A cleric of the drunken god? Why is he ever caught without some special beer at hand? Take the brew potion feat and try to make your holy symbol into an item able to store and release various potions upon command (surely you can think something out with your DM, if it wasn't done in some of the adventure path or some other old Pathfinder book).
|
I guess part of my dismay is that I am going to be playing a Cleric and when I looked to see what my capstone would be if he got all the way to 20, I found nothing. :(
since Beta we asked for it...
since the domains were degraded to add bonus spells it is a lot more complicated... so sorry no capstone for cleric... as you said... Paizo doesn't love clerics because hsi puilic hate clerics a lot... just see the answers :)
in the ebta even bards had a cool capstone... now i believe they took it to... so no capstones are just for some classes... spellcasters must eb happy with whatver they earned a few levels before and yes of course one more use of that mumbo jumbo
|
I guess part of my dismay is that I am going to be playing a Cleric and when I looked to see what my capstone would be if he got all the way to 20, I found nothing. :(since Beta we asked for it...
since the domains were degraded to add bonus spells it is a lot more complicated... so sorry no capstone for cleric... as you said... Paizo doesn't love clerics because hsi puilic hate clerics a lot... just see the answers :)
in the ebta even bards had a cool capstone... now i believe they took it to... so no capstones are just for some classes... spellcasters must eb happy with whatver they earned a few levels before and yes of course one more use of that mumbo jumbo
Bards still have deadly performance.
So why are you participating in a discussion of the Final Rules thread,
and not an Interior Decorating thread in the Off-Topic section?
For those that think the Cleric is underbalanced, have any of you ever house ruled that they can just add domain spells to their spell list as opposed to being limited to one per level per day? Memorize as many as you want.
Just curious.
|
|
I don't know, it could be done. Maybe the Travel and Charm Domains, maybe Trickery, 1 or 2 levels of Rogue. I'd say 10-12 Str and Con, 12+ Int, and 14+ Dex, Wis, and Cha. Possibly a Divine version of the Arcane Trickster?
I really wish that the Cleric didn't have to multiclass for something like this, but hey.
That is the beauty and power of 3.5e/pfRPG, mix and match to define that character concept. Trade off is not being able to excel (i.e. be level 20) in a class. But for that tradeoff you get all the bells and whistles of all the multiclasses.
S.
That is the beauty and power of 3.5e/pfRPG, mix and match to define that character concept. Trade off is not being able to excel (i.e. be level 20) in a class. But for that tradeoff you get all the bells and whistles of all the multiclasses.
S.
Seconded. I cringe when I think of all of the restrictions that every other edition of DND had/has placed on multi/dual classing. Dual-classing didn't even make any sense to me. I lose all of my abilities? Where'd they go? When I saw how it worked in 3.0 I litterally said, "Finally!".
Then 4E goes and takes it away again. :(
|
|
Interesting point. But I think I would answer with. Make a fighter who is of that god. Does a fighter get "anything" from be a fighter of said god? No mechanically, but yes, yes, YES from a roleplaying point of view. All classes can have gods, only thing is not all classes get spells from said god. You are still a holy warrior of Cayden just not his cleric.Nice concept, would be a fun character, lots of leaping/jumping/swinging skills, oh and screams of "for Cayden and beer!".
S.But then he is not a holy warror... just a warrior.. in that case.. why even have clerics of Cayden in the first place?
What kind of self respecting cleric of Cayden would stay in the back and cast his spells? (see none)
Not every person who worships a god need be a cleric of that god, no issue with a ranger of Cayden, wizard of Cayden. The "holy" bit in the "holy warrior" comes from how you play the character it's not related to being a cleric at all. Holy envangelist bard anyone? Now that would be a giggle!
Just don't let rules and mechanics get in the road of a really good character concept such as you have. Within the rules you can make something to fit the part, simply because it's how you play the character not the class or pluses or bonuses that truely define the character.
If you did want a straight class cleric then I agree with the example posted earlier - yes "leather armour" not even medium armour, and I'm not sure even leather works! What sort of swashbuckler would wear anything other than a puffy sleeved white shirt?! Your cleric idea seems to revolve more around feats/skills, so may be a level or two in rogue? Seems to fit with the concept. True you will not hit as often or hard as a fighter, who cares you have other things (not just healing) that you can do in the fight that a fighter can't.
S.
Its in Complete Divine (which I suppose, makes it the first? Don't remember if BoED came out before or after)If my memory serves me, Book of Exalted Deeds came first with the Exalted Turning feat (yes, I'm well aware this isn't a very popular book).
It did damage to undead in addition to the normal turning effect.
Then there is Libris Mortis that introduced Profane Lifeleech, Profane Vigor, and Spurn Death's Touch feats.
These all turned turn/commands into various damaging/healing abilities.
I want to say there is an ability/feat somewhere that turns Turn/Command uses into fast healing for allies... But I can't find it so I am probably wrong on that.
And I have said before that Pathfinder consolidated the rules and made them core. It just isn't anything new.
That makes sense. I didn't go through the Complete books, because I figure they are "close enough to core" that many people would be familiar with them already.
And the way they did it is new.
Okay, that is true. The mechanics are at least somewhat new.
And after reading your posts here and in other threads, I'm starting to get the impression you think clerics were balanced in 3.0/3.5.
This will sound like a cop-out, but it depends on how strictly you define balance. By my definition of balance? Yes. Yes they were balanced. I am very well aware not every one agrees with my definition.
My question is this...what would make you happy with the cleric class? Heavy Armor Proficiency? Save or Die spells back in? Full BaB? Something else entirely? I'm curious...I've seen you pick apart the new cleric class alot, but most fo the time you just leave it at "the cleric was more powerful in 3.5" and drop it, so would you mind elaborating a bit about what it is you miss from the 3.5 cleric so much?
Let me take a moment to thank, and commend, you for actually asking.
If I ever picked apart the new Cleric, that was unintentional and a by-product of picking apart the claims that the changes "made sense," or that Clerics "needed to lose Heavy Armor," or that "everything they got made up for the changes." I think you will notice that I never picked apart any statement to liking, or enjoying, the changes.
What it boils down to is the changes to the Cleric irritate me.
Clerics are the only class to have anything removed. Not just tweaked. Not just altered. But actually removed. And they really didn't get any new options either.
Sure there are feat options to get those back... But why should the Cleric have to be the only class that has to buy back what it had?
And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.
And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.
Wanting the Fighter and Paladin to be the only classes to start with Heavy Armor proficiency is outrageous?
My question is this...what would make you happy with the cleric class? Heavy Armor Proficiency? Save or Die spells back in? Full BaB? Something else entirely? I'm curious...I've seen you pick apart the new cleric class alot, but most fo the time you just leave it at "the cleric was more powerful in 3.5" and drop it, so would you mind elaborating a bit about what it is you miss from the 3.5 cleric so much?Let me take a moment to thank, and commend, you for actually asking.
If I ever picked apart the new Cleric, that was unintentional and a by-product of picking apart the claims that the changes "made sense," or that Clerics "needed to lose Heavy Armor," or that "everything they got made up for the changes." I think you will notice that I never picked apart any statement to liking, or enjoying, the changes.
What it boils down to is the changes to the Cleric irritate me.
Clerics are the only class to have anything removed. Not just tweaked. Not just altered. But actually removed. And they really didn't get any new options either.
Sure there are feat options to get those back... But why should the Cleric have to be the only class that has to buy back what it had?And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.
No probs, I've tried to before, don't think I quite stated it very well when I did though =)
I kinda getcha on the irritation. Mine stretches back a bit further I think (to 3.0, not trying to rehash that one though), and so while I do see somethings having been changed (dramatically in some cases) that have always been one way (a point I think anyone on either side of the debate/arguement/issue or whatever the term is these days can agree on), when I look at the system as a whole, and the...I dunno...feel of playing/running it...it reminds me much more of what made me fall in love with RPG's almost 25 years ago. True, thats just me, I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that feeling of finding that feeling without having to go back and dig up old books and find a group willing to play the old system, to me, makes up for the changing of certain things (and others...well, thats what houserules are for).
Alot of it comes down to opinion, especially on forums, since in very few cases will people actually break out the probability models and situations and try and prove their points mathmatically...and I think in some cases, that would be really hard to do (like in the clerical heavy armor thing...breastplate vs full plate, both cap at the AC 20 before counting shields and magic and feats, its how they get to that 20 that seems to matter so much) and prove one way better than the other...in others, maybe not so much. Either way, nice to know where your coming from...makes it much less likely to interpret something as a flame, and helps me resist the impulse to flame =)
|
|
What it boils down to is the changes to the Cleric irritate me.
Clerics are the only class to have anything removed. Not just tweaked. Not just altered. But actually removed. And they really didn't get any new options either.
I guess we need to think is terms of the how "balance" (whatever that means) was approached. You either (A) raise up everything not balanced to the most powerful things (let's for argument sake say that was found to be the cleric of 3.5e) or (B) you bring somethings up and others down to some to the "balanced" level of power.
If some things have been "nerfed" (is that really a word?) then it would seem that Jason has gone with option (B). Clerics are the "losers" if you choose to look at it that way, but over all the game may end a "winner" because of it. After all what class would logically be better at sacrifice than a cleric?
I understand that people hate having things taken off them, anyone like tax? But if we stick with the tax metaphor then our loss is the countries gain - roads, hospitals, schools etc etc. So it's not that I'm not saying your feeling of loss isn't well founded, because it is you DID lose somethings. But perhaps consider the boarder game?
2 cents,
S.
Thanks! I'm actually getting ready to run a mage and hadn't paid attention to that. Doesn't look like Universalist wizards get a capstone, though....
EDIT: Sorry for the threadjack. :)
Yeah, the Universalist got the shaft.
No problem. This thread doesn't appear to be going anywhere. Go figure. Over 1000 posts about Clerics not getting heavy armor prof. but no one cares that they get nothing for going all the way up to level 20. :S
Hand of the Apprentice (Su): You cause your melee weapon
to fly from your grasp and strike a foe before instantly
returning to you. As a standard action, you can make a single
attack using a melee weapon at a range of 30 feet. This attack
is treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, except
that you add your Intelligence modifier on the attack roll
instead of your Dexterity modifier (damage still relies on
Strength). This ability cannot be used to perform a combat
maneuver. At twentieth level, you may instead use this
ability to affix a sign on the back of your enemy that says
"Kick me." This displays how you feel about your decision to
be of the Universalist school. You can use this ability a
number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Frankly, I think Universalists should've gotten a bit more, especially when you compare it to the other schools. Before, the attraction to Universalism was the ability to craft lots of stuff. Now you don't need to do that, and the bonus to your chosen school is supposed to be balanced with the minuses to the schools you don't want.
Transmutation? School with the most spells, you get +5 to two stats, you get to use Universalists' Hand of the Adept (except you don't need a weapon to use it, and it's a ranged touch attack versus ranged attack), and you get shorter duration of greater polymorph.
Universalist? Access to all spells with no bonuses (or penalties), you get a lesser form of Telekinetic Fist, and you have suck up the fact that you have to use metamagic feats as a wizard, or ignore school powers altogether.
I think there are two possible solutions to this dilemma, however. Only allow universalists access to the Universal school spells, and add a few more, or rebalance the schools to make them more equal.
Frankly, I think Universalists should've gotten a bit more, especially when you compare it to the other schools. Before, the attraction to Universalism was the ability to craft lots of stuff. Now you don't need to do that, and the bonus to your chosen school is supposed to be balanced with the minuses to the schools you don't want.
Transmutation? School with the most spells, you get +5 to two stats, you get to use Universalists' Hand of the Adept (except you don't need a weapon to use it, and it's a ranged touch attack versus ranged attack), and you get shorter duration of greater polymorph.
Universalist? Access to all spells with no bonuses (or penalties), you get a lesser form of Telekinetic Fist, and you have suck up the fact that you have to use metamagic feats as a wizard, or ignore school powers altogether.
I think there are two possible solutions to this dilemma, however. Only allow universalists access to the Universal school spells, and add a few more, or rebalance the schools to make them more equal.
Universalists did get soemthing good though...they give up less to multiclass into prestige classes like Arcane Archer or Eldritch Knight...might not seem like much, its something alot of people seem to just dismiss or ignore.
Universalists did get soemthing good though...they give up less to multiclass into prestige classes like Arcane Archer or Eldritch Knight...might not seem like much, its something alot of people seem to just dismiss or ignore.Frankly, I think Universalists should've gotten a bit more, especially when you compare it to the other schools. Before, the attraction to Universalism was the ability to craft lots of stuff. Now you don't need to do that, and the bonus to your chosen school is supposed to be balanced with the minuses to the schools you don't want.
Transmutation? School with the most spells, you get +5 to two stats, you get to use Universalists' Hand of the Adept (except you don't need a weapon to use it, and it's a ranged touch attack versus ranged attack), and you get shorter duration of greater polymorph.
Universalist? Access to all spells with no bonuses (or penalties), you get a lesser form of Telekinetic Fist, and you have suck up the fact that you have to use metamagic feats as a wizard, or ignore school powers altogether.
I think there are two possible solutions to this dilemma, however. Only allow universalists access to the Universal school spells, and add a few more, or rebalance the schools to make them more equal.
I will have to look at this more closely. But generally, multiclassing as a caster can be hazardous to one's character.
I will have to look at this more closely. But generally, multiclassing as a caster can be hazardous to one's character.Universalists did get soemthing good though...they give up less to multiclass into prestige classes like Arcane Archer or Eldritch Knight...might not seem like much, its something alot of people seem to just dismiss or ignore.Frankly, I think Universalists should've gotten a bit more, especially when you compare it to the other schools. Before, the attraction to Universalism was the ability to craft lots of stuff. Now you don't need to do that, and the bonus to your chosen school is supposed to be balanced with the minuses to the schools you don't want.
Transmutation? School with the most spells, you get +5 to two stats, you get to use Universalists' Hand of the Adept (except you don't need a weapon to use it, and it's a ranged touch attack versus ranged attack), and you get shorter duration of greater polymorph.
Universalist? Access to all spells with no bonuses (or penalties), you get a lesser form of Telekinetic Fist, and you have suck up the fact that you have to use metamagic feats as a wizard, or ignore school powers altogether.
I think there are two possible solutions to this dilemma, however. Only allow universalists access to the Universal school spells, and add a few more, or rebalance the schools to make them more equal.
Eh, as I said, it might not seem like much...but Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight (and I suppose Arcane Trickster, but less so, as I could see an illusionist going that route easily) are multiclass prestige classes. Fighter/Mage prestige classes to be precise. Universalist seems to be a solid choice for them, since your not giving up much to go ito them, whereas most specialists have some pretty nifty abilities they get for staying single classed.
|
|
You know what you guys AREN'T doing?
You aren't complaining about the horrible omission of spells from the fighter class.
I think this is a terrible oversight on the part of PAIZO, and I want it corrected!
Also, no capstone ability! Jeez, so horribly underpowered...but not as bad as the bard, he just kinda sucks completely.
Oh, wait! OMFG!!!!!11!! The Monk has no armor OR spells! How could this be?!?
BUT seriously, guys, you can complain about this all you want, but its like you guys are in a restaurant (say, OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE) with a litlle, starving Ugandan child seated next to you, and you have a Surf and Turf in front of you, while the little Ugandan boy has only an apple, and you start loudly complaining that YOU don't have an apple, too.
Just think of the little Ugandan boy. He has flies swarming around has eyes, and an obscenely bulging stomach, possibly from starving and lack of food. Just think, that's all I ask.
And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.Wanting the Fighter and Paladin to be the only classes to start with Heavy Armor proficiency is outrageous?
If that is your sole reason for taking it away from then cleric, then yes it is. Making a change like that for a non-balance related reasons is outrageous.
If that is your sole reason for taking it away from then cleric, then yes it is. Making a change like that for a non-balance related reasons is outrageous.And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.Wanting the Fighter and Paladin to be the only classes to start with Heavy Armor proficiency is outrageous?
What if its for a fluff reason? Is it still outrageous?
What if its for a fluff reason? Is it still outrageous?If that is your sole reason for taking it away from then cleric, then yes it is. Making a change like that for a non-balance related reasons is outrageous.And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.Wanting the Fighter and Paladin to be the only classes to start with Heavy Armor proficiency is outrageous?
Does fluff = balance, theres your answer.
And thus the Heavy Armor Proficiency thingy finds its way over here as well...
Just to clarify, it is not like I mind or anything. I simply feel that the subject has been talked to beyond death, which led to the closing of the associated thread.
The gist of it all seems to be that there are those who dislike the change because they see it as a "nerf" power-wise, those that dislike it because they see it as a change of the cleric's image flavor-wise, those who think that it hardly constitutes such a big deal (I include myself in this category; to put it bluntly, I find the cleric's overall power and versatility to be affected to such an infinitesimal degree by this "nerf" as to be inconsequential, rules-wise anyway) and those that find the change welcome or even much-needed.
Methinks we should all simply agree to disagree and put the poor creature that this argument has become to its much needed rest.
Now on with the capstone discussion. Thank you and good night good sirs and madames... *Takes a bow*
And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.Wanting the Fighter and Paladin to be the only classes to start with Heavy Armor proficiency is outrageous?
Yes. Absolutely so.
It is completely outrageous that two classes got together, and were so jealous of a third class sharing a proficiency, that the third class had to lose said proficiency. Even more so once you factor in the third class had that proficiency just as long as one, and longer than the other of the two initial classes.
What if its for a fluff reason? Is it still outrageous?If that is your sole reason for taking it away from then cleric, then yes it is. Making a change like that for a non-balance related reasons is outrageous.And, for the most part, the reasoning behind the removal is as outrageous as the removal.Wanting the Fighter and Paladin to be the only classes to start with Heavy Armor proficiency is outrageous?
Even more so.
Then the change should have been in a setting book, and not the Core book that is supposed to world independent.
I guess we need to think is terms of the how "balance" (whatever that means) was approached. You either (A) raise up everything not balanced to the most powerful things (let's for argument sake say that was found to be the cleric of 3.5e) or (B) you bring somethings up and others down to some to the "balanced" level of power.
If some things have been "nerfed" (is that really a word?) then it would seem that Jason has gone with option (B). Clerics are the "losers" if you choose to look at it that way, but over all the game may end a "winner" because of it. After all what class would logically be better at sacrifice than a cleric?
I understand that people hate having things taken off them, anyone like tax? But if we stick with the tax metaphor then our loss is the countries gain - roads, hospitals, schools etc etc. So it's not that I'm not saying your feeling of loss isn't well founded, because it is you DID lose somethings. But perhaps consider the boarder game?
2 cents,
S.
That almost works, and I could accept that... IF, the things that were taken away from the Cleric can be pointed to while saying "those hurt the game." Had Pathfinder taken the path of "we don't want to mess around with the 3 spells whose power combined forms CoDzilla, so we removed them from the game instead," I could accept that change. Even though I wouldn't like it. Because those three spells hurt the game for many.
Can even the most passionately pro-Pathfinder Cleric person say that if you gave the Pathfinder Cleric back Heavy Armor proficiency, and rolled Turn/Command Undead into Channel (even "as is," meaning when you channel you pick one of three choices: heal type, hurt other type, or Turn/Control Undead with no other effect) that the Cleric would hurt the game at all?If not, then I can neither buy it, nor accept it.
I don't know, it could be done. Maybe the Travel and Charm Domains, maybe Trickery, 1 or 2 levels of Rogue. I'd say 10-12 Str and Con, 12+ Int, and 14+ Dex, Wis, and Cha. Possibly a Divine version of the Arcane Trickster?
I really wish that the Cleric didn't have to multiclass for something like this, but hey.
3.5 Had a Divine Feat that allowed Rogue and Cleric Levels to stack for Turning and Sneak Attack, called Holy Outlaw.
Dude in a home game this would be easy....
In any home game... it would take the GM maybe 5 min to make the cleric a little better in melee (or use one the million options in the d20 system) except that I plan on playin this character in the Pathfinder Campaign. So I'm limited to the PF book for the most part.
~~~~~~~~ @Dissinger
8 Intellegance? Remember the discription, - witty -... you can't be witty saying "Ummmmm ya well... well.... your mother is a pig!"
Besdies even with your build what would I be doing in melee? 1d6+1? maybe an amazing d6+2 if i buff before the fight.
at higher levels the fact is even this character ends up far in the back casting his cleric spells and blasting people, you just created a mage that can heal and use some armor.
I don't know, it could be done. Maybe the Travel and Charm Domains, maybe Trickery, 1 or 2 levels of Rogue. I'd say 10-12 Str and Con, 12+ Int, and 14+ Dex, Wis, and Cha. Possibly a Divine version of the Arcane Trickster?
I really wish that the Cleric didn't have to multiclass for something like this, but hey.
3.5 Had a Divine Feat that allowed Rogue and Cleric Levels to stack for Turning and Sneak Attack, called Holy Outlaw.
Dude in a home game this would be easy....
In any home game... it would take the GM maybe 5 min to make the cleric a little better in melee (or use one the million options in the d20 system) except that I plan on playin this character in the Pathfinder Campaign. So I'm limited to the PF book for the most part.
~~~~~~~~ @Dissinger
8 Intellegance? Remember the discription, - witty -... you can't be witty saying "Ummmmm ya well... well.... your mother is a pig!"
Besdies even with your build what would I be doing in melee? 1d6+1? maybe an amazing d6+2 if i buff before the fight.
at higher levels the fact is even this character ends up far in the back casting his cleric spells and blasting people, you just created a mage that can heal and use some armor.
Worse then not being witty, a swashbuckler needs skill points. Climb, acrobatics, perform dance, diplomacy, bluff, ride, and a couple points in various knowledge skills so he has things to talk about at parties. An 8 int means he isn't going to be good at most of that.
For swashbucklers I like a basis as either a bard or rogue. Gives you plenty of inclass skills and a large number of skill points to help get you started. For me, with 15 point build I would go:
str 10
dex 14 (16 for being human)
con 10
int 13
Wis 14
cha 12
Take one or two bard/rogue levels put all your points in wis, and roll. You can wear breast plate if you need to, but walking aroung with a chain shirt is fine too. Your DPS will not be great but take weapon finesse and combat expert at first then dodge, and maybe grab a shield, your AC could be pretty decent and that will keep you alive buffing and disarming foes in the front ranks.
My thought is the cleric is THE defensive class in the game. Go with your strength, build better defenses. Doing that keeps you able to be in the front rank just as much as having more melee power.
For those that think the Cleric is underbalanced, have any of you ever house ruled that they can just add domain spells to their spell list as opposed to being limited to one per level per day?
I did something similar... took away the domain slot and spontaneous heal/inflict, allowed spontaneous domain casting instead. (Of course one domain still has spontaneous heals, and one has spontaneous inflicts.)
For starters, it gets rid of the situation where of your two available spells, one never sees play because why would you memorize that crap? Admittedly this didn't play through to the very top end (cleric with spontaneous Wail of the Banshee? Hmm...) and it's possible that some additional cost, like spending a Channel use, would be good for balance. But really... dunno, it felt about right. And it was WAY easier to explain to a new player than the difference between normal and domain slots.
~~~~~~~~ @Dissinger
8 Intellegance? Remember the discription, - witty -... you can't be witty saying "Ummmmm ya well... well.... your mother is a pig!"
Besdies even with your build what would I be doing in melee? 1d6+1? maybe an amazing d6+2 if i buff before the fight.
at higher levels the fact is even this character ends up far in the back casting his cleric spells and blasting people, you just created a mage that can heal and use some armor.
I know this wasn't directed at me but if I may. 3.5 and Pathfinder are very robust, versatile systems...but there are breaking points. When you want to make a straight up, 20 level Fighter a great spell caster, it doesn't work so well. When you want to make a tank Wizard without multiclassing, it's tough. And when you want to make a Cleric into an agility based melee swashbuckler type, again you're hitting another exact opposite of a class' strengths. When you pick an exact opposite, it's hard to remain great in your main field and not be horribly mediocre in opposite land. Without monster stats, it just doesn't work well. Something has to give. This is what multiclassing is for. A Rogue/Cleric, Bard/Cleric or Fighter/Cleric can make wonderful Swashbuckler type characters. Clerics by themselves work about as well as the tank Wizard though.
For those that think the Cleric is underbalanced, have any of you ever house ruled that they can just add domain spells to their spell list as opposed to being limited to one per level per day?I did something similar... took away the domain slot and spontaneous heal/inflict, allowed spontaneous domain casting instead. (Of course one domain still has spontaneous heals, and one has spontaneous inflicts.)
For starters, it gets rid of the situation where of your two available spells, one never sees play because why would you memorize that crap? Admittedly this didn't play through to the very top end (cleric with spontaneous Wail of the Banshee? Hmm...) and it's possible that some additional cost, like spending a Channel use, would be good for balance. But really... dunno, it felt about right. And it was WAY easier to explain to a new player than the difference between normal and domain slots.
I like the sound of that. I wonder if the Oracle will function similar to this (except for being a spontaneous caster all around).
|
For those that think the Cleric is underbalanced, have any of you ever house ruled that they can just add domain spells to their spell list as opposed to being limited to one per level per day? Memorize as many as you want.
Just curious.
In 3.5, I (as an experiment) just made Clerics straight up spontanious casters. I merged the Favored Soul and the Cleric. They got the Weapon Proficiency, nd the feats from Favored Soul, and used the spells per day. They got the two Domains (spells automatically on spells known list) and Cleric Turning/Rebuking, skills, base attack, saves, etc. . . nd used only Wisdom for Spllcasting. Most people have really liked it, because they typically only used some spells a lot, and didn't pick others ever or rarely, but itals cut donw on the work for the Cleric Player having to pick spell for the day.
The one that complained was mostly because he wanted to do something broken anyway (thouh in a fun way). I think it worked well. For both god and evil clerics, they had the same ability t heal, if they chose to, but also had the ability to cast any spell multiple times, inculding Domain spells. But it wasn't the Domain spells that hey really enjoyed, as much as not being put in the situation that if their one memorized spell failed, they were screwed. It made a big difference, but it was mostly a difference in the fun of the game, not the mechanics. It also made every Cleric unique, but still fairly easy to assume what sells to expect, which was great.
(for tht one player, he wanted to play a Warmage that went into the Rainbow Servant (augmented to be a Pheonix Servant rather than Coatel), and I told him he would get the same spells as a spontanious Cleric rather than the entire freakin Cleric Spell List)
In 3.5, I (as an experiment) just made Clerics straight up spontanious casters...
Sounds interesting. You're right, Cleric has a spell list that probably works better as spontaneous casting. There's a lot of worthless spells in there. I've always thought that domain spells were a great way to bring a unique flavor to your character but the fact that you only get to cast one of the two per level kind of ruins it. "I've got Fireball :) ...but I can only cast it once per day. :("
I'm hoping the Oracle will bring something like this into RAW.
In 3.5, I (as an experiment) just made Clerics straight up spontanious casters...Sounds interesting. You're right, Cleric has a spell list that probably works better as spontaneous casting. There's a lot of worthless spells in there. I've always thought that domain spells were a great way to bring a unique flavor to your character but the fact that you only get to cast one of the two per level kind of ruins it. "I've got Fireball :) ...but I can only cast it once per day. :("
I'm hoping the Oracle will bring something like this into RAW.
In 1st ed back in the '80s my DM allows clerics to cast spontanously. But frankly back then the cleric was underpowered. His melee was limited by a lack of exceptional strength, reduce con bonuses for high con, only one attack per round, and the war hammer did a d4 +1....we used to call it the war ballpeen hammer. He had a few offensive spells worth his time, though sticks to snakes was very powerful. And even his healing was no match for the damage you would sometimes take. So he did it to up the classes power some.
|
|
In 3.5, I (as an experiment) just made Clerics straight up spontanious casters...Sounds interesting. You're right, Cleric has a spell list that probably works better as spontaneous casting. There's a lot of worthless spells in there. I've always thought that domain spells were a great way to bring a unique flavor to your character but the fact that you only get to cast one of the two per level kind of ruins it. "I've got Fireball :) ...but I can only cast it once per day. :("
I'm hoping the Oracle will bring something like this into RAW.
It's not that there are any "useless" spells, as much as that the Ceric in question just never has a need to cast them. hat, however, is more a DM fault than anything else.
Clerics are the only class to have anything removed. Not just tweaked. Not just altered. But actually removed.
And we're not even wearing anything under this heavy armor. Have they no shame.
Clerics are the only class to have anything removed. Not just tweaked. Not just altered. But actually removed.And we're not even wearing anything under this heavy armor. Have they no shame.
Just for spite my wizard digs through his oldest spellbook and casts glassteel on your armor.
|
|
You were pretty close. I believe it actually started as Cleric of Doom zilla, and Druids were added later.Cleric or Druid zillaThanks! That was nagging the heck out of me. Plus I only had one out the three words right. I was going with Cleric of Death/Destruction and things like that. They need a forum footnotes page or something here. :)
No, I remember the post it originated from on the WotC forums. It was always Cleric or Druid.
All the same, I'm in the camp that thinks clerics are better than ever in this iteration.Must be a small camp. I'll admit that they needed nerfed because they were way too powerful in 3.5 so I can't see how anyone would think that they're better. That would mean that they are even more broken than ever.
Cleric and Universalist Wizard didnt get any capstones because they would be considered unbalanced. Considering how spells were weakened I have to say that is a weak premise. I would suggest capstones on the domains like the wizard specialists get for their schools, or maybe expand make channel energy affect outsidersI don't really think balance is an issue once you reach level 20. The capstone powers are all over the place. One grants energy immunity and another grants the same immunity plus resistance to everything else plus DR and so on. If the classes are supposed to be balanced from levels 1 through 20 then the capstones aren't going for balance at or beyond 20.
Four Words: PLAY THREE POINT FIVE.
You've thrown down the gauntlet more than once on this cleric issue, and instead of listening to reason and contemplating what others are saying, you're rambling on and on about how the cleric got the shaft. I have news for you, it didn't. "Must be a small camp?" "better = more broken than ever?" What does that EVEN mean?
Here, hold my hand, allow me to walk you down a little road I like to call Reason.
(i) The Rogue is not broken, or overbalanced. (A statement I think we all can agree with.)
(a) Like the Rouge, a Cleric gets 3/4 BA.
(b) Like the Rouge, a Cleric gets an ability to heal/do damage that scales by level (arguably a better ability considering you don't have to make a skill check, or wait for a surprise round to use it.)
(c) Like the Rouge with its insane class skills and skills per level, a Cleric gets something really amazing that it does very well, Spells. Except, the Cleric's spells are much more versatile than a rouges skills, and you get to pick two specializations, i.e. Domains.
(d) On top of this you're proficient with Medium armor, and can wear it without worrying about spell failure.
(ii) The Cleric class is balanced when held up to the Rogue class.
(:.) CONCLUSION: The Cleric class is balanced, and balanced = better. That's right, better does not (as you seem to think) equal more broken than ever.
If we were to add to the Cleric a Heavy Armor prof, or a fighters BA progression, or any of the other absurd things you suggest, it would be the only class anyone would ever play, because it would be broken.
I'm sorry the only class you ever played (presumably because it was unbalanced and you realized you could exploit this) got nerfed, I really am. But in the immortal words of Bob Dylan: you better start swimmin or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a'changin.
Your glassteel will only further protect me from the rusting grasp being cast on me in this thread.
Again, that was quite clearly a rushing grasp.
"Wilderness of mirrors,
World of polished steel"
...okay, maybe Meepo's spell will still help.
...okay, maybe Meepo's spell will still help.
Incidentally, I was only posting as Epic Meepo because the glasteel made my helm tranparent, thus revealing my identity. But now my helm is fixed, so I am Heavily Armored Cleric once more.
|
|
Here, hold my hand, allow me to walk you down a little road I like to call Reason.
]
This really come off as pure douchey, man. Your "reason" is no better than or more logical anyone elses "reason" is. :)
(i) The Rogue is not broken, or overbalanced. (A statement I think we all can agree with.)
:)
Yah, in my experience, the 3E rogue is completely BS and broken, and PF went a lot into making it even worse. "Broken" is 100% a matter of opinion, and that is my honest opinion. Every single time a player has screwed up a game, they have been a Rogue and twisted all those "not versetile enough" skills around to both destroy the story and backstab other players (and their characters). There is extremely little you can't do with a Rogue. :)This is also one of the few cases where it is not (just) the player, and not just a single class feature. The entire Rogue class is entirely too easy to overpower and break.
|
|
In 3.5, I (as an experiment) just made Clerics straight up spontanious casters.
I'd considered giving Bards, Clerics, Druids, Adepts, Paladins and Rangers the option at 1st level of being Spontaneous casters or Prepared casters.
If they chose Prepared, they'd have the same potentially unlimited spell lists, the same spells / day, etc. but have to carry a prayerbook around and prepare spells from the list of rites and oblations that they actually have learned (same as a Wizard 3 + stat mod at 1st, +2 spells / day, plus any they pay to add to their prayerbooks).
If they chose Spontaneous, they'd have a small list of spells known (like a Sorcerer), but be able to cast 1 more spell / level of spells each day, and cast flexibly from their list of spells known (with either healing spells, inflict spells or summon nature's ally spells counting as 'free' spells known, for good clerics, evil clerics and druids respectively).
Basically, *every* class would learn and acquire spells as they were a Wizard (buy 'em all!) or Sorcerer (just a few, but spontaneous casting).
This would be a *huge* nerf to Clerics and Druids, who currently enjoy unlimited access to their spell lists, without having to spend money to adds spells to their prepared lists, but I kinda liked the idea (despite Cleric and Druid being the two classes I play most).
|
|
Depending on how low you cut the spells known down, it really isn't that big a nerf for Clerics. It sort of is for Druids. Clerics typically don't prepair a huge variety of spells over their career. In the sense that they often don't change day to day much. They tend to stay with the same basic spells based on their concept. So by making them spontanious, what your really doing is 1.) not making them decide between which of their "good" spells to lose for a Cure _____ Wounds, and 2.) not making them worry about how many times to prepair _____, in case it fails when absolutely needed. Lesser Restoration is a perfect low level example. It is a good spell to have, but not always used. You never really know when you are going to need it, or how often, but if you only have one, some one is dying and "oops", you just failed concentration to cast it, well it leave the player feeling pretty crappy and cheated.
For those that think the Cleric is underbalanced, have any of you ever house ruled that they can just add domain spells to their spell list as opposed to being limited to one per level per day? Memorize as many as you want.
Just curious.
I'm not entirely sure if my reply will be relevant, as it deals solely with the 3.5 context and not PF ...
In a word: "no" (with one exception). I do not allow the Clerics to memorise their domain spells in their regular spell slots, as that would cheapen the special abilities of certain deity-specific prestige classes to do the same.
The exception would be that if the Cleric character in question gave something else up, then it might be possible. There are many class feature alternatives in the multitude of 3.5 spatbooks.
As an aside, I too have experimented with the Favoured Soul. Usually either the resistances or the weapon feats (and always the wings) were cut in favour of either turning undead and/or domain access (which meant that a domain spell could be chosen as one of the spells known - not as a bonus spell known). The good Reflex save was also dropped.