While PF's "open playtest" was an interesting experiment, the problem with "open betas" is always the same regardless of whether it is a videogame or a tabletop:
This -always- happens (No excuses, no exceptions, no ifs ands or buts) in the period between the beta and the finished product is when the designers back down on a lot of things they thought cool at first and, while people who only see the finished product will see it for what it is and love its virtues, plenty of people from the beta will only see a nerfed product and end up disappointed and deciding against purchase. Now, developers will -always- have a number of reasons for drawing the nerf bat, but that doesn't change the fact that in the eyes of many they'll still end up as the bad guys no matter what.
Int 14, favored class (which was not mentioned in the races section by the way) +2 skill points... still lacking skill points...
Int 14 (+2) and Favored Class (+1) equals +3 skill points/ level (+4 if Human/ Half Elf). Given the removal of double-cost to cross-class skill (and hopefully, larger class skill list for Clerics), that's a HUGE difference over 3.5. I'd really just like to see a larger skill list for some classes (also Fighters and Sorcerors), and maybe consolidation in some other skills (like Climb/Jump/Swim). Know(Arcana) and Spellcraft (now minus Concentration) seems like another good consolidation (beneficial for Sorcerors).
They weren't mentioned in the Races Preview because they are no longer RACIAL Favored Classes, but each character freely chooses one (or 2 if Half-Elven). Basically, taking out the Racial stereo-type aspect, but rewarding single-classing. This was alluded to in some blog post somewhere...
and don't begin with cloistered cleric...
if its not in the main rules... i pass it along as if it didn't existed :P
a) PF RPG Beta... the classes, the rases, the skill system, combat system
b) DnD PH 3.0: spells... hate 3.5 nerfs... with a vengueance... PF RPG final has more nerfs...
c) BoXM for interesting mechanics... feats, mechanics on healing, spells...
just the basics, vanilla ice-cream for this one... ;-)
THERE IS ONLY -1/20 OF DIFFENCE TO 3.5 AT 1ST LEVEL.
Not completely true. At first level a human or half-elven caster can take skill focus and combat casting, by making it no longer a skill that option is now gone.
He also can not always take a 5 foot step, especally a cleric who might have to risk casting against foes with reach because a party member is in trouble and needs a heal.
5 foot step is nice, but not always possible, thus the need for DC. If you are saying that you simply can't rely on your top end spells even getting off, and that's ok, well I am saying that is a drastic drop in the power of spell casters over all. Melee and non-casters need to drop their saves or damage to even this out, because even if the caster does risk the 50/50 on getting his spell off most spell still will allow the enemy melee combatant a save. 50/50 and then giving the melee a save is too much. Way too much.
Anyway it's gone to print. They didn't want to discuss a rather huge change for some reason and now is too late. I simply lament their poor choice of not allowing input on something this big. I expected better of them.
Montalve, I'm sorry to see this is a dealbreaker for you. Hopefully when you get the PDF you'll change you mind, because I think the Cleric has become more tactically flexible.beg to differ... <- but i always wanted to say that phrase :P
I think the cleric and all casters have become decidedly weaker. You may think it needed or not, but there can be not arguement they are now weaker then ever before.
|
Int 14, favored class (which was not mentioned in the races section by the way) +2 skill points... still lacking skill points...Int 14 (+2) and Favored Class (+1) equals +3 skill points/ level (+4 if Human/ Half Elf). Given the removal of double-cost to cross-class skill (and hopefully, larger class skill list for Clerics), that's a HUGE difference over 3.5. I'd really just like to see a larger skill list for some classes (also Fighters and Sorcerors), and maybe consolidation in some other skills (like Climb/Jump/Swim). Know(Arcana) and Spellcraft (now minus Concentration) seems like another good consolidation (beneficial for Sorcerors).
They weren't mentioned in the Races Preview because they are no longer RACIAL Favored Classes, but each character freely chooses one (or 2 if Half-Elven). Basically, taking out the Racial stereo-type aspect, but rewarding single-classing. This was alluded to in some blog post somewhere...
missed that blog or that part... still i have a doubt I have not seen mentioned and which makes some noise...
"(+4 if Human/ Half Elf)"
another blog i missed where the half-elf get +1 skill point per level? (yes i play half elf cleric :P so i do not count the +1 from human)
ok now lets see the math... we are talking about 5 skill points: basically:
knowledge: religion, heal, spellcraft, sense motive, diplomacy <- those are to follow the class roll as healer and diplomat... so... we have that the cleric since he was born... have been doing nothing but being cloistered in a temple? no other life, not prior life, no background... etc... so if we wanted to give him some background for minimum that it was... lets say... he lived along the coast and is cleric of (I hate when I forget a god's name) the cleric of the seas and skies... so he takes Swim... just not to die casually... which skill now we should punish?
the fighter of course suffer more of this... as he is supposed to be a dum fighter, knowing not much else besides swinging a sword he ahs close to no skills and a very few from where to choice...
wizards are supposed to be illustrated... yet they are limited... damn the barbarian has more skill points and he didn't received an education...
but this is besides the point, and a horse beaten to death... this is another rule house-ruled by the way +2 skills for everyone, that way the rogue doesn't wimepr ebcause he feels he is not the skillmonkey
just the basics, vanilla ice-cream for this one... ;-)
sort of :P at least on classes...
for clericless games AE is an excellent game...
Oh well, I already used only 3 things from PF anyway (classes, skills system, and (houseruled) Combat Maneuvers system), so I really thank Paizo for these previews, I'd have hated so much having bought the final version's book only to find now the only thing I'd be using from it is the skills system. Thanks!
|
|
Anyway it's gone to print. They didn't want to discuss a rather huge change for some reason and now is too late. I simply lament their poor choice of not allowing input on something this big. I expected better of them.
this might be my actual problem you know...
this is too big and suddenly it went as a cold shower hot it has been done...
... Anyway it's gone to print. They didn't want to discuss a rather huge change for some reason and now is too late. I simply lament their poor choice of not allowing input on something this big. I expected better of them.
Wow, just wow. A HUGE part of the discussion during the playtesting for the Beta was how spellcasters were overpowered. There won't be any reductions to melee to compensate for the tough concentration check...the tougher concentration check was put in to even out the power levels and take casters down a notch. Paizo only responded to what we wanted.
|
|
... Anyway it's gone to print. They didn't want to discuss a rather huge change for some reason and now is too late. I simply lament their poor choice of not allowing input on something this big. I expected better of them.Wow, just wow. A HUGE part of the discussion during the playtesting for the Beta was how spellcasters were overpowered. There won't be any reductions to melee to compensate for the tough concentration check...the tougher concentration check was put in to even out the power levels and take casters down a notch. Paizo only responded to what we wanted.
they listened to some :P to the magic haters... those who said that magic was already nerfed, but believed that fighter needed more options just were heard in the last part... "fighters more options"... meaning spellcasters still nerfed
Lets just step back a moment.. literally. The caster can still take a 5 foot step back and cast a spell. Only if the enemy has the Step Up feat is this going to be a problem, otherwise, no check is needed. I know this is not always possible, but the power of spellcasters needs to have some checks and balances to it. Being able to cast high level spells in the face of your enemy should be hard... and a 50% chance of your highest level spells is far from unreasonable. Its a change, but one that adds a bit of tactics into the equation.. which is a good thing.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
It's not just a change. Call it what it is, don't hide behind semantics. It's a serious nerf to spell casters.
Beyond that does this all mean the melee now gets no save while in melee with a caster? Because if a caster is already risking a 50/50 cast defensively, and in failure giving you a free swing at me, then I better be sure you get no save. I mean to keep it balanced and all, otherwise I pretty much take a 50/50 to...roll the dice again to see if my gamble worked. Further you most certainly are making one feat a needed one for casters, and personally since you are making it a maditory one you might as well make it a free one. In the name of fairness and all.
I would also point out against multiple melee it truly is death to try and cast your best stuff once surrounded, as most villains will eventually find themselves. Because a flanked guy has no place to go with a 5' step that keeps him from needing to DC.
I didn't expect the final print to come out of left field like this. I epxect refinements and maybe some back tracking to keep it all compatable with 3.5, not drastic changes meant to enfeeble casters in melee.
You may think it needed or not, but there can be not arguement they are now weaker then ever before.
Yeah.
Nevermind before 3rd Edition, Casters couldn't even move >5' and Cast in the same round,while their Fighter buddies were Move + Full Attacking dawn to dusk... Weaker than ever before.
Jason must just be instituting not-well-thought-out changes, it's the only explanation...
|
Taking time to think about it, I like the new rules for concentration, they aren't my prefered system, I much prefer it to be based off of enemy BAB, but compared to the old by level 4 you can always succesfully cast without provoking the AoO. Now you can still cast your lower level spells in melee at higher level with no risk, but casting the big ones you're liable to take an AoO, Combat casting looks like a decent feat at all levels, and with feats for people to follow, there isn't always the option of 5' step back and fire. Now we just have to see how your check to keep a spell when you take damage works. So getting past my dissapointment that it isn't harder and BAB based, I think this version is a good one. At least I'll playtest it before making any changes.
The nerf of darkness still bugs the heck out of me, but cest la vie, I can live with just one houserule.
I actually love the darkness rule because way back to 1st Ed this has been a bugaboo of the game - a "darkness" spell equaling automatic mass blindness. It was just too low-level for the severity of the effect.
This system also gives a logical answer finally to what really happens when a light spell and a darkness spell intersect. Previously, if they canceled each other out, then... what? Ambient light conditions? What if you cast a light spell INSIDE of a larger darkness spell (or vice versa)? Higher-level vs. lower-level light/darkness spells? I think having a light "condition track" is a great idea.
(and as stated before I *LIKE* the idea that a spellcaster that is being closely pressed by an enemy combatants can't just cast the big guns with impunity, but needs to rely on lower-level but reliable magic OR go ahead and take the chance and fire the big one)
But, we all have different tastes and nobody's gonna be wholly happy. I can think of a few house rule ideas we've talked about on the design forum threads that I may yet implement in final-version PF as house rules.
You know, I whole-heartedly agree with this; I read the 'Darkness'-thread a minute ago and thought how the whole Light/Darkness -issue has bothered me since 1st edition (especially the "auto-blindness"-thing), and *finally* there's an elegant, logical and easy mechanic governing this.
As for the cleric... I hope enough Domain Powers remain, because we loved those in Beta. I think I also like how concentration is handled -- I have to see it in practise, but it's probably better this way (although it is not as elegant as handling it via a skill). All in all in my opinion the cleric looks good, and certainly she looks better than her 3.5 counterpart. :)
This may upset you, but if your favorite class is the most powerful class in the game, and PFRPG tries to adjust all classes so they're closer in power level, of course you're going to be upset.Did you honestly just try to claim that Cleric is the favorite class in the group I play in?
Even after stating the opposite?
Even after admitting Sorcerer is one of the most favored classes in that group?
A class that got beefed up in Beta, and has seen very little "debuffing" in final, as far as we can see from the previews.
Is that where you took this?
Um, no?
Looks like he was using "you" in the general sense. In that "someone whose favorite class is cleric" might be upset.
he mean me :PUm, no?
Looks like he was using "you" in the general sense. In that "someone whose favorite class is cleric" might be upset.
Ahh... If that is the case, then I apologize. It came from the second paragraph after the quote of mine, with no clear separation of subject. Understandable, I do it often. But that is why I asked.
In the end this will make a better balanced class. So if no one else says it well done Jason, well done indeed
And if a better balanced class doesn't get played because it doesn't bring enough value to the table, does it really matter how balanced it is?
... Anyway it's gone to print. They didn't want to discuss a rather huge change for some reason and now is too late. I simply lament their poor choice of not allowing input on something this big. I expected better of them.Wow, just wow. A HUGE part of the discussion during the playtesting for the Beta was how spellcasters were overpowered. There won't be any reductions to melee to compensate for the tough concentration check...the tougher concentration check was put in to even out the power levels and take casters down a notch. Paizo only responded to what we wanted.
Down a notch, isn't removing the ability to cast in melee your best spells. This is many notches and it shouldn't have been sprung on us out of nowhere.
When you say we I didn't know you spoke for everyone. Since you clearly don't why not say "me" instead. You don't speak for me, I think they went way to far and didn't ask for input on a rather huge change to the game.
I really want to support pathfinder, I want it to be a great game, I am going to buy it. But changes like this sprung out of nowhere do not foster confidence. I did expect any changes to be things we all could have seen coming, either moving back to 3.5 to preserve compatability, or small refinements of what was in beta. Not game changing mechanical changes that differ greatly from what both beta and 3.5 present.
|
|
You may think it needed or not, but there can be not arguement they are now weaker then ever before.Yeah.
Nevermind before 3rd Edition, Casters couldn't even move >5' and Cast in the same round,
while their Fighter buddies were Move + Full Attacking dawn to dusk... Weaker than ever before.
Jason must just be instituting not-well-thought-out changes, it's the only explanation...
yeah
but then magic was Magick and it was the "real" thing... not the dilluted ebverage we have being handled... every time more diluted than last time :)
You may think it needed or not, but there can be not arguement they are now weaker then ever before.Yeah.
Nevermind before 3rd Edition, Casters couldn't even move >5' and Cast in the same round,
while their Fighter buddies were Move + Full Attacking dawn to dusk... Weaker than ever before.
Jason must just be instituting not-well-thought-out changes, it's the only explanation...
Unless I miss my guess pathfinder is suppose to remain compatable with 3.5, not 2nd ed or 1st ed. So unless you are saying they are failing to remain compatable with 3.5, I am sure not why you would being up 1ed and 2ed.
You may think it needed or not, but there can be not arguement they are now weaker then ever before.
As mentioned, that should state "casters are now, relative to warrior classes, weaker than they have been since 2nd edition." Except, as near as I can see, they retain their ability to move and then cast, which they never had before 3.0. And in Pathfinder, they can put full ranks in Acrobatics and thereby avoid AoO for moving, so in Pathfinder there's nothing to keep them from tumbling about while blasting all the while, which they couldn't do in earlier editions. And there is still no auto-fail for spells. So the casters are, properly-speaking, still light years ahead of where they were in 1e/2e.
We bring up 1e/2e because we're looking at the broader picture of the evolution of the D&D game, not just the evolution of Casters & DragonsTM (3.0 and 3.5).
|
|
You may think it needed or not, but there can be not arguement they are now weaker then ever before.As mentioned, that should state "casters are now, relative to warrior classes, weaker than they have been since 2nd edition." Except, as near as I can see, they retain their ability to move and then cast, which they never had before 3.0. And in Pathfinder, they can put full ranks in Acrobatics and thereby avoid AoO for moving, so in Pathfinder there's nothing to keep them from tumbling about while blating all the while, which they couldn't do in earlier editions. And there is still no auto-fail for spells. So the casters are, properly-speaking, still light years ahead of where they were in 1e/2e.
We bring up 1e/2e because we're looking at the broader picture of the evolution of the D&D game, not just the evolution of Casters & DragonsTM (3.0 and 3.5).
except of course their miscerable skill points :P
I'll throw my voice in as support to the defensive casting change. I want spellcasters to think twice or even three times before casting spells while engaged in melee. I think it helps to clearly define the class roles. A spellcaster is devastating at a range. If the fighter can get his hands on him, though, watch out. I for one like that a lot.
Not a fan of the new way to handle concentration checks. Double the spell level is too much, way too much. A level 17 mage/cleric once he gets caught in melee with a fighter will have little chance to use their level 9 spell. 17 + 7 (maybe if they are lucky)....against needing a 33 to cast defensively. 40% chance to blow it? No, that is too much. Sorry, wont use a rule that will destroy casters in melee. The guy at the end of RoTRL will get crushed like a baby using that rule.Well I own markers will just cross that out of the pathfinder book when it comes. I like getting rid of the skill, but not this way. It's ok. Never expected pathfinder to be perfect.
40% chance to blow it seems about right to me. That was part of the inequity when a fighter fought a wizard/cleric. The fighter would bring them into his world (melee) and then he would get owned. The wizard/cleric can still relatively easily cast lower level spells under the new circumstances. Cast a 5th level spell or lower and you can't fail (unless 1 always fails). Or you could take Combat Casting. It's not nearly as bad as you think.
Director of Games
|
Thurgon is right. The change to concentration was a bit of a nerf, but lets avoid the knee-jerk reactions. This change is not the end of the world for spellcasters.
Spellcasters have a lot of power in the game. This has not changed. They can deal massive amounts of damage at distance, completely neutralize various threats, control the battlefield, travel the planes, bring back the dead, and solve just about any problem the GM can throw at them. They can do all this and still (generally speaking) take a move action. This change makes it a little harder for spellcasters to do all that while in the middle of combat. Now they need to plan a bit more carefully and spend some time protecting themselves. This gives all the other characters a more important role, especially in a game that is built on group dynamics.
I strove to keep much of the power of the spellcasters, but in the end, this one mechanic was the one that we (internally) kept tripping over. Spellcasters could always get all their magic off, to full effect, no matter the situation, in 3.5. These new rules force them to plan out a bit more, making them pay a price for their incredible power. You may not agree, but I would recommend giving it a try. It can be a really refreshing change of pace to work with these rules. The combats are less static and a bit more tactical. Most of the time you can 5 foot away and cast your spells, but now there is a bit of risk involved.
The reward in 3.5 came without that risk.. which made it kinda flat. Give it a try, it is not as bad as you might think.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I can't help but wonder why's everyone acting so surprised and indignated just now, I mean, it's not like the direction the game was going hadn't been obvious from -day one-.
Sure, it isn't exactly a good move to make less attractive a class that 8 out of 10 players already avoid like the plague, but you can't say you didn't see this coming... now if you think the clerics got nerfed, wait for the Wizard's preview, THEN you'll see the true meaning of nerf bat (not like PF's arcane magic can be any more sad anyway). ;)
You may think it needed or not, but there can be not arguement they are now weaker then ever before.As mentioned, that should state "casters are now, relative to warrior classes, weaker than they have been since 2nd edition." Except, as near as I can see, they retain their ability to move and then cast, which they never had before 3.0. And in Pathfinder, they can put full ranks in Acrobatics and thereby avoid AoO for moving, so in Pathfinder there's nothing to keep them from tumbling about while blasting all the while, which they couldn't do in earlier editions. And there is still no auto-fail for spells. So the casters are, properly-speaking, still light years ahead of where they were in 1e/2e.
We bring up 1e/2e because we're looking at the broader picture of the evolution of the D&D game, not just the evolution of Casters & DragonsTM (3.0 and 3.5).
But this game that pathfinder is putting out is suppose to remain compatable with 3.5, not 1st ed. Unless that is another small change that has gone unmentioned until it was printed. To bring up editions not compatable with 3.5 is not really helpful actually it seems like a method used to obfuscate the truth.
|
Good, because 3E turning was a thick, meaty gravy on a class that was already the turducken of the core game.
Challenge ratings in 3E, even for undead, were based on the assumption that you DIDN'T have a cleric in your group. Thus, the challenge was appropriate for the PCs' average level if you didn't have a cleric, and if you DID have a cleric, the player's reaction was supposed to be, "Ha, that was easy because of the cleric."
(sound of a palm slapping a forehead) Ok finally I feel like I have the blindfold pulled away from my eyes. I never understood the CRs given to many forms of undead. Gah! Man I can't believe I didn't figure that out.
So toning down a class ability that allowed you to EASILY overcome an entire category of encounters is a GOOD thing. I can't imagine a level 1 class ability on any other class that has the equivalent "I made this entire encounter a cakewalk" effect.
<snip>
I'd have to agree with this. Sean, anytime you want to drop bombshells on us like this, please do so. Sometimes the best disinfectant is sunshine.
40% chance to blow it seems about right to me. That was part of the inequity when a fighter fought a wizard/cleric. The fighter would bring them into his world (melee) and then he would get owned. The wizard/cleric can still relatively easily cast lower level spells under the new circumstances. Cast a 5th level spell or lower and you can't fail (unless 1 always fails). Or you could take Combat Casting. It's not nearly as bad as you think.
Not a fan of the new way to handle concentration checks. Double the spell level is too much, way too much. A level 17 mage/cleric once he gets caught in melee with a fighter will have little chance to use their level 9 spell. 17 + 7 (maybe if they are lucky)....against needing a 33 to cast defensively. 40% chance to blow it? No, that is too much. Sorry, wont use a rule that will destroy casters in melee. The guy at the end of RoTRL will get crushed like a baby using that rule.Well I own markers will just cross that out of the pathfinder book when it comes. I like getting rid of the skill, but not this way. It's ok. Never expected pathfinder to be perfect.
The problem is lower level spells mean even if they can do what you need they are less likely to work because their save is easier.
A wizard casting his 9th level spell with a 50/50 chance to cast defensively at level 18 is not insurmountable?
How about a level 1 cleric with a 15 wisdom? He gets a massive +3 on his check and has to hit 17....so he's failing 65% of the time.
That's not very cool. How about a level 9 cleric casting his level 5 spell, give him a 20 wisdom. He fails half the time with a bloody 20 wisdom at level 9. This will really push the value of inflated stats way up. And will make combat casting not an option, but a requirement, and against a fighter only a method of breaking even. They should up the melee strength of clerics and mages with this change, because once stuck in they can't rely on spells to get them through it. A 50% failure rate to cast your best spell defensively is way too much. Poorly thought out change, maybe they should have posted this idea before sending the book to the printer. It's a real shame they didn't care to do so.
So cast a lower level spell to get away, then cast your highest level spell. Up… Can't do that at the lowest levels? Well heaven forbid that now you actually need a fighter buddy to keep those pesky enemies off of you. Or kill them if they get too close to you.
The cleric/wizard having a harder time to do it all by himself is a good thing for the game.
Thurgon is right. The change to concentration was a bit of a nerf, but lets avoid the knee-jerk reactions. This change is not the end of the world for spellcasters.
Spellcasters have a lot of power in the game. This has not changed. They can deal massive amounts of damage at distance, completely neutralize various threats, control the battlefield, travel the planes, bring back the dead, and solve just about any problem the GM can throw at them. They can do all this and still (generally speaking) take a move action. This change makes it a little harder for spellcasters to do all that while in the middle of combat. Now they need to plan a bit more carefully and spend some time protecting themselves. This gives all the other characters a more important role, especially in a game that is built on group dynamics.
I strove to keep much of the power of the spellcasters, but in the end, this one mechanic was the one that we (internally) kept tripping over. Spellcasters could always get all their magic off, to full effect, no matter the situation, in 3.5. These new rules force them to plan out a bit more, making them pay a price for their incredible power. You may not agree, but I would recommend giving it a try. It can be a really refreshing change of pace to work with these rules. The combats are less static and a bit more tactical. Most of the time you can 5 foot away and cast your spells, but now there is a bit of risk involved.
The reward in 3.5 came without that risk.. which made it kinda flat. Give it a try, it is not as bad as you might think.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I would have liked to give it a try before final print was already to the presses. Now any input I have is meaningless, any input any of us have is meaningless. This is a big change, a huge one. At the least the feat that allows any melee to follow a caster taking his 5 foot step needs to go away, as does any feat that makes casting defensively. Either of those types feats/abilites make a bad situation much worse.
I seriously do not mind the clear nerf to turning, it was needed after playing beta. Still very powerful, but not game breakingly so.
First the on topic comment. I like the cleric and info as posted. I am glad that they separated out the heal/hurt effect into two choices. I also like the domains and spells. Finally I think the change to concentration is for the best as at higher levels casters were VERY powerful. (And the wizard was my favorite class to play so I am not a magic hater.) The one thing I would like is if a failed concentration check did not burn up your uncast spell slot... but that is not really commented on above.
Now on to the off topic comments. I am looking forward to the hardback when it comes out and look forward to being able to crack the book to give the game as a whole a review. I am glad Paizo is continuing with the classic game I have enjoyed as a child... some may even argue that I still am a child ~LOL. That being said I think Jason and company are doing a bang up job.
I have seen posts both here and on other boards that comment on how the Fighter sucks and casters still own them, how the Sorcerer is still over powered but the bloodlines are cool. How the Ranger is lame for not using a bow cause rangers ALWAYS use bows but they ignore the fact that most dwarves use crossbows (stereotypes only) I have even seen in this post how the new cleric is still a machine that can fight, cast spells, heal, and out spit any other class while in metal armor. All of those posts are followed by the exact opposite reviews on how the casters are nerfed and unplayable. How fighters got all the love and are now killing machines. And the ranger is death on wheels when he can kill a monster before it even gets a chance to fight back... even with the "stupid wasted crossbow feat".
I think if you are making character classes that have fervent people commenting on how awesome they are while other people comment on how lame they are it is a balanced system with out making it an EQUAL system. If you have an equally balanced system you end up with a game that is bland where everyone pretty much does 1d8+Mod damage of Fire/Ice/Arrow/Sword/Fist/Dagger/Crossbow/Spear/Shouting so that, other then the flavor text, a lot of the variety is lost from the game.
Pathfinder has a little something for everyone... room for RP... room for the min/maxer... and all classes (that we have seen) have something they are great at while still having weak points. Balance and flavor without being equal and bland.
And as always just my 2cp and your results may vary. :)
Me too. Jason, any chance we can get more info on that? Armor proficiencies for the cleric? Or can you at least confirm the chainmail with 6 AC isn't a typo?I like.
Now I'm curious for any more hints on changes to Medium/Heavy Armor...
The AC is not a typo...
The rest.. I have no comment at this time...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Yippy!
The changes are FAIR if nothing else.
Concentration - Not EVERY fighter(martial class) is going to be built to hunt spellcasters or keep pace in combat using the STEPUP feat, it's one of approximately 40 other feat options(depending on level) Fighter-types normally take. If EVERY monster you run into is using STEPUP on your casters, that's your DM's fault, not the mechanics.
Turn Undead Feat - Same as above really, just because the traditional cleric was always running around with 10+ TURN UNDEADs a dead and quite possibly never saw an undead, doesn't mean they HAVE to be a cleric of Sarenrae (or Pelor) "undead smasher of doom". I kinda prefer not being labelled as the guy who can HEAL and FIX the undead. Much like Sorcerers & Wizards, not all Clerics should be the same as it's BORING.
Channel HEAL or DAMAGE - whatever works, it's not very common that your ENTIRE party is taking waves of damage at the same time you might be fighting SWARMS of undead, at least in my experience. Ghouls & Ghasts (maybe Incorporeals) being the exceptions since thats how they generally fight.
|
I, too, am pretty disapointed with this preview. I can't see the preview for myself at the moment on my phone, so I am just going off of what I have read. While not a "deal breaker" I am not very confident at the moment.
The channel energy switch is sort of disheartening, unless clerics now get cleric "fighter bonus feats" to allow them to personalize WITHOUT being crappy generic at everything else. Couldn't they just do and heal less? The concept of healing and hurting with one blast is just awesome. Maybe drop the number per day, or range to 20ft? But as it is, just not all that interesting, despite (maybe) being better than 3.0. That is 100% based off of a groups playstyle, and I can easily see a group running out of healing fast.
As for Domains, well I have a question about that. I realize that the preview may not reveal, but it may. . . 1.) Do Clerics add the domain spells to their Cleric spell list, or are they the crappy one or the other once again? 2.) Are the domain abilities free, of do clerics have to buy them like in experimental might (one of they few things I really hated in that book).
Getting rid of heavy armor or shields would just outright suck 4th ed style. Terrible idea, especially as it is so easy for arcane casters to use them with arcane only feats. Why not just play a wizard or sorcerer and add a few cure spells to make a better cleric than cleric? The only thing that can make this maybe work is if individual deities grant certain bonus feats and that nondeity clerics have rules for how to construct such a list.
I already warned enough about the concentration issue. I will wait to see how it turns out, but as it stands, I see pretty much 1 build for a usable caster, regardless of class now. The bad thing is, in the circumstances were it is really going to matter, it is the tanks that are going to get screwed, because there are no more in combat heals for you anymore. "It just isn't worth the risk to me to more likely than not take damage and likely lose the spell anyway. Sorry, but at least you will level up from1st fast, unless we get into another boss fight before than. . ." Then there is the fact that a spellcaster, even x2 the parties level that loses init and is in 20ft is not at all a threat, unless low level spells increase dramatically when you level, but than why have high level spells? All this does is (essentually) force spellcasters into a position were only the super broken builds and spell combinations are valid for spellcaster play or they become npcs.
Lastly, I completely agree that high dex light armor builds are just to strong. Mobility is a huge issue in armor, and that a heavy armor character should just be better that a light armor character can reasonably ever achieve. I think that the problem is that armor can only improve so much, while dex and some other bonuses that go with the light armor are infinite. Maybe a built in level based cap.
Now for my all important response on the new Concentrate Mechanic:
I like it.
Caster level checks are alright even with the high water mark of 33 for a nineth level spell it's not impossible. In fact it can become quite possible depending on a number of things. The fact that Caster Stat is included in this check means there could be actual variation between two different casters of the same class even if they are the same level. It doesn't eat up skill points, and it's not an auto pass (though with maxed out casting stat -- 36 for a +13 -- and at 20th level it actually is still an auto pass).
The cleric is actually just what I was expecting from paizo and looks rather playable. I normally avoid playing cleric (I don't like being a divine Toady) however this is a solid class I don't mind seeing.
The overall adjustment to medium armors looks interesting too, and the new rules for Light and Darkness seem to me to be what should have been done in 3.0 (let alone in 3.5), finally something that works, and can be easily dealt with for both players and DMs.
We also haven't seen combat casting which could have a direct effect on casting defensively.
Because of all the negative reactions around here I feel compelled to add in my thoughts. Cleric has been my favorite class since 2nd edition. I am 100% happy with the preview.
You may return to your ranting.
I have skimmed this thread and ya know what not to offend anyone but I was expecting the whining.
I can't out fight the fighter! they ruined my spells!
I can't cake walk every undead encounter!
I can't heal and hurt at the same time!
I have to pay a feat! a feat I tell you to make undead run!
I can fail a defensive spell check!!1 What do you mean I can fail!
The domains went back to 3.5!...no there are not 100% 3.5!
I can't cast oth level all day!Like I said don't mean to offend but each point has been whined over. And they needed it. Hell if It was me heavy armor would go too.
In the end this will make a better balanced class. So if no one else says it well done Jason, well done indeed
I will await the druid whining now
LOL
You made my day seeker!
I find all of these changes reasonable.
From JB's interview where it was intimated that Domains were closer to 3.5 I was a little worried the new and interesting Domain powers we going to be removed, but I am pleasantly suprised and glad they are still in. That's the only thing I was really worried about.
One of the reasons I like Paizo so much is that I understand and agree with most of their changes. Where rules were absolute (death ward, casting in combat), they were changed into rolls. That's how the game is fundamentally played, you take an action and make a roll, and at every turn Paizo seems to reinforce that fact, in a clear attempt to make the game more fun and involving.
Carry on.
I would have liked to give it a try before final print was already to the presses. Now any input I have is meaningless, any input any of us have is meaningless....
There was something like a 50 page thread discussing melee vs. spellcasters and the casting defensive mechanics during the BETA playtest. THAT was your chance to give input.
A lot of the feedback was that casting defensive was too easy and many of the suggestions for nerfing casting went well beyond just making casting your highest level spell a 50/50 chance. Jason took the feedback into account without getting too extreme. I think the fix is appropriate.
LOLYou made my day seeker!
Glad I amused. To me the changes are fair. And well needed. While the cleric is not played much here, it is hands down super class in 3.5 add in the awful broken splats and he is god.
Heaving run the channel since alpha 1 I have to say yeah while cool it was a bit much.
same goes with caster. I love playing caster but you know I should have to worry about casting my 9th level spell while 3 guys try and hit me with large metal objects.
It was a good and fair change
But this is nothing next to the cry's over druid...just wait
Int 14, favored class (which was not mentioned in the races section by the way) +2 skill points... still lacking skill points...On this point I agree. All (or at least most) classes need more skill points. It is just too difficult to make a character with an interesting background with just two or three skill points.1. Stop making Int your dump stat.
2. Use your favored class bonus.
3. Stop making Int your dump stat.
2 skill points, + favored class (1), + Int 14 (2), + human (1) = 6 skill points per level.
(Just assuming the human of course, but even then its 5 skill points per level. Take only a minor investment to INT to 12 and you're at 4 skill points per level which is what most people wanted)
|
|
I also like the changes. It's what we've been using as a house rule since we got the Beta. I ran the numbers; here's a link to the En World post.
Defensive Casting By Spell Level
One thing that I might consider as a house rule is to have the check use character level, rather than caster level. I don't think that would break anything, but it would help out multi-classed PCs, at the expense of some flavor.
LOLYou made my day seeker!
Glad I amused. To me the changes are fair. And well needed. While the cleric is not played much here, it is hands down super class in 3.5 add in the awful broken splats and he is god.
Heaving run the channel since alpha 1 I have to say yeah while cool it was a bit much.
same goes with caster. I love playing caster but you know I should have to worry about casting my 9th level spell while 3 guys try and hit me with large metal objects.
It was a good and fair change
But this is nothing next to the cry's over druid...just wait
Oh, and I await your response ;)
I know this is not always possible, but the power of spellcasters needs to have some checks and balances to it. Being able to cast high level spells in the face of your enemy should be hard... and a 50% chance of your highest level spells is far from unreasonable. Its a change, but one that adds a bit of tactics into the equation.. which is a good thing.This one quote confirms that I will purchase the hardcover rules. I was honestly on the fence until I read this.
THANK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, I told you to have faith ;)
Int 14, favored class (which was not mentioned in the races section by the way) +2 skill points... still lacking skill points...Int 14 (+2) and Favored Class (+1) equals +3 skill points/ level (+4 if Human/ Half Elf). Given the removal of double-cost to cross-class skill (and hopefully, larger class skill list for Clerics), that's a HUGE difference over 3.5. I'd really just like to see a larger skill list for some classes (also Fighters and Sorcerors), and maybe consolidation in some other skills (like Climb/Jump/Swim). Know(Arcana) and Spellcraft (now minus Concentration) seems like another good consolidation (beneficial for Sorcerors).
I don't think this is that much of an issue anymore with the difference between class skills and regular skill being only 3 points. If I were doing it, I would have made class skill lists smaller for a lot of classes.
It's not just a change. Call it what it is, don't hide behind semantics. It's a serious nerf to spell casters.
Beyond that does this all mean the melee now gets no save while in melee with a caster? Because if a caster is already risking a 50/50 cast defensively, and in failure giving you a free swing at me, then I better be sure you get no save. I mean to keep it balanced and all, otherwise I pretty much take a 50/50 to...roll the dice again to see if my gamble worked. Further you most certainly are making one feat a needed one for casters, and personally since you are making it a maditory one you might as well make it a free one. In the name of fairness and all.
I would also point out against multiple melee it truly is death to try and cast your best stuff once surrounded, as most villains will eventually find themselves. Because a flanked guy has no place to go with a 5' step that keeps him from needing to DC.
I didn't expect the final print to come out of left field like this. I epxect refinements and maybe some back tracking to keep it all compatable with 3.5, not drastic changes meant to enfeeble casters in melee.
Just out of curiosity, what is the class you play the most?
|
|
Does the rogue have to make a class level check with a 60% at best chance of not sneak attacking? The fighter to see if his sword, magic or not, just breaks if he uses any feat that has two or more prereqs? As it stands, I just don't see playing a melee cleric as an option.
Maybe the beta playtest should have gotten a few more months (years?) testing.
Does the rogue have to make a class level check with a 60% at best chance of not sneak attacking? The fighter to see if his sword, magic or not, just breaks if he uses any feat that has two or more prereqs? As it stands, I just don't see playing a melee cleric as an option.
Maybe the beta playtest should have gotten a few more months (years?) testing.
heh a fighter/rogue cant gate in things, move mountains or kill with a word. Your doing highly complex actions and fishing items you need to cast the spell from a pouch.
This was needed and has been needed for 8 years. Many of the"haters" have this one right. I love caster and do not like most spell nerf's but 50/50 odd to cast a 9th level spell as your being attacked is more then fair.
Time for the " useless" fighters to block attacks again.
... Maybe the beta playtest should have gotten a few more months (years?) testing.
By far the majority of the feedback from the Beta was take spellcasting down a notch or two. A longer playtest just would have dragged out the same arguments for a longer time period.
I need to ask:
When did a difference of opinion automatically get dumped into the "ranting," or "whining" category?
Maybe I'm just a dumb hick... But I haven't read any one whine, or even rant about the changes. Any one who posted anything remotely against the changes stated a disappointment, or a dislike.
Which one of you has the authority, not just the audacity, to declare that any less valid than others' enjoyment of the changes?
This is the kind of thing that forms edition wars.