White Mage or Battle Priest?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

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

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).

Hold person and bestow curse.

You're right. I don't want to start a war here that's based on 1v1 combat because it's pointless. What's important is that the Cleric and the Fighter appropriately contribute to an adventuring party at about the same level of competence in different capacities.


Thurgon wrote:
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.

HAHAHAHA! Really? Are you serious? Are you, In all seriousness, trying to debate that the typical cleric can take the typical fighter in solo combat for most of the game? As somebody who constantly debates cleric mechanics, you almost have to know better than that.

In that case, without a series of tests, I guess none of us can accept any of your complaints about the cleric.


Frogboy wrote:


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.

LOL. Sorry, no specific insult meant to you. You do have to admit that's a pretty rare case, though. More specifically,

A: Did you ok the concept with your group first? (because, in most groups I've played, you'd better just be upfront about the fact that your cleric wont' heal)

B: How did you guys heal?


Loopy wrote:


Hold person and bestow curse.

You're right. I don't want to start a war here that's based on 1v1 combat because it's pointless. What's important is that the Cleric and the Fighter appropriately contribute to an adventuring party at about the same level of competence in different capacities.

heh. Yeah, sorry, I guess that wasn't really the point.


Frogboy wrote:
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.

How did you do 37 points of damage at level 1 from what seem like an AoE?


A little off topic, maybe, but has anyone tried the war priest option in the PF companion?

Fighter hp and BAB, in exchange for domains. It looks like a cool variant for clerics who want to bust some heads!


Thurgon wrote:
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.

Well, you didn't want to respond to my post, but since others took the same tact, and you still persist, I'd like to point out something to you.

Quoted from the 1e AD&D PHB: "That is, the cleric serves to fortify, protect,and revitalize."

Quoted from the 2e AD&D PHB: "Spells are the main tools of the cleric,
however, helping him to serve, fortify, protect, and revitalize those under his care."

Now then, pretty much seems to me that the purpose of the baseline (as in corebook cleric) has always been to buff and heal (fortify protect and revitalize). Variant priests, which in second edition got renamed to specialty priests, had different abilities, to the point of being virtually different classes.

Your basic arguement seems to revolve around playing a variant priest in the first place. Yet when anyone mentions a specialty priest, you insist your talking the baseline. So did you ever bother actually reading the cleric description in the PHB's through the years, or did you just skip to your variant priest section?


Velderan wrote:
LOL. Sorry, no specific insult meant to you. You do have to admit that's a pretty rare case, though.

I know. I didn't take it as such.

Velderan wrote:
A: Did you ok the concept with your group first? (because, in most groups I've played, you'd better just be upfront about the fact that your cleric wont' heal)

Yeah, of course. We are a play what you want group that often times doesn't have a healer. I don't have an aversion to healing, it's just not my specialty. I'll be picking up a wand of cure light as soon as I save up the 750gp.

Velderan wrote:
B: How did you guys heal?

The Bard has cure light wounds. I can memorize it but will rely on the wand whenever I can get it. I'd like to use the other Cleric spells that don't typically get used.

concerro wrote:
How did you do 37 points of damage at level 1 from what seem like an AoE?

I channeled negative energy. 1d6 damage to eight enemies. All but one failed their save and I rolled a 5 on damage. Of course, I zapped the Barbarian too because I couldn't keep everyone out of the effect without killing a couple of commoners. It does make things interesting when you're in a more crowded place. I didn't think of that beforehand.


Frogboy wrote:


I channeled negative energy. 1d6 damage to eight enemies. All but one failed their save and I rolled a 5 on damage. Of course, I zapped the Barbarian too because I couldn't keep everyone out of the effect without killing a couple of commoners. It does make things interesting when you're in a more crowded place. I didn't think of that beforehand.

Kinda like fireball, huh? ;-)


Dave Young 992 wrote:

A little off topic, maybe, but has anyone tried the war priest option in the PF companion?

Fighter hp and BAB, in exchange for domains. It looks like a cool variant for clerics who want to bust some heads!

Yeah, it does. I fear that it's unbalanced though. The domain powers are pretty decent for the most part but if you are melee oriented, it seems like a no-brainer which isn't good. I certainly wouldn't let anyone dip in it.


Frogboy wrote:
Dave Young 992 wrote:

A little off topic, maybe, but has anyone tried the war priest option in the PF companion?

Fighter hp and BAB, in exchange for domains. It looks like a cool variant for clerics who want to bust some heads!

Yeah, it does. I fear that it's unbalanced though. The domain powers are pretty decent for the most part but if you are melee oriented, it seems like a no-brainer which isn't good. I certainly wouldn't let anyone dip in it.

Good point. I think, to keep it fair, you'd have to be a war priest only, from first level on, no switching around. Otherwise, half your fighters would dip into it and get some clerical spells with no penalty to their hp and BAB.

I would think only the more war-like deities would have such priests.


Velderan wrote:
Loopy wrote:


Hold person and bestow curse.

You're right. I don't want to start a war here that's based on 1v1 combat because it's pointless. What's important is that the Cleric and the Fighter appropriately contribute to an adventuring party at about the same level of competence in different capacities.

heh. Yeah, sorry, I guess that wasn't really the point.

It is really hard not to think about it in those terms, though. :)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Thurgon wrote:
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.

Not all 1st ed clerics could wear heavy armor. Every Sumerian cleric, according the same book you are using to support your argument, must wear a kilt and white robes. If you're wearing a kilt and white robes, you aren't wearing heavy armor. So before 2nd Ed and it's introduction of specialty priests, not all clerics could wear heavy armor.


Epic Meepo wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
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.
Not all 1st ed clerics could wear heavy armor. Every Sumerian cleric, according the same book you are using to support your argument, must wear a kilt and white robes. If you're wearing a kilt and white robes, you aren't wearing heavy armor. So before 2nd Ed and it's introduction of specialty priests, not all clerics could wear heavy armor.

Robes are worn over armor, and a kilt can be armored.


Velderan wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
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.

HAHAHAHA! Really? Are you serious? Are you, In all seriousness, trying to debate that the typical cleric can take the typical fighter in solo combat for most of the game? As somebody who constantly debates cleric mechanics, you almost have to know better than that.

In that case, without a series of tests, I guess none of us can accept any of your complaints about the cleric.

I am saying the typcial cleric can take the typical fighter in 1v1 but it should be close in a non-broken game. I think it will be a lot less close thanks to channel energy as the fighter has no defense against it. Either for taking the damage or stopping the healing. Heavy armor either way isn't going to have the same effect on the fight on constant unstoppable healing or damage.


Thurgon wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
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.
Not all 1st ed clerics could wear heavy armor. Every Sumerian cleric, according the same book you are using to support your argument, must wear a kilt and white robes. If you're wearing a kilt and white robes, you aren't wearing heavy armor. So before 2nd Ed and it's introduction of specialty priests, not all clerics could wear heavy armor.
Robes are worn over armor, and a kilt can be armored.

Sure, in later editions. Would you care to point out where in 1st Ed where the armored kilt is? And you can wear robes over plate mail? I'd really like to see where it says that as well.

And quit trying to obfuscate the point. Clerics, the baseline class in 1st edition, were allowed to heal. All the entry says about armor is that they are allowed to wear it (which, considering how many classes were limited in their armor choices, makes sense.) And, oh my god, they still can wear armor...what a shock.

And, wow, they can spend a feat to wear platemail. I know, you don't want to spend a feat on soemthing like wearing platemail. But if its not worth a feat, why do you make such a big deal out of it? Alot of things a class used to be able to do are now feats, and they no longer get it automatically, what makes the cleric class so special they are exempt from the same?

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
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.

So what setting is going to let somebody play a non-channeling heavy armor cleric?


Beats me but issues like that are pure setting. If your gods say no healing then that is your setting gods saying that. If in your setting they do not use edged weapons well that is your setting.

Setting trumps core rules and often change or rework them to fit the setting( Looks hard at Athas) By core clerics can only be 1 step, but your setting my not have AL system so that rules might be gone.

But yes Thor's clergy not gaining healing is a setting thing. By the book they could.


Dave Young 992 wrote:

A little off topic, maybe, but has anyone tried the war priest option in the PF companion?

Fighter hp and BAB, in exchange for domains. It looks like a cool variant for clerics who want to bust some heads!

What PF companion is this? Is there a link to it?


Frogboy wrote:


concerro wrote:
How did you do 37 points of damage at level 1 from what seem like an AoE?
I channeled negative energy. 1d6 damage to eight enemies. All but one failed their save and I rolled a 5 on damage. Of course, I zapped the Barbarian too because I couldn't keep everyone out of the effect without killing a couple of commoners. It does make things interesting when you're in a more crowded place. I didn't think of that beforehand.

Ok so you did 5 points of damage to 7 enemies, and 2 to another.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting book.

-- david
Papa.DRB

concerro wrote:
Dave Young 992 wrote:

A little off topic, maybe, but has anyone tried the war priest option in the PF companion?

Fighter hp and BAB, in exchange for domains. It looks like a cool variant for clerics who want to bust some heads!

What PF companion is this? Is there a link to it?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The real White Mage is the Healer class. Light armor (no metal), simple weapons, and nothing but healing/protective spells. Seriously.

I had Healers in my game, as one of my favorite classes. I looked at Paladin's lay on hands and decided it would replace the Healer's grab-bag of 1/day healing abilities.

Then I finally decided that the Cleric's channel energy really wasn't that bad-- I had some issues with ranged and mass healing at low levels-- and the Healer ended up on the scrap heap.

As for the White Mage... that's my favorite role and I would love to play them more often, but for some reason, Evil Clerics are not allowed to channel positive energy. (Out of all of the alignment-based rules, this is the one I find most offensive.) So, I usually end up a Psion/Sangehirn or a Bard.

Lantern Lodge

it's not that white mages had poor accuracy, it's that they did poor weapon damage, (after being stripped of the ability to use fencing swords) my cleric i play on saturdays is basically a white mage. (swap hammer/staff for an Espada Ropera [mechanically a shortsword] and place a mithril shirt beneath robes.)

yeah she has a d8 hit dice but only a 12 con. her strength is only 8. white mages had sligthly more hp than black mages, it's the black mages that were d6hp, white mages are more like d8hp with a rogue's constitution. (10-14). however i play 3.5 dnd with pathfinder rise of the runelords modules.

in fact my cleric deals the least dpr. her +1 weapon allows her to use the full range of 1 six sided die. (she never bypasses damage reduction, except on critical hits.) her damage is between 1 and 6. a shameful thing for a 5th level character. and almost all her spell slots are devoted to healing. (her domian slots are purely heals, and she ends up converting a lot of spells into healing.) and she uses dexterity to hit. (via weapon finesse)

Liberty's Edge

Luminiere Solas wrote:

it's not that white mages had poor accuracy, it's that they did poor weapon damage, (after being stripped of the ability to use fencing swords) my cleric i play on saturdays is basically a white mage. (swap hammer/staff for an Espada Ropera [mechanically a shortsword] and place a mithril shirt beneath robes.)

yeah she has a d8 hit dice but only a 12 con. her strength is only 8. white mages had sligthly more hp than black mages, it's the black mages that were d6hp, white mages are more like d8hp with a rogue's constitution. (10-14). however i play 3.5 dnd with pathfinder rise of the runelords modules.

in fact my cleric deals the least dpr. her +1 weapon allows her to use the full range of 1 six sided die. (she never bypasses damage reduction, except on critical hits.) her damage is between 1 and 6. a shameful thing for a 5th level character. and almost all her spell slots are devoted to healing. (her domian slots are purely heals, and she ends up converting a lot of spells into healing.) and she uses dexterity to hit. (via weapon finesse)

group buffs

bless, magic weapon, divine favor, aid,... etc ... use scrolls if necesary

there are also a few useful combat spells against particular creatures (evil subtype or undead), plan ahead, you can change your spells every morning.


Well, just about any Cleric with a 8 STR and 12 CON is probably going to be a White Mage for sure. At level 7 you'll get a slight boost with divine power. With those stats, you aren't ever going to be a Battle Priest though.

151 to 175 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.
Recent threads in General Discussion