Would you allow Clerics to swap Potent Spellcasting and Divine Strike?

[jaappleton]

So, every Cleric Domain, at 8th level, gets either Potent Spellcasting (+Wis Mod to Cantrips) or Potent Spellcasting (+1d8 damage to a weapon attack once per turn).

If you have a player that has picked a Domain that gets one, and wants the other instead, do you allow it? Why / why not?

[Trask]

So, every Cleric Domain, at 8th level, gets either Potent Spellcasting (+Wis Mod to Cantrips) or Potent Spellcasting (+1d8 damage to a weapon attack once per turn).

If you have a player that has picked a Domain that gets one, and wants the other instead, do you allow it? Why / why not?

I would allow it if they really wanted. I see no harm.

[suplee215]

I'll ask why and if it fits the character I'll go with it. While these abilities are not game breaking I tend to not bend the rules when the answer is "because it'll make deal more damage".

[CTurbo]

I would allow it. I see no reason not too.

[bid]

If you have a player that has picked a Domain that gets one, and wants the other instead, do you allow it? Why / why not?
As long as they pick a fair damage type. Nature's dial-a-type and psychic should be a no-no.

[Trask]

I'll ask why and if it fits the character I'll go with it. While these abilities are not game breaking I tend to not bend the rules when the answer is "because it'll make deal more damage".

Thats true, I'd definitely ask the reason. Even if the answer change itself is relatively harmless, I dont want to give in just because a player wants to optimize.

But if for example a player told me that he wanted to play a Cleric of Apollo, Light, but he wanted to use a spear and be sort of a Greek hoplite type warrior at the same time and so he wanted Divine strike, that would be enough for me to sign off on the change happily.

[DarkKnightJin]

I'll ask why and if it fits the character I'll go with it. While these abilities are not game breaking I tend to not bend the rules when the answer is "because it'll make deal more damage".

Indeed. The abilities are relatively interchangeable. And for some Cleric domains, I'm not sure why they got Divine Strike instead of Potent Spellcasting.
Nature domain, for instance. While the 'pick a damage type' for their Divine Strike is nice in that it can bypass immunity and resistance to the energy types.. I'm not entirely sure why they didn't get Potent Spellcasting instead.

If a player explained that they would rather get Divine Strike because it fits with their character idea, and they don't want to 'rely' on their cantrips for the 'most damage' every round, because they only get the one attack per round?
I see no reason to deny them such a thing. I'd make sure the damage type is something fitting.
As for the Cleric of Apollo idea mention elsewhere in this thread: The Life Domain's Divine Strike seems rather fitting for that. +1d8, and later 2d8, of Radiant damage once per turn when they strike.
Trickery Cleric, I'd give them just the basic weapon's type of damage, instead of poison. Or indeed, let them have the Potent Spellcasting. Chances are the Trickery Cleric isn't going to be superhard on their weapon attacks, anyway.

[CTurbo]

I think the only Domains that should even get Divine Strike are War, Life, Forge, and Tempest.

[Leith]

Nope. You picked your domain, live with it. I wouldn't let a champion trade Remarkable Athlete for the battlemaster's Know Your Enemy ability even though it may fit your character and the one is more useful than the other.

People are too ready in my opinion to change rules to suit some special character concept rather than just playing with the already incredibly customizable classes, races and feats that have already been published.

For your cleric of Apollo you could just as easily give the character a weapon that does an extra d8 damage. No messing around with the class required, and there are already several weapons in the DMG that do that.

That said, it doesn't make much of a difference to the game, from a mechanical or narrative perspective.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Nope...People are too ready in my opinion to change rules to suit some special character concept rather than just playing with the already incredibly customizable classes, races and feats that have already been published.
Conversely, as long as I don't think you're going for some abusive combo, I'm happy to change rules to suit character concepts. Much more open and fun than being a stickler for the rules.

[CaptAl]

The two are mechanically almost identical. I don't see how an average damage difference for one character of a couple points a round could be game breaking. And if it makes no real difference mechanically, but makes the player's concept work better, why not do it? I would say that once that choice is made it's set. We're not swapping divine strike back on every few levels just because the character picked up a "sword of awesome" and the player wants to capitalize on that.

[Trask]

Nope. You picked your domain, live with it. I wouldn't let a champion trade Remarkable Athlete for the battlemaster's Know Your Enemy ability even though it may fit your character and the one is more useful than the other.

People are too ready in my opinion to change rules to suit some special character concept rather than just playing with the already incredibly customizable classes, races and feats that have already been published.

For your cleric of Apollo you could just as easily give the character a weapon that does an extra d8 damage. No messing around with the class required, and there are already several weapons in the DMG that do that.

That said, it doesn't make much of a difference to the game, from a mechanical or narrative perspective.

An extra d8 damage weapon isnt exactly something you can buy at the local store (also Light clerics use simple weapons). I dont think its wise to base a character concept around the assumption that you will have access to certain magical, or otherwise excellent, equipment. Also in that case I have the weapon and I STILL have potent cantrip.

I see what youre saying but for stuff so minor, and that comes up so infrequently (at least in my experience) i dont think its a big deal.

[Leith]

Conversely, as long as I don't think you're going for some abusive combo, I'm happy to change rules to suit character concepts. Much more open and fun than being a stickler for the rules.

Maybe. For me the question isn't about your character concept and which ability fits, but rather why don't you just play the class that has those abilities already.

I'm not adamant about not making minor changes, but if you can get the same result without doing so, why bother? The system is already very flexible so players and DMs should be able to get the result they want just by working the system. Which is also fun.

It's just a matter of opinion. I wouldn't let a player change the mechanics of their class, even in a minor meaningless way, when a simple magic weapon can achieve the same result.
When the rules can't do what you want, that's when I think you need to tinker.

But some people like tinkering, just don't ask me to play at your table 'cause it will drive me up the wall.

[JNAProductions]

I think the only Domains that should even get Divine Strike are War, Life, Forge, and Tempest.

Why Life? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to get Potent Spellcasting?

[Leith]

An extra d8 damage weapon isnt exactly something you can buy at the local store (also Light clerics use simple weapons). I dont think its wise to base a character concept around the assumption that you will have access to certain magical, or otherwise excellent, equipment. Also in that case I have the weapon and I STILL have potent cantrip.

I see what youre saying but for stuff so minor, and that comes up so infrequently (at least in my experience) i dont think its a big deal.

If we're talking level 1, then yeah. But why not just pick a domain that does the thing you want? Or multi class or take feats as you level up.

At level 8 if a player wanted to swap I'd just say, go try and find that magic weapon. A lo the DM shall provide, after much haggling and/or murder.

[Theodoxus]

Honestly, it should have been written as "At 8th level, you have the option to either have potent spellcasting or divine strike. Once chosen, the pick is permanent."

By 8th level, you know what type of cleric you are - either running in and beating stuff up or standing back and nuking from behind. Hill Dwarf clerics (considered sky blue) can easily go pure wisdom build even on a heavy armor proficient domain - which pretty much all (or all, AFB ATM) grant weapon damage. I'm contemplating a forge cleric right now, vacillating between hill dwarf with 8 Str, 17 Con, 16 Wis (grabbing Res (Con) @ 4th, vs Vhuman with 14 Str, 16 Con, 16 Wis with Res (con) @ 1st and +2 Wis @ 4th...

The dwarf would love potent spellcasting, the human would love divine strike (though lack of martial weapon prof, and decent strength actually pushes for potent spellcasting).

[MrStabby]

I would probably allow it. In some games I might even allow both (if someone wants a concept that bends the rules a bit I tend to throw a bone to the other players as well).

Concept-wise I would probably look at the thematic damage type for the domain. Current cantrip options deal either radiant or necrotic damage- if the domain theme doesn't match either of these then i would allow a switch to divine strike so they could use the appropriate element/damage type. Knowledge cleric looking to do psychic damage for example would be fine by me.

If you allow death clerics I would be careful - reaper plus extra cantrip damage is pretty powerful, especially off pulling out toll the dead. At low levels it might be a bit much.

[Tanarii]

No, but only because try not to make special exceptions IMC, which has too many players. Plus I intentionally want the classes and subclasses to be strong archetypes.

In a home campaign for some friends? Sure.
I'd tell them knock yourself out. Its just a way to give the cleric a little bit more at-will damage. If an Mountain Dwarf Cleric of Moradin (Knowledge) wants to smack things a little bit better with his warhammer, go to it. That's the one that has always jumped out at me as would be better if they can swap, thematically.

[Matrix_Walker]

I think they should all get to choose.

Were it not for the melee cantrips, I'd say they should all just get both and be done with it.

[Specter]

As long as they pick a fair damage type. Nature's dial-a-type and psychic should be a no-no.

I don't see what's wrong with psychic damage, since dozens of monsters and inanimate stuff resist it.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I’d allow it.

Coincidently I’m theorizing how to make use of Primal Savagery and it would be so much simpler with potent spellcasting being on nature cleric instead of divine strike.

[Troacctid]

Radical idea, all Clerics get both.

[DarkKnightJin]

I’d allow it.

Coincidently I’m theorizing how to make use of Primal Savagery and it would be so much simpler with potent spellcasting being on nature cleric instead of divine strike.

I, too, have been pondering making a Nature Cleric that uses Primal Savagery as their primary melee attack. Getting Potent Spellcasting on that would work with the character idea, rather than pretty much be pointless. Outside of maybe Anti-magic Field areas. But most Clerics are pretty borked while in such an area, anyway.

[Matrix_Walker]

Radical idea, all Clerics get both.

The ability would do double duty with the melee cantrips, that's the only reason I'm not in that camp.

[MrStabby]

The ability would do double duty with the melee cantrips, that's the only reason I'm not in that camp.

Only really an issue for the arcana cleric, kind of like the potent spellcasting only being an issue for death clerics.

[LudicSavant]

Interesting notion. It certainly would increase versatility in build, and I can't off the top of my head think of any major examples where it'd rock the boat in terms of potential Cleric power levels (e.g. The usual suspects, such as Arcana Cleric with Potent Spellcasting, are probably still the best). Unless someone can come up with such a case, I see no harm.

[MaxWilson]

So, every Cleric Domain, at 8th level, gets either Potent Spellcasting (+Wis Mod to Cantrips) or Potent Spellcasting (+1d8 damage to a weapon attack once per turn).

If you have a player that has picked a Domain that gets one, and wants the other instead, do you allow it? Why / why not?

Theoretically, my answer is, "No, everyone should play by the rules of the game we are playing."

In practice, sad puppy dejection eyes from a player after I said that might make me throw up my hands and say, "Whatever. I don't really care either way," or at least call for a vote by the other players to see if they care.

[DarkKnightJin]

Only really an issue for the arcana cleric, kind of like the potent spellcasting only being an issue for death clerics.

I'm playing a Death Cleric. I have managed to use the Reaper's "twin a necromancy cantrip" about.. 3 times. I'm currently Fighter 1/Cleric 4. My cantrips are already my best bet of doing worthwile at-will damage on a turn.
That said, the Divine Strike for Death Domain sorta combo's with its 6th level ability to ignore Resistance to Necrotic damage.

But, I don't really see getting to add Wis to cantrip damage as a massive spike, as much as making them a bit more reliable in the damage departement.
Then again, because of rolled stats, his save DC is currently a 13, so most enemies make the saves vs his cantrips fairly easily.

I might bring this topic of Divine Strike vs Potent Spellcasting up with the DM by the time that it's about time to worry about such a thing.
I'd need to reach 8th level first.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I, too, have been pondering making a Nature Cleric that uses Primal Savagery as their primary melee attack. Getting Potent Spellcasting on that would work with the character idea, rather than pretty much be pointless. Outside of maybe Anti-magic Field areas. But most Clerics are pretty borked while in such an area, anyway.

Sadly I think the optimal way is via Sorlock with a tomelock(I’m thinking Hexblade for the curse) and Black Dragon sorcerer.

The issue with th cantrip is that it’s a melee spell attack, which makes it hard to work with. Acid Sorcerer gives you quicken metamagic and charisma to damage, effectiviley giving you an extra attack with your bonus action and charisma to damage. Not sure what else to add besides elemental adept.

[Moredhel24]

I'd allow in home games cause character concept. roleplay, and rule of fun trump the written rules if it doen't break the game. Can see why you get one or the other since it's an improvement on whether you gain extra cantrip or weapon proficiency/shillelagh (nature) at 1st level and WOTC's expected playstyle for that domain. But could also see tempest or death as a more blasty caster type or light as a flaming warrior.

If i remember currently, the mystic's potent psionics feature grants both abilities at the same level. IMO it doesn't seem to break anything but it's untested material so we'll see if/when the final version is officially released.


Honestly, it should have been written as "At 8th level, you have the option to either have potent spellcasting or divine strike. Once chosen, the pick is permanent."

By 8th level, you know what type of cleric you are - either running in and beating stuff up or standing back and nuking from behind. Hill Dwarf clerics (considered sky blue) can easily go pure wisdom build even on a heavy armor proficient domain - which pretty much all (or all, AFB ATM) grant weapon damage. I'm contemplating a forge cleric right now, vacillating between hill dwarf with 8 Str, 17 Con, 16 Wis (grabbing Res (Con) @ 4th, vs Vhuman with 14 Str, 16 Con, 16 Wis with Res (con) @ 1st and +2 Wis @ 4th...

The dwarf would love potent spellcasting, the human would love divine strike (though lack of martial weapon prof, and decent strength actually pushes for potent spellcasting).

Ditto. Would make more since for a tempest high elf cleric to have potent spellcasting since its culture is more magical while a dwarf of the same domain would have divine strike since its a more martial culture.

[Cybren]

Theoretically, my answer is, "No, everyone should play by the rules of the game we are playing."

In practice, sad puppy dejection eyes from a player after I said that might make me throw up my hands and say, "Whatever. I don't really care either way," or at least call for a vote by the other players to see if they care.
Mostly agree with this. I'm not going to like, rain on someones parade, but iunno, like, if you want a domain that has one or the other, pick a domain that has the one you want...


Honestly, it should have been written as "At 8th level, you have the option to either have potent spellcasting or divine strike. Once chosen, the pick is permanent."

By 8th level, you know what type of cleric you are - either running in and beating stuff up or standing back and nuking from behind. Hill Dwarf clerics (considered sky blue) can easily go pure wisdom build even on a heavy armor proficient domain - which pretty much all (or all, AFB ATM) grant weapon damage. I'm contemplating a forge cleric right now, vacillating between hill dwarf with 8 Str, 17 Con, 16 Wis (grabbing Res (Con) @ 4th, vs Vhuman with 14 Str, 16 Con, 16 Wis with Res (con) @ 1st and +2 Wis @ 4th...

The dwarf would love potent spellcasting, the human would love divine strike (though lack of martial weapon prof, and decent strength actually pushes for potent spellcasting).

Hard disagree. This is a class based game with strongly defined archetypes. If you want an ability, pick the thing that has that ability.

[Maelynn]

The reasoning behind it would be the main decider here for me.

You regret your choice because the other option does more damage or works better with the abilities of the rest of the team? Yeah, you should've thought of that sooner. Forget it.

You regret your choice because you feel your character's backstory calls more for the other option? Or because you just thought of a very cool bit of RP you could do with the other option that fits in nicely? Okay, I'll allow it - we'll just pretend your deity intervened or something.

For me, the argumentation is the most important. I am willing to allow a lot of things, as long as you can back it up with a good story. You know a weird uncommon language? Tell me how you learned it. You have a hatred for a specific race? Tell me what traumatised you and I might even give you a tiny advantage against them. A CG Bugbear Alchemist? You'd better have a damn good explanation for that (which yes, he did).

[Trask]

The reasoning behind it would be the main decider here for me.

You regret your choice because the other option does more damage or works better with the abilities of the rest of the team? Yeah, you should've thought of that sooner. Forget it.

You regret your choice because you feel your character's backstory calls more for the other option? Or because you just thought of a very cool bit of RP you could do with the other option that fits in nicely? Okay, I'll allow it - we'll just pretend your deity intervened or something.

For me, the argumentation is the most important. I am willing to allow a lot of things, as long as you can back it up with a good story. You know a weird uncommon language? Tell me how you learned it. You have a hatred for a specific race? Tell me what traumatised you and I might even give you a tiny advantage against them. A CG Bugbear Alchemist? You'd better have a damn good explanation for that (which yes, he did).

Telling a good story can be persuasive, but I try to be judicious if its something that is clearly a boost in power/utility that the character wouldnt otherwise have, or would have to earn in the game somehow. Because then persuasive, word-juggling, high charisma PLAYERS (not characters) get to convince the DM of anything.

[Tanarii]

Telling a good story can be persuasive, but I try to be judicious if its something that is clearly a boost in power/utility that the character wouldnt otherwise have, or would have to earn in the game somehow. Because then persuasive, word-juggling, high charisma PLAYERS (not characters) get to convince the DM of anything.
Depends on yhe DM. The more convoluted and justificationy your backstory is, the more likely I am to turn down your special snowflake. Just tell me you did it for the mechanics, or to be bizzarre and unusual. Whichever it is.

[jaappleton]

Interesting responses thus far.

Personally, I always see the Cleric as being in the fray, in the midst of combat. In my eyes, the Cleric runs forward into battle, they don't stand in the back and fling spells. That's my personal mental imagery, and how I play them, I don't think standing in the back is wrong. Just not how I do it.

I also agree that Clerics should get a choice, depending on how they want to play. PS or DS, and once made, that choice is permanent.

Some getting DS, I don't agree with. To me, (And I know its UA) I think that the Order Domain should've received PS in place of DS. Why? To me, the Order Cleric bends people to their will to get them to comply with their demands. That says their words and will should carry considerable weight, and its why (in my mind, again, not saying this is how YOU should think) I don't see them as being weapon wielders.

[Willie the Duck]

Mostly agree with this. I'm not going to like, rain on someones parade, but iunno, like, if you want a domain that has one or the other, pick a domain that has the one you want...

Hard disagree. This is a class based game with strongly defined archetypes. If you want an ability, pick the thing that has that ability.

I feel that this is mostly true... for everything in a D&D game except clerics.
I mean sure, for other classes if you have a concept of a samurai character and are looking at the samurai fighter archetype, but decide you really need a Champion class feature, then by golly take the Champion and refluff them as a samurai, taking the appropriate background and roleplaying it right and so on and so forth.

But clerics, you choose cleric gods (and thus domains) based on character concept. If you are playing a cleric of Lolth, you are going to be stuck with trickery domain. So choosing the archetype that gets you the features you want is kind of harder to justify in that case.

Mind you, you could just say, "whelp, hope you like poisoned dagger/xbow bolt strikes" and I'd be down with that... if the decision between which domains got Divine Strike and which got Potent Spellcasting didn't seem so unbelievably arbitrary. I mean, life cleric gets radiant damage bonus, but light cleric gets wis bonus to cantrips? Really? Anyone see a cohesive rhyme or reason behind that one? Yes, obviously war cleric should get a weapon boost and maybe arcana with Potent Spellcasting is a clear pick (despite their picking up of melee cantrip meaning that they almost always precipitate a Magic Initiate:Shillelagh + GFB/BB melee build), but the rest? Pretty close to arbitrary, AFAICT.

In some ways, I wish Clerics had been made with a two-phase decision tree (like warlocks got), where you picked a domain, but then also picked a level of martiality. I'm sure there is potential for abuse, but heck, it isn't like the different cleric domains are really all that well balanced against each other to begin with.

[jas61292]

Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of allowing people to change this kind of thing but if the player has a good character reason, I'd typically accommodate it. But it has to be a character reason. I'm not going to allow it just cause you like that concept more. Subclasses are strong archetypes, and I don't want to just change it cause you like the other feature better. If you care that much, pick a different domain. I'm willing to listen to a players arguments, but I'll only actually bend if they convince me that the change to a domain is integral to the character, and it is a better way to represent the character than simply going with a different domain or multiclassing or something.

That said, I'd be far more willing to accommodate a player that wants to trade Potent Spellcasting for Devine Strike than vice versa. Clerics are a relatively SAD class. Sure you may want to have a bit of strength or dexterity based on your domain's armor situation, but ultimately, your only main stat is Wisdom. As such I will be much more skeptical of a player wanting a tweak in order to boost their Wisdom dependent offense than I would be of a player who actually wants to be less SAD.

[Sharur]

I think the only Domains that should even get Divine Strike are War, Life, Forge, and Tempest.


Nature: They get heavy armor (so front line fighter, as Life), but only simple weapon proficiencies. The Divine Strike helps compensate for that, as does the shifting element, although I agree with an above poster that it can be broken.

Trickery: The weapon damage makes them more "bard/rogue-like", which is what I always thought the domain was supposed to be.


Interesting responses thus far.

Personally, I always see the Cleric as being in the fray, in the midst of combat. In my eyes, the Cleric runs forward into battle, they don't stand in the back and fling spells. That's my personal mental imagery, and how I play them, I don't think standing in the back is wrong. Just not how I do it.

I think this is somewhat decided by what editions you played previously: in 3.5 all clerics were proficient with heavy armor (and their deitiy's special weapon, if I recall correctly), and so every cleric could suit up and jump into the front lines. In pathfinder (and 5E), clerics only get medium armor and simple weapons by default. Those who are proficient in heavy arms and armor get it from their domain.

I note that all classes who get Divine Strike also get heavy armor proficiency at 1st level (except for trickery, which is a "rogue like" domain).

[Mortis_Elrod]

I note that all classes who get Divine Strike also get heavy armor proficiency at 1st level (except for trickery, which is a "rogue like" domain).

and Death. death only grabs martial weapons.

[jaappleton]

and Death. death only grabs martial weapons.

There’s three outliers in the Heavy Armor, Martial Weapons, Divine Strike trifecta

Forge doesn’t get Martial (Really confused why they don’t)

Trickery doesn’t get Heavy Armor

Death, although an outlier itself, doesn’t get Heavy Armor

[Coidzor]

Thats true, I'd definitely ask the reason. Even if the answer change itself is relatively harmless, I dont want to give in just because a player wants to optimize.

So is that a no on "Because I want my character to primarily attack using cantrips" or "Because I want my character to primarily attack using weapons," then?

[Kuulvheysoon]

The game's there to have fun. This is one of the very few features that I'd actually be okay in switching, as it's a feature that's in common across all of the subclasses. This is not the same thing as replacing, I don't know, the Champion's Extraordinary Athlete feature with the Samurai's Wisdom save proficiency, which are two very different features.

So count me in the club of "Yes, I'd totally allow it if the player came to me with a good reason."

[Willie the Duck]

The game's there to have fun. This is one of the very few features that I'd actually be okay in switching, as it's a feature that's in common across all of the subclasses. This is not the same thing as replacing, I don't know, the Champion's Extraordinary Athlete feature with the Samurai's Wisdom save proficiency, which are two very different features.

Yeah, that's not a bad way to look at it. On the whole I haven't really been sold on the basic idea that you shouldn't allow this because it's a case of a player looking to get something they shouldn't get/don't deserve/are just looking for a handout/etc. The only real argument I'm buying is more the 'if they really want X, why don't they choose cleric type Y over there that has it?' which I've already voiced my concerns over.

[Tanarii]

Anyone see a cohesive rhyme or reason behind that one?
Yes. The reasons they went with them for each of the domains is clear.

War, Tempest, Life and Nature are all Heavy Armor, and thus Str secondary, and thus weapon using Clerics.

Knowledge and Light aren't.

The only one that's iffy is Trickery. But given its spell selection and highly defensive-by-misdirection features, it's clearly meant to be a bog-standard tank and spank (with spells!) cleric by default.

In fact, a bog-standard Str-secondary tank and spank (with spells!) Cleric appears to be the norm. Potent cantrip casting is the exception for particularly caster-y Domains. There's only even one Cleric attack cantrip until very recently.

[Cybren]

Yes. The reasons they went with them for each of the domains is clear.

War, Tempest, Life and Nature are all Heavy Armor, and thus Str secondary, and thus weapon using Clerics.

Knowledge and Light aren't.

The only one that's iffy is Trickery. But given its spell selection and highly defensive-by-misdirection features, it's clearly meant to be a bog-standard tank and spank (with spells!) cleric by default.

In fact, a bog-standard Str-secondary tank and spank (with spells!) Cleric appears to be the norm. Potent cantrip casting is the exception for particularly caster-y Domains. There's only even one Cleric attack cantrip until very recently.
Yeah, Life Clerics are clearly meant to be up in melee healing people from the front lines, light clerics are supposed to be casting lasers from the back row.

[Willie the Duck]

Yes. The reasons they went with them for each of the domains is clear.

War, Tempest, Life and Nature are all Heavy Armor, and thus Str secondary, and thus weapon using Clerics.

Knowledge and Light aren't.

The only one that's iffy is Trickery. But given its spell selection and highly defensive-by-misdirection features, it's clearly meant to be a bog-standard tank and spank (with spells!) cleric by default.

In fact, a bog-standard Str-secondary tank and spank (with spells!) Cleric appears to be the norm. Potent cantrip casting is the exception for particularly caster-y Domains. There's only even one Cleric attack cantrip until very recently.

My point, which I may not have made clear, is that I don't see a thematic reason why clerics of light are cantrip-casty types why clerics of nature are tank-and-spank. War? Yes, give them weapons and incentivize them using them. Knowledge (and, if you have the splat, arcana)? Yes, they should do magic-ing as much as possible. All the rest: trickery, nature, life, light, tempest, death (and so forth)... I can see good arguments both ways. If the default is tank and spank, with cantrip spamming the exception, I'm fine with that. Frankly if divine strike was the case for all clerics, and potent spellcasting wasn't even a thing, I wouldn't really be all that bent out of shape. However, it is a thing. And I guess my point is I don't buy the idea that a light cleric is supposed to be dropping sacred flames on people while the life cleric is supposed to be swinging a radiant damage-pumped mace at peoples' heads. That seems a genuinely arbitrary decision. One I might enforce, simply because I tend to favor 'dance with the one you brought,' but if someone really wanted to switch, I'd certainly consider it a reasonable request.


Yeah, Life Clerics are clearly meant to be up in melee healing people from the front lines, light clerics are supposed to be casting lasers from the back row.

Combat healing has roughly the same range these days as the cantrips. As for light clerics shooting lasers (I assume that's an allusion to the 4e trope of 'laser cleric' (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Laser_Cleric))... why? Why is a cleric of life supposed to be swinging a mace and a cleric of light supposed to be casting at-will combat spells? This reminds me of a review of 5e I heard by an OSR player who was dismissive of how 5e wizards had crossbow proficiency (apparently missing that that had been the case since 3e). They wanted wizards to spend their time not casting fireball and sleep to be spent in the back ranks lobbing flasks of oil like they did in his favored Holmes edition or the like. I mentally yelled at the podcast, "why is that better? How is that a more iconic wizardly action?" Same here. Mind you, I don't feel that cleric combat cantrips actually need to be a thing at all. But, since we've decided to include them, other than war domain and magic domain, is there really a compelling logic that one domain goes into the weapon-centric camp while another domain goes into the cantrip-centric camp? If there is, I'm not seeing it/buying it/haven't seen a compelling write-up.

[ZenBear]

Hell I do this for new players that don’t know how to optimize. My ex’s first game she played a Cleric, wanted to be a back line caster type, but also wanted to be a primary healer, so I gave her Potent Cantrip on the Life Domain and got rid Heavy Armor proficiency.

I’m a strong advocate of tweaking and changing whatever rules or features you want to fit a character concept and have fun feeling like a badass in your chosen field of expertise. The only times I say no are when players ask for outright OP abilities/items or ones that don’t fit the setting. It makes absolutely zero sense to me that so many DMs are sticklers about this, but then again there are some people who are adamantly against using a Rogue chassis to play a City Watch character because “Rogues are criminals, not cops” is somehow a cardinal law.

[Tanarii]

My point, which I may not have made clear, is that I don't see a thematic reason why clerics of light are cantrip-casty types why clerics of nature are tank-and-spank. War? Yes, give them weapons and incentivize them using them. Knowledge (and, if you have the splat, arcana)? Yes, they should do magic-ing as much as possible. All the rest: trickery, nature, life, light, tempest, death (and so forth)... I can see good arguments both ways. If the default is tank and spank, with cantrip spamming the exception, I'm fine with that. Frankly if divine strike was the case for all clerics, and potent spellcasting wasn't even a thing, I wouldn't really be all that bent out of shape. However, it is a thing. And I guess my point is I don't buy the idea that a light cleric is supposed to be dropping sacred flames on people while the life cleric is supposed to be swinging a radiant damage-pumped mace at peoples' heads. That seems a genuinely arbitrary decision. One I might enforce, simply because I tend to favor 'dance with the one you brought,' but if someone really wanted to switch, I'd certainly consider it a reasonable request.The thematic reason is almost certainly that thematically, the default for a D&D Cleric is an armored character that hits with mace. It's not arbitrary at all. It's sticking to the basic theme of a D&D cleric, and adjusting it slightly for the outliers.

[Willie the Duck]

The thematic reason is almost certainly that thematically, the default for a D&D Cleric is an armored character that hits with mace. It's not arbitrary at all. It's sticking to the basic theme of a D&D cleric, and adjusting it slightly for the outliers.

I think the disconnect here is that we're not really conceptually disagreeing on the concepts, so much as the reasonable-ness of their outlier determination. I do not disagree that the default D&D Cleric is plate+mace. I would have no problem with that being the universal. I just look at trickery being considered an assumed frontliner and light being an assumed cantriper, and call which ones they decided to be outliers to be arbitrary.

[Talionis]

When looking to allow these kinds of requests, I would see if it makes sense with the themes of the campaign and premises for the character. I would look closely at any combos that it might allow. I would specifically ask the player if he sees any combinations with himself or other characters that he'd want to exploit. (I wouldn't say no out right if there is a combo). I'd run it through the second test, how powerful does this make the character and party. How does the balance between characters look after this change.

Some changes only let one character be better at doing damage, but still behind the rest of the party. If the damage increase still puts the character behind the rest of the party, I'd strongly consider it. Even if the damage is far behind the rest of the party it may not be balanced if this character is really good at battlefield control or scouting, etc. I try to look at the total situation.

I think it would be fine to just say, no play by the rules. That is usually safest.

But I would allow this kind of switch.

[Tanarii]

I think the disconnect here is that we're not really conceptually disagreeing on the concepts, so much as the reasonable-ness of their outlier determination. I do not disagree that the default D&D Cleric is plate+mace. I would have no problem with that being the universal. I just look at trickery being considered an assumed frontliner and light being an assumed cantriper, and call which ones they decided to be outliers to be arbitrary.I don't disagree that they didn't *have* to go with such a traditional conception of a Cleric. But given they did, the exceptions to "hits things with mace" make sense.

OTOH Light is clearly a blaster cleric and makes perfect sense, especially with Sacred Flame. Knowledge is pretty much the other caster-y domain, thematically.

Trickery is kind of an interesting one, because so many people have the misconception that it's a "max Dex / rogue" cleric. Instead of a misdirection / defensive cleric. But that said, I can see why the devs went with poisoned physical attacks for them over Sacred Flame blasting.

[Maelynn]

Telling a good story can be persuasive, but I try to be judicious if its something that is clearly a boost in power/utility that the character wouldnt otherwise have, or would have to earn in the game somehow. Because then persuasive, word-juggling, high charisma PLAYERS (not characters) get to convince the DM of anything.

Maybe I used the wrong words to explain my reasoning; if so, my apologies. Whether or not I'd allow changes during a campaign hangs not on the player, but on the story they use to back up a change. I aim to stimulate creativeness, so if a player wants to get something done with me they'd have to let it make sense, story-wise. Get them to flesh out their character, have them go a bit deeper than a meaningless 'it just looks cooler' or 'it lets me do moar daaaamage!'. The player isn't what's the persuasive element, it's the story they come up with that does it for me.

I want the players to have fun and try to accommodate as much as possible, but it has to make sense. A high-charisma player with a flimsy story doesn't hit my sweet spot, so to say. ;)

[jaappleton]

Ok.

Seems some that wouldn't allow the switch from Divine Strike to Potent Spellcasting is because they're wary of PS combined with Heavy Armor and Martial Weapons.

So, would you allow a Divine Strike Domain to switch to PS, but they don't get access to Heavy Armor & Martial Weapons via their Domain?

For example, Tempest Domain no longer gets Heavy Armor or Martial Weapon proficiency, but gets Potent Spellcasting?

[MrStabby]

Ok.

Seems some that wouldn't allow the switch from Divine Strike to Potent Spellcasting is because they're wary of PS combined with Heavy Armor and Martial Weapons.

So, would you allow a Divine Strike Domain to switch to PS, but they don't get access to Heavy Armor & Martial Weapons via their Domain?

For example, Tempest Domain no longer gets Heavy Armor or Martial Weapon proficiency, but gets Potent Spellcasting?

Probably not.

I still fear death cleric with toll the dead, reaper and adding casting stat to both sets of damage. And death domain doesn't have heavy armour to lose so little counterbalance.

[WereRabbitz]

I'll ask why and if it fits the character I'll go with it. While these abilities are not game breaking I tend to not bend the rules when the answer is "because it'll make deal more damage".

This ^ Although I would make it Fire type so not to take away from some of the uniqueness of each domain's divine strike ability.

Honestly... other then the Death domain (which i ban for players myself) I don't see any i would change really....


Ok.

Seems some that wouldn't allow the switch from Divine Strike to Potent Spellcasting is because they're wary of PS combined with Heavy Armor and Martial Weapons.

So, would you allow a Divine Strike Domain to switch to PS, but they don't get access to Heavy Armor & Martial Weapons via their Domain?

For example, Tempest Domain no longer gets Heavy Armor or Martial Weapon proficiency, but gets Potent Spellcasting?



I would be more in favor of this... If you get potent spellcasting & Heavy or Martial you basically get all the cookies... Do you have a example of what domain/player is wanting to change? Most of them are pretty fit I think

[Willie the Duck]

I would be more in favor of this... If you get potent spellcasting & Heavy or Martial you basically get all the cookies... Do you have a example of what domain/player is wanting to change? Most of them are pretty fit I think

Outside of SCAG-cantrip cheeze (which, since we're already discussing DM intervention, a 'no, you are not going to abuse my lenience' ruling is perfectly reasonable) is there something about Potent Spellcasting that is strictly better than Divine Strike? It is a better option for back-liners (since they will want a ranged combat option and be less likely to be boosting Str/Dex). However, if you have heavy armor proficiency (and thus probably 15 str eventually) or certainly martial weapon proficiency, wouldn't you prefer to be swinging a weapon with a +1d8 or 2d8 than dropping a 2d8/12+wis cantrip on your enemies?

[MrStabby]

Outside of SCAG-cantrip cheeze (which, since we're already discussing DM intervention, a 'no, you are not going to abuse my lenience' ruling is perfectly reasonable) is there something about Potent Spellcasting that is strictly better than Divine Strike? It is a better option for back-liners (since they will want a ranged combat option and be less likely to be boosting Str/Dex). However, if you have heavy armor proficiency (and thus probably 15 str eventually) or certainly martial weapon proficiency, wouldn't you prefer to be swinging a weapon with a +1d8 or 2d8 than dropping a 2d8/12+wis cantrip on your enemies?

Well it is a case of being more SAD. Rather than bumping strength at higher levels to be good at hitting stuff you could be taking feats - grab lucky and resilient Con rather than +4 strength for example.