Crazy domain spells idea

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

It's simple. It's crazy. But I'd love to try a potentially unbalancing
house rule because it'd be so easy to implement and would cure what I see as
one of the HUGE stylistic flaws in the game, that is, that clerics of all
these colourfully varied deities in the various worlds ARE ALL THE FRIGGIN'
SAME!!!

Maybe it's just me but I find the use of domains in the current game is
extremely flavourless -- most clerics end up looking pretty much the same in
the end regardless of deity. They have the *full* range of the cleric spell
list (so everyone can take Shape Stone for example, there's no limiting it
to Earth Clerics). Then they get these domain spells, half of which are
already part of the cleric spell list anyway and only take up 10-30% of any
given cleric's spell allotment anyway. And these domain powers -- some can
be kick-ass and interesting (but these are usually based on rare usage [like
turning Air creatures] or are 1/day items [like the feat of Strength]). Or
some can be something like "+1 on all lawful spells"! All in all, every
cleric seems to have the same range of options and comes out much the same
as every other cleric.

Do you all agree with me or what?


Anyways, the basic change is this:

1. Remove the domain spell slot entirely [ie., do not replace it with
anything -- this reduces the cleric's overall number of slots by 1 per 2
levels]

2. Treat the domain spell list as a list of spells that a cleric can cast as
if they were *one level lower*.


Think about a cleric of St. Cuthbert, for example. Starting out, he might
be able to cast Protection from Chaos as a *0-lvl spell*! Instantly useful
(if narrow and always on-theme) spell slots appear for the first level
cleric! And watch him cast Shatter (from the Destruction domain) as a
*1st-lvl spell*!

That to me just sounds so cool -- you've got buckets of flavour, since a
cleric *will* have the whole spell list to pick from but they'll *always* be
well served by selecting spells within their domain. You've got loss of the
domain slot as a balancing factor against the fact that every lesser slot
suddenly becomes useful. Seems pretty good.


Of course, the big caveat is what do we do about clerics casting Invis at
1st level, Teleport at 7th, Heal at 9th (or wherever it is), Anti-Magic
Shell at 9th, etc. These seem radical and might affect the usual
expectations of a PC party's Challenge Rating scheme ... but are they really
game-breakers? These "leaps forward" will all be within the cleric's
specialty and will be limited to one spell per level. Sort of makes the
domain choice suddenly a lot more interesting.

Critiques, please. If you think it'll break the game, please point out if
you can specific abuses you think will crop up.

Spinner
63 answers Last reply
More about crazy domain spells idea
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Spinner wrote:
    > Anyways, the basic change is this:
    >
    > 1. Remove the domain spell slot entirely [ie., do not replace it with
    > anything -- this reduces the cleric's overall number of slots by 1 per 2
    > levels]
    >
    > 2. Treat the domain spell list as a list of spells that a cleric can cast as
    > if they were *one level lower*.

    <snip>

    > Critiques, please. If you think it'll break the game, please point out if
    > you can specific abuses you think will crop up.

    I like it. It shakes up the balance between domains nicely, though,
    which may be a good or a bad thing.

    I looked through all of the domains in the SRD, and I have to say that
    some domains become borderline broken with this. Domains with Summon
    spells become a whole lot more interesting, and the Healing domain goes
    from "completely useless" to "pretty damn awesome".

    I don't really like what happens to the Knowledge domain. It was a good
    domain as-is, and I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of True Seeing
    as a level 4 spell. (I'm not a fan of True Seeing at all, but I'm even
    less of a fan with it at level 4.)

    The Luck and Strength domains also become _very_ powerful, with
    excellent spells at insanely low levels. Again, they were great domains
    to start with... this probably pushes them over the edge, balance-wise.

    Basically, since I believe clerics are quite powerful enough as is, I
    wouldn't use this system. A pity, because I really like the idea behind
    it.

    Laszlo
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <3fopdhF7ita7U1@individual.net>, "Spinner" <bprentic@uwo.ca>
    wrote:

    > It's simple. It's crazy. But I'd love to try a potentially unbalancing
    > house rule because it'd be so easy to implement and would cure what I see as
    > one of the HUGE stylistic flaws in the game, that is, that clerics of all
    > these colourfully varied deities in the various worlds ARE ALL THE FRIGGIN'
    > SAME!!!
    >
    > Maybe it's just me but I find the use of domains in the current game is
    > extremely flavourless -- most clerics end up looking pretty much the same in
    > the end regardless of deity. They have the *full* range of the cleric spell
    > list (so everyone can take Shape Stone for example, there's no limiting it
    > to Earth Clerics). Then they get these domain spells, half of which are
    > already part of the cleric spell list anyway and only take up 10-30% of any
    > given cleric's spell allotment anyway. And these domain powers -- some can
    > be kick-ass and interesting (but these are usually based on rare usage [like
    > turning Air creatures] or are 1/day items [like the feat of Strength]). Or
    > some can be something like "+1 on all lawful spells"! All in all, every
    > cleric seems to have the same range of options and comes out much the same
    > as every other cleric.
    >
    > Do you all agree with me or what?


    Agree wholeheartedly.

    IMC, after trashing the cleric spell list/domain system entirely we took
    some extra time and generated a unique spell list for each of the 8
    major clerics in the campaign. Admittedly, the campaign was a conversion
    from 2E that made use of The Complete Priest's Handbook's customization
    guidelines....so we just converted those specialty clerics to 3e rules.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    This is a common idea for representing various kinds of specialty
    magic; I've used it to represent wizard spell specialization in the
    past. It's playable. However ... I think doing things this way for
    domains may be a touch of a departure.

    One: The domain magic idea was there to allow a cleric to "always' have
    the signature spells of his faith at his fingertips; regardless of the
    "useful" clerical magic one memorizes, there will always be Saint
    Knucklehead's Blessing of the Foo, and so on. Shifting to "you can
    memorize them easily if you want" essentially discards a heap of domain
    magic in favor of "more immediately useful" spells. It's a big change
    in character.

    Two: The domain structure already allows for spells to be cast "early"
    by the simple expedient of putting them in a lower level spell slot
    (IIRC some do exactly that), so you might be double dipping with your
    approach if you're not careful.

    Three: Where wizard spells cross over onto cleric lists, it may not be
    quite as fair to cast these at lower levels than they were originally
    given.

    Four: This is a total of 18 underlevelled spells; that's quite a few!

    Five: Some domain spells are unique to those domains and thus casting
    them at all is a privelege; there's another double-dip if we let the
    priest both cast them uniquely and cast them _easily_.

    I think there's a better solution than lowering their levels; namely,
    tossing the bonus slot and letting the spells on the domain lists be
    cast _spontaneously_. That settles the always-available "character"
    issue and doesn't raise any balance concerns (spontaneous is 'better'
    but losing a spell slot per level makes up for that easily enough), and
    retains the heaps-o-flavor we're after. Any desire to put a spell on
    the 'more easily cast' list can be done by lowering their spell level
    in the domain list *individually*.

    I strongly believe that the domain system should be used just as a
    starting point; take each deity a PC uses, go through the suggested
    domains and pick one *unified* list of spells (2 spells/spell level)
    out of that lot that best represents the magical inclinations of that
    god. That's what I do, and it works very, very well. This whole
    "different aspects" thing seems a little hokey to me. :)

    The default system is great for populating stock WOTC products, but our
    own campaigns allow for a litle extra TLC (and in principle, we only
    have to do the exercise once per cleric PC or NPC).

    -Michael
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bill the Omnipotent wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:33:21 -0400, "Spinner" <bprentic@uwo.ca> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >Anyways, the basic change is this:
    > >
    > >1. Remove the domain spell slot entirely [ie., do not replace it with
    > >anything -- this reduces the cleric's overall number of slots by 1 per 2
    > >levels]
    >
    > This one I agree with. I'd also say that good/evil clerics lose the ability to spontaneously cast
    > cure/inflict spells. In return, all clerics can spontaneously cast any spell on their domain spell lists. I
    > think this is in Unearthed Arcana somewhere.

    Bad idea. No matter what some people rank on clerics about, which I
    don't, but this rule was the #1 best thing D&D ever did for clerics.
    It's the nature of the game. Pre 3E there just never was enough
    healing to go around. That is not to say that player characters were
    dieing all over the place because they could never heal, but rather
    clerics had to memorize almost all their 1st level slots as Cure Light
    Wounds and 4th level slots for Cure Serious Wounds. Clerics could
    hardly do anything but heal, which made for boring clerics, which made
    for why even today some people don't want to play clerics because they
    think that's all they do. I still remember how back in college two
    players ended their friendship with me because I dared cast a spell
    that as not Cure Light Wounds, and we were using house rules spell
    points where you didn't have to memorize spells. <shakes head>

    Anyway, clerics should keep spontaneous curing. Don't take that away
    from them.

    Gerald Katz
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    >> Anyways, the basic change is this:
    >>
    >> 1. Remove the domain spell slot entirely [ie., do not replace it with
    >> anything -- this reduces the cleric's overall number of slots by 1 per 2
    >> levels]
    >>
    >> 2. Treat the domain spell list as a list of spells that a cleric can cast
    >> as
    >> if they were *one level lower*.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> Critiques, please. If you think it'll break the game, please point out
    >> if
    >> you can specific abuses you think will crop up.
    >
    > I like it. It shakes up the balance between domains nicely, though,
    > which may be a good or a bad thing.
    >
    > I looked through all of the domains in the SRD, and I have to say that
    > some domains become borderline broken with this. Domains with Summon
    > spells become a whole lot more interesting, and the Healing domain goes
    > from "completely useless" to "pretty damn awesome".
    >
    > I don't really like what happens to the Knowledge domain. It was a good
    > domain as-is, and I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of True Seeing
    > as a level 4 spell. (I'm not a fan of True Seeing at all, but I'm even
    > less of a fan with it at level 4.)
    >
    > The Luck and Strength domains also become _very_ powerful, with
    > excellent spells at insanely low levels. Again, they were great domains
    > to start with... this probably pushes them over the edge, balance-wise.
    >
    > Basically, since I believe clerics are quite powerful enough as is, I
    > wouldn't use this system. A pity, because I really like the idea behind
    > it.
    >
    Well, mine was the "lazy man's rule" -- required virtually no hard work.
    You could use the idea *and* keep your precious balance with a few
    substitutions in the tables. Wouldn't be too hard to swap in/out True
    Seeing for something else and move it up the ladder. I agree with your
    analysis BTW, they did the right thing with the "discount True Seeing" and
    having exciting choices in some of the domains ... but they didn't apply it
    broadly enough, nor did they extend it enough even for those clerics with
    the "cool" domains (e.g., Kn clerics get a discount True Seeing once per day
    .... big whoop).

    Adapt and try it! I want someone to give it a go (my group's too
    conservative ... unless I can wrest power from them ... and take over the
    storyline and ruleset ...)

    Spinner
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I've mentioned this before, but I still like my idea of bringing back
    the idea of 2E spheres. The basics is to give all deities more domains
    than by the book that fit their portfolio, and let all and only those
    spells be on their respective clerics' spell list. Create new Domains
    or allow exisiting Domains to have two spells per level, inlcuding 0
    level spells, to encompass important cleric spells not currently in a
    Domain, such as Raise Dead or Summon Monster IV. Keep spontaneous
    Curing/Inflicting. Individual clerics pick two Domains for Domain
    abilities. Since every good cleric and postiive channelling neutral
    cleric get the Healing Domain spells spontaneously, change Healing
    Domain ability to either Lay On Hands as a paladin or now that it's
    available, free Augment Healing Feat.

    When I next have insomnia I'll bother to work on this project for my
    own amusement :b.

    Gerald Katz
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:33:21 -0400, "Spinner" <bprentic@uwo.ca> wrote:


    >Anyways, the basic change is this:
    >
    >1. Remove the domain spell slot entirely [ie., do not replace it with
    >anything -- this reduces the cleric's overall number of slots by 1 per 2
    >levels]

    This one I agree with. I'd also say that good/evil clerics lose the ability to spontaneously cast
    cure/inflict spells. In return, all clerics can spontaneously cast any spell on their domain spell lists. I
    think this is in Unearthed Arcana somewhere.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    bprentic@uwo.ca wrote:

    > Anyways, the basic change is this:
    >
    > 1. Remove the domain spell slot entirely [ie., do not replace it with
    > anything -- this reduces the cleric's overall number of slots by 1 per 2
    > levels]
    >
    > 2. Treat the domain spell list as a list of spells that a cleric can cast as
    > if they were *one level lower*.

    Interesting...

    > Think about a cleric of St. Cuthbert, for example. Starting out, he might
    > be able to cast Protection from Chaos as a *0-lvl spell*! Instantly useful
    > (if narrow and always on-theme) spell slots appear for the first level
    > cleric! And watch him cast Shatter (from the Destruction domain) as a
    > *1st-lvl spell*!

    Note that his enemies will also save against it as a 1st-level spell, so
    it's a bit of a mixed blessing. Still a benefit on the whole, but it's
    something to keep in mind.

    > Of course, the big caveat is what do we do about clerics casting Invis at
    > 1st level, Teleport at 7th, Heal at 9th (or wherever it is), Anti-Magic
    > Shell at 9th, etc. These seem radical and might affect the usual
    > expectations of a PC party's Challenge Rating scheme ... but are they really
    > game-breakers? These "leaps forward" will all be within the cleric's
    > specialty and will be limited to one spell per level.

    One spell per level? I thought removing the domain slot meant you could
    prepare domain spells in normal slots (albeit lower level ones).

    Say you have a 1st-level Cleric with the War domain, spells per day
    4/2/1 (no domain slots). How many magic weapons can he prepare? How many
    spiritual weapons?

    > Critiques, please. If you think it'll break the game, please point out if
    > you can specific abuses you think will crop up.

    I think it'd be playable. Let us know how it goes if you try it out.

    BTW, there's another option you might consider, which I think would be
    less likely to cause balance problems: allowing domain spells to be cast
    spontaneously in exchange for losing the domain slot. This is suggested
    in Unearthed Arcana.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    mistermichael@earthlink.net wrote:

    > I think there's a better solution than lowering their levels; namely,
    > tossing the bonus slot and letting the spells on the domain lists be
    > cast _spontaneously_.

    Ah, that's what I get for replying without finishing the thread. :)

    > That settles the always-available "character"
    > issue and doesn't raise any balance concerns (spontaneous is 'better'
    > but losing a spell slot per level makes up for that easily enough),

    There still are some potential balance concerns, I think.

    Some domains give non-Clr spells and under the assumption that you'll
    only be able to use the spell once per day anyway. Making it
    spontaneously available not only frees you from ever having to worry
    about whether you'll need the spell in advance, but also potentially
    allows you to cast it many more times in a given day.

    Fate has true strike. Retribution, Fire, Sun have fire shield. Travel
    has fly and dimension door. War has all the power words. These are some
    nice spells, and a cleric will be happy to be able to use more times per
    day...

    Still, I don't think nothing would get scewed up too bad. I'll probably
    use the rule the next time I run, with clerics with the Healing domain
    using d12 instead of d8 for cures, so they get a benefit from their
    domain choice too.

    > I strongly believe that the domain system should be used just as a
    > starting point; take each deity a PC uses, go through the suggested
    > domains and pick one *unified* list of spells (2 spells/spell level)
    > out of that lot that best represents the magical inclinations of that
    > god. That's what I do, and it works very, very well. This whole
    > "different aspects" thing seems a little hokey to me. :)

    This is tangential to the original question, and a matter of taste, but:
    why?

    I quite like the different aspects thing. It allows you to have
    differently focused clerics of the same god, perhaps even different
    priestly orders built around different domain combinations. A cleric of
    Tyr with War and Knowledge might be quite different than one with Law
    and Retribution...


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d01da758cd41ed9989abd@news.iskon.hr...
    > mistermichael@earthlink.net wrote:
    > > I think there's a better solution than lowering their levels; namely,
    > > tossing the bonus slot and letting the spells on the domain lists be
    > > cast _spontaneously_.
    ....
    > There still are some potential balance concerns, I think.
    > Some domains give non-Clr spells and under the assumption that you'll
    > only be able to use the spell once per day anyway.

    It's not clear to me that this fixes into the "balance" equation all
    that much (particularly given that the non-clrs are usually at a higher
    level than normal). Further, given that wizards and sorcerers (and the
    relevant druids) can cast such spells repeatedly without a balance concern,
    it doesn't seem like being able to cast a spell repeatedly would be one for
    the cleric. Presumably, spells of a given level are balanced against one
    another, after all! However, if there actually is a spell that would raise
    flags for a cleric to cast spontaneously & repeatedly, we always have the
    option of flagging those particular spells as "spontaneously _once_".

    > Fate has true strike. Retribution, Fire, Sun have fire shield. Travel
    > has fly and dimension door. War has all the power words. These are some
    > nice spells, and a cleric will be happy to be able to use more times per
    day...

    I don't see any of these as unbalancing when used repeatedly by a cleric
    at all.

    > > I strongly believe that the domain system should be used just as a
    > > starting point; take each deity a PC uses, go through the suggested
    > > domains and pick one *unified* list of spells (2 spells/spell level)
    > > out of that lot that best represents the magical inclinations of that
    > > god. That's what I do, and it works very, very well. This whole
    > > "different aspects" thing seems a little hokey to me. :)
    >
    > This is tangential to the original question, and a matter of taste, but:
    why?

    I was running a campaign that featured Greek gods, and found that the
    stock system was a very imperfect translation of the kinds of signature
    miracles I would expect their representatives to be able to perform. For
    instance, Apollo is ostensibly a musician, healer, archer, oracle,
    justice-giver *and* Sun God (tm), and you just can't really capture all the
    flavor of the boy with just 2 domains. Healing and Sun, of course, get you
    a goodly distance in the right direction, but that leaves out _so much_ of
    his legendary breadth I felt that the cookie cutter was a little coarse.
    But you don't need every single one of these aspects to be represented by an
    entire _domain_; just a spell or two of the appropriate theme is good
    enough. So if you throw in, say, an Enthrall here and a Divination there,
    War domain archery feats even though he has a lot of Sun spells, etc... you
    get a much more sophisticated result. "Aspects" were a non-issue in this
    campaign since all priesthoods were underground.

    > I quite like the different aspects thing. It allows you to have
    > differently focused clerics of the same god, perhaps even different
    > priestly orders built around different domain combinations. A cleric of
    > Tyr with War and Knowledge might be quite different than one with Law
    > and Retribution...

    A perfectly valid aesthetic position. In the right campaigns, this is
    perfectly sensible, and potentially even a very rich roleplaying environment
    since you could conceivably have two sects of the same god clashing over
    some point of scriptural emphasis.

    -Michael
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 27 May 2005 15:33:12 -0700, "Hadsil" <forumite@netzero.com> wrote:


    >Anyway, clerics should keep spontaneous curing. Don't take that away
    >from them.

    They can always take the healing domain if they feel it's important.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    > Interesting...
    >
    Thanks.

    >> Think about a cleric of St. Cuthbert, for example. Starting out, he
    >> might
    >> be able to cast Protection from Chaos as a *0-lvl spell*! Instantly
    >> useful
    >> (if narrow and always on-theme) spell slots appear for the first level
    >> cleric! And watch him cast Shatter (from the Destruction domain) as a
    >> *1st-lvl spell*!
    >
    > Note that his enemies will also save against it as a 1st-level spell, so
    > it's a bit of a mixed blessing. Still a benefit on the whole, but it's
    > something to keep in mind.
    >
    This makes the balancing nicer IMO.

    >> Of course, the big caveat is what do we do about clerics casting Invis at
    >> 1st level, Teleport at 7th, Heal at 9th (or wherever it is), Anti-Magic
    >> Shell at 9th, etc. These seem radical and might affect the usual
    >> expectations of a PC party's Challenge Rating scheme ... but are they
    >> really
    >> game-breakers? These "leaps forward" will all be within the cleric's
    >> specialty and will be limited to one spell per level.
    >
    > One spell per level? I thought removing the domain slot meant you could
    > prepare domain spells in normal slots (albeit lower level ones).
    >
    You're right -- my sentence might be a little ambiguous. I meant "one
    specific spell per spell level gets a discount".

    > Say you have a 1st-level Cleric with the War domain, spells per day
    > 4/2/1 (no domain slots).
    > How many magic weapons can he prepare?
    4
    > How many spiritual weapons?
    2

    You've got the right idea.


    >> Critiques, please. If you think it'll break the game, please point out
    >> if
    >> you can specific abuses you think will crop up.
    >
    > I think it'd be playable. Let us know how it goes if you try it out.
    >
    I will.

    > BTW, there's another option you might consider, which I think would be
    > less likely to cause balance problems: allowing domain spells to be cast
    > spontaneously in exchange for losing the domain slot. This is suggested
    > in Unearthed Arcana.
    >
    Yeah -- it's an old chestnut and doesn't produce the desired results IME (we
    tried it briefly ... if the spells aren't that great or the opportunities
    don't arise that make you *want* to cast spontaneously, those domain aspects
    get lost anyway ... OTOH, if you've got to commit and you're looking at a
    discount, you're strongly tempted to prepare, for example, a shatter and
    then *look* for a way to use it). Nothing say, "use me!" like a spell
    sitting in your mind and going to waste.

    Spinner
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    mistermichael@earthlink.net wrote:

    > > > I think there's a better solution than lowering their levels; namely,
    > > > tossing the bonus slot and letting the spells on the domain lists be
    > > > cast _spontaneously_.
    > >
    > > There still are some potential balance concerns, I think.
    > > Some domains give non-Clr spells and under the assumption that you'll
    > > only be able to use the spell once per day anyway.
    >
    > It's not clear to me that this fixes into the "balance" equation all
    > that much (particularly given that the non-clrs are usually at a higher
    > level than normal). Further, given that wizards and sorcerers (and the
    > relevant druids) can cast such spells repeatedly without a balance concern,
    > it doesn't seem like being able to cast a spell repeatedly would be one for
    > the cleric. Presumably, spells of a given level are balanced against one
    > another, after all!

    Spells of a given level of a given spell list, surely! Wizards are total
    physical wimps who cast spells, clerics are physically average with even
    more spells; if they're to be balanced at all, it would stand to reason
    that that cleric spells are, on the whole, weaker than wizard spells,
    no?

    Now, if you allow clerics to also cast a bunch of tasty wizard spells...

    And fire shield and true strike are tasty, IMO, much more so than for a
    wizard. Even with fire shield up, a wizard won't be too eager to get
    into a position where his d4 is being kicked around in melee, while a
    cleric with fire shield should feel just fine wading in. Excluding
    utility uses like hitting the apple on the prince's head and such, what
    spectacular thing is a wizard with true strike going to do? Make sure he
    hits with his crossbow for 1d8? A cleric will grab his morningstar in
    two hands and Power Attack for +10 attack, +20 damage from a 1st-level
    spell. There is a reason, after all, why the wizard can't cast true
    strike or fire shield on the cleric, but only on himself.

    As anecdotal evidence, for the one session I played my
    Fate/Travel/Retribution cleric (with some third-domain-granting PrC...),
    before we got TPKed by a fire shielded cleric, she had true strike in
    her 1st- and 2nd-level domain slots, and Quickened true strike in her
    5th- and 6th-level domain slots, and used them to good effect. I didn't
    have fire shield prepared, because I considered dimension door a better
    use of the 4th-level slot.

    With spontaneous domain casting, I could've had all the true strikes I
    wanted, and fire shield, and have dimension door ready if I needed it...

    > However, if there actually is a spell that would raise
    > flags for a cleric to cast spontaneously & repeatedly, we always have the
    > option of flagging those particular spells as "spontaneously _once_".

    Eh. I don't like that. It keeps the "I've got my god's power always at
    my fingertips" aspect, but it still means that the cleric of the God of
    True Striking casts only one true strike per day, and five divine
    favours.

    Ideally, domain spells would work as described in Unearthed Arcana
    (spontaneous casting) with the domains balanced with that in mind to
    begin with. So true strike is 2nd-level for Fate, fire shield is 5th (or
    6th...) &c.

    Practically, I think I'll just use spontaneous domain casting and
    domains as they are. The domains weren't quite so perfectly balanced to
    begin with, so a bit of power shifting won't do that much harm.

    > > > I strongly believe that the domain system should be used just as a
    > > > starting point; take each deity a PC uses, go through the suggested
    > > > domains and pick one *unified* list of spells (2 spells/spell level)
    > > > out of that lot that best represents the magical inclinations of that
    > > > god. That's what I do, and it works very, very well. This whole
    > > > "different aspects" thing seems a little hokey to me. :)
    > >
    > > This is tangential to the original question, and a matter of taste, but:
    > why?
    >
    > I was running a campaign that featured Greek gods, and found that the
    > stock system was a very imperfect translation of the kinds of signature
    > miracles I would expect their representatives to be able to perform. For
    > instance, Apollo is ostensibly a musician, healer, archer, oracle,
    > justice-giver *and* Sun God (tm), and you just can't really capture all the
    > flavor of the boy with just 2 domains. Healing and Sun, of course, get you
    > a goodly distance in the right direction, but that leaves out _so much_ of
    > his legendary breadth I felt that the cookie cutter was a little coarse.
    > But you don't need every single one of these aspects to be represented by an
    > entire _domain_; just a spell or two of the appropriate theme is good
    > enough. So if you throw in, say, an Enthrall here and a Divination there,
    > War domain archery feats even though he has a lot of Sun spells, etc... you
    > get a much more sophisticated result. "Aspects" were a non-issue in this
    > campaign since all priesthoods were underground.

    OK, this sounds reasonable too.

    > > I quite like the different aspects thing. It allows you to have
    > > differently focused clerics of the same god, perhaps even different
    > > priestly orders built around different domain combinations. A cleric of
    > > Tyr with War and Knowledge might be quite different than one with Law
    > > and Retribution...
    >
    > A perfectly valid aesthetic position. In the right campaigns, this is
    > perfectly sensible, and potentially even a very rich roleplaying environment
    > since you could conceivably have two sects of the same god clashing over
    > some point of scriptural emphasis.

    I think they even mention this in the DMG. Disagreements between "the
    prophets" (Good and Knowledge) and "the justicators" (Law and War)...


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Spinner wrote:

    *Snip a bunch of proposed cleric changes*

    Well I've got much farther than that. Clerics can spontaneously cast
    any domain spell from any slot of that level. I've removed the casting
    cure/inflict though. It has definatly made clerics a bit more
    powerful, but I still find no one actually wants to play a cleric. I
    haven't run into any major problems so far, but some minor ones -
    especially with fire, had a player play a cleric with fire domain, and
    he was tossing all sorts of stuff around you'd expect a sorcerer to do
    without the poor ac and hp.

    - Justisaur.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d03c21e600c809989ac1@news.iskon.hr...
    > > It's not clear to me that this fixes into the "balance" equation all
    > > that much (particularly given that the non-clrs are usually at a higher
    > > level than normal). Further, given that wizards and sorcerers (and the
    > > relevant druids) can cast such spells repeatedly without a balance
    concern,
    > > it doesn't seem like being able to cast a spell repeatedly would be one
    for
    > > the cleric. Presumably, spells of a given level are balanced against one
    > > another, after all!
    >
    > Spells of a given level of a given spell list, surely! Wizards are total
    > physical wimps who cast spells, clerics are physically average with even
    > more spells; if they're to be balanced at all, it would stand to reason
    > that that cleric spells are, on the whole, weaker than wizard spells, no?

    Clerical magic is every bit as powerful as wizard magic in 3E; this
    old canard about wizard magic being "better" needs to be considered
    carefully. It's simply different. Wizard magic has more breadth, and does
    certain things (direct damage) more efficiently that clerical magic does,
    but clerical magic includes effects wizards can't create, either (great
    buffs, and check out some of those aligned domain spells!). The "potential"
    for more ultimate flexibility in one's magical options is all well and good
    and "powerful" for the wizard as a class, but that doesn't mean that
    (outside of direct damage spells) any given wizard spell is automatically
    "better" than that of a cleric spell of the same level, nor does access to a
    spell or two outside the ususal can of clerical goodies break the balance
    bank with respect to making the cleric "too" flexible and suddenly competing
    with wizards for their breadth.
    Reducing the spells/day of the cleric by one/casting level mitigates
    that, regardless.

    As far as domain lists are concerned, what wizard spells appear there
    are occasionally bumped a level up, but otherwise don't seem blatantly more
    powerful than anything a cleric could do with spells of that level on his
    own. Chain Lightning is the only potential offender here (in Air, 6th level
    for wizards, too- probably un-moved b/c many air spells are low utility),
    but it can do 11-66 (at 11th) or 20-120 (at 20th) to one target and, while
    6th level Harm can do 110 (at 11th) or 200 (at 20th) to one target ... so
    it's not as if this ability is letting the cleric destroy things he could
    not already. The mass-minion tickling of Chain L's splash damage is minor
    (5d6 damage at 11th level; 10d6 splash by 20th), though this ability to
    clean up minions probably makes it about as useful as Harm again.

    > And fire shield and true strike are tasty, IMO, much more so than for a
    > wizard. Even with fire shield up, a wizard won't be too eager to get
    > into a position where his d4 is being kicked around in melee, while a
    > cleric with fire shield should feel just fine wading in.

    ? You are arguing that Fire Shield is better for clerics because they
    can force more opponents to *damage them in melee* than a wizard? This
    argument does not hold much water. Wizards have ample resources to change
    that d4 to a d24 (using a horrible abuse of statistics on stoneskin which I
    don't recommend), which competes well enough with the cleric's spontaneous
    healing required to maintain such a pyrrhic strategy. If you simply meant
    that more melee attacks come to a meleeing cleric; I would point out that
    w/o multiclassing (which evens the deck for wizard and cleric alike) a
    meleeing cleric is not a particularly dominant clerical combat strategy.
    Further, for the wizard who wishes to stay out of melee and cast spells,
    Fire Shield is one more deterrent (and a much needed defense when
    deterrence fails); how can you say it is not less valuable for the wizard?
    You should consider that Fire Shield is provided at 5th level to the
    Fire Domain, which means that it is competing with Righteous Might. Fire
    Shield only works if someone hits you in melee; something that intelligent
    opponents will refrain from doing and even unintelligent ones may learn to
    avoid. Righteous Might, on the other hand, amplifies the damage of every
    attack you can make. Which is the more powerful spell? Under most
    circumstances, Fire Shield is not superior.

    >Excluding utility uses like hitting the apple on the prince's head and
    such, what
    > spectacular thing is a wizard with true strike going to do? Make sure he
    > hits with his crossbow for 1d8? A cleric will grab his morningstar in
    > two hands and Power Attack for +10 attack, +20 damage from a 1st-level
    > spell. There is a reason, after all, why the wizard can't cast true
    > strike or fire shield on the cleric, but only on himself.

    This argument is also bankrupt. Why do you think a wizard can't do
    exactly the same thing with his staff (or greataxe) if need be? Power Attack
    is not restricted somehow to Clerics, and multiclassed spellcaster-fighters
    with BABs over 10 love this stunt. Further, ensuring that some attack
    spells do not miss can be worth the investment, as can using an _enchanted_
    missile weapon to strike enemies at extreme ranges and snipe them to death
    before they can even engage.

    However, those who claim it is a problem seem to overlook the
    _horrific_ effect it has on one's average damage. In order to do this, one
    (a) *DOES NOT ATTACK FOR ONE ROUND* while casting true strike
    (b) Take a -10 penalty to hit on one's second, third, and fourth
    attacks (if any) in the next round.
    (c) Gets one attack off at a net +10 to hit, for a net +20 to damage.

    For a character with a BAB of 10, he trades four attacks (+10x2 &
    +5x2) for one attack at +20/+20 & 1 each at *-5*/+0.
    For a character with a BAB of 15, he trades six attacks (+15x2, +10x2,
    +5x2) for one attack at +25/+20, 1 each at 0 & -5
    For a character with a BAB of 20, he trades eight attacks (+20x2,
    +15x2, +10x2, +5x2) for one at +30/+20, 1 each at +5,0, -5.

    Now, do you really want to suggest that the effectively "missing"
    three to seven attacks from this gambit wouldn't have amounted to 20 points
    of damage?
    I'm not buying it. All this does is burn spells on dramatic single
    hits and gull the foolish into thinking that this is powerful. Magic
    Missile does up to 25 points of damage when used by a 9th level caster. Is
    that so different from a power-attack enabled two-handed (shield-free) true
    strike?

    > With spontaneous domain casting, I could've had all the true strikes I
    > wanted, and fire shield, and have dimension door ready if I needed it...

    Which is as it should be for a fate/travel/retribution guy! "Oh, no,
    sir! I can't dimension door today, because I memorized my _other_ domain
    spell!". Some farstrider! True strike + power attack is an illusory
    advantage at best, and fire shield's perceived overpower is handled by
    making it 5th for clerics and thus making it always inferior to righteous
    might ... there's really no issue with being more powerful than other
    clerical magic, here.

    > > However, if there actually is a spell that would raise
    > > flags for a cleric to cast spontaneously & repeatedly, we always have
    the
    > > option of flagging those particular spells as "spontaneously _once_".
    >
    > Eh. I don't like that. It keeps the "I've got my god's power always at
    > my fingertips" aspect, but it still means that the cleric of the God of
    > True Striking casts only one true strike per day, and five divine favours.

    I don't see what's not to like about that if you think True Strike is
    dangerous in repetition (it really isn't). Further, if you are concerned
    about repeated uses of True Strike (which you shouldn't be), letting them be
    memorized repeatedly (much less as cantrips!) doesn't do a damnned thing to
    limit their usage!

    -Michael
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sorry for the Ubi-ish post, but...

    Spinner <bprentic@uwo.ca> wrote:
    >1. Remove the domain spell slot entirely [ie., do not replace it with
    >anything -- this reduces the cleric's overall number of slots by 1 per 2
    >levels]
    >
    >2. Treat the domain spell list as a list of spells that a cleric can cast as
    >if they were *one level lower*.

    To prevent some of the abuses here, how about making it "if the spell
    is already on the cleric list, it can be cast as a spell one level lower
    than normal. This reduction doesn't stack with itself..."

    Donald
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <VC0ne.3060$s64.435@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    mistermichael@earthlink.net says...

    > > > It's not clear to me that this fixes into the "balance" equation all
    > > > that much (particularly given that the non-clrs are usually at a higher
    > > > level than normal). Further, given that wizards and sorcerers (and the
    > > > relevant druids) can cast such spells repeatedly without a balance
    > > > concern, it doesn't seem like being able to cast a spell repeatedly would be one
    > > > for the cleric. Presumably, spells of a given level are balanced against one
    > > > another, after all!
    > >
    > > Spells of a given level of a given spell list, surely! Wizards are total
    > > physical wimps who cast spells, clerics are physically average with even
    > > more spells; if they're to be balanced at all, it would stand to reason
    > > that that cleric spells are, on the whole, weaker than wizard spells, no?
    >
    > Clerical magic is every bit as powerful as wizard magic in 3E; this
    > old canard about wizard magic being "better" needs to be considered
    > carefully. It's simply different.

    How can wizards and clerics be said to be even remotely balanced, then?
    You claim their magic is about equally powerful overall, but clerics
    have more of it, and they have better HD, and better BAB, and better
    saves.

    > Wizard magic has more breadth, and does
    > certain things (direct damage) more efficiently that clerical magic does,
    > but clerical magic includes effects wizards can't create, either (great
    > buffs, and check out some of those aligned domain spells!). The "potential"
    > for more ultimate flexibility in one's magical options is all well and good
    > and "powerful" for the wizard as a class, but that doesn't mean that
    > (outside of direct damage spells) any given wizard spell is automatically
    > "better" than that of a cleric spell of the same level,

    I'm not saying that *any* given spell is *automatically* better. I'm
    saying there are a few spells (true strike and fire shield among them)
    that are more powerful than your average cleric spell of that level.

    And even if they're equally powerful, they're yet another effect that
    can be stacked: one could argue that divine power is better than fire
    shield, but divine power and fire shield both is even better. And it's
    something a by-the-book cleric will be able to do 1/day at best, while a
    spontaneous domain cleric with access to fire shield can do it many
    times per day.

    I like the other effects of the rule enough that I'll probably use it
    next chance I get, but I expect some balance issues will crop up. Domain
    vs. domain balance, if nothing else: under spontaneous domain casting,
    the domains with "rare" spells become even more attractive than they are
    now, while those filled with standard Clr spells become less attractive,
    even if they're good Clr spells.

    > As far as domain lists are concerned, what wizard spells appear there
    > are occasionally bumped a level up, but otherwise don't seem blatantly more
    > powerful than anything a cleric could do with spells of that level on his
    > own. Chain Lightning is the only potential offender here (in Air, 6th level
    > for wizards, too- probably un-moved b/c many air spells are low utility),
    > but it can do 11-66 (at 11th) or 20-120 (at 20th) to one target and, while
    > 6th level Harm can do 110 (at 11th) or 200 (at 20th) to one target ... so
    > it's not as if this ability is letting the cleric destroy things he could
    > not already. The mass-minion tickling of Chain L's splash damage is minor
    > (5d6 damage at 11th level; 10d6 splash by 20th), though this ability to
    > clean up minions probably makes it about as useful as Harm again.

    It's not the evocations I'd be most worried about, it's the wizard-only
    combat buffs.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:36:09 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> scribed
    into the ether:

    >In article <VC0ne.3060$s64.435@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    >mistermichael@earthlink.net says...
    >
    >> > > It's not clear to me that this fixes into the "balance" equation all
    >> > > that much (particularly given that the non-clrs are usually at a higher
    >> > > level than normal). Further, given that wizards and sorcerers (and the
    >> > > relevant druids) can cast such spells repeatedly without a balance
    >> > > concern, it doesn't seem like being able to cast a spell repeatedly would be one
    >> > > for the cleric. Presumably, spells of a given level are balanced against one
    >> > > another, after all!
    >> >
    >> > Spells of a given level of a given spell list, surely! Wizards are total
    >> > physical wimps who cast spells, clerics are physically average with even
    >> > more spells; if they're to be balanced at all, it would stand to reason
    >> > that that cleric spells are, on the whole, weaker than wizard spells, no?
    >>
    >> Clerical magic is every bit as powerful as wizard magic in 3E; this
    >> old canard about wizard magic being "better" needs to be considered
    >> carefully. It's simply different.
    >
    >How can wizards and clerics be said to be even remotely balanced, then?
    >You claim their magic is about equally powerful overall, but clerics
    >have more of it, and they have better HD, and better BAB, and better
    >saves.

    Because DD damage, the thing they excell at, is one of the cornerstones of
    the life of an adventurer.

    I kind of disagree with MSB though. Cleric magic is a *lot* more
    specialized, and so of course in the areas for which it is designed
    (healing, buffs), it really shines. But Wizards are so much more flexible,
    and the potential abilities that their spells can give cover a much larger
    field. I think that wizards do indeed have more magical power on the whole.
    Clerics being more durable and getting 1 extra spell vs an otherwise equal
    wizard (which the wizard can duplicate by going with a specialist school)
    because their magic is on the whole not quite as effective.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Spinner <bprentic@uwo.ca> wrote:
    >>> Clerical magic is every bit as powerful as wizard magic in 3E; this
    >>> old canard about wizard magic being "better" needs to be considered
    >>> carefully. It's simply different.
    >>
    >> How can wizards and clerics be said to be even remotely balanced,
    >> then? You claim their magic is about equally powerful overall, but
    >> clerics have more of it, and they have better HD, and better BAB, and
    >> better saves.
    >>
    > I'm on the fence on this one ... I largely think wizard magic *is*
    > more powerful all things considered.

    In the sense that it tends to be 'more active', certainly.

    That is, wizard magic focuses more on the 'hit the bad guy' end of
    things.

    Clerical magic is way more reactive, or indirect. You get the healing
    and restoration stuff, you can protect against stuff pretty well, and
    buff nicely.

    > But I just wanted to point out that there is a sentiment (or has been
    > in the past) on r.g.f.d that I agree with, ie., that clerics (and
    > possibly druids too?) are actually *not* power balanced (!) ... rather
    > they are given a slight but noticeable boost (ie., good atk, save,
    > armor, spell abilities) because too few people *want* to play the
    > class. IOW, it's an enticement.

    More accurately, I think, is that these let the character *do*
    something.

    > Now IMO, a *big* reason for cleric avoidance is not only that they
    > tend to be "support characters" (buffing and healing rather than
    > personally laying down the smack) but also because they're so damn
    > generic.

    I can't say if this is a reason for them being avoided, but I agree that
    they often come across fairly generic. They don't lend themselves as
    well to adjustment.

    Fighters get lots of feats, rogues get to pick from lots of skills,
    wizards get spells that do lots of different things... clerics 'work
    best' when they behave in a fairly consistent fashion (across
    characters, I mean).

    That's not to say that they *have* to be played that way, but there
    seems to be a certain 'power path' to them. Well-worn, at that.

    That's why I made the changes to them that I did.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d078f1b27569ff2989683@news.iskon.hr...
    > > Clerical magic is every bit as powerful as wizard magic in 3E;
    this
    > > old canard about wizard magic being "better" needs to be considered
    > > carefully. It's simply different.
    >
    > How can wizards and clerics be said to be even remotely balanced, then?
    > You claim their magic is about equally powerful overall, but clerics
    > have more of it, and they have better HD, and better BAB, and better
    saves.

    It's my opinion that stock clerics and wizards aren't balanced,
    precisely because clerics get a huge stockpile of much more available (ie;
    entire cleric list) magic, as well as all their other perks. But they
    aren't so unbalanced that one completely outshines the other in team
    scenarios, or that some minor fixes can't straighten things out. IMC, I
    force clerics to pick the prayers they're going to know (~2/level) and junk
    the bonus domain slot, for instance.

    > I'm not saying that *any* given spell is *automatically* better. I'm
    > saying there are a few spells (true strike and fire shield among them)
    > that are more powerful than your average cleric spell of that level.

    You keep saying that, but we've shown rather decisively that True Strike
    is not the powerful spell you claim it to be, and Divine Power is certainly
    a fine competitor with Fire Shield (which is certainly less amazing than a
    Righteous Might).

    > And even if they're equally powerful, they're yet another effect that
    > can be stacked: one could argue that divine power is better than fire
    > shield, but divine power and fire shield both is even better. And it's
    > something a by-the-book cleric will be able to do 1/day at best, while a
    > spontaneous domain cleric with access to fire shield can do it many
    > times per day.

    So what? If he wants to blow his 4th, 5th, 6th... level spell slots on
    these abilities instead of arguably more powerful ones, where's the beef?

    -Michael
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:%pAne.4181$s64.2314@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1d078f1b27569ff2989683@news.iskon.hr...

    FWIW the only balancing I've done that nerfs Clerics is removing the "Zen
    Archery" feat (stupid, stupid, STUPID! feat). This, combined with their
    poor direct damage spells means that they aren't so hot at ranged attacks.

    > > I'm not saying that *any* given spell is *automatically* better. I'm
    > > saying there are a few spells (true strike and fire shield among them)
    > > that are more powerful than your average cleric spell of that level.
    >
    > You keep saying that, but we've shown rather decisively that True
    Strike
    > is not the powerful spell you claim it to be,

    Not really, you've only shown that it isn't automatically better like he
    said. Putting one up before charging (with power attack turned up to the
    wazoo) would be devastating. For combatants already in melee or capable of
    making a full attack its not so good (as you showed).

    True Strike is attractive enough that Quickening it is a favourite tactic
    among our multiclassers.

    > and Divine Power is certainly
    > a fine competitor with Fire Shield (which is certainly less amazing than
    a
    > Righteous Might).

    I don't think Fire Shield is all that great to be honest.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
    news:39adnUjEpdLtfgPfRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
    > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > You keep saying that, but we've shown rather decisively that True
    Strike
    > > is not the powerful spell you claim it to be,
    >
    > Not really, you've only shown that it isn't automatically better like he
    > said. Putting one up before charging (with power attack turned up to the
    > wazoo) would be devastating.

    No, it would *not*. Your hero has now taken two rounds to charge,
    instead of charging and full attacking. We did the math for you. Please pay
    attention to it.

    > True Strike is attractive enough that Quickening it is a favourite tactic
    > among our multiclassers.

    The advantage is completely illusory. Which means that it doesn't
    bloody *matter* if they use it routinely!

    -Michael
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Symbol wrote:
    > > Inflict light wounds is good for up to 13 points of damage.
    >
    > IW offers a save and SR. The expected damage against the kind of foes a
    > 20th level character will face is minimal. A complete waste.

    And the melee attack must contend with full armor and damage
    resistance. Wa-hoo. You keep failing to grasp that you are citing
    _differences_ rather than blatant superiorities.
    Whether or not IW is a complete waste or not depends on whether
    the opponent has damage resistance or a difficult-to-penetrate (full)
    armor class. Further, a 20th level and very wise cleric up against a
    monster with poor Will still has good odds of doing full damage. The
    save issue will reduce the expected damage another quarter or so. Your
    mystical "+30" is *not really there*; and while the expected +15 is
    better than ~7-10 _in some cases_ in others it is not (such as when DR
    reduces the +15 to five or zero).
    Like it or not, even your biggest power-attacked true strike, *on
    average*, isn't all that much better than Inflict Wounds (which can be
    used with a shield, and without spending a feat, to boot).

    > > biggest, baddest power attack you can manage (burning all your BAB) gets you
    > > a net of +20 to hit for +30 damage; against the foes at level 20 where you
    > > have BAB 15 in the first place, common ACs are 30 or more, which means that
    > > your expected to-hit is all of 50%
    >
    > Not likely. For starters your Cleric has no STR adjustment and that is
    > impossible for a PA equipped combatant. No magical weapon either, no
    > buffs in place. The numbers are so contrived they aren't even worth
    > addressing, worse than even the gimp NPC Cleric in the DMG.

    And we didn't include the magical armor and high dexterity scores
    of the target, either. Please learn to do some *relevant* analysis
    before you die. The issues you are citing cancel out. The only thing
    including them does is show that strong people attacking clumsy people
    hit more often - and vice versa. This is not news, and it doesn't help
    at all to illustrate what changes TRUE STRIKE AND POWER ATTACK bring to
    the table.

    > > And at high levels you can have +6 to hit with every attack for TEN
    > > ROUNDS for the same spell level. What's more powerful as a single spell
    > > combined with power attack?
    >
    > Divine Favour offers a maximum +3 to hit and damage. RTFM.

    Your first, buckwheat. My PhB and the online SRD both indicate

    "Calling upon the strength and wisdom of a deity, you gain a +1 luck
    bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls for every three caster levels
    you have (at least +1, maximum +6). The bonus doesn't apply to spell
    damage."

    Now, *again*, I am compelled to ask you: Why do you have such a
    ridiculous hardon for True Strike when Divine Favor is MORE POWERFUL
    OVERALL? Of particular interest to the power attacking cleric should
    be the part where Divine Favor offsets the power attack penalties on
    _all_ your attacks rather than just the first one.
    True Strike: +20/-5/-10 (at +30 to damage) {for one round}
    Divine Favor: +15/+10/+5 (at +12 to damage) {for 10 rounds}


    -Michael
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:zLFne.5137$MI4.1037@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
    > news:39adnUjEpdLtfgPfRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
    > > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > > You keep saying that, but we've shown rather decisively that True
    > Strike
    > > > is not the powerful spell you claim it to be,
    > >
    > > Not really, you've only shown that it isn't automatically better like
    he
    > > said. Putting one up before charging (with power attack turned up to
    the
    > > wazoo) would be devastating.
    >
    > No, it would *not*. Your hero has now taken two rounds to charge,
    > instead of charging and full attacking.

    Why do you assume you could have reached your opponent in the first round?
    Why do you assume you would necessarily want to? You're exposing yourself
    to their attacks too and opening with a potentially devestating attack is
    handy.

    > We did the math for you. Please pay
    > attention to it.

    Your model is not comprehensive which is why two people have now told you
    we agree that it isn't automatically better.

    > > True Strike is attractive enough that Quickening it is a favourite
    tactic
    > > among our multiclassers.
    >
    > The advantage is completely illusory. Which means that it doesn't
    > bloody *matter* if they use it routinely!

    A quickened true strike with manoeuvres that allow you to only make one
    attacks is not an illusory advantage. Pay attention.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
    news:vs6dnT9sJPNEtwLfRVnyhQ@pipex.net...
    > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > No, it would *not*. Your hero has now taken two rounds to charge,
    > > instead of charging and full attacking.
    >
    > Why do you assume you could have reached your opponent in the first round?

    Why assume that you can reach him in the next, then? Look, this is a
    very simple calculation. Either you were close enough to charge but waited
    to cast the spell, reducing your attack potential, or you had to spend a
    "closing" round casting spells on yourselves anyway, in which case True
    Strike's ability to facilitate a power attacker's charge with a little extra
    damage, *once*, competes with spells that buff the entire party *for the
    duration of the fight* or that give you up to +6 to hit over many attacks.
    It's just another weapon in the arsenal, man! Hell, the extra expected
    damage from the true striked power attack, compared to that of a normal
    attack, is generally on the same order as the damage of a bloody cure light
    wounds spell!

    > > We did the math for you. Please pay attention to it.
    >
    > Your model is not comprehensive which is why two people have now told you
    > we agree that it isn't automatically better.

    The model was indeed comprehensive. Disagree at your own peril.

    > > The advantage is completely illusory. Which means that it doesn't
    > > bloody *matter* if they use it routinely!
    >
    > A quickened true strike with manoeuvres that allow you to only make one
    > attacks is not an illusory advantage. Pay attention.

    But choosing to perform those maneuvers *instead* of full attacking is
    a sacrifice of attack potential! Ugh!

    Reply when you're not being an idiot.

    -Michael
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
    > news:vs6dnT9sJPNEtwLfRVnyhQ@pipex.net...
    >
    >>"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>
    >>> No, it would *not*. Your hero has now taken two rounds to charge,
    >>>instead of charging and full attacking.
    >>
    >>Why do you assume you could have reached your opponent in the first round?
    >
    >
    > Why assume that you can reach him in the next, then?

    You don't have to assume that. You just have to recognize the
    possibility. Besides, you can time the casting of the TS to suit. R1,
    R2, R3 whatever.

    > Look, this is a
    > very simple calculation. Either you were close enough to charge but waited
    > to cast the spell, reducing your attack potential, or you had to spend a
    > "closing" round casting spells on yourselves anyway, in which case True
    > Strike's ability to facilitate a power attacker's charge with a little extra
    > damage, *once*, competes with spells that buff the entire party *for the
    > duration of the fight* or that give you up to +6 to hit over many attacks.

    Right. There is an opportunity cost but those first level spells have to
    be cast sometime.

    > It's just another weapon in the arsenal, man! Hell, the extra expected
    > damage from the true striked power attack, compared to that of a normal
    > attack, is generally on the same order as the damage of a bloody cure light
    > wounds spell!

    I don't know where you are getting that figure from. At high levels you
    are talking about adding 30 plus points to your expected damage. No SR,
    no save.


    >>>We did the math for you. Please pay attention to it.
    >>
    >>Your model is not comprehensive which is why two people have now told you
    >>we agree that it isn't automatically better.
    >
    >
    > The model was indeed comprehensive. Disagree at your own peril.

    Bollocks was it.
    >
    >>> The advantage is completely illusory. Which means that it doesn't
    >>>bloody *matter* if they use it routinely!
    >>
    >>A quickened true strike with manoeuvres that allow you to only make one
    >>attacks is not an illusory advantage. Pay attention.
    >
    >
    > But choosing to perform those maneuvers *instead* of full attacking is
    > a sacrifice of attack potential! Ugh!

    Are you really trying to argue that it is never worth an Arcane Archer
    imbuing an arrow? It is never worth Sundering your opponent's weapon
    instead of full attacking? Never worth feinting (with the feat that
    allows it to be done as an MEA)?
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Symbol" <JB70@talk21.com> wrote in message
    news:d7ng30$dqb$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
    > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > > It's just another weapon in the arsenal, man! Hell, the extra expected
    > > damage from the true striked power attack, compared to that of a normal
    > > attack, is generally on the same order as the damage of a bloody cure
    light
    > > wounds spell!
    >
    > I don't know where you are getting that figure from.

    Inflict light wounds is good for up to 13 points of damage. Even the
    biggest, baddest power attack you can manage (burning all your BAB) gets you
    a net of +20 to hit for +30 damage; against the foes at level 20 where you
    have BAB 15 in the first place, common ACs are 30 or more, which means that
    your expected to-hit is all of 50%, and so the uberpower attack has only
    added about 15 points of expected damage, at that. Of course, I'm lying with
    statistics b/c ILW's average is only about 10, but the point is, 10 and 15
    ain't that different - and as you lower the level of the cleric, they come
    all the closer together. A 10th level cleric can only do a +14 extra damage
    power attack by burning his BAB through true strike, which works out to some
    7-10 points of extra damage ... vrs. the 6-13 of ILW..
    True Strike just isnt' that amazing! Even combined with power attack, it
    doesn't blatantly outshine other attack spells. It's just a _different_ way
    of doing the same damage the priest could do in other ways.

    At high levels you
    > are talking about adding 30 plus points to your expected damage. No SR,
    > no save.

    And at high levels you can have +6 to hit with every attack for TEN
    ROUNDS for the same spell level. What's more powerful as a single spell
    combined with power attack? *One* attack at 20 (ts) + 15 (bab) -15=+20 to
    hit for +30 damage (and the remainder at -5 & -10 to hit) or TEN attacks at
    +6 (df) + 15 (bab) -6 = +15 to hit for +12 damage, TEN attacks at +10 to hit
    for +12 damage, and TEN attacks at +5 to hit for +12 damage? No SR, No
    save.

    Divine Favor wins that comparison, hands down. True Strike's power is
    an illusion! Stop being such a gullible fool in public.

    -Michael
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > "Symbol" <JB70@talk21.com> wrote in message
    > news:d7ng30$dqb$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
    >
    >>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    >>
    >>>It's just another weapon in the arsenal, man! Hell, the extra expected
    >>>damage from the true striked power attack, compared to that of a normal
    >>>attack, is generally on the same order as the damage of a bloody cure
    >
    > light
    >
    >>>wounds spell!
    >>
    >>I don't know where you are getting that figure from.
    >
    >
    > Inflict light wounds is good for up to 13 points of damage.

    IW offers a save and SR. The expected damage against the kind of foes a
    20th level character will face is minimal. A complete waste.

    Even the
    > biggest, baddest power attack you can manage (burning all your BAB) gets you
    > a net of +20 to hit for +30 damage; against the foes at level 20 where you
    > have BAB 15 in the first place, common ACs are 30 or more, which means that
    > your expected to-hit is all of 50%

    Not likely. For starters your Cleric has no STR adjustment and that is
    impossible for a PA equipped combatant. No magical weapon either, no
    buffs in place. The numbers are so contrived they aren't even worth
    addressing, worse than even the gimp NPC Cleric in the DMG.

    I've run the numbers against AC30 with a conservative but possible
    example and the difference in average damage is over 30.

    > At high levels you
    >
    >>are talking about adding 30 plus points to your expected damage. No SR,
    >>no save.
    >
    >
    > And at high levels you can have +6 to hit with every attack for TEN
    > ROUNDS for the same spell level. What's more powerful as a single spell
    > combined with power attack?

    Divine Favour offers a maximum +3 to hit and damage. RTFM.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:45:55 +0100, "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > True Strike is attractive enough that Quickening it is a favourite tactic
    > among our multiclassers.

    It's never seemed worth the 5th level slot to me.

    > > and Divine Power is certainly
    > > a fine competitor with Fire Shield (which is certainly less amazing than
    > a
    > > Righteous Might).
    >
    > I don't think Fire Shield is all that great to be honest.

    Nor do I, at least in part because by the time you can cast it many
    things have reach and/or elemental resistances, renderinig it nest to
    useless.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
    news:4npt91thmren58cso0s8gkuau6qu7hgecj@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:45:55 +0100, "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    > > True Strike is attractive enough that Quickening it is a favourite
    tactic
    > > among our multiclassers.
    >
    > It's never seemed worth the 5th level slot to me.

    Multiclassers capable of casting 5th level spells are rare, of course, but
    it was worth it to the specific individuals. One was an arcane archer who
    used it to make sure the arrows imbued with higher level spells hit.
    (Hitting a spell caster in one round unless you roll a 1 and centering
    your AMF on them is certainly worth it! Best Mage killer tactic I've
    seen). Another was a Arcane Trickster with an obsession for bands of
    binding.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Behold! for "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> spake
    unto the multitude thus:

    snip

    >IMC, I
    >force clerics to pick the prayers they're going to know (~2/level) and junk
    >the bonus domain slot, for instance.

    Elucidate? I infer that you're limiting the spells known like wizards.
    However, wizards can learn more, so the cleric looks to be getting a
    bum deal. On the face of it, a cleric would know 4 spells per spell
    level, which sounds rather restrictive. Even sorcerers do better than
    that. I suppose spontaneous casting might make it OK.


    --
    Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

    D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    MisterMichael <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >> > And at high levels you can have +6 to hit with every attack for TEN
    >> > ROUNDS for the same spell level. What's more powerful as a single spell
    >> > combined with power attack?
    >>
    >> Divine Favour offers a maximum +3 to hit and damage. RTFM.
    >
    > Your first, buckwheat. My PhB and the online SRD both indicate

    Look at the Player's Handbook v3.5 Errata (PHB_Errata09072004.pdf),
    which can be found at: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a

    Divine Favor
    /Player's Handbook/, page 224
    Changes to the spell's description are noted in [boldface] type:
    Calling upon the strength and wisdom of a deity, you gain a +1
    luck bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls for every three
    caster levels you have (at least +1, [maximum +3]). The bonus
    doesn't apply to spell damage."

    --
    Donald
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "MisterMichael" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1117752126.791980.47530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Symbol wrote:
    > > > Inflict light wounds is good for up to 13 points of damage.
    > >
    > > IW offers a save and SR. The expected damage against the kind of foes
    a
    > > 20th level character will face is minimal. A complete waste.
    >
    > And the melee attack must contend with full armor and damage
    > resistance. Wa-hoo.

    AC has already been included, all creatures have saves. You can cancel DR
    for SR if you like although DR will only reduce the damage while SR will
    eliminate is completely.

    > > > biggest, baddest power attack you can manage (burning all your BAB)
    gets you
    > > > a net of +20 to hit for +30 damage; against the foes at level 20
    where you
    > > > have BAB 15 in the first place, common ACs are 30 or more, which
    means that
    > > > your expected to-hit is all of 50%
    > >
    > > Not likely. For starters your Cleric has no STR adjustment and that is
    > > impossible for a PA equipped combatant. No magical weapon either, no
    > > buffs in place. The numbers are so contrived they aren't even worth
    > > addressing, worse than even the gimp NPC Cleric in the DMG.
    >
    > And we didn't include the magical armor and high dexterity scores
    > of the target, either.

    Please name *a single* opponent who sports an AC of 30 without dex and
    magical armour considered. *YOU* posted that a typical opponent will have
    AC30 at that level. Are you changing your mind?

    > Please learn to do some *relevant* analysis
    > before you die.

    You first.

    > The issues you are citing cancel out.

    Bullshit. Please explain how our theoretical opponent has AC30 without his
    Magical Armour, Dex or Buffs being considered.


    > > > And at high levels you can have +6 to hit with every attack for
    TEN
    > > > ROUNDS for the same spell level. What's more powerful as a single
    spell
    > > > combined with power attack?
    > >
    > > Divine Favour offers a maximum +3 to hit and damage. RTFM.
    >
    > Your first, buckwheat. My PhB and the online SRD both indicate
    >

    Sorry the +3 max is apparently errata and has already been included at
    www.d20srd.org which is what I was looking at.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
    news:o7qu91t74ogjhcokjoc33mi94lkic73t40@4ax.com...
    > >IMC, I force clerics to pick the prayers they're going to know (~2/level)
    and junk
    > >the bonus domain slot, for instance.
    >
    > Elucidate? I infer that you're limiting the spells known like wizards.

    Yup.

    > However, wizards can learn more, so the cleric looks to be getting a
    > bum deal.

    Hardly. He has better HD, better BAB, better armor, better weapons,
    better saves, special domain powers, and 2 spells of each casting level that
    he knows and can cast spontaneously (as well as cure-wounds equivalents, I
    guess that makes 3) in addition to the four prayers per casting level
    healing ability and turning. Severely restricting his magic is the only way
    to bring those classes into parity. Clerics _shouldn't_ know as much magic
    as wizards, IMO.

    -Michael
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
    news:d7o5oe$293m$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
    > >> Divine Favour offers a maximum +3 to hit and damage. RTFM.
    > >
    > > Your first, buckwheat. My PhB and the online SRD both indicate
    >
    > Look at the Player's Handbook v3.5 Errata (PHB_Errata09072004.pdf),
    > which can be found at:
    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a

    How tedious. Now we need to RTF"E".

    -Michael
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
    >"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
    >news:d7o5oe$293m$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
    >> >> Divine Favour offers a maximum +3 to hit and damage. RTFM.
    >> >
    >> > Your first, buckwheat. My PhB and the online SRD both indicate
    >>
    >> Look at the Player's Handbook v3.5 Errata (PHB_Errata09072004.pdf),
    >> which can be found at:
    >http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a
    >
    > How tedious. Now we need to RTF"E".

    Now?


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
    news:woKdnX6l2pO1jD3fRVnyig@pipex.net...
    > > > Not likely. For starters your Cleric has no STR adjustment and that is
    > > > impossible for a PA equipped combatant. No magical weapon either, no
    > > > buffs in place. The numbers are so contrived they aren't even worth
    > > > addressing, worse than even the gimp NPC Cleric in the DMG.
    > >
    > > And we didn't include the magical armor and high dexterity scores
    > > of the target, either.
    >
    > Please name *a single* opponent who sports an AC of 30 without dex and
    > magical armour considered. *YOU* posted that a typical opponent will have
    > AC30 at that level. Are you changing your mind?

    There isn't an AC 30 monster on the books? You have a point that some
    magic must be involved for most characters, since armor and shield only get
    you to 20 - but between rings, armor, shield, defensive spells, high stats
    and high stat *boosters*.... trust me, buckwheat - we can leave off the str
    and magical enhancements and call them even with dex and _one_ piece of
    enchanted armor.

    -Michael
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:QdYne.104$HM.20@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
    > news:woKdnX6l2pO1jD3fRVnyig@pipex.net...
    > > > > Not likely. For starters your Cleric has no STR adjustment and
    that is
    > > > > impossible for a PA equipped combatant. No magical weapon either,
    no
    > > > > buffs in place. The numbers are so contrived they aren't even
    worth
    > > > > addressing, worse than even the gimp NPC Cleric in the DMG.
    > > >
    > > > And we didn't include the magical armor and high dexterity
    scores
    > > > of the target, either.
    > >
    > > Please name *a single* opponent who sports an AC of 30 without dex and
    > > magical armour considered. *YOU* posted that a typical opponent will
    have
    > > AC30 at that level. Are you changing your mind?
    >
    > There isn't an AC 30 monster on the books?

    There are plenty and they all have their Dex, Magical Armour (if
    appropriate) and whatever else factored into the equation. Whichever win
    you spin it you are wrong. You are comparing an unmodified Cleric with a
    comprehensively modified monster.

    > You have a point that some
    > magic must be involved for most characters, since armor and shield only
    get
    > you to 20

    *Can* only get you to 20 and with a set up that eliminates the benefit of
    higher Dex.

    >- but between rings, armor, shield, defensive spells, high stats
    > and high stat *boosters*

    Leaving aside your assumption that all opponents have shields (rather than
    being two handed or two weapon fighters themselves) you have boosted their
    base AC by *20 points* without offering anything for the cleric. The
    maximum possible combination for dex and one piece of armour is 14.
    (Either +5 plate and +1 Dex or +5 Padded and +8 Dex).

    >.... trust me, buckwheat - we can leave off the str
    > and magical enhancements and call them even with dex and _one_ piece of
    > enchanted armor.

    No, we really can't. You have already added six points on to the
    absolutely best Dex/Armour set up possible.

    You have also failed to notice that there are also many mods for attack
    bonuses and more that stack from spells. Hell, Divine Power alone boosts a
    20th level Clerics attack bonus by 5 (and that stacks with everything and
    can be converted to PA damage instead) and provides an enhancement bonus
    of 6 to Str.

    Even if we run your assumption at +20 to hit versus 24 AC it doesn't look
    too shabby does it?
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <4npt91thmren58cso0s8gkuau6qu7hgecj@4ax.com>,
    rboleyn@paradise.net.nz says...

    > > > and Divine Power is certainly
    > > > a fine competitor with Fire Shield (which is certainly less amazing than
    > > > a Righteous Might).
    > >
    > > I don't think Fire Shield is all that great to be honest.
    >
    > Nor do I, at least in part because by the time you can cast it many
    > things have reach and/or elemental resistances, renderinig it nest to
    > useless.

    I thought fire shield works against monsters with reach, just not
    weapons with reach. After all, the monster is shoving its body part into
    the fire.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <X2Ine.1176$W77.498@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    mistermichael@earthlink.net says...

    > True Strike just isnt' that amazing! Even combined with power attack, it
    > doesn't blatantly outshine other attack spells. It's just a _different_ way
    > of doing the same damage the priest could do in other ways.

    The point is that a spontaneous domain cleric will have both!

    A Ftr/Wiz has true strike and fire shield. A Clr has divine favor and
    divine power.

    A spontaneous domain cleric will have (subject to domain choices,
    obviously) divine favour, true strike, fire shield and divine power.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <%pAne.4181$s64.2314@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    mistermichael@earthlink.net says...

    > > > Clerical magic is every bit as powerful as wizard magic in 3E; this
    > > > old canard about wizard magic being "better" needs to be considered
    > > > carefully. It's simply different.
    > >
    > > How can wizards and clerics be said to be even remotely balanced, then?
    > > You claim their magic is about equally powerful overall, but clerics
    > > have more of it, and they have better HD, and better BAB, and better
    > > saves.
    >
    > It's my opinion that stock clerics and wizards aren't balanced,
    > precisely because clerics get a huge stockpile of much more available (ie;
    > entire cleric list) magic, as well as all their other perks. But they
    > aren't so unbalanced that one completely outshines the other in team
    > scenarios, or that some minor fixes can't straighten things out.

    I agree.

    Therefore, further tipping the scales in the cleric favour (as you do
    when you add wizard-only spells to their list to be used many times per
    day like spontaneous domain casting does, instead of just once like
    regular domain casting does) is not something to be undertaken lightly
    if you care about balance.

    > IMC, I
    > force clerics to pick the prayers they're going to know (~2/level) and junk
    > the bonus domain slot, for instance.

    "Minor" fixes, eh? Going from the cleric spell list to ~2/level for
    spell known is hardly a minor fix... it cuts down the list of spells
    known something like 5-10 times!

    > > I'm not saying that *any* given spell is *automatically* better. I'm
    > > saying there are a few spells (true strike and fire shield among them)
    > > that are more powerful than your average cleric spell of that level.
    >
    > You keep saying that, but we've shown rather decisively that True Strike
    > is not the powerful spell you claim it to be, and Divine Power is certainly
    > a fine competitor with Fire Shield (which is certainly less amazing than a
    > Righteous Might).

    Well, that's just the thing: for a cleric with spontaneous fire shields,
    divine power and fire shield aren't competitors. He can have both (or
    all three).

    > > And even if they're equally powerful, they're yet another effect that
    > > can be stacked: one could argue that divine power is better than fire
    > > shield, but divine power and fire shield both is even better. And it's
    > > something a by-the-book cleric will be able to do 1/day at best, while a
    > > spontaneous domain cleric with access to fire shield can do it many
    > > times per day.
    >
    > So what? If he wants to blow his 4th, 5th, 6th... level spell slots on
    > these abilities instead of arguably more powerful ones, where's the beef?

    You could use that argument to justify putting any spell on any spell
    list.

    Which might work, if done properly (Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed does
    it), but that's not how D&D works as it is now, and I don't think you
    can just ignore that if you're attempting minor rules tweaks, as opposed
    to general overhauls.

    A thought: would you allow the bard to pick divine power as one of his
    spells known? Would you allow it for a druid? "If they want to blow
    their 4th-level slots on divine power instead of something arguably more
    powerful, where's the beef", or...?


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Jasin Zujovic hastily scrawled:
    >In article <4npt91thmren58cso0s8gkuau6qu7hgecj@4ax.com>,
    >rboleyn@paradise.net.nz says...
    >
    >> > > and Divine Power is certainly
    >> > > a fine competitor with Fire Shield (which is certainly less amazing than
    >> > > a Righteous Might).
    >> >
    >> > I don't think Fire Shield is all that great to be honest.
    >>
    >> Nor do I, at least in part because by the time you can cast it many
    >> things have reach and/or elemental resistances, renderinig it nest to
    >> useless.
    >
    >I thought fire shield works against monsters with reach, just not
    >weapons with reach. After all, the monster is shoving its body part into
    >the fire.

    You are correct, sir.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d0a6fc6f557e24f989690@news.iskon.hr...
    > In article <X2Ine.1176$W77.498@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > mistermichael@earthlink.net says...
    >
    > > True Strike just isnt' that amazing! Even combined with power
    attack, it
    > > doesn't blatantly outshine other attack spells. It's just a _different_
    way
    > > of doing the same damage the priest could do in other ways.
    >
    > The point is that a spontaneous domain cleric will have both!

    So? And now he doesn't have any spells left. Boo-hoo.

    -Michael
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <vJ9oe.541$HM.97@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    mistermichael@earthlink.net says...

    > > > True Strike just isnt' that amazing! Even combined with power
    > > > attack, it doesn't blatantly outshine other attack spells. It's just a _different_
    > > > way of doing the same damage the priest could do in other ways.
    > >
    > > The point is that a spontaneous domain cleric will have both!
    >
    > So? And now he doesn't have any spells left. Boo-hoo.

    Why don't you allow him to cast fireball, too, as a 1st-level spell, and
    desintegrate at a 4th-level one, and miracle as a 5th-level one.

    The casting of those will also deplete his slots. Does that make it
    balanced?


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    >
    > This might come as a shock, but your sorcerer is quite
    > likely to use his "favorite" spells repeatedly in combat,
    > too. That's _how_ _he_ _fights_. A priest who loves to
    > use a fireshield/divine power combo (2 4th level spells)
    > once or twice a day is a priest who _isn't_ using any of
    > the other 4th level spell combos he could be using, and
    > if he uses the combo more, then he isn't using the *5th*
    > level spell combos he could be using. You simply have no
    > grasp about the opportunity cost issue, here.

    Something else I'm sure you know, but didn't point out: using these
    spell combos requires another tradeoff that the sorcerer doesn't often
    have: cast or attack.

    True strike, divine favor, and divine power, and to a lesser degree
    fire shield, aren't particularly useful if you don't get up in the
    enemies' faces... Which precludes you from doing all that much other
    spellcasting.

    --
    Nik
    - remove vermin from email address to reply.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
    news:cNSdndLE2r6IxD3fRVnyiw@pipex.net...
    > > > AC30 at that level. Are you changing your mind?
    > >
    > > There isn't an AC 30 monster on the books?
    >
    > There are plenty and they all have their Dex, Magical Armour (if
    > appropriate) and whatever else factored into the equation.

    *NO* monsters have AC30 without magical armor or big dexterities? Not a
    +20 armor bonus in the game for 20th-level PC opponents?

    > Whichever win you spin it you are wrong. You are comparing an unmodified
    Cleric with a
    > comprehensively modified monster.

    I am willing to grant that I have not put a lot of mental effort into
    the full range of ACs the cleric will face when he fights people-foes.
    However, strength and dex _will_ cancel on average, and so including those
    is this general analysis is pointless. A magical weapon is countered by _a_
    piece of magical armor. So even if you insist on starting the accounting at
    20, there are still heaps of protections available (and, of course, DR) that
    make a net attack bonus deficit created by 15 vrs. 30 not particularly a
    unreasonable starting point for looking at what you really buy. If the
    opponent's AC is in fact much easier to hit, then one would be power
    attacking to some degree even *without* the use of true strike and thus the
    advantage added by the spell is reduced in magnitude.

    While I would generally pick a true strike over inflict wounds as a way
    of dealing damage to my foes, it remains the case that they're just _not_
    _that_ _different_ in damage contribution; and Inflict can actually exceed
    the expected benefit true strike provides when brought to bear against
    damage resistance, for instance. So when Inflict is actually _still a
    player_ at least in some cases, it's very hard to say that True Strike is
    unbalanced!
    Further, True Strike is _obviously_ not unbalanced for anyone who
    doesn't have Power Attack.
    Here's a crazy idea - if you feel it is so abusive .. nix the
    combination!


    > You have also failed to notice that there are also many mods for attack
    > bonuses and more that stack from spells. Hell, Divine Power alone boosts a
    > 20th level Clerics attack bonus by 5 (and that stacks with everything and
    > can be converted to PA damage instead) and provides an enhancement bonus
    > of 6 to Str.

    Remember when I previously admonished that you need to seriously learn
    to do analysis? ADDING IN OTHER SPELLS DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT
    _TRUE STRIKE_ CAN DO. That only tells us what True Strike AND DIVINE POWER
    can do. Hmm. 2 spells, 1 spell, 2 spell, 1 spell, 5 spells levels, 1 spell
    level, why, it's almost as if more magical power might be ... more poweful!
    And once they are in there, as I mentioned above, the _additional_ power
    attack capability true strike brought to the table is reduced!

    -Michael
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <AImoe.1897$W77.1628@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    mistermichael@earthlink.net says...

    >
    > [blah blah blah]
    >

    YOU INCOMPETENT *NINCOMPOOP*!

    The various STACKING RULES in D&D exist for a *REASON*.

    Class-RESTRICTED, caster-ONLY are a form of stacking rules: it's usually
    quite difficult to stack DIVINE POWER and FIRE SHIELD, those two both
    being mid-level, CLASS-*restricted*, SELF-*only* which means that you
    USUALLY need A DECENT caster level in TWO *different* spellcasting
    CLASSES.

    For a cleric with *SPONTANEOUS* domain casting, it's *very easy*.

    It VIOLATES the stacking rules, by ALLOWING the cleric to pile on
    *SYNERGYSTIC EFFECTS* he otherwise *couldn't*.


    I hope the semi-random caps and asterisks make it clearer for you.

    If they don't, there's truly nothing more I can do.

    Wait... amend that to: nothing more I'm willing to do.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d0c1ae8d7400dd9896a1@news.iskon.hr...
    > In article <AImoe.1897$W77.1628@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > The various STACKING RULES in D&D exist for a *REASON*.
    > Class-RESTRICTED, caster-ONLY are a form of stacking rules: it's usually
    > quite difficult to stack DIVINE POWER and FIRE SHIELD, those two both
    > being mid-level, CLASS-*restricted*, SELF-*only* which means that you
    > USUALLY need A DECENT caster level in TWO *different* spellcasting
    > CLASSES.

    This is the mother of all stretches. Please put away your silly argument
    now.

    -Michael
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:

    > "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
    > news:cNSdndLE2r6IxD3fRVnyiw@pipex.net...
    >
    >>>>AC30 at that level. Are you changing your mind?
    >>>
    >>> There isn't an AC 30 monster on the books?
    >>
    >>There are plenty and they all have their Dex, Magical Armour (if
    >>appropriate) and whatever else factored into the equation.
    >
    >
    > *NO* monsters have AC30 without magical armor or big dexterities? Not a
    > +20 armor bonus in the game for 20th-level PC opponents?

    "and whatever else factored into the equation."

    >
    >>Whichever win you spin it you are wrong. You are comparing an unmodified
    >
    > Cleric with a
    >
    >>comprehensively modified monster.
    >
    >
    > I am willing to grant that I have not put a lot of mental effort into
    > the full range of ACs the cleric will face when he fights people-foes.
    > However, strength and dex _will_ cancel on average,

    So you say but that is not my experience for armoured characters.

    > and so including those
    > is this general analysis is pointless. A magical weapon is countered by _a_
    > piece of magical armor. So even if you insist on starting the accounting at
    > 20, there are still heaps of protections available (and, of course, DR) that
    > make a net attack bonus deficit created by 15 vrs. 30 not particularly a
    > unreasonable starting point for looking at what you really buy. If the
    > opponent's AC is in fact much easier to hit, then one would be power
    > attacking to some degree even *without* the use of true strike and thus the
    > advantage added by the spell is reduced in magnitude.

    If you're already power attacking to some degree then you can convert
    the entire TS bonus into double damage (when considering expected damage)

    > While I would generally pick a true strike over inflict wounds as a way
    > of dealing damage to my foes, it remains the case that they're just _not_
    > _that_ _different_ in damage contribution; and Inflict can actually exceed
    > the expected benefit true strike provides when brought to bear against
    > damage resistance, for instance. So when Inflict is actually _still a
    > player_ at least in some cases, it's very hard to say that True Strike is
    > unbalanced!

    Oh I wouldn't say it is unbalanced. I would say that it is a bench mark
    spell and even better if placed in the hands of a Cleric.

    > Further, True Strike is _obviously_ not unbalanced for anyone who
    > doesn't have Power Attack.
    > Here's a crazy idea - if you feel it is so abusive .. nix the
    > combination!
    >

    Again, I'm not saying its abusive.

    >>You have also failed to notice that there are also many mods for attack
    >>bonuses and more that stack from spells. Hell, Divine Power alone boosts a
    >>20th level Clerics attack bonus by 5 (and that stacks with everything and
    >>can be converted to PA damage instead) and provides an enhancement bonus
    >>of 6 to Str.
    >
    >
    > Remember when I previously admonished that you need to seriously learn
    > to do analysis? ADDING IN OTHER SPELLS DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT
    > _TRUE STRIKE_ CAN DO.

    They do when the effects interact so that the sum is worth more than its
    component parts. Such things are vital considerations.
Ask a new question

Read More

Domain Games Video Games