iconic (and hence actually boringly clichée)

You wouldn't believe how many pet peeves I have! And, wouldn't you know it, one of them is seeing the word "cliche`" thrown around when describing roleplaying characters.

This isn't stage art, people, this is a game. Characters don't have to be original, only enjoyable. And the iconics are iconic for a reason, that reason being that a lot of people think they're awesome. n_n

This doesn't mean EVERY cleric has to match the iconic image, though, or even that classes need to be focused around said iconics. As I said, the plate-wearing, mace-swinging, undead-turning priest of St. Cuthbert is a CHARACTER, not a CLASS.

(Incidentally, Jozan- the completely generic, mace-wielding, sun-worshiping cleric of 3e, actually wears medium armor anyway. Go figure.)

As such I wouldn't have said anything about the balance of that system if I thought the claim I was making was remotely contentious. However, anyone who raises a complaint about 2e clerics invariably says the same thing: that the cleric was indispensable to the group, and that someone had to play him if the party was to function. I don't think there is any controversy there.

I wrote a long answer to this, but the boards ate it (seriously Paizo, get vBulletin or something). Basically, 2e clerics were indispensable as healbots because they (and druids - any priest with Major access to the Healing sphere) were the only game in town. OK, paladins had some minor healing too (2 hp/level 1/day for Lay On Hands, Cure Light Wounds at 9th level, Cure Serious Wounds at 15th), but that was it.

3e extends healing capabilities to rangers and bards as well, and buffs the healing of paladins. But most importantly, it makes item creation easier, and adds the Wand of Cure Light Wounds. So if your party doesn't have a cleric, you can get a Wand or two, which can be used by five of the 11 core classes (as well as anyone with a decent Use Magic Device skill). And if you don't have any of those, you can buy potions instead - sure, they're expensive, but you don't have to hit 9th level to make them, invest thousands of gp in a lab, and then go out and get the heartblood of a troll as an ingredient or whatever.

Maybe the cleric needs a revamp or the Paladin becomes more of the healer. Or strip the healing from the other classes and have it available through other means such as MIs and Pots. The other thing I notice with the cleric unless they were multi-classed, players hated to play them. Maybe an incentive to draw more players is to combine clerics with into the Paladin class or make their spells ignore spell resistance which makes sense anyway. How can a Red Dragon resist a Cleric of Mystra or similar deity's spell? I know that Mystra is a greater god and whole lot more powerful than Tiamat. In addition, Mystra could strip the weave from Dragons so how can a dragon resist the clerical spell? Turning undead is no real big deal. I mean a good fighter with a warhammer can dispatch a zillion skeletons quickly or slashing weapons for the more fleshy juicy types. I think that is more of the problem with Clerics is who wants to play them unless they are multi-classed with arcanes? Maybe a Paladin should be the main healer with good fighting and buffing roles too and reinstate the Paladin of old requirements - LG or Blackguard is LE. And they can only have so many items and strictly controlled wealth distribution. Sure the Paladin can fight, he\she can heal, and buff but the price is heavy too. The Paladin may hit like a Fighter but will never do that fancy stuff (two-weapon, whirlwind, etc - cleave and spring attack is ok) nor attack anyone with their back to him\her - side is ok and vice versa for Blackguards.

I wonder what the survival rate of a gnome or halfling cleric would be in heavy armor quite low. Heavy armor with the small races is practically inconvenient. They already have a strength penalty and 20 ft movement. Put a gnome in full plate and he'll barely be able to move. I had a concept of a gnome cleric of Garl Glittergold. Trickery and Protection being the chosen domains. He would have been a terrible frontline fighter having low strength and small weapons so not much damage there. And giving him a high strength would just sub optimize him because alot of his skills rely on Charisma and dexterity. The hide skill combined with his small size would have made him very diffcult to spot. Allowing him to buff his companions from a very advatageous position. In addition keeping him from being a target. Also he would be able to run in real quick and heal the fighter if need be and run out again.

Maybe the cleric needs a revamp or the Paladin becomes more of the healer. Or strip the healing from the other classes and have it available through other means such as MIs and Pots. The other thing I notice with the cleric unless they were multi-classed, players hated to play them. Maybe an incentive to draw more players is to combine clerics with into the Paladin class or make their spells ignore spell resistance which makes sense anyway. How can a Red Dragon resist a Cleric of Mystra or similar deity's spell? I know that Mystra is a greater god and whole lot more powerful than Tiamat. In addition, Mystra could strip the weave from Dragons so how can a dragon resist the clerical spell? Turning undead is no real big deal. I mean a good fighter with a warhammer can dispatch a zillion skeletons quickly or slashing weapons for the more fleshy juicy types. I think that is more of the problem with Clerics is who wants to play them unless they are multi-classed with arcanes? Maybe a Paladin should be the main healer with good fighting and buffing roles too and reinstate the Paladin of old requirements - LG or Blackguard is LE. And they can only have so many items and strictly controlled wealth distribution. Sure the Paladin can fight, he\she can heal, and buff but the price is heavy too. The Paladin may hit like a Fighter but will never do that fancy stuff (two-weapon, whirlwind, etc - cleave and spring attack is ok) nor attack anyone with their back to him\her - side is ok and vice versa for Blackguards.

Don't kid yourself. A munchkined 3.0 or 3.5 paladin could outschool a fighter in combat, hands down.

Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Spirited Charge (lance), Cleave, Great Cleave, Leap Attack, Smite and minor buff spells get rediculous.

I wrote a long answer to this, but the boards ate it (seriously Paizo, get vBulletin or something). Basically, 2e clerics were indispensable as healbots because they (and druids - any priest with Major access to the Healing sphere) were the only game in town. OK, paladins had some minor healing too (2 hp/level 1/day for Lay On Hands, Cure Light Wounds at 9th level, Cure Serious Wounds at 15th), but that was it.

3e extends healing capabilities to rangers and bards as well, and buffs the healing of paladins. But most importantly, it makes item creation easier, and adds the Wand of Cure Light Wounds. So if your party doesn't have a cleric, you can get a Wand or two, which can be used by five of the 11 core classes (as well as anyone with a decent Use Magic Device skill). And if you don't have any of those, you can buy potions instead - sure, they're expensive, but you don't have to hit 9th level to make them, invest thousands of gp in a lab, and then go out and get the heartblood of a troll as an ingredient or whatever.

That's just what I"m saying, though.

There are several classes which offer some ability or resource which no other class does (or which only one or two do). HEALING, however, is indispensable. A party is so much less effective without it that you NEED a cleric, which means that he is already making a huge contribution to the effectiveness of the group, which means that making him even MORE powerful was a big mistake.

Also, sorry about your post. I lost a much shorter one but I can't remember what I was saying.

Don't kid yourself. A munchkined 3.0 or 3.5 paladin could outschool a fighter in combat, hands down.

Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Spirited Charge (lance), Cleave, Great Cleave, Leap Attack, Smite and minor buff spells get rediculous.

I have also seen the opposite.

I guess it comes down to die rolls and whoever the best tactician is.

I'm definitely in favor of this change. Clerics are still mighty powerful and sought after for adventurin' folk like us. The firestorm of controversy surrounding it, in my opinion, only highlights the need for a clear delineation between "holy warriors" and "cloistered priests", both roles this cleric class is supposed to fill. This change is pretty clearly a compromise between these two archetypes.

But now, to be a holy warrior, all you have to do is blow a feat at 1st level and pick up heavy armor proficiency, or have your DM houserule it. No biggie guys, seriously!

Enough already. Look everyone, I've been pouring over the book for almost a day--the Cleric gets Fireball as a third level spell if he/she chooses the Fire domain. Let me repeat that: Fireball; as a third level spell. Not fourth, not a watered down version of it, Fireball. Full stop.

I would say this argument isn't a big deal if I didn't think that it SHOULDN'T be a DEAL at all.

Explication: I'm not saying your opinions don't matter. They obviously do--but they matter to you, and all this squabbling serves less to change the minds of the contributors of the rulebook and more to insult and undermine their professional authority.

In short: if you don't like it, get over it, house-rule it, and stop talking about it.

Enough already. Look everyone, I've been pouring over the book for almost a day--the Cleric gets Fireball as a third level spell if he/she chooses the Fire domain. Let me repeat that: Fireball; as a third level spell. Not fourth, not a watered down version of it, Fireball. Full stop.

yes... i complaines about this too... clerics have no reason to have a fireball...

and yes i am the one who keeps complaining about clerics being nerfed and invested with things they don't need... like fireball.

Well, they can still regain the ability via a feat. :/

Convinced me it's a good move. I tend to play lots of clerics, and I am usually frustrated by the poor feat choices. Thanks Lord Fyre!

vikingson wrote:

iconic (and hence actually boringly clichée)

You wouldn't believe how many pet peeves I have! And, wouldn't you know it, one of them is seeing the word "cliche`" thrown around when describing roleplaying characters.

This isn't stage art, people, this is a game. Characters don't have to be original, only enjoyable. And the iconics are iconic for a reason, that reason being that a lot of people think they're awesome. n_n

This doesn't mean EVERY cleric has to match the iconic image, though, or even that classes need to be focused around said iconics. As I said, the plate-wearing, mace-swinging, undead-turning priest of St. Cuthbert is a CHARACTER, not a CLASS.

(Incidentally, Jozan- the completely generic, mace-wielding, sun-worshiping cleric of 3e, actually wears medium armor anyway. Go figure.)

At high levels Jozan buys plate, picture in PHB II.

Hydro wrote:

vikingson wrote:

iconic (and hence actually boringly clichée)

You wouldn't believe how many pet peeves I have! And, wouldn't you know it, one of them is seeing the word "cliche`" thrown around when describing roleplaying characters.

This isn't stage art, people, this is a game. Characters don't have to be original, only enjoyable. And the iconics are iconic for a reason, that reason being that a lot of people think they're awesome. n_n

This doesn't mean EVERY cleric has to match the iconic image, though, or even that classes need to be focused around said iconics. As I said, the plate-wearing, mace-swinging, undead-turning priest of St. Cuthbert is a CHARACTER, not a CLASS.

(Incidentally, Jozan- the completely generic, mace-wielding, sun-worshiping cleric of 3e, actually wears medium armor anyway. Go figure.)

At high levels Jozan buys plate, picture in PHB II.

Guess he spent a feat on Heavy Armor Prof.

and yes i am the one who keeps complaining about clerics being nerfed and invested with things they don't need... like fireball.

A cleric of Surtur has way more business tossing fireballs at people than he has wearing full plate.

Discuss!

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not starting this thread to stir up trouble, instead it's to make sure people don't clog the main spoiler thread with talk about this change.

I understand Jason wants a chance to justify the change, but I don't think anything will stop people talking. At least this way, all the chatter is in one place. So everyone, it would be wise to hold off commenting until he's said his piece.

I understand the hypocrisy of starting this thread and then saying all this, but I was only doing it to preserve the integrity of another thread. I'm sorry.

Clerics Lost Heavy Armor Prof. I like it. Druids don't have it barbarians don't have it and clerics are not fighter or paladinds. It make sence.

I do feel clerics of the War domain should still get Heavy Armor Prof and will probably house rule it thusly.

Having my book in hand, and seeing the War Domain in all it's not-so-much glory, I now go from kinda agreeing with this to completely agreeing with this.

I would like all the people who said here that nerfing the cleric was good and that the loss of Heavy Armor proficiency was not a big thing to indeed play a cleric character for their next PFRPG sessions, and THEN to come back with their impressions.

I currently play a cleric wearing meduim armor and have not problem with the minor loss of AC. I am intending to play a cleric in PFC specifically a half elf cleric of Sarenae named Satal bin Sarenae.

I would like all the people who said here that nerfing the cleric was good and that the loss of Heavy Armor proficiency was not a big thing to indeed play a cleric character for their next PFRPG sessions, and THEN to come back with their impressions.

Why wait? I'm already playing Clerics of Abadar, Nethys, Calistria and Urgathoa. None of them will ever notice the change, since they were wearing either chain shirts, mithral shirts or mithral breastplates.

If I choose to make a Cleric of Gorum or Iomedae, based around heavy armor and mixing it up in melee, I'll use the free extra feat that Pathfinder gives me by 6th level (1/2 levels, instead of 1/3, so by 6th level, you're one feat ahead of the game) to buy Heavy Armor Proficiency.

It's not like Clerics don't end up blowing feats on random junk anyway. Selective Channeling is a Charisma-sink that will make you a worse spellcaster (and less able as a fill-in melee), and the other stuff is just meh.

Count me as one who doesn't think that this is a big deal.

The cleric, as a class, will work just fine without it and if you've really got to have it, as has been said, PF is more liberal in giving out feats.

I like to point something out, and while people may bring flame-throwers against me for it so be it.

It seems some of the people in favor of the change are those who have seen people abuse the cleric's abilities. Enough said, IMO.

Those against these change are those who think "Your a cleric? You must have heavy armor and be able to out fight a fighter." I don't care if people can't make their precious CoDzillas anymore, I've seen a cleric played a 10-11 year old kid who stayed back with a crossbow and shot at our enemies, moving into melee only when someone was in danger of being killed. He was a successful cleric because he wasn't a holy warrior.

*Casts protection from flame*

I just hope they won't come up with "neutral paladin","chaotic good paladin" ...etc. in the near future.

Why not? Real world paladins didn't have to be lawful. As long as good is still the only required alignment for them, I'm fine with it.

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

I do feel clerics of the War domain should still get Heavy Armor Prof and will probably house rule it thusly.

Having my book in hand, and seeing the War Domain in all it's not-so-much glory, I now go from kinda agreeing with this to completely agreeing with this.

Yeah, having the final book in my hands now,

(And the classic option of 1 Fighter level - or Paladin - takes care of the Armor as well)

Montalve wrote:

and yes i am the one who keeps complaining about clerics being nerfed and invested with things they don't need... like fireball.

A cleric of Surtur has way more business tossing fireballs at people than he has wearing full plate.

actualy a priest of surtur in the mddle of battle and destructiosn doesn't need to bother his protection for the fighter, he does his own killing

Same with Gorum, same with at least another 3 or 4 deities that have the war domain...

but there is no discussion here, we can't compare whathave always been, with how it was stripped...

this was not because it was logfic, it was to calm and make happy all the cleric-haters out there

yukarjama wrote:

I just hope they won't come up with "neutral paladin","chaotic good paladin" ...etc. in the near future.

Why not? Real world paladins didn't have to be lawful. As long as good is still the only required alignment for them, I'm fine with it.

real world paladins (Charlemagne's men) had a so strict code of behaviour that it can only be LG... check it... someone was nice enough to add it to Kobold #8... or maybe #9...

I have the book, also and still think the cleric should get heavy armor. At the very least, some domains need to grant it.

Most of the domains have very lackluster powers, in my opinion, somewhere inbetween a 0 and 1st level spell a few times a day.

While the domain spells are usually good, (not much different than 3.5) they are still 1/day/spell level, so a fire priest isn't really a fire priest.

this was not because it was logfic, it was to calm and make happy all the cleric-haters out there

Yes, all of us who play Clerics almost exclusively are secretly 'Cleric-haters' for commiting the unforgivable sin of disagreeing with you.

Try the argument again, without resorting to name-calling and hyperbole.

Well.....I think a cleric oughtta have heavy armor.
So, with the 10 feats you get over 20 levels instead of 7, I'll hook it up.

What I think the rule is for, and I guess the jury is still out on the utility of this, is the odd multiclassing rogue cleric or sorcerer cleric who doesn't want to be traipsing about in platemail, and would rather utilize a feat for something else.
A multiclassing fighter/cleric gets platemail.....

Count me as one who doesn't think that this is a big deal.

The cleric, as a class, will work just fine without it and if you've really got to have it, as has been said, PF is more liberal in giving out feats.

Or,....what he said I guess.

2nd edition had a considerable impact of changing the paradigm of "what is cleric". In 1st ed it he was a holy crusader, a pious fighting man ...so much so that he wasn't allowed to use edged weapons.

2nd ed took the cleric out of that box and allowed a tremendous amount of variants to the theme. With 3.0/3.5 I still have a hard time when I see a cleric using a sword, but you know what the game has evolved over the +25 years since I started playing as a kid. I think this is a good thing - for the class, for players (I almost always play a cleric when I do get a chance to game), and for the variety it offers DM's when presenting both ally and enemy clerics.

I do think that with a more modular design (since 2nd ed) that maybe there should be an offering or suggestions on building clerics for different faiths. I don't have a problem with my own game, but some solid guidelines and distinctions (again 2nd ed) in the various perks of the faiths would be good.
I stated earlier that I am running a FR campaign -one of my players is using a Cleric of Helm. I wouldn't think that I would be going over the top in giving him a bonus weapon (bastard sword) and a heavy armor feat since his church is tied to protection and defense. Hell I am more inclined to take the Bastard sword faith weapon away from him than the heavy armor use - let him stick with his mace. On the flip side that would mean that I would have to give out custom additions to other clerics of other faiths to make up for that. Maybe a different but relevant bonus feat, bonus skills and a few points dumped for free into those skills, etc.

This is not an irreparable problem. I don't think that heavy armor should be generic feat for all clerics since that doesn't fit the modern perspective of what a cleric has become. Maybe if we were trying to recreate 1st ed then yeah, but that is not the case with 3.5 nor with PFRPG. Again the class is not locked out of the feat, just a stumbling block if played as written or a bonus feat if built into a few of the campaigns martial faiths.

With a flexible DM you can have your hvy armor fear for your war, protection, state type cleric. And for your clerics of beauty maybe some free dedicated points/bonus to bluff and diplomacy, or for the more scholarly Demon/Devil/Undead hunters some valuable bonus points in a multitude of knowledge skills, something the current cleric base class (much like the wizard) are lacking.

There is always a fix and it is not even approaching the level of house rule - it has been stated that various faiths and associations can give you various perks. Maybe have the martial faiths give up their swords and go back to old school blunt weapons in exchange of hvy armor feat. You want to go "classic" cleric with plate mail - then give up the edged weapons and crossbows.

There is always a fix

Remember clerics - There can be no Honor without Virtue

vikingson wrote:

iconic (and hence actually boringly clichée)

You wouldn't believe how many pet peeves I have! And, wouldn't you know it, one of them is seeing the word "cliche`" thrown around when describing roleplaying characters.

This isn't stage art, people, this is a game. Characters don't have to be original, only enjoyable. And the iconics are iconic for a reason, that reason being that a lot of people think they're awesome. n_n

This doesn't mean EVERY cleric has to match the iconic image, though, or even that classes need to be focused around said iconics. As I said, the plate-wearing, mace-swinging, undead-turning priest of St. Cuthbert is a CHARACTER, not a CLASS.

(Incidentally, Jozan- the completely generic, mace-wielding, sun-worshiping cleric of 3e, actually wears medium armor anyway. Go figure.)

Things become clichée the second they become the cookie-cutter way of playing characters. The elf mage, the spunky rogue... the stalwart fighter in platemail... oh and yes, the platemail-encrusted cleric of war.

And for the "boards-beloved" full-plate cleric (e.g. the warrior priest of St.Cuthbert/Torm/tyr(Red Knight/tempus/Moradin... etc etc etc. ), which is actually barely functional at anything besides hacking apart opponents, never forget the patching up afterwards though... What does he do (and offer his player the possibility of participating in the game and epic story being told ?) when things are not being resolved in the most violent fashion conceivable ? Little, very little indeed. Basically all that "iconic" is, is a diety-blessed basher and thug. Congratulations....

Looking at any (historical) priesthood (in any age), you will find a far more eclectic mix of personalities and talents. Incidentally, you will find little "At Them !" holy/sanctified warriors... because priesthood was 8and perhaps is in some areas) a road to power and influence not dependient on your brawn and build.
Instead, it appealed to Brain and virtues like courage .... yeah, and less stellar traits like greed, power-mongering and megalomania in some ages and religions.
Which actually offer more to a group than "hack it! mash it !" munchkinism and still add massively to a group's set of abilities, at least from where I stand. Because in and of itself, a priest, a chosen of the higher (or lower as the case may be) powers, commands innate respect in and of itself, simply by having been chosen as worthy to serve by the relevant diety.

Most of the times a cleric got picked as a character hereabouts, the player chose the "cloistered cleric" variant from UA, which mostly drops the combat options (down to light armour, weak attack etc ) for a plethora of skillpoints, lore-abilities and an extra domain.
All of it without being frustratingly subject to being dispelled back to "normal human" after a laborious buffing period by any opponent even half-smart and wise to the world.
And still being able to kick-Axx in the magical department. Our mages never minded another Bladebarrier, maximized-flamestrike or Deific Retribution, not to mention a Dispel Magic to cut the buffed up opposition down to sizê^^.

I have the book, also and still think the cleric should get heavy armor. At the very least, some domains need to grant it.

Most of the domains have very lackluster powers, in my opinion, somewhere inbetween a 0 and 1st level spell a few times a day.

While the domain spells are usually good, (not much different than 3.5) they are still 1/day/spell level, so a fire priest isn't really a fire priest.

What a priest is, is defined by the way he/she is played, not by the powers granted by picking a domain. If you want more fire spells, pick them ! Possibly haggle with your GM to have access to some from the druidic list - but expect a trade off.

And none of this explains in any way, why a priest of fire (assuming Fire is a diety where you game) should be able to wear heavy armour. Same for the priests of knowledge, healing, agriculture, wisdom, healing, trade, magic, family, the hunt, the sea, the sun, the seasons or the afterlife ... just channeling most of the Greek pantheon here. Which in my example would be the vast majority of priests, besides those of Ares (War) Athena (Strategy) and Hephaistos (the forge and craftsmanship) who it might be relevant for....

This is not an irreparable problem. I don't think that heavy armor should be generic feat for all clerics since that doesn't fit the modern perspective of what a cleric has become.

Name me a historic pantheon whose priesthood was overwhelmingly martial^^ Not even the volatile Norse pantheon's Aesir and Vanir had a majority of warrior gods... So its not what clerics have "become" but what clerics are and always were beyond the sheer number-crunching on RPG-boards

Dragonborn3 wrote:

yukarjama wrote:

I just hope they won't come up with "neutral paladin","chaotic good paladin" ...etc. in the near future.

Why not? Real world paladins didn't have to be lawful. As long as good is still the only required alignment for them, I'm fine with it.

real world paladins (Charlemagne's men) had a so strict code of behaviour that it can only be LG... check it... someone was nice enough to add it to Kobold #8... or maybe #9...

Real world paladins did't even wear platemail, because, to be honest, at that time the skill of producing or even maintaining that had been lost for some time in the Frankish and Merowingan kingdom(s). Besides the obvious fact that actually they weren't immune to disease, worked religious magics or summoned their steeds from thin air either^^

Ok. Let's take this on a bit.

Thurgon,
Turn Undead is a part of the Cleric still. It's called Channel Energy. Does the cleric have the ability to blast foul undead abominations into paste with the power of his god? Check. In fact, Channel energy is better at this than Turn Undead as it isn't all or nothing and works even against higher level undead that have too many hit dice to be turned under 3.5. This complaint is flat out wrong factually and is getting far too hung up on what things are called rather than what they do in game

Second,. yes, I cannot see a cleric of St Cuthbert, Adabar, Gorum or Iomedae without massive amount of heavy armour. Quite right. I can however see many priests of Nethys, Shelyn, Caiden Cayleen, Calistra, Gozreh and so on and so forth in much lighter armour. In short, there are many ways to play a cleric and this allows the ones who aren't crusaders to be used without the player feeling they're 'missing out' by not using their abilities. It allows more variety. Why is this a bad thing?

Plus, medium armour does not mean they're not warriors. Ask the Ranger and Barbarian if they're warriors without heavy armour.

I understand what you are saying, I see your point. But I disagree. Clerics of 3.5 were overpowered. Do we agree with that statement? If we don't we can't go much further with this debate. It would mean we can't even agree on the reason the cleric needed toning down.

Taking away turn undead to replace it with channel energy is going the wrong way. I argue channel energy is much more powerful. It's far more useful to be sure, an AoE heal or AoE damage to undead ability vs. the ability to turn/destroy undead. Turn undead has limited use, but an AoE does not. So if your goal is to bring the class down in power this change is headed in the wrong direction and by good amounts.

As for heavy vs. medium(lighter armored clerics) having more variety isn't the issue though it has been brought up often. A cleric can still wear lighter then heavy armor without crippling themselves. Medium armor allows for better movement and more dex bonus to ac, but it sacrifices the heavy armor AC bonus. Your options remain the same really, if your going to worrry about power gaming well your options are never great, you always have to pick function over form as it were and limit yourself by your play style. If you want to play were form and style mean more then you wont worry if you are wearing chainmail vs a scalemail you will wear what fits your idea of the character instead of which gives you more power. Also by not wearing heavy armor they can put less points into strength and more into other stats that can easily still make them effective.

I never said anything about them not being warriors either way, so I can't defend it from that stand point. I do however still miss Rangers getting to wear plate so...

And for anyone I do think these changes do make the cleric not backwards compatible.

Maybe I'm just dim or something but for the life of me I don't understand this whole "clerics are overpowered" business. In our Pathfinder beta campaign at 8th level:

- the cleric is a full +10 melee bonus behind the fighter

- the cleric used to have an AC that was 2 less than the fighter - now 4 less

- the cleric does less damage on melee attacks than anyone else except the wizard

- the cleric's buffs for the most part are 1 round/level and mostly don't stack - it takes him 3+ rounds to cast the ones he needs to get to be reasonable in combat and by that time the battle is usually nearly over (because he has had to spend several of those rounds healing too) and his initial buffs are wearing off.

So basically, the cleric was able to stand by the fighter and take the punishment due to his AC, but he certianly couldn't really be very effective as a melee unit because it takes too long to get his buffs up.

Where/how specifically are you guys seeing the cleric as overpowered?

Clerics of 3.5 were overpowered. Do we agree with that statement?

There is no way I could agree with this statement. I've seen a lot of arguments about clerics being overpowered on paper that don't actually add up at the table.

Fatman Feedbag's description is very much spot on for what I've seen, even in 3.5. I've had many similar experiences, though numbers for AC and attack bonus might be a little different. Those bonus points the Fighter is getting to his AC from Armor Training have disappeared in the final.

And for the "boards-beloved" full-plate cleric (e.g. the warrior priest of St.Cuthbert/Torm/tyr(Red Knight/tempus/Moradin... etc etc etc. ), which is actually barely functional at anything besides hacking apart opponents, never forget the patching up afterwards though... What does he do (and offer his player the possibility of participating in the game and epic story being told ?) when things are not being resolved in the most violent fashion conceivable ? Little, very little indeed. Basically all that "iconic" is, is a diety-blessed basher and thug. Congratulations....

A cleric of St. Cuthbert would belong to one of three branches each did different things when the fighting was done. One was an iquisitor, personal skills intimidate, sense motive, and likely various knowledge skills would be his goal.

Torm was a defender not so much war priest. He surely did go about healing, both with spells and words. Dipolomacy and heal skill were his focus outside of combat.

Tyr was a god of justice in FR. War was just one aspect of this. Investigation skills and such would also be part of it.

It really all comes down to how you play the character. To say all priests of "war" dieties are just diety-blessed bashers and thugs is over simplification of the truth. Sure if you wanted to play them that way go for it, many RPers did not they created 3-D characters that had active lives outside of combat. I have a cleric of a diety with the War and Missionary domains that spent a lot of time outside of combat doing things as varied as bringing two neighboring kingdoms together to dicuss peace, build hospitals in unfriendly lands to convince them of my gods good will, exploring lands in search of new people to convert, writing papers on philosphy, and of course researching.

Anyway none of that has anything to do with the issues at hand, it's a distractions. However it does illistrate the problem with only having 2 kill points per level and no realistic chance to have a decent int score, so in that way it does show that clerics could use more skill points I guess.....

Thurgon wrote:

Clerics of 3.5 were overpowered. Do we agree with that statement?

There is no way I could agree with this statement. I've seen a lot of arguments about clerics being overpowered on paper that don't actually add up at the table.

OK, how's this. I'll use a 12th level 3.5 edition cleric for example purposes. This cleric can;

- Gain a +4 deflection bonus to AC, for the cost of a 1st level spell (5th level quickened), for 12 minutes.

- Give their weapon a +3 enhancement bonus, which supercedes any current enhancement bonus, but does NOT overwrite weapon abilities such as flaming, for a 4th level slot, lasting 12 hours.

- Give their armour and shield a +3 enhancement bonus, which supercedes any current enhancement bonus, but does NOT overwrite armour abilities, for a 3rd level slot per item affected, lasting 12 hours.

- Set their BAB to +12, gaining extra attacks as relevant, gain a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength and gain 12 temporary hit points, for a 4th level slot, lasting 12 rounds.

- Gain a +3 luck bonus to attack and damage rolls for a 1st level slot (5th quickened), lasting 1 minute.

In addition to all of these abilities, they can heal themselves and others, remove disease and poison, ward themselves and allies against death effects, walk on air...the list goes on.

Now tell me, exactly, how a 3.5 fighter is supposed to match up to that. It gets even sillier with non-core feats; take Persistent Spell and Divine Metamagic, and that 12 rounds of BAB = character level and so on becomes 24 hours duration. At that point, you're a fighter with full spellcasting all day long. Have fun!

And those are a few - simple, and except for the last thing I mentioned, utterly core rules - ways that clerics were overpowered in 3.5.

Maybe I'm just dim or something but for the life of me I don't understand this whole "clerics are overpowered" business. In our Pathfinder beta campaign at 8th level:

- the cleric is a full +10 melee bonus behind the fighter

- the cleric used to have an AC that was 2 less than the fighter - now 4 less

- the cleric does less damage on melee attacks than anyone else except the wizard

- the cleric's buffs for the most part are 1 round/level and mostly don't stack - it takes him 3+ rounds to cast the ones he needs to get to be reasonable in combat and by that time the battle is usually nearly over (because he has had to spend several of those rounds healing too) and his initial buffs are wearing off.

So basically, the cleric was able to stand by the fighter and take the punishment due to his AC, but he certianly couldn't really be very effective as a melee unit because it takes too long to get his buffs up.

Where/how specifically are you guys seeing the cleric as overpowered?

Part of the answer will depend on what rules you're using. But the basics of CoDzilla for the cleric are as follows:

The cleric and fighter can both wear in 3.5 the same types of armor except for use of tower shields. So their ACs can be fundamentally the same. Nice, high ACs for the frontlines.

The cleric needs 3 spells and 1 feat to transform himself from a "meh" combatant into the avatar of your local god of war. The feat: Quicken Spell. The spells: divine favor, divine power, and righteous might. The cleric casts 1 spell the first round, a quickened divine favor and the other spell on round 2, and he's ready to go. Under the influence of these 3 spells, the cleric now has a minimum of +3 luck bonuses to hit and damage (divine favor), a total of +10 to his Strength score (+4 enhancement, +6 size), he's gained 2 hp/level (+2 Con, +1 temporary hp/level)-and note, on average, that's enough to exceed the fighter's hp total, and his BAB is now equal to his level. So he's gained at least +8 to hit and damage, has equal or greater hp to the fighter, has comparable AC, reach (I forgot to mention he gained a size category), and his weapon got a damage upgrade with the size boost. Judicious use of other spells (e.g. magic vestment, greater magic weapon, bless, heroes feast) could push the cleric up the totem pole even further.

Oh. I also forgot to mention. He's still able to cast spells after spending 2 rounds doing his basic buffing. So anything from greater command to hold person to flamestrike to blade barrier is also still an option for the cleric, depending on his spells for the day. Meanwhile, your fighter has . . . feats.

If your cleric is healing in combat, then obviously there isn't time for all this. I'm sure there are munchkins/powergamers/optimizers out there who will tell you that's a no-no if I look hard enough. But if the fighter has +10 to hit over the cleric at 8th level, that might also be a function of how the characters are built. You'll have to decide how and why these things happen in your own campaign. In our campaign, my cleric could do this kind of buffing (minus Quicken Spell) but since I deliberately started with a Strength of 8 as a cloistered cleric, it isn't as effective.

Anyway, the decision was made to reduce the power of the cleric in certain areas because a cleric could at least 1/day at 9th level make the fighter look like a warrior and more often at higher levels as more spell slots became available.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

Thurgon wrote:

Clerics of 3.5 were overpowered. Do we agree with that statement?

There is no way I could agree with this statement. I've seen a lot of arguments about clerics being overpowered on paper that don't actually add up at the table.

Fatman Feedbag's description is very much spot on for what I've seen, even in 3.5. I've had many similar experiences, though numbers for AC and attack bonus might be a little different. Those bonus points the Fighter is getting to his AC from Armor Training have disappeared in the final.

The cleric could easily have a better AC then anyone else in 3.5 thanks to magic vestiments (not this would be based on every character having the same GP value of gear). With the similar spell for weapons he could also have a better + on his weapon. That's just a start.

Then with the right feats you could have the same BAB as fighters, a size increase for reach and DR and better con. Either doing this with free action casting or with Persist Spell feat 24 hour verisons. You easily became as good in melee as a fighter/paladin/barbarian/ranger and still were a full caster.

Now it could be argued that was one type of obviously abussive build but even with removing the feats that make it work the class could still threaten in melee power the melee classes and that was an issue, one I agree needed some toning down. But I did not think it needed more healing, I never thought turning was overpowered, nor did I see his ability to wear heavy armor as the issue. More then that I think taking those last two from him is too big a change from expections. Similar to my issue with 4e the changes are too great making him not resemble what I expect of the cleric.

Now it could be argued that was one type of obviously abussive build but even with removing the feats that make it work the class could still threaten in melee power the melee classes and that was an issue, one I agree needed some toning down. But I did not think it needed more healing, I never thought turning was overpowered, nor did I see his ability to wear heavy armor as the issue. More then that I think taking those last two from him is too big a change from expections. Similar to my issue with 4e the changes are too great making him not what a player of the class has come to expect.

As far as I can tell, the change to turning was because 3.5 turning was believed to be underpowered. In specific situations like the Divine Metamagic/Persistent Spell cheese turning was obviously awesome, but I believe the main complaint was that as written, you could go whole adventures without ever using turning. Channel energy is universally helpful, and it lets the cleric do more with their spells than just heal people. Taking turning away wasn't a toning down; it was a tuning up!

As for heavy armour, we've done this dance already, so I won't retread old ground. I like that they lost it, you don't, we can agree to disagree.

Studpuffin wrote:

Thurgon wrote:

Clerics of 3.5 were overpowered. Do we agree with that statement?

There is no way I could agree with this statement. I've seen a lot of arguments about clerics being overpowered on paper that don't actually add up at the table.

OK, how's this. I'll use a 12th level 3.5 edition cleric for example purposes. This cleric can;

- Gain a +4 deflection bonus to AC, for the cost of a 1st level spell (5th level quickened), for 12 minutes.

- Give their weapon a +3 enhancement bonus, which supercedes any current enhancement bonus, but does NOT overwrite weapon abilities such as flaming, for a 4th level slot, lasting 12 hours.

- Give their armour and shield a +3 enhancement bonus, which supercedes any current enhancement bonus, but does NOT overwrite armour abilities, for a 3rd level slot per item affected, lasting 12 hours.

- Set their BAB to +12, gaining extra attacks as relevant, gain a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength and gain 12 temporary hit points, for a 4th level slot, lasting 12 rounds.

- Gain a +3 luck bonus to attack and damage rolls for a 1st level slot (5th quickened), lasting 1 minute.

In addition to all of these abilities, they can heal themselves and others, remove disease and poison, ward themselves and allies against death effects, walk on air...the list goes on.

Now tell me, exactly, how a 3.5 fighter is supposed to match up to that. It gets even sillier with non-core feats; take Persistent Spell and Divine Metamagic, and that 12 rounds of BAB = character level and so on becomes 24 hours duration. At that point, you're a fighter with full spellcasting all day long. Have fun!

And those are a few - simple, and except for the last thing I mentioned, utterly core rules - ways that clerics were overpowered in 3.5.

EDIT: Sigh, to be fair we might be having entirely different experiences. The group I play with is usually very good about spell sharing, which is infinitely better than just self-buffing. I hear that lots of people have problematic cleric players in their groups, though I've never seen this come up. Still, the problem seems to stem from players activities and not the class, IMO.

Still, I'd play the PF RPG Cleric in its current state. Its still a good class regardless of the rearranging (I wouldn't call what they got a nerf actually).

Did you not read my post? I said on paper.

Many of the spells you are describing in use here are better used on other members of the party first. Its actually a waste to cast many of these spells exclusively upon myself if I am playing the cleric because then I am only comparable to other members of the party who previously had the ability. That doesn't smack of being powerful at all to me, not when the wizard is auto-slaying everything around and the Fighter put down the boss with the full attack in round two.

I've watched a fighter with a full attack in 3.5 drop other fighters in a single round at level 10. I'm pretty sure he could do the same thing to a cleric at level 12, probably more efficiently.

As far as I can tell, the change to turning was because 3.5 turning was believed to be underpowered. In specific situations like the Divine Metamagic/Persistent Spell cheese turning was obviously awesome, but I believe the main complaint was that as written, you could go whole adventures without ever using turning. Channel energy is universally helpful, and it lets the cleric do more with their spells than just heal people. Taking turning away wasn't a toning down; it was a tuning up!

As for heavy armour, we've done this dance already, so I won't retread old ground. I like that they lost it, you don't, we can agree to disagree.

I am not agruing that the cleric needs a tone up though. I am arguing that taking core abilities the class always had in pervious edition, most importantly 3.5 since the stated goal was to remain compatible with that edition, leaves you with a class that no longer resembles and thus isn't compatable with the previous edition. Turning undead was a specialty thing they did. You expected that against undead the cleric would shine, as you would expect the druid to shine in the woods. And frankly more healing isn't something the cleric needed, he has plenty already.

Did you not read my post? I said on paper.

Many of the spells you are describing in use here are better used on other members of the party first. Its actually a waste to cast many of these spells exclusively upon myself if I am playing the cleric because then I am only comparable to other members of the party who previously had the ability. That doesn't smack of being powerful at all to me, not when the wizard is auto-slaying everything around and the Fighter put down the boss with the full attack in round two.

I've watched a fighter with a full attack in 3.5 drop other fighters in a single round at level 10. I'm pretty sure he could do the same thing to a cleric at level 12, probably more efficiently.

Many of those spells are self only too.

Anyway are you now talking about which class could win against which in duel? That really isn't the point. Maybe the fighter does will the duel. But if the cleric is close, well when making a party who do you want? The fighter or the cleric who can come close to the melee power of the fighter and still be a great healer and caster?

Many of those spells are self only too.

Anyway are you now talking about which class could win against which in duel? That really isn't the point. Maybe the fighter does will the duel. But if the cleric is close, well when making a party who do you want? The fighter or the cleric who can come close to the melee power of the fighter and still be a great healer and caster?

Posted Edit in my second post above for further clarification.

I'm not talking about duels either, I always thought that kind of argument was silly for comparing classes. You can only compare combat ability in such a way, and that's not all that the classes are good for.

The example that I gave of the fighter and cleric came up during a game in which an evil cult leader was trying to stop the party from stealing his magic ruby with the magic to cure a plague he was spreading in the city above. The cleric won initiative and cast a spell (I don't know what spell) while moving up to the fighter with his scythe. The Fighter took him down with a full attack that round. I remember it vividly because the GM was really pissed his guy went down in a single round, and so was the wizard who'd just downed a potion of Fly for his action. Hahaha, we still hear about that.

EDIT: HEY, my above edit didn't appear!

So here it is: We seem to be having entirely different play experiences. The players I have in my group tend to be pretty good about spell sharing, which is exponentially better than singular buffing. That said, there are quite a few people I hear from on these boards having issues with their cleric player not playing fair or being self-centered. That doesn't seem like an issue with the class to me, but with the player in charge of that character.

I'd still play the new Cleric though, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't call what they got a nerf, just a rearrangement.

Part of the answer will depend on what rules you're using. But the basics of CoDzilla for the cleric are as follows:

The cleric and fighter can both wear in 3.5 the same types of armor except for use of tower shields. So their ACs can be fundamentally the same. Nice, high ACs for the frontlines.

The cleric needs 3 spells and 1 feat to transform himself from a "meh" combatant into the avatar of your local god of war. The feat: Quicken Spell. The spells: divine favor, divine power, and righteous might. The cleric casts 1 spell the first round, a quickened divine favor and the other spell on round 2, and he's ready to go. Under the influence of these 3 spells, the cleric now has a minimum of +3 luck bonuses to hit and damage (divine favor), a total of +10 to his Strength score (+4 enhancement, +6 size), he's gained 2 hp/level (+2 Con, +1 temporary hp/level)-and note, on average, that's enough to exceed the fighter's hp total, and his BAB is now equal to his level. So he's gained at least...

Ahh, yes I was going by the Pathfinder beta. The real difference there is that divine power doesn't stack with divine favor and righteous might is +4 not +8 - BIG difference.

The thing about magic vestiment and magic weapon is that they really just bring whatever armor or weapon you have up to the "level appropriate" bonuses (+1/3 levels) if you for some reason haven't found them already. Usually in practice these bonuses aren't actually useful because you already have the appropriate magic items in place.

In Pathfinder it looks like they fixed the couple of broken spells that were causing this problem - did they then really need to drop heavy armor in addition?

Did you not read my post? I said on paper.

Many of the spells you are describing in use here are better used on other members of the party first. Its actually a waste to cast many of these spells exclusively upon myself if I am playing the cleric because then I am only comparable to other members of the party who previously had the ability. That doesn't smack of being powerful at all to me, not when the wizard is auto-slaying everything around and the Fighter put down the boss with the full attack in round two.

I've watched a fighter with a full attack in 3.5 drop other fighters in a single round at level 10. I'm pretty sure he could do the same thing to a cleric at level 12, probably more efficiently.

The two important spells in that list are divine favour and divine power, both self only spells. With those two spells, you have all of the following as early as level 9;

BAB equal to character level (same as a fighter)
+6 enhancement bonus to Str (the highest a fighter can have, and as low as level 9, when nobody will have a +6 item)
+3 attack (better than the weapon focus/greater weapon focus a fighter could have by 10th)
+3 damage (1 point worse than weapon spec/greater weapon spec a fighter could have by 12th)

And you have spent 1 level 1 spell, and 1 level 4 spell. if you wanted to do this buffing all in one round, 1 level 4 and 1 level 5 spell.

You can now fight as well as the fighter. If he can drop something with a full attack in round two, SO CAN YOU. And you can heal yourself into the bargain. Now tell me, why would you play a fighter under those circumstances? You are mechanically inferior to the cleric, flat out.

Add in non-core rules, and you can have those two spells running ALL DAY. And that's not on paper - I have seen it in play. Here's the breakdown: you take Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Metamagic and Extra Turning. That means you have it by 9th level, 6th as a human (and as a human at 9th, you can have Power Attack, too). You need to have 9 uses of turn undead a day, but since you have 7+Cha mod now, that isn't hard. You can now make divine favour and divine power last 24 hours, for no slot increase. Enjoy making the fighter weep pitiably. Unless you want to tell me that being able to make another class obsolete by 9th level is a balanced feature to have?

In my opinion they shouldnt have ANY armor. There. Bring on the hate.

Studpuffin wrote:

Did you not read my post? I said on paper.

Many of the spells you are describing in use here are better used on other members of the party first. Its actually a waste to cast many of these spells exclusively upon myself if I am playing the cleric because then I am only comparable to other members of the party who previously had the ability. That doesn't smack of being powerful at all to me, not when the wizard is auto-slaying everything around and the Fighter put down the boss with the full attack in round two.

I've watched a fighter with a full attack in 3.5 drop other fighters in a single round at level 10. I'm pretty sure he could do the same thing to a cleric at level 12, probably more efficiently.

The two important spells in that list are divine favour and divine power, both self only spells. With those two spells, you have all of the following as early as level 9;

BAB equal to character level (same as a fighter)
+6 enhancement bonus to Str (the highest a fighter can have, and as low as level 9, when nobody will have a +6 item)
+3 attack (better than the weapon focus/greater weapon focus a fighter could have by 10th)
+3 damage (1 point worse than weapon spec/greater weapon spec a fighter could have by 12th)

And you have spent 1 level 1 spell, and 1 level 4 spell. if you wanted to do this buffing all in one round, 1 level 4 and 1 level 5 spell.

You can now fight as well as the fighter. If he can drop something with a full attack in round two, SO CAN YOU. And you can heal yourself into the bargain. Now tell me, why would you play a fighter under those circumstances? You are mechanically inferior to the cleric, flat out.

Add in non-core rules, and you can have those two spells running ALL DAY. And that's not on paper - I have seen it in play. Here's the breakdown: you take Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Metamagic and Extra Turning. That means you have it by 9th level, 6th as a human (and as a human at 9th, you can have Power...

And along comes Mr Illithid who in one round has just made your character absolutely useless and is feeding on your brains the next round. Or Along comes Mr.Wizard flying, invisible and just rains fiery death down upon you with Schorching ray....

Ahh, yes I was going by the Pathfinder beta. The real difference there is that divine power doesn't stack with divine favor and righteous might is +4 not +8 - BIG difference.

The thing about magic vestiment and magic weapon is that they really just bring whatever armor or weapon you have up to the "level appropriate" bonuses (+1/3 levels) if you for some reason haven't found them already. Usually in practice these bonuses aren't actually useful because you already have the appropriate magic items in place.

In Pathfinder it looks like they fixed the couple of broken spells that were causing this problem - did they then really need to drop heavy armor in addition?

The issue with magic weapon (and magic vestment) is that you can plan around those spells and enhance your weapon as, say, a +1 weapon with multiple abilities rather than a (+1/3 levels) sword. Then you cast the spell and you have a +(1/3 levels) flaming keen blah blah blah sword, netting you an edge of between +1 and +5 in total weapon enhancement over your 'level appropriate' bonus.

The dropping heavy armour I view more as a 'standardization'; it's simply a fact that not all clerics are the full plate type, and it's easier to say 'you don't have this ability by default, but can take a feat for it' than to say 'You have this ability by default, but if you don't want it you may choose a replacement ability from this list of options.' The second way of doing it would take more word count, and you really want things as concise as possible. Removing heavy armour is the easiest way to go.