Please rebuild the Cleric into something awesome!!


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:
QuidEst wrote:


We have an implied guarantee of being able to get two domains, although you might have to give up one of your class feats. There’s a class feat to get another domain- meaning you get at least one to start, and can grab at least one more.

This illustrates my point perfectly....

So in PF1 a vanilla cleric gets 2 domains, and lets be brutally honest, domains are on average underwhelming and underpowered for a variety of reasons.... all in all you can't really tell the difference mechanically between cleric of God X and cleric of God Y

And here we are with PF2 being told that in order to get 2 domains, you have to give up a class feat?!?!

Ermmmm.... what?

This can only imply one of 2 things either:

1) The whole domain thing has been dramatically overhauled to increase the power/usefulness of each

2) Paizo have got their sums very wrong indeed!!!

Granted I havent seen the full details, but its looking like already a bit of mess for the cleric in PF2...

Still with the bewildering instance of gish, still with echoes of 1st Ed Healbot, still will the stubborn instance on forcing a cleric to take the notoriously bad channel at first and by the looks of things, some serious questions over how domains will be implemented....

Its tragic.... I have seen several 3PP products that have absolutely wiped the floor with Paizo's PF1 rigid cleric interpretation. The result?..... a profitable 3PP product!

Paizo unfortunately are seemingly oblivious!

Numerous opportunities to sort the class out through various means have been and gone.... I see no reason to believe based on the evidence that things will change...

Whoa, slow down! We have been told no such thing. There's a reason I said "might" and "at least" all throughout- we don't know how many domains Clerics start with! All we know is that there's a feat to get another domain. Do you start with one, two, or a dozen? We don't know. (Plus, even if you do start with one, you can use your first level class feat for the second domain, and still come out with the other nine or ten class feats- you get another at second level- as customization that you didn't have before.)

You're jumping straight to the worst conclusion, and then painting it as worse than it is.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Between that and the syntax/phrasing/general writing style, it reminds me of a well-known Twitter account.


QuidEst wrote:


Whoa, slow down! We have been told no such thing. There's a reason I said "might" and "at least" all throughout- we don't know how many domains Clerics start with! All we know is that there's a feat to get another domain. Do you start with one, two, or a dozen? We don't know. (Plus, even if you...

OK fair enough..... maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.... but then if so little is know then why not just post..

"There is a feat to get another domain."

And leave it at that...... your original post provides plenty of ambiguity!

And anyway it doesn't change the fact that from what we can tell.... PF2 cleric still has a lot in common with not only PF1 cleric but also 1st Ed cleric!


Rob Godfrey wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Cleric, Inquisitor, and Warpriest should really be remixed into a 9/9 (10/10?) spellcasting, d6, 1/2 BAB class and a 6/9 (7/10?) spellcasting, d8, 3/4 BAB class (and put the Inquisitor role into a prestige class where it belongs). Then make Domains work like mini-Mysteries with mini-Revelations (I guess this would fit into Cleric Class Feats?).

out of interest why does the Inquisitor belong as a prestige class?

Inquisitor (to me) is one of the better classes of PF. Cleric one of the most bland. But Unarcane is on some kind of personal crusade to kill Inquisitor and make it a Prestige Class for cleric. I would be really angry if that happens. If I remember correctly, he says that Inquisitor is a too much important role for be viable at level 1. If that's the case, half the classes would not be playable at first level.


Remember that the devs have acknowledged some classes in PF1 designed before Archetypes were a thing were underwhelming due to lack of class features. And they specifically called out Cleric. I think it's safe to say the cleric will have more to do.

I'm hoping they get more domains, but even if it's just one domain to start, that isn't necessarily bad. If the domains are much broader and deeper, and then bolstered by warpriest blessings and other new class gestures, it could still work out quite well toward a more personalized cleric with a wider span of powers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll throw in that I'd like to see Clerics get Arcanist-Style Prepared Casting, and have domains that give several powers that a cleric chooses from similar to mysteries for oracle giving revelations.


I GET the idea of paladin being a prestige class, but no way on Monk or Inquisitor. Those cover thematic niches that need to be available to players from level one.

I admit to wanting a cleric that is more spell oriented than the current cleric, simply because it sort of mentally fits what I think of a "priest" class. Part of the problem with clerics is that they are already pretty "fighty" AND they get full spellcasting. I really don't expect that to happen, given that many might consider that to be a bit too severe a break from Pathfinder 1E


doc roc wrote:

OK fair enough..... maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.... but then if so little is know then why not just post..

"There is a feat to get another domain."

And leave it at that...... your original post provides plenty of ambiguity!

And anyway it doesn't change the fact that from what we can tell.... PF2 cleric still has a lot in common with not only PF1 cleric but also 1st Ed cleric!

I was pointing out the useful conclusion of that statement- that there's at least a starting domain, and you at least have the option of two domains. People who want two domains will be happy to know that. If you want three domains, well, there's a chance.

And yeah, of course it's going to have a lot in common with PF1 Cleric. Monks are still going to do somewhat supernatural martial arts, and bards are still going to do magical performances. My friends would be pretty sad if they took away the parts of Cleric that they like.

Clerics will have more features now, which means that they can get much more meaningful archetypes. And, with a range of class feats as options, you should be able to build something closer to what you wanted then before, especially once the first archetype to replace your free healing comes out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure how the class will look, but if the vast majority of 'class features' are from class feats, then you haven't really fixed the cleric, you've just given it a bunch of feats.

Clerics of different gods should be incredibly unique from one another, and even two clerics of the same god should have some decent variance, as most(if not all) have multiple 'aspects' a cleric could choose to emulate.

Ie, a cleric of Sarenrae could focus on the healing/mercy aspect, or the sun/destruction of undead, or just be a badass warrior type.


I think Clerics in PF1 are already pretty customizable. Yeah, they all get pretty much the same access to spells and feats (Inner Sea Gods, tho) so it was up to the player to tailor them to be more thematic to the deity.

Seems like what you want is to restrict the Cleric so it is forced to take these options instead of choosing them on their own. Granted, that would help vs optimizing them in lore-unfriendly ways, so won't complain.


Clerics as they are in PF1 are honestly a powerful but boring class. They're also a pain to run, since they automagically know all cleric spells. That in and of itself is one of the biggest things that needs to be fixed in Cleric/Druid design.
I would also put in a vote for them not defaulting to being above average fighters though. That should be a space for a Paladin/Warpriest type class.


doc roc wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Whoa, slow down! We have been told no such thing. There's a reason I said "might" and "at least" all throughout- we don't know how many domains Clerics start with! All we know is that there's a feat to get another domain.
OK fair enough..... maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.... but then if so little is know then why not just post.. "There is a feat to get another domain." And leave it at that...... your original post provides plenty of ambiguity!

Because... a reasonable reader is a able to discern the specificity of what he wrote: "might" and "at least" are words wihich mean things. I understood it exactly as he intended, and didn't leap to the conclusions you did. You complain about ambiguity, but that is exactly the accurate thing to convey when we don't know every detail. Trying to spin that into specific implication is problem on reader's part, not author.

I don't particularly understand your framing regardless, since in P1E we have Cleric archetypes that trade 1 domain for other class abilities like Bardic Performance, so what is difference to P2E potentially making that a choice between Class Feats? And if Paizo draws on pre-3.x. conventions, so what exactly? 3.x was far from perfect, and ruined several existing dynamics.


Alaryth wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Cleric, Inquisitor, and Warpriest should really be remixed into a 9/9 (10/10?) spellcasting, d6, 1/2 BAB class and a 6/9 (7/10?) spellcasting, d8, 3/4 BAB class (and put the Inquisitor role into a prestige class where it belongs). Then make Domains work like mini-Mysteries with mini-Revelations (I guess this would fit into Cleric Class Feats?).

out of interest why does the Inquisitor belong as a prestige class?
Inquisitor (to me) is one of the better classes of PF. Cleric one of the most bland. But Unarcane is on some kind of personal crusade to kill Inquisitor and make it a Prestige Class for cleric. I would be really angry if that happens. If I remember correctly, he says that Inquisitor is a too much important role for be viable at level 1. If that's the case, half the classes would not be playable at first level.

I actually like the Inquisitor chassis and would like to save it for other uses (including the Cleric remix needed to make the Cleric less bland) . . . but conceptually, someone who is going to be behind-the-scenes and above-the-law would NOT be someone who any deity, philosophy, or religion in their right mind would trust off the street to be such a thing -- people should be required to prove themselves before getting that kind of responsibility. The same goes for Holy Warriors (Paladins/Antipaladins) -- D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana and Kirthfinder both even made Paladin Prestige Classes for this purpose, although at least the former never seems to have caught on. You could probably make an argument this way for some other classes (I'm leaning towards Monk being next), but these seem to me to be the big ones.

By the way, if done right, an Inquisitor Prestige Class wouldn't only be for entry from Cleric . . . .


That reasoning could be applied to nearly any class. A beginner wizard can not be trust to go outside the magical academy at first level; he does not control his magical power well enough yet. Or cleric. Who deity would give magical power to someone who has not been proven yet?
In fact... we have any confirmation if Prestige Classes would be on PF2?


This is more needed for divine classes that get to go above what is normally possible for clergy of their respective faiths.

Nevertheless, I've been toying with the idea that all the base PC classes would be low-entry-requirement quasi-prestige classes (unlike true prestige classes, not necessarily tied to a particular organization, with obvious exceptions for divine classes connected to deities and/or philosophies, and getting rid of the 0 hit dice property of creatures that currently have it. So everyone would start with at least 1 level of traditionally NPC class (for most Humanoids, these would be your racial hit dice, but would be a more interesting part of your build than such classes would be now), and build to enter a base class. Most commonly, campaigns would start with characters having already gotten past the traditionally NPC class stage and achieved 1 level of traditionally PC class, or in a few cases having achieved 2 levels of traditionally NPC class to set up some oddball build. This would have the added benefit of making 1st level a bit less swingy. But the option would exist to play out the start from true 1st level and questing to start down the path of becoming exceptional.

Aurguably, Cleric is somewhere in between.

Whereas an arcane caster or some martial with self-teachable physical training might be not allowed out of their respective sanctums by local law, but if they escape, nothing is going to drop their power as would happen with most divine spellcasters who violate their codes. (This kill switch on divine casters does provide some safety to a religion that wants to start them off early, but if you have to use the kill switch on too many because you've been starting them too early, it is going to reflect really badly on that religion, and the patron of the religion can decide to nip this problem im the bud by waiting for suitable proof of suitability before turning on the switch in the first place, whereas no one is in a position to make such a decision for arcane casters, martials, etc.)


I do not fully understand the first part, sorry.
One important detail; on the majority of settings, a divine caster is NOT empowered by the church, it is empowered by the deity, so, while maybe unusual, is totally possible to have a cleric/paladin/inquisitor with power from his/her deity but not being part of any divine organization.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping that the primary attribute for the PF2 Cleric will be Charisma instead of Wisdom, but I'm not going to be crushed if Paizo keeps it as Wisdom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Me too. Charisma for Clerics and Wisdom for Druids makes really a lot of sense imho


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Me too. Charisma for Clerics and Wisdom for Druids makes really a lot of sense imho

I also like that it helps distinguish the Cleric and Druid in a similar fashion as the Wizard and Sorcerer operating off different primary attributes.

Dark Archive

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Me too. Charisma for Clerics and Wisdom for Druids makes really a lot of sense imho

Several classes could be more flexible in the choice of primary spellcasting attribute. 'Charismatic' clerics are just one example. Druids who function as lorekeepers and have their own secret language could perhaps function on intelligence, instead of wisdom. Bards based on intelligence could also be trained 'dabblers,' not just innately magical spontaneous spellcasters. Wisdom based witches could arguably feel more thematic than intelligence based witches.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the connection between kind of magic and stat is something cool. They have the option to do it now, starting fresh. I think "Pact" magic, the magic you cast from a patron (witches, warlocks, and divine magic), make sense as Cha. Cha is already the stat for Divine Grace and Divine Channelling anyways.

Int for arcane stuff, including Sorcerers (so the standard sorcerer is better at Spellcraft than he is at Diplomacy) makes sense too.

I would leave Wisdom for characters who cast spells based on connection with nature, and maybe later with psychic magic (a medium should have more sense motive than diplomacy, too)

Dark Archive

Or what if the casting attribute is tied to the deity?
Surely Irori clerics are wisdom, but Nethys clerics are intelligence and Shelyn clerics are charisma based.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Me too. Charisma for Clerics and Wisdom for Druids makes really a lot of sense imho

I would strongly disagree..... historically holy men have yes been charismatic but the trait that sets them apart from the normal folk has always been their ability to impart their wisdom.

After all anyone can be charismatic.... in fact charisma is a trait strongly associated with criminal types! Wisdom however is not something that can be applied to anyone..... it carries with it a certain association with spirituality and other-worldly knowledge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bookrat wrote:
I really liked how back in 2e, your choice of a god dictated what spells you had access to. I'd love to see something like that again.

This, this right here.

Pathfinder isn't really to blame for the bland-o cleric- that's a 3E/d20 sin- a game built on backwards compatibility leaves us stuck with this tepid... dreary... thing.

Granted, it did hearken back to the base "Cleric" class (which could only use blunt weapons, lest we forget!), but if you'd been running specialty priests, it was a jarring jolt...

In the good old days of THAC0, species-based class & level limitations, and different XP tracks for every class, you could whip up priests for just about every deity, some of whom could turn undead, some of whom could not. Granted powers were based on deity, not Sphere access. Spell choice was not "pick whatever you want off of this single list, plus your Domain spells," it was guided by the Spheres your deity granted access to (and every divine spell had a Sphere assigned to it, kinda like the arcane schools).

Not everything about the shift to 3E was an improvement, I'll just say that...

Now, whether the PF2 Cleric can regain some of that ceded ground is an open question.

doc roc wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Me too. Charisma for Clerics and Wisdom for Druids makes really a lot of sense imho
I would strongly disagree..... historically holy men have yes been charismatic but the trait that sets them apart from the normal folk has always been their ability to impart their wisdom.

... Historically, holy men have been set apart by their ability to convince others that what they're saying is wisdom...


Alaryth wrote:

That reasoning could be applied to nearly any class. A beginner wizard can not be trust to go outside the magical academy at first level; he does not control his magical power well enough yet. Or cleric. Who deity would give magical power to someone who has not been proven yet?

In fact... we have any confirmation if Prestige Classes would be on PF2?

The difference is that a cleric is granted powers through their worship and dedication... that is their reward.

Historically a member of the 'Inquisition' (ie an Inquisitor) is someone trusted by the church above all others, including members of the clergy. They are beyond suspicion due to the fact that they have proven themselves worthy of absolute trust.

Thus they are given the power and authority to root out heresy and corruption within their religion and the power to wage undercover war against their deity's enemies.

They can be viewed in a way as 'divine special forces'.

And much like many of the worlds top special forces, you absolutely cannot join directly.

Yes the Inquisitor is a solid base class, but thematically it does make more sense as a PrC IMO....

Dark Archive

doc roc wrote:

I would strongly disagree..... historically holy men have yes been charismatic but the trait that sets them apart from the normal folk has always been their ability to impart their wisdom.

After all anyone can be charismatic.... in fact charisma is a trait strongly associated with criminal types! Wisdom however is not something that can be applied to anyone..... it carries with it a certain association with spirituality and other-worldly knowledge.

I should clarify, I don't want all clerics to be charismatics. I want multiple options. Some clerics might use their perceptions and willpower, others might use their persuasiveness and personal magnetism both to forge a connection with their parishoners, and to forge a connection with their deity.

Int-based 'dabbler' bards, wisdom-based sorcerers (using their strength of will and superior perceptive abilities to unlock their own potential and master arcane abilities), etc. would ideally co-exist with Charisma-based bards and sorcerers.

Witches are suited to all three casting stats, somewhat awesomely. We've already got Int-based witches, and perceptive Wisdom based witches and pact-making Charisma based witches would also make sense, perhaps with some sort of 'bell, book and candle' theme, in which witches identify with the bell (Charisma), book (Intelligence) or candle (Wisdom), and use that attribute to govern their spellcasting and their hexcraft. (Despite the association with the book, Int-based witches would still store spells in their familiars, not spellbooks!)

I like more options, although I can see that some might think it dilutes the theme, and could lead to a slippery-slope sort of 'everyone can do everything' and 'if everybody is special, no one is' situation.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In most folklore, the distinctions between priests/witches/wizards/whatever are largely dependent on who's telling the story anyway...


doc roc wrote:


The difference is that a cleric is granted powers through their worship and dedication... that is their reward.

Historically a member of the 'Inquisition' (ie an Inquisitor) is someone trusted by the church above all others, including members of the clergy. They are beyond suspicion due to the fact that they have proven themselves worthy of absolute trust.

Thus they are given the power and authority to root out heresy and corruption within their religion and the power to wage undercover war against their deity's enemies.

They can be viewed in a way as 'divine special forces'.

And much like many of the worlds top special forces, you absolutely cannot join directly.

Yes the Inquisitor is a solid base class, but thematically it does make more sense as a PrC IMO....

This doesn't at all jive with history. It's full of self-professed "experts" who act as inquistors. Hell, one of the most famous ones, Matthew Hopkins (the Witchfinder General), was basically self-appointed without being a formal member of clergy.

And sure, more formal inquistions were headed by major authority figures, but it's not like they were the ones physically grabbing people of the street.

On an unrelated note, I also like the idea of different primary casting stats based on diety. Priests of Sheyln and Desna really feel more like charisma-based dieties, while Torag and Erastil would fit well with Wisdom, Brigid with Intelligence. I could even see some using strength. That might however might be a bridge too far for PF2 revisions.


Cole Deschain wrote:
In the good old days of THAC0, species-based class & level limitations, and different XP tracks for every class, you could whip up priests for just about every deity, some of whom could turn undead, some of whom could not. Granted powers were based on deity, not Sphere access. Spell choice was not "pick whatever you want off of this single list, plus your Domain spells," it was guided by the Spheres your deity granted access to (and every divine spell had a Sphere assigned to it, kinda like the arcane schools).

The problem with that approach, from a design point of view, is that every type of priest becomes a class of its own. That takes a lot of page count and development resources (for example, Forgotten Realms got three different sourcebooks on gods and their followers - one for the mainstream human pantheon, one for demigods as well as gods based in odd places in the Realms, and one for non-human pantheons), which may or may not be justified. And if you do devote those resources, that might give the gods a more prominent position in the setting than intended - after all, they have all this stuff written about them, so they must be important.

It also makes things a lot harder to homebrew if you need to come up with a dozen or two new classes to match your pantheon.

The solution I've come up with for my 5e homebrew that's bubbling at the back of my mind is that the cleric class isn't directly tied to gods at all. Instead a cleric is a person with a deep intuitive understanding of and connection to some facet of reality, as expressed by their domain (5e clerics only have one domain, but it gives them more stuff than a 3e domain does). This understanding is intuitive rather than learned, as reflected by being Wisdom- instead of Intelligence-based. Gods and religion are more of a social thing than something connected to demonstrable magical power, although some clerics feel a strong kinship to a deity that reflects their domain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Me too. Charisma for Clerics and Wisdom for Druids makes really a lot of sense imho

I would strongly disagree..... historically holy men have yes been charismatic but the trait that sets them apart from the normal folk has always been their ability to impart their wisdom.

After all anyone can be charismatic.... in fact charisma is a trait strongly associated with criminal types! Wisdom however is not something that can be applied to anyone..... it carries with it a certain association with spirituality and other-worldly knowledge.

I bolded the relevant part:

Impart:
to communicate the knowledge of

There is a reason why Diplomacy is class skill for them, after all. Besides that, historically the clergy role was to impart God's Wisdom, not their own. In fact, often the clergy was pretty stubborn to knowledge and ideas, limiting themselves to be the spread of gospel.

In any case, Pathfinder does not need to mirror real world. It needs to mirror a fantasy world, and in said fantasy world, Charisma is the expression of force of personality, and relationship with divine essence. Oracles, who directly connect with gods, use Charisma. Channelling (both positive and negative) divine energy is based on Charisma. Paladins have Divine Grace, which is tied to their charisma, and can Lay on Hands, healing people with divine power, based on their charisma.

The only thing Wisdom has to do with Divinity in the game, is that Clerics have Wisdom as casting stat, and have it because of legacy reasons: it was that way in old D&D. Everything else in the game which is related to channelling divine power is keyed on Charisma


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
The problem with that approach, from a design point of view, is that every type of priest becomes a class of its own.

Not necessarily- you needn't go full Specialty Priest to get some of that flavor back.

It doesn't take much more space to list Spheres than it does Domains, after all- maybe one line of text per deity. If Domains go bye-bye, then the granted power section for Domains can be two per deity, and the whole Channel Energy deal can become a class feat, with something else on deck to replace it...


If we're using historical clergy, the stat you're looking for is Intelligence.

It's all study and memory and interpretation.


gustavo iglesias wrote:


I bolded the relevant part:

Impart:
to communicate the knowledge of

Without wishing to get into pedantism and/or theology....gods do not possess wisdom as humans understand it since this is a mortal trait.

Religious leaders in various cultures thoughout history have frequently been associated with 'wise men'. Disciples and apostles are always credited with possessing wisdom.

Wisdom is associated with an understanding of the 'bigger picture', the meaning of life, spirituality, how reality relates to the theoretical... etc..... all classic aspects of the 'wise man'.

In PF terms it is by embracing and understanding the nature of divinity that clerics develop wisdom.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

If we're using historical clergy, the stat you're looking for is Intelligence.

It's all study and memory and interpretation.

Yes there is that..... and there have been several requests for a proper INT based divine caster.

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Please rebuild the Cleric into something awesome!! All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion