Cleric Class Preview

Monday, April 23, 2018

Clerics are the first spellcasters to get a preview, so you might want to look at the blog about spells before you proceed! We have a lot to say about this class, so let's cut to the chase!

Cleric Features

Clerics' key ability score is Wisdom. This means that they get an ability boost to Wisdom at 1st level, increasing their Wisdom score by 2. They also use this key ability to determine the DC of their spells. Like other things in the Playtest, spells are also affected by your proficiency. Clerics are trained in divine spells, so they add 10 + their level + their Wisdom modifier for their spell DC. They use this same proficiency for touch attacks of their spells and for spell rolls.

At 1st level, clerics get several class features, including their deity and domain, anathema, channel energy, and of course, divine spellcasting (which we'll talk more about in a bit). Your deity has a major impact on your character, and you'll see a lot of similarities to Pathfinder First Edition, such as being trained in your deity's favored weapon and getting access to one of their domains. (Come back on Friday for a ton of detail about those parts of your character!) Your choice of domain gives you a unique domain power. Powers are a special type of spell that come only from your class, and are cast with Spell Points—think of things from Pathfinder First Edition like domain powers or a wizard's school powers. Powers are stronger than cantrips, but not as strong as your best spells. A cleric's initial power costs 1 Spell Point to cast. She gets a starting pool of Spell Points equal to her Wisdom, and can increase this by taking feats later on. If she gets other ways to cast powers of a different type, she combines all her Spell Points into one pool.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

A cleric's deity also imposes some restrictions on her, collectively called anathema, representing acts that go against her deity's will and teachings or violate their alignment requirements. Though we give some examples of anathemic acts for the various gods and goddesses—like how it's anathema for a cleric of Sarenrae, goddess of honesty, to cast a spell that would help her lie better—we wanted to leave this broad enough that the GM and player can make the final say in how these work in their games. Many other classes that follow similar restrictions have their own anathema. Care to guess which ones those might be?

As you go up in level, you'll increase your proficiency rank with divine spells to expert at 12th level, master at 16th level, and legendary at 19th level.

Divine Spellcasting

Of course, the cleric's main feature is her divine spellcasting! At 1st level, you can cast two 1st-level spells each day, which you prepare from the selections on the divine spell list. 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). At every odd level, you get access to a new level of spells. You'll always be able to cast two or three spells of your highest level and three spells of every lower level, plus your cantrips and powers. Like your other spells, your 9th-level spells cap out at three spells, so at 19th level you become legendary in spellcasting instead. So what about your 10th-level spells? We'll talk about those in a future blog!

We made your number of spells more straightforward by eliminating Pathfinder First Edition's bonus spells granted for having a high ability score. Your Wisdom still matters greatly for your spell DC and other things important to clerics, but giving it slightly less weight makes it more practical now for you to play a cleric of Gorum who focuses on Strength and uses spells that don't involve your spell DC or that have decent effects even if your enemy succeeds at its save.

Now, it's not quite true to say those are all the spells you get. Remember channel energy from earlier? This feature lets you cast heal or harm an additional number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier! Moreover, these spells are heightened to the highest level of spell you cast, so as soon as you hit 3rd level, all those heal or harm spells become 2nd-level spells. This replaces the Pathfinder First Edition cleric's spontaneous healing, which required her to sacrifice her prepared spells to make room for a heal spell. Now, you can use your channel energy to cast these extra heal spells, and if you think you'll need more healing than this provides, you can always prepare more heal spells using your normal spell slots (in fact, this can be a good use of some of your lower-level slots as you go up in level). Your choice of deity determines which spell you can cast with channel energy. Pharasma lets you cast heal, Rovagug makes you cast harm, and someone like Abadar or Lamashtu lets you choose your path at 1st level.

Cleric Feats

As we've mentioned before, we always wanted Pathfinder Second Edition to provide all classes with a sizeable number of options for customization. The cleric was one of the classes that had the most to gain, since a cleric got a bunch of class features at 1st level, then crickets for the rest of her career. The cleric's new class feats give her all sorts of new flexibility, so let's look at some of those!

At 1st level, you might pick Communal healing so when you cast heal to tend to a creature other than yourself, you regain some Hit Points too, or you might take Turn Undead, which forces undead that critically fail their saves against your heal spells to flee from you. (This works great with the 3-action version of heal!) You could also pick Expanded Domain to explore your deity's domains further, gaining the initial power from a different domain than the first one you chose. You can select this feat twice, letting you delve into a maximum of three domains!

At higher levels, you gain new cleric feats at every even level, except levels 12 and 16, when you increase your spell DCs instead. At 4th level, you might pick up Advanced Domain to gain the advanced power from one of your domains. At 8th level, if you channel positive energy, you could take the Channeled Succor feat so you can cast remove curse, remove disease, remove paralysis, or restoration with your channeled energy spells instead of just heal.

Let's take a look at a category of feats clerics have plenty of: metamagic! You can activate a metamagic feat when you cast a spell. This increases the number of actions required to cast the spell and modifies the spell in some way. At 1st level, for example, you could select Reach Spell to let you add a Somatic Casting action to a spell and increase its range by 30 feet (or to make a touch spell into a ranged touch spell with a 30-foot range). This is a metamagic feat lots of spellcasters can take, but the cleric gets some others that are more specific to her as well. Command Undead, a 4th-level feat, lets you change the effects of any harm spell you cast to instead take control of an undead creature. Heroic Recovery, an 8th-level feat, adds a powerful buff to heal spells: you can target one creature at range using 3 actions (the 2-action version of heal, plus another action to activate the metamagic) to heal them for a solid number of hit points and also give them a bonus to attack and damage rolls and a 5-foot increase to its speed for 1 round. And if you use a lot of metamagic, the 20th-level cleric feat Metamagic Channeler is a great choice—it lets you apply a metamagic feat to a harm or heal spell without adding an action to its casting!

So what are your favorite parts of the new cleric? Any builds you're itching to try out? How about concepts you made in Pathfinder First Edition you'd like to take another shot at?

Logan Bonner
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Clerics Kyra Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
501 to 550 of 928 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do wonder how viable a cleric who does not cast spells where the DC matters, and does not focus on domains will be. Since then it seems like you can safely pump charisma higher than wisdom so you can channel a bunch.

I'll have to see the full set of feats to know what else I can get though.

I'd imagine a traditional buff n crush cleric will be plenty viable (Gorum clerics practically demands such a paradigm anyway). 100% support bot with heals and buffs sounds supported too although that honestly looks supremely dull to play (but hey, some people like it).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
kaid wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
And as I said repeatedly in the Alchemist thread, it's not a damn tax if they're giving you the money you're using to pay them. I don't know how to explain this any simpler than I already have several times: they're taking away your A, then they're giving 1 money, which you can use to either buy A, B, or C. You are strictly better off than you were before, because if you want A back, just buy it back with the free money they gave you.

We have different opinions on "Feat Tax" then.

What's the point of Offering A back to me even if it's free? It shouldn't have been taken away anyway. It feels very much like we are being allowed to "Buy Into" Archetypes.

So you have fun with B and C, those are great. I had my A taken away and shoved back into my hands with a confused "WTF" look on my face.

Actually now that I think about it, how the heck will Archetypes work if we just BUY what we want? Archetype removes X? Well I'll just buy it back. Balance nightmare anyone?

Doing it this way allows them in future books to also offer you Options D E F G H I J K L M N O P and so on. With the old way you had a huge choice as a priest at level one with your domain but it baked everything in so there were few options other than the one big choice. This way it is more modular so they can expand by making it more modular and then letting you pick what path YOU want to take. So you could wind up with two priests to the same god with the same domain with some fairly significant differences between them and how they play.

Cool, Priest A that worships the same god as Priest B is better at their job because they took Options D E F and G while Priest B wanted to play Old priest and thus wasted their Class Feats on the weaker option even though that's the path THEY wanted to take. Thank you Paizo for this glorious customization to be utter baggage.

The more options you have, the more problems you have balancing those...

Pathfinder is the system of choice bud. You are making a ton of assumptions about what PF2E will look like that have no basis.

*Clerics will be worse than an Oracle.
The PF1 oracle was worse in a lot of ways and made a poor cleric substitute without lots of scrolls. It also doesn't exist yet in PF2E. We don't even know how spontaneous casting will look yet.

*We will have the same levels of imbalance in PF2E as PF2E. All signs indicate otherwise. Math is being tightened up, and Mark says 3 different fighters in the same party have distinctly different play styles but remain competitive with each other.

*You have to make the optimal build rather than the most flavorful. PF1 didn't require that; APs can be cakewalks for the hyper optimized, and homebrews should be balanced to the party. The big issue with optimization comes from one member of the party being more optimized than another, and even that can be worked around if PCs pursue different roles. Optimized DPR is mostly an issue if other characters are also pursuing DPR and failing to keep up. Which, as per the previous point, seems like less of an issue.

*The classic cleric build won't wind up being the best cleric build. No evidence for or against this.

Also, several of your assumptions of PF1 don't really hold up under scrutiny.

*The vanilla cleric was the best option in PF1. It may have been the default, but we still had archetypes for the PF1 cleric that could make the cleric better at being a martial, a buffer, or a blaster for example. All that really changed is that now those options are easier to access and explain to a newbie. In other words, the classic cleric was already "doing the cleric wrong" by your standards. Especially when the old channel kind of sucked.

*Brawlers invalidated the Unchained Monk. The monk has a variety of things the Brawler doesn't, including a built in pseudo pounce and no accuracy reduction in its flurry. Also a distinctly different flavor, and mobility options that can be very relevant to a melee character. A grappler brawler needs someone else to ground a flyer. A grappler monk can catch the flyer in a jump. The main thing the Brawler has going for it is ironically the thing you are bemoaning in PF2E-- modular choices. The Brawler has more of these on the fly than any other class and requires system mastery in a way almost nothing else does.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow- spellcasters using key ability (in this case Wisdom for Cleric) for touch attacks is quite a big change. Even though touch ACs in PF 1 were low anyway, it was still hit or miss for spell casters for first few levels. Powerful change for those spell casters who like touch spells. Although I hardly if ever use touch-delivered spells, so I’m not sure what sort of impact this would be.

I like the anathema aspect. While I do agree that divine spellcasters should be able to use magic as they see fit (as long as it can relate to their deity) I do see this abused quite often. For instance, Lawful Good casters can lie for the “greater good or end goal.” Anathema seems to be a way to curtail these things and give a good guide (previously nonexistent) for players.

Getting rid of the bonus spells based on key ability is a great way to diversify clerics. Maybe now we’ll have more reason to play that cleric of Gorum!

I’m glad to see metamagic feats being applied ad-hoc rather than applying them during spell selection. This will see their increased use, for sure.

I’m unsure about the new domain rules. Seems like level 1-2 clerics will be similar until/unless they take a new domain feat. The dual-domain choice in PF 1 allowed for better diversity.

The lessening of available spells for classes that have spells as their bread and butter bothers me a bit. I hope the spell point abilities make up for this. Fewer spells = less choices per turn which, frankly, hurts a class which (in PF 1 anyway) already lacks choices in regular combats (being that many spells are saved for final fights). Of course, the better DCs for casters for heightened cantrips might make up, too.

The choice to keep “per day” systems for channel energy is interesting in light of getting rid of it for other things using spell points. Kind of hearkens back to when clerics used to be able to “turn undead” as a base ability. I’m fine with it, though.
By the way, I’ll keep saying the term “spell points” is not helpful unless it’s used for spells. Makes no sense.

worldhopper wrote:
I could be reading this wrong, but it sounds like 2e is sticking with true Vancian casting, which is a big disappointment for me. I was hoping for a full shift to arcanist/5e-style preparation. I maintain that having to guess whether you're going to want 2 or 3 Fireballs in an adventuring day is not fun or immersive.

Easy fix for that- be a sorcerer. Some of us like the Vancian system and use Wizards.

--
tivadar27 wrote:
I like that heighten works on an opposite axis from metamagic. However, for some spells, you won't be able to apply metamagic because they already require 3 actions I assume?

Oooooooh good point. What about those, indeed?

--
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like, in core at least, clerics should be the only class defined by their choice of deity.

Any class given power by a deity should adhere to that deity's wishes (i.e. alignment, "anathema"). I.E. paladins.

--
edduardco wrote:
I have mentioned this in another thread, but why is a feat tax associated to 10th level spells?

Hmm I don't recall seeing anything about needing a feat for 10th level spells...

--
edduardco wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Quote:
we wanted to leave this broad enough that the GM and player can make the final say in how these work in their games

Welcome to endless arguments on the forums and table variation in PFS because the developers made the conscious decision to be vague.

Vague and ambiguous are the last things you want in a rules structure.
That is right, noting generates more arguments and FAQ request that "GM and player can make the final say in how these work in their games", makes me wonder if PFS will publish their own decision to prevent this.

I agree with all of this-even as a long-time GM/DM who is notorious for being a rules stickler and rarely allowing players to read reals as they see fit. It's always better when RAW is clear and concise.

--
\/\/arlok wrote:


I've never had anyone ask that in 40 years of gaming. Characters have levels. Spells have levels. It's a wild leap of logic that they should have the same numbers at the same time.

I've been playing for 28 years including 10 years of PFS and have heard new players ask this many times. No big deal to me, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook 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.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
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?


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

Cleric was probably the class I was least likely to ever play in PF1, as I just found it kind of dull. Not helped by the fact that most of the domains ran the gammit from "boring" to "terrible."

This...this looks interesting. I'm sure many will decry clerics now only get 1 domain by default, which I get, but the rest of it sounds enough to me like they make up for it.

I especially like that being good or evil doesn't automatically lock you into positive or negative energy. Not only does that make much more sense, it shows that Paizo DOES listen to feedback, despite what the naysayers might try to tell you. ;)


Tangent101 wrote:

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.

You do understand youre going on about an extreme late game option?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Hmm I don't recall seeing anything about needing a feat for 10th level spells...

It was mentioned in an interview with Jason

It is my biggest gripe with PF2 so far


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
snip

The majority of my claims are more observations on the community, than the actual game. And said community is going to have a factor not only in the playtest, but moving forward. I do not believe Power Creep will happen, at least not at first. But power gaming and the discussion of Best builds that happen NOW, will continue into second edition.

Also

Captain Morgan wrote:


*The vanilla cleric was the best option in PF1. It may have been the default, but we still had archetypes for the PF1 cleric that could make the cleric better at being a martial, a buffer, or a blaster for example. All that really changed is that now those options are easier to access and explain to a newbie. In other words, the classic cleric was already "doing the cleric wrong" by your standards. Especially when the old channel kind of sucked.

It's easier to access buying abilities that are already good than just giving them to a player? And wanting to play Old cleric was doing it wrong? Wat?

Captain Morgan wrote:


*Brawlers invalidated the Unchained Monk. The monk has a variety of things the Brawler doesn't, including a built in pseudo pounce and no accuracy reduction in its flurry. Also a distinctly different flavor, and mobility options that can be very relevant to a melee character. A grappler brawler needs someone else to ground a flyer. A grappler monk can catch the flyer in a jump. The main thing the Brawler has going for it is ironically the thing you are bemoaning in PF2E-- modular choices. The Brawler has more of these on the fly than any other class and requires system mastery in a way almost nothing else does.

See I'd agree with you. If I didn't see so many people either NOT playing Monk or picking Archetypes to play Monk in a vastly different way. There is no reason to play Monk. Now there's plenty of reasons to play Qinggong Monk but out of the box Monk? Brawler was the example given but you can probably pick out a lot of classes to do "Fast Close Ranged Melee" and do it better. At least that's what I keep seeing, so why play Monk over Brawler, Fighter, Qinggong Monk?

As for bemoaning, I'd argue it's a semantics and mechanical difference. I do not have to Pay for Brawler's feats. I do, with the daily limit but I do not believe in PF2 I can change what Class Feat I have bought each day. And besides, everyone tends to use it the same bloody way anyway so what modular choices are moot if only about 5 of them are actually worth anything.


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?

That is what I interpret from:

Cleric Blog Preview 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). At every odd level, you get access to a new level of spells.

EDIT: Joe's quote is better

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?

That seems to be the implication of this paragraph:

Blog wrote:
Of course, the cleric's main feature is her divine spellcasting! At 1st level, you can cast two 1st-level spells each day, which you prepare from the selections on the divine spell list. 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). At every odd level, you get access to a new level of spells. You'll always be able to cast two or three spells of your highest level and three spells of every lower level, plus your cantrips and powers. Like your other spells, your 9th-level spells cap out at three spells, so at 19th level you become legendary in spellcasting instead. So what about your 10th-level spells? We'll talk about those in a future blog!

In other words:

16th Level: 3 7th-level spell slots, 2 8th-level spell slots
17th Level: 3 8th-level spell slots, 2 9th-level spell slots
18th Level: 3 9th-level spell slots
19th Level: Legendary proficiency with divine spellcasting, but no spell slot increase

(10th level spells and spell slots and how they work TBA)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

The more options you have, the more problems you have balancing those...

Wait... are you advocating for few options? In a Pathfinder game?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

The more options you have, the more problems you have balancing those...

Wait... are you advocating for few options? In a Pathfinder game?

This confuses me too. Part of the whole reason we're here and (presumably) haven't abandoned Pathfinder for 5E is that Pathfinder allows more options and depth of character customization.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
snip
The majority of my claims are more observations on the community, than the actual game. And said community is going to have a factor not only in the playtest, but moving forward. I do not believe Power Creep will happen, at least not at first. But power gaming and the discussion of Best builds that happen NOW, will continue into second edition.

And will continue into infinity. No one is denying that strictly speaking.

However you are making lots of speculative leaps about how developers see all this. It took years of arguments and debates before things like rogue/monk worthlessness were somewhat acknowledged. And CMD was never really evn commented on except in short passive remarks that amounted to "this is fine".

We cant really even speak how aps are written differently for it as you still see core only players successfully ripping through newer material.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do wonder how viable a cleric who does not cast spells where the DC matters, and does not focus on domains will be. Since then it seems like you can safely pump charisma higher than wisdom so you can channel a bunch.

I'll have to see the full set of feats to know what else I can get though.

I've been wondering this too. Since I mentioned not needing a Wisdom over 12 (10 if you're a goblin) to play a Cleric, I've been envisioning my Positive Energy Goblin Cleric of Lamashtu with a Wisdom of 10, and beefed up Strength or Dexterity who Attack/Attack/Heal Self on full attack, hence avoiding the -10 attack that almost certainly misses :-P.

I could imagine this being even better with multiclassing!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

The more options you have, the more problems you have balancing those...

Wait... are you advocating for few options? In a Pathfinder game?

I'm advocating yes fewer options. In a Pathfinder game. At bloody first. I see the problem with too many options as;

1) Confusing
2) Traps
3) Possibly pointless
4) Balancing issues when even MORE options get put out

This doesn't sound crazy does it? I'm sure there's a good number to hit when it comes to options. But for new players it'll get confusing, for old players it's annoying to have to wade through them to play what we want, and for power gamers... well those options don't matter.

Again I'd like to think I'm not crazy here. Maybe ranting at this point but not outright crazy.

Fuzzypaws wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

The more options you have, the more problems you have balancing those...

Wait... are you advocating for few options? In a Pathfinder game?
This confuses me too. Part of the whole reason we're here and (presumably) haven't abandoned Pathfinder for 5E is that Pathfinder allows more options and depth of character customization.

And yet the amount of Bloat caused by all that customization is a reason or at least perceived reason, as to why we are getting a second edition.

Let's trim that down.... by adding in even more customization? I mean sure at release the amount of stuff might not be too bad but I can see this quickly getting out of hand both with bloat and balance.

I will admit some of my concerns will be somewhat lift when I see the rules(Do Class Feats scale as everything else, do I need Improved Class Feat to keep scaling, will I need Class feat X to get Class Feat X+?). But those are more personal concerns.


Tangent101 wrote:

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.

willuwontu wrote:

Thoughts on 10th level spells being locked behind feats.

People seem to be assuming that the only way to get 10th level spell slots is through feats. I'm guessing that 10th level spells are only given through feats (and you probably get to learn 2 with a feat), but you'll [probably] have the slots available so even without the feat you can heighten your spells to that slot.


Spell points. Is there anything more neutral and bland we could use?

Otherwise, looks good. Really nice that Anathemas are more solidly defined. Now that's a term I can get behind.
As chimed often, why simplify the numbers aspect only to throw 3+cha and some obtuse scalings in the fray again.

I love the decoupling of all the power in the WIS stat so we can make some other types of clerics. I hope to see some interesting choices in that field, along the lines of being able to use a weapon to deliver touch spells if you choose to be a battle cleric.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do wonder how viable a cleric who does not cast spells where the DC matters, and does not focus on domains will be. Since then it seems like you can safely pump charisma higher than wisdom so you can channel a bunch.

I'll have to see the full set of feats to know what else I can get though.

I've been wondering this too. Since I mentioned not needing a Wisdom over 12 (10 if you're a goblin) to play a Cleric, I've been envisioning my Positive Energy Goblin Cleric of Lamashtu with a Wisdom of 10, and beefed up Strength or Dexterity who Attack/Attack/Heal Self on full attack, hence avoiding the -10 attack that almost certainly misses :-P.

I could imagine this being even better with multiclassing!

It will probably be garbage sorry. Not the answer you want to hear but one tricking into secondary abilitiea has typically proven fatal to many builds.

Feel free to save this quote and prove me wrong later.


MerlinCross wrote:

And yet the amount of Bloat caused by all that customization is a reason or at least perceived reason, as to why we are getting a second edition.

Let's trim that down.... by adding in even more customization?

By adding in a standardized mode of customization that isn't tacked on like Archetypes were... Also, I'm guessing in 2E, you'll be allowed exactly 1 archetype, or at least 1 at first. None of this trying to combine archetypes to exploit things that weren't meant to be exploited.

Also, the "bloat" that was being referred to, as I remember, had to do with stacking bonus "bloat"/number inflation, not the sheer number of options. Do you have a reference where Paizo has indicated that the number of character options was an underlying issue with 1e?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook 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.


MerlinCross wrote:


I'm advocating yes fewer options. In a Pathfinder game. At bloody first. I see the problem with too many options as;
1) Confusing
2) Traps
3) Possibly pointless
4) Balancing issues when even MORE options get put out

This doesn't sound crazy does it? I'm sure there's a good number to hit when it comes to options. But for new players it'll get confusing, for old players it's annoying to have to wade through them to play what we want, and for power gamers... well those options don't matter.

Again I'd like to think I'm not crazy here. Maybe ranting at this point but not outright crazy.

Problem is, the commuunity will always crack the math, no matter how many or few options, and they'll do it within a year of release. They always do. However, the more options you have, the more examples both Paizo and the third-party publishers will have to go on as a baseline to gauge new options by. It will never stop the creep you're proposing, but more customization means more points to craft a specific mould for characters of all stripes, and the less front-loading a class has.

That said, they still won't have all the customization I want at level 1, especially for the alchemist (pushing mutagens to level 5), but I'll have to wait and see if I am happy enough at start to overlook it. for August 2018, I'm just looking forward to not having to worry about having all the options I want, I'm looking forward to seeing what I can build with the options I have! My group is planning to embrace the playtesting aspect "whole-hog" and beat the Hell out of the rules. I can worry about the missing stuff come September.


Tangent101 wrote:
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.

It is already a feat tax just for breaking the spell progression.


Really loving the Cleric so far and it's a big relief to know that alignment still matters for Divine casters! I can't wait to build my Cleric of Lamashtu with this system. After a few weeks of being alternately underwhelmed and dismayed, I'm finally getting excited to see the actual playtest edition.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So I'm liking the anathema concept. Pretty much from the outset, Clerics and Druids have had an imaginary code of conduct that could result in them losing their divine sponsorship, and absolutely no real guidance on how that happened (unlike the Paladin, who at least had a 'code' to follow). It always felt kind of like something that was meant to be developed, and never got around to being so.

So I like this anathema idea. Put some teeth into it, and make those deity choices more than 'I want this combination of domains, alignment and favored weapon...'

I also like the idea that your 1st level spells will have the same DC as your 5th level spells. Very cool.

Until this blog, I wasn't sure if I liked the idea of Pathfinder 2, but I'm starting to turn around... ('Cause I'm fickle, and not to be trusted!)


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Set wrote:
('Cause I'm fickle, and not to be trusted!)

And here I thought you were Set in your ways.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:


The majority of my claims are more observations on the community, than the actual game. And said community is going to have a factor not only in the playtest, but moving forward. I do not believe Power Creep will happen, at least not at first. But power gaming and the discussion of Best builds that happen NOW, will continue into second edition.

OK, so if the community being overly focused on optimization is inevitable... Why does it matter what happens to the actual game? What you are describing is a problem that already exists and will continue to exist no matter what. Paizo can either strip meaningful build choices away from us, of course, but how is that better? More importantly, how is that still Pathfinder as opposed to 5e? (Or maybe 4e, can't personally attest if 4e was as samey as everyone claims it is.

If you want a system that simply lacks choices and makes every cleric the same, then Pathfinder isn't the system for you and never was.

.

Quote:
It's easier to access buying abilities that are already good than just giving them to a player? And wanting to play Old cleric was doing it wrong? Wat?

The vanilla cleric's abilities weren't "already good" by the standards you seem to be concerned about for the "meta." People complained that channel energy was a crappy class feature. Domain powers varied DRASTICALLY. And despite not having many class features to trade, there's probably a better archetype out there for any given role a player would like to use. The only thing the base line cleric really had going for it was it's full spell list, which itself is a hot bed for optimizers to explore.

Now, I don't think that means the vanilla cleric was bad, or that you were doing it wrong if you wanted to play vanilla. But you seem to be saying you feel compelled to play the mathematically best option, or at the very least pressured by the community to do so. Nothing about that is going to change based on the new edition because by your own words it is already true in the old edition. The only difference seems to be that you LIKE what you consider to be the optimal setup now and don't want to see that change.

Frankly, if community pressure makes you feel unable to play less than the 100% optimal that's a personal problem that you should get over, or find new people to play with.

Quote:
See I'd agree with you. If I didn't see so many people either NOT playing Monk or picking Archetypes to play Monk in a vastly different way. There is no reason to play Monk. Now there's plenty of reasons to play Qinggong Monk but out of the box Monk? Brawler was the example given but you can probably pick out a lot of classes to do "Fast Close Ranged Melee" and do it better. At least that's what I keep seeing, so why play Monk over Brawler, Fighter, Qinggong Monk?

Yes, the original monk, sans Unchained, Qinggong, or archetypes sucks and was a design failure. Paizo recognized that and gave us the Unchained Monk. Same deal with the Unchained Rogue. It is almost as if they have learned some lessons in the last decade. The Unhcained versions aren't perfect either, but they are good enough to where I see plenty of people use them.

Quote:
As for bemoaning, I'd argue it's a semantics and mechanical difference. I do not have to Pay for Brawler's feats. I do, with the daily limit but I do not believe in PF2 I can change what Class Feat I have bought each day.

You absolutely have to pay for a Brawlers feats. Every character gets feats, and you have to make choices on how you spend that limited resource. Even choosing to keep putting levels in Brawler has a cost-- you could be putting those levels in Barbarian to gain rage. Heck, even staying as Brawler, Martial Flexibility has a cost-- you could take Mutagenic Mauler instead and gain some sweet boosts to your raw damage and have a much simpler time during play.

All of your complaints seem to be based on psychological hang ups rather than actual game design. They all seem to apply to PF1 as much as PF2, but you seem to only be seeing it as an issue in PF2, despite knowing far less about it.


With what appears to be less spells per day at hand than in PF1, I hope there are more spells working on an exploration scale. Beginning combat with a few rounds of buffing isn't fun, so hopefully there are more buff spells in the hours duration range.


Well, this Blog post confirmed what I suspected and feared about ability score generation.

Already pretty much done with P2, and it isn't even out yet - my interest in playing or running is higher than it was for D&D 4e - but not by much. And is lower than my interest in running or playing D&D 5e - but also not by much.

Maybe 4 out of 10. (Current Pathfinder is 8 out of 10. D&D 3.5 gets 7, 4e gets 3, And no game gets 10 out of 10.)

I liked the sound of the changes to combat and to spell casting - but not enough to balance the changes that I do not like.

Hardwiring ability scores to the classes is one of the big issues, with a dislike of getting rid of weapon sizes affecting damage coming up as a distant second.

I do want to say thanks to Paizo for the information they have been letting out - I would have been furious if it had come as a surprise, instead I am just disappointed.(Trust me, that is an improvement.)

And, I can't complain too much - I have plenty of material for Pathfinder first edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Set wrote:
('Cause I'm fickle, and not to be trusted!)
And here I thought you were Set in your ways.

That's it you were warned. Pay yor tab and get out.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting to ponder what would be an acceptable feat option when placed against having, say, miracle. You get your cleric to 19th level - what would you give up the ability to cast miracle for?

I can think of some things offhand that might be tempting, build dependent of course:

All healing (or damaging) spells are automatically maximized
Get an extra action each round that can only be used for spellcasting
Your spells ignore SR(if SR is still a thing)
Gain an extra spell slot at each spell level
Freely cast from the entire cleric list like a spontaneous caster

Clearly the power level of these ideas is all over the place, but these are sort of on the power scale I'd be looking for if I'm giving up 10th level spells.


ENHenry wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


I'm advocating yes fewer options. In a Pathfinder game. At bloody first. I see the problem with too many options as;
1) Confusing
2) Traps
3) Possibly pointless
4) Balancing issues when even MORE options get put out

This doesn't sound crazy does it? I'm sure there's a good number to hit when it comes to options. But for new players it'll get confusing, for old players it's annoying to have to wade through them to play what we want, and for power gamers... well those options don't matter.

Again I'd like to think I'm not crazy here. Maybe ranting at this point but not outright crazy.

Problem is, the commuunity will always crack the math, no matter how many or few options, and they'll do it within a year of release. They always do. However, the more options you have, the more examples both Paizo and the third-party publishers will have to go on as a baseline to gauge new options by. It will never stop the creep you're proposing, but more customization means more points to craft a specific mould for characters of all stripes, and the less front-loading a class has.

That said, they still won't have all the customization I want at level 1, especially for the alchemist (pushing mutagens to level 5), but I'll have to wait and see if I am happy enough at start to overlook it. for August 2018, I'm just looking forward to not having to worry about having all the options I want, I'm looking forward to seeing what I can build with the options I have! My group is planning to embrace the playtesting aspect "whole-hog" and beat the Hell out of the rules. I can worry about the missing stuff come September.

See that's what I'm saying, the community will bloody crack the math. And then we'll be right back where we are now; lots of options that don't get used and a core set of options to pick. There's also having to play 3-5 levels before I can actually play the class I want(Too bad for Mutagen builds, what other builds got pushed back?)

I'm glad you're looking forward to playing with the options and I hope you have fun with them. Myself, I'm sitting here dreading the power gaming, balance, and possible bloat later. And dumping so much customization onto new players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook 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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheAuldGrump wrote:


Hardwiring ability scores to the classes is one of the big issues, with a dislike of getting rid of weapon sizes affecting damage coming up as a distant second.

Well it is one bonus of +2 to one ability score per class. That's relatively insignificant and, in most cases, deals with the requirement of an ability score of at least 11 to use your spells.

A +2 bonus to something shouldn't matter as much as you're thinking and shouldn't be a problem at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

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.

My fear is dipping is no longer allowed. Taking a level in cleric simply means you get to grab one of the cleric class feats and not the entire starting package. :(


Captain Morgan wrote:

OK, so if the community being overly focused on optimization is inevitable... Why does it matter what happens to the actual game? What you are describing is a problem that already exists and will continue to exist no matter what. Paizo can either strip meaningful build choices away from us, of course, but how is that better? More importantly, how is that still Pathfinder as opposed to 5e? (Or maybe 4e, can't personally attest if 4e was as samey as everyone claims it is.

If you want a system that simply lacks choices and makes every cleric the same, then Pathfinder isn't the system for you and never was.

I don't know, I didn't play 5e. I also find it funny that I'm the one that wants all Clerics to be the same when they are already near the same thanks to picking the same stuff ANYWAY. More options, cool great. Everyone picking the same things, boo bad.

New Edition won't change that. As for why it matters, I would assume Paizo makes changes and plans based off what they SEE. What matters in my home game? Nothing, not one bit. I give fighters Fly at level 1 it doesn't effect Pathfinder.

I go to PFS or online play. Oh, it matters what is good or optimal there.

Captain Morgan wrote:

The vanilla cleric's abilities weren't "already good" by the standards you seem to be concerned about for the "meta." People complained that channel energy was a crappy class feature. Domain powers varied DRASTICALLY. And despite not having many class features to trade, there's probably a better archetype out there for any given role a player would like to use. The only thing the base line cleric really had going for it was it's full spell list, which itself is a hot bed for optimizers to explore.

Now, I don't think that means the vanilla cleric was bad, or that you were doing it wrong if you wanted to play vanilla. But you seem to be saying you feel compelled to play the mathematically best option, or at the very least pressured by the community to do so. Nothing about that is going to change based on the new edition because by your own words it is already true in the old edition. The only difference seems to be that you LIKE what you consider to be the optimal setup now and don't want to see that change.

Frankly, if community pressure makes you feel unable to play less than the 100% optimal that's a personal problem that you should get over, or find new people to play with.

Yeah, I don't give a fig about the meta in my games, as long as everyone can do something. I care about the meta taking over the community and the game. The Big Six is a good example of this when it came to magic items. CLW wand spam happened due to everyone wanting it. Improved Initiative on basically every sheet is a good example of it for Feats.

And yes I feel compelled to try and keep up with the community. Because when the majority of players and DMs expect it to happen, I have to keep up or find another group. And another group. And another. Problem gets worse if Paizo starts expecting it to happen.

Captain Morgan wrote:
You absolutely have to pay for a Brawlers feats. Every character gets feats, and you have to make choices on how you spend that limited resource. Even choosing to keep putting levels in Brawler has a cost-- you could be putting those levels in Barbarian to gain rage. Heck, even staying as Brawler, Martial Flexibility has a cost-- you could take Mutagenic Mauler instead and gain some sweet boosts to your raw damage and have a much simpler time during play.

Hold on, wires crossed. Are we talking about the Martial Flexibility feats(Which you lose after X time and have to use your ablility to get them back, while at the same time being able to pick up a new different one while on the fly), or the bonus Combat Feats?

Cause my idea of "Not paying" was for the Martial Flexibility. Or at least not paying something as heavy as an actual Feat for them.

Also, well if everyone else at the table made combat monsters, I would have to consider picking up Barbarian or Mutagenic Mauler. Doesn't fit my character I might have but I need that boost from something.

Although if we're are both going to be fully hung up on resources across all things, let's just skip over to Wizard and not worry about it after a certain level.

Captain Morgan wrote:
All of your complaints seem to be based on psychological hang ups rather than actual game design. They all seem to apply to PF1 as much as PF2, but you seem to only be seeing it as an issue in PF2, despite knowing far less about it.

The Big Six. CLW Wands. Monk basically being unplayable without archetype. Summoners also being banned for breaking the game(Wizards still allowed that's weird). Fighters expected to go Sword and Board or twohanded and leaning towards two handed. Spell casters set up as Control and breaking the game. Metamagic useless outside of maybe 1-2 feats. Expecting to take These feats or else my build is bad. Rogue gets laughed out the room. So on and so forth.

Swap the words. Change the text. Different effects and classes. I fully expect certain things to be accepted as "The Rule" when it comes to Pathfinder 2e. After hanging out on this forum for awhile, I'd expect nothing less.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I agree that it looks like multi-classing, as we knew it, is likely gone. Whether its replaced with VMC-style, or feat-style (which are both rather similar) or something else, we don't know yet. I'm expecting it to be a very controversial blog post whenever we get it.


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

Well, can't wait to see what's in store for the Sorcerer. Can't lie, I'm a bit apprehensive that their versatiliy will be nerfed severely, given how few spell slots Clerics (and so Wizards probably as well) per day are given.

Then again, we only have half the picture here, maybe there are ways for Clerics and Wizards to get more spells per day and so maybe the same goes for Sorcerers in the spells known department.


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

I love vancian spellcasting, many others love vancian spellcasting. Stop pretending that you speak for everybody. You don't.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
My one, big, huge gripe is still the Vancian spellcasting. That needs to DIE IN A FREAKING FIRE. Make the prepared spellcasters Arcanist neo!Vancian casting, give the sorcerer etc more options, just finally freaking ditch ye olde terrible og!Vancian system that everyone hates. Then I really will be all on board, and will happily call this take on the cleric superior to the original.
I love vancian spellcasting, many others love vancian spellcasting. Stop pretending that you speak for everybody. You don't.

This. It aint just Magnuskn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:
I agree that it looks like multi-classing, as we knew it, is likely gone. Whether its replaced with VMC-style, or feat-style (which are both rather similar) or something else, we don't know yet. I'm expecting it to be a very controversial blog post whenever we get it.

As opposed to every non controversial blog post we've had thus far :D

I do agree that old multi-classing seems out the door. I can easily see Class Feats used to pick up abilities from other classes. Like I dunno, a Fighter with INT X can pick up Mutagen at level 5. A Cleric with Nature/Animal skill Y can pick up Animal Companion. And so on.

Dunno, spitballing.

Planpanther wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
I love vancian spellcasting, many others love vancian spellcasting. Stop pretending that you speak for everybody. You don't.
This. It aint just Magnuskn.

Same. I mean I don't have a problem with it, Wands and magic items can cover part of the issue. At the same time I'm not a full on supporter of it(The desire to pick the most useful/general spells). But can also allow for some interesting issues/problems to be solved that day if X isn't prepared.

At the very least I feel we shouldn't just pitch it out.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

I'm advocating yes fewer options. In a Pathfinder game. At bloody first. I see the problem with too many options as;

1) Confusing
2) Traps
3) Possibly pointless
4) Balancing issues when even MORE options get put out

This doesn't sound crazy does it?

It's not crazy. It's just, like, advocating for a drink with less bubbles while visiting a Champagne winery.

Dark Archive

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+144 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)

Math:

Cleric Lv12 Wis 22 [+6] Chr 18 [+4]

Channel Energy-7/day-11d8+6
1st-3, 2nd-3, 3rd-3, 4th-3, 5th-3, 6th-3

1st-1d8+6x3=3d8+18
2nd-3d8+6x3=9d8+18
3rd-5d8+6x3=15d8+18
4th-7d8+6=21d8+18
5th-9d8+6=27d8+18
6th-11d8+6=33d8+18
Channel 77d8+42

185d8+150

Oracle Lv.12 Chr 22 [+6]
1st-4, 2nd-4, 3rd-4, 4th-4, 5th-4, 6th-4
1st-1d8+6x=4d8+24
2nd-3d8+6x4=12d8+24
3rd-5d8+6x4=20d8+24
4th-7d8+6x4=28d8+24
5th-9d8+6x4=36d8+24
6th-11d8+6x4=44d8+24

144d8+144

If I did the math wrong please let me know.


Still not feeling impressed of that PF2 will be an improvement. Trimming the spells available will address some of the caster/martial power discrepancy, but unlimited "cantrips" that increase in effectiveness as you increase levels makes up for a lot of that. Trimming spells also seems like it will negatively impact the ability to prepare spells that have only an outside chance of being useful.
The "Spell Points" term has got to go.
I am looking forward to hearing more about how clerics can be customized, beyond just the choice of a god.
Using the key ability stat for touch spells seems to make that key ability more important, even if it no longer grants bonus spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

About the spell slots, I think, well speculate that we might be getting more spells than just the spell slots. In pathfinder 1e your cleric domain gives you specific spells you can cast. So I think that your domain might give you access to more spells (that might be outside the divine spell list) and these spells would be cast by spell points. So we would have
1) scalling cantrips
2)channling heal/harm
3)chosen spell slots and
4) spells from domain that are determined by that domain but can always be cast using spell points.

Also if this is the case domain might also give access to spells from the non-divine spell list, like a nature domain cleric has spells from druid spell list.

Friday blog will tell I guess


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

The more options you have, the more problems you have balancing those...

Wait... are you advocating for few options? In a Pathfinder game?

I'm advocating yes fewer options. In a Pathfinder game. At bloody first. I see the problem with too many options as;

1) Confusing
2) Traps
3) Possibly pointless
4) Balancing issues when even MORE options get put out

This doesn't sound crazy does it? I'm sure there's a good number to hit when it comes to options. But for new players it'll get confusing, for old players it's annoying to have to wade through them to play what we want, and for power gamers... well those options don't matter.

Again I'd like to think I'm not crazy here. Maybe ranting at this point but not outright crazy.

Fuzzypaws wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

The more options you have, the more problems you have balancing those...

Wait... are you advocating for few options? In a Pathfinder game?
This confuses me too. Part of the whole reason we're here and (presumably) haven't abandoned Pathfinder for 5E is that Pathfinder allows more options and depth of character customization.

And yet the amount of Bloat caused by all that customization is a reason or at least perceived reason, as to why we are getting a second edition.

Let's trim that down.... by adding in even more customization? I mean sure at release the amount of stuff might not be too bad but I can see this quickly getting out of hand both with bloat and balance.

I will admit some of my concerns will be somewhat lift when I see the rules(Do Class Feats scale as everything else, do I need Improved Class Feat to keep scaling, will I need Class feat X to get Class Feat X+?). But those are more personal concerns.

There is a real and clear problem with bloat, yes. Once you have 3000 feats, a newcomer has to read 3000 feats, and that is a problem.

But layers of customizable options, and bloat, is not the same. If you have 12 classes, 12 ancestry, 12 backgrounds, and 12 archetypes, you have room for customization, without having bloat.

Pathfinder selling point HAS to be different than 5e. They are NOT going to beat 5e at what 5e is good. No chance. 5e is not 4e, a different has the brand recognition plus a great game. PF has to target something different. And lack of customization and options is a weakness of 5e, and a strength of PF.

They have to strive to achieve the perfect balance of customization without bloat. But customization is a must. Being unique and different than 5e is a must. Otherwise they can already fold the hand and concede the game to 5e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Good luck getting an agreeable definition of bloat. For some folks the second the APG came out PF1 was bloated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On a side note the changes make Bad Touch Clerics potentially more viable.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
If I may offer a request, please include a sublist of every other game PF2 evidently now is just a knockoff of. I swear, at this point PF2 is evidently a knockoff of every d20 game ever except 3.5/PF1
I mean a reasonable way to go about designing a game in this family is consider the good ideas of all the other games in the family and try to adapt them, then consider all the weak points of all the other games in the family and try to avoid them.

But if you do that you're going against the holy mold of PF1 and 3.5 and thus you are making an overly complex game for MMO/VIDEOGAME BABIES that doesn't respect the legacy (of 3.5/PF)! *gnash gnash*

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if a blog came up mentioning the core mechanic of PF2 was d20 based and people went complaining that's what 4e/5e/AD&D did and it sucks.

It's because none of the so-called new mechanics are new.

Graded Success/failures? It's on M&M core.

The class feat are basically D&D 4E Powers with another name.

Spell Points. Encounters Powers, also from D&D 4E.

The spell slot, and spellcasting as whole is a variation of D&D 5E (ou Starfinder, if you prefer).

What this game have that resembles Pathfinder? The Alchemist.

501 to 550 of 928 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Cleric Class Preview All Messageboards