LaZodiac's Super Turbo Championship Edition Random Banter Thread #242

[Form]

That's always felt like a weird reason to dislike spellcaster to me. Do you not write down the rest of your character sheet?

Sure, but with a spellcaster you have that character sheet + all the spells they learn. And different spells do wildly different things and are not always applicable in the same circumstances, so you now also have to keep track of all that. It's a little bit as if each spell has its own character sheet. Now imagine you need to manage not 1, but dozens of character sheets. That's what it feels like to me.

It sounds like the D&D sorcerer solves that issue quite handily.

Yeah, my impression is that wizards tend to require more spell administration than sorcerers do on account of them just getting so many spells.

[Jasdoif]

My issue with caster characters is that they tend to come with a lot of spell administration. The more powerful that character grows, the more spells they learn and the worse it gets to the point where I don't really remember all the spells they have, much less the details of each one and I have to resort to bookkeeping to keep track of it all. For my Tremere character I actually devised a system to put all the rituals they know into a table that fit on 1 page (now 2), by cutting away as much flavor text as possible, using abbreviations wherever I can and defining a format for where to place information like spell circle and BP cost. Just so I have an overview of everything they can do and when and at which cost at a single glance and don't constantly have to reach for the game books. It was kind of fun to think of a system for that, though.

I rather like how 13th Age does it, where the strength of a spell is based on the level of the slot it's in and both the minimum and maximum level of spell slots increase as a caster gains levels (e.g. a 10th-level wizard has twelve slots, none of them below 7th-level); so you don't end up with a legion of weak spells you were obligated to prepare without any real expectation of using them.

[LaZodiac]

Being a priest/Cleric doesn't necessarily involve evangelizing, except insofar as you have...distinct opinions on certain goings-on.

Take your archetypal Cleric of Cayden Cailean again. Your group comes across a party of slavers, "cargo" in tow. Your character says "we need to help them, that's not right". Another character may counter "it's a bad idea, it's too dangerous".

How does your character respond?

According to his own beliefs. AKA, the same way you'd roleplay any other character. The literal only difference is that the character has external affirmation of his own values as opposed to just internal.

You could add an extra religious spin to it ("Cayden rewards those bold of spirit and action, as he was when he was a mere mortal adventurer."), but it's really not necessary.

I've had a lot of fun with this one, given Maria's interpretation of Tiamat is;

1: Skewed towards cultism
2: Influenced by her street-orphan upbringing
3: Further tempered by being a criminal

Leads to some great contrasts. She stole a thousand gold from the cult because She Is The Better Thief. They shouldn't have trusted her with the keys. That's her conquest over them, and Tiamat teaches conquest over others. But also even a single gold is precious so when the monk knocks out a drunk and puts him outside, and places a gold on his chest as apology... Maria is absolutely going to say a gentle prayer over him to help his hangover/absolutely steal that single coin.

[Fyraltari]

M'aiq/Qiam
M'aiq/Quai'm
Liar/rail

I think I'm funny.

Usually, you're right.

[Peelee]

Usually, you're right.

A.) Now that was funny.
2.) They can't all be winners. And it's always good to know what doesn't work.
III.) Despite the above two I will get revenge on you for that.

[Anonymouswizard]

Isn't "getting better at spells" what spell scaling is?

Couldn't think of a better term

[Fyraltari]

III.) Despite the above two I will get revenge on you for that.

Should I ever swear revenge on Roland St. Jude, do you think it'd cancel out?

[Metastachydium]

Should I ever swear revenge on Roland St. Jude, do you think it'd cancel out?

You don't want to swear revenge on Roland St. Jude, citizen. Go back to your fun!

[Fyraltari]

You don't want to swear revenge on Roland St. Jude, citizen. Go back to your fun!

"Defiant: Hit the trashcan cop with the can."

[halfeye]

Could you clarify what "true knowledge" would be here? Hacking as a philosophy is all about making a machine do something it was capable of doing, but not designed to do, and that means having a very deep understanding of how it works.

There was a time when you could understand computers; 16 bits with 64k of memory, you might be able to work it all out, 32 bit with 4 gigabytes, not so much, 64 bits with terabytes of disc space, no chance. There were said to be a million lines of code in Windows back in the time of Win2k I think it was? There may be one or two people in the world who have memorised The Lord of the Rings, there are more lines of code in Windows than there are words in TLOTR. If you think anyone knows all of that, I believe you are probably mistaken. It's not just about memorising though, it's about understanding all the possible interactions. Someone who memorised TLOTR would be a fool in my view, it's up to them but there seem to be a lot of better things to do.

And certainly, this would mean magic would ultimately be some aspect of the universe that hadn't been adequately studied. But I'm not talking about classifying magic scientifically (which you can't, because it's not real), I'm talking about something that would make for a compelling story. I like the idea of magic being portrayed as little shortcuts that are hard to take advantage of, but maybe worth it if you know what you're doing.

Then again, this might just be me liking rogues more than wizards in the first place.

Most of the universe hasn't been adequately studied, but the limits that have been found are probably going to be defined more closely, not broken.

[Fyraltari]

There was a time when you could understand computers; 16 bits with 64k of memory, you might be able to work it all out, 32 bit with 4 gigabytes, not so much, 64 bits with terabytes of disc space, no chance. There were said to be a million lines of code in Windows back in the time of Win2k I think it was? There may be one or two people in the world who have memorised The Lord of the Rings, there are more lines of code in Windows than there are words in TLOTR. If you think anyone knows all of that, I believe you are probably mistaken. It's not just about memorising though, it's about understanding all the possible interactions. Someone who memorised TLOTR would be a fool in my view, it's up to them but there seem to be a lot of better things to do.

But you don't need to know Google's entire code by heart to take advantage of the bits relevant to what you are doing.

Most of the universe hasn't been adequately studied, but the limits that have been found are probably going to be defined more closely, not broken.

That's what they used to say before Einstein came along too. And unlike then, our current model isn't even complete (as in we can't model situations where all four basic interactions are non-negligible/we can't make quantum physics and relativity play nice with each other).

[BisectedBrioche]

I don't think I ever thought about it in these terms but that's pretty much how I like to run my sorcs. I highly value mobility, and take pretty much every Teleportation spell there is. My characters tend to work out pretty fantastically, too, so it's a good strategy.

I'm still not sure what I'll do with Sorcerer (just creating a high mobility trickster sort works, but there's already an arcane trickster for a rogue wot uses magic, so it might be fun to explore another rogue archetype, like a magical saboteur or something).

That is a great thought. It's always fun to like, play a certain class but with the vibes of another. As you can probably guess from the above, Maria is definitely "Cleric who plays like a rogue". I still remember the reaction to me taking out a crowbar to pry a door open, and trying to explain why the Fair Lady, minor god of light, would want her clerics to have one of these. Likewise her lockpicks.

To be fair, what adventurer doesn't need a crowbar. It's like asking them why they have 50ft. of hempen rope!

And lockpicks are only an issue if a guard finds them.

[LaZodiac]

I'm still not sure what I'll do with Sorcerer (just creating a high mobility trickster sort works, but there's already an arcane trickster for a rogue wot uses magic, so it might be fun to explore another rogue archetype, like a magical saboteur or something).

To be fair, what adventurer doesn't need a crowbar. It's like asking them why they have 50ft. of hempen rope!

And lockpicks are only an issue if a guard finds them.

Suggestion for Sorcerer: you're gonna be charismatic, so you're the face. A roguish waif, a lover not a fighter- someone who never pays for their own drinks.

While that IS true, it was slowly taken out of Maria's pack in the context of cracking open a stone coffin... though she was able to explain it away. It took awhile for people to consider her suspicious.

[Rater202]

For some reason I find monks and similar "eastern spiritualist" type classes easier to get into the mindset of then clerics and druids and other "western spiritualist" types.

Like, if I found myself in a D&D world I could see myself as a Monk. I could not see myself as a Cleric.

...I'd be a really ****ty monk, but I could see myself as one.

[Peelee]

For some reason I find monks and similar "eastern spiritualist" type classes easier to get into the mindset of then clerics and druids and other "western spiritualist" types.

Like, if I found myself in a D&D world I could see myself as a Monk. I could not see myself as a Cleric.

...I'd be a really ****ty monk, but I could see myself as one.

Look man, there's no wrong way to play and you do what you feel comfortable doing, but I just want to say it really feels like you're pigeonholing yourself with overly strict interpretations that aren't necessarily supported by the text, and both your thoughts towards moms and clerics are the result of rigid opinions. Again, if you like that, that's fine. But it doesn't have to be so rigid and unyielding, if you ever think you'd like to branch out.

[Rater202]

Look man, there's no wrong way to play and you do what you feel comfortable doing, but I just want to say it really feels like you're pigeonholing yourself with overly strict interpretations that aren't necessarily supported by the text, and both your thoughts towards moms and clerics are the result of rigid opinions. Again, if you like that, that's fine. But it doesn't have to be so rigid and unyielding, if you ever think you'd like to branch out.

It's less pigeon-holing and more "the book says this, bit I have trouble getting into the mindset of this."

I know that you're allowed to bend things and re-fluff bit there's only so far you can go before you might as well be playing something else and I can't stretch a cleric far enough that I can get into that mindset before I get to the point that wizard or a warlock or something would be a better fit for what I'm going for.

Monks meanwhile? Monks are easy. "You're practicing martial arts and/or mysticism for the sake of physical and spiritual improvement." There's a billion things I can do with that before it stops feeling like the right fit.

I believe in a previous iteration of the thread I mentioned something along the lines of using a Way of The Living Weapon Monk to represent a Conan or Red Sonja-type "Barbarian Hero" out to prove their worth to the world and collect tales of adventure. The main issue I had was finding a way to justify showing that much skin without it seeming gratuitous.

[Bartmanhomer]

I have no issue playing with any class including a paladin even though that paladins have a bad reputation for being horrible due to bad roleplaying from what I heard from other members in this forum.

[BisectedBrioche]

Suggestion for Sorcerer: you're gonna be charismatic, so you're the face. A roguish waif, a lover not a fighter- someone who never pays for their own drinks.

While that IS true, it was slowly taken out of Maria's pack in the context of cracking open a stone coffin... though she was able to explain it away. It took awhile for people to consider her suspicious.

That's a good angle! It's what I was thinking about for the bard, but that was leaning more of a social engineer (or maybe a reference to phreaking, if I could get that into a fantasy setting).

For some reason I find monks and similar "eastern spiritualist" type classes easier to get into the mindset of then clerics and druids and other "western spiritualist" types.

Like, if I found myself in a D&D world I could see myself as a Monk. I could not see myself as a Cleric.

...I'd be a really ****ty monk, but I could see myself as one.

I could never make is as a monk. Even without the alignment restrictions, I don't have the discipline.

[Peelee]

It's less pigeon-holing and more "the book says this, bit I have trouble getting into the mindset of this."

I get that, and that makes perfect sense. And where it breaks down in this specific case is that the book says this and you have trouble getting into the mindset of not this.

For example, you said you could do the mindset of monks and other" eastern spiritualist" types, but there's nothing in the PHBs that say anything about that. That is 100% your own ideas you are putting on the Monk template. In 3.5, monks train to be versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons and armor. In 5e, monks study ki, an explicit form of magic, to create magical effects and exceed their bodies' natural capabilities. These descriptions are taken straight from the PHBs. In neither one is any form of spiritualism mentioned. In 3.5 they are a variant of warrior who train to have their specific style. In 5e they are mages who harness a magical energy that is unused by other classes. There's no spiritualism except what you enforce yourself.

And the same goes for clerics. They're not "priests" as one might typically think of it. They're warriors who can cast spells, or mages who can fight, depending on how you choose to play them, and sure, they're religiously based but you have 100% free reign on how to play that. The rules do not mandate that you must perform services every Thronkday or fast and abstain from work on all full moons. You literally decide which deity you want to worship, which is no different at all from any other class in that you choose one who aligns with the character you want to play, and then you largely forget it except for when you want to roleplay it. You have issues roleplaying what you view as traditional western spiritualism? Then good news, nothing in the rules says anything about that! You can play a Cleric without a deity, or a Cleric with a deity whose spiritualism is more like yur idea of "eastern spiritualism", or any number of other options!

Again, it's fine if you don't feel comfortable playing it, but you are absolutely pigeonholing yourself. It's like if you said you don't feel comfortable going out to eat because you can't really find a blue shirt that looks good. You don't need a blue shirt to go out to eat, that's your own rule that nobody else is enforcing. If you insist that you need a blue shirt to go out to eat and don't feel comfortable in any of your blue shirts then of course you don't need to go out, but it's not the restaurant enforcing this rule. You're enforcing it on yourself.

[LaZodiac]

That's a good angle! It's what I was thinking about for the bard, but that was leaning more of a social engineer (or maybe a reference to phreaking, if I could get that into a fantasy setting).

I could never make is as a monk. Even without the alignment restrictions, I don't have the discipline.

If I were tasked with "every class, as rogue" I'd play Bard as one of my favorite character archetypes; assassin who is just incidentally quite good at the musics. We're talking violinist who has a proverbial rifle in her carrying case, someone who WILL put on a good show, but also when the lights go out during their set someone is going to get an knife through the spine and no one will suspect a thing because you are The Music, more a background object than a real person to some of these folk.

On this ongoing topic; Clerics are explicitly based on Van Helsing from Dracula. They're less priest and more "religious exterminator of those that go bump in the night", though playing it up as being priesty (like I do for Maria) is a fun way to go about it.

[Mystic Muse]

If I were tasked with "every class, as rogue" I'd play Bard as one of my favorite character archetypes; assassin who is just incidentally quite good at the musics. We're talking violinist who has a proverbial rifle in her carrying case, someone who WILL put on a good show, but also when the lights go out during their set someone is going to get an knife through the spine and no one will suspect a thing because you are The Music, more a background object than a real person to some of these folk.

On this ongoing topic; Clerics are explicitly based on Van Helsing from Dracula. They're less priest and more "religious exterminator of those that go bump in the night", though playing it up as being priesty (like I do for Maria) is a fun way to go about it.

I know you mean from the original story, but I'm imagining the very fun Hugh Jackman movie instead.

[Rater202]

Peelee... The word "cleric" literally means "priest or religious leader."

I do not believe that it is "pigeonholing" to assume that the class that literally tells you that it's a priest is in fact meant to be a priest.

Especially when their powers are explicitly divine gifts from their gods rather than anything inherent to them the way a wizard or sorcerer's spells are.

Even a Cleric without a deity is still a priest or champion of some cosmic force embodying their ideals and still getting their powers from an external source that can cut them off at any time.

[Peelee]

Peelee... The word "cleric" literally means "priest or religious leader."

I do not believe that it is "pigeonholing" to assume that the class that literally tells you that it's a priest is in fact meant to be a priest.

Especially when their powers are explicitly divine gifts from their gods rather than anything inherent to them the way a wizard or sorcerer's spells are.

As an aside... No, I can't fuff a cleric to fit my model for eastern spiritualism. Because it's not the eastern spiritualism that's the point, it's the way the games handle classes based on it that are the point but I don't think I can explain the distinction without violating forum rules.

The word "sorcerer" literally means "wizard" but the game still makes a specific distinction. Yes, words can mean other things as well, but again, the book isn't telling you it absolutely has to be this way. You're telling yourself that. And you even admit it (bolding mine): "No, I can't fuff a cleric to fit my model for eastern spiritualism". The game offers a model for monk, and a model for cleric, but they don't fit what you model for them so that's where the problem is.

If you don't feel comfortable doing it then you don't feel comfortable doing it. But if you ever want to try, the first step is recognizing that the only blocks in the way are the ones you put there yourself.

[Rater202]

And you even admit it (boldong mine): "No, I can't fuff a cleric to fit my model for eastern spiritualism".

1: You will note that I removed that paragraph from the post in question.

2: That was not me "admitting" anything, that was me responding to the phrase that you used when telling me to re-fluff the cleric.

As noted: It's the way that the game itself presents the relevant forms of spiritualism that are the factor here.

Having thought on it more, and since it seems I need to explain lest I be... I can't put myself in the mindset of someone who is exclusively dependent on the whims of an external force for their powers, one that can cut them off from said powers at a moment's notice and will absolutely do so if they are no longer acting in the interest of said force or entity.

Every Cleric or Paladin or Druid or so on is the priest, champion, or representative of one such force or entity and would logically be expected to be acting in that entity's interests at all time... And since such beings are, in typical D&D cosmology, sustained by the worship of mortals and the consumption of the souls of dead mortals who worshiped them in life, their interests include converting people to the worship of said deity/force. Hence "if you're not preaching enough are you even doing your job."

That's the default, and that's what is typically represented in the mechanics.

I can't get into that mindset. I cannot get into the mindset of a willing servant of an entity that I have no recourse against, no matter what they're offering me in return.

Any deviation from the defaults that I can get into the mindset of ould be better represented by another class.

Monk, Wu Jen, Shujenga, spirit Shaman? That handles spiritualism on a more personal level. I can understand that mindset. The monk especially, since their take on spiritualism is mostly about personal improvement rather than interaction with external forces and, as I noted, has a great deal of room for reinterpretation before you're no longer on brand.

[Fyraltari]

Rater, if you're incomfortable with the fluff surrounding Clerics, you can just ignore it.

The RPG police won't bust your door if you and your friends agree that in your campaign world gods do not feed on mortal souls or are even dependent on mortal worship at all. No-one will stop you from having your cleric be in a strictly business-like relation with their patron who is only interested in getting mortal worshippers as a way to flex on their colleagues.

[Rynjin]

"Moment's notice" isn't really accurate. Clerics have to do something absolutely heinous (and typically straight up OUT OF CHARACTER) to get dropped by their deity. You don't just have to violate the code, you have to "grossly" violate it. Like becoming a necromancer while being a Cleric of "the god who hate undead" or keeping a slave as "the god who hate slavery".

[Peelee]

As noted: It's the way that the game itself presents the relevant forms of spiritualism that are the factor here.

Having thought on it more, and since it seems I need to explain lest I be... I can't put myself in the mindset of someone who is exclusively dependent on the whims of an external force for their powers, one that can cut them off from said powers at a moment's notice and will absolutely do so if they are no longer acting in the interest of said force or entity.

Ok, so again, you have trouble putting yourself in the mindset of something not in the actual rules, but instead your own idea of how it will work. I have a digital version of the 3.5 phb right here in front of me. If needs be I can get the 5e version. Or maybe you like pathfinder. I dunno man. Pick a version, whatever you like, and find something more restrictive than "grossly violate the gods code of conduct". You don't even need to act in the gods interest to keep your spells and abilities, the following bit says "generally by acting in ways opposed to your god". Which nobody is ever going to do unless they specifically plan to play their character that way.

The metaphorical restaurant does have a no shirt no service sign, yeah, but you're insisting that you must have a polo or you'll be kicked out.l and you can't abide by that. There's other shirts that aren't polos. You are enforcing your own, much stricter, version of events here. The book says one thing. It says it very clearly and it even gets into specifics. You, entirely on your own, are saying that this is much stricter than the book says and then claiming that what you're saying is in the book. It's not. Per the rules (cleric starts on page 30, ex cleric is on page 33), you can be completely apathetic towards your deity or force and still be a Cleric and retain all your cleric powers and gain more levels in cleric.

I promise you, I understand what you're saying when you talk about being unable to put yourself into the mindset you describe. But I'm telling you, point blank, with the book in front of me, that mindset is not imposed by anyone except yourself. That mindset is not in the book. That mindset is not how the book describes clerics and monks, but your own interpretation of clerics and monks placed on top of the book.

[Rater202]

I feel like you're all focusing on the wrong part of my argument.

Okay, losing powers is a harder process than I recalled: That changes nothing.

"I can not put myself in the mindset of a willing servant of an external power I have no recourse against" is the thesis here. If Bob, God of Fried Chicken decides I've grossly violated the code of conduct he set out for me, my spells go away and I need to go out of my way to appease him to get them back

Ain't no appeal process, ain't no neutral arbiter, ain't nothin'. It's a lopsided relationship with a being so much more powerful than I am that they can dictate terms and I have to accept them.

[Rynjin]

So you've never played a mercenary beholden to their contract? Someone with a king or lord?

What characters DO you play?

[Keltest]

Clerics don't actually need to worship a God. They can follow a cause or other equivalent idea as well and be empowered.