Gaider on clerics and divine magic

[Sammael]

That is really going out on a limb.

And, in case you failed to notice, "my" stereotype of "defender of the forest" (stop calling it a shaman, because that's not what I did) is rather rooted in literature and role-playing games as well. It's called "the ranger." If you think it's lame, well... that's really your problem. But it's just as valid as your sterotype, as far as RPGs go.

 

[Sammael]

However, you did prove my point, which was "clerics of weaker deities need to have more than spells going on for them to be balanced with other classes." Coolness aside, your shaman is not simply a cleric with access to only two domains, which Volourn seemed to advocate.

 

[mr. lamat]

the ranger is a soldier/warrior suited to life in the forrest. pre-aragorn strider was an example of this. he had the skills which made for a relationship with the world around him. we're talking about priests/clerics/shamans/holy men of a specific diety, which the concept of a ranger doesn't relate to. they have different functions and different relationships with the world. they find their use as guides and protectors. they may defend people from the wilds of the forrest, but the forrest themselves they do not defend.

your point was that followers of lesser dieties be given freebies for the sake of game balance.

my 'pussy of a tree-hugging diety' worshiping shaman is still seriously underpowered and unbalanced, but alot more fun to roleplay. his or her skills are minor and not altogether useful, nor does the magic wielded find use all that often. infact, it's negated by the environment the shaman may find him/herself in. they're completely lost in the world of men and stone. why play them at all? a drug-addled slightly delusional shaman with a fetish for wearing and carrying the bones of dead animals is fun. your character can ramble on with long parables that aren't really coherent, make dire and vague warnings for the hell of it and hold interesting conversations with shubbery. you get to annoy the hell out of the rest of your party and make all the pithy, fish out of water insights you want. it's for the sake of fun, not balance.

 

[Spazmo]

I think it's pretty stupid to say that the game doesn't need to be balanced. Certainly, in a plausible (real is the wrong word) D&D-ish world, your average high level mage would beat the tar out of your average high level bard in every respect. Anything that anyone can do (not just bards) can be done better and flashier with a spell. But since it's a game and good games are fair, it needs balance. Why would you play a bard if he's so gimped next to a mage? Style? Sure, but if your character will be useless anyways, just make a mage and give him ranks in Perform (Kazoo).

As for clerics and the balance of their clergy, I have to agree with Sammael. That a priest would become better at combat or stealthiness makes perfect sense if his magic isn't so good. Perhaps a better way to reflect this in D&D 3(.5)E terms would be to limit priests of weaker gods to only so many levels of cleric. Greater gods' clergy can make level 20, intermediate deities can hit 15 and the damn pope of a lesser god is level 10 at the most. Then, to reflect how the priest of a weaker god's talents will be more diverse, the character or NPC would have to multiclass into something else. The clergy of a lesser war god would be packed with cleric/fighters. Gods of travel or theivery would have cleric/bard and /rogues. Gods of woodlands and nature would have cleric/rangers or possibly other classes with appropriate skills and feats.

Something would have to be worked out for the spellcasting, though. If the level 10 cleric has hit the maximum of what his god can offer him in spells, how come he gets more spells when he goes paladin or ranger? Perhaps tossing some sort of other ability at those classes and yanking the spells (maybe bonus feats) would work.

And to those who would prattle on about how things don't make sense or aren't realistic, remember something important about games: REALISM IS POISON TO FUN. Granted, there's a degree of plausibility and consistency you've got to have no matter how outlandish your setting: the tribe of primitive treehuggers shouldn't be able to take on the Big Empire of Imperiousness (well, they could go guerilla-style and whatnot, but they wouldn't be able to repel the invader and life in the village wouldn't go on). Still, game logic (and especially D&D 3E game logic) states that the character from that background should be as useful to an adventuring party as the wizard or fighter.

 

[Shevek]

In my mind, the idea of a true cleric in an rpg is a class (or skill template) which derives most of its power from a divine source. A type of cleric that is equally skilled in combat as he is in other divine practices is not so much a 'pure' cleric and is instead a warpriest or paladin or whatever (a hybrid class). The arguement that a cleric of a weaker deity would 'make up' for his diety's weaknesses by being better with a sword or at sneakiness or whatever makes some sense only if one understands than in doing so he is no longer a strictly clerical archetype and is now a hyrid (since he draws from a set of abilities outside the clerical archetype). So, maybe, you can say that priests of God X are not the bookish acolytes of God Y but are instead Warpriests or whatever (depending on how they choose to make up for their lack in raw divine power). Its all semantics really. In a skill or point based system, making this happen might be a bit easier (less points spent on divine magic, more on whatever else).

 

[Monte Carlo]

Just setting some parameters.

Presumalby, Gaider is discussing a game that isn't D&D but has to be recognizably vanilla fantasy enough to keep D&D'ers happy enough to buy it.

OK. Our cleric-with-a-twist needs to be sufficiently, er....clerical. But with a twist.

What would you do?

Well, Dragon Age has classes. We don't know if the classes will be able to have broad lateral development potential that is analgous with D&D multi-classing, but I assume it will have something similar.

Gaider refers to the backstory. This is good. The more your cleric's deity and powers are linked to that the better, if you ask me. So I'd create either (A) a recognizable pantheon or (B) spheres of philosophical influence that our cleric can access and draw power from.

It matters not if your cleric worships Davina, Goddess of Dancing, Passion and Love! Because, presumably, he could equally draw power from the mystical spiritual learnings of Dancing, Passion and Love as taught/ accessed/ conveyed through dreams etc. The diety/ pantheon/ domain thing is a story based trope that merely explains access to powers.

So I'd have clerics that represented the various themes of the (human) condition. Give them a menu of these and let them draw upon them to build a unique character. So you could create a warrior monk who loves music. Or a healer/ psychic savant who studies archery. Or a crusading warrior-priest who also draws upon his power over the dead. As long as (A) you have choices and (B) it immerses you in the story and gameworld then you'll seldom go wrong.

If in a game a NPC recognises that my cleric is wearing sackcloth-and-ashes and has clearly taken a vow of poverty and reacts differently than he does to the plate-clad justicar riding a barded charger (rather than simply seuging into "CHARNAME>X=CLERIC") then I'm a happier gamer.

Cheers
MC

 

[mr. lamat]

i don't know about realism being the poison of fun.

during a two year multiple campaign go at cyberpunk 2020, our fixer developed a massive synthcoke addiction. if our group wanted to score recreationial drugs, he was a munchkin... in all other regards though, he nerfed himself. his skills went to shit and all of his contacts left him. why did we keep him around? fun. he was hilarious. granted, that was the player, but what came out of this ultimately useless character more than made up for his shortcomings.

did it make our go alot tougher? most definately. but the realism factor opened up doors to roleplaying and humour that we wouldn't have found under other circumstances. it added colour to the world.

i know d&d is more centered around monster-stomping and loot, but taking away the fun you can have with an underpowered class for the sake of balance is shortsighted. granted, no twelve year-old will want to play that class, and sadly that's the target demographic for the game these days.

 

[Sammael]

Perhaps a better way to reflect this in D&D 3(.5)E terms would be to limit priests of weaker gods to only so many levels of cleric. Greater gods' clergy can make level 20, intermediate deities can hit 15 and the damn pope of a lesser god is level 10 at the most. Then, to reflect how the priest of a weaker god's talents will be more diverse, the character or NPC would have to multiclass into something else. The clergy of a lesser war god would be packed with cleric/fighters. Gods of travel or theivery would have cleric/bard and /rogues. Gods of woodlands and nature would have cleric/rangers or possibly other classes with appropriate skills and feats.

This is an excellent point. Multiclassed characters are still plausible (if somewhat "weaker" mechanically) and they tend to produce a number of archetypes that are much harder to achieve with just one class.

 

[Sammael]

i don't know about realism being the poison of fun.

during a two year multiple campaign go at cyberpunk 2020, our fixer developed a massive synthcoke addiction. if our group wanted to score recreationial drugs, he was a munchkin... in all other regards though, he nerfed himself. his skills went to shit and all of his contacts left him. why did we keep him around? fun. he was hilarious. granted, that was the player, but what came out of this ultimately useless character more than made up for his shortcomings.

did it make our go alot tougher? most definately. but the realism factor opened up doors to roleplaying and humour that we wouldn't have found under other circumstances. it added colour to the world.

i know d&d is more centered around monster-stomping and loot, but taking away the fun you can have with an underpowered class for the sake of balance is shortsighted. granted, no twelve year-old will want to play that class, and sadly that's the target demographic for the game these days.

With a mature group that plays RPGs for role-playing sake, this is certainly possible. However, RPGs aren't and cannot be designed with such groups in mind, because the vast majority of role-players, age aside, aren't capable of controling themselves.

I DM a FR campaign for a pretty decent group (24-25-year-old mostly electrical engineering majors, both undergrad and graduate... and one psychologyst). Most are mature, and play for the story (not for combat). Yet there are still many times when I have to say "no" to their ideas and suggestions, and even more times when I have to restrain them from hurting themselves. Balanced rules help A LOT. If we were playing RIFTS, for example, I would have ran into unsolvable problems a long time ago.

 

[GreenNight]

A severely underpowered class means a severely underpowered character. If you were said character and knew you didn't stand a chance would you still do it?

It's either that or broaden the choices in order to keep "underpowered" classes because they are no longer underpowered, simply have to be played differently.

Mild differences in power is ok, even when not alternating, but a severe crippled class, if not able to change it, it's stupid (for a CRPG, not for a RPG).

 

[mr. lamat]

i tagged speech, science and repair in fallout. bring on the battles i shouldn't win. it ain't fun unless my chances are slim to nil.

With a mature group that plays RPGs for role-playing sake, this is certainly possible. However, RPGs aren't and cannot be designed with such groups in mind, because the vast majority of role-players, age aside, aren't capable of controling themselves.

who said anything about controlling themselves? we made tonnes of stupid choices and lived only through luck, great die rolls and the liberal use of flashbang grenades. my character went out as a fine pink mist due to minigun turret as he was running away from twenty-plus corporate security guards. our lone solo, and the only one in the group who could shoot straight, caught a rocket to the chest. a rocket! you know how bad you have to fuck up for that happen?

yea, we shouldn't have tried to raid that hardened facility. yea, we let greed get the better of us. those decisions were in character and our characters paid the price.

bad choices and consequences make the game fun for some of us. a normalizing of character classes so no one feels left behind takes away from story. everyone is a phenom in their capacity, so no one really has to think up alternate ways of dealing with issues, someone, somewhere in the group has a skill or feat that will deal with a situation, head on. not everyone is useful, in d&d a gnome fighter usually winds up being cleaned of an orc's boot, yea? and a half-orc bard has the charisma of a mud puddle, right? those are fun characters to play, because they're unbalanced, they're fish out of water. when playing those characters, you have to be creative, with the role and your problemsolving.

 

[Gromnir]

"Tying clerics' powers and abilities to their deities and religions is definitely a good idea. Discuss! "

disagree.

clerics is the recognized priests of an organized religion. why they gotta get powers at all? priests should be bureaucrats and poets, and philosophers, and scholars and warriors and mages and assassins and anything else you want to include. divine magic and special abilities for priestly characters? why? you wanna play a spell casting cleric? then play a spell caster. you wanna focus in healing magic? fine, then choose to specialize in healing magic.

faith is a powerful storytelling theme. having any yutz you meet being able to channel divine power kinda messes with faith as a theme, don't it? maybe a crpg priest might claim that his power to cast spells comes from God, but his abilities should be no different than an ordinary hedge wizard's powers... preserves notions o' faith.


furthermore, there ain't nothing worse than a priest gone bad... or worse, a priest who thinks he is doing good but whose actions is so evil as to be almost inhuman. when you gots a God granting spells to faithful followers, the notion o' what is Right and what is Wrong becomes almost pointless. the faithful is granted power, and the transgressor is smote. BO-RING! another wasted bit o' storytelling… wonderful villains gets nixed from get go.

"Tying clerics' powers and abilities to their deities and religions is definitely a good idea. Discuss! "

is a lousy idea. should be no granted powers or abilities tied to a character's faith in a remote God... 'least not no divine powers and definitely not granted spells that is different than your non-divine spellcasters. makes balance easier too. try to balance divine v. secular, then trying to balance the powers Odin grants as ‘posed to the ones granted by Frigga… why? keep in mind that even if you think that balance is unnecessary from gameplay standpoint, we ask you to consider what is point of adding a dull god with lame powers that nobody is gonna use anyway? balance ain’t just a matter o’ power… is more important to make equally fun. simply make your Magic system balanced and fun and let folks role-play priests as they will. make advantages and disadvantages o’ being a cleric in game similar to those of being a member o’ other secular organizations… and make those advantages and disadvantages reflect the organization more than the remote God the priests s’posedly follow.

was Merlin a divine caster or arcane? how ‘bout Gandalf? should it matter?

HA! Good Fun!

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Everyone just shut the fuck up right now and take a healing potion.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

why? if you want to worship some pussy of a diety, you deserve what you get. it makes sense that your power has a chance to grow exponentially in the time of your service and how successful that is... but being given more goods from the start cuz your gawd still sits at the kid's table makes no sense.

I'd say this is where "level" enters in to it. You might be a tree hugging shaman of a pussy nature diety, but if you've been that shaman for a long time and done lots of deeds, you should be able to kick the crap out of a fledgeling priest of the diety of dooming and glooming.

Certainly a lesser diety would have a lesser base of power, but the larger dieties would also have more worshippers divining that power from them as well. That tends to balance the pot picking a bit, because while the lesser one might have the smaller pot of power, he'll also have just a few priests pulling from it whereas a big, powerful one will have all kinds of people pulling magic from his larger pot.

 

[Vault Dweller]

clerics is the recognized priests of an organized religion. why they gotta get powers at all?

Because they dedicate their time and efforts to their deity(ies) unlike any other class or profession, and powers granted to the most faithful servants are both rewards and motivation. Also, I'm sure that Gods would want those who serve them to be somewhat efficient and reliable, hence, the powahz.

faith is a powerful storytelling theme. having any yutz you meet being able to channel divine power kinda messes with faith as a theme, don't it?

It certainly does, no arguing here. There are different ways to ensure that it doesn't happen.

maybe a crpg priest might claim that his power to cast spells comes from God, but his abilities should be no different than an ordinary hedge wizard's powers... preserves notions o' faith.

That would make clerics and priest no different then wizards and mages which is kinda boring, imo. I'd like to see really diverse classes, not combinations of the four basic ones.

when you gots a God granting spells to faithful followers, the notion o' what is Right and what is Wrong becomes almost pointless. the faithful is granted power, and the transgressor is smote. BO-RING!

The powers shouldn't be given, they should be channeled, and not to those who are simply faithful, for those are dime a dozen, but to those whose vision, values, and deeds correspond to these of the deity.

try to balance divine v. secular, then trying to balance the powers Odin grants as ‘posed to the ones granted by Frigga… why?

Because having 50 gods who grant the same spells is, like you so eloquently said, BO-RING! I prefer to have 5 distinctive gods with distinctive powers and abilities then 50 generic ones. Less is more in this case.

keep in mind that even if you think that balance is unnecessary from gameplay standpoint, we ask you to consider what is point of adding a dull god with lame powers that nobody is gonna use anyway?

Does it have to be a dull god? I'm certain that a god of thieves, for example, granting trade related abilities and powers (like calling darkness) would be useful.

simply make your Magic system balanced and fun and let folks role-play priests as they will. make advantages and disadvantages o’ being a cleric in game similar to those of being a member o’ other secular organizations…

Precisely. Make a number of Gods sporting different powers and abilities and let folks chose, just like they are supposed to, what deity they should ask for favours or dedicate their lives to

 

[Voss]

maybe a crpg priest might claim that his power to cast spells comes from God, but his abilities should be no different than an ordinary hedge wizard's powers... preserves notions o' faith.

Nope. It completely kills faith, except among the lunatic fringe.

Cleric: Witness the awesome power of the divine!

Peasants: Feh. The old kook down the street can do that. Take your god and his restrictions and your damn tithes away!

Of course, the kicker which really gets religion in most fantasy games is that tangible effects eliminate the need for faith. You don't need to believe in something you can see. Its like wandering around constantly believing in your favorite chair. Its just there and isn't going to disappear if you stop thinking about it. Similiarly, if the cleric pops miracles (spells) out of the air, you don't need to have faith in his god. Just perform the appropriate acts of worship and sacrifice to get what you want.
That completely changes the nature of faith and belief, which you did mention. But, worship and the rest of that is still necessary. An atheists become crazed loons who are clearly denying reality. And if the gods don't grant spells, can't empower people to be the equal or better than the hedge wizards, why would people bother with them. Their cravings for mysteries and something greater than themselves is still satisfied, but htey don't have to give something for nothing.

 

[Gromnir]

*sigh*

another reply/quote fiasco.

first you say that the Gods would grant “powahz” to their faithful… and then skip to next quote and simply note that yes indeed, faith is an issue that should/could be explored… though you completely ignore the obstacle you has just advocated moment’s before. Is a result o’ reply/quote.

as to the suggestion that clerics and mages would be no different if what Gromnir suggested were implemented…

“clerics is the recognized priests of an organized religion. why they gotta get powers at all? priests should be bureaucrats and poets, and philosophers, and scholars and warriors and mages and assassins and anything else you want to include. divine magic and special abilities for priestly characters? why? you wanna play a spell casting cleric? then play a spell caster. you wanna focus in healing magic? fine, then choose to specialize in healing magic.”

obviously we ain’t talking ‘bout making clerics just another flavor o’ spellcaster… but some folks not seem to be able to let go of old d&d conventions. we know that the notion o’ playing a priest in a crpg more for character than for distinct abilities is a notion foreign to some folks, but we persevere.

“Because having 50 gods who grant the same spells is, like you so eloquently said, BO-RING! I prefer to have 5 distinctive gods with distinctive powers and abilities then 50 generic ones. Less is more in this case.”

who the hell are you responding to? what it got to do with what Gromnir stated? Will give you a moment to think ‘bout your answer, ‘cause we sure never advocated having 50 gods, and even having five can result in various balance issues that is more or less unnecessary. heck, we not see no reason for having more than three base classes (for those who seem to have need of classes,) and you wanna essentially have more priestly sub-classes than that. why not have 5 warrior classes and five mage classes and five thief classes and five cleric classes?

am all in favor of a few religions being included in crpgs… join ‘em like factions and get special benefits for doing so, regardless o’ class. so far, the only advantage we seen mentioned for having numerous meddlesome Gods who grant divine magic to their “faithful,” is to make special powahz available to a limited number of characters who choose the cleric class… and the attendant Specialty Priest/Prestige Class nonsense that need follow. if powahz is what you really want, then why not make ‘em generally accessible regardless of class?

faith. heresy. misguided zealots. rival sects each claiming to follow the One True Faith. cardinal richelieu. borgia pope. Etc. all gone ‘cause you want kewl powahz instead o’ a faith based religion.


"Nope. It completely kills faith, except among the lunatic fringe."

funny. a vast majority o' the world's population is religious... and not 'cause they has seen miracles. have commonplace mages and you think that religion would suddenly disappear? is an interesting notion, but we think you underestimate the need of people to believe in something greater than themselves.

uri geller mesmerized lots o' folks 'cause he convinced them that he could bend spoons with his mind. you ever had trouble bending flatware with your hands?

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Voss]

heresy, zealots, rival sects, etc.. don't disappear because the clergy can cast spells. Unless the god is really active and keeps in touch personally, this stuff will still go on. But debates on whether there are gods at all do tend to vanish with observerable miracles.

As for the faith being killed... OK, clergy with no powers. Hedgewizards with powers.
Farmer's son gets sick. Turns to the church. So sorry, no help. But in the afterlife, we're all quite sure he'll be happy. Just take our word for it. So sad. Farmer goes home. Approaches hedgewizard. Zap. Herbs. Potions. Farmer's son cured. He may be out a cow and a couple chickens, but who's he going to be happier with? Who's he going to listen to, or turn to again? This happens a lot, who are the people in general going to turn to. Its not likely to be the people who shrug and offer platitudes.
Sure you can turn around with the Witch! Witch! Curse, evil eye. But then you get a who do they *really* fear type of situation. And the church can't protect them...

The main problem with most fantasy is magic gets tossed in and no one really does anything with it. The wizards are in their towers, the priests are in their churches, but does anyone generate a bit of human ingenuity and put it to work for fun, labor-saving, profit, power and scheming in everyday situations? Not very often.

And by the by, theres just a wee bit of different with some guy convincing people he can bend spoons, and a column of light that makes the dead sit up, take notice, and starting moving and talking to friends and family.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

Skipped over the last few posts so I might be repeating something, forgive me if this is so.

If Dragon Age is meant to be a departure from D&D why do they need gods at all?

It's could easily be an unmerciful rip off of D&D, so why not at least try to be a little bit original. Have mages, shamans and spiritual healers and the ability to mix and match a character blurring class lines. Deities don't have to come into it, just like in real life.

 

[MrBrown]

If Dragon Age is meant to be a departure from D&D why do they need gods at all?

They've yet to say what they're going to do with Dragon Age regarding gods, clerics, magics or just about anything. There's just too many D&D fans starting threads on the BIO boards. *shrug*

 

[Vault Dweller]

More reply/quote fiascos:

first you say that the Gods would grant “powahz” to their faithful… and then skip to next quote and simply note that yes indeed, faith is an issue that should/could be explored… though you completely ignore the obstacle you has just advocated moment’s before. Is a result o’ reply/quote.

No, is a result of not having enough time to explain properly. When I said faithful, I meant truly faithful (not full of faith, but true to the ideas), not just anybody who sorta believes in a deity, but didn't "get it" the idea right.

obviously we ain’t talking ‘bout making clerics just another flavor o’ spellcaster… we know that the notion o’ playing a priest in a crpg more for character than for distinct abilities is a notion foreign to some folks, but we persevere.

Role-playing is one thing. Good and interesting design of a class is another. The former should be an excuse for not having the latter.

who the hell are you responding to? what it got to do with what Gromnir stated?

Gromnir stated that balancing divine vs secular and then all kinda different divine ones is a bitch. I suggested keeping the number of deities reasonable as one of the solutions.

‘cause we sure never advocated having 50 gods

Never said you did.

and even having five can result in various balance issues that is more or less unnecessary.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Depends on a game and its mechanics.

heck, we not see no reason for having more than three base classes (for those who seem to have need of classes,)

I prefer skills, but out of curiosity, why only 3 classes? What's your solution? Multiclassing? What's wrong with 7-10 really distinctive (more then a mix of 3 basic ones) classes?

and you wanna essentially have more priestly sub-classes than that. why not have 5 warrior classes and five mage classes and five thief classes and five cleric classes?

It's not really a class or a sub-class, it's more of a specialization. After all, we don't call Evokers or Illusionists a sub-class, just like we don't call fighters who specialize in spiked chains a sub-class.

so far, the only advantage we seen mentioned for having numerous meddlesome Gods who grant divine magic to their “faithful,” is to make special powahz available to a limited number of characters who choose the cleric class…

I think the main advantage is creating and/or playing a distinctive class that is more then a spell casting fighter.

if powahz is what you really want, then why not make ‘em generally accessible regardless of class?

It makes sense that Gods reward those who actually serve them granting them powers and abilities, as for those who don't have time or dedication to serve a God, but follow the teaching and guidelines, and pay tributes, a small miracle will do, assuming they deserve it.

faith. heresy. misguided zealots. rival sects each claiming to follow the One True Faith. cardinal richelieu. borgia pope. Etc. all gone ‘cause you want kewl powahz instead o’ a faith based religion.

All gone?! Noooo. It is all because of meeeee!... Anyway, I don't want kewl powahz, I want something reasonable in return for priests' service and dedication in a fantasy role-playing game. So, why all this cool stuff is gone now? What's stopping you from having faith, heresy, misguided zealots, and rival sects in such a setting?

Faith - you have to believe (in addition to serve faithfully) to channel whatever powers (as in abilities, skills, spells, etc) your deity may wish to grant you

Heresy - you may chose to worship and serve a deity that is not welcome in the existing pantheon for whatever reasons. You may chose to interpret differently the wishes of your God. Your interpretation may be approved by your God but not by the official church that serves Him.

Misguided zealots - a wizard may claim that his powers are granted by some God, and force some easily impressed fools into obedience promising powahz eventually to those who serve, etc.

 

[Gromnir]

“heresy, zealots, rival sects, etc.. don't disappear because the clergy can cast spells. Unless the god is really active and keeps in touch personally, this stuff will still go on.”

Read vd’s suggestion as to why clerics should get kewl 1337 powahz.

“Because they dedicate their time and efforts to their deity(ies) unlike any other class or profession, and powers granted to the most faithful servants are both rewards and motivation.”

Gosh, if the most faithful and dedicated get the powahz, then there ain’t really questions ‘bout faith ‘cause as you recognize, the gods is doing miracles on a daily basis and is easy to measure relative power; faith in a God in such a world is a bit like faith in a powerful warlord or king. no question of does God exist… and and heresy does disappear ‘cause there ain’t no real questions o’ dogma. the Gods grant power to the faithful… and they grant the mostest kewl 1337 powhaz vd is wanting to the most faithful and dedicated. misguided zealots is similarly nixed as they don’t really have a chance to exist based on vd’s notions... just as is powerful evil priests of loving gods. what a shame.

“As for the faith being killed... OK, clergy with no powers. Hedgewizards with powers.
Farmer's son gets sick. Turns to the church. So sorry, no help. (etc.)”

thanks for the example… we was waiting for it.

when you get sick, to whom do you go? a priest or rabbi? maybe a shaman living in the woods? no? maybe you go to a doctor who had 4 years o' med school and a long residency and has a diploma on wall? was predicted by many philosophers that science would kill God. ain’t happened yet, has it?

“No, is a result of not having enough time to explain properly. When I said faithful, I meant truly faithful (not full of faith, but true to the ideas), not just anybody who sorta believes in a deity, but didn't "get it" the idea right.”

am sure that made sense in your head… but it is relatively meaningless.

most of your other points was already addressed and you is just being repetitive anyway. yeah, specialist mages is sub-classes, and if by choosing to specialize in a sword, a warrior was forever limited in the scope of his development then yeah, he too would be a sub-class/kit/prestige class like a kensai is a sub-class o’ warrior. and benefit of having 3 general classes as ‘posed to ten distinctive should be obvious to a fo fanatic… but it ain’t it seem. more distinctive you makes the classes, the more important that initial choice o’ class becomes… so that like in d&d 1st edition, only important character development choices is made when you first roll up your character. maybe you like this kinda thing, but we prefer to have more choice to make a character as we see fit than as ‘posed to simply playing the character class the developers offer us. personally, we is in favor o’ no classes, [please note, Gromnir said, "for those who seem to have need of classes,") but da will have classes, so question is moot. only lingering issue is whether you want more freedom or less.

“Gromnir stated that balancing divine vs secular and then all kinda different divine ones is a bitch. I suggested keeping the number of deities reasonable as one of the solutions.”

btw, you didn’t offer a solution… you merely decreased the problem from balancing 50 down to 5… when Gromnir would have none. look at any game with classes and sub-classes and see how much luck they has balancing even a small handful, and you wanna have 10 distinct classes with a bunch o’ sub-classes/kits/PrCs for each. no thanks.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Read vd’s suggestion as to why clerics should get kewl 1337 powahz.

I've never said that powers must be kewl and 1337. I used the word powers in general to describe spells, bonuses, abilities, feats, perks, etc that deities may grant to clerics. I'm sure that you can find plenty to disagree with, so there is no need to make stuff up.

if the most faithful and dedicated get the powahz, then there ain’t really questions ‘bout faith ‘cause as you recognize, the gods is doing miracles on a daily basis and is easy to measure relative power

True, now there is no question whether or not your God exist since His existence has been proven many times, but there are new questions: which one would you pick? whose agenda would you trust? can you trust your deity blindly? All that still falls under "faith" category

and they grant the mostest kewl 1337 powhaz vd is wanting to the most faithful and dedicated.

It would be strange if it was otherwise, would it not?

misguided zealots is similarly nixed as they don’t really have a chance to exist based on vd’s notions...

Why not? Didn't like my example?

just as is powerful evil priests of loving gods.

Never saw sense in that. Evil priests of loving gods thing works only in a setting where Gods' presence is non-existent, and thus a subject of speculations and misinterpretation by the strongest. (Example: Christianity)

and benefit of having 3 general classes as ‘posed to ten distinctive should be obvious to a fo fanatic… but it ain’t it seem.

Definitely aint. Classes are restrictive by their nature. Having 3 classes with unlimited development kinda defies the purpose of having classes to begin with. Having 3 classes with limited development sucks. Hence, my remark. So, pointing out that FO basically had 3 classes is like saying that DnD is basically skill-based.

maybe you like this kinda thing, but we prefer to have more choice to make a character as we see fit than as ‘posed to simply playing the character class the developers offer us.

If developers do a good job, it will be flexible enough to give you plenty of freedom after the initial selection, D2-style.

btw, you didn’t offer a solution… you merely decreased the problem from balancing 50 down to 5…

Making a problem manageable is a solution.

look at any game with classes and sub-classes and see how much luck they has balancing even a small handful, and you wanna have 10 distinct classes with a bunch o’ sub-classes/kits/PrCs for each.

Yep. Is it wrong of me to expect something that would difficult to do? Should I settle for kewl particle effects instead?

 

[Voss]

Yes, Grom. People go to doctors rather than priests when their sick. But there isn't a magical way to instantly heal people. So it isn't particularly relevant to the discussion of fantasy clerics, spells and wizards. And lets not forget that only recently was it relatively safe to go to doctors for help.
Keep it in the context of the fantasy genre. Who'd go to what passes for doctors rather than someone with magical healing?

Its worth pointing out that I'm not basing my arguments on VDs. Realize you're having two different arguments with two different people.

 

[Ausir]

This is exactly how clerics work in The Witcher book (although you won't be able to play one in the game). The world has just as many divine revelations as our world - that means none. The clerics are just what they are in our world - priests, not holy warriors. The ones that use magic don't get it from any deities, but are just people with magical abilities that claim that their magic comes from gods.