Category talk:Clr Level 5 Spells - Revision history

Detarame at 14:00, 20 May 2011

2011-05-20T14:00:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:00, 20 May 2011
Line 16:		Line 16:
	::: By complicated I simply meant learning, tracking, remembering, and understanding yet another spell on an already burdensome and overcomplicated list. Removing options by definitions makes things less complicated, not more, by definition. -gm		::: By complicated I simply meant learning, tracking, remembering, and understanding yet another spell on an already burdensome and overcomplicated list. Removing options by definitions makes things less complicated, not more, by definition. -gm
	:::: Heh, I'm surprised how far apart our viewpoints are. Since we have many more fun topics to discuss, I retract my suggestions here. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]		:::: Heh, I'm surprised how far apart our viewpoints are. Since we have many more fun topics to discuss, I retract my suggestions here. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]
			::::: I'm not surprised in the least. :) Fun, ahoy! -gm

	:: That being said, I don't hate Fortunate Fate and really don't have much problem adding it to the spell list, though 14-16 is probably the upper end any of you guys will ever achieve, and then many years down the road, so high level stuff is something I'm concerning myself with almost not at all. -gm		:: That being said, I don't hate Fortunate Fate and really don't have much problem adding it to the spell list, though 14-16 is probably the upper end any of you guys will ever achieve, and then many years down the road, so high level stuff is something I'm concerning myself with almost not at all. -gm
	::: We're already getting within scroll range for 7th level spells, so it's not far-fetched to be talking about. Again, though, just a passing thought. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]		::: We're already getting within scroll range for 7th level spells, so it's not far-fetched to be talking about. Again, though, just a passing thought. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]
	:::: Sure, that's true. Like I said, I don't have a problem with this spell and even kind of like it. Not just enemies probably already have 7th level spells so this is a great add for them, but simply on its own merits. 7th level spell scroll costs 2,300 gold. I look forward to your reaction when someone suggests the party spend 2k gold on a single expendable item. heh. -gm		:::: Sure, that's true. Like I said, I don't have a problem with this spell and even kind of like it. Not just enemies probably already have 7th level spells so this is a great add for them, but simply on its own merits. 7th level spell scroll costs 2,300 gold. I look forward to your reaction when someone suggests the party spend 2k gold on a single expendable item. heh. -gm

Mattie at 13:53, 20 May 2011

2011-05-20T13:53:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 20 May 2011
Line 15:		Line 15:
	::: By this same logic, I should excise a spell for ever one we've added. I'll get on that immediately! ;) -gm		::: By this same logic, I should excise a spell for ever one we've added. I'll get on that immediately! ;) -gm
	::: By complicated I simply meant learning, tracking, remembering, and understanding yet another spell on an already burdensome and overcomplicated list. Removing options by definitions makes things less complicated, not more, by definition. -gm		::: By complicated I simply meant learning, tracking, remembering, and understanding yet another spell on an already burdensome and overcomplicated list. Removing options by definitions makes things less complicated, not more, by definition. -gm
			:::: Heh, I'm surprised how far apart our viewpoints are. Since we have many more fun topics to discuss, I retract my suggestions here. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]


	:: That being said, I don't hate Fortunate Fate and really don't have much problem adding it to the spell list, though 14-16 is probably the upper end any of you guys will ever achieve, and then many years down the road, so high level stuff is something I'm concerning myself with almost not at all. -gm		:: That being said, I don't hate Fortunate Fate and really don't have much problem adding it to the spell list, though 14-16 is probably the upper end any of you guys will ever achieve, and then many years down the road, so high level stuff is something I'm concerning myself with almost not at all. -gm
	::: We're already getting within scroll range for 7th level spells, so it's not far-fetched to be talking about. Again, though, just a passing thought. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]		::: We're already getting within scroll range for 7th level spells, so it's not far-fetched to be talking about. Again, though, just a passing thought. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]
	:::: Sure, that's true. Like I said, I don't have a problem with this spell and even kind of like it. Not just enemies probably already have 7th level spells so this is a great add for them, but simply on its own merits. 7th level spell scroll costs 2,300 gold. I look forward to your reaction when someone suggests the party spend 2k gold on a single expendable item. heh. -gm		:::: Sure, that's true. Like I said, I don't have a problem with this spell and even kind of like it. Not just enemies probably already have 7th level spells so this is a great add for them, but simply on its own merits. 7th level spell scroll costs 2,300 gold. I look forward to your reaction when someone suggests the party spend 2k gold on a single expendable item. heh. -gm

Detarame at 11:53, 20 May 2011

2011-05-20T11:53:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 20 May 2011
Line 13:		Line 13:
	: I personally think clerics are better than comparable classes at just about every level and don't feel that the loss of one category of spells essentially nerfs the entire class enough to lose sleep over. I've never allowed raise dead to be a regular occurrence in any campaign I've run in 20 years and it's yet to be a problem and I've always had no shortage of wanna-be clerics. That being said, I'm not against expanding spell lists across the board at a reasonable and measured pace, but I don't think the removal of raise dead really "nerfs" the class in an appreciable way. And, honestly, from a metagame point of view, besides being the demonstrably "best" class, clerics are already also an order of magnitude the most complicated class because of the huge amount of options, so I'm not in love with making that class even MORE of a chore for player and DM alike. Helen still wrestles with all the options provided by just the vanilla spellbook. And, just to be clear, that's been pretty much the case for everyone I've ever dealt with playing a cleric, so that's not a knock against her or her play or her abilities, but she's just the current Cleric and so gets to be the current Example. In fact, the same thing applied no less to me when I was playing a cleric for the IRL game and I like to think I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of spell lists. -gm		: I personally think clerics are better than comparable classes at just about every level and don't feel that the loss of one category of spells essentially nerfs the entire class enough to lose sleep over. I've never allowed raise dead to be a regular occurrence in any campaign I've run in 20 years and it's yet to be a problem and I've always had no shortage of wanna-be clerics. That being said, I'm not against expanding spell lists across the board at a reasonable and measured pace, but I don't think the removal of raise dead really "nerfs" the class in an appreciable way. And, honestly, from a metagame point of view, besides being the demonstrably "best" class, clerics are already also an order of magnitude the most complicated class because of the huge amount of options, so I'm not in love with making that class even MORE of a chore for player and DM alike. Helen still wrestles with all the options provided by just the vanilla spellbook. And, just to be clear, that's been pretty much the case for everyone I've ever dealt with playing a cleric, so that's not a knock against her or her play or her abilities, but she's just the current Cleric and so gets to be the current Example. In fact, the same thing applied no less to me when I was playing a cleric for the IRL game and I like to think I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of spell lists. -gm
	:: To be fair, I don't think "Swap ''Raise Dead'' for ''Spell Y''" measurably adds complication for the Cleric class-- no more than cutting out famous spells would. Was just thinking to pick one spell of level 5 to replace the empty spot in the spellbook. I'm no cleric, though, so no worries either way. It's more a passing suggestion while I was bored at work. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]		:: To be fair, I don't think "Swap ''Raise Dead'' for ''Spell Y''" measurably adds complication for the Cleric class-- no more than cutting out famous spells would. Was just thinking to pick one spell of level 5 to replace the empty spot in the spellbook. I'm no cleric, though, so no worries either way. It's more a passing suggestion while I was bored at work. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]
			::: By this same logic, I should excise a spell for ever one we've added. I'll get on that immediately! ;) -gm
			::: By complicated I simply meant learning, tracking, remembering, and understanding yet another spell on an already burdensome and overcomplicated list. Removing options by definitions makes things less complicated, not more, by definition. -gm

	:: That being said, I don't hate Fortunate Fate and really don't have much problem adding it to the spell list, though 14-16 is probably the upper end any of you guys will ever achieve, and then many years down the road, so high level stuff is something I'm concerning myself with almost not at all. -gm		:: That being said, I don't hate Fortunate Fate and really don't have much problem adding it to the spell list, though 14-16 is probably the upper end any of you guys will ever achieve, and then many years down the road, so high level stuff is something I'm concerning myself with almost not at all. -gm
	::: We're already getting within scroll range for 7th level spells, so it's not far-fetched to be talking about. Again, though, just a passing thought. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]		::: We're already getting within scroll range for 7th level spells, so it's not far-fetched to be talking about. Again, though, just a passing thought. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]
			:::: Sure, that's true. Like I said, I don't have a problem with this spell and even kind of like it. Not just enemies probably already have 7th level spells so this is a great add for them, but simply on its own merits. 7th level spell scroll costs 2,300 gold. I look forward to your reaction when someone suggests the party spend 2k gold on a single expendable item. heh. -gm

Mattie at 03:33, 20 May 2011

2011-05-20T03:33:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:33, 20 May 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Just some thoughts. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]		Just some thoughts. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]
	: I personally think clerics are better than comparable classes at just about every level and don't feel that the loss of one category of spells essentially nerfs the entire class enough to lose sleep over. I've never allowed raise dead to be a regular occurrence in any campaign I've run in 20 years and it's yet to be a problem and I've always had no shortage of wanna-be clerics. That being said, I'm not against expanding spell lists across the board at a reasonable and measured pace, but I don't think the removal of raise dead really "nerfs" the class in an appreciable way. And, honestly, from a metagame point of view, besides being the demonstrably "best" class, clerics are already also an order of magnitude the most complicated class because of the huge amount of options, so I'm not in love with making that class even MORE of a chore for player and DM alike. Helen still wrestles with all the options provided by just the vanilla spellbook. And, just to be clear, that's been pretty much the case for everyone I've ever dealt with playing a cleric, so that's not a knock against her or her play or her abilities, but she's just the current Cleric and so gets to be the current Example. In fact, the same thing applied no less to me when I was playing a cleric for the IRL game and I like to think I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of spell lists. -gm		: I personally think clerics are better than comparable classes at just about every level and don't feel that the loss of one category of spells essentially nerfs the entire class enough to lose sleep over. I've never allowed raise dead to be a regular occurrence in any campaign I've run in 20 years and it's yet to be a problem and I've always had no shortage of wanna-be clerics. That being said, I'm not against expanding spell lists across the board at a reasonable and measured pace, but I don't think the removal of raise dead really "nerfs" the class in an appreciable way. And, honestly, from a metagame point of view, besides being the demonstrably "best" class, clerics are already also an order of magnitude the most complicated class because of the huge amount of options, so I'm not in love with making that class even MORE of a chore for player and DM alike. Helen still wrestles with all the options provided by just the vanilla spellbook. And, just to be clear, that's been pretty much the case for everyone I've ever dealt with playing a cleric, so that's not a knock against her or her play or her abilities, but she's just the current Cleric and so gets to be the current Example. In fact, the same thing applied no less to me when I was playing a cleric for the IRL game and I like to think I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of spell lists. -gm
			:: To be fair, I don't think "Swap ''Raise Dead'' for ''Spell Y''" measurably adds complication for the Cleric class-- no more than cutting out famous spells would. Was just thinking to pick one spell of level 5 to replace the empty spot in the spellbook. I'm no cleric, though, so no worries either way. It's more a passing suggestion while I was bored at work. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]

	:: That being said, I don't hate Fortunate Fate and really don't have much problem adding it to the spell list, though 14-16 is probably the upper end any of you guys will ever achieve, and then many years down the road, so high level stuff is something I'm concerning myself with almost not at all. -gm		:: That being said, I don't hate Fortunate Fate and really don't have much problem adding it to the spell list, though 14-16 is probably the upper end any of you guys will ever achieve, and then many years down the road, so high level stuff is something I'm concerning myself with almost not at all. -gm
			::: We're already getting within scroll range for 7th level spells, so it's not far-fetched to be talking about. Again, though, just a passing thought. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]

Detarame at 16:28, 19 May 2011

2011-05-19T16:28:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 19 May 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Just some thoughts. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]		Just some thoughts. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]
	: I personally think clerics are better than comparable classes at just about every level and don't feel that the loss of one category of spells essentially nerfs the entire class enough to lose sleep over. I've never allowed raise dead to be a regular occurrence in any campaign I've run in 20 years and it's yet to be a problem and I've always had no shortage of wanna-be clerics. That being said, I'm not against expanding spell lists across the board at a reasonable and measured pace, but I don't think the removal of raise dead really "nerfs" the class in an appreciable way. And, honestly, from a metagame point of view, besides being the demonstrably "best" class, clerics are already also an order of magnitude the most complicated class because of the huge amount of options, so I'm not in love with making that class even MORE of a chore for player and DM alike. Helen still wrestles with all the options provided by just the vanilla spellbook. And, just to be clear, that's been pretty much the case for everyone I've ever dealt with playing a cleric, so that's not a knock against her or her play or her abilities, but she's just the current Cleric and so gets to be the current Example. In fact, the same thing applied no less to me when I was playing a cleric for the IRL game and I like to think I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of spell lists. -gm		: I personally think clerics are better than comparable classes at just about every level and don't feel that the loss of one category of spells essentially nerfs the entire class enough to lose sleep over. I've never allowed raise dead to be a regular occurrence in any campaign I've run in 20 years and it's yet to be a problem and I've always had no shortage of wanna-be clerics. That being said, I'm not against expanding spell lists across the board at a reasonable and measured pace, but I don't think the removal of raise dead really "nerfs" the class in an appreciable way. And, honestly, from a metagame point of view, besides being the demonstrably "best" class, clerics are already also an order of magnitude the most complicated class because of the huge amount of options, so I'm not in love with making that class even MORE of a chore for player and DM alike. Helen still wrestles with all the options provided by just the vanilla spellbook. And, just to be clear, that's been pretty much the case for everyone I've ever dealt with playing a cleric, so that's not a knock against her or her play or her abilities, but she's just the current Cleric and so gets to be the current Example. In fact, the same thing applied no less to me when I was playing a cleric for the IRL game and I like to think I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of spell lists. -gm
			:: That being said, I don't hate Fortunate Fate and really don't have much problem adding it to the spell list, though 14-16 is probably the upper end any of you guys will ever achieve, and then many years down the road, so high level stuff is something I'm concerning myself with almost not at all. -gm

Detarame: /* Un-nerfing Level 5 and Level 7? */

2011-05-19T16:06:46Z

Un-nerfing Level 5 and Level 7?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:06, 19 May 2011
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Just some thoughts. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]		Just some thoughts. -[[User:Mattie\|Mattie]]
			: I personally think clerics are better than comparable classes at just about every level and don't feel that the loss of one category of spells essentially nerfs the entire class enough to lose sleep over. I've never allowed raise dead to be a regular occurrence in any campaign I've run in 20 years and it's yet to be a problem and I've always had no shortage of wanna-be clerics. That being said, I'm not against expanding spell lists across the board at a reasonable and measured pace, but I don't think the removal of raise dead really "nerfs" the class in an appreciable way. And, honestly, from a metagame point of view, besides being the demonstrably "best" class, clerics are already also an order of magnitude the most complicated class because of the huge amount of options, so I'm not in love with making that class even MORE of a chore for player and DM alike. Helen still wrestles with all the options provided by just the vanilla spellbook. And, just to be clear, that's been pretty much the case for everyone I've ever dealt with playing a cleric, so that's not a knock against her or her play or her abilities, but she's just the current Cleric and so gets to be the current Example. In fact, the same thing applied no less to me when I was playing a cleric for the IRL game and I like to think I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of spell lists. -gm

Mattie: unnerf this level for clerics?

2011-05-19T15:48:45Z

unnerf this level for clerics?

New page

== Un-nerfing Level 5 and Level 7? ==

Since Level 5 and 7 are nerfed for clerics in this world due to the loss of the vital ''Raise Dead'' and ''Resurrection'' spells, is there anything we could do to give them another spell type which makes up for the loss? I'd expect clerics to have studied magic in those slots to help avoid deathy things...

Some possibilities for Level 5:
* [http://screencast.com/t/gUX2jyuk Revivify]: Not Raise Dead, but given the way it reads, it's probably the closest one could get to Raise Dead in your world.
* [http://screencast.com/t/LHBnnlft6 Healing Circle]: Nice general-purpose party saver, better IMHO than CLW, Mass
* Perhaps add the [http://sites.google.com/site/shockfrosted/Home/dnd/spells#TOC-Vigor-Lesser Vigor] lines of spells from Spell Compendium? That gives them Greater Vigor at this level which isn't so bad.

For Level 7, to me it makes total sense that clerics in the world would rely on something more preventative like [http://screencast.com/t/ONYfBcWyivG Fortunate Fate]. Perhaps we should add that as a supported spell in this world?

Just some thoughts. -[[User:Mattie|Mattie]]