After update 1.6 the min / maxed cleric has 10 wis. Not quite what was planned, right Paizo?

[Excaliburrover]

Warning: wall of text ahead
OTHER WARNING: every time you find sag it should be wis. I may miss someone while editing

TL:DR the optimized cleric (which gets the best of dealing decent damage via melee attack while still being able to heal and cast supporting spells) after update 1.6 has 10 wis which I think can’t be intended and must be addressed.

Let’s say you want to make a cleric of a deity that mainly (expecially at low levels) offers you situational/weak/reactive domain powers but still, you likes the theme and go for it. That would be someone like Pharasma,Gozreh,Desna,Abadar,Cayden, just off the top of my head.

Let’s say you are human, because now human let’s you space among half-elves and half-orcs so with the same stat array we hit multiple races as flavor. At lvl 1 with whatever background you may need you basically obtain stats like 18 16 12 12 10 10. When making my characters I assume that if you are taking 10 in either cos or dex you are looking for troubles. If you make 10 in both troubles will 100% finds you.

Also let’s abolish an old consensus: in pf 2e healing IS action efficient. You use one action to heal pretty much 1.5-2 hits worth of hp to an adjacent target if you are using a max level heal spell to an adjacent target. So you are trading one of your actons for 2 actions from enemies. It is worth it. So having the “panic button” of max level heal spells during fights, it can make big a difference.

So we must decide what kind of cleric we want to do, choosing between the caster and the melee one.

The caster would have stats like (str des cos int wis car obviously) 10 16 12 10 18 12. Now let’s just observe that as per update 1.6 with this build you have 1 channel energy lvl 1-4 and at lvl 5 they arguably become 2. Then you go and prepare your spell and realize that your spell list is quite damage lacking (as divine spells will always be, e xpecially pre 4th level spells). Not only that but you don’t have slot cheating ability like drain focus, you don’t have a companion that does part of the dirty work for you, you don’t have at will buffing music. You just have your spell, your subpar domain powers, your wacky no damage anti action economy chill touch, oh and a lot of the choices you have when selecting feats are related to that channel energy ability that you will use 1xday till lvl 5, 2xday till lvl 10. Fun eh? And I forgot to mention that when you hit lvl 7/9 and you get those 2 sweet slots to unleash havoc via divine wrath/flamestrike you will soon realize that your better use one for a max level heal. So just one round of fun per day.

Ok maybe I don’t like this character.

Let’s do the melee one. As many knows magic melee weapons are the best way to deliver consistent damage and a cleric would have decent chances to be just slightly behind the curve(you can’t start in any way with str 18 because class skill is mandatory wisdom). The stats would be 16 12 12 10 18 10. And no you can’t put 14 in str and 12 in cha. Early on it would exactly like being constantly frightned/sick 2 compared to your ranger/monk/rouge buddy for example. With 16 you’re just sick 1. This, at a glance seems already a better build. Throw some ancestry/dedication feats in there and you are walking in heavy armor while hitting with a magical 2 handed weapon. Having a solid plan to deal damage also allows you to be more flexible when preparing spells. You can preare that 1 heal spell per spell level, 1 damage spell that come handy as ranged damage solution and 1 supportive spell of choice. Mmm, i’m liking it quite a bit (and it’s the build i’d go pre update). Only problem. You legit have no channel energy till lvl 4 and even then I would not put boosts in charisma, not until lvl 10. Imagine a cleric of Gorum which at lvl 4 may go channel smite for some whopping turns and wait… no channel energy for you bud.

Then you think. Wait a second, let’s assume I go for spells like bless, restoration, air walk, summon ecc that are not acually binded to my wis score. Can I accept my heals to heal 4 less hp and get extra uses of max level heal spells? Hell yeah, I can.

So, let’s mod a bit that melee cleric. Ok, the stats would be something like 16 12 12 10 12 16 (if you go goblin they may as well become 16 12 14 10 10 16 which are even better for what we want to do). We have a pc that is as effective as the one previously mentioned. You lose your domain powers but they were crap anyway and you better never try to counter an effect with a spell roll. Also your party is better find someone else to make those Treat Wounds checks. However this is easy to lay around because you can assist each other while Treating Wounds and also items can help. Moreover because of this use Medicine is one of the most important skill in the game and every member in the party should arguably have it (more Assists= more bonuses= more chances to crit the check= less waste of time).

So you have a decent melee fighter, which can neat you some fun, it has decent spell variety and 3-4 bonus max level heal spells for when the crap hits the fan. The only very big drawback is the lack of very effective ranged options when the need come but a returning trident and air walk should suffice.

So this is the tale of the update 1.6 goblin cleric with 10 wis. Just as planned.

Ah, also, high charisma let’s you go the demoralize/feint build if you want and it will often be a much better choice that that 3 rd attack.

Do 2-3 uses of channel energy make this big of a difference? Yes, in my opinion they does, expecially when you have 14 feats choices that have channel as requisite. Not quite elegant. There isn't this much of a reason to keep clerics bound to cha when this edition isn't MAD friendly at all.

[TheFinish]

Okay, uh, I don't want to sound mean or anything, but when you say Sag, do you mean Wis? For Wisdom?

I assume this is a language thing, but I did have trouble following your train of throught throughout.

[LuniasM]

TheFinish wrote:

Okay, uh, I don't want to sound mean or anything, but when you say Sag, do you mean Wis? For Wisdom?

I assume this is a language thing, but I did have trouble following your train of throught throughout.

SAG is short for Sagacity in some other RPGs and typically plays the same role as WIS. It confused me too.

[Excaliburrover]

So Sag is short for Saggezza in Italian and i'm stupid. I'm too used to the italian shortcut and iw as too infervorated while writing to connect my brain to the english folder XD. It should be Wis for wisdom yes. I edited.

[Agyra Eisenherz]

YES. TOTALLY THIS.
Wisdom does almost nothing for Clerics so it can be a dump stat. If you do not use offensive spells (there are almost none on the cleric list), Wisdom is not really needed. And charisma is more important than ever for Clerics.
Hey, you do not even need to lose your domain pool, if you use 2 class feats to take a dip into Sorcerer (or Paladin); this makes your spell point pool depend on charisma instead of wisdom.

I have played different clerics about 7 times in the playtest.

As a optimal cleric I want Str = Cha > Con > Dex > Int = Wis and a D12 weapon.

[Dasrak]

Excaliburrover wrote:

Also let’s abolish an old consensus: in pf 2e healing IS action efficient. You use one action to heal pretty much 1.5-2 hits worth of hp to an adjacent target if you are using a max level heal spell to an adjacent target. So you are trading one of your actons for 2 actions from enemies. It is worth it. So having the “panic button” of max level heal spells during fights, it can make big a difference.

Actually, it's even better than that, since heal has a 100% chance to work while the enemy's attacks have a chance to miss. Due to MAP subsequent attacks on a creature's turn have worse accuracy, so in practice a single-action heal can actually block 2-3 turns worth of attacks.

My group is slowly working its way through Heroes of Undarin, and even on that one turn where the pair of Glabrezu's landed three critical hits on a single character (thankfully it was the dwarf fighter; if it had been anyone else they'd have been dropped) then cleric just expended two channels and cleaned it right back up. The next round the Glabrezus were not so lucky and got their faces pounded in.

Excaliburrover wrote:

And I forgot to mention that when you hit lvl 7/9 and you get those 2 sweet slots to unleash havoc via divine wrath/flamestrike you will soon realize that your better use one for a max level heal. So just one round of fun per day.

Yeah, it's a legitimate problem that the Heal spell is OP right now; no other spell really compares to reactive healing in terms of overall value. On the other hand, I think Paizo has painted themselves into a corner on this one; if you actually wanted damage-dealing spells to match what healing is doing you'd need to roughly double their damage output, which is far more than what Paizo gave in the 1.5 update. However that takes us back to PF1-style rocket tag which I think Paizo wants to avoid (although given how long Heroes of Undarin is taking, I've begun to think that rocket tag may not have actually been such a bad thing...)

I think another issue that leads to the "dump Wisdom" approach is how 3-action heal took a stealth nerf in the recent update. The Emblazon Symbol feat got removed, but Paizo only gave clerics half of the benefits of the feat for free. The other half are still missing. This means most clerics have to make the choice between using weapons, or using spells with material casting components; there's no way to do both. This means 3-action version of healing isn't usable by clerics who want to be using weapon attacks, and that was the only version of heal that's worth casting offensively.

[MaxAstro]

You technically can still 3-action heal with your hands full, it's just a little janky.

If you are using a two-handed weapon, you can release as a free action, cast a 3-action heal, then on your next turn spend an action to regrip.

If you are using sword-and-board, get yourself a weapon cord type setup. Free action to drop your sword, cast 3-action heal, spend an action to pick your sword up again next turn (if you are brave you can do this without the weapon cord).

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't want to have to be really precise about "are you dropping it on the ground or just letting go of it with one hand" :/

[Tridus]

Dasrak wrote:

Yeah, it's a legitimate problem that the Heal spell is OP right now; no other spell really compares to reactive healing in terms of overall value. On the other hand, I think Paizo has painted themselves into a corner on this one; if you actually wanted damage-dealing spells to match what healing is doing you'd need to roughly double their damage output, which is far more than what Paizo gave in the 1.5 update. However that takes us back to PF1-style rocket tag which I think Paizo wants to avoid (although given how long Heroes of Undarin is taking, I've begun to think that rocket tag may not have actually been such a bad thing...)

Heal is not OP, though. Heal is one of the few spells that actually works reliably. I never feel more powerful than when I'm casting Heal, precisely because I will always accomplish what I'm trying to do.

If Heal is OP and their solution is to nerf it, then frankly I don't even know what to say. So many spells right now are just outright bad and/or unreliable that Heal shines in comparison by being reliable and impactful.

Quote:

I think another issue that leads to the "dump Wisdom" approach is how 3-action heal took a stealth nerf in the recent update. The Emblazon Symbol feat got removed, but Paizo only gave clerics half of the benefits of the feat for free. The other half are still missing. This means most clerics have to make the choice between using weapons, or using spells with material casting components; there's no way to do both. This means 3-action version of healing isn't usable by clerics who want to be using weapon attacks, and that was the only version of heal that's worth casting offensively.

Yep, although as was pointed out, you can do it if you lose an action on the next turn to get back whatever you had to drop. It's still lame though, especially since it applies to so few spells that it feels more like an oversight than a deliberate decision. I mean, it's silly to say "the design is we want to use both hands, except for this one spell that is practically the signature ability of the class... for that one you had better have a free hand."

[Tridus]

Agyra Eisenherz wrote:

YES. TOTALLY THIS.

Wisdom does almost nothing for Clerics so it can be a dump stat. If you do not use offensive spells (there are almost none on the cleric list), Wisdom is not really needed. And charisma is more important than ever for Clerics.
Hey, you do not even need to lose your domain pool, if you use 2 class feats to take a dip into Sorcerer (or Paladin); this makes your spell point pool depend on charisma instead of wisdom.

I have played different clerics about 7 times in the playtest.

As a optimal cleric I want Str = Cha > Con > Dex > Int = Wis and a D12 weapon.

Nice thing about boosting your spell pool that way is that you can then take Advanced Domain Healing and get a bunch more Heal spells. Or just play Paladin and get them via Channel Life without all this silliness.

It's a very strange turn of events, but it does make sense. WIS is doing surprisingly little for Clerics in this edition, whereas the class feature that truly matters is entirely dependent on CHA.

[Vic Ferrari]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't want to have to be really precise about "are you dropping it on the ground or just letting go of it with one hand" :/

Yeah, weapon cords are not really a thing in the game, seems like a cheesy house-rule.

[TheFinish]

Did the Developers every say why they got rid of the rule that stated you can only cast spells if your casting stat's = 10+spell level? Because that'd be a way to ensure a Cleric can't leave Wisdom in the dust.

[pauljathome]

Agyra Eisenherz wrote:

As a optimal cleric I want Str = Cha > Con > Dex > Int = Wis and a D12 weapon.

I love the flavour of Shelyn and the glaive has quite a few advantages to compensate for the reduced base damage. So I disagree with that part :-)

Other than that I completely agree. Wisdom is a dump stat :-(

[PossibleCabbage]

So Wisdom for a Cleric does the following things:
- Increases your spell DC
- Gives you more spell points
- Adds to your perception bonus
- Adds to your will save
- Adds to skills that you should probably be good at (religion, medicine).

Does it need to do more? I feel like "Casters who don't care about spell DCs" should be viable (12 Int Wizards were playable in PF1) but probably not optimal.

[DM_Blake]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

12 Int Wizards were playable in PF1

Only if they never wanted to cast spells higher than level 2. Otherwise, they needed to increase their INT by the time they reach level 5, and then keep increasing it at 7, 9, etc., or they won't have their highest level(s) of spells.

[Shinigami02]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So Wisdom for a Cleric does the following things:

- Increases your spell DC
- Gives you more spell points
- Adds to your perception bonus
- Adds to your will save
- Adds to skills that you should probably be good at (religion, medicine).

Does it need to do more? I feel like "Casters who don't care about spell DCs" should be viable (12 Int Wizards were playable in PF1) but probably not optimal.

The thing is, Cleric has almost no reason to care about spell DC, they're not exactly throwing out a lot of offensive spells given the dearth of such in the Divine list. As for spell points, the general feel around this forum seems to be that powers are almost never worth it, so that probably doesn't matter most of the time.

That said, unless I missed something somewhere where Goblins were the new optimal Cleric race, the optimal Cleric is going to have 12 Wisdom. Only Goblins (currently) have a Wis penalty, and the only other way to get less than 12 Wis is a voluntary flaw, which I'd dare say is never optimal given it is a penalty with no offsetting boon other than RP.

[Tridus]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So Wisdom for a Cleric does the following things:

- Increases your spell DC
- Gives you more spell points
- Adds to your perception bonus
- Adds to your will save
- Adds to skills that you should probably be good at (religion, medicine).

Does it need to do more? I feel like "Casters who don't care about spell DCs" should be viable (12 Int Wizards were playable in PF1) but probably not optimal.

The problem isn't that Wisdom doesn't do anything, it's that what it does doesn't matter.

- Spell DC isn't that relevant for the Divine spell list because it has few attacks and you're usually better off using something else anyway
- Spell points only matter if you have a domain power that is worth using frequently, which eliminates quite a lot of them
- Perception is good
- Will is good
- You can still be good enough at Medicine to not critically fail very often so treat wounds is still spammable, and you can live without religion.

Meanwhile, CHA boosts your most powerful ability, also covers you in a fair number of useful skills. STR bizarrely helps your offense more than WIS does because of the poor offense on the divine spell list... etc.

A lot of this comes back to the spell list being weak and only adding your key modifier once to spells greatly diminishes its relevance as you level and add more dice. There's also no bonus spell slots anymore, so if you don't care about the DC because of your spell selection, WIS is not that relevant to your spellcasting.

[TheFinish]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So Wisdom for a Cleric does the following things:

- Increases your spell DC
- Gives you more spell points
- Adds to your perception bonus
- Adds to your will save
- Adds to skills that you should probably be good at (religion, medicine).

Does it need to do more? I feel like "Casters who don't care about spell DCs" should be viable (12 Int Wizards were playable in PF1) but probably not optimal.

As has been said, no idea how you consider Int 12 Wizards playable in PF1 when they were unable to cast any spells higher than 2nd level. I mean technically they were playable in that you could play them, I guess. You'd get nowhere though.

Others already pointed out why a Cleric may not really care about 3 of the things you listed (DC, Spell Points, Skills).

[PossibleCabbage]

DM_Blake wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

12 Int Wizards were playable in PF1

Only if they never wanted to cast spells higher than level 2. Otherwise, they needed to increase their INT by the time they reach level 5, and then keep increasing it at 7, 9, etc., or they won't have their highest level(s) of spells.

It's not hard to afford (or craft) a headband by level 5.

[Charon Onozuka]

Ouch... this is a bit of an uncomfortable realization.

Granted less WIS means lower Perception / Will saves, which is very influential, but that's true of everyone and not specific to Clerics.

This makes me more convinced that Channel should just be a part of their (WIS-based) spell pool. Ability scores can't dump or minmax like they could before, so allowing Clerics to not rely on CHA shouldn't be too harmful.

[Tridus]

Charon Onozuka wrote:

This makes me more convinced that Channel should just be a part of their (WIS-based) spell pool. Ability scores can't dump or minmax like they could before, so allowing Clerics to not rely on CHA shouldn't be too harmful.

This is entirely reasonable, but it does mean that Channel Heal (arguably the best spell in the game) is competing for resources with domain powers. The obvious result of that is the total eclipse of domain powers as a thing you should ever use unless they get a massive buff.

The merit of having Channel by itself is that you don't have other things trying to compete with it for use, which will usually fail, and it also means people won't go fishing for things that boost the spell pool (like Advanced Domain) simply to get more uses of Channel.

[MaxAstro]

I feel like this is something of a self-mitigating issue because Wisdom is such an important attribute - it applies to Perception, which is huge, and also to the most important save in the game.

And I kinda like that low-wisdom clerics are viable in this edition, it gives more room to customize characters.

[MER-c]

MaxAstro wrote:

I feel like this is something of a self-mitigating issue because Wisdom is such an important attribute - it applies to Perception, which is huge, and also to the most important save in the game.

And I kinda like that low-wisdom clerics are viable in this edition, it gives more room to customize characters.

Shhhh, don't let the munchins hear that, they'll start playing full strength Cleric Paladins of some obscure god with less than meaningful tenets.

[MaxAstro]

I've actually really always wanted to play a full-Strength "musclehead" wizard vaguely inspired by Dolph Lundgren, and it's wonderful that PF2e may let me do that. :P

[ikarinokami]

there is nothing wrong with the heal. the problem is people have been saying and believing for 10 years that healing in combat is sub optimal. the problem was that 3.0 and 3.5 broke clerics and made healing in combat sub optimal. 3.0 and 3.5 are the only RPGs I think of where healing in combat is a suboptimal option. even in the way more brutal shadowrun it's never a sub optimal choice to heal someone in combat.

if you dump cha, the cleric spell list becomes nearly pointless, as what spell are you going to mem? the other spells while not weak are very situational and only really work, if you know that you can heal.

further if you try to create a martial priest, the basis of cleric class in the first, you run into the problem where you have to dump either wis and cha. both of which comprise the presitly abilities of the warrior priest class. the class went from one of the best most balanced classes with fighters and rogues, to just an incompete mess.

[MaxAstro]

I feel like you are describing problems that themselves need to be fixed (cleric spell list isn't exciting, clerics don't have good class features other than channel) rather than compelling arguments to un-nerf channel.

[Mechagamera]

Until we get 17 divine classes (I exaggerate, slightly), the charismatic evangelist deserves some love too--and that often correlates to faith healers. Now they need a few more offensive cleric spells, so the "God is going to drop a plague on your head" Moses type cleric is better supported.

[Dasrak]

MaxAstro wrote:

You technically can still 3-action heal with your hands full, it's just a little janky.

If you are using a two-handed weapon, you can release as a free action, cast a 3-action heal, then on your next turn spend an action to regrip.

If you are using sword-and-board, get yourself a weapon cord type setup. Free action to drop your sword, cast 3-action heal, spend an action to pick your sword up again next turn (if you are brave you can do this without the weapon cord).

Yeah, two-handed weapon clerics just have some action overhead on the following turn to do it, but sword-and-board clerics are screwed.

I just really hope Paizo does away with this whole shifting grip thing. It feels like someone is adamant that PF2 Wizards are going have the same weapon restrictions as the PF1 Magus did, and the entire system is suffering for these rules. They aren't needed, they aren't wanted, just get rid of 'em and let us shift our grip like we could in PF1.

Tridus wrote:

Heal is not OP, though. Heal is one of the few spells that actually works reliably. I never feel more powerful than when I'm casting Heal, precisely because I will always accomplish what I'm trying to do.

In principle I'd concur; I'd much rather heal stay the same and everything else get buffed up to that level. The problem is... that's some absolutely monumental buffing, and I just don't think buffs of that magnitude are happening if the 1.5 spell buffs are an indication of what Paizo thinks is about right.

Just as a thought experiment, consider what would happen if you gave the monsters access to the heal spell. Right now we're only seeing heal as a PC tool; I think it would be completely gamebreaking if monsters got it.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Does it need to do more? I feel like "Casters who don't care about spell DCs" should be viable (12 Int Wizards were playable in PF1) but probably not optimal.

The problem isn't that Wisdom is bad for the Cleric (because Wisdom is a good ability score), it's that the Cleric is really MAD right now and something needs to give.

I think part of the problem is that your spellcasting ability score is all-or-nothing. If you're not fully invested your accuracy is going to be garbage, so you may as well dump all the way. There's no point in being in the middle-ground.

TheFinish wrote:

As has been said, no idea how you consider Int 12 Wizards playable in PF1 when they were unable to cast any spells higher than 2nd level. I mean technically they were playable in that you could play them, I guess. You'd get nowhere though.

It's definitely possible to create a powerful wizard with low intelligence, although typically you would go for 13 rather than 12. Headbands could be used to meet the ability score requirement, meaning that with a 13 and +6 headband you could handle 9th level spells. Generally these builds would focus on pumping Str and Dex and the polymorph spells as their offensive presence. It's an unusual but perfectly viable build.

[Tridus]

Dasrak wrote:

Yeah, two-handed weapon clerics just have some action overhead on the following turn to do it, but sword-and-board clerics are screwed.

I just really hope Paizo does away with this whole shifting grip thing. It feels like someone is adamant that PF2 Wizards are going have the same weapon restrictions as the PF1 Magus did, and the entire system is suffering for these rules. They aren't needed, they aren't wanted, just get rid of 'em and let us shift our grip like we could in PF1.

Yeah, it's something the game doesn't need.

Quote:

Tridus wrote:

Heal is not OP, though. Heal is one of the few spells that actually works reliably. I never feel more powerful than when I'm casting Heal, precisely because I will always accomplish what I'm trying to do.

In principle I'd concur; I'd much rather heal stay the same and everything else get buffed up to that level. The problem is... that's some absolutely monumental buffing, and I just don't think buffs of that magnitude are happening if the 1.5 spell buffs are an indication of what Paizo thinks is about right.

Just as a thought experiment, consider what would happen if you gave the monsters access to the heal spell. Right now we're only seeing heal as a PC tool; I think it would be completely gamebreaking if monsters got it.

Considering that I don't think most PC Classes have any way to interrupt it? It would be, yeah. If a PC party is fighting an NPC party, focusing down the healer will be the most sane strategy. A dragon that could cast Heal as a single action on itself would be just nasty because there's nothing a non-Fighter PC can do about it.

But since monsters are already asymmetrical to PCs in this system, I think that's okay. Because we're also in a situation where the monsters can lose every fight and they keep getting more, where the PCs losing risks the campaign ending in a TPK. If Heal is in the PC toolbox and rarely in the monster toolbox, that's not the end of the world.

edit - I also think the spell buffs were only partially done in the update. They focused on something that was straightforward to do: adding dice to damage spells. Revising every spell would have required a new rulebook rather than an update, effectively. (Part of why I'd have preferred a playtest rule wiki over a rule book, but that ship sailed long ago.)

Quote:

The problem isn't that Wisdom is bad for the Cleric (because Wisdom is a good ability score), it's that the Cleric is really MAD right now and something needs to give.

I think part of the problem is that your spellcasting ability score is all-or-nothing. If you're not fully invested your accuracy is going to be garbage, so you may as well dump all the way. There's no point in being in the middle-ground.

Yep, well said. If you don't have that max bonus to your saves, you fall so far behind that it barely matters anymore so you might as well do something else. Since there's spells that don't care about WIS at all or don't suffer a lot for dumping it, it's a comparatively easier thing to give up.

This was definitely less bad when 12 CHA still gave you 4 channels, which is a pretty significant number. Now, dumping CHA is extremely expensive. You need DEX to avoid being blasted into tiny bits, especially since if you're a healer you will be a target. If you're doing damage, you can either do it with STR and a weapon or WIS and spells, but STR lets you use your spells on buffs and Heal, so that makes quite a lot of sense.

It's a weird situation.

[Elleth]

Tridus wrote:

Dasrak wrote:

Yeah, two-handed weapon clerics just have some action overhead on the following turn to do it, but sword-and-board clerics are screwed.

I just really hope Paizo does away with this whole shifting grip thing. It feels like someone is adamant that PF2 Wizards are going have the same weapon restrictions as the PF1 Magus did, and the entire system is suffering for these rules. They aren't needed, they aren't wanted, just get rid of 'em and let us shift our grip like we could in PF1.

Yeah, it's something the game doesn't need.

...
any way to interrupt it?

So I realise this stuff is an out of context combination, but it did give me a rough idea for a more fun way of handling grip-shifting (esp given that so many people hate it right now).

Make it a free action, but with the manipulate trait so that it interacts with entangled, restrained, and AoO.

[MaxAstro]

I think the action to add grip needs to stay. I feel like it's an important balance point of things like bastard swords, and also makes devoting to a two-handed weapon more of a meaningful trade off. There are actually raw mechanical reasons in PF2e that you might want to fight with a one-handed weapon and an empty off hand, and I like that.

I'm more of the opinion that the edge cases need to get cleaned up - clerics should absolutely be able to cast while wielding a sword and shield without losing actions, for example.

Wizards... maybe not so much.

[LuniasM]

Shinigami02 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So Wisdom for a Cleric does the following things:

- Increases your spell DC
- Gives you more spell points
- Adds to your perception bonus
- Adds to your will save
- Adds to skills that you should probably be good at (religion, medicine).

Does it need to do more? I feel like "Casters who don't care about spell DCs" should be viable (12 Int Wizards were playable in PF1) but probably not optimal.

The thing is, Cleric has almost no reason to care about spell DC, they're not exactly throwing out a lot of offensive spells given the dearth of such in the Divine list.

The divine list has quite a few useful spells that require a saving throw, from damage spells like Flame Strike and Spirit Blast to control spells like Calm Emotions and Command, not to mention debuffs like Blindness, Enervation, and Divine Wrath. Your choice of deity also has an impact on whether you'll want higher WIS - deities like Asmodeus, Calistria, Gozreh, Rovagug, Sarenrae, and Shelyn all grant some useful spells that rely on Save DCs, so their clerics may want to invest more there. Others - like Gorum, Iomedae, Irori, and Torag - grant spells more suited towards buffing (which makes sense, given their followers).

Shinigami02 wrote:

As for spell points, the general feel around this forum seems to be that powers are almost never worth it, so that probably doesn't matter most of the time.

There are quite a few useful Powers in the Cleric Domains, even for clerics that want to use weapons. Stuff like Weapon Surge, Destructive Cry, Healer's Blessing, Lorekeeper's Fortune, Unity, and Mystic Beacon, to name a few. I would like to see the strength of most Powers brought up a bit, though.

[Igor Horvat]

It does not matter what else derives from wisdom, if your main class stat can be dumped and still have effective character then there is something wrong with class design.

[Colette Brunel]

Do channeled heal spells no longer call for Wisdom for the base healing? Did I miss something in an update? I apologize if I did.

[PossibleCabbage]

Igor Horvat wrote:

It does not matter what else derives from wisdom, if your main class stat can be dumped and still have effective character then there is something wrong with class design.

I've seen a Wizard which started level 1 at 12 Int at PF1 and a couple of Oracles who started level 1 at 12 Cha. I didn't think there was anything wrong with that.

[Tridus]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Do channeled heal spells no longer call for Wisdom for the base healing? Did I miss something in an update? I apologize if I did.

They do, but when heal is doing 9d8+WIS, boosting WIS gives you +1 to the heal and boosting CHA gives you another 9d8 worth of heal.

One of those is pretty clearly better than the other.

[Dasrak]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Do channeled heal spells no longer call for Wisdom for the base healing? Did I miss something in an update? I apologize if I did.

The total amount of healing is actually higher if you're Cha-invested than Wis-invested. Presuming a 1st level cleric who devotes both prepared slots towards heal:

18 wis / 10 cha = 2 heals x 1d8+4 hp = 17 hp avg
16 wis / 12 cha = 3 heals x 1d8+3 hp = 22.5 hp avg
14 wis / 14 cha = 4 heals x 1d8+2 hp = 26 hp avg
12 wis / 16 cha = 5 heals x 1d8+1 hp = 27.5 hp avg

There's a bit of diminishing returns towards the end there, so there's some argument that 14 wis / 14 cha would be better at 1st since it better guards against low rolls, but as soon as heightening comes into play charisma is just too far ahead of the curve in terms of total healing. And remember, that's presuming you're putting slots towards extra healing; if you aren't, the comparison is even more lopsided.

If your concern is healing and you have to choose between wisdom and charisma, go for charisma.

[Scythia]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Do channeled heal spells no longer call for Wisdom for the base healing? Did I miss something in an update? I apologize if I did.

Only as a flat amount, easily overcome via the extra dice of automatically heightened Heal from channelling.

[Charon Onozuka]

MaxAstro wrote:

I think the action to add grip needs to stay. I feel like it's an important balance point of things like bastard swords, and also makes devoting to a two-handed weapon more of a meaningful trade off. There are actually raw mechanical reasons in PF2e that you might want to fight with a one-handed weapon and an empty off hand, and I like that.

I'm more of the opinion that the edge cases need to get cleaned up - clerics should absolutely be able to cast while wielding a sword and shield without losing actions, for example.

Wizards... maybe not so much.

Agree. Right now, I think there's still an issue with two-handed weapons generally being better than one-handed weapons, especially since larger damage dice are more impactful in a system where potency adds extra dice to damage. There needs to be a trade-off to avoid them being just a strict upgrade.

If all casters can just ignore any restrictions on having a two-handed weapon, then there isn't much reason for them to ever carry a one-handed weapon. Especially considering all traditions other than Primal get the Shield cantrip which unlike a normal shield does not take up a hand, upgrades automatically for free, self-repairs in 10min without taking skill checks or your ability to do other stuff, and never risks being destroyed.

[Ediwir]

I'm just gonna say it.

Every version of the Cleric, from release to now, was perfectly viable with 10Wis. In fact, the optimal Cleric at every update had low Wis and high Cha.
This update did not change that.

[Dasrak]

Charon Onozuka wrote:

If all casters can just ignore any restrictions on having a two-handed weapon, then there isn't much reason for them to ever carry a one-handed weapon.

As far as I'm concerned that's a problem with the way one-handed weapons are currently set up; there really isn't a reason why anyone would prefer to use them. Artificially forcing the usage of one-handed weapons by essentially preventing classes with certain types of class features from using two-handed weapons effectively isn't the solution, and is leading us to a stale game where every caster is using a bastard sword... because you really don't want to be one-handing even though you're often forced to. This is making the bastard sword overpowered, and I really don't think it's a problem with the weapon (I've yet to even see a martial character use a bastard sword; it's strictly a caster issue).

Casters should be able to use two-handed weapons effectively, and fulfill concepts that call for them. Artificially hamstringing them so other weapons get the spotlight instead is a zero-sum exercise, and inherently unhealthy for the game rules.

[Colette Brunel]

Scythia wrote:

dice

It looks like from 1st through 8th level or so, if you really want to heal, your best bet is to invest in both Wisdom and Charisma, since the ability modifier is especially relevant for the three-action healing.

Besides, what we have seen from the Resonance Test's fire ray suggests that Sarenite pure caster clerics are not going to be wanting for damage on the spot.

[EberronHoward]

Yeah, if one knows which spells don't use saving throws, one can build a caster with no bonus to their primary stat, and be useful.

Ediwir wrote:

I'm just gonna say it.

Every version of the Cleric, from release to now, was perfectly viable with 10Wis. In fact, the optimal Cleric at every update had low Wis and high Cha.
This update did not change that.

The first PC I made for PF2 was a Cleric of Gorum I called "He-Man".

[Charon Onozuka]

Dasrak wrote:

As far as I'm concerned that's a problem with the way one-handed weapons are currently set up; there really isn't a reason why anyone would prefer to use them. Artificially forcing the usage of one-handed weapons by essentially preventing classes with certain types of class features from using two-handed weapons effectively isn't the solution, and is leading us to a stale game where every caster is using a bastard sword... because you really don't want to be one-handing even though you're often forced to. This is making the bastard sword overpowered, and I really don't think it's a problem with the weapon (I've yet to even see a martial character use a bastard sword; it's strictly a caster issue).

Casters should be able to use two-handed weapons effectively, and fulfill concepts that call for them. Artificially hamstringing them so other weapons get the spotlight instead is a zero-sum exercise, and inherently unhealthy for the game rules.

How is it unhealthy for an option with the most raw power to have a trade-off associated with it? Trades-off are good for the game, as they encourage characters to make meaningful choices about what they value most from a selected option.

And while casters may be the most notably impacted by having an action to regrip two-handed weapons, all characters can feel this when they want to use an item (needing a hand to retrieve/use) or use a combat maneuver that requires a free hand (as a 2-hand Barbarian did in my last session).

Even with this casters can still use two-handed weapons as long as they realize the trade-off they're making, gaining better damage melee in exchange for making it harder to swap between casting and melee on the fly. While I could certainly see the benefit in having a later option be able lessen this trade-off (perhaps a niche for a magus archetype?), I don't think that the default assumption should be that trade-offs can't exist and two-handed weapons are just better by default.

[Ediwir]

EberronHoward wrote:

The first PC I made for PF2 was a Cleric of Gorum I called "He-Man".

Did he have the power?

[citricking]

The switch to make the cleric more MAD is a great thing, you want there to be tradeoffs, and not one optimal build. Wis obviously is still important for a cleric.

I think these trade offs would be a lot better with changing the ability score generation method to this

[Tridus]

Charon Onozuka wrote:

How is it unhealthy for an option with the most raw power to have a trade-off associated with it? Trades-off are good for the game, as they encourage characters to make meaningful choices about what they value most from a selected option.

2h weapon has less tradeoff than 1h and shield, though. You don't have to drop a 2h weapon, you do have to drop a 1h weapon (since weapon cords don't exist).

Quote:

And while casters may be the most notably impacted by having an action to regrip two-handed weapons, all characters can feel this when they want to use an item (needing a hand to retrieve/use) or use a combat maneuver that requires a free hand (as a 2-hand Barbarian did in my last session).

Even with this casters can still use two-handed weapons as long as they realize the trade-off they're making, gaining better damage melee in exchange for making it harder to swap between casting and melee on the fly. While I could certainly see the benefit in having a later option be able lessen this trade-off (perhaps a niche for a magus archetype?), I don't think that the default assumption should be that trade-offs can't exist and two-handed weapons are just better by default.

Well, the trade off is kind of against the stated design goal of not having to make that trade off, largely because spells are pretty important to spellcasters, any Cleric who heals is likely going to be a target, and they probably want a shield to help survive that. If you have to choose, you pretty much have to choose access to casting.

So they changed it to avoid that because it's such an important class feature, but left this weird corner case in instead.

Saying that you need to do it to deal with an item isn't the same as saying "your class gets training in shields but using them effectively blocks your core class function from working in combat." That just doesn't make logical sense, why are Clerics even trained in shields if they're not intended to use them?

That's not a tradeoff, that's just two things in the class working at cross purpose. Which is why there was a feat to get around it, and why that feat was then rolled back in... except for the edge case we're talking about.

[Voss]

citricking wrote:

The switch to make the cleric more MAD is a great thing, you want there to be tradeoffs, and not one optimal build. Wis obviously is still important for a cleric.

The cleric is already terribly MAD. It doesn't need to be punished more for having a workable role for 3 months.

[Nettah]

Ecaliburrover said wrote:

So, let’s mod a bit that melee cleric. Ok, the stats would be something like 16 12 12 10 12 16 (if you go goblin they may as well become 16 12 14 10 10 16 which are even better for what we want to do). We have a pc that is as effective as the one previously mentioned. You lose your domain powers but they were crap anyway and you better never try to counter an effect with a spell roll. Also your party is better find someone else to make those Treat Wounds checks. However this is easy to lay around because you can assist each other while Treating Wounds and also items can help. Moreover because of this use Medicine is one of the most important skill in the game and every member in the party should arguably have it (more Assists= more bonuses= more chances to crit the check= less waste of time).

So you have a decent melee fighter, which can neat you some fun, it has decent spell variety and 3-4 bonus max level heal spells for when the crap hits the fan. The only very big drawback is the lack of very effective ranged options when the need come but a returning trident and air walk should suffice.

So this is the tale of the update 1.6 goblin cleric with 10 wis. Just as planned.

Ah, also, high charisma let’s you go the demoralize/feint build if you want and it will often be a much better choice that that 3 rd attack.

Well with the new system of attributes you can design a max level character with low stats in the beginning for a functional design later on. But at the beginning levels a low wisdom cleric would be handicapped to a point where any other class with healing capabilities would be more effective overall.

As other people have mentioned is wisdom one of the highest ranking stats in terms of bonuses for all classes in terms of perception, will save and several important skills.
Furthermore your class DC matters unless you purely buff spells for the most part.
Spell Points could be better but with a 2 for 1 ratio for another heal (which is your argument for going full charisma) it's still up there in importance as well.

And sure at high levels the stat bonus to heal won't matter much but at first level 18 wisdom would account for nearly half your healing.

Sure a melee healer cleric with good wisdom is a MAD character, and I would hope so. Personally I see it as a strength of the system that not starting with an 18 in a key attribute is viable for some builds. But for most builds a 20 18 18 18 18 16 array at level 20 might be the most useful overall, but the character would be pretty bad from level 1-10 at least.

And talking demoralize, be ready to spend a lot of time being frightened 1/2 if you would ever face another cleric.

[Scythia]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Scythia wrote:

dice

It looks like from 1st through 8th level or so, if you really want to heal, your best bet is to invest in both Wisdom and Charisma, since the ability modifier is especially relevant for the three-action healing.

Besides, what we have seen from the Resonance Test's fire ray suggests that Sarenite pure caster clerics are not going to be wanting for damage on the spot.

Until level five, every +1 you're adding from Wis (aside from the one gained by it being primary stat if you don't play an ancestry with a Wis penalty) could have been a complete extra casting of Heal. No matter which action version, that blows a +1 out of the water.