WHy do druids and clerics get special treatment?

[Gorbacz]

The major problem with the Cleric was that he was able to replace Fighter and Paladin easily. In Pathfinder, this was toned down by removing heavy armor proficiency and nerfing the holy trifecta.

The major problem with the Druid was Wildshape, and Pathfinder addressed this as well by nerfing Wildshape major time.

I doubt that any of these two classes needs any further changes.

 

[IronWolf]

What I'm going for is more of a weighing of the pros and cons of nerfing druid and cleric (maybe oracle too). by either lowering bab/hd/armor proficiencies, or lowering their casting to that of the summoner, and then offering both options seperately.

Given option one of lowering bab/hd/armor(clerics already lost heavy armor prof.), what is the cleric supposed to do? They have a couple of offensive powered spells, but nothing very flashy - especially at the low levels. With no bab, lesser hd and even less armor they will be left casting buff spells, hiding from combat and healing the party. That doesn't sound like a very fun character to play.

I've played several clerics in 3.5 and am playing one now in a Pathfinder game. From the playability standpoint it is much more fun to be able to wade into some combat to help out, cast a buff spell or two here or there to help the party and then have some healing to help out. If I could only stand on the sidelines and cast a low-level buff spell and heal other party members a cleric would lose a lot of the fun factor.

Wizards and Sorcerers get to make things go boom. So they can stand back and as their levels increase their spells are much beyond giving people a +1 to hit and more like I am going to incinerate this large area.

As for lowering the spell progression, I think that is going to have some unintended consequences. Certain adventures and modules will assume if you have a party level of 5th level that the party will have relatively ready access to some of the remove spells or the increased healing of cure serious.

The alternative that I also think would be worth weighing the pros and cons of would be considering the ramifications of upping everyone to d8s with light armor proficiency, and dropping the bad bab entirely. (I dont think this is the way to go for the record, but it raises the question, why does that spellcasting class get it when this one doesnt? I'm not sure I'm convinced the cleric spell list is so terribly inferior to the wizard list.)

Really? The wizard spell list seems to be much more spectacular. The cleric has a wealth of spells they can prepare on any given day, but they are relatively niche oriented. Some buff spells (for party or self), some remove/cure spells and some offensive spells, several of which are of much reduced area than a comparable wizard's skill - flame strike, I am looking at you. So while cleric spells certain have their place, from the offensive standpoint I think the wizard is a bit better off.

The wizard is also often called the supreme class and blamed for stealing the spotlight as the levels increase. Not sure increasing their bab and armor proficiencies are going to help that.

.... I mean, there is a reason people frequently cite these two classes as the most powerful in the game-that to me means we either start using them as the measuring stick and raise anything up until it's as good as these are, or we tone them back until they're on par with the other classes more.

Has anyone played a higher level Pathfinder game to actually weigh in on the power balance with the changes Pathfinder has already made? I know we've had discussions on how the classes were abused in the past, but often these were followed with "this was never a problem in my game".

I hate to see the game rules being tweaked to prevent abuse by only 5% of the games out there (yeah, I made that number up) when the RAW are working well for the remaining people.

 

[BryonD]

and to a lesser extent, seen clerics do the same. "I worship the god of war. I don't take healing spells."

This seems an odd comment since clerics don't take healing spells in 3X thanks to spontaneous casting.

If you are playing negative energy guys, then it make sense and the issue goes away. And a negative energy badass cleric character could be cool and effective, but I don't think any moreso than a fighter in PF.

 

[Kaisoku]

A lot of divine spells are touch range based, or single target ranged. Only at the really high levels do they get into area stuff, and even then, it's rather restrictive (unlike wizard's toolbox).

What you might be thinking of is a cloistered cleric.
Basically, take away the combat abilities, bump up the range and targets of their spells (curing at a distance, etc), give him a few extra spells in the utility fashion, and possibly more skills or a lore based ability.

With spellcasting that favours keeping at range, and non-combat focused abilities, he doesn't need the BAB, HD or armor and weapon proficiencies.

But that just emphasizes why the current Cleric does need those things... his spell list is tailored to this need for combat-focus.

 

[Sylrae]

My comparison was brought on by the summoner. in very many ways, the druid is the existing analog for this guy. arguably you could make a summoner by refluffing the druid, giving a different list of same-cr animal companions and switching up the spell list a bit, and he'd be tougher/better in many ways. that had me start wondering why the c&d get to be all touigh and get thhe 9th level spells.

This seems an odd comment since clerics don't take healing spells in 3X thanks to spontaneous casting.

If you are playing negative energy guys, then it make sense and the issue goes away. And a negative energy badass cleric character could be cool and effective, but I don't think any moreso than a fighter in PF.

I was saying they choose inflict as their spontaneuous, channel negative energy, and then don't bother taking the cure spells.

IronWolf, what if that reduced spellcasting didn't slow down the cleric's access to healing/remove/raise dead type spells?(like the summoner's access to summon monster planar ally, and gate > because that's the way I was thinking of handling it. They'd get them at lower levels.)

Really? The wizard spell list seems to be much more spectacular. The cleric has a wealth of spells they can prepare on any given day, but they are relatively niche oriented. Some buff spells (for party or self), some remove/cure spells and some offensive spells, several of which are of much reduced area than a comparable wizard's skill - flame strike, I am looking at you. So while cleric spells certain have their place, from the offensive standpoint I think the wizard is a bit better off.

I can sortof see your point when I look through the cleric list in the PF Core book. they dont have the same *number* of spells. as soon as I look at the APG, or I imagine many other splats, paizo or wotc, they start doing the same sorts of ranged damage and whatnot as the wizard.

I don't plan on disallowing the splats, and I dont mind them having a similar array of spells as a wizard, but as above, if they're going to have that array maybe they should be toned back in some of their casting outside their niche. (If I were to reduce the list to 6 spell levels from *ONLY PFcore, they'd lose a couple spells known, but a large majority of the things on the cleric list would get renumbered. and they'd have less spells per day.)hmm.

If I do up a list I'll put it up here for critique.

Has anyone done a cloistered cleric variant for Pathfinder? Maybe that's what I'm looking for.
Make cloistered Cleric + Cloistered Druid the defaults.

 

[gamerprinter]

I have a player using the Summoner class, and though it might be he plays it too well - the armies of elementals he creates I think make it overpowered - now I haven't seen the final version in the APG, we're currently still using the Beta. But I don't see the Summoner as a baseline to take Clerics and Druids in a similar direction, I'd rather see the Summoner gone from the class lists altogether (but I am sure we'll keep it, just it won't be my favorite class from a DMs point of view.)

So now better understanding your design direction regarding this subject, I don't know how to help you, since your intended direction is 180 degrees opposite from where I'd go.

Summoner to me is just an odd new class, like the Cavalier, something I don't want to see other classes follow in style or direction.

GP

 

[Kaisoku]

Well, Unearthed Arcana had a Cloistered Cleric class variant (I guess, similar to how Pathfinder does Archetypes).
It's OGC, so you can click that link to see it.

I think they went with "knowledge focused" for their non-combat focus, so their class skills, lore ability, and spell/domain choices were based around that.

I'd maybe remove the domain thing, and expand the spell list a bit to get a little more utility, and the bonus that they can cast cure/inflict spells at a range of "close", to make them a little more universal in application.
Edit: Oh! And change the extra class skills to be more based on the domains chosen (perhaps make a list that has one to two skills related to each domain).

 

[Sylrae]

I have a player using the Summoner class, and though it might be he plays it too well - the armies of elementals he creates I think make it overpowered - now I haven't seen the final version in the APG, we're currently still using the Beta. But I don't see the Summoner as a baseline to take Clerics and Druids in a similar direction, I'd rather see the Summoner gone from the class lists altogether (but I am sure we'll keep it, just it won't be my favorite class from a DMs point of view.)

So now better understanding your design direction regarding this subject, I don't know how to help you, since your intended direction is 180 degrees opposite from where I'd go.

Summoner to me is just an odd new class, like the Cavalier, something I don't want to see other classes follow in style or direction.

GP

The APG Summoner is considerably weaker in eidolon and in summoning ability, but has a selection of spells more comparable to the original beta summoner.

Which beta are you using? "Final playtest"? or the original that they toned back considerably?

I'm kindof just seeing a standardization that maybe d8 = 6 spell levels + specialized spells all the way up to nine, but renumbered, may not be a bad idea.

If you're finding summoner too powerful, try out the APG.

Well, Unearthed Arcana had a Cloistered Cleric class variant (I guess, similar to how Pathfinder does Archetypes).
It's OGC, so you can click that link to see it.

I think they went with "knowledge focused" for their non-combat focus, so their class skills, lore ability, and spell/domain choices were based around that.

I'd maybe remove the domain thing, and expand the spell list a bit to get a little more utility, and the bonus that they can cast cure/inflict spells at a range of "close", to make them a little more universal in application.
Edit: Oh! And change the extra class skills to be more based on the domains chosen (perhaps make a list that has one to two skills related to each domain).

Good suggestion. I'll give it a shot and post my findings trying to do this in PFRPG. Maybe people will like it, who knows.

 

[Philosopher]

Has anyone done a cloistered cleric variant for Pathfinder?

The Tome of Secrets has a priest class, which is very similar (but not exactly the same) as the cloistered cleric.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Given option one of lowering bab/hd/armor(clerics already lost heavy armor prof.), what is the cleric supposed to do? They have a couple of offensive powered spells, but nothing very flashy - especially at the low levels. With no bab, lesser hd and even less armor they will be left casting buff spells, hiding from combat and healing the party. That doesn't sound like a very fun character to play.

Flashy?
Like Hold Person, etc?

Or by Flashy do you mean damage spells?