Talk:Priest (3.5e Class)

Old Version Comments

This class has been merged with the old Divine Avatar PrC. Comments on the old versions of the classes are spoilered below for history purposes.

Old Version - Priest

Comments and Concerns Now that I'm not distracted, I've had a chance to take a closer look. Some things stood out - Spells - Why no bonus spells from high attribute? Gate to the Heavens - Would restricting it to opening somewhere in the deity's demesne instead of just their plane (which could wind up on a different layer) be a reasonable thing to add? I still need to look over the domains proper before I have more than a "that looks interesting, and could be done really well" feel about the spellcasting,, since this relies on them pretty heavily, but I'll add any concerns on that front to the relevant domains. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC) On the no bonus spells from a high attribute - I'm actually not sure anymore. Consider this section amended, mostly out of my own weirdness/stupidity. As far as Gate to the Heavens is concerned - agreed, although the added 'scatter' that I gave to it somewhat mitigates for this. Consider it changed to match your suggestion, though. - MisterSinister 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I just noticed that they get crap BAB, only good Will saves, and only light armor proficiency. This makes me extremely happy, and I wanted to share that with you :-D. - Tarkisflux Talk 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Spell assignment concerns - Refuge - This is an additional note about this spell, since it shows up in the base list and the Good domain. I think the domain is the better call here. Binding - It's not traditionally a cleric spell, and doesn't seem to do anything that soul bind doesn't already do. Why the inclusion? - Tarkisflux Talk 04:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Missing Spells I'm just going to drop a list of spells here that are somewhat central to my conception of "priestness" but missing from both the base list and domains. I don't have suggestions for where to put most of these, but they probably should go somewhere. Will add to list as I run across things. - Tarkisflux Talk 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC) List: Remove Disease Remove Blindness/Deafness (I'd be pretty happy rolling this in with remove disease and putting the new "remove affliction" in as the healing 3rd level) Remove Curse Water Breathing (appears in water domain power, but nowhere else) Freedom of Movement Zone of Truth Atonement Break Enchantment Hallow / Unhallow (though parts of the unhallow effect should arguably die in a fire) Banishment Word of Recall Holy Word / Blasphemy Refuge Soul Bind (it's a less nasty trap the soul [which does show up in a domain], but I'm pretty comfortable giving clerics this sort of dominion over the eternal souls of people) I actually have no issues giving this whole list to priests. Most of these are quite situational, but I object to a few of these being on the general list. Specifically Water Breathing and Holy Word/Blasphemy. The former I actually think should be reserved for priests of water deities, and the latter is a bit tricky, because I don't want to give them all out. That being said, I need to rewrite the alignment domains anyway, assuming I haven't done so already, so I think that solves the issue. - MisterSinister 19:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Edit: Same goes for Hallow/Unhallow, really. Otherwise, all added. - MisterSinister 19:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC) I have now added domains for all of the alignments, which should close the circle on the stuff you've asked to be included. I hope. - MisterSinister 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC) The stuff I've found anyway :-p. Mind answering some leveling questions? Why are commune and zone of truth level 2 instead of some other level? Full disclosure - level 2 looks pretty full compared to other levels and those are spells I could see moving up or down to spread things out a bit, but I don't want to actually ask for that sort of thing until I know why they're there in the first place. - Tarkisflux Talk 02:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Zone of Truth is a relatively weak spell when you think about it - it has a small area in a very close range, and can be avoided by simply leaving the area (which is hardly a challenge). When you compare it to its higher-level brother (discern lies), it targets specific creatures, which makes simply wandering off something you cannot do. Additionally, discern lies does not signal to the creature that you know that it's lying or not, whereas zone of truth will - immediately. Lastly, this is where it was before, and I could think of no good reason for changing it. Commune is a trickier question. As a 5th level spell, commune was ridiculous in terms of what it supplied you with, which was essentially almost nothing. You are only allowed yes-no questions, the deity may well not know what you're seeking to learn (and have their own agendas anyway), and has a fairly explicit statement effectively saying 'the GM will only give you what they think is appropriate'. I like to compare it with augury, which has precise, defined results (albeit in a much narrower range), with a very real measure of how precise its answers will be. And that is a 1st level spell by my reckoning, due to its extremely narrow application and short timeframe. While I believe that commune is better, it's not four spell levels better, which is why I think putting it there is most sensible. Really, the way I see it is "how useful is this spell compared to others of its level?". For both of these, I consider them to be useful on a level relative to 2nd level utility spells people swear by, such as resist energy, desecrate and shatter. - MisterSinister 02:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC) I actually think Commune is more useful that your reference spells as well as significantly more useful than Augury due to having actual scaling and known non-random biases, enough that I would only drop it to 3rd personally. Admittedly, this also includes a personal bias to not have 3rd level clerics actually talking to their deities and reserving that for "mid-level" clerics (5-9 range, for campaign fluff and available story reasons), so take that as you will. Zone of Truth I think reasonably useful, if limited in all the ways you mentioned and more since you can play "evade the question" until the duration ends. I have actually wasted minutes in games talking around this spell (seriously - this is not an exaggeration) with things that are technically truthful answers to the questions I was asked if not actual return questions for clarification. You can get around that sort of thing with extremely direct questions, sometimes, but in those situations it's as useful to a 1st level cleric as a 3rd level one. Since I'm also pretty comfortable with courts (such as they exist in the campaign setting) using this spell and the priests/clerics who cast it as a failsafe against perjury, I wouldn't mind dropping it to 1. Your call though, I'll adjust my divine classes appropriately in any case. - Tarkisflux Talk 06:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC) --Break for new spells-- Protection from <Alignment> Consecrate (no [Good] desc) - This does everything that desecrate does except it's only hostile to undead. Seems a suitably priestly thing. Magic Circle Against <Alignment> <Stuff from the Spell Comp> - I'm not actually sure what your feelings on this one are, but felt like including it since the templar uses it. Delay Poison - Yeah, neutralize is in the healing domain, but that's the only place it is and priests don't have access to the heal skill to fix it otherwise. Dropping this in at 2 seems like it would be a decent compromise without stepping on the healing domain's toes, since they'll never cast it anyway. Death Ward Class Skills Healing and Dowsing definitively seem like priest skills to me. Why didn't they get onto the class skill list?--ParakeeTalk 22:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC) The skills for this were taken from the Cleric, and they don't have the skills because they already have spells to cover those bases. You could make an argument that priests should get the skills since they don't have the same default access to healing and divination spells (subject to spell concerns detailed above), but it devalues clerics who take those domains somewhat since they get similar abilities from two sources. - Tarkisflux Talk 04:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC) That gives me an idea for an alternate skill listing method: instead of giving more versatile classes fewer skill points, you could give the same number of skill points to every class, but pick class skills with the greatest overlap first. --Foxwarrior (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Request Would you mind if I used this class for my Emerald Sun setting? Paleomancer (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Not in the slightest. - MisterSinister (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks! Paleomancer (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Old Version - Divine Avatar

Thoughts and Concerns Immortal - Fast healing on top of DR/- and energy resistance seems a bit much, in tracking fiddly bits if not in effectiveness. Both work to reduce incoming stuff, why not just use one or the other? Undying - Is the level loss from Rez intentional? Alter Reality - This initially gives them access to a big pile of wizard spells, and a smaller pile of non-wizard spells, subject only to the limit that it "must be in line with the deity's portfolio". Since that allows "ends justify the means" style wizard casting, it seems kinda weird. A more clear limitation on effects would be helpful, or just writing a "lesser miracle" that covers the divine angle to use here instead. Lesser Demense - This offends my delicate planescape sensibilities. Why create a new demiplane in the ethereal instead of giving them an area of the deity's actual land to use? Why do all deities get to generate new areas of the ethereal in this way, when the spell itself is limited to the creation domain (which I also think retarded, as it's better suited to wizards anyway)? This is particularly weird to me when we get to... True Divinity - ... this ability, which also offends my delicate planescape sensibilities. Of all of the abilities here, I like this one the least. Concerns here get bullet points even: It sets up quasi-deities on ethereal pocket planes (which I'm not even sure there's precedent for, and any precedent there is should be removed) It sets up a potentially large number of deities whose only contribution to the world was that they served some other deity really well. What did priests do to deserve that leap that high level everyone else didn't? Per current SRD, quasi-deities don't get to grant spells. This is a Good Thing (TM) IMO, since doing otherwise dilutes the divine pool in ways I don't think are actually good for a setting. There's also the whole "cult kool-aid" vibe that I get from all of your living, potentially happy followers dying and turning into petitioners (also on an ethereal pocket plane). As a replacement ability, the ability to actually channel an avatar of your deity might work. Along with an evolution into actual outsider maybe. The idea of you retiring to your demesne in service to your deity far from mortal concerns is a cool one, I just don't like the method here. Unmentioned things I thought were pretty well done. - Tarkisflux Talk 20:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Wow, that was fast! OK, I'll try to cover everything. On Immortal: You make a valid point. I would prefer DR over FH, so that's what I'll amend it to. On Undying: No, it definitely wasn't intentional. It's an omission on my part for failing to know the specifics of the Rez spell. I'll amend it to function as True Rez instead to avoid this problem. On Alter Reality: Admittedly, the broadness is pretty major here, and the main reason for the weird spell cloning is that a lesser miracle doesn't exist yet. Having read your concerns, I think that making a lesser miracle spell would probably fix most of that, so I'll do exactly this ASAP. On offending Planescape sensibilities: Points taken all across. I'm not as familiar with genesis' as I'd like to be, and I can certainly see why you're offended. I think I need to try and explain a bit more clearly what my thinking was given this entire thing, and hopefully we can both come to a solution which keeps my intent and doesn't offend your sensibilities. Firstly, when you get to 20th level, the game is over. We both know that epic levels are a joke inflicted on us by WotC, and thus, I'm actually very much behind the Tome 'win the game' logic for that level. However, at the same time, I consider their more blunt approach to this (as in, literally stating that you 'win DnD') to be a bit silly. This was essentially my attempt at making this better. I also wanted to add support for someone becoming an actual deity, and this level seemed like a sensible place to do it. Secondly, a lot of the Ethereal Plane-related complaints are from me not reading the spell correctly. I certainly don't intend to use up large tracts of Ethereal Plane real estate for this purpose, and thus, correcting it to a piece of their patron's demesne is certainly an improvement. Thirdly, not only priests can qualify to be divine avatars - a lot of other divine (and even non-divine) casters can do so quite easily if they wanted to, so it's not like it's a priest-specific thing. As for a 'large number', let's be honest with ourselves - 20th level characters are extremely unusual, and the proportion of those who would want to be divine avatars isn't going to be that huge anyway. I know it sounds like a weak argument, but it does need to be borne in mind. As far as them being useless deities - can you seriously name me a pantheon that contains that many deities which are well-defined and interesting? This way, at least, people have mechanical support for wanting to become a god. As far as the 'cult kool-aid' goes, I certainly didn't intend it that way. Would revising it to say that your followers become your petitioners upon death be an acceptable compromise to this? Lastly, regarding quasi-deities not granting spells - again, an oversight on my part, and the reasoning as I see it is good. I should probably rethink that. Overall, I'm open to suggestions, provided that 'becoming a god' or something close to that still occurs at 20th level, but I do agree with you that my current implementation is definitely lacking. - MisterSinister 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC) We may be at an impasse then. Even as this is available to other primary and secondary casters, I prefer to reserve 'becoming a god' for plot related bits that are open to full non-casters as well. I actually don't want to include divinity rank 0 in any game mechanics except as a prereq for level 21 (so all epic games are deity games in essence), and just let individual games sort out how people get there. If 'becoming an avatar' is close enough though, then I think that's a path to look at. That might mean that they get a casting nova, where they can cast whatever they want without using slots for a period of time, or get tarrasque like invulnerability buff, or something else entirely. If that's close enough, I'll put some thought into it and post some suggestions, and if not I'll spend my time reading domains and cleaning up the alternate template spell list ;-) - Tarkisflux Talk 22:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Edit - On further reflection, I guess my concern with it is as much with the flavor of it (detailed above) as with the non-ability of it. Flavor stuff aside, it boils down to "you get to retire in an awesome way, impacting the setting for future generations". I thought I should point that out, since it actually makes my concerns rather hollow in a number of ways. I still don't like it much though. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I have absolutely no problem with creating classes that permit such an option for non-casters - I just haven't written them yet. I'd also prefer if you agreed with the work I was doing, even if that means compromising what I wanted a little. - MisterSinister 22:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC) In that case, I'll run through my logic / reasoning and you can pick it apart and we can wind up where we do. So: Is deity status available to characters whose level 20 ability isn't "retire into deity-hood"? If yes, this is a non-ability that actually punishes people who take it because people who don't get something cool instead, and it should be replaced. If no, then we get a followup question: Does every prestige class end on "retire into deity-hood"? If yes, they're all non-abilities and should be replaced. If no, why are you excluding a portion of the population from acquiring deity status? Since I'm pretty unhappy with any path through that chain that isn't "exclude people" and I can't come up with a valid reason to exclude people who choose the wrong prestige classes, I don't want it to be tied to mechanics in any way. I could be missing something though, and if so I'd love to know what that is. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Edit - If you just want a fluff ability there along the lines of "win DnD", here's one I consider reasonably fluffed with respect to divinity acquisition: "A tenth level divine avatar is a true and loyal servant of his deity. When he 'retires' from mortal concerns, he really just goes to his demesne and continues in service to his deity. If he ever qualifies for divine ascendance, he does so with the blessing and support of his patron deity. His cohort, if any, becomes his herald, and his followers worship him as strongly as they do his patron deity." I still think it's lacking actual ability-ness, but if the intent is to write all level 20 abilities in a similar style it's not bad. - Tarkisflux Talk 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Fair enough, I'd be OK with this take on it. - MisterSinister 02:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Ok. Then I'll also avoid writing actual level 20 abilities and go with some form of awesome retirement fluff in work intended for compatibility. - Tarkisflux Talk 03:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Skills

The ToP variant class has the same number of skill points as class skills. This really does not seem right to me, nor does it seem to coincide with the design philosophy of ToP. Care to explain? --2602:306:BCAD:B030:84F:372F:D0D3:B74 01:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)