|
Rather amazed that this thread is still lumbering along but I have yet to have a problem with the change, in the process of updating a cleric for a Savage Tide run through I simply took the fifth level feat (when the character could logically afford full plate) and continued on like normal, for me it wasn't some archetype destroying change that ruined the cleric for me.
Rather amazed that this thread is still lumbering along but I have yet to have a problem with the change, in the process of updating a cleric for a Savage Tide run through I simply took the fifth level feat (when the character could logically afford full plate) and continued on like normal, for me it wasn't some archetype destroying change that ruined the cleric for me.
Half the posts in this thread, at least since post 300 or so, have been people chiming in to say exactly that.
=p
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.
Negligible in this context means near no effect....
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.
Doing it just to kick the cleric is my biggest gripe. If it isn't a balance issue then why steal the feat from the class other then just to kick them around.
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.
You were the one that brought up specialty priests as an excuse for this change, not me. I simply pointed out speciality priests did not even in 2nd ed = clerics, they were something else. And no both 3.0 and 3.5 had clerics, it's pathfinder that is lacking.
The reason I am most bothered is it seems to have been done just to add insult to injury. No balance reason, just to kick the class people whined about being OP in 3.5 the most.
You were the one that brought up specialty priests as an excuse for this change, not me. I simply pointed out speciality priests did not even in 2nd ed = clerics, they were something else. And no both 3.0 and 3.5 had clerics, it's pathfinder that is lacking.
Specialty priests were a cleric class kit.
In third edition, the concept of the "specialty priest" was rolled into the cleric base class with the inclusion of domains and domain powers. They are indeed part of the class's "heritage" (for what little that counts for).
Just a nitpick on a flawed argument that's been raised several times. I'm not otherwise going to engage you here. It would be useless; you have a clear emotional investment in the issue which seems only to be growing as the thread lengthens.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey there, folks. I spent most of Gen-Con GMing Pathfinder Society games. I'd like to report that the cleric is by no means reduced in effectiveness. Domain Powers and Channelling energy are, in the main, supernatural abilities that don't provoke attacks of opportunity. Well over half of the TPKs over the weekend were due to a couple of evil clerics alternating between devastating domain powers and channelling negative energy.
|
Hey there, folks. I spent most of Gen-Con GMing Pathfinder Society games. I'd like to report that the cleric is by no means reduced in effectiveness. Domain Powers and Channelling energy are, in the main, supernatural abilities that don't provoke attacks of opportunity. Well over half of the TPKs over the weekend were due to a couple of evil clerics alternating between devastating domain powers and channelling negative energy.
How many of those games were over 5th level? 1st level clerics aren't going to have access to full plate regardless of if they can wear it or not.
|
Christ people, it's D&D, AC is irrelevant at higher levels because anything will hit you anyway. It made something of a difference in Beta, where Power Attack was more extreme and having a decent AC actually made hitting with strong PA difficult, but with the new feat it's not an issue anymore.
The attack bonus in D&D goes up faster than AC does, which means that the difference between a breastplate and full plate mail become negligible. And at higher levels, the Cleric has far superior defenses thanks to spells and powers. We're beating a dead cleri*ahem*horse here.
|
|
Christ people, it's D&D, AC is irrelevant at higher levels because anything will hit you anyway. It made something of a difference in Beta, where Power Attack was more extreme and having a decent AC actually made hitting with strong PA difficult, but with the new feat it's not an issue anymore.
The attack bonus in D&D goes up faster than AC does, which means that the difference between a breastplate and full plate mail become negligible. And at higher levels, the Cleric has far superior defenses thanks to spells and powers. We're beating a dead cleri*ahem*horse here.
It's a serious question. How does this really affect mid-level clerics in play? For low-level of course it's a non-issue, but what about 5th-10th level clerics?
You were the one that brought up specialty priests as an excuse for this change, not me. I simply pointed out speciality priests did not even in 2nd ed = clerics, they were something else. And no both 3.0 and 3.5 had clerics, it's pathfinder that is lacking.
Specialty priests were a cleric class kit.
In third edition, the concept of the "specialty priest" was rolled into the cleric base class with the inclusion of domains and domain powers. They are indeed part of the class's "heritage" (for what little that counts for).
Just a nitpick on a flawed argument that's been raised several times. I'm not otherwise going to engage you here. It would be useless; you have a clear emotional investment in the issue which seems only to be growing as the thread lengthens.
Specialty priests could also be Rangers. Sure the idea of domains carried over but the idea that Clerics would be as varied as specialty priests were was not. He brought up the idea of specialty priests then stated I shouldn't be using it to judge the current game, that was my point.
You also seem to have a clear emotional investment in this debate seeing as how many times you have added to it, glass houses and stones and all.
Well over half of the TPKs over the weekend were due to a couple of evil clerics alternating between devastating domain powers and channelling negative energy.
Might that not indicate an issue with channelling energy if well over half of the TPKs were due to it being available?
I maintain that channel energy is far more likely to cause balance issues then turning undead and heavy armor combined.
It's a serious question. How does this really affect mid-level clerics in play? For low-level of course it's a non-issue, but what about 5th-10th level clerics?
I have a serious question as well. How would it affect mid level fighters if you removed proficiency in all martial weapons - except one they choose at 1st level? Or... If you want to make it "as simple to pick one feat to get it back," remove all simple weapons - since it would affect far less fighter characters than wouldn't feel the change at all? (A bastardisation of the argument for removing heavy armor from clerics.)
How many "it's just not a big deal" changes do consumers have to suffer before they are allowed to say "this is a pretty f+!!ing big deal?"
It's a serious question. How does this really affect mid-level clerics in play? For low-level of course it's a non-issue, but what about 5th-10th level clerics?I have a serious question as well. How would it affect mid level fighters if you removed proficiency in all martial weapons - except one they choose at 1st level? Or... If you want to make it "as simple to pick one feat to get it back," remove all simple weapons - since it would affect far less fighter characters than wouldn't feel the change at all? (A bastardisation of the argument for removing heavy armor from clerics.)
How many "it's just not a big deal" changes do consumers have to suffer before they are allowed to say "this is a pretty f&&!ing big deal?"
Yeah, except that the fighter is based on effective and versitile combat ability. The cleric is not based on his aromr.
That's like saying it wouldn't matter if you took away a casters 1st level spells.
|
How many "it's just not a big deal" changes do consumers have to suffer before they are allowed to say "this is a pretty f~!~ing big deal?"
Your argument is irrelevant. If they made nineteen 'not a big deal' changes to the cleric, they wouldn't add up to one 'big deal'. It's not about the number of changes made, but the scale of the changes, and how far those changes alter the class from its intended role. This change is not a big deal. It's certainly not as big a deal as removing say 'all simple weapons' or 'all martial weapons bar one' from the fighter, whose class schtick is 'master of all weapons and armour.' Is the cleric's schtick 'master of all armour'? Because I don't think it is. I think it's 'master of divine spells.' And I don't see this change affect that schtick one way or the other. And while you may not agree with it, you cannot describe it as being a big deal, because it isn't.
People can disagree with this change all they like, but if they try and turn it into this huge deal that shakes the very pillars of the cleric class, horribly perverts their role, and turns them in to something utterly unrecognisable from their previous incarnations then they don't have a leg to stand on. It is not a large change. It may be a change that some people feel strongly about, but that doesn't make it a big change, just a change that is emotionally charged. It's not a big deal, full stop.
|
|
It's a serious question. How does this really affect mid-level clerics in play? For low-level of course it's a non-issue, but what about 5th-10th level clerics?I have a serious question as well. How would it affect mid level fighters if you removed proficiency in all martial weapons - except one they choose at 1st level? Or... If you want to make it "as simple to pick one feat to get it back," remove all simple weapons - since it would affect far less fighter characters than wouldn't feel the change at all? (A bastardisation of the argument for removing heavy armor from clerics.)
How many "it's just not a big deal" changes do consumers have to suffer before they are allowed to say "this is a pretty f&%~ing big deal?"
Welcome to 2nd ed. Fighters did not have prof in all martial weapons, like all classes they needed to spend a weap prof. slot to get one.
So yeah...
"ITS NOT A BIG DEAL".
Clerics do not need heavy armor at level one. If you are obsessed with the classic human cleric crusader type (I know I am) then spend your human bonus feat on hvy armor prof. Other races need not apply - since they don't fit the archetype. Problem solved.
Personally, for my own game, I stripped out 8th & 9th level spells for clerics as well as the heavy armor proficiency (with an option to take a hit to BAB to get back 8th & 9th level spells).
Of course, I don't normally play games past about 12-14th level, so I haven't really seen what effect this has in actual gameplay.
Even if you did play from 1st to 20th, a houserule which causes them to suddenly stop progression (spell-wise) at level 15 wouldn't be much fun. No one likes to be powerful up to an arbitrary point and then suddenly start sucking.
If their spell progression has been slowed down over all their levels, though (or if they get something else in the last quarter of their advancement) that's different.
Even if you did play from 1st to 20th, a houserule which causes them to suddenly stop progression (spell-wise) at level 15 wouldn't be much fun. No one likes to be powerful up to an arbitrary point and then suddenly start sucking.
If their spell progression has been slowed down over all their levels, though (or if they get something else in the last quarter of their advancement) that's different.
Bards have been dealing with same issue since 3E started. After 16th level, all they get is more spells. They don't even get 7th level spells.
Hey there, folks. I spent most of Gen-Con GMing Pathfinder Society games. I'd like to report that the cleric is by no means reduced in effectiveness. Domain Powers and Channelling energy are, in the main, supernatural abilities that don't provoke attacks of opportunity. Well over half of the TPKs over the weekend were due to a couple of evil clerics alternating between devastating domain powers and channelling negative energy.
Just because a cleric boss had a TPK on a group of level 1s doesn't confirm or deny that the cleric class is "ok" or not. I know exactly the scenario(s) you're talking about and a 3rd level cleric doing 2D6 HP (7 HP average) a round to a level 1 group is a big deal. To a level 2+ group a cleric's negative channelling effect is not dangerous and becomes laughable at levels 4+. The only thing clerics can do now reliably is channel, which only really threatens 1st level parties.
I was at Gen Con and played in 5 scenarios. The scenario you're talking about, my group killed most of these clerics in one round. Our (level 1) fighters and barbarians did between 12 and 24 HP on a normal hit. One enemy cleric actually lived to round 2 and but he was unable to cast anything because of the new concentration rules. Spellcasters, when attacked, seriously suck now and aren't even challenging opponents. Low AC, low HP, unreliable abilities.
Things will get even worse for enemy spellcasters once our Fighters and Barbarians get either the Step Up or Lunge feats (Lunge is preferred obviously) since they won't be able to 5' step. Also, I found that Acrobatic checks are so easy to do, minions can't stop party members from going anywhere they want.
Balance is one issue. Are healers needed? Debatable but yes, highly desirable. Is healing more powerful than stealth, magic, or unleashing loads of damage? To me, they are all needed roles.
The other more important question to ask is "Are clerics more fun to play in the PRPG?". Paizo definitely made other classes more fun to play. We can use channeling to heal more but does that make the cleric more interesting to play? Especially when you take away my armor which enables me to participate in melee more freely.
I think everyone would agree that it would be overpowered to allow a healer to heal 1 BILLION HP a day. But the real question is, does it make playing a cleric more fun?? Was more healing really what we needed?
Although it's one of my favorite classes, I'm kind of disappointed in general with the cleric now. After the cleric nerfs and huge melee buffs, it's really apparent that clerics are just around to keep the Fighters and Barbarians alive while we watch. If Paizo was going to make melee classes so good (and much more fun and interesting to play) and actually nerf the cleric, a virtual requirement in any party, they should have implemented rules to make healing more unnecessary, and implement rules to allow melee classes to heal themselves after combat.
|
|
The board ate my long spirited speech :(
In short : playing a cleric now will get me no great opportunity for the spotlight, as opposed to all the other classes which look damn attractive when perusing the PFRPG.
Thus, while playing a servant of the gods might tempt me on a purely roleplaying point of view, I do not feel tempted to go down the clerical path.
Good lord I've wanted to chime in on this since the thread started, but first was under NDA, then too busy at Gencon.
I love this change! Clerics needed the nerf bat. Plus, this makes sense thematically (to me, anyway), isn't too bad of a nerf since medium armor is better now, and if you really need heavy armor, you can always spend the feat.
One of my favorite changes.
|
So, is it even possible for the Cleric to tank in PF? The reason I ask is because not everyone plays with 4 players filling the 4 roles. My main group has 2-3 typically, and sometimes we have to fill two or more roles.
I'm kind of tired of hearing "it's now perfect, just deal with it" and "blasphemy!!!, it's not even cleric anymore", so I want to sort of go another route. I don't see it happening very easily, but what do you guys think? Is heavy multiclassing the only way?
|
I don't like the changes (from 3.5 to PFRPG):
*too many changes difficult to track
*clerics should always be able to Turn Undead (regardless of the effectiveness of this action)it's their job to do so...
*many -like me- won't spend a feat to Turn Undead because of the effectiveness issue. Then to if you don't turn undead you don't need to invest much in charisma...
*these changes hurt the 'character concept' of many players and I can understand their frustation.
*my own 'character concept' not so hurt cause it is based on domain spells/powers (but it was close that domain spells did disappear!)
*it hurts elsewere though, cause I am playing a human cleric, and thus I loose a much needed martial weapon proficiency.
Think I will take one level of Barbarian (at 1st level). It's a good alternative to the fighter level, and the fast movement compensate for the speed reduction of medium armor.
But having to multiclass is an ackowelgement that the cleric class was 'roughed' way too much (not very appealing now to play a straight cleric). Hope the magical knack trait is still allowed to help compensate for the caster level loss.
HEAVY multi-classing? To fill in for Heavy Armor Proficiency?
Isn't that achieved, in... you know, ONE level of Fighter? Also getting a bonus Combat Feat?
That sounds like a pretty reasonable build to me,
for a "Tank" Cleric wanting to challenge the Fighters at their own game...?
/shrug
Hope the magical knack trait is still allowed to help compensate for the caster level loss.
That it does. Still legal for PFS too.
I just got done playing a Pathfinder Beta cleric all the way through Curse of the Crimson Throne, so let me chime in.
1. Heavy armor. I think it's fair to spend a feat slot if you're going to be a "fighty cleric." I might not have made this change myself but I don't feel strongly about it. I did play a "fighty cleric" (Holy Warrior option from the Campaign Setting even) and I used heavy armor later on.
2. Turn undead. I channeled a LOT - used Extra Turning and all. Undead so never failed that DC, some of the time I didn't bother to ask the DM to make them save, I just relied on the damage. I'm fine with removing it off to a feat, but it's a major error to not beef it up in the process. Undead creatures tend to have a Will save equal to their HD, which totally outstrips "half your level" real fast.
In fact I just noticed that it's changed so that you have to choose to harm or heal with the channel instead of getting both at the same time. That's also a significant reduction in usefulness.
3. The domains are a *little* better. I went Holy Warrior because pretty much as a cleric of Sarenrae all my domains sucked so bad it was no big deal to give them up. Sun is better now, but I see Good and Glory and Healing are still chumply. Getting a domain spell is nice though.
I have to say in the end, I'm concerned. Swapping heavy armor for a domain spell is fine but Channel Energy got double nerfed, and it was the real "let me do something other than healbot" win for the cleric in PF...
HEAVY multi-classing? To fill in for Heavy Armor Proficiency?
Isn't that achieved, in... you know, ONE level of Fighter? Also getting a bonus Combat Feat?
That sounds like a pretty reasonable build to me,
for a "Tank" Cleric wanting to challenge the Fighters at their own game...?
/shrug
The point is that most other classes got things to encourage you to go to level 20 in them, the cleric got reasons not to.
|
|
So, is it even possible for the Cleric to tank in PF?
The Cleric tanks we've had in the last decade or so have all used a combination of light armor (or mithral breastplates that count as light armor) plus Magic Vestment. No change would occur. A tank in heavy armor isn't even considered viable at higher levels, and many go for bracers of armor and no armor at all.
As for the 'heavy multiclassing,' I think I'd stick to Cleric 20 and blow one of my three extra feats on heavy armor proficiency, if I went completely insane and wanted a Cleric-tank who couldn't get his overburdened arse into melee in the first place, but had two more points of AC. It's all economy of actions and mobility trumps AC. Having a high AC but never being able to close into melee for full attacks against more mobile foes is an exercise in frustration during the combat round, as the foes play keep-away.
And if my players don't care for the change and one or more of them wants a heavily armored Cleric and doesn't want to eat a feat to get it? House rule.
Rule zero trumps all.
I see it as a fairly insignificant rules change. If I wanted to 'nerf' Clerics I would instead make them (and Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Adepts, etc.) choose at character creation whether to be Prepared casters (with a prayer book and 2 spells / level, plus whatever they can acquire, using the Wizard guidelines) or Spontaneous casters (with a very small Spells Known list, flexible casting and an extra casting per day per spell level). No more free access to every single spell on the Cleric / Druid list. *That* would be many times more effective at balancing out the differences between the divine casters and arcane casters than some absolutely marginal tweak to a proficiency that no effectiveness-minded player would touch with a dead mongoose.
|
|
My cleric used a Mithral Breastplate and had a decent Dexterity. He was Darkness and Travel Domains (being a cleric of the many I had to compensate with a HEAVY handed approach on making sure the PC's didn't trample on religions).
Pathfinder Campaign Setting gives access to Armor of Darkness, which gives a growing deflection modifier for quite some time. Add in a Mithral Breastplate and a decent Dex Modifier and you're tanking quite well. Hell you can even magic Vestment the breastplate, as the Armor of Darkness is a deflection bonus, and not an enhancement bonus.
So no, I don't buy the argument that clerics NEED heavy armor. I was doing fine even when I had access to heavy armor, without even touching the stuff. I wanted to be far more versatile and faster for it.
I believe those harping about the loss of Heavy Armor are just crying the "Sky is Falling" because they did something to clerics in general. Clerics have long been a class that puts fighters to shame, between Divine Power and heavy use of Divine Metamagic Persist. The fact that they can't wear heavy armor is no loss to me, if anything it allows you to explore those spells some more.
Yea honestly was a good change, if wanna be a heavy armor wearing holy crusader i think you should roll a paladin, thats what they are suppose to be the embodiment of, clerics are suppose to be fonts of divine power via there spells not there armor. Clerics are still titans of destructive power, and if really want that plate mail just devote a feat to it and problem solved.
|
|
Negligible in this context means near no effect....I said it had negligible effect on the cleric's game balance. Please note the difference.
I missed the word "near" when reading your post--my bad. However, I also emphasized "cleric's" as well to denote that, while this change may have negligible effect on the cleric's balance, it may give some small boost to those few classes that do start with HAP (if nothing other than as a consolation prize).
Doing it just to kick the cleric is my biggest gripe. If it isn't a balance issue then why steal the feat from the class other then just to kick them around.
I'm quite sure that it wasn't done to "kick the cleric", perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly, but the idea that it was done so seems rather irrational. Perhaps it would be best to wait for Jason to weigh in on this issue rather than for either of us to speculate what his motivations for this change were.
You were the one that brought up specialty priests as an excuse for this change, not me. I simply pointed out speciality priests did not even in 2nd ed = clerics, they were something else. And no both 3.0 and 3.5 had clerics, it's pathfinder that is lacking.
The concept on the specialty priest greatly influence the design of 3.x's cleric with its domains and domain powers. While you've point out the corner case of a deity's "specialty priest" being a wholly different class, most specialty priests were nothing but clerics with limited Spheres of spells and alternate weapon and armor proficiencies.
I really think we need to stop this, neither of us are do anything productive. I'm not going to (nor am I trying to) convince you that this change doesn't suck... because that's wholly in the realm of opinion and you're welcome to it.
If anything, I've only tried to point out that this change doesn't de-claw the cleric or make it useless as a class, and also that the addition feats that PF gives characters allows one to easily compensate for the loss of HWP.
Personally I don't think it's a big deal. but YMMV. In the end, I can only wish you good gaming and hope that you enjoy most of the other changes in Pathfinder. Heck, whenever the open playtest for the next edition happens perhaps you can lobby for Paizo to change it back.
The board ate my long spirited speech :(
In short : playing a cleric now will get me no great opportunity for the spotlight, as opposed to all the other classes which look damn attractive when perusing the PFRPG.
Thus, while playing a servant of the gods might tempt me on a purely roleplaying point of view, I do not feel tempted to go down the clerical path.
Depends on how you see "spotlight". I freaking love being the guy that keeps my team alive.
I don't know how you can expect to play the best support class in the game and still be as good at everyone else on the front line, however. If support rolls don't do it for you, and if the more flashy/offensive powers of the other classes do, then by all means, play them.
You don't have to be a cleric to be a priest. :)
Welcome to 2nd ed. Fighters did not have prof in all martial weapons, like all classes they needed to spend a weap prof. slot to get one.
As someone who has played since 1st Edition, I remember - and lament the step away from that. (I felt no one got enough non-weapon proficiencies, that is a long outdated rant.)
That is why I got so annoyed at people who claimed 3.5 Fighters sucked.
I don't know about you, but I outgrew the arrogance of telling those people they were wrong to feel that way about the game.
Clerics have long been a class that puts fighters to shame, between Divine Power and heavy use of Divine Metamagic Persist. The fact that they can't wear heavy armor is no loss to me, if anything it allows you to explore those spells some more.
Yeah.
Explore those spells some more. Since they got nerfed as well. Hell, Divine Power isn't worth a 4th level spell anymore.
|
|
Welcome to 2nd ed. Fighters did not have prof in all martial weapons, like all classes they needed to spend a weap prof. slot to get one.As someone who has played since 1st Edition, I remember - and lament the step away from that. (I felt no one got enough non-weapon proficiencies, that is a long outdated rant.)
That is why I got so annoyed at people who claimed 3.5 Fighters sucked.
I don't know about you, but I outgrew the arrogance of telling those people they were wrong to feel that way about the game.
Clerics have long been a class that puts fighters to shame, between Divine Power and heavy use of Divine Metamagic Persist. The fact that they can't wear heavy armor is no loss to me, if anything it allows you to explore those spells some more.Yeah.
Explore those spells some more. Since they got nerfed as well. Hell, Divine Power isn't worth a 4th level spell anymore.
As it should be. The second one spell makes another class practically obsolete, is the day that spell needs to go. I'm sorry but all this talk about how Clerics are never going to get played is rather laughable. Clerics were NEVER played for their armor, it was always for the fact they were a full caster that could do devastating things, even out of JUST the PHB.
As it should be. The second one spell makes another class practically obsolete, is the day that spell needs to go. I'm sorry but all this talk about how Clerics are never going to get played is rather laughable. Clerics were NEVER played for their armor, it was always for the fact they were a full caster that could do devastating things, even out of JUST the PHB.Welcome to 2nd ed. Fighters did not have prof in all martial weapons, like all classes they needed to spend a weap prof. slot to get one.As someone who has played since 1st Edition, I remember - and lament the step away from that. (I felt no one got enough non-weapon proficiencies, that is a long outdated rant.)
That is why I got so annoyed at people who claimed 3.5 Fighters sucked.
I don't know about you, but I outgrew the arrogance of telling those people they were wrong to feel that way about the game.
Clerics have long been a class that puts fighters to shame, between Divine Power and heavy use of Divine Metamagic Persist. The fact that they can't wear heavy armor is no loss to me, if anything it allows you to explore those spells some more.Yeah.
Explore those spells some more. Since they got nerfed as well. Hell, Divine Power isn't worth a 4th level spell anymore.
Agreed sort of. No class should be replaceable with one spell. But a 4th level spell should be worth a fourth level spell slot.
Clerics were no more about heavy armor then fighters or paladins. All three have always had it as an options. Sure you can produce all kind of builds of each class that don't use it and each is sure to be valid and effective. That doesn't mean that builds including heavy armor need to be removed from the table though. Nor that the class shouldn't keep an ability it always had as long as balance isn't hurt by it.
Explore those spells some more. Since they got nerfed as well. Hell, Divine Power isn't worth a 4th level spell anymore.
A haste effect for attacks, temporary hit points, and 1/3 your level in attack and damage bonuses. Sure looks worth a 4th level spell to me.
A haste effect for attacks, temporary hit points, and 1/3 your level in attack and damage bonuses. Sure looks worth a 4th level spell to me.
Explore those spells some more. Since they got nerfed as well. Hell, Divine Power isn't worth a 4th level spell anymore.
As a concept, as you put it, sure. But examine the mechanics a little closer.
Start at 7th level, the earliest you can cast Divine Power and calculate it's benefits for every Caster Level upwards.
Then compare that to the effect of Divine Favor (a 1st level spell) + Aid (a second level spell) + Haste (assuming the same caster level) for the same level range, and tell me at what Caster Level Divine Power starts to pull away from that combo of spells. Do remember to take into account durations.
While I will grant you giving Clerics access to a Haste effect all their own is good, the rest of the spell is painfully underpowered for its spell level. It should be 3rd level at best, and even then falls short compared to the Divine Favor + Aid + Haste until many levels after you get access to it.
And before any one objects to comparing it to a three spell combo, I'd refer you to the fact that a three spell combo was enough to get all these changes made in the first place.
|
|
As a concept, as you put it, sure. But examine the mechanics a little closer.
Start at 7th level, the earliest you can cast Divine Power and calculate it's benefits for every Caster Level upwards.
Then compare that to the effect of Divine Favor (a 1st level spell) + Aid (a second level spell) + Haste (assuming the same caster level) for the same level range, and tell me at what Caster Level Divine Power starts to pull away from that combo of spells. Do remember to take into account durations.
While I will grant you giving Clerics access to a Haste effect all their own is good, the rest of the spell is painfully underpowered for its spell level. It should be 3rd level at best, and even then falls short compared to the Divine Favor + Aid + Haste until many levels after you get access to it.
And before any one objects to comparing it to a three spell combo, I'd refer you to the fact that a three spell combo was enough to get all these changes made in the first place.
The straight answer to your question is 12th level. However, Divine Power doesn't have to pull away from Aid and Haste; some of the benefits of those two spells stack with Divine Power. Furthermore, the beauty of Divine Power under PFRPG is that it combines the effects of those 3 spells into 1 action. And that's worth spending a 4th level slot in preference to a 1st, 2nd and 3rd level slot. Especially when you consider the 3rd level spell isn't on your spell list. All in my opinion, of course.
As a concept, as you put it, sure. But examine the mechanics a little closer.Start at 7th level, the earliest you can cast Divine Power and calculate it's benefits for every Caster Level upwards.
Then compare that to the effect of Divine Favor (a 1st level spell) + Aid (a second level spell) + Haste (assuming the same caster level) for the same level range, and tell me at what Caster Level Divine Power starts to pull away from that combo of spells. Do remember to take into account durations.
While I will grant you giving Clerics access to a Haste effect all their own is good, the rest of the spell is painfully underpowered for its spell level. It should be 3rd level at best, and even then falls short compared to the Divine Favor + Aid + Haste until many levels after you get access to it.
And before any one objects to comparing it to a three spell combo, I'd refer you to the fact that a three spell combo was enough to get all these changes made in the first place.
Keep in mind that you're spending 3 actions and casting 6 levels worth of spells to get an effect a bit better than spending 1 action and that higher level spell scales better in the long run. Yeah, 4th level spell looks about right.
However, Divine Power doesn't have to pull away from Aid and Haste; some of the benefits of those two spells stack with Divine Power. Furthermore, the beauty of Divine Power under PFRPG is that it combines the effects of those 3 spells into 1 action. And that's worth spending a 4th level slot in preference to a 1st, 2nd and 3rd level slot. Especially when you consider the 3rd level spell isn't on your spell list. All in my opinion, of course.
Keep in mind that you're spending 3 actions and casting 6 levels worth of spells to get an effect a bit better than spending 1 action and that higher level spell scales better in the long run. Yeah, 4th level spell looks about right.
So, I should take it that both of you agree that it is alright for a 4th level + a 3rd level spell + a 2nd level spell to equal a 3rd level spell + a 2nd level spell + a 1st level spell for four whole levels?
Or that a 4th level spell needs a 2nd level spell to be on par with a 3rd level spell + a 2nd level spell + a 1st level spell until after you have gained access to 5th level spells (damn near when you aquire 6th level spells)?
I don't buy that.
I will also grant you that a very simple change to Divine Power is all that is required to make it worth a 4th level spell again. And for those looking to fix it, I'd suggest house ruling it to 1D10 + 1 temporary hit point per caster level. Or at least 1D8.
But it is another one of those "not a big deal" changes that add up on the Cleric.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm happy with the Cleric changes, with the exception of the lack of Heavy Armour proficiency.
I'm pleased they left Domain Spells in tact, as that was a non-starter for me (if domain slots were removed I wouldn't ever use PRPG.)
Heavy Armour is a quintessential D&D Cleric component. Most other games have Clerics as cloth wearing or similar. There is no balance gained by blocking someone from using Heavy Armour especially if you allow Medium Armour, since there are so many ways to either get the same AC from Medium Armour as Full Plate or to magically make Full Plate seem like Medium Armour that it shouldn't matter.
If I need to compile a list of house rules for PRPG, adding Heavy Armour Proficiency to Clerics is at the top of the list.
|
|
However, Divine Power doesn't have to pull away from Aid and Haste; some of the benefits of those two spells stack with Divine Power. Furthermore, the beauty of Divine Power under PFRPG is that it combines the effects of those 3 spells into 1 action. And that's worth spending a 4th level slot in preference to a 1st, 2nd and 3rd level slot. Especially when you consider the 3rd level spell isn't on your spell list. All in my opinion, of course.Keep in mind that you're spending 3 actions and casting 6 levels worth of spells to get an effect a bit better than spending 1 action and that higher level spell scales better in the long run. Yeah, 4th level spell looks about right.So, I should take it that both of you agree that it is alright for a 4th level + a 3rd level spell + a 2nd level spell to equal a 3rd level spell + a 2nd level spell + a 1st level spell for four whole levels?
Or that a 4th level spell needs a 2nd level spell to be on par with a 3rd level spell + a 2nd level spell + a 1st level spell until after you have gained access to 5th level spells (damn near when you aquire 6th level spells)?
I don't buy that.
Hell, I don't even understand that... of course that could be the pain meds.
|
|
I don't know how you can expect to play the best support class in the game and still be as good at everyone else on the front line, however.
Maybe it is because I do not expect to be "as good as everyone else". I would just like my character to contribute on his own (through attacking and damaging, for example) rather than by buffing other players' characters so that THEY get to shine.
