|
At least now in PFRPG, the Paladin can somewhat replace the Cleric in the healbot department (or even outplace him, depending on char build).
Actually now that I have the Tome of Secrets I seriously consider ditching the core Cleric class and giving my players a choice of going either with the Paladin or ToS Priest.
Anyone can spend a feat to negate this penalty. Therefor, "you have one less feat" is as harsh as the penalty ever gets.
(And sometimes it's worth even less than that. For instance, some clerics wear light armor anyway, and this doesn't hurt them at all).
Phrasing it as "-3 AC" makes it sound worse than it is because -3 AC is actually a pretty big penalty. But because it only takes one feat to get that +3 back, it really isn't that bad.
Is that better?
|
Paizo Boards, the last refugee of people who think that 3ed Cleric was fine, OK and in line with other classes (especially the Fighter).
Never said that. Never thought that, either, from the release day of 3e. The problem with the Cleric as I always saw it was some spells desperately needed nerfing, and they have been. I just never thought the class itself was that broken. Fighters needed help and they've gotten it.
I'm just wondering if we won't be having a similar argument in 8 or 10 years time when Pathfinder 2e is being released and they've had to buff the Cleric back up a bit again to get people wanting to play one.
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.
...
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?!
Didn't Kaeyoss answer this earlier, or is it just later than I thought and I'm losing it? IIRC he said a levels worth of spells, a spell level half the time and slower to get domain powers. Probably losing as much, or more, than you're gaining in short... as for the wish (and presumably the miracle), I wouldn't count on it being able to painlessly fix anything. In particular I thought the wish spell recieved some attention in PFRPG -- I'd look it over in the final. Probably easier to spend a feat on armor proficiency all in all...
Well i will just have to get into another suit of Mithral Full plate then.
Speaking of feats... I'd presume the more warlike deities clerics are going to spend one of those shiny new extra feats on armor proficiency (heavy) at the appropriate level (like, when they can afford it). Clerics whose deities are not so militarily oriented will spend it elsewhere. Problem solved. It amazes me that so much internet ink has been spilled over such a simple change. I agree with the change btw, I think it will help clerics differentiate themselves by deity. War clerics will take feat x (armor proficiency) others will use that feat slot for something more closely related to their deities interests. One of the best points of 2nd edition AD&D, imo, was the specialty priests. Feats (along with prestige classes) can give that special / different feel to clerics of the different gods again.
Well, as others have mentioned, this isn't the only nerf that the cleric has seen, and the thread quickly blossomed into a much broader discussion regarding what clerics are supposed to be, what they're supposed to do, how powerful they should be etc.
These things happen. But I agree that the armor proficiency isn't that big a deal by itself.
Well, as others have mentioned, this isn't the only nerf that the cleric has seen, and the thread quickly blossomed into a much broader discussion regarding what clerics are supposed to be, what they're supposed to do, how powerful they should be etc.
These things happen. But I agree that the armor proficiency isn't that big a deal by itself.
I've read through it (I'm on vacation and the wife is out of town... too much time). All in all, I'm fine with the changes (the limits on chanelling, spells nerfed, etc.). I'd say they fine tuned the class. I prefer it to the beta cleric. My perspective may be different because I DM more than play... come to think of it I haven't played since 1st edition AD&D. About 25 years. Damn. I'm getting old. Anyway. the logic and balance in the changes suit me.
Anyone can spend a feat to negate this penalty. Therefor, "you have one less feat" is as harsh as the penalty ever gets.
(And sometimes it's worth even less than that. For instance, some clerics wear light armor anyway, and this doesn't hurt them at all).
Phrasing it as "-3 AC" makes it sound worse than it is because -3 AC is actually a pretty big penalty. But because it only takes one feat to get that +3 back, it really isn't that bad.
Is that better?
Yes, thank you. :D
(This cold is killing me.)
Sorry took a break for a bit. Thought it was getting too personal.
I did not read past my last post so as to avoid getting dragged into more shout matches. So anyway.
The issue is too many things from what I expect a cleric to do have have are now gone in pathfinder that existed in 3.x.
Channel Energy I would not care if it went as it is not part of my expectations. But turning undead is as is the ability to wear plate. Casting reliably in melee is another expectation of something I can do if I decide to throw enough feats at it, and that too is gone. Most of the clerics best offensive spells have been nerfed, and I'm ok with most of that.
Who does not think turn undead when listing a cleric's powers (good cleric that is)? Who does not see priests of St. Cuthbert in full plate with a heavy mace in hand?
Besides expectation of backwards compatibility there was chat of balance. Do you really think giving clerics channel energy helps with balance? I don't it expends the power of the most powerful class in 3.5. Sure some things were done to reduce the power and have surely made a difference but why remove features that have always been part of the cleric to add in something even more potentially unbalancing?
As for adding the feat back by granting skill with the diety's weapon well that is a very unbalanced manner to do that. It grants some clerics a bonus feat, but not all. If some rangers got a bonus feat at level 1 and others did not would that be balanced or fair? Personally I'd rather all clerics get heavy armor and if they desire they can spend their feats on gaining skill with their diety's weapon, as it was in 3.x. More balance that way in that all clerics then start with the same number of feats. Sure some clerics will choose not to use heavy armor but that choice is theirs and not a restriction on them, some paladins might choose to not go past breast plate for mobility reasons, should then all paladins be restricted to medium armor?
No there have been many changes, I can accept nerfs for balance as needed even if disliked. I can overcome the issue I have with DC by adding in another feat called improved defensive casting letting it add another +4 or maybe a reroll to make up for what you used to be able to do by combining combat casting and skill focus to make sure you could DC. See ends up with the same flexibility and at the same cost in feats. You can DC reliablity but you need to pay for it, just like in 3.x. But taking a feat away and half adding it back...that isn't going to fly or bring balance, either all clerics get a feat or none, otherwise balance is lost. I suppose I could give my players the choice, either heavy armor or they could get their diety's weapon, but likely I will just go with heavy armor. I need to do something though for turning, that I will be thinking on. I feel the cleric of pathfinder strayed too far from were he should be and I think I listed my reasons, if you care to debate these things I am game, but any name calling, rudeness, or disrepect will cause me to ignore your posts from that point on. I am sorry if my pervious posts were too aggressive or rude, I have a passion for the game I have been playing since 1978 that more often then I like gets the best of me. I am once again very sorry to all, even you Count, I was disrespectful and I apologize.
Who does not think turn undead when listing a cleric's powers (good cleric that is)?
I've played several clerics, and most of the time, turning undead was just this weird power that came with my class, like a plastic ring at the bottom of the Wheaties box. One of my clerics was an urban gnome of Garl Glittergold who was active in the racial politics of his city. Another was a half sea-elf water priest who wandered the desert doing Isis' will, and the third was a rowdy dwarf with a greatsword.
None of these had any personal history with undead, or hailed from places where undead were common, or worshiped deities who actively disliked undead, or even had any rivalries with gods that employed them. For my gnome this was actually fodder for an IC joke: "Well, I've never done this before. In fact, I've never seen a zombie before in my life. But here goes!"
Pathfinder hasn't stripped that ability, however, merely generalized it. Any good cleric, anywhere in the world, can still channel positive energy to hurt undead. A team of novice clerics will still turn a mob of zombies to ash. But now that's not all they can do. Channel energy is a much broader and more useful mechanic than it was. Which, in turn, makes it easier for me to understand why every cleric learns how to do it.
Who does not see priests of St. Cuthbert in full plate with a heavy mace in hand?
I totally see that. Just as I see fighters with bastard swords, or duel-wielding rogues, or druids brewing potions. These things are very iconic but that doesn't mean your class should grant them for free.
The priest of St. Cuthbert is a character, and a character is more than just his class. I know it's been said countless times, but full plate is only one feat away.
As for adding the feat back by granting skill with the diety's weapon well that is a very unbalanced manner to do that. It grants some clerics a bonus feat, but not all.
This I agree with. Making some gods more powerful than others is an awful idea. I haven't commented on it only because I haven't read the rules yet and don't know exactly how it works.
|
Sorry took a break for a bit. Thought it was getting too personal.
I did not read past my last post so as to avoid getting dragged into more shout matches. So anyway.
The issue is too many things from what I expect a cleric to do have have are now gone in pathfinder that existed in 3.x.
Channel Energy I would not care if it went as it is not part of my expectations. But turning undead is as is the ability to wear plate. Casting reliably in melee is another expectation of something I can do if I decide to throw enough feats at it, and that too is gone. Most of the clerics best offensive spells have been nerfed, and I'm ok with most of that.
Who does not think turn undead when listing a cleric's powers (good cleric that is)? Who does not see priests of St. Cuthbert in full plate with a heavy mace in hand?
Besides expectation of backwards compatibility there was chat of balance. Do you really think giving clerics channel energy helps with balance? I don't it expends the power of the most powerful class in 3.5. Sure some things were done to reduce the power and have surely made a difference but why remove features that have always been part of the cleric to add in something even more potentially unbalancing?
As for adding the feat back by granting skill with the diety's weapon well that is a very unbalanced manner to do that. It grants some clerics a bonus feat, but not all. If some rangers got a bonus feat at level 1 and others did not would that be balanced or fair? Personally I'd rather all clerics get heavy armor and if they desire they can spend their feats on gaining skill with their diety's weapon, as it was in 3.x. More balance that way in that all clerics then start with the same number of feats. Sure some clerics will choose not to use heavy armor but that choice is theirs and not a restriction on them, some paladins might choose to not go past breast plate for mobility reasons, should then all paladins be restricted to medium armor?
No there have been many...
Ok. Let's take this on a bit.
Thurgon,
Turn Undead is a part of the Cleric still. It's called Channel Energy. Does the cleric have the ability to blast foul undead abominations into paste with the power of his god? Check. In fact, Channel energy is better at this than Turn Undead as it isn't all or nothing and works even against higher level undead that have too many hit dice to be turned under 3.5. This complaint is flat out wrong factually and is getting far too hung up on what things are called rather than what they do in game
Second,. yes, I cannot see a cleric of St Cuthbert, Adabar, Gorum or Iomedae without massive amount of heavy armour. Quite right. I can however see many priests of Nethys, Shelyn, Caiden Cayleen, Calistra, Gozreh and so on and so forth in much lighter armour. In short, there are many ways to play a cleric and this allows the ones who aren't crusaders to be used without the player feeling they're 'missing out' by not using their abilities. It allows more variety. Why is this a bad thing?
Plus, medium armour does not mean they're not warriors. Ask the Ranger and Barbarian if they're warriors without heavy armour.
|
One advantage of the medium armour is I think it sets up a very simple and elegant way to run the full gamut of iconic clerical-types and differentiate between them via a simple set of alternate class features:
Base cleric (or call them Adventuring Priests, or Battlefield Medics or whatever): d8s, medium armour, medium bab, two domains
Holy warrior: d10s, heavy armour, full bab, no domains (I know people have said this is broken, but we have one in our LoF campaign and she's been absolutely fine, wading into the fray with the two specialist fighters, but never outshining them at all, if you want to nerf them further you could always reduce their spells per day or something as well).
Cloistered Cleric: d6s, light armour (or no armour), poor bab, some kind of handy bonus (four domains? More skill points? More spells? 's all good).
I don't know... I like it.
Also sorry to bring this up, but Thurgon, can you please cut down on the hyperbole on other threads? I understand you're upset, and this thread shows there are others who are as well, but comments like the one you made on the Edition Wars thread are just going to get people's backs up. You haven't "lost" the edition wars, 3.5 is right there if you want it and always will be, as is the option of playing PFRPG with Clerics house-ruled any number of ways (give them Heavy Armour Prof, Take away the weapon prof, give them Turn Undead for free, or hell just use the old cleric wholesale with the new domains and spells). Not to mention that as long as you can play any character concept you could play in 3.5, and as long as you can use 3.5 adventures and splat in PFRPG and vice versa, you can't possibly claim that backwards-compatibility is "none-existent".
Sorry to bring that up here, but didn't want to bring the subject up on a thread that's supposed to be about people making amends for all the harsh words and hurt feelings edition wars arguments have caused.
The increase to 1d10 bab is only as good as a feat (Toughness; that is, the version that provides +1 per hit dice). In Beta, many domains provide repeated feat-sized benefits. And full BAB, at the end of the day, is only +5 to attack rolls (well, that and a fourth iterative).
I still don't know if it's balanced, but that it's even feasible just goes to show how much raw power the cleric is still packing. As someone said earlier, if you asked to trade your fighter's feats (and, in PRPG, weapon/armor training) for a full spellcasting progression people would think you were b&+%$!#-wacko insane.
Also sorry to bring this up, but Thurgon, can you please cut down on the hyperbole on other threads? I understand you're upset, and this thread shows there are others who are as well, but comments like the one you made on the Edition Wars thread are just going to get people's backs up. You haven't "lost" the edition wars, 3.5 is right there if you want it and always will be, as is the option of playing PFRPG with Clerics house-ruled any number of ways (give them Heavy Armour Prof, Take away the weapon prof, give them Turn Undead for free, or hell just use the old cleric wholesale with the new domains and spells). Not to mention that as long as you can play any character concept you could play in 3.5, and as long as you can use 3.5 adventures and splat in PFRPG and vice versa, you can't possibly claim that backwards-compatibility is "none-existent".
Sorry to bring that up here, but didn't want to bring the subject up on a thread that's supposed to be about people making amends for all the harsh words and hurt feelings edition wars arguments have caused.
Thank you, I have been contemplating writing something similar (although my current annoyancy threshold is probably a lot lower, so it most likely wouldn't be phrased as kindly) and I'm glad it was brought up.
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.
You know, that's quite frankly insulting! Of course I would like to play 1st Edition if I could, but I also like 3rd Edition. But I would like it to remain true to the history and traditions of Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
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.
I have a Cleric in a PFRPG game and I do not wear heavy armor because I do have a decent dex and because I dont want to be encumbered.
Cleric has always been one of my favorite classes to play...and I do not feel the changes have been bad. In fact I still think what the cleric has gained far outweighs what they have lost.
So will you accept your own challenge?
|
|
I still don't know if it's balanced, but that it's even feasible just goes to show how much raw power the cleric is still packing. As someone said earlier, if you asked to trade your fighter's feats (and, in PRPG, weapon/armor training) for a full spellcasting progression people would think you were b&*%*!&-wacko insane.
Why should the fighter lose his weapon/armor training? The holy warrior cleric still attains his channel energy class feature.
The holy warrior is propably more powerful in PRPG than he was in 3.5, since he could easily get a fighter BAB by casting divine power, which now simply grants additional bonusus on top of his BAB.|
|
You know, that's quite frankly insulting! Of course I would like to play 1st Edition if I could, but I also like 3rd Edition. But I would like it to remain true to the history and traditions of Dungeons and Dragons.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.
No, you don't, you want it to remain true to one particular tradition while ditching others.
You don't want it to remain true to the tradition of clerics only having blunt weapons. I presume you don't want it to stay true to the tradition of not being able to move while casting, or to stay true to the tradition of any hit in a a round screwing up your spellcasting and lost the spell? How about the tradition that races are classes so all elves are effectively fighter/mages? How about the tradition of Clerics only having 7th level spells?
Seriously, this argument is fundamentally flawed and false if you're not going for a lot more of the traditions. Plate armour does not the cleric make.
|
|
I still don't know if it's balanced, but that it's even feasible just goes to show how much raw power the cleric is still packing. As someone said earlier, if you asked to trade your fighter's feats (and, in PRPG, weapon/armor training) for a full spellcasting progression people would think you were b&*%*!&-wacko insane.
Why should the fighter lose his weapon/armor training? The holy warrior cleric still attains his channel energy class feature.
The holy warrior is propably more powerful in PRPG than he was in 3.5, since he could easily get a fighter BAB by casting divine power, which now simply grants additional bonusus on top of his BAB.
That's true actually, giving up channel energy as well as two domains might be better, if it really is broken.
Like I say though, I'm not sure it is, the need for Wisdom (and Cha if you keep channel energy), prevents a cleric from upping his physical stats as much as a fighter would, they also can't get anywhere near the fighters damage output due to lack of fighter-only feats and weapon training (this is the problem that the cleric in my LoF game runs into, every other character can outdamage her with ease when they want to, and she tends to just ping off DR unless it's magic or good, OK so she could optimise more and buff more, but she's certainly not built poorly).
[Edit] Ninjaiguana just pointed out to me that a PFRPG holy warrior can get scary to-hits due to Divine Power stacking, now that it doesn't adjust your BAB. Hmm, this needs more thought...
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.
And I would like all the people who are saying that this change to clerics is a horrible nerf which makes the class nigh unplayable to do the same. Go actually PLAY it and then come back and tell us how utterly usless the character was.
Go actually PLAY it and then come back and tell us how utterly usless you were.
Either that's a typo or it's seriously crossing the line.
Things get heated occasionally but, around here, we still refrain from calling eachother "useless".
|
|
Go actually PLAY it and then come back and tell us how utterly usless you were.Either that's a typo or it's seriously crossing the line.
Things get heated occasionally but, around here, we still refrain from calling eachother "useless".
I don't think you're reading it as he intended it to be read. I assume he meant the equivalent of "Come back with reports about how useless your character was due to all these terrible nerfs" rather than how personally useless you personally were, which yes, would be crossing the line by several miles :).
You're probably right, sorry.
If I had parsed it that way (sarcastic reference to "useless cleric") I would have given him/her the benefit of the doubt.
And I would like all the people who are saying that this change to clerics is a horrible nerf which makes the class nigh unplayable to do the same. Go actually PLAY it and then come back and tell us how utterly usless you were.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.
For what it's worth, I've been playing a cleric in LoF who wears leather armor. His Wis gives him a great Perception mod, so he's the high-mobility party lookout. Wielding a bow and using spells during combat keeps him out of the melee, and if in-combat healing absolutely MUST be done, he can channel energy from 25 ft. away without using up any of his spells. So far he's been equally as useful, if not more so, than a "traditional" heavy-plate melee cleric.
No, you don't, you want it to remain true to one particular tradition while ditching others.
You don't want it to remain true to the tradition of clerics only having blunt weapons. I presume you don't want it to stay true to the tradition of not being able to move while casting, or to stay true to the tradition of any hit in a a round screwing up your spellcasting and lost the spell? How about the tradition that races are classes so all elves are effectively fighter/mages? How about the tradition of Clerics only having 7th level spells?
Seriously, this argument is fundamentally flawed and false if you're not going for a lot more of the traditions. Plate armour does not the cleric make.
I never said I wanted to duplicate every tiny little detail. That would be impossible without playing 1e. But I want to keep the general gist. Yes, clerics should be holy warriors (and yes I would want them to only have 7th level spells). No not all elves should have to be Fighter/Mages, but many should. Dwarves shouldn't be all that great at arcane magic, if they can cast it at all. Halflings should be like Hobbits. That's what D&D is to me. Much of the reason I am unhappy with 4e is that it rejects much of these ideas. That's why I'm so interested in Pathfinder, because it preserves 3e, which adhered, if not perfectly than at least much closer to these traditions than 4e.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I'd presume the more warlike deities clerics are going to spend one of those shiny new extra feats on armor proficiency (heavy) at the appropriate level (like, when they can afford it). Clerics whose deities are not so militarily oriented will spend it elsewhere...I agree with the change btw, I think it will help clerics differentiate themselves by deity. War clerics will take feat x (armor proficiency) others will use that feat slot for something more closely related to their deities interests. One of the best points of 2nd edition AD&D, imo, was the specialty priests. Feats (along with prestige classes) can give that special / different feel to clerics of the different gods again.
My point exactly.
A ranger from the mountains is mechanically similar to a ranger from the forest. A sorcerer from the city will have many of the same abilities as a sorcerer in the wild. The big difference is flavor.Its quite easy to see a cleric of Moradin or Heironeous in full plate, wielding a massive warhammer or Longsword respectively. Not so much for a cleric of Boccob, or Ehlonna. Indeed, one would wonder where the latter two had ever seen Fullplate before, let alone know how to wear it.
I like to see the choice of diety have a HUGE impact on the theme of the cleric, much like it did in 2E, where certain dieties didn't even have 'base' clerics.
Holy warrior: d10s, heavy armour, full bab, no domains (I know people have said this is broken, but we have one in our LoF campaign and she's been absolutely fine, wading into the fray with the two specialist fighters, but never outshining them at all, if you want to nerf them further you could always reduce their spells per day or something as well).
They have this already, it's called the Paladin. To be honest, the reason for this change is to prevent the cleric from stepping on the Paladin's toes.
[hijack]Now the Paladin is another story. Someone brought up that only LG dieties allow paladins, restricting that archetype. If the playtesting wasn't finished, I'd scrap the name 'Paladin', replace it with something less... entrenched, like 'Exemplar', change the alignment restrictions to MATCH the chosen diety, and make the class an ultra devoted warrior/divine half-caster, putting the Cleric/Paladin relationship neatly in step with the Druid/Ranger (and to a lesser extent, Bard/Rogue)[/hikack]
I don't think you're reading it as he intended it to be read. I assume he meant the equivalent of "Come back with reports about how useless your character was due to all these terrible nerfs" rather than how personally useless you personally were, which yes, would be crossing the line by several miles :).Go actually PLAY it and then come back and tell us how utterly usless you were.Either that's a typo or it's seriously crossing the line.
Things get heated occasionally but, around here, we still refrain from calling eachother "useless".
Yes, this is what I meant. I have edited the post to read more clearly.
;-)
I never said I wanted to duplicate every tiny little detail. That would be impossible without playing 1e. But I want to keep the general gist. Yes, clerics should be holy warriors (and yes I would want them to only have 7th level spells). No not all elves should have to be Fighter/Mages, but many should. Dwarves shouldn't be all that great at arcane magic, if they can cast it at all. Halflings should be like Hobbits. That's what D&D is to me. Much of the reason I am unhappy with 4e is that it rejects much of these ideas. That's why I'm so interested in Pathfinder, because it preserves 3e, which adhered, if not perfectly than at least much closer to these traditions than 4e.
lordzack, I really don't mean this in any negative way, but if that's really how you feel maybe you should consider finding a group to play 1e/2e with. There are a lot of things that I miss about 1e. So a few months ago when I had the chance to join a group wanting to do some 'old school' dungeon crawls, I jumped at it. We don't play nearly often enough for my taste, but when we do I really am enjoying the parts of the game that I fell in love with in the first place. We even rolled our stats, 3d6 in order. (Hardcore, baby. Yeah!)
Yes, this is what I meant. I have edited the post to read more clearly.
;-)
Yup, my bad!
I don't mind Clerics wearing plate mail and perhaps not giving them the proficiency as a class feat is fair. Besides, you have 10 feats in PF instead of 7 in 3.5 so no worries there. Perhaps, Sorcerers shouldn't have to be war mages to have armor or maybe they can have Natural Armor in addition to what they may receive from blood lines and prestige classes since Sorcerer powers are more innate than Wizard powers?
The only time I saw a cleric kicking major ???, is when they were multi-classed with wizard or psion. Otherwise like someone already stated, they have a hard time hitting things. Another thing that can be done, sure the Cleric can cast in Plate Mail and has the feat from Level 1, however they hit like a Wizard/Sorceror and not a Rogue or better. Therefore the plate is for protection until the melee types can save him\her and not for toe-to-toe combat. It does make sense that Clerics do not receive spell failure from wearing platemail. What does not make sense, other than a water down war mage (meaning no teleport unless the DMs allow eclectic learning), is sorcerers can not with arcane spell failure. If a Great Wyrm can cast spells in natural armor and a huge size, then a sorcerer should be able too or maybe they need to wear Dragon hide armor like Druids and/or they receive armor mage\battle caster as they level. I know that the rule is there for balance, however it does not make sense with spells that are supposed to be innate. Perhaps a dragon should have arcane spell failure too... ;) And oh if you throw in the Dragon natural armor or magical argument, I am going to say well then Dragons should have perfect flying, sorcerers really do not have innate spell casting therefore what is the use of a sorcerer, and with advance armor making techniques from the elves and dwarves, armor can be made so it is as restrictive as what a Dragon would feel like in his own skin. Ok, maybe Elven armor is more suitable for spell casting than Dwarven Tank Armor ... ;-)
The Cleric not only is spending a lot of time in the front line of combat, but also on occasion needing to dart about in extremely dangerous conditions trying to cast spells and save allies.
[Emphasis added]
To me, this is a very good reason for clerics not to wear full plate. It's virtually impossible to "dart about."
I've been DMing a Beta campaign in which the party was ambushed in difficult terrain. The cleric of Gorum, who at 4th level and with a loan from another PC had just been able to buy himself full plate, spent a good 4/5 of the combat time just trying to get to where the bad guys were. He was barely involved. Add to that all the times he falls off of ladders while climbing and the times he has nearly drowned, and he's actually a much less valuable character than he was in chain in many situations. In a toe-to-toe fight, sure, he's harder to hit, but in any situation where the enemies aren't obliging enough to stand right in front of him, he's getting much less "front line" time.
|
|
I never said I wanted to duplicate every tiny little detail. That would be impossible without playing 1e. But I want to keep the general gist. Yes, clerics should be holy warriors (and yes I would want them to only have 7th level spells). No not all elves should have to be Fighter/Mages, but many should. Dwarves shouldn't be all that great at arcane magic, if they can cast it at all. Halflings should be like Hobbits. That's what D&D is to me. Much of the reason I am unhappy with 4e is that it rejects much of these ideas. That's why I'm so interested in Pathfinder, because it preserves 3e, which adhered, if not perfectly than at least much closer to these traditions than 4e.No, you don't, you want it to remain true to one particular tradition while ditching others.
You don't want it to remain true to the tradition of clerics only having blunt weapons. I presume you don't want it to stay true to the tradition of not being able to move while casting, or to stay true to the tradition of any hit in a a round screwing up your spellcasting and lost the spell? How about the tradition that races are classes so all elves are effectively fighter/mages? How about the tradition of Clerics only having 7th level spells?
Seriously, this argument is fundamentally flawed and false if you're not going for a lot more of the traditions. Plate armour does not the cleric make.
So the traditions should be preserved except for the ones that shouldn't. Well, I'm glad that's clear. If you're going to argue tradition alone, expect those of us who have different ideas about what the traditional or iconic idea of a class is to disagree and point out all the other traditions that have, and should have in most cases, fallen by the wayside. Why should this tradition be stuck to? What is so great about it? Why shouldn't it go the way of no human multiclassing or level limits for demihumans or clerics can't use edged weapons?
We agree clerics should be holy warriors. We appear to disagree that that means they have to have access to full plate FOR FREE. And I still get sick of hearing they can't be warriors without full plate. Barbarians and rangers are both warriors. They do not get free access to full plate, either. The lower BAB and lower hp would indicate to me that the cleric is NOT a front-line warrior, but a back up, a specialist, a second line, plug the gap warrior. He can fight, but he's not as good at it as the true warriors. It's not his focus.
Your iconic vision of the cleric is in plate mail. Who is that iconic? Because I don't see a warrior in plate mail when I think Cleric. I see Friar Tuck or someone without armour at all, standing back from the front lines and calling down the wrath of God on his enemies. Different people have different ideas about what is iconic. Just telling us what yours is, doesn't mean it is any more valid than mine.
The Cleric not only is spending a lot of time in the front line of combat, but also on occasion needing to dart about in extremely dangerous conditions trying to cast spells and save allies.[Emphasis added]
To me, this is a very good reason for clerics not to wear full plate. It's virtually impossible to "dart about."
I've been DMing a Beta campaign in which the party was ambushed in difficult terrain. The cleric of Gorum, who at 4th level and with a loan from another PC had just been able to buy himself full plate, spent a good 4/5 of the combat time just trying to get to where the bad guys were. He was barely involved. Add to that all the times he falls off of ladders while climbing and the times he has nearly drowned, and he's actually a much less valuable character than he was in chain in many situations. In a toe-to-toe fight, sure, he's harder to hit, but in any situation where the enemies aren't obliging enough to stand right in front of him, he's getting much less "front line" time.
Now that is another good perspective. Perhaps, strip him\her of the heavy armor and make him more nimble like a Rogues - Evasion, Imp Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Impr Uncanny dodge, Light armor Robes, dexterity, and faith bonuses.
I mean give the poor cleric a chance since they will probably receive focus fire and why not. Take out the healer\rez'er and party is in trouble.
2e clerics are too freaking good at healingUm, what?
2e clerics had Cure Light Wounds as a 1st level spell, healing 1d8; Cure Serious Wounds as a 4th level spell healing 2d8+1; Cure Critical Wounds as 5th level healing 3d8+3; and finally Heal at 6th level (which puts it out of reach for clerics with Wis 16 or less as well as clerics worshipping demi-gods). Until they hit 7th level, the only healing spell available to them was Cure Light Wounds for 1d8. Sure, hp values were generally lower in 2e (since Con bonuses didn't come into play until Con 15, and only Warriors could get +3 or more - also because you stopped getting actual HD after 9th or 10th level and only got +1 to +3 hp, but that's not relevant for these spells).
Note that 2e clerics didn't have any way to increase these healing values. CLW is 1d8, period - not 1d8+level, and there's no Augment Healing feat or stuff like that. You also don't have any group-healing spells like Mass Cure Light Wounds. Spells & Magic added Cure Moderate Wounds for, IIRC, 1d10+1 hp as a 2nd level spell, but in core 2e clerical healing is pretty anemic. Its only redeeming feature is that you can get three Cure spells at 1st level instead of 2 as in 3e (because of the way bonus spells worked).
I'll be honest, I've never actually played 2e in person. I've read some 2e suppliments and played Baulder's Gate (which, by the way, does have the full range of cure light/cure moderate/cure serious/cure critical as well as mass cure). That's prettymuch it.
As such I wouldn't have said anything about the balance of that system if I thought the claim I was making was remotely contentious. However, anyone who raises a complaint about 2e clerics invariably says the same thing: that the cleric was indispensable to the group, and that someone had to play him if the party was to function. I don't think there is any controversy there.
So the traditions should be preserved except for the ones that shouldn't. Well, I'm glad that's clear. If you're going to argue tradition alone, expect those of us who have different ideas about what the traditional or iconic idea of a class is to disagree and point out all the other traditions that have, and should have in most cases, fallen by the wayside. Why should this tradition be stuck to? What is so great about it? Why shouldn't it go the way of no human multiclassing or level limits for demihumans or clerics can't use edged weapons?
We agree clerics should be holy warriors. We...
Well as I said before I'm going for the general gist, not the individual details. You and I might disagree where the line between gist and details begins. I've never said that my opinions should be regarded as objective fact. This is what I feel the game should be like. I present reasons I believe it should be that way, but they're not arguements per say. At this point nothing I say can change what's already written in the book. I can only change what I want for my own campaigns.
|
I don't want to start another "war", so I am just making a comment.
I don't mind the blunt weapon rule so much. It was something that actually did add flavor to the generic cleric. But weapons have also changed a lot since then. In the older editions, for the most part, weapon was mostly a flavor choice. Some did have better advantages than others, but in general, each weapon was not very different than others, (unless you went with all the alternative rules like weapon speed, vs specific armors, crits, and things like that).
on behalf of all the peaceful, community serving priests of all the dieties in the metaverse not being St.Cuthbert or some knightly god of war, thank you ! Thank you very much !
The "all clerics know how to act in heavy armour, being proficient in it" idea was always a strain on realism minded sensibilities anyway, even if as great sliced bread in the minds of power-mongers and munchkins. Really a big strain seeing all those clerics of peace, love, tropical sun-dieties etc. train in those clunky metal shells for the glory of their faith^^
Especially all those priests who never, for faith-based reasons, do not plan to throw themselves into harms way like professional "troubleshooters", e.g. fighters do. Some priests actually just want to serve their god and spread his word and works.... and heavy armour proficiency rates among the last thing 90%+ of the priesthood would train in.
And to be frank, in eight years of GMing and playing 3.0, 3.5 and pathfinder only two characters I knew picked actual heavy armour for their protection and both died because of that choice. Low running speed, being unable to quickly get into and out of it, tropical heat, windchill and.... well, deep water^^ There is always some really deep water !
Actually, hardly anyone ever picks it.... because it is massively impractical and a pain in the neck, just for starters.
Besides, 3.5 clerics were undoubtedly (too) powerful (if munchkin'ed) , and this minor nerf is hardly a catastrophe for them, given that you now actually get even more feats to dabble around with. Actually, given the healing properties of channeling energy, they got even more powerful in their core portfolios...
If you feel strongly about your iconic (and hence actually boringly clichée) platemail-toting Holy Warrior, deal with it the same way you would have for his dreams of two-handed swords. Spend the feat...
I played a gnome cleric in fullplate. Speed 15, 30 on a double-move, 45 on a flat-out run.
It was an inconvenience, to be sure, but it just meant that I was more careful with how I positioned myself (and that my group likewise tried to stay roughly centered around me).
I could have dumped strength to go with a higher dex and lighter armor, but then I wouldn't have been scoring decent damage by power-attacking with my gnome greatsword.
It's all a matter of trade-offs.