A Land Far Away

My dnd lameness doesn't stretch this far...

Arcane spells are specific in their description and impact. Specific even to those who wield them who study and practice for long years to grasp how they work. So i can see a link almost bewteen the IC spell characteristics they learn and OOC info/description of a spell.

With divine spells, would it be right to assume that you ask your diety (or intermediate) for a 'type' of thin rather than a specific?

So say fireball.
A wiz pulls out a scroll uses fomr componenets and knows generally exactly what he's going to get becuase he's done it so many times before.
A fire domain cleric points at the charging orcs and wills his gods fiery vengance upon them etc.

same spell different initiation

the reason they are mechanics wise the same spell is just so there aren't 1000 page source/canon books with EVERY possibility of what 'gods fiery vengance) might be?

this is me making stuff up so some advice would be good.
I just cant see my uthgardian cleric explaining to a animal avatar that he want to have his mind shielded from enchantment spells

The knowledge of the spell - how it's cast, what it requires and how many Orcs will likely die a fiery death - is placed in the clerics brain by their patron deity during prayers. So they do know exactly what they got when they got it. Knowing what to pray for is another matter entire. I imagine 1st level priests learn what's available as part of their regular religious indoctrination, but as far as I can tell divine casters are in the dark as to what they might get whenever they hit a new spell level.
So I would think a third level cleric simply prays for something that goes boom, and has faith he'll get what he needs.

Nearly every FR book I have ever read has clerics in complete control of the spell they are preparing.

A good example of writing on divine casting is in the "Spider Queen" series.....the priestesses of Lloth know exactly what they are preparing and how it is supposed to work except for all but the rarest spells (one's that would not be in PHB)...

Now if you want to RP it differently....no worries...

But as for PnP mechanics and FR writing there is no "variability" or "divine gift randomness" for traditional clerics casting.

The variability of divine whoopass comes in the form of domains, alignments, and RP.

Most clerics can't cast burning hands; Kossuth grants it. Most clerics are pretty good healers; clerics of Ilmater can be better. A cleric of Bane can't cast holy word; a cleric of Chauntea can't cast blasphemy. I bet that clerics of Eldath wouldn't call holy smite by that name.

And maybe your Uthgardt doesn't ask his animal totem for protection from enchantment; maybe he just ask for protection, and that's what he gets. A fine opportunity to RP it out, I say.

Zelknolf wrote: maybe he just ask for protection, and that's what he gets.

Exactly.

WHile the examples above are canon in stating that the cleric knows everything giong into and the outputs of the spell, I think each god should have 'flava'.

While the coniving calculating drow priestess might hone her understanding of her gifts to nth degree to maximise her power over others of her kind, i'd see a cleric/shaman of uthgar having a more elemental approach as zelks said.

Same for perhaps a cleric of illmater (who wants to know exactly how to heal someone the optimal way for long lasting healing) compared to garagos (who just wants that artery top stop pissing blood so they can fight more).

Thanks guys.

Cleric "knows" what he'll get, but may have a ton of complex dogma or his/her own lens through which the deity's power is seen, and therefore may have a hundred convincing explanations he can give either himself or his flock for why power manifests in a particular way.

He may even (*gasp*) not offer to vend healing services by their technical names! I.e., "I can address some mild scrapes, but not too much distressed, cut or bruised tissue" / "I can probably help close those gashes and bruises, at least as much as my two spread hands will cover" / "Yes, I should be able to mend that bone, the pain should dissipate quickly"... as opposed to "HELLO I WILL DO A CURE LITE WOUNDS FOR 50GP." People can put a little panache into their casting, though at the same time, feigning complete ignorance of the nature of their powers (a favourite at least of novice sorcerers), doesn't make good sense for very long, especially once you've got a couple ranks of spellcraft which I've always thought of as the "science" of spellcasting.

Brokenbone wrote:... as opposed to "HELLO I WILL DO A CURE LITE WOUNDS FOR 50GP."

I am glad that I have never come across this situation, although some have almost wandered into that department.

I believe there is a cannon diety that encourages his flock to cast spells for profit. Read it but not on my memory que as to which one it was.

Oh profiting is fine, just don't call your miracles by sourcebook names! "Would you like an empowered bull's strength this afternoon?" vs. "I can quicken your blood in such a way that you'll have the strength of an ox until a hundred heartbeats have passed." *shrugs*

This could be fun!

Orcs charge at them

Chultan cleric to low int/wis ftr friend from sword coast: "My god can give you the leap of a lemuer to defeat these creatures!"
low int/wis ftr friend from sword coast: '"What' a lemuer?"
cleric: "Well it's like a monkey but able to leap much further"
ftr: "...y' want ' make meh look like a monkeh?"
cleric: "no no, your muscles will just feel springy as IF they were a lemeurs"
ftr: "but i wont 'ave no fece like a monkeh?"
cleric:"..........."

Orcs arrive and kill them
But yes i think that's the good way of speaking about it.
JUst not the 6sec/level spells as they wear out before you've finished

I also object to people calling weapons by sourcebook names. A longsword should be refered to as a "Steel Yard of Bladed Doom Forged in the Fiery Pits of the Local Blacksmith".

Well, that or an arming sword.

NickD wrote:I also object to people calling weapons by sourcebook names. A longsword should be refered to as a "Steel Yard of Bladed Doom Forged in the Fiery Pits of the Local Blacksmith".

All non-sourcebook terminology for weapons, however, should be thinly veiled double entendre.

Longsword = shiny johnson; Mace = throbber; Bastard sword = one-eyed wonder blade

NickD wrote:I also object to people calling weapons by sourcebook names. A longsword should be refered to as a "Steel Yard of Bladed Doom Forged in the Fiery Pits of the Local Blacksmith".

Except a "longsword" has a 2' blade. Ur joke failz, and is seeded, ironically, by D&D's bad terminology. (a RL longsword is, indeed, a yard long, but is also a two-handed weapon and best compared to the D&D bastard sword.)

And as long as I giggle at this, "maille" is Old English for "chain." Yeaaaaaah, gonna go put on your chainchain to fight the goblins because the sourcebook says so? *cackles*