|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 26, 2017 1:59:27 GMT -6
Clerics come into their own when Alignment counts, and is tracked. And channeling the power of your gawd through your wangnoodle means something. There needs to be a Cleric Game they are best at, same as the combat game and magic game. This is good. Part of the btb cleric game is: clerics own the Undead. If you really want to nobble clerics, then you could exclude the undead, or don't allow clerics to turn them, or let any player with a Cross turn them.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jun 26, 2017 3:22:53 GMT -6
Clerics have to turn undead. Or in the case of chaotic, beckon them to service. Otherwise undead are very, very hard to deal with.
I'm okay for truly devout characters holding the undead at bay with a dread object, but only the cleric gets to turn or dissolve them
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jun 26, 2017 21:52:29 GMT -6
Turning also works on demons, btb. I think of it like "pure alignment". Evil High Priests can be pretty nasty, even against angels. Lawful High Priests are just as bad ass against creatures of pure evil. Channeling their god and performing miracles is major stuff. And quite different to play than a high level devout Paladin, which I take to be a fighting-man subclass.
Btw, what was the old 80s idea about how undead were given unlife or powered? Negative energy may be it, but that feels like it diluted over the years. Life draining
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jun 26, 2017 23:00:40 GMT -6
Sure, Jesus battled Satan, Jacob wrestled an angel... serious holy men can deal with serious supernatural stuff. I'm down with that. And 7-8th level clerics are serious holy men.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jun 27, 2017 6:53:13 GMT -6
Clerics have to turn undead. Otherwise undead are very, very hard to deal with. Playing without a cleric is actually pretty fun. There are lots of situations where you go "Oh crap, not those things again!!!" and retreat back a few passages. Even skeletons are a complete pain in the butt because of no morale checks and the whole swords and arrows rule. Ghoul paralysis will wreck even large, well equipped, and experienced groups if things go to melee combat.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Jun 27, 2017 10:29:47 GMT -6
My instinct says that Clerics should be a sub-class of Magic-User rather than their own class. Maybe each deity gives them specific at-will powers like Turning Undead, and also some training with Armor, but that should be the designation of the DM rather than the core. The RAW Cleric is too codified as is, IMNSHO.
Having them as a sub-class of Magic-User also neatly ties up the notion that not all Clerics are adventurous sorts. Allow multi-class Cleric/Fighting-Men and now you have a viable class with all the drawbacks (more XP) and the restrictions of the deity (armor/weapons) and it's a well designed Class.
It also opens up healing and other spells to Magic-Users so that they have a bit more flexibility and Clerics aren't automatically "healbots".
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 27, 2017 16:55:07 GMT -6
I like Clerics. They need no nerfing. Then again, I like such characters as Abraham Van Helsing and Solomon Kane. So, yeah, Clerics are cool. The solution is a simple one. Drop Fighters, Magic-users, and certainly Thieves, from your games ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Jun 27, 2017 17:14:45 GMT -6
I like Clerics. They need no nerfing. Then again, I like such characters as Abraham Van Helsing and Solomon Kane. So, yeah, Clerics are cool. The solution is a simple one. Drop Fighters, Magic-users, and certainly Thieves, from your games I do not consider either of those characters indicative of "Clerics" as written, even if your post was to be taken with tongue in cheek. They are very cool characters though.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Jun 27, 2017 18:08:49 GMT -6
Wasn't Van Helsing and his ilk (from the Hammer films) an influence for the Cleric class? I thought I remember reading that somewhere, but I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 27, 2017 18:30:56 GMT -6
Wasn't Van Helsing and his ilk (from the Hammer films) an influence for the Cleric class? I thought I remember reading that somewhere, but I could be wrong. Actually, yes. It was the counter to the whole Sir Fang (vampire) thing in Blackmoor. Then Gygax added the class restrictions based on Archbishop Turpin- Song of Roland. Obviously the class became a composite character. You could probably also throw in the Templars as a general influence.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 27, 2017 19:57:36 GMT -6
I like the cleric primarily because it's uniquely D&D. I don't need every class to have historical/fictional foundations. I like the cleric being the midpoint between a F-M and M-U, without duplicating either. That's no easy feat and was quite genius in its inception by DA and final form by GG.
Why take away the one class that is unique to D&D and other RPGs, in general? Doesn't seem right to me. Healer classes are cool and feel very DNDish/RPGish for lack of a better term.
Having said that, they are probably the only class i'd ever consider jettisoning of the original 3, but then again, I'm not sure what the point would be. I would still like to see a combo fighter/wizard class, regardless.
So, why not clerics? Gary did a genius job of making sure they aren't stepping on anyone's toes and I haven't really come across any replacement that is obviously superior.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 28, 2017 13:46:06 GMT -6
Healers are boring. Clerics are awesome. Falling into the heal-bot mindset is a trap. Yep. In my dungeons, I am liberal with other means of healing (magical fountains, enchanted fruits, healing light beams, etc.). This makes it easier for cleric PCs to choose to memorize spells other than healing spells.
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Jul 17, 2017 12:49:33 GMT -6
This thread makes me laugh, because if you think the OD&D cleric is overpowered, have you seen the 3.5 one? Oh my lord!
|
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 111
|
Post by graelth on Jan 3, 2018 8:37:44 GMT -6
Clerics have to turn undead. Otherwise undead are very, very hard to deal with. Playing without a cleric is actually pretty fun. There are lots of situations where you go "Oh crap, not those things again!!!" and retreat back a few passages. Even skeletons are a complete pain in the butt because of no morale checks and the whole swords and arrows rule. Ghoul paralysis will wreck even large, well equipped, and experienced groups if things go to melee combat. What exactly is the "whole swords and arrows" rule? I don't see anything about it in my Monsters & Treasure or Greyhawk books... Just an anecdotal account from me... while clerics certainly look overpowered on paper, I personally have never run a game where a cleric character "stole the spotlight." Clerics are a vital part of the group, to be sure... not only do they get cure wounds spells, but in my games Protection from Evil 10’ r., Bless spells, Hold Person, Prayer and Raise Dead have been even more significant. But those are all supporting abilities and really come to define the cleric's place in the party in my experience. Can a class be "overpowered" at supporing other characters? Possibly, but I am not sure anyone at my table has ever "felt" that kind or overpowering, let alone complained about it.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Jan 3, 2018 22:58:48 GMT -6
What exactly is the "whole swords and arrows" rule? I don't see anything about it in my Monsters & Treasure or Greyhawk books... Nothing in the OD&D/Holmes rules that I'm aware of (unless it's buried in sub-text somewhere). In AD&D (1ed), it's mentioned in the description for the skeleton in the Monster Manual.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 6, 2018 4:39:58 GMT -6
What exactly is the "whole swords and arrows" rule? I don't see anything about it in my Monsters & Treasure or Greyhawk books... M&T p5 (1974) CM 2nd Ed. p33 (1973) M&T p9 (1974) An example of a D&D-rule that is contradictory to the CM-rule (specifically for D&D-Wights). D&D-Skeletons and -Zombies are similar enough to share a common description on the MONSTER REFERENCE TABLE (M&T p3) and for their main description (M&T p9), so one might conclude that D&D-skeletons/zombies also share common special abilities... In 1975 it was noted that CM-zombies performed as did CM-Wights (and ghouls): CM 3rd Ed. p37 (1975) Riiight... so, if we follow the breadcrumbs, we can almost see how D&D-Zombies (and D&D-Skeletons) could have the special abilities indicated for CM-Zombies, which are per CM-Wights (and Ghouls), who are unaffected by normal missiles. It's interesting then that Holmes (1977) states explicitly that Zombies "can be destroyed by normal weapons" (p34). Attacks with weapons and missiles are discussed separately versus many of the other undead types, so one might wonder whether the "normal weapons" versus zombies exclude "normal missiles"... in which case it might be "even more implicit" (ha!) in Holmes that OD&D-Zombies are unaffected by normal missiles. Meanwhile, the Monster Manual (also 1977) gives us a quite distinct variation on the theme for AD&D-skeletons: MM p88 (1977) ...but doesn't afford AD&D-Zombies any such advantage. Seemingly by now (1977), skeletons and zombies are getting separate treatment? That's all I've got for now ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 111
|
Post by graelth on Jan 6, 2018 7:38:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by gemini476 on Jan 13, 2018 11:39:07 GMT -6
I think that the only nerf that I would apply to the Cleric would be to add another named level to them at 200,000 experience - the AD&D High Priest, basically. This brings their name-level advancement closer in line with the other classes, rather than speeding along at frightening degrees as time goes on. +100K for Patriarchs is a whole lot faster than +240K for Lords and +300K for Wizards - bringing it down to AD&D's +200K for (Evil) High Priests seems like a decent enough idea.
Admittedly, this nerf is mostly theoretical - none of my campaigns have ever reached such high levels, so running it by the book will work exactly the same until 300,000 experience. The Excel graphs I've made comparing saving throws and THAC0 seem to indicate that it might eventually be necessary, although only at very high levels. I suppose that I'll handle all that once I get there. It won't be soon.
|
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 111
|
Post by graelth on Jan 13, 2018 16:54:22 GMT -6
I halved the name level XP costs for fighting men and magic-users, so it goes...
Magic-user gains a level every 150,000 xp and gains a full hit die every 600,000 xp (i.e. every four levels)
Cleric gains a level every 100,000 xp and gains a full hit die every 300,000 xl (i.e. every three levels)
Fighting man gains a level every 120,000 xp and gains a full hit die every 240,000 xp (i.e. every two levels)
So after 2.4 million beyond name level, the fighter has gained 10 hit dice, the cleric has gained 8 hit dice and the magic-user has gained 4 hit dice (which nicely resembles the hit die type they would eventually get in AD&D). This is using 6-sided hit dice for all classes, as per Men & Magic.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Jan 16, 2018 0:58:54 GMT -6
The Cleric XP progression used to rub me the wrong way, but if you're playing BTB (approximately), the difference is negligible in actual play. The Cleric is really never more than one level higher than the other characters, and since their spells aren't as "theatrical" as the Magic-user spells, and they're not quite as effective as the Fighter in combat - not to mention any self-imposed nerfing via role-play - I see it all as a wash.
|
|
graelth
Level 4 Theurgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 111
|
Post by graelth on Jan 16, 2018 5:37:35 GMT -6
The Cleric XP progression used to rub me the wrong way, but if you're playing BTB (approximately), the difference is negligible in actual play. The Cleric is really never more than one level higher than the other characters, and since their spells aren't as "theatrical" as the Magic-user spells, and they're not quite as effective as the Fighter in combat - not to mention any self-imposed nerfing via role-play - I see it all as a wash. It's largely true that a cleric is never far above the other characters in terms of power (except for at really high levels, of course). That said, he will definitely advance beyond a 1 level difference with the party once he passes name level. It's largely a moot point... his hit die and attack progression are slow enough that a high level cleric is never much more powerful than, say, a fighter, even if his level is much higher. His quantity of spells do tend to outshine the magic-user beyond name level, but again these are largely supporting spells, so I doubt you'd hear the magic-user player complaining much. In my case, I don't change the XP progression because I think the cleric is "too powerful" though. Rather, I just think it's weird to have a 20th level cleric adventuring with a 13th level fighting man... it's completely an aesthetic decision, really!
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Jan 16, 2018 9:04:57 GMT -6
I know the poll is closed, but put me down as "D" (something else).
I'm not a fan of the Cleric class. I would rather treat that as a sub-class of Magic-User (including all the equipment and combat limitations of a MU), but more focused on Charisma than Intelligence, as they are dependent on keeping and maintaining worshipers , as well as having to make pleas for divine interventions. With "turning", I would rather have that as something anyone could do, if they are faithful to a deity, although they would not be as good as a Cleric, and turning can also effect demons (devils, etc.) just like "undead" beings.
The truth of the matter is that I would rather have faith and worship as role-playing element first, and a mechanical one second. Much like how a Paladin is bound by a code of conduct, if they should violate their deity's dogma, they risk loosing all the benefits than comes with being a Paladin. That is, worshipers of Aries are all-around stronger and tougher, as long as they fight and live like a Spartan warrior. Worshipers of Apollo can magically heal and protect people, as long as they do not take up arms. A Priestess of Athena needs to be a vestal virgin, while a Priestess of Aphrodite needs to be the exact opposite: a sacred prostitute. All the gods should have their own benefits and restrictions. That is how I like to role.
|
|
|
Post by gemini476 on Jan 16, 2018 16:20:49 GMT -6
My personal opinions on the Cleric's XP progression are almost completely just based on the underlying maths. Here's some logarithmic graphs on the matter. (Before anyone asks, the weird stuff in Fighting Capability is when the Cleric jumps to Superhero-1 and the M-U upgrades to the Wizard-1.) For THAC0 and HP things don't really get problematic until a million XP or so (~level 18), but they do still get problematic far before the point where the Magic-User would traditionally get higher-level spells (1M XP is M-U 13, F-M 13). Again, though, this is so far ahead in character progression that it's never become a problem at my tables.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 20, 2018 10:25:55 GMT -6
The Cleric is a great example of a "Combination Figure" that p38 of Chainmail talks about.
"There are certain natural, although rare, combinations. A good example of this is Moorcock's anti-heroish 'Elric of Melnibone,' who combines the attributes of the Hero-type with wizardry, and wields a magic sword in the balance. Whatever combinations you do decided to use, remember to be careful so as not to make any one too powerful so as to destroy play balance."
Clerics are just a combination of fighting-man and magic-user with gameplay limitations imposed to keep them from being too overpowered. For example they will hardly ever be able to find a magic weapon because most of those are magic swords which they can't use. Their to-hit progression is slower than fighting-man. They don't get as many spells, and the spells they do get are far more restrictive in how they can be used.
|
|
|
Post by gemini476 on Feb 22, 2018 16:24:23 GMT -6
To be more exact, magic weapons in general take up 25% of the magic item tables but the Clerical options (Mace +2, War Hammer +1-+2 (including lesser uses of +3)) are just 20% of the Miscellaneous Weapons Table which in turn is just 5% of the general tables. In other words, a Fighting-Man has a 25% chance of getting a magical weapon, a Cleric has a 1% chance, and a Magic-User also has a 1% chance (daggers +1 and +2).
The tables aren't all bad for the Cleric, of course. In addition to fighty things, they can also use Clerical scrolls (post-errata) and have 27% of the Wands and Staves table available for them (1.35% of all items) - and three of those, the staves of healing, snake and withering, are only available to them!
The total percentages in the LBBs, if anyone is interested: Fighting-Men can use 84.1% of magic items. 23% are exclusive. Magic-Users can use 60.15% of magic items, 57.65% post-errata. 14.5% are exclusive, 12% post-errata. Clerics can use 61.45% of magic items, 63.95% post-errata. 0.85% are exclusive, 3.35% post-errata.
Them being a "combination figure" is extremely obvious when you look at things like this. The errata is the added 25% chance of a scroll being clerical, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 22, 2018 17:53:54 GMT -6
I was recently poking around all the stuff I've stored on an external hard drive over the years. This is over the life span of multiple computers. Some of it I should probably delete. I'll never use it. Not sure why I saved it. Other stuff, good stuff, has been lost on the internet and possibly only resides on that drive. Eh, maybe not. When I first started thinking about roleplaying again, the first thing I did was search the internet for free stuff. Maybe it was nostalgia. I had long before gotten rid of everything from my early years, except my dice. For some reason I kept those dice. Everything else was trashed. I needed to refresh my memory with what I could find. I wasn't really at a point where I was willing to shell out any cash for nostalgia's sake. At the time there wasn't such a profusion of material floating around the internet (or my search skills were lacking). But I came across a couple pages that contained lists of peoples home brewed games. Many times the links were dead and it was hit or miss in what I found. Some of it was rough or incomplete. Most was a mix of word docs or text docs. A few pdf's. Some contained illustrations which varied between fairly good to very poor- something a 5 year old could have drawn. I'm getting to my point now. One of the documents I came across in this search of the internet was Microlite74. It captured the spirit of what I was looking for. Ah, the memories of an earlier time. <poof> Well, I tinkered around with those rules, created a couple dungeon scenarios, rolled up some characters, and played a few games. It scratched an itch. But it didn't quite satisfy. I needed to fine tune things to fit what I wanted. So, fast forward, I'm looking through my hard drive and what do I find? A folder containing a set of rules- my alterations and modifications to M74! What do I think about nerfing Clerics? The title of those rules was <dum-da-dum> "Kingdoms, Clerics, and Crusaders". Better known as KC&C ( I know, I know) ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
|
Post by korvin0starmast on Feb 27, 2018 21:26:17 GMT -6
The original gish, by today's terms, in terms of a martial/spell caster mix (the other gish was the elf) ... so here I read a thread where people wish to squeeze the fun out of a perfectly good PC class from OD&D. I note that someone up thread has made the link between Templars (and Hospitlars, who survive now as the Knights of Malta) to the cleric.
OD&D cleric needs no nerf. Fine and fun as is. Leave it alone. Tastes great, less filling. In a game where wraiths, wights, specters, and vampires sucked levels out of you, you needed a cleric to keep them off of the rest of the party, and do a few other cool things. That's part of making an effective team. OD&D wasn't about individuals, they were about a team and synergy.
I can't vote, but I can scratch my head in confusion at the people who wanted to nerf a cleric from OD&D. They got a nice bump in power in AD&D 1e with those bonus spells, but that's for another sub forum.
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Aug 4, 2018 16:33:30 GMT -6
Sorry for the thread necromancy... Wanted to throw another question out there that wasn't really discussed here. How do folks feel about the cleric's quick approach to Name Level and thus the end-game of stronghold development?
Clerics gain name level and can build a stronghold (at half price, with free retainers, with villagers that pay double taxes) at 100K XP. The others can start clearing and building at significantly higher XP: Fighters (240K), Thief (125K), Wizards (300K). Clerics also have a ton of spells that are quite useful for buffing ordinary normal types.
From what I've read of the pre-OD&D manuscript, clerics had some wealth accumulation restrictions... in this context, the half-price construction makes some sense (as the cleric hasn't had a chance to accumulate wealth prior to name level). But OD&D has no such unique clerical wealth restrictions. They're free to save their pennies just like any other class.
I haven't organically played OD&D up to this high of a level so I can't really speak to how this unfolds in actual play. We did play to this level in AD&D but that's a different game in this regard in a lot of ways. The way I imagine this end game unfolding in an OD&D type game is the characters building their strongholds and becoming semi-rivals, perhaps even warring against each other in mass combat as their aspirations bump up against each other, or commanding armies alongside each other against mass-combat type threats... or just bullying those NPC Lords that have obnoxiously been throwing around jousts, Geas, and Quests while charging living expenses and upkeep all this time!
It seems to me that Fighters ought to be the premier real estate developers, stronghold builders, and army commanders... The Fighter Lord ought to be at the head of an army, with his trusty wizard friend by his side and a cleric providing spiritual guidance... But based on the RAW, clerics make fighters look like pikers. By the time the fighting man gets around to building his first Tower, the cleric will have a castle complex, double income stream, and an army. Even the thief will be way ahead of the fighting man with regard to barony development.
FOr those that have played at the higher levels is this actually an issue? If it is a problem, does it make more sense to nerf the Cleric (i.e. push back their stronghold development to 240K+ XP, or impose Paladin/Ranger-style wealth restrictions), or give the Fighting Man his barony a level sooner (i.e. at 120K XP) to event things up somewhat?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 16:53:33 GMT -6
Something interesting about NPC'ing clerics. Party would have to contract with cleric (or make some other arrangement) and perhaps likewise entwine itself in the mission and insistences of the cleric's religion. And, they might make new broader scope allies and enemies as well. Good milieu immersion potential.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Aug 4, 2018 18:09:34 GMT -6
I'm not a fan of the Cleric class. I would rather have that as a sub-class of Magic-User (with all the equipment and combat limitations), but more focused on Charisma than Intelligence, as they are dependent on keeping and maintaining worshipers and need to make pleas for divine interventions. With "turning", I would rather have that as something anyone could do, if they faithful to a deity, although they would not be as good as a Cleric, and turning can also effect demons (devils, etc.) just like "undead" beings. I think there is a required a balancing for Clerical abilities and actions among all the classes that the later editions lost. The other classes kept this balance. For instance: 1. Every class has some level of combat ability. HD type, To Hit progression, proficiencies, etc. F_M are best. 2. Every class has some level of magical ability. Most magic items state which classes can use them or "all". M-U are best. 3. Clerical power...? I think this was some of the magic items, but also those protection scrolls everyone could use regardless of class training. I think calling on the gods for interference should certainly be possible for those outside the cleric class too. That could be shouting at the gods or simply using some clerical magic (holy items and holy places). Personally "Turning" I don't grant other classes. I see that as the iconic ability of the class that requires all that class training. FOr those that have played at the higher levels is this actually an issue? If it is a problem, does it make more sense to nerf the Cleric (i.e. push back their stronghold development to 240K+ XP, or impose Paladin/Ranger-style wealth restrictions), or give the Fighting Man his barony a level sooner (i.e. at 120K XP) to event things up somewhat? Here's the thing. I personally don't see the 4 classes as more than slightly overlapping, even in what others call the endgame. F-M baronies are like sovereignties or states within a larger political entity. They create what I've heard many believe all the classes gain.
M-Us create institutes (or similar) about magic. Clerics create cathedrals (etc) about their gods. Thieves create "thiefdoms" ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) or thieves' guilds. Subclasses generally have their own organizations they adhere to. NPC classes typically form guilds. Or maybe schools?
The point is, any of these can cooperate with and within political borders (usually legally) without being an alternate political state. They could also be their own state or exist outside the borders of civilization. Either way, fending for themselves generally means having some F-M force in service to them.
I personally don't believe this whole enterprise needs to begin at capstone levels. You can gain followers as soon as play starts. You can hack out territory everywhere you go (though some other claimant may not like it). You can also buy your first "castle" straight away. Like some ramshackle hovel outside the city walls. It all counts and can be progressed in size and scope as part of play. I don't think rank authorities need be tied to class level ranks, though that might have been an early playstyle or kind of NPC progression rule.
|
|