Been thinking about this a bit.....and I'm curious as to what other Clerics might think.

Do Clerics need/deserve a cyclic TM Spell?

~Gab

Personally I think more cyclics are a good thing. They act as a bit of a power check by forcing hard choices to some degree. For example when my cleric hunts gremlins he has to choose between spell protection , an offensive debuff, a defensive debuff and sa. In the right setting this is interesting. If you can steamroll whatever you are hunting it isn't, of course

>Is there room for it? Sure, why not? Clerics have an insanely comprehensive suite already, why not give them a few more tools to choose from!

Thanks!

after giving this some thought and kicking it around, I would like to see a low level cleric cyclic tm spell vs undead..... something that would trigger vs who the cleric was facing or who had engaged the cleric.... maybe something like Righteous Presence where it would have something like a harm evil type effect. I could see where this would help young clerics and encourage them to hunt undead. put it up and learn while you kill zombie goblins, boggles and Reavers at low levels clerics could still play to guild strengths.


The feeble old swamp shaman

>>Cyclics aren't really meant for low level characters, though.

I disagree. I think the average member of the playerbase is spoiled by 'relatively' low cost cyclics combined with the feats to make them very easy to use. I was rather amused using EE on a 15th circle war mage. Paying attention to keeping mana in a cyclic was hardly game breaking.

Samsaren

Also bear in mind that aside from bard cyclics and now EE there aren't any low end cyclics. Most are esoteric which come with a minimum 200 ranks to be able to even cast, and there's a handful of advanced with a minimum of 80. That's not to say there can't be easier ones, but the current state of the game is that cyclics are not a low level thing for most guilds.

I knew I should have thrown in a caveat like "of course you can hold mana manually" but I didn't because who wants to? Thrashing your nerves is lame. I stick by my statement that most cyclics (I did forget EE has a low rank req) are not really meant for low level use. Meant. Intended. Planned for. Ideally used by higher circle characters than 15th, which, incidentally, still means they're no longer in reavers. (I have a 15th WM who is past them.)

Maybe with EE's surprisingly low rank req they'll consider releasing more advanced cyclics. I do like the spell idea here. Just might not be in the design.

>>200 ranks

I know this isn't terribly popular sometimes, but you're still talking the lower end of the game.

>>but it does make using other spells (or doing other things) a bit more difficult than it needs to be.

I'll grant it takes a little mental adjustment, but honestly, if you're expecting, long term, cyclics to continue to be fire and forget ez casting (especially for Debil and TM that don't drop off exp wise), you're likely going to get a rude awakening. If we're being honest, for the most part they're TOO easy/effective for what they are.

More on point, I found, again, with a lower level PC, so no feats, a cyclic was a rather potent tool. Charging up a pair of moderate mana pieces, and doing other things (for example, I was using a bow/crossbow) it worked rather well.

Samsaren