It seems like Divine Power goes out of its way to avoid just giving a flat bonus to strength. Instead of "...you gain a +2 luck bonus to strength for every three levels..." we get "...you gain a +1 damage bonus on attack and damage rolls and a +1 on strength and strength-based skill checks...". Now this does give you the benefit of ranged attacks, but doesn't include CMB checks. I'm wondering if the removal of adding to CMB checks was an oversight or was specifically designed to limit the kinds of things that to CMB (which isn't much right now).
It seems like Divine Power goes out of its way to avoid just giving a flat bonus to strength. Instead of "...you gain a +2 strength bonus for every three levels..." we get "...you gain a +1 damage bonus on attack and damage rolls and a +1 on strength and strength-based skill checks...". Now this does give you the benefit of ranged attacks, but doesn't include CMB checks. I'm wondering if the removal of adding to CMB checks was an oversight or was specifically designed to limit the kinds of things that to CMB (which isn't much right now).
It could be just the fluff talking, but since it says ...
Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. You gain a +1 luck bonus on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, Strength checks, and Strength-based skill checks
... it sounds like to me that CMB should be included and was just an oversight. Hard to imagine you get all this strength, power, and skill, but it doesn't work when you wrestle.
As for why it's written the way it is, sure, it helps with ranged attacks, but it's also a luck bonus so it stacks with pretty much everything (after all, who has two luck bonuses at the same time?). If they simply said +2 STR bonus, they would amost certainly have to type it as an enhancement bonus or it would sound strange - who has ever heard of a luck bonus to STR?
So I say chalk it up to fluff and an oversight, and leave it as is so it stacks, but put CMB/CMD on the list.
It seems like Divine Power goes out of its way to avoid just giving a flat bonus to strength. Instead of "...you gain a +2 strength bonus for every three levels..." we get "...you gain a +1 damage bonus on attack and damage rolls and a +1 on strength and strength-based skill checks...". Now this does give you the benefit of ranged attacks, but doesn't include CMB checks. I'm wondering if the removal of adding to CMB checks was an oversight or was specifically designed to limit the kinds of things that to CMB (which isn't much right now).It could be just the fluff talking, but since it says ...
Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. You gain a +1 luck bonus on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, Strength checks, and Strength-based skill checks... it sounds like to me that CMB should be included and was just an oversight. Hard to imagine you get all this strength, power, and skill, but it doesn't work when you wrestle.
As for why it's written the way it is, sure, it helps with ranged attacks, but it's also a luck bonus so it stacks with pretty much everything (after all, who has two luck bonuses at the same time?). If they simply said +2 STR bonus, they would amost certainly have to type it as an enhancement bonus or it would sound strange - who has ever heard of a luck bonus to STR?
So I say chalk it up to fluff and an oversight, and leave it as is so it stacks, but put CMB/CMD on the list.
I meant to say a "...+2 luck bonus to strength for every three levels...", but apparently forgot it. I've fixed it now.
I understand why it's luck and why that's important. Trust me, I enjoy the stacking nature of it.
Well, in the Beta very few things were implied to affect the CMB. Left wide open, a lot of people playtested it a lot of different ways.
In the Final, anything that affects an attack roll is explicitly included (see Bonus Bestiary section on Combat Maneuvers). So that works :)
The way DP is in the beta, it doesn't stack with divine favour. I think that was intentional.
And the strength bonus wouldn't help, say, an archer.
It is the changes like this that make me really dubious about the PathFinder final game.
What kind of changes?
Changes that give clerics a Haste-like affect?Changes that let's one of their primary battle spells stack with a belt of giant strength?
Changes that make clerics more effective ranged attackers?
Changes that keep one spell from turning any class with enough use magic device ranks into a full BAB class?
Please elaborate.
|
The kind of changes that make spells not stack. There is plent of that already. Many, particularly Cleric spells, become obsolete thanks to caps on them. Granted, Divine Favor going back to max +6 is good, but the fact that Divine Power does the same thing but better makes Divine Favor (1st level) not very desirable after a few levels, unless you are in alot of fights a day most of the time.
Most of the stuff you mentioned was already part of the spell, (being a self buff, better BAB, extra attack). Clerics are a melee combat class. They deserv to have a good buff to actually do their job. If it makes them just as good as, (actually slightly less), than a fighter, good. It is not hurting the fighter.
|
|
So they are a buff/healing class that has bad buffs? Come on now.
Clerics are a secondary melee, or just combat class. They can, and damn well should be able to, for short times outshine primary combat classes, or at the minimum be closely matched. The player has the option to use the class to be a party healer and a party buffer, sure, but that is not, and never should be, the only valid option for the class, (nor the Bard, Druid, Paladin, or any other hearler/buffer).
The kind of changes that make spells not stack.
Good, because this change doesn't do that. Although it no longer stacks with abilities that give luck bonuses, it now stacks with enhancement bonuses (which I suggest are quite a bit more common).
I could see the people arguing about making spells no longer stack if they were changing it to the 3.5 version from the Beta version.
|
So they are a buff/healing class that has bad buffs? Come on now.
Bad buffs? What are you talking about? Clerics have awesome buffs, self and otherwise. But they are - or should be - best at group buffs and support, not replacing the fighter.
Clerics are a secondary melee, or just combat class. They can, and damn well should be able to, for short times outshine primary combat classes, or at the minimum be closely matched.
Not only no, but hell no. Clerics are a full caster class. They have all the same armor as fighters, all the same shield profiencies that matter, and in Pathfinder most of them have a martial weapon proficiency to boot. They have better saves, innate supernatural abilities, and the ability to self-heal at will. And I did mention they're a full caster class?
There's already little enough reason to play a melee class over a cleric, but keeping the buffs where 3.5 had them made such a decision mechanically ludicrous. Clerics should not - ever - be able to "outshine primary combat classes," or you might as well just put those warrior types out to pasture for good.
|
|
Not at all. Combat clerics can't buff up themselves for melee much. Usually once (majorly) a day. I'm talking about divine power, righteous might, and things like that which only affect the cleric.
There is no problem with a cleric being just as good as a fighter, (though they usually are not because they don't have the feats for it) FOR A SHORT TIME. Not to mention that a lot of later buffs affect everyone.
In fact, it really needs to be encouraged. Your suggestion is to make the class extremely boring to play in a group. For all intents and purposes, a player playing an npc for the rest of the group. Secondly, it also means that the cleric can't double as the tank in a group without a fighter type. And tertiarily, makes a solo cleric unplayable. They have full spellcasting, but can't/shouldn't actually use those spells on themselves and have a little fun themselves? Really?
|
|
Not at all. Combat clerics can't buff up themselves for melee much. Usually once (majorly) a day. I'm talking about divine power, righteous might, and things like that which only affect the cleric.
There is no problem with a cleric being just as good as a fighter, (though they usually are not because they don't have the feats for it) FOR A SHORT TIME. Not to mention that a lot of later buffs affect everyone.
In fact, it really needs to be encouraged. Your suggestion is to make the class extremely boring to play in a group. For all intents and purposes, a player playing an npc for the rest of the group. Secondly, it also means that the cleric can't double as the tank in a group without a fighter type. And tertiarily, makes a solo cleric unplayable. They have full spellcasting, but can't/shouldn't actually use those spells on themselves and have a little fun themselves? Really?
You might want to reread my post, because you're attributing a lot of things to me that I did not say.
To repeat: clerics have a lot of good buffs, self and otherwise. But what they are - or should be - best at is group buffs and support.
Given that I actually play a warrior-cleric, albeit not a meleeist, in the Pathfinder Society, I can say with no hesitation that I'm neither bored nor an NPC for the rest of the group, despite the fact that I tend to buff the fighter and the paladin over myself. I contribute to the victories, directly and indirectly, and have a good time doing it. But I'm not interested in doing the meleeists' job for them.
3.5, however, allows midlevel and higher clerics to do just that. Feats aren't anything like as useful as spells; all fighters really have going for them is their BAB, and 3.5's divine power made that a non-issue as well. Add in divine favor and righteous might and it's a done deal. Those buffs needed weakening in order to maintain niche protection for the warrior classes; while you can still make a potent melee cleric, they will not be as good as they would have been in 3.5, and that is as it should be.
|
|
I whole-heartedly disagree. I play exclusivly in home games with no desire for organized play. I'm not talking about a cleric outdoing the fighter all or even most of the time. But at it's heart, the cleric is and has always been a melee class.
If the fighter goes down, the cleric needs to be able to finish the fight. The same way that the fighter does if the cleric goes down. Or the rogue. Those buffs don't make the cleric better than the fighter, they allow the cleric to replace the fighter when needed, in a lesser capacity.
Sure a cleric can memorize only buffs and in ways make a fighter unneeded, and even that is not a bad thing. It is a trade off. No free lunches. They get a bunch of self buffs, and they don't have other spells they should have, mostly protections and removals. And party heals.
The ability for a cleric to stand alone, to be able to be built as a player wants (within reason), and to fill gaps if there are not 4 players needs to override the fighters personal desires to be the only melee dps. If the fighter is so weak as is (or was in 3.5), than look at the fighter and leave all other classes, cleric in particular, out of the microscope.
I whole-heartedly disagree.
Sure you do.
And I guess me, the people at Paizo, people who like to play fighters (or other melee classes) and most sane people would agree with...
But at it's heart, the cleric is and has always been a melee class.
No, they're a healing/buff class, that also has an "in case of emergency break glass" melee option.
Letting the cleric outshine a fighter now and again is no problem? Well in 3.5 all you needed was DF, DP + RM. And clerics going melee could use thouse spellls ALL the time. Just get some scrolls, or wands or both. At higher levels scrolls was not needed. ...how many fights do you get per day? At higher level Cleric always outshined fighters, Paladins, Monks, Barbarians, etc. On top of that they got they flame strike, Holy word, Fire Storm, etc. and Healing, and protection, and Magic vestment, and Greater Magic weapon, and Freedom of Movement, and Death Ward, and quicken spell, and resist energy, and Spell Immunity, and Domain Powers, And domain Spells, and, and, and.
Fighters got full BAB, bad will saves, and feats.I'm glade they nerfed DP/DF/RM. However, I feel DP got nerfed a bit too much, but it's not a game breaker.
|
|
First, why are you assuming the whole world must agree with you? This is the place for the Vocal Minority. The Majority never gets on message boards or take polls. Even here, there have been a lot of people saying they did not like spell or class nerfs.
Secondly, why are you assuming I dislike to play fighters? I don't, but I know that a lot of different groups play the same game a lot of different (and mostly correct) ways.
First, why are you assuming the whole world must agree with you? This is the place for the Vocal Minority. The Majority never gets on message boards or take polls. Even here, there have been a lot of people saying they did not like spell or class nerfs.
Secondly, why are you assuming I dislike to play fighters? I don't, but I know that a lot of different groups play the same game a lot of different (and mostly correct) ways.
Beckett, I *agree* with you, the cleric is a melee class, and should be able to match the fighter (at least temporarily) when needed.
The key part that he said was, "in 3.5 all you needed was DF, DP + RM." Not to equal, to *outshine*. And that was pretty true.
Now, you still have DP + RM, and you pretty much equal the fighter. Any cleric with decent Str/Con, who goes giant sized, an extra attack, bonuses to hit and damage, and with DR to boot is going to do a *fine* job of handling the melee duties. Already hasted? Use a 1st level spell instead!
The changes let the cleric do what you and I both want them to, without being weaklings the rest of the time (so as not to waste money on items with enhancement bonuses to strength), and with *fewer* spells used. But at a level of power just a bit toned down.
Everybody wins.
|
|
I'm not angry or anything, just stating my opinion. But even in 3.5, and 3.0, a buffed up cleric didn't have all the combat feats a fighter did, or even a ranger or barbarian, likely.
Additionally, the cleric is a lot less likely to have a powerful magic weapon (comparred to the fighter). Even when buffed up, that doesn't mean the cleric isn't going to have drop the attack to heal or do something along those lines.
Sure it can be done, but that is a one trick pony that probably isn't going to last long.
|
Contributor
|
I just have to point out a few things from personal observations, taken from the 3.5 game out group is playing right now.
On Clerics: Our group features a Warblade, from the Book of Nine Swords, and for much of the campaign, all we ever did in combat was watch the Warblade kill things while the rest of us quietly sat in the corner. He’d rarely miss, and with his array of spel- I mean “maneuvers,” he’d dole out 60+ damage every round.
Our Cleric had envisioned herself a warrior-priestess of Serenrae, and had a single level of Fighter to reflect that, but she was rarely very effective in combat… Until she discovered the Divine Power Combo. Now, if she goes into an encounter buffed, or has two to three rounds to cast first, she can leap out into the fight, swinging four or five times a round for thirty damage each, all with a +30 to hit.
Our Warblade now looks like the bumbling kid next to her, and this is a class that’s designed to be a broken meleeist. Thankfully, this combo doesn’t get abused in our game (mostly because that’s just not the kind of player the Cleric is), but it definitely shows a problem with the spells in question.
On Buffing: I take issue with your opinion that being the healer/buffer makes the character useless and “an NPC.” In our current game, I’ve unintentionally ended up the buff-monkey (thanks to the fact that most everything we encounter is immune to the illusions and enchantments my character concept is built around), and while I grumble about everything being immune to my spells, I actually like helping the rest of the party. I don’t really start feeling useless in a fight until I’ve blown all my buffs. Heck, outside of combat, my buff spells like Silence and Invisibility Sphere make me the party rockstar, because they let us scout an area before we fight, or avoid encounters we don’t feel up for.
It is important for the minority to vice their opinion, but it feels like two of the supports that you’re relying on (ie: this particular Cleric spell isn’t unbalancing, and buffing is boring and no fun to play) aren’t facts, just personal opinions. In every edition, Clerics have been intended as a support class, whether by buffing or as a backup fighter. They can certainly be played primarily as meleeists with certain builds, but you can’t build the entire class around them getting to be awesome warriors AND still get all the other cool abilities the class gets. If you want to play a supreme meleeist, that’s the Fighter’s purpose (you could even play a Fighter with ranks in Knowledge religion and play him as a martial Cleric). If you want to play a holy warrior, that’s the Paladin. If you want to play a Cleric, then you have to accept on some level that the class is built around supporting and protecting your group; you can play it differently, but that was the design intention of the class.
I'm not angry or anything, just stating my opinion. But even in 3.5, and 3.0, a buffed up cleric didn't have all the combat feats a fighter did, or even a ranger or barbarian, likely.
Additionally, the cleric is a lot less likely to have a powerful magic weapon (comparred to the fighter). Even when buffed up, that doesn't mean the cleric isn't going to have drop the attack to heal or do something along those lines.
Sure it can be done, but that is a one trick pony that probably isn't going to last long.
You're definitely right about the feats, though Clerics are one of the least "feat-hungry" classes I feel, at least without splat books. Nothing screams "Take me!" to me as a cleric. Not even Selective Channeling :)
You're right about the one-trick pony, at least at level 7, maybe through 9th. After that it is easily a two-trick, then three-trick, and often later quickened-four-trick pony. I know the melee cleric in my high level game had at least 3 DP's and RM's mem'd, 1-2 quickened. But it *does* start as only occasional, and it is a sacrifice of spell slots. Though the point of the disagreement is that the Cleric doesn't need to be casting in combat, and will still be outshining the fighter.
On the weapon front, I think you're can be totally wrong. Between Craft Arms and Armor (less so w/out XP costs) and Greater Magic Weapon, the cleric is often far ahead on weapon quality. Again, not necessarily at 7th to 11th level or so, but easily after that.
So we do kinda have a 'sweet spot' of clerics not overshadowing fighters at about 7th-10th levels, which is a highly played range.
|
|
I am not at all argueing that the cleric shouldn't buff, heal, or cast other spells. That is the exact oposite of my point. What I am saying is that even when they buff themselves, and get close to being on par with the main melee characters, fighters specifically, 1.) They are not as good, but pretty close, and 2.) Still have their own jobs to do. They just shouldn't be hampered from having some combat fun themselves.
I am arguing against the idea that a cleric that buffs up makes a fighter useless, for a lot of reasons, which I have stated repeatedly.
It does get boring when everyone expects the cleric to do NOTHING BUT heal, buff, and save everyone else. That is what makes the player feel like they are playing an NPC to the party. It would be like playing Psychic Warrior and the DM changing it so that their powers only affect other characters. All their buffs only work on others. I'm just making the comparison because Cleric and Psychic Warrior are very similar, and share the same sort of role.
There is a reason that cleric is one of the least liked (and played), if the the least, of the base classes. Again, I'm talking about in home games, which are way more popular than organized play.
I would ask why you are so upset about 1 spell being broken? I mean really, it's one spell out of 18-20/ level. It's like complaining about the glitterdust nerf breaking the wizard. If they nerfed flame strike would you be saying things like this? Clerics and wizards have tons of spells to choose from at each level, any single spell should be one small bit of the power of a caster.
The reason it is so frustrating is because the spell (in combination) was way too good. It was transformative, the combination of effects literally eliminated to need for an entire other class.
|
Contributor
|
There is a reason that cleric is one of the least liked (and played), if the the least, of the base classes. Again, I'm talking about in home games, which are way more popular than organized play.
This is not my experience at all. In 1st and 2nd ed, no one wanted to play the Cleric. But ever since 3.0 came out, our groups have always had a Cleric, and sometimes two or three. More to the point, every munchkin who has sat down at my table has brought either a Cleric or a Druid.
I'm not overly upset about the spell. I'm waiting to see the final book to see how it all works out. I am somewhat upset that the idea to "fix" the fighter and rogue comes at the expense of the cleric. Or any class. Cleric just seems to be the target by pathfinder.
Not the way I see it. The cleric took a hit on a couple spells but otherwise wound up getting domain spells plus a few extra domain powers to boot, not to mention the vastly improved turn undead/ super healing. Overall the cleric CLASS is ahead, a few specific spells which lots of people had issues with have been nerfed.
If you want to see nerfage look at the druid. Druid got a marginally cooler animal companion but a huge nerf to Wild Shape. Of course that was another case where a full caster class was outshining martial characters in melee... see a trend?
|
|
I understand what is trying to be said. I just don't fully agree with it. I can somewhat see the problem with wild shaping. The simple fix is to have a dm limit the druid to MM1. That is were most of the trouble came from, all the new books that offered new shapes that are way to good. The MM1 took the Druid into consideration for this, while later books didn't so much. Now that's just a house rule, but it is something simple that WotC could have done a long time ago and prevented that whole issue. Similar with polimorph. At its heart, it is not a problem with those abilities, but with them sometimes being abussed. And it is almost always abussed with splatbooks.
Did a quick comparison:
This is 3.5 Divine Favor + Divine Power vs. PF Bull's Strength + Divine Power, showing 3.5 att/dam bonus vs. PF att/dam bonus. In all cases were PF does not have "+1 attack", it still has an extra *primary* attack vs. an extra attack at the lowest bonus.
Level: 07, 3.5 +07/4 vs. PF +4/4.
Level: 08, 3.5 +07/4 vs. PF +4/4 +1 attack.
Level: 09, 3.5 +09/6 vs. PF +5/5 +1 attack.
Level: 10, 3.5 +09/6 vs. PF +5/5 +1 attack.
Level: 11, 3.5 +09/6 vs. PF +5/5.
Level: 12, 3.5 +09/6 vs. PF +6/6.
Level: 13, 3.5 +10/7 vs. PF +6/6.
Level: 14, 3.5 +10/7 vs. PF +6/6.
Level: 15, 3.5 +10/7 vs. PF +7/7 +1 attack.
Level: 16, 3.5 +10/7 vs. PF +7/7.
Level: 17, 3.5 +11/8 vs. PF +7/7.
Level: 18, 3.5 +11/8 vs. PF +8/8.
Level: 19, 3.5 +11/8 vs. PF +8/8.
Level: 20, 3.5 +11/8 vs. PF +8/8.
3.5 has a consistent attack advantage, but not damage. If you consider the attack difference, I think advantage goes to PF in most cases. If you add in Haste, advantage to 3.5.
Note: 0's added (07, 08) to even out the line-up.
Did a quick comparison:This is 3.5 Divine Favor + Divine Power vs. PF Bull's Strength + Divine Power, showing 3.5 att/dam bonus vs. PF att/dam bonus. In all cases were PF does not have "+1 attack", it still has an extra *primary* attack vs. an extra attack at the lowest bonus.
I don't need a list to tell me DP now suck compard to 3.5 DP and your comparison is not really valid.
I don't need a list to tell me DP now suck compard to 3.5 DP and your comparison is not really valid.
Add Bull's strength to the 3.5
At higher levels a belt of Giant Strength will be mandatory to a melee cleric.
I do not think that changes the table, because 3.5 divine power didn't stack with bull's strength nor the magical belt.
wizards/bards usually cast haste in most fights
No, they don't.
The simple fix is to have a dm limit the druid to MM1.
A workaround at best. The rules should not force anyone to limit themselves to certain books, not if it can be helped.
And let's say the druid wants to do some spying and assume the shape of local wildlife. And let's say local wildlife is giant geckos. Now the druid is screwed with your rule, because that gecko is not in MM1.
First, why are you assuming the whole world must agree with you?
No. When we don't agree I sometimes change my mind. it happens when people give me good solid arguments I'm wrong. That has happened at least a handful of times at these messageboards.
This is the place for the Vocal Minority.
Yes, Know. They are the ones who shout the most and the loudest. They are not always right.
The Majority never gets on message boards or take polls.
That's why I'm needed ;-)
Even here, there have been a lot of people saying they did not like spell or class nerfs.
Yes. I don't like them either. But they were necessary. I do think however, they may have overdone it a bit.... oh wait I'm starting to sound like the Minority now :-0
Secondly, why are you assuming I dislike to play fighters?
I'm not
I don't [dislike to play fighters], but I know that a lot of different groups play the same game a lot of different (and mostly correct) ways.
yes, " a lot of different groups play the same game a lot of different (and mostly correct) ways".
|
I was kind of thinking the same thing. 15th level is especially nice for this combo. You actually end up better off than the fighter on that level. Not to mention, if you can give up your domains(which are pretty cool) for fighter bab with pathfinder setting, this means divine power is not only useful but freaking amazing. It's +5 to attacks and damages and extra attack WITH 20/20/15/10.
I'm, for the record, Immora's sisters's player and my cleric, by 3.5 standards is not as broken as she could be, but she's fairly well designed to be a beat stick against demons/devils, undead, and evil mages. A few combats per day, I can move 40 feet and still make a full attack and take 10 with +16 to tumble. With righteous Might and divine power up, a full attack is +21/+21/18/16/13/11. Four of those attacks are with a large +3 Holy Magebane Keen Sacred-Burst Cold-Iron Scimitar named "The Consequences of Sin"(in celestial but I don't have my notes with me) and a large +4 sacred defending adamantine scimitar that is pretty much always defending with full bonus. I can't take a hit like the fighter so I'm ac heavy. I have a +5(+2 from enhancement) bonus to strength if you want to calculate damage. Last time I was fully charged, I got one hit in before it popped. Goltak had already taken down everything because it's what he does. I practically have to break my character to be able to do what I want my character to do in this campaign and I'm looking at this new divine power and thinking it's all around a little better and in one case, extremely better(that of the warrior-priest that chooses bab progression over domains).
I do not think that changes the table, because 3.5 divine power didn't stack with bull's strength nor the magical belt.I don't need a list to tell me DP now suck compard to 3.5 DP and your comparison is not really valid.
Add Bull's strength to the 3.5
At higher levels a belt of Giant Strength will be mandatory to a melee cleric.
Good point. I was sloppy.
wizards/bards usually cast haste in most fights
No, they don't.
Ok, so some do and some don't. A melee cleric will get boots of haste anyway....sooner or later.
The simple fix is to have a dm limit the druid to MM1.A workaround at best. The rules should not force anyone to limit themselves to certain books, not if it can be helped.
And let's say the druid wants to do some spying and assume the shape of local wildlife. And let's say local wildlife is giant geckos. Now the druid is screwed with your rule, because that gecko is not in MM1.
Agree it's a workaround at best, but the giant geckos argument is not impressive. Local wildlife can be adaped to fit and / or DM can simply houserule other creatures from other books than MM1 is OK if it's only for spying or/and DM could say: giant geckos, use these stats.
|
|
I've always like clerics specifically because your faith, which is always one of the more interesting parts of a setting for me, can play a large part in determining the kind of character you want to play. It always allowed me plenty of options to play whatever I felt like playing. I am generally for options that let you change how your class works, either temporarily or permanently(with give and take). So divine power let me play the warrior priestess before the setting book was out and I could choose to forgo domains for warrior bab and I think cleric has always had the most leeway to change the feel of a character. If they don't lose that, I think it's a win. And everything I've seen from them shows that the people at paizo believe in being able to play a character concept more easily by application of options. All the classes now have options that allow them to specialize in something and create a character of the same class as someone else that plays uniquely, and that's to their credit.
3.5 has a consistent attack advantage, but not damage. If you consider the attack difference, I think advantage goes to PF in most cases. If you add in Haste, advantage to 3.5.
I think that it should also be noted that 3.5 requires the cleric spend two rounds casting those buff spells (or quicken the divine favor) and that the other version requires only one round (the bull's strength in this case could be cast by other character or just be mimicked by a magical strength-boosting belt).
Also I believe that the 3.5 damage bonus for 7th and 8th level should be 5 instead of 4 [+2 divine favor, +3 divine power].
|
|
I don't need a list to tell me DP now suck compard to 3.5 DP and your comparison is not really valid.
Yeah. You can prove practically anything that's even remotely true with facts.
Add Bull's strength to the 3.5
OK. Add another round for buffs.
At higher levels a belt of Giant Strength will be mandatory to a melee cleric.
OK. Then remove the extra round for buffs and also remove Bull's Strength.(enhancement bonus)
wizards/bards usually cast haste in most fights, so the bonus attack is no big deal.
Really? you want to be able to have all of this power but you want the wizard to spend the first round powering you up for every battle? You don't want to be pidgeon-holed into healer, but you want the bard to be pidgeon-holed into a haster?(Which Immora can tell you, isn't a lot of fun.)
Not at level 8 - 10 anyway and at lvl 15 you can aford to get boost of haste. ....wait at lvl a clerics got better things to. Cast Holy Word and a quicken Holy Smite, or....Have your pick.
Sure. But now when you cast divine power you can swift activate something else or cast a quickened spell and use that boot slot for winged boots. And at level 15 holy smite, not so great unless you are actually fighting evil outsiders and even then will save + spell resistance and holy word might not be your friend if you've got neutral or god-forbid evil people in your group and again a likely will save + spell resistance from any big bads and also, completely unaffected if his hit dice exceed yours. And wait, your a warrior priest and you had the feat space to TAKE a metamagic feat. Maybe, cause that's how you want to play your character. Ultimately, yes it's a nerf of sorts, but the tradeoff could play well to your strategies if you can take it in for a few minutes and think about it.
Also, I'd like to point out that a bonus to strength has a slight disadvantage to the way they are doing it. Think two-weapon fighters and their off hand that would only get two(possibly three) points of that strength bonus to damage.
Agree it's a workaround at best, but the giant geckos argument is not impressive. Local wildlife can be adaped to fit and / or DM can simply houserule other creatures from other books than MM1 is OK if it's only for spying or/and DM could say: giant geckos, use these stats.
So now the GM needs to think about alternative stats and preview all monsters.
The new way makes all that unnecessary.
Plus, I saw polymorph abused with MM1 alone, too.
So now the GM needs to think about alternative stats and preview all monsters.
Agree it's a workaround at best, but the giant geckos argument is not impressive. Local wildlife can be adaped to fit and / or DM can simply houserule other creatures from other books than MM1 is OK if it's only for spying or/and DM could say: giant geckos, use these stats.
Yes. That's ONE alternative. Either way, GM do preview all monsters, don't they?
The new way makes all that unnecessary.
Yes. I actually like the new druid. I just didn't like your giant geckos argument.
Plus, I saw polymorph abused with MM1 alone, too.
Yes. Abusing MM1 would not be to hard ;-) and this argument is way better than your 'giant gecko'.
there will always be players who abuse rules. That's one of the reasons the game need a GM.
I don't need a list to tell me DP now suck compard to 3.5 DP and your comparison is not really valid.
Yeah. You can prove practically anything that's even remotely true with facts.
Is this an insult?
more stuff
My point was DP has been nerf and that's fine by me. But I feel it has been too nerfed. I may be wrong. Anyway, DP is only one spell of many and so I guess it is not a big problem.
In Majubas nice example The PF did include the bonus attack from the 'haste effect' but the 3.5 DP did not include a haste effect. A 3.5 cleric could get that from Mithral Full Plate of Speed; boots of speed, speed weapon, the arcane caster of the group; or a potion.If I got it right Majubas mean the 3.5 DP will have a better to hit but the the PF will do more damage. And DP now have the extra attack as a bonus.
Well, What you can't hit you can't hurt and the cleric won’t always be able to use a full attack.
wizards/bards usually cast haste in most fights, so the bonus attack is no big deal.
Really? you want to be able to have all of this power but you want the wizard to spend the first round powering you up for every battle? You don't want to be pidgeon-holed into healer, but you want the bard to be pidgeon-holed into a haster?(Which Immora can tell you, isn't a lot of fun.)
A) I never said I want “all of this power”
B) I have no problem with healing and buffing others. I never liked the CoDzilla cleric.C) I never said I “want the bard to be pidgeon-holed into a haster”. In PF bards can perform and cast haste at the same time. They don’t even need the spell just a scroll.
D) Do I think a team should work as a team? Yes.
E) Haste, some casters use it, perhaps not every fight but they use it. Especially if you got a group with a fighter/paladin/barbarian typ and a battle rogue and a BATTLE cleric. If they don’t, the cleric may use a Mithral Full Plate of Speed; boots of speed, speed weapon, a potion of haste.
[...]now when you cast divine power you can swift activate something else or cast a quickened spell and use that boot slot for winged boots.
Not at level 8 - 10 anyway and at lvl 15 you can aford to get boost of haste. ....wait at lvl a clerics got better things to. Cast Holy Word and a quicken Holy Smite, or....Have your pick.
Want to fly? Use a potion of fly or Winged Shield or Celestial Armor.
And at level 15 holy smite, not so great unless you are actually fighting evil outsiders and even then will save + spell resistance and holy word might not be your friend if you've got neutral or god-forbid evil people in your group and again a likely will save + spell resistance from any big bads and also, completely unaffected if his hit dice exceed yours.
It’ was just one example. The cleric could buff others or cast other spells or activate items.
And wait, your a warrior priest and you had the feat space to TAKE a metamagic feat. Maybe, cause that's how you want to play your character.
Use a rod then. It’s your game it’s your character. Play it anyway you want.
Ultimately, yes it's a nerf of sorts, but the tradeoff could play well to your strategies if you can take it in for a few minutes and think about it.
You could be right. I will think about this. ..no irony.
So you have a problem with giant geckos? You have no idea. But you will learn. Seconds after I summoned a dozen of them into your bedroom at night, and then cast ravenous hunger on them. That will teach you, antigeckite. }>
So you have a problem with giant geckos? You have no idea. But you will learn. Seconds after I summoned a dozen of them into your bedroom at night, and then cast ravenous hunger on them. That will teach you, antigeckite. }>
LOL! Yes I will avoid picking a fight with you again ;-)
Secondly, why are you assuming I dislike to play fighters?
The thing is, 3.0/3.5 nerfed the non-casters HARD, in most areas, in the way the combat rules were constructed. If adventuring days were short, then starting at mid-levels in core 3.X, a party of 3 clerics and a wizard is just as good as a party with all four "primary" classes. Add Persistent Spell into the mix, and the cleric could easily become a better melee fighter than any actual fighter. Add Zen Archery as well, and the cleric could out-archer any archery fighter also. All day. And heal. And still have full spellcasting. So the end result is that the actual fighter goes straight into the dustbin after 11th level.
Failing to either drastically improve the melees, or nerf the casters, or both, simply ensures that the game really has only two PC classes.
|
Contributor
|
Failing to either drastically improve the melees, or nerf the casters, or both, simply ensures that the game really has only two PC classes.
Preach on, brother!
Here's to those awesome new high-level Fighter crit-feats that Paizo has given us! Now casters aren't the only ones who can blind an opponent!
Also I believe that the 3.5 damage bonus for 7th and 8th level should be 5 instead of 4 [+2 divine favor, +3 divine power].
Ah crud.. I messed something up - I'll fix by tonight if not sooner.
Thanks Blazej!
Edit: Until I get that up, let me say that the *error* was in 3.5's favor.
Edit Edit: Okay I figured it out - I was adding the Divine Power BAB bonus to hit to damage, instead of the Divine Power Str bonus to damage. Sorry for the error all!
New Chart (only change is 3.5 damage after level 9 does not increase):
Level: 07, 3.5 +07/5 vs. PF +4/4, Net -3/-1.
Level: 08, 3.5 +07/5 vs. PF +4/4, Net -3/-1, +1 attack.
Level: 09, 3.5 +09/6 vs. PF +5/5, Net -4/-1, +1 attack.
Level: 10, 3.5 +09/6 vs. PF +5/5, Net -4/-1, +1 attack.
Level: 11, 3.5 +09/6 vs. PF +5/5, Net -4/-1.
Level: 12, 3.5 +09/6 vs. PF +6/6, Net -3/-0.
Level: 13, 3.5 +10/6 vs. PF +6/6, Net -4/-0.
Level: 14, 3.5 +10/6 vs. PF +6/6, Net -4/-0.
Level: 15, 3.5 +10/6 vs. PF +7/7, Net -3/+1, +1 attack.
Level: 16, 3.5 +10/6 vs. PF +7/7, Net -3/+1.
Level: 17, 3.5 +11/6 vs. PF +7/7, Net -4/+1.
Level: 18, 3.5 +11/6 vs. PF +8/8, Net -3/+2.
Level: 19, 3.5 +11/6 vs. PF +8/8, Net -3/+2.
Level: 20, 3.5 +11/6 vs. PF +8/8, Net -3/+2.
And, yes, as someone pointed out, Bull's Strength/Belt doesn't stack with Divine Power's strength boost. So 3.5 DP stacks better with haste items, PF DP stacks better with Strength items. Blazej makes a good point that 3.5 no one else can cast the required spells, nor come from permanent items. Small but present difference.
stuff
you can't hurt, what you can't hit and the cleric won’t always be able to use a full attack.
Do the people who think DP was nerfed too much or too little have an alternate version they would like to propose?
stuffyou can't hurt, what you can't hit and the cleric won’t always be able to use a full attack.
No disagreement. The PF version had 3-4 lower attack bonus. So for monsters that would require a 16-18 to hit for the 3.5 cleric, the PF cleric will be mostly out of luck, or have to arrange flanking or other attack bonuses.
At 9th level, the 3.5 version gave +9 to hit, +6 to damage for two spells. PF gives +5 to hit and damage.
Majuba,
Are you using Divine Favor for 3.5 with the +6 cap to luck bonus? It was errated to max out at +3 by WotC.
Edit: Nevermind, it looks like you are already using the +3 max.