I am totally with you that not every character should be expected to be the same. What I'm arguing is that there is a baseline that must be set and with that baseline must come balance. That is what's happened with the Cleric.
Fortunately, there are enough options in Pathfinder that you don't have to ever worry about being pigeonholed as a character.
|
I think the difference in opinion is based off of some people seeing Front and Back line, and others seeing Front, Middle, and Back line combatants. I would imagine that it would really depend on the party make up, more than anything.
Part of it depends on group size too. If there are only two or three people in a group then the Cleric is necessary on the front lines. Four or five and they aren't necessary but really do add a lot of help. Six or more can pretty much do whatever they feel like, but I've seen clerics in those groups basically become the band-aid box with spells and end up on the front lines anyway.
I'm not so sure. So far, it seems like the Cleric is still seen by the other players as the healer that shouldn't hav anything better to do than sit back while they have combat fun. But that's just my experience so far.
Yes. And I think that this Cleric Base Class has been built so that it can easily be that. However, I think it can be built in all sorts of different directions, too. I am thinking that, to facilitate that malleability, some decisions were made do centralize the class more rather than have it lean more towards a front-line concept. Paizo, I think, wants us to decide whether to go fighty, or healy, or casty or whatever crazy mixture we want. That's what I mean when I say the Cleric is more choice-driven now. It's easy to say "I lost a feat so I have less choices", but only if you don't look at the rest of the class.
That's the impression I get, anyways.
Paizo, I think, wants us to decide whether to go fighty, or healy, or casty or whatever crazy mixture we want.
Don't forget destructy.
Paizo, I think, wants us to decide whether to go fighty, or healy, or casty or whatever crazy mixture we want.Don't forget destructy.
Mmmmmm.... destructy.
Our cleric experience soon evolved into "if we're buffed well and the cleric has some combat fun, then the enemy doesn't last that long and we won't need the healing that much"
I'm not so sure. So far, it seems like the Cleric is still seen by the other players as the healer that shouldn't hav anything better to do than sit back while they have combat fun. But that's just my experience so far.Yes. And I think that this Cleric Base Class has been built so that it can easily be that. However, I think it can be built in all sorts of different directions, too. I am thinking that, to facilitate that malleability, some decisions were made do centralize the class more rather than have it lean more towards a front-line concept. Paizo, I think, wants us to decide whether to go fighty, or healy, or casty or whatever crazy mixture we want. That's what I mean when I say the Cleric is more choice-driven now. It's easy to say "I lost a feat so I have less choices", but only if you don't look at the rest of the class.
That's the impression I get, anyways.
But after looking over the class… I have to say they failed to do just that.
After reading the class and looking over how they tweaked (see nerfed) many of the spells I’m convinced they see the cleric as a pure caster class with some off handed melee capability as “in case of emergency - cast this spell and get into melee” then anything else.
After reading the spells and feats it’s obvious that a cleric with maxed out wisdom and charisma is the way to go. Wisdom gives you not only better spell DC’s but more spells but, and this is the kicker, it helps you cast in melee better. Charisma for channeling (and thus turning undead and so on) the only other thing you may want is some Intelligence (for extra skills and bonuses to all your other class skills)
Now notice something, all three ability scores which make you a better cleric, are all mental score, Wisdom, Charisma, and Intelligence.
There is nothing in the class itself that encourages any physical stats, yes you have armor and the ability to cast in it, but that does not equal any level of encouragement to get into melee. Every feat you spend to get better in melee takes you farther away from the strengths of the class.
I draw exception to your inclusion of Int. With what you put as your logic I could say Con is a requirement too since extra HP is always needed. Str because extra ability to hit is always needed.
I would point to the spells available to the cleric as why they are still more of a combatant. Most of their good buffs are self only, and buff strength, size, attack bonus damage and AC.
We have: Shield of Faith, Divine Favor, Righteous Might, Magic Vestment, Greater Magic weapon, et al.
The spell list is however lacking in things that make the cleric a "spell caster only"... like fireball, fly, wall of force, actual detection spells, et al.
The spell list lends itself well to someone that wants to be in the thick of it.
After reading the class and looking over how they tweaked (see nerfed) many of the spells I’m convinced they see the cleric as a pure caster class with some off handed melee capability as “in case of emergency - cast this spell and get into melee” then anything else.
They cast spells up to 9th level. Those 9th level spells are almost as powerful as a Wizards. Why should they be able to fight as good as a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk or even a Rogue? If you are going to take a Cleric all the way up to 9th level spells then you probably should be pretty ineffective in combat. You should be a "white mage". That's what character you are building. CoDzilla is now a Fighter 9/Cleric 11. Seriously, stat it out, see what it looks like on paper and let me know if it looks all that terrible.
After reading the class and looking over how they tweaked (see nerfed) many of the spells I’m convinced they see the cleric as a pure caster class with some off handed melee capability as “in case of emergency - cast this spell and get into melee” then anything else.They cast spells up to 9th level. Those 9th level spells are almost as powerful as a Wizards. Why should they be able to fight as good as a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk or even a Rogue? If you are going to take a Cleric all the way up to 9th level spells then you probably should be pretty ineffective in combat. You should be a "white mage". That's what character you are building. CoDzilla is now a Fighter 9/Cleric 11. Seriously, stat it out, see what it looks like on paper and let me know if it looks all that terrible.
If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that there is a definite paradigm shift?
If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that there is a definite paradigm shift?
For the Cleric, yes. This is more of a 3.x thing though. Clerics are no longer the half melee (one attack)/half caster (7th max) that they used to be. 3rd edition made the mistake of giving them more powerful spells and more combat ability which created the CoDzilla that everyone complains about. Pathfinder is shifting them a little towards the "white mage" side of things but only if you are going for the optimal (maybe) build.
You can still make the Dwarven battle priest type build, not skimp on the STR and CON and be very effective in combat. It'll cost you something though. Perhaps you'll have to ditch your channeling effectiveness. We did this automatically in 3.x because Turning Undead wasn't hard to give up. You can still take an 8 CHA or lower and build yourself for melee just like before. You won't be able to channel but you'll be able to be right up there with the fighters and still have all of those spells.
The tank Cleric isn't dead. They just made it less obvious because you have to give up something good to achive it.
|
Most of all, good job fixing the blandness and increasing player choices.I do not see how removing something from a class (ie heavy armor proficiency) increases player choices.
If the cleric can do less, isn't that decreasing the choices ?
If it's a non-starter for you, ask your DM to allow you to play a 3.5 Cleric, without the free orisens, with turn undead instead of channel energy, the old Domains instead of the new Pathfinder Domain powers or (for some clerics) the extra weapon proficiency and *with* heavy armor proficiency. Since heavy armor is more important to you than all of that other stuff, I'm sure a sympathetic DM would allow you to make that trade-off.
It gives you another choice...
Do you want to spend one of your feats on Heavy Armor proficiency? Or, would you rather just take a medium armor that has been increased by +1?
The cost of Full plate is 1500gp.
The cost of +1 Breastplate is 1300gp net difference 1AC and 300gp.
Now, there's the Holy Warrior option from the Pathfinder CS. I would allow them to automatically gain Heavy Armor Proficiency, since they're giving up their domains.
If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that there is a definite paradigm shift?After reading the class and looking over how they tweaked (see nerfed) many of the spells I’m convinced they see the cleric as a pure caster class with some off handed melee capability as “in case of emergency - cast this spell and get into melee” then anything else.They cast spells up to 9th level. Those 9th level spells are almost as powerful as a Wizards. Why should they be able to fight as good as a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk or even a Rogue? If you are going to take a Cleric all the way up to 9th level spells then you probably should be pretty ineffective in combat. You should be a "white mage". That's what character you are building. CoDzilla is now a Fighter 9/Cleric 11. Seriously, stat it out, see what it looks like on paper and let me know if it looks all that terrible.
You're right that is what he is saying. And it was exactly that which caused our displeasure in the changes. Not that I agree that the Cleric is gone wholly over to being a White Mage, but he took many steps in that direction and that was what I opposed.
It gives you another choice...Do you want to spend one of your feats on Heavy Armor proficiency? Or, would you rather just take a medium armor that has been increased by +1?
The cost of Full plate is 1500gp.
The cost of +1 Breastplate is 1300gp net difference 1AC and 300gp.
Now, there's the Holy Warrior option from the Pathfinder CS. I would allow them to automatically gain Heavy Armor Proficiency, since they're giving up their domains.
What is this Pathfinder CS you speak of?
|
What is this Pathfinder CS you speak of?
It gives you another choice...Do you want to spend one of your feats on Heavy Armor proficiency? Or, would you rather just take a medium armor that has been increased by +1?
The cost of Full plate is 1500gp.
The cost of +1 Breastplate is 1300gp net difference 1AC and 300gp.
Now, there's the Holy Warrior option from the Pathfinder CS. I would allow them to automatically gain Heavy Armor Proficiency, since they're giving up their domains.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting.
The option lets you forgo your domains to get fighter bab and hit dice. THe natural extension would be to have heavy armor proficiency as well.
What is this Pathfinder CS you speak of?
It gives you another choice...Do you want to spend one of your feats on Heavy Armor proficiency? Or, would you rather just take a medium armor that has been increased by +1?
The cost of Full plate is 1500gp.
The cost of +1 Breastplate is 1300gp net difference 1AC and 300gp.
Now, there's the Holy Warrior option from the Pathfinder CS. I would allow them to automatically gain Heavy Armor Proficiency, since they're giving up their domains.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting.
The option lets you forgo your domains to get fighter bab and hit dice. THe natural extension would be to have heavy armor proficiency as well.
That seems...nice but a bit powerful. I should get it anyway I am running one and soon another AP. Is it pathfinderized or 3.5 still?
Then why did you say:If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that there is a definite paradigm shift?For the Cleric, yes.
It certainly looks like DND to me. Magic Missiles still auto-strike their targets (I think) and Vampires are still stronger than regular humans (I think).
When "white mages" are Final Fantasy, and not D&D?
Now, there's the Holy Warrior option from the Pathfinder CS. I would allow them to automatically gain Heavy Armor Proficiency, since they're giving up their domains.
If you use Pathfinder Campaign Setting then Holy Warrior is always an option if the DM doesn't think that it's as broken as I do. I would think twice about adding heavy armor on top of that.
d10 + full BAB + 9th level spells + full channeling sounds way too good to me even without the domains. Never seen one in action but I have a feeling that this will be tweaked if they ever change the campaign setting over from 3.5 to 3.P.
Then why did you say:If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that there is a definite paradigm shift?For the Cleric, yes.It certainly looks like DND to me. Magic Missiles still auto-strike their targets (I think) and Vampires are still stronger than regular humans (I think).When "white mages" are Final Fantasy, and not D&D?
I recall something from Fritz Leiber (Fafhrd and Grey Mouser) about them as well. Could be wrong been years since last I read one of the books.
|
|
If you look at the pathfinder society rules, you'll see what they consider "Pathfinderized" and what is not considered safe for play. I would go with that for the guideline, however it does give you some nice and nifty bonuses. Such as finally giving Fighters Perception as a class skill, and upping their Skill points per level.
Then why did you say:It certainly looks like DND to me. Magic Missiles still auto-strike their targets (I think) and Vampires are still stronger than regular humans (I think).When "white mages" are Final Fantasy, and not D&D?
Because it still looks like DND to me. It sounds like we'll see more "white mage" type Clerics than we will Dwarven battle priest type clerics now but that's just because people feel that is a better build. It changes the perception of the Cleric a bit most of the core is still there. This was more of clever bash on 4E, although not clever enough I guess. I used the term White Mages just because that's what was being thrown around. To tell you the truth, I didn't even make the connection to Final Fantasy until you said something.
Now, there's the Holy Warrior option from the Pathfinder CS. I would allow them to automatically gain Heavy Armor Proficiency, since they're giving up their domains.If you use Pathfinder Campaign Setting then Holy Warrior is always an option if the DM doesn't think that it's as broken as I do. I would think twice about adding heavy armor on top of that.
d10 + full BAB + 9th level spells + full channeling sounds way too good to me even without the domains. Never seen one in action but I have a feeling that this will be tweaked if they ever change the campaign setting over from 3.5 to 3.P.
I tend to agree about it sounding too powerful. I just want my heavy armor, current cleric BAB, drop the channel stuff and give me actual turning. I think what I am asking for is far less powerful then the Holy Warrior.
I draw exception to your inclusion of Int. With what you put as your logic I could say Con is a requirement too since extra HP is always needed. Str because extra ability to hit is always needed.
I would point to the spells available to the cleric as why they are still more of a combatant. Most of their good buffs are self only, and buff strength, size, attack bonus damage and AC.
We have: Shield of Faith, Divine Favor, Righteous Might, Magic Vestment, Greater Magic weapon, et al.
The spell list is however lacking in things that make the cleric a "spell caster only"... like fireball, fly, wall of force, actual detection spells, et al.
The spell list lends itself well to someone that wants to be in the thick of it.
I put Intelegance in my list because of all the classes’ skill list... Every skill uses Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.
Divine Favor and Divine Power no longer stack…. So it takes you two rounds to get into the fray (Casting Righteous Might and Divine Power)… both spells last only 1 round per level. You can cast a flame strike and a Holy Smite in that time… or if you have a nice high save DC Bestow Curse (-6 to dex = -3 to AC and Ref Saves – helping melee and casters alike.)
Magic Vestment works better when you buff the rogues AC, he gets in melee and deals more damage than you do, he gets hit less, thus saving your healing spells.
Greater Magic Weapon works better when you spend that slot buffing the fighter’s main weapon, he can swap out that bonus for more Power Attack.
And looking at the spell list… most are buff spells, heal spells, or control spells
They cast spells up to 9th level. Those 9th level spells are almost as powerful as a Wizards. Why should they be able to fight as good as a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk or even a Rogue? If you are going to take a Cleric all the way up to 9th level spells then you probably should be pretty ineffective in combat. You should be a "white mage". That's what character you are building. CoDzilla is now a Fighter 9/Cleric 11. Seriously, stat it out, see what it looks like on paper and let me know if it looks all that terrible.
And thus they are a caster class… not a melee combat class…
Now the mix Fighter/Cleric on paper looks real good… but play the character out… at low to mid levels the caster levels will feel almost worthless (at 5th level… Oh I use my round and channel for d6) when instead you could have power attacked and dropped an Orc.
If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that there is a definite paradigm shift?For the Cleric, yes. This is more of a 3.x thing though. Clerics are no longer the half melee (one attack)/half caster (7th max) that they used to be. 3rd edition made the mistake of giving them more powerful spells and more combat ability which created the CoDzilla that everyone complains about. Pathfinder is shifting them a little towards the "white mage" side of things but only if you are going for the optimal (maybe) build.
You can still make the Dwarven battle priest type build, not skimp on the STR and CON and be very effective in combat. It'll cost you something though. Perhaps you'll have to ditch your channeling effectiveness. We did this automatically in 3.x because Turning Undead wasn't hard to give up. You can still take an 8 CHA or lower and build yourself for melee just like before. You won't be able to channel but you'll be able to be right up there with the fighters and still have all of those spells.
The tank Cleric isn't dead. They just made it less obvious because you have to give up something good to achive it.
This really needs to be reiterated. Battle clerics aren't dead. They just have to give up some of the new things to do it (one feat, and channeling well). Sure, they won't be the full casters who outdo fighters anymore, but CoDzilla was broken. And no, heavy armor use wasn't what made them broken (didn't even contribute really, I don't know why so many people harp on it, max AC of medium armor+dex and heavy armor+dex still equals the same...who cares if the cleric is now, like all the spellcasters, subject to a bit more MAD...its called class balance.) Turn undead, in and of iteself wasn't the problem, although the feats added to boost it was part of the problem. The spells weren't, in and of themselves the problem, but the stacking rules were.
So PF went and looked at what made a cleric a cleric, and focused in on that. A divine spellcaster who can survive in the thick of things, fighting and healing and boosting his parties effectiveness. They still do that superbly well, with some new toys to make it easier.
Yeah, if you want to focus in on one aspect (playing the fighter role) your going to have to give up soemthing. Seems fair, I mean, its not like a fighter can trade in feats for casting ability or healing ability...they can multiclass, but then so can a cleric who feels he has to be keeping up with the fighter.
So PF went and looked at what made a cleric a cleric, and focused in on that.
And how is that?
A Cleric (before Pathfinder) is a martially trained warrior, with divine spells and power to make undead flee (or control them).
This is not the base Pathfinder Cleric.
So PF went and looked at what made a cleric a cleric, and focused in on that.And how is that?
A Cleric (before Pathfinder) is a martially trained warrior, with divine spells and power to make undead flee (or control them).
This is not the base Pathfinder Cleric.
No...
The cleric was a priest who took up arms to defend his church and advance his gods aims in the world.Turn undead was in there for the ability to give them effectiveness against undead...channel energy does that rather well.
No...
The cleric was a priest who took up arms to defend his church and advance his gods aims in the world.Turn undead was in there for the ability to give them effectiveness against undead...channel energy does that rather well.
If that is the case, you've been playing a different D&D game than I have for the past 25ish years. The Cleric from my rulebooks have been martially trained, with ability to affect Undeads' actions.
Damaging them came from the Clerics' weapon, unless an option was taken.
No...
The cleric was a priest who took up arms to defend his church and advance his gods aims in the world.Turn undead was in there for the ability to give them effectiveness against undead...channel energy does that rather well.
If that is the case, you've been playing a different D&D game than I have for the past 25ish years. The Cleric from my rulebooks have been martially trained, with ability to affect Undeads' actions.
Damaging them came from the Clerics' weapon, unless an option was taken.
*sigh* Dis, I know your not dumb, please quit trying to act it...
Its a tam-ay-toe tam-ah-toe situation. And their 'martial training' never was enough to keep up with the fighters, and their spells couldn't get them there.
And I'm guessing you want (solely) the ability to turn undead/control undead...no used per day, no divine feats to alter it...you just would prefer to make undead run away than do outright damage to them?
Sorry Dis, but I've been playing almost 25 years myself, and yeah, I'd say we have been playing the same game, but we have a different outlook on some things it seems, and very different views on how some classes abilities might have needed to be changed to keep them in line with the changes to the rules.
Sheesh...I'd rather be having this discussion with someone who can remember barbarians from back in the day about the barbarian stuff...
eh for all the folks whining about the cleric now being a white mage...well drop all armor most weapons BAB and HD to a d6 then ya might have something like a white mage.
Really the cleric fills the very same role as 3e, there is no shift. The abuse is gone but you fill the same role
Sheesh...I'd rather be having this discussion with someone who can remember barbarians from back in the day about the barbarian stuff...
heh my back in the day goes to 2e kits but that's it
Disenchanter is correct. The base, default Cleric is now different from its traditional roots. This process was started in 3.5. Many Clerics opted to give up the combat role to focus on healing and spell casting. I don't think that Paizo changed this. I think that they just pushed it further in that direction. I can't imagine the backlash that they'd have received if they came out and said, "the cleric can only cast 7th level spells now but are just as martially trained as before. It would've messed with backwards compatability much more and taken away something that you couldn't possibly get back.
And thus they are a caster class… not a melee combat class…
Now the mix Fighter/Cleric on paper looks real good… but play the character out… at low to mid levels the caster levels will feel almost worthless (at 5th level… Oh I use my round and channel for d6) when instead you could have power attacked and dropped an Orc.
Battle priests will typically bail on channeling energy in favor of buffing spells.
I tend to agree about it sounding too powerful. I just want my heavy armor, current cleric BAB, drop the channel stuff and give me actual turning. I think what I am asking for is far less powerful then the Holy Warrior.
That sounds about right.
Not to offend but what is the big deal with turn undead? "yay I can make undead way lower then me run like girls" It was not very useful, made the DM's life hell and if the DM really used it right it lead to TPK's as more things came at once. It also lead to silly massive HD low CR undead just to work around what in the end was a loopy ability
The new channel is much more useful, and more powerful and gives the same effect - running like a little girl and it is usable every single day any time. Not taking up space on your sheet that is used 1 out of 6 adventures. It also extends the clerics ability and the party as a whole. I mean how sweet is it to get to cast spells you would have had to convert to keep bob the fighter alive
I may be saying this bad but what was so great about that ability? Just what?
Not to offend but what is the big deal with turn undead? "yay I can make undead way lower then me run like girls" It was not very useful, made the DM's life hell and if the DM really used it right it lead to TPK's as more things came at once. It also lead to silly massive HD low CR undead just to work around what in the end was a loopy ability
The new channel is much more useful, and more powerful and gives the same effect - running like a little girl and it is usable every single day any time. Not taking up space on your sheet that is used 1 out of 6 adventures. It also extends the clerics ability and the party as a whole. I mean how sweet is it to get to cast spells you would have had to convert to keep bob the fighter alive
I may be saying this bad but what was so great about that ability? Just what?
Feats designed to make it ay more than that (Divine Metamagic comes to mind)
I may be saying this bad but what was so great about that ability? Just what?Feats designed to make it way more than that (Divine Metamagic comes to mind)
Of course this was done because Turn Undead was a pretty lousy ability. Turning did turn into destroying once you got to double their HD. DMs just didn't commonly throw in the 150 skeleton warriors for the Cleric to shine. They'd throw in more powerful stuff that you either couldn't destroy and even had trouble turning half the time since few people specialized in it.
heh my back in the day goes to 2e kits but that's it
Sheesh...I'd rather be having this discussion with someone who can remember barbarians from back in the day about the barbarian stuff...
My back in the day goes back before the class existed. I recall the first ed Unearthed Arcana with a mix of cool and OMG what did they do.
Feats designed to make it ay more than that (Divine Metamagic comes to mind)Not to offend but what is the big deal with turn undead? "yay I can make undead way lower then me run like girls" It was not very useful, made the DM's life hell and if the DM really used it right it lead to TPK's as more things came at once. It also lead to silly massive HD low CR undead just to work around what in the end was a loopy ability
The new channel is much more useful, and more powerful and gives the same effect - running like a little girl and it is usable every single day any time. Not taking up space on your sheet that is used 1 out of 6 adventures. It also extends the clerics ability and the party as a whole. I mean how sweet is it to get to cast spells you would have had to convert to keep bob the fighter alive
I may be saying this bad but what was so great about that ability? Just what?
Never used any.
I like it because it fits the cleric's role. I like it because it has a nitch use and not much else. It needed changing, I would have made it a will save or cower, but to me channel energy is too powerful. I never wanted heavy armor out of a need for more power, I wanted it because it is and always has been a part of the cleric class. Taking it away brought no balance, nor did changing turning to channel energy bring balance, if either did like the spell changes did I would ok with the changes. But they didn't and thus I am not ok with a change for change sake.
Feats designed to make it ay more than that (Divine Metamagic comes to mind)
Ok so it was not useful if ya didn't allow splate book stuff? Really saying anything was fine if you use feat x from book A does not help much in proving it was fine
Jason did post his idea was not to turn clerics into white mages.
Ok so it was not useful if ya didn't allow splate book stuff? Really saying anything was fine if you use feat x from book A does not help much in proving it was fine
Feats designed to make it ay more than that (Divine Metamagic comes to mind)
It was situationally useful when splat book stuff wasn't in. While I don't understand the uproar over heavy armor (not changing things simply to not change things is no more good than change for the sake of change), I can understand the Turn Undead deal.
Way back when, turn undead did exactly that, it made undead run away, or if your level was high enough vs that particular type of undead, you could destroy them. Then 3.0 came along, and changed it to more of a hit dice vs level thing. Problem was, most undead worth a damn had more hit dice than a cleric could effect with a turn check, high charisma or not. When 3.5 came out...well, the situation on turning undead didn't get any better. But then they took an feat type from 3.0 that saw limited use, divine feats, and started adding to what you could use turn undead attempts for.
Now, heres my deal with Turn Undead. Its good if you want to play a cleric who even gives a damn about undead (or whose god gives a damn). But what if I'm playing a cleric of a god who could care less about undead? Seems like thats a wasted class ability...I'm still a cleric, but thematically, it doesn't fit. Paizo went and looked at what clerics were, not just in the game historically (and I'm sure we can debate what they were all anyone wants, depending on how you count it, we have at least 4 versions of the game to argue over for that), but in fantasy novels and such, and came up with a mechanic based off turn undead, Channel Energy, and made turn undead optional, as a feat.
Is Channel Energy broken? No. Is there anything wrong with it as a class ability? No. Do alot of people see something about their one true way the class should be seen as that isn't there and feel the need to be hoser on the idea as a whole. Yup, pretty much. The concept of "We took soemthing that mechanically, could have been better, made it better, and renamed it to make it more appropriate to more kinds of characters" seems to offend people, since change is obviously bad...
So PF went and looked at what made a cleric a cleric, and focused in on that.And how is that?
A Cleric (before Pathfinder) is a martially trained warrior, with divine spells and power to make undead flee (or control them).
This is not the base Pathfinder Cleric.
No...
The cleric was a priest who took up arms to defend his church and advance his gods aims in the world.Turn undead was in there for the ability to give them effectiveness against undead...channel energy does that rather well.
Channel energy over does it. Way over does. It also makes them for more then caster then they were before, which is also the wrong direction for a battle cleric.
Channel energy over does it. Way over does. It also makes them for more then caster then they were before, which is also the wrong direction for a battle cleric.So PF went and looked at what made a cleric a cleric, and focused in on that.And how is that?
A Cleric (before Pathfinder) is a martially trained warrior, with divine spells and power to make undead flee (or control them).
This is not the base Pathfinder Cleric.
No...
The cleric was a priest who took up arms to defend his church and advance his gods aims in the world.Turn undead was in there for the ability to give them effectiveness against undead...channel energy does that rather well.
But do all clerics have to be battle clerics? =)
And since channel energy isn't a spell, I fail to see how it makes them more of a caster. In fact, all Paizo did was open up options for non battle clerics.
They didn't invalidate what you think of as a cleric, they simply allowed other variations besides a plate clad fighter who happens cast spells...all of them have to spend feats to do what they want...
But do all clerics have to be battle clerics? =)
And since channel energy isn't a spell, I fail to see how it makes them more of a caster. In fact, all Paizo did was open up options for non battle clerics.
They didn't invalidate what you think of as a cleric, they simply allowed other variations besides a plate clad fighter who happens cast spells...all of them have to spend feats to do what they want...
Not at all, but should all clerics who are good be able to drop AoE heals over and over again? Norse gods in first ed couldn't grant any healing, Odin, Thor, Tyr all could not grant healing, but now all good clerics can AoE heal.
Channel energy makes all clerics (good aligned ones) into effectively healing batteries you come and get recharged by either during fights or after. Mostly after unless fighting at range or against undead.
I can see that Thurgon but I see that as a situation that campaign settings should address.
If some of your gods in your campaign setting give Full BAB and d10 HD as well as Heavy Armor proficiency instead of channel energy and domains I'm cool with that. Just as I'm ok with a good god of destruction that gives channel negative energy in a campaign instead of channel positive energy (a bit odd I know, but if it was a part of the campaign I could live with it).
Not at all, but should all clerics who are good be able to drop AoE heals over and over again? Norse gods in first ed couldn't grant any healing, Odin, Thor, Tyr all could not grant healing, but now all good clerics can AoE heal.
Channel energy makes all clerics (good aligned ones) into effectively healing batteries you come and get recharged by either during fights or after. Mostly after unless fighting at range or against undead.
I can't figure out why all clerics have to have high CHA and be good at channeling. Why can't that 16 go on STR and make them good melee combatants? Is extra healing that attractive?
I can't figure out why all clerics have to have high CHA and be good at channeling. Why can't that 16 go on STR and make them good melee combatants? Is extra healing that attractive?Not at all, but should all clerics who are good be able to drop AoE heals over and over again? Norse gods in first ed couldn't grant any healing, Odin, Thor, Tyr all could not grant healing, but now all good clerics can AoE heal.
Channel energy makes all clerics (good aligned ones) into effectively healing batteries you come and get recharged by either during fights or after. Mostly after unless fighting at range or against undead.
You don't and you can! Huzzah!