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
751 to 800 of 928 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

Excaliburproxy wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
If that ain't enough, you could also supplement your healing output with wands (which now feed off of your daily pool of resonance rather than having limited uses).

I've always questioned just how people are running out of a 50 charge wand. Is it used at every point of damage?

Flip side is that yes you Run it off your Daily pool of Resonance that recharges. And competes for every Magic item now. Bit of a toss up.

But with possible longer fights and bigger HP pools, along with more frequent crits, might be far more to heal.

For groups that were using low level CLW wands, they ran out quite often. That said, I agree that it is a bit of a toss-up. Psychologically, I do suspect that a lot of people will be more likely to use a replenishing resource than a permanent resource for healing.

Regardless, my point still stands that you could supplement your free healing with items to reliably save all you spell slots for attack and utility spells.

My group is entering book 3 of an AP. We still have maybe 30 charges. Shrug. But now said Wand competes with everything. Any supplement with Items eats into your Magic Item usage.

And not just for the Magic stuff. They seem to have let other classes have some form of healing. Either keeping themselves alive or being able to top off allies, with Heal skill actually being useful.

I don't see CLW wands being used anywhere near as often as they used to be(Oddly only in PFS and other optimized games I was in, hmmm.) But due to Healing and Buffs being kinda the Cleric's thing or at least how I played/saw them, Well we don't seem to need as much focused healing. So I hope the new Spells/Domanins give Cleric something to do besides walk up and Mace.

If I wanted to Mace someone, I'd play Fighter.


MerlinCross wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
If that ain't enough, you could also supplement your healing output with wands (which now feed off of your daily pool of resonance rather than having limited uses).

I've always questioned just how people are running out of a 50 charge wand. Is it used at every point of damage?

Flip side is that yes you Run it off your Daily pool of Resonance that recharges. And competes for every Magic item now. Bit of a toss up.

But with possible longer fights and bigger HP pools, along with more frequent crits, might be far more to heal.

For groups that were using low level CLW wands, they ran out quite often. That said, I agree that it is a bit of a toss-up. Psychologically, I do suspect that a lot of people will be more likely to use a replenishing resource than a permanent resource for healing.

Regardless, my point still stands that you could supplement your free healing with items to reliably save all you spell slots for attack and utility spells.

My group is entering book 3 of an AP. We still have maybe 30 charges. Shrug. But now said Wand competes with everything. Any supplement with Items eats into your Magic Item usage.

And not just for the Magic stuff. They seem to have let other classes have some form of healing. Either keeping themselves alive or being able to top off allies, with Heal skill actually being useful.

I don't see CLW wands being used anywhere near as often as they used to be(Oddly only in PFS and other optimized games I was in, hmmm.) But due to Healing and Buffs being kinda the Cleric's thing or at least how I played/saw them, Well we don't seem to need as much focused healing. So I hope the new Spells/Domanins give Cleric something to do besides walk up and Mace.

If I wanted to Mace someone, I'd play Fighter.

From the looks of things so far, I am thinking you can now drop Strength as a cleric and instead use cantrips--which level with you--when you aren't looking to spend your spell resources.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Once upon a time in a Paladin thread, someone asked why there were so many Paladin falls threads and so very few Cleric falls ones. I replied that the answer was in the detailed description of what was expected from a Paladin while the Dos and Don'ts of Clerics were far more nebulous and clearly opened to interpretation. Thankfully PF2 will give us anathema. Eagerly waiting for the first Cleric falls threads :-p

Not happy that Negative-channeling Clerics of Pharasma have now been retconned out of the setting and likely also the Lady of Graves' versatile channelers :-(

Goodbye Dame Adriel. I will sorely miss you


5 people marked this as a favorite.
zebedar wrote:

RIP clerics,

RIP depth,
RIP customization,
RIP Pathfinder,

RIP Complex and rewarding RPG.

Not to pick on you, this is quoted just because it's the last post about the issue.

But in this thread we have had people arguing that PF2 is going to be too complex, and too much customization, and people arguing the opposite. We have seen people saying it's too 5e, and too 4e, and people who say it's too attached to 3.5 and not innovative enough. We have had people saying it should get rid of alignment, and that alignment should be reinforced. People who claim there is too much focus on magic, and too much focus on de-empowering magic.

The takeaway of this, is that PF2 will be different than PF1 (duh!), and people is affraid of change, and we don't know enough of PF2 yet, so everybody is building a mental image of it, and is fearing stuff that might or might not be true, or might be true just in their minds. Because it is impossible that PF2 is, simultanously, everything that people is claiming it is when these "sky are falling" posts are sent. Mainly, because these post claim that PF2 is both black and white, dry and wet, small and large, pretty and ugly.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Mainly, because these post claim that PF2 is both black and white, dry and wet, small and large, pretty and ugly.

The Paizotar Protean oO


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Mainly, because these post claim that PF2 is both black and white, dry and wet, small and large, pretty and ugly.
The Paizotar Protean oO

Schrodinger's Rule set.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Saint Bernard wrote:
Overall I am pleased with the Cleric Class Preview. I am looking forward to the Wizard, hopefully next Monday.

Exactly. Everything on the Cleric blog post sounds very, very positive. Even the part about getting fewer spells per level, and not getting extra spell slots from a high casting stat. Really, it's a feature, not a bug.

Why? Because people have been complaining for years about the extreme power of quadratic wizards over linear fighters. Full spellcasters like clerics, wizards and sorcerers have really needed to be hit with a nerfbat, and the trick has always been how to do that without just wiping out the interest of the class. Now with a full reboot of the entire PF system, it can finally happen, but with tons of interesting and flavorful options. Of course we don't yet know if wizards will have the same limits of three spell slots per level that clerics have been announced as having, but it appears extremely likely to be the case. As far as spontaneous spellcasters are concerned, it's anybody's guess for now. It's too early to predict.

The number of naysayers on the boards is impressive, predicting gloom and doom. I suggest they continue playing PF1.0 as long as they like. Nothing about the publication of PF2.0 will require them to stop, and the quantity of published adventures and APs is such that they can play for the next 20 years without running dry. I mean really! Guys like this:

Zebedar wrote:
I would post more, but the really sad fact is that the devs have already made all their foolish simplification choices and nothing we as players say will change where this train is heading.

Many of us here on these boards reject out of hand the existence of "foolish simplification choices". Au contraire. I'm seeing many well-considered and carefully-weighed choices, some of which involve simplification, but the great majority of which offer new and exciting options and playstyles. Some things that were needlessly complex are being simplified, sure. About time. Many complex, deep and flavorful options are opening up, too. Kudos to the PF2.0 design team on that.

Metamagic options are now confirmed as existing, even if we still don't know how they will all work, and which ones are being retained. Some at least come with an added action cost, which is a great way to handle it. Others, if for example silent spell and still spell still exist, may actually reduce the action cost, in which case they will need to have other sorts of costs associated with them, such as increased spell level (without turning to some ill-considered and easily-exploited option like Wayang Spellhunter to avoid that cost). Whatever the actual mechanisms involved, stuff like this is added depth. Added options. New ways to interpret metamagic within the structure of the game is an improvement, not a nerf - even if it is objectively less powerful than it was before. Because the way it was before was clunky, excessive and inappropriate.

I know we don't all share the same view on changes like this, but I also know that a lot of us are happy to see magical power dialed back a notch, to bring spellcasters more in line with non-spellcasting classes. It needed to be done. And our pals at Paizo are doing it.

Good on them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Saint Bernard wrote:
Overall I am pleased with the Cleric Class Preview. I am looking forward to the Wizard, hopefully next Monday.

Exactly. Everything on the Cleric blog post sounds very, very positive. Even the part about getting fewer spells per level, and not getting extra spell slots from a high casting stat. Really, it's a feature, not a bug.

Why? Because people have been complaining for years about the extreme power of quadratic wizards over linear fighters. Full spellcasters like clerics, wizards and sorcerers have really needed to be hit with a nerfbat, and the trick has always been how to do that without just wiping out the interest of the class. Now with a full reboot of the entire PF system, it can finally happen, but with tons of interesting and flavorful options. Of course we don't yet know if wizards will have the same limits of three spell slots per level that clerics have been announced as having, but it appears extremely likely to be the case. As far as spontaneous spellcasters are concerned, it's anybody's guess for now. It's too early to predict.

Many of the people who complained about C/MD hoped that martials were elevated to casters ceiling rather than drag casters to the floor with martials, a nerf on casters was the last thing we wanted, one of my concerns since PF2 was announced is that Paizo will overreact to those C/MD threads.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
If that ain't enough, you could also supplement your healing output with wands (which now feed off of your daily pool of resonance rather than having limited uses).

I've always questioned just how people are running out of a 50 charge wand. Is it used at every point of damage?

Flip side is that yes you Run it off your Daily pool of Resonance that recharges. And competes for every Magic item now. Bit of a toss up.

But with possible longer fights and bigger HP pools, along with more frequent crits, might be far more to heal.

For groups that were using low level CLW wands, they ran out quite often. That said, I agree that it is a bit of a toss-up. Psychologically, I do suspect that a lot of people will be more likely to use a replenishing resource than a permanent resource for healing.

Regardless, my point still stands that you could supplement your free healing with items to reliably save all you spell slots for attack and utility spells.

My group is entering book 3 of an AP. We still have maybe 30 charges. Shrug. But now said Wand competes with everything. Any supplement with Items eats into your Magic Item usage.

And not just for the Magic stuff. They seem to have let other classes have some form of healing. Either keeping themselves alive or being able to top off allies, with Heal skill actually being useful.

I don't see CLW wands being used anywhere near as often as they used to be(Oddly only in PFS and other optimized games I was in, hmmm.) But due to Healing and Buffs being kinda the Cleric's thing or at least how I played/saw them, Well we don't seem to need as much focused healing. So I hope the new Spells/Domanins give Cleric something to do besides walk up and Mace.

If I wanted to Mace someone, I'd play Fighter.

From the looks of things so far, I am thinking you can now drop Strength as a cleric and instead use cantrips--which...

Until we know how 'feats other than class' work, you may not have a choice but to use cantrips (which afaik do take a slot at the level you want to class them, just they aren't used up when cast) without at least some combat feats 'I cast favoured weapon' doesn't look viable as anything more than a desperation move. No more if so I will miss the ranting, cleaving Clerics of Gorum, easily confused with raging barbarians until you realise those are prayers... And they are being answered.


edduardco wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
Saint Bernard wrote:
Overall I am pleased with the Cleric Class Preview. I am looking forward to the Wizard, hopefully next Monday.

Exactly. Everything on the Cleric blog post sounds very, very positive. Even the part about getting fewer spells per level, and not getting extra spell slots from a high casting stat. Really, it's a feature, not a bug.

Why? Because people have been complaining for years about the extreme power of quadratic wizards over linear fighters. Full spellcasters like clerics, wizards and sorcerers have really needed to be hit with a nerfbat, and the trick has always been how to do that without just wiping out the interest of the class. Now with a full reboot of the entire PF system, it can finally happen, but with tons of interesting and flavorful options. Of course we don't yet know if wizards will have the same limits of three spell slots per level that clerics have been announced as having, but it appears extremely likely to be the case. As far as spontaneous spellcasters are concerned, it's anybody's guess for now. It's too early to predict.

Many of the people who complained about C/MD hoped that martials were elevated to casters ceiling rather than drag casters to the floor with martials, a nerf on casters was the last thing we wanted, on of my concerns since PF2 was announced is that Paizo will overreact to those C/MD threads.

There are 2 different concerns regarding full casters.

One is CM/D. The fact that martials are weaker than casters in narrative power.

The other is "magic trumps the story". The fact that magic has, actually, too much narrative power, regardless of what martials have.

Now, you might or might not agree with this sentiment. But giving all fighters the natural ability to never get lost in a laberynth, does not make "Find the path" less problematic, narrative wise. If as a GM, you have a concern about "Find the Path" being too intrusive for the story you want to tell, giving it to martial characters as well as casters do not lessen your worries.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
Saint Bernard wrote:
Overall I am pleased with the Cleric Class Preview. I am looking forward to the Wizard, hopefully next Monday.

Exactly. Everything on the Cleric blog post sounds very, very positive. Even the part about getting fewer spells per level, and not getting extra spell slots from a high casting stat. Really, it's a feature, not a bug.

Why? Because people have been complaining for years about the extreme power of quadratic wizards over linear fighters. Full spellcasters like clerics, wizards and sorcerers have really needed to be hit with a nerfbat, and the trick has always been how to do that without just wiping out the interest of the class. Now with a full reboot of the entire PF system, it can finally happen, but with tons of interesting and flavorful options. Of course we don't yet know if wizards will have the same limits of three spell slots per level that clerics have been announced as having, but it appears extremely likely to be the case. As far as spontaneous spellcasters are concerned, it's anybody's guess for now. It's too early to predict.

Many of the people who complained about C/MD hoped that martials were elevated to casters ceiling rather than drag casters to the floor with martials, a nerf on casters was the last thing we wanted, on of my concerns since PF2 was announced is that Paizo will overreact to those C/MD threads.

There are 2 different concerns regarding full casters.

One is CM/D. The fact that martials are weaker than casters in narrative power.

The other is "magic trumps the story". The fact that magic has, actually, too much narrative power, regardless of what martials have.

Now, you might or might not agree with this sentiment. But giving all fighters the natural ability to never get lost in a laberynth, does not make "Find the path" less problematic, narrative wise. If as a GM, you have a concern about "Find the Path" being too intrusive for the story you want to tell, giving...

I just think that by nerfing casters Pathfinder is going to lose part of what make it unique and interesting, for me the narrative power that magic provides is a feature not a bug.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand that, which is why I said taht you might or might not agree with that sentiment.

But the fact is, for some other people it's still a situation that they worry about, and that situation does not go away by giving fighters Find the Path as a skill feat. So the issue is not only the parity between martials and casters, and thus it cannot be fully solved only by raising martials to demi-god status like casters.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Continued support with quality products is what keeps editions alive. It is what Paizo did for 3.5 with PFRPG

Claiming that the discontinuation of Paizo support for PF1 and their switching to PF2 with a big part of their customers base will have zero impact on the popularity of PF1 has no basis in reality

Also people who criticize things they see in PF2 actually WANT to play PF2 and keep on paying for Paizo quality products they will enjoy

Else they would not put that much energy into pleading their case


3 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Many of the people who complained about C/MD hoped that martials were elevated to casters ceiling rather than drag casters to the floor with martials, a nerf on casters was the last thing we wanted, one of my concerns since PF2 was announced is that Paizo will overreact to those C/MD threads.

Martials are getting some level of buffing. The ability to do the impossible we've heard about, swimming across an ocean, leaping dozens of feat in the air (if not a hundred by the time of Legendary) to smack a flying monster down, standing on air to fight such foes, etc.

But Casters are also getting buffs to some degrees. Cantrips scaling with level means not getting stuck with your poor Wizard out of spells and trying to hide in the corner (or going mad man with his staff just to be broken instantly). 10th level spells sound insane (one mentioned spell sounds borderline like turning into a Tarrasque), and they'll get a lot of abilities via Spellpoints to spend outside of that. Not to mention what both martials and casters can do together via ritual spells.

Sure, less spells per day could suck, but it could also very well work with the system. The fact that Cantrips will have value at high levels means your Cleric/Wizard doesn't have to blow a spell slot in every single fight. You could save your spells as a mix of combat emergency and utility. Between pre-planned Ritual Spells for buffs, Cantrips for light threats, and Spell Point stuff more medium threats, you can save the goods for more menacing foes...or for crazy shenanigans.

Crazy shenanigans are always nice.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Joe M. wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

Was thinking about the reach metamagic example, and realized it's built into the heal spell by default, no feat needed. Aside from meta game design, why is this the case? It seems that it weakens the reach spell feat if the spells you'd use it on most have that feature already. Is the heal spell a super rare exception, or do other spells already has this as well? I'd prefer to make it part of the feat not part of the spell.

How many other metamagic feats have their effects built in to some spells?

(1) Note that the Heal's use of actions does more than just duplicate Reach Spell metamagic—the three-action for burst heal isn't something you can get out of Reach Spell. So it isn't the case that you could just leave this to the feat. So if you want to make the three-action use of Heal available, it makes sense to duplicate Reach Spell with a two-action use as well. It would be weird to have the one-action and three-action uses without the interim two-action. And this has the benefit of making a core and iconic spell more flexible, even for casters who lack the Reach Spell feat.

(2) Plus, I expect the Heal thing to be pretty unique. The Spells Blog describes it as "a spell . . . that uses actions in an interesting way", and I seem to recall one of the designers saying in an interview (or maybe a forum post?) that this sort of thing isn't super common but is confined to really core/common/standard spells.

Sure but heal could be designed instead with the 1 action and 3 action options, but the current 2 action version could be something you could do only with reach spell. That would be my preference, and would make the feat option stronger.


JoelF847 wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

Was thinking about the reach metamagic example, and realized it's built into the heal spell by default, no feat needed. Aside from meta game design, why is this the case? It seems that it weakens the reach spell feat if the spells you'd use it on most have that feature already. Is the heal spell a super rare exception, or do other spells already has this as well? I'd prefer to make it part of the feat not part of the spell.

How many other metamagic feats have their effects built in to some spells?

(1) Note that the Heal's use of actions does more than just duplicate Reach Spell metamagic—the three-action for burst heal isn't something you can get out of Reach Spell. So it isn't the case that you could just leave this to the feat. So if you want to make the three-action use of Heal available, it makes sense to duplicate Reach Spell with a two-action use as well. It would be weird to have the one-action and three-action uses without the interim two-action. And this has the benefit of making a core and iconic spell more flexible, even for casters who lack the Reach Spell feat.

(2) Plus, I expect the Heal thing to be pretty unique. The Spells Blog describes it as "a spell . . . that uses actions in an interesting way", and I seem to recall one of the designers saying in an interview (or maybe a forum post?) that this sort of thing isn't super common but is confined to really core/common/standard spells.

Sure but heal could be designed instead with the 1 action and 3 action options, but the current 2 action version could be something you could do only with reach spell. That would be my preference, and would make the feat option stronger.

Actually, you can use Reach with the new heal spell as is, though there's only really any effect when using it to deal damage:

heal spell, 2 Actions: 30 foot range, no need to hit, enemy can try a save to negate damage

heal spell, metamagic (still 2 actions): 30 foot range, ranged touch attack, no save allowed.

Is it useful? Who knows, probably not. But there is a difference.

Liberty's Edge

Reach Spell is also a Class Feat. Not everyone can do that with every spell.

But everyone can do it with heal. That's enough reason to have it written into the spell right there.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Reach Spell is also a Class Feat. Not everyone can do that with every spell.

But everyone can do it with heal. That's enough reason to have it written into the spell right there.

While it's a class feat that doesn't mean it's exclusively a cleric class feat. I'm working under the assumption that all spellcasters will have things like meta magic feats as class feats.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
While it's a class feat that doesn't mean it's exclusively a cleric class feat. I'm working under the assumption that all spellcasters will have things like meta magic feats as class feats.

Sure, but my point was that having heal work as it does makes it work that way for everyone, not just those with Reach Spell. Which is a good thing from the perspective of not having Feat taxes to do basic stuff for someone like an archer Cleric.


JoelF847 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Reach Spell is also a Class Feat. Not everyone can do that with every spell.

But everyone can do it with heal. That's enough reason to have it written into the spell right there.

While it's a class feat that doesn't mean it's exclusively a cleric class feat. I'm working under the assumption that all spellcasters will have things like meta magic feats as class feats.

Yes, but I suppose he means that not everybody with access to the feat will pick it. While everybody who can use Heal has the option to do so by default.

Silver Crusade

TheFinish wrote:

Actually, you can use Reach with the new heal spell as is, though there's only really any effect when using it to deal damage:

heal spell, 2 Actions: 30 foot range, no need to hit, enemy can try a save to negate damage

heal spell, metamagic (still 2 actions): 30 foot range, ranged touch attack, no save allowed.

Is it useful? Who knows, probably not. But there is a difference.

This is a good point, thanks! It also raises an interesting question. Heal uses a Somatic casting action for its base version, but Reach adds a Somatic casting action to get its effects. Are you allowed to cast a spell with two Somatic casting actions, or is there an "only one of each type" rule?

Also: Reach Spell is not Cleric exclusive: "This is a metamagic feat lots of spellcasters can take, but the cleric gets some others that are more specific to her as well."


Joe M. wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

Actually, you can use Reach with the new heal spell as is, though there's only really any effect when using it to deal damage:

heal spell, 2 Actions: 30 foot range, no need to hit, enemy can try a save to negate damage

heal spell, metamagic (still 2 actions): 30 foot range, ranged touch attack, no save allowed.

Is it useful? Who knows, probably not. But there is a difference.

This is a good point, thanks! It also raises an interesting question. Heal uses a Somatic casting action for its base version, but Reach adds a Somatic casting action to get its effects. Are you allowed to cast a spell with two Somatic casting actions, or is there an "only one of each type" rule?

Also: Reach Spell is not Cleric exclusive: "This is a metamagic feat lots of spellcasters can take, but the cleric gets some others that are more specific to her as well."

I don't really see a reason why you couldn't do all of one type. It lets you do interesting things like:

Dancers who cast by dancing, so everything is Somatic.

Singers who cast by singing, so everything is Verbal.

Hoarders, who cast by throwing people into a room full of stuff, so it's all Material.

Though jokes aside, it does end up being an elegant system, if they go that way. As someone upthread said, you can make Still Spell something that just changes Somatic Components to Verbal, or the other way round for Silent.

We'll have to see in the playtest though.

Silver Crusade

TheFinish wrote:

I don't really see a reason why you couldn't do all of one type. It lets you do interesting things like:

Dancers who cast by dancing, so everything is Somatic.

Singers who cast by singing, so everything is Verbal.

Hoarders, who cast by throwing people into a room full of stuff, so it's all Material.

Though jokes aside, it does end up being an elegant system, if they go that way. As someone upthread said, you can make Still Spell something that just changes Somatic Components to Verbal, or the other way round for Silent.

We'll have to see in the playtest though.

I agree! The restriction I worried about is just exactly the kind of titchy little thing that's all over PF1 so I thought to mention the concern. We'll see!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

Actually, you can use Reach with the new heal spell as is, though there's only really any effect when using it to deal damage:

heal spell, 2 Actions: 30 foot range, no need to hit, enemy can try a save to negate damage

heal spell, metamagic (still 2 actions): 30 foot range, ranged touch attack, no save allowed.

Is it useful? Who knows, probably not. But there is a difference.

This is a good point, thanks! It also raises an interesting question. Heal uses a Somatic casting action for its base version, but Reach adds a Somatic casting action to get its effects. Are you allowed to cast a spell with two Somatic casting actions, or is there an "only one of each type" rule?

Also: Reach Spell is not Cleric exclusive: "This is a metamagic feat lots of spellcasters can take, but the cleric gets some others that are more specific to her as well."

I don't really see a reason why you couldn't do all of one type. It lets you do interesting things like:

Dancers who cast by dancing, so everything is Somatic.

Singers who cast by singing, so everything is Verbal.

Hoarders, who cast by throwing people into a room full of stuff, so it's all Material.

Though jokes aside, it does end up being an elegant system, if they go that way. As someone upthread said, you can make Still Spell something that just changes Somatic Components to Verbal, or the other way round for Silent.

We'll have to see in the playtest though.

This line of thought makes me want to build a Mime bard.


I mean you have some settings in books and video games where you can CAST spells by Dancing.


Dancing is but a senseless wastrel's sport before austere pageantry of Mime.


JoelF847 wrote:
Sure but heal could be designed instead with the 1 action and 3 action options, but the current 2 action version could be something you could do only with reach spell. That would be my preference, and would make the feat option stronger.

They stack, though. You can spend three actions with the metamagic and get a heal on somebody 60ft away. Nice for a dwarven Cleric with a 20ft. move speed.


If you can have multiple Somatic or multiple Verbal etc components, that opens the possibility of taking 2 rounds to cast a spell with a bunch of metamagic to make it more powerful. I wonder if that is the direction they're going.


edduardco wrote:

{. . .}

Many of the people who complained about C/MD hoped that martials were elevated to casters ceiling rather than drag casters to the floor with martials, a nerf on casters was the last thing we wanted, one of my concerns since PF2 was announced is that Paizo will overreact to those C/MD threads.

To the extent that casters needed nerfing, it should have been done by nerfing specific problem spells (commonly by level-bumping) rather than nerfing class features. Even in Pathfinder 1st Edition, the 15 Minute Adventuring Day is already something of a known problem.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TarkXT wrote:
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...

All of which is a fair argument and worth pointing out. Sadly until we know what those letters actually represent we have to withold real judgment.

From that perspective ill be happy if all those options prove viable. Even if one or two prove to be better options overall if you can still perform well of the rest than its not really a problem.

Unless Paizo keep a extremely tight rein on contributors to the books (something they haven't done in the last years) increasing the number of options the characters can take will increase the power level of the characters as some option will be way more powerful than the base version.

In theory in PF! the sorcerers and oracles are limited by the number of spell know. What was the contributors reply? Plenty of feats, preferred class options and magic items that give extra know spells. Add retrain and after a few days a sorcerer can have two or three spells of his highest know level instead of one and several extra spells of a lower level for a moderate cost. The balancing limit has gone out of the window.
In PF2 it seem we will get even more things that we will be able to customize. After a few years of new options the balance of the game will be very questionable and what will matter is rule mastery.

Logan Bonner wrote:
Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
I really like the idea of adding domains by spending feats. I was hoping the domains might have more than two powers to them, more like oracle mysteries, but I guess that is not the case.
Because they're using feats that give you powers, they can easily be expanded later, and subdomains can be implemented using similar tech.

Even the developers feel that way, but they see it as a selling point.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
edduardco wrote:

{. . .}

Many of the people who complained about C/MD hoped that martials were elevated to casters ceiling rather than drag casters to the floor with martials, a nerf on casters was the last thing we wanted, one of my concerns since PF2 was announced is that Paizo will overreact to those C/MD threads.

To the extent that casters needed nerfing, it should have been done by nerfing specific problem spells (commonly by level-bumping) rather than nerfing class features. Even in Pathfinder 1st Edition, the 15 Minute Adventuring Day is already something of a known problem.

And with resource management going the way it is the 15min day will soon be shorter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:

In theory in PF! the sorcerers and oracles are limited by the number of spell know. What was the contributors reply? Plenty of feats, preferred class options and magic items that give extra know spells. Add retrain and after a few days a sorcerer can have two or three spells of his highest know level instead of one and several extra spells of a lower level for a moderate cost. The balancing limit has gone out of the window.

In PF2 it seem we will get even more things that we will be able to customize. After a few years of new options the balance of the game will be very questionable and what will matter is rule mastery.

DR, What is it you're trying to say here? That over time RPGs risk losing their focus and allowing more and more extreme options onto the playing field? That new options that appeared clever or cool have the potential of being abused and leading to overpowered munchkinism?

Are you saying that you want *fewer* options to customize your character in PF2.0?

Hmmm.

I for one am happy that our pals from Paizo appear to bending over backwards to give us more and more cool ways to customize our characters. Is there a risk that some options will go beyond cool into overpowered territory? I suppose that risk exists, but it's not a valid reason to knock Paizo and their cautious, carefully-considered design philosophy for PF2.0.

And to all the guys complaining about a "feat tax" at the top of the thread (whose arguments DR appears to be trying to resuscitate here), you've got your gaming terminaology all wrong. A "feat tax" is when you have to take a feat that you don't want and won't use (like combat expertise or the various precusors to whirlwind attack) in order to get the feat you want.

Clerics (and many of the PF2.0 classes) are less front-loaded than their PF1.0 counterparts. That's a good thing. They get many of the same or similar powers back as class feats, which you can choose - or not. And you will have many, many options to choose from instead. That's really nothing to complain about, it's cause for celebration. More options means more depth and more character customization, less cookie-cutter mentality.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Number of options and mentality are entirely unrelated. If people come to think that there is the one way to power for their character, more options will actually lead to fewer decent builds

MtG is a prime example of this phenomenon. More extensions and thus a greater diversity in options end up in less deck types at the tables. But these few left are amazingly efficient at what they do


brad2411 wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
edduardco wrote:

{. . .}

Many of the people who complained about C/MD hoped that martials were elevated to casters ceiling rather than drag casters to the floor with martials, a nerf on casters was the last thing we wanted, one of my concerns since PF2 was announced is that Paizo will overreact to those C/MD threads.

To the extent that casters needed nerfing, it should have been done by nerfing specific problem spells (commonly by level-bumping) rather than nerfing class features. Even in Pathfinder 1st Edition, the 15 Minute Adventuring Day is already something of a known problem.

And with resource management going the way it is the 15min day will soon be shorter.

I dont think anyone can say that with confidence until the playtest drops. Even if it turns out to be true, there are all kinds of ways to easily extend the day to 40 hours if you'd like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Resource management is a controversial topic. Some folks think their character has to blast each and every round, or else the game system (or the character build, or whatever) is lame, or stupid or unplayable. If that's your position, then sure, the 15-minute day is going to get shorter and shorter.

Other folks take pleasure in using power commensurate with the risk, and spending their resources more slowly, while looking for alternate ways to contribute to the situation. My 11th-level (PF1.0) wizard started running out of effective spells to spend near the end of the third 6-hour session where we didn't have the opportunity to rest. I expect PF2.0 will be no different, especially since wizards, clerics and presumably other spellcasters will have improved cantrips that scale somewhat by level.

Whining about the choice to reduce the number of spell slots available to spellcasters really doesn't help anyone at this stage. The blog has given us some limited information on what the situation is going to be, and the only relevant way to give feedback will be during the playtest phase.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Knowing beforehand which parts of your product customers really care about and will heavily scrutinize is of utmost value to a company. It helps prioritize

I believe that even after the playtest book goes to the printers, the devs will keep on tweaking the system to improve it even further. Issues raised on the boards look like legit targets for yet another round of in-depth analysis


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Clerics (and many of the PF2.0 classes) are less front-loaded than their PF1.0 counterparts. That's a good thing. They get many of the same or similar powers back as class feats, which you can choose - or not. And you will have many, many options to choose from instead. That's really nothing to complain about, it's cause for celebration. More options means more depth and more character customization, less cookie-cutter mentality.

My entire point was it doesn't matter as we'll get to that cookie-cutter anyway due to the ingrained mentality. But I've beat that horse to death so lemme go at something else in this bit.

Less frontloaded. Sure. But the issue is if you need to wait a couple levels for the full package, is that fun? To need a couple levels to return back to "Base"?

Yes I know this too is a mental issue on the part of players. But I can't believe people would find losing abilities we've come to know and use over 10 years or less, only to find we aren't losing them. You need to sit through 3+ levels or so but you'll get them back.

As for not being front loaded, if that was to stop Multi-classing then well great. If the Options are broad enough for someone to Splice in other classes abilities anyway(Such as a Feat that lets you brew Mutagen, on your Barbarian) then the problem of Multi-classing(The front loaded bonuses) is still around. Meanwhile, those that don't like to power game have to wade through a couple levels to feel like class X again.

Oh and maybe this might clear up my way of thinking.

Wheldrake wrote:
And to all the guys complaining about a "feat tax" at the top of the thread (whose arguments DR appears to be trying to resuscitate here), you've got your gaming terminaology all wrong. A "feat tax" is when you have to take a feat that you don't want and won't use (like combat expertise or the various precusors to whirlwind attack) in order to get the feat you want.

That is my definition. My base one. Is it wrong or right? I don't know but I have expanded it. This might make people unhappy even more with me but here's how I see it;

Feat(Anything) Tax = Something you have to pick up, full stop. It's either expected for your build or demanded for your build.

Lemme give a few examples. I want Animal Ally, but I need to take Nature Soul, which is just a +2 to Nature and Handle checks. Wooo. I want Whirlwind Attack, whooo boy look at the requirements. I'm guessing this is where people just stop. But I go a tad futher.

Do you want to Melee? Then you are picking up Power Attack more than likely. Especially if you're Two-Handed, you'll pick it up. Ranged build? Point-Blank Shot, you aren't going far without it. That's a feat example, lemme give something else. Did you want to Play a Bomber Alchemist? Then you're going to pick up one of the Discoveries to get around Splash damage, you just are.

So to me a Tax is anything you basically have to pick up for one reason or another. Either it's something you have to pick up to get the thing behind it, or it's such a large part of your build and how you interact with others that you NEED it.

This is probably the wrong way to define it, but that's how I've grown to use the term. Dog pile on me about it if you wish but I thought I should get how I view the term out the way so there's less confusion when I use the term.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

What you are describing (A feat that gives you what you want, like Power Attack) is just a feat - NOT a feat tax. The standard understood meaning of 'feat tax', especially as it pertains to pathfinder, is a feat that you have to take, that you don't actually want, just to be able to later take something you do. Those apparently have been eliminated in pf2, as they have stated that they are, for the most part, working to do away with most of the 'chain' style of feats.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
What you are describing (A feat that gives you what you want, like Power Attack) is just a feat - NOT a feat tax. The standard understood meaning of 'feat tax', especially as it pertains to pathfinder, is a feat that you have to take, that you don't actually want, just to be able to later take something you do. Those apparently have been eliminated in pf2, as they have stated that they are, for the most part, working to do away with most of the 'chain' style of feats.

And yet if I'm either expected or demanded to take X because of any number of reasons, usually reasons that can result in "I don't want to take this but need/have to" feelings...,

Well it might not be a "Feat tax". But it feels like something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I'm not sure why you'd feel 'required' to take anything, unless it was a prerequisite for something else. Guess you aren't being all that clear on it - additionally, not sure what it has to do wit the cleric in the playtest.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
I'm not sure why you'd feel 'required' to take anything, unless it was a prerequisite for something else. Guess you aren't being all that clear on it - additionally, not sure what it has to do wit the cleric in the playtest.

To be fair we have gotten completely off topic and I'd have to go back and double check.

Though I'm going to drop it as I'm coming back to ranting. I can PM you if you want to continue this look into a madman's mind.


Wheldrake wrote:
A "feat tax" is when you have to take a feat that you don't want and won't use (like combat expertise or the various precusors to whirlwind attack) in order to get the feat you want.

The definition is not limited to that, a feat tax is also a feat you need to take in order to keep up, like 4th Ed had Feat taxes/patches to help with later game maths.

And at The London Dungeon, back in 2007, David Noonan (super nice guy) told me they had the maths all figured out on a "magic spreadsheet"!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wheldrake wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

In theory in PF! the sorcerers and oracles are limited by the number of spell know. What was the contributors reply? Plenty of feats, preferred class options and magic items that give extra know spells. Add retrain and after a few days a sorcerer can have two or three spells of his highest know level instead of one and several extra spells of a lower level for a moderate cost. The balancing limit has gone out of the window.

In PF2 it seem we will get even more things that we will be able to customize. After a few years of new options the balance of the game will be very questionable and what will matter is rule mastery.

DR, What is it you're trying to say here? That over time RPGs risk losing their focus and allowing more and more extreme options onto the playing field? That new options that appeared clever or cool have the potential of being abused and leading to overpowered munchkinism?

Are you saying that you want *fewer* options to customize your character in PF2.0?

Hmmm.

I for one am happy that our pals from Paizo appear to bending over backwards to give us more and more cool ways to customize our characters. Is there a risk that some options will go beyond cool into overpowered territory? I suppose that risk exists, but it's not a valid reason to knock Paizo and their cautious, carefully-considered design philosophy for PF2.0.

And to all the guys complaining about a "feat tax" at the top of the thread (whose arguments DR appears to be trying to resuscitate here), you've got your gaming terminaology all wrong. A "feat tax" is when you have to take a feat that you don't want and won't use (like combat expertise or the various precusors to whirlwind attack) in order to get the feat you want.

Clerics (and many of the PF2.0 classes) are less front-loaded than their PF1.0 counterparts. That's a good thing. They get many of the same or similar powers back as class feats, which you can choose - or not. And you will have many, many options to choose from instead. That's really nothing to complain about, it's cause for celebration. More options means more depth and more character customization, less cookie-cutter mentality.

I am saying that PF2 is starting with way more options that PF1 and (apparently) more freedom in applying them. The end result will be a way more speedy degeneration. PF1 was able to last 10 years of development, PF2 seem to be build to last 5 years at most.

Part of the problem is the policy to produce more and smaller Player companion/Campaign setting books. The result is that we get less background information about Golarion but more archetypes/feat/spells/magic items and co. that aren't cross referenced with other material produced for the other booklets (and sometime not even the hardbound). More errors, more stuff that become unwieldy when couplet with options in other books and so on. Plus the simple power creep of the new classes.
PF2 seem to set up to ramp up very rapidly. And that, for me, is a major disappointment.
I hope I am wrong, but I think it is extremely important to voice my opinion now and not when the playtesting will start, as at that moment the development cycle will be already in later stage and it is improbable that we will see major changes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just think in another month or so we get to hear about PF2 bloat.

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
I am saying that PF2 is starting with way more options that PF1 and (apparently) more freedom in applying them. The end result will be a way more speedy degeneration. PF1 was able to last 10 years of development, PF2 seem to be build to last 5 years at most.

Eh, there certainly aren't less options but I'm not sure there are any more than the Core Rulebook + Advanced Player's Guide (since that introduced Archetypes, Traits, and Alternate Racial Traits as well as additional Classes).

That doesn't seem likely to cut more than a year off the 'edition cycle' at most.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Part of the problem is the policy to produce more and smaller Player companion/Campaign setting books.

Wait, huh? Campaign Setting books have always been 64 pages and Player Companions have always been 32. For a long while anyway.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wheldrake wrote:

Resource management is a controversial topic. Some folks think their character has to blast each and every round, or else the game system (or the character build, or whatever) is lame, or stupid or unplayable. If that's your position, then sure, the 15-minute day is going to get shorter and shorter.

Other folks take pleasure in using power commensurate with the risk, and spending their resources more slowly, while looking for alternate ways to contribute to the situation. My 11th-level (PF1.0) wizard started running out of effective spells to spend near the end of the third 6-hour session where we didn't have the opportunity to rest. I expect PF2.0 will be no different, especially since wizards, clerics and presumably other spellcasters will have improved cantrips that scale somewhat by level.

Whining about the choice to reduce the number of spell slots available to spellcasters really doesn't help anyone at this stage. The blog has given us some limited information on what the situation is going to be, and the only relevant way to give feedback will be during the playtest phase.

Let's speak of resource management and way I see it moving toward 15 minutes playing days for spellcasters.

1) Low leve spell slots seem to become rapidly irrelevant for most uses unless they are Save or Shuck as increasing the caster level only increase the save DC.
2) To be somewhat relevant damage dealing and healing spells should be memorized at your highest or near highest caster level or they will be so out of line with the targets HP that they will be irrelevant.
3) If cantrips work as I think they work (I asked it in the spells tread but I haven't seen a reply) you need to memorize them in a spell slot. And again you need to use your highest or near highest spell slot to have them do something in line with the target resistances/protections/HP/attacks. I hope we will not get SoS cantrips as stuff that stun lock (or equivalent) a target shuck in play.
4) Being able to do something relevant every round is generally needed to enjoy the game. If the caster has to spend 2 actions to cast a spell or cantrip that remove 1 action from an enemy while the front line fighter with a move and 2 attacks will remove it, his spell is irrelevant. (Naturally, it is equally bad if the caster is able to remove an enemy in every battle with a single spell before the martials do their stuff, something that martials have been lamenting for years)
5) We know nothing of the buffing or defensive spells, but I suspect they will follow the same pattern. "Shield" memorized as a fist level spell (or cantrip) will probably last a extremely short time and/or give a spall AC boost. Memorized as a higher level spell it will become better. The protection offered by "Protection from energy" will depend on the spell slot too (probably).
If that is true we will need to take them in high level slots.
**Edit**
6) We know, at least, that Detect magic will have to be memorized in a spell slot that is the same or higher level of an illusion spell to notice it. That seem to indicate a probable pattern for utility spell. Memorize them in high level slots or they became waste space.
**/Edit**

Considering that I see a spellcaster being locked in:
- Having a single cast SoS spell as one of his highest spell memorized
- Having a spammable cantrip as has his other higher level spell (but that cantrip will be noticeably weaker than a standard spell)
- Next lower level will see 1-2 SoS spell and 1-2 protection spells.
- Lower levels will be mostly irrelevant as the effect will be to small to be noticeable.

If I am right the end result will be extremely similar spells load out for the spells that matter and those spells will be used up in two fights at most unless the encounter philosophy change, becoming similar to the pre-3.0 versions of the game with a higher number of mooks (possible as combat rounds will become more streamlined) and more low level battles.
After two battles a spellcaster will be reduced at spamming his attack cantrip or using a weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
3) If cantrips work as I think they work (I asked it in the spells tread but I haven't seen a reply) you need to memorize them in a spell slot. And again you need to use your highest or near highest spell slot to have them do something in line with the target resistances/protections/HP/attacks. I hope we will not get SoS cantrips as stuff that stun lock (or equivalent) a target shuck in play.

We don't know what cantrips will do (or if they will resemble PF1.0 cantrips in any meaningful way) but we do know how they will work. Without looking back to find the reference (which someone will surely supply shortly) we know that cantrips in PF2.0 are unlimited use, they do not occupy spell slots used for other spells, and they are automatically heightened to the caster's current level.

So even when she's completely out of memorized spells in her spell slots, a spellcaster can continue to cast cantrips, and the damaging cantrips in PF2.0 have been boosted far beyond the 1d3+1 of PF1.0 cantrips.

FWIW, I've always found arguments about the "15 minute adventuring day" to be specious and irrelevant. It's up to the DM to arrange situations where the PCs do not have the luxury of resting after every encounter. It's up to the PCs to learn when to go nova and when to use their resources sparingly.

A personal example:
In my current Jade Regent campaign, I play a wizard and one of the other players is a blaster sorcerer. The difference in our play styles is blindingly obvious. He tends to use his highest level spells first and frequently, and sometimes runs out. I usually try to cast one or two of the most situationally useful spells in each major combat (haste, summoning...) but then hang back and try to make myself useful or even, on occasion, plink away with 1d3+1 cantrips, or a spare wand we picked up as loot. Our ideas on resource management are miles apart, and on those occasions when we go 2 or even 3 6-hour sessions without rest or recovery of spells, he probably feels a bit annoyed to have lost his nova powers. But it's the direct consequence of his play style, so he grins and bears it.

I don't see PF2.0 fundamentally changing these play styles, simply because spellcasters have only 2 or 3 spellslots for each level. Especially since cantrips have been revamped and boosted in power. And we'll also have lots of uses for arcane school or bloodline powers. And to get back on topic, the cleric will have lots of spell points to power his domain powers, infinite uses of his oraisons, and plenty of opportunities to take out his favored weapon and bonk critters with it, very nearly as effectively as a fighter.

Liberty's Edge

We also know that at 1st level the Telekinetic Projectile Cantrip does 1d10 damage (since it attacks regular AC).

So them being a valid choice in combat is very possible.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wheldrake wrote:

[

We don't know what cantrips will do (or if they will resemble PF1.0 cantrips in any meaningful way) but we do know how they will work. Without looking back to find the reference (which someone will surely supply shortly) we know that cantrips in PF2.0 are unlimited use, they do not occupy spell slots used for other spells, and they are automatically heightened to the caster's current level.

You can cite where it is said that they don't occupy a spell slot? I haven't seen that at all and suspect it is a speculation by some poster.

Mark blog wrote:

Cantrips

In the playtest, cantrips are spells you can cast at will, but they are no longer level 0. Instead, they automatically heighten to the highest spell level you can currently cast. That means if you're 5th level, your ray of frost is 3rd level and deals more damage, and your light cantrip is better at counteracting magical darkness.

Not here.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Quadratic W wrote:
The biggest concern would be that with the way higher power spells have an easier time overcoming lower level spells, the gap between full-casters and everyone else might grow a bit more. As well, if a Fighter or Rogue gain access to a cantrip in 5e, that cantrip grows in power as they do. But because those classes generally don't gain caster levels, it seems like those classes would be stuck with a 1st-level version of cantrips for the whole shebang.
If you gain access to a cantrip (like gnome's Fey Magic), it will tell you how it scales, typically it will be at the same rate as a caster's cantrips scale..

Not here.

Mark Seifter wrote:
thflame wrote:

The only thing I don't like about this is vampiric healing being temporary HP. I hate tracking temp HP. I'd rather it just heal the caster X amount and any HP over your max is just wasted. Makes the spell less powerful (unless you are low on HP) and gives me one less thing to keep track of.

I'll probably just houserule it.

Otherwise, this sounds great.

Will cantrips at high levels out shine low level spell slots? If so, that might be a bug. Low level spell slots should still be useful.

Cantrips aren't 0-level spells; they're spells you can perform all day. The damaging cantrips aren't super powerful compared to a martial's attacks in any case, but they'll still change what sorts of things you want to prepare in your various spell slots. So for instance, if you're really high level and have a cantrip that deals the same damage as a 1st-level magic missile, it might make sense to prepare utility spells in your 1st-level slots unless you have a reason to really want no-miss force damage in particular on that day.

Something here. It can be read your way or it can be read "you will be using 1 spell slot for a cantrip usable at will so you will not need other damaging spells".

Not a real answer to the question but I will tag it as a +1 for your position.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Greymist wrote:
...
Well the key to making a system less prone to those sorts of problems is that we need to address those problems in a balanced fashion. If you just make spellcasters weaker, that's not particularly exciting. But if you give all sorts of fun new opportunities to heighten spells and much better at-will cantrip options? That's a much better way to design a system where the casters are no longer quite as exponential in power increases (heightening being how you increase effects means you should hopefully no longer have a situation where a 20th level caster can still end the entire fight with one 4th level spell, which she can at that point do for every fight because she has dozens of spells of 4th level or higher), but it allows more opportunities and cool stuff that feels like more power, as you mention, when it's really different power, evening out the smaller turns you don't cast your big wow spell (through heightened cantrips) while lessening the number of "I win" buttons.

Nothing here, beside the little fact that if the priest blog is relevant for wizard "ozens of spells of 4th level or higher" actually is little more than a dozen. 3spell level from level 4 to 9 is 18 spells. Maybe 21 with the 10th level spells.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
7) Wondering if low-level spellcasters will have more spells (or more useful cantrips in the beginning of the play) of if they'll still need to rest after one or two combats...
If we're talking 1st-level, you're looking at roughly as many prepared spells, plus your Spell Points (maybe 4+), potentially some additional spells from other class features, and then the cantrips are significantly better than doing 1d3 damage even at 1st level. For instance, telekinetic projectile (the most damaging single target cantrip because it hits against full AC) now does 1d10 damage at 1st level, which is much more than it used to.

Nothing here. And 1d10 damage against full dice, race bonus hit point and constitution bonus? A warrior goblin will have something like 15 hp. Three casting. if you hit every time. Hope your wizard is very resistant to damage.

Out of 899 posts in the spell thread that was all I was able to find that was written about cantrip by someone with a Designer tag.

For me it is very far away from a confirmation. And the simple fact that the cleric thread don't give any indication of the number of cantrips know is a indication that there isn't a separate cantrip feature, but it use the normal spell slots.

The sum is that there is no clear indication that the cantrips use anything different from normal spell slots. The difference is that they can be recast at will.

If they use different slots it is important to know how many are those slots.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:


Mark blog wrote:

Cantrips

In the playtest, cantrips are spells you can cast at will, but they are no longer level 0. Instead, they automatically heighten to the highest spell level you can currently cast. That means if you're 5th level, your ray of frost is 3rd level and deals more damage, and your light cantrip is better at counteracting magical darkness.

Not here.

I think you are missing that they automatically, as in without imput, are cast at your highest level of spell, as caster level or character level scalling of spells does not exist in pf2. Which means, if they where prepared in spell slots you would either have, assuming a character who has fifth level as their highest spell level, cantrips of the fifth level prepared in first level slots(which is extremely counter intuitive) or be forced to use your highest slots to use cantrips(which severely linits choice either making highest level spells or cantrips pointless since they all compete for the same slots)

So with the scaling indicated, it seams most likely, though not explicitly confirmed, that your cantrips are independent of your spell slots.

751 to 800 of 928 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Cleric Class Preview All Messageboards