Clerics and Channel Energy: A compromise.


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

12 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to take a moment to discuss the relevance of Channel Energy, Charisma, and their overly strong impact on the Cleric class. If we stripped both of those away from the Cleric, the class would be extremely weak and bare bones. The class has too many feats to expand on Channel Energy, and with the new nerf to Channel Energy uses, it makes Charisma much more impactful to the class, as the ratio from stat to base uses changed as well. Prior to these changes, Channel Energy also felt like a mandatory party feature in a game that wasn't supposed to require players playing a certain type of class or role.

On top of that, the raw power from Channel Energy spirals way out of control once you apply levels, as now you're having that much more spell power compared to others. Consider at the end game, you can heal as a 10th level spell upwards of six times compared to any other class whom would be foolish to do it even once, and don't ever get bonus 10th level spell slots. That's an insane amount of power gained compared to anyone else's 20th level feat, and is not something that changing the ratio of channel energy uses solves.

To that, I propose a complete rewrite of Channel Energy to be more along the lines of how current power scaling of other classes work (and compared to PF1's channel energy):

___

Channel Energy

The cleric gains the ability to channel the energy of his/her deity's will onto others. The Cleric gains one additional spell per day per spell level they can cast, which coincides with his/her deity's channel focus. If the deity uses positive energy, the cleric gains an additional Heal spell per spell level prepared for the day. If the deity uses negative energy, the cleric gains an additional Harm spell per spell level prepares for the day. If a deity allows a choice between either positive or negative, the cleric must decide which form of energy they channel, and receive one spell per spell level based on their choice of energy, and once chosen, this cannot be changed.

In addition, the Cleric may spontaneously transform one of his prepared spells to channel energy, expending the spell slot as normal to create a Heal (if positive) or Harm (if negative) spell whose effects manifest at the same level of whichever spell was transformed.

___

This is approximately the casting power that other casting classes got. Sorcerers got Bloodline spells. Wizards got School powers. Other casting classes got things like Orders and added heightening, and that's fair. On top of that, none of their main features are tied to secondary attributes (sans Wild Druid, but special cases and all that), so why should a Cleric's Channel Energy similarly be tied to a secondary attribute? We've all seen what happened when we did that: Charisma outright replaced Wisdom in most cases, and it's clearly not intended. In reality, abolishing that wouldn't be bad.

Of course, some people wouldn't like the overall nerf to clerics, and that's fine. There are other ways to shore up a Cleric. For example, a Healing Cleric might want to take the Advanced Domain feat to turn 2 Spell Points into a Heal spell, compared to 1 spell point adding +2 per dice. Or, they could use both and actually get some solid nova mileage out of their Wisdom and Spell Points. Right now, Domains are too niche and weak to have (except for a few), so having them beefed up in exchange can help the Cleric get more into its niche instead of just being one overly powerful feature of a class that it is now. And there are other ways to help besides domains. What about actual feats that give you abilities fit for a Cleric instead of more and more stuff meant to enhance "that one thing you do"? I'm sure Paizo can come up with several that can make Channel Energy more of a compliment than a requirement.


I'd be game for this. :)


That is also a fairly good way to do things. Charisma is already likely going to be highly relevant because of Domain power once Focus shifts in, so we might as well use the other classes as measuring sticks.

That said, Cleric still needs a spell list revamp to make spells compete with Heal, and some option for Neutral clerics... but this is actually a better version of Channel than my own, so congrats. I am officially shifting my approach.
It’s simple, effective, and balanced.
Thumbs up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So basically a bonus spell slot at every level plus the ability to spontaneously convert other slots into equivalent heal/harm spells. Sounds good, but I can't shake the feeling that those rules feel very familiar from somewhere... I just can't put my finger on it...


Dasrak wrote:
So basically a bonus spell slot at every level plus the ability to spontaneously convert other slots into equivalent heal/harm spells. Sounds good, but I can't shake the feeling that those rules feel very familiar from somewhere... I just can't put my finger on it...

You don't say :D

To be honest the ability to convert spells might be excessive at higher levels and might warrant an extra action,if only just to help the spell competition. Fast Channel helps offset this if one wants to.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ediwir wrote:
To be honest the ability to convert spells might be excessive at higher levels and might warrant an extra action,if only just to help the spell competition. Fast Channel helps offset this if one wants to.

This might be better after the spell buffs have come through. Heal is a bit of an OP spell right now, but if literally everything else gets buffed it might be fine.


Ediwir wrote:

That is also a fairly good way to do things. Charisma is already likely going to be highly relevant because of Domain power once Focus shifts in, so we might as well use the other classes as measuring sticks.

That said, Cleric still needs a spell list revamp to make spells compete with Heal, and some option for Neutral clerics... but this is actually a better version of Channel than my own, so congrats. I am officially shifting my approach.
It’s simple, effective, and balanced.
Thumbs up.

Much appreciated. Neutral Clerics still get the choice of Heal/Harm like before; I tried making it clear, but I guess it got lost between using the same confusing clause over and over again.

I did consider giving them a flat spell slot to prepare anything of their choice, but I felt that it was too much freedom for the extra spell slot, since a similar comparison (the Wizard) didn't have that much unless they were a Universalist, but even they are extremely strong from what I've gathered.

Sovereign Court

I don't see how this is a compromise. So Clerics go from 3+ CHA to just CHA and the compromise is 10 + spontaneously popping prepped spells?

Absolutely not.

I don't like the idea of having other classes getting nerfed, but the reality is Heal / Harm is THE best spell in the game and Clerics get an alarming amount of uses with it. Even if CHA is required to up their uses.

And for sure, without any other channel feats a base Cleric heals much better than a Bard can AND the Cleric gets Expert Proficiency with their weapon.

I would be open to Channel Energy being able to spontaneously pop a prepped spell for Heal/Harm. Maybe a base amount for low level (like 3 free). But no way should they get one a level.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In reality, I think the thing that changes everything for Clerics is Heal lands on the Primal and Occult spell lists. We're fighting over this healing thing but as I think about it, the problem isn't Channel Energy. The problem is HEAL is so much better than ALL the other healing spells combined.

So maybe the actual solution is the proliferation of Heal.


Dasrak wrote:
So basically a bonus spell slot at every level plus the ability to spontaneously convert other slots into equivalent heal/harm spells. Sounds good, but I can't shake the feeling that those rules feel very familiar from somewhere... I just can't put my finger on it...

This was calculated (and yes, where the original concept came from).

Getting a choice of a free slot of Heal/Harm, even if it is as strong as it is, still makes for a fairly static (even if somewhat powerful) feature, and didn't match up with the modular scaling of other class' spell slot features. (The closest is Universalist Wizard, though even that isn't fair in my opinion due to the power disparities.) Having the option to convert slots as needed lets Clerics be the healers they want/need to be while letting them prepare the spell slots they would originally want. Heal/Harm is an almost universal spell to the Divine spell list that there is almost no choice to it, and while the original Channel Energy tried to eliminate that choice, it also created an insane power boost combined with the existing changes that the game doesn't (read: shouldn't) want. And yes, while this does cut down on Cleric spell power overall, with a feature as strong as the previous Channel Energy compared with everyone else's spell powers, something had to give, and there are other areas the developers can shore up (feats, domains, other sources of healing, etc.) that would both A. make Wisdom a better requirement, and B. make Channel Energy more of a supplement and not the absolute powerhouse and requirement of a feature it is now.

On top of that, the existing Channel Energy was a holdover of PF1 design (which clashed with the already existing spell points system) that was A. weaker, and B. a feature completely separate from healing spells (similar to Lay on Hands as they are now and as they were in PF1). It's a design that's outdated and doesn't match what the current design is. The ability to spontaneously cast heal/harm spells, on the other hand, is not outdated, because the original intent was to have the spell replace the prior channel mechanics to cut down on mechanics to memorize (though this makes no sense when we consider Lay On Hands, a similar mechanic, still exists), which means the spell rules still have a hold here.

In short, semi-flexibility with their spell slots is a nice feature to have, because it lets Clerics prepare slots "just in case" as normal, but if it turns out they don't need them, boom, free healing (or damage during combat) as needed. The Cleric can still be the best (or comparable) healer because they still have feats which work with the Heal spell, it's just that they shouldn't be the de facto healer, or rather that the disparity shouldn't be so bad as to allow other classes (Alchemist, Bard, Sorcerer) to provide comparable healing. It's actually one of the "hidden" features behind the Cleric class in PF1 that made them much more bearable to play if you wanted to have spells, but also had to fill a "healer" niche.


Neume wrote:

I don't see how this is a compromise. So Clerics go from 3+ CHA to just CHA and the compromise is 10 + spontaneously popping prepped spells?

Absolutely not.

I don't like the idea of having other classes getting nerfed, but the reality is Heal / Harm is THE best spell in the game and Clerics get an alarming amount of uses with it. Even if CHA is required to up their uses.

And for sure, without any other channel feats a base Cleric heals much better than a Bard can AND the Cleric gets Expert Proficiency with their weapon.

I would be open to Channel Energy being able to spontaneously pop a prepped spell for Heal/Harm. Maybe a base amount for low level (like 3 free). But no way should they get one a level.

Actually, Charisma has no factor in this whatsoever.

It goes based off of their spell levels that they can cast.

At 1st level, with 1st level spells, they get one 1st level Heal spell for free.

At 3rd level, with 2nd level spells, they now get one 2nd level Heal spell for free (in addition to the 1st level Heal spell they got for free).

This scales all the way until they get 10th level spells with their 20th level feat (which, what crazy person wouldn't do that?). So, for each spell level they possess, they get one Heal spell of each corresponding spell level for free.

I do agree other things need to be changed as well (and explicitly say so), but this is specifically a thread discussing about what sort of power (or impact) Channel Energy should have on the feel and playstyle of this class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

That is also a fairly good way to do things. Charisma is already likely going to be highly relevant because of Domain power once Focus shifts in, so we might as well use the other classes as measuring sticks.

That said, Cleric still needs a spell list revamp to make spells compete with Heal, and some option for Neutral clerics... but this is actually a better version of Channel than my own, so congrats. I am officially shifting my approach.
It’s simple, effective, and balanced.
Thumbs up.

Much appreciated. Neutral Clerics still get the choice of Heal/Harm like before; I tried making it clear, but I guess it got lost between using the same confusing clause over and over again.

I did consider giving them a flat spell slot to prepare anything of their choice, but I felt that it was too much freedom for the extra spell slot, since a similar comparison (the Wizard) didn't have that much unless they were a Universalist, but even they are extremely strong from what I've gathered.

Oh, I didn't mean in term of Channeling, I meant in term of spell selection. A lot of the Cleric's strongest spells rely on the Cleric's Alignment, and have no effect if the Cleric is Neutral. This causes a narrowing of the class if, say, someone decides to play a Lawful Neutral cleric of law and order, or a Neutral cleric of Pharasma as was the case in my playtest group.

Basically right now you sorta have to be Good so that you have (you guessed it) Good spells.

Neume wrote:

I don't see how this is a compromise. So Clerics go from 3+ CHA to just CHA and the compromise is 10 + spontaneously popping prepped spells?

Absolutely not.

I don't like the idea of having other classes getting nerfed, but the reality is Heal / Harm is THE best spell in the game and Clerics get an alarming amount of uses with it. Even if CHA is required to up their uses.

And for sure, without any other channel feats a base Cleric heals much better than a Bard can AND the Cleric gets Expert Proficiency with their weapon.

I would be open to Channel Energy being able to spontaneously pop a prepped spell for Heal/Harm. Maybe a base amount for low level (like 3 free). But no way should they get one a level.

For those interested, this version gives at level 9 the same amount of overall heal as a 1.6Cleric with 16Cha, but with less burst and more flexibility. The equality point for a Cleric with 18 Cha is lv13. For 20Cha, it's lv17.

(also calculations are simplified to use a static +4.5 Wis modifier - higher modifiers would affect Darksol's Channel a lot more)

This, to me, is good - less burst means combat is more dangerous / risky and can be threatening, which was a sorely missing part of my playtest experience (as a GM, I try to challenge players. This is hard when one of them can top them up for over 70% of their health a dozen times a day, unless I play rocket tag or Coordinated Assassin Tactics, which I don't like either).
At lower level, this is a nerf. That's fine. At higher levels, this is more of a rebalancing.
At all levels, it will keep Clerics more closely comparable to other healers and spellcasters in general, and will make combat more exciting because of the more real threat the party faces, knowing that huge heal bursts are very, VERY limited.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

if cleric healing is comparable to other healers, the entire class needs a redesign because there would literally be no reason to ever play the class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Channel feats make Cleric healing superior regardless. All you need is to have it *comparable* rather than overwhelming. A specialist might punch to 150% of someone else's abilities and still be balanced, but there is no such thing as "300% of everyone's best with no effort" balanced.

...also, I was fairly sure nobody liked Clerics being healbots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

Channel feats make Cleric healing superior regardless. All you need is to have it *comparable* rather than overwhelming. A specialist might punch to 150% of someone else's abilities and still be balanced, but there is no such thing as "300% of everyone's best with no effort" balanced.

...also, I was fairly sure nobody liked Clerics being healbots.

druids have a better spells, have better feats, the same goes for bards. the new alchemist has now even better class abilities that it did before. if their healing is comparable to a cleric there is zero reason to play a cleric. why would you play a cleric, when druids, bards et al can do what you, plus way more stuff. the druid spell list is incredible, bard spell list is darn good, and so are there buff feats.


ikarinokami wrote:


if cleric healing is comparable to other healers, the entire class needs a redesign because there would literally be no reason to ever play the class.

Well, you have Sorcerers who are actually worse than any other spellcasting list niche (sans Arcane, because Wizards) based on proficiencies alone, and their bloodline powers and class feats are pretty sub-par and niche all their own. But you still have people playing Sorcerers. It's the same argument back when PF1 was released and we had Core Rogue, Core Fighter, and Core Monk whom were all trash without Unchained, Weapon/Armor Master Handbook resources, and Archetypes, so it's not really treading new ground.

It's still going to be superior because Clerics have access to healing feats that others don't (or require serious investment to match). Healing Hands, Channeling Smite, these are abilities that other classes don't possess unless they multiclass (which costs them more feats to do and subtracts from other feats they might want or need), and if Cleric Domain Powers get boosted to compensate for the lack of healing power, then there is all kinds of reason.

Also, by the endgame, having access to a 10th level heal that other classes simply don't have is extremely powerful, because that's one 10th level slot they didn't have before. Having 2 10th level slots compared to other spellcasters' 1 is plenty strong as it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

Channel feats make Cleric healing superior regardless. All you need is to have it *comparable* rather than overwhelming. A specialist might punch to 150% of someone else's abilities and still be balanced, but there is no such thing as "300% of everyone's best with no effort" balanced.

...also, I was fairly sure nobody liked Clerics being healbots.

druids have a better spells, have better feats, the same goes for bards. the new alchemist has now even better class abilities that it did before. if their healing is comparable to a cleric there is zero reason to play a cleric. why would you play a cleric, when druids, bards et al can do what you, plus way more stuff. the druid spell list is incredible, bard spell list is darn good, and so are there buff feats.

To me this sounds like you’re asking for a Divine spell list overhaul.

Sovereign Court

ikarinokami wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

Channel feats make Cleric healing superior regardless. All you need is to have it *comparable* rather than overwhelming. A specialist might punch to 150% of someone else's abilities and still be balanced, but there is no such thing as "300% of everyone's best with no effort" balanced.

...also, I was fairly sure nobody liked Clerics being healbots.

druids have a better spells, have better feats, the same goes for bards. the new alchemist has now even better class abilities that it did before. if their healing is comparable to a cleric there is zero reason to play a cleric. why would you play a cleric, when druids, bards et al can do what you, plus way more stuff. the druid spell list is incredible, bard spell list is darn good, and so are there buff feats.

There is no world where bards are better than clerics. Once again, clerics get the same amount of spells, shares our party buff bonus, BUT they can fight in melee (gets better armor and expert weapons). Bard's Soothe spell heals 1 person within 30 feat 1d6 + CHA. Your argument is highly flawed.

The fact of the better bard feats is a hoax at best. The bard lost the most abilities of any class in the transition from PF1 to PF2. We no longer get fascinate or suggestion (though we still have the spell), we now must choose between 3 of our once core abilities (Bardic Knowledge / Lore Master, Performances and Versatile Performance).

All we got in return was was, Restoration, Phantasmal Killer and Black Tentacles. Honestly, it wasn't a great trade off.

And let's not even get into feat options. Clerics have like 10-15 more feat options than bards.

I've played both classes in the playtest at level 1, 10 and 15 (and the bard from level 1-20) there is no way cleric is not far superior. You are imagining this.


Ediwir wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

Channel feats make Cleric healing superior regardless. All you need is to have it *comparable* rather than overwhelming. A specialist might punch to 150% of someone else's abilities and still be balanced, but there is no such thing as "300% of everyone's best with no effort" balanced.

...also, I was fairly sure nobody liked Clerics being healbots.

druids have a better spells, have better feats, the same goes for bards. the new alchemist has now even better class abilities that it did before. if their healing is comparable to a cleric there is zero reason to play a cleric. why would you play a cleric, when druids, bards et al can do what you, plus way more stuff. the druid spell list is incredible, bard spell list is darn good, and so are there buff feats.
To me this sounds like you’re asking for a Divine spell list overhaul.

absolutely not, we dont need every need Codzill ever again. the divine spell list is perfect for the cleric. the class pre 1.6 was perfectly balanced. channel for heals, ok combat abilities, and a very situational spell list. very similar to how the class functioned in AD&D 2nd.

the divine spell list only becomes a problem if you nerf channel. I agree with poster about divine sorcorers. the divine spell list isnt meant for a primary caster. they should just give divine sorcoers channel for free based on 1 + cha.

Silver Crusade

Hmm, this seems pretty workable. I think the right now Paizo is experimenting to see what the data shows and I suspect there will some sort of middle of toad solution from Original Playtest and the 1.6 update.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

Channel feats make Cleric healing superior regardless. All you need is to have it *comparable* rather than overwhelming. A specialist might punch to 150% of someone else's abilities and still be balanced, but there is no such thing as "300% of everyone's best with no effort" balanced.

...also, I was fairly sure nobody liked Clerics being healbots.

druids have a better spells, have better feats, the same goes for bards. the new alchemist has now even better class abilities that it did before. if their healing is comparable to a cleric there is zero reason to play a cleric. why would you play a cleric, when druids, bards et al can do what you, plus way more stuff. the druid spell list is incredible, bard spell list is darn good, and so are there buff feats.
To me this sounds like you’re asking for a Divine spell list overhaul.

absolutely not, we dont need every need Codzill ever again. the divine spell list is perfect for the cleric. the class pre 1.6 was perfectly balanced. channel for heals, ok combat abilities, and a very situational spell list. very similar to how the class functioned in AD&D 2nd.

the divine spell list only becomes a problem if you nerf channel. I agree with poster about divine sorcorers. the divine spell list isnt meant for a primary caster. they should just give divine sorcoers channel for free based on 1 + cha.

A divine sorcerer with channel is still just a worse cleric due to worse spellcasting, less armor, less hit points, and bloodline powers never rising above the mid tier domains at their best.

Also did you even play AD&D 2E? Its clerics actually had some awesome spellcasting. The old paradigm of spells improving with caster level was still in effect. And especially after Tome of Magic and the Forgotten Realms and to a lesser extent Planescape books, they had a great selection of stuff.

The PF2 divine list needs a serious overhaul, as do the majority of domain powers, but this can be done without unduly steamrolling over the other spell lists.


I suppose the one spell per spell level Heal/Harm free is about in-line with the Sorcerer's extra spell per slot per day, with the conversion casting making up for the lesser versatility perhaps.

Certainly not a bad idea though not how I am likely to do it.

Honestly I'd kinda like to see Channel get keyed off of Wis but that still has its own problems.


Edge93 wrote:

I suppose the one spell per spell level Heal/Harm free is about in-line with the Sorcerer's extra spell per slot per day, with the conversion casting making up for the lesser versatility perhaps.

Certainly not a bad idea though not how I am likely to do it.

Honestly I'd kinda like to see Channel get keyed off of Wis but that still has its own problems.

This solves Charisma being more valuable than Wisdom (since Charisma no longer impacts how many Channels you get each day), but the fact of the matter is that Channel Energy, as a feature, is broken beyond all recognition due to its raw power. The difference between a party that does or does not have Channel Energy is massive. It provides so much for such a singular feature that the Cleric has trash for most every other feature they possess to compensate for it, and that's just bad design. A Cleric is much more than just Channel Energy. They have Domains and can be considerably strong in physical combat with the right build and buffs, and that's just as generic and bare-bones as it gets. I imagine other posters can give much more elaborate Cleric builds that they were fond of in PF1 that they would wish PF2's Cleric could better accommodate, and that's the kind of stuff that PF2's Cleric could follow as an example.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I want to take a moment to discuss the relevance of Channel Energy, Charisma, and their overly strong impact on the Cleric class. If we stripped both of those away from the Cleric, the class would be extremely weak and bare bones. The class has too many feats to expand on Channel Energy, and with the new nerf to Channel Energy uses, it makes Charisma much more impactful to the class, as the ratio from stat to base uses changed as well. Prior to these changes, Channel Energy also felt like a mandatory party feature in a game that wasn't supposed to require players playing a certain type of class or role.

On top of that, the raw power from Channel Energy spirals way out of control once you apply levels, as now you're having that much more spell power compared to others. Consider at the end game, you can heal as a 10th level spell upwards of six times compared to any other class whom would be foolish to do it even once, and don't ever get bonus 10th level spell slots. That's an insane amount of power gained compared to anyone else's 20th level feat, and is not something that changing the ratio of channel energy uses solves.

To that, I propose a complete rewrite of Channel Energy to be more along the lines of how current power scaling of other classes work (and compared to PF1's channel energy):

___

Channel Energy

The cleric gains the ability to channel the energy of his/her deity's will onto others. The Cleric gains one additional spell per day per spell level they can cast, which coincides with his/her deity's channel focus. If the deity uses positive energy, the cleric gains an additional Heal spell per spell level prepared for the day. If the deity uses negative energy, the cleric gains an additional Harm spell per spell level prepares for the day. If a deity allows a choice between either positive or negative, the cleric must decide which form of energy they channel, and receive one spell per spell level based on their choice of energy, and once chosen, this cannot be changed....

I find it really bad that cleric should need to put Point in charisma to get channeling.

Not only does it make them have difficulty to heal it makes them need to spread out their abilities on several stats more than other classes,
Str for being able to fight ok
Dex for AC and ref save,
CON for HP and Fort save
WIs for DC spells, healing and Wis save
Cha to be able to get channeling.

This make cleircs really not balanced at all.
A worse it makes Clerics go wisdom 10 instead a really silly thing!

IF you feel the need to lower the Channeling
give them a fixed 2 instead
OR let it go on CON instead.
The need to being able to focus the divine force through your body.

I personally and neither of my playtest see the need to lower the clerics abilities to heal anyway!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neume wrote:

I don't see how this is a compromise. So Clerics go from 3+ CHA to just CHA and the compromise is 10 + spontaneously popping prepped spells?

Absolutely not.

I don't like the idea of having other classes getting nerfed, but the reality is Heal / Harm is THE best spell in the game and Clerics get an alarming amount of uses with it. Even if CHA is required to up their uses.

And for sure, without any other channel feats a base Cleric heals much better than a Bard can AND the Cleric gets Expert Proficiency with their weapon.

I would be open to Channel Energy being able to spontaneously pop a prepped spell for Heal/Harm. Maybe a base amount for low level (like 3 free). But no way should they get one a level.

Getting one a level means you only have one at the highest level you can cast, instead of the many more than that Paladins are currently getting via Channel Life. So sure, at level 20 you are getting 10 Heals, only a couple of which are useful in combat. A low level heal is meaningless at that point.

Bards are also better at other things than Clerics are. So I'm not sure why them being worse healers is suddenly some kind of crisis. (But yes, they could use some work too.)


Ediwir wrote:
Channel feats make Cleric healing superior regardless. All you need is to have it *comparable* rather than overwhelming. A specialist might punch to 150% of someone else's abilities and still be balanced, but there is no such thing as "300% of everyone's best with no effort" balanced.

That also assumes the rest of the class is balanced, which it's not. Clerics aren't good at anything except Channel related stuff. And now they're better off ignoring all the Channel feats to go into Paladin, because Channel Life is by far the strongest feat in the game and most of the channel feats aren't very good.

So, yeah. If you're 300% at one thing and 50% at everything else, is that balanced? As opposed to being 150% at one thing and 50% at everything else?

Quote:
...also, I was fairly sure nobody liked Clerics being healbots.

Channel pre-nerf was pretty good at eliminating healbots because you had a pool of healing that didn't require you to be a dedicated healer without much ability to do something else. The way they changed it significantly hindered that, and people saying stuff like "just prepare Heal in your high level slots" are actively encouraging healbots.

The proposed solution here suffers from the same problem in that it doesn't give you a lot of viable in combat healing without using your extremely limited number of high level slots, but it does have the advantage of not punishing Dwarves. And it does give you something, at least. If the goal is to demote CHA as a needed stat, it works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neume wrote:
There is no world where bards are better than clerics. Once again, clerics get the same amount of spells, shares our party buff bonus, BUT they can fight in melee (gets better armor and expert weapons). Bard's Soothe spell heals 1 person within 30 feat 1d6 + CHA. Your argument is highly flawed.

Every time I played a Cleric with a Bard, what I found was that my buffs were largely a waste of time because they didn't stack with the Bard ones, which was annoying as hell. But that's a general issue with the game. The Bard in question felt pretty effective, though.

Quote:

The fact of the better bard feats is a hoax at best. The bard lost the most abilities of any class in the transition from PF1 to PF2. We no longer get fascinate or suggestion (though we still have the spell), we now must choose between 3 of our once core abilities (Bardic Knowledge / Lore Master, Performances and Versatile Performance).

All we got in return was was, Restoration, Phantasmal Killer and Black Tentacles. Honestly, it wasn't a great trade off.

Clerics lost half of their spells per day in the conversion. They lost free access to second domain, free access to a second power in the domain they do get, most of their good buff spells, and had pretty much every spell that isn't Heal nerfed.

If you want to turn this into a competition of who lost the most in the conversion, just how severely Clerics were nerfed is going to beat Bards.

Of course, turning it into a competition is silly. One class having issues doesn't preclude another class also having issues. It's not a zero sum game, and I'd contend that neither class is where it should be and both need buffs rather than to be in a silly game of "you can't have anything nice because I don't have anything nice."

Everyone should have something that lets the class shine and feel awesome. That was Channel. Now it's... nothing, really. That's a problem.

Quote:
And let's not even get into feat options. Clerics have like 10-15 more feat options than bards.

And yet arguably the best feat option for Clerics right now is to ignore them all and drop four into Paladin to get Channel Life. That should tell you something about how useful those extra feat options are. If you want Channel Smite, feel free to take it. A feat that takes a spell that can't miss (two action Heal) and gives it a sizable miss chance isn't exactly all that enticing with how limited Channel Heal is now.

Not to mention that it's obvious more feats will be added in the release version, so it's a temporary problem anyway.

If you want Bard issues addressed, that's cool, they could use another look. But it's silly to proclaim Clerics are fine because Bards have problems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Channel feats make Cleric healing superior regardless. All you need is to have it *comparable* rather than overwhelming. A specialist might punch to 150% of someone else's abilities and still be balanced, but there is no such thing as "300% of everyone's best with no effort" balanced.

That also assumes the rest of the class is balanced, which it's not. Clerics aren't good at anything except Channel related stuff. And now they're better off ignoring all the Channel feats to go into Paladin, because Channel Life is by far the strongest feat in the game and most of the channel feats aren't very good.

So, yeah. If you're 300% at one thing and 50% at everything else, is that balanced? As opposed to being 150% at one thing and 50% at everything else?

Quote:
...also, I was fairly sure nobody liked Clerics being healbots.

Channel pre-nerf was pretty good at eliminating healbots because you had a pool of healing that didn't require you to be a dedicated healer without much ability to do something else. The way they changed it significantly hindered that, and people saying stuff like "just prepare Heal in your high level slots" are actively encouraging healbots.

The proposed solution here suffers from the same problem in that it doesn't give you a lot of viable in combat healing without using your extremely limited number of high level slots, but it does have the advantage of not punishing Dwarves. And it does give you something, at least. If the goal is to demote CHA as a needed stat, it works.

And if you have a look at my posts, I repeat all the time (at least since a montha go or so) that Cleric’s spell list and feat selection needs a lot of work.

However, Channel as it was was absolutely horrible.

You say it removed healbot. I say it caused them.
Play a game without a Cleric and tell me how it goes. Then run the same game with a pre-nerf Cleric.
Channel Energy wasn’t a feature, it was a whole class. Good riddance to it. Now we need to actually turn Cleric into a viable class.

(And yes sure Channel Life needs the axe in some way, fully agree, but that’s not the point of this thread).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

And if you have a look at my posts, I repeat all the time (at least since a montha go or so) that Cleric’s spell list and feat selection needs a lot of work.

However, Channel as it was was absolutely horrible.
You say it removed healbot. I say it caused them.
Play a game without a Cleric and tell me how it goes. Then run the same game with a pre-nerf Cleric.
Channel Energy wasn’t a feature, it was a whole class. Good riddance to it. Now we need to actually turn Cleric into a viable class.

(And yes sure Channel Life needs the axe in some way, fully agree, but that’s not the point of this thread).

The whole class needs to be rebalanced away from Channel. That, we agree on. :) (Paizo also seems to based on previous threads.)

Quote:

You say it removed healbot. I say it caused them.

This probably depends on how you define "healbot". I primarily play support casters, including lots of healers. To me, a healbot is a character that can heal effectively, and not do much of anything else effectively. They're one dimensional characters.

If your definition of "healbot" is instead "is expected to be the one doing the healing", then yes, the 1.0 playtest Cleric was absolutely that.

Unfortunately, sometimes it's unclear exactly what people mean by the terms so we can wind up talking past each other.


For all the people complaining about channel life, do you hate lay on hands too? They're pretty comparable. Channel life isn't too op if every feat that grants a power just gives 1 spell point. Both costing 2, but giving out more spell points is also an option.


A healbot, to me, is a one-dimensional character whose only real contribution is to heal, but who is too effective at it to be easily replaced by a more interesting character.

Basically 1.0 cleric.


For those saying that Channel Life shouldn't be brought into discussion, I disagree, as Channel Life is identical (and I believe the text says it functions as Channel Energy). So, other classes that want this feature will bring a significant perspective into how this feature can be designed, and I think I have a solution.

Channel Life can similarly get nerfed by requiring 2 more spell points instead of 1 to cast, being identical to the Advanced Healing Domain feature (which is only limited based on spell points/focus, something that Clerics of my current design will no longer abide by). 10D4 is roughly the same amount as 5D8 (though 10D4 is more likely to give you an average and a higher minimum in exchange for more actions or requiring being next to people). The other tradeoff here is the three acton option, which is great for improved out of combat healing (or in-combat AoE damage versus undead), something which I feel should be worth a feat based on versatility alone.


I Likes it. A very simple solution and gets rid of channel.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

For those saying that Channel Life shouldn't be brought into discussion, I disagree, as Channel Life is identical (and I believe the text says it functions as Channel Energy). So, other classes that want this feature will bring a significant perspective into how this feature can be designed, and I think I have a solution.

Channel Life can similarly get nerfed by requiring 2 more spell points instead of 1 to cast, being identical to the Advanced Healing Domain feature (which is only limited based on spell points/focus, something that Clerics of my current design will no longer abide by). 10D4 is roughly the same amount as 5D8 (though 10D4 is more likely to give you an average and a higher minimum in exchange for more actions or requiring being next to people). The other tradeoff here is the three acton option, which is great for improved out of combat healing (or in-combat AoE damage versus undead), something which I feel should be worth a feat based on versatility alone.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

Lay on Hands is 2d6 per level and +1 AC, and Heal is 2d8 per level.

Channel life is slightly better than Lay on Hands, but not nearly worth twice as much.


I think he was talking about pre-1.6 Lay on Hands, which is d4 based.

No point anyways - the big gamechanger in Channel Life for Paladins is the area healing, which is easily worth 2 or 3 lay on hands anyways most of the time.

It still needs the axe. I’d say changing the cost to 3 points can be a working solution for the time being, but an even simpler solution would be giving them the Sorcerer treatment and giving them a single use per day (no cost).


Ediwir wrote:
I think he was talking about pre-1.6 Lay on Hands, which is d4 based.

Pretty much this, I forgot they buffed it in 1.6. Even then, I'm going based off of the comparison of the Healing Domain, which costs 2 spell points for 1 use of Channel, since the Paladin's Channel Life is equivalent in power (and it makes no sense to have two abilities that do the same thing have a different cost, simply because of the current Channel Energy rules being broken if they were the same of a lesser quality).

Another thing to consider is that Healing Domain's Advanced Power got a lot stronger with how scarce its power is now (and serves as an alternative for Clerics in the higher levels), and players will actually feel rewarded investing in it instead of it more than likely being overkill. With my system, Healing Domain will be even more valued, and similar to the current iteration, can serve as a function to replace Charisma entirely.

One issue that presents itself is that now Clerics must build with the Healing Doamin if they want a comparable level of healing power, though they sacrifice other things in exchange, and it means players have to make that choice/sacrifice instead of it being something granted and that other players come to expect of their fellow Cleric. Does it sound bad? Possibly. But if the math compensates the lack of commonplace healing and treats it more spacious, Healing Domain would be more optional (and fit for those whom want to be a healer compared to others who aren't or just simply don't want to be).

On top of that, Heal and Harm have in-combat utility versus undead and other kinds of foes, respectively, so it's not the worst thing in the world to have extra spell slots for it.


Ediwir wrote:

I think he was talking about pre-1.6 Lay on Hands, which is d4 based.

No point anyways - the big gamechanger in Channel Life for Paladins is the area healing, which is easily worth 2 or 3 lay on hands anyways most of the time.

It still needs the axe. I’d say changing the cost to 3 points can be a working solution for the time being, but an even simpler solution would be giving them the Sorcerer treatment and giving them a single use per day (no cost).

For the three action version it has a material component which makes it harder to use, and it's using three actions. For me I feel like the one action use is best in most cases in in a party with other healing resources.

Something like the druids summon nature ally would work, 2 points for full level, 1 point for a lower level cast.


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:

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.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
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 think an auspicable objective would be “a very small number of powerful heals for in-combat use, plus a wide healing pool for noncombat usage, and good spellcasting”.

This thread offers a step in that direction, but clearly isn’t a final way.
One could even go as far as suggesting that it could instead be a slot per level to spontaneously cast any spell with the Healing trait (posiive) or the Negative trait (negative), maybe with a feat to expand it this way.


Zorae wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
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 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.


People keep bringing up healing.

How about an evil cleric who blasts you for Nd8+4 touch damage per action, three times a turn, for three turns in a row?
That’d be fun.

*N being pretty much your level.


Ediwir wrote:

People keep bringing up healing.

How about an evil cleric who blasts you for Nd8+4 touch damage per action, three times a turn, for three turns in a row?
That’d be fun.

*N being pretty much your level.

This would be considered strong nova capabilities if the Harm spell didn't suffer MAP. But it does. So all this really does is mean a Cleric doesn't have to invest in high Strength or magic weapons to devastate his enemies with damage.

I will say that Harm Clerics do get more mileage out of the Channel Smite feat than Heal Clerics, though. A high Strength Cleric running around with a magic weapon, Magical Striker (through Sorcerer Dedication, but that takes 4 feats), and his Negative Energy Channels is probably the strongest nova class in the game by far.

XD12+ND8+Strength+Wisdom is a brutal single hit, and heaven forbid we critically hit an enemy, where all of that dice (and Strength and Wisdom) becomes doubled.

Let's take 12th level, the capstone of PF1S. A CN Gorumite wielding a +3 Greatsword, casting 6th level Harm single-target via Channel Smite, possessing 18 Strength and 12 Wisdom (or 10 Wisdom if Goblin), benefitting from Magical Striker all at once turns this hit into 4D12+11D8+4+1. This takes two actions, yes, but when you're dealing, on-average, 70 damage, with an average of 140 on a critical, there isn't much left from that against an equal level PC, and it decimates equal level monsters.

Now consider that Pre 1.6, this Gorumite could do this upwards of seven times per day, without burning any existing spell slots. Now, they can do it only 3-4 times per day, but being able to nova out 70 damage a turn is still pretty nice, compared to a Fighter doing 6D12+4 per Power Attack (even if it's "free"). If we committed to a "5 minute adventuring day" like we have in the past, that Gorumite will always do more damage than any given Fighter, full stop. He won't be as accurate, but his hits will contribute to combat a lot more than a Fighter's will.

It's equally silly, and is why this change is needed on both sides of the spectrum.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

People keep bringing up healing.

How about an evil cleric who blasts you for Nd8+4 touch damage per action, three times a turn, for three turns in a row?
That’d be fun.

*N being pretty much your level.

This would be considered strong nova capabilities if the Harm spell didn't suffer MAP. But it does. So all this really does is mean a Cleric doesn't have to invest in high Strength or magic weapons to devastate his enemies with damage.

I will say that Harm Clerics do get more mileage out of the Channel Smite feat than Heal Clerics, though. A high Strength Cleric running around with a magic weapon, Magical Striker (through Sorcerer Dedication, but that takes 4 feats), and his Negative Energy Channels is probably the strongest nova class in the game by far.

XD12+ND8+Strength+Wisdom is a brutal single hit, and heaven forbid we critically hit an enemy, where all of that dice (and Strength and Wisdom) becomes doubled.

Let's take 12th level, the capstone of PF1S. A CN Gorumite wielding a +3 Greatsword, casting 6th level Harm single-target via Channel Smite, possessing 18 Strength and 12 Wisdom (or 10 Wisdom if Goblin), benefitting from Magical Striker all at once turns this hit into 4D12+11D8+4+1. This takes two actions, yes, but when you're dealing, on-average, 70 damage, with an average of 140 on a critical, there isn't much left from that against an equal level PC, and it decimates equal level monsters.

Now consider that Pre 1.6, this Gorumite could do this upwards of seven times per day, without burning any existing spell slots. Now, they can do it only 3-4 times per day, but being able to nova out 70 damage a turn is still pretty nice, compared to a Fighter doing 6D12+4 per Power Attack (even if it's "free"). If we committed to a "5 minute adventuring day" like we have in the past, that Gorumite will always do more damage than any given Fighter, full stop. He won't be as accurate, but his hits will contribute to combat a...

Just want to do a numbers comparison:

Level 12 Cleric and Fighter, both with +3 Greatswords

Gorum cleric
18 str 16 dex 14 con 10 int 18 wis 18 Cha
12 + 4 + 3 = +19 to hit
4d12 + 6d8 + 4 + 4 = 61 average damage

Fighter
20 str 16 dex 18 con 10 int 18 wis 10 cha
14 + 5 + 3 = +22 to hit
4d12 + 5 = 31 average damage

Vs average AC of 31

Cleric hits on a 12 for 40% hit 5% crit = 30.5 expected damage

Fighter hits on a 9 for 50% hit 10% crit = 21.7 expected damage
Fighter hits on a 14 for 30% hit 5% crit = 12.4 expected damage
Certain Strike adds 9 at 45% for = 4.05 expected damage
Fighter 2 actions total = 38.15 expected damage.

So the Cleric does quite a bit less expected damage and uses a very valuable resource. A Fighter also has a much better third strike and can do this all day.


Ediwir wrote:

I think an auspicable objective would be “a very small number of powerful heals for in-combat use, plus a wide healing pool for noncombat usage, and good spellcasting”.

This thread offers a step in that direction, but clearly isn’t a final way.
One could even go as far as suggesting that it could instead be a slot per level to spontaneously cast any spell with the Healing trait (posiive) or the Negative trait (negative), maybe with a feat to expand it this way.

giving clerics good spellcasting with their excellent martial combat potential would be troubling to say the least.


I don’t see much excellence in their martial potential. They can get Expert in a weapon at the highest levels, and Medium armour (but then again unless you’re Master, heavy armour kinda sucks).

They’re not Paladins. They’re Clerics. Spellcasting IS their martial capability (if they want to use it that way).

Also uh I made a slight blunder earlier, Harm is not LVd8 because it heightens by 1d8 for hurting the living.
Still, it targets TAC, which helps a lot against MAP, and there’s always the fact that one can cast a regular 2-spell and then slap for several d8 easily a very large number of times per day.
Or y’know, just do three one-action, it’s still better than a greatsword.


Ediwir wrote:

I don’t see much excellence in their martial potential. They can get Expert in a weapon at the highest levels, and Medium armour (but then again unless you’re Master, heavy armour kinda sucks).

They’re not Paladins. They’re Clerics. Spellcasting IS their martial capability (if they want to use it that way).

Also uh I made a slight blunder earlier, Harm is not LVd8 because it heightens by 1d8 for hurting the living.
Still, it targets TAC, which helps a lot against MAP, and there’s always the fact that one can cast a regular 2-spell and then slap for several d8 easily a very large number of times per day.
Or y’know, just do three one-action, it’s still better than a greatsword.

Better than a great sword? I guess, 6d8+5 = 32 at +1 to hit touch vs 4d12+4 = 30 to hit AC is certainly better, so it's better than a cleric using a greatsword. But it really is a very limited resource to be used to do a 50% stronger hit, using it for damage is just so much worse than using it for healing

Sovereign Court

Tridus wrote:
Neume wrote:
There is no world where bards are better than clerics. Once again, clerics get the same amount of spells, shares our party buff bonus, BUT they can fight in melee (gets better armor and expert weapons). Bard's Soothe spell heals 1 person within 30 feat 1d6 + CHA. Your argument is highly flawed.

Every time I played a Cleric with a Bard, what I found was that my buffs were largely a waste of time because they didn't stack with the Bard ones, which was annoying as hell. But that's a general issue with the game. The Bard in question felt pretty effective, though.

Quote:

The fact of the better bard feats is a hoax at best. The bard lost the most abilities of any class in the transition from PF1 to PF2. We no longer get fascinate or suggestion (though we still have the spell), we now must choose between 3 of our once core abilities (Bardic Knowledge / Lore Master, Performances and Versatile Performance).

All we got in return was was, Restoration, Phantasmal Killer and Black Tentacles. Honestly, it wasn't a great trade off.

Clerics lost half of their spells per day in the conversion. They lost free access to second domain, free access to a second power in the domain they do get, most of their good buff spells, and had pretty much every spell that isn't Heal nerfed.

If you want to turn this into a competition of who lost the most in the conversion, just how severely Clerics were nerfed is going to beat Bards.

Of course, turning it into a competition is silly. One class having issues doesn't preclude another class also having issues. It's not a zero sum game, and I'd contend that neither class is where it should be and both need buffs rather than to be in a silly game of "you can't have anything nice because I don't have anything nice."

Everyone should have something that lets the class shine and feel awesome. That was Channel. Now it's... nothing, really. That's a problem.

Quote:
And let's not even get into feat options. Clerics have like 10-15
...

You seem to be replying to my post completely out of context. I was replying the other poster who made the statement that somehow bards are better than clerics. That statement - even after the nerf - is patently untrue. If given the option of the two, EVERYONE would take the cleric. The cleric has the spells, med armor, melee combat AND THE BEST HEAL in the game. Even if they cannot use it 5+ times a day like they used to.

That was my statement. I've played a lot of cleric. I like playing healers, I like bard more, but there is no world where somehow bard is better off that cleric.

That said, my feeling about all this has changed the more I think about it. I get that the devs wanted to create something that was that separate but equal, but this isn't working because equal isn't equitable when you compare Heal/Harm to other level 1 healing spells (specifically Soothe), you clearly see that Heal is heads and toes above it. But that is something for a separate thread, of which I am creating now.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Clerics and Channel Energy: A compromise. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.