Director of Game Design
|
This preview looks pretty cool.
However, I feel like the armor change may have a bigger ripple effect than most people realize.
Won't mithril chainmail be too good now with the change. There would be no reason to wear a mithril shirt except for maybe a few skill check penalties.
You are assuming we made no changes in this regard? Interesting...
Jason Bulmahn
Teasing again.. I know...
When I saw the medium armor change, I assumed all three tiers of armor had some revision. But you know what happens when you assume...
This preview looks pretty cool.
However, I feel like the armor change may have a bigger ripple effect than most people realize.
Won't mithril chainmail be too good now with the change. There would be no reason to wear a mithril shirt except for maybe a few skill check penalties.
You are assuming we made no changes in this regard? Interesting...
Jason Bulmahn
Teasing again.. I know...
Alright. Jason is now just teasing us. LOL
Did I miss something somewhere? I know there were a few people commenting on how Clerics no longer have heavy armor or shield proficiency. But is that confirmed from the blog or something as I have not been able to find it. From past adventures this cleric has always been equipped with chain and a scimitar to match the artwork.
And now there are comments with Jason teasing us about Mithral armor having a change.
I do remember from back in the playtest there were several threads about how light, medium, and heavy armor could be adjusted to create more value to higher armor feats over light armor. (I know that Jason DID confirm that the armor bonus from chainmail of +6 is not a typo.) I also remember that there were posts about how the Mithral chain shirt or magic bracers should not be the “ultimate” in character defense.
So does has anyone seen an "official" comment about how clerics have lost feat proficiencies? I think it is safe to say that armor is getting a tweak from JB’s comments in this thread. And special materials may also change a bit.
And for those that want to know about the older posts I will attempt a link.
Go to Mithral.
Go to Armor.
|
I gotta say, overall I love everything you've done JB, to make my favorite game that much better. Some of it may not have struck me as that great at first, but after cogitating on it a bit and mulling over the pros and cons of each, I can't see anything thats been a change for the worse.
I have my PFRPG and Bestiary both preordered, and can't wait to get it in the mail so I can take a first hand look.
Good Job everyone at Paizo!
That makes you a 3e dwarf.
Not me. Fighter is my favored class,
I'm mostly OK with that, since dwarf is my favored race.
Back in 1977, my first character I created was a dwarf fighter, and he's lived with me through the ages, through countless campaigns, and I still play some incarnation of him even today (though not always, and not currently).
Of course, now my favored race to be[/b] is tarrasque, and my favored race to [i]eat is halfling. I like em plump and juicy, even if I have to eat twice as many.
Kinda like popcorn shrimp.
This preview looks pretty cool.
However, I feel like the armor change may have a bigger ripple effect than most people realize.
Won't mithril chainmail be too good now with the change. There would be no reason to wear a mithril shirt except for maybe a few skill check penalties.
You are assuming we made no changes in this regard? Interesting...
Jason Bulmahn
Teasing again.. I know...
Oh, let's hope you nerfed it. Well I can still hope, can't I? :-)
.......and hope hope hope Animated Shield have got a really BIG nerf :-D
Using these class previews is like the blind men and the elephant. It is easy to draw the wrong conclusions.
So no good idea checking out Kyra as a blind man? Perhaps it would be great ;-) ....You got a point, but it fun doing it anyway.
U can't you touch this
Well, as a priestess of Serenrae she would do two things:Using these class previews is like the blind men and the elephant. It is easy to draw the wrong conclusions.So no good idea checking out Kyra as a blind man? Perhaps it would be great ;-) ....You got a point, but it fun doing it anyway.
U can't you touch this
- She would cure the blind man's afflection, restoring sight to his eyes.
- Then she would beat the crap out of him for "inappropriate" touching.
Yay, I love seeing my favorite classes getting the shaft, w00t. >.<
I'm afraid to say this is one aspect of the new edition I'm going to hate. Pure, plain and simple. Concentration checks got screwed, casting defensively is now effectively static with nothing existing that the player might do to modify it which is B.S. Even darkness seems to have gotten weaker if it doesn't affect darkvision and the like.
Looks like I'll need a house rule or fifteen.
|
But it might say something like "This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Wisdom modifier."
I don't know.. it could say that... maybe.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Rampant speculation does not help here.
Wait until you see the final product before making these far shots. :-)
But it might say something like "This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Wisdom modifier."
I don't know.. it could say that... maybe.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I know that it's strange for somebody to quote himself, but... (straight from page 1):
EDIT: alternatively, it could be 3 + Wis bonus per day (she has +5 Wisdom)... yes, we still don't know exactly...
Gotcha !!!
When I saw the medium armor change, I assumed all three tiers of armor had some revision. But you know what happens when you assume...
You're forced to use silly word games and everybody thinks you're a simpleton? ;-P
Won't mithril chainmail be too good now with the change. There would be no reason to wear a mithril shirt except for maybe a few skill check penalties.
Some people like their skill checks unpenalised. And a chain shirt lets you use more dexterity. That can be important if you have uncanny dodge and want a better touch AC.
You are assuming we made no changes in this regard? Interesting...Jason Bulmahn
Teasing again.. I know...
A dark alley has been prepared for you, complete with some people who want to... talk to you.
Did I miss something somewhere? I know there were a few people commenting on how Clerics no longer have heavy armor or shield proficiency. But is that confirmed from the blog or something as I have not been able to find it.
It's wild and unfounded speculation.
And now there are comments with Jason teasing us about Mithral armor having a change.
He might have been talking about chain shirts...
Yay, I love seeing my favorite classes getting the shaft, w00t. >.<
You're a weirdo, you know that? I always hate things like that.
casting defensively is now effectively static with nothing existing that the player might do to modify it which is B.S.
Of course, choosing your spell level and having feats like combat casting is nothing.... I mean. Who'd do that? A real spellcaster blasts away with 2 9th-level spells per round, after that 2 8th-level spells per round, and then has a lie down to recharge ;-P
Seriously, though: There's not that much different from before, except that you cannot use skill focus on concentration checks now. Everything else still works.
Even darkness seems to have gotten weaker if it doesn't affect darkvision and the like.
Darkness hasn't been able to prevent darkvision for a long time now.
But deeper darkness is now again able to make dwarves blind!
|
It's a little strange that abilities like Flame Bolt are now a per-day thing, instead of an at-will thing.
Not really; An at-will, magical, ranged touch attack is far too good, for any class, even an arcanist.
Ignore armour, ignore DR, set objects alight, can't be disarmed, can pass through weapon searches, etc...it's the ultimate no-brainer default action, at least at the low levels.Roll vs AC11 for d6, or miss vs AC16 for d8+1?
If I want this, I'd play a warlock; only, I don't, because I find them silly.
But if you do like warlocks, ...why play a warlock at level 1, if the cleric does everything the warlock does, with no social stigma, and has weapon/armour proficiencies, channel energy and spells on top?
Yay, I love seeing my favorite classes getting the shaft, w00t. >.<
I'm afraid to say this is one aspect of the new edition I'm going to hate. Pure, plain and simple. Concentration checks got screwed, casting defensively is now effectively static with nothing existing that the player might do to modify it which is B.S. Even darkness seems to have gotten weaker if it doesn't affect darkvision and the like.
Looks like I'll need a house rule or fifteen.
Apologies for my kneejerk reaction there. I've been a little touchy lately. The joy of losing the majority of your paycheck while you're in the process of job hunting for something that will actually do more than feed you and occasionally pay the bills.
I'll go over this a little more thoroughly now that I'm a tad more level headed.
DOMAINS:
I actually like the changes, the fact that the domain of your god could permit you to cast spells that were outside the clerics norm is a good thing, how domains were handled in 3.x not so much. Combine a bit of how PRPGB handled domains with the domain spells = win for me.
CONCENTRATION:
Honestly, I still stand by initial reaction of hating it, but I'll give it a chance. I know my players will give it boos and hisses but they'll have to deal with it. But I'll have to deal with their grumbles. I hate dealing with their grumbles. When I deal with someones grumbles their characters get hurt.
Anyway, my concern comes from cross classing, I honestly fail to see why a cross class caster should hurt for casting defensively. Which is why I'll houserule the 'caster level' check to be a character level check. Just because you stopped advancing in a spellcasting class after you achieved 2nd or 3rd level spells doesn't mean your ability to focus on casting them in combat doesn't improve. That and I don't think that would be game breaking at all.
I am kind of pissed that this effectively forces people to take what was once a virtually useless feat: combat casting (virtually useless because for the price of a feat you gained a +4 to concentration checks when casting defensively while a skill focus: concentration would give your a +3 you could use all the time). On the upside Combat Casting makes more sense now.
Overall I give the concentration change a "Meh" if I don't like it nothing says I can't change it back. I'll just be wary of playing a cleric should I play under someone elses DM screen.
ARMOR:
If there have been changes made to armor I'm not sure if I should be concerned or hopeful. I'll wait and see.
SPELLS:
I hated about %90 of the spell changes made in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5. I still dislike most of them but its just easier now to stick with 3.5 (seriously, they did not need to change 'Fly' and just because a spell is useful in combat doesn't merit nerfing). There does appear to be further nerfing which initially irks me.
However here is my hope: Darkness has apparently been nerfed to be reverse equivalent of the light spell. This works fine for me if it also becomes a 0 lvl spell like the 'light' spell. For me Darkness was higher level because it also affected darkvision and lowlight vision and overpowered the light spell. If it acts as just a reverse of the light spell but remains 2nd level, well, that's just ridiculous.
CoDzilla:
I can kind of see the argument about Divine Might or Power or whatnot. I will also say that, for one, CoDzilla assumes the cleric in question has enough time to cast all the spell buffs in question, let alone hasn't been using them throughout the day. One well placed Dispell Magic and CoDzilla is no more while the fighter is still swinging nice and free.
Honestly I hate the CoDzilla argument. It's the argument that an abuse of the rule becomes a standard rather than an exception. It either assumes that DM's can't handle their cleric players or that all players of clerics are minmaxers. Or maybe I've just been spoiled and haven't had to deal with people turning their clerics into engines of destruction that make the parties fighter weep.
CHANNELING:
I've loved the new channeling rules since they were first presented. Original turning was far too annoying for me as a DM (not all undead are zombies, some can run pretty damn fast) and while I don't think the 'on/off' switch really makes sense in the fluff sense I can see how people disliked it mechanically. I figure if it doesn't work for me I can just ignore it and return it to a wave. It requires a house rule but meh. All in all I can handle this change.
MORE ON SPELLS:
I seriously dislike the changes to blanket spells and I hope they at least lowered the levels on them. If you want to put a bite into a curse or poison then up the DC don't nerf another spell. I've always thought poisons were too weak anyway, give a fitness instructor a dose of arsenic I'm betting he dies with the same symptoms as the 98 pound weakling with the horned rimmed glasses. I personally think it is an unecessary change, especially seeing as when these sort of changes are made nothing else is done to compensate, the bonus tends to suck or the spell remains the same level despite getting royally nerfed.
I also don't like the further screwing of cross classing. I'm all for making it more desirable to stick with a class from 1-20 but I don't think that means you need to downright punish someone for their concept dipping. Again I think someone who has earned enough experience to hit a high level should be better now at doing what they did 5 levels ago than they were then. Perhaps I'm alone on this.
Not to mention it does more than add bite, it adds to the paperwork and becomes more of a pain in the ass. I sure as hell hope that if Remove Disease only permits a 'caster level' check (I still think that is B.S.) then the spell level should be lowered.
CONCLUSION:
All in all I'm disappointed. I'm not going to go so far and say this is a deal breaker but I dislike most of the changes. Some I can understand but I still dislike and others I like (domains for one). All in all I think they weakened things that I honestly don't think needed to be weakened. I have the power to house rule these things in my game but I don't like lengthy lists of house rules. In the end I might just end up using concentration as it was, keeping the old Remove Disease (and similar spells) and using the beta cleric (but the final domains). It means more paperwork for me but in that sense I think it'll be balanced more to my liking. I may give the new concentration rules a check though.
Anyway, one disappointing update out of how many? That's not a bad score in my book. It does go to shoe that while I love paizo and dump more money into the company than is healthy for my wallet Paizo doesn't quite equal %100 win. More like %90 which to me is better than WotC.
My 2 cents again...
All these tantrums on both sides mean to me one thing: the change was better than I ever expected :D
It seems that Jason, Sean & co. has really thought their way through every single case of play... including system math and whatever.
However, the rulebook is ONLY in their hands by now, so I think everybody should relax and wait. Don't feed Jason every time he tries to made you TOO curious! :D
I think he's done the best job he can, and his ready and wise feedbacks should point out that there's a precise reason for EVERY bit of change he's showing us.
I personally trust and thank him. :)
On the other hand, you can get some of those nice rules that increase your caster level if you're multiclassed (Practised Spellcaster and so on) to get better...
A solid point. Take up 4 levels of say fighter as a cleric, and combat casting aint such a big deal with the right feat. You're fighter levels end up making you a better caster, the increased hps, melee skill, more feats, and if armor skills for fighters still exist better defended AC wise all also help balance out the slower spell level increase better then simply not being usuable in melee. If you hunger for skill points as a cleric, and frankly who doesn't, ranger levels or if you really want more rogue levels can help do the same thing with different benifits. Just takes the right feat to once again be casting in melee.
CONCENTRATION:
Honestly, I still stand by initial reaction of hating it, but I'll give it a chance. I know my players will give it boos and hisses but they'll have to deal with it. But I'll have to deal with their grumbles. I hate dealing with their grumbles. When I deal with someones grumbles their characters get hurt.
Anyway, my concern comes from cross classing, I honestly fail to see why a cross class caster should hurt for casting defensively. Which is why I'll houserule the 'caster level' check to be a character level check. Just because you stopped advancing in a spellcasting class after you achieved 2nd or 3rd level spells doesn't mean your ability to focus on casting them in combat doesn't improve. That and I don't think that would be game breaking at all.
I would be surprised if Jason & crew did not pick up on this and I'd be willing to bet they took a careful look at it. Going out on a limb here, but maybe there's a feat that takes care of it?
casting defensively is now effectively static with nothing existing that the player might do to modify it which is B.S.Of course, choosing your spell level and having feats like combat casting is nothing.... I mean. Who'd do that? A real spellcaster blasts away with 2 9th-level spells per round, after that 2 8th-level spells per round, and then has a lie down to recharge ;-P
Seriously, though: There's not that much different from before, except that you cannot use skill focus on concentration checks now. Everything else still works.
KaeYoss, you also left out ideas like ... using tactics to make sure that you start casting more then 5' away from any opponents?
(Being a wizard in clothing kind of makes me want to be more the 5' away in any case. ... and run like a scared rabbit if I can't keep enough distance ... or there are archers ... or they just look really scary ... )
casting defensively is now effectively static with nothing existing that the player might do to modify it which is B.S.Of course, choosing your spell level and having feats like combat casting is nothing.... I mean. Who'd do that? A real spellcaster blasts away with 2 9th-level spells per round, after that 2 8th-level spells per round, and then has a lie down to recharge ;-P
Seriously, though: There's not that much different from before, except that you cannot use skill focus on concentration checks now. Everything else still works.
KaeYoss, you also left out ideas like ... using tactics to make sure that you start casting more then 5' away from any opponents?
(Being a wizard in clothing kind of makes me want to be more the 5' away in any case. ... and run like a scared rabbit if I can't keep enough distance ... or there are archers ... or they just look really scary ... )
Heh, I'm playing a cloistered cleric/wizard of Nethys in the Second Darkness AP, suffice to say I start getting nervous once I have to get closer than 25ft of any of my opponents.
CONCENTRATION:
Anyway, my concern comes from cross classing, I honestly fail to see why a cross class caster should hurt for casting defensively. Which is why I'll houserule the 'caster level' check to be a character level check. Just because you stopped advancing in a spellcasting class after you achieved 2nd or 3rd level spells doesn't mean your ability to focus on casting them in combat doesn't improve. That and I don't think that would be game breaking at all.
Just thought I'd point out, since I've seen some version of this sentiment a few times, that the new rules don't actually penalize cross class casters very much at all. Sure their bonus to concentration checks stops going up because their caster level stalls, but so does the DC of the checks they're trying to make.
For example, lets take two characters, one is a 5th level caster/6th level something else, the other is an 11th level caster. Both of them have a 20 in their casting stat and combat casting. When casting their highest level spells they have the following odds...
Cross class caster, 3rd level spell, DC 21 with a +14 on the check, giving them a 30% chance of failure.
Single class caster, 6th level spell, DC 27, with a +20 on the check, giving them a 30% chance of failure.
With concentration as a skill and with the old scaling of the DC these checks were pretty much automatic for a primary caster, and even easier for a cross class character (assuming they still had the skill points to up concentration). The new system just evens the bar.
casting defensively is now effectively static with nothing existing that the player might do to modify it which is B.S.Of course, choosing your spell level and having feats like combat casting is nothing.... I mean. Who'd do that? A real spellcaster blasts away with 2 9th-level spells per round, after that 2 8th-level spells per round, and then has a lie down to recharge ;-P
Seriously, though: There's not that much different from before, except that you cannot use skill focus on concentration checks now. Everything else still works.
KaeYoss, you also left out ideas like ... using tactics to make sure that you start casting more then 5' away from any opponents?
(Being a wizard in clothing kind of makes me want to be more the 5' away in any case. ... and run like a scared rabbit if I can't keep enough distance ... or there are archers ... or they just look really scary ... )
A cleric in full plate with a heavy shield, and likely an AC in the same range as your fighters is should be less concerned about being caught in melee then a wizard. At least in my veiw he should be less concerned about it.
My 2 cents again...
All these tantrums on both sides mean to me one thing: the change was better than I ever expected :D
My two cents, that's a foolish thing to say. People will be mad about game breaking changes all the time, about good changes far less often.
Just my two CP.
Domains: I'm fine with it. I liked the Beta stuff, and was surprised that they decided to go back on that one. However I will say that in MOP Clerics were the most powerful class during all of 3.x, not over powered mind you, but the most powerful. In many ways I'd been fine with only upgrading the Sorc. and Fighter, and twiking the Bard and Rogue a little, but every class got a overhaul, more or less, and Clerics as far as Beta is concerned, stayed the most powerful. So keeping old Domains style was fine with me. It was the thinking behind it that concernes me. They did it to give 3pp books still be useful. I understand that but seems, and follow the logic here, the thinking is that the new rule set will in the end be a transition rule set, so that a Pathfinder 2nd, with the 'new' beta domains in it. I don't know why it made me feel that way, but something about the 'whys' rubbed the wrong way.
Concentration: Well there goes my last hope of keeping the skill offical. I'm houseruling concentration back into the skill list, actually for me most of the skills remain, I was really only happy with spot and search being made into perception, and even then I'll have Perception (or maybe call it vision) and Listen. I like more skills not less, and the basic reason for this is in the solution that they came up with. Really Paizo I know this is going to be how you do it, but put in a clear multiclassing rule to it. I'm keeping Concentration, but I can see endless arguments at tables about this without some clear rule to it.
Just as an aside to anyone who cares, I would have made concentration more useful as a skill, other then to spell casters. Example whenever a fighter faced off with more attackers then his class level, he'd have to make concentration checks, to keep from being easily distracted. I had a player start using concentration checks to distract rathern then concentrate. Yeah he was a rogue and I toyed with the notion of only letting rogues do that but I decided to simply give then a bonus of 1/2 their rogue level. In any case the skill had a lot more uses then what was presented in the PHB (same goes for use rope which I'm also keeping).
Armor: Not sure how I feel about this one. Mainly because I don't know the full extent changes armor and those who can use have in total.
Deal Breaker, Not Deal Breaker: In then end its not a deal braker. The thing I love about the new skill system, is that its so nicely simple, that keeping an old skill is easy, even adding new skills like use tech. As I said Domains back to the way they were for me was reall a reacation of 'huh? didn't see that coming, oh well' In fact I have to see how the classes work mesh now, but it might be a good thing, makeing every class equally powerful.
The real worry is armor. See the thing is we really don't know the full extent of changes to armor, and even if we did the changes to the rules might have effects down the line that no really sees coming.
Anyways just my CP worth of thinking.
TTFN DRE
|
|
Removal of ailments no longer automatic.
Ability damage from poisons, negative levels with Restoration?, etc. Wands will require more charge use to succeed with the lower caster level. Triviality of conditions removed.
Clerics are still very useful, but not the super heal-pill they once were. This I like.
Oh, yes. I support this as well.
One of the editorials in Paizo's own Adventure Paths addressed the difficulties of maintaining a sense of dread, in a quarantine situation, in a world with infallible curative magic. Whilst it went on to describe good reasons why disease could still spread, the fact is that some players will inevitably still see these as evidence that the DM is cheating them out of their 'infallible' victory.
It is always easier to add options, than to take them away.
Setting a low-powered baseline for curative magic allows a DM to tailor the lethality of his campaign. If he wishes to give the PCs a chance, he can throw in more scrolls, potions and wands.
It's not as easy to change the lethality of a campaign where the baseline spell effects are set high.
As well as the pure mathematical elements of balancing the game, there has to be an appreciation of the stories that inspired players to get into the game.
IE; do the rules allow scenario writers and DMs to tell the sort of stories they want to tell?
I believe that any auto-win actions make for a very dull game, by eliminating the potential of failure, the anticipation for the die to stop rolling, and cheapening the sense of achievement, to a shrug, and a 'What. Everrr'.
Whether that be the (3.5) auto-immunity to summoned monsters and mental control from Protection from Evil, the auto-immunity to being grappled by even the largest, strongest, most skilled tentacle-beast that ever lived, from Freedom of Movement, or the ability to ignore the most virulent strain of plague, via Remove Disease, the inevitable effect is the same; reducing the variety of genres that can be played, and stories that can be told.
Well, I would not jump to conclusions regarding the Armor Proficiency of Clerics from the preview only.
Remember that Kyra (the iconic Cleric) wears a Chain Mail and uses a Scimitar (and has no shield, either); does that mean that every Cleric can only use Scimitars and use no Shields?
It's as if we, looking the Fighter preview, say: "A Fighter can only use Medium Armors and combat with two weapons".
Or, looking at the Ranger preview, say: "A Ranger can only choose the Ranged Weapon Combat Style, and only with Xbows".
Just my 2c.
|
|
Well, I would not jump to conclusions regarding the Armor Proficiency of Clerics from the preview only.
Remember that Kyra (the iconic Cleric) wears a Chain Mail and uses a Scimitar (and has no shield, either); does that mean that every Cleric can only use Scimitars and use no Shields?
It's as if we, looking the Fighter preview, say: "A Fighter can only use Medium Armors and combat with two weapons".
Or, looking at the Ranger preview, say: "A Ranger can only choose the Ranged Weapon Combat Style, and only with Xbows".
No, but the choice, between taking two-weapon style and Archery style, is exactly that. A choice, with pros and cons attached.
The choice between a cleric wearing chainmail and full-plate has never been any contest. Full-plate is simply better, unless your Dex is high and your chain is made from mithral.
I support any rule change that encourages use of more armour types.
Quite often, a player will find a piece of artwork, or a figure, which matches his character concept, wearing scale, chain, banded mail, breastplate, half-plate, etc.
Yet, in practice, such a piece is only representative for levels 1 and/or 2, after which, everyone (except druids) defaults to full-plate, chain shirt or nothing.
Therefore, the assumption must be, any cleric found in (non-mithral) chainmail must be a novice, insane, or non-proficient in heavy armour.
How about the base cleric being proficient in Light and Medium, with Heavy proficiency being reserved for multiclassers and priests of the War (or similar) domain?
|
|
The nerfs had to happen. You might be a climatic cleric player who is after the coolness and fluff, but there are dozens of people out there doing a loud "sigh" whenever a 3.5 cleric casts Divine Power, Righetous Might, burns his turning attempts for some sweet Divine Metamagic and goes on to make all other players want to re-roll CoD.
Hmmmmmmmmmnnnn.....
Well, I would not jump to conclusions regarding the Armor Proficiency of Clerics from the preview only.
Remember that Kyra (the iconic Cleric) wears a Chain Mail and uses a Scimitar (and has no shield, either); does that mean that every Cleric can only use Scimitars and use no Shields?
It's as if we, looking the Fighter preview, say: "A Fighter can only use Medium Armors and combat with two weapons".
Or, looking at the Ranger preview, say: "A Ranger can only choose the Ranged Weapon Combat Style, and only with Xbows".Just my 2c.
Many of their "iconic" characters are not really built as a more or less average for their class character but are themselves kind of an oddity. It's no big deal, but it should indicate that jumping to assumptions that all clerics act like the "iconic" one in a preveiw are not wise.
|
The choice between a cleric wearing chainmail and full-plate has never been any contest. Full-plate is simply better, unless your Dex is high and your chain is made from mithral.
encumberance...
clerics doesn't put their highest attibute in Strenght... so most of the time using a heavy armor is not only unwise but completly stupid when you are unable to move from its weight alone :)my 2 cents
he who playing as a cleric has never used anything heavier than breastplate... an almost always lighter...
|
|
I find it kind of hard to swallow "I'll take a feat to not damage my opponent" in the Turn Undead feat... I hope it is at least a bonus feat to the Cleric at some point. Is an evil/undead Cleric going to have to burn a feat to control undead?
It makes sense as a rider effect, on top of the damage, ie, they run because you're hurting them.
Just like Stunning Fist isn't 'damage or stun', it's 'I'll punch you really hard for real damage, and if I'm lucky you may stand there, reeling like a chump, as well'.
I wonder if the spell progression is still reduced to "offset" the power of Channel Energy... (We can't tell from the preview, Kyra isn't high enough level to see.)
I thought it was reduced to offset gaining bonus spells from two domains per spell level, rather than one?
|
|
I think the revision to the concentration mechanic is an elegant solution. At low levels, a caster will have difficulty getting spells off reliably with a sword-wielding lunatic in their face (unless they take Combat Casting; the value of this feat significantly increased!). At higher levels, they will probably be facing a 50/50 chance with their higher level spells, although lower level spells will be automatic. While in the dragon's reach, should your 20th level wizard take a chance of failing to cast meteor swarm (DC 33) or should he do the sure thing and Dimension Door (DC 23) to a slightly more safe distance? The mechanic will work well for partial caster (like rangers) and multi-class casters as well - they will usually be dealing with lower level spells than a full caster, so their DC will be corresponding lower, while they will be getting the full benefit of their casting stat. Pretty cool.
And, being a caster level check, it frees up a skill point every level.
Skills Diplomacy: +12, Heal +16, Knowledge (religion) +11, Spellcraft +11
THIS is the reason I hated the 2+int skills...
8th level character with 4 skills...
LAME!
You dropped the ball on that change Jason...many in the community requested instituting the 4+int minimum to make up for the loss of x4 (it's not as big of change to the system as changing feats to 1/2 levels, c'mon.)
But then again, Kyra is pretty min-maxed...
Str 14, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 20, Cha 12
I agree with 90% of the changes, but THIS will be house-ruled in my game...and I guess I'll play rogues in organized play.
Skills Diplomacy: +12, Heal +16, Knowledge (religion) +11, Spellcraft +11
THIS is the reason I hated the 2+int skills...
8th level character with 4 skills...
LAME!
You dropped the ball on that change Jason...many in the community requested instituting the 4+int minimum to make up for the loss of x4 (it's not as big of change to the system as changing feats to 1/2 levels, c'mon.)
But then again, Kyra is pretty min-maxed...
Str 14, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 20, Cha 12I agree with 90% of the changes, but THIS will be house-ruled in my game...and I guess I'll play rogues in organized play.
You forget, this is a very focused specialist in a limited area.
You wouldn't ask Einstein to bake you a quiche, and you wouldn't ask Emeril to teach you quantum physics.
Kyra has no INT mod, as you point out. That CHA mod could be on INT, or her WIS could be fractionally lower for more INT, and she probably really doesn't need a 14 STR (too low for a good melee cleric or a good ClericZilla, too high for a support caster).
She could have had more skill points, but she is not built for them.
Even so, Kyra could have had 3 or 4 points in a dozen skills if she wanted. This would make her a generalist, decent at a lot of things but not great at anything.
Or she could be great at a couple things and decent at 4 or 5 more things.
It's all in the build.
There is no reason for an 8th level cleric to have rolls of over +10 in all her core needs and also in a handful of other skills as well. Thats what rogues, bards, and rangers do. Not clerics.
It should suffice to be able to get rolls over +10 in a couple core skills, maybe only Spellcraft, then be around +8 in a couple classic skills like Knowledge (Religion), and then have 3-5 points in a handful of other areas such as Diplomacy, Healing, Sense Motive, Perception.
She doesn't have to be the best, to rival the ranger's Perception, the wizard's Knowledges, the fighter's Intimidate, the rogue's Stealth, the druid's Survival, etc...
Just being an expert at a couple skills and being basically competent at a few other skills is usually enough for those of us in the real world - why can't it be enough for a cleric in the game world?
Come to think of it, expecting any character to be a master of a dozen skills strikes me as far more "LAME" than restricting some specialist classes to being only experts at their core skills - clerics for exampe have many duties and obligations and studies that take up enough of their time that they don't have much time left to practice climbing cliffs or lurking in shadows, or much of anything else.
As Blake alludes, a human cleric with 10 Int and favored class: cleric will indeed have 4 skills (not including the Concentration tax anymore!), IF he/she maxes all of them out. Why you'd want to max out all skills in Pathfinder is beyond me, though; you're better off taking a number of half-skills and collecting the +3 class skill bonus for all of them. Only a few skills (Disable Device, Perception, Stealth) are going to see situations in which, say, 4 ranks will make any difference at all; the rest will be perfectly usable with less ranks. So maybe you max out one or two skills, and that leaves you with between 4 and 6 additional skills that you're still pretty good at! And that's not enough?!
As it is, I'm now looking at PC wizards (Int bonus to skills = absurd) who are expert mountain climbers, swimmers, and acrobatics; in the final game they can maybe become Olympic pole-vaulters on top of it, because Concentration isn't soaking up skill points anymore.
Cleric skill point though I do think should be upped. The class already has more needed stats then most classes, Wis, Str, Cha, and of course Con like all classes.
With all the nerfs to the cleric, I am surprised there wasn't anything done to help them out a little too. With all the stat requirements extra skill points would be a small thing to help offset the stat issue. Either that or find a way to reduce their need for 4 stats.
Maybe the same for Sorc too, wizard get enough thanks to int being their primary stat. One thing that I would like for wizard and Sorcs is a way to allow them to use their primary stat to help their will save. Most classes have their best save bolstered by one of their primary stats, both the wizard and sorc don't. Obviously classes with multiple good saves might not have this but they usually do for one of their good ones.
|
|
Just being an expert at a couple skills and being basically competent at a few other skills is usually enough for those of us in the real world - why can't it be enough for a cleric in the game world?
1) because its ridiculous they are unable to know anything else ebsides their career
2) the concept of the cleric came from learned priest fighters... they might not be as knowledgeables as a priest in their monasteries, but they knew a lot besides fighting...
3) because its better to play a well rounded character than just 2-dimensions one?
and this goes not only for the cleric, but also for the paladin, fighter, sorcerer and wizard... basically, half the classes.
the lack of change didn't surprised me... i ranted about it because if i was going to rant i was going to rant about everything... and this topic I DID ranted quite a lot, tried to reason... but ti was to no avail... Jason and James left it quite clear...
and... the reason they didn't changed it was mosty to not take the rogue's sweet spot
i have been found the point ridiculous that the wildman of the abrbarian might actually know more of the life than a cleric or fighter... or yet than the wizard (and common of 5 classes taxed like this only the wizard has the attribute to more or less unwymp himself...)
of course this is the easiest part of Pathfinder that I had been houseruling... +2 skills to everyone... why? because i prefer to put an emphasys on skills than on just hack&slash, because I like well rounded characters, and I hate the fighter getting bored just ebcause they are not killing someone...
Again, the people who perceive skill points as being too few are in all cases so far assuming that all skills have to be maxed out. In Pathfinder, with those free "+3s" floating around for the taking, there is no reason at all to max out all of your skills. Spread those points around, and you'll be amazed at the kind of really substantial skill bonuses you can get in LOTS of skills, with only 2 (for class) + 1 (for favored class) skill points/level.
|
|
Again, the people who perceive skill points as being too few are in all cases so far assuming that all skills have to be maxed out. In Pathfinder, with those free "+3s" floating around for the taking, there is no reason at all to max out all of your skills. Spread those points around, and you'll be amazed at the kind of really substantial skill bonuses you can get in LOTS of skills, with only 2 (for class) + 1 (for favored class) skill points/level.
doubt it :P
i talk by experience...and I only try to max skills as much as posible for 2 reasons... contested rolls... and High DCs...
keeping lots of low skill point is the death where ou really ened a good roll...
of course I only max 2 skills: Sense Motive and Diplomacy... the rest even with 4 skill points +int mod I divide a bit more between other skills...
|
|
3.5 Turn Undead was a 60' cone, and as Zark illustrated before, all or nothing.
Pathfinder Channel Energy, is a 30' "burst" that is all or something. (I use burst lightly, since that might not be its' actual type.)
It wasn't a cone in 3.5, it was a pseudo-burst too.
"Range
You turn the closest turnable undead first, and you can’t turn undead that are more than 60 feet away or that have total cover relative to you. You don’t need line of sight to a target, but you do need line of effect."
The effective range needed reducing, since it now affects every target in the area, rather than picking off some of the weak, and leaving the rest alone.
That will require a change in traditional undead tactics. No more can the vampire cleric surround himself with spawn, zombies and skeletons, to act as an ablative turning shield.
|
|
Right, forgot that we weren't still working with a base 15+ for CMB. However there is still the fact that a 1st level caster can get his spells off next to a 20th level fighter with no difference in difficulty unless the fighter has trained specifically to mess with casters.
To be frank, if a Fighter hasn't ever thought to train at f***ing over casters, then he would never have made 20th level...
a lot of stuff
If you need to add xx pages of dismay maybe shouldn't be so damned sure you are right?
I'm not saying you are wrong but it seams you imply your obviously right.The fact you need half a novel to get your message across don't prove your points are obviously valid/right, at least they don't seem to be to me.
That is, they might be valid, but it sure as h*ll isn't obvious.
Also. If you and others don't like what you see: Do you need to continue to post and add your dismay again and again and again? Do you think Jason and the others will go back to the Drawing board and rewrite the stuff you don't like?
Also let me quote what I think is two of the best posts in this thread.
I am holding off on any judgements and conclusions until I have the complete set of rules in my hands so I can see how it all meshes together.
Using these class previews is like the blind men and the elephant. It is easy to draw the wrong conclusions.
Rampant speculation does not help here.
Wait until you see the final product before making these far shots. :-)
That goes for me too- We need not be humble, but it would be suitable if we at least tried.
I'm right or I'm wrong?
Yep, pretty much. If you state a fact, it will be either right or wrong.
If you voice an opinion, then each listener/reader must evaluate whether that opinion works for them indindually. If it does, it can be said to be right for them, if not, it's wrong for them. Still works.
If you need to add xx pages of dismay maybe shouldn't be so sure you are right?
I added very little dismay.
I did add much reason - which as you point out, could be right or could be wrong.
I see a distinct difference.
I'm not saying you are wrong but it seams you state your obiously right.
Of course.
I'm voicing an opinion. My opinions are always right, for me.
You're entitled to feel differently, of course.
The fact you need half a novel to get your message across don't prove your points are obviously valid, at least they don't seam to be to me.
That is, they might be valid, but it sure as h*ll isn't obvious.
Evidently I need the other half of the novel then?
Also. If you and others don't like what you see: Do you need to continue to post and add your dismay again and again and again?
I said my piece, others responded. Then I replied to their responses.
Point and counterpoint.
It's called a conversation. Better yet, it's a debate.
Do you think Jason will go back and rewrite the book?
Nope.
But there's always 2nd edition...
Also let me quote what I think is one of the best posts in this thread.That goes for me, you and anybody else. We need not be humble, but it would be suitable if we al least tried.I am holding off on any judgements and conclusions until I have the complete set of rules in my hands so I can see how it all meshes together.
Using these class previews is like the blind men and the elephant. It is easy to draw the wrong conclusions.
That's a good quote.
I've said the same thing (minus the elephant analogy) in several posts in this thread.
I know I don't have all the rules, and I'm evaluating what I see in a veritable vacuum. And I've admitted as much.
Again, the people who perceive skill points as being too few are in all cases so far assuming that all skills have to be maxed out. In Pathfinder, with those free "+3s" floating around for the taking, there is no reason at all to max out all of your skills. Spread those points around, and you'll be amazed at the kind of really substantial skill bonuses you can get in LOTS of skills, with only 2 (for class) + 1 (for favored class) skill points/level.doubt it :P
i talk by experience...and I only try to max skills as much as posible for 2 reasons... contested rolls... and High DCs...
keeping lots of low skill point is the death where ou really ened a good roll...
of course I only max 2 skills: Sense Motive and Diplomacy... the rest even with 4 skill points +int mod I divide a bit more between other skills...
That's a flaw of the skill system, or possibly of poor DMing.
If life or death hangs on a contested roll, and that roll is always so difficult that you must have it maxxed out to be successful on the roll, then we need to rethink the whole system.
I once had a DM make us scale a castle wall. We needed to get inside, and climbing the wall was the only way.
We were pretty low level (3rd I think) and only our rogue would have any reasonable chance - we could all try, the odds were against us all, except the rogue, who had odds in favor of success. I think the DC was something like 15.
Months later, we came back to the same castle. Some really powerful villain had taken it over. We were all around 15th level.
We decided to climb the same exact wall. It's not like the new guy sent engineers to make the wall smooth, or poured oil on it, or sandblasted it, or whatever. Same wall, same castle, no change.
But this time the DM said the DC was 30.
When we asked why, he said "So it will be challenging."
That's poor DMing.
What's wrong with letting us feel heroic, or even a little silly. "Hey guys, remember how hard this was the first time? Watch me while I climb this wall with one hand tied behind my back..."
My point is, not every roll should require maximum skill points.
And not every class needs to be able to succeed at every skill.
Teamwork for the win.
It's a little strange that abilities like Flame Bolt are now a per-day thing, instead of an at-will thing.Not really; An at-will, magical, ranged touch attack is far too good, for any class, even an arcanist.
Where is the "final straw" here?
If it was not range, would that be alright? (There were several melee touch abilities in the domains and bloodlines that no one seemed to complain about, except to say they were too weak...)
Is it the fact that it is touch? Would it be acceptable if it was just a ranged attack?
Or is it that it was at-will, and then all at-will abilities should be scrutinized, like the level 0 spells?
Where, exactly, did the powers like this "break," that other powers like it didn't?
I find it kind of hard to swallow "I'll take a feat to not damage my opponent" in the Turn Undead feat... I hope it is at least a bonus feat to the Cleric at some point. Is an evil/undead Cleric going to have to burn a feat to control undead?It makes sense as a rider effect, on top of the damage, ie, they run because you're hurting them.
Just like Stunning Fist isn't 'damage or stun', it's 'I'll punch you really hard for real damage, and if I'm lucky you may stand there, reeling like a chump, as well'.
Now that would have been acceptable. I, myself, would find it distasteful that an "expected" class ability was removed to feat status. But at least it wouldn't seem to be a waste to take it back.
I wonder if the spell progression is still reduced to "offset" the power of Channel Energy... (We can't tell from the preview, Kyra isn't high enough level to see.)I thought it was reduced to offset gaining bonus spells from two domains per spell level, rather than one?
That could be... Unlike KeaYoss, I haven't seen anyone of knowledge weigh in on this though.
It could have been all of them for all we know.
But if you do like warlocks, ...why play a warlock at level 1, if the cleric does everything the warlock does, with no social stigma, and has weapon/armour proficiencies, channel energy and spells on top?
Well, warlocks just suck :P
|
|
That's a flaw of the skill system, or possibly of poor DMing.
If life or death hangs on a contested roll, and that roll is always so difficult that you must have it maxxed out to be successful on the roll, then we need to rethink the whole system.
agreed in every word... in that case the DC should have stayed the same... but if next they want to climb the Icewall in the Ice Crown... you are not going to give them a DC 15? of course not... the DC should correspond to the risk, not the characters' level
also half of the time I am not the one inventing the DCs... the rules already bring them...
also contested skills? check the monsters... those are the ones who would really dictate how much maximizing skill on game... when the assassin have +15 in their perception adn you have 0... that means that in a lucky roll they would hurt you rpetty hard, even if the orgue DID saw them
and that is just an example