Discuss!
EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not starting this thread to stir up trouble, instead it's to make sure people don't clog the main spoiler thread with talk about this change.
I understand Jason wants a chance to justify the change, but I don't think anything will stop people talking. At least this way, all the chatter is in one place. So everyone, it would be wise to hold off commenting until he's said his piece.
I understand the hypocrisy of starting this thread and then saying all this, but I was only doing it to preserve the integrity of another thread. I'm sorry.
It's not good IMO. Clerics are supposed to be holy warriors, not just spellcasters. In editions earlier than 3e Clerics only had spells up to 7th level. Unfortunately reverting back to that would hurt backwards compatibility more than the change to armor would.
Big whoop. They got new abilities, and nothing in any fantasy book I ever read that wasn't a D&D setting had clerics or priests or any other name you want to give them running around in full plate mail. Why a class has to be a super tank and super healer and super spell caster all at the same time I don't know. I like the change.
Go ahead, open up the flame throwers now.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice this change. The cleric armor proficiencies list is correct. Since I am at Gencon right now, typing this on my phone, I am not going to go into all the details, but let me assure you that this was probably one of the hardest decisions I had to make. The cleric needed this change to help balance it out a bit.
I will be happy to discuss this more after the show, so until then, let's just shelve this discussion.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Emphasis mine. I don't think Jason wants this one hashed out right now on the forums, but perhaps I misinterpret what he said above.
Well, they can still regain the ability via a feat. :/
I suspect that it was done for balance reasons, as clerics have - rightly at times - been pointed out as the "uberclass."
It's not good IMO. Clerics are supposed to be holy warriors, not just spellcasters. In editions earlier than 3e Clerics only had spells up to 7th level. Unfortunately reverting back to that would hurt backwards compatibility more than the change to armor would.
Warrior does not mean 'Must have heavy plate mail'. Vikings were warriors, they had leather armor and wooden shields. Lakota's were warriors, they wore no armor at all. English Pikemen were warriors, they never wore plate mail. Cavalry soldiers were warriors, again, no heavy armor. Warrior means 'I kill things with a weapon and I'm good at it'. Holy means 'Inspired by a god'.
|
I like it...and Lordzack...Clerics aren't supposed to be Holy Warriors...Paladins fill that bill.
Clerics are supposed to be Dieties Representatives in the world. They work for the Church and bring the faith to the commonfolk. They aren't supposed to be Holy Warriors.
I like that Pally's and Fighters are the only ones that get Heavy Armor without taking extra's. It feels right!
Emphasis mine. I don't think Jason wants this one hashed out right now on the forums, but perhaps I misinterpret what he said above.
Meaning no disrespect, the cat's out of the bag.
People can discuss it all here in a tidy, dedicated thread, or it can spew all over the place.
I have nothing to say about it personally. If they want to close this thread, I won't complain.
Just making sure the word got out and that its clear that I've moved on, as directed, from the topic.
I like it...and Lordzack...Clerics aren't supposed to be Holy Warriors...Paladins fill that bill.
Clerics are supposed to be Dieties Representatives in the world. They work for the Church and bring the faith to the commonfolk. They aren't supposed to be Holy Warriors.
I like that Pally's and Fighters are the only ones that get Heavy Armor without taking extra's. It feels right!
No, Clerics are supposed to be holy warriors. Paladins could also be called holy warriors, but if so they're a specific kind with they're own unique abilities. In the 1e Player's Handbook it says "This class bears a certain resemblance to religous orders of knighthood of medieval times." They are not supposed to represent every priest in the world. They the guys that go out in the world and knock heads for they're gods.
Actually, the description for Clerics is that they are the knights of the church, truly are 'holy warriors' (small h).
The cleric was based most strongly on the fighting priests of the Middle Ages, particularly those of the Crusades and the time of Roland and Charlemagne. They often wore armor.
However, the correct observation here is, 'big whoop'. Unless heavy armor suddenly has an advantage over medium armor (for instance, mithral rules having bite, bigger dex limits on heavy armor to overcome the movement problem and actually bestow an AC advantage), this is actually a non-issue.
4E distinctly raised the maximum AC possible by armor type by 1 pt per weight class, and made the highest level armors in each class only available at Epic levels (the equivalent of making full plate a 100,000 gp item.) It was what they had to do to truly balance out the Armor Proficiencies, which have next to no value in 3.5 because they are so easy to get.
==Aelryinth
I don't like the change, but I happen to agree with about 80% of the changes made in PFRPG so I can live with it. If it bugs me enough I'll house rule it (I haven't decided yet), if not then clerics can take a feat to use heavy armor.
In editions earlier than 3e Clerics only had spells up to 7th level.
Is that why there's a huge 2 level gap of crap in the Cleric spells? I always wondered why there were so few good spells in level 7 and 8.
If it bugs me enough I'll house rule it (I haven't decided yet), if not then clerics can take a feat to use heavy armor.
You read my mind. House it if you don't like it.
Unfortunately, this change kind of ends up becoming a feat tax on Clerics. Any Cleric that wants to fight will have to take it as there's no way that they'll have enough stats to go around to build their DEX up. Oh, well. We'll house it if the group doesn't approve.
|
|
Another vote here for "glad to see the change made"! Clerics are divine casters and healers capable of holding their own at the front line, despite what real world derivatives they might be originally based upon. I doubt such archetypes were running around during the crusades casting spells and using magic to heal others. If you want a full melee warrior cleric then have them multi-class and pickup that heavy armor proficiency.
Another vote here for "glad to see the change made"! Clerics are divine casters and healers capable of holding their own at the front line, despite what real world derivatives they might be originally based upon. I doubt such archetypes were running around during the crusades casting spells and using magic to heal others. If you want a full melee warrior cleric then have them multi-class and pickup that heavy armor proficiency.
Well I believe that Clerics should never have been made full spellcasters in the first place, which would make this change unnecessary.
If heavy armor was a big thing for you, what I would do is take the Holy Warrior alternate class ability from the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign setting, add heavy armor to it, and allow the players to choose this alternate. Would that work with the new rules? I don't have the book yet so I can't check. Anyhoo that would be my solution.
That's what, a single bonus feat?
All it does is remove attack penalties when wearing the armor. Come back when you have a divine spell failure chance for casting in armor. ;)
It's not a big deal. After all they only need to take one feat to get it anyway, and it's only an additional +2 to AC anyway.
I actually applaud the move. I have been considering this as one way to trim down the cleric in my games as well.
But the D&D Cleric isn't the "guy in robes" and is a holy warrior. The paladin is not a generic holy warrior. The paladin is a specific type of character, which is why they are always lawful good and have they're other limitations. Maybe there's room in the game for a cloistered cleric kind of character, but the base cleric doesn't fit the bill.
I have to say--love the change. There was a hint of it in Council of Thieves (a cleric NPC with Heavy Armor Prof as a feat), but this is the confirmation.
Why do I love this change? Six words--clerics are the most powerful PC class. Arguably, of course, and I don't especially care to get into that argument. But clerics have always been very powerful in 3.x, and this helps balance them a bit. No other full casting class gets full armor, after all.
I like the fact that more classes have Medium armor now without also having Heavy Armor right out of the gate. Sort of adds some difference to classes.
[sarcasm]No more holy tank?!?!?! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO![/sarcasm]
I like the fact that more classes have Medium armor now without also having Heavy Armor right out of the gate. Sort of adds some difference to classes.
This is my feeling as well.
Heavy Armor just seems "Iconic" to Fighters & Paladins.And Clerics got ALOT in PRPG (2 enhanced Domains, Channel Energy), so having to spend ONE of the more numerous Feats (or more likely, take 1 level of Fighter/Paladin, which if they plan on being a melee tank, is hardly a sub-par choice) to wear Platemail doesn't seem the worst of knocks.
Since it sounds like they still have Shield Proficiency, they are hardly much "weaker" than Fighters/Paladins, and in fact have the same Armor Proficiency as Barbarians.
Overall, I think it sets up a better stratification of Heavy, Medium, Light, and No Armor classes. I also think it goes along with a certain intention of PRPG, allowing/ expanding options, but making it more of a CHOICE, like Druids choose between Companion and Domain now. And most importantly, I'm in no way an less excited to play a Cleric.
I definitely understand where people are coming from in saying that Clerics needed to be toned down a bit. I just wish they had been nerfed in the area of magic rather than might.
|
Am I wrong in thinking that the cleric is worse than the 3.5 version? Minus channeling negative energy which I'm sure got nerfed, cleric stands as the single class so far that not only didn't get anything new or fun, but has actually had things stripped from it?
To me it's less that full plate cleric breaks the game (never once have I ever seen this from Cleric, though Fighter, Rogue and Druid is a different story), as much as the cleric lost even more.
I have nothing good at all to say about this change, and how it makes me feel toward Pathfinder and frankly Jason. I will wait till my disappoint is less strongly felt or someone decides to start the flames to say much more.
|
mmmmm
The cleric GAINED two to four new abilities based upon domains.
The turning has been fine tuned, and more options than ever are available.
As with all classes the cleric has more feats to choose from.
This takes a warrior priest and sets it to a baseline and allows the player to customize its direction.
All in all, I like it. No complaints because as far as I can tell it has certainly gained substantial powers over the 3.5 version.
|
|
mmmm btw in older games the clerics were never hosed because they only got 7 levels of spells. If you remember, Miracle and other spells that are now 9th level were then 7th level.
It meant that clerics, the uberclass they always were, maxed out in power earlier than all other classes. It certainly didn't weaken them, if anything it made them stronger.
I love clerics, so naturally I'm sad to see my dwarven spell-slinging tank toned down. I'm also willing to try anything once, so here goes...
In my opinion, clerics cast divine defensive spells and druids cast divine offensive spells. Therefore, nuking the spellcasting abulities of the cleric would upset me even more. I fully agree that the paladin is the image of armoured holy warrior and the cleric the spellcaster, just as the druid and ranger can be compared.
I guess I'm making a spellslinging lightly armoured cleric and hoping someone else takes up the tank slack.
mmmm btw in older games the clerics were never hosed because they only got 7 levels of spells. If you remember, Miracle and other spells that are now 9th level were then 7th level.
It meant that clerics, the uberclass they always were, maxed out in power earlier than all other classes. It certainly didn't weaken them, if anything it made them stronger.
Miracle didn't exist in 1st Edition. Of the spells that are 9th level in 3rd Edition the cleric had: Astral Spell (now Astral Projection) and Gate. Gate is pretty impressive of course, even being a 9th level spell on the magic-user's spell list, but otherwise the cleric is a weaker spellcaster than the magic-user. It's also a weaker fighter than the fighter, having less hit dice, less chance to hit, and lacking the ability of the fighter to attack more than once per round. I regret to say I have not actually played 1st Edition, but I doubt the 1e cleric was the "uberclass" you say it is.
|
|
It really seems to me that PF is wanting to reinforce the clerics are healbots, but more likely cleric players are going to do even less likely to heal or buff others.
Also seems to me that they have gone a long way to make the class not needed, to the point that it might just be dropped in the next addition.
This is something I had considered as a houserule anyway.
I realize that the cleric in heavy armor is an iconic character in 3.5, but I believe he will remain such in Pathfinder. After all, heavy armor prof. is only one feat, and offers a substantial AC boost to most characters.
|
|
Wow...I can't believe this. It's like people are completely ignoring the fact that clerics are full spellcasters, just like Wizards and Sorcerers, who get no armor proficiencies at all - and are complaining that clerics are now worthless.
I'll start by saying that I fully support this change, and eagerly await Jason's official discussion about why he chose to do it.
That said, it's not like clerics have actually lost anything. How many more feats do clerics have in PRPG than they did in 3.5? One of those extra feats can easily be used for heavy armor proficiency. Add all the other new bonuses that clerics get to their domains and channeling, and Clerics in PRPG are far superior in every way to their 3.5 counterpart. Sheesh...if anyone deserves to be complaining about being hit with the nerf bat it's the poor druid, and they're still pretty darn awesome.
Miracle didn't exist in 1st Edition. Of the spells that are 9th level in 3rd Edition the cleric had: Astral Spell (now Astral Projection) and Gate. Gate is pretty impressive of course, even being a 9th level spell on the magic-user's spell list, but otherwise the cleric is a weaker spellcaster than the magic-user. It's also a weaker fighter than the fighter, having less hit dice, less chance to hit, and lacking the ability of the fighter to attack more than once per round. I regret to say I have not actually played 1st Edition, but I doubt the 1e cleric was the "uberclass" you say it is.mmmm btw in older games the clerics were never hosed because they only got 7 levels of spells. If you remember, Miracle and other spells that are now 9th level were then 7th level.
It meant that clerics, the uberclass they always were, maxed out in power earlier than all other classes. It certainly didn't weaken them, if anything it made them stronger.
It wasn't. No multiple attacks really hurt as well. But let's not confuse him with the facts. He's too busy gloating.
Wow...I can't believe this. It's like people are completely ignoring the fact that clerics are full spellcasters, just like Wizards and Sorcerers, who get no armor proficiencies at all - and are complaining that clerics are now worthless.
I'll start by saying that I fully support this change, and eagerly await Jason's official discussion about why he chose to do it.
That said, it's not like clerics have actually lost anything. How many more feats do clerics have in PRPG than they did in 3.5? One of those extra feats can easily be used for heavy armor proficiency. Add all the other new bonuses that clerics get to their domains and channeling, and Clerics in PRPG are far superior in every way to their 3.5 counterpart. Sheesh...if anyone deserves to be complaining about being hit with the nerf bat it's the poor druid, and they're still pretty darn awesome.
I'm with the Count on this one- this is hardly a nerf. PFRPG, as I understood it, wasn't about buffing up all the classes in the core rulebook- it was about bringing them in line with one another. Dropping the potential AC of your standard cleric by a few points right out of the gate is a nerf, yes, but she's still in line with a druid (her companion divine caster) and miles ahead of a wizard or sorcerer. Why is this a big deal? Clerics still rock, and rock even harder in this edition- I mean, domains are more than just a 1/day buff, generally useless addition to turn undead, or bonus class skill. And Turn Undead got a major overhaul and is actually useful when you're not fighting the undead WITHOUT spending a series of feats on it.
So, please, chill out.
As I said before I agree the cleric needed a nerf. But the cleric has always had access to the heaviest armor in the game, but hasn't always had the most powerful magic. So if it's going to be nerfed I'd prefer that it's magic get nerfed rather than it's armor.
|
I pointed this out in another thread, Medium and Heavy armors were upgraded +1 AC. Clerics CAN buy Heavy Armor proficiency and not suffer any adverse affects to spellcasting. Clerics can also multi-class to Fighter or Paladin to gain access to Heavy Armor and the rest...
I do feel clerics of the War domain should still get Heavy Armor Prof and will probably house rule it thusly.
In general I like the change personally, I disliked that the majority of armors were either light or heavy.
(NOTE: Mithral Full plate of speed DOES count as medium according to the write up in the magic items section...same as elven chain and celestial count as light)
It really seems to me that PF is wanting to reinforce the clerics are healbots, but more likely cleric players are going to do even less likely to heal or buff others.
Also seems to me that they have gone a long way to make the class not needed, to the point that it might just be dropped in the next addition.
Jason Buhlman must be feeling very uncomfortable now,
because there is obviously somebody who can read his mind.It's incontrovertable,
Clerics will never heal any more, even though Paizo thinks they can force them to:
They will be to busy stroking the Fighter's armor to use Channel Energy for out of Combat Healing.
Spontaneous Cure Spell Substitution for in-combat heals, superior access to Disease & Curse removal, Turning or Damaging Undead/Elementals/Outsiders while helping your team-mates and not consuming your spells, Double the access to non-Cleric spells thru 2 Domains with 2 to 3 new abilities EACH (like ignoring difficult terrain without distance limit vs. buying 5' of it at a time with Feats), IT DOESN'T MATTER: The Fighter has Weapon Training and the Rogue their Minor Magic, so they don't want your stinkin' Buff spells.
Hey, being a mind-reader is a tough life...
|
No, Clerics are supposed to be holy warriors. Paladins could also be called holy warriors, but if so they're a specific kind with they're own unique abilities. In the 1e Player's Handbook it says "This class bears a certain resemblance to religous orders of knighthood of medieval times." They are not supposed to represent every priest in the world. They the guys that go out in the world and knock heads for they're gods.I like it...and Lordzack...Clerics aren't supposed to be Holy Warriors...Paladins fill that bill.
Clerics are supposed to be Dieties Representatives in the world. They work for the Church and bring the faith to the commonfolk. They aren't supposed to be Holy Warriors.
I like that Pally's and Fighters are the only ones that get Heavy Armor without taking extra's. It feels right!
The main reason seems to be balance rather than changing the role of the cleric as such. Actually, not all clerics are "warriors" in that sense - in my Eberron PbP we have a cleric who is much more about healing and buffing than smacking and hurting. It is slightly incongruous that he does wear plate mail actualy, since a lot of the time he can't hit the side of a barn. I think that a cleric can be a holy warrior, but it is not the be-all and end-all of what a cleric can be, and saying they are just a holy warrior is a somewhat narrow view. Not to deny that most people play them that way.
I am gonna say I love this change. This is something I myself wanted anyhow. Very happy with it. They can take heavy armor if they want, with feats and all, but really they should not gain it.
d&d clerics started out based roughly on knight templars( really cleric was a bad name as not every priest would be a cleric class). But have moved far from it. I am good with this change. They still gain so many good things, full caster good weapon selection, ok BAB, OK amount of HD( need 4 skills though) 2 domains and light and med armors. On top of that is channel.
Clerics needed a nerf and well they got some
Yeah clerics are still very powerful. On the up side the Holy warrior thing from the PFCS is a bit better now
Lose domain and gain full BAB, D10HD and heavy armor proff, Bit of a better trade off even if it is unofficial and all