White Mage or Battle Priest?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

In a vain attempt to actually answer the OP's question rather than get sidetracked over the term "white mage" or whether clerics should/shouldn't have heavy armor proficiency or what ever else...

Frogboy wrote:
I'm curious, if you were forced to make and play a Cleric right now, what kind would he or she be? Would you make a Battle Priest, a White Mage or perhaps the new Dark Priest that many seem to overlook?

That really depends on what I chose as the cleric's patron deity... and that would really depend on the campaign I was in.

Sorry, no simple answer. In consolation, the last three clerics I played were a "wompy-priest", a semi-"wompy-priest" and a "heal-bot".

Frogboy wrote:

If you are going with the White Mage, is it just because it's something shiny and new and you want to give it a try or do you feel that it fits better than the traditional medieval warrior concept?

If you are going with one of the other two, feel free to say why that option looks more interesting if you'd like.

My decision would be based more around character concept, the character's religion and the campaign.

Frogboy wrote:
Or feel free to flame me for creating yet another Cleric related thread if you'd like.

*sets fire to frogboy, and puts an apple in his mouth*


Azzy wrote:
In a vain attempt to actually answer the OP's question rather than get sidetracked over the term "white mage" or whether clerics should/shouldn't have heavy armor proficiency or what ever else...

lol

Azzy wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Or feel free to flame me for creating yet another Cleric related thread if you'd like.
*sets fire to frogboy, and puts an apple in his mouth*

Knew I should've taken the Fire domain.


pres man wrote:
By the way, it has been stated by the powers that be, that the cleric didn't lose his armor because of a standard.

Ah nuts! That fit so well...at least, until I got to the Aristocrat. :)

By the way, I have a feeling that the Aristocrat gets so generaously rewarded with weapon and armor proficiency because no PC will likely ever take the class. The DM can just give whatever he feels fits any particular NPC. That'd be my guess at least.


Frogboy wrote:
pres man wrote:
By the way, it has been stated by the powers that be, that the cleric didn't lose his armor because of a standard.

Ah nuts! That fit so well...at least, until I got to the Aristocrat. :)

By the way, I have a feeling that the Aristocrat gets so generaously rewarded with weapon and armor proficiency because no PC will likely ever take the class. The DM can just give whatever he feels fits any particular NPC. That'd be my guess at least.

One of my wife's favorite characters she had was a aristocrat/sorcerer/eldritch knight/cleric of wee jas (dipped in at the last level or two). Her character was a minor noble whose family had all died and she had been forced to marry a much older and gross man. On the wedding night her natural necro abilities manifested when she pushed the old guy away (touch of fatigue) [imagine something similar to the scene with Rogue at the beginning of X-Men, except trying to fight off an old guy]. She eventually grew more powerful and got the attention of Wee Jas and was asked if she would be willing to be ordained into the order, which she accepted.


pres man wrote:
One of my wife's favorite characters she had was a aristocrat/sorcerer/eldritch knight/cleric of wee jas (dipped in at the last level or two). Her character was a minor noble whose family had all died and she had been forced to marry a much older and gross man. On the wedding night her natural necro abilities manifested when she pushed the old guy away (touch of fatigue) [imagine something similar to the scene with Rogue at the beginning of X-Men, except trying to fight off an old guy]. She eventually grew more powerful and got the attention of Wee Jas and was asked if she would be willing to be ordained into the order, which she accepted.

I guess I should've said "no PC is supposed to take". That's the way it goes though. I'm playing a character that I'm not supposed to be playing.

Interesting story though. We've never had a female at our table so I never really thought about how that might change some of the storyline around.


concerro 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.

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.

Does he actually get tower shields as well? I don't have my book with me right now but if he does that is pretty interesting.

In a way it's supportable from the stand point that an aristocrat's upbringing would give him the oppertunity to try out all kinds of things average folk wouldn't have access to. His family could afford heavy armor to train their childern in, all types of weapons, and any shield they liked. One arguement against Clerics getting heavy armor is that they would not have access to it, I find that a poor line of reasoning because in most cases the church would have access to at least as much as a local guardsmen who became a fighter. But in this instance having massive moneys does explain his much more varied training.

About the commoner well they better be perceptive, they can't do much other then run if trouble is coming, so they better see it coming.


Thurgon wrote:
concerro 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.

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.

Does he actually get tower shields as well? I don't have my book with me right now but if he does that is pretty interesting.

In a way it's supportable from the stand point that an aristocrat's upbringing would give him the oppertunity to try out all kinds of things average folk wouldn't have access to. His family could afford heavy armor to train their childern in, all types of weapons, and any shield they liked. One arguement against Clerics getting heavy armor is that they would not have access to it, I find that a poor line of reasoning because in most cases the church would have access to at least as much as a local guardsmen who became a fighter. But in this instance having massive moneys does explain his much more varied training.

About the commoner well they better be perceptive, they can't do much other then run if trouble is coming, so they better see it coming.

Three core classes get the tower shield: fighter (states it explicitly), aristocrat (implies it), and the warrior (implies it). I do find it interesting that while both the warrior and the aristocrat have tower shield proficiency, the paladin does not.

By the way, this was the same in 3.5, so this is not a change that PF instituted.


Alot of nobles would also fall into the expert class. Many lady's of high society would I think, As would many merchants and so on. The aristocrat class is more for the noble warriors. But I know most folks don't see it that way but that is how I use em. Many Nobles my PC find will be experts as often as the aristocrat class

Shadow Lodge

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

So you're saying a white necromancer gets healing and protective spells(forget the obvious shield and mage aromor I'm talking about mass defensive spells)?

I know they can channel now but that is just for turning/rebuking undead.

Perhaps Adept is the White 'Mage?'


Frogboy wrote:
pres man wrote:
One of my wife's favorite characters she had was a aristocrat/sorcerer/eldritch knight/cleric of wee jas (dipped in at the last level or two). Her character was a minor noble whose family had all died and she had been forced to marry a much older and gross man. On the wedding night her natural necro abilities manifested when she pushed the old guy away (touch of fatigue) [imagine something similar to the scene with Rogue at the beginning of X-Men, except trying to fight off an old guy]. She eventually grew more powerful and got the attention of Wee Jas and was asked if she would be willing to be ordained into the order, which she accepted.

I guess I should've said "no PC is supposed to take". That's the way it goes though. I'm playing a character that I'm not supposed to be playing.

Interesting story though. We've never had a female at our table so I never really thought about how that might change some of the storyline around.

Really? I can recall only a few times we did not.

You know last night my wife was playing WoW and it got me to thinking of the issues Blizzard had with Paladins (really in that game they are D&D Clerics). They had the same issue with Druids to a degree as well. Classes that are too flexible can too easily become too powerful or be made too weak.

Think Bards and Clerics in DnD. If you make them too good as back ups to the fighter they can replace the fighter and still do their other things if they can focus on one direction while maintaining the ability to use parts of the other. If you make them too powerful a back up to wizards then they can replace them as well while still able to buff and heal. (Yes wizards can buff well but clerics and bards are in general better at it.)

I think channel energy does make clerics more "casty" for lack of a better term then they previously were. The loss of heavy armor makes them less "melee" then they were before.


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

I agree with this 100%


Do you guys think there is room in the game for a real holy warrior?

The one I have heard of seems too much, full fighter BAB, at the cost of his domains.

I'm talking a guy with cleric BAB, 6 or 7 levels of spells, he focuses on healing with some buffing and maybe a very very rare damage spell. That gets some bonus feats as he levels. Starts with all armor and shields and simple weapons. Same cleric saves, same cleric hit die.

Make the current cleric more white mage then, light armor, d6 hit die, mage BAB, more flash to his spells, channel energy.

Guy one becomes the cleric, guy two the priest. I just think right now the cleric is too much caster and no matter what you do he will remain a potent caster and while you can make him more "warriorish" that risks becoming overpowered.


Honestly Thurgon, I would look to the paladin as the templet for a holy warrior. Not 100% copy but there is your holy warrior base. Strip out alot of his paladin ability's and give him something else more suited for his god.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Honestly Thurgon, I would look to the paladin as the templet for a holy warrior. Not 100% copy but there is your holy warrior base. Strip out alot of his paladin ability's and give him something else more suited for his god.

My biggest issue with using him is right now I am very worried the current pathfinder paladin is vastly overpowered. He also isn't caster enough in the right way for what I am looking for.

The current paladin can heal a ton thanks to the power of channel energy, more then enough healing for most groups if he takes the right feats. He still retains the ability to be a very top end front liner as well. I was looking for someone who could heal using spells about as well as the current paladin, but wasn't also a top end melee'er just a good backup melee'er.

I haven't personally tried the paladin, but reading the rules and going over his healing potential has me really nervous about his power level. From my simple quick look he appears to be able to be the number 2 over all healer ahead of both the druid and bard but still behind the cleric. Just saying that might be a bit much healing for a guy in plate with max BAB, d10 hit die, auras, great saves, fewer stat requirements then before, smiting, and use of all martial weapons.


humm not messed with it but yanking , channel, there mercy and lay out hands out and replacing the casting with the bards progression but the paladins spell list might work


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
humm not messed with it but yanking , channel, there mercy and lay out hands out and replacing the casting with the bards progression but the paladins spell list might work

Would a multiclass Cleric/Paladin be overly penalized? I think it'd actually work pretty well. Like, some of the "class level" stuff would be slightly underpowered, but you'd have a BUNCH of abilities and all your attributes would play well with each other. Cha, Wis, Str, probably in that order.

Yeah, 4 Levels of Paladin staggered with 4 levels of Cleric up to level 8, then Cleric the rest of the way. I think that character would be pretty t#+@.

Wow.

Maybe I should take a few levels of Paladin... I need some Mithril full plate though...

EDIT:
Oh wait. My character would need "morals".


Loopy wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
humm not messed with it but yanking , channel, there mercy and lay out hands out and replacing the casting with the bards progression but the paladins spell list might work

Would a multiclass Cleric/Paladin be overly penalized? I think it'd actually work pretty well. Like, some of the "class level" stuff would be slightly underpowered, but you'd have a BUNCH of abilities and all your attributes would play well with each other. Cha, Wis, Str, probably in that order.

Yeah, 4 Levels of Paladin staggered with 4 levels of Cleric up to level 8, then Cleric the rest of the way. I think that character would be pretty t&#*.

Wow.

Maybe I should take a few levels of Paladin... I need some Mithril full plate though...

EDIT:
Oh wait. My character would need "morals".

Personally for you if I wanted to dip in any class it would likely be bard or fighter. Bard fits your guys theme well, fighter gives you the full movement rate in mithril full plate. Honestly one level of fighter for a barbarian is a great idea, movement base 40 in mithral full plate is rather powerful. Come to think of it, one level dip for a fighter into barbarian does that too...


Thurgon wrote:
Personally for you if I wanted to dip in any class it would likely be bard or fighter. Bard fits your guys theme well, fighter gives you the full movement rate in mithril full plate. Honestly one level of fighter for a barbarian is a great idea, movement base 40 in mithral full plate is rather powerful. Come to think of it, one level dip for a fighter into barbarian does that too...

You're right. Sexypants.

Well, 40 movement for mithril breastplate anyways.


Thurgon wrote:
Do you guys think there is room in the game for a real holy warrior?

I know it's not the answer that you are looking for but most of your follow up pretty much described a Fighter 9/Cleric 11. I've thrown it out there before because in my opinion, it's going to be the new Battle Priest. You get all of the buffing spells a Cleric has to offer, several feats, Weapon and Armor Training 2 which means full speed in full plate, a good amount of healing including the invaluable heal spell, overall good saves (except for Reflex) and four Cleric domain abilities (hello dimention door).


Loopy wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Personally for you if I wanted to dip in any class it would likely be bard or fighter. Bard fits your guys theme well, fighter gives you the full movement rate in mithril full plate. Honestly one level of fighter for a barbarian is a great idea, movement base 40 in mithral full plate is rather powerful. Come to think of it, one level dip for a fighter into barbarian does that too...

You're right. Sexypants.

Well, 40 movement for mithril breastplate anyways.

One level of fighter, one level of barbarian gives you full move in mithril full plate I do believe. Fighters ignore movement penalty for medium armor at level 1, and while you need the skill to wear mithril heavy armor it is treated as medium for movement purposes.


Frogboy wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Do you guys think there is room in the game for a real holy warrior?
I know it's not the answer that you are looking for but most of your follow up pretty much described a Fighter 9/Cleric 11. I've thrown it out there before because in my opinion, it's going to be the new Battle Priest. You get all of the buffing spells a Cleric has to offer, several feats, Weapon and Armor Training 2 which means full speed in full plate, a good amount of healing including the invaluable heal spell, overall good saves (except for Reflex) and four Cleric domain abilities (hello dimention door).

Might be the only option left. But how do I not get this stupid channel energy healing fart machine stuff? I would love to avoid that silly power if at all possible.


Thurgon wrote:


Might be the only option left. But how do I not get this stupid channel energy healing fart machine stuff? I would love to avoid that silly power if at all possible.

OH OH, PICK ME!

Just don't use it.


Fairyfart Twinklepee wrote:
Thurgon wrote:


Might be the only option left. But how do I not get this stupid channel energy healing fart machine stuff? I would love to avoid that silly power if at all possible.

OH OH, PICK ME!

Just don't use it.

The group will love that, oh I could heal you all, but I've decided I wont. Sorry not my job. That will go over very well. It's one thing to not pick up a feat to do something the group would like, or not wear armor you could wear because that doesn't hurt the group. But to not use a group heal on your group you have no other use for but for healing the group seems a great way to make friends and influence people.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Channel negative.

Group gets grumpy? Maybe. But it's a solid AOE in a pinch, which fits the warrior-priest well IMO.


tejón wrote:

Channel negative.

Group gets grumpy? Maybe. But it's a solid AOE in a pinch, which fits the warrior-priest well IMO.

Only if not good.....even then don't I need to make sure none of my party is in the AoE.

Shadow Lodge

Thurgon wrote:
tejón wrote:

Channel negative.

Group gets grumpy? Maybe. But it's a solid AOE in a pinch, which fits the warrior-priest well IMO.

Only if not good.....even then don't I need to make sure none of my party is in the AoE.

Two words:Selective Channeling.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
tejón wrote:

Channel negative.

Group gets grumpy? Maybe. But it's a solid AOE in a pinch, which fits the warrior-priest well IMO.

Only if not good.....even then don't I need to make sure none of my party is in the AoE.
Two words:Selective Channeling.

Yeah..burn a feat so I don't burn my group down....but I really hate paying to make an ability I want to ignore work.

I guess just make an LN cleric/fighter, choose negative energy and now the party can't ask me to be the farting heal battery....well unless they are undead....how exactly do I explain that as a cleric of St. Cuthbert I channel energy that heals undead....stupid fart powers.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Thurgon wrote:
Only if not good

A rather simple house rule admitting "hey, negative energy hurts demons too, why can't the good use it?" makes a good start. (Since you're talking about building a war priest I assume at least minor house rules are legit.)

Or yeah, just go neutral.

And yeah, Selective Channel. :)


Thurgon wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Do you guys think there is room in the game for a real holy warrior?
I know it's not the answer that you are looking for but most of your follow up pretty much described a Fighter 9/Cleric 11. I've thrown it out there before because in my opinion, it's going to be the new Battle Priest. You get all of the buffing spells a Cleric has to offer, several feats, Weapon and Armor Training 2 which means full speed in full plate, a good amount of healing including the invaluable heal spell, overall good saves (except for Reflex) and four Cleric domain abilities (hello dimention door).
Might be the only option left. But how do I not get this stupid channel energy healing fart machine stuff? I would love to avoid that silly power if at all possible.

I don't get it Thurgon. You want a cleric who can heal, but you would rather heal using spell slots than an innate class ability. You've said before in a post that due to the lack of heavy armor, the cleric has less melee potential, which I don't get, after all, rogues and rangers don't get heavy armor, they can manage quite well in melee.

It gets really hard to take you seriously when it seems like you either
a) want the cleric to be better than the fighter, ala 3.5,
b) just can't wrap your mind around the changes, and therefore seek to tear them down
or
c) Just don't know how to build a cleric.

I'm not saying any of the above are true, but no matter what logic anyone posts, you refute it, seemingly to the point of sticking your head in the sand.

Seriously, being able to heal a little 3 times a day (at charisma 10) hardly makes the cleric a healer. The loss of heavy armor doesn't hurt them, with what used to be the clerics standard Dex (12 or 13, depending on your build), once you add in stat boost magic items over the course of their career, they end up with the same AC they would have in heavy armor. The spell changes simply put a buffed cleric a hair below the fighter in the same situations.

Yes, if you want to make undead run from you, you need to spend a feat not. Then again, in PF, you have three extra feats over the course of your career, so I don't really get the gripe.


Krigare wrote:


I'm not saying any of the above are true, but no matter what logic anyone posts, you refute it, seemingly to the point of sticking your head in the sand.

Seriously, being able to heal a little 3 times a day (at charisma 10) hardly makes the cleric a healer. The loss of heavy armor doesn't hurt them, with what used to be the clerics standard Dex (12 or 13, depending on your build), once you add in stat boost magic items over the course of their career, they end up with the same AC they would have in heavy armor. The spell changes simply put a buffed cleric a hair...

You need to read more of my posts before making these clearly wrong claims about what I have asked for.

Krigare wrote:


a) want the cleric to be better than the fighter, ala 3.5,
b) just can't wrap your mind around the changes, and therefore seek to tear them down
or
c) Just don't know how to build a cleric.

So having heavy armor will make the cleric better than the fighter? All by itself? You might even believe as other have that turning is more powerful or as powerful as channel energy. If you do, well there is no logic, fact, or arguement to be hand between you and me, we share no common ground at all on the subject.

Krigare wrote:


You've said before in a post that due to the lack of heavy armor, the cleric has less melee potential, which I don't get, after all, rogues and rangers don't get heavy armor, they can manage quite well in melee.

I didn't know the cleric got bonus fighting styles feats or SA damage. Well that does change things quiet a lot.

Look my obviously devoted to this change friend, medium armor for a cleric is only giving him 2 points of AC over light armor, and at the cost of movement that hurts quiet a bit. The cleric unlike the rogue and ranger rarely has the points to devote to dex so he treats it almost like a dump stat. That makes heavy armor his most likely choice of armors since he wont have a dex bonus to speak of anyway and heavy armor offers him 5 points of ac for that movement penalty. He already needs Wis and Cha, all classes want some Con, and even if he will settle for medium armor he needs some strength to move around in 30 pounds of metal so really pumping up his dex is more a speciality build then standard practice.

Standard dex for clerics in 3.5 using the 15 point buy model was 8. Not 12 or 13. Before it would effect their dex bonus to ac they would need +6 to dex, if that bothered to get that they put on mithril armor too.

The problem I have with channel energy I have stated more times then I can count and frankly am tried of repeating myself. Go back and read it again or don't ask why it bothers me that all clerics are now healing batteries.

No one has given me any logic that makes sense for replacing turning with channel energy if as Jason said the class needed to be toned down, and clearly channel energy is stronger then turn undead. Is there any logic that could explain buffing the class the needs to be toned down forcing the removal of two iconic class features? If there is I have yet to see it. Give back turning move armor skills to the domains, drop favored weapon (it is not a balanced class ability any way you slice it), and move channel energy to some domains as well, then maybe it would make some sense. I don't see how those changes make the cleric more powerful, but I do see how they return his more iconic features without having to spend feats to do so.


Frogboy your right. The old cleric is dead. A new combat focused one can be built with multiclassing to pick up some fighter levels to a degree that covers it but still does not sit well with me. 9/11 fighter/cleric levels...9/11....interesting date I recall it well. I saw the smoke from the towers for months afterward as I went to work . My daughter's birthday is also 9/11. Very interesting date. Better get to some shopping, need to get her something nice. I guess I am more or less done. This pathfinder cleric will never do for me, it simply needs too many changes. If I have to play RAW I will ignore the power and let the other players deal with not getting farted on while I build toward the 9/11 fighter/cleric.


Thurgon wrote:


I didn't know the cleric got bonus fighting styles feats or SA damage. Well that does change things quiet a lot.

No, instead he gets spells, many of which can be used to buff for combat.

Thurgon wrote:
Look my obviously devoted to this change friend, medium armor for a cleric is only giving him 2 points of AC over light armor, and at the cost of movement that hurts quiet a bit. The cleric unlike the rogue and ranger rarely has the points to devote to dex so he treats it almost like a dump stat. That makes heavy armor his most likely choice of armors since he wont have a dex bonus to speak of anyway and heavy armor offers him 5 points of ac for that movement penalty. He already needs Wis and Cha, all classes want some Con, and even if he will settle for medium armor he needs some strength to move around in 30 pounds of metal so really pumping up his dex is more a speciality build then standard practice.

Needs Charisma? Um, not really, unless, he wants to use Channel Energy more, and even in 3.5, the only reason he needed Cha was for extra turning attempts, or better turning attempts. And I don't know of to many people who cared to terribly much about better turning checks, most wanted extra turn attempts to fuel feats that converted turning into other abilities, such as Divine Metamagic.

Thurgon wrote:

Standard dex for clerics in 3.5 using the 15 point buy model was 8. Not 12 or 13. Before it would effect their dex bonus to ac they would need +6 to dex, if that bothered to get that they put on mithril armor too.

The problem I have with channel energy I have stated more times then I can count and frankly am tried of repeating myself. Go back and read it again or don't ask why it bothers me that all clerics are now healing batteries.

No one has given me any logic that makes sense for replacing turning with channel energy if as Jason said the class needed to be toned down, and clearly channel energy is stronger then turn undead. Is there any logic that could explain buffing the class the needs to be toned down forcing the removal of two iconic class features? If there is I have yet to see it. Give back turning move armor skills to the domains, drop favored weapon (it is not a balanced class ability any way you slice it), and move channel energy to some domains as well, then maybe it would make some sense. I don't see how those changes make the cleric more powerful, but I do see how they return his more iconic features without having to spend feats to do so.

OK, heres some logic for you.

Clerics, in every edition of the game, have been the repository of healing. While other classes may have had access to some healing magic, barring playing a specialty priest, every cleric had access to the Healing Sphere. It is one of the things that defines the class. Effectiveness against undead is another iconic class trait. Previously, this was Turn Undead. However, with all the changes made when WotC wrote 3.5, Turn Undead became little more than a tacked on feature that frequently got ignored in favor of prestige classes. So, when writing the PF ruleset, the guys at Paizo decided to remove a feature that didn't work (Turn Undead...most undead were by and large immune to it by the time the party was of the approprate level), and add in a class feature that allowed them to be effective against undead, while performing one of their other class roles (healing) without having to give up as much of their other iconic class ability (spells).

As to your repeated claims that channel energy makes clerics a healing battery...they can do it (at charisma 10) 3 times a day. So at 1st level, thats 1d6 healing, three times a day...probably enough to keep a party functional through a day of adventuring, while allowing the cleric to use his spells to engage in something besides healing. At higher levels, the amount channel energy heals doesn't scale evenly with the HP gain, or the damage output of monsters. All it will do is supplement healing from other sources. Sure, if you invest heavily into Charisma, the uses go up, and it becomes more potent, but as you do so, you also free up spell slots to use for other things (such as buffing yourself for combat.)

Did the class need toned down? Eh, the class wasn't the problem, it was the buff spells. And the buffs did get tones down, as they don't superstack anymore. At which point, considering the buffing/altering (depending on which class and your point of view, its a buff or alteration, maybe even a nerf, but thats not the point of this thread) of the other classes, it seems they decided channel energy would be a good thing for the cleric. It lets them fufill two their iconic abilities (healing and undead control) without either eating up another class ability (spells) or becoming useless after a certain point in their career (Turn Undead).

As for heavy armor...its hardly iconic, it takes a feat to regain it if you have to have it, and all things considered, heavy armor is only 3 points of AC over medium.


Thurgon wrote:
Frogboy your right. The old cleric is dead. A new combat focused one can be built with multiclassing to pick up some fighter levels to a degree that covers it but still does not sit well with me. 9/11 fighter/cleric levels...9/11....interesting date I recall it well. I saw the smoke from the towers for months afterward as I went to work . My daughter's birthday is also 9/11. Very interesting date. Better get to some shopping, need to get her something nice. I guess I am more or less done. This pathfinder cleric will never do for me, it simply needs too many changes. If I have to play RAW I will ignore the power and let the other players deal with not getting farted on while I build toward the 9/11 fighter/cleric.

Holy Cow... this makes it all clear. You are a Fuggin' djinius!!

Liberty's Edge

Thurgon wrote:
Frogboy your right. The old cleric is dead. A new combat focused one can be built with multiclassing to pick up some fighter levels to a degree that covers it but still does not sit well with me.

Perhaps we should update the Warpriest Prestige Class from Complete Divine. It wouldn't need much to become Pathfinder friendly. For those of us who want a more combat focused character without resorting to multiclassing to fighter it might be a better choice.

Base Attack Bonus +5
Diplomacy 5 ranks, Sense Motive 2 Ranks.
Combat Casting is still there, works even better for Warpriest now.
Access to Destruction, Protection, Strength, or War... all are core so there shouldn't be a conflict with updating them.

The BAB to HD ratio is spot on for PFRPG.

Updated it would need the class table changed. It has Inflame +8 at level 10 when it should be at 8, and add Inflame +10 at 10th level as the text says. Replace Turn/Rebuke with Channel Energy (or give Turn/Rebuke as a bonus feat?).

I'm a little leary about giving the bonus domain, also Domination domain isn't PFRPG core. That should bug too much though, as it could easily be replaced by one of the above domains instead.

Warpriest would get all armor, all shields, and all non-exotic weapons as well. Stunts the spellcasting progression though, and by five levels. That effectively works out to limit the Warpriest to 8th level spells at 20th, close to 7th but no cigar.

Liberty's Edge

i understand Thurgon...

and the comment they do about the spells... NERFED again :P ahh if you don't remember they were cut in spells per day since they don't need to use Spontaneous casting that much

my problems with the PF Cleric are different than those about thurgon (possitive channel for me is a nice add to help the team... not the cleric), but yes I do believe taking away the Heavy Armordoes injure the cleric

and I don't like the rework on the domains as they finished...

but different to Thurgon, instead of playing Raw we chose to change game... I use PF Beta with my less experienced gamers... i just updated the paladin who needed a boost... but for my main group? Book of Experimental Might FTW! it lets me arm my cleric in a way i like and makes it closer to their faith, letting me choice whatI want her to have and what I don't... also the spell list is more to my liking...

but of course Monte Cook is just the best :)


Krigare wrote:


OK, heres some logic for you.

Clerics, in every edition of the game, have been the repository of healing. While other classes may have had access to some healing magic, barring playing a specialty priest, every cleric had access to the Healing Sphere.

Let me just end your "logic" with one dose of fact. Not all 1st ed clerics could heal. Any Norse god(Baldur might be an exception) according the the first dieties and demigods could not grant any healing spell, they instead even though a god might be good granted cause wounds spells. Healing in the Norse culture was extremely difficult to do, Odin took a week to recover from doing it in one example. So before 2nd ed and it's introduction of speciality priests not all clerics could cast healing spells. Next time stick with what you know, not what you think to be true.

Just to add fun, both Kyra the Pathfinder Iconic Cleric, and Jozan the 3.5 one had an 8 for dex, neither had a 12 as you claimed was "standard" for clerics had in 3.5.


Thurgon wrote:
Krigare wrote:


OK, heres some logic for you.

Clerics, in every edition of the game, have been the repository of healing. While other classes may have had access to some healing magic, barring playing a specialty priest, every cleric had access to the Healing Sphere.

Let me just end your "logic" with one dose of fact. Not all 1st ed clerics could heal. Any Norse god(Baldur might be an exception) according the the first dieties and demigods could not grant any healing spell, they instead even though a god might be good granted cause wounds spells. Healing in the Norse culture was extremely difficult to do, Odin took a week to recover from doing it in one example. So before 2nd ed and it's introduction of speciality priests not all clerics could cast healing spells. Next time stick with what you know, not what you think to be true.

Just to add fun, both Kyra the Pathfinder Iconic Cleric, and Jozan the 3.5 one had an 8 for dex, neither had a 12 as you claimed was "standard" for clerics had in 3.5.

So your answer to what I say about standard clerics is to answer with details pulled from a splatbook from 1e. Funny how in the 1e PHB, clerics get access to healing. And wait, wouldn't playing a priest dedicated to the Norse dieties be, by definition a specialty priest? So, how about you stick to what you know, and not what you'd like it to be...kay?

And I'm sorry, I don't keep track of stats on the Iconics, especially since the game is based on being able to have a class flex enough to fit a concept. And its funny, I never once saw a thread when soemone was asking about stats for a cleric, and anyone thought giving them an 8 Dex was a good idea, unless they were starting off at a high enough level to not have to live through enough levels to overcome that kind of handicap.

Liberty's Edge

Thurgon wrote:
Let me just end your "logic" with one dose of fact. Not all 1st ed clerics could heal. Any Norse god(Baldur might be an exception) according the the first dieties and demigods could not grant any healing spell, they instead even though a god might be good granted cause wounds spells. Healing in the Norse culture was extremely difficult to do, Odin took a week to recover from doing it in one example. So before 2nd ed and it's introduction of speciality priests not all clerics could cast healing spells. Next time stick with what you know, not what you think to be true.

I'm sorry, but I find it disingenuous that you take this track after you were so vehement about refusing to consider 2E's specialty priests in the discussion about clerics losing heavy armor.

What you're talking about with the Norse gods in D&DG is (aside from being rule based on an absurd notion on the part of the D&DG's author) a pantheon-specific rule that changed the base rules of the class from how it appeared in the PHB. So, if you want similar pantheon-specific rules for the PFRPG, it be more appropriate to look for such in a supplement that detailed the pantheon rather than the core rules.


I have to say, citing the 1st edition Norse pantheon restriction is a bit dubious. If the Norse pantheon is relevant, how does the Chinese pantheon from the same book figure into this equation, the one that said that clerics couldn't pick their own spells, but have them assigned by the gods?


I'm sorry, but I don't understand any of the gripes about turning from this amazingly balanced 'holy warrior' to a white mage. Yes, I suppose, steps have been taken from clericzilla towards white mage, but they had to step down from clerczilla toward something, and white mage doesn't seem so bad.

Channel energy is no more or less white mageish than any other healing that previously existed. Healing is healing. What channel energy did do is replace a very specific feature that usually either went to waste or got seriously abused with something the whole party will enjoy. Anyone who looks at this feature and says "pathfinder is about screwing over clerics" isn't looking very carefully.

In theory, I can see how it turns the cleric into a healing battery, but, in practice, I completely agree with Paizo's rationale. In the typical group I've played in, once there was injury, the cleric's teamates (rightfully) expected him or her to heal them. I'm typicially more of a realist than a gamist, and more of a roleplayer than roll blah blah blah. But, I categorize the guy who plays a nonhealing cleric at about the same level of douchebaggery as a fighter who won't fight or a rogue who won't open the lock the party needs. So, when the party expects the only guy capable of healing to do so, and he's blown all of his spells, it's time to end your 15 minutes of adventuring with a nice 8 hour nap. The typical cleric either got stuck never using the awesome powers his divinity granted him, or he got blamed for wasting his powers. This is a game based on teamwork after all. So yes, this does encourage him to cast his spells more, but it makes him no more or less a WM than he would've been before.

As for armor, man do I hate to contribute to this discussion, but here goes: The cleric had to lose something, and this was one of those things (along with spell nerfs). The complaint we keep hearing is that the battle cleric can't stand toe to toe alongside the fighter (at lower levels before magic is crazy) to which I'd say yep. Good thing, too. This doesn't mean that you can't be a battle cleric from the second row, or even that you can't move along to the side and give the monster a wallop while it's distracted by the fighter (this, admittedly depends on how your DM runs monsters). This does mean that you don't get to stand next to the fighter and say "see this, I can do it just as well as you". If you must wade to the very front, grab a shield. Most deities aren't anti-caution. And if your deity would have you berzerking upfront with a greatsword without any concern for your safety, then you don't really need the heavy armor to begin with. Honestly, I've yet to hear a really good argument as to why the new cleric is bad other than what amounts to "he doesn't fight as well as the fighter".


Velderan wrote:
As for armor, man do I hate to contribute to this discussion, but here goes: The cleric had to lose something, and this was one of those things (along with spell nerfs). The complaint we keep hearing is that the battle cleric can't stand toe to toe alongside the fighter (at lower levels before magic is crazy) to which I'd say yep. Good thing, too.

I do agree with much of what you said, but I do believe wholeheartedly that my Level 6 Cleric could put the Grade A arsewhuppin on many different Level 6 Fighters in solo combat. I'd reverse that claim if, say, the Fighter were totally geared for bear against casters - Iron Will, Step Up, and Disruptive.


Loopy wrote:


I do agree with much of what you said, but I do believe wholeheartedly that my Level 6 Cleric could put the Grade A arsewhuppin on many different Level 6 Fighters in solo combat. I'd reverse that claim if, say, the Fighter were totally geared for bear against casters - Iron Will, Step Up, and Disruptive.

Why? The cleric gets many many great group powers, it's like their main schtick. Why on Earth, by default, should they be able to whoop a fighter in solo combat? I hate the concept of 'balance' as much as the next anti-4e gamer, but, by default, shouldn't the fighter be able to win solo combat? (Which, this is all theory, a cleric can still whoop a fighter, unfortunately).


KnightErrantJR wrote:

I have to say, citing the 1st edition Norse pantheon restriction is a bit dubious. If the Norse pantheon is relevant, how does the Chinese pantheon from the same book figure into this equation, the one that said that clerics couldn't pick their own spells, but have them assigned by the gods?

It's relevant since he was claiming all clerics could always heal. And that it was their one feature all had. Actually it wasn't.

Giving all clerics channel energy means now no matter what diety or pantheon you pick to roll with you have healing. I'm saying if the goal was to make a base from which I could then build specifically toward types of clerics then drop channel energy. Giving it to all clerics makes all very capable healers, even if they don't care to be. Look now the paladin is a very very capable healer, likely the number 2 healer in the game. All thanks to the power of channel energy. If there is a need to keep the power add it to relevent domains, not the base of the cleric class.


Velderan wrote:
Loopy wrote:


I do agree with much of what you said, but I do believe wholeheartedly that my Level 6 Cleric could put the Grade A arsewhuppin on many different Level 6 Fighters in solo combat. I'd reverse that claim if, say, the Fighter were totally geared for bear against casters - Iron Will, Step Up, and Disruptive.
Why? The cleric gets many many great group powers, it's like their main schtick. Why on Earth, by default, should they be able to whoop a fighter in solo combat? I hate the concept of 'balance' as much as the next anti-4e gamer, but, by default, shouldn't the fighter be able to win solo combat? (Which, this is all theory, a cleric can still whoop a fighter, unfortunately).

Rarely in any game can a non-healer beat a healer in solo combat. Decent healing is by default extemely powerful. But that said unless you run a series of tests on various builds we can't really know whether the fighter or cleric would win, in truth unless the game is broken it shouldn't be a landside either way.


Azzy wrote:

I'm sorry, but I find it disingenuous that you take this track after you were so vehement about refusing to consider 2E's specialty priests in the discussion about clerics losing heavy armor.

Specialty priests aren't useful in any discussion about clerics, because some were wizards and some rangers. Speciality priests were very very different from clerics. It would be the same as pointing to another class (say monk) and then asking why don't clerics also get fury of blows both are semi-religious or some such. It was a vastly different class then the cleric is all I am saying. It wasn't like well you all have these baseline cleric powers then get to mix and match these different powers depending on diety.


Thurgon wrote:


It's relevant since he was claiming all clerics could always heal. And that it was their one feature all had. Actually it wasn't.

Sigh just when I thought I was out they keep dragging me back in.

No that is a setting thing. Pure and simple. Under pathfinder that setting gods would not grant channel. That is setting nothing more. That has zero to do with the core rules.

Setting trumps core rules every single time.


Thurgon wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Honestly Thurgon, I would look to the paladin as the templet for a holy warrior. Not 100% copy but there is your holy warrior base. Strip out alot of his paladin ability's and give him something else more suited for his god.

My biggest issue with using him is right now I am very worried the current pathfinder paladin is vastly overpowered. He also isn't caster enough in the right way for what I am looking for.

The current paladin can heal a ton thanks to the power of channel energy, more then enough healing for most groups if he takes the right feats. He still retains the ability to be a very top end front liner as well. I was looking for someone who could heal using spells about as well as the current paladin, but wasn't also a top end melee'er just a good backup melee'er.

I haven't personally tried the paladin, but reading the rules and going over his healing potential has me really nervous about his power level. From my simple quick look he appears to be able to be the number 2 over all healer ahead of both the druid and bard but still behind the cleric. Just saying that might be a bit much healing for a guy in plate with max BAB, d10 hit die, auras, great saves, fewer stat requirements then before, smiting, and use of all martial weapons.

I am currently DM'ing a paladin. They do a lot of damage, but they are not as brutal as they look on paper. They are also good secondary healers as far as hit points go, and good removers of status affects. I find them pretty balanced so far.


Thurgon wrote:
No one has given me any logic that makes sense for replacing turning with channel energy if as Jason said the class needed to be toned down, and clearly channel energy is stronger then turn undead.

The class did need to be toned down, but it also needed to be given a mechanic that allowed it to use its prepared spells as they were intended instead of healing everyone.

Another issue was that the turn undead table was clunky, and I have not found one person that liked it or had it memorized. Many people complained about the grapple rules being to complicated. I could do those without the book, but I never got that table down. Another issue was that turn undead was not viable at higher levels because CR rating and HD(which the table went off of) were not connected so you could have a CR 8 zombie with 14 HD, meaning you could not turn it at level 8, but a CR appropriate vampire, one of the more powerful undead, could be turned. Most people like a classes features to work throughout its career. The channel energy allows the cleric to save some spells, and have a mechanic that works on undead no matter what level you are.


At our game we have both a fighter and a paladin. The paladin did more damage on a Critical hit with a smite evil against a hecuva, but the fighter generally gets just as much out (if not more) on a normal round. The paladin has Str 18 the fighter has Str 14, but weapon specialization too.

EDIT: Actually the paladin did do mounted combat, when he gets a charge in he does do more, but that's about once every other round when mounted, and we aren't always mounted.


Velderan wrote:
...But, I categorize the guy who plays a nonhealing cleric at about the same level of douchebaggery as a fighter who won't fight or a rogue who won't open the lock the party needs...

You just called me a douchebag. :)

Needless to say, my group wasn't complaining when I zapped the six goblins and two of their riding dogs for a total of 37 HP...at level 1.

101 to 150 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.