|
i understand, and we try every part... just not the magic
the magic has changed little since 3.5
how can magic be unfair if this is a game? by the nature of this being a game, everything within must be fair...or else it cheating. there has to be a balance between magic and mundane. or else the mechanics are broken and the game is no good. I agree that Magicmart is a horrible place, and items should be found, but there is nothing cheeky about a girdle of giant strength. magical items are all a mundane gets to even exist at high levels. all a spellcaster needs is two rounds, being buck naked, and they could take on equal high level CRs. in 2nd ed the Fighter would get boots of flying and the wizard would get two new unique spells (eyefire anyone?) items are mundanes spells, its like that in many a story.
je sorry
i didn't meant unfair as in game rulesi meant unfair in the fact that "magic" is supposed to break every rule of reality
my mistake i made an observation on setting and context instead of mechanics
and yes there is nothing wrong in finding items of power (or magic) that gives you effects
but thefactis that the game and the rules suppose that either you are finding or buying them... or your player suck after certain level
the actual rules involving magic and magic items are made to like consumism, after a while the item that you had is worthless... so get a new one or you suck, either you don't do damage enoug, you are unable to hurt ane nemy, your attributes are lacking or are abysmal comparing them with the npcs or the monsters
many spells are made to last a few rounds or minutes at most while the fighter new crafty item would last all day long...
spells are limited, a fighter swinging his vorpal is not...
3.0 give the option of preparing for the day, considering what risk you would had, not only you but your teammates it was more in spirit andcloser to 2nd edition, where magic felt as having a soul
magic should be fantastic... not just a class feature that last couple of rounds and unable to work to the next day un less you have miriad scrolls, wands, etc
the closer to this would be Arcana Evolved magic... i love that magic, is flexible, takes into acount the mystic of true names, spells are customizable, there are different complexity between them... etc
the only reason why i am not mixing them with pathfinder right now is because is a playtest... i need to work a way to use them :)
note: you cant lump different levels of abuse together (3.0 Haste= Fireball)Fireball is spanking your child, 3.0 haste was burning him with cigarettes, and throwing him through a glass door.
again sorry
i was out of context
|
i understand the pain of having your spell last 10 minutes per level while a item last all day, however the spellcaster gets access to such a powerful buff at 3rd level. A Fighter has to generally wait until 5th level to even get a +2 stat adjustment. by the time they can afford a full on perma-bull strength clerics are casting divine favor or equally more powerful buffs. its not a buff if you can walk all day with it on, its a magic item you didnt have to pay for. feats and a slight hp bump does not make up for even short duration buffs, with long duration buffs you would have to be daft to have a cohort protector that was actually a nonspellcaster (only reason not to is bookkeeping reasons)
Long buffs were ruining the element that nonspellcasters were actually good at any part of their job. now, at least, you have to have a smidgen of tactics to time your buffs.
long buffs=no need for nonspellcasters, its better to have another party member that can buff himself rather than one that has weapon focus, toughness, power attack and cleave. those feats are HORRIBLE buffs.
|
|
i understand the pain of having your spell last 10 minutes per level while a item last all day, however the spellcaster gets access to such a powerful buff at 3rd level. A Fighter has to generally wait until 5th level to even get a +2 stat adjustment. by the time they can afford a full on perma-bull strength clerics are casting divine favor or equally more powerful buffs. its not a buff if you can walk all day with it on, its a magic item you didnt have to pay for. feats and a slight hp bump does not make up for even short duration buffs, with long duration buffs you would have to be daft to have a cohort protector that was actually a nonspellcaster (only reason not to is bookkeeping reasons)
Long buffs were ruining the element that nonspellcasters were actually good at any part of their job. now, at least, you have to have a smidgen of tactics to time your buffs.
long buffs=no need for nonspellcasters, its better to have another party member that can buff himself rather than one that has weapon focus, toughness, power attack and cleave. those feats are HORRIBLE buffs.
you need 7 level to get Divine Power, and half the buffs are still for groups, and don't have to be used just personally they can be added to any of the group...also the buffs gave a random quantity 1d4+1 (non stackable) to the attribute... not the +4 of 3.5
at least it could be 10 minutes per level... but buffs that are as long as a minute per level are good for a combat... sometimes not even as long for encounters... a cleric can't prepare his group in advance for the threats and risk ahead because the spell can expire before he they arrive to it... it forces the characters to buy items... and i must say i hate Magic-mart..
my cleric learned 2 bull's strenghts per day... one was for the fighter the other for him... they where the ones needing to be dealing damage in the front... the wizard did the proper thing buffing those who needed to be dealing damge from distance and resisting the battle...
both of this things are uselless now... and instead of spending a spell slot in an almost useless buff we use it for something more useful... leaving buffs to items or to scrolls... which i dislike not ebcuas it costed XP to create... because even in a magic world it ridiculous to have so many amgic items that having a 'normal' items becomes something extraordinary... or just stupid...
yes i prefer a cleric that can prepare himself and his paty for the long and dangeorus day... and then concentrate in keeping everyone alive and protecting them whikle bringing down enemies... that a firefighter only able to fight a situation when it occurs because a LAME magic system nerfed him from an edition to another...
that is why i never changed to 3.5
still thinking to work in a conversion for Arcana Evolved magic for Pathfinder that could be workable.
Hello all, my post about my Cleric/Crusader (from Bo9S)/Inquisitor seems to have gotten some comments, lets see if I can respond.
As far as keeping a troll in a sack to provide healing, the opponent has to provide a legitmate threat- the fluff describes it as inspiring myself or others when I land a blow, empowering them to last longer in battle (i.e. more hit points). So troll in a sack doesn't work!
We don't actually use Pathfinder, I'm curious about the system and have looked it over, but the backwards compatability thing seems to have some glitches. We have Psionic PCs in our party, and a Pixie Beguiler, so switching over might be problematic.
As far as playing a straight pathfinder cleric, it would be difficult because I like to be proactive rather than having a primarily support role. I could see playing a negative energy channeller with Tomb-Tainted Soul feat from libris mortis. I could heal myself with negative energy, and blast away, and if the others are lucky maybe I'd prepare a cure spell every now and then and favor them with my touch. Maybe.
Unfortunately like you said the "fluff" says so and so... The actual rules don't rely on the fluff and in some cases contradict the fluff. Which leaves you having to use the actual wording in the stat block and rules description of the ability. As written it is legal to have your troll in a bag (or in our groups case, halfling) to pummel when needed. I never actually considered doing that and I would argue on your side (and have), that there should be some sort of clause indicating when it is usable to limit some of the abuse.
Even "threatened" doesn't cover it well enough. The warblade and fighter (or even fighters with the feats for that matter) could wake up in the morning damaged and spar, using non-lethal damage and pulling the blows dealing minimum damage and fully heal each other as non-lethal damage is healed at the same time in the same amount as lethal damage. They threaten each other, they are in combat and they are dealing damage to each other, I would say that counts as a legitimate threat. It is a loop hole and unfortunately the little loop holes in that book have given it a "bad name" in quite a few of the gamers eyes. I like the book but I also understand that the DM has to be well aware of it before allowing a PC to play anything out of it to avoid a rather rude awakening when a PC does something unexpected like this, just like any other splat book. Better yet a DM who will work with you to limit those loop hole rules to make it viable and not so limited as its worthless, basically fulfilling the spirit of the ability and while keeping it playable. More often than not it is "You want to use the B09S? That book is broken forget it" it seems.
As for playing the straight cleric, again you are saying it might be ok if you use non-core material. The reason I brought that up was you don't need to have non-core books to make a very powerful and playable cleric who isn't a healer. Using splat books will make it even more powerful (healer or not) and a great many of the posts when it comes to arguments such as this are typically restricted to what they can use in game for numerous reasons and so are using the core/srd rules exclusively. I know for many who have used the extra material you don't want to give it up, you don't want to not have those options available to use (I know I don't). However we are supposed to be playtesting "Pathfinder" rules here not the myriad of splat books out there. The rules will be backwards compatible so all that other stuff will be available regardless when Pathfinder is finally finished. Paizo is trying to get the core rules straightened out and hopefully that will plug up some of the problems the game had that just were extensions of the core rules (polymorph/wildshape I'm looking at you).
So I guess my question to you again is, in a core only game would you give serious consideration to playing a cleric or just eye over it and say "yeah I thought about playing one but decided no"? Does the clerics abilities provide a wide enough selection of choices that you could play one that didn't do the same role every time you created one?
|
|
So I guess my question to you again is, in a core only game would you give serious consideration to playing a cleric or just eye over it and say "yeah I thought about playing one but decided no"? Does the clerics abilities provide a wide enough selection of choices that you could play one that didn't do the same role every time you created one?
i don't know the rest
but i can say yesas a DM right now trying in a swashbuckling cleric of Calistria that serves also as Sacred prostitute and lady of vengueance... i just love how Megara is turning around.
in game i have my very paladin like cleric of Iomedae... who i really love...
now i need a reason or a game to play a N cleric of Nostroberg happy to keep and get secret after secret
I'm eternally confused by people don't want to nerf the barbarian and his supreme ability with the two handed weapon. His Rage abilities just scream "nerf me nerf me" because No one comes close to him in core, when it comes to two handed damage. He's just the best. SURELY we need to bring him down, so that other classes who choose to fight with two handed weapons don't do so ineffectively.
This is the same argument I'm seeing here on this thread, and other threads, for the cleric. OMG! He's the best healer! Lets nerf him to make other healers more viable!. Huh? Do what?
The cleric is, and has been, the very best healer. Paizo has widened the gap- but they didn't create it. Core creates it.
If your group doesn't take a barbarian, are you lacking DPS? I hope not.
Just like without a fighter, you aren't necessarily lacking a tank. The Rogue isn't the only one who can stealth/sneak around. The Cleric isn't the only one who can Heal.
He's just the iconic healer. As has been pointed out- Druids can heal, Bards can heal, paladin can heal, rangers can heal- and those are just core. Outside core the list gets substantially longer.
If your group doesn't want to play a cleric, then the GROUP needs to make sure they have some other healer. No one HAS to play Cleric just like no one HAS to play Barbarian. Every class has some crossover with other classes. Healing, like any other "required ability" for the group, has more than one source available. The Cleric remains the *best* choice just like the Barb remains the *best* 2HW person, but that doesn't mean they are the *only* effective choice.
-S
Skylancer- to answer your question as to whether I'd play a core only cleric: No. Not me.
So, one day when bored, I said to myself- is it possible for me to create a cleric that I would have fun with (i.e. is proactive)? And the answer is Yes- but I needed to use Bo9S, Complete Champion and Complete Divine to do it. My cleric needed to be good in battle as well, since the PC I was replacing was the party's warrior, and the new Cleric/Crusader/Inquisitor was able to fill both roles adequately. The GMs knew that I wouldn't abuse Bo9S material, I abide by the spirit of the fluff. As GM I would never allow a PC to spar with another PC and get healing, so I wouldn't even try that kind of nonsense. It doesn't fit the spirit of the stance, and I'm a stickler for that kind of thing! Though I can totally see other players pulling that kind of garbage.
Well again we are getting into the splat book grey area, the rules we need to be focusing on are the core rules for the playtest. With enough splat books anything is possible, but that is getting off topic, as there is nothing Paizo can do about the splat books and the loop holes created by them regardless of interpretation.
I personally disagree with you saying that you need all the extra books for creating a "proactive" cleric in combat. They get heavy armor and shield, decent weapon choices, d8 hit die and armored casting as a base. Weapon choice can be mitigated by the right domain (which in essence is a freebie as you get 2). While they may not have full BAB they have many spells that can make that less of an issue. Off the top of my head (as I'm at work) Bless, Divine favor, Divine power, and Prayer(doesn't stack with Divine favor to hit) are all low level and will put you maybe 1 point behind the full BAB classes on the to hit rolls. Now with Paizo's channel energy ability you have a potentially useless ability (as it focused on undead only prior) become very useful on top of that regardless of healing or dealing damage. Add in all the other possible spells available as situation demands and you have a potent melee combatant you just have to choose when the casting of the spells is worth it.
Now what all the books you listed do for clerics is either remove the opportunity cost for their casting restrictions (Stances, Domain Feats, Reserve Feats which are effectively unlimited in just about all cases and scale) or lessening the cost (Bo9S maneuvers being able to be regained at worst with a full round action versus X spells per day of such and such level) making the real limitation (limited spells per day) to any of the caster classes negligible. You effectively have "all these other abilities" on top of the spells you get as a caster. This is the real reason that so many people consider the Bo9S broken, not because of the melee classes getting buffed but because the caster classes get so much more out of it.
You have stated why you wouldn't want to play a cleric and I'm definitely not trying to change your mind but I want others who are reading this to not just assume the cleric is a heal-bot or sub par otherwise because of what is said. I have played a cleric who wasn't a heal-bot and did quite well prior to Pathfinder without all the splat books, the channel energy ability is icing as far as I'm concerned on the whole matter. I also don't believe that the rest of the classes need bumps to their healing abilities to be on par with a cleric. Classes should be separate, there should be reasons to choose one class over another. If you want to play a core bard or core paladin so you have some magic ability but can also have a more proactive role in combat than the cleric seems to, it isn't a bad thing. If someone's preference is to play a class that doesn't have as many restrictions, core classes have you pretty much covered really.
Off Topic - Yyou have to look out for the power creep inherent in using splat books that introduce new rules or break existing ones. Bo9S was basically a teaser to show what was going on with the transition to 4E. I seriously doubt they were playtested extensively and it probably should NOT be mixed with any caster class or at least not allow the caster classes to stack with initiator levels they way they do. Heck they probably should have just said, use these classes instead of the Barbarian (Warblade), Fighter(Warblade), Paladin(Crusader) or Ranger(Swordsage). But doing so would have invalidated way too many of the old books so I can see why they didn't - it would be a bad marketing decision. Because they didn't, the balance is off with the stuff from the book, that is and will always be the problem with splat books.
Now reading that back, it might give the impression you are a "power gamer". That wasn't the intention, I was just trying to get across the point of "you are using splat books, look at all the options, why would someone play a bland core class" and the core classes are what we should really be focusing on. Of course when you have all that, the core looks less shiny and going back to a core class is going to be weak and a let down. Working on SRD/core is what Paizo can do, getting them (core classes) more balanced, fixing flaws in the class abilities and rules and so on and so forth. In the "sand box" that is Pathfinder Beta with it's official class changes and feats etc. (Druid Companion, Paladin, posted feats), the cleric is far from as bad as some people make it seem - at least in my opinion.
the cleric is far from as bad as some people make it seem - at least in my opinion.
I agree with you.
However, the cleric remains by far (and perhaps it should be so) the optimal choice for what many consider an ungrateful task; being the party healer.
A party without a good healer will not perform as good as a group including a cleric. This "hole" will be felt more deeply than a party without a fighter, a wizard or a rogue, mainly because there are other classes that can fight just as well, sling spells just as well or skirmish just as well.
In other words, most classes have decent alternative to fill the same role, except for the cleric.
True, there is the druid, the paladin and the bard, but their ability to heal is far behind that of the cleric.
They have the spells, what they lack is the ability to cure wounds without sacrificing too much in terms of planning and resource management. Bards can cast cures spontaneously, but must sacrifice a precious known spell to do so. Druids suffer in the preparation of the cure spells, which narrows their already hard-to-choose spells preparation. To be fair with Paizo, paladins fare better than druids and bards thanks to their new iteration, as far as healing is concerned anyway... To be honest, I'd have to see one in action as the party healer to say more.
Perhaps making healing spells more accessible to druids, bards, paladins and rangers could be a solution? Perhaps it would just kill the cleric by removing its fundamental raison d'être?
'findel
|
The NEW Clerics ROCK and I love playing them now.... A few ideas to give those reluctant players who are having a hard time choosing to play the cleric.
DOMAIN POWERS: Take a good look the new domain powers, Dimension door, Chaos touch, Levitate, Arcane Hand.... a TON of awesome powers that when fitted together can add a lot of fun & flavor. My favorite is the levitating cleric using her arcane hand & smacking the bad guys with the mace of disruption. Who needs heavy armor?
PARTY LEADER: It's funny how the rest of the party comes around when you start putting "behavior contingencies" on your god granted healing. "Olidammara only allows me to heal those with spunk, especially the mightily drunk".
EVERIS CALE: A must read for those clerics of the roguish deities.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Simple fix to the cleric problem:
Make all the "cure" spells swift actions with Short (25 ft. + 5 ft./level) ranges. Big bad things like heal should still be a standard action and require touch, but the regular "restore Xd8 hit points" cures should be swift. Now, this means that the cleric can't use OTHER swift actions in the round, but he can still move and attack or cast another spell.
Since the common perception is that clerics are overpowered and that this would make that problem even worse, make them more like wizards by giving them spell failure for armor and a poor BAB. They should probably have a d6 or d8 hit die still, though, and maybe 4 + Int skill points to make up for a little bit of loss.
This would make the cleric more of a "priest" and leaves the heavily-armored "warrior of the faith" role to the paladin like it should be.
|
|
I'm wondering because in 3.5 we already have trouble finding someone to play "cleric medic" and nobody in our group wants to do it all the time. Since the other classes are to be so much more interesting (sorcerer, rogue, fighter...) in Pathfinder and with the talk of giving only medium armor to clerics, who's "going to get stuck" playing the cleric? Let's make this a poll... Who is reading this and still planning to start a cleric in the new Pathfinder rules? Maybe I'm missing something... How do you make being a cleric less of a thankless job running around trying to touch everyone to keep them alive?
The Cleric has long been my favorite Class even in 1st ed. (Yeah, I'm old) & everyone else in my gaming group is more then happy to let me do it. In my experience all players love having a Cleric in the party however a much fewer percentage love PLAYING one.
I would like to see the sacred cow of touch healing finally laid to rest. ranged healing does not break the game...
What I hope to see is a quickened Turning (Channeling)feat make the final printing
I believe the new Channeling rules will help greatly with damage mitigation as the Cleric will need to expend less Spell-power for healing.
There is no reason to limit cleric armor
and I think the list of "chosen" or favored weapons should increase (maybe two per diety)
How about a javelin weilding cleric?
Otherwise: I Like to play the role no one else wants, I mean if ther is already a fighter and a ranger, you can play another fighter, but then you are always trying 1) to be differnt and 2) competing for the same magic goodies.
Hey who the heck wants this +4 mace?? always the cleric.
Also I like killing the undead!
Ever think of playing a Chaotic Neutral Cleric of War who doesn't necessarily heal all the time or for that matter isnt morally required to heal at all??
All of the sudden instead of being orderd to heal, its more like being begged to heal.
After all when everyone else is lying around unconscious and there is only 12 hps left on the baddy, who is usually left standng? Cleric and the rogue whos been hiding behind the treasure trove the whole time?
The cleric and the rogue split the major goodies....THEN heal up the party.
|
|
I would like to see the sacred cow of touch healing finally laid to rest. ranged healing does not break the game...
A variant Cleric class we could call the Priest could be limited to light armor and have Poor BAB and d6 HD, but use close ranged healing, and I'd be all over that.
Indeed, a 'healer' who could downgrade his cure spells to function at range by dropping them one level in effectiveness (cast Cure Moderate at touch for 2d8+X, use it at Close range for 1d8+X, for instance) would be rocking, as well as a healer with the option to do the same sort of 'downgrading' to alter Cure spell casting time (cast Cure Serious wounds as a standard action for 3d8+X, or as a move action for 2d8+X or as a *swift* action for 1d8+X), creating the ultimate in versatility.
He'd never be able to drop a Cure below 1d8+X, so the power wouldn't be effectively useful until 3rd level (when he can cast Cure Moderate either as a close range Cure Light *or* as a move action Cure Light).
That would be cool. Sort of a Cure-limited spontaneous metamagic effect...
|
I see a few ideas here I wish to address.
First off, I think the PF incarnation of the cleric is wonderful. The domain powers are a nice change without being overpowered. One player in our home game has 2 clerics that he switches between, which allows me to see 2 styles, and so far I have not seen any major downfalls in the class. If anything, they are more useful.
Secondly, as for people "not wanting to play the cleric", there are simple solutions. Don't play one. As has been mentioned, there are many items that can give the vital healing that characters need. Potions, wands, and the like. And of course, the party can always hire a healer. Get yourself a pacifist cleric of a god of healing. He certainly won't get his nose dirty in combat, but he will be ready to heal you when you need it. (not to mention this is a great way to siphon off a little gp if the group gets a little wealthy)
Last thought: Not all clerics need be the "healbot" that seems to be expected of them. In our last campaign we had a cleric of the god of war who was far more into the Glory of his God, then in healing the others who seemed to only give lip service to his patron deity when they were hurt. Personally, I am more concerned with seeing that the character classes stay balanced.... not "enticing". Those who want to play the cleric will, those who don't want to shouldn't.
I think, way back when, they should have taken what they gave to the paladin, and made it boost the cleric (ie spells at first level, pally weapons, lay on hands etc, but keep the d8 and cleric attack tables) and made THAT the Cleric.
IT would have made the cleric better (and given us a holy warrior for every alignment) AND the fighter would have still have been the best in combat.
Just MHO
1) In the Book of Experimental Might, Monte introduced a healing mechanic that allowed a Cleric to have a Healing Touch type ability that put the burden of healing on the other characters, as they would have to use *their* action to touch *him,* to receive the healing.
I entered the Superstar contest with an item for clerics that does exactly what is described above. I don't want to give too much away but the item allowed clerics to heal party members if the party members used their actions to close with the cleric. Also, party members had to utter a short homily to the cleric's god before they got healed. So it covered the 'respect' angle as well.
I'm hoping the item will get posted up and people can comment on it. If it doesn't make the cut, I might post it in this thread for feedback.
but what happens with those who believe in other religion different than yours?
The character gets healed just like normal. A cleric of Abadar can heal a worshipper of Rovagug and vice versa. Any Cleric can heal anybody they so choose. Even (gasp) an atheist.
I sense your concern comes from the way different modern religions are potrayed as somehow entirely separate from one another which I think is a) artificial and b) something to do with the rise of Monotheism over the last two thousand years.
I had a big explanation about monotheism/polytheism but I just cut it because it was too long-winded.
om 3.5; clerics maul things; dang; they are extra tuff; kinda makes other classes not needed; a group full of clerics devoted to different gods can handle anything.
What's Wrong with playing a Cleric?