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)
I take it you never seen a 3.5 cleric with a good cha, the sun domain, and a Phylactery of Undead Turning (all core in 3.5), drop a liche in the surprise round with their turning. I've had, and so did my entire stack of spell cards that weren't needed. Thank god for living henchmen.
Nope never have but could he do it every single time? was it useful every single day? every adventurer? Ok half of the time? That cleric was built to do just what he did. It is not the same as someone who did not have all that. He was meant to make undead go poof. and In many ways he broke the system.
I am not saying it was 100% useless I am saying it was very, very hit and miss and in many games it was just something wrote on the sheet and not really used all that much.
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.
And which one true way are you talking about?
The one true way that Clerics are supposed to be casters above all else?
The one true way that Clerics aren't supposed to be front-line fighters?
The one true way that Clerics aren't meant to know how to effectively wear heavy armor, and never should have?
Or is it one of the other assumed one true ways that quietly get thrown into conversations when it is felt no one is paying attention?
The subliminal one true ways that are of the new Pathfinder - that no one truly knows (yet) which way it was meant.
And yes, the Cleric of Pathfinder is quite capable of being built as it was. But guess what? It could have easily been played as it is now before Pathfinder.
So what makes your stance better than anyone elses', I mean besides your Paladin called High Horse?
And yes, the Cleric of Pathfinder is quite capable of being built as it was. But guess what? It could have easily been played as it is now before Pathfinder.
I think that was the problem. It could be both at the same time.
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.And which one true way are you talking about?
The one true way that Clerics are supposed to be casters above all else?
The one true way that Clerics aren't supposed to be front-line fighters?
The one true way that Clerics aren't meant to know how to effectively wear heavy armor, and never should have?Or is it one of the other assumed one true ways that quietly get thrown into conversations when it is felt no one is paying attention?
The subliminal one true ways that are of the new Pathfinder - that no one truly knows (yet) which way it was meant.
And yes, the Cleric of Pathfinder is quite capable of being built as it was. But guess what? It could have easily been played as it is now before Pathfinder.
So what makes your stance better than anyone elses', I mean besides your Paladin called High Horse?
Hmmm...my stance is that you can do everything you used to be able to with the cleric. You can do stuff you couldn't do before with the cleric. The cleric has enough versatility built into in the core book to be played in a very wide variety of ways, and therefore, with proper feat and skill selection, the cleric has gained ground with the new edition.
Does that make my stance more valid than anyone elses...no, and I never said it did. It seems you have assumed I did, although I'll grant that from the way you look at things, that probably comes from you being rather defensive about posts, and automatically assuming people are trying to force you to change your mind (I just like hearing others points of view, and assuming they have logic behind it, what it is, I like conversations and debates).
And if I have a Paladin called High Horse, can I name the Druid Dog Meat?
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?
Well first let me say I'm coming from a PFS/RPGA point of view here...
When you bring a cleric to the table there are some baseline expectations, the first is, you’re a cleric… so you can heal.
By dropping Charisma and thus forgetting channeling you are turning your back on a core class feature. Is akin to creating a ranger who uses two-handed swords in melee… you are ignoring all the feats the class gives you…
Build the two characters side by side… you will quickly see that you are, in fact, working against the strengths of the class. It's skill list, powers, and abilities all work off of mental stats… Not one works off a Physical stat, and the time you spend in combat buffing self to reach a basic power level in which you can hold your own in melee, is better spent casting control spells or direct damage spells. And every feat you take to improve your melee combat potential, the farther you get from your classes core abilities.
I hate 4th edition, but it did teach me one thing, efficacy of actions…
Ask yourself, what would be the most effective thing for me to do? Drop a flame strike dealing 9d8 damage to 2 targets before the rest of my party gets into melee? Or buff myself to give me a +3 to hit/+3 on damage (divine power) and next round get into melee dealing 1d8+11 (18 Strength + divine power, and -2/+4 from power attack) – Now god forbid you want to make a Dex based melee cleric (read my Swashbuckling cleric post)
I feel that if the designers wanted you to get into melee, some cleric melee buff spells would have been a swift action to cast. Now before you yell, “But you will be better than the fighter” that’s not true at all... The fighter will still be better fighters…it may have been true with the 3.5 fighter, but NOT with the Pathfinder fighter….
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?Well first let me say I'm coming from a PFS/RPGA point of view here...
When you bring a cleric to the table there are some baseline expectations, the first is, you’re a cleric… so you can heal.
By dropping Charisma and thus forgetting channeling you are turning your back on a core class feature. Is akin to creating a ranger who uses two-handed swords in melee… you are ignoring all the feats the class gives you…
Build the two characters side by side… you will quickly see that you are, in fact, working against the strengths of the class. It's skill list, powers, and abilities all work off of mental stats… Not one works off a Physical stat, and the time you spend in combat buffing self to reach a basic power level in which you can hold your own in melee, is better spent casting control spells or direct damage spells. And every feat you take to improve your melee combat potential, the farther you get from your classes core abilities.
I hate 4th edition, but it did teach me one thing, efficacy of actions…
Ask yourself, what would be the most effective thing for me to do? Drop a flame strike dealing 9d8 damage to 2 targets before the rest of my party gets into melee? Or buff myself to give me a +3 to hit/+3 on damage (divine power) and next round get into melee dealing 1d8+11 (18 Strength + divine power, and -2/+4 from power attack) – Now god forbid you want to make a Dex based melee cleric (read my Swashbuckling cleric post)
I feel that if the designers wanted you to get into melee, some cleric melee buff spells would have been a swift action to cast. Now before you yell, “But you will be better than the fighter” that’s not true at all... The fighter will still be better fighters…it may have been true with the 3.5 fighter, but NOT with the Pathfinder fighter….
Emphasis mine.
/rant mode ONTheres the problem right there. Its not what other people expect. Its what do you want to play. If you want to play a melee cleric, and you have the skill and mechanics knowledge to do it, then do it. Don't let someone else dictate how you play your character. This isn't a frigging MMO raid. As long as you survive, does it matter if the cleric didn't heal as much as he waded into battle and buffed people up while swinging his holy beatstick around?
Sheesh, people telling me I had to play a class a certain way is what pissed me off about organized play years ago, and every time I hear someone reference how a class should be played by organized play, it makes me want to ask them if they ask someone else what they can eat for breakfast...
/rant mode OFF
OK, now that I got that out of my system...
Fantasy literature and movies and fiction is full of those kinds of things, where a character didn't always play to what, in a game, would be their classes mechanical strengths...they tend to be very memorable characters. Heck, most of the groups I've been in or run, we talk about the characters who were oddballs but effective far more than the ones that simply did what they were supposed to.
|
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.
In 1e AD&D that was the write-up on the class but ever play one? My cleric of Veluna didn't hit very often and when he did d6+0... Healing spells were not every level (and set dice) and damaging spells were wishy washy. If you think there has been a change to clerics I would say it came before PF entered the scene. In 3.5e clerics seem to hit/heal/damage very, very well - too well.
Someone want to stat up say a 12th level cleric "optimsed" under 3.5e and pfRPG and post it for us to compare. I mean we hear that pfRPG clerics are so badly off compared to their 3.5e counterparts. Be nice to see what people are complaining about.
S.
PS: I don't optimise characters so I'm not the person to do this.
Does that make my stance more valid than anyone elses...no, and I never said it did. It seems you have assumed I did, although I'll grant that from the way you look at things, that probably comes from you being rather defensive about posts, and automatically assuming people are trying to force you to change your mind (I just like hearing others points of view, and assuming they have logic behind it, what it is, I like conversations and debates).
You are right. You did not come right out and say your way was better. But the statement (that I ignored the altered font on with my copy&paste quote) "their one true way" came across pretty damn clear.
And I'm not defensive. Just used to dealing with "people of low character," so that I pick up on those little things that the majority of people miss.
In 1e AD&D that was the write-up on the class but ever play one?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.
Actually, I have. I can't tell you much of the value of the class because the Drow Ranger wielding two Scimitars, one of Speed, was the show.
I kind of learned at an "early age" how a powergamer can ruin the fun of others.
I mean we hear that pfRPG clerics are so badly off compared to their 3.5e counterparts.
This seems a less than clever shot at me. So... Let me ask where you got the idea I said the Pathfinder Cleric was so badly off compared to their 3.5e counterparts?
Does that make my stance more valid than anyone elses...no, and I never said it did. It seems you have assumed I did, although I'll grant that from the way you look at things, that probably comes from you being rather defensive about posts, and automatically assuming people are trying to force you to change your mind (I just like hearing others points of view, and assuming they have logic behind it, what it is, I like conversations and debates).You are right. You did not come right out and say your way was better. But the statement (that I ignored the altered font on with my copy&paste quote) "their one true way" came across pretty damn clear.
And I'm not defensive. Just used to dealing with "people of low character," so that I pick up on those little things that the majority of people miss.
So when I'm answering a question soemone asked about if they had the general gist of the thread right, and me trying to sum the tone and all up, I need to specifically state that I'm including myself in the group of people who have previously posted in the thread?
As to the other...if that suits you to think so, thats fine, we all need things to help us sleep at night.
|
|
Actually, I have. I can't tell you much of the value of the class because the Drow Ranger wielding two Scimitars, one of Speed, was the show.I kind of learned at an "early age" how a powergamer can ruin the fun of others.
Sorry I should have added that 1e for me means PHB, DMG, MM only, the rest of the 1e books weren't Gygax in the true sense, more "write stuff" commanded by those stealing control of TSR at the time. Drow were but an evil race that popped up in a fame adventure series...
I mean we hear that pfRPG clerics are so badly off compared to their 3.5e counterparts.This seems a less than clever shot at me. So... Let me ask where you got the idea I said the Pathfinder Cleric was so badly off compared to their 3.5e counterparts?
Not wishing to deflate your ego but you aren't the only show in town when it comes to feeling that pfRPG clerics are somehow less of a cleric than 3.5e. It was an open and honest statement to all who obviously felt that their cleric character was now less able to perform in a melee situation. Either this is true or I have no idea what this thread (and a couple of others) is about!
It's easy to read about this and that, I was asking if someone could make a reference we could all relate to - i.e. a character made under both systems highlighting the issues that some (yes you included) have with Jason's take on the cleric class.
For the record, if I'm specifically "taking a shot at you" I'll make it perfectly clear. Althought I would like to think, I would be taking a shot at something you had said not you personally.
Fair enough?
S.
You don't and you can! Huzzah!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.
Even if you do your still a healing/destruction battery, even a low cha like 8 will make you one, though one with less juice. But don't take that 16 and put it into str and put that 8 there and well you aint much for melee at all.
The thing is now your a reasonably good healer even if you don't want to be.
Channel Energy is addictive and slams clerics into a role no matter how they are built.
Even if you do your still a healing/destruction battery, even a low cha like 8 will make you one, though one with less juice. But don't take that 16 and put it into str and put that 8 there and well you aint much for melee at all.
The thing is now your a reasonably good healer even if you don't want to be.
Channel Energy is addictive and slams clerics into a role no matter how they are built.
I don't see how this is so. Without taking Selective Channeling or Extra Channeling, you'd only be able to do it a handful of times per day and under rare circumstances (I'd say probably after the encounter is over). If you're lamenting at being expected to heal at all then I'd say I really can't argue this point with you because it makes my brain go "CLANG CLANG CLANG PSSSSHHHHHH!"
Theres the problem right there. Its not what other people expect. Its what do you want to play. If you want to play a melee cleric, and you have the skill and mechanics knowledge to do it, then do it. Don't let someone else dictate how you play your character. This isn't a frigging MMO raid. As long as you survive, does it matter if the cleric didn't heal as much as he waded into battle and buffed people up while swinging his holy beatstick around?
Ok before you snap my neck off any quicker....
I meant the general expectation, not mine... Writers and the CR system expect you to have some kind of healing at the table. Also when you are putting together a pick up table (which is one of the coolest things about Organized play, you get to meet a ton of new people and make a lot of friends along the way) you hear someone say “8th Level Cleric! Looking for a table” you have basic expectations which come to mind; there is no way you can’t. (I know when we put together tables at conventions we try and split the clerics up so every table has one.)
With the class gaining such a powerful healing ability, in Pathfinder it’s going to be a given… You gave a class the single most powerful mass healing ability in the game as class ability, not only that but you gave the class the ability to take a feat to make it even more effective in combat.
Like I said, it’s like playing an 18th level ranger who uses only a two-handed sword. (Something everyone here would agree is a waste of a class feature)
I also use to be in the "bring what you want" camp... that was until 1) I started writing products for the d20 system 2) I started to see how adventures in a living campaign are written, with the expectation of a certain power level, all living campaign adventures are written for “optimized characters” and some I have played/seen are written for Power-Monkeys. Case in point, by what I understand suasion 1 starts with a very tough adventure which chews up non-optimized characters. (The only exception to this is the Witch Hunter: Dark Providence campaign, their adventures have guidelines in case you have a “non-combat focused” table… opponents stats are lowered or there are less of them)
I don't see how this is so. Without taking Selective Channeling or Extra Channeling, you'd only be able to do it a handful of times per day and under rare circumstances (I'd say probably after the encounter is over). If you're lamenting at being expected to heal at all then I'd say I really can't argue this point with you because it makes my brain go "CLANG CLANG CLANG PSSSSHHHHHH!"Even if you do your still a healing/destruction battery, even a low cha like 8 will make you one, though one with less juice. But don't take that 16 and put it into str and put that 8 there and well you aint much for melee at all.
The thing is now your a reasonably good healer even if you don't want to be.
Channel Energy is addictive and slams clerics into a role no matter how they are built.
So it's ok that even clerics not built to be healing batteries are by default able to be so even with an 8 in cha a "handful" of times per day. This isn't alike spell selection were you can choose which spells you take, and if you decide to convert them to healing you can always do so but it's an option. This isn't an option unless you are facing undead you have no other use for it but then to fart out heals after a few encounters. Sure you can't fart them out all day unless you build for it, but you sure can do it a bunch even if you don't or worse even if you build against that idea.
It's not even about being expected to heal, it about having nothing at all else to do then to heal with it (again unless facing undead). Worse yet every single cleric has it, no matter how they build. It's not like you had to spends feats to do this, it's built in.
You railed against heavy armor because it "forced" all clerics to wear it. Even though you claimed you never saw one that did. It "forced" all clerics to be melee clerics. But heavy armor wasn't something you got for free, you still had to buy it and it comes with down sides, mobility being foremost in my mind. Reduced dex advantage and armor penalty to skills also being included. This channel energy doesn't have a down side, it lets you fart out heals after a fight at the cost of nothing in most cases (undead exception again). You can't decide well I am building an archer styled cleric so I wont want heavy armor, or I am building a white mage style priest so any heavy armor or even medium seems too much, or I want to build a swashbuckler priest so light armor is key. No you don't get to make that choice with channel energy, you get to do it no matter what. So no matter how you build your cleric your a healer, nothing you can do about that. Do you not see the similarity there, even the more forced style of play that channel energy does then heavy armor ever did?
With the class gaining such a powerful healing ability, in Pathfinder it’s going to be a given… You gave a class the single most powerful mass healing ability in the game as class ability, not only that but you gave the class the ability to take a feat to make it even more effective in combat.
Like I said, it’s like playing an 18th level ranger who uses only a two-handed sword. (Something everyone here would agree is a waste of a class feature)
Two things. I agree, the cleric in pathfinder is now relatively powerful healer no matter how you build him. (assuming good aligned) I actually see that as an issue.
I often build rangers who use two handed swords, I dislike maybe even hate the current ranger fighting selections. Most home DMs are cool with making one for rangers who want to build a third style focused on two-handed weapons. I understand for organized play non-optimal characters can become a liability for a party, but then I blame that on poorly written adventures and not the players who play what makes them have a ball as they play.
So it's ok that even clerics not built to be healing batteries are by default able to be so even with an 8 in cha a "handful" of times per day. This isn't alike spell selection were you can choose which spells you take, and if you decide to convert them to healing you can always do so but it's an option. This isn't an option unless you are facing undead you have no other use for it but then to fart out heals after a few encounters. Sure you can't fart them out all day unless you build for it, but you sure can do it a bunch even if you don't or worse even if you build against that idea.
It's not even about being expected to heal, it about having nothing at all else to do then to heal with it (again unless facing undead). Worse yet every single cleric has it, no matter how they build. It's not like you had to spends feats to do this, it's built in.
You railed against heavy armor because it "forced" all clerics to wear it. Even though you claimed you never saw one that did. It "forced" all clerics to be melee clerics. But heavy armor wasn't something you got for free, you still had to buy it and it comes with down sides, mobility being foremost in my...
No, they could have made the base Channel Energy mechanic only to heal allies or those you choose as with mass cure light. Instead you have to take a feat. They also could have given us heavy armor. Instead you have to take the feat.
They gave us enough of a baseline to start with and left it up to us to specialize.
So it's ok that even clerics not built to be healing batteries are by default able to be so even with an 8 in cha a "handful" of times per day. This isn't alike spell selection were you can choose which spells you take, and if you decide to convert them to healing you can always do so but it's an option. This isn't an option unless you are facing undead you have no other use for it but then to fart out heals after a few encounters. Sure you can't fart them out all day unless you build for it, but you sure can do it a bunch even if you don't or worse even if you build against that idea.
It's not even about being expected to heal, it about having nothing at all else to do then to heal with it (again unless facing undead). Worse yet every single cleric has it, no matter how they build. It's not like you had to spends feats to do this, it's built in.
You railed against heavy armor because it "forced" all clerics to wear it. Even though you claimed you never saw one that did. It "forced" all clerics to be melee clerics. But heavy armor wasn't something you got for free, you still had to buy it and it comes with down sides, mobility being foremost in my...
No, they could have made the base Channel Energy mechanic only to heal allies or those you choose as with mass cure light. Instead you have to take a feat. They also could have given us heavy armor. Instead you have to take the feat.
They gave us enough of a baseline to start with and left it up to us to specialize.
You can heal after the fight without taking any feat. All pathfinder clerics can. It turns all clerics into healing batteries, no build requirements to be one.
You can heal after the fight without taking any feat. All pathfinder clerics can. It turns all clerics into healing batteries, no build requirements to be one.
Just because the Cleric has an ability that gives them the ability to heal means they are a "healing battery"? That's a load of Catoblepas dung, dude.
You need to devote a good roll to an attribute that isn't Wisdom and take feats for it to be effective, especially when it matters the most - in combat.
The Cleric has always had the ability to heal. I guess it's ALWAYS been a healing battery as far as you're concerned. The only difference now is that you can heal AND cast your spells as they were intended to be used instead of "wasting" them on heals.
Woe is the Cleric! WOE!
You know...
If I use pathfinder for my next home game (playing arround with designing a classless d20) I have an easy way to fix this for my players...
Taking an idea from 4e (and I hate 4E, but they have a few good ideas)
Have two optional builds for the cleric...
Replace all the channeling entries with “Path of Faith”
Under “Path of Faith” all clerics must chose a path at 1st level, the path of the “Consecrated Cleric” or the “Crusader”
Path of the Consecrated Cleric gives 2 domains and channeling (right out of the PF book)
Path if the Crusader gives 1 domain and weapon focus at 1st level in the gods chosen weapon. After that each “Path of Faith” entry gives the cleric a bonus feat (like the fighter) but they would have a smaller list possable bonus feats they can take, and it would include a few feats like combat casting.
Maybe the skill selection would change a little depending on the path you took.
P.S. Jason... you can take the above idea and use it in Pathfinder if you want.. just give "the halfling" credit ::winks:: (I think Jason will have figgerd out who I am by now)
So it's ok that even clerics not built to be healing batteries are by default able to be so even with an 8 in cha a "handful" of times per day. This isn't alike spell selection were you can choose which spells you take, and if you decide to convert them to healing you can always do so but it's an option. This isn't an option unless you are facing undead you have no other use for it but then to fart out heals after a few encounters. Sure you can't fart them out all day unless you build for it, but you sure can do it a bunch even if you don't or worse even if you build against that idea.
So you are complaining that they added an ability ? What else could you do with turn undead except turn undead in the core rules ? Now you can do more. Oh, and if you are neutral or evil you can even deal damage ?
It's not even about being expected to heal, it about having nothing at all else to do then to heal with it (again unless facing undead). Worse yet every single cleric has it, no matter how they build. It's not like you had to spends feats to do this, it's built in.
3.5 core was even worse. You could turn undead and...what ?
You railed against heavy armor because it "forced" all clerics to wear it. Even though you claimed you never saw one that did. It "forced" all clerics to be melee clerics. But heavy armor wasn't something you got for free, you still had to buy it and it comes with down sides, mobility being foremost in my...
It didn't force all to wear it. It did force all to know it. Why the hell Sombo, cleric of the deity of Fun and Parties was trained on wearing Full Plate ? This, in my opinion is much stranger.
Oh and about the cleric role of "Martial Warrior of the deity", this is far from what i get from the description of the cleric in the 3.5 PH.
- "A cleric uses the power of his god to make the god's will manifest."
- "Ideally, a cleric's adventures support his god's causes, at least in a general way."
- "Clerics are masters of divine magic, which is specially good at healing."
- "Clerics have some combat training. They can use simple weapons, and they are trained in the use of armor, since armor does not interfere with divine magic."
The only reason stated for the training is that it did not interfere with their spellcasting. No major role reason for it.
You can heal after the fight without taking any feat. All pathfinder clerics can. It turns all clerics into healing batteries, no build requirements to be one.
I think a cleric of war would think this a very handy ability and would be most thankful to his war god for allowing his troops to refresh after a bloody battle.
I think a cleric of war would think this a very handy ability and would be most thankful to his war god for allowing his troops to refresh after a bloody battle.
That's what the "lamentation of their women" is for! :D
KROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edit: Well, to be perfectly literal, Krom isn't exactly a god of War... he's a god of Tough Crap, Deal With it and Quit Whining, but there really isn't a domain for that, I don't think.
I think a cleric of war would think this a very handy ability and would be most thankful to his war god for allowing his troops to refresh after a bloody battle.That's what the "lamentation of their women" is for! :D
KROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edit: Well, to be perfectly literal, Krom isn't exactly a god of War... he's a god of Tough Crap, Deal With it and Quit Whining, but there really isn't a domain for that, I don't think.
Who is Krom? Do you mean Crom?
So you are complaining that they added an ability ? What else could you do with turn undead except turn undead in the core rules ? Now you can do more. Oh, and if you are neutral or evil you can even deal damage ?
Yes, that is exactly what I am complaining about, they added an ability that even more then ever forces good clerics to be healers no matter how players build them.
3.5 core was even worse. You could turn undead and...what ?
That's actually a good thing. A limited ability that allows clerics to shine in a special situation but otherwise doesn't force a certain role on them.
It didn't force all to wear it. It did force all to know it. Why the hell Sombo, cleric of the deity of Fun and Parties was trained on wearing Full Plate ? This, in my opinion is much stranger.
I suppose everything the cleric knows was taught to him by his church. Even now he is forced to learn medium armor, why would a god of stealth do that? Why not restrict it to light or no armor. Or how about the god of love who teaches his clerics the use of weapons. We could have all clerics come with no training in weapon use or armor use at all. All make as much sense as claiming having a feat you can ignore means you need to RP knowing it. RP Sombo has having never trained in any armor or weapons, it's a valid option. RPing Ruger the mighty Warrior Priest of St. Cuthbert wearing platemail though without the feat and he is crippled in it.
Who is Krom? Do you mean Crom?I think a cleric of war would think this a very handy ability and would be most thankful to his war god for allowing his troops to refresh after a bloody battle.That's what the "lamentation of their women" is for! :D
KROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edit: Well, to be perfectly literal, Krom isn't exactly a god of War... he's a god of Tough Crap, Deal With it and Quit Whining, but there really isn't a domain for that, I don't think.
He means he has no valid defense for his stance so has turned to name calling.
I think a cleric of war would think this a very handy ability and would be most thankful to his war god for allowing his troops to refresh after a bloody battle.
You can heal after the fight without taking any feat. All pathfinder clerics can. It turns all clerics into healing batteries, no build requirements to be one.
But not all gods of war heal. In first ed Thor did not grant healing spells, the Norse belief was the strong will surive the weak will not, and that is the way it should be. Odin healed once and it took him months to recover from it.
I suppose everything the cleric knows was taught to him by his church. Even now he is forced to learn medium armor, why would a god of stealth do that? Why not restrict it to light or no armor. Or how about the god of love who teaches his clerics the use of weapons. We could have all clerics come with no training in weapon use or armor use at all. All make as much sense as claiming having a feat you can ignore means you need to RP knowing it. RP Sombo has having never trained in any armor or weapons, it's a valid option. RPing Ruger the mighty Warrior Priest of St. Cuthbert wearing platemail though without the feat and he is crippled in it.
It didn't force all to wear it. It did force all to know it. Why the hell Sombo, cleric of the deity of Fun and Parties was trained on wearing Full Plate ? This, in my opinion is much stranger.
A little story. I once had a hobgoblin ranger in a 3.5 eberron game. Now I decided for story reasons that my character was illiterate. But I thought rangers get literacy, right? Officially, by the game rules he was literate, but I choose to play him as illiterate, because it made sense. Now I could image a player saying their character who official gets heavier armor proficienies as only being proficient in light armor. If you want to put restrictions on the character, then do it through roleplaying. You don't need to nerf the class for everyone just to satisfy yourself.
He means he has no valid defense for his stance so has turned to name calling.
I DID defend my position and I am NOT calling anyone names. I was making a delightful witty comment that had *gasp* nothing to do with you. Argue against my point, don't pick up on my quip and ignore it.
Just because the Cleric has an ability that gives them the ability to heal means they are a "healing battery"? That's a load of Catoblepas dung, dude.
You need to devote a good roll to an attribute that isn't Wisdom and take feats for it to be effective, especially when it matters the most - in combat.
The Cleric has always had the ability to heal. I guess it's ALWAYS been a healing battery as far as you're concerned. The only difference now is that you can heal AND cast your spells as they were intended to be used instead of "wasting" them on heals.
Woe is the Cleric! WOE!
But not all gods of war heal. In first ed Thor did not grant healing spells, the Norse belief was the strong will surive the weak will not, and that is the way it should be. Odin healed once and it took him months to recover from it.
If you want a warrior spellcaster that never heals then might I suggest playing a devout Wizard with the appropriate feats for armored casting?
But not all gods of war heal. In first ed Thor did not grant healing spells, the Norse belief was the strong will surive the weak will not, and that is the way it should be. Odin healed once and it took him months to recover from it.
I will have to offer you Pres Man's advice here.
A little story. I once had a hobgoblin ranger in a 3.5 eberron game. Now I decided for story reasons that my character was illiterate. But I thought rangers get literacy, right? Officially, by the game rules he was literate, but I choose to play him as illiterate, because it made sense. Now I could image a player saying their character who official gets heavier armor proficienies as only being proficient in light armor. If you want to put restrictions on the character, then do it through roleplaying. You don't need to nerf the class for everyone just to satisfy yourself.
He means he has no valid defense for his stance so has turned to name calling.
I sincerely have no idea from where this is coming from, probably from somewhere in that overxetended topic on heavy armors.
A little story. I once had a hobgoblin ranger in a 3.5 eberron game. Now I decided for story reasons that my character was illiterate. But I thought rangers get literacy, right? Officially, by the game rules he was literate, but I choose to play him as illiterate, because it made sense. Now I could image a player saying their character who official gets heavier armor proficienies as only being proficient in light armor. If you want to put restrictions on the character, then do it through roleplaying. You don't need to nerf the class for everyone just to satisfy yourself.
I would only like to clarify my position. I think that only a small number of deities would foster the use of heavy armor among their clergyman. Even among these deities, I can imagine that some of their clerics would act more like seers, advisors, morale boosters and healers (see 13th Warrior for instance, since the Norse pantheon was mentioned). This is *my* conception for the cleric flavorwise. Hence I was happy with the change, since it best fits my idea of a cleric. I *can* see why someone might see it in a different way, and I was only explaining why it made sense to me more than the previous situation. I do not, in any way, think that classes should be "nerfed to satisfy myself", nor do I think I expressed such an idea.
I sincerely have no idea from where this is coming from, probably from somewhere in that overxetended topic on heavy armors.
He means he has no valid defense for his stance so has turned to name calling.
I think he thinks it was a thinly-veiled attempt at calling him a Barbarian which, of course, it was not.
I would only like to clarify my position. I think that only a small number of deities would foster the use of heavy armor among their clergyman. Even among these deities, I can imagine that some of their clerics would act more like seers, advisors, morale boosters and healers (see 13th Warrior for instance, since the Norse pantheon was mentioned). This is *my* conception for the cleric flavorwise. Hence I was happy with the change, since it best fits my idea of a cleric. I *can* see why someone might see it in a different way, and I was only explaining why it made sense to me more than the previous situation. I do not, in any way, think that classes should be "nerfed to satisfy myself", nor do I think I expressed such an idea.
A little story. I once had a hobgoblin ranger in a 3.5 eberron game. Now I decided for story reasons that my character was illiterate. But I thought rangers get literacy, right? Officially, by the game rules he was literate, but I choose to play him as illiterate, because it made sense. Now I could image a player saying their character who official gets heavier armor proficienies as only being proficient in light armor. If you want to put restrictions on the character, then do it through roleplaying. You don't need to nerf the class for everyone just to satisfy yourself.
You don't think the classes should be nerfed to satisfy yourself, but you are happy with a change that nerfs a class to satisfy people like yourself? Ah, ok.
I suppose everything the cleric knows was taught to him by his church. Even now he is forced to learn medium armor, why would a god of stealth do that? Why not restrict it to light or no armor. Or how about the god of love who teaches his clerics the use of weapons. We could have all clerics come with no training in weapon use or armor use at all. All make as much sense as claiming having a feat you can ignore means you need to RP knowing it. RP Sombo has having never trained in any armor or weapons, it's a valid option. RPing Ruger the mighty Warrior Priest of St. Cuthbert wearing platemail though without the feat and he is crippled in it.
I suppose we should just give all weapon and armor proficiences to all classes and let people RP their different viewpoints on what his particular character knows ? I am just arguing that it seems to me that the restriction to medium armor fits a greater number of cleric concepts than the full training in armor use. I even mentioned how the concept in the original 3.5 ruleset for the cleric did not, in anyway, imply a battle cleric.
One could think, of course, that the cleric concept in 1e and 2e are closer to what it "should be". I dare say that the Pathfinder cleric, even without heavy armor, is more competent in the role of "battle cleric" than the clerics in 1e and 2e were.
Exactly. The new Cleric, as I've said, is a good baseline for any concept or build. That's what Base Classes ought to be.
This is why I, personally, frown upon the ko-jillion different base classes that came out of 3.5 which seemed to be designed to squeeze every last drop of balance cutting to the very edge as possible. I don't approve of this for D&D. Remember that one class from the Complete Divine that got full Cleric casting and full base attack bonus? WTF??? LOL
You don't think the classes should be nerfed to satisfy yourself, but you are happy with a change that nerfs a class to satisfy people like yourself? Ah, ok.
Let me put this in simpler words to make it even more clear.
- While playing in 3.5 I was not angsty because "omg clerics use heavy armor, that doesn't make any sense, IhateD&D &$@#%". I did not house rule it out. I did not write letters to Paizo to remove it. I did not think they should take it out only because I think it does not make sense. Clear ?
- However ,when Pathfinder came, I read the rule and thought "oh, that makes sense." Clear ?
- I expressed why it made sense to me on this forum. Clear ?
The fact that I like a change does not mean that it should be done to satisfy me. Clear ?
You don't think the classes should be nerfed to satisfy yourself, but you are happy with a change that nerfs a class to satisfy people like yourself? Ah, ok.Let me put this in simpler words to make it even more clear.
- While playing in 3.5 I was not angsty because "omg clerics use heavy armor, that doesn't make any sense, IhateD&D &$@#%". I did not house rule it out. I did not write letters to Paizo to remove it. I did not think they should take it out only because I think it does not make sense. Clear ?
- However ,when Pathfinder came, I read the rule and thought "oh, that makes sense." Clear ?
- I expressed why it made sense to me on this forum. Clear ?
The fact that I like a change does not mean that it should be done to satisfy me. Clear ?
So you were perfectly fine with heavy armor clerics in 3.5, they made total sense to you then. But now that the gods on high have come down and removed heavy armor from the default cleric, you now see the error of your ways and rejoice in the new enlightenment. Is that right?
But not all gods of war heal. In first ed Thor did not grant healing spells, the Norse belief was the strong will surive the weak will not, and that is the way it should be. Odin healed once and it took him months to recover from it.I will have to offer you Pres Man's advice here.
A little story. I once had a hobgoblin ranger in a 3.5 eberron game. Now I decided for story reasons that my character was illiterate. But I thought rangers get literacy, right? Officially, by the game rules he was literate, but I choose to play him as illiterate, because it made sense. Now I could image a player saying their character who official gets heavier armor proficienies as only being proficient in light armor. If you want to put restrictions on the character, then do it through roleplaying. You don't need to nerf the class for everyone just to satisfy yourself.
So that only goes one way, only applies to channel energy not to heavy armor? Interesting.
So you were perfectly fine with heavy armor clerics in 3.5, they made total sense to you then. But now that the gods on high have come down and removed heavy armor from the default cleric, you now see the error of your ways and rejoice in the new enlightenment. Is that right?
You have tried to imply that I think changes should be made to suit my personal tastes. I never said such a thing. This is a personality trait I do not possess, that of forcing my tastes onto others, which is the particular idea I was tryng to convey in my original post. This does not mean, of course, that I don't have my preferences.
You have decided not to understand my point, or is pretending not to. I will not further elaborate on this, since it is a completely off-topic, and frankly, uninteresting discussion.
So that only goes one way, only applies to channel energy not to heavy armor? Interesting.
A little story. I once had a hobgoblin ranger in a 3.5 eberron game. Now I decided for story reasons that my character was illiterate. But I thought rangers get literacy, right? Officially, by the game rules he was literate, but I choose to play him as illiterate, because it made sense. Now I could image a player saying their character who official gets heavier armor proficienies as only being proficient in light armor. If you want to put restrictions on the character, then do it through roleplaying. You don't need to nerf the class for everyone just to satisfy yourself.
Nope. It applies to Channel Energy. If you don't like it, ignore it. Simple as that.
You have decided not to understand my point, or is pretending not to. I will not further elaborate on this, since it is a completely off-topic, and frankly, uninteresting discussion.
I'll elaborate.
Messageboards Rule #001: Argue the points you think you might win, ignore the rest and hope they just go away.
Nope. It applies to Channel Energy. If you don't like it, ignore it. Simple as that.So that only goes one way, only applies to channel energy not to heavy armor? Interesting.
A little story. I once had a hobgoblin ranger in a 3.5 eberron game. Now I decided for story reasons that my character was illiterate. But I thought rangers get literacy, right? Officially, by the game rules he was literate, but I choose to play him as illiterate, because it made sense. Now I could image a player saying their character who official gets heavier armor proficienies as only being proficient in light armor. If you want to put restrictions on the character, then do it through roleplaying. You don't need to nerf the class for everyone just to satisfy yourself.
Very interesting. So it works when you want an ability, but not when you don't. Very interesting logic and reasoning.
So that only goes one way, only applies to channel energy not to heavy armor? Interesting.
And here you nailed it. This is a matter of taste, pure and simple. Since the cleric is, by nature, a multi-concept class, being as varied as the gods (literally), I think a good design for the class should include abilities which are shared by most cleric concepts, while allowing space for learning deity-specific powers/feats/skills.
Now, channel energy is a great ability because it encompasses a greater number of the cleric concepts. Particularly war-like deities might probably have many clerics which are not capable of healing, instead focusing on the more destructive negative energy chanelling.
As for heavy armors, which are (in my opinion) used more often by war and guardian clerics (a niche among the many possibilities), can be obtained easily by spending a feat, which are also more abundant now.
I liked the change, of course some will dislike it. It doesn't make it specifically *wrong*, though.
Theres the problem right there. Its not what other people expect. Its what do you want to play. If you want to play a melee cleric, and you have the skill and mechanics knowledge to do it, then do it. Don't let someone else dictate how you play your character. This isn't a frigging MMO raid. As long as you survive, does it matter if the cleric didn't heal as much as he waded into battle and buffed people up while swinging his holy beatstick around?
Ok before you snap my neck off any quicker....
I meant the general expectation, not mine... Writers and the CR system expect you to have some kind of healing at the table. Also when you are putting together a pick up table (which is one of the coolest things about Organized play, you get to meet a ton of new people and make a lot of friends along the way) you hear someone say “8th Level Cleric! Looking for a table” you have basic expectations which come to mind; there is no way you can’t. (I know when we put together tables at conventions we try and split the clerics up so every table has one.)
I wasn't aiming that at you specifically. Sorry if it seemed that way, but I did try to make it clear I was ranting.
With the class gaining such a powerful healing ability, in Pathfinder it’s going to be a given… You gave a class the single most powerful mass healing ability in the game as class ability, not only that but you gave the class the ability to take a feat to make it even more effective in combat.
Thats just it though, as some people like to whine about (not naming names, you know who you are)...EVERY single cleric who channels positive energy can heal. They can even convert spells to cure spells still. Theres no reason a group should force them to specialize even more into being a healer unless they want to.
Like I said, it’s like playing an 18th level ranger who uses only a two-handed sword. (Something everyone here would agree is a waste of a class feature)
I also use to be in the "bring what you want" camp... that was until 1) I started writing products for the d20 system 2) I started to see how adventures in a living campaign are written, with the expectation of a certain power level, all living campaign adventures are written for “optimized characters” and some I have played/seen are written for Power-Monkeys. Case in point, by what I understand suasion 1 starts with a very tough adventure which chews up non-optimized characters. (The only exception to this is the Witch Hunter: Dark Providence campaign, their adventures have guidelines in case you have a “non-combat focused” table… opponents stats are lowered or there are less of them)
No offense, thats bad adventure design. Adventures should be written with the idea that you can have a group comprised of any combination of the 11 core classes.
Again, its why I don't like organized play stuff, I had my fill of it with the RPGA way back when, and it seems like nothing has changed. People hear cleric and they put on the blinders at an organized play event, automatically assuming that the cleric is a healer (heaven forbid he channels negative energy...oh my god...).
Meh...Paizo does this really great thing, and give one of my favorite classes more versatility than they have had in ages, and people either want to a) force them into a straitjacket role or b) complain because they [i]*gasp*[/] have to, you know, spend feats to make the character the way they want.
Well, then theres also the group that really likes the versatility, but seem to think others expectations should define their fun.
Very interesting. So it works when you want an ability, but not when you don't. Very interesting logic and reasoning.
Yep it is called house ruling.
|
He means he has no valid defense for his stance so has turned to name calling.Who is Krom? Do you mean Crom?I think a cleric of war would think this a very handy ability and would be most thankful to his war god for allowing his troops to refresh after a bloody battle.That's what the "lamentation of their women" is for! :D
[C]KROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did Thurgon just make a joke?!?
If that was intentional, that was brilliant.