My group has gone over this many times. Even people who've picked D&D up fairly recently have realized the optimal nature of the Cleric. So allow me to lay it out for you:
If the designer (Jason?) thought it would be appropriate to bring them down a peg then I agree, if only because I would like to see players use the medium armor group, and play classes like the druid more often. As it is, our sessions have ended up with more than one player choosing Cleric as a class. It's annoying.
At the end of the day, a game needs to rest on balanced foundations. A game like this, rests--bets even--on the balance of its core classes. Without that, it's just another broken system that wont sell or get played, and anyone who's been around long enough to know what Cyberpunk 2020 is, can appreciate the value of that statement, because I don't know anyone (with the exception of myself) who still plays that game.
The angry folks are most likely players who like playing Clerics; they're pissed because they can't have their cake and eat it too. The happy folks are most likely GMs, because they understand the importance of a stable system and how it's essential--in order for the whole group and not just one individual--to enjoy the game.
It was an excellent decision; one that shows a finesse and aptitude with the system that justifies their roles as game-builders. I can say that because It's the kind of thing I would never have thought of, but put simply, perfectly balances the scales.
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. :)
It's out of the PFCS, I have had a few use it. I just added back the armor is all
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.
I do not have the book so no clue on what domains grant
I really like many of you. I've read your posts and interacted with you in various threads. That's why I'm trying to curtail this before its gets even further out of hand.
Most people don't care if someone disagrees with them, even on a heated topic, but the second people tell them that their opinion is "trivial," it gets personal.
Please, I want to know if people disagree with me, or more to the point, what their opinion on a given topic is, but don't try to justify your opinions by denigrating the concerns of others. Its only going to make this thing more visceral and personal than it currently is.
|
agreed Knighterrant. If My post came off a little too over the top, I apologize. Its not meant to say anyones views aren't valid.
We all have opinions, and mine are no more valid than anyone elses.
All I was trying to do was get folks to stop for a second and look at what they are getting worked up about.
2-3 points of AC
Simply put, I cant see that as being a class breaker.
As I said before I agree the cleric needed a nerf. But the cleric has always had access to the heaviest armor in the game, but hasn't always had the most powerful magic. So if it's going to be nerfed I'd prefer that it's magic get nerfed rather than it's armor.This is actually incorrect. If you take a look at an old version Cleric, you will find his 7th level spells just as strong as the Wizards 9th. It was just condensed to 7 levels instead of nine.
I already disproved that earlier in the thread.
|
I already disproved that earlier in the thread.As I said before I agree the cleric needed a nerf. But the cleric has always had access to the heaviest armor in the game, but hasn't always had the most powerful magic. So if it's going to be nerfed I'd prefer that it's magic get nerfed rather than it's armor.This is actually incorrect. If you take a look at an old version Cleric, you will find his 7th level spells just as strong as the Wizards 9th. It was just condensed to 7 levels instead of nine.
I deleted the post, as I didn't realize the thread was 7 pages long and others had pointed this out, but I do have to say you did not. I Played clerics and felt that the power level of thier spells were equal to the mage's highest, and That is what I will stick with. Thank you.
|
Well, for what it is worth. I love the new cleric. The channel energy change was a huge hit for our group during the beta with only one complaint, the Turn Undead portion of it was irritating to manage. Unfortunately, there is no way to make everybody happy. As far as the armor portion is concerned, my Cleric lost two points of AC when going from Full Plate to wearing Chainmail. I'm ok with that.
Although the BoXM is a cool book, I like that it is an alternate book and not the core.
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. :)
I agree. Paizo-published or not, a +20 BAB class with full spellcasting is just plain wrong on so many levels I don't want to think about it. Why play anything else, ever? And if I proposed a fighter variant that traded its bonus feats for full (20 levels) of clerical spellcasting, the same people would call me mad...
agreed Knighterrant. If My post came off a little too over the top, I apologize. Its not meant to say anyones views aren't valid.
We all have opinions, and mine are no more valid than anyone elses.
@this:
Tripping over ourselves, making brash comments and retracting them.
Bickering over little things, then we're all sweetness and apologies...
Pathfinder RPG has driven us all completely mad!
At least it comes with a polite, apologetic followup. These boards are still awesome for a reason.
I deleted the post, as I didn't realize the thread was 7 pages long and others had pointed this out, but I do have to say you did not. I Played clerics and felt that the power level of thier spells were equal to the mage's highest, and That is what I will stick with. Thank you.
So you've played 1st edition? Well I guess if you have I'd have to submit to you're superior experience. But that makes it make even less sense that they would get 8th and 9th level spells. Of course I'm not sure if I do agree. I mean what do they have that equivalent to Meteor Swarm? Or Time Stop? Or Shapechange? Or Wish?
And gate, which is far better than meteor swarm and shapechange combined.
*chuckle*...Thank you for putting things in perspective ToyRobots ;)
and Zack-
True Resurrection, Implosion, Miracle.
:D
You know what all those spells have in common? They weren't in 1st edition. I already conceded gate, though. My point is the cleric shouldn't have those 9th level spells.
I agree. Paizo-published or not, a +20 BAB class with full spellcasting is just plain wrong on so many levels I don't want to think about it. Why play anything else, ever? And if I proposed a fighter variant that traded its bonus feats for full (20 levels) of clerical spellcasting, the same people would call me mad...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. :)
You make good points. I mostly use it for NPC's anyhow. No player has taken it because they know I will use it if they do. However you do make a very good point
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
That's not really relevant to my point. My point is the cleric has always had access to plate and should keep it.
Oh come now. Clerics from basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e all could wear plate. They could also all turn undead.
As both I and Laurefindel said, depending on your deity, not in 2E.
That's not really relevant to my point. My point is the cleric has always had access to plate and should keep it.Oh come now. Clerics from basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e all could wear plate. They could also all turn undead.As both I and Laurefindel said, depending on your deity, not in 2E.
Actually, those weren't clerics. All clerics had the same traits and the same spheres in 2nd edition. Specialty priests had different weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, and spheres, however. There were still clerics that were separate classes from the various specialty priests.
That's not really relevant to my point. My point is the cleric has always had access to plate and should keep it.Oh come now. Clerics from basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e all could wear plate. They could also all turn undead.As both I and Laurefindel said, depending on your deity, not in 2E.
That's only if you played a specialty priest. Those are pretty much different classes from the baseline cleric. I'm okay with the idea of variant clerics, though.
Edit: Ninja'd!
|
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.
My problem with this belief, is that it simply isn't very sound. Unless there are some large, very unexpected changes that is. Let me clarify my side a bit, also. I do not have the book, yet. I am however, exceptionally talented with the rules, and understanding ramifications on a broad spectrum. I also play, (not recently so much) with a lot of different groups, (all different people), that all have much different styles and views. I've learned from powergamers, munchkins, and dramaqueens, and would most certanly not think of myself as a powergamer.
Between the fighter, specifically, getting an ac boost just for wearing armor, the cleric will be hard pressed to stay up in the same league, even with fullplate. Rangers have the ability to either keep away from combat or attack and hide. Barbarians generally can just take the hit. But the cleric didn't keep up in the HP ranges there. Almost every single class got more HP, and the notable two that did not, one got even more ac, and the other, Barbarian is designed to max it out, without any help, (it is not a good choice not to have a high Con barbarian). So it's more than just 2 or 3, especially at higher levels when it really begins to count. Just like in Epic 3.0, it begins to get to the point that a DM, in order to have a chance to hit the fighter, will always hit the cleric, regardless of if they try to reasonably keep their ac up.
Clerics, specifically, did get hit hard. Practically, if not literally every single other class got something new and cool between 3.5 to PF final. From the preview of the Cleric, which showed a huge spike in opinions compared to the previews before it, we saw that the vast majority of the actual (liked) changes to both the class and other factors related to it, like magic and channel energy, are being stripped away or outright no longer working in the way that (some?) people liked. If it really where a balance issue, than the other classes percieved to have been lacking would have simply gotten a bit better. But instead, cleric specifically actually lost a lot, between spell "nerfing", not getting the HP boost nearly everyone else did, not getting any actual new features, but losing some of the few they had (almost) gotten. They did not get the skill points that many many people asked for. Why, because as far as I understand it, they didn't want hurt the Rogue.
So that essentually, and I may be wrong, but this is the impression I and other get, is the rogue is okay to superboost but under no circumstances can be touched as a sacred cow (skill monkey), but that does not apply to the cleric. (Once again, not pointing any fingers at specific people). Regardless of how "broken" the 3E Rogue has been in all but very specific situations, (whose sole purpose was to give other classes some spotlight). True or not, and I don't actually think there is some big agenda to do this, but it really does feel like the Cleric is being pushed away from everything but either the bandaid or white mage. Not because that's the direction most people want as much as they want other classes to replace the better aspects of the cleric.
|
|
I just want my copy damn it! I'll except any and all changes UNTIL such time as during play something just doesn't work. Be interesting to hear what people think about Medium vs Heavy armour in say 6 months time. DMing has just become exciting again, and if I don't have to fight so much against the "player uber feat/skill/class/death combo of the week" I'll be a very happy DM. I not sure how many times the SAME monster would have X hps vs the person who made a character and 10X hps vs the "optimised" pain in the DMs a&%e character just to keep the challenge up for all players... Fix that and Paizo has succeeded.
Just to keep faith with this thread - er, sorry for belittling anyones concerns over the armour issue. In my opinion no big deal, but I fully understand for some its a little more life changing ;)
Musings,
S.
I am however, exceptionally talented with the rules, and understanding ramifications on a broad spectrum.
Then you would understand why the cleric, played intelligently, walked all over all of the other classes in 3.5, and why it desperately needed to be nerfed HARD in Pathfinder to preserve any semblance of a multiple-class game, and why the minor changes made to it so far don't really qualify as to the magnitude of nerfing needed.
|
|
Honestly, I don't know yet. No one does. That's why there is inevitably errata. I think that there are more issues than just the ac that play a part, which is what I was trying to get across. The ac is just one more thing, and by itself, no it is not huge. But when it is all taken together, that may very well be a completely different story. Its really setting of my "spidey-sense", though, for lack of a better word.
But instead, cleric specifically actually lost a lot, between spell "nerfing", not getting the HP boost nearly everyone else did, not getting any actual new features, but losing some of the few they had (almost) gotten. They did not get the skill points that many many people asked for. Why, because as far as I understand it, they didn't want hurt the Rogue.
So that essentually, and I may be wrong,
Choice of Domain Spells from 2 Domains, new powers from BOTH Domains, Channel Energy...
Yup, no new features here.They get the same access to Favored Class skill/HPs as everybody else.
"Nearly everyone else" did not get a HD type increase. Only 4/11 classes' HD type increased.
And somehow... somehow...
Now having access to Fireball thru Domain Spells suggests to me that not EVERY Cleric will be a "band-aid or white mage".
So I would agree on that last one... You are quite wrong.
|
Between the fighter, specifically, getting an ac boost just for wearing armor,
Just to clarify, but the bonus to AC from Armor Training was removed in the Final. They still gain the Armor Check Penalty reduction and the Max Dex Improvement, but no actual AC bonus. The only other thing they gain is that at level 3 they may move at normal speed in Medium armor, and at normal speed in Heavy armor at level 7.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
|
|
Clerics, specifically, did get hit hard. Practically, if not literally every single other class got something new and cool between 3.5 to PF final.
Would you like to pull up a chair and talk about my old favorite class, the Druid?
I can't believe that people are this up in arms about heavy armor for clerics when Druids were nerfed far worse...and didn't really get anything to make up for it.
The bright side is that while I used to play almost nothing but Druids and Monks, I now am excited about playing almost every single other class.
Maybe it's time to let go of your favorite toy cleric and check out some of the other really cool things that are happening to the rest of the classes?
Between the fighter, specifically, getting an ac boost just for wearing armor,Just to clarify, but the bonus to AC from Armor Training was removed in the Final. They still gain the Armor Check Penalty reduction and the Max Dex Improvement, but no actual AC bonus. The only other thing they gain is that at level 3 they may move at normal speed in Medium armor, and at normal speed in Heavy armor at level 7.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
So this really does come back to a difference of only 2-3 AC, even at high levels.
I suppose that simplifies this already simple discussion. :)
|
|
Between the fighter, specifically, getting an ac boost just for wearing armor,Just to clarify, but the bonus to AC from Armor Training was removed in the Final. They still gain the Armor Check Penalty reduction and the Max Dex Improvement, but no actual AC bonus. The only other thing they gain is that at level 3 they may move at normal speed in Medium armor, and at normal speed in Heavy armor at level 7.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Good. The AC gap between armoured and non-armoured characters got way out of hand - at least in our pfRPG beta game.
S.
|
|
Just to clarify, but the bonus to AC from Armor Training was removed in the Final. They still gain the Armor Check Penalty reduction and the Max Dex Improvement, but no actual AC bonus.
Between the fighter, specifically, getting an ac boost just for wearing armor,
Now that does make a big difference. It's also one of the first posts from the "I like it side" that doesn't seem like I'm right, your wrong, deal with it.
Would you like to pull up a chair and talk about my old favorite class, the Druid?
I can't believe that people are this up in arms about heavy armor for clerics when Druids were nerfed far worse...and didn't really get anything to make up for it.
God, that's so freakin' true. But, in all fairness, Druids in 3.5 (poorly built or not) were broken beyond belief. Yeah, they drew blood with the nerf bat, but it looks like the druid is finally on par with her fellow classes. I'm sad that they didn't get many upgrades in Pathfinder, but the at-will wildshaping and more powerful animal companions are a nice touch.
This is a pretty good point, though, when it comes to the cleric nerf(s). The cleric and druid were regarded as the two most powerful classes in 3.5, with the cleric ahead in core only and the druid WAAAAAY ahead when you get into splat books. Pathfinder RPG was all about bringing the classes in line with one another, not boosting every one of them. Clerics and druids both didn't need any help, and Paizo really went above and beyond in bringing them down to the other classes and smoothing out and expanding some shoddy design choices (domains, animal companions, turn undead).
Taking away armor proficiencies is just another way to bring them more in line with their companion classes, notably the druid, wizard, and sorcerer.
Lordzack. I have the perfect solution to your woes. It is called OSRIC and you can find it here:
All the plate wearing, mace-wielding, holy warrior you can stand. I play it, and I love it.
When it comes to D&D 3.whatever, though, I like clerics that can be used and adapted to a gamut of roles, from cloistered friar with robes, to greatsword wielding crusader.
With feats and skills, and the occasional house rule, I can play any type of priest from any culture, with the same baseline engine underneath. That is the greatest strength of 3.x, that it can accomodate all of us, and if you want a plated warrior priest, it can be yours for the bargain price of one feat. An understanding D.M may be able to give it to you for free.
Threadjack:
There was a class, jokingly called God, the wizard. The wizard could deny you initiative. As it was once said, initiative is for those restricted to normal time. The quote may be off, but you get my point, and during this round in which you did not get to act it could Gate in something that you had no way to defeat if it did not want to waste its time smiting you from the face of the material plane itself.
How is this possible--> Foresight Celerity and Timestop.
I mean does it really matter how what you can do if you never get a chance to do it? <---That was a rhetorical question.
Back to this druid thing.
Now as for this Druid nerfing I don't really like the idea. I think they got carried away, but the druid's power was the most obvious to me, and as they say the squeaky wheel gets the grease, or something like that.
|
|
Now that does make a big difference. It's also one of the first posts from the "I like it side" that doesn't seem like I'm right, your wrong, deal with it.Just to clarify, but the bonus to AC from Armor Training was removed in the Final. They still gain the Armor Check Penalty reduction and the Max Dex Improvement, but no actual AC bonus.
Between the fighter, specifically, getting an ac boost just for wearing armor,Since you're accusing those in favor of it of having an illogical attitude with no factual basis, when we've been giving far more objective support for our stance than most of the "I hate its" have, I'm going to have to say this.
Present some facts indicating that the removal of 2 or 3 points of Armor Class at high levels -- points which can be restored by the use of one feat -- actually has a colossal impact on the cleric's viability, and I am prepared to concede that you're right if you, in fact, are.
It's simply that cleric casting has been buffed, and cleric AC has been nerfed only slightly, so it seems that, logically, it's not really a huge detriment to the cleric. Provide me and the other "I like its" with a logical reason why this change was as big a mistake as you're making it out to be (or a mistake at all, for that matter), and some of us might even come around to your point of view.
At the moment, the heavy armor removal still appears to be a molehill, and a rather puny one at that.
I am not, and have never claimed to be right in this. I have always said, and made it a point that I do not know for sure yet, but this is a very legitamit worry. The fact is, it will be months before we start seeing all the little things pop up.
Up until now, not one person has said the fighter lost the ac bump for armor training, and no reason to think that would change. With the beta armor training, typically a higher dex, and heavier armor, the difference between an optimized fight and medium armor cleric could easily be closer to 8 - 10, not 2 or 3.As I said, aside from not being a fan of the change just to keep paladins and fighter the normal full platers, I was concerned with the combat ramifications. Such as in a fight, a monster needs to have such a high attack rating to be able to hit the fighter, that that cleric with 8 lower ac will always be hit, practically. So even the 2 or 3 would be a very big deal.
|
|
I would like all the people who said here that nerfing the cleric was good and that the loss of Heavy Armor proficiency was not a big thing to indeed play a cleric character for their next PFRPG sessions, and THEN to come back with their impressions.
It seems to me that they are mostly defending all the ways Paizo tried to reduce the power gap between cleric and other classes because they (the posters, not Paizo) hated it, but without even wondering what the changes imply when playing a cleric character. Or do they feel that EVERYONE playing a cleric in 3.5 was a minmaxing munchkin ?
Without Heavy Armor, the cleric just cannot be in the middle of the fight unless he has a significant Dex bonus.
But his spells and channeling ability do require him to be in the middle of the fight.
Hence, the cleric will definitely need a significant Dex bonus.
He will also need a good Wis bonus (for his spells) and a significant Cha bonus (for Channeling) as well as a significant Con bonus (as do all characters who stay in the middle of a fight).
Thus an effective cleric character will need to reduce his Int score (as most did in 3.5), but also his Str score.
The cleric thus will have to stay in the melee but will be far worse at attacking than he was in 3.5. He will most likely come to use his spells more often. Considering the typical clerical spells, this will make the cleric maybe not a healbot, but at least a melee utilitybot : doing nothing but casting buff spells. I can understand how this might upset people who liked to play a cleric wading in the fray.
The feat tax is indeed one for these characters. A feat is a feat is a feat. No way around this.
Also the comparison with other full spellcasters is inappropriate since wizard/sorcerer's spells are designed to be efficient at range and do not require the caster to be in the thick of things. One of the consequences is that these classes can use Con as a dump stat. The cleric just cannot.
I would hope that, at least, the War domain gives the Heavy Armor proficiency. Else my cleric of Gorum will be damn unhappy :(
You know, my opinion is not going to be very popular, but here goes....They didn't go far enough. Clerics should all be like cloistered Clerics as full casters, with Wizard BAB, Hit Die, etc. Add in a few perks if necessary. Then, instead of Paladin, a Crusader class that can belong to any church. LG Crusaders are still called " Paladins ". Problem solved. Seriously, if Clerics are the " Holy Warriors " of their Faith, then realistically, there should be no Paladins at all, or perhaps a Paladin / Blackguard Prestige Class for Clerics to get the extra stuff. I never understood why LG Faiths and churches had two " Holy Warrior " types and everyone else just got one.
In my opinion as a proud new owner of the Hardcover Rulebook :-)
the overall picture for the Cleric is amazingly balanced, and in fact is perfectly positioned between the Holy Warrior (full BAB, Hvy Armor variant in Campaign Setting) and the Cloistered Cleric.
I certainly look forward to playing a PRPG Cleric!
Eh not a huge deal, Under PF chain mail and breast plate are +6. same as 2 of the 4 heavy armors from 3.5
so from 3.5 to PF you have a difference of +3.. with full plate at a cost of 1500 gp. Now you will have more feats then in 3.5 by the time you can gain full plat....It really is a none issue. You have better AC then you could have got in 3.5 at low end and enough feats to buy the proff for the +3 by the time you can afford it anyhow.
It's +3 away from a fighter/paladin ...and lookie you gain channel for healing..meaning you get to use way more spells then you did in 3.5. It is a boost
I would like all the people who said here that nerfing the cleric was good and that the loss of Heavy Armor proficiency was not a big thing to indeed play a cleric character for their next PFRPG sessions, and THEN to come back with their impressions.
It seems to me that they are mostly defending all the ways Paizo tried to reduce the power gap between cleric and other classes because they (the posters, not Paizo) hated it, but without even wondering what the changes imply when playing a cleric character. Or do they feel that EVERYONE playing a cleric in 3.5 was a minmaxing munchkin ?
I feel like this post is directed at me (which it really is), so I'm going to post my reply. You might have seen me bouncing around this thread, but then again, you might not have. I tend to keep my head out of things here on the forums. You will, however, notice that I am very much in favor of this "nerf" to the cleric class. I would also like to say, for the record:
I am a min-maxing, munchkin building powergamer who has every intention to play a cleric in the campaign our group is starting in just over a month.
I love min-maxing, and I love squeezing every mechanical advantage out of a character you can muster. In 3.5 I practically lived on the CharOp boards, and the crazy things they did only inspired me to explore the system further. I'm also a huge fan of roleplaying, and tend to run with RAI (Rules as Intended) rather than RAW (Rules as Written).
I fully support this change to the cleric class from a non-biased, third party stance, and even more so as a future player of this very class. Yes, it's a nerf, and yes, it was needed. Some have said that it wasn't enough, and I tend to agree- to a point. I don't think they should be low BAB or HD classes, as their main draw is divine casting, which on the whole, is less offensive than arcane magic.
So please, next time you want to lash out against the "I like it" crowd, realize that not everyone is for the nerf because they didn't like the previous cleric or are bitter about munchkin builds. Some of us (even the powergamers) feel that system balance is the most important part of PFRPG.
EDIT: Please do not interpret this as snarcastic slice at the "I don't like it" crowd, or anyone in particular. This post is only intended to bring to light that we need to rely on facts, and not generalizations about our opposing posters, as to why this is a good or bad thing. I'm doing my best to remain civil, and I hope everyone else puts forth the effort to do so as well.
Ok so I personally dont like this nerf especially after they have already toned down the spells and the domains. But I think I have a perfect power gamer solution to the problem. . .
I will pick up ONE level of Fighter.
~This gives me 1d10 hp vs 1d8
~I get a +1 attack bonus
~I get a bonus feat AND I pick up the Heavy Armor feat for free.
~Now like Obama said "yes we can use tower Shields!
~Now I am proficient in all martial weapons!
~I will get a Fort save bonus early on, much better than going up in cleric one level.
~I can pick up skills in things a cleric normally cant learn.
Honestly what will I have lost?
Ok so I cant get the super uber 20th level power, big fudgecicle on a stick! Who really gets to 20th level anyway? And I am a 19th level cleric so. . .
I will just make a wish spell and fix the problem once I get there.
My two cents.
Darren
TELL ME WHAT YOU GUYS THINK OF THAT AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE GAME BALANCE?!
I've just been in way too many pre-3e games where Cleric was the last thing anyone wanted to play, and I'm kinda really disappointed to see Pathfinder falling back into bad habits, bad design choices, that I thought we'd left behind with the end of 2e.
Oh well. House rules ahoy.
Not to pick on you but,....How? They can cast spells now and still heal, they have more domain powers and get the domain spells...I just don't see how they are much weaker really
...2 or 3 points of Armor Class...
Nitpick: this has been said several times, and I think that putting it that way is over-blowing it a bit.
The standard cleric (read: the guy who wants to be like a 3.5 cleric) is going to spend a feat for Heavy Armor prof. He will be down by a single feat, which (once you've bought up your armor proficiencies) is actually equivalent to one point of armor class (Dodge), not 2 or 3.
If a cleric DOESN'T spend the feat for heavy armor, it is because heavy armor doesn't appeal to him (for whatever reason) or because he has better things to do with his feats. In other words, the penalty must count even less for him than for the clerics who DO spend a feat on armor prof (because if not he would have spent the feat to negate it).
I've just been in way too many pre-3e games where Cleric was the last thing anyone wanted to play, and I'm kinda really disappointed to see Pathfinder falling back into bad habits, bad design choices, that I thought we'd left behind with the end of 2e.
Oh well. House rules ahoy.
You've got it all wrong.
2e clerics were poorly designed, yes. They were hugely overpowered.
2e clerics are too freaking good at healing, which is too freaking important for the survival of the party. As a consequence of this, someone NEEDS to play the cleric in 2e, which is awful game design. Had they been toned down a bit, the cleric simply would have been a class like any other, with no need to play it unless you actually want to.
Rather than doing that, though, 3rd edition actually embraced the idea that every group must force someone to play the cleric, and chose to make the cleric even BETTER so that the guy who gets forced to play it doesn't grumble quite so loudly.
We've all seen what a big mistake that was. Frankly, I doubt Paizo has even come close to fixing the issue, but I'll reserve judgment for after I've actually read the rules.
...2 or 3 points of Armor Class...Nitpick: this has been said several times, and I think that putting it that way is over-blowing it a bit.
The standard cleric (read: the guy who wants to be like a 3.5 cleric) is going to spend a feat for Heavy Armor prof. He will be down by a single feat, which (once you've bought up your armor proficiencies) is actually equivalent to one point of armor class (Dodge), not 2 or 3.
If a cleric DOESN'T spend the feat for heavy armor, it is because heavy armor doesn't appeal to him (for whatever reason) or because he has better things to do with his feats. In other words, the penalty must count even less for him than for the clerics who DO spend a feat on armor prof (because if not he would have spent the feat to negate it).
Ok, it's 2am and I've got a cold, so that may have something to do with it, but... I don't understand what you're saying. Could you rephrase that?