Disenchanter's page

It seems a bit blocky to me.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But it has a lot of sharp edges and corners. That might turn off more than a few people.
Or I can be completely daft...

I also don't see much that makes it stand out from the freely available sheet.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Clearly you felt the need to make it, so there has to be something. But I can't see it, without having it pointed out.

The cavalier is going to be hard to hit with the heavy armor and shields.

As was pointed out, repeatedly, about another class and heavy armor - heavy armor isn't any better than medium armor.

The Cavalier shouldn't be much harder to hit than any class that is proficient with medium armor.

I'm still looking for some more volunteers to try out this sheet. I am especially interested in hearing about how it's printing for various people.

Because I boycott M$ products because of the price point (I can't justify the cost when quality free alternatives exist), I am using OpenOffice 3.1 on Ubuntu 9.10.

And, as you can imagine, many things didn't work right.

It does show great promise, I do really like how you don't assume the class at first level has to be the favored class.

One thing I might be able to comment on is that I couldn't find the Mounted Combat feat. But that might be because of the skill point requirement... And after I added 1 point to ride I still couldn't find it. But, that could be because of my setup.

Would either of you like to test your luck by emulating these events? No? Why not? If it happpened once, it should be possible for you to survive, right?

It SHOULD be possible to survive a 1000'+ fall. I'm not talking about likelihood... Just possible.

If people want more falling damage because it is "more realistic," then the same measure has to kept for making it possible to survive the greatest falls.

The chart in the original post doesn't make it possible AT ALL for a flight attendant (unless epic level) to survive a fall from 33,000'+.

And as for me, yes I'd try to emulate that feat. But you have to come along to verify the failure. Or are you not willing to back up your assertions as I am?

For all the reasons stated, I've absolutely hated the fact that a mid-level character could belly-flop off the Empire State Building and then jump to his feet, saying, "And now, for my next trick..." I mean, King Kong didn't survive that fall; why should Conan?

Such as "The longest survivable fall, 26 January 1972, was Vesna Vulovic a stewardess in a DC-9 which blew up at 33,330 feet. She was in the tail section of the aircraft and though injured survived the fall."

Ideas I have/had:

Rogue with Catch off Guard that spends a lot of time in inns/bars/saloons. Fighting style is a lot like Mad Dog from Ong Bak. Carry a stein/mug everywhere you go...

Pipe smoker.

Shovel. Ties in well with a Priest/Necromancer. If possible get an old hockey goalie mask.

Quills, with or without poisonous ink.

Gambler with dice, cards, and coins.

Doesn't that make sense?

1) Does it make sense that you are blindly, and unnecessarily, defending Pathfinder As Published (PAP)?
A) Absolutely.

2) Does it make sense that an inconsistency slipped through?
A) Unfortunately, yes. Given the scope and deadline Paizo gave themselves, this turned out to be a slightly over ambitious project. But these inconsistencies need to be mentioned, if they are ever going to be rectified.

3) Does it make sense that the "as PC" rules/guidelines do not line up with the "as Cohort" rules/guidelines?
A) Not one bit. There is nothing that any given race/monster can "bring to the table" as a cohort that makes it more powerful/harder to balance than if it were a PCs race. If anything, it should be the other way around (and it shouldn't) because some games the GM rules that cohorts are run by him/her alone.
A races'/monsters' "character level" should equal its' "cohort level" at all times. Not only does this eliminate the need for two sets of rules/guidelines on the subject (freeing up that precious resource of space), but it "makes sense."

As for the Erinyes, there is nothing about it that warrants a character needing to be 18th level, Lawful Evil, and having a total of +5 (or more) bonus to their leadership score to first gain an Erinyes as a cohort. (Or +6 modifiers and one step away from Lawful Evil.)
True Seeing? It is a sixth level spell, which means it first becomes available as a renewable resource at 11th level (I'm not counting alternative methods, such as scrolls and UMD). You honestly believe a character should have to wait a minimum of 7 more levels before his/her cohort can have it?
Greater Teleport? Even at will isn't "all that." If it could affect someone other than the Erinyes, I could give it more weight. I mean yes, the Erinyes makes a great carrier pigeon... But not one that I'd have to wait until 18th level (minimum) to use.

Going over what we have so far... My best "eyeball" suggestion (meaning it is far from perfect) is CR + 50% for both character level and cohort level. This would put the Erinyes at 12th, the Pixie at 6th, the Unicorn at 5th, and the Ghoul at 2nd*.
That is more in line with the actual power level of the creatures. But still isn't perfect.

* This is the only one that seems more than a little low (i.e.: off by more than one). But since you have to be at least 7th level to get a cohort, it works out alright with that. As a character... Not so much.

The Evil Overlord List (never make a BBEG without it):
Linkyfied

-Weylin

It isn't a "Cohort Hate" [snip]

What is so game breakingly awesome about an Erinyes that means you have to wait until 2 levels (at most) before an arcane caster can start throwing Pit Fiends at problems?

Or that a pixie character* has to have 8 class levels, minimum, before being able to have an unclassed pixie as a cohort?

* Pending GM approval.

I won't argue that the "as a PC" guidelines probably low ball the power level of any given monster... But the "as a Cohort" guidelines really high ball the level.

You want to go one brain explosion better?

The Erinyes. (I am playing a Chelaxian Conjurer in a game, and can't use Planer Binding to bargain for a "persistent" bodyguard because of the duration limit, so turned toward leadership cohort rules.)

Base CR of 8, so "as a PC," it should be considered an 8th level character at base.

But as a cohort, it is considered 16th level according to the table on pg. 316.

And the Pixie. CR 4, But a Cohort level of 8!

What is with the Cohort hate?

(By the way, it seems almost as if the ECL comparison was intended to be 2x CR, unless Cohorts are just discriminated against, for some reason.)

Disenchanter wrote:

Ahh... I see i wasn't clear. Sorry.

The Cleric wasn't so weak, the Undead were. Even with up to 4 Hit Dice of them per level they fell in the first round usually.

So I, too, am waiting to see what the Undead end up like. I'm afraid they won't be boosted so much to offset the Hit Die cap. I can't see how they would be able to do that without blowing the CR (or equivalent).

Ah, I see. That probably wouldn't affect my character much. If I took control of mindless undead, I'd likely just have them rip each other apart while the group and I journeyed onward. Not really interested in traveling with them. It would be used as a defensive measure. Make that vampire bow before me and such before I dismissed him.

I don't know about making the vampire bow though... Again, the Bestiary may change things. But do you often face vampires with equal or lesser Hit Dice? The 3.5 Command at least has a provision to temporarily control a single undead of up to twice your level in Hit Dice (each individual undead was normally limited to your level, you could just have more of them) as long as you concentrated.

Unrelated to Undead, a tip: Without Spontaneous Cure spell casting you will need to carefully plan you spell selection. That isn't too bad, there really aren't that many spells per level that are generally useful. But I found a useful rule of thumb to be 1/2 (round up) your spells per spell level in Cure spells.

Disenchanter wrote:

I've played Clerics of Death, or the Dark Clerics you mention. Back when you could actually control 2, to 4 Hit Dice of undead per level. And they were pretty damn weak, although I did have a single zombie (raised from an evil druid the party slew) that managed to kill two dragons due to a house rule crit chart. Now with a single Hit Die per level, I'm not sure it is worth a feat yet...

I'm curious what made the Dark Priest weak.

Yeah, I have worries about Command Undead myself. I want a quick look at the Bestiary to see what they did with undead in PF.

The Cleric wasn't so weak, the Undead were. Even with up to 4 Hit Dice of them per level they fell in the first round usually.

So I, too, am waiting to see what the Undead end up like. I'm afraid they won't be boosted so much to offset the Hit Die cap. I can't see how they would be able to do that without blowing the CR (or equivalent).

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Disenchanter wrote:

The Pathfinder cleric stole my kool-aid

We get ya man, ya hate Pathfinder cleric with unending rage we get that. I would say just don't play a cleric

Have a little pity, obviously Paizo cut the man deep. It may take years for him to mourn.

Does that make my stance more valid than anyone elses...no, and I never said it did. It seems you have assumed I did, although I'll grant that from the way you look at things, that probably comes from you being rather defensive about posts, and automatically assuming people are trying to force you to change your mind (I just like hearing others points of view, and assuming they have logic behind it, what it is, I like conversations and debates).

And I'm not defensive. Just used to dealing with "people of low character," so that I pick up on those little things that the majority of people miss.

Disenchanter wrote:

If that is the case, you've been playing a different D&D game than I have for the past 25ish years. The Cleric from my rulebooks have been martially trained, with ability to affect Undeads' actions.
Damaging them came from the Clerics' weapon, unless an option was taken.

In 1e AD&D that was the write-up on the class but ever play one?

I kind of learned at an "early age" how a powergamer can ruin the fun of others.

I mean we hear that pfRPG clerics are so badly off compared to their 3.5e counterparts.

I'm curious, if you were forced to make and play a Cleric right now, what kind would he or she be? Would you make a Battle Priest, a White Mage or perhaps the new Dark Priest that many seem to overlook?

I had/have a Cleric concept for Second Darkness. It was supposed to be a Cleric of (a name I can't remember from Zobeck) with the Artifice and Fire domains. The Clerics main combat was to revolve around "machines" that delivered the Fire domain spell like abilities. A pistol, of sorts to shoot the Fire Bolt. A sort of sawed-off shotgun for the burning hands. A back pack rocket launcher for the Fireball. Too bad all that works is shot to hell with the final...

I've played Clerics of Death, or the Dark Clerics you mention. Back when you could actually control 2, to 4 Hit Dice of undead per level. And they were pretty damn weak, although I did have a single zombie (raised from an evil druid the party slew) that managed to kill two dragons due to a house rule crit chart. Now with a single Hit Die per level, I'm not sure it is worth a feat yet...

I've played Cloistered Clerics. Great stuff if you want a primarily spell casting Cleric. I was working on the Apostle of Peace prestige class. Had a great deal of fun with that character, and would have had tons of healing.

If I was forced to play a Cleric, right now, with the Pathfinder Core rules... I'd be very tempted to play a Cleric of Rovagug and turn on the party as soon as possible.

Do alot of people see something about their one true way the class should be seen as that isn't there and feel the need to be hoser on the idea as a whole. Yup, pretty much.

The one true way that Clerics are supposed to be casters above all else?
The one true way that Clerics aren't supposed to be front-line fighters?
The one true way that Clerics aren't meant to know how to effectively wear heavy armor, and never should have?

Or is it one of the other assumed one true ways that quietly get thrown into conversations when it is felt no one is paying attention?

The subliminal one true ways that are of the new Pathfinder - that no one truly knows (yet) which way it was meant.

And yes, the Cleric of Pathfinder is quite capable of being built as it was. But guess what? It could have easily been played as it is now before Pathfinder.

So what makes your stance better than anyone elses', I mean besides your Paladin called High Horse?

If you wish to play ineffectively, then other than possible entry into the Darwin awards, theres nothing to stop you...however, under those circumstances, I would say that you don't want to use your one swift action for a swift action, you must give up your swift action and your full round action to take a swift action.

Why?

Because there is always an exception to a rule, and by disallowing the trading of actions like that, you limit the potential game breaking effects of such an exception (not to say all exceptions are game breaking, but many of them tend to be the basis for it)

I forgot we have to coddle and hold the hands of game players now.

Least common denominator. I'll work to remember that in the future.

No...
The cleric was a priest who took up arms to defend his church and advance his gods aims in the world.

Turn undead was in there for the ability to give them effectiveness against undead...channel energy does that rather well.

Did you read the rest of my post?

Which happens to be why I quoted my original post, hence italicised and bolded for clarity.

Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...

So PF went and looked at what made a cleric a cleric, and focused in on that.

A Cleric (before Pathfinder) is a martially trained warrior, with divine spells and power to make undead flee (or control them).

This is not the base Pathfinder Cleric.

Disenchanter wrote:

How?

What issue does it cause if I use a Full Round action to activate my one swift action a round?
What issues arise if I use my Move action to activate my one swift action a round?

Think about what you're asking for a second. [...] If you've GOT a swift action, what's the point in trading in a move or standard for one, given that you can only USE one?

Why can't a swift action be traded up?

Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...

Disenchanter wrote:

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that there is a definite paradigm shift?

For the Cleric, yes.

It certainly looks like DND to me. Magic Missiles still auto-strike their targets (I think) and Vampires are still stronger than regular humans (I think).

Disenchanter wrote:

Why can't a swift action be traded up?

Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...

If swift actions could be traded up, including casting swift action spells, you'd be opening up potential issues.

What issue does it cause if I use a Full Round action to activate my one swift action a round?
What issues arise if I use my Move action to activate my one swift action a round?

Nunspa wrote:

After reading the class and looking over how they tweaked (see nerfed) many of the spells I’m convinced they see the cleric as a pure caster class with some off handed melee capability as “in case of emergency - cast this spell and get into melee” then anything else.

They cast spells up to 9th level. Those 9th level spells are almost as powerful as a Wizards. Why should they be able to fight as good as a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk or even a Rogue? If you are going to take a Cleric all the way up to 9th level spells then you probably should be pretty ineffective in combat. You should be a "white mage". That's what character you are building. CoDzilla is now a Fighter 9/Cleric 11. Seriously, stat it out, see what it looks like on paper and let me know if it looks all that terrible.

Why can't a swift action be traded up?

Not that it matters, with a character limited to 1 swift action a round it doesn't really matter which action you use to perform the swift action...

Heavy Armor, Spear and Shield Fighter.... (Not a bad choice.)

Stat wise I'd focus on Strength for that character, followed by Con.
(The other advice in the thread is sound though.)
I say that because in PFS (limited to 12th level currently), Dex won't serve you as well as other games where you could really benefit from Armor training. Also, even though the spear is a good, all around weapon, it does lack the "flash" damage of other weapons.

For "competitive" play like PFS, I'd suggest focusing on feats that aid your To Hit rolls and damage.

I don't want to sound like I'm talking down about the PFS, but the truth is too much roleplaying actually hurts you. So focus on the numbers, and sprinkle on the roleplay when you can.

Channel Energy has set the precedent that summoned positive/negative energy isn't "double edged" anymore.

So the ruling it did nothing to non-undead seems to be the correct one.

Disenchanter wrote:

Hydro wrote:

I don't think so in this case, though. I first picked up on this when I noticed that the three main guys arguing for heavy armor in the 900-post "cleric lost heavy armor" thread appeared to be fullplaters themselves.

Thurgon, Beckett, and me?

I don't know how the Fire Giant works its way into "full-plated, and helmeted..."

But I don't feel singled out.

Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have said "the main guys" (like it was a definitive list).

But I meant Beckett, Thurgon and Lordzack.

I don't think so in this case, though. I first picked up on this when I noticed that the three main guys arguing for heavy armor in the 900-post "cleric lost heavy armor" thread appeared to be fullplaters themselves.

I don't know how the Fire Giant works its way into "full-plated, and helmeted..."

But I don't feel singled out.

Arms and Equipment Guide, page 130, left sidebar.

heh in all fairness though, the AC bonus never stacked so that clarification was to fix a problem he introduced by allowing special abilities on BoA in the first place,

Disenchanter wrote:

And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.

Wanting the Fighter and Paladin to be the only classes to start with Heavy Armor proficiency is outrageous?

It is completely outrageous that two classes got together, and were so jealous of a third class sharing a proficiency, that the third class had to lose said proficiency. Even more so once you factor in the third class had that proficiency just as long as one, and longer than the other of the two initial classes.

Thurgon wrote:

Frogboy wrote:

Disenchanter wrote:

And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.

Wanting the Fighter and Paladin to be the only classes to start with Heavy Armor proficiency is outrageous?

If that is your sole reason for taking it away from then cleric, then yes it is. Making a change like that for a non-balance related reasons is outrageous.

What if its for a fluff reason? Is it still outrageous?

Then the change should have been in a setting book, and not the Core book that is supposed to world independent.

I guess we need to think is terms of the how "balance" (whatever that means) was approached. You either (A) raise up everything not balanced to the most powerful things (let's for argument sake say that was found to be the cleric of 3.5e) or (B) you bring somethings up and others down to some to the "balanced" level of power.

If some things have been "nerfed" (is that really a word?) then it would seem that Jason has gone with option (B). Clerics are the "losers" if you choose to look at it that way, but over all the game may end a "winner" because of it. After all what class would logically be better at sacrifice than a cleric?

I understand that people hate having things taken off them, anyone like tax? But if we stick with the tax metaphor then our loss is the countries gain - roads, hospitals, schools etc etc. So it's not that I'm not saying your feeling of loss isn't well founded, because it is you DID lose somethings. But perhaps consider the boarder game?

2 cents,
S.

If not, then I can neither buy it, nor accept it.

Disenchanter wrote:

If my memory serves me, Book of Exalted Deeds came first with the Exalted Turning feat (yes, I'm well aware this isn't a very popular book).

It did damage to undead in addition to the normal turning effect.

Then there is Libris Mortis that introduced Profane Lifeleech, Profane Vigor, and Spurn Death's Touch feats.

These all turned turn/commands into various damaging/healing abilities.

I want to say there is an ability/feat somewhere that turns Turn/Command uses into fast healing for allies... But I can't find it so I am probably wrong on that.

And I have said before that Pathfinder consolidated the rules and made them core. It just isn't anything new.

Its in Complete Divine (which I suppose, makes it the first? Don't remember if BoED came out before or after)

And the way they did it is new.

And after reading your posts here and in other threads, I'm starting to get the impression you think clerics were balanced in 3.0/3.5.

My question is this...what would make you happy with the cleric class? Heavy Armor Proficiency? Save or Die spells back in? Full BaB? Something else entirely? I'm curious...I've seen you pick apart the new cleric class alot, but most fo the time you just leave it at "the cleric was more powerful in 3.5" and drop it, so would you mind elaborating a bit about what it is you miss from the 3.5 cleric so much?

If I ever picked apart the new Cleric, that was unintentional and a by-product of picking apart the claims that the changes "made sense," or that Clerics "needed to lose Heavy Armor," or that "everything they got made up for the changes." I think you will notice that I never picked apart any statement to liking, or enjoying, the changes.

What it boils down to is the changes to the Cleric irritate me.
Clerics are the only class to have anything removed. Not just tweaked. Not just altered. But actually removed. And they really didn't get any new options either.
Sure there are feat options to get those back... But why should the Cleric have to be the only class that has to buy back what it had?

And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.

Beckett wrote:

Despite my (seemingly) opposition, I generally like the PF book. So good job, Jason.

Hopefully he knows this. Despite the fact that we all love talking about the stuff we don't like, the fact that we are all still here should speak volumes about our overall approval of the game. If we didn't like it, we'd be back to 3.5 and probably not on these boards anymore.

I'll even bet that Disenchanter is at home hugging his core rulebook right now. He just won't admit it because it would make him sound less...um...disenchanted. :)

That made me laugh out loud. Hard enough to fear waking my neighbors.

No. I don't spend my time hugging the Core book.

But if it will make everyone feel better, the best games I have ever had - the ones that were most fun - were in systems I absolutely despise.
The system doesn't make the game... It can only make the game easier to enjoy.

varianor wrote:

I agree with the overall sentiment! Clerics are fun to play, and the loss of heavy armor proficiency isn't really a loss except on paper. Especially with all the other cool new things clerics get in Pathfinder. (The fact that clerics were one of the #1 choices for PCs in the RPG sorta proves the point that they were a little too good. Especially once the Complete Splat Brigade arrived and boosted their capacities to the stratosphere.)

Huh? Maybe in the RPGA (but that I doubt, too)

The RPGA, and most other organised play associations I'd bet, provides a metric to measure your RP penis by.
I'm not saying that every RPGA member is a phallus waving powergamer...
But I can sure believe a sizable portion would latch onto the "flavor of the month" cheese. If there was "proof" that combination X was legal and made Bards unstoppable powerhouses (even if they weren't) I'd imagine the number of Bard characters increasing 1000% over a few months.

My main hope and desire for the Pathfinder RPG was that when we switched over from 3.5 that I'd be able to still create Adventure Paths with the same feel as we had under 3.5. I'm halfway through Council of Thieves and, as far as I can tell, building adventures is more or less the same. Were Council of Thieves built for 3.5, I would be doing the exact same things I'm doing with it under the Pathfinder RPG.

So from where I'm sitting, there's not been a paradigm shift at all.

But a similar statement could be said of L5R through it's edition changes.
Making adventures for it wouldn't change much, if at all. But there is a distinct paradigm shift between each of the editions.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

uys always forget the xp charts. A 20th level cleric had 2'700'000 xp putting him in the same group as a 17 th wizard. Also recall that a 17th level wizard got 28 spells total while the 20th level cleric got 49 spells

so sure they had more powerful spells but cleric could wear armor, had blunt weapons could use shields and a d8 HD...if ya recall HD stopped at 9th level. Also a stiff wind stopped spells lol, and touch attack stopped your spells and you lost them. Clerics had em to spare

You're right. Their hit points and experience totals were actually very close to a fighters, so they were capable warriors. They also had to be very careful lest a DM take away all their spells.

For those that are used to reasonable GMs, that doesn't seem like a big deal. But there are quite a number of unreasonable GMs in the world...

If my memory serves me, Book of Exalted Deeds came first with the Exalted Turning feat (yes, I'm well aware this isn't a very popular book).

It did damage to undead in addition to the normal turning effect.

Then there is Libris Mortis that introduced Profane Lifeleech, Profane Vigor, and Spurn Death's Touch feats.

These all turned turn/commands into various damaging/healing abilities.

I want to say there is an ability/feat somewhere that turns Turn/Command uses into fast healing for allies... But I can't find it so I am probably wrong on that.

And I have said before that Pathfinder consolidated the rules and made them core. It just isn't anything new.

Disenchanter wrote:

Clerics gain nothing to augment their melee/ranged combat that other classes can't get. No bonus combat feats. No Uncanny Dodge. No Sneak Attack. Some domains offer a watered down version of Smite, but it certainly can't be counted on for all Clerics to have access to.

There are self-only spells which they can cast, such as Divine Power.

In addition, melee classes can't heal themselves in combat.

Divine Power grants +6 to hit/dmg and 20 hit points at 18th level. (+1/3 levels.)

The next personal only spell to add to the battlepriest's combat domination is: Righteous Might

Paul Watson wrote:

Cleric or Druid zilla

Thanks! That was nagging the heck out of me. Plus I only had one out the three words right. I was going with Cleric of Death/Destruction and things like that. They need a forum footnotes page or something here. :)

Disenchanter wrote:

Stefan Hill wrote:

I think people did all their complaining in the heavy armour thread. Time we started perhaps a thread about the cool new things clerics can do in "Pathfinder RPG".

S.

I may be in the minority, but I can't think of one cool new thing for Clerics.

How about CHANNEL ENERGY????

It's incredibly powerful healing.

It was available in various stages in 3.5.

What my group does is that NPC's get a half share of XP, and a full share of treasure.

So, with a 4 character group, and one NPC aiding in combat, the encounter XP is divided by 4.5 to determine the PC share. And if you track the NPC XP, it would gain half of that.

Since my post from almost 24 hours ago still hasn't shown up (for me, at least) I am reposting it. Ignore, if you have actually seen it.

Thank you Lathiira for touching upon the first point.

What about the new Cleric now reduces it's melee effectiveness at the higher levels from before in any really measurable manner? I'd say the minor changes to a Cleric's melee abilities is felt more at the low levels.

I know, you first thought is "how can that be?"

Let me explain, but with the understanding that I'm not making any arguments for changes, and that there isn't any hidden messages here. I am simply answering the question: "how is the new Cleric weak in combat as the levels increase?"

• 3/4 BAB.
  Yeah, I can hear it now. "It is the second best in the game!" If 3/4 BAB was really "all that," we wouldn't have people lining up to complain about Bards and Monks having to suffer it.
  
• D8 Hit Dice.
  Yep. Second best as well if we exclude Barbarian. Problem is, it is monster hit dice as well. That means if you are fighting things with the same number of hit dice, you have the same hit points on average. The thing is (and the Bestiary might change this) as your levels go up, opponents hit dice scale even faster, and the attribute bonuses as well. As your levels go up, the opponents tend to get larger which adds a hit point booster on top of that. As the levels go up, you trail further and further behind in hit points.
  
• Clerics gain nothing to augment their melee/ranged combat that other classes can't get. No bonus combat feats. No Uncanny Dodge. No Sneak Attack. Some domains offer a watered down version of Smite, but it certainly can't be counted on for all Clerics to have access to.

In short, if forced to rely on their "combat prowess," Clerics are worse off than Rogues or Monks.

And again, this isn't an argument for any specific outcome. It is simply an answer to a question.

Disenchanter wrote:

nexusphere wrote:

What if I took a class, and another class had a marginal advantage! That would be totally unfair!

That is the type of player RPGs are made for.

Least common denominator, and such.

Could you elaborate a bit please?

Most of the balance discussions revolve around "he (another character) is better than me!"

Look at the famous 3.5 CoDzilla debate. A Cleric, under the right circumstances, can be a better Fighter than a Fighter. Now, I'm not saying that is patently false. But that is more of a player problem than a system problem.
It would only create a problem if the Cleric player deliberately outshine a Fighter, just because s/he could.
Same thing with polymorph/shapechange effects, and look how many times those were reworked.

Since it is all packed in one single-round casting, it would be better seen as a weak Haste, a (very) weak Quickened Aid and a Quickened almost double strength Divine Favor. Oh and, packed with something which allows two quickens in a single round.

Are Druids really that bad now? They seem like the best class for anyone who gets stuck with all average (13-14) ability scores. I've always liked their spell list too. Unlike the Cleric, who has to wait forever to get a decent attack spell and then gets mostly craptastic spells at level 7 and 8, the Druid seems to get a nice mix. Except for all those animal based ones early on. This are pretty worthless.

So when they lost their best Animal Companion buffing ability, and their best combat ability now isn't certain to make them useful in combat...

Yeah, they can be seen as that bad now.

Beckett wrote:

My real question is, can a fighter lose their weapon any other way besides "Disarm".

Stunned or Panicked conditions make you drop held items, but neither would, IMO, count as 'Disarmed.'

Then again, perhaps they should, and a 20th level Fighter who flees in a panick keeps a death-grip on his sword... :)

I'm not sure this was the intent though.

What if I took a class, and another class had a marginal advantage! That would be totally unfair!

Least common denominator, and such.

Maybe it's late and I'm tired, but while I agree those things were changed a great deal, and they are among many changes, what exactly about them was MMO-style?

Maybe I'm too much of a cook. You can't "take back" spices, so you never add too much at one time to keep from hurting your dish.

Disenchanter wrote:

Frogboy wrote:

It only falls below the power of a forth level spell if you are already hasted.

That isn't really true. Even with the additional attack it is a weak 4th level spell. It just isn't really bad if you can ensure you get that attack.

I disagree with your statement because I don't think it is a weak 4th level cleric spell. If haste is a third-level wizard spell, a similar combat spell for clerics is reasonable at fourth level.