[Spell] Undeaths Eternal Foe & Stone Body

[Dranso]

I'll start off with my suggestion for Undeaths Eternal Foe. I believe Undeaths Eternal Foe is one of the better defensive spells in the game since it covers so much, on the other hand it doesn't really last that long. I think it would be great if the time the spell lasted was increased a little bit since it's a lvl 9 and can't get extend spell. Also I noticed that it doesn't cover Vampiric Touch. Is that a spell that UEF would cover?

As for Stone Body I think it is also one of the best defensive spells for priests. It lasts a while, covers a lot and protects well. Only downside is that it decreases your dex quite a bit. I was wondering if it would be possible to decrease the negative dex as your skill level gets better. For example at apprentice it is -4 at journeyman its -3 and then adept it's -2. Or something like that.

[Rhangalas]

Also I noticed that it doesn't cover Vampiric Touch. Is that a spell that UEF would cover?

Nah, it shouldn't cover Vampiric Touch, because it isn't a negative energy spell or a death spell. It just drains life from the target.

http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-guide ... foe--2224/

[Raona]

I'm not the one who handles these, but that kinda frees me to offer the observation that unless Priests seem to be under-powered as a class (and they certainly are not!), we are not likely to buff up their spells without some concomitant downside change. If you were asking for some love for your rogue, that would be a different story (I think that's still the case), but if anything, we are looking for ways (in the interest of game balance) to relatively weaken clerics, not (further) strengthen them.

I don't want to seem unappreciative of your suggestions: they are well thought-out and well made. But we need to consider the impact on the greater "ecosphere" with changes to the power of skills available to one specific class.

[Kaaurk]

I completely disagree with you Raona. It is from my experience that most players hate when things are weakened because it is too strong. Instead of weakening Clerics I suggest making improvements to other classes. It is in my opinion and I'm sure others feel the same in the games best interests to fix other classes instead of concentrating on weakening good ones. There is always going to be some classes that are stronger then others, people need to stop whining and deal with it. Also if something is being abused the abuser should be punished instead of the collective. It bothers me when people consider or suggest weakening aspects of the game instead of trying to fix the weaker classes.

[Harroghty]

No one is talking about specific actions to diminish the priest class and I think that you are misunderstanding Raona. We are a small staff that must prioritize our efforts in order to accomplish the most worthwhile things.

The point is just that little tweaks to make an already powerful class better are probably less worthwhile than tweaks to improve the classes that are suffering to some degree or another, or features that affect all players.

[Kaaurk]

but if anything, we are looking for ways (in the interest of game balance) to relatively weaken clerics, not (further) strengthen them.

Doesn't really sound like what you said. But I agree with the rest of what you posted

[Hrosskell]

Relativity is important here; clercis are relatively strong. To make them relatively weaker would be to make the things they relate to stronger.

[Casamir]

They have also been weakened repeatedly already in various forms, which is why it is understandable if some people are a bit sensitive for the class. I personally prefer things expanded or added to, before ever being taken away from. However, I think the worthwhile point already made was that of 'the give and take.' If you want something stronger, where should the draw backs be to compensate. Or a better way to look at it, where will this create synergy, where does this promote better interactive game play, roll play, or at the very least make it more efficient? A not-serious example: 'You cast that perfect stone body spell, so now you have no negative effects while it was active. However, when it wore off, you failed your fort save and became petrified. You suffer partial immobility and essentially no dexterity until a friend can help you out or you suffocate.'

[Aldren]

Though the aforementioned comment did not express the tone you wanted it to, it comes across as disheartening when we literally devote -years- to developing our characters. Not just stats, skills, feats, but backstories, evolutions, etc. Isn't it understandable that the reaction to #wtfroflnerf something that you've devoted DAYS or WEEKS or MONTHS achieving, is thinking your investment was worthless because it was clearly overpowered.

I'm sorry if it comes across as harsh, but nitpicking customers keep the business making money, so to speak. I do think, as Harroghty suggested, that our staff is already on zero budget and works in their free time - they need to have priorities in what to "fix" and what to work on, that fact cannot be debated. I'll repeat myself for the 342nd time - Let's add stuff and make other classes better before we continue to cut down on everyone's <insert class here> that took, quite usually, thousands of hours to get where they are.

[Raona]

Point taken, clerics! I'm an educator, and as a result may have a clearer view of "the curve," such that I see taking exam points away from group A or giving some to group B amounts to the same thing in a competitive environment...but it certainly doesn't feel that way to the impacted exam-takers. Rest assured that what Harroghty said is indeed the case - in practice we almost always add, not take away (though abuse can usurp that, as with polymorph and fly, for example). My point was that we do so with an eye to game balance.