|
Like many others, I like the concept of the Cloistered Cleric: Not every cleric should need to be an armored combattant, particularly not those of peaceable deities. Where are the priests, the mystics, the divine librarians, the god-nerds?
The 3.5 implementation did its job well: Lose the combat effectiveness (0.5 BAB, lower HD, only light armor) but gain 6 skill points, Lore, the Knowledge domain, and an extra spell per spell level. That seemed like a fair trade. Less of the bashing, more of the casting. Given that the basic Cleric falls short of spells compared to full-time casters like the Wizard, he needs the combat-worthiness as a fallback. The extra spellcasting of the squishy Cloistered Cleric is therefore necessary.
Now, in Pathfinder... the combat effectiveness is significantly reduced (only light armor and the cheapest weapons) AND a huge chunk of the spellcasting is lost (only one domain, -1 spells/day per level)! How can this possibly make sense? I couldn't believe my eyes. The Lore part and the skill points (only 4/level, mind you, and this guy definitely can't afford a positive Int) may be useful, but they are highly situational. The bonus on assisting others in skill checks is even more irrelevant. In everyday adventuring life, which consists largely of hostile encounters, that Cloistered Cleric is going to have to sit it out a lot while his friends contribute. That's just sad.
I'm not saying that Lore and Knowledge skills are not worthwhile. I'm saying that contemporary game design has progressed past the notion of in-combat uselessness being an acceptable price for being the party's out-of-combat toolbox (greetings from the AD&D Healbot!).
Am I missing something here? What's everybody's opinion on the matter?
|
The Cloistered Cleric was always going to be problematic - like any Class with a must remain close to Monastary theme. But the SAGE is a travelling alternative to the CLOISTERED CLERIC.
If I want a Sage I take a Thief and give him all the Knowledge and Language Skills. Throw in Locks and Mechinisms, focus on boosting Intelligence, and you have a useful sage who has no problem stealing books kept in secret libraries. He also comes with the ability to stick knives in folks.
If you're going to give the Cloistered Cleric only 4 skill points per level, then they should change its primary casting stat to Intelligence. That MIGHT make it more balanced. What is the justification for reducing the spells per day?
You didn't mention the Scribe Scroll feat at 4th level, which is gonna be huge for this character with their 1 less spell for level, but I don't know if that's enough to balance out what you don't like about the class.
You might want to take a look at the Priest of the Tome of Secrets third party handbook. It might what you are looking for. I got two in my two Kingmaker campaigns. :p
Loss of a domain is an incredibly bitter pill to swallow.
I think the original Cloistered Cleric was an absolutely amazing one level dip - probably too good. This wasn't because of skill points or even the lore ability though, it's because it had three domains - and most especially because it had easy access to the almight Knowledge Devotion. Even cutting it just to two domains - killing the Knowledge Domain - would've butchered it's dip-ability.
This version just seems to be the opposite - no reason to ever take this over the normal cleric, even when you want to make a cloistered cleric. It's a flaw I'm noticing with a lot of archtypes - the original is better then the archtype at being the archtype.
|
You might want to take a look at the Priest of the Tome of Secrets third party handbook. It might what you are looking for. I got two in my two Kingmaker campaigns. :p
Exactly. This archetype just cannot even remotely compete when you compare it to the Priest base class.
Perhaps it's because the regular cleric is so damn good that even tweaking it with a non-combat-focused archetype is weak by comparison.
It took me quite a while to say that the Priest was balanced against the Cleric, but I'd say the lessened combat effectiveness makes up for the improved spellcasting and healing abilities. As such, the Cloistered Cleric archetype definitely seems much worse, especially with the Diminished Spellcasting thing.
Actually it would be a very fine archetype if it wasn't for Diminished Spellcasting.
Shocking development: Cirno agrees with Gorbacz
Disappointed as well. I hoped for an option that moves away from martial combat and more towards magic. Instead the magic is diminished.
extra spell per spell level.
No, they don't.
Perhaps it's because the regular cleric is so damn good that even tweaking it with a non-combat-focused archetype is weak by comparison.Bingo.
The 3.5 version was a net gain. This one looks more appropriate.
Oh, I don't know: They lost medium armour, heavy armour, 1HP/level on average, the medium BAB turned into the poor one (which cost them +5 over the course of their career, and one of their attacks).
What they got was 3e bardic knowledge (not so hot), an extra domain (which is nice, but not that nice), 6+ skill points with an improved skill list (which is nice, but hardly something that turns you into a super power), and some extra spells on your list.
I'd call it a fair trade-off, not a net gain.
Using those changes in Pathfinder, would work well: The decreased BAB cannot even be fixed with divine power, so it's not so bad that bardic knowledge and the extra domain become more useful.
Well this is sad. Thankfully it's easy enough to port of the 3.5 cloistered cleric into Pathfinder, I'm thinking it's another example of the designers being overly cautious in the wrong areas or something. I want to know who thought the 'vow of poverty' was a good idea >.<
Someone be so kind as to post a link please? I might feel the need to expound once I read it :)
|
Shocking development: Cirno agrees with GorbaczActually it would be a very fine archetype if it wasn't for Diminished Spellcasting.
There there, it will be fine. TOZ went through that earlier on, and he's fine. Sometimes he still gets the twitch when we agree on something, but he made a full recovery.
Actually, I do agree with majority of crunch issues which you, TOZ, Kirth and Hogarth rise. I just don't give a flip because they don't affect me, my games or my players, for a whole host of reasons best discussed elsewhere.
|
|
Well this is sad. Thankfully it's easy enough to port of the 3.5 cloistered cleric into Pathfinder, I'm thinking it's another example of the designers being overly cautious in the wrong areas or something. I want to know who thought the 'vow of poverty' was a good idea >.<
My designer-sense is tingling, meaning it's likely SKR writing rules. *sigh*
Guy can't be beat when it comes to deities and fluff, but for Desna's sake, somebody keep his bald cap away from rules design!
Shocking development: Cirno agrees with GorbaczActually it would be a very fine archetype if it wasn't for Diminished Spellcasting.
There there, it will be fine. TOZ went through that earlier on, and he's fine. Sometimes he still gets the twitch when we agree on something, but he made a full recovery.
Actually, I do agree with majority of crunch issues which you, TOZ, Kirth and Hogarth rise. I just don't give a flip because they don't affect me, my games or my players, for a whole host of reasons best discussed elsewhere.
Now, where is the fun in that?
|
|
Now, where is the fun in that?Shocking development: Cirno agrees with GorbaczActually it would be a very fine archetype if it wasn't for Diminished Spellcasting.
There there, it will be fine. TOZ went through that earlier on, and he's fine. Sometimes he still gets the twitch when we agree on something, but he made a full recovery.
Actually, I do agree with majority of crunch issues which you, TOZ, Kirth and Hogarth rise. I just don't give a flip because they don't affect me, my games or my players, for a whole host of reasons best discussed elsewhere.
Yeah, I'm a killjoy. Goes with the avatar.
OK, found it on my own. Read through it. Disappointing.
The CC gains skill points, one feat, a bonus on knowledge skills, bonuses to a small subset of spells, and the ability to aid another better than others. In exchange, his combat ability has been downgraded and he has less magical power at his disposal, both in terms of variety (loss of a domain) and in terms of stamina (number of spells/day). This character had best hope he can aid people a lot, because he can't afford to be throwing spells around as often as other full spellcasting classes. An oracle with the Lore mystery gets different abilities, yet can remain a decent combatant.
Thematically, one domain? Knowledge would be an obvious choice, but now you don't touch any other domains, so there's a good bit of flavor loss there. A CC with Knowledge and Travel domains would have been flavored differently than one with Knowledge and Protection; the first would probably favor dispensation of information, the second focusing on keeping information safe. And that's one example. But now we have one. If it isn't Knowledge, that's fine, but flavor loss in other ways.
My designer-sense is tingling, meaning it's likely SKR writing rules. *sigh*Guy can't be beat when it comes to deities and fluff, but for Desna's sake, somebody keep his bald cap away from rules design!
That seems like a needless jab towards the people that are bringing you the game you play.
|
That seems like a needless jab towards the people that are bringing you the game you play.
My designer-sense is tingling, meaning it's likely SKR writing rules. *sigh*Guy can't be beat when it comes to deities and fluff, but for Desna's sake, somebody keep his bald cap away from rules design!
>_>
You should probably skip my posts then. Although they aren't bringing me the game I play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That seems like a needless jab towards the people that are bringing you the game you play.
My designer-sense is tingling, meaning it's likely SKR writing rules. *sigh*Guy can't be beat when it comes to deities and fluff, but for Desna's sake, somebody keep his bald cap away from rules design!
Nope, I'm a paying customer, I get to say what I want to pay for in the future. I think. Are we still in capitalism?
That seems like a needless jab towards the people that are bringing you the game you play.
My designer-sense is tingling, meaning it's likely SKR writing rules. *sigh*Guy can't be beat when it comes to deities and fluff, but for Desna's sake, somebody keep his bald cap away from rules design!
When SKR writes a long rant in another thread on how we should not expect the designers to give us fairly balanced content with the options we pay them for to design, then I tend to get grumpy.
|
|
When SKR writes a long rant in another thread on how we should not expect the designers to give us fairly balanced content with the options we pay them for to design, then I tend to get grumpy.
Have to share this Facebook bit.
Up late dealing with some facepalm-worthy message board posts. Time for bed.
Armchair designers are the best.
Good thing Paizo employs so many!
Nope, I'm a paying customer, I get to say what I want to pay for in the future. I think. Are we still in capitalism?That seems like a needless jab towards the people that are bringing you the game you play.
My designer-sense is tingling, meaning it's likely SKR writing rules. *sigh*Guy can't be beat when it comes to deities and fluff, but for Desna's sake, somebody keep his bald cap away from rules design!
I have to agree, at least up to a point, with the toothy bag. While I personally wouldn't have mentioned the baldness thing, there has been a trend lately in PFRPG products and other Pathfinder stuff of rules that were overnerfed. I don't know if SKR is responsible for them or not, but whoever is is not doing a very good job.
I don't agree that there should be obviously inferior choices just because they're flavourful.
I don't say there should be power-creep or choices that are obviously the best choice for all characters (not just for a certain subset of characters, like finesse-focused fighters or something like that).
But forcing players between choosing a boring but rules-wise adequate choice or a flavourful but inadequate one is just wrong. Why not have both choices be equal? Why force this stupid schism between optimisation and character depth?
I always say a good player knows how to combine those two things while overdoing neither.
I'm not saying that everything should be exactly the same on the power scale, down to a femto-whoopass. But no choice should feel like obviously inferior to the point where you have to decide between no power or no flavour. That sort of forceful separation is bad. Might as well support the Edition Wars. Or the RPG wars.
And finally, doing new books with inferior stuff is just reverse power-creep. It basically means that if you don't want to be branded as a powergaming munchkin, you have to buy those splatbooks and play a weirdo character.
Are we still in capitalism?
I wonder more about that every day.
SJ
When SKR writes a long rant in another thread on how we should not expect the designers to give us fairly balanced content with the options we pay them for to design, then I tend to get grumpy.Have to share this Facebook bit.
** spoiler omitted **
One reason why I don't do Facebook or Twitter. It's really easy at 3AM in the morning to post something snarky that makes you look like a spoiled moron. Just posting on the forums can do it, of course, but why add to all the ways I can make myself look like an idiot? It's like handing white lightning, fireworks, a box of handguns and a crate of bullets to a redneck family reunion. You just know something is going to go wrong with all that temptation.
EDIT : The above is not saying SKR is a spoiled moron, before someone get's their panties in a twist. I've just been seeing twitter feeds from a bunch of people (including idiots at Sony broadcasting their own key, spoiled little starlets in hollywood, etc) and various other bits of lunacy on facebook making the news a lot this year, and this just adds to the weight of evidence saying giving people a footgun is a bad idea.
I don't blame anyone at Paizo for erring on the side of under-powered. Do you know how many freaking threads get started that scream "POWER CR3EP! OMGBORKEN!" every time something new comes up? Remember Magus playtesting? What about the Ninja and Gunslinger? There are supporters, but the most vocal people on here are the ones that are paranoid about "power creep."
So yeah, they're afraid to make stuff that seems like it's gonna be as good as Core. And it's the forum's fault. They listen to us, whether we admit it or not.
Want balance? Advocate real playtesting when material is proposed, and don't let people lose their heads.
Not sure exactly where the post is, but at least one of the designers/developers (it might have been James Jacobs) specifically stated that it was not their goal for every class to be perfectly balanced - if that phrase even means anything.
I'm okay with that. If you run a campaign full of character optimization fiends, then you restrict the material.
If not, then it's okay that everone's not identially powerful - sometimes the roleplaying aspect of something is more important than the power level. Not true for everyone or every gaming group, but it definitely IS true for some people and some gaming groups.
So, please, do NOT make any attempt to have everything perfectly balanced. I've played the game that results from that design goal, and it feels flat after a while.
(afternote: in my mind "balance" is entirely dependent on context. Therefore it is 100% impossible to make things balanced without also defining who is playing, how they're playing, and what they're playing. In other words, I think it's kind of pointless. Not to say that things should be obviously broken, but I think "balance" is a myth.)
The problem here is they took an interesting concept, gave it rules that don't match the concept AND are mechanically inferior in every way compared to the base class. The 3.5 cloistered cleric was reasonably balanced and made sense thematically. You study in a cloister, you get the Knowledge Domain and some extra spells known and some skills related to languages and knowledges. You lose most of your combat ability in order to become more of a utility caster.
The PF version you give up some combat ability in order to umm, lose spellcasting ability.
The problem here is they took an interesting concept, gave it rules that don't match the concept AND are mechanically inferior in every way compared to the base class. The 3.5 cloistered cleric was reasonably balanced and made sense thematically. You study in a cloister, you get the Knowledge Domain and some extra spells known and some skills related to languages and knowledges. You lose most of your combat ability in order to become more of a utility caster.
The PF version you give up some combat ability in order to umm, lose spellcasting ability.
... and to live in or near a temple and get some knowledge-based abilities. Combined with the alternate channel/Knowledge ability, I think this is entirely reasonable.
No, this is not a class you take into the Citadel of the Death Lord to fight his undead armies - but nor is the uber-battlemaster cleric the one you take to research the sacred writings of the Lost God to find the location of the hidden temple of the ancients.
Seems fine to me; not sure what all the ruckus is.
The problem here is they took an interesting concept, gave it rules that don't match the concept AND are mechanically inferior in every way compared to the base class. The 3.5 cloistered cleric was reasonably balanced and made sense thematically. You study in a cloister, you get the Knowledge Domain and some extra spells known and some skills related to languages and knowledges. You lose most of your combat ability in order to become more of a utility caster.
The PF version you give up some combat ability in order to umm, lose spellcasting ability.
... and to live in or near a temple and get some knowledge-based abilities. Combined with the alternate channel/Knowledge ability, I think this is entirely reasonable.
No, this is not a class you take into the Citadel of the Death Lord to fight his undead armies - but nor is the uber-battlemaster cleric the one you take to research the sacred writings of the Lost God to find the location of the hidden temple of the ancients.
Seems fine to me; not sure what all the ruckus is.
Sean has designed the best archetype. Period. This class is obviously amazing, and you guys all suck.
Whenever I play a cleric, I ALWAYS think to myself "You know, I really wish I could play a 3.5 bard, but more useless!" And, with the cloistered cleric variant, now I can live out my fantasies of being a cleric AND a fifth wheel!
Thanks for fulfilling my dreams, Sean!
|
|
No, this is not a class you take into the Citadel of the Death Lord to fight his undead armies - but nor is the uber-battlemaster cleric the one you take to research the sacred writings of the Lost God to find the location of the hidden temple of the ancients.
Seems fine to me; not sure what all the ruckus is.
I agree, I like the Archetype, even if it seems a little underpowered.
The only thing I would consider changing (to up power the class) would be giving it something to focus on keeping his Wis as his prime stat and eliminate secondary need to have a high Int which is needed for skill based character. He should be a useful support guy and could be a good fit for most town/monastary type clerics or priests. Just needs a few minor adjustments.
I can see how they thought the 3.5 version was overpowered, or skewed to ´powergamers´.
I think a better approach would have been granting the Knowledge Domain like 3.5
(perhaps not even as an EXTRA 3rd Domain, but simply REQUIRING it or a Sub-Domain)
and saying you gain an extra spell-slot that is automatically ´filled´ from the Knowledge Domain Domain Spell.
NOT a free-floating spell slot for whatever, but only for the thematically appropriate spells.
I feel like that would have struck a balance between both sides here, that while everybody might not think it´s IDEAL for their play-style or preferences or whatever, it is still a respectable Archetype.
The only thing I would consider changing (to up power the class) would be giving it something to focus on keeping his Wis as his prime stat and eliminate secondary need to have a high Int which is needed for skill based character.
He does get more skill points, and has Bardic Knowledge applying to the Knowledge skills.
Seems fine to me on that count.Otherwise, they might as well make an INT-based Cleric Variant, which is not what they wanted apparently.
I like it, with a few changes {Low BAB,d6 HD, No armor, same weapons as the wizard and 6/skills per level} This will be replacing the normal cleric for my home games I think.
I do agree with Sean, the cleric is to damned good.
|
|
I don't think this archetype is garbage or useless, but I do think for being a weakened cleric it's spread out a little thin/Int dependent
Here is one fix suggestion (to get ripped apart):
Meditative Study: (1st level) The cloistered cleric may use his Wisdom bonus instead of his Intelligence for determining his bonus skill points gained per level (starting at first). Also the cloistered cleric can choose to use his Wisdom modifier instead of Intelligence for skills that are normally modified by Int. This is in addition to any bonuses gained from the Breadth of Knowledge class ability.
In addition the cloistered cleric uses his Wisdom modifier instead of his Intelligence when determining bonus languages.
Anyway, that is how I am thinking about running it.
I think if they'd called it a Theologian, or Theocracist, or anything other than Cloistered Cleric, then this would all be a null zero argument.
The problem is they used a name of a very popular variant from 3.5, and changed the way it works 90 degrees.
|
I don't blame anyone at Paizo for erring on the side of under-powered. Do you know how many freaking threads get started that scream "POWER CR3EP! OMGBORKEN!" every time something new comes up? Remember Magus playtesting? What about the Ninja and Gunslinger? There are supporters, but the most vocal people on here are the ones that are paranoid about "power creep."
So yeah, they're afraid to make stuff that seems like it's gonna be as good as Core. And it's the forum's fault. They listen to us, whether we admit it or not.
Want balance? Advocate real playtesting when material is proposed, and don't let people lose their heads.
+1, nay, +1,000 to this.
I think if they'd called it a Theologian, or Theocracist, or anything other than Cloistered Cleric, then this would all be a null zero argument.
The problem is they used a name of a very popular variant from 3.5, and changed the way it works 90 degrees.
That probably is indeed the nature of this tea-pot.
I think if they'd called it a Theologian, or Theocracist, or anything other than Cloistered Cleric, then this would all be a null zero argument.
The problem is they used a name of a very popular variant from 3.5, and changed the way it works 90 degrees.
We've continued to use the 3.5 Cloistered Cleric in Pathfinder for years and it works just fine.
When SKR writes a long rant in another thread on how we should not expect the designers to give us fairly balanced content with the options we pay them for to design, then I tend to get grumpy.
I also 'pay them for' content (if that really needs to be emphasized), and I have to say that I agree with every word of his 'rant', most especially the last sentence.
That probably is indeed the nature of this tea-pot.I think if they'd called it a Theologian, or Theocracist, or anything other than Cloistered Cleric, then this would all be a null zero argument.
The problem is they used a name of a very popular variant from 3.5, and changed the way it works 90 degrees.
/concur
|
|
I don't blame anyone at Paizo for erring on the side of under-powered. Do you know how many freaking threads get started that scream "POWER CR3EP! OMGBORKEN!" every time something new comes up? Remember Magus playtesting? What about the Ninja and Gunslinger? There are supporters, but the most vocal people on here are the ones that are paranoid about "power creep."
So yeah, they're afraid to make stuff that seems like it's gonna be as good as Core. And it's the forum's fault. They listen to us, whether we admit it or not.
Want balance? Advocate real playtesting when material is proposed, and don't let people lose their heads.
Yes, there is a fine line between making stuff OP and making stuff interesting and usable.
There is a trend in Pathfinder as of late that is making stuff so poor mechanically that it can not be used for its intended role. The cloistered cleric / vow of poverty are simply such poor choices that can not fill a role / work in most games. Therefore, the material is not worth much for the majority of the consumers.