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.
War or words I see...semantics now come into play..
Fighting means COMBAT in general which is offense AND defense. Though perhaps with the Barbarian, at least in part, this is true :-)
Protection of ideas, people, etc - not literal - there are some good arguments for Clerics with Armor - this is not one of them.
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.
You mind on elaborating on "meant to be protective"?
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.
If "backwards compatibility" is your main reason then the entire game should have stayed the same, and none of us should even be on Paizo's boards right now.
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.
In case you forgot-->
Actually, what is YOUR argument for them keeping it? I can't see one, besides "they used to have it!"
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.
Now hold on - I know a LOT of people who really need a good punch right in the nose! :-)
|
What argument WOULD convince you that it's a good change?
This was past 35 posts was pretty much exactly what I didn't want to hear again. And this wasn't directed at me, but I want to chime in a second.
There are no arguements that would change my mind, for the simple fact it is one a matter of my personal experience and my personal opinion. The cleric has been stripped down. Saying they are a full caster is yet another slap in the face because they are one of the only classes whose purpose is to fix other players screw ups. But even their full caster spells have been greatly hampered by Pathfinder.
A change like this does not empower the class towards personalization, it hampers it. It hurts more iconic aspects of the class, but does not help a single one. How is that possibly a good thing?
It is obviously making a lot of people mad and it is dividing the gamer community. How is that possibly a good thing?
It is spoiling some people's fun or concepts of the game. It does not matter if you are one of them, as it is obviously a big enough problem for some people to spawn over 600 to 800 posts in a few days about it exclusively. How is that a good thing?
My point of the earlier post was to show what I have seen so far due to the changes and show that there are legitamit arguements against the change for changes sake. The real problem, for me, is not that clerics lost heavy armor by itself. It is the total change in casters over all, that specifically affects clerics the most, combined with the shear lack of anything worthwhile in the final PF cleric, plus all the nerfs plus the push to make clerics a player NPC healbot.
If "backwards compatibility" is your main reason then the entire game should have stayed the same, and none of us should even be on Paizo's boards right now.
It isn't my main reason, but I can't argue with that otherwise. Many of the changes were unnecessary, and pretty poorly executed. And not just with the Cleric. Oh, and I'll take the opportunity to address one "counter argument" right here. Cleric isn't my favorite class. I noticed most of the changes straight out because half of the character ideas I have for upcoming AP games were Clerics, and everything I based them on was "yanked" in the final. (And it had nothing to do with heavy armor, or anything CoDzilla like.)
If "backwards compatibility" is your main reason then the entire game should have stayed the same, and none of us should even be on Paizo's boards right now.Many of the changes were unnecessary, and pretty poorly executed.
I can't disagree with that. :(
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.
Armor doesn't have anything to do with peace. Not getting hit is not "peace", it's being succesful in violence. Most healers aren't involved with combat, but with disease and accidental injury. PCs and adventurers aside, most healing isn't combat related. A combat oriented cleric (who has probably used a feat for heavy armor) can deal with combat related injury. Travel, as I'm sure you've considered, needs to be mobile. In the real world clerics concerned with peace have not geared up for combat, they have often been ready for self sacrifice as an example instead. As for the deities favored weapon, it might be non-lethal for a god of peace or simply related to meditation.
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.
Paladins and Fighters are special. They live in their armor until it's a second skin. They are intimately connected to it. It's a secondary thing for Clerics compared to that. All that time the Cleric spends on religion and spell casting the Fighter spends in armor practicing with weapons. In short, it's what they do. Period. No other distractions. Fighters who don't go the armor route are putting that time and expertise into other combat areas. If you want to argue about anything maybe it should be about them (fighters) swapping out the armor proficiency for other feats related to what they do (archery, mobility or two weapon related). Medium armor doesn't offer better mobility, just more ease of use. It's why squires historically started out in lighter armor, why heavy armor proficiency has a prerequisite in medium (and medium in light).
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...
A five foot step with the fighter inbetween. Also. a lot of that work is done before / after combat as well. As for getting into it, the medium armor and hit points certainly allow them to get in around the edges or if necessary in the middle of it. And if it's necessary it probably means your party is in trouble and needs the extra help. At which point the Cleric goes into the line (and maybe the Rogue too). Some of the best role playing moments I've been involved in have centered around sacrifice and, at least, temporary failure. Besides, there's always raise dead :D
*edit* Ultimately if you run the game, change it. I've never hesitated to make the changes I thought necessary for my game (even during the "though shalt not change the game" era of 1st edition AD&D). As many people have pointed out, not everyone has to play the identical game.
The Cleric - in the end just take the Heavy Armor Proficiency Feat - or houserule it - the change was there for a reason that apparently will never be agreed upon by some people.
Comparing a Fighter, Palidan or Barbarian with Armor to a Cleric is nonsense - complete nonsense. Thats like comparing a plumber and a heavy equipment operator - whats the point of it? They ain't the same -they never will be the same and armor to these actual frontliners is different than to what it is to other classes - gas to an engine vs. usin a name brand car wax...which one is actually required to make the car run?
"Its always been that way..." - not a good reason - if that were true then we'd all still be playing 1st edition.
Clerics have a completely different role. Having Heavy Armor had always been a fringe benefit; now its gone with the budget cuts. Please get over it.
It is spoiling some people's fun or concepts of the game. It does not matter if you are one of them, as it is obviously a big enough problem for some people to spawn over 600 to 800 posts in a few days about it exclusively. How is that a good thing?
However it doesn't seem to be a problem for many of posters who you seem to be counting in that number, you seem to be just ignoring their opinions and using their dissent from your opinion to try to support your opinion. Several believe it to be the correct choice.
Just because you or I don't like it doesn't mean that it was a bad decision.
What argument WOULD convince you that it's a good change?This was past 35 posts was pretty much exactly what I didn't want to hear again. And this wasn't directed at me, but I want to chime in a second.
There are no arguements that would change my mind, for the simple fact it is one a matter of my personal experience and my personal opinion.
None. It's removal is indefensible.
You know what, I have a serious question for you. What argument WOULD convince you that it's a good change?
Thank you both for proving my point and what I said earlier.
Now that you both have admitted that, can you please STOP ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO GIVE YOU REASONS FOR THE CHANGE, SINCE YOU WON'T ACCEPT ANY OF THEM ANYWAY?!?
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?
First off I don't really have an argument - things like this have very little impact on how I play the game since I'm not particularly fussed about being the best-optimised or most effective I can be. If you don't like it, well then it's an error to use it in your game. If others like the new rule it's an error for them to not use it. That's how I see it anyway - I dont think one should let a ruleset get in the way of a good story. If all your priests being trained in heavy armor doesnt strike you as odd, then all your priests have been trained in heavy armor.
But in terms of why did they lose heavy armor or why were they changed? My speculation would be because, in order to tell fantasy stories, there is a need for a priest archetype. There is also a need for a crusading holy warrior archetype. With this change, the role of cleric and paladin is more distinguished and these stories become easier to tell. Without it - the two roles are closer, plus you have some explaining to do as to why all clerics receive heavy armor training when the majority of them are never going to use it. Now the cleric is less of a "I can do anything" class - those that are going to use it will need to train in it and by necessity be worse at other priestly things.
I can see the arguments both way. I really struggle to see why it's such a passionate issue.
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 dont think every church has crusaders. Perhaps that's the reason for our disagreement on the role of the cleric. They probably all have a need for soldiers, but I don't see the problem in the non-martial deities outsourcing their fighting force. (In contrast, it seems strange to me to lump the role of soldier and priest together in all but a few cases).
I hate that the PFRPG Core Rules Book is only 2/3 as thick as my Ptolus book, making only suitable for killing medium sized dogs and small children. I also hate that my PFRPGCRB is only signed by nearly the entire Paizo staff. I will seek to rectify that next year.
[Thank you both for proving my point and what I said earlier.
Now that you both have admitted that, can you please STOP ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO GIVE YOU REASONS FOR THE CHANGE, SINCE YOU WON'T ACCEPT ANY OF THEM ANYWAY?!?
Caps is cool.
Sure proves your valuable point...
|
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.
Yes, because the last fifty posts have been so benificial to the thread and not just a lot of bleating.
|
|
It is spoiling some people's fun or concepts of the game. It does not matter if you are one of them, as it is obviously a big enough problem for some people to spawn over 600 to 800 posts in a few days about it exclusively. How is that a good thing?However it doesn't seem to be a problem for many of posters who you seem to be counting in that number, you seem to be just ignoring their opinions and using their dissent from your opinion to try to support your opinion. Several believe it to be the correct choice.
Just because you or I don't like it doesn't mean that it was a bad decision.
That's is not what I'm saying. Many people are neutral on it. Either they don't care or it doesn't affect them. Which is fine. 3.0 and 3.5 Grapple never affected me, it seemed to work very well, but I can understand other people either had a problem with it, or it just didn't work for them. That is a good reason for changing to CMD's.
Saying that not all clerics train for fullplate, but somehow even middle easter style fighters do is as a comparison just doesn't work.
This was also something specifically hidden until after the release.
In case you forgot-->
Actually, what is YOUR argument for them keeping it? I can't see one, besides "they used to have it!"
I need none. I didn't change the rules, they did. So that means they have to defend their actions.
But if you need one how about this little idea.
How many characters is say an AP written for?
4
That pretty much means one of each type. Skill monkey, arcanist, healer, and warrior type.
You could wiggle it about but in general the four core classes should be able to handle any AP. Those core are obviously the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue.
When marching unless the hallway is only 5' wide the standard order would place the fighter and ... yes the cleric in the front. That means the cleric while not as capable a combatant and not having as many hit points better have at least as good standard protection. That means he better have the same armor available. Espically with the reduced effectiveness of DC. With DC harder he will need to at times rely on his armor class to see him through casting in melee. Sure the wizard might need to cast in melee but that is because something went wrong. The cleric will get caught doing this even if things go right. The cleric also needs to act as a back up tank, again requiring him to stand in front and take the attacks of foes on. Without the hit points of a fighter he even more so needs a better AC. Most parties of 4 do not include two fighter/paladin/barbarian/ranger types so the cleric was needed to hold the line, heavy armor is what makes that viable.
Clerics needed changes from 3.5. I am good with the spell changes because they could be made to op the class. I am unimpressed with the domain changes, seems a bit rushed they way they worked out. I am unhappy with channel energy, not because it isn't powerful enough but because it seems far more powerful then what it replaced. The loss of turning to me removed a bit of what made the cleric the cleric. The inclusion of diety favored weapon is unbalancing, there can be no debate about it, some clerics get a feat others do not, there is not balance to that. The loss of heavy armor was just one step too far and needs to be fixed.
Clerics having heavy armor is not what made them op in 3.5, that was their spells and how powerful some of their personal buffs spells combined with some op feats were. It was their ability to deal damage that made them killers, not their armor. The armor actually slowed them down so many wore less of it. That offensive power is now gone. Without it the class has returned to it's defensive roots, and that has always included and should always include the ability to wear the best armor available.
The only valid reason for a change in a class from 3.5 to pathfinder is balance. That is how I see it. Removing long standing class features for no reasonable balance reasons is wrong. And there is no reasonable balance issue involved in the removeal of heavy armor from clerics.
[Thank you both for proving my point and what I said earlier.
Now that you both have admitted that, can you please STOP ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO GIVE YOU REASONS FOR THE CHANGE, SINCE YOU WON'T ACCEPT ANY OF THEM ANYWAY?!?Caps is cool.
Sure proves your valuable point...
Whatever dude, I'm done arguing with dining room tables.
This was also something specifically hidden until after the release.
I would suggest, in that case, they have "specifically" hidden many changes that were not listed before the release. They didn't describe several other changes as well. It isn't like they went out of their way to remove references to this change, similar to how they didn't go out of their way to remove references to how phantasmal killer changed.
It is spoiling some people's fun or concepts of the game. It does not matter if you are one of them, as it is obviously a big enough problem for some people to spawn over 600 to 800 posts in a few days about it exclusively. How is that a good thing?However it doesn't seem to be a problem for many of posters who you seem to be counting in that number, you seem to be just ignoring their opinions and using their dissent from your opinion to try to support your opinion. Several believe it to be the correct choice.
Just because you or I don't like it doesn't mean that it was a bad decision.
Doesn't make it a good one either.
This was also something specifically hidden until after the release.I would suggest, in that case, they have "specifically" hidden many changes that were not listed before the release. They didn't describe several other changes as well. It isn't like they went out of their way to remove references to this change, similar to how they didn't go out of their way to remove references to how phantasmal killer changed.
You can't be sure of that at all. They clearly knew it was going to cause issues, they said as much. All we do know is they did hide it, for whatever reason.
The only valid reason for a change in a class from 3.5 to pathfinder is balance. That is how I see it. Removing long standing class features for no reasonable balance reasons is wrong. And there is no reasonable balance issue involved in the removeal of heavy armor from clerics.
How about the fact that fighters were undervalued in 3.5 - by making the wearing of heavy armor less common, it's a way of expanding the niche they are filling?
Whether you agree with it is a separate issue (clearly you dont) However, I don't think it's right to characterise this "balance issue" as not reasonable - fighters did seem rather bland in 3.5 and this makes them a little bit more special.
All we do know is they did hide it, for whatever reason.And all I know that they didn't hide it, but you are insisting they did, for whatever reason.
Was it revealed? No. Omission is a form of hiding, it matters not if it is intentional or not.
The only valid reason for a change in a class from 3.5 to pathfinder is balance. That is how I see it. Removing long standing class features for no reasonable balance reasons is wrong. And there is no reasonable balance issue involved in the removeal of heavy armor from clerics.
How about the fact that fighters were undervalued in 3.5 - by making the wearing of heavy armor less common, it's a way of expanding the niche they are filling?
Whether you agree with it is a separate issue (clearly you dont) However, I don't think it's right to characterise this "balance issue" as not reasonable - fighters did seem rather bland in 3.5 and this makes them a little bit more special.
Fighter damage was upped a good deal in pathfinder, their mobility and dex use in armor was also massively increased. Clerics lost much of their offensive power in pathfinder. A Fighter can reach the point where they are moving better in full plate then others can in a chain shirt. I am saying taking the armor away on top of that is too much.
|
Was it revealed? No. Omission is a form of hiding, it matters not if it is intentional or not.
I'm not clear on why there was (or even why you believe there should have been) an obligation on anyone's part to reveal pre-release every alteration to the 3.5 ruleset. Were there changes you like that weren't announced included in PFRPG as well? If so, were you also upset that no one told you they'd be in the book?
In case you forgot-->
Actually, what is YOUR argument for them keeping it? I can't see one, besides "they used to have it!"I need none. I didn't change the rules, they did. So that means they have to defend their actions.
But if you need one how about this little idea.
How many characters is say an AP written for?
4
That pretty much means one of each type. Skill monkey, arcanist, healer, and warrior type.
You could wiggle it about but in general the four core classes should be able to handle any AP. Those core are obviously the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue.
When marching unless the hallway is only 5' wide the standard order would place the fighter and ... yes the cleric in the front. That means the cleric while not as capable a combatant and not having as many hit points better have at least as good standard protection. That means he better have the same armor available. Espically with the reduced effectiveness of DC. With DC harder he will need to at times rely on his armor class to see him through casting in melee. Sure the wizard might need to cast in melee but that is because something went wrong. The cleric will get caught doing this even if things go right. The cleric also needs to act as a back up tank, again requiring him to stand in front and take the attacks of foes on. Without the hit points of a fighter he even more so needs a better AC. Most parties of 4 do not include two fighter/paladin/barbarian/ranger types so the cleric was needed to hold the line, heavy armor is what makes that viable.
Clerics needed changes from 3.5. I am good with the spell changes because they could be made to op the class. I am unimpressed with the domain changes, seems a bit rushed they way they worked out. I am unhappy with channel energy, not because it isn't powerful enough but because it seems far more powerful then what it replaced. The loss of turning to me removed a bit of what made the cleric the cleric. The inclusion of diety...
The cleric should be buffed up to some extent. Buffing in the middle of combat is not efficient. I know the option is not always there, but when it is it should be used. Another thing is that many groups put the rogue(spotter) up front, and if he sees something, which he normally will he informs the party and they change positions accordingly. The rogue was not built for fulltime front line help, but his sneak attack damage could drop an opponent quickly when flanking with the fighter. If he got hit he ran to the cleric or the cleric came to him depending on the situation. While the rogue and the fighter are tag teaming an opponent the cleric is normally providing buffs. This puts him in the back where he should be wearing his medium armor.
PS:Most fight are fought in rooms, not hallways.
Edit: I will have to recant that statement about longevity of spells for the time being.
It isn't like they went out of their way to remove references to this change, similar to how they didn't go out of their way to remove references to how phantasmal killer changed.
Phantasmal killer still kills you? What the heck is that? Somehow, slay living and finger of death just damage you. I don't get it. :S
Fighter damage was upped a good deal in pathfinder, their mobility and dex use in armor was also massively increased. Clerics lost much of their offensive power in pathfinder. A Fighter can reach the point where they are moving better in full plate then others can in a chain shirt. I am saying taking the armor away on top of that is too much.
The fighter should be dominating in such a manner. That is his domain. I noticed they also nerfed righteous might, divine favor, and divine power. I think this another way of saying don't go up front.
I think our difference of opinion is based on the fact that I feel as though clerics were priest that happened to have some fighting skill in 3.5, and now they have been nerfed intentionally so they don't go up front so much. You feel as though they are holy warriors, and since they will be tagging along with the fighter they should have the same protection.
I will admit the nerfing of the spells does interfere with my playing style, but it also gives the fighter his area back, or at least it appears so anyway.
Fighter damage was upped a good deal in pathfinder, their mobility and dex use in armor was also massively increased. Clerics lost much of their offensive power in pathfinder. A Fighter can reach the point where they are moving better in full plate then others can in a chain shirt. I am saying taking the armor away on top of that is too much.The only valid reason for a change in a class from 3.5 to pathfinder is balance. That is how I see it. Removing long standing class features for no reasonable balance reasons is wrong. And there is no reasonable balance issue involved in the removeal of heavy armor from clerics.
How about the fact that fighters were undervalued in 3.5 - by making the wearing of heavy armor less common, it's a way of expanding the niche they are filling?
Whether you agree with it is a separate issue (clearly you dont) However, I don't think it's right to characterise this "balance issue" as not reasonable - fighters did seem rather bland in 3.5 and this makes them a little bit more special.
Oh I understand. I'm not trying to persuade you it was a correct decision. I realise there's going to be a range of views as to how powerful each class should be - it doesnt matter where you draw the line there will be somebody passionately saying you've gone too far. It seemed to me you were saying the decision was indefensible and that there was no reasonable "balance" argument to be made. I was disagreeing with that - I think there are plenty of arguments and the game designers did their job (namely making various choices - each one doomed to be counter to what some portion of their customers consider desirable).
I think there's a difference between:
1. "I disagree with this change, I think they went too far" (a perfectly reasonable view to hold, imo)
2. "They had no good reason for making this change" (which is borderline insulting and disrespectful as far as I can see - almost like they were making decisions on a whim or with a view to deliberately ruin someone's fun).
I was disheartened to see this thread had so many more posts than its counterpart.
But then I read through it and saw how the majority of posts are the clerics & heavy armor debate raging once again.
So now I feel better about this thread.
I'm not downplaying the heated emotions this one debate continues to bring up, but I was a bit worried that there were a ton of (different) things people were complaining about. It will be a while before I get to fully read through the book, as I'm not done w/ 3.5 yet, but I'm sure by various postings and snippets I've read that there will be things I don't care for. But taken as a whole, my early impressions are quite favorable.
To add to the thread's purported purpose: I don't like sneak attack working on undead and constructs, which I've stated elsewhere. I'm also not fond of the racial bonuses to attributes that make little sense to me, but that's ok, I don't have to incorporate anything I don't want to.
People are free to take and use what they like. Paizo has been upfront about that from the beginning, I think.
In the Pathfinder PHB I couldn't find where it stated what starting hitpoints were. As a 3.5 player, I assumed ch. class max at lev. 1 plus Con mod. points (which it is, unless +1hp. for human). But people that haven't played 3.5 might have been confused.
I don't like the skill points per level for Fighters and such. 2+Int. mod. sucks. Most people don't take Int. based fighters, or even Clerics. I'd've done 4+ Int mod. for the lesser skilled classes. And kept 8+Int. mod for the highly skilled ones.
More feats for characters. Epic levels (atleast to 25). I was hoping (but new they were sticking with the 'core') more race options. I would've liked an animal-like race and maybe orcs or something. Or tieflings and Aasimars (or whatever they're now- not 4e Deva though) (not Dragonborn though).
There are alot of weapons that most players don't even concider buying. I've never had a player buy a heavey pick for example. The crit *4 is the only bonus. Otherwise, its a d6 damage weapon. The trident is d8 but no one seems to care for pole-arms. Atleast in the 12 or so groups of five to eight players I've played with. The cool feats are for swords (two-blade defence..exc.) And clerics will use maces because they don't wanna blow feats on prof. in a better weapon. Like with Monks. Who else would use a kama? Or why would a monk use one? His/her hands do as much if not more damage. Does the shuriken have a purpose? 1d2 or 1 damage. Seems like a waste of a turn to use one. I just think that weapons should have more potent properties (scewer or raking damage. Just so some other weapons have more purpose.) One of the few good things of 4e (add dex to damage)exc. Stuff like ballistas should do even more damage as they're purpose is to take down seige weapons and dragons.
The other good thing of 4e is wizards don't run totally out of spells. Wizards are awesome at high levels, but dopey at low levels.
I like the Pathfinder skill list. 4e's is too condenced. And its nice to put points where youwant them. Not get +1 every two levels.
Wow. I just read this. I must seem like a cranky old man. Well, kinda getting there. I miss 1st edition! Except the low hitpoints and lack of feats.
It isn't like they went out of their way to remove references to this change, similar to how they didn't go out of their way to remove references to how phantasmal killer changed.Phantasmal killer still kills you? What the heck is that? Somehow, slay living and finger of death just damage you. I don't get it. :S
I guess because you have to fail two saves to die they feel it is fair game.
It isn't like they went out of their way to remove references to this change, similar to how they didn't go out of their way to remove references to how phantasmal killer changed.Phantasmal killer still kills you? What the heck is that? Somehow, slay living and finger of death just damage you. I don't get it. :S
That is a bit strange. Perhaps the fact that you recieve 2 saving throws vs. Phantasmal Killer -- first will to disbelieve and then fortitude to avoid dying of fright -- is the difference... or it got overlooked.
*edit* Ninja'd... ah well.
Since we are on the nerf topic, why is nobody complaining about the druid. I will be probably be going by the old animal companion rules. I don't know what to do about wildshape. I don't want the fighter's position to be threatened?
I guess because you have to fail two saves to die they feel it is fair game.It isn't like they went out of their way to remove references to this change, similar to how they didn't go out of their way to remove references to how phantasmal killer changed.Phantasmal killer still kills you? What the heck is that? Somehow, slay living and finger of death just damage you. I don't get it. :S
True but it's a death spell at 4th level. That was the reason for two saves. Move up to 5th level and reduce the range to touch and all of a sudden, it just tickles a little...then you get sliced in half because you're standing right next to your target and your full plate got stolen from you. :)
Seriously though. Does a death spell kill you or not?
|
|
Since we are on the nerf topic, why is nobody complaining about the druid. I will be probably be going by the old animal companion rules. I don't know what to do about wildshape. I don't want the fighter's position to be threatened?
Spellcasting, wildshape, animal companion. The druid may pick two of them. How's that?
I guess because you have to fail two saves to die they feel it is fair game.It isn't like they went out of their way to remove references to this change, similar to how they didn't go out of their way to remove references to how phantasmal killer changed.Phantasmal killer still kills you? What the heck is that? Somehow, slay living and finger of death just damage you. I don't get it. :STrue but it's a death spell at 4th level. That was the reason for two saves. Move up to 5th level and reduce the range to touch and all of a sudden, it just tickles a little...then you get sliced in half because you're standing right next to your target and your full plate got stolen from you. :)
Seriously though. Does a death spell kill you or not?
What does full plate or AC in general have to do with a spell that is a medium range spell?
If the spell goes from medium to touch and you die, it is not because you did not have full plate it is because the DM nerfed the spell and you let him sucker you into getting to close with low hp.PS: You also tried to make a class with a good fort save make a fort save. If he(the slicer) does not slice you in half he does not want to live.
Also, Death Knell kills you.
Since we are on the nerf topic, why is nobody complaining about the druid. I will be probably be going by the old animal companion rules. I don't know what to do about wildshape. I don't want the fighter's position to be threatened?Spellcasting, wildshape, animal companion. The druid may pick two of them. How's that?
He could actually take any of the two under the 3.5 rules and be ok.
Decision, decisions...
Yes, but in 3.5 he got them ALL. Try limiting them to two and they have to choose which role they want to play.
I know. I just did not realize how well the druid had it until all 3 were put in front of me, and it seems that I could lose one and the druid would still be ok.
It isn't like they went out of their way to remove references to this change, similar to how they didn't go out of their way to remove references to how phantasmal killer changed.Phantasmal killer still kills you? What the heck is that? Somehow, slay living and finger of death just damage you. I don't get it. :SThat is a bit strange. Perhaps the fact that you recieve 2 saving throws vs. Phantasmal Killer -- first will to disbelieve and then fortitude to avoid dying of fright -- is the difference... or it got overlooked.
*edit* Ninja'd... ah well.
I don't think it was overlooked because they did add that instead of reflecting on the caster when they use it on a character wearing a helm of telepathy (if they succeed on the will save), it now reflects on the caster if they use it on an creature with telepathy as well.
So it may be that it is one of the few that kills because it requires two saves, it is mind-affecting (some creatures are immune), it is a fear spell (so things like Paladin's are immune and grant bonuses against it to allies, as does the bard with inspire courage, along with the fighter getting bonuses against it), that it deals minor damage if they succeed on the second save, and that it will easily reflect on the caster if they cast it everywhere.
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?
Pious fighters. No this is not a prestige class :)
In case you forgot-->
Actually, what is YOUR argument for them keeping it? I can't see one, besides "they used to have it!"I need none. I didn't change the rules, they did. So that means they have to defend their actions.
But if you need one how about this little idea.
How many characters is say an AP written for?
4
That pretty much means one of each type. Skill monkey, arcanist, healer, and warrior type.
You could wiggle it about but in general the four core classes should be able to handle any AP. Those core are obviously the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue.
This actually serves as a good illustration for the change:
1) Warrior type = Fighter = heavy armor proficiency
2) Healer = Cleric = medium armor proficiency
3) Skill Monkey = Rogue = light armor proficiency
4) Arcanist = Wizard = no armor proficiency
I'm all about tradition and giving a nod to how things were done in older editions, but in this case, I like the change and feel that is is a change for the better overall. Clerics are still holy warriors. They still wear armor. It is just not the heaviest armor anymore. (Unless you want it to be… then get proficiency in it).