Yeah hellknight does scream full plate. Guess they have few wizards then :)
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.
If you want to view it that way, I can't stop you. Though in that case then those that point out that since 1ed, clerics have had heavy armor have a point. A D&D cleric (not a general fantasy cleric) has had heavy armor as part of its design since the beginning. If on the other hand, PF is not D&D, but instead its own game system (derived from D&D), then the only expectations for cleric is what they put on for their game. If they see clerics as not be heavily armored, then it doesn't matter what happened with clerics in D&D, because their game isn't D&D. And for myself, the feel of PF is slightly off of your typical D&D idea. What with all the tenticles and aliens and such, it has a slightly stronger lovecraftian feel to it than even games with mindflayers and such.
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.
Who? Someone in Burt Offerings was a cleric and wore full plate? Who was that, could you be a bit more specific? I certainly could have missed them, as I said I just paged through.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
Why the reference to Season 0 and Living X?
Outside of PFS, there are two sessions with characters between 10th and 13th that will be soon converting to PFS. One I play a Cleric with 3 Prestige Classes, the other I play a Druid. I'm finding it difficult to rebuild the Cleric (not enough feats) in PRPG due to needing two more feats than I needed in the 3.5 game. The Druid I'm toast, as it was Druid/Master of Many Forms and not yet got a handle on how that translates.
You can't consider level 20 in any games, as I've played in what? 15 games using 3.5 D&D? Only one started at 15th level (all others started between 5th and 10th) and not one game started at 20th level. So considering anything built around 20th level stats is extremely rare.
As for you seeing delaying a PrC a feature, thank you, but no thanks. I'll decline your advise as will a large number of others.
Pathfinder is a continuation of D&D of 3.5. Call it 3.75 or Pathfinder.If you want to view it that way, I can't stop you.
I think you are the only person thinking of it as something other than a continuation.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I just had an interesting thought.
Does Channel Positive Energy "count" as Turn Undead for Prestige Classes (and anything else) that requires Turn Undead as a prerequisite? The actual ability to make Undead run away isn't required/needed or particularly wanted by me.
If it does, and I don't need to take the feat "Turn Undead" to qualify, then that solves all my complaints.
I don't mind paying the "Cleric Feat Tax" in the form of Feat: Heavy Armour Proficiency with the roughly 1 extra feat you gain from being a PRPG character vs a 3.5 character. It's the two feats to get "back in line" with 3.5 Cleric that has me somewhat disappointed.
Jason, a word on this? Anyone else? Did I miss this in the core book somewhere?
I would say it does. As it still does what turn undead did, destroys undead. The feat is just if you wish to make them run, and then it does not hurt them just drives them off
So unless the PRC needs to make them run channel does just what it should do, Makes undead dust
|
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.Who? Someone in Burt Offerings was a cleric and wore full plate? Who was that, could you be a bit more specific? I certainly could have missed them, as I said I just paged through.
Was talking about the Council of thieves adventure path
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Jason,
You stated you were planning to play a Pathfinder Society character. So I ask again, what prestige class allowed under the PFS rules that require heavy armour? In other words, it's a non-issue for your PFS character.
As to your previous characters being rebuilt, these are for home games, yes? problem solved. It's a home game.
I misunderstood your initial post that you were trying to rebuild a PFS character and heavy armour was an issue. For that misunderstanding, I do apologize
And yes, when the designers say they're trying to make core classes more tempting to run to level 20, making it harder to get into 3(!) prestige classes is a feature, not a bug.
And no, this isn't 3.75 anymore than Stargate, Spycraft, Conan or true20 are. This is Pathfinder. Is it compatible with 3.5? Yes.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I would say it does. As it still does what turn undead did, destroys undead.
Without a line in effect saying "Channel Positive/Negative class abilities counts as Turn Undead/Rebuke Undead class abilities for the purpose of prerequisites" in the Cleric and/or Channel P/N abilities, then they are distinctly different abilities.
This line does not exist in either Cleric writeup nor the Channel Positive in PRPG, so without it you can not qualify for Master of Radiance without taking the Turn Undead feat (even then you don't qualify since it says "Turn Undead class ability" which the feat isn't.)
In other words, it's a non-issue for your PFS character.
As to your previous characters being rebuilt, these are for home games, yes? problem solved. It's a home game.
And no, this isn't 3.75 anymore than Stargate, Spycraft, Conan or true20 are. This is Pathfinder. Is it compatible with 3.5? Yes.
With respect, your opinions in this matter are not the majority opinion.
It is an issue for PFS, as I want my PFS Cleric with Plate.
It is an issue in he Home Game because I want roughly the same character, and I'm fine with losing some of the "20th level Power" by not taking Cleric to 20th level.
It is D&D, not "Pathfinder". They developed this as D&D 3.75, and the vast majority of customers that bought this expected a new version of D&D, so comparing it to True20, Conan, etc has no value in this discussion. It isn't an alternate gaming system, it is D&D to the overwhelming majority of Paizo's customers.
Without a line in effect saying "Channel Positive/Negative class abilities counts as Turn Undead/Rebuke Undead class abilities for the purpose of prerequisites" in the Cleric and/or Channel P/N abilities, then they are distinctly different abilities.
This line does not exist in either Cleric writeup nor the Channel Positive in PRPG, so without it you can not qualify for Master of Radiance without taking the Turn Undead feat (even then you don't qualify since it says "Turn Undead class ability" which the feat isn't.)
Well it it is a PFS game then it matters not as you are limited to classes made for Pathfinder.
And this is for you talking about feats but it will work for your needs
Page 14 of the conversion document
"If the feat relies on the turn undead mechanics, it now relies on the channel energy mechanics. Those that specifically deal with causing undead to f lee or fall under the character’s command should have Turn
Undead or Command Undead added as a prerequisite"
So as long as it does not have to be fleeing of commanding your golden. So If the PRC needs you to command large amount of undead or is all about making them run like little girls ya will need the feats listed above. If however it just needed the Turn ability ya are good
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
In other words, it's a non-issue for your PFS character.
As to your previous characters being rebuilt, these are for home games, yes? problem solved. It's a home game.
And no, this isn't 3.75 anymore than Stargate, Spycraft, Conan or true20 are. This is Pathfinder. Is it compatible with 3.5? Yes.
With respect, your opinions in this matter are not the majority opinion.
It is an issue for PFS, as I want my PFS Cleric with Plate.
It is an issue in he Home Game because I want roughly the same character, and I'm fine with losing some of the "20th level Power" by not taking Cleric to 20th level.
It is D&D, not "Pathfinder". They developed this as D&D 3.75, and the vast majority of customers that bought this expected a new version of D&D, so comparing it to True20, Conan, etc has no value in this discussion. It isn't an alternate gaming system, it is D&D to the overwhelming majority of Paizo's customers.
Then for PFS you spend a feat, and you have heavy armour. Problem solved. in 3.x if I wanted my cleric proficient in his deity's chosen weapon, I spent a feat. I didn't lament that my 2e speciality priest was proficient in it.
If my Living Greyhawk psion wanted a power from Living Arcanis, I was out of luck there. I don't even get to spend a feat for it.
Funny, my books say Pathfinder. Pathfinder was developed to keep the rules set that Paizo wanted to use to tell their stories. In the process of putting this beast of a book together, Paizo decided to revise some sections.
So, respectfully, you are blowing this all out of proportion.
I think folks are missing the point of "Pathfinder is supposed to be D&D issue" Ya see Pathfinder is not D&D. It carries on the spirit and traditions of D&D but is no longer that game.
Games change as will this one. It carries with it that feel, vibe and tradition that is D&D but it's not the same game. Can't be. But it is it's child
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think folks are missing the point of "Pathfinder is supposed to be D&D issue" Ya see Pathfinder is not D&D. It carries on the spirit and traditions of D&D but is no longer that game.
Games change as will this one. It carries with it that feel, vibe and tradition that is D&D but it's not the same game. Can't be. But it is it's child
+1
I think folks are missing the point of "Pathfinder is supposed to be D&D issue" Ya see Pathfinder is not D&D. It carries on the spirit and traditions of D&D but is no longer that game.
Games change as will this one. It carries with it that feel, vibe and tradition that is D&D but it's not the same game. Can't be. But it is it's child
+1
+1
I think folks are missing the point of "Pathfinder is supposed to be D&D issue" Ya see Pathfinder is not D&D.
So then, you are saying Pathfinder is the second coming of 4th Edition, meant to destroy the player base further?
I say this because a substantial portion of Pathfinder RPG consumers (perhaps former PRPG consumers) rejected 4th Edition. Of those, quite a few rejected it, almost exclusively, for slaughtering sacred cows these people believed in.
How the hell did anyone think the same thing wouldn't happen with Pathfinder?
So all of you "enlightened folk," need to accept the fact that over the next year or so, those that have been "betrayed" by Pathfinder will start all of these "discussions" up again.
Probably because y'all missed the point of rejecting 4th Edition. (For some at least.)
Well I don't know if it's that big of a deal...
|
I think folks are missing the point of "Pathfinder is supposed to be D&D issue" Ya see Pathfinder is not D&D. It carries on the spirit and traditions of D&D but is no longer that game.
Games change as will this one. It carries with it that feel, vibe and tradition that is D&D but it's not the same game. Can't be. But it is it's child
DnD Jr.
|
I think folks are missing the point of "Pathfinder is supposed to be D&D issue" Ya see Pathfinder is not D&D.
True, if it was WotC would sue Paizo...
If you like the 3.5e cleric than continue to play 3.5e by all means. pfRPG has had the advantage of hindsight, with the designers taking a more holist view of classes and game balance. In my opinion it has made a stronger, fairer game (on PC's and DM's) than 3.5e was. Every edition of D&D has changed something, 4e an extreme example. The cleric of 3.5e isn't the cleric of 1e for sure. Any cleric willing to lose slashing/piercing weapon use or the almost sure thing of casting in melee?
I am sure that this along with many other small changes were not done lightly, and were done in the name of making a "darn fine game". If some feel that pfRPG hasn't included "their rule" and are feeling agrieved you can always sell of your pfRPG book sit down with a pen and some paper and write you own ruleset (or just play 1e as arguably Gygax's cleric is the only true cleric in D&D - by definition).
S.
Could you stop suggesting I go play another game because I don't like one or two minor things about Pathfinder? It's insulting.
Could you stop suggesting I go play another game because I don't like one or two minor things about Pathfinder? It's insulting.
I think that suggestion is mainly aimed at people really "agrieved" at losing their particular rule or two, not people who really think it's a minor issue.
But as far as PF being D&D... it can't be. That's a trademark and someone else has it. But I would say that it's more like D&D than the current game under that trademark.
|
|
Could you stop suggesting I go play another game because I don't like one or two minor things about Pathfinder? It's insulting.
It wasn't targeting those who find it "annoying", being annoyed is part of life. But there would seem to be those who have taken "the sky is falling" tack and that pfRPG is broken due to the "insulting" removal of heavy armour from clerics - making them therefore almost unplayable.
pfRPG clerics are what they are, and yes perhaps we need to slightly rethink what a cleric does or means. But this is the same tired argument that has raged against 4e D&D (in the 4e part of the forum). I was just (re)pointing out that pfRPG was designed by some people who weren't "you" (in the generic sense, not you in particular) and obviously "you" would do things differently. But dredging up a comparison with previous editions of D&D seems not a very sound argument for the contiuation of something. pfRPG builds on D&D 3.5e but is not D&D 3.5e or 3.75e - as stated ad nauseum.
Sorry if it seemed I was implying you should or should not play game A or game B - that is your choice completely.
S.
|
|
Could you stop suggesting I go play another game because I don't like one or two minor things about Pathfinder? It's insulting.I think that suggestion is mainly aimed at people really "agrieved" at losing their particular rule or two, not people who really think it's a minor issue.
But as far as PF being D&D... it can't be. That's a trademark and someone else has it. But I would say that it's more like D&D than the current game under that trademark.
Er, yeh what Bill said. :)
DnD ++I think folks are missing the point of "Pathfinder is supposed to be D&D issue" Ya see Pathfinder is not D&D. It carries on the spirit and traditions of D&D but is no longer that game.
Games change as will this one. It carries with it that feel, vibe and tradition that is D&D but it's not the same game. Can't be. But it is it's child
Fixed
FixedDnD ++I think folks are missing the point of "Pathfinder is supposed to be D&D issue" Ya see Pathfinder is not D&D. It carries on the spirit and traditions of D&D but is no longer that game.
Games change as will this one. It carries with it that feel, vibe and tradition that is D&D but it's not the same game. Can't be. But it is it's child
That would be DnD +P+
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...
No that's wrong. Players Option obliterated that. We can talk 2nd ed if you want.
However, it doesn't make a whit of sense for half of the clerics to be clunking around in plate mail.
However, it doesn't make a whit of sense for half of the clerics to be clunking around in plate mail.
Why not?
However, it doesn't make a whit of sense for half of the clerics to be clunking around in plate mail.Why not?
But why? it does not fit most gods or most gods clergy? so just why should they all have it when it fits but a hand full?
But why? it does not fit most gods or most gods clergy? so just why should they all have it when it fits but a hand full?However, it doesn't make a whit of sense for half of the clerics to be clunking around in plate mail.Why not?
Have you not been reading?
Clerics are the soldiers with military training of the faiths. And Pathfinder has yet to remove that from their role. (I do expect that to change sometime soon...)
Now, if nathan blackmer had said "Clerics fit my views/opinions better in Pathfinder," or "as long as Clerics have 9 levels of spells, I don't think they should automatically get heavy armor proficiency," those would be completely acceptable statements.
To claim it "doesn't makes sense," requires a bit of backing up.
Have you not been reading?Clerics are the soldiers with military training of the faiths. And Pathfinder has yet to remove that from their role. (I do expect that to change sometime soon...)
Oh I agree they are the military arm but what does that have to do with heavy armor? Most militant orders including the ones that inspired clerics used chain mail. Not plate, that was for the heavy armed knights on horses not foot soldiers and not most military orders.
So I am failing to see what heavy armor has to do with them being the militant arm of the faith
Oh I agree they are the military arm but what does that have to do with heavy armor? Most militant orders including the ones that inspired clerics used chain mail. Not plate, that was for the heavy armed knights on horses not foot soldiers and not most military orders.
What does the real world history have to do with the equipment choices of imaginary people in a fantasy world with magic?
I am failing to see how that has anything to do with the fact that the military arm doesn't make sense to use the best protection possible?
well the cost for one, the weight and the time it takes to done, care for and so one. Its not just your advdntering guys that wear it.
Chan mail costs you{the church 150gp} per man, you will also need to have some on hand for training
Full plate costs you 1500gp per man.
Now why train in mass for something your never , ever gonna buy for your army. Use that time to learn spells and other skills and train in your gods weapons .
To me it fits. It may not you but soldiers do not wear plate. Adventures where plate, knights wear plate. The military does not
And most clerics of most gods would not wear it as it does not fit. They are not full on fighting men they are well trained but use spells and powers of the gods. Sure the plate cleric fits some gods but not most
well the cost for one, the weight and the time it takes to done, care for and so one. Its not just your advdntering guys that wear it.
Chan mail costs you{the church 150gp} per man, you will also need to have some on hand for training
Full plate costs you 1500gp per man.
Now why train in mass for something your never , ever gonna buy for your army. Use that time to learn spells and other skills and train in your gods weapons .
To me it fits. It may not you but soldiers do not wear plate. Adventures where plate, knights wear plate. The military does not
And most clerics of most gods would not wear it as it does not fit. They are not full on fighting mean they are well trained but use spells and powers of the gods. Sure the plate cleric fits some gods but not most
That would almost fit, if it wasn't for the wealth and power churches hold. Just look at the costs for spellcasting.
"And most clerics of most gods would not wear it as it does not fit."
And where do you get that? Gods do not have "favorite armor," at least not yet.
Say you like it. Say you love it. Claiming it "makes sense," has absolutely no backing - until the clerical role is changed.
sure it does Not all gods give the kick in the door look badass in plate vibe.
To me the classic image of a cleric has always been chain mail, a shield and a mace. Not sure when everyone got the ideal of every single cleric wore plate mail from. It just does not fit them. Some it does but most cleric's nope it does not fit.
The role has not changed but a +6 AC is fine for that role. In fact it is 2 points less then they could have had before. The role is not effected at all by this. Not a single bit.
Your In line with most guards and soldiers in armor, and have spells. So no losing plate mail has zero effect on that role. If you think so well that is your opinion.
Not all gods give the kick in the door look badass in plate vibe.
And no farm gives it's farmers the "kick in the door look badass in plate vibe."
An yet the poor farm boy can (somewhat miraculously) wear Full Plate no problem at 1st level when he fills the archetypical "local boy turned hero" role and takes a Fighter level.
Oh damn. I think I just opened the door for removing heavy armor proficiency from fighters since it isn't part of every concept.
Sorry about that.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Page 14 of the conversion document
"If the feat relies on the turn undead mechanics, it now relies on the channel energy mechanics."
Awesome, that is a great find. That helps me in several ways. Lessens the pressure of the changes (if I then take Heavy Armour Proficiency.)
But as far as PF being D&D... it can't be. That's a trademark and someone else has it. But I would say that it's more like D&D than the current game under that trademark.
Legally, correct. But not being "D&D" in a legal sense, doesn't prevent you from being "D&D" in all other ways.
To claim it "doesn't makes sense," requires a bit of backing up.
/agree
It doesn't make sense to me to imagine a world where all Clerics of all faiths didn't desire/want/beg for Plate.It makes about as much sense as a Cleric that wears no armour whatsoever.
Most militant orders including the ones that inspired clerics used chain mail. Not plate, that was for the heavy armed knights on horses not foot soldiers and not most military orders.
As I said before, D&D Clerics were modeled after Knights Templar. Plate wearing holy warriors. The only place I've ever seen Chain Mail Clerics is in video games, even then not all Video Games (Everquest have Clerics with Plate shared only with Warriors/Paladins and later SK's)
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.
I think adding heavy armor proficiency to the war domain would be a good way to go about it.
As an aside, you could even assign "Turn Undead" to one of the cleric domains as a free bonus feat.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think adding heavy armor proficiency to the war domain would be a good way to go about it.
As an aside, you could even assign "Turn Undead" to one of the cleric domains as a free bonus feat.
Wow, both of those are pretty awesome concepts. Pretty much every Plate wearing "battle" Cleric I build already has War Domain. It makes sense that War Domain "equips" you for "war."
heh I was expecting that. You ignore the part about it not hurting them one bit, about them being able to still be militant and lash out at fighter , why not take it from paladins.
I tell ya want as paladins and fighter are trained and full melee classes they keep armor but clerics as full casters do not get any sound fair? :)
2 point of AC lose does not in any way change to role. It sums up to "I want full plate, channel, full caster, 4 domain powers and extra spells. And don't you dare touch anything that makes my uber class one bit less uber " Maybe this is not how you guys see it but that is the way it comes off. It is 2 points of AC, just 2. You gained far more then you lost
Anyhow sleep calls I am done for tonight
heh I was expecting that. You ignore the part about it not hurting them one bit,
You were expecting that because you changed the discussion.
We weren't talking about mechanics.
We were talking about the "sense" of Clerics wearing heavy armor.
As I said before, D&D Clerics were modeled after Knights Templar. Plate wearing holy warriors. The only place I've ever seen Chain Mail Clerics is in video games, even then not all Video Games (Everquest have Clerics with Plate shared only with Warriors/Paladins and later SK's)
Your welcome for the find, glad I could help but you are wrong here. They wore mail. In fact almost everyone but heavy Calvary did. Do not let the name knight fool you. They wore mail almost to the man. The orders of crusading knights all wore mail. Man at arms wore mail. Only the nobles who could afford Plate, and a charger wore Plate.
And almost all the clear cleric are from 2e was chain mail. All the plate mail images used swords a weapon clerics could not use.
heh I was expecting that. You ignore the part about it not hurting them one bit, about them being able to still be militant and lash out at fighter , why not take it from paladins.
I tell ya want as paladins and fighter are trained and full melee classes they keep armor but clerics as full casters do not get any sound fair? :)
2 point of AC lose does not in any way change to role. It sums up to "I want full plate, channel, full caster, 4 domain powers and extra spells. And don't you dare touch anything that makes my uber class one bit less uber " Maybe this is not how you guys see it but that is the way it comes off. It is 2 points of AC, just 2. You gained far more then you lost
Anyhow sleep calls I am done for tonight
Well I for one don't want full spellcasting.
heh I was expecting that. You ignore the part about it not hurting them one bit,You were expecting that because you changed the discussion.
We weren't talking about mechanics.
We were talking about the "sense" of Clerics wearing heavy armor.
And I used that to, they are on pare with 90% of all army's and guards so it fits the military arm of a church. Plate will bankrupt one fast
Lest see 100 clerics x 1500gp... not counting running the temples, and paying upkeep, food, and so on. Not even the catholic church in history could afford that and they have a damned lot more money coming in then most of the religions in D&D
I wasn't changing arguments I just tend to jump about. Sorry about that
Lest see 100 clerics x 1500gp... not counting running the temples, and paying upkeep, food, and so on.
Except... If you look at the "population" tables (you might have to back to the 3.5 DMG, since I'm not certain it is in the Pathfinder book) the game is based on, even the largest city only has about a dozen, maybe two clerics per temple. (All the more reason to protect your "investment.")
And again, with the charges for spellcasting compared to the costs of spellcasting, churches have quite a bit of wealth.
Seven Days to the Grave (PF AP #7, or maybe 8) has a good sidebar on this.
Just to point out that there are other heavy armors besides full plate if money is an issue. Put on some splint, it is still heavy and much cheaper.
Well I for one don't want full spellcasting.
Perfect! Play a paladin then. You get half spellcasting and heavy armor, not to mention a host of other benefits.
Well I for one don't want full spellcasting.
Clerics have always had full spellcasting, the way I see it. 3e just normalized divine spellcasting to fit the same levels as arcane spellcasting.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It sums up to "I want full plate, channel, full caster, 4 domain powers and extra spells. And don't you dare touch anything that makes my uber class one bit less uber
Frankly, I want plate.
I'm less concerned with your other items. You can keep 4 domain powers (2 is fine) and extra spells (I'd not object as strongly to nicking some spells per day per slot off 3.5 cleric's totals.)
D&D Cleric is Full Plate with Domain slots and Domain Spell lists.
It isn't "x spells per day per level" and it isn't "x number of domain powers."
Knights Templar.They wore mail ... The orders of crusading knights all wore mail. Man at arms wore mail.
You don't have your history quite right.
In D&D:
Chain Mail (with no leather but with gauntlets) is Medium Armour.
Breastplate (with helmet, greaves and/or gauntlet) is Medium Armour.
Banded Mail (with Chain mail combined with Leather and Gauntles) is Heavy Armour.
In History:
They wore Banded Mail with Greaves, Gauntlets and Helmets.
So they either wore Heavy Banded Mail (D&D mechanics) and I'm sure the wealthier ones added a fitted Breastplate resulting in Plate Mail.
I appreciate the fact you would like to paint the picture that Clerics are Chain wearing, but it really hasn't typically been a D&D thing.
PHB 1E page 20 "The Cleric ... This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religion orders of knighthood of medieval times ... skilled combatant at arms ... As they are able to wear armour, clerics can employ all forms of magic armour and magic shields, too."
PHB 2E page 33 "The Cleric ... Teutonic Knights, Knights Template, Hospitalers ... sohei of Japan ... They can wear any type of armour ..."
PHB 3E Jozan used +1 Plate Mail started at level 4 { http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cc/20000626a }
Of the 29 D&D Cleric minis, 9 have Plate:
Cleric of Nerull
Cleric of St. Cuthbert
Cleric of Yondalla
Human Cleric of Bane
Lareth the Beautiful
Mina, Dark Cleric
Van Richten
Warpriest of Hextor
Warpriest of Moradin
3 look like plate, but I couldn't find one of my stat cards for them:
Cleric of Pelor
Deathpriest of Orcus
Tiefling Cleric of Asmodeus
6 are too low to afford it by level
If you split the 3 that may be plate into 1.5 each side, that means (9+1.5) / (29 - 6) that can afford plate and have it.
45.6% of D&D Cleric Minis ever printed have Plate (or some other Heavy Armour)
Im glad for the change. My last 2 characters were both Clerics. Both were usually the last man standing with AC that was damn hard to hit. I thought Clerics have been a tad overpowered for years.
I like how warriors and paladins can wear plate, and clerics cannot. I think its better balanced now. Now Paladins are truly the fighter-cleric hybrids they should be. IMHO of course, YMMV.
You don't have your history quite right.
In D&D:
Chain Mail (with no leather but with gauntlets) is Medium Armour.
Breastplate (with helmet, greaves and/or gauntlet) is Medium Armour.Banded Mail (with Chain mail combined with Leather and Gauntles) is Heavy Armour.
In History:
They wore Banded Mail with Greaves, Gauntlets and Helmets.So they either wore Heavy Banded Mail (D&D mechanics) and I'm sure the wealthier ones added a fitted Breastplate resulting in Plate Mail.
I appreciate the fact you would like to paint the picture that Clerics are Chain wearing, but it really hasn't typically been a D&D thing.
PHB 1E page 20 "The Cleric ... This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religion orders of knighthood of medieval times ... skilled combatant at arms ... As they are able to wear armour, clerics can employ all forms of magic armour and magic shields, too."
PHB 2E page 33 "The Cleric ... Teutonic Knights, Knights Template, Hospitalers ... sohei of Japan ... They can wear any type of armour ..."
PHB 3E Jozan used +1 Plate Mail started at level 4 { http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cc/20000626a }
Of the 29 D&D Cleric minis, 9 have Plate:
Actually, he has his history right. The crusading orders in the Holy Land primarily wore chainmail. Plate armor was developed about the time they were ejected from the Holy Land and didn't reach it's final form (which most people would recognize as "plate mail") until well after they were pushed out. There is in fact considerable doubt as to the historical existence of banded "mail" (the term mail actually refers to chain armor) in the Middle Ages.
Here's a nice discussion of (chain) mail and various other armor types as well as the reasons for the modern confusion in armor types and terminology:
http://www.arador.com/articles/chainmail.html
As for D&D, yes the cleric has been allowed to wear pretty much any type of armor. They were limited to blunt weapons unlike knights of the Holy Orders due to fairly obscure historical precedent. Bishop Odo, half brother of William the Conqueror, used a mace to avoid shedding blood (theoretically anyway...) which Christian clerics had been prohibited from doing by the Pope. The blunt weapons thing kind of ruins the image of the cleric as a Knight Templar etc.. The Paladin more or less moved into that role with the Greyhawk supplement to original D&D. They used edged weapons and had significant advantages in mounted combat due to their summoned warhorse. A knight indeed. The cleric at this point was a half and half type of character. They had significant magical power and good armor, as well as a reasonable, if limited, selection of weapons. Hence the "certain resemblence" comment. They have drifted more and more into the role of a priest, and less a knight, since then. That has continued through 2nd edition AD&D (with the late addition of specialty priests / priest kits) and now into Pathfinder. They have left the cleric with the ability to assume his older form through the use of feats as well as making him more adaptable to other roles. Personally, I find it a good idea. The plate wearing cleric has a place in the game as do other divine types.
As for D&D miniatures... I guess nine of them spent a feat on heavy armor proficiency :D Or, you have "house ruled" it.
Amazing how much discussion this one change has led to.
I am probaly alone on this. I would have preferred that they left the heavy plate and nerfed some of their magic. I think cleric magic does way too much damage these days. I would like them to look at the spirit of the spells in 1E and 2E AD&D and give them spells along those themes. Wizard spells should be damage based, not clerics with a few exceptions like Flamestrike. But Flamestrike in older Dnd did not do as much damage.
|
|
Wizard spells should be damage based, not clerics with a few exceptions like Flamestrike. But Flamestrike in older Dnd did not do as much damage.
It is all pretty relative. Monsters had fewer HP back in 1st and 2nd, generally, so a 3d6 fireball was still a big deal at say 10th level. Now monsters have more HP, so the spells all deal more damage. A 2nd Ed fighter couldn't deal 100 - 200 damage in a round regularly either.
To be honest, I think Clerics have gotten sleightly worse in that regard, and wizards to a point as well. People found out very early on in 3E that direct damage spells are not really a good choice comparred to options like Web, Save or Die/Sleep/etc. . . affects. Some many casters began shying away from those spells to be useful and have fun playing, which in turn changed the entire dynamic of many encounters. (Why shoot a lightning bolt and maybe deal a little damage to the three ogres when I can more easily charm them and get a bodyguard for the day, too).
The designers never really came up with a good fix to this, except to try to encourage more damage dealing spells. It is also a matter of taste and how different groups play