|
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. Fighters and Rogues are there to deal damage, Wizards are there to cast (mostly offensive) spells, and Clerics are there to...have high AC ?
2. This is the d20 system where attack bonus grows faster then AC does, meaning that at some point having high AC doesn't really do a squat. Anybody who wants to hit you will do so anyway.
|
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 ?Is it? How so? (I'm really asking, not being sarcastic) As I understand it, it got pretty dumbed down.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.
Do explain. It has been my experience, going off what we know of preview, that channel healing works well as a heal battery outside of combat, but just not all that fun in. As with any healing, it might me needed to save a life, but it's often just plain better outside combat. The ability to ward against or even sometimes completely destroy a zombie horde, sure it's situational, but much more interesting for the player. It's usually the DM that messes that one up.
I could be wrong, but so far, I just don't thinkl Channeling, especially in the final version (from what I have seen), is all that great. Negative Energy on the other hand, was.
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.
@Watcher:
I just want to let you know, I started this thread somewhat accidentally.
In my attempt to get the flames out of the Spoiler Feed thread, I didn't actually look at Jason's response. By the time I realized I screwed up, there were 15 posts in the thread.
I said it in my edit of the first post, but it bears repeating: I'm sorry.
That said, I think the discussion has actually been quite civil. Even those who are quite upset have stopped short of what I would consider to be the line.
I hope you don't think less of me for my mistake.
I like it...and Lordzack...Clerics aren't supposed to be Holy Warriors...Paladins fill that bill.
but only for LG characters, if we get a Crusader base class then ok but...
I am currently playing a 16th level cleric in mithral breat plate and mithral heavy shield. Mobility is too important to the campaign I am in to sacrifice 10 feet per movement for the benefits of heavy armor. Despite being a cleric of a sun god my character does not spend that much time in combat. The level appropriate monsters just do too much damage for me to be on the front lines.
So for me, this is not a problem and once I see the final rules I will probably be fine with it.
Doug
|
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?
As I said upthread, I've made two clerics since I got the book yesterday, one for my CoT games as and when it happens (probably not til October or so, but we're an enthusiastic group :P); Élise, a cleric of Milani, one rebuild of my 3rd level cleric of Nethys in PFS Renba Akh. I'm fine with the change.
If I did take armour proficiency there's no way I'd take it at 1st level, you won't be able to afford full plate till third level min anyway (and that's assuming there's nothing else you want to buy first, the first grand that I get always tends to go on a cloak of resistance), until then breastplate's a way better bet than any of the other heavy armours. I'd consider delaying heavy armour prof till 5th level if I was going to take it and did have better stuff to get at early levels and rely on none-magical breastplate (to avoid wasting cash) and shield of faith.
Renba's actually a battlefield medic type, and he wasn't wearing full-plate when he was 3.5. He certainly isn't now. He was more interested in Tower Shield Proficiency than Heavy Armour if anything. Healing people from behind cover ftw :P.
What it boils down to: you (generic) have a concept for YOUR cleric, or for a character that is best represented by the cleric class. Do the Pathfinder rules allow you to easily build that concept, even if MAYBE you have to spend a feat or two to get it where you'd like it?
If yes, then the designers did their job.
It is NOT their job to please everyone, let alone cater to a thousand different personal conceptions of what any given class is "supposed to be."
|
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.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.
So you want to force everyone to play a cleric exactly like you do? Has it crossed your mind that some people (including most of the people posting here) have different ideas of what a cleric is, or how they want to play a cleric? The beauty of D&D (and PRPG) is the versatility given in each class. We're given options for how we want to build our characters - not every cleric, paladin, rogue, or bard is exactly the same, and most are vastly different. We all have very different ideas for our individual characters, and we're handed the tools to make them exactly as we want them.
So you want your "wade into melee and slug it out with the fighters" kind of cleric? Sure! It's an option for you, and you can do it just as well, if not better, than you could in 3.5. Others may want to play a cleric that's more of a support character, or one that focuses on spellcasting instead of hand-to-hand. Guess what? Those are options too! And you know what else? That goes for every single class. It's how D&D works. We're not pigeonholed into playing each class exactly how one person decided the class should be.
And to me, that's a good thing.
What it boils down to: you (generic) have a concept for YOUR cleric, or for a character that is best represented by the cleric class. Do the Pathfinder rules allow you to easily build that concept, even if MAYBE you have to spend a feat or two to get it where you'd like it?
If yes, then the designers did their job.
It is NOT their job to please everyone, let alone cater to a thousand different personal conceptions of what any given class is "supposed to be."
Their job was to sell a product.
Their stated goal was to fix 3.5 and yet remain backward compatible. They don't have to cater to anyone, they chose to though. They don't have to meet their stated goal either. But that doesn't mean we can't expect any change they made is logical and has good data and reasons backing the change.
I am asking, if Cleric's retained their heavy armor prof would they become demostatively overpowered? If the answer is no, then the change was not made for the right reasons.
I play clerics as my preferred class. I have never been much of a powergamer, but still found myself playing very effective characters.
I played my first cleric when I was 8. Red box Bargle bashing. I loved it. I have had a soft spot for the class ever since.
I am running a RotRL campaign. The party just got to
I admit, the wizard is starting to get equally vicious, with quicken spell, and judicious spell selections, but the cleric is still the most effective member of the party.
The first cleric had no armour, but had the second best AC in the party, beaten only by the full mithril plate, dex 16, buffed fighter.
The second wears hide armour, to tie thematically to the nature domain.
Armour is not what makes them tough.
What Up Paizo/Pathfinder Peoples?!?!? I just arrived here about 2 days ago, switching from the D&D 4e boards. I saw Pathfinder about 6 months ago, fell in love, and now I can't go back. LOL,the game even influenced me to go to Gencon for the first time ever this year. Now Without further ado let me get in on this...
Man clerics don't get Heavy Armor?!?!?!?!
SO WHAT!!!
As a matter of fact he should have nerfed them more along with the wizard/sorcerer spells, he should have made it to where you must complete 1 Prestige class before starting another (we all know once they start coming out the game will be broken); he should have made the pre-req of Str and Con 13+ needed for Heavy Armor; They should have destroyed metamagic...
If not having heavy armor makes your cleric weak or ineffective then maybe role-playing just isn't for you.
What
p.s. How do get a picture for my avatar?
Their job was to sell a product.Their stated goal was to fix 3.5 and yet remain backward compatible. They don't have to cater to anyone, they chose to though. They don't have to meet their stated goal either. But that doesn't mean we can't expect any change they made is logical and has good data and reasons backing the change.
I am asking, if Cleric's retained their heavy armor prof would they become demostatively overpowered? If the answer is no, then the change was not made for the right reasons.
As you already know, it adds a little more power to a class that many, many people feel do not need it. "Fix clericzilla" was a desire, IIRC, by many playtesters. It was a very easy way to reduce the class's power. There might be other ways, but this was arguably the simplest, and goes in line with the desire to make certain class abilities and progressions consistent with a class's hit die--now only 1d10 hit die classes have heavy armor. That is good design, IMHO.
It remains backwards compatible, because since you have more feats, you can spend the extra on heavy armor proficiency (and the many cleric players who never used that class ability have the freedom to add something else) without losing any feats the character had in core 3.x.
And with all due respect, the core of your argument SEEMS to be that clerics should have heavy armor prof because they ALWAYS had it in past editions.
But clerics also used to have severe weapon restrictions, as someone else pointed out. And you seem to claim that that isn't the point--but how come armor proficiency IS necessary to the class concept but blunt weapon restriction ISN'T? One is no more essential to the class concept than the other.
Using the same argument, Elves should only ever be fighter-mages, or else the flavor of what an elf is is ruined. Paladins should have a minimum charisma of 17. Bards should use the wizard spell list. And so on. That kind of argument just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny after awhile.
In the end, you can still take the Pathfinder rules, make a tanky cleric in heavy plate (just with one of your extra new shiny feats is all) and have him kick butt, just like he/she used to. So I don't see how anyone is, in practice, getting put out by this change at all.
@Toyrobots
Spoiler:Nah, I don't think less of you. I think I had some real world issues on my mind, and I was very tired but didn't want to go to bed. For example, my wife has a great job but I moved so she could get it. I haven't found a new job yet.. and I feel guilty for still subscribing to stuff. There's other stuff too. I was just in a pissy mood.In a perfect world, I'd liked to have seen us honor Jason's request.. but KaeYoss is also right. Now that people have discovered it, supressing would only cause problems in other arenas. It's not really something you can expect people to do.
If I really Monday Morning Quarterbacked this, Jason might have taken the bull by the horns and tackled it before he left. However, the release date was not and still is not here either; so I can see why he kept quiet. This looks a "no-win" situation created by the early deliveries.
Anyway, it's no big deal in the grand scheme of things.
And I'm gonna grab one of Wes' Rum & Coke Problem Solving Potions. :D
Peace!
So you want to force everyone to play a cleric exactly like you do? Has it crossed your mind that some people (including most of the people posting here) have different ideas of what a cleric is, or how they want to play a cleric? The beauty of D&D (and PRPG) is the versatility given in each class. We're given options for how we want to build our characters - not every cleric, paladin, rogue, or bard is exactly the same, and most are vastly different. We all have very different ideas for our individual characters, and we're handed the tools to make them exactly as we want them.
So you want your "wade into melee and slug it out with the fighters" kind of cleric? Sure! It's an option for you, and you can do it just as well, if not better, than you could in 3.5. Others may want to play a cleric that's more of a support character, or one that focuses on spellcasting instead of hand-to-hand. Guess what? Those are options too! And you know what else? That goes for every...
It's not necessarily that I want to force people to play like I do. But my philosophy is that each class should be pretty focused rather than just having a couple classes that do everything. I know it's not necessarily the most popular idea, but it's what I think is right. Now what I'm really objecting to the fact that this change conflicts with the traditions of D&D. The cleric has traditionally been a holy warrior. I don't want that to be taken away. Now the reason this has occurred is the fact that as time goes on the cleric has become more than generic than it was before. Now this is all fine and dandy, but now you're taking away what it used to be. Now the baseline cleric is less effective as a warrior. It's more effective as a spellcaster, however. I'm not against the idea of a divine full spellcaster, I think it's a great idea, it's just better as it's own class. But taking the cleric away from it's holy warrior roots to make it something it was never supposed to be is what really bothers me.
p.s. How do get a picture for my avatar?
Secondly, go right up at the top of the page, toward the right. You should see a link for 'My Account'. It should be there even if you don't purchase things through the site. Hit that, it will chage pages, and in the middle of the new page on the left there is a box that will allow you to select a messageboard avatar.
You can also create another board alias (however people will always see your original name if they hover their tooltip over your alias.
|
|
So now, Clerics can only use Int as a dump stat (as they need Wis for casting, Cha for turning, Str for hitting in melee, Con for withstanding hits in melee and now Dex for not getting hit in melee).
Unless Str becomes the new clerical dump stat, which means that the days of Clerics as warriors are effectively over. Which might not be such a bad thing after all, except for clerics of war deities of course.
...
I suppose you didn't read the question I posed. Does the taking away of heavy armor now bring balance? That goal is really the only justifiable reason for the change. All the other stuff you said meaning nothing. I wasn't talking flavor, or this is how it was, I was talking balance. I could go into both those other topics but I didn't. You however did.
All spell casters have seen a decrease in power because spell are simply less powerful now. Read the spell list, compare it to 3.5, 'nuff said. Clerics are less powerful because those spells that created the fighting cleric who was better then fighters are now seriously reduced in power, again this is already done and I am good with it.
I am asking that after all the other reductions of power was it really needed to kick them one more time? Is this change the link pin to fixing the class? Does this change now make the cleric balanced? Effectively I am asking is the cleric overpowered clearly but by just one feat? If the answer is no, then this was an unneeded change. If your or anyones arguement is that it doesn't matter, then it shouldn't have been done. Change to the 3.5 rules that doesn't matter shouldn't have been done, I do not think change just for the sake of change was the goal of pathfinder nor what was expected.
|
1) playtested a cleric?
2) currently play a cleric?
3) plan on playing a cleric in Pathfinder?
1 and 2. And I've played as the resident DM for... cripes, 21+ years, and I've seen a LOT of clerics, from Basic (Red Box) to AD&D 2e to 3.X with a bunch of splatbooks thrown in.
But I hope this won't devolve into the usual "I've got the biggest gamer curriculum". ;-)
I like the cleric as a capable but not super-efficient melee element; with improved medium armors, shields, spells that boost attack, spells that boost defense, spells that heal, spells that damage... well, I think it's good enough.
If a player has to think twice before switching place with the primary frontline fighter/paladin/barbarian, or develop with his/hers teammates a bit of a strategy in case of emergency healing needed during a melee, that's just fine in my book.
Also, as already noted, it's easy to add but almost impossible to subtract from a given class granted proficiency.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Need?
With a 25 or 28 point buy it's always choices. (Unless you throw 15-18 at every stat, it's always going to be choices.)
Do I want to fight well, turn well, cast well... I don't think a cleric should have full spellcasting, full armour, domain powers and channelling - and call himself balanced.
So they lost 2 or 3 AC, I'd still play one like a shot! And make him good at something, rubbish at something else, and just have fun.
It seems a bit odd to see people seemingly demanding an explanation from the designer, when he is known to be out for the week.
@Watcher
Thank you. You are appreciated.
@Thurgon
Yes the change in armor was needed to balance the cleric. In fact i think more change was needed. Regardless of the reduced magic power, (which is over-rated in my opinion Casters simply went from God to Demigod at higher levels) the fact metamagic is still around makes most buff spells permanent at higher levels and easier to cast. Now i know we will never see complete class balance without making everyone have the same attacks like in 4 Ed. but you can't tell me this change doesn't help out the process.
The book isn't even out yet, for goodness sake :)
My fifty buck postage never got it to me before the release date either. Hopefully it'll be here ON the release day, or I will be sad.
It is out, I have mine was I believe the first to notice this little change. This change that I still say does nothing for balance.
|
|
One problem I see with the "Well, the cleric isn't meant to be a good melee front-liner" is that, of course, no they aren't, but what now defines "good" for melee front-line duty has changed. NPC Fighters with Weapon Training and Rangers with the right Favored Enemies will be hitting the PCs harder and more often than they used to. Front-liners either need more armor or more hp to compensate... and the cleric certainly isn't getting any more hp, so stripping his heavy armor on top of fixing the spells that really needed changing is lowering him down while all the others are being lifting up, and it just looks like one of those would have been enough. The combination sure seems like too much.
|
|
Really? This is what becomes a big topic? 4 pages on the Paizo forums dedicated to Clerics losing their heavy armor proficiency?
Wow.
First of all, I should say I don't really care either way. I don't mind the change, and the clerics have certainly had a lot of boosts to make up for it. The reason I'm wondering why this is such a huge issue is because of how little it really means.
Remember, all Medium and Heavy armors have gone up by +1 AC. Medium Armor (from Pathfinder) can go up to +6 AC now, only 2 AC less than Full Plate(from 3.5). Not a huge loss.
Not to mention the fact that Clerics now get some pretty amazing Domain abilities (that Travel one is particularly sweet) and Channel Freaking Energy (I love you). But them losing an approximate 2 AC in the conversion is the source of worry?
Sorry if my post seems snarky, I'm just surprised that of all the changes the Final version offers, this is the one that gets a huge thread. I'm not sure why the Cleric can't still be a "Holy Knight" in medium armor. Scale Mail and Breastplate still seem pretty 'knighttastic' to me. Heck, Chainmail always seemed like the iconic 'military' wear to me.
I've always been a fan of clerics, and yes, I've playtested them and had players playtest them numerous times in the Beta. Whether or not this nerf was 'needed', I can't see it really affecting much in the end.
|
|
Ok, cleric=holy warrior and only that types. Quick question? Is a barbarian a warrior? Why, yes, I do believe he is. What armour proficiency does the barbarian get? Right. Argument over, surely, because either barbarians are not warriors (and I'd love to see people try to make that argument) or medium armour and shield is perfectly acceptable to be a warrior.
The cleric still has better AC options than any other medium BAB class, does he not? He still has better AC options than any other full-spellcaster, does he not? In fact, the only people he doesn't have better armour than are the bloody fighters and paladins who's job is to stand there and get hit! Would you care to argue the fighters are more powerful that the cleric with this change in place, never mind without it?
I'd also ask how many people here had a cleric with full plate at the 'low levels where clerics are most vulnerable'? Everyone is most vulnerable at low-levels! That's why they're low-levels!
Plus, our cleric currently has the highest AC in the party, even higher than the paladin in full plate, in chain mail.
|
|
...Not to mention the fact that Clerics now get some pretty amazing Domain abilities (that Travel one is particularly sweet)...
Not to mention the awesomeness that is Liberation, if freedom of movements cleric level rounds a day isn't enough, there's that aura of freedom of movement-lite you can use at higher levels. I leapt on that one when I was choosing from Milani's domains.
(NOTE: Mithral Full plate of speed DOES count as medium according to the write up in the magic items section...same as elven chain and celestial count as light)But did they include the proposal that you still need proficiency in the original catagory to avoid penalties?
Yes they did. You still have to be proficient in Heavy Armor to use Mithral Full plate of speed. Elven chain is the only mithril armor that is counted as light for everything.
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.
The blunt weapon thing is there (in AD&D) because it's historical. Bishop Odo (brother of William the Conqueror) was supposed to have carried a mace because Christian clerics were forbidden by the Pope to "spill blood". This was supposed to be a prohibition on killing people, but if you took it technically bashing their brains in was OK. So, he wore full armor (chainmail at the time) and used a mace. Of course there was certainly "fluid leakage" from those bashed heads, but I'm sure Odo wrote it off as a nose bleed or something...
I am gonna say I love this change. This is something I myself wanted anyhow. Very happy with it. They can take heavy armor if they want, with feats and all, but really they should not gain it.
d&d clerics started out based roughly on knight templars( really cleric was a bad name as not every priest would be a cleric class). But have moved far from it. I am good with this change. They still gain so many good things, full caster good weapon selection, ok BAB, OK amount of HD( need 4 skills though) 2 domains and light and med armors. On top of that is channel.
Clerics needed a nerf and well they got some
Yeah clerics are still very powerful. On the up side the Holy warrior thing from the PFCS is a bit better now
Lose domain and gain full BAB, D10HD and heavy armor proff, Bit of a better trade off even if it is unofficial and all
I liked the Holy Warrior option, too. If you want to play a cleric who's not shy about putting the hurt on the bad guys, he's your boy! I'd like to play one some time.
The standard cleric with some good domains (and there are some good ones) can still whip up some good magical buffs for the party.
I disagree that a cleric has always been the "Holy Warrior"... If it was shouldn't they get full BAB?
Haha, quoted for truth.
|
|
I don't think it does anything for balance, and I fully agree it just takes one more thing from the Cleric. WotC kept on trying it, between the Mystic, Favored Soul, and Archivists, and it turned off a lot of people. If you don't think that all Clerics should wear Fullplate, I agree. And many do not. Why should you punish the one that do? I'm talking in general, not, as some have suggested, to a specific person to make themselves sound better. I'm not a fan of the change, but I am also still waiting to see how it really works for myself.
Plate took a long time, and generally required 2-4+ assistants, that it made for a very poor armor outside of show. Than came better projectiles.
|
|
I disagree that a cleric has always been the "Holy Warrior"... If it was shouldn't they get full BAB?
Why. Would you say that the Monk is a warrior, or not?
The fact of the matter is, Cleric is and has always been a decent/secondary/backup/etc warrior. They are not the primary warrior, and no one has suggested that they should be. They have always expected to be able to fill the role of the warrior if and when needed.
Well obviously they can't be as good as Fighters. But the 1e PHB as I quoted earlier says that Clerics are based on "religous orders of knighthood", knights being warriors. It is a fact that clerics are pretty decent in the frontline. It is also a fact that that have had plate armor since the beginning. I just don't want that to change. I don't want them to get any better at fighting, but I don't want them to get any worse either.
I disagree that a cleric has always been the "Holy Warrior"... If it was shouldn't they get full BAB?Why. Would you say that the Monk is a warrior, or not?
The fact of the matter is, Cleric is and has always been a decent/secondary/backup/etc warrior. They are not the primary warrior, and no one has suggested that they should be. They have always expected to be able to fill the role of the warrior if and when needed.
Except the fallacy of your own argument: Monks DO get full BAB when doing their thing (not natural BAB, but flurry provides it). Plus, taking away their highest armor proficiency really makes them decent/secondary/backup/etc. warriors. They still can fill the role of a warrior when needed, and they can do it well if they choose to pursue that path.
Plus, Clerics now get proficiency in their deity's weapon, which may or may not be a general buff to the class (many deities have simple weapons). But clerics of the war gods will almost always gain proficiency in a decent martial weapon, and that's a boost to the class if I ever saw it.
The cleric is NOT a holy warrior- the cleric is a full divine caster with limited mastery over positive and negative energy, and by extension, the undead. It's hard to picture yourself as a holy warrior when you only get proficiency with simple weapons and no real benefits to using them (Monks have limited proficiencies, but can rock socks with their weapons).
Back in the 1st edition, the cleric was undoubtedly a holy warrior; its description in the PHB said so pretty much word for word. So it was in the 2ed, but the specialty priest took more and more print space and was more tailored to a specific god - some didn't have any weapon or armor proficiency whatsoever. 3rd ed try to reconcile the priest/cleric with the concept of domains.
Bu also back in 1st and second edition, the thief was a thief. 3rd edition broaden its role to the rogue. The barbarian existed in 1st but not in 2nd. 3rd edition merged the "rage" concept from the 1st ed berserker and "the uncanny dodge" concept from the 1st ed barbarian to create their own barbarian class.
In other words, classes change with time. That's normal and to a certain point, healthy.
So now the de facto cleric isn't in full plate, but as noted, it remains a possible built.I dunno, I need to see things on a bigger scale, but I don't think that I have an issue with that.
'findel
Just throwin my 2 cents in:
I love this change, I had already house ruled this in my games, it just makes sense. The cleric is still a holy warrior, medium armor is nothing to sneeze at, and as others have said they can still use a feat to gain it. I really dont get the whole "cleric class is ruined" due to this change, they are still filled with awesome sauce.
Do Clerics in DND 4E have profiency with full-plate?
Do Clerics in DND 4E have profiency with full-plate?
No FB. Cloth, leather, hide, and chainmail. Granted that is just PHB 1.
Do Clerics in DND 4E have profiency with full-plate?
4E did away with the concept of medium armor, and now the whole thing is divided into light armor (Cloth, Leather, Hide) and heavy armor (Chain, Scale, Plate). Clerics get full access to light armor and chain, which means it takes 2 feats to get to plate.
Do Clerics in DND 4E have profiency with full-plate?
No. But then again, neither do Fighters. The only class in the 4e PHB that has proficiency with Plate is the Paladin.
My 2 cents (euro) as well.
A great change, not from a power perspective but from a flavor one.
- Not all cleric concepts needed heavy armor
- Makes heavy armor more special
- Easy to make backwards compatible because of the feats
- Not a nerf since Clerics now have a free weapon prof (deity weapon)I am sorry this upsets certain people, but it is really easy to house rule back in if needed. It doesn't get much easier than this.
I put forth that changes to help the game balance are good. Changes that alter the game for no balance reason should not have been done. Taking away the heavy armor feat does it bring balance or not is my real question. I don't think it does and thus I oppose it. Anyone who thinks or agrues that the Pathfinder Cleric is more powerful then the 3.5 one, well please read the spell lists more carefully. You will clearly see he is weaker, even with the Channel energy. I accept the need to reduce him, but I don't think the heavy armor change was needed to bring balance.
The extra "feat" clerics get from diety weapons is really relative. And if it was a matter of balance it is a broken rule. As clerics of Iomedae are then by that reasoning overpowered compared to clerics of Abadar. Since clerics of Abadar don't gain anything from that "feat" should they instead because the balance is so fragile that one feat over turns it, be given a free bonus feat to make up for their lack of a martial weapon feat? Is the balance so tight that one feat turns the cleric overpowered? You have to agree it does to agree that taking the heavy armor feat away is a good thing. Either that or you don't think the change was based on the question of balancing the cleric.
|
|
Except the fallacy of your own argument: Monks DO get full BAB when doing their thing (not natural BAB, but flurry provides it). Plus, taking away their highest armor proficiency really makes them decent/secondary/backup/etc. warriors. They still can fill the role of a warrior when needed, and they can do it well if they choose to pursue that path.I disagree that a cleric has always been the "Holy Warrior"... If it was shouldn't they get full BAB?Why. Would you say that the Monk is a warrior, or not?
The fact of the matter is, Cleric is and has always been a decent/secondary/backup/etc warrior. They are not the primary warrior, and no one has suggested that they should be. They have always expected to be able to fill the role of the warrior if and when needed.
That's not a fallacious arguement. Monks do not have Full BaB, and never have. Sure, in the PF they get a boost to their Flurry, and on their flurry attacks. But that does not change the fact that Monks are still "warriors". The certanly are not healers, bufferes, leaders, tanks, arcanists, or a lot of other things.
I do also want to say that it hasn't yet even been a day, and almost 200 posts. Most are saying they do not care or want to wait and see how it all works out. Some are ok, a small amount are pleased, and I'd say an equal amount are not. Doens't matter if you agree, but that has got to say something.
I'm none too fussed personally, it'll effect some of my players more than others, but overall for me I'd probably swing more towards liking it.
On another random note this entire thread reads like a MMO Class forum or proposed patch changes :P
You have to agree it does to agree that taking the heavy armor feat away is a good thing.
No. I don't have to.
My 2 cents (euro) as well.
A great change, not from a power perspective but from a flavor one.
- Not all cleric concepts needed heavy armor
- Makes heavy armor more special
- Easy to make backwards compatible because of the feats
- Not a nerf since Clerics now have a free weapon prof (deity weapon)I am sorry this upsets certain people, but it is really easy to house rule back in if needed. It doesn't get much easier than this.
I put forth that changes to help the game balance are good. Changes that alter the game for no balance reason should not have been done. Taking away the heavy armor feat does it bring balance or not is my real question. I don't think it does and thus I oppose it. Anyone who thinks or agrues that the Pathfinder Cleric is more powerful then the 3.5 one, well please read the spell lists more carefully. You will clearly see he is weaker, even with the Channel energy. I accept the need to reduce him, but I don't think the heavy armor change was needed to bring balance.
The extra "feat" clerics get from diety weapons is really relative. And if it was a matter of balance it is a broken rule. As clerics of Iomedae are then by that reasoning overpowered compared to clerics of Abadar. Since clerics of Abadar don't gain anything from that "feat" should they instead because the balance is so fragile that one feat over turns it, be given a free bonus feat to make up for their lack of a martial weapon feat? Is the balance so tight that one feat turns the cleric overpowered? You have to agree it does to agree that taking the heavy armor feat away is a good thing. Either that or you don't think the change was based on the question of balancing the cleric.
Your argument seems to be "This one single nerf doesn't fix clerics, and thus shouldn't exist." I don't agree with that statement wholly, but I do in part. This one single nerf doesn't bring clerics down to the same level as many other classes, but it's a step in the right direction. Spellcasting on the whole got a few good whacks by the nerf bat, and it's generally tamed casters down (a bit). They're still awesome, but now some of the more broken spells are less easily abused.
Past that, they boosted Turn Undead to Channel Energy, making your "sometimes" class feature a major boon to the party on any given adventuring day. They boosted domains from 1/day buffs, class skills, or additional turn undead uses to a series 4 class features that scale as you level (generally). Clerics of martially inclined deities gain better proficiencies, which makes clerics based even more on their god than their 3.5 counterparts. This is a good thing.
If you really want to get into the argument of weapon proficiencies not being equal, you should take a look at the domains. Most of them are awesome, but there are some definite winners and a few to shy away from (excluding specific concepts). If you don't like this, why not house rule that clerics with gods who have simple weapons instead gain weapon focus? Sounds like a fair trade to me.
Changes that alter the game for no balance reason should not have been done. Taking away the heavy armor feat does it bring balance or not is my real question. I don't think it does and thus I oppose it. Anyone who thinks or agrues that the Pathfinder Cleric is more powerful then the 3.5 one, well please read the spell lists more carefully. You will clearly see he is weaker, even with the Channel energy. I accept the need to reduce him, but I don't think the heavy armor change was needed to bring balance.
Why are you comparing the Pathfinder Cleric to the 3.5 Cleric? If you're looking for balance, shouldn't you compare him to the Pathfinder Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer and Wizard?