Clerics IN DND have to charge positive and negative energy to use their spells. So for the least I don't see a positive channeling cleric having access to a spell that can snuff out life of any type.
No, they don't. They need to channel Positive or Negative energy to affect undead, or spontaneously cast. Not to cast their prepared spells.
Sir Hexen Ineptus, I do not agree with your changes. However, if they must be done, there are a couple of alterations that would need to be made.
Base Attack: worstIf Combat Maneuver Bonus doesn't get changed, then I would have to petition that they, at least, get a defensive modifier to offset this, or they will suffer trips and bullrushes preventing the iconic roll you define.
For balancing factors: Require their god's holy book of prayer to prepare spells; and maybe even cast them.I would say Holy Symbol instead. And throw in a formula that bases the cost of a Holy Symbol off of caster level. After all, the more of you deities power you are channeling, the better made the Symbol will have to be to withstand that energy.
Not a bad idea about the defense. I did give them the tower shield, but we can't give them too much because then we will be stepping on the fighters toes too much.
Don't know what to make of the symbol idea though.
Clerics IN DND have to charge positive and negative energy to use their spells. So for the least I don't see a positive channeling cleric having access to a spell that can snuff out life of any type.No, they don't. They need to channel Positive or Negative energy to affect undead, or spontaneously cast. Not to cast their prepared spells.
Sorry, but just my idea on how to justify limiting more of their spell selection.
Clerics should only be able to cast spells that go along with their deity's philosophy. (Why is a cleric of Pelor buffing himself so that he can beat up demons?)
Very good point, if that is taken care of then maybe dropping the bab might not be needed.
Clerics wear heavy armor and shields.
Clerics use "simple" weapons.
Clerics turn undead.
Clerics are a full progression spell caster.
If you want to move clerics towards being "priests" from WoW, that's fine, but it is moving away from what clerics have been since 1st edition.
Prior to 3E, clerics were not full progression casters - they only got up to 7th level spells. Spells like harm were top dog top tier spells, but even those have been dropped somewhat.
I think that is part of the problem. By giving clerics access to 8th & 9th level spells, the balance was thrown off. Since it's unlikely that we'd see 8th and 9th level cleric spells be removed, I think the cleric needs to be tweaked in other areas. I'm not sure I'd go with the BAB lowering (that would seem to interfere more with backwards compatibility than removing an armor prociency that could be taken as a feat), but something needs to be changed somewhere.
The various buff spells do make the cleric very powerful, but IIRC, they have limited durations, and still need to be casted one spell at a time - which precludes healing in the same round. I recall playing a dwarfen cleric up to high levels, and that was always the limiting factor - use a buff spell on yourself to be a better fighter or healing your comrades-in-arms to keep them fighting. In-combat healing was very important in the games I played in or those I DM.
If he had several rounds worth of buff spells cast on himself, he was indeed nigh-unstoppable, but I did not feel that this was unbalanced. If the cleric has his buff spells "on" all the time, it is surely unbalanced.
Another problem is the "generic-ness" of the cleric. (On these boards, a "non-generic cleric" was worked out to address that problem, btw). This can only be remedied for individual campaigns, I guess, and not for basic rules.
I think that the cleric is a powerful class, more than in older editions of the game, so limiting his spell selection according to the campaigns needs might be called for.
Armor is a consideration for indiviualized clerics - and if you take magic items, like bracers of protection, into account, the point about disallowing heavy armor is mostly moot anyway. Making the cleric a weaker fighter (reduced BAB) takes away a part of the traditional D&D cleric, which took its image from medieval religious knightly orders, or the sohei of Japan (note that this is the image, not necessarily the abilities, the cleric is built upon). Also, I don´t think that armor and BAB are at the core of the cleric problem - it is more the spells that make him possibly overpowered.
Adjusting the fighter might be not a bad idea - the wizard is a powerful class as well, and the rogue has his pronounced strengths under certain cirumstances.
In the end, the classes don´t need to be perfectly balanced rules-wise IMO, but they need to be balanced fun-wise - it has to be fun to play every class.
Stefan
Also, this is an interesting trend that I've seen. Up until a few months ago, I had never seen anyone claim that no one gets healed in combat, only between combats, but in the last few months I've seen this comment start to crop up from time to time. Its not something I've ever seen in my campaigns though.
Well, ask the designers over at WotC. And not just in their candid moments off camera, but in the actual printed books:
Cleric: The cleric is undoubtedly among the most effective characters in the game. With the right spells, he can rival even warriors in combat, and no character is more effective against undead.
...
For most groups, the very idea of not having a front-line fighter is appalling. Yet this roles is in some ways the most disposable. Clerics and druids are competent warriors in their own right, and with the right set of buff spells (such as bull's strength, magic weapon, and the like), they can be the equals of nearly any warrior-type character.
-Frank
As a side note, for fun I've run a "dungeon rumble" on at least two occasions in the past, and been witness to several more over the years. In these "dungeon rumbles", with characters of levels varying from 8th-20th level wandering around a dungeon environment hunting each other down and killing one another, clerics have proven themselves to be top dogs, capable of bullying all the other classes with their spell selection. Give a cleric three to five rounds to ready for a combat, and he can best just about anything thrown in his direction. Even more so than the wizard (Harm + Quickened Inflict Minor Wounds = OW, and that's hardly an optimized combo).
One thing I'm wondering in regards to specific spells. What if Divine Power were to be reworded to have the same limitation as Tenser's Transformation - the cleric gives up the ability to cast spells and use spell trigger items when the spell is activated - he becomes a melee monster, but loses his spell abilities? Also, I think cutting implosion down to killing one target (period) would be appropriate, rather than allowing its use by NPCs to kill a standard party of four over four rounds (As well as changing any save-or-die spell to deal 1d8 or 2d8 damage/level instead of auto-kill so the party has to do a little work on an opponent instead of dropping them in the first round on the wizard/cleric's initiative).
Dumb question #1: Why not allow clerics with the Healing domain use healing spells at range?
Dumb question #2: Why not allow clerics use healing spells at range?
Metaphorical ties to clergy's ability to "Lay on Hands". In other words, tradition. Also, you have to consider Inflict spells. If they become ranged, you basically can turn clerics into blaster mages, as good aligned clerics can take inflict spells as easily as evil clerics. In the end, that may just give them too much oomph instead of toning them down (as they begin to step on the wizard's toes).
Hmm, I suppose that you're right. Wonder if there's any other way to fix the issue without nerfing clerics...personally, I feel that clerics have more than enough spellpower to wade into combat to heal someone even with a reduced HD/BAB/etc.
Clerics wear heavy armor and shields.
Clerics use "simple" weapons.
Clerics turn undead.
Clerics are a full progression spell caster.
If you want to move clerics towards being "priests" from WoW, that's fine, but it is moving away from what clerics have been since 1st edition.
Prior to 3E, clerics were not full progression casters - they only got up to 7th level spells. Spells like harm were top dog top tier spells, but even those have been dropped somewhat.
I think that is part of the problem. By giving clerics access to 8th & 9th level spells, the balance was thrown off. Since it's unlikely that we'd see 8th and 9th level cleric spells be removed, I think the cleric needs to be tweaked in other areas. I'm not sure I'd go with the BAB lowering (that would seem to interfere more with backwards compatibility than removing an armor prociency that could be taken as a feat), but something needs to be changed somewhere.
What I meant was that they weren't "half" casters, and they got the full range of divine spells, which only went up to 7th level at the time.
Well, ask the designers over at WotC. And not just in their candid moments off camera, but in the actual printed books:-Frank
Actually, that kind of proves a point that I've been making recently, that the WOTC guys have some pet peeves with the game, and they started beating the drum about the things that bothered them, and in turn, convinced people that since these things were issues with them, it must be a problem with the game.
It may be a problem with some game styles, but I saw a lot of things in the game that were never considered problems until the designers "got candid" and started telling us we weren't having fun.
There have been a few playtests blogs where Rich Baker is mentioned as having metagamed the session and telling people what monster's weakest saves and the like are without making any kind of Knowledge roll or without his character having any reason for knowing the information as well. Some tables may allow that, but mine doesn't.
Clerics should only be able to cast spells that go along with their deity's philosophy. (Why is a cleric of Pelor buffing himself so that he can beat up demons?)
Because they're demons? Those bastards want to blot out the sun, you know.
I think a specialised spell list tied to portfolio would not only be not backwards compatible, it would be a nightmare.
Okay, maybe not a nightmare, but a huge effort.
Well, ask the designers over at WotC.
No, I won't. They'd just tell me that my game sucks and that I should subscribe to 4e. :P
Clerics IN DND have to charge positive and negative energy to use their spells. So for the least I don't see a positive channeling cleric having access to a spell that can snuff out life of any type.
No, the energy channeling isn't tied ot their spellcasting - they get their spells directly from their deities.
They use energy to affect undead and convert some of their prepared spells to stuff that deals with wounds.
But they're not one-trick ponies. Neither are their patron deities.
He he giveth, he taketh away and all that.
So the energy isn't his spellcasting. His deitie's ideals and agendas are his spellcasting. Those deities don't give them spells so they can go around feel powerful. Clerics get magic so they can further the goals of the faith.
And practically every faith has enemies to oppose and friends to protect. Should Desna's Spherewalkers visit Lamashtu's followers with pamphlets and calmly explain them the error of their ways?
About the damaging spells, maybe they should up their spell level by 1 at the least. Clerics are supposed to be the healers, not the caster damage dealers. That steps on the wizard's toes too much. The only thing that now keeps the two classes apart spell wise now is that wizards can't heal normally.
They're already at least 1 level up. Clerics can't even start to keep up.
At 1st-level, the cleric has to walk up the guy and touch him to deal his 1d8+1 magic attack, and the guy gets a save to boot. The wizard will just fire away with his magic missile and always hit. The damage might not be as much, but without the attack roll and the save, it's reliable. Or you use shocking grasp for 1d6 for a shocking grasp. Or an area effect (even if it's just 1d4 - burning hands)
At 3rd-level, the cleric gets not only a whopping 2d8+3 (with the same limitation), but also 1d8 from sound burst (okay, there's the stun, and that's not bad). The wizard has 2d4+2 which always hits, or 3d4 or 3d6 with the other spells he still has - or he'll blast away with 4d6 at a ranged touch with scorching ray.
At 5th-level, the cleric gets 3d8+5, or even a nice 2d8/5d6/5d8 against a single target (for the good damage, it would have to be undead). Good for them. The wizard will start dealing out 5d6 against eather a long line of enemies or a whole bunch. A ray of searing light that kinda stings one living critter against a ball of fire that immolates me along with the rest of my party? Colour me unimpriest with the pressed.
What's next? Great freaking flame strike for the 9th-level against a 10-ft radius area. Granted, it will go up to 15th-level against 10th for the fireball, and it is not all fire (helpful!), but it's still much smaller than the fireball, and on the same level, the wizard will already throw around empowered fireballs if he wants. Those go in for an effective 13d6 and will reach 15d6 a level later (5 levels ahead of the cleric). Or he'll start playing with cold in addition to lightning and fire.
Blade barrier is more a deterrant than an actual damage dealer. And it has to content with chain lightning, and while that one doesn't do that much damage to the other targets, you can fire it right into the thickest melee.
The only one that's left after that is firestorm, and while that one's real nice, it's yet another fire spell.
Guys your missing the point of divine magic . it don't have arcane failure chance, and I wouldn't want to see it. much easy to only give cleric light and medium armor only at 1st.
I agree. Its divine, the failure rate should be low. Restrict the armor to medium at low levels if there is concern over balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ARGH. Armor is not the main issue! Armor literally comes last out of all the problems on the list.
1. Class structure: d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, two good saves, full spellcasting progression.
2. Spellcasting mechanics: automatically know all spells on list for free, spontaneous healing (allowing many clerics increased freedom in selecting spells for the day), spells that negate the role of the trapmonkey, useful and powerful spells, spells that augment combat efficacy, almost as many spells/day as the sorcerer.
3. Divine metamagic.
4. Armor proficiency.
Personally, I'm fine with spellcasters being overpowered at higher levels. That's what I want my casters to be like. What I don't want, however, is a gish that gets everything with no sacrifice--at least the wizard has to lose a few caster levels.
No, the energy channeling isn't tied ot their spellcasting - they get their spells directly from their deities.
They use energy to affect undead and convert some of their prepared spells to stuff that deals with wounds.
But they're not one-trick ponies. Neither are their patron deities.
He he giveth, he taketh away and all that.
So the energy isn't his spellcasting. His deitie's ideals and agendas are his spellcasting. Those deities don't give them spells so they can go around feel powerful. Clerics get magic so they can further the goals of the faith.
And practically every faith has enemies to oppose and friends to protect. Should Desna's Spherewalkers visit Lamashtu's followers with pamphlets and calmly explain them the error of their ways?
It was just an idea. I am trying to think of ways to fit a proper restriction. So you generally don't like the idea.
They're already at least 1 level up. Clerics can't even start to keep up.
At 1st-level, the cleric has to walk up the guy and touch him to deal his 1d8+1 magic attack, and the guy gets a save to boot. The wizard will just fire away with his magic missile and always hit. The damage might not be as much, but without the attack roll and the save, it's reliable. Or you use shocking grasp for 1d6 for a shocking grasp. Or an area effect (even if it's just 1d4 - burning hands)
At 3rd-level, the cleric gets not only a whopping 2d8+3 (with the same limitation), but also 1d8 from sound burst (okay, there's the stun, and that's not bad). The wizard has 2d4+2 which always hits, or 3d4 or 3d6 with the other spells he still has - or he'll blast away with 4d6 at a ranged touch with scorching ray.
At 5th-level, the cleric gets 3d8+5, or even a nice 2d8/5d6/5d8 against a single target (for the good damage, it would have to be undead). Good for them. The wizard will start dealing out 5d6 against eather a long line of enemies or a whole bunch. A ray of searing light that kinda stings one living critter against a ball of fire that immolates me along with the rest of my party? Colour me unimpriest with the pressed.
What's next? Great freaking flame strike for the 9th-level against a 10-ft radius area. Granted, it will go up to 15th-level against 10th for the fireball, and it is not all fire (helpful!), but it's still much smaller than the fireball, and on the same level, the wizard will already throw around empowered fireballs if he wants. Those go in for an effective 13d6 and will reach 15d6 a level later (5 levels ahead of the cleric). Or he'll start playing with cold in addition to lightning and fire.
Blade barrier is more a deterrant than an actual damage dealer. And it has to content with chain lightning, and while that one doesn't do that much damage to the other targets, you can fire it right into the thickest melee.
The only one that's left after that is firestorm, and while that one's real nice, it's yet another fire spell.
I will get back to you on this, don't have the books right here and now.
But I remember there are a few spells in the Spell compendium.
(a lot about spells)I will get back to you on this, don't have the books right here and now.
But I remember there are a few spells in the Spell compendium.
Better get back to me on this, as it was I who wrote it :P
Anyway, the problem with the Spell Compendium (and other books) isn't the cleric. It's the Spell Compendium and other books that is the problem.
They can't nerf the core cleric because some extra books gave him overpowered or inappropriate spells.
There's another really bad thing with clerics: Divine Metamagic (Persistant Spell), where he can blow 7 turn attempts (if he doesn't have them, he will with extra turning) to get persistent divine power all day, at the cost of a single 4th-level slot. It's nasty, but it doesn't mean we should take turning away from the cleric.
spontaneous healing (allowing many clerics increased freedom in selecting spells for the day)
That's like the last thing I want to see going - except if they give them Healing Touch or something like it.
KnightErrantJR, 7 hours, 37 minutes ago Reply
New-05-Hermit avatar
Frank Trollman wrote:
Well, ask the designers over at WotC. And not just in their candid moments off camera, but in the actual printed books:
-Frank
Actually, that kind of proves a point that I've been making recently, that the WOTC guys have some pet peeves with the game, and they started beating the drum about the things that bothered them, and in turn, convinced people that since these things were issues with them, it must be a problem with the game.
It may be a problem with some game styles, but I saw a lot of things in the game that were never considered problems until the designers "got candid" and started telling us we weren't having fun.
There have been a few playtests blogs where Rich Baker is mentioned as having metagamed the session and telling people what monster's weakest saves and the like are without making any kind of Knowledge roll or without his character having any reason for knowing the information as well. Some tables may allow that, but mine doesn't.
1. I made a list of my groups pet peeves of 3.5, and you know what. When designers of 4ed made their list of necessary fixes,about all of my point where brought up. (now they may be trying to fix the game by beating it to death with "great" ideas, 4th ed, blah) every game is different because people are different. (I dont know about all of your groups but i always have way to many wilderness classes, Barbarians, Druids and rangers) there are some element that just keep popping up in a good number of gaming groups, and dont feel out of the loop if it doesnt happen to you, things take time^^.
2.look, it may seem to you that people jumped on the developers bandwagon but it might just be that some people hadnt figured out what was vexing them, and need some outside assistance. Ive been making and hearing these complaints in good numbers, for over half the life of 3rd edition.
I would like to be able to show you that we are not all developer drones. the fact that we are HERE and not salivating over the upcoming 4th ed grand opening.
in regard to clerics, i would have to agree that heavy armor is not the problem (it may look like a easy solution for some who really wish to NOT see the Cleric nerfed bad)
the problem might not even be the base attack bonus (it just makes the buffing hurt more. its the buffs that turn the table, and the damaging spells.(I dont care if gods should allow cleric and druids offensive magic, its just not balance with arcanist. Clerics should have flames strike and thats it) now changing the cleric spells would be to much trouble for backwards compatibility. (it pains me to say that) so what are some easy solutions
base attack nerfing is fine (okay pathfinder has this hit die tied to BaB, but what do you think they are going to do with Ranger? they are probably still goind to be d8's with primary Bab (it not religious codex yet people.) The cleric can be 1d8s with poor Bab (its not optimal but it does what it needs to do)
Actually forget this, this is the fix, Cloistered Cleric. I ways thought the thug cleric was to much in the face of the Paladin. Clergy always has believers to do the dirty work. Cleric through out time were thinkers, (let the knights fight the crusades, Im going to hang and figure out genetics in my abbey.)
Cleric
1d6
poor base attack bonus
fort will primary (deal with the sick, need fort. backed by a god, will makes sense)
6+intelligence mod skill points per level
lore ability (this could change)
Bonus Knowledge domain (this might need tweeking too)
full normal spellcasting
And for the lot of you screaming "what about my cleric of war?!" gains some fighter or Barbarian levels, thats what multiclassings for. or make a Champion class (devotee fighters, LG Paladins NG Sentinels CG Avengers etc, etc)
I'd like to agree with those that think that the cleric's BAB, HD Size is too high and that they should lose they're Good Fort Save. The Cleric is just too good. I don't think that Clerics should lose all armor, because as others have said they need to be protected in melee. But I don't think they need Full Plate as default. Rogues do pretty good in melee with only light armor, but they're pretty mobile and heavier armor actually can be a disadvantage because of armor check penalty. But there are such things as Armor Proficiency Feats and a cleric in light armor would be more mobile and therefore able to get to where they are needed faster. I say either light or medium armor should be the default, though I'm leaning towards light myself.
As for the problem of a cleric's large spell selection I'm testing a variant that will give clerics a small spell list, but also allow them to cast any spell on that list spontaneously. This is another option.
A think that perhaps not all clerics should get the same features. For instance, a cleric of Olidammara would be all sneaky and stuff with better skills, probably a good reflex save, ect. but low armor. A cleric of Grummsh would get maybe even Heavy Armor as default and good combat skills, but might sacrifice casting ability. A cleric of Pelor would be similar to a traditional cleric. And so forth. Similar to the Non-Generic Cleric concept that was done on these boards a while back, except probably not quite as open. They're would be specific variants rather than a menu of choices most likely. These variants could even be used to separate the cleric spell list up. You could have Blaster Clerics, or Warrior Cleric and they'd be balanced because you'd have to give things up.
1. I made a list of my groups pet peeves of 3.5, and you know what. When designers of 4ed made their list of necessary fixes,about all of my point where brought up. (now they may be trying to fix the game by beating it to death with "great" ideas, 4th ed, blah) every game is different because people are different. (I dont know about all of your groups but i always have way to many wilderness classes, Barbarians, Druids and rangers) there are some element that just keep popping up in a good number of gaming groups, and dont feel out of the loop if it doesnt happen to you, things take time^^.2.look, it may seem to you that people jumped on the developers bandwagon but it might just be that some people hadnt figured out what was vexing them, and need some outside assistance. Ive been making and hearing these complaints in good numbers, for over half the life of 3rd edition.
I would like to be able to show you that we are not all...
Honestly, allow me to apologize. I came off a lot more snarky than I intended to. I do honestly think that the developers shaped a lot of opinion, purposefully, when they knew 4th edition was around the corner, and I think there was a good deal of bandwagoning, but at the same time, I didn't mean to imply that anyone that agreed with some of their assertions were drones of any kind.
I'm sure you are correct in pointing out that some of the concerns that people have voiced in the wake of designer comments have been concerns that they held themselves independent of any campaigning that may or may not have gone on, and I'm sorry that I trivialized that.
I just tend to get a little bent out of shape when individuals tend to tell me that I'm wrong because I'm not concerned about something or that something really is a problem in my game even if I haven't seen it. That being said, my response wasn't much better than what provoked it, so I hope there are no hard feelings.
The use of Turn attempts to heal has a major drawback in and of itself....it is a non-selective radial effect. Nothing says the cleric gets to choose who is and is not healed in that radius. If one is not very careful they could heal more enemies than they do allies. The inverse goes for evil clerics (and neautral clerics useing negative energy)...they could easily kill a several useful allies using their turn attempt. Granted some particularly nasty evil clerics wont care, but it is silly to think that all of them wont since some evil characters (especially lawful evil) have a rather convoluted sense of honor that would make them hesitate to rebuke if it meant killing a friend or lover.
-Weylin STormcrowe
ARGH. Armor is not the main issue! Armor literally comes last out of all the problems on the list.
1. Class structure: d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, two good saves, full spellcasting progression.
2. Spellcasting mechanics: automatically know all spells on list for free, spontaneous healing (allowing many clerics increased freedom in selecting spells for the day), spells that negate the role of the trapmonkey, useful and powerful spells, spells that augment combat efficacy, almost as many spells/day as the sorcerer.
3. Divine metamagic.
4. Armor proficiency.
Personally, I'm fine with spellcasters being overpowered at higher levels. That's what I want my casters to be like. What I don't want, however, is a gish that gets everything with no sacrifice--at least the wizard has to lose a few caster levels.
Good write up, and yes armor proficiencies are a very good point, but I think they should be able to keep them, they need it too much.
You did forget,
1.5 Domain Abilities.
Cleric
1d6
poor base attack bonus
fort will primary (deal with the sick, need fort. backed by a god, will makes sense)
6+intelligence mod skill points per level
lore ability (this could change)
Bonus Knowledge domain (this might need tweeking too)
full normal spellcastingAnd for the lot of you screaming "what about my cleric of war?!" gains some fighter or Barbarian levels, thats what multiclassings for. or make a Champion class (devotee fighters, LG Paladins NG Sentinels CG Avengers etc, etc)
Wow that is a gimp, they are supposed to be front line healers aren't they?
Did you look at my build for the cleric?
1D8 hit die
Poor base attack
Will good,
Fort, intermediate (poor but +1 at levels 1, 10, and 19.
4+int skill points
Add Tower Shield Prof.
Max 3 spells/day all spell levels
+1 additional turn at level which would normally get 4.
I would say Holy Symbol instead. And throw in a formula that bases the cost of a Holy Symbol off of caster level. After all, the more of you deities power you are channeling, the better made the Symbol will have to be to withstand that energy.Don't know what to make of the symbol idea though.
Well that comes from the fact that not all deities have a prayer book, and not all Clerics have to read. But every Cleric has to have a Holy Symbol.
Also, this is an interesting trend that I've seen. Up until a few months ago, I had never seen anyone claim that no one gets healed in combat, only between combats, but in the last few months I've seen this comment start to crop up from time to time. Its not something I've ever seen in my campaigns though.Well, ask the designers over at WotC. And not just in their candid moments off camera, but in the actual printed books:
-Frank
Cleric: The cleric is undoubtedly among the most effective characters in the game. With the right spells, he can rival even warriors in combat, and no character is more effective against undead.
...
For most groups, the very idea of not having a front-line fighter is appalling. Yet this roles is in some ways the most disposable. Clerics and druids are competent warriors in their own right, and with the right set of buff spells (such as bull's strength, magic weapon, and the like), they can be the equals of nearly any warrior-type character.
How come none of that addresses KnightErrantJR's point about in combat healing?
2. Spellcasting mechanics: automatically know all spells on list for free, spontaneous healing (allowing many clerics increased freedom in selecting spells for the day), spells that negate the role of the trapmonkey, useful and powerful spells, spells that augment combat efficacy, almost as many spells/day as the sorcerer.
By spontaneous healing, can I take it you mean spontaneous casting?
As someone who does it often enough, try playing an Evil (or Neutral Negative Energy channeling) Cleric in a living party. You will understand why spontaneous casting was tried, and why a lot of people don't want to lose it. This isn't supposed to suggest it isn't a problem. Just pointing out the other side of the point.
As for the "spells that negate the role of the trapmonkey," if you mean Find Traps, that is nearly useless to the Cleric. I have recently been enlightened on how to use it to help the trapmonkey, and that is the only reason it isn't completely useless.
By spontaneous healing, can I take it you mean spontaneous casting?
As someone who does it often enough, try playing an Evil (or Neutral Negative Energy channeling) Cleric in a living party. You will understand why spontaneous casting was tried, and why a lot of people don't want to lose it. This isn't supposed to suggest it isn't a problem. Just pointing out the other side of the point.
As for the "spells that negate the role of the trapmonkey," if you mean Find Traps, that is nearly useless to the Cleric. I have recently been enlightened on how to use it to help the trapmonkey, and that is the only reason it isn't completely useless.
I have to agree with you on the spontaneous casting, and the find trap spell. With the nature of the game your rogue is constantly trying to search for traps ALL the time your anywhere but in town. Being able to cast that spell to find it helps time a lot.
I want to reiterate that heavy armor proficiency isn't really a problem ether. A character in our game is a cleric/monk and he only uses his light armor prof. So it doesn't really matter.
It is the problem that a cleric has sooo many spells they can cast other than healing to cover too many roles.
A Wizard has magical damage dealing, buffing, and field control.
A Fighter has physical tank, field control, and damage dealing
A Rogue has Skills, situational extra damage dealing, and party security (finding traps, spot, listen)
However a Cleric has Magical Healing, Buffing, Turning, Damage Dealing physically, Damage Dealing Magically, and Tank. A cleric can also prepare spells for buffing and damage dealing, then instantly change all of them to healing, or vice-versa.
So I think the problem here might for the most part that clerics can play so many roles effectively. A few spells might need to be changed, I just can't remember the name but the on that grants them temporary full base attack bonus would be a major one to nerf a bit. Other than that, you all have seen my suggestion for what I think a cleric should be.
As for the D side of CoDzilla, I just removed wildshape. Completely. With that gone, the druid still makes a very decent addition to the party while not quite being overwhelming.
I played a druid in a campaign where the DM had just dropped the spontaneous summoning ability, and it seemed to go a long way to balancing the class. So there's another option.
I hated the vortex of lost money spellbooks created for a wizard character, so I most certainly would not support the idea of one for the cleric.
I'm opposed to the idea of dropping heavy armor. My cleric needs to be getting into to combat to aid his friends!
As for the boosting spells of a cleric making him better than a fighter. Tell me how many rounds it will take you to get that all up, eh? If a cleric sits back to buff himself up the combat is going to be over before he's done.
Of classes I beleive that cleric and druid actually got the least amount of play in my groups. No one wanted to be the cleric because you couldn't do anything but heal, and most certainly the domains were not worth going down the path. As for druids, well the only appealing thing was the wildshape.
As for psions being balanced, I laugh. Hahaha...They're about as balanced as a scale that uses feathers to measure the value of gold.
Now though I understand what this thread is discussing, and I wholly disagree with it. What I don't understand is, CODZILLA...what does that stand for?
(smurf)
~Anry
CoD-Zilla. Cleric or Druid. I think.
Could also be Chiuaua of Doom, Centaur on Dope, Cease or Desist (a milder) form of Cease and Desist, Charm of Dentists, Cash or Deposit, Come on Desna, Collar of the Dominatrix...[url=smurf][/url]
(smurf)
That's what I thought, I was just unclear on the "O" part. *chuckles*
But honestly I just had never come across the term before, well I have a few times in some the many many posts in the Alpha...but it was important to ask for the clarification at the time.
No sm[b][/b]urf!
I'm not quite clear on the o, either. Could be "on". Hot CoDzilla action.
I haven't heard it before, either, but this is the interweb, where the speed of information is virtually infinite if it comes to silly names, acronyms or pseudowords. I bet there was less than 10 minutes between the first time someone accidentally wrote "pwned" instead of "owned" and the whole internet using it as if they got it out of the bible.
Okay, this didn't come out quite as diplomatically as I wanted the first time I had posted this, but my cleric player generally likes the cleric as it stands. If some tinkering happens with turning specifics, or with specific domain abilities, that's cool, but a major change in the class at this stage is not something that either my player or myself would welcome.
Oh, and Smurf . . .
No smurf!
Aw, but why not? And why do I keep getting smurfette?
Aw, but why not? And why do I keep getting smurfette?No smurf!
because your smurfaful may be or they think ya might look good in a dress mayhap
and so do I it seems
*chuckles* I lack any decent curves to look good in a dress. lol
Okay, this didn't come out quite as diplomatically as I wanted the first time I had posted this, but my cleric player generally likes the cleric as it stands. If some tinkering happens with turning specifics, or with specific domain abilities, that's cool, but a major change in the class at this stage is not something that either my player or myself would welcome.
Oh, and Smurf . . .
So, basically, any attempt to balance the class would make annoy the two of you. Gotcha.
|
You guys are spending a lot of time looking in at the cleric and not from the perspective of the cleric. They aren't great warriors and are typically slow and undextrous. Their choice of weapons is severely limited (every class but wizard and druid have more varied proficiency, and Sorcs have all the same proficiencies).
They are unskilled (2+Int is pathetic for the number of skills they have. What's the point in all the other skills when you can only choose to have Knowledge religion and spellcraft. The new skills system in Pathfinder makes them even more unskilled, denying them the ability to choose new skills.)
Their spells will never stack up to a wizards, typically in either number or power. I've played with spontaneous inflicters, and they've had to prep over 3/4 of their spells as cures (preventing scaling spells or even party boosting spells from being cast). On that same note, the spells a cleric typically prepares besides these heals are over all party buffers (like Prayer). This means that a PARTY with a cleric is more powerful, not the class.
I tell you what. Sit down with a 25 point buy and build a cleric that you'd want to play. Can it really do all the things you are saying it can at once? Compare it then to a new rogue or fighter. Which would you rather play?
I really think that what you guys are trying to design is a bard. Cut the skills back and give him some more spells that are divine and this is what you guys want. (Check out the Healer Class in the Miniature's Handbook. While MarySued to LaLa and back, its pretty close to what you're envisioning)
I have read through this post and seen other discussions over the years in various forums regarding Clerics and Druids and their overpowered levels. From where I sit there is one aspect of both Clerics and Druids that is an intregal part of the classes, but I have yet to see mentioned in one of these discussion - there spells are divine, and there are ex-Clerics and ex-Druids.
The one major balancing factor with these classes is that they are subject to the tenets of a greater being ... the deity they worship, which by default is handled by the DM.
If players are creating Cleric or Druid characters and the DM is allowing free-reign for the players over spells they select and how they play that character without adhering to the concept of the religion they are supposed to espouse, then of course you are going to end up with abuses to the system.
Now I know that not all religions/faiths are clearly detailed out as to what you can't and can't do. And I also understand that some games (including the SRD) do not require a specific religion to be selected, but part of the job of a player running a Cleric or Druid, and the DM running that game is to define at least a certain amount of this tenet.
For myself, I have a couple of house rules on Clerics and Druids that I find help define the religions a little better.
1. I always have deities and a Cleric/Druid must select a deity - no generalist type divine casters. This immediately removes the whole "I worship the belief of Good/Neutral/Evil or whatever and can do what I like as long as I don;t bend alignment".
2. While I like to include additional source books for most of what they have to offer, for every spell a cleric/druid would like access to from other sources they have to swap it with a spell off of the PHB spell list. This enforces a spell list they have access to that limits the number of spells they can access to what a core Cleric/Druid does.
3. All of the spells they have access to need to meet the tenets of the faith. Rather than define very specific spell lists for every given religion I use a more guideline approach.
For example, Pelor offers the domains of Good, Healing, Strength, and Sun. All of the divine spells available for these domains are automatically on the spells available list. Additionally I would allow all spells with the Good, Healing, of Light descriptor, and any other spells that fit the general flavour of the religion. What spells areavailable is something I offer as guidelines and the player fine tunes.
4. The spells that a Cleric/Druid prepares on any given day are not avaialble to change enmass with each new day. Each day the character may change only one or two spells from what was available the day before. If they want to change more spells it requires a full day of prayer and meditation to refocus your belief.
5. I enforce religious tenets for the character within the game. Yes the character is an adveturer and he would likely have leave from the church to pursue whatever he is currently undertaking, or he is adventuring on behalf of the faith, but that faith should never be so completely bypassed in game that the character isn't pay some of the price they get for their power.
Just my two cents worth anyway.
|
|
I have read through this post and seen other discussions over the years in various forums regarding Clerics and Druids and their overpowered levels. From where I sit there is one aspect of both Clerics and Druids that is an intregal part of the classes, but I have yet to see mentioned in one of these discussion - there spells are divine, and there are ex-Clerics and ex-Druids.
The one major balancing factor with these classes is that they are subject to the tenets of a greater being ... the deity they worship, which by default is handled by the DM.
If players are creating Cleric or Druid characters and the DM is allowing free-reign for the players over spells they select and how they play that character without adhering to the concept of the religion they are supposed to espouse, then of course you are going to end up with abuses to the system.
Good Point.
Excellent post, very good points.
I have read through this post and seen other discussions over the years in various forums regarding Clerics and Druids and their overpowered levels. From where I sit there is one aspect of both Clerics and Druids that is an intregal part of the classes, but I have yet to see mentioned in one of these discussion - there spells are divine, and there are ex-Clerics and ex-Druids.
|
|
So I think the problem here might for the most part that clerics can play so many roles effectively. A few spells might need to be changed, I just can't remember the name but the on that grants them temporary full base attack bonus would be a major one to nerf a bit. Other than that, you all have seen my suggestion...
I believe you are refering to Divine Power. This is equal attack bonus, a bonus temporary hp/level, and a +6 str (I believe official errata makes this a +4 str, +4 con now however and did away with the 1hp/level).
What about the Sorc/Wiz spell Tenser's Transformation? This spell not only gives a mage an equal level base attack, but a +4 to str, dex, and con. It gives them natural armor +4, +5 to fort saves, and proficiency with all simple and martial weapons.
The jump from a cleric to fighter attack bonus is +5 at 20th level only. With old strength that's only +8 and 20 hp, new its only +7 and 40 real hp that go away when the spell ends.
However, a +12 and the ability to wield a greataxe, then a net +6 AC (can't forget dex), and 40 extra hp. Sure you can't cast spells, but you have to have both hands to wield that greataxe dontcha? How about a wizard with a full attack from a mighty composite longbow?
I tell you what. Sit down with a 25 point buy and build a cleric that you'd want to play. Can it really do all the things you are saying it can at once? Compare it then to a new rogue or fighter. Which would you rather play?
STR: 13
DEX: 12CON: 14
INT: 8
WIS: 16
CHA: 8
Divine Power: Full BAB, +1 HP/caster level, +6 enhancement bonus to Str.
Righteous Might: +4 size bonus to Str, +2 Size bonus to Con, DR 9/alignment, reach, +2 natural armor.