|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 8:42PM
#1
|
|
|
I have always felt that if a creature taps into the weave (Uses Magic) it should have fewer hit points than somone who doesn't. Therefore the Cleric should have the d6 hit die and the Rogue should have the d8. Even if it is a divine magic clerics spend more time in books. Rogues have grown up on the streets which is tougher. You are in danger of making the classes unbalanced. I have heard so much from other players that state that the cleric has always been more powerful than all the other classes. This will off set that a little bit.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 9:00PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
pretty sound logic, though I doubt it will change. I can see both getting a d8 for Hit Dice... yes, rogues should be a little tougher to a point but I don't know if it should be at the expense of the cleric. Also, some of the rogue's toughness is not measured in HP. For example, in past editions, Uncanny Dodge let you keep your DEX bonus to AC. Evasion let a rogue take Zero damage if they made a successful Saving Throw vs the spell. They are a little more 'slippery' and tend to shake-off some effects that hit the other 3 main classes harder. It's my hope that some of this makes it into the final rules, or at the very least options for it.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 11:26PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Kind of too soon to tell IMO. Nothing against the rogue getting d8 but the clerics spell list too a bit of a hit this pass and it may take more, if he is paladin+ a d8 would fit IMO, if he is spell caster with a mace, d6 is better. Maybe that should be part of the specialty, war priest gets d8, but his spell list is more focussed.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 1:25AM
#4
|
|
|
Going back to 1st edition the rogue (or thief) had a d6 but he/she got to go up in level much sooner than everyone else. since level advancement has been equalized the rogue has been weakend because of it. also in 1st edition the cleric did not get spells until second level. Clerics have always had the capability of having a higher AC than rogues which accounts for the larger amount of attacks. Evasion and uncanny dodge only came into effect once every 3 or 4 fights. AC is in every fight.
As far as the cleric's spell list taking a hit, I disagree, Searing light seems awfully powerful to me and let us remember that cure light wounds is always extra hit points in a can. as far as a war priest or battle cleric just call it a paladin because that is what it is.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 4:58PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2010
|
Clerics might get the bump so they don't have to heal themselves.
Ant Farm
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 5:34PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2008
|
The cleric, so far, seems to stand in the middle of the fight. Casting, fighting, and healing. I would agree that this current version is much more of a paladin than a robed friar but some of the spells are really bad. A prime example being Creat Food and Water. A 3rd level spell that only feeds five? Geez. At the least it should create some trail rations that last a month for a group of five and feed 10/level of caster if it's just bread and fishes.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 6:50PM
#7
|
|
|
As a matter of personal taste, I prefer that the Cleric have more hit points.
My mental picture of the Cleric is more in line with the class description in the 2nd Edition PHB: a warrior-priest/monk like the medieval European Military Religious orders: The Templars, Hospitallers, et al. Years of rigorous drill on the practice field in harness and a regimented lifestyle have toughened him considerably.
The mental image that the terms "Rogue" and "Thief" conjure up for me is that of a poor and malnourished street urchin: nimble she might be, but she's got a glass jaw. She excels at underhanded subterfuge and backstabbing, but falls to pieces under a frontal assault.
I would prefer that the game's default settings retain these classic archetypes and confine anything too wild to optional rules.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 7:24PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2008
|
I'm with ya. Though I like the idea of a bookish priest/monk with less ac/hp but more spells. That's what supplements are for,lol.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 9:25PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2008
|
Actually, I think they can do both with simple expansion and continuation of the Domains.
War priest with heavy armor, deadlier weapons, melee spells (Healing Word would work here).
Sun priest with more ranged attack, curative powers, and healing (CLW), but light armor and simple weapons.
Nature priest with more environmental control, specific weapons, medium (studded/hide) armor, and natural remedies and healing.
Etc.
It would be very important, though, to make sure that Spell Selection is determined by Domain Lists, not a generic all-clerics-get catch-all, to reflect the specialization of each domain that their worship represents.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 23, 2012 - 12:57AM
#10
|
|
|
I think the point of the rogue having a low HD harkens back to how Thief was built in 1e/2e. They were skills primary, combat secondary. But since 3.X, 4e and WoW haven't helped a bit either, people seem to think that rogues are all about being up in peoples business, being a frontline fighter. Rogues should be darting in and out, hiding and attacking, etc. They should not be just standing there and attack like a fighter. I think Next has done a good job of encouraging the rogue to be a little more mobile, which is something I really like. The reason they get so much more SA damage in this edition is to help them keep up in damage because they aren't going to be attacking every turn, most of the time.
Eg: The rogue in the two sessions I have run has done some really crazy stuff to be hidden. Because of this he does not attack every turn, but when he does it mangles the opponent up. As a side effect, he had alot of fun finding ways to hide in the middle of a town square.
My two copper.
|
|
|
