True.
But the 1E and 2E cleric both could only use blunt weapons. Although I have the greatest respect for the history of the game, I do not believe that it can be used to justify every argument.
I am asking for some calm here folks. These threads have been churning on the same 5 or 6 arguments for days now. If you are just going to continue arguing the same points, maybe you should just move on to other threads.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I agree that the cleric needed to be nerfed. But I'm wondering if the cleric's magic is stronger than it was in earlier editions, and they've always had plate, why did you nerf they're armor over they're magic?
Yeah, tried that logic here back on page 2 or 3, and others have mentioned it since. For some reason it doesn't regester.Well, the iconic cleric has been wearing a chainmail for quite some time ...No
1E Cleric had Plate.
2E Cleric had Plate.
True.
But the 1E and 2E cleric both could only use blunt weapons. Although I have the greatest respect for the history of the game, I do not believe that it can be used to justify every argument.
So... Continuously arguing to get others to stop continuously arguing is okay, because continuously arguing is bad?
I agree that the cleric needed to be nerfed. But I'm wondering if the cleric's magic is stronger than it was in earlier editions, and they've always had plate, why did you nerf they're armor over they're magic?True.
But the 1E and 2E cleric both could only use blunt weapons. Although I have the greatest respect for the history of the game, I do not believe that it can be used to justify every argument.
I am asking for some calm here folks. These threads have been churning on the same 5 or 6 arguments for days now. If you are just going to continue arguing the same points, maybe you should just move on to other threads.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Heh dude if all this is over 2 points of AC ya want to even see what happens if Jason tired to cap spells at 7th?
And ugh the madness of restating any NPC that used to cast 8th or 9th level spell...reworking spell list and all...no thanks
I don't understand what the big deal is.
o If we based every decision on what has been done in the past, then we wouldn't have Pathfinder at all.
o Pathfinder gives us 3 feats on top of D&D. If you need the armor, then use the feat. I often times find myself looking for something that I would use, and I think this is one of those things.
o You could simply invent a trait that allows all clerics to use full plate mail if the full plate mail has the cleric's holy symbol emblazoned on it, so long as it doesn't appear to go against the tenants of the particular deity, if applicable.
o If you're dead-set on clerics having it "just because," well, then it's your game. Just do it.
o If you go with the previous option and want to find out some other way to balance out your cleric, remove something else, like a domain ability or two.
o Personally, I only see a handful of religions where platemail would be considered iconic: Iomedae, Torag, Gorum, Asmodeus, Zon-Kuthon, and Rovagug. This represents perhaps a quarter of the Pathfinder Pantheon.
o Not all clerics have to be a battle cleric, on the front lines, even if the iconic cleric was. In fact, the vast majority of their abilities state that they, in fact, aren't.
think of a guy in chain,sheild and a mace as "Iconic" D&D clericI'm curious. Why? What images show you a chain wearing Cleric? Are they from D&D? Or is it more of a WoW or other RPG game image?2e D&D Images. Every one that I can think of had chain mail. I have one in my head but for the life of me can not recall the book. But it seems to be plate pics were always fighters or paladins on horse and cleric always seemed to have chain and plate.
It comes down to that pic you have ingrained in your head I guess
The party of four they used in the books to explain the transition from 1st ed to 2nd ed were: Kelemvor (fighter and someday death god), Cyric (former thief, fighter someday god of death(Kelemvor takes this from him), murder, and deception/illusion), Midnight (mage and someday goddess of magic) and Adon (cleric of love and beauty to switch and worship Midnight later on, only one in the group not to become a god).
Kelemvor depictions varied from chain to plate. Cyric rarely was depicted in any armor but sometimes leather, Midnight was often depicted in flowing dresses and robes, Adon started I think in chain but then went to wearing plate at least in write ups of his stats.
It is a historical thing.
Heavy Armour on a Cleric is a quintessential D&D thing. Most other games view Clerics as more Priest like (with cloth armour.)
Something like:
"Militant Priest: A Cleric at 1st level may gain Heavy Armour Proficiency in exchange for a lower hit dice (d6), poor Fortitude saves, or poor Will saves."
Since the very beginings of the game Clerics/Priests have always had heavy armor.
They will continue to do so in my game as a houserule.
End of story.
I still think your wrong Jason to have made this change. It along with the lose of turning effectively removes two of the most Iconic imagines of a cleric from pathfinder. But I still think you were wrong to pretty much out of hand dismiss the idea of increasing skill points for many classes as well.
Sure you can, we can call that the "Pathfinder Cleric feat tax" spend two feats, your pathfinder cleric becomes a D&D cleric.
No
1E Cleric had Plate.
2E Cleric had Plate.
3E Cleric (Jozan) had plate when he could afford it:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cc/20000626aThe original Cleric was based on Knights Templars (Plate wearing warriors.)
When I think Iconic Cleric, well I think the little plastic mini of the cleric of st. cuthbert I just bought from Paizo. He is the very image of a cleric, seeing him I never think Paladin, Fighter or anything else. I see him and I see cleric. Now I see cleric with burnt feats to the Pathfinder gods.
All of these statements have the same issue. That is, the writer sees PF as the continuation of D&D. This is false. It is not, it is not D&D 3.75 or D&D 3.P or anything. It is Pathfinder. Just as if you went to play in a different system and they had a class called priest that didn't have certain abilities that D&D clerics have, you wouldn't think "But priests/clerics have always had those abilities" because that system isn't D&D and so those sacred cows are not present in it. Likewise with PF. Just keep saying it to yourself, PF is not D&D, whatever has happened in the past with D&D doesn't matter. Once that realization comes through, this change will not matter much to you.
As for myself, I am sad to see like that other game system, there are still winners and losers when it comes to armor in PF. There are some armor choices within the different levels (light, medium, heavy) that will never be picked by PCs. How many splintmail wearing PCs are you going to see? If you guessed 0, you are probably right.
Why? Because the only value splintmail has over full plate is its price, and nobody is going to waste their money buying crappy armor when money is tight and when they have enough wealth they will buy the best stuff since money no longer matters. No they will save their money until they can afford the best armor (probably wearing scale mail or whatever they pull off of someone till then).
It would have been nice to see something that made these armors more attractive, oh something like clerics get proficiency in splint and banded but not half or full might have been interesting. But no more changes are going to happen ever, so sadly we still have crap armor wasting print space.
|
So... Continuously arguing to get others to stop continuously arguing is okay, because continuously arguing is bad?Yeah, tried that logic here back on page 2 or 3, and others have mentioned it since. For some reason it doesn't regester.Well, the iconic cleric has been wearing a chainmail for quite some time ...No
1E Cleric had Plate.
2E Cleric had Plate.
True.
But the 1E and 2E cleric both could only use blunt weapons. Although I have the greatest respect for the history of the game, I do not believe that it can be used to justify every argument.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I stopped 'contiuiously argueing' in this particular thread days ago. I continue to read it and occasionally voice my opinion because it is a proverbial train wreck and I can't help myself.
Creative Director
|
o Personally, I only see a handful of religions where platemail would be considered iconic: Iomedae, Torag, Gorum, Asmodeus, Zon-Kuthon, and Rovagug. This represents perhaps a quarter of the Pathfinder Pantheon.
I would agree with this list, but would actually remove Asmodeus, Zon-Kuthon, and Rovagug from the list.
Asmodeus's worshipers are more politician and manipulator than front-line battler, and they're vain enough that they'd want to show off a lot of skn.
Zon-Kuthon's worshipers are all about piercings and body mods and scarring and pain, and therefore would ALSO want to show off some skin... and on top of that their thing is more armor with spikes, and you can put spikes on any kind of armor. Chain mail's the spiked armor I've been using most often for them in my homebrew.
Rovagug's worshipers are in a lot of cases monsters who don't bother with armor at all. The big exception is, of course, orcs—and orcs look best in stuff like hide armor or leather or other types of more "primitive" armor. Primitive armor fits well with Rovagug, who is arguably one of the oldest gods in the pantheon.
Leaves Iomedae, Torag, and Gorum as the three gods whose clerics would most often want to or be expected to wear heavy armor. I'd add Abadar to that list as well, probably, for a total of 10% of the core deities.
And frankly, it's worth a feat, I think. I've played LOTS of clerics in 3.5, and whenever I was choosing feats, particularly at low level, the logical choices in the core book were always relatively boring and workman-like feats anyway. The really fun cleric feats are generally higher level, so if you're a human especially, using a 1st level feat on heavy armor for as much roleplaying reasons as the desire to wear your deity's armor is pretty cool.
And one thing to note about the talk of "iconic" clerics. When it comes to the bubble itself that is the PRPG, our iconic cleric Kyra has worn chainmail from day one, so there's no real need for worry there. And she's a thousand times cooler and more trustworthy than Jozan anyway. Jozan would have you believe he's a good guy who worships Pelor, but then we have a picture of him in the spells chapter of the PHB casting an evil spell (symbol of pain) like it was nothing. He's TREACHEROUS AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED!
I had a player that seemed put off about this change... until I pointed out the following to him -
"Firstly, when have you ever played a cleric with full plate? (he had not) Secondly, Pathfinder gives feats at every odd level instead of every 3rd. Over all... the change does not make that much of a difference and if you really want the heavy armor prof. just pick it up with a feat."
This seemed to have calmed my player right off. With a "Oh" as response.
I find it interesting that this change caused a thread 14 pages and growing.
Toyrobots, you have created a monster!
If Pathfinder said that clerics could only wear dresses and fight with a bohemian ear-spoon I would still house rule it that they could wear whatever armor they liked and thump things with a mace.
If you like the rule use it, if you don't then don't.
Now I'm going back to the X Files reruns.
That's my thoughts on it too. I'll use the rule as is because it's there and really I don't care one way or the other. If I play in someone else game and they house rule I'll play by that. I'm all about having fun and either way the Cleric is still cool play in my opinion.
All of these statements have the same issue. That is, the writer sees PF as the continuation of D&D. This is false. It is not, it is not D&D 3.75 or D&D 3.P or anything. It is Pathfinder. Just as if you went to play in a different system and they had a class called priest that didn't have certain abilities that D&D clerics have, you wouldn't think "But priests/clerics have always had those...
But that's the point. I want Pathfinder to continue in the traditions of D&D. If it doesn't then to me that's a bad thing.
I had a player that seemed put off about this change... until I pointed out the following to him -
"Firstly, when have you ever played a cleric with full plate? (he had not) Secondly, Pathfinder gives feats at every odd level instead of every 3rd. Over all... the change does not make that much of a difference and if you really want the heavy armor prof. just pick it up with a feat."
This seemed to have calmed my player right off. With a "Oh" as response.
I find it interesting that this change caused a thread 14 pages and growing.
That is because everyone has different feelings on the change.
In my 25ish years of gaming, I've never seen a Cleric not wear plate once it was affordable. (Note: I'm not making an argument against the change.)
And I certainly don't consider it "right," or "fair" that the Cleric is the only class that needs to spend two feats to get back what was removed.
So your points wouldn't have calmed me at all, if it were me as the player.
I would agree with this list, but would actually remove Asmodeus, Zon-Kuthon, and Rovagug from the list.
I was being generous, and merely looking at the 5 word description of the religions. :)
Jozan would have you believe he's a good guy who worships Pelor, but then we have a picture of him in the spells chapter of the PHB casting an evil spell (symbol of pain) like it was nothing. He's TREACHEROUS AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED!
You know it's true! There's semi-photographic evidence!
All of these statements have the same issue. That is, the writer sees PF as the continuation of D&D. This is false. It is not, it is not D&D 3.75 or D&D 3.P or anything. It is Pathfinder. Just as if you went to play in a different system and they had a class called priest that didn't have certain abilities that D&D clerics have, you wouldn't think "But priests/clerics have always had those...But that's the point. I want Pathfinder to continue in the traditions of D&D. If it doesn't then to me that's a bad thing.
Agreed.
I had a player that seemed put off about this change... until I pointed out the following to him -
"Firstly, when have you ever played a cleric with full plate? (he had not) Secondly, Pathfinder gives feats at every odd level instead of every 3rd. Over all... the change does not make that much of a difference and if you really want the heavy armor prof. just pick it up with a feat."
This seemed to have calmed my player right off. With a "Oh" as response.
I find it interesting that this change caused a thread 14 pages and growing.
The only cleric I ever played that did not wear plate when it was first available was....my namesake, he were breast plate, he for a short time had barbarian levels (and was lawful so never got to rage...), the conversion form 1st to 3.0 took time for us to get it right. I still have the guy, level 19 been playing him since '84. though these days we only gather once a year for a game. He's a worshiper of Helm. (early version of the realms Helm but not the same, LG not LN, and was guardian of civilization not just god of guardians he would become.)
Agreed.All of these statements have the same issue. That is, the writer sees PF as the continuation of D&D. This is false. It is not, it is not D&D 3.75 or D&D 3.P or anything. It is Pathfinder. Just as if you went to play in a different system and they had a class called priest that didn't have certain abilities that D&D clerics have, you wouldn't think "But priests/clerics have always had those...But that's the point. I want Pathfinder to continue in the traditions of D&D. If it doesn't then to me that's a bad thing.
Why? It is not D&D. Would you expect the Conan game system to continue in the traditions of D&D? If not, why should PF do so? You expect PF to be D&D 3.75 and that is why you are disappointed. It is not PF's failing, it is your unreasonable expectation that is the problem.
And I certainly don't consider it "right," or "fair" that the Cleric is the only class that needs to spend two feats to get back what was removed.
So your points wouldn't have calmed me at all, if it were me as the player.
Clerics need only take one feat to get heavy armor proficiency. I'm failing to see what other feat is required.
Why? It is not D&D. Would you expect the Conan game system to continue in the traditions of D&D? If not, why should PF do so? You expect PF to be D&D 3.75 and that is why you are disappointed. It is not PF's failing, it is your unreasonable expectation that is the problem.Agreed.All of these statements have the same issue. That is, the writer sees PF as the continuation of D&D. This is false. It is not, it is not D&D 3.75 or D&D 3.P or anything. It is Pathfinder. Just as if you went to play in a different system and they had a class called priest that didn't have certain abilities that D&D clerics have, you wouldn't think "But priests/clerics have always had those...But that's the point. I want Pathfinder to continue in the traditions of D&D. If it doesn't then to me that's a bad thing.
Because it's big drawing factor for me was compatibility with 3.5, not that is was a brand new with no relationship to D&D fantasy game.
And I certainly don't consider it "right," or "fair" that the Cleric is the only class that needs to spend two feats to get back what was removed.
So your points wouldn't have calmed me at all, if it were me as the player.
Clerics need only take one feat to get heavy armor proficiency. I'm failing to see what other feat is required.
For one more, clerics no longer can turn undead. You need to take a feat for that as well.
For one more, clerics no longer can turn undead. You need to take a feat for that as well.And I certainly don't consider it "right," or "fair" that the Cleric is the only class that needs to spend two feats to get back what was removed.
So your points wouldn't have calmed me at all, if it were me as the player.
Clerics need only take one feat to get heavy armor proficiency. I'm failing to see what other feat is required.
that still harm them, better then they used to.
Because it's big drawing factor for me was compatibility with 3.5, not that is was a brand new with no relationship to D&D fantasy game.Why? It is not D&D. Would you expect the Conan game system to continue in the traditions of D&D? If not, why should PF do so? You expect PF to be D&D 3.75 and that is why you are disappointed. It is not PF's failing, it is your unreasonable expectation that is the problem.Agreed.All of these statements have the same issue. That is, the writer sees PF as the continuation of D&D. This is false. It is not, it is not D&D 3.75 or D&D 3.P or anything. It is Pathfinder. Just as if you went to play in a different system and they had a class called priest that didn't have certain abilities that D&D clerics have, you wouldn't think "But priests/clerics have always had those...But that's the point. I want Pathfinder to continue in the traditions of D&D. If it doesn't then to me that's a bad thing.
I'm sure that if you found a reasonable PF DM, they would let you play a 3.5 version cleric, and lose all of the other changes PF put it. Your cleric would be a total freak in the PF world, and whenever he claimed to be a cleric, he would be laughed at. "Did your mom give you that heavy armor, ha ha ha!", but you could still play it. Mechanics wise, it is compatible(ish). But the flavor has been dropped by the way side. It is not D&D, it is PF. It is their world, if you want to play in it, you have to accept that.
If their vision of the cleric was, for example, of a guy running around in nothing but a thong, well it is their game, that is how their clerics work. Just because clerics in some other game system you might have played at some point in time actually wore armor, that doesn't mean their cleric has to conform to your expectations. The problem is with your expectations, not their rules.
|
For one more, clerics no longer can turn undead. You need to take a feat for that as well.
Cleric's couldn't turn undead in 3E either, at least at higher levels. Now their ability at least does something instead of being a weird mechanism that usually achieves nothing.
Who'd want to turn them instead of damaging them anyway?
For one more, clerics no longer can turn undead. You need to take a feat for that as well.Cleric's couldn't turn undead in 3E either, at least at higher levels. Now their ability at least does something instead of being a weird mechanism that usually achieves nothing.
Who'd want to turn them instead of damaging them anyway?
A party getting mobbed by undead and needed a little breathing room to heal up and buff, maybe?
For one more, clerics no longer can turn undead. You need to take a feat for that as well.And I certainly don't consider it "right," or "fair" that the Cleric is the only class that needs to spend two feats to get back what was removed.
So your points wouldn't have calmed me at all, if it were me as the player.
Clerics need only take one feat to get heavy armor proficiency. I'm failing to see what other feat is required.
Instead they damage undead by channeling... which you needed to take a feat for in 3.5. So that balances out in the wash.
that still harm them, better then they used to.For one more, clerics no longer can turn undead. You need to take a feat for that as well.And I certainly don't consider it "right," or "fair" that the Cleric is the only class that needs to spend two feats to get back what was removed.
So your points wouldn't have calmed me at all, if it were me as the player.
Clerics need only take one feat to get heavy armor proficiency. I'm failing to see what other feat is required.
Better or worse, that really isn't the issue. The issue is what powers did they have in some cases can be bought back at the price of feats. Clearly in 3.5 they did as poor as it was done have the ability to turn undead, in pathfinder without the feat they do not. Turning undead has existed as a cleric ability since 1st ed as well, but not in pathfinder.
I'm sure that if you found a reasonable PF DM, they would let you play a 3.5 version cleric, and lose all of the other changes PF put it. Your cleric would be a total freak in the PF world, and whenever he claimed to be a cleric, he would be laughed at. "Did your mom give you that heavy armor, ha ha ha!", but you could still play it. Mechanics wise, it is compatible(ish). But the flavor has been dropped by the way side. It is not D&D, it is PF. It is their world, if you want to play in it, you have to accept that.Because it's big drawing factor for me was compatibility with 3.5, not that is was a brand new with no relationship to D&D fantasy game.Why? It is not D&D. Would you expect the Conan game system to continue in the traditions of D&D? If not, why should PF do so? You expect PF to be D&D 3.75 and that is why you are disappointed. It is not PF's failing, it is your unreasonable expectation that is the problem.Agreed.All of these statements have the same issue. That is, the writer sees PF as the continuation of D&D. This is false. It is not, it is not D&D 3.75 or D&D 3.P or anything. It is Pathfinder. Just as if you went to play in a different system and they had a class called priest that didn't have certain abilities that D&D clerics have, you wouldn't think "But priests/clerics have always had those...But that's the point. I want Pathfinder to continue in the traditions of D&D. If it doesn't then to me that's a bad thing.
But Pathfinder is D&D. It was originally created for 3.5 D&D. It includes many elements from D&D including many, many monsters. Also elements like Asmodeus. It's not any more different from an existing D&D settings as any other D&D setting is.
|
|
A party getting mobbed by undead and needed a little breathing room to heal up and buff, maybe?For one more, clerics no longer can turn undead. You need to take a feat for that as well.Cleric's couldn't turn undead in 3E either, at least at higher levels. Now their ability at least does something instead of being a weird mechanism that usually achieves nothing.
Who'd want to turn them instead of damaging them anyway?
Wouldn't they be better off in this case if the cleric used his channeling to heal the party? The chance of turning more than half the undead is rather low.
And an undead that can easily be turned usually isn't of sufficient danger to be worth using a channeling on.Even a CR 1/3 skeleton has a will save of +2, so a level 2 cleric with a CHA of 14 would have a 50% chance of turning per skeleton he's facing.
A party getting mobbed by undead and needed a little breathing room to heal up and buff, maybe?For one more, clerics no longer can turn undead. You need to take a feat for that as well.Cleric's couldn't turn undead in 3E either, at least at higher levels. Now their ability at least does something instead of being a weird mechanism that usually achieves nothing.
Who'd want to turn them instead of damaging them anyway?Wouldn't they be better off in this case if the cleric used his channeling to heal the party? The chance of turning more than half the undead is rather low.
And an undead that can easily be turned usually isn't of sufficient danger to be worth using a channeling on.
Even a CR 1/3 skeleton has a will save of +2, so a level 2 cleric with a CHA of 14 would have a 50% chance of turning per skeleton he's facing.
Well I was thinking of turning in 3E.
I'm sure that if you found a reasonable PF DM, they would let you play a 3.5 version cleric, and lose all of the other changes PF put it. Your cleric would be a total freak in the PF world, and whenever he claimed to be a cleric, he would be laughed at. "Did your mom give you that heavy armor, ha ha ha!", but you could still play it.
...
Huh.
But Pathfinder is D&D. It was originally created for 3.5 D&D. It includes many elements from D&D including many, many monsters. Also elements like Asmodeus. It's not any more different from an existing D&D settings as any other D&D setting is.
No. It is a fantasy game. It is not D&D. Like many fantasy games, there are shared elements. Yes it is derived from the 3.5 rules (just as the Conan system was derived from 3ed? I think), but it isn't D&D. It is PF.
Wouldn't they be better off in this case if the cleric used his channeling to heal the party?
You are assuming that undead only do hit point damage.
Ghouls paralyse, several do ability damage, and other various "nasties."
Channeling doesn't counter that at all, and a really bad situation could end up only being survivable with a successful Turn Undead.
Of course, YMMV depending on the games you usually play. But if you are in a game where Turn Undead (PF Feat) isn't that useful, it is very likely the undead damaging aspect of Channel Energy isn't really useful either.
It is not D&D, it is PF. It is their world, if you want to play in it, you have to accept that.
Truly, it is not d&d, mores the shame.
|
|
Well I was thinking of turning in 3E.A party getting mobbed by undead and needed a little breathing room to heal up and buff, maybe?For one more, clerics no longer can turn undead. You need to take a feat for that as well.Cleric's couldn't turn undead in 3E either, at least at higher levels. Now their ability at least does something instead of being a weird mechanism that usually achieves nothing.
Who'd want to turn them instead of damaging them anyway?Wouldn't they be better off in this case if the cleric used his channeling to heal the party? The chance of turning more than half the undead is rather low.
And an undead that can easily be turned usually isn't of sufficient danger to be worth using a channeling on.
Even a CR 1/3 skeleton has a will save of +2, so a level 2 cleric with a CHA of 14 would have a 50% chance of turning per skeleton he's facing.
That wasn't much better, either. A cleric of 7ht level was unable to turn a minotaur zombie, a CR4 creature. A cleric had to be level 10 to even have a (rather small) chance of turning a wyvern zombie, another CR 4 creature. With Pathfinder, the clerics channeling would at least achieve something.
The second and third reasons are s**&ty design reasons. I'd expect a lot more from the Paizo crew.
So if that is what people want to go with, Paizo designers don't have a lot of skill at designing, I'll accept that.
Best be careful. You saw what happened to Frank T. back in the day. You seem to be treading down the same path.
That wasn't much better, either. A cleric of 7ht level was unable to turn a minotaur zombie, a CR4 creature. A cleric had to be level 10 to even have a (rather small) chance of turning a wyvern zombie, another CR 4 creature. With Pathfinder, the clerics channeling would at least achieve something.
Well zombies tend to be bad choices given that their CR to HD ratio is off, and 3ed turning was based on HD. A shadow might be a better example to look at 3 HD/3 CR or greater 9 HD/8 CR. In those cases an appropriate level cleric is quite capable of turning them.
|
|
Well zombies tend to be bad choices given that their CR to HD ratio is off, and 3ed turning was based on HD. A shadow might be a better example to look at 3 HD/3 CR or greater 9 HD/8 CR. In those cases an appropriate level cleric is quite capable of turning them.
They have a turn resistance of +2, but yeah, the cleric had at least a chance of turning them.
But Pathfinder is D&D. It was originally created for 3.5 D&D. It includes many elements from D&D including many, many monsters. Also elements like Asmodeus. It's not any more different from an existing D&D settings as any other D&D setting is.No. It is a fantasy game. It is not D&D. Like many fantasy games, there are shared elements. Yes it is derived from the 3.5 rules (just as the Conan system was derived from 3ed? I think), but it isn't D&D. It is PF.
It isn't just shared elements, Pathfinder is derived from Dungeons and Dragons. It's not the difference between Warcraft and Dungeons and Dragons, but more like Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms.
Ultimately I don't want to continue arguing. I like Dungeons and Dragons. As far as I'm concerned Pathfinder's closeness to Dungeons and Dragons is one of it's best qualities, and I want that to continue.
Likewise, I do not think most people bought PFRPG because it is NOT an evolution of the DnD game.
In fact, by your argument, all editions of DnD should be considered different games with no links, which I believe most people will not buy ;-)
Except they all said D&D, PF does not. Do you see the Conan system as an evolution of D&D?
I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that people were playing the PF world using the D&D rules. Thus when you are sitting there with your D&D PH and your GM is using his D&D DMG and referencing monsters out of his D&D MM. It is natural to feel like, "Hey we are playing D&D just in another campaign world." And that your expectations about D&D fit fully in with that world.
Yet that was a stop gap, until the true rules of the world were published. And now we see them. Do you think it was coincidence that the iconic cleric didn't wear heavy armor and their version of clerics doesn't have proficiency in it. It was their world the entire time. They have a view of how things like clerics should behave in their game system, and their rules demonstrate that view.
Their clerics never went through the editions of no paladins or no multiclass fighter/clerics. Thus their clerics start from a totally different place then where D&D started with its clerics. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the road their clerics will be "white mages".
Best be careful. You saw what happened to Frank T. back in the day. You seem to be treading down the same path.The second and third reasons are s**&ty design reasons. I'd expect a lot more from the Paizo crew.
So if that is what people want to go with, Paizo designers don't have a lot of skill at designing, I'll accept that.
I thought using personal insults against other posters was taboo?
Likewise, I do not think most people bought PFRPG because it is NOT an evolution of the DnD game.
In fact, by your argument, all editions of DnD should be considered different games with no links, which I believe most people will not buy ;-)
Except they all said D&D, PF does not. Do you see the Conan system as an evolution of D&D?
I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that people were playing the PF world using the D&D rules. Thus when you are sitting there with your D&D PH and your GM is using his D&D DMG and referencing monsters out of his D&D MM. It is natural to feel like, "Hey we are playing D&D just in another campaign world." And that your expectations about D&D fit fully in with that world.
Yet that was a stop gap, until the true rules of the world were published. And now we see them. Do you think it was coincidence that the iconic cleric didn't wear heavy armor and their version of clerics doesn't have proficiency in it. It was their world the entire time. They have a view of how things like clerics should behave in their game system, and their rules demonstrate that view.
Their clerics never went through the editions of no paladins or no multiclass fighter/clerics. Thus their clerics start from a totally different place then where D&D started with its clerics. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the road their clerics will be "white mages".
But Jason Bulhman himself said that they respect the traditions of the game. He evidently disagrees with me on the point of cleric armor, but this is obvious evidence that Pathfinder is intended to be based on D&D.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the idea of the Pathfinder RPG only came about after the world of Golarion was already established.If they did release a version of Pathfinder that completely broke with the traditions of D&D, for instance, having "white mages" rather than clerics, I wouldn't buy it.
But Jason Bulhman himself said that they respect the traditions of the game. He evidently disagrees with me on the point of cleric armor, but this is obvious evidence that Pathfinder is intended to be based on D&D.
I'm sure they do, and I'm sure that the history of D&D has had some influence on them. Heck just check out the blog for other things that have influences on various folks.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the idea of the Pathfinder RPG only came about after the world of Golarion was already established.
I don't mean to imply they had an entire system built a head of time. More of a vision for how the world was to be. This is certainly useful for anyone doing world building whether professionally or not. I mean instead that they had view of how folks would be behave and these didn't necessarily always correspond to a D&D view. Now they might have just made various choices within the current system to support that view (such as the iconic cleric not wearing heavy armor despite having proficiency). I can't remember offhand, do any NPC clerics in the adventure paths ever wear heavy armor that are not multiclassed?
But when faced with making their own system, it is only natural to incorporate those views into it. Remember one of the reasons for the rejection of 4e, besides the GSL, was that it didn't fit how they saw their world. If given the choice to keep fitting a square peg into a round hole or designing a square hole, which would you choose?
If they did release a version of Pathfinder that completely broke with the traditions of D&D, for instance, having "white mages" rather than clerics, I wouldn't buy it.
Sure right now, which is why it didn't happen. But maybe years down the road, after not seeing any heavy armored clerics in any game you play. The view of a "white mage" may not be so outlandish to you. In fact it might be kind of a relief (finally a real priest).
That would be unlikely because there will never not be any heavily armored clerics in my games.
Again I think that most people that are all bent over loosing the heavy armor issue, are people that are not looking at this properly.
As I stated in a previous post, clerics should of never had heavy armor to begin with. They are not an up-in-your-face battle-melee-tank. Twas not the intention of the class. They are a supporting character. Their job is to keep the party alive thru out the engagement, not be a tank or defensive off tank.
Yes they have offensive magical capabilities, but their primary role is not charge into a nest of orcs yelling "my god is superior to your evil!" no that is the pally's job.
With all the extra things you get ie: full spell caster, area of magical domains etc and all the other new changes. Heavy armor is just not needed. It is unballancing. I say thank god they got rid of it.
After all they are spell casters so why shouldn't they have the same restrictions.
Well I disagree, I don't think they should have been full spellcasters in the first place.
That would be unlikely because there will never not be any heavily armored clerics in my games.
So every single cleric of every single god has plate :)
But that's the point. I want Pathfinder to continue in the traditions of D&D. If it doesn't then to me that's a bad thing.
You've convinced me. I'm going to eliminate 8th and 9th level spells for clerics right away, and restrict them to blunt weapons. Also, they'll get no spells at 1st ("Acolyte") level, and will have to wait until 2nd ("Adept"). And there will be no more of this "defensive casting" nonsense for them! I'm going back to tradition.
What people here seem to mean when they say "respect for tradition" is really "adherence to the 3rd ed. model of clerics."
Again I think that most people that are all bent over loosing the heavy armor issue, are people that are not looking at this properly.
As I stated in a previous post, clerics should of never had heavy armor to begin with. They are not an up-in-your-face battle-melee-tank. Twas not the intention of the class. They are a supporting character. Their job is to keep the party alive thru out the engagement, not be a tank or defensive off tank.
That doesn't really work as written.
By saying "clerics should never have had heavy armor," you are suggesting that is for all editions. From 2nd edition to earlier they were the soldiers of their faith and had heavy armor ability due to their military training (check their descriptions). So, they were meant to be "up-in-your-face battle-melee-tanks."
Now, as has been revealed, 3rd edition Clerics were given a significant power boost due to them being "unattractive to play." (My personal guess on this is because they fall under the "hand of God" rule that implicitly states that a GM has the right to remove all class abilities if the Cleric violates his/her deities ethos. Something that has yet to be removed from the game.)
So, they retained their design of "up-in-your-face battle-melee-tanks," and received extra to entice players to select them.
Now, Pathfinder is altering, or tweaking, that role. It is the first iteration (aside from maybe 4th, I don't remember anything I read in it) of D&D that has changed that.