| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it's really frustrating that the whole class basically revolves around Channel and the nerfbat came flying at Channel so hard that several of those feats require you to max CHA before they're even remotely worth taking.
If they were going to do this, the class needed a broader set of changes to shift it's power elsewhere. Just this and nothing else really messed things up and weakened a lot of stuff that relies on channel.
Yup. The way it's set up, a more appropriate change would've been the removal of spellcasting.
But, clearly, that's insane.
If we want Cleric as a divine spellcaster, we need a complete shift away from Channel as a main class mechanic, with a better spell list, less reliance on Channel and feats to fit the spellcasting component of the class.
Channel can stay, but it needs a narrower range, less Charisma dependancy, and a lot of work... Possibly a nerf to Heal could help. d6?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, a nerf to Heal wouldn't help. That wouldn't take much to set it back to the old days where it wasn't worth doing because it wasn't healing enough to make the action economy of it work out.
The thing is that Channel is helping make up for the lack of spell slots Clerics have. Sorcerers get extra bloodline spells and Wizards get extra school spells. Channel is doing a similar thing except it's limited to one spell, that one spell just happens to be one of the best in the game (largely because of how unreliable so many others are).
Really, they need to decide what Channel's place is. If it's central to the class, we need to have enough usages to make it be that, especially with how many feats interact with it. If it's not and the lower number is staying, those feats need to be shifted towards something else because the sheer number of them that are devoted to something a Dwarf Cleric can't possibly use more than twice a day at level 4 is just not workable.
What we have now is this weird halfway land where the class is built expecting Channel to be its signature feature, only Channel can't back that up unless you go all in on CHA. The spellcasting really isn't where it should be, and the domains are decidedly meh.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran a dwarf cleric at level 4 and level 7; base Cha=10, raised to 12 for 7th level. Not a fun character, at least in my hands. I never seemed to guess right about what spells I needed, and there were so few, anyway, that spellcasting was very unfulfilling. At 4th level I did manage to get good use out of Resist Energy. At 7th level I prepared the wrong spells and got no use out of anything except Heal. It turns out that if I had used all high level slots for heightened Restoration, we could have avoided the TPK; but how to know that? --But at least Channel was sometimes good.
I would not be willing to play this character now. No one told me the prime stat for clerics was actually Charisma. So at 4th he'd have had zero Channels, and at 7th he'd have had one. I guess that gets away from the idea that in a scenario (Sombrefell) specifically meant to show off clerics, the cleric might get to show off a bit....
Also his domain power is "I can throw a rock." It's a fairly hefty rock, but still. Three rocks a day, if I recall correctly. This does not really give much flavor or choice of tactics.
Tridus said: "Really, they need to decide what Channel's place is. If it's central to the class, we need to have enough usages to make it be that, especially with how many feats interact with it. If it's not and the lower number is staying, those feats need to be shifted towards something else because the sheer number of them that are devoted to something a Dwarf Cleric can't possibly use more than twice a day at level 4 is just not workable."
I totally agree. It was very frustrating even with the previous rules to discover how many class feats backed Channel, which already was a bad idea for my character. Now all of those feats are nearly useless--one channel a day!--leaving essentially "multiclass or go home."
Honestly, a d6-based heal wouldn't be that awful. It's just a 20% reduction at worse (high levels) and a 10% early. At level 10, where you'd have 9d8+5, you still have 9d6+5 (as opposed to the 5d8+10 of Path1). That's 45 (max 77) vs 36 (61) vs 32 (50). Kind of a halfway point.
It's the balancing point for Soothe - only Soothe gives a bonus to mental effect resistance. Perhaps give it a slight bonus to help, cementing its role as combat healing, and call it good.
As many noted, the feats essentially alter and add effects to Channel, so that would stay unchanged.
Also, the comparison between Channel and Bloodline is... probably true, but a bit unfair. None of those features gives you that many spells of your highest level (the most you can get, with a Specialist Wizard, is 3 bonus slots of your highest level. Divine/Primal Sorcerers and General Wizards can get 2, Arcane/Occult Sorcerers only 1) and the lower level spells are not going to make up for it.
It's more in line now, but as many noted, that is an issue - because Cleric is actually more of a Channel Energy user than a Spellcaster.
The answer, here, isn't just to nerf Channel (which I would love to see heavily restricted anyways), but to enhance the spellcasting component of Cleric at the same time, and indirectly the Divine Sorcerer as a consequence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, a d6-based heal wouldn't be that awful. It's just a 20% reduction at worse (high levels) and a 10% early. At level 10, where you'd have 9d8+5, you still have 9d6+5 (as opposed to the 5d8+10 of Path1). That's 45 (max 77) vs 36 (61) vs 32 (50). Kind of a halfway point.
It's the balancing point for Soothe - only Soothe gives a bonus to mental effect resistance. Perhaps give it a slight bonus to help, cementing its role as combat healing, and call it good.
A 20% reduction is huge. A 10% reduction is significant. These are big numbers with something that doesn't have a lot of margin to fall back into "this is not worth doing in combat".
Also, the comparison between Channel and Bloodline is... probably true, but a bit unfair. None of those features gives you that many spells of your highest level (the most you can get, with a Specialist Wizard, is 3 bonus slots of your highest level. Divine/Primal Sorcerers and General Wizards can get 2, Arcane/Occult Sorcerers only 1) and the lower level spells are not going to make up for it.
It's kind of unfair, but those spells also give a lot more versatility and you get more of them. Channel is limited to one spell and you can't gain them as quickly. They're not doing exactly the same thing. But nerfing Channel also nerfed the number of effective spells Clerics have, and that was already too low. (Universalist Wizards can just get back a bunch of spells, and lets not even talk about how powerful Channel Life is.)
It's more in line now, but as many noted, that is an issue - because Cleric is actually more of a Channel Energy user than a Spellcaster.
I don't think that was actually intended, but yes, that is how it worked out.
The answer, here, isn't just to nerf Channel (which I would love to see heavily restricted anyways), but to enhance the spellcasting component of Cleric at the same time, and indirectly the Divine Sorcerer as a consequence.
If they're going to Nerf channel, they need to rebalance away from it and towards something else, yes. Which requires changing a lot of things about the class.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use to like playing clerics in PF1, however this revision I not interested in the class anymore. Plus what I have seen in Pathfinder Society in my area, most people do not like playing a healer type. The class needs the plus 3 for channeling or there might be more TPK and players might get frustrated and quite. Even at this year's reapercon there was a 2nd edition playtest and most people were not interested in playing the cleric even at PAX 2018 no one wanted to play the cleric in the PF1 system.. I think it has to do with the heal-bot theme. The cleric needs some better offensive spells and keep the channeling with the plus 3 per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to nerf Heal, hit the action economy. It's gonna be a lot more managable without the 1-action version. Healing will be a real cost, then, but remain worthwhile thanks to it's power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the 3+modifier needs to be put back. Taking it away makes the class too MAD, forcing you to either build a fighting cleric or healer cleric. As it stands, you either need to forsake channeling in order to have decent combat stats or boost charisma so you can have channels. Before at least you could have some channels to help the party.
Saying that this is because of the treat wounds mechanic doesn't hold up. Personally I hate the treat wounds mechanic. It feels way too gimmicky to me and I think is even sillier than wands of CLW were in 1st edition. That aside, the place I want my channels isn't outside of combat. It's during the fight. The divine spell list isn't robust enough to make the class meaningful enough without channels. If clerics without high charisma are then having to then dedicate some of those spell slots to heal spells to make up for the lack of channels then clerics are in a very bad place.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about the following as an alternate version of Channel?
Channel Energy
You gain the ability to channel positive or negative energy, depending on your deity. Some deities allow you to choose whether to channel negative or positive energy. Once you choose, you can't change the type of energy you channel, short of an ethical shift or divine intervention.
If you choose positive, you can sacrifice a spell slot to cast Heal at the spell level of that slot. If you choose negative, you can sacrifice a spell slot to cast Harm at the spell level of that slot. You must have Heal or Harm on your spell list to use Channel in this way.
Additionally, you can spend 2 spell points to cast Heal if positive or Harm if negative, heightened to a spell level of half your character level rounded up. When you gain this ability, you gain 2 spell points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in this game a 10% +/-is enormous. make heal be D6's would as someone said, make the spell useless. making heal always at least 2 action, again makes the spell sort of useless. this was dumbest nerf I have ever seen. secondary healing class complained that the primary healing class out healed them. I'm still trying to process that. and now the class is just flat out near useless, and unworkable, because unless you put all you resources into healing the class no longer works, and even then I would argue that all the secondary healers and paladins are better, because you have give up all martial prowess and spell flexibility to achieve that role. I played a cleric in four sessions before the update, fun class, had a role and purpose, not to strong not too weakest, a perfectly balanced, all the pieces fit together. I played a session with the new cleric after the new update. so unfun, omg, like literally in the middle of it I thought why was I playing this class.
now the only way forward is the creation of CODzilla, the super healer class were the least efficient thing it does is heal. you can't make this stuff up.
and for the record lots people including myself, love the cleric, love it's healer plus role little extra focus that existed in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition. Not every class is for everyone, and they dont need to be, lots of people dont like playing fighters, that's no reason not make it good at fighting. just because some people dont like playing a healing focused class, is no reason to the make class a non functioning healing class, it just means that the class is not for you. which is the point of having classes. play the ones you like, ignore the ones you dont.
Dunno, Soothe uses d6 and I didn't feel it was useless. Might just be my experience however, so you know, give it a shot and let me know.
Now, back onto Channel uses... I was thinking more something like "1 use, plus one more per two points of Charisma modifier". It's got a baseline, it's got some good value for investing in Charisma, but returns diminish the more you push, making Wisdom a bit more valuable.
No? This then:
One use of Channel, flat. Channel feats gain a Charisma requirement, and you now gain additional uses once based on the amount of Channel feats you have, similar to Druid's animal forms.
What would you guys think of these versions of Channel pools?
I mean clearly 3+Cha was too much. We established that. And clearly the spell list needs a touchup. But if Channel stays, then we need a healthy form for it.
Dunno, Soothe uses d6 and I didn't feel it was useless. Might just be my experience however, so you know, give it a shot and let me know.
Now, back onto Channel uses... I was thinking more something like "1 use, plus one more per two points of Charisma modifier". It's got a baseline, it's got some good value for investing in Charisma, but returns diminish the more you push, making Wisdom a bit more valuable.
No? This then:
One use of Channel, flat. Channel feats gain a Charisma requirement, and you now gain additional uses once based on the amount of Channel feats you have, similar to Druid's animal forms.
What would you guys think of these versions of Channel pools?I mean clearly 3+Cha was too much. We established that. And clearly the spell list needs a touchup. But if Channel stays, then we need a healthy form for it.
Heal is supposed to be the best healing spell and just healing. So it gains +1 per die in exchange for not having the extra effect of lay on hands or soothe. If anything doesn't scale enough, high level hp scales faster than it.
Basing it on cha is great to differentiate cleric builds.
Making it like wild shape, giving it Cha or 1+Cha uses, and an extra use for every 2 Channel feats seems good. Currently 1+Cha seems good, but I'd rather the ability score system change to my proposal and keep it at Cha uses. Extra uses from more investment is great, I like it with spell points, I like it with Wild Shape, and I think it would be great for Channel
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that cleric and bard are the only functional spellcaster classes - and not because of their spells. Paizo's solution to this is to nerf the cleric, when what they should have done is bring up the other spellcasting classes to par. If this is a part of a strong buff to all casters, it would sort of make sense - but then, why no bard nerfs? And should they not wait with the cleric nerfs until we have the actual caster buffs?
How about the following as an alternate version of Channel?
Channel Energy
You gain the ability to channel positive or negative energy, depending on your deity. Some deities allow you to choose whether to channel negative or positive energy. Once you choose, you can't change the type of energy you channel, short of an ethical shift or divine intervention.If you choose positive, you can sacrifice a spell slot to cast Heal at the spell level of that slot. If you choose negative, you can sacrifice a spell slot to cast Harm at the spell level of that slot. You must have Heal or Harm on your spell list to use Channel in this way.
Additionally, you can spend 2 spell points to cast Heal if positive or Harm if negative, heightened to a spell level of half your character level rounded up. When you gain this ability, you gain 2 spell points.
Would require significantly more spell slots than we have right now. 1e spell conversions worked alright because Clerics had twice as many spells per day than 2e Clerics do. It's so limited here that this will just shift the problem from "build for CHA so you have channels" to "don't use any high level spell slots because you'll probably need them for Heal."
Spell points seem a popular option but still have the problem of completely eclipsing anything else that also uses spell points given the comparative power level between those powers and Heal. Also, it only costs Paladins 1 spell point so feels harsh to charge Clerics double (especially since we can get the Paladin one if we're willing to spend the feats).
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easy fix for Cleric:
Change "[Cha bonus] channels per day" into "[Wis Bonus] channels per day".
This helps in numerous ways:
(1) It guarantees a modicum of channels per day.
(2) It is more limiting to clerics wanting to max channel energy uses, which is the original intent of removing the "3+" from channels per day.
(3) It gives a reason to use Wisdom, which is now considered almost a dump stat now. A cleric with a paladin dedication can use Charisma to calculate spell points and channel using spell points (if they don't/can't take the Healing domain).
(4) It makes the cleric less MAD. Unless the cleric can take the human ancestry feat "Adapted Spell" to gain an offensive cantrip, they need to be competent with a weapon, which means three stats need to be high (assuming you want spell points and resonance) thus making the cleric a compromise of options, with the Zealot of Gorum channel smite build being all but unworkable.
Actually, instead of changing all heal to a d6, maybe just making the burst effect of the Heal spell d6s instead of simply reducing the number of dice. This would nerf the spell without making it pointless to use.
This would actually be a buff.
11d8 ~= 50 healing
6d8 ~= 27 healing (aoe)
11d6 ~= 39 healing (aoe)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics definitely had too many channels before. I think it's fine after the change, it's a lot more inline with other classes. MAD isn't as big of a problem with the way the ability score increases work now in my opinion. Given you increase 4 stats when you increase it's far easier to have multiple reasonably high ability scores as you level up & have a decent channel pool while still being viable for casting/melee.
Being able to use your signature class ability 3 times a day (2 if you're a Dwarf) is fine? Can't say I agree with that.
With how many feats interact with channel, it's clear it's meant to be a big deal. But you don't get enough of them to have it make sense to spend feats on something so limited when the alternative is "go into Paladin and more than double how often you can use it".
Channel Smite as a feat was probably hit too hard by this change though. I wouldn't be opposed to letting Channel Smite also be able to use prepared heal or harm spells rather than just your channel pool.
Why bother with Channel Smite at all? If I'm using a spell slot for Heal, I can just cast Heal at the target with that spell slot, and unlike Channel Smite, two action Heal never misses and thus never wastes the spell.
It was too limited a feat in the first place, and it's even worse now that Channel has been so heavily restricted.
If that makes the cleric a bit weak perhaps give some love to the domain powers or something else to keep clerics from just being relegated to the giant heal-battery (Which with 3+cha they basically were, and were practically mandatory until the out of combat healing change then may as well not have had a limit to their channels per day after because you simply didn't go through that many heals).
I had little problem burning all my healing when I had lots. That depends on how groups play, really. Treat wounds is not a replacement any time you're time pressured.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the alternative is "go into Paladin and more than double how often you can use it".
Whatever untested implementation Paizo decides on they're pretty likely to make sure that the Paladin is changed in the same way.
In this case, actually all but guaranteed. Enough people have pointed it out that they'll have noticed the problem.
In general, though, this (changing something in one class but not others) is PRECISELY the kind of error that slips in when untested changes are made at the last minute (see the Advanced Class Guide for examples. Eg, Parry and Riposte).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 1.6 approach does balance the cleric better (imo)
It does toss them into the muck with all the other classes, yes.
Adding a #6 to my original list:
The loss of the "Emblazon Symbol" feat did not help, but hurt the Cleric further as the "NEW RULE—HANDS AND CASTING" meant to help Clerics and Druids use shields & two-handed items covered Somatic Only. This change reduces the Cleric's Channel ability even further as well as any spell having an optional or required Material casting component
While great for Druids who can wrap their "Holly & Mistletoe" around a hand as a Material component and still use an item in said hand, a Cleric requires the use of their Holy Symbol (a one-handed item). This completely negates the ability to use a 3-action Channel (or any 3-action Spell) while using a shield or two-handed weapon... further weakening Channel and negating a benefit "Emblazon Symbol" gave even with the feat-tax. Now we are either forced to stow shields or two-handed weapons the turn before us to use our Holy Symbol for a 3-action Channel/Spell or limit ourselves to only the 2-action/verbal, somatic varieties. At least the feat gave us a work around. Now the Cleric has none at all and having to tell a sometimes desperate party "sorry all but you're going to have to wait a turn." during combat is not often an acceptable option. This makes our reduced Channeling ability (and spell-casting) even weaker as our signature ability.
In short, the Cleric's Channel/Heal/Harm mechanic (and Spell-casting in general) is now even less versatile with "Emblazon Symbol" gone as the baked in replacement covers Somatic only.
In my opinion, Cleric is now an almost useless class because of the changes in 1.6. Reasons #1-5 were harsh enough without #6 being it's death knell during a combat encounter.
(Thank you for listening to another rant on the state of Clerics in 1.6))
Drop is a free action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cleric now has to do something like: drop the shield or two-handed weapon, do a three-action channel, next turn pick the item up. I cannot imagine actually playing a character that did this routinely: dropping your weapon or shield in combat is a horrendous decision. Or the alternative: use your third action to stow the weapon or shield, then next turn three-action channel. Not much better: if you need three-action channel you probably need it NOW. So no shield and no two-handed weapons, or no three-action Channel.
Looking at my dwarf cleric, who now gets just one Channel anyway at 7th level, it's mainly whether you're going to build for three-action or rely on two-action. My fellow players felt strongly that two-action was the way to go, so probably keep the shield? Play like a fighter with the option of two-action Heal in combat? I guess so.
I don't think I'd play him again. I don't know how I could make a cleric I'd want to play in PF2. Melee builds conflict with a major class ability. Caster builds run into the really lackluster spell list. I guess you go with one-handed weapon and no shield, lots of charisma, try to put a few interesting spells in among the Heals, and play backup fighter when you run out of spells. Our house games run towards having many combats in one day, so the spells will soon be gone, but I guess a one-handed fighter with less strength and dex than the front lines might be okay. I dunno. It doesn't sound okay. Low con, maybe, and rely on healing yourself, in order to keep the strength and dex higher? Multi-class into a martial in order to get some combat abilities that might help?
Dropping an item may be a free action (and sub-optimal every time you want to cast a 3-action spell or channel), BUT getting your Holy Symbol into your hand certainly isn't. So in realistic play (with the loss of Emblazon Symbol) you are going to spend a round switching what is in one hand to cast or channel a 3-action Heal/Harm plus multiple spells (such as Invisibility, Darkness, Summon Monster, Circle of Protection and Blade Barrier to name a few) and many (especially advanced) domain powers.
Drop is a free action.
Look at the rules for the Material Casting Action. Its free to get your holy symbol into your hand when you use that action to cast.
I've done this when playing a cleric, dropping a shield or staff to channel. You guys are really overrating how bad it is to drop something. You can just pick it up for one action, or leave it on the ground.
Look at the rules for the Material Casting Action. Its free to get your holy symbol into your hand when you use that action to cast.
Sigh. No, this is what it says:
If you’re a cleric Casting a Spell from the divine tradition while
holding a divine focus (such as a religious symbol or text), you can
replace any material component the spell requires by using the
divine focus as a spell focus instead.
The divine focus REPLACES the material casting action and you don't need the free hand.
If your divine focus isn't in your hand, you need an empty hand (ok, drop satisfies this) but does not put the divine focus IN your hand (you use the regular material components instead).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at the rules for the Material Casting Action. Its free to get your holy symbol into your hand when you use that action to cast.Sigh. No, this is what it says:
If you’re a cleric Casting a Spell from the divine tradition while
holding a divine focus (such as a religious symbol or text), you can
replace any material component the spell requires by using the
divine focus as a spell focus instead.The divine focus REPLACES the material casting action and you don't need the free hand.
If your divine focus isn't in your hand, you need an empty hand (ok, drop satisfies this) but does not put the divine focus IN your hand (you use the regular material components instead).
"You retrieve and manipulate either a material spell
component or a spell focus. If you manipulate a material spellcomponent, that component is expended in the casting (whether
or not the spell is disrupted). If you manipulate a focus, it is not
spent, and you can stow it again as part of this action if you so
choose. Spells that require this action use a material component
unless a focus is specifed"
Literally the first line...
Being the GM involved in Citric’s play example, yeah, you don’t need an action to grab your holy symbol - the casting action IS grabbing the holy symbol.
Same reason as to why a wizard doesn’t need to spend an action to grab his material components before casting a spell with material component. You don’t need to do it twice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not as bad with a 2h weapon because you don't need to drop it. Taking a hand off it is free, so you can cast everything and not leave it on the ground. You do still have to use an action to put your second hand back on it, IIRC, but at least you're holding it.
Either way, it's an awkward dance that was made worse and not better by this change because instead of it being a feat tax to make the problem go away, now the problem doesn't exist except in one common case where it's even worse than it was before.
I still believe it was an oversight and not an intended effect, because I can't believe it was really the plan to say "we want you to use both hands and so we'll make it really clunky and awkward to use three action Heal while doing so."
Channel Energy (positive) is essentially another way to cast the Heal spell. Thus, anything that applies to casting a spell would apply to Channel Energy - including the new no hands rule.
I've not gone over this rules-lawer-wise, but this is a hurried patch and I feel this is the RAI if not the RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Channel negative energy needs to be as powerful as channeling positive. At this point any domain that channels negative (ie Zon Kuthon) is underpowered.