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 :)
Yes, for every god that has clerics those clerics will use plate. This is because I believe clerics should handle a specific role. If there is a priest type character of a different role, then they should be a completely different class. Also, some deities may indeed not have clerics at all.
Yes, for every god that has clerics those clerics will use plate. This is because I believe clerics should handle a specific role. If there is a priest type character of a different role, then they should be a completely different class. Also, some deities may indeed not have clerics at all.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 :)
Ya missed the joke but also just invalidated any concept but "I use thor's power to smash" concept.
Clerics are not 1 tone, no class is. I have had players who never wore anything above light armor as it just did not fit how they saw clerics of that god. Some god's clerics do not use heavy armor at all. I can think of 2 gods from FR that clerics do not wear armor normally
How can that be playing it wrong?
I think if I really wanted Full Plate wearing cleric that was meant to be front combat machine up there with the fighter I'd probably take a couple levels of fight or paladin if fits. So like 1st level cleric to start, party need that healing after all. Then two levels of Paladin and back to Cleric. If there were two clerics in the group I'd start out Paladin and probably go to 5th level then switch. Either way by the time I'm 10th level I'd have full plate Cleric with out wasting feat on it and levels of fighter or paladin fit the type of cleric I'm envisioning.
Yes, for every god that has clerics those clerics will use plate. This is because I believe clerics should handle a specific role. If there is a priest type character of a different role, then they should be a completely different class. Also, some deities may indeed not have clerics at all.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 :)Ya missed the joke but also just invalidated any concept but "I use thor's power to smash" concept.
Clerics are not 1 tone, no class is. I have had players who never wore anything above light armor as it just did not fit how they saw clerics of that god. Some god's clerics do not use heavy armor at all. I can think of 2 gods from FR that clerics do not wear armor normally
How can that be playing it wrong?
I'm not saying you're playing it wrong, I just don't agree.
|
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!
Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!!
That's Awesome!!! I always hated that pompous wanker!!! lol
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.
Well to be fair in Second Edition not all clerics were able to where heavy armor. In 2E you didn't really have any restrictions on who could or could but a clerics faith could. There were some dieties that did restrict you in what armor you could where. For example the Druid was restrict to leathers and such. In 2E the Druid really was just specialty priest example. Other religion in various published setting had deities with similiar restriction in exchange for greater sphere selection and special abilities.
So really in 2E it depends on the deity you worship. Worship a god of war and sure Plate is the norm but the god of fertility and peace not so much.
I see the lack of Heavy armor with the option to get it as feat is more like the 2E Cleric. Now the 1st Edition Cleric is exactly as you describe.
Personally I think Paladins are the soldiers that up in your face melee tanks. Just my opinion though. I don't nessarily disagree either with the position that they should get Heavy Armor, that's just the 3E spin on D&D. I don't expect it to be the same in Pathfinder. They have thier own spin on things. Neither argument is wrong it's just different.
Well in Dragonlance the clerics wear robes. If Im not mistaken Verminaard was wearing a breastplate or Dragon Scalemail. Elistan was wearing chain mail especially in Icewall castle. Goldmoon wore no armor at all or carried an weapon besides the Blue Crystal Staff in the begining of the trilogy. Lady Cysania wore robes of white come on she had a strength of 10 it would have been impossible for her to even move in it plus her only weapon was her divine focus. For the most part in most of the novels I have read clerics ae usually in robes and weaponless.
Now JJ are you sure that was Jozan casting the evil spell or was it an illusion crafted to defame the good cleric? hehe
Dragon lance is not really a fair place to look. Iron and steel are rare there. Few people wear plate. Heck Sturm wore chain, Caromon wore plate only at the very end the rest of the time he wore ringmail, sort of a combo of chainmail and studded leather. But Verminaard most certainly did wear plate. Tanis wore leather armor and he was a fighter thoughtout, Flint didn't even have any 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."
More snarky posts should be avoided, it doesn't help the topic and it doesn't end the debate.
I want to also say, it is not that I can read the tea-leaves and know for certain that the "white mage" idea is the destiny of future versions of the PF cleric. It might just as easily be that the fighter/cleric (in official play let's say) becomes so popular because of the armor issue that eventually they decide to put it back in, in a future edition. Or maybe it will always be medium or lower. I just personally feel from some of the statements made by current staff (that could change overtime) evokes an image of the "white mage" idea for me.
Well to be fair in Second Edition not all clerics were able to where heavy armor. In 2E you didn't really have any restrictions on who could or could but a clerics faith could. There were some dieties that did restrict you in what armor you could where. For example the Druid was restrict to leathers and such. In 2E the Druid really was just specialty priest example. Other religion in various published setting had deities with similiar restriction in exchange for greater sphere selection and special abilities.So really in 2E it depends on the deity you worship. Worship a god of war and sure Plate is the norm but the god of fertility and peace not so much.
I see the lack of Heavy armor with the option to get it as feat is more like the 2E Cleric. Now the 1st Edition Cleric is exactly as you describe.
Personally I think Paladins are the soldiers that up in your face melee tanks. Just my opinion though. I don't nessarily disagree either with the position that they should get Heavy Armor, that's just the 3E spin on D&D. I don't expect it to be the same in Pathfinder. They have thier own spin on things. Neither argument is wrong it's just different.
All clerics could wear plate in 2nd edition. Not all specialty priests could. They were two different classes in second edition. I don't recall any gods (except druid ones) that did not have both clerics and specialty priests but there may have been some.
Well to be fair in Second Edition not all clerics were able to where heavy armor. In 2E you didn't really have any restrictions on who could or could but a clerics faith could.
Not quite. 2nd edition had Clerics (sort of the universalist wizard) and Priests of Specific Mythoi(the specialists of the Clerics).
The Clerics weren't restricted, but Specific Priests were.As far as I can tell, the concept of Priest was dropped for 3rd.
I want to also say, it is not that I can read the tea-leaves and know for certain that the "white mage" idea is the destiny of future versions of the PF cleric. It might just as easily be that the fighter/cleric (in official play let's say) becomes so popular because of the armor issue that eventually they decide to put it back in, in a future edition. Or maybe it will always be medium or lower. I just personally feel from some of the statements made by current staff (that could change overtime) evokes an image of the "white mage" idea for me.
If you are right, I hope either the current staff has some turnover or another company sees the dropped banner of 3.5 and decides to go and make their own version of it with clerics. Because I could live without "white mages". I actually would have no issue with spell level dropped to 7th level max, that to me would be more desireable then "white mages".
I hate the White Mage Cleric, too, but Thurgon, come on man, you want people to lose their jobs over this?
Turnover does not always include job loss. Turnover can come from the people leaving for other jobs either in the company or another. But I would prefer someone with a different mindset having the final say on what goes in pathfinder if that is the direction they are heading.
But seriously I would not buy pathfinder with "white mages" even if everything else was the same as what we have. That alone means I would like to see someone else producing the product. That's how it works. I tell my friend don't buy pathfinder, if he listens then by default I am threatening the jobs of someone at Paizo, maybe in a small unimportant way but the jist is avoiding a companies product is putting someone's job in the very smallest, almost unmeasureable jepordy. If lots of people do that jobs can be lost because people were unhappy with the rules to a game.
I find it amazing that this is still raging as a "deal breaker" for so many. It is one small change compared to all the other changes that have been made. (And I am of the opinion that all of these changes are for the most part good and add to the game without gutting its essence.)
You have several options.
1. Rule Zero. Change it in your game.
2. If you are forced to play in core only. Then take the heavy armor feat at level 5. This will allow you to use the armor and not cost you anything other than a feat slot you did not have before.
3. Take the heavy armor feat at level 1 or 3. If you can afford the armor at very low levels get the feat early and go to town. Yes you will be one feat behind your power curve for a few levels before the extra three feats Pathfinder allows come into play.
4. Stick with medium armor and enjoy the extra point of AC compared to past editions.
Remember it is all our game and it is intended to be fun for all. In your own world make it your own. If you are in organized play, this change will only slow down your ubber build by a few levels before the "extra" feats come into play.
Since I (and, interestingly enough, most of the other most prolific posters in this thread) have long ago said my peace on this matter, and since I don't really get the point of going round and round eternally on this particular issue, I figured I'd try a semi-helpful partial derailment on this topic.
For those that like the fully armored but maybe not a full caster cleric idea, have you ever seen the Evangelist that Green Ronin put in the Advanced Player's Guide?
The class gets a d6 but a medium BAB, which in Pathfinder conversion would take the class up to a d8. They get simple weapons and full armor proficiency, as well as 6 skill points a level, but they have the bard spellcasting progression (a "3/4" caster, as it were).
More snarky posts should be avoided, it doesn't help the topic and it doesn't end the debate.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."
No, but it does point out the internal inconsistencies in a lot of the previous posts.
|
What are some other things that we can do to work this out? On both sides. I've suggested some feats, character traits, and even a spell like Mage Armor. That was on the other thread that got closed right afterwards. How about alternate class features? Even if you are a fan of the idea, which is fine of Clerics not being melee characters, it is a concept that some people like, and why rob them of it? So why not come up with some alternatives? This doesn't have to be about the Cleric only, either, though I think it is the most in need of it.
What are some other things that we can do to work this out?
It would seem simple: take the feat. If that's too grueling for some reason, houserule it in as a bonus feat.
For a wealth of other trade-off ideas, there's always the non-generic cleric by Grindor and Dragonmann and myself, from these very boards.
What are some other things that we can do to work this out?It would seem simple: take the feat. If that's too grueling for some reason, houserule it in as a bonus feat.
I'd say that pretty much covers it.
What are some other things that we can do to work this out? On both sides. I've suggested some feats, character traits, and even a spell like Mage Armor. That was on the other thread that got closed right afterwards. How about alternate class features? Even if you are a fan of the idea, which is fine of Clerics not being melee characters, it is a concept that some people like, and why rob them of it? So why not come up with some alternatives? This doesn't have to be about the Cleric only, either, though I think it is the most in need of it.
For starters, I don't believe that lacking heavy armor proficiency does not exclude a cleric or any other class from being a melee character.
But, while solutions to it are fine, I don't think it as important for a groups game to be approved by everyone on the messageboard. All one has to do is make it fit for your own game/group and that is a great deal easier. Sharing the variant rules you made is one thing, but trying to get all other to use those rules is another.
Who are these alternative rules supposed be for? Those who are fine with the current armor system will just ignore them, those who prefer the previous armor proficiencies will also probably ignore them as well and just give Cleric's the proficiency automatically. I'm just not seeing a lot of people actually using a single house rule created as a compromise.
Actually the goal was to maybe divert a bit away from this side and that side, and maybe get people to start thinking a bit more together.
Strangely enough, that's why I mentioned the Evangelist as well . . . ;)
|
|
Who are these alternative rules supposed be for? Those who are fine with the current armor system will just ignore them, those who prefer the previous armor proficiencies will also probably ignore them as well and just give Cleric's the proficiency automatically. I'm just not seeing a lot of people actually using a single house rule created as a compromise.
Everyone. It doesn't have to be Cleric or armor related, though I imagine that will be a big one here. Rather than focus on this that is making a lot of people mad, why not try to come up with some solid ideas for something else, and at least throw it off each others brains.
This also might mean you have an idea, if you GM, and a player doesn't like something that you do, or the like.
What are some other things that we can do to work this out? On both sides. I've suggested some feats, character traits, and even a spell like Mage Armor. That was on the other thread that got closed right afterwards. How about alternate class features? Even if you are a fan of the idea, which is fine of Clerics not being melee characters, it is a concept that some people like, and why rob them of it? So why not come up with some alternatives? This doesn't have to be about the Cleric only, either, though I think it is the most in need of it.
Truly Beckett I don't see a middle ground on this topic. The power that be said it is what it is, not matter the complaints, so really the other side need offer nothing. We have no barginning power so can't offer anything either. We have been told to drop it, eventually I will simply do so with a bitter taste about it all. If you would like to explore other topics well starting another thread is likely the wisest course of action. The cleric is not a class to play level 1 to 20 in pathfinder that too is clear, 3 levels of fighter/paladin would be my suggestion to you. Take practiced caster and you can even overcome the silly DC rules change as well. Plus taking fighter gives you back some of the cleric feat tax.
Truly Beckett I don't see a middle ground on this topic. The power that be said it is what it is, not matter the complaints, so really the other side need offer nothing. We have no barginning power so can't offer anything either. We have been told to drop it, eventually I will simply do so with a bitter taste about it all. If you would like to explore other topics well starting another thread is likely the wisest course of action. The cleric is not a class to play level 1 to 20 in pathfinder that too is clear, 3 levels of fighter/paladin would be my suggestion to you. Take practiced caster and you can even overcome the silly DC rules change as well. Plus taking fighter gives you back some of the cleric feat tax.
The sad thing is you are serious about this.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
PRPG is D&D, essentially 3.75 edition (or what 4th edition should have been.) It is boggling to me to see PRPG compared to Conan and other D20 products. For all most all reasonable customers, PRPG is the replacement for their D&D games to continue the D&D tradition. I find it astonishing to think that Paizo developed this game as a "alternate to D&D" as opposed to a "replacement for WotC D&D."
Clerics need only take one feat to get heavy armor proficiency. I'm failing to see what other feat is required.
The second is "Turn Undead" feat to qualify for "Ability to Turn Undead" PrC's.
PRPG getting more feats (ever odd rather than every 3) covers one extra feat. For backward compatibility, you would need two feats (Heavy Armour Proficiency and Turn Undead) to make the PRPG Cleric more like the 3.5 Cleric.
PRPG getting more feats (ever odd rather than every 3) covers one extra feat. For backward compatibility, you would need two feats (Heavy Armour Proficiency and Turn Undead) to make the PRPG Cleric more like the 3.5 Cleric.
1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19 = 10
1,3,6,9,12,15,18 = 7So pathfinder gives 3 extra feats. You get back your Turn Undead (and still have more ability with it) your heavy armor (however the new medium armors are just about as good as the old heavies) and still have a feat left over.
That is of course in addition to four domain abilities total as opposed to 2 in 3.5.
PRPG getting more feats (ever odd rather than every 3) covers one extra feat. For backward compatibility, you would need two feats (Heavy Armour Proficiency and Turn Undead) to make the PRPG Cleric more like the 3.5 Cleric.
1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19 = 10
1,3,6,9,12,15,18 = 7So pathfinder gives 3 extra feats.
Unless talking about PFS, in which you only get one extra feat. (Limited to 12th level character. I don't know if that was James Risners' thoughts, but maybe if a drew out a list like you did it would be more clear what was meant?
That is of course in addition to four domain abilities total as opposed to 2 in 3.5.
If the four domain abilities were worth more than the two in 3.5 that might matter. Unless quantity is more important than quality?
|
|
What are some other things that we can do to work this out? On both sides. I've suggested some feats, character traits, and even a spell like Mage Armor. That was on the other thread that got closed right afterwards. How about alternate class features? Even if you are a fan of the idea, which is fine of Clerics not being melee characters, it is a concept that some people like, and why rob them of it? So why not come up with some alternatives? This doesn't have to be about the Cleric only, either, though I think it is the most in need of it.Truly Beckett I don't see a middle ground on this topic. The power that be said it is what it is, not matter the complaints, so really the other side need offer nothing. We have no barginning power so can't offer anything either. We have been told to drop it, eventually I will simply do so with a bitter taste about it all. If you would like to explore other topics well starting another thread is likely the wisest course of action. The cleric is not a class to play level 1 to 20 in pathfinder that too is clear, 3 levels of fighter/paladin would be my suggestion to you. Take practiced caster and you can even overcome the silly DC rules change as well. Plus taking fighter gives you back some of the cleric feat tax.
I'm less concerned with bargininng or middle ground than I am with different options or just plain options to be honest. That is something that Clerics really lacked after character creation anyway. At the same time, maybe you want to play a 2 weapon fighting ranger in full plate. Or a battle-sorcerer. Or a cleric that's more front line.
|
|
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.
PF DnD. An evolution of DnD is still DnD, just like humans are still tailess monkeys who learned who to do a bunch of stuff.
PF DnD. An evolution of DnD is still DnD, just like humans are still tailess monkeys who learned who to do a bunch of stuff.No. Tailless primates are called APES. I am an ape. Do not lump me in with those stinking monkeys.
A chimp, gorilla, and orangutan are in a room. What is the smartest primate?
On topic: I just did a page through of the first adventure path and didn't find a single NPC with cleric levels wearing anything heavier than a breastplate. In fact several depended on their magic vestments spell only (of course those tended to be monstrous clerics).
Okay...I'm moving this weekend, so I've been crazy busy since just before the PFRPG launch, thus I've had little chance to comment on topics like this. In addition, this thread seems to have meandered a bit...but oh well, here I go!
On Clerics without Heavy Armor Prof: I'm glad to see that there seems to be a lot of people happy with this change, especially considering that I like it as well! As an old fan of 2nd edition Specialty Priests (many of whom couldn't wear heavier armors, especially when you used something like Faiths and Avatars for FR), I like seeing Heavy Armor as an option (via feat) than as a standard feature of the class.
I've never really liked the idea of Clerics as tanks or as stand-in front-line warriors. This change, to me, helps to reinforce their Basic Role as a support/buff spellcaster and healer. They are a unique resource with a fantastic spell list, a decent BAB and HD already, having HA Feat as a standard feature just seemed to encourage the tank idea too much.
I think that Heavy Armor, as a class feature should be reserved for the classes that are meant most for it (i.e. Fighters and Paladins). Hopefully this change will make people look at clerics in a new and creative light. Don't forget though, for 1 feat you can still take HA Feat to have that Full Plate, and its still a feat that you wouldn't have in 3.5. A good move, in my opinion.
I've never really liked the idea of Clerics as tanks or as stand-in front-line warriors. This change, to me, helps to reinforce their Basic Role as a support/buff spellcaster and healer. They are a unique resource with a fantastic spell list, a decent BAB and HD already, having HA Feat as a standard feature just seemed to encourage the tank idea too much.A White Mage uses White Magic,[2] which emphasizes defensive spells such as replenishing party members' hit points with spells such as Cure, reviving the fallen with spells such as Raise or Life, and curing status conditions with spells such as Esuna.[21] Typically having a weak and limited repertoire of attack spells and an inability to use heavy weaponry or armor, their primary use is support for other members of a battle party. Usually their only offensive skill is the magic Holy, which deals heavy damage to a target, regardless of whether or not the target is undead. They often cast 'holy'-element spells, which are typically effective against undead or demonic enemies. Because of the limited use of the class in combat, the White Mage has occasionally been integrated with the Summoner class.
Just saying.
I might point out that WotC tried to create a "white mage" base class. It is the Healer and can be found in the Roleplaying part of the Miniatures Handbook. Needless to say, nobody played it. Part of the problem was poor design, a cleric still was better at healing then it was since it couldn't spontaneous convert spells. But part of it is that people dislike playing the healing monkey.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Unless talking about PFS1,3,5,7,9,11 = 6
1,3,6,9,12 = 5
Two points:
1) I plan on playing a lot of PFS, so only 1 extra Feat.
2) Having to burn one of my 1st or 3rd feats for Prerequisites I typically had before I can take the Prerequisites I need delays character concepts. In short, I could still enter a class needing Heavy Armour, Turn Undead and a feat like Iron Will or something at 5th but I wouldn't have available my 1st or 3rd feat to fill prerequisites of another PrC.
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.
Pathfinder is a continuation of D&D of 3.5.
Call it 3.75 or Pathfinder. The whole point is a lot of people didn't want to play 4:e. They want to play 3.5 or an updated version of 3.5.The market wanted it. Paizo provided it and WoTC looks really stupid.
As for Clerics Lost Heavy Armor Prof.
It's your game, so give your cleric a fullplate or spend a feat.
I agree with James Jacobs. Playing a 3.5 cleric the "choices in the core book were always relatively boring". "particularly at low level".
I have always said, clerics doesn't really need (that many) feats.
In 3.5 I'd would perhaps pick Combat casting or skill focus spellcraft and at higher levels, say 9 or higher, Spell Penetration. At level 12 perhaps Quicken Spell.
If I wanted to be a Melee cleric I would pick power attack at level 3 or 6.
Well to be fair in Second Edition not all clerics were able to where heavy armor. In 2E you didn't really have any restrictions on who could or could but a clerics faith could. There were some dieties that did restrict you in what armor you could where. For example the Druid was restrict to leathers and such. In 2E the Druid really was just specialty priest example. Other religion in various published setting had deities with similiar restriction in exchange for greater...
Voska, I am disturbed at you taking a position of reasonable and thoughtful argument. Quite disturbed! :D
Well to be fair in Second Edition not all clerics were able to where heavy armor. In 2E you didn't really have any restrictions on who could or could but a clerics faith could. There were some dieties that did restrict you in what armor you could where. For example the Druid was restrict to leathers and such. In 2E the Druid really was just specialty priest example. Other religion in various published setting had deities with similiar restriction in exchange for greater...Voska, I am disturbed at you taking a position of reasonable and thoughtful argument. Quite disturbed! :D
\
Yeah, and for the record, well put Voska.
I'm currently playing a 14th level cleric in an ongoing campaign. I actually decided to be more combat oriented and have been fighting with Full Plate, a morningstar (weapon of my deity) and a Tower Shield.
We're swithing over to the pathfinder rules and now it's time to either ante up on the heavy armor proficiency or trade down to medium armor. I'm not overly concerned though, as I've said before, a 2 point hit to AC really doesn't matter past what...4th level? There comes a point where things are just GOING to connect with you on the first swing and unless you have something like concealment or mirror image there's very little you can do about it. Besides, the heavy armor slows me down a bit anyways.
At higher levels, the reason you want AC is to stop iterative attacks.
The first swing is in all probability going to connect, and you need to be able to take the hit. It's the second, third, and fourth swings that you want your armor to be able to stop.
Actually, this all reminds me of an old mod for Shadows of Amn that retooled the armor system so that heavier armors gave you DR, but didn't improve your chances of avoiding a blow.
I'm with Thazar here.
One of the things we all loose sight of at times is that roleplaying "rules" are actually only GUIDELINES.
As a player I'd probably use the feat if I was that bothered about it.
(I've been known to have 3.5 mages using feats to get shield and armour profs...)
As a thematic change I quite like it.
I'm less concerned with bargininng or middle ground than I am with different options or just plain options to be honest. That is something that Clerics really lacked after character creation anyway. At the same time, maybe you want to play a 2 weapon fighting ranger in full plate. Or a battle-sorcerer. Or a cleric that's more front line.What are some other things that we can do to work this out? On both sides. I've suggested some feats, character traits, and even a spell like Mage Armor. That was on the other thread that got closed right afterwards. How about alternate class features? Even if you are a fan of the idea, which is fine of Clerics not being melee characters, it is a concept that some people like, and why rob them of it? So why not come up with some alternatives? This doesn't have to be about the Cleric only, either, though I think it is the most in need of it.Truly Beckett I don't see a middle ground on this topic. The power that be said it is what it is, not matter the complaints, so really the other side need offer nothing. We have no barginning power so can't offer anything either. We have been told to drop it, eventually I will simply do so with a bitter taste about it all. If you would like to explore other topics well starting another thread is likely the wisest course of action. The cleric is not a class to play level 1 to 20 in pathfinder that too is clear, 3 levels of fighter/paladin would be my suggestion to you. Take practiced caster and you can even overcome the silly DC rules change as well. Plus taking fighter gives you back some of the cleric feat tax.
And still do lack, well except now they have the option to buy back their powers, well some of them anyway. Yay that's a spiffy option indeed.
There is a house rules boards section, I would guess that is were to go with more options for any class.
And guys you can quote Voska all day, he was still factually wrong. All clerics in 2nd ed got plate, he's mixed clerics up with specialty priests.
I've never really liked the idea of Clerics as tanks or as stand-in front-line warriors. This change, to me, helps to reinforce their Basic Role as a support/buff spellcaster and healer. They are a unique resource with a fantastic spell list, a decent BAB and HD already, having HA Feat as a standard feature just seemed to encourage the tank idea too much.A White Mage uses White Magic,[2] which emphasizes defensive spells such as replenishing party members' hit points with spells such as Cure, reviving the fallen with spells such as Raise or Life, and curing status conditions with spells such as Esuna.[21] Typically having a weak and limited repertoire of attack spells and an inability to use heavy weaponry or armor, their primary use is support for other members of a battle party. Usually their only offensive skill is the magic Holy, which deals heavy damage to a target, regardless of whether or not the target is undead. They often cast 'holy'-element spells, which are typically effective against undead or demonic enemies. Because of the limited use of the class in combat, the White Mage has occasionally been integrated with the Summoner class.Just saying.
I might point out that WotC tried to create a "white mage" base class. It is the Healer and can be found in the Roleplaying part of the Miniatures Handbook. Needless to say, nobody played it. Part of the problem was poor design, a cleric still was better at healing then it was since it couldn't spontaneous convert spells. But part of it is that people dislike playing the healing monkey.
Some people like playing the healbot, but most do not. Try WoW or any MMO, groups aint looking for DPS classes, they look for healers and tanks. And frankly healers are the more rare usually.
PF DnD. An evolution of DnD is still DnD, just like humans are still tailess monkeys who learned who to do a bunch of stuff.No. Tailless primates are called APES. I am an ape. Do not lump me in with those stinking monkeys.A chimp, gorilla, and orangutan are in a room. What is the smartest primate?
** spoiler omitted **On topic: I just did a page through of the first adventure path and didn't find a single NPC with cleric levels wearing anything heavier than a breastplate. In fact several depended on their magic vestments spell only (of course those tended to be monstrous clerics).
First mod of the first Pathfinder AP, you will run across a cleric in plate who is level 1.
Yes said Cleric was a member of the hellknights that if you want to be able to get into you need heavy armour proficiency. there are also two more clerics neither of which wear heavy armour.
Looks like someone playing to go into a PRC to me who spent a feat. Nothing wrong with that at all.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Unless talking about PFS1,3,5,7,9,11 = 6
1,3,6,9,12 = 5Two points:
1) I plan on playing a lot of PFS, so only 1 extra Feat.
2) Having to burn one of my 1st or 3rd feats for Prerequisites I typically had before I can take the Prerequisites I need delays character concepts. In short, I could still enter a class needing Heavy Armour, Turn Undead and a feat like Iron Will or something at 5th but I wouldn't have available my 1st or 3rd feat to fill prerequisites of another PrC.
Season 0 is over. Was there this much lamenting when Living X changed to 4.x?
How many PFS allowed prestige classes require heavy armour?
I see delaying entering a prestige class as a feature, not a bug.