Quote from: jibbajibba;372691I really have no attachment to original rules. (...) Generally where something came from for me is only of historic interest.

I do understand that, and do understand where you're coming from. At the same time, I'm trying to tell you where the game was coming from in this regard, and how game elements such as the Cleric and the Paladin ended up being the way they were when you picked up the game. You totally can not feel "attached" to these choices at all, that's your choice, but now you know where these come from and how they were making sense in the context of the game's evolution.

The next time you're tempted to say "this doesn't make sense", I hope that maybe, just maybe, you'll think about it according to the game's context, and then, maybe, just maybe, you'll see there are different takes one can take on this idea that seemed very dull and boring at first. Not forcing anything on you, here.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;372694Correction: The idea was fantastic, and the implementation was fantastic. Spheres of magic? Thank you very much. 2e specialty priests rock on toast. Period.

I very much like the idea of the Spheres, myself. It's not much different from the Runes in RuneQuest, when you think about it, so I'm rather curious to hear where T's coming from, on this.

Clerics are easily the most replayable class in 2 and 3e. AFAIC making the other classes like them would have been a better design decision than what we got.

Quote from: Benoist;372695I do understand that, and do understand where you're coming from. At the same time, I'm trying to tell you where the game was coming from in this regard, and how game elements such as the Cleric and the Paladin ended up being the way they were when you picked up the game. You totally can not feel "attached" to these choices at all, that's your choice, but now you know where these come from and how they were making sense in the context of the game's evolution.

The next time you're tempted to say "this doesn't make sense", I hope that maybe, just maybe, you'll think about it according to the game's context, and then, maybe, just maybe, you'll see there are different takes one can take on this idea that seemed very dull and boring at first. Not forcing anything on you, here.

I see where that is coming from but again to me I just don't see why the context is relevant to actually playing. If I encounter a system/process that (to me) has obvious faults I will try to fix it. Understanding why it came to be that way is useful but shouldn't prevent a fix. I can totally see that there is a nostalgia about it and I can totally see that the game had a rhythm to it but the whole room , room, fight, room, trap, fight, rest ... to me breaks immersion. A room full of orcs a room full of bugbears a trap... what do the orcs eat? who resets the traps? where do these creatures shit? These things bug me hugely.
If the game gets a paladin, which is perhaps a truer Templar/Hospitaler than the cleric class then it stands to reason that the cleric class can change to encompass more. Because the cleric used to be another figure on the battlefield that was slightly weaker but could heal doesn't mean it always has to remain that.

Quote from: Benoist;372698I very much like the idea of the Spheres, myself. It's not much different from the Runes in RuneQuest, when you think about it, so I'm rather curious to hear where T's coming from, on this.

Mostly the fact that it was cobbled and jury-rigged on top of the existing spell-lists with questionable results (like the fact the druids in 2E no longer had access to a bunch of the spells on the 1E druid list and non-druid priests did -- the same with 1E vs 2E illusionists, where they can no longer use certain spells from the 1E illusionist list but non-illusionist mages can). Plus the whole thing just seemed very bland and formulaic to me, like they were satisfied with something that seemed to work alright at a glance and couldn't be bothered to expend more effort on it in a way that would actually give each variety of specialty priest or mage its own unique flavor, character, advantages and disadvantages.

Instead of taking the 1E druid and illusionist as examples of how to build specialty mages and priests and building from that (giving each new specialty class that level of detail and differentiation from the baseline), they came up with some "universal" rules that, in practice, ended up not only creating a whole bunch of bland and neutered classes but, because they were retroactively applied to the druid and illusionist, blandified and neutered both of them as well. Yeah, being able to play dozens of different types of specialty priests seems like a better deal than only being able to play 2, but when both of the 2 had a distinctive and unique flavor and none of the dozens do, what have you really gained?

Note: I'm talking about speciality priests and mages as depicted in the 2E PHB (and hinted at in the 1E-era Dragonlance Adventures and Greyhawk Adventures books). Later books (like the apparently well-regarded Faiths & Avatars) may well have addressed some of these problems and added more unique and flavorful elements to the bland cookie-cutter PH version, but I was already off the train by the time those came along so I never saw them.

Quote from: jibbajibba;372705If I encounter a system/process that (to me) has obvious faults I will try to fix it. Understanding why it came to be that way is useful but shouldn't prevent a fix.

"Fix it"? Okay. I think we're speaking two different languages, here.

There's nothing "broken" about the Cleric in First Ed. It's just a different Cleric, with a different logic behind it, than the "Cleric" as it stands in 2nd ed. There's no need to "fix" either one of them. They are what they are, according to their respective contexts. You sure can think "hey, that doesn't fit what -I- think priests should be in the game" and create a different way to do it, but you don't "fix it". That's what game designers do, for different reasons: because the users' perception of the game evolves, because the monetary needs of the company are what they are, and that core rule books sell the way the sell, they will be coming up with new ways to emulate concepts as they perceive them. They don't "fix" anything. They just reboot a game in a different way that may please some people, displease others.

To me, anyway.

Hence, I think we're speaking two completely different languages here.

Quote from: T. Foster;372707Instead of taking the 1E druid and illusionist as examples of how to build specialty mages and priests and building from that (giving each new specialty class that level of detail and differentiation from the baseline), they came up with some "universal" rules that, in practice, ended up not only creating a whole bunch of bland and neutered classes but, because they were retroactively applied to the druid and illusionist, blandified and neutered both of them as well. Yeah, being able to play dozens of different types of specialty priests seems like a better deal than only being able to play 2, but when both of the 2 had a distinctive and unique flavor and none of the dozens do, what have you really gained?

So you'd have preferred to see say one specific Priestly Class built for each particular priestly archetype, much like the Druid is to the Cleric, say, than the little templates that specialty priests ended up being in 2nd ed? You take the Druid, and then make up a comparable class for, say, a Vipra (Vedic Priest), another one for the Hem-Netjer (Ancient Egyptian Priest), etc?

Quote from: two_fishes;372145i'm koltar.

NO, you're not.

I never picked a fight with Sett. He is annoying sometimes, but he and I both seem to be very fond of classic TRAVELLER.

Now I finally know what thread One Horse Town was referring to in his post.

Also its impossible for me to have a "sock puppet" - I don't know how to make one , I'm not that proficient with the internet or software (etc...)


- Ed C.

Since we seem to be on the subject of clerics and their utility, consider this: of all of the classes (in any edition), a party made up solely of Clerics (as opposed to any other single-class party) would, IMO, be the most survivable and effective.

Comments?

Quote from: Werekoala;372761Since we seem to be on the subject of clerics and their utility, consider this: of all of the classes (in any edition), a party made up solely of Clerics (as opposed to any other single-class party) would, IMO, be the most survivable and effective.

Comments?

Wouldn't that be comparable to a modern-day setting campaign having a whole adventuring party made up of Doctors, paramedics, and priests?


- Ed C.

Quote from: Werekoala;372761Comments?

The combats in 4e would be really, really, really long without having some strikers in the party.

To the point where people may stab themselves in the eyes with their pencils.

Quote from: Werekoala;372761Since we seem to be on the subject of clerics and their utility, consider this: of all of the classes (in any edition), a party made up solely of Clerics (as opposed to any other single-class party) would, IMO, be the most survivable and effective.

Comments?

At least as far as 3e and earlier are concerned, I agree.  Clerics are usually my go to class in computer versions as well, largely because their range of ability means they even work well solo.

The thing is, healing is so ridiculously broken in 4E that a party of clerics could easily bore the monsters to death, at least if the GM plays RAW for the encounters.

Just the sickness of everyone casting 'Astral Seal' would drive the game into a frenzy of pointlessness.

Quote from: Benoist;372713"Fix it"? Okay. I think we're speaking two different languages, here.

There's nothing "broken" about the Cleric in First Ed. It's just a different Cleric, with a different logic behind it, than the "Cleric" as it stands in 2nd ed.

Ok this is where you guys went off the rails. The standard reason to fix the cleric in 1e isn't because they're useless, it's because they suck, they're one-note, and they're boring. They're the worst PC class in the game. "Why do I have to be the cleric?" remember? 2nd and 3rd edition did a pretty good job of making them suck less, that way.

Quote from: Imp;372783Ok this is where you guys went off the rails. The standard reason to fix the cleric in 1e isn't because they're useless, it's because they suck, they're one-note, and they're boring. They're the worst PC class in the game. "Why do I have to be the cleric?" remember? 2nd and 3rd edition did a pretty good job of making them suck less, that way.

Actually, I think this is the exact difference in play style or interpretation that 4e addresses.  

It's not the abilities that make a character distinct, it's how you play that character.  All character classes were pretty much the same in AD&D.  Spell selection differentiated casters, Fighters could take different weapons, but one Thief was pretty much the same as the next as far as abilities went.  Even with some differentiation, a 3rd level Magic User chose from the exact same list as any other 3rd level Magic User.  Somewhere along the line, it became important to mechanically differentiate characters also.  I think that is where the law of unintended consequences started creeping in.

For the record, I don't recall anyone really complaining about playing the Cleric.  Or any class, in fact.