PDA

View Full Version : Spell Lists: Really Necessary?



Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-21, 11:09 PM
Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance? Spell lists maintain class archetypes...kinda usually. But I'm not talking about archetypes; I'm talking about balance. Sure there are a few problem spells like True Strike, but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?

TS

Demons_eye
2008-12-21, 11:10 PM
Maybe. Then we could have batzila

Flickerdart
2008-12-21, 11:10 PM
Do we really need casters to be more powerful?

Defiant
2008-12-21, 11:17 PM
but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?

Wizards without cure spells grossly unbalance the game in their favour. You can thus extrapolate my answer to your question.

Glyphic
2008-12-21, 11:21 PM
I would argue that a cleric with wizard spells would be superior to a wizard with cleric spells. By alot.

SurlySeraph
2008-12-21, 11:21 PM
Let's compare Wizards and Clerics.
Their spell progression is similar, except that Clerics get more spells per day.
Clerics have access to all spells on the Cleric spell list; Wizards automatically gain 2 spells per level but have to learn any other spells they want by other means.
Wizards have half BAB; Clerics have 3/4 BAB.
Clerics have a greater range of class skills than Wizards do, though they don't have as many Knowledge skills.
Wizards have d4 HD; Clerics have d8s.
Wizards have one good save; Clerics have two.
Wizards get Summon Familiar and Scribe Scroll; Clerics get Turn Undead.
Bearing all this in mind, Clerics look far more powerful than Wizards. And yet, most people will tell you that Wizards are more powerful than Clerics. How can that be, when the Cleric is superior to the Wizard in damn near every class feature? It's because the Wizard has a far better spell list than the Cleric does. And if you gave the Cleric - or, worse, the Druid - full access to the Wizard spell list, you would have a class more broken than anything else in DnD.

ericgrau
2008-12-21, 11:27 PM
Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance? Spell lists maintain class archetypes...kinda usually. But I'm not talking about archetypes; I'm talking about balance. Sure there are a few problem spells like True Strike, but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?

TS

Clerics or druids with access to wizard spells would severely unbalance the game. What you can do with divine spells tends to be much less. Letting wizards cast divine spells is less troublesome but yes, the additional versatility would really add too much power. Often when one does have access to spells on the list of the other, the spell is 1 level higher.

Other lists fit other niches. The ranger spells are quite handy for dealing with the wilderness. Paladins have buffs. Both of those are unique enough that it would add too much versatility to give the ranger spells to druids or the pally spells to clerics. Bards have all the low level spells from both arcane & divine that are still useful even with higher level characters.

Kroy
2008-12-21, 11:29 PM
Are suggesting giving the most powerful class in the game the ability to cast cure spells?

Kantolin
2008-12-21, 11:32 PM
In actuality, I don't believe giving wizards an expanded spell list would break them too much further. Part of the reason wizards are so powerful is that their spell list is already top-notch - expanding it would improve them, but not astonishingly so.

Now, Clerics and particularly Druids have a variety of bonuses to make up for the fact that wizards have a better spell list - HP and BAB for both, then domain abilities and turning for the cleric, while the druid sports an animal companion, wild shape, and a plethora of neat things.

Thus, giving the Cleric or the Druid wizard spells straight-forward will make them quite a bit more powerful than normal, and would make sorcerors and wizards nigh-worthless.

Although I'm not sure whether or not that would make the cleric or druid more useful than each other, which could be interesting.

Some other classes (Duskblades) are also limited by their spell lists, but you mentioned warmages so I'll just lump them in.

Edit: Whoop, you said 'divine casters' as an exception. Well huh... um, who exactly are you suggesting? If you mean giving the Wu Jen and Wizard the same spells, I don't think that would unbalance very much. If you generally mean giving arcanists divine spells, see my response above - wouldn't be all that nasty, but would improve them mechanically. Do remember people: Cure spells (particularly in optimized play) tend to be kind of meh, so them getting cure spells means they can use wands, so woo. :P

Superglucose
2008-12-22, 02:17 AM
Giving clerics the Wizard spell list means:

they are wizards. Sans arcane spell failure, with a host of special abilities (domain powers, turn undead), heavy armor proficiency, d8HD, good fort, and medium BAB.

They are the best class in the game, + everything that could be considered a weakness of Wizards.

But if we exclude divine casters...

Wizards are really good. Giving them more options (Blasphemy comes to mind) seems like it'd make them even worse.

Gralamin
2008-12-22, 05:23 AM
Planar Shepard Batman's you say...

JaxGaret
2008-12-22, 05:43 AM
It would serve to make all casters a fair bit stronger.

If you really want to play a caster with access to all spells lists, just play an Archivist or Artificer. No need for houserules.

Neithan
2008-12-22, 05:46 AM
If you want to make all spells available for all classes, I would use a system without classes at all where every character is completely customizeable.

Epinephrine
2008-12-22, 08:08 AM
GURPS magic works well without an artificial divide between curative and other magic, but it's a point-based system.

There's no reason that curative magic couldn't be arcane in nature, in the right game world - but in terms of balance, giving wizards access to cure spells would be too much without some way to reduce their power.

If you really want to do it, I'm sure you can homebrew up a wizard variant for which it would be appropriate. Just remember that you'll be taking a hit on your spell effectiveness if you want it to remain balanced.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-12-22, 08:12 AM
Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance? Spell lists maintain class archetypes...kinda usually. But I'm not talking about archetypes; I'm talking about balance. Sure there are a few problem spells like True Strike, but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?

TSNo. The game is already unbalanced in favor of spellcasters. This would just make things ten times worse.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-22, 08:15 AM
Spellcasters from the generic classes variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) can cast spells from all lists. They are spontaneous casters of course. Since generic classes are more versatile, but weaker than normal DND classes, I assume it wouldn't hurt if you gave sorcerers the ability to cast spells from all lists. It might make them more worthwhile in comparison to wizards, in fact, and makes sense fluff-wise (why would inborn power be limited to effects people can learn by studying magic?).

Of course, sorcerers are already more powerful than most non-casters... just weaker than most other casters.

JaxGaret
2008-12-22, 08:16 AM
GURPS magic works well without an artificial divide between curative and other magic, but it's a point-based system.

There's no reason that curative magic couldn't be arcane in nature, in the right game world - but in terms of balance, giving wizards access to cure spells would be too much without some way to reduce their power.

If you really want to do it, I'm sure you can homebrew up a wizard variant for which it would be appropriate. Just remember that you'll be taking a hit on your spell effectiveness if you want it to remain balanced.

Arcane casters can already take Arcane Disciple (Healing) to grab a good number of the curative spells if they want to. There's other domains that have the restorative spells. There might even be a hybrid domain that has a smattering of both.

They only get them 1/day each though.

Starsinger
2008-12-22, 08:20 AM
Spellcasters from the generic classes variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) can cast spells from all lists. They are spontaneous casters of course. Since generic classes are more versatile, but weaker than normal DND classes, I assume it wouldn't hurt if you gave sorcerers the ability to cast spells from all lists. It might make them more worthwhile in comparison to wizards, in fact, and makes sense fluff-wise (why would inborn power be limited to effects people can learn by studying magic?).

Of course, sorcerers are already more powerful than most non-casters... just weaker than most other casters.

I like this idea.

Mercenary Pen
2008-12-22, 08:23 AM
I'd suggest that, if you were to give arcane casters the ability to use Cure spells, you'd also need to give them some sort of spontaneous casting- whether that be spontaneous cure spells (which might actually reduce the wizard's impact on the game by forcing him into the Cleric's healbot duties), or possibly in the case of Wizards, spontaneous casting of spells based on their specialist school...

I make no guarantees as to the balancing effects of either approach, but if you're going to do this, you might as well go the whole hog, as it were.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-22, 08:25 AM
I like this idea.

But you like everything that boosts charisma-based classes.

Starsinger
2008-12-22, 08:35 AM
But you like everything that boosts charisma-based classes.

That as it may be, Sorcerers are not "Wizard's stupid cousins" and I think they should have their own spell list.

Talya
2008-12-22, 09:28 AM
By RAW, sorcerers already have access to spells outside their official spell list.


These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.

It's less problematic for sorcerers, as they don't really gain versatility by adding more spell choices...they're still limited by total spells known.

Starsinger
2008-12-22, 09:34 AM
By RAW, sorcerers already have access to spells outside their official spell list.


These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.

It's less problematic for sorcerers, as they don't really gain versatility by adding more spell choices...they're still limited by total spells known.

Which also goes against Sorcerer fluff. "I can study and learn an innate spell."

Voyager_I
2008-12-22, 09:34 AM
...do you really need to ask what would happen to balance if you opened up spell lists? Batman in Full Plate with DMM Persisted Druid Buffs?

JaxGaret
2008-12-22, 09:52 AM
Batman in Full Plate with DMM Persisted Druid Buffs?

IT'S BATZILLA

Run for your puny lives!

tarbrush
2008-12-22, 10:45 AM
Surely druid gone whatever-it-is-that-gives-you-turning is the way forward here. Truely now, he is a giant bear that casts spells. Possibly accompanied by another giant bear that does psionics if you use that awaken powers spell that I've also forgotten the name of on your animal companion. And some other giant bears that both of the previous two bears have summoned.

In fact potentially two giant bears riding other, gianter bears that the giant bears have summoned. That can fly.

Oh man I have to try this, just once.

Mike_G
2008-12-22, 10:52 AM
I'm gonna swim against the tide here and say that adding cure spells, not all Cleric spells, just the healing spells, wouldn't really overpower Wizards all that much. You could even allow it if they spend a feat for access to healing spells, or even just let them use the Extra Spell feat for each Divine spell. That provides a cost for the ability.

Add to that the fact that if they were the Designated Healer, Wizards would need to keep some slots open for healing, Restoration, etc, which would actually weaken them a bit. Or at least they'd need to spend on wands and scrolls of those spells.

I have a Beguiler who functions as the party healer via UMD, because nobody wanted to play a Cleric, and it weakens me if anything. If we had a Cleric, I could spend my hard earned loo--well, ok, my loot-- on better stuff for just me, instead of CLW wands and Scrolls of Restoration, Cure disease, etc. In fact, I more or less function as the everything else for a party of melee types. Monk, Fighter, Barbarian, Warlock, Beguiler. Except for doing damage, I think it's all me.

My personal favorite idea, which won't please everybody, is to eliminate the Cleric class, and open the spell lists to Wizards and Sorcerers. Clerics are too generic to represent priests of all gods with one set of class features. I customize the "cleric" of a given god to that god. Some gods are served by Paladins, some by Wizards, some by Monks, some by Experts. The god of Thieves shouldn't have clerics in plate with 2 skill points per level and Turn Undead. In my world, he doesn't. "Priest of X" is generally a Prestige class, where you gain the spell domains and features appropriate to that god.

In that case, healing magic has to come from somewhere, so we roll it into the arcane casters.

Fax Celestis
2008-12-22, 10:56 AM
In that case, healing magic has to come from somewhere, so we roll it into the arcane casters.

...you mean like the bard, who already has them?

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-22, 11:15 AM
Thanks everyone. I didn't start this topic so much to gauge any particular house rule, just to get an interesting discussion going and find out how people view the purpose of spell lists.


Edit: Whoop, you said 'divine casters' as an exception. Well huh... um, who exactly are you suggesting?
Well this hypothetical situation would involve giving arcanists access to all spell lists, and possibly giving divine casters the same benefit, provided that divine casters were also limited to a list of spells known. For example, clerics and druids might be limited to 2 spells per level like the wizard except they can't add more via research or looted spell books.


My personal favorite idea, which won't please everybody, is to eliminate the Cleric class, and open the spell lists to Wizards and Sorcerers. Clerics are too generic to represent priests of all gods with one set of class features. I customize the "cleric" of a given god to that god. Some gods are served by Paladins, some by Wizards, some by Monks, some by Experts. The god of Thieves shouldn't have clerics in plate with 2 skill points per level and Turn Undead. In my world, he doesn't. "Priest of X" is generally a Prestige class, where you gain the spell domains and features appropriate to that god.
I love this idea, and had a DM who did something similar once. He didn't eliminate the cleric class, but modified it on a player-to-player basis. I played a priest of Orcus [god of war in his world] with full BAB and a warcry ability, while another player got to play what was basically a cleric-bard hybrid. So much more interesting than clerics for everyone!

TS

Mike_G
2008-12-22, 11:28 AM
...you mean like the bard, who already has them?


Cause, yeah, everybody wants to drag a Bard along, sure.

There's a reason there was much rejoicing when they ate Sir Robin's minstrels.

AmberVael
2008-12-22, 11:59 AM
Cause, yeah, everybody wants to drag a Bard along, sure.

There's a reason there was much rejoicing when they ate Sir Robin's minstrels.

:smallbiggrin:
This made my day.
For once, I am actually contemplating putting a quote in my signature.

Douglas
2008-12-22, 12:25 PM
By RAW, sorcerers already have access to spells outside their official spell list.
Only with specific DM permission, though. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#addingSpellstoaSorcerersorBardsRe pertoire)

Curmudgeon
2008-12-22, 02:12 PM
Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance?

Yes. (Was this question really necessary?)

Zeful
2008-12-22, 02:59 PM
It might make them more worthwhile in comparison to wizards, in fact, and makes sense fluff-wise (why would inborn power be limited to effects people can learn by studying magic?).

You seem to not be aware that Wizards copy Sorcerous magic, because they didn't like people with more power than them.

But then I hate wizards. So I use Sorcerers for everything in my settings.

As for the original point. Yes, spell lists are required, and should be far more restricted in my opinion.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-22, 03:52 PM
This thread has made me really want to run a game where all the PCs are warblade/sorcerer gestalts with access to all spell lists, no ASF and all class skills. I think it'd be really fun to see where the players decide to focus their PCs' strengths.

TS

Douglas
2008-12-22, 03:58 PM
Disciplines too. If you're going to abolish class lists for casters you should do it for martial adepts as well. And just to allow truly ultimate flexibility, do away with maneuver prereqs too - it's not just that everybody has access to every discipline, it's that all maneuvers are really in the same giant discipline.:smallbiggrin:

Shpadoinkle
2008-12-22, 04:12 PM
IT'S BATZILLA

Run for your puny lives!

I disagree. Clerics with wizards spells wouldn't be Batzilla, they would essentially amount to GOD.

sentaku
2008-12-22, 06:00 PM
I disagree. Clerics with wizards spells wouldn't be Batzilla, they would essentially amount to GOD.

At that point can you worship yourself and grant your self spells?

JaxGaret
2008-12-22, 06:10 PM
This thread has made me really want to run a game where all the PCs are warblade/sorcerer gestalts with access to all spell lists, no ASF and all class skills. I think it'd be really fun to see where the players decide to focus their PCs' strengths.

TS

That sounds awesome.


I disagree. Clerics with wizards spells wouldn't be Batzilla, they would essentially amount to GOD.

Batzilla, god, tomato, tomahto.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-22, 06:26 PM
You seem to not be aware that Wizards copy Sorcerous magic, because they didn't like people with more power than them.


You know... this is an amusing and very logical explanation.

Eclipse
2008-12-22, 06:34 PM
Cause, yeah, everybody wants to drag a Bard along, sure.

There's a reason there was much rejoicing when they ate Sir Robin's minstrels.

You know, bards can actually do a good deal of things well as long as you're willing to pick one area to focus on, then just use the rest as backup. You won't beat a full caster in a one on one fight mind you, but bards are actually a decent class.

As for the original post, spell lists are a huge balancing factor, and no one should play without them... unless everyone is playing a caster or you do something huge to compensate those people who aren't spellcasters... like innate spell resistance, only on bad effects, of 15 + character level or something.

Mike_G
2008-12-22, 11:13 PM
I think eliminating lists without any other changes is bad, mostly because Clerics then have everything, but opening selcted spells and classes of spells to Wizards and Sorcerers is workable.

They won't get more spells per day, or more spells known/in the spellbook, so it's not a pure gift as much as it is another option. If you require some expenditure of Feats, or use a different casting stat, I think it can work.

How does an arcane caster with access to Restoration become more powerful? More useful to a party, sure, especially if there isn't a Cleric, but he has to devote a 4th level slot or comparable item when he could have a more offensive spell.

I think each god's Clerics should have a specific spell list, like the Beguiler or Warmage do, that matches the fluff.

Ascension
2008-12-23, 12:23 AM
I think each god's Clerics should have a specific spell list, like the Beguiler or Warmage do, that matches the fluff.

I agree with this in theory. In practice, though... there are a lot of gods. And if any of the gods had subpar spell lists... and you know some many of them would... you'd have a situation where all the PC clerics would worship something like two or three of the gods, and anyone who tried to build a cleric of anything else would quickly be told to sit down, shut up, and optimize properly.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, simply having different spell lists wouldn't be enough to really get fluff and crunch together. All their class features would have to change. Clerics of Olidammara wouldn't get medium armor proficiency, but would get hide/move silently/etc. as class skills, and would probably get more skill points per level. Clerics of Fhl... Flah.... the travel guy would have Fast Movement. St. Cuthbert would allow you to Smite Chaos. Gruumsh's clerics would Rage. Etcetera.

Eclipse
2008-12-23, 01:24 AM
I agree with this in theory. In practice, though... there are a lot of gods. And if any of the gods had subpar spell lists... and you know some many of them would... you'd have a situation where all the PC clerics would worship something like two or three of the gods, and anyone who tried to build a cleric of anything else would quickly be told to sit down, shut up, and optimize properly.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, simply having different spell lists wouldn't be enough to really get fluff and crunch together. All their class features would have to change. Clerics of Olidammara wouldn't get medium armor proficiency, but would get hide/move silently/etc. as class skills, and would probably get more skill points per level. Clerics of Fhl... Flah.... the travel guy would have Fast Movement. St. Cuthbert would allow you to Smite Chaos. Gruumsh's clerics would Rage. Etcetera.

If you want to do this in practice, you homebrew it with your DM. You'll likely end up less optimized, but more in character though, simply because it's best to err on the side of caution when changing class features.

Or perhaps you can use equivalency tables and variant rules, and give up one feature for another until you've customized your cleric into something else.

Edit: Also, remember domains give clerics extra class features or class skills too. Though some of them are admittedly ho-hum, others are quite good. And since domain choice is based on god choice, it does help to add some variety to clerics. Domain spell lists on the other hand, not so much, unless you're using UA's spontaneous domain casting rules.

Mike_G
2008-12-23, 07:32 AM
I agree with this in theory. In practice, though... there are a lot of gods. And if any of the gods had subpar spell lists... and you know some many of them would... you'd have a situation where all the PC clerics would worship something like two or three of the gods, and anyone who tried to build a cleric of anything else would quickly be told to sit down, shut up, and optimize properly.


When told that, you should respond by telling them how to service you properly.

It's a role playing game. Play the role you want. It's not called Options & Optimization.

You play that on the web.



EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, simply having different spell lists wouldn't be enough to really get fluff and crunch together. All their class features would have to change. Clerics of Olidammara wouldn't get medium armor proficiency, but would get hide/move silently/etc. as class skills, and would probably get more skill points per level. Clerics of Fhl... Flah.... the travel guy would have Fast Movement. St. Cuthbert would allow you to Smite Chaos. Gruumsh's clerics would Rage. Etcetera.

I support this, and in fact do this in my own campaign. We don't have generic Clerics of Kord, Pelor, Hieronius and Olidammara all dressed alike using the same spells and features.

Because that's really silly.

Domains are a step in the right direction, but only a step. You still have Clerics of Olidammara with plate proficiency and 2 skill points per level, who can't cast Cat's Grace.

Eldariel
2008-12-23, 08:37 AM
When told that, you should respond by telling them how to service you properly.

It's a role playing game. Play the role you want. It's not called Options & Optimization.

Two problems with this:

1. You shouldn't have to be forced to have a lower chance of succeeding in anything just to play a role though. Just because you want to play a meditative martial artist of an oriental monastic order doesn't mean that you should be useless mechanically, unless you consider being worse than everyone in everything a key part of the idea of a martial artist. Players should by and large be able to function on the same level; it's retarded to penalize players wanting to worship Selune instead of Mielikki.

2. Nobody's anybody's servant online. Nobody is in a position to tell anyone how to serve them.

Tormsskull
2008-12-23, 08:54 AM
1. You shouldn't have to be forced to have a lower chance of succeeding in anything just to play a role though.


You shouldn't? If you want to be the stealthy guy that sneaks around and opens locks you shouldn't be forced to have a lower combat ability that the guy that wants to be the armor-clad warrior? If you want to be the arcane master flinging spells from the back, you shouldn't be forced to have lower HP and worse armor than the armor-clad warrior?



Just because you want to play a meditative martial artist of an oriental monastic order doesn't mean that you should be useless mechanically, unless you consider being worse than everyone in everything a key part of the idea of a martial artist.


Notice now in the span of two paragraphs you went from a moderate 'lower chance' position to an extreme 'useless mechanically' position?



Players should by and large be able to function on the same level; it's retarded to penalize players wanting to worship Selune instead of Mielikki.


Actually, I'd think it more silly that a priest of the sea would be as combat effective as a priest of war, all things considered.



2. Nobody's anybody's servant online. Nobody is in a position to tell anyone how to serve them.

You or I missed something there. And I think its you.

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-23, 10:59 AM
OP: could be an idea use Shugenjas? They are spell casters using spells from cleric, wizard and sometimes druid spell list. The limits are in the way you can select them (are divided in shools and elements).

Eldariel
2008-12-23, 11:42 AM
You shouldn't? If you want to be the stealthy guy that sneaks around and opens locks you shouldn't be forced to have a lower combat ability that the guy that wants to be the armor-clad warrior? If you want to be the arcane master flinging spells from the back, you shouldn't be forced to have lower HP and worse armor than the armor-clad warrior?

Alright, I admit, I worded it poorly. Want a cookie? What I meant by "succeeding in anything" is indeed being poor on all fronts, not being worse than a specialist on one front.


Notice now in the span of two paragraphs you went from a moderate 'lower chance' position to an extreme 'useless mechanically' position?

Yes, yes, I suck at English, rub it in more.


Actually, I'd think it more silly that a priest of the sea would be as combat effective as a priest of war, all things considered.

So? Surely the priest of the sea has powers over water the priest of war could barely fathom? Also, the sea does have a mythological reputation for relentlessness, hardness and strength, so a priest of the sea would probably be right up there in terms of combat skill behind the priest of war. Bad example, mayhap? Maybe the priest of the moon? Yea, I agree, in martial ability he should be worse, but likewise, he should be stronger in magical ability (due to the associations with the moon). Point being, those should offset one another.


You or I missed something there. And I think its you.

Oh? How come?

Mike_G
2008-12-23, 06:57 PM
Two problems with this:

1. You shouldn't have to be forced to have a lower chance of succeeding in anything just to play a role though. Just because you want to play a meditative martial artist of an oriental monastic order doesn't mean that you should be useless mechanically, unless you consider being worse than everyone in everything a key part of the idea of a martial artist. Players should by and large be able to function on the same level; it's retarded to penalize players wanting to worship Selune instead of Mielikki.


Yes, classes should be better balanced, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to go for Maximum Optimization at all times. If I want to play a Sword and Board Fighter, because I like that concept, I don't want to hear about how SAB SUXXX! Graetsord Roxxors, NOOB! Sure, my average damage may be lower, but maybe I want to play a different fighter than the standard build.

Clerics of Selune should be overall as useful as Clerics of Mielikki, but shouldn't be the same.

The Sea god should grant water spells, Summon of aquatic critters, and maybe weather type stuff. No reason in the world for those Clerics to Turn Undead.

War priests should have combat buffs. Elemental gods should have the appropriate spells. Fireball would make sense for some gods, Lightning Bolt for clerics of Thor, maybe. Clerics of Olidamarra should get more illusions, Cat's Grace, mores skill points and lose heavy armor proficiency. Why do all gods hate or love undead? Shouldn't some be indifferent? Why are all clerics of any god all buffed up to fight the zombie hordes, instead of the god's traditional enemies.

There's a reason a Mosque, a Buddhist temple and Notre Dame Cathedral look different, and have different kinds of services.

Yeah, it's more work, and setting specific, but I think the flavor is worth it.



2. Nobody's anybody's servant online. Nobody is in a position to tell anyone how to serve them.

Some innuendo doesn't translate well. The blunter version, which I'd say at the table if someone told me to shut up and optimize, would probably be worth a warning.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-23, 10:09 PM
Reading you guys debate has made me want to write up a bunch of tailored priest classes. Except for writing up all those spell lists...that's the only part that I would lose interest in.

TS

Epinephrine
2008-12-23, 10:47 PM
Reading you guys debate has made me want to write up a bunch of tailored priest classes. Except for writing up all those spell lists...that's the only part that I would lose interest in.

TS

If you plan to do that, you should probably make an excel file or the like, and simply flag appropriate spells with a * or something, in their own columns.

I've already made excel files for myself for druid spells and for bard/sublime chord spells, it's pretty easy. Also, very handy for searching for spells. Need a no save, no SR spell? Just sort for them. Wondering what spells have hour/level durations? Just sort for them.

Oslecamo
2008-12-23, 10:57 PM
Of course, sorcerers are already more powerful than most non-casters... just weaker than most other casters.

This is false. Sorcerors, like wizards, gets acess to all the best spells. Sure, sorcerers can't get a bazillion diferent spells, but they don't need to. You just need a couple dozen uber spells to become uber godlike, and for everything else, there's scrolls and wands.

Who cares if the druid can wildshape? You have polymorph!

Who cares if the cleric can wear heavy armor and heal himself? You can still instantly kill him from a thousand kilometers away!

I really don't understand what's with all the "sorcerers are so weak" thingy. Even with a limited list, sorcerers are freaking STRONG, inferior only to wizards, and even those need to watch out for them.

Waspinator
2008-12-24, 02:40 AM
Yeah. Sorcerors can just pick as their spells known the really powerful Wizard spells, grab some wands of anything else, and be about on-par with Wizards.

As long as you know Time Stop, who cares what else you chose?

Ascension
2008-12-24, 02:49 AM
Sorcerers' utility casting is highly impeded, since any utility spells they choose limit the number of buff/debuff/battlefield control/save-or-suck/save-or-die/instant win spells they can pick up. At higher levels there's not that much difference, but at lower levels it's highly annoying to any sorcerer who wishes to be useful both in and out of combat (incidentally, I did once have a sorcerer who took the generally highly suboptimal Tenser's Floating Disk as one of his spells known and managed to accidentally dispose of a dungeon's final boss with it).

But the real reason Sorcerers... and any spontaneous casters, for that matter... can't stand up to wizards... or any prepared casters, for that matter... is their inability to use Quicken Spell, the metamagic to end all metamagic.

Fishman
2008-12-24, 02:56 AM
Actually, I'd think it more silly that a priest of the sea would be as combat effective as a priest of war, all things considered.I would imagine this would depend on where the combat is occurring. If the combat is occurring at sea, the priest of the sea would win hands down. In the middle of the desert, not so much. On the other hand, a priest of the God of Chefs would be probably be nigh-undefeatable in the kitchen. War, on the other hand, is somewhat of a generalist, effective in all situations, but not the equal of a specialist in its domain.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-24, 02:48 PM
If anyone is interested, I've begun The Priest Project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5536265#post5536265).

Mark Hall
2008-12-28, 10:43 PM
Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance? Spell lists maintain class archetypes...kinda usually. But I'm not talking about archetypes; I'm talking about balance. Sure there are a few problem spells like True Strike, but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?

TS

No, I do not think that creating a single spellcasting class with ability to draw from other spell lists would be unbalancing; base it on the Archivist, and just go hog-wild (instead of "Any divine" it becomes "Any"). What unbalances the game is a variety of changes made by 3rd edition (ease of magic item creation, ease of spell preparation, reduced effect of saving throws, especially in later supplements in favor of ranged touch attacks); the ability to heal won't throw it any more out of whack than these other changes already have.


Reading you guys debate has made me want to write up a bunch of tailored priest classes. Except for writing up all those spell lists...that's the only part that I would lose interest in.

TS

Take a look at 2nd edition; if you only get one book to follow this idea, take a look at "Player's Option: Spells and Magic". Priest spells were organized into Spheres, which were general areas of influence for certain magics... all the Cure spells were in Healing, of course.

xanaphia
2008-12-28, 11:18 PM
A cleric (or a druid) is better in every way than a wizard, apart from spell list. So it seems obvious that a cleric with wizard spell list would be stronger than it should be.

Zeful
2008-12-28, 11:21 PM
Take a look at 2nd edition; if you only get one book to follow this idea, take a look at "Player's Option: Spells and Magic". Priest spells were organized into Spheres, which were general areas of influence for certain magics... all the Cure spells were in Healing, of course.

They really shouldn't have gotten rid of that.

Mark Hall
2008-12-28, 11:36 PM
They really shouldn't have gotten rid of that.

They vaguely kept schools in the form of Domains... they're not as broad, usually (though some of the ToM Spheres were pretty narrow), and tend to be organized more specifically (which, I suppose, is the same as not being broad).

And xanaphia, the essential problem is that WotC made several mistakes in making 3e spellcasters more accessible.

1) Greatly speeded preparation time (from 10 minutes/level of spell being prepared to a flat 1 hour, no matter how many are prepared). An expended high-level spellcaster in AD&D needed to retreat for weeks in order to be back to full strength; in that time, their lower level opponents healed and regrouped. An expended high-level spellcaster in d20 needs to retreat for 9 hours; in that time, their low level opponents have written their wills, because they can't do much else.

2) Creation of magic items; petty items (like scrolls and potions) don't have as big of an impact as the very free and easy creation of multitudes of Wondrous Items. The fact that creating magic items is a net plus in terms of personal power (since slowing down your advancement by creating items doesn't actually slow you down much, given that a lower level means more XP), instead of a wash.

3) Lessened value of saving throws, especially at high levels. In AD&D, saving throws at high levels were rarely failed. In d20, it's much harder to make high level saving throws, meaning save or suck spells lean a lot more towards suck than save. Spellcasters, especially high-level casters, gained a lot from this. This is part of why the blaster became a standard in AD&D... even if they made their save, you were at least doing something, whereas a save or suck where the target made its save was a wasted action.

4) Prevalence of ranged touch spells over save based spells. As bad as your chances of saving are, your chances of being missed by a ranged touch spell are even worse... unless you're a monk.

ericgrau
2008-12-28, 11:58 PM
Sorcerers' utility casting is highly impeded, since any utility spells they choose limit the number of buff/debuff/battlefield control/save-or-suck/save-or-die/instant win spells they can pick up. At higher levels there's not that much difference, but at lower levels it's highly annoying to any sorcerer who wishes to be useful both in and out of combat (incidentally, I did once have a sorcerer who took the generally highly suboptimal Tenser's Floating Disk as one of his spells known and managed to accidentally dispose of a dungeon's final boss with it).

But the real reason Sorcerers... and any spontaneous casters, for that matter... can't stand up to wizards... or any prepared casters, for that matter... is their inability to use Quicken Spell, the metamagic to end all metamagic.

Wizards are even more impeded by utility spells than sorcerors, since they carry equal or less different spells in their head, not just less spells per day. Wizards only have the advantage on utility spells when given 8+ hours advanced notice. Both classes are better off using scrolls. The irony of quicken spell is that wizards often don't have enough spell slots to blow just to get some extra low level effect each round; i.e. it just plain costs too much for too little to be uber. Now if sorcs had it that would be imba. I think someone else already explained the rest regarding the sorc so I'll stop here.

monty
2008-12-29, 01:20 AM
As bad as your chances of saving are, your chances of being missed by a ranged touch spell are even worse... unless you're a monk.

In which case you're still useless.

Mark Hall
2008-12-29, 01:48 AM
Wizards are even more impeded by utility spells than sorcerors, since they carry equal or less different spells in their head, not just less spells per day. Wizards only have the advantage on utility spells when given 8+ hours advanced notice.

Yes, but here the wizard ability to scribe scrolls really shines. Got a day or two of downtime? Scribe scrolls. The XP cost is negligible (even if it would otherwise keep you from levelling, because being lower level will actually get you more XP), and you can have all of those utility spells that you never cast and sorcerers seldom learn at your fingertips.

Mike_G
2008-12-29, 11:34 AM
They vaguely kept schools in the form of Domains... they're not as broad, usually (though some of the ToM Spheres were pretty narrow), and tend to be organized more specifically (which, I suppose, is the same as not being broad).


I agree that Domains are kind of the same, but they're just not enough for me.



And xanaphia, the essential problem is that WotC made several mistakes in making 3e spellcasters more accessible.


I have to voice my hearty agreement.

Mark Hall
2008-12-29, 05:06 PM
In which case you're still useless.

Yes, but you won't get hit by ranged touch attacks. If they had good ways of increasing their SR and overcoming some of a wizard's escape manuevers, monks would be able wizard-killers.