That's not really how it works out. A cleric prepares spells because he wants to cast them.
No cleric wants to cast healing spells. They are an unfortunate necessity sometimes, but you don't see that many clerics who run around going "oh boy oh boy I hope someone gets their arm cut off today so I have to spend some spell slots to heal it." Ideally, you get away with no healing, or only low-level healing (which can be quite efficient). The healing cleric has an edge when the party is doing so badly that they need 5 healing spells instead of 4, but only then. The rest of the time he's just running around with a smaller toolbox.
Both clerics are going to cast healing spells. The one without the Healing Domain might have to give up Prayer or Spiritual Weapon or Divine Power or something: the one with the Healing domain won't.
No, that's just my point: not only does he also give it up, but he's chosen to give it up from the moment he selected his spells. It's like he's prepared a spell but then made it such that he can only cast it spontaneously.
Both Cleric A and Cleric B have a fixed domain spell slot. The difference is, the Healing domain's spell is one the cleric is almost guaranteed to use, while, say, the Fire domain spell might well suck and the cleric isn't guaranteed to use it or want it.
I'm not comparing Healing to Fire (Fire's 3rd level spell is pretty crappy anyway). But what about, say, Sun? Searing Light is pretty useful, especially if you're facing undead (or Vampires!). Or Travel? Fly isn't even on the Cleric's spell list! But he always has access to healing spells. Using a healing spell does reduce his options, but preparing a healing spell reduces his options all day. He's giving up a spell he might have wanted to cast, but it's a spell the other guy never had to begin with.
|
Yeah, I'm working up a Pathfinder beta cleric for CoCT and had the same reaction. Channel Energy rules, but the domains suck. One, the powers are too few and far between. Two, with the old domain spells you still advanced in them with most prestige classes, is it was linked to spellcasting progression. Now, if you p-class you don't get the domain powers either. And as others have noted, it's not just a power thing, it's a cool distinctiveness thing.
In the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting book there's a "Holy Warrior" option to lose both domains to get d10 HD and fighter BAB - I am so all over that. After looking over the domains I thought "I definitely won't be sad to lose them..."
Of course the real suckburger in all this is the pally, especially with that Holy Warrior option. "Hey look, I'm a pally with real spells! No horse? Oh, whatever shall I do in the Tomb of frickin' Horrors without my horsie!!!"
Agree on the domains, disagree on paladins.
Holy warrior: good spellcasting, good BAB, channel positive energy, good hit dice, 2 good saves.
Paladin: Secondary spellcasting, good BAB, channel positive energy, good hit dice, one good save, Detect evil, smite evil, immune to disease, immune to poison, immune to fear, immune to mind control, CHA bonus to saves, bonded weapon or mount, lay on hands, remove disease, curses, enchantments, and poison, grant smiting to allies, punch through the DR of many evil outsiders with any weapon picked up by the paladin, and damage reduction. That does not all add up to nothing, especially since paladin spells are now keyed off of CHA, just like divine grace, lay on hands, and channel positive energy!
Paladins are not fighter/clerics. They are their own thing, and the Pathfinder version of them is enough to make evil foes experience incontinence. They are a veritable pious freight train.
But getting back to clerics: this is one class that I will likely houserule back to 3.5 if Jason doesn't put them back. My main issue with domains being switched out is third-party and backwards compatability. I have roughly 93,000 non-core domains I can draw off of in my library, from both open (book of Hallowed Might 1&2, Book of the Righteous, Iron Kingdoms Character Guide) and closed (Spell Compendium, Eberron Campaign Setting, Player's Guide to Faerun, BoED) sources. I really, really don't want to lose that. If Pathfinder doesn't switch them back, will I give up on Pathfinder? No, that's crazy talk! But I won't use the new cleric, either.
Clerics have received arguably the single biggest boost in Alpha/Beta in the form of the channeling/healing. It only makes sense that they'd not only get a kick in the pants from 3.5 but also to help offset the new boost they've received. If you want to bring back the old Domains, you need to come up with another suitably powerful thing that they can nerf to offset it, otherwise you are changing the big 3 into the big 1- the cleric.Who really benefits from the cleric's new ability to Channel Energy? It's not the cleric- it's the rest of the party.
I contest this. Sure, it helps the rest of the party get healed - but that's, in the end, one of the main jobs of a cleric. What it does for me the cleric is that
1) I can heal everyone at once, which saves me rounds, and
2) I don't have to burn memorized spells, which gives me things to do
Therefore, though I am still performing healing duties, I have more rounds to do stuff I want to do and more spells to do cool non-healing things with.
Agree on the domains, disagree on paladins.Holy warrior: good spellcasting, good BAB, channel positive energy, good hit dice, 2 good saves.
Paladin: Secondary spellcasting, good BAB, channel positive energy, good hit dice, one good save, Detect evil, smite evil, immune to disease, immune to poison, immune to fear, immune to mind control, CHA bonus to saves, bonded weapon or mount, lay on hands, remove disease, curses, enchantments, and poison, grant smiting to allies, punch through the DR of many evil outsiders with any weapon picked up by the paladin, and damage reduction. That does not all add up to nothing, especially since paladin spells are now keyed off of CHA, just like divine grace, lay on hands, and channel positive energy!Paladins are not fighter/clerics. They are their own thing, and the Pathfinder version of them is enough to make evil foes experience incontinence. They are a veritable pious freight train.
The vast majority of that is stuff the cleric can do with their spells. "I can neutralize poison at 12th level" is not that impressive when a cleric can do it at level 7. Same for removing curses, breaking enchantments, etc. The personal immunities are about it. Smiting really sucks - oh yay, a moderate damage bonus a couple times a day. For a pally to be decent they need more and better stuff of their own - 90% of their abilities are "like a cleric can do, but worse!"
|
|
Who really benefits from the cleric's new ability to Channel Energy? It's not the cleric- it's the rest of the party.I contest this. Sure, it helps the rest of the party get healed - but that's, in the end, one of the main jobs of a cleric. What it does for me the cleric is that
1) I can heal everyone at once, which saves me rounds, and
2) I don't have to burn memorized spells, which gives me things to doTherefore, though I am still performing healing duties, I have more rounds to do stuff I want to do and more spells to do cool non-healing things with.
I hate to derail from my own topic, but in order to show why I'm so adamant that there needs to be more perks to taking a cleric up to twentieth level, and benefits that better reflect the god followed, I think it's important that I explain why I believe that the real winner in Channel Energy is the party. And do to so, all I need to do is have you imagine a fifth level (just an arbitrary number) member of any class adventuring alone (I'll pick two- the ranger (my Beta opened to that page) and the monk (why not?)).
At fifth level the ranger has the following special abilities: two favored enemies, one favored terrain, track, wild empathy, combat style feat, endurance, and hunter's bond. Unless the player chooses the hunter's bond option to give benefits to his allies, every ability he has directly benefits himself. What I mean is, if he is alone he can use each of these abilities to its fullest extent.
At fifth level the monk has the following special abilities: two bonus feats, flurry of blows, unarmed strike, evasion, maneuver training, still mind, ki pool, high jump, and purity of body. Again, when alone the monk can use every one of these abilities to benefit himself.
At fifth level*, when alone, the cleric's ability to channel energy does not benefit him in any way**. If he needs spells to heal himself he has access to those. And if he needs to turn or rebuke undead, the Turn Undead ability already provided that. If a power or ability is of no asset to a cleric when he is by himself then it must be true that it is used to the benefit of the people he is with; therefore, the only people that can benefit by the ability to channel energy are the allies of the cleric.
*(I want to note that I'm not going to discuss granted powers by domain, because while they do provide benefits to the cleric they're not important to what I'm saying. And I'm mentioning this so that I'm not again accused of trying to mislead people with my defense.)
**Unless something tragic has happened and that cleric has run out of any other healing option. However, this is an extreme case. None of the abilities given for the monk or ranger are useful only in such dire circumstances.
I get where you're coming from on the Channel Positive Energy being for the party. It is however obvious from the context that a cleric should be oriented towards party assistance. How often do we send the cleric off to investigate beyond the next corner in the dungeon, or that dark alley up ahead? A ranger or a rogue is sent to scout, a pally or fighter is designed to stand toe to toe with enemies, and a wizard/sorceror is designed to blast from range, but clerics, bards, and to a lesser extent druids are designed as back up characters.
Not every character can do everything, which was one reason why I disliked the multi-class orientation of 3.5 so much. I'm running PFRPG in my home game now, and find that the players are making long term goals for there characters with the original class. The fellow who just made a cleric was amazed by the domain powers when added to the channeling ability. The combination seems to allow the cleric to do his job better, as he is able to heal the party when required, and select a good assortment of spells to deal with a variety of issues that come in any adventure. That is what the cleric is supposed to be!
I dislike the idea of optimization with respect to D&D solely because it takes away from the role-playing aspect of each individual character. I have found that many of the changes in Pathfinder are aimed at enhancing the role-playing aspects of each class, and it is this that has drawn me to start using the RPG. The domain powers, like the wizard and sorceror powers, add to the characteristics of the specific class.
Yeah, if Clerics and Druids were forced to use one of the two methods that arcane casters used, either Spontaneous casting from a very small list of Spells Known, or Prepared casting from a prayerbook of spells acquired through class leveling and / or cash expenditures, I think they would be a little less crazy flexible. Every book that adds a new Sor/Wiz spell represents a painful choice for a Sorcerer or a Wizard (on as a Spell Known, from a small list, the other from a small selection of spells that can be prepared in a given day). Every new Cleric / Druid spell is available to *any* Cleric or Druid, barring the DM saying, 'NO!
Exactly! That's what breaks the cleric. OK, a wizard can get masses of spells too, but he's got to make the effort of trading, buying and/or researching them - but he doesn't have the options of wearing armour and belting things as well.
Any time the cleric gets an extra spell, all clerics get it. Ergo, if clerics were restricted to only the domains of their deity for spells (assuming you allocated more spells/level to them) their 'brokenness' would be restricted. Plus they would take more thought to play ...
|
|
How often do we send the cleric off to investigate beyond the next corner in the dungeon, or that dark alley up ahead?
That wasn't really my point. My point was simply to illustrate who benefits, not assign a new task/role for the cleric, or suppose that the cleric is often called on to do such.
[C]lerics [...] are designed as back up characters.
I think it's pretty clear that the cleric is designed to be right on the front lines next to the fighters. These aren't priests who only receive training to give aid to the weak and ailing. They are, by design, militant. They're trained to attack decently, they begin with an understanding of virtually all forms of armored defense, and have solid hit dice. If I were playing a cleric I'm certain that I'd want one of the "fighting" classes in the party with me, but I'd neither need to do my best to blindside opponents (like the rogue) or try to stay as far from melee as possible (wizards/sorcerers).
Not every character can do everything
I certainly don't want that. That kind of spirit is what got us the factotum in _Dungeonscape_, the dilettante of the standard classes.
The fellow who just made a cleric was amazed by the domain powers when added to the channeling ability. The combination seems to allow the cleric to do his job better, as he is able to heal the party when required, and select a good assortment of spells to deal with a variety of issues that come in any adventure. That is what the cleric is supposed to be!
Some of the domain powers in the Beta are great. But once again, there are many times that the domain powers in 3.X provided the character with something more to flesh him out with.
I dislike the idea of optimization with respect to D&D solely because it takes away from the role-playing aspect of each individual character.
As someone who ran games for nearly a decade for someone who woke each morning only to find new ways to optimize his characters while developing only one personality trait for any of them ("angry") in the name of role-playing, I'm right there with you. I'm not advocating a cleric that can do everything. I want a cleric that a) gains abilities that genuinely reflect the deity he worships, b) has enticements for raising up to twentieth level, and c) is fun for the player to play, so that no one is forced to sigh and reluctantly agree to play a cleric anymore.
I dislike the idea of optimization with respect to D&D solely because it takes away from the role-playing aspect of each individual character. I have found that many of the changes in Pathfinder are aimed at enhancing the role-playing aspects of each class, and it is this that has drawn me to start using the RPG. The domain powers, like the wizard and sorceror powers, add to the characteristics of the specific class.
This is so deeply, unutterably wrong I'm going to need to take a moment.
Optimization does not take away from roleplaying. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way. Every time you give your fighter Strength as a high score, you're optimizing.
If someone isn't roleplaying, the problem is that they aren't roleplaying. Some people who don't roleplay much or well have mechanically terrible characters, some have optimized ones. The problem is not optimization
Furthermore, we are talking about DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. It is a crunch-heavy, combat-heavy game by design, and optimization is one of its draws. One of the most enjoyable things about the game, for many players, is playing around with the crunch. If you [i]don't enjoy that, why are you playing D&D, rather than one of the roleplaying-heavy, rules-light systems out there, many of which actively support roleplaying in a way that D&D doesn't and can't? Even Exalted, a system as crunch-heavy or heavier than D&D, has things like the excellent Stunting mechanic, or the Virtues system.
Giving wizards special abilities instead of extra slots just gives them extra abilities. It doesn't help you roleplay at all, unless by "roleplay" you mean "use your character's mechanical abilities".
Optimization does not take away from roleplaying. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.
As an aside, for those of you who didn't spend an inordinate of time on the WotC boards before 4e, this is called the Stormwind Fallacy, after the poster who codified it. It has withstood hundreds of posts in its name and come out the victor. As such, it can safely be said that if you ever hear a gamer say something to the tune of "optimization takes away from roleplaying" or "it's a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game" (usually with snorting self-laughter afterwards), you can safely assume that that person is a pretentious snob who smells bad and thinks you're a powerhungry munchkin (and, therefore, a terrible person, because Wonder-Woman-forbid anyone have fun with the game in any way but his) if you play a fighter who doesn't suck at fighting or a wizard who's even half-way competent.
(Also, most of this post constitutes an involved ad hominem fallacy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong).
This is so deeply, unutterably wrong I'm going to need to take a moment.
Optimization does not take away from roleplaying. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way. Every time you give your fighter Strength as a high score, you're optimizing.
If someone isn't roleplaying, the problem is that they aren't roleplaying. Some people who don't roleplay much or well have mechanically terrible characters, some have optimized ones. The problem is not optimization
Furthermore, we are talking about DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. It is a crunch-heavy, combat-heavy game by design, and optimization is one of its draws. One of the most enjoyable things about the game, for many players, is playing around with the crunch. If you [i]don't enjoy that, why are you playing D&D, rather than one of the roleplaying-heavy, rules-light systems out there, many of which actively support roleplaying in a way that D&D doesn't and can't? Even Exalted, a system as crunch-heavy or heavier than D&D, has things like the excellent Stunting mechanic, or the Virtues system.
Giving wizards special abilities instead of extra slots just gives them extra abilities. It doesn't help you roleplay at all, unless by "roleplay" you mean "use your character's mechanical abilities".
That wasn't really where I was going with the statement, but lets see if I get where you're coming from??? If I say that I'm more oriented toward Role-playing than power optimization, then I shouldn't be playing D&D??? That being the case, then why do we develop story lines and plot structures? When I make characters in D&D, I make them from a basic idea of a character I'd like to play, not from an idea of the types of powers I'd like to optimize. Perhaps that's an out of date concept, but it is still one that belongs in D&D!
Perhaps I'm being a little too literal here, but the distinction is very real for me...and in response to the other statement, I'm a clean, not too weird guy who works a regular job, has a regular family, but still remembers when role-playing was firstly about playing a role, and secondly about all the fancy powers a particular class gave you...
That wasn't really where I was going with the statement, but lets see if I get where you're coming from??? If I say that I'm more oriented toward Role-playing than power optimization, then I shouldn't be playing D&D??? That being the case, then why do we develop story lines and plot structures? When I make characters in D&D, I make them from a basic idea of a character I'd like to play, not from an idea of the types of powers I'd like to optimize. Perhaps that's an out of date concept, but it is still one that belongs in D&D!
Perhaps I'm being a little too literal here, but the distinction is very real for me...and in response to the other statement, I'm a clean, not too weird guy who works a regular job, has a regular family, but...
What he's getting at, I think (maybe a bit too vehemently, but that's beside the point) is that optimization is not a hindrance to roleplaying and, in fact, is often a way to mechanically represent the kind of character you do want to roleplay. You can be oriented toward both "power optimization" as you call it as well as roleplaying. To put it in D&D terms, think of Roleplaying and Optimization as alignment axes - they do affect each other, but either axis can meet with the other axis at any given point.
Furthermore, D&D is, given its design, more suited for optimization than many other games, because it has rules for so many different things and so many options available to the player. That mechanical optimization is, for many people, as fun (or almost so anyway) as playing a character in an active game. Many if not most regulars of the CharOp boards put together far more builds than could ever hope to be actually played at a table game - they do so because they enjoy tweaking and pushing the rules to their limits to squeeze the most possible effectiveness (which varies in focus by build, of course) out of the options presented to them. That doesn't, however, mean that they are unable or unwilling to roleplay very well - the mechanical optimization in no way impacts their ability or desire to play the character as opposed to just the abilities, it simply gives them the abilities within the framework of the rules to represent that character to the absolute limit of its effectiveness.
and in response to the other statement, I'm a clean, not too weird guy who works a regular job, has a regular family, but still remembers when role-playing was firstly about playing a role, and secondly about all the fancy powers a particular class gave you...
Yeah, sorry, I was trying to be half-funny, but it probably didn't come off that way. Point is, you can roleplay well and optimize at the same time, just as you can roleplay poorly and have an impotent character at the same time.
Sigh. My gripes with Clerics...
- they are support characters, nothing else.
- they have too many spells on spell lists. And gain access immediately to them. With multitude of spells to memorize, often with vastly differing effects, it's hard to choose right and choose them quick.
- their buffs add to bookkeeping.
I do agree that clerics can be difficult to play, with all of the things you mentioned. However, difficult to me does not translate to boring or unrewarding.
When I have been a cleric I always had to wrestle with whether I should buff others or buff myself (especially when I got high enough in level to cast divine power), or just save my spells for healing. Also, it depends on the party dynamic. If I was in a party with a fighter, rogue, and a wizard, I wasn't just the support character but the secondary fighter...especially when the fighter got wiped out and I didn’t have enough healing left to keep him conscious long enough to matter--I had to save the day by taking some heavy damage, drawing some attacks with my high AC (courtesy of spells, full plate, and a heavy steel shield) and doing my best to hit with my weapon. That may be "support," but I definitely had a blast.
Oddly enough, sometimes my group would make characters of various levels and just have character vs. character battles, sometimes three of us at once (this was usually at 1 in the morning when the DM or half the players had retired for the night). When I played in these skirmishes I always made a cleric...and I always won.
Oddly enough, sometimes my group would make characters of various levels and just have character vs. character battles, sometimes three of us at once (this was usually at 1 in the morning when the DM or half the players had retired for the night). When I played in these skirmishes I always made a cleric...and I always won.
We did that once for fun with our reacl characters. My bard won by a landslide. Of course, it was mostly thanks to my broom of flying (3.0 version), Great Invisibility, and my mad-decent archery skillz. Later, we did a no-caster 20th level match and made the mistake of choosing a natural environment (which made it virtually impossible for us to be able to find the ranger, though I still one good volley off (which coulda killed him if I had rolled a bit better). Good times, good times.
|
- they are support characters, nothing else.
I have to contest this. ;)
Dude, why the hate?
Why do you stereotype clerics? (That's classism and it will not be tolerated.)
Break the mold!
Cleric outside the box!
I love the cleric and love playing them. I was only a 'support' character in one campaign because I let the other players 'bully' me into being a healing machine... that sucked. After that though, I learned... and I have had fun since then with every cleric I've played.
It's all subjective.
Have fun a play.
I gotta say that I'm digging the new domain structure. I got really tired of seeing PCs jump out to full-caster level prestige classes at first opportunity. This was particularly attractive for sorcerers because what did they give up? Familiar advancement. I appreciate giving the PCs more opportunity costs for getting out of the base classes.
|
My thought on the domains is very similar to the OP.
The idea of domain powers throughout the cleric class is great -- it encourages straight-classing as a cleric, allows the domain choices to be relevant throughout the character's advancement, and allows some fun opportunities. I do feel the domain powers as listed as too combat oriented, and some more well-rounded abilities would be nice. The Plant domain is an excellent example.
However, the loss of bonus spells seems unnecessary. Giving a cleric a limited extra spell each caster level does not add huge power to the cleric -- we seem to be jumping all over the cleric as the class of doom, but when did anyone point to domain spell slots as the source of that imbalance?
I am in favor of putting back domain spells - if you want to mirror specialist wizards, you could allow access to them 1 level after that spell slot level becomes available, and I wouldn't cry, but many of those domain spells are only available as domain spells, and to remove them from the game would be a shame.
|
|
[...] the domain powers as listed as too combat oriented [...]
There's only one domain power granted at first level in the Beta that gives a benefit not directly combat related- the Knowledge domain, that gives the cleric all Knowledge skills as class skills (this power mirrors the same domain ability from 3.X, by the way).
The Knowledge domain, coincidentally, brings up a very good issue that the domains in the Beta don't necessarily reduce the power of a cleric ("putting them in their place", as some have argued). In this case, it actually grants an ability at first level comparable to giving the cleric virtually unlimited access to the functions of the True Seeing spell. As stated on Beta page 180:
[The cleric] can touch a creature to
learn about its abilities and weaknesses as a melee
touch attack. If successful, [the cleric] gain[s] information
as if [he] had made the appropriate Knowledge
skill check with a result equal to 10 + [...] caster
level + [...] Intelligence modifier.
With nothing that limits this ability to combat, and nothing dictating how long the contact much be made (no more than a mere six seconds- the length of a combat round- makes sense), every time the cleric greets a stranger and shakes its hand he can "read" the entity, finding out its abilities and weaknesses. This in effect allows him to penetrate any disguise, illusion, polymorph, or attempt at deception the targeted creature is a part of, and unlike with True Seeing in this case the target doesn't even get a saving throw. With this kind of benefit, who wouldn't give their cleric the Knowledge domain? The moment a player realizes what a useful tool this is he's going to try to make contact with every single NPC he meets.
And the old first level benefit of casting divination spells at +1 caster level created an unbalanced character? Right...
In keeping with the flavor of the original post I'm not terribly keen on the movement away from things that tie clerics to their domain -- even if their domain isn't particularly combat oriented.
Not ALL clerics should be battle monsters.
Do we have to turn every cleric into a Knight Templar?
CJ
I've been playtesting the Alpha (and now Beta) rules with a cleric, which has long been my favorite class (since the aforementioned specialty priests in 2nd edition).
We had a lengthy battle in our last game, in which my 2nd level cleric (with Healing and Fire domains) really shined. He used both of his bonus spells (cure light wounds and burning hands), and at least three channel energies. Two of the channel uses brought up companions from negative hitpoints. And both of those companions were too far away to otherwise get to.
The side benefit of those channels was that I had more then enough hit points to stay in combat, relieving the other party members so they could swig potions after I got them up into positive hit points.
The BEST thing about all this is that I actually got to use my other spells in this combat (including a command spell which helped turn the tide). I'm finding that I'm only spontaneously converting one spell a day into a cure.
Of course, the fact that I've taken selective channeling as a feat allows me to make greater use of those 30' healing bursts in combat. As far as I'm concerned, that feat is a must-have for any cleric!
I'm aboslutely thrilled with the changes to the cleric, and I can't wait to see how he plays at higher levels.
|
|
I'm aboslutely thrilled with the changes to the cleric, and I can't wait to see how he plays at higher levels.
Without discussing channeling energy (which we all agree is fabulous), can you explain why the changes in the cleric class from 3.X to Beta have you so thrilled? Do you find that the changes to domain powers add to your excitement and/or ability to flesh out the character/roleplay?
Of course, the fact that I've taken selective channeling as a feat allows me to make greater use of those 30' healing bursts in combat. As far as I'm concerned, that feat is a must-have for any cleric!
Yeah... this means it should probably be hit with the nerf stick...
I am not replying to any one person. I'm just commenting after having read the entire thread.
I have to say, in our D&D group all our min-maxers (nothing wrong with that btw) like fighter classes. You know, crazy fighter/rogue or barbarian/fighter combos with insane crits and the like. So, I had no idea whatsoever about the Cleric and the various spells buffing him up to uber levels. Of course, now I guess they cant get full BAB with the spell and the luck bonuses don't stack and whatever.
Still, even armed with that knowledge, nobody in our groups ever plays a cleric. So, our games are always pretty rough, or else people take the Leadership feat and have a drag-along or home-dwelling Cleric. I mean, literally, in the last 10 years I've been playing D&D, in 2 different gaming groups, there has only been 1 cleric, and for some reason the player got bored of him.
I personally don't play Clerics because I dont like being responsible for other people's hit points or status effects. Also, I've been bit too many times by the whole "your deity wants you to do THIS" aspect of faith. Basically, I dont like my god being an instant foil for me being the GM's personal plot hook b****. Know what I mean? I also tend to find the ethos of a lot of the gods to be something I have a hard time identifying with. Finally, the domains are too limiting in the past. I'm not saying they aren't filled with some imbalance. I mean in terms of flavor.
As an aside, I always found Druids weak also. Yeah, that makes me a loser. :) However its my own fault. I hate animal companions, and I dont really like the wild shape aspects of the druid, and I dont like the nature buff stuff that stacks so well with all of that. So, I under-utilize them. I guess a lot of the power of the druid comes from all that. I always wanted more of a nature / storms / elemental druid. Anyway, I accept that somehow Druids rule, but I just dont like the mechanism by which they rule. I wish there were some kind of elemental druid, instead of the grappling, wildshape spellcasting, summons, animal companion, buff nightmare mofo.
Anyway back to the Cleric, I agree with some poster above that said that they want Clerics to be fun to play to 20, without feeling like you have to be the b**** a** buff/healer/responsible party. I'd like to play one that isn't oriented to being a healbot or a buffbot or a "better than a paladin" buff-self-holy combat machine.
I really wish that someone would take the time to come up with a Universal (BUT VERY MINIMAL) spell list for clerics. I mean extremely minimal. Then, you'd have a VERY LIMITED but thematic spell list for a potfolio (or domain) ... say 3-5 spells per level. Then your god would have 3 domains or portfolios and your spell list would simply be a combination of the Universal Spells and the 3 Portfolios. So, if your campaign had a god of Fire, Storms, and War, then you'd be calling down Fire, Lightning, Rain, and maybe doing some melee, plus the universal stuff (commune, detects, or whatever). If your god's portfolios were Plants, Animals, and Storms, you'd basically be a Druid. If you took Holy, War, and Sun then you'd be basically like the combat cheese Clerics that have been mentioned in this thread before, but you wouldn't be doing any serious healing. If you worshiped a weird god of Death, Water, and Knowledge then maybe you'd have some freaky aquatic death priest of secret lore or something, and you'd have the spells to match. I'd then drop Clerics to using light armor, and let the players or the domains add appropriate feats if any, for buffing that or other stuff.
Essentially, I'm all for balancing the Cleric but I wish the spell list were more .... I dunno .... thematic somehow.
Oh I also think it would be cool if non-healing domain clerics could get a healing aura similar to the ones that Dragon Shamans get that can heal allies up to half of max hp as a form of Fast healing. Maybe limit it to concentration. It would be a way to let all clerics, even non-healing ones, to just use divine energy to protect allies (heal, but only to half). That would really take the pressure off.
Finally about the min maxing and the roleplaying, I sorta agree that min-maxing isnt inherently counter to roleplaying. I do have to say that I do sometimes feel that if you have a weird character concept that doesnt fit certain builds though, that you can be screwed if you pursue it. I mean sure, if your concept is to be a great warrior, it makes sense to min-max to that. If however you want to be a Fighter with crazy high Knowledge skills, then you end up with some kind of screwed up bard/warrior combo that might find some tricky singing-based or performance-based end-run cheese tactic that makes them frightening in combat, but if you were really trying to min-max towards the skill aspect, while "merely" not therefore sucking at normal fighting as a side effect, you could be screwed. Plus you get some weird side effect of being a musician with magic when you really only wanted to be a Fighter Scholar.
I mean, how many min-maxers that are also roleplayers min-max toward a non-combat element? It seems hard to do since the rules orient toward combat. I unfortunately always screw myself because I often want to be stellar at non-com stuff.
Lewis
I'm aboslutely thrilled with the changes to the cleric, and I can't wait to see how he plays at higher levels.Without discussing channeling energy (which we all agree is fabulous), can you explain why the changes in the cleric class from 3.X to Beta have you so thrilled? Do you find that the changes to domain powers add to your excitement and/or ability to flesh out the character/roleplay?
Sure.
I like the at-will abilities. My cleric can use the fire-bolt ability whenever he wants, but it is really just a nice back-up weapon for when I'm out of spells or for when wading into combat isn't an ideal choice or possible. The ability to conjure fire at will is a physical manifestation of my connection to the sun goddess, which can be used for dramatic effect in the right roleplaying circumstance. So, I've found this is not an over-powered ability, but one that I nonetheless choose (despite the x-bow being a better option at low levels) to use because it fits with the character.
The Rebuke Death at-will ability has come in handy, too - especially as a priest of Sarenrae in the beginning of CotCT. I've developed into a bit of a hospitaler, giving healing to any severely wounded guardsmen who need my aid, whenever I am at the Citadel (which has helped the party gain their trust, and led to roleplaying opportunities). I haven't even tried to use it against undead, yet.
Regarding the 2nd level abilities, it is nice to have access to both of my domain abilities, rather than just the one I chose to memorize at the beginning of the day. In 3.5, my cleric could have chosen Burning Hands OR Cure Light Wounds as his 1st level domain spell. In the combat I described above, he wound up using BOTH of those abilities. I still have to plan out my other spells at the beginning of the day (and I really obsess over those choices), so I get the best of both worlds. I'm looking forward to getting both Lesser Restoration AND Resist Energy at next level, rather than being forced to choose between the two.
Got to cut this short - need to prepare for a meeting in 15 minutes :-)
Maximizing your character is natural and is roleplaying. Trying to be the best you can be--quite appropriate. What is wrong is assuming that every character should be able to be the penultimate of her class, and if she can't she's been penalized. It's not a memorable experience to play an ultimate character every time. 'Nuff said.
Having the powers from both domains is great for making a cleric that feels appropriately connected to his diety. My big question is why does the cleric have to study spells in the morning? Is he asking his diety to put him in a position to where he can use flame strike? No.
Every time a cleric casts a spell it should be spontaneous, as he is asking the diety to send help according to the current situation.
Giving the cleric spontaneous casting of all cleric spells might be a little extreme. You would need some way of judging if the diety thinks
help is really needed and just what form it should be. SOooo, instead give clerics the ability to convert spells to healing or domain spells.
BTW, I remember specialty priests well. I made an elven specialty priest of Corellon that I was aching to play, but the campaign got axed. Moving more towards that kind of cleric would be a great move IMO.
Yeah, I loved Specialty Priests too. That's kinda why I wished Clerics picked 3 Domains, but Domains were full spell lists and that was the ONLY way you got access to spells. I also like the idea of spontaneous casting.
I think it would be cool if a "fire, necromancy, healing" cleric got access to fire spells, necromancy spells, and healing spells, and few other spells at all. You'd make a great "God of the Apocalypse" priest. To limit the infinity of spell selections, you could have a "known" and a "cast per day" list not unlike a Sorcerer. That would be a VERY cool way to do a specialty priest.
Lewis
Sigh. My gripes with Clerics...
- they are support characters, nothing else.
Common misconception. You CAN play a cleric as a support character, or with a few levels under your belt you can beat the socks off any other character at their own game with a little buffing.
- they have too many spells on spell lists. And gain access immediately to them. With multitude of spells to memorize, often with vastly differing effects, it's hard to choose right and choose them quick.
This is a problem with all spell-casters. For the beginner it is not easy ... for the old hand, it's all too easy.
- their buffs add to bookkeeping.
All buffs add to bookkeeping. Buffs exist, live with it.
For a while now I have toyed with the following Cleric variant, of the following properties:
- spell list - as previously
- learns spells during meditation in holy places
- spells slots - as per sorcerer
- spell casting - as per sorcerer
= spellcasting vs metamagic feats - as per sorcerer (fewer quickened buffs)
- other class features - unchangedComments?
This is the Spontaneous Caster alternative to the cleric - and not a bad alternative either. Unfortunately it's also the Favoured Soul's casting method.
I really wish that someone would take the time to come up with a Universal (BUT VERY MINIMAL) spell list for clerics. I mean extremely minimal. Then, you'd have a VERY LIMITED but thematic spell list for a potfolio (or domain) ... say 3-5 spells per level. Then your god would have 3 domains or portfolios and your spell list would simply be a combination of the Universal Spells and the 3 Portfolios. So, if your campaign had a god of Fire, Storms, and War, then you'd be calling down Fire, Lightning, Rain, and maybe doing some melee, plus the universal stuff (commune, detects, or whatever). If your god's portfolios were Plants, Animals, and Storms, you'd basically be a Druid. If you took Holy, War, and Sun then you'd be basically like the combat cheese Clerics that have been mentioned in this thread before, but you wouldn't be doing any serious healing. If you worshiped a weird god of Death, Water, and Knowledge then maybe you'd have some freaky aquatic death priest of secret lore or something, and you'd have the spells to match. I'd then drop Clerics to using light armor, and let the players or the domains add appropriate feats if any, for buffing that or other stuff.
That's pretty much what I've suggested - have a smaller core, more domain spells and add the domain powers as well. It means a LOT of work recompiling all those spells into the lists many of which are not in the SRD ... a DM would have to go through the whole Spell Compendium ...
In other news, the title of this thread both confuses and irritates me.
Why is a lollipop fuzzy?!
|
Gah I hate that! You're carefully gnawing away at the candy shell hoping to get to Tootsie Roll center before you crack a tooth and you have to settle for letting it sit in your mouth for a moment, letting your saliva go to work, and you finally get to it but by that time you've got all this soft mushy paper at your lips working its way into your mouth and its all gross and ARG.
|
|
Yea, the 8th level Dispel Magic power seems cool but gets relatively useless at higher levels.
Does flurry of blows become less useful at high levels? Does a good selection of favored enemy? Of course not.
If Dispelling Touch's value does depreciate then it's another domain power that needs to be fixed.
Not a Marilyn Monroe fan, are you? :)
She was years before my time.
I'm as high quality as 4e
I'm so glad I got to this topic late.
But are the current domain powers reflective of a genuine connection to the deity, or simply a thematic tool that can hurt the bad guy?
Just to be clear, the bonus spells from the domains are the same as before (I think); they're just missing a few spell levels (no level 3, 4, 6, or 8 spells). So I presume you're talking about the domains' bonus abilities at level 1 and 8.
eh all I do is add the missing spells to that clerics normal list. It really isn't hard to convert over domains.
|
|
you're talking about the domains' bonus abilities at level 1 and 8.
I think there needs to be a better selection of bonus spells given too, things that are unique to the caster. But, yes, I'm talking about the first and eighth level domain powers that need to be retooled. I've offered suggestions in other parts of this thread.
|
|
eh all I do is add the missing spells to that clerics normal list. It really isn't hard to convert over domains.
My best personal option at the moment is, assuming nothing is changed with domains in the Beta, is carrying around the Spell Compendium with the PFRPG handbook. Other people in this thread said they'd so the same thing. But if there's enough agreement that things in the domains should be revised (and most (not all) of the voices here saying that they're better in the Beta than they were in 3.X seem to be coming from those who believe that the cleric class needs to be punished for being "too powerful" in other editions) there's no reason anyone should have to carry around that second book.
|
|
The vast majority of that is stuff the cleric can do with their spells. "I can neutralize poison at 12th level" is not that impressive when a cleric can do it at level 7. Same for removing curses, breaking enchantments, etc. The personal immunities are about it. Smiting really sucks - oh yay, a moderate damage bonus a couple times a day. For a pally to be decent they need more and better stuff of their own - 90% of their abilities are "like a cleric can do, but worse!"
Agree on the domains, disagree on paladins.Holy warrior: good spellcasting, good BAB, channel positive energy, good hit dice, 2 good saves.
Paladin: Secondary spellcasting, good BAB, channel positive energy, good hit dice, one good save, Detect evil, smite evil, immune to disease, immune to poison, immune to fear, immune to mind control, CHA bonus to saves, bonded weapon or mount, lay on hands, remove disease, curses, enchantments, and poison, grant smiting to allies, punch through the DR of many evil outsiders with any weapon picked up by the paladin, and damage reduction. That does not all add up to nothing, especially since paladin spells are now keyed off of CHA, just like divine grace, lay on hands, and channel positive energy!Paladins are not fighter/clerics. They are their own thing, and the Pathfinder version of them is enough to make evil foes experience incontinence. They are a veritable pious freight train.
You're disregarding that the paladin is immune to almost everything. You're disregarding that the paladin can do all of that stuff and cast spells that clerics don't get access to. (Holy sword, for instance). You're disregarding that that "moderate damage bonus" also comes with an accuracy bonus. Is the cleric more powerful? Of course. Primary spellcasters are more powerful than anything else in 3.5 (except, possibly, primary psionicists) so what? Just because something more powerful is out there doesn't mean that everything else is bad. If the foundation of your argument was true, it would be an utterly miserable experience to play anything but a wizard or druid. That is obviously false. I've seen every class in the PHB played by people who enjoyed the heck out of the experience. I personally love playing paladins (if you'd like some proof, gounder my profile and check out Kyran Semnir, my paladin of Erastil in a PbP game on these very boards.) And if none of this moves you, maybe this will: leave my paladins alone! Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the game!
Read the thread*, but still hold that the news domains are weak (both flavour and power level). I'd be happy if it was made an official option that you could choose to use either use 3.5 domains or pathfinder domains with your clerics. I'll be house ruleing to that effect regardless, but it's always nicer when you don't have to resort to that.
* Arrived here via a google search 'pathfinder rpg cleric domains suck' ;)
P.S Now that domains are weak, and divine power gives haste and luck bonuses instead of BAB, the Pathfinder 'Holy Warrior' subtype is a no brainer for core-only players.