Cleric choice

[Karrde]

Originally posted by Marty4: quote: Originally posted by Karrde: And if you read the class description for P&P Morninglord of Lathander it says that they are pretty much the specialists for hunting and destroying undead..

...Which is why they recieve sunbeam as a domain spell. [/QUOTE]Yes, since it is a symbol of light and glory and glorious behavior just fits with the typical, lawful good morninglord who follows his cause.
And showing the holy symbol of your god to evil creatures is just the typical kind of job a cleric of lathander would do. Therefore again, the domain powers are as important as domain spells.

[Karrde]

Originally posted by ZFR: quote: Originally posted by Karrde: Oh, and for the orc-thingy: Giving a cleric low charisma is as worse as giving a fighter low STR / wizard low INT and so on..

About your previous post, I only said extra turning has little use, which I believe it to be. I never said not to choose it, and roleplaywise it is definately ok. If you read my first post in this thread, you'll see I too choose my clerics roleplaywise.

Now about this sentence of yours which I'm quoting. Please do not compare cleric charisma to wizard INT or fighter strength. CHA is only useful for turning, it's wisdom that is the main attribute for cleric. A cleric with low charisma can be very powerful. A mage with low intelligence is pretty useless (cant even cast spells if low means less that 10). So definately using "as worse as" (by the way did you mean 'worse' or 'as bad as'?) is out of place here.
I'd rather say a cleric with low CHA is as handicapped as a mage (or cleric!) with low strength. [/QUOTE]First: yes, it should be "as bad as." sorry for mistyping.
Second: If i compare important abilities though different classes, i do not refer to only one ability. Yes, wisdom is the most important ability for clerics, INT for wiz, CHA for bards etc.
But does that mean that i shouldnt care about the other abilites?

a wizard with low dex / con is kinda chunk. having d4 HD and no con bonus or having low dex and therefore low range touch/ range weapon / AC is kinda worse aswell.
so do we agree that there is more than one important ability in each class?
if so, you maybe reconsider a cleric with a ability modifier of -4 because of low charisma.
i dont want to get to paladins - a class which depends on four important attributes (STR, CON, WIS, CHA).
So after all, wisdom ist not everything.

[krunchyfrogg]

But who cares about a -4 modifier (or a -5 in my case) when you'll never use that ability?

You're saying that you need to concentrate on CHA, I say negate the CHA, and have a more powerful melee cleric, which is what you're probably going to be using him for anyway 95% of the time (that being, when there aren't any undead around).

[Redcodekevin]

In my first games, I personally liked Tempus a lot, because of the free axe feat. But since I started making my leader a dreadmaster of bane/sorcerer focused on enchantment... I got a new favorite.

[Karrde]

@krunchyfrogg:
the difference is that you configure your cleric for the specific demands IWD2 needs.
I configure my cleric as it would be a pen & paper cleric and THEN you would be a fool if you choose low charisma.
not only rebuking is CHA-based for clerics, skills are CHA-based aswell.

But i understand the temptation to specialize your chars for the specific thing you need in IWD2.

Therefore (IMHO), sorcerers are more useable in IWD / BG - you know in the first place which spells you ll need (and which not).
In p&p, you are way more versatile with a wizard because there is a demand for nearly any spell.

[krunchyfrogg]

Originally posted by Karrde: @krunchyfrogg: the difference is that you configure your cleric for the specific demands IWD2 needs. I configure my cleric as it would be a pen & paper cleric and THEN you would be a fool if you choose low charisma. not only rebuking is CHA-based for clerics, skills are CHA-based aswell.

There you go again, being very presumptuous. How do you know how I create my pen and paper characters, and how dare you call me a fool when I make a cleric with a low charisma?

My favorite 3rd edition character EVER was a dwarven barbarian/cleric of Haela Brightaxe. Since we were creating characters using the default stats (15,14,13,12,10,8), I chose to organize them as follows:

S: 15
D: 12
C: 14 (became 16)
I: 10
W: 13
C: 8 (became 6)

The character was a riot to play, and never bothered trying to turn undead. Instead she charged in, hacking away at undead with her enchanted greatsword. She was disgusting, insulting, and never even washed her beard. If I were creating a more powerful character, I'd never multiclass a barbarian and cleric with dwarf as a race anyway, but I'm looking for fun here.

Sorry, but you're just throwing around insults in an argument you can't win. Please stop. I expect an apology for the fool comment.

[krunchyfrogg]

Originally posted by ZFR: All cleric types can be dualled to monk. All monks can be dualled to all cleric.

Well, all LAWFUL clerics anyway.

[Klorox]

Originally posted by krunchyfrogg: Sorry, but you're just throwing around insults in an argument you can't win. Please stop. I expect an apology for the fool comment.

PWN3D

[ZFR]

Originally posted by Karrde: the difference is that you configure your cleric for the specific demands IWD2 needs. ... But i understand the temptation to specialize your chars for the specific thing you need in IWD2.

Just to clarify. My half orc cleric of tempus was my cleric in my first IWD2 game ever, before I knew anything about this game and what enemies I'll meet.

Originally posted by Karrde: Well, I like to roleplay. ... A cleric would always try to rebuke them instead of hack - even a tempus cleric.

Originally posted by Karrde: I configure my cleric as it would be a pen & paper cleric and THEN you would be a fool if you choose low charisma. not only rebuking is CHA-based for clerics, skills are CHA-based aswell.

So you mean roleplaying is stereotyping your character? Clerics always turn undead? Never do anything that does not fit your character because that is not 'roleplaying'?

[Karrde]

@ ZFR: No, i do not stereotype clerics, but if i consider to choose the Lathander class, then i SHOULD know that their prime goals are renewal, the sun and destruction of undead. so, if i dont want to rebuke undeads, i dont choose a morninglord. its just that plain kinda fact.
You know, specializing in some kinda work n' action is the main reason for prestige classes.


@krunchyfrogg: Well, its hilarious if you feel insulted by such a little cause. whatever.
you are right, you can create the character you want. if you want to play a pretty exotic or non-standard hero, do it.
if you want to choose low ability points for class abilites, then do it.
everything is possible, even a paladin (lets call him Tim) with ST 10 DEX 8 CON 12 INT 18 WIS 10 CHA 9.
i mean, maybe you kinda ROCK and HACK with such a holy warrior. but is such a paladin still a holy warrior? i dont think that you can "own" with that kinda smite evil, divine grace etc.. nor can you really hit any evil guys, but hey, maybe you will have a great time with Tim, the Paladin!

you can create a bard with CHA 9, what gives? who carea bout bard's songs or bardic knowledge? maybe its fun to play him, maybe he can smackdown the enemies with a whooping 18 STR.

you choose whatever you wanna play. but dont feel insulted if i call someone a fool who does not consider the main important abilities for his character.
thats just an easy fact.

[ 11-06-2005, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Karrde ]