Zorae's page

Honestly, just more variation. The arcane spell list at least feels like there's a variety of choices at each spell level (except for divination wizards). Not so much with the divine list.

Every spell level it's 1-2 offensive damage spells, 0-1 debuff spells, 1-2 heal/cure spells, 0-1 universal utility/buff spells, 1-2 extremely situational spells.

The various playstyles of cleric are all supported by the list: buffer/healer, nuker, debuffer, gish, but the choices all feel very set in stone for them.

At least give them back comprehend languages, give them a few more buff and/or utility spells at each level so there's at least a semblance of choice. Or give Clerics the extra spell slot they had from domains back and give them a new spell at every level. That really helped to round out the old PF1 list.

Zorae wrote:

Dracomicron wrote:

One could argue that dedicated healers are something that should not exist. It's a purely reactive role that doesn't really contribute to the success conditions as much as it is a patch for overly deadly game design.

One would be making a terrible argument then. Might as well do away with tanks or skill monkeys.

Playing a support character is fun for many people and should be a viable playstyle.

Whoa there. I love support characters in Starfinder. The Stamina system doesn't preclude support characters. Envoys are one of the best classes, and their Stamina heals aren't even a mandatory class feature!

Dedicated healers are support characters, but support characters are not all dedicated healers. Support can and should be a full range of activities, of which healing should be one part. Building a character that ONLY heals is essentially giving up: you're accepting that you can't do anything but wait for the damage and then put bandages on the boo-boos. I don't know, but I feel like MMOs have trained a segment of gamers to just accept this fate, but it doesn't need to be that way.

If you can't do much for (and don't need to) the first half of damage taken, then that frees you up to actively participate toward the conclusion of the encounter, which sounds fun for me!

That is so... Unreasonable? That's like saying making a character with lots of damage is essentially giving up on diplomacy. Or that a character that has lots of AC/tanky abilities is giving up on killing things quickly. Just because there's more than one way to navigate combat doesn't mean one is less good than another.

Also, healing is not "giving up". It's a power fantasy just like all the rest, and adds a level of complexity to combat. Wanting to play a high priest going from town to town, healing the sick is just as good of a character concept as a thief trying to land a big heist. And both should be viable to play.

A "dedicated healer" is not someone who ONLY heals, it's someone who is really good at it. I would expect them to also be reasonable buffers and possibly some debuffing if they're feeling wild. Just like how an evocation focused Wizard can do more than just blast things. But there was a huge outcry when blasting things wasn't viable due to the spell nerfs. We didn't tell them "participate in other ways", we asked for it to be a way to meaningfully contribute. And the same should go for characters focused on healing.

Be careful with 'bit of luck'. It's a conditional bonus so it doesn't stack with things like bless or Inspire courage.

Poor Desna went from one of the best dieties to one of the worst :(

Zorae wrote:

I would not want stamina introduced.

The game needs to meet a fine balance of being able to play with some non-dedicated healers, while allowing dedicated healers to feel useful (and not requiring dedicated healers to be just healbots).

I don't think there's a way to make dedicated healers (or non-gish clerics in general) playable with the stamina system as it, by nature, de-emphasizes healing. Especially with how weak buffs/control spells are, there really aren't good things for a dedicated healer to fall back on for 50-70% of the fight.

One could argue that dedicated healers are something that should not exist. It's a purely reactive role that doesn't really contribute to the success conditions as much as it is a patch for overly deadly game design.

One would be making a terrible argument then. Might as well do away with tanks or skill monkeys.

Playing a support character is fun for many people and should be a viable playstyle.

I would not want stamina introduced.

The game needs to meet a fine balance of being able to play with some non-dedicated healers, while allowing dedicated healers to feel useful (and not requiring dedicated healers to be just healbots).

I don't think there's a way to make dedicated healers (or non-gish clerics in general) playable with the stamina system as it, by nature, de-emphasizes healing. Especially with how weak buffs/control spells are, there really aren't good things for a dedicated healer to fall back on for 50-70% of the fight.

Oh wow, the new control weather has no limits/considerations based on the climate your in. You can now flood the desert if you wanted to. I think it's perfect reasonable to bump up the level of it. Even before it's a pretty powerful spell. Not so useful for combat and whatnot, but you could use it to completely ruin a small town if you felt like it. Just pop by and spend 10 min once a day/every other day and keep it in perpetual rain/drought for a while. And that seems pretty strong for a level 13 character. Now you can't just do that on a whim and that's not an issue for me. Not to mention a better version than the previously mythic version of it is available to 9th level casters.

Most of the spells they picked make very reasonable sense as rituals. Atone is definitely something that should take a long time to go through. Raise Dead still exists so it's just neat that now you can do a complicated ritual to bring people back from the dead. All of those "Summon a planar being for help" are definitely thematic as rituals.

Casters really aren't losing out on much power, these things being rituals feel much more thematically appropriate, and it's neat that you don't necessarily need to be a caster to do these things. It opens up a lot of fun "stop the cult from summoning the bad guy" plots". Which were a thing before, but there weren't really any mechanics explaining why it was like that. It also allows for "break up the coven that's cursing us with drought". Which was definitely not a real thing before as it only takes 10min to cast and you had no real reason to stick around long enough to get caught/stopped.

The old Control Weather also was only a radius of 2 miles and lasted for 4d12 hours (unless you were a druid in which case it was 3 miles and double duration). You can also now crit and affect a 5 mile radius for up to 16d12 hours (ridiculous!). It's also interesting to note that you get up to two effects at once. And as a 9th level ritual you can even do impossible combos of things like extreme cold and hurricanes and summon them from any of the lists - that sort of stuff was only achievable by high level mythic play. But it's now available to everyone!

Before you had to put it in a spell slot. A spell that takes 20 min to come online and is super situational. Unless you knew ahead of time what you were walking into, you usually didn't prep that spell. Which means that if you encountered a surprise weather phenomenon, it would take you just as long to do something about it with pretty comparable results (unless it was a Druid).

In PF2 I would absolutely hate devoting one of my very limited spell slots to this. Even if it was the old 20min to take effect spell.

Honestly, this spell specifically makes a lot of sense as a ritual. Even besides all the story/plot reasons for this, it's better for player power fantasies as well as it's not really that big of a nerf.

Zorae wrote:

They should just add a feat that's something along the lines of:

"If you are the only ally within 15ft of an enemy, you consider yourself your own ally for the purposes of triggering your Reaction ability against that enemy"

With the horse being excluded from the requirement if you picked that path.

Now you can charge in alone, get into a duel, or hold something off while your allies escape. If your allies are involved, then you focus on protecting them instead of yourself as protecting people is still more important than killing stuff - it's just not the only thing you can do.

I'd be somewhat okay with that, but it'd be seriously OP. Who wouldn't want a free AoO every time you're attacked?

I don't think it would be that OP, as it requires you to be off by yourself.

A shield Paladin (pre-8), a Paladin in a party with a Rogue/Barbarian, or a ranged paladin would have very little use for it.

It would only be a bit OP if you're locked in a 1-1 duel (which is where you'd expect Paladins to shine) or are the only melee fighter and terrain is preventing the bad guy from leaving the Paladin to go after the squishies - and that seems like a rather rare occurrence as well.

They should just add a feat that's something along the lines of:

"If you are the only ally within 15ft of an enemy, you consider yourself your own ally for the purposes of triggering your Reaction ability against that enemy"

With the horse being excluded from the requirement if you picked that path.

Now you can charge in alone, get into a duel, or hold something off while your allies escape. If your allies are involved, then you focus on protecting them instead of yourself as protecting people is still more important than killing stuff - it's just not the only thing you can do.

Technically Druids are in the same boat with Goodberry.

I would be fine with Alchemists being theoretically better healers than Clerics in this way as 7d6 is less than 9d8+5, so you do less healing in one go. Not to mention that Healing Domain/Healer's Hands would push the Cleric up above the Alchemist for healing (and they could have a staff of heal at that point). And, by doing the three action channel, they do have a potential to do a lot more healing. So I don't think this would make Alchemists strictly better healers than Clerics. Just better than non-invested Clerics (which is to be expected).

I don't think giving them the ability to use their elixirs at range or reducing the number of actions somehow has a risk of making them too OP.

I didn't say "less but more powerful," this is a complete revision of the scale of healing that a Cleric gets in comparison to other spellcasters. The fact that any fully invested character can't ever compare to a non-invested Cleric in terms of healing is a complete joke and is equally unfun and not helpful. This mandates Clerics in every party when they shouldn't be mandated, and it also means that if I throw said Clerics as enemies against the party (because the story requires it, as one example), the slog drags and I actually have a great risk of TPKing the party simply due to the sheer power of Channel Energy.

So no, "Less but more powerful" solves none of those issues, and is not something I said. It's a strawman. Changing the scale is what matters here.

Reducing dice might help steep the power curve, but the fact of the matter is that Clerics are still getting EIGHT 10th level spells for 19D6 healing compared to everyone else whom are lucky to even get a single one of those things for 19D8. There's no contest and no comparison, and that's outright bad, especially when this edition's main goal is to make being a healer less class-based. It's stupidly broken by the endgame, stupidly broken at the beginning of the game (because it's still 6 more spells per day compared to every other class), and it's still overpowered everywhere else.

Even if we do implement the new "D6" rule, that serves as yet another subrule that players need to remember, and last I checked PF2 is meant to simplify and streamline a lot of the system so that for most every character using identical abilities, they use identical rules. If it turns out Clerics heal with D6s instead of D8s because apparently there's no other way to appropriately fix the Channel Energy issue, then Paizo will probably have lost me as a potential customer of their product.

You said "adjust the math to compensate for less Healing". That either means buffing the amount heal does or lowering the amount of damage monsters do. Either way, with the system being proposed that would give low level Clerics less channels than they have pre-nerf but they'd be more powerful. Which is not really fun for the reasons I listed.

Leaf order druids get their Wis mod in Goodberries and can take feats to increase their spell point pool. It's not an action efficient way of healing, but it definitely is better than an uninvested Cleric. Not to mention they can easily pick up a decent animal companion to give them something other than "Healbot' to do. Paladins are the go to multiclass to make healing viable as they now get more channels than Clerics do. Sorcerers get 10 extra spell slots that might not match the healing volume of Clerics, but if spells get buffed to not be useless, then the versatility might actually be more powerful. And if you're an uninvested Cleric, it's doubtful that you're going to get your Cha all the way up to a 20.

The real issue is the power disparity between a fully invested Cleric that takes Healing Hands and the Healing domain, a mostly invested Cleric that has a good cha but no Healing Domain, and a 12-14 Cha battle cleric that just wants to be able to off heal. Pre-nerf the fully invested Cleric was off the charts, the mostly invested Cleric was somewhat able to function as the party healer, and the battle cleric had an expected amount of healing but is actually pretty weak (as the Class itself is weak). They need to make sure that when they nerf the optimized way of playing, they don't make it the only way of playing. The system proposed does a better job than the nerf did, but it still makes low levels unplayable for non-optimized Clerics.

Not sure how changing heal to do D6s is confusing. Lay on Hands, Soothe, and Goodberry all do D6s now, Heal is the only one that doesn't.

Zorae wrote:

I like the idea in theory. But it would make low level Clerics absolutely unfun to play.

It would make them even worse than the current Cha to channels right now. I don't think it would be at all viable to play as the only healer with this change at low levels. You would need someone to help you out.

I'd prefer the extra heal slot per spell level along with all Clerics getting the option to convert spell points into channels. This would give low level Clerics the ability to heal and contribute buffs, and (assuming domain powers are buffed) wouldn't be as needed at higher levels as I assume you'd actually want to use your domain powers then. But you'd still have something to fall back on if push came to shove.

The math can be changed to compensate for the lack of healing, the issue as it stands is that Channel is too strong and required of a feature, making it mandatory for all adventuring parties, and too strong to use for encounters. Another problem is that if we change the math on one section (as you eloquently demonstrated with reducing channels but not changing math), the other section becomes way out of wack.

In addition, Wisdom has little value to Clerics since more Charisma means more channeling, and that needs to change.

The thing is, I wouldn't want "Less but more powerful channels". That's not really helpful. Unless you want the 5 minute adventuring day to come back. And for low level Clerics to ignore people going down because they've only got 2-3 heals and they need to count.

I'd much rather they give Clerics back the number of channels they had (although not tie it to Cha as I agree that is ridiculous), but make them (and the related feats) d6s instead.

I like the idea in theory. But it would make low level Clerics absolutely unfun to play.

It would make them even worse than the current Cha to channels right now. I don't think it would be at all viable to play as the only healer with this change at low levels. You would need someone to help you out.

I'd prefer the extra heal slot per spell level along with all Clerics getting the option to convert spell points into channels. This would give low level Clerics the ability to heal and contribute buffs, and (assuming domain powers are buffed) wouldn't be as needed at higher levels as I assume you'd actually want to use your domain powers then. But you'd still have something to fall back on if push came to shove.

Zorae wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

By the rules text of the Material Casting action, yes, if all they intend to do with it is use it for a single Material Casting action. You can explicitly retrieve, manipulate, and stow a material or focus component as part of that action.

A holy symbol must be held in one hand to use it, yes. And once you have retrieved it (as part of the Material Casting action), you are in fact holding it in one hand.

EDIT: On the Emblazon Symbol thing: Now that it isn't a feat anymore, is there anything that explicitly says that a shield can't be a holy symbol? Or that you can't, for example, wrap the chain of your holy symbol around your sword so that you can hold both at once?

I'm not sure if I agree with that interpretation. It makes sense for material components that you just grab something out of a bag off your waist for (as the materials are used upon use). The amount of effort to do that is similar to other single actions.

But it makes no sense that a Bard can do all that with a single action but otherwise it takes three actions to retrieve, use, and stow a magical item.

I'm pretty sure that the text calling out "when held" or "while holding" is intended to mean "held beforehand as a separate action". Otherwise it doesn't make sense, nor is there a reason to bring up the "held" status in the text as "can use in place of material components" would be it.

Material Casting says "you retrieve and manipulate either a material spell component or a spell focus ... If you manipulate a focus, it is not spent, and you can stow it again as part of this action if you so choose. "

It then has special sections for Bards, Clerics, and Druids that all amount to the same wording: "If you're holding an appropriate focus, you can replace any material component the spell requires by using the focus. In that case, you don't have to have a free hand to take this action."

That's the point that doesn't make sense. Material Casting requires a free hand to grab a material spell component and then stow it afterwards.

If you're counting the "holding an appropriate focus" as part of that action, then why does it say "you don't have to have a free hand to take this action" ??? There's no way to remove that requirement if you're drawing it as part of the material component. Therefore, the only reason it would need to specify not requiring a free hand is if intended for your hand to be occupied by the focus beforehand. And thus you don't need a free hand.

By the rules text of the Material Casting action, yes, if all they intend to do with it is use it for a single Material Casting action. You can explicitly retrieve, manipulate, and stow a material or focus component as part of that action.

A holy symbol must be held in one hand to use it, yes. And once you have retrieved it (as part of the Material Casting action), you are in fact holding it in one hand.

EDIT: On the Emblazon Symbol thing: Now that it isn't a feat anymore, is there anything that explicitly says that a shield can't be a holy symbol? Or that you can't, for example, wrap the chain of your holy symbol around your sword so that you can hold both at once?

I'm not sure if I agree with that interpretation. It makes sense for material components that you just grab something out of a bag off your waist for (as the materials are used upon use). The amount of effort to do that is similar to other single actions.

But it makes no sense that a Bard can do all that with a single action but otherwise it takes three actions to retrieve, use, and stow a magical item.

I'm pretty sure that the text calling out "when held" or "while holding" is intended to mean "held beforehand as a separate action". Otherwise it doesn't make sense, nor is there a reason to bring up the "held" status in the text as "can use in place of material components" would be it.

Wrong again. The Material Casting action specifically includes "retrieve and manipulate" the material component or spell focus. You can even stow it again as part of the same action.

Then why do they specify:

"Because you’re a cleric, you can usually hold a divine focus (such as a religious symbol or a religious text) as part of your Material Casting and Somatic Casting actions, so you usually don’t need spell components or another hand free"

If you can already get it out with a free hand, why would it mention the need to hold it?

And the description of holy symbol says:

"A religious symbol must be held in one hand to use it."

Why does it state that (and nothing similar for Material component pouch) if you're not intended to actually be holding it?

And it all reads very similarly to the way bards use their instruments as material components. You aren't telling me that they can pull, play, and stow their lute as part of a single action are you?

Tridus wrote:

The new version works fine right up until you hit a Material component, at which point you need a free hand. And since AoE Heal is three actions, you don't have the actions to free up a hand and cast it in the same turn.

I keep seeing people making this mistake, and I understand the confusion, but I am getting tired of pointing it out. :P

Releasing your grip from an object is not an action. Only increasing your grip is an action. So at the very least, a cleric with a two handed weapon has no problem; they can release a hand for free, then cast, then regrip on their next turn if they need to.

Sword and board clerics DO have this problem, though, which is a bit problematic because that is the most iconic cleric.

Although there is a silly workaround: You know those funny wrist-grips that Nintendo controllers have? Get one of those for your sword. Free action to drop sword, cast AoE heal, single action to grab your sword again next round. :P

No, letting go of the sword only fixes the old issue with the Somantic casting.

Without Emblazon Symbol you let go and then you have to get out your holy symbol and then wait a turn because it takes an action to get the holy symbol out, then 3 action, then next turn spend an action putting the holy symbol away and an action adjusting your grip.

Tridus wrote:

I get that Emblazon Symbol's removal was meant to be helpful, but a weird side effect of it is that it's now impossible to cast the AoE Heal without a free hand, whereas before it was possible... so as a healer that's also a nerf.

Clerics and Druids no longer need a free hand to use Somatic components. All Clerics have Emblazon Symbol for free, basically.

Emblazon Symbol removed the need for material components as well. Now nothing does that. If you have your hands full you have to do a weird 3 turn shuffle of items to 3 action channel.

3+Cha did not push Clerics over the other healers.

3+Cha + Healing Hands + Healing domain did. Which is kinda the point of taking those things (although admittedly it was vastly superior to what the other classes could do).

Otherwise you did just about as much as the old Goodberry healing.

This also shafts my 14 Cha caster cleric that was just barely keeping the party alive because I wanted to focus on non-healing feats.

And I love how they "helped" 2 handed and sword+board Clerics with the Somantic casting buff and removing Emblazon Symbol. So instead of a feat tax to 3 action channel - you have to let go of your weapon/drop your shield and get out your holy symbol, do the three action heal the next turn, and then put your symbol away and readjust your grip/pick your shield back up. But hey, no feat tax for 1-2 action channels right?

Zorae wrote:

I actually really dislike the Divine Spell list.

At least the Arcane and Occult spell lists feel like you have relevant choices to make when picking spells. Just about every divine spell level has 1-2 damage spells and 1 of a heal, buff, or universally useful utility spell.

I'm not taking See Invisibility as a second level spell because I want to, but for lack of better options. For third level I'm grabbing Fireball (from Sarenrae), Heroism.... And I guess another Heroism? I don't even know what I'd take if I was a non-Sarenrae Cleric (Searing Light is awful). Maybe Dispel Magic or Blindness if I was a battle cleric?

And every spell level feels like that. There just aren't a variety of good spells to pick from on the list.

well, clerics in Core books never had great attacking spells.

There are still enough spells imo that are meaningful to prepare.

stuff like enervation, spiritual weapon, circle, restoration, heroism, darkness, silence, bless, fear, command, sanctuary etc all in early levels.

I don't want more attacking spells. I want an actual variety of choice. Most of the things you listed are the only good spells at the levels they're at. They're the only spells to take.

Except Silence which is hot garbage now, circle is uncommon, Darkness (which has never been a good spell), and honestly I haven't seen a use for restoration yet (10 min cast time?) Although that's probably because we haven't encountered any conditions that don't go away quickly yet (maybe at higher levels it's more of a thing?). Plus, I'd rather just pick up a scroll or wand of that instead.

I want Comprehend Languages, Hold Person, Daylight (seriously, Darkness but no Daylight???), Prayer, Divine Favor, Tongues, Obscuring Mist! Those are all Core spells that were really good and helped add in some additional choices you could make. Domains used to give you an extra spell at every spell level, which really helped round out the list of things you could cast (assuming you weren't a boring healing domain cleric). Now you only get 3 more spells so the lacking spell list is much more painful.

I actually really dislike the Divine Spell list.

At least the Arcane and Occult spell lists feel like you have relevant choices to make when picking spells. Just about every divine spell level has 1-2 damage spells and 1 of a heal, buff, or universally useful utility spell.

I'm not taking See Invisibility as a second level spell because I want to, but for lack of better options. For third level I'm grabbing Fireball (from Sarenrae), Heroism.... And I guess another Heroism? I don't even know what I'd take if I was a non-Sarenrae Cleric (Searing Light is awful). Maybe Dispel Magic or Blindness if I was a battle cleric?

And every spell level feels like that. There just aren't a variety of good spells to pick from on the list.

Channel itself is really not that strong. It's the healing domain+healing hands feat that really pushes it into ridiculous territory. A high-ish Cha Cleric that isn't focused on healing gets about the same amount of healing as a Leaf Order Druid that took the feat to increase the number of focus points they have.

I would much rather nerf the healing domain and healing hands feat slightly, while also giving Druids/Bards/Sorcs/etc some more 'healing' class features. Because nerfing Channel outright really hurts battle clerics (who are already struggling) and will instead force all Clerics to focus on Healing - which is definitely not good.

Please do not make wands invested items. Don't punish people who want to use wands by not allowing them to wear as many magic items.

C definitely. Mostly for specific utility/buff stuff.

Also, can we get a better spell selection? Especially for the Divine list?

Just hit level 3 with my Cleric and discovered that there are no good 2nd level utility spells. Mostly because Silence has been nerfed to hell. I went with Soundburst for some AoE and See Invisible because honestly that's really my only decent option (maybe Remove Fear as my other one at 4 as Frightened is irritating?).

The others are all 'Fix it' spells that are better suited to Scrolls or resting and praying for it. Or very specific utility like Endure Elements or Water Breathing.

Please give Clerics back the ability to Comprehend Languages, or make Silence a usable spell again, or give them something else useful to cast at that level.

And fix the other levels as well. I'd prefer to prep 1 damage and some combination of an important 'Fix it', a buff, or a universal utility and then occasionally give up one of those for more situational spells. Right now most of the levels only have damage and one of the buff/heal/utility spell.

+1 for unburden to remain a heritage feature.

I also am displeased that "standard gnomes" get "discerning smell" which is pretty weak.

It's not mentioned anywhere in PF2, but a good trick as a PF1 prepared caster was to not prepare all your spell slots. Then, if you got into a situation you didn't prepare for, you could spend 10min to prep the needed spell.

Again, it's not mentioned anywhere in PF2... But it's also not mentioned that you have to prep all your spells either. If you have a lenient GM they may allow it.

Doing stuff where you can combine components of different types into a single action would make metamagic all wonky.

I mean, it already kinda is because it gives an extra free action components but a new rule like that would make it worse imo.

Charlatan - Dex or Cha, You gain Charming Liar, and some sort of Lore
Guard - Str or Con, Some sort of feat, and Guard(?) Lore
Knight - Str or Con, Ride, Chivalry Lore
Spy - Dex or Cha, Dubious Knowledge, Subterfuge Lore
Cat Burglar - Str or Dex, Cat Fall or Defensive Climber, Underworld Lore

Zorae wrote:

Also, the animal domain in PF1 granted Clerics a reduced animal companion ;) Although I understand not wanting to do the same in PF2.

I'm perfectly aware of that but I was referencing 2nd edition when I said that multiclassing into an appropriate archetype was required for a Cleric to have an animal companion.

It's not necessarily my view but it appears to be Paizo's view that each class is supposed to have very specific niches and they should not be accessible to all.

Best example of that is Ranger: Hunted Target and Twin Takedown are nice but they're required to make a Ranger work, currently.
Paizo wants TWF and archery Rangers and that's all.

That's not what I want personally but I was trying to match the current playtest philosophy in suggesting a new feat that could be introduced "as is" and would not conflict with the apparent idea that each class has their own very specific things which others should not be able to get.

Blasting seems to be one of the things that Paizo means to be Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard-only.
These three classes are the only ones that have feats that help directly with that (Storm druid order feats, Dangerous Sorcery, Overwhelming Spell...).

Druids don't really get much in the way of directly helping them blast. Most of the storm order feats just increase the number of Blast Spells they can cast with their Spell Points. Not too different from Clerics picking up Advanced Domain for domains with offensive abilities or the feats to improve/expand the damage of heal/harm. Although I think that's more of an argument against Druids than for Clerics ;)

The Devs have stated that this is only a portion of the class abilities they expect to have in the final version. It may be that they wanted to test the more unique abilities of some of the classes rather than some of the similar abilities.

Clerics do have a niche but it's always been:
Healing/Buffing Allies
Harming/Debuffing Enemies
"Warpriest"
Undead stuff (maybe evil outsider stuff)
Holy Blaster

PF2 Rangers are actually:
TWF
Archery
Crossbows
Animal Companion
Survival/Tracking/Monster Knowledge
The new Snare thing

It's about the same number of niches/roles with varying amount of support for them.

This seems like an oversight to me. How is my Cleric supposed to read ancient tomes about various religions in old languages? Or bring their Religion to other cultures with a different language. It should, at the very least, have Tongues as Truespeech is a pretty common ability of most Good Outsiders.

Zorae wrote:

This is Blaster Cleric erasure.

Clerics who want to be blasters (clerics of Sarenrae I presume) are welcome to multiclass into an appropriate archetype for this feat.

The arcane and primal spell lists have strong innate blasting spells which they do not share with the divine and occult spell list.
There is a reason for that: Bards and Clerics are not meant to be blasters.

Sure, you should definitely be able to build such character if you want to; but you should not have access to the feats that are specifically designed for blasting from a selection of your own class feats.

While the evocation Wizard is something quite common in fantasy, I'm pretty sure most people do not picture a mage throwing out fireballs when they hear the words "cleric" or "bard".

I want it to be possible to build a blaster cleric or bard.
I think it should require multiclassing because blasting is not one of their core roles to begin with.

It's just like Druids, Rangers and animal companions: what if I want to be a Cleric and have an animal companion?
Well, I have to take an appropriate archetype because it is not meant to be a primary class feature for my Cleric. :)

I very much disagree. Calling down your God's divine wrath on heathens is totally within the image of Cleric.

There is about 1 direct damage spell per spell level for most of the Cleric Spell list (even before getting into the additional spells granted to Sarenrae Clerics). Harm, Searing Light, Divine Wrath, Flamestrike, and Blade Barrier are all part of the Cleric's spell list. Clerics probably shouldn't be the best blasters, but this seems like really basic functionality needed by anyone trying to be a blaster and shouldn't require multiclassing for them imo.

Also, the animal domain in PF1 granted Clerics a reduced animal companion ;) Although I understand not wanting to do the same in PF2.

Hey, let's make it a 4th-level feat for Wizards, Sorcerers and Druids:

Empowering Magic (Feat level 4)
Traits: Metamagic, Druid (or Sorcerer, or Wizard, as appropriate)

You gain the Overcast power which you can cast at the cost of 1 Spell Point. Increase your Spell Point pool by 1.

Overcast (Power level 2)
Casting: Somatic Casting free action
Trigger: You cast an evocation spell that deals acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage.

You cast the triggering spell as if it were heightened to the highest spell level you can cast.

Now I really want this in the game.
Here's hoping Mark is lurking around this thread. :D

This is Blaster Cleric erasure.

That may be a bit too strong. Maybe highest level -1 or -2 to not make it unreasonable and to make sure high level spells can keep the damage they have rather than needing to be lowered to compensate for being cast more often. Otherwise I like it.

First off, 1st and 2nd levels blasts did not age better in PF1.

No, first level blasts didn't age well. Burning Arc and Scorching Ray scaled pretty darn well into the medium-high levels in PF1. I know my 11th level blaster wizard still uses Burning Arc all the time when I want to contribute without overshadowing the rest of the party (because we're playing Kingmaker where spell slots aren't usually an issue). Honestly, my Wizard's main go to spell for real fights is Fireball with my 4th/5th level slots for Emergency Force Sphere, Dimension Door, and Teleport (with a single Fire Snake).

I don't think Colette has done anything to break RAW. But they definitely aren't following RAI, simply making them not what they assume to be 'the average gm style'.

The rules should be loose enough to play whatever style you want - but made clear what the 'expected' way of running monsters should be in order to keep the game at 'average' difficulty. I think the rules accomplish that balance well as they are now.

While we're at it, can we please get back to fixed DCs for things like jumping pits? Jumping a 5' pit should be an objective DC that doesn't give a flying flip what level/stat block/feats you are.

That is pretty much a static DC. It's listed under the Long Jump use of athletics:

You Stride, and if you move at least 10 feet, roll an Athletics check in an attempt to Leap horizontally in the same direction. The DC of the check is equal to 5 plus the total distance in feet you’re attempting to move during your Leap (so Leaping 20 feet would require a DC 25 check). You can’t Leap farther than your Speed. This DC might be increased or decreased due to the situation, as determined by the GM.

I assume they mention of increase/decrease is for situations where you wanted to jump from something slippery/rickety or land on something narrow.

Not mathematically double but you have one player controlling two creatures that each have 2 actions. I think it would be better to eliminate the action needed to direct the AC, and let the player have 3 actions 2 of which can be used by the AC. That way 1 player 3 actions. Getting two first attacks in melee is a pretty big bump, but it's not about power its about one player getting demonstrably more table time than other players, its a real disatisfier.

That would make animal companions absolutely terrible though. They shouldn't limit the player to only taking 1 action if they want to reasonably control the animal companion. Especially since most spells are 2 actions.

It's only 1 extra action. It's really not too much of an increase in table time, and it's much better than it used to be now that animal companions only have 2 actions instead of the full 3+ attacks they had in PF1.

I personally don't enjoy it, but to each their own.

I will say that it doesn't seem to be more of an issue than it was in PF1. You could do the exact same thing in that version. And being low on HP was definitely more deadly than it is in PF2.

Also, with spells being as nerfed as they are, a lot of other deadly things are much less deadly.

I made the mistake of comboing Black Tentacles with Stinking Cloud when GMing a highish level caster for the first time. I felt really really bad about it afterwards because I hadn't considered the implications before doing that. Luckily only one person died, but it was very much almost a TPK.

What I mean to say, PC's not dying at 0 HP is an arbitrary PC advantage and makes the entire game lack one more step of verisimilitude. IMO, monsters and NPC's should be affected by the same dying rules as PC's. In which case, since magical healing is known to exist and now easily exists at a range of 30 feet, opponents would be more prone to finishing off downed PC's.

I think they should too. But, most people can't use healing magic. And it's doubtful things like wild animals/secluded monsters have ever encountered it.

Unless the enemies know that the group has a healer in it (either by experiencing said magic or making some sort of knowledge check to recognize a holy symbol or something), then stopping to finish someone off is inefficient as they will not get back up without magical healing.

Zorae wrote:

I think it's less "we shouldn't need a healer" and more "We shouldn't need a specific a dedicated healer that does literally nothing but heal" and "The Healer shouldn't have to save all their resources for out of combat Healing instead of doing cool things in combat".

Because blowing limited resources for out of combat Healing isn't fun. Saving people in combat is great and part of the fun/power fantasy of being a healer. Being the party's CLW wand isn't.

Could you imagine if detect magic wasn't a cantrip? Or if a fighter could only repair their shield one time per day? Or if you were only allowed to shoot x arrows per day?

I get that, but I never felt that way about Pathfinder. With Clerics getting Channels, and the proliferation of magic items via item creation feats (wands/potions/scrolls), I feel there is plenty of available out of combat healing. It just might cost you more. You cant choose not to have a type of character in the group and then complain about the gaps, imo. I definitely do not subscribe to the philosophy group make-up shouldnt matter.

Detect Magic wasnt a cantrip, back in the day (there was no such thing!). Buy/Create a wand of it via group loot if that was the case.

In PF1 it wasn't really an issue. Because out of combat Healing was so prevalent and eventually became as negligible as arrows are for archers. I played a 11+ game where our only healing was my summoner summoning things with healing abilities+umd wanding people. It was incredibly difficult/stressful - but still doable.

In PF2 out of combat healing has become vastly limited by resonance (which is still a thing until it gets changed) and the nerfing of wands to only 10 charges; and in combat damage has spiked due to the extreme nerfing of control spells, multiple actions available from low levels, and the new crit mechanic. The lack of out of combat healing before treat wounds made a healbot character necessary to avoid single encounter days.

Maybe treat wounds swings too far the other way, but some sort of out of combat healing that isn't heavily tied to class resources is definitely needed to make the game more fun. And I think it's a step in the right direction.

Otherwise, you have an absurd situation wherein a PC reduces an enemy to 0 hit points or fewer, only for the GM to step in and say, "But does your PC really know that the enemy is dead? You had better spend an action and a Medicine check to find out, or else you cannot be sure whether or not that enemy will pop back into the fight!", when it is plainly obvious to both the players and the GM that the enemy is staying on the ground.

But they only pop back up if there's an enemy healer. So you can usually get away with moving on and not caring if they're dead or not.

I know there were plenty of times in PF1 where I made sure to deselect monsters from my channel because it was unclear whether they were dead or not. Same with PF2 (although it was more of a hesitance to channel as I have not played with selective yet). I've also definitely spent time in both versions stabilizing enemies that I was unsure of the status of when playing "don't kill people unless necessary" characters.

The only difference is that in PF1, with negative hit points, there were a plethora of enemies that turned to "fine red mist" in the higher levels of play (hit below x2 neg con) due to the damage output at those levels.

BPorter wrote:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

If anything i think it is too weak and it still takes too long to fully heal the party after a fight, in a rushed dungeon this might aswell be forgotten.

Well, will give it sometime before i judge it, could be it works better than it looks, but if anything to me right now it still doesnt look strong enough.

If anything less than "full strength before every fight" is "too weak", why even call it Treat Wounds or Medicine? At that point just call it "health bar regen" that occurs after every fight and call it a day.

I agree. I also get that's a play style choice and ultimately there is going to be a group of people who "lose out" on this debate.

So, what I am about to say isn't a condemnation of one playing style over another (to each their own), just an honest inquiry...

I'm curious where the "we shouldn't need a healer" movement comes from. Is it the younger crowd, accustomed to video game-esque mechanics where everything rapidly replenishes? I feel as if older generation players (with roots in 1E or maybe 2E) are less likely to feel that way. I might be wrong, I have no real data to back this thinking aside from other 1E/2E people I talk to who don't seem to mind the need for a dedicated healer (or a spread of classes that give you the same thing).

I think it's less "we shouldn't need a healer" and more "We shouldn't need a specific a dedicated healer that does literally nothing but heal" and "The Healer shouldn't have to save all their resources for out of combat Healing instead of doing cool things in combat".

Because blowing limited resources for out of combat Healing isn't fun. Saving people in combat is great and part of the fun/power fantasy of being a healer. Being the party's CLW wand isn't.

Could you imagine if detect magic wasn't a cantrip? Or if a fighter could only repair their shield one time per day? Or if you were only allowed to shoot x arrows per day?

I really love all of the changes. Heal Wounds, the Alchemist changes, and making bloodline powers not mandatory (although I'm sad there weren't any additional feats at those levels created) are all really wonderful.

I do wish that archetypes would only require a 14 in the stat rather than a 16 because sometimes it's really difficult to have that much at lower levels. And all it does is punish you sub 5 and force a retrain.

I also really dislike that you only count as half your level for the purposes of meeting MC feat prerequisites. My gnome Cleric wound up picking up Cavalier dedication because we all became emotionally attached to the pack pony (I blame bulk for this). And I was super excited for the Druid MC coming out because it's really more thematically appropriate for my character... But the MC Druid animal companion is worse than the Cavalier mount. It doesn't get nimble/savage until 16 and can never get a specialization. I also vote for half your level or level-4, whichever is higher. Or at least a level 16 Dedication feat to let you pick a level 10-16 class feature.

You guys are so silly calling the PF1 Ranger a "complicated class that lacks cohesiveness". They're just Druid/Fighter hybrids with some "nature warrior" thematics (tracking/survival/hunting particular prey) thrown on. Just like how Paladins are Cleric/Fighters with some "holy warrior" thematics (smiting/holy weapon/divine horse) thrown on.

I do think that if they're trying to make them a chassis for a Slayer type class then that's a pretty poor decision. They should go back to their "nature warrior" concept and the whole Slayer schtick of focusing one target should become an archetype like Cavalier.

I'd prefer seeing them getting Spell Points to use on some ability along the line of "buff a single weapon or natural attack" that represents a combo of gravity bow, lead blades, and magic fang. As that was really the signature Ranger thing IMO. Then there can be additional feats to add more things you can do with it (and more points) - Bonus to monster knowledge check, some sort of energy resistance or AC buff, some sort of tracking/nature thing.

Zorae wrote:

I think the issue could definitely be solved if Angelic Sorcerers got a better level 1 bloodline power. A self only +1 AC is just really pathetic.

If it did some form of unique healing or even just a buff for other members of the party - then they'd at least have something to put them on much more reasonable footing and make them feel much better.

When it auto-heightens to 3rd it becomes pretty nice?

That's a pretty long time to wait for something "pretty nice" lol. Plus, it's still a 10 ft aura around yourself - meaning you have to be up near combat with your limited armor and health to let the front liners get the benefit.

I just wish it was more helpful at level 1 and didn't encourage a gish playstyle (many of the other bloodlines are much better at it).

I think the issue could definitely be solved if Angelic Sorcerers got a better level 1 bloodline power. A self only +1 AC is just really pathetic.

If it did some form of unique healing or even just a buff for other members of the party - then they'd at least have something to put them on much more reasonable footing and make them feel much better.

Zorae wrote:

Sorry, "flat out impossible with standard point buy in PF1" as that was the thing being discussed.

I don't recall the debate ever being limited to standard point buy.

Please don't be obtuse:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Low stats in (points buy) PF1 weren't real handicaps.

So is dump-stating a fun challenge or do you just want to be able to min/max some more?

I, for one, am really happy dump stats are gone and that the attribute process is what it is. Now I can make a gnome Cleric with 18 wis and 16 cha with only needing to leave my str at an 8 (and still having a 12 dex and 14 con!). That stat array for a gnome is flat out impossible in PF1.

The "standard" may not have been implied, but we were clearly talking about point buy.

It's the point buy I play with the most.

I don't play PFS or with most DM's. As such, what happens in them has no bearing on much of anything. I doesn't affect what s a legal option.

That's nice for you. But the Core Rulebook states that 15 point buy is the standard value and PFS (the organized way of playing) uses 20 point. 25 is not "Standard Point Buy" and 30 point buy isn't even listed in the rule book as an option.

I very rarely see people go for a 20 stat with a 25 point buy. The 'normal' buy is 2 16's bumped to 18 with racials and a 14 buy in Con. Pretty much the only 20's were with oracles and they'd have done that with a 20 buy so I don't see a big difference.

It's much harder to get that 20 and secondary to reasonble mods without dumping something in 20 point buy. And I'm fairly sure it's impossible to do without dumping if you want the 20, secondary, and con at reasonable numbers in 20 point buy (probably would need multiple dumps even). Most of the SAD casters (Wizards, Sorcerers, etc) want to go for the 20 to pump their DCs as high as possible.

So by these numbers, a Cleric using nothing but Channel can pump out more healing than an Alchemist, Bard or Paladin specced for healing and ties with a Druid - and the Cleric still has all of their other class features and spells left.

THIS is why I've been saying Channel Energy is excessive, and massively contributes to the "Cleric problem". And I assume those numbers are without the Healing domain...

No, that's with the healing domain and the first level feat (which Clerics don't actually get at level 1 so this is wrong for that level) to add an extra 1d8 to all heal spells. Without those, the Cleric is much closer to the druid overall - still better, but not by much. If the Druid actually had some sort of healing focused feat, then they'd also be pretty on par with the cleric.

These are also the min/max values rather than the average values which are pretty skewed. The level 2 heal spell for Clerics that take the level 1 feat heals for 3d8+4 - max of 28, avg of 17.5 . The level 2 Goodberry Druids have makes 2 1d4+4 berries - max of 24, avg of 16. That's only a 1.5 point difference if you consider the average rather than a 4 point difference in the max.

Edit: Ah, you mean the channel specifically. Well, if you aren't a healing domain cleric you don't really do much more healing on top of that. Just your handful of spell slots. The Leaf Order Druid does similar healing with their ability. And if you don't take the low use familiar, you'll still have an animal companion to do stuff with.

You can counter spell heal! Which makes a divine sorcerer one of the most reliable ways to kill clerics.

What a horrifying thought. How dare you mention that where GMs can see it and make enemies that use that strategy.

I know that I personally have a lot of issues with PF2 as is. But there are a lot of good new ideas and it seems like most of the things I don't like can definitely be changed (although the issues with magic being over nerfed would require quite a lot of work to fix).

So while I may say things like "I hate resonance" or "I hate bulk" or "I hate the new Paladin/Sorcerer/Ranger/Alchemist" or "the monsters are way too strong to be playable". That doesn't mean that I hate the whole system.

The fact that they completely ripped out signature skills has given me some confidence that they are listening to the player base and that PF2 will be in a much better state by the time they release it (or at least a state with only minimal house rules needed).

I think there are some out there saying that they hate the system as a whole, but I think they're pretty small minority and most just have (many) specific problems with the game. And that small minority may even change their mind as the playtest continues.

Matthew Downie wrote:

Zorae wrote:

That stat array for a gnome is flat out impossible in PF1.

You could play PF1 with 30-point buy...

The game gives 4 methods of rolling actual dice so it's factually incorrect to say "flat out impossible in PF1". Even sticking to the legal point buys, you're looking at St 8, Dex 11, con 14, Wis 18, Int 10, Cha 16 without dropping any stats. It's literally a difference in 1 dex.

Sorry, "flat out impossible with standard point buy in PF1" as that was the thing being discussed.

That's with a 25 point buy. Most GMs (and pfs) don't allow for it. Let alone allow for a 30 point buy. Because then optimal race/class combos are considerably stronger with that amount of point buy. An Aasimar with that 25 point buy spread will have a 20 Wis, 16 Cha, 12 Con, and 10 str - they could even afford to dump Str a bit to get that 12 dex.

Neither 25 or 30 point buys is pfs legal or commonly accepted by GMs.