I have to disagree with the OP. I prefer Clerics over the other two divine caster (Oracles & Inquisitors).
Oracles were needed fluff wise. I needed a PF spontaneous, I love the fact that Cleric looks for gods, but gods look for oracles. I love the curse as a "stroke by gods" fluff. I needed a "wild" priest for my setting.
Inquisitor is awesome. A lot of concepts could have made the Cleric too strong if added to that class, so are good for the inquisitor. Is a divine skillmonkey, something you could have been done with PRCs only formerly (barring ranger, but is more warrior-ish). Judgements are cool.
Geez, you guys - lay off the Cleric!
Mechanically, the class is fine. It's got power to spare, and tons of thematic options. The only reason that it might seem like a bland, less-defined class to some is that it NEEDS to be a bit vague and undefined in order to accommodate the VERY wide range of character concepts (and deity concepts) that come into play in the fantasy genre.
The Cleric class has to be able to accommodate both the Catholic Saint and the War-priest of Crom and the High Mugwump of Nyarlathotep and everything in between. Sure, you get a slightly more specialized or thematically developed class with the Druid, or the Oracle or the Paladin, but the whole point of the Cleric class is that it's NOT specialized in any way. You can make whatever you want out of it. It's rather like the Fighter in that respect.
There are soooo many ways to play with the mechanics of just the core classes, let alone the stuff from the APG. I really don't think we're at the point where the Cleric is obsolete yet.
I agree with what you said, but it's generic nature is rather off-putting in itself. The domains really do a poor job representing a deity's influence on the class, even the subdomains do not do much to change that. Clerics should be build around the deity to make them work thematically in my opinion, the cleric just feels like a quick and dirty catch-it-all for lack of being able to do it better in a Core Rule Book.
I'd appreciate if Paizo made a book detailing the major religions of Golarion with one or two alternate specialty priests for each deity. It is something I miss very much from 2nd edition Forgotten Realms, this really made 'clerics' much more interesting to play and allows for a much better connect between the class and the deity.
I'd appreciate if Paizo made a book detailing the major religions of Golarion with one or two alternate specialty priests for each deity. It is something I miss very much from 2nd edition Forgotten Realms, this really made 'clerics' much more interesting to play and allows for a much better connect between the class and the deity.
I'd be surprised if something like that didn't come out in the next few years. Specialty priests are really cool. A single source of detailed god lore and player options for cleric characters would be a must-have, to me.
|
Hi everybody.
I was looking at the APG recently, and I was starting to wonder whether it makes any sense to play a cleric in Pathfinder.
I wanted to play a divine class, and right now, all I can think about are inquisitors and oracles. They seem more intriguing, and less bounded, for their powers, to the tenets of a faith, while maintaining a strong "divine link".
It's not a matter of POWER. I think it's ok, and I wouldn't even dare to start a "underpowered clerics?" thread, giving the amount of the heated discussions that would follow. Moreover, I don't know why, but every time that someone speaks about the power of a cleric, the druid comes in. CODZILLA and all that. It's like druids and clerics are the same thing. I read things like "the cleric is not nerfed! druids can outdamage a fighter!". Anyone has a rational explanation for this?No, what I am talking about is that this class does not appear to be interesting, at least mechanic-wise. Admittedly, I didn't play one yet, so I'm asking for opinions.
My main problem: Nothing unique about a cleric.
- domains? druid, urban druid, paladin, inquisitor (and urban druid can spontaneous cast domain spells!)
- channel energy? life oracle, paladin (and charisma based, so they are better than a cleric!)
- cleric spell list? OracleThere's nothing, nada, zit, niente, special about it. It's like the designers wanted to make sure that nobody has ever any need to play this class.
Don't get me wrong, I know that no class in PF is necessary. You don't "need" a barbarian. However, if you want rage, you must play the barb. Favored enemy? Ranger. Special fighter feats? Fighter. But a cleric? what for?
There are no archetypes in the APG for the cleric, only subdomains, and to add insult to injury, subdomains are available to many classes! It's like giving the barbarians new rage powers, and then allow a fighter to take them.Some more problems I see:
- feat taxed. Selective Channel? do I have to choose a feat to use a class feature in any useful...
I happen to play clerics allot. I do think clerics are lots of fun to play, and there is plenty of unique things about them
I think part of the reason, as I am sure it has been stated earlier, the reason that the cleric only got the sub domains in the APG, has been that the cleric already has allot.
It used to be that only the cleric could heal. Now in addition to the cleric the alchemist, the bard, druid, the paladin, the ranger, the inquisitor, the oracle, the witch all have cure light wounds on their spell lists. With the Infernal healing spell, the sorcerer, wizard, and magus, can do something in a pinch. (I know the druid could heal too)
This means that many more party members can pick up a wand of cure light wounds and use it reliably.
Is this a bad thing? I don’t think so. It spreads a bit of the healing around. The cleric may also have a bit of competition from the life mystery oracle when it comes to healing.
What does the cleric get?
He gets 2/3 base attack bonus, two good saves, Fortitude and will, d8 hit points, two skill points per level, and he get s light and medium armor proficiencies.
The cleric also gets a “channel energy” class feature, which is quite useful. It gives the cleric the ability to heal the party from a distance, or conversely damage the enemy. This allows the cleric to use his spells.
The cleric also gets and excellent “spells per day” schedule. In addition to that the cleric, barring alignment restrictions, can prepare spells from his entire spell list. Oh I almost forgot, he can cast his spells in armor.
And with the Two Domains, this allows one to customize a cleric.
I am sure all of this has been said elsewhere. That’s allot of goodies.
I remember in 2003 I went to a discussion panel at the I con convention at Stoney Brook College on Long Island NY, where Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Bill Slavicsek, were discussing the upcoming release of 3.5 D&D and all of the good things that were in store for us. I remember asking Skip Williams if the cleric was deliberately designed to be comparatively more powerful then the other classes. While I don’t remember his exact words, I believe he said something like “ yes we made it more powerful to make it more attractive to play”.
I have three clerics in PFS.
One is a Neutral Mystic Theurge of Pharasma. Another is a Lawful Neutral, Cleric of Asmodeus (Neg energy channeler) and my third cleric is a NG cleric of Sarenrae.
These characters all have different alignments different personalities, different philosophies, and they all in terms of mechanics play very differently. I enjoy each character.
The Neutral mystic Theurge of Pharasma tends to be calm “Spock like” and cryptic. One of my quotes for him is “ we have no fate but the fate we are given” or “perhaps it was his time to go stand in the halls of our Lady” In terms of game mechanics, I have been having lots of fun with the “arcane Eye “ spell and the Spectral Hand spell, delivering the Gentlle repose domain ability without even being in the room.
The Lawful Neutral cleric of Asmodeus tends to be very Litigious and he tends to say things like “ I am sure we can reach some sort of accommodation about this” or “in order for a deal to be valid, both sides must receive some sort of consideration. What are you offering us? On the subject of Andoran “ All we have to do is wait to let your little “Experiment" to collapse into the chaos that is Galt.” Or sometimes i just use the term “rebel scum” for andorans. With the Trickery Domain I get the invisibility spell. I can summon monsters to my hearts content, while still staying invisible. There is also the touch of fire ability.
And my NG cleric of Sarenrae is forever trying to diplomatically smooth things over, sew up the wounded and setting things right. “ Oh my, something is not right we must do something” or “ hold still, or I might just forget and leave m surgical sponge inside while I'm sewing you up” or “ is anyone missing a liver? There seems to be a spare here”. And with my NG cleric pf Sarenrae, there is the rebuke undeath ability which gives me an additional healing resource.
All of these characters are unique and I enjoy playing them. I guess you can say, as with many things, you get out of your game what you put into it. I get allot out of the cleric class.
I don’t think they got much love in the APG, because they didn’t need much in my opinion.
Well I hope this long ranting post has been of some help.
While I completely disagree, I partially get what the OP is saying. There's no signature ability of the Cleric's that no other class gets. But I think he just hasn't looked closely enough. It's the combination of abilities that makes the Cleric unique. Full divine casting + TWO domains. Casting aside, the two domains is what give Clerics their wide difference and leads to RP flavor. When the APG came out I was a little disappointed there weren't archtypes for Clerics until I realized that domains are the Cleric's archtype. Each domain gives them two powers each. Compare that to most Barbarian or Rouge archtypes which only grant one or two variations as well.
Just in Core, there are 33 different domains. Clerics get two. That's 528 combination of different Clerics. Now certainly not every god allows all combinations, so let's say only 1/10th are viable. That's still 52 different ways to make a Cleric. And even the change of one domain should make the Cleric "feel" different. Good+War = Paladin-like. Good+Luck = Holy Trickster. Good+Charm = True Tele-evangelist. Good+Darkness = O Holy Night. Good+Nobility = Advisor to the King.
Now would it be cool for each domain to have a "Rogue Talent"-type list of powers to pick from? Sure. But I think there's a wide variety already there. The problem comes from all those above Clerics picking the same spells to memorize each day. But if you RP the spell list too, then there's huge variety.
I'd appreciate if Paizo made a book detailing the major religions of Golarion with one or two alternate specialty priests for each deity. It is something I miss very much from 2nd edition Forgotten Realms, this really made 'clerics' much more interesting to play and allows for a much better connect between the class and the deity.
Agreed; there were plenty of things I wasn't crazy about when it came to the Forgotten Realms, but I liked the zillions of different gods, each with some unusual ability for their priests.
I don't dislike clerics, I despise the Galorion Pantheon.
It's difficult to make a good cleric that's interesting (at least to me) without A) building the same one over and over B) making kyra or c) getting ganked on either domain powers or favored weapons.
A god/goddess should not have a favored weapon that is already a cleric weapon (i.e. mace/dagger) and combo of domains is rather stiffling.
Pretty much the only 'good' god in my opinion is sarenrae (unless you want to make an archer cleric)
I've been toying with the idea of ditching the entire pantheon, and just going with the inquisitor style of play, i.e. pick a domain(s) and a favored weapon. Then I/we would see/play more clerics.
The only problem I have with the cleric is that I hate the spell lists for levels 1 & 2. Even one or two weak offensive damage spells that target something other than will would make a huge difference. As it is, no offensive spells that target something other than will and the fact that 75% of the list at all levels is more appropriate for scrolls to cover very specific circumstances rather than something I would waste a slot to memorize just make the spell list a nonstarter for me. Maybe break up the list into spheres like they had in AD&D to make the casting ability a)less powerful so that improvements can be made in other areas, like bumping up the number of skill points or increasing the role of the domains, and b)more thematic rather than the only difference between two clerics' spell lists being 2 spells/level. Have the spheres work like the schools that wizards get, with favored spheres and restricted spheres, work the spheres and the domains together, again similar to what they did with wizards, and the class as a whole seems much less generic and customizable. Also get rid of the spontaneously cast cure/inflict and make it the domain spells, or at least add the domain spells as an option. Healing may be something that all clerics do to some extent, but different faiths are going to put different amounts of emphasis on it, with most as worried, or more worried, about the specific tenets of their faith than they are about generic healing.
|
The one and only thing that bothers me about clerics is their spontaneous casting is only cure/inflict wounds. As in the non-generic cleric example, I've always felt they should spontaneously cast domain spells, whatever they may be.
If they happen to have the healing domain, fine, but otherwise, not every cleric should be all about the healing. That really is a bit boring for anyone to play. Most player interaction becomes, "Heal me!"
... yawn.
It can become quite interesting when you withhold the healing (or even just threaten to withhold).
You have to use the withdrawal very rarely and carefully (as in all cases of addiction), but it is a very powerful tool to get the other PCs to conform to what behaviour your Cleric accepts/expects from them.
I once played a NG Cleric of the Pantheon : not aligned with any specific god, but giving proper respect to each and all (yes, even the Evil ones, but then respect is quite different from worship).
After a big fight with a Cleric of an Evil goddess we were actively opposing, the Fighter in my group told us he was going to urinate on the consecrated altar of said goddess. I told him quite seriously that I would not heal/cure/uncurse him should he get any negative consequence for his blasphemous action.
Strangely enough, he promptly changed his plans and we left the altar undisturbed.
Mostly, I think people like to play with new toys. The classes in the APG are the new toys, so people are excited about them and are going to recommend them because they're shiny and new. Cleric has been around for 30+ years.
Also, with new classes (and splatbooks), new classes are almost always inevitably more powerful than the core classes. Although the APG did a great job, inevitably there is always power creep.
I'm a big fan of clerics and after reviewing the Oracle, I honestly cannot think of a reason you'd play a cleric instead of an Oracle, other than flavor reasons. They are better in every way.
1) There are more ambiguous requirements to fulfill the tenets of your faith. Ambuiguity means most DMs will be less likely to enforce anything.
It's always been my opinion that Clerics are granted great power because they are also granted great responsibility. It's seems like Oracles have greater power without being held us to the same standards as Clerics or Paladins. This is of course, very DM dependent, but I believe this will be true of the average DM. I've seen Clerics and Paladins need to atone, will this be true of Oracles? It's early, but I don't think so, unless they're really bad.
2) More Skill Points: 4 skill points so they can actually know something. This seems like a fair tradeoff with losing your good saves to Fortitude.
I'd like to note that I wish base clerics would have less base class skills and that additional class skills would instead be based on their domains. I think this would have allowed for more customization.
3) Same BAB/HP: Same BAB and hp.
4) Spontaneous Casts: You can spontaneous cast all of your spells. Cleric spell lists have a lot of filler, and there are only 3-5 spells you'd want to use at any level anyway, so there is no harm done here. For any spells you don't know, you can just use scrolls and wands (and you're in a better place to use UMD since CHR is your primary stat).
My clerics use scrolls and wands anyway (to handle unique situations), so there is no change here, only that Oracles can cast what they want, when they want.
5) More Spells per Day: They have more spells per day. And they aren't constrained by one of those spells being forced to be a domain spell. Domain spells should have been the spells that clerics can spontaneously cast, NOT cure spells. And clerics should have never been forced to "use or lose" their domain spells.
6) "Curses": The curses start out as minor disabilities and become major powers as you gain level. So I don't find them curses at all, they're interesting but they're definitely powers.
7) Mysteries/Revelations: With mysteries and revelations, it does an exceptional job at allowing a player to customize the Oracle's powers to the PC.
Mystery spells basically replace Domain spells and Revelations replace domain powers. The difference is, with Revelations you get to pick from a list of domain powers (customization) instead of being forced to pick one.
Having said that, Revelations are a lot better than level 1 Domain powers. How can you compare the 1st level Cleric Domain power of "Touch of Evil" compared to the Oracle Revelation of "Ironskin" (gives you stoneskin once a day)? I know which one I'd prefer. At level 3, Oracles have 2 "exceptional" powers while Clerics have 2 lesser powers. At level 7 Oracles and Clerics are about even in powers and at level 11 and beyond, Oracles outpace Clerics again.
You can basically do a lot of cool/flvaor things sooner, which is what people want in a game (imo).
So yes, in a nutshell, that's why you'd want to play an Oracle instead. To me, Oracles are how clerics should have been redesigned, because they allow for much more customization and are more interesting / mysterious (I wish I didn't have to use the word, but it's true).
After looking at this, I think I'm going to start over my PFOS Cleric as an Oracle, it just makes more sense.
4) Spontaneous Casts: You can spontaneous cast all of your spells. Cleric spell lists have a lot of filler, and there are only 3-5 spells you'd want to use at any level anyway, so there is no harm done here.
That's not my experience, having played a level 1 oracle and a level 1 cleric recently.
The oracle could only choose two level 1 spells, and had to choose them carefully (since he was going to be stuck with them for the next three levels, at least). In the end he ended up mostly casting Cure Light Wounds, since there was no cleric in the party.
The cleric could choose three level 1 spells to memorize each day, and if they happened to be poor choices for that particular adventure, it didn't matter; he could always convert them to CLW spells and memorize something different later. In the end, the cleric rarely cast Cure Light Wounds, since he had Channel Energy for healing purposes.
The oracle had one moderately interesting ability (a low-level revelation) and the cleric had two moderately interesting abilities (two low-level domain powers).
How can you compare the 1st level Cleric Domain power of "Touch of Evil" compared to the Oracle Revelation of "Ironskin" (gives you stoneskin once a day)?
You're comparing a level 1 cleric power to a level 11 oracle power!? Sacre bleu!
|
My main problem: Nothing unique about a cleric.
- domains? druid, urban druid, paladin, inquisitor (and urban druid can spontaneous cast domain spells!)
Not quite true, only Clerics get access to subdomains. It's not much, but only they get it and some of those domains are damn good.
- channel energy? life oracle, paladin (and charisma based, so they are better than a cleric!)
After spending a mystery you can do it 1+Cha modifier times a day, cleric gets 3+Cha modifier times a day for free. Sure, Oracle is going to have a better charisma modifier, but it evens the game up a bit, plus ALL non-evil clerics can do it, only oracles of one specific Mystery, one which pidgeonholed you into healing, gain the ability.
Paladin can do it but isn't likely to during combat, and channeling energy quickly drains their uses of Lay on Hands.
- cleric spell list? Oracle
A lot of the spells on the Cleric spell list are ones that you don't really need to cast all day, and for spontaneous casters every spell you choose needs to be very useful. An oracle who heals will be expected to know Restoration and Raise Dead, but every single situational spell like that which he learns is going to detract from his everyday versatility, where as a cleric can prepare magic as he see's fit. Plus, oracle access to new spell levels is one character level behind, which can make a big difference.
Clerics are better casters than oracles for the same exact reason that wizards are better than sorcerers.
There are no archetypes in the APG for the cleric, only subdomains, and to add insult to injury, subdomains are available to many classes! It's like giving the barbarians new rage powers, and then allow a fighter to take them.
See above. Subdomains are Cleric ONLY. It was clarified in a forum post, no classes that get domains may take any of the subdomains instead, only Clerics may.
Some more problems I see:
- feat taxed. Selective Channel? do I have to choose a feat to use a class feature in any useful...
Only if you want to use it in combat, which is a terrible choice anyway. The healing will never keep up with the damage that baddies put out, much better to spend your turn buffing or, if absolutely necessary, spontaneously casting your highest level Cure spell.
- front loaded. The cleric is the only class in pathfinder that screams "prestige class" to me
Prestige class into what? Most casting prestige classes are either poor BAB or giving up caster levels, either of which is a poor choice.
Also, only if you don't mind losing your channel energy and domain progressions, which, in spite of your evident opinion of them, are quite good.
- few options. 2 skill points/lev (and many useful skills), no bonus feat, no special power besides domains, which can't bee choosen freely. Want the demon domain? no way if you are not chaotic evil.
So what you're saying is, "No special powers besides domains, which are a special power with some restrictions". Huh. Right.
2 skill points a level is understandable considering how powerful the class already is.
- Every time someone asks for advice for any build type, someone else suggest a different class (oracle especially)
- if not a different class, multiclassing or prestige classes are usually suggested (ex: fighter/cleric for a battle cleric)
- healing and spontaneous cast of healing spells are strongly discouraged, so a possible cleric role is not useful, and the only specific cleric class feature is considered not optimal.
- channel energy is not considered to scale properly at high levels
I'm not sure who is suggesting Oracle instead, but I usually would recommend the other way around for anybody who isn't a total newbie. Healing is only strongly discouraged because it's tactically a better choice to disable an enemy ASAP than to delay said disabling by diverting resources to healing, which doesn't scale as quickly as damage.
Channel energy is a bad choice in combat. Outside of combat, it's a godsend, because it lets clerics get the entire group healed, often without having to waste any of their precious spell slots.
|
|
1) There are more ambiguous requirements to fulfill the tenets of your faith. Ambuiguity means most DMs will be less likely to enforce anything.
This depends entirely on your GM and your group, but in my experience the Cleric's responsibilities have led to some great roleplaying.
2) More Skill Points: 4 skill points so they can actually know something. This seems like a fair tradeoff with losing your good saves to Fortitude.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I'll take the fortitude save every single time. I don't know about you but given the choice of being polymorphed, turned to stone, poison, or outright killed is far more undesirable than failing a skill check.
3) Same BAB/HP: Same BAB and hp.
Wash
4) Spontaneous Casts: You can spontaneous cast all of your spells. Cleric spell lists have a lot of filler, and there are only 3-5 spells you'd want to use at any level anyway, so there is no harm done here. For any spells you don't know, you can just use scrolls and wands (and you're in a better place to use UMD since CHR is your primary stat).
There may only be 3-5 spells you want to use regularly at any level, but what about the situational ones? What about raising the dead, removing ability damage, a dozen undead-related spells, situational buffs (resist energy, protection from/magic circle/dispel alignment), removing curses/poisons/diseases...the list of situational spells goes on and on and on. A resourceful cleric can prepare his spell list based on what he expects to encounter, and then later prepare spells to fix things that he couldn't fix the previous day.
5) More Spells per Day: They have more spells per day. And they aren't constrained by one of those spells being forced to be a domain spell. Domain spells should have been the spells that clerics can spontaneously cast, NOT cure spells. And clerics should have never been forced to "use or lose" their domain spells.
1 more spell per spell level per day is a big deal, but there will be plenty of situations where the oracle doesn't have anything useful to cast, while the much more diversified cleric will, so I think the extra spell per day is a wash.
6
) "Curses": The curses start out as minor disabilities and become major powers as you gain level. So I don't find them curses at all, they're interesting but they're definitely powers.
7) Mysteries/Revelations: With mysteries and revelations, it does an exceptional job at allowing a player to customize the Oracle's powers to the PC.
These both are good, but so are domains.
The whole non-specialization of the cleric can be solved with a few well designed archtypes.
Nature cleric
Shadow cleric
Undead blaster cleric
Healbot cleric
etc
etc
etc
|
|
....
Inquisitors I HATE with a passion. They seem to have too many mechanics. It almost comes off to me as "Hey I have this idea for some cool mechanics lets create a class and squeeze all these new mechanics into it. Furthermore, to me the Inquisitor isnt really an Inquisitor, hes more of a Devote Bounty Hunter. I see an Inquisitory as more of a Cleric with some hired muscel that moves in and starts pointing fingures at people. Also the inquisitor to me seems like a Ranger/Cleric hybrid. I have always hated new classes or prestige classes that fill a multiclass role. Range/Cleric or Rogue/Cleric in this case. Rather than make new classes I would rather see the multiclass system fixed/balanced and then we would be free to create out own "classes" to fit the concepts we want. Additionally, The inquisitor spell list is full of spells that the "general primary caster" cleric should have access to but is denied in my opinion.
....
I could make the same argument against bards--they're basically rogue/sorcerers with lots of cool mechanics, and a bunch of spells that other arcane casters don't get.
Not quite true, only Clerics get access to subdomains.
False. Check the FAQs.
I agree about a lot of other points, 'though.
|
|
One of my PFS characters is a dwarvish cleric of Torag. I find this character as much fun to play as the rogue, and more fun than the barbarian. I find that the cleric fills a number of different roles in the party: healing and melee, sure, but no one else in the party handles undead better than the cleric. The paladin can channel positive energy now, but only now that he has reached a high enough level. The cleric could do it from the beginning.
This character does not have access to subdomains since he predates them.
EDIT: While it is true that druids have access to subdomains, druids can pick only one domain from a choice of seven, and then only if the druid does not have an animal companion.
Not quite true, only Clerics get access to subdomains.
False. Check the FAQs.
I agree about a lot of other points, 'though.
Or to make it short:
Can druids, inquisitors, and other classes with access to domains take subdomains?Yes, as long as they follow the rules for subdomains. A character who does not worship a deity (such as some druids and paladins) may select any one subdomain appropriate to a domain available to his or her class.
–Sean K Reynolds (10/12/10)
|
The one and only thing that bothers me about clerics is their spontaneous casting is only cure/inflict wounds. As in the non-generic cleric example, I've always felt they should spontaneously cast domain spells, whatever they may be.
If they happen to have the healing domain, fine, but otherwise, not every cleric should be all about the healing. That really is a bit boring for anyone to play. Most player interaction becomes, "Heal me!"
... yawn.
I was hoping the new Channeling rules were going to replace the spontaneous cures/inflicts, but apparently not.
Channeling, plus the overall higher access (compared to 1E/2E) to scrolls and wands, plus the higher number of classes with cures on their list, means the game shouldn't need to assume every party has a cleric.Spontaneous Domain casting makes more thematic sense, and would help differentiate the faiths. At the moment, domains don't really have a large impact, since one spell per spell level per day, plus one or two spell-like abilities.
One caveat would be that the domain spells were picked on the assumption they would only be used once/day. You'd have to check potential balance issues for those spells not from the core cleric list.
The one and only thing that bothers me about clerics is their spontaneous casting is only cure/inflict wounds. As in the non-generic cleric example, I've always felt they should spontaneously cast domain spells, whatever they may be.
If they happen to have the healing domain, fine, but otherwise, not every cleric should be all about the healing. That really is a bit boring for anyone to play. Most player interaction becomes, "Heal me!"
... yawn.
I was hoping the new Channeling rules were going to replace the spontaneous cures/inflicts, but apparently not.
Channeling, plus the overall higher access (compared to 1E/2E) to scrolls and wands, plus the higher number of classes with cures on their list, means the game shouldn't need to assume every party has a cleric.Spontaneous Domain casting makes more thematic sense, and would help differentiate the faiths. At the moment, domains don't really have a large impact, since one spell per spell level per day, plus one or two spell-like abilities.
One caveat would be that the domain spells were picked on the assumption they would only be used once/day. You'd have to check potential balance issues for those spells not from the core cleric list.
Generally our parties don't have clerics or paladins, We seem to have a ball with more neutral type groups.
Our last super good group was legacy of fire, with a LG Paladin, Monk and Cleric can you say....boooooring?
|
I agree with the OP. The AVP just makes me sad how much Clerics didn't get, the same way that the previews of the Ultimate Magic make me think paizo will do so again.
I love the concept of the Cleric. I just hate the PF (and sometimes 3E) way it was handled.
I think it needs twice as many PC and Archtypes as any other class to make the base class different from those of other faiths. I concider it paizo's failure that there are not enough class features to change out for archtypes, not the other way around. I don't mean that as harsh as it sounds.
I don't care for either PF Domains, or SubDomains. At least 3E gave some permanent benefits, which I'd take over a Wis+/day pwew, pwew.
Comparred to every other casters defining trait, (Bloodlines, or whatever), Domains are extremely lacking and do almost nothing to diferentiate the Clerics from each other.
Deity's Favored weapons are mostly Cleric weapons already, or more balance than logical reason that said deity would like that weapon.
Here, then, is the problem:
If you want to add more thingies to the cleric for them to play with, what are you willing to take away?
Currently the cleric - much like the wizard - is boring but very powerful. The oracle - unlike the sorcerer - has a lot of tools and toys that let them really specialize well. I would say that a battle oracle is better at divine head masher then a cleric that takes a lot of combat feats, for example. But, that battle oracle cannot do a large number of things the cleric-who-took-feats can.
In other words, the cleric's genericness is both it's problem and it's power. It's generic so it's kinda boring unless you really bring a lot of stuff to the table outside of the class chassis itself. At the same time, the full spellcasting it gets from all divine spells and the two domains give it a hell of a lot of oomph in terms of power.
The oracle (I think) successfully took enough stuff away from the cleric to give them more toys. What are you willing to take from the cleric to change them?
The oracle - unlike the sorcerer - has a lot of tools and toys that let them really specialize well.
I don't think that's really true. The oracle has fewer tools (spells) than a cleric and about the same number of toys as a cleric (mysteries and curses vs. domain abilities), at least up until level 14 or so (at which point I personally stop caring because I feel the game is starting to fall apart anyways).
Prepared casting from it's entire spell list.Here, then, is the problem:
If you want to add more thingies to the cleric for them to play with, what are you willing to take away?
Yes. Its entire spell list access is a huge part of its power.
The oracle - unlike the sorcerer - has a lot of tools and toys that let them really specialize well.I don't think that's really true. The oracle has fewer tools (spells) than a cleric and about the same number of toys as a cleric (mysteries and curses vs. domain abilities), at least up until level 14 or so (at which point I personally stop caring because I feel the game is starting to fall apart anyways).
I've found the mysteries and curses to be far more toy-like then the domain abilities. Simply put, domains you pick at level 1 and welp that's it. Mysteries you continue to pick out as you level. I've also found mysteries to be a lot more game-changing in terms of how you play then domains, though YMMV. A battle oracle and a life oracle play very differently from each other, while a cleric-with-fighting-feats doesn't play entirely different from a cleric that doesn't have as many fighting feats.
In other words, the divine spell list alone isn't varied enough to make different clerics feel super different from each other (though they can!). The domain abilities typically give you one or two little flash in the pan abilities, while the mysteries can affect your playstyle as a whole.
|
|
I disagree. Honestly, for flavor, I wish that the Cleric, (only) had near access to the entire list, AND was a Spont. Caster.
Some spells would be faith dependant, but there is absolutely no reason for the Cleric to be a prepaired caster. It makes no sense whatsoever.
AS far as taking away, Ok. I don't mind trading. What are you interested in? Oh, . . . wait. . .
:)
I disagree. Honestly, for flavor, I wish that the Cleric, (only) had near access to the entire list, AND was a Spont. Caster.
Some spells would be faith dependant, but there is absolutely no reason for the Cleric to be a prepaired caster. It makes no sense whatsoever.
AS far as taking away, Ok. I don't mind trading. What are you interested in?
The ability to play that class because it is obscenely powerful.
Thanks everybody for your replies. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to spare to post, but I'm reading the thread and I'm greatly appreciating your input, especially from those that are actually playing the cleric.
I just want to clarify that I CAN role play the cleric (I did so for many years and nobody has ever said that I lack "imagination"), I just think, especially after the APG, that it is a bit lacking in detail compared to the great work that went into the other classes. Maybe I'm just underestimating domains. In any case, I think that domains should have stayed cleric only, but now it's too late.
I'm glad to hear that a lot of people is playing the cleric and find it enjoyable. Still... I keep thinking that the oracle is what Paizo think the cleric should have been since the beginning. I hope I'm wrong and I'm looking forward future material from the company.
A lot of good suggestions, too:
- specialty priests
- Spheres, a la 2nd edition
- Spontaneous casting of domain spells
- Domain feats and skills
I favor specialty priests, because it could be an option, so people that favor a "generalist" would not be disappointed.
..And ProfessorCirno, I actually agree with you in your cleric vs oracle analysis.
Be careful with the 2e approach. 2e clerics - especially with the bevy of specialist kits - quickly became more powerful then any other class, even out-wizarding wizards with some of the FR clerics. Most hysterical was when Skills and Powers came out, giving clerics triple the points of any other class - and sometimes more then tripling it.
I've found the mysteries and curses to be far more toy-like then the domain abilities. Simply put, domains you pick at level 1 and welp that's it. Mysteries you continue to pick out as you level. I've also found mysteries to be a lot more game-changing in terms of how you play then domains, though YMMV.The oracle - unlike the sorcerer - has a lot of tools and toys that let them really specialize well.I don't think that's really true. The oracle has fewer tools (spells) than a cleric and about the same number of toys as a cleric (mysteries and curses vs. domain abilities), at least up until level 14 or so (at which point I personally stop caring because I feel the game is starting to fall apart anyways).
Oh, if you're talking about in terms of things you get to pick, then yes, it gets more of those.
The large majority of revelations are not "game-changing" in any way (e.g. a dozen different variations on "Fireball, 1/day" or "Clairvoyance, n rounds/day").
|
|
To kind of address a point someone made earlier, about allowing clerics to prepare their whole spell list (which I took to mean domain spells), the Gods of Golarion book says followers of various classes can memorize certain spells.
If you mean me, I was talking thinking more about 1/2 the entire spell list, (including Domain spells). Obviously the "generic" Cleric list would need cut down, but I wish that Paizo, (and WotC) had done a lot more of the unique spells, and divided the Cleric list into a few groups. One every Cleric gets, one for types of Clerics, and a few for Alignment, Philosophy, Deity, etc. . .
|
|
The large majority of revelations are not "game-changing" in any way (e.g. a dozen different variations on "Fireball, 1/day" or "Clairvoyance, n rounds/day").
But Oracles can do that in addition to other stuff. If a Cleric with the Fire Domain cast their Fireball 1/day, that means they can not use their other ability.
Also most of the time, Domains really don't allow you to play a priest of that specialty. A Fire Cleric has very very little Fire ability.
Oh, if you're talking about in terms of things you get to pick, then yes, it gets more of those.The large majority of revelations are not "game-changing" in any way (e.g. a dozen different variations on "Fireball, 1/day" or "Clairvoyance, n rounds/day").
Heavens mystery would disagree with you. As would life, nature, bone, battle, Lore, Stone, Fire, Water... wait... yeah about all the of the mysteries would:
Examples:
Puntive Transformation -- Charisma mod baleful polymorphs a day with better DCs
Water/Fire/Earth Form -- wild shape once per day, but for hours at a time.
Vortex Spell -- Critical with a spell and knock them staggered -- a fighter has to wait until what level to do that?
Stone Stability -- spend one feat gain 2 and special abilities FREE! (the one feat being extra revelation of course) Now with "don't meet the prerequisites we don't care!" Goodness!
SteelBreaker Skin -- Hit me and I free sunder your weapon.
Rock Throwing -- 2d4+1 and 1/2 strength mod -- plus it's just 'normal' ranged attacks so take quick draw and some ranged combat feats two weapon rapid shot rock throwing!
Earth Glide
Crystal Sight -- Free xray vision
Nature's Whispers
Bonded Mount
Sidestep Secret
Spontaneous Symbology -- How many free extra spells known now?
Mental Acuity -- Granted it's not your casting stat but extra skill points and free inherent bonuses are always nice.
Lore Keeper
Lifesense
Safe Curing
Channel
Awesome Display -- Let's take this first level spell and make it last until 16th level! Yeah that's a great idea!
Cinder Dance -- Extra movement and free feats again with "don't meet the prerequisites we don't care!" goodness.
Spirit walk
Undead Servitude
Raise the Dead
War Sight
Weapon Mastery (again multiple feats for the price of one...)
Skill at arms
Iron Skin -- Yes yes, "it's just stoneskin up to twice a day!" But it's stoneskin without material components -- that's a lot of money saved.
Battlefield Clarity -- Or how to say "no" to save or suck spells.
Many fire abilities are 'simply' blasting -- but are generally 5 times a day each or last for multiple rounds per go.
Not exactly "Fireball 1/day" -- you may have this confused with the sorcerer that does just get variations on such spells for the most part.
I wanted to play a divine class, and right now, all I can think about are inquisitors and oracles. They seem more intriguing, and less bounded, for their powers, to the tenets of a faith, while maintaining a strong "divine link".
No, what I am talking about is that this class does not appear to be interesting, at least mechanic-wise. Admittedly, I didn't play one yet, so I'm asking for opinions.
My main problem: Nothing unique about a cleric.
There's nothing, nada, zit, niente, special about it. It's like the designers wanted to make sure that nobody has ever any need to play this class.
There are no archetypes in the APG for the cleric, only subdomains, and to add insult to injury, subdomains are available to many classes! It's like giving the barbarians new rage powers, and then allow a fighter to take them.
Some more problems I see:
- feat taxed. Selective Channel? do I have to choose a feat to use a class feature in any useful...
I have been playing a Cleric since 2nd ed(better part of a decade) that has made the transition to 3.0,3.5 and Pathfinder.
And I agree with all your points above. Pathfinder dropped the ball(rare for them) on the cleric. Paizo claims to be all about giving the players character class options, but for the cleric there are next to NONE.
At 1st lvl I get to choose domains that give me, *yawn*, more spells? And then.....Nothing? Clerics can be very boring to play because at heart they either a move-attack or move-cast class.
They are limited to standard actions whereas the other classes now have a myriad of other combat choices utilizing alternate move,immediate,swift and standard action abilities. The cleric-nada.
I feel like Paizo(wrongly IMO) bought into all the talk about Clerics being Overpowered and have been reluctant to give them any supporting abilities/options.
The cleric just plays flat and boring compared to other characters straight out of the box. ESPECIALLY if you don't use the Golarian campaign setting and specific Gods and their granted powers. THen they are even more limited.
I could go on this tirade for hours, I better quit now while I'm marginally ahead.
PLEASE PAIZO GIVE SOME LOVE TO THE CLERIC!
|
|
To kind of address a point someone made earlier, about allowing clerics to prepare their whole spell list (which I took to mean domain spells), the Gods of Golarion book says followers of various classes can memorize certain spells.If you mean me, I was talking thinking more about 1/2 the entire spell list, (including Domain spells). Obviously the "generic" Cleric list would need cut down, but I wish that Paizo, (and WotC) had done a lot more of the unique spells, and divided the Cleric list into a few groups. One every Cleric gets, one for types of Clerics, and a few for Alignment, Philosophy, Deity, etc. . .
We already have spells whose accessibility is limited by alignment and limiting accessibility based on philosophy and deity is stuff for a book describing the game world (Golarion for Paizo), not for the generic rulebook.
The "blandness" of the cleric is a function of it being the generic version for all the settings.
|
|
[ha ha ha] But, . . . .but . . . Clerics are a gazillion power level tiers super divine spanking-ranks above all other classes combined. Well except Druids. . . and Wizards. And other 9th level casters. But anyone else. . . , they are so broken.
Best keep your voice down. Very soon the guys that scream "troll" and "flame" will come out and mention armor just being a Feat.
[/ha ha ha]
|
|
We already have spells whose accessibility is limited by alignment and limiting accessibility based on philosophy and deity is stuff for a book describing the game world (Golarion for Paizo), not for the generic rulebook.
True, but this is very limited,and also doesn't do anything to discribe the rasoning behind this. Pharasma gets all the undead creating spells (as Domains spells!!!!), but no where in the core book does it even mention she hates undead. IN 3E, not only did they change St. Cuthbert to LN, (is LG), but also gave him a Domain spell that his good Clerics couldn't cast. Most of the (very few) specific deity spells (and even the limits from a faith) are outdated and difficult to find.
I remember back in the Dragon Mag days, there where Innitiate Feats which did a fantastic job of giving the individual Clerics what they needed. A few other books did this too, but poorly. Heck FR made them for anyone, even though the Deat specifically said Cleric only. I really wish they would go back to something like that. They gave a permanent (minor) effect, added (usually) 1 spell per spell level to the generic Cleric spell list, and very much made a priest of Pelor different from a priest of Vecna, or Corellon, or whatever.
Oh I'll stand by the notion that clerics are structurally and mechanically a very powerful class.
However for variety of options and general 'flavor' yeah they can be a bit on the bland side.
Oh, if you're talking about in terms of things you get to pick, then yes, it gets more of those.The large majority of revelations are not "game-changing" in any way (e.g. a dozen different variations on "Fireball, 1/day" or "Clairvoyance, n rounds/day").
Heavens mystery would disagree with you. As would life, nature, bone, battle, Lore, Stone, Fire, Water... wait... yeah about all the of the mysteries would:
Examples:
<deleted for space>
Almost none of those are "game-changing" by my definition; most are just bonus spell-like abilities (Stoneskin n/day, Animate Dead n/day, Elemental Form n/day, etc.) and bonus feats. And that's after you had the opportunity to narrow the list down to the most impressive ones!
|
|
We already have spells whose accessibility is limited by alignment and limiting accessibility based on philosophy and deity is stuff for a book describing the game world (Golarion for Paizo), not for the generic rulebook.True, but this is very limited,and also doesn't do anything to discribe the rasoning behind this. Pharasma gets all the undead creating spells (as Domains spells!!!!), but no where in the core book does it even mention she hates undead. IN 3E, not only did they change St. Cuthbert to LN, (is LG), but also gave him a Domain spell that his good Clerics couldn't cast. Most of the (very few) specific deity spells (and even the limits from a faith) are outdated and difficult to find.
I remember back in the Dragon Mag days, there where Innitiate Feats which did a fantastic job of giving the individual Clerics what they needed. A few other books did this too, but poorly. Heck FR made them for anyone, even though the Deat specifically said Cleric only. I really wish they would go back to something like that. They gave a permanent (minor) effect, added (usually) 1 spell per spell level to the generic Cleric spell list, and very much made a priest of Pelor different from a priest of Vecna, or Corellon, or whatever.
I think the issue with clerics is with is blandness. Mechanically the class is pretty boring. I agree that there needs to be a better way to clerics to be more unique ( specialty priests/deity specific abilities/ or heck even deity specific prestige classes).
Btw, I think that Paizo did a great job on the Oracle. Between revelations, curses, and mysteries each oracle feels unique.
Almost none of those are "game-changing" by my definition; most are just bonus spell-like abilities (Stoneskin n/day, Animate Dead n/day, Elemental Form n/day, etc.) and bonus feats. And that's after you had the opportunity to narrow the list down to the most impressive ones!
I didn't narrow it by much -- and I completely disagree -- like I said stoneskin multiple times a day without expensive components is much better than simply casting stoneskin. The animate Dead is again without components -- including a body -- and gives free boosts to the undead at higher levels. It isn't simply elemental form -- it's hours long elemental form meaning immunity to things like critical hits and permanent stat boosts (for the most part).
The ability to change up to your best stat for AC, and save throws, the inherent bonuses -- and more.
The vast majority of the powers are not simply extra spells per day -- and even the ones that are such are better than the simple spell due to lack of expensive components and spell specific buffing including extra features or longer durations.