|
bgaesop posted:The Vigor spells are also Cleric spells, and Rejuvenation Cocoon, while good, is not nearly as good as Heal, which is only one level higher. Plus very few people play druids.
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
I'll freely admit I laughed, but drat if I didn't want some more plot progression than this. Redcloak has used up several of his more dangerous spells, though, so there's that. Quarex posted:since nobody ever wants to play the stupid cleric. One of the telltale signs of the truly high-level AD&D numbercrunching wonder munchkin is realizing that clerics are and always have been terrifically overpowered. This was particularly true in second edition, where a 14th-level cleric with the Nature sphere got the most horrifyingly dangerous spell in the game. Wanderer fucked around with this message at 07:26 on May 24, 2007 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 07:17
|
|
|
Screw that, a single Harm spell reduced anything to 1d4 hp with no saving throw. Now that was fun.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 08:04
|
|
|
Clerics, while numerically powerful, are really tedious to play. Besides, the whole concept behind divine spells is pretty crazy, even when compared to other D&D stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 10:35
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Clerics, while numerically powerful, are really tedious to play. Besides, the whole concept behind divine spells is pretty crazy, even when compared to other D&D stuff. Well, if you're a huge homo and think "roleplaying" means actually playing a role, then clerics are awesome for interaction and non-combat utility. Everyone loves (or hates, if being an evil dick is your thing) the cleric. Religion, morality, security, and mortality all are issues ripe for conversations or decisions that will lead to better characterization and personal growth. That is assuming you find yourself in a game that gives you time for more than killing monsters and blowing their treasures on gear and whores. And how is a spell being granted by the Gods any more crazy than locking yourself in a tower reading books until you can shoot lightning out of your rear end? Also, I am huge homo.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 11:30
|
|
|
Gassire posted:Screw that, a single Harm spell reduced anything to 1d4 hp with no saving throw. Now that was fun. AT least now it can't take anyone below 1. Screw that D4 crap.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 13:44
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Clerics, while numerically powerful, are really tedious to play. In second edition, they had the second-best THAC0, full rights to the best armor they could possibly find, huge amounts of defensive magic, tons of bonus spells assuming you were smart enough to have a high score in your prime requisite, and several of the biggest gently caress-you spells in the game. Why yes, I would like to cast hold person three times a day at level three. Then there were poison, harm, creeping doom, flame strike, prayer, protection from fire/lightning, charm person, heat/chill metal... and that's off the top of my head. In a weak attempt to counterbalance this, they couldn't use piercing or slashing weapons. Big deal. 1d6+1 is not that much worse than 1d8. In third edition, they get even better buff spells than they had before, and unless your DM runs screaming from the concept like he arguably should, they get divine metamagic, which is one of the scariest loving things in the game if you use it right.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 16:31
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:There is no rolleyes big enough to describe what I am feeling right now. Oh isn't there?  Also: I like clerics! Even more than I like monks.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 17:47
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Clerics, while numerically powerful, are really tedious to play. Besides, the whole concept behind divine spells is pretty crazy, even when compared to other D&D stuff. I like playing Clerics, great armor, powerful spells and the unconditional love of your party is great stuff. The problem is that you get everything at first level and nothing other than new spells (and don't get me wrong the spells are great) the entire rest of your career. I've been trying to think of a way to give Clerics a little more without over-balancing things, I mean why shouldn't they get Scribe Scroll at second or third level and Brew Potion for free at fifth? It's not much but that's the point. That and Clerics have poo poo PrCs.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 17:49
|
|
|
bgaesop posted:If anyone disagrees with you, hey, feel free to spend all your money on healing potions, the rest of us will go the other way and keep our treasure.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 18:16
|
|
Soonmot posted:Also: I like clerics! Even more than I like monks. I like second edition monks attacking a dragon. Because "I'm level 12 surely I can take him!" Nope, sorry, a human fist will never tear a dragon's hide under these rules, bucko.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 18:19
|
|
|
Unless they were introduced in a sourcebook I didn't read, there were no monks in second edition. Are you thinking about first edition?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 19:40
|
|
|
BAWRLIN posted:Well, if you're a huge homo and think "roleplaying" means actually playing a role, then clerics are awesome for interaction and non-combat utility. Pfft, what kind of queermo does that? (i also do that)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 20:06
|
|
|
I really hope Burlew adds a Spellsword character to the comic, because I really, really, really love Spellswords. Speaking of PrCs, we haven't really seen that many have we? There's that shadowdancer from way early in the strip, but I can't think of any others.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 21:35
|
|
|
bgaesop posted:Pfft, what kind of queermo does that? (i also do that) Yeah, only total lame-os go about creating intricate backstories, family history, personality, and struggle to remain IC as much as possible during a gaming session. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 21:39
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I like second edition monks attacking a dragon. Because "I'm level 12 surely I can take him!" Nope, sorry, a human fist will never tear a dragon's hide under these rules, bucko. They still suck in 3.5  Sure, you'll never hit them, but if you have any DR they just sorta flail at you, like two-weapon rangers but even worse.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 21:59
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Speaking of PrCs, we haven't really seen that many have we? There's that shadowdancer from way early in the strip, but I can't think of any others.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 22:28
|
|
|
bgaesop posted:Whaaa? I love playing Clerics! You're by far the most powerful member of the party. By far. You automatically get leadership of the group, because who the hell is going to adventure without a Cleric? If anyone disagrees with you, hey, feel free to spend all your money on healing potions, the rest of us will go the other way and keep our treasure. That is true, that clerics really can be pretty bad-rear end. I think the problem just arises in that every time I have seen a cleric played, the player starts getting pissed off because the rest of the group just wants him to memorize nothing but party-buff spells, and basically act as an NPC. Seriously, never has anyone at least in any groups I have played in successfully been a cleric ended up any other way besides "helpful to a fault" or "group pariah that refuses to do anything." BAWRLIN posted:Well, if you're a huge homo and think "roleplaying" means actually playing a role, then clerics are awesome for interaction and non-combat utility. Everyone loves (or hates, if being an evil dick is your thing) the cleric. Religion, morality, security, and mortality all are issues ripe for conversations or decisions that will lead to better characterization and personal growth. That is assuming you find yourself in a game that gives you time for more than killing monsters and blowing their treasures on gear and whores. Yes, that is true, and something that always confounds me. My usual group (which has basically had three or four of the same people since like 1993) strikes a reasonable balance between pure role-playing and killin'-thangs gaming, usually leaning much more heavily towards role-playing. But clerics have just never worked for us, as far as I can recall. We had one second-edition game where the cleric was at least a little more than just the healing bitch, but it helped that we had like nine people playing and I think at least three were divine casters of some sort. Otherwise, somehow, clerics just seem honestly too easily tilted to meta-gaming, number-crunching utility than to role-playing. Somehow. Brannock posted:Speaking of PrCs, we haven't really seen that many have we? There's that shadowdancer from way early in the strip, but I can't think of any others. Do not forget, Elan has at least a few levels of Charismatic Commando or whatever they called it. Swashbuckler, I think? And I do feel like somebody in the Azure City mage guild at least mentioned a prestige class. Edit: Aw shitass, beaten through verbosity.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2007 22:35
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I like second edition monks attacking a dragon. Because "I'm level 12 surely I can take him!" Nope, sorry, a human fist will never tear a dragon's hide under these rules, bucko. Monks' unarmed attacks count as magic weapons starting at 4th level. Don't most dragons only have DR ##/Magic? Vicissitude fucked around with this message at 01:31 on May 25, 2007 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 01:25
|
|
|
Quarex posted:And I do feel like somebody in the Azure City mage guild at least mentioned a prestige class. Xykon's new recruit is a Mystic Theurge.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 01:55
|
|
|
BAWRLIN posted:And how is a spell being granted by the Gods any more crazy than locking yourself in a tower reading books until you can shoot lightning out of your rear end? It has to do with limited spell casts per day. I can understand understand why a wizard who has to prepair each individual spell has a limit on how many he can cast per day, but why does a cleric? Why would Tyr only let a cleric of his cast a spell only so often? If a god trusts it's cleric enough to let him cast level 9 spells, why doesn't the god trust him enough to let him cast bless eight times a day, instead of cutting him off at seven? Why does a god let it's clerics use whatever spell they want, whenever they want to? In the end, the only good reason is game balance. Vicissitude posted:Monks' unarmed attacks count as magic weapons starting at 4th level. Don't most dragons only have DR ##/Magic? Not in second edition.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 02:04
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Not in second edition. Yeah I'm confused by this too, what speciatly house rules was Lurdiak using were Dragon had any sort of damage reduction in 2nd edition?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 02:57
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Speaking of PrCs, we haven't really seen that many have we? There's that shadowdancer from way early in the strip, but I can't think of any others. I'm glad. I hate it when people water down prestige classes. They're PRESTIGE classes ! They're supposed to be elite, and special, people out of the ordinary that you don't meet often, who are especially good at one or two things. I really like that he makes them as rare as I feel they should be.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 05:47
|
|
|
Kahrytes posted:I'm glad. I hate it when people water down prestige classes. They're PRESTIGE classes ! They're supposed to be elite, and special, people out of the ordinary that you don't meet often, who are especially good at one or two things.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 06:14
|
|
|
I just hate PrC in general, worse than 2nd edition's kits. The only time a marketing decision has had any good effect on DnD was Ebberon.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 08:14
|
|
|
rantmo posted:That and Clerics have poo poo PrCs. Wait, what about Hierophant? I could technically be a Cleric 15/Hierophant 5 and give up five levels of undead turning and one net point of BAB in order to have an effective caster level of 25. Schwarzwald posted:Why would Tyr only let a cleric of his cast a spell only so often? I suspect that there's actually an element of being experienced at channeling divine energy for clerics - probably if a god tried to grant ninth-level spells to a level one cleric because, hey, why not, the cleric would just explode. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 12:38 on May 25, 2007 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 10:06
|
|
|
Gassire posted:I just hate PrC in general, worse than 2nd edition's kits. The only time a marketing decision has had any good effect on DnD was Ebberon. Someone's failed one too many sanity checks.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 10:16
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Why does a god let it's clerics use whatever spell they want, whenever they want to? I agree that game balance it the primary reason, but the same applies to a ton of things in the game. In my opinion this is a good thing since D&D is a game after all and sacrificing some realism in a game that's highly unrealistic in exchange for greater playbility is a pretty good choice. But to rationalize why gods don't give clerics unlimited power, I'd say it's because the gods themselves don't have unlimited power, so they can only give a certain amount of it to their followers. And giving greater power to a follower that hasn't demonstrated his loyalty as much seems like a rather bad idea, since they're more likely to misapply it or use it for their own ends.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 12:17
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:
Why would I ever play second edition? In 3.5 a 20th level monk's fists are at least Magic, Lawful and Adamantine for the purposes of DR, plus he can use monk weapons with with flurry of blows and the like, so that's another way to get around damage reduction.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 15:16
|
|
|
Man I really wish we had a forum for talking about this stuff. In other news the really awesome fight is still going on in Goblins, but it's pretty slow going. I'll probably post here once it's reached some kind of climax. Also the Goblins guy does this thing called "tempts fate" where a goblin has to escape deathtraps based on donations or he dies, only in the most recent version people also have to email in guesses as to how he can get past various puzzles. The puzzles have been pretty easy but it's still a cool idea, and the strips are lighter in mood than the story strip. In other other news i'm going to give erfworld one more strip and then i'm going to start ignoring it, yes it's easy to click it when looking at oots but it's even easier to not click it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 16:59
|
|
Gassire posted:Yeah I'm confused by this too, what speciatly house rules was Lurdiak using were Dragon had any sort of damage reduction in 2nd edition? Second hand accounts from more avid players. I don't know, maybe they said something other than dragon, it's been a while. It's just funny to me how hilariously ineffective a monk is in second edition versus how THEY ARE SO PERFECT THEY SHOULDN'T EXIST ON THIS PLANE from 3rd edition. A second edition monk doesn't have any anime-style ability to do superhuman feats through training, he's just a guy who fights really well and tends to use his fists. Which is not so good against a metal golem or what have you. And looks downright silly when there's a Cleric and Wizard on your team who are shooting magic spells out the wazoo and all you have is the ability to punch several times. A 3rd edition monk is like some god-killing overpowered fucker in some respects. They can't be physically damaged at all past a certain level, right? EDIT: I could be wrong about all of the above, by the way, second hand accounts and all. Lurdiak fucked around with this message at 17:18 on May 25, 2007 |
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 17:16
|
|
|
I'll say it again for the grins: why do people keep talking about second-edition monks? Monk was not a class in second edition.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 17:22
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:
Their saving throws get REALLY good at high levels, to the point that it's hard to use spells against them. Reflex, will, AND Fortitude are all good for Monks. Makes up for the lower damage potential of their hand to hand. They're good spellcaster killers, but if you start throwing monsters with high DR at them, you can hurt 'em. They can't even wear armor!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 17:33
|
|
Wanderer posted:I'll say it again for the grins: why do people keep talking about second-edition monks? Monk was not a class in second edition. I might be thinking of 3rd edition vs 3.5, or 1st edition even.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 17:39
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:I'll say it again for the grins: why do people keep talking about second-edition monks? Monk was not a class in second edition.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 18:16
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:I'll say it again for the grins: why do people keep talking about second-edition monks? Monk was not a class in second edition. No, but the only real difference between first and second edition characters was proficiencies and even those were introduced in first edition in a sourcebook. My biggest problem with PrCs is that they tie very heavily into the glut that almost killed the industry a few years ago. WOTC's corporate edict of one sourcebook a month that must contain 70% crunch and at least 3 prestige classes wasn't very healthy. It's nice they added some variety to classes but there has to be something like 500 from official sources alone, and they made it so casters pretty much have to take one to stay effective in most groups. It's like a pc arms race.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 18:57
|
|
|
Gassire posted:My biggest problem with PrCs is that they tie very heavily into the glut that almost killed the industry a few years ago. WOTC's corporate edict of one sourcebook a month that must contain 70% crunch and at least 3 prestige classes wasn't very healthy. It's nice they added some variety to classes but there has to be something like 500 from official sources alone, and they made it so casters pretty much have to take one to stay effective in most groups. It's like a pc arms race. I really enjoyed the Complete (Role) series of sourcebooks but those books were like 60% prestige classes, 30% crappy items, and 10% interesting stuff. My D&D group was completely obsessed with powergaming and combining prestige classes. It was pretty discouraging. They claimed to love RPing, but only as miniature gods. That's why I quit and yeah, I can definitely see how that damaged the industry.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 19:02
|
|
|
Efreet saiid posted:Man I really wish we had a forum for talking about this stuff. There's always this one. Agreed on the topic of Erfworld. If it doesn't move somewhere interesting or humorous fast, I'll just focus more on OotS instead.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 19:38
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:I'll say it again for the grins: why do people keep talking about second-edition monks? Monk was not a class in second edition. Monks were introduced in the 2nd. Edition Greyhawk book The Scarlet Brotherhood. But, that book came out pretty much at the close of 2e anyway. So, it doesn't really matter. They were there though!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
As powerful as regular clerics were they had nothing on second edition speciality clerics. Consider some options like the old tempus war priest who had the same thac0 as a warrior and bonus spells to boot.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2007 20:39
|
|
