Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Slayer_5 06-01-06, 09:16 PM	A friend of mine and I were having an arguement. A situation came up in game, where my friend knew of a cleric spell the cleric player didn't know, (From Spell Compendium), and the cleric player didn't like the idea of taking it, because he didn't know it. My friend argued that his Cleric would know of the spell, and just because the player didn't know it, doesn't mean the Cleric wouldn't have thought of it. I was on the players side. I personally feel that a cleric would know of every spell in the PHB, and only spells related to their God in the Spell compendium, splats, etc etc. My friend thinks because a cleric can cast any spell on the list, that they know the existance of every spell on the list as soon as they reach the level required to cast it. I think thats pretty rediculous, seeing as how when the PHB was written, books like spell compendium didn't exist, and there weren't thousands of spells. No preist/rabbi/cleric/master of ceremonies knows every single prayer and scripture of their religion*. But once again my friend argues that it doesn't say that anywhere, and so my Roleplaying is getting int he way of my Rollplaying. I also don't think its fair for the people that don't have 800$+ Book collections. I own most of the books because I want to, I don't expect my fellow players to know whats in every book and scoop it up. *This is an assumption based on major religions like Judaism or Wicca. Obviously if a religion is small enough, someone could know it all, and a long time ago, i'm sure it was possible. "I.E. Back when Moses was making the religion, i'm pretty sure he knew it all"
HalasterAteMyHamster 06-01-06, 09:36 PM	Clerics can prepare any spell in the Cleric spell list. That's the rules, and it's one of the reasons why CoDzilla exists. When the PHB was written, there was every expectation for supplimental material. The designers might not have known that the Spell Compendium specifically was going to be released later, but they did know that there was going to be a hell of a lot of new cleric spells in new books. As far as the Cleric 'knowing' a spell, remember, they pray for it, so they're asking their deity. I like to think of it not as "Hey, Pelor, my man, can I get four Daylights, a couple of Cure Critical Wounds, and, ooh, a Flame Strike?", but more as "Mighty Pelor, I beseech you; I ask for the power to command the sun's holy light. Also, I request access to powerful healing magic that I may aid my fellow fighters in the war against evil. Finally, I ask you humbly for the strength to smite my enemies in Your divine fire!". In other words, they request the effect, and the deity coughs up the appropriate spell, which neatly explains how they can pray for any spell in existance, because it's not a matter of knowing a specific spell, but asking for a way to pull off a specific task.
Nom 06-01-06, 10:59 PM	PH pg 180 explicitly allows for cleric spells that a given cleric doesn't know but can learn. It's DM's discretion whether cleric spells in splatbooks automatically make their way onto the standard cleric list. I'd recommend "no", but the DM may choose to automatically include some.
HalasterAteMyHamster 06-02-06, 02:01 AM	PH pg 180 explicitly allows for cleric spells that a given cleric doesn't know but can learn. It's DM's discretion whether cleric spells in splatbooks automatically make their way onto the standard cleric list. I'd recommend "no", but the DM may choose to automatically include some. 'A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level, but he must choose which spells to prepare during his daily meditation.' It doesn't say 'cleric spell list in this book', it says 'cleric spell list'. By RAW, every spell in every splatbook is fair game. Page 180 doesn't change this. In fact, it agrees completely, stating that the cleric 'learns new spells from that level automatically' when it gains access to a new level of spells. Independant Research is for creating new spells (or adding a spell from another class' list to your own). It's got nothing to do with Cleric spells that appear in books other than the PHB.
eyelessgame 06-02-06, 02:47 AM	I don't see any way this isn't a question for the DM. Either the splatbook is part of the DM's game or it's not. What a cleric knows about his deity and his class features is a question for a DM to answer.
CONMAN2469 06-02-06, 03:22 AM	The Spell Compendium is a compilation of all spells in the D&D/WotC realm... If you don't have the SC, then I see why the spells aren't allowed, but if you do, well, it is a Cleric's spell list.
HalasterAteMyHamster 06-02-06, 03:25 AM	Either the splatbook is part of the DM's game or it's not. True, but that has nothing to do with this thread. The OP was talking about whether or not a Cleric knew every spell on the class list. The answer is, according to the rules, 'yes'. If a DM changes that, then they're house-ruling. This is a completely different issue to allowing or disallowing supplimental material, because if that supplimental material isn't allowed, then the Cleric spells in it are not Cleric spells for the Cleric character, so he/she won't be able to prepare them. If you allow a book, then by RAW, the Cleric can prepare every Cleric spell in it. Forcing them to learn specific spells is a deviation from the rules.
Broken vacuum 06-02-06, 03:59 AM	If you allow a book, then by RAW, the Cleric can prepare every Cleric spell in it. Forcing them to learn specific spells is a deviation from the rules. No, that is not true. Independent Research: A divine spellcaster also can research a spell independently, much as an arcane spellcaster can. Only the creator of such a spell can prepare and cast it, unless he decides to share it with others. DMs can declare that spells from optional sources goes under the heading of new spells if they wish; it is provided for in the RAW. If, how and when DMs introduce optional material into a campaign is always up to the DM and introduction ways suggested in optional books are recommendations and nothing else.
HalasterAteMyHamster 06-02-06, 04:22 AM	No, that is not true. DMs can declare that spells from optional sources goes under the heading of new spells if they wish; it is provided for in the RAW. If, how and when DMs introduce optional material into a campaign is always up to the DM and introduction ways suggested in optional books are recommendations and nothing else. No, the RAW clearly states that it's for new spells. If you read further (including the reference) this is made extremely clear; it's for constructed schools. It's house-ruling. Perfectly fair house-ruling, but house-ruling nonetheless.
Broken vacuum 06-02-06, 04:33 AM	No, the RAW clearly states that it's for new spells. If you read further (including the reference) this is made extremely clear; it's for constructed schools. It's house-ruling. Perfectly fair house-ruling, but house-ruling nonetheless. Constructed schools? The DM is free to treat any spell from optional sources as a new spell if he so wishes. Nowhere in the RAW have I seen a rule that says otherwise. Feel free to direct me to it, though. The whole section looks like this NEW DIVINE SPELLS Divine spellcasters most frequently gain new spells in one of the following two ways. Spells Gained at a New Level: Characters who can cast divine spells undertake a certain amount of study between adventures. Each time such a character receives a new level of divine spells, he or she learns new spells from that level automatically. Independent Research: A divine spellcaster also can research a spell independently, much as an arcane spellcaster can. Only the creator of such a spell can prepare and cast it, unless he decides to share it with others.
HalasterAteMyHamster 06-02-06, 04:39 AM	Constructed schools? The DM is free to treat any spell from optional sources as a new spell if he so wishes. Nowhere in the RAW have I seen a rule that says otherwise. Feel free to direct me to it, though. The whole section looks like this Yes, he is. I never disputed that. It is, however, a house-rule. Oh, and for the record, the nature of the ruleset means that the rules state what is possible, not what is impossible. For instance, the rules don't state that it's impossible to play a banjo-playing giant blue tongue, but that doesn't mean that I'm capable of rolling one up for my next game.
Broken vacuum 06-02-06, 05:39 AM	Yes, he is. I never disputed that. It is, however, a house-rule. You claim that, but you have not supported it; I am waiting for the support. Allowing anything from an optional source can of course be seen as a house rule, but somehow I do not think that that is what you mean. Oh, and for the record, the nature of the ruleset means that the rules state what is possible, not what is impossible. For instance, the rules don't state that it's impossible to play a banjo-playing giant blue tongue, but that doesn't mean that I'm capable of rolling one up for my next game. Which has very little to do with what I said. I quoted a passage out of the SRD which describes a mechanic for adding new spells to divine spell lists. My argument rests on something the rules say I can do, not something the rules are silent about. You obviously think that the passage is not applicable, but you have failed to show why this is so. You have told me that you do not think it is, but you have not told me why you think that it is not. As far as I can tell, we have different views on what 'new spell' can mean in the context. If you want to claim that my interpretation of the text is faulty, you have to show that it is unreasonable. A contradicting piece of text would have done so, which is why I mentioned it, but I take your inadequate reply as a sign for that you do not know of any such passage. So, again, please support your view.
HalasterAteMyHamster 06-02-06, 06:58 AM	You claim that, but you have not supported it; I am waiting for the support. Allowing anything from an optional source can of course be seen as a house rule, but somehow I do not think that that is what you mean. Which has very little to do with what I said. I quoted a passage out of the SRD which describes a mechanic for adding new spells to divine spell lists. My argument rests on something the rules say I can do, not something the rules are silent about. You obviously think that the passage is not applicable, but you have failed to show why this is so. You have told me that you do not think it is, but you have not told me why you think that it is not. As far as I can tell, we have different views on what 'new spell' can mean in the context. If you want to claim that my interpretation of the text is faulty, you have to show that it is unreasonable. A contradicting piece of text would have done so, which is why I mentioned it, but I take your inadequate reply as a sign for that you do not know of any such passage. So, again, please support your view. 'creator' There. That's my textual support. It says 'creator'. To say the least, that implies the creation of a spell. A spell from a supplimental source is not created by the Cleric, as the Cleric is already fully capable of preparing it, due to the class description in the PHB. Edit - Not that it really matters, though. Ultimately, what you're saying is shown to be wrong in the PHB classes chapter. It clearly states there that Clerics can prepare any spell on their class spell list. Therefore, I'm sorry, but any ruling on the DM's part that says that a Cleric cannot do so is, in fact, a house-rule. It couldn't be any clearer.
Nom 06-02-06, 09:16 AM	Lets apply the reductio ad absurdum argument: (1) A "cleric's spell list" consists of all spells that have "cleric X" as their spell level. (2) Any new (non-domain) spell that comes into the game that is castable by a cleric necessarily has a "cleric X" description. Therefore: (3) Any new (non-domain) spell that comes into the game that is castable by a cleric automatically becomes part of the spell list of all clerics. #3 is obviously false, since otherwise there would be no need for the "teaching" rules on PH pg 180. #2 is trivially true. Therefore, we must assume that #1 is false: there exist cleric spells that are not part of the cleric's spell list. In fact, the best replacement for #1 is that the "cleric's spell list" consists of those spells listed on PH pp 183-185, plus any others the DM chooses to add. It is completely up to the DM whether new spells introduced in splatbooks are universally available, available to only specific clerical orders, or unavailable (perhaps until someone discovers or researches them).
Witch 06-02-06, 09:19 AM	I disagree that #3 is patently false.
Broken vacuum 06-02-06, 09:30 AM	'creator' There. That's my textual support. It says 'creator'. To say the least, that implies the creation of a spell. A spell from a supplimental source is not created by the Cleric, as the Cleric is already fully capable of preparing it, due to the class description in the PHB. That depends entirely on if you regard 'new spell' (and 'creator') as new in a metagame sense or an in-game sense. A spell published in optional material can be a new spell for in-game purposes, hence the researching cleric will be the creator in-game. And as a matter of fact, you yourself kind of implied this view on 'new spell' when you claimed that independent research could be used to add spells from other class lists; these are clearly not 'new spells' in the meta game sense. For reference: Independant Research is for creating new spells (or adding a spell from another class' list to your own). And to further argue the point of that 'new spell' does not mean 'a spell no-one has ever seen before and that definitely was never published by WotC anywhere', 'new spells' in the passage also refers to perfectly vanilla cleric spells found in the PHB. Edit - Not that it really matters, though. Ultimately, what you're saying is shown to be wrong in the PHB classes chapter. It clearly states there that Clerics can prepare any spell on their class spell list. Therefore, I'm sorry, but any ruling on the DM's part that says that a Cleric cannot do so is, in fact, a house-rule. It couldn't be any clearer. This is only true if you ignore the part of the SRD I quoted. In that passage it is clearly stated that a cleric does not have automatic access to a spell researched by another cleric. Therefore the existence of a spell that could be cast by a cleric in a particular campaign does not necessarily mean that all clerics in that campaign know about and can cast it. You can try to ignore the passage as much as you like, but it will not disappear just because you do not like it. Edit: I disagree that #3 is patently false. I refer you to the previously quoted Independent Research: A divine spellcaster also can research a spell independently, much as an arcane spellcaster can. Only the creator of such a spell can prepare and cast it, unless he decides to share it with others.
kintire 06-02-06, 09:53 AM	You can try to ignore the passage as much as you like, but it will not disappear just because you do not like it. True, but neither will this one. A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level, And it is backed up by other quotes elsewhere whereas the other is isolated, eg from higher up that same page... Divine spellcasters do not require spellbooks. However, such a character’s spell selection is limited to the spells on the list for his or her class All that your quote says is that clerics can research spells in the same way that Wizards do, namely: Independent Research A wizard also can research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. There seems little point in a cleric duplicating an exisiting spell, so the unavailiable cleric spells are limited to entirely new ones. Any on the cleric spell list is availiable by RAW, and there is no limitation on that to the PHB spell list.
Witch 06-02-06, 09:57 AM	I refer you to the previously quoted That involves 2 different definitions of "new". "New" in a metagame concept, in the fact that the spells were not available to the players before. They suddenly are. It is generally assumed that they have actually always existed but the players merely did not encounter them yet. "New", in the fact that it is created by the player himself. The spell did not exist in the game world yet.
Rhomphaia 06-02-06, 10:14 AM	First of all, my vote is for house-rule. It is stated and implied several times in the PHB, SRD and DMG that a cleric can prepare any and all non-domain spells of a level he/she can cast. Also, the research thing is for spells of a player's own invention. That is the way the rule was intended (though a DM can houserule that splatbook spells must be researched in this way). Let's say, for example, that Poo-Pants the cleric wanted a spell that would make monkeys fly out of the target's butt. WotC has not published such a spell, nor (if they retain their sanity) will they ever publish such a spell. Poo-Pants, not aware of these metagame events, still wants the spell and knows that his deity hasn't thought of making it available to him yet. So, he researches about how to convince his deity to make the 'Monkey-Butt' spell. In effect, Poo-Pants' player has decided to independantly research the spell, thus adding a spell to his list that no other cleric will know.
Vedic Cold 06-02-06, 10:27 AM	I don't see any way this isn't a question for the DM. Either the splatbook is part of the DM's game or it's not. What a cleric knows about his deity and his class features is a question for a DM to answer. This is the only undeniable argument made to date on this thread. The rules are written such that the DM has to make the decision for his world. #3 is obviously false, since otherwise there would be no need for the "teaching" rules on PH pg 180. #2 is trivially true. Therefore, we must assume that #1 is false: there exist cleric spells that are not part of the cleric's spell list. Your argument is founded on an assumption, not a fact. #3 is not obviously false, you simply claim that it is. If, somehow, you had absolute knowledge of the intent of the writers, we could assume your statement was absolutely true. Since this is, presumably, not the case, however, your statement is one of personal interpretation, not fact. As a DM, my interpretation of the rules is such that, since the fundamental language describing a cleric's spellcasting states that all clerics have access to the entire list of cleric spells, without any qualifier limiting that list to spells in the PHB, then any spell listed as being castable by a cleric is, in fact, a part of the cleric spell list. Claiming that the rules found on PHB pg 180 nullify this assertion is your opinion, because those rules do not explicitly contradict the text of the cleric's spellcasting class feature. If a DM decides that a cleric's list is only composed of the spells from the PHB, and that spells from other sources must be considered "new" spells and thus researched using the rules on PHB pg 180, then that is a perfectly acceptable house rule that the DM should make his players aware of at character creation. The text of the cleric's spellcasting class feature, however, supports the three assumptions you listed by default.
Broken vacuum 06-02-06, 11:00 AM	Let us try this again: Independent Research: A divine spellcaster also can research a spell independently, much as an arcane spellcaster can. Only the creator of such a spell can prepare and cast it, unless he decides to share it with others. Emphasis on last sentence mine. This piece of the SRD declares that there can be non-domain cleric spells that are not castable by all clerics. This is not dependent on any funky interpretation of 'new' or anything else of that sort. Nom's #3 cannot be true as that is in direct contradiction with the last sentence of the quote. #3 is demonstrably false. There is a general rule that clerics can cast all spells from the cleric spell list: A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level, but he must choose which spells to prepare during his daily meditation. This is, however, limited in other places in the rules, e.g. Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions. Clearly, the intent is that there can be exceptions to the general rule. Or do you also claim that good clerics can cast evil spells? The by now much quoted passage from the SRD about divine spell research clearly describes another exception from the general rule.
Varrik 06-02-06, 11:10 AM	Although, I'm in favor of house-ruling, ultimately from a RAW PoV, I have to agree with HalasteratemyHamster. Some of you are intent on twisting word meaning until it breaks under the tension. The PHB, as has already been shown, says a cleric may cast any spell on the cleric spell list. All these new splat books come with a new cleric spell list. They do not say "unique" cleric spells. The research component of the PHB is for unique spells, say you wanted a divine version of Vampiric Touch or a ranged touch heal spell. You'd have to research, and then you and only you (and the people you let in on it) get the spell. None of the new splat books/spells say anything about them being unique or researched or otherwise.
Vedic Cold 06-02-06, 12:15 PM	The PHB, as has already been shown, says a cleric may cast any spell on the cleric spell list. All these new splat books come with a new cleric spell list. They do not say "unique" cleric spells. The research component of the PHB is for unique spells, say you wanted a divine version of Vampiric Touch or a ranged touch heal spell. You'd have to research, and then you and only you (and the people you let in on it) get the spell. None of the new splat books/spells say anything about them being unique or researched or otherwise. Excellent point. I acknowledge that Nom's points #1 and #3 were disprovable, but that does not change the fact that the spells included in supplement books seem to be intended as supplementing the general list of cleric spells, with alignment restrictions still imposing the usual limitations. The spells in these books are not presented as unique spells that have been researched by individual clerics, but as expansions to the general cleric list. If a DM chooses not to include these spells as such, that's entirely his/her right, but if he allows these sources without special restriction, then it's completely reasonable for a player to assume his cleric has access to (and knowledge of) the expanded choices.
1CentSage 06-02-06, 12:43 PM	Ah yet another of these "undead topics". Three things: 1) In my opinion the statement on spell research is to be interpreted the way that if a player (or NPC) researches a new spell, this is not automatically added to the cleric spell list although a cleric can add it to its repertoire by the rules given. This indeed would imply that there exist cleric spells which are not on the cleric's spell list. There is a difference between a cleric spell and a spell on the cleric spell list. While the later is necessarily a cleric spell, the former does not have to be on the list. 2) It seems however that the designers intended to automatically expand the cleric's spell list when new material gets published (if that is good is another debate). While there is no 100% explicit statement about that, since the term spell list is not rigorously defined and used sloppy sometimes, there are much more statements (PHB,SRD,FAQ) that indicate it to be the way HalasterAteMyHamster and others said than otherwise. 3) However, playing just for fun a bit devil's advocat (based in part on 1): Quote from PHB, p.32: All clerics cast divine spells (...), which are drawn from the cleric spell list (page 183). [...] So if you go just by the letter, you could argue that the cleric spell list is the one on p.183 and following in the PHB. Since none of the expansions explicitely mentions, that the new spells presented are added to this list, (they just present new cleric spells)you could say that these are new cleric spells which would then have to be learned by a cleric ;) .
tarkin 06-02-06, 12:48 PM	It seems clear to me that: 1) Gods know all the spells they can grant 2) Clerics do NOT neccesarilly know all the spells that their particular god can grant. 3) Gods should not, except in the most unusual of circumstances, even suggest a spell for a cleric to ask for. Frankly, gods got more important things to do than to educate their clerics. Clerics serve the god, not the other way around. ============= That said I generally rule that clerics know their gods can grant the spells in: A) the PHB B) a single world specific book of their choice. C) any spell they have come across. Spells from wierd sources must be either discovered or researched/created. Discovery should be relatively easy, not the same as researching, which costs a lot of money.
Broken vacuum 06-02-06, 12:48 PM	The PHB, as has already been shown, says a cleric may cast any spell on the cleric spell list. And as has also been shown, there are exceptions. All these new splat books come with a new cleric spell list. They do not say "unique" cleric spells. Nothing strange about that, since the passage on researching divine spells does not either. The research component of the PHB is for unique spells, say you wanted a divine version of Vampiric Touch or a ranged touch heal spell. You'd have to research, and then you and only you (and the people you let in on it) get the spell. 1. This is your opinion and it is obviously shared by some others in this thread, but I do not in any way see it as necessary to assume that the passage is only supposed to cover spells that a player constructs himself and not those constructed by someone else. Simply reiterating it will not convince me. 2. You do realise that this supports Nom's statement that #3 is false? None of the new splat books/spells say anything about them being unique or researched or otherwise. Well, actually when I look on page 3 under 'Introducing Spells' in the Spell Compendium I see this: The simplest way to introduce the spells in this book to your character or campaign is to have a character choose them and cast them in play. You can assume that spellcasters have always possessed the ability to cast the spells but they simply hadn't been cast in the presence of the PCs before. Alternatively, spells might be discovered in lost books of lore or newly created by a PC or NPC. (Emphasis mine.) Seems that we are not quite the only ones seeing this as a reasonable way to introduce new spells. Excellent point. I acknowledge that Nom's points #1 and #3 were disprovable, but that does not change the fact that the spells included in supplement books seem to be intended as supplementing the general list of cleric spells, with alignment restrictions still imposing the usual limitations. The spells in these books are not presented as unique spells that have been researched by individual clerics, but as expansions to the general cleric list. If a DM chooses not to include these spells as such, that's entirely his/her right, but if he allows these sources without special restriction, then it's completely reasonable for a player to assume his cleric has access to (and knowledge of) the expanded choices. If I understand you correctly nothing of this goes against anything Nom or I have claimed; we have not claimed that RAW says you cannot view divine spells from optional sources as part of the ordinary spell list, but we have disputed that you must do so to stay within RAW.
Vedic Cold 06-02-06, 12:58 PM	Then there is no dispute, considering the fact that I have maintained that this sort of thing is always DM fiat. If the DM chooses to utilize supplemental sources as compendiums of spells that spellcasters may research and add to their repertoir, but are not commonly known, that is of course entirely his/her right, and is an interesting method of play. My only contention is that, based on the way the cleric's spellcasting is described, most players can and rightly should assume their clerics have access to all cleric spells they could normally cast that are listed in any books the DM has approved for use in his game, unless the DM specifically states otherwise (hopefully at character creation, to be as fair as possible).
Broken vacuum 06-02-06, 01:17 PM	DM approval of optional material should always come with specifications. If no specifications are provided the players should ask, not assume. Assumptions are fine when you play with your regular group, but then those assumptions are based on how the group usually does it, not some sort of globally recognised rule.
Vedic Cold 06-02-06, 01:29 PM	If no specifications are provided the players should ask, not assume. That is highly unfair to players. Any reasonable person makes specific note of exceptions to the rules, rather than expecting others to ask about specific deviations from the norm. No assumptions? When a person sits down at a new DM's table to play DND 3.5, there HAVE to be certain shared assumptions about what's going on. The way that a cleric chooses and prepares spells is a basic function of the class, described in the PHB. It's perfectly reasonable for a player to assume this is how spellcasting will work when he sits down at a DM's table, and if it DOESN'T work that way, it's the DM's responsibility to make certain all players understand that. Trying to argue that five people can sit down to play the same game without a few assumptions about "globally recognised rules" amongst knowledgeable players is ridiculous in the extreme. Certain fundamentals are assumed to work in certain ways, such as how the cleric prepares spells. If the DM states that the spell compendium is an allowable sourcebook, and then later takes issue with the cleric preparing spells from the SC because the cleric doesn't necessarily know about those spells, then the DM has failed to make clear certain aspects of his game, and penalizing the player for simply assuming the rules work as written is not only unfair, but patently absurd. The basic point at hand: if the DM makes sourcebooks completely fair game, then the cleric/druid player is well within reason to assume his character has knowledge of and may prepare cleric/druid spells from said books without restriction, as per the method of cleric spell preparation in the PHB. If there is a restriction on said spells, then it is the DM's responibility to make note of this beforehand, or else disallow the book completely. If there is a logical argument to that point, I have yet to see it.
Slayer_5 06-02-06, 01:57 PM	Man you guys... semantics semantics semantics. nevermind the RAW, as the only thing I have gleaned from my thread is that they are foggy. Does it make sense for a cleric to know the existance of EVERY cleric spell in the game? I agree with HalasterAteMyHamster and his example of As far as the Cleric 'knowing' a spell, remember, they pray for it, so they're asking their deity. I like to think of it not as "Hey, Pelor, my man, can I get four Daylights, a couple of Cure Critical Wounds, and, ooh, a Flame Strike?" But in this case, it was a necromancer cleric from a far away island, with a very Voodoun feel, and the suggestion was "Hey, get a couple of <i>Balor's Nimbus</i> and immolate us on fire while we jump onto the troll and grapple it". Y'know, if I was a preist, and needed to get rid of a troll, "Dearest Nerull, may you grant me the power to immolate my comrades so that they may grab on for dear life to this dreaded beast, and in doing so burn him to the ground" seems pretty rediculous. Same with "Oh God Almighty, may you grant me an Axe of Ice, that I would use in preference to your other blessing because it only requires a touch for twodeetwelve (whatever that means) damage" I'm not asking for RaW, since it's vague, I'm asking if it makes sense, and is feasable
Broken vacuum 06-02-06, 02:00 PM	There it goes again. RAW is not always unambiguous. It is of course the DMs responsibility to point out any deviations from the rules, but in this case it is not a deviation from the rules; it is an interpretation of the rules. An exact and unambiguous process for how optional material is to be incorporated into the game is not provided in the RAW and as such research or not are available options; neither is more RAW than the other. As such it is the DM's responsibility to explain how it is to be done, but if he does not, players should recognise that there is room for differences and ask about it, as the DM may have a different opinion than the players. Nothing strange about it and not particularly unfair to players. Most things are unambiguous, so it really is not a great hindrance. Again, it is the DM's job to state how things like this is done, but DMs sometimes do forget things and then players should help. Players should of course assume that the rules as written are followed, but in the cases where they leave room for different reasonable interpretations, you should not just arbitrarily pick one of them and assume that everybody else picked the same. Edit: To Slayer_5 Well, I would say that the important point is that the cleric player did not like it; you should not force a player to take a spell against his will. If he feels that way, he should clearly not have immediate access to the spell. You could instead introduce it to him in some other way, that he feels is acceptable. Learn it from a fellow cleric or a scroll or an ancient book of rituals or a vision from his god or whatever. The point of the game is having fun after all.
Rhomphaia 06-02-06, 02:11 PM	Both of those examples are pretty much what a cleric does when they pray for spells. They know the dogmas of their religion, know things that most deities are capable of granting (the 'general' cleric list) and things that are specific to their (and maybe a couple of other) deities (domain lists). Clerics may have their own personal names for spells, simply because praying for Hextor's Fist is easier than Bigby's Forceful Hand, or that is the name given by religious dogma. Essentially, when a cleric (or druid) prays for a spell, they ask their deity to impart the power of a specific effect, such as the ability to make dead flesh ambulatory, or to know a person's heart. Would the cleric in question know of the spell? Certainly. This by no means constrains him to ever prepare it though. If the player doesn't feel that his character would ever prepare that spell, then the cleric simply doesn't. However, the inkling in the back of their mind that their deity held the power to grant them the spell would still be there.
Vedic Cold 06-02-06, 02:22 PM	I agree with pretty much everything you've said here. In the end, this comes down to a difference between what you and I consider to be reasonable interpretations, and that's certainly no big deal. I think we at least understand one another, and that's a good outcome of any debate. But in this case, it was a necromancer cleric from a far away island, with a very Voodoun feel, and the suggestion was "Hey, get a couple of Balor's Nimbus and immolate us on fire while we jump onto the troll and grapple it". Y'know, if I was a preist, and needed to get rid of a troll, "Dearest Nerull, may you grant me the power to immolate my comrades so that they may grab on for dear life to this dreaded beast, and in doing so burn him to the ground" seems pretty rediculous. Same with "Oh God Almighty, may you grant me an Axe of Ice, that I would use in preference to your other blessing because it only requires a touch for twodeetwelve (whatever that means) damage" I'm not asking for RaW, since it's vague, I'm asking if it makes sense, and is feasable Bold = Hilarious. As for making sense... I frequently see a quote in signatures that reads something like this: "That's common sense, this is D&D... the two are rarely on speaking terms." That being said, I can see the dillemma there. Your situation begs the question: did the cleric have time to pray for spells before going into battle against the trolls? As has been repeatedly stated here, the level of access to spells beyond the PHB a cleric has is up to the DM, but if you had time to pray for spells and simply utter a prayer something like: "Oh mighty Reaper of Flesh, I beg that you grant me the magical might to bring final, inescapable death to these creatures who defy you, so that you may harvest their pitiful souls," or something of that nature, I as a DM playing the momentary roll of Nerull would be quite pleased enough to direct you to the right spell for the job, granting you the power and understanding to cast a Balor Nimbus, which would do the job nicely. But that's me... with other DMs, your mileage may vary.
Broken vacuum 06-02-06, 02:30 PM	Agreed on all accounts. The important thing in this case should be making the cleric player happy. Guidance from his god does seem like something that could do the trick.
mvincent 06-02-06, 03:44 PM	My friend thinks because a cleric can cast any spell on the list, that they know the existance of every spell on the list as soon as they reach the level required to cast it.No, but they could still likely pray for it after the player hears about. Conversely, a player (or DM) may feel that the character could not have heard about it (and thus it is only player knowledge, not character knowledge), but that is their choice. Your friend was right in that the cleric could have immediately acquired the spell after the associated player was told about it, but he should also respect the choice of the cleric's player.