As far as Channel Energy goes, when you use it on undead you can guarantee you will have an impact. They can halve the damage, but they cannot negate it. Compare this to Turn Undead, where in a majority of situations as I outlined above, you can expect to have wasted an action to no effect whatsoever more than 50% of the time.
Sure, it can have an impact.
You would have a better impact setting up a sneak attack for the rogue... Unless you'd rather not get close without heavy armor.
Ensuring some effect is not an improvement over a superior effect that only occurs sometimes, even rarely.
Case in point. CotCT, the alleyway (left intentionally vague) using Beta rules: My GM ran it for another group, and that group got torn up because the "leader" would never fail the saving throw to flee. They had two Clerics dropping Channel Energies every round. The same fight with our group, we only had one Cleric drop two Channel Energy uses at appropriate times (and the Turning worked both times), and we cleared the alley with no trouble - and had a less optimised party.
Some certain effect is no where as useful as a superior effect even occuring infrequently.
|
Sure, it can have an impact.
You would have a better impact setting up a sneak attack for the rogue... Unless you'd rather not get close without heavy armor.
Ensuring some effect is not an improvement over a superior effect that only occurs sometimes, even rarely.
Case in point. CotCT, the alleyway (left intentionally vague) using Beta rules: My GM ran it for another group, and that group got torn up because the "leader" would never fail the saving throw to flee. They had two Clerics dropping Channel Energies every round. The same fight with our group, we only had one Cleric drop two Channel Energy uses at appropriate times (and the Turning worked both times), and we cleared the alley with no trouble - and had a less optimised party.
Some certain effect is no where as useful as a superior effect even occuring infrequently.
I guess that's just a point where we disagree. For me, the chances of Turn Undead working are too poor, when you consider it's the difference between something happening and nothing happening on your turn. Plus, I didn't even get into the turning damage roll, which is also pretty bad. I mean, 2d6+cleric level+Charisma modifier? You'd be lucky to get as many as 3 undead with that in most of the examples I gave.
And I also disagree on turning being a superior effect; I generally consider forcing enemies to flee to be a poor effect, since you have to hunt them down afterwards and since if you're in a dungeon, their flight may alert additional monsters that you didn't want getting involved in the fight. In the end, I guess I'll see how it pans out in play. :)
And I also disagree on turning being a superior effect; I generally consider forcing enemies to flee to be a poor effect, since you have to hunt them down afterwards and since if you're in a dungeon, their flight may alert additional monsters that you didn't want getting involved in the fight. In the end, I guess I'll see how it pans out in play. :)
This will, more than likely, come across far snarkier than I mean it... So hold on to your hat please.
I take it you think Blaster Arcanists are better than Battlefield Control Mages?
Because that is the reality of the difference. And the majority seem to feel Blasters suck.
|
|
This will, more than likely, come across far snarkier than I mean it... So hold on to your hat please.
I take it you think Blaster Arcanists are better than Battlefield Control Mages?
Because that is the reality of the difference. And the majority seem to feel Blasters suck.
I don't believe that Battlefield Control is about making enemies flee - at least, not in D&D. It's about locking enemies down using spells like Evard's Black Tentacles and Web. You want your enemies pinned, not scattering in every direction. Web, Evard's Black Tentacles, hold effects, Wall spells; control's about funneling opponents into a killing field, and pinning them there so that they can't escape. It's always better to pin an enemy than it is to send them running, especially when you have no control over the direction of their flight.
Some certain effect is no where as useful as a superior effect even occuring infrequently.
That, I think, is highly debatable. It even goes to the debate between blaster damage spells and save or die. I see that more as a play style and build issue than anything else.
Being assured of some effect is better if you're not a major optimizer while favoring the all or nothing effects pretty much requires you to invest heavily in optimizing the power to reduce the chances of getting the nothing result.
I don't think there's any real compelling evidence that one is better than the other without going for the major optimization.
|
Name me a historic pantheon whose priesthood was overwhelmingly martial^^ Not even the volatile Norse pantheon's Aesir and Vanir had a majority of warrior gods... So its not what clerics have "become" but what clerics are and always were beyond the sheer number-crunching on RPG-boards
This is not an irreparable problem. I don't think that heavy armor should be generic feat for all clerics since that doesn't fit the modern perspective of what a cleric has become.
Well, Christianity for one - Hospitallers during the Crusades. And since plate would not available in a Norse campaign for the fighters you are just blowing smoke in the argument. GG though.
When I say "modern perspective" I am referring to the game since it came out, er maybe before you were born -I don't know. So yes it is what clerics have "become", and that was "before" there were RPG boards. When I played a cleric it was the cleric that was drawn from history, namely holy warriors/crusaders. That was way before divine power, char op, buffing to be a fighter, rolflecopters or any other such NONSENSE.
If you bothered to read the rest of my post you would have seen that my suggestions on the armor feat should be tied to the specific faith/church/temple so that clerics would not all by default be set to St.Cuthbert holy crusader. You are rabidly trying to defend a rule change that was put in place for the most part to bring balance to class - not to fix a flavor or theme associated with it. Don't make excuses as to why the designers did what they did. It was done for balance -simple reason.
|
Right, but not all of them used it. So those clerics that didn't wear heavy armor had a wasted "feat". Which keys right back to your own argument:Huh? All clerics had the feat to allowed them to use heavy armor.
Either way, some cleric will benefit from the given feat (whether it's Heavy Armor Proficiency or Proficiency with the deity's favored weapon) while others won't. No change there.
Any cleric could burn a feat to pick it up, but the war domain gave it to you for free along with focus in it. The issue is you can't give a feat to some clerics but not others for no balance reason.
So a cleric can now burn a feat to get Heavy Armor Proficiency if he/she wants to.
If time played matters, I've been at it over 30 years. But it really doesn't.
I think you misunderstood my reasoning for putting that in there. I simply stated that to assure you that I am also aware of the heritage of cleric class prior to 3.x when I say that I don't feel that this change affects the "cleric-ness" of the class.
I take it you think Blaster Arcanists are better than Battlefield Control Mages?Fear is pretty much the worst kind of CC there is. Sure, the guy isn't attacking you at the moment, but he's running away from you at top speed, and when the fear wears off he might bring some buddies with him.
Yes. Exactly.
You can prepare for their arrival, AND get more XP.
How is this a bad thing?
:-P
|
Do you consider Channel Energy to be inferior to Turn Undead, or just not good enough as it stands without heavy armour proficiency?The point is, Undead generally have higher will saves, clerics can't max out charisma as easily as say a blaster wizard for their spell dc's, and with undead generally getting even more HP, (and channel resistance directly affecting their save), most of the time you are looking at half damage. That damage does not prevent a badly wounded or surprized group from getting attacked, and in all actuallity is pretty trivial. It sounds nice, but it (probably) will not be all that great. Particularly because it will mostly only have any real affect on the weaker undead that you could spend 5 extra rounds just hacking at.
Here is the worst part. The cleric affects those within 30 ft from them. That means in combat, to heal the party, they have to get right in the middle of it. That's why your cleric of poetry and dance or whatever has that heavy armor protection. They get right on up there. For hurting undead, even worse. They have to get close enought to affect a large group that they are more likely than not right in the middle of all those enemies. If your talking zombies, they all (probably) charge and surround the cleric. Sure the DM can say no they run right by you to go after the fighter, but that's not very fun or realistic way to make the fighter the tank.
A little bit of both, really. I wouldn'd say Channelling, specifically positive channeling, is inferior, as much as not nearly as offensive as it is assumed to be. I do not believe in numbers breakdowns (like undead above). They give a guideline but it is notoriously deceptive on paper. In the beta, you dropped a channel bomb, and even if you didn't deal more then 4 damage to the vampires, you at least still healed your party. No it is either or (and there are 0 defensive abilities with it).
No other class is expected to not contribute offensively to combat as the cleric. You can either deal 1d6 per 2 cleric levels to undead, and the majority of the time they will save so it's actually 1d6 per 4 cleric levels, or try and heal. A choice between dealing a few extra damage that a melee hit would not even notice just isn't very fun or helpful.But it gets even worse. You are never going to just zap a bunch of undead, unless they are extremely weaker than you, (in which case what's they point), but you have your legs cut out from under you. While everyone says your a full caster now, just stay back and do your thing, you still have to get right in the middle of things. Unless you have either a nice (unchallenging) DM, you are essentually required to go right in the middle of things and be the primary target of incomming attacks without your best defenses.
It is easier to have those clerics that don't wear heavy armor just not wear heavy armor than to require those that do to buy it. Even with your backwards compatibility, it is flawed. Essentually you are saying okay, everyone gets 3 more feats, except for clerics. Except if those clerics don't wear heavy armor already. Or except if they haven't multiclassed into something at the right level to give them heavy armor. No the easy answer is clerics keep heavy armor and everyone gets 3 extra feats.
It is also better, more logical, and easier on everyone to say it's ok to house rule clerics not getting heavy armor and leave it at that.
|
|
I take it you think Blaster Arcanists are better than Battlefield Control Mages?Fear is pretty much the worst kind of CC there is. Sure, the guy isn't attacking you at the moment, but he's running away from you at top speed, and when the fear wears off he might bring some buddies with him.Yes. Exactly.
You can prepare for their arrival, AND get more XP.
How is this a bad thing?
He may tag more opponents who come looking while you're still fighting the first group. And that might put you in over your head. In the wrong circumstances, a fleeing opponent can cause an enemy train to roll right over you. And most of the time, you won't know if that's going to happen or not, making use of fear effects a risky proposition.
I don't think it's up to me to point this out, but anywho....
We have to camps here, well three if you're figuring in the indifferent here, and basicly they don't see eye to eye.
There is the "BOOO! You stole our Heavy Armor, give it back! FOUL!" Camp.
And in the other Corner we have the "Listen, *sigh*, you have gained so much and this change hardly matters and if it does, use a feat" camp.
And now we have this shouting contest,to see who shouts the loudest and the longest.
Because, frankly, that is what it is... There has hardly been any new arguments the past many many posts, has there? I think that what can be agreed upon is that we disagree, and how is it that the statement:"it's your game, change what you don't like" is so hard to swallow? I get really annoyed at some posters continual shouting foul and frankly, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone want to continue to put water on that mill by continuing to try to explain the right and reason in the given change. It's commendable, indeed it is, but it's also giving too much attention to something that is not worth so much time... It was in the beginning, by all means, but the arguments are going in circles. And it's at that point you need to stop.
I'll say right here and now. I think the armor change is a good and logical thing. Will I give any reasons why? No, all the good reasons have been said. So my suggestion here is this:
Stop watering the Whinery Watermill inc.
The good energy is most likely wasted on some people, and this is taking away the focus of this game, namely: Have fun & change the things you don't like.
In societygames, well, I guess you just have to suck it up...
Hope I stepped on some toes that needed stepping on. If you got mad, sorry, I meant every word I wrote.
In Denmark where I'm from we have a saying going something like this: "Dry your eyes and have a cracker", meaning something like: Suck it up and move on, with the added underscore that "I'm not really sorry for you"...
Have fun! :)
Right, but not all of them used it. So those clerics that didn't wear heavy armor had a wasted "feat". Which keys right back to your own argument:Huh? All clerics had the feat to allowed them to use heavy armor.
Either way, some cleric will benefit from the given feat (whether it's Heavy Armor Proficiency or Proficiency with the deity's favored weapon) while others won't. No change there.
No it really doesn't. If a cleric doesn't use a feat that is different from not getting the same feats as other clerics. Not using it is a choice, not getting the options isn't.
|
|
I don't think it's up to me to point this out, but anywho....
We have to camps here, well three if you're figuring in the indifferent here, and basicly they don't see eye to eye.
There is the "BOOO! You stole our Heavy Armor, give it back! FOUL!" Camp.
And in the other Corner we have the "Listen, *sigh*, you have gained so much and this change hardly matters and if it does, use a feat" camp.
And now we have this shouting contest,to see who shouts the loudest and the longest.
Because, frankly, that is what it is... There has hardly been any new arguments the past many many posts, has there? I think that what can be agreed upon is that we disagree, and how is it that the statement:"it's your game, change what you don't like" is so hard to swallow? I get really annoyed at some posters continual shouting foul and frankly, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone want to continue to put water on that mill by continuing to try to explain the right and reason in the given change. It's commendable, indeed it is, but it's also giving too much attention to something that is not worth so much time... It was in the beginning, by all means, but the arguments are going in circles. And it's at that point you need to stop.
I'll say right here and now. I think the armor change is a good and logical thing. Will I give any reasons why? No, all the good reasons have been said. So my suggestion here is this:
Stop watering the Whinery Watermill inc.
The good energy is most likely wasted on some people, and this is taking away the focus of this game, namely: Have fun & change the things you don't like.
In societygames, well, I guess you just have to suck it up...
Hope I stepped on some toes that needed stepping on. If you got mad, sorry, I meant every word I wrote.
In Denmark where I'm from we have a saying going something like this: "Dry your eyes and have a cracker", meaning something like: Suck it up and move on, with the added underscore that "I'm not really sorry for you"...
Have...
You are wise beyond your years
Mithral makes Heavy Armor act as Medium in all ways except proficiency.Sigh...
You have no idea how many times I've had to explain this to my group and others. Its a pretty common mistake, really, and the wording from the 3.5 DMG can easily be misread.
Maybe the 3.5 DMG can be easily misread, but if you read Pathfinder, it is pretty damn clear.
"This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor. A character wearing mithral full plate must be proficient in wearing heavy armor to avoid adding the armor's check penalty to all his attack rolls and skill checks that involve moving."
From the PRD section on equipment. Towards the bottom.
You are wise beyond your years
But not wise enough to realise that posts like that only make the matter worse.
You have been here long enough to realise that Kevin Mack.
And fighting opponents simultaneously is a lot harder than fighting them in succession (which is why CC is good in the first place).
Which is precisely why you don't fight them simultaneously by dividing the group and conquering them. Fear effects aren't as good as more precise means, but given the Undead immunity to mind effects, a fear like effect is all we can get. Unless your Cleric Channels Negative Energy, and burns a feat, to Command Undead. But then that got nerfed even further to a max of Hit Dice equal to your Cleric level.
|
|
No it really doesn't. If a cleric doesn't use a feat that is different from not getting the same feats as other clerics. Not using it is a choice, not getting the options isn't.Right, but not all of them used it. So those clerics that didn't wear heavy armor had a wasted "feat". Which keys right back to your own argument:Huh? All clerics had the feat to allowed them to use heavy armor.
Either way, some cleric will benefit from the given feat (whether it's Heavy Armor Proficiency or Proficiency with the deity's favored weapon) while others won't. No change there.
And now clerics have a different choice.
It's not that big of a deal.
And now clerics have a different choice.It's not that big of a deal.
So pick your god well or get shafted out of a feat and that is balanced? Ok whatever, clearly we have different views on balance.
So pick your god well or get shafted out of a feat and that is balanced? Ok whatever, clearly we have different views on balance.
Maybe I'm missing something here... Everybody is going to use that feat for something. Martial deities clerics will probably use it for heavy armor proficiency, the clerics of a deity focused on something else will use it on something else. Who is getting shafted? Both get the feat slot, each uses it for something different related to their deity. What is unbalanced about it? Having a choice?
If it's a complaint about the cleric in PFRPG it's a little late. That big heavy book is out. Comparisons to other editions are fairly fruitless at this point. Ultimately, if it doesn't fit your game it's time to houserule it. There are a couple of things that I'm not overwhelmed with in the final PFRPG. Houserule. Issue fixed. Overall I love the book and what they've done with it.
So pick your god well or get shafted out of a feat and that is balanced? Ok whatever, clearly we have different views on balance.
Maybe I'm missing something here... Everybody is going to use that feat for something. Martial deities clerics will probably use it for heavy armor proficiency, the clerics of a deity focused on something else will use it on something else. Who is getting shafted? Both get the feat slot, each uses it for something different related to their deity. What is unbalanced about it? Having a choice?
If it's a complaint about the cleric in PFRPG it's a little late. That big heavy book is out. Comparisons to other editions are fairly fruitless at this point. Ultimately, if it doesn't fit your game it's time to houserule it. There are a couple of things that I'm not overwhelmed with in the final PFRPG. Houserule. Issue fixed. Overall I love the book and what they've done with it.
True it is too late, they made the change after beta. Much like the change to DC, and this one they kept secret even with the cleric preview. So yes our input on this is too late to matter, they made the call already.
Doesn't make it right though, that in their book of their house rules they house ruled clerics out of things clerics have always had and should have to remain compatible with 3.5.
Mithral makes Heavy Armor act as Medium in all ways except proficiency.Sigh...
You have no idea how many times I've had to explain this to my group and others. Its a pretty common mistake, really, and the wording from the 3.5 DMG can easily be misread.
It's a good thing Studpuffin replied, because you are wrong.
The DMG was ruled that Mithral makes the armor one class lighter for all purposes, including proficiency. It's in the errata and Sage questions. It DOES make Heavy armor prof useless in 3.5. It's why you see Mithral Full Plate in all heavy armor builds on the Char Opt for, say, Barbarians (though most like Breastplate for the Dex bonus instead).
Thank you, Studpuffin. Mithral making bleeding sores out of armor profs was one of the most irritating things of 3.5. It's bad enough it gives Armor an effective +2 AC bonus and a movement bonus, without tossing proficiency undercutting on top of it. I suspect Pathfinder was phrased that way specifically to stop that nonsense.
==Aelryinth
Well, Christianity for one - Hospitallers during the Crusades. And since plate would not available in a Norse campaign for the fighters you are just blowing smoke in the argument. GG though.Name me a historic pantheon whose priesthood was overwhelmingly martial^^ Not even the volatile Norse pantheon's Aesir and Vanir had a majority of warrior gods... So its not what clerics have "become" but what clerics are and always were beyond the sheer number-crunching on RPG-boards
This is not an irreparable problem. I don't think that heavy armor should be generic feat for all clerics since that doesn't fit the modern perspective of what a cleric has become.
I would not exactly say that the Christian priesthood was "overwhelmingly martial" - just because some branches had military units doesn't exactly make it "overwhelmingly martial." The lay clergymen outnumbered the martial orders by a huge magnitude.
When I say "modern perspective" I am referring to the game since it came out, er maybe before you were born -I don't know. So yes it is what clerics have "become", and that was "before" there were RPG boards. When I played a cleric it was the cleric that was drawn from history, namely holy warriors/crusaders. That was way before divine power, char op, buffing to be a fighter, rolflecopters or any other such NONSENSE.
Your argument falls to the ground, however, when you bring actual history into the picture. The historic crusaders didn't wear heavy armor, they wore chain mail... The heaviest armor worn would, at most, be likened to a D&D breastplate-like amount of plate. Full plate armor didn't really become widespread until long after the traditional crusades.
So, if you played a full plate crusading holy warrior "drawn from history" - well, to use an unpopular phrase, "you were doing it wrong!" :-)|
|
I take it you think Blaster Arcanists are better than Battlefield Control Mages?Fear is pretty much the worst kind of CC there is. Sure, the guy isn't attacking you at the moment, but he's running away from you at top speed, and when the fear wears off he might bring some buddies with him.Yes. Exactly.
You can prepare for their arrival, AND get more XP.
How is this a bad thing?
:-P
TPK?
|
|
I don't think it's up to me to point this out, but anywho....
We have to camps here, well three if you're figuring in the indifferent here, and basicly they don't see eye to eye.
There is the "BOOO! You stole our Heavy Armor, give it back! FOUL!" Camp.
And in the other Corner we have the "Listen, *sigh*, you have gained so much and this change hardly matters and if it does, use a feat" camp.
And now we have this shouting contest,to see who shouts the loudest and the longest.
Because, frankly, that is what it is... There has hardly been any new arguments the past many many posts, has there? I think that what can be agreed upon is that we disagree, and how is it that the statement:"it's your game, change what you don't like" is so hard to swallow? I get really annoyed at some posters continual shouting foul and frankly, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone want to continue to put water on that mill by continuing to try to explain the right and reason in the given change. It's commendable, indeed it is, but it's also giving too much attention to something that is not worth so much time... It was in the beginning, by all means, but the arguments are going in circles. And it's at that point you need to stop.
I'll say right here and now. I think the armor change is a good and logical thing. Will I give any reasons why? No, all the good reasons have been said. So my suggestion here is this:
Stop watering the Whinery Watermill inc.
The good energy is most likely wasted on some people, and this is taking away the focus of this game, namely: Have fun & change the things you don't like.
In societygames, well, I guess you just have to suck it up...
Hope I stepped on some toes that needed stepping on. If you got mad, sorry, I meant every word I wrote.
In Denmark where I'm from we have a saying going something like this: "Dry your eyes and have a cracker", meaning something like: Suck it up and move on, with the added underscore that "I'm not really sorry for you"...
Have...
+5
OK, I just read 4 pages of "Game Balance" garbage and decided it was time to cut to the chase.
The bad guys want the party dead, and they're not Warcrack, computer controlled, idiot trash/boss robots. What happens?
KILL HEALER FIRST
I don't want to hear any crying when your medic gets smushed after moving into the dragon's x3 reach area to save your sorry pile of HP.
I play cleric now. This nerf is no big problem to me. If I want a fullplate a pick the feat at level 3, 5 or 7 or 9.
I think cleric is one of the few classes that doesn't really need that many feat. Espacially now that you don't need to pick selective channeling. Usually when fighting undeads there are some living foes as well, Big bad boss and his/her cohorts that would be healed if you channeled energy to hurt the undeads. Now they won't be healed.
A level 7 cleric (and all others) will still have one more feat compared to 3.x and in our game we sure can't afford a fullplate until level 4 or 5 so no big problem. Druids and clerics now have medium armor. I'm cool with that.
And if the cleric gets hit he got lots of healing and shiled of faith and other stuff.
|
|
I'e had a lot of experience with this type of situation. The prime targets are the magic users clases in ost cases. Cleric because they can heal, (obviously) and mages because they can deal a lot of damag if you don't deal it to them first. It is realistic and I'm not saying that DM's should play monsters stupidly, unless they are stupid monsters. That's a good reason why Clerics should have heavy armor.
I'm not whining and 'm not saying that Paizo did a bad job. I do not however think balance really had anything to do with it as much as people complaining about either fighters or anticleric.
My question is does the armor really matter at higher levels when monsters have a +25 or greater to hit? I have not had the time to run the numbers(AC) on any of the classes.
|
|
It's a good thing Studpuffin replied, because you are wrong.The DMG was ruled that Mithral makes the armor one class lighter for all purposes, including proficiency. It's in the errata and Sage questions. It DOES make Heavy armor prof useless in 3.5. It's why you see Mithral Full Plate in all heavy armor builds on the Char Opt for, say, Barbarians (though most like Breastplate for the Dex bonus instead).
Thank you, Studpuffin. Mithral making bleeding sores out of armor profs was one of the most irritating things of 3.5. It's bad enough it gives Armor an effective +2 AC bonus and a movement bonus, without tossing proficiency undercutting on top of it. I suspect Pathfinder was phrased that way specifically to stop that nonsense.
==Aelryinth
We didn't use the official errata very often. It was only when things made very little sense that we would consult it. This one always seemed pretty clear to me, but apparently the language was "interpretable" enough to get away with quite a bit.
Glad the PRD fixed it, though. It was incredibly abusive, IMO. It was much better than the DR you got in 3.0 from adamantine and infinitely better than any other material in 3.5.
Maybe the 3.5 DMG can be easily misread, but if you read Pathfinder, it is pretty damn clear.
And that is what really matters here! It should be clear so that we don't have endless RAW versus RAI discussions and we can just game to have fun.
|
|
So pick your god well or get shafted out of a feat and that is balanced? Ok whatever, clearly we have different views on balance.
And now clerics have a different choice.It's not that big of a deal.
Perhaps. I just find that losing automatic proficiency with heavy armor has rather negligible effects on the cleric's game balance.
Doesn't make it right though, that in their book of their house rules they house ruled clerics out of things clerics have always had and should have to remain compatible with 3.5.
This is hardly some sort of sacred cow. Go back and look at the various specialty priests in 2nd Edition... Not all of them had unrestricted access to armor, let alone access to plate.
As far as backwards compatibility... Characters now get more feats in PF. So converting a 3.5 cleric with plate mail that is converted to PF will still be able to have all the feats it had and will be able to get the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat so it can keep its plate mail. Mountains out of molehills, really.
Perhaps. I just find that losing automatic proficiency with heavy armor has rather negligible effects on the cleric's game balance.
If it's a negligible effect on balance why take away what the class has always had? After all as you said it has near no effect on balance.
This is hardly some sort of sacred cow. Go back and look at the various specialty priests in 2nd Edition... Not all of them had unrestricted access to armor, let alone access to plate.
Cool so we agree this isn't the cleric class anymore, it's a specialty priest class instead. My arguement is this isn't a cleric once too many things are changed, and then you point to speciality priest (a class clearly meant not to be clerics as support for this change.) In 2ed the cleric still existed, they also all had unrestricted access to plate. Just for fun should all "clerics" in pathfinder have 6 skill points per level and ranger tracking? Speciality priests of Mielikki were Rangers, a competely different class.
As far as backwards compatibility... Characters now get more feats in PF. So converting a 3.5 cleric with plate mail that is converted to PF will still be able to have all the feats it had and will be able to get the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat so it can keep its plate mail. Mountains out of molehills, really.
Exactly. Actually when I first played D&D (1974) with the original three little booklets our DM restricted clerics to magic armor and non-edged magic weapons (that was all it specified clerics could use). You didn't even get a spell until you were 2nd level. You could turn undead but it was a lot like being the magic users poor cousin. At least they had the sleep spell. We houseruled regular armor and blunt weapons after playing Empire of the Petal Throne (1975 IIRC -- where they could use non-magic armor/weapons). We also ripped off EPT for it's background skills rules and other bits. I'm getting nostalgic here... then came the Greyhawk and Blackmoor supplements in 1975... good times.
Why on earth are we having this fight. Breastplate (+6) + dex bonus (+3) = +9AC, Full Plate (+8) + Dex bonus (+1)= +9 AC. Yes I realize that means that you can't use Dex as a dump stat. It's a nerf, but not an incredibly bad one. Not to mention a Breastplate is lighter, has less of an armor check penalty and is cheaper than all of the heavy armors (well except splint mail which has a +0 Dex bonus and cost the same).
As far as backwards compatibility... Characters now get more feats in PF. So converting a 3.5 cleric with plate mail that is converted to PF will still be able to have all the feats it had and will be able to get the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat so it can keep its plate mail. Mountains out of molehills, really.Exactly. Actually when I first played D&D (1974) with the original three little booklets our DM restricted clerics to magic armor and non-edged magic weapons (that was all it specified clerics could use). You didn't even get a spell until you were 2nd level. You could turn undead but it was a lot like being the magic users poor cousin. At least they had the sleep spell. We houseruled regular armor and blunt weapons after playing Empire of the Petal Throne (1975 IIRC -- where they could use non-magic armor/weapons). We also ripped off EPT for it's background skills rules and other bits. I'm getting nostalgic here... then came the Greyhawk and Blackmoor supplements in 1975... good times.
AD&D was blunt weapons only... kind of throws a monkey wrench in the theory that the class is based on Templars/
Regardless this is all getting silly. Folks have a right to be frustrated with rules changes. I think it's kind of ridiculous to tell someone they have no right to be upset that the changes made to the class frustrate or irritate them. Everyone brings their own ideas to the table and their own expectations to the game.
|
|
If it's a negligible effect on balance why take away what the class has always had? After all as you said it has near no effect on balance.Perhaps. I just find that losing automatic proficiency with heavy armor has rather negligible effects on the cleric's game balance.
I said it had negligible effect on the cleric's game balance. Please note the difference.
Perhaps this change was made, as others have said, to emphasize fighters and paladins as the de facto specialists of heavy armor, or some such. If you want the actual reason why Jason made this change, you'll have to ask him... I'm not a mind reader.
This is hardly some sort of sacred cow. Go back and look at the various specialty priests in 2nd Edition... Not all of them had unrestricted access to armor, let alone access to plate.Cool so we agree this isn't the cleric class anymore, it's a specialty priest class instead. My arguement is this isn't a cleric once too many things are changed, and then you point to speciality priest (a class clearly meant not to be clerics as support for this change.) In 2ed the cleric still existed, they also all had unrestricted access to plate. Just for fun should all "clerics" in pathfinder have 6 skill points per level and ranger tracking? Speciality priests of Mielikki were Rangers, a competely different class.
Your splitting hairs is a couple editions too late. With the addition of domains in 3rd edition, clerics haven't been clerics by your estimation for some time now. If you want non-specialty priest clerics, start with taking away their domains before adding heavy armor back to their starting proficiencies.
Again, you seem to be getting worked up over something largely inconsequential. House rule it if you disagree with the change.
|
|
Regardless this is all getting silly. Folks have a right to be frustrated with rules changes. I think it's kind of ridiculous to tell someone they have no right to be upset that the changes made to the class frustrate or irritate them. Everyone brings their own ideas to the table and their own expectations to the game.
Sure, people can be upset by this change all they want. It doesn't mean, however, that the class is now worthless or underpowered or "no longer a cleric", though.
Regardless this is all getting silly. Folks have a right to be frustrated with rules changes. I think it's kind of ridiculous to tell someone they have no right to be upset that the changes made to the class frustrate or irritate them. Everyone brings their own ideas to the table and their own expectations to the game.Sure, people can be upset by this change all they want. It doesn't mean, however, that the class is now worthless or underpowered or "no longer a cleric", though.
That's what I'm saying... maybe to you or I heavy armor isn't an integral part of what makes a cleric a cleric. But to them it is. We're delving purely in the realm of character/ class image here and not talking about balance or game mechanics at all.
I see it the same as I see the familiar for the wizard. In my eyes familiars are a wonky class feature that can be seriously broken in the wrong hands and should be booted. Many many people feel the familiar is an integral part of the class...
|
|
It just really feels like the one place, the one thing Pathfinder specifically removed from a 3.5 game. Some things got shifted around, some class skills changed, but this is the one thing where instead of "Here's a bunch of new options, see what you like", Pathfinder is saying "No! Not yours anymore! Forget backwards compatibility and the main refrain of new, better options and easier functions, this is just one thing we're taking away just to take something away."
It's a majorly inconsistent downgrade and retraction in a game that's supposed to be all about expansions and upgrades.
It just really feels like the one place, the one thing Pathfinder specifically removed from a 3.5 game. Some things got shifted around, some class skills changed, but this is the one thing where instead of "Here's a bunch of new options, see what you like", Pathfinder is saying "No! Not yours anymore! Forget backwards compatibility and the main refrain of new, better options and easier functions, this is just one thing we're taking away just to take something away."
It's a majorly inconsistent downgrade and retraction in a game that's supposed to be all about expansions and upgrades.
This is a lot closer to what irked me than the actual statistics and numbers.
That having been said, I've spelled it out elsewhere, and said my peace, and I'm thinking that constantly restating the same positions over and over again on both sides are just making this discussion turn more vitreous than it needs to be.
im fine with the changes that were made. i have learned to adapt to the changes so my cleric cant wear heavy armor i mostly just stay in the back and cast my spells or kind of mid range something comes up to me i hit with my mace or what ever weapon that i have availible at the time. :P
|
ive been trying to build a pathfinder society cleric and MAN they suffer from MAD bad! You need Wisdom (of course) as a defender of your faith STR and CON, CHA is now almost as important as Wisdom because of the channeling, its still 2+ so INT is needed... and now you need DEX because of the lack of heavy armor.
I know the cleric is still good, but it did take the largest hit with the nerf hammer of all the core classes with nothing really spicy to tantalize me, hard to be excited by them (still great to take with a leadership feat though, great buffs)
ive been trying to build a pathfinder society cleric and MAN they suffer from MAD bad! You need Wisdom (of course) as a defender of your faith STR and CON, CHA is now almost as important as Wisdom because of the channeling, its still 2+ so INT is needed... and now you need DEX because of the lack of heavy armor.
Ye gods.
No matter how I try I can't stop hating that argument every time I see it. It's like complaining that there are too many sweets laid out on a table and you don't have enough room in your tummy to eat all of them.