Still waiting for your argument. You haven't made one, and I'm betting you never will. So, when you actually feel like having a discussion, rather than snarky potshots, feel free to jump in.
Fine. I'll bite.
Cite your sources for your statistics on Clerics and there actions. So far, all of your facts... I mean opinions, have been based on unsubstantiated statistics.
Therefor, you have no real case for any of your points.
And if you think I have been snarky to you, you clearly haven't even heard of my reputation yet.
|
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...
Wow, I mean wow? Ok, I am taking it that I am one of the two you are speaking of. I think I gave a lot of reasons against this, and not one of them is based on "because that's how it has always been". If you are really interested in arguing, maybe you should rewind to them before putting words in my mouth. I do and also do not think that is a valid point, but that is not my point. My arguements are that most of the changes actually do not work well at all for their porported reasons, if there are even given reasons, or cause other problems, from what I have both seen and heard from other peoples actual experience with the final. Not the beta. I didn't see the alpha, but all of my comparrisons are between the final, the beta, and 3.5.
I also said that there would be no arguement that would change my opinion, meaning it is my opinion, not something someone can attempt eventually ware away with "just deal with it or house rule it", which are very rude and annoying responces that only really help to spread the gulf of yet another "edition war".
If you were to design a class what would make you think it should only get medium armor?
This is open to anyone.
I also said that there would be no arguement that would change my opinion, meaning it is my opinion, not something someone can attempt eventually ware away with "just deal with it or house rule it", which are very rude and annoying responces that only really help to spread the gulf of yet another "edition war".
I don't particularly care about the cleric changes. However, I am really baffled by people's passion, especially with a comment like the above (as you say this is largely a matter of opinion). I really don't understand what you want to happen? You think cleric's should be proficient with heavy armor. Other people don't. Paizo (apparently) think they shouldnt and have said "Here are some rules that we think are the best, all things considered."
I think it's great you and others have gone to the effort of articulating your objections to the change. It's useful to me to see some other views, since I play with the same group I've been playing with for thirty years and a fresh perspective is appreciated. However, I don't understand why it is objectionable or "spreading the gulf of another edition war" to suggest that you can play Pathfinder with a modification to the cleric's armor proficiency.
I'm not having a go at you or anyone else for that matter, but can someone explain why it matters so much? Paizo have clearly made their call on this issue (unless it turns out to have been an accidental ommision from the cleric writeup or something) and for something as minor and limited in scope as this they are hardly going to revise the game, even if you change their mind. Isnt "Houserule it" a reasonable reply?
|
The only point I can make is that you can't houserule Pathfinder Society. But arguing this here won't change that, hence my complaint of 'not again' earlier in the thread. Because the cleric armor war spilled into another thread, and is no closer to resolution. Because it is a war of opinion, and opinions are highly resistant to change.
I also said that there would be no arguement that would change my opinion, meaning it is my opinion, not something someone can attempt eventually ware away with "just deal with it or house rule it", which are very rude and annoying responces that only really help to spread the gulf of yet another "edition war".I don't particularly care about the cleric changes. However, I am really baffled by people's passion, especially with a comment like the above (as you say this is largely a matter of opinion). I really don't understand what you want to happen? You think cleric's should be proficient with heavy armor. Other people don't. Paizo (apparently) think they shouldnt and have said "Here are some rules that we think are the best, all things considered."
I think it's great you and others have gone to the effort of articulating your objections to the change. It's useful to me to see some other views, since I play with the same group I've been playing with for thirty years and a fresh perspective is appreciated. However, I don't understand why it is objectionable or "spreading the gulf of another edition war" to suggest that you can play Pathfinder with a modification to the cleric's armor proficiency.
I'm not having a go at you or anyone else for that matter, but can someone explain why it matters so much? Paizo have clearly made their call on this issue (unless it turns out to have been an accidental ommision from the cleric writeup or something) and for something as minor and limited in scope as this they are hardly going to revise the game, even if you change their mind. Isnt "Houserule it" a reasonable reply?
While I disagree with Disenchanter on the cleric issue the problem with "houserule it" is that some of us are not DM's and even if we are in a multiple DM party a rule that one DM things is ok, may not be ok to another so as a player Disenchanter may not have the option to play the cleric as he wants.
|
Still waiting for your argument. You haven't made one, and I'm betting you never will. So, when you actually feel like having a discussion, rather than snarky potshots, feel free to jump in.Fine. I'll bite.
Cite your sources for your statistics on Clerics and there actions. So far, all of your facts... I mean opinions, have been based on unsubstantiated statistics.
Therefor, you have no real case for any of your points.
And if you think I have been snarky to you, you clearly haven't even heard of my reputation yet.
Really? You mean of the twenty some odd clerics I've encountered, that only one was in full plate meant nothing?
Or perhaps my own encounters with the class, in which I decided I definitely did not like Full Plate and wanted to avoid its use.
Therefore, I think I have just cause over what is an is not appropriate. Including the fact I've seen some of the greater abuses of clerical power, including but not limited to the Divine Metamagic abuse.
|
|
Wow, I mean wow? Ok, I am taking it that I am one of the two you are speaking of. I think I gave a lot of reasons against this, and not one of them is based on "because that's how it has always been". If you are really interested in arguing, maybe you should rewind to them before putting words in my mouth. I do and also do not think that is a valid point, but that is not my point. My arguements are that most of the changes actually do not work well at all for their porported reasons, if there are even given reasons, or cause other problems, from what I have both seen and heard from other peoples actual experience with the final. Not the beta. I didn't see the alpha, but all of my comparrisons are between the final, the beta, and 3.5.
Fair enough. However when All I see is you supporting the argument of "That's how it always was" Followed by a huge helping of "You couldn't make an argument to change my opinion." I see closed minded thought, which is what I called out.
If you made an argument, then hey, guess what? You were exempt from point five. However Disenchanter and Thurgon have repeatedly stated that its Paizo that has to defend the changes, not them who has to attack them.
I also said that there would be no arguement that would change my opinion, meaning it is my opinion, not something someone can attempt eventually ware away with "just deal with it or house rule it", which are very rude and annoying responces that only really help to spread the gulf of yet another "edition war".
I wasn't, I was actually discussing, as you can see if you back up a few posts. My argument was that "it's always been that way" isn't an argument, its a statement, and to use it as an argument is Faulty Logic.
|
|
My cleric lost her full plate, but by going with +1 armor and shield during the conversion to Year 1 in Society play she ended up with the same AC she had to start with. You lose two points, that's all, unless you don't have a dex.
Dex 12 = 1
+1 Breastplate = 7
+1 Heavy Shield = 3
AC 21
Even without the magic armorment you'd still be talking AC 19 at first level. That's nothing to laugh at.
Mithril only reduces the weight and penalties related to the armor type, it doesn't change the necessity to be proficient in heavy armor. I'd rather my cleric's feats be spent on something more useful to her than armor proficiency; say improved channel or extra channeling or better yet, selective channeling.
|
All of these complaints sound crazy to me. The things that are mentioned, the things that were changed, were the things that explicitly made it difficult to run in, and play any but a few classes in third edition.
I'm getting the impression that each of you were running one of these spotlight stealing, broken type characters. I hope you enjoy playing them in your own home campaigns. In my personal experiences, <sarcasm> it's always *so* fun when one player goes out of his way to make things miserable for the other five people at the table </sarcasm>
I don't understand any of it.
Why should anyone with class level ranks in tumble just be able to trivially avoid AOO's?
Why should it be trivial for casters to take damage and still cast their spells?
Why should fighter AC be so high, you can't put something that can hit the fighter against the rest of the party without killing them all?
Why should a mage get steal *all* of the spotlight time in the group by getting to be any monster he wants?
Why should a weapon allow you to control 30+ squares on the battlefield, doing AOO in addition to normal attacks at will?None of these complaints make any sense to me. I've heard all the arguments, no need to repeat them. All I end up seeing when I read it is "I don't know how to play well with other people"
Seriously.
I am in awe of the galactic mind-blowing perspective it must take to seriously complain that a 200 pound barbarian only has a 20% chance to bull rush a 12,000 pound Storm Giant.
Or that a rogue might experience some difficulty tumbling through an 20 square foot area filled with a sentient roaring inferno of pure elemental fire.whatever.
I always liked to think that the combat and magic was like in the movies and real life mixed if you get my drift. For instance lets look at the rogue verse the monk. Have you every seen someone fight before? For real. Or how about a Jet-Li movie. watch The Legend with Jet-li. the story is true and no wire-fu. No rogue I know in books or real life can perform those feats. As a side note I think A chain whip/spiked chain should very much have reach. Despite a monk's great agility and dex I do not see him pulling off the heist of a life time. Think of Entrapment of any good heist movie. Master of disguises and trickery. Both share alot of the same traits , but differ in big ways.
How about a fighter vs the wizard. A classic steal the spot light Class act issue. At higher levels a wizard will always have a shot at swiping the spot light a vast majority of the time. Its magic. thats why people like playing them. Flashy, powerful, one false move and its a dust pan or mop bucket for you. The fighter is hack'n'slash and always different yet the same. I think 300 and grendal. Jet-li will have a real fight on his hand if he fought a warrior of Sparta or a Samuri. Armor in combat makes a real difference, and the lack their of. Ask A chinese emperor how he felt about the monks of shaolin. he feared them and respected them. they in turn feared the army. besides this is fantasy. and a game. People will always explot what they love to get that edge, to make the character theirs truly. Its who is DMing the game not the game itself. I say you need to game with the other guys who are on here. They sound like good cats to me.I also think it being fantasy I would expect the Barbarian to not only bull-rush that giant but have a great chance of success. I see Conan and think hell yes, tear the horn off that evil God of nightmare and dreams. The characters are only as good as the DM gives them the oppertunity to be. think about the characters in that old crappy great movie. Conan was smart, but no thief. the thief was smart, but no warrior like him. Still in a fight they made the party. Its all about team work.
I would place my money that if you are thinking that people are playing broken classes or hogging the spot light is off. the PCS in the game you are playing should be the stars of the story. All should have a chance in the spot light. If one is shining more than the others then it must be from either the other players not stepping up or the DM. The rogue should have a good shot at tumbling away and the wizard getting burned if he cant use some magic to get the hell out, freeze it, command it, or buff the hell out of the termanitor of the group. It sounds to me you have had a bad experience with a group. I say move on and find others of like mind to game with. Too much fun to be had with this new system not too.
While I disagree with Disenchanter on the cleric issue the problem with "houserule it" is that some of us are not DM's and even if we are in a multiple DM party a rule that one DM things is ok, may not be ok to another so as a player Disenchanter may not have the option to play the cleric as he wants.
But what's the alternative? It just seems to me that there's not much anyone can do with a contentious issue - there will always be someone whose preference goes counter to the "official" rules when it's a matter of opinion like this. Whoever it is who disagrees with the game designer has no other option but to accept it or houserule it - that's just life. I dont see why pointing it out is "spreading the gulf of another edition war".
The arguments against the change are clearly stated - we just disagree. If we're not allowed to say houserule it or accept it, what else are we supposed to do?
While I disagree with Disenchanter on the cleric issue the problem with "houserule it" is that some of us are not DM's and even if we are in a multiple DM party a rule that one DM things is ok, may not be ok to another so as a player Disenchanter may not have the option to play the cleric as he wants.
When you are not able or allowed to houserule, then take the feat and put on the heavy armor. It's not as if the former cleric is gone forever and for clerics wearing heavy armor is forbidden in all eternity. You can play a "3.5 cleric" in Pathfinder quite fine, only the way to do so has changed a little.
|
|
When you are not able or allowed to houserule, then take the feat and put on the heavy armor. It's not as if the former cleric is gone forever and for clerics wearing heavy armor is forbidden in all eternity. You can play a "3.5 cleric" in Pathfinder quite fine, only the way to do so has changed a little.
While I disagree with Disenchanter on the cleric issue the problem with "houserule it" is that some of us are not DM's and even if we are in a multiple DM party a rule that one DM things is ok, may not be ok to another so as a player Disenchanter may not have the option to play the cleric as he wants.
His questioning is more in response to a rather bitter "We're tired of being told to house rule/change it especially when it doesn't always work that way!"
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.
Then, I am going to say that those clerics were wasting their potential. A few of their self only buffs turned them into monsters that a fighter wishes he could be. A spell or two in the first rounds to buff the party, should be enough to ensure survival for other frontliners(if there is another caster).
Clerics are very much warrior-priests, by default. The majority of a clergy is going to of course be experts or adepts, but most likely to go on an adventure is a warrior-priest, rather than the type that is cloistered.
Nor do all faiths have Clerics. Clerics are by design more like Wandering Missionaries than actual Warrior priests
You stated that the existence of paladins negated the need to have warrior priests, my counter is that not all faiths have paladins, so this is your counter to that? Meaningless. Completely worthless and at best deceptive. Just how many war deities need to be listed that don’t have paladins, 10, 20? Any could list that many without thinking.
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.
So it’s not a balance issue it’s a flavor one? Sure that helps your argument. Actually it doesn’t it helps ours.
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.
Well I had to counter your deception that we opposed all the changes. I was trying to point out we only find one change indefensible. Basically to counter yet more deception on your part.
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.
And because you haven’t heard him say anything means he hasn’t said anything? Interesting view. Let me help you out, he posted this:
Well, the reason that I did not want this discussion happening until my return is that I wanted to be a part of it and typing put messages on my phone is a bit time consuming.
So, I am going to allow this to continue so long as it stays civil, which it has.
While many of the reasons behind this change have already been brought up by astute posters there are a few I want to stress.
1. Clerics are full casters. Although there spell selection is not quite as fashy as arcane casters, it is still very powerful and filled with great utility spells. On top of this, they get d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, two domains, with four domain powers and domain spells, channel energy, and a lack of armor spell failure chance. No matter your angle, this is a great suite of abilities that made clerics one of the most powerful classes in 3.5. When it came time to balance it out a bit, we took a number of small approaches, which included reworking some spells and removing heavy armor proficiency.
2. Heavy armor is hardly part of every cleric's concept. And for those martial deities, we put in proficiency with the gods weapon to help balance the loss.
3. We made medium armor a more attractive group, but we wanted the armor type to actually see some use by making it the category of choice for a number of classes.
There are a few other reasons that I will be happy to go over next week, bit my finger is getting tired. You may not agree with this change, and it may have more of an impact in your campaign than we could have foreseen, but let's be realistic. This is not a huge change and it is relatively easy to fix.
I will continue to monitor this thread, but as of tomorrow, I am going to be kinda busy, so my responses will be even more limited.
More to come soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
FACT you don’t know what the word fact means.
If you were to design a class what would make you think it should only get medium armor?
This is open to anyone.
I'll take a shot at this one.
A class (as a whole, not per character) should get proficiency with heavy armor if the class can reasonably be expected to get into toe-to-toe slug outs; be it from profession, desire, training, or just circumstance.
Using this guideline on the core 11 base classes:
- Fighters and Paladins would get heavy armor proficiency, naturally.
- Barbarians and Rangers would get heavy armor proficiency BUT any class feature that is restricted by armor type is NOT expanded to include heavy armor.
- Clerics would get proficiency.
- Bards, Rogues, Sorcerers and Wizards wouldn't get heavy armor proficiency, since as a class those characters should be seeking alternative ways to "wage war."
- Monks are a special case. Since they are supposed to be martial artists that focus on the perfection of the inner self, proficiency in armor doesn't really fit. However, I do feel they should get armor proficiencies among their bonus feat choices because it isn't beyond the realm of belief that there would be a school or three that focuses on fighting in, and with, armor.
- Druid is another weird case for me. What I think a Druid is wouldn't get any armor proficiency. But since the standard is already set, yes they would get heavy armor proficiency.
I would design it this way for one other reason, as well.
A basic design philosophy (perhaps unintentional) is that "defence is easy to get." Masterwork and enchantments cost half as much as their offensive counterparts. There are at least three ways to get AC bumps cheaper, and quicker than weapon bumps - armor and/or shield + amulet of natural armor + ring of protection.
Given this philosophy, it wouldn't be broken to give every class proficiency in heavy armor, especially since every class that doesn't get it (except Clerics, now) loses, or risks losing, (at least temporarily) iconic class features while wearing it.
You do realize that there is a set of heavy armor made specifically for druids. I can't see requiring them to take heavy armor skill to use it either.
They left metamagic in the game is my complaint. Metamagic and Multiple Prestige Classes killed 3.5 and made it "Optimizer Heaven". Pathfinder will be the same after year 1. Otherwise the game is great.
1) The removal of Concentration, and the continued existence of Spellcraft.
Not sure if you have bothered to look, concentration is in there but its no longer skill dependent which frees up skill points for casters, how is that a bad thing? Also spellcraft covers so much more than just identifying spells flying at your face.
Some very important words some posters should really heed:
2. Heavy armor is hardly part of every cleric's concept. And for those martial deities, we put in proficiency with the gods weapon to help balance the loss.[...]
You may not agree with this change, and it may have more of an impact in your campaign than we could have foreseen, but let's be realistic. This is not a huge change and it is relatively easy to fix.
Especially the last two sentences.
I'm not having a go at you or anyone else for that matter, but can someone explain why it matters so much? Paizo have clearly made their call on this issue (unless it turns out to have been an accidental ommision from the cleric writeup or something) and for something as minor and limited in scope as this they are hardly going to revise the game, even if you change their mind. Isnt "Houserule it" a reasonable reply?
You know what else I can houserule? A new feat called Power Bean. With that feat, as long as the character has eaten beans in the last 24 hours, they can fly by farting. This is an (Ex) ability (non-magical). Dwarves and halflings get this feat for free. How is that for houseruling?
Seriously, saying if you don't like it, then houserule it is saying that the person's issue with it is non-relevant. You are blowing them off. Why not just come out and be honest and say what you mean, "Get lost whiner. I got mine, who cares about you?"
As for the whole issue of "heavy armor isn't cleric-like". First off, who says? Just because your clerics aren't doesn't mean everyone's clerics are your way. I don't care if you are Joe Player or a designer, please don't tell me what is the right way to play clerics. Now if you are a designer and you don't want that concept in the game you are designing, fine its your game do what you want. But I have to wonder, if the idea is so distasteful, why not put in actual penalties for clerics to use them in your version? Maybe give a cleric a spell failure or something, even if they have heavy armor proficiency, if it is so outlandish.
EDIT: Now I know it is unbelievable to some, but in most games I've played clerics have worn heavy armor. The reason is simple, there are so many things clerics want their stats put in, that something has to give. Let's assume we are working with the elite array.
15 -> Wis (well duh!)
14 -> Con (likey the hps)
13 -> Str (carrying capacity and can hit occasionally)
12 -> Int (2+Int is sucky)
10 -> Cha (might not be good at channeling, but let's not shoot ourselves in the foot)
8 -> Dex (higher would be nice, but then something else would suck)
So just by the process of elimination, most clerics that I've seen in actual play, usually use Dex as their dump stat. Which means lighter armors are not a good idea. Thus most are the healing/buffing turtle. The thing I rarely see is heavy shields. This is because the clerics have to shift their weapon in order to cast spells. With a light shield you can hold your weapon, even if you can't use it, but you can't do that with a heavy shield. That is the thing I see rarely used for clerics. Does it mean I feel it needs to be dropped? Nope.
Still so many problems with the Monk. They fixed a few things, but there are still some glaring issues, one of which is a problem even when houseruling.
You do realize that there is a set of heavy armor made specifically for druids. I can't see requiring them to take heavy armor skill to use it either.Which Set???
Will look it up for you when I get home. Sorry can't recall it's exact name right now.....
Some very important words some posters should really heed:
Especially the last two sentences.
2. Heavy armor is hardly part of every cleric's concept. And for those martial deities, we put in proficiency with the gods weapon to help balance the loss.[...]
You may not agree with this change, and it may have more of an impact in your campaign than we could have foreseen, but let's be realistic. This is not a huge change and it is relatively easy to fix.
He calls it a small thing, that doesn't make it so. Just saying. Small to him does not equal small to others.
To me it was one change too many to the class. One step too far away from what I expect a cleric to be. But I would ask if it is such a small thing why even bother making the change?
If you were to design a class what would make you think it should only get medium armor?
This is open to anyone.
I'll take a shot at this one.
A class (as a whole, not per character) should get proficiency with heavy armor if the class can reasonably be expected to get into toe-to-toe slug outs; be it from profession, desire, training, or just circumstance.
Using this guideline on the core 11 base classes:
- Fighters and Paladins would get heavy armor proficiency, naturally.
- Barbarians and Rangers would get heavy armor proficiency BUT any class feature that is restricted by armor type is NOT expanded to include heavy armor.
- Clerics would get proficiency.
- Bards, Rogues, Sorcerers and Wizards wouldn't get heavy armor proficiency, since as a class those characters should be seeking alternative ways to "wage war."
- Monks are a special case. Since they are supposed to be martial artists that focus on the perfection of the inner self, proficiency in armor doesn't really fit. However, I do feel they should get armor proficiencies among their bonus feat choices because it isn't beyond the realm of belief that there would be a school or three that focuses on fighting in, and with, armor.
- Druid is another weird case for me. What I think a Druid is wouldn't get any armor proficiency. But since the standard is already set, yes they would get heavy armor proficiency.
I would design it this way for one other reason, as well.
A basic design philosophy (perhaps unintentional) is that "defence is easy to get." Masterwork and enchantments cost half as much as their offensive counterparts. There are at least three ways to get AC bumps cheaper, and quicker than weapon bumps - armor and/or shield + amulet of natural armor + ring of protection.
Given this philosophy, it wouldn't be broken to give every class proficiency in heavy armor, especially since every class that doesn't get it (except Clerics, now) loses, or risks losing, (at...
You just told me who should get heavy and light armor. Medium armor was not mentioned.
|
|
Fair enough. However when All I see is you supporting the argument of "That's how it always was" Followed by a huge helping of "You couldn't make an argument to change my opinion." I see closed minded thought, which is what I called out.If you made an argument, then hey, guess what? You were exempt from point five. However Disenchanter and Thurgon have repeatedly stated that its Paizo that has to defend the changes, not them who has to attack them.
Ok, I apologize if I was not who you were talking to. It has mostly been Thurgo and I saying against this change, but for different reasons.
I do think that "because it has always been that way" is a fairly good reason that needs to be considered. I do not however, think that it is a good enough reason, by itself to be a valid point for arguing, just a consideration.
I am texting this from my phone, which means it is very difficult to see my posts as a whole, and get an impression of if others might take it wrongly. It also means it is difficult for me to go into a lot of details, (or risk adding 20 mins or lossing it all when I post).
I also do not think, and am not intentionally trying to test Paizo to "come down off their mountain and defend their position and reasoning". That is both disrespectful and audacious. However, I have noticed a very distinct lack of their involvement on this and many other issues, and I would think that Paizo would be more interested in following up now that the books are out. I think they could do a lot of good by being a little present.
It seems like a very easy fix for everybody. On the cleric heavy armor, I can think of two fairly easy ways to go about it. 1.) A cleric character trait that grants heavy armor for war-priests and 2.) a new type of armor for clerics. Lets just say, same stats as fullplate, triple the cost, 3/4 wt, it acts as both spell pouch and holy symbol, and clerics are proficient. Roughly the same cost as mesterwork +1 or +2 Fullplate, but its two main features are that clerics can wear and it offers up components easily.
I think the best option would have been to leave heavy armor for Clerics, have a side bar that removed it as an option, particularly for specific deities, and went with that option or lose all heavy armor in organized play.
|
|
A 3rd option is to grant a new cleric spell that acts like Mage Armor, but should probably get (slowly) progressively better. Something along the lines of 4+1/4 levels. This one would especially help the spellcaster side. Make it personal only, and no potions, and also gives a good option for a Cleric/Monk.
You just told me who should get heavy and light armor. Medium armor was not mentioned.If you were to design a class what would make you think it should only get medium armor?
This is open to anyone.
You are absolutely right. I misread the question.
What would make me think a class should only get medium armor?
Nothing.
There is no real reason for it.
From a balance perspective, there is no inherent reason for it (see the end of my failed attempt to answer this question). From a "realist"/simulationist perspective there is no reason for it since the basic techniques for wearing and functioning in medium armor are not distinct enough from heavy armor. Much in the same way there isn't any mechanical (proficiency) difference between light and heavy shields.
There isn't any good reason to restrict a class to only medium (or lighter) armor, and the only real mechanical difference (aside from value) between medium and heavy armor is the restriction to running.
You know what else I can houserule? A new feat called Power Bean. With that feat, as long as the character has eaten beans in the last 24 hours, they can fly by farting. This is an (Ex) ability (non-magical). Dwarves and halflings get this feat for free. How is that for houseruling?
Call me a simple man, but this made me laugh out loud.
Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood a little. Carry on.
Some very important words some posters should really heed:
Especially the last two sentences.
2. Heavy armor is hardly part of every cleric's concept. And for those martial deities, we put in proficiency with the gods weapon to help balance the loss.[...]
You may not agree with this change, and it may have more of an impact in your campaign than we could have foreseen, but let's be realistic. This is not a huge change and it is relatively easy to fix.
He calls it a small thing, that doesn't make it so. Just saying. Small to him does not equal small to others.
To me it was one change too many to the class. One step too far away from what I expect a cleric to be. But I would ask if it is such a small thing why even bother making the change?
I know I said I was done talking to dining room tables, but...
You call it a big thing, that doesn't make it so. Just saying. Big to you does not equal big to others.
See what I did there? But apparently your opinion has to be granted more respect and reverence than the rest of us, including the designers of the game.
As was quoted, Jason has already given very solid and sound reasons why this change was made. That you don't (or I should say won't) accept them doesn't make them bad reasons.
One step too far away from what I expect a cleric to be.
If heavy armor had been removed from the cleric class in a permanent way, so they would never be able to gain access to it, then you would have a legitimate gripe. It hasn't, though, so you don't.
It seems like a very easy fix for everybody. On the cleric heavy armor, I can think of two fairly easy ways to go about it. 1.) A cleric character trait that grants heavy armor for war-priests and 2.) a new type of armor for clerics. Lets just say, same stats as fullplate, triple the cost, 3/4 wt, it acts as both spell pouch and holy symbol, and clerics are proficient. Roughly the same cost as mesterwork +1 or +2 Fullplate, but its two main features are that clerics can wear and it offers up components easily.
That's a horribly, horribly complicated way to do things and most certainly is in no way backward compatible.
There's actually a much better solution in the rules already! TAKE THE DAMN FEAT!
I know I said I was done talking to dining room tables, but...
You call it a big thing, that doesn't make it so. Just saying. Big to you does not equal big to others.
See what I did there? But apparently your opinion has to be granted more respect and reverence than the rest of us, including the designers of the game.
As was quoted, Jason has already given very solid and sound reasons why this change was made. That you don't (or I should say won't) accept them doesn't make them bad reasons.
I know you are too emotional about this topic to try logic but hey for others who are reading this they might get something out of it. ((see what I did there, use the same old silly line you use on every post towards us on this topic back at you, means nothing here means nothing when you say it.))
No what I am saying is Jason doesn't speak for everyone when he says it is a small thing. To prove then all I need to do it provide one person with a differing view. To him it is small, but I don't see it that way, thus that proves that just because he calls it small doesn't make it so for all. See logic, easy and clean. Doesn't make my opinion more valid then his by default just states that his opinion isn't something that is a) agreed on by all and b) a fact.
You claiming Jason's reasons are solid and sound don't make them so either, again not proof mine are any better, but a clear statement that what you are claiming isn't fact, it is the opinion of someone with a serious emotional need to prove his point logic be damned.
One step too far away from what I expect a cleric to be.If heavy armor had been removed from the cleric class in a permanent way, so they would never be able to gain access to it, then you would have a legitimate gripe. It hasn't, though, so you don't.
My opinion stands, I do not accept this one last change. It takes that one too many steps from the cleric class and makes it a different class. It is a fallacy to argue I can not draw that line in the sand and say here and no further. You can draw it elsewhere, I am drawing it at this last change, does it make my line more valid then yours by default....well in most cases no.
Some very important words some posters should really heed:
Especially the last two sentences.
2. Heavy armor is hardly part of every cleric's concept. And for those martial deities, we put in proficiency with the gods weapon to help balance the loss.[...]
You may not agree with this change, and it may have more of an impact in your campaign than we could have foreseen, but let's be realistic. This is not a huge change and it is relatively easy to fix.
Not so important.
"Hardly part of every <insert class here> concept" is a shallow, cop-out of a reason for any change. And used liberally would remove every class ability.
In short, it is b@#&#**$.
And "not a huge change that is relatively easy to fix," brings only two things to mind:
1) Why do it? And,
2) The use of the word "fix," tells me that Mr. Bulmahn senses that it might need to be fixed.
So no, they aren't important at all.
I'll bite. Keep in mind that I am thrilled to have Pathfinder as an alternative to 4th edition and most of this is easily houseruled however. My intent here isn't to trash pathfinder, but simply to point out some changes I don't understand or agree with.
- I dislike the changes to the half orc - particularly it's loss of a strength bonus. I'd have probably given them +2 Strength, -2 Int OR Cha (player choice) and their option of +2 any other score. Their description as bigger and stronger than humans doesn't make sense without it.
- Many of the school changes - particularly the illusionist, enchanter, transmuter, and diviner capstones. The illusionist being completely undone by true seeing is sad. Further, I fail to see the need for a permanent illusion given the presence of spells like permanent image 4-8 levels earlier. The Diviner capstone is mechanically strong, but I loved the concept of them being able to look places others couldn't. Transmuters... really? A +5 enchantment bonus to a physical score? Or you know I could go buy a belt of X + 6... Finally the enchanter's capstone is awful - if you happen to be targeted with an enchantment spell and save it rebounds? Far too situational. I'd rather have all of these revert to their beta capstones. I do however love that they've gone back to specialist bonus slots and that universalists got their needed nerf.
- The spiked chain nerf was necessary, but extreme.
- I would have preferred save or die spells to drop you to negative hit points instead of deal flat damage. As it stands it is still a save or die vs. PCs most of the time given the higher CL of many of their foes and the low hit points of many characters (especially ones likely to fail the save in the first place).
- Humans need something - probably ambition (again both hit point and skill point bonus for favorite class) to offset their loses and others gains since beta.
- Halflings and Gnomes need the vermin subtype.
- Power word kill should deal a flat 100 damage (save for half) with auto death if the target is already under 100 hit points.
The list is by no means exhaustive, but was the first things to come to mind.
Director of Game Design
|
Hey there Everybody,
I knew a thread like this would pop up sooner or later and I respect everyones opinion. We knew going into the final book that we were going to make some changes that some folks did not agree with. That is only natural... you can't please all the people all the time.. etc.
That said, this thread has really just turned into a back and forth argument about clerics and their armor proficiency. I really doubt that most groups have even had enough time to play with these rules to fully feel the impact of all of the changes to the classes, making much of the passion a little out of place.
Lets allow the rules to settle a bit folks, and I think we need to let some passions die down a bit. I am going to lock this thread for 24 hours to let folks cool off. Please come back tomorrow with a bit more civility.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
OK, my stab at something constructive.
Silence. I hate the "cast on inanimate object" part of that spell. First my players had the "let's silence a crossbow bolt and fire at the caster" idea. *SIGH*, D&D rules say that missiles which hit are destroyed. I had a major fight with my group who argued "what, that bolt vanishes after hitting the enemy ? bull !".
So, they came up with a better plan. They carry around a bag of small marbles, cast silence on exactly one of them, and throw the lot around the BBEG. Stupid spell.
OK, my stab at something constructive.
Silence. I hate the "cast on inanimate object" part of that spell. First my players had the "let's silence a crossbow bolt and fire at the caster" idea. *SIGH*, D&D rules say that missiles which hit are destroyed. I had a major fight with my group who argued "what, that bolt vanishes after hitting the enemy ? bull !".
So, they came up with a better plan. They carry around a bag of small marbles, cast silence on exactly one of them, and throw the lot around the BBEG. Stupid spell.
But quite clever PCs. "Beware the marble of Doooom!"
|
Hey there Everybody,
I knew a thread like this would pop up sooner or later and I respect everyones opinion. We knew going into the final book that we were going to make some changes that some folks did not agree with. That is only natural... you can't please all the people all the time.. etc.
That said, this thread has really just turned into a back and forth argument about clerics and their armor proficiency. I really doubt that most groups have even had enough time to play with these rules to fully feel the impact of all of the changes to the classes, making much of the passion a little out of place.
Lets allow the rules to settle a bit folks, and I think we need to let some passions die down a bit. I am going to lock this thread for 24 hours to let folks cool off. Please come back tomorrow with a bit more civility.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks Jason. My reason for starting this thread was not to continue the Cleric heavy-medium armor debate. It was to have a thread for those who found part of Pathfinder that they did not like. Guys keep it civil and donèt get stock on the same topic in the thread. If you must please start another thread.
So, they came up with a better plan. They carry around a bag of small marbles, cast silence on exactly one of them, and throw the lot around the BBEG. Stupid spell.
Wouldn't detect magic foil that pretty easily?
.........
So, they came up with a better plan. They carry around a bag of small marbles, cast silence on exactly one of them, and throw the lot around the BBEG. Stupid spell.
This tactic is actually used in Shackled City against the PC's. It is a valid tactic.
Other tactics I have seen were to disarming the cleric of his holy simple and to sundering spell component pouches.
So, they came up with a better plan. They carry around a bag of small marbles, cast silence on exactly one of them, and throw the lot around the BBEG. Stupid spell.Wouldn't detect magic foil that pretty easily?
It could, but most BBEG's dont have detect magic up. If I were the DM and they tried that on a regular basis my BBEG would know about it.
1. I don't like the changes to the death spells. either have them or don't, death spells that don't kill you are silly.
2. spike chain makes no sense logically even in a fantasy world, spike chains are that powerful in real life, see the kurasme-game, take it out the game, instead of making an illogical weapon that violates the game internal rules.
3. the half orc race is illogical and immersion breaking, either the half-orc is stronger relative avg than a human or it's not. it's current states make ZERO sense logic based upon the internal rules of the game. as it stands the avg orc and the avg human have the same strengh. if you can't balance the race logically, take it out the game.
4. shapechange nerf unjustifed.
5. the tumbling change is fine so long as you are able to deny the target it's dexterity after a successful feint, otherwise it's too punative and unrealistic in terms of how combat would play out given the game rules. wether your a cat or barry sanders or mike tyson you almost always feint before attempting to juke someone.
6. swimming should be a class skill for no one or everyone.
7. it makes no sense that perception is not a class skill for a fighter, seriously, the first thing any fighter would learn would be to observant of his opponent and his surroundings. really bad logic here
|
|
3. the half orc race is illogical and immersion breaking, either the half-orc is stronger relative avg than a human or it's not. it's current states make ZERO sense logic based upon the internal rules of the game. as it stands the avg orc and the avg human have the same strengh. if you can't balance the race logically, take it out the game.
The half-orc makes perfect sense, as a half-orc could just as easily inherit human weakness from their human parent just as easily as they could gain the strength from their orc parent. Not to mention that some aspects of strength are considered to be what has been acheived through training or the continuation of training. Fighters tend to continue increasing strength as they level which makes sense since they are running around in heavy armor and swinging heavy weaponry.
3. the half orc race is illogical and immersion breaking, either the half-orc is stronger relative avg than a human or it's not. it's current states make ZERO sense logic based upon the internal rules of the game. as it stands the avg orc and the avg human have the same strengh. if you can't balance the race logically, take it out the game.The half-orc makes perfect sense, as a half-orc could just as easily inherit human weakness from their human parent just as easily as they could gain the strength from their orc parent. Not to mention that some aspects of strength are considered to be what has been acheived through training or the continuation of training. Fighters tend to continue increasing strength as they level which makes sense since they are running around in heavy armor and swinging heavy weaponry.
what you write above would make sense if and only if humans did not also get a plus 2 bonus, but they do, which means that the avg human is the same strengh at the avg half orc. where the avg half orc is 6' 6" inches, this borders on absurd even for a fantasy game. if they couldn't find a way to make them work, they should have just taken them out of the game.