Both are very powerful, but is Arcane so much more powerful that it justifies d6 vs d8 hp, a lower BAB progression, and the inability to cast while wearing armor?
I would argue no. Especially at higher levels.
Lets compare Wish to Miracle just as an example.
Depending on the GM, they're basically the same spell. However Wish ALWAYS costs 25,000 GP, whereas Miracle suggests you can cast it and duplicate almost any lower level spell - Arcane and Divine - without any material cost.
Lets look at some level 8 spells too though since this and level 9 are the levels a Cleric can't duplicate with no spell component cost. Both sides can learn StormBolts - a powerful blast spell that already has selective spell built into it and has an AOE stun attached to it - except that the Cleric or Oracle has more HP to be in the fray to use it.
Both can learn earthquake, which has many applications for battlefield control.
What don't the Clerics get? Well, they don't get Horrid Wilting - which has the advantage of not having a damage type compared to Stormbolts - but is this worth giving up armor?
They don't get Maze - a powerful CC that gives no saving throw. They do get Dimensional Lock that completely counters that spell though. Knocking the enemy out for a round with no saving throw (but is subject to spell resistance) is nice, but is it worth giving up an extra HP per level?
They don't get Polymorph any Object, which still has the broken potential that it had in 3.5 based on the description, but how often can you use it? Is it worth giving up better BAB progression?
On top of this, with the right domains or mysteries, you can have access to some of the key arcane spells, including Time Stop and Contingency.
There's a lot of overlap with divine magic that kind of diminishes the Sorcerer and the Wizard I think, at least at later levels.
I think you're starting the comparison at the top of the totem pole when you should be starting at the bottom.
A lot of groups aren't ever going to get to 8th level spells, and I'd wager most groups won't get to 9th level ones at all.
Compare 1st-5th level spells and you'll really notice a difference in offensive potential.
|
And by the top levels... not being able to wear armor, having lower hit points (when you're using insta-overkill spells anyway), and having a low BAB (when your serious attacks are touch, or don't rely on BAB, and you don't waste time with mere physical weapons anyway)-- really isn't such a disability.
Also, IMO (though I realize a lot of people around here may disagree with me)-- there's enough difference in flavor and capabilities to justify keeping both Arcane and Divine magic in the game; and beyond that, I feel that you should be more worried about character concept and can you have fun with the character you've chosen, not about which character type is "more powerful". Even at that-- I think "power" has a lot more to do with how you well you play your character, than with "counting up the numbers" to try analyze the mechanics involved-- especially if your definition of "power" boils down to how effective you're able to be in game.
I still support and use the 3.5 spellcaster rules. So, d4 for wizards and sorcerers, none of extras that pathfinder gives, for clerics, no channel energy until the latter level spell from which it came from, no bloodline abilities--your spellcasting comes from "the bloodline".
Works out just fine, and less ability bloat. Also means none of the paizo alchemist class, hells yeah!
At lower levels get their devastating self buffs and group stuff like prayer and blessing of fervor. Wizards have a bit of a battlefield control edge, but this is now offset by the ability of clerics to get standard action summons. Wizards blast better. Clerics perform the critical functions of removing negative levels and stat drain and curing disease and poison. I'd rather live without blasting.
You're not playing a very good Wizard if all he does is blast.
At lower levels get their devastating self buffs and group stuff like prayer and blessing of fervor. Wizards have a bit of a battlefield control edge, but this is now offset by the ability of clerics to get standard action summons. Wizards blast better. Clerics perform the critical functions of removing negative levels and stat drain and curing disease and poison. I'd rather live without blasting.You're not playing a very good Wizard if all he does is blast.
I didn't want to be the first to say it. :)
In my games there's also the fact if a wizard casts a spell it goes off, if a cleric prays for aid (spell) there's always the possibility their god will say "no".
Ha! That's kind of funny. So even if they haven't breached their alignment or offended the faith, their spells might not work?
If the cleric gets shirty and pissed at the faultiness of the connection (please contact your ISP) does the god send celestial spanking teams? Hit squads if the cleric dares to leave the faith? I'm just fascinated.
|
|
I dont think the wizard or sorcerer needs any "beefing " up.
Personally i would like to draw a correlation between Base attack bonus, Hit dice, and spell casting ability.
Good +1 base attack bonus- d10 hit points- spell casting of paladin or ranger
medium +3/4 base attack bonus-d10 hit points- Spell casting of bard.
Poor +1/2 base attack bonus- D6 hit points-full spell casting of sorcerer/ wizard
I found it interesting that when Paizo was developing several new classes namely the Alchemist, the Inquisitor, the Magus, and the Summonier, they chose to give these character classes the Bard spell casting progression.
If anything I would prefer to see this change- the Cleric Druid Oracle, if they have +3/4 Base attack bonus, and D8 hit points, then they should have the Bard's spell casting progression.
If you want a full spell casting for your Cleric Druid and Oracle, then in order to line up with all the other classes in the game, you need to have a +1/2 base attack bonus and d6 hit points to get the full spell casting ability.
I don't think the wizard or sorcerer lack for much of anything.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games there's also the fact if a wizard casts a spell it goes off, if a cleric prays for aid (spell) there's always the possibility their god will say "no".Ha! That's kind of funny. So even if they haven't breached their alignment or offended the faith, their spells might not work?
If the cleric gets shirty and pissed at the faultiness of the connection (please contact your ISP) does the god send celestial spanking teams? Hit squads if the cleric dares to leave the faith? I'm just fascinated.
In my games? The power can send any spell it damn well pleases. Normally it's going to send the ones the cleric asks for. Sometimes it might not.
Possible reasons would include:
- Cleric is abusing spells violating the deity's flavour. (2e game, cleric of Mayaheine using continual light to permanently blind foes, started getting remove blindness shipped to him instead.)
- Power knows (hey, it's a god) something coming up and wants to give his cleric a heads up. (Party thinks they're white dragon hunting and it's an albino red. His request for flame strike is replaced by something else.
- ThorPrayer
- Job. Power may be 'testing' the cleric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you propose screwing over the Cleric in a very mean-spirited way, and usually when he really doesn't deserve it?
Wizard spells are generally much more powerful than Cleric spells. On a previous post I did a run down of just 9th level spells ( it can be seen here). The Wizard came out way ahead.
You don't even have to look at 9th level spells to see this. Just take Blindness/Deafness. Blindness is a devastating condition, it pretty much takes you completely out of game. B/D is a permanent affect. That means that you are Blind until you can find a Cleric to caste Remove Blindness/Deafness.
Both Wizards and Clerics get B/D, but it's a 2nd level Wizard spell and a 3rd level Cleric spell so is Remove. So I can permanently blind you at level 3 and you have to find a level 5 caster to remove it. A 5th level spell can be very expensive for a 3rd level party. Not to mention the fact that you have to be in a city that is large enough to even have a 5th level cleric.
So you propose screwing over the Cleric in a very mean-spirited way, and usually when he really doesn't deserve it?
A divine spells come with strings attached. That makes them inherently inferior to arcane spells. How "mean spirited" you want to be about reminding the player about that is up to the DM, but it is spelled out pretty clearly in the rules for ex-clerics. If a DM wants to warn a player they are close to pissing their diety off by jacking with their spell casting, then they are actually being nice. Nothing in the rules says that a DM has to warn the cleric. Some dieties, the first warning you get will be a demonic assassin knocking on your door while you are trying to figure out why your spells are not working.
What are the rules for being an ex-wizard?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is an area where there's enough clear data points from actual experience that we don't need theorycrafting. A significant portion - maybe even a majority - of campaigns have a full arcane caster and a full divine caster. Like anything else, they can vary in power with the player's system mastery, choices, and optimization preferences, but the body of evidence suggests that arcane casters, despite the smaller hit die and BAB, are probably a hair better, but both wizards and clerics are very strong classes. Suggestions that clerics/druids should have bard-style spellcasting because they have d8 HD and 3/4 BAB are completely baffling, since anyone whose actually played the game instead of just looking at charts and trying to make the numbers look pretty knows that they're fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still support and use the 3.5 spellcaster rules. So, d4 for wizards and sorcerers, none of extras that pathfinder gives, for clerics, no channel energy until the latter level spell from which it came from, no bloodline abilities--your spellcasting comes from "the bloodline".
Works out just fine, and less ability bloat. Also means none of the paizo alchemist class, hells yeah!
I love the alchemist though. -tear-
So you propose screwing over the Cleric in a very mean-spirited way, and usually when he really doesn't deserve it?A divine spells come with strings attached. That makes them inherently inferior to arcane spells. How "mean spirited" you want to be about reminding the player about that is up to the DM, but it is spelled out pretty clearly in the rules for ex-clerics. If a DM wants to warn a player they are close to pissing their diety off by jacking with their spell casting, then they are actually being nice. Nothing in the rules says that a DM has to warn the cleric. Some dieties, the first warning you get will be a demonic assassin knocking on your door while you are trying to figure out why your spells are not working.
What are the rules for being an ex-wizard?
I prefer to give warnings or, get inventive rather than just take spells away. In one game that involved lizardmen, the party north west of Sargava found a LG city of lizardfolk. They helped them out in parts, and the party did have a good cleric. The cleric didn't get on so well with the lizards, even though this pretty ordered, disciplined and safe society was the same alignment as the clerics god, cleric was NG. Which he would use as a justification to aid CE.
Anyway, the cleric split from the party, found some chuul like creatures, and really diplomed them and offered to help the chuuls. He hadn't got on well with the lizardfolk. So back he went to the nest, while the rest of the party worked with the lizardmen. The cleric goes native, provides food for the hive (which isn't acting really evil at this stage, it was building up to take the lizards). Comes to understand and support the chuuls. He didn't nestle the eggs in his body, but he did feed the young.
Later they attack the lizardfolk, with a new batch of soldiers recently bred and fed (thanks cleric). They end up eating the LG populace while the lizardfolk army is away chasing the chuuls in the jungle. Cleric doesn't help anymore, but doesn't hinder. Other chap doesn't kill the cleric either. End result? Cleric gets a warning, some painful dreams aaaaaaand a celestial flaming lion comes down to give more attention to this wayward cleric. Gives harder missions of redemption, explains he turned against the teachings. Cleric later died in a pyramid from a summoning trap, unredeemed, and he even refused being raised. The faith was not happy, he would have got a bad afterlife, but I didn't take his spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me negating or getting other cleric spells instead of the ones asked is a jerk move on the part of the DM, it takes away the sense of freedom a character might possess, more aggravated if the dm is actually railroading people around.
I'm not really for screwing with my players either. I have better things to be doing as a GM rather than exerting my non-existent power over their heads.
Liam why not just play an oracle in your games, assuming they are allowed.
I was asking why shouldn't a player just use an oracle instead if you are the GM.
Oracles are spontaneous casters, so they have a limited number of spells known that never changes and that they don't need to prepare. So I think wraith's wondering how you'd deal with Oracles since they don't ask the gods for spells every day (and why a player shouldn't play an Oracle so he has full control over his spells).
Johnico is spot on.
They are in the APG.
If the god gets involved in the PC's life, why does the PC need to fix things? Why can't the god do it himself/
This. So much this.
... since anyone whose actually played the game instead of just looking at charts and trying to make the numbers look pretty knows that they're fine.
This is one of the best statements I've seen on these boards. I see so many "statements of fact" based on spreadsheets and numbers rather than real game experience it's baffling. I'm not even going to get into the munchkin/exploit the rules cheese builds I've seen. Obviously we all play the game a different way, but a lot of this stuff is just bogus.
Clerics and Wizards are fine, especially wizards
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the god gets involved in the PC's life, why does the PC need to fix things? Why can't the god do it himself/This. So much this.1) the god normally has more important things to do but your one of their "children" and they take a little more interest in you than they normally wood
2) when you became a priest you invited them to meddle and use you as a blunt instrument against those who don't worship them. However this is the limits of their involvement as ancient pacts proscribed direct involvement as it would in large portions of theaterial world destroyed by gods.
3) your channeling some of their power even if its only a small amount so they keep an eye on how its used but have little care what else you do as long as you obey their laws since your an insect to them.
Shall I go on?
No, not really, because I honestly don't care about the fluff reasons you have for screwing clerics out of their choices. One can make fluff for anything, to justify anything, at any time.
I'll go on using what the game entails, knowing well and good I'm not playing in your game so it doesn't matter beyond my sheer shock at it; with the pre-knowledge that if I was to ever by matter of misfortune end up in your game to not play a Cleric because the GM like screwing with them and making them prepare spells that the GM wants, when they are supposed to be able to prepare any spell except for X spells, where X spells are those contrast to their deity.