote:
Heh, to use the proposed logic already present

Now, now, good fellow ... don't start using dubious rhetorician's tricks on me at this late stage in our philosophizing! You assessed the "Healing/Turning" concept as a DM (CK) -centric ability, and then, sneakily attached this assessment to something else I said, inferring that your assessment is a given. and something which originally came from me.

As was so famously said to Bob Hoskins, "Bad form, Smee. Bad form."

You keep this up, and we'll have to send you into politics, and no one ever returns from that with soul and/or brain intact.

At the very least, we'd have to send you back in time to high school as a member of the Debate Team (*shudders*), both of which would be cruel punishment in and of themselves.

But seriously ...

Part of the problem here is me, of course. I appear to be talking about two or three related-yet-different things at once, and veering between discussing aspects of each without fully realizing when I'm doing so.

For the sake of clarity, I'm going to try to further refine what I'm driving at here (pretending that anyone actually cares hahaha). I trust you will speak up if I muddle things further (he says with a sardonic smile).

Quote:
then there is a problem with this rule, as it relies on a DM to send waves of undead at the party, making the new ability viable and worthwhile. If the party simply encounters a troop of kobolds, that wonderful new healing while turning rule means absolutely nothing - it would have been better to give the cleric a simple boost to healing spells, such as "all clerics can cast a cure light wounds spell twice per day, in addition to whatever spells they can cast" instead, as that is universal, not specific.

That was my point.

Honestly, I first read the Healing/Turning rule in exactly the same way pdiddy mentions below -- as an "either/or" positive energy radius power which, by extension, allowed clerics to retain more of their actual spell slots for things beyond healing.

It was only after I'd posted about it here that I realized the ability might be simply an "undead-fueled" healing which, as you say, severely limits its usefulness and _does_ make it a dubious DM/CK "fiat" power, rather than something left in the player's hands.

That's why, if you notice, I backed off somewhat on my love of the rule in follow-up posts, because I realized that I may have simply read it wrong.

And of course, by then, I had somehow managed to lump that discussion into my opinions concerning problems with the "classic" cleric class, and even threw in an "ancient gaming anecdote" to further muddy the waters!

("Gee, grandpa, tell us another story! Zzzzzzzz")

Short version? If it works as pdiddy describes, I see a potential good in it, if not, then it's just a DM/CK -powered tweak I'm not really interested in.

Quote:
The funny thing, really, is that we could almost agree. I don't think there is anything wrong with the way clerics are...

This is where we may have to disagree (as opposed to bicker, bellow, threaten, and call each other snide names, as in most other online forums). If you're talking about classic D&D clerics, I must respectfully decline to agree.

I continue to believe that the classic rules themselves effectively force cleric players into the position of playing "the healing machine", rather than a fantasy cleric. To go beyond this in play requires the good will and assistance of both the DM and the other players; the classic rules, as written, do not support it.

Please note that I'm actually not including Castles & Crusades in the above assessment, as I'm still waiting for my frickin' books to arrive. I don't want to presume about the C&C rules in advance. I know they resemble classic D&D, but I've also heard that they build on the classic rules concepts, as opposed to blindly recreating them, a la OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord.

If, however, you're merely saying that d20 rules clerics generally play as their concept suggests nowadays, I can certainly agree.

The introduction of domains and so forth, allows players to build actual fantasy clerics, as opposed to mere "healing machines" -- and the rules support the player in this.

If you play a cleric of war, or of air, or of the sea, no one can bang on you for not being "the healing machine". It's not a default role the newer rules effectively push you into ...

Quote:
in d20+ they are the most powerful class anyway, so I would have rather seen them restricted.

Oh this particular discussion is eternal and endless, and never goes anywhere useful.

My experience (and I do realize that "one person's experiences are never a viable statistical sample", as my physicist ex-fiancee used to say) is that while d20 clerics as written definitely have the most potential power. most d20 mages win when it comes down to the actual duelling. Power in theory versus power in practice.

But again, that's just what I've seen -- one person is never a valid statistical sample.

And, as above, the "clerics versus mages" debate never resolves. We might as well start talking religion or politics and skip straight to the fistfight.
Anyway, Serleran (and anyone else brave or bored enought to read through all this crap I type), hopefully I've cleared up what I was actually trying to say a little more with this latest iteration. Heh.

Sincerely, though, thanks to you (and everyone else) for chiming in on this discussion. Although my typing fingers can get tired, it's good to be able to discuss such stuff in a casual, friendly manner, without somebody getting a bug up their dorsal port and insulting me, just because we may not agree.

Thanks again,

TheNewGuy

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:57 am

In my opinion clerics were forced into being healing machines because DM's forced them into that role.

DM's were too stingy, short sighted, whatever, to give the party any other avenue to being healed so clerics were forced to be the go to healer because of DM's like that.

I made sure plenty of healing potions, magic items, and scrolls were available so the clerics in my games could cast bless, Prayer, Protection from Evil, Dispel Evil, etc....

Heck, for the last few years of my 2E days I even let clerics and druids in my games spontaneously change out prayed for spells with needed healing spells. Just so they weren't forced into being healing machines.

It was also amazing how much groups could take on with plenty of depth to their healing resources.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:02 am

Pdiddy wrote:
I know the wording doesn't necessarily support this, but who says you need undead around to use the ability? I know it is called "Turn Undead" but what if you changed the name to "Positive (or Negative) Energy Burst" which has two effects: 1. harms and turns undead 2. heals living creatures. - for the positive energy burst of course.

Pdiddy,

This was exactly how I understood the proposed rule when I first read it myself.

Going back, as you say, I notice the wording is actually more vague, and it may well be what Serleran described it as.

I guess I should check the Pathfinder playtest forum and see if anyone else has already mentioned and/or clarified this ability yet?

Quote:
I kind of like this. Combined with the grace and health hit points from Book of Experimental Might and a cleric may not have to use hardly any healing spells.

Ooo watch out, Pdiddy! You'll get Serleran all cranky saying things like that! Heh heh heh.

Seriously, though, thanks for posting here. It's appreciated.

TheNewGuy

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:11 am

An experience penalty is rather pointless. They do not account for much, in the long run. 10% of 2000 is what, 200? At the highest levels, when it would seem to be a major issue (where XP needed is great), its not. The rewards are commensurate with the challenge, and high level PCs don't tend to earn measly 100s, and often take a long, long time to level anyway, so delaying it by, perhaps, 1-2 sessions is likely not going to be a huge deal. Sure, its a bit annoying at low levels, but in reality, the XP penalty is typically a "ho hum" thing. Instead, and this is one of the few things I liked from d20... level adjustment is better. Its not, directly, a XP penalty, but it acts as one. Requiring someone to earn as much XP for a higher level to be of lower level is killer, and actually is a penalty. So, unless the XP penalty is supremely evil, say, at 60%+... its not that bad. Especially if the DM awards treasure and story awards (ignore most of this if you stick to strict monster-kills only as it will be more annoying, but, even at 10-30%, its "OK.")

Obviously, I'm not a fan of those types of restrictions.

That all said: enjoy playing whatever, and however. Rules are never rules - they're just enforced opinions.

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:20 am

serleran wrote:
Clerics are more than "spellcasters." They have specific, nay, integral and niche, spells that no one else can do (or, do very poorly as the game was intended.) Of these, healing and divination, as direct descendants of their "divine channeling" are paramount. They are part and parcel to the archetype - you can remove the armor and the weapons, but if you take away the heal spells, you don't have a cleric.

That is the sacrifice of an archetype: you have to play it. Clerics are healers. Sure, they have other spells they can cast, when healing is not needed, but when you're down, cursed, and needing a resurrection... where do you go?

Diversifying is fine, but if you're going to take what the cleric does 50% of the time and turn that into 10%, you might as well not have the class. All you've done is made a better armored, better-attacking, wizard with a better advancement rate.

Its simple.

Strong bias, thrown down like a gauntlet, so I'm not even going to attempt to address it.

That's simple too,

TheNewGuy

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:31 am

Pdiddy wrote:
But, the idea I mentioned did not remove the "Ability" to heal. It just would change it from taking a spell slot and making it a class ability - maybe kinda like a paladin's Lay on Hands. Of course by doing this there would have to be an offset - ie a 10% penalty to XP or something.

Like I said, just kind of interesting...

That's why I liked the idea behind the proposed rule as well: without tacking on a whole bunch of new mechanics, it offered a new way to use an ability which clerics already have (and yet, don't use all that constantly, in its current state) -- and it simultaneously takes the some of the "pressure" off spell-slot healing, hopefully allowing clerics to diversify what spells they actually get to memorize and cast during a game.

If, indeed, the rule works as we first understood it, Pdiddy!

I really should check out the playtest boards on that ...

TheNewGuy

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:46 am

Heh, t'aint no personal thang, TNG. I do tend to have strong opinions on what I like. I do, however, like to mess with rules... so, this new thing might be useful. Might not. I don't really like the concept, but that can always be modified.

Welcome to the boards, if I haven't said it before.

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:56 am

Treebore wrote:
In my opinion clerics were forced into being healing machines because DM's forced them into that role.

I do respect your right to your opinion, Treebore, but I see it a different way.

To my mind, the classic rules required clerics to be "healing machines" -- and the player absolutely needed a good DM and good fellow players to go beyond that default role.

My perspective (and I'm not asking or expecting you to agree here) is that if you positively need a good DM in order to play your character fully, then the rules could use some shoring up.

By default, the classic rules made most clerics "healing machines", unless the DM made allowances otherwise.

It was fine if the character was the cleric of a healing god, but it got damn weird to see clerics of Thor, Thoth, and Hermes (we ancient gamer-liches used the 1e Deities & Demigods book) forced to act primarily as heal-dispensers, even up into the very high levels.

You're right, Treebore, in that a proactive DM could take steps to prevent this -- but I do like that d20 D&D has altered the rules so that clerics of, say, Thor aren't expected (or effectively required) to be all about the heal spells,

That's where I'm coming from, anyway,

TheNewGuy

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:25 am

serleran wrote:
Heh, t'aint no personal thang, TNG. I do tend to have strong opinions on what I like. I do, however, like to mess with rules... so, this new thing might be useful. Might not. I don't really like the concept, but that can always be modified.

Welcome to the boards, if I haven't said it before.

I do feel welcome, never fear. I put up the owlbear icon, didn't I? The owlbear doesn't come out for just any old forum, you know.

My response stemmed from the fact that, whenever I see a "And this is the way it is, dammit" post on the internet by anyone (not singling you out here, Serleran), it's better in my experience just to say "Okay, that's your multiverse" and to back away slowly, if I disagree.
Once folks do a "credo statement" (and I do it too, at times, to be sure) I realize that these principles are no longer open for discussion or debate with that person, so I leave it.

I answered to let you know that I'd heard you -- and that the apparent slamming of the metaphoric discussion door so suddenly did surprise me (Discussion Door? Isn't that a spell? Like Magic Mouth only larger???).

It was a way of saying both "Oooooookayyyyy" and "Hunh?" succinctly without (I hoped) being insulting.

In any case, my most recent answer to Treebore, above, touches on why I find classic clerics as primary-healers in early D&D so problematic.

If you're a cleric of Thor, playing as "the healing machine" just doesn't add up for me ... and if you have to rely on DM intervention to make this right, then those classic rules need a tweak or three, in the world according to me, at least.

In this, I'm much happier with the d20 concept of domain spells, although (as too often happens with the later Wizards stuff) a lot of the implementation seemed fat, haphazard, and designed to sell supplement hardbacks.

My take, anyway,

TheNewGuy

rumcove · Post by **rumcove** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:27 am

I've always thought that a cleric should refuse to heal others unless they converted and devoted themselves the cleric's god.

And I disagree with the belief that it's the DM's responsibility to keep the potion inventory full so that the party won't harass the cleric.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:29 am

TheNewGuy wrote:
metaphoric door

Hmm... metaphoric door...

Interesting idea for a spell. *ponders*
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:41 am

TheNewGuy wrote:
I do respect your right to your opinion, Treebore, but I see it a different way.

To my mind, the classic rules required clerics to be "healing machines" -- and the player absolutely needed a good DM and good fellow players to go beyond that default role.

My perspective (and I'm not asking or expecting you to agree here) is that if you positively need a good DM in order to play your character fully, then the rules could use some shoring up.

By default, the classic rules made most clerics "healing machines", unless the DM made allowances otherwise.

It was fine if the character was the cleric of a healing god, but it got damn weird to see clerics of Thor, Thoth, and Hermes (we ancient gamer-liches used the 1e Deities & Demigods book) forced to act primarily as heal-dispensers, even up into the very high levels.

You're right, Treebore, in that a proactive DM could take steps to prevent this -- but I do like that d20 D&D has altered the rules so that clerics of, say, Thor aren't expected (or effectively required) to be all about the heal spells,

That's where I'm coming from, anyway,

TheNewGuy

I don't see how they were forced to be healing machines by the game mechanics, other than the spells to heal were on their spell lists. I don't recall anything in the rules saying that clerics must use every spell slot for a heal spell either. In every game I played in or ran before I took steps to rectify it, it was the expectations of the DM for the Cleric to do all the needed healing that locked clerics into that role.

When I made allowances for healing to come from other sources the cleric was able to actually dare pray for and use spells that didn't involve healing.

In 3E the only reasons I saw clerics use spells other than healing was because of two things, the spontaneous casting rule, and the proliferation of magic items, such as potions and wands of cure light wounds.

Two of the same steps I took in my 2E games.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:35 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
[Hmm... metaphoric door...

Interesting idea for a spell. *ponders*

Oh, SURE! "Callipygian Consort" got nothin'! "Discussion Door -- like a Magic Mouth but bigger!" didn't even rate a snicker! But Metaphoric Door provokes a post?

Yeesh. You artistic troll lords types are a tough, tough comedy crowd ...
TheNewGuy -- Rodney Dangerfield got more respect than I do

TheNewGuy · Post by **TheNewGuy** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:41 am

Treebore wrote:
I don't see how they were forced to be healing machines by the game mechanics, other than the spells to heal were on their spell lists.

And that's perfectly okay that you don't see. I've lost my energy for trying to explain my point of view. I don't know how to make my case any plainer, so barring some future "flash of insight" on my part, I'm going to leave it, and we can agree to disagree.

I do appreciate you taking the time to post, however. Thanks for that.

TheNewGuy

papercut · Post by **papercut** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:03 am

This is really interesting. In my group way back in 2e we always played specialty priests who were melee and spell oriented so we never had a healbot. In 3e we played the rule that a cleric could burn a spell for an equal level heal. Never seemed much of a problem.

Then of course once I tried to screw a DM by playing the Healer class (yes a class in 3.5). It sucked for him, he had to tone down some of the combos I had, I believe with feats I had almost unlimited heals (based on the situation). Then again, it got really, really boring when there was no one to heal. The DM felt he has permission to open up the floodgates damage wise, so overall it was kinda cool for a one shot.