White Mage or Battle Priest?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

My image of a white mage has been influenced by stories like the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser books, which basically translates to a very "wizard like" image of a spellcaster that is first and foremost a spellcaster, i.e. a d6, low BAB progression character with no armor proficiency.

The cleric does not feel, to me, like its gone too far in this direction. I did complain about the heavy armor proficiency loss, mainly because the cleric lost a class feature its had since its inception, but beyond that, the loss of that proficiency doesn't immediately relegate the cleric to "white mage" status.

D&D does have some "white mage" style characters. I hesitate to use the term to describe actual divine classes, but the Archivist is definitely very close to that model. In fact, if I ever ran a Newhon game again, I'd probably sub out the cleric for the Archivist.

Also, to see more examples of what a "white mage" really looks like, the healer and the cloistered cleric fit that mold much better than the Pathfinder cleric, although I hate the term because I get the feeling that it has a sort of secondary connotation of "first we make the cleric into a priest, next we erase the difference between divine and arcane magic."


Montalve wrote:
I can't see the Cloistered Cleric, Dedicated Bard or Warlock

While I understand your hatred for Cloistered Clerics, this Divine Bard now feels unloved. *sobs*


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
ya know I really do not get the white mage thing. Ya got armor a D8 pretty good BAB and good weapon selections. That is not a white mage.

Tell that to Rosa. ;)


rosa aside, not a whit mage. If ya loose the armor, weapons HD and BAB to wizard levels , then closer yeah but as it stands no, not a white mage to me


KnightErrantJR wrote:

My image of a white mage has been influenced by stories like the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser books, which basically translates to a very "wizard like" image of a spellcaster that is first and foremost a spellcaster, i.e. a d6, low BAB progression character with no armor proficiency.

I knew the term reminded me of Fafhrd, glad to see I am not alone in having read about those two nuts.

Still I think he is less refering to the loss of heavy armor, which does add to it, but more to the ability to channel energy. How they are becoming more and more based on magical power and less and less on physical.


Thurgon wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:

My image of a white mage has been influenced by stories like the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser books, which basically translates to a very "wizard like" image of a spellcaster that is first and foremost a spellcaster, i.e. a d6, low BAB progression character with no armor proficiency.

I knew the term reminded me of Fafhrd, glad to see I am not alone in having read about those two nuts.

Still I think he is less refering to the loss of heavy armor, which does add to it, but more to the ability to channel energy. How they are becoming more and more based on magical power and less and less on physical.

The channel energy, IMHO, is about to par if not weaker than turning.

So I see this not as a refocusing to magical power, but more as what it was intended, re-balancing, as we do get 3 extra feats, which if you want can be heavy armor proficiency, and you will still not be effected by arcane spell chance failure.


Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

The channel energy, IMHO, is about to par if not weaker than turning.

You really think having an AoE heal/damage effect is on par with turning. Please explain how turning is even in the same league powerwise because I am not seeing that at all.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Thurgon wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

The channel energy, IMHO, is about to par if not weaker than turning.

You really think having an AoE heal/damage effect is on par with turning. Please explain how turning is even in the same league powerwise because I am not seeing that at all.

I agree with Thurgon on this.

Oh, look, Satan's buying ice skates. ;-)


Thurgon wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

The channel energy, IMHO, is about to par if not weaker than turning.

You really think having an AoE heal/damage effect is on par with turning. Please explain how turning is even in the same league powerwise because I am not seeing that at all.

To me it all depends on the situation. If we are being smacked around by a large host of undead and its doubtful the aoe damage would kill them then the party would likely be thankful that a bunch of them turn tail and get lost for a while to give us time to catch a breath as far fewer attacks would be incoming. AOE heal would give you some hitpoints back great, but then the number of attacks may override its usefulness.

If its a load of lower undead, then AOE damage is the way id go.

If you fighting non undead and spamming AOE heal, most times I would expect to be told off but thankfully I have the selective chanelling feat ;)

So in my opinion anyhow there is no direct way of saying this trumps that as it all depends on what kind of trouble your in at the time..


Epic Meepo wrote:
I'd almost say you have to look at the cleric not as a continuation of the traditional cleric, but as a cleric who killed the 2nd edition specialty priest and took all of his stuff. Consider:

  • Not all specialty priests had proficiency with heavy armor; not all clerics have proficiency with heavy armor.
  • Not all specialty priests could turn/rebuke undead; not all clerics can turn/rebuke undead.
  • Some specialty priests could cast a few non-cleric spells; some clerics can cast a few non-cleric spells.
  • Many specialty priests were proficient with deity-specific weapons; all clerics are proficient with deity-specific weapons.
  • All specialty priests had miscellaneous abilities tied closely to their deities; all clerics have miscellaneous abilities tied closely to their deities' domains.

Based on that, I'm inclined to say that the Pathfinder cleric isn't a straight, traditional cleric, but an amalgam of both the traditional cleric and the specialty priest, with a few class abilities turned into feats to make room for specialty priest stuff.

As Montavle pointed out, specialty priests were not clerics. Most churches had clerics AND specialty priests that, as you correctly pointed out, had different proficiencies and sometimes loosened, sometimes more restrictive ethos.

While the analogy is not accurate, clerics were your "universalist divine mage" and the specialty priest were your "specialist divine mage". Pathfinder seem to have made a move toward removing the vanilla cleric and replacing it with the specialty priest instead (a move that was started by 3rd edition admittedly, not Pathfinder). Personally, I think that was the way to go, but I see that many disagree, especially those for whom the "vanilla cleric" was THE iconic divine character.

That being said, I never envisioned the iconic AD&D cleric being as armor plated...

As for the rest, I think that different deities should bring different credos, different forms of devotion and in game terms, access to different spells and proficiencies. Gods can be whatever they want to be (they're gods after all), so it fits the class to be versatile, which I think it is, and can easily be extended (via domains and uses of channel energy) if need be.

'findel


Dracon wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

The channel energy, IMHO, is about to par if not weaker than turning.

You really think having an AoE heal/damage effect is on par with turning. Please explain how turning is even in the same league powerwise because I am not seeing that at all.

To me it all depends on the situation. If we are being smacked around by a large host of undead and its doubtful the aoe damage would kill them then the party would likely be thankful that a bunch of them turn tail and get lost for a while to give us time to catch a breath as far fewer attacks would be incoming. AOE heal would give you some hitpoints back great, but then the number of attacks may override its usefulness.

If its a load of lower undead, then AOE damage is the way id go.

If you fighting non undead and spamming AOE heal, most times I would expect to be told off but thankfully I have the selective chanelling feat ;)

So in my opinion anyhow there is no direct way of saying this trumps that as it all depends on what kind of trouble your in at the time..

Sorry but at best you brought up the one and only time turn is better in a way then channel energy, in all other siutations channel energy is better.

I don't mean to be rude, but a one use power does not favorably compare with a power that is always of use.


Pops in, pours salt into wounds and offers everyone BBQ sacred cow

"Ummm, good cow"

Liberty's Edge

Joanne Gottlieb wrote:
Montalve wrote:
I can't see the Cloistered Cleric, Dedicated Bard or Warlock
While I understand your hatred for Cloistered Clerics, this Divine Bard now feels unloved. *sobs*

nah I told you I can't use the Dedicated Bard as exchange for the cleric... you can use it freely as exchange for the bard :P different perspective... I just can't stomach when they tell me its a valid option in exchange for the cleric to get some skills... :P

Liberty's Edge

Laurefindel wrote:

As Montavle pointed out, specialty priests were not clerics. Most churches had clerics AND specialty priests that, as you correctly pointed out, had different proficiencies and sometimes loosened, sometimes more restrictive ethos.

While the analogy is not accurate, clerics were your "universalist divine mage" and the specialty priest were your "specialist divine mage". Pathfinder seem to have made a move toward removing the vanilla cleric and replacing it with the specialty priest instead (a move that was started by 3rd edition admittedly, not Pathfinder). Personally, I think that was the way to go, but I see that many disagree, especially those for whom the "vanilla cleric" was THE iconic divine character.

That being said, I never envisioned the iconic AD&D cleric being as armor plated...

As for the rest, I think that different deities should bring different credos, different forms of devotion and in game terms, access to different spells and proficiencies. Gods can be whatever they want to be (they're gods after all), so it fits the class to be versatile, which I think it is, and can easily be extended (via domains and uses of channel energy) if need be.

'findel

definitively findel

yes I am more interested in the iconic cleric as I knew it, even if i will try the specialty cleric, butas you mention every bit more the old cleric ispushedinto oblivion... I like the options to mold the cleric into an specific pristhood, domains are suppodely good to do this... the Beta ones felt that way... the oens now really give me the impresion of the sorcerer cleric... it feels more like a bloodline, I suppose part of it is that they wanted to have one mechanic for it all... but i fel it lose a lot in the process.

but again, that is me.

other way it wouldhave worked (and the specialty rpiest had) would be to change class skills (or add a couple) depending the god/dess protfolio or the domains taken... how to explain you god is one of the seas and you even in all your training never get the expertise to handle an small boat?

that are the things lacking from the cleric into what they want... and what rubbs me in the wrong way its that the changes they do they do in order to "balance" the classes, still the classes are forced into niches, where versatility would be more interesting...

I understand part of thisis to cover the holes with non core classes or prestigue classes... but not every cleric of harvesting can be a prestigue class or need tocripple his class skills to get what he needs to do his/her god/dess work.


I'm going to stick with the 3.5 default greyhawk deities as examples for the moment, as I am more familiar with them.

Deities that IMO would typically have numerous heavily armored clerics:
Heironeous
Hextor
Moradin
St. Cuthbert

Deities that IMO wouldn't typically have numerous heavily armored clerics:
Boccob
Corellon Larethian
Ehlonna
Erythnul
Fharlanghn
Garl Glittergold
Gruumsh
Kord
Nerull
Obad-Hai
Olidammara
Pelor
Vecna
Wee Jas
Yondalla

So I'm looking at around 23% of the faiths (based solely on my subjective feeling) would be totally down with heavily armored clerics (and I could see arguments why some other might be in one group or another).

Now the question behind the issue is this, and I am going to state it in "math speak" which is not necessarily the same as how things are used in the common language. Should a class have the greatest common factors (that is only the things that all the religions have in common) or should it have the least common multiples (that is have the barest amount to cover all of the religions completely). The language can be confusing, the greatest common factors is often smaller than the least common multiples.

Math example to show the difference between the two:

Look at the numbers 8 and 12.
The greatest common factor between 8 and 12 is 4 (the largest factor in common).
The least common multiple between 8 and 12 is 24 (the smallest multiple the two share).

Folks like myself see a class should be based around the least common multiple, thus since 23% of the faiths would use heavy armor for their clerics, the cleric class should have heavy armor in order to cover all of the religions. Other folks see a class should be based around the greatest common factor, thus they want to give the features that all the religions share (that being some clerics in medium armor or less). It is this basic difference in viewpoint about how a class should be designed that is at the root of these discussions.


Guys can we let the armor issue go? It is done, finished, over Book closed. And not gonna change. What does this help going over and over the same thing when 1. You can houserule it. And 2. You can take the feat.

The horse is beyond dead and beat. It is now a fine meaty paste


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Guys can we let the armor issue go? It is done, finished, over Book closed. And not gonna change. What does this help going over and over the same thing when 1. You can houserule it. And 2. You can take the feat.

The horse is beyond dead and beat. It is now a fine meaty paste

FYI, if you are not interested in game philosphy there are other threads you could be spending time on. No need to rain on other people's discussions just because you are not interested. If you have a different aspect of the current topic you wish to discuss, then please bring it up.

A suggested house-rule to anyone that feels like it is unfair that some clerics get martial proficiency and some don't. If you are going to use the rules but want to balance it out, how about giving the clerics with a simple weapon a free weapon related feat. Weapon Focus in the deities weapon or perhaps Quick Draw.


Not trying to rub salt in anyone's wounds but...oh, who am I kidding, this is freakin' hilarious. Check this out...

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: The aristocrat is
proficient in the use of all simple and martial weapons
and with all types of armor and shields.


pres man wrote:


Good stuff, but too long to keep in a quote.

First I would move 2 of the dieties you listed as not likely to the likely side.

Pelor, stregnth is one of his domains and he along with Pholtus and St. Cuthbert were the prototypical plate mail mace wielding god crew.

Gruumsh as well, he a war god that tells him people the stronger the better. Sure in places that can't make heavy armor they might not have it, but elsewhere they would in all likelihood wear it if possible.

Honestly I would argue Kord as well, but right now his priests are in general barbarians so they lack access. But you do know he wasn't always a barbarian god so much as a god of war and strength in a rather highly civialized society. So at one time platemail and packing steel would not have been far from the norm.

Either way just going with your list.

25% of your heavy armor gods favor simple weapons, 33 % of your non-plate gods favor martial weapons. If the favored weapon feat thing was to help make up for the loss of plate, it missed it's target.


Frogboy wrote:

Not trying to rub salt in anyone's wounds but...oh, who am I kidding, this is freakin' hilarious. Check this out...

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: The aristocrat is
proficient in the use of all simple and martial weapons
and with all types of armor and shields.

Funny...classically the warrior priests of the middle ages would often have been third sons in noble families.

But yeah, you are mean you know that.


pres man wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Guys can we let the armor issue go? It is done, finished, over Book closed. And not gonna change. What does this help going over and over the same thing when 1. You can houserule it. And 2. You can take the feat.

The horse is beyond dead and beat. It is now a fine meaty paste

FYI, if you are not interested in game philosphy there are other threads you could be spending time on. No need to rain on other people's discussions just because you are not interested. If you have a different aspect of the current topic you wish to discuss, then please bring it up.

A suggested house-rule to anyone that feels like it is unfair that some clerics get martial proficiency and some don't. If you are going to use the rules but want to balance it out, how about giving the clerics with a simple weapon a free weapon related feat. Weapon Focus in the deities weapon or perhaps Quick Draw.

the thing is you guys have derailed this thread by just moving over a subject from a closed thread. This really is not the thread to talk about lack of armor. The op asked something and it has been derailed by the fine meat paste that is the cleric loosing armor.

It has become thread crapping more or less. Open up an I want heavy armor thread 2 if ya like.


Thurgon wrote:
Frogboy wrote:

Not trying to rub salt in anyone's wounds but...oh, who am I kidding, this is freakin' hilarious. Check this out...

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: The aristocrat is
proficient in the use of all simple and martial weapons
and with all types of armor and shields.

Funny...classically the warrior priests of the middle ages would often have been third sons in noble families.

But yeah, you are mean you know that.

they also lacked spells. And plate...they did get longsword and chain mail


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Frogboy wrote:

Not trying to rub salt in anyone's wounds but...oh, who am I kidding, this is freakin' hilarious. Check this out...

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: The aristocrat is
proficient in the use of all simple and martial weapons
and with all types of armor and shields.

Funny...classically the warrior priests of the middle ages would often have been third sons in noble families.

But yeah, you are mean you know that.

they also lacked spells. And plate...they did get longsword and chain mail

But in the day chain was the heavy armor that was available.


Thurgon wrote:

[

But in the day chain was the heavy armor that was available.

Thread jack

True, more or less. But in game terms they never would have had access to heavy armor. So its a minor point however ya look at it. Heh we all know the madness of comparing Real life to D&D, we do it anyhow but we know...I mean come on 10 pound sword by foot

End thread jack


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Thurgon wrote:

[

But in the day chain was the heavy armor that was available.

Thread jack

True, more or less. But in game terms they never would have had access to heavy armor. So its a minor point however ya look at it. Heh we all know the madness of comparing Real life to D&D, we do it anyhow but we know...I mean come on 10 pound sword by foot

End thread jack

Well but the principle still works for any society with nobles. You want your first born to inherit, your second born ready incase of emergency but you want something for your third born, so you ship him off to study at your favorite church. It does two things for the son, first it gives him a place to be safe and well cared for, two it allows him to make a name and gain power for himself. For the family it removes a possible contender for the title, it gives them influence in a local clergy, and shows the populus how devote the family is.

Discussing the armor change here isn't off topic, it is a single step on the road to making the cleric more of a white mage. A small step for some but still a step. Clearly no white mage would have access to heavy armor, and now the cleric doesn't.

What value does medium armor bring to the cleric. Most often a cleric is stat starved. With Wis and Cha both high on the must have list, Con and some Str next, how will they ever have enough dex for a normal build to take advantage of the increased dex available using medium armor? I always looked at heavy armor as a way to overcome a bad or medium dex, allowing me to ignore that stat. But now, not so much so.


eh still failing to see a white mage. Once ya loose all armor most weapons gain a low BAB And D6 then we can start saying "Hey I think they made the cleric a white mage" The cleric role has always been to heal. Sure you do not have to play him that way but that was always his job.

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

eh still failing to see a white mage. Once ya loose all armor most weapons gain a low BAB And D6 then we can start saying "Hey I think they made the cleric a white mage" The cleric role has always been to heal. Sure you do not have to play him that way but that was always his job.

only half the job

the other and more important is to protect or spread the faith... even if with mace and fire

i stopped complaining about the armor 1 page ago... ibegan complaining about PF domains :P

but yes... Cloistered Cleric (giak) or Warcraft RPG priest (the one compatible with 3.0) were White Mages in the sense that very little combat capabilities, more healing and buffs...

while i liked the idea earning the Cleric or Paladin like a prestigue classes by 3rd leverl... most of my players hated the idea

even those who don't use the cleric...


Thurgon wrote:
pres man wrote:


Good stuff, but too long to keep in a quote.

response to my stuff

Yeah, I could see Pelor, but then again, I could also see Pelor as the god of healing being the standard bearer for the "white mage" as well. As for Gruumsh and Kord, I see both currently as barbarian types, whether that was always the case or not. Thus heavy armor while perfectly fine, just wouldn't be a typical aspect for their clerics in my mind. I was debating Garl Glittergold and Yondalla, but decide against heavy armor mainly on the fact their followers were already slow enough so would avoid anything heavier than light.

Though, most (though not all) of the deities who I put in the non-heavy catagory, I would see the typical cleric as a multiclassed as follows:

Spoiler:
Boccob = cleric/sorcerer or wizard
Corellon Larethian = cleric/ranger or bard
Ehlonna = cleric/ranger
Erythnul = cleric/fighter or barbarian
Fharlanghn = cleric/bard or ranger
Garl Glittergold
Gruumsh = cleric/barbarian
Kord = cleric/barbarian
Nerull = cleric/rogue
Obad-Hai = cleric/ranger or druid
Olidammara = cleric/rogue
Pelor
Vecna = cleric/wizard or sorcerer [necro]
Wee Jas = cleric/wizard or sorcerer [necro]
Yondalla

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
eh still failing to see a white mage. Once ya loose all armor most weapons gain a low BAB And D6 then we can start saying "Hey I think they made the cleric a white mage" The cleric role has always been to heal. Sure you do not have to play him that way but that was always his job.

Ah, but now with the channeling, Cha has become almost as valuable as Wis and with the lose of heavy armor, Dex jumps up to a close third. What does that mean, it means that Con has dropped in focus, so the difference in actual hps is now less between the d6 and d8 (only 1 point average difference to begin with). Str has dropped in value, which along with BAB is how most melee attacks are made and damage, thus the difference in BAB is less important.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

eh still failing to see a white mage. Once ya loose all armor most weapons gain a low BAB And D6 then we can start saying "Hey I think they made the cleric a white mage" The cleric role has always been to heal. Sure you do not have to play him that way but that was always his job.

The OP was purposely exaggerating to get people interested. But there are steps made one can point at.

So if he was reduced to light armor would be be a bard then? He is only one step away from a bard in armor now, and his melee skills are at best the equal of the bard. Because of his built in better weapon selection the bard is likely better at melee.


True protecting the faithful was part of the job, The class still fills that role. I am just not seeing a step toward white mage. I get why some folks dislike the armor issue, but that in no way steps toward making the cleric into a white mage

Thread jack
Seems to me a white mage should be a mage. White necromancer seems like he could fill that role.


Thurgon wrote:


The OP was purposely exaggerating to get people interested. But there are steps made one can point at.

So if he was reduced to light armor would be be a bard then? He is only one step away from a bard in armor now, and his melee skills are at best the equal of the bard. Because of his built in better weapon selection the bard is likely better at melee.

well the bard was always kinda jack of all trades, and I am not sure he will always be a better melee class then a cleric. As the cleric gets better armor, more buffs and with some gods much better weapons

Liberty's Edge

Threadjack

hehe, I just heard someone describe the new cleric as: "Cleric Lite, taste's great: less filling."

/threadjack


pres man wrote:


Yeah, I could see Pelor, but then again, I could also see Pelor as the god of healing being the standard bearer for the "white mage" as well. As for Gruumsh and Kord, I see both currently as barbarian types, whether that was always the case or not. Thus heavy armor while perfectly fine, just wouldn't be a typical aspect for their clerics in my mind. I was debating Garl Glittergold and Yondalla, but decide against heavy armor mainly on the fact their followers were already slow enough so would avoid anything heavier than light.

Yeah Garl was another one, he's part smith and if I recall wears heavy armor himself.

The biggest issue I have with Gruumsh is I still don't see Orcs as Chaotic, thus he wouldn't have barbarian followers. Back in 1st ed orcs were LE and goblins CE. But under current rules orcs are CE and thus barbarians.

Once, long long ago, maybe end of the '80s early 90s I made my own Dieties and Demi-Gods of the Greyhawk world. There were dozens and dozens of gods printed up in old dragon magizine that really never got much play. If I can find that old book, and I am not sure I can, I will try printing up a complete list of them and then try and put them in the heavy armor/not heavy armor list.

Liberty's Edge

@ discussion of Gods and armor

Most of the gods described as wearing heavy armor (of which I think that Gruumsh should be one) were the ones that most easily qualified for the Warpriest prestige class in 3.5. Perhaps there should be a clause where deities with the necessary domains for that PrC (strength, destruction, protection, and war) could gain heavy armor proficiency due to their association. I'd be happy with this at the very least.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Thurgon wrote:


The OP was purposely exaggerating to get people interested. But there are steps made one can point at.

So if he was reduced to light armor would be be a bard then? He is only one step away from a bard in armor now, and his melee skills are at best the equal of the bard. Because of his built in better weapon selection the bard is likely better at melee.

well the bard was always kinda jack of all trades, and I am not sure he will always be a better melee class then a cleric. As the cleric gets better armor, more buffs and with some gods much better weapons

Certainly not always. But clearly very very competitive with the cleric now. Medium armor aint very special, it makes you move slowly but gives little in return over light and it still weighs enough to require some strength. At best 2 points of AC. The bards buffs between his songs and his spells are very competitive with the clerics.


Studpuffin wrote:

@ discussion of Gods and armor

Most of the gods described as wearing heavy armor (of which I think that Gruumsh should be one) were the ones that most easily qualified for the Warpriest prestige class in 3.5. Perhaps there should be a clause where deities with the necessary domains for that PrC (strength, destruction, protection, and war) could gain heavy armor proficiency due to their association. I'd be happy with this at the very least.

Personally I would have been very much pleased if the domain choice decided whether you got heavy armor or not, same with whether you recieved channel energy or not.

War, Strength, Protection, and Destruction all seem like their priests should have heavy armor without spending a feat.

Liberty's Edge

Thurgon wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:

@ discussion of Gods and armor

Most of the gods described as wearing heavy armor (of which I think that Gruumsh should be one) were the ones that most easily qualified for the Warpriest prestige class in 3.5. Perhaps there should be a clause where deities with the necessary domains for that PrC (strength, destruction, protection, and war) could gain heavy armor proficiency due to their association. I'd be happy with this at the very least.

Personally I would have been very much pleased if the domain choice decided whether you got heavy armor or not, same with whether you recieved channel energy or not.

War, Strength, Protection, and Destruction all seem like their priests should have heavy armor without spending a feat.

Indeed; Sun, Healing, Death, Glory, Repose, and possibly the four alignments would be good choices for those who'd get Channel Energy.

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
well the bard was always kinda jack of all trades, and I am not sure he will always be a better melee class then a cleric. As the cleric gets better armor, more buffs and with some gods much better weapons

I agree the bard and the cleric are quite different and it all depends on the focus on the game.. if the game is more focused into a the importance of the skills... the cleric not only suffers but becomes crippled in a campaign where there is any ehavy use of skills... between the fact that he has but 2 skills + int mod (which is not usually optimiced since its not one of the main stats requiered by the class), so getting 2 or 3 points is the norm, +1 plus if its human, and now maybe one more if they use the prefered class for that...

ok... if you play a niche 2D character that only battles for his faithand heal... yes you would hardly need more beyond heal, spellcraft and knowledge: religion... which is pretty boring...

but different pristhoods had different ethos and needs... a cleric of Yondalla or Erastil is covering his deities interest if he ignores the knowledge of the land (Kn: nature) and is incapable of surviving by himself in a forest?

a cleric of Kord... as mentiond between abrbarians, can earn the respect of his people if he is unable to guide them to safety (survival) or lacks knowledge of their land (kn: geography) or is incapable of going where the others can go, having to stay with the old and children (climb)?

a cleric of Abadar or Iomedae, or Heironius would be a fair judge without sense motive or diplomacy or knowledge: local to udnerstand the laws of theland she is in? spells are limtied.. you can ask every time for a cleric to have zone of true to see if someone in his court tells a lie

besides! this are things that his chosen religion MUST teach their clerics in order for them to do their proper jobs...

in the 3.0 some domains gave class skills... haven't checked if the new ones does... but what is useful of this if they still lack something to put in there...

my complain about Heavy Armor is that PHB 2 of 3.5 offered the optional rule to lose it for some extra skill points... which isto me preferable to changing to Cloistered Cleric (who by concept IS cloistered in a convent without going anywhere!)

Liberty's Edge

Studpuffin wrote:

@ discussion of Gods and armor

Most of the gods described as wearing heavy armor (of which I think that Gruumsh should be one) were the ones that most easily qualified for the Warpriest prestige class in 3.5. Perhaps there should be a clause where deities with the necessary domains for that PrC (strength, destruction, protection, and war) could gain heavy armor proficiency due to their association. I'd be happy with this at the very least.

will check in the evening... i have monster mythology were both Corellion and Grumsh appear


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Thread jack

Seems to me a white mage should be a mage. White necromancer seems like he could fill that role.

While people tend to use the word mage to mean arcane caster, it could just as easily mean spellcaster (in fact many definitions attribute it to be derived from magus or magi that have priestly connations). The distinction between arcane and divine when it comes to actual magic is a bit blurred anyway. I mean slap a wand of cure light wounds in a cleric's hand (divine caster) and then in a bard's hand (arcane caster) then in rogue's hand with use magic device (not a true caster) and it can work for all of them (assuming the rogue makes his check).


No need to speculate, I have made a cleric and I am playing him.

Waldo Porphyry, Cleric of Abadar.

Primarily wields a heavy crossbow, can't afford heavy armor anyway. Travel and Nobility domains. Uses his Travel domain power to increase his effectiveness as a sniper, taking our enemies from difficult to reach locations that are close enough to his allies that they benefit from channeling and his other area spells.

If I had wanted to make a melee competent cleric, it would be easy. For many PCs, it is several levels before heavy armors become affordable, and at that stage I would pay for the feat.

Things have not changed all that much. So in answer to the question posed by the thread title: both. Or neither. I'm pretty sure domains are flexible enough that you can make a character who is neither white mage nor battle priest; and that's the great part about the class.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Thread jack

Seems to me a white mage should be a mage. White necromancer seems like he could fill that role.
While people tend to use the word mage to mean arcane caster, it could just as easily mean spellcaster (in fact many definitions attribute it to be derived from magus or magi that have priestly connations). The distinction between arcane and divine when it comes to actual magic is a bit blurred anyway. I mean slap a wand of cure light wounds in a cleric's hand (divine caster) and then in a bard's hand (arcane caster) then in rogue's hand with use magic device (not a true caster) and it can work for all of them (assuming the rogue makes his check).

you, as me have played to much Mage: The asciencion, there everyone was magi... it didn't mattered if the magick was techonological, religious, arcane or psiquic


As I pointed out back on page one of this thread, Jason Bulmahn (the lead designer of the PFRPG) has written that the cleric changes are not, in any way, an attempt to move to the "white mage" concept.

My next post on this thread is likely to be a smurfjacking if 'clerics are being turned into white mages' continues to rumble on. The 'evidence' can just as easily be read as fitting the case that 'clerics are being turned into cultists of Cthulhu or servants of Nyarlathotep and will be given free ranks in Profession (Pirate) next time the core rules are released'. (After all you never seem to see such individuals in HP Lovecraft's work wearing armour or turning undead, there is a minor pirate deity in Golarion AND some of the Paizo staff are known to be Lovecraft devotees...)


Since we're back on heavy armor and this post didn't get any play on the other thread, I've decided to move it over here. Any opinions on my little theory here?

Frogboy wrote:

I believe that the drop in the Cleric's armor proficiency is part of Pathfinder's desire to normalize the system. Just like HD and BAB are tied to each other, armor and BAB are also now tied but also come with a one step swing based on "mitigating factors". Just imagine for a second, all of the classes getting armor prof. based on their BAB and consider the following.

  • Barbarian: Starts with Heavy but drops due to fast movement/mobility
  • Bard: Starts with Medium but drops to light because skillful and casts arcane spells
  • Cleric: Starts with Medium without any other factors to bring it up or down
  • Druid: Starts with Medium without any other factors to bring it up or down
  • Fighter: Starts with Heavy without any other factors to bring it up or down
  • Monk: Wears no armor (class features grant it)
  • Paladin: Starts with Heavy without any other factors to bring it up or down
  • Ranger: Starts with Heavy but is a skill based, stealthy class so it bumps down to Medium
  • Rogue: Starts with Medium but is a skill based, stealthy class so it bumps down to Light
  • Sorcerer: Starts with Light but is an arcane caster class so it bumps down to none
  • Wizard: Starts with Light but is an arcane caster class so it bumps down to none


Frogboy wrote:

Since we're back on heavy armor and this post didn't get any play on the other thread, I've decided to move it over here. Any opinions on my little theory here?

Frogboy wrote:

I believe that the drop in the Cleric's armor proficiency is part of Pathfinder's desire to normalize the system. Just like HD and BAB are tied to each other, armor and BAB are also now tied but also come with a one step swing based on "mitigating factors". Just imagine for a second, all of the classes getting armor prof. based on their BAB and consider the following.

  • Barbarian: Starts with Heavy but drops due to fast movement/mobility
  • Bard: Starts with Medium but drops to light because skillful and casts arcane spells
  • Cleric: Starts with Medium without any other factors to bring it up or down
  • Druid: Starts with Medium without any other factors to bring it up or down
  • Fighter: Starts with Heavy without any other factors to bring it up or down
  • Monk: Wears no armor (class features grant it)
  • Paladin: Starts with Heavy without any other factors to bring it up or down
  • Ranger: Starts with Heavy but is a skill based, stealthy class so it bumps down to Medium
  • Rogue: Starts with Medium but is a skill based, stealthy class so it bumps down to Light
  • Sorcerer: Starts with Light but is an arcane caster class so it bumps down to none
  • Wizard: Starts with Light but is an arcane caster class so it bumps down to none

Hmm, the cleric gets bumped down to medium, but the ranger gets bumped up to medium. Is the typical ranger idea that of a medium armor wearer?

By the way, it has been stated by the powers that be, that the cleric didn't lose his armor because of a standard. Instead because in the developers opinion, it was not iconic of the cleric class. And because it would nerf the cleric class further. So while you can certainly see patterns to the development that wasn't the primary intention as stated.

Back to the ranger idea, I wonder if medium was given to rangers due to the change in how mithral interacts with armor proficiency. In 3.5, mithral caused the armor to be treated as one catagory smaller (see 3.5 descriptions of Mithral Full Plate of Speed and Elven Chain). In PF, the mithral doesn't change the proficiency of the armor (except for elven chain strangely enough, probably somebody is an elf-fan-boy). So I guess they figured, mithral medium armor is pretty standard for rangers, so that is why they were given the proficiency.


Frogboy wrote:

Not trying to rub salt in anyone's wounds but...oh, who am I kidding, this is freakin' hilarious. Check this out...

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: The aristocrat is
proficient in the use of all simple and martial weapons
and with all types of armor and shields.

What the fizzle? I never noticed that, but it I guess it cant be worse than the commoner getting perception, while the fighter does not get it.

Now that I think about it maybe the aristocrat is the D&D version of the noble/king that has some fighting talent. These characters do show up in movies from time to time. I dont think they should get heavy armor and proficienty will all martial weapons though. Proficiency in a martial weapon of their choice should have been enough, but that is for another thread.


Well aren't knights aristocrats? Not all of them are good enough at fighting to be a fighter or cavalier.


Thurgon wrote:
Dracon wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

The channel energy, IMHO, is about to par if not weaker than turning.

You really think having an AoE heal/damage effect is on par with turning. Please explain how turning is even in the same league powerwise because I am not seeing that at all.

To me it all depends on the situation. If we are being smacked around by a large host of undead and its doubtful the aoe damage would kill them then the party would likely be thankful that a bunch of them turn tail and get lost for a while to give us time to catch a breath as far fewer attacks would be incoming. AOE heal would give you some hitpoints back great, but then the number of attacks may override its usefulness.

If its a load of lower undead, then AOE damage is the way id go.

If you fighting non undead and spamming AOE heal, most times I would expect to be told off but thankfully I have the selective chanelling feat ;)

So in my opinion anyhow there is no direct way of saying this trumps that as it all depends on what kind of trouble your in at the time..

Sorry but at best you brought up the one and only time turn is better in a way then channel energy, in all other siutations channel energy is better.

I don't mean to be rude, but a one use power does not favorably compare with a power that is always of use.

Also note that in higher levels, the higher you become, the more likely you will find turning resistance or even immunity, making the class feature useless in increasingly more situations, where AoE healing is always useful.


lordzack wrote:
Well aren't knights aristocrats? Not all of them are good enough at fighting to be a fighter or cavalier.

I think that historically some knights were nobles, but not all nobles were knights.


Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

51 to 100 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / White Mage or Battle Priest? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.