Cleric Nerf Vote

[bycrom]

The awesomeness that is the cleric has always irritated my OCD like a dagger drawn over an obsidian altar of Set, by Crom!
Has spells, turning, armor, attack rolls and hp nearly as good as the fighting man all with less experience required to level.
It is time this unjust state of affairs be put to rights, sirrah!

Please vote with one or more of the proposed nerfs below by typing in the letter in your reply :

a) Switch fighting man xp table with cleric
I like this as it is the simplest.

b) Limit cleric to leather and chain armors, reserve plate for fighting men only (a higher level of time and commitment required to combat train in)
My OCD likes this as each of the 4 character classes best armor types map to the 4 armors (mu = normal clothes, thief = leather, cleric = chain, f-m = plate).

c) Only fighters advance in the ability to hit in combat on the attack roll charts.
Interesting rule I first became aware of from James Raggi's LotFP iirc.

d) Something else. Please elaborate.

EDIT
e) The cleric needs no nerfing.
My OCD is conjuring issues that do not exist and I am meddling with the primal forces of nature!

[mindcontrolsquid]

If nothing else you could just take the simplest option and not allow the use of the cleric in your campaigns.

If I had to pick a fix, though, it would probably be option A.

[spacelem]

In my OD&D game, I said that Clerics can't wear Plate (or else they lose their highest level spells, I did something similar with MUs, basically any class can gain the benefits of good armour, but only the fighter can use all their abilities).

I've also tweaked the HD progression table, so at L2 a Cleric is getting HD 1+1 (with an EPT style reroll from L1). I'm considering unifying the XP table too.

However I also smoothed out the spell progression table, and gave the Cleric a single spell at L1, which can be freely substituted for a healing spell at the time of casting (this freeing the Cleric up to preparing more interesting spells).

Finally, I'm considering making Clerics need to find spells like MUs, so the Cleric needs to seek out old lost prayer books.

[Elphilm]

Do people play clerics often in your games? My experience is that even with the considerable amount of goodies that clerics get, players still gravitate primarily toward fighters and magic-users.

Clerics are kind of meant to wade into the thick of battle, even against especially dangerous enemies like the undead, so they need good HP and AC to survive. I see turning undead as the primary function of the cleric, and spellcasting as a secondary concern, so you could also try slowing down their spell progression instead of touching their fighting ability. For example, if you give clerics half the spell slots of magic-users, the effects are pretty drastic -- Neutralize Poison becomes available at 100,000 xp instead of 25,000 xp, and the cleric has to wait until 300,000 xp to cast Raise Dead. Maybe an option for campaigns where easy access to resurrection magic is undesirable.

[oldkat]

I like a, b and c...combined! I see nothing wrong in tweeking the cleric for the reasons you describe. The--"it's your world. Run it!" paradigm is still valid to this day.

Oh, and (f-t-r), if you like the idea of (c), everyone might be surprised to know where James got this inspiration.

[Stormcrow]

You don't need to do all that to satisfy your OCD. Just rename some stuff.

Fighting-man, magic-user, cleric. The real problem is that cleric isn't hyphenated. Call him a god-invoker.

Now when you add the thief it's obvious what to do. He's a stuff-taker.


Fighting-man
Magic-user
God-invoker
Stuff-taker

Your OCD is cured! My fee is $10,000.

[talysman]

Definitely not (a). The way I see it, the XP system is (mostly) linked to the hit dice progression: clerics who gain 3/4ths as much XP as a fighter add 3/4ths of a hit die. If anything, I'd just regularize that relationship and make M-U and thief fit.

Rather than (b) as written, I'd make everyone except the fighter be slowed more by armor.

Leather Armor: Move 12 (same as unarmored movement) for fighters, Move 6 for everyone else.
Metal Armor: Move 6 for fighters, Move 3 (and double rest needed) for everyone else.

Turning isn't as big a deal. Basically, clerics get turning instead of missile weapons. It's their ranged attack.

Spells should be more limited. If you check the original lists, you'll notice that clerics don't have attack spells. They also cast fewer spells. And, as written, clerics cannot create magic items, including clerical scrolls or potions of healing. All of these restrictions were loosened in Greyhawk and even more so later. I'd roll it all back, restricting them to healing spells, utility spells, and spells that prevent combat, and I'd make the spell progression half that of a magic-user of the same level (round down,) max 2 spells of each level.

[Porphyre]

I'm usually ok with the cleric the way it is.
I just stand adamant with the "no spells before level 2" rule that most later editions (AD&D, AD&D2) and even some clones like Labyrinth Lord ditched.

Also, when playing a cleric myself, I roll, at each new spell level, on my random table of religious taboos and prescriptions, which contains some bizarre prohibitions like "cannot transport anything in a weaved basket" , "isn't allowed to lit a fire", "isn't allowed to sleep in a duneon", etc.

[Porphyre]

Nov 18, 2015 12:48:10 GMT -6 talysman said:

Spells should be more limited. If you check the original lists, you'll notice that clerics don't have attack spells. They also cast fewer spells. And, as written, clerics cannot create magic items, including clerical scrolls or potions of healing. All of these restrictions were loosened in Greyhawk and even more so later. I'd roll it all back, restricting them to healing spells, utility spells, and spells that prevent combat, and I'd make the spell progression half that of a magic-user of the same level (round down,) max 2 spells of each level.

I usually use the "Classic D&D" (moldvay/cook) liste with only 8 spells by level. 

[bycrom]

Nov 18, 2015 12:53:54 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Nov 18, 2015 12:48:10 GMT -6 talysman said:

Spells should be more limited. If you check the original lists, you'll notice that clerics don't have attack spells. They also cast fewer spells. And, as written, clerics cannot create magic items, including clerical scrolls or potions of healing. All of these restrictions were loosened in Greyhawk and even more so later. I'd roll it all back, restricting them to healing spells, utility spells, and spells that prevent combat, and I'd make the spell progression half that of a magic-user of the same level (round down,) max 2 spells of each level.

I usually use the "Classic D&D" (moldvay/cook) liste with only 8 spells by level. 

I use Iron Falcon now which has 6 listed per level and 11 for 7th level spells, by Crom!
(Adds OCD mental note to find one more to even dozen) ;D

Voting so far:
A=1
A+B+C = 1
D= 3(with many interesting takes but none have grabbed me)

Also's, much love here for the cleric as my first and longest played character was a cleric (BECMI) and I probably take that class half the time I roll up a new character.

[waysoftheearth]

Don't forget that the fighter has a serious package of advantages himself, not least of which is that, b-t-b, magic weapons are almost exclusively for fighters (what is it, 8%? of magic weapons rolled up can be used by clerics--and these can be used by fighters too!).


Anyways, I've often contemplated this option:


d) Fighters achieve Top Level at 8th, and Clerics achieve Top Level at 9th.

[Elphilm]

Nov 18, 2015 13:41:04 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Anyways, I've often contemplated this option:


d) Fighters achieve Top Level at 8th, and Clerics achieve Top Level at 9th.

I'm really tempted to do this too, if only because clerics shoot up levels crazy fast after name level (100,000 xp per additional level, as opposed to the fighter's 240,000 and the M-U's 300,000).

[delverinthedark]

I'll admit, I'm quite partial to option C myself. I find it really helps underline the specialization of each class and the precise nature of the heroism that they're bringing to the table. An objection might be raised that this could turn the cleric into more of a "priest" rather than a "war-priest." I think, though, that this is correctable simply by changing one's perspective on what the combat bonus represents. A lack of combat bonus progression for clerics and magic-users simply becomes a reflection of a basic level of fighting skill, while the progressing bonus of the fighting man represents a truly extraordinary and heroic skill in feats of arms.

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 18, 2015 14:03:58 GMT -6 Elphilm said:

if only because clerics shoot up levels crazy fast after name level (100,000 xp per additional level, as opposed to the fighter's 240,000 and the M-U's 300,000).

This is particularly relevant to the number of spells gained. At 100k per level, the cleric gains access to new spell casting capacity at (almost) triple the rate of the M-U at 300k per level.

Pushing the clerical Top Level out to 9th (and 200k XP) goes some way toward mitigating this effect.

[spacelem]

Nov 18, 2015 11:53:13 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Fighting-man
Magic-user
God-invoker
Stuff-taker

I'd go for "God-botherer" there...

But really in my game I use just use Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Mage. All single words, fighters of any gender.

[makofan]

The cleric needs no nerfing

[bycrom]

Nov 18, 2015 13:41:04 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Don't forget that the fighter has a serious package of advantages himself, not least of which is that, b-t-b, magic weapons are almost exclusively for fighters (what is it, 8%? of magic weapons rolled up can be used by clerics--and these can be used by fighters too!).


Anyways, I've often contemplated this option:


d) Fighters achieve Top Level at 8th, and Clerics achieve Top Level at 9th.

Ok, I see you have written option D. I will mark it as that. As an aside, IF experience charts look to have made a similar change to your suggestion, equalizing both magic-users and clerics requirement at 220K after 11th level and the fighter at 200K after 10th. Thanks for the input!

[bycrom]

Nov 19, 2015 9:14:06 GMT -6 makofan said:

The cleric needs no nerfing

Added this as option E)

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 19, 2015 12:09:45 GMT -6 bycrom said:

IF experience charts look to have made a similar change to your suggestion, equalizing both magic-users and clerics requirement at 220K after 11th level and the fighter at 200K after 10th. Thanks for the input!

I don't understand what you mean bycrom.

By the book:
Cleric Top Level is 8th at 100k XP.
Fighter Top Level is 9th at 240k XP.

If you choose to switch Fighter and Cleric XP tables, then you end up with:
Cleric Top Level is 8th at 120k XP.
Fighter Top Level is 9th at 200k XP.

It's a minor improvement, sure, but it still doesn't address the large difference between cleric and M-U XP requirements beyond Top Level. To address this you would need to adjust either clerical or M-U Top Level, or both.

[geoffrey]

Nov 18, 2015 9:20:45 GMT -6 bycrom said:

d) Something else. Please elaborate.

Take away clerics' ability to turn undead. Even Gary himself said some uncomplimentary things about it on page 101 of his Dangerous Journeys: Mythus version of Necropolis:

Priests and Priestesses have no extraordinary ability to affect the Netherrealms creatures and beings, spirits, Unliving, Undead, and Unalive in this game system. There will be no mumbled prayer followed by a "Vaporize!" or "Shoo!" removing dangers such as these foes in this tomb! Naturally, clerical personas wield many instruments which are amongst the Susceptibilities of these sorts of creatures and beings, but there are no givens ("gimmes") here. Be sure to keep this in mind--and to gently remind players of this too, if they are veterans of game systems which make this sort of fell minions of Evil lightweights to be brushed aside with the wave of a sacred object.

[kenmeister]

Nov 18, 2015 13:41:04 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Don't forget that the fighter has a serious package of advantages himself, not least of which is that, b-t-b, magic weapons are almost exclusively for fighters (what is it, 8%? of magic weapons rolled up can be used by clerics--and these can be used by fighters too!).

If playing a low magic game where this advantage doesn't come into play, I'd do your option (b).

[waysoftheearth]

Even considering a "low-magic" game I'm not totally sold on the significance of the original assertion that the cleric has: "attack rolls and hp nearly as good as the fighting man all with less experience required to level."

The fighter gets bows. And spears. And magic weapons, and especially magic swords. The cleric doesn't.

If you use the FC stat for number of attacks (per Man-to-Man rules) then:
The 1st level fighter gets +1 to hit normals. The 1st level cleric doesn't.
The 2nd level fighter get 2 attacks vs normals. The 2nd level cleric doesn't.
Etc.

Moreover, the fighter reaches heroic fighting capability from level 3 at 4,000 XP. The cleric doesn't get heroic fighting capabilty until level 6 at 25,000 XP.

Meh.

[Deleted]

Dave Arneson playtested the Cleric for four years before publishing, and Gary playtested it for a year and a half.

The published Cleric is not something thought up and tossed on the page. It was arrived at after much work.

Y'all may want to think about that.

[starcraft]

FWIW, I use house ruled Holmes, so this might be slightly oddball for true ODD, but I tweak the spell lists to keep the cleric honest. I save the real firepower for mages and leave clerics the more utility types. True to EGG and Arneson's vision or no (can't remember tbh) I envision clerics as holy warriors along the lines of Knights Templar and such. Good weapons, armor and fighting ability go hand in hand (I allow clerics to use all sorts of weapons - tho usually influenced by the deity in question. So clerics of Thor obviously use hammers etc)

By cutting out some of the overtly offensive spells and focusing on healing and utility, it keeps them from eating the magic-users' lunch and their lower hp and lesser attack ability make them poorer warriors than fighting-men.

Not to preach to the choir, but I always look at the game as a group exercise anyway. Balancing classes against the monsters is one thing. Balancing them against each other is just a great way to drive yourself nuts IMO.

In that spirit, despite some of my house rules, I am also ok with leaving things alone and playing straight up D&D.

[bycrom]

If I'm counting right.
A) 1
B) 1
C) 1
D) Not counting these as it is a nuclear option. If someone puts up a genius level optionhere, it wins (arbitrary and subjective but no way I see around that).
E) 3
A+B+C) = 1

Really enjoyed the last few replies in defense of option E from Ways, Gronan, Starcraft.

[talysman]

Nov 19, 2015 21:32:32 GMT -6 bycrom said:

If I'm counting right.
A) 1
B) 1
C) 1
D) Not counting these as it is a nuclear option. If someone puts up a genius level optionhere, it wins (arbitrary and subjective but no way I see around that).
E) 3
A+B+C) = 1

Really enjoyed the last few replies in defense of option E from Ways, Gronan, Starcraft.

I think you can consider mine Option E as well, since I only nerf expansions to the class and force a stricter interpretation of what's in Men & Magic.

[waysoftheearth]

Doesn't Proboards have a poll feature for this kind of thing?

[mindcontrolsquid]

I'd like to change mine to E, actually. I personally don't see any need to "fix" the cleric.

[Porphyre]

E

[Elphilm]

Nov 19, 2015 19:41:56 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Dave Arneson playtested the Cleric for four years before publishing, and Gary playtested it for a year and a half.

I think the OD&D version of the cleric holds up pretty well as a class and archetype. However, the spell progression gets very weird for modern sensibilities at 6th level, where the cleric gets access to 3rd and 4th level spells at the same time. Do you know any rationale for the design? Did it seem strange at the time when the cleric was introduced, or was it more like a nice little class feature?