Limiting Clerics

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hadsil wrote:
> It's not like clerics are casting every spell every day. A lot of
> those spells are never cast or maybe once in a whole campaign. Sure
> enough, though, declare a spell no longer available and it *will* be
> needed.
>
> That being said, it is logical for deities to be focused. This has
> been discussed before. A god of peace, love, and granola would give
> their clerics Divine Power while a god war would not give Calm
> Emotions. 2E tried this idea with their Spheres but failed miserably
> with Priest's Handbook. 3E uses Domains to reflect portfolios.

I have a similar setup. I make clerics (the players of them at least)
keep a prayer book. This is half IC and half OOC. Clerical magic, IMC,
is easy enough, but clerics don't have divine access to all spells. So
they have to learn as they go. they're really easy to learn, but what
the book allows me to do it to start them with spells that their church
approves of and when they go back to their church laters on they get
higher level spells that their church likes. if they want spellls that
their church dislikes or forbids (some churches won't allow
resurrection while others won't teach animate dead, etc) you have to
make a deal with a church that will teach that spell. Adds some nice
politics and the spells are easy enough to learn (I think I just said
you can learn 1/night of study though I'm considering 1/level/night of
study) that I'm not making the focus learning the spell, just getting
at it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ian R Malcomson <ian@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Okay, so 20-odd years ago, this kind of DM/PC tweaking did happen a fair
> bit. That was when my setting notes barely filled an exercise book, and
> there was only one map (on hex paper, no less!). Now there's more notes
> than a filing cabinet will hold and a heck of a lot of maps, its more a
> crafted playground than an amorphous work-in-progress these days.

Ooh! Ooh! Online anywhere? Electronic files you could mail? I think
it'd be fascinating to see.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
> Ophidian wrote:
>
>>As written, even the most pacifistic deity should have a favored
>>weapon and some of the examples are downright silly.
>
> If you're looking for a pacifist god, why start with the cleric? It's
> wholly inappropriate for that use, with all of its battle-oriented class
> features.

Um, because Core doesn't present other options?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>> The "Thor" bit was the important bit, not the "Hammer" bit.
>> It could have been "Hare of Eostre", "Toenail of
>> Pheidippides", or "Flaming Arsehole of Ra".

Nikolas Landauer <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote:
> Those are poorly designed spell concepts, and not one spell like that
> exists in D&D core, for good reason. Other settings may not have been
> so circumspect, but that's just poor design. (As a note, Eberron,
> which has one of the loosest pantheons of any RPG with deities, and in
> fact has deities who are distant, uncaring, and apparently not the
> source of divine magic, *also* has no spells like that.)
>
> I think that's why people are claiming you're strawmanning, and asking
> you for concrete examples.

Bingo!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> writes
>Ian R Malcomson <ian@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Okay, so 20-odd years ago, this kind of DM/PC tweaking did happen a fair
>> bit. That was when my setting notes barely filled an exercise book, and
>> there was only one map (on hex paper, no less!). Now there's more notes
>> than a filing cabinet will hold and a heck of a lot of maps, its more a
>> crafted playground than an amorphous work-in-progress these days.
>
>Ooh! Ooh! Online anywhere? Electronic files you could mail? I think
>it'd be fascinating to see.

I used to keep bits and pieces of it online, before I fell for ye olde
"take down website to re-do...oh look, I haven't got the time for that
re-do now" trap (if you hit the root of the URLs below, you'll see - a
homepage with lots of headings and very little content).

Anyway, I've uploaded a couple of JPEG maps. They're around the Mb
mark, so be warned if that's an issue. They're the main world map, and
an amalgamated group of submaps for a section of that.

http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk/files/A01_Z16.jpg
http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk/files/H01_Q07.jpg

If you want to drop me an email privately, I'll see what I can dig up
textually if you're still interested after seeing the cartography
slices.

--
Ian R Malcomson
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Bradd wrote:
>
> Any such exploration should begin with questions like "Is this worth
> investigating?" and "Is the existing cleric class a viable starting
> point for this kind of priest?" Answering those questions requires
> argument, if only an internal dialogue. However, some fools just jump in
> without ever conducting even basic reality checks.
>

Is it Brad's way or the highway? You are some fool if you think that
there is one way to explore. Play need have no purpose other than being
play. As for reality checks, we are talking about a fantasy game. It's
all a game of pretend. Chill out already. The game is big enough for
everyone.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> If you're looking for a pacifist god, why start with the cleric? It's
>> wholly inappropriate for that use, with all of its battle-oriented class
>> features.

Ophidian wrote:
> Um, because Core doesn't present other options?

So start from the healer class in the MiniHB, or the preacher class on
my own website, or start from scratch (like I did with the preacher).
It's not that difficult, will produce something closer to what you want,
and is no more risky than a major overhaul to cleric spellcasting.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> Any such exploration should begin with questions like "Is this worth
>> investigating?" and "Is the existing cleric class a viable starting
>> point for this kind of priest?" Answering those questions requires
>> argument, if only an internal dialogue. However, some fools just jump in
>> without ever conducting even basic reality checks.

Clawhound wrote:
> Is it Brad's way or the highway? You are some fool if you think that
> there is one way to explore ....

There's more than one way to explore, but some are clearly better than
others, in my opinion. In particular, if you want to fiddle with
something, you'd better know why you're doing it, even if it's only to
practice fiddling. You should also be able to explain that goal to
others, if you want constructive input.

> As for reality checks, we are talking about a fantasy game. It's all a
> game of pretend ....

No, we're talking about rule fiddling. The end result is a fantasy game,
but the game design itself is not.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Bradd wrote:
>
>>>Any such exploration should begin with questions like "Is this worth
>>>investigating?" and "Is the existing cleric class a viable starting
>>>point for this kind of priest?" Answering those questions requires
>>>argument, if only an internal dialogue. However, some fools just jump in
>>>without ever conducting even basic reality checks.
>
>
> Clawhound wrote:
>
>>Is it Brad's way or the highway? You are some fool if you think that
>>there is one way to explore ....
>
>
> There's more than one way to explore, but some are clearly better than
> others, in my opinion. In particular, if you want to fiddle with
> something, you'd better know why you're doing it, even if it's only to
> practice fiddling. You should also be able to explain that goal to
> others, if you want constructive input.
>

He did explain himself well. I found his post quite interesting. He
quite purposefully left goals open ended, as he wanted innovative input.
Your input left him quite exhasperated and he quite rightly stood up to
you on these things. Is that what you wanted? Was that your goal? You
should know your own goals before responding to others.

>
>>As for reality checks, we are talking about a fantasy game. It's all a
>>game of pretend ....
>
>
> No, we're talking about rule fiddling. The end result is a fantasy game,
> but the game design itself is not.

The game isn't a fantasy game? Or is it not a game? What kind of games
do you play where the players don't mess with the rules?

People play games. People change rules. Some changes work. Some don't.
That's what happens. All is right with the world.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ian R Malcomson <ian@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> writes
>>Ian R Malcomson <ian@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, so 20-odd years ago, this kind of DM/PC tweaking did happen a fair
>>> bit. That was when my setting notes barely filled an exercise book, and
>>> there was only one map (on hex paper, no less!). Now there's more notes
>>> than a filing cabinet will hold and a heck of a lot of maps, its more a
>>> crafted playground than an amorphous work-in-progress these days.
>>
>>Ooh! Ooh! Online anywhere? Electronic files you could mail? I think
>>it'd be fascinating to see.
>
> I used to keep bits and pieces of it online, before I fell for ye olde
> "take down website to re-do...oh look, I haven't got the time for that
> re-do now" trap (if you hit the root of the URLs below, you'll see - a
> homepage with lots of headings and very little content).

Oh, I know *all* about that. I've got a couple of websites that need
work right now, one of which I've started on.

> Anyway, I've uploaded a couple of JPEG maps. They're around the Mb
> mark, so be warned if that's an issue. They're the main world map, and
> an amalgamated group of submaps for a section of that.
>
> http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk/files/A01_Z16.jpg
> http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk/files/H01_Q07.jpg

Nice maps.

Yes, I'm still envious of your CC skills. I haven't had the patience
(or time) to get that good with it.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
> >
> >>As for reality checks, we are talking about a fantasy game. It's
all a
> >>game of pretend ....
> >
> >
> > No, we're talking about rule fiddling. The end result is a fantasy
game,
> > but the game design itself is not.
>
> The game isn't a fantasy game? Or is it not a game? What kind of
games
> do you play where the players don't mess with the rules?
>
> People play games. People change rules. Some changes work. Some
don't.
> That's what happens. All is right with the world.
>
> CH

"Monopoly"

<ducks>

Gerald Katz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Bradd wrote:
> >> No, we're talking about rule fiddling. The end result is a fantasy
> >> game, but the game design itself is not.
>
> > The game isn't a fantasy game? Or is it not a game?
>
> What is so difficult to understand? "Fantasy game" does not mean
> "anything goes." Novels are also make-believe entertainment; despite
> that, novelists tend to take their craft seriously.
>
> > What kind of games do you play where the players don't mess with
the
> > rules?
>
> Bradd W. Szonye
> http://www.szonye.com/bradd

You know not of Cosmic Encounter? How unfortunate. Come with me my
apprentice to the wonderful world of rec.games.board.ce

Gerald Katz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound wrote:
>>> As for reality checks, we are talking about a fantasy game. It's all
>>> a game of pretend ....

Bradd wrote:
>> No, we're talking about rule fiddling. The end result is a fantasy
>> game, but the game design itself is not.

> The game isn't a fantasy game? Or is it not a game?

What is so difficult to understand? "Fantasy game" does not mean
"anything goes." Novels are also make-believe entertainment; despite
that, novelists tend to take their craft seriously.

> What kind of games do you play where the players don't mess with the
> rules?

Outside of RPGs, what games /do/ encourage the players to fiddle with
the rules? Some games, like Monopoly and Euchre, have a lot of house
rules, but those are just handed down from one player to another, with
little new game design.

> People play games. People change rules ....

In my experience, very few people change rules except by accident, even
in the unusually fiddle-friendly RPG category.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:15:01 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
wrote:

>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>Ophidian wrote:
>> As written, even the most pacifistic deity should have a favored
>> weapon and some of the examples are downright silly.
>
>If you're looking for a pacifist god, why start with the cleric? It's
>wholly inappropriate for that use, with all of its battle-oriented class
>features.

Two words: Pacifist CRUSH!


Hong "only Sea Wasp will get this joke" Ooi
--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> If you're looking for a pacifist god, why start with the cleric? It's
>> wholly inappropriate for that use, with all of its battle-oriented
>> class features.

Hong Ooi wrote:
> Two words: Pacifist CRUSH!

Hey, they don't count!

> Hong "only Sea Wasp will get this joke" Ooi

Thbbpt! Be kind to all creatures KICK!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hong Ooi wrote:

>
> Two words: Pacifist CRUSH!
>
>
> Hong "only Sea Wasp will get this joke" Ooi

"Father-Daughter Love and Beauty STRIKE!!!!!"

Now THERE was a Paladin!


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> writes
>Ian R Malcomson <ian@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I used to keep bits and pieces of it online, before I fell for ye olde
>> "take down website to re-do...oh look, I haven't got the time for that
>> re-do now" trap (if you hit the root of the URLs below, you'll see - a
>> homepage with lots of headings and very little content).
>
>Oh, I know *all* about that. I've got a couple of websites that need
>work right now, one of which I've started on.

Sometimes I think I need a good five years sitting on my arse being
unemployed to actually finish all the things I want to finish. Then
again, actually finishing something means I'd probably start revising
and expanding it. Maybe 20 years...

>> Anyway, I've uploaded a couple of JPEG maps. They're around the Mb
>> mark, so be warned if that's an issue. They're the main world map, and
>> an amalgamated group of submaps for a section of that.
>>
>> http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk/files/A01_Z16.jpg
>> http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk/files/H01_Q07.jpg
>
>Nice maps.

Thanks

>Yes, I'm still envious of your CC skills. I haven't had the patience
>(or time) to get that good with it.

You know, I say the same thing about maps some other folk knock out with
it. I mean, my excuse is having a highly concentrated period of CC-use
working for PF and otherwise working in GIS development. Some others
seem to just take to it like ducks to H2O - two weeks, and they're
kicking out works of art that I'd die for. I guess some people are just
natural born cartographers :|

--
Ian R Malcomson
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Clawhound wrote:
>
>>>>As for reality checks, we are talking about a fantasy game. It's all
>>>>a game of pretend ....
>
>
> Bradd wrote:
>
>>>No, we're talking about rule fiddling. The end result is a fantasy
>>>game, but the game design itself is not.
>
>
>>The game isn't a fantasy game? Or is it not a game?
>
>
> What is so difficult to understand? "Fantasy game" does not mean
> "anything goes." Novels are also make-believe entertainment; despite
> that, novelists tend to take their craft seriously.
>
>
>>What kind of games do you play where the players don't mess with the
>>rules?
>
>
> Outside of RPGs, what games /do/ encourage the players to fiddle with
> the rules? Some games, like Monopoly and Euchre, have a lot of house
> rules, but those are just handed down from one player to another, with
> little new game design.
>
>
>>People play games. People change rules ....
>
>
> In my experience, very few people change rules except by accident, even
> in the unusually fiddle-friendly RPG category.

My experience has been exactly the opposite. There's a large subsection
of the RPG genre who play games because they enjoy creating worlds,
genres, rules, and such. For them, and me, fiddling and designing *is*
the game more than actually playing it.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

This would be easy for a DM to implement, just let the water based
cleric use energy substitution (cold?) for every fire based spell.
Perhaps this could even be mandatory.

this would 1) give the water cleric some firepower and 2) keep life
simple and equitable (otherwise the air clerics might be short on
spells ...for example.

Most elemental based spells could be substituted in this way, with a
little descriptive text.

Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

>
>
> I didn't. Clearly, you utterly failed to understand my point in the
> original response. Once again, you chose a lousy example that supported
> your argument poorly, because it attacked a non-problem -- a straw man.

I see his problem with the cleric more as a campaign problem. Clerics,
as written, do not fit into his designed world. Compare this to Monte
Cook, who redesigned classes altogether for his Arcana
Unearthed/Expanded books. His redesign came from the same fundamental
problem: mechanically, the classes work, but to get the correct feel to
his campaign, he had to redesign the classes a great deal.

The way that magic and magic characters work greatly effects the tenor
and tone of a game. For him, clerics are a tone-breaker. They no longer
fit.

In most customizations of D20 that I see, the basic fighting rules and
skill rules remain mostly the same, but magic gets an overhaul.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>
>> I didn't. Clearly, you utterly failed to understand my point in the
>> original response. Once again, you chose a lousy example that supported
>> your argument poorly, because it attacked a non-problem -- a straw man.
>
> I see his problem with the cleric more as a campaign problem.

If you're speaking about me, then yes, it doesn't fit my campaign
for Clerics to be mainly martial or to have access to all Cleric spells.

> Clerics,
> as written, do not fit into his designed world. Compare this to Monte
> Cook, who redesigned classes altogether for his Arcana
> Unearthed/Expanded books. His redesign came from the same fundamental
> problem: mechanically, the classes work, but to get the correct feel to
> his campaign, he had to redesign the classes a great deal.

Agreed, the class works for the _game_, but not my implementation of
it. OTOH, even for the game I don't like Clerics having access to
all Cleric spells. I have implemented Cloistered Cleric (from UA)
as the default NPC Cleric but allowed Martial Cleric (from the PHB)
for special cases (War gods, etc.) and players who wnat them.
I've currently altered the spell system to UA's spontaneous
divine caster system which works for teh most part, but I'd like to
keep a Wizard style analog for Clerics also. That was my
original question. How to implement that, _not_ how to rewrite the
class or force feed people "sphere" lists. I'm not sure why the
thread got off track to the point where Bradd thinks we want a
total rewrite.

> The way that magic and magic characters work greatly effects the tenor
> and tone of a game. For him, clerics are a tone-breaker. They no longer
> fit.

Exactly.

> In most customizations of D20 that I see, the basic fighting rules and
> skill rules remain mostly the same, but magic gets an overhaul.

I don't see that done often, but I do see it toyed with ofte, esp,
spell point systems. I stopped toying with that when I realized
that core already is a spell points system <g>.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> writes

>I see his problem with the cleric more as a campaign problem. Clerics,
>as written, do not fit into his designed world.

<Snip>

Exactly!

--
Ian R Malcomson
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ian R Malcomson wrote:

> Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> writes
>
>> I see his problem with the cleric more as a campaign problem. Clerics,
>> as written, do not fit into his designed world.
>
>
> <Snip>
>
> Exactly!
>

Have you looked at any of Monte Cook's work, such as Arcana Expanded?
His totem warrior is a modular fighter based on the animal spirit
chosen. He made it modular so that DMs and players could make new
templates to fit their games. In fact, he rather enjoys seeing people
fiddle with his alternate player's handbook. He has no clerics in that
world, yet the game still works. There might be useful ideas there for
you. (And it's from one of the 3.0 designers. That's as legit as it gets.)

As I see it, you want to set a minimum BAB, HD, armor, weapons, and
skills for a cleric, then apply a more specific template over that based
on the deity.

Brad is accurate on one count: this is a martial game, and you must keep
that in mind when designing a class. Healing and fighting are no
brainers, but how is farming going to work with an adventure company?
Inherently, some clerics will work better as NPCs and others will be
more attractive to players in hostile situtations. Those who are not
combat oriented must supply something pretty terrific to overcome the
50% part of the game where there is fighting and he feels useless.

One thing that you do need with any cleric is a well developed
worldview. A character needs a clear sense of mission, and of
limitation. That can be harder than it looks.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> writes
>Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>
>> Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> writes
>>
>>> I see his problem with the cleric more as a campaign problem.
>>>Clerics, as written, do not fit into his designed world.
>> <Snip>
>> Exactly!
>>
>
>Have you looked at any of Monte Cook's work, such as Arcana Expanded?
>His totem warrior is a modular fighter based on the animal spirit
>chosen. He made it modular so that DMs and players could make new
>templates to fit their games. In fact, he rather enjoys seeing people
>fiddle with his alternate player's handbook. He has no clerics in that
>world, yet the game still works. There might be useful ideas there for
>you. (And it's from one of the 3.0 designers. That's as legit as it gets.)

I'm aware of it, and I've read Monte's website which gives some info on
it. Can you give a brief overview of how its modularity works? It might
be along the lines I'm looking for.

>As I see it, you want to set a minimum BAB, HD, armor, weapons, and
>skills for a cleric, then apply a more specific template over that
>based on the deity.

Exactly so. A core, bare-bones "cleric" which a player can identify as
being a cleric (as in "I want to play a cleric..."), that is then
"upgraded" (so to speak) by their choice of deity. I don't see the base
as being a viable class to play without the deity-specific bits, but I
do have half an idea of it being a viable NPC "general clergy" class
(IMO, the adept doesn't pass my world's test as being such a thing).

>Brad is accurate on one count: this is a martial game, and you must
>keep that in mind when designing a class.

Certainly. I wouldn't want a PC class to hamstring a player in terms of
the usual activities undertaken by a bunch of adventurers.

>Healing and fighting are no brainers, but how is farming going to work
>with an adventure company? Inherently, some clerics will work better as
>NPCs and others will be more attractive to players in hostile
>situtations.

>Those who are not combat oriented must supply something pretty terrific
>to overcome the 50% part of the game where there is fighting and he
>feels useless.

Exactly so. The usual deities chosen by player clerics reflect this.
This isn't to say I don't want "effectively ineffectual as PCs" clerics
in there (as you say, farming types and others), since their presence
rounds out the world. But they are inherently non-heroic, and my
campaign *play* is definitely of the heroic type. PC clerics therefore
should belong to one of the religions that espouses such heroism.

However, I don't believe in limiting PCs either, within the scope of the
world. As well as being heroic, my games also promote interaction of
types that don't involve swords. If a player wants a combat-weak,
socially-strong character, fair enough. My games are roughly 50%
fighting, 50% interaction, so such characters are not wholly sidelined.
Methods of setting CRs for such encounters also operate to broaden the
scope of things characters gain XP from, and make for a more interesting
game (IMO). Viz, I grew out of dungeon crawls a loooooong time ago.

Fortunately, no-one has ever wanted to play a farmer-cleric as yet, so
I've not had to fluff my way through working out a CR for harvest-time.

>One thing that you do need with any cleric is a well developed
>worldview. A character needs a clear sense of mission, and of
>limitation. That can be harder than it looks.

It's not an issue. The literary cogs of my world are pretty much all
there, having gradually been fashioned and put in place over time since
around 1978. Five years of 3E, without the same sort of time I had to
invest with 1st and 2nd Ed. in hammering the game into my world's shape,
hasn't been enough to get it house-ruled to a point I'm happy the two -
game and world - mesh. 3E works just fine - it just isn't quite that
right shape yet.

--
Ian R Malcomson
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ian R Malcomson wrote:


>
> I'm aware of it, and I've read Monte's website which gives some info on
> it. Can you give a brief overview of how its modularity works? It might
> be along the lines I'm looking for.
>

It works roughtly like the cleric idea works. You pick your Totem
Warrior type. The feats that you gain are directly related to the totem
that you pick, and are balanced for that totem. This seems exactly like
your cleric idea. The class represents a shell to a mechanism. A choice
by the PC defines the exact effects.

I think that you are on the right path. You certainly know what you
want, which is the most important part.

Here's how I would approach the problem:

- Define an "everyone" spell list. This is what you get for being a cleric.
- Define a series of domain spell lists. They may or may not match the
current domain spell lists. These are spells that fit a domain's
"theme." Some lists may be larger than others.
- Picking a cleric type gets you the basic spell list, the narrowed down
spell lists listed under your deity type, and maybe a freely chosen
spell list to give your character a bit of uniqueness. That should give
a wide variety of spells without being too wide, like the currrent
cleric. Maybe add forbidden spell lists to prevent gaming the system.
- Avoid "I win spells" like hold person, or ones that work better than
they should, like "spider climb" or "invisibilty." "I win" spells are no
fun for both the GM and the player. Spells that work too good, like
fireball, become cliched and are no-brainer, which is a sure sign of
too-good. Finally, some spells totally replace skills and need no rolls
to succeed, which is also not good for a game. (That's opinion, not a fact.)
- Make it clear that "cleric" are more like "special agents," rather
than rank-in-file priests.
- Offer perks at certain levels and avoid front loading. For instance,
at 4th level, clerics of Thor use warhammers at one die higher (d4
becomes d6, d6 to d8, etc). Clerics of Dionysos gain Rage while under
the influence of wine. Clerics of Agricultural Goddess can perform
ceremonies, and detect for miles what others can detect in feet. "If it
walks the earth, I can see it."
- Make sure that each has a viable social component. The people should
know the role of each cleric and need them to perform it, whether it be
blessing their crops, protecting their house from lighting, or resolving
an issue of law.

Making a spell list for each deity is lots of work. Making sub-spell
lists is still lots of work, but then you get a payoff when you start
associating sub-spell lists with your gods. Turning the whole thing into
a modular system has a good payoff in the long run. This also allows you
to make a simple change in one spell list, and that updates all the gods
who use that sub-spelllist.

CH