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? Oracle
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.
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 way? Turn Undead? Seriously? what about a feat so the cleric can swing a mace?
- front loaded. The cleric is the only class in pathfinder that screams "prestige class" to me
- 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.
I know, giving the cleric more "options" would probably make it too powerful. I think that's the problem: you can't add too much, but you can't even remove, or you loose too much backward compatibility.
I've been reading many threads in this forum to understand if these issues are perceived by the community too, but it seems I am alone. However, I did notice a few oddities:
- 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 could just leave Clerics alone, but they are supposedly, however, icons of D&D, together with wizards, rogues and fighters. Letting them go into oblivion does not seem fair.
I don't have a simple solutions for this issues (assuming that they ARE issues), but if really necessary I would even give 2 levels of spells away, like 2nd edition, just so that we could finally put all this "they can cast lvl 9 spells, so they cannot be improved any further" in the trash bin.
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...
When I saw the Oracle and Inquisitor, they became the go to divine casters for me. I love their flavor.
|
I think the biggest problem is, the class has to be generic enough to allow clerics of any faith. Domains are supposed to make each one flavored for their faith, but you can only spare so much room for each one considering the number of domains. You can't add specific class features to the class progression, like armor training, because not every cleric trains in armor.
Personally I discourage people from playing Clerics because I feel they're too good. I'd be happy to see the class become obsolete.
The basic tenets of the class, metal armor and all, don't really work well for customization because the class is calibrated to figure you're using all of these things. So a cleric of, say, seduction, would really have no thematic reason to be wearing heavy metal armor.
First off, I assume you are using heavy as a non-mechanical term, since clerics only have proficiency with medium armor. Secondly, don't put them in metal armor, heavy armor or any armor if it doesn't fit the character concept. Having proficiency in armor is not the same thing as being forced to wear it. Consider a fighter. Many have proficiency in axes, yet never wield one. Same thing applies here. If it doesn't fit the concept, don't use it.
I submit the Non-Generic Cleric.
i kinda like it.
|
I agree with many points you make. I really still believe that idea of sub-classes should have been retained in 3.x/PF. This allowed variation while reducing the chance of over-shadowing of the type you point out. Skill-based system lend themselves far better to "class bloat", D&D does not however, as you need to make the classes different enough from each other to warrant a whole new class entry. Sub-classes allow recycling of the Base Class with variation.
Agreeing,
S.
My problem with the cleric is I just don't like it. It's too easy (imo) and I don't like divines anyways.
As such it has two strikes against it already as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think it is bad and I don't think it is pointless.
It can be bland... but then so can be the fighter. I've seen a lot of people do a lot of stuff with clerics and each of them has been really different. However it simply isn't for me.
If your player is willing to really get into the Gods of a setting, especially Golarion which has top-notch god fluff, then clerics are great. I think they're the most versatile and flavorful class in the game.
They've long suffered from the image of "mandatory healer", but that almost never comes up in my style of play.
Oracle lacks the "commitment to a single god" fluff, and inquisitor just isn't a full caster (although I rather like them as well).
It's fine. It's fine! It's fine.
...maybe that should just be my post signature henceforth.
If I thought the oracle class were any good, I'd probably feel the same way about clerics. But frankly, I feel the oracle is the poor cousin out of the three classes you mentioned (with the possible exceptions of the Battle oracle and maybe the Heavens oracle). It's like the monk: it has a bunch of different abilities to choose from, so it must be good, right? Except most of those abilities are pretty dull when you take a closer look.
I also find that clerics are more interesting when you have lots and lots of gods (or abstract principles or whatever) to choose from. The Golarion pantheon doesn't excite me very much, but YMMV.
well see for me its all about chooseing a cool god to follow. follow thor get a hammer and go with war and str rip someones arm off and beat them to death with it get down with your bad thor self.
or go with hermes trickier is fun and play a jokester.
heh i always thought if your gonna worship a nature god just go ahead and play a druid.
heck follow asmodeus summon demons and intimidate people.
the god makes the flavor of the cleric and then set your stats to back up that decision. domains add to the flavor and the feats you take... plus your the mvp of the party. quick protect the cleric or no heals!!!!
SORRY sorry i meant devils sorry ok
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. Basically a cleric can't really specialize optimally outside of what he's already got, so I guess it kind of grinds my gears. However, he does have a spell list he can technically prepare any spell from that he can cast on any given day. That's pretty darn powerful, and if you want to go light armor and wield a bow while doing it, more power to you. But where another class using the APG archetype gets a tangible benefit from doing so, you get to do it for fluff. *shrugs* It's not perfect. But, you get out what you put in.
I don't feel like this. At least for my gamestyle, the domains and subdomains do a lot for the character.
My group is currently fine-tuning domains and churc for the setting we are building, and it's a blast.
Healing + Protection domain cleric is very different from a Destruction + Strengt one. Dofferent from an angel summoner, different from an undeath master.
Seriously. People, as happens with fighter sometimes, confuse too many possible flavours with no flavour.
AND: cleric feat taxed, my eye. I'm generally against feat taxes, but you have to do it to force them to specialize, because is not a good thing a class extremely good in four tasks.
And they are good in one and decent in 3 now. So, yeah..
@CE Chef, CE fighter. I disagree on fighter too. Depending on the build and on tastes, lose core fetures for a fighter can be trivial or very bad. Myself, I dont' specialize light heartly building NPC and the party fighter kept the core fighter for his shield basher battle control fighter. YMMV.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
I have to say that I do not find clerics to be bland. First off cleric is the most common class I encounter at cons and in my home group. I currently DM a group that has 3 clerics, a monk,a fighter, and a wizard. One cleric is str domain, has multiclassed into fighter and acts as a meat shield, one cleric is pure varisian enchantress and tarot reader, and one cleric is all destruction and death domain. All have different flavor and each plays a different role. The versatility of the cleric allows it to do just about anything so it can hardly be lacking in ability to interest.
One of my biggest problems with the Pathfinder cleric is how MAD it is. If you want to be a decent, all around cleric, you'll have to have good strength, constitution, wisdom and charisma. Sure, you can dump dexterity, which lowers your AC and ability to hit with touch attacks and intelligence, which leaves you with almost no skill points unless you're human. And if you decide to play a casting focused cleric and dump strength, you just aren't up to snuff since you don't have a lot of powerful spells like a wizard.
The only cleric that seems somewhat appealing to me is a martial focused human cleric, but even then a battle oracle just seems more exciting. I wish domains had a bigger impact and allowed you to cast their spells outside of the allocated domain slots. The cleric is, to me, the least exciting Pathfinder class (which doesn't really say too much, since the rest are pretty much all really exciting!).
And if you decide to play a casting focused cleric and dump strength, you just aren't up to snuff since you don't have a lot of powerful spells like a wizard.
Complete disagreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you *need* special class features to make your cleric interesting and worth playing? In my Runelords game the most interesting character is (easily) the cleric of Sarenrae...thanks solely to the player's efforts to create a memorable and valuable part of the game we're playing. She's not the biggest damage-dealer or best spellcaster by any means but she's pulled the party's bacon from the fire more than once.
Oh. And she doesn't have Selective Channel (though I think she's picking it up this level) which was actually really fun once at Ft. Rannick when they the whole party really needed healing and the big bad Kreeg guy was only a few points below zero. That was a great WTF scene!
I get what you guys are saying about mechanics and mechanics are certainly important (it's a game with rules, after all) but IMO mechanics aren't everything. A creative, engaged player can bring value to the game running a dungsweeper...an unimaginative roll-player can make the most mechanically interesting character class and turn it into a mobile, drudgy damage-dealing (or spell-casting or back-stabbing) vending machine that doesn't add anything to the game but raw performance.
M
Clerics got hit with a 12 ton nerf bat for pathfinder, but honestly, they needed it. In a way they're a lot more versatile than they used to be, because let's all be honest - while a cleric could swap prepared spells for healing, they almost always ended up doing so anyway, unless they were a "selfish" cleric. Now, I don't mean selfish in the bad way, but as in "I'm focused on using my magic to make me a better combatant".
Everyone had that experience at the 3.5 table. You're willing to bite the bullet and make a healer, and then you find out there's a cleric already in the party! So you make whatever else, only to start adventuring to find out it's "that 3.5 cleric", the one who looks at you like you kicked his puppy and stole his girlfriend for having the audacity to suggest they convert one of their divine favors for a cure spell.
I think on a whole, Clerics are fine as a class, but the domains could have been a bit more developed ala the Sorcerer bloodlines.
And as for selective channel being a "feat tax". Any good powergamer worth their salt will argue that healing in combat is a poor choice of an action spent unless it would mean the difference between a party member being incapacitated or not. Providing substantive damage avoidance or mitigation is almost always a superior tactical choice if you are taking a defensive action.
My players love to play clerics. They don't really like the oracle (because of the curses) and don't want to play inquisitors, so they often play clerics to heal like crazy and run from a fight to another unharmed. Clerics, unlike druids, are easily accepted in large cities and are part (in most settings)of a clergy that can help them and the rest of the party in times of need.
If you feel like your cleric is just being a hand puppet for a god, then you might be doing something wrong. Either your god is extremely restrictive, or your cleric has no personnality other than "respect teachings of my deity at all cost, all the time, without any other purpose or goal". Clerics can be just as interesting (or boring) as any character. It's all a matter of adding flavor to them. A cleric can also have dreams (not always related to his faith), love interests and other such traits.
I don't see what the problem is. Any character class can be made interesting and clerics have enough differences with other classes to make them fun to play in our opinion.
i tell ya what would be a good addition to the cleric domain specififc feats.
I submit the Non-Generic Cleric.
Some comments on this:
- I like it for the most part, not the disconnect between HD and BAB though, HD increase too weak, BAB increase too strong, better to combine them for 2 points in my opinion.
- I was going to say I didn't like the fact you could make a PF cleric with heavy armor proficiency, but it seems to not grant the deity's favored weapon as bonus proficiency. Which is something I'd like to see die a horrible death, deities should not be default be depicted to swing a single favorite weapon in my opinion or force this upon clerics, possible certain orders within a religion have a weapon of choice, but that is where it should end it can turn you off a certain deity.
- I'd not have every cleric start with 2 domains, just a single domain should be an option, instead add another point.
- A bonus feat in exchange for channeling seems a bit weak, since channeling increases in power when you level up perhaps add another bonus feat at level 6 and possibly again at 12. Though 3 feats might be too much, if used as a DM tool you can allow a limited list to pick from
much like a monk, ranger or wizard, whatever is suitable for the religion. Optionally an ability from the list could be chosen instead.
Hope the feedback is appreciated, I like the concept very much. Thanks for sharing.
I submit the Non-Generic Cleric.
And I submit the Sarûnia Cleric and Divine Feats.
I found all classes boring to play just based on their class powers and stuff.
|
|
Hope the feedback is appreciated, I like the concept very much. Thanks for sharing.
Well, I didn't design it, but if Kirth and the others happen across this thread I'm sure they will appreciate it. :) I should point out that this article was developed in 2007, under 3.5 rules.
And I submit the Sarûnia Cleric and Divine Feats.
While I'm not a fan of using feats to fix classes, I don't mind this one due to the bonus feats given, avoiding the problem of 'more new feats I don't have slots for'.
Don't like the Spell Energy feature, but that's because I don't like point pool abilities adding more resource management headaches.
I'd prefer the other class features be flavored more as protection from the gods instead of just the cleric's own fortitude, but that's just personal preference.
The divine feats seem alright, except for Anarchic/Axiomatic Channeling doing absolutely nothing as written, since Channel Energy is not physical damage and therefore not reduced by any DR.
Paladins: Great if you want to wear armor and hit people with swords and do a little bit of divine magic on the side, but they don't have nearly as much divine magic as a Cleric.
Druids: I'm playing a Druid in a party with a Cleric, and there is a big difference. As a Druid, I'm not anywhere near as good a healer, having just a couple of Cure Light Wounds spells prepared. But Druids are great at controlling the battlefield. Plus, Druids are locked into the Nature Priest role, which is great for a player who wants to play a nature priest, but does not fit concepts that are less nature oriented. So I'd say that Druids and Clerics each are good for filling their respective roles.
Oracles: I don't like them. The mechanics do not seem to back up the flavor I expect. The curses are annoying and I'd hate to have to deal with one as a PC. And the spontaneous casting gives them the same drawbacks that the Sorcerer has, drawbacks which I find to be too restrictive.
Inquisitors: I haven't played one and don't know how good they are, but they aren't as good at casting spells as Clerics and Druids are.
My conclusion is that each of these four classes is different, but I would not say that any of them overshadow the cleric.
Clerics are great.
You could find somebody to gripe about and deconstruct any class, if they care to put the work into it.
Clerics are great.
Threads griping about various classes are a dime a dozen.
Clerics are great.
Put every thread out there about a class being broken, useless, obsolete, whatever, into a single book, and you'd have the Anti-Pathfinder Anti-Corebook. Big deal.
Clerics are great. I have always loved playing them, and still do.
Why can't we ever talk about something interesting? Like anything other than a Class X Sucks thread? I'd rather smack my toes with a hammer than do this again.
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 haven't liked clerics since I saw them in AD&D, I don't expect that's going to change anytime soon. I don't care for the fighter class, the rogue a whole lot, paladins, or monks either...
But plenty of people do which is one of the things that makes the game interesting. It would be curious to see what classes get the most play.
Unless I miss my guess, the OP is referring to the mechanics behind the class, not the role playing potential of it. I happen to agree; the mechanical benefits are rather bland, and can be replicated in part by other classes. I hope that Ultimate Magic introduces some interesting, unique options for the cleric class, because it is needed badly.
Truth be told, I never stay in the cleric class; I usually dip into it for a few levels, or prestige my way out. Once you hit 8th level, there is very little reason to stick with, from a mechanics perspective.
|
To answer the OP:
Mechanics-wise clerics are really interesting, not because they have a unique schtick but because they can do so much.
Casting (buff, nerf and battlefield control), combat, diplomacy, front-line, rear-guard.
Other characters have their 'moments to shine', which necessarily implies moments when they take a backseat: clerics are constantly involved as significant players in the game.
Having a blast playing a cleric. Can't really agree with your observations, having seen an oracle played at the same table.
I think from a mechanical standpoint clerics are better than the other divine casters at well being divine. the versatility of being to swap your spells around to any I'n the book of your level is huge.
I think from a mechanical standpoint clerics are better than the other divine casters at well being divine. the versatility of being to swap your spells around to any I'n the book of your level is huge.
This is where I disagree.
You can get almost all of the worthwhile cleric spells with the number of spells an oracle learns, the rest are just filler you'll never use.
I think from a mechanical standpoint clerics are better than the other divine casters at well being divine. the versatility of being to swap your spells around to any I'n the book of your level is huge.This is where I disagree.
You can get almost all of the worthwhile cleric spells with the number of spells an oracle learns, the rest are just filler you'll never use.
right but when do you get them? I'm dming a game with a cleric I'n it and playing an oracle In a different one. I'n the game I am dming the cleric is lvl 5 can swap see invis or invisibility purge in or daylight. as a dm I could throw invisible opponents at her or people with darkness spells (which for my group have historically been a problem) and she can adapt. by lvl 5 my oracle won't know see invis and cannot even cast 3rd level spells yet. the oracle /may/ know see invis by lvl 7 or so if I can spate the room and won't ever know daylight.
but your right In the long run they can learn the " good" spells but I'n the levels alotbof players play I'n ( before 10?) oracles may not get a chance to. meanwhile the cleric can literally change how she wants to play her character every time she prays.
|
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.