| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes can be tricky to balance, especially for new designers, because of the automatic assumption that you should get something for what you give up.
But the truth is that sometimes giving something up doesn't mean anything, and sometimes there is no room to improve.
I'm going to talk about the latter reason first, because it is simpler and it breaks the game faster.
The inspiration was this thread was the desire for a 'caster cleric', so I'll talk about that. Clerics are a 9-level caster with a huge spell list. They don't get free metamagic feats or quite as many flashy spells as Wizards do, but they don't need to keep a spellbook and get more spells every time a new rulebook comes out.
This means that to a certain extent they don't need metamagic, because they can simply find a higher-level spell that does more damage, or lasts longer, or whatever instead of applying metamagic to a lower-level spell.
There isn't a lot of room between 'cleric' and 'wizard' to make a cleric's spellcasting better.
Some classes are already the best at what they do - making them better at that thing just reduces their versatility (because you traded something else off) or breaks the game (because you gave them 10th level spells or a BAB of 2 x level)
Sean K Reynolds touched on this when giving advice for designing archetypes:
4) Limiting an existing class ability to one already-available choice isn't cool, nor is it a limitation.
A rogue archetype that says "you have to take this rogue talent at level 4" isn't cool.
A fighter archetype that says "you have to take this weapon category at level 5" isn't cool.
And, assuming that choice is especially appropriate for that character, it's not really a limitation because the character would probably want that thing anyway. A character with a dagger-fighter archetype wants to take "light blades" for weapon training, so forcing him to do it isn't a limitation to the character at all, and you shouldn't treat it like it's a penalty or weakness to justify making another new class ability better (as in, "oh, the daggermaster has to take "light blades," so to compensate for that limitation I'll give the archetype this other cool thing...").
(Similar points here and here.)
This most obviously applies to things like taking away bonus feat to give a specific feat that such a character was going to take anyway (Forgepriest Warpriests were going to take Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 3rd level anyway.) Or restricting a domain choice to the ones that thematically match the rest of the class. These decisions aren't bad design on their own - they are bad design when used to justify a power increase elsewhere.
Suppose I made a 'ranged cleric' archetype that gets to apply Reach Spell to all their Touch range spells for free. Taking away medium armor for that archetype isn't as much of a drawback as it looks like, because such a character has an easier time keeping their distance from the bad guys (unlike a stock cleric, which has to get nearer the action). In fact, such a character might have been happy switching to light armor anyway, because the extra 10 feet of movement keeps more space between them and threats.
This is particularly true when designing an archetype for yourself. 'Must worship Desna' isn't a drawback if your character was going to do that anyway. 'Must be X alignment' isn't a drawback if you were going to be that anyway. Being harmed by positive energy isn't a drawback if you were already making a dhampir. Removing spells from your class list isn't a drawback if you as a player were never going to prepare those spells, and so on.
The 9-level casters generally don't have a lot of class features to play with. They have spellcasting, some type of customization suite (schools, patrons, bloodlines, domains), and a chassis (BAB, skill points, HD, saves).
The arcane casters are hardest: generally its easier to make a new school or bloodline than swap pieces of a wizard or sorcerer - they can't even really trade off bits of their chassis - already having minimum BAB, skill points, and HD.
This means that most cleric archetypes have a very small list of things to trade off - one or both domains, BAB, HD, maybe Channel Energy. One can't get upset with a downgrade to 1/2 BAB to get some other shinies - there just isn't much else to trade.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, some things are relative. Giving a cleric 6 + int skill points per level is a bigger change than giving a wizard the same - That wizard is going to be investing heavily in Int. The cleric is going from 2 to 4 skill points - twice as many. The wizard is going from 6 to 8 - not nearly as much of a difference.
Nice post and 10/10 title.
My fear is that the Cardinal sets a precedent...
Now we cannot have a Caster Cleric who is more skilled due to his sacrifice of martial ability and durability because it would naturally be much better than the Cardinal which sacrifices those things already.
Cardinal doesn't set that precedent, Cleric does. There's not enough to trade to make Cleric a stronger caster and more skilled at the same time. Loss of martial abilities you weren't using isn't worth both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I haven't seen the Cardinal yet, but from what I understand it is not a Caster Cleric. It's a more skilled Cleric, and Cleric in and of itself is a Caster Cleric. The Caster Cleric comes up because it's a playstyle that the Cardinal is suited to because something like 1/2 BaB won't hurt if you focus on your casting. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
Honestly, if you wanted a specialization that made you better at casting I would believe the PrC system, maligned as some people treat it, functions better for that than an archetype ever would.
As stated, the 9th level casters don't have many class features to play with. Of course, one unmentioned class feature to to alter them would be to downgrade to 6th level ca- THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR HERESY. But then, that is only really relevant for Caster Cleric if you gave some really insane casting ability to offset the heavy cost. (Have fun with that math...)
However, PrCs pay in a variety of other ways, including levels devoid of spell increase, feats, skill points into skills you will never use, required class features. (Perhaps a bad, but fun Domain.) If you want to make a true Caster Cleric a 1/2 BaB PrC is not a bad choice. And if you want to qualify for that Cleric a 1/2 BaB archetype isn't giving up something you want and might have something that eases the burden of skill point spending.
I suppose you can make an archetype geared towards improving the casting abilities of the Cleric, but you would have to think carefully about how to do that and would probably take away something, like domains, that already does that.
Nice post and 10/10 title.
My fear is that the Cardinal sets a precedent...
Now we cannot have a Caster Cleric who is more skilled due to his sacrifice of martial ability and durability because it would naturally be much better than the Cardinal which sacrifices those things already.
I have to ask - what would you do differently to make a 'caster cleric'? Right now a base cleric has the same spell progression as a wizard - the differences are:
Other than spell selection - the two classes are very similar. So I struggle to see where you need a 'caster cleric' at all, but what exactly do you seem to think needs added to have a 'caster cleric'
Actually - here is a 'caster cleric' PRC:
"The Studied Priest"
This cleric must use a prayer book to memorize spells - they can only memorize spells that they find prayers for. They otherwise use the wizard class, but with divine spells.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also have to wonder why the Theologian and the Ecclesitheurge do not qualify?
Honestly, I haven't seen the Cardinal yet, but from what I understand it is not a Caster Cleric. It's a more skilled Cleric, and Cleric in and of itself is a Caster Cleric. The Caster Cleric comes up because it's a playstyle that the Cardinal is suited to because something like 1/2 BaB won't hurt if you focus on your casting. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
Honestly, if you wanted a specialization that made you better at casting I would believe the PrC system, maligned as some people treat it, functions better for that than an archetype ever would.
As stated, the 9th level casters don't have many class features to play with. Of course, one unmentioned class feature to to alter them would be to downgrade to 6th level ca- THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR HERESY. But then, that is only really relevant for Caster Cleric if you gave some really insane casting ability to offset the heavy cost. (Have fun with that math...)
However, PrCs pay in a variety of other ways, including levels devoid of spell increase, feats, skill points into skills you will never use, required class features. (Perhaps a bad, but fun Domain.) If you want to make a true Caster Cleric a 1/2 BaB PrC is not a bad choice. And if you want to qualify for that Cleric a 1/2 BaB archetype isn't giving up something you want and might have something that eases the burden of skill point spending.
I suppose you can make an archetype geared towards improving the casting abilities of the Cleric, but you would have to think carefully about how to do that and would probably take away something, like domains, that already does that.
The Cardinal is the 'skill cleric' - but it kicked off a discussion of a 'caster cleric', which is something a vocal minority keep asking for and keep getting disappointed with (Cloistered Cleric, Ecclesitheurge, etc).
You're right that the stock cleric is the 'caster cleric' - previous edition clerics only had 7th level spells, making them a lot close to the Warpriest than 3.0/.5/PF clerics. But the 3.0 cleric was trying to cover a lot of bases and we've inherited it.
If I had a time machine (and an editorial mandate), I'd make the base PF cleric a 1/2 BAB class with light armor or no armor only (same with druid). That would free up a lot of room in the 3/4 BAB/6th level casting design space for Warpriests/Hunters/Inquisitors.
While archetypes could theoretically do things like become 6th level casters, I would have to ask at that point why is it a Cleric archetype and not a Warpriest archetype.
Actually - here is a 'caster cleric' PRC:
"The Studied Priest"
This cleric must use a prayer book to memorize spells - they can only memorize spells that they find prayers for. They otherwise use the wizard class, but with divine spells.
You'll notice that such a character is significantly weaker than a stock cleric.
You'll notice that such a character is significantly weaker than a stock cleric.Actually - here is a 'caster cleric' PRC:
"The Studied Priest"
This cleric must use a prayer book to memorize spells - they can only memorize spells that they find prayers for. They otherwise use the wizard class, but with divine spells.
I won't disagree - but if the bonus feats are what really everyone wants for a 'caster cleric' (presumably for the metamagics) then the wizard chassis is really a better fit - by giving up the huge spell selection and having the limitations that go along with it.
On a further note - I'm unsure what exactly is gained from the bonus feats - after thinking about it the metamagics in general are usually disdained by wizards in favor of using rods (clerics can already use these).
Sorcerers are the ones who can 'meta' on the fly making those feats much more useful - and at the same time have less feats to dedicate. I just am having a hard time understanding what a 'casting cleric' is supposed to get that they don't already have built into the chassis they use.
On a further note - I'm unsure what exactly is gained from the bonus feats - after thinking about it the metamagics in general are usually disdained by wizards in favor of using rods (clerics can already use these).
Sorcerers are the ones who can 'meta' on the fly making those feats much more useful - and at the same time have less feats to dedicate. I just am having a hard time understanding what a 'casting cleric' is supposed to get that they don't already have built into the chassis they use.
I don't think there's any room for an archetype that makes their casting better that isn't Theologian (which imo is a good archetype that scratches the needed itch). When the only thing clerics have is their chassis, domains and channel energy, there's barely anything to swap out. Wizards you can take away their bonus feats or familiars, but you'll notice that even wizard archetypes, like arcane bomber or spell slinger, don't actually improve their casting. Just by taking away some proficiencies and HD won't make cleric's "more caster" the way advocates of this idea want. No matter what archetype is made, it will hit domains, maybe channel energy, and most recently the chassis. Notice Cardinal is the first archetype (that I'm aware of) to change the BAB of a class. This is because it literally has nothing else to hit after losing a domain.
Honestly, this can be done with cleric. Have a lower strength, and a higher intelligence. Buy scrolls instead of a MW weapon.
Done.
Casting benefits? Everything the Cleric has builds it towards a martial inclination. There are a few domains that boost your casting slightly but not much.
There's certainly the Theologian but its a domain focused Cleric and very gimmicky. One trick pony indeed. The Ecclesitheurge has major issues in the early levels since it trades off it's martial ability. It encounters the "Dead Turn" problem and becomes an aid another bot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't like about this is that the 3.5 Cloistered Cleric is right there. It's OGL, and the standard for caster cleric.
The 3.5 Cloistered Cleric gains 4 skill points/level, some class skills, some class spells, Bardic Knowledge, and third domain. In exchange for going down to 1/2 BAB and d6 HD and losing medium armor. That's a lot for a little, especially given that PF domains are better than D&D domains.
(In contrast, the Pathfinder Cloistered Cleric gains 2 skill points/level, some class skills, Bardic Knowledge, and some 'smart-guy abilities' (including Scribe Scroll) in exchange for less spellcasting, a domain, medium armor, and some weapon proficiency. That's giving up a lot for a little, especially if you wanted a 'caster cleric' and not a 'well-read cleric'.)
If were going to adapt the 3.5 cloistered cleric into a PF archetype, we might meet in the middle somewhere?
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Cloistered clerics are proficient with light armor and simple weapons. They are not proficient with shields.
Class Skills: The cloistered cleric's class skills are Appraise (Int), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (all) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), and Spellcraft (Int).
Skill Ranks per Level: 4 + Int modifier.
Scholar: A cloistered cleric must select Knowledge as one of her domains, and must worship a deity with the Knowledge domain. Her base attack bonus from cleric levels is equal to half her class level (which is the same as for a sorcerer or wizard). This ability modifies domains and base attack bonus.
Breadth of Knowledge: At 1st level, a cloistered cleric gains a bonus on Knowledge skill checks equal to half her class level (minimum +1) and can make Knowledge skill checks untrained.
This version is a more straightforward swap of martial skill for...skill-skill and 'bardic knowledge'. 6 + Int skill points could also work, but that's a finicky switch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think an interesting 'caster archetype' for cleric would be one that spontaneously casts domain spells instead of cure/inflict spells.
Doesn't change the chassis much, but makes domains a larger choice and gives some access to the flashier, more ranged, more offensive spells the cleric list lacks.
I have to admit if I wanted to spontaneous cast domain spells I'd just play an oracle - I am not sure how I'd feel about that.
The only time in published items the spontaneous stuff gets touched the cleric always gives up a domain.
The main actual benefit of the Cloistered Cleric was getting bardic knowledge and skill points, not actually enhancing spellcasting.
(I was applying Cloistered Cleric to the Pathfinder Cleric, so Heavy armor isn't a factor, but the meaning of the third domain is.)
Gaining a third domain that is restricted (in choice, not power) is better than not getting a third domain. See my commentary in the first post about 'choices you were going to make anyway'.
You should have to give up something meaningful to get another domain. The sorcerer archetype (Crossblooded) that lets you take two bloodlines gives up a spell known per spell level. And takes a penalty on Will saves. And still doesn't get the full benefits of both bloodlines.
Likewise, granting spontaneous domain casting, but giving Healing as the free domain means that domain casting doesn't have the drawback of losing spontaneous cure spells - because you've made sure they're on the domain list.
The only time in published items the spontaneous stuff gets touched the cleric always gives up a domain.
That's because, for instance, if you give up spontaneous cures for spontaneous domain spells, you can take the Healing domain and get spontaneous cures back (in addition to other healing spells), and still have a whole other domain of spontaneous spells.
Locking it down to one domain means that a player who really wants his cures back can take the Healing domain, but didn't manage to 'trade up'.
The only time in published items the spontaneous stuff gets touched the cleric always gives up a domain.That's because, for instance, if you give up spontaneous cures for spontaneous domain spells, you can take the Healing domain and get spontaneous cures back (in addition to other healing spells), and still have a whole other domain of spontaneous spells.
Locking it down to one domain means that a player who really wants his cures back can take the Healing domain, but didn't manage to 'trade up'.
Herald caller gets the ability to spontaneously cast summons but does not give up the spontaneous cures - and still gives up the domain. From this I would gather that spontaneous cures aren't really considered as powerful as a domain - but even adding a specific spell line as a spontaneous cast choice is as powerful.
And I have to say - I agree with that.
I like the spontaneous Domain idea. Now I really wish I was better at the Cleric class so I could propose a concept. (I'm afraid that Storm Druids are the only divine I really think about.)
3.5 divine power
Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. Your base attack bonus becomes equal to your character level (which may give you additional attacks), you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength, and you gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level.
pathfinder divine power
Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. You gain a +1 luck bonus on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, Strength checks, and Strength-based skill checks for every three caster levels you have (maximum +6). You also gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level. Whenever you make a full-attack action, you can make an additional attack at your full base attack bonus, plus any appropriate modifiers. This additional attack is not cumulative with similar effects, such as haste or weapons with the speed special ability.
Lets see how that works out:
Level 7 to cast - at that level:
3.5 - BAB +5
With DP = +7/+2
+6 Str (+3 attack/damage) (+10/+5 with str)
+7 temp hps
PF - BAB +5
With DP = BAB +7/+7
+2 Damage
+7 temp hit points
Ok So I'll take an extra attack at full BAB over a 2nd at +5...
Level 15:
3.5 - BAB +11 (6/1)
With DP = +15/+10/+5
+6 Str (+3 attack/damage)
+15 temp hit points
PF - BAB +11 (6/1)
With DP = +16/+16/+11/+6
+5 damage
+15 temp hit points
Looks to me like Pathfinder's version is actually way better.
A third domain still gets a third set of domain powers - which are massively better in PF than 3.5.
The restricted choice doesn't matter - it's a bonus all the same. Sure, it's not as good as getting Travel for free, but getting $20 is better than getting $5 - but $5 is still $5 you didn't have before.
I disagree that the cleric spell list is bad - it blasts worse but it heals better. It buffs allies better. It buffs itself really well (this is the part that BAB takes away from.) It doesn't control the battlefield, but has some really potent single-target debuffs and save-or-die spells.
Spells at a given spell level should all still be roughly equal (this is the thing the chained summoner forgot), but they still do different things.
I do think you've gotten to the crux of the matter, though. A 'caster cleric' who takes over the battlefield in a similar manner as a wizard isn't being limited by class features (or lack thereof). It's by the class spell list. Even the 3.5 Cloistered Cleric wasn't a 'caster cleric' - it was a 'non-martial cleric'.
To a certain extent that is by design (spells like divine power reward an investment in Str and feats like Weapon Focus, which means less investment in Wis, which drives the character away from maximzing save DCs in the same way as a Wizard who can focus down on Int and Spell Focus). Certainly, a mechanical cleric with the wizard spell list is simply too good (I mean, compare them against an actual wizard.)
Making a 'caster cleric' might require massive spell list tweaks, rather than just perks for casting spells.
I kinda wonder if the feyspeakers bonus spells would be reasonable for the archetype.
I'm pretty sure giving them the Knowledge Domain gives them all knowledges as class skills and scribe scroll.
Seems good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I respectfully disagree with OP's general gist, if not every specific point.
Clerics actually have alot of features to change.
The mentioned archetypes aren't actually changing all of them.
Channel is a big one that is pretty easy to remove or slow down to differing degrees.
People don't give Channel respect, but with a Feat you can be doing it as a Move Action, i.e instead of doing nothing.
(while you are Standard + Quicken Casting potentially)
So "Caster Cleric" focused, what could we do with that: Why not convert Channels to Warpriest style Fervor action economy?
Within Warpriest that already is recognized as a "fair trade".
OR otherwise divert Channel to boosting Casting: boosting CL, or just opposed CL Checks, Saves...
OR tie Channel into the Domain Abilities/Spells somehow...
Clearly alot of stuff is possible even while retaining Channel in some form, never mind ACTUALLY replacing it.
EDIT: For Cardinal, why shouldn't Channel be able to function as Invesigator-like skill boost? If skills are the focus of class?
Messing with Armor is tricky, because just removing Proficiency is just saying "You can get it back with a Feat".
Imposing limitations on Casting like how Monk abilities work is one way, or imposing ASF% is another...
So going that latter route is a "bigger trade" than just losing proficiency per se... and should be able to allow something better "in trade".
So if the complaint is "not enought stuff to trade out", I would ask why only remove a Armor Feat (basically)?
Alongside Armor is Shields, which you can remove proficiency for... or otherwise restrict, e.g. have free hand requirement.
Which you could link to some Su/Sp-Casting-modifying ability that you are using that free hand to accomplish.
Giving Spontaneous Cures is a pretty obvious trade for some other kind of Spontaneous Substitution.
Now, most of those might be more powerful (esp. given the tight restriction to "Cure" spells only),
but that just means this trade should be conducted across multiple class abilities... No problem.
As well, adding to the spell list over-all is a reasonable approach to boost caster-ness,
and can be tailored to specific TYPES of "Caster Cleric", i.e. intrigue focus, whatever...
In fact, look at Evangelist Archetype, gains new spontaneous spells AND bardic performance,
in exchange for armor proficiency (NO ACTUAL LIMITATION/Feat Tax) and losing 1 domain and -3d6 channel (no effect on DC).
This is the type of trade that people want to see, either for a Caster Cleric or a decent "Skillsy/Intrigue Cleric". (which Cardinal didn't pull off).
On topic of Cardinal, skill points are NPC Class material, not PC Class material.
Skill Ranks are what you need to even begin the conversation about excelling in a role, not something to brag about.
It's really trivial to give some small abilities to augment these usages of skills, and make that area of the Archetype respectable.
(maybe that would still not be somebody's "Caster Cleric" but at least it would be fit for it's role)
I've suggested drawing from Inquisitors' non-combat abilities, maybe Rogue/Investigator talents, maybe even Unchained Skill Unlocks.
OP made some points about giving up stuff you wouldn't use anyways not being that big of a trade...
Fair point, but the other side of the coin is that if you are being pushed out of a role by some changes,
than stuff relevant to that role that wasn't traded away is still effectively being lost, at least in full effectiveness...
In Cardinal's case, if they are giving up armor (not really, since it's just a Feat away) and BAB, we expect them to stay out of combat more...
So the fact they keep d8 HD is really less valuable than if they still had BAB and armor, right?
In other words they have given up some value of d8 HD, yet that isn't reflected in the trade-offs.
So might as well go full-hog and drop to d6 HD (AFAIK Paizo has now accepted this as possible for Archetypes),
thus enabling more trade-space to give cool things in exchange for stuff given up.
(or on the flip side, recognize the archetype already DID give up part of the usefulness of that HD, and what they get in trade should match)
So again, the complaints of "not much stuff to give up/trade" feels silly when they don't try to touch everything they could.
It looks like [Knowledge Domain] gives knowledges as class skills but not scribe scroll. But the 3.5 cloistered cleric already does that so the knowledge domain is doing nothing there either.
Well I think we can say that in PRPG, getting a class skill is just not anything to brag about. It's something you get for free when it matches the theme.
To follow up on the idea that Domain Powers are significant (mentioned by OP and I agree),
when considering potential trades against a Domain (i.e. removing 1 Domain),
IMHO it should actually be considered WEAKENING that Domain before removing it wholesale...
Options: delaying progression/level, removing low/high level abilities, removing abilities but not spells, removing spells but not abilities.
That is obviously alot more nuance than wholesale removal, and allows to better match whatever trade is being made.
In case of Caster Clerics, unless specifically focused on maximizing powers of one Domain (and amplifying them etc),
I would generally be dubious of trades which remove 1 Domain, since the 2 Domains are big part of Clerics' Caster-ness...
(both on spell lists, and on powers which aren't casting per se, but which I lump togethe with casting as "magic powers")
NOTE: Evangelist gives up 1 Domain, but gains Su Bardic Performances AND new Spontaneous Substitution Spellcasting.
(those spells directly make up for lost Domain Spells, at the least)
For a Caster Cleric Archetypes, I would generally expect STRENGTHENING Domain, possibly adding 1, or adding 2nd domain slot (i.e. for each domain), unless otherwise gaining other magic ablities that are significant enough, whether tied to spells or not. (ala Evangelist)
EDIT: Also remember that while Domains are decently powerful, by default they are limited per each Deity's portfolio, so you can't really cherry pick as freely as would be optimal. Thus, augmenting Domains within this limitation retains more limits than might appear at face value.
It was Rune Domain that gave Scribe Scroll for free, my bad guys.
To follow up on the idea that Domain Powers are significant (mentioned by OP and I agree),
when considering potential trades against a Domain (i.e. removing 1 Domain),
IMHO it should actually be considered WEAKENING that Domain before removing it wholesale...
While I disagree with you that the cardinal fails at what it is supposed to achieve (just look at the 'what does a non wuxia fighter look like' thread for how much people actually value skill points - answer way more than I would have imagined) I do like your ideas on the domains. I think that could work for a casting cleric - but I think such a focus should come with a downside - and I totally think people who want 'full BAB all the time like 3.5' are just wanting to play a cleric that doesn't need anything else in the group - we don't play that game anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we can agree on the downside needed to trade, and I don't see any problem dumping BAB and HD, and having real armor restrictions vs. just losing Proficiency (Feat), or even weakening Channel as well... I just haven't seen Paizo try to make a comprehensive Archetype like that yet, despite complaining there isn't enough features to alter/replace.
Channel is great because it's so easy to weaken in just a partial way, although AFAIK up to now it is only weaked by losing D6's (not by losing effective Cleric level for it, which would reduce DCs... NOR by losing the ability completely, even if only to convert it to Channel Smite only or some such thing).
I haven't followed that thread at all, but on skill ranks in general my personal opinion is there is decreasing returns,
i.e. 2 is extremely restrictive (for non-INT classes), 4 is nice/average, 6 is good, 8 is super but not huge difference vs. 6.
I don't think I've heard complaints about classes with 4 or 6 skill ranks/ level,
I only hear complaints about classes with 2 ranks per level.
Again, having a rank is merely what you need to be in the game at all, it's nothing really special,
that's why I don't understand how that can be seen as sufficient for Cardinal, when they aren't going to be any better
in these skills than a standard vanilla Cleric, who can easily achieve 4-5 skill ranks/level without impacting casting.
I just feel that it's not at all clear-cut why one should prefer Cardinal
to just using a standard Cleric who take FCB:Skill and has a 12+ INT, and uses their extra Domain to get more "intriguey".
Honestly, I can't imagine saying "Oh yeah, if we added on Rogue Skill Un-Locks, that would be overpowered... Or if we added on Inquisitor Stern Gaze, Detect Alignment, Detect Lies, that would be overpowered..." etc. Fact is, even if those were added onto Cardinal, plenty of people interested in Intrigue Cleric would still decide to build a vanilla Cleric with 2 Intrigue-y Domains and 4+/ranks level.
Although on the topic of Domains, I really do wonder why we have Feats that allow ANYBODY to grab Sorceror BL Powers,
most especially Sorceror themselves are easily able to qualify for the full Feat chains there,
yet there is nothing for even Clerics themselves to grab further Domain Powers OF THEIR OWN DEITY...?
Although on the topic of Domains, I really do wonder why we have Feats that allow ANYBODY to grab Sorceror BL Powers,
most especially Sorceror themselves are easily able to qualify for the full Feat chains there,
yet there is nothing for even Clerics themselves to grab further Domain Powers OF THEIR OWN DEITY...?
THIS is an idea that needs to happen.
THIS is an idea that needs to happen.Although on the topic of Domains, I really do wonder why we have Feats that allow ANYBODY to grab Sorceror BL Powers,
most especially Sorceror themselves are easily able to qualify for the full Feat chains there,
yet there is nothing for even Clerics themselves to grab further Domain Powers OF THEIR OWN DEITY...?
I think this does exist in the ACG.
Research forthcoming.
I think that Cleric and associated classes need a more thorough rebuild, although now we're getting into Pathfinder 2.0 territory. Here is a copy and paste and partial edit of what I put in another thread:
Caster Cleric = new d6, 1/2 BAB Priest class: 9/9 Cleric spellcasting progression with Arcanist-style hybrid prepared/spontaneous casting; has Domains reworked into hybrids of mini-Arcane-Schools and mini-Mysteries, and gets 3 of them; Channel Energy is not a core class feature, but is a Domain Power of certain Domains (like it is in the Oracle/Shaman Life Mystery/Spirit); likewise, spontaneously casting Cure/Inflict-series spells is not a core class feature, but instead the passive power of certain Domains.
New (Battle) Cleric (d8, 3/4 BAB): Remix of existing Inquisitor and Warpriest chassis.
New Inquisitor: Prestige class building preferentially off New Cleric (Judgment powered by Divine Fervor; can't think of an alternative right now, but make provision for an alternate way to power it if future divine casting classes get something similar).
New Paladin/Hellknight/Tyrant/Antipaladin/Other Holy Warrior: Set of Prestige classes building preferentially off Cavalier or New Cleric (Smite powered by Challenge or Divine Fervor, respectively), and remixing Paladin/Antipaladin/Hellknight.
* * * * * * *
@Marc Radle: Are you talking about a Paizo hardcover or a 3rd party hardcover?
Research forthcoming.Although on the topic of Domains, I really do wonder why we have Feats that allow ANYBODY to grab Sorceror BL Powers,
most especially Sorceror themselves are easily able to qualify for the full Feat chains there,
yet there is nothing for even Clerics themselves to grab further Domain Powers OF THEIR OWN DEITY...?
I did find Believer's Boon, which doesn't scale up in a chain, and has the limition of only work 1/day or for 1 round, and it says your effective Cleric level is only 1. Not clear how that works if you actually are a Cleric with a higher actual class level.
Anyhow, I realized what probably the best "Caster Cleric" option currently is: Exalted PrC, which adds a Domain (Powers using PrC level) and other stuff.
Atop either base Cleric, Evangelist Archetype, Ecclesitheurge, or even Theologian, and you have a pretty strong Caster Cleric.
|
Now you can make a good argument that even though the Cardinal is d6 half BAB that no one ever said it was going to be the caster cleric/priest archetype people were looking for so there were false expectations.
But even on its own merits I think the Cardinal is a pretty underwhelming set of trades. Reduced BAB, reduced hit die, no spontaneous curing, no medium armor, no shields and only one domain. All in exchange for four extra skill points and some extra skills.
There's no reduced hit die. Just reduced BAB.
I just feel that it's not at all clear-cut why one should prefer Cardinal to just using a standard Cleric who take FCB:Skill and has a 12+ INT, and uses their extra Domain to get more "intriguey".
Because you need Int 16 and the FCB to have the same number of skill points as a cardinal with Int 10, and you're still down four class skills (three of which are pretty solid skills, geography is meh).
There may be diminishing returns on the skill points, but 6 is still a definite upgrade from 4.
2 extra ability points, 2 skill points, 1 hit point (FCB), 3 good class skills, 1 meh class skill vs spontaneous cures, a domain, and armour & BAB I'm not using anyway... depending on how good my deity's domains are and what the rest of the party looks like, that could go either way.
I agree that the Cardinal could easily have gotten a few extra minor skill abilities without overpowering it, but I would still play one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really do not see much need for the Cardinal Archetype, who seems to give up far too much for so little.
The Roaming Exorcist from Undead Slayers Handbook gets 4+Int, (very arguably what the Standard Cleric SHOULD get anyway), and also has the Unseen Revealed and Curse Seeker abilities that could fit very easily into an "Intrigue" style game, with Dispossession and Curse Eater possibly coming up rarely as well.
As for the Cardinal, getting the ability to loose Spontaneous Cure Spells and 6+Int Skills just really doesn't seem to balance out against loosing BaB, medium armor, shields, and a Domain. Something that would have been pretty thematic, but also giving the Archetype that little extra oomph I think it needs could have been to add in the Vigilante's Celebrity Perks and/or Loyal Aid Social Talents. Kind of makes sense that a ranking political figure of a faith would get minor discounts and have the ability to call in a favor.
You can't have everything
The 9-level casters generally don't have a lot of class features to play with. They have spellcasting, some type of customization suite (schools, patrons, bloodlines, domains), and a chassis (BAB, skill points, HD, saves).The arcane casters are hardest: generally its easier to make a new school or bloodline than swap pieces of a wizard or sorcerer - they can't even really trade off bits of their chassis - already having minimum BAB, skill points, and HD.
This means that most cleric archetypes have a very small list of things to trade off - one or both domains, BAB, HD, maybe Channel Energy. One can't get upset with a downgrade to 1/2 BAB to get some other shinies - there just isn't much else to trade.
When it comes to the Cleric, both as a class and then also looking at it's options/archetypes, is to consider just how much the assumptions of the game have changed since the Core Book, or even since 3.5 had come out. Other inclusions that really fight hard to share space with the Cleric as well have really challenged the idea that the Cleric "has everything", such as the Shaman, Oracle, Warpriest, or Inquisitor. It's been a while since the Cleric had even had a single class feature that no one else couldn't grab, and in many cases, other classes can even do it better/easier.
And while it is technically true that the Cleric is a 9th level caster, in truth it's actually closer to a 6th level caster. Before 3E, the Cleric was a 7th Level caster, and all 3E/d20 did was stretch those spell levels out to make it's casting progression more compatible with the Wizards (getting 9 levels of spells over 17 levels of play). 3E even made an effort to spread out more of the Cleric's spell list amongst other classes as well, and Pathfinder has kind of continued that trend as well, particularly along the lines of healing/buffing/warding.
The end result is that the Cleric is kind of caught in this weird halfway point between a "full caster" and a secondary "martial" class. But, with a few exceptions, it's very difficult to build too adequately into either of those two basic styles, both because of lack of options, (like for instance Archetypes that basically every other class gets plenty of) and because inborn prereqs just do not really support it.
Even as a 9th level caster, Clerics just do not benefit overly much from the vast majority of Metamagic Feats, simply because their spell list is so small and so limited in potential. Even compared to other 6th and 9th level casters, their overall spell list is pretty small over all. It's for this reason that many Clerics, regardless of their deity, build, background, etc. . . will likely have very similar spells chosen on any given day. Often, metamagic just isn't worth it because unlike with most other casters, Cleric spells tend not to scale too well. Both because of the lack of too much variety overall and partially as a side effect of stretching out the class for an extra 3 spell levels (including Orisons).
In my opinion, Cleric was right there with the Rogue in most needing an Unchained update, (I personally didn't think the original version of the Rogue was bad), but probably more so simply because of the way it's been painted into a corner for design space and overlap with so many other classes.
Similarly, there just are not as many, or as useful and/or interesting gear to help boost Cleric Spellcasting, high or low level. Obviously, with exceptions, as with everything. A lot of the gear that Clerics go for (outside of the most universal things everyone does) is sort of second hand for the class, intended for other classes, but partially usable for the Cleric.
As a backup or secondary martial character, it's also very nastily restricted from far too many options, with no real way of overcoming those issues like other classes do. By this I'm talking about those essentially must have Feats, such as Power Attack or most of the Feat Chains for any particular "style". Not being able to take the first one, or the "bread and butter" one until at least 3rd level is a pretty significant hurdle for such a barebones class. For the most part, as it always is, Ranged combat is sort of the exception in that it's generally not too difficult to make choices in game to mitigate your own weaknesses, (picking an enemy that isn't threatened by an ally to avoid the penalty for firing into melee at early levels).
As a spellcaster, a Cleric can temporarily help mitigate this, but realistically this is only true in perhaps 1 to 2 combats per day, so it's feasibility is really dependent on individual groups normal playstyles.
Giving up somethingnothingSean K Reynolds touched on this when giving advice for designing archetypes:
4) Limiting an existing class ability to one already-available choice isn't cool, nor is it a limitation.
A rogue archetype that says "you have to take this rogue talent at level 4" isn't cool.
A fighter archetype that says "you have to take this weapon category at level 5" isn't cool.
And, assuming that choice is especially appropriate for that character, it's not really a limitation because the character would probably want that thing anyway. A character with a dagger-fighter archetype wants to take "light blades" for weapon training, so forcing him to do it isn't a limitation to the character at all, and you shouldn't treat it like it's a penalty or weakness to justify making another new class ability better (as in, "oh, the daggermaster has to take "light blades," so to compensate for that limitation I'll give the archetype this other cool thing...").
Now, something I did want to take a look at is an Archetype I've generally heard to be pretty notably balanced, liked, and well received, but in many ways does very close to the exact opposite of what had been pointed to for good design.
The Dawnflower Dervish Bard Archetype from Inner Sea Magic page 34. First off, I did want to point out, if it wasn't clear, that this example does not contradict any of the above specifically, but it is very, very close to doing so for nearly all of them, particularly the idea of taking away options the character probably wouldn't have wanted too much anyway in order to give them ones that they would probably have picked anyway.
It focuses on Perform Dance, for example, handing out the pretty amazing Dervish Dance Feat (and proficiency) 2 levels earlier than it could have otherwise been gotten in exchange for Bardic Knowledge and Loremaster abilities that they probably wouldn't care about, and dropping a type of Bardic Performance (Dirge of Doom) that notes it would need more than Perform Dance for (audible and visual component) for a free Quickened Spell on all self healings.
Research forthcoming.Although on the topic of Domains, I really do wonder why we have Feats that allow ANYBODY to grab Sorceror BL Powers,
most especially Sorceror themselves are easily able to qualify for the full Feat chains there,
yet there is nothing for even Clerics themselves to grab further Domain Powers OF THEIR OWN DEITY...?I did find Believer's Boon, which doesn't scale up in a chain, and has the limition of only work 1/day or for 1 round, and it says your effective Cleric level is only 1. Not clear how that works if you actually are a Cleric with a higher actual class level.
Anyhow, I realized what probably the best "Caster Cleric" option currently is: Exalted PrC, which adds a Domain (Powers using PrC level) and other stuff.
Atop either base Cleric, Evangelist Archetype, Ecclesitheurge, or even Theologian, and you have a pretty strong Caster Cleric.
I have often wondered, if a better cleric design for a future pathfinder edition wouldn't just be to fold the evangelist/exalted prestige class features into the base class. You would certainly have to do a lot more tinkering to keep the power level in check, but it would make clerics a lot more favorable.
|
The Roaming Exorcist from Undead Slayers Handbook gets 4+Int, (very arguably what the Standard Cleric SHOULD get anyway), and also has the Unseen Revealed and Curse Seeker abilities that could fit very easily into an "Intrigue" style game, with Dispossession and Curse Eater possibly coming up rarely as well.
That's not even bringing up the amazing Herald Caller archetype from Monster Summoner's Handbook that gets 4+Int skills, bonus summoning feats and the ability to spontaneously cast summon spells for the tradeoff of a domain and harsher alignment restrictions on summoning.
|
When I talk about wanting a caster cleric, I'm talking about trading away a lot more than any of the above. I'm talking about a cleric who loses all spellcasting abilities for a week if they knowingly touch any weapon. They have stricter AC boosting restrictions than the ecclesitheurge, because they can't use any AC boosting items other than one that comes for free with the class. And then they need to have the ability to always have something to do, since they can't use weapons at all. I would probably boost their spells per level very slightly. They would get three full domains (not 1 and 2/2 like the ecclesitheurge). Also, they would either get a unique cantrip that did damage (and damage that scales up by level so it's always relevant even at high level) or else get a damaging domain power with unlimited uses per day, so they could always 'attack.'