Did you not read my post? I said on paper.Many of the spells you are describing in use here are better used on other members of the party first. Its actually a waste to cast many of these spells exclusively upon myself if I am playing the cleric because then I am only comparable to other members of the party who previously had the ability. That doesn't smack of being powerful at all to me, not when the wizard is auto-slaying everything around and the Fighter put down the boss with the full attack in round two.
I've watched a fighter with a full attack in 3.5 drop other fighters in a single round at level 10. I'm pretty sure he could do the same thing to a cleric at level 12, probably more efficiently.
The two important spells in that list are divine favour and divine power, both self only spells. With those two spells, you have all of the following as early as level 9;
BAB equal to character level (same as a fighter)
+6 enhancement bonus to Str (the highest a fighter can have, and as low as level 9, when nobody will have a +6 item)
+3 attack (better than the weapon focus/greater weapon focus a fighter could have by 10th)
+3 damage (1 point worse than weapon spec/greater weapon spec a fighter could have by 12th)And you have spent 1 level 1 spell, and 1 level 4 spell. if you wanted to do this buffing all in one round, 1 level 4 and 1 level 5 spell.
You can now fight as well as the fighter. If he can drop something with a full attack in round two, SO CAN YOU. And you can heal yourself into the bargain. Now tell me, why would you play a fighter under those circumstances? You are mechanically inferior to the cleric, flat out.
Add in non-core rules, and you can have those two spells running ALL DAY. And that's not on paper - I have seen it in play. Here's the breakdown: you take Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Metamagic and Extra Turning. That means you have it by 9th level, 6th as a human (and as a human at 9th, you can have Power...
The thing is, this is a broken spell (or two - righteous might & divine favor) - not an overpowered class.
Let me simplify the debate from me. They added a feat with giving you skill in the use of the dieties favored weapon, but took away a feat with heavy armor.
This is not a balanced change. Some clerics are getting the replacement feat, others are getting nothing. For that reason alone I think it makes more sense to return to the class heavy armor use, and remove the added skill with the dieties weapon. The war domain in the past gave that feat, as part of it's domain powers, that is were that feat belongs not as part of the base cleric class.
I would also say that you can make too many small changes to a class to the point it no longer is the same class as before. I argue that the removeal of the heavy armor feat is the one too many changes that makes it no longer then cleric class. But even if you don't see it that way, I don't see how you can argue that the feat swap they did do is balanced.
|
And along comes Mr Illithid who in one round has just made your character absolutely useless and is feeding on your brains the next round. Or Along comes Mr.Wizard flying, invisible and just rains fiery death down upon you with Schorching ray....
Mr Illithid, who is going to attack your good Will save, bolstered by your high Wisdom? Who is going to grapple you, when you can cast freedom of movement? Mr. Wizard, who is invisible - but you can cast dispel magic? Who is flying - but you can air walk? Who is raining fiery death upon you - but you can cast BOTH resist energy and protection from energy?
And tell me, exactly, how in either of those situations a fighter is better off? They have a bad Will save, they can't avoid grapples, they can't see invisible, they can't fly and they can't resist energy. The cleric is better off in every way. So really, what was your post supposed to prove?
|
|
Let me simplify the debate from me. They added a feat with giving you skill in the use of the dieties favored weapon, but took away a feat with heavy armor.This is not a balanced change. Some clerics are getting the replacement feat, others are getting nothing. For that reason alone I think it makes more sense to return to the class heavy armor use, and remove the added skill with the dieties weapon. The war domain in the past gave that feat, as part of it's domain powers, that is were that feat belongs not as part of the base cleric class.
I would also say that you can make too many small changes to a class to the point it no longer is the same class as before. I argue that the removeal of the heavy armor feat is the one too many changes that makes it no longer then cleric class. But even if you don't see it that way, I don't see how you can argue that the feat swap they did do is balanced.
Ok, I can see where you're coming from. I agree that being granted a feat which only benefits some clerics isn't balanced. On the other hand, the clerics that won't benefit from the feat tend to be the clerics of less martial deities, who are the ones more likely to not be using heavy armour even if they did have the option. I don't see that giving them back heavy armour is any better for those clerics; they're trading one class feature that doesn't beenfit them for another that still doesn't benefit them.
Ahh, yes I was going by the Pathfinder beta. The real difference there is that divine power doesn't stack with divine favor and righteous might is +4 not +8 - BIG difference.
The thing about magic vestiment and magic weapon is that they really just bring whatever armor or weapon you have up to the "level appropriate" bonuses (+1/3 levels) if you for some reason haven't found them already. Usually in practice these bonuses aren't actually useful because you already have the appropriate magic items in place.
In Pathfinder it looks like they fixed the couple of broken spells that were causing this problem - did they then really need to drop heavy armor in addition?
Yes, some of this did indeed get fixed in the Beta. The Beta was a playtest of rules to fix the problems of 3.5, one of which I outlined. I didn't use greater magic weapon or magic vestment as the first spells on that list as those are spells that a) other classes can cast (greater magic weapon), and b) can be shared, as you've noted. The 3 main spells are self-only and let the cleric perform as well as a fighter. Luckily, some new feats were created that the fighter would have and the cleric might not have.
Also, "level-appropriate" weaponry by the RAW doesn't occur in every campaign. I've had to wait until the end of one campaign to get a weapon that was level-appropriate for my monk . . . and I couldn't keep it, as it was a staff that served as the key to an ancient artifact. In my current campaign, my only weapon is a +1 undead bane dagger for a 16th level cleric. Regardless of wealth, the basic combo I (and others) have noted above were available to any cleric of sufficient level just using the Player's Handbook.
Anyway, whether or not the cleric needed to lose heavy armor proficiency is ultimately a matter of personal preference. As none of us can agree on what is "balanced", the answer is going to vary based on our perception of "balance" and the influence of the usage of heavy armor or lack thereof by clerics.
For me, it's no big deal that clerics lost that proficiency. For those clerics I play that worship gods where we feel it's appropriate, burning one feat won't hurt matters. After all, my old priest of Torm wore heavy armor (but particularly dragonhide heavy armor). For other clerics (like the Gatherer of Souls) I won't miss the proficiency at all. YMMV.
And those are a few - simple, and except for the last thing I mentioned, utterly core rules - ways that clerics were overpowered in 3.5.
I think this is where the perceived "cleric hate" comes from.
See, the arcane casters had their brokeness in 3.X. Shapechange comes to mind.
And no one cried that the class was over-powered, but that the spell was over-powered.
Could 3.X clerics be over-powered? I'd say yes, even though I never considered them automatically over-powered.
But so could 3.X arcane casters. And I don't see those classes getting nerfed at all. Quite the contrary.
If it was three spells, used in conjuction, that was the breaking point of a whole damn class, shouldn't it have been those spells that were adjusted?
|
And tell me, exactly, how in either of those situations a fighter is better off? They have a bad Will save, they can't avoid grapples, they can't see invisible, they can't fly and they can't resist energy. The cleric is better off in every way. So really, what was your post supposed to prove?
Magic items will get the fighter every ability the cleric could produce up through third level spells, of which they won't be able to get air walk. That easily replaced with a potion of fly from the wizard list though.
Mister Illithid is still better off targeting the fighter though, since a dominated fighter who can drink potions is a much better killer than a cleric.
If it was three spells, used in conjuction, that was the breaking point of a whole damn class, shouldn't it have been those spells that were adjusted?
Oh sure, NOW you bring logic into it!;)
|
|
I think this is where the perceived "cleric hate" comes from.
See, the arcane casters had their brokeness in 3.X. Shapechange comes to mind.
And no one cried that the class was over-powered, but that the spell was over-powered.
Could 3.X clerics be over-powered? I'd say yes, even though I never considered them automatically over-powered.
But so could 3.X arcane casters. And I don't see those classes getting nerfed at all. Quite the contrary.If it was three spells, used in conjuction, that was the breaking point of a whole damn class, shouldn't it have been those spells that were adjusted?
I believe that the major difference was a) the level at which the spells were available, and b) the difference in 'squishiness' between the two classes. Clerics had better defensive spells; they could be immune to death effects, immune to fear, immune to poison, heal themselves and fight on the front lines. Wizards...couldn't. Now I personally believe that wizards WERE overpowered under 3.5; all full casters were, when compared to non-caster classes. But wizards had half the hit points of clerics, no healing ability and bad Fort saves. They were simply far easier to kill. And that's why less people said they were overpowered.
Both wizards and clerics have been nerfed under Pathfinder. The spells have been changed to make both classes less powerful. And both classes have got new class abilities. Channel energy is better than turn undead; the new domain powers are for the most part better than the old domain powers. I really don't see that the cleric class has been nerfed; I see that its abusive spells have been nerfed. And taking away heavy armour is hardly a big enough change to cry nerf, IMHO.
|
|
Magic items will get the fighter every ability the cleric could produce up through third level spells, of which they won't be able to get air walk. That easily replaced with a potion of fly from the wizard list though.
Mister Illithid is still better off targeting the fighter though, since a dominated fighter who can drink potions is a much better killer than a cleric.
Please, I'm asking you; show me the numbers on this assertion. Just saying that a fighter with potions is a better killer than a cleric doesn't make it so. From my experience, I would assert that a cleric that can drink potions is much nastier.
|
|
Please, I'm asking you; show me the numbers on this assertion. Just saying that a fighter with potions is a better killer than a cleric doesn't make it so. From my experience, I would assert that a cleric that can drink potions is much nastier.Magic items will get the fighter every ability the cleric could produce up through third level spells, of which they won't be able to get air walk. That easily replaced with a potion of fly from the wizard list though.
Mister Illithid is still better off targeting the fighter though, since a dominated fighter who can drink potions is a much better killer than a cleric.
I don't mean killer in the sense of ability to just kill. I meant as a distraction to the cleric in that scenario.
All I am mentioning is that many of the abilities you describe are entirely reproducable in the system through different means.
|
|
I don't mean killer in the sense of ability to just kill. I meant as a distraction to the cleric in that scenario.
All I am mentioning is that many of the abilities you describe are entirely reproducable in the system through different means.
Fair enough. I apologise for pouncing on you, I just have my arguin' blood pumping at the moment. ;)
And yes, many of the abilities can be replicated. The whole situation is pointless to the debate regardless; I'm not really sure what the point of it being posted was. It doesn't illustrate anything other than a properly prepared opponent can defeat you if you don't have the right counters to hand, a fact which is true regardless of class or anything else.
Both wizards and clerics have been nerfed under Pathfinder.
That isn't true.
Wizards and Sorcerers as a class have been improved, and beefed up.
While I admit, with the right to change my mind after studying all the spells, that the magic of both has been nerfed. EDIT:: Both Wizards and Clerics.
Problem is, as a class, Clerics have been nerfed.
They lost two of their (perhaps perceived) iconic staples. Heavy Armor, and the ability to Turn Undead at a useful range.
Both can be picked up with feats... To a certain extent. (There is still no way that I have found to Turn Undead at 60' range.)
But what other class requires two feats to get what they had?
That is a nerf.
And for the record, I find Channel Energy to be decidedly worse that Turn Undead - for Turning Undead. The fact that you lose that ability, and have to give up uses in that department for extra healing ability isn't a fair trade for some undead damaging ability. (I'm assuming Channel Positive Energy.)
|
|
I don't mean killer in the sense of ability to just kill. I meant as a distraction to the cleric in that scenario.
All I am mentioning is that many of the abilities you describe are entirely reproducable in the system through different means.
Fair enough. I apologise for pouncing on you, I just have my arguin' blood pumping at the moment. ;)
And yes, many of the abilities can be replicated. The whole situation is pointless to the debate regardless; I'm not really sure what the point of it being posted was. It doesn't illustrate anything other than a properly prepared opponent can defeat you if you don't have the right counters to hand, a fact which is true regardless of class or anything else.
Oh, the reason I added the part about fighters and magic items was actually in response to the wizard killing part of that post. Raining down fire and destruction from above is no longer as viable a strategy as it was before. Magic Items have really made their exclusivity of holding the high ground no longer a viable argument, IMO. That's all.
Still, you said that the fighter cannot do those things that you mentioned. The argument points out that they can.
Ok, I can see where you're coming from. I agree that being granted a feat which only benefits some clerics isn't balanced. On the other hand, the clerics that won't benefit from the feat tend to be the clerics of less martial deities, who are the ones more likely to not be using heavy armour even if they did have the option. I don't see that giving them back heavy armour is any better for those clerics; they're trading one class feature that doesn't beenfit them for another that still doesn't benefit them.
Let me simplify the debate from me. They added a feat with giving you skill in the use of the dieties favored weapon, but took away a feat with heavy armor.This is not a balanced change. Some clerics are getting the replacement feat, others are getting nothing. For that reason alone I think it makes more sense to return to the class heavy armor use, and remove the added skill with the dieties weapon. The war domain in the past gave that feat, as part of it's domain powers, that is were that feat belongs not as part of the base cleric class.
I would also say that you can make too many small changes to a class to the point it no longer is the same class as before. I argue that the removeal of the heavy armor feat is the one too many changes that makes it no longer then cleric class. But even if you don't see it that way, I don't see how you can argue that the feat swap they did do is balanced.
I can list many clerics of gods that would wear the plate but get shafted by this change. St. Cuthbert, clearly a martial group but they are shafted by this change, Pholtus, Erythnul, Gruumsh, Pelor, Ares, Athena, and Odin all are martial dieties all their clerics get the shaft on this change. How about Abadar from the pathfinder world, he is a martial god as well even Asmodeus seems like a martial group.
The real point is they had heavy armor in 3.5, they lost it in exchange for this weapon thing that isn't balanced at all.
|
|
Problem is, as a class, Clerics have been nerfed.
They lost two of their (perhaps perceived) iconic staples. Heavy Armor, and the ability to Turn Undead at a useful range.
Both can be picked up with feats... To a certain extent. (There is still no way that I have found to Turn Undead at 60' range.)But what other class requires two feats to get what they had?
That is a nerf.
And for the record, I find Channel Energy to be decidedly worse that Turn Undead - for Turning Undead. The fact that you loose that ability, and have to give up uses in that department for extra healing ability isn't a fair trade for some undead damaging ability. (I'm assuming Channel Positive Energy.)
I disagree that they have been nerfed by the changes. Both I and everyone I've ever gamed with found Turn Undead to be annoying at best, and worthless at worst. Making enemies run away is not helpful! It just means you have to hunt them down later, and you risk alerting other foes to your presence. And under 3.5, after a certain level Turn Undead simply didn't work. CR-appropriate enemies either had too many hit dice or too much turn resistance for you to every succeed in turning them.
Channel Energy is better than Turn Undead, full stop. it is useful in far more situations, and it increases clerical flexibility. It lets you be more than a band-aid; you actually get to cast some of those spells, rather than converting them all for healing. Turn Undead did not allow you to do that. You don't have to spend a feat to get back to where you were; you have to spend a feat to gain what you had previously, on top of the new and better ability that replaced it.
As for heavy armour, I still maintain that it wasn't important to the cleric class, and that the mechanical difference between having and lacking heavy armour is not sufficient to call it a nerf. As I have said before, it is easier to take something from a class and provide for its replacement than it is to leave something in a class and provide for its removal. And I maintain that you won't notice the difference when you play without it.
And yes, you could say 'if that's the case, then why bother to remove it', but you can't have it both ways. It can't be such a nerf that you're up in arms over it and at the same time so unimportant as to be not worth doing. I approve of it as a standardizing measure, and I maintain that the cleric class has not been nerfed in class abilities; only its spells have been weakened, and that's true of all the spell-casting classes.
Regardless, at this point we're both just giving our opinions, so I figure we take our respective corners and see how it works out in play. :)
|
|
I can list many clerics of gods that would wear the plate but get shafted by this change. St. Cuthbert, clearly a martial group but they are shafted by this change, Pholtus, Erythnul, Gruumsh, Pelor, Ares, Athena, and Odin all are martial dieties all their clerics get the shaft on this change. How about Abadar from the pathfinder world, he is a martial god as well even Asmodeus seems like a martial group.
The real point is they had heavy armor in 3.5, they lost it in exchange for this weapon thing that isn't balanced at all.
Ah, you see, I don't see it as them having traded heavy armour proficiency for the weapon proficiency. I see them as having gained the weapon proficiency, and had heavy armour taken away because it wasn't integral to the cleric class. It's not a trade; it's a shift towards what the Pathfinder designers believe a cleric should look like. And I agree with them.
Also the weapon proficiency isn't necessarily balanced; but I don't believe giving clerics back heavy armour is the fix. Many clerics don't want heavy armour. If you believe it's unbalanced and needs fixing, then the fix should be something that all clerics would want, not just something some clerics would want.
Ah, you see, I don't see it as them having traded heavy armour proficiency for the weapon proficiency. I see them as having gained the weapon proficiency, and had heavy armour taken away because it wasn't integral to the cleric class.
Every other edition of D&D they were able to wear all armor. It has been part of the class since basic. So has undead turning. Take those two things away and you don't have a cleric any more. Call it a specialty priest, but it aint a cleric. And if pathfinder lacks a cleric class it isn't compatible with 3.5 since that was a core class in 3.5.
The point of turn undead was never to always be useful, it was to make clerics espically powerful against a specific foe. A chance for them to step out of the healing roll and move to the forefront of attack driving the enemy before them.
Your arguement that taking away a feat from a class doesn't nerf it seems hollow. So how many feats lost does it actually take to matter?
Anyway none of that has anything to do with the issues at hand, it's a distractions. However it does illistrate the problem with only having 2 kill points per level and no realistic chance to have a decent int score, so in that way it does show that clerics could use more skill points I guess.....
That's only a problem if you feel compelled, due to your play style, to optimize up the combat. I don't feel that compulsion. Physical stats can be buffed easily as need requires. Intelligence needs to be natural to get the skill points. So if you really want the skill points, you'll get a decent Int.
The game has plenty of choices and trade-offs.
|
Problem is, as a class, Clerics have been nerfed.
They lost two of their (perhaps perceived) iconic staples. Heavy Armor, and the ability to Turn Undead at a useful range.
Both can be picked up with feats... To a certain extent. (There is still no way that I have found to Turn Undead at 60' range.)But what other class requires two feats to get what they had?
That is a nerf.
And for the record, I find Channel Energy to be decidedly worse that Turn Undead - for Turning Undead. The fact that you loose that ability, and have to give up uses in that department for extra healing ability isn't a fair trade for some undead damaging ability. (I'm assuming Channel Positive Energy.)
I disagree that they have been nerfed by the changes. Both I and everyone I've ever gamed with found Turn Undead to be annoying at best, and worthless at worst. Making enemies run away is not helpful! It just means you have to hunt them down later, and you risk alerting other foes to your presence. And under 3.5, after a certain level Turn Undead simply didn't work. CR-appropriate enemies either had too many hit dice or too much turn resistance for you to every succeed in turning them.
Channel Energy is better than Turn Undead, full stop. it is useful in far more situations, and it increases clerical flexibility. It lets you be more than a band-aid; you actually get to cast some of those spells, rather than converting them all for healing. Turn Undead did not allow you to do that. You don't have to spend a feat to get back to where you were; you have to spend a feat to gain what you had previously, on top of the new and better ability that replaced it.
As for heavy armour, I still maintain that it wasn't important to the cleric class, and that the mechanical difference between having and lacking heavy armour is not sufficient to call it a nerf. As I have said before, it is easier to take something from a class and provide for its replacement than it is to leave...
But that is exactly what you (and everyone that says the lose was needed) is doing. Your saying that it is a big step to balancing out the classes, but then going right back and saying it is a minor thing you won't even notice. And that is the problem. It itself is not a huge deal. It is everything else combined with that.
Spells got nerfed, but it is mainly the good cleric spells. The pf cleric is being comparred to the 3.5 fighter. PF Clerics did not get any new mundane abilities like the almost universally requested skill points, now have an even bigger ability sink (no class has to have 5 fairly good stats), and all the "squishier" classes are now not "squishy" except the cleric. Only the Cleric and Wizard do not have a 20th level capstone, and really don't have even class features.
Anyway none of that has anything to do with the issues at hand, it's a distractions. However it does illistrate the problem with only having 2 kill points per level and no realistic chance to have a decent int score, so in that way it does show that clerics could use more skill points I guess.....
That's only a problem if you feel compelled, due to your play style, to optimize up the combat. I don't feel that compulsion. Physical stats can be buffed easily as need requires. Intelligence needs to be natural to get the skill points. So if you really want the skill points, you'll get a decent Int.
The game has plenty of choices and trade-offs.
Also could be I don't tend to play in magic heavy worlds were you can buy belts of strength, cha hats, con, and so on. You better have ok stats in what you will be using or it will hurt. 2 skill points per level limits playability of a class that has 4 other stats that need some attention to start with. But again not part of this thread so I will drop it from here on out.
|
|
Ah, you see, I don't see it as them having traded heavy armour proficiency for the weapon proficiency. I see them as having gained the weapon proficiency, and had heavy armour taken away because it wasn't integral to the cleric class.
Every other edition of D&D they were able to wear all armor. It has been part of the class since basic. So has undead turning. Take those two things away and you don't have a cleric any more. Call it a specialty priest, but it aint a cleric. And if pathfinder lacks a cleric class it isn't compatible with 3.5 since that was a core class in 3.5.
The point of turn undead was never to always be useful, it was to make clerics espically powerful against a specific foe. A chance for them to step out of the healing roll and move to the forefront of attack driving the enemy before them.
Your arguement that taking away a feat from a class doesn't nerf it seems hollow. So how many feats lost does it actually take to matter?
And, again, Channel Energy is MORE effective than Turn Undead because, you know, it actually works against undead that are level appropriate. So again, they have the ability. It's not called Turn Undead. So what? They still call down holy power and layeth the smacketh down on the walking dead. That's exactly what they should be doing, and what they've been trying to do in earlier editions and usually not bothering because it was too complicated a rule and failed too often. It's as much the same thing as a 9th level spell is a 7th level spell. If we're doing the whole history of D&D argument again, but I'd rather not as I'm getting tired repeating exactly the same points again and again.
Without using the phrase "because it's always been this way" or similar, can you explain why a cleric of Calistra should be able to wear heavy armour? What is it about lust and revenge that screams plate mail to you? Why should they be better armoured than the barbarian, druid or ranger?
EDIT: At Beckett, no, I'm saying it's a tiny change that makes clerics make more sense as they are not true front line fighters. The lower BAB and lower hit dice give the game away there. Plus, as stated earlier, there are more gods for whom it DOESN'T make sense to have access to plate mail than the ones it does. They are still highly effective holy warriors. They just have to spend a resource to match the solider and the knight. To me that makes perfect bloody sense!
I think one thing that bears repeating is that the removal of heavy armor proficiency from the cleric package isn't merely to reduce the power of the cleric overall from 3.5, but to give a slight bump in heavy armor niche protection to the paladin and fighter. The design in PF isn't just in reaction to 3.5 but also in reaction to the other design changes in PF.
The cleric has tons of buff and protection spells at his command. A lot of them help close the gap in combat between the fighter and cleric. Pushing the cleric back so that his protection starts at medium armor instead of heavy helps give the edge back to the fighter, where it belongs.
If it's that important to the cleric to be able to rumble around in full plate, he can invest in the feat. He's got 3 more now to work with over the course of his career than he used to have.
|
|
Every other edition of D&D they were able to wear all armor. It has been part of the class since basic. So has undead turning. Take those two things away and you don't have a cleric any more. Call it a specialty priest, but it aint a cleric. And if pathfinder lacks a cleric class it isn't compatible with 3.5 since that was a core class in 3.5.
The point of turn undead was never to always be useful, it was to make clerics espically powerful against a specific foe. A chance for them to step out of the healing roll and move to the forefront of attack driving the enemy before them.
Your arguement that taking away a feat from a class doesn't nerf it seems hollow. So how many feats lost does it actually take to matter?
But turn undead was never useful. It didn't make clerics 'especially powerful against a specific foe' above about 7th level. After that point, opponents ignored turn undead. So you're saying it was a class feature designed to 'make clerics especially powerful against a specific foe' up to 7th level, and be utterly worthless after that point?
Let's look as some undead under 3.5, just to show I'm not exaggerating. All calculations assume the cleric is an equal level to the CR of the undead.
Zombies:
Troglodyte zombie. CR 1; 4 HD. Required turn roll: 19.
Bugbear zombie. CR 2; 6HD. Required turn roll: 22.
Ogre Zombie. CR 3; 8 HD. Required turn roll: impossible.
And every zombie above ogre is impossible to turn at the appropriate level.
Skeletons:
Wolf Skeleton. CR 1; 2 HD. Required turn roll: 13.
Owlbear Skeleton. CR 2; 5 HD. Required turn roll; 19.
Troll skeleton. CR 3; 6 HD. Required turn roll; 19.
Chimera skeleton. CR 4; 9 HD. Required turn roll; impossible.
And every skeleton above chimera is impossible to turn at the appropriate level.
Wraiths:
Wraith. CR 5, 5 HD, +2 turn resistance. Required turn roll: 16.
Dread Wraith. CR 11, 16 HD. Required turn roll; impossible.
Allip: CR 3, 4 HD, +2 turn resistance. Required turn roll: 19.
Spectre: CR 7, 7 HD, +2 turn resistance. Required roll: 16.
Ghost, Lich, Vampire: CR N+2, N HD, +4 turn resistance. Required roll: 16. Note that these types of undead are likely to be higher CR than the characters level, as they are likely to be 'boss' monsters. This increases the turning roll appropriately.
So. Almost every undead there required a roll of 16 or better to turn, on a roll which is 1d20+Charisma modifier. You have absolutely no hope of destroying any of those creatures at the appropriate level with the exception of the Wolf Skeleton - it simply isn't possible to count as a cleric of twice their hit dice when the encounter is level-appropriate. And depending on the type of undead, it can start being impossible to turn creatures as low as CR 3.
That's what Turn Undead did. It was a joke, and often the waste of an action. Channel Energy will never fail to injure an undead creature, if you use it to do so. You will always derive some benefit from using it, wheras attempting to Turn Undead could mean the utter waste of an action. I know which one I'd prefer.
As to the other point; taking a feat away from a class is not a nerf. it is the loss of a feat. If you took away the fighter's bonus feat at first level, would you say the fighter had been nerfed? I repeat: it is one feat. That is not grounds for shouting 'nerf.'
And, again, Channel Energy is MORE effective than Turn Undead because, you know, it actually works against undead that are level appropriate. So again, they have the ability. It's not called Turn Undead. So what? They still call down holy power and layeth the smacketh down on the walking dead. That's exactly what they should be doing, and what they've been trying to do in earlier editions and usually not bothering because it was too complicated a rule and failed too often. It's as much the same thing as a 9th level spell is a 7th level spell. If we're doing the whole history of D&D argument again, but I'd rather not as I'm getting tired repeating exactly the same points again and again.
Then stop and read my responses. I do not see the need to make them more effective in all situation. The cleric is effective without turn undead in most fights. His healing without channel energy is second to none and he has plenty of offensive spell left in 3.5 to contribute to a fight. But against undead the ability to turn them was thier special little thing, like a druid in the woods, somewhere they shined above their normal levels. Turn undead is a classic, iconic power of clerics, you don't have to like it but it doesn't change the fact that it is.
Without using the phrase "because it's always been this way" or similar, can you explain why a cleric of Calistra should be able to wear heavy armour? What is it about lust and revenge that screams plate mail to you? Why should they be better armoured than the barbarian, druid or ranger?
More then a barbarian, sure because they come from a civialized area of the world were finding smiths who can craft it is not challenge. Or I could say because unlike barbarians they don't have surperior mobility to worry about after all they don't get a +10 to the move.
More then druids...your kidding right? For druids the use of too much metal messes with their connection to the natural world. I would point out druids can wear Dragonhide Plate though, so I guess they both need it.
Rangers are about stealth and mobility. Both their combat styles benifit from a high dex as does many of their inclass skills. Clerics have few reasons to have a high dex with all their other stat needs, and they have ZERO inclass skill reliant on dex.
Why does this false arguement against cleric getting heavy armor keep coming up? Would you also use it to justify fighters not getting heavy armor since some of them are built around speed and mobility? Or would you use a paladin with a 14 dex as a reason to remove from all paladins the in class ability to wear heavy armor?
But that is exactly what you (and everyone that says the lose was needed) is doing. Your saying that it is a big step to balancing out the classes, but then going right back and saying it is a minor thing you won't even notice. And that is the problem. It itself is not a huge deal. It is everything else combined with that.
Spells got nerfed, but it is mainly the good cleric spells. The pf cleric is being comparred to the 3.5 fighter. PF Clerics did not get any new mundane abilities like the almost universally requested skill points, now have an even bigger ability sink (no class has to have 5 fairly good stats), and all the "squishier" classes are now not "squishy" except the cleric. Only the Cleric and Wizard do not have a 20th level capstone, and really don't have even class features.
Clerics and wizards hardly need 20th level capstones. Their spell power and broad selection allows the players to effectively design their own "capstone" abilities with their spell selections and chosen tactics.
No class needs 5 fairly good stats? Everybody wants good Con, Dex, Wis to have decent saves (particularly when your Will save is your worst and you have to defend against save or sit enchantment spells as we've heard a lot on the playtest boards), everyone with only 2 skill points wants Int. That's 4 stats right there. Clerics should feel lucky that their primary offensive stat, Wisdom, happens to help the primary save vs save or sit spells. That's beneficial stat concentration. Fighters aren't so lucky. Their primary offensive stat, Strength, helps none of their defenses.
Without using the phrase "because it's always been this way" or similar, can you explain why a cleric of Calistra should be able to wear heavy armour? What is it about lust and revenge that screams plate mail to you? Why should they be better armoured than the barbarian, druid or ranger?
And at the same turn of logic, why should a cleric of Gorum or Torag not have it because War and Strength make the class too powerful?
EDIT: At Beckett, no, I'm saying it's a tiny change that makes clerics make more sense as they are not true front line fighters. The lower BAB and lower hit dice give the game away there. Plus, as stated earlier, there are more gods for whom it DOESN'T make sense to have access to plate mail than the ones it does.
In whose world?
If it's that important to the cleric to be able to rumble around in full plate, he can invest in the feat. He's got 3 more now to work with over the course of his career than he used to have.
Tell you what. Give Clerics 5 more feats over the course of his career so that the class can have back what was taken from it, and you have a deal.
Or take away 2 things from every class, and make sure the feats exist to get them back.
I'm flexible.
|
|
EDIT: At Beckett, no, I'm saying it's a tiny change that makes clerics make more sense as they are not true front line fighters. The lower BAB and lower hit dice give the game away there. Plus, as stated earlier, there are more gods for whom it DOESN'T make sense to have access to plate mail than the ones it does.In whose world?
Oerth, Abeir-Toril, Mystara, Golarion, Krynn. In short, the major 'official' worlds out there. And if it's homebrew, then a houserule won't be a problem, will it?
|
|
Without using the phrase "because it's always been this way" or similar, can you explain why a cleric of Calistra should be able to wear heavy armour? What is it about lust and revenge that screams plate mail to you? Why should they be better armoured than the barbarian, druid or ranger?And at the same turn of logic, why should a cleric of Gorum or Torag not have it because War and Strength make the class too powerful?
EDIT: At Beckett, no, I'm saying it's a tiny change that makes clerics make more sense as they are not true front line fighters. The lower BAB and lower hit dice give the game away there. Plus, as stated earlier, there are more gods for whom it DOESN'T make sense to have access to plate mail than the ones it does.In whose world?
If it's that important to the cleric to be able to rumble around in full plate, he can invest in the feat. He's got 3 more now to work with over the course of his career than he used to have.Tell you what. Give Clerics 5 more feats over the course of his career so that the class can have back what was taken from it, and you have a deal.
Or take away 2 things from every class, and make sure the feats exist to get them back.
I'm flexible.
A bit "snarky" but excellent point.
I have another question, a bit of topic. What proficiency does a non-deity cleric get? Do they just pick their own weapon now?
Tell you what. Give Clerics 5 more feats over the course of his career so that the class can have back what was taken from it, and you have a deal.Or take away 2 things from every class, and make sure the feats exist to get them back.
I'm flexible.
But are you game to give back what you got in the exchange? A proficiency in the god's weapon, channeling, and an extra domain power per domain? Frankly, the channeling alone is enough to buy me off. The god's favored weapon and the extra domain power are gravy.
|
|
I'd say hands down, yes. The domains are not that great to be honest. A few more so than others, but well nothing's changed since the 2nd ed equivalent there (some are better or more useful than others).
Channelling, iffy. I think it will be significantly less offensive (remember undead get a large HP boost now), so neither a fighter, rogue, or wizard can't do, give or take a round or so.
As for healing, wow, clerics have more healing abilities, again . . .
But are you game to give back what you got in the exchange? A proficiency in the god's weapon, channeling, and an extra domain power per domain? Frankly, the channeling alone is enough to buy me off. The god's favored weapon and the extra domain power are gravy.
Hell yes on all counts.
To use Paul Watson's example of Calistria, I'd happily give back proficiency in Whip.
And taking into consideration that the majority of weapons have very similar stats (1D6 damage, one handed) it isn't that big a loss. Especially if the weapon was the heavy mace. The morning star is the same or better in every category including weight and cost.
The extra domain power? Have you seen how ridiculously underpowered a lot of the level 1 powers are? Yes, yes, yes I would quickly go back to the 3.5 domains.
Channel Energy? I said it earlier in this thread, I consider it inferior to 3.5 Turn Undead. The range reduction alone is too much. Add on top of that no inherent way to keep the nasty undead off of your comrades (all of the touch based draining effects), and you get a clear case of undesirable. The only thing that made Channel Energy stomach-able in the Beta was the dual role of it, that for some ungodly (pun intended) reason was removed.
|
|
Channelling, iffy. I think it will be significantly less offensive (remember undead get a large HP boost now), so neither a fighter, rogue, or wizard can't do, give or take a round or so.
Well, undead don't necessarily get more hp. Generally, yes. But they're now on d8 (4.5) plus Cha mod rather than d12 (6.5). So they only start gaining with Cha 16+.
Examples:
Human commoner zombie: hp 16 under 3.5, hp 12 under Pathfinder.
Human warrior skeleton: hp 6 under 3.5, hp 4 under Pathfinder.
Ghoul: hp 13 under 3.5, hp 11 under Pathfinder.
Ghast: hp 29 under 3.5, hp 34 under Pathfinder.
Allip: hp 26 under 3.5, hp 34 under Pathfinder.
Incorporeal undead should see an overall increase, while corporeal undead will be more hit and miss. Since incorporeality now halves damage rather than giving a 50% miss chance, it should balance out in fights due to more consistent damage being dealt.
Channel Energy? I said it earlier in this thread, I consider it inferior to 3.5 Turn Undead. The range reduction alone is too much. Add on top of that no inherent way to keep the nasty undead off of your comrades (all of the touch based draining effects), and you get a clear case of undesirable. The only thing that made Channel Energy stomach-able in the Beta was the dual role of it, that for some ungodly (pun intended) reason was removed.
Care to comment on my breakdown of Turn Undead a little further up the thread?
|
|
Let me simplify the debate from me. They added a feat with giving you skill in the use of the dieties favored weapon, but took away a feat with heavy armor.
This is not a balanced change. Some clerics are getting the replacement feat, others are getting nothing. For that reason alone I think it makes more sense to return to the class heavy armor use, and remove the added skill with the dieties weapon.
Let's play with that a bit:
"Let me simplify the debate from me. They added a feat with heavy armor, but took away a feat with giving you skill in the use of the deity's favored weapon.
This is not a balanced change. Some clerics are getting the replacement feat, others are getting nothing. For that reason alone I think it makes more sense to return to the class skill in the use of the deity's favored weapon, and remove heavy armor use."
Either way, some cleric will benefit from the given feat (whether it's Heavy Armor Proficiency or Proficiency with the deity's favored weapon) while others won't. No change there.
The war domain in the past gave that feat, as part of it's domain powers, that is were that feat belongs not as part of the base cleric class.
Why should proficiency in the deity's favored weapon be the sole purview of the War domain? There are plenty of deities that have a favored weapon that's not on the Simple Weapon list, why should their cleric not be able to use their favored weapon just because the deity doesn't have the war domain?
I would also say that you can make too many small changes to a class to the point it no longer is the same class as before. I argue that the removeal of the heavy armor feat is the one too many changes that makes it no longer then cleric class.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. As someone who's played D&D for 20-odd years, I don't see the removal of Heavy Armor Proficiency as part of the cleric's starting package as detracting from the cleric's "cleric-ness". Especially considering that given PF grants additional feats above and beyond what 3.x granted, that taking the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat isn't even particularly taxing.
But even if you don't see it that way, I don't see how you can argue that the feat swap they did do is balanced.
Just did.
Seriously, it just isn't as big a deal as some of you are making out to be.
Well, if we're talking giving and taking away, the Cleric should then Give back his Medium BAB for his Medium/Poor BAB from 1E (2/3 advance); his ability to now get more then a +2 hp/HD bonus to Con; His Hit Dice after level 9; his ability to gain multiple attacks; his ability to benefit from a Str Score higher then 18; his 3 extra levels of spells (that means both more spells and more powerful spells, mind you); his having the best two save combo in the game; and grossly limit access to healing spells (levels 1,4,5 and 6th level spells). Oh, and no spontaneous casting, mind you.
Those are the things that defined the 'iconic' cleric. Btw, cleric didn't always have access to 'heavy' armor...they had armor prof in 1E. It was never subdivided by profs. They wore plate because there was also no movement penalty to wearing it, adn they didn't have Dex boosters worth a damn back then, so no penalties = heavy armor. Even if you were a cleric of Aphrodite.
Let's give the Melees back what they had. Exclusive access to Multiple Attacks; Full Dex to AC in heavy armor; Exclusive access to Str above 18; Exclusive access to hp/hd above 16 Con; Exclusive access to full BAB; Exclusive access to the best saves ladder in the game; Exclusive access to the best weapons; No movement penalties in heavy armor; Full attacks all the time with full movement; just as many skills as any other class.
I'm all for giving back and gaining forwards. Let's just use the Melee standard instead of the Cleric, shall we?
===========
This moaning and groaning over a +2 AC bonus that is MEANINGLESS with a) mithral making heavy armor = medium armor b)armor proficency being picked up for ONE FEAT or ONE LEVEL of a melee class c)spells that can be used to gain the effective AC as desired and d) Dex limits on armor vastly limiting the usefulness of all heavy armor at higher levels, not to mention the movement penalties, is really making me laugh.
This has got to be the SILLIEST amount of protesting I've ever seen. It has no real effect on the class other then flavor, and it has no teeth to it.
Remove Dex limits to armor; Remove movement penalties to armor; enforce prof penalties to armor despite Mithral; get rid of Holy Vestment. You MIGHT have a reason to complain...except you can still spend a feat or take a Fighter level and get it all back.
If there was a 100% casting penalty for Clerical magic in heavy armor, then you can scream nerf. As it stands, it isn't even a bump in the road.
==Aelryinth
Examples:
Human commoner zombie: hp 16 under 3.5, hp 12 under Pathfinder.
Human warrior skeleton: hp 6 under 3.5, hp 4 under Pathfinder.
Ghoul: hp 13 under 3.5, hp 11 under Pathfinder.
Ghast: hp 29 under 3.5, hp 34 under Pathfinder.
Allip: hp 26 under 3.5, hp 34 under Pathfinder.
I only see Allip (Which only has 30 HP) there, and with James Jacobs (I believe) admiting that most under would get their charisma bumped up, they would have the same or slightly higher hit points under Pathfinder.
|
|
I only see Allip (Which only has 30 HP) there, and with James Jacobs (I believe) admiting that most under would get their charisma bumped up, they would have the same or slightly higher hit points under Pathfinder.
Fair enough, I didn't know he'd said that. The human skeleton and commoner zombie Pathfinder hit point totals are from the Bestiary Preview. For the ghoul and ghast, I was just extrapolating hit points from their 3.5 versions, assuming identical Hit Dice and Charisma scores. The allip, too; I don't know where my copy of the Bonus Bestiary is at the moment.
|
|
(stuff)
Sure, clerics of other gods in published material have often been wearing full plate, but that's because it came with the cleric package. "You want to be a cleric? Here's your holy symbol, here's your mace, and here's your full plate."
To take it even one step further, those of you that have access to 2nd ed. material... Go look are Legends & Lore, Forgotten Realms Adventures, etc.
Many specialty priests had even narrower restrictions on what armor they could use. Some of them could wear any armor at all.
Examples:
Human commoner zombie: hp 16 under 3.5, hp 12 under Pathfinder.
Human warrior skeleton: hp 6 under 3.5, hp 4 under Pathfinder.
Ghoul: hp 13 under 3.5, hp 11 under Pathfinder.
Ghast: hp 29 under 3.5, hp 34 under Pathfinder.
Allip: hp 26 under 3.5, hp 34 under Pathfinder.
I only see Allip (Which only has 30 HP) there, and with James Jacobs (I believe) admiting that most under would get their charisma bumped up, they would have the same or slightly higher hit points under Pathfinder.
Care to comment on my breakdown of Turn Undead a little further up the thread?
Sure.
Given that Undead are getting a general boost in Will saves, from what I remember reading, and that Sneak attack (for the most part) works on Undead without a save for half - and works more than once in a round, not to mention no inherent ability to protect your comrades from the Undead in the premier anti-Undead power tell me how Channel
Energy ends up being any better?
Either way, some cleric will benefit from the given feat (whether it's Heavy Armor Proficiency or Proficiency with the deity's favored weapon) while others won't. No change there.
Huh? All clerics had the feat to allowed them to use heavy armor.
Why should proficiency in the deity's favored weapon be the sole purview of the War domain? There are plenty of deities that have a favored weapon that's not on the Simple Weapon list, why should their cleric not be able to use their favored weapon just because the deity doesn't have the war domain?
Any cleric could burn a feat to pick it up, but the war domain gave it to you for free along with focus in it. The issue is you can't give a feat to some clerics but not others for no balance reason.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. As someone who's played D&D for 20-odd years,...
If time played matters, I've been at it over 30 years. But it really doesn't.
|
|
Sure.
Given that Undead are getting a general boost in Will saves, from what I remember reading, and that Sneak attack (for the most part) works on Undead without a save for half - and works more than once in a round, not to mention no inherent ability to protect your comrades from the Undead in the premier anti-Undead power tell me how Channel
Energy ends up being any better?
I don't see a general boost in Will saves for undead; they're still good Will, and their Wisdom scores aren't shooting up as far as I know. Business as usual there.
As far as Channel Energy goes, when you use it on undead you can guarantee you will have an impact. They can halve the damage, but they cannot negate it. Compare this to Turn Undead, where in a majority of situations as I outlined above, you can expect to have wasted an action to no effect whatsoever more than 50% of the time.
This moaning and groaning over a +2 AC bonus that is MEANINGLESS with a) mithral making heavy armor = medium armor
It doesn't.
Mithral makes Heavy Armor act as Medium in all ways except proficiency.
|
|
The point is, Undead generally have higher will saves, clerics can't max out charisma as easily as say a blaster wizard for their spell dc's, and with undead generally getting even more HP, (and channel resistance directly affecting their save), most of the time you are looking at half damage. That damage does not prevent a badly wounded or surprized group from getting attacked, and in all actuallity is pretty trivial. It sounds nice, but it (probably) will not be all that great. Particularly because it will mostly only have any real affect on the weaker undead that you could spend 5 extra rounds just hacking at.
Here is the worst part. The cleric affects those within 30 ft from them. That means in combat, to heal the party, they have to get right in the middle of it. That's why your cleric of poetry and dance or whatever has that heavy armor protection. They get right on up there. For hurting undead, even worse. They have to get close enought to affect a large group that they are more likely than not right in the middle of all those enemies. If your talking zombies, they all (probably) charge and surround the cleric. Sure the DM can say no they run right by you to go after the fighter, but that's not very fun or realistic way to make the fighter the tank.
|
|
The point is, Undead generally have higher will saves, clerics can't max out charisma as easily as say a blaster wizard for their spell dc's, and with undead generally getting even more HP, (and channel resistance directly affecting their save), most of the time you are looking at half damage. That damage does not prevent a badly wounded or surprized group from getting attacked, and in all actuallity is pretty trivial. It sounds nice, but it (probably) will not be all that great. Particularly because it will mostly only have any real affect on the weaker undead that you could spend 5 extra rounds just hacking at.
Here is the worst part. The cleric affects those within 30 ft from them. That means in combat, to heal the party, they have to get right in the middle of it. That's why your cleric of poetry and dance or whatever has that heavy armor protection. They get right on up there. For hurting undead, even worse. They have to get close enought to affect a large group that they are more likely than not right in the middle of all those enemies. If your talking zombies, they all (probably) charge and surround the cleric. Sure the DM can say no they run right by you to go after the fighter, but that's not very fun or realistic way to make the fighter the tank.
Do you consider Channel Energy to be inferior to Turn Undead, or just not good enough as it stands without heavy armour proficiency?