A new way to handle Divine spells? [Archive] - Wizards Community

A new way to handle Divine spells? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
MOTHdevil
05-16-07, 02:10 PM I'm having a discussion with my GM on the nature of Divine spells... This has been precipitated by one of the players in my group who likes to play casters, but for some reason still prefers getting into melee and not bothering to cast spells other than buffs or damage-dice.

With our new campaign on the horizon, there's now the possibility that'll she'll play a cleric... The idea of waiting around for someone to page through HUNDREDS of spells per session is frightening.

This lead me to a new idea: Let her god (i.e. the GM) pick the spells. Since it always seemed rather presumptuous for a divine caster to get their spells through prayer and still be able to PICK what spells they want, it makes more sense thematically and "historically" for the god to provide the spell list on a daily basis. Who better to know what spells you're going to need in an upcoming trial than your own god?

My GM likes the idea in theory, but seems to think it won't work well in practice. On the contrary, with a good BAB, equipment proficiencies, and turning ability, I think the cleric still would have PLENTY of options at their disposal. Sure, spell choice no longer is available to the player, but spells are still available. It would also more clearly establish the increasingly blurred line between Arcane and Divine spells.

What do you all think?
Muktar
05-16-07, 02:58 PM Actually, the DM at any time can change a cleric's spell list. Since, the god(or goddess) gives them their power, they can actually change it as they see fit or to just screw over the pc. I have both changed a player's spells precipitating something that might help them or I would just deny them spells because of bad rp.
MOTHdevil
05-16-07, 03:42 PM Well... the internet just hosed my long-winded response, but let's just say this:

I think your point makes perfect sense, but in practice it never seems to work that way... In my 20+ years playing the game, the "Cleric" was basically just a "Wizard." Except one that can turn undead, save well, raise the dead, heal people, wear armor, and whomp stuff in melee.

Like spell components, people just take it for granted. I can think of only 2 occasions where the Cleric's abilities were docked. By doing it the way I suggested, it forces the "god" to take an active role in what his followers are doing in his name. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing something here logistically.

I mentioned to my GM that doing a Cleric in this way might actually make it appealing enough for ME to play one, since it adds a layer of prophesy and mystique to the class... And I normally hate the concept of clerics.
Seeker95
05-16-07, 03:57 PM If you want to have to pick the spells every time, go for it. Personally, I would not want to have to wade through the pages of spells each time. Nor would I want to be accused of metagaming by tailoring the spells to be overly effective or overly useless.

I do, however, reserve the right to use such a divine refusal / divine fiat as a plot hook. In my last campaign, the party cleric was a follower of a deity of protection and good. The cleric, however, focused on more self-preservation and offensive spells. In one particular encounter, the cleric ignored the injured front-line fighter in order to buff himself for more offense. His deity granted his spells the next day. None of them were offensive or buff in nature. It three consecutive (in-game) days of such divine insistence before the player figured out what was happening.
MOTHdevil
05-16-07, 04:12 PM I do, however, reserve the right to use such a divine refusal / divine fiat as a plot hook. In my last campaign, the party cleric was a follower of a deity of protection and good. The cleric, however, focused on more self-preservation and offensive spells. In one particular encounter, the cleric ignored the injured front-line fighter in order to buff himself for more offense. His deity granted his spells the next day. None of them were offensive or buff in nature. It three consecutive (in-game) days of such divine insistence before the player figured out what was happening.

That's an interesting and logical way of handling it. In my weekly games, it seems the GMs (myself included) typically have a much more hands-off policy when it comes to players... An almost hyper-neutral way of refereeing the game. And in this way, I can see that clerics typically aren't run in our games they way they should be, for fear that the GM is dictating play-style (which might be the reason most of us don't like clerics in the first place).
Salla
05-16-07, 06:00 PM The other way to look at it is that it's the cleric's faith, not the deity per se, that is the source of the power, and since that is internal he gets his choice of the spells (especially considering the clerics of ideals and philosophies would, by necessity, get their spells this way).
Salla
05-16-07, 06:01 PM Never mind. :)
Miss_Yersinia
05-16-07, 06:09 PM What do you all think?
Sounds totally interesting... in fact, it could even make the cleric in a way more adapted, because the DM can select spells that will suit the adventure/coming challenges, like a snippet of divine omniscience.

Additionally, if used that way, the character could get clues from his spells, what will happen, making it a fun "mini-game" to figure out, which spells are for what encounters (like "interpreting divine will").

But, on the other hand, I understand the want of a player to select his spells, so... what about a middle-ground: The player can only prepare spells from the PHB, and leave slots for his deity - which the DM will fill from any source he wants to draw from - making certain spells really his god's blessings.

This would ease the introduction of new spells in the campaign (no "plop - I suddenly can cast a host of new spells!" after the addition of a Complete X), would add the flavour, and retain player choice, if he wants it (and should ease DM balance concerns).
Chimaera2000
05-16-07, 06:28 PM Here's another way of handling divine spells: clerics and druids use a prayerbook or totemic fetish (as appropriate) from which they choose their daily spells. This functions in all ways like the wizard's spellbook, including the appropriate costs in time and gold to learn new spells. It takes care of most any DM-fiat issues and it balances divine casters by quite a bit. When used alongside a few other fixes (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-388929.html)I came up with, it really balances clerics and druids. As much as I like to play them, I don't necessarily want to be CoDzilla (this fix was designed by me for my cleric!). If my character kicks butt, I want it to be because I'm a Cleric 4/Inquisitor 4/Fist of Raziel 6 with good spell and feat choices, not because I'm a core-only Druid 14 with Natural Spell. :rolleyes:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MOTHdevil 05-16-07, 02:10 PM	I'm having a discussion with my GM on the nature of Divine spells... This has been precipitated by one of the players in my group who likes to play casters, but for some reason still prefers getting into melee and not bothering to cast spells other than buffs or damage-dice. With our new campaign on the horizon, there's now the possibility that'll she'll play a cleric... The idea of waiting around for someone to page through HUNDREDS of spells per session is frightening. This lead me to a new idea: Let her god (i.e. the GM) pick the spells. Since it always seemed rather presumptuous for a divine caster to get their spells through prayer and still be able to PICK what spells they want, it makes more sense thematically and "historically" for the god to provide the spell list on a daily basis. Who better to know what spells you're going to need in an upcoming trial than your own god? My GM likes the idea in theory, but seems to think it won't work well in practice. On the contrary, with a good BAB, equipment proficiencies, and turning ability, I think the cleric still would have PLENTY of options at their disposal. Sure, spell choice no longer is available to the player, but spells are still available. It would also more clearly establish the increasingly blurred line between Arcane and Divine spells. What do you all think?
Muktar 05-16-07, 02:58 PM	Actually, the DM at any time can change a cleric's spell list. Since, the god(or goddess) gives them their power, they can actually change it as they see fit or to just screw over the pc. I have both changed a player's spells precipitating something that might help them or I would just deny them spells because of bad rp.
MOTHdevil 05-16-07, 03:42 PM	Well... the internet just hosed my long-winded response, but let's just say this: I think your point makes perfect sense, but in practice it never seems to work that way... In my 20+ years playing the game, the "Cleric" was basically just a "Wizard." Except one that can turn undead, save well, raise the dead, heal people, wear armor, and whomp stuff in melee. Like spell components, people just take it for granted. I can think of only 2 occasions where the Cleric's abilities were docked. By doing it the way I suggested, it forces the "god" to take an active role in what his followers are doing in his name. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing something here logistically. I mentioned to my GM that doing a Cleric in this way might actually make it appealing enough for ME to play one, since it adds a layer of prophesy and mystique to the class... And I normally hate the concept of clerics.
Seeker95 05-16-07, 03:57 PM	If you want to have to pick the spells every time, go for it. Personally, I would not want to have to wade through the pages of spells each time. Nor would I want to be accused of metagaming by tailoring the spells to be overly effective or overly useless. I do, however, reserve the right to use such a divine refusal / divine fiat as a plot hook. In my last campaign, the party cleric was a follower of a deity of protection and good. The cleric, however, focused on more self-preservation and offensive spells. In one particular encounter, the cleric ignored the injured front-line fighter in order to buff himself for more offense. His deity granted his spells the next day. None of them were offensive or buff in nature. It three consecutive (in-game) days of such divine insistence before the player figured out what was happening.
MOTHdevil 05-16-07, 04:12 PM	I do, however, reserve the right to use such a divine refusal / divine fiat as a plot hook. In my last campaign, the party cleric was a follower of a deity of protection and good. The cleric, however, focused on more self-preservation and offensive spells. In one particular encounter, the cleric ignored the injured front-line fighter in order to buff himself for more offense. His deity granted his spells the next day. None of them were offensive or buff in nature. It three consecutive (in-game) days of such divine insistence before the player figured out what was happening. That's an interesting and logical way of handling it. In my weekly games, it seems the GMs (myself included) typically have a much more hands-off policy when it comes to players... An almost hyper-neutral way of refereeing the game. And in this way, I can see that clerics typically aren't run in our games they way they should be, for fear that the GM is dictating play-style (which might be the reason most of us don't like clerics in the first place).
Salla 05-16-07, 06:00 PM	The other way to look at it is that it's the cleric's faith, not the deity per se, that is the source of the power, and since that is internal he gets his choice of the spells (especially considering the clerics of ideals and philosophies would, by necessity, get their spells this way).
Salla 05-16-07, 06:01 PM	Never mind. :)
Miss_Yersinia 05-16-07, 06:09 PM	What do you all think? Sounds totally interesting... in fact, it could even make the cleric in a way more adapted, because the DM can select spells that will suit the adventure/coming challenges, like a snippet of divine omniscience. Additionally, if used that way, the character could get clues from his spells, what will happen, making it a fun "mini-game" to figure out, which spells are for what encounters (like "interpreting divine will"). But, on the other hand, I understand the want of a player to select his spells, so... what about a middle-ground: The player can only prepare spells from the PHB, and leave slots for his deity - which the DM will fill from any source he wants to draw from - making certain spells really his god's blessings. This would ease the introduction of new spells in the campaign (no "plop - I suddenly can cast a host of new spells!" after the addition of a Complete X), would add the flavour, and retain player choice, if he wants it (and should ease DM balance concerns).
Chimaera2000 05-16-07, 06:28 PM	Here's another way of handling divine spells: clerics and druids use a prayerbook or totemic fetish (as appropriate) from which they choose their daily spells. This functions in all ways like the wizard's spellbook, including the appropriate costs in time and gold to learn new spells. It takes care of most any DM-fiat issues and it balances divine casters by quite a bit. When used alongside a few other fixes (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-388929.html)I came up with, it really balances clerics and druids. As much as I like to play them, I don't necessarily want to be CoDzilla (this fix was designed by me for my cleric!). If my character kicks butt, I want it to be because I'm a Cleric 4/Inquisitor 4/Fist of Raziel 6 with good spell and feat choices, not because I'm a core-only Druid 14 with Natural Spell. :rolleyes: