|
Post by Lord Cias on Aug 15, 2005 22:56:00 GMT -5
I have "ODDified" clerics in my game, making them more like OD&D clerics that don't get spells until 2nd level. I would also like to remove their bonus spells due to high wisdom (I have my reasons), if at all possible. However, every other class gets a unique bonus for high ability scores (fighters get exceptional strength and +3 or +4 hit points, magic-users get more spells, and thieves get skill adjustments) and I want to keep it that way for clerics.
Any ideas or suggestions on how high wisdom could affect clerics other than giving bonus spells? Keep in mind that this bonus should also be able to apply to druids in some way (e.g. a bonus to turning undead probably wouldn't work because druids don't have a similar ability).
Some possibilities: 1. Bonus hit points (one time only, not for each level)? Considering the abstract nature of hit points and what they represent, this doesn't seem too far off.
2. Reducing target's saving throws vs. spells?
3. Should I stop whining and keep the bonus spells?
Any other ideas?
|
|
|
Post by RadagastTheBrown on Aug 15, 2005 23:03:39 GMT -5
It really pains me to say this ... but, use spontaneous casting from 3E (its really a grand idea IMO). Have it connected to Wisdom in some way.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Aug 16, 2005 7:20:36 GMT -5
I never understood why some of you guys with OD&D experiance don't like first level clerics having spells. I think FOster some time back mentioned something similar, or at least made that observation. My take on it is this: if properly DMed there should be a good chance everyone dies at first even if they play well. The cleric is the KEY to keeping the ball rolling. If not for his spells it would be a more boring game as a fighter half way down wants to go back. You'd have to rename the game "Heading to a Dungeon, Thought I saw a Dragon". What fun is that? By providing alot of cure lights at the begining of the game you allow the group to penetrate the dungeon. If you mess with that your going to change how these PCs relate to premade modules like B2, where they have to travel a bit to get to the dungeon. If anything, I'd say give the same spell bonuses clerics have to MUs. Then everything is balanced. Of course pre-existing modules might need to be alterred to reflect this change as well (beefing them up).
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 16, 2005 8:39:57 GMT -5
Perhaps tie a bonus to Turning to a cleric's wisdom score?
Personally I like bonus spells for high wisdom, and would keep them, but a turning bonus for high wisdom would fit the class well, representing how deeply the cleric is in tune with his deity, how devoted the cleric is, etc.
EDIT: It might be helpful to know your reasons for doing so in order to better comment on this. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by godentag on Aug 16, 2005 8:58:34 GMT -5
Cias, I also OD&D-ized the cleric class in my house rules. What I did was to start the bonus spells at 16, rather than 13. A cleric with wisdom of 18 would get 2 bonus 1st level spells and 1 of 2nd level.
To help out players based on concerns similar to Axe's, I have these bonus spells initially available at 1st level, so in really extraordinary cases a cleric can begin play with 2 1st and a 2nd level spell, but most clerics have none to start the game.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Aug 16, 2005 10:12:16 GMT -5
To understand why I chose to change clerics in AD&D to be more like clerics in OD&D, one must first understand why Gary changed clerics for AD&D to begin with.
The "power creep" of characters from OD&D to AD&D is obvious. In the introduction on page 7 of the PHB, Gary explains that both clerics and fighters were strengthened. In addition, even the thief class was slightly strengthened compared to the OD&D thief. (On a side note, IIRC magic-users were actually weakened comapred to OD&D, as their spell progression for mid to high level spells is less in AD&D than in OD&D, plus their AC was lowered from 9 to 10).
Increasing the characters' hit points and combat ability was one thing, and only a relatively small power increase from OD&D. Clerical spell power, however, was a BIG power increase. Most of the other changes I am ok with, but to go from having NO spells at 1st level and only 1 spell at 2nd level to having potentially 3 spells at 1st level (not to mention a larger spell selection to boot) is quite a significant increase.
So why did Gary decide to give clerics such a huge power boost (above and beyond the power boost of increased hit points and combat ability)? My honest belief is that he did so for two reasons: 1) he needed some way for high wisdom to give a unique bonus to clerics to keep them in line with all of the other classes, and 2) he wanted to make healing spells more available to 1st level PCs. Giving spells at 1st level takes care of #2, and giving bonus spells for high wisdom takes care of both #1 & #2. You see, by giving clerics 2 or 3 spells at 1st level, player would (theoretically anyway) feel comfortable memorizing something other than *only* CLW at 1st level because most clerics could still have a CLW spell or two in addition to another spell.
I, however, wish to find solutions to #1 and #2 above in a different way, as I find the increase in clerical spell power to be far too great. I like to think that if I had been able to present this alterative to Gary back in 1979, he may have decided to go with my idea for AD&D, as it does "beef up" clerics and makes healing more available to 1st level PCs but doesn't require such a drastic increase in spell power.
While I have taken spells away from 1st level clerics (and will reduce or remove bonus spells as well), I have given clerics a couple of other powers in their place. First, all clerics can "faith heal" in a fashion similar to a paladin's lay on hands ability. Clerics can heal 1-4 hit points, +2 h.p./level of the cleric. Thus a 1st level cleric can heal 3-6 h.p., a 2nd level cleric can heal 5-8 h.p., etc. In addition, cleric can cure one disease/week for every 4 levels of experience (again, similar to paladins). This alone more than makes up for the loss of one CLW spell, and makes healing available to 1st level PCs without changing clerical spell ability. And by time the cleric is able to cast CSW (at 7th level), this "faith healing" ability is superior to a CSW spell (15-18 h.p. vs. 3-17 h.p.), so even the loss of a 4th level spell (for a wisdom of 18) isn't that great. Another power I have given clerics is (essentially) a constant 1/2 strength protection from evil/good effect. Cleric cause all opponents of opposite alignment to make attacks at a -1, and clerics save with a +1 against attacks from such opponents.
By changing clerics thusly, clerics still maintain their power boost over OD&D clerics without such a drastic change to their spell-casting abilities, healing is made available to 1st level PCs, and players of clerics can still feel free to memorize non-healing spells while still having access to healing ability. Additionally, these changes fit the class archtype very well (IMO) and keep the class true to the original concept (holy warriors first, spell casters second; as opposed to being spell casters first and stepping on magic-users' toes a bit).
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Aug 16, 2005 10:27:00 GMT -5
I never understood why some of you guys with OD&D experiance don't like first level clerics having spells. I think FOster some time back mentioned something similar, or at least made that observation. My take on it is this: if properly DMed there should be a good chance everyone dies at first even if they play well. Above I explain (in a round-about way) why I dislike spells for 1st level clerics and bonus spells for wisdom. It has little to do with perceived power levels, I feel that the abilities I give to clerics in exchange for reducing their spell ability keeps them almost as powerful as BtB. I simply think that there are better ways to accomplish the goals that prompted increasing cleric spell ability, and that increasing clerics' spell ability changes the class too much from the original concept. It is sort of like giving thieves a combat boost to beef them up instead of giving them more thief-like abilities. I fully understand your concern, and I see that you too understand that all of those extra spells at 1st level are primarily for healing purposes. I hope you can see that by giving clerics a "faith healing" ability instead of extra spells, 1st level PCs still have access to magical healing (and they even have access to a cure disease spell, which is something they can't have at 1st level even with increased spell ability). Ah, you actually make my point for me here. B2 was written for BD&D where 1st level clerics DON'T have spells. B2 (being perhaps one of the most popular modules for 1st level PCs, and one of the most excelent examples of a true "old school" campaign) proves that 1st level PCs should be able to get along fine without cleric spells at 1st level. In fact, if you play B2 with AD&D rules, you have to go through and make appropriat changes (including increasing the spell power of the various NPC evil clerics).
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Aug 16, 2005 10:34:14 GMT -5
Until such time that I can come up with an alternate bonus for high wisdom, I have changed the bonus spells as follows:
Wisdom Score 13 - 15 = One extra 1st level spell 16 - 17 = One extra 2nd level spell 18 = One extra 3rd level spell 19 = One extra 4th level spell 20 = One extra 1st and one extra 2nd level spell 21 = One extra 5th level spell 22 - 23 = One extra 3rd and one extra 4th level spell 24+ = One extra 6th level spell.
Thus a 1st level cleric still will have no spells, regardless of wisdom. At 2nd level he can have one (with a wisdom of 9 - 12) or two (for a wisdom of 13+) 1st level spells. Etc., etc.
I would still prefer an alternate, though.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Aug 16, 2005 12:54:48 GMT -5
Thats right, I forgot B2 was written for BD&D.
Honestly, I only played BD&D a couple of times, and that was in the last few years.
My view however is the same. As for the stuff your adding (faith based healings, and other paladin like powers) I really don't think they fit the 1E system. The idea is that the powers of the paladin are a result of the paladin being a creature of goodness and faith (basically a supernatural thing and could have ended up in the monster manual) Think of the paladin's healing powers etc. as something he creates by being such a bad a$$. The cleric on the other hand is not special by nature. He is often some shmuck (at times) with minimal wisdom who gains access to spells that trigger things to happen (just like a magic user). The paladin is a one in a million super hero captain good guy. The cleric may or may not be good, and is likely no super hero. His powers are derived from saying a particular prayer (vocal) not from great faith.
Changing the cleric like you suggest would change what the cleric is supposed to be IMO (from a spell caster to a spiritual creature). It would also destroy the special feeling of the Paladin. Its really the spell caster vs. the extraordinary person thing (druids, clerics, MUs) vs. (paladins, rangers (+1 GC), Monks) with fighters and thieves being the only ones without exceptional abilities generated by extraordinary character.
A spell (cleric or MU) in AD&D is like a hand gun. Anyone can pick it up and shoot it if they know to first chamber a bullet. Faith based spells would be like being able to shoot projectiles from your finger tips...thats super human.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 16, 2005 12:58:41 GMT -5
Perhaps high wisdom makes clerical spells more effective -- increased range, duration, or effect (thus a CLW from a cleric with 18 Wisdom might heal 1d8+4). Of course you'd have to go through spell by spell and determine how high wisdom would affect it, which would be a lot of work, but it's an idea...
|
|
|
Post by rogattny on Aug 16, 2005 14:47:49 GMT -5
Perhaps high wisdom makes clerical spells more effective -- increased range, duration, or effect (thus a CLW from a cleric with 18 Wisdom might heal 1d8+4). Of course you'd have to go through spell by spell and determine how high wisdom would affect it, which would be a lot of work, but it's an idea... You wouldn't have to go spell by spell. Just figure those things that Wisdom positively effects and give them a set percentage modification based on WIS. Thus, let's say WIS effects range, duration, and damage caused/healed. And for real simplicity, we'll say that WIS of 13 to 15 gives a +5% and from 16-18 gives a plus 10% to these qualities. Thus a cleric with a 17 WIS adds a 10% to whatever hit points are healed with a CLW, how long his Light spell lasts, and the range of Command. R.A.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Aug 16, 2005 15:44:14 GMT -5
Or even more simply: Wisdom bonuses apply as a penalty to enemies' saving throws (if the spell is combative and allows a save), OR it increases the number of h.p. of healing or of damage (if a healing spell or a combative spell with no save), OR it increases duration by 5 rounds per +1 (if the spell has a duration), OR it increases the area of effect by 5' per +1 or 1 creature per +1 (if the spell doesn't fit any of the other categories). Certain extra-powerful spells may be excluded.
Keep the ideas coming.
|
|
|
Post by Thoth Amon on Aug 16, 2005 15:48:03 GMT -5
I like Rogue Attorney's idea with the percentages. 5% of, say, 13, might be a bit of a pain to calculate on the fly, unless it always rounds up.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Aug 16, 2005 17:55:23 GMT -5
Well, would you do the same for magic users then? I mean a high inteligence only seems to effect your chance of learning a spell. Should an MUs sleep spell effect more HD or have a greater range with an 18 int.?
I just don't see the connection between a higher wisdom increasing the effects of a spell. I think in AD&D magic/prayers is an on or off switch, not a dimmer.
Also, does wisdom equate to faith. Does a high wisdom mean your any more beleaving then a low wisdom? I think faith does not equal wisdom, though I could see how a high wisdom would allow you to be able to pray more effectively.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 16, 2005 18:06:57 GMT -5
Wisdom in D&D subsumes willpower, and thus it makes sense that a character with a stronger force of will could cast spells more effectively than one with a weaker will, whereas Intelligence represents mnemonic learning capacity -- if you're smart enough you can learn more spells and harder spells, but your ability with those spells won't necessarily be any better than someone with less learning capacity (but still enough to learn the spell).
|
|