Inevitable Discussion: Clerics Lost Heavy Armor Prof.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 904 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The main reason seems to be balance rather than changing the role of the cleric as such. Actually, not all clerics are "warriors" in that sense - in my Eberron PbP we have a cleric who is much more about healing and buffing than smacking and hurting. It is slightly incongruous that he does wear plate mail actualy, since a lot of the time he can't hit the side of a barn. I think that a cleric can be a holy warrior, but it is not the be-all and end-all of what a cleric can be, and saying they are just a holy warrior is a somewhat narrow view. Not to deny that most people play them that way.

It's true that you can play you're character in many different ways. Third edition character generation is very versatile. But clerics are supposed to generally be warriors. If you reject that for you're character that's fine, but removing it from the baseline cleric means the cleric is less like it supposed to be. They were never supposed to be full casters. If WotC had never made that change we probably wouldn't have even considered taking away heavy armor from the cleric, because it would probably be balanced.


You know,
you were 'never supposed to' be able to move + cast in the same round, right?

...Just sayin'...

how does Medium Armor + Shield + Martial Weapons not = "generally a Warrior"?
What do Barbarians do, then? Knitting Rage?


That's also true. But if by the point Paizo decided to remove Heavy Armor they were that close to balancing the classes that that was sufficient, than they wouldn't have even needed to remove 8th and 9th level spells to balance them. They could have made a much more minor tweak to spellcasting. Maybe less spells per day or something. Probably not even that much. And in saying "generally a warrior" I was referring to the specific cleric in Aubrey's Ebberon Pbp not being a warrior. But the cleric has become less effective as a warrior, just not by very much.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Beckett wrote:
Also seems to me that they have gone a long way to make the class not needed...

Is that seriously a complaint??

NO single class should ever, EVER be needed. In a system with more than ten classes it is horrible game design to have one class that a group can't function without, and I am sick and tired of trying to talk unwilling players into "playing the cleric".

If this is true and the cleric really ISN'T needed I will be overjoyed, but I doubt it. "Channeling energy" as Pathfinder has rewritten it is just way too powerful.


Man..

Sometimes I feel really impatient with kiss-ass posts...

.... But Jason point blank asked to hold off until he got back.

I get the fact the "cat is out of the bag" but that doesn't justify: "We'll just do it anyway and they can lock the thread if they want to.."

Because that's a no-win scenario for him. If he locks the thread it just looks bad, like he's got something to hide or he's censoring something.

Honestly, I'm all for muzzling fanbois but starting this thread was pretty disrespectful.

If y'all want to thank Jason to the degree that I saw in all those "THANK YOU FOR SAVING MY GAME PAIZO!" threads, you'll honor his wishes and let him be an active participant in this discussion rather than trying to catch up on Monday.


Wow, so many in favour. That will give me that much more of a kick to be contrary! :P

Seriously, all in all I'm not in favour of this one.

I understand that clerics needed hit with the nerf-hammer. But this seems like a crit, which was not needed.

The concerns I have with this:

  • This hurts 3e compatibility a lot: Most clerics I have seen wore full plate, and that includes all the clerics that I play (with) in PF Beta games right now. They'll have to give up a feat or change their armour.

  • It adds dexterity into the mix of abilities the cleric needs. Low AC isn't really an option for a cleric, at least not those clerics that are on the front line, fighting and healing. I think clerics already had enough bases to cover.

  • I thought the beta did a great job of toning down the cleric: getting rid of the (Un-)Holy Trifecta (divine favour, haste effect, divine power - or Quadrofecta if you include Righteous might) did an admirable job of getting rid of the "clerics are better fighters than fighters" situation.

  • I understand that clerics with he good domain now get to add half their level to attacks and such? Or was that a hoax? Anyway, not doing that would have been a lot better as a fix.

    I guess I'll house-rule it back in, at least for running campaigns (I'll see about the rest)


  • Watcher wrote:

    Man..

    Sometimes I feel really impatient with kiss-ass posts...

    .... But Jason point blank asked to hold off until he got back.

    I get the fact the "cat is out of the bag" but that doesn't justify: "We'll just do it anyway and they can lock the thread if they want to.."

    Because that's a no-win scenario for him. If he locks the thread it just looks bad, like he's got something to hide or he's censoring something.

    Honestly, I'm all for muzzling fanbois but starting this thread was pretty disrespectful.

    If y'all want to thank Jason to the degree that I saw in all those "THANK YOU FOR SAVING MY GAME PAIZO!" threads, you'll honor his wishes and let him be an active participant in this discussion rather than trying to catch up on Monday.

    Oh come on. It's a big thing. People want to talk about it. They probably need to. It's not disrespectful. We're talking among ourselves, not to Paizo.

    When they're ready to talk, they can open a new thread with an official sounding name and lay the cards on the table, tell us exactly what they thought were the pros and cons to this and why the pros had it.

    By then, we might have worked out our thoughts among ourselves and can better reply to the announcement.

    If you fear this will lead to flamewars, think about it: People not being allowed to talk at all about something they feel strongly about, just sitting here - it will not lead to a flamewar about clerics, but to a dozen flamewars about anything.

    The Exchange

    I guess I don't really mind this change that much. I like playing clerics and they generally aim for full plate but I can't afford it most of the time at low level anyway. So I'll have plenty of time to get it back with a feat or with a dip in another class. And for those that really really don't like it, well, it's a rather simple and easy house rule.

    I'm kinda meh either way really, but I can agree with most of the reasons given by James Jacobs. Although the backwards compatability thing is a bit of a sticking point, it's sort of a non-issue as you end up with extra feats anyway.


    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Personally. I don't like this change. The only time I've seen this mythical CoDzilla is when someone is blatantly powergaming and as that is easy enough to curb it never got out of hand to be a problem and therefor doesn't need spell nerfing or feat nerfing to balance. At least not in my game. The fun part though: I can house rule it out. I rank that up there with being as absolutely unnecessary as the changes to Power Attack but 'meh', Jason never claimed to be making a 'perfect' version of 3.5 and I can comfort myself with the knowledge that about %75 of the changes have been good and make the game better which is more than I can say for another 'improvement' on D&D...

    Dark Archive

    Another person in the strongly dislike this change camp yes there were things that made Clerics more powerful running around in full plate wasn't one of them.

    Dark Archive

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

    Gut reaction: this is stupid. STUPID

    Giving it a few hours' time to think it over: Still dumb, still a bad idea, and still too much of a nerf. Unless you maybe throw heavy armor prof in with a bunch of domains like, for example, War. Can you tell me you don't see a Cleric of Gorum... well, OK, I could see almost every cleric of Gorum having a level of Fighter or two along with the Cleric for Heavy armor and all Martial weapons. What about Clerics of Iomedae... they'd likely have a level or two of Paladin. Uhh, Abadar? Yeah, his clerics should have heavy armor prof, so add it to any cleric with the Protection domain. Probably the Strength domain as well. Protection, War, and Strength domains granting Heavy armor prof would mean Iomedae, Torag, Shelyn, Cayden Cailean, Abadar, Irori, Nethys, Gorum, Urgathoa, Lamashtu, and Rovagug's clerics would have Heavy armor proficiency. Beyond that I can only really see Asmodeus and maybe Pharasma's clerics having it.

    I mean, yes, I can see it not being an automatic for Desnans or Gozrehites, but you really, seriously see clerics of Abadar not in full plate?


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Good change. This differentiates the full-caster Cleric from the half-caster Paladin a bit more.

    And, as many said, just spend one feat ( of which there are quite more than before ) and you are back to having the proficiency *and* there still is no spell failure.

    Dark Archive

    magnuskn wrote:

    Good change. This differentiates the full-caster Cleric from the half-caster Paladin a bit more.

    And, as many said, just spend one feat ( of which there are quite more than before ) and you are back to having the proficiency *and* there still is no spell failure.

    Yeah but does any other class have to use a feat to buy back an ability they had In 3.5?

    Dark Archive

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
    magnuskn wrote:

    Good change. This differentiates the full-caster Cleric from the half-caster Paladin a bit more.

    And, as many said, just spend one feat ( of which there are quite more than before ) and you are back to having the proficiency *and* there still is no spell failure.

    It ups the Cleric feat tax from 1 (Selective Channeling) to 2. Clerics needed to be hit with the nerf bat, and they have been. The "pretty lame at low levels" bat, however...


    KaeYoss wrote:
  • I understand that clerics with he good domain now get to add half their level to attacks and such? Or was that a hoax? Anyway, not doing that would have been a lot better as a fix.
  • Not sure where this comes from. Good domain 1st level power lets you touch a creature and they get a bonus to attacks for 1 round. At 8th they can imbue a weapon with the Holy quality.

    As for the whole heavy armor thing, I'm going to withhold judgment for a while. I know the cleric was much abused during 3.5 but it's hard for me to look at this and say whether the changes are overkill or not. My gut says the class will be fine after this but I'm not really so confident I want to jump into the debate on it until I've see it in action for a bit.


    Ok so I personally dont like this nerf especially after they have already toned down the spells and the domains. But I think I have a perfect power gamer solution to the problem. . .

    I will pick up ONE level of Fighter.

    ~This gives me 1d10 hp vs 1d8
    ~I get a +1 attack bonus
    ~I get a bonus feat AND I pick up the Heavy Armor feat for free.
    ~Now like Obama said "yes we can use tower Shields!
    ~Now I am proficient in all martial weapons!
    ~I will get a Fort save bonus early on, much better than going up in cleric one level.
    ~I can pick up skills in things a cleric normally cant learn.

    Honestly what will I have lost?

    Ok so I cant get the super uber 20th level power, big fudgecicle on a stick! Who really gets to 20th level anyway? And I am a 19th level cleric so. . .

    I will just make a wish spell and fix the problem once I get there.

    My two cents.

    Darren

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Kvantum wrote:

    Gut reaction: this is stupid. STUPID

    I mean, yes, I can see it not being an automatic for Desnans or Gozrehites, but you really, seriously see clerics of Abadar not in full plate?

    Abadar is a god of civilization, trade, law and progress, NOT a god of Whacking Things On The Head.

    Clerics are divine conduits and messengers of the deity, NOT "in your face" frontline fighters. That's what Abadar has Paladins for.


    S. Viconia wrote:

    My favorite most loved character was a cleric of Eilistraee. She never wore heavy armor. She was still badass and had no real problems getting her AC up by the time she was retired.

    With the 3 extra feats we now get, if we want heavy armor proficiency we can afford it.

    I had the same character drow cleric of Eilistrae I started her back in second. If I remember correctly Eilistraee's clergy were allowed only to use magic armor or no armor. My cleric wore +2 elven chain mail and had a +2 large shield, and 18 dexterity she was hard to hit in second edition. In third edition what I noticed Armor became less important with monsters higher attacks and with touch attacks.

    Dark Archive

    Kevin Mack wrote:


    Yeah but does any other class have to use a feat to buy back an ability they had In 3.5?

    Bards?

    And in exchange clerics gained a free weapon proficiency.

    At least clerics have the option of getting back their profiency by simply using a feat. What about all the characters that used a spiked chain?

    Dark Archive

    Eh.

    Since 3.0 came out, *nobody* in our group has been willing to eat the movement penalty for Medium or Heavy armors, and even the Fighters stick to chain chirts, mithral breastplates or (at higher levels) bracers of armor.

    Okay, there was an exception. He was playing a dwarf anyway, and figured he might as well wear fullplate, since he wasn't going faster than 20 ft. anyway, but this was 3.0, and he had boots of speed which bumped him up to a move of 40. When 3.5 fixed the boots of speed, nobody played a halfling, gnome or dwarf (or wore medium or heavy armor) again.

    The group I've played with since 1st edition *hates* being slow, and we tend to move through encounters like some dark engine fueled by the pain of monsters.

    I guess those who want their Cleric in Heavy Armor can blow one of those three new Feats we get on Heavy Armor Proficiency. And still be 2 Feats (and 4 Domain powers) ahead of a 3.5 Cleric...

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

    This just in from the blog.

    This is your game.

    If you don't like something, change it.

    That is all.

    Liberty's Edge

    Frankly this change doesn't bother me in the least bit, I'll just use a feat to make up for it and still have the improved domains to show for it. It also doesn't hurt that most of the clerics I've played worshiped deities that weren't known for their heavy armour wearing clerics. It also gives a nice distinction to the more martial classes in that they're the only class that can wear heavy armour out of the box so to speak, it also makes the cleric feel like less of a Psuedo-Paladin.
    For the the folks who don't like the change they can very easily take one level of fighter, use the faster feat progression and snag the proficiency when they could afford the armour or simply ignore the change and motor along like nothing happened.


    toyrobots wrote:
    Discuss!

    I knew it! I made this prediction in the concentration thread and everyone said I was wrong. Ha.

    http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/archives/pathfinderRoleplayingGamePreview5TheCleric&page=4

    I also made this change in my home system to balance clerics out. BUT, some of the domains granted the heavy armor proficiency as a bonus feat, so if you picked the domain of "Good" or "Evil" you'd still be the holy warrior type you were looking for.

    I have no problem with this change, I just hope that picking domains gives a bonus feat and something more than a few new bonus spells. Clerics are already feat poor as it is, compared to every class.

    Dark Archive

    Jason S wrote:
    I also made this change in my home system to balance clerics out. BUT, some of the domains granted the heavy armor proficiency as a bonus feat, so if you picked the domain of "Good" or "Evil" you'd still be the holy warrior type you were looking for.

    That sounds like a cool idea, making the 'Good' and 'Evil' Clerics into 'knightly champions' of their respective views. The 3.X Good, Evil, Law, Chaos Domains were sucky, IMO. Very uncreative Domain powers, and very cookie-cutter spell lists. I found both the 'free feat' Domain powers and the +1 caster level to X spells to be the worst offenders.

    I mean, your 3rd level Cleric with Improved Turning and the Spider Domain could command a pair of 2 HD Spider Swarms to attack your enemies! Eight-legged-Freaktacular!

    Or you could have +1 to all Healing spells. Whoopty-craptity-doo.

    And then there were the 'free feat' Domains. War was both cool and thematic, with the weapon proficiency and focus in the Favored Weapon, but when your 'Elf' Domain power is Point Blank Shot and your 'Planning' Domain gives Extend Spell, that's just a sloppy kiss to the boys over at the CharOp forums for 'level 1 Cleric for the 2 free feats' dipping.

    Ideally, Domain powers should not just be stuff that any Commoner who is eligible for a new Feat could take anyway.

    Dark Archive

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

    Giving Heavy armor prof to all gods with Good, Evil, Law or Chaos domains would restore the proficiency to all clerics except for Pharasma, Nethys, and Gozreh. Remember, for some reason the Pathfinder campaign gives an alignment domain to any god with that alignment, regardless of if they seem to be a particular champion of that alignment's ideals... Desnans don't really need it, along with a lot of others. I'll just be house ruling it for all clerics with the Law, Protection, or War domains. Covers all the Golarion deities I feel really should have it.


    Magic Vestment and 30' speed against full plate and 20' speed.
    A no-brainer.

    Seriously, heavy armors are so passe...

    Regards,
    Ruemere


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Kevin Mack wrote:
    magnuskn wrote:

    Good change. This differentiates the full-caster Cleric from the half-caster Paladin a bit more.

    And, as many said, just spend one feat ( of which there are quite more than before ) and you are back to having the proficiency *and* there still is no spell failure.

    Yeah but does any other class have to use a feat to buy back an ability they had In 3.5?

    No. Was any other class as powerful as clerics in 3.5?


    Druid I do believe.

    Dark Archive

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
    Gorbacz wrote:

    Abadar is a god of civilization, trade, law and progress, NOT a god of Whacking Things On The Head.

    Clerics are divine conduits and messengers of the deity, NOT "in your face" frontline fighters. That's what Abadar has Paladins for.

    Civilization - Yeah, lots of farmers and orcs running around in full plate.

    Trade - Full plate costs 1500 gp. Lots of money changing hands to pay for that.
    Law - What says iron-fisted certainty like, well, iron fists?
    Progress - Yes, certainly, we're going to jump straight from stitching hide layers together in a cave to advanced metallurgy and smithing techniques.

    And did I mention Abadar's picture in Gods and Magic shows him wearing full plate armor, for crying out loud. Gorum, Iomedae, and Torag, too.

    The point I can see against Abadarians wearing heavy armor is that his favored weapon is the crossbow, and being good with one of those implies a high Dexterity, which is kind of counter-intuitive for someone wearing Heavy armor.


    Ya know just because someone is a god does not make them a cleric. So maybe they are fighters, or paladins or ya know got the feat for being IDK gods maybe...just a thought :)

    Dark Archive

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
    seekerofshadowlight wrote:
    Ya know just because someone is a god does not make them a cleric. So maybe they are fighters, or paladins or ya know got the feat for being IDK gods maybe...just a thought :)

    So "worshiping" doesn't equal emulating and wanting to be like? O... K.

    I just don't see any follower of those four not having heavy armor prof.

    Dark Archive

    seekerofshadowlight wrote:
    Ya know just because someone is a god does not make them a cleric. So maybe they are fighters, or paladins or ya know got the feat for being IDK gods maybe...just a thought :)

    Question: What does a god wear?

    Answer: Anything it wants, including stuff you can't have.

    But really, Gorum isn't just a god that wears armor, he's practically an animated suit of fullplate... If anyone is getting heavy armor proficiency, it's gonne be his clerics. :)


    Kvantum wrote:
    seekerofshadowlight wrote:
    Ya know just because someone is a god does not make them a cleric. So maybe they are fighters, or paladins or ya know got the feat for being IDK gods maybe...just a thought :)
    So "worshiping" doesn't equal emulating and wanting to be like? O... K.

    Yep and that will cost ya a feat is all :) I mean do you dye your hair and dress like Elvis just because you like h..... ok never mind bad example that

    Really however, your god grants you his favored weapon( free feat) and allows you to cast spells in any armor you know. And he grants you light and medium armor, a good bunch of weapons, spells channel and two domains.

    Is it really much to ask you to pay for the ability to wear full plate?


    Set wrote:


    Question: What does a god wear?

    Answer: Anything it wants, including stuff you can't have.

    But really, Gorum isn't just a god that wears armor, he's practically an animated suit of fullplate... If anyone is getting heavy armor proficiency, it's gonne be his clerics. :)

    I can see that, however that is a setting thing not a rule set. Just like for example In FR one CG god could have paladins when others could not. Or some monks or paladins of some gods could free multiclass while the rules said you could not.

    That is a setting based thing. Not a core rules thing

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Actually I don't think that the problem is so much god-related. The main issue for me always was that in 3.5:

    Cleric was a full-plate wearing mace swinging divine caster,

    and

    Paladin was a full-plate wearing mace swinging gimped divined caster with a bunch of mostly useless abilities.

    These were the only classes in vanilla 3.5 that were so very much like each other, except that Paladin sucked donkey bawls and Cleric, well, ruled the dance floor.

    In PFRPG, the difference is much more profound, thanks to, in order of importance:

    a) Paladin boosts
    b) Cleric spell nerfs (the holy trifecta etc.)
    c) Armour change.

    And that's what I like, now there is both a reason to play a Paladin and visible difference between him and the Cleric.

    Dark Archive

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

    Raise Dead. Mass Heal. Miracle. Things a Cleric can do that no Paladin ever will, short of Epic or a really good Use Magic Device check. I just see the armor proficiency as such a minor thing it's more of an insult to injury kind of thing to take 'yet this, too' away from Clerics. Nerf bat yes, lame bat, no.


    Tilquinith wrote:
    it's sort of a non-issue as you end up with extra feats anyway.

    Compared to 3.5, not Beta. Our characters have gotten used to the faster feat progression.

    The Exchange

    The Beta rules were always contingent and it was clear they would be changed somehow. Comparing the final v the Beta seems a slightly false way to approach it, since it is intended to be an update of 3.5 and the Beta was simply a work in progress. That said, I accept that if you are in the middle of a campaign using the Beta rules and want to convert, it will be a pain if you have clerics in heavy armour. But that is the risk you take, to some extent, in using rules you know will be changed, and soon. A DM's hand-wave is probably the immediate answer under those circumstances.


    No heavy armor clerics doesn't bother me. If they're trying to make more difference between cleric and paladin that is fine.
    I just hope they won't come up with "neutral paladin","chaotic good paladin" ...etc. in the near future.


    Darren Ehlers wrote:


    ~This gives me 1d10 hp vs 1d8
    ~I get a +1 attack bonus
    ~I get a bonus feat AND I pick up the Heavy Armor feat for free.
    ~Now like Obama said "yes we can use tower Shields!
    ~Now I am proficient in all martial weapons!
    ~I will get a Fort save bonus early on, much better than going up in cleric one level.
    ~I can pick up skills in things a cleric normally cant learn.

    Honestly what will I have lost?

    Not all of these benefits are that great:

  • Hd means just 1 hit point
  • BAB means +1 BAB for 4 levels out of 20 (since you miss out on cleric progression
  • Tower shields aren't that great, anyway
  • Martial weapons aren't that interesting, since you already know how to use your deity's favoured weapon
  • The skills aren't that much of a boost, anyway.

    But what you give up: A bit will save bonus.

    One caster level. And Several spells/day
    A spell level half the time.
    Early access to domain powers.

    The magic stuff is huge: you'll have to wait an extra level until you get new spell levels. What use is all that stuff if your 7th-level character cannot use divine power?


  • Gorbacz wrote:
    Kvantum wrote:

    Gut reaction: this is stupid. STUPID

    I mean, yes, I can see it not being an automatic for Desnans or Gozrehites, but you really, seriously see clerics of Abadar not in full plate?

    Abadar is a god of civilization, trade, law and progress, NOT a god of Whacking Things On The Head.

    Clerics are divine conduits and messengers of the deity, NOT "in your face" frontline fighters. That's what Abadar has Paladins for.

    That argument doesn't really count in D&D. The cleric class is pretty much a frontline fighter, regardless fo deity. Otherwise they'd have weak BAB and d6 HD like wizards, and no spells like righteous might.

    As for Abadar: Paladins won't defense ultimate order because of that pesky code. Plus, Abadar is God of Looking Dashing in Progressive-Looking Armour. Nothing says wealth and sophistication better than a perfectly-engineered heavy armour that fits you like a glove.


    Jadeite wrote:
    Kevin Mack wrote:


    Yeah but does any other class have to use a feat to buy back an ability they had In 3.5?

    Bards?

    And in exchange clerics gained a free weapon proficiency.

    At least clerics have the option of getting back their profiency by simply using a feat. What about all the characters that used a spiked chain?

    They get the Lunge feat.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    KaeYoss wrote:
    It adds dexterity into the mix of abilities the cleric needs. Low AC isn't really an option for a cleric, at least not those clerics that are on the front line, fighting and healing. I think clerics already had enough bases to cover.

    Tangental, but a pet peeve: this seems to be a common fallacy when talking about clerics. You take it for granted that an individual cleric should excell at EVERYTHING which the class is capable of, and then cry foul when you find that he actually can't.

    This is a problem of your own making. Adjust your expectations.

    Unless you make the arguement that the cleric is now underpowered, overall, as a result of this change. Which I simply won't buy. A low-dex cleric will spend one (1) feat on Heavy Armor Proficiency and be back where he started. Meanwhile, a cleric with a good dex won't even bother.

    Grand Lodge

    I like it. To me, it feels like a 'standardizing' of armour, in the same way that Paizo have standardized hit points. It's now tooled so that full BAB, armoured classes get heavy armour, and nobody else does. Frankly, clerics getting heavy armour was always a little bizarre; it meant they felt like the big brother of paladins, which was just strange.

    As for the people spitting nails over this, you really need to chill out. OK, so, assuming breastplate vs full plate, you're losing 3 AC over a fighter or paladin without factoring in Dex, and 1 AC if you have a Dex 16 and they have a Dex 12+.

    Except that you aren't, because you get to cast Magic Vestment and Shield of Faith, which neither of them do. I weep for the tragedy that is your slightly reduced domination in the realm of AC. This isn't a nerf of clerics; it's barely a blip. More to the point, it's a blip that makes sense. You want heavy armour, take the feat.


    ruemere wrote:

    Magic Vestment and 30' speed against full plate and 20' speed.

    A no-brainer.

    Definetly: Fullplate with magic vestment cast on it!


    Ooh, ooh, me! My Turn! :)

    I've played many cleric for many years, through many different editions and even systems. Early on, these clerics were all the same. It wasn't until later editions that speciality priests appeared and began the trend of having differing powers and abilities on a deity-specific basis.

    I can readily accept that the more martial deities require their clerics to wear heavy armour, but not *every* deity. And who said you should get everything your deity has, or does, for free? You can consider it a sign of devotion - spend a feat if you're *that* devoted. You should also take account of the fact that heavy armour, from a historical perspective, was incredibly expensive, not to mention rare, on the battlefield - never mind walking around town in any.

    Having the ability removed is much better than having it left in. With it removed, it can be added - with it left in, it cannot be removed. I, for one, would consider it far more incongruous having all the peasant-loving, love-inspiring, community-focussed clerics running around with just the *ability* to wear heavy armour, never mind actually wearing a suit.

    But of course, YMMV. :)

    Grand Lodge

    Oh, Babbage, your post made me think of something. In PFRPG, all clerics get automatic proficiency with their deity's favoured weapon, which I think is a lot more important than the kind of armour you use. So people could just view this change as a shift; after all, if your deity has a martial weapon as their favoured one, all you've done is trade one feat for another.


    Of course no one has pointed out that this isn't a problem.

    After all Clerics already get an extra proficiency with their god's favored weapon (usually a martial), and it's not an issue for any 3.5 cleric over 7th level (when you get your first extra feat) since you can simply use that extra feat to gain heavy armor proficiency again.

    Besides with nine levels of spells, 4 domain abilities, channel energy, and average BAB/HD plus 2 good save throws (the better two to have) I really don't see this has a huge loss.

    Scarab Sages

    Popping in as someone with the book making a Cleric for CoT and converting a cleric PFS character, I'm perfectly happy with the change. They're both clerics of not-particularly-warlike deities (Milani and Nethys respectively, well Milani's certainly not peaceful but she's hardly about knights on the battlefield), so I really wasn't visualising them in heavy armour anyway, and I've found that's true for clerics of most deities. I just don't see the clergy of most gods tromping about in full-plate, even deities like Saranrae I tend to see the clerics in a breastplate or something similarly lower-profile with the paladin in full-plate standing at their side.

    Of course there are various gods for whom this is appropriate (Gorum and Iomedae certainly spring to mind). Perhaps the War domain should have granted heavy armour proficiency to cover these guys, but at the end of the day, if that's the kind of cleric you want to play then the expenditure of one feat when you get one every other level really isn't that big a deal.

    51 to 100 of 904 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Inevitable Discussion: Clerics Lost Heavy Armor Prof. All Messageboards