I personally don't impose arbitrary rules on my players unless I can impose equally arbitrary rules, and that requires too much of my effort for otherwise little gain.
My clerics just get their power from a God or God-like ideal. How exactly that works is beyond explanation. Wizards study or something and that's also beyond explanation. It all just works somehow... mysteriously...magically.
I personally don't impose arbitrary rules on my players unless I can impose equally arbitrary rules, and that requires too much of my effort for otherwise little gain.
My clerics just get their power from a God or God-like ideal. How exactly that works is beyond explanation. Wizards study or something and that's also beyond explanation. It all just works somehow... mysteriously...magically.
This ^
It isn't about whether or not the tithing and the requirements or arbitrary rules make sense in your campaign. It's whether or not the rest of the party has equally arbitrary rules for them. Otherwise, it's just punishing one class over the others.
Also, I find the idea that the player HAS to do something or risk losing all of its abilities. That's why everything prior to 4e paladin was pretty bad (albeit the class was overpowered in those editions) and why the paladin is a much better class since 4e (imo). Sure, it still KIND OF has that issue, but not to the same extremes it once did.
In 3e if the paladin did something considered evil, even if for a good cause, they would lose their powers and abilities. And Tyr forbid that a paladin multiclass, because they wouldn't be able to pursue the path of the paladin ever again (even if that multiclass was as cleric of the same deity).
See, stupid rules that provide nothing to the game except punishing a single class with restrictions that no other class had (although again, the paladin was/could be quite overpowered).
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I'm very much a fan of leaving it up to the player - it's their character after all!
If they wish to have a tithe imposed upon their character and they stick to it, then for me as DM, I'll likely give them more backup from other members of their faith than they might otherwise get, should they need it.
I'm very much a fan of leaving it up to the player - it's their character after all!
If they wish to have a tithe imposed upon their character and they stick to it, then for me as DM, I'll likely give them more backup from other members of their faith than they might otherwise get, should they need it.
My clerics just get their power from a God or God-like ideal. How exactly that works is beyond explanation. Wizards study or something and that's also beyond explanation. It all just works somehow... mysteriously...magically.
I've played this and am beyond it now - my rules are explained clearly to my players and they see the reason and accept them. For too long Clerics have just been Wizards by another name - their faith should impact on the game both for good and ill - just like the Paladin.
Wizards in my campaign are in charge they helped end the War with the Others (Elves) 500 years ago so the Wizard player is in charge. (He knew this) In Britain (my setting) Paladins, Rangers and Monks are sworn defenders of Wizards - (Red, Black and White robes.) The Paladin from Norway is confused by this but accepts the Oath.
Elves are all evil Cthulhu worshipping bad guys - I have no Elves (apart from Drow who split off to live underground)
I have a big campaign and the players are all aware of much of the background (levels 5-6), lots of in group chat about the best way to move forward.
LordXathrus does at least have a well developed campaign setting. He's obviously put a lot of thought into that.
That said I agree with Stormknight and Sloporion that if you have a big "ask" like that there should be a clear counter offer.
I agree with Sloprion my favorite part of 4th Ed was dropping all of the stupid restrictions on Paladins. My first Paladin in 4th spent all his feats multiclassing Warlock. He was a half-elf, his parents were adventurers and started worshiping the "Outer Gods" to gain immortality for the human parent. He was very nice, loyal, and helpful, member of the community, but his deity was "evil" but his deity also gave back. I also like that Paladins choose their Oath, so you can be a Paladin of an Ideal, not just a God or a Pantheon.
If I was in LordXathrus's game and he explain to me that Clerics/Paladins had extra restrictions without any counter offers I'd probably say "ok, that's a cool setting. Not it, for party healer." but that's my choice as a player.
Then again I'm still aggravated that Druids still have (in my opinion dumb) restriction on metal armor... especially when a "Nature Cleric" gets Heavy Armor proficiency!?
Wizard/Sorcerer, Druid, and Cleric as all "primary casters" What really makes them different is their spell list.
I think Wizard/Sorcerer have the most versatile list and some pretty powerful options for SubClass abilities and so have the weakest options for weapons and armor. I think of them as firmly a Back Rank character who needs protection but has great offensive capabilities. If the Wizard/Sorcerer gets caught by The Big Bad, then she better have something in her bag of tricks because without protection she won't be standing long.
Clerics are in the middle. They've always been Front Rank or Middle Rank characters with strong casting to back them up. They mostly lack the "offensive power" of a Wizard, but often more then making up for it by being in "the thick of it" going toe to toe with enemies Back Rank characters can't afford to be. The Cleric doesn't necessarily want to be mixing it up with The Big Bad, but she can hold the line.
Druids have in my opinion the *worst* spell list, but can WildShape and have solid weapons and mediocre armor (mostly do the that metal restriction). Depending on how they are built they can are they can be Front Rank, or Back Rank but often hold the Middle Rank. A Moon-Druid is Front/Middle while a Land Druid is Middle/Back Rank.
To me this is what makes them different. Sure all 3 of primary casters, but you can't look at them expect the same role.
Wizard vs cleric, to me, comes down to the armor, spell lists, and the following:
1. A wizard and a cleric are captured and deprived of all items except minimal work clothing. The wizard could still use cantrips, but would not be able to regain spells without their spellbook, but the cleric could pray to their deity and still get the blessing that is their spells, but not be able to use them unless no material component is required or the component can be found/made.
2. A wizard memorizing their spell can count on the spell reacting as cast barring magical interference, but a cleric that tries to heal a creature specifically opposed to their deity may end up with a different spell result (min, max, or completely different spell)based on how closely the cleric is adhering to the tenets of their faith, or how closely the situation aligns with the goals of their deity. Healing being only one example.
3. Clerics prepared spells can be cast as many times as the caster has slots available, and may use all their slots as needed from that prepared list, where a wizard spells power is in the memorization, and the wizard needs to make the choice of spells on memorization, (I see it as a kind of mantra that the wizard memorizes,and must maintain), using the spell changed the magical pattern that the wizard is storing it's magic with and therefore the casting if the spell eliminates the energy to cast it again, except casting it at a higher level, which I see as a kind of rebalancing of the stored energy.
Remember that this is only based on personal flavor and interpretation of the rules over the past few decades. (Played first d&d in the very early 80's).
Wizard vs cleric, to me, comes down to the armor, spell lists, and the following:
1. A wizard and a cleric are captured and deprived of all items except minimal work clothing. The wizard could still use cantrips, but would not be able to regain spells without their spellbook, but the cleric could pray to their deity and still get the blessing that is their spells, but not be able to use them unless no material component is required or the component can be found/made.
That's how it used to work, but with 5th edition's rules wizards only need to have their spellbook at hand to change their list of prepared spells. In fact, wizards can write down their currently-prepared spells into a new spellbook if needed.
Regarding the role of a cleric, I'll use an analogy from the Bible, as that's the religious text that I suspect most of the people here are familiar with. In the Bible, Israel and Judah had an established clergy who did all the stuff that we typically associate with the clergy of premodern times. They collected offerings, exercised power over the community, enforced religious laws, etcetera. However, the prophets that the books of the Bible are named after were not formally a part of the clergy (except Samuel, who had been an acolyte for a while), but instead were directly called by Yahweh. Many of them lacked permanent homes and spent their lives on the move for their work, with some even being essentially wild men. These prophets were also the ones who actually could use magic. Think of the prophets as D&D clerics, and the formal clergy as, at best, the NPC acolytes and priests who might inhabit the major cities.
Agreed, all the campaigns I currently run/participate in require the spell-books to refresh the list each day and or change them, they can only keep them in memory until used. We also use the "In fact, wizards can write down their currently-prepared spells into a new spell-book if needed." mechanic, but it is either 1. Use the spell as a spell, or 2. Hold on to its power until you can get a spell-book and the ingredients to write it down, once used the power of the spell is lost the mental toll of using the spell does not allow the writing of the spell until it is memorized again.
One of my most enjoyable parts of playing is the different interpretations of spell-casting by each DM. Influences and opinions can flavor the game and create unintended consequences. I am happy that 5th edition allows enough variation that many slight variations can work cohesively, even in the same game.
I’m a bit late to this discussion. But for me, I’d rather not “punish” a player just for choosing a class i.e if someone picks cleric, let them play it how they want. Requiring them to donate their money or have tangible drawbacks just for being a cleric, in my opinion, is very off putting
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Again it is clearly laid out - how do you think a church functions? Must have donations from the masses and adventurers certainly get money. If you have read all the thread my clerics get unlimited domain spells as long as they are cast within the strictures of the faith. The clerics in my game are happy with this arrangement and it sets them apart from other spell casters...
I have in game restrictions / add on for Elves (The Others) - banned, Half-Elves (secret), Paladins, Ranger and Monks - Wizard bodyguards, Wizards - the ruling class.
I have a campaign background and they are playing in it - over a year for the group now - one played once at the start but the rest have stayed.
Honestly, these rules would be a fast way to make me not play a cleric. Not saying they are wrong, just saying that I'd move straight into a melee character and make sure I was not the party "stuckee". I'd never play a character where I was handed a character sheet, nor would I ever play one where the DM dictated how I go about bringing my character to life. The character is mine, not the DMs. Your world sounds very interesting, but it also sounds like it's not a campaign for me due to the restrictions. To each their own.
To me, what makes a cleric is that I would choose a domain that reflects my god or goddess. Presently, I am playing an Arcana-domain cleric of Mystra, goddess of magic. If I was playing a death-domain cleric, I'd not choose Mystra, Kelemvor, god of the dead would likely be my choice. The powers of a cleric are determined by the domain, and the domain should line up with the god or goddess granting the power. They will grant powers, based in their own image.
Generally speaking, wizards with Arcane Magic are much different; where Divine spells tend to be more buff/heal oriented, Arcane spells tend to change reality and their environment more. My character will enhance the inherent abilities of the party. A wizard or other arcane caster changes the conditions under which a party acts. A prime example would be we're trying to sneak up on a group of goblins. I will use guidance to help people make better stealth checks. A wizard will turn everyone invisible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Greetings - so in reality your Cleric is a Wizard by another name with a different school of magic (god.) It may be your character but it is my world. Wizards rule Britain because they helped to defeat the Others (Elves) - the wizard is the leader of the party - no ifs, ands or buts.
What actual impact on the game does the faith of the cleric make - if none then just a wizard...
No, it's not a wizard. My cleric has no lightning bolts, nor fireballs. He cannot turn invisible, nor can he fly. Wizards change the world around them. Clerics enhance a party's inherent abilities.
Other than both using magic, there's very little in common between the two.
EDIT: Would you let a player access cleric spells if he called himself a wizard?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I personally don't impose arbitrary rules on my players unless I can impose equally arbitrary rules, and that requires too much of my effort for otherwise little gain.
My clerics just get their power from a God or God-like ideal. How exactly that works is beyond explanation.
Wizards study or something and that's also beyond explanation. It all just works somehow... mysteriously... magically.
It isn't about whether or not the tithing and the requirements or arbitrary rules make sense in your campaign. It's whether or not the rest of the party has equally arbitrary rules for them. Otherwise, it's just punishing one class over the others.
Also, I find the idea that the player HAS to do something or risk losing all of its abilities. That's why everything prior to 4e paladin was pretty bad (albeit the class was overpowered in those editions) and why the paladin is a much better class since 4e (imo). Sure, it still KIND OF has that issue, but not to the same extremes it once did.
In 3e if the paladin did something considered evil, even if for a good cause, they would lose their powers and abilities. And Tyr forbid that a paladin multiclass, because they wouldn't be able to pursue the path of the paladin ever again (even if that multiclass was as cleric of the same deity).
See, stupid rules that provide nothing to the game except punishing a single class with restrictions that no other class had (although again, the paladin was/could be quite overpowered).
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I'm very much a fan of leaving it up to the player - it's their character after all!
If they wish to have a tithe imposed upon their character and they stick to it, then for me as DM, I'll likely give them more backup from other members of their faith than they might otherwise get, should they need it.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Site Rules & Guidelines --- Focused Feedback Mega Threads --- Staff Quotes --- Homebrew Tutorial --- Pricing FAQ
Please feel free to message either Sorce or another moderator if you have any concerns.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....
LordXathrus does at least have a well developed campaign setting. He's obviously put a lot of thought into that.
That said I agree with Stormknight and Sloporion that if you have a big "ask" like that there should be a clear counter offer.
I agree with Sloprion my favorite part of 4th Ed was dropping all of the stupid restrictions on Paladins. My first Paladin in 4th spent all his feats multiclassing Warlock. He was a half-elf, his parents were adventurers and started worshiping the "Outer Gods" to gain immortality for the human parent. He was very nice, loyal, and helpful, member of the community, but his deity was "evil" but his deity also gave back. I also like that Paladins choose their Oath, so you can be a Paladin of an Ideal, not just a God or a Pantheon.
If I was in LordXathrus's game and he explain to me that Clerics/Paladins had extra restrictions without any counter offers I'd probably say "ok, that's a cool setting. Not it, for party healer." but that's my choice as a player.
Then again I'm still aggravated that Druids still have (in my opinion dumb) restriction on metal armor... especially when a "Nature Cleric" gets Heavy Armor proficiency!?
That said.
Wizard/Sorcerer, Druid, and Cleric as all "primary casters" What really makes them different is their spell list.
I think Wizard/Sorcerer have the most versatile list and some pretty powerful options for SubClass abilities and so have the weakest options for weapons and armor. I think of them as firmly a Back Rank character who needs protection but has great offensive capabilities. If the Wizard/Sorcerer gets caught by The Big Bad, then she better have something in her bag of tricks because without protection she won't be standing long.
Clerics are in the middle. They've always been Front Rank or Middle Rank characters with strong casting to back them up. They mostly lack the "offensive power" of a Wizard, but often more then making up for it by being in "the thick of it" going toe to toe with enemies Back Rank characters can't afford to be. The Cleric doesn't necessarily want to be mixing it up with The Big Bad, but she can hold the line.
Druids have in my opinion the *worst* spell list, but can WildShape and have solid weapons and mediocre armor (mostly do the that metal restriction). Depending on how they are built they can are they can be Front Rank, or Back Rank but often hold the Middle Rank. A Moon-Druid is Front/Middle while a Land Druid is Middle/Back Rank.
To me this is what makes them different. Sure all 3 of primary casters, but you can't look at them expect the same role.
Please check my other thread - Misread the Rules and quite happy with it - my clerics get their free spells for free - not caused a problem yet....
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....
Wizard vs cleric, to me, comes down to the armor, spell lists, and the following:
1. A wizard and a cleric are captured and deprived of all items except minimal work clothing. The wizard could still use cantrips, but would not be able to regain spells without their spellbook, but the cleric could pray to their deity and still get the blessing that is their spells, but not be able to use them unless no material component is required or the component can be found/made.
2. A wizard memorizing their spell can count on the spell reacting as cast barring magical interference, but a cleric that tries to heal a creature specifically opposed to their deity may end up with a different spell result (min, max, or completely different spell)based on how closely the cleric is adhering to the tenets of their faith, or how closely the situation aligns with the goals of their deity. Healing being only one example.
3. Clerics prepared spells can be cast as many times as the caster has slots available, and may use all their slots as needed from that prepared list, where a wizard spells power is in the memorization, and the wizard needs to make the choice of spells on memorization, (I see it as a kind of mantra that the wizard memorizes,and must maintain), using the spell changed the magical pattern that the wizard is storing it's magic with and therefore the casting if the spell eliminates the energy to cast it again, except casting it at a higher level, which I see as a kind of rebalancing of the stored energy.
Remember that this is only based on personal flavor and interpretation of the rules over the past few decades. (Played first d&d in the very early 80's).
Regarding the role of a cleric, I'll use an analogy from the Bible, as that's the religious text that I suspect most of the people here are familiar with. In the Bible, Israel and Judah had an established clergy who did all the stuff that we typically associate with the clergy of premodern times. They collected offerings, exercised power over the community, enforced religious laws, etcetera. However, the prophets that the books of the Bible are named after were not formally a part of the clergy (except Samuel, who had been an acolyte for a while), but instead were directly called by Yahweh. Many of them lacked permanent homes and spent their lives on the move for their work, with some even being essentially wild men. These prophets were also the ones who actually could use magic. Think of the prophets as D&D clerics, and the formal clergy as, at best, the NPC acolytes and priests who might inhabit the major cities.
Agreed, all the campaigns I currently run/participate in require the spell-books to refresh the list each day and or change them, they can only keep them in memory until used. We also use the "In fact, wizards can write down their currently-prepared spells into a new spell-book if needed." mechanic, but it is either 1. Use the spell as a spell, or 2. Hold on to its power until you can get a spell-book and the ingredients to write it down, once used the power of the spell is lost the mental toll of using the spell does not allow the writing of the spell until it is memorized again.
One of my most enjoyable parts of playing is the different interpretations of spell-casting by each DM. Influences and opinions can flavor the game and create unintended consequences. I am happy that 5th edition allows enough variation that many slight variations can work cohesively, even in the same game.
I’m a bit late to this discussion. But for me, I’d rather not “punish” a player just for choosing a class i.e if someone picks cleric, let them play it how they want. Requiring them to donate their money or have tangible drawbacks just for being a cleric, in my opinion, is very off putting
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Again it is clearly laid out - how do you think a church functions? Must have donations from the masses and adventurers certainly get money. If you have read all the thread my clerics get unlimited domain spells as long as they are cast within the strictures of the faith. The clerics in my game are happy with this arrangement and it sets them apart from other spell casters...
I have in game restrictions / add on for Elves (The Others) - banned, Half-Elves (secret), Paladins, Ranger and Monks - Wizard bodyguards, Wizards - the ruling class.
I have a campaign background and they are playing in it - over a year for the group now - one played once at the start but the rest have stayed.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....
Oldie but goodie,
A Wizard, Cleric and Dwarf are discussing who made the Universe.
The Dwarfs says "In the beginning all was Chaos - out of the Chaos we came and forged law, order and all you see."
The Cleric sits back and opens the Holy Book "In the beginning all was Chaos - The Gods were born and formed the universe for all to live in."
The Wizard sit back, has a drink and laughs "Who do you think made the Chaos...."
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....
Honestly, these rules would be a fast way to make me not play a cleric. Not saying they are wrong, just saying that I'd move straight into a melee character and make sure I was not the party "stuckee". I'd never play a character where I was handed a character sheet, nor would I ever play one where the DM dictated how I go about bringing my character to life. The character is mine, not the DMs. Your world sounds very interesting, but it also sounds like it's not a campaign for me due to the restrictions. To each their own.
To me, what makes a cleric is that I would choose a domain that reflects my god or goddess. Presently, I am playing an Arcana-domain cleric of Mystra, goddess of magic. If I was playing a death-domain cleric, I'd not choose Mystra, Kelemvor, god of the dead would likely be my choice. The powers of a cleric are determined by the domain, and the domain should line up with the god or goddess granting the power. They will grant powers, based in their own image.
Generally speaking, wizards with Arcane Magic are much different; where Divine spells tend to be more buff/heal oriented, Arcane spells tend to change reality and their environment more. My character will enhance the inherent abilities of the party. A wizard or other arcane caster changes the conditions under which a party acts. A prime example would be we're trying to sneak up on a group of goblins. I will use guidance to help people make better stealth checks. A wizard will turn everyone invisible.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Greetings - so in reality your Cleric is a Wizard by another name with a different school of magic (god.) It may be your character but it is my world. Wizards rule Britain because they helped to defeat the Others (Elves) - the wizard is the leader of the party - no ifs, ands or buts.
What actual impact on the game does the faith of the cleric make - if none then just a wizard...
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....
"Okay, I'll play an armored wizard. Wis-based spellcasting, right?"
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
No, it's not a wizard. My cleric has no lightning bolts, nor fireballs. He cannot turn invisible, nor can he fly. Wizards change the world around them. Clerics enhance a party's inherent abilities.
Other than both using magic, there's very little in common between the two.
EDIT: Would you let a player access cleric spells if he called himself a wizard?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha