Cleric questions

[ogbendog]

Appologies if this is in the rules, I can't find it

1 - can Clerics be in spell duels?
2 - can they use spellburn?
3 - do they roll for Mercurial magic when they learn spells?

[meinvt]

My interpretation was no on all three.

[bholmes4]

Perfect timing, rather than start a new thread on cleric casting I will just ask it here:

If a cleric gets +10 bonus at level 10, and he tries to cast a level 7 spell, he will end up -4 to casting. If he fails he is pretty much screwed and if he casts it he gets one nice spell but has blown pretty much everything he has. Is this seriously the intent or am I missing something? He pretty much gets one spell and then will be lucky to cast lay on hands once or twice more?

Is the key to their class the accumulation of relics to boost their casting power? I just don't get how their casting mechanic makes sense when compared the Wizard.

[smathis]

Perfect timing, rather than start a new thread on cleric casting I will just ask it here:

If a cleric gets +10 bonus at level 10, and he tries to cast a level 7 spell, he will end up -4 to casting. If he fails he is pretty much screwed and if he casts it he gets one nice spell but has blown pretty much everything he has. Is this seriously the intent or am I missing something? He pretty much gets one spell and then will be lucky to cast lay on hands once or twice more?

Is the key to their class the accumulation of relics to boost their casting power? I just don't get how their casting mechanic makes sense when compared the Wizard.

I thought the Cleric's penalty was increased at a rate equal to the level of the spell being cast, instead of twice the level. So that Cleric casting the level 7 spell would drop to +3. That's not awesome, I must admit. What's worse is if the Cleric doesn't beat a 24 DC, then his spell doesn't go off and he STILL takes the spell check penalty.

Maybe a better idea is a failed Cleric spell attempt only increases the spell check penalty by -1?

Or those "fizzle effects" I'd mentioned in my Infernal Crucible playtest thread.

Having nothing happen and taking the penalty is a real kick in the nads. It's bad enough to have lost an action. But to take a full penalty to future spell checks? Just seems like Clerics can't get a break.

[bholmes4]

I thought the Cleric's penalty was increased at a rate equal to the level of the spell being cast, instead of twice the level. So that Cleric casting the level 7 spell would drop to +3. That's not awesome, I must admit. What's worse is if the Cleric doesn't beat a 24 DC, then his spell doesn't go off and he STILL takes the spell check penalty.

Maybe a better idea is a failed Cleric spell attempt only increases the spell check penalty by -1?

Or those "fizzle effects" I'd mentioned in my Infernal Crucible playtest thread.

Having nothing happen and taking the penalty is a real kick in the nads. It's bad enough to have lost an action. But to take a full penalty to future spell checks? Just seems like Clerics can't get a break.

Oops you're correct about the 1x level, my bad. I still maintain there is an issue when they could cast only two 5th level spells and basically be spent. Unless those 5th spells are huge (ie. flood an entire region or part the seas) I don't see how they are a viable class, especially compared to the wizard. Once again clerics look boring to play unless their is a piece I am missing...

And even with your -1 idea they still suck. A wizard could cast 20+ spells no problem (other than corruption) at 10th level. A cleric might cast two and be almost useless the rest of the game. If this is a way to limit spells like Resurrection that's a nice idea, but when the main source of fun for a class (in this case spell casting) could be limited to one or two successful casts, I wonder if this is the right way to go about it.

I still can't help but think relics are meant to play a big role...

[Ducaster]

Hmm this provoked some random thoughts:-

The only way right now to offset the definite disadvantage Clerics have seems to be to have a bag of diamonds with him that he throws one in the storm drain every so often to get some approval for his piety!

Which if he serves an god of greed/trade/prosperity is retarded.....

Still the mechanic of exchanging treasure for renewed favor might work as intended but I can't yet see how. I suppose it'd destroy smooth game play if the Cleric was allowed to stop and "have a quick pray" every so often to renew his gods attention and reduce the creeping negative mods...

Maybe before an adventure a Cleric could sanctify a holy item over a period of days creating a "relic"/ super holy symbol. This would serve as a battery like object nullifying his negatives until it needed to be re sanctified or something. This way a novice cleric MIGHT be gifted by his holy bosses with a special symbol to boost their power in a difficult but church sponsored quest? How does that strike any of you? I have made up a prototype spell to do just that on my spell work sheet (link in sig) with that in mind. Any thoughts?

[geordie racer]

Hmm this provoked some random thoughts:-

The only way right now to offset the definite disadvantage Clerics have seems to be to have a bag of diamonds with him that he throws one in the storm drain every so often to get some approval for his piety!

Which if he serves an god of greed/trade/prosperity is retarded.....

Sacrificing wealth is NOT the only way to make a sacrifice - that's that phrase that clerics can make 'other acts' of sacrifice at the GM's discretion. So that shack full of rival cultists you burn to the ground, that prize stallion you ritually slaughter etc can nullify the negative.

Also, a good deed, quest or service to a deity counts as a sacrifice.

The point is - clerics have to actively do something - not just hang around rubbing their relic.

Why - because that does not seed adventures - that does not have consequences - clerics need to MAKE A GIFT to their creator in some way.

To sanctify a relic, well I reckon you'd have to be on good terms with yr deity to be the vessal of his power to do this. And I'm against relics acting as reliable magic items.

[smathis]

And even with your -1 idea they still suck. A wizard could cast 20+ spells no problem (other than corruption) at 10th level. A cleric might cast two and be almost useless the rest of the game. If this is a way to limit spells like Resurrection that's a nice idea, but when the main source of fun for a class (in this case spell casting) could be limited to one or two successful casts, I wonder if this is the right way to go about it.

Which is why I recommended the Cleric be given an Attack Die of sorts. Either a lesser version of what the Dwarf and Warrior get or one that only applies in certain circumstances (like against creatures that offend the Cleric's deity).

This would make the Cleric more Fightery. More like a traditional Paladin than a straight Cleric.

But it would also lessen the need for the Cleric to be strictly a spellcaster.

I get the idea of sacrifices. But I think long-term that could get annoying because it will be driven by numbers, not necessarily story.

So instead of the "15 minute workday", DCC adventurers will just have a sacrifice every 15 minutes.

"Whoops, almost out of healing. Got something to sacrifice?"

Not a terrible byproduct of the rules. But I could see where it could get so routinized as to be considered more of a hassle (like tracking encumbrance) than cool. IMO, the Cleric doesn't need any more hassles.

EDIT: The 4e Artificer has a similar "let's make a sacrifice so the party healer can do more healing". After every encounter, the Artificer collects healing surges from the party to "pay for" the healing he's done. In a word, it's lame. I could see the DCC Cleric following a similar path in collecting gold pieces or items of value to "pay for" the services of his deity. If the Cleric is given some efficacy outside of spellcasting (as in a nerfed or situational Attack Die) then the player would be less likely to focus on diminishing spell power. I think it would also fit the tenor of the divine spells we've seen thus far. They appear to lack the boom of the Wizard and Elf. The Cleric spells seem more "blue-collar" to me.

So let's let the Cleric hit things too. It will save us the need for a Paladin later on.

[Ducaster]

The point is - clerics have to actively do something - not just hang around rubbing their relic.

+1 for best Cleric quote I seen a while!

Point conceeded, there ARE other ways you can offset your negative penalty but it does say :-

Sacrifices vary according to the nature of the deity but, in general, any offering of material wealth counts, and other acts may count as well, at the discretion of the judge. (Beta Page 23)

I meant my point about the sack of DIamonds to be ironic but it IS apprently a legit one. Right now Clerics definitly have a diminishing return on casting of spells compared to Wiz's.

Now if you meant that torching a shack of Heretics got you some kind of Divine CREDIT then I'd agree with you whole heartedly. But as it is now all it will do (I think) is remove penalties gained on one given day.
Infidels to burn are not always as conviniently placed about as is 50gp portions of wealth. If the rules introduce a Piety mechanic where Clerics can "remind" their God of acts like this performed in the past to offset their current daily penalty we may be getting somewhere!

Or maybe just allow a cleric one free spell per day (that accrues no penalty ) per Level that would save on doing a bunch of Maths to see how much credit Joe Cleric has at Holy head office...?

[ogbendog]

note that wizards can't chuck spells all day, as they'll turn into tentacled monstrosities. so they'll have to do nothing, or swing a blade, shoot a bow, etc. which they suck at

so if clerics are limited, well, that seems balanced

[bholmes4]

note that wizards can't chuck spells all day, as they'll turn into tentacled monstrosities. so they'll have to do nothing, or swing a blade, shoot a bow, etc. which they suck at

But they can if they don't care about that... or at least if their life is on the line and they need to risk it. Clerics on the other hand will get one or two good chances and then they are pretty much screwed and have to rely on "Lay on Hands". Besides wizard spells are so powerful potentially (and you can spell burn in a pinch to boost them) that comparing # of casts at this point is not fair. I'd rather one Magic Missile than 5 Bless.

[bholmes4]

I am putting this as it's own reply as it's another concern (I was tired and forgot to include it):

It appears that by 10th level a cleric will know 10 x 7 spell levels = 70 spells. If we make single page books that is going to be a pain, not to mention the potential for "Analysis Paralysis". Combine that with the spell level = negative casting modifier considerations and I can see some the game grinding to a halt at it's most climactic moments.

I'd much rather see clerics know fewer spells (or at least have to memorize a limited number to start each day) so that they don't get over-whelmed. A wizard might have 13-15 or so. A cleric, 70!? That may be a "perk", just like not losing the spell from memory, but from a gameplay standpoint that is going to bog things down I think. Don't give players this many options in a turn-based, face-to-face game that relies on fairly quick gameplay to be fun.

[smathis]

I'd much rather see clerics know fewer spells (or at least have to memorize a limited number to start each day) so that they don't get over-whelmed. A wizard might have 13-15 or so. A cleric, 70!? That may be a "perk", just like not losing the spell from memory, but from a gameplay standpoint that is going to bog things down I think. Don't give players this many options in a turn-based, face-to-face game that relies on fairly quick gameplay to be fun.

+d7

[jmucchiello]

It appears that by 10th level a cleric will know 10 x 7 spell levels = 70 spells. If we make single page books that is going to be a pain, not to mention the potential for "Analysis Paralysis". Combine that with the spell level = negative casting modifier considerations and I can see some the game grinding to a halt at it's most climactic moments.

This is why I'd prefer a smaller number of spells for both the cleric and wizard. If the spells have enough variety and flavor, no one will notice the "lack" of options.

[meinvt]

Would it make more sense for Clerics to only get the -X by spell level on successful checks? That would make Cleric magic much more predictable and reliable, which may not be a bad thing.

I agree on limiting in play consultation of spell lists by the cleric being key to keeping things moving.

[smathis]

Would it make more sense for Clerics to only get the -X by spell level on successful checks? That would make Cleric magic much more predictable and reliable, which may not be a bad thing.

I agree on limiting in play consultation of spell lists by the cleric being key to keeping things moving.

I was pondering this myself. At the very least it would be nice to see the Clerics' DCs shifted down if the -(spell level) everytime stays.

[GnomeBoy]

New Questions:

Is there a range for Turning?
Is it Line of Sight over any distance?
Is there a distance that turned creatures have to retreat to, i.e. are they hedged back X-number of feet?
I'm not seeing these things in the rules; is the Judge just meant to adjudicate as he sees fit?


Personally, I think turned creatures should be hedged back a distance from the Cleric, creating a perimeter around the Cleric. The perimeter would be smaller or larger based on the roll, I'd think. This is creepy, as the creatures can then follow the Cleric at a distance, and other party members are safe within that perimeter, but under threat without. And I'd make it shrink round by round, unless a new check was made (which could be worse). Imagine pushing a group of vampires back 15 feet, and they get a little closer round by round...

[abk108]

New Questions:

Is there a range for Turning?
Is it Line of Sight over any distance?
Is there a distance that turned creatures have to retreat to, i.e. are they hedged back X-number of feet?
I'm not seeing these things in the rules; is the Judge just meant to adjudicate as he sees fit?


Personally, I think turned creatures should be hedged back a distance from the Cleric, creating a perimeter around the Cleric. The perimeter would be smaller or larger based on the roll, I'd think. This is creepy, as the creatures can then follow the Cleric at a distance, and other party members are safe within that perimeter, but under threat without. And I'd make it shrink round by round, unless a new check was made (which could be worse). Imagine pushing a group of vampires back 15 feet, and they get a little closer round by round...

+d14!

It could be a radius of "feet equal to spellcheck result"!

[geordie racer]

Personally, I think turned creatures should be hedged back a distance from the Cleric, creating a perimeter around the Cleric. The perimeter would be smaller or larger based on the roll, I'd think. This is creepy, as the creatures can then follow the Cleric at a distance, and other party members are safe within that perimeter, but under threat without. And I'd make it shrink round by round, unless a new check was made (which could be worse). Imagine pushing a group of vampires back 15 feet, and they get a little closer round by round...

YES, great idea !