I'm not a mathematician so this is gonna seem silly to those math-minded folks out there. :)
Given: Paizo has attempted to build classes which fill a general niche in game which are based on standardized fantasy roles.
Given: Base Classes (especially Core Base Classes) should be constructed in such a way that several different specific concepts can be generated from the base.
Given: To this end, Paizo set out to build a character class that, right out of the box, can cast a large number of spells and function in the middle of melee combat.
Given: Any other character who spends part or most (rather than all) of their time in the thick of combat gain 3/4 base attack bonus.
Given: The Cleric receives 3/4 base attack bonus. Clerics can deliver touch spells easily and they can often hit with their weapons.
Given: Most classes for whom most of the characters built will be full-time front-line melee combat builds such as the Fighter and the Paladin receive heavy armor as a bonus feat.
Given: The Barbarian recieves many special abilities, some of them involving mobility, and has specific conceptual challenges which precludes the class gaining heavy armor.
Given: The Cleric is not, in most builds, either a front-liner nor is it, in most builds, a melee combatant.
Given: Classes who spend part or much (rather than all) of their time in melee combat receive light or medium armor and sometime shields.
Given: Clerics receive Medium Armor and regular shields. This is better than the Bard or the Rogue receives and the same as the Druid, Ranger, and Barbarian receives.
Given: Full Cleric spellcasting can be very powerful. It includes many buff spells and restoration spells of all kinds. Cleric spellcasting can keep a party of adventurers from dipping below baseline in a system that has become very status-heavy. With healing, some fairly decent offensive capabilities, and no armored casting complications, Cleric spellcasting is no small bequeathment. It is a fully-functional and multi-feature class ability that deserves a great deal of respect.
Given: The Cleric receives full spellcasting, up to and including 9th level spells.
Given: The Cleric receives two domains, each with special abilties that can be both powerful and useful. This also includes bonus spells, including 9th level spells which may or may not be on the Cleric spell list.
Given: Saving throws can make or break a character, especially in high-level play.
Given: The Cleric receives two good saves, both of which are often involved in spells and abilities which take a character out of combat and, sometimes, out of commission.
Given: Partial-combat characters receive d8 hit dice to help them survive melee combat.
Given: The Cleric receives d8 hit die.
Given: Channel Energy either heals the living or harms undead or vice-versa dealing 1d6 per odd level. A character with this ability basically gains an additional spell-like ability that can be used instead of spontaneously casting away his prepared spells.
Given: A Cleric gets Channel Energy several times per day.
Given: Feats are used to further improve upon a character, sometimes specializing that character in a certain direction.
Given: If you can take a feat to do something, it does not necessarily have to be added into a character class if that thing is not useful for all builds or concepts of that class.
Given: Multiclassing can be used to effectively mix the traits of classes.
Given: There is currently no way of making the Cleric more "spellcasty" with its Cleric spells using multiclassing.
Given: It is easier, with base classes, to make a character more effective as a combatant than a spellcaster if they have started out as a spellcaster.
My opinion is thus:
The Cleric's balance was "spent" on spellcasting because it IS relevant and useful because it's easy to multiclass as a fighter or Paladin. It's not necessarily as easy to create an even more middle-of the road character who may not cast as well, then needs to go into some ridiculous prestige class to make their spellcasting better. Taking a Cleric and giving it Fighter level1s is effective and easy by comparison.
They wanted Fighters and Paladins to be front-line characters. Can you make a build or two that aren't? Of course, the system is robust, but they are the best characters for the job.
To be honest, though, multiclassing is NOT required.
The Cleric, out of the box, is not meant to do that. You can easily buy feats to make the Cleric more fighty or even multiclass. You can also buy feats to make the Cleric more casty or healy.
A healy cleric will probably take Selective Channeling and Extra channeling. A casty cleric will take spell focus and spell penetration and probably play an Elf to top it off. A fighty cleric might take weapon focus, exotic weapon proficiency, and a variety of weapon feats that are not the explicit purview of the Fighter (who is and should be the ultimate general combatant).
The domains are fun and powerful. Each one gains special abilities which help make your character even more unique. These domains are built to make sure they don't alienate a particular build, for the most part. I think that's why heavy armor isn't included in any of these domains.
A Cleric's power is also pretty well-spread-out. You don't wait for anything really. Your spells and channel energy just get better and better over time. You just eagerly await any powers attained from your domains at around level 8 or 6. Sometimes a domain does give you a bit of a capstone at 20, but at that point, you've already spent 20 levels being a complete badass at what you do whether it's standing right beside the fighter, healing and thwacking, on the 2nd line healing, or in the back lobbing death spells.
I love Clerics and I really really love the Pathfinder Cleric. Good job fixing the balance issues, Paizo. Most of all, good job fixing the blandness and increasing player choices.
I hope to play my Sun Elf Cleric of Sune healy-spec to level 20 when I'll be able to do an AOE heal for 10d6 damage upwards of 14 times per day and where the Protection Domain gives me the highest saves in the party and grants all my allies a similar bonus to saves and AC during important battles. And, fun enough, he will also be disarming people with his whip at about a +30 or so. BONG!
I'll keep everyone posted on his progress.
Finally someone praising the loss of heavy armor prof.
I said "amen!" when I saw that. Why? because now clerics do look like a little more like clerics of varied gods than the christian middle age war priests! That was the image of AD&D, with only blunt weapons and such. And to think about it, most clerics of other cultures, when they used armor, it was never the heaviest kind of armor possible in that culture.
Praise the medium armor prof. And if you want tanker cleric just buy it with a feat! There aren't really many feats that a cleric needs to be a total baddass (the class still overpowrs non-casters a lot), and you can burn a feat in this anyway.
it's even better in my games, because we use Class Defense bonuses instead of armor defense bonus. So they know medium armor and have less defense than the fighter or paladin. Glorious.
So what's the conclusion? That Clerics are still good?
I'll agree with that.
Your proof requires some revisions.
Given: The Cleric receives two domains, each with special abilties that can be both powerful and useful. This also includes bonus spells, including 9th level spells which may or may not be on the Cleric spell list.
Highly debatable. Very few domains prove to be powerful and useful. Don't worry, this isn't a specific slight against Pathfinder. It has been true since 3rd Edition.
Given: Saving throws can make or break a character, especially in high-level play.
Not any more. Spell adjustments in Pathfinder have greatly reduced the truth of this statement.
Given: The Cleric receives two good saves, both of which are often involved in spells and abilities which take a character out of combat and, sometimes, out of commission.
Not a factor. Both with what was said in the previous point, and the fact if the number of good saves realy mattered, Monks would be much more popular.
Given: There is currently no way of making the Cleric more "spellcasty" with its Cleric spells using multiclassing.
Only if you ignore Prestige Classes not in the Core book. Which you can't really do.
There are a few other points that I already addressed in answering your question of "how are the new Clerics weak in combat in the higher levels."
So what's the conclusion? That Clerics are still good?
I'll agree with that.
I agree too!
I was kinda hoping that we'd all discuss it and come to a general conclusion. :) Each "Given" is a specific point that people can argue against or for if they want to.
Most of all, good job fixing the blandness and increasing player choices.I do not see how removing something from a class (ie heavy armor proficiency) increases player choices.
If the cleric can do less, isn't that decreasing the choices ?
The cleric can't do less. The cleric can do more than before. Far more. Having your cleric be a more of a front-line type is a CHOICE you make by taking the feat.
Your proof requires some revisions.
Given: The Cleric receives two domains, each with special abilties that can be both powerful and useful. This also includes bonus spells, including 9th level spells which may or may not be on the Cleric spell list.Highly debatable. Very few domains prove to be powerful and useful. Don't worry, this isn't a specific slight against Pathfinder. It has been true since 3rd Edition.
I don't know what to say except that I disagree. My character has the Charm domain and even just the level 1 granted power is awesome.
Given: Saving throws can make or break a character, especially in high-level play.Not any more. Spell adjustments in Pathfinder have greatly reduced the truth of this statement.
How are saving throws not important? This statement makes no sense. Either your Cleric is hit with hold person or he isn't.
Given: The Cleric receives two good saves, both of which are often involved in spells and abilities which take a character out of combat and, sometimes, out of commission.Not a factor. Both with what was said in the previous point, and the fact if the number of good saves realy mattered, Monks would be much more popular.
Monks are popular. And their saving throws make them valuable.
Given: There is currently no way of making the Cleric more "spellcasty" with its Cleric spells using multiclassing.Only if you ignore Prestige Classes not in the Core book. Which you can't really do.
Why not? I, for one, don't plan on using them unless I absolutely have to. The Base Core Classes in the Pathfinder rulebook are the new current baseline for balance in the game and the Cleric as a class is a spellcaster, not a warrior. If you want to be more fighty, customize.
There are a few other points that I already addressed in answering your question of "how are the new Clerics weak in combat in the higher levels."
<3
I don't know what to say except that I disagree. My character has the Charm domain and even just the level 1 granted power is awesome.
I don't see it.
It is a better scalling daze cantrip, with a reduction in range and uses per day.
How is that awesome?
How are saving throws not important? This statement makes no sense. Either your Cleric is hit with hold person or he isn't.
We were talking about "especially into the higher levels," where saving throws no longer "make or break a character." While I haven't studied all of the spells yet, I am sure there ar very few (if any) spells that by themselves one failed save will "make or break" you.
Granted, hold person can end a character caught out in the open all alone... But that isn't directly due to the spell, but a by product of several things.
Monks are popular. And their saving throws make them valuable.
I really have to see what games you play. No sarcasm. I can hardly imagine Monks being popular... They are one of the most complained about classes. (Yes, even more than the Pathfinder Cleric.)
Why not? I, for one, don't plan on using them unless I absolutely have to. The Base Core Classes in the Pathfinder rulebook are the new current baseline for balance in the game and the Cleric as a class is a spellcaster, not a warrior.
We weren't talking about warrior. You said you can't make the Cleric more "spell casty," and I was saying you can - if you look at Prestige Classes outside of the Core book.
We weren't talking about warrior. You said you can't make the Cleric more "spell casty," and I was saying you can - if you look at Prestige Classes outside of the Core book.
While I happen to fall into the camp that likes clerics as they are written here in PF...
I do want to say if your looking at PrC's outside the Core Book, why do you feel the need to complain? I can go look outside the core book and find at least 3 or 4 PrC's that make everything you've whined about the cleric not having a moot issue. From a balance standpoint, I'm perfectly fine with where the cleric is, the happiest I've been since 2nd Ed. So I'm really curious, is your complaint with the PF cleric that they are no longer overpowered? Or is your complaint just that things changed and you don't like it?
|
Most of all, good job fixing the blandness and increasing player choices.I do not see how removing something from a class (ie heavy armor proficiency) increases player choices.
If the cleric can do less, isn't that decreasing the choices ?
If it's a non-starter for you, ask your DM to allow you to play a 3.5 Cleric, without the free orisens, with turn undead instead of channel energy, the old Domains instead of the new Pathfinder Domain powers or (for some clerics) the extra weapon proficiency and *with* heavy armor proficiency. Since heavy armor is more important to you than all of that other stuff, I'm sure a sympathetic DM would allow you to make that trade-off.
If it's a non-starter for you, ask your DM to allow you to play a 3.5 Cleric, without the free orisens, with turn undead instead of channel energy, the old Domains instead of the new Pathfinder Domain powers or (for some clerics) the extra weapon proficiency and *with* heavy armor proficiency. Since heavy armor is more important to you than all of that other stuff, I'm sure a sympathetic DM would allow you to make that trade-off.Most of all, good job fixing the blandness and increasing player choices.I do not see how removing something from a class (ie heavy armor proficiency) increases player choices.
If the cleric can do less, isn't that decreasing the choices ?
Do we get to use the 3.5 spells too?
I do want to say if your looking at PrC's outside the Core Book, why do you feel the need to complain? I can go look outside the core book and find at least 3 or 4 PrC's that make everything you've whined about the cleric not having a moot issue. From a balance standpoint, I'm perfectly fine with where the cleric is, the happiest I've been since 2nd Ed. So I'm really curious, is your complaint with the PF cleric that they are no longer overpowered? Or is your complaint just that things changed and you don't like it?
Since we all formulate questions based on the answers we want to hear, I can tell you your questions won't get the truth from me.
So I decline to answer them.
ah your wanting the overpowered I am best at everything cleric. Got ya. Thanks for clearing that up
ah your wanting the overpowered I win at everything cleric. Got ya. Thanks for clearing that up
You know... I wasn't even going to pretend to dignify this with a response...
But I can promise you one thing:
I am not so socially inept that I could have a 20th level 3.0 Cleric (with those spells) in your 1st level PFRPG game, and you would never know.
I'm not the player that the rules on how to play nice with each other were made for.
|
I'm not a mathematician so this is gonna seem silly to those math-minded folks out there. :)
As they say "right on the money".
Leave the poor cleric alone you nay-sayers.
Cleric in plate = Paladin now, and you wouldn't want to be a bad guy with an angry Paladin knocking at your door.
No more having cakes and eating them too, sorry Cleric of yester-year. Time to pack up the those old family photos of you slaying 3 ancients red dragons a week single handedly, oil and pack the +5 Platemail then nip down the local armour shop and buy that shiney new set of Chainmail! Tell them "Jason" sent you and you might even get a discount.
S.
Leave the poor cleric alone you nay-sayers.
Except for the capstone ability. We want one of those too. :)
By the way, is it me or did they actually make Divine Power better...unless you're hasted of course. That seems to be the only drawback. Unless I'm missing something.
Leave the poor cleric alone you nay-sayers.Except for the capstone ability. We want one of those too. :)
By the way, is it me or did they actually make Divine Power better...unless you're hasted of course. That seems to be the only drawback. Unless I'm missing something.
If by better than 3.5 you mean more powerful, then no. It is decidedly not.
The 3.5 Divine Power gave you a better base attack bonus that gave you access to one additional iterative attack (which is what the haste effect of the Pathfinder version is supposed to replace), and a +6 enhancement to strength. The 3.5 spell stacked with Haste, or the Speed weapon effect.
If by better than 3.5 you mean more powerful, then no. It is decidedly not.Or we can assume he meant "better" as in more balanced with regards to the game as a whole, in which case. It is decidedly so.
Or we could just not assume, and give him a chance to explain his position. I mean, if we want to be considerate like that.
|
|
Or we could just not assume, and give him a chance to explain his position. I mean, if we want to be considerate like that.If by better than 3.5 you mean more powerful, then no. It is decidedly not.Or we can assume he meant "better" as in more balanced with regards to the game as a whole, in which case. It is decidedly so.
Yes, let's.
Well, I meant from a power standpoint. At level 9, you'd get a +3 to attack and damage, same as before unless weilding a two handed weapon. In that case you are down +1 to +2 damage; not a huge drop. You still gain this bonus to STR based checks so it isn't really any different from just gaining +6 STR. It scales higher though as you level up which is better.
You still get the temporary HP as before.
You gain a free attack at your highest as in haste. At level 8-10, you are actually one attack ahead. You take a hit in the BAB department though.
I'd say the spell is about the same in power by iteself. If you are not stacking anything else, it doesn't really appear to be any weaker. It does appear to be a touch weaker now that you can't stack with haste but it's not a big a nerf I figured they slap on it.
I can't say that I'm dissappointed with the new version myself.
By itself, if you can make sure to benefit from the haste effect, it really isn't bad.
If you can't enjoy the extra attack, either from getting a haste effect from another source or moving around too much, it is a very poor 4th level spell. Horrible even.
In 3.5, even if you couldn't benefit from the iterative attack, you still got the BAB bonus plus the best enhancement bonus to strength.
As it is written, it really should be a lower level spell. (Same thing with Righteous Might which is really just an Enlarge Person with some [admittedly tasty] sprinkles on top, but at 1/10th the duration.)
True. I still like the new version of the spell though. It's still a must prepare spell for the battle priest unless you know you're going to be hasted every battle. If you are, you might as well prepare lower level spells like Divine Favor or Bull's Strength and still be a killing machine.
I've played Clerics that, when given a few rounds to buff, were super powerful. Preventing some of these spells from stacking is a good move from a balance standpoint IMO.
<Wanders into thread and eats a cleric>
Damn. That one had the madness domain. Stop touching me inside, and digest, confound you.
Ah, that's better.
<Wanders out, trying to avoid the need to make any attack rolls or saving throws in the near future, and vaguely hoping for a skill check.>
|
|
I've played Clerics that, when given a few rounds to buff, were super powerful. Preventing some of these spells from stacking is a good move from a balance standpoint IMO.
That's exactly the point I think will come out over time. I'm sure when Paizo revisited the spells they had this in mind. To have a knee-jerk reaction because something specific is different from 3.5e (even less "powerful") I think is not giving pfRPG a fair go. 3.5e is 3.5e and pfRPG is pfRPG, this discussion seems to parallel those had about 3.5e vs 4e. If you stop thinking "3.5e, 3.5e, 3.5e" and play 4e as 4e it's really quite fun - play 4e as not-3.5e and let the flaming start. I'm hoping I find the same with pfRPG over the coming months.
S.
I've played Clerics that, when given a few rounds to buff, were super powerful. Preventing some of these spells from stacking is a good move from a balance standpoint IMO.That's exactly the point I think will come out over time. I'm sure when Paizo revisited the spells they had this in mind. To have a knee-jerk reaction because something specific is different from 3.5e (even less "powerful") I think is not giving pfRPG a fair go. 3.5e is 3.5e and pfRPG is pfRPG, this discussion seems to parallel those had about 3.5e vs 4e. If you stop thinking "3.5e, 3.5e, 3.5e" and play 4e as 4e it's really quite fun - play 4e as not-3.5e and let the flaming start. I'm hoping I find the same with pfRPG over the coming months.
S.
Trust me, I know. Divine Power was probably the best Cleric spell, especially for battle priests. I believe that it was supposed to be a fix of the old one but ended up even more broken. If I'm not mistaken, the old one gave a flat 18 STR. Sucked for a battle priest but incredible for the cleric with 8-10 STR.
I'm just glad that they didn't go crazy with the nerf bat.
I've played Clerics that, when given a few rounds to buff, were super powerful. Preventing some of these spells from stacking is a good move from a balance standpoint IMO.
Preventing them from stacking isn't the problem.
The problem is reworking the spells such that they fall below the power-per-spell level flow. And that could be acceptable if that was where the balance changes ended. But it wasn't.
To have a knee-jerk reaction because something specific is different from 3.5e (even less "powerful") I think is not giving pfRPG a fair go.
I'm going to ignore the insulting nature of that, and just ask you "did you expect any different from the group of people that rejected 4th Edition from what many call knee-jerk reactions?"
Preventing them from stacking isn't the problem.
The problem is reworking the spells such that they fall below the power-per-spell level flow. And that could be acceptable if that was where the balance changes ended. But it wasn't.
It only falls below the power of a 4th level spell if you are already hasted. Hense the stacking. Unless you're talking about darkness. At least a torch doesn't supress it like in beta. Uhg!
It only falls below the power of a forth level spell if you are already hasted.
That isn't really true. Even with the additional attack it is a weak 4th level spell. It just isn't really bad if you can ensure you get that attack.
|
It only falls below the power of a forth level spell if you are already hasted.That isn't really true. Even with the additional attack it is a weak 4th level spell. It just isn't really bad if you can ensure you get that attack.
I disagree with your statement because I don't think it is a weak 4th level cleric spell. If haste is a third-level wizard spell, a similar combat spell for clerics is reasonable at fourth level.
I disagree with your statement because I don't think it is a weak 4th level cleric spell. If haste is a third-level wizard spell, a similar combat spell for clerics is reasonable at fourth level.It only falls below the power of a forth level spell if you are already hasted.That isn't really true. Even with the additional attack it is a weak 4th level spell. It just isn't really bad if you can ensure you get that attack.
If it was really similar to Haste (multiple targets, effects that can come into play even if you do stand still, etc.) I would agree with you. But it isn't. It is a weak Haste, with a (very) weak Aid, and almost a double strength Divine Favor. That doesn't add up to a 4th level spell.
If it was really similar to Haste (multiple targets, effects that can come into play even if you do stand still, etc.) I would agree with you. But it isn't. It is a weak Haste, with a (very) weak Aid, and almost a double strength Divine Favor. That doesn't add up to a 4th level spell.I disagree with your statement because I don't think it is a weak 4th level cleric spell. If haste is a third-level wizard spell, a similar combat spell for clerics is reasonable at fourth level.It only falls below the power of a forth level spell if you are already hasted.That isn't really true. Even with the additional attack it is a weak 4th level spell. It just isn't really bad if you can ensure you get that attack.
Since it is all packed in one single-round casting, it would be better seen as a weak Haste, a (very) weak Quickened Aid and a Quickened almost double strength Divine Favor. Oh and, packed with something which allows two quickens in a single round.
Since it is all packed in one single-round casting, it would be better seen as a weak Haste, a (very) weak Quickened Aid and a Quickened almost double strength Divine Favor. Oh and, packed with something which allows two quickens in a single round.
That would almost work if Aid didn't have such a long duration, and Divine Favor didn't outlast Divine Power for 3 full caster levels.
Since it is all packed in one single-round casting, it would be better seen as a weak Haste, a (very) weak Quickened Aid and a Quickened almost double strength Divine Favor. Oh and, packed with something which allows two quickens in a single round.That would almost work if Aid didn't have such a long duration...
oh, I thought that was included in the "(very) weak" Aid qualifier.
...and Divine Favor didn't outlast Divine Power for 3 full caster levels.
it sticks for 7 rounds at the minimum caster level. 7 rounds is a lot of rounds.
Give the clerics heavy armor proficiency, and then make them roll the spell failure chance when they cast a spell in it.
Seems like a fair tradeoff to me. I'm sure that would make everyone happy.
|
|
I'm going to ignore the insulting nature of that, and just ask you "did you expect any different from the group of people that rejected 4th Edition from what many call knee-jerk reactions?"
No insult intended, just an observation, and I think justified given the edition wars and some of the content. I was one of the "4e blows" squad but that was because I had not really bothered to give it a go. Now I feel that I can say I like playing 4e but dislike DMing it rather than repeating dull mantras like "wizards aren't Vancian" this game must be rubbish.
Have you played a cleric for level 1 to 20, did you find (or your player find) that the cleric lagged behind the other classes in a gaming session? That is the real test of the new cleric and its place in pfRPG - which may end up different slightly from a cleric in 3.5e for sure.
I personally haven't played a new cleric and only have a player of 6th level in my group, so I'm currently taking it on faith (no pun intended) that changes were made from a "Gods eye view" of 3.5e rules and their failings by Jason and crew.
S.
|
|
Most of all, good job fixing the blandness and increasing player choices.I do not see how removing something from a class (ie heavy armor proficiency) increases player choices.
If the cleric can do less, isn't that decreasing the choices ?
If it's a non-starter for you, ask your DM to allow you to play a 3.5 Cleric, without the free orisens, with turn undead instead of channel energy, the old Domains instead of the new Pathfinder Domain powers or (for some clerics) the extra weapon proficiency and *with* heavy armor proficiency. Since heavy armor is more important to you than all of that other stuff, I'm sure a sympathetic DM would allow you to make that trade-off.
I guess there is a misunderstanding here. I am not talking about whether I like the PFRPG cleric or not and even less trying to compare the PFRPG and 3.5 clerics (they are completely different beasts).
Just that I feel players would have even more choice if the PFRPG cleric had kept the heavy armor proficiency of his forefather :
- for a concept entailing the wearing of heavy armor, it liberates a feat.
- for a concept not using the heavy armor, it costs nothing special.
|
|
I personally haven't played a new cleric and only have a player of 6th level in my group, so I'm currently taking it on faith (no pun intended) that changes were made from a "Gods eye view" of 3.5e rules and their failings by Jason and crew.
S.
On that obviously people disagree. A "Gods eye view" does not warranty a perfect decision after all.
However, I read in another thread that in a guy's group, many people were alarmed about the loss of the proficiency. Not saying that it makes it a bad thing, mind you. But it is I believe the only place where a basic class lost one of its base abilities so it had to ruffle some people's feathers.
I personally haven't played a new cleric and only have a player of 6th level in my group, so I'm currently taking it on faith (no pun intended) that changes were made from a "Gods eye view" of 3.5e rules and their failings by Jason and crew.
S.
On that obviously people disagree. A "Gods eye view" does not warranty a perfect decision after all.
However, I read in another thread that in a guy's group, many people were alarmed about the loss of the proficiency. Not saying that it makes it a bad thing, mind you. But it is I believe the only place where a basic class lost one of its base abilities so it had to ruffle some people's feathers.
Not throwing a stone or breaking out a flamethrower...just you said something I've been trying to figure out the words for (even bolded it I did)...
I'm curious as to why certain things (in the clerics example in this case, heavy armor use) is considered a 'base ability' when it has no real effect on them doing their intended job? Like I said, I'm not trying to flame here, I'm honestly curious...where should the line between defining class features and 'the other stuff' be?
|
|
had to ruffle some people's feathers.
I get it ruffled feathers, raven... :)
I see what you mean, I still think the odd ruffling here and there for the overall benefit of 3.5e "type" D&D is fine my me. 3.5e was absolutely awful at levels 16+ and the rules as is killed every campaign I have ever played in where we set out to hit the magical level 20. I will reserve my judgement (as I would like to think others are) until in real honest play that the changes made (which ever ones) in pfRPG do or don't actually improve on what 3.5e already had. Now as a DM of a player with a "new" cleric of 6th level I would say that pfRPG are more interesting than the one person party CoDzilla of 3.5e.
(Party is: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Monk - in case anyone cares).
S.
had to ruffle some people's feathers.I get it ruffled feathers, raven... :)
I see what you mean, I still think the odd ruffling here and there for the overall benefit of 3.5e "type" D&D is fine my me. 3.5e was absolutely awful at levels 16+ and the rules as is killed every campaign I have ever played in where we set out to hit the magical level 20. I will reserve my judgement (as I would like to think others are) until in real honest play that the changes made (which ever ones) in pfRPG do or don't actually improve on what 3.5e already had. Now as a DM of a player with a "new" cleric of 6th level I would say that pfRPG are more interesting than the one person party CoDzilla of 3.5e.
(Party is: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Monk - in case anyone cares).
S.
Interesting party...of course...my mind boggles at the lack of an arcane spellcaster, but that might have something to do with the fact that I have yet to run or play in a game without one...
|
|
I'm running one such campaign right now.
3.5 rules, with Scout/Ranger, Paladin(PF version), Cleric and Fighter/Cleric.
We'd just come off playing Shackled City for 30 months, which may have a factor. The Scout player had been the resident CoDzilla, and wanted a break for spellcasting, the Paladin had been DM, so wanted a break from running casters. The other two were less experienced players, who agreed to take caster roles, but hesitated to take wizard or sorceror.
Both the arcane classes were seen as high-risk/high-reward, with one bad spell choice meaning disaster. Clerics were seen as better all-rounders, with an inbuilt safety net (better AC, hp, saves, BAB), and a spell list that was more forgiving. Pick an offensive spell, and your enemy might be immune, pick a defensive spell, and you know you're getting the benefit. Plus, make a poor choice one day, change it the next. You're not stuck with it. Not to mention, half your spells are going to end up as cures anyway, right? So don't agonise over them.
And they've kicked ass. While they have missed the occasional arcane spell, they've worked round their problems with their own solutions.
Enemy on a ledge? No levitation? Enlarged cleric picks up dwarf fighter and throws her into melee (if it works for Wolverine and Colossus...).
And they know they can commit all four to melee, instead of just two, with a third sat back babysitting the weak mage.
Now at level 6, they feel they need some arcane spells, but mostly for utility. So along comes a cohort.
I think the usual mix of Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue is a habit that has been hammered into folk since the dawn of the game, and people are reluctant to risk breaking that habit for fear of ridicule by their peers who 'know' that doing so is 'automatic epic fail'.
Trouble is, such an arrangement, if enforced every time, becomes a straightjacket, and results in too many campaigns feeling bland, and samey.
|
|
But it is I believe the only place where a basic class lost one of its base abilities so it had to ruffle some people's feathers.Not throwing a stone or breaking out a flamethrower...just you said something I've been trying to figure out the words for (even bolded it I did)...
I'm curious as to why certain things (in the clerics example in this case, heavy armor use) is considered a 'base ability' when it has no real effect on them doing their intended job? Like I said, I'm not trying to flame here, I'm honestly curious...where should the line between defining class features and 'the other stuff' be?
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I used "base ability" to describe something which is not part of the class' special powers (ie special ability, spellcasting, feats ...), such as BAB, HP, skill points, saves and proficiencies. I did not mean that this specific proficiency was an intrinsic part of the class.