I just kind of expected them to be filled with all kinds of "hey look at this" and a lot more praise and new ideas that it seems to. Not that they don't deserve a vacation, but it also seems like th Paizo guys aren't showing up either, which I find odd.
The boards are up / down. Still being buffetted by PDF sales I'd say. I'd guess that the (lack of) availablity of the boards combined with a lot of reading to do (576 pages) has slowed things down. I don't think the Paizo crew was due back from GenCon until today either...
Divine Power isn't worth casting at the level you get it. At higher levels, however, a +6 luck bonus to attack and damage (and 15-20 temp hp) is certainly worth a 4th level slot.
Buff spells are rarely worth casting at the level you get them; that's just how the game works. You're going to use your most powerful spells for in-combat effects, not for buffs.
For the record, there were actually a half-dozen things I wanted to post once the PRD went up, but I held back until Jason and crew were back in the office.
Didn't that end a few days ago? Besides, I think there was more going during Gencon actually.
I got "the message boards are temporarily unavailable" right after posting that last bit :) Whatever is up with the boards is still going on. I'm sure PDF traffic peaked during Gen Con, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are still getting a lot of traffic for it. $10 for 576 pages, especially for the overseas fans, is an incredible bargain...
|
Didn't that end a few days ago? Besides, I think there was more going during Gencon actually.I got "the message boards are temporarily unavailable" right after posting that last bit :) Whatever is up with the boards is still going on. I'm sure PDF traffic peaked during Gen Con, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are still getting a lot of traffic for it. $10 for 576 pages, especially for the overseas fans, is an incredible bargain...
Maybe. I don't know, I tried downoading my PDF yesterday and today (see if new errata was incorporated) and both times it went straight through.
|
Depends on how you see "spotlight". I freaking love being the guy that keeps my team alive.
It's very empowering getting to be the one who decides who lives and who dies. :)
You don't have to be a cleric to be a priest. :)
True. 'Priests' in Golarion can be Druids of Gozreh, Necromancers of Urgathoa, Monks of Irori or Bards of Cayden Cailean, as well as Adepts of just about anyone.
Having the 'party healer' be a Thaumaturgist of Haagenti (from the Book of Fiends) could be fun. :>
The change is one of the more pleasant things about pathfinder. (I love everything, but this one was really one of those big steps i thought it needed t otake).
This really seperates the paladin and the cleric for me.
Clerics have been my favorite class from 2e.... and any time I think of a cleric i think of chain mail, shield, and a huge bludgeoning weapon to crush people with... (of course there are other types of clerics ;) im just saying the cliche). So that being said, I'm not at all upset with the clerics needing to burn a feat to get heavy armor... besides its not like you can afford it at first level anyway so might as well use a level 3-5 feat and get a good boost to your ac if you are that concerned.
One thing that I don't necessarily like is some of the bonuses to spell casting... divine favor and divine power are luck bonuses now? argh make one a luck bonus make the other a divine bonus! But that being said, stacking those two spells was incrediably powerful and made you better than a fighter.
I really don't think Clerics should have ever been a full spellcasting class in the first place. They ought to have a mix of spellcasting and fighting abilities. In my opinion the cleric(and classes in general) ought to address specific archetypes and the cleric's is that of a holy warrior that uses martial skill and holy power to accomplish they're deities goals. The cleric should not be used to represent every kind of priest. If other archetypes are desired other, perhaps new, classes should be used, such as a cloistered cleric-type class. In fact many priests should be no holy powers at all and represented by NPC classes. There should not be a full cleric in every temple.
Part of the problem is that medium armor is one of the red-headed step children of D&D. You are not getting the best AC, and you lose mobility unless you are a barbarian.
If medium armor had some tangible benefit like the other armor types this discussion probably would not even be taking place. Most people are still going to go with light or heavy armor even if means spending a feat because medium armor does nothing for you.
I really don't think Clerics should have ever been a full spellcasting class in the first place. They ought to have a mix of spellcasting and fighting abilities. In my opinion the cleric(and classes in general) ought to address specific archetypes and the cleric's is that of a holy warrior that uses martial skill and holy power to accomplish they're deities goals. The cleric should not be used to represent every kind of priest. If other archetypes are desired other, perhaps new, classes should be used, such as a cloistered cleric-type class. In fact many priests should be no holy powers at all and represented by NPC classes. There should not be a full cleric in every temple.Perhaps you should go fourth edition it seems to be what you are looking for. Fourth edition is all about archetypes
Or for a D&D game go try 1st ed. :)
The cleric in first ed was limited to 7th level spells, progressed much slower then other casters up the spell level charts and has very little offensive spells. Cloistered Clerics from dragon existed to fill the role Lordzack is explaining.
Dragonhide plate is the heavy armor that druids can use but is in all other ways full plate.
The change is one of the more pleasant things about pathfinder. (I love everything, but this one was really one of those big steps i thought it needed t otake).
This really seperates the paladin and the cleric for me.
You mean the massive melee damage potential didn't make them different? Or the weapon selectio, hit die, immunity to fear, auras, lay on hands, or other paladin things that clerics don't have. Admittably they gave paladins the cleric saves well better because you get to add your cha bonus, channel energy so you can heal better like a cleric has, reduced needed stats...unlike the cleric...
Let's be real the Paladin right now is the powerhouse of the game. Kicking the cleric just for fun is unneeded and unworthy of right now the most powerful class there is.
Let's be real the Paladin right now is the powerhouse of the game. .
He might be the king of anyone that is not a full caster, and I am hesitant to give him that crown yet.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
So put it back into your game? Honestly, I'm not trying to be flippant or rude or anything like that, but this sounds like a perfect case for the "The Most Important Rule" on page 9? This little rule pretty much has your back, particularly in the case of something this small.
So put it back into your game? Honestly, I'm not trying to be flippant or rude or anything like that, but this sounds like a perfect case for the "The Most Important Rule" on page 9? This little rule pretty much has your back, particularly in the case of something this small.
I dont think they need heavy armor, but to quickly restate what I said before if you are a player that may not be an option.
Yes but he has to burn a feat to use it properly.I really don't think Clerics should have ever been a full spellcasting class in the first place. They ought to have a mix of spellcasting and fighting abilities. In my opinion the cleric(and classes in general) ought to address specific archetypes and the cleric's is that of a holy warrior that uses martial skill and holy power to accomplish they're deities goals. The cleric should not be used to represent every kind of priest. If other archetypes are desired other, perhaps new, classes should be used, such as a cloistered cleric-type class. In fact many priests should be no holy powers at all and represented by NPC classes. There should not be a full cleric in every temple.Perhaps you should go fourth edition it seems to be what you are looking for. Fourth edition is all about archetypesOr for a D&D game go try 1st ed. :)
The cleric in first ed was limited to 7th level spells, progressed much slower then other casters up the spell level charts and has very little offensive spells. Cloistered Clerics from dragon existed to fill the role Lordzack is explaining.
Dragonhide plate is the heavy armor that druids can use but is in all other ways full plate.
I know, that was why I mentioned that I would allow them to wear it without spending a feat on it.
I dont think they need heavy armor, but to quickly restate what I said before if you are a player that may not be an option.So put it back into your game? Honestly, I'm not trying to be flippant or rude or anything like that, but this sounds like a perfect case for the "The Most Important Rule" on page 9? This little rule pretty much has your back, particularly in the case of something this small.
Indeed.
No class needs heavy armor. They could all spend a feat to gain it if desired since no one is starting with it. But if fighters and paladins "need" it then I say clerics do as well. Clerics are the most defensive class there is, and thus should have access to the best defenses available.
But let me make this deal, I will give back the unbalance ability to use the cleric's diety's favored weapon (one feat for some clerics equivalent) for the return of the heavy armor feat. No balance lost, rather balance gained in that deal. And it fits their defensive and protective nature more then having access to more weapons does. I am not asking for anything here that would make the cleric more powerful, only more balanced internally. Is that really asking too much? I am asking for internal balance is all, really is that asking too much?
That was a compromise I suggested. You could have clerics trained either in their deities favored weapon or have them trained in armor. Giving the druid free access to Dragonhide stretches things abit. He has never trained in heavy armor since he cannot wear metal so he would need some training to be able to adjust to the extra weight and be fully efficient
But let me make this deal, I will give back the unbalance ability to use the cleric's diety's favored weapon (one feat for some clerics equivalent) for the return of the heavy armor feat. No balance lost, rather balance gained in that deal. And it fits their defensive and protective nature more then having access to more weapons does. I am not asking for anything here that would make the cleric more powerful, only more balanced internally. Is that really asking too much? I am asking for internal balance is all, really is that asking too much?
Well in my game if you have dragon plate you killed a dragon to get it. Frankly no one is killing dragons often enough to make this stuff and keep it in stock. So I figure you kill it, well you likely earned the armor.
|
|
Dragon plate had really only two uses in the game, and neither of them are actually a great idea. As mentioned, the Druid can wear it, but it would actually be better to go with Iron Darkwood Fullplate, which is closer to Mithral. The Second, is just a super expensive, nasty little trick. True Res the Full Plate for one P.O.'d dragon + run away.
No class needs heavy armor. They could all spend a feat to gain it if desired since no one is starting with it. But if fighters and paladins "need" it then I say clerics do as well. Clerics are the most defensive class there is, and thus should have access to the best defenses available.But let me make this deal, I will give back the unbalance ability to use the cleric's diety's favored weapon (one feat for some clerics equivalent) for the return of the heavy armor feat. No balance lost, rather balance gained in that deal. And it fits their defensive and protective nature more then having access to more weapons does. I am not asking for anything here that would make the cleric more powerful, only more balanced internally. Is that really asking too much? I am asking for internal balance is all, really is that asking too much?
I think the intention of the heavy/medium/light armor was to differentiate how much a character was expected to be in combat/hold the front line.
Heavy Armor: Fighter and Paladin were expected(by class design)to stay up front
Medium Armor: The earlier cleric was probably a war-priest, and when his function changed nobody ever removed the heavy armor, until now. The cleric by design is expected to go up front when needed meaning he should get medium armor. The problem is that some people play their clerics like front-liners so the heavy armor is now an issue for them.
The barbarian is expected to be up front with the paladin or fighter, but his HD, and toughness(DR) are supposed to make up for his lack of training in heavy armor. This one did not work out so well IMHO, so I will probably playtest it later before I say anything.
Light Armor: The rogue was meant to show up hit you really hard and leave so it gets light armor. The ranger is a combination of front-liner and skill guy so he gets light armor. The pathfinder ranger should have medium armor with some ability for it to not affect his movement, or he should have been given acrobatics, at least for the purposes of tumble, or some equivalent.
The above is my interpretation. I don't think the heavy armor made the cleric unbalanced. It was the spells that did it. Your idea for some clerics to get heavy armor seems to be a good idea. If you serve a war-deity I can see you(the cleric) keeping allies alive, and needing the armor since he would be in the thick of it instead of casting buff spells, and other cleric duties.
You mean the massive melee damage potential didn't make them different? Or the weapon selectio, hit die, immunity to fear, auras, lay on hands, or other paladin things that clerics don't have. Admittably they gave paladins the cleric saves well better because you get to add your cha bonus, channel energy so you can heal better like a cleric has, reduced needed stats...unlike the cleric...Let's be real the Paladin right now is the powerhouse of the game. Kicking the cleric just for fun is unneeded and unworthy of right now the most powerful class there is.
Channel Smite (Combat)
You can channel your divine energy through a melee
weapon you wield.
Prerequisite: Channel energy class feature.
Benefit: Before you make a melee attack roll, you can
choose to spend one use of your channel energy ability
as a swift action. If you channel positive energy and you
hit an undead creature, that creature takes an amount
of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your
channel positive energy ability. If you channel negative
energy and you hit a living creature, that creature takes an
amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by
your channel negative energy ability. Your target can make
a Will save, as normal, to halve this additional damage.
If your attack misses, the channel energy ability is still
expended with no effect.
Now what I really need for that is a cleric that can channel both positive and negative energy (which requires a 3.5 feat), +3 Cha bonus, Extra Channeling, Channel Smite and Selective Channeling.
The earlier cleric was probably a war-priest, and when his function changed nobody ever removed the heavy armor, until now.
I need to ask...
I've seen several people make statements like this. I guess I never got the memo, so could you point me to where it was explained that the function of the cleric changed from earlier editions?
|
|
The earlier cleric was probably a war-priest, and when his function changed nobody ever removed the heavy armor, until now.I need to ask...
I've seen several people make statements like this. I guess I never got the memo, so could you point me to where it was explained that the function of the cleric changed from earlier editions?
9 Spell levels, no spell failure chance, and access to powers similar to a specialist wizard do that to a class.
|
|
9 Spell levels, no spell failure chance, and access to powers similar to a specialist wizard do that to a class.The earlier cleric was probably a war-priest, and when his function changed nobody ever removed the heavy armor, until now.I need to ask...
I've seen several people make statements like this. I guess I never got the memo, so could you point me to where it was explained that the function of the cleric changed from earlier editions?
What he said and healing spells at every spell level... They are now more walking band-aids than ever. Still so far pfRPG seems to take the general principles of D&D v3.5 and make them work a little better. Be good to hear from some people actually playing Clerics under pfRPG in an actual game. (Not all) but some of the comments seem to be from people reading the cleric as an isolating character and not as part of the a party. So any clerics out there?
9 Spell levels, no spell failure chance, and access to powers similar to a specialist wizard do that to a class.The earlier cleric was probably a war-priest, and when his function changed nobody ever removed the heavy armor, until now.I need to ask...
I've seen several people make statements like this. I guess I never got the memo, so could you point me to where it was explained that the function of the cleric changed from earlier editions?
So, we are back to your opinions passed off as fact again?
Or do you want to point me to where it was explained that the function actually changed. Because from the 3.0 designers own mouths, the changes to the Cleric from 2nd was to make them attractive to play. Not to change their function.
9 Spell levels, no spell failure chance, and access to powers similar to a specialist wizard do that to a class.The earlier cleric was probably a war-priest, and when his function changed nobody ever removed the heavy armor, until now.I need to ask...
I've seen several people make statements like this. I guess I never got the memo, so could you point me to where it was explained that the function of the cleric changed from earlier editions?
So, we are back to your opinions passed off as fact again?
Or do you want to point me to where it was explained that the function actually changed. Because from the 3.0 designers own mouths, the changes to the Cleric from 2nd was to make them attractive to play. Not to change their function.
They(paizo) took their armor and gave them better healing. It seems they are trying to be pushed into more of a support role. The fact that a cleric can heal and buff itself more than makes up for the AC difference. Clerics can be war priesta, but that is not the primary function of the class. Their functions are many, and each cleric's function depends on his/her deity.
9 Spell levels, no spell failure chance, and access to powers similar to a specialist wizard do that to a class.The earlier cleric was probably a war-priest, and when his function changed nobody ever removed the heavy armor, until now.I need to ask...
I've seen several people make statements like this. I guess I never got the memo, so could you point me to where it was explained that the function of the cleric changed from earlier editions?
So, we are back to your opinions passed off as fact again?
Or do you want to point me to where it was explained that the function actually changed. Because from the 3.0 designers own mouths, the changes to the Cleric from 2nd was to make them attractive to play. Not to change their function.
I've said things like this (as an opinion - I never saw a memo either) but I didnt mean to imply the change was when 3.0 came out. I meant when AD&D came out.
Initially there was no paladin. Cleric's were an odd class if you considered them priests (given their propensity for wearing heavy armor in part) but made perfect sense as holy, crusading warriors. Once the paladin came out the niche of crusading holy warrior is filled. At that point, it would have made a lot of sense (imo) to have revised cleric's heavily. It seems to me that, such a revision has been made by the pathfinder designers.
They(paizo) took their armor and gave them better healing. It seems they are trying to be pushed into more of a support role.
Now that may be. But with your line:
The earlier cleric was probably a war-priest, and when his function changed nobody ever removed the heavy armor, until now.
(Emphasis mine)
You made it sound as if the function changed a while ago, and someone just now got around to bringing the armor proficiency in line.
And I really hope Paizo didn't try to move the Clerics back into more of a support role. That is what made them "undesirable" (by too many vocal players) that caused the "power up" in 3rd. It would be a horrible case of repeating history, and something I wouldn't expect Paizo to do.
Initially there was no paladin. Cleric's were an odd class if you considered them priests (given their propensity for wearing heavy armor in part) but made perfect sense as holy, crusading warriors. Once the paladin came out the niche of crusading holy warrior is filled
So, back in 1975 the niche of crusading holy warrior was filled?
The Paladin originally appeared in Dungeons & Dragons Suppliment 1, Greyhawk, as something of the very first prestige class. You had to enter it through Fighter, with a 17 Charisma. Wiki page
|
|
I know, that was why I mentioned that I would allow them to wear it without spending a feat on it.Yes but he has to burn a feat to use it properly.I really don't think Clerics should have ever been a full spellcasting class in the first place. They ought to have a mix of spellcasting and fighting abilities. In my opinion the cleric(and classes in general) ought to address specific archetypes and the cleric's is that of a holy warrior that uses martial skill and holy power to accomplish they're deities goals. The cleric should not be used to represent every kind of priest. If other archetypes are desired other, perhaps new, classes should be used, such as a cloistered cleric-type class. In fact many priests should be no holy powers at all and represented by NPC classes. There should not be a full cleric in every temple.Perhaps you should go fourth edition it seems to be what you are looking for. Fourth edition is all about archetypesOr for a D&D game go try 1st ed. :)
The cleric in first ed was limited to 7th level spells, progressed much slower then other casters up the spell level charts and has very little offensive spells. Cloistered Clerics from dragon existed to fill the role Lordzack is explaining.
Dragonhide plate is the heavy armor that druids can use but is in all other ways full plate.
Hang on a moment! You'll houserule Druids but not Clerics? You can't have it both ways, Thurgon. Either RAW for both or houserule both, but not picking and choosing which houserules you'll implement and then castigating us for suggesting another one.
Initially there was no paladin. Cleric's were an odd class if you considered them priests (given their propensity for wearing heavy armor in part) but made perfect sense as holy, crusading warriors. Once the paladin came out the niche of crusading holy warrior is filledSo, back in 1975 the niche of crusading holy warrior was filled?
Err yes? I don't understand your question. I'm not claiming there was some "rules-based" reason for removing armor from clerics. I am suggesting that the story-based motivation for clerics as written changed once paladins were an option.
The Paladin originally appeared in Dungeons & Dragons Suppliment 1, Greyhawk, as something of the very first prestige class. You had to enter it through Fighter, with a 17 Charisma. Wiki page
Again - I dont see what you're saying. Before paladins - holy warrior equals cleric. After paladins - holy warrior = paladin.
We are both still advancing opinions as to "how things should be" right?
|
|
And I really hope Paizo didn't try to move the Clerics back into more of a support role.That is what made them "undesirable" (by too many vocal players) that caused the "power up" in 3rd.It would be a horrible case of repeating history, and something I wouldn't expect Paizo to do.
Emphasis mine.
I like how you claim they were never meant to be second line, while in the same breath hoping they haven't become second line.
We are both still advancing opinions as to "how things should be" right?
That may be what I am actually doing... But it isn't what I am trying for. Let me take another tact on this...
From my reasoning, and to the best of anyone on the boards ability, the most likely reason heavy armor proficiency was removed from Clerics is because "they needed to lose it because of CoDzilla/they were too powerful in melee before/etc.."
What I am trying to do is get someone, preferably from the Paizo design crew - if possible the person(s) directly responsible for this change - to give me (and by extension everyone else) a reason for the change that comes close to making sense.
CoDzilla was neutered through the spells. Divine Power and Righteous Might aren't really worth the level of spell they are at. With those changes, why did the armor proficiency have to go as well? What reason is there for it, except to appease those vocal players (the same kind that drove the power up of the Cleric) that think it breaks the balance of the game to have Clerics be proficient with heavy armor?
Now to bring it back to your post.
I thought you were saying that the existence of the Paladin class meant that the Cleric shouldn't be a holy warrior anymore (shouldn't have heavy armor proficiency). And I was verifying that you meant that Clerics shouldn't have been the holy warrior/have heavy armor since 1975 in OD&D.
I like how you claim they were never meant to be second line, while in the same breath hoping they haven't become second line.
And?
This is all really a moot point.
I think they were trying to better distance the paladin and cleric conceptually. If a cleric is a heavily armed melee warrior of god and a paladin is a healiy armored warrior of....wait....darn.
Right?
Besides, ultimately, it's a slight change in the tactical layout of the combat portion of the game. Really, the DM is the one with final say over game balance issues. Use it or lose it... it's up to the DM.
We are both still advancing opinions as to "how things should be" right?That may be what I am actually doing... But it isn't what I am trying for. Let me take another tact on this...
From my reasoning, and to the best of anyone on the boards ability, the most likely reason heavy armor proficiency was removed from Clerics is because "they needed to lose it because of CoDzilla/they were too powerful in melee before/etc.."
What I am trying to do is get someone, preferably from the Paizo design crew - if possible the person(s) directly responsible for this change - to give me (and by extension everyone else) a reason for the change that comes close to making sense.
CoDzilla was neutered through the spells. Divine Power and Righteous Might aren't really worth the level of spell they are at. With those changes, why did the armor proficiency have to go as well? What reason is there for it, except to appease those vocal players (the same kind that drove the power up of the Cleric) that think it breaks the balance of the game to have Clerics be proficient with heavy armor?
Now to bring it back to your post.
I thought you were saying that the existence of the Paladin class meant that the Cleric shouldn't be a holy warrior anymore (shouldn't have heavy armor proficiency). And I was verifying that you meant that Clerics shouldn't have been the holy warrior/have heavy armor since 1975 in OD&D.
Yep you got me right. (Although, I wouldnt suggest that when a supplement comes out for an RPG that the core classes should immediately be revised. In this case, once the paladin came out, I would have revised the cleric in the next incarnation of the core books (which if I have my timeline right means I would have made this change in the AD&D player's handbook - along with various other alterations to bring them more in line with a priest role).
With regard to your reasons for opposing the change - I think you're making a pretty decent argument in opposition to the heavy-armor-was-removed-to-balance-the-cleric view. However, I dont think the CoDzilla thing is necessarily the motivation (it's certainly got nothing to do with my approval of the change). For me it's all about story and keeping the flavor of the classes distinct. Obviously I'm not purporting to speak for Paizo. Nonetheless, it is possible that the decision was taken along purely qualitative flavor-based lines. In which case, an argument establishing its "correctness" is unlikely to eventuate.
If you want an answer from the source, you might have better luck via email. Although, somehow, I suspect the people who know may have noticed that there is a little interest in the issue. Given they havent chimed in with a definitive reason, perhaps they prefer to keep the reasons secret. In my personal best-world, it's going to turn out that Clerics were never meant to lose heavy armor and it was just a typographical omission - that would amuse me. :)
You know, honestly... armor always felt like more of a formality then anything else in 3rd and 3.5. past the first few levels I always felt like your ac was only really to stop secondary attacks from connecting and for groups of enemies trying to hit you. In as far as it goes, clerics can still have a high enough ac to stop the groups of baddies from reliably connecting. I just don't see it as a game changing thing for the cleric class. Clerics need a respectable armor class because they're intended to be close to combat for healing and most of their spells are close or mid-range, but if the high end AC doesn't really matter for a single hit and you're not rushing into close combat and opening yourself up for a full attack, it won't normally matter if your ac is 2 or 3 points lower.
I have played many clerics mostly clerics of mystra or druids of the earthmother or sylvanus. I dont see this as a big uber change. Yes they wounded a sacred cow by taking something away however the extra feats, the improved weapon access and other things make up for it. My house rules put turning(NOT Channeling,I hate that term) back to the way it was in previous editions. If your a holy good guy then you can TURN undead,demons,devils and daemons. If your a bad guy you can control all of the above and you can turn those annoying paladins. The last part is kindda irrelevant in MY game because I dont allow pally's.
I am honestly thinking of scrapping both the pally and the cleric and going with the cloistered preist idea for spellcasters and then using the base class paladin for holy warrior types, no alignment restrictions.
The main reason I say that heavy armor isnt that big of a loss is by the time you hit 10th lvl or higher most of your AC comes from magic items anyway, rings of pro, bracers of AC,gloves of dex. amulets of natural AC. I can go on about how my druids with just plain armour routinly outshone the heavy fighters/pallys(diffrent GM) on AC with just a few stackable items.
Anyway thats my take on the subject. in summation yes they took away from the class but it's EASILY replaced and much more is given to make up for it.
Finale note to previous posters and I mean this in the most respectful manner possible: Please stop hateing on the full spellcasting classes. If you dont like'em dont allow them but please stop trying to depower them for the rest of us. Again I meant that in the most noninflamitory way possible but every board I go to is "wizards make fighter feel impotent, clerics are combat monsters that make fighters feel useless" and it just gets a little old after awhile.
My two cents.
Hang on a moment! You'll houserule Druids but not Clerics? You can't have it both ways, Thurgon. Either RAW for both or houserule both, but not picking and choosing which houserules you'll implement and then castigating us for suggesting another one.
Not at all, but thanks for being snarky. In my games I house rule clerics back to being clerics (ie. 3.5 version in almost all ways.). I also allow druids to wear heavy armor assuming it isn't made of metal. Hell I let rangers wear heavy armor and I added a third combat style since I hate the drizzt option being their only choice for melee.
But I don't run all the games, some of the DMs go RAW. Although all think channel energy is either too powerful or simply a bad idea for a class already the best healer hands down. We are working on agreeable rules for replacing it with turning and in all likihood heavy armor use, the need to pound the cleric in the head and demand he be a healer seems overdone in pathfinder. Thing is right now none of the DMs like the paladin (too powerful), bard, barbarian, or cleric pathfinder version. But all like the skill system to some degree, like the rest of the classes, espically the fighter, the fact we can once again buy the hard covered books (let's our gaming group continue to grow not that we've had many issues but a few new guys have bemoanded not being able to buy the books). DC is one of those issues we battle back and forth about, some hate it, some think it is ok, others like it, but at this time we've already all agreed that including another feat we are calling improved combat casting is needed so those who are determined to cast in melee can do so but at the cost of two feats.
Like I mentioned long ago, Pathfinder is worth the money. But it needs to me more house ruling then 3.5 did, and that is again to me a problem.
595 smurfing posts. What the smurf?
|
|
Hang on a moment! You'll houserule Druids but not Clerics? You can't have it both ways, Thurgon. Either RAW for both or houserule both, but not picking and choosing which houserules you'll implement and then castigating us for suggesting another one.Not at all, but thanks for being snarky. In my games I house rule clerics back to being clerics (ie. 3.5 version in almost all ways.). I also allow druids to wear heavy armor assuming it isn't made of metal. Hell I let rangers wear heavy armor and I added a third combat style since I hate the drizzt option being their only choice for melee.
But I don't run all the games, some of the DMs go RAW. Although all think channel energy is either too powerful or simply a bad idea for a class already the best healer hands down. We are working on agreeable rules for replacing it with turning and in all likihood heavy armor use, the need to pound the cleric in the head and demand he be a healer seems overdone in pathfinder. Thing is right now none of the DMs like the paladin (too powerful), bard, barbarian, or cleric pathfinder version. But all like the skill system to some degree, like the rest of the classes, espically the fighter, the fact we can once again buy the hard covered books (let's our gaming group continue to grow not that we've had many issues but a few new guys have bemoanded not being able to buy the books). DC is one of those issues we battle back and forth about, some hate it, some think it is ok, others like it, but at this time we've already all agreed that including another feat we are calling improved combat casting is needed so those who are determined to cast in melee can do so but at the cost of two feats.
Like I mentioned long ago, Pathfinder is worth the money. But it needs to me more house ruling then 3.5 did, and that is again to me a problem.
If you're already houseruling it, why are you so upset when someone suggests the solution of houseruling it?
I'm also curious what you, Disenchanter and Beckett (to a lesser extrent) are trying to accomplish. The rules are out. They are not likely to change as most people on this thread have been supportive of the change. You've made your view clear. What are you accomplishing now?
I dont see this as a big uber change. Yes they wounded a sacred cow by taking something away however the extra feats, the improved weapon access and other things make up for it.
But Steven that is the problem. Improved weapon selection only for some clerics, not for all. Heavy armor was something they all got and could chose to use. The weapon selection is based on picking the diety with the best favored weapon....not the reason I want to pick a diety nor the reason I want my players to pick their cleric's diety. I would rather they pick based on the flavor the diety brings to their character, not the power of the deity's favored weapon.
Im curious what kind of armor do you have the rookie druids train in to receive Heavy Armor proficiency for free at first...
Plate for all it matters as rookies, since they can wear metal armor, it just stops their casting for a day. I would also point out historically a druid was first a very skilled warrior before he would be allowed to become a druid. ie he wasn't born a druid unable to wear metal armor, that is a choice he made later in his/her life.
If you're already houseruling it, why are you so upset when someone suggests the solution of houseruling it?I'm also...
Well if you think this is over, then why are you posting?