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
251 to 300 of 928 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laird IceCubez wrote:

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?

I 2nd, 3rd, and 4th this. I love obediences.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, the glut of spell slots was what drove most casters to the top tier. The unrivaled versatility needed to be reigned in. Not to mention having to manage these many spell lists. It is why I never played a prepared caster.

Now, there are fewer spell slots, some reliable at-will orisons, and better (?) domain powers. That sounds better to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:

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?

I 2nd, 3rd, and 4th this. I love obediences.

I mean I like the idea and also like reading up on the lore and ways of the gods.

But I feel this just makes the Paladin arguments spill over into Cleric now. We'll see how this ends up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some interesting new info here. A lot of teases, but not enough detail for me to form any judgement on the new cleric so far. I'll need to see the spells and feats and domain powers.

Cleric Class Preview wrote:

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.

Did I somehow miss this mentioned in the other class previews? Or is this our first mention of the class granting an ability score boost? I can see the reasoning in doing so, and it'll make players feel more comfortable in picking varied ancestry/class combos. Seems like a good idea I look forward to seeing action.

Cleric Class Preview wrote:

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.

This could be contentious. I'd like to see some examples. I need to see how these can be interpreted, and how easily they can be adapted to gods of other official or homebrewed settings.

Cleric Class Preview wrote:

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.

...
At higher levels, you gain new cleric feats at every even level, except levels 12 and 16, when you increase your spell DCs instead.

Those seem like odd levels to place those bumps. They're concentrated on the higher level side of progression, instead of being more evenly spread out. Any reason for this?

Cleric Class Preview wrote:

We made your number of spells more straightforward by eliminating Pathfinder First Edition's bonus spells granted for having a high ability score.

No more bonus spells from high ability scores. Kinda sad at their loss, they were a nice bonus to have, but I don't think it's a crippling loss. In exchange, we have to rely on other powers. I hope there will be enough of them to compensate. However, that means there are no more classes that have a 0 listed on their spell progression, like Rangers and Paladins, right? Those were always dumb.

Cleric Class Preview wrote:

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.

This seems a like a nice way of handling metamagic with the new action economy. However, this means that metamagic can't be applied to spells that require 3 actions. I believe it' expected that those spells are to be few and far between. Will those spells be complete enough that applying metamagic would have less use anyways? And I guess this also means that the intent is limit only one metamagic effect to most spells, since most of them were said to require 2 actions?


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
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).

This is a well-thought out post, thanks. You pointed out things I had missed, especially your points #2 and #3.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
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.

Indeed. Another mitigating factor is the fact that low level spells remain relevant, because their DC isn't left behind. For example, things like Command, Sanctuary or Stunning Barrier would remain useful at high level (assuming the effects remain similar to those in PF1, which we don't know yet).

John Lynch 106 wrote:
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'm going to pick on this one not because I agree or disagree, but because it's funny. In this whole thread you're probably the one and only person to not frown at the reduced number of spells compared to PF1... Because your first reaction was about how it's greatly increased compared to 4e. Confirmation bias, indeed :-)


MerlinCross: Good news is, you get the concept. Bad news is: You just don't like it.

I have to say I see no practical difference between picking an archetype in PF1 that takes away sneak attack and choosing between a pool if abilities of equal value where sneak attack is one option. The Qi Gong Junk monk archetype is probably one of the most popular because it works exactly like PF2 does.


Laird IceCubez wrote:

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?

The Level Up Blog post says that we get 10 class feats and 10 "other" feats (skill, ancestry, or general), plus maybe a couple extra at first level.

Assuming AoO is a general feat, then it won't count against your Class Feats, but they have also implied that not all classes will have access to AoOs, which makes me think it is a Class Feat.

As far as how these "other feats" are balanced, keep in mind that "+1 fire damage" is an ancestry feat for goblins, so I wouldn't expect anything amazing from your "other feats" (or else they are going to have intentional trap feats again).

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
eddv wrote:
My biggest fear is just that we are going to end up with very same-y builds because inevitably, much like Desna in 1e, one god is going to have better domain accesses than everyone else.

The great thing about starting with only one domain is that choosing the sub-optimal deity doesn't feel like nearly the loss it was in PF1. You get one domain ability that is probably decent, and instead of spending your feats unlocking your other domains, you can spend them on interesting abilities that fit the flavor of your deity choice.

That opens up a lot more deity options as 'viable'.


thflame wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:

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?

The Level Up Blog post says that we get 10 class feats and 10 "other" feats (skill, ancestry, or general), plus maybe a couple extra at first level.

Assuming AoO is a general feat, then it won't count against your Class Feats, but they have also implied that not all classes will have access to AoOs, which makes me think it is a Class Feat.

As far as how these "other feats" are balanced, keep in mind that "+1 fire damage" is an ancestry feat for goblins, so I wouldn't expect anything amazing from your "other feats" (or else they are going to have intentional trap feats again).

Wasn't it that Fighter gets it automatically and other classes have to buy it? If so, probably not a Fighter Class feat if others can grab it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

MerlinCross: Good news is, you get the concept. Bad news is: You just don't like it.

I have to say I see no practical difference between picking an archetype in PF1 that takes away sneak attack and choosing between a pool if abilities of equal value where sneak attack is one option. The Qi Gong Junk monk archetype is probably one of the most popular because it works exactly like PF2 does.

Difference is I'd debate on how useful, good, or theme wise the replaced features are.

Is it good for the options or good because base monk was weak and this is just an improvement? If the Class feats follow the latter than we have a problem.

I get the concept but the example doesn't seem to help the case when most people didn't play base in the first place. Will people play base Cleric now? Will I want to? I actually do want to but if the numbers are just so against me why play it in the first place? My Class feats are better spent elsewhere. It is still a Resource I am actively spending.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
thflame wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:

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?

The Level Up Blog post says that we get 10 class feats and 10 "other" feats (skill, ancestry, or general), plus maybe a couple extra at first level.

Assuming AoO is a general feat, then it won't count against your Class Feats, but they have also implied that not all classes will have access to AoOs, which makes me think it is a Class Feat.

As far as how these "other feats" are balanced, keep in mind that "+1 fire damage" is an ancestry feat for goblins, so I wouldn't expect anything amazing from your "other feats" (or else they are going to have intentional trap feats again).

Wasn't it that Fighter gets it automatically and other classes have to buy it? If so, probably not a Fighter Class feat if others can grab it.

I'm assuming that Class Feats can be on multiple lists. (Metamagic feats are probably Wizard Class Feats and Sorcerer Class Feats, for example.)

Also, it isn't a Class Feat for Fighters, because they get it automatically.

If AoO IS a general feat, then I feel bad for any Goblin PC that picks "+1 fire damage" over AoO.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:

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?

The Level Up Blog post says that we get 10 class feats and 10 "other" feats (skill, ancestry, or general), plus maybe a couple extra at first level.

10 class feats (Levelling Up Blog) + 10 skill feats (Rogue Blog) + 5 ancestry feats (Jason's Game Informer interview) + 5 general feats (Levelling Up Blog + Rogue Blog) seems to be the default.

Silver Crusade

thflame wrote:
If AoO IS a general feat, then I feel bad for any Goblin PC that picks "+1 fire damage" over AoO.

Good news: that's never a choice a Goblin PC would face, since Burn It is a Goblin Ancestry Feat and AOO (if it's a feat) is not an Ancestry Feat. So you'd never be trading those off against each other.


I'm guessing Druids and Paladins will also have anathemas. I'm curious to see how balanced some of these are and what the penalty for breaching it is. Are you just unable to lie, do you loose access to class/domain features, are you just unable to be proficient in it?

Given the apparent increased mileage spells get in PF2 as seen in the spells blog, the number of spells prepared seems reasonable. I guess it will also depend on domain powers and the additional variety that gives you (also sufficient variance between deities).

I'm curious to see how some of the staple buff/debuff spells work in the new system. Also something like Charm person, does that scale to Charm Monster in a higher slot, or does it become Dominate. Maybe the latter is on a critical failed save?

Looking at the metamagic, it seems to me that a number of spells already have metamagic baked into them. Just wondering how worthwhile it is blowing a feat on something like Reach Spell if your go-to spells already do it?

Are specific casting actions uniformly tied to certain spell parameters. i.e. Somatic for melee touch spells, with verbal expanding to ranged touch, Material/Focus expands to AoE?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:


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.

It's still not a nerf it is "different" than PF1. PF2 is a new game therefore it cannot be a nerf, nerfing something requires a change in the games rules and that has not happened.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Felinus wrote:
I'm curious to see how some of the staple buff/debuff spells work in the new system. Also something like Charm person, does that scale to Charm Monster in a higher slot, or does it become Dominate. Maybe the latter is on a critical failed save?

Dear god I hope they do away with "Target Humanoid" and "Target Non Humanoid" one way or another. I'll take the spell slot makes it effect different targets if I have to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Felinus wrote:
Are specific casting actions uniformly tied to certain spell parameters. i.e. Somatic for melee touch spells, with verbal expanding to ranged touch, Material/Focus expands to AoE?

This last one got talked about in last Friday's Paizo Twitch Stream. Yes, those specific additional spell components for those effects seem to be the standard under the new system. One of the devs mentioned how it's also reminiscent of how, in 1E, clerics needed to present their holy symbol to channel. Now, if they wanna cast heal as an AoE, they also need to present their holy symbol.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Toblakai wrote:

It's still not a nerf it is "different" than PF1. PF2 is a new game therefore it cannot be a nerf, nerfing something requires a change in the games rules and that has not happened.

Nah, its still a nerf.

This is another edition of the same game, supposedly after all.

If it ends up being and playing like an entirely different game, 4e style then sure maybe you'll be right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:


If it ends up being and playing like an entirely different game, 4e style then sure maybe you'll be right.

Largely speaking it will play very differently in terms of action economy. I wouldn't doubt that they'll simplify or remove other artifacts of 3rd ed as we get into tactical rules and aoe effects and some such.

I'm waiting till I get my hands on actual playtest material to pass judgment.

In a way if I can still feel comfortable in my cleric in this new edition as previous ones i'll be happy.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, well let's consider this.

The Cleric is akin to the Wizard. If the Cleric gets a maximum of 3 spells per spell tier, the Wizard will probably get a maximum of 3 spells per spell tier.

If the Wizard gets a maximum of 3 spells per tier, then that means the Sorcerer will learn a maximum of 2 spells. One of these spells will be the Bloodline spell. After all, the Sorcerer will be able to cast those spells probably five times per spell tier. Otherwise, Sorcerers will be more powerful and better suited for the game than wizards.

Similarly, Oracles are going to be limited to two known spells per Spell Tier. Otherwise they are far more powerful than Clerics are. Why would anyone want to play a Cleric who gets three spells per tier and only can cast those once each.

Now if they were shifting Clerics and Wizards to be Arcanist-like in casting, which means they MEMORIZE three spells maximum but can cast them in combination five times a day total per tier, then you've got something more versatile and potent. But that's not what they are implying here.

You will not see Clerics casting a wide variety of spells unless those Clerics are running around with Scrolls... which will take Resonance to cast and money to scribe or buy. An effort to lessen the power of the Cleric will result in far less diversity in spells taken because why choose variety when you are instead going to be more likely to use the same two or three spells over and over again?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
I like most of this. I was surprised to see that Channel Energy and Spell Points are not connected. I was expecting them to draw from the same pool. My knee-jerk reaction is "don't like!" because I thought the whole point of Spell Points was to get away from having to track several different resource pools. I'll wait to see how things play out at the table though.
Spell Points are used for abilities unique to their pool and to the class. The spells from channel are essentially more prepared spells per day.

So in order to make them simpler you removed bonus spells per day from wisdom and added them from cha but only as heal/harm spells?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

So....a maximum of three spell slots per spell level? With no bonus spell slots?

That...sucks. Going to reserve judgement for the playtest, but this deflated almost all of my excitement for 2e pretty much instantaneously.


Can't confirm or deny Vancian casting. What I can say is that 5e(which much of 2e seems inspired by) uses very similiar language to what has appeared in the blog posts so far. 5e uses arcanist style casting. Prepare spells to spontaneously cast


Dastis wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
I like most of this. I was surprised to see that Channel Energy and Spell Points are not connected. I was expecting them to draw from the same pool. My knee-jerk reaction is "don't like!" because I thought the whole point of Spell Points was to get away from having to track several different resource pools. I'll wait to see how things play out at the table though.
Spell Points are used for abilities unique to their pool and to the class. The spells from channel are essentially more prepared spells per day.
So in order to make them simpler you removed bonus spells per day from wisdom and added them from cha but only as heal/harm spells?

Not quite. The raw spells per day has gone down some, but the spell points (which are based on Wisdom still, despite the fact that I'd rather it be Charisma-based) allow for the casting of additional, specific spells. They are specifically supposed to be between cantrips (which are auto-overcast to your maximum spell level, remember) and your maximum level spells. Which says to me that they're getting a pretty significant buff over the mostly-crap-except-for-a-few-domains domain powers of 1E.

Then the new heal/harm based channel is effectively the old channel energy made more versatile. You can choose how the healing gets distributed better, and with class feats you can use it to heal more than HP damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:


The Cleric is akin to the Wizard.

Ehhhh not really.

Cleric has always filled this bizzarre design space between beatstick, healstick, and spellstick where it can do one, two or all three with relative ease in different ways.

Wizard has always done these things but only through the use of MOAR SPELLS.

They fill the same niche of dedicated spellcaster but in radically different ways. A cleric in 1st ed. is typically looking for efficient spell management due to the number of highly specialized low impact spells they have. A wizard on the other hand has tons of high impact spells from 1st to 20th and is often more concerned with getting them out faster and harder.

Generally I built my wizards for high speed and high number of spells, go first, drop my mean stuff right away and let the pawns mop up for me. With cleric I had to be a bit more methodical considering what slots to leave open and what spells will have a consistent impact for the actions I'm using.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Elizabeth Zeigler wrote:

So....a maximum of three spell slots per spell level? With no bonus spell slots?

That...sucks. Going to reserve judgement for the playtest, but this deflated almost all of my excitement for 2e pretty much instantaneously.

Don't worry. You can use Wands to make up the difference.

Waaaaiiiiiitt......


Love everything I see here. The additional widgets, the non-spell magical powers that you get access to, the streamlining of spell lists and reduction in sheer volume of spells, the way the feats look set up to expand your ability in various areas. I couldn't be more pleased with the preview.


Elizabeth Zeigler wrote:

So....a maximum of three spell slots per spell level? With no bonus spell slots?

That...sucks. Going to reserve judgement for the playtest, but this deflated almost all of my excitement for 2e pretty much instantaneously.

Keep in mind they jacked up cantrips and osirons which level with you. These will act like the casters xbow. You have an ability pool called spell points (which arent spells, which I know is confusing) its more stuff to do. Finally, DCs level with you also so your 3 slots per level will stay useful all through the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Elizabeth Zeigler wrote:

So....a maximum of three spell slots per spell level? With no bonus spell slots?

That...sucks. Going to reserve judgement for the playtest, but this deflated almost all of my excitement for 2e pretty much instantaneously.

Keep in mind they jacked up cantrips and osirons which level with you. These will act like the casters xbow. You have an ability pool called spell points (which arent spells, which I know is confusing) its more stuff to do. Finally, DCs level with you also so your 3 slots per level will stay useful all through the game.

3 castings of any spell seems pretty weak though. Espically if they tend to be somewhat coming(Hello Heal, Bless, Shield).

Do we know if we can still prepare lower spells in higher Slots?

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dastis wrote:
Can't confirm or deny Vancian casting. What I can say is that 5e(which much of 2e seems inspired by) uses very similiar language to what has appeared in the blog posts so far. 5e uses arcanist style casting. Prepare spells to spontaneously cast

Jason confirmed in his recent Game Informer interview:

Jason wrote:
At its heart, like every system, [the magic system] still works the way you’d expect. If you’re a spellcaster, you can prepare your spells every day so you know what spells you can cast and once they’re cast, they’re gone. We kept what is called Vancian spellcasting. There are still spontaneous spellcasters who don’t quite work that way but are close. They have spells that they know that they can cast from a certain amount of slots.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elizabeth Zeigler wrote:

So....a maximum of three spell slots per spell level? With no bonus spell slots?

That...sucks. Going to reserve judgement for the playtest, but this deflated almost all of my excitement for 2e pretty much instantaneously.

I think a better way to look at it is in terms of efficiency.

At mid to higher levels it's easy to run into "wasted space" when it comes to spells. You have all these 1st to 2nd and sometimes even 3rd level spells taking up space on your sheet. You constantly get more of them as your stats go up but the actual impact they have decreases.

So instead of bothering with that they give you better scaling powers and orisons that will be useful the clerics entire career and a small spell list so you don't end up doing things like writing "Divine Favor x6" on the 1st level spot on your sheet.

The downside to this is that spell list management becomes even more important and the side effect to this is we'll be left with potentially greater lists of spells never to take as our lists can only contain the most impactful and efficient spells we can carry.

Moreover it rather incentivizes cleric (and potentially wizards if they follow the same model) to just not bother and play archers and melee characters as support characters have traditionally never needed very high casting stats to fulfill their role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Felinus wrote:
I'm guessing Druids and Paladins will also have anathemas. I'm curious to see how balanced some of these are and what the penalty for breaching it is. Are you just unable to lie, do you loose access to class/domain features, are you just unable to be proficient in it?

Mark Seifter did describe a paladin falling during the playtest by lying to some NPCs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Elizabeth Zeigler wrote:

So....a maximum of three spell slots per spell level? With no bonus spell slots?

That...sucks. Going to reserve judgement for the playtest, but this deflated almost all of my excitement for 2e pretty much instantaneously.

Keep in mind they jacked up cantrips and osirons which level with you. These will act like the casters xbow. You have an ability pool called spell points (which arent spells, which I know is confusing) its more stuff to do. Finally, DCs level with you also so your 3 slots per level will stay useful all through the game.
Blog wrote:
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.

So yeah, they're called spell points because they're points you use to cast spells that fall outside your class' spells/day progression.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Felinus wrote:
I'm guessing Druids and Paladins will also have anathemas. I'm curious to see how balanced some of these are and what the penalty for breaching it is. Are you just unable to lie, do you loose access to class/domain features, are you just unable to be proficient in it?

Mark Seifter did describe a paladin falling during the playtest by lying to some NPCs.

I'm kidn of curious on how that will work exactly. I've always been a proponent of "don't piss off god" when it comes to clerics but truth be told it always felt a bit handwaved when it came to the actual priests versus paladins.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Looking Good.

I like what is done decoupling Alignment from Channel and making it Deity-specific, which fits better to the lore of Positive/Negative Planes not being strictly aligned. It also sounds amenable to helping people break their heads out of belief that Alignment means there is only 9 moral viewpoints, moving to world where moral distinctions are more varied, while Alignment still stand as universal measurement... each Deity Anathema potentially varying in how they imply 'treading dangerous ground' in regards legal Alignment range. (e.g. "Loyalty to Allies" doesn't necessarily have Alignment implications, yet can, and in different directions, given right circumstances)

Personally, I dislike the strictly binary Channel choice, and think there should be a 3rd option for Channels orthogonal to Positive/Negative Energy at least for specifically appropriate Deities (probably Neutral Deities who exemplify falling outside Positive and Negative... likely a rare minority of Neutral Deities, most of whom are more simply 'average' rather than Self-Righteously Neutral)

Which reminds me, did we get rid of the "Dieties must offer corresponding Alignment Domains" rule, which translated to non-Neutral Dieties were more boring (in terms of choice of Domains)? Re: terminology, it seemed like P1E moved away from "True Neutral" concept, but IMHO that is concise and useful term to retain, while clarifying that True Neutral is subset of broader "Neutral" which also includes NG, NE, LN, CN (as Good and Evil cover their range of Alignments).

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Felinus wrote:
I'm guessing Druids and Paladins will also have anathemas. I'm curious to see how balanced some of these are and what the penalty for breaching it is. Are you just unable to lie, do you loose access to class/domain features, are you just unable to be proficient in it?

Mark Seifter did describe a paladin falling during the playtest by lying to some NPCs.

Relevant information:

Joe M. wrote:

Okay, you can find the Know Direction Paladin clip HERE (starting around 1:14:37). Here's a quick transcript.

Interviewer wrote:
Would I be able to play a Chaotic-Good Paladin of Milani?
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

[Laughs] Boy that Paladin argument. Every single time. People love to get into very vicious debates about Paladin alignment. I’m going to say this. Alignment is still a thing in the game. Paladins still have to pay attention to alignment. That’s still something that’s important to them.

I think the thing that I’m most excited to talk to people about is how we have modified the Paladin’s Code to actually speak to reality and not be so inflexible that the characters are a pain at the table. I can’t tell you how excited I am about how that Code is written to the point.

And this is what I’ll leave you with. A Paladin can lie if he has to. If it will save people’s lives, if it is for the greater good, he can look you straight in the eye and lie. And it’s awesome.

It all comes down to the Code. And you have to follow the Code. The Code is the way that you live. But that Code now actually has guidance and it isn’t just a bunch of strictures that just say, ‘Nope you have to do this! You can never lie, you can never talk to an evil person, you can never’, you know ... There were a whole ton of things that you couldn’t do. Like, ‘Oh, I can’t associate with an evil person’.

Well, that made a lot of stories not work. It’s like, ‘Well, I have to go into Cheliax and I have to negotiate with these people. Drawing out my sword and murdering everyone is not really an option. I have to negotiate with these guys so I guess I’m going to need an atonement after this’ — was never really an acceptable way to run a Paladin.

So I’m really excited about that and I don’t want to spoil any more than that. There’s lots of great stuff about the Paladin but that’s one of the things that I’m most excited about, by leaps and bounds. It is great. I love Paladins and I always have. And this makes them really fun and dynamic to play.

Note, of course, that 'Paladins still have to pay attention to alignment' is NOT the same as 'Paladins can only be Lawful-Good'. Jason might have very artfully dodged the 'Chaotic-Good' part of the question ...


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Elizabeth Zeigler wrote:

So....a maximum of three spell slots per spell level? With no bonus spell slots?

That...sucks. Going to reserve judgement for the playtest, but this deflated almost all of my excitement for 2e pretty much instantaneously.

Keep in mind they jacked up cantrips and osirons which level with you. These will act like the casters xbow. You have an ability pool called spell points (which arent spells, which I know is confusing) its more stuff to do. Finally, DCs level with you also so your 3 slots per level will stay useful all through the game.

As nice as that is, I've always loved having a wide array of utility spells at my disposal. By limiting spell slots, you are directly cutting down that array to a pittance of what it once was. Yeah, cantrips mean more...but I'd rather have more slots. More slots gives you more room for quirky, sub-optimal-yet-fun spells without the feeling that you are hamstringing yourself.

With only three slots, the opportunity cost of taking a fun spell over an optimal one is much greater.

I'm going to withhold judgement until playtest, but it still doesn't change that this puts a MASSIVELY sour taste in my mouth about 2e. I sincerely hope that this plays well, as it certainly sounds absolutely horrible to me with the information given to us.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:


The Cleric is akin to the Wizard.

Ehhhh not really.

Cleric has always filled this bizzarre design space between beatstick, healstick, and spellstick where it can do one, two or all three with relative ease in different ways.

Wizard has always done these things but only through the use of MOAR SPELLS.

They fill the same niche of dedicated spellcaster but in radically different ways. A cleric in 1st ed. is typically looking for efficient spell management due to the number of highly specialized low impact spells they have. A wizard on the other hand has tons of high impact spells from 1st to 20th and is often more concerned with getting them out faster and harder.

Generally I built my wizards for high speed and high number of spells, go first, drop my mean stuff right away and let the pawns mop up for me. With cleric I had to be a bit more methodical considering what slots to leave open and what spells will have a consistent impact for the actions I'm using.

Yes, really.

Look at the Wizard spell progression chart.
Look at the Cleric spell progression chart.

Outside of the fact the Cleric gets +1 to each because of Domain spells, they are identical. Now look at the Sorcerer and the Oracle Spells Known and spell progression charts. Guess what: they are also identical.

Why would the Wizard have a different progression chart than the Cleric? It seems Paizo has come up with this view that there is a "simple" method of progression - two spells of the highest level at the odd level of progression, and one spell and one Class Feat at even levels of progression. It's quick and easy to remember. Hey, it does work. It means you don't need to go to the class chart when learning new spells because you know what you're getting.

Heck, there is even one other area of similarity: Specialist Wizards get +1 spell - of their Specialty School, much like the Cleric Domain spells. Thus Specialist Wizards have a maximum of 4+1 spells per spell level in PF1, before ability score modifiers.

If Clerics are limited to 3 per level? So too will Wizards. Further, come level 20 you are pretty much forced to either take a Feat Tax for those level 10 spells, or you get nothing spellcasting-wise. You end up penalized for choosing NOT to go for that level 10 spell. After all, at level 18 you already maximized out your new spells! (Unless they give a Class Feat for level 19 or have level 10 spells be a General Feat that is - interestingly, level 19 gets absolutely nothing for spells, especially when you aren't going for those level 10 spells.)


MerlinCross wrote:
Difference is I'd debate on how useful, good, or theme wise the replaced features are.

Sure. It will depend on what features are replacing it.

MerlinCross wrote:
Will people play base Cleric now? Will I want to? I actually do want to but if the numbers are just so against me why play it in the first place? My Class feats are better spent elsewhere. It is still a Resource I am actively spending.

Given we don't have the playtest before us I'm assuming they're being replaced with equally good features. If the features aren't, that's something that can be fixed in editing.

MerlinCross wrote:
Is it good for the options

No doubt some of the monks abilities are bad and they always get replaced. But some of them are good and different people disagree on whether to keep the default or replace with an alternate.

gwynfrid wrote:
I'm going to pick on this one not because I agree or disagree, but because it's funny.

Fair enough.

I understand the need to reduce spell slots. Wizards were extremely powerful and could do lots of things because they had more than enough spells to spare. Whether they're getting those spells reduced too far I don't know, and would need to wait for the playtest to say for sure (and that's playing the playtest and not reading the playtest). Of all the things to get upset over, them changing it from "3 spells per spell slot level" to "4 spells per spell slot level" is a pretty easy one. I do know at higher levels casters tend to have spell slots left over by the end of the day.

On the other hand, it could be that spellcasters are perfectly balanced mechanically speaking, but still don't feel like spellcasters. That would involve reducing the power of cantrips and increasing the spell slots per level. But again, that needs playtesting to say for sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, Clerics get ersatz spells as part of their domains, which can be cast quite a bit it seems (your spell point pool starts at your Wisdom, not your WisMod). If Wizards get ersatz spells from arcane schools, would that make up for the "you get 3 slots per spell level, instead of 4"?

Also "Cantrips are good" is going to help a lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:


The Cleric is akin to the Wizard.

Ehhhh not really.

Cleric has always filled this bizzarre design space between beatstick, healstick, and spellstick where it can do one, two or all three with relative ease in different ways.

Wizard has always done these things but only through the use of MOAR SPELLS.

They fill the same niche of dedicated spellcaster but in radically different ways. A cleric in 1st ed. is typically looking for efficient spell management due to the number of highly specialized low impact spells they have. A wizard on the other hand has tons of high impact spells from 1st to 20th and is often more concerned with getting them out faster and harder.

Generally I built my wizards for high speed and high number of spells, go first, drop my mean stuff right away and let the pawns mop up for me. With cleric I had to be a bit more methodical considering what slots to leave open and what spells will have a consistent impact for the actions I'm using.

Yes, really.

Look at the Wizard spell progression chart.
Look at the Cleric spell progression chart.

Outside of the fact the Cleric gets +1 to each because of Domain spells, they are identical. Now look at the Sorcerer and the Oracle Spells Known and spell progression charts. Guess what: they are also identical.

Why would the Wizard have a different progression chart than the Cleric? It seems Paizo has come up with this view that there is a "simple" method of progression - two spells of the highest level at the odd level of progression, and one spell and one Class Feat at even levels of progression. It's quick and easy to remember. Hey, it does work. It means you don't need to go to the class chart when learning new spells because you know what you're getting.

Heck, there is even one other area of similarity: Specialist Wizards get +1 spell - of their Specialty School, much like the Cleric Domain spells. Thus Specialist Wizards have a maximum of...

You've rather missed the point.

That both get the same number is meaningless. As both use their lists in radically different ways. It's like you pointed out that the paladin and barbarian are the same because they like their melee combat and throwing huge numbers at things.

While you are correct about how this will affect playstyle I feel this will impact the wizard a lot more as clerics have traditionally been able to go in directions that require minimum amount of spellcasting to be efficient.

In short you can't ignore the differences and tell someone to look at how one chart of numbers is the same as the other one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Felinus wrote:
I'm guessing Druids and Paladins will also have anathemas. I'm curious to see how balanced some of these are and what the penalty for breaching it is. Are you just unable to lie, do you loose access to class/domain features, are you just unable to be proficient in it?
Mark Seifter did describe a paladin falling during the playtest by lying to some NPCs.

And here is the story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Dastis wrote:
Can't confirm or deny Vancian casting. What I can say is that 5e(which much of 2e seems inspired by) uses very similiar language to what has appeared in the blog posts so far. 5e uses arcanist style casting. Prepare spells to spontaneously cast

Jason confirmed in his recent Game Informer interview:

Jason wrote:
At its heart, like every system, [the magic system] still works the way you’d expect. If you’re a spellcaster, you can prepare your spells every day so you know what spells you can cast and once they’re cast, they’re gone. We kept what is called Vancian spellcasting. There are still spontaneous spellcasters who don’t quite work that way but are close. They have spells that they know that they can cast from a certain amount of slots.

Bleh. Well, I'll keep on never playing clerics/druids/wizards then.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To be perfectly "honest", the mention of Sarenrae being a goddess of honesty and "A Paladin of Iomedae never lies" from that comment, these seem a tad strange to me. Lore-wise I'd never seen either of these deities as having honesty as a big part of their religions.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

True, honesty is typically in Shelyn's portfolio to go with the Truth through Art idea.

Designer

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Rules Artificer wrote:
To be perfectly "honest", the mention of Sarenrae being a goddess of honesty and "A Paladin of Iomedae never lies" from that comment, these seem a tad strange to me. Lore-wise I'd never seen either of these deities as having honesty as a big part of their religions.

Sarenrae's areas of concern as listed in her deity entries are the sun, redemption, honesty, and healing, and her holy text is The Birth of Light and Truth. She's really deeply about honesty, in a "the light of truth clears away the murky shadows of deception" sort of way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Clerics are trained in divine spells,

I am pretty surprised no one is commenting on this nomenclature-- divine spells, not cleric spells. We now officially know the name of one of the fabled four future spell lists! Also, clerics having proficiency in DIVINE SPELLS has interesting implications for multiclassing casters. I'm guessing it won't be like PF1 where all caster levels and spell slots are tracked separately. Cleric levels may very well stack with Oracle levels, or perhaps paladin levels depending on what happens to their casting. At the same time, I'm guessing it won't be like 5e where a cleric 5/wizard 5 has the same spell slots as a cleric 10 or wizard 10. Being specifically trained in Divine Spells as opposed to Arcane spells could be pretty interesting.

There's a lot of people freaking out over stuff they really shouldn't be, like the new heal, having class features turned into class feats, and so forth. Getting rid of bonus spells seems like a good idea. But I will say that reducing the overall number of spell slots HURTS. At the same time, this may be necessary to close the caster martial disparity. The big thing Fighters and Rogues have going for them is that they don't run out of resources. But in order for that to be meaningful in the face of world bending magic, running out of spells has to be an actual danger. My 8th level Oracle never actually ran out of spells that I can recall, and I've rarely seen prepared 9th level casters completely empty their tank either past a certain level. So a high level caster may feel the tightening of their belt, depending on how increased DCs, spell points, improved cantrips, class features, and "full BAB" helps them still feel tactical and relevant. One nice thing though is that low level casters sound like they may have a lot more to do once they run out of spells, thanks to all those things I just mentioned.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:
To be perfectly "honest", the mention of Sarenrae being a goddess of honesty and "A Paladin of Iomedae never lies" from that comment, these seem a tad strange to me. Lore-wise I'd never seen either of these deities as having honesty as a big part of their religions.
Sarenrae's areas of concern as listed in her deity entries are the sun, redemption, honesty, and healing, and her holy text is The Birth of Light and Truth. She's really deeply about honesty, in a "the light of truth clears away the murky shadows of deception" sort of way.

Yeah, seems 100% in line with canon IMHO. Caveated with this isn't strict narrow honesty, but truly acting with conviction honesty. Canon includes Paladins of Sarenrae in official positions in slave states secretly fighting slavery, which pretty much needs room for white lies... which are accorded by Sr. Bulmahn's words on Paladin code.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:


The Cleric is akin to the Wizard.

Ehhhh not really.

Cleric has always filled this bizzarre design space between beatstick, healstick, and spellstick where it can do one, two or all three with relative ease in different ways.

(snipped)

Yes, really.

Look at the Wizard spell progression chart.
Look at the Cleric spell progression chart.

Outside of the fact the Cleric gets +1 to each because of Domain spells, they are identical. Now look at the Sorcerer and the Oracle Spells Known and spell progression charts. Guess what: they are also identical.

(snipped)

You've rather missed the point.

That both get the same number is meaningless. As both use their lists in radically different ways. It's like you pointed out that the paladin and barbarian are the same because they like their melee combat and throwing huge numbers at things.

While you are correct about how this will affect playstyle I feel this will impact the wizard a lot more as clerics have traditionally been able to go in directions that require minimum amount of spellcasting to be efficient.

In short you can't ignore the differences and tell someone to look at how one chart of numbers is the same as the other one.

You are ignoring what I'm saying.

This isn't just about Clerics and Wizards only getting a maximum of three base spells per spell tier.

This is about Clerics and Wizards only getting three spells per spell tier TOTAL.

Before I talked about level 12 Clerics. Now I'll look at your theoretical 12 level Generalist Wizard. She started with an Intelligence of 17. At level 12 she has an Intelligence of 20. She may very well have a Headband boosting Intelligence by +4 at this point, so her Intelligence is in fact a 24, which gives her two extra spells of first, second, and third level, meaning her spell selection is six 1st level spells, six 2nd level spells, six 3rd level spells, five 4th level spells, five 5th level spells, and three 6th level spells. If she were a Specialist? You're bumping all of those up by one. Our Wizard had a total of 31 spells she can cast (or 37 if a Specialist).

Now? She gets 18 spells. Before she may very well have had a wide variety of spells for any occasion because she had that opportunity and capability to expand the spells she has available for whatever might come around. Sure, she might double up on Magic Missile and double up on Mage Armor (or even take an Extended Mage Armor as a 2nd level spell)... but often she'd be taking a variety of spells.

This is the benefit of the Wizard over the Sorcerer who only knows 20 spells at 12th level... which is two spells more than what a 12th level 2nd edition Wizard can now cast.

BTW, these same exact numbers work for the Cleric and the Oracle. The Cleric has the exact same number of spells available as a Specialist Wizard... and under the new edition only can cast 18 spells at 12th level. And you better believe those spells are going to be the ones with most bang for the buck rather than stuff that could potentially be useful and hey if not then that's what Spontaneous Healing is for. Oh wait, no more Spontaneous Healing, you better hope that Cleric pumped either a Feat into Extra Channel or boosted their Charisma up to 18 so that they can use Heal 7 times a day.

I sure as heck don't know what the Playtest Rules will offer for the Cleric, but I know this. Clerics and Wizards just lost a huge amount of diversity in spell selection. They're going to take only the spells they KNOW will be handy.

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

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Another impact of fewer spells prepared is that it's that much harder to prepare for specialized missions. You want to give everyone in the party delay poison because you're fighting troglodytes? Well now you have to spend a higher percent of spells for that since you have fewer. Same with fly, invisibility, etc.

251 to 300 of 928 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Cleric Class Preview All Messageboards