Director of Game Design
|
Yeah.. not really going anywhere here and rather insulting toward fellow posters (although that got a little better). This thread is on real thin ice.
Let me explain a little something. The cleric does have full spellcasting and 3/4 bab. But thats about it. There are relatively few other class features to the class. We could have gone 6 level spellcasting and full BAB for the magus, but we would prefer to add interesting and fun abilities to the class (we were stuck with the cleric for compatability). Now, you can argue that we did not go far enough, and I would agree with you, and we are going to be tackling this in the next iteration... but all of the pointless arguing and bickering, across multiple threads, forums, and boards, is really just wasting the time of everyone involved (me included, and I have precious little to spare).
So... I am going to leave this open.. see if it gets better, but its on thin ice.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Yeah.. not really going anywhere here and rather insulting toward fellow posters (although that got a little better). This thread is on real thin ice.
Let me explain a little something. The cleric does have full spellcasting and 3/4 bab. But thats about it. There are relatively few other class features to the class. We could have gone 6 level spellcasting and full BAB for the magus, but we would prefer to add interesting and fun abilities to the class (we were stuck with the cleric for compatability). Now, you can argue that we did not go far enough, and I would agree with you, and we are going to be tackling this in the next iteration... but all of the pointless arguing and bickering, across multiple threads, forums, and boards, is really just wasting the time of everyone involved (me included, and I have precious little to spare).
So... I am going to leave this open.. see if it gets better, but its on thin ice.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm glad you finally told why you were against the full BAB thing.
You are going for Cleric chasis but losing spell levels to give more class features.Okay, that helps narrow/clear up what you were trying to accomplish.
It seemed like you were taking Bard chasis and changing class features (and gutting skills) plus making prepared version.
It might help playtest thingies if we are given designers note of what they were trying to accomplish, just an idea.
I give a bit more weight to professional game designers than I do to rude arrogant troll posters.
You mad?
So... I am going to leave this open.. see if it gets better, but its on thin ice.
maybe it will get better...
I give a bit more weight to professional game designers than I do to rude arrogant troll posters.You mad?
...then again...
"It seemed like you were taking Bard chasis and changing class features (and gutting skills) plus making prepared version."
I would point out that a Magus will have more skills then the vast majority of bards due to Int being the Magus primary attribute. Bards may start with a few more, but with time the Magus will pull ahead, eventually by a lot.
The Bard does have Bardic knowledge, and Versatility, however he also has to put ranks in perform skills.
I would say that Bards and Magus's are about equal in the skill department.
Bards blow away everybody in the skills department. They get 6+Int skill points (one step below maximum possible), half-level automatic ranks in 10 different skills, can take 10 on any skill check (including ones not normally allowed), he can take 20 on Knowledge checks, and he gets 3-for-1 skill point investments with some extremely good skills (although admittedly the utility of Perform past the first type is limited, so it's more like 2-for-1) and replacing those skills' associated stat with Charisma.
No one in the game can match Bards as a skill monkey. A few classes are better at very narrow applications of skills (Rogues for finding traps, Rangers and Inquisitors for following tracks, etc), but no one is better at skills in general.
Why would a Magus have more than 2+Int skills? The class is a combination of Fighter + Wizard. Just about the only thing they have in common is they both have 2+Int skills.
Jason - I believe the problem comes down to the Monk Flaw. Namely, a lot of small abilities do not make up for the lack of anything powerful.
Right now the Magus has a lot of little tricks...none of which really help you that much.
The cleric on the other hand has full cleric spellcasting. That honestly gives him all the little abilities and huge powerful abilities that he needs.
Like I mentioned in my big review, I think one of the bigger issues the Magus has is that most of his "high level" abilities could easily be low level ones and nobody would notice. You don't really feel a sense of reward for hitting higher levels and finding your big prize is "Well I have a better chance at not failing to use my major class ability"
I would like to point out that the cleric's full casting is great....as long as you stick to spells that have no saving throw. The instant you add in a saving throw, you're taking the chance that your spell won't work. Clerics have very few spells that are assault spells, and all of the once I looked at seem to have saves. I bring this up because the Magus can do a full attack action and cast an assault spell every round that he has castings to spare.The nerf for full casters is only half built into the classes. The other half is in the way the monsters have been rebuilt. After level 10 the chances of you meeting a low will-save and low-fort save monster are very, very small; at the same time, caster's increases to their DC's are almost solely by stat increase now. While clerics get more combat buff spells than most others, the Magus' arcana are self buffs that they can use as needed during combat, as opposed to taking time to prepare them ahead of combat (which sucks if you get surprised). Since the Arcana are usually supernatural abilities or swift actions, a dispel magic will not cause havoc on his combat capability - and most of the aforementioned CR 10+ monsters are spell caster or will have access to such people...
Ermmm...there are a few problems with this.
A: the same could be said of attacks, which can also miss. And, quite often, if spell works as intended, it outright wins the combat. Can you say that about many attack rolls? On top of that, with their crappy BAB, and early-game attack penalties, and serious MAD, the magus will be missing quite a bit themselves.
B: If by 'assault' spells, you mean evocation (which the Magus gets a lot of), they suck. They suck a lot. So, yeah, being able to throw those in with attacks isn't that big a deal. The Cleric casts a spell that might do nothing, the magus casts a spell that will definitely do nothing worth keeping track of.
In fact, BECAUSE the magus has more 'assault' spells, the problem you raise is actually a bigger issue for him/her.
C (and this is the big one): Clerics DO get nifty class features. They get domain powers AND channel energy. More importantly, they get these two resources independent of their spellcasting. The magus can't say that, all they get is some things that they can burn up their spells to get. So I don't know where you get the idea of 'spells to spare', because they don't have them.
In one round, the magus gets to blow a fireball, which won't do much damage and stab a couple of times with his bad BAB, which will burn yet more spells to hit, while the cleric gets to cast an awesome potentially battle-winning buff, save a teamate's life, or cast a potentially battle-winning control spell, each for a precious 1 of his spell slots. At the end, the magus burns two of his slots a round to do anything cool, while the cleric burns 1, of which he has more. If either runs out of spells, the magus shrugs and fights like a songless bard, while the cleric uses one of their handful of class features not dependent on spells. If the cleric in question fights, they'll be doing it just as well as the magus.
I'm glad you finally told why you were against the full BAB thing.
You are going for Cleric chasis but losing spell levels to give more class features.Okay, that helps narrow/clear up what you were trying to accomplish.
It seemed like you were taking Bard chasis and changing class features (and gutting skills) plus making prepared version.It might help playtest thingies if we are given designers note of what they were trying to accomplish, just an idea.
I'm glad he said this too, I like knowing that their intentions are. But, honestly, this is rather disheartening. I can't believe anyone would think these class features are worth spell levels 7-9.
You guys do realize ALMOST no one wanted to play a Cleric in 1e and 2e. There wasn't anything going for it other than being a battery pack and a scarecrow for the undead, right? What you're asking for is returning the Cleric back to the role they were before. Which means less people wanting to play Clerics, and more people being forced to play Clerics.
Thanks to 3E, Clerics can adapt to many roles. Don't expect them to be as varied or blasting like Wizards, but they have a fair share of different things to do now. But, even in 3E/Pathfinder, it feels like playing a Cleric still shoehorns you into performing almost like a 1e/2e Cleric.
To this day, after DMing since 3E first arrived over a dozen of my buddies over the years, not ONE has made a Cleric. The closest I have seen is Favored Soul, and he made sure NOT to pick healing spells and has geared his character into a melee buff, for himself and others. It's because it still has that baggage leftover from 1e/2e. What it has now, at least, makes it more enticing to get into.
If you folks are considering weakening the Cleric by dropping full casting or weakening BAB, you're just going to end up perpetuating it back to what it was in 1e/2e. And then, no one will want to play it, instead you'll have a disgruntled player being forced to play one for "team unity".
But, honestly, this is rather disheartening.
I can't believe anyone would think these class features are worth spell levels 7-9.
Good thing Mr. Buhlman doesn`t think ¨these class features¨ (in current playtest version) are worth their weight either:
We could have gone 6 level spellcasting and full BAB for the magus, but we would prefer to add interesting and fun abilities to the class (we were stuck with the cleric for compatability). Now, you can argue that we did not go far enough, and I would agree with you, and we are going to be tackling this in the next iteration...
What the Magus is going for is the Arcane equivalent of the Inquisitor. Most people seem happy with that class, if upset that Sub-Domains are restricted to Clerics. I don`t see any reason why Paizo can`t make the same chassis work for the Magus, they just need more time to think of new special abilities. Those aren`t always the most obvious to think of, especially if you want a different flavor than the Inquisitor`s mini-Smite/solo tactics, and this round of the playtest was obviously focused on the unique action economy combination. If the chassis can work for the Inquisitor I see no reason it can`t work for the Magus.
opinions
Um... we had trouble getting people to *not* play the cleric actually. That spell list wasn't bad at all and you could turn *demons and devils* not just undead back in the day. The armor was good the weapons were not bad the saves were acceptable, you didn't have the spell book to worry about, the THac0 wasn't bad and you got bonus slots which the wizard didn't get.
Theif was the one we had the most problem getting people to play (usually we just didn't have one).
If you folks are considering weakening the Cleric by dropping full casting or weakening BAB, you're just going to end up perpetuating it back to what it was in 1e/2e. And then, no one will want to play it, instead you'll have a disgruntled player being forced to play one for "team unity".
Honestly something needs done to the cleric, its a broken, unbalanced class, same with the druid. I agree it needed something done to it but the 3e team went way, way over "fixing" those classes.
They should not be full caster and full BAB. But I am also not a GM who thinks you must have a cleric in the party. The cleric should be fun to play and should not be something your "forced" to play so folks have a heal bot.
The healbot issues was not addressed so instead they just pumped the cleric to super insane levels to try and entice folks to play the healbot. But what happened was they still didn't play the healbot but abused an already broken class. So ya get the CODzilla stories.
Anyone who Holds the cleric and druid up as examples of a well designed or balanced class or as a benchmark of power level is simply wrong. They are anomalies in the game, not the norm.
What the Magus is going for is the Arcane equivalent of the Inquisitor. Most people seem happy with that class. I don`t see any reason why Paizo can`t make the same chassis work for the Magus, they just need more time to think of new special abilities. Those aren`t always the most obvious to think of, especially if you want a different flavor than the Inquisitor`s mini-Smite/solo tactics, and this round of the playtest was obviously focused on the unique action economy combination. If the chassis can work for the Inquisitor I see no reason it can`t work for the Magus.
The problem with that line of thought is that the inquisitor chasis does indeed work with an arcane character: the bard. The inquisitor was sold to us as a divine bard, which is why people are happy with it. (and, i should say, that chasis includes a large number of skill points and support abilities).
This class is meant to be a warrior. It doesn't have skills or support spells to be in the bard/inquisitor role, and it was sold to us as a single class fighter-mage. I'm not saying the class completely MUST have full BAB to work (though I'm leaning toward that), but it seems wrong to compare it to the inquisitor.
I'm not saying the class completely MUST have full BAB to work (though I'm leaning toward that), but it seems wrong to compare it to the inquisitor.
Not at all, that is the very class to compare it to. The complaint we heard over and over with that class was it needed full BAB to be a effective combatant. Which simply is not the case. The magues needs work, everyone knows that which is the point of playtesting, but if the inquisitor can be damned effective with its 3/4th BAB so can the magues.
well if ya redesign every single other class in the game to bring it up to that power level, then yes. However for the game they are currently in, then no. They are the out of place ones.
I'm not saying the class completely MUST have full BAB to work (though I'm leaning toward that), but it seems wrong to compare it to the inquisitor.Not at all, that is the very class to compare it to. The complaint we heard over and over with that class was it needed full BAB to be a effective combatant. Which simply is not the case. The magues needs work, everyone knows that which is the point of playtesting, but if the inquisitor can be damned effective with its 3/4th BAB so can the magues.
Cleric. Buffs. Win. Combat.
Yes we all know the cleric is broken, your point? It has zero to do with what you quoted.
Just clarifying is all.
...If the chassis can work for the Inquisitor I see no reason it can`t work for the Magus....I'm not saying the class completely MUST have full BAB to work (though I'm leaning toward that), but it seems wrong to compare it to the inquisitor.
Inquisitor is the Divine medium BAB/HD `fighty striker`. The Magus seems to be going for an equivalent Arcane role, broadly speaking. Why WOULDN`T you compare them, or expect them to be mechanically equivalent at basic levels? OBVIOUSLY, the Inquisitor works well because of the various Class Abilities. AS JASON HAS SAID, the Magus falls behind on the Class Ability side, but I`m going to assume that Jason`s not lying and in fact will attend to buffing out that side of the Magus in future iterations... i.e. better matching the Inquisitor structure. Where is the `wrong` in comparing the two? Obviously, the current iteration Magus is most concretely in front of our faces to compare and analyze, but the words of the author of the APG as to where we can expect it to go in future iterations seem somewhat relevant here...
Yes we all know the cleric is broken, your point? It has zero to do with what you quoted.
Err....you know that's where most of the inquisitor spells are drawn from, right? That's kind of a big part of that class...
Again, that has nothing to do with the magues. The spells are not the clerics big issue, its the spell, BAB, full list of know every spell and armor with the ability to buff and so forth.
The inquisitor lacks most of this. He is effective at what he does, but now master of damned near everything. He is the right thing to aim for with the magues.
Yes we all know the cleric is broken, your point? It has zero to do with what you quoted.
Inquisitors have cleric buffs.
|
This class is meant to be a warrior. It doesn't have skills or support spells to be in the bard/inquisitor role, and it was sold to us as a single class fighter-mage. I'm not saying the class completely MUST have full BAB to work (though I'm leaning toward that), but it seems wrong to compare it to the inquisitor.
No, no this class is NOT a warrior class. Take a look at the title of the book it is in. Ultimate MAGIC...MAGIC...not combat...MAGIC. You are expecting the wrong thing from this class and this book.
Yes we all know the cleric is broken, your point? It has zero to do with what you quoted.Inquisitors have cleric buffs.
If they had 9 cleric caster levels and auto knew every spell on the list on top of what they normally get, then it would be relevant. As it stands they do not gain such things so it is not relevant.
Spell lists are not what makes the inquisitor so effective, its class features. The buffs help but they are not the be all end all of the class.
Again, that has nothing to do with the magues. The spells are not the clerics big issue, its the spell, BAB, full list of know every spell and armor with the ability to buff and so forth.
The inquisitor lacks most of this. He is effective at what he does, but now master of damned near everything. He is the right thing to aim for with the magues.
wow. Read the thread. You wrote that the inquisitor is a decent combatant, and, as such, so is this class. I responded that the inquisitor has cleric buffs, which is a huge part of why it's such a good combatant. You can say the two are unrelated if you'd like, but my APG begs to differ.
Inquisitor is the Divine medium BAB/HD `fighty striker`. The Magus seems to be going for an equivalent Arcane role, broadly speaking. Why WOULDN`T you compare them, or expect them to be mechanically equivalent at basic levels? OBVIOUSLY, the Inquisitor works well because of the various Class Abilities. AS JASON HAS SAID, the Magus falls behind on the Class Ability side, but I`m going to assume that Jason`s not lying and in fact will attend to buffing out that side of the Magus in future iterations... i.e. better matching the Inquisitor structure. Where is the `wrong` in comparing the two? Obviously, the current iteration Magus is most concretely in front of our faces to compare and analyze, but the words of the author of the APG as to where we can expect it to go in future iterations seem somewhat relevant here......If the chassis can work for the Inquisitor I see no reason it can`t work for the Magus....I'm not saying the class completely MUST have full BAB to work (though I'm leaning toward that), but it seems wrong to compare it to the inquisitor.
Dude, I don't know what response you want. We're playtesting the magus, and all we have to look at is the current incarnation of the class. Jason can promise something better all he wants, there's nothing for us to discuss right now, so all we can discuss is what we have before us. If that discussion is invalidated by Jason saying something new is coming out, then we may as well not waste our time.
It's ridiculous to compare it to a class that's feature-dependent, then, when we criticize this class for not having similar features, say "well, Jason said it would one day."
No, no this class is NOT a warrior class. Take a look at the title of the book it is in. Ultimate MAGIC...MAGIC...not combat...MAGIC. You are expecting the wrong thing from this class and this book.
This class is meant to be a warrior. It doesn't have skills or support spells to be in the bard/inquisitor role, and it was sold to us as a single class fighter-mage. I'm not saying the class completely MUST have full BAB to work (though I'm leaning toward that), but it seems wrong to compare it to the inquisitor.
We've been told over and over again that this is a 20 level fighter/mage. How is warrior not a part of that? Frankly, I'm doing it a service by considering warrior a part of it, because, if it's meant to be primarily a caster, then it's just outright terrible.
wow. Read the thread. You wrote that the inquisitor is a decent combatant, and, as such, so is this class. I responded that the inquisitor has cleric buffs, which is a huge part of why it's such a good combatant. You can say the two are unrelated if you'd like, but my APG begs to differ.
No you said...Cleric. Buffs. Win. Combat.
not well the inquisitor gains some of the cleric's buff spells to help bring his combat up. If ya had said such I would not have called it irrelevant.
The buffs do help, however they are not the main combat ability of the class, and not what makes it so effective in combat.
wow. Read the thread. You wrote that the inquisitor is a decent combatant, and, as such, so is this class. I responded that the inquisitor has cleric buffs, which is a huge part of why it's such a good combatant. You can say the two are unrelated if you'd like, but my APG begs to differ.
No you said...Cleric. Buffs. Win. Combat.
not well the inquisitor gains some of the cleric's buff spells to help bring his combat up. If ya had said such I would not have called it irrelevant.
The buffs do help, however they are not the main combat ability of the class, and not what makes it so effective in combat. They do help but are not its key ability.
If you're playing the inquisitor well at all, their buffs are a huge part of its ability to fight. Combining them with with judgment just supplements that. Wizards have few such buffs (as with the magus), and the magus has crappy class features *waits for somebody on the thread to praise a version of the magus we haven't seen*
I am confused here. Just why are you saying the inquisitor should not be the bench mark for this classes effectiveness?
|
|
We've been told over and over again that this is a 20 level fighter/mage. How is warrior not a part of that? Frankly, I'm doing it a service by considering warrior a part of it, because, if it's meant to be primarily a caster, then it's just outright terrible.No, no this class is NOT a warrior class. Take a look at the title of the book it is in. Ultimate MAGIC...MAGIC...not combat...MAGIC. You are expecting the wrong thing from this class and this book.
This class is meant to be a warrior. It doesn't have skills or support spells to be in the bard/inquisitor role, and it was sold to us as a single class fighter-mage. I'm not saying the class completely MUST have full BAB to work (though I'm leaning toward that), but it seems wrong to compare it to the inquisitor.
Duskblade, full BAB, TERRIBLE spell list. Warrior type class.
EK build. NOT full bab. GREAT spell list. Gish...aka the fighter/mage.
I am confused here. Just why are you saying the inquisitor should not be the bench mark for this classes effectiveness?
Because what works for a cleric/rogue doesn't work for a fighter/mage because their spells are so different? Because the arcane version of the inquisitor predated the inquisitor, and it had a load of support features added to it. I mean, if we're going to screw around making an arcane inquisitor, we could make it's bonus to hit abilities affect the entire party and add some healing spells to it and....oh yeah, that class exists. Oh, also skills.
We've been told over and over again that this is a 20 level fighter/mage. How is warrior not a part of that? Frankly, I'm doing it a service by considering warrior a part of it, because, if it's meant to be primarily a caster, then it's just outright terrible.No, no this class is NOT a warrior class. Take a look at the title of the book it is in. Ultimate MAGIC...MAGIC...not combat...MAGIC. You are expecting the wrong thing from this class and this book.
This class is meant to be a warrior. It doesn't have skills or support spells to be in the bard/inquisitor role, and it was sold to us as a single class fighter-mage. I'm not saying the class completely MUST have full BAB to work (though I'm leaning toward that), but it seems wrong to compare it to the inquisitor.Duskblade, full BAB, TERRIBLE spell list. Warrior type class.
EK build. NOT full bab. GREAT spell list. Gish...aka the fighter/mage.
Again, we were told this was a gish class. Were they lying? Again, if this is meant to be a mage with some secondary fighting characteristics it fails on several fundamental levels.
I am just gonna have to disagree with ya Velderan. I think that is the very class to be looking at and comparing it to.
|
|
Again, we were told this was a gish class. Were they lying? Again, if this is meant to be a mage with some secondary fighting characteristics it fails on several fundamental levels.We've been told over and over again that this is a 20 level fighter/mage. How is warrior not a part of that? Frankly, I'm doing it a service by considering warrior a part of it, because, if it's meant to be primarily a caster, then it's just outright terrible.No, no this class is NOT a warrior class. Take a look at the title of the book it is in. Ultimate MAGIC...MAGIC...not combat...MAGIC. You are expecting the wrong thing from this class and this book.
This class is meant to be a warrior. It doesn't have skills or support spells to be in the bard/inquisitor role, and it was sold to us as a single class fighter-mage. I'm not saying the class completely MUST have full BAB to work (though I'm leaning toward that), but it seems wrong to compare it to the inquisitor.Duskblade, full BAB, TERRIBLE spell list. Warrior type class.
EK build. NOT full bab. GREAT spell list. Gish...aka the fighter/mage.
Note, the duskblade is NOT A GISH. The spell casting ability of the class was way WAY too weak to be considered a gish. Okay you want it more simple...then how about this.
Options
1) Full BAB...VERY limited spell list and spells.
2) Medium BAB...GOOD spell list.
Now which option should be in a book called ultimate magic?
The magus doesn't have a good spell list.
To be honest I do not think the Magus needs a full BaB, he needs a few tweaks to make it easier to cast and fight, and needs a few more low level touch spells, and maybe a 3+ Int mod ability as he tends to go through his resources very quickly.
Over all I like this class it has some potential and I can't wait to see some of these bugs worked out.
We have run one wielding a whip, and one a rapier, I'd like to see what other light or one-handers do.
why couldn't people just settle for an eldritch knight? i personally would rather see some new pc races. maybe a few templates designed with players in mind.
i personally want a Cr+1 modular yokai blooded template with a design it yourself mechanic similar to the construction points of an animated object. styling it after Touhou is a plus. native outsider template only applicable to humans (humanoids if neccessary) i'm sure a few other japanophiles would want one too. but lets also include yokai species from other nearby countries too. not just japan. i also want a shrine maiden (Miko) pc class too. styled after Hakurei Reimu.
[...]
Let me explain a little something. The cleric does have full spellcasting and 3/4 bab. But thats about it. There are relatively few other class features to the class. We could have gone 6 level spellcasting and full BAB for the magus, but we would prefer to add interesting and fun abilities to the class (we were stuck with the cleric for compatability). Now, you can argue that we did not go far enough, and I would agree with you, and we are going to be tackling this in the next iteration [...]
If I missread you I'm sorry but are you implying you are going to nerf the cleric?
First of all, the nerf of Divine power fixed most of the Codzilla problem, second even if the cleric isn't a 6 level spellcasting class it's far from a good 9 level spellcasting class. In fact one might say it's a 7 level spellcasting class, but with 8 and 9 level spell slots.Let me quote Zurai from the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide Preview #2 thread
Haste is stronger than bless, prayer, and heroes' feast. Holy aura is a stronger defensive buff, but I'd rather have haste than holy aura in 9 fights out of 10, especially as it doesn't take an 8th level spell slot. Not that there's much else useful at 8th level on the Cleric list; 7th, 8th, and 9th level suck because they're still suffering the effects of the 2nd edition Cleric list stopping at 7th level, so all those 7th level spells had to be spread out over three levels in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, and frequently without notable improvements.
I more or less agree with Zurai when he once said: [...]"holy word and holy aura are incredibly situational and mass cure critical does indeed suck just like all the other mass cure spells" [...] "There are only 1-3 decent spell choices at each of levels 7, 8, and 9 in the default, Core Rulebook Cleric list. That's a s*!!ty spell list."
What Zurai says is true. At higher levels the spell list is indeed s*!!ty. I'm not sure what Zurai thinks, but I think it's disappointing the APG hasn't fixed this. It's still a s*!!ty spell list.
So when Pathfinder gives the cleric a REAL 9 level spelllist including REAL high level spells the we might talk. The Cleric is a class with 7, 8 and 9 level spell slots but he doesn't really have the spells to go with them, with the exception of mass heal.
But the high level slots are indeed nice since they give the Cleric options of using quicken spells and/or other meta magic feats. Something the 6 level spellcasting classes lack. I hope Pathfinder creat feat that give 6 level spellcasting classes access to higher spellslots so they can cast quicken 3 level spells or 4 level spells.
The way I see it? The APG nerfed the cleric since most classes got better but the cleric didn't.
Well until they do a 2e they are stuck with 3/4 BAB and full casting. I think is is saying his hands were tired there abut they are not gonna be giving him more power, nor are they gonna use the cleric as the benchmark for new classes and power level.
I could be wrong however.
The poor cleric, however will it survive?
The GM fudges rolls just so he can feel useful.