|
It would be the same as taking heavy armor away from fighters because one built on dex will stay away from it for a long time, or a paladin looking for mobility going with a chain shirt should mean all paladins don't need heavy armor. Weak arguement made to defend the undefendable.
I agree with you. But no one is going to listen.
|
|
Grapple, Bullrush, Tumble, yeah, all of those.
At the moment, using it against a lot of 3.5 (converted) monsters, they are two weak. What I mean is, from what I keep hearing, ( I only had a bit of personal experience and not enough for me to form a solid view yet), is that they are way to likely to fail, except against the weaker monsters that there isn't a lot of point using it on in the first place. Unless the Beastiary really changes something, most manuvers (purposfully?) are really pointless.
|
That's what I'm seeing from just looking at the numbers. I don't have any real way to test them since I don't have a game currently. But I was really looking forward to a unified mechanic for maneuvers, that would let my players say 'I want to try this on that bad guy' and all I have to say is 'Roll a CMB check.' It would make it so much easier to judge some of the crazy things players do. Like leap off a 40ft ledge down onto a hydra.
Too many dislikes posts and not enough like posts.
I think there's a lot of love for Pathfinder. I see this thread as a "vent" thread, where folks can talk about the specific things they don't like. So far, I haven't seen any "hate" towards the game. While the other thread doesn't have as many posts, overall the message boards are filled with "like" posts.
It would be the same as taking heavy armor away from fighters because one built on dex will stay away from it for a long time, or a paladin looking for mobility going with a chain shirt should mean all paladins don't need heavy armor. Weak arguement made to defend the undefendable.I agree with you. But no one is going to listen.
That's because it's a straw man argument. The main focus of a cleric isn't wearing heavy armor and wading into melee. It is for most fighters and paladins. Can you make other fighter and paladin builds? Sure. Do you want to have your cleric mimic the fighter and paladin? Invest one of the bonus feats you now have. They start off from two very different bases.
If you don't understand that simple concept there's really no reason to keep arguing about it. No amount of logic will persuade you otherwise.
It would be the same as taking heavy armor away from fighters because one built on dex will stay away from it for a long time, or a paladin looking for mobility going with a chain shirt should mean all paladins don't need heavy armor. Weak arguement made to defend the undefendable.I agree with you. But no one is going to listen.That's because it's a straw man argument. The main focus of a cleric isn't wearing heavy armor and wading into melee. It is for most fighters and paladins. Can you make other fighter and paladin builds? Sure. Do you want to have your cleric mimic the fighter and paladin? Invest one of the bonus feats you now have. They start off from two very different bases.
If you don't understand that simple concept there's really no reason to keep arguing about it. No amount of logic will persuade you otherwise.
All three classes have always had access to heavy armor. Always in every edition even the dreaded 4th ed gives each a type of heavy armor they can wear, even 4th ed which had such trouble understanding the history of the game managed to at least notice and honor that part of the history. The cleric is as much about heavy armor as the fighter or paladin. Your claim it is not lacks any historical game support. You might want to look up the definition of logic, you clearly have misused it in your reply. Nothing you said has any basis in it.
Can we please not bring up the tired argument of cleric armor proficiencies? We've worn that issue away to nothing.
I would think not. If it was truly tired and worn out, then everyone would have heard all the arguments before, and we wouldn't keep hearing the hollow and flawed argument of "just take a feat, for Christmas Sake!"
And equally hollow and flawed "it doesn't make sense for them to have it."And since anytime a real discussion tries to come up, it gets drowned in "oh gawd, not this again," and "haven't we heard enough?" So the real argument is never really heard.
Hell, it is already going on again.
So keep trying to shout it down.
That is the best, logical way to handle it.
On the whole I like what they did with the game. I am probably going to houserule a couple of things though.
Stuff I didn't like:
I didn't like the changes to skills, either in skill points or skill combinations. Some just didn't make sense to me and I like my players to be able to tinker with a wide variety of skills. And I honestly found "Use Rope" to be a handy skill... my dungeons are full of chasms, sink holes, pits, etc. Rope is good.
I, oddly enough, liked the old xp to make magic items rule. My campaign is fairly low magic and the horror of my players over losing xp kept it that way :) I had a rationale for the expenditure, but I might dump the xp cost for one use items (scrolls, potions) and go with the increased gp costs for those.
I had my own fixes for polymorph and wish type spells and I think I'll stick with them.
I had my own system for unarmed combat, tricks etc, and I'll stick with it.
Stuff I haven't really had a chance to look over (and why I'm reading threads like this -- I'm picking your brains):
Nerfs to various spells.
Haven't fully digested the changes to races, and some of the classes yet. We'll see on these.
Stuff that bothers other people that I'm fine with:
Nerfing the spiked chain. Don't have them in my game because I considered them broken from the get go. I also didn't bother with some of their odder invented racial weapons. Go figure.
Cleric armor. Made sense to me. I already had a house rule for some deities clerics who didn't need armor to give it up for other feats / etc. No more heavy armor proficiency for the gods of peace, healing, trade / travel, etc.. Oh well.
Well, I'm sure more will come up. Especially thanks to the inventive minds on this board.
Thanks.
*edit* Hmm... other things that don't bother me:
Changes in the barbarian and monk class. Don't have them in my game. So that's no problem for me.
|
|
Why would a Cleric of peace, healing, or travel (travel is debatable) not want the best protection they can get. Saying clerics of this deity don't need it is a kind of a cop out. Particularly for healing. They need to be right in the thick of things to actually heal. A cleric of peace needs to go to places that are not peaceful to spread the word of peace. Not having armor just means they have less chance of succeeding at that goal.
As for trying to make Fighters and Paladins feel special, there is no more need for each and every fighter to be trained in full plate than there is for a cleric. It's a illogical arguement. I'm not talking about past editions, or fantasy itself, just D&D. There are more player and combat related NPC clerics that us full plate than there are fighters because it is a lot easier for fighters to go dex based. It is pracitcle that an archer fighter would go with light armor, and armor training really makes it worth it.
The cleric really can't though. Medium armor does not offer any better manuverability, so it is purely a change to spite the cleric and to make a change. If you don't like clerics having full plate, that is perfectly fine, but there is no sense is saying it is good for all fighters, but not all clerics. It is hard to make a dex based Paladin as well, but not so much as it is a cleric.
I keep saying reasons that the cleric needs better protections to do their job, so how are these not good arguements?
Between having to be in combat to really use the party heal button (channel energy) there is a good chance that the cleric gets swarmed afterwards. In order to cast spells like Remove Curse, Remove Poison, Remove Paralysis, Cures, Heal, and many Buffs, the cleric has to be adjacent to the fighter (or whoever). That pretty much means a 5ft step away from harm and many times now not being able to do any magic. Dropping AC adds even more chance of failure. Not fun failure either. It's the type that gets people aggrivated after a few times of not being able to do anything for the entire fight.
Back to things I am not a fan of:
As it stands, the Paladin makes a better war-priest than the cleric.
I'm really not liking that Clerics have 18 dead levels instead of 19. Well most clerics have 18. Some still have 19 I think.
I am disappointed in Prestige Classes, except the Dragon Disciple. Once again, it seems like only Arcane and Rogue need apply, but they just are not worth it anyway.
The prestige is gone.
Step Up. I hate this feat. There needs to be a counter for it. It really screws casters, particularly when they must do something or die. From the dm's side, it robs caster BBE's of the majority of their challenge, very early on. From a players side, it is an easy way to TPK a party be destroying the healers when they are running low, and there is nothing they can do about. Casting Defensively is already to difficult without things like this in the game.
It can also render a ranged fighter very ineffective, though it is usually not as lethal that way.
Look Beckett and Thurgon, numerous valid, logical reasons and explanations have been given, but you have both shown that you are so entrenched in your opinion that you won't listen to any reason other than "you are right, we made a mistake, of course clerics should have heavy armor!"
So just let it go, it's not going to change. And you have a very simple solution to it (apart form the obvious feat one), it's your game, so just change it if you don't like it.
..., but you have both shown that you are so entrenched in your opinion ...
I think they may not be the only ones.
Off-Topic: You know what one of my favorite MJ songs of all times was? "Man in the Mirror". It was and continues to be a great song. Anyway, back to the discussion.
So it seems like one issue of backwards compatibility has been lost, old cleric miniatures. =D
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I hate how the Barbarian has to drop out of rage if they fall unconcious. Sure it makes fluff sense with the mechanic been used, but it's a death sentance for Barbs.
I agree, to a point: the rule clarification (3.5 rules as written are vague on the subject) makes it more dangerous to play a barbarian whose hit points are low. Although the Pathfinder threshold for death is a blessing for high-Constitution barbarians.
If you're worried about it, I'd recommend playing a half-orc (with the ability to keep moving, slowly, at negative hit points) or investing in the Diehard feat.
Look Beckett and Thurgon, numerous valid, logical reasons and explanations have been given, but you have both shown that you are so entrenched in your opinion that you won't listen to any reason other than "you are right, we made a mistake, of course clerics should have heavy armor!"
So just let it go, it's not going to change. And you have a very simple solution to it (apart form the obvious feat one), it's your game, so just change it if you don't like it.
I've yet to hear a logical one at all.
Peace clerics don't need it....is not a logical defense of it being removed. It's a excuse for some not to wear it, same as an archer based fighter being an excuse to take it from fighters, it's an excuse not a reason or based in logic.
Clerics don't have any right to it, but fighters and paladins do.....is not a logical defense it's just a silly statement. Fighters have no right to heavy armor, nor do Paladins, but then again all three have always had it. So if a fighter is defined by his ability to wear it why is it logical to say a cleric is not? They have both always had it. The anwser is simple, it's a false statement meant as an excuse with no basis in logic or fact.
It only takes one feat to get it back....ok true but doesn't explain it being gone. The arguement it is for balance is false, as we can see from the cleric class alone one feat either way doesn't dominate balance at least not in the minds of those who wrote pathfinder. If it did the clerical ability to gain skill with the weapon of their gods would not exist, for it gives one feat to some and not to others, so if one feat truly does bring inbalance in and of itself then everyone using this logic has to admit that the cleric class is broken internally. Well either that or admit they don't believe what they are using as a defense for the removal of the feat.
Look it's logical to remove the feat....sure, why? Well so far all we are told is that it is logical...because it is....head in the sand don't want to think type of logic I guess....but not logic in any meaningful manner.
Please bring an arguement worth debating to support the change or don't bother, we've heard all the worthless reasons and illogical reasons. We've been shouted down by loud voices but not even challenged by logic or reason. Sure it's a minor thing, but it's wrong. And so wrong it needs to be challenged over and over until it is changed.
Look Beckett and Thurgon, numerous valid, logical reasons and explanations have been given, but you have both shown that you are so entrenched in your opinion that you won't listen to any reason other than "you are right, we made a mistake, of course clerics should have heavy armor!"
So just let it go, it's not going to change. And you have a very simple solution to it (apart form the obvious feat one), it's your game, so just change it if you don't like it.I've yet to hear a logical one at all.
Peace clerics don't need it....is not a logical defense of it being removed. It's a excuse for some not to wear it, same as an archer based fighter being an excuse to take it from fighters, it's an excuse not a reason or based in logic.
Clerics don't have any right to it, but fighters and paladins do.....is not a logical defense it's just a silly statement. Fighters have no right to heavy armor, nor do Paladins, but then again all three have always had it. So if a fighter is defined by his ability to wear it why is it logical to say a cleric is not? They have both always had it. The anwser is simple, it's a false statement meant as an excuse with no basis in logic or fact.
It only takes one feat to get it back....ok true but doesn't explain it being gone. The arguement it is for balance is false, as we can see from the cleric class alone one feat either way doesn't dominate balance at least not in the minds of those who wrote pathfinder. If it did the clerical ability to gain skill with the weapon of their gods would not exist, for it gives one feat to some and not to others, so if one feat truly does bring inbalance in and of itself then everyone using this logic has to admit that the cleric class is broken internally. Well either that or admit they don't believe what they are using as a defense for the removal of the feat.
Look it's logical to remove the feat....sure, why? Well so far all we are told is that it is logical...because it is....head in the sand...
The Cleric is not by design a melee class. That does not mean he can't hold his own if buffed, but he is really a 2nd tier meleer. The guys(fighter and paladin) that are expected to be up front got the heavy armor. Those that were not expected to be up front got the medium armor. The Barbarian, well I don't want to hijack the thread.
The Cleric is not by design a melee class. That does not mean he can't hold his own if buffed, but he is really a 2nd tier meleer.
Right, so we don't give them martial weapon proficiencies (you know the method of being a meleer). Check.
And this has to do with armor ... how?
The guys(fighter and paladin) that are expected to be up front got the heavy armor. Those that were not expected to be up front got the medium armor. The Barbarian, well I don't want to hijack the thread.
Yeah, what about those barbarians. Get martial weapons, so go meleer! But don't get heavy armor? Wait, wasn't there some vague connection between being a meleer and heavy armor?
|
Most of my "dislikes" are more "pet peeves with 3.5 that I didn't really expect PFRPG to address"; they haven't solved the multiclass-spellcaster problem, they haven't gotten rid of prestige classes (which I generally dislike), they still imply an economy where magic items are fairly easy to buy, etc.
I haven't had the chance to field-test the new rules yet (we're generating characters at this week's game session), but so far I haven't found any changes that immediately jump out at me as a bad idea. I may have more to offer once we get playing.
There are a few oversights to get me grumbling -- either there's no section explaining how to compute hit points at first level (is it maximum on the die, as in 3.x D&D?) or else I haven't yet found it. Similarly, I find myself missing the "level-up checklist" from the 3.x PHB; again, maybe this is present and I haven't stumbled across it.
The Cleric is not by design a melee class. That does not mean he can't hold his own if buffed, but he is really a 2nd tier meleer. The guys(fighter and paladin) that are expected to be up front got the heavy armor. Those that were not expected to be up front got the medium armor. The Barbarian, well I don't want to hijack the thread.
Ok, maybe but why? If we accept your arguement that clerics are second teir melee why the lower hit die then barbarians or rangers? Well simple answer could be they are suppose to have heavier armor.
But your arguement is based on only melee classes getting plate, but I ask why is that? Why not also classes that must cast in melee, espically now with the weakened Defensive Casting? The arguement when DC was made harder was well clerics need not worry they have heavy armor to protect them, guess that was a bad line to take for those who supported the change to DC.
The point is why? All you have is what has happened, but no why to explain it.
The Cleric is not by design a melee class. That does not mean he can't hold his own if buffed, but he is really a 2nd tier meleer. The guys(fighter and paladin) that are expected to be up front got the heavy armor. Those that were not expected to be up front got the medium armor
That isn't precise.
Unless we assume that a Paladin can serve any deity, Clerics are the soldiers of the church.
If we were to take Calistria for example, if her Clerics aren't her melee-ers who would be? Her whip wielding Bards? Or should she employ Blackguards instead?
The Cleric is not by design a melee class. That does not mean he can't hold his own if buffed, but he is really a 2nd tier meleer. The guys(fighter and paladin) that are expected to be up front got the heavy armor. Those that were not expected to be up front got the medium armor. The Barbarian, well I don't want to hijack the thread.Ok, maybe but why? If we accept your arguement that clerics are second teir melee why the lower hit die then barbarians or rangers? Well simple answer could be they are suppose to have heavier armor.
But your arguement is based on only melee classes getting plate, but I ask why is that? Why not also classes that must cast in melee, espically now with the weakened Defensive Casting? The arguement when DC was made harder was well clerics need not worry they have heavy armor to protect them, guess that was a bad line to take for those who supported the change to DC.
The point is why? All you have is what has happened, but no why to explain it.
I don't particularly care and havent really thought about it very deeply. Nor have I heard any of the apparently endless arguments about it. Nonetheless, I think the change stems from the fact/belief that the D and D cleric only wore heavy armor because they were intially really paladins. Once the paladin class came out it was a little odd to have priests running around in heavy armor (odd in the sense of not very closely tied with history/myth) but was never really addressed in any edition of D and D.
The guys(fighter and paladin) that are expected to be up front got the heavy armor. Those that were not expected to be up front got the medium armor. The Barbarian, well I don't want to hijack the thread.Yeah, what about those barbarians. Get martial weapons, so go meleer! But don't get heavy armor? Wait, wasn't there some vague connection between being a meleer and heavy armor?
That's what Rage and d12 hp is for. Easier to hit, but more resilient.
The Cleric is not by design a melee class. That does not mean he can't hold his own if buffed, but he is really a 2nd tier meleer. The guys(fighter and paladin) that are expected to be up front got the heavy armor. Those that were not expected to be up front got the medium armorThat isn't precise.
Unless we assume that a Paladin can serve any deity, Clerics are the soldiers of the church.
If we were to take Calistria for example, if her Clerics aren't her melee-ers who would be? Her whip wielding Bards? Or should she employ Blackguards instead?
Why not fighters? They can be devout too.
The Cleric is not by design a melee class. That does not mean he can't hold his own if buffed, but he is really a 2nd tier meleer.Right, so we don't give them martial weapon proficiencies (you know the method of being a meleer). Check.
And this has to do with armor ... how?
The guys(fighter and paladin) that are expected to be up front got the heavy armor. Those that were not expected to be up front got the medium armor. The Barbarian, well I don't want to hijack the thread.Yeah, what about those barbarians. Get martial weapons, so go meleer! But don't get heavy armor? Wait, wasn't there some vague connection between being a meleer and heavy armor?
If you are trained to fight up front it would make sense for you to have access to heavier armor. If you are not designed to fight up front there is no reason to have it. That is what it has to do with heavy armor.
The fact that the barbarian does not have heavy armor is a roleplay issue that was turned into a mechanical issue. That is all I will say on that subject, in this thread anyway.
10d6 of healing or damage when you have 20d6+X as a MINIMUM is NOT enough to matter. Especially when monsters are dealing that 10d6 in a round, reliably.
Not enough? For the entire party to be healed in one shot - ya - if one PC needs more then ya still got the spells; but a Cleric can just stand there and blast out healing for the whole team round after round...come on now - if you have say 4 party members that is 40d6 going out in one action...
The Cleric is not by design a melee class. That does not mean he can't hold his own if buffed, but he is really a 2nd tier meleer. The guys(fighter and paladin) that are expected to be up front got the heavy armor. Those that were not expected to be up front got the medium armorThat isn't precise.
Unless we assume that a Paladin can serve any deity, Clerics are the soldiers of the church.
If we were to take Calistria for example, if her Clerics aren't her melee-ers who would be? Her whip wielding Bards? Or should she employ Blackguards instead?
Or maybe her legions of faithful fighters... just an idea. One doesn't have to be a cleric to be a soldier of a church.
EDIT: Damnit, ninja'ed!
For better or worse the DnD (and thus also Pathfinder) classes are based on semi-historical models. The models for Fighter and Paladins used and were well trained in heavy armour. The models for clerics were much less inclined to be in heavy armour to any degree. Indeed, aside from pomp situations it could be said to be quite unusual for them to be in heavy armour.
In addition from a game mechanic point of view it puts a small roadbump in the way of Clerics usurping the position of main melee fighter from Fighters. This has been a long-time complaint in 3.5.
Stephen
Again in every D&D edition snce 1e clerics have access to heavy armor.
Why is that? Simple, clerics are the warriors/war leaders/defenders/protectors of their faiths, not all churchs have Paladins you know.
For better or worse the DnD (and thus also Pathfinder) classes are based on semi-historical models. The models for Fighter and Paladins used and were well trained in heavy armour. The models for clerics were much less inclined to be in heavy armour to any degree. Indeed, aside from pomp situations it could be said to be quite unusual for them to be in heavy armour.
In addition from a game mechanic point of view it puts a small roadbump in the way of Clerics usurping the position of main melee fighter from Fighters. This has been a long-time complaint in 3.5.
Stephen
Again in every D&D edition snce 1e clerics have access to heavy armor.
Why is that? Simple, clerics are the warriors/war leaders/defenders/protectors of their faiths, not all churchs have Paladins you know.
However, the image of the cleric has shifted away from the earlier focus. The Pathfinder cleric is now a more base-line priest. From there you can focus on melee if you want to, by using the feats required, or you can focus more on casting, by using the feats required. Heck, with the extra feats available, you can do both!
EDIT:
Also, as has also been mentioned in the other thread, clerics used to be limited to bludgeoning weapons and have other restrictions. Do you want all of those "but that's how they used to be" things incorporated again?
If you do, I have great news for you! You can! Just do it! It's your game!
10d6 of healing or damage when you have 20d6+X as a MINIMUM is NOT enough to matter. Especially when monsters are dealing that 10d6 in a round, reliably.Not enough? For the entire party to be healed in one shot - ya - if one PC needs more then ya still got the spells; but a Cleric can just stand there and blast out healing for the whole team round after round...come on now - if you have say 4 party members that is 40d6 going out in one action...
At that level an enemy would need to be mentally challenged to not focus his damage. Healing the undamaged doesn't add to the healing the guy who got ripped up got.
But I still argue channeling energy is a bad mechanic. It is far more unbalancing then heavy armor and turning ever where.
For better or worse the DnD (and thus also Pathfinder) classes are based on semi-historical models. The models for Fighter and Paladins used and were well trained in heavy armour. The models for clerics were much less inclined to be in heavy armour to any degree. Indeed, aside from pomp situations it could be said to be quite unusual for them to be in heavy armour.
In addition from a game mechanic point of view it puts a small roadbump in the way of Clerics usurping the position of main melee fighter from Fighters. This has been a long-time complaint in 3.5.
Stephen
Again in every D&D edition snce 1e clerics have access to heavy armor.
Why is that? Simple, clerics are the warriors/war leaders/defenders/protectors of their faiths, not all churchs have Paladins you know.
I think the reason was that they were modelled on the crusading templars. Once paladins became available they took the niche clerics were initially intended to fill. Armor wearing priests are not common concepts in myth/legend/history are they?
You're right there's a history of platemail wearing clerics within D and D. I think this change addresses a long-running quirk to return clerics to their place as priest-archetypes. A cleric of a wargod can still develop in the direction of a heavily armored fighter if desired - it will just mean they're not so good on the other clericky things those of other faiths will be able to do.
The Cleric is not by design a melee class. That does not mean he can't hold his own if buffed, but he is really a 2nd tier meleer. The guys(fighter and paladin) that are expected to be up front got the heavy armor. Those that were not expected to be up front got the medium armor. The Barbarian, well I don't want to hijack the thread.Ok, maybe but why? If we accept your arguement that clerics are second teir melee why the lower hit die then barbarians or rangers? Well simple answer could be they are suppose to have heavier armor.
But your arguement is based on only melee classes getting plate, but I ask why is that? Why not also classes that must cast in melee, espically now with the weakened Defensive Casting? The arguement when DC was made harder was well clerics need not worry they have heavy armor to protect them, guess that was a bad line to take for those who supported the change to DC.
The point is why? All you have is what has happened, but no why to explain it.
The lower HD goes along with my front line statement. Why practice using heavy armor if you are not expecting to be up front? I am not saying you cant take the cleric up front, but I dont think the class was designed to be there full time. It was designed to go there occasionally and if he had to go there to heal a front-liner he may get swung at so he should have decent armor(medium)
Or maybe her legions of faithful fighters... just an idea. One doesn't have to be a cleric to be a soldier of a church.
EDIT: Damnit, ninja'ed!
Until the mechanics include Fighters receiving Divine Power (not the spell), or tending to the Faithful by spreading the miracles of the Deity, then the faithful fighters (that aren't even listed among her devoted clergy) are simply a figment.
I don't quite understand that argument. Why take it away from all clerics just because some clerics might not use it? It is not like having the ability to wear heavy armor without penalty is forcing them to do so. If a cleric believes his deity wants him to run around in nothing but a thong, having armor proficiencies can't keep him from running around in a thong.
The Argument - same one that says why don't fighters get Spellcraft as a class skill? They must do some training in fighting casters after all?
The point I am making is the one I said above - What in Cleric School would make one proficient in heavy armor? I answered this in part myself when I talked about relating Armor proficiency with Domains - that makes sense - warrior gods with warrior like clerics.
Heavy Armor is the NFL of Armor - "Welcome to the NFL" as they say to rookies after their first hit in training camp. It take training and practice to fight in any armor; especially the big stuff.
Why would many clerics get training in this? One could even argue that for Medium Armor if they wanted.
Until the mechanics include Fighters receiving Divine Power (not the spell), or tending to the Faithful by spreading the miracles of the Deity, then the faithful fighters (that aren't even listed among her devoted clergy) are simply a figment.Or maybe her legions of faithful fighters... just an idea. One doesn't have to be a cleric to be a soldier of a church.
EDIT: Damnit, ninja'ed!
So mechanics are needed to portray faithful followers properly? I don't know, spreading religion seems to be doing just fine in our world without flash and bang spells and (current) miracles.
So mechanics are needed to portray faithful followers properly?
When discussing mechanics, absolutely. Unless one is trying to distract from a weak stance?
I don't quite understand that argument. Why take it away from all clerics just because some clerics might not use it? It is not like having the ability to wear heavy armor without penalty is forcing them to do so. If a cleric believes his deity wants him to run around in nothing but a thong, having armor proficiencies can't keep him from running around in a thong.One issue I see here with the posts is the complaint about Clerics and Heavy Armor. Yes - its been that way since the start but that does not make it right.
A Cleric of a love goddess gets heavy armor? Or a God of farming? The buff masters get the bonus of making out AC without a single spell being cast...what exactly is it in Clerical school that would get one ready for heavy armor?
It would be the same as taking heavy armor away from fighters because one built on dex will stay away from it for a long time, or a paladin looking for mobility going with a chain shirt should mean all paladins don't need heavy armor. Weak arguement made to defend the undefendable.
The difference you are ignoring is that fighters train to FIGHT - Clerics are different than that. Fighters would be default be able to use most armor and weapons because that is what they do for a living. It is by no means an equivilent comparison.
For better or worse the DnD (and thus also Pathfinder) classes are based on semi-historical models. The models for Fighter and Paladins used and were well trained in heavy armour. The models for clerics were much less inclined to be in heavy armour to any degree. Indeed, aside from pomp situations it could be said to be quite unusual for them to be in heavy armour.
In addition from a game mechanic point of view it puts a small roadbump in the way of Clerics usurping the position of main melee fighter from Fighters. This has been a long-time complaint in 3.5.
Stephen
Again in every D&D edition snce 1e clerics have access to heavy armor.
Why is that? Simple, clerics are the warriors/war leaders/defenders/protectors of their faiths, not all churchs have Paladins you know.
I can only speak on the cleric's current role, not past editions. If the cleric can go to the front line then what do we need the paladin, and fighter for?
What churches are these, other than evil aligned ones?
So mechanics are needed to portray faithful followers properly?When discussing mechanics, absolutely. Unless one is trying to distract from a weak stance?
Suuuure, it's a weak stance because you disagree with it...
Besides, who says that every church has to have crusading melee combatants?
For better or worse the DnD (and thus also Pathfinder) classes are based on semi-historical models. The models for Fighter and Paladins used and were well trained in heavy armour. The models for clerics were much less inclined to be in heavy armour to any degree. Indeed, aside from pomp situations it could be said to be quite unusual for them to be in heavy armour.
In addition from a game mechanic point of view it puts a small roadbump in the way of Clerics usurping the position of main melee fighter from Fighters. This has been a long-time complaint in 3.5.
Stephen
Again in every D&D edition snce 1e clerics have access to heavy armor.
Why is that? Simple, clerics are the warriors/war leaders/defenders/protectors of their faiths, not all churchs have Paladins you know.
I think the reason was that they were modelled on the crusading templars. Once paladins became available they took the niche clerics were initially intended to fill. Armor wearing priests are not common concepts in myth/legend/history are they?
You're right there's a history of platemail wearing clerics within D and D. I think this change addresses a long-running quirk to return clerics to their place as priest-archetypes. A cleric of a wargod can still develop in the direction of a heavily armored fighter if desired - it will just mean they're not so good on the other clericky things those of other faiths will be able to do.
So your arguement is that this cleric is not the cleric of previous D&D games, and that is a good thing? I thought the idea was compatibility...
But I ask you why did they lose heavy armor, not what they are now, but why have they be so changed?
Another thing, the "argument" that they need the best protection for when they go into dangerous places to spread the word of their faith... wouldn't that mean that every class should have access to heavy armor then, since they do exactly the same thing?
Actually, they have! By spending the necessary feat(s)! Just like the cleric!
The difference you are ignoring is that fighters train to FIGHT - Clerics are different than that. Fighters would be default be able to use most armor and weapons because that is what they do for a living. It is by no means an equivilent comparison.
Fighting is done with weapons, thus fighters, paladins, barbarians, and rangers all get martial weapon skill.
Armor is for protection. Clearly clerics are meant to be protective.
Why would a Cleric of peace, healing, or travel (travel is debatable) not want the best protection they can get. Saying clerics of this deity don't need it is a kind of a cop out. Particularly for healing. They need to be right in the thick of things to actually heal. A cleric of peace needs to go to places that are not peaceful to spread the word of peace. Not having armor just means they have less chance of succeeding at that goal.
As for trying to make Fighters and Paladins feel special, there is no more need for each and every fighter to be trained in full plate than there is for a cleric. It's a illogical arguement. I'm not talking about past editions, or fantasy itself, just D&D. There are more player and combat related NPC clerics that us full plate than there are fighters because it is a lot easier for fighters to go dex based. It is pracitcle that an archer fighter would go with light armor, and armor training really makes it worth it.
The cleric really can't though. Medium armor does not offer any better manuverability, so it is purely a change to spite the cleric and to make a change. If you don't like clerics having full plate, that is perfectly fine, but there is no sense is saying it is good for all fighters, but not all clerics. It is hard to make a dex based Paladin as well, but not so much as it is a cleric.I keep saying reasons that the cleric needs better protections to do their job, so how are these not good arguements?
Between having to be in combat to really use the party heal button (channel energy) there is a good chance that the cleric gets swarmed afterwards. In order to cast spells like Remove Curse, Remove Poison, Remove Paralysis, Cures, Heal, and many Buffs, the cleric has to be adjacent to the fighter (or whoever). That pretty much means a 5ft step away from harm and many times now not being able to do any magic. Dropping AC adds even more chance of failure. Not fun failure either. It's the type that gets people aggrivated after a few times of not being able to do...
I agree with others - this argument is pointless - some folks will simply never give it up - my last word - a fighter ain't a cleric and a cleric ain't a fighter. Cleric's, in NPC land stay at the church and do goody good things for the locals. Those few that venture out (PC's) can take the feat; just like a fighter has to pcik and choose feats - forgoing one thing for another...like step up...
So your arguement is that this cleric is not the cleric of previous D&D games, and that is a good thing? I thought the idea was compatibility...
But I ask you why did they lose heavy armor, not what they are now, but why have they be so changed?
Actually, what is YOUR argument for them keeping it? I can't see one, besides "they used to have it!"
Could it possibly be that they don't need it because they are already full casters? That they have access to spells that can boost their AC even higher than regular heavy armor users? That a distinction between base users of heavy and medium armor needed to be made? Again, clear and concise arguments that you simply won't hear because you're so entrenched in your view.You know what, I have a serious question for you. What argument WOULD convince you that it's a good change?
Actually, what is YOUR argument for them keeping it? I can't see one, besides "they used to have it!"
Given that Pathfinder is advertised as "backwards compatible," this is all the reason that is needed.
The burden of proof lies on those that say it is a necessary change.
But, if that isn't enough: As "goodly good doers," one duty can be expected from Clerics is protecting their flock. And the best protection of the flock is to remain standing. And the best way to do that is with the greatest - and best - protection.
What I hate most about the PFRPG are the fans who have apparently taken far too many ranks in Perform (Hyperbole). You know who you are.
*thumbs up*
If I could give you rep I totally would.
You know what, I have a serious question for you. What argument WOULD convince you that it's a good change?
None. It's removal is indefensible.
What argument can I make that makes punching random people good? ... Also none. It too would be indefensible.
Just because one can't concieve of a good reason for something, doesn't mean there is one you know. It could just be a bad idea.