Why would halfling, gnome, or elf clerics wear heavy armor?
Why wouldn't a dwarf cleric?
Taking away options, that you have to buy back, doesn't increase rolelaying potentional. It decreases it. Plenty of clerics when their class gave them heavy armor proficiency didn't wear it. Why? Because it didn't fit their character. That is roleplaying. Take the options and pick the ones that best fit your character. Now though, certain roleplaying options are punished (extra costs relatively) because it isn't how some folks like to play. It is playing badong, badong playing should never be encouraged evidently.
Another thought, some of the comments about the role of clerics, I think is being confused with the roles of classes like expert (with skills like knowledge(religion), diplomacy, sense motive, etc) and adepts. The average priest at the local church is most likely not a cleric, but an adept or expert. Even PF clerics get much more martial training then these do. In a world where demons and angels walk the world, where unnatural abominations seek to taint, corrupt, and feed off the innocent. Most clerics aren't going to be walking around checking on Grammy to see how she's feeling since she missed church.
|
I don't understand the reasoning for having to choose healing the living or hurting undead when you channel. I guess they did not want it to be overpowered, but it has worked fine in our game.
Eh, me either, but I'm going to make use of it with my Pacifist Cleric who relies on his god granted spells like Sanctuary or Repulsion rather than wear armor and use weapons.
Why would halfling, gnome, or elf clerics wear heavy armor?
Why wouldn't a dwarf cleric?
Taking away options, that you have to buy back, doesn't increase rolelaying potentional. It decreases it. Plenty of clerics when their class gave them heavy armor proficiency didn't wear it. Why? Because it didn't fit their character. That is roleplaying. Take the options and pick the ones that best fit your character. Now though, certain roleplaying options are punished (extra costs relatively) because it isn't how some folks like to play. It is playing badong, badong playing should never be encouraged evidently.
So is the argument: The new cleric has less roleplaying options (i.e. less choice) than the 3.5 cleric?
Seeing as how the new cleric has 3 more feats, using one of them to get heavy armor proficiency still leaves it with more roleplaying potential. The "extra cost" you speak of comes with "extra cash" to spend. It actually equates to more choice, not less.
And if it's true (and I don't know if it is) that most clerics in 3.5 didn't wear heavy armor even thought they had proficiency in it, due to flavor or the fact that other armors were better, than why miss it?
|
So, does anyone think that the Fighter has been fixed? I don't see the problem with the 3E Fighter, but I've heard endless complaints. Medium armor is not any more manuverable, except for fear, they still do not get good will saves, (comparred especially to Paladin now), and do they get more attack options? I'm actually curious here if you guys think the fighter problems have been addressed?
Why would halfling, gnome, or elf clerics wear heavy armor?
Why wouldn't a dwarf cleric?
Taking away options, that you have to buy back, doesn't increase rolelaying potentional. It decreases it. Plenty of clerics when their class gave them heavy armor proficiency didn't wear it. Why? Because it didn't fit their character. That is roleplaying. Take the options and pick the ones that best fit your character. Now though, certain roleplaying options are punished (extra costs relatively) because it isn't how some folks like to play. It is playing badong, badong playing should never be encouraged evidently.
Another thought, some of the comments about the role of clerics, I think is being confused with the roles of classes like expert (with skills like knowledge(religion), diplomacy, sense motive, etc) and adepts. The average priest at the local church is most likely not a cleric, but an adept or expert. Even PF clerics get much more martial training then these do. In a world where demons and angels walk the world, where unnatural abominations seek to taint, corrupt, and feed off the innocent. Most clerics aren't going to be walking around checking on Grammy to see how she's feeling since she missed church.
Good. Look at it as rewarding those Clerics that don't wear the heavy armor by allowing them to spend a feat on something they do use. Obviously, a Dwarf Cleric, valuing a combat role / armor, pops for the heavy armor proficiency. The Elf, Gnome and Halfling Clerics spend their feat on something else. Everybody's happy. Except some players of course. Game history aside, that point of view is as valid as the reverse.
In my game, at least, those village priests are low level Clerics. Adepts are a possibility, but experts? No. Not ordained (in my game), therefore not in charge of a temple / church. If the danger was as overwhelming as you think granny would probably be barricaded in the church with everyone else anyway or already possessed :D Or those village priests would be hardened, combat experienced Clerics backed by church soldiers. Which, come to think of it sounds like the frontier areas in my game...
There, another dose of pure, unadulterated opinion based on one individuals game world. Paizo made their choice and put it in the book. Use it or house rule it. I don't think there are any "take backs" available for this. Your call.
Not trying to evil about anything btw. It's just, well... your choice.
Obviously, not everyone will make the same choice. Just have fun with it.
So, does anyone think that the Fighter has been fixed? I don't see the problem with the 3E Fighter, but I've heard endless complaints. Medium armor is not any more manuverable, except for fear, they still do not get good will saves, (comparred especially to Paladin now), and do they get more attack options? I'm actually curious here if you guys think the fighter problems have been addressed?
They are somewhat better than in 3.5, but the ultimate big bang for dealing with monsters is still the wizard. The fighter is better at running interference for them now, but the wizard still carries the ball. It's pretty much always been that way in D&D. Just a matter of timing and degree from edition to edition. Unless you want a really low magic system, it will probably always be that way.
So, does anyone think that the Fighter has been fixed? I don't see the problem with the 3E Fighter, but I've heard endless complaints. Medium armor is not any more manuverable, (not true - see p. 55 & 56) except for fear, they still do not get good will saves, (comparred especially to Paladin now), and do they get more attack options? I'm actually curious here if you guys think the fighter problems have been addressed?
I can't elude to if Pathfinder fixed the fighter or not.
I will say this though: I didn't see a problem with the 3E fighter either, but that is because I houseruled the following:
1) 4 skill points per level
2) a fighter would get a bonus feat at every level in which it did not receive a character feat.
The pathfinder fighter is definitely an improvement over the standard 3E fighter:
1) hits better and does more damage before the influence of feats
2) has a far wider range of weapons he is good at using
3) more resistant to fear
4) heavy armor has more purpose (even if only slightly) and the fighter can move normally in it by 7th level as well as be only mildly hindered by armor in general
5)more combat oriented feat options than core 3E.
So have the fighter options been addressed? I think only time can truly tell, but the strait pathfinder fighter is definitely more interesting than the strait 3E version, I dare say even with splat books.
So, does anyone think that the Fighter has been fixed? I don't see the problem with the 3E Fighter, but I've heard endless complaints. Medium armor is not any more manuverable, except for fear, they still do not get good will saves, (comparred especially to Paladin now), and do they get more attack options? I'm actually curious here if you guys think the fighter problems have been addressed?
It depends on what you thought the fighters problems were. I think they are better, but not good enough. I took a few things from the WotC boards, and combined them with a few of my own ideas for my own games
Here were some issues that were recognized on one of the many fix the fighter threads
1) It needs to still be recognizable, in the end, as a Fighter. If we're doing a total remake, we already have the Warblade.
It is still the fighter
2) The PHB says Fighters are generic guards. They should be at least reasonably good at that job.
3.5 no spot/listen/sense motive
pathfinder no perception/sense motive
3) The PHB says Fighters are good wartime and/or military leaders, and also represent veteran soldiers. They should at least be reasonably good at that job too.
I don't really care about this so my fighter did not address it.
4) Fighters are supposed to be flexible. They should be. This means that not every Fighter build should be the same, but also that a given Fighter build is also adaptable to new situations. If I can describe a higher level Fighter build using a single word to describe their only tactic, such as "charger" or "tripper" then there's a problem.
I have always beleive a fighter should be able to take on at least two different fighting styles. Before a fighter had to spend all his feats on one fighting style. I think a fighter can now be excellent at one fighting style, and good at another, but this is speculation since I have yet to build a fighter using PF rules.
5) Fighters must be useful both in combat and out... they can be better in combat, but the class shouldn't be worthless outside of combat. It's fine if their abilities all have a martial bent, but they should still be useful.
They do have survival now, and you can create magic items without being a caster now, but I dont know if its worth the effort.
6) Fighter level 20 should be better than Fighter level 2. More to the point, the further you go in the Fighter class, the better the levels should get. Wizard 17 gives you 9th level spells while Wizard 1 gives 1st level spells, but right now Fighter 18 gives the same thing as Fighter 2, if not worse since you've probably taken all the good feats anyway.
It seems they still get more of the same. Having bonuses against will saves would be nice, since as the guy up front he will have to deal with them.
7) The fixed Fighter should still be able to fill the roles it currently can and apply to the character concepts it currently can, in addition to being able to be guard types, veteran soldiers, and military leaders. If we lose potencial builds in the fix, the fix is a failure.
I still dont like their ability to guard anything.
8) Fighters shouldn't have glass jaws... they're supposed to be tough. Right now their will save tends to be pathetic and their reflex save isn't too hot either.
Their HP helps camouflage the reflex save, and I don't like it, but I can live with it.
9) In the end, Fighters should be roughly balanced with Warblades, Crusaders, and Duskblades, but should not be based around manuevers or spells. Some people don't like manuevers and spells, and options already exist for making good melees with them... let's have a fix that is without them.
10) Fighters should be able to operate siege engines. Right now, they're one of very few classes that can't use a ballista effectively (it's Profession Siege Engineer to use) and that doesn't make any sense.
I forgot how seige engines work so I can't comment on that one right now.
11) It wouldn't hurt if we could make sword and board viable for Fighters too.
I think PF has definitely taken a step in the right direction.
12) Fighters are supposed to be the best at feats. Right now, they just get more of them, but since few feats are really all that strong, being the best at feats means too little. So, that should be fixed.
Under 3.5 that was true. I don't know if they need to be better with feats anymore. When this discussion was being held before fighters got bonuses to certain feats as they leveled. An example was the dodge feat gave more AC at higher levels.
|
|
Hey All
I am starting this thread for those who do not like Pathfinder and want to comment about what they dislike. I am starting a similar thread about stuff they do like. Please keep it civil.
It's near impossible to convince current Dungeon and Dragon players to give it a try: e.g, "My dragonborn fighter breaths fire, has three at-wills, a couple of encounter powers that I can affect foes at a distance, and this cool daily where I knock down all adjacent enemies an area around me. Tell me what my Pathfinder PC can do." "Uh...".
It's near impossible to convince current Dungeon and Dragon players to give it a try: e.g, "My dragonborn fighter breaths fire, has three at-wills, a couple of encounter powers that I can affect foes at a distance, and this cool daily where I knock down all adjacent enemies an area around me. Tell me what my Pathfinder PC can do." "Uh...".
If we talked about 3.X, I would say, than even the humble fighter there can do real damage, instead of chipping the enemy's HP away bit by bit, can knock everyone within 10-15' radius from him on their asses all the time, instead of once per day, can attack people at range more than once per encounter, and, past the first levels, can do all of this competently enough to handle stock MM monsters with each of your multiple approaches, instead of being pigeonholed in a single viable tactics forever, like 4E characters are. That's before talking about racial/template abilities and before taking in the accout the fact that 3.X all but explicitly says you to multiclass, so comparing 4E anything with 3.X pure fighters is either stupid or deliberately dishonest. But if we're talking about Pathfinder, where melee is nerfed, combat maneuvers are useless and multiclassing is discouraged... eh.
But if we're talking about Pathfinder, where melee is nerfed, combat maneuvers are useless and multiclassing is discouraged... eh.By useless you mean "not automatically successful", right?
And melee is nerfed... I don't even think we are reading the same book at this point. And they call me a troll.
You are not the only one waiting for an explanation of nerfed and useless.
|
|
If we talked about 3.X, I would say, than even the humble fighter there can do real damage, instead of chipping the enemy's HP away bit by bit, can knock everyone within 10-15' radius from him on their asses all the time, instead of once per day, can attack people at range more than once per encounter, and, past the first levels, can do all of this competently enough to handle stock MM monsters with each of your multiple approaches, instead of being pigeonholed in a single viable tactics forever, like 4E characters are.
It's near impossible to convince current Dungeon and Dragon players to give it a try: e.g, "My dragonborn fighter breaths fire, has three at-wills, a couple of encounter powers that I can affect foes at a distance, and this cool daily where I knock down all adjacent enemies an area around me. Tell me what my Pathfinder PC can do." "Uh...".
Uh, what level of a 3.x fighter are we talking about here? And note the above D&D fighter is not using magic items.
Uh, what level of a 3.x fighter are we talking about here? And note the above D&D fighter is not using magic items.
The core competencies in "dealing massive damage" and "being a tripmachine" cost 7 feats (Power Attack + Leap Attack + Shock Trooper and EWP: Spiked Chain + Combat Expertise + Combat Reflexes + Imp.Trip). In 3.X, not PF, of course. Any fighter gets this much by level 6. Humans even have a feat left. These feats will make you a better and more flexible melee combatant than anything in 4E. By leaps and bounds. The core archery competency costs 3 feats (PBS + Rapid Shot + Manyshot), but the thing is, you don't even need them that much if archery is not your main schtick - enhancements on your bow are more important by far, and, unless GM upgrades melee monsters, so that your feats alone don't allow you to contribute enough, you can allow to sink some money in your sidearm. "Not using magic items" is an impossible condition, because both systems assume using them. And 3.X items allow far better options.
And Pathfinder - get it! - nerfs every single one of these paths to actually having options for your fighter.
By useless you mean "not automatically successful", right?
By useless I mean useless. Half of them (grapple, bullrush, sunder) now are of questionable worth even assuming 100% success rate. And 45% success rate for maneuvers (after wasting even more feats than before on making them work at all) can be considered "good" now. The two maneuvers once considered worth using in specific builds (grapple and trip) do much less that they did before (grapple takes two actions to do anything; Imp.Trip was split into two feats, one of which you can't take before 6th level, and these two feats combined still give you less than the old Imp.Trip did).
And melee is nerfed... I don't even think we are reading the same book at this point. And they call me a troll.
I don't even think you're reading the book. Yeah, one melee class was made actually good, but melee in general was nerfed through nerfing melee feats.
|
My biggest issue with Pathfinder is that it is potentially splitting the remaining 3.5 player base. Two GMs in my group are converting to it (one has already been using Beta) whilst I would prefer to stick with 3.5.
I have decided not to get the PF RPG as I really can't be arsed reading such a big tome to get back the familiarity with the rules that I had with 3.5 without it seeming to provide anything significant to those rules IMHO.
Luckily there is the free PRD which I will use to help learn specifics needed to play a character in the PF games, but it does mean I will no longer be GMing PFS (and maybe not playing in them either).
Also, just looking at the Grapple rules, it seems that somethings have been changed without making it particularly simpler - just different.
The effort I would have to put in to learn all the little tweaks, and to convert any 3.5 supplements if I were to GM PF RPG is too much for too little gain for me.
You on the otherhand have deomstrated in word and deed that your belief that taking heavy armour proficency from Clerics is wrong is just that, a beleif. It is not based on a rational reason that can be debated. If it was their would be the possibility of convincing you that you were wrong.
The same could be said about those defending the removal of the proficiency.
The "they were called CoDzilla for a reason" defence is flawed in the fact that all of the spells that made CoDzilla were pretty heavily nerfed. (I haven't touched on if this was needed or not.) With that in mind, was it needed to remove heavy armor proficiency as well? If it can't be proved so, then it is just a belief as well.
EDIT: And I will say again, which other class(es) has to spend two feats to get back what they had in 3.5? How can that not be considered a nerf?
Because Clerics were far too strong in 3.5.
You could use that arguement to defend turning all clerics into adepts too if you like, but it holds little weight without any reason for the specific change.
Look if one feat made a balance issue, then you have to admit the class is now internally not balanced since some gain a feat others do not.
Basically either the feat being taken away brings balance, but the class is still at the best internally unbalanced, or it was taken away for a reason not based on balance. I'm not sure there is any other way to look at it.
Personally as I have said before, giving clerics their diety's favored weapon is far more unbalancing then giving them all heavy armor. Simply because many dieties' favored weapons are simlpe and thus they get no feat, while others is martial and they do get a free feat. Also it detracts from their defensive class theme. Armor however adds to that defensive theme and since all clerics would get the feat it would be being applying in a more balanced manner.
I further argue if you think clerics are still OverPowered taking away channelling energy in favor of a return of a classic dare I say iconic cleric power of turning undead would seem a step you would support in reducing their powerlevel.
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. :)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.
Slay Living is now medium range? Can you be my DM?
Why would halfling, gnome, or elf clerics wear heavy armor?
Why wouldn't a dwarf cleric?
Taking away options, that you have to buy back, doesn't increase rolelaying potentional. It decreases it. Plenty of clerics when their class gave them heavy armor proficiency didn't wear it. Why? Because it didn't fit their character. That is roleplaying. Take the options and pick the ones that best fit your character. Now though, certain roleplaying options are punished (extra costs relatively) because it isn't how some folks like to play. It is playing badong, badong playing should never be encouraged evidently.
So is the argument: The new cleric has less roleplaying options (i.e. less choice) than the 3.5 cleric?
Seeing as how the new cleric has 3 more feats, using one of them to get heavy armor proficiency still leaves it with more roleplaying potential. The "extra cost" you speak of comes with "extra cash" to spend. It actually equates to more choice, not less.
3 more feats, except you have to spend two of those three just to get back what you had (heavy armor and turning). That leaves you with one additional feat, awesome, except (a) several feats have been nerfed and thus give less benefit than they did before, some even you have to purchase two to get back to the 3.5 levels and (b) relative to all other characters you have less so relatively it is a much higher cost.
And if it's true (and I don't know if it is) that most clerics in 3.5 didn't wear heavy armor even thought they had proficiency in it, due to flavor or the fact that other armors were better, than why miss it?
First I didn't say "most", I said "many". Why miss it, for the ones that did use it.
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. :)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.
Slay Living is now medium range? Can you be my DM?
I thought we were still on phantasmal killer.
Nah, Clerics don't get that one. Their best death spell is probably still slay living until they get 9th level spells unless Pathfinder changed that. Kind of doubting it, though.
So far there just 2 things I do not like.
The change of rules for some of the core feats (like Power Attack). I like Power Attack the way it is. In fact, I'll most likely be using the NEW feats Pathfinder provided and ignore the changes to the original core feats.
The second is the fact I won't be able to see Pathfinder's versions of the other 40+ D&D classes I have in my other D&D books. The Pathfinder Core Classes makes the rest look frail in gameplay.
I would like to see a Pathfinder "Warlock", "Marshal", "Incarnum Classes", "Psionics", "Oriental Classes", etc.
Maybe a web enhancement? Maybe they can do "microtransactions" on here? A PDF download for like $5 per class? Then when they gathered a collection, release a Class Book? That'd be sweet.
So far there just 2 things I do not like.
The change of rules for some of the core feats (like Power Attack). I like Power Attack the way it is. In fact, I'll most likely be using the NEW feats Pathfinder provided and ignore the changes to the original core feats.
The second is the fact I won't be able to see Pathfinder's versions of the other 40+ D&D classes I have in my other D&D books. The Pathfinder Core Classes makes the rest look frail in gameplay.
I would like to see a Pathfinder "Warlock", "Marshal", "Incarnum Classes", "Psionics", "Oriental Classes", etc.
Maybe a web enhancement? Maybe they can do "microtransactions" on here? A PDF download for like $5 per class? Then when they gathered a collection, release a Class Book? That'd be sweet.
Your best bet is to go with Player made versions, as those classes you have spoken of are not open game play, so you will never see those classes revised by PRPG. You might see the same names, but they will be completely different classes, like the samaria, ninja, swashbuckler, warlock, or marshal, etc. Hasbro owns the non OGL classes so they can't really touch them.
Unless, that is, Hasbro drives dnd name into the group and sells them back the brand. Very hypothetical, but that would take years, 7+ at the least.
|
|
Because Clerics were far too strong in 3.5.You could use that arguement to defend turning all clerics into adepts too if you like, but it holds little weight without any reason for the specific change.
Look if one feat made a balance issue, then you have to admit the class is now internally not balanced since some gain a feat others do not.
Basically either the feat being taken away brings balance, but the class is still at the best internally unbalanced, or it was taken away for a reason not based on balance. I'm not sure there is any other way to look at it.
Personally as I have said before, giving clerics their diety's favored weapon is far more unbalancing then giving them all heavy armor. Simply because many dieties' favored weapons are simple and thus they get no feat, while others is martial and they do get a free feat. Also it detracts from their defensive class theme. Armor however adds to that defensive theme and since all clerics would get the feat it would be being applying in a more balanced manner.
I further argue if you think clerics are still OverPowered taking away channelling energy in favor of a return of a classic dare I say iconic cleric power of turning undead would seem a step you would support in reducing their powerlevel.
I'll bite Thurgon, only because at other times you seem a rational guy and you mention repeatedly that your disdain of this particular change has your panties in a wad.
1) Armor proficiency - Yes, clerics had it when they were described as the warrior priests of the Medieval eras. However Warrior priests were never trained in full plate mail. In fact, knights were and priests made do with what Pathfinder would often call light armor. That armor was in abundance and so a priest could often justify commandeering such things. The Knights of Medieval eras are more akin to the Paladins.
Fact: With the advent of Paladins into DnD the clerics should have lost Heavy Armor proficiency, they kept it as a hold over, yet it was always on borrowed time.
2) Priests they were, and I find it funny how everyone is justifying them as second string warriors. This isn't the correct approach. They were more like first string CASTERS. You're approaching this from the wrong viewpoint. As a hardier caster, they can stand closer to the front lines and once again provide their warrior spunk to protect the guy in robes chanting doom spells. Add in that Armor doesn't affect their ability to cast, unlike wizards and you see they're just crunchy versions of the Wizard or Sorcerer.
Fact: Clerics are not in fact warriors, but spell slingers who stay crunchy in milk.
3) Channel Positive energy - by its title it is in fact not turn undead. Instead they turned that into a feat for obvious reason. The original Turn undead put forth in the beta was too strong. Healing allies while damaging certain enemies was just too much, especially when facing those zombie hordes. It was designed in this manner to help clerics not have to sacrifice spell slots to heal party members. While the Healing doesn't scale as much as we would hope, it does however give Clerics a use for the otherwise utterly useless 3.5 turn attempts.
Fact: 3.5 Turn undead was a horrible concept and the fact that it caused enemies to flee caused more problems for parties trying to kill the targets of this ability than solutions. Add in the fact that Undead have lost their immunity to crits and sneak attack, and undead aren't the problem they used to be.
4) The changes to the Cleric have been otherwise positive rather than negative. Many domains are immensely stronger than their 3.5 counterparts, and the insistence that domains are borked is rather humorous to me. I don't mean to troll but Thurgon, how many clerics have you played in the last few weeks with the new rules?
Fact: The removal of Heavy Armor Proficiency isn't the heart of the problem, but merely a symptom of greater unrest with the handling of the cleric, a handling it needed to be brought back in line. This is a debatable point, but what has been done was in fact thought out, rather than just thrown in because the designers felt like it. The two main arguers on this topic have stated quite plainly that they will accept no answer as they believe there cannot be a good enough reason for the changes. This has turned what could have been a debate into arguing with the dining room table.
5) Argument - "These rules changes need to be defended, not our argument that they shouldn't have been changed."
No, that's actually a rather lazy logical fallacy. The fact that you guys are arguing that we need to argue better means you have no actual arguments other than "ti's always been like that." Not to Godwin this thread, but that's the kind of argument that would support slavery, "We've always had slaves, its YOUR job to prove why we shouldn't."
Now, one would say I'm creating a strawman by bringing that up, but the argument itself is not the point. The point, is that you could insert anything into "We've always had <insert topic of conversation here>, its YOUR job to prove why we shouldn't."
The process then becomes, with such circular logic, we can't begin to refute your argument, because no argument has been made. Because of this, we cannot defeat your argument because we can't overturn logical points you have not made.
So, if you want to argue why clerics should keep their armor, you need to make logical points, as Pathfinder is an entirely new game based roughly on the 3.5 OGL ruleset.
Fact: Not making an argument is just that, it is not in and of itself an argument.
I would like to see a Pathfinder "Warlock", "Marshal", "Incarnum Classes", "Psionics", "Oriental Classes", etc.
I'll probably just upconvert any classes that look like they need a little extra umph. Chances are I'll come here for some ideas though.
Dissinger, your "facts" are questionable at worst, and merely opinion at best.
Fact: Clerics are not in fact warriors, but spell slingers who stay crunchy in milk.
I've always found that they tend to get a little soggy around 7th (spell) level.
5) Argument - "These rules changes need to be defended, not our argument that they shouldn't have been changed."
No, that's actually a rather lazy logical fallacy. The fact that you guys are arguing that we need to argue better means you have no actual arguments other than "ti's always been like that." Not to Godwin this thread, but that's the kind of argument that would support slavery, "We've always had slaves, its YOUR job to prove why we shouldn't."
Now, one would say I'm creating a strawman by bringing that up, but the argument itself is not the point. The point, is that you could insert anything into "We've always had <insert topic of conversation here>, its YOUR job to prove why we shouldn't."
The process then becomes, with such circular logic, we can't begin to refute your argument, because no argument has been made. Because of this, we cannot defeat your argument because we can't overturn logical points you have not made.
So, if you want to argue why clerics should keep their armor, you need to make logical points, as Pathfinder is an entirely new game based roughly on the 3.5 OGL ruleset.
Fact: Not making an argument is just that, it is not in and of itself an argument.
1) Okay, I am willing to discuss this, but not argue. The main reason they did this nerf was obviously because Clerics were too powerful melee types and could do melee as good if not better than a fighter, especially with their growing spell selection with each splat book. So I agree with a nerf.
2) However I think that PRPG got stuck in their own corner with their over simplification of the Hitdie:Base Attack linkage. The role I have always seen is a caster able to move up to the front and heal, to do this they needed the best armor they could get, so keeping the armor prof. would have been proffered.
3) So with this situation, you wanted the cleric to be perhaps a semi effective melee type as well. I think getting this capability from god, them being more a priest, would make more sense, and should have had the D8 hit die, but the poor base attack, using the spells to bring them up the the equivalent (and maybe a tad better) hitting power as a sub par fighter with moderate attack bonus.
Dissinger does bring up one point that I hadn't thought of though in regards to this discussion…
Every cleric I ever saw in 3.5 cast spells 1st and foremost, and rarely thought about actually getting into melee until such a point as where they didn't want to waste their spells, and melee combat appeared safe enough to attempt a few mediocre attacks. Only one I remember taking the spells that boost clerics in combat, and the PC was a multi-class fighter/cleric.
I don't see why this "nerf" is so contentious. I can see being disappointed about the change, but outright derission? It's obvious that Paizo has taken liberty to subtly turn the cleric in a slightly different direction, but there are so many ways to get it back, if you so choose, the easiest of which is to houserule it back in. I myself plan on houseuling that a cleric with the war domain gains heavy armor proficiency as a bonus feat.
|
|
1) Okay, I am willing to discuss this, but not argue. The main reason they did this nerf was obviously because Clerics were too powerful melee types and could do melee as good if not better than a fighter, especially with their growing spell selection with each splat book. So I agree with a nerf.
Alright. Glad to see some common ground.
2) However I think that PRPG got stuck in their own corner with their over simplification of the Hitdie:Base Attack linkage. The role I have always seen is a caster able to move up to the front and heal, to do this they needed the best armor they could get, so keeping the armor prof. would have been proffered.
Alright, however heavier armor means slower movement. This in turn created situations where a Cleric could not reach the front lines fast enough. In short, heavier armor was a liability. Most Clerics realized this fast and so grabbed mithral medium armor or the Chain shirt of Godliness (thank god THAT'S dead) in order to stay mobile. Heavy Armor Proficiency still talks to me more of the knights of Medieval times, which fell into two categories, The normal Knight that fought for king and country. (Fighters) and the Knights that aligned themselves with the church in an effort to fulfill the will of god ala the Knights Templar. (Paladins)
Clerics were warrior priests yes, but as Holy men they were often not put ont he front lines for fear of morale. Think of it more like a noble or lord. Only they weren't given plate mail. This just doesn't fit thematically with the wandering preacher meant to convert the masses.
The closest you get to full plate was the Conquistadors of Spain.
3) So with this situation, you wanted the cleric to be perhaps a semi effective melee type as well. I think getting this capability from god, them being more a priest, would make more sense, and should have had the D8 hit die, but the poor base attack, using the spells to bring them up the the equivalent (and maybe a tad better) hitting power as a sub par fighter with moderate attack bonus.
Word in brackets inserted by me in assumption of a dropped word.
Sure, but Divine Power swung it too far in their favor. Suddenly they were a full bab warrior, with a full spell casting range. This hurt because they were the ONLY class with this capability. Add in the heavy armor and its easy to see why people still cringe when talking about Clerics.
I think the Medium armor is more of a long overdue change that was needed. The original Clerics invoked the thoughts of Paladins, so fair enough. However, once paladins came along, the Clerics suddenly seemed like they were stepping on the toes of other warrior or martial based classes. (Fighter and Paladin) They functioned very much as a second line fighter because in order to cast some of their more combative spells, it required them to not get whacked by the enemy. You could argue the full plate made that an easier task, but it could just as easily be argued that it was a hindrance.
The talks about Heavy Armor being both a help or hindrance to a cleric is almost a complete wash in that regard. At this point it comes down to flavor. With Flavor being the only real reason to keep Full Plate, I have to ask, are you now flavoring them as paladins, or as priests?
EDIT: Sorry my quoting of you got cut off for some reason..
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Let them keep a 3/4ths bab, but cement their roll as a first line caster, rather than a second line fighter. Sure, some will complain tat their fighter cleric isn't as good as he used to be, but I think that's the point. The change of a cleric into an actual casting priest, as opposed to a walking fighting priest of their god (better flavored as the paladin or Blackguard) fits thematically with many of the more peaceful gods. Shelyn certain doesn't have many Crusader's or Paladins, but she does have priests. Priests who are more accurately artists and designers than the warrior types that go out into the world.
Alright, however heavier armor means slower movement. This in turn created situations where a Cleric could not reach the front lines fast enough. In short, heavier armor was a liability. Most Clerics realized this fast and so grabbed mithral medium armor or the Chain shirt of Godliness (thank god THAT'S dead) in order to stay mobile. Heavy Armor Proficiency still talks to me more of the knights of Medieval times, which fell into two categories, The normal Knight that fought for king and country. (Fighters) and the Knights that aligned themselves with the church in an effort to fulfill the will of god ala the Knights Templar. (Paladins)
Clerics were warrior priests yes, but as Holy men they were often not put ont he front lines for fear of morale. Think of it more like a noble or lord. Only they weren't given plate mail. This just doesn't fit thematically with the wandering preacher meant to convert the masses.
That is debatable, as one could stay closer to combat with more AC, making them easier to get to the people that need them just as fast, if not quicker. Also boots of springing and striding could mitigate the loss of movement.
Word in brackets inserted by me in assumption of a dropped word.
Sure, but Divine Power swung it too far in their favor. Suddenly they were a full bab warrior, with a full spell casting range. This hurt because they were the ONLY class with this capability. Add in the heavy armor and its easy to see why people still cringe when talking about Clerics.
I think the Medium armor is more of a long overdue change that was needed. The original Clerics invoked the thoughts of Paladins, so fair enough. However, once paladins came along, the Clerics suddenly seemed like they were stepping on the toes of other warrior or martial based classes. (Fighter and Paladin) They functioned very much as a second line fighter because in order to cast some of their more combative spells, it required them to not get whacked by the enemy. You could argue the full plate made that an easier task, but it could just as easily be argued that it was a hindrance.
The talks about Heavy Armor being both a help or hindrance to a cleric is almost a complete wash in that regard. At this point it comes down to flavor. With Flavor being the only real reason to keep Full Plate, I have to ask, are you now flavoring them as paladins, or as priests?
What I sort of hinted at in my statement was that Divine Power would be nerfed to only bring them up to moderate base attack equivalent. One should also note that heavy armor also allowed them to be less focused on dex, which means with other means of speed being available they are now forced to worry about dex as a stat more making it over all a bigger hindrance, which what was intended to limit their combat capability.
As for flavor, when it comes to games sometimes you can't always match flavor with functionality. So I would have to argue that just because you have heavy armor/full plate, that does not automatically make them flavored as a paladin; but perhaps with a moderate base attack and with the use of these massive buff spells it would. So I agree with you that they are supposed to be a less crunchy spell slinger, but is this role not better fulfilled with full armor and poor base attack?
I'll bite Thurgon, only because at other times you seem a rational guy and you mention repeatedly that your disdain of this particular change has your panties in a wad.
1) Armor proficiency - Yes, clerics had it when they were described as the warrior priests of the Medieval eras. However Warrior priests were never trained in full plate mail. In fact, knights were and priests made do with what Pathfinder would often call light armor. That armor was in abundance and so a priest could often justify commandeering such things. The Knights of Medieval eras are more akin to the Paladins.
Fact: With the advent of Paladins into DnD the clerics should have lost Heavy Armor proficiency, they kept it as a hold over, yet it was always on borrowed time.
Counter – 1 : Fact your fact isn’t a fact but an opinion. Let’s get that straight right off the bat. Fact the game is more based on Tolkien then actual history, basically it has more to do with fiction then history. The cleric has since basic, since 1st ed has access to the heaviest armor in the game. The paladin was not the same as the cleric and did not fulfill the same role in a party. Nor do all faiths have paladins.
2) Priests they were, and I find it funny how everyone is justifying them as second string warriors. This isn't the correct approach. They were more like first string CASTERS. You're approaching this from the wrong viewpoint. As a hardier caster, they can stand closer to the front lines and once again provide their warrior spunk to protect the guy in robes chanting doom spells. Add in that Armor doesn't affect their ability to cast, unlike wizards and you see they're just crunchy versions of the Wizard or Sorcerer.
Fact: Clerics are not in fact warriors, but spell slingers who stay crunchy in milk.
Counter 2 – Again a fact isn’t a fact just because you call it thusly. A fact is a fact because it is true. Priests have always been second string casters, even when in 3.5 poorly written spells and feats allowed them to become beasts it did so by allowing them to be melee beasts, not really spell slinging beasts. That is a fact. They have also always been the backup to the party fighter type, as far as taking hits wise went. That is also a fact. Wizards can’t cast in armor because of their overall offensive nature. A canon that is also tough as nails isn’t balance. But a defensive character and the cleric was always meant to be such that is tough as nails…is well what he is suppose to be.
3) Channel Positive energy - by its title it is in fact not turn undead. Instead they turned that into a feat for obvious reason. The original Turn undead put forth in the beta was too strong. Healing allies while damaging certain enemies was just too much, especially when facing those zombie hordes. It was designed in this manner to help clerics not have to sacrifice spell slots to heal party members. While the Healing doesn't scale as much as we would hope, it does however give Clerics a use for the otherwise utterly useless 3.5 turn attempts.
Fact: 3.5 Turn undead was a horrible concept and the fact that it caused enemies to flee caused more problems for parties trying to kill the targets of this ability than solutions. Add in the fact that Undead have lost their immunity to crits and sneak attack, and undead aren't the problem they used to be.
Counter – 3: Channel energy is too powerful. Even in it’s current state. Turn undead could have been made to make the undead cower, that would have eliminated the Benny Hill effect of turning while continuing to give the class a power that is well iconic for the cleric. It was meant to make the cleric more effective against a type of foe to give him his time to shine as being a healer often doesn’t allow for that. Much like druids shine in the wilderness clerics were meant to shine against undead foes. The concept was solid, the method it was employed was flawed. Your really not keeping your facts to well actual facts.
4) The changes to the Cleric have been otherwise positive rather than negative. Many domains are immensely stronger than their 3.5 counterparts, and the insistence that domains are borked is rather humorous to me. I don't mean to troll but Thurgon, how many clerics have you played in the last few weeks with the new rules?
Fact: The removal of Heavy Armor Proficiency isn't the heart of the problem, but merely a symptom of greater unrest with the handling of the cleric, a handling it needed to be brought back in line. This is a debatable point, but what has been done was in fact thought out, rather than just thrown in because the designers felt like it. The two main arguers on this topic have stated quite plainly that they will accept no answer as they believe there cannot be a good enough reason for the changes. This has turned what could have been a debate into arguing with the dining room table.
Counter – 4: Ok now another fact that isn’t. Let me state this FACT you don’t know how thought out the changes to the cleric were. Many of the changes that made it to the final cut did not exist in beta. They were last minute changes without input from us. Sure we might have mentioned something similar to what happened but the FACT is they made the choice in a short period of time, and did not bring their final decisions up for one last go over. Whatever the reason the FACT is domains, channel energy final style, turning, and hvy armor all were last minute changes. All had a dramatic effect on the class. The only change we have stated is not defensible is the change to heavy armor, the reason for that is simple they took a feat away, claiming it was a balance issue then gave it back in the form of deity favored weapon which is by far less balanced then heavy armor was. That is a fact, when only some clerics get the return feat but all lost the taken feat, that is not balanced.
5) Argument - "These rules changes need to be defended, not our argument that they shouldn't have been changed."
No, that's actually a rather lazy logical fallacy. The fact that you guys are arguing that we need to argue better means you have no actual arguments other than "ti's always been like that." Not to Godwin this thread, but that's the kind of argument that would support slavery, "We've always had slaves, its YOUR job to prove why we shouldn't."
Now, one would say I'm creating a strawman by bringing that up, but the argument itself is not the point. The point, is that you could insert anything into "We've always had <insert topic of conversation here>, its YOUR job to prove why we shouldn't."
The process then becomes, with such circular logic, we can't begin to refute your argument, because no argument has been made. Because of this, we cannot defeat your argument because we can't overturn logical points you have not made.
So, if you want to argue why clerics should keep their armor, you need to make logical points, as Pathfinder is an entirely new game based roughly on the 3.5 OGL ruleset.
Fact: Not making an argument is just that, it is not in and of itself an argument
Counter – 5: Fact the rules change is what needs to be justified. Because keeping as is should have been the default action. Further the only reason for a change should have been balance, since clearly they didn’t take it away for that reason they need to explain themselves. I argue since clearly one feat either way doesn’t in their minds effect balance it should have been left so as to not make change just for the sake of doing it. Which frankly seems what they have done. Making a change for the sole purpose of making a statement that the cleric is indeed nerfed, isn’t a valid reason for doing it.
|
|
That is debatable, as one could stay closer to combat with more AC, making them easier to get to the people that need them just as fast, if not quicker. Also boots of springing and striding could mitigate the loss of movement.
I suppose, but those boot slots could be better done with boots of speed really if you absolutely needed more movement. However, that in turn creates a situation where you're now burning magic item slots to create a stop gap to fill in deficiencies. How much money do you want to spend to get back to status quo, rather than making gains on that front.
What I sort of hinted at in my statement was that Divine Power would be nerfed to only bring them up to moderate base attack equivalent. One should also note that heavy armor also allowed them to be less focused on dex, which means with other means of speed being available they are now forced to worry about dex as a stat more making it over all a bigger hindrance, which what was intended to limit their combat capability.
As for flavor, when it comes to games sometimes you can't always match flavor with functionality. So I would have to argue that just because you have heavy armor/full plate, that does not automatically make them flavored as a paladin; but perhaps with a moderate base attack and with the use of these massive buff spells it would. So I agree with you that they are supposed to be a less crunchy spell slinger, but is this role not better fulfilled with full armor and poor base attack?
Yes, Dex was a consideration, but it never had to be. Also I would argue that Dex is necessary for Ranged Touch Attacks as well. If you dropped a Cleric to poor BAB you'd be setting up a situation for MAD (multiple ability disorder), or be forcing players to play specific spells/builds. Its ironic that in this case by wearing heavy armor, it does free you of one ability score, that is still needed to preform some of the functions in this game. Also Heavier armor created some problems in other situations, while Medium to Light armor better mitigated them.
Add in the fact all medium armors got a +1 bonus, and you aren't to far off the AC amount you COULD have with heavier armor that its a crock. I mean is 2 AC going to break the bank? If so, I know of a number of abilities that give AC boni, like Haste/Ring of Protection/Armor of Darkness/Amulet of Natural Armor.
Add in the fact all medium armors got a +1 bonus, and you aren't to far off the AC amount you COULD have with heavier armor that its a crock.
Come on now, research your facts a little more. Heavy armors got a +1 bonus as well. And for that matter, medium armor reduces movement just as much as heavy, unless you are talking about running.
|
|
Counter – 1 : Fact your fact isn’t a fact but an opinion. Let’s get that straight right off the bat. Fact the game is more based on Tolkien then actual history, basically it has more to do with fiction then history. The cleric has since basic, since 1st ed has access to the heaviest armor in the game. The paladin was not the same as the cleric and did not fulfill the same role in a party. Nor do all faiths have paladins.
Nor do all faiths have Clerics. Clerics are by design more like Wandering Missionaries than actual Warrior priests.
Counter 2 – Again a fact isn’t a fact just because you call it thusly. A fact is a fact because it is true. Priests have always been second string casters, even when in 3.5 poorly written spells and feats allowed them to become beasts it did so by allowing them to be melee beasts, not really spell slinging beasts. That is a fact. They have also always been the backup to the party fighter type, as far as taking hits wise went. That is also a fact. Wizards can’t cast in armor because of their overall offensive nature. A canon that is also tough as nails isn’t balance. But a defensive character and the cleric was always meant to be such that is tough as nails…is well what he is suppose to be.
As I mentioned in the post above mine, is a 2AC break really going to break the bank on that defensive caster? As you say they're second string caster, I counter they're more first string in the facts of this. The Cleric is going to be more on the front lines, and has to fulfill a sort of dual role. That of second tier tank and caster. They are the first line of casters you can expect to reach in a group, much like Bards in that aspect. Because they take up this position, the heavy armor is not actually doing anything more than offering flavor. Flavor which many clerics realized was a trap long ago.
Counter – 3: Channel energy is too powerful. Even in it’s current state. Turn undead could have been made to make the undead cower, that would have eliminated the Benny Hill effect of turning while continuing to give the class a power that is well iconic for the cleric. It was meant to make the cleric more effective against a type of foe to give him his time to shine as being a healer often doesn’t allow for that. Much like druids shine in the wilderness clerics were meant to shine against undead foes. The concept was solid, the method it was employed was flawed. Your really not keeping your facts to well actual facts.
Actually now I have to say this is where fluff is again being pulled out. Yes Religion and Undeath go hand in hand. I mean how many vampire stories talk of holy water and crosses. The thing about that is, they still have plenty of that flavor, especially in the OTHER way. Its more of a flavorful taste in that they channel positive or negative energy. The problem with this, is that what is seen as Iconic couldn't function they way they wished it. Hence the problem with 3.5's turn undead.
Which you AGREE was borked.
Cleric as the healer has also had a long image in our minds. I can't recall the number of pictures I see of a cleric in the middle of healing, in an effort to save their companions. Turn undead while Iconic was shifted to a feat, because not all good clerics would WANT to destroy undead.
Hell I have a cleric that is devoted to all the gods. He can't destroy undead willy nilly, only if it presents a threat that the Goddess of Undeath has overlooked, and created an imbalance in the pantheon. My cleric would never use turn attempts, because he feels he should take care of the problem personally, rather than let any other god destroy the undead for him, and further that imbalance. He WILL however, use Channel Positive Energy charges, which I would argue, are quite far from breaking the game.
Let me show you law of averages on how many hit points they heal and you tell me how overpowered it really is;
1 - 3.5
3 - 7
5 - 10.5
7 - 14
9 - 17.5
11 - 21
13 - 24.5
15 - 28
17 - 31.5
19 - 35
That is average on the dice rolled. Tell me again how healing only 35 damage at high levels, when monsters do that with single melee attacks now is horrendously overpowered?
Counter – 4: Ok now another fact that isn’t. Let me state this FACT you don’t know how thought out the changes to the cleric were. Many of the changes that made it to the final cut did not exist in beta. They were last minute changes without input from us. Sure we might have mentioned something similar to what happened but the FACT is they made the choice in a short period of time, and did not bring their final decisions up for one last go over. Whatever the reason the FACT is domains, channel energy final style, turning, and hvy armor all were last minute changes. All had a dramatic effect on the class. The only change we have stated is not defensible is the change to heavy armor, the reason for that is simple they took a feat away, claiming it was a balance issue then gave it back in the form of deity favored weapon which is by far less balanced then heavy armor was. That is a fact, when only some clerics get the return feat but all lost the taken feat, that is not balanced.
1) Channel Energy Final style's only change, was that you had to take a feat to make it deal damage rather than just heal.
2) Domains offered too much quick power to clerics. I should know, because even at low levels my cleric being able to dimensional hop around a battlefield created a few problems for the GM, who couldn't lock me down. At higher levels, it allowed me access to areas the Adventure Paths encounters didn't take into account. Areas that were supposed to create problems for PCs, such as the catwalks when you finally go to cure the plague in Old Korvosa.
3) Heavy Armor - I have put out my arguments for it. I won't do so again. Clerics fast realized Heavy armor was a trap, and it was actually cheaper to work with medium armor, and took less time. Clerics are first line casters, not first line fighters. This much is evident.
4) Also, the fact the change is indefensible, is your opinion. If you're going to shove that down my throat, be ready to eat your own foot.
Counter – 5: Fact the rules change is what needs to be justified. Because keeping as is should have been the default action. Further the only reason for a change should have been balance, since clearly they didn’t take it away for that reason they need to explain themselves. I argue since clearly one feat either way doesn’t in their minds effect balance it should have been left so as to not make change just for the sake of doing it. Which frankly seems what they have done. Making a change for the sole purpose of making a statement that the cleric is indeed nerfed, isn’t a valid reason for doing it.
Funny, I haven't heard Jason say heads or tails on the matter. Perhaps its because you are the first guy he knows he has to talk to, and you've already said the change is indefensible.
Seems smart politics not to talk with the zealot.
FACT: Pathfinder is the name of the Game, not Wizards of the Coast Presents Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Pathfinder Edition. They could have called the sky orange and that clerics are cleverly disguised oranges that fall from trees every morning to adventure. It would have been in their right, out of respect for a player base that has largely been alienated from the developers of their preferred product (dungeons and dragons) they have tried to make the changes small enough that they are compatible with favorite books.
No where did it state their mission goal was to be 100% backwards compatible.
So no, the defense of "It has always been this way" is not an argument, but a statement. A statement that has no place in a civil discussion, as it is faulty circular logic.
|
|
Add in the fact all medium armors got a +1 bonus, and you aren't to far off the AC amount you COULD have with heavier armor that its a crock.Come on now, research your facts a little more. Heavy armors got a +1 bonus as well. And for that matter, medium armor reduces movement just as much as heavy, unless you are talking about running.
Notice the words mithral included. Also notice this is in comparison with the heavy armor clerics had access to. I'm not going to compare the two classes of armor, I'm comparing the OLD cleric with the new one. The OLD cleric had +8 Full Plate, the NEW one has +6 breastplates. This is strict comparison, so do your research correct.
|
|
Notice the words mithral included. Also notice this is in comparison with the heavy armor clerics had access to. I'm not going to compare the two classes of armor, I'm comparing the OLD cleric with the new one. The OLD cleric had +8 Full Plate, the NEW one has +6 breastplates. This is strict comparison, so do your research correct.Add in the fact all medium armors got a +1 bonus, and you aren't to far off the AC amount you COULD have with heavier armor that its a crock.Come on now, research your facts a little more. Heavy armors got a +1 bonus as well. And for that matter, medium armor reduces movement just as much as heavy, unless you are talking about running.
Yes, but the Fighter and the Paladin now have a +9 suit of full plate compared to the cleric's +6 breastplate.
|
|
Yes, but the Fighter and the Paladin now have a +9 suit of full plate compared to the cleric's +6 breastplate.Notice the words mithral included. Also notice this is in comparison with the heavy armor clerics had access to. I'm not going to compare the two classes of armor, I'm comparing the OLD cleric with the new one. The OLD cleric had +8 Full Plate, the NEW one has +6 breastplates. This is strict comparison, so do your research correct.Add in the fact all medium armors got a +1 bonus, and you aren't to far off the AC amount you COULD have with heavier armor that its a crock.Come on now, research your facts a little more. Heavy armors got a +1 bonus as well. And for that matter, medium armor reduces movement just as much as heavy, unless you are talking about running.
How often do the fighter and paladin function in the dual role of a Cleric? More often than not, I find that the Fighter and Paladin function in a rather straightforward role. That of hitting the biggest and baddest foe, then making sure they don't wander off to hit the other squishy characters.
As most clerics are often off the front line, they aren't requiring the heavier armor. Hence, why my comparison is strictly of the 3.5 cleric versus the Pathfinder cleric. In the role they often shine in, do they truly need to have the extra 2 AC they would have in the 3.5 rules, or even the +3 armor in Pathfinder?
Thurgon and Disenchanter would tell you yes.
Thurgon and Disenchanter would tell you yes.
Due, primarily, to not passing off a false assumption as fact.
Yes, but the Fighter and the Paladin now have a +9 suit of full plate compared to the cleric's +6 breastplate.
I don't have a problem with that. I don't mind as a player or a DM. I'm currently playing an Elven Cleric of Sune in a friend's campaign. He's 5th level and has +1 breastplate. With my dexterity and heavy steel shield, I get hit very very rarely by monsters of an equal level or lower. I have no problem being the other guy on the side of a flank/sneak attack.
Round 1: cast shield other and move into flank position incurring an attack of opportunity because I only have like a 10 or 5 percent chance of being hit. Rogue moves into position and sneak attacks.
Round 2: monster ignores me because I can't be hit... it goes after rogue doing 8d6 damage per round with dual-wield. I channel energy for 3d6 to heal the damage dealt to the rogue and me, using Selective Channeling to ignore the monster.
Round 3+: wash, rinse, repeat.