Kill the Cleric?

[finarvyn]

I'm not sure which board or blog I was reading recently, but the poster made a strong case for focusing on Fighters, Spellcasters, and Thieves as the core classes. I've been pondering this.

Maybe the cleric shouldn't be its own class at all, but more of a sub-class of the Magic User. Seems like most fantasy RPGs have clerics included out of tradition, not because literature from Appendix N has them.

While some folks might argue that clerics do appear in Appendix N, perhaps they should just be Magic Users with a different spell list. In other words, one might generate a single set of rules for spellcasters and then create special spell lists for each specialist group.

Examples:
* Traditional Magic User (based on Intelligence)
* Emotion-based Magic User (based on Charisma/Personality)
* Illusionist Magic User
* Deity-based Magic User (cleric)
* Nature-based Magic User (druid)
* Elven Magic User (I assume a different spell list)
and so on.

Good idea? Bad idea? What do you think?

[Hamakto]

blasphemer!

*just kidding*

That has always been something that has been discussed for years and years. This especially becomes true for DCC RPG with wizards being linked to supernatural patrons.

Personally, I like that the clerics are separate from the Wizards and have a complete and distinctly different set of powers and abilities. In a way, I wish Wizards in DCC RPG were not as tightly linked to the supernatural as they currently are. There is a ton of literature out there were Wizardry is a science that interacts with the supernatural world, but is not totally based on getting their powers from a supernatural patron.

I like the spin on wizards and supernatural patrons, but I am not 100% sold on how tight that spin is. It defiantly alters the RPG aspects of a Wizard a great deal and forces a certain type of world view on the campaign.

Clerics as they exist (rule wise) can fit into most any world view or campaign with little to no modifications as their class is just a different mechanic on what previously existed. Wizards with their corruption, etc... create a completely different RPG experience.

As it goes right now, I am leaning towards removing corruption from the campaign. I am not going to do that on day one, but from what I have seen and read I do not think corruption will fit most campaigns.

[mshensley]

I'd be happier without them. There's never been anything like a cleric in any fantasy (that wasn't based on a rpg setting) that I've ever read.

[geordie racer]

In a way, I wish Wizards in DCC RPG were not as tightly linked to the supernatural as they currently are. There is a ton of literature out there were Wizardry is a science that interacts with the supernatural world, but is not totally based on getting their powers from a supernatural patron.

I've not seen the rules but from what I've read it's not like they HAVE to call on the patron for every spell -all casting isn't totally based on patrons, they have powers of their own. But greater magicks may require drawing on the forces from beyond. It's different from clerics whose success in casting is down to the whim and favour of their god.

I like the spin on wizards and supernatural patrons, but I am not 100% sold on how tight that spin is. It defiantly alters the RPG aspects of a Wizard a great deal and forces a certain type of world view on the campaign.

I agree that it fits the Sword & Sorcery focus of DCC rather than the high fantasy of some of Appendix N but just as they're missing out psionics from the core rules I'm glad magic as science isn't covered as well.

Rather than drawing on a direct source, an Appendix N Cleric (forget D&D) is more of an amalgam of Hiero (priest, telepath, trained killer), Silver John (master of turning undead) and Holger Carlsen (paladin type, fights for Law) from the books I've read so far. None of them are wizards as such, you could have them as a fighter with a religious background, but maybe that's stretching it.

I can't imagine a sword and sorcery game without wizards paying the cost of great power, so corruption is a necessary mechanic in my opinion. I'm sure it'll make spellcasting even more memorable for the players.

[jmucchiello]

What were the magic costs for Harold Shea and the Professor? What higher powers did they call on? None. Their magic was mathematically grounded.

[Geoffrey]

I'm not sure which board or blog I was reading recently, but the poster made a strong case for focusing on Fighters, Spellcasters, and Thieves as the core classes.

I like to take it one step further: Every single character can attempt anything that a person can attempt in the real world: put on armor, swing a sword, shoot a bow and arrow, move silently, hide in shadows, pick a lock, etc. On top of that, some characters can also perform magic.

Those who can't perform magic are called "fighters". Those who can are called "magic-users" (or "sorcerers" in Carcosa).

[kataskicana]

I like the idea of Silver John as a cleric or a Paladin with modern-day morality. Unfortunately, he is the best example of a Bard I have ever seen in literature. His knowledge of the obscure learned in songs, his ability to counter mind controlling effects with song, sway men's hearts with a tune and a few words, the variety of skills he had from a life before becoming a wanderer and performing and woring for suppers in his travels, etc.

I love corruption! (Wait that sounds bad!) I like the idea that anyone with the talent can perform minor magics but to attain true power requires doing things that one might not normally choose to do... works great for powerful NPC casters and I think offers an awesome challenge to PC mages. Try to stay clean or inch by inch start to cross the line... ok... just this once... wow that was awesome!

I can also already hear the other players at the table when things are looking grim, turning to the wizard... (paraphrasing Top Gun) "Come on Mavros, do some of that Patron s**t!"

[Hamakto]

I can't imagine a sword and sorcery game without wizards paying the cost of great power, so corruption is a necessary mechanic in my opinion. I'm sure it'll make spellcasting even more memorable for the players.

I have not done a full adventure yet, but I am not sure memorable is the proper term for some of the corruption values. Until I participate in more then one shot adventures, it is going to be hard to call. But really think corruption needs to be done differently than existing in the current rules.

I think there needs to be three tiers of corruption:

1. Minor - Minor corruptions that are not huge impediments (i.e. body temperature runs cold, hot, sweats alot, sharper teeth (no bite attack gained), hairy body, eyes flash for d20 round after spell cast)
2. Intermediate - More visible effects (skin color changed, maybe scaled skin, golden skin (Raistlin), sharp teeth (minor bite attack), sharp nails, eyes glow)
3. Major - Huge visible effect or change of character. (i.e. lyncanthrope, hard scaled skin, full body fur, gain head of animal, grow extra arm)

Take a mechanic similar to what exists for the cleric and have corruption points for the Wizard. Each time a corruption occurs, you gain on point per spell level.

Each time a corruption point is gained, you roll a d(character level) + luck bonus. If you roll equal to or greater than your current corruption score, you make a roll on the corruption table. At a certain point, corruption will be automatic. Once you take a corruption result, the corruption score drops by twice level of the spell being cast.

The table you roll on is based on the spell being cast. Level 1-2 === Minor table, 3-4 = Intermediate table, 5+ = Major table.

Example:

over the course of several adventure, Larry the Unlucky did the following. He has a -1 as his luck modifier.

1st level... rolled a 1 - Got a corruption point, rolled a d1 (got a one! Surprise) -1 and it was less than the one point he got for a first level spell. So he had to roll on table one. He then removed 2 corruption points (2x first level spell) and is back at zero.

Later in his career... he was 7th level (assuming 4th level spells can be cast here)

Before casting a 1st level Larry's Lingering Light Show, he started with 2 corruption points.
He flubbed the spell, so he now is at 3 corruption points. He then rolls a d7-1 and gets a six. So no corruption result happens.

He then unlucky flubs the next spells, a 4th level Larry's Lightning Lava Flow. He adds 4 to 3 and gets a 7. No matter what he rolls, he cannot equal or exceed a 7 on a d7-1 (bad luck score). So he immediately takes a roll on the intermediate corruption table for a higher level spell. He than removes 8 points from his corruption score (goes back to zero).

The reason we take away 2x the spell level on a corruption result is to prevent someone from just casting a first level spell to get a corruption result and reset the corruption number to zero.

While this mechanic seems complicated, I see it playing out easier. Plus, it does allow for the possibility of adding a quest to 'purify' the wizards body to remove accumulated corruption points.

This is just a random thought here. And I guess it is sort of off topic.

PS - Not that we would have space for it in the book, but it would be cool to have the corruption result based on either their supernatural patron OR on the spell being cast. But that would require extra charts.

[geordie racer]

What were the magic costs for Harold Shea and the Professor? What higher powers did they call on? None. Their magic was mathematically grounded.

I'm not saying all Appendix N magic is the same. There's a trade off between the high fantasy of Appendix N and the sword & sorcery. For every Harold Shea there's a Kyrik.

[Hamakto]

What were the magic costs for Harold Shea and the Professor? What higher powers did they call on? None. Their magic was mathematically grounded.

I'm not saying all Appendix N magic is the same. There's a trade off between the high fantasy of Appendix N and the sword & sorcery. For every Harold Shea there's a Kyrik.

Maybe more of an every time you gain a level you pick up a new 'corruption' as magic slowly corrupts your body type concept.

If we do something like that, then a 1 is just a spell fumble.

[blizack]

I have to admit that the inclusion of the cleric surprised me when I got a chance to playtest DCC in New York a couple of months ago. It definitely seems like a "D&D fantasy" class to me, rather than a swords & sorcery/Appendix N class. (I know I'm not alone here.) I won't pretend to have read all of the Appendix N works, but I've read a few, and nothing even vaguely cleric-like reared its head as far as I can remember.

I imagine that DCC's design team is only willing to stray so far from the classic system that inspired the game, and that is probably a shrewd move. I don't have a huge problem with the class' inclusion... this is, after all, a D&D-based RPG, and I've toyed with modifying or removing it from the game outright before. Still, am I off the mark in thinking that the cleric - and for that matter, the demihuman classes - don't have much of a basis in the inspirational literature?

[geordie racer]

Maybe more of an every time you gain a level you pick up a new 'corruption' as magic slowly corrupts your body type concept.

But then you get wizards who automatically become more corrupted rather then it being a random thing. I can see the pros and cons of this. Like everything else about this rpg, I'll have to play it for a while before I'm sure what feels best.

[Hamakto]

I imagine that DCC's design team is only willing to stray so far from the classic system that inspired the game, and that is probably a shrewd move. I don't have a huge problem with the class' inclusion... this is, after all, a D&D-based RPG, and I've toyed with modifying or removing it from the game outright before. Still, am I off the mark in thinking that the cleric - and for that matter, the demihuman classes - don't have much of a basis in the inspirational literature?

One point to add to this is that if you remove the cleric from the game, then the entire combat/hp/damage system needs to be revisited. The current HP system functions because a balanced party is supposed to have a Cleric. If you do not have a cleric, then you have to have an alternative way in the rules to regain HP faster. (i.e. regain 1/2 hp's after a rest, etc). There are a ton of systems out there that do not require a cleric, but will it stretch the game too far if you drop the Cleric?

[geordie racer]

Y'know how some people started to perceive the game as 'crippled' when there were only 5 levels. Losing the Cleric could lead to similar worries - "what, not even 4 classes !"

[kataskicana]

There is definitely healing magic in Appendix N... Elrond and Gandalf healed Frodo, Aragorn used Athelas to heal Eowyn, and those are just from one Appendix N entry.

I admit I am having trouble coming up with a traditional DnD like cleric from Appendix N.

[jmucchiello]

What were the magic costs for Harold Shea and the Professor? What higher powers did they call on? None. Their magic was mathematically grounded.

I'm not saying all Appendix N magic is the same. There's a trade off between the high fantasy of Appendix N and the sword & sorcery. For every Harold Shea there's a Kyrik.

Maybe more of an every time you gain a level you pick up a new 'corruption' as magic slowly corrupts your body type concept.

If we do something like that, then a 1 is just a spell fumble.

Corruption is not inherent to Appendix N and frankly I have no use for it. If there's a Shea for each Kyrik then there should be two core classes, one with corruption and one without. Not all magic should require deals with darkness. The options for other kinds of magic should be equally prominent.

[geordie racer]

Corruption is not inherent to Appendix N and frankly I have no use for it.

Then just use a result of 1 as a spell fumble, as Andy suggested.

[smathis]

I imagine that DCC's design team is only willing to stray so far from the classic system that inspired the game, and that is probably a shrewd move. I don't have a huge problem with the class' inclusion... this is, after all, a D&D-based RPG, and I've toyed with modifying or removing it from the game outright before. Still, am I off the mark in thinking that the cleric - and for that matter, the demihuman classes - don't have much of a basis in the inspirational literature?

Wow. A lot going on in this thread!

I don't think you're off the mark, blizack. Granted I've not read Appendix N in its entirety. But from what I have read the "D&D Cleric" seems to be a bit of a stretch.

I tend to the think of the Appendix N Cleric as closer to Solomon Kane or Van Helsing than anything else. Patron deities, yeah, okay. I'll grudgingly buy that. But I'd prefer the Cleric to be more of a Fighter that can turn Undead and evil Monsters and such. More Solomon Kane and Constantine than Moses and Joan of Arc.

Clerics have always been square pegs in a round hole, to me. And I suppose they'll stay that way. Which I'm okay with.

But I agree they seem kind of an odd fit.

[smathis]

Y'know how some people started to perceive the game as 'crippled' when there were only 5 levels. Losing the Cleric could lead to similar worries - "what, not even 4 classes !"

[smathis]

There is definitely healing magic in Appendix N... Elrond and Gandalf healed Frodo, Aragorn used Athelas to heal Eowyn, and those are just from one Appendix N entry.

Yeah, but does it fall under the "Tag! You're Healed" sort of Healing that a D&D Cleric offers?

I understand the need for that sort of healing in traditional D&D. I understand how the whole tower crumbles if there's no healing available to a party. But it's that sort of "power up" kind of healing that makes me scratch my head and go "Wha?!".

I think a lot of it is tied up in how Hit Points represent so many different things. But that's already had, like, 40 threads on it in this forum alone.

So I'd rather not necro all that.

[smathis]

I like to take it one step further: Every single character can attempt anything that a person can attempt in the real world: put on armor, swing a sword, shoot a bow and arrow, move silently, hide in shadows, pick a lock, etc. On top of that, some characters can also perform magic.

Those who can't perform magic are called "fighters". Those who can are called "magic-users" (or "sorcerers" in Carcosa).

I still like my "Skillmonkeys" -- called "Specialists" in LotFP. It's a fun class to play in almost any edition.

[geordie racer]

There was a time when I said 'Keep the Cleric - Lose the Fighter!' in response to a load of anti-cleric threads. I couldn't put a coherent argument together back then either

[finarvyn]

if you remove the cleric from the game, then the entire combat/hp/damage system needs to be revisited. The current HP system functions because a balanced party is supposed to have a Cleric. If you do not have a cleric, then you have to have an alternative way in the rules to regain HP faster. (i.e. regain 1/2 hp's after a rest, etc). There are a ton of systems out there that do not require a cleric, but will it stretch the game too far if you drop the Cleric?

But remember that there are alternative ways to provide healing. Witches often could brew potions. Certain varieties of "white" magic users could specialize in healing magic and have different spell lists than the "black" sorcerers who cause corruption. Heck, just allowing characters to bind wounds and get a few hp back after each battle would help to realign the hit point balance.

Lots of options!

The thing that I see the most is that undead become a lot scarier if there aren't clerics to turn them. Maybe that would be a good thing.

[Coleston the Cavalier]

I understand the reasoning behind dropping the cleric and especially because of the library of Appendix N, but an argument can be made that many pulp writers had a biased view of religion. After all, what civilization that has ever existed devoid of religion of spiritual leaders?

For me, as long as divine magic does not approach the power of arcane magic (which is corrupting in DCC), it will be okay.

[GnomeBoy]

But remember that there are alternative ways to provide healing. Witches often could brew potions. Certain varieties of "white" magic users could specialize in healing magic and have different spell lists than the "black" sorcerers who cause corruption. Heck, just allowing characters to bind wounds and get a few hp back after each battle would help to realign the hit point balance.

Lots of options!

The thing that I see the most is that undead become a lot scarier if there aren't clerics to turn them. Maybe that would be a good thing.

Why not just "re-skin" the Cleric into 'White Magic'-User, jigger around a few little things here and there, and pretend it's a whole new class...?

It's more-or-less what I'd do, if I were striping down 3e into a 1974-ish un-D&D RPG.

It just needs a good name...