Figurine

Tangent101's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 4,313 posts (4,315 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lady Melo wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
If an ogre switches weapons just use the stats for ogre hook and pretend it's a different weapon. That way the different weapon doesn't change the CR of the ogre.
If the game actually ends up recommending this, I will riot.

I would likely shrug a little and house rule in something, but rioting seems fair I guess.

In all seriousness, since monsters don't exactly have clear math behind them, the appropriate adjustment information should be provided assuming it gets disarmed, sundered, destroyed in combat, or becomes unusable if someone (dare i say) role plays in or before combat and the weapon is no longer an options.

No doubt the stats will include a generic "bash" attack for natural attacks (punching) in the case of a monster being disarmed or its weapon sundered. Seriously, this is no different than any other time it's happened in the original Pathfinder.

Heck, in the original Runelords game I replaced an Ogre Fighter's magic Ogre Hook with a human-sized magic bastard sword. This way it was less vendor trash. I don't see why you can't just do the same with any ogre which chooses to use a human- or dwarven- or elven-forged blade because it's better than anything the ogres have. You even have the strength bonus for ogres (+5) so you could easily factor that into the ogre's use of the non-ogre weapon.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:

In general, I am digging the new stat block (except the scythe/boot line), again, similar to 5th Ed: stuff off turn (AC/Saves, etc) at the top/middle, Actions/on turn stuff at the bottom.

Some of the math is easily deconstructed, but some other stuff will just have to wait (how many hp per level, proficiency, creature type traits, etc).

As for icons, this is the only part that has me fuming, on several levels; first, I do not like them in 4th Ed or SF (especially in SF, they look cheap, cheesy and gross), and my eyes are screwed (Vision Impaired, Partially Sighted and all that): I have Retinitis Pigmentosa and a Cystoid Macula Oedema, so please, please do not use icons, I much prefer:

-Action 1
-1 Action
-Action 2
-2 Actions
-Action( 1)
-Action (2)
-Action (3)

Than some colourful image or symbol what-have-you.
"Honey, what do make of this?" "...looks like a dog humping a frisbee..."

Seriously. I hope the developers are listening to this.

Now, my eyesight isn't horrible. It's above average... but the problem is, I run games in the evening. My eyes get tired (I'm in my late 40s). And the campaign books are hard enough to read as it is - the paper is glossy and I need brighter lights to bring stuff into focus... but the paper shines and makes it harder to read.

If you start tossing in icons to represent Actions and Reactions and the like, I'm not going to easily follow this. And paper products work better than tablets more often than not as you can quickly page through the paper product while you need to read more of the PDF before you can figure out where you are.

Now, I understand how tempting it is to just use an icon in the text of an AP. But you will be locking out a faithful group of customers in the grand quest to replace words with icons. Please. Don't do this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
1of1 wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

My response as GM: Who in their right mind would want to buy Ogre gear?

Seriously, I've said that before to my players. I add other treasure to beef things up in other ways, but giant-sized equipment is not resell-able in my campaigns.

Scrap iron's always in demand. Abundant supply can cut it's worth down, though.

The forge is always hungry.

Then you're going to get a few copper for the metal. Not half the value of the weapon. Also, you seem to think it's easy to remelt down weapons and armor and reuse that material. The quality of metal is important - the better the metal, the better the armor and weapons. The more impurities, the less effective the metal.

An ogre hook's metal is probably poor-quality metal. It would maybe be used for pots or other cheap metal goods. It's not going to be used for anything decent and most definitely won't be worth the resale value of what weapons and armor tends to go for in Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My response as GM: Who in their right mind would want to buy Ogre gear?

Seriously, I've said that before to my players. I add other treasure to beef things up in other ways, but giant-sized equipment is not resell-able in my campaigns.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Valantrix1 wrote:
Being blind, from what I can tell so far, if you continue with this representative symbol nonsense, the stat block will be absolutely useless to me. I'm ok with everything else I've read though. If you can make it where screen readers can actually interpret the symbols, that is a different story.

Okay. This. Most definitely this. I had a blind brother (he passed away a couple decades ago). My own vision isn't the best these days and eventually I could lose my own sight (as could anyone here). I know you want to use abbreviations and save space but... make this so Text Readers can read these statistics and blind users are able to continue to game.

Don't set up fences keeping blind people from the game. Take the time to spell things out slightly more and remain ADA compliant. :)


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Voss wrote:
Quote:
You'll also notice the monster gives just its ability score modifiers instead of scores. This lets you make calculations more quickly, and since monsters don't increase their scores the same way PCs do, listing those is unnecessary

Truthfully, this logic works just as well for PCs, especially as you've only shown modifiers of +2. (Which is to say, a +1 modifier)

Pick an approach and stick with it consistently. One way for some things and just the modifiers elsewhere looks sloppy and confusing. If you really aren't using the base stat numbers at all, then just use the modifier as the real number.

I mentioned this on the first page. I'll quote this for the second. This makes a lot of sense.

The ONLY reason to keep stats is because "it's how we always did it" but seeing stats only exist to give bonuses and stats increase by increments giving a +1 bonus... eliminate the Stats entirely.

I understand some people enjoy rolling stats. If you really have to, include a conversion from the 3d6/4d6 stat rolling system and the new bonus system. But seeing that bonus spells no longer exist and stats exist only to give a specific bonus or penalty for certain skill attributes (or for combat)... eliminating the stats and having people ONLY list the bonus works a lot better and quicker.

Seriously. This is something I've noticed in the old game. "What's your Dex Bonus?" "Um... I've got a 22 Dexterity which gives me... +6?" And of course you'd have Cat's Grace adding +4 to Dexterity and +2 to bonuses based off of it... eliminating that conversion speeds things up tremendously.

We don't need stats. You just showed it here with the monsters. Switch to just the attribute bonuses and penalties and we'll be fine.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are some nice features here. I like the fact bonuses are included for the stats... but in this case, why not just have this for all stats, including on Character Sheets? Instead of a written stat of 10/12/14/16 etc., provide people with the bonus for the stat? And a Stat Increase would give an added +1 to the stats being boosted?

This would simplify things significantly, and would also mean penalties are not limited to -5 for when a stat is reduced to 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are ways to have almost-effective Summoners. But that means building a caster that specializes on Summons... and it likely has to be a Cleric so to get Sacred Summons and cast a summon monster spell as a standard action. (Only Clerics and Paladins get the Aura which is a prerequisite for Sacred Summons.)

The Feats are Sacred Summons, Spell Focus (Conjuration), Augment Summons (+4 to Str and Con), Superior Summoning (+1 Summoned critter when summoning multiple critters), and possibly Moonlight Summons (as it treats the creature's natural attacks as silver). If you've a half-orc Cleric, then Ferocious Summons also gives monsters the Ferocity ability so they don't just vanish at 0 or negative hit points.

Mind you, what this does is give you the ability to summon critters with +2 hit points per hit die, does +2 extra damage with its attacks, and can be called into being on the same turn as the spell is cast. And if you're casting a lower level version, immediately allow 1d3+1 instead of just 1d3 critters (or 1d3+2 if you do one two levels lower). That said... if you summoned multiple critters who can cast healing spells? Then you just got a group of folk casting healing spells on your party, even if not probably the high level spells.

Now, let me speak as a GM here. Summons are a royal pain in the ass. Your group is already HOW many folk? How slow are your combats? And as you gain higher levels it will get even slower! Avoid summons like the plague! Please!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thank you for holding off on posting this until after the SpaceX rocket launch. :)

You forgot to tag this to the Playtest blog btw.

Quick question: Does this mean that Background is replacing the Campaign Traits found in the Player's Guide?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One way to deal with that is to state "only one stat can be below 10 before racial modifiers." Another way is to play up to that character's weaknesses and ensure the powergamer regret their choice.

The new ruleset (which appears to have some significant flaws in my eyes but a lot of good stuff as well - why the massive nerf to full casters I'm not sure because they Mercy'ed Clerics) has a stat generation process that seems to make it difficult to min-max that way. At the very least, the +2 to four stats every five levels allows for more well-rounded characters (though I seriously wonder why they bother - why not just have +1 to each stat which results in a bonus? Sure, some folk would complain that a 14 isn't a high stat but if it gives a +4 bonus then *yes*, it is! Meh...).

As for Dex-for-Damage? Strength is more than just to-hit and to-damage. It also is carrying capacity, and if you have a low-strength character, you are limited in armor and the ability to wield many weapons. (Unless you mean Dex-to-arrow-damage which yeah, that shouldn't be allowed.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is one way that you can have a pure-blooded Azlanti. It's in one of the other APs, and if things go just "right" your character ends up a smoking hot redhead Azlanti. It's not all good, however. ;)

Personally, I prefer Sylphs or Kitsune. But that's just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As an aside, Malek could boost his AC by 10 with a +4 Breastplate, +4 Ring of Protection and +4 Amulet of Natural Armor. Toss on something for Dexterity or give him Cat's Grace and that's +12 to his AC - still only a 32 but given his build, I don't see it being better than that.

Kwan should either sell the Bracers of AC 3 or give them to someone who doesn't want to wear armor for some absurd reason. In fact, he should give them to Athelya right now. Seriously. Or to the Bard, but protecting your healer is more important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Help for Athelya here: There's plenty of Light armor that doesn't diminish your speed or significantly damage your other abilities. And hell, the Mithral Breastplate acts like Light armor so your speed would STILL be 30. But hey, whatever.

+4 Studded Leather Armor would give you an Armor Class of 20. There is no Dexterity penalty for Stealth or the like (being Mastercrafted). It costs you 16,275 gold if I am remembering correctly (I'm going off the top of my head). Add in a +4 Amulet of Natural Armor and a +4 Ring of Protection for a total cost of 80,275 gold, and you now have an armor class of 26. You could then sell your existing +1 Ring of Protection and +1 Amulet of Natural Armor and have 2,000 extra gold on hand.

Toss in a +4 Heavy Wooden Shield for another 16,300 (well, a little less, but I'm not looking up how much a wooden shield costs so I rounded up to the nearest 100) and now your armor class is 32. Toss on a Cat's Grace and it's a 33.

What does this mean? It means the rank-and-file baddies you are facing that need 1s to miss you now would need 18s to hit. Of course, you will be facing nastier critters so their average to-hit would probably be 20 and they STILL miss nearly 3/4ths of the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Helping for the Bard here: Celestial Armor is light armor and adds +9 to your armor class, for a cost of 22,400 gold. Also it can cast Fly once per day. ;) Seeing Bards can wear light armor without penalties to spell casting... if you wore that and also purchased a +4 Amulet of Armor and a +4 Ring of Protection, it would cost you under 90,000 gold to gain +17 to your armor class. And a heavy shield gives you an additional +2 to armor class even before it's enchanted, so you could have a +3 heavy shield costing a little over 9,000 gold and adding another +5 to your armor class. Essentially you could have an armor class of 33. If you cast Cats Grace, you can easily boost that to 35... and not suffer from spell failure chances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Aww. Though Quiplash is fun from what I've seen on livestreams of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You know, gang, once you finish off these Serpentfolk and their little fortress, you could boost your AC by at least +8 WITHOUT armor with an Amulet of Natural Armor +4 and a Ring of Protection +4, and it'll just put you back 64,000 gold. Bracers of Armor +4 is just another 16,000 gold. That would put your Bard at AC 26 and your Oracle at AC 25. You'll still be getting HIT, but not quite as often.

If NobodysHome allows Ultimate Combat, then the Oracle could take the Effortless Armor spell, a level 2 spell, and wear armor without being slowed. The Extend Spell Feat would have that last for nearly half an hour and be just a 3rd level spell.

Or you could use the Instant Armor spell. You could have it be like a suit of +3 Chain Mail for +9 to armor class, and it is force armor so ghosts and other incorporate critters can't bypass it.

The 3rd level Magical Vestment spell would give even ordinary clothing +3 to your armor class. It lasts for hours.

And the level 1 spell Ice Armor acts like a Breastplate but doesn't state it has the penalties of armor.

All of these are Oracle/Cleric spells. And low-level ones at that. :) And Oracles can switch out spells that are no longer of use at certain levels.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talek & Luna wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

If the only thing they did with Pathfinder 2 was improve weapons like this, then it would have made Melee characters more fun to play compared to casters. So why the massive nerf of full casters and lavish love to melee folk?

Well, I'll say this. I was about ready to write off Second Edition. I am not going to try and convert any old APs to the new edition in any event. But this does look interesting and caught my attention again.

Hang in there Tangent101. While I share your pain with low amount of spells per level and no bonus spells. I am hoping that wands and staves make being a caster more fun. Maybe the class features will make up for some of the nerfs. I just hope they don't go all 4E on us and slaughter my favorite spells. Leave fireball, magic missile, lightning bolt, teleport and wish alone darn it!

PS - Make summoning spells cool again please :)

Doubtful. Resonance is needed for wand use. Sorcerers already have a heads up on Wizards with their need of Charisma to cast spells. No doubt Paizo seems to think their Combat Cantrips and the like will make up for the lack of versatility in spell selection. Or encourage Wizards to be on the front line with awesome weapons.

But also it's because it's easier to run Hell's Rebels as-is rather than change it to 2nd Edition. And I could start the new campaign in a month, rather than wait a half year 'til after the Playtest has been running for several months.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Consider this quality for Spears instead:

If a Spear's hit is a critical, then additional attacks will hit on a Failure, and be a Critical with a Success or a Critical. Essentially, the person is pushing the spear in deeper. If they rolled a critical failure then the spear head was dislodged.

A person hit with a spear can either dislodge it by taking a five-foot-step or move-action back, or by attacking the spear to try and break it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If the only thing they did with Pathfinder 2 was improve weapons like this, then it would have made Melee characters more fun to play compared to casters. So why the massive nerf of full casters and lavish love to melee folk?

Well, I'll say this. I was about ready to write off Second Edition. I am not going to try and convert any old APs to the new edition in any event. But this does look interesting and caught my attention again.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Right. So you have stripped away bonus spells for attributes.

Then you strip away the bonus Domain Spell for each level.

And then you strip away the fourth spell for each spell level.

Oh, and don't forget no longer being able to sacrifice spells for a Heal spell - you have to memorize those separately in your extremely limited spell repertoire.

In short, you cut the number of spells Clerics get in over half.

If the Wizard's spell slots is anything like the Cleric's, then I honestly cannot see how anyone would want to play a Wizard over a Sorcerer unless you significantly nerfed the number of spells Sorcerers can cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*laughter* Well, that's players for you. They find a solution that works and decide to stick with it. ;)

Whether or not that would work against Serpentfolk remains to be seen. I mean, did the campaign ever mention how long murdering Serpentfolk before their own Action (and thus killing them before they can get word out) works? How often do they report in? Silence is as important a warning as noise. Worse, if someone was carrying on a telepathic conversation and is "cut short" then your players would have absolutely no warning their tactics failed.

Heh. I've been missing this crew. The 2nd Ed. stuff just pulled something that left me *really* second-guessing my decision to wait for the next campaign until 2nd Ed. comes out... so maybe I'll be starting up the campaign earlier than anticipated, and just incorporating a couple things from Unchained to lessen confusion.

As for small creatures doing massive amounts of damage? 2nd Edition Gnome Fighter/Thief. Eventually he was doing (seeing I allowed strength and magic bonuses to go in before backstab multipliers) a hundred damage a blow easily when he got his backstab in. And significant damage even when he didn't. Ah, the Night Below campaign was a fun one. ^_^ One of only two campaigns I've run that actually ended by finishing the actual boxed set/adventure path.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Originally I'd been thinking of waiting until 2nd Edition was out before starting my next campaign and converting Hell's Rebels over to it. At this point... I could do better by just using the Action Economy from Pathfinder Unchained and one or two other bits from it and just sticking with Pathfinder 1.

In the five years it'll take to wrap things up, the playtest will be done, things will be hammered out, and I can choose from there what to do. Meanwhile... I think I'm going to just be quiet about this. If other people like the new version of the Cleric and all that? Good for them. But what little I've seen is giving me a really bad feeling about how things will be going for casters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
It's like you are purposefully misreading what I am saying.

The feeling is mutual.

Tangent101 wrote:
Yes, a Cleric could load up on nothing but Heal spells and be able to out-heal an Oracle.
That was not remotely my point, actually.

Well then, what IS your point? Because you have not been able to get it across to me obviously, probably because you're busy trying to defend Paizo and their ripping out the guts of a class, providing a bare bones description of how it's better, and then letting everyone spin their wheels rather than participate in a discussion with the forums like they have in previous non-Goblin threads to help explain and expand upon things.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
But an Oracle is able to provide more Healing capability than a Cleric who does not do any Heal Spells for their secondary slots while they fully retain their versatility and ability to cast other spells as needed.

And here we come to my point: Using only their free healing from Channel Energy, a PF2 Cleric can be well on par with a PF1 Cleric spending a fair number of slots on it. Therefore a PF2 Cleric needs to invest almost no spells into healing in order to be effective.

An Oracle, without Channel Energy, cannot say the same. That was my whole point.

No. A PF2 Cleric's Healing does not outweigh what a PF1 Cleric can do. The mere fact a level 20 Cleric can do five level 6 Heal spells for 150 healing and a bunch of debuffs, and between four and five level 9 spell of Mass Heal for 200 healing for all creatures within 30 feet of each other kind of outweighs a 20d8+Wisdom Bonus single healing zap... and DEFINITELY outweighs a 10d8+Wisdom Bonus Area zap.

The 2nd Ed. Oracle likewise isn't as potent as the 1st Ed. Cleric for healing but that's Granny Smith apples to Braeburn apples. The 2nd Ed. Cleric is a Red Delicious - has an enticing name but no real flavour from what little we've seen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I proved mathematically that a PF2 Cleric can do more healing than a PF1 Cleric burning all her extra spells over the _PF2 Cleric on healing with only a single spell devoted to healing.

In short, this analysis is flawed because it assumes that the PF2 Cleric can't invest their entire spell allotment into non-healing stuff and still be a perfectly sufficient healer. And their entire spell allotment into non-healing spells gives them offense easily on par with what a PF1 Cleric has after burning spells on healing, IMO.

It's like you are purposefully misreading what I am saying.

Yes, a Cleric could load up on nothing but Heal spells and be able to out-heal an Oracle.

But an Oracle is able to provide more Healing capability than a Cleric who does not do any Heal Spells for their secondary slots while they fully retain their versatility and ability to cast other spells as needed.

The PF2 Cleric starts off as a strong healer, able to heal at least two people (assuming a Dwarvish Cleric who didn't put any points into Charisma) in addition to having two 1st Tier spells available. You know what? That doesn't last. You could have the Cleric pumping up their Charisma every time they reach a stat bonus. But even if you had a Halfling Cleric and a 16 Charisma to start, you only end up with a 22 Charisma at the end and 9 uses of Channel Heal. That's all. And if someone needs a little bit of healing, the Cleric has to make a choice. Hold off... or heal them and waste that extra effort.

The Oracle outpaces this because they can cast other things besides Heal and are not forced to memorize spells, unlike the Cleric. And if that fighter was down 30 hit points? They could burn a 3rd Tier spell and do a 6d8 Heal 3 on them and likely heal them up for everything without having wasted a 20d8 blast of healing on them. (And yes, sometimes you WANT to heal up a small amount of damage because you never know when something is going to hit them for JUST enough to put them negative, but if they'd healed up earlier it wouldn't be a problem.) The Oracle doesn't have to decide to sacrifice a spell slot for this. They can just do it as part of their very nature.

The old Cleric? At 20th level they'd have a minimum of 40 healing spells (assuming Wisdom of 19) from level 1 to 9 spells that they could spontaneously cast, and those spells could be anything from Prayer to Bless to Flame Strike to Resurrection before they were turned into a Healing... AND they would have a minimum of one 10d6 Channel Positive Energy capable of healing everyone around them assuming a Dwarf who put an 8 as a starting stat in Charisma before their Racial penalty kicked in. And that is assuming someone created a half-fast Cleric here. And some of these spells include Heal and Mass Heal, which do a lot more healing than the PF2 Heal spells - even the high level ones. They'd easily be able to burn a 3rd level spell and heal the fighter 3d8+15. It wouldn't be any sort of problem at all.

You are busy saying there's nothing wrong while the house is burning down around you. There are plenty of things about Pathfinder 2 I like. But this outright gelding of the Cleric and in all likelihood the Wizard? Is not one of them. And I am quite sure that unless they explain in far greater detail about other abilities that Wizards get to make up for losing most of their spells, the outcry over the gelding of Wizards is going to make my comments seem like a nice cheerful little campfire.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
You see, the Oracle has the potential to heal far more than the Cleric while at the same time having the ability to cast other spells if needed and thus prove to be more versatile as its healing isn't based off of Channel Energy.

Is there a misunderstanding about Channel Energy here? Because that's /bonus/ Heals per day, not the cleric's /only/ Heals per day. If the cleric wants to play healbot arms race with the oracle, the cleric can /also/ use spell slots to heal. And probably take the Healing domain with even /more/ healing.

But there is almost no circumstances under which even half of a full caster's spells per day past low levels should need to go into healing.

This was ALWAYS the case. Clerics had Channel Positive Energy to help heal entire groups and with larger groups it was more efficient. Even at first level, a Cleric could heal five or six people of between 1 and 6 hit points... and do this three times at least, rather than fire off two or three Cure Light Wounds spells for between 2 and 9 hit points for one person each. Now? Now Channel Energy is empowered to heal more... but at the cost of two to three spells per Tier. Not including the Domain spell which probably doesn't exist anymore.

The Oracle can pull off a Healer role while still having the capability to cast any of the other spells they have available. Clerics have to sacrifice spellcasting capabilities since they no longer can sacrifice spells for Heal spells. So a player running a Cleric has to decide at the start of the day: do I risk my party losing people because I didn't add in a Heal spell? Or do I take other spells that might be useful.

The old Cleric could take whatever spells they wanted. If they needed to heal someone? They could sacrifice a spell. And they would have extra spells, both base and with their stat bonus... AS WELL as their Channel Energy ability. And trust me. The Cleric in the Runelords game I just finished? She usually used Channel Positive Energy to heal people rather than sacrifice spells because she had a really decent Charisma and there were multiple people hurt. And when there was only one or two hurt people she'd pull out a Cure Serious Wounds Wand. Ironically enough she had the Heal Domain so if she actually sacrificed a spell it was Empowered, but she was loathed to give up spells that might be of use later on.

She actually was tired of not contributing nearly as much to combat as others so she's not going to play a Cleric this time around. But given what's happened to the Cleric class, I don't think any of my group will do so. We'll probably have a Fighter, a Rogue, a Bard, and I honestly don't know for the fourth but seeing she wants to do a "magical girl" theme and I'm shifting us to 2nd Ed. Pathfinder, probably Sorcerer. But Clerics will end up on the chopping block for my group unless their secondary abilities end up being really good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

You have across multiple posts complained about clerics having to healbot and complained that the cleric can't healbot enough and now proposed that someone should play an oracle as a healbot with all their spells per going into healing.

I am not entirely sure what your angle is.

No. I have stated that the Oracle could easily pull off the Heal Bot aspect of the Cleric, outdo it, and make the Cleric basically pointless. This is actually something Paizo should be considering - the Oracle is as much a counterpart to the Cleric as the Sorcerer is a counterpart to the Wizard. They should be developed concurrently so to iron out potential problems rather than have them creep up in a new rulebook.

You see, the Oracle has the potential to heal far more than the Cleric while at the same time having the ability to cast other spells if needed and thus prove to be more versatile as its healing isn't based off of Channel Energy.

And if Oracles (or Sorcerer) can Heighten any lower level spell much like a Cleric or Wizard can then they will have far more high level spells available than a Cleric or Wizard. Thus they gain the capacity to at high levels cast a wide variety of magic while Clerics and Wizards are handicapped by a maximum of three spells per Tier.

I'm pointing out the flaws with the current system as I see it. I'm hoping that the Developers are going to either explain how these will not be problems... or find a way to fix them without completely nerfing the Sorcerer and Oracle.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
brad2411 wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Oracle better at healing...

So I did some math (I am not the greatest and could be wrong) I assumed a cleric Lv.12 Wis 22 [+6] and chr 18 [+4]. So he has 3 spells in every level 1st-6th. Your example uses an assumed oracle gets 4 spells per spell level (I see this as likely as they seem to be cutting down on spells per day). Which he has put all spells to heal. My cleric will also put all his spells to heal. Which gives him a total of 185d8+150 vs. the 144d8+44 I got from the your oracle of the same stats (Oracle lv. 12 Chr 22 [+6])

Also I would say that the oracle probably would not have 4 6th level spells as it just got its first 6th level spell if we go by current class design. (spontaneous casters getting there new spell levels at even umbers)

** spoiler omitted **

If I did the math wrong please let me know.

Actually, if we go by the Sorcerer PF1 advancement, then Oracles and Sorcerers would have 5 spells per Tier. Three to start, one more at 2nd, and one more at 3rd level. Probably after that it would be three 2nd Tier spells at 4th level and an additional two at 5th level, and on down the line.

If they go by the same advancement as Wizards and Clerics, then it'll be three-and-one (or maybe three-and-two), and one selected spell for each level (and then a Bloodline or Mysteries spell for a total selection of three spells per.)

This also opens the question: Do Sorcerers get Heighten Spell? If so, then that means Sorcerers eventually have a wide variety of spells the higher their level - spells that can be Heightened would stack, so someone with 9th Tier spells could cast Fireball, Magic Missile, Ice Spear, Entanglement, Lightning Balls, Acid Arrow, and on down the line - they might only have two or three 1st Tier spells, but being able to Heighten even one of each Tier means at 18th level a Sorcerer or Oracle has 9 spells available to cast.

All at once, Wizards and Clerics become far less powerful because they are forced to memorize spells while Sorcerers and Oracles have a wide variety of spells available. And if Sorcerers and Oracles CAN'T Heighten spells... then they are massively weakened.

This seems to be a flaw in the current spell system. I hope that the Developers can go into detail as to why this is not the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Small note: as written, I don't see how people aren't going to just dip one level into Cleric to gain access to the Channel Energy/Heal option and then play a Rogue or Fighter who can dish out healing. They'll get probably 4-6 Heals a day given that Charisma is going to be a fairly important stat for even non-casters, and seeing Channel energy isn't based off of Resonance, it would benefit the crew for probably until 10th level at which point they can probably just Retrain and eliminate Cleric as other abilities will be better suited.

Also, unless the Sorcerer/Oracle is nerfed to the point that it's unplayable, I still don't see how an Oracle won't be a superior healer than a Cleric. An Oracle with a 22 Charisma at level 12 would, even if limited to four castings of each Tier per day, have up to four Heal 1s, four Heal 2s, four Heal 3s, four Heal 4s, four Heal 5s, and four Heal 6s. Those Heals will be doing 2d6 times their Tier +6 each, so a potential of 168d8 of healing if they went full-time healing, while STILL having the potential to cast other spells if needed.

The Cleric won't max out Charisma. It would probably be no more than 18. That's 7 uses of Channel Heal or 84d6 of healing and then if they memorized more Heals they could boost it further but at a loss of versatility - meanwhile the Oracle remains versatile and could use those spells for other things if needed.

BTW, that's saying that the Sorcerer and Oracle are gimped to a maximum of 4 castings per Tier per day. It likely will be set at 5, at which point the Oracle's potential Healing ability is significantly higher as a result.

So. What's the point of playing a Cleric outside of waiting for the Oracle to be available? You're limited to 3 spells per Tier per day. You're forced to increase Charisma constantly to provide more healing. You're tossing away Class Feats to increase the number of Heals further OR wasting Spell Slots for more Healing while further limiting how much you can do otherwise.

Why limit the spells to the level they did? Even if they left spells the same but eliminated spells for attribute bonuses then they STILL reduced full casters' ability to have a diversity of spells... but at least it's not as massive of a change.

Why the drastic cut in spell choice diversity? And how is this going to impact the Sorcerer and Oracle with their spells known?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Spell progression ends at level 18.
Is that confirmed? I see where you can't get 10th level spells without the feat, but does that include spell slots?

If 10th Tier spells are so much better than 9th Tier spells that they are locked behind a Feat Wall, then how does that equate to a 19d6 Flamestrike or 19d6 Fireball? That's an incremental benefit and not in line with what a Wish spell or the other 10th Tier spells would provide.

Consider the level of power used for a Wish spell. Now... does that say "I'm a 2d6 increase over a 9th Tier spell" or does that say "earth-shattering power rarely seen in the world."

So I surely hope they don't just handwave it as "well you can use those slots for a slightly more powerful spell" because that makes absolutely no sense. And it also says that the alternative for a 10th Tier spell had better be pretty damn useful... otherwise it's just a Feat Tax that serves no purpose but to eat the last couple of Class Feats for the Cleric or Wizard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Okay. So 10th level spells now exist behind a Feat Wall.

Spell progression ends at level 18. After all, if level 10 spells are so much more potent than level 9 spells, then it is clear you can't just have a Tier 10 Heightened spell - a 19d6 Fireball or Flamestrike is not a significant level of power greater than a 17d6 Fireball or Flamestrike. It doesn't speak of the potency of a Wish or any of the other 10th Tier spells being talked about.

So. What other level 18 Feats are going to exist that can compete with reality-altering spells? What other option is going to be so awesome that it can compete? Because if there isn't anything then you're just forcing people to use a Feat or have a substandard character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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

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


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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 level spells, five 5th level spells, and three 6th level spells. If she were a Specialist? You're bumping all of those up by one. Our Wizard had a total of 31 spells she can cast (or 37 if a Specialist).

Now? She gets 18 spells. Before she may very well have had a wide variety of spells for any occasion because she had that opportunity and capability to expand the spells she has available for whatever might come around. Sure, she might double up on Magic Missile and double up on Mage Armor (or even take an Extended Mage Armor as a 2nd level spell)... but often she'd be taking a variety of spells.

This is the benefit of the Wizard over the Sorcerer who only knows 20 spells at 12th level... which is two spells more than what a 12th level 2nd edition Wizard can now cast.

BTW, these same exact numbers work for the Cleric and the Oracle. The Cleric has the exact same number of spells available as a Specialist Wizard... and under the new edition only can cast 18 spells at 12th level. And you better believe those spells are going to be the ones with most bang for the buck rather than stuff that could potentially be useful and hey if not then that's what Spontaneous Healing is for. Oh wait, no more Spontaneous Healing, you better hope that Cleric pumped either a Feat into Extra Channel or boosted their Charisma up to 18 so that they can use Heal 7 times a day.

I sure as heck don't know what the Playtest Rules will offer for the Cleric, but I know this. Clerics and Wizards just lost a huge amount of diversity in spell selection. They're going to take only the spells they KNOW will be handy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.

Wizard has always done these things but only through the use of MOAR SPELLS.

They fill the same niche of dedicated spellcaster but in radically different ways. A cleric in 1st ed. is typically looking for efficient spell management due to the number of highly specialized low impact spells they have. A wizard on the other hand has tons of high impact spells from 1st to 20th and is often more concerned with getting them out faster and harder.

Generally I built my wizards for high speed and high number of spells, go first, drop my mean stuff right away and let the pawns mop up for me. With cleric I had to be a bit more methodical considering what slots to leave open and what spells will have a consistent impact for the actions I'm using.

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.

Why would the Wizard have a different progression chart than the Cleric? It seems Paizo has come up with this view that there is a "simple" method of progression - two spells of the highest level at the odd level of progression, and one spell and one Class Feat at even levels of progression. It's quick and easy to remember. Hey, it does work. It means you don't need to go to the class chart when learning new spells because you know what you're getting.

Heck, there is even one other area of similarity: Specialist Wizards get +1 spell - of their Specialty School, much like the Cleric Domain spells. Thus Specialist Wizards have a maximum of 4+1 spells per spell level in PF1, before ability score modifiers.

If Clerics are limited to 3 per level? So too will Wizards. Further, come level 20 you are pretty much forced to either take a Feat Tax for those level 10 spells, or you get nothing spellcasting-wise. You end up penalized for choosing NOT to go for that level 10 spell. After all, at level 18 you already maximized out your new spells! (Unless they give a Class Feat for level 19 or have level 10 spells be a General Feat that is - interestingly, level 19 gets absolutely nothing for spells, especially when you aren't going for those level 10 spells.)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Okay, well let's consider this.

The Cleric is akin to the Wizard. If the Cleric gets a maximum of 3 spells per spell tier, the Wizard will probably get a maximum of 3 spells per spell tier.

If the Wizard gets a maximum of 3 spells per tier, then that means the Sorcerer will learn a maximum of 2 spells. One of these spells will be the Bloodline spell. After all, the Sorcerer will be able to cast those spells probably five times per spell tier. Otherwise, Sorcerers will be more powerful and better suited for the game than wizards.

Similarly, Oracles are going to be limited to two known spells per Spell Tier. Otherwise they are far more powerful than Clerics are. Why would anyone want to play a Cleric who gets three spells per tier and only can cast those once each.

Now if they were shifting Clerics and Wizards to be Arcanist-like in casting, which means they MEMORIZE three spells maximum but can cast them in combination five times a day total per tier, then you've got something more versatile and potent. But that's not what they are implying here.

You will not see Clerics casting a wide variety of spells unless those Clerics are running around with Scrolls... which will take Resonance to cast and money to scribe or buy. An effort to lessen the power of the Cleric will result in far less diversity in spells taken because why choose variety when you are instead going to be more likely to use the same two or three spells over and over again?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Toblakai wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:


Oh, and you nerfed it by taking away the ranged aspect. So you can focus a channel positive energy or use one that is effectively two levels lower in power.

A "nerf" is when you change something to be weaker in a game. So what was the original version of this ability in PF2E that was nerfed?

Because you lose versatility. A PF1 1st level Cleric could take Bless and Magic Stone, for instance, and yet those could easily become two Cure Light Wounds spells. They'd also have a Domain ability and a Domain spell. In all likelihood they'd start out with a 17 Wisdom assuming a 15-point build and +2 bonus to Wisdom. If they dropped a 12 into Charisma then they can Channel Positive Energy 4 times for an additional 4d6 of healing.

Sure, the PF2 Cleric might be able to do 8d8+4 healing to four targets... but that's all. They either memorize Heal two more times and lose out on any other spells, or they don't get to do more healing. The PF1 Cleric? They're doing 4d6 healing to a group. Dropping fractions that means the PF1 Cleric just did 12 hit points healing to EVERYONE. If their group is six people? That's 68 healing. If it's just three? It's 36. If it's a town square full of people recovering from a goblin attack with say 20 people hurt? You might have 60 hit points healed in one average roll.

That 12 Charisma PF2 Cleric only does 1 hit point of healing for an Area burst. Sure, they could do 8d8+4 healing divided among four people... but healing up a town full of folk? That's not happening.

So, nerf? Yes. It depends on the situation. But you're going to have to drop Charisma into the character, in all likelihood Charisma is now the more important stat than Wisdom, and as you level up you're going to boost Charisma over Wisdom - once your Wisdom is 19 you have all the spells you need in any event. But you better hope you can keep boosting that Charisma because that's ALL of your heal spells unless you load up your far-more-limited spell selection.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
eddv wrote:
In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?

Nope

So you are used to having 3 apples.
They've taken away the 3 apples and now say you can have any 3 fruit. So you can have your 3 apples back or you can have an apple and 2 oranges, or an apple, an orange and a banana.
There is no tax - it is just increased options including buying back to exactly* where you started.

*(well a reasonable approximation thereof anyway)

It's more that you start out with three apples and then as time went by you could also get three bananas.

Now you start out with three fruit, one of which has to be an apple. Over time you can get two more fruit of any kind. In the end you are left with five fruit of any kind rather than three apples and three bananas - you have greater diversity but lower quantity. (The other fruit are no bigger than a banana or apple - so apple-sized pineapple, or apple-sized grapefruit.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Hmm. Is Lamashtu going to be non-evil now? That is... not what I expected.

Probably evil but allowed to heal anyway.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

From the sounds of things, you get one Domain. It has one ability. At a higher level you can spend a Class Feat to unlock the second Domain ability. You can also spend a Class Feat to get a second Domain... and have to send yet another Class Feat to unlock its second Domain ability. For all we know, you might also have to spend a Class Feat to unlock the Domain Spell and a sixth Class Feat to unlock a second Domain Spell... which is over half of your Class Feats to do what an ordinary Cleric could.

Nothing in what we've seen here says differently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JRutterbush wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
thflame wrote:
It seems like much of PF2's "customization" will be in the form of gutting our class abilities and selling them back to us as feats.
Which is fine, since they're also giving you a bunch of extra feats. This means that, if you want something close to the old Cleric, just buy it back with those bonus Class Feats. But if you don't, you have so many more options now. Just don't buy the things you don't want, and get something else instead. More options is better, period.
You have more options. I and others that want to play normal/old Cleric however, have feat taxes. This was how I felt over in Alchemist thread.
No you don't... You're using class feats, which you never got before as a Cleric. You have not been taxed any general feats.
Class Feats is another name for Class Abilities.
You mean the thing that Clerics didn't actually get?

The thing they got which was incorporated into Domains and other abilities.

Don't forget: you get fewer generalized Feats as a result while trying to build your class using Class Feats. Skill Feats are basically skill points from the sound of things. And by renaming everything Feats they can handwave stuff and make it seem like you're getting stuff when you're getting less, much like a container of ice cream with a higher bottom so that instead of a half gallon of ice cream you get 1.5 quarts. Or they whip it so there's air in it so it's the same-size container but trust me by weight you're getting less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
thflame wrote:
It seems like much of PF2's "customization" will be in the form of gutting our class abilities and selling them back to us as feats.
Which is fine, since they're also giving you a bunch of extra feats. This means that, if you want something close to the old Cleric, just buy it back with those bonus Class Feats. But if you don't, you have so many more options now. Just don't buy the things you don't want, and get something else instead. More options is better, period.
You have more options. I and others that want to play normal/old Cleric however, have feat taxes. This was how I felt over in Alchemist thread.
No you don't... You're using class feats, which you never got before as a Cleric. You have not been taxed any general feats.

Class Feats is another name for Class Abilities. It's just that the class now has them divvied up into smaller segments. Given there are several apparent Class Feat Taxes in effect the Cleric gets probably six to seven Class Feats. If you want to be a decent healer probably half of those will be taken away as well... and probably the rest will be for alternative weapon proficiency or the like.

I'll have to wait for the Playtest to be available but it seriously looks like they nerfed Spellcasters to make Melee types more potent. Hopefully the spell selection will make up for that nerf. But I have a bad feeling about this.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

They're not free heals. They're Channel Positive Energy. It's what Clerics already had.

You took away several spells per spell level and said "look, you can heal using this mechanic (that Clerics already had), isn't it nifty?"

Oh, and you nerfed it by taking away the ranged aspect. So you can focus a channel positive energy or use one that is effectively two levels lower in power.

Uh...what? Heal, as listed in the spell blog is so many miles better as a power than Channel Energy in PF1 it's not even funny. And can in fact be used at range. Or in an area.

An 11th level PF Cleric can channel for 6d6 averaging 21 to either heal or to harm undead. An 11th level PF2 Cleric can do the same for 5d8+6, averaging 28.5 to both heal allies (and only allies) and harm undead. Or she can use it for 11d8+6 healing via either touch or at range. And can do the touch version three times in a round if she wants (for 33d8+18 healing, or 166.5 healing in a round)...though that is resource intensive, admittedly.

Because before they had two options for healing - they could burn a spell to do Cure Wounds, or they could Channel Positive Energy to heal up the entire group. If they were in the middle of combat and had Selective Channel they could even do Channel Positive Energy and block out important enemies while healing up the entire group.

And in all likelihood by 12th level they'd have six 1st level spells, five 2nd, five 3rd, four 4th, four 5th, and two 6th level spells, not including Domain spells. They'd also have on average 4 Channel Positive Energy charges doing 6d6 healing IN ADDITION TO their existing spell list.

Now? Now the same Cleric has three 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells. Let's say they boosted Charisma a little more because now they need to: they now have six Heal Spams. The Cleric just lost out on Channel Energy, are dedicating it to Healing, while losing out on eight spells that could have provided easily as much healing if not more.

Essentially you're going to see everyone using Healing Rituals from now on to heal people up because they can't rely on their Cleric anymore.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Basically all I see is that Clerics have been nerfed for spellcasting and their capability to heal. Before you could have fairly low-Charisma Clerics that were able to keep a party healed up. Now? Now they need a high Charisma for extra "Heal" spells, and sure they can focus them on one person but originally? Originally they had spells AND Channel Positive Energy! They could sacrifice spells while using Channels to heal up the group afterward!

Clerics just massively got nerfed. I do not see what benefits they are getting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Meophist wrote:
Blog Post wrote:
Every time you gain an even level, you get one more spell slot per day of your highest level of spells (so at 2nd level, a cleric has three 1st-level spells per day)

I have to admit, I had to reread this a few times. Spell levels are confusing since they don't really line up well with character/class levels.

I do like a lot of what's here though.

Which is why Spell Tier is a better term than Spell Level.

You don't have a player asking "why doesn't my 3rd level character get third level spells?"


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
NielsenE wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
I like most of this. I was surprised to see that Channel Energy and Spell Points are not connected. I was expecting them to draw from the same pool. My knee-jerk reaction is "don't like!" because I thought the whole point of Spell Points was to get away from having to track several different resource pools. I'll wait to see how things play out at the table though.
Spell Points are used for abilities unique to their pool and to the class. The spells from channel are essentially more prepared spells per day.
So this means the "why" could be something like: Clerics (or PC clerics at least) normally need a large pool of healing. We didn't want that healing to eat into their spells per day (or else they only prepare heals, or just end up spontaneously converting all their spells to cures). We also didn't want to combine their channel with their spell pool, so they don't feel guilty about using pool points for domain powers rather than channel?

Indeed, we're eliminating the tyranny of forced (or pressured at least) conversion of the stuff you wanted into heals by giving you a bunch of free heals.

They're not free heals. They're Channel Positive Energy. It's what Clerics already had.

You took away several spells per spell level and said "look, you can heal using this mechanic (that Clerics already had), isn't it nifty?"

Oh, and you nerfed it by taking away the ranged aspect. So you can focus a channel positive energy or use one that is effectively two levels lower in power.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This... bodes poorly. I do hope Wizards get a larger selection of spells, seeing they're the arcane counterparts to Clerics, but the elimination of bonus spells for higher ability scores really limits the Cleric. Sure, they get two spells for each odd level (which is about on par with what they'd get with Wisdom spell bonuses), but usually casters could be getting upward of six spells per Spell Tier. (And I still say that Spell Level is confusing as it's too many levels.)

It also seems to weaken the Cleric with every Even level compared to the Odd levels where they get two spells of the highest level. Are Cleric Class Feats going to be so good that they negate the benefit of that second (or fourth, rather) spell for the highest level?

And no, Channel Energy/Heals don't make up for this. You have between 3 and probably 7 extra uses assuming you boosted your Charisma to 18. And then that's it. It doesn't grow. So it's a static amount of "heal spells" that remains unchanging unless you spend Feats to boost it, contrasted to actual spells. Further, it is using what Channel Positive Energy already did... so you basically took away Cleric spells and said "well it's actually Channel Positive Energy for Heal spells!" without giving anything in return. It's quite the way to make Clerics less attractive for players to run.

Also, how do Metamagic Feats work? You mentioned Reach Spell - is the primary effect increasing the casting time of the spell? Does it also increase the spell slot needed, thus a 1st level touch spell is a 2nd or 3rd level Reach spell?

What else can you tell us? What was the thought that went into this recreation of the Cleric class? (And what of the Oracle? I assume since it wasn't mentioned at all that you're not combining the Oracle with Cleric or Sorcerer?)

As an aside, if you added TWO new core classes instead of just one and had the Oracle as the Divine counterpoint to the Sorcerer even with the Alchemist being added, that would probably make a lot of folk happy, and would make sense thematically.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@UnArcaneElection - There's a difference this time around. You have, say, a First Tier Magic Missile spell. You can, any time you memorize and cast Magic Missile, fire off between one and three missiles. This is true for a first level wizard and a 20th level wizard.

However, at 3rd level, a Wizard can cast a Second Tier Magic Missile spell that does a greater amount of damage or perhaps more missiles - starting with two missiles for a single Action casting, up to six for a three-action casting.

At 5th level, the wizard can cast a Third Tier Magic Missile that does maybe three missiles for a single Action, up to nine for a three-action casting. And on down the line.

You are using a higher level spell to cast the spell, yes. But if Spell Resistance is a thing, the spell works more effectively against it. A Fifth Tier Magic Missile penetrates Globe of Invulnerability (while doing upward of 15 missiles for a three-action casting).

Likewise with Fireball. A Third Tier Fireball is 5d6 always. Now, that can be handy when finishing off a foe that is badly hurt. But for something that is tougher, that 9th level Wizard might want to cast a Fifth Tier Fireball that does 9d6 damage all the time and is harder to dodge. Hell, the Seventh Tier Fireball would be doing 13d6 damage which is more than any 3rd level casting in Pathfinder 1 would have unless you had Empowered Spell (which makes it a 5th level Pathfinder 1 spell in any event)... while still being tougher to resist.

So maybe you won't have a 15th level wizard casting a 15d6 3rd level Fireball using an Enhanced Spell Megamagic Rod... but you could be casting a Seventh Tier Fireball that is significantly tougher to resist or dodge than that Third Tier spell was. And no doubt there will be alternative spells as well so it's not just Fireballs all the way up. It might allow for more diversity in spells for that matter.

1 to 50 of 4,313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>