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
151 to 200 of 928 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

14 people marked this as a favorite.

It's weird that people are complaining about "such and such class feature everyone got is now an option that can be taken with a modular class feature slot" since didn't we know that classes were going to work like this months ago, and didn't everybody like it when the Unchained Monk did this?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious as to what the cantrips are and how useful they'll be.

I don't like that we have to continue to deal with the twenty minute adventuring day because the casters, especially the healer, run out of spells. This is compounded by resonance limiting magic item use. The glass cannon podcast showed the party running out of healing pretty quickly and then having to stop and rest while the big bad had a hostage. I guess that wasn't a time sensitive rescue.

Like others, I'm concerned about the loss of spell slots. This may be mitigated by the cantrips, but that didn't seem to be the case in the podcast.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Looking very good! Very keen on learning more on Domains on Friday and then later seeing what kind of class feats exist to customize a cleric.

And, of course, the comments are full of people complaining that things don't work exactly like in PF1 ... which apparently is a huge surprise, even given that it's a new edition.

And spell level is fine! No need to start messing with alternative names.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
As for the Archetype worry, Which blog is that as I don't listen to the podcasts. I find the podcasts far to... I don't want to say untrustworthy but I'd prefer Official claim I suppose? Unsure how to actually word it.

See here:

Joe M. wrote:

NEW INFORMATION from Jason's Game Informer interview:

Jason wrote:

The new version is built upon the idea of classes that have all these feats that they give you. When it comes to archetypes, it makes sense that they have additional feats you can choose. In the new game, they work similarly to how they did before, but instead of telling you what you’ll lose, you’ll get a package of feats you can choose instead of the feats from your class. They work just like an add-on package for you to choose from. It allows them to be more open and it’s not tied to specific features of classes. This kind of speaks to whatever character wants that to be a bigger part of their character concept. The rogue might want to be a pirate, but so might a wizard. It might have a feat or two that’s better at casting spells that burn sails or knocking holes in boats with lightning bolts. There could be a wide variety of abilities that speak to how the class works and you choose the ones that are appropriate to you. In this case, the archetypes allow us to expand the character types that we have. We’re not just at 12 classes, but we have dozens of different character concepts to explore from that decision alone, not to mention all the choices you have within skills and feats. It’s about giving you as many tools as possible to make the character you want to play as. Archetypes are a big tool that allow us to do that. They’re a box of toys that we can let people play with to customize their character. The playtest will have a number of archetypes in it, but we’re not putting them into the final version until we have time to test it out.

. . .

With the way we redesigned them, they can connect to a specific class, but they don’t have to. We can design an archetype that speaks directly to what sorcerers are supposed to be and exclusive to them, but for something like ‘pirate’, there’s nothing that says that anyone can’t decide to be part-pirate. That’s a concept that you can apply to almost any character. It doesn’t make sense to recreate the archetype for each class when we can create a suite of feats that speak to what the pirate is, and then pick the ones that you want as needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Evilgm wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
You have more options. I and others that want to play normal/old Cleric however, have feat taxes. This was how I felt over in Alchemist thread.
It's not a feat tax when you spend a feat to play the style of character you want to play, that's just called choosing a feat. The fact that you want to play the style of a PF1 Cleric doesn't change the fact that you are still choosing a style of play and thus selecting the feats that enable it.

I'm sorry but if this actually held water, we wouldn't have the term Feat Tax in the first place.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
we wanted to leave this broad enough that the GM and player can make the final say in how these work in their games

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

Vague and ambiguous are the last things you want in a rules structure.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
You have more options. I and others that want to play normal/old Cleric however, have feat taxes. This was how I felt over in Alchemist thread.
It's not a feat tax when you spend a feat to play the style of character you want to play, that's just called choosing a feat. The fact that you want to play the style of a PF1 Cleric doesn't change the fact that you are still choosing a style of play and thus selecting the feats that enable it.
I'm sorry but if this actually held water, we wouldn't have the term Feat Tax in the first place.

No, a feat tax is when it takes you more feats to play the style of character you want to play than it does to play another style. It doesn't just mean "having to select a feat."


I do wish that Domains naturally scaled. I like picking one, but I figured we'd get a few abilities as we leveled from them, or a few feats exclusive to that Domain. I like the feat for the second Domain though.

I suppose it's also possible that the Domain ability we get could, itself, scale, or be used for more than one thing. Like, just playing around here, but maybe if we pick the Fire domain, we get an ability called Spiritual Flame, and we can use it to either throw a bolt of fire that damages an enemy, or we can touch a weapon and grant it extra fire damage for 1 minute or something. It would be one ability, but have multiple uses?

Idk, but I'm curious to see more.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
As for the Archetype worry, Which blog is that as I don't listen to the podcasts. I find the podcasts far to... I don't want to say untrustworthy but I'd prefer Official claim I suppose? Unsure how to actually word it.

See here:

Joe M. wrote:

NEW INFORMATION from Jason's Game Informer interview:

Jason wrote:
The new version is built upon the idea of classes that have all these feats that they give you. When it comes to archetypes, it makes sense that they have additional feats you can choose. In the new game, they work similarly to how they did before, but instead of telling you what you’ll lose, you’ll get a package of feats you can choose instead of the feats from your class. They work just like an add-on package for you to choose from. It allows them to be more open and it’s not tied to specific features of classes. This kind of speaks to whatever character wants that to be a bigger part of their character concept. The rogue might want to be a pirate, but so might a wizard. It might have a feat or two that’s better at casting spells that burn sails or knocking holes in boats with lightning bolts. There could be a wide variety of abilities that speak to how the class works and you choose the ones that are appropriate to you. In this case, the archetypes allow us to expand the character types that we have. We’re not just at 12 classes, but we have dozens of different character concepts to explore from that decision alone, not to mention all the choices you have within skills and feats. It’s about giving you as many tools as possible to make the character you want to play as. Archetypes are a big tool that allow us to do that. They’re a box of toys that we can let people play with to customize their character. The playtest will have a
...

I am... actually struggling to make heads or tails of this? Do all the classes get a Pirate Archetype? Do we get Class Feats that make us more Piratey? Does taking the Archetype simply give us NEW Class Feats to spend it on?

This says so much and so little at the same time other than "They will work differently".

Second Seekers (Roheas)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?


JRutterbush wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

I've heard every class got nerfed so far... I guess that means no class got nerfed?

In all seriousness, yes, you get fewer spells, but at the same time, you're getting a class feat every other level, which translates to more resources. Heck, for all we know, one of those feats could be extra spells..., which could translate to the same number of spells if you want to put all of your feats into that.

Or you can just use two feats to gain two more Domains, upping your spell points to 3x Wis. per day, with three different things to do with them. That's an extra 20 spells per day at higher levels, and while they're not as powerful as your most powerful spells at that level, they're still a good approximation for the pile of lower level spells you might have.

I'm not sure you get more spell points by getting the second and/or third domain. You just have more flexibility to use whatever power any of the two/three domains give.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was wondering if you get a 2nd domain or expand your current domain do you get more spell points or is it another feat like "extra spell points" that increase your spell point cap?

Contributor

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Quote:
we wanted to leave this broad enough that the GM and player can make the final say in how these work in their games
Welcome to endless arguments on the forums and table variation in PFS because the developers made the conscious decision to be vague.

I mean, players don't need an excuse to argue endlessly on the forums. But I'd imagine that the PFS team would sanction anathemas for use on a deity-to-deity basis. Assuming they wouldn't plan for that is simply underestimating the best OP team in the business.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm. Is Lamashtu going to be non-evil now? That is... not what I expected.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
thflame wrote:
It seems like much of PF2's "customization" will be in the form of gutting our class abilities and selling them back to us as feats.
Which is fine, since they're also giving you a bunch of extra feats. This means that, if you want something close to the old Cleric, just buy it back with those bonus Class Feats. But if you don't, you have so many more options now. Just don't buy the things you don't want, and get something else instead. More options is better, period.
You have more options. I and others that want to play normal/old Cleric however, have feat taxes. This was how I felt over in Alchemist thread.
No you don't... You're using class feats, which you never got before as a Cleric. You have not been taxed any general feats.

In PF1, you get 10 General Feats which could be spent on anything you met prerequisites for. If you want to have uber Cleric abilities, you could dump all of these feats on stuff to improve your Cleric abilities.

In PF2, you get 10 class feats and 10 "other feats" (Skills, Ancestry, and General). It will cost you 4 Class Feats to get the extra domain, extra powers from both, and turn/rebuke undead.

Furthermore, old "general feats", like Extra Channeling, are Class Feats now so your uber Cleric has lost 4 feats.

Your Skill, Ancestry, and General feats must be spent in those areas and, if the ancestry blogs have been any indication, these feats are significantly weaker than Class Feats. (Like "+1 damage on a particular damage type" or "I can pick locks now".)

Your 4th spell slot per level, your Domain slot per level, and you bonus spells are now gone. (There is probably no way to get these back.)

Channel Energy is now SLIGHTLY better, as it has effectively increased by a die size, get's your WIS mod to damage/healing and can be manipulated to be a targeted touch or ranged spell.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:


Jason wrote:
The new version is built upon the idea of classes that have all these feats that they give you. When it comes to archetypes, it makes sense that they have additional feats you can choose. In the new game, they work similarly to how they did before, but instead of telling you what you’ll lose, you’ll get a package of feats you can choose instead of the feats from your class. They work just like an add-on package for you to choose from. It allows them to be more open and it’s not tied to specific features of classes. This kind of speaks to whatever character wants that to be a bigger part of their character concept. The rogue might want to be a pirate, but so might a wizard. It might have a feat or two that’s better at casting spells that burn sails or knocking holes in boats with lightning bolts. There could be a wide variety of abilities that speak to how the class works and you choose the ones that are appropriate to you. In this case, the archetypes allow us to expand the character types that we have. We’re not just at 12 classes, but we have dozens of different character concepts to explore from that decision alone, not to mention all the choices you have within skills and feats. It’s about giving you as many tools as possible to make the character you want to play as. Archetypes are a big tool that allow us to do that. They’re a box of toys that we can let people play with to customize their character.

It's looking like Starfinder Archetypes.

Make of that what you will.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
I'm sorry but if this actually held water, we wouldn't have the term Feat Tax in the first place.

In PF1 there's a thing you get as a first-level Cleric. No matter what kind of cleric you want to be, that's the only 'thing' available.

In PF2 the first level Cleric has three 'things' to choose from.

If you want to play a PF1-style cleric, choose Thing A. If you want some other options, check out Thing B or Thing C.

Are you really saying that offering choices rather than forcing every cleric to take the same 'thing' (feat) is a Feat Tax?

If so, that's a unique use of that word that I've never seen before on gaming boards.


23 people marked this as a favorite.

If you take power attack because you want to power attack, that is not a feat tax- it's just you choosing the feat that gives you what you want.

When you have to take combat expertise, which you will never use, in order to be good at dirty tricks, that is a feat tax.

If you're choosing the feat for what it does, and all it costs is a single feat? Not a feat tax.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
worldhopper wrote:


No, a feat tax is when it takes you more feats to play the style of character you want to play than it does to play another style. It doesn't just mean "having to select a feat."

By your logic, if I want to play a guy who hits things hard with a sword that needs two feats and you want to play a master of metamagic that needs six, four of yours are a feat tax? What a ridiculous interpretation.

Combat Reflexes is a feat tax, because 99% of builds that take it have to take it as a pre-requisite but will never actually use it. Spell Focus is not a feat tax, because even though it is also a pre-requisite for important feats, it actually does something in line with what the character wants to do. Likewise, if you want a second Domain, taking a feat to get a second Domain is in no way a tax, it's just a feat you are spending to get precisely what you want.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
eddv wrote:
In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?

No, because a Feat Tax is Dodge and Mobility just to get Whirlwind Attack, or worse, Combat Expertise to get any Improved maneuver feats.

Designer

28 people marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:
I was wondering if you get a 2nd domain or expand your current domain do you get more spell points or is it another feat like "extra spell points" that increase your spell point cap?

The more you feat into your cleric being tied to domains by getting new domain powers to spend your spell points, the more spell points you get, at the same time. If you love domains, we don't want you to have to choose between more per day and more variety!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?

Not really because you are now getting to choose what you want. More customization.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?

Nope

So you are used to having 3 apples.
They've taken away the 3 apples and now say you can have any 3 fruit. So you can have your 3 apples back or you can have an apple and 2 oranges, or an apple, an orange and a banana.
There is no tax - it is just increased options including buying back to exactly* where you started.

*(well a reasonable approximation thereof anyway)


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Hmm. Is Lamashtu going to be non-evil now? That is... not what I expected.

I mean, it's not necessarily good if you're healing violent monstrosities. My understanding is that Lamashtu is all about motherhood and birthing monsters into the world. She's a giver of life, but horrible life.

Similarly, I feel like Iomedae feels more Harm-centric to me. She's so fiery and rightous and wants to kick evil in the face, I can easily picture an Iomadaean (spelling? lol) cleric blasting a demon than I can healing an ally.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Hmm. Is Lamashtu going to be non-evil now? That is... not what I expected.

Probably evil but allowed to heal anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not good player. Cleric is my favorite class in Pathfinder, but once I rolled my character, I either did not hit hard enough in combat to contribute or I failed my offensive spellcastings, either by concentration, resistance, or save. Channel looked good on paper, but in practice was garbage and domains were always lackluster. All of this destroyed my passion for the Cleric and I do not see anything in this blog post to make me feel better. It all looks the same, just spread out and watered down. I wish I could have higher hopes for Cleric v2, to have that passion back, but until we get an idea of what monster saves/stats will be like, I do not feel the Cleric will be good for or contribute anything offensively beyond buffbot/heal bot.

:(

Dark Archive

dragonhunterq wrote:
eddv wrote:
In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?

Nope

So you are used to having 3 apples.
They've taken away the 3 apples and now say you can have any 3 fruit. So you can have your 3 apples back or you can have an apple and 2 oranges, or an apple, an orange and a banana.
There is no tax - it is just increased options including buying back to exactly* where you started.

*(well a reasonable approximation thereof anyway)

I like your response better then mine lol


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Quote:
we wanted to leave this broad enough that the GM and player can make the final say in how these work in their games
Welcome to endless arguments on the forums and table variation in PFS because the developers made the conscious decision to be vague.
I mean, players don't need an excuse to argue endlessly on the forums. But I'd imagine that the PFS team would sanction anathemas for use on a deity-to-deity basis. Assuming they wouldn't plan for that is simply underestimating the best OP team in the business.

The team that routinely publishes ambiguously worked rules that result in arguments stretching into the hundreds of posts?

And that then refuse to provide a FAQ to clear things up?

As current example examples: how hard would it be to resolve the argument over whether non-lethal damage is hit-point damage, or to explain exactly what Bladed Brush does and does not work with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:
eddv wrote:
In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?
Not really because you are now getting to choose what you want. More customization.

Which is bloody pointless when the math is done.

Everyone keeps going on about "Customization" and "Options" and "Greater build Varieties".

I stand by the idea that we'll be back to Builds X, Y, Z within time anyway.


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

The decrease in spell slots is more than overturned by the Spell DC being tied to class level instead of spell level. A Hold Person will be as useful in the level that you learn it as when you get to level 20 that is not bad at all.

That said the idea of having to prepare multiple copies of the same spell is not appealing to me


Joe M. wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
As for the Archetype worry, Which blog is that as I don't listen to the podcasts. I find the podcasts far to... I don't want to say untrustworthy but I'd prefer Official claim I suppose? Unsure how to actually word it.

See here:

Joe M. wrote:

NEW INFORMATION from Jason's Game Informer interview:

Jason wrote:
The new version is built upon the idea of classes that have all these feats that they give you. When it comes to archetypes, it makes sense that they have additional feats you can choose. In the new game, they work similarly to how they did before, but instead of telling you what you’ll lose, you’ll get a package of feats you can choose instead of the feats from your class. They work just like an add-on package for you to choose from. It allows them to be more open and it’s not tied to specific features of classes. This kind of speaks to whatever character wants that to be a bigger part of their character concept. The rogue might want to be a pirate, but so might a wizard. It might have a feat or two that’s better at casting spells that burn sails or knocking holes in boats with lightning bolts. There could be a wide variety of abilities that speak to how the class works and you choose the ones that are appropriate to you. In this case, the archetypes allow us to expand the character types that we have. We’re not just at 12 classes, but we have dozens of different character concepts to explore from that decision alone, not to mention all the choices you have within skills and feats. It’s about giving you as many tools as possible to make the character you want to play as. Archetypes are a big tool that allow us to do that. They’re a box of toys that we can let people play with to customize their character. The playtest will have a
...

Thanks for posting that

Very interesting, I like that approach, but makes me wonder how are they going to balance archtypes, like for example taking more than one to have an even bigger pool of features to choose, I can only imagine that the number of archetypes you can type is coded with that balance in mind something similar to Paragon paths in 4e.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
eddv wrote:
In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?

Nope

So you are used to having 3 apples.
They've taken away the 3 apples and now say you can have any 3 fruit. So you can have your 3 apples back or you can have an apple and 2 oranges, or an apple, an orange and a banana.
There is no tax - it is just increased options including buying back to exactly* where you started.

*(well a reasonable approximation thereof anyway)

It's more that you start out with three apples and then as time went by you could also get three bananas.

Now you start out with three fruit, one of which has to be an apple. Over time you can get two more fruit of any kind. In the end you are left with five fruit of any kind rather than three apples and three bananas - you have greater diversity but lower quantity. (The other fruit are no bigger than a banana or apple - so apple-sized pineapple, or apple-sized grapefruit.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Quote:
we wanted to leave this broad enough that the GM and player can make the final say in how these work in their games

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

Vague and ambiguous are the last things you want in a rules structure.

That is right, noting generates more arguments and FAQ request that "GM and player can make the final say in how these work in their games", makes me wonder if PFS will publish their own decision to prevent this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would Pharasma have channel negative anyways? She hates undead and does not want to heal them, but use positive to destroy them instead!

Channel is likely not gonna be tied to alignment anymore. I believe evey deity will arbitrarily offer X option depending on it's specific personality.

EDIT: Wooo, Evil parties get to heal now.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to select "grapefruit" 10 times. I don't care if it's optimal, I like grapefruit more than apples and bananas.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Biztak wrote:
The decrease in spell slots is more than overturned by the Spell DC being tied to class level instead of spell level.

Fewer spell slots = less utility and fewer choices available to caster's on any given day.

A wizard or cleric is going to be much less likely to have just the right situational spell available to solve any given problem, and is going to be able to do so far fewer times/day.

Add to that reduced spell durations, and your looking at full casters having a very small selection of carefully hoarded spells, with most encounters seeing the caster using their 1 trusty offensive cantrip repeatedly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

Why would Pharasma have channel negative anyways? She hates undead and does not want to heal them, but use positive to destroy them instead!

Channel is likely not gonna be tied to alignment anymore. I believe evey deity will arbitrarily offer X option depending on it's specific personality.

EDIT: Wooo, Evil parties get to heal now.

Because she was also the goddess of Death and you can Channel Negative to kill people, obviously.

Now, sure, if you're going to lock her into one of them, heal fits better, but I think all Neutral deities should let you choose, with Evil/Good deities having a mix of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco Bahamut wrote:
I feel sad we couldn´t see the Cleric´s reaction. But i am positive about everything else.

I second this, class blogs should mention these.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

If you take power attack because you want to power attack, that is not a feat tax- it's just you choosing the feat that gives you what you want.

When you have to take combat expertise, which you will never use, in order to be good at dirty tricks, that is a feat tax.

If you're choosing the feat for what it does, and all it costs is a single feat? Not a feat tax.

IF power attack was built into the base game(Say you got it for free) and now you need to spend a Feat to actually get it, Two Weapon Fighting, Or something else(Shield Bash?), I don't know how to describe it other than some form of Tax. Sure other people like getting the other two but I liked what I had and feel miffed that I need to spend a Resource to get it back.

It might not be Feat Tax but it feels like something. That is my problem. Like what if Rogues had to rebuy "Sneak Attack"? I suppose everyone would be cool with that, after not all Rogues need Sneak Attack right? Or a smaller less intrusive change, Rogues need to buy back "Trapfinding" or "Evasion"


5 people marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:
eddv wrote:
In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?
Not really because you are now getting to choose what you want. More customization.

You are spending those "extra" feats to get things that automatically progress in PF1.

It's a false bonus - they are taking away your class features then giving you the option to repurchase them using a limited resource.


For the guys discussing feat taxes made I point at a very clear example in 10th level spells being gated behind a feat, breaking the progressing established of "At every odd level, you get access to a new level of spells." I think that is the worse offender so far concerning feat taxes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
When discussing the spell slots, the spells for high ability score aren't just gone with no replacement; you also get more of your best spells automatically (2 of your best spells at odd levels, 3 at even without counting channel/domains, as opposed to PF1's 1 at odd 2 at even without counting channel/domains). While at very low levels, a heavily optimized character (starting at 20 casting stat and aggressively pushing headband) might be getting 2 bonus spells or her highest level from ability scores, that tends to be impossible to keep up by about level 5.

So a 20th level PF1 cleric with no bonus spells gets only 45 spells while a PF2 20th level cleric gets more...[checks notes] with 27 spells (not counting 10th level). Makes sense, and sounds like a really great improvement!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

Why would Pharasma have channel negative anyways? She hates undead and does not want to heal them, but use positive to destroy them instead!

Channel is likely not gonna be tied to alignment anymore. I believe evey deity will arbitrarily offer X option depending on it's specific personality.

EDIT: Wooo, Evil parties get to heal now.

Because she was also the goddess of Death and you can Channel Negative to kill people, obviously.

Now, sure, if you're going to lock her into one of them, heal fits better, but I think all Neutral deities should let you choose, with Evil/Good deities having a mix of them.

Yeah, death. But not destruction. She was more about preserving life than just "bringing death" as many cleric edgelords like to do. The Death domain probably handles the specifics.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
eddv wrote:
In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?
Not really because you are now getting to choose what you want. More customization.

Which is bloody pointless when the math is done.

Everyone keeps going on about "Customization" and "Options" and "Greater build Varieties".

I stand by the idea that we'll be back to Builds X, Y, Z within time anyway.

I'm in the camp that his happy we're getting more options and pieces to put together our characters. I don't feel like anything's being taken away (except spell slots <.<) so much as...instead of being handed a plate of spaghetti, I'm instead being given 10 dollars (multiple times over the course of 20 levels) and being told I can buy whatever meal I want (though we don't know the breadth of options yet).

I think that breadth of options will make a difference, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they're providing.

About builds x, y, and z though...I do feel like it's a bit reductive to reduce the game simply to 'math', though I also get that a lot of players really love that side of the game (and that's fine). You can build a character that's super-optimized, but very sterile to play. I've built characters that felt way more organic; they weren't necessarily super optimal but they were so much fun to play.

For example, the ability to choose a feat that lets me gain a Tongues effect isn't very optimal math-wise, but it can be incredibly rich for my super-nerd priest of Irori. Math isn't the only measure of value, at least not for all players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


I wonder if a Wizard will have to use DEX to hit their targets versus Intelligence as a balancer for a Cleric having to use CHA for their channels versus Wisdom.

Spell points?

*winces*

Is there a better name for that game-y item? Please?

Power Points?

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
It's a false bonus - they are taking away your class features then giving you the option to repurchase them using a limited resource.

Is it really better to have the class features but be given a list of options to take in place of them?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
You get a +2 Ability score buff from your class. (Wasn't it also said that Backgrounds give Ability score bonuses, too?) Looks like ability scores are going to be a lot higher than in PF1. I really like the ability to make a competent character of a non-optimal race.

This isn't strictly true. the way they look to be doing it is that each stage of character creation has stat bumps...but those are basically all you get. For example, we know that Kyra in a demo game had Str 14, Dex 12, Wis 18, Cha 14 and probably 10s in Con and Int. That's better than 20 point-buy in PF1, but only a little.

The current theory (which seems likely to be close to right) is:

Ancestry: +2 to two specific scores, -2 to one specific score, one floating +2 (probably two floating +2s instead for humans)
Background: +2 to one specific score, one floating +2
Class: +2 to one specific score
First Ability Up: Four floating +2s

That's allow for the stats Kyra has listed above, make sense with this Blog, and allow for some flexibility.

Which demo game was this? Where?

Dark Archive

MerlinCross wrote:

Which is bloody pointless when the math is done.

Everyone keeps going on about "Customization" and "Options" and "Greater build Varieties".
I stand by the idea that we'll be back to Builds X, Y, Z within time anyway.

Just to make sure I understand what you are getting at. When you say builds X, Y, and X are you judging that by optimization or something else? If you are talking about optimization then yes I agree with you there well be a finite amount of builds that will be optimal within the customization provided. Any math based game is going to have that. But for a lot of people optimization is not what judges a build for them to make.

If you are talking about not having enough class feats to truly customize then I also am a little scared about that myself. With all the different things in the game needing all this space for feats (every race, class, skill, and general)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's my point of view.

They're rebuilding the system. They're rebalancing the system at the same time. They're trying to get classes closer to the same 'tier', as it were, and to also expand options without necessarily increasing power.

I fully expect this means that the highest power classes are going to get reigned in firmly. I'm not surprised that the Cleric is one of these, and I approve of it. And no, I wouldn't mind if things like Sneak Attack or Rage were feats you had to select.

I'm not completely enthused about PF2. I'm cautiously optimistic, because the overall feel seems similar to what I want from the game, but there's no way to know until we see the final product.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm just going to select "grapefruit" 10 times. I don't care if it's optimal, I like grapefruit more than apples and bananas.
andar90 wrote:
For example, the ability to choose a feat that lets me gain a Tongues effect isn't very optimal math-wise, but it can be incredibly rich for my super-nerd priest of Irori. Math isn't the only measure of value, at least not for all players.

I quite hate Math too. I tend to build for characters than numbers though I do hate not keeping up with other people. Heck, I have two tinkerer Alchemists that picked up Promethean Disciple Discovery. Constructs are bad and expensive? Don't care, it fits their character.

The problem with Math/Optimal is just everywhere and expected they are. Later APs seemed to be expecting the Big 6, certain comps, and other Math related abilities not to mention when talks of balance or builds comes up, Math/Optimal tends to rain.

151 to 200 of 928 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Cleric Class Preview All Messageboards