I apologize ahead of time if I'm stirring up a hornet's nest. I've done a few searches for existing threads, but they all seem to date back to late 2008 and early 2009 when things were still gelling.
In my current group we have a Dwarf Cleric (don't recall the God, but I believe its home-brewed/import from FR) with domains of Glory and Liberation. Both the player and DM have expressed some concern that this Cleric in particular, and Clerics in general, are underpowered. Looking at the level chart, all you see is their Channel Energy damage going up. Their 2nd domain power kicks in at 8th level, but then that's about it. Sure, spellcasting is always great, but a lot of the Cleric staples (Divine Power, Righteous Might, and the various save-or-die/suck spells) have been toned back some. And of course there's the loss of Heavy Armor proficiency.
I haven't had the chance to play a PF Cleric as of yet, so I have no personal experience. My personal take is that they don't look bad at all, particularly with the right Domain choices. I also suspect the problem is more with the player's build (25 point-buy but nothing higher than a 16 in any one stat; too much spreading around, too little focus) than the class itself.
So, I'm looking for the opinions of the community at large here, to pass on to the DM. Does the Cleric need a bone tossed his way to keep up? Or does the player just need assistance with picking the proper spells and getting his stats focused?
Focus matters. It's hard for any class to function properly when there's a lack of focus. Does the cleric want to be a warrior-priest? Then he needs combat stats. Is he a healer? Wisdom and Charisma. And so on. Spell selection will be affected by his focus. A healer won't want divine power as much as a warpriest, but still might want it.
Domain powers usually kick in at 1st and 8th, but spells are an important factor. A cleric isn't a wizard; they don't have the same variety of battlefield control magics. They're problem solvers, but they solve the problems of "we need to hit the bad guys" and "man, that thing sucked, someone fix me up", not "how do we win the fight in one round" (usually, at least).
They get full spell casting progression.
They can cast somatic spell while wearing armor (but doesn't that interfere with spells, oh wells, We'll hand waive it and leave it to the arcanes to worry about that).
They get an improved channeled ability in my opinion, now it can be use in other things than undead.
They get 2 good saves d8 and 3/4 base attack bonus, not there in par with full martial classes, but not entirely squishy either.
They get a spell that gives them full base attack bonus and buffs their strength, which kind of negates the 3/4 base attack bonus.
In short, no, not at all, if you really want to use full plate, just burn a feat, they get nice stuff and only give away the heavy armor proficiency.
They get a spell that gives them full base attack bonus and buffs their strength, which kind of negates the 3/4 base attack bonus.
Quick note: Divine Power doesn't do this anymore.
The single biggest issue with the clerics is the folks who don't go through the GMG and re-read spells they think they know.
Wizards SoD spells got all the press but clerics got hit with the nerf bazooka but its all in subtle ways.
Re-read every spell on the cleric list that you used to think made them "Omg they are a better fighter than the fighter and in full plate too!". A metric ton of things got changed in the fine print.
Not that they aren't still a solid class but they got the crap kicked out of them in the conversion.
-S
|
The single biggest issue with the clerics is the folks who don't go through the GMG and re-read spells they think they know.
Wizards SoD spells got all the press but clerics got hit with the nerf bazooka but its all in subtle ways.
Re-read every spell on the cleric list that you used to think made them "Omg they are a better fighter than the fighter and in full plate too!". A metric ton of things got changed in the fine print.
Not that they aren't still a solid class but they got the crap kicked out of them in the conversion.
-S
And that's good, because one of the biggest problem of 3.5 Fighters was that both Cleric and Druid could easily outshine them in combat AND have full spell-casting to boot.
Good changes to the cleric, though I am still not a huge fan of channeling it slowly grows on me.
Powerful buffer / healer
fair offensive / practical caster
fair striker / tank with a little preparation
two good saves.
It is just pretty solid, though a cleric never has been my favorite class, thematically I rather have a witch for heals and get rid of the ever present religious theme which often seems a bit forced.
|
I apologize ahead of time if I'm stirring up a hornet's nest. I've done a few searches for existing threads, but they all seem to date back to late 2008 and early 2009 when things were still gelling.
In my current group we have a Dwarf Cleric (don't recall the God, but I believe its home-brewed/import from FR) with domains of Glory and Liberation. Both the player and DM have expressed some concern that this Cleric in particular, and Clerics in general, are underpowered. Looking at the level chart, all you see is their Channel Energy damage going up. Their 2nd domain power kicks in at 8th level, but then that's about it. Sure, spellcasting is always great, but a lot of the Cleric staples (Divine Power, Righteous Might, and the various save-or-die/suck spells) have been toned back some. And of course there's the loss of Heavy Armor proficiency.
I haven't had the chance to play a PF Cleric as of yet, so I have no personal experience. My personal take is that they don't look bad at all, particularly with the right Domain choices. I also suspect the problem is more with the player's build (25 point-buy but nothing higher than a 16 in any one stat; too much spreading around, too little focus) than the class itself.
So, I'm looking for the opinions of the community at large here, to pass on to the DM. Does the Cleric need a bone tossed his way to keep up? Or does the player just need assistance with picking the proper spells and getting his stats focused?
I have played clerics since the red box and spent a ton of time playing AD&D 1st edition clerics (who were so very much less versatile than the 3.0/3.5/PFRPG version) so my perspective may be a bit skewed. I have always believed that a cleric is mechanically a support character and thematically a natural leader and role-playing god-send (pun intended). In every game I have played in or run as a DM, it was the cleric who served as the conscience, wise councillor, and guiding hand on the campaign. They are the natural foils to the rogues, the mentors to the paladins, and the tempering force for the fighters. In short, I love clerics and have always loved what they bring to the table.
Mechanically, the PFRPG cleric is a first-tier class in my opinion. By scaling up the fighter and pulling back from having clerics serve as a true substitute for a fighter, the PFRPG rules make it easier to properly situate the cleric in a party for role-playing purposes. The domain powers are a ton more creative than in 3.5 and really allow the divine principle a character is devoted to to shine through in the game. I don't think you need to worry about the nerf bat being used on the spell list, the things a cleric does best no one else approaches and the things a cleric does to compete with the other classes (fighters and wizards primarily) really did need to be stepped back in order to make room for those characters to shine.
To be honest, my only real balance gripe with the PFRPG rules come with upgrading the wizard's hit points to a d6. A wizard needs to be frail to offset the power and supreme flexibility that the high Intelligence and spellbook represent. But that is another topic....
For me, clerics are more than potent enough to hold their own in any group. They are also a ton of fun to role-play.
d6 hp is +1 hp/level.
You want to make casters frail, just restrict the con bonuses they can get, like AD&D did. +3 hp/hd for con for casters, +5 for half-casters, unlimited for non-casters. Fraility becomes a big issue, and will change party dynamics.
Ex.: How many MMO's do you know that give casters the same HP as pure melees?
==+Aelryinth
They are fine, assuming the premises of the game.
The fact that you must specialize it's a sign they are not longer the best in 4 things. thay are very good in 4 things, or crazy good in 1.
I apologize ahead of time if I'm stirring up a hornet's nest. I've done a few searches for existing threads, but they all seem to date back to late 2008 and early 2009 when things were still gelling.
In my current group we have a Dwarf Cleric (don't recall the God, but I believe its home-brewed/import from FR) with domains of Glory and Liberation. Both the player and DM have expressed some concern that this Cleric in particular, and Clerics in general, are underpowered. Looking at the level chart, all you see is their Channel Energy damage going up. Their 2nd domain power kicks in at 8th level, but then that's about it. Sure, spellcasting is always great, but a lot of the Cleric staples (Divine Power, Righteous Might, and the various save-or-die/suck spells) have been toned back some. And of course there's the loss of Heavy Armor proficiency.
I haven't had the chance to play a PF Cleric as of yet, so I have no personal experience. My personal take is that they don't look bad at all, particularly with the right Domain choices. I also suspect the problem is more with the player's build (25 point-buy but nothing higher than a 16 in any one stat; too much spreading around, too little focus) than the class itself.
So, I'm looking for the opinions of the community at large here, to pass on to the DM. Does the Cleric need a bone tossed his way to keep up? Or does the player just need assistance with picking the proper spells and getting his stats focused?
I don't think they are OP for any group. I would say just right. The power of the cleric is his ability to make the party better, get rid of status affects, and be a decent combatant. It is not the combatant it was in 3.5, but it can contribute without over taking the melee main melee classes. The player should decide what he wants to be good at and go from there.
They lost nothing of consequence and gained nothing of consequence. So they are still at the top.
While I think the current cleric is just right I do disagree with this statement. Clerics in 3.5 were just plain broken, I don't see the same mechanics in pathfinder so they did loose something of consequence. Luckily they lost something in a good direction. I also don't see them sitting on top anymore. They're still a good class but they are not #1.
CoDzilla no longer runs free in the plains of Golarian (or whatever setting you use).
d6 hp is +1 hp/level.
You want to make casters frail, just restrict the con bonuses they can get, like AD&D did. +3 hp/hd for con for casters, +5 for half-casters, unlimited for non-casters. Fraility becomes a big issue, and will change party dynamics.
Ex.: How many MMO's do you know that give casters the same HP as pure melees?
==+Aelryinth
Valhalla Knigth's does, but it isn't a "masive" MORPG, it balances it with disruption.
Also, in Shadowrun you can make a mage or adept as sturdy as any meele.
Videogames needs some define parameters to mantain balance and avoid crash weigthing all posible permutation. Videogames are a whole diferent beast than pen and paper RPG due to the open sandbox nature and rule 0 of the latter.
Yawar
I'm playing a dwarven battle cleric (going for Hoyl vindicator) and I have to say, they are awesome.
A lot of spells, good armor and good attack. I have a +1 Armour and shield and get my AC at level 7 up to 28 for ~ 10 rounds.
Sure my damage isn't as good as the one of a blaster mage or Two-Hand Warrior, but it's enough, especially with the high AC (not wearing a full plate yet).
But I also think a few "gimmick" abilities would be fine, the character table looks so empty (look at the druids, they get full spell progress (offensive and defensiv), wild shape, companion, lots of abilities and also medium armor prof, which is much more as a cleric get, even with the domain powers) :)
In Pathfinder Society play, Clerics are less powerful than they were in 3.5, but not gimped. The removal of martial weapon proficiency (all) and heavy armor proficiency essentially kills cleric melee ability at low levels.
Unless this was something specific to society play, Clerics were always restricted to Simple Weapons in 3.5. I believe a Cleric with the War domain gained proficiency with their deity's favored weapon, but that's about it.
They lost nothing of consequence and gained nothing of consequence.
Care to elaborate on why you feel the changes made no difference?
Clerics are proficient with the weapon of their deity. Depending on the setting, this can lead to a decent weapon.
Add in few subdomains from APG (the "1/2 level to damage" ones), buffs, and heavy armor (you can take it - no spell chance failure) and you can decently beat up stuff for several rounds of combat.
As said above, cleric must specialize a little to do so, but is nothing bad about it. You still have helings and are able to call in celestials to help you beating and healing, have walls, hold person WORKING ON GIANTS NOW and so on.
It's fine.
@Coridan: what do you mean about Druids?
|
In before Beckett or whoever else says that lack of heavy armor proficiency and holy trifecta nerf killed the Cleric as a viable class in PF:
I don't think that this makes the class unviable. I don't like that Heavy Armor was taken away on principle, and certainly not as a class feature of Fighters and Paladins.
I don't like the spell nerfs across the board.
I personally don't care for most Domains in PathFinder nor Channel Energy. Just not my tastes. That doesn't mean I think the Cleric is killed, just that I don't care for the class as much as I did in other editions. Which is a pity, because the concept I still love just not the way it actually works.
Things I think need added or changed, (even if it means switching out with existing things):
Options to make it more warrior-like
Options to choose more Channel abilities as core class abilities. Rather than either Positive or Negative, maybe they can take Turn/Control Undead, Smite, or whatever.
Domains that add more to the Base class as Bloodlines and Schools do. An extra class skill as well as a permanent (minor) affect.
Makng in low level spells more useful at higher levels. Add some stacking and change round the bonus types, (both for indivdual and group buffs).
Class Features similar to the Druid. Minor, situational things to look forward to at level up. +2 Will against the Illusions of Alignment Outsiders, or a +2 to certain skills related to social encounters revolving around their specific faith. Especially things that are "priest-like", and revolve around Mystacism, Wis, and to a lesser extent Cha.
Variaty. Regardless of a lot of things, many Clerics look very similar. Way to much to really go into as to how I would like to see this remedied, but some more unique (to a faith) Feats, spells, Class Features, etc . . . would be really cool, I think.
In essence, it really depends on the concept of the Cleric you want to play. The more you get away from the generic, the more I think they are les than where they need to be. Not vastly, mind you. But noticably. They are still fully viable as a class.
If you want a superspell-caster, well as has been said, they get 9th level spells.
In my opinion people understimate the effect of the domain chosen, at least in some case.
Could be done more: maybe (and the UM previes suggest this). But there is material anyway.
The single biggest issue with the clerics is the folks who don't go through the GMG and re-read spells they think they know.
Wizards SoD spells got all the press but clerics got hit with the nerf bazooka but its all in subtle ways.
Re-read every spell on the cleric list that you used to think made them "Omg they are a better fighter than the fighter and in full plate too!". A metric ton of things got changed in the fine print.
Not that they aren't still a solid class but they got the crap kicked out of them in the conversion.
-S
And that's good, because one of the biggest problem of 3.5 Fighters was that both Cleric and Druid could easily outshine them in combat AND have full spell-casting to boot.
Which they can still do.
Druids still get Shapechange wildshape withOUT losing the animal companion. Divine Power may have been nerfed, but it still exists. As does Righteous Might. Plus all the new domain abilities.
|
|
The single biggest issue with the clerics is the folks who don't go through the GMG and re-read spells they think they know.
Wizards SoD spells got all the press but clerics got hit with the nerf bazooka but its all in subtle ways.
Re-read every spell on the cleric list that you used to think made them "Omg they are a better fighter than the fighter and in full plate too!". A metric ton of things got changed in the fine print.
Not that they aren't still a solid class but they got the crap kicked out of them in the conversion.
-S
And that's good, because one of the biggest problem of 3.5 Fighters was that both Cleric and Druid could easily outshine them in combat AND have full spell-casting to boot.
Which they can still do.
Druids still get Shapechange wildshape withOUT losing the animal companion. Divine Power may have been nerfed, but it still exists. As does Righteous Might. Plus all the new domain abilities.
OK, I'm tired today. Who wants to flame Cartigan a bit?
OK, I'm tired today. Who wants to flame Cartigan a bit?The single biggest issue with the clerics is the folks who don't go through the GMG and re-read spells they think they know.
Wizards SoD spells got all the press but clerics got hit with the nerf bazooka but its all in subtle ways.
Re-read every spell on the cleric list that you used to think made them "Omg they are a better fighter than the fighter and in full plate too!". A metric ton of things got changed in the fine print.
Not that they aren't still a solid class but they got the crap kicked out of them in the conversion.
-S
And that's good, because one of the biggest problem of 3.5 Fighters was that both Cleric and Druid could easily outshine them in combat AND have full spell-casting to boot.
Which they can still do.
Druids still get Shapechange wildshape withOUT losing the animal companion. Divine Power may have been nerfed, but it still exists. As does Righteous Might. Plus all the new domain abilities.
Yeah good luck with that. All you have to do is prove Clerics and Druids are no longer more combat capable than a Fighter as they were in 3.5.
Yeah good luck with that. All you have to do is prove Clerics and Druids are no longer more combat capable than a Fighter as they were in 3.5.OK, I'm tired today. Who wants to flame Cartigan a bit?The single biggest issue with the clerics is the folks who don't go through the GMG and re-read spells they think they know.
Wizards SoD spells got all the press but clerics got hit with the nerf bazooka but its all in subtle ways.
Re-read every spell on the cleric list that you used to think made them "Omg they are a better fighter than the fighter and in full plate too!". A metric ton of things got changed in the fine print.
Not that they aren't still a solid class but they got the crap kicked out of them in the conversion.
-S
And that's good, because one of the biggest problem of 3.5 Fighters was that both Cleric and Druid could easily outshine them in combat AND have full spell-casting to boot.
Which they can still do.
Druids still get Shapechange wildshape withOUT losing the animal companion. Divine Power may have been nerfed, but it still exists. As does Righteous Might. Plus all the new domain abilities.
Define combat capable. Is it just ability to do damage or does it also include buffing, debuffing, and battle field control?
I think Clerics got nerfed (mainly because many spells got nerfs like Heroes Feast) and are just about right (still a quite strong class).
Define combat capable. Is it just ability to do damage or does it also include buffing, debuffing, and battle field control?Yeah good luck with that. All you have to do is prove Clerics and Druids are no longer more combat capable than a Fighter as they were in 3.5.OK, I'm tired today. Who wants to flame Cartigan a bit?The single biggest issue with the clerics is the folks who don't go through the GMG and re-read spells they think they know.
Wizards SoD spells got all the press but clerics got hit with the nerf bazooka but its all in subtle ways.
Re-read every spell on the cleric list that you used to think made them "Omg they are a better fighter than the fighter and in full plate too!". A metric ton of things got changed in the fine print.
Not that they aren't still a solid class but they got the crap kicked out of them in the conversion.
-S
And that's good, because one of the biggest problem of 3.5 Fighters was that both Cleric and Druid could easily outshine them in combat AND have full spell-casting to boot.
Which they can still do.
Druids still get Shapechange wildshape withOUT losing the animal companion. Divine Power may have been nerfed, but it still exists. As does Righteous Might. Plus all the new domain abilities.
More combat capable than a Fighter: Better at combat than a Fighter.
OK, I'm tired today. Who wants to flame Cartigan a bit?
Nah. There is no sport in it.
I'm just not seeing a cleric (or druid) who is winning this competition.
Divine favor, divine power, and righteous might all took a much needed hit, as did spells like implosion.
I think clerics got a HUGE boost from having one of their lamest abilities - turn undead - changed to channel energy. But that actually helps the fighter (and the rest of the party) more directly then the cleric (who mainly sees the benefit of not casting healing spells).
The heavy armor is kind of a non-issue since characters have more feats now anyway.
Yeah, clerics (or druids) can really kick-ass in melee, but it takes effort, resources, and sacrifices - as it should be. Also, making yourself more powerful is often less effective as using resources to make The Party more powerful. (i.e. A cleric and fighter working together is more powerful then each acting selfishly to achieve the same goal.)
I can't say clerics are "just right" however, since anyone who can cast spells like miracle (or wish) is "overpowered", but that has been an issue since AD&D, and probably can't be fixed without a fairly massive change to the system. I would say they are as balanced as they should be.
Yeah, clerics (or druids) can really kick-ass in melee, but it takes effort, resources, and sacrifices - as it should be. Also, making yourself more powerful is often less effective as using resources to make The Party more powerful. (i.e. A cleric and fighter working together is more powerful then each acting selfishly to achieve the same goal.)
Which has NOTHING to do with the argument that a Cleric or Druid can do a Fighter's job better than a Fighter on their own. A Cleric and Druid don't need a Cleric or Druid to help them do that because they are the Cleric and Druid.
More combat capable than a Fighter: Better at combat than a Fighter.
That is very open to interpretation though. By defining better it shuts down a lot of arguments before they come up.
edit:You now see yourself and Fergie about to disagree about better.
I generally agree with Saph's breakdown of things in this thread. The cleric class is detailed in the fifth post.Care to elaborate on why you feel the changes made no difference?Not with the tone of this thread, sorry. :/
Wow...talk about completely ignoring things that made the class soo awesome getting nerfed. That is really a meh anaylisis at best. Also Channel energy....the person was pretty much wrong in why it is useful. I rather heal the party for 10d6 at higher levels than use a spell slot(s).
My opinion is the hit the cleric with a nerf bat...and hit about just right.
|
|
Also Channel energy....the person was pretty much wrong in why it is useful. I rather heal the party for 10d6 at higher levels than use a spell slot(s).
But that becomes a lot less important when you can stock up on wands at higher levels and also Channel Energy to heal is really just a feature of the party that has a Cleric, not a Cleric Class Feature. The fact that it is either heal or hurt is also kind of a let down, (though I don't think it should do both fully).
It sounds nice, but really isn't that great unless that is the focus for character.
Which has NOTHING to do with the argument that a Cleric or Druid can do a Fighter's job better than a Fighter on their own. A Cleric and Druid don't need a Cleric or Druid to help them do that because they are the Cleric and Druid.
Yeah, clerics (or druids) can really kick-ass in melee, but it takes effort, resources, and sacrifices - as it should be. Also, making yourself more powerful is often less effective as using resources to make The Party more powerful. (i.e. A cleric and fighter working together is more powerful then each acting selfishly to achieve the same goal.)
I think the "argument" that a Cleric or Druid can do a Fighter's job better than a Fighter is just you saying that without backing it up in any way. That isn't an "argument". If you would care to direct me to some evidence, or prove your statement yourself, that might be an argument, but as it stands no one is making that "argument" for you.
My point is: a party (the whole party) will be stronger if they do what they do best without trying to step on each others roles. A party with a cleric trying to be a fighter, and an actual fighter, won't do as well as a party with a cleric being a cleric and a fighter being a fighter.
PS I have to disagree with Saph's analysis in may cases. It seems like something that was written after a quick look through the rules, without processing the details. For example, the take on bards is VERY far off in my opinion.
I think the "argument" that a Cleric or Druid can do a Fighter's job better than a Fighter is just you saying that without backing it up in any way. That isn't an "argument". If you would care to direct me to some evidence, or prove your statement yourself, that might be an argument, but as it stands no one is making that "argument" for you.
They weren't so nerfed and Fighters wern't so buffed that the dynamic changes COMPLETELY.
My point is: a party (the whole party) will be stronger if they do what they do best without trying to step on each others roles. A party with a cleric trying to be a fighter, and an actual fighter, won't do as well as a party with a cleric being a cleric and a fighter being a fighter.
Or you could have a Cleric being a Fighter and a Cleric being a Cleric.
Clerics have a number of buffs, several of which are personal.Druids still have an animal companion.
|
|
In all honesty, he/she does have a point. Partially.
In 3.5, for short periods of time, Clerics, and especially Druids could be better Fighters than Fighters, and didn't really need to do much to accomplish that.
On the other hand, they tended to be poorer Clerics for most other things, like removing party debuffs, utility, or group buffs.
Druids realy didn't though.
Also, the more you get away from the organized play style of game, the more this became untrue. The more of a nongeneric style of game, (rolling random reasure and encounters, random traps and dungeon features, heck being outside of a dungeon), this also became less and less true to non-existant. Add in multiple encounters a day, and the potentual to miss rests, really curbed this as well.
They weren't so nerfed and Fighters wern't so buffed that the dynamic changes COMPLETELY.
I think the "argument" that a Cleric or Druid can do a Fighter's job better than a Fighter is just you saying that without backing it up in any way. That isn't an "argument". If you would care to direct me to some evidence, or prove your statement yourself, that might be an argument, but as it stands no one is making that "argument" for you.
Again, you saying so doesn't prove it in any way. Numbers don't mean everything, but they point to the fighter being better at well... fighting. If you can direct me to anything that supports your point, or support that point yourself, I would love to read it.
Allow me to put it this way. I can make a Bard that can fight as well as a cleric. Since there is no evidence that Bards can beat fighters, I see no reason to think that clerics can.
Allow me to put it this way. I can make a Bard that can fight as well as a cleric. Since there is no evidence that Bards can beat fighters, I see no reason to think that clerics can.
You do that. Make a Bard that fights as well as self-buff focused Cleric.
Clerics are definitely weaker now than they were in 3e, but since they were just too good in 3e, that's not a bad thing.
I'd say they're fine as they are. They can't outfight a fighter any more (not just because they lost combat power, but also because the fighter got a nice boost), but they're by no means weak.
They feel weaker because less spells per day more than the lack of armor.
The spells per day aren't a big deal, really. The only thing that changed is that they no longer get a 5th spell slot of any level. That didn't make much sense, anyway (since wizards never god that extra spell. Now the spell progressions are even), and we're talking about spells 5th-level and lower. Not exactly the big sutff. And the first time you're at a disadvantage with this is level 11, when you don't get a 5th 1st-level slot.
The armour does hurt a bit more, but it's not quite the end of the world, either. Some of the system-wide changes will ease the pain of that loss (medium armour got raised by 1 across the board, just like heavy, so you're not that far away from before as you'd think at first, and everyone gets more feats now, so it's not quite as painful to take the proficiency).
On the other hand, every cleric is not proficient with their deity's favoured weapon, not just war clerics.
Channel forces them into more of a healer's role than I like.
Clerics were the strongest healers in 3e, and they are the strongest healers now (well, oracles of life can probably do it even better, but other than that, they have no real competition).
I think that channel is actually a great liberator for clerics: It used to be a pretty useless class feature most of the time (unless there were a lot of clerics around or the DM let you use Divine feats, some of which were simply overpowered, and they were not core, anyway), but now it's a great source of healing. You get to use it all the time. In fact, I've noticed that clerics can rely a lot more on this channel now, and won't have to convert so many of their spells into cure spells any more. That was one of the things that really forced clerics into the position of healer: Give up your nice buffs and attack spells to patch up someone who just ran into a monster's fist.
I haven't looked into the spells, but I imagine there were many nerfs.
Well, there was some nerfing that was more a system change (safe or die spells were defused, but that was the same for all classes, so it's not a specific cleric nerf), and of course, the divine favour + divine power + haste combo doesn't work any more (though you have to admit that it was just too good), but I other than that, I can't think of anything that makes me stop playing clerics.
And, just like with channelling (which lets you use more spells for things other than healing), what you lost in raw power you did gain in versatility, at least in part. Some of the domains help you be a bit better at roles clerics did not have a place in before. A fire cleric can cast fireball now, for example, making (some) clerics better blasters.
OK.
Core only, no APG or AP stuff
20 pt buy, no stats under 10 unless by race
no traits
10th level Bard
62K gp no items over 20%
1 -10 min/level or longer buff
1 -1 min/level buff
1 -1 rnd/level buff.
I get bardsong as a move action.
Anyone else welcome to submit bards clerics and fighters.
Limiting material is pushing it but at least acceptable. Limiting what abilities one can use is see through ploy to help yourself.
I personally find such arguments like this to be relatively pointless, sorry.
In the end it's a group game. I'd rather buff the group as a whole and triple or even quadruple the output of the group rather than my clerics personal output. When you got guys also throwing down mass buffs than it makes for a very dangerous group rather than an individually dangerous character. In this game of action economy I'd much rather have my Cleric drop Blessing of Fervor, my wizard to drop Haste, my Bard to Inspire Courage, and my druid to cut the enemies formations to ribbons with wall of stone while the fighter and rogue pick a target to use and abuse on rnd1.
Round 2: Hilarity ensues.
So to me the group as a whole is a much more dangerous creature rather than a group of individual builds and combos. I think people forget that too much.
OK.
Core only, no APG or AP stuff
20 pt buy, no stats under 10 unless by race
no traits
10th level Bard
62K gp no items over 20%1 -10 min/level or longer buff
1 -1 min/level buff
1 -1 rnd/level buff.
I get bardsong as a move action.Anyone else welcome to submit bards clerics and fighters.
The target AC is 24?