One might argue, however, that what we know as the "iconic cleric" seems to disregard the differences between the various gods' portfolios and spheres of influence. Why should the cleric of a god like the Forgotten Realms' Ilmater or of a deity associated with magic or trickery or healing wear heavy armor?
Except nobody is pointing a hand crossbow at the cleric's head and making them wear heavy armor. If it doesn't fit the idea of your god, then you don't wear it.
Funny thing is, I started reading through the 3rd AP with the drow, and all the drow clerics I've run into so far, all wear heavy armor. I mean if you want to talk about a place where heavy armor seems to clash with the idea of a cleric, I would think it would be with those folks.
Not every cleric has to be an "iconic cleric", that doesn't mean the "iconic cleric" idea doesn't have value.
I really don't see the big deal about changing the "image" of the 3.P Cleric when that "image" can be changed with simply 1 level of multiclassing or some feat choices. The system is robust, people. I don't know why it's so hard to see that.
I think maybe it has something to do with that, in the past, people expected completely alternate base classes or prestige classes to significantly change the flavor of a standard core class. You don't have to do that anymore. You're in a safe place now. No no. It's okay. Let it all out. Loopy's here. Let it all out. Looo looo loo dooo doo doo...
|
every single Image I ever saw in any of the art from 2e cleric's had chain.
Oh and Van richen was not a cleric. And Warpriests would have taken the feat.
Every image I remember seeing had Plate, save for the low level ones. Either way, both responses are clearly moot ("every thing I saw") since they are anecdotal. The fact 1,2,and 3E had Plate clearly indicates they were intended to be able to wear the heaviest. If you choose not do to so, no one is going to force that Chain Cleric to "man up."
Take up the Van Richten "not being a Cleric" with WotC, the mini they produced in Underdark set has Cleric levels.
while Pathfinder is derived from 3.5 D&D it is not D&D, as that name has moved on to 4th edition.Again that is a red herring. PRPG is D&D. It was designed to be D&D, bought by those wanting D&D, and any suggestion it isn't D&D isn't particularly useful to this thread.And saying so is not going to change the fact that anything we say here will not make Paizo change the system that they have released as it is currently written.
What would be USEFUL would be to help make up house rules that will allow those who are unhappy with certain changes... to include them and keep their games balanced.
Do you have anything ideas on that regard?
Some things I would suggest. 1.) Clerics get to pick at 1st level a chenneling feat. They don't start with channel Positive (or negative), but rather can pick between channeling smite, elemental channeling, alignment channeling, channel energy, turn/rebuke Undead, etc. . .
Have the different Domains grant a class skill, (sort of). You don't get the +3, and each cleric level you only get 1 rank, so one or the other.
Some character traits focused on allowing different Cleric builds would go a longway.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
heavy armor but 7/9 spellcasting) notwithstanding
Houseruling the proficiency back in is somehow not being viewed as a solution
recall every copy of the core rules and change the cleric back to exactly the way it was in 3.5, in every detail
1e cleric got no domains, and had to be 16th level before he ever got those 7th level spells.
1st edition Clerics have 7 levels of spells with their 7th level spells on par (and better often) with Wizard 9th level spells. In short, 1E Clerics were full casters. Why did you even mention a recall? Trying to be funny? If this thread goes down that path, it will get closed.
House Rules are fine if you run the game. It is inappropriate to petition a DM for a house rule no matter how much the rule makes sense. In other words, I would just pay the feat tax way before I would ask the DM for a house rule. I tend to like D&D "by the book" with as little number of house rules as possible in both games I run and games I play.
You are right on domains, they are a 2nd edition creation (and refined in 3rd), but you haven't played 1e in a while have you? Needing to be 16th level to cast your highest level spells is normal. In 3rd, you needed to be 17th level. In PRPG, you still need to be 17th level (a "nerf" from 1e.) For whatever reason (that only made sense to Gygax) some classes had spells spread over 7 levels while others had them over 9 levels. Both groups of classes had spells of the same power at the top end and so both groups are considered full casters. The actual number (7 or 9) is irrelevant.
|
|
I think that Clerics had only 7th Level spells in 1E and 2E because they had so few spells over all. If you were to break up 5th - 7th level spells into 5th - 9th, they would have maybe a spell list of 4 or 5 per level.
With 3E, i think they made them 9 both to allow for Metamagic and a consistant DC system, and also to just make Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers similar for powers, (so +1 Spellcaster Level for PrC would not be significantly beter for Clerics, or things like that, or that a Cleric wouldn't need to wait a lot longer to go into a generic caster PrC).
It really does work out about the same though, I just think 9th level spells for all makes it simple and consistant.
|
1st edition Clerics have 7 levels of spells with their 7th level spells on par (and better often) with Wizard 9th level spells. In short, 1E Clerics were full casters. Why did you even mention a recall? Trying to be funny? If this thread goes down that path, it will get closed.
I've known Kirth for a while:
1) He has no sense of humour. ;)
2) He loves house-rules.
3) He's never gotten a thread closed, nor do I believe he has tried.
If characters max out their spell levels around 16th level, and the wizard has 2 extra levels of spells, then said wizard also has more spells and more versatility.
heavy armor but 7/9 spellcasting) notwithstanding
Houseruling the proficiency back in is somehow not being viewed as a solution
recall every copy of the core rules and change the cleric back to exactly the way it was in 3.5, in every detail
1e cleric got no domains, and had to be 16th level before he ever got those 7th level spells.
1st edition Clerics have 7 levels of spells with their 7th level spells on par (and better often) with Wizard 9th level spells. In short, 1E Clerics were full casters. Why did you even mention a recall? Trying to be funny? If this thread goes down that path, it will get closed.
House Rules are fine if you run the game. It is inappropriate to petition a DM for a house rule no matter how much the rule makes sense. In other words, I would just pay the feat tax way before I would ask the DM for a house rule. I tend to like D&D "by the book" with as little number of house rules as possible in both games I run and games I play.
You are right on domains, they are a 2nd edition creation (and refined in 3rd), but you haven't played 1e in a while have you? Needing to be 16th level to cast your highest level spells is normal. In 3rd, you needed to be 17th level. In PRPG, you still need to be 17th level (a "nerf" from 1e.) For whatever reason (that only made sense to Gygax) some classes had spells spread over 7 levels while others had them over 9 levels. Both groups of classes had spells of the same power at the top end and so both groups are considered full casters. The actual number (7 or 9) is irrelevant.
I really disagree that they're spells in earlier editions were on par with the wizard's. In any case in 3rd Edition they're spellcasting got even better.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
3) He's never gotten a thread closed, nor do I believe he has tried.
If characters max out their spell levels around 16th level, and the wizard has 2 extra levels of spells, then said wizard also has more spells and more versatility.
Well, what he said will offend some people.
Cleric got top level spells 2 levels sooner and always get more spells per day than Wizards. Looking over the book, the Wizard did have more spells.
Cleric
16th 7 7 7 6 5 3 1
20th 9 9 9 8 7 5 2
29th 9 9 9 9 9 9 7
Wizard
18th 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 2 1
20th 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 2
29th 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6
I really disagree that they're spells in earlier editions were on par with the wizard's. In any case in 3rd Edition they're spellcasting got even better.
They got Astral Projection, Earthquake (8th in 3E and no Wizard), Gate, and Symbol (8th in 3E) plus the Druid had Creeping Doom which in 1E was auto kill (7th and sucks in 3E.)
|
I believe that most people who disagree with the loss of Heavy armor proficiency basically disagree with Mr Bulmahn's assessment.
Clerics needed a bit of nerfing above and beyond some key spells.
You may not agree with me, and that is certainly your choice, but they needed, in my opinion, to be toned down a bit. The loss of heavy armor proficiency accomplished that cleanly, with a minimal amount of disruption to previous products and adventures (since it can easily be undone with a single feat).
Comparing the cleric to every other class, it becomes clear that the cleric has some very nice class features and bonuses. I have gone over these in the past... but will do so again. 3/4 BAB, d8 Hit Dice, good Fort and Will saves, the ability to channel energy, and the ability to cast in armor without spell failure are all really pretty solid. Now lets take a look at their spells. While most levels do not have the raw damage dealing power of the Arcane list, they have a lot of versatility (being able to prepare whatever spells they want) in solving problems, curing conditions, and being an all-around useful member of the party. This is not even taking into account the spells from 3rd party sources (and other books) that really add to the power of the divine list. Add on top of this a pair of domains, granting them four powers, and a bunch of bonus spells.
Now, it was in my opinion that this was a bit over the top. After discussions with a number of folks involved with the 3.0 design, I got the impression that they overcompensated for clerics a bit to make them more attractive. I do not feel that is necessary and I took steps to correct the imbalance.
I do not share the idea that the "overcompensation" was not necessary, or more precisely that nerfing some key spells was not enough to balance the class.
I feel that Mr Buhlman overcompensated in the other direction (though admittedly far less IMHO than his predecessors) by removing the proficiency.
It is a given that we have no power to change the printed rules and that we will play within the strictures they give, sometimes marginally changed by whatever houserule the GM allows (and not that many do, for fear of unbalancing the whole system).
Thus our clerics will be PFRPG ones, likely much different from their 3.5 ancestors.
This is no problem for me at all.
However, I fear that little by little, clerics will lose their attraction to players who by and large seem to prefer contributing directly to the action rather than just supporting their fellow gamers (through healing and buff spells).
I feel that keeping the proficiency was a great way to avoid this now that Channelling helped clerics use their spells and indeed their standard actions for other things than healing.
We shall see.
BTW, I have the utmost respect for Mr Buhlman and the awesome work he did on the PFRPG. Going for balance, reverse compatibility as well as integrating the feedback and ideas of tens of thousands of gamers is utterly amazing. PFRPG is a true labor of love and I deeply thank all of Paizo and especially Mr Buhlman for it.
Well, what he said will offend some people.
Agreed. People assuming that the cleric somehow has to be improved from 3.5, rather than nerfed a bit, are exceptionally resistant to a reality check when it comes to balancing classes a bit, as this thread attests.
However, those same people were already offended that Paizo would dare remove heavy armor without their permission (as they've made clear for the last umpteen pages of posts). I figure, they might as well be offended at me as well. Share the love!
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Agreed. People assuming that the cleric somehow has to be improved from 3.5, rather than nerfed a bit
I figure, they might as well be offended at me as well. Share the love!
Well I'd wager 99% of those are fine with a little nerfage and I'd say a majority are fine with a lot of nerfage (like I was.)
The lost of Heavy Armour is a change of image and not a nerf.
As for your goal, you succeeded. The tone of your messages in this thread are derogatory and offensive.
The tone of your messages in this thread are derogatory and offensive.
Again, I agree... but taken on the whole they were less so than the preceding pages full of demands that Paizo apologize and restore the armor proficiency immediately.
I know the boards aren't all about me. I know I could just ignore it. But it really, really bugs me when I see so much time and energy on boards that I really have enjoyed being a part of in the past spend so much time on a handful of threads, especially when this handful of threads are so tightly focused on extremely similar topics.
I fully respect the opinions of everyone in this thread. Lots of people make good points on both sides of this argument. On the other hand, lots of people are also ignoring what the other side is actually saying and redefining what the other side is saying instead of actually addressing it.
Most of the people posting in this thread have said their peace several times over. Once in a while they "trade partners" and start quoting a different opposing opinion, but they keep making the same points while addressing a different person.
For those that do not like this change, it is important for Paizo to know that you aren't happy with the change, and why, but once you have articulated that point, you aren't going to magically change the rule in the Core rulebook now that its own. Note the problem for Paizo and why it bugged you, and move on. I'm sure they heard you.
For those that are fine with this change, is important for Paizo to know that they served your needs as well, and why you agree with this change, and why it works for you. On the other hand, denigrating the opinions of those that disagree with the change or mischaracterizing what some of those that aren't happy about this change have actually said isn't going to make the people that hold that opinion suddenly abandon their own opinion on the matter.
I know its probably going to fall on deaf ears, but please, let this thing die. If specific issues come up in future game sessions that are relevant to the topic, hey, that's great, bring it up. But its really pointless to keep restating the same opinion, again and again, more emphatically, because all its doing is generating more and more ill will and taking a lot of the wind out of other, far more productive, discussions that could be going on elsewhere.
Agreed. People assuming that the cleric somehow has to be improved from 3.5, rather than nerfed a bit
I figure, they might as well be offended at me as well. Share the love!
Well I'd wager 99% of those are fine with a little nerfage and I'd say a majority are fine with a lot of nerfage (like I was.)
The lost of Heavy Armour is a change of image and not a nerf.
As for your goal, you succeeded. The tone of your messages in this thread are derogatory and offensive.
Agreed. It's not about power it's about keeping the clas, the class we know from D&D. Let's be honest the pathfinder cleric class looks like a mess. A great deal of the pathfinder cleric was altered last minute, not in beta but between beta and final copy and it shows.
Let's be honest the pathfinder cleric class looks like a mess. A great deal of the pathfinder cleric was altered last minute, not in beta but between beta and final copy and it shows.
I completely agree with you on these points, just not with what's to be done about them. (I also feel these comments apply equally to the bard, the monk, and some of the others as well.) My reaction, though, was to simply rewrite those classes and hopefully work out the bugs, and to get a group together to playtest the changes, as we're doing every Monday. Yelling at Paizo about it is water under the bridge, as it were -- the hardcover is already out, and it's too late to put the armor back into print, although it can still be houseruled.
Let's be honest the pathfinder cleric class looks like a mess. A great deal of the pathfinder cleric was altered last minute, not in beta but between beta and final copy and it shows.I completely agree with you on these points, just not with what's to be done about them. (I also feel these comments apply equally to the bard, the monk, and some of the others as well.) My reaction, though, was to simply rewrite those classes and hopefully work out the bugs, and to get a group together to playtest the changes, as we're doing every Monday. Yelling at Paizo about it is water under the bridge, as it were -- the hardcover is already out, and it's too late to put the armor back into print, although it can still be houseruled.
I hear (read) what you are saying, and maybe I give people more credit (and I am far too cynical for that to be a good thing), but I didn't see who the hell was yelling at Paizo? Are you sure you aren't just overreacting?
Are you sure you aren't just overreacting?
Maybe. From what I've understood, a point/counterpoint summary would look something like this:
"Clerics need heavy armor, it's a part of their image."
"So were blunt weapons only."
"No, 3.5 only. Earlier editions don't count."
"Take a level of fighter?"
"No; giving up a level of spellcasting can't happen."
"Well, that's tough. Guess you've got to spend a feat, then."
"No; that's too much to expect. Even with the extra feats in Pathfinder rules, clerics don't get enough."
"Then the only other possibility is to houserule it back in somehow."
"No. Houserules aren't good enough because (I'm in league play/my DM is a dick/I don't use them/whatever)."
Now, remembering that the hardback is already out, it's too late for Paizo to cave in and change it back. So what exactly do people expect them to do? That's what I can't understand. If the continued demands are not yelling at Paizo, what else are they? Cries of anguish into the lonely night?
|
|
The tone of your messages in this thread are derogatory and offensive.Again, I agree... but taken on the whole they were less so than the preceding pages full of demands that Paizo apologize and restore the armor proficiency immediately.
God, if he thinks you're derogatory and offensive, I'm glad I didn't get into this discussion...
;)
|
|
already out, it's too late for Paizo to cave in and change it back. So what exactly do people expect them to do? That's what I can't understand. If the continued demands are not yelling at Paizo, what else are they? Cries of anguish into the lonely night?
My guess is people want:
A) Paizo to acknowledge a mistake and correct in the future/splatbook/other core book.
B) Just want their opinion heard (which is fair as long as it is reasonable, which most seem to be, especially compared to way back in the Alpha phase).
C) Stir up some discussion about game design.
D) Let off a little steam.
E) Let Paizo know they crossed a line for some people and not to do so in future.
Personally, I think the old spellcasting downsides (such as dying from polymorph - there's your balance) were more iconic and functional as rules than a single armor proficiency, but you don't see whole threads devoted to "Reinstate haste having a chance to age the recipient."
On the other hand...you do see "Increase Casting Time Threads" so everyone does get some say.
Oh well, water under the bridge.
|
|
The tone of your messages in this thread are derogatory and offensive.Again, I agree... but taken on the whole they were less so than the preceding pages full of demands that Paizo apologize and restore the armor proficiency immediately.God, if he thinks you're derogatory and offensive, I'm glad I didn't get into this discussion...
;)
That's what I was confused about. He's being a decent person about it, but really should look at some of the older threads (like the one about Darrin Drader being "a poor adventure writer*" because (golem + ring-gates + scry).
*This wasn't actually the term used.
|
|
The tone of your messages in this thread are derogatory and offensive.Again, I agree... but taken on the whole they were less so than the preceding pages full of demands that Paizo apologize and restore the armor proficiency immediately.God, if he thinks you're derogatory and offensive, I'm glad I didn't get into this discussion...
;)
That's what I was confused about. He's being a decent person about it, but really should look at some of the older threads (like the one about Darrin Drader being "a poor adventure writer*" because (golem + ring-gates + scry).
*This wasn't actually the term used.
I remember that thread. Ah, the good old days...
:/
Personally, I think the old spellcasting downsides (such as dying from polymorph - there's your balance) were more iconic and functional as rules than a single armor proficiency, but you don't see whole threads devoted to "Reinstate haste having a chance to age the recipient."
Heh. I houseruled "resurrection survival" rolls back in. Can't WAIT 'til someone dies and says, "Well, no big deal, 500 gp and I'm good as new!"... and then fails the roll.
|
|
Personally, I think the old spellcasting downsides (such as dying from polymorph - there's your balance) were more iconic and functional as rules than a single armor proficiency, but you don't see whole threads devoted to "Reinstate haste having a chance to age the recipient."Heh. I houseruled "resurrection survival" rolls back in. Can't WAIT 'til someone dies and says, "Well, no big deal, 500 gp and I'm good as new!"... and then fails the roll.
Your group actually resurrects dead characters? We just callously loot the body (if we're good we donate it to a church or charity) and head to the inn to recruit reinforcements. ;)
I've been working on and off for over a year on a "Complex Spellcasting Guide" which includes downsides to casting, specifics on all spell components for both arcane and divine spells, and explicit directions on how the spell is cast (such as needed two hands free to cast burning hands. I'm about 1/4 way through the 3.5 spell list, but I haven't done any work in months.
My guess is people want:
A) Paizo to acknowledge a mistake and correct in the future/splatbook/other core book.
B) Just want their opinion heard (which is fair as long as it is reasonable, which most seem to be, especially compared to way back in the Alpha phase).
C) Stir up some discussion about game design.
D) Let off a little steam.
E) Let Paizo know they crossed a line for some people and not to do so in future.Personally, I think the old spellcasting downsides (such as dying from polymorph - there's your balance) were more iconic and functional as rules than a single armor proficiency, but you don't see whole threads devoted to "Reinstate haste having a chance to age the recipient."
On the other hand...you do see "Increase Casting Time Threads" so everyone does get some say.
Oh well, water under the bridge.
Assuming you think Paizo made a mistake. The idea that they did is not universal. If they don't think they did, so much for "changes / corrections".
After 800+ posts and several other threads I'd say people have aired their opinions.
At this point discussion about game design should, imo, be more about houseruling changes to suit peoples issues.
Again, with 800+ posts steam should have dissipated by now :D
No matter what they did (keep things the same, change things, etc.) they would have crossed somebodies line. People are passionate about their game.
I agree with the usefulness of some of the old penalties / downsides for spells, but then I favor experience point costs for magic item creation (except maybe one use items like scrolls and potions) too. Of course, I haven't played in 20+ years, I DM. A lot of the changes in 3.0 / 3.5 made players happier. Sometimes with unforseen impacts on the game.
|
|
Assuming you think Paizo made a mistake. The idea that they did is not universal. If they don't think they did, so much for "changes / corrections".After 800+ posts and several other threads I'd say people have aired their opinions.
At this point discussion about game design should, imo, be more about houseruling changes to suit peoples issues.
Again, with 800+ posts steam should have dissipated by now :D
No matter what they did (keep things the same, change things, etc.) they would have crossed somebodies line. People are passionate about their game.
I agree with the usefulness of some of the old penalties / downsides for spells, but then I favor experience point costs for magic item creation (except maybe one use items like scrolls and potions) too. Of course, I haven't played in 20+ years, I DM. A lot of the changes in 3.0 / 3.5 made players happier. Sometimes with unforseen impacts on the game.
You are right, perhaps the time has come and gone for some types of complaints. I'm in agreement, but others are not and I don't dislike them for it. Some people need more time to adjust, some people never will. It's the same way I hate playing 4th edition, but not the people that play it. Like you said, people are passionate about their game.
Now, remembering that the hardback is already out, it's too late for Paizo to cave in and change it back. So what exactly do people expect them to do? That's what I can't understand. If the continued demands are not yelling at Paizo, what else are they? Cries of anguish into the lonely night?
I see the difference in opinion between us. I can't say for sure, but I really don't think any one was expecting Paizo to do anything.
I was the only one that admitted that I had a very thin hope it may come to pass, and that ends up being a very distant third on my list of priorities.
I still hold my opinion that no one was yelling at Paizo.
At this point discussion about game design should, imo, be more about houseruling changes to suit peoples issues.
Again, with 800+ posts steam should have dissipated by now :D
I would agree with you, except when Beckett tried to focus the discussion on suggested houserules, the general consensus was something like "why bother?"
And the steam could have dissipated, however the same pot keeps getting stirred. Nobody seems ready to drop the subject.
And that tells me that some people still need to talk about it.
|
|
The tone of your messages in this thread are derogatory and offensive.Again, I agree... but taken on the whole they were less so than the preceding pages full of demands that Paizo apologize and restore the armor proficiency immediately.
I do not remember any post here asking for this sort of thing (especially the apologizing part), but people poiting out what they feel was an unnecessary change that will lead to problems later on (such as the reduction in the number of players wanting to play a cleric unless they are once again boosted).
And as far as the precedent pages being quite derogatory and offensive to Paizo, I am certain that if Paizo shared your point of view, they would have locked this thread an eternity ago. After all, one of the things I really appreciate here is that they are elegantly walking the fine balance by respecting people's differing opinions, yet quickly and fairly dealing with disruptions in the forum.
Why would there be a reduction in the number of people playing a cleric? Simply because of not having Heavy Armor Proficiency from the start? If that is the case, I suppose it would be because of one of two reasons (or both for that matter).
One side of the coin is that players will feel that the cleric has been "nerfed" and will not want to play what they now consider an "underpowered" or "handicapped" class. Frankly, I find that a rather exaggerated reaction to something that someone who plays a cleric can rectify by simply taking a feat (I am choosing the feat solution simply because it is the least -let us say- bothersome; one can always multiclass as well or make up a houserule or two). This side of the coin has to do with rules obviously.
The other side of the coin has to do with flavor or, in other words, the image of the class, the "iconic cleric". I admit my experience with D&D before the 3rd Edition is not all that great because, though interested in playing, other people were not. Regardless, wasn't the cleric of old a heavy-armor-wearing blunt-weapons-only walking medi-kit? Hasn't the image of the "iconic cleric" already been changed with the ability to use weapons other than blunt ones and with the abiliy to spontaneously cast healing spells rather than having the need to memorize them?
Why is heavy armor so all-important to the image and feel of the cleric? Isn't a scalemail- or chainmail-wearing holy (or unholy) warrior, weapon and shield in hand, his body radiating with holy or unloly power, a good enough image? Or a good enough class for those that are more interested in the gaming and rules part rather than the feel? Or for a person interested in both for that matter?
As a side-note, I would like to clarify that I would probably never play a cleric and really do not care whether the class is powerful or weak or what not (though, as far as I can tell, the cleric is both powerful and versatile and the loss of an armor proficiency does little to diminish that fact). The whole "holy warrior and divine agent" thing does not do it for me. Simply trying to understand what all the fuss is about...
I really like that, too. Was it Heroes of Horror that had a variant Res rule or a Dragon mag, (or both)?
First edition had the rules for reserection survival.
Why would there be a reduction in the number of people playing a cleric? Simply because of not having Heavy Armor Proficiency from the start? If that is the case, I suppose it would be because of one of two reasons (or both for that matter).
Part of the issue is that the class has gone even further done the line of the healbot. He before pathfinder was by far the best healer in the game with the ability to change out spells for healing spells. Adding channel energy he has become a healing battery, alternating between single target heals and "farting" out holy energy in AoE healing.
The loss of heavy armor is symbolic of his role becoming even more passive and support based only. It pulls him out of the front line and drops him in the back line. He doesn't move any better in his medium armor, except in a full run but who is doing that often. So he's still relatively immobile just now he's not as well protected.
The cleric needs a rewrite in my view, it's not a completed class as is in pathfinder. I am running RotRL now so I will start with the pathfinder gods. Planning out the base class abilities, the domain powers need actually planning and balancing, and the spell lists need cleaning up. I think domains are good, but not done right in either 3.x or pathfinder. They could be used for so much more to make various clerics stand out more from each other. I think a small standard list of spells that all clerics have is fine, but that at least half a cleric's list of spells is based on the domains he has. So that is the direction I will be trying at first, I may abondon it if it gets out of hand but I think it will make more interesting clerics. It may end up I have a cleric class and specialty priests, 2nd ed style. Who knows. When I am done I may post my cleric/priest class(es).
Why would there be a reduction in the number of people playing a cleric? Simply because of not having Heavy Armor Proficiency from the start? If that is the case, I suppose it would be because of one of two reasons (or both for that matter).
Part of the issue is that the class has gone even further done the line of the healbot. He before pathfinder was by far the best healer in the game with the ability to change out spells for healing spells. Adding channel energy he has become a healing battery, alternating between single target heals and "farting" out holy energy in AoE healing.
The loss of heavy armor is symbolic of his role becoming even more passive and support based only. It pulls him out of the front line and drops him in the back line. He doesn't move any better in his medium armor, except in a full run but who is doing that often. So he's still relatively immobile just now he's not as well protected.
The cleric needs a rewrite in my view, it's not a completed class as is in pathfinder. I am running RotRL now so I will start with the pathfinder gods. Planning out the base class abilities, the domain powers need actually planning and balancing, and the spell lists need cleaning up. I think domains are good, but not done right in either 3.x or pathfinder. They could be used for so much more to make various clerics stand out more from each other. I think a small standard list of spells that all clerics have is fine, but that at least half a cleric's list of spells is based on the domains he has. So that is the direction I will be trying at first, I may abondon it if it gets out of hand but I think it will make more interesting clerics. It may end up I have a cleric class and specialty priests, 2nd ed style. Who knows. When I am done I may post my cleric/priest class(es).
I'm not sure if it was you or another poster (and let's face it it's a little daunting to search through the various threads...) who mentioned the fact that some clerics gain a proficiency with their deities weapon and others gain nothing (since they already have it). The argument was that this was 'internally unbalanced' since some cleric's got something and others didnt.
I wanted to point out to whoever it was that I think it makes more sense to consider the choice of deity as a package. Given the domains aren't all balanced - the addition or otherwise of a weapon proficiency may partially alleviate imbalances in the domain. Hope that makes sense - it was just an idle thought which came up.
I'm not sure if it was you or another poster (and let's face it it's a little daunting to search through the various threads...) who mentioned the fact that some clerics gain a proficiency with their deities weapon and others gain nothing (since they already have it). The argument was that this was 'internally unbalanced' since some cleric's got something and others didnt.
I wanted to point out to whoever it was that I think it makes more sense to consider the choice of deity as a package. Given the domains aren't all balanced - the addition or otherwise of a weapon proficiency may partially alleviate imbalances in the domain. Hope that makes sense - it was just an idle thought which came up.
I know I mentioned it a few times, though I am unsure if I am alone in mentioning it. So either way it could be used to help balance the class internally. I don't see that it is being used in that way currently. Also it would not be easy to use it for balance either since it would mean changing diety's favored weapons based on domains they offer, which doesn't always make sense logically. Look at WeJas a Greyahwk god of Death, Magic, and Law. Take Law and Magic as domains and you will have weaker domains then Magic and Death, but her favored weapon is a dagger, so all clerics have access to that. If you use favored weapon as a balancing factor it doesn't help.
Take St. Cuthbert and say Kord also from Greyhawk. Both have strength as a domain and it isn't a great domain on the whole. But if you try and buff it with favored weapon Kord priests get great sword, a nice pick up. St. Cuthbert priests get heavy mace...not a pick up at all.
Now you could use it if you were to build the class diety by diety it might work but that is a some serious amount of work. In the end it might end up with a better class, but the detail it would take to make it good for most published worlds would be immense and could fill a book about pathfinder's core book in size all about just one class.
It seems to me that what you're proposing is a hybrid version of the specific 'spheres' that were around in 2nd edition AD&D (and before that too, for all that I know). You could possibly use the old 2nd edition sphere spell lists as part of your reorganistion, maybe, if breaking up the spell list in such a manner is along the lines of what you have in mind.
It might have been interesting to see PFRPG head in such a direction, but I suspect that from a backwards compatability point of view it probably would have been too difficult to manage without giving the cleric class a chapter all of its own to explain a new system that was also backwards compatible.
Yeah it does harken back to what second ed had, that is why I refered to specialty priests and all.
I could go with a generic cleric (like 2nd ed did) which could fill the role of warrior/defender of the faith for any religion with a more limited spell list, then create speciality priest types with more specialized skill sets.
For instance the cleric might have only 7 levels of spells, or 6 like the bard. Or he might simply have a much more limited spell selection. The speciality priests would be the ones more caster then anything else, unless they take like war and strength domains, but I would limit armor to light for them as a base but their domains would include access to say medium armor or even heavy if the domain seemed to support it.
Or I could do something more basic and simply fix the domains for more balance drop favored weapon, drop channel energy, return turning and heavy armor. It depends, I think no matter what way I go, the domains need work to bring them into balance with each other, so that is likely were I will start. I might start a thread on the house rules forum for input, as I want this to be a solid set of house rules that covers as many issues as possible. But as Jason did, I go into this with a set of preconcieved ideas that I doubt will be changed. One of which is heavy armor for the cleric, the other of which is they need to be able to turn/control undead. As a matter of fact I will just do that, start a thread post my goals and my starting ideas. I think I am done with this thread, it isn't getting any improvements added to the game so it isn't worth my time any more. Enjoy all.
Part of the issue is that the class has gone even further done the line of the healbot.
The loss of heavy armor is symbolic of his role becoming even more passive and support based only. It pulls him out of the front line and drops him in the back line.
The cleric needs a rewrite in my view, it's not a completed class as is in pathfinder. I think domains are good, but not done right in either 3.x or pathfinder. They could be used for so much more to make various clerics stand out more from each other.
I agree with this. I don't have a problem with PRPG nerfing heavy armor or Turn Undead, I just don't feel PRPG gave much back to the cleric, especially in terms of making the class more interesting and fun to play. So much more could have been done revising domains and their abilities in general, to make them more interesting. I would have been OK with them taking away even more, as long as something good was given back (class skill, feat, power, spontaneous casting) when clerics gain domains.
Also, what happenned to clerics gaining domains as they level up (in Beta)? I thought that was fair considering other classes get to look forward to something as they level.
Now that so many offensive spells have been nerfed, spell casting in combat being very difficult, and heavy armor is gone, a cleric's role is more support orientated than ever, and how much fun is that game-after-game? If they were going to nerf the healer, they should have made healing possible and available in some other format. For healers to be fun and viable, they need some offense as well as defense.
So this topic isn't just about their armor (for me), it's about PRPG making the cleric class too support orientated, while not making it an interesting and compelling selection like the other classes.
|
|
Part of the issue is that the class has gone even further done the line of the healbot.
The loss of heavy armor is symbolic of his role becoming even more passive and support based only. It pulls him out of the front line and drops him in the back line.
The cleric needs a rewrite in my view, it's not a completed class as is in pathfinder. I think domains are good, but not done right in either 3.x or pathfinder. They could be used for so much more to make various clerics stand out more from each other.
I agree with this. I don't have a problem with PRPG nerfing heavy armor or Turn Undead, I just don't feel PRPG gave much back to the cleric, especially in terms of making the class more interesting and fun to play. So much more could have been done revising domains and their abilities in general, to make them more interesting. I would have been OK with them taking away even more, as long as something good was given back (class skill, feat, power, spontaneous casting) when clerics gain domains.
Also, what happenned to clerics gaining domains as they level up (in Beta)? I thought that was fair considering other classes get to look forward to something as they level.
Now that so many offensive spells have been nerfed, spell casting in combat being very difficult, and heavy armor is gone, a cleric's role is more support orientated than ever, and how much fun is that game-after-game? If they were going to nerf the healer, they should have made healing possible and available in some other format. For healers to be fun and viable, they need some offense as well as defense.
So this topic isn't just about their armor (for me), it's about PRPG making the cleric class too support orientated, while not making it an interesting and compelling selection like the other classes.
Same here. Don't like how they added the d6's for channeling to make it look like they get something, too.
|
|
Part of the issue is that the class has gone even further done the line of the healbot. He before pathfinder was by far the best healer in the game with the ability to change out spells for healing spells. Adding channel energy he has become a healing battery, alternating between single target heals and "farting" out holy energy in AoE healing.The loss of heavy armor is symbolic of his role becoming even more passive and support based only. It pulls him out of the front line and drops him in the back line. He doesn't move any better in his medium armor, except in a full run but who is doing that often. So he's still relatively immobile just now he's not as well protected.
I find this logic a little lacking unfortunately. Barbarians and Rangers have been fighting the in front lines for years with only light Armour and medium armour. While those classes are balanced out by full BAB and more hit points (though on average only 1 per level by Hit die as far as rangers go), the cleric is balanced by being a full caster. Hell, monks are a combat class and they don't even wear armour.
The channel energy device was actually implemented to make a cleric less restricted to just healbot. Now they can use their spells for something apart from swapping out for healing. In fact, it has greatly increased their versatility as a caster, because they can take reactive and proactive spells now, with a better than average chance for getting to use them (at least in lower level play).
Having just completed a high level campaign (Age of Worms up to level 20), I can tell you that the difference in AC between the heavy armoured characters and the medium armoured characters was very small. The cleric in the game (even wearing heavy armour) never got in fights (if he could help it) because he couldn't hit anything and he was definitely needed for support and healing. The party would not have survived without him constantly supporting and healing. It's what clerics do, especially at high levels, and nothing can do it as well as they can.
I cannot argue with your point about the armour being an image change, but as far as game mechanics and game play go, this is really a storm in a tea cup fellas.
Cheers
|
|
The cleric needs a rewrite in my view, it's not a completed class as is in pathfinder. I am running RotRL now so I will start with the pathfinder gods. Planning out the base class abilities, the domain powers need actually planning and balancing, and the spell lists need cleaning up. I think domains are good, but not done right in either 3.x or pathfinder. They could be used for so much more to make various clerics stand out more from each other. I think a small standard list of spells that all clerics have is fine, but that at least half a cleric's list of spells is based on the domains he has. So that is the direction I will be trying at first, I may abondon it if it gets out of hand but I think it will make more interesting clerics. It may end up I have a cleric class and specialty priests, 2nd ed style. Who knows. When I am done I may post my cleric/priest class(es).
If you're interested, there is the Lion's Den Press 'Priest of the Celestial Spheres' available at DriveThruRPG for about $6.
I got it way back and I love it. It's exactly what you are proposing, and also has a mechanic for using Turn Undead to power sphere abilities.
I really disagree that they're spells in earlier editions were on par with the wizard's. In any case in 3rd Edition they're spellcasting got even better.
I agree here. I played a lot more 2E than 3E. The last game of 2E I played was about just over 10 years ago so going off memory here but I played a Half elf Cleric/Wizard to 19th level. I can tell you from my experience that I remember is that 8th and 9th level spells were much better than the Priests 7th level spells. I do remember that the priests 7th level spells did seem better than the wizards 7th level spells but they were weaker or par with the 8th level and 9th level wizard spells were just nuts.
uys always forget the xp charts. A 20th level cleric had 2'700'000 xp putting him in the same group as a 17 th wizard. Also recall that a 17th level wizard got 28 spells total while the 20th level cleric got 49 spells
so sure they had more powerful spells but cleric could wear armor, had blunt weapons could use shields and a d8 HD...if ya recall HD stopped at 9th level. Also a stiff wind stopped spells lol, and touch attack stopped your spells and you lost them. Clerics had em to spare
|
|
The channel energy device was actually implemented to make a cleric less restricted to just healbot. Now they can use their spells for something apart from swapping out for healing. In fact, it has greatly increased their versatility as a caster, because they can take reactive and proactive spells now, with a better than average chance for getting to use them (at least in lower level play).
Here is my problem with that. It is true that it allows the cleric to not have to use their spells for healing as much, but it does not really grant the cleric any more action in combat. They still use their action to heal,and because they can now heal for free, it is expected of them to not do much else. I really wish that there was no channel, and also there was no spontanious healing. Because then you would only have what you prepaired, and it would force other players to play smarter rather than depending on the cleric to act as the font of healing. It would also make magical healing more special rather than taken for granted.
I love the conceptof the Cleric. And the Paladin. So when I say I think the Paladin is too powerful and a better cleric than the cleric, keep that in mind. I don't really like the concept of the combat healer. Sometimes it is fun, but not usually, and most of my dislike of the PF cleric is that it really forces the healer cleric as the norm.
|
|
uys always forget the xp charts. A 20th level cleric had 2'700'000 xp putting him in the same group as a 17 th wizard. Also recall that a 17th level wizard got 28 spells total while the 20th level cleric got 49 spells
so sure they had more powerful spells but cleric could wear armor, had blunt weapons could use shields and a d8 HD...if ya recall HD stopped at 9th level. Also a stiff wind stopped spells lol, and touch attack stopped your spells and you lost them. Clerics had em to spare
You're right. Their hit points and experience totals were actually very close to a fighters, so they were capable warriors. They also had to be very careful lest a DM take away all their spells.
You're right. Their hit points and experience totals were actually very close to a fighters, so they were capable warriors. They also had to be very careful lest a DM take away all their spells.uys always forget the xp charts. A 20th level cleric had 2'700'000 xp putting him in the same group as a 17 th wizard. Also recall that a 17th level wizard got 28 spells total while the 20th level cleric got 49 spells
so sure they had more powerful spells but cleric could wear armor, had blunt weapons could use shields and a d8 HD...if ya recall HD stopped at 9th level. Also a stiff wind stopped spells lol, and touch attack stopped your spells and you lost them. Clerics had em to spare
That is still true. It is still written into the class that if a Clerics violates a deities ethos, s/he loses all class abilities (primarily spells).
For those that are used to reasonable GMs, that doesn't seem like a big deal. But there are quite a number of unreasonable GMs in the world...
Here is my problem with that. It is true that it allows the cleric to not have to use their spells for healing as much, but it does not really grant the cleric any more action in combat. They still use their action to heal, and because they can now heal for free, it is expected of them to not do much else.
I've played more than one cleric, and I've never healed in combat (unless it was a by-product of a mass cure wounds vs. a horde of undead). Healing was something I had liesure to do after the fight was over. ("Well, Bob is unconscious, he gets the heal spell, and Fred is pretty banged up, I'll give him a cure critical next...") During a fight, I always felt better off helping my side win by using spells to hold enemies, inflict penalties on them, or buff the whole team -- because, realistically, enemies can almost always inflict damage a lot faster than you can heal it. Healing during combat is like taking one step forward, two steps back.
Well the cleric's economy of action has improved dramatically with the channel energy, in addition to the fact that it frees up spells.
Before Channel Energy a cleric that wanted to heal had to apply spells to each person they wanted to heal. They could literally spend all battle running from person to person healing one after another. With the channel energy the cleric can heal everyone at once. Now he does have to be a bit careful about where he bursts, or possibly take Selective channeling to allow him to choose people to leave out, however those are IMO the price of playing.
Now Channel Energy probably won't do as much as an equal level 1 target healing spell, however it does do it to the entire party, and will generally end up with more damage healed than the mass cure line of spells.
One reason I like it much better is that if you aren't a combat healer, you don't have to waste a lot of spells or charges to heal everyone after combat either. Generally a burst or two will do it. Also if you played a battle cleric before channel energy was on the screen then you can still do so. Nowhere in the description does it say "You must use this during battle" or "You must use this to save your other party members" or even "You must use this." You can choose not too, and if you choose a Negative energy cleric instead, you are only better than the old Rebuke undead IMO, with no other difference on being a "heal bot".
The point is, for a cleric to do nothing in combat except heal is a CHOICE, not a class feature. And it's often a very inefficient choice, when you can instead help end the fight faster and therefore prevent a lot of the damage from ever happening in the first place.
|
|
Healing during combat is like taking one step forward, two steps back.
Case in point of why I agree:
Our party comes across two Spawn of Kyuss. One member gets infected, they and three others run in terror. My cleric and the wizard are left to fight.
Option A: Let the wizard try to fight them with his Fiery Burst and Grease spell, run after the party member (at 2/3 her speed) into a dark dungeon, and figure out how to remove the worm.
Option B: Shoot the undead in the face with light of venya for 12d6 damage.
I chose B. Sure the infected character died, but it was that or the whole party one by one.
The only time my clerics heal in combat is when Joe the Babarian has a rage/power attack/adamantine thing going for him and he's the surest thing for victory. In my experience, healing in combat only provokes the enemy into wailing on an already fragile character.
"Woohoo! I'm back from -1 hit points and up to 17! And prone! What? That giant is still trying to hit me? Bye everybody!"