To me there is no logic in giving divine spells a failure chance to one class without giving all divine spells a spell failure chance.
You're talking about divinity. Logic isn't strictly necessary. ;)
As it stands, I agree that the Cleric shouldn't suffer spell failure chance. However, for a strict cloth divine caster I sort of like the idea. And it could be justified like this:
The divine Priests (or whatever you might want to call them) of the majority of the gods demand that their agents have faith in them to protect them; wearing armor shows a lack of faith in their deity's ability to defend them against harm, and thus incurs a spell failure chance identical to that of an arcane caster wearing armor.
It doesn't really logically follow that you'd have to make no divine spellcaster able to cast in armor just because you make one divine spellcaster who doesn't cast in armor. That's not really how logic works.I'm saying that divine magic as a whole, as a rule doesn't ever incur a spell failure chance from casting in armor. If you want to break that rule you are rewriting how divine magic works in general. If you add the spell failure chance to the cleric, I see it as adding it to all divine magic. Now you could just say that the other classes get feats that are similar to Arcane Armor Training and Mastery, but the Paladin would for example get a version that reduces it to 0% in heavy armor, the Ranger would get a version that reduces it to 0% in medium (but still has some chance if they wear heavy), but then what do you do about the Druid? He's a full caster like the Cleric. if the Cleric incurs full failure chance, shouldn't the Druid?
To me there is no logic in giving divine spells a failure chance to one class without giving all divine spells a spell failure chance.
You can certainly say that, but it's not correct to do so. Deciding that one specific case has additional rules is not the same as changing the rules for an entire category. Your problem is entirely illusory.
|
I think the proper counter would be why would the embodiment of divine magic derived from a deity be posed to suffer SFC while others who are secondary at best in their divine magic capabilities not suffer the same penalty?
I see no reason to nerf the cleric class with SFC. The class is already relegated to a secondary tier as far as most players are concerned (mainly due to the class being seen as nothing more than a healbot). Removing armor, adding SFC, etc. does nothing to improve the class at all.
Whether the class has any analogy to the real world is irrelevant, truth be told. There is no real world analogy to many of the archetypes that have come out. Should these all be nerfed or axed as well? This is a game based in fantasy. And if there is no solid analogy in fantasy literature for the class with all it's abilities and proficiencies, so what? There is no prerequisite for any content to have previously existed in the real world or in literature in order to be included in the core rule set.
Having the cleric class poses no issues, just as having the inquisitor class be added to the roster poses not issues. Their presence just increases the options for players to build the PC they want to play. I personally view this as a positive thing.
Want to play a cleric that refuses to wear armor? No problem, just don't try to force everyone else who wants to play a cleric to follow the same path. Want to ban the cleric class? Sure, go right ahead for your home game, but don't try to force everyone to follow your lead.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can certainly say that, but it's not correct to do so. Deciding that one specific case has additional rules is not the same as changing the rules for an entire category. Your problem is entirely illusory.
It is not an illusory problem. Making a rules change without in-world rationale is poor design. Making a divine caster that is solely focused on casting incur a spell failure similar to arcane magic is counter-intuitive. You are adding Divine Spell Failure, in fact. You would be better following existing guidelines by making the priest lose all spell-casting ability when wearing armor due to religious prohibitions, ala the druid and metal armor.
I think the proper counter would be why would the embodiment of divine magic derived from a deity be posed to suffer SFC while others who are secondary at best in their divine magic capabilities not suffer the same penalty?
This was basically my point, though it seems I failed to express it in a way that conveyed the same point.
You'd have to come up with a damned good reason for one divine class to suffer a Spell Failure Chance (especially when that class is the Cleric which is THE divine spell caster class) without all of them suffering it.
Edit: Now, as TOZ suggests, if you want to says as part of their training and heritage they are prevented from wearing any armor due to religious belief similar to the Druid losing his ability in metal armor then I might be able to go along with it. Ultimately, though I just see this pushing more people to play a Druid instead of Cleirc or "Priest".
Those counters do make a lot more sense, and that would be the issue that would need to be handled there. It's not really the approach I'd prefer anyway; it's a little clunky. What I'd rather do is give this theoretical robed divine caster class features that benefit from being unarmored or lightly armored, or just not give them proficiency in armor at base to begin with.
But while I would definitely like to see this 'priest' type myself, I agree that there's no reason to get rid of the old one, since it's not as if having more classes is a /bad/ thing. And you would definitely want to replace the combat utility with something. Either some offensive options in the spell list, some kind of buffing features akin to the bard's, or an expansion on some of the special abilities in domains.
More skills might also go a long way for it. The cleric isn't exactly weak as it stands, so weakening it isn't a problem for me--the issue is mostly that the cleric is already light on interesting abilities, so removing the 'boring but useful' decent BAB and armor exacerbates that further.
Clerics still rock. Inquis and Oracle have raided the same wheel house as cerics but they still have a place. I tend to think of them like chaplains in the modern military. They still have battle training but they also minister to the flock that the diety brings their way.
I play a cleric in PFS who's 7th level, now. He's always welcome, and in certain scenarios, he dominates play.
I think PF clerics are the best, yet. Channeling is a godsend when the chips are down, and between his spells and his decent martial ability, every round is a chance to contribute in some way.
Clerics can keep a party going like no other class, and I like that the other divine classes have their own flavors in doing the same, but usually not as well, or in the same fashion.
Go ahead and make a "white wizard". But don't change the cleric or oracle. Well fix the oracle's curses.
|
How about we just let the people who want to play Clerics do so?
Is it really necessary to try to change every rule just because there is some character class that you don't know how to play effectively.
However, if your Cleric character concept is defined by "talks in church on holy days", he probably shouldn't be wandering around during the week actively fighting evil.
I think the fact that you can't min/max the Cleric class turns a lot of people off of it. You have to be MAD to be good at what the Cleric can do. Most of the other Divine casters have the same sort of problem. You need to diversify to be effective at any of them, meaning you usually need multiple "good" stats to make the most of the Divine character's class abilties. Multiple good stats means you can't go with one "great" stat and make the character work.
Combat is only half of the game, and some people don't like that half. You can't judge in-game effectivenss by combat effectiveness alone.
How about this:
We get rid of all of the character classes except the wizard, the fighter and the rogue. Require all fighters to have STR 18+, all wizards to have INT 18+, and all Rogues to have DEX 18+. That way everybody can play a min/max character snd everybody will be able to participate in combat in a "useful" way.
Hope you don't run into any undead, or have to talk to any NPCs to find out where the local monsters hang out. But, hey, who needs non-combat scenes anyway, they just slow down the game.
How about we just let the people who want to play Clerics do so?
Is it really necessary to try to change every rule just because there is some character class that you don't know how to play effectively.
However, if your Cleric character concept is defined by "talks in church on holy days", he probably shouldn't be wandering around during the week actively fighting evil.
I think the fact that you can't min/max the Cleric class turns a lot of people off of it. You have to be MAD to be good at what the Cleric can do. Most of the other Divine casters have the same sort of problem. You need to diversify to be effective at any of them, meaning you usually need multiple "good" stats to make the most of the Divine character's class abilties. Multiple good stats means you can't go with one "great" stat and make the character work.
Combat is only half of the game, and some people don't like that half. You can't judge in-game effectivenss by combat effectiveness alone.
How about this:
We get rid of all of the character classes except the wizard, the fighter and the rogue. Require all fighters to have STR 18+, all wizards to have INT 18+, and all Rogues to have DEX 18+. That way everybody can play a min/max character snd everybody will be able to participate in combat in a "useful" way.
Hope you don't run into any undead, or have to talk to any NPCs to find out where the local monsters hang out. But, hey, who needs non-combat scenes anyway, they just slow down the game.
Was anyone even saying anything remotely like the position you're arguing against?
My point, not intending to just pick a fight, is that the "templar/crusader" cooked up by Arneson and Gygax, which has a parallel in one culture, perhaps, and which in roleplaying terms is supplanted by the paladin, is an artifact of a game which was blatantly set in medieval europe.
When you look for clerics in pop culture, movies and even Dragonlance and D&D novels, you find priests. Men and women in robes with staves and holy symbols making miracles and healing in the name of said god. You don't find a cleric.
Imagine, for a second, if you made the core cleric have only light armour, a lower BAB and more flavour powers, whether based on domain or stemming from chanelling, or preferably both.
Then create a "war-priest" archetype that gave all the "core cleric" stuff to the class in exchange for fewer flavour powers.
Suddenly, you have a class that tastes like Elrond, Crysiana or Chiron, and you can still offer the old school version in the archetype.
Is this madness?
|
|
My point, not intending to just pick a fight, is that the "templar/crusader" cooked up by Arneson and Gygax, which has a parallel in one culture, perhaps, and which in roleplaying terms is supplanted by the paladin, is an artifact of a game which was blatantly set in medieval europe.
When you look for clerics in pop culture, movies and even Dragonlance and D&D novels, you find priests. Men and women in robes with staves and holy symbols making miracles and healing in the name of said god. You don't find a cleric.
Imagine, for a second, if you made the core cleric have only light armour, a lower BAB and more flavour powers, whether based on domain or stemming from chanelling, or preferably both.
Then create a "war-priest" archetype that gave all the "core cleric" stuff to the class in exchange for fewer flavour powers.
Suddenly, you have a class that tastes like Elrond, Crysiana or Chiron, and you can still offer the old school version in the archetype.
Is this madness?
Ah, so you are looking to pick a fight (as well as make your point). ;)
I said it earlier, and I will say it again. There is no requirement that you be able to find any given class or archetype in real life history or fiction for it to exist in game. This seems to be your biggest point of contention with the class and then you go on to say ( in essence) "let's nerf the class and create an archetype to fill the role the class currently fills".
Madness? Quite so. It would be better suited to take a class that has existed in the game for OVER THIRTY FIVE YEARS (which should be considered if you are looking to fantasy literature as well) and leave it be and simply create an archetype that fits the feel you seem to think is missing.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Tangental.
I think it would be interesting to see a game world where there are four tiers.
Full Arcane - Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer, etc.
Half Arcane - Bard, Magus, etc.
Full Divine - Robed cleric, druid (give them light armor, poor BAB/HP, I like TOZ's idea on oath against armor kind of like druids)
Half Divine - Inquisitor, etc.
I personally prefer Inquisitors over Clerics, but that's play style.
Ah, so you are looking to pick a fight (as well as make your point). ;)I said it earlier, and I will say it again. There is no requirement that you be able to find any given class or archetype in real life history or fiction for it to exist in game. This seems to be your biggest point of contention with the class and then you go on to say ( in essence) "let's nerf the class and create an archetype to fill the role the class currently fills".
Madness? Quite so. It would be better suited to take a class that has existed in the game for OVER THIRTY FIVE YEARS (which should be considered if you are looking to fantasy literature as well) and leave it be and simply create an archetype that fits the feel you seem to think is missing.
I am not saying "let's nerf it", I'm saying lets give it more magic and less martial, which some may argue would buff it.
You are correct in assuming that my major bone of contention is it's lack of examples in history or fantasy: it's a hard class to point to exemplars. When a class can't do that, it's doing something wrong. In the realms of Faerun, Ansalon, Middle Earth and Golarian, the clerics of note aren't really portrayed the way the class is built. In TSR and Wizards and Paizo's literature, as well as much of the source literature, Bishop Odo isn't really popular. This is a problem.
Even without major optimization, the build points itself to a low dex, low int MAD character who, because of the low dex, is probably wearing the heaviest armour (breastplate or chainmail) they can afford and is playing a tank/heal monkey. This is one of the reasons the class is so unpopular, because the default clerics job is to soak damage.
Were you to offer the class less MAD dependancy and more CHA and WIS based powers, you offer more tactical flexibility AND you portray holy adventurers closer to the exemplars throughout fantasy literature. With 4 divine classes now, the role of the cleric deserves to be examined, I feel, and I find the mechanics lacking compared to the narrative archetypes.