Cleric Class Preview

I’d like to see the spell lists for your hypothetical wizards. I’d guess a good number of spells could be replaced with cantrips. Who would waste a slot on level 1 magic missile?

Fill up your lower levels with utility spells, pick up some nukes for your top slots, and use your cantrips for consistent damage and the occasional shield spell.

How many Cantrips do you think you're going to get?

I'm willing to bet it's going to be... three.

Maybe Rituals will be able to help deal with some of the utility people are thinking of being lost.

The anathema thing is interesting, sounds like unified mechanics for all the classes that have some way of "falling". I've yet to see anyone mention Monks or Barbarians, 2 other classes that might have anathema.

I'm tentatively optimistic about most of this... I'd rather see the class features tied to a deity in even more specific ways, as with the divine paragon archetype, but that would require wordcount on the Harrowed Medium level. But it doesn't look any worse to me than the core PF1 cleric.

I'm deeply worried about anathemas, though. I'll reserve judgment until I see the complete version, but this seems like a rule-monger's paradise if handled poorly. Can't wait to see a player arguing that his Iomedaean cleric can torture prisoners or own slaves because "it's not on the anathema list!" The bit about leaving things broad gives me some hope, though.

I really like Pathfinder's deities, and I don't want to see the last ten years of their development thrown away... so here's hoping the new system can strike a good balance. Looking forward to finding out. ^_^

Another impact of fewer spells prepared is that it's that much harder to prepare for specialized missions. You want to give everyone in the party delay poison because you're fighting troglodytes? Well now you have to spend a higher percent of spells for that since you have fewer. Same with fly, invisibility, etc.

I get impression Heighten/Metamagic upcasting will allow "Mass" versions of spells like that, so you only blow one spell on it, which seems direction they are moving in instead of "low level spellspam". And you know, Pearls of Power probably still exist (Resonance powered probably).

I sort of suspect we will see a sharp increase in Clerics to Nethys (or other equally aloof deities) from people seeking to game having behavior restrictions.

Or even PC clerics of Lamashtu - she channels positive now after all and seems to pretty permissive.

I sort of suspect we will see a sharp increase in Clerics to Nethys (or other equally aloof deities) from people seeking to game having behavior restrictions.

Ooh! Justifiable party dynamics. Murderhoboism just got more legit!

I am pretty surprised no one is commenting on this nomenclature-- divine spells, not cleric spells.

I've been fairly confident that the four spell lists were the four power sources: Divine, Arcane, Primal and Martial Psychic for a while now. I am quite happy to not have frankenstein lists like was being suggested. I will forego pointing out any similarities for such a setup with any other editions of a particular game that Pathfinder is descended from ;)

clerics having proficiency in DIVINE SPELLS has interesting implications for multiclassing casters. I'm guessing it won't be like PF1 where all caster levels and spell slots are tracked separately. Cleric levels may very well stack with Oracle levels, or perhaps paladin levels depending on what happens to their casting. At the same time, I'm guessing it won't be like 5e where a cleric 5/wizard 5 has the same spell slots as a cleric 10 or wizard 10. Being specifically trained in Divine Spells as opposed to Arcane spells could be pretty interesting.

I expect we'll see the same progression for multiclassed casters vs non-multiclassed characters. It will make things interesting for Paladins and Rangers. Either they'll go full martial with class feats providing optional spells. Or they'll go some other route.

3.5e spellcaster multiclassing is a mess. It does need addressing. I don't think going the route of "you stay leveled in your current class and only get spells from other classes via feats" is a good solution. I've played games where that was the preferred multiclassing system. I stopped playing that system and started playing Pathfinder for a reason. 3.5e multiclassing is vastly superior (IMO), you just need to find a good solution to what is ultimately a hard problem.

How many Cantrips do you think you're going to get?

I'm willing to bet it's going to be... three.

I'm away from my 4e PHB but I'll let you know once I get home ;)

eddv wrote:

I sort of suspect we will see a sharp increase in Clerics to Nethys (or other equally aloof deities) from people seeking to game having behavior restrictions.

Ooh! Justifiable party dynamics. Murderhoboism just got more legit!

Please.

It's called 'Death Vagrancy' now.

How many Cantrips do you think you're going to get?

I'm willing to bet it's going to be... three.

Three decent spells I can spam is plenty. Offense, defense, and general utility. That leaves plenty of room for more specialized options in my spell slots.

"She gets a starting pool of Spell Points equal to her Wisdom, and can increase this by taking feats later on."

This really seems off. If you begin play with 18 spell points, why would you ever feel the need to take feats for more spell points later on? With an initial pool equal to Wisdom bonus, the idea of taking feats for more points would actually make sense.

Which demo game was this? Where?

It can be found here.

In PF2, you get 10 class feats and 10 "other feats" (Skills, Ancestry, and General). It will cost you 4 Class Feats to get the extra domain, extra powers from both, and turn/rebuke undead.

You actually get 10 Ancestry + General Feats and 10 Skill Feats.

6. Due to other similarities between 4e and what's been previewed thus far, cantrips are looking a lot like at-will powers, spells points look like encounter powers and spell slots look like daily powers. Right down to the minor power healing word (represented in the form of a 1 action heal). There's significant departures in how it's being implemented (we're getting a crapload more daily powers!) but I can't shake the similarity. The more it's revealed the more it feels like we're getting refined 4e math with a Pathfinder coat painted on. But I have demonstratd confirmation bias recently.

Wait, what? How are spell points encounter powers? They don't reset until the next day like everything else.

Quote:

Of course, the cleric's main feature is her divine spellcasting! At 1st level, you can cast two 1st-level spells each day, which you prepare from the selections on the divine spell list.

Quote:

Clerics are trained in divine spells,

I am pretty surprised no one is commenting on this nomenclature-- divine spells, not cleric spells. We now officially know the name of one of the fabled four future spell lists!

This doesn't necessarily follow. The other possibility that's been bouncing around (that the spell lists are Mental, Material, Spiritual, and Vital) is still very possible, with divine being the specific and official name for Spiritual + Vital.

It's also possible they're doing specific lists for the six possible combinations of those four elements, but I actually consider that slightly less likely as it would require more duplication from list to list.

Wait, what? How are spell points encounter powers? They don't reset until the next day like everything else.

Well that's why it's more refined and where you get the "lick of Pathfinder paint thrown on". If we assume X encounters per day we can give people 2 encounter powers that they'll have every encounter. Or we can give them X*2 powers of the same power level as the encounter powers and call them daily powers.

If I wasn't seeing all the other elements that are striking me as being quite reminiscent of 4e, I wouldn't see any similarity. I acknowledge this is quite possibly seeing things that aren't there. I acknowledge we're seeing significant differences. It just feels like that's what we're getting.

No, you're not going to be able to discourage me of this feeling. It's a hunch at this point. If all I'm willing to post about potential similarities is that one point which I acknowledge is very much in the eye of a beholder you can probably say it's a good preview from my perspective (or I'm being more reserved).

You are ignoring what I'm saying.

This isn't just about Clerics and Wizards only getting a maximum of three base spells per spell tier.

This is about Clerics and Wizards only getting three spells per spell tier TOTAL.

We have literally no evidence that Wizards and Clerics still get the same spell progression.

And even if they do, if they follow the pattern Cleric does they will get an additional number of a specific max level spell equal to 3+ Some Stat.

That particular setup may well not be the one they go with, but I'd be legitimately surprised if Wizards wind up with less spells than Clerics, and a 12th level Cleric with Cha 16 actually has nine 6th level spells. 6 of them are specific, certainly, but on a Wizard, that might be 6 offensive spells if they keep to the pattern.

And that ignores Domains (and thus likely Schools on the Wizard), which evidence suggests do in fact both matter and provide useful spells.

Maybe Rituals will be able to help deal with some of the utility people are thinking of being lost.

Debatable given that most rituals take about 30 minutes to cast or far higher than that. It can be something you probably prepare to cast before sleeping or after sleeping if the effect lasts long enough but having to cast something with an Hour cast time means you probably won't cast it much during a Dungeon until said dungeon is cleared or you have a safe zone. And if you have a safe zone, why not just sleep?

Now I could be wrong but I don't think I will be. I can't see Rituals being cast during combat and the casting time measured in minutes the fastest.

It's only Utility if it's also still somewhat easy to use. A crowbar has Utility. A weird shaped one at odd angles or one you have to sing while using, well it still has Utility but I'd probably want a normal hammer at that point.

The current theory (which seems likely to be close to right) is:

Ancestry: +2 to two specific scores, -2 to one specific score, one floating +2 (probably two floating +2s instead for humans)
Background: +2 to one specific score, one floating +2
Class: +2 to one specific score
First Ability Up: Four floating +2s

That's allow for the stats Kyra has listed above, make sense with this Blog, and allow for some flexibility.

If that's true, it's two dwarven thumbs up from me; I'd love to see such a organic development process for ability scores! My only "complaint", or actually a preference, is that I'd also like to get at least some odd scores generated with this system, for example +1 to two scores from background. But it's not a major issue for me. :)

If that's true, it's two dwarven thumbs up from me; I'd love to see such a organic development process for ability scores! My only "complaint", or actually a preference, is that I'd also like to get at least some odd scores generated with this system, for example +1 to two scores from background. But it's not a major issue for me. :)

The numbers of bonuses at each stage might be wrong but the core structure is pretty much a sure thing at this point.

And yeah, I'm pretty pleased with the idea of organic character creation as well. :)

I am a bit worried at the comparison between first level clerics from 1e to 2e. Let's compare:

At first level, a 2e cleric gets 1 domain, getting one power powered by their spell pool equal to their wisdom bonus (let's say 18 wis, so 4 times per day). They get their deity's favored weapon. They get cantrips. They get 2 first level spells. They get channel energy which lets you heal 3 + cha times per day (let's say cha 14, so 5 times) that lets them cast the heal spell (1d8+4 hp).

Now for the 1e cleric. Let's assume the same stats (wis 18, cha 14). At first level a cleric gets 2 domains. Let's say they pick Travel and Trickery. From travel, they get +10' movement and the agile feet power 7 times a day. From Trickery they get to add bluff, disguise and stealth as class skills, along with the copycat power 7 times a day. They get 3 Orisons per day. They get channel energy 5 times a day (1d6 hp). They get 3 first level spells (1 base +1 from stat +1 domain spell) 2 of which can convert into cure light wounds. They also get the deity's favored weapon.

So for the 2e cleric channel energy is stronger, but you only get 1 power, compared to the effectively 4 powers for domains, and can use it less. Hopefully that one power will be more powerful than the 1e powers. You get 1 less spell and the spells are slightly less flexible. Cantrips may be more powerful than Orisons at higher levels, but what about at level 1?

That said, some of the power might be able to be made up for by rituals and more useful skills. The cleric is now effectively a full BAB class, so battle clerics should be easier to do. Ancestry and Backgrounds might also make up some of the difference between the 2 as well. Or they may not. We will have to see the rules in full to make a final judgement.

Bear in mind that the PF2 Cleric, per the Blog, can also take a second Domain with their 1st level Class Feat and probably double their Domain power uses and options.

Tangent101 wrote:

You are ignoring what I'm saying.

This isn't just about Clerics and Wizards only getting a maximum of three base spells per spell tier.

This is about Clerics and Wizards only getting three spells per spell tier TOTAL.

We have literally no evidence that Wizards and Clerics still get the same spell progression.

And even if they do, if they follow the pattern Cleric does they will get an additional number of a specific max level spell equal to 3+ Some Stat.

That particular setup may well not be the one they go with, but I'd be legitimately surprised if Wizards wind up with less spells than Clerics, and a 12th level Cleric with Cha 16 actually has nine 6th level spells. 6 of them are specific, certainly, but on a Wizard, that might be 6 offensive spells if they keep to the pattern.

And that ignores Domains (and thus likely Schools on the Wizard), which evidence suggests do in fact both matter and provide useful spells.

There is nothing to suggest that Wizards would have a different progression of spells than Clerics. Given the method of progression, it makes sense they would utilize the same format for Wizards, especially as the two classes have had the same spell progression since 3.0.

Also, there is nothing to suggest Domains now have an extra spell added. If there was, then wouldn't it have been mentioned during the update, especially when they mentioned how massively spellcasting for Clerics was nerfed?

Nor is Channel Energy/Heal an actual spell. It is the Cleric's Channel Positive Energy ability which the Cleric has ALWAYS had, only revamped and turned into something that can be targeted to a single target, to the caster itself, or to a group. Also, it has ALWAYS grown in time. A level 12 Caster has 6d6 Channel Positive Energy. That they turned it into a spell for memorization purposes doesn't turn it into a spell. Instead, it means you can waste precious spell slots to also have extra Healing ability.

BTW, let's say claims that Wizards will have greater spell progression are in fact correct. This means that the Cleric is now a Dedicated Heal Bot. That's all they exist for is to Heal people. After all, their spell progression has been drastically cut. They aren't going to be going around buffing people to any great extent, especially as their spells are going to run out rather quickly given Spell Duration isn't going to scale for the level of the caster. So the only good they are is to heal folk.

When the Oracle comes out, then Clerics are going to become even more useless because Oracles always have Cure Wounds spells... so they'll have Heal 1, Heal 2, Heal 3, and on down the line. They'll be able to spam the probably 5 spells a day maximum for each Spell Tier. That's hell of a lot better than 6 maximum uses of Heal for a 16 Charisma Cleric.

So seriously. What's the point of the Cleric now? Something to hold folk over until the Oracle is released? Because unless the Oracle is limited to Heal and one other spell per Spell Tier, they are going to be far more useful than the Cleric is.

TarkXT wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

The Cleric is akin to the Wizard.

Ehhhh not really.

Cleric has always filled this bizzarre design space between beatstick, healstick, and spellstick where it can do one, two or all three with relative ease in different ways.

(snipped)

Yes, really.

Look at the Wizard spell progression chart.
Look at the Cleric spell progression chart.

Outside of the fact the Cleric gets +1 to each because of Domain spells, they are identical. Now look at the Sorcerer and the Oracle Spells Known and spell progression charts. Guess what: they are also identical.

(snipped)

You've rather missed the point.

That both get the same number is meaningless. As both use their lists in radically different ways. It's like you pointed out that the paladin and barbarian are the same because they like their melee combat and throwing huge numbers at things.

While you are correct about how this will affect playstyle I feel this will impact the wizard a lot more as clerics have traditionally been able to go in directions that require minimum amount of spellcasting to be efficient.

In short you can't ignore the differences and tell someone to look at how one chart of numbers is the same as the other one.

You are ignoring what I'm saying.

This isn't just about Clerics and Wizards only getting a maximum of three base spells per spell tier.

This is about Clerics and Wizards only getting three spells per spell tier TOTAL.

Before I talked about level 12 Clerics. Now I'll look at your theoretical 12 level Generalist Wizard. She started with an Intelligence of 17. At level 12 she has an Intelligence of 20. She may very well have a Headband boosting Intelligence by +4 at this point, so her Intelligence is in fact a 24, which gives her two extra spells of first, second, and third level, meaning her spell selection is six 1st level spells, six 2nd level spells, six 3rd level spells, five 4th...

Again, for emphasis:

A. Rituals. These are where some of the utility is going to be, they don't take spell slots, they're just extra stuff you can do per day on top of your actual spells.

B. Cantrips. These are on top of your prepared spells. You can keep using them. We already know some, e.g. Shield, aren't just attacks, so there's a variety of stuff here and it can cover some of the utility too.

C. Domain powers / school powers / whatever. These are way beefed up over the equivalent powers you got as a 1st level whatever in PF1 and also scaled with your level, like cantrips. Except this blog says even more powerful than cantrips, closer to spells. So that's more options.

D. They said they're going to talk more about domains on Friday. Wanna bet that Domains still get associated spells, and you will be able to spontaneously cast into them? That seems pretty likely to me.

E. Channel takes the place of trading out your actual spells for cures, and options are stronger than the PF1 options.

Like, I get it. On the face of it, it's less spells. It probably actually is in practice too even with all these metaspells. But then again cleric and wizard were the two strongest classes. So it also makes since to pare them back a bit. They still look like they are going to be /very/ powerful.

My one, big, huge gripe is still the Vancian spellcasting. That needs to DIE IN A FREAKING FIRE. Make the prepared spellcasters Arcanist neo!Vancian casting, give the sorcerer etc more options, just finally freaking ditch ye olde terrible og!Vancian system that everyone hates. Then I really will be all on board, and will happily call this take on the cleric superior to the original.

A. Anyone can take a Feat and learn a Ritual. Anyone. Not just Clerics.

B. We already have Cantrips in 1st Ed. - that they scale upward doesn't mean they are going to be great. I'd suspect that a 5th level Wizard will have a Cantrip equivalent to a First Tier spell. Otherwise they'd be overpowered.

C. There is nothing stating that domain powers include Domain spells. We won't know until they tell us more about Domain Powers so this is not the have-all and be-all you think it is. Likewise we know nothing about Wizard Specialists.

E. Channel is a slightly-beefed-up Channel Positive Energy but is far more limited than the existing system of sacrificing spells for Healing. Alternatives such as the Oracle will likely be far more potentially powerful as healers than the Cleric after all is said and done.

We will need to see the Playtest to know for sure. But this sure looks like Clerics will not be something most people play because who wants to play something that will only be used for Healing and doesn't even have the secondary benefits it once did?

Do note, I speak from watching for 5.5 years of a player running a Cleric. The one thing that made the character more fun for her was I allowed the Unchained Secondary Class to rewrite her character (she originally had one level of Bard and the rest of her levels in Cleric) so she was essentially a Halfling Bard/Cleric and she played that up for fun in roleplaying her character.

People want to contribute more than just healing. Stripping half the spells away from Clerics to bring them in line with Fighters and Rogues will just discourage even dedicated Cleric players from running them.

Felinus wrote:

Ooh! Justifiable party dynamics. Murderhoboism just got more legit!

Please.

It's called 'Death Vagrancy' now.

Damn PC PCs!

One thing not mentioned in the blog: I really, really really really hope that they get more than 2 skill points this time round.

Overall, I like this version of the cleric. Some randome thoughts/complaints below

Channelling: I think this is a missed opportunity to move the stat used to Wis. The reason I say this is that clerics are already quite stat-heavy. Unlike wizards, say, who pretty much just use Int (both for casting and knowing stuff) most clerics are expected to fill another role. Generally this is combat, so they have needed a reasonable Str (for melee) or Dex (for ranged) plus some Con to keep them in the fight. With the channel being based off Cha, they've needed to put something into at least 3 stats.

I admit it's not as bad as the monk, but it still would have helped if channelling was Wis-dependent. Something to look at in the playtest.

Anathema: what's the point of this? Because there weren't enough alignment arguments already?

Turn undead: not convinced. Will need to playtest to see how often undead critically fail their saves. Suspect it won't see much use.

Biggest take away - Lamashtu, the mother of Monsters, is neutral now?

Where in the blog does it says that heal/harm is still tied to alignment? Pharasna can only heal, and she is neutral.

It might be tied to domains. With the domain of heal or protection giving Heal, and maybe Destruction or War giving harm, regardless of alignment. So Rahathiel-like good gods still cast harm, with evil gods not tied to destruction getting to chose.

Channelling: I think this is a missed opportunity to move the stat used to Wis. The reason I say this is that clerics are already quite stat-heavy. Unlike wizards, say, who pretty much just use Int (both for casting and knowing stuff) most clerics are expected to fill another role. Generally this is combat, so they have needed a reasonable Str (for melee) or Dex (for ranged) plus some Con to keep them in the fight. With the channel being based off Cha, they've needed to put something into at least 3 stats.

I, ooh, feel this is a missed opportunity to move divine spellcastibg to charisma.

I am positive to the changes of the Cleric, especially sinceh the 1E variant was dry of features by level 8 as they got the last of the domain power. And the ability to pick up to 3 domains is interesting, especially if they make domain feels more like bloodlines with steady progression of features.

I must admit i have been a aggressor against Alignment being a large part of characters in general as i see them more limiting than "role-play-y", however my major irk about alignment as a mechanic is that it was not consistent between games. Hopefully this cleric feature and with other religious based classes will have a proper mechanic to the divine nature instead of GM "Make-them-fall Bait".

Consistency in rules have been my idea, i see the "GM decides" as utterly lazy as a design. Even if i see the point that you cant cover every situation, i feel you can at least cover the basic framework instead of just handing me a IKEA box with no instructions.

I’m pretty sure they don’t want divine magic to be Cha-exclusive. That limits the design space. Likewise, I don’t think they want Wis to be the only priority option.

I really like that spells DC is simplified to just one but, does this mean that Saving Throws are going to be increased in 2e?

At level 20 a PC is going to have a boost of at least 11 points in its spell DC if we compare it with 1e

Overall, my least liked blog. But let's wait and see.

I think folks are really undervaluing the versatility that auto scaling DCs provide over the loss of spell slots.

PF1: Lets face it by the time I get 3rd level spells I stop preparing DC based spells in my level 1 spots. So even though I know a bunch of these spells they are effectively out of my spell pool, reducing versatility. I can cast them in higher slots sure, but I'm burning higher level resources to keep lower level stuff effective.

PF2: I can prepare DC based spells in Lvl 1 slots and because their DC auto scales they are just as (or even more) likely to have their effects. The fact we have gone up 4 levels hasn't invalidated a bunch of my lower level class feature. I can cast them in higher slots if I want, but not because I need to just to have them work at all, but because doing so makes them even better. Sure I get less low level spell slots, but those slots haven't had their versatility reduced.

In PF1 Command is no longer a useful lvl 1 slot when we are level 10. I have to use it in a higher slot or not at all. Thus the usefullness of by level 1 slots is reduced. In PF2 Command is useful in a level 1 slot, and in fact may be even more likely to work at level 10 than at level 1 (well logically the number of situations it works in has to have gone up) and thus that hasn't reduced the usefullness of my level 1 slots. So I can be happy with having less slots over all if all of the slots stay good throughout by career.

I think folks are really undervaluing the versatility that auto scaling DCs provide over the loss of spell slots.

PF1: Lets face it by the time I get 3rd level spells I stop preparing DC based spells in my level 1 spots. So even though I know a bunch of these spells they are effectively out of my spell pool, reducing versatility. I can cast them in higher slots sure, but I'm burning higher level resources to keep lower level stuff effective.

PF2: I can prepare DC based spells in Lvl 1 slots and because their DC auto scales they are just as (or even more) likely to have their effects. The fact we have gone up 4 levels hasn't invalidated a bunch of my lower level class feature. I can cast them in higher slots if I want, but not because I need to just to have them work at all, but because doing so makes them even better. Sure I get less low level spell slots, but those slots haven't had their versatility reduced.

In PF1 Command is no longer a useful lvl 1 slot when we are level 10. I have to use it in a higher slot or not at all. Thus the usefullness of by level 1 slots is reduced. In PF2 Command is useful in a level 1 slot, and in fact may be even more likely to work at level 10 than at level 1 (well logically the number of situations it works in has to have gone up) and thus that hasn't reduced the usefullness of my level 1 slots. So I can be happy with having less slots over all if all of the slots stay good throughout by career.

If, maybe, might.

We'll see how they balance the numbers but until we see just how useful the spells are, lowering the amount we can cast will make us at least on paper, weaker.

And I mean spell casters in general. Cleric see less spells, will all the other casting classes also see a reduction? This also at least for me, kinda frees up and wrecks the stat weights.

There are a lot of 1st level spells in Pathfinder 1 that can be utilized by Clerics that don't cause saving throws. In fact, smart spellcasters often memorize noncombatant spells when possible so they're not one-trick ponies.

For instance, Clerics can use Bless even at ultra-high levels, Prayer, several spells that boost stats, several spells that provide other bonuses for players, spells to improve perception, spells that enhance Initiative, and so forth. Now, Bull's Strength and its ilk are very likely gone. I cannot see them existing with the new methodology for buffing multiple stats every five levels. But other defensive and buff spells likely still exist.

Further, a Cleric had enough spell options that they could memorize defensive spells, buff spells, and still have a couple offensive spells. They could indulge in ranged combat as well if they so chose to. And ALL of those spells had an added benefit of being useful fodder for being sacrificed to heal someone.

Now? Toss that all out the window. You have Channel Heals, you have a bare minimum of spells, you have the Rogue and Fighter with so many other abilities and Paizo stating "well, you don't need a Cleric, anyone can Heal..." and Clerics have been massively nerfed.

Why will anyone want to play a Cleric? Maybe, hopefully the Playtest will show us more but as it exists? The Cleric just got hit by several Spectres tag-teaming it and it didn't have a chance to buff against energy drain beforehand.

Also... yeah. There is no longer a reason to buff stats! Who needs a Headband of Wisdom when you don't get bonus spells? Hell, given Paizo's push toward +2 for every stat, why are they even bothering with stats as they exist? Why not just have single number stats and each point up results in a new bonus? Have 5 be the baseline stat. Racial modifiers are +1 and -1. There's that floating +1 going around. I mean, we're already tossing tradition out the window, 18 hasn't even been the highest stat people get anymore... so why bother with the 3d6 format of stats? Go single-digit. Hell, you could even have 10 be the baseline and have a 1 have a -9 to modifiers for a greater range of penalties.

Malk_Content wrote:

If, maybe, might.

There really isn't any speculation here. We know DCs auto scale and we know saves scale. Barring feats, as is, my level 1 spell cast as a level 20 character has as high a DC as my level 9 spell. No If, maybe or might about it, that level 1 spell can still be used for its initial effect. That just isn't the case in PF1E. In PF1E Command prepared in a level one slot at level 20 is useless against anything even approaching a CR appropriate challenge. Still usefull in social situations where you are having to command low level peasants I guess.

Forcing a level 20 Fighter to drop their weapon with a level 1 spell seems good to me. Hell even spells with DCs that provide minor debuffs are going to be more usefull by definition in PF2E considering the increased weighting of +/- 1 or 2 modifiers.

There are a lot of 1st level spells in Pathfinder 1 that can be utilized by Clerics that don't cause saving throws.

True. Doesn't change the fact that any of your level 1 spells[slots] that do use DC are functionally useless by level 6.

There is nothing to suggest that Wizards would have a different progression of spells than Clerics. Given the method of progression, it makes sense they would utilize the same format for Wizards, especially as the two classes have had the same spell progression since 3.0.

It is a new edition, you know. things could, in fact, change.

Also, there is nothing to suggest Domains now have an extra spell added. If there was, then wouldn't it have been mentioned during the update, especially when they mentioned how massively spellcasting for Clerics was nerfed?

Uh...they said Domain Abilities were on par with spells, which is what I was talking about. And is true from the demo games (where Kyra's fire ray Domain ability is a solid ranged attack).

Nor is Channel Energy/Heal an actual spell. It is the Cleric's Channel Positive Energy ability which the Cleric has ALWAYS had, only revamped and turned into something that can be targeted to a single target, to the caster itself, or to a group. Also, it has ALWAYS grown in time. A level 12 Caster has 6d6 Channel Positive Energy. That they turned it into a spell for memorization purposes doesn't turn it into a spell. Instead, it means you can waste precious spell slots to also have extra Healing ability.

Uh...no. Heal is an actual spell and can be cast with spell slots. The fact that you get it a bunch of times free at max level is spellcasting. It's specifically healing (or damage, for harm) focused spellcasting, but it's casting.

It is also better than any Cure spell in PF1, so saying it isn't a 'real spell' is pretty much crap.

BTW, let's say claims that Wizards will have greater spell progression are in fact correct. This means that the Cleric is now a Dedicated Heal Bot. That's all they exist for is to Heal people. After all, their spell progression has been drastically cut. They aren't going to be going around buffing people to any great extent, especially as their spells are going to run out rather quickly given Spell Duration isn't going to scale for the level of the caster. So the only good they are is to heal folk.

I find it interesting how quickly you've shifted gears from 'clerics can't be relied on for healing' to 'dedicated healbot'. I mean, I admit I provided math to prove a PF2 Cleric could heal but I wasn't sure you'd seen it since you didn't respond.

And they still get plenty of spells to do a whole bunch of stuff, certainly including buffing people. Plus Domain powers. Plus the ability to stab you in the face (possibly with their new buffs).

Durations no longer scale, it's true, but nothing says some of tthem aren't '1 Hour' or the like, and quite a lot of evidence says some have just such a duration.

When the Oracle comes out, then Clerics are going to become even more useless because Oracles always have Cure Wounds spells... so they'll have Heal 1, Heal 2, Heal 3, and on down the line. They'll be able to spam the probably 5 spells a day maximum for each Spell Tier. That's hell of a lot better than 6 maximum uses of Heal for a 16 Charisma Cleric.

Sure, but if they're doing that they aren't doing much else. Given how quickly Heal scales based on level, if you do the math the Oracle would need to burn a lot of spells just to equal the channel Energy number, never mind a Cleric actually investing spells into healing.

I think most Oracles would rather actually do things. They'll certainly Heal, but most won't heal nearly as much.

So seriously. What's the point of the Cleric now? Something to hold folk over until the Oracle is released? Because unless the Oracle is limited to Heal and one other spell per Spell Tier, they are going to be far more useful than the Cleric is.

Not necessarily. We know basically nothing about how Spontaneous Casters work, so any assumptions about them are profoundly premature.

MerlinCross wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

If, maybe, might.

There really isn't any speculation here. We know DCs auto scale and we know saves scale. Barring feats, as is, my level 1 spell cast as a level 20 character has as high a DC as my level 9 spell. No If, maybe or might about it, that level 1 spell can still be used for its initial effect. That just isn't the case in PF1E. In PF1E Command prepared in a level one slot at level 20 is useless against anything even approaching a CR appropriate challenge. Still usefull in social situations where you are having to command low level peasants I guess.

Forcing a level 20 Fighter to drop their weapon with a level 1 spell seems good to me. Hell even spells with DCs that provide minor debuffs are going to be more usefull by definition in PF2E considering the increased weighting of +/- 1 or 2 modifiers.

I highly doubt every spell will still see such use and while it's nice that possible Command might scale up, possible Sleep scales better. There's going to be winners and losers when it comes to spells like everything else. What's the difference between level 1 spell now that can't be used at level 20 now and a level 1 spell that still won't see use at level 20 in 2e? mean besides that it can. Maybe. Might. If I have nothing else.

I see casters being even more frugal with what spells they cast if the total amount is lower, and picking the best and or broadest cantrips.

I really like that spells DC is simplified to just one but, does this mean that Saving Throws are going to be increased in 2e?

At level 20 a PC is going to have a boost of at least 11 points in its spell DC if we compare it with 1e

We know that everyone adds Level + Proficiency + Stat to Saves. That's probably all you add, but it's a fair bit.

There are a lot of 1st level spells in Pathfinder 1 that can be utilized by Clerics that don't cause saving throws. In fact, smart spellcasters often memorize noncombatant spells when possible so they're not one-trick ponies.

You can easily do this in PF2 as well. Also, Rituals.

For instance, Clerics can use Bless even at ultra-high levels, Prayer, several spells that boost stats, several spells that provide other bonuses for players, spells to improve perception, spells that enhance Initiative, and so forth. Now, Bull's Strength and its ilk are very likely gone. I cannot see them existing with the new methodology for buffing multiple stats every five levels. But other defensive and buff spells likely still exist.

In fact, Bless still exists and does much what it always did.

Further, a Cleric had enough spell options that they could memorize defensive spells, buff spells, and still have a couple offensive spells. They could indulge in ranged combat as well if they so chose to. And ALL of those spells had an added benefit of being useful fodder for being sacrificed to heal someone.

You can still do all this except use them to heal somebody. I'll grant you can do them less, but not overwhelmingly less (especially given your Orison and Domain options, which can probably fill in for one or two of those categories).

Now? Toss that all out the window. You have Channel Heals, you have a bare minimum of spells, you have the Rogue and Fighter with so many other abilities and Paizo stating "well, you don't need a Cleric, anyone can Heal..." and Clerics have been massively nerfed.

You mean one of the most powerful classes in PF1 has become slightly less powerful while the weakest classes in PF1 are more powerful now? My God, it's almost like they care about game balance and have actually listened to all the people who complained about that imbalance!

Why will anyone want to play a Cleric? Maybe, hopefully the Playtest will show us more but as it exists? The Cleric just got hit by several Spectres tag-teaming it and it didn't have a chance to buff against energy drain beforehand.

The Cleric is a 9 level caster. Nothing short of other 9 level casters getting buffed way more than it will make it anything less than one of the most powerful and versatile classes in the game.

Also... yeah. There is no longer a reason to buff stats! Who needs a Headband of Wisdom when you don't get bonus spells?

+5 to +8 Save DC on all spells isn't a good enough reason for buffing a stat any more? I kinda thought it was...

Hell, given Paizo's push toward +2 for every stat, why are they even bothering with stats as they exist? Why not just have single number stats and each point up results in a new bonus? Have 5 be the baseline stat. Racial modifiers are +1 and -1. There's that floating +1 going around. I mean, we're already tossing tradition out the window, 18 hasn't even been the highest stat people get anymore... so why bother with the 3d6 format of stats? Go single-digit. Hell, you could even have 10 be the baseline and have a 1 have a -9 to modifiers for a greater range of penalties.

I'm not clear what this even is. They could do this, and it wouldn't be the end of the world. They aren't though, so don't worry about it.

For everyone saying spell points are based on wisdom not wis mod that's a mistake. It's wisdom mod not wisdom for domain abilities.

We saw in playtests at Gary con the cleric's fire ray had 4 spell points.

Well it did say the cleric "free" heal spells would be auto-heightend to their highest spellslot.

Also the current AOE healing for cleric is actually not worse off. The PF1 channel is 1d6 per 2nd level, and at lvl 11 its 6d6. The PF2 cleric would be able to cast heal at 5d8+wis at that same level. However at a cost of 3 action points, where the old cleric had a standard action and was able to use "Quick Channel" (Move action). So the question is what the PF2 cleric have avaliable to buff action usage, lessen action usage and potensial effects for empowering healing.

One of the things not mentioned is whether or not you need a high wisdom to cast high level spells. If a cleric can get by with a wisdom of 14, possibly even 12, that might open up some other options.

In fact, based on this line: "Your Wisdom still matters greatly for your spell DC and other things important to clerics, but giving it slightly less weight makes it more practical now for you to play a cleric of Gorum who focuses on Strength and uses spells that don't involve your spell DC or that have decent effects even if your enemy succeeds at its save." This implies that Wisdom is no longer a restriction from being able to cast higher level spells.

For everyone saying spell points are based on wisdom not wis mod that's a mistake. It's wisdom mod not wisdom for domain abilities.

We saw in playtests at Gary con the cleric's fire ray had 4 spell points.

Although I'm 99% sure you're right, it is always possible that they changed it since then.

Now, in addressing my thoughts on the blog post, I like it so far. I have concerns on Channel giving top-level Heals in large numbers, since I don't want to see people really urging people to play a Cleric to fill the healing requirements. I'm hoping we have lots of access to other comparable options as Mark has implied. (I'm just kind of pessimistic on it right now) I was also kind of concerned about the spells per day, but it is more than you get in 5e, and the lack of high-level slots is one of the things that really hurts 5e upcasting, so this seems fine so far. Looking forward to seeing the full entry for Cleric when the playtest rules drop.

As a fan of Clerics, I approve of this post. :) I don't mind having a more limited number of spells (especially low-level ones) if I get other resources to use, like those spell points and free heals.

I've been wondering: Will Clerics have access to an attack cantrip? Searing Light maybe? I utterly love the concept of the 4e/5e Laser Clerics and am very much hoping it might be a viable playstyle in PF2 as well.

Shock... horror...(sarcasm) cleric is dragged kicking and screaming back to healbot!

I might be misreading things, but reduced spell slots combined with increased heal/harm channels really doesnt strike me as a step in the right direction. Unless that direction is "Right, who's going to play the healer?"

Channeling..... has there ever been a more derided ability in PF? I just think Paizo cant bare to get rid of it, otherwise it would confirm the fact that it always was a useless ability that ate up too much design space.

I mean think about it logically.... why would a God of fire/deception/monsters/darkness/plants/weather.... etc have any automatic interest in healing anyway??

- Classes give you stat boosts at 1st level, Confirmed. Now I'm frightened about some players' sixth senses...

Ugh. Not sure I like this idea.

I don't like my ability scores being chosen for me.

Lucas Yew wrote:

- Classes give you stat boosts at 1st level, Confirmed. Now I'm frightened about some players' sixth senses...

Ugh. Not sure I like this idea.

I don't like my ability scores being chosen for me.

Well, you're choosing to play a Cleric. That giving a small bonus to Wisdom seems like a reasonable consequence of that choice.

We ... [eliminated] Pathfinder First Edition's bonus spells granted for having a high ability score.

Yet another reason I won't be buying 2e. If you want to play a gish, you shouldn't be only two or three DC points at most away from a pure caster version of your class. Removing bonus spells was one of the things I hated the most about what WotC did to the current edition of D&D. If you think it was OP as it was, then you should be pushing for fewer bonus spell slots, not their complete removal. Changing the number of bonus spells you get doesn't make casters any less SAD or MAD than they already were.

Like most of what we've seen of 2e so far, Paizo is attempting to fix problems that don't exist and/or trying to fix them in completely the wrong way.

Lucas Yew wrote:

- Classes give you stat boosts at 1st level, Confirmed. Now I'm frightened about some players' sixth senses...

Ugh. Not sure I like this idea.

I don't like my ability scores being chosen for me.

Were you not going to max out your Wisdom playing a Cleric anyway?