Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> writes
>Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>>>> If RL religious types could cast spells, the Judeo-Christian God
>>>> would grant its clerics a Hammer of Thor spell?
>
>Bradd wrote:
>>> D&D has a "Hammer of Thor" spell?
>
>> It doesn't have a Judeo-Christian deity model, either. I would have
>> thought you, of all people, would understand a hypothetical model
>> without it being spelled out.
>
>You call it a "hypothetical model"; I call it a "straw man." The game as
>written has a spell that can represent either a hammer of Thor or a
>sword of Michael. The game already handles your example just fine; you
>had to twist it to make your point. That's beating up a straw man.
And I was making no assumptions as to whether or not the "spell" related
to a weapon or not. That's entirely of your own invention. The
hypothetical model, FYI since you do seem to need it spelled out, is
"would deity X [in this case, the Judeo-Christian god] grant its clerics
a spell or power outside its general domain [in this case, one
associated with a non-Christian deity]". Don't get all het up about
weapon-esque spells - it's an irrelevant translation on your part.
>>>> The current open spell list doesn't prevent a water-god cleric from
>>>> preparing a flame strike spell.
>
>>> So what?
>
>> So some of us think that clerics should be more focused to their
>> deities' province.
>
>Again, why? Furthermore, /how/? The game can't possibly anticipate every
>possible combination of portfolios. This is something much better left
>to setting rules for the few cosmologies that need it.
*Exactly*. A modular class, modified from the cleric, setting-specific,
to accommodate a world model where clerics are more deity-focused than
they are presented in the core rules. Plug'n'play cleric class features
by deity (or perhaps by portfolio element).
>>> Again, if a god truly does have a narrow focus, then the cleric class
>>> is wholly inappropriate for his followers. It's not just the spell
>>> list; there's also the martial abilities, the undead turning, and the
>>> special healing abilities.
>
>> Which could also be subject to a more focused approach to the
>> cleric/deity relationship .... [A] modification to the cleric class.
>
>If you knock out the martial skills, the turning, and the healing, and
>you re-write the spell rules, you're not talking about modifying the
>class. You're starting over from scratch.
Depending on how far you went with it. But yes, that is a possible
route.
>The cleric class, while clearly not generic, serves a useful role in the
>game. Why fudge it up when a whole new class would serve your needs
>better, without eliminating the existing, useful class?
That entirely depends on the route taken. Personally, IMC, I do this:
* Spells: Spell lists by deity. Domains remain as-is.
* Turning: Treating turning as a form of energy channelling (a concept
divine feats have at their core), translating that energy channelling
into deity-specific class features (which may or may not be along the
lines of turn/rebuke undead)
* HD: For noncombative clerics, HD type drops. For combative clerics,
HD remains at d8. Drop in HD is coupled with some class feature to
compensate (e.g., my healing-deity clerics have d6 HD, and +1 caster
level to healing-type spells which stacks with the Healing domain power)
* BAB and BSB are similarly adjusted and compensated as necessary.
Yes, this is effectively creating a new, "menu-driven" class concept.
But each "class" it produces still traces class lineage back to the
cleric.
>> If a setting has more focused religions, would it not make sense to
>> modify the cleric class to accommodate that?
>
>Not really.
Well, be happy playing non-setting-driven games. Nothing wrong with
that. Perhaps you can see that there is also nothing wrong with playing
games where the setting does drive the game, and adjustments need to be
made to the rules accordingly.
>> I'm not - and I don't think Ophidian is, either - advocating an
>> official revamp to clerics as far as the generic D&D game goes.
>
>So create new setting rules, based on the current alignment descriptor
>rules. (Also, I think you may be incorrect here. Either that or Ophidian
>was exaggerating when he claimed to hate the current rules.)
I'm not going to pretend to be able to read Ophidian's mind over his
intent. The way it came across to me was that he was exploring house
rule options to satisfy an element of the core rules that did not fit
with his game and/or setting concept. I may be wrong, of course, and if
I am then don't take anything I've written here as defence of a position
that advocates the modification of the *core* away from a generic
warrior-priest class (i.e., the cleric) that works just fine in a basic,
standard D&D game.
>>>> The current system does prevent a good cleric from casting an evil
>>>> spell, so why not a water cleric from casting a fire spell?
>
>>> Because the cleric class is not a generic class.
>
>> Now this statement is somewhat confused ....
>
>Not at all. The cleric class has certain assumptions about good, evil,
>etc built in. It is not generic. It is not designed to handle all
>possible cosmological conflicts, nor could it, nor /should/ it.
Agreed. Okay, so my comment was based on an assumed definition of
"generic class" that you weren't using.
--
Ian R Malcomson
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram