Sorry for the misunderstanding. I used "base ability" to describe something which is not part of the class' special powers (ie special ability, spellcasting, feats ...), such as BAB, HP, skill points, saves and proficiencies. I did not mean that this specific proficiency was an intrinsic part of the class.But it is I believe the only place where a basic class lost one of its base abilities so it had to ruffle some people's feathers.Not throwing a stone or breaking out a flamethrower...just you said something I've been trying to figure out the words for (even bolded it I did)...
I'm curious as to why certain things (in the clerics example in this case, heavy armor use) is considered a 'base ability' when it has no real effect on them doing their intended job? Like I said, I'm not trying to flame here, I'm honestly curious...where should the line between defining class features and 'the other stuff' be?
Nah, I got what you meant...like I said, its something I've been trying to phrase in a simple way, and you did it well.
Lot's of opinions ...
Factually removing feats does not add more build freedom, it removes some. If you have a feat you can choose to not use it, if you don't have it you can't chose to use it. You can spend a feat to recover it, but then that means you have less freedom to make your build how you would like. Less feats does not equal more freedom.
Touch spells in melee...casting in melee is now harder then in pervious editions, so that isn't near as attractive as it once was.
The cleric in most builds...you surveyed all players and found this out? You do release that the vast majority of players never post or even read boards for MMOs I would hazard to guess it is at best the same with PnP games, so even if the majority of posters declared they never played a front ling cleric, it would still be a small sample of the whole. Look maybe you never play melee clerics, others do. The majority may or may not play melee builds, certainly in 3.5 the majority of the problems with the cleric were with melee builds, the spells made clerics a strong replacement for any of the "fighter" type classes. Not the armor, but the spells they had that buffed them to the nines. So it would seem at least based on that fact that some or a noticeable amount play clerical melee builds.
Oh and the domains in pathfinder need lots of work, they simply do.
Still there is no need for yet another thread about this. Keep it in the cleric thread already existing, spreading this issue to more threads will only clog up the boards, or do you seriously think each person with their different view should start a new thread on the topic?
Lot's of opinions ...
Factually removing feats does not add more build freedom, it removes some. If you have a feat you can choose to not use it, if you don't have it you can't chose to use it. You can spend a feat to recover it, but then that means you have less freedom to make your build how you would like. Less feats does not equal more freedom.
If all they did was remove the option to wear full plate, then you would be correct. The thing is, they added a lot of other more interesting things via the domains and channel energy. They left specializing in melee combat up to the player rather than shoehorning the class into the role.
Touch spells in melee...casting in melee is now harder then in pervious editions, so that isn't near as attractive as it once was.
Which makes the Cleric's improved ability to do so more attractive.
The cleric in most builds...you surveyed all players and found this out?
I left my survey of all players at home... I think my dog ate it. My experience with this comes from years of play and anecdotal sources, sir, the same as the rest of us. Insinuating that I have to conduct market research for a boards post or to even have an opinion is not the basis of an argument.
You do release that the vast majority of players never post or even read boards for MMOs I would hazard to guess it is at best the same with PnP games, so even if the majority of posters declared they never played a front ling cleric, it would still be a small sample of the whole.
Now you're assuming my only contact with other gamers is message boards?
Look maybe you never play melee clerics, others do.
I don't, not really. The Cleric I'm playing does spend the majority of his time flanking for the Rogue though. He's doing just fine. My wife played a Warpriest in 3.5. It was pretty cool, but her best and most sought-after abilities were still healing and offensive spells such as dispel magic.
The majority may or may not play melee builds, certainly in 3.5 the majority of the problems with the cleric were with melee builds, the spells made clerics a strong replacement for any of the "fighter" type classes. Not the armor, but the spells they had that buffed them to the nines. So it would seem at least based on that fact that some or a noticeable amount play clerical melee builds.
That's an interesting observation. I'll have to take your word for it because my group has rarely used this concept. As a DM, I don't think I gave/give my players the opportunities to prepare for combat as often or as readily as some other DMs might. My perception of this may be due to DM style.
Oh and the domains in pathfinder need lots of work, they simply do.
I'm afraid I disagree, but being an opinion, I don't think there's much we can glean from further wrangling the subject.
Still there is no need for yet another thread about this. Keep it in the cleric thread already existing, spreading this issue to more threads will only clog up the boards, or do you seriously think each person with their different view should start a new thread on the topic?
Well, I was trying to push all the pieces into one thread and create a platform which would make it easy to discuss the points individually or en masse. I was also trying to spell out the overall balance of the class mathematically and in relation to the other classes to help enlighten some folks on what might be the reason(s) for any changes that were made that seemed limiting.
I agree with the overall sentiment! Clerics are fun to play, and the loss of heavy armor proficiency isn't really a loss except on paper. Especially with all the other cool new things clerics get in Pathfinder. (The fact that clerics were one of the #1 choices for PCs in the RPG sorta proves the point that they were a little too good. Especially once the Complete Splat Brigade arrived and boosted their capacities to the stratosphere.)
|
I agree with the overall sentiment! Clerics are fun to play, and the loss of heavy armor proficiency isn't really a loss except on paper. Especially with all the other cool new things clerics get in Pathfinder. (The fact that clerics were one of the #1 choices for PCs in the RPG sorta proves the point that they were a little too good. Especially once the Complete Splat Brigade arrived and boosted their capacities to the stratosphere.)
Huh? Maybe in the RPGA (but that I doubt, too), but in the RPG they are almost always one of the least picked.
|
I agree with the overall sentiment! Clerics are fun to play, and the loss of heavy armor proficiency isn't really a loss except on paper. Especially with all the other cool new things clerics get in Pathfinder. (The fact that clerics were one of the #1 choices for PCs in the RPG sorta proves the point that they were a little too good. Especially once the Complete Splat Brigade arrived and boosted their capacities to the stratosphere.)Huh? Maybe in the RPGA (but that I doubt, too), but in the RPG they are almost always one of the least picked.
Got some proof to lay down there bucko? I always hear about games involving clerics. I don't seem to hear too many about the other healers. (I.E. Bard and Druid)
|
|
I don't have any facts or world wide list of how many people play what, but it is pretty much universal, no one wants to be stuck playing the cleric. If you honestly have more people gunning for Cleric than Druid, you are a pretty rare exception, I'd say.
Are we talking about two different things, maybe? I mean that the over all desire to play Clerics in 3E, not Clerics as the best healer role, or the newest PF only.
Ooops, yes, forgot a letter. RPGA. :)
Yes, I have proof. First hand, which is admittedly not statistical, but hey, it's what I got. I DMed for several years running at a local convention that needed RPGA-certified DMs. Every game there were a minimum of two, sometimes as many as four clerics per party, no PrCs for those classes. Most other characters varied widely, with almost a minimum of one PrC per build.
|
Got some proof to lay down there bucko? I always hear about games involving clerics. I don't seem to hear too many about the other healers. (I.E. Bard and Druid)
Unless there is evidence (for both sides), then neither side really has a base to stand on with this argument.
Edit: and I don't mean hear-say evidence either. :p
My cousin's friend's dad's word doesn't count.
I have seen mathematical proofs in great number and yours starts poorly and thus ends worse. Givens: in math are facts, not guesses or opinions, they are provable or accepted as fact statements upon which you will base your argument. When investigating the validity of a mathematical proof you start by making sure the foundation is solid, then build out from there to make sure the foundation supports the statements that follow. Your foundation is based in bias opinions passed off as givens, followed by unsubstantiated suppositions. Whether I agreed with you or not what you are doing is claiming to prove an opinion using the mathematical model in such a way that it can only invalidate your conclusions.
Applying mathematics to the issue of the cleric class would require a detailed numeric analysis of the class’ potential abilities and comparing them in a non-bias manner to all other classes, or at least one other class. I see nowhere in which you broke down the classes abilities in anything resembling a mathematical model, lacking that your “proof” has nothing at all to do with any math, or even science for that matter.
If you instead want to form a logical argument well you again claim as fact matters that are clearly in dispute. That is a flawed start to be sure. It is more advantageous to begin with the undisputed and move from there so as to give yourself some small about of credibility in your conclusions. But you didn’t even attempt to do that.
All of that leaves me to conclude that your proof is lacking in any substantive value. Thank you good sir but I find your proof wanting.
|
|
Got some proof to lay down there bucko? I always hear about games involving clerics. I don't seem to hear too many about the other healers. (I.E. Bard and Druid)Unless there is evidence (for both sides), then neither side really has a base to stand on with this argument.
Edit: and I don't mean hear-say evidence either. :p
My cousin's friend's dad's word doesn't count.
I'm not trying to have an arguement. What was said is completely contrary to my experience, which is fairly large and spread out. It did in fact turn out we are talking about two different things.
|
|
I have seen mathematical proofs in great number and yours starts poorly and thus ends worse. Givens: in math are facts, not guesses or opinions, they are provable or accepted as fact statements upon which you will base your argument. When investigating the validity of a mathematical proof you start by making sure the foundation is solid, then build out from there to make sure the foundation supports the statements that follow. Your foundation is based in bias opinions passed off as givens, followed by unsubstantiated suppositions. Whether I agreed with you or not what you are doing is claiming to prove an opinion using the mathematical model in such a way that it can only invalidate your conclusions.
Applying mathematics to the issue of the cleric class would require a detailed numeric analysis of the class’ potential abilities and comparing them in a non-bias manner to all other classes, or at least one other class. I see nowhere in which you broke down the classes abilities in anything resembling a mathematical model, lacking that your “proof” has nothing at all to do with any math, or even science for that matter.
If you instead want to form a logical argument well you again claim as fact matters that are clearly in dispute. That is a flawed start to be sure. It is more advantageous to begin with the undisputed and move from there so as to give yourself some small about of credibility in your conclusions. But you didn’t even attempt to do that.
All of that leaves me to conclude that your proof is lacking in any substantive value. Thank you good sir but I find your proof wanting.
Not trying to be rude, but huh? Who are you talking to?
Not trying to be rude, but huh? Who are you talking to?
I have seen mathematical proofs in great number and yours starts poorly and thus ends worse. Givens: in math are facts, not guesses or opinions, they are provable or accepted as fact statements upon which you will base your argument. When investigating the validity of a mathematical proof you start by making sure the foundation is solid, then build out from there to make sure the foundation supports the statements that follow. Your foundation is based in bias opinions passed off as givens, followed by unsubstantiated suppositions. Whether I agreed with you or not what you are doing is claiming to prove an opinion using the mathematical model in such a way that it can only invalidate your conclusions.
Applying mathematics to the issue of the cleric class would require a detailed numeric analysis of the class’ potential abilities and comparing them in a non-bias manner to all other classes, or at least one other class. I see nowhere in which you broke down the classes abilities in anything resembling a mathematical model, lacking that your “proof” has nothing at all to do with any math, or even science for that matter.
If you instead want to form a logical argument well you again claim as fact matters that are clearly in dispute. That is a flawed start to be sure. It is more advantageous to begin with the undisputed and move from there so as to give yourself some small about of credibility in your conclusions. But you didn’t even attempt to do that.
All of that leaves me to conclude that your proof is lacking in any substantive value. Thank you good sir but I find your proof wanting.
Loopy the one who called his post a proof.
|
|
I'm not trying to have an arguement. What was said is completely contrary to my experience, which is fairly large and spread out. It did in fact turn out we are talking about two different things.Got some proof to lay down there bucko? I always hear about games involving clerics. I don't seem to hear too many about the other healers. (I.E. Bard and Druid)Unless there is evidence (for both sides), then neither side really has a base to stand on with this argument.
Edit: and I don't mean hear-say evidence either. :p
My cousin's friend's dad's word doesn't count.
I realized you are talking about RPGA versus just regular play, however it could be said that RPGA games make up the largest portion of RPG games played... but I have no evidence to back it up. As far as anyone knows that's a complete fabrication.
And as far as I know it is. >:D
EDIT: and I'm not pointing the finger at anyone, for the record.
Maybe the largest portion of RPG games recorded that I could easily believe, however since none of the games I have been in have been RPGA games I have a hard time believing it makes up a majority of people's playing of RPG's.
Having dealt with insurance companies I can tell you making claims is the easy part, it's getting them to pay that's the problem.
Having dealt with insurance companies I can tell you making claims is the easy part, it's getting them to pay that's the problem.
There's a good reason for that. Everyone thinks their claim has merit, that the company ought to shut up, roll over and pay without question, and that they should get everything they are entitled to. (And on the flip side of the question, claims is a horrible, negative business where you have to price out the market value of a dead, electrocuted pastor or burned babies. Many people in the business burn out or just give up in despair and grief.)
Now, on the topic at hand. This ain't math, nobody has the stats or the anecdotal evidence to prove anything, and it's the Internet! The real point - rapidly in danger of getting lost in the noise from Entrenched Position Gunfire - is one's thoughts on the revised cleric.
Either way, I'm not losing sleep over that. :)
I have seen mathematical proofs in great number and yours starts poorly and thus ends worse. Givens: in math are facts, not guesses or opinions, they are provable or accepted as fact statements upon which you will base your argument. When investigating the validity of a mathematical proof you start by making sure the foundation is solid, then build out from there to make sure the foundation supports the statements that follow. Your foundation is based in bias opinions passed off as givens, followed by unsubstantiated suppositions. Whether I agreed with you or not what you are doing is claiming to prove an opinion using the mathematical model in such a way that it can only invalidate your conclusions.
I was insinuating that my opinions or observations were tantamount to facts. So, I guess it's even more arrogant than you'd given it credit for.
Applying mathematics to the issue of the cleric class would require a detailed numeric analysis of the class’ potential abilities and comparing them in a non-bias manner to all other classes, or at least one other class. I see nowhere in which you broke down the classes abilities in anything resembling a mathematical model, lacking that your “proof” has nothing at all to do with any math, or even science for that matter.
Well, we don't have that kind of time, now do we. Pseudoscience and anecdotal analysis will have to do.
If you instead want to form a logical argument well you again claim as fact matters that are clearly in dispute. That is a flawed start to be sure. It is more advantageous to begin with the undisputed and move from there so as to give yourself some small about of credibility in your conclusions. But you didn’t even attempt to do that.
In the World of Me, they are undisputed. Dispute them.
All of that leaves me to conclude that your proof is lacking in any substantive value. Thank you good sir but I find your proof wanting.
Please elaborate further. You barely scratched the surface. Don't weaken your position by further poking at how I structured my claims. Just go with it.
FYI...
I'm not a mathematician so this is gonna seem silly to those math-minded folks out there. :)
I remember having four clerics in a party. Boy that made Final Fantasy I tough. Never made it that far with all white mages. Now four Fighters...whoa, look out. Freakin' unstopable!
Given: Any other character who spends part or most (rather than all) of their time in the thick of combat gain 3/4 base attack bonus.
Given: The Cleric receives 3/4 base attack bonus. Clerics can deliver touch spells easily and they can often hit with their weapons.
Given: Most classes for whom most of the characters built will be full-time front-line melee combat builds such as the Fighter and the Paladin receive heavy armor as a bonus feat.
Given: The Cleric is not, in most builds, either a front-liner nor is it, in most builds, a melee combatant.
Given: Classes who spend part or much (rather than all) of their time in melee combat receive light or medium armor and sometime shields.
Given: Clerics receive Medium Armor and regular shields. This is better than the Bard or the Rogue receives and the same as the Druid, Ranger, and Barbarian receives.
There is something off here. I can't put my finger on it. I think it has something to do with the comments about how a cleric is expected to be "in the thick of combat" but is not expected to be "a front-liner". I think those two assumptions are in direct conflict with one another, or am I missing something. How can one be in the thick of combat but not be expected to be a front-liner?
|
|
I think those two assumptions are in direct conflict with one another, or am I missing something. How can one be in the thick of combat but not be expected to be a front-liner?
I think the issue is should the cleric be in the thick of it and dealing damage like a fighter? We are arguing that simple answer is no, with a melee weapon. But the cleric can do other things than roll to hit, unlike a fighter. Front-liner means able to survive NOT deal the most damage.
S.
Ooops, yes, forgot a letter. RPGA. :)
Yes, I have proof. First hand, which is admittedly not statistical, but hey, it's what I got. I DMed for several years running at a local convention that needed RPGA-certified DMs. Every game there were a minimum of two, sometimes as many as four clerics per party, no PrCs for those classes. Most other characters varied widely, with almost a minimum of one PrC per build.
I would say that the cleric is the class that most groups feel they can not function without. So I wonder if what you are seeing is more people wanting to make sure they have the "necessary" component for the party. Not necessarily the most desirable class.
I think those two assumptions are in direct conflict with one another, or am I missing something. How can one be in the thick of combat but not be expected to be a front-liner?I think the issue is should the cleric be in the thick of it and dealing damage like a fighter? We are arguing that simple answer is no, with a melee weapon. But the cleric can do other things than roll to hit, unlike a fighter. Front-liner means able to survive NOT deal the most damage.
S.
Did heavy armor do more damage than medium? I'm just not getting the point here. Heavy armor seems more beneficial to surviving but I don't see the connection with damage.
Did heavy armor do more damage than medium? I'm just not getting the point here. Heavy armor seems more beneficial to surviving but I don't see the connection with damage.I think those two assumptions are in direct conflict with one another, or am I missing something. How can one be in the thick of combat but not be expected to be a front-liner?I think the issue is should the cleric be in the thick of it and dealing damage like a fighter? We are arguing that simple answer is no, with a melee weapon. But the cleric can do other things than roll to hit, unlike a fighter. Front-liner means able to survive NOT deal the most damage.
S.
Mechanically, you can get the same AC from top end medium armor as you can from top end plate...its all in where the bonus comes from (dex or armor)
|
|
in the RPG they are almost always one of the least picked.
My group argues over who *doesn't* get to be the Cleric (or Druid) and we've had several multi-Cleric groups in the past (with the last one being two Clerics, a Druid and a Wizard!). Others settles for Fighter, Barbarian, Wizard and (sometimes) Ranger or Monk.
Rogues, Sorcerers and Bards are mythical creatures, spoken of, but never seen. When I'm DMing, I use them as big bads and adversaries, just to remind my players that they exist...
For every generalized 'my situation is X, therefore the world is X' statement, there is someone out there who has a different situation.
I would say that the cleric is the class that most groups feel they can not function without. So I wonder if what you are seeing is more people wanting to make sure they have the "necessary" component for the party. Not necessarily the most desirable class.
We haven't had a Cleric in any of our campaigns for longer than I can even recall. We've always found ways to get around not having a dedicated healer. In fact, we are starting our first ever Pathfinder campaign in a couple of days. We have a Cleric in the group! Only problem is that I'm the Cleric and I channel negative energy. Hey, sometimes the best defense is a good offense. I could sit there and continue to heal the group over and over as the 50 goblins keep up the assult for the next 45 minutes...or I can just kill them all in a round or two and save us the trouble.
I know a lot of people think that you have to have a healer but I find the game more fun without one. Everyone gets to do whatever they want and feel a little more like the underdog for not having one.
Just my opinion.
My personal opinion is simple, I can see the need to weaken some spells, but I think they went too far with some by cutting them off at the hip when they just needed to take them down at the knees. Change is good when it's needed, apparently the cleric needed change, though I think a lot of the problems are superficial at best (too many stacked buffs? Numerous solutions abound! Dispell Magic, don't give the PC's time to buff (quite easy actually), and many other options are open to DM's who want to deal with the pesky cleric) but getting rid of Heavy Armor just didn't seem like it was needed in light of everything else they did. It's just not that powerful of a feat in my opinion, even with the power creep, not even when combined with being able to wield your deity's favored weapon (which makes perfect sense in my not so humble opinion).
Thankfully, I'm the DM with my particular groups so it's easy enough to house rule that Clerics get Heavy Armor. The day I sweat that they have it is the day I put away my DM screen for good because frankly, if I can't handle that, I should either play something else or give up DMing.
|
|
Did heavy armor do more damage than medium? I'm just not getting the point here. Heavy armor seems more beneficial to surviving but I don't see the connection with damage.I think those two assumptions are in direct conflict with one another, or am I missing something. How can one be in the thick of combat but not be expected to be a front-liner?I think the issue is should the cleric be in the thick of it and dealing damage like a fighter? We are arguing that simple answer is no, with a melee weapon. But the cleric can do other things than roll to hit, unlike a fighter. Front-liner means able to survive NOT deal the most damage.
S.
The heavy armour vs medium armour debate thread is the other one and has been closed by Jason. This was more about CoDzilla's ruling the battlefield. One can stand at the front in medium armour and not be too far off the same AC as the fighter standing next to them.
S.
My personal opinion is simple, I can see the need to weaken some spells, but I think they went too far with some by cutting them off at the hip when they just needed to take them down at the knees. Change is good when it's needed, apparently the cleric needed change, though I think a lot of the problems are superficial at best (too many stacked buffs? Numerous solutions abound! Dispell Magic, don't give the PC's time to buff (quite easy actually), and many other options are open to DM's who want to deal with the pesky cleric) but getting rid of Heavy Armor just didn't seem like it was needed in light of everything else they did. It's just not that powerful of a feat in my opinion, even with the power creep, not even when combined with being able to wield your deity's favored weapon (which makes perfect sense in my not so humble opinion).
Thankfully, I'm the DM with my particular groups so it's easy enough to house rule that Clerics get Heavy Armor. The day I sweat that they have it is the day I put away my DM screen for good because frankly, if I can't handle that, I should either play something else or give up DMing.
I wish Jason didn't close the "Clerics Lost Heavy Armor" thread. Nothing can stop the awesome power of that juggernaut.
EDIT: Ah, you ninja'd me this time S. I won't let it happen again. Muhahahaha.
I agree with the overall sentiment! Clerics are fun to play, and the loss of heavy armor proficiency isn't really a loss except on paper. Especially with all the other cool new things clerics get in Pathfinder. (The fact that clerics were one of the #1 choices for PCs in the RPG sorta proves the point that they were a little too good. Especially once the Complete Splat Brigade arrived and boosted their capacities to the stratosphere.)Huh? Maybe in the RPGA (but that I doubt, too)
I don't doubt that. Not one bit.
The RPGA, and most other organised play associations I'd bet, provides a metric to measure your RP penis by.
I'm not saying that every RPGA member is a phallus waving powergamer...
But I can sure believe a sizable portion would latch onto the "flavor of the month" cheese. If there was "proof" that combination X was legal and made Bards unstoppable powerhouses (even if they weren't) I'd imagine the number of Bard characters increasing 1000% over a few months.
Mechanically, you can get the same AC from top end medium armor as you can from top end plate...its all in where the bonus comes from (dex or armor)Did heavy armor do more damage than medium? I'm just not getting the point here. Heavy armor seems more beneficial to surviving but I don't see the connection with damage.I think those two assumptions are in direct conflict with one another, or am I missing something. How can one be in the thick of combat but not be expected to be a front-liner?I think the issue is should the cleric be in the thick of it and dealing damage like a fighter? We are arguing that simple answer is no, with a melee weapon. But the cleric can do other things than roll to hit, unlike a fighter. Front-liner means able to survive NOT deal the most damage.
S.
Well, you know there is a secret all the optimizers know:
|
|
Well, you know there is a secret all the optimizers know:
** spoiler omitted **
Not being an optimiser you may need to step me through this one.
Let's take 2 1st level clerics with the same stats and call them cleric A and cleric B. Where A is in no armour and B is in the best medium (and loving it - sorrry couldn't resist). How is A better off?
S.
Well, you know there is a secret all the optimizers know:
** spoiler omitted **Not being an optimiser you may need to step me through this one.
Let's take 2 1st level clerics with the same stats and call them cleric A and cleric B. Where A is in no armour and B is in the best medium (and loving it - sorrry couldn't resist). How is A better off?
S.
Obviously it is impossible for a 1st level cleric to be wearing the best medium armor.
I agree with the overall sentiment! Clerics are fun to play, and the loss of heavy armor proficiency isn't really a loss except on paper. Especially with all the other cool new things clerics get in Pathfinder. (The fact that clerics were one of the #1 choices for PCs in the RPG sorta proves the point that they were a little too good. Especially once the Complete Splat Brigade arrived and boosted their capacities to the stratosphere.)Huh? Maybe in the RPGA (but that I doubt, too)I don't doubt that. Not one bit.
The RPGA, and most other organised play associations I'd bet, provides a metric to measure your RP penis by.
I'm not saying that every RPGA member is a phallus waving powergamer...
But I can sure believe a sizable portion would latch onto the "flavor of the month" cheese. If there was "proof" that combination X was legal and made Bards unstoppable powerhouses (even if they weren't) I'd imagine the number of Bard characters increasing 1000% over a few months.
Far to true, at least with the RPGA where I live, and probably the biggest reason why once a couple friends I liked to game with (who pretty much only played in the RPGA) moved away, I quit playing in it.
As to the optimization thing...all I'm going to say is that armor or no armor is a character choice. Optimization, as its frequently used on foums, has almost no place in a game in my opinion. Its great for talking on a forums about where the flaws, or abusive stuff is, fantastic for gladitorial events, really spiffy to do when an idiot puts his collection of original Dark Sun material up for a winner take all free for all (I loved it...got me backups to my original set, and alot of his didn't seem to be very used). So please...lets keep optimized clerics out of this thread...
|
|
Obviously it is impossible for a 1st level cleric to be wearing the best medium armor.
Well, you know there is a secret all the optimizers know:
** spoiler omitted **Not being an optimiser you may need to step me through this one.
Let's take 2 1st level clerics with the same stats and call them cleric A and cleric B. Where A is in no armour and B is in the best medium (and loving it - sorrry couldn't resist). How is A better off?
S.
OK then, when does the swap over happen? I am not joking, I am not an optimser so I don't think that way when making a character. I am interested to see what you mean - I'm not just being a twat.
S.
Obviously it is impossible for a 1st level cleric to be wearing the best medium armor.
Well, you know there is a secret all the optimizers know:
** spoiler omitted **Not being an optimiser you may need to step me through this one.
Let's take 2 1st level clerics with the same stats and call them cleric A and cleric B. Where A is in no armour and B is in the best medium (and loving it - sorrry couldn't resist). How is A better off?
S.
OK then, when does the swap over happen? I am not joking, I am not an optimser so I don't think that way when making a character. I am interested to see what you mean - I'm not just being a t~#~.
S.
*sigh* I'm going to hate myself for saying this...
Not hard to do with 3.5 splat books. Cleric+any class that adds wis to AC (or a variant that allows clerics to do it, yes, they exist)+prestige classes+other stuff unarmored AC could get rather ill. Since the way I liked doing it is semi PF workable (backwards compatability goes both ways sadly), I'd just do one level of monk, plus levels of cleric plus whatever prestige class gave me the extra powers I wanted to round out my spellcasting, and then be exalted and shoot for the saint template (or just start as a saint, depending on level). Got a little...rediculous at times...and what I just posited is hardly the most optimal way, just the way I like doing it...but since its waaaaaaayyyy of topic, I'll leave it at that...
*sigh* I'm going to hate myself for saying this...
Not hard to do with 3.5 splat books. Cleric+any class that adds wis to AC (or a variant that allows clerics to do it, yes, they exist)+prestige classes+other stuff unarmored AC could get rather ill. Since the way I liked doing it is semi PF workable (backwards compatability goes both ways sadly), I'd just do one level of monk, plus levels of cleric plus whatever prestige class gave me the extra powers I wanted to round out my spellcasting, and then be exalted and shoot for the saint template (or just start as a saint, depending on level). Got a little...rediculous at times...and what I just posited is hardly the most optimal way, just the way I like doing it...but since its waaaaaaayyyy of topic, I'll leave it at that...
At least you didn't stack the Vow of Poverty on top of that. :)
At least you didn't stack the Vow of Poverty on top of that. :)*sigh* I'm going to hate myself for saying this...
Not hard to do with 3.5 splat books. Cleric+any class that adds wis to AC (or a variant that allows clerics to do it, yes, they exist)+prestige classes+other stuff unarmored AC could get rather ill. Since the way I liked doing it is semi PF workable (backwards compatability goes both ways sadly), I'd just do one level of monk, plus levels of cleric plus whatever prestige class gave me the extra powers I wanted to round out my spellcasting, and then be exalted and shoot for the saint template (or just start as a saint, depending on level). Got a little...rediculous at times...and what I just posited is hardly the most optimal way, just the way I like doing it...but since its waaaaaaayyyy of topic, I'll leave it at that...
I did once...VoP got banned from the DM's games after that one.
Go figure...a rightously poor holy man, banned from the game table. I even RPed it, to the hilt, had a blast...the group was cracking up...everyone had fun, but combat was a massive, massive joke, since either I could solo most of the encounters, or the rest of the party had to *really* work to stay alive, mainly by staying out of the way or dealing with minions...yeah...a bit to overpowered, I never cried about VoP being banned from our games.
Obviously it is impossible for a 1st level cleric to be wearing the best medium armor.
Well, you know there is a secret all the optimizers know:
** spoiler omitted **Not being an optimiser you may need to step me through this one.
Let's take 2 1st level clerics with the same stats and call them cleric A and cleric B. Where A is in no armour and B is in the best medium (and loving it - sorrry couldn't resist). How is A better off?
S.
OK then, when does the swap over happen? I am not joking, I am not an optimser so I don't think that way when making a character. I am interested to see what you mean - I'm not just being a t%!!.
S.
Obviously you wouldn't use the same build/stat placement for an unarmored character as you would an armored character. Just as you wouldn't make dex a dump stat if you were only going to wear medium armor instead of wearing heavy armor. The fact is, with any kind of armor there is a finite limit to what you can get with the armor plus the dex. Whereas theorically there isn't a limit for just dex (or rather there is, but it is much higher). And as was mentioned, you can also combine classes that can't wear armor but get AC bonuses to get it even higher. Slap some Magic Vestments on your loincloth and your even higher. Really, the whole armor thing is a trap.
There is something off here. I can't put my finger on it. I think it has something to do with the comments about how a cleric is expected to be "in the thick of combat" but is not expected to be "a front-liner". I think those two assumptions are in direct conflict with one another, or am I missing something. How can one be in the thick of combat but not be expected to be a front-liner?
By front-liner, I mean someone who's job is to put themselves as close to the danger as possible to protect the rest of the group and to do as much damage as absolutely possible, and they do this at least 90% of the time. I don't see the baseline Cleric as fulfilling this role right out of the box.
There is something off here. I can't put my finger on it. I think it has something to do with the comments about how a cleric is expected to be "in the thick of combat" but is not expected to be "a front-liner". I think those two assumptions are in direct conflict with one another, or am I missing something. How can one be in the thick of combat but not be expected to be a front-liner?By front-liner, I mean someone who's job is to put themselves as close to the danger as possible to protect the rest of the group and to do as much damage as absolutely possible, and they do this at least 90% of the time. I don't see the baseline Cleric as fulfilling this role right out of the box.
But if you think clerics should be in the "thick of combat", where do you imagine that is occuring if not on the "front-line"?
You seem to have a very narrow view of "front-liner" that is tied both to being on the actual front-line and also to doing damage. So wizards tend not to be "front-liners" even though they may do damage because they usually are not on the actual front-line and clerics are not "front-liners" because they don't tend to do damage but are usually on the front-line.
For myself, the term "front-liner" is for people that are on the "front-line" irregardless of their ability to pump out the damage. Just different vocabulary it seems.
You seem to have a very narrow view of "front-liner" that is tied both to being on the actual front-line and also to doing damage. So wizards tend not to be "front-liners" even though they may do damage because they usually are not on the actual front-line and clerics are not "front-liners" because they don't tend to do damage but are usually on the front-line.
For myself, the term "front-liner" is for people that are on the "front-line" irregardless of their ability to pump out the damage. Just different vocabulary it seems.
OMG I hate the internet here. This is the 2nd time I've had to post this. I'm gonna keep it quick this time.
You're right, we do have different opinions of what a "front-liner" is. I don't consider, for example, the Rogue to be one either even though many rogue builds shine in melee. A Cleric and a Rogue (as written in the Pathfinder Base Class) are just as likely to be in the middle of combat as they are to be fading back to perform other tasks or moving into a better position, or just moving up for a short time to deliver a touch spell or something like that. A cleric who does not avoid physical contact with an enemy when the Fighter has the situation handled deserves to get creamed. A Rogue that stands and stabs rather than hits and fades deserves to be flayed within an inch of his life.
The Fighter and the Paladin are the ones who stand between you and big, hulking death. They are always in direct contact with the enemy. They do not fall back unless the whole group is retreating or if the Cleric is severely injured (in the case of the Paladin). That's not to say there's no room for tactical movement or actions for the Fighter or the Paladin, as long as the rest of the group isn't getting hosed. This has actually always been the case. If there was, in 3.5, a broken Cleric spell or two that made this otherwise, or if your DM allowed you to cast a plethora of buff spells before a big fight, then the entire concept of the Cleric fulfilling the role a mystery to me because we've never played it like that.
I agree. I would put the Monk as a front liner as well, even if they can't deal much direct damage and usually do not have the greatest AC.
I think that the monk is a very good all-around melee character. The Monk can have VERY excellent Armor Class. He makes up for the lack of armor without a problem and does very good damage for a character with so many other tricks up his sleeve. I'd consider it a front-liner too, but with lots of tricks rather than pure damage potential.
The Barbarian is a different story. The Barbarian will end up using up more healing resources than a Fighter, that much seems clear. I want to see one in action though, because if this is true, I'd expect the other abilities the class has should make up for the lack in armor proficiency.
You seem to have a very narrow view of "front-liner" that is tied both to being on the actual front-line and also to doing damage. So wizards tend not to be "front-liners" even though they may do damage because they usually are not on the actual front-line and clerics are not "front-liners" because they don't tend to do damage but are usually on the front-line.
For myself, the term "front-liner" is for people that are on the "front-line" irregardless of their ability to pump out the damage. Just different vocabulary it seems.
OMG I hate the internet here. This is the 2nd time I've had to post this. I'm gonna keep it quick this time.
You're right, we do have different opinions of what a "front-liner" is. I don't consider, for example, the Rogue to be one either even though many rogue builds shine in melee. A Cleric and a Rogue (as written in the Pathfinder Base Class) are just as likely to be in the middle of combat as they are to be fading back to perform other tasks or moving into a better position, or just moving up for a short time to deliver a touch spell or something like that. A cleric who does not avoid physical contact with an enemy when the Fighter has the situation handled deserves to get creamed. A Rogue that stands and stabs rather than hits and fades deserves to be flayed within an inch of his life.
The Fighter and the Paladin are the ones who stand between you and big, hulking death. They are always in direct contact with the enemy. They do not fall back unless the whole group is retreating or if the Cleric is severely injured (in the case of the Paladin). That's not to say there's no room for tactical movement or actions for the Fighter or the Paladin, as long as the rest of the group isn't getting hosed. This has actually always been the case. If there was, in 3.5, a broken Cleric spell or two that made this otherwise, or if your DM allowed you to cast a plethora of buff spells before a big fight, then the entire concept of the Cleric...
But now your pigeonholeing the classes (and forgetting a couple...)
Nothing wrong with a rogue who can stand toe to toe with something...just because its not something they do right out of the box as it were, doesn't mean a player can't tweak one into doing that. Fighters don't have to be shieldwalls, with their feat selection, they have had other options for combat performance. Nothing wrong with playing a sneaky paladin (done it, lotta fun, Lawful Good doesn't mean you have to be stupid, or act all high, mighty, and righteous...go read David Eddings The Elenium and The Tamuli, Sparhawk is, imo, an ideal Paladin), or a (by your definition) frontline mage. Thats one of the joys of what happened in 3.0 as compared to older editions, and with PF, its even more of a truth...you can customize a class to fit into an unusual concept. Yeah, sometimes its going to require multiclassing and a prestige class (such as arcane types doing combat), other times its a matter of feat and skill selection to make it fit.
Meh....rant over...just gets to me when classes get overly pigeon holed...