Removed a post. Please be civil and respect other opinions.
...itty bitty flavorspace.
Clever. :)
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.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.
Hogarth, my point was you don't need to have 15 cleric spells available, because Clerics/Oracles mostly you use "Cure" spells followed by maybe 1-2 other spells.
In your example, your Oracle used all Cure spells, it doesn't get any more monotone than that, there wasn't even a need for a 2nd or 3rd spell.
As a 1st level Oracle, you know 2 spells plus CLW. I have a 2nd level cleric, who can only cast 4 spells a day, and they're Command(x2), Prot Evil, and CLW. Seems like the exact same setup to me, except that the 2nd level Oracle can cast 4 Commands if they want, or 4 Prot Evils, or another spell that I don't even have prepared atm. He's a lot more flexible than me.
If you want to include channeling, let's just assume the Oracle has the Life mystery, the Channeling revelation, and extremely high Chr, and we'll call it a wash.
The oracle had one moderately interesting ability (a low-level revelation) and the cleric had two moderately interesting abilities (two low-level domain powers).
I guess you shouldn't play an Oracle? If you prefer power X to power Y, I can't argue that.
And Clerics are definitely frontloaded with powers at 1st level (Oracles need level 3 before they are equal).
However, the cleric will gain 4 powers his entire career, the Oracle will gain 7 powers.
Although the number of powers an Oracle gains is impressive, it's not the number of powers that the Oracle gains that's important, it's the fact that the Oracle actually gets to pick which power they get.
It would be really nice if the Cleric could pick a Domain and then pick from a list of 5 minor domain powers and then at level 8 they could pick from a list of 5 major domain powers.
It's all about customization.
You're comparing a level 1 cleric power to a level 11 oracle power!? Sacre bleu!
Yes, that was my first reading of the Oracle. Even at level 11, it's a nice power, especially considering how many Oracles get. If you compare level 8 domain powers with high level Revelations, to me the Revelations look a lot better.
For example, the Glory domain gives mass Sanctuary (1st level spell) at level 8. At level 11, an Oracle picks Iron Skin and gain DR 10/adamantine for 110 minutes. That's just one example and yes, there are decent major domain powers, but they're the exception, not the rule.
Anyway, I guess we should be thankful that Paizo gave us a nice alternative that's fairly balanced.
I think it's important to note that I don't mean "Game-changing" to mean "super powerful," I mean it as "changes how you would play the game."
Heavens alone gives a huge change with the HD-lowering mystery.
This depends entirely on your GM and your group, but in my experience the Cleric's responsibilities have led to some great roleplaying.
Of course, I already said you might want to play a cleric for flavor reasons. But then again, there might be a lot of flavor reasons for playing the Oracle as well.
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,...
Well like I said, there are only maybe 6 good spells per level anyway, which the Oracle can know. Restoration spells would probably be one of them.
As I already mentioned, the other more situational spells can be handled via scrolls and wands, which they often are when playing a cleric anyway. It really depends on your campaign, in a home campaign you might know what you're going up against, in PFOS, not always.
- channel energy? life oracle, paladin (and charisma based, so they are better than a cleric!)
After the first page I started skimming text, but if this has been said I apologize.
Paladins CAN channel, but it's NOT what they should be doing with their Lay on Hands unless the situation is extremely DIRE. Such as being the last PC standing and you're not winning the die rolls.
Cleric channels are useful to them mostly for the reason that a few others have mentioned, it basically removes the 'heal bot' status and gives them a opportunity to actually cast other spells... not just convert them all to Cure spells. They also get a large amount and more powerful channels than a Paladin of the same level.
I enjoyed a Shoanti(Human) Cleric of Gorum (14th) in CotCT and have been enjoying a Dwarven Paladin (10th) in RotRL who has never used channel.
I would like to see the spell list broken up according to the domains, with a general core that every cleric gets. The cleric treats spells from the core and all of their god's domains normally, with spells from the 2 domains they select being treated as wizards treat their favored school, and spells from other domains being restricted like wizards treat restricted schools.
Advantages over current system: Maintains access to the whole list with some spells emphasized over others, clearly marking clerics of different faiths. Incorporates domains into the class much better than the current implementation. Most importantly, it breaks the "clerics should only heal" attitude that is the biggest problem without making them overly powerful as it takes away as much as it adds. I can think of other minor tweaks that I would like to see, but this would fix the core problem most people have with the class.
Hey guys, what about the Cleric heavy armor proficiency...
That's a feat away. You know, divine casters...
Hey guys, what about the Cleric heavy armor proficiency...That's a feat away. You know, divine casters...AAARGH! I'm doing this little snarky flamebait for 2 years and people STILL trip over it! *sadpandaface*
It's all those ranks you put into bluff and diplomacy. As well as Perform(internet troll). People have a hard time rolling a high enough sense motive against that.
|
It's all those ranks you put into bluff and diplomacy. As well as Perform(internet troll). People have a hard time rolling a high enough sense motive against that.Hey guys, what about the Cleric heavy armor proficiency...That's a feat away. You know, divine casters...AAARGH! I'm doing this little snarky flamebait for 2 years and people STILL trip over it! *sadpandaface*
At least that's Perform and not Profession there. I don't do this for living, honest! ;-)
The complexity and disparate view points expressed in this thread just reflects events in history like the Nicaean Council (the council which tailored what would become the Christian faith).
I wonder if we will ever agree enough to write the bible....
The complexity and disparate view points expressed in this thread just reflects events in history like the Nicaean Council (the council which tailored what would become the Christian faith).
I wonder if we will ever agree enough to write the bible....
Or disagree enough to do so. Both are almost equally needed.
Or disagree enough to do so. Both are almost equally needed.The complexity and disparate view points expressed in this thread just reflects events in history like the Nicaean Council (the council which tailored what would become the Christian faith).
I wonder if we will ever agree enough to write the bible....
I don't ordinarily do this, but this is good enough to justify it. +1
I thought that heavy armour proficiency + cleric is where all the synegy bonuses went from the skill section...
Hey guys, what about the Cleric heavy armor proficiency...That's a feat away. You know, divine casters...AAARGH! I'm doing this little snarky flamebait for 2 years and people STILL trip over it! *sadpandaface*
You did it several times, referring to another poster with the Lord Soth avatar too.
But it does not make this less confusing from a casual reader. Add it to other stuff in the thread... :D
I would like to see the spell list broken up according to the domains, with a general core that every cleric gets. The cleric treats spells from the core and all of their god's domains normally, with spells from the 2 domains they select being treated as wizards treat their favored school, and spells from other domains being restricted like wizards treat restricted schools.
Advantages over current system: Maintains access to the whole list with some spells emphasized over others, clearly marking clerics of different faiths. Incorporates domains into the class much better than the current implementation. Most importantly, it breaks the "clerics should only heal" attitude that is the biggest problem without making them overly powerful as it takes away as much as it adds. I can think of other minor tweaks that I would like to see, but this would fix the core problem most people have with the class.
I was going to suggest this idea, but you beat me to it.
I was starting to work on this idea back in the days of 3.5, but never had time to define multiple spells per domain. It made sense to me, however, that instead of just choosing between two spells, you could choose from a number of spells related to your chosen domains.
I like the Cleric; it is one of the more generic classes but to me that's okay--I personally like having some classes to which you bring the flavor, and not the other way around. I like how by choosing different domains, you can have two different clerics with a very different feel.
By the same token, I think the Inquisitor and Oracle are really cool and have a lot of flavor--but BECAUSE of having very specific flavor, I can't see them fitting into all campaigns and campaign worlds. For example, I love the idea of the oracle, but the Oracle's mysteries don't suit the feel and backstory of my own campaign world, so I will end up not using it, probably. The cleric I can make fit in all kinds of fun ways, and the flavor for the class in my case comes from how those with gifts from the gods are treated in my world.
I think it's good to have both "vanilla flavor" classes and "fudge ripple chocolate chip" classes. That way everyone has something to choose from; some folks like their flavor handed to them and some like to add sprinkles and a cherry on their own.
THAT SAID: I agree with the sentiment that Clerics got royally hosed in the APG. I like the SubDomains, but they should have gotten more. The Barbarian got new Rage Powers AND Archetypes. The Rogue got new Talents AND Archetypes. Clerics got just a few swaps for Domain Abilities, of which a given cleric could only ever choose from a list of two or three based on their domains and deity. They could have ditched the utterly abysmal and useless PrCs in the APG and given Clerics (and Wizards) some new archetypes or additional options too.
I would love to have seen alternate abilities to Divine Channeling and to Domains Entirely. For example, swap out channeling for different powers at every other level for spell like abilities, or miracles akin to the paladin's mercies.
Maybe Ultimate Magic will give the Clerics some loving. I wasn't planning on buying the book, but if it gives more divine options, I may well change my mind.
Perhaps, the OP's problem can be summed up as follows: the "special" column. The only class with a blander column than the cleric is the wizard, and I would argue that "bonus feat" is a lot more interesting than "+d6 to channel", because you have to make a choice.
Clerics have one or two granted powers coming from their domains, which aren't on that chart. But if you play to level 20, you do something interesting when leveling... exactly twice. Even then, you make no choice (you made that choice at 1st level).
Yes, you select feats (every three levels) and boost scores (every four levels), but those are almost "extra bonuses" in other classes. Just look at the fighter.
I do applaud PF for putting SOMETHING in that column (compare to 3.5e), but compared to every other class, leveling up a cleric involves no mental effort or decision making. Honestly, it wouldn't actually have to be GOOD bonuses in that column to help this problem - something like a "+1 rank in a domain skill" might be enough.
Final thoughts:
The bloodlines for sorcerers are what cleric domains should have been. Spontaneous casting from domain instead of healing would also be great. The mechanical difference between clerics with different domains is vanishingly small - almost every example in the 100+ points before me has been mostly roleplaying examples like dialogue.
If you count th "+1d6 Channeling", then the 3E Cleric had nearly twice as much. It got "+1 Effective Cleric Level to Turning/Rebuking".Of course, we all remember that 3/3.5 Turn Undead was a horribly crap ability, that is.
Really? turn undead sucked in 3.5? I guess i only really remember it from 1e. Shows how much cleric we had in 3.5
|
I like the cleric and I think in fact he isn't generic. Oracles are perhaps more generic than clerics. I have actually seen 2 Oracles built the same way even to the point of one character in their name being different.
That said clerics have 2 domains with a choice of 20 and counting as well as 60 so subdomains, with different sets of gods coming out. It would be hard to think of the possibilities of running into 2 of the same built clerics.
So I guess the one problem is how different you can actually make a cleric, that is their strength and perhaps their viewed weakness.
To the OP:
I do not feel that there is a problem with the cleric class. Look at the wizard's table: There is even "less" there. However, at least to me, they do not feel boring in any way. And same holds true for the cleric.
You already wrote that you see no issue with its power, so I won't say anything about that.
To me, the cleric is a generic class which has to be able to allow for any kind of priest, warrior priest, healer, etc. Oracles and inquisitors are much more focused and limited in that regard. Also, prepared casters play differently than spontaneous casters...
So I guess it boils down to personal preference. I like the class :-)
|
If you count th "+1d6 Channeling", then the 3E Cleric had nearly twice as much. It got "+1 Effective Cleric Level to Turning/Rebuking".Of course, we all remember that 3/3.5 Turn Undead was a horribly crap ability, that is.
Don't really see why your arguing if Turn/Rebuke Undead was good here?
We were talking about the chart in the core book being filled out with class features.
In 3E, Clerics got Domains and Turn/Rebuke Undead at level 1, and blank the rest of the way down to 20.
In PF, Clerics get Channel Energy +1d6 every odd level.
But that is the exact same thing as saying Clerics in 3E got +1 Turning/Rebuking effective Cleric level, at every single level, so actually works against their point.
In the subject though, I sometimes prefer Turning/Rebuking. Just like with with Channel, as you level up it becomes less and less useful, just at a somewhat slower rate. But with Turning/Rebuking, especially the non-undead ones, you could really change a fight around. It is pretty funny when the big bad summons a swarm of fire elementals (or whatever), and your Fire/Water Cleric steps up and Force B-Smacks them to attack the summoner.
It doesn't happen that often, but the times it does usually makes it worth it to me. I also really dislike Channel Energy, personally.
I'll be honest, I've had similar thoughts as the OP about the cleric. I've considered doing my own cleric class options but I have yet to put fingers to keyboard on this for multiple reasons: 1) I'm waiting to see what's in ultimate magic (Paizo could do a bunch of stuff soon so I'm just taking a wait and see approach), 2) I'm busy with the river nations stuff right now (I've got a ton of ideas in my head but I the book is going to the printer soon so I"m working on none of them at the moment), and 3) I wasn't sure if anyone was interested. Now I know people are. So once UM is out and the river nations book is off to the printer, I'll put fingers to keyboard.
|
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.
Actually I remember St.Cuthbert being Lawful Neutral (with some Good leanings) all the way back in the early 80's First Edition AD+D.
The way most people play them is far closer to LN than LG, so it makes sense to me.
He's the god to pick, if you want to go the fire and brimstone, ass-kicking, 'Solomon Kane' route.
Just make sure the players know he won't tolerate evil followers, and you've got a deity that's perfect for most 'good' adventurers.
|
|
He was LG with LN tendencies, which is why his conflict with both Iuz and Pholtus make sense. They specifically changed his alignment in 3E (maybe earlier, I could be wrong) because they wanted a strong LN deity for the core rulebook. LN crusaded against primal Evils does not really make sense.
It does, if those primal evils are eating your parishioners.
|
|
Really? turn undead sucked in 3.5? I guess i only really remember it from 1e. Shows how much cleric we had in 3.5
Turning was dependent on the target's HD (modified by Turn Resistance).
Hit Die scaled faster than CR, at least for creatures that had little in the way of special abilities (eg minotaur zombie, CR4, with 12HD). If the target had a laundry list of special abilities, then HD would scale far slower per CR.So, you had odd situations, in which a a Turn was thrown against a mixed group of zombies and their vampire controller (Sorc 6, CR 8, effective HD for turning 10), and the zombie mooks (that vampire being able to control two of those 12HD minotaur zombies for CR6) being immune to the effect, while their leader turns and flees, or is even blasted to dust.
Basically, Turning at later levels, ceased doing what it was allegedly designed to do, ie clear the room of chaff, to allow the PCs to engage the BBEG. It was eradicating the BBEGs, leaving the PCs to slog their way through faceless goons.
Any divine class seems bland if you don't roleplay your devotion to your deity, delivering crazed sermons and hassling people to go to church, etc.
To the extent you're playing one of the new divine classes with a de-emphasis on god-linkage, then you're really just playing a wizard or a sorcerer with a divine spell-list.
+1
|
|
I would like to see the spell list broken up according to the domains, with a general core that every cleric gets. The cleric treats spells from the core and all of their god's domains normally, with spells from the 2 domains they select being treated as wizards treat their favored school, and spells from other domains being restricted like wizards treat restricted schools.
Advantages over current system: Maintains access to the whole list with some spells emphasized over others, clearly marking clerics of different faiths. Incorporates domains into the class much better than the current implementation. Most importantly, it breaks the "clerics should only heal" attitude that is the biggest problem without making them overly powerful as it takes away as much as it adds. I can think of other minor tweaks that I would like to see, but this would fix the core problem most people have with the class.
Another thumbs up from me.
The Sphere system, as written in 2E, could sometimes bite the PCs, when the party didn't have any ability to cast a certain spell.
Given that the cleric was one of only two full caster classes that could cure (the other being druid, whose abilities were highly situational), this meant that all parties brought a cleric, and that cleric was basically forced by the other players into taking a healing role, and picking a deity with that portfolio. Hence; all clerics played the same, players found them boring, 3E turned them up to 11 to entice players back.
Now that more classes have innate healing abilities, everyone can fake them using UMD, scrolls/potions/wands are actually creatable by PCs instead of being found at the GM's whim, there is no reason for the cleric to be the best or only healer in a party, or have any prepared or spontaneous cures AT ALL. Unless it fits their deity's theme.
Reducing the access to non-portfolio spells, rather than banning them entirely, in return for limited (1/spell level) spontaneous casting from their deity's portfolio, seems a workable compromise.
Bit of a bias on my part, but I like clerics as they are. This mostly is tied to how much religion plays into my games, or rather the function it fills, both socioeconomically and politically. Bear in mind, I also play it that gods are more in the vein of Grecian - more personal to their worshipers, at least acknowledged and praised/feared by the lay folk...and in some regards it's almost as though the divine structure is vaguely reminiscent of a corporation, with the clerics being managers who know very well who their CEO is, while not necessarily having met him.
On the flipside, there's the nebulous demi-sapiences, forces that possess a will and something approximating an awareness, without necessarily having a single coherent state of being - the powers that fuel witches, for example, or that touch the oracle and brings the miracles and curses...and especially Nature, in my campaign, as nature is almost the quintessential force of...well, itself.
In my setting, those who serve deities are treated based on which deity it is they serve, since in many regards they ARE PR for the faith, with actual Outsiders filling an almost Celebrity Endorsement role; clerics who don't serve a particular patron entity are treated with due deference, but not nearly as much as someone serving in the 'establishment'. Oracles are treated similarly in that regards, in addition to the whole matter of the 'curse', which doesn't exactly guarantee sympathy/pity/compassion from those who behold them. Druids, however, are specifically prone to invoking strong feelings as they're often seen as crazy for serving Nature, especially when Nature does not necessarily demonstrate typical cognizance or communicably comprehensiblity. You don't have typically Outsider agents of nature showing up to perform miracles; you have druids following what are essentially instinct-broadcasts fed directly into their head, or what they hear from listening to the elements, or guided by some inexplicable 'hunger'.
Your mileage may vary, but I find flavor to be what you make of it.
I like the Cleric class, but I will say I was disappointed in the APG for how it treated them. Fighters got a huge boost, but now, no one would play a generic fighter anymore. At least I dont think they would. Everyone seems to go the specialist rout, and that's what the APG did for fighters, let them specialize beyond feats.
This isn't true.
This isn't true.
If you're going to call someone a liar, it's sort of expected that you back it up with some reason why you think so -- logical, anecdotal, or otherwise. Without that it's just meaningless name-calling (i.e., Being a Troll).
This isn't true.If you're going to call someone a liar, it's sort of expected that you back it up with some reason why you think so -- logical, anecdotal, or otherwise. Without that it's just meaningless name-calling (i.e., Being a Troll).
Fine. My experience has been that the APG options in no way prevent people from playing the standard fighter, because a great many players don't want to trade in the very good general bonuses they get from the normal fighter advancement (weapon training, bravery, armor training) for others that tend to be very situational. This is especially true of a sword and board heavy armor fighter.
My experience has been that the APG options in no way prevent people from playing the standard fighter, because a great many players don't want to trade in the very good general bonuses they get from the normal fighter advancement (weapon training, bravery, armor training) for others that tend to be very situational. This is especially true of a sword and board heavy armor fighter.
Thank you -- this is a good point to share, once you spelled it out.
Freesword wrote: "Much of the problem of why clerics got so little customization in the APG is because they have so little to customize.
Everything the get comes at 1st level. After that it just scales up.
Character option are:
Deity
Domains
Positive or negative energy (if not automatically set by alignment)"
While it is true that you pretty much pick your general path at level 1, I think that represents only a small fraction of what makes your character customized (in a mechanical sense).
Full casters are defined by their magic. Swapping out your spells memorized each day can totally change your character. Clerics, druids, wizards, and to a lesser extent sorcerers and bards are already the most customizable classes in the game.
Adding more non-spell abilities that vary with each domain, archetype, or whatever is very cool from a player perspective. When you already know all your spells, feats, abilities, etc. it is cool to have these new little toys to play with. But as a GM, it is a pain in the ass sometimes. Don't get me wrong, I knew what I was getting into when I opened the 30lbs rulebook, but there comes a point when things start getting a little overboard. Spells are a great way of having clearly defined, interchangeable abilities. Domain abilities, school powers, bloodline abilities, etc. are not very intuitive, and often include references and exceptions.
I dread the day when I have to try to GM a demon or devil mystic thurge with super natural/exceptional/spell like abilities, school powers, 2 domain abilities, divine casting, arcane casting, prestige class powers, feat trees, etc. to it's full-super-genius-immortal abilities.
Would love the mainline cleric to go to bard-equivalent spellcasting with a smaller list with less spell levels. Clerics having 'only' 7 levels made Divine Magic feel very different then Arcane. Making the level 8/9 abilities domain based would stamp their flavor on the priest.
What you're referring to as 'external swaps' in 3.5E was called PrC's. Archetypes are nothing more then multi-level PrC's, in their own way. The main difference in PF is that their PC classes tend to have class abilities at more levels, so the swap is 1:1, unlike the Fighter, whose PrC's often got 2 or 3 times as many abilities for giving up 5 feats in ten levels.
With no 1:1 swapping for externals in 3.5, PrCing was the way to go. Only the Druid and the Monk really suffered for PrCing and suprise! they had the most class abilities. Clerics, sorcs, wizards, fighters, theives...PrCing was definitely the road to power.
All Archetypes do is force the PrC abilities out into direct comparison with class abilities, which is how PrC's should have been long ago.
==Aelryinth
I think there are two problem with the Cleric.
1) In 1st ed they only had 7 spell levels. in 3.x the high level spells where smeared out over the last 4 spell level 6 - 9. The cleric lack good high level spells. The fact that heal and mass heal are the only good high level healing spells proves this. Healing in battle using mass cure spells doesn't really work and the rest of the high level spells aren't much to talk about.
I wouldn't mind a cleric with 7 spell levels with a more condensed and improved spell levels. The cleric would need some more spell slot each level and she would need some spell like abilities,SU and/or domain based abilities.
Turning the cleric into a divine bard would be a terrible idea. No one, (or very few) would play the cleric. It would be too weak. Giving the Cleric the same spell progression as the bard would make her weak, useless and boring.
2) The Cleric isn't sexy enough. Nothing new really happens once you get your second domain power. That's why a lot of people preferred the Beta Cleric, even though the Core Book cleric is actually more powerful. And I guess that's why more and more people prefer playing Oracle, Paladin, Witch or even Inquisitor when playing a character with healing abilities. Heck, even druid is more sexy and their high level spells are much more fun and powerful.
True nothing much happens when you level up as a fighter, but they get a lot of feats so you can customize them more. Also as a fighter you can multiclass. As full caster that isn't really a good idea most of the time. Also if a high level fighter picks one level bard, Cleric, Ranger or Paladin he can use wands, boost his saves, get more cool skills etc. Picking one level fighter if you're a cleric doesn't really change that much.
Bard and Barbarians suffers a bit from the same problem, but they can multiclass. They can pick Fighter levels or ranger levels, etc.
In the case of the cleric, the class worked really well using the 3.5 paradigm of internal flexibility, but doesn't meet the APG standard of external flexibility without pushing the limits of what archetypes are allowed to do.
While I see what you're getting at, the cleric class features are still modular enough you could make archetypes out of them (which is why the APG entry for clerics was so disappointing).
Channel Energy goes up every other level. Swap with something else that goes up every other level. SLAs, combat boosts, etc.
Domains: You get a special ability at 1st and 8th level, and bonus spells. This is also swappable.
Very good stuff
+1
Edit:
The two main problems still remain.
1) The Cleric High level spell list suck.
2) Nothing new/sexy really happens once you get your second domain power.
For this reason (nothing new/sexy happening at higher levels) I think we will see much more players choosing to play Sorcerers instead of Wizards. Especially with the new human trait in the APG giving the Sorcerer more spells known.
Edit 2
Channel Energy is useful at lower levels but at higher levels it grow more and more useless. Good for haunts and good for bulk healing after the battle.
I hope the new book gives the cleric options where she can trade some of her channel for other abilities.
"specialized uses for channel energy" might be something that give channel some more power / uses. :-)