I'm thinking it odd that my cleric of Ibrandul needs a campfire to sleep in the Underdark caverns :shock: given that he's supposed to be embracing the darkness.

I'm wondering if perhaps the "cavern" domain could allow a cleric to sleep without a campfire, as rangers do?

It might make sense ICly, but cleric is already the single most powerful class you can pick at character creation. Allowing them to replenish their spells in the wilds whenever they wish -- well, some of them anyways -- would be giving a substantial boost to a class that most certainly does not need it.

Moreover, it would somewhat detract from the uniqueness of the druid and ranger classes in this respect.

It might make sense ICly, but cleric is already the single most powerful class you can pick at character creation. Allowing them to replenish their spells in the wilds whenever they wish -- well, some of them anyways -- would be giving a substantial boost to a class that most certainly does not need it.

Ummm... :?: not sure I follow your logic there. It doesn't mean they can "replenish their spells in the wilds whenever they wish", anymore than they already can. You still need a bedroll, you still need 8 hours between rests, and you still need the area to be free of encounters.

In fact, the ONLY thing it means is NOT lighting a campfire, which is ENTIRELY an IC thing, save for a 7 gold piece oilskin.

Saving 7 gold pieces every other time I log that character in is NOT somehow going to make my cleric uber-powerful compared to everyone else. It's also not going to suddenly inspire 99% of the server to scrap their ranger, druid, whatever and make a cleric of Ibrandul.

However, lighting a campfire when I'm supposed to be "embracing the darkness" certainly can break immersion and spoil an otherwise-nice RP day. It definitely begins to impinge on my desire to self-impose restrictions regarding the use of light. (Hmm, sacrifice the uber-sword that glows? Nah, let's just pretend it doesn't glow anymore than the gratuitous campfire I had to light to rest...)

I offer an alternative solution, if this somehow lowers the self-esteem of rangers and druids... :roll:

Have another item available for the equivalent cost of an oilskin, that allows characters to make camp outside without a campfire. I don't know, maybe a blessed item sold at the temple of Ibrandul, that you "use" on yourself just prior to clicking on "rest".

Now, I can understand the argument, "DM's have lots of other more pressing changes to make that would improve immersion, and for a larger % of the player base." But to argue this change somehow "empowers" the cleric class and would affect the balance of play...??! :?

Okay, so the "whenever they wish" obviously included some implicit requirements such as enough time having passed from the previous rest and having a bedroll. And I'll admit I didn't remember the required item was so cheap. Still, not requiring an item that is expended in the process of resting and that needs to be purchased every time does count for something, especially in the long run.

Besides, I'm not entirely convinced of the IC rationale either: just because you serve the deity of caverns does not automatically mean that you're comfortable resting in the wilderness like a druid or a ranger is. Clerics of Chauntea or Silvanus or any other nature deity don't get that perk either (in surface modules), which is entirely understandable, because these people have lived their lives in mostly civilized settings -- not the wilderness (which would imply multiclass ranger levels, for instance). Wilderness lore includes a plethora of skills and abilities that are learned over a long period of time of living in such settings, not in some more or less sheltered church or temple. The advantage that rangers and druids get regarding resting in the wilds represents part of this lore. It involves practical skills, not just faith in that you'll be protected by the deity of caverns.

Anthee Okay, so the "whenever they wish" obviously included some implicit requirements such as enough time having passed from the previous rest and having a bedroll. And I'll admit I didn't remember the required item was so cheap. Still, not requiring an item that is expended in the process of resting and that needs to be purchased every time does count for something, especially in the long run.

Besides, I'm not entirely convinced of the IC rationale either: just because you serve the deity of caverns does not automatically mean that you're comfortable resting in the wilderness like a druid or a ranger is. Clerics of Chauntea or Silvanus or any other nature deity don't get that perk either (in surface modules), which is entirely understandable, because these people have lived their lives in mostly civilized settings -- not the wilderness (which would imply multiclass ranger levels, for instance). Wilderness lore includes a plethora of skills and abilities that are learned over a long period of time of living in such settings, not in some more or less sheltered church or temple. The advantage that rangers and druids get regarding resting in the wilds represents part of this lore. It involves practical skills, not just faith in that you'll be protected by the deity of caverns.

Like, word.

And, as previously stated, adding such a feature (however minor) to an already complete class moreso detracts from the other classes to which it is available. Classes which are, commonly, perceived as less powerful/useful.

Rangers and druids can rest in the wilds because they're outdoorspeople of a sort who are 'in tune' with nature. Clerics are not. Multiclass into ranger if you want to be exeptionally interested in nature!

Forcing my cleric of Ibrandul to light a campfire in order to sleep outside is pretty lame, there's simply no getting past that.

Fine, if you think my cleric of Ibrandul needs a 7 gold piece "substitute" item to make him feel "safe" enough to sleep out-of-doors, but, I'm sorry, you'll never convince me there's sound justification that he would feel safer with something that generates light (which he would believe actually ATTRACTS danger.)

I honestly could care less about a perception that druids and rangers are somehow lesser classes than clerics, or that they somehow do not have enough wilderness "perks". If you've problems with that situation, feel free to offer suggestions to realistically IMPROVE and EXPAND the world of druids and rangers, with actual useful skills and talents that would reflect their years of training. Sleeping safely and comfortably without a campfire hardly falls in that category -- it's actually quite a reach to suggest it takes any know-how whatsoever.

Honestly, when it comes to ruining RP, the only thing worse, to me, than "power-builds" is intentionally prohibiting a basic human skill that yields absolutely no benefit except for character flavor, in order to somehow distinguish one class from another.

What about some warm mushroom? You eat it, and it makes you feel warm and sleepy. Also, it would emanate a disgusting smell, makes your hp get less, then a druid/ranger sleeping in wilderness. It would cost 10 coins, and only for self use (unlike campfire).

It radiates no hit, but still drives creatures away, thus making the sleep safer (although, not too safe - it won't drive creatures who saw you away).

These mushrooms can be bought at the Ibrandul's Cave, and it could be a quest to collect them to create the useable form.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it is forbidden for Ibrandulites, even clerics, to light fire. Everybody has to eat -- you want to eat filthy, disease-ridden raw rat meat? Besides, the Underdark is actually quite cold most places. Even for Ibrandulites there are plenty of reasonable excuses for lighting a fire.

You make it sound as if this is some sort of weight that is being placed solely upon your shoulders. It is one of the restrictions you will need deal with as playing a Cleric character, regardless of Deity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it is forbidden for Ibrandulites, even clerics, to light fire.

The issue at hand isn't whether its forbidden -- on the contrary, the issue is whether it should be compulsory. It makes no RP sense that its compulsory in order to sleep in the cavernous wilds. It DOES make RP sense that it would be highly distasteful to an Ibrandulite, and that they'd be equally (or more) comfortable WITHOUT one.

Actually, the more time I spend thinking on this issue, the more ridiculous it seems that anyone HAS to light a campfire in the wilds. Or have a bedroll, for that matter. Sure, having them might be beneficial... uninterrupted sleep, more restful sleep, etc... but compulsory?

The only rationalization for a campfire (or bedroll) is that it creates an artificial crisis or player challenge -- an additional obstacle/cost to overcome. To me, it falls in the category of "you feel hungry", or "you feel your bladder is full" requiring some action. These kind of things straddle a very shaky line between arcade game and RPG. While in the right circumstances they can encourage or inspire quality role play, they can equally break immersion completely and detract from quality role play underway.

I originally posted to point out the risk of breaking immersion for a reasonable character type -- in fact, a character type well-suited for the Underdark. Then I offered suggestions. I really don't understand why this became such a big deal -- other than it seems to strike a nerve in people that think druids and rangers are slighted. I repeat my 2 suggestions...

Suggestion #1: Cavern domain would allow sleep without campfire in caverns. This didn't seem popular.

Suggestion #2: An alternative to a campfire, one which would retain the gold cost and accessibility hurdle of a campfire, but would be more palatable (IC) for Ibrandulites. This, to me, would be a wonderful solution, and even open up a world of flavor for characters beyond just Ibrandulites, but has all but been ignored (except by Alogen, who offered a neat concept.)

Hey, it's perfectly fine by me if anyone wants to say, "not worth the DM's time, to micromanage at that level, but thanks for the suggestion", or, "hmm, I see your point, but maybe THIS instead." But it really rubs me the wrong way to think that suggestions like this, offered soley to facilitate character development, get lambasted with what I consider metagaming arguments ("druids and rangers don't have enough perks").

It's not lame at all. YOU ARE A CLERIC, NOT A DRUID. NOT A RANGER. You would not be able to get 8 hours of restful sleep on a cold cave floor. Sure you can rest without one, but it wouldn't be good enough to get spells, and thus you can feel free to go out to a cave, use the 'lay down' emote, and sleep away.

Simple, play a druid or a ranger if you want those perks or multiclass.

Simple, play a druid or a ranger if you want those perks or multiclass.

Perk???

OK, I absolutely give up, here. Everyone is WAY too focused on what beneficial abilities they have or don't have, or whether the next guy can do something they can/can't.

I could care less if the solution was more expensive, or less beneficial, or whatever. All I ever asked for is a solution to be more true to character. No special power, just, "can we do without the light, please?"

I think the best way, -without making the druid or ranger less attractive/make it more reasonable in matter of perks- is an item which exchanges the need for the actual light.

Metro spoke of the heat needed, then an item which produces heat, without light is an option, is it not?

I can't see the problem of having more expansive, with not light item which exchanges the campfire. (Notice that the new item, is for -self- use, thus making it even more expansive)

And then out of nowhere Someone who agrees with Jackofswords! and also Alogen.

A fire doesn't make sense for imbrandulites.

It's not just a fire, it's making a comfortable camp good enough for you to get full rest in. You need this as a cleric to get your spells.

You guys are getting steamed over ... well absolutely nothing? Just RP it the way you want.

*The ibrandulite sets a nice camp with bedrolls, prepares a few rothe meat with whatever means he uses to cook and rest*

No one is going to go "ZOMG! ibrandulite lighting a fire!", same as if an Aurilite lights a fire which is EVEN LESS allowed... if you are so so so so so so so so stringent about it, that using that oil bottle ruins your RP experience on the server...

Well I really dont know what to tell you about that.

My suggestion is really not about Ibrandulites in particular. A small -more expansive- item, for those who think it would make their RP better, or game experience better.

In matters of meta, it would be less useful, thus it's -only- a matter of RP which even costs more, less effective. At the Wizard's store perhaps.

Of course -everyone- could use it, thus not making the priests any better. It would be scripted so it would regenerate less hp then the Druids'/rangers' rest.

It would be for RP only, Ibrandulite or not.

slightly off-topic, but i reject that druids are a lesser class!

Good luck keeping up with this one!

if you are so so so so so so so so stringent about it, that using that oil bottle ruins your RP experience on the server...

Well I really dont know what to tell you about that.

*chuckles* Neither does my therapist, other than to renew my prescription of Xanax... :P

I agree completely with JoS on this one. For one reason in particular. All earlier versions of the D&D mechanics implemented druids as clerics. d20 simply decided to create a seperate class for them simply because so many nature based spells were being added into the cleric spell list which didn't really seem to belong to 90% of all priests.

Therefore, if in 2ndE Druids are shown as nature based clerics (although categorized under priest) just as illusionists are shwon as illusion specializing mages (although categorized as wizards). I would see no IC rationale what so ever that Ibrandulites for all IC purposes shouldn't have nearly the same association with their underdark surroundings as their druidic cousins have for their own typical setting.

To say otherwise is to either drastically underestimate the faith, by the rationale that the mechanics don't quite support their obvious expertise!

You look at the description of the faith and it's obvious that Jack is right, but then some go back and say "No, cleric's don't have this ability!", when he is suggesting that a given faith should. Clerics don't have the ability to do many things such as the Sea Cave domain ability to breathe longer underwater or the magic domain ability to cast acid arrows without arcane failure checks, but those of such faiths do. Clerics are meant to be versatile, and I'd see no problem letting an ibrandulite sleep outdoors without a fire if a ranger can do so in the woods. As both likely have equal experience sleeping in their given terrain, and between the both of them, most rangers would be more inclined to use a fire thus less likely to sleep easy without one.

I also agree that if players are concerned about rangers and druids losing some esteem with their abilities, suck it up. It's just one domain gaining access to your weakest ability which ICly, most woodland rangers should have difficulty maintaining in the underdark themselves. Finally, if sleeping without a bedroll or fire doesn't let a person get rested enough to regain spells, druids are in trouble, because again, a priest who worhips the darkness of caverns should be at least if not more comfortbale doing so than a woodland druid or ranger.

Personally, I have a ranger/thief of Ibrandul on this server, though I rarely play him, but if he were to need advice on some matter of survival, you'll find him walking into the shrine long before you'll catch him asking advice from one of the countless surface druids we have running around here 5 miles beneath any other member of their circle.

The reason I chose ibrandul is because I wanted my character to be based as an escaped slave who was clever enough to learn the ropes of the wilderness to survive long before finding sanctuary. I wasn't about to play a surface ranger who would be wandering lost in the underdark, because he doesn't know which side of the mushroom to look for moss, or what sort of underdark creatures tend to stay closer towards water sources, or pretty much not a single thing more than any other escaped slave would know. I chose Ibrandul, because Ibrandul is(was) the reigning lord of the underdark wilderness!

Though i do also agree with JoS in that this likely isn't worth the effort to code it in, arguing against him by pretending that worshippers of Ibrandul are just like any other cleric who would only sit around a rock in the dark once a week for mass is simply riddiculous.

So I'll be the first to say it. Excellent and insightful suggestion JoS, but it doesn't look too promising.

Vendayan Therefore, if in 2ndE Druids are shown as nature based clerics (although categorized under priest) just as illusionists are shown as illusion specializing mages (although categorized as wizards). I would see no IC rationale what so ever that Ibrandulites for all IC purposes shouldn't have nearly the same association with their underdark surroundings as their druidic cousins have for their own typical setting.

Vendayan To say otherwise is to either drastically underestimate the faith, by the rationale that the mechanics don't quite support their obvious expertise!

Vendayan You look at the description of the faith and it's obvious that Jack is right, but then some go back and say "No, cleric's don't have this ability!", when he is suggesting that a given faith should. Clerics don't have the ability to do many things such as the Sea Cave domain ability to breathe longer underwater or the magic domain ability to cast acid arrows without arcane failure checks, but those of such faiths do.

Vendayan Clerics are meant to be versatile...

Vendayan ... and I'd see no problem letting an ibrandulite sleep outdoors without a fire if a ranger can do so in the woods.

Vendayan As both likely have equal experience sleeping in their given terrain, and between the both of them, most rangers would be more inclined to use a fire thus less likely to sleep easy without one.

Vendayan I also agree that if players are concerned about rangers and druids losing some esteem with their abilities, suck it up.

Vendayan It's just one domain gaining access to your weakest ability which ICly, most woodland rangers should have difficulty maintaining in the underdark themselves.

Vendayan Personally, I have a ranger/thief of Ibrandul on this server, though I rarely play him, but if he were to need advice on some matter of survival, you'll find him walking into the shrine long before you'll catch him asking advice from one of the countless surface druids we have running around here 5 miles beneath any other member of their circle.

Rangers in the past have previously been required to choose a terrain type in which they would have gained their abilities. Rangers are not somehow magically "attuned" to be one with nature as a druid is. They simply spend a lot of time in the woods OR desert OR tundra OR mountains OR swamp -OR- underdark caverns. Not all of the above. Thus surface rangers don't simply walk down into the underdark and know how to survive as they did on the surface. Perhaps better than most, but nearly as well as a druid who should still have some attunement but no experience.

Also as I said, druids in 2nd Ed were priests and also were clerics. They were only put in the book to show how a given cleric faith could be specialized. DRUIDS WERE CLERICS WITH THE NATURE DOMAIN. So enough crap about how no clerics whatsoever have any idea how to survive in the wild. A cleric of Ibrandul very much should, unless you can show me were it would state something as stupid as that priests who worships caverns and darkness still prefer to live in urban areas. You might be able to see them doing it, sure. But the devotion of clergy would make it unlikely for some, and at least have most spending enough time in the underdark to have a skill of a woodland ranger.

There's no IC reason that a set of mechanics making Ibrandul clerics as close as possible to having the abilities of surface druids (without the wildshape or animal companions) shouldn't be a valid possibility. Nor is there any OOC reason unless you are trying to generalize the cleric class. Which is not only stupid, but metagaming under these circumstances, when you try to use mechanics to defeat IC rationale. Especially when you're arguing with someone's suggestion to change the mechanics to support something so reasonable. A person who devotes their life to worshipping and understanding life in dark cavernous regions, should be just as comfortable as a woodland ranger out of his given terrain (wherein they aren't supposed to have many of their abilities) with or without a stupid fire.

Sort sighted arguments against this so far have been

It's not just a fire, it's making a comfortable camp good enough for you to get full rest in. You need this as a cleric to get your spells. Someone better tell this to woodland druids, who likely have never attempted such a thing as sleeping on a cold rock floor. Maybe once or twice in their entire lives when nothing else was available, but certainly not enough that they should be any better rested. Druids have always previously been a subset of the cleric class and require the same restful sleep.

Refer to Anthee's comment of "Wilderness lore includes a plethora of skills and abilities that are learned over a long period of time of living in such settings, not in some more or less sheltered church or temple.". This is true for rangers, but not druids who are closer to being magically attuned with nature itself, but keep in mind the underdark is not a woodland setting which surface rangers should feel so at home in, and that the ibrandul description lists nothing close to a sheltered church dweller as a worshipper. In fact what it does list is quite the opposite.

Simple, play a druid or a ranger if you want those perks or multiclass. I'd call that metagaming to take a level in a class just for one ability. How would he rationalize the two weapon style feats and a hated enemy? Or the wildshape?

What makes the Underdark any less nature than any given forest? Nothing. But that's the largest contrast you could hope to have shown. Ranger's from the woods should know -nothing- about surviving in the underdark wilderness here. Especially since previous mechanics versions have stated that they only get their survival abilities in their chosen terrain. They have no magical attunement to nature itself. It's a learned ability for them.

Not necessarily because they need/want light, much like my previous argument about having to eat. Many priests fast for days at a time in hopes of gaining stronger blessings.

No matter how you look at it, clerics generally are city people; rangers and druids are not. Even if I didn't feel the urge to remind that druids have always been considered a subset of clerics, that's still a riddiculous generalization. If any generalizations about clerics should be made, it should be about specific faiths. Such a generalization should -not- apply to Ibrandulites as they are listed as being worshipped mainly by underdark creatures and dungeon dwellers.

And the main argument here is, they don't have that expertise. That's what domains are for, giving expertise and specialized abilities to faiths that should have them. Thus the argument should only be about whether or not -Ibrandulites- should have it, not clerics in general.

Druids relate to clerics as rangers do to rogues, more or less. In the past, druids did not relate to clerics, they were a subset of clerics. In other words, they -were- clerics. Changed only because it was odd that so many non nature based clerics had access to spells like entanglement.

Besides, the Underdark is actually quite cold most places. Even for Ibrandulites there are plenty of reasonable excuses for lighting a fire. A good argument to why many druids and rangers who don't buy oil anyway, at least to have it handy, should be penalized as metagamers, but a shite argument as to why Ibrandulites shouldn't be able to do without a fire if they should choose. Which wouldn't be metagaming at all.

Clerics of Chauntea or Silvanus or any other nature deity don't get that perk either I don't ever recall that -anyone- was absolutely required to have a campfire in PnP games. Not wizards, druids, clerics, bards, sorcs, rangers, paladins or any other spellcasting or mundane class. This "feature" was only added to the modules because the resting after every other fight was stupid. It was never meant to be completely reasonable from an IC perspective. It was just made as a restriction on the resting exploit.

This is a perfectly valid suggestion, which is only being shot down because so few have any vested interest in it. Yet there's no lack of short sighted people who say something because they want to speak, instead of speaking because they have something to say.

P.S. Much respect to Alogen, who is the only person who at least tried to offer something constructive here without feeling the need to make short sighted generalizations or feel threatened by someone else moving in on the ranger's ability.

Well, this is clearly going nowhere new.