|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 4, 2018 18:28:55 GMT -6
Some interesting observations rustic313; thanks for sharing. 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. Worth noting, perhaps, that EGG upped clerical requirements in AD&D (PHB, p20). Notably, top level becomes 9th (High Priest) at 225k XP. Back in D&D-land, M&M isn't explicit that a Patriarch can build any old stronghold "at half price". It says if he spends 100,000 GP (presumably " at least 100,000 GP") the religious workforce delivers something of double that value. A subtle difference, perhaps, but I like that it sets a minimum bar. FWIW, AD&D specifies (presumably impressive?) minimum floor areas and features for the cleric's stronghold. Technically, there's no reason why a player couldn't start clearing wilderness and (assuming he has sufficient GP) building fortifications at any level. Only a Baron can legitimately collect taxes, however. (For other players, illegitimate taxation is probably "looting"; the local authority may not be impressed). 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. Hmm, maybe. Here's a copy-paste direct out of my (alpha) annotated heroes & magic: U&WA p15 (Castles): « Clerics will require passersby to give a tithe (10%) of all their money and jewels» and GD&D (Twin Cities) (Clerics): « The object of a Cleric’s life is to be accepted in and work through a monestary or an Order, and therefore gold pieces are only as important as a tribute or tithe». 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. My impression is that thieves are about running operations within a city (or several) rather than carving out a Barony. Not sure a cleric's success is so absolute either. I agree the cleric achieves top level earliest, and has certain benefits for sure, but a lot comes down to how the ref plays out the details. E.g., the cleric's forces are fanatically loyal to the stronghold (i.e., the religion or even that specific temple). So if the cleric ever changes sides or (my extrapolation) is excommunicated for just or unjust reasons, he looses his temple and all the forces associated with it. Whereas the fighter owns his castle and the loyalty of his men. If the cleric's virtue is unassailable and his powers absolute, then yes he has several advantages. But the end game can, if desired, be more geopolitical with other players/non-players doing anything to undermine their rivals. Imagine what could be achieved with a mere alignment change... ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Aug 4, 2018 22:10:35 GMT -6
Good point. However I think embedded within your post is the assumption of "Party 4 Life!" That is, the modern trope that the party delves dungeons together and then builds a cooperative collective stronghold together. I think this could be one model: The fighting man is the overall Baron and political lord, the magic user builds a wizard tower and controls arcane activities, the thief is the "mayor" of a city in the Barony, and the cleric is the Bishop of the diocese whose borders roughly overlap with the temporal borders of the Barony. Each class rules in its own sphere in the end game.
A few concerns with shared jurisdictions: - What if all the roles aren't covered by PCs? Does an NPC church send a name-level cleric to be the Bishop if there's no PC cleric? Or is the realm devoid of spiritual guidance? - What if the PCs are rivals and don't want to jointly administer a shared realm? - Why wouldn't the cleric be the overall lord both spiritual and temporal, and the fighter nothing but muscle? The cleric gets more troops, more revenue, spells/magic, and more stronghold square footage for the GP. The cleric gets these benefits much earlier than the fighting man, too. A subordinate cleric meekly surrendering temporal power to the Fighting Man would have to be driven by purely role playing concerns with no mechanic justification. In fact, the cleric couldn't let the fighting man rule initially (at least, not legitimately collecting taxes as a Lord). - Does each PC collect taxes in a shared jurisdiction? Or are the tax revenues split? If so, how? How does the cleric's double share (i.e. tithe) work?
Excellent point... Looks like EGG opted for that course of action.
I think your Twin Cities quote might be the one I was thinking of regarding wealth. I thought there was something else in an early manuscript about higher upkeep costs for some of the character types but I may well be mis-remembering. A search of the forums didn't turn it up.
I don't know that the stick of "well, the cleric is AWESOME but if they change alignment they're screwed!" holds much water in realistic play as a balancing factor. If the cleric changes alignment then they lose most of their class features, and its time for them to either retire or become the campaign's arch-villain. Most PC clerics will be Lawful for life. I can't think of many temptations that would cause one to flip to Chaos, especially after an entire career made through slaying the opponents of weal. Given how loose the alignment system is its certainly not terribly well defined what would cause one to lose Lawful status other than egregious acts of misconduct, regular use of reversed spells, or signing a deal with a devil (literally).
I think the GM would have to specifically work hard to make the cleric use their temporal power in ways that does not further the character's personal wealth but further the faith... For example the stronghold must be built in a particularly arid place devoid of useful farm land (few taxes), the soldiers must be led on crusade against a foe with little or no loot, etc. While interesting, such hooks are tough to balance without careful forethought.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 4, 2018 22:37:57 GMT -6
I didn't mean to imply any sort of "balance" rustic; I was more saying that clerics have a special kryptonite that fighters don't have. Re: changing sides: (From memory) I think M&M is explicit that if a cleric uses finger of death, for example, he "immediately" (or similar language) becomes an anti-cleric. Besides which there can be curses and magic items (e.g., helm of alignment change). Not to mention the possibility the Gods themselves might change/fall from grace/intentionally manipulate mortals as part of some incomprehensible scheme. Agreed the whole temples/religion thing requires a bit of forethought but that itself can be the basis for epic campaigning. E.g., the Pope (a distant figure) might declare a Crusade and immediately the cleric and his forces are committed, whether it furthers the player's specific needs or not. If the Crusade turned out to be a disaster or counter to other player desires, the cleric could easily find himself conflicted, even taking action to avert it, or end it, or whatever. Should be fertile grounds for temple dividing politics I'd have thought Just thoughts... hope that helps to make it interesting ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Aug 5, 2018 7:26:28 GMT -6
I didn't mean to imply any sort of "balance" rustic; I was more saying that clerics have a special kryptonite that fighters don't have. Re: changing sides: (From memory) I think M&M is explicit that if a cleric uses finger of death, for example, he "immediately" (or similar language) becomes an anti-cleric. Besides which there can be curses and magic items (e.g., helm of alignment change). Not to mention the possibility the Gods themselves might change/fall from grace/intentionally manipulate mortals as part of some incomprehensible scheme. Agreed the whole temples/religion thing requires a bit of forethought but that itself can be the basis for epic campaigning. E.g., the Pope (a distant figure) might declare a Crusade and immediately the cleric and his forces are committed, whether it furthers the player's specific needs or not. If the Crusade turned out to be a disaster or counter to other player desires, the cleric could easily find himself conflicted, even taking action to avert it, or end it, or whatever. Should be fertile grounds for temple dividing politics I'd have thought Just thoughts... hope that helps to make it interesting ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Clerics can use Finger of Death so long as they aren't zapping random peasants: (A Cleric-type may use this spell in a life-or-death situation, but misuse will immediately turn him into an Anti-Cleric.) I do rather like the Quest idea to balance out the end game and explain why Clerical theocracies aren't running the entire world. To flesh that out I'd require the Cleric to be on "strongly suggested" Quests from a Higher Power until their XP surpasses that of a fighter lord. If we assume Patriarch Level 8 is 100K XP, Level 9 is 200K, Level 10 is 300K then that's Level 10 (as the Fighting Man requires 240K XP to gain "name" status). So that would be three crusades (which seems like a good number). I would design crusades to be (1) not terribly profitable in temporal terms (in fact, perhaps a net loss) and (2) useful for an army/stronghold to participate in. Here's what a GM note could look like: "Patriarchs who establish strongholds should be given a Quest by a Higher Power at Level 8, a second one at Level 9, and a third at Level 10. Ideas for quests include: (1) Far Crusade: Raze the stronghold of a chaotic Baron at least 100 miles distant. (2) Pilgrimage: Escort 30-300 pilgrims to a Holy Land at least 100 miles distant and return them safely. (3) Near Crusade: A neutral Baron or group of tribes adjacent to the cleric's lands must be convinced to convert to the cleric's faith, whether by diplomacy or force of arms. (4) Inquisition: Several of the cleric's villages have been infected by heretical ideas! The cleric must suppress these heretics, even if it leads to a peasant revolt. The heretics are being supported by an Outside Force. (5) Reconquista: Several of the cleric's villages have been overrun by wilderness encounters (orcs, hobgoblins, etc) and must be reclaimed. (6) Jihad: Two Barons declare Jihad and vow to expel the Faith from the Realm. Each sends 1d3 wilderness encounters to attack. The cleric must defend their stronghold and villagers."Thus, rather than building up an unassailable base with their discounted stronghold, free army, and double tax revenues, clerics find themselves entangled in numerous wars (both offensive and defensive), purges, and other troubles. A Patriarch building a stronghold in the neighborhood is bound to cause concern... The Chaotics will band together to wage a Jihad and expel them before they get too strong, the Neutrals will be nervous that they will be the next target of a Crusade ("convert or die!"), and even other Lawfuls might be nervous that they will be drawn into a larger war... While a Lawful might be fine joining in a crusade against Chaotics, they will likely be less enthusiastic about suppressing heretical villagers over some doctrinal disagreement or getting drawn into a dispute with an otherwise friendly neutral Baron in the area. Meanwhile, Fighter Lords, while delayed in establishing a formal stronghold, have none of these diplomatic entanglements. They enter the game board of Major Players with a somewhat clean slate. Finally, I think something similar is reasonable for Thieves, who hit name level at 125K. If you assume that their next level is 250K, then I'd force some sort of turf war over control with an existing or neighboring rival that occurs between 125K and 250K.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 15:43:06 GMT -6
Option ‘e’.
If I needed to mitigate the Cleric, I’d use the campaign setting to introduce external influences as suggested above, but I really try to avoid changing any of the core game mechanics.
Having said that, I completely understand where to desire to adjust this class is coming from. It can take a lot of additional effort to keep things fair and moving for all, given the jack of all trades (combat, hp and armor), master of some (divine spells, turning undead, and cheap strongholds).
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Aug 7, 2018 17:29:17 GMT -6
Good point. However I think embedded within your post is the assumption of "Party 4 Life!" That is, the modern trope that the party delves dungeons together and then builds a cooperative collective stronghold together. I think this could be one model: The fighting man is the overall Baron and political lord, the magic user builds a wizard tower and controls arcane activities, the thief is the "mayor" of a city in the Barony, and the cleric is the Bishop of the diocese whose borders roughly overlap with the temporal borders of the Barony. Each class rules in its own sphere in the end game. I think learning how to cooperate with your fellow team is half the game of D&D. D&D is a cooperative game, not a collaborative one. This means the players have not[edit] to cooperate with one another, they could compete against each other, but the game is not designed to support long campaigns when players compete. That's game ending behavior. As I see it, each class rules its own sphere throughout the entirety of the game, from first level onwards. It isn't simply an endgame phenomena or a modern game conception. 1. Players can always select any core class they desire, like a party of all fighters. Yes, I think if these fighters started a group barony they should expect some non-adventuring NPCs to be part of the populace. For instance, magic-users may set up shop, thieves stake out criminal territories, and clerical leaders look to grow followers. Not to mention the NPC class factions. 2. Players who compete against other players will likely end the campaign. Just like attacking them with a sword at first level is equivalent. This does not mean players must cooperate and do everything as a group. That includes being king. 3. Followers aren't troops necessarily. Follower make up is differentiated in AD&D to help define the kind of influence each class has. Powerful subclasses often receive few to no followers at all. As OD&D stands it isn't clear how to grow a campaign region with high-powered NPCs. I agree with you that, without a change to the rules as written, Clerics would appear to dominate in most domains. But that doesn't have to be how factions work. I prefer AD&D's change here to balance things. 4. Taxes for F-M, Tithes for Clerics, Tuition for M-Us (receiving apprentices only really), and racketeering and guild cuts for Thieves. There are suggestions about this in the DMG too.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 12, 2018 8:20:53 GMT -6
Most PC clerics will be Lawful for life. I can't think of many temptations that would cause one to flip to Chaos, especially after an entire career made through slaying the opponents of weal. Given how loose the alignment system is its certainly not terribly well defined what would cause one to lose Lawful status other than egregious acts of misconduct, regular use of reversed spells, or signing a deal with a devil (literally). Sure, if the player is never tested it will never come up. But there's nothing stopping the ref from putting all the reverse clerical spells on the table. Imagine the cleric player can, at any time, flip to Cause Light Wounds, Darkness, Curse, Cause Disease, Poison, and so on. Now imagine fighters automatically recover all normal (not fantastic) hits after each fight, so the cleric doesn't feel the same pressure to stock cure spells. How long before the cleric starts throwing some of those reverses? After a few times, the player might find that the undead no longer automatically attack him. At some point when he "Turns" them, they become his thralls instead; a "Charm" spell for undead. Wow, now that's gonna be pretty a useful power. Power that might be difficult for a player to let go... Not saying any of this is explicit. Just saying it's all possible and makes for fun times ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jun 15, 2019 15:10:42 GMT -6
What do you think of simply making "clerical" characters choose a single class - either fighting-men or magic users. Some clergy are fighting-men, and some clergy are magic-users.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jun 15, 2019 22:15:12 GMT -6
What do you think of simply making "clerical" characters choose a single class - either fighting-men or magic users. Some clergy are fighting-men, and some clergy are magic-users. I have clerics, which fulfil the role of paladins, and monks, who are basically clerical magic users (I don't use Bruce Lee monks).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 1:08:34 GMT -6
IMC clerics have to learn spells the same way M-Us do. My players agree that that makes them more compelling, as having to hunt down new spells and writing them down in they Prayer Book is always fun.
Turn Undead works is a 1st-level spell too.
|
|
scrape
Level 1 Medium
OD&D referee and player in Norman, OK
Posts: 12
|
Post by scrape on Jun 16, 2019 9:30:09 GMT -6
IMC only 1 in 8 PCs has been a cleric. Clearly the players don't find the class too attractive. So I vote E, no nerfs needed. Yet, I love this nearly year old suggestion by rustic 313. It looks brilliant to me.
"Patriarchs who establish strongholds should be given a Quest by a Higher Power at Level 8, a second one at Level 9, and a third at Level 10. Ideas for quests include: (1) Far Crusade: Raze the stronghold of a chaotic Baron at least 100 miles distant. (2) Pilgrimage: Escort 30-300 pilgrims to a Holy Land at least 100 miles distant and return them safely. (3) Near Crusade: A neutral Baron or group of tribes adjacent to the cleric's lands must be convinced to convert to the cleric's faith, whether by diplomacy or force of arms. (4) Inquisition: Several of the cleric's villages have been infected by heretical ideas! The cleric must suppress these heretics, even if it leads to a peasant revolt. The heretics are being supported by an Outside Force. (5) Reconquista: Several of the cleric's villages have been overrun by wilderness encounters (orcs, hobgoblins, etc) and must be reclaimed. (6) Jihad: Two Barons declare Jihad and vow to expel the Faith from the Realm. Each sends 1d3 wilderness encounters to attack. The cleric must defend their stronghold and villagers."
|
|