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
201 to 250 of 928 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
ElSilverWind wrote:

2. Why is Channeling still handcuffed to Charisma? Why do the Gods grant you more powerful spells for being more Wise, but will only give you more daily Healing if you’re more charismatic? This was my least favorite part of the Class in PF1 because it makes the Class ridiculously MAD and uses a logic that feels shaky at best. Wasn’t Resonance...

Ridiculously MAD? The Monk would like to have a word with you... I am actually thrilled by this. I much prefer a MAD design across the board. CHA to channel makes even more sense now that resonance teams up with UMD.
They've also said that Ability Ups from leveling will follow the Starfinder format, which means you raise 4 stats every time you raise them. That really decreases the hurt of being MAD quite a bit.

The Monk had 2 more Skill Ranks per level, could dump Charisma without penalty, and had Bonus Feats that allowed him to bypass the stat requirements on certain feats. That’s not to say the Monk was better than the Cleric (9th Level Casting wins every time) but as long as I had a decently generous point buy (20+ points), I didn’t feel like I was as stretched thin as I did building an average Cleric.

That is good to hear, and I would like to offer my apologies to the Devs. My reaction to this blog was a bit reckless, I’ll admit. After reading some of their responses to comments, I can understand a bit more about their decision to not tie Channel Energy to Spell Points.

And while I may not personally like Charisma dependency for Channel Energy, it does seem to be a set aspect of their world to explain why it works this way. As long as Channel Energy is a stronger option than it was in PF1, and MAD characters are made a bit more user friendly, then I may warm up to it. After all, it never stopped me from playing Clerics in PF1.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:


Oh, and you nerfed it by taking away the ranged aspect. So you can focus a channel positive energy or use one that is effectively two levels lower in power.

A "nerf" is when you change something to be weaker in a game. So what was the original version of this ability in PF2E that was nerfed?

Second Seekers (Roheas)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth 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.

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.

This really takes me back to the arguments that arose from the new lore warden.

Ahh memories


3 people marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:
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)

Both? Maybe. Lemme try to stumble through this a bit.

I find it not fun to lag behind even if I build the character just the way I want to. Having to spend Class Feats to get back to just how I want to play runs the risk of being behind because everyone else took the smarter "Math" picks. Every level is going to now be "Do I take this for Character or for Math" and depending on the group, Math will win again and again. See PFS.

At the same time if the selection of Class Feats is smaller(Either by amount or viable) then everyones going to be playing near the same class anyway so what's the point in giving us expanded Options if we're back to the same way we were before?


Mark Seifter wrote:
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!

Very cool! That certainly gives you both versatility AND the power to keep using that versatility.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
Volkard Abendroth 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.

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.

This really takes me back to the arguments that arose from the new lore warden.

Ahh memories

If the Adventurer's Guide Lore Warden was actually equivalent to a similarly-built PFS Field Guide Lore Warden, I wouldn't have any issues with it. Instead, it gutted one of the few ways PCs could realistically have combat maneuvers be viable into higher levels. And the reasons given for the nerfs weren't even all mathematically correct.


As with the other recent blog post these are my thoughts without consideration for the other comments (I'll read those now and make any further thoughts a new post).

1. Class is definitely now confirmed as giving you a score boost. Assuming point buy still exists vs an array/modifiers from ancestry+background+class, this won't be too much of an issue. All clerics need SOME wisdom. Fighters need a flexible bonus of either STR or DEX.

2. DCs no longer use spell level but instead character level + proficiency rank + ability mod. Given we know saves will work the same way DCs are going to outpace saving throws unless we get +2 to 4 ability scores every boost or we have cloaks of resistance. But we'll wait and see. With increased HP and decreased effects for spells it could be that this is a sufficient nerf without also nerfing the spell DC. Also class feats will help schew things back towards PCs.

I do worry the math involved is a bit too exposed. Pathfinder 1e could have used the exact same Math (but centered around +1/2 level instead of +level) but because of how unexposed it is, it doesn't feel like we're on a treadmill. Things like Item levels and the DC vs Save system exposes things just a bit too much IMO.

3. Interesting that they say deity and not religion. The core Pathfinder book paid lip service to the "you can follow an ethos instead of a deity" (a relic from the MADD days I believe). Are we finally moving beyond that? I particularly like religion. One of the favourite cleric archetypes in my group is the Separatist archetype. It's only been mentioned used once or twice but it gets mentioned fairly frequently for an archetype and I like the idea of there being two opposing religions to a single deity, both of which get spells. Making that a core tenet of the class would be awesome.

4. Looks like we only get one domain now. With the reworking of the spell lists that could work. the PF1e domain spells and domain abilities were pretty poor and so two at a minimum were needed just to try to get SOME good things. I expect there's been massive improvement in this area for PF2e.

5. I like the look of anethema as a replacement for alignment restrictions. It looks like we'll get both, but as a GM it's easier for me to say "follow the anethema and exemplify your deity's teachings" and ignore the alignment line (fun fact: I don't actually fill in the alignment line on most of my character sheets and instead ask the GM to fill it in whenever they wish based on my character's actions and motives).

6. Due to other similarities between 4e and what's been previewed thus far, cantrips are looking a lot like at-will powers, spells points look like encounter powers and spell slots look like daily powers. Right down to the minor power healing word (represented in the form of a 1 action heal). There's significant departures in how it's being implemented (we're getting a crapload more daily powers!) but I can't shake the similarity. The more it's revealed the more it feels like we're getting refined 4e math with a Pathfinder coat painted on. But I have demonstratd confirmation bias recently.

I guess one way that would help remove the similarities further would be to require a high WIS score to get bonus spell slots. You could even keep the same alotment of spells, just reduce them by 1. That might seem like unnecessary bookkeeping, but it's those little touches that helps make the game feel more like a breathing world rather than a board game.

I'll be very interested to see how this plays out in my group. I expect the ex-4e players to instantly spot the similarities. But I'll certainly not be pointing it out to them.

7. Class feats: I'm really glad to see these here. As I said above cleric domain powers were pretty bad with only a handful of exceptions. However I am worried about the fact that we're getting spell-specific feats. The reason I'm worried is I expect to see the same thing pop up for fighter "powers", so by having them for spells as well it's yet another way the differences between martials and casters are being broken down.

Metamagic feats being applied dynamically makes sense given the reduced efficacy of spells and the reduced spell slots. Again I'd prefer if prepared casters feel more like prepared casters and have to prepare those spells with the metamagic feat already applied. It's just another difference between fighters (who apply modifying abilities to their "powers" on the fly) and spontaneous casters. I also dislike that metamagic feats appear to be getting balanced by action use rather than spell slot (can any devs confirm this?) as again that's how martials balance their attacks.

Parting thoughts: I really like how alignment is being redone. I love the fact clerics now get class features that will be good instead of either bad or bordering on too good (with nothing in between). I'm glad to see preparing magic is still a thing. I do have strong reservations about the rest of the class though.


MerlinCross wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
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)

Both? Maybe. Lemme try to stumble through this a bit.

I find it not fun to lag behind even if I build the character just the way I want to. Having to spend Class Feats to get back to just how I want to play runs the risk of being behind because everyone else took the smarter "Math" picks. Every level is going to now be "Do I take this for Character or for Math" and depending on the group, Math will win again and again. See PFS.

At the same time if the selection of Class Feats is smaller(Either by amount or viable) then everyones going to be playing near the same class anyway so what's the point in giving us expanded Options if we're back to the same way we were before?

So uh.. Don't offer any feats or choices so every cleric is the same and there's no better/worse options? 5E is over there, my friend.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So only one domain, a lot less spells, and a weakness..LAME!!!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rules Artificer wrote:

One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.

I would assume by that point you either need to chain the spells together, work with allies, or use a Higher level spell slot to cast it(See Metamagic). Or pack some spells that don't really care about Saving throws(Hello Haste).

As a side note, with Resonance in place(And I hate to bring THAT dead horse up again but bare with me), I just can't see any way of getting back Spell slots without resting. I don't see something like Pearl of Power existing in this new order so a Spell reduction on top of that seems a tad overkill.


willuwontu wrote:
I like this.

Honestly I think prof in Divine Magic effected their casting stat and the DC of thier spells from what I read, it didn't seem like it effected the spell list.

So maybe Wisdom will be the Spell casting stat for all prepared spell divine spellcasting classes like Clerics, Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Intelligence will the stat for all prepared Arcane Spellcasting classes Wizards and eventually Magus, and Charisma will be the spellcasting stat for both Arcane and Divine Spontaneous Casters like Sorcerers and Oracles.

So if you a mechanic changes your spellcasting stat it changes the source of your spells.

So no matter what spell lists a class has, if it used Wisdom to cast them, it's divine magic.

I don't know how Psionics fits into this theory.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
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)

Both? Maybe. Lemme try to stumble through this a bit.

I find it not fun to lag behind even if I build the character just the way I want to. Having to spend Class Feats to get back to just how I want to play runs the risk of being behind because everyone else took the smarter "Math" picks. Every level is going to now be "Do I take this for Character or for Math" and depending on the group, Math will win again and again. See PFS.

At the same time if the selection of Class Feats is smaller(Either by amount or viable) then everyones going to be playing near the same class anyway so what's the point in giving us expanded Options if we're back to the same way we were before?

So uh.. Don't offer any feats or choices so every cleric is the same and there's no better/worse options? 5E is over there, my friend.

And the Math that says I'm bad for wanting to play a normal cleric might be here, my friend.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Oh shoot, I'm late to the thread. Can I still call "inb4 Powers = 4e" or has that ship sailed already?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rules Artificer wrote:

One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.

Yes but now spell don't autoscale with caster level, so the bigger DC for lower spells levels got balanced with the requirement of heightened. But that still leave us with fewer spells per day, so that stills looks like a nerf.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Most of this sounds great to me, the only thing I'm upset about is the traditional vancian style of spell preparation. I don't want to go back to that after using the arcanist style preparation in 5e. Needing to decide the exact number of times I'm going to want each individual spell ahead of time is super awkward, I can't imagine trying to explain to a person who's only ever played 5e that this is how it actually works in a version of Pathfinder that's being designed in 2018.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
Oh shoot, I'm late to the thread. Can I still call "inb4 Powers = 4e" or has that ship sailed already?

Huh....

I don't think anyone has actually called anything here "4e" period but I've been distracted by the topic I latched on to. You might have the ground floor on that bit.


...so do clerics use spell points or don't they? Is it 2 spells a day, or is it however many the spell costs to a daily maximum of your Wisdom (score or modifier?) plus feat bonus? If it's just for domain powers, why call them SPELL points? If it's for domain powers, why have an effective 3 pools to track (spells as normal, "spell" points, and Channel)? I hope rewriting bizarrely complex construction is something the devs aren't against when taking feedback.
Then again, I HAVE played an arcanist using optional spell points rules as well as the stamina system (I had the CON, why not?), so it's not that having a POOL pool makes the game unplayable... just cumbersome.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
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.)

This puts it pretty well, but also that there is something psychological about the act of taking my apples from me in the first place and then saying I need to get them back 1 by 1. Sure I could choose to take an orange now I guess, but more likely with the way games like this work I am either gonna want 3 oranges or 3 apples and very rarely one apple, one orange and one grapefruit.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:

One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.

Yes but now spell don't autoscale with caster level, so the bigger DC for lower spells levels got balanced with the requirement of heightened. But that still leave us with fewer spells per day, so that stills looks like a nerf.

They may not autoscale with caster level, but they do start off with higher damage dice than your typical low-level spells. Magic Missile for example throws additional missiles based on how many actions you throw into it. So there's more ways than one to scale lower level spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
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)

Both? Maybe. Lemme try to stumble through this a bit.

I find it not fun to lag behind even if I build the character just the way I want to. Having to spend Class Feats to get back to just how I want to play runs the risk of being behind because everyone else took the smarter "Math" picks. Every level is going to now be "Do I take this for Character or for Math" and depending on the group, Math will win again and again. See PFS.

At the same time if the selection of Class Feats is smaller(Either by amount or viable) then everyones going to be playing near the same class anyway so what's the point in giving us expanded Options if we're back to the same way we were before?

So uh.. Don't offer any feats or choices so every cleric is the same and there's no better/worse options? 5E is over there, my friend.

5e offers less outright customization choices because EVERY character can DO more out of the box. A big complaint I have about Pathfinder is constantly errata-ing improvised gameplay out by statting every possible combat action; with twice as many feats (or more if classes gain feats separate from your character level), that's double the problem. Just consider that, even though edition wars are basically forbidden: you're asking for LESS options by asking for MORE purchasable abilities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Toblakai wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:


Oh, and you nerfed it by taking away the ranged aspect. So you can focus a channel positive energy or use one that is effectively two levels lower in power.

A "nerf" is when you change something to be weaker in a game. So what was the original version of this ability in PF2E that was nerfed?

Because you lose versatility. A PF1 1st level Cleric could take Bless and Magic Stone, for instance, and yet those could easily become two Cure Light Wounds spells. They'd also have a Domain ability and a Domain spell. In all likelihood they'd start out with a 17 Wisdom assuming a 15-point build and +2 bonus to Wisdom. If they dropped a 12 into Charisma then they can Channel Positive Energy 4 times for an additional 4d6 of healing.

Sure, the PF2 Cleric might be able to do 8d8+4 healing to four targets... but that's all. They either memorize Heal two more times and lose out on any other spells, or they don't get to do more healing. The PF1 Cleric? They're doing 4d6 healing to a group. Dropping fractions that means the PF1 Cleric just did 12 hit points healing to EVERYONE. If their group is six people? That's 68 healing. If it's just three? It's 36. If it's a town square full of people recovering from a goblin attack with say 20 people hurt? You might have 60 hit points healed in one average roll.

That 12 Charisma PF2 Cleric only does 1 hit point of healing for an Area burst. Sure, they could do 8d8+4 healing divided among four people... but healing up a town full of folk? That's not happening.

So, nerf? Yes. It depends on the situation. But you're going to have to drop Charisma into the character, in all likelihood Charisma is now the more important stat than Wisdom, and as you level up you're going to boost Charisma over Wisdom - once your Wisdom is 19 you have all the spells you need in any event. But you better hope you can keep boosting that Charisma because that's ALL of your heal spells unless you load up your far-more-limited spell selection.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm mildly miffed about Channel being spell-like now. I like class abilities that are more unique than that.

I hope Paladin Lay on Hands is still it's own thing unrelated to any spell.

And "Spell Points" that you use for everything but actual spells is gonna be the most confusing term ever.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:

One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.

Yes but now spell don't autoscale with caster level, so the bigger DC for lower spells levels got balanced with the requirement of heightened. But that still leave us with fewer spells per day, so that stills looks like a nerf.
They may not autoscale with caster level, but they do start off with higher damage dice than your typical low-level spells. Magic Missile for example throws additional missiles based on how many actions you throw into it. So there's more ways than one to scale lower level spells.

Are you sure about this? I have the impression that magic missile cost one action so if you wanted to throw more missiles you were expanding more spell slots.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:

One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.

Yes but now spell don't autoscale with caster level, so the bigger DC for lower spells levels got balanced with the requirement of heightened. But that still leave us with fewer spells per day, so that stills looks like a nerf.
They may not autoscale with caster level, but they do start off with higher damage dice than your typical low-level spells. Magic Missile for example throws additional missiles based on how many actions you throw into it. So there's more ways than one to scale lower level spells.
Are you sure about this? I have the impression that magic missile cost one action so if you wanted to throw more missiles you were expanding more spell slots.

Nope, you spend one spell slot, and if you spend 1 action in the casting you get 1 missile, two actions gets you 2 missiles and 3 actions I believe (don't quote me) you get 4 missiles.

Scarab Sages

TheFinish wrote:
Vigmortis wrote:

The new Command Undead feat for clerics sounds delicious. Definitely something to experiment with.

Interesting that Pharasma is only heal now. I remember her being a chief neutral deity. *shrugs*

I’m a little on the fence about anathemas. While it’s a really good rp flavor, I really hope that they make sense in the great scheme of things as I do see this being abused by both PCs and GMs (ESPECIALLY GMs).

The other concern that ties in with another, is how will it work with clerics who don’t worship gods but an idea or principle? Or is that not allowed anymore? That would be disappointing...

I was actually more surprised by Lamashtu letting you choose, honestly. I'm with you with Anathemas, but if they're like Paladin Codes as we have them now, it'll probably be fine.

As for godless Clerics....I wouldn't be surprised if they're gone. But on the other hand, letting them remain would be really easy, so I can see it going either way.

I actually didn't know who Lamashtu was tbh. I use very little Paizo lore in my games, yet ironically Pharasma happened to be one lol. Now that I see Lamashtu, yea that's a bit of a headscratcher. I guess Mother of Demons? Mother=nuture? I dunno...

I think an easy fix for godless clerics would be have anathemas to choose from or mandate you tell the GM like everything when you make a godless cleric.

ChibiNyan wrote:
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.

Thanks for that clarification. I'm hoping for a bit more diversity in how you 'wield' your domain as it were.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:

One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.

Yes but now spell don't autoscale with caster level, so the bigger DC for lower spells levels got balanced with the requirement of heightened. But that still leave us with fewer spells per day, so that stills looks like a nerf.
They may not autoscale with caster level, but they do start off with higher damage dice than your typical low-level spells. Magic Missile for example throws additional missiles based on how many actions you throw into it. So there's more ways than one to scale lower level spells.

Lower-level spells not automagically being as potent as your higher-level spells seems fairly obvious and intended to me. That's why they're lower-level spells, and you get more of them.

2E spellcasters also have actually potent cantrips that do get automatically overcast to your highest level of spells. They still won't be as powerful as your highest-level spells, but they'll be orders of magnitude better than cantrips in 1E were.

A primary spellcaster that's expended all of their highest-level spell slots should by design fall somewhere right behind martial characters in usefulness, and not merely bad crossbowmen.

Scarab Sages

Rules Artificer wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:

One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.

Yes but now spell don't autoscale with caster level, so the bigger DC for lower spells levels got balanced with the requirement of heightened. But that still leave us with fewer spells per day, so that stills looks like a nerf.
They may not autoscale with caster level, but they do start off with higher damage dice than your typical low-level spells. Magic Missile for example throws additional missiles based on how many actions you throw into it. So there's more ways than one to scale lower level spells.

Lower-level spells not automagically being as potent as your higher-level spells seems fairly obvious and intended to me. That's why they're lower-level spells, and you get more of them.

2E spellcasters also have actually potent cantrips that do get automatically overcast to your highest level of spells. They still won't be as powerful as your highest-level spells, but they'll be orders of magnitude better than cantrips in 1E were.

A primary spellcaster that's expended all of their highest-level spell slots should by design fall somewhere right behind martial characters in usefulness, and not merely bad crossbowmen.

So... at most 3 turns a game, then sit in the back and be worse?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rules Artificer wrote:
That's why they're lower-level spells, and you get more of them.

From where are you getting that you get more low level spells? You end up with three spells per day for each level, that seems fewer to me.

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

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.)

This puts it pretty well, but also that there is something psychological about the act of taking my apples from me in the first place and then saying I need to get them back 1 by 1.

It's called the Endowment Effect and it's heavily on display in all of these preview threads. People overvalue things they already have and undervalue things that they do not or do not yet have.

It's a very common phenomenon, and explains a lot of this kind of thing. (I'm not a psychologist but I work in a field that uses this term a bit—perhaps in a way that a psychologist would say is inaccurate.)

So here, folks are worked up because they're "losing" some things from the PF1 Cleric and they don't appreciate: (1) that in addition to what the Cleric is "losing" in the transition it also gains valuable class features; (2) that this kind of guesswork evaluation is fundamentally mistaken anyway, since it assumes a PF1 background or baseline but really PF2 is a new system that is being balanced against itself.

(Also #3, that we have a pretty long playtest to test the playtest rules and tweak any balance issues before the final PF2 rules! Jason tweeted the other day that they're at the point where they're seeing things they want to change but can't because it's too late for some rules changes ahead of the playtest.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay let's clear the idea that the 2nd Domain is a feat tax. A feat tax is a feat that in practice a class needs to take to be basically functional.

The cleric gets 1 Domain free that can use it's points. So that is absolutely functional.

It's also completely functional to day 1 Domain is fine, maybe your doing a low Wisdom, high charisma build, and instead of spending feats on a second domain you spend them on Channel Succor and similar feats.

Maybe you decide feats boosting the Clerics Martial abilities are more important, or metamagic, or feats that warp your 1 domain, or Archetype feats or you want Domain breadth instead of depth and only get the first feat for a second Domain and a Third. Maybe you get the first advanced feat for a second domain, but don't like the more advanced level, so you take a metamagic feat after that instead.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Praises

  • Adding more ways to customize clerics is highly appreciated.
  • The new channel is an elegant way of combining multiple similar features of the cleric into a single useful package.
  • I love the way new metamagic works. Usually increasing spell level wasn't worth it, but increasing action economy makes sense.
  • Anathema sounds like a better way of codifying ways of violating your deity's tenets than simply relying on alignment (and it looks like alignment is still in the game!).

    Concerns

  • Can clerics still make good combatants? Can you still make a battle cleric or have they been shifted to more of a full caster role like a wizard? Both directions are good, but this is not addressed in the post.
  • It strangely feels like the god or goddess plays little role in how a cleric builds as only the domain spell and anathema are determined by them in any significant fashion.


  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.

    BTW am I the only one wondering if Bards get Heal and Harm spells or a different healing spell that isn't tied to Channel divinity.


    Three of each, flat rate? Huh...
    Well, we'll see how it works out.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Gyor wrote:
    BTW am I the only one wondering if Bards get Heal and Harm spells or a different healing spell that isn't tied to Channel divinity.

    Your forgot favoured weapon.


    Gyor wrote:

    Okay let's clear the idea that the 2nd Domain is a feat tax. A feat tax is a feat that in practice a class needs to take to be basically functional.

    The cleric gets 1 Domain free that can use it's points. So that is absolutely functional.

    It's also completely functional to day 1 Domain is fine, maybe your doing a low Wisdom, high charisma build, and instead of spending feats on a second domain you spend them on Channel Succor and similar feats.

    Maybe you decide feats boosting the Clerics Martial abilities are more important, or metamagic, or feats that warp your 1 domain, or Archetype feats or you want Domain breadth instead of depth and only get the first feat for a second Domain and a Third. Maybe you get the first advanced feat for a second domain, but don't like the more advanced level, so you take a metamagic feat after that instead.

    Very insightful and wise.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    eddv wrote:
    Tangent101 wrote:
    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.)

    This puts it pretty well, but also that there is something psychological about the act of taking my apples from me in the first place and then saying I need to get them back 1 by 1. Sure I could choose to take an orange now I guess, but more likely with the way games like this work I am either gonna want 3 oranges or 3 apples and very rarely one apple, one orange and one grapefruit.

    Proably. It's very much a mental tick of "I lost X but have to buy it back now" it seems a weird way to go and I can't think of many actual examples that changed this from game to game, edition to edtion.

    That's not to say they don't exist but I can't think of any I know or have experienced off the top of my head.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Dragon78 wrote:
    So only one domain, a lot less spells, and a weakness..LAME!!!

    Well, if by weakness you mean anathema then it isn't anything really new. Rather, it is spelling out for newer GMs and players what many have already implemented in games: you are your God's representative and are expected to follow your religion.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    MerlinCross wrote:

    Here's some homebrew stuff I've been working on that recreates the Rogue makes some changes. Go down to page 6 (labelled page 41) and see how the Ninja archetype I've created has a list of Ninja tricks. Those can be selected in place of a Rogue Talent. It sounds like that's exactly what the devs are doing for their archetypes in PF2e. You can take an archetype, and get a selection of new abilities that you can pick and choose from in a modular manner. A lot like the Qi Gong Jing monk from Ultimate Magic.

    Mark Seifter wrote:
    If you love domains, we don't want you to have to choose between more per day and more variety!

    This is important. More variety CAN be a power boost, but only if the lack of variety earlier meant you were just not using that resource (e.g. domain spell slots). Given heal is a pretty damn good spell I see it as unlikely that clerics will finish a "full" day with plenty of it left over. So more spells needs to be coupled with a power boost.

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

    Have you met the sorcerer? I think he might have you covered (and the oracle is sure to come out soon after the core rulebook).

    MerlinCross wrote:
    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.

    Let's say we looked at classic Pathfinder and we removed the ability to get bonus spells based on your Int mod. We then gave wizards a bonus feat at 1st level. That wizard could a feat to get their bonus spells back due to their Int mod. Or we gave them the option of taking a feat that gives them an improved familiar at level 1. Is that a feat tax?

    In this case, we're losing a "hardcoded ability" and in it's place getting "the choice between what you originally had or a different ability."

    The only reason the word feat tax is being used is because Paizo decided to call everything feats. Had they called them talents I expect this discussion would be over immediately.

    MerlinCross wrote:
    Like what if Rogues had to rebuy "Sneak Attack"?

    Give me a widget at 1st level, 3rd level, 5th level, etc that lets me choose sneak attack or something else of equal value and leave every other class feature completely intact? I would be over the moon. Sneak attack is a class feature I'm not 100% a fan of and would happily swap it out for something else of equal value. That's what archetypes do, right? They take a core ability and replace it with something else. We don't call those "archetype taxes".

    edduardco wrote:
    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.

    Now this has merit to it. We'll have to wait and see for the exact implementation for me to say "yup. Feat tax". But it could certainly be one.

    MerlinCross wrote:
    LuniasM wrote:
    Oh shoot, I'm late to the thread. Can I still call "inb4 Powers = 4e" or has that ship sailed already?

    Huh....

    I don't think anyone has actually called anything here "4e" period but I've been distracted by the topic I latched on to. You might have the ground floor on that bit.

    I hate to disappoint. But I have already posted.

    (in all seriousness: I have tried to pair down on posting about similarities. I made 7 points in my initial post, only of them discusses 4e and I even included "But I have demonstratd confirmation bias recently." Hopefully my post was more amenable to everyone involved)


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Joe M. wrote:
    (Also #3, that we have a pretty long playtest to test the playtest rules and tweak any balance issues before the final PF2 rules! Jason tweeted the other day that they're at the point where they're seeing things they want to change but can't because it's too late for some rules changes ahead of the playtest.)

    I find it kinda weird that they don't want to change something because they want to, but can't because a playtest is going to happen soon, when the playtest is being done to actually see what needs to change.

    I mean it does make sense, don't shake up the rules ahead of the test too much and get some data to see if X needed to be changed anyway. But it's one of those things that still sounds weird when you write it out.


    10 people marked this as a favorite.
    Joe M. wrote:


    It's called the Endowment Effect and it's heavily on display in all of these preview threads. People overvalue things they already have and undervalue things that they do not or do not yet have.

    ...

    Yeah. A whole lot of this. Plus a nice side helping of simply "not getting it". Which is unfortunate.

    I made a comment somewhere early on that I would be really disappointed if I couldn't keep my two domain clerics. The combinations make cool variety and I found that distinctly lacking in 5E clerics.

    A reply came back giving a brief summary of this (you get one but you can choose to also get into the second; OR you can choose to forego that second one in exchange for something you prefer for *this* character.)
    So I might lose that second domain which I so very much want. But I only lose it if I choose to do so because I'm getting something I decide to value even more. There is no lose in this.

    Silver Crusade

    MerlinCross wrote:
    Joe M. wrote:
    (Also #3, that we have a pretty long playtest to test the playtest rules and tweak any balance issues before the final PF2 rules! Jason tweeted the other day that they're at the point where they're seeing things they want to change but can't because it's too late for some rules changes ahead of the playtest.)

    I find it kinda weird that they don't want to change something because they want to, but can't because a playtest is going to happen soon, when the playtest is being done to actually see what needs to change.

    I mean it does make sense, don't shake up the rules ahead of the test too much and get some data to see if X needed to be changed anyway. But it's one of those things that still sounds weird when you write it out.

    They need to put their pencils down at some point if there is to be a playtest. (Especially important to lock in the base rules so that adventures and monsters can be built on a non-shifting base!) And when they're laying out a playtest PDF and a physical rulebook for print and distribution, the "pause" has to happen few months in advance.

    I don't know how locked in they are right now, of course. Mark said something recently about how they just got through the hectic layout push. On the one hand, that Jason tweet I referenced. On the other hand, bombs were changed from 2-handed to 1-handed after the preview blog stirred up some comments. So maybe it's at a stage where tiny tweaks are doable but bigger scale changes have to wait. All pure speculation!


    one word...WOOOOOWWW. I want to see the wizard and sorcerer class preview. And if one day its come but i sur yes, the occult class preview and ninja and slayer too.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Anathema just made my day.

    Hell yes.


    Raisse wrote:
    Rules Artificer wrote:
    DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
    edduardco wrote:
    Rules Artificer wrote:

    One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

    Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

    Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.

    Yes but now spell don't autoscale with caster level, so the bigger DC for lower spells levels got balanced with the requirement of heightened. But that still leave us with fewer spells per day, so that stills looks like a nerf.
    They may not autoscale with caster level, but they do start off with higher damage dice than your typical low-level spells. Magic Missile for example throws additional missiles based on how many actions you throw into it. So there's more ways than one to scale lower level spells.

    Lower-level spells not automagically being as potent as your higher-level spells seems fairly obvious and intended to me. That's why they're lower-level spells, and you get more of them.

    2E spellcasters also have actually potent cantrips that do get automatically overcast to your highest level of spells. They still won't be as powerful as your highest-level spells, but they'll be orders of magnitude better than cantrips in 1E were.

    A primary spellcaster that's expended all of their highest-level spell slots should by design fall somewhere right behind martial characters in usefulness, and not merely bad crossbowmen.

    So... at most 3 turns a game, then sit in the back and be worse?

    Do 1E primary spellcasters merely sit in the back and mope once they've expended all their highest-level slots? I don't think so.

    I will admit I should have said it as "all their higher-level spell slots", not "highest-level"; I meant when a spellcaster is reduced to just cantrips.

    You've still got 3 of every spell level below your max (which again, have just as much a chance to "stick" as your most powerful spells), and a number of spell point powers which are effectively spells themselves, and cantrips that actually scale well now.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    John Lynch 106 wrote:
    MerlinCross wrote:
    Here's some homebrew stuff I've been working on that recreates the Rogue makes some changes. Go down to page 6 (labelled page 41) and see how the Ninja archetype I've created has a list of Ninja tricks. Those can be selected in place of a Rogue Talent. It sounds like that's exactly what the devs are doing for their archetypes in PF2e. You can take an archetype, and get a selection of new abilities that you can pick and choose from in a modular manner. A lot like the Qi Gong Jing monk from Ultimate Magic.

    It might just be a slight difference due to the terminology or how it works. But it doesn't feel like "here's a pool you can pick from at each level" it feels like "here's a pool you can pick from at each level AND we're tossing some of your base class in there too".

    I play Rogue because I like Rogue. If I wanted X on Rogue removed, I'd look for Archetype.

    John Lynch 106 wrote:
    MerlinCross wrote:
    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.

    Let's say we looked at classic Pathfinder and we removed the ability to get bonus spells based on your Int mod. We then gave wizards a bonus feat at 1st level. That wizard could a feat to get their bonus spells back due to their Int mod. Or we gave them the option of taking a feat that gives them an improved familiar at level 1. Is that a feat tax?

    In this case, we're losing a "hardcoded ability" and in it's place getting "the choice between what you originally had or a different ability."

    The only reason the word feat tax is being used is because Paizo decided to call everything feats. Had they called them talents I expect this discussion would be over immediately.

    I'm unsure if I would call it Feat Tax but I would call it a Tax of some kind to get back what I had lost. Even under "Talent". If they want to remove X then just remove X. Making me have to buy it back feels cheap.

    John Lynch 106 wrote:
    Give me a widget at 1st level, 3rd level, 5th level, etc that lets me choose sneak attack or something else of equal value and leave every other class feature completely intact? I would be over the moon. Sneak attack is a class feature I'm not 100% a fan of and would happily swap it out for something else of equal value. That's what archetypes do, right? They take a core ability and replace it with something else. We don't call those "archetype taxes"

    Is it something of Equal Value though? It's not? Well then better buy back Sneak Attack and feel like you wasted a Resource to get back something you didn't need to lose to begin with.

    And you're right, we don't call them archetype taxes. But we HAD stuff before the Archetype. It's removing and or swapping. Not removing and Getting it back.

    You lost your shoe, it was taken. The guy then gives you a coin and says you can have the shoe back but can also buy a boot or some other footwear. Well if I don't buy the Shoe back I'm left with mixed matched. Is that good? Maybe? But I would just prefer not to have the shoe taken in the first place.

    Actually, hmm, you do bring up an idea though. If something you pick up with a Class Feat scales, and pick it up later, does it still scale or do you have to pick up "Improved X".

    It was the idea of "Buying Sneak attack" at different levels that made me think that. If I buy a Class Feat, will I have to buy Improved Class Feat at level 10?

    Silver Crusade

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I hope deities have obediences baked into their worship block, I always liked reading those parts.

    As for the feat tax argument, I remember people arguing over having to re-purchase Attacks of Opportunity. Isn't this the same argument?

    EDIT: Have they said how many general feats we get yet?

    Silver Crusade

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Cole Deschain wrote:

    Anathema just made my day.

    Hell yes.

    Since I haven't done much commentary on the actual preview, lemme second this. Anathema seems like an elegant way to clean up all the different sources that might place behavior restrictions on your character. Another good example of where PF2's standardization goal seems to really pay off. I'm hoping we get a bunch of different Anathemas for different classes and concepts (e.g. mixing up the druid and the paladin) but even if not in the playtest this is easy to expand later.

    Second Seekers (Roheas)

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    BryonD wrote:
    Joe M. wrote:


    It's called the Endowment Effect and it's heavily on display in all of these preview threads. People overvalue things they already have and undervalue things that they do not or do not yet have.

    ...

    Yeah. A whole lot of this. Plus a nice side helping of simply "not getting it". Which is unfortunate.

    I made a comment somewhere early on that I would be really disappointed if I couldn't keep my two domain clerics. The combinations make cool variety and I found that distinctly lacking in 5E clerics.

    A reply came back giving a brief summary of this (you get one but you can choose to also get into the second; OR you can choose to forego that second one in exchange for something you prefer for *this* character.)
    So I might lose that second domain which I so very much want. But I only lose it if I choose to do so because I'm getting something I decide to value even more. There is no lose in this.

    Its just distinctly different from say archetypes. With archetypes you are trading all at once. You are never at a point where you dont have the replacements for your missing apples.

    Here it works out about the same but it FEELS very bare, because well...classes are now REALLY bare in their base forms which is a consequence of the "class feat" decision.

    201 to 250 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