Recent Posts
I am probaly alone on this. I would have preferred that they left the heavy plate and nerfed some of their magic. I think cleric magic does way too much damage these days. I would like them to look at the spirit of the spells in 1E and 2E AD&D and give them spells along those themes. Wizard spells should be damage based, not clerics with a few exceptions like Flamestrike. But Flamestrike in older Dnd did not do as much damage.
That would have been one option, but I think they were trying to both nerf the cleric a bit and stake out some territory for the fighter / paladin. As it was they did work over a number of spells as well.
Okay boys and girls here it goes.. And if this hasn't been put up yet forgive me as I haven't yet gone through all 12 + pages of this monster.
Clerics are in many campaigns meant to be the skull knocking ass kicking steel clad hands of the divine. Holy Warriors and Soldiers of their Allmightee Gawds. Or if the god isnt in for knocking skulls they're at least protectors.. They lead and inspire.. Nothing like says holy protector like cast iron underoos and shiney bits make for one hell of an insperation..
But the paladin is the new holy warrior you say.. Well you know what I say ? I'm not lawful good.. Oh.. Well then.. No holy warrior for you then seem to be what you say. Paladins are not holy warriors in the servitude of gods in 3.X they are the method of the forces of good to turn the tide against evil which as a rule is blessed with a far greater range of (super)natural abilities such as claws.. acid blood.. Fangs, horns, death exhalations and whatnot.
The gods have their clerics to do this.. The gods give a man spells so he can fill the roles the god needs him to and so either let the cleric have his armor which is more to keep his stupid to trusting in the divine ass alive and let him use Dex as a dump stat more then anything else unless your going to have a holy warrior type class that can fit in with any and every god.
Said stuff to long for the quote thing
See I came in at 2e and never use mini's saying that every single Image I ever saw in any of the art from 2e cleric's had chain. Now if you want heavy armor there is not a single thing from stopping you from getting it.
Oh and Van richen was not a cleric. And Warpriests would have taken the feat.
Well I for one don't want full spellcasting.Perfect! Play a paladin then. You get half spellcasting and heavy armor, not to mention a host of other benefits.
And likely are still a viable party healer with channel energy. Our druid is finding the paladin heals almost as well, sometimes better thanks to it. But we are talking about level 10 guys, at lower level I am not sure. Still the paladin at that level heals very well for a group of 5.
I am probaly alone on this. I would have preferred that they left the heavy plate and nerfed some of their magic. I think cleric magic does way too much damage these days. I would like them to look at the spirit of the spells in 1E and 2E AD&D and give them spells along those themes. Wizard spells should be damage based, not clerics with a few exceptions like Flamestrike. But Flamestrike in older Dnd did not do as much damage.
Not alone, look at many of those who want the plate back, nearly all are willing to give up some magical power to get it. We aren't talking about wanting clerics to be more powerful, we are talking about wanting clerics to be well clerics.
I am probaly alone on this. I would have preferred that they left the heavy plate and nerfed some of their magic. I think cleric magic does way too much damage these days. I would like them to look at the spirit of the spells in 1E and 2E AD&D and give them spells along those themes. Wizard spells should be damage based, not clerics with a few exceptions like Flamestrike. But Flamestrike in older Dnd did not do as much damage.Not alone, look at many of those who want the plate back, nearly all are willing to give up some magical power to get it. We aren't talking about wanting clerics to be more powerful, we are talking about wanting clerics to be well clerics.
Then wouldn't clerics remain in their churches and be well... clergy?
I'll admit I'm not a history nut. I'm not sure how often clerics went running off onto a battlefield for the church. However, what little I do know suggested to me that the church would manipulate some local lord with bribes of insuring his soul a place in heaven... if he'd send his men off to do this or that.
What little I know... also pointed to the clergy being "men of the cloth" and not men of armor.
Please explain to me if I'm wrong.
I'll say this, the domains right now need some work. They look patched together and last minute. There is little balance between them and the clearly most powerful is the death domain. We could look to put plate back by domain, as well as returning turing that way as well.
War, Strength, Protection, or Destruction types should all have access to plate. Sun, Death, Healing, or just about any natural world type domain should get turn undead. Travel domain I thought might get the fighter armor bonus to movement (and just movement not dex), allow them to move as if in light armor when wearing medium armor, they would not by default get heavy armor, this isn't a big deal power as by level four or so they could just by mithral armor and get this effect anyway. I think this is a way to have real visible effects of the different training various clerics will recieve based on their god's dogma.
If you think this makes the domains to powerful take away the second or first (which you dislike more) domain power for it.
I am still opposed to the favored weapon as it is inherently unbalanced, even if plate isn't returned for it's removal any mechanic that is clearly unbalanced should be removed.
Then wouldn't clerics remain in their churches and be well... clergy?
Those are adepts and experts, neither of which gets heavy armor.
I'll say this, the domains right now need some work. They look patched together and last minute.
What? Next thing you are going to say is that it is silly that a druid can give up its animal companion for the Animal domain and get an animal companion anyway as a druid 3 levels lower (which if you allow 3.5 splat books can be taken care of). Stop being a hater.
I am probaly alone on this. I would have preferred that they left the heavy plate and nerfed some of their magic. I think cleric magic does way too much damage these days. I would like them to look at the spirit of the spells in 1E and 2E AD&D and give them spells along those themes. Wizard spells should be damage based, not clerics with a few exceptions like Flamestrike. But Flamestrike in older Dnd did not do as much damage.Not alone, look at many of those who want the plate back, nearly all are willing to give up some magical power to get it. We aren't talking about wanting clerics to be more powerful, we are talking about wanting clerics to be well clerics.Then wouldn't clerics remain in their churches and be well... clergy?
I'll admit I'm not a history nut. I'm not sure how often clerics went running off onto a battlefield for the church. However, what little I do know suggested to me that the church would manipulate some local lord with bribes of insuring his soul a place in heaven... if he'd send his men off to do this or that.
What little I know... also pointed to the clergy being "men of the cloth" and not men of armor.
Please explain to me if I'm wrong.
PCs are by default special. Generally special agents used to combat problems and promote the faith in less then safe places.
During the crusades a few clerics did don armor just like a knight of the day would, and by and large they did not use edged weapons, maces and the like. Drawing blood was seen as unclean, though some priests did use swords. Also priests in the middle ages often were third sons of nobles, raised like any other noble taught to fight in the armor of the time, but shipped off to the church so they would not be involved in inheritance issues.
Then wouldn't clerics remain in their churches and be well... clergy?Those are adepts and experts, neither of which gets heavy armor.
Small derail. D&D made the mistake of well calling cleric's cleric's as you get stuff stated up in games with a temple having all cleric's and they run stuff.
True most clergy should be experts, or adapts or nobles or something with the cleric being the militant arm but sadly they have never been shown that ways in game
I'll say this, the domains right now need some work. They look patched together and last minute. There is little balance between them and the clearly most powerful is the death domain... ...if you think this makes the domains to powerful take away the second or first (which you dislike more) domain power for it.
I do think it would make the domains more powerful. The domains are far more balanced than they were in 3.5 and I applaud the efforts there.
To many of the above posters: if you want to wear full plate and be a "holy warrior" and don't mind losing some spellcasting, stagger 2 or 3 levels of Fighter in your first 6 or so levels. The Cleric isn't going to be everything everybody wants right out of the box - none of the core classes are. This is why we have feats and other choices. Tradition can kiss my butt when compared with doing what's right, as far as I'm concerned.
I'll say this, the domains right now need some work. They look patched together and last minute.What? Next thing you are going to say is that it is silly that a druid can give up its animal companion for the Animal domain and get an animal companion anyway as a druid 3 levels lower (which if you allow 3.5 splat books can be taken care of). Stop being a hater.
When 2nd ed first came out, we looked at it carefully, then threw up...no seriously one of my crew get sick and threw up and thus we took it as a bad sign. Reading it it wasn't half bad, but didn't improve 1st in most ways but it did have something to offer. Specialty priests and domains were two of our favorite pieces we stole from 2nd ed and used in our 1st ed game. Domains allow the DM to modify spell lists to be more limited, more focused, and well make the clerics disinctly different from one another.
I want that same thing in pathfinder, domains that make the clerics play differently. I don't see that from the way they currently have them. There are vast difference in their power level and that too is a problem. The druid thing cracked me up, and I think illistrates the problem putting them back in last minute does. But much of the cleric changed last minute, from beta to release version.
I'll say this, the domains right now need some work. They look patched together and last minute. There is little balance between them and the clearly most powerful is the death domain... ...if you think this makes the domains to powerful take away the second or first (which you dislike more) domain power for it.I do think it would make the domains more powerful. The domains are far more balanced than they were in 3.5 and I applaud the efforts there.
You can't be looking at the same domains as I am. Compare just core book to core book and I don't see what you are claiming here.
Your editing job of my post is well not useful. You cut out what I said you might think would make them unbalanced so anyone reading your post wont know what you are railing against, they may be decieved into thinking all I said was put heavy armor back in all domains, they wouldn't know I mentioned returing turing to some domains as well.
Then wouldn't clerics remain in their churches and be well... clergy?Those are adepts and experts, neither of which gets heavy armor.Small derail. D&D made the mistake of well calling cleric's cleric's as you get stuff stated up in games with a temple having all cleric's and they run stuff.
True most clergy should be experts, or adapts or nobles or something with the cleric being the militant arm but sadly they have never been shown that ways in game
More or less true. 1st ed started the issue because it had no such mechanic as experts/adepts. 3rd could have fixed it but really didn't jump at the chance. It could be done, but no class I have seen yet makes for an interesting or fun "priest" class for a PC. Adept works fine for NPCs.
"During the crusades a few clerics did don armor just like a knight of the day would, and by and large they did not use edged weapons, maces and the like. Drawing blood was seen as unclean, though some priests did use swords. Also priests in the middle ages often were third sons of nobles, raised like any other noble taught to fight in the armor of the time, but shipped off to the church so they would not be involved in inheritance issues"
So going by this I can only see clerics in heavy armor as a "special" thing... historically speaking. As most of these would seem most likely be considered multi-class Aristocrats/Clergy for those that had the wealth to afford plate. Thank you for sharing.
All this boils down to a moot point however. As many have said, while Pathfinder is derived from 3.5 D&D it is not D&D, as that name has moved on to 4th edition.
Pathfinder therefore is a game unto itself. Paizo has released something that may be much closer to what we hoped D&D could have been, and now its done... and out there... and there will not be any major changes made for at least 10 years according to James Jacobs. And according to several august personalities on the Paizo staff... their clerics have been chain-clad from the get go. So those dissatisfied with that change have to cope with the system as it is until/when that happens and the more than likely release another "Beta" version of the new game for your considerations.
Anything discussed here and bandied about should be house-rules that will make your game closer to what you want.
The majority of those who are unhappy with the removal of heavy armor proficiency need only make a simple house-rule fix. Give it back. Feel your clerics need to make undead run away... give it back.
To make up for these house-rules... what WOULD balance out the cleric as written?
More or less true. 1st ed started the issue because it had no such mechanic as experts/adepts. 3rd could have fixed it but really didn't jump at the chance. It could be done, but no class I have seen yet makes for an interesting or fun "priest" class for a PC. Adept works fine for NPCs.Then wouldn't clerics remain in their churches and be well... clergy?Those are adepts and experts, neither of which gets heavy armor.Small derail. D&D made the mistake of well calling cleric's cleric's as you get stuff stated up in games with a temple having all cleric's and they run stuff.
True most clergy should be experts, or adapts or nobles or something with the cleric being the militant arm but sadly they have never been shown that ways in game
I think there is. The bard. :D
Not all gods give the kick in the door look badass in plate vibe.And no farm gives it's farmers the "kick in the door look badass in plate vibe."
An yet the poor farm boy can (somewhat miraculously) wear Full Plate no problem at 1st level when he fills the archetypical "local boy turned hero" role and takes a Fighter level.
Oh damn. I think I just opened the door for removing heavy armor proficiency from fighters since it isn't part of every concept.
Sorry about that.
Don't be. I have only ever made a fighter wearing heavy arm once, when my group was playtesting Alpha using RotRl. He was played once by a newcomer(who never showed up after that). He had a 28 Dex, wore mithral full plate, and was a two-weapon fighter using a +1 keen rapier and a +1 keen kukri and Weapon Finesse. Critted like crazy, and almost always went first(for that one time he was played).
Every other melee type has been either in a chain/hide shirt, hide, or scale mail. Nothing else.
So going by this I can only see clerics in heavy armor as a "special" thing... historically speaking. As most of these would seem most likely be considered multi-class Aristocrats/Clergy for those that had the wealth to afford plate. Thank you for sharing.
I said PCs are by default special. And that some of the clergy were trained as noble's sons, not all. Many that joined the crusades were not, some were. The church was one of the few ways one could advance their station in the middle ages.
But let me ask you this, do you really think most people in a fantasy world are born fighters? You mean he didn't work as a town guard, a milita memeber, a farmer before dedicating himself to being a fighter? So are not all these guys some NPC class/fighter? Heck 90% of the world would be commoner or commoner/(chosen class) by that logic. It would give fighters the inclass benifit to perception they seem to want, so maybe you can sell them on taking that commoner level.
I think there is. The bard. :DMore or less true. 1st ed started the issue because it had no such mechanic as experts/adepts. 3rd could have fixed it but really didn't jump at the chance. It could be done, but no class I have seen yet makes for an interesting or fun "priest" class for a PC. Adept works fine for NPCs.Then wouldn't clerics remain in their churches and be well... clergy?Those are adepts and experts, neither of which gets heavy armor.Small derail. D&D made the mistake of well calling cleric's cleric's as you get stuff stated up in games with a temple having all cleric's and they run stuff.
True most clergy should be experts, or adapts or nobles or something with the cleric being the militant arm but sadly they have never been shown that ways in game
You think so? I guess you could do that, but most of my group dislike the current bard. You could also just say his spells are divine and not arcane.
"I said PCs are by default special. And that some of the clergy were trained as noble's sons, not all. Many that joined the crusades were not, some were. The church was one of the few ways one could advance their station in the middle ages."
So going by this I can only see clerics in heavy armor as a "special" thing... historically speaking. As most of these would seem most likely be considered multi-class Aristocrats/Clergy for those that had the wealth to afford plate. Thank you for sharing.
But just because PC's are special does this mean that they ALL have the money or training to wear and afford plate?
I remember watching a special on the crusades. There was that special proclamation by the Pope that more or less stated "Go kill the infidels and your place in heaven is assured." Which was a real concern for most of your everyday people. So not only knights went off crudadeing but also farmers and craftsmen of all sorts. A really chaotic time all around.
But let me ask you this, do you really think most people in a fantasy world are born fighters? You mean he didn't work as a town guard, a milita memeber, a farmer before dedicating himself to being a fighter? So are not all these guys some NPC class/fighter? Heck 90% of the world would be commoner or commoner/(chosen class) by that logic. It would give fighters the inclass benifit to perception they seem to want, so maybe you can sell them on taking that commoner level.
I think that people are born people and not any one "class". I've always made my characters with a concept in mind and then shaped their lives and backstory to fill in how the reached whatever level I'm creating them at. I also urge my players to take the same approach.
Also... characters are not "born" in a class. I do remember various times over various game systems seeing charts listing the time that characters are training before they are considered a member of the class.
The game rules kinda "broke" when it came to multi-classing from say a fighter to a wizard as they never really accounted for that period of training. Many a joke has been made by one of my favorite web-comics "Order of the Stick" to this regard.
every single Image I ever saw in any of the art from 2e cleric's had chain.
Oh and Van richen was not a cleric. And Warpriests would have taken the feat.
Every image I remember seeing had Plate, save for the low level ones. Either way, both responses are clearly moot ("every thing I saw") since they are anecdotal. The fact 1,2,and 3E had Plate clearly indicates they were intended to be able to wear the heaviest. If you choose not do to so, no one is going to force that Chain Cleric to "man up."
Take up the Van Richten "not being a Cleric" with WotC, the mini they produced in Underdark set has Cleric levels.
while Pathfinder is derived from 3.5 D&D it is not D&D, as that name has moved on to 4th edition.Again that is a red herring. PRPG is D&D. It was designed to be D&D, bought by those wanting D&D, and any suggestion it isn't D&D isn't particularly useful to this thread.
And saying so is not going to change the fact that anything we say here will not make Paizo change the system that they have released as it is currently written.
What would be USEFUL would be to help make up house rules that will allow those who are unhappy with certain changes... to include them and keep their games balanced.
Do you have anything ideas on that regard?
War, Strength, Protection, or Destruction types should all have access to plate. Sun, Death, Healing, or just about any natural world type domain should get turn undead. Travel domain I thought might get the fighter armor bonus to movement (and just movement not dex), allow them to move as if in light armor when wearing medium armor, they would not by default get heavy armor, this isn't a big deal power as by level four or so they could just by mithral armor and get this effect anyway. I think this is a way to have real visible effects of the different training various clerics will recieve based on their god's dogma.
If you think this makes the domains to powerful take away the second or first (which you dislike more) domain power for it.
I am still opposed to the favored weapon as it is inherently unbalanced, even if plate isn't returned for it's removal any mechanic that is clearly unbalanced should be removed.
Bolded text is the most sensible thing posted in this thread. Period. I personnaly have no problem with Clerics losing Heavy Armor, but I would seriously consider this as a houserule. It simply makes sense.
Otherwise... this dang thread is still going strong?!?! It's like the Katana thread of the Paizo message boards. (With less flame and hate.)
Bolded text is the most sensible thing posted in this thread. Period. I personnaly have no problem with Clerics losing Heavy Armor, but I would seriously consider this as a houserule. It simply makes sense.War, Strength, Protection, or Destruction types should all have access to plate. Sun, Death, Healing, or just about any natural world type domain should get turn undead. Travel domain I thought might get the fighter armor bonus to movement (and just movement not dex), allow them to move as if in light armor when wearing medium armor, they would not by default get heavy armor, this isn't a big deal power as by level four or so they could just by mithral armor and get this effect anyway. I think this is a way to have real visible effects of the different training various clerics will recieve based on their god's dogma.
If you think this makes the domains to powerful take away the second or first (which you dislike more) domain power for it.
I am still opposed to the favored weapon as it is inherently unbalanced, even if plate isn't returned for it's removal any mechanic that is clearly unbalanced should be removed.
This is a very good point. Does this change unbalance things enough to require something be removed?
Otherwise... this dang thread is still going strong?!?! It's like the Katana thread of the Paizo message boards. (With less flame and hate.)
LOL!
well if ya did that. War, and, Protection, I can see having heavy armor, the other 2 not so much. I am not sure on the make undead run like little girls as your channel is more effective and destroying them then anything else. Making them run is not a big deal.
I added strength and destruction because nearly all the gods that grant those two are martial and focus on melee combat. The turn undead thing is the feat, they can chose either to make the undead run, or damage them, sometimes that option might be of value to them.
This is a very good point. Does this change unbalance things enough to require something be removed?
It really depends on who you ask. Some who support the change think it isn't a big deal either way. They wouldn't see it as unbalanced, some claim it is a huge deal, they would.
Most of those who support the idea of returning to clerics heavy armor are willing to give up something for it. Favored weapon has been my suggestion, but I'd give up some spells, or domain powers without issue. Hell I'd trade you channel energy for both turning and heavy armor everyday of the week and twice on my holy day. ((And I think channel energy is twice as good as both those Icon Cleric abilities combined.))
Bolded text is the most sensible thing posted in this thread. Period. I personnaly have no problem with Clerics losing Heavy Armor, but I would seriously consider this as a houserule. It simply makes sense.
My problem is with arbitrarily granting feats to certain domains is madness. You could grant lots of different feats to many of the domains and it would "make sense" flavor-wise, but I don't think any of the domains require a power boost at all.
Otherwise... this dang thread is still going strong?!?! It's like the Katana thread of the Paizo message boards. (With less flame and hate.)
Flames about Katanas? I don't see why! I think masterwork bastard swords are pretty cool weapons! /evil grin
I don't have a problem with clerics getting medium armor. If a cleric desperately wants heavy armor he can simply take the proficiency feat to get it.
On another note, I give all domains a tertiary ability. The fact that domains like Darkness, Glory, Rune and Travel get extra bonuses, while others don't just seems inconsistent to me. As a result, the War domain grants the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat in my games.
Look, for people who want slightly nerfed spellcasting and heavy armor without spending a feat, and who don't want to be LG, then take one (1) level of fighter. Now you have heavy armor AND an extra feat (to make up for the one being spent on Turn Undead). Thereafter, progress as a cleric. The downside? You'll always be one (1) level behind on spellcasting -- the "slight nerf" you requested.
The system is robust enough to cater to specific desires. Full caster clerics start off as cleric, with +0 BAB. Heavily armored warrior clerics with slightly nerfed spells start off with one level of fighter, for +1 BAB (this has the added benefit of returning to the OD&D model in which clerics didn't get spells until 2nd level -- remember that?). Everyone wins. Everyone in the entire thread gets EXACTLY what they want. Everyone can stop whining.
Why is it masterwork? All it is is a curved bastard sword really..prob a longsword you can use two handed if ya want to get into that
Flames about Katanas? I don't see why! I think masterwork bastard swords are pretty cool weapons! /evil grin
Precident in DMG, also in Cathay for 7th sea.
I myself prefer katana to have the 2-h martial/1-h exotic 1d8 18-20 x2 myself.
Look, for people who want slightly nerfed spellcasting and heavy armor without spending a feat, and who don't want to be LG, then take one (1) level of fighter. Now you have heavy armor AND an extra feat (to make up for the one being spent on Turn Undead). Thereafter, progress as a cleric. The downside? You'll always be one (1) level behind on spellcasting -- the "slight nerf" you requested.
The system is robust enough to cater to specific desires. Full caster clerics start off as cleric, with +0 BAB. Heavily armored warrior clerics with slightly nerfed spells start off with one level of fighter, for +1 BAB (this has the added benefit of returning to the OD&D model in which clerics didn't get spells until 2nd level -- remember that?). Everyone wins. Everyone in the entire thread gets EXACTLY what they want. Everyone can stop whining.
A++++++++ post.
And everyone CANNOT stop whining.
If they do, they'll die.
Look, for people who want slightly nerfed spellcasting and heavy armor without spending a feat, and who don't want to be LG, then take one (1) level of fighter. Now you have heavy armor AND an extra feat (to make up for the one being spent on Turn Undead). Thereafter, progress as a cleric. The downside? You'll always be one (1) level behind on spellcasting -- the "slight nerf" you requested.
Or maybe they will keep on "whining" because what you are trying to pass off as a "slight nerf" is indeed a big one :
- 1 level behind on spellcasting. Given the difference between spells of two successive levels, this is by no mean "slight"
- Incidentally, CL-1
- 1 level behind on domain powers (and incidentally, CL-1 there too)
- 1 level behind on channel energy (and sometimes a lower DC for the save when used offensively)
- No more capstone ability
This is by no mean a "slight nerf". There IS a reason why it is far more enticing in PFRPG to go the whole way in a single class.
EDIT - Incidentally, I find that the use of the word "whining" shows distinct scorn toward the opinion of fellow gamers and posters. I do not feel that you are strengthening your case by using it.
Look, for people who want slightly nerfed spellcasting and heavy armor without spending a feat, and who don't want to be LG, then take one (1) level of fighter. Now you have heavy armor AND an extra feat (to make up for the one being spent on Turn Undead). Thereafter, progress as a cleric. The downside? You'll always be one (1) level behind on spellcasting -- the "slight nerf" you requested.
The system is robust enough to cater to specific desires. Full caster clerics start off as cleric, with +0 BAB. Heavily armored warrior clerics with slightly nerfed spells start off with one level of fighter, for +1 BAB (this has the added benefit of returning to the OD&D model in which clerics didn't get spells until 2nd level -- remember that?). Everyone wins. Everyone in the entire thread gets EXACTLY what they want. Everyone can stop whining.
You are insane. Simply INSANE.
The Pathfinder Cleric is so powerful, so uber, so broken, it couldn't possibly be allowed to start with heavy armor proficiency.
Now what you are suggesting is to give the Cleric:
- Heavy armor proficiency
- Tower shield proficiency
- Proficiency in ALL martial weapons
- A bonus feat
- AND 2 additional hit pints!
All for the cost of 1 caster level.
Madness. Pure madness.
Besides, it wouldn't make sense for a Cleric of Pharasma to clank around in full plate, a tower shield, AND a flail!
No, I'm quite certain the Pathfinder Core Book will burst into flames if any one seriously considered allowing such a thing.
My two cents (though I am fairly certain what I am about to say is nothing new in a 17-pages-long thread)?
I always thought of clerics as being a tad overpowered; decent melee ability, decent hit points, all types of armor, shield use, good Fortitude and Will saves, spells, domains, spontaneous casting, no spell failure chance as armor is an integral part of the class... Have I forgotten anything?
So, in my opinion at least, losing Heavy Armor Proficiency under Pathfinder rules hardly seems that great a "nerf", especially considering one can always overcome the aforementioned "weakness" simply by investing in the appropriate feat. After all, PCs now get to choose a feat every odd-numbered level, thus acquiring more feats overall than what they would get under 3.5 rules.
Or maybe they will keep on "whining" because what you are trying to pass off as a "slight nerf" is indeed a big one... This is by no mean a "slight nerf". There IS a reason why it is far more enticing in PFRPG to go the whole way in a single class.
Then take 20 levels of cleric, exactly as I advised for the people who did NOT want a nerf to their casting. You can still spend the feat, if you absolutely MUST have 20 levels of cleric AND heavy armor.
Or, if you absolutely must eat your cake and have it, too, then houseule the armor back in, and houserule that one use of channeling energy also turns undead and heals your friends -- and maybe throw in Selective Channeling for free, since clerics don't get that many feats. Shoot, houserule that clerics get a bonus feat every level besides; that might "shore them up" a bit.
James Risner
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
So, in my opinion at least, losing Heavy Armor Proficiency under Pathfinder rules hardly seems that great a "nerf", especially considering one can always overcome the aforementioned "weakness" simply by investing in the appropriate feat.
You fundamentally don't understand the complaint and I suspect others do as well.
Those that are disenchanted with the removal of Heavy Armour Proficiency are not complaining about a nerf. A complaint about a nerf would (and should) fall on deft ears from Paizo and others.
It is a change of the "image" of the Cleric. It is an invalidation of the iconic (to many) concept of a Cleric.
The Heavy Armour Proficiency feat does solve the problem, but taking a feat to be a "true" Cleric isn't what should be done in my opinion. I'll list some of the better ideas in this thread to solve this problem below.
The number of spells per day a Cleric has is irrelevant so long as they are a full caster (as they have always been.)
The exact abilities granted from a Domain (other than the domain spell list and the bonus domain slots) are irrelevant.
The exact mechanics of Turn Undead are irrelevant so long as they have an ability someone would consider Turn Undead (and Channel Position "is" Turn Undead to me, especially as the conversion document says they count for Turn Undead for prereqs.)
So in short, a Cleric should be defined loosely as "A Full Caster that can wear any armour, turn undead, and have their portfolio of spells modified in some way by their god."
Unfortunately, one of those iconic elements of "the Cleric" has been changed in the newest version of D&D (PRPG.)
Now, some of the good suggestions from this thread have been listed previously:
1) Add Heavy Armour Proficiency to War and Protection domains 1st level features. Not a universal fix, but a large number of people wanting Full Plate might want these domains as one of their two domains.
2) Add a 1st level class feature of Clerics that can be customized. Something like pick two of these three. Where Heavy Armour Proficiency, d6-d8 Hit Dice, one domain to two domains are the options. So you could be a d8 with Heavy Armour and one domain instead of two. etc. I suggested this. It is a nerf, but provides for Heavy Armour out of the box.
3) Take the Heavy Armour Proficiency feat with your one extra PRPG feat. Ugly and clearly the least elegant solution. It will have to be the one used for most if nothing is done as said by Jason.
It is a change of the "image" of the Cleric. It is an invalidation of the iconic (to many) concept of a Cleric.
Having played D&D through 3+ editions, I can actually kinda see that. Okay! I'm with you so far. But then we have the fact that taking away one (1) level of spellcasting supposedly "ruins" the cleric as well -- appeals to the concept from previous editions (heavy armor but 7/9 spellcasting) notwithstanding -- which makes it abundantly clear to me that the only "iconic concept" people are really concerned with here is the 3.0/3.5 version -- the history before that somehow doesn't count for anything at all, no matter how "iconic" it may be. Now I begin to see the light, because this also explains why people were so angry about the "nerfs" to the domains in the alpha (and even the beta!) as well -- because those changes didn't strictly adhere to the 3.5 model -- somehow the only "image" that counts, as I've learned from this thread.
Obviously, spending a feat on that "image" is not viewed as a solution. Houseruling the proficiency back in is somehow not being viewed as a solution, either, which leads me to believe that the "exchangeable class features" proposals (being houserules) are also somehow unacceptable. Which leads to only one possibility that I can see to end this horrible outrage! The ONLY thing, apparently, that can possibly please people on this thread is for Jason to recall every copy of the core rules and change the cleric back to exactly the way it was in 3.5, in every detail (except that channeling should damage undead AND heal allies as well as turning, of course), and then apologize profusely to everyone who has ever played a cleric, or thought they might want to, and then commit Seppuku to atone.
While browsing through Bastards of Erebus, I couldn't help but note that Mr. Reynolds gave his cleric Heavy Armor Proficiency as a feat. I think it's reasonable, especially given the increases to Medium Armor AC. Personally, I could never reconcile why both Clerics and Paladins could wear heavy armour.
Incidentally, clerics can use heavy armour - they just have a penalty now.
Personally, I'm in favour of returning to a Proficiency Slot system which would allow greater customization, but under the current rules the change is okay by me.
It is a change of the "image" of the Cleric. It is an invalidation of the iconic (to many) concept of a Cleric.Taking away heavy armor ruins the "image..." well, having played D&D through 3+ editions, I can actually kinda see that. Okay! But then we have the fact that taking away one (1) level of spellcasting supposedly "ruins" the cleric as well -- appeals to the "image" from previous editions (heavy armor but 7/9 spellcasting) notwithstanding -- which makes it abundantly clear to me that the only "image" people are really concerned with here is the 3.0/3.5 image -- the history before that doesn't count for anything at all. Aha! Now I see, because that explains why people were so angry about the "nerfs" to the domains in the alpha (and even the beta!) as well -- because those changes didn't strictly adhere to the 3.5 "image" -- somehow the only "image" that counts, as I've learned from this thread.
Spending a feat on that "image" is not viewed as a solution. Houseruling the proficiency back in is somehow not being viewed as a solution, which leads me to believe that the "exchangeable class features" proposals (being houserules) are also somehow unacceptable. Which leads to only one possibility that I can see to end this horrible outrage! The ONLY thing, apparently, that can possibly please people on this thread is for Jason to recall every copy of the core rules and change the cleric back to exactly the way it was in 3.5, in every detail (except that channeling should damage undead AND heal allies as well as turning, of course), and then apologize profusely to everyone who has ever played a cleric, or thought they might want to, and then commit Seppuku to atone.
If you are going to claim "3.5 Thrives", then certainly I think you should take the "image"s of 3.5 as a serious thing.
Also, isn't the whole 7/9 casting thing a bit deceptive. Weren't many of the 7th level spells back then now (or at least in 3.5) 9th level spells. The spells just got stretched out over 9 levels instead of 7?
It is a change of the "image" of the Cleric. It is an invalidation of the iconic (to many) concept of a Cleric.
One might argue, however, that what we know as the "iconic cleric" seems to disregard the differences between the various gods' portfolios and spheres of influence. Why should the cleric of a god like the Forgotten Realms' Ilmater or of a deity associated with magic or trickery or healing wear heavy armor?
Which is why I rather like the Domain-related solution actually, since it does indeed make sense that a deity with the Protection or War Domain -and perhaps Strength and Destruction as well I might add- would want their clerics to fill the role of holy warrior, heavy armor and all.
Also, isn't the whole 7/9 casting thing a bit deceptive. Weren't many of the 7th level spells back then now (or at least in 3.5) 9th level spells.
Two (2) of them (gate and astral spell) were -- all the rest were what are currrently still 7th level spells. Also bear in mind that the 1e cleric got no domains, and had to be 16th level before he ever got those 7th level spells. His spellcasting was a LOT worse, so a Pathfinder fighter 1/cleric 19 in the spellcasting department is light-years ahead of the 1e cleric 20. Also remember the prohibition on any weapons that weren't bludgeoning. My point stands: people on this thread, when they say "iconic image" and appeal to the game's "history," are really appealing ONLY to the 3.0/3.5 history. Previous editions don't count in their assessment at all. Which is fine, but it's extremely misleading, if not a downright lie, to imply that the cleric has always had all the stuff he got in 3rd ed.
One might argue, however, that what we know as the "iconic cleric" seems to disregard the differences between the various gods' portfolios and spheres of influence. Why should the cleric of a god like the Forgotten Realms' Ilmater or of a deity associated with magic or trickery or healing wear heavy armor?
Except nobody is pointing a hand crossbow at the cleric's head and making them wear heavy armor. If it doesn't fit the idea of your god, then you don't wear it.
Funny thing is, I started reading through the 3rd AP with the drow, and all the drow clerics I've run into so far, all wear heavy armor. I mean if you want to talk about a place where heavy armor seems to clash with the idea of a cleric, I would think it would be with those folks.
Not every cleric has to be an "iconic cleric", that doesn't mean the "iconic cleric" idea doesn't have value.