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
551 to 600 of 928 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

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

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

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

** spoiler omitted **

If I did the math wrong please let me know.

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

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

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

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

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


2 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.

I like Vancian spellcasting too, but isn't arcanist also Vancian? From what I know about Vance's books arcanist spellcasting is a closer fit. Or not? (I am not sure)


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.

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...

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

I am not entirely sure what your angle is.

Also if a /barbarian/ can with a few skill feats generally keep the party in good condition between fights, as they have been fond of pointing out, I really wouldn't worry about the /cleric/ somehow not providing enough healing.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
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.
I like Vancian spellcasting too, but isn't arcanist also Vancian? From what I know about Vance's books arcanist spellcasting is a closer fit.

Arcanist is still a form of Vancian. It's just a much better form than the kind we've been stuck with in the past.


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

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

I am not entirely sure what your angle is.

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

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

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

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


3 people 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.

I think you misunderstood the intent of Pathfinder 2. Yes, they want to make the system easier to access got new players. But more importantly, they want it to still be Pathfinder. The devs have been assuring people from the beginning that PF2e will have even more flexibility than 1e. This is how Pathfinder distinguishes itself from 5e.

The way they plan to make it easier to learn is by making the game more intuitive, not less flexible. This includes removing meaningless fiddly bits like having odd ability scores. Or making all classes level up using the same basic framework and terminology. Or by making the basic gear CR levels require you to have be baked into the math rather than needing to be purchased through an increasingly unwieldy magical economy. They have specifically said they want to have archetypes in core so they feel integrated into the heart of the game rather than some optional bolt on.

Now, an actual problem they will hopefully change in PF1 is reducing the overall number of feats. There are far too many, many of them bad, and it is very hard to parse them. But that isn't the same thing as saying we should get less feats as we level up. We can have more choices while having fewer things to choose between if it means trimming feat taxes and bad feats. Also, having a unified system of class feats vs skill feats vs ancestry feats vs general feats makes it a lot easier to sort through them. In PF1 it felt a lot more convuluted.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
the Oracle is as much a counterpart to the Cleric as the Sorcerer is a counterpart to the Wizard

Was.

Oracle was as much a counterpart to cleric, as sorcerer was to wizard.

We have no clue of how that will be in PF2. Might have different mechanics


Tangent101 wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

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

I am not entirely sure what your angle is.

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

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

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

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

What if I never intend to play healing as a major role?

Dark Archive

Tangent101 wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Oracle better at healing...
So I did some math

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

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

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

All at once, Wizards and Clerics become far less powerful because they are forced to...

I agree spontaneous casters are kinda looking good. Spontaneous casters do get heighten spell per the all about spells blog. Supposedly there was some talk about the sorcerer on a twitch stream so I am watching that now.


edduardco wrote:
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

I am curious to see how it is in play. Once you get to that level at the rate feat gain seems to happen in PF2 I am not sure how many feats you even wind up wanting once you get into 10th level spell category. Spending a feat for real world changing spells does not seem on the face of it unreasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
You see, the Oracle has the potential to heal far more than the Cleric while at the same time having the ability to cast other spells if needed and thus prove to be more versatile as its healing isn't based off of Channel Energy.

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

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


Based on the mechanics of the anathema, the oracle as a class will not be. Maybe for the better.

Dark Archive

PhD. Okkam wrote:
Based on the mechanics of the anathema, the oracle as a class will not be. Maybe for the better.

Why? Oracles don't need a god and as such would not be bound by Anathema. There mysteries might have them but we don't know that yet as the oracle is at least 2 years away.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

When it comes to the cleric, Paizo just cant seem to see the wood for the trees.... since Day 1.

2 fundamental errors:

1) Incorporating gish into the class as a default instead of an option

2) Insisting on some sort of heal/harm facility incorporated as a default instead of an option

People seem to forget that first and foremost a cleric is a servant of the Gods and that is where the power comes from via prayer.

Where is it written that every single deity has some sort of vested interest in having their followers be able to radiate divine waves of healing/harming energy?!?

Yes some Gods would have a huge interest in healing energy due to there areas of divine concern, but there would plenty of others who would not give a single hoot if their clerics never healed anyone in their entire life!!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm excited by Anathema and its potential implications for Druids, Paladins, Barbarians and Monks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Personally, as someone that isn't all that religious I prefer both the idea and name of Oracle over Cleric.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kaid wrote:
edduardco wrote:
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

I am curious to see how it is in play. Once you get to that level at the rate feat gain seems to happen in PF2 I am not sure how many feats you even wind up wanting once you get into 10th level spell category. Spending a feat for real world changing spells does not seem on the face of it unreasonable.

My biggest gripe is that is breaking spell progression.

At every odd level, you get access to a new level of spells, except 19th because reasons ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:


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.

In much the same way that Mark has mentioned the new action economy allows you to simulate the Magus's spell combat without needing a Magus class, I've been considering that this set-up could be the path to a PF2 Playtest "Warpriest". I suspect that once the playtest book comes out and my home group gets their hands on it, I'm going to have a "warpriest", "magus", and "ninja" or something along those lines as everyone plays with how the new set-up allows them to use the core classes to tackle concepts that didn't show up in the current edition until later in its lifespan.

John John wrote:


I like Vancian spellcasting too, but isn't arcanist also Vancian? From what I know about Vance's books arcanist spellcasting is a closer fit. Or not? (I am not sure)

I've always thought that the closest way to actually model Jack Vance's casting system would be to take a point-based system like 3.5 psionics, but make the caster assign all of their points at the beginning of the day. In those books bigger spells took up more "brain space", so it would be like if (for example) you had 9 "slots" in your head at the beginning of your day that you could use to either memorize 9 1st level spells, 3 2nd level spells, or 1 3rd level spell and 2 1st level spells (using a scaling metric for quadratic power advancement where a 1st level spell is one slot, a 2nd level spell is 3 slots, and a 3rd level spell is 7 slots). So core wizard is closest to a "true" Vancian model, with each step in flexibility and spammability away from that actually getting farther from the Dying Earth model that the term "Vancian" is derived from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
You see, the Oracle has the potential to heal far more than the Cleric while at the same time having the ability to cast other spells if needed and thus prove to be more versatile as its healing isn't based off of Channel Energy.

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

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

It also skews the spells per day in an interesting fashion for clerics. They are going to have the most spells per day basically being their highest level spells. Since their heal/harm spells from channel are always basically casting at the highest spell level available they have basically a minimum of 5-6 of their maximum level spell casting spells and then 3 for everything below maximum. So if you have an 18 charisma you could have what 9-10 of your max spell level for casting in a day?

It winds up being interesting that while the total number of spells is lower they are really top heavy in tossing out the biggest stuff they can cast at all better then the prior levels. If you are going to have less spells overall being top heavy in being better stocked in the post potent ones you are capable of casting seems pretty decent. Also with that one feat they were talking about you could go from heal to the various cure abilities to pick what you need for a situation and have it be the most powerful version of that you are capable of casting.


Ssalarn wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:


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.

In much the same way that Mark has mentioned the new action economy allows you to simulate the Magus's spell combat without needing a Magus class, I've been considering that this set-up could be the path to a PF2 Playtest "Warpriest". I suspect that once the playtest book comes out and my home group gets their hands on it, I'm going to have a "warpriest", "magus", and "ninja" or something along those lines as everyone plays with how the new set-up allows them to use the core classes to tackle concepts that didn't show up in the current edition until later in its lifespan.

John John wrote:


I like Vancian spellcasting too, but isn't arcanist also Vancian? From what I know about Vance's books arcanist spellcasting is a closer fit. Or not? (I am not sure)
I've always thought that the closest way to actually model Jack Vance's casting system would be to take a point-based system like 3.5 psionics, but make the caster assign all of their points at the beginning of the day. In those books bigger spells took up more "brain space", so it would be like if (for example) you had 9 "slots" in your head at the beginning of your day that you could use to either memorize 9 1st level spells, 3 2nd level spells, or 1 3rd level spell and 2 1st level spells (using a scaling metric for quadratic power advancement where a 1st level spell is one slot, a 2nd level spell is 3 slots, and a 3rd level spell is 7 slots). So core wizard is closest to a "true" Vancian model, with each step in flexibility and spammability away from that actually getting farther from the Dying Earth model that the term "Vancian" is derived from.

Sounds like the Dungeon World Wizard is the closest thing to the "true" Vancian model then? "Prepare new spells of your choice from your spellbook whose total levels don’t exceed your own level+1." Interesting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


The old Cleric could take whatever spells they wanted. If they needed to heal someone? They could sacrifice a spell. And they would have extra spells, both base and with their stat bonus... AS WELL as their Channel Energy ability. And trust me. The Cleric in the Runelords game I just finished? She usually used...

None of this players problem is a fault of the class.

I repeat the same commandment I shared nearly a decade ago.

Thou art not a bandaid.

Its no wonder she felt she couldnt contribute as much when she dedicates so many resources to being a walking medkit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Quote:


The old Cleric could take whatever spells they wanted. If they needed to heal someone? They could sacrifice a spell. And they would have extra spells, both base and with their stat bonus... AS WELL as their Channel Energy ability. And trust me. The Cleric in the Runelords game I just finished? She usually used...

None of this players problem is a fault of the class.

I repeat the same commandment I shared nearly a decade ago.

Thou art not a bandaid.

Its no wonder she felt she couldnt contribute as much when she dedicates so many resources to being a walking medkit.

In this vein I want to add that I'm worried with only 3 spell slots per level of spells, no bonus spells from high ability scores, resonance for magic items (including potions and wands) that there will not be sufficient sources of healing. Yes, clerics have a channel pool which can potentially, much like their PF1 versions did. But this still doesn't seem like enough.

People keep talking about "the barbarian using something (maybe the heal skill) to keep the party running" but as of yet we still haven't seen the mechanics for this.

The more information they publish the more and more I worry about this topic.

I mean, I'll be happy if the heal skill really has the power to keep characters going and we don't need to rely on magic. But without any mechanics to look at this continues to be a big worry for me.


I liked what I've seen so far. Some questions though:
How anathema is going to work with other classes, like, let's say, Paladin? How much DMs naturally get to say about these restrictions?
Is it easy to create new deities for your home-made setting, or even to use other models than traditional D&D-polytheism*?
* Perhaps even religions without a specific god.


Claxon wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Quote:


The old Cleric could take whatever spells they wanted. If they needed to heal someone? They could sacrifice a spell. And they would have extra spells, both base and with their stat bonus... AS WELL as their Channel Energy ability. And trust me. The Cleric in the Runelords game I just finished? She usually used...

None of this players problem is a fault of the class.

I repeat the same commandment I shared nearly a decade ago.

Thou art not a bandaid.

Its no wonder she felt she couldnt contribute as much when she dedicates so many resources to being a walking medkit.

In this vein I want to add that I'm worried with only 3 spell slots per level of spells, no bonus spells from high ability scores, resonance for magic items (including potions and wands) that there will not be sufficient sources of healing. Yes, clerics have a channel pool which can potentially, much like their PF1 versions did. But this still doesn't seem like enough.

People keep talking about "the barbarian using something (maybe the heal skill) to keep the party running" but as of yet we still haven't seen the mechanics for this.

The more information they publish the more and more I worry about this topic.

I mean, I'll be happy if the heal skill really has the power to keep characters going and we don't need to rely on magic. But without any mechanics to look at this continues to be a big worry for me.

I feel like tgeyll be unfounded in the end.

Paizo has always tried to allow for more party variety. I would not be surprised if they build off of starfinders system and allow resonance or what not to provide a big heal when spent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Planpanther wrote:
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. :(

As I understand it, the free Heals will scale with Cleric level, not character level. So the free Heals you would get from a one level Cleric dip (and from first level Cleric spells) would quickly fade into irrelevance as you level up.

Given that, I doubt that one level Cleric dips are going to be very attractive.

(Of course I have yet to see the game, so who knows! But given what we’ve seen, I don’t think a one level Cleric dip will be attractive enough to make them need to ban traditional multi-classing.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
I like Vancian spellcasting too, but isn't arcanist also Vancian?

The definition of vancian spell casting to me (and I would hope to the majority of people) is that each instance of a spell used once, and then are gone until the next time you prepare spells. Every thread does seem to have someone who insists on broadening that definition to the point of uselessness (I saw someone insist that 3.5 psionics was vancian!), which I find bizarre and inexplicable. Maybe it is one of those "embrace and destroy" things Microsoft was famous for.

Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
Spell Points. Encounters Powers, also from D&D 4E.

Given that Spell Points are a daily resource, I am curious in what way you think they resemble encounter powers.

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

I am pretty sure they have explicitly said that spell preparation is like PF1 (and unlike 5e).

_
glass.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Tangent101 wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
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.
Why do I f&&%ing care?
If you don't intend on ever playing a cleric, then why comment? And please remain polite.

That WAS the polite version. And I do intend to play a cleric in 2E, I just don't think that 10th level spells and 10th level spell slots are the same thing. (Or are all that important in the grand scheme of things.)


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

I think you misunderstood the intent of Pathfinder 2. Yes, they want to make the system easier to access got new players. But more importantly, they want it to still be Pathfinder. The devs have been assuring people from the beginning that PF2e will have even more flexibility than 1e. This is how Pathfinder distinguishes itself from 5e.

The way they plan to make it easier to learn is by making the game more intuitive, not less flexible. This includes removing meaningless fiddly bits like having odd ability scores. Or making all classes level up using the same basic framework and terminology. Or by making the basic gear CR levels require you to have be baked into the math rather than needing to be purchased through an increasingly unwieldy magical economy. They have specifically said they want to have archetypes in core so they feel integrated into the heart of the game rather than some optional bolt on.

Now, an actual problem they will hopefully change in PF1 is reducing the overall number of feats. There are far too many, many of them bad, and it is very hard to parse them. But that isn't the same thing as saying we should get less feats as we level up. We can have more choices while having fewer things to choose between if it means trimming feat taxes and bad feats. Also, having a unified system of class feats vs skill feats vs ancestry feats vs general feats makes it a lot easier to sort through them. In PF1 it felt a lot more convoluted.

Easier to learn with less bloat but just as flexible as PF1? This doesn't sound entirely possible or at the very least, easy to design without shooting yourself in the foot later.

I saw nothing wrong with odd ability scores, unless you're trying to power game. Why change it, how punished am I for having a 17? Unless we're talking MAD here, I'm unsure as to the point. And too basic of a frame work, all the classes feel samey. Or from what I'm seeing, they don't get some of their normal stuff till later on. If the gear levels with you(Is that right, am I good here?) what's the point in getting new gear? What's the point and keeping gear too? Keep or sell feels stronger now. That legendary weapon you found from some lost story? Well this axe has a better Gear/CR score so toss it. Very Diablo like. And if the Archetypes are just "You can buy what you want" they might not be bolted on, but they don't feel like an actual mechanic.

As for the feats, debatable. Currently they just seem to be removing Combat, General, Racial, and the like and putting them into Class feats(Actual Class Abilities), Skill Feats(That's where all the +2 to skill checks go, wow), Ancestry Feats(Racial Feats and Traits), and General Feats(All the other Feats). So I still expect a lot of feats. And I still expect some to be bad, some to be level locked, some to be Feat locked and so on.

What's the intent of Pathfinder 2? Make it easier to learn and play for new players and make it different enough from Pathfinder 1 so the new players don't feel like they are playing it, or 3.5. WHILE making sure all the older players don't feel cheated out of what makes Pathfinder, Pathfinder. Which means including a bunch of math, number crunching, feats, build ideas, and customization.

Those ideas, at least as far as that is how I see the Intent of a new Edition, seem to be at odds with each other. I'm unsure of just HOW it'll work out, but I'm not hype for what I'm seeing.


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.

Sounds like 1e battle clerics just nice. The domain powers were crap, but they got a lot of good buffs (and domain spells with buffs) and never forced anyone to roll a save. Was pretty good!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Providing healing is contributing.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
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.
Why do I f&&%ing care?
If you don't intend on ever playing a cleric, then why comment? And please remain polite.
That WAS the polite version. And I do intend to play a cleric in 2E, I just don't think that 10th level spells and 10th level spell slots are the same thing. (Or are all that important in the grand scheme of things.)

Yeah they could make all Spell casters get to level 10. It actually wouldn't effect me as my games start wrapping up around level 10-15. Mostly due to out of game issues.

I've only hit high level a few times, in the past, with DnD 2 or 3. And that was just messing around. Does the idea of "Level 10 Spells" really hold that much value? Wish got moved there to stop breaking the game but you can still get it, and other comparative spells. I expect bans of Level 10 spells to be a general accepted rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This looks very interesting... I love spellcasters and Clerics are on my list of "Top 4 Classes to Play."

My big takeaway on this preview is the whole Max 3 spells per spell level. That seems... low. But then I need to consider that all spells scale with level now... so several (like Bless and Prayer) may be redundant now. Then all Clerics will have an average of 3-7 Heals (Channels) per day (or Inflicts, whatever floats your boat). Then Domain powers, until your Spell points run out. Then the Cantrips, which are unlimited castings per day, and we're told they scale with character level too. So... maybe 3 spells per day, plus Channeling, plus Domain powers, plus Cantrips... maybe that's enough.

I guess we'll see during the playtest - because that's the entire reason that we HAVE a playtest. And as we all know from the previous playtest, umpteen years ago, if it doesn't work during the playtest, it will be adjusted before the final edition becomes finalized.


I forgot to mention, but I really like the classic Vancian system, much more then the "flexible" systems of 3.X sorcerer or 5e casters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
Providing healing is contributing.

For a given amount of contribution yes.

But Id rather my group needs it as like a tertiary concern.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
I forgot to mention, but I really like the classic Vancian system, much more then the "flexible" systems of 3.X sorcerer or 5e casters.

There is room for many styles. The my way is the enlightened way and everthing else is badwrongfun crowd can go fly a kite.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:

When it comes to the cleric, Paizo just cant seem to see the wood for the trees.... since Day 1.

2 fundamental errors:

1) Incorporating gish into the class as a default instead of an option

2) Insisting on some sort of heal/harm facility incorporated as a default instead of an option

People seem to forget that first and foremost a cleric is a servant of the Gods and that is where the power comes from via prayer.

Where is it written that every single deity has some sort of vested interest in having their followers be able to radiate divine waves of healing/harming energy?!?

Yes some Gods would have a huge interest in healing energy due to there areas of divine concern, but there would plenty of others who would not give a single hoot if their clerics never healed anyone in their entire life!!

I very much agree with 2. I'd like to see other possibilities for channeling besides heal/harm. How about a chaotic god granting channel confusion for 1 round, or a travel domain god granting a +5' bonus to speed for a round. Why does it have to be the same two choices all the time.

I otherwise like what I've seen so far.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
I forgot to mention, but I really like the classic Vancian system, much more then the "flexible" systems of 3.X sorcerer or 5e casters.
There is room for many styles. The my way is the enlightened way and everthing else is badwrongfun crowd can go fly a kite.

I never said my style should be the only one available ;)

I only wish that Vancian casting remains for the classics such as Wizard ^^


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
I forgot to mention, but I really like the classic Vancian system, much more then the "flexible" systems of 3.X sorcerer or 5e casters.
There is room for many styles. The my way is the enlightened way and everthing else is badwrongfun crowd can go fly a kite.

I never said my style should be the only one available ;)

I only wish that Vancian casting remains for the classics such as Wizard ^^

Oh not you mate, I was speaking about the "modern design makes me right you wrong" folks.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
I forgot to mention, but I really like the classic Vancian system, much more then the "flexible" systems of 3.X sorcerer or 5e casters.
There is room for many styles. The my way is the enlightened way and everthing else is badwrongfun crowd can go fly a kite.

I never said my style should be the only one available ;)

I only wish that Vancian casting remains for the classics such as Wizard ^^
Oh not you mate, I was speaking about the "modern design makes me right you wrong" folks.

Said the man who is the face of overpriced popcorn.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:

So, 18 at 1st level, +2 at 5th: 20, +2 at 10th: 22, +2 at 15th: 24, +2 at 20th: 26.

Though, it might increase by 1 for every +2 bonus after 18, so you cap at 22.

I would prefer that.

22 is also possible, though some circumstantial evidence on the difference in skill bonuses between the best and the worst at 20th level points toward 26.

Blave wrote:
Wait, I assumed increased Proficiency for divince spells would increase spell DCs. Is this in addition to proficiencies or will spell proficiencies do something else entirely?

12th and 16th are when you get Expert and Master Proficiency, so I'm pretty sure that's what Proficiency does, yeah.

Skerek wrote:

I like this too, but I'd like to see a way for races that have a penalty in a stat to be able to get to the 18 cap as well, perhaps if they are using the method Deadmanwalking proposed instead of the four +2s you get a single +4 with the caveat that it can't bring a stat above 18

It always bothered me that in PF1e some races were just better at being a certain class than others. A Dwarf sorcerer (baring the Empyreal bloodline) will never be as good as an Elven sorcerer and even worse compared to Halfling/Gnome.

I'm unfortunately pretty sure at this point that's not how it's gonna work. Still, a starting 16 is plenty to work with most times. Heck, it's a whole -1 Save DC and -1 Spell Point. A disadvantage, but not nearly as much of one as in PF1 (especially since nobody can get to the 20 they could in PF1).

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.

We have no idea how multiclassing works. This may well not even be possible.

And all speculation on Spontaneous Caster is deeply premature since we don't know how they'll work yet, either.

Tangent101 wrote:

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

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

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

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

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:

Yeah they could make all Spell casters get to level 10. It actually wouldn't effect me as my games start wrapping up around level 10-15. Mostly due to out of game issues.

I've only hit high level a few times, in the past, with DnD 2 or 3. And that was just messing around. Does the idea of "Level 10 Spells" really hold that much value? Wish got moved there to stop breaking the game but you can still get it, and other comparative spells. I expect bans of Level 10 spells to be a general accepted rule.

Maybe 2E will fix the system problems that crop up at high level. It won't solve the social problems that tend to cause groups to fracture before reaching those heights. But it would be nice to be able to finish 2E APs at higher levels with more ease.

The Exchange

tivadar27 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

If I don't need to spend the feats to play Cleric and will get the abilites anyway, how do you suddenly have options? Your cleric will be the same as my cleric? I'm confused.

If I want to play a cleric the old way, I have to spend a Feat. Oh I'm sorry, A Class Feat. Which is still a resource. I never had them before as a Cleric, because I never needed them before as a Cleric. If I NEED to spend a Feat to do X, it's a Feat tax. That's how it works right, I'm not misusing the term am I?

You have your option. Old Cleric is forced to spend a Resource they never had before..., to get back what they might have already lost.

Yes, you are, in fact, misusing the term. A feat tax is a feat you have to take, though that's not useful, to reach some desired end state, or a feat you have to take to "keep up" with the rest of your class.

You've stated that if you want to play the *old cleric*, you'd potentially have to take extra feats, each of which, in this circumstance, would give you an extra spell, so they're useful, and they're not required, as someone else might be fine with fewer spells, but having other abilities that may be equally as powerful.

Once again, we don't know if this will even be possible, but your view that these are feat taxes is not correct. If you want to play a traditional cleric, go ahead, use your feats for that, you're not losing anything. You seem to want to both have the full range of spells, and then *add additional powers* for clerics, which would essentially be making them *more* powerful than traditional clerics in Pathfinder 1e.

Actually a feat tax is also a feat that you simply cannot pass up because it makes your build subpar and its a feat that often shows up regardless of class. 4E was infamousfor doing this. Let me give you an example of feat taxes for a party of four PC's in 4E.

Rich: Paladin 6 - weapon expertise longsword, improved defenses, great fortitude, lightning reflexes, iron will, weapon focus longsword

Michael - Ranger 6 - weapon expertise longbow, improved defenses, lightning reflexes, iron will, great fortitude, weapon focus longbow,

Nancy - Warlock 6 implement expertise rod, improved defenses, lightning reflexes, iron will, great fortitude, superior implement training rod

Jeff - Slayer 6 - weapon expertise great sword, improved defenses, great fortitude, lightning reflexes, iron will, weapon focus great sword

Bob - Cleric 6 implement expertise holy symbol, improved defenses, lightning reflexes, iron will, great fortitude, superior implement training astral holy symbol

Now are people going to take every single feat in this order? Of course not. There may also be other feats sprinkled in at various levels but overall six feats will be set aside for each class to get these benefits as they applied to attacks and defenses and damage. Since the 4E math always assumed you had these feats you were at a disadvantage when you leveled especially as you grew into paragon and epic tiers as all of these feats scaled with each tier. So you have the party all looking very homogenized due to this feat tax. I really hope that PF2 does not go this route. There should be no one true build for each class but multiple approaches and variety to a good design of each class.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the fact that Clerics have the option to push Cha as a secondary stat or even a primary stat above Wis depending on playstyle. If every class just had one obvious main stat, all PCs would have the same maxed ability score, and at that point you might as well not use ability points. Pushing several abilities simultaneously also doesn't seem to be such a big deal in PF2. Finally, Clerics who want to focus on the Channel Energy feature might well have a class feat available for them, apart from pushing Cha (akin to the «Extra Channeling» in PF1).

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I couldn't care less about 10th-level spells. I've never cast a single 9th-level spell in PF1 — I wouldn't even know what to do with the responsibilty... if anything, I want to hear more about cantrips. :Þ


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:


Easier to learn with less bloat but just as flexible as PF1? This doesn't sound entirely possible or at the very least, easy to design without shooting yourself in the foot later.

It might not wind up being possible, but they seem to think they can manage it. We will find out when the playtest drops. Again, you can look at the Unchained classes to see that Paizo has learned some lessons since they initially made the game, and they have data from how other systems have been received as well. PF1 has 10 years of age plus another 8 or so of 3.5. Even setting aside the question of whether there is too much content, is it crazy to think game design may have advanced some in the last 18 years? I don't really play board games, but everyone is always telling me board games have undergone a renaissance in recent years.

Quote:
saw nothing wrong with odd ability scores, unless you're trying to power game. Why change it, how punished am I for having a 17? Unless we're talking MAD here, I'm unsure as to the point.

Odd ability scores are silly because there isn't really a reason for them to exist. Frankly there isn't a mechanical reason for ability scores to exist in the first place when everything just uses the modifier, but having the ability scores is a legacy thing and good for branding. Odd ability scores is just one part of point buys being needlessly complicated. I shouldn't need to send someone some sort of specialized calculator app to do something this basic. Making ability score adjustments always come in increments of 2 is pretty much the same end result but is just significantly easier.

Quote:
And too basic of a frame work, all the classes feel samey. Or from what I'm seeing, they don't get some of their normal stuff till later on.

If you boiled the PF1 classes down to the level of broad descriptions given in the class blogs, they would feel even more samey. The only real difference between a Barbarian and a Fighter is math and a few significant rage powers you could highlight.

Now, I share your concern about having old stuff get spread out over a a larger course of levels. But even that helps to differentiate the classes-- it makes it harder to rip off a class identity with a one level dip. Meanwhile, the Fighter being the only one who gets attacks of opportunity out the box makes the fighter stand out more. The reactions in general sound a lot more varied than most of the core 1e immediate action access.

Quote:
If the gear levels with you(Is that right, am I good here?) what's the point in getting new gear? What's the point and keeping gear too? Keep or sell feels stronger now. That legendary weapon you found from some lost story? Well this axe has a better Gear/CR score so toss it. Very Diablo like.

I have no idea where you got any of this from. What I was referencing is that items like Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Resistance, and Belts and Headbands of +stat are no longer required for your character to remain competitive as you level. Instead, they are going to be much more generous with ability score increases. Instead of magic items adding just another +1, they do interesting, flavorful, wondrous things.

Quote:
And if the Archetypes are just "You can buy what you want" they might not be bolted on, but they don't feel like an actual mechanic.

We don't know much about archetypes, so I don't think there's much point in discussing this.

Quote:
Skill Feats(That's where all the +2 to skill checks go, wow)

Actually, from what they have said skill feats will change numeric bonuses less and instead give you whole new things to do with the skill. More like Skill Unlocks than Skill Focus. (This seems to be the general trend: tightening up the math while broadening the different types of actions you can take.) But honestly, even if the skill feats were just things like Skill Focus, it wouldn't necessarily be bad

Quote:
I still expect a lot of feats

Are bare minimum, the sum totality of what you listed for the PF2 core CAN'T be more than PF1 had for its counterparts across 10 years of books. We will have to see if they keep churning out new feats at an unhealthy pace. But I'm optimistic they will be weigh any given feat a little more before printing it.

Quote:
And I still expect some to be bad

While obviously perfect balance is impossible to achieve, I think these changes will make it easier to avoid trap options. Namely, by breaking up all of these feats into specific categories and not making them all draw from the same pool. Skill Focus was bad because it was competing with things like Power Attack or Precise Shot. Racial Feats didn't get touched often because they tended to be expensive to get and competed with these same resources.

Now, Skill Feats just need to be balanced against other Skill Feats. Ancestry feats just need to be balanced against other Ancestry feats. Fighter Feats mostly need to be balanced against other Fighter Feats, though you also want to have a broad awareness of what other classes can do. (But that's more about the sum of their parts-- all Barbarian Feats don't necessarily need to be good as all Fighter Feats if the Barbarian has other class features which close the gap.)

Quote:
some to be level locked

Yeah, I mean, it seems pretty obvious that better options will come at higher levels. However, we have also been promised more feats will scale as you level.

Quote:
some to be Feat locked and so on.

They have promised that feat trees will be much less common, and where they exist they will actually make sense and be expanding on the same sort of actions. Ex: Improved Precise Shot may still require Precise Shot. But Whirlwind Attack won't require Mobility.

The number of ways Paizo has added to bypass Combat Expertise is a clear indicator that they recognize the problem with the old feat taxes. It is also a sign that it is time for a new edition, when half the content is just stealth patching crappy older options.

Quote:
Which means including a bunch of math, number crunching, feats, build ideas, and customization.

While you are correct with most of this, they are vastly reducing those bolded parts. Some people are unhappy about this, but I'm pretty excited to be doing a little less Mathfinder.

Quote:
Those ideas, at least as far as that is how I see the Intent of a new Edition, seem to be at odds with each other. I'm unsure of just HOW it'll work out, but I'm not hype for what I'm seeing.

Having choices doesn't necessarily mean those choices are hard to understand. There is a correlation between depth and complexity, but I don't think it is hard to point to parts of PF1 that could be made more intuitive without tearing out all the options the game has.


Catharsis wrote:
I couldn't care less about 10th-level spells. I've never cast a single 9th-level spell in PF1 — I wouldn't even know what to do with the responsibilty... if anything, I want to hear more about cantrips. :Þ

I feel, however, that one of the design goals for PF2 will be to make high level play be something that people want to do for reasons other than "well, we have to finish the story, even though this is a chore".

All that being said, I'm much more concerned about the Fighter, Rogue, Monk, et al in high level play than the Cleric, Wizard, Druid, and Sorcerer.


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

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

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

One difference: the oracle (assuming it works the same as a PF1 oracle, which is a huge assumption) would be able to use all of their slots to heal by selecting heal as one of their level 1 known spells, in adddition to all the other possible spells they might know with their other spells known. They wouldn't have to decide in advance; upcasting means Oracles can burn them all if they need to, while up until the last spell slot is used still have the option to cast something else with that slot. Clerics, as we seem them here, won't have that option.

Since versatility is so highly prized by the community, and we've seen several items that directly counter the old versatility that clerics had (fewer spells per day, resonance, no spontaneous healing; on the flip side lots of heightened heals/harms is more versatile than channeling), I think it's appropriate to be concerned. The sky isn't falling yet, but better to keep an eye on it.
Captain Morgan wrote:
We will have to see if they keep churning out new feats at an unhealthy pace. But I'm optimistic they will be weigh any given feat a little more before printing it

Of course they will be printing feats at an unhealthy pace. They will be printing them faster, in fact, because now lots of options that weren't feats are now.

There's not really much else they can print besides spells, feats (admittedly feats of four different flavors), and entire new classes. Even archetypes seem to be a suite of class feats you can select instead of your normal selection.

551 to 600 of 928 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Cleric Class Preview All Messageboards