The herbalist could gain a little variety by introducing sickness to the game. If a hearthling gets ill, they are bedridden for the duration of the illness. There is also a risk of death. The duration and risk can be lessened by having a herbalist.
Hearthlings with a low body stat should be more susceptible to getting ill. Also hearthlings that remain out in the dangerous thunderstorm could have a higher chance of getting ill, although this would remain unlikely for strong hearthlings.
Illnesses could be expanded even further later on to have different illnesses, perhaps named ones that could be diagnosed by the herbalist, and would require different treatments. There could be airborne plague illnesses, illnesses that remain dormant for a while and are transferred to hearthlings that talk to patient zero before they get sick, and more. There could even be illnesses created by curses, that can only be cured by completing a quest.
I see what you mean with this science vers. religion and it makes me want to ask you, if you thought about the ancient ways of healing?
What we know as witches, shamans or other tribal setups, where a single person has the responability for both science and religion? Mixing it up to heal amongst other things.
I know that the world of hearth is set in a “timeperiod” that is a bit more modern and that could be the reason to why it dont fit well?
There, just had to say how it could be possible.
On the topic of the thread, i really like that suggestion and it could add some interesting gameplay… +1
I wouldn’t go so far as to say armor and mace, but I did make a post a while back about slipping some patterns to the weaver to give the poor guys some better protection than a metal headband. If that could be implemented in the vanilla game, I’d be ecstatic.
Time to bring up another relevant thread, I guess. A ton of ideas had been shared over there, including some recurring ones, such as illnesses.
My personal favorite from that thread was the one where “negative buffs” would stay for very long with the hearthlings, and only herbalists could remove them. As well as the suggestion to make potions be carried by fighters into battle for emergency use.
The primary problem, as had been pointed out many times in the past, is that clerics and herbalists share the exact same purpose, but clerics do it 1000 times better.
I do agree with the suggestion of splitting their paths. Then, clerics would remain the field-medics, while herbalists would be more of a “mad alchemist person” sort of thing, making weird stuff from random plants.
I view clerics as the warriors you see when typing ‘cleric’ into google search (try it!). They are a kind of pious warrior geared towards healing and turning the undead, often seen wielding a blunt weapon. In my opinion the healer it is currently should become the ‘priest.’ Perhaps they could hold a sunday sermon.
Just a bit of ‘change my mind’ spiel for you. You’re free to view clerics however you like.
I played AD&D for years, so I know exactly what you’re thinking about, no Google necessary.
Context must be thought about in this situation. The promotion talisman for these guys is a book, meaning their main purpose is healing. Kicking the crap out of the baddies is the job of the footman, archer, and knight. These guys are a combat support class.
In order to keep some kind of balance on the mechanics of the game, if they developed stronger combat skills then they would have to sacrifice some of their healing. Otherwise, people wouldn’t bother with the footman, archer, or knight because it’d be simpler to have parties made up entirely of combat clergy.
I hope that makes some sense. I’m freshly awake and haven’t had my morning caffeine yet.
About the clerics. I also think it would be better if it was not mainly focused on healing, but in combat with buffs, like the current muscle buff, but also other things like speed, courage or defense increases, or poison healing, maybe even bonus attack against undead.
While footman has high attack and low defense and knight has high defense and low attack, the cleric could have both low but still be important to a group for its buffs, even though he would be seem holding a mace and a shield.
About the talismans, don’t think about it as the tool, but just as a personal lucky amulet (maybe like a pocket item or a badge). It does not need to reflect its main tool (although in vanilla all classes have both matching). E.g. In the archipelago mod, the fisher talisman is a bucket while his tool is a fishing rod.
Buffs, yes. I could certainly see that. Weaponry and heavy armor, not really. I’m looking at these guys more like white mages. Physical attacks done by them should be almost nothing as opposed to their magic strength. Rather than weapons and armor, I’d rather see them get more supportive debuffs. Like crowd control against larger mobs or groups. I can make plenty of fighters to take down mobs. But I love me some debuffs against hostiles.
That’s how I see em, more like white mages. In fact I think they should take away their melee ability with the books and instead give them a short/mid range spell cast for those moments when they’re not spamming heals.
I agree. @Logo, have you perchance played an MMO called TERA? The priests in that game are not a class one would want to trifle with. They have little to no physical combat ability, since they’re meant to be a support class, but they can tear mobs up with some vicious magic. Even their point-blank range attack is absolutely brutal (and one of my faves). They take their staff, spin it around, and then jam it into the ground to create a magical shock-wave in their immediate area. My absolute favorite of their ranged attacks is a triple hit magic missile type attack. The ability of the priest in that game is uncommon in many MMOs because you can actually solo with the guy. No, you’re not taking down bosses alone, but no one’s supposed to solo bosses.
What I’m saying here is that the cleric doesn’t have to be armed and armored. He just needs the right magic. I’d rather he be more magic based as opposed to physical.
How a cleric looks versus how they play are two different things. I just want my clerics to look like classical clerics, wielding a blunt object and armour. Perhaps the mace does no real damage but instead applies debuffs, or is effective against undead. In their other hand, they hold a book that does healing and buffs. There’s no need to narrow one’s vision.
Oh, so you want a cosmetic look. There’s no point in having a weapon if it doesn’t do anything. It’s window dressing and that’s it. I’d rather the cleric run around with the book then if that’s the case. That way I’m reminded that he can’t do jack for damage and he doesn’t look like the other guys I’m sending off into the fray.
Because sometimes, I pause the game intermittently during battles to maintain a semblance of control against the heavier enemies. Faking it like a turn-based RPG, essentially.
I would rather my cleric look different so I’m not having to try to figure out which-which-is-which in a nasty fight. The current build of the clerics doesn’t do crap against undead. Let’s also set aside the extra mineral resources it would take to arm and armor the guy. Setting up the knights and footmen is costly enough as it is.
It’s broader in the sense I’m trying to compromise with you. I really don’t think you’re going to mistake a cleric for doing little damage more than once. If anything, at least change the name. It’s such a tease to be able to have a cleric class that looks so fragile.