Now that we know that the Seeker isn't it.
I'm still holding out faint hope for a cloth-armor divine leader type (Fire Emblem-style priest, white mage, archivist/cloistered cleric, or some blend of all of those), but I don't get the sense that there's a lot of interest in this archetype. As a possibility, however, the 3e OA shaman (as opposed to the 3.5e spirit shaman) could be redesigned to fit that role without too much trouble.
If we consider other possible "Ki refugees" as candidates, there's also the 3e sohei, which could be repackaged as some sort of templar, or maybe a divine berserker-type. I'm not sure about the shugenja; going by the 3.5e mechanics, that might work better as an Elemental class.
Other ideas?
I think the ki refugees are done. I think PHB3 was originally Psionics, Ki and (Divine or Primal) Heroes and the Monk and Seeker were the two ki classes due to debut there.
Then Ki died.
Some kind of rune-caster perhaps? I'm not sure why that would necessarily have to be divine rather than arcane, but it could fit?
What about some kind of class that fits into the notion of an Avatar? I know there are already Avatar EDs, but that doesn't necessarily stop there being a divine PC class tied into that concept. You'd use divine magic, but wouldn't derive it from any other gods - it would be just coming from you. Perhaps they'd tend to be ignorant of their heritage.
I dunno, these are just some ideas I thought I throw out there 
Really the divine archer was the only idea that I personally had. Maybe they'll go for a pet class where you manifest an aspect of your diety to continually assist you in combat(totally off the top of my head).
I think the ki refugees are done. I think PHB3 was originally Psionics, Ki and (Divine or Primal) Heroes and the Monk and Seeker were the two ki classes due to debut there.
Then Ki died.
The Seeker development commentary implies that it was always meant to be primal. I think it is much more likely that the monk was the only ki class that was fully developed and will be in PHB3. Had they actually managed to fully develop another Ki class, I think that we would not have seen the ki power source die like it did.
Possible archetypes that haven't been filled:
Healer/Mystic (Divine Leader): A lightly-armored priest class with some secondary Striker and/or Controller function. May need some unique gimmick to set it apart from a Cleric or Invoker besides choice of armor. May also be a Divine Striker which serves as the divine equivalent of the Sorcerer or Warlock; a dedicated holy blaster.
Inquisitor (Divine Striker): A divine striker with both melee and ranged capability. A monster hunter devoted to striking down demons, undead, primordial creatures, and aberrations from the Far Realm. Somewhat sneakier than the Avenger.
The trouble with a more heavily-armored class is that it's difficult to imagine another heavy-armor Striker or Defender without stepping on the Paladin's toes. If they're not careful, it would end up merely as a "paladin with a gimmick".
Also, have they confirmed that there's less than eight classes, or is that conjecture?
I prefer Exorcist to Inquisitor (Inquistor sounds evil); Exorcist could be another type of monk, more like a vagrant monk that does seals and uses sutras and banishes demons.
I also would like the idea of an Archivist that uses a Tome as an implement. They could get their power from reading and speaking from the pulpit to influence their allies, as opposed to the healing and battle focus of the Cleric, they would be more of a mover like the Cunning Bard or the Tactical Warlord.
I agree with above poster. Bring back archivist ^_^ Wisdom primary with ummm.... dexterity or intelligence secondaries o.o
Templar was mentioned in the ECG ... I know that was the old Avenger name, but Templar is still a solid class name.
"Who's to say a Divine Striker or Divine Leader archer is not in the works? Also, besides the hybrids, is there any reason why people think there are going to only be 6 classes? Something mentioned by (a) WotC employee(s)?"
Also, besides the hybrids, is there any reason why people think there are going to only be 6 classes? Something mentioned by (a) WotC employee(s)?"
I think there'll be 7 classes. I haven't heard of anything that would suggest otherwise.
Also, besides the hybrids, is there any reason why people think there are going to only be 6 classes? Something mentioned by (a) WotC employee(s)?"
I think there'll be 7 classes. I haven't heard of anything to suggest otherwise.
After seeing the FR article last Dragon that introduced PPs that require you to be multi-classed or Hybrids to take, I'm 95% postive there will only be 6 classes now, because between Skill Powers, Hybrid rules for a minimum of 24 classes, 4 races + racial PPs, Hybrid specific PPs, and EDs, new equipment, new feats, and maybe more, I just don't see room for 2 more classes.
"Who's to say a Divine Striker or Divine Leader archer is not in the works? Also, besides the hybrids, is there any reason why people think there are going to only be 6 classes? Something mentioned by (a) WotC employee(s)?"
Basically the belief that there are less than 8 classes comes from page count estimates for all that we know is going to be in there. Basically prior to skill powers, there would of had to be several chapters considerably shorter than in PHB2(even accounting for content differences) to fit in 8 classes. After skill powers, you'd have to basically take an entire chapter out to fit in everything that we we know is in there and fit in 8 classes. We have no inidcation that they have done that, so having less than 8 classes seems more likely.
I remember one of the preview books had a picture titled "Primal Blaster" showing an archer with magically flaming arrows. I think it was around there that they actually thought up the Seeker as a Primal class.
I remember one of the preview books had a picture titled "Primal Blaster" showing an archer with magically flaming arrows. I think it was around there that they actually thought up the Seeker as a Primal class.
That was totally the Race & Class book that came out BEFORE 4e, talking about 4e design and development.
Hopefully not another striker, we already have 7 before this book comes out, and we know one is coming in this book. Meanwhile there are only 3 ccontrolers (5 with the prerelease material). We have 5 leaders and 4 defenders, +1 to each for the psionic versions. I'm hoping a divine defender or controller to keep things balanced, but 3 controllers in one book seems much, so I expect a divine defender.
Hopefully not another striker, we already have 7 before this book comes out, and we know one is coming in this book. Meanwhile there are only 3 ccontrolers (5 with the prerelease material). We have 5 leaders and 4 defenders, +1 to each for the psionic versions. I'm hoping a divine defender or controller to keep things balanced, but 3 controllers in one book seems much, so I expect a divine defender.
This question possibly stems from my own lack of creativity, but how on earth do you do "divine defender" without making a Paladin? I just can't think up how to do one that is distinct enough from the existing class to justify it's own existence.
Personally, I want to see the Archivist revived as a divine controller. I like the Invoker as a "power of the gods" controller, and I think the Archivist would work as a more "researched" controller. Spice up his knowledge ability from 3.5, maybe toss in some truenaming-esque abilities, maybe with some flavor of the European monk (pious man living in a temple, as opposed to the oriental "kick your ass" monk that will exist in the Monk class) for grins and giggles.
I still think there will be 8 classes, sorry.
4 psionic, 2 primal, 2 divine.
Why? To kind of keep them equal with the 6 arcane we already have :p so expect phb4 to have another 2 psionic classes.
I think the archivist will come around =p eventually in some form. He doesn't necessarily have to be divine to be a searcher of divine lore. Though i still suspect he will be a divine class.
This question possibly stems from my own lack of creativity, but how on earth do you do "divine defender" without making a Paladin? I just can't think up how to do one that is distinct enough from the existing class to justify it's own existence.
I have no idea, i just think it's the best one for balance reasons (keeping the classes equally represented)
I doubt a full 8 classes with skil powers and hybrids having to be covered. 7 maybe, but not 8.
Thematically, I'd quite like to see a class based on Flagellants, perhaps as a defender that has a pool of temp. hps, and the ability to take damage in a party member's stead.
Also interesting would be a Divine whose abilities are manifestations of a divine curse, instead of a boon.
Or maybe wielders of divine weapons? Of Legacy, so to say?
This question possibly stems from my own lack of creativity, but how on earth do you do "divine defender" without making a Paladin? I just can't think up how to do one that is distinct enough from the existing class to justify it's own existence.
I have no idea, i just think it's the best one for balance reasons (keeping the classes equally represented)
That, my friend, is the worst kind of gridfilling mentality.
I think an overabundance of strikers would kill the fun somewhat for other roles. Like watching all the football kids get the new stadiums and outfits while you're playing soccer on mudfield (still good fun) in t-shirts and hand-me-down shorts.
This question possibly stems from my own lack of creativity, but how on earth do you do "divine defender" without making a Paladin? I just can't think up how to do one that is distinct enough from the existing class to justify it's own existence.
Idea of a Non-Paladin Divine Defender:
Shepherd: The David vs. Goliath figure. An unassuming humble person chosen by the gods for some outstanding personal quality and bolstered with divine will.
Shepherd Class Description
Role: Defender. Through your own power and the gifts bestowed upon you by the gods, you keep your 'flock' safe from danger with sagacious guidance, constant vigilance, and a ready hand.
Power Source: Divine. You are granted power beyond mortal reach to tend to a flock of the Gods' choosing. Whether you are aware of this blessing or not your constancy, readiness, and courage have earned you the gifts of the divine.
Key Abilities: Wisdom and Constitution or Charisma
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth
Weapon Proficiencies: Staff, Rod, and Sling
Implement: Staff, Rod
Bonus to Defense: +1 Fortitude, +1 Reflex, +1 Will
Hit Points at 1st Level: 10+Constitution score
Hit Points per Level: 4
Healing Surges per Day: 5 + Constitution modifier
Trained Skills: You are trained in Religion. From the list below, choose 4 skills at 1st level.
Class Skills:
Atheletics (Str), Diplomacy (Cha), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), History (Int), Insight (Wis), Intimidate(Cha), Nature (Int), Perception(Wis)
Build Options: Watching Shepherd, Tempering Shepherd
Class Features: Shepherd's Blessing, Earthly Grace, Mark of the Gods, Hand of the Gods
Shepherd Class Features
Shepherd's Blessing
You have been given a blessing by the powers divine. This blessing has taken one of two forms, the Blessing of Guidance or the Blessing of Perseverance. Select one of the following Blessings. Some powers have extra effects for different Blessings.
- Blessing of Guidance: You watch over your flock and in turn they steer away from danger. You gain a pool of Blessings equal to your 2+Charisma Modifier. You may spend one blessing to add 1 point to an ally's AC or all their Non-AC defenses against attacks by targets you have marked. As a free action at the beginning of your turn, you may distribute these points amongst your allies. At the beginning of your next turn these bonuses fade and you may redistribute them again. At 11th level your pool of Blessings increases to 4+Charisma Modifier and 6+Charisma Modifier blessings at 21st level.
- Blessing of Perseverance: You temper your flock against the hardships of the world. You gain a pool of Temporary Hit Points, that only apply to damage dealt by targets you have marked, equal to your 1/2 your Max Hitpoints+4. At the beginning of each round, you may distribute those temporary hit points amongst your allies. At the beginning of your next turn, those temporary hit points fade and you may distribute them again. At 11th level your pool increases to 1/2 your Max Hitpoints +8 and 1/2 your Max Hitpoints +12 at 21st level.
Earthly Grace
You were not given divine gifts because of your extreme piety or dedication, but because you had some exceptional quality that singled you out as an ideal protector of the faithful, whichever faithful that may be. Select two of the following Earthly Graces and you may wield the Rod implement as a club.
- Strong of Arm: You're great strength in battle keeps beats back the wolves that would feed on your allies. You gain a +1 bonus to melee attacks with Rods and Staffs and may use Wisdom instead of Strength for attack and damage with basic melee attacks. You treat Rods and Staffs as Brutal 2 weapons.
- Sharp of Eye: You're penetrating gaze lets you head of the lions that would pounce and rend your allies. You gain a +1 bonus to ranged attacks with Slings and may use Wisdom instead of Dexterity for attack and damage with basic ranged attacks. You increase the damage.
- Stout of Heart: You're resolute courage keeps you between your allies and the bears that would break your allies. You gain a +1 bonus to all defenses.
Mark of the Gods
You may chastise those that would do harm unto your flock with divine punishment. You radiate a Zone 3 of Divine Rebuke that moves with you. You may Mark any enemy that enters the zone until the beginning of your next turn as an opportunity attack. If a Marked enemy voluntarily leaves the zone or makes an attack that does not include you as a target within the zone, they take 3 radiant damage. Marked enemies take a -2 to attack on any attack roll that does not include you as a target. This increases to 6 radiant damage at 11th level and 9 radiant damage at 21st level.
Hand of the Gods
Given your humble standing in life, the Gods make special efforts to see to your safety, so that you may so to the safety of them and thiers. When you wear cloth armor and no shield, you gain a +2 bonus to AC per Tier and temporary hit points equal to a healing surge that regenerate at the beginning of your turn.
Like watching all the football kids get the new stadiums and outfits while you're playing soccer on mudfield (still good fun) in t-shirts and hand-me-down shorts.
Gourd, so very true. XD
Shepherd Class
Two Words: Very. Cool.
This question possibly stems from my own lack of creativity, but how on earth do you do "divine defender" without making a Paladin? I just can't think up how to do one that is distinct enough from the existing class to justify it's own existence.
I have no idea, i just think it's the best one for balance reasons (keeping the classes equally represented)
That, my friend, is the worst kind of gridfilling mentality.
Because I don't want to see more strikers? Because I want more options avaiable to players who want to play the defender or controller roles? Gridfilling is a martial controller, I'm asking to give more variety to players who don't want to play strikers.
Before the release of PHB3 there are 7 strikers, 5 Leaders, 4 Defenders, and 3 Controllers. How is this fair? There are more than twice the number of strikers as controllers, almost twice as many compared to the defenders. Isn't it best to give people more options? Those options should expand to more than just what flavor high damage character you want to play.
We know Phb3 addresses some of the controller issue by presenting 2 new controlelrs, but it does bring with it one more striker. I'd like defenders to get more love.
I' understand that it can be limiting to think about the balance, but if it isn't done it makes it limiting on the players who want to play the neglected roles. And you know sometimes limitations breed creativity, maybe thinking about what new defenders or controllers can be made will help come up with those ideas, as opposed to another striker.
Yes , by no means should role be the identity of the class, but it does serve some perpus for guiding design, and gives goals that need to be met. A defender needs to have either high ac, high hp, or both, or some other bonus that helps them survive the hits. A striker isn't good if the most damage they can deal is 1d6 to 1 enemy. Role is more than just a qualifier, it is what it brings to a party, and one role shouldn't be favored above all the rrest, especially not to the degree striker has been thus far.
I want the final class to be a defender or controller, would be fine with a leader i guess, but I don't want to see another striker. I think half the classes in one book would be unfair if specualtion is right and we only have 6 classes, so another conroller would be too much in my oppinion. So I want a defender. And divine is what left from what we know and the current popular speculation, so I guess I want it to be a divine defender. Just because I can't come up with something doesn't mean the designers can't.
well most of you know I'm a big fan of the Archivist/Treasure Hunter as a Divine class, but I don't think we will be seeing it in the PH3 because the Minotaur on the cover is probably some sort of blackguard or something
But then again, the Minotaur might be the Psionic Warrior making a come back, with a new name hopefully
Some time back I had an Idea for a Divine class that is born with their powers; I'm still working on it
The Paradigm (not sure about the name) Divine Defender
It's sorta based on a combination of the old Paragon race classes from Unearthed Arcana, Hercules, Paul Bunyan and comic book super heroes
basically the same Divine spark that went into the creation of the character's race is awakened within a chosen child
I say comic book heroes because many of them have their powers against their will, and they must learn to use them and choose what to use them for, a parallel that exists within the Sorcerer as well
Before the release of PHB3 there are 7 strikers, 5 Leaders, 4 Defenders, and 3 Controllers. How is this fair? There are more than twice the number of strikers as controllers, almost twice as many compared to the defenders. Isn't it best to give people more options? Those options should expand to more than just what flavor high damage character you want to play.
Insisting that all the roles should be eqally represented overall is just as much gridfilling as demanding equal representation within a powersource.
Insisting that all the roles should be eqally represented overall is just as much gridfilling as demanding equal representation within a powersource.
They don't have to be equally represented. But I would like more options. For Defenders I've got 1 Fighter, 2 Paladins, 1 Warden and I had a Swordmage (but I didn't much like the class so I don't play it). Everyone and their dog wants to play a Striker. I'm happy to play a defender. I'd just like the opportunity to play a different class.
Insisting that all the roles should be eqally represented overall is just as much gridfilling as demanding equal representation within a powersource.
They don't have to be equally represented. But I would like more options. For Defenders I've got 1 Fighter, 2 Paladins, 1 Warden and I had a Swordmage (but I didn't much like the class so I don't play it). Everyone and their dog wants to play a Striker. I'm happy to play a defender. I'd just like the opportunity to play a different class.
As you said, everyone and their dog wants to play a striker. No company ever went out of buisness giving the majority of their customers what they wanted.
I don't see why there should be fewer strikers. To me it seems the game was designed with a party of 5 in mind, of which at least 2 are strikers. So it makes sense to have a lot of strikers to choose from when making a character.
I'm not good at the numbers game, but I think the roster of roles is pretty well-balanced right now. That doesn't mean having a new defender is something I'd oppose ;)
I don't see why there should be fewer strikers. To me it seems the game was designed with a party of 5 in mind, of which at least 2 are strikers. So it makes sense to have a lot of strikers to choose from when making a character.
I'm not good at the numbers game, but I think the roster of roles is pretty well-balanced right now. That doesn't mean having a new defender is something I'd oppose ;)
Actually according to the books a party of 5 should have 2 defenders not 2 strikers. But a group of 5 can have two of any role without problems.
I'm not saying they have to be perfectly balanced, but I'm asking that the neglected roles get shown some love too. Yes strikers are popular, a lot of people want to be the one to score the killing blow. I can play a striker, but I prefer the other three roles, just like I prefer most powersources to divine. SHould divine get the short end of the stick? No, and they shouldn't stop making strikers. THey shouldn however spend more time develpoing the other roles. The Seeker is a great example of ingfenuity put onto a controller, and the idea could have lead them to another stiker, or a build of barbarian. They chose to make a controller, and I apllaud them for it. If they want a couple more strikers than the other roles thats fine, but they shouldn't have twice the options of two other roles, that is neglecting fans, and that will put a company out of business. Just because most people like strikers doesn't mean everyone does, and they should keep that in mind, the defender/controller players shoud get goodies too.
If the Phb3 does release a psionic class for all roles, plus the seeker this is what the role layout looks like:
8 strikers, 6 leaders, 5 contollers, 5 defenders. This is closer to what it should be, but still a little out of whack in my mind. Giving the final class to controller or defender would really make this look better, hell another leader wouldn't look half bad either. If it's another striker we go back to strikers having almost double the amount of controllers or defenders, and 2/3 the amount of leaders compared to strikers. THis is not right.
People like strikers, but people like other stuff as well, i should have atleasta similar amoutn of options no matter what role I want to fill. As a player I often will make my character last and try to fill in the gaps we're missing, and it's often a defender or a controller.
Before the release of PHB3 there are 7 strikers, 5 Leaders, 4 Defenders, and 3 Controllers. How is this fair? There are more than twice the number of strikers as controllers, almost twice as many compared to the defenders. Isn't it best to give people more options? Those options should expand to more than just what flavor high damage character you want to play.
Insisting that all the roles should be eqally represented overall is just as much gridfilling as demanding equal representation within a powersource.
Well, I'd like more options to choose from when playing a defender. For 1, I don't play forgotten realms. Despite my desire for a swordmage, I chose not to buy an entire book for just one class. If I want to defend, I can choose Fighter, Paladin, or Warden. With PHB 3 I assume I can choose a Psionic defender as well.
Besides, if there are two things that the Divine Power source just screams about it's Leaders and Defenders.
The mistake is to define the Striker role as the 'damage dealer'.
All roles should be dealing equal amounts of damage, just differently.
What should be distinguishing the roles is how they move on the battlefield, not how much damage they do.
The Controller (status conditions) and Leader (healing and also status conditions) should be add-on 'templates' that get added to any role, not roles in themselves.
Its weird. The 'monster roles' seem to do a better job at describing roles usefully: the Leader is an addon, theres a difference between Controller and Artillery, the Skirmisher/Brute/Lurker are different kinds of 'Strikers' and none of them necessarily deal the most damage, etc. By contrast, the player roles just seem hopelessly muddled, unhelpful, and unfair.
All players should be able to deal the same amount of total damage. For most players, dealing damage is a must-have.
Not to further derail but I disagree. First that strikers are the only damage dealing role and that their role is only to deal damage and second that dealing high levels of damage is somehow better than the abilities offered by controllers and defenders.
Not to further derail but I disagree. First that strikers are the only damage dealing role and that their role is only to deal damage and second that dealing high levels of damage is somehow better than the abilities offered by controllers and defenders.
I'm not sure what your trying to say here.
"Strikers are the only damage dealing role and that their role is only to deal damage."
Some gamers *do* define Strikers as dpr - and it is a problem.
Being stealthy is valuable, like being sticky is valuable. Being mobile is valuable, like healing is valuable. Dealing heavy damage to one target is valuable, like dealing moderate damage to many targets is valuable.
Defenders, Controllers, Leaders, and Strikers including Artillery (Archer-Ranger), Brutes (Barbarian), Skirmishers (TW-Ranger, Monk), Lurkers (Rogue), etc can all do the same dpr on average, and still do interesting things differently.
Not to further derail but I disagree. First that strikers are the only damage dealing role and that their role is only to deal damage and second that dealing high levels of damage is somehow better than the abilities offered by controllers and defenders.
Technically speaking the role of striker is not defined by high DPR, but rather by the ability to focus on and eliminate a single threat. This is most often accomplished through killing that threat, thus an emphasis on DPR, however, there is a a second notable though less prominent way to accomplish this goal. That method is through imposing debilitating status effects, a function somewhat similar to that of the controller, but different because it is more fully directed against a single target. So far the only striker that strongly favors this method is the Warlock, though most strikers can go this way with the right build.
As you said, everyone and their dog wants to play a striker. No company ever went out of buisness giving the majority of their customers what they wanted.
That's rather short-sighted. Me and people like me stop playing defenders because we don't want to play yet another fighter, and so parties are unbalanced and have to try to cope with the standard adventures which causes the DM to work harder to keep balance. This in turn frustrates the DMs even more, which impacts on everyone's enjoyment.
But hey, at least we got yet another 3 strikers!
Not to further derail but I disagree. First that strikers are the only damage dealing role and that their role is only to deal damage and second that dealing high levels of damage is somehow better than the abilities offered by controllers and defenders.
I'm not sure what your trying to say here.
I'm not quite sure how to rephrase this in a way you'll understand. The posters below you seemed to understand what I was saying. Maybe if you explain where the communication is breaking down?
I prefer the controller role myself. I love throwing down zones of pain and inconvenience for enemies to stumble through.
My thought is to design classes around themes or niches which aren't adequately represented by the other classes, not simply because we don't have enough defenders or controllers or whatnot. Otherwise, if you're not careful, you end up with classes which resemble another class with a different hat.
If one of the new divine classes (I'm assuming there will be eight classes unless we get absolute proof otherwise) is a Divine Defender, I'm going to guess that it will be a lightly-armored brawler type with divine ancestry (representing the Sacred Fist type of monk with divine flavor). A heavily armored Divine Defender would be rather difficult to distinguish from the paladin.
Well... if we're going to have another divine defender, wouldn't it make sense if it approached it from the opposite way to the paladin? Paladin punishes people for striking others. Perhaps a martyr type who takes the damage for the team? AoE marking ability, if marked enemy deals damage to anyone else, reduce that damage by X(say 5+statmod), and the martyr takes 5 unpreventable damage. Give it a bunch of temp hp generation (half level + statmod perhaps) on many of its abilities. Heck it could be a primary constritution class, there's only one of those so far! Con primary, wis and something else for riders...(not sure what would be appropriate, strength probably). Give it midde-ground armor prof(chain).
Basically instead of "hit my friends and die", it's "I sacrifice myself for my friends".
Continue the trend by adding some reaction powers where you switch positions with allies and take the blow instead of them, with some beneficial bonus(buff ally, debuff enemy, buff self, whatever).
Well... if we're going to have another divine defender, wouldn't it make sense if it approached it from the opposite way to the paladin? Paladin punishes people for striking others. Perhaps a martyr type who takes the damage for the team?
Ooh, now there something that might almost work. I'd pretty much written of the notion of being able to find the design space for another divine defender that was both different than the paladin and also not just a divine version of another sources defender. Not sure if it would ever be a popular class as I don't know how many folks would actually enjoy the archetype, but it's certainly unique.
Well... if we're going to have another divine defender, wouldn't it make sense if it approached it from the opposite way to the paladin? Paladin punishes people for striking others. Perhaps a martyr type who takes the damage for the team? AoE marking ability, if marked enemy deals damage to anyone else, reduce that damage by X(say 5+statmod), and the martyr takes 5 unpreventable damage. Give it a bunch of temp hp generation (half level + statmod perhaps) on many of its abilities. Heck it could be a primary constritution class, there's only one of those so far! Con primary, wis and something else for riders...(not sure what would be appropriate, strength probably). Give it midde-ground armor prof(chain).
Basically instead of "hit my friends and die", it's "I sacrifice myself for my friends".
Continue the trend by adding some reaction powers where you switch positions with allies and take the blow instead of them, with some beneficial bonus(buff ally, debuff enemy, buff self, whatever).
It seems like a good start. Perhaps combine this idea with the "divine monk/champion" concept to make an Ascetic/Mystic class. WIS/CON and WIS/DEX could work for builds, but that pattern seems to be quite popular already.
Perhaps some of this class's powers can be strengthened by spending a healing surge to empower them. A few paladin powers seem to do this already, but most of these require the use of healing surges rather than having it as an option to make the power stronger.
Not to further derail but I disagree. First that strikers are the only damage dealing role and that their role is only to deal damage and second that dealing high levels of damage is somehow better than the abilities offered by controllers and defenders.
I'm not sure what your trying to say here.
I'm not quite sure how to rephrase this in a way you'll understand. The posters below you seemed to understand what I was saying. Maybe if you explain where the communication is breaking down?
I prefer the controller role myself. I love throwing down zones of pain and inconvenience for enemies to stumble through.
I couldn't tell if you were saying damage was better than the other abilities or vice versa, but your new post seems to solve the problem for me.
Well... if we're going to have another divine defender, wouldn't it make sense if it approached it from the opposite way to the paladin? Paladin punishes people for striking others. Perhaps a martyr type who takes the damage for the team? AoE marking ability, if marked enemy deals damage to anyone else, reduce that damage by X(say 5+statmod), and the martyr takes 5 unpreventable damage. Give it a bunch of temp hp generation (half level + statmod perhaps) on many of its abilities. Heck it could be a primary constritution class, there's only one of those so far! Con primary, wis and something else for riders...(not sure what would be appropriate, strength probably). Give it midde-ground armor prof(chain).
Basically instead of "hit my friends and die", it's "I sacrifice myself for my friends".
Continue the trend by adding some reaction powers where you switch positions with allies and take the blow instead of them, with some beneficial bonus(buff ally, debuff enemy, buff self, whatever).
Very good idea. I would love that class, although it's kinda similar to the ardent paladin, but it doesn't feel the same. I give a thumbs up.
Id like to see a Divine class that didnt use Wis.
Id like to see a Divine class that didnt use Wis.
Well the paladin only uses WIS as a secondary. While I can conceive of the possibility of a divine class that doesn't use WIS at all, I don't think it's a good idea. Too many feats, paths, and even destinies designed for ANY divine class assume that the character has at least a moderate WIS score.
You'd use divine magic, but wouldn't derive it from any other gods - it would be just coming from you. Perhaps they'd tend to be ignorant of their heritage.
PHB2, page 100, read the class introduction below the class traits.
Really, it seems like no one knows about that class.
I think the new Divine class will use CON as a primary. Dungeon Master's Guide 2, under the Divine Boons, Pelor's Sun Blessing, Property. "Constitution or Wisdom modifier, whichever is higher."
That's just because Pelor particularly emphasises Wisdom and Constitution. That doesn't have anything to do with actual divine classes, just Pelor's priesthood. The fact that he focuses on life makes sense that Constitution is important for him.
You'd use divine magic, but wouldn't derive it from any other gods - it would be just coming from you. Perhaps they'd tend to be ignorant of their heritage.
PHB2, page 100, read the class introduction below the class traits.Really, it seems like no one knows about that class.
I think the problem with the invoker is while its fluff paints it as a class that isn't tied to a god, its mechanics, and other fluff specifies you have a direct covenant with a god. I love the invoker class, it just seems WoTC was kind of all over the place with its fluff.
Janx: The problem with the invoker is, while its fluff paints it as a class that isn't tied to a god, its mechanics and other fluff specifies, you have a direct covenant with a god.
Yeah, I wish the Divine power source, generally, didnt require gods.
Its ok to say 'most' Invokers 'typically' have a covenant with a god, but the oppressive polytheistic fluff is so railroading.
I wonder if the Invoker was originally intended to be the less 'tied down' of the divine classes, but the urge to use domains for the at-wills of all existing divine classes shortly down the road made them re-align it with the gods directly. It does seem odd that some text paints them as the 'free' divine class, while others tie it down.
Unlike Warlock pacts, the Invoker covenants dont flavour themselves towards a certain patron, they could have very well been called "Divine Manifestations".
I am trying to figure out a way to play D&D over the internet. My group seems to have dismantled, due to scheduling constraints, and I want to find a lerger pool of players. They always hint at pkaying over the internet in the rulebooks, but I have not (other than DDO, of course; ick, Eberron) found the way to do it.
> that doesn't use WIS at all, I don't think it's a good
> idea.
I do. One of the irksome elements of both Divine and Primal is that, aside from a couple of Str-based melee classes, they're all Wis-focused (including all of the ranged/caster types). This really slants the sources towards Wis-based races, which is quite unhelpful to the goal of avoiding race-class/source pigeonholing that was set down for 4E.
> While I can conceive of the possibility of a divine class > that doesn't use WIS at all, I don't think it's a good > idea. I do. One of the irksome elements of both Divine and Primal is that, aside from a couple of Str-based melee classes, they're all Wis-focused (including all of the ranged/caster types). This really slants the sources towards Wis-based races, which is quite unhelpful to the goal of avoiding race-class/source pigeonholing that was set down for 4E.
This.
> While I can conceive of the possibility of a divine class > that doesn't use WIS at all, I don't think it's a good > idea. I do. One of the irksome elements of both Divine and Primal is that, aside from a couple of Str-based melee classes, they're all Wis-focused (including all of the ranged/caster types). This really slants the sources towards Wis-based races, which is quite unhelpful to the goal of avoiding race-class/source pigeonholing that was set down for 4E.
Maybe, but every power source seems to have its key stats.
- Martial: 3 out of 4 class use STR for melee attacks, and the only other attack stat is DEX. While rogues might not attack with STR, they can use it as a secondary for riders.
- Arcane: Half the classes attack with INT, a third attack purely with CHA, and the remaining class uses CHA half the time. Of the classes that don't attack with INT only the sorcerer has no class features or power riders that key off of it.
- Primal: An even split between STR and WIS before the seeker came along. WIS shows up as a secondary for wardens, but the unifying secondary (again prior to the seeker) was CON.
Divine's focus on WIS really doesn't seem any more stifling than any of these.
"aside from a couple of Str-based melee classes, they're all Wis-focused (including all of the ranged/caster types)."
As a power source, Arcane includes classes that function in melee and ranged roles using Int, Cha, and even Con (via the warlock) as primary stats. The problem with divine and primal feeling pigeonholed is that, while there are Wis-based melee options, there aren't any non-Wis-based ranged options - all of the Str-based ones are strictly melee.
It certainly isn't out of a desire to avoid stat sharing among power sources. Three of them use Str and two use Wis.
It almost feels as though Wis is chosen as the stat for these power sources simply out of reflex, or because that's how they were in old-E. When I first started reading the fluff about the Invoker though (something that wasn't in old-E), it struck me as sounding much more like a force-of-personality (Cha-based) class than yet another Wis-based one - but of course, it's a divine "caster", therefore it *MUST* be Wis-based.
That list misses an important part of what I said: "aside from a couple of Str-based melee classes, they're all Wis-focused (including all of the ranged/caster types)." As a power source, Arcane includes classes that function in melee and ranged roles using Int, Cha, and even Con (via the warlock) as primary stats. The problem with divine and primal feeling pigeonholed is that, while there are Wis-based melee options, there aren't any non-Wis-based ranged options - all of the Str-based ones are strictly melee. It certainly isn't out of a desire to avoid stat sharing among power sources. Three of them use Str and two use Wis. It almost feels as though Wis is chosen as the stat for these power sources simply out of reflex, or because that's how they were in old-E. When I first started reading the fluff about the Invoker though (something that wasn't in old-E), it struck me as sounding much more like a force-of-personality (Cha-based) class than yet another Wis-based one - but of course, it's a divine "caster", therefore it *MUST* be Wis-based.
All STR based martial powers are melee, and all ranged martial powers are DEX based. Do you find that source to be inappropriately pigeon holing the way it uses stats?
As for the invoker, I'll agree that I too would have prefered them to be CHA based. Though as for the All divine "casters" being WIS based, what about the paladin who's ranged implement powers are indeed CHA based?
That list misses an important part of what I said: "aside from a couple of Str-based melee classes, they're all Wis-focused (including all of the ranged/caster types)." As a power source, Arcane includes classes that function in melee and ranged roles using Int, Cha, and even Con (via the warlock) as primary stats. The problem with divine and primal feeling pigeonholed is that, while there are Wis-based melee options, there aren't any non-Wis-based ranged options - all of the Str-based ones are strictly melee. It certainly isn't out of a desire to avoid stat sharing among power sources. Three of them use Str and two use Wis. It almost feels as though Wis is chosen as the stat for these power sources simply out of reflex, or because that's how they were in old-E. When I first started reading the fluff about the Invoker though (something that wasn't in old-E), it struck me as sounding much more like a force-of-personality (Cha-based) class than yet another Wis-based one - but of course, it's a divine "caster", therefore it *MUST* be Wis-based.
I agree that there should be a bit more thought put into what stats should be used for a class. I mean, as it stands, these are the classes that use a certain stat for their attacks:
STR: Fighter, Cleric, Ranger, Paladin, Warlord, Barbarian, Warden
CON: Warlock
DEX: Ranger, Rogue, Monk, Assassin
INT: Wizard, Artificer, Swordmage, Psion, Warlock (like three powers, IIRC)
WIS: Cleric, Invoker, Avenger, Seeker, Shaman, Druid
CHA: Paladin, Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock
Even though it's pretty close in most cases, STR and WIS do indeed have a distinct advantage (STR in particular), and CON is without a doubt the red-headed stepchild of the key abilities. Only the Warlock actually uses it for their attacks, and even with that class it shares with CHA and (very rarely) INT... poor CON, nobody loves you...
*sobs* I LOVE YOU, CON!
As a dragonborn battlerager fighter, I must say..... I FREAKING LOVE CON!!!!
Con may not often be a primary, but it gets alot of love as a secondary, and often it seems like the con secondary is the surperior of the secondary stats for the classes that have it (even the shaman, not counting AC issues). I believe the druid is the exception, though i have to see primal power.
Tough and relentless - Con seems like it has attack potential.
I wonder if the devs worry that making con an attack stat will create a class with too much durability since it ties in with HP and surges.
I wonder if the devs worry that making con an attack stat will create a class with too much durability since it ties in with HP and surges.
And if its primal or mc's into a primal, it can get Con to AC too.
I wonder if the devs worry that making con an attack stat will create a class with too much durability since it ties in with HP and surges.
That would be an easy problem to account for by simply giving the class lower base hp and surges. Besides, it's not uncommon for players to set their secondary stat just as high as their primary so classes with a CON secondary build can create just as many durability issues (more so, the base hp and surges of such classes must to be sufficient for the non-CON build).
More likely the lack of classes that attack with CON is due to legacy. Traditionally STR is used for melee attacks, DEX for ranged attacks, INT for arcane spells (with CHA becoming an alternate in 3e), and WIS for divine spells. Beyond legacy, theres a matter of visualization. As CON mostly represents endurance and health, it can be hard to visualize it being used to any aggressive end. It can work reasonably well for forms of magic that are physically demanding as illustrated in warlock fluff, or for internal magic such as the sorcerer (which might only be CHA out of legacy).
Given that psionics is both an internal power and can be physically demanding (profuse sweating and nose-bleeds being common visual cues), I wouldn't be surprised if PH3 gives us at least one new class with CON as primary.
I wonder if the devs worry that making con an attack stat will create a class with too much durability since it ties in with HP and surges.
That would be an easy problem to account for by simply giving the class lower base hp and surges. Besides, it's not uncommon for players to set their secondary stat just as high as their primary so classes with a CON secondary build can create just as many durability issues (more so, the base hp and surges of such classes must to be sufficient for the non-CON build).More likely the lack of classes that attack with CON is due to legacy. Traditionally STR is used for melee attacks, DEX for ranged attacks, INT for arcane spells (with CHA becoming an alternate in 3e), and WIS for divine spells. Beyond legacy, theres a matter of visualization. As CON mostly represents endurance and health, it can be hard to visualize it being used to any aggressive end. It can work reasonably well for forms of magic that are physically demanding as illustrated in warlock fluff, or for internal magic such as the sorcerer (which might only be CHA out of legacy).
Given that psionics is both an internal power and can be physically demanding (profuse sweating and nose-bleeds being common visual cues), I wouldn't be surprised if PH3 gives us at least one new class with CON as primary.
I feel ike there are several things that can have Con as primary: Some sort of magicy defender, like a Primal person who draws strength straight from the earth, or a Pionic person who manipulates their physical form. I can also see a person manipulating earth with Con; an earthbender if you will.
I do not care about system-oriented symmetry: martial controllers, constitution-based attacks, charisma-based hit points, intelligence-based perception checks, dexterity-based psionics, strength-based arcana checks...
I just want a Friar Tuck class, like the friar in Dark Age of Camelot. A mean staff, leather robes and some healing and enhancing prayers.
The 'Friar Tuck' class translates well as a Str-Dex Monk. In this case, the Psionic flavor would be 'contemplative' mysticism. Basically, the 'prayer' would be a meditative communion with the infinite divine mind, that includes the minds of all sentient creatures, especially other contemplatives.
Friar Tuck is divine not psionic. Western not eastern. Monotheistic not pantheistic. A wanderer not a mountain-top meditator.
However... I will take a look at the Monk and see if the crunchy rules can be reflavoured with mediaeval fluffy goodness.
I think he should be divine and able to take advantage of Domains, Channel Divinity and other signature divine tricks.
So multiclass into Cleric or Invoker, in that case. There's actually a whole PPath that deals with the mixing of Monk and divine.
actually, hyprid Monk|Avenger could probably go off pretty well together...
Hippolyte: Friar Tuck is divine not psionic. Monotheistic not pantheistic.
LOL! Climb aboard the polytheism railroad. If you are using the Divine power source, you have no choice except to be polytheistic. The core setting has no other options except polytheism. Your Friar Tuck has to brown-nose petty killable gods. WotC doesnt care about you, or your character, or what spiritual concepts make sense to you or inspire fun. WotC will beat you and all of its customers over the head with Pelor and the Raven Queen. D&D core have zero tolerance for creative freedom to personalize your own Divine character concept
Friar Tuck is divine not psionic. Western not eastern. Monotheistic not pantheistic. A wanderer not a mountain-top meditator.
However... I will take a look at the Monk and see if the crunchy rules can be reflavoured with mediaeval fluffy goodness.
I think he should be divine and able to take advantage of Domains, Channel Divinity and other signature divine tricks.
I think, to a degree, you're confusing 'Monk the class' with 'monk the concept'. I played a monk and he was most assuredly not eastern and not a mountain-top meditator. He was a back-alley brawler.
Hippolyte: Friar Tuck is divine not psionic. Monotheistic not pantheistic.
LOL! Climb aboard the polytheism railroad. If you are using the Divine power source, you have no choice except to be polytheistic. The core setting has no other options except polytheism. Your Friar Tuck has to brown-nose petty killable gods. WotC doesnt care about you, or your character, or what spiritual concepts make sense to you or inspire fun. WotC will beat you and all of its customers over the head with Pelor and the Raven Queen. D&D core has zero tolerance for creative freedom to personalize your own Divine character concept.
Bull.
The core Divine flavor is unappealing and suffocating.
Even the spiritual flavor in the Visanti article suffers under the overbearing weight of polytheism. With regard to Visanti flavor ...
- Visanti are 'profoundly spiritual'.
- Visanti love healing magic, especially 'restorative rituals'.
- Visanti dislike polytheism - they 'mock the gods' and consider them nothing more than 'fallible and killable'.
Nevertheless, in total contradiction to Visanti flavor, any Visanti character who happens to use the Divine power source must still cowtow to stupid gods.
- Any Visanti with a Divine class has 'an extremely personal relationship to a deity or deities'.
Hey its the SeekZerro Fallacy again!
Hey, Herrozerro is unable to follow detailed debates. Again.
Herro, just because you are a fanboy, doesnt mean you are right.
D&D 4e can still continue to improve and continue to outreach to more customers.
Most potential customers dont fantasize about being polytheists.
The more D&D shoves polytheism down throats, the more these customers will vomit.
The offical flavor needs to include the possibility of alternative spiritualities for the Divine power source.
Hey, Herrozerro is unable to follow detailed debates. Again.
Herro, just because you are a fanboy, doesnt mean you are right.
D&D 4e can still continue to improve and continue to outreach to more customers.
Most potential customers dont fantasize about being polytheists.
The more D&D shoves polytheism down throats, the more people will vomit.
Once again SeekZerro fallacy. Your argument is that because its not supplied its not legal. We have gone over this in great lengths in the Cleric Essentials thread whch you seemed to drop out of just when it was getting good.
Its still the same old argument.
I find it quite interesting that you keep claiming that the customer's will be unsatisfied when it seems like a slim minority at best seem to have the issue you have. which is to just add something other then polytheism into your games.
Where are these "Most Potential customers"? Did you know 45.982985% of statistics are made up on the spot? Im gonig to make up a new statistic right here. Most potential customers realize they can play the game anyway they want.
Zerro, you get it wrong every time.
Drik, I think i can say that you are the only one here who is having this problem.
*rolleyes* Herro, are you saying Im the only player who is dissatisfied with the official Divine fluff??
These forums are filled with players who voice their own need for alternative Divine fluff. Some insist on a monotheistic character despite lack of official support. Some object to the latest 'core' article about the Raven Queen. And so on. Lots of players dislike the official Divine fluff, for various reasons.
The official Divine flavor needs flexibility - to include the interests of many different kinds of players.
*rolleyes* Herro, are you saying Im the only player who is dissatisfied with the official Divine fluff?
These forums are filled with players who voice their own need for alternative Divine fluff. Some insist on a monotheistic character despite lack of official support. Some object to the latest 'core' article about the Raven Queen. And so on. Lots of players dislike the official Divine fluff, for various reasons.
The official Divine flavor needs flexibility - to welcome the personal interests of many different kinds of players.
Im not seeing much heartache, Im not saying you are the only one with issues, you seem to be the only one who has problems dealing with it. In fact while some may have expressed issues with you you seem to be the only one advocating that WotC is somehow pushing a Polytheistic Agenda.
The simple solution is that you can worship whatever you want in D&D. You are using poor usage of what you view as RAW to make a stink over it all when the simple solution is to say: "My character worships X"
Even Divine characters who are Visanti have polytheistic fluff.
It is fail.
Herro: The simple solution is that you can worship whatever you want in D&D.
The simple solution is, OFFICIAL FLAVOR exists that says, you can worship whatever you want in D&D.
The Cleric class description needs to include a statement that says: a Cleric can choose any kind of spiritual tradition. An openended list of examples helps.
Same goes for the Divine power source generally.
I still don't understand what it is you want. Doesn't it already do that?
In 3e, the official Cleric flavor made it clear, a Cleric can worship anything. Likewise, the official mechanics supported this openended flavor
However in 4e, the official Cleric flavor lacks this tradition of creative freedom. Likewise, the 4e polytheistic flavor so tramples the mechanics, for example, even Channel Divinity technically requires the character to be filled with the might of a polytheistic 'patron deity' 'once per day'. The problem is, the polytheistic flavor is too overbearing.
The 4e core flavor lacks even a hint of anything except polytheism.
The 4e designers chose to railroad the entire Divine power source with polytheistic flavor.
The official polytheistic flavor is too oppressive. The Divine fluff lacks an opening for nonpolytheistic possibilities. The core setting leaves no room to include the creativity of individual players to come up with their own spiritual concepts for their own Divine characters.
Herro: The simple solution is that you can worship whatever you want in D&D.
The simple solution is, OFFICIAL FLAVOR exists that says, you can worship whatever you want in D&D.
The Cleric class description needs to include a statement that says: a Cleric can choose any kind of spiritual tradition. An openended list of examples helps.
Same goes for the Divine power source generally.
Haldrik Im going to use an illistration to show you how silly you sound at least to me.
Lets say haldrik buys WotCs new Frozen burrito line and he buys a pack of Barbarian Bean burritos. Now on the package Haldrik reads: "Microwave on high for three minutes" so haldrik does so. But when he pulls them out of the microwave they are still cold. Take aback by this heinous act he goes to the WotC forums to complain.
Now Haldrik is given a lot of advice such as:
(Just do it anyways) "Haldrik why dont you just microwave them for a minute longer?"
To which Haldrik replies: "Stormwind fallacy, just because I can microwave them longer doenst mean I should because the packaging said to only do it for three."
(Other campaigns allow it) So another poster says: "Haldrik I dont see your issue, on my package of Chaotic Chicken burritos it says: 'Microwave on high for aproximately three minutes your results may vary' So why dont you follow these instruction?"
to which He replies: "But Im using Barbarian Bean! Not Chaotic Chicken, if they meant for me to vary form three minutes they would have said it on barbarian bean!"
So this continues for quite sometime and Haldrik raves on and on how WotC is shoving half cooked Barbarian Bean Burritos down our throats and that so many more potential customers would buy them if they would include the words: "Approximately Three minutes". Because when WotC says three minutes they mean THREE MINUTES!
Edit to add: So Haldrik what you are suggesting is for WotC to put on all their burrito packages one more sentence, when any sane person can just do it themselves?
What the hell is a Visanti? There were several articles this month about the Vistani, a culture from the olden days of Ravenloft, but Visanti? Sounds kinda like a Hindu god to me.
Oh, and it's extremely trivially easy to turn the Divine source Monotheistic, or even philosophy based, if you want.
Step 1) name god/phylosophy
Step 2) Choose domains
there, your done. You could worship a rock for all you wanted.
"That's a very interesting, but apt metaphor there. Now, the thing is, for me, divine power means divine power. Why would some divine characters draw that power from the gods, and some clerics just have it? How does that make sense? You see, as a DM, I know why and how things work the way they do in my world. I know my world's creation myths, how wizards cast arcane power, how gods get their power, and what makes the world tick. This way, nothing in my world is contradictory, because I can reason through things, going back to the source."
"If you are playing in the Core 4e PoL world, the gods grant divine power, that is it... The problem with your desire for monotheism, is that in a world like the ones DnD assumes you are playing in (except possibly Eberron), you'd have to be a moron to be truly monotheistic. The gods don't just sit back and wait for things to happen, they are active, known forces in the world."
"You quote the Vistani article that says they 'mock the gods'... Do you realize that means they still ACKNOWLEDGE the gods? The core ideas are what they are now, so if you want religious diversity, you have to play in a world where the gods are not a known factor, or play a character who is ignorant. Of course, if you wanted to just play a character who ignorantly denies the existence of the other gods, well... I won't say any more because I don't want to be 'baiting'."
"The thing about it is, create your own setting and world (or talk about it with your DM), or GTFO. Now, not to say expressing opinions to help the game evolve isn't good, but expressing your opinion and then telling everyone their solutions aren't good enough because you want to temper tantrum that you aren't getting it exactly your way, then you forfeit your right to people giving a crap what you think."
As far as I can tell, he's being an idiot.
Look, despite all your advocating stuff about 'open ended spiritual traditions' and other stuff, you keep coming back to monotheism vs polytheism, but I'm begining to think you don't actually know what they mean. You keep saying that monotheism doesn't exist in D&D and polytheism is 'forced' upon you as a player.
PLAYERS != CHARACTERS
Let me put this simply for you. As a player, you are NOT your character. You might identify with the character's motivations, but that representation of abstract mechanics and fluff is not the person playing it. It's an abstract representation of mechanics and fluff.
To elabourate, you say you want support for monotheism, but I don't see any lack for that sort of support.
The game is, I will admit, a polytheistic universe. There are many gods, spirits, and powerful beings. Except in Dark Sun, where they're all dead. Now, based on your nearly incomprehensible article, I think what you're trying to say is this:
I want WotC to publish a campaign setting in which there is only one God, and He is All Powerful.
Because you can't be saying that you want 'monotheistic support' in normal settings because such a thing is- especially using your own logic, impossible. From the omnipotent realm of the player, whom exists outside the imaginary pretendy fun time gameland of the game, there is more then one god. There will always be more then one god. The only way to 'ever' support monotheism for a player is to retcon all those gods from existance- no other way exists to 'support' monotheism from a player perspective.
From a character perspective is a different story.
Explain to me where the game says 'your character cannot believe there is only one god/dess'.
Explain to me where the game says 'your character cannot believe there is only one god/dess'.
I think you hit the nail right on the head here. just like in real life We have several Monotheistic religions in the world. Now from an outside perspective mankind just from having multiple monotheistic religions is a polytheistic race.
If you were to look deeper into the Character itself a single character might only believe that Bahaumit is the only god there is and Tiamat is the equivalent of Satan. Said character might view all other religions in the D&D universe as false religions or maks for Bahaumit's glory.
Its not hard at all.
The Cleric class description needs to include a statement that says: a Cleric can choose any kind of spiritual tradition. An openended list of examples helps...
FLUFF is suffocating
You mean like the statement that says "a Cleric generally worships a deity, a group of deities, or even a philosophy?" Fancy that! It's already there AND open ended.
Fluff is non-binding, always has been, and especially when the DM is making his own world. The mechanics support chosing a faith outside of the PHB and nothing but the small percentage of completely optional faith specific feats/items/etc are restricted from you by doing so.
"That's a very interesting, but apt metaphor there. Now, the thing is, for me, divine power means divine power. Why would some divine characters draw that power from the gods, and some clerics just have it?
"If you are playing in the Core 4e PoL world, the gods grant divine power, that is it.
Except the part where is says receiving power from the gods is a very rare occurence, and the power usually comes from the rituals of ordination, which is why gods no longer have Divine power off switches for players.
The core Divine flavor is unappealing and suffocating.
I find it appealing. So, error at line 1.
Step 1) name god/phylosophy
Step 2) Choose domains
Step 3: Profit?
As far as I can tell, he's being an idiot.
Unfortunately, the Report Post button isnt working yet. If there are any moderators reading this, the above comment is an adhominem attack, and harrassment.
I honestly dont get where the hostility comes from.
I suspect there are still some people fighting against the Christian Fundamentalists of the 1970s. Hello! Join the rest of us who live in the 21st Century. We live in a global community and breathe spiritual diversity.
I have lived in cosmopolitan cities. So far, my close friends include: Jews of various streams, Christians of various denominations, Atheists, a New-Ager, a Therevadan Buddhist and a Hindu from Sri Lanka, A Hindu from India (who married a Zoroastrian), a Sunni Muslim from Turkey, a Celtic Wiccan, a Norse Asatru, a Pure-Land Buddhist from Korea, a Scientologist, a Post-Modern Satanist from Lebanon (LOL, as one friend puts it, 'shes an intense chick'), a Santera priestess from Cuba, a Santero priest from Peurto Rico (whose tradition preserves pure Yoruba animism from Africa). These are friends who I know well. Who I trust.
Spiritual diversity is an intimate part of my reality.
Next week, I will visit my dad. When I do, I will also see four people. Two are close friends: one is now a Catholic priest, the other is an Atheist Jew. A third is the brother of my childhood friend - theyr sons of a Baptist minister and I grew up playing D&D with them. Another is someone I met while traveling. He is Asatru with a special devotion to the goddess Hel (who by the way inspires much of the D&D Raven Queen, albeit he views Hel less so as a deity of death, and moreso as a Paleolithic All-Mother).
If there are any of you who think the whole universe is divided between the 'Creationists' versus the 'Darwinists', and you have to fight this battle. Wake up. That race is over. The crowds have gone. The sun has set. No one cares. This ideological struggle has been outmoded and is irrelevant.
The global reality of spiritual diversity is good, healthy, fascinating, and fun.
...
The global reality of spiritual diversity is good, healthy, fascinating, and fun.
If only the rest of the globe felt as you do. Unfortunatly that is not the case, globally spiritual diversity is not embraced by most people.
*tl;dr*
Haldrik. Dude. PLEASE stop dragging this same horribly bludgeoned horse carcass of an argument into every thread with the word 'Divine' in it. The community would appreciate it.
Edit: And accusing those who disagree with you (everyone else) of being 'anti-creationist darwinists' who don't believe in spiritual diversity and are engaging in a ideological proxy war on an internet forum is a little unecessary. And almost hilarious in its absurdity.
Look, despite all your advocating stuff about 'open ended spiritual traditions' and other stuff, you keep coming back to monotheism vs polytheism
Kerrus, you are dead wrong.
In fact, I dont keep coming back to 'monotheism'.
For my next character, I want to play a Cleric who is a transcendent mystic that comes from a Psionic culture. He views the Divine as the infinite mind that includes all sentient beings (ie, telepathically) and the infinite force that moves all things (ie, telekinetically). Important, the Divine isnt a conscious being, but rather is an abstraction of consciousness itself. He has a nontheistic concept of Divinivity, more like Buddhism, albeit with a nod to Hindu atman-brahman philosophy. LOL, and apparently some Star Wars 'The Force'.
That said, there are many D&D players who do prefer to play monotheistic character. They have the right to play the characters that they enjoy. Why do you care what they do with their own characters? Butt out!
By the way, Im trying to talk my Muslim friend into playing D&D with us. But when the description of the Cleric class actually says ... a 'Divine' 'cleric' MUST be a polytheist ... I promise you, it is deeply offensive to him. He doesnt care if *you* want to play a polytheistic character, but *he* doesnt want to play a polytheistic character. It doesnt appeal to him.
But I'm begining to think you don't actually know what they mean. You keep saying that monotheism doesn't exist in D&D and polytheism is 'forced' upon you as a player.
Kerrus, you are dead wrong.
I know what these words mean. Polytheism, montheism, monism, henotheism, idealism, materialism, positivism, solpsism, animism, cosmic religion versus transcendent religion, numen versus noumenon, etc. etc. I know what they mean.
PLAYERS != CHARACTERS
Why are you shouting? Seems to me, *YOU* are the one who is waging a reallife ideological battle!
Keep *your* reallife ideological intolerance out of *our* D&D!
Let me put this simply for you. As a player, you are NOT your character.
When you find yourself saying something that is absolutely obvious to everybody, doesnt it occur to you, you are the one who is missing the point?
Let me put it to you simply. D&D is fiction. D&D is a game. The purpose of playing D&D is to enjoy the game.
Now, in D&D, I have the option to play a Fighter class. It is fiction. Will I choose to play a Fighter character? Probably not. Because there are other options I enjoy much more.
In D&D, I have the option to play a polytheistic character. Will I choose to play a polytheistic character? Probably not. Because there are other options I enjoy much more.
D&D is about fun. For me the D&D version of polytheism isnt fun. Is that simple enough for you?
The game is, I will admit, a polytheistic universe.
O gee. You 'admit' the D&D core is polytheistic. How obvious. However thats a bigger concession than you might think.
Players who dont care for the polytheistic flavor will enjoy the game less.
I think what you're trying to say is this: I want WotC to publish a campaign setting in which there is only one God, and He is All Powerful.
Surprise? Kerrus, you are dead wrong. Again.
Do you even read before you write your posts? Or are you still debating against someone else who I never met?
You can't be saying that you want 'monotheistic support' in normal settings because such a thing is - impossible. .. There is more then one god. There will always be more then one god. The only way to 'ever' support monotheism for a player is to retcon all those gods from existance - no other way exists to 'support' monotheism from a player perspective.
Kerrus, you are dead wrong. Again.
Not only do you miss the point, and draw your own false conclusions based on your own imagination ...
But you make your ignorance obvious about what the technical term 'monotheism' means.
By the way, do you realize, there are reallife spiritual traditions that are simultaneously monotheistic and polytheistic? For example, the polytheistic 'gods' personify specific aspects of creation (like angels or even saintly humans are sometimes said to do), and yet the transcendent monotheistic 'God' remains utterly beyond the finite limitations of space-time.
The bottom line is, get *your* ideological intolerance out *our* D&D.
Back to D&D. The Astral Sea is a big place. So big, every single sapient creature can experience their own dominion there, with their own unique experiences of the Divine. And there is still so much room for more. Creatures can even visit the domains of other creatures, to check out alterative opinions about the Divine.
D&D has enough room for the creativity of each and every player.
The D&D cosmology makes spiritual diversity inevitable.
When you find yourself saying something that is absolutely obvious to everybody, doesnt it occur to you, you are the one who is missing the point?
Maybe you should consider taking you're own advice. It is rather blatantly obvious to most players (or at least most forum goers) that the divine classes can be devoted to numerous divine concepts, be it pantheon, a single all encompassing deity, or merely a spiritual philosophy. Maybe if you weren't so hung on a few lines of flavor text in the core books which are written based on the default setting you could see that while the text might emphasize pantheistic religions it does not exclude other types of faith.
Tharag: The divine classes can be devoted to numerous divine concepts.
The official class description MUST make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, the Divine characters can choose from any number of divine concepts.
My Muslim friend, who has never played D&D before, must be able to read the Cleric class - in the Players Handbook 1 - and know for a fact, without any ambiguity, his Cleric character doesnt need to be a polytheist.
My Muslim friend, who has never played D&D before, must be able to read the Cleric class - in the Players Handbook 1 - and know for a fact, without any ambiguity, his Cleric character doesnt need to be a polytheist.
Well unless he is as stubborn and overly literal as you, that shouldn't be a problem.
Tharag, I dont understand. Why do *you* oppose clarifying the rules?
If, in your opinion, the rules allow players to choose whatever spiritual tradition they want for their Divine class, then its good to make these rules clear. Right?
Of course, as I read the texts, the designers of the core setting CLEARLY INTEND to deny Divine classes any choice except polytheism.
So, some clarification would be nice!
If, in your opinion, the rules allow players to choose whatever spiritual tradition they want for their Divine class, then its good to make these rules clear. Right?Of course, as I read the texts, the designers of the core setting CLEARLY INTEND to deny Divine classes any choice except polytheism.
I should think that the fairly one-sided responses your posts on the topic tend to produce should speak to the fact that the rules are rather clear. You're problem coming to terms with this seems to be a personal problem rather than a fault with the rules as written.
I can read the Cleric class. I understand what it clearly says. Polytheism only.
I shouldnt have to be a rules expert to figure out from hints elsewhere, the Cleric has other options.
A customer who has never played D&D before should be able to pick up a Players Handbook and know a Cleric doesnt have to be a polytheist.
When you find yourself saying something that is absolutely obvious to everybody, doesnt it occur to you, you are the one who is missing the point?
Haldrik. Dude. PLEASE stop dragging this same horribly bludgeoned horse carcass of an argument into every thread with the word 'Divine' in it. The community would appreciate it.
Designers. Developlers. Dudes. PLEASE stop dragging these same horribly bludgeoned carcasses of polytheistic gods into every publication with the word 'Divine' in it.
Haldrik. Dude. PLEASE stop dragging this same horribly bludgeoned horse carcass of an argument into every thread with the word 'Divine' in it. The community would appreciate it.
Designers. Developlers. Dudes. PLEASE stop everything and dedicate time and effort to my personal obsession that doesn't really seem to be bothering anyone else.
ScalesOfFate: Blah, blah, blah, ...
Duckspeak.
ScalesOfFate: Blah, blah, blah, ...
Duckspeak.
lol wut? Duck says "Quack, quack," yo, not "Blah, blah."
Longass post about spiritual diversity
And what exactly does any of that have to do with the Divine Power source?
And not even a single acknowledgement that you mispelled Vistani nine times in one post? Poor fake gypsies. What did they ever do to you? 
Haldrik, please microwave you burritos for a little longer, or in other words just use some common sense.
im sure you Muslim friend will read this and think nothing of what you keep pointing out:
Clerics are battle leaders who are invested with divine
power. They blast foes with magical prayers, bolster
and heal companions, and lead the way to victory with
a mace in one hand and a holy symbol in the other.
Clerics run the gamut from humble servants of the
common folk to ruthless enforcers of evil gods.
As a cleric, the deity (or deities) you choose to
revere goes a long way toward defining you, or at least
how other people in the world see you. You could be
a platinum-garbed envoy of Bahamut seeking justice
throughout the land, a shadowy follower of Sehanine
with a roguish streak, a burly disciple of Kord who
believes the virtue of strength is sufficient for all challenges,
or a dwarf cleric of Moradin bringing honor to
the denizens of your mountain home.
Will you protect what is sacred to your god, quest
for legendary holy artifacts, pursue a life of evangelical
adventuring, or attempt all these deeds and more?
if anything the first few paragraphs suggest both mono and polytheism. you are taking some obscure wording later on to keep your argument alive.
I think it's time for a visual comprehension and logic test, don't you?
Haldrik? There are five dots on this strip. I want you to pick one and tell me what colour it is.
ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLRIGHTY THEN KIDDOS! This thread has gotten pretty far off track so ol' Sailor Jimbob here is gonna haul it right back in. Hang on y'all, it's gonna be a heckuva ride.
wooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
So. I'm thinking the next divine class will be either a lightly armored divine hero (Shepherd) or a lightly armored divine leader (Priest/Prophet). Both the Leader and the Defender of the divine world are strongly flavored towards heavy armor, so I think a lightly armored alternate flavor would be unique and plentiful, especially in historical references. They'd be pretty easy to do and to make unique from their current counterparts (I think the Shepherd would be more unique than the Priest/Prophet).
For the outside bet, I'm going to put my money on a Heavily Armored Striker (Knight/Templar/Cavalier). It's a little out there, since it almost crosses into the realm of martial, but he could be bolstered by the power of the Divine. Something of a self buffer that gets a bonus to attack/damage/whatever by drawing the blood of enemies. Since you need a new mechanic to make a class interesting, I'd consider something like "Radiant Smite: When you deal damage to a target, you deal an additional 1d6 radiant damage on attacks against that target until the end of your next round." It's a simple striker mechanic, straight forward, that would not only reward single target burn downs, but also offer up a new mechanic for the flavor of this particular divine striker.
By the way, Im trying to talk my Muslim friend into playing D&D with us. But when the description of the Cleric class actually says ... a 'Divine' 'cleric' MUST be a polytheist ... I promise you, it is deeply offensive to him. He doesnt care if *you* want to play a polytheistic character, but *he* doesnt want to play a polytheistic character. It doesnt appeal to him.
This is an interesting debate, unfortunately I've gotta go to work in a bit so I can't read through all of it. Apologies if the following has already been said.
May I offer some advice--show your friend the bit in the DMG that says the DM can pretty much overwrite any rule he/she wants for his/her own campaign, and then tell him you're running it such that the bit about clerics NEEDING to be polytheists is not in effect, and clerics can worship whatever they want. Make up some channel divinities (or adapt existing ones) for a monotheistic deity. Domains too, I suppose. D&D is what you make of it; it's not just what's in the rules. (If you're not the DM, then get the DM in on it.)
I agree with the notion that the PHB probably could've/should've been written a little more open-ended.
Power Source: Divine. You have been invested with the authority to wield divine power on behalf of a deity, faith, or philosophy
This is a quote from the cleric class section of the PHB. I'm not really sure how much more clear it could be. Additionally, other sections of the book (as previously stated) reinforce this concept with things like open ended lists, which is exactly what you were asking for.
A life philosophy that I've found useful is to look around. When everybody else is disagreeing with me maybe I need to evaluate my own opinion on the matter.
ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLRIGHTY THEN KIDDOS! This thread has gotten pretty far off track so ol' Sailor Jimbob here is gonna haul it right back in. Hang on y'all, it's gonna be a heckuva ride.
Alas, it is too late. This thread's already been
Let us get back to talking about friars. 
(I think only Dark Age of Camelot had a friar, so that must be why no one else is cheering for him. Too bad World of Warcraft had not copied him along with the other classes.)
Or how about the next divine class is a singing, flying nun?
I sincerely hope they do not make another defender class. The paladin covers every angle on that. Indeed, a fighter with a single multi-class feat in cleric is a perfect divine defender.
Let us get back to talking about friars.
Or how about the next divine class is a singing, flying nun?
I sincerely hope they do not make another defender class. The paladin covers every angle on that. Indeed, a fighter with a single multi-class feat in cleric is a perfect divine defender.
I agree, I would like to see either another controller or leader personally. THere are too many strikers and the paladin is already the iconic divine defender.
Another divine striker might be fun. Maybe a ranged witch hunter or something.
too many strikers as is, not enough controllers or defenders. I'd like to see what they could do with divine defender that isn't a paladin (yes it's iconic, but that doesn't mean it's the only one), contorller would be cool. I still think it might be weird having three controllers in one book (psion and seeker and theoretical divine controlelr), especially if there are only 6 classes (good guess, and supported but not confirmed). I'm hoping defender, leader or controller are fine, I would be most unhappy with yet another striker.
The basic hope is that the new classes will be thematically, as well as mechanically, distinct. This may be part of the reason why the Avenger worked; it managed to carve out a flavor of its own for the Divine Striker role. Before it came out there was some fear that the new Divine Striker class would be another heavily-armored divine knight type; basically a Paladin with a different class role.
That's part of the reason for people thinking the new divine class (or classes, we still don't know how many we'll be getting for certain) will be lightly-armored; it's difficult to think of a divine class with heavy armor that manages to set itself apart thematically from the Paladin or Cleric.
I like to see a Divine class that has some natural ability; similar to the Sorcerer who's born with the power already inside them.
Think of Hercules, Achilles and the other greek heroes, they're the original superheroes of storytelling; they're born with super powers and use their powers to help their fellow man.
Perhaps some are the mortal progeny of a god, some are prophets who's birth was foretold, some are unknowingly the reincarnation of a long dead saint.
I could see the class having a lot of the same story themes that are classic comic book themes.
I think we could use a class less about dogma and morality and more about the Gods as a power source like any other.
I would also like to see the Archivist make a return too
I like to see a Divine class that has some natural ability; similar to the Sorcerer who's born with the power already inside them.
Think of Hercules, Achilles and the other greek heroes, they're the original superheroes of storytelling; they're born with super powers and use their powers to help their fellow man.
Perhaps some are the mortal progeny of a god, some are prophets who's birth was foretold, some are unknowingly the reincarnation of a long dead saint.
I could see the class having a lot of the same story themes that are classic comic book themes.
I think we could use a class less about dogma and morality and more about the Gods as a power source like any other.
I would also like to see the Archivist make a return too
I like that idea.
I like to see a Divine class that has some natural ability; similar to the Sorcerer who's born with the power already inside them.
Think of Hercules, Achilles and the other greek heroes, they're the original superheroes of storytelling; they're born with super powers and use their powers to help their fellow man.
Perhaps some are the mortal progeny of a god, some are prophets who's birth was foretold, some are unknowingly the reincarnation of a long dead saint.
I could see the class having a lot of the same story themes that are classic comic book themes.
I think we could use a class less about dogma and morality and more about the Gods as a power source like any other.
I would also like to see the Archivist make a return too
Incredible Hercules any one? Eh? Eh?
That's part of the reason for people thinking the new divine class (or classes, we still don't know how many we'll be getting for certain) will be lightly-armored; it's difficult to think of a divine class with heavy armor that manages to set itself apart thematically from the Paladin or Cleric.
A class is about far more than the type of equipment they wield. To think otherwise is to fall into the same fallacy that is causing some people to claim the seeker is pointless because the ranger is already an archer class, or that the existence of tempest fighters and whirling barbarians some how infringe too much upon the ranger.
It's not what equipment a class uses but how they use it. If the mechanics are unique, then there is no reason there couldn't be another divine class in heavy armor, even another such defender could theoretically exist.
I like to see a Divine class that has some natural ability; similar to the Sorcerer who's born with the power already inside them.
Think of Hercules, Achilles and the other greek heroes, they're the original superheroes of storytelling; they're born with super powers and use their powers to help their fellow man.
Perhaps some are the mortal progeny of a god, some are prophets who's birth was foretold, some are unknowingly the reincarnation of a long dead saint.
I could see the class having a lot of the same story themes that are classic comic book themes.
I think we could use a class less about dogma and morality and more about the Gods as a power source like any other.
I would also like to see the Archivist make a return too
I like that idea.
Me too! So much so, that I have reduplicated the picture to whet everyone's imagination!
That's part of the reason for people thinking the new divine class (or classes, we still don't know how many we'll be getting for certain) will be lightly-armored; it's difficult to think of a divine class with heavy armor that manages to set itself apart thematically from the Paladin or Cleric.
A class is about far more than the type of equipment they wield. To think otherwise is to fall into the same fallacy that is causing some people to claim the seeker is pointless because the ranger is already an archer class, or that the existence of tempest fighters and whirling barbarians some how infringe too much upon the ranger.It's not what equipment a class uses but how they use it. If the mechanics are unique, then there is no reason there couldn't be another divine class in heavy armor, even another such defender could theoretically exist.
True enough. Equipment is a part of a character archetype, but it's not the whole thing. Likewise, there's more to a class than its mechanics; the other part being its thematic niche.
For instance, a second divine defender using heavy armor would need something to make it unique; make it so that it couldn't easily be replaced by a paladin. A different secondary role might be the way to go; making this class more of a secondary striker than a leader. Then, of course, you'd have to be careful not to make the class into a Divine Fighter; something resembling another class with a different power source.
The god-blooded angle suggested earlier sounds like a good way to go; a class inspired by the ancient mythological heroes with divine ancestry. There might be a few ways to implement the class to set it apart from others.
1. Divine brawler using fists, grappling attacks, and simple weapons. Since the ranger's schtick of two-weapon fighting is shared by the fighter and barbarian, there's no reason why the monk should have a monopoly on unarmed combat. This would fit in with the new class's Herculean flavor, and tie in to the "Sacred Fist" divine monk archetype from Third Edition.
2. Heavy-weapon bruiser. Perhaps make the class CON primary with WIS and CHA as riders, or use STR/CON/CHA (though the barbarian already does that, and we want to avoid too much overlap). This class would have a lot of radiant and physical attacks that knock enemies all over the place, and perhaps some ability to spend healing surges to enhance the power of his attacks.
3. Divine Aura expert. This would make this class able to serve as a secondary leader or controller, depending on build. Daily powers would be able to call upon a divine aura, which would boost allies or hinder enemies near the character for the rest of the encounter.
3. Divine Aura expert. This would make this class able to serve as a secondary leader or controller, depending on build. Daily powers would be able to call upon a divine aura, which would boost allies or hinder enemies near the character for the rest of the encounter.
This was something I thought of as well for the class; because they themselves are divine beings this would be a good concept to implement Divine Auras, they inspire not with words or devotion but with just being a godlike being.
I think it would be cool if the class had a different kind of Aura always going based on the build that does something small keyed off a secondary stat, like a bonus to healing surge values for example. But then they can use Dailies to add in other bonuses and ongoing effects to the aura, and some of the Encounters could have a one time effect on things within the aura.
It would make sense as a Con based class, because you are tapping into your own divine makeup. I see Str as being a secondary for sure, but the other secondary I'm not sure about yet; though it's hard to imagine a Aura based class that does not make use Cha in some way
I could see the Cha build minoring in Leader, like how Jason and Achilles had devoted followers like the the Argonauts and the Myrmidons. And the Str build could minor in Controller, frightening away foes, thunderclaps, moving the earth and grappling giant monsters
I'm actually starting to kinda like this concept. Hmmm.
I'm actually starting to kinda like this concept. Hmmm.
Kinda? I'm loving it, it's a divine class I would love to play(i'm usually not big on divine characters, made a few but as a whole not that into them)
McNancy: It would make sense as a Con based class, because you are tapping into your own divine makeup.
Sounds workable. Con is an interesting choice for the prime key ability. The flavor of tapping into ones own Immortal nature makes this sensical.
I see Str as being a secondary for sure.
Str is an obvious choice because of archetypes like Heracles/Hercules, even Sampson who had an auspicious birth, and so on. Dont Wonder Woman and Xena also have Immortal heritage? Altho Str is obvious, it seems mundane by itself. I like McNancys flavor to focus on Con as the primary key. Somehow it emphasizes their otherworldly Immortal nature.
But the other secondary I'm not sure about yet; though it's hard to imagine a Aura based class that does not make use Cha in some way.
For me Cha is an obvious choice too. Not only because divine figures are often by definition 'charismatic', but it matches the archetype of a god-king. The archetype includes the royal dynasties of many cultures. The Norse kings descend from the gods Frey (or Freyja), Thor, and Odin, depending on the dynasty. The Japanese emperors descend from the Kami. In Egypt, Pharaoh Hatshepsut, a female god-king, claimed divine blood by descending from Ahmose who was understood as an 'incarnation' (like an avatar) of the god Horus. Historically, Alexander The Great acquired his divine nature when conquering Egypt thus becoming its god-king, and eventually being widely worshiped as a god. The Roman imperial cult of emperor worship held that emperors became gods after death, like Vespasian, however some emperors like Nero scandously claimed divine nature while still alive. And so on, most ancient kings were considered divine. Even the monotheistic traditions adapt this archetype for their rulers, like King David who is called a 'son' of the divine, and the 'God-crowned' Byzantine emperors. All of these heroic divine leaders exhibit charisma.
With the archetype of the divine hero, em acquires ems divine nature in various ways. Some are born from a union of a human and an Immortal (be em god or angel or deified human or something equivalent). Some inherit their divine blood from such a half-Immortal ancestor. Some acquire divine nature when achieving power. Some gain their divine nature by auspicious birth or ecstatic experience in anticipation of their destiny. And so on.
Notably, using Con as the primary key ability and Cha as the auxilliary, the Half-Elf will be good at this class. This requires convincing fluff to explain, since theyr part Fey, not part Immortal.
The mechanics of this Divine Con class needs to be so different from the Cleric and Paladin, to qualify as a separate new class and not a new build.
Notably, using Con as the primary key ability and Cha as the auxilliary, the Half-Elf will be good at this class. This requires convincing fluff to explain this propensity, since their part Fey, not part Immortal.
Regardles of Str or Cha, the mechanics of this Divine Con class needs to be so different from the Cleric and Paladin, to qualify as a separate new class and not a new build.
I thought about the Half-Elf issue too, but I think it could still work, there're elf gods and human gods as well as gods who are sometimes either or both. Also the Half-Elves of Tolkien's world come to mind when talking about Divine heritage and great kings.
As for making the class different from Paladin or Cleric, I would hope that it has something new to offer, mechanically speaking, as well and I don't think it would be impossible to design it that way.
em acquires ems divine nature in various ways.
What are these em things?
em acquires ems divine nature in various ways.
What are these em things?
(Crosses fingers and hopes "em" is not one of those new-fangled gender-neutral pronouns instead of "he.")
Notably, using Con as the primary key ability and Cha as the auxilliary, the Half-Elf will be good at this class. This requires convincing fluff to explain this propensity, since their part Fey, not part Immortal.
Regardles of Str or Cha, the mechanics of this Divine Con class needs to be so different from the Cleric and Paladin, to qualify as a separate new class and not a new build.
I thought about the Half-Elf issue too, but I think it could still work, there're elf gods and human gods as well as gods who are sometimes either or both. Also the Half-Elves of Tolkien's world come to mind when talking about Divine heritage and great kings.
As for making the class different from Paladin or Cleric, I would hope that it has something new to offer, mechanically speaking, as well and I don't think it would be impossible to design it that way.
Would it really be that hard to justify? Its not like a human or dragonborn gains the immortal origin when they take this class. Similarly a Deva Draconic Sorcerer doesn't, for example, have any problems.
And wouldn't this be a better leader or controller (did i miss the siwtch from defender?) I think making him a controller with leader and defender as secondaries would be awseome. debuffing auras for the enemies, buffing auras for the learer aspect, resistance/temphitpoints/other-defendery-stuff for the defender aspect. His attack powers could be Range: an enemy within your aura. lots of coolness there, and it would work for Con as primary, and Charisma and Wisdom as secondary (CON for attackpowers, CHA for leaderpowers, WIS for defenderpowers.)
And wouldn't this be a better leader or controller (did i miss the siwtch from defender?) I think making him a controller with leader and defender as secondaries would be awseome. debuffing auras for the enemies, buffing auras for the learer aspect, resistance/temphitpoints/other-defendery-stuff for the defender aspect. His attack powers could be Range: an enemy within your aura. lots of coolness there, and it would work for Con as primary, and Charisma and Wisdom as secondary (CON for attackpowers, CHA for leaderpowers, WIS for defenderpowers.)
It sounds to me like you're just trying to make the Invoker.
No, I want big HPs and Healing Surges, Dmg resist utils and unmovability, the defender is the perfect choice for the Hercules/Gilgamesh superheroesq archetype
... But what do we call this class?
The Stalwart. It's a class Idea I've been mulling around for a bit.
To me the character wouldn't so much be "Divine Offspring" (as that would be a function of Race or Basckground) but has been chosen by some Divine force to be the last bastion between his charges and those who seek to bring them harm. I envision the class as being similar to the Monk in that it's a colthie yet has good defenses although their protection comes from divine blessings rather than focused mental discipline. My vision, however, has them using anything handy as a weapon, it's the Divine energy they channel that makes them dangerous and not the weapon they choose to carry. These aren't temple knights and battlefield clerics. They are simple common folk who've been elevated to the role of divine protector of those who cannot defend themselves.
Yes, they share space with the Paladin. They are both defenders afterall. But where the Paladin fits the concept of the armored knight or Templar, the Stalwart fits the wandering friar or divine "hero" motiff.
The Stalwart. It's a class Idea I've been mulling around for a bit.
To me the character wouldn't so much be "Divine Offspring" (as that would be a function of Race or Basckground) but has been chosen by some Divine force to be the last bastion between his charges and those who seek to bring them harm. I envision the class as being similar to the Monk in that it's a colthie yet has good defenses although their protection comes from divine blessings rather than focused mental discipline. My vision, however, has them using anything handy as a weapon, it's the Divine energy they channel that makes them dangerous and not the weapon they choose to carry. These aren't temple knights and battlefield clerics. They are simple common folk who've been elevated to the role of divine protector of those who cannot defend themselves.
Yes, they share space with the Paladin. They are both defenders afterall. But where the Paladin fits the concept of the armored knight or Templar, the Stalwart fits the wandering friar or divine "hero" motiff.
Thats moving into invoker territory. The invoker, as far as I interpret at least, is a chosen one of a diety. I see no reason to go down that road again.
It can be interpreted that way, yes. However there is nothing gentle or nurturing about Invokers. Thay are the anger and wrath of the gods made manifest. My idea is different from that. They may get their power in a similar way to the Invoker but the purpose of that power is something completely different.
It can be interpreted that way, yes. However there is nothing gentle or nurturing about Invokers. Thay are the anger and wrath of the gods made manifest. My idea is different from that. They may get their power in a similar way to the Invoker but the purpose of that power is something completely different.
I can make the slight change, it still feels too close to the invoker in my opinion.
It can be interpreted that way, yes. However there is nothing gentle or nurturing about Invokers. Thay are the anger and wrath of the gods made manifest. My idea is different from that. They may get their power in a similar way to the Invoker but the purpose of that power is something completely different.
Wrathful and Malediction Invokers may be the anger and wrath of the Gods. But Preserving Invokers are more similar to what you created.
Dark Diashi: Would it really be that hard to justify? Its not like a human or dragonborn gains the immortal origin when they take this class.
Actually, I think the every character who takes this class adds the Immortal origin type, since being part Immortal is part of the class concept.
With regard to choosing a background, there are many different ways to acquire this Immortal nature, and dont necessarily involve polytheistic gods. Some were born with Immortal blood from a parent or ancestor who is a god. But some are the offspring of an angel. Some are the offspring from some other creature of the Astral Sea. Some were 'transfigured' into an Immortal creature by Radiant energy during an auspicious birth or ecstatic vision. Some were 'assumed' into the plane of the Astral Sea during an apotheosis, taking on an Immortal nature and becoming an Astral citizen, or 'translating' into an angelic nature. Some may be 'possessed' by a god or angel. Some may be informed by transcendent 'Enlightenment'. And so on.
The thing with Half-Elves is, they have an aptitude for one of these class builds. Thus, the widespread intimate relations between Half-Elves and Immortals of the Astral Sea will require explanation. Just brainstorming ... Like the Feywild has portals with the Natural World, Feywild also has portals with the Astral Sea. Perhaps most of the Half-Elves who take this class actually descend from the Eladrin who live near the Astral Sea, many of whom carry Immortal blood themselves, but mixing with Humans allows this Immortal trait to express itself more dominantly. Or whatever. There needs to be a flavor explanation for this Immortal propensity.
'Champion' could be a good name for the class, even 'Avatar' (in the Hindu sense) or 'Godling' (tho nonpolytheistic options need to be explicit), maybe even 'Savior' or 'Deliverer' (in the sense of a divinely appointed rescuer, tho these imply Good).
I wouldn't say they need to be explicit. For one thing, Rule Zero takes care of the need to be overly explicit, which would just take up more space than is needed, if you specified and were exact on each and every possible idea. Rule Zero is the reason for this. If someone doesn't like something, or wants to try something else, they can just change the rules. Especially since polytheism is just a fluff-related thing, and anything relating to say, Bahamut in particular, could just be the proud, just and knight-like aspect of a single God, or tied into the idea that Bahamut represents. Invokers would be a little harder, I suppose, or perhaps Avenger's would be the difficult idea. However, Invokers work just as well with an overarching concept, I suppose they would require the most change, since they exist to oppose elementals, the far realm, etc. If we go with monotheism, then demons would likely exist, and Invokers could oppose them, and heretic angels and the like. If they subscribe to a philosophy, then I think that it would be easy enough to simply oppose things opposite that. Opposing Chaos because you stand for Order, things of that nature. Avengers could exist simply because zealots always exist, and people who believe one thing at the exclusion of all else is plenty common. It would be easy with philosophy or anything else. I can keep listing ways you could change the fluff that exists for the classes so that it could apply to anything. Mechanically, they aren't bound to one idea, and you can't have every possible idea be in the game, that would require too much time and space. Personally, I'd rather be given ideas and adapt them as needed. I can list more ways that they aren't bound mechanically by the fluff, and this is all off the top of my head. Anyone who thinks on the subject a bit could do it, especially with a book in front of them.
As for the Champion/Avatar/whatever it's name is, I like the idea. I liked the Shepard idea as well, although a cloistered priest or whatever is a nice idea as well. So many good ideas, so many things that look like they have good potential. The auras seems like a good way to go, but the lightly armored healer is also something I'm a fan of. I hope to see some hint of whatever they plan on doing with the other divine classes soon. It makes me excited and curious to see them.
Hmmm, Avatar is a little overused, and it makes me think of Jesus types more so than Hercules or Perseus.
Demigod works the best I think, conventionally when people hear "Demigod" they think Herclules, of course that word is already used.
Scion sounds too much like Psion.
Savior is pretty good, but it still makes me think of Jesus types.
Some of those origin ideas are good but I think they get a little too close to Invoker; I like the idea that the members of this class are born with these abilities and Invokers are gifted with their. I think the class could easily be reflavored as just an Invoker with more physical/personal powers or that you could reflavor an Invoker as a child of a God, but I think it would be good if the two classes each had their own concepts to start with.
When I first played my Sorcerer; it made me think of in comic-books where the character has this gift that they had no choice in getting and they had to learn to control it and determine what they were going to use it for. This class would have some of that too, which I think makes it stand out from other Divine classes.
This class has some similarities to other classes, but in my mind it makes the grade for uniqueness; it's unlike the Paladin because it's not tied to any dogma, church or chapter, it's unlike Warden and Invoker because it's gift of strength and power was not granted or invested as much as it simply came to be because they themselves are the gift.
I think that's why I like the name Godborn the best, it sound like less of a job; and that's what makes this class more like Sorcerer than any other class, because they don't have a job, they are just born different from everyone else.
Haldrik: I think its a bit much to make that a class feature. make immortal origin a feat. and half elves breed, they are not all from human/elf pairings. so a half elf with an angel or a human or elf with deva heritage. its not too hard to justify. same with half orcs or shifters.
Haldrik: I think its a bit much to make that a class feature. make immortal origin a feat. and half elves breed, they are not all from human/elf pairings. so a half elf with an angel or a human or elf with deva heritage. its not too hard to justify. same with half orcs or shifters.
I just think it works because both Half-Elves and Godborn usually have a interesting story about how they were conceived, and combining the two just make it more interesting
example
Human King - "that's not my son, he's part Elf!"
Human Queen - "hmmm, looks like that dream I had about Corellian was the real deal"
Human King (who is at war with elves) - "I'm going to lock you up in a tower and kill that baby"
Human Queen praying at sea side - "please Corellian protect our child"
Sea Nymphs - "we'll take the kid, raise up to be a hero, and he will put an end to this war"
Corellian - "... wait... what happened?"
It's Corellon. Not Corellian, not Correlon, not Correllon, not Corelon, not Corelian, not Correllian, not Correlian. Corellon.
And not Larethian any more either.
But I don't use him, so it matters little to me. Just... somebody might blow up in your face.
But that's a cool idea.
Whoa, I didn't even realize they changed his name, I just thought they got rid of the last part. Maybe they were tired of of all the Corellian Corvette jokes
I saw this pic and it made me think of Godborn:
I just thought they got rid of the last part.
Um...they did. It's never been 'Corellian'. I don't know where you're getting this idea.
I'm gonna be honest, I never really ever knew how to spell it, "corellian larethian" was the spelling that came up on my google toolbar, so I figured they had changed it.
I still want to believe in 8 classes, I mean why do they keep giving us less with each phb? O_o It's getting a little silly if its like "oh this one will be 6 classes and 4 races now." That will give me little incentive to buy the phb3... frankly because no phb3 class that is confirmed has actually caught my interest yet. Seeker isn't my thing, i'm still on the fence about monks, psions just have never interested me even for 5 minutes.
Hit a homerun with the next debuted class, WotC, make me wanna spend my b-day money on phb3 (since my bday is in march, when the next phb comes out)
Archivist would get my interest, psychic warrior possibly, maybe some sort of witch doctor primal class.
We know there will be enough good concepts for classes for phb4... even phb5, but phb6 I become very skeptical if it will ever come around. I mean lets just assume that phb4 is the shadow power source, especially being the assassin is out, and phb5 is elemental. The last possible power source I see available is Incarnum that WotC came up with themself, after that the list seems kinda blank to me.
I still want to believe in 8 classes, I mean why do they keep giving us less with each phb? O_o It's getting a little silly if its like "oh this one will be 6 classes and 4 races now." That will give me little incentive to buy the phb3... frankly because no phb3 class that is confirmed has actually caught my interest yet. Seeker isn't my thing, i'm still on the fence about monks, psions just have never interested me even for 5 minutes.
Hit a homerun with the next debuted class, WotC, make me wanna spend my b-day money on phb3 (since my bday is in march, when the next phb comes out)
Archivist would get my interest, psychic warrior possibly, maybe some sort of witch doctor primal class.
We know there will be enough good concepts for classes for phb4... even phb5, but phb6 I become very skeptical if it will ever come around. I mean lets just assume that phb4 is the shadow power source, especially being the assassin is out, and phb5 is elemental. The last possible power source I see available is Incarnum that WotC came up with themself, after that the list seems kinda blank to me.
Incarnum was in many cases, the power source of alignment, and since alignment no longer has crunch effects, that probably is out of the picture. Besides, the various classes within it felt like they belonged elsewhere (Totemist in Primal, etc).
Witch Doctor... That's a Shaman, to the letter.
I still want to believe in 8 classes, I mean why do they keep giving us less with each phb? O_o It's getting a little silly if its like "oh this one will be 6 classes and 4 races now." That will give me little incentive to buy the phb3... frankly because no phb3 class that is confirmed has actually caught my interest yet. Seeker isn't my thing, i'm still on the fence about monks, psions just have never interested me even for 5 minutes.
You have a very strange and demanding concept of less.
I still want to believe in 8 classes, I mean why do they keep giving us less with each phb? O_o It's getting a little silly if its like "oh this one will be 6 classes and 4 races now." That will give me little incentive to buy the phb3... frankly because no phb3 class that is confirmed has actually caught my interest yet. Seeker isn't my thing, i'm still on the fence about monks, psions just have never interested me even for 5 minutes.
Hit a homerun with the next debuted class, WotC, make me wanna spend my b-day money on phb3 (since my bday is in march, when the next phb comes out)
Archivist would get my interest, psychic warrior possibly, maybe some sort of witch doctor primal class.
We know there will be enough good concepts for classes for phb4... even phb5, but phb6 I become very skeptical if it will ever come around. I mean lets just assume that phb4 is the shadow power source, especially being the assassin is out, and phb5 is elemental. The last possible power source I see available is Incarnum that WotC came up with themself, after that the list seems kinda blank to me.
Apparently you missed the thing about hybrid classes and skill powers, we have less room cause there is new crunchy bits.
I'll accept 6 classes if they at least beef up hybrid-izing a little more, it still feels too weak to me. Believe me I went out of my way to look at some great concepts, but in every fashion it seems you really suffer with class features in most cases.
I don't remember no witch doctor ever summoning a spirit companion, sir O_o
The "witch doctor" concept seems to currently fit best as a Shaman, even with the "spirit companion" fluff. If they're making a brand new Primal class with this concept in mind, logically Controller would fit best as the role, but we already have two Primal Controllers. While Controller classes are underrepresented, things might get a bit top-heavy with three Primal Controllers. Having the class as a Leader would have too much overlap with the Shaman.
If a class with this concept was made, it would probably work best as a second Primal Striker; a single-target blaster and curser to contrast the smashy Barbarian.
I'm going to guess at the name Zealot, and hope its ranged and preferably Bow focused leader.
A Heretic class would be amazing. Conceptually for fluff, but also with a lot of potential in crunch.