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.
If one feat either way doesn't effect balance enough to matter why take one away?
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
It does though doesn't it?
Director of Games
|
Well, the reason that I did not want this discussion happening until my return is that I wanted to be a part of it and typing put messages on my phone is a bit time consuming.
So, I am going to allow this to continue so long as it stays civil, which it has.
While many of the reasons behind this change have already been brought up by astute posters there are a few I want to stress.
1. Clerics are full casters. Although there spell selection is not quite as fashy as arcane casters, it is still very powerful and filled with great utility spells. On top of this, they get d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, two domains, with four domain powers and domain spells, channel energy, and a lack of armor spell failure chance. No matter your angle, this is a great suite of abilities that made clerics one of the most powerful classes in 3.5. When it came time to balance it out a bit, we took a number of small approaches, which included reworking some spells and removing heavy armor proficiency.
2. Heavy armor is hardly part of every cleric's concept. And for those martial deities, we put in proficiency with the gods weapon to help balance the loss.
3. We made medium armor a more attractive group, but we wanted the armor type to actually see some use by making it the category of choice for a number of classes.
There are a few other reasons that I will be happy to go over next week, bit my finger is getting tired. You may not agree with this change, and it may have more of an impact in your campaign than we could have foreseen, but let's be realistic. This is not a huge change and it is relatively easy to fix.
I will continue to monitor this thread, but as of tomorrow, I am going to be kinda busy, so my responses will be even more limited.
More to come soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Yeah, Jason, I'm sorry.
I'm pretty sure it would have happened whether or not I started this post, but by the time I realized you had asked us to wait I had already done the deed. Please accept my apologies.
3. We made medium armor a more attractive group, but we wanted the armor type to actually see some use by making it the category of choice for a number of classes.
Like Cleric and Ranger.
Yeah, Jason, I'm sorry.
I'm pretty sure it would have happened whether or not I started this post, but by the time I realized you had asked us to wait I had already done the deed. Please accept my apologies.
If I'm reading my spam folder correctly, there are ways to treat problems of being premature in various ways. I'm sure you can find the help you need.
3. We made medium armor a more attractive group, but we wanted the armor type to actually see some use by making it the category of choice for a number of classes.Like Cleric and Ranger.
Barbarian and Druid prehaps even.
I'm just do not agree with the idea that is a valid reason to remove their ability to use heavy armor.
1. Clerics are full casters. Although there spell selection is not quite as fashy as arcane casters, it is still very powerful and filled with great utility spells. On top of this, they get d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, two domains, with four domain powers and domain spells, channel energy, and a lack of armor spell failure chance. No matter your angle, this is a great suite of abilities that made clerics one of the most powerful classes in 3.5. When it came time to balance it out a bit, we took a number of small approaches, which included reworking some spells and removing heavy armor proficiency.
The changes to the spells was no small change. It dramtically reduced the offense of the cleric. You also reduced their ability to cure (not heal damage). The question is do you really think the cleric was one feat from balanced or not, because that is what this change amounts too, another feat tax on the cleric.
2. Heavy armor is hardly part of every cleric's concept. And for those martial deities, we put in proficiency with the gods weapon to help balance the loss.
Oh come now. Clerics from basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e all could wear plate. They could also all turn undead. Now the pathfinder cleric is paying a 2 feat tax to do these things all clerics could always do in previous editions. Just because I want a fighter with mobility and have mine in a chain shirt does not make a reasonable justification to limit all fighters to light armor.
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.It is a group healing power, adding significantly to the party's healing ability. That makes it useful in pretty much every situation, as opposed to an ability that's only useful in very narrow situations.
And even in those situations where you think Turn Undead would be useful (i.e. when fighting undead), it's often not. That's because of two related issues:
1. CR is only vaguely related to HD, so a monster of CR 5 might very well have a HD anywhere from 3 to 10, or even more.
2. Undead HD, in particular, suck. As compensation, designers tend to load the undead up with a lot of them.For example, look at the 3.5e MM and see what sort of undead a cleric might encounter at, say, 8th level (CR 6 through 10):
Mohrg: 14 HD, CR 8
Advanced Megaraptor Skeleton: 12 HD, CR 6
Cloud Giant Skeleton: 17 HD, CR 7
Young Adult Red Dragon Skeleton: 19 HD, CR 8
Spectre: 7 HD, Turn resistance +2, CR 7
Gray Render Zombie: 20 HD, CR 6You'd be hard-pressed to find undead in the 3.5e MM that don't have HD+Turn Resistance at least 2 above their CR, meaning a cleric has to roll a 16+ on the turning check to affect them. This, in turn, means that turning undead is mostly useful when you're fighting big groups of weak undead. If you're doing that, you should probably get your mage to use Fireball instead.
If given the choice between one ability that (a) only works in rare situations, and (b) only rarely works even in those situations, and another ability that is almost always useful in a way that supports my class' primary role (healing) and can occasionally be used in other ways as well (harming undead), I'd take the second ability in a heartbeat.
But the result is turning the cleric in a healbot. One of the things I liked about 3.X was that the cleric could be something more then just a healbot. But with his ability to heal the group, the loss of the offensive spell power in pathfinder, and lose of heavy armor to get into the thick of it with takes him much further down the road to healbot then he ever was in 3.x.
|
But the result is turning the cleric in a healbot...
I boldly disagree. There are many changes that make the cleric more able to do things other than healing than in 3.5, including the improved domains and the new mechanic of channeling energy. Clerics can actually use their spells for what they were prepared for instead of saving them all to be spontaneously cast as cures.
The cleric is still a very versatile class - arguably the most versatile in the entire game, and if anything is much less of a healbot than it was in 3.5.
stuffs
It doesn't turn the cleric into a heal bot. It means that he can have a lot of healing available without having to spend all his spells on it (each use of channel energy is worth a number of cure spells equal to the party size).
This means his spells are readily available for buffs, attack spells, utility spells, and anything else he wants.
Also he has 4 domain abilities to work with too which also generally have nothing to do with healing.
So a feature that was of limited use (I've seen campaigns go by where the cleric never used a turn undead action), has been turned into something that frees up other resources, and allows more freedom of choice for the cleric's spells.
This is a very important point to me so indulge me as I drive it in again: The cleric doesn't have to burn a lot of spells healing anymore. He can get everyone with a single action, instead of just doing the fighter one round then the rogue and then the fighter again. 3 actions have been turned into one without eating up his spells in the process.
*********************
In addition to the fact that the cleric isn't a heal bot -- he's a walking bomb! Channel Negative energy ftw.
But the result is turning the cleric in a healbot...I boldly disagree. There are many changes that make the cleric more able to do things otherthan healing than in 3.5, including the improved domains and the new mechanic of channeling energy. Clerics can actually use their spells for what they were prepared for instead of saving them all to be spontaneously cast as cures.
The cleric is still a very versatile class - arguably the most versatile in the entire game, and if anything is much less of a healbot than it was in 3.5.
I would reply but you tend to fall to name calling so I will just be ignoring your posts from now on I think that best to avoid poor behaviour on my part.
stuffsIt doesn't turn the cleric into a heal bot. It means that he can have a lot of healing available without having to spend all his spells on it (each use of channel energy is worth a number of cure spells equal to the party size).
This means his spells are readily available for buffs, attack spells, utility spells, and anything else he wants.
Also he has 4 domain abilities to work with too which also generally have nothing to do with healing.
So a feature that was of limited use (I've seen campaigns go by where the cleric never used a turn undead action), has been turned into something that frees up other resources, and allows more freedom of choice for the cleric's spells.
This is a very important point to me so indulge me as I drive it in again: The cleric doesn't have to burn a lot of spells healing anymore. He can get everyone with a single action, instead of just doing the fighter one round then the rogue and then the fighter again. 3 actions have been turned into one without eating up his spells in the process.
*********************
In addition to the fact that the cleric isn't a heal bot -- he's a walking bomb! Channel Negative energy ftw.
True evil clerics are more about damage, good ones about healing. I am running a group through RotRL and the cleric is healing with the channel energy all the time instead of casting offensively because he can heal everyone with one burst if they stay together. Sure it saves spells but that does nothing great if all he is doing it channeling energy or casting heal spells. And frnakly that is what he has been doing, meanwhile the wizard, ranger and fighter have been tearing it up. The rogue has been struggling mightily. His build could be the cause but it's been tough for him in a fight.
But the result is turning the cleric in a healbot.
In my experience playing a Cleric under the final rule in the last few weeks, Channeling has helped to solve the "Healbot" problem. In 3.5 I spent most of my spell slots on healing my comrades, and now I can use Channeling to do that instead. I'm second level and I have actually used bless and bane at the same time to turn the tide of battle. This would have been murder/suicide in 3.5.
Furthermore, I played with the Beta version of channeling as well. It was overpowered. I find that the current version is about right; undead don't become a total joke, but having a Cleric is markedly better than no Cleric at all.
My low level Cleric can't afford heavy armor yet. The PCs hit hardest by the loss of heavy armor are higher-level clerics from the Beta version, ones who were wearing heavy armor. Clerics going from 3.5 to the gold release of Pathfinder RPG get the extra feat to buy Heavy armor if they need it.
Thurgon, I am not saying you should like the change. I've defended your right to express your opinion on this matter elsewhere. I do ask that you consider this was part of beta testing; you can't think of the beta as a final version. When you make a character with beta testing rules, you should anticipate that the rules are subject to change in the gold release.
I think it relevant that this change impacts 3.5 to PRPG cleric conversions less than it impacts Beta-PRPG cleric conversions. Such is the price of beta participation.
Here's a question to those who are concerned about the loss of heavy armor proficiency:
Have you ever tried to play the cloistered cleric from the UA?
This is a cleric with light armor proficiency only, same weapon proficiencies as a normal cleric, poor BAB, d6 hit die. In exchange you get more skill points, a bonus domain, some extra spells, and a few other odds and ends.
The cloistered cleric most certainly is NOT a holy warrior. This is a cleric who focuses on divination magic and knowledge, as the cleric spell list is full of divination magic as it is. No spells are lost, so this cleric can throw buffs and heal just fine. My perusal of other boards (such as the CharOp boards over at WotC) tells me this is a perfectly functional cleric. My own experience tells me the same.
In light armor. My own doesn't even wear that!
Given the additional power that a Pathfinder cleric has over the 3.5 cloistered cleric, in the end we are discussing whether or not a cleric can function without a few points of AC. In 3.5 they can, and given Pathfinder's additional power, I think we'll all find that clerics will still function just fine. Even on the front lines if need be.
|
|
I would reply but you tend to fall to name calling so I will just be ignoring your posts from now on I think that best to avoid poor behaviour on my part.
But the result is turning the cleric in a healbot...I boldly disagree. There are many changes that make the cleric more able to do things otherthan healing than in 3.5, including the improved domains and the new mechanic of channeling energy. Clerics can actually use their spells for what they were prepared for instead of saving them all to be spontaneously cast as cures.
The cleric is still a very versatile class - arguably the most versatile in the entire game, and if anything is much less of a healbot than it was in 3.5.
Wait a minute - you made a baseless statement without backing up the argument (clerics are now healbots), I responded with specifics on why I disagree, and now I'm just name calling?
Why don't you actually address some of the arguments that are being posed against you instead throwing out red herrings like that?
|
my only question....
did the cleric got at least more skill points?
nerfed some spells
gave domain powers AND spells
gave channeling
nerfed one armor type that they can still get back with a feat or multi-classI know people love to nerfthe cleric...
but it has to be that much?
Fixed that for you.
Seriously people. This cleric is still so much better than the 3.5 one. Maybe it didn't get as big a boost as the other classes, but it got a boost. Channel Energy alone is a huge deal.
Sure it saves spells but that does nothing great if all he is doing it channeling energy or casting heal spells. And frnakly that is what he has been doing, meanwhile the wizard, ranger and fighter have been tearing it up.
Your cleric is actively forcing himself to be a heal-bot by using very poor strategy; the rules aren't doing it to him. Unless he has a super-high Cha modifier, even a Selective Channeling feat won't prevent you from healing enemies during combat -- a losing strategy. And if you put a high score in Cha, you're neglecting other, more important stats. Channeling is great after combat, to bring everyone up to back near full hp quickly while saving spells, so that everyone is ready for the next encounter. DURING combat, the cleric should be using all those spells he's saving to buff his friends and kill the enemy, because during a fight that will save them an order of magnitude more hp than a mere channeling use will cure.
my only question....
did the cleric got at least more skill points?
nerfed spells
nerfed domains Huh?
nerfed channeling Channeling is Much better than 3.5
nerfed armor capabilities
I think it needs to be put into perspective, cleric was pretty much king of the hill in 3.5. Under Pathfinder they kept their domain spells, got some more standardized domain powers that are generally better than the domain granted powers from 3.5. Turn undead went from a situation ability to one they could use every adventuring day.
Clerics are not some isolated target, all of the classes that were recognized by most people as being overpowered got reigned in in some ways or another. Spells got nerfed for everyone, much more so for the wizard/ sorcerer than the cleric. Compare the changes in the cleric to the changes to the druid... losing one bonus armor feat is trivial compared to the huge change to wild shape.
Thurgon, Buggula, please knock it off.
I don't care who started it, it's too personal between you two. No good will come of either of you responding to each other, so just drop it. Go ahead and talk, just not to each other, for all our sakes.
True evil clerics are more about damage, good ones about healing. I am running a group through RotRL and the cleric is healing with the channel energy all the time instead of casting offensively because he can heal everyone with one burst if they stay together. Sure it saves spells but that does nothing great if all he is doing it channeling energy or casting heal spells. And frnakly that is what he has been doing, meanwhile the wizard, ranger and fighter have been tearing it up. The rogue has been struggling mightily. His build could be the cause but it's been tough for him in a fight.
I would suggest (respectfully, everyone has a different style of play) that he's wasting his rounds in general if he is healing every action. In the time I played RotRL we didn't really have a problem with people dropping or being close to dropping every round. He seems a little too occupied with his "healing job" than he really needs to be.
Which is ok, many people (even long term players) often get hung up on one aspect of the game. However I would say the problem isn't with the class in this case, but with how it is being played (again not that the player is a bad player, but his style is what is causing him to do nothing but heal not the class).
|
|
my only question....
did the cleric got at least more skill points?
nerfed some spells
gave domain powers AND spells
gave channeling
nerfed one armor type that they can still get back with a feat or multi-classI know people love to nerfthe cleric...
but it has to be that much?Fixed that for you.
Seriously people. This cleric is still so much better than the 3.5 one. Maybe it didn't get as big a boost as the other classes, but it got a boost. Channel Energy alone is a huge deal.
after playing with the beta... its a nerfed channeling... which is half the range of the turn undead...
ok i willsee the domains when they appear... have never liked the idea of bonus spells... the idea of the domain abilities as they appeared in the Beta was pretty much interesting... but I had this disccusion a lot of times
the armor thing is not to bad... if they are not Gorum clerics... still some alternative rules let you abandon armor proficiencies for skills... now you have ONE less armor proficiency to change for skills...
and please don't begin with the cloistered cleric, i don't like in general the diea of using splatbook classes, nor of letting them on my campaigns
besidesthe concept of the Cleric is that of the Templar = educated in many areas and trained for combat...
i know the spellnerf afected everyone... still.. a barbarian & rangers who receive usually less formal education get MORE skill points than those classes supposedly with better education!(wizard, cleric...) not every canbe solved with spells!! much less with spells that are woprth rounds...
the chang was not for balance, but to make happy a lot of cleric haters that have been complaining for months about the cleric... and yet people ask why people don't want to play a cleric...
after playing with the beta... its a nerfed channeling... which is half the range of the turn undead...
Beta Testing.
People should never have expected to convert characters from the Beta to the Final, just as I don't expect gold release software to work seamlessly with my beta version.
I'm sorry for your loss, but the only valid conversion critiques are "How does this convert from 3.5 to PRPG". The beta was testing and so cannot factor into a design critique.
You were not playing a game, you were testing a game.
Which is ok, many people (even long term players) often get hung up on one aspect of the game. However I would say the problem isn't with the class in this case, but with how it is being played (again not that the player is a bad player, but his style is what is causing him to do nothing but heal not the class).
And if Abraham and I actually agree on something, you can probably take it as gospel. It happens once every alternate leap year or so...
Character build and party dynamics play a big part in how a Cleric works out. In my main group we have gone without a Cleric for so many games that our play style tends toward speed and upfront damage mitigation (DR or High ACs), with generous amounts of out-of-combat secondary healing. In the current CotCT game I'm running of and on, the Cleric has been primarily using Compulsions for battle field control to bring or pin foes into the meat grinder of a Fighter and Barbarian duo. He has also been leading in fights with bleeding touch, which hopefully has had the limited uses per day added.
In a few pick-me-up groups I've been in, I almost think of the other players a lazy in the way they fall back so quickly on the cleric to constantly heal them. I'm constantly bemused when they get into trouble in combat and don't use various defensive fighting options, and instead try to run for the the Cleric. Sometimes it's felt like a Team Fortress 2 game with everyone screaming "Medic!" at the Battle Medic who busy is pwning the n00bs.
WotC tried to answer the Cleric = Heal-Bot charge in 4e by giving almost every class some way of 'healing' other people in the party. I don't necessarily agree with the way they did it myself, however there is a good point. If you want to see some of the Heal-Bot pressure taken off the cleric's back we need to see options for other class to begin pulling in that slack. I don't necessarily mean with class abilities or spells, but items and skills (Heal) be they magical or mundane seems the way to go.
I'll have to see what has been done in the final rules in that regard, at the very least the PF rules seem to have helped more then hurt in that regard, everyone can take Heal, Use Magic Device, even craft Alchemy if healing items in that line show up. I don't count magic item crafting because non-casters can't make spell trigger or completion items (no scrolls, potions, or wands).
One more day and almost everyone will have all the answers, but for those that do have it already, you can get a head start looking up alternative party healing options that opened up in the PFRPG that were no their or not practical before.
(P.S. I feel sympathy for your rogue player. Did the same thing not long ago, built a 100% sneak/stealth rogue and ended up with no main combat ability and most of my companions where clunkers.)
|
|
Clerics are not some isolated target, all of the classes that were recognized by most people as being overpowered got reigned in in some ways or another. Spells got nerfed for everyone, much more so for the wizard/ sorcerer than the cleric. Compare the changes in the cleric to the changes to the druid... losing one bonus armor feat is trivial compared to the huge change to wild shape.
yes Dennis... but you know well I don't exactly care for most classes :P
except in one area... where I know no change were made... skill points*hits his head against the table and mumble grumble* damn Dogbert you were right...
my reason to fall in love with Paizo is because I saw bold changes in the Beta... (except in magic of course) and its sad that many of those bold steps are backed away (for after seeing the preludes, i don't get my book yet), but of course for me the Cleric is quite personal
still i will see it when it arrives... but for some reason I begin to see a full conversion to BoXM instead of PFRPG
now i leave this discussion... no need to discuss this over 50 message, when we did this i the Cleric prelude... after all... I am waiting for my book, not rushing to cancel like last time
|
|
I'm sorry for your loss, but the only valid conversion critiques are "How does this convert from 3.5 to PRPG". The beta was testing and so cannot factor into a design critique.
You were not playing a game, you were testing a game.
still i liked more the beta... at least after seen previews... i will check the final when it arrives... then i will decide...
and about playing a game or a beta... I know understand better why we have been playing BoXM for a few months...
still i liked more the beta... at least after seen previews... i will check the final when it arrives... then i will decide...and about playing a game or a beta... I know understand better why we have been playing BoXM for a few months...
That's good! If you liked the beta, use it! I'm dead serious, there's nothing wrong with that.
Someone mind spelling out BoXM for me?
That's good! If you liked the beta, use it! I'm dead serious, there's nothing wrong with that.
still i liked more the beta... at least after seen previews... i will check the final when it arrives... then i will decide...and about playing a game or a beta... I know understand better why we have been playing BoXM for a few months...
Indeed. I liked this change but recall it's your game. You have every right to change the rules as you see fit. My beta is not going anywhere. I will use what I want from it.
I resigned myself to skill points but will houserule that no biggi. Clerics did get a boost from 3.5 a good needed boost, while bringing in the abused spells and takeing away armor they didn't need anyhow. You can have it you have more feats then 3.5. By the time you can afford it anyhow you casn use a feat on it. Not a big lose all in all
The more I think about the more I think it is fine.
I might let the War domain trade heavy armor prof for the normal 1st level power.
The more I think about the more I think it is fine.
I might let the War domain trade heavy armor prof for the normal 1st level power.
Not sure that is a good trade. I will be allowing holy warrior clerics to trade both domains for a d10 full BAB and heavy armor, myself.
I'm not going to rehash anything I've already said. Its on my blog and in the original "What's in the final" thread, and there is no point in going into it again.
That having been said, a couple things I would like to say.
1. I'm not sure we really are breaking new ground in this thread at this point, just tallying how many people are on each side of the fence, if they care to post their opinion. I'm getting the feeling all this is really doing is getting people more and more worked up at this point.
2. While some people have gotten a bit worked up in their defense of their opinion, and have taken changes as personal affronts, at the same time, there have been quite a few people in favor of the changes that have responded in a manner that is pretty inflammatory as well. I think both sides could stand to take a breath and try to divorce their opinion from hyperbole and emotionally charged qualifiers before they post, at least if they actually want a discussion to remain a discussion and not just a running tally to see who "won" an argument.
But the result is turning the cleric in a healbot. One of the things I liked about 3.X was that the cleric could be something more then just a healbot. But with his ability to heal the group, the loss of the offensive spell power in pathfinder, and lose of heavy armor to get into the thick of it with takes him much further down the road to healbot then he ever was in 3.x.
IMO this is a major over-reaction.
In particular the idea that wearing medium armor prevents getting "into the thick of it" is silly.
The PF domain powers notably increase the clerics options.
And the real result of channel is that the cleric can throw out a burst in one round to give everyone a top off and be free to actually do something else the next round, rather than using all his turns rotating through the party with single target heals. It takes the edge off the heal bot. If you play the healer character, you are going to heal. Depending on how reactionary you are, a cleric will always be labeled a "healbot". But PF changes have done a good job of mitigating it.
|
This might sound a bit silly but having thought about it I'm not so much annoyed with the armour change than with how they went about it. Probably should have nipped this one in the bud during the Cleric preview.
Also it is somewhat Ironic that hey say a cleric does not need heavy armour but in the first adventure path using the new rules the very first Npc Cleric the party encounters is wearing you guessed it heavy armour.
I will be allowing holy warrior clerics to trade both domains for a d10 full BAB and heavy armor, myself.
Holy crapsauce you're crazy...but it's your game, and so be it. :)
Not sure that is a good trade. I will be allowing holy warrior clerics to trade both domains for a d10 full BAB and heavy armor, myself.
Well, that is straight out of the campaign setting. You just switched out the weapon prof for armor prof.
But I'm just talking about the Battle Rage ability, which I think is pretty meh. I mean there are vastly better things a 6th level cleric can do with his action than give someone +3 to damage. It *might* yield an extra 6 damage if the target gets off 2 attacks and hits with both. Very meh. Not that a 1st level ability needs to be great or anything.
But, IMO, a cleric as is with 2 domains, your no domains holy warrior, and my heavy armor with no battle rage ability cleric are all close enough.
I'll be allowing the campaign setting option as well.
This might sound a bit silly but having thought about it I'm not so much annoyed with the armour change than with how they went about it. Probably should have nipped this one in the bud during the Cleric preview.
I agree with this.
|
|
Well, they can still regain the ability via a feat. :/
I suspect that it was done for balance reasons, as clerics have - rightly at times - been pointed out as the "uberclass."
As a player, I can certainly live with this; as a DM, I'm more than happy about it! :)
(besides, as long as there are not too many divine feats in the game, it's not as if the cleric wouldn't have feats to spend)
Also it is somewhat Ironic that hey say a cleric does not need heavy armour but in the first adventure path using the new rules the very first Npc Cleric the party encounters is wearing you guessed it heavy armour.
He did spend a feat on Heavy Armor Prof.....
|
|
All this over a couple of pluses to AC? I think Jason's justification of Figher = most armour (seriously what else you they have to do with there day), Cleric = next most armour is quite sound. 3.5 has silly Clerics, out fighting the fighters and in some cases out blasting the wizards - right up there with animal form Druids beating up everything in sight. The "feat tax" as it was called is really just a choice, you want heavy armour you can have it, but at a cost. From a roleplaying point of view, your Cleric needed to miss a few classes in Cleric school to go bugger about with the Fighters to sort out how to use this platemail stuff. Not a great stretch of the imagination to justify the feat "loss".
I can see the problem if there wasn't the feat option to upgrade to heavy armour. Not wishing to offend anyone but this seems to me to be a storm in a tea cup and I can't see the deal breaker for Clerics in general.
As for heal-bot, well that comes down to the person making the character, we had a wizard with zero (yep zero) offensive spells (he was a pacifist) - some would argue that given the general types of spells in the wizard list that they are nothing but blast-bots...
It seems that Jason et al have considered the classes as a whole when making adjustments, whereas we are discussing a class "out of context" as it were.
S.
|
|
Also it is somewhat Ironic that hey say a cleric does not need heavy armour but in the first adventure path using the new rules the very first Npc Cleric the party encounters is wearing you guessed it heavy armour.He did spend a feat on Heavy Armor Prof.....
Yes I know what I meant was saying that a Cleric does not need heavy armour then having your first Npc character show up wearing it and using his first lvl (or possibly racial) feat seems to be counter productive.
|
|
ummmm before Pathfinder, there was NO Channeling. You could not heal the party with a burst. You had to use spells. Turn Undead was ONLY for trying to keep undead from getting to the party, and rarely destroying them.
The Pathfinder Cleric is heads and shoulders better than the 3.5 one, because he is far more versatile.
OK so a few spells were toned down from 3.5 versions. Big whoop
and
The Cleric cant wear Heavy Armor. A very minor change that only effects about 2-3 points of AC.
Is it that much to get wrapped up in?
Id hardly call this nerfing the cleric.
Its minor and actually adds some flavor to the game. Back away from the issue for a second and look at it without the 'oh no the world is coming to an end attitude' folks.
And please dont lament the loss of things in the beta. It was never canon to begin with. So noone should say 'but I had XXXX in the beta.'
The only comparisons that should be made is A) how does the Cleric stack up with the 3.5 version? and b) How does it stack up with the other classes?
<I know I had said I wouldnt participate in this discussion after Jason asked us not to...but after all these pages of posts...I had to say something.>
Yes I know what I meant was saying that a Cleric does not need heavy armour then having your first Npc character show up wearing it and using his first lvl (or possibly racial) feat seems to be counter productive.Also it is somewhat Ironic that hey say a cleric does not need heavy armour but in the first adventure path using the new rules the very first Npc Cleric the party encounters is wearing you guessed it heavy armour.He did spend a feat on Heavy Armor Prof.....
Well, I'd expect the character was built long ago and modified to match a recent change in the rules. And it does fit the character IMO, so it seems quite reasonable.
Spending a feat on something doesn't mean the entire class needs it.
If the first fighter encountered used a double-bladed sword it would not imply that all fighters should get double blade sword prof as a class feature.
If anything, the npc demonstrates how trivial an issue this really is.