I like.
Now I'm curious for any more hints on changes to Medium/Heavy Armor...
I think the reversion to Domain Spells is good, more backwards compatable for sure.
...I really don't understand the complaints that Clerics no longer have 'cool powers' - What the hell are Fireball, Burning Hands, and stuff like Invisibility, Detect Thoughts (like other Domains offer), BUT the very definition of 'cool powers'? I simply can't see how mechanical differences (Vancian spell slots vs. at-will/per day powers) at all interferes with flavor/role-playing richness. ...I don't see why I couldn't play a Sarenrae worshipper like Kyra using practically ANY system, from Vancian Casting/ 3.x, to 100% skill-based like D6, to 4th Edition, to a 3.x Psi-Points system... ????
...I'm GUESSING the per day abilities (like Fire Bolt) that WERE retained are based on Cleric Level - Which if true, would signifigantly reign them in at low levels, where Beta's at-will touch attacks seemed just a bit overpowered. Very Good.
So far is looks like CMD is 10 + str bonus + dex bonus + deflection bonus...and may include other things.
I may be simplifying it to much, but really looks like CMD = CMB + Touch AC. At least thats how it works out on all the previews. Now what goes in to make the CMB may be a different story.
Not a fan of the new way to handle concentration checks. Double the spell level is too much, way too much. A level 17 mage/cleric once he gets caught in melee with a fighter will have little chance to use their level 9 spell. 17 + 7 (maybe if they are lucky)....against needing a 33 to cast defensively. 40% chance to blow it? No, that is too much. Sorry, wont use a rule that will destroy casters in melee. The guy at the end of RoTRL will get crushed like a baby using that rule.He will, but only if:
1. The fighter is able to get up next to him (and the HL wizard had better have a jillion ways to keep that from happening, including mooks and illusions to divert the fighter from the real target, things like mislead, project image, mirror image, greater invisibility, etc.).
2. Once the fighter is next to him he actually can hit the guy (no magical effects blocking or impeding his attack).
3. Most importantly, nowhere does it say the wizard MUST use his highest-level spells at all times. He's got 9 levels of spells (plus cantrips). So, assuming #1 and #2 are already true, and the fighter is ready to rock, then heaven forbid the 17th-level caster needs to auto-succeed (0% chance to blow it) at Concentration to cast dimension door (or similar effect) to move away.
So, the smart caster will make sure he's prepared for melee-ers, but should one get up in his grill, he casts a lower-level spell to get away, then brings out the big guns again once he's put some distance between himself and the attacker(s).
The first thing that will happen in the final battle will be the party casters throwing dispell magic/greater dispells at him in mass. Soon enough his precast spells will be in trouble. Then the fighter and any other melee will try and make thier way to him and he will be forced to either allow the casters to keep picking away his defenses or deal some death on them, hoping he can drop them before the melee reach him. Eventually one way or another the melee will be in his face, and they with these rules he will be unable to match them with his best stuff because no way when the chips are down does he roll the dice on DC'ing the good stuff, so he's using level 6 or less spells....what was the point of having level 7,8, and 9 spells if when he really needs them most, he can't use them?
Well I own markers will just cross that out of the pathfinder book when it comes. I like getting rid of the skill, but not this way. It's ok. Never expected pathfinder to be perfect.Nothing ever is, but I'd classify the ability of melee characters to honestly threaten or inconvenience spellcasters at high level on the rare occasions they can actually get up into melee with them as a feature, not a bug. YMMV.
In a situation like this it isn't threatening him, it's making him unable to fight back. It's not that rare that the melee gets to melee range against high end casters, it's very much when the high end casters need their best stuff, but in pathfinder that is stripped from them. That's not balanced, that's making melee too powerful. Basically if they get into melee, it's over. I'm even more concerned with clerics, they have far less ways to keep melee back, why then do clerics even bother with heavy armor if once in melee they can't cast their best stuff anyway?
Melee already does tremendous damage amounts, just about killing off any caster in a round or two once in melee, but to add this so the caster can't even give it his all at this most critical time for him, seems wholly unfair to them.
|
*As to DC, it's what 33 for a 9th level spell? 18th level wizard with a 20 int has a 23 modifier, so that's a 50/50 chance. 18th level ranger has a 35/65 chance with a 20 wis. Difficult yes, but not insurmountable.
A wizard casting his 9th level spell with a 50/50 chance to cast defensively at level 18 is not insurmountable?
How about a level 1 cleric with a 15 wisdom? He gets a massive +3 on his check and has to hit 17....so he's failing 65% of the time.
That's not very cool. How about a level 9 cleric casting his level 5 spell, give him a 20 wisdom. He fails half the time with a bloody 20 wisdom at level 9. This will really push the value of inflated stats way up. And will make combat casting not an option, but a requirement, and against a fighter only a method of breaking even. They should up the melee strength of clerics and mages with this change, because once stuck in they can't rely on spells to get them through it. A 50% failure rate to cast your best spell defensively is way too much. Poorly thought out change, maybe they should have posted this idea before sending the book to the printer. It's a real shame they didn't care to do so.
And once again, your doing the math without the spellcaster not having any defence up at all. Mirror Image, Improved invisibility, any number of things can be thrown up to make the attack harder to land.
Fact of the matter is, if you get a fighter next to a wizard of even levels, it's going to be nasty. Getting a spell off might be the last of a spellcaster's worries. Keeping his liver inside might just top that.
|
I like.
Now I'm curious for any more hints on changes to Medium/Heavy Armor...I think the reversion to Domain Spells is good, more backwards compatable for sure.
...I really don't understand the complaints that Clerics no longer have 'cool powers' - What the hell are Fireball, Burning Hands, and stuff like Invisibility, Detect Thoughts (like other Domains offer), BUT the very definition of 'cool powers'? I simply can't see how mechanical differences (Vancian spell slots vs. at-will/per day powers) at all interferes with flavor/role-playing richness. ...I don't see why I couldn't play a Sarenrae worshipper like Kyra using practically ANY system, from Vancian Casting/ 3.x, to 100% skill-based like D6, to 4th Edition, to a 3.x Psi-Points system... ????...I'm GUESSING the per day abilities (like Fire Bolt) that WERE retained are based on Cleric Level - Which if true, would signifigantly reign them in at low levels, where Beta's at-will touch attacks seemed just a bit overpowered. Very Good.
I never felt they were overpowered, more that if you were being honest with it, by giving clerics unlimited at will ranged touch attacks, they just started to play like wizards in armor, at least in my games what I saw was a cleric that stayed in the back blasting with a ranged touch and casting the occasional spell. With channel energy I didn't even see them running into combat to heal as much anymore. It really seemed to me that the feel of the cleric was being lost.
|
|
The first thing that will happen in the final battle will be the party casters throwing dispell magic/greater dispells at him in mass. Soon enough his precast spells will be in trouble. Then the fighter and any other melee will try and make thier way to him and he will be forced to either allow the casters to keep picking away his defenses or deal some death on them, hoping he can drop them before the melee reach him. Eventually one way or another the melee will be in his face, and they with these rules he will be unable to match them with his best stuff because no way when the chips are down does he roll the dice on DC'ing the good stuff, so he's using level 6 or less spells....what was the point of having level 7,8, and 9 spells if when he really needs them most, he can't use them?
Um 5' step and cast still works, so does taking a single AoO to move out of threatened range and then casting. So he can still blast off those 9th level spells "when he needs them" he just shouldn't expect to do it while at arms length from the caster. Hell expecting him to be able to do it while someone is filling him with holes is kind of silly. 9th level spells are serious altering of reality we're talking summoning iron golems and meteor swarms. and your complaining because it's hard to do it if you don't 5' step. Not impossible, hard. and not even that hard.
Director of Game Design
|
*As to DC, it's what 33 for a 9th level spell? 18th level wizard with a 20 int has a 23 modifier, so that's a 50/50 chance. 18th level ranger has a 35/65 chance with a 20 wis. Difficult yes, but not insurmountable.
A wizard casting his 9th level spell with a 50/50 chance to cast defensively at level 18 is not insurmountable?
How about a level 1 cleric with a 15 wisdom? He gets a massive +3 on his check and has to hit 17....so he's failing 65% of the time.
That's not very cool. How about a level 9 cleric casting his level 5 spell, give him a 20 wisdom. He fails half the time with a bloody 20 wisdom at level 9. This will really push the value of inflated stats way up. And will make combat casting not an option, but a requirement, and against a fighter only a method of breaking even. They should up the melee strength of clerics and mages with this change, because once stuck in they can't rely on spells to get them through it. A 50% failure rate to cast your best spell defensively is way too much. Poorly thought out change, maybe they should have posted this idea before sending the book to the printer. It's a real shame they didn't care to do so.
Lets just step back a moment.. literally. The caster can still take a 5 foot step back and cast a spell. Only if the enemy has the Step Up feat is this going to be a problem, otherwise, no check is needed. I know this is not always possible, but the power of spellcasters needs to have some checks and balances to it. Being able to cast high level spells in the face of your enemy should be hard... and a 50% chance of your highest level spells is far from unreasonable. Its a change, but one that adds a bit of tactics into the equation.. which is a good thing.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Edit: Ninja'd...
|
|
Lets see 15+18=33,
So 17+6 from wisdom boosted by magic items = 23+4 from combat casting =27
33-27=6 If you take combat casting you need to roll a whoping 6 to cast a 9th level spell without provoking an AoO. What was that about it being too hard Thurgon? If anything I think it's still too easy.
Okay at 17th level lets say you haven't bought items to maximise your casting stat, so lets say it's only 19 just enough to actually cast those 19th level spells.
17+4=21+4(cc)=25. 33-25=8 Your telling me that rolling an 8 is too much to be expected of a caster in melee to pop off a 9th level spell without an AoO?
Man, where is Lilith with the cookies. This thread needs cookies.
Mrfmghl mrf gljh...*noms on white chocolate macadamia cookies*
*hides the cookie jar*
3. Most importantly, nowhere does it say the wizard MUST use his highest-level spells at all times. He's got 9 levels of spells (plus cantrips). So, assuming #1 and #2 are already true, and the fighter is ready to rock, then heaven forbid the 17th-level caster needs to auto-succeed (0% chance to blow it) at Concentration to cast dimension door (or similar effect) to move away.
Amen. The (2x Spell Level) change makes it a signifigant choice to chance a high level spell or drop back to 'easier' spells that you know you can pull the Casting Defensive DC for. Makes sense, allows melee types to affect Casters' choice of actions merely by their presence, without necessarily "all or nothing" shutting them down, and it means Casters' low level spells will continue to have signifigant relevance at high levels.
And will make combat casting not an option, but a requirement, and against a fighter only a method of breaking even. They should up the melee strength of clerics and mages with this change, because once stuck in they can't rely on spells to get them through it. A 50% failure rate to cast your best spell defensively is way too much. Poorly thought out change, maybe they should have posted this idea before sending the book to the printer. It's a real shame they didn't care to do so.
Sure, "a requirement" except for those Casters content enough in their ability to avoid being in threat range in the first place. Your 1st level Cleric example, can of course simply take a 5' step (or a Move Action) if they need to get out of Threat Range - Nobody is going to have the Step Up Feat at that level, and it's not even like every Melee opponent will have it at high levels, either. And with Combat Casting, that same 1st level Cleric would have about a 55% chance of Defensive Casting - about the same chance of making a melee hit at that level. And curiously, given such a sour grapes response, THERE IS ONLY -1/20 OF DIFFENCE TO 3.5 AT 1ST LEVEL. And since 2xSpell Level pretty much scales 1:1 with Caster Level, yet the Casting Stat will tend to increase, the difficulty of pulling off "the highest Spell Level" will DECREASE at higher levels.
From my experience debating rules areas including exactly this one during the Beta Playtest, I feel I can safely say: This definitely WAS a well thought out change. Making melee a sub-optimal place to be casting spells is a design goal many seem to feel is a GOOD change to 3.5 - It emphasizes the ASYMMETRY between melee and spellcasting, which has been the central principle since the earliest days of D&D. 3.0/3.5 by far went furthest in favoring Casting - finding a balance between 3.x and 2nd Edition, would IMHO be the sweet spot of D&D/d20.
But besides the update to the melee/casting dynamic, another great benefit of this I see is: Clerics (and Sorcerors) no longer "need" to devote their measly Skill Point allotment to the "obligatory" Concentration skill, freeing it up for broader utility or even role-play/"fluff" skills.
I like.
Now I'm curious for any more hints on changes to Medium/Heavy Armor...
Me too. Jason, any chance we can get more info on that? Armor proficiencies for the cleric? Or can you at least confirm the chainmail with 6 AC isn't a typo?
|
Director of Game Design
|
Me too. Jason, any chance we can get more info on that? Armor proficiencies for the cleric? Or can you at least confirm the chainmail with 6 AC isn't a typo?I like.
Now I'm curious for any more hints on changes to Medium/Heavy Armor...
The AC is not a typo...
The rest.. I have no comment at this time...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Ha ha, I ninja'd the Bulmahn, fear my skills.
Edit: Ninja'd...You'll pay for this lastknightleft... I am going to tear 6 random pages out of your copy of the RPG...
:-P
Jason
If you actually do this, I would proudly use and weild my PRPG book marred by the designer himself as testiment to my mastery. So go ahead, in fact do it now, and make sure you sign it as my birthday gift (tomorrow is my birthday).
If you want to be nice you can include the ripped out pages in the package so that I'm not actually missing the content, but oh well, if I'm missing the content small price to pay.
Mediocre.
Much better than the sorcerer (who should have been ganked/nerfed even more), but not much. I am glad, though, that the backwards compatibility is decent. I am unsure, though, about this whole new concentration mechanic. I like the reasoning why, but...
Certainly nothing so far to get me to move from 3.5.
|
if to play the game I want I need 3 extra books, and one is the Beta, DO i really need PF RPG?Sorry, I do not get you here. If I read you correctly, you were rather satisfied with the Beta Cleric mechanics... hence, what are the other 3 extra books you need? It would seem to be Beta (a free download) and the PF core.
a) PF RPG Beta... the classes, the rases, the skill system, combat system
b) DnD PH 3.0: spells... hate 3.5 nerfs... with a vengueance... PF RPG final has more nerfs...c) BoXM for interesting mechanics... feats, mechanics on healing, spells...
while I am running a game in Absalom using only the Beta Rules and the 3.0 Player's Handbook... in an individual party we are trying the cleric with the spells dividied in 20 levels, and the mechanics of healing... that same character we tried it first in PF Beta, so we found things on both systems of ehaling we liked... still checking... [b]Domains[/d] went unchanged from the Beta
I can see that this is going to be the situation of a lot of prospective PFRPG buyers. We have experience with 3.5. Part of the "backward compability" concern goes into this direction: not only adapting 3.5 adventures, but letting 3.5 players incorporate their favorite PrClass, race, domain, whatever, or a rule variation they prefer from pre-PF incarnations of the game. Most of us have a history with the game and have personal big yes and nos for certain rules. That is certainly not the PF designers' fault, it is due to our own gaming baggage (and actually, trying to find a midpoint amidsts those many baggages is a designer's virtue).
for me is more about how many books do i need to bring to the table, or where to look for information to run a normal game... and yes I understand the intent on compromise... I saluted the bold steps because they were corageous and interesting... stepping back, well it was perceived more as a they were push over those who claimed it was the least compatible thing on the rules...
On the other hand, I am pretty happy that 3.5 remains in print in a single tome (+ bestiary, you cannot help that), especially if the tome takes as default a campaign work I like for its flavor and quality.
don't take me wrong I love Golarion... my issue is with what i am seeing with the final version of PFRPG... i suppose I am left to see how much would the Paladin, Bard and Barbarian suffer now :P
As a player of a cleric of Sarenrae with the Fire and Sun domain, I am very happy. :D
(Lastnightleft: happy early birthday)
Me too. Jason, any chance we can get more info on that? Armor proficiencies for the cleric? Or can you at least confirm the chainmail with 6 AC isn't a typo?I like.
Now I'm curious for any more hints on changes to Medium/Heavy Armor...
The AC is not a typo...
The rest.. I have no comment at this time...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks! Well, as I see no reason for giving a suboptimal armor to dexterity challenged Kyra (unless to preserve some mobility?), it seems clerics are down to medium armor.
As for chainmail truly giving 6 AC now, only the upcoming paladin preview can hope to give us some more info on heavier armors! Can't wait :)
a) PF RPG Beta... the classes, the rases, the skill system, combat system
b) DnD PH 3.0: spells... hate 3.5 nerfs... with a vengueance... PF RPG final has more nerfs...
c) BoXM for interesting mechanics... feats, mechanics on healing, spells...
You know, given that, you're a pretty atypical example of a player/GM. You should perhaps mention that your baseline is so far off from standard: people can better classify your comments and how they relate to their own situation.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Taking time to think about it, I like the new rules for concentration, they aren't my prefered system, I much prefer it to be based off of enemy BAB, but compared to the old by level 4 you can always succesfully cast without provoking the AoO. Now you can still cast your lower level spells in melee at higher level with no risk, but casting the big ones you're liable to take an AoO, Combat casting looks like a decent feat at all levels, and with feats for people to follow, there isn't always the option of 5' step back and fire. Now we just have to see how your check to keep a spell when you take damage works. So getting past my dissapointment that it isn't harder and BAB based, I think this version is a good one. At least I'll playtest it before making any changes.
The nerf of darkness still bugs the heck out of me, but cest la vie, I can live with just one houserule.
I actually love the darkness rule because way back to 1st Ed this has been a bugaboo of the game - a "darkness" spell equaling automatic mass blindness. It was just too low-level for the severity of the effect.
This system also gives a logical answer finally to what really happens when a light spell and a darkness spell intersect. Previously, if they canceled each other out, then... what? Ambient light conditions? What if you cast a light spell INSIDE of a larger darkness spell (or vice versa)? Higher-level vs. lower-level light/darkness spells? I think having a light "condition track" is a great idea.
(and as stated before I *LIKE* the idea that a spellcaster that is being closely pressed by an enemy combatants can't just cast the big guns with impunity, but needs to rely on lower-level but reliable magic OR go ahead and take the chance and fire the big one)
But, we all have different tastes and nobody's gonna be wholly happy. I can think of a few house rule ideas we've talked about on the design forum threads that I may yet implement in final-version PF as house rules.
|
|
So far is looks like CMD is 10 + str bonus + dex bonus + deflection bonus...and may include other things.I may be simplifying it to much, but really looks like CMD = CMB + Touch AC. At least thats how it works out on all the previews. Now what goes in to make the CMB may be a different story.
First as to the intent of this thread:
I like most of what I'm seeing with the cleric. I am a bit ambivalent with feat needed for turning/channeling (if that's how it works).
I do like the limitating on Fiery Bolt, and the Domain Spells are back - which is good - for the sake that there were a few of the Domain Powers in the Beta that were FAR better than most of the others and made min/maxing too obvious a choice. So I wouldn't mind a powers system that Beta had if the powers were better balanced among themselves and/or integrated with domain spells for a best of both worlds feel to have some of each.
The fact that you heal or harm with a single use of channeling is a needed fix. Especially with all the playtesting DMs using necros and undead as a good use of screwing PCs - damaging them while simultaneously healing his minions.
That all being said - I hadn't really given the CMD much thought before this thread and this post specifically.
I will say that I would be most displeased if "TOUCH AC" was the prime component for CMD - it makes sense pragmatically - but I have always loathed (and that's a strong understatement of a word choice for me) 3rd editions impetus and beneficient mechanics towards the dextrous-lightly armored type builds.
I love 3rd edition (3.5 specifically), but that was the one thing that always drove me crazy!!! The Touch AC onus was just wrong! Not only does it perpetuate the need of one of the boring mechanics-needed magical items (ring of protection), not only did it nearly eliminate a desire for having a heavily armored "tank" since so many horrible spells attacked one's "Touch AC", not only did it perpetuate those nimble rogue types who had Evasion anyway and now were a bad option as a target for touch spells, too, but now CMD may continue to perpetuate that build.
Consider a 10th level fighter/rogue combo - with a CMB of 10 and touch AC of 21 - that's a 31 CMD!!! Compare that to a similar 10th paladin tank with a CMB of 12 and a touch AC of 12.
That was why I've always loathed the touch AC - not the mechanic itself - but that SO MUCH was hinged on it, that it was such a significantly better option for almost everything (not to mention the build is benefitted with better movement.)
The paladin is and always has been my bread and butter as a player - (part of the equation as to my loathing of the benefits to lightly armored dex types). I am so looking forward to next week's preview.
EDIT: once again for the record - I don't loathe dextrous/light armored built characters - they're fun. I loathe the amount of impact the rules make beneficially to them in third edition - far more than the previous editions. This is not Paizo's fault - it's a 3rd edition aspect. I am just unhappy that CMD may be cashing in on it's already universal be all that ends all mechanic in the system.
Robert
On this point I agree. All (or at least most) classes need more skill points. It is just too difficult to make a character with an interesting background with just two or three skill points.
1. Stop making Int your dump stat.
2. Use your favored class bonus.3. Stop making Int your dump stat.
So yes, tactically Pathfinder's Channel Energy is far inferior.
Good, because 3E turning was a thick, meaty gravy on a class that was already the turducken of the core game.
Challenge ratings in 3E, even for undead, were based on the assumption that you DIDN'T have a cleric in your group. Thus, the challenge was appropriate for the PCs' average level if you didn't have a cleric, and if you DID have a cleric, the player's reaction was supposed to be, "Ha, that was easy because of the cleric."So toning down a class ability that allowed you to EASILY overcome an entire category of encounters is a GOOD thing. I can't imagine a level 1 class ability on any other class that has the equivalent "I made this entire encounter a cakewalk" effect.
This may upset you, but if your favorite class is the most powerful class in the game, and PFRPG tries to adjust all classes so they're closer in power level, of course you're going to be upset. But it's like going to a movie theater has ONE seat that lets you see the movie in 3D and IMAX quality, and you call dibs on that seat every time, except since the last time you went to the theater they took out the 3D but gave every seat the IMAX quality. And free popcorn and soda. You lost a little, everyone else gained a lot, and everyone (including you) gained things you didn't have before. Overall, you're better off than you were before.
You're also ignoring that (as some other posters pointed out), 3E turning gets weaker against CR-appropriate challenges as your character level increases, eventually reaching the point where 3E turning simply CAN'T affect undead of your CR at all. PFRPG channeling allows your turning to remain viable at all levels.
Despite this quirk of 3E turning, the 3E cleric was still the Best Core Class In the Game. Better saves than a wiz. Better HD than a wiz. No spellbook. Comparable spell damage. Can wear heavy armor. Can cast spells in heavy armor. Several spells that make the cleric as good at fighting as the fighter. Best heals in the game. If the cleric were a home PC, it would be so overclocked you'd need to dunk it in liquid nitrogen to keep it from burning up. Now it's on par with the other classes. This may make the cleric-fans unhappy, but I'm willing to accept that if it makes all the other players not feel that their characters suck in comparison to the cleric.
How about a level 1 cleric with a 15 wisdom? He gets a massive +3 on his check and has to hit 17....so he's failing 65% of the time. That's not very cool. How about a level 9 cleric casting his level 5 spell, give him a 20 wisdom. He fails half the time with a bloody 20 wisdom at level 9.
Idea: If you're a caster who wants to cast spells in the middle of combat, stay out of reach of the guy with the big sharp metal thing. The easiest way to cast a spell without interruption is to stay at least 10 feet away from anyone wanting to kill you with melee attacks.
This may upset you, but if your favorite class is the most powerful class in the game, and PFRPG tries to adjust all classes so they're closer in power level, of course you're going to be upset.
Did you honestly just try to claim that Cleric is the favorite class in the group I play in?
Even after stating the opposite?
Even after admitting Sorcerer is one of the most favored classes in that group?
A class that got beefed up in Beta, and has seen very little "debuffing" in final, as far as we can see from the previews.
Is that where you took this?
Well, as I see no reason for giving a suboptimal armor to dexterity challenged Kyra (unless to preserve some mobility?), it seems clerics are down to medium armor.
Well, obviously, I can't say for sure until August 13th, but this reasoning is probably incorrect.
In the Ranger preview they gave suboptimal weapons (hand crossbow) to the ranger.
When asked about it, Paizo responded that they built him to match the artwork - optimization was not a salient consideration.
Looking at the cleric in the PF book, she is clearly wearing shin-length chainmail.
So my theory is that they put her in chainmail to match the artwork.
Whether or not they limited clerics to medium armor may have to wait for the official rulebook, but the rest of this is strait from the horse's (Paizo Pony's) mouth.
My bet, givien Paizo's penchant for backward compatibility, is that they didn't remove heavy armor from clerics.
|
|
But, we all have different tastes and nobody's gonna be wholly happy. I can think of a few house rule ideas we've talked about on the design forum threads that I may yet implement in final-version PF as house rules.
Yeah me and you went back and forth for a while on that paladin thread over something that really didn't effect much of our mechanics discussions because when we were talking plain mechanics we were practically twins in how in sync we were at the time but we had a 4 page argument based off of opinion on features and their levels lol :) good times, and I've always enjoyed discussing things with you.
Idea: If you're a caster who wants to cast spells in the middle of combat, stay out of reach of the guy with the big sharp metal thing. The easiest way to cast a spell without interruption is to stay at least 10 feet away from anyone wanting to kill you with melee attacks.
So easy to say, and yet so hard to do.
You, sir, are a smart spellcaster. Clever and knowledgeable in the ways of your class and of combat in general. You know this idea of yours to be true.
Unfortunately, you will face many foes who are smart metal thing wielders. Clever and knowlegeable in the ways of their classes and of combat in general. They also know this idea of yours to be true.
But, they have found many ways to overcome your idea.
- Attack in great numbers so the spellcasters have nowhere to go.
- Use ranged weapons and delay until the spellcaster tries to cast a spell.
- Use magic of their own to increase their mobility.
- Take feats, like Step Up, to ensure they can move about the battlefield with you, or punish you with an AoO for moving farther away.
- And there are more tricks, too.
So yes, your idea, while easy to grasp, may be very very difficult to apply.
A great and wise man once said:
In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is - Yogi Berra
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
This may upset you, but if your favorite class is the most powerful class in the game, and PFRPG tries to adjust all classes so they're closer in power level, of course you're going to be upset.Did you honestly just try to claim that Cleric is the favorite class in the group I play in?
Even after stating the opposite?
Even after admitting Sorcerer is one of the most favored classes in that group?
A class that got beefed up in Beta, and has seen very little "debuffing" in final, as far as we can see from the previews.
Is that where you took this?
Um, no?
Looks like he was using "you" in the general sense. In that "someone whose favorite class is cleric" might be upset.
a thick, meaty gravy on a class that was already the turducken of the core game.
Boom!
This guy is my new hero!
Bye bye Brett Favre, hello Sean K. Reynolds!
(draws a circle around SKR on hist telestrator)
|
*Note to self, start going to bed earlier on Tuesday nights. hmm, Deadliest Catch or Beta Preview, decisions decisions...*Deadliest always! Have to know what's going on with Phil and the Cornelia Marie, or Keith and Time Bandit.Silly Lazaro, Keith's on the Wizard (and I worry about that boat, it and its crew seem to have been battered to hell and back in the past two years).
I'm just sad that Phil's not at 100%, he really needs to pay back the Hillstrandts for that truck thing. He reminds me a lot of my father.
Gah, was half asleep when I posted.
I have skimmed this thread and ya know what not to offend anyone but I was expecting the whining.
I can't out fight the fighter! they ruined my spells!
I can't cake walk every undead encounter!
I can't heal and hurt at the same time!
I have to pay a feat! a feat I tell you to make undead run!
I can fail a defensive spell check!!1 What do you mean I can fail!
The domains went back to 3.5!...no there are not 100% 3.5!
I can't cast oth level all day!
Like I said don't mean to offend but each point has been whined over. And they needed it. Hell if It was me heavy armor would go too.
In the end this will make a better balanced class. So if no one else says it well done Jason, well done indeed
I will await the druid whining now
|
|
You know, given that, you're a pretty atypical example of a player/GM. You should perhaps mention that your baseline is so far off from standard: people can better classify your comments and how they relate to their own situation.
a) PF RPG Beta... the classes, the rases, the skill system, combat system
b) DnD PH 3.0: spells... hate 3.5 nerfs... with a vengueance... PF RPG final has more nerfs...
c) BoXM for interesting mechanics... feats, mechanics on healing, spells...
basically the ideas was not to depend on the Beta :P
I have no hopes for the magic :P we are in a high fantasy game... but with no games to make high fantasy stuff, just plot devices :P (until i get a ritual to create a runefountain I am stick to this :P)
and atypical? I thought PFRPG was for those who uised books of other editions to compliment their games :P (lol joking, more seriously part of the idea was to reduce the number of rulebooks I use :P, and the beta is stuck there basically for Domains!)
Before discussing what I liked about the changes in the preview, I'd like to discuss the 3.5 cleric class in general, since I have it's one of the classes I typically play.
MY VIEW
First of all, I feel that clerics are probably one of the most powerful classes in 3.5, but that's OK in a way because most people don't want to play clerics anyway. On the other hand, clerics should not get any gains in power without losing something first to balance it out. The PF beta gave them too many new abilities without really removing anything.
Second, I've always wanted 3.5 clerics to be less generic and more unique and customized to the god and domains they represent. Sure, Turn Undead should be available to the prototypical cliché D&D cleric, but it clearly doesn’t belong in the cleric portfolio of the goddess of love or the god of weather. And why would a cleric of the destruction domain be able to spontaneously cast healing spells? A lot of it didn't make any sense to me and in my home game I made simple substitutions to make clerics that actually represent their domain/god.
GOOD
So anyway, what did I like about the Pathfinder preview version?
It looks like Jason removed the heavy armor and perhaps shield proficiences from clerics. I think this is good, as long as there is a balance of power returned to the cleric at some point. In my house rules, I also removed the heavy armor and shield proficiences but allow clerics to select a bonus feat from a list based on the domain they select.
I like how he changed Turn Undead into "Channel Energy". I think this opens up the cleric to new ways to customization and this also offers more healing power to the party (which is always good).
I like how Turn Undead is now a feat and clerics with the domains of Animals, Plants, Love, and Weather might not necessarily choose to have this ability. Hopefully another feat replaces Turn Undead and the cleric class just doesn't have an overall loss of power, since clerics are low in the number of feats they have compared to other classes already. In my house rules, clerics also lost the ability to turn undead, but gained a bonus feat in return (according to the domain they select).
The actual mechanics to Turn Undead are a huge improvement over the 3E mechanics and ironically it's what I've been using for years now. I hate charts and I've always found the D&D mechanics for Turn Undead to be clunky.
I liked that Channel Energy didn't Turn Undead, heal, and damage at the same time. That was a bit too overpowered.
I like that some of the cleric spells that make them better than fighters were nerfed (Divine Power, etc), however I hope they weren't nerfed too badly since those spells also had a very limited duration.
I also liked how Jason took a chance by giving clerics the ability to cast something as powerful as Fireball by selecting certain domains. In my houserules, I did this as well, but I sometimes had to balance it out with disadvantages for that domain as well. Spells like Fireball are "class defining" spells so if you're going to give these spells to clerics, there better be something to balance it.
I liked how curses, diseases, and poisons are not automatically removed. Well, it seems like a good change without playtesting it anyway.
Hopefully, instead of every cleric being able to spontaneously cast 'cure' spells, clerics can spontaneously cast spells from their domain list(s). This was by far the best change I made to the cleric class at my table.
BAD
And now for the bad.
My biggest concern has to do with casting defensively with Concentration rolls. The concentration mechanics that were proposed are VERY extreme. If I'm 4th level (+7 bonus to concentrate with WIS 16) and I try to cast a 2nd level spell, I need 12 or more on a D20. That's a 55% chance to lose my spell! To me, that is FAR too severe. And it continues as well, at 8th level to cast a 4th level spell, there is a 50% chance to lose the spell. If this is how the numbers work, spellcasters will be gimped as hell. Spellcasters will now be running around the room, to even get a spell off, eating tonnes of AoO and getting rammed. I don' t think this was properly playtested imo, but we'll see.
Even if spellcasters can take a 5 foot step, first of all no one likes the 5 foot mechanic (except maybe Sean). Second of all, most melee characters will have the Step Up feat, especially with these changes! It's a "must have" feat, just like Combat Casting is a "must have" for all casters now. "Must have" feats are not a good thing. Third, at higher levels a lot of monsters have reach, which means the 5 foot step and cast doesn't work. Fourth, sometimes a spellcaster is surrounded and can't take this step.
I think in general spellcasters were already punished enough in melee combat. Their low AC added up to tonnes of damage, they have no CMB and were usually grappled (which also meant no spellcasting in PF), and had lower hp. Now it's just ridiculous.
I also agree with Montalve, turning undead should do damage as well as give them a chance to run.
Very minor concern, but if you're going to majorly nerf a spell like Death Ward (from immunity to a +4 bonus) hopefully you changed the spell's duration from 1 min/lvl to 10 minutes/lvl. Even so, the spell is bordering on worthless now.
I also feel that Fire Bolt should have remained an at-will power for the Fire domain. The purpose of these low power at-will abilities is to give spellcasters something to do when they are out of spells, instead of just twiddling their thumbs. A single bolt of D6+4 damage is not gamebreaking and damage dealing classes can still deal 2-5 times as much damage. Also, at-will powers made even more sense since the cleric class had its melee defenses weakened significantly. At-will was the way to go here, especially since it means less bookkeeping.
In general I have some concerns about the PF cleric but in general it's good, however I'm very concerned how Concentration has changed, which might be gamebreaking.
Alright, I read Jason's response to the Concentration check and he confirmed that he intended there to be a 50% failure rate on spellcasting, and this is gamebreaking imo. Extremely gamebreaking and... I'll just stop my rant here. I'll end up playing it and playtesting it and I hope I'm wrong, but I have a funny feeling that in a few months I'll be saying "I told you so". It should have remained as a Spellcraft check like it was in beta.
The one thing I don't like is the channel energy nerf. Not so much because it's a nerf but because it adds complexity. I can choose:
- heal for X amount and maybe have to worry about excluding people with selective channeling,
- or do undead damage for Y amount that is different,
- or choose to turn undead with no damage
Just seems complicated. At least collapse the undead turning/harming. They get a pretty easy save to resist/halve damage. I don't think as a cleric I would *ever* choose turn with no damage, as there's such a good chance it will plain fail, while damage is forever.
|
|
On this point I agree. All (or at least most) classes need more skill points. It is just too difficult to make a character with an interesting background with just two or three skill points.1. Stop making Int your dump stat.
2. Use your favored class bonus.
3. Stop making Int your dump stat.
Int 14, favored class (which was not mentioned in the races section by the way) +2 skill points... still lacking skill points... and don't begin with cloistered cleric... if its not in the main rules... i pass it along as if it didn't existed :P
same thing with bards... when I play a bard... i play someone who uses its skills not the trouvador of medieval times... still not quite interested in a religious bard
dex is my clerics dump stat... and I pay for it quite often :P
This may upset you, but if your favorite class is the most powerful class in the game, and PFRPG tries to adjust all classes so they're closer in power level, of course you're going to be upset. But it's like going to a movie theater has ONE seat that lets you see the movie in 3D and IMAX quality, and you call dibs on that seat every time, except since the last time you went to the theater they took out the 3D but gave every seat the IMAX quality. And free popcorn and soda. You lost a little, everyone else gained a lot, and everyone (including you) gained things you didn't have before. Overall, you're better off than you were before.
favorite class since 2nd Edition :P so it has nothing to do with power level :P
my problem is1) is an ability that is used in favor of the group: nerfed... lost part of the concept from where it was created and given "on/off" mechanics :P
2) domains again... was a bold step that was cut down for "compatibility issues"... while I agree on not giving every other round a fireblast... the glory domain offered a +3 in charisma rolls for the people you touched... those within 1 hour, so you could do it 20 times to different people... i am waiting to see how it was nerfed
as cleric of Iomedae... i am not very thrilled of having fireball as a possible spell for a cleric... I though you people said the cleric was overly powerful... now he is given wizard spells that he can use full armored? what is the congruence on that statement?
|
as cleric of Iomedae... i am not very thrilled of having fireball as a possible spell for a cleric... I though you people said the cleric was overly powerful... now he is given wizard spells that he can use full armored? what is the congruence on that statement?
Well I find it Ironic since during playtesting spells like fireball were held up as examples at how underpowered evocation magic was.
@Ernest: The Undead Damage is only different from the Healing amount if you choose the Sun Domain - Otherwise, it's the exact same. Seems simple enough to me, otherwise you'll have to start removing anything that grants bonuses to specific School's Save DC's.
...I agree the Turn Undead (Fear/Fleeing effect) could really be on TOP of the Damage aspect, not instead of... Making it need a Feat is fine with me (many players find the fleeing aspect annoying anyways), but combining them would seem more consistent with how 3.5 Turn Undead worked (damage AND chance to flee). In any case, it's easy to house-rule since it's a marginal detail of the system, not like, say, introducing an entirely new mechanic to replace 3.5's Turn Undead tables. I'm sure plenty of people will still have house-rules they'll prefer over Core PRPG, but it really seems like 100% more clear and smoothly functioning base system to add those house-rules on top of.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Wow there is a ton of whining aout this! I'm with SKR the Cleric needed a beatstick to bring it back in line with the other classes. The new Concentration check is superb. If you want to cast a spell stay out of melee or use the 5 foot step (I don't care if you think it's unrealistic, it's a purely game mechanic). If you want to be a melee caster take Combat Casting. Too few Feats? Everyone's getting more feats!
Jason you've done a fantastic job so far and I can't wait for more.
--King of Vrock!
|
|
Channeling...
I don't understand why the devs didn't just nerf the d6 down to a d4, to preserve it's ability to heal allies and hurt undead at the same time. (I guess this will be my next homebrew feat.)
I think the turn undead revision is a nice touch though. Keeping track of who-ran-where during combat is plain aggravating.
as cleric of Iomedae... i am not very thrilled of having fireball as a possible spell for a cleric... I though you people said the cleric was overly powerful... now he is given wizard spells that he can use full armored? what is the congruence on that statement?Well I find it Ironic since during playtesting spells like fireball were held up as examples at how underpowered evocation magic was.
What is a Fire Domain Cleric supposed to cast? Prismatic Sphere?
If people think Evocation sucks, they probably shouldn't play an [Elemental] focused Caster, should they? (Any crique of the effectiveness of Fireball/Evocation would apply just as much to Beta-style SLA's for domains like Fire, it's a critique of Damage Dealing vs. "Control" spells in general, not Fireball in particular.)|
|
as cleric of Iomedae... i am not very thrilled of having fireball as a possible spell for a cleric... I though you people said the cleric was overly powerful... now he is given wizard spells that he can use full armored? what is the congruence on that statement?Well I find it Ironic since during playtesting spells like fireball were held up as examples at how underpowered evocation magic was.
talk to Dogbert
he is the wizard :P|
|
@Ernest: The Undead Damage is only different from the Healing amount if you choose the Sun Domain - Otherwise, it's the exact same. Seems simple enough to me, otherwise you'll have to start removing anything that grants bonuses to specific School's Save DC's.
agreed
...I agree the Turn Undead (Fear/Fleeing effect) could really be on TOP of the Damage aspect, not instead of... Making it need a Feat is fine with me (many players find the fleeing aspect annoying anyways), but combining them would seem more consistent with how 3.5 Turn Undead worked (damage AND chance to flee). In any case, it's easy to house-rule since it's a marginal detail of the system, not like, say, introducing an entirely new mechanic to replace 3.5's Turn Undead tables. I'm sure plenty of people will still have house-rules they'll prefer over Core PRPG, but it really seems like 100% more clear and smoothly functioning base system to add those house-rules on top of.
agreed
my main problem are the domains... the channeling... is easily fixed :P but as a friend says... if I need to house rule everything that made it fun... why do I need the final version?|
|
On this point I agree. All (or at least most) classes need more skill points. It is just too difficult to make a character with an interesting background with just two or three skill points. :)agreed
Actually, as the player of a "Universalist Wizard" there is one school I do hope gets nerfed - and nerfed hard - the Universal School. Right now (under the Beta rules), taking a School Specialization is just silly. :(well but because you want more options for the other schools, not just to get them back to the old format...
Cleric Spells Prepared (CL 8th):
4th—death ward, divine power, fire shield*, holy smite3rd—dispel magic, fireball*, prayer, remove curse, searing light
2nd—bull's strength, heat metal*, silence, spiritual weapon (2)
1st—bless, burning hands*, divine favor (2), protection from evil (2), shield of faith
0 (at will)—detect magic, light, read magic, stabilize
* Domain spell; Domains Fire, Sun
Heya Montalve, note that there are two domains, not one.
|
|
as cleric of Iomedae... i am not very thrilled of having fireball as a possible spell for a cleric... I though you people said the cleric was overly powerful... now he is given wizard spells that he can use full armored? what is the congruence on that statement?Well I find it Ironic since during playtesting spells like fireball were held up as examples at how underpowered evocation magic was.What is a Fire Domain Cleric supposed to cast? Prismatic Sphere?
If people think Evocation sucks, they probably shouldn't play an [Elemental] focused Caster, should they? (Any crique of the effectiveness of Fireball/Evocation would apply just as much to Beta-style SLA's for domains like Fire, it's a critique of Damage Dealing vs. "Control" spells in general, not Fireball in particular.)
I probably should add that I have no problem myself with how fireball works right now. I was merely pointing out that people had been using it as an example during the playtests.
I know this is not always possible, but the power of spellcasters needs to have some checks and balances to it. Being able to cast high level spells in the face of your enemy should be hard... and a 50% chance of your highest level spells is far from unreasonable. Its a change, but one that adds a bit of tactics into the equation.. which is a good thing.
This one quote confirms that I will purchase the hardcover rules. I was honestly on the fence until I read this.
THANK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!|
|
Cleric Spells Prepared (CL 8th):
4th—death ward, divine power, fire shield*, holy smite
3rd—dispel magic, fireball*, prayer, remove curse, searing light
2nd—bull's strength, heat metal*, silence, spiritual weapon (2)
1st—bless,burning hands*, divine favor (2), protection from evil (2), shield of faith
0 (at will)—detect magic, light, read magic, stabilize
* Domain spell; Domains Fire, SunHeya Montalve, note that there are two domains, not one.
I noticed... we returned to you have 2 bonus spells, you chose 1...
Beta Domains gave you diffeernt powers, less powerful soemtiems, but more times, even if less often, this was mostly the same in numebr of spells as the bonus... difference? versatilitybonus spells: fire: burning hands, fireball, fireshield, maybe heat metal
bonus spells: sun: heat metal
**************
my complain on fireball is the concept itself...
does the cleric really needs fireball? people is saying its already quite powerful that it needed to be enrfed, then again existing lots of Fire spells... do it really needed fireball?
this argument sounds counter intuitive...