Months ago Mark Siefter has said how his group’s barbarian acted as the party healer. This was great news for those of us who’ve long wanted non-magical healing in Pathfinder being a viable alternative to the cleric. We since discovered that barbarian was really a barbarian multiclassed into cleric which took the shine off the whole premise a fair bit (although Mark assured us the cleric feats had minimal contribution to the barbarian’s healing, I remained sceptical).
This is an attempt to look at how viable a non-spellcasting (as in, not a cleric/bard/divine sorcerer and not multiclassing into those classes) character would go at replacing the cleric as the party healer. For this demonstration I’m also not going to look at the alchemist either.
CON 16
DEX 14
INT 10
WIS 16
CHA 10
Race: Human
Feats
Ancestry 1) General Training (Battle Medic)
Skill 2) Natural Medicine
Skill 4) Trick Magic Item
Ancestry 5) General Training (Robust Recovery)
Skill 6) Magical Crafting
Skills
Trained: Crafting, Nature
Expert: Medicine, Religion
Actions
Battle Medic (1 action): DC 20 medicine check to grant 1d10+3 healing (once per day per creature).
Natural Medicine (1 action): DC 20 nature check to grant 1d8+3 healing (once per day per creature). If in the natural wilderness the GM may increase this to 2d8+3 healing.
First Aid (1 action): DC 15 medicine check to stabilise a fallen ally or end their bleed condition.
Treat Poison (1 action): Medicine check (DC of poison) to grant a +4 bonus to their next saving throw.
Treat Disease (1 day): Medicine check (DC of disease) to grant a +4 bonus to their next saving throw.
Alchemical Crafting (Downtime): Create alchemical concoctions during downtime to be used during the adventuring day.
Notes on Hit Point Healing
At level 1 this non-spellcasting healer can heal people 4 times per day (total of 4d10+8 for a 4 man party) vs a cleric who can heal people 3-5 times per day. A cleric can heal a party a total of 3d8+12 hit points to 5d8+20 hit points. That’s 30 HP (non-spellcaster) vs 25.5 to 42.5 hit points. All you need is for 2 people to need the cleric’s healing and they will be doing 51 to 85 hit points (more if more than 2 people need healing). This isn’t taking the cleric’s spells into account (I’m assuming they’re preparing bless or other spells in those spell slots).
At level 2 the non-spellcasting healer can heal people 8 times per day for a total of 56 hit points (or 74 hit points if in the wilderness) vs the cleric’s non-spell slot healing which is still stuck at 25.5 to 42.5 hit points (51 to 85 if healing two people). This is quite viable at this level.
At level 3 the non-spellcasting healer is stuck at 56 to 74 hit points. The cleric has boosted their single target healing to 52.5 to 87.5 hit points (78 to 130 if healing 2 people or more). I would argue that the non-spellcaster is still somewhat viable at this level.
At level 5 the non-spellcasting healer has had a modest increase from 64 to 82 hit points. The cleric’s single target healing is 79.5 to 132.5 hit points (105 to 175 hit points if healing 2 targets at once). I’d say that the non-spellcasting healer has taken a substantial hit at this point. Especially when the spellcaster can prepare heal spells in their spell slots to boost it further. HOWEVER the non-spellcaster can use a wand. Assuming 1 RP for armor, 1 RP for weapon, that gives them 3 more uses of 3rd level heal which can bring them right back to being viable again.
After this point it gets worse the higher level you get because unless your non-spellcasting healer is an alchemist, they’re not going to get master medicine or master nature. They will become 100% reliant on a wand of healing at this level.
Cleric Spells and the Healer Role
Level 3) Restoration (lvl 2 spell), Restore senses (lvl 2 spell)
Level 5) Neutralize poison (lvl 3 spell), Remove disease (lvl 3 spell)
Level 9) Breath of Life (lvl 5 spell)
Level 11) Raise dead (lvl 6 spell)
Breath of Life: This seems largely unnecessary. Dying of anything except a “save or die” effect is extremely hard with plenty of time for someone to stabilise or heal someone. I also understand that save or die effects are few and far between.
Neutralise Poison/Remove Disease/Restore Senses: These spells are great at 3rd level to 5th level. It’s going to get substantially worse as your levels go on. The fact this spell can’t be heightened seems like a significant oversight because once you hit level 13 you just can’t neutralise at-level poison/disease anymore (and to be honest your chances of neutralising it before then aint great either). This is good news for the non-spellcasting healer as they can compete on this front at higher level.
Raise Dead: This is costly. Really, really costly. I’m going to say this is a “someone dies we stop for the day and raise them tomorrow” type situation unless they buy a scroll (in which case your non-spellcasting healer with trick magic item can also use it). This is good news for the non-spellcasting healer as they can compete on this front.
Restoration: This is going to be the go to spell for people suffering afflictions. However the fact it only reduces a condition by 1 step means that a dedicated healer is going to blow through a lot of their spell slots. As such I think this helps make non-spellcasting healers quite viable.
Resurrect (ritual): Given the substantial cost of raise dead, resurrect is an entirely viable way of bringing someone back to life for both a spellcaster or a non-spellcaster. The fact it only requires expert religion means anyone can cast it.
Conclusion
I do believe non-spellcasting healers are completely viable. It requires no loss of class features and allows you to keep up with spellcasters, although most of your resonance will be spent on wands of heal.
If you wanted a non-magic campaign then a solution like Starfinder’s HP and healing system will be necessary.
Sidenote
A cleric who wants to be the best healer the world has ever seen and devotes not just all of their class feats to this goal (although not spells) and takes all of the healing skill feats they’ll be better than a non-spellcaster healer. However my group has never created dedicated healers, instead relying on battle clerics who prepare sufficient spells to perform the healer role but otherwise concentrate on dealing damage and relying on wands to get people back up to full (something that, although expensive, looks like it will still work in PF2e).
I'll be honest: not really. At level 3 (assuming wisdom 12) you'll have +5 to the roll. Your chance at crit failing is fairly low. If you use a healer's kit that gives you another +1.
Neutralise Poison/Remove Disease/Restore Senses: These spells are great at 3rd level to 5th level. It’s going to get substantially worse as your levels go on. The fact this spell can’t be heightened seems like a significant oversight because once you hit level 13 you just can’t neutralise at-level poison/disease anymore (and to be honest your chances of neutralising it before then aint great either). This is good news for the non-spellcasting healer as they can compete on this front at higher level.
While most spells don't have special extra effects when heightened, you can put any spell in a higher spell slot if all you want is the higher spell level, say for dispel/counteract purposes.
Neutralise Poison/Remove Disease/Restore Senses: These spells are great at 3rd level to 5th level. It’s going to get substantially worse as your levels go on. The fact this spell can’t be heightened seems like a significant oversight because once you hit level 13 you just can’t neutralise at-level poison/disease anymore (and to be honest your chances of neutralising it before then aint great either). This is good news for the non-spellcasting healer as they can compete on this front at higher level.While most spells don't have special extra effects when heightened, you can put any spell in a higher spell slot if all you want is the higher spell level, say for dispel/counteract purposes.
didn't know that. Thanks. It seemed like a very strange berg to healers. Still... it ain't great to be preparing a limited high level slot on remove poison (which may or may not come up).
But, if you have to use a wand to be a mundane healer, then you also have to be a magical healer. Right?
"To cast a spell from a wand, you must have the spell
on your spell list and be able to use the spellcasting
actions listed in the spell’s entry."
UMD is now a feat called Trick Magic Item.
Oh, I missed that. That's good to know!
By the way, having played a healing witch in PF1, being able to get "more healing" by healing multiple people (but once per day) sucks. As soon as the tank takes more damage than you can heal, they're out that remainder the rest of the day.
Trick Magic Item also requires an unspecified check of the relevant skill in order to use the Wand or item in question (though the rules say it's usually the low-difficulty DC it also says it's at GM discretion, so hurray).
Honestly the fact that this comparison doesn't take into account the checks necessary for mundane healing to work is telling. Assuming you'll get full healing from Battle Medic? At level 1? With DC 20? Yeah, right. Even an 18 Wis guy with a Healer's Kit fails that 60% of the time. And Critically fails 15%.
And without Master/Legendary proficiency you can't get the higher levels of the Assurance feat, meaning you'll always have to roll, which means a chance of failure (and maybe even Critical Failure) for 0 healing (or worse, hurting the guy). And I do mean always, since it's Master Assurance that gives a 20 result.
Items also, as said above, require a check, though it's more manageable overall. If you stick to the "low DC for the item's level" line, the most you'll ever need is a 21 for a wand with 4th level heal. But that wand costs resonance, requires a check, only has 10 charges and it costs a pretty penny to boot (205 gp means you're not supposed to have one until you're 9th level, unless the party pools resources, per table 11-2: Character wealth).
The Cleric, meanwhile, gets healing for free at his highest possible casting level, with no check necessary, in addition to their daily spells. They're the best healers out there, period. Also not sure what you mean by "Devotes all their class feats" to the goal? The only Class Feats a Cleric specialising in healing should take are Selective Energy and Channeled Succor. They don't need to take anything else to beat the snot out of a non-magical healer (Alchemist's included).
As an aside, restoration can reduce one condition by 2, or two conditions by 1, and it's only once per target per day. So a Cleric won't really blow through his spell slots using restoration.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely my biggest issue with PF2e so far is that it seems to have doubled down on Clerics being mandatory. The gap between non-cleric healing and cleric healing is even higher than it was in 1e, and by far the biggest offender is Channel Energy.
I'm amazed that more people haven't noticed how objectively insane Channel Energy is compared to every other class feature. It allows the Cleric to cast five or more spells of their highest spell level in addition to their normal allotment of spells.
Imagine if Sorcerers got a class feature that let them cast their highest level damage spell an extra five times per day. It would be crazy, right? Why is it not crazy when you give it to Clerics?
I strongly feel (I have a whole other thread about this) that Clerics need to be moved away from the "primary healer" role. Cleric healing should be significantly nerfed, and other sources of healing (especially sources that any class can get access to, like Medicine skill feats) should be buffed.
That way, at least, the person being asked to be the party healer can play whatever class they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Clerics being really good at healing if they want to is their whole stchick.
But WHY is it their whole stchick? Why does "divinely empowered servant of a deity" mean "healer"? For that matter, if healing is the core concept of clerics, why are clerics of evil gods terrible healers?
My argument is that Clerics should not be primary healers any more than Wizards should be primary blasters. Healer should be an optional cleric build - especially for i.e. Sarenrae. But a cleric of Gorum should be a divinely empowered priest of Gorum, not a healer with a Gorum-shaped symbol on their shield. And a cleric of Torag should be a divinely empowered priest of Torag, not the same healer except with a Torag-shaped symbol on their shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between "clerics are the best healers evar" and "you can survive without a cleric using other means of healing (it just isn't as efficient/long lasting/plentiful)."
PF2 has doubled down hard on the former and made token gestures towards the latter. The problem is that non-magical healing (i.e. not cleric and not alchemist) healing is borderline unusable for a low level party (someone did the math: best possible build works out to 3 hp/day per character) and relatively meaningless for a high level party ("I'm sure 1d10+5 will really get you back on your feet, Mr. 110 mhp Level 10 Fighter!").
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying Cleric who choose to be healers shouldn't be the best healers.
I'm saying (positive energy) Clerics shouldn't be automatically the best healers no matter what choices they make.
A Cleric of Sarenrae absolutely should be an awesome healer. But a cleric of Desna? Or Calistria? Or Abadar? Like "blaster wizard", "healer cleric" should be something you build for, instead of something handed to you on a silver platter because Channel Energy is the strongest level 1 class feature in the game.
And even more importantly, a party shouldn't need to have a cleric to have competent healing. A Healing Domain cleric should be the best healer in the game. But a Sorcerer, or a Bard - or a Fighter who spends a bunch of skills and feats on it - should all be able to be viable healers to the extent that the party doesn't constantly wish they had a cleric.
People being pressured to play Clerics is objectively bad for the game.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why in the heck are people happy about forcing roles on classes?
I'd prefer it if every class had only the barest hint of a push toward one path or another. Just because I made a rogue doesn't mean I should automatically be the best sneak thief in the world, maybe I want to play a different concept. In the same way, selecting Cleric shouldn't top me up with the best healing in the game.
That's how you get mandatory classes, and mandatory classes are the least fun thing ever.
Paladins shouldn't have to be "tanks", and "tanks" shouldn't have to be Paladins.
Clerics shouldn't have to be "healers", and "healers" shouldn't have to be Clerics.
Rogues shouldn't have to be sneak thieves, and sneak thieves shouldn't have to be Rogues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Channel energy is only really good if you invest a bunch into Charisma.
A Cleric with 10 Charisma still gets 3 extra castings of their highest spell level.
Name one other class feature that comes CLOSE to that, especially at first level without costing a feat.
I'm not saying Clerics need a general nerf; mostly I'm saying that Channel Energy is obnoxiously overpowered and it trivializes all other healing options.
As I said in the other thread, my preferred solution is to make a weakened version of Channel Energy the Healing Domain power, and then buff up all of the domain powers to each be awesome, thematic, and class-defining expressions of divine power.
Universal wizards get an extra casting of any spell at every spell level. Sorcerers also get an extra spell slot for every level.
The sorc and wiz features are essentially the same and still not comparable to "this one spell at your highest level."
For example, a diving sorcerer can't cast Heal 3 extra times, much less a max-heightened heal 3 extra times per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Channel energy is only really good if you invest a bunch into Charisma.A Cleric with 10 Charisma still gets 3 extra castings of their highest spell level.
Name one other class feature that comes CLOSE to that, especially at first level without costing a feat.
I'm not saying Clerics need a general nerf; mostly I'm saying that Channel Energy is obnoxiously overpowered and it trivializes all other healing options.
As I said in the other thread, my preferred solution is to make a weakened version of Channel Energy the Healing Domain power, and then buff up all of the domain powers to each be awesome, thematic, and class-defining expressions of divine power.
You get 3 castings of a specific spell at your highest spell level that is only used for healing. Paladins can get the same exact thing if they take a class feature. Universal wizards get an extra casting of any spell at every spell level. Sorcerers also get an extra spell slot for every level.
I haven't heard anyone claiming that Clerics trivialize healing. In fact, I've heard that the 15min adventuring day problem is worse than ever.
That sounds awful. Doing it that way makes it almost impossible to play an off healer cleric. It would be like 1e Oracles where the only way to play with even decent healing you needed to be built completely dedicated to it.
Clerics with 10 Cha get 3 castings of a specific spell at highest spell level that is only used for healing, yes. But they get that on top of their full spellcasting and their full spell points worth of Power uses. The Paladin using their option in contrast is available instead of their other Power options, since their healing comes from the same pool as all of their other powers. A pool that's not all that big all things considered.
As for other healing options, as someone who enjoys being the healer but tends to avoid Clerics (even above an beyond my general dislike for Prepared casting, something about the Deific angle just tends to sit poorly with me) I've compared its healing to a number of other healing options, and the other options desperately need a buff. Especially Alchemist and non-magical healing.
For reference, an Alchemist with their Elixirs of Life is double-dipping Resonance (1 Resonance gets them 2 Elixirs at daily prep, and then each of those Elixirs costs 1 Resonance to drink from anyone but the Alchemist) for an effect that is just flat weaker than an equivalent level Healing Potion, let alone an on-level Heal spell. As for proper crafting... you're better off just spending the skill feat on Magical Crafting and crafting those self-same Healing Potions, since an Elixir and Potion of the same level cost the same amount, use the same amount of Resonance, and as I said the Potion is always just flat stronger. It really feels bad.
Why in the heck are people happy about forcing roles on classes?
I'd prefer it if every class had only the barest hint of a push toward one path or another. Just because I made a rogue doesn't mean I should automatically be the best sneak thief in the world, maybe I want to play a different concept. In the same way, selecting Cleric shouldn't top me up with the best healing in the game.
That's how you get mandatory classes, and mandatory classes are the least fun thing ever.
Paladins shouldn't have to be "tanks", and "tanks" shouldn't have to be Paladins.
Clerics shouldn't have to be "healers", and "healers" shouldn't have to be Clerics.
Rogues shouldn't have to be sneak thieves, and sneak thieves shouldn't have to be Rogues.
Fighters shouldn't have to be combat specialists?
I'm not saying Cleric who choose to be healers shouldn't be the best healers.
I'm saying (positive energy) Clerics shouldn't be automatically the best healers no matter what choices they make.
Well, they aren't the best healers necessarily if they make certain choices. Your dwarf cleric can leave charisma at 8 which is only 2 channels per day. Compare that to a high charisma Paladin with Chanel Life and some Lay on Hands feats, or a Sorcerer with Divine Evolution and Spontaneous Heightening Heal, and that cleric actually looks inferior. Even a cleric with 10 Charisma doesn't strike me as better than those other two.
Of course, the more charisma your cleric has, the better you will be as a healer. The thing is, on a class as MAD as the cleric, it sort of feels like if you are investing boosts into charisma it is because you want to be a good healer. Yes, technically you COULD do it for Resonance or to be a very good Diplomat. But I feel like a cleric who doesn't want to be a healer probably wants stuff like Dex for landing ray attacks or strength and constitution for mixing it up in melee or even Intelligence for more skills or to round out a concept.
None of this means that Channel Energy isn't a massively powerful class feature-- it really is. But if you are investing points into charisma on the cleric you can make a pretty good case that you "building to be a good healer."
And even more importantly, a party shouldn't need to have a cleric to have competent healing. A Healing Domain cleric should be the best healer in the game. But a Sorcerer, or a Bard - or a Fighter who spends a bunch of skills and feats on it - should all be able to be viable healers to the extent that the party doesn't constantly wish they had a cleric.
Now, on this I agree. I do think a party should be able to get by without a cleric. I'm not completely convinced you can't in this edition yet, but clerics do seem great. (Although, I'll point out the cleric was also bananas good to have around even the CLW PF1 era for status removal. I can't think of any other class as hard to replace.)
Also, I am not saying the Divine Sorcerer (or any other healing class) shouldn't get buffs. I'm just pointing out there are a couple other options. I think the sorcerer being able to leverage the spontaneous casting for heals as needed really helps. You may not necessarily need your most powerful heightened heal to top someone off, and your low level spell slots may not feel as valuable. The cleric without charisma only gets 2-3 channels and then has to predict preparing heals beyond that, which I frankly don't see many doing.
Now, as mentioned, the more the cleric invests in Charisma the further ahead she pulls.
|
I think there is a good argument to be made about skill-based healing out of combat, and in general out of combat healing options that take a bit longer but are somewhat efficient (like infernal healing with a significantly longer cast time or class feature healing from the mystic class in Starfinder).
Well, they aren't the best healers necessarily if they make certain choices. Your dwarf cleric can leave charisma at 8 which is only 2 channels per day. Compare that to a high charisma Paladin with Chanel Life and some Lay on Hands feats, or a Sorcerer with Divine Evolution and Spontaneous Heightening Heal, and that cleric actually looks inferior. Even a cleric with 10 Charisma doesn't strike me as better than those other two.
Wow, way to find the worst possible comparison point. "Hey, a dwarf who said 'screw this class related stat' only has Channel twice a day!" Yeah, and the divine sorcerer still has to spend spell slots (max 4!) for Heal and learn the spell multiple times...
"The sorc gets Heal twice as many times as the gimped cleric!"
No, see, because if the gimped cleric spends his spell slots on Heal as well as his Channel (because that's how the sorc's getting his heals), he can get it at max level five times per day, One more than the sorcerer (or only 4 times, at those levels where the highest spell slot available is only a "2" and not a "3").
Gimped cleric still better than optimized divine sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying Cleric who choose to be healers shouldn't be the best healers.
I'm saying (positive energy) Clerics shouldn't be automatically the best healers no matter what choices they make.
A Cleric of Sarenrae absolutely should be an awesome healer. But a cleric of Desna? Or Calistria? Or Abadar? Like "blaster wizard", "healer cleric" should be something you build for, instead of something handed to you on a silver platter because Channel Energy is the strongest level 1 class feature in the game.
And even more importantly, a party shouldn't need to have a cleric to have competent healing. A Healing Domain cleric should be the best healer in the game. But a Sorcerer, or a Bard - or a Fighter who spends a bunch of skills and feats on it - should all be able to be viable healers to the extent that the party doesn't constantly wish they had a cleric.
People being pressured to play Clerics is objectively bad for the game.
I absolutely agree. My player's party started out with a alchemist for healing (remember how we were promised that that would be viable?), but after 3 fights they could already see the writing on the wall, and re-rolled a healbot cleric.
I don't think a cleric needs to be nerfed, I think the non-cleric options need to be stronger.
Fighters shouldn't have to be combat specialists?Why in the heck are people happy about forcing roles on classes?
I'd prefer it if every class had only the barest hint of a push toward one path or another. Just because I made a rogue doesn't mean I should automatically be the best sneak thief in the world, maybe I want to play a different concept. In the same way, selecting Cleric shouldn't top me up with the best healing in the game.
That's how you get mandatory classes, and mandatory classes are the least fun thing ever.
Paladins shouldn't have to be "tanks", and "tanks" shouldn't have to be Paladins.
Clerics shouldn't have to be "healers", and "healers" shouldn't have to be Clerics.
Rogues shouldn't have to be sneak thieves, and sneak thieves shouldn't have to be Rogues.
Fighting the good fight could also be the biggest and best wordsmith in the world, creating truces and diplomacy between once-enemies through sheer dialogue.
A Fighter who solves combats with ways of peace would probably be a much better and preferred Fighter than one whose only vision is of violence and madness.
Gimped cleric still better than optimized divine sorcerer.You literally complained that "(positive energy) Clerics shouldn't be automatically the best healers no matter what choices they make." And a Battle Cleric, which is a completely viable and not uncommon build, has very little use for Charisma. Since they need Wis, Str, Con, and even Dex more.
And they're still the best healers! I just showed that. the most horribly underoptimized-for-healing cleric is still a better healbot than a divine heal-focused sorcerer.
Also it was Captain Morgan that complained that (I just happen to agree).
A Paladin can get 5+Cha castings of it a day if they pick up the relevant Lay on Hands class features (and since they don't need Wis they can also have some reasonable combat stats on top of that). They're clearly better healers than a battle cleric.
Haven't looked at Paladin that closely, cannot comment.
The Sorcerer can pick heal as one of their two spells to heighten to any level and not waste their time relearning a spell that has a use at literally every spell level.
So...one of their perks is that they can chose the same perk as a default out-of-the-box cleric?
They also get effortless concentration; which isn't more healing but man that's awesome that they can maintain a buff...
Buffs still have a maximum duration of 1 minute and you have to get to level 14 before you can have that feat.
Yeah, clerics are broken simply because they get two different sets of spell power pools to draw their abilities from compared to every other class that only ever gets one that has to be shared. And that's just starting out.
Next, they have the best all-around proficiencies, since they have 2 good saves, get a minimum of 4 or 5 trained skills, proficient in all medium armor and shields, proficient in and have access to their deity's weapon (which for a lot of them will be perhaps an uncommon weapon not really found anywhere starting out), and have anathemas which are usually still very easy to follow compared to classes like Paladin or even Barbarian (who'd-a-thunk that Barbarian would be more restrictive than Cleric)!
They also get neat and interesting feat choices that actually fairly interact with their existing class features, whereas other classes have very few or none at all. C(oD)Zilla is at an all-time high, truth be told. In PF1, CoDZilla was possible, but defeatable by an optimized martial. Here, every class, even a Fighter, will get outpaced by a Cleric in a head-to-head fight. And skills will be a non-factor until the later levels, at which point the Cleric can very easily be a much better skill-healer than you due to his sheer amount of supplemental capabilities.
In short, I'd either change the scaling of Channel Energy (such as reduce the healing/damage akin to Paladin Lay On hands, or forcibly make them have one spell power pool), or just get rid of the feature entirely. Yes, I know this is a sacred cow and iconic to the Cleric, but if it's so much of a problem then I'd rather see it go for the sake of balance and player freedom than to keep it and mandate the "Tim/Jim" paradigm (which I hoped PF2 would do away with in the first place).
Next, they have the best all-around proficiencies, since they have 2 good saves, get a minimum of 4 or 5 trained skills, proficient in all medium armor and shields, proficient in and have access to their deity's weapon (which for a lot of them will be perhaps an uncommon weapon not really found anywhere starting out),Those proficiencies never increase though. The only one that does is your proficiency in your diety's favored weapon at level 14 (if you take that feat), and it's only to expert. They definitely get left in the dust by every martial character. And I don't think they're even the best. Rangers are definitely the best, Paladins are pretty comparable (4 skills+int but get training in heavy armor), and Fighters and Monks may have 2 less skills, but they get expert in weapons and their armor.
and have anathemas which are usually still very easy to follow compared to classes like Paladin or even Barbarian (who'd-a-thunk that Barbarian would be more restrictive than Cleric)!Have you read the anathemas at all? Some are pretty easy, but most of the good/goodish dieties now have some pretty strict anathemas. Erastil, Sarenrae, and Torag all have "lying" as anathema. Gorum has "prevent conflict through negotiation". Calistria has "let a slight go unanswered" which is just asking to stir up trouble. And Abadar and Pharasma have anathemas that straight up make certain PFS scenarios unplayable by clerics of those faiths (there are definitely no shortage of "go steal this thing" or "go get something from that tomb" adventures).
Highly doubtful as the fighters have much better proficiency, have tons of feats geared towards doing damage, spells got super nerfed, concentration is much easier to break, and all...
In PF1, CoDZilla was possible, but defeatable by an optimized martial. Here, every class, even a Fighter, will get outpaced by a Cleric in a head-to-head fight.
Proficiencies don't really need to increase, though, since it's not like they give the Cleric access to exclusive and cool abilities; they're simply modifiers. With similar modifiers (let's say a 16 Strength 16 Wisdom 14 Charisma "Battle Cleric"), a Cleric is only going to be +2 behind a Fighter starting out, and based on other scaling (Fighters getting Legendary at 13, Cleric taking feat at 14), they should only ever be +2 or +3 behind at any given time. Cleric won't crit as much, but they can still hit relatively easily enough, which is what matters most. Same goes for identical-tiered armor, and Clerics can take a feat for Heavy Armor, without multiclassing I might add, so if they decide to have a 16 Charisma instead of a 16 Strength, they could do some crazy things like multiclass Sorcerer, Bard, or even Paladin! (Yes, they aren't out yet, but I imagine they will be come the complete rulebook release next year.)
Have I read them? No. But even based on your examples here, they're very simple to follow.
A wise enough Cleric doesn't need to lie about anything to get what they want from people; lying is for Rogues and other dishonest people, which, unless you're a Cleric of a God of Deception or something, doesn't really paint your theism in a pretty light.
A Battle Cleric of Gorum probably doesn't need to use Diplomacy. They're more likely to resolve conflict via Intimidation tactics (which is by no means negotiation), and if that doesn't work, by his giant Greatsword of Doom.
Calistria's is even easier than Gorum's, since it effectively means you have to retort and get the last "word" on everything, which is by no means hard, and is actually "hard-coded" into a lot of people's societal syntax.
Honestly, Abadar and Pharasma are the only ones that are truly crippling, since as you say, stealing from the dead (or from living people) is by no means a fair restriction, since a lot of adventures are basically doing that. The irony here is that these restrictions even apply in something as basic as the first part of Doomsday Dawn(, which is ironic for at least one of the deity's involved)! Of course, it's not much different or better than, say, a Superstition Barbarian who can't use or benefit from numerous sources of magic (such as wands, staves, and other spell-replicating items), and whom can only use magic weapons with Potency runes on them, and potions (which are thankfully no longer spells-in-a-can, helping the whole "I hate magic" theme a bit), and IMO, that's even more crippling since that puts a hamper on all adventures, and not just outright disallows certain ones.
In PF1, a truly optimized Martial would outright destroy a CoDZilla with an appropriate full-attack on the first round, without them getting any chance to heal back up. In PF2, after some levels are acquired, an NPC Cleric can literally use all of their Channel Energy (and even spell slots!) to heal any of the damage the PCs do, and still have some actions left to make attacks with. It's literally a giant slugfest going nowhere, and unless the Fighter has a lot of self-healing power of his own (certainly won't match a Cleric), he will get outpaced by an identically-leveled Cleric.
About to go fight a fire elemental? Boom, most of the party now has fire resistance. No cleric would prepare 3 castings of that, and sometimes you don't have to option to go sleep and let them change out their spells.
Actually, energy resistance through spells is dead. The only one I can find is Energy Aegis, 7th level spell to get 5 points of resist on one person all day.
Actually, energy resistance through spells is dead. The only one I can find is Energy Aegis, 7th level spell to get 5 points of resist on one person all day.
About to go fight a fire elemental? Boom, most of the party now has fire resistance. No cleric would prepare 3 castings of that, and sometimes you don't have to option to go sleep and let them change out their spells.
Agreed. Resist Energy at 3rd level lasts a minute and targets 1 creature. It's really not worth spell slots.