Goodman Games

Gandalf. Every "fighter" thing in the Wizard description is attributable to Gandalf and the Balrog.

Yeah but Gandalf didn't use Longbows or Shortbows or X-bows...

Just lack of opportunity.

To the idea of having no -4 for none proficiency, and gandalf using the magic sword only because it is +3; +1d20!

Any chance of a Cleric spell Marv ?

+d7

maybe they just forgot about that...

Not really sure where to put this random thought, but it doesn't seem to need its own thread and we are hopefully about to get a higher level cleric spell...

We've found that a -1 (or spell level) penalty for every attempted spell or lay-on-hands use is pretty harsh on the cleric. Instead I've instituted a rule that the penalty is applied only for successful uses of spells or lay-on-hands. That allows a cleric to be more reliable, although you still need to roll each time, because there is always that chance of rolling a natural 1!

I tend to agree. My cleric happens to have a starting bonus to Spellchecks of +2. After two wasted spells, he's down to +0. He's not good at casting, not nearly as good as the wizard.
HAving the cleric lose -1 only when he succeeds/fails to cast a spell might be a good idea.

This makes a lot of sense. After all its only on a SUCCESSFUL check that your God/demon/Mother in law/Patron has by definition heard and your request and expended their power on your behalf.

If you fail a spell check (but NOT roll a 1) surely it means the God didn't hear your prayer nothing more. If your Patron Godlet never even noticed you why should you get a penalty next time you apply to Holy Head office??

besides, clerical spells are way less powerful than arcane spells, so i don't think it's a problem. Even in 3E, Clerics had more spells than wizards (if you take into account the Domain Spells)
and it's never been a problem..... soooo....
+d30 to giving the cleric a small casting aid somehow!

We have run that mechanic through its paces (-1 on success) and it does not hold up well under all situations... especially as you level up.

I am working offline with someone on an alternate mechanic for the Cleric that I hope will scale well to all levels.

Good to know, did you find it made the cleric too powerful/reliable? I'm curious how it didn't hold up.

Right now I'm just trying to figure out how to tweak the game to maintain player interest so it isn't perceived as "endless game of grind and despair". Everyone is all for the level 0 funnel, but we'd like to have a bit more control of our fate / have outcomes begin to line up more with decision making as we begin to raise levels.

Forgot to go back to this. How about "Neutralize Poison or Disease", which is level 2.

1-13 Failure.

14-15 By touching an ally, you retard the subsequent effects of one poison or disease that is affecting them, and remove the remaining dosage or effect from their system. Any effects suffered already cannot be reversed. For example, an ally that has lost 3 points of Strength to an ongoing disease may stop suffering future Strength loss, but the existing loss is not recovered.

16-19 As above, except that you can retard the subsequent effects of all poisons or diseases that are affecting one ally. Still, existing effects cannot be reversed.

20-21 As above, and you are also able to reverse the effect of all poisons or diseases affecting an ally. Any wounds, ability score loss, hit points, or other effects (e.g., sleep) suffered as a result of that one poison or disease are recovered. A creature that has already been killed by the poison or disease is not brought back to life. Additionally, that creature receives an additional +2 bonus to Fort saves to resist poison or disease for the next day.

22-25 As above, and the Fort save bonus is +4.

26-29 You can lead a prayer in which up to 4 other creatures that pray with you are all completely cured of any poisons or diseases affecting them, and the poisons and diseases are removed from their system. Additionally, they all receive a +4 bonus to resist poisons and diseases for the next day.

30-31 As above, and the 4 other creatures are actually immune to all terrestrial poisons and diseases for the next day. Supernatural or extraplanar diseases and poisons may still affect them.

32-33 As above, and the 4 other creatures are immune to all poisons and diseases for the next day.

34+ As above, and the 4 other creatures are immune to all poisons and diseases for the next week.

Excellent, thanks! It confirms the power curve that i had understood for cleric spells..
And that they are less powerful than wizard spells ...

And the search for that spell might be a nice hook for a level 3 adventure

That's an understatement. If it was a wizard spell a 34+ would have also cleaned the nearest metropolis of diseases and killed all snakes in a 1000 mile radius.

Without re-posting a ton of stuff from the email thread, the Cleric in it current and suggested modification (-1 on success) has some issues:

Lets look at the -1 on success (or even -1 no matter success or failure):

A cleric exists in all Fantasy games as a healer as a primary goal. He has a secondary goal vs undead (or creatures opposed to his his deity)... passable fighter... and he gets some spells. I know some people say their spells are weak, but that is because they have so many other duties.

Because of their various duties... a certain number of their daily attempts will be related to their class skills.

When you start to apply a -1 on success or -1 on an attempt, you start to seriously compromise the ability for them to use their powers at full effect except for first thing in the morning. A good example of this is Clerice... the Drow Cleric of Lloth.

The party gets into a fight and takes some damage. She uses three heals. At this point she has accumulated a -3 on her spell attempts.

Now shortly later she needs to cast a 3rd level spell. That 3rd level spell now has a 15% less chance of success than before (drops from about 50/50 to 35%). This further neuters her attempt to cast anything but basic spells in the future.

This only compounds itself at 10th level for a caster. After casting 4-5 heal spells, he is at -5 on his spell checks. This eliminates the likely-hood of casting 4th and 5th level spells.

Spending gold to get rid of negatives just creates an infinite casting machine as long as the gold holds out, so that does not work also.

There is an idea under discussion that might correct some of the above issues and balance out casting for clerics at low and high levels. If it works out, it might be the basis for a revamped cleric casting machine.

Good to hear. If the cleric is released as is it will be one of the first things I houserule. Just doesn't work imo.

What about splittin those penalties so that they affect only some rolls:

Everytime a cleric uses a spell, he suffers a cumulative -1 penalty to all spells of the same level or higher that he casts today.*
Everytime a cleric uses a Lay-on-hands, he suffers a cumulative -1 penalty to all his future Lay-on-hands he attempts today.
Everytime a cleric tries to Turn Unholy, he suffers a cumulative -1 penalty to all his future Turn Unholy he attempts today.

*this way, if Clerice (level 5 cleric) has already cast two 2nd level spells (getting a -2 penalty to future 2nd and 3rd level spellchecks) and then wants to attempt a 1st level spell she has no penalty. After that, she will suffer a -1 penalty to future 1st level spells as well as a -3 penalty to future 2nd and 3rd level spells.

This makes it so that every cleric with 10 PER will have at least "1+Cleric Level" attempts to lay-on-hands before getting an actual penalty to spellchecks. Same with Turn Unholy.

I removed the possibility of sacrificing 50 gp to waive the penalty, and i made it so that every spell gives only a -1 to spellchecks. This way a cleric will be encouraged to start using his higher level spells, and only as a last resort use his first level spells. But remember that higher level spells require an higher minimum roll (10+ twice spell level)

Glad I asked! From your reply I took it to mean that it didn't work to change the rule as written from a -1 on any attempt to a -1 on success only. To me that implied you were advocating sticking with the rule in the beta.

Sounds like you agree that the penalty for each attempt is a bad thing, but don't think penalty on success is enough of a fix. That may be. I'll be interested to see what you come up with, but it seems unlikely that Joseph would be making that big a change at this point in the cycle.

Doing separate -1 pools was also brought up in the discussion. The problem with that is that it does not scale well either from levels 1 to 10.

Plus, the -1 penalty for spell checks (i.e. only affects spells of level X or higher) violates the spirit that Joseph is trying to maintain. Keep the book keeping to a minimum. By having to track -'s by the level of spell that you cast, you are starting to create more complex book keeping.

One side point, tracking -1 bonuses by level does not promote a finite pool for clerics casting spells. Any system that is in place needs to:

1. Scale well
2. Provide a limit to what a Cleric can cast at a given level (dice rolls always make it variable, but statistically there should be a range)
3. Similar in # attempts as a Wizard (net for the day). That includes healing, turning and SPELL casting.

then why not just say " A cleric can use divine powers (spells, lay-on-hands, turn unholy) a number of times per day equal to

(Caster Level) x2 + PER modifier

Spells of level higher than 1 count as a number of uses equal to their level.

A 5th level cleric with 13 PER would have 11 uses, which could be 11 first level spells, or 6 first level spells and 5 lay-on-hands, or any other combination.

How does this scale? At level 10 the same 13 PER cleric would have 21 uses and his best spells would be of level 5. So roughly he could cast 3-4 times his best spells before running out.

Probably not random enough. It creates no 'gamble' of "will this or won't this work...?", which is inherent now.

Testing your luck certainly seems to be part of the DCC mindset. And its better for that.

Doesn't equal to what a wizard can do though, as you may only get 3 high level spells off and run out of energy. A Wiz isn't faced with this same issue.

The more I think about this, the more I realize this whole negative modifier idea needs to be thrown out the window. Oddly for a game that seems unconcerned about balance issues, there seems to be a goal of matching clerics and wizards to a similar number of casts/day, all the while trying to do so with two unique mechanics. It's clear to me the cleric was created after the wizard and now a different casting mechanic is trying to be forced on them just to be, well different. Why? Why not differentiate them in more important, flavourful ways?

My opinion, if you want them balanced in casts/day you must accept a similar system (not identical mind you, but similar) or it will end up needlessly complex.

Well, you are betting the "uses" which are lost even if you fail the min result, so it's still a gamble. So higher level spells are "more of a gamble" than lower level spells, since they cost more and have a higher chance of failure.



A wizard would lose his spell if he fails, a cleric could try again, provided he still has some uses left.
A cleric would get to cast his higher spell only 3 times before running out, true. But isn't that still better than doing it twice and finding you suffer a -(2x spell level) to all spellchecks!?!
A 3rd level cleric could cast three 2nd level spells, and then be done, but he could cast 1 and then four 1st level spells, without penalties. It seems more reliable. And i like clerics to be less powerful but more reliable than mages, given the different relationship they entertain with gods and extradimensional beings.