?

Log in

No account? Create an account
D&D 3E
well, I just saw the next article about clerics, and it confirms that… 
6th-Apr-2005 06:58 pm
Pyro
well, I just saw the next article about clerics, and it confirms that clerics can, in fact, use a higher level spell slot to prepare a lesser spell:

A cleric's spell slot can hold a spell of its level or of a lower level.

A cleric can prepare a lower-level spell in a higher-level slot, just as any other spellcaster can. If the cleric's Wisdom score won't allow her to prepare spells in her higher-level slots, she still can use those slots for lower-level slots. For example, a 9th-level cleric has 4th-level spell slots available. If the cleric has a Wisdom score of only 13, however, she can prepare and cast up to 3rd-level spells only. She can prepare spells of 3rd level or lower in her otherwise unusable 4th-level spell slots. Although the text on page 32 in the Player's Handbook seems to imply that a domain spell slot can hold a spell of its own level only, there's no good reason to bar a cleric from preparing a lower-level spell from one of her domains for that slot.

Like other spellcasters, clerics also can prepare spells using metamagic feats, which make those spells use higher-level spell slots. To prepare or cast a spell modified with most metamagic feats, the cleric's Wisdom score must be at least equal to 10 + the spell's unmodified level. For example, a cleric with a Wisdom score of 14 can use a 5th-level spell slot to prepare a 4th-level spell modified with the Enlarge Spell metamagic feat (which makes the spell use a slot one level higher than normal). The Heighten Spell metamagic feat actually raises the spell's level, as noted in the D&D FAQ. To prepare or cast a spell modified with the Heighten Spell feat, the cleric's Wisdom score must be equal to 10 + the spell's modified level


and, just in case you want to read the whole article:
All about Clerics, part 2

yea, i know, i was wrong....but at least i'm admitting to it!
Comments 
7th-Apr-2005 12:19 am (UTC)
500 xp for admitting to it.
7th-Apr-2005 01:00 am (UTC)
its still cheese
7th-Apr-2005 01:12 am (UTC)
So if a 9th-level cleric with Wisdom 14 can use his 5th-level spell slot to cast 4th-level spells (since he can't cast 5th-level spells), it's cheesy?
7th-Apr-2005 09:22 pm (UTC)
the whole purpose of using set stats are to provide limitations, a way to challenge a player... and if you can do something like this then why set limitations?
7th-Apr-2005 09:36 pm (UTC)
but the cleric is limited from casting higher level spells, or even Heightening lower spells
7th-Apr-2005 10:21 pm (UTC)
but what of the other classes that aren't magic users? they have to deal with the same limitations with no way to circumvent them for extra benefits A fighter for example, have to deal with having a low strength, and if a Rogue has a below average Dex, then they have to deal with it.

so why should the casting classes (and I would presume that this would apply to the other casting classes) have a way to weasel around this limitation?
7th-Apr-2005 10:32 pm (UTC)
There's no weaseling, you can't get spells above that level, period. The least he can do is use those spell slots for something lesser.

And personally if I was a rogue with a crappy dex, I'd multiclass or focus on cha skills.
8th-Apr-2005 01:20 am (UTC)
Your examples are flawed.

If a fighter has a low Strength, then presumably that was by design. Perhaps he put a high score in something else, such as Constitution for better hit points, Dexterity to become a finesse fighter, or even Intelligence to pick up Combat Expertise and Improved Trip.

If a rogue has a low Dexterity, then in all likelihood he put his high score in something else such as Strength to supplement his sneak attacks, Intelligence to boost his skill points, or Charisma to improve his interpersonal skills.

If you think that the above is 'weaseling' around limitations, then so be it, but your games are probably quite different from the ones I'm involved in.

All of that is besides to real point. A cleric gets spell slots as a class feature. A fighter gets bonus fighter feats. A rogue gets sneak attacks, uncanny dodge, and the like. A cleric being able to fill up his highest spell slots with lesser spell is no more cheesy than a fighter gaining a load of bonus feats, or the rogue having more skills than he knows what to do with.
8th-Apr-2005 05:27 am (UTC)
That's more or less exactly what I was going to say. A fighter with a low strength still has access to all his class features. A rogue with a low Dex can still use all his class features. A cleric with a low wisdom will never gain access to some of his class features.

And there's another question - if you have a crummy dex, why are you a rogue (bad example - you can play an excellent rogue with a 10 or 8 Dex)? If you have a crummy intelligence, why are you a wizard? Etc. Why would that character be drawn to a career or lifestyle that he's bad at?
8th-Apr-2005 07:29 pm (UTC)
You can have fun roleplaying a character that is not 'suited' to his profession. Examples:

A paladin with a high WIS but low CHA...very holy and righteous, but too holier-than-thou; doesn't get along with people very well; not very personable; tends to offend people/say that wrong thing at the most inappropriate times; honest to a fault.

A rogue with a low dex could love to steal and very personable/persuasive/charismatic (high CHA) but can't walk across the room with tripping on his own feet (low DEX).

:)
8th-Apr-2005 09:53 pm (UTC)
thanks, but give it up. they are going to stick with the min/max argument and nothing will make them see anything different
9th-Apr-2005 04:59 pm (UTC)
*nod*
9th-Apr-2005 05:00 am (UTC)
before i forget, and before Trejo decides to flame my posts again, it does state in the PHB that a fighter must meet all requirements in order to take a bonus feat.

and as i stated earlier, that sometimes a character just does not start with any "good" stats, and might even begin with several stats giving penalties. Lurker does have a point in saying that sometimes better RPing comes from a character that begins with a class that would incur more penalties than benefits due to low stats
8th-Apr-2005 06:19 am (UTC)
first off, if you want to turn this into a flame war (and the tone suggests it, intentional or not) then this is not the place for it.

second, and more to the point, it happens that a character may have nothing better than a mediocre stat spread, therefore there won't be a single one that he excels in. THAT was what I was getting at. and what use is a feat that would allow you to deal extra damage if you couldn't hit the broad side of a mountain, or having massive amounts of skills if all relevent stats either give no bonuses, or penalties?

as for my games being different, you're most likely right... i avoid running power games and actually try to stick to role playing as opposed to roll playing
8th-Apr-2005 08:52 am (UTC)
His post seemed reasonably toned to me. Yours however .....

Something you seem to be missing is that as a character levels, their stat bonuses become less and less important. A fighter who can't hit the broad side of a barn isn't going to be able to hit it with an extra +1 to hit, nor is a rogue going to be able to sneak a great deal better with the same.

Also, I don't think many people would agree that getting so bent out of shape about "cheesy" rules is the mark of someone who worries more about the roles than the rules.
8th-Apr-2005 09:52 pm (UTC)
oh really.. i stated the rule was cheese and i get jumped from all angles over it, and when i state my argument for my position i get jumped even further.

but I'm the one getting out of shape over it...

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
9th-Apr-2005 12:47 am (UTC)
Your flurry of posts speaks for itself, and that's all I'll say about that. I don't think you are well suited for this sort of debating, so it's rather pointless.
9th-Apr-2005 04:53 am (UTC)
why, because all you can do is make personal attacks rather than actually try to refute my position?

then you're right, because if proving my point involves flaming, then i know several other places where i could do that and be more productive in it
9th-Apr-2005 04:23 pm (UTC)
Look who's talking!

Yeesh!
9th-Apr-2005 06:50 am (UTC)
Well, your arguments don't follow internal logic. You don't say something along the lines of, "I want magic to be less powerful in my world" or "to emphasize the themes of my current campaign, magic should be more difficult and require more inate talent than that." You simply call it cheesy and then blame our misunderstanding on the fact that we're roll-playing and you're role-playing.

This confuses people. They ask questions. This is how things work. There was no malicious intent. You just happened to confuse pretty much everyone. You're the one who implied a flame war and then pulled the whole roll/role straw man out of pretty much nowhere.

So yes, you're the one getting bent out of shape about it.
9th-Apr-2005 08:46 pm (UTC)
i answered the questions, and i still have people like trejo flaming my posts.....but he's not getting bent out of shape?

first off, fighters, as one of the examples I used, do not get their bonus feats regardless, they must meet requirements. take a look in your PHB. So, if hey reach a level where all feats that they DO meet requirements are already taken, but there are still several others available (but they canot take because of, say low stats) they're SOL until they find a way to boost said stat to meet requirements

look i never claimed that all my examples aere perfect, but if i am attacked because I said something that someone doesn't like (for whatever reason) then i'll respond. will it possibly be harsh? yes, but only if that is how i was approached.

I said the rule as stated in the article was cheese, after owning up and admitting that i misread the earlier one. and yes, I still believe that (meaning, i won't be using it in my games) and the reason is (and i'll try to clarify my position a little more) is that it removes a challenge for that character class. Rather than striving to improve themselves(their god visits them and states that if they want to enjoy more of his favor they must learn more of the world around them and find a way to do his will more productively ~meaning that at next stat increase, if they want the better spells, then they must raise their Wis), they can sit and be content with what they have. Which for any church is not a good attitude. the whole purpose of clergy is to spread worship of their god(s) to new believers and to do their will.

as for arcane casters (which i'm hazarding a guess that this rule might apply to them as well) their whole purpose is knowledge ~learning how to increase their power through research and study (Wiz) or through experience and practice (Sor) so it would not usually be in their nature to sit and be content with what they can do. Its like a computer geek: they finally have a killer machine, but in the backs of their minds they know there must be a way to improve beyond its current capabilities

7th-Apr-2005 01:23 am (UTC)
How is it cheese? Honestly it makes perfect sense. The ability to downgrade a spell slot to lower level spell...is well.. perfectly sound.

"I, Kelemvor, will not grant to the lower level of healing..,.YOU MUST TAKE THE HIGHER LEVEL ONE" Its honestly quite rediculious
7th-Apr-2005 09:27 pm (UTC)
ok.... again, the whole reason for stats is to provide a way to limit the power of a character, this is just a loophole in that intent
7th-Apr-2005 08:30 am (UTC)
You earned the cass levels, you may as well do something with them.
7th-Apr-2005 09:28 pm (UTC)
and that is why you are allowed a chance to raise a stat every several levels
8th-Apr-2005 01:23 am (UTC)
A 9th-level cleric with Wisdom 14 who fills up his 5th-level spell slot with a 4th-level spell is cheesy, but a 9th-level cleric with Wisdom 15 is not cheesy?

What's your definition of cheesy anyway?
9th-Apr-2005 04:24 pm (UTC)
I still fail to see your justification for not allowing the cleric to use these spell slots for something else.

If a player has 35,000 gold, and wanted to buy a stat boosting item, would you force them to wait for another 1,000 gold to buy a +6 item? Or let them buy two +4 items and something else?

It's the same level of 'cheese'.
9th-Apr-2005 04:26 pm (UTC)
It's funny that you mention min-maxing.

It seems that you're fine with a fighter having low strength or a rogue having low dexterity and using their feats/skills on different aspects than the archetypical class design (min/max!)...

... yet you're forcing clerics to min/max or not get all of their abilities.
9th-Apr-2005 08:55 pm (UTC)
remember, fighters must meet all requirements for a feat, bonus or not, so no, if they don't have the stats, they can't get the feat. as for a rogue's skills, what use is a skill that uses a stat that would give them a penalty to a check?

now, i just posted a longer-than-expected post above, which i hope might clear things up a little...if not please ask me what part is not clear...but personally, i've had it with the flaming, so let's try to keep this civilized
10th-Apr-2005 12:39 am (UTC)
For fighters, core feats that a fighter can take multiple times as bonus feats without ability prereqs:

Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialization
Greater Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Specialization

The fighter won't become an all-powerful fighter with one specific weapon, but he will be better than the average person with plenty of the weapon (jack of all trades, master of none if you will). Kinda like a cleric with high level slots but no high level spells.

Where the rogue is concerned, are you saying rogues shouldn't be able to take skills they have a penalty in? At level ten, is a +10 not better than a -3? Regardless of the rogue's stats, he still gets trapfinding, sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge, and so forth. Also, he still gets to use the skill points regardless of whether or not he has an ability score that suits it.

Again, like a cleric who gets their spell slots. The cleric may not be content that he is not the most wise of clerics, but why should he further limit himself because of it, when having more lesser miracles could lead him to find a way to perform greater ones during his travels?
10th-Apr-2005 12:52 am (UTC)
Oh, and here are other fighter bonus feats without ability prerequisites.

Blind-Fight
Combat Reflexes
Improved Critical (which I forgot in the above list, whoops)
Improved Initiative
Improved Shield Bash
Improved Unarmed Strike
Mounted Combat
-- Mounted Archery
-- Ride-By Attack
--- Spirited Charge
-- Trample
Point Blank Shot
-- Far Shot
-- Precise Shot
Quick Draw
Rapid Reload
Weapon Finesse

And here are feats with no ability prereq that a fighter can take normally:

All of the skill feats (not gonna put 'em all)
Endurance
Diehard
Great Fortitude
Iron Will
Leadership
Lightning Reflexes
Run
Toughness
Tower Shield Proficiency
Track


A fighter will get 7 feats from character levels (1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18), and 11 feats from being a fighter (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) by level 20. Figure in one feat for a human, and you have fill all these slots with non-ability prereqs (and I won't take one more than once!)

H01 - Improved Initiative
C01 - Endurance
F01 - Mounted Combat
F02 - Mounted Archery
C03 - Animal Affinity
F04 - Point Blank Shot
C06 - Leadership
F06 - Precise Shot
F08 - Far Shot
C09 - Skill Focus (Ride)
F10 - Rapid Reload
C12 - Diehard
F12 - Quick Draw
F14 - Weapon Focus (Light Crossbow)
C15 - Toughness
F16 - Weapon Specialization (Light Crossbow)
C18 - Improved Critical (Light Crossbow)
F18 - Greater Weapon Focus (Light Crossbow)
F20 - Greater Weapon Specialization (Light Crossbow)

Wheee! All slots filled and no feat taken more than once!

So it can be done, just not as 'twinky' as someone with a good stat set.
10th-Apr-2005 05:21 am (UTC)
I tell you what... let's finish this nice and simple, and leave this as my opinion. I see a cheese move on the part of the writers. you want to think otherwise, that's fine. I don't care. I'm tired of having to fight every time I open my mailbox.

fine with you?
10th-Apr-2005 06:36 pm (UTC)
That's fine. I just feel your justification is flawed, and figured I may as well illustrate why I felt that was the case rather than go "you're an idiot" or something immature like some people would.

:P
12th-Apr-2005 09:28 pm (UTC)
too late... someone already had...a couple actually....

...but i was the one getting bent out of shape...
9th-Apr-2005 09:03 pm (UTC)
you'd have to ask how did they earn that 35000gp....however they did it, unless the DM was Monty Hauling the campaign, they earned it, the same way a player can earn a stat boost every 4 levels

and the restrictions that I would place on buying stat boosting items would be where they were buying them (if the city/town/etc. doesn't have a wiz/clr/sor who can make them, or can't afford to make them) and a limit on how much of a boost can be placed in an item (never anything higher than +5, and anything above +2 are rare items)

but if they can find them (in game) and afford them then i wouldn't have a problem with it.
10th-Apr-2005 12:31 am (UTC)
Ah, but silly me, the cleric didn't earn their spell slots, of course, every level.

As a matter of fact they can only earn their spell slots if they're wise enough to cast those spells, regardless of how experienced they are.

A fighter can take weapon focus in a bunch of different weapons, even if he's not powerful enough to take that one weapon to the next level.
This page was loaded Aug 23rd 2017, 9:42 pm GMT.