Inevitable Discussion: Clerics Lost Heavy Armor Prof.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 904 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I like the change. Cleric as a templar-type was a nice idea when settings were less developed (so clerics tended to follow some general sort of "gods of good/evil"), and the paladin didn't exist. Then AD&D came along with the paladin class, which sort of crowded the cleric in the "holy warrior" role, but that was OK because becoming a paladin was damn hard (stat requirements included, IIRC, Cha 17+ and Str, Con and Wis 12+ or thereabouts). AD&D 2e mixed things up quite a bit, with the cleric as just a generic version, with the DM assumed to be making up special priesthoods for his setting (or use those provided in a canned one) - most of which would have less armor than the regular cleric.

Then 3e came along, and mostly removed the specialty priesthoods and made the cleric more alignment-focused, with domains as something of an afterthought. At the same time, they dropped the requirements to be a paladin (or any other class for that matter), which meant that you now again had two classes that were very close to one another.

I think the cleric baseline should be more caster-focused. If someone wants to play a cleric of a war god, they can pick up the War domain and spend one of their feats on Heavy Armor Proficiency. Meanwhile, a priest of a god of magic picks up Spell Focus, a priest of a god of healing takes Augment Healing, a priest of the god of thieves gets Skill Focus or something, and so on.


meh

I'm indifferent.

It is one feat. Thats it. One feat. Spend the feat and there you are. Plate wearing holy tank clerics are still completely valid. Just spend ONE feat. And you get more feats now anyway....

Which also solves the backward compatibility "problem". They get more feats, assume any 3.5 cleric has spent an extra feat on Hvy Armor. This is only a conflict at very low levels, and npcs clerics at those levels rarely afford heavy armor.


Pathfinder buffed Clerics up so much that I'm actually glad they took a little something away.
Even something really minor like heavy armor proficiency.


lordzack wrote:
No, Clerics are supposed to be holy warriors. Paladins could also be called holy warriors, but if so they're a specific kind with they're own unique abilities. In the 1e Player's Handbook it says "This class bears a certain resemblance to religous orders of knighthood of medieval times." They are not supposed to represent every priest in the world. They the guys that go out in the world and knock heads for they're gods.

The first edition Player's Handbook also ruled that Clerics could only use blunt weapons, are you really going to insist on that source as your basis for argument?


KaeYoss wrote:
  • 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.
  • Doesn't hurt compatibility at all, just take one of those shiny new feats gained in the conversion and make it Heavy Armor Prof. Done!

    Nothing easier.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    Wolfthulhu wrote:
    lordzack wrote:
    No, Clerics are supposed to be holy warriors. Paladins could also be called holy warriors, but if so they're a specific kind with they're own unique abilities. In the 1e Player's Handbook it says "This class bears a certain resemblance to religous orders of knighthood of medieval times." They are not supposed to represent every priest in the world. They the guys that go out in the world and knock heads for they're gods.
    The first edition Player's Handbook also ruled that Clerics could only use blunt weapons, are you really going to insist on that source as your basis for argument?

    Harsk and Amiri, especially Amiri, are also a bit annoyed at the common refrain that you can't be a warrior if you can't wear full plate. I've got a fight, a paladin and a cleric in the party. Only the paladin is in heavy armour and the cleric still has a better AC.


    Personally I think armor and weapon selection should be something of the deities choice kind of like what second edition had with Specialty Priests. I really cant imagine a cleric of Nethys walking around in Full Plate armor swining a heavy mace or some martial weapon the way a cleric of Gozrum would do. The domains a cleric chooses should focus more or less on the aspect of the deity that the cleric wishes to emulate. I see the loss as something relatively minor.

    Dark Archive

    Do count another positive response for the change.

    It is something I've already houseruled into my games after introducing the cleric disciplines from BoXM (which are roughly comparable to the new energy channeling rules).

    It's also to be taken in consideration the upgraded availability of feats, so not really a big loss.

    Couldn't really see a cleric of Shelyn or Calistria strolling around in platemail.
    Clerics of Gorum, Iomedae or Torag could consider spending a feat to gain Heavy Armor proficiency as an act of devotion, just as gaining proficiency in a martial weapon sacred to the deity was in previous 3.X incarnations (and now, less taxing in character resources).


    I would have had some quibbles about this but after reading what James Jacobs said in another thread I am convinced this is a great change. Here is what James wrote that made perfect sense to me:

    Quote:
    ...it also helped make paladins and fighters cooler in that they're now the heavy armor classes (and also helped to further create a difference between a cleric and a paladin).

    I think James is right, this does draw a line in the sand between paladins and clerics. Nice work.

    The Exchange

    It is fine by me. If someone wants Heavy Armor they can get the feat to use it without penalty; it isn't a big deal, especially with the increased number of feats. Given shield proficiency and other AC benefits, I don't see clerics really losing anything substantial in this case. Seems to be more a lamentation of the loss of beloved abilities or aspects of a class going on, but then I don't see the class as having lost anything from an operational or effectiveness standpoint.


    I think this is a great change, makes a lot of sense to me. In my opinion, only a few deities should have such a big emphasis in military training for their priests. Those who do want it can spend a feat for it, no harm done.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    I like the fact that more classes have Medium armor now without also having Heavy Armor right out of the gate. Sort of adds some difference to classes.

    This

    Overall this is a great change; good job Jason.


    Hehe... this is such a fun read....

    Don't know if I should comment, but here goes..

    Yay! Good change! Makes sense! Awesome stroke of genious! Subtle and elegant change!

    can't wait till I get my copy... sometime August 2021 or some such ;-P


    Wolfthulhu wrote:
    The first edition Player's Handbook also ruled that Clerics could only use blunt weapons, are you really going to insist on that source as your basis for argument?

    How is that supposed to help you're point?


    Please lets not forget that Armor bonus is ineffective against a good many attacks. Touch spells, Ranged touch attacks, grapple, Incoroporeal attacks, etc...So when you think about not a great loss. The only thing lost is the classic iconic image of a fully suited cleric swinging a mace.


    Frostflame wrote:
    Please lets not forget that Armor bonus is ineffective against a good many attacks. Touch spells, Ranged touch attacks, grapple, Incoroporeal attacks, etc...So when you think about not a great loss. The only thing lost is the classic iconic image of a fully suited cleric swinging a mace.

    Which is pretty darn important to me.


    KaeYoss wrote:
    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.

    Which does not effect AoO which was one of the MAIN things for Spiked chain..... though I am still glad to see that changed.


    lordzack wrote:


    Which is pretty darn important to me.

    Lordzack, thanks for being civil in the face of your loss. I've been burned by edition upgrades, so I know how you feel. It's nice to see people bearing changes they don't like with dignity.

    I encourage you to house rule it, or grandfather it in. That seems pretty easy in this case.


    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
    lordzack wrote:
    Wolfthulhu wrote:
    The first edition Player's Handbook also ruled that Clerics could only use blunt weapons, are you really going to insist on that source as your basis for argument?
    How is that supposed to help you're point?

    The 1st edition was actually a terrible source for figuring out what a cleric really was. His combat ability was a lot weaker than a real fighter's. And he's supposed to be the holy warrior? Why doesn't the chuch just hire some fighters from the congregation?

    The conception of the cleric as the knight of a holy order was pretty much ditched by 2e in favor some something a lot more flexible in conception. That's a good thing.

    Liberty's Edge

    I'm glad clerics lost heavy armor. It helps distinguish them from paladins more clearly, and it makes them more like "adventuring priests" and less like "crusaders." I've always believed that heavy armor should be the province of the full-BAB classes like fighter and paladin, and this change really resonates with me. It also really helps lower the CoDzilla problem by making clerics pay for it if they want to be front-line warriors.

    Jeremy Puckett

    Shadow Lodge

    I'm with you there. I've cooled down a bit, but I still think that Clerics are losing way to much, and haven't seen any of this "huge gain" I keep hearing about. Keep in mind I do not have the final book yet. And I most certanly am not asking for spoilers. Just the implications of the Cleric preview where, disappointing.

    I loved the iconic Cleric in heavy armor concept, and I have never once had any trouble from the Cleric class. It has always been one of the weaker classes, but than again, I don't ever play in RPGA style games. I see no balanceing of the classes, I see further imbalancing of noncasters over casters.

    Dark Archive

    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    hida_jiremi wrote:

    I'm glad clerics lost heavy armor. It helps distinguish them from paladins more clearly, and it makes them more like "adventuring priests" and less like "crusaders." I've always believed that heavy armor should be the province of the full-BAB classes like fighter and paladin, and this change really resonates with me. It also really helps lower the CoDzilla problem by making clerics pay for it if they want to be front-line warriors.

    Jeremy Puckett

    Clerics will never be front-line warriors. The 3/4 BAB and no martial weapon profs make that point quite clear, at least it always has to me. And now between Weapon Training, Smite Evil, Rage, and Favored Enemy to both attack and damage, it's even more clear. I just do not get at all the high, approaching absurd degree of Cleric nerfing that seems to have gone on here in the final. Some spells were clearly going too far, and they've been changed, rightfully so. But now the Cleric basically faces a 3 feat tax, factoring in Turn Undead, along with Selective Channeling and Heavy Armor Proficiency. Channel Energy is now "pick one of the three things at a time you could do with it in the Beta, but actually just two unless you've paid part of your feat tax like every evil, vile, nasty little cleric has to".

    Have I just not seen how Clerics have gotten so incredibly bad that we have to do everything possible to get back to the 1e/2e refrain of "OK, I'll play the Cleric if I really have to..."? Do they unbalance the game that much, even if you nerf the offending spells? Is it just that the 3e/Pathfinder implementation of the class is that fundamentally broken?

    Lantern Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

    lordzack wrote:
    How is that supposed to help you're point?

    I don't know, perhaps to illustrate that things change? (And I don't think that he is point. [you're =/= your])

    The generic 'Cleric' worked when the classes were defined as 'Fighter', 'Elf', 'Dwarf', and 'Magic-User'.

    I think its a great change.
    I started playing D&D in second edition, where certain races could only progress so far in certain classes, and Paladins were REQUIRED to be human.
    I was incredibly excited about 3rd, when I saw they had done away with the restrictions. They opened up a world of roleplaying choices; a gnome could be a paladin, elves could be a barbarians, half-orcs could be wizards, dwarves could be sorcerers; a half-elf could worship Grummush if they chose. My biggest disappointment was the cleric.
    Why?
    They went from diety-specific progressions (especially weapon and armor proficiencies, and spell 'spheres') to a generic spell list with only two spells related to their diety. A cleric of fuzzy bunnies and a cleric of squashing newborn puppies could cast 'Inflict Nasty Wounds' and 'Sparkling Care Bear Stare'. A cleric of Hippie Peacenick and a cleric of Crusade Warmonger both get the ability to wear heavy armor and use the same weapons.

    I've never been a fan of the generic cleric, but to essentially create a separate class for each diety was always too much work for me, so I avoided them. This is a step in the right direction.


    Beckett wrote:
    I see no balancing of the classes, I see further imbalancing of noncasters over casters.

    Compared to 3.5, that is somewhat true, although debatably in any real sense. But the thing is, 3.0 and 3.5 were skewed so far in the dirtection of the casters at mid- to high-levels that it was a total joke. Non-casters were the casters' lackeys, assuming the latter were played even halfway intelligently. If that's your frame of reference -- a game in which the total superiority of high-level casters is the very foundation of the game's combat mechanics -- then of course any slight lessening of their awesomeness will seem like an intolerable nerf.

    But if you REALLY want to see what an imbalance of non-casters over casters looks like, go back and play 1st edition for a few sessions. Fighters at high levels were hard-pressed to fail ANY saving throws, had 3-4 times the casters' hp, had iterative attacks at full BAB, could move and still full attack -- and on a single hit for even 1 point of damage, automatically disrupted spellcasting for the rest of the round. They also automatically attracted large armies if they built a stronghold -- and with no magic item shops, they had little else to spend their gold on. Casters, on the other hand, could not move while casting and could not cast defensively. Magic-users at high levels paid 375,000 xp per level, compared with the fighter's 250,000 xp per level.

    Until you've played that for a few years and accepted those situations as the norm, you lack a frame of reference for statements like the above.


    SirGeshko wrote:
    lordzack wrote:
    How is that supposed to help you're point?

    I don't know, perhaps to illustrate that things change? (And I don't think that he is point. [you're =/= your])

    The generic 'Cleric' worked when the classes were defined as 'Fighter', 'Elf', 'Dwarf', and 'Magic-User'.

    I think its a great change.
    I started playing D&D in second edition, where certain races could only progress so far in certain classes, and Paladins were REQUIRED to be human.
    I was incredibly excited about 3rd, when I saw they had done away with the restrictions. They opened up a world of roleplaying choices; a gnome could be a paladin, elves could be a barbarians, half-orcs could be wizards, dwarves could be sorcerers; a half-elf could worship Grummush if they chose. My biggest disappointment was the cleric.
    Why?
    They went from diety-specific progressions (especially weapon and armor proficiencies, and spell 'spheres') to a generic spell list with only two spells related to their diety. A cleric of fuzzy bunnies and a cleric of squashing newborn puppies could cast 'Inflict Nasty Wounds' and 'Sparkling Care Bear Stare'. A cleric of Hippie Peacenick and a cleric of Crusade Warmonger both get the ability to wear heavy armor and use the same weapons.

    I've never been a fan of the generic cleric, but to essentially create a separate class for each diety was always too much work for me, so I avoided them. This is a step in the right direction.

    I disagree. But I don't even want the cleric to be "generic". In fact I want it to be a very specific archetype. The one cleric class should not be used for every kind of cleric. You want a thievish cleric that's a new class or a modified version. A pacifist cleric? New class. Cleric that makes things go boom? New class. The base cleric should handle the holy warrior cleric that also has abilities that can help his friends.

    Dark Archive

    At first I was opposed to this and a bit upset, but I think overall this is a good move.

    I have to remember that the cleric has moved far from the "cannot use edged weapons & shed blood" structure. The idea of creating a crusading type cleric is easy to incorporate into pfrpg. Just add heavy armor feat as a bonus feat to any martially inclined or defensive based faith for their clerics.

    I'm still running FR as a campaign and this is the fix I am going to use for the cleric of Helm PC in the party. Again, you have to think in the broader picture - I don't think that heavy armor should be a standard when you have clerics of magic, dawn, love, etc. You can incorporate with little difficulty to the martial/defense based faiths as a bonus feat (in addition to weapon of faith) and then give some other features to more passive varied faiths - maybe some extra class skills, or bonuses to certain skills - +2 to concentration or spellcraft to magic based faiths,or a combination of both to offset this bonus.

    Not really a big deal - and I am as grognardish/1st ed as it gets, euro-medieval is just one bonus feat away.


    KaeYoss wrote:

    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.

    You're right. I accept your rebuke.

    I think I was just really short tempered last night, and posting well after I should have gone to bed.

    I like the change myself for balance reasons. But I got nothing else to offer other than my regrets for the lecture.


    Beckett wrote:
    I'm with you there. I've cooled down a bit, but I still think that Clerics are losing way to much, and haven't seen any of this "huge gain" I keep hearing about.

    Channel Energy is a huge boost over Turn Undead.


    lordzack wrote:
    Wolfthulhu wrote:
    The first edition Player's Handbook also ruled that Clerics could only use blunt weapons, are you really going to insist on that source as your basis for argument?
    How is that supposed to help you're point?

    I hadn't actually made a point. It was more of an observation. You're citing a rules set that many people view as very flawed as the reason the clerics should have heavy armor. What are your views on the blunt weapon only restriction?

    Liberty's Edge

    Staffan Johansson wrote:
    Beckett wrote:
    I'm with you there. I've cooled down a bit, but I still think that Clerics are losing way to much, and haven't seen any of this "huge gain" I keep hearing about.
    Channel Energy is a huge boost over Turn Undead.

    I agree. I'll turn that around and say that I haven't seen any of this "huge nerf" that I keep hearing about.

    Clerics are still awesome, and are still more awesome than they were in 3.5. The few things that were toned down can easily be given back via the extra feats, as has been mentioned several times, and is still being ignored by the few people who are crying foul.

    Scarab Sages

    Kvantum wrote:


    ..snip..
    But now the Cleric basically faces a 3 feat tax, factoring in Turn Undead, along with Selective Channeling and Heavy Armor Proficiency. Channel Energy is now "pick one of the three things at a time you could do with it in the Beta, but actually just two unless you've paid part of your feat tax like every evil, vile, nasty little cleric has to".

    I don't buy it. The only one of those three feats I expect more clerics to take than not is Selective Channeling, and if you're playing more of a caster-cleric than a buff & tank I imagine it'll be perfectly possible to avoid that with some good party coordination & tactical movement if you so desperately need that extra feat choice. Or if you do want to go the holy warrior route you could just use channel energy for a little extra out-of-combat healing and dump your charisma for better physical stats, no one is forcing you to channel energy - I've played clerics that suck at turning plenty of times and it didn't hurt me.

    Turn Undead? Screw it, stuff running away is annoying anyway.

    Heavy Armour Proficiency? Feh. I played through the incredible meat grinder that is Age of Worms with a Favoured Soul of Kord. She didn't have a spectacular dex and Favoured Souls don't get heavy armour proficiency. I never bothered taking it as a feat, and guess what? She front-lined it with the best of them just fine.


    Wolfthulhu wrote:
    I hadn't actually made a point. It was more of an observation. You're citing a rules set that many people view as very flawed as the reason the clerics should have heavy armor. What are your views on the blunt weapon only restriction?

    That was kind of silly, because there's no real difference in killing someone with a hammer than with a sword. However, that's just one small detail. Changing it doesn't really change the nature of the cleric, but saying "clerics are holy warriors" describes the nature of the class. The cleric has been steadily moving away from it's original nature as a holy warrior to a more generic adventuring priest, which I see as being bad.


    One thing I just want to point out, especially to lordzack and others who see the cleric only as a crusader/templar-type character. The templars didn't really fight in full plate armor, instead they wore... wait for it... chain mail!
    So, that's one illusion busted right there.
    Full plate armor didn't really come into play until early 15th century.


    That's not really relevant to my point. My point is the cleric has always had access to plate and should keep it.

    Grand Lodge

    lordzack wrote:
    The cleric has been steadily moving away from it's original nature as a holy warrior to a more generic adventuring priest, which I see as being bad.

    As far as I can see, you're absolutely right, and I can only see that as a good thing. With the paladin, clerics don't need to fit the holy warrior mold, and with many of the Golarion deities, it just doesn't make any sense. You shouldn't have heavily-armed crusading holy warriors of Nethys (For Knowledge! For...more Knowledge!), or of Desna (Ok, maybe of Desna; For Freedom!), or of any deity with a less-than-martial bent. Cleric lets you play a divine spellcaster of a given god, and everything else is in how you build and flavour that cleric. Yes, clerics are becoming a more generic adventuring priest. And as far as I'm concerned, this isn't a bad thing.


    The only good reason to make this change is because without resricting cleric to medium and light armor they are unbalanced. But this doesn't do that, it simply creates yet another feat tax that clerics have to pay to compatible with previous editions. Is that the point, clerics can do too much with their feats that they needed to tax them of feats? Does creating a feat tax on clerics now balance them with all other classes?

    If the cleric could wear plate as a base class ability, would he be overpowered in Pathfinder? His spells have already been watered down, he was one of the few casters not to gain a hit die increase, he needs to spend a feat to turn undead (another feat tax to retain backward compatability), it has become harder to cast in melee (making combat casting nearly a required feat for a front line healer...so another feat tax), they still remain one of the least skilled since they have near no chance to have a decent int with their other stat needs, and the one big thing from Beta he got was half taken away. Was it having the ability to wear plate really the linch pin in bring complete balance to the class? That is the question at hand.


    Here's something I'd like to throw out.

    I played a cleric during playtest. Our playtest group leader wrote regular reports on what he thought worked, and didn't work.

    Nobody in our playtest group thought the beta cleric was in any way overpowered.

    How many of those currently praising the removal of heavy armor proficiency from clerics either:

    1) playtested a cleric?
    2) currently play a cleric?
    3) plan on playing a cleric in Pathfinder?

    One of the few saving graces that cleric's have had was the ability to walk out to the front line and heal the tanks. And then to help hold the line while the tank struggled to his feet.

    The argument has been made of "big deal, if you want Heavy Armor, take the feat." Well, at low levels is where the cleric is most vulnerable. Which means taking the feat at low level, which means a first or third level cleric is spending all or half of his feats just to retain the means to do his job, and is now weaker than other members of the party who are already taking feats to define their character.

    Fighter: I'm taking a nifty feat so that my charges do X.
    Rogue: I'm taking an awesome feat so that my sneak attack is more effective:
    Wizard: I'm taking a metamagic or item creation feat!
    Cleric: I'm taking armor proficiency (heavy) so that I can survive.

    As I said, I playtested a cleric during the beta. I probably won't be playing one in the final version.

    Shadow Lodge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Beckett wrote:
    I see no balancing of the classes, I see further imbalancing of noncasters over casters.

    Compared to 3.5, that is somewhat true, although debatably in any real sense. But the thing is, 3.0 and 3.5 were skewed so far in the dirtection of the casters at mid- to high-levels that it was a total joke. Non-casters were the casters' lackeys, assuming the latter were played even halfway intelligently. If that's your frame of reference -- a game in which the total superiority of high-level casters is the very foundation of the game's combat mechanics -- then of course any slight lessening of their awesomeness will seem like an intolerable nerf.

    That has never once been a issue in any game I have ever seen. I game in multiple different groups, once up to 10 different groups, with different people. I have seen the opposite true, because the game was very grid and combat focused. I've heard of it, but not once seen it.


    Ninjaiguana wrote:
    lordzack wrote:
    The cleric has been steadily moving away from it's original nature as a holy warrior to a more generic adventuring priest, which I see as being bad.
    As far as I can see, you're absolutely right, and I can only see that as a good thing. With the paladin, clerics don't need to fit the holy warrior mold, and with many of the Golarion deities, it just doesn't make any sense. You shouldn't have heavily-armed crusading holy warriors of Nethys (For Knowledge! For...more Knowledge!), or of Desna (Ok, maybe of Desna; For Freedom!), or of any deity with a less-than-martial bent. Cleric lets you play a divine spellcaster of a given god, and everything else is in how you build and flavour that cleric. Yes, clerics are becoming a more generic adventuring priest. And as far as I'm concerned, this isn't a bad thing.

    Well the only thing I can say is I disagree. If you want to have clerics of different roles, they should be different classes in my opinion.

    Dark Archive

    To be honest, only 20% of our players' clerics ever wore heavy armor. It won't heavily impact our game, I don't think.

    All this controversy seems to be over 2-3 points of AC. Of which, 1 point is clawed back by improving medium armor. With the extra gp levels for PC gear, we can just buy them a ring of protection or an amulet of natural armor (which they have a free slot for since the periapt of wisdom is now a headband).

    Tempest in a full plate tea pot, I say. :)

    Grand Lodge

    crmanriq wrote:


    The argument has been made of "big deal, if you want Heavy Armor, take the feat." Well, at low levels is where the cleric is most vulnerable. Which means taking the feat at low level, which means a first or third level cleric is spending all or half of his feats just to retain the means to do his job, and is now weaker than other members of the party who are already taking feats to define their character.

    At low levels is where the cleric can get a +2 deflection bonus to AC with a 1st level spell. You don't need heavy armour proficiency to do your job.

    Shadow Lodge

    Staffan Johansson wrote:
    Beckett wrote:
    I'm with you there. I've cooled down a bit, but I still think that Clerics are losing way to much, and haven't seen any of this "huge gain" I keep hearing about.
    Channel Energy is a huge boost over Turn Undead.

    Is it? How so? (I'm really asking, not being sarcastic) As I understand it, it got pretty dumbed down.

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Beckett wrote:
    Staffan Johansson wrote:
    Beckett wrote:
    I'm with you there. I've cooled down a bit, but I still think that Clerics are losing way to much, and haven't seen any of this "huge gain" I keep hearing about.
    Channel Energy is a huge boost over Turn Undead.
    Is it? How so? (I'm really asking, not being sarcastic) As I understand it, it got pretty dumbed down.

    Erm... going from a situation ability which was so situational that WotC introduced a bazillion feats (including, of all things, Divine Metamagic) to make it viable TO an ability that is, like, universally useful ?

    Grand Lodge

    lordzack wrote:
    Well the only thing I can say is I disagree. If you want to have clerics of different roles, they should be different classes in my opinion.

    That's your opinion, but I suspect if Paizo announced cleric was now maybe, say, 4 different classes so you could play the different 'types' of cleric, people would be up in arms complaining about class bloat and asking why they couldn't just do it with feats. I mean, look at the response to the fact Paizo's going to announce 4 more base classes! I respect your point of view, but I think splitting cleric into multiple classes would tick off a larger minority of the fanbase.

    Shadow Lodge

    Thurgon wrote:


    The only good reason to make this change is because without resricting cleric to medium and light armor they are unbalanced. But this doesn't do that, it simply creates yet another feat tax that clerics have to pay to compatible with previous editions. Is that the point, clerics can do too much with their feats that they needed to tax them of feats? Does creating a feat tax on clerics now balance them with all other classes?

    If the cleric could wear plate as a base class ability, would he be overpowered in Pathfinder? His spells have already been watered down, he was one of the few casters not to gain a hit die increase, he needs to spend a feat to turn undead (another feat tax to retain backward compatability), it has become harder to cast in melee (making combat casting nearly a required feat for a front line healer...so another feat tax), they still remain one of the least skilled since they have near no chance to have a decent int with their other stat needs, and the one big thing from Beta he got was half taken away. Was it having the ability to wear plate really the linch pin in bring complete balance to the class? That is the question at hand.

    That is exactly what I was trying to say yesterday when I was to angry and tired to get my point across.

    Shadow Lodge

    crmanriq wrote:

    Here's something I'd like to throw out.

    I played a cleric during playtest. Our playtest group leader wrote regular reports on what he thought worked, and didn't work.

    Nobody in our playtest group thought the beta cleric was in any way overpowered.

    How many of those currently praising the removal of heavy armor proficiency from clerics either:

    1) playtested a cleric?
    2) currently play a cleric?
    3) plan on playing a cleric in Pathfinder?

    One of the few saving graces that cleric's have had was the ability to walk out to the front line and heal the tanks. And then to help hold the line while the tank struggled to his feet.

    The argument has been made of "big deal, if you want Heavy Armor, take the feat." Well, at low levels is where the cleric is most vulnerable. Which means taking the feat at low level, which means a first or third level cleric is spending all or half of his feats just to retain the means to do his job, and is now weaker than other members of the party who are already taking feats to define their character.

    Fighter: I'm taking a nifty feat so that my charges do X.
    Rogue: I'm taking an awesome feat so that my sneak attack is more effective:
    Wizard: I'm taking a metamagic or item creation feat!
    Cleric: I'm taking armor proficiency (heavy) so that I can survive.

    1, 2, and 3. I'm just even more worried if I will actually like it, now.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    ...assuming [the casters] were played even halfway intelligently.
    Beckett wrote:
    I've heard of it, but not once seen it.


    lordzack wrote:
    That's not really relevant to my point. My point is the cleric has always had access to plate and should keep it.

    Then you probably shouldn't have refered to the "holy warrior" stereotype. And I quote:

    lordzack wrote:
    No, Clerics are supposed to be holy warriors. Paladins could also be called holy warriors, but if so they're a specific kind with they're own unique abilities. In the 1e Player's Handbook it says "This class bears a certain resemblance to religous orders of knighthood of medieval times." They are not supposed to represent every priest in the world. They the guys that go out in the world and knock heads for they're gods.

    Besides, who says you can't "knock heads for their[sic] gods" in chain mail or even breast plate?

    My personal opinion?
    I don't mind it at all. Several good points have been made already, I'll just echo some of them:
    See it as having traded the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat with a Martial Weapon feat (gods favored weapon).
    Everyone gets more feats, so it's not really a loss, you actually gain 2 feats over 3.5 in the long run.
    The option is still there, this isn't as if the rules had said that clerics could never, ever, forever use heavy armor.
    Who could even afford full plate armor at low levels anyway?

    Sczarni

    lordzack wrote:
    Wolfthulhu wrote:
    I hadn't actually made a point. It was more of an observation. You're citing a rules set that many people view as very flawed as the reason the clerics should have heavy armor. What are your views on the blunt weapon only restriction?
    That was kind of silly, because there's no real difference in killing someone with a hammer than with a sword. However, that's just one small detail. Changing it doesn't really change the nature of the cleric, but saying "clerics are holy warriors" describes the nature of the class. The cleric has been steadily moving away from it's original nature as a holy warrior to a more generic adventuring priest, which I see as being bad.

    Well look what they did to my stats! Made me as puny as a dang half-elf, and what do I get as compensation? A bounus to intimidate... a CHA based skill! I'm a frackin half-orc! Who needs Charisma, dammit?

    And I can't even get my STR bounus back with a feat!

    Hmmm... feet. I wonder how Cleric feet taste.
    Eyes lordzark's feet curiously.

    101 to 150 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