Clerics are badly falling short.....


Classes

51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

That’s funny our DD6 sorcerer did the same thing. I know my vote doesn’t count but I’ll back Edge on this one.


Haven't actually stayed chapter six yet myself, but given the narrative construct (don't build combat characters),mm it feels very much the "Assurance is useful! Just don't be trained!" type of edge case: combat spells are not your priority, but having access in a time of need, ergo staff.


Draco18s wrote:
Haven't actually stayed chapter six yet myself, but given the narrative construct (don't build combat characters),mm it feels very much the "Assurance is useful! Just don't be trained!" type of edge case: combat spells are not your priority, but having access in a time of need, ergo staff.

No, Assurance is still not going to get any use in chapter 6. Checked the DCs.


Literal interpretation, meet figurative intent.


Figurative intent, meet ranting contractual obligation.

Also have you seen mandatory item bonuses?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:

Except there are no staves that give spells that a sorcerer would ever want without having already learned them.

If you're going Blaster, then staff of fire and staff of evocation both give you spells you're already likely to take. If you're going illusionist, then the staff of illusion gives you spells you're already likely to take.

In neither case does either sorcerer care about the other's staff type: it gives them things they are unlikely to use. Not in the sense of the wizard preparing resist energy "just in case" and burning it via a staff of fire for a fireball, but in a "I can't use this" way.

There might be some edge cases, but they're as artificial as using Assurance with an untrained skill (you could've just trained it...)

that's not necessary true though.

a blaster sorc may pick fireball sure.

but with staff of evo he also gets lighting bolt, mm, and etc, and he also doesn't need to spend one of his 2 heightened spells to be fireball either.

as he levels up and he gains new staves, he can keep switching to the one spell/heightened spell, that the spell doesn't provide, and thus keep all his own slots for universally useful spells like invis and etc.

due to his much higher charisma, it basically is a much better bundle of pages of spell knowledge


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought the class was just perfect before that god awful 1.6 nerf. but then again, I loved the gish/heal bot cleric since AD&D 2nd edition.

Liberty's Edge

Nobody wants something taken away, but Clerics were the only class to get 3+stat bonus max leveled spells.

ikarinokami wrote:
I thought the class was just perfect before that god awful 1.6 nerf. but then again, I loved the gish/heal bot cleric since AD&D 2nd edition.

I think parties needed those extra 3 channels, but I think it was poor design for all that to be in one class. Clerics have a lot of options (too many for the playtest, but not every option needs to be good), and the multiclass feats are great for anyone not enthralled with the class feats (reach and healing hands are pretty good).

Give Divine Sorcerers, Druids, Paladins, and even the Ranger and Bard the odd channel or so - spread that party restorative need out a bit. I'm against Clerics hoarding all the healing because then your back to the party healing slave - let Clerics use thier actions for some fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Previloc wrote:
Nobody wants something taken away, but Clerics were the only class to get 3+stat bonus max leveled spells.

Which is what propped up the rest of the class features being largely terrible.

Quote:
I'm against Clerics hoarding all the healing because then your back to the party healing slave - let Clerics use thier actions for some fun.

See, this is the opposite of true, though. Heal is arguably the strongest spell Clerics have. When you have 3+CHA channels, you've got lots of Heal. You can use your spell slots for something else, especially the high level ones, because healing is already covered. You can provide a fair bit of healing without having to dedicate yourself to being a healer.

Now? You're using those slots for Heal, because most of the other options you can put there are a waste of time and virtually all of them are inferior to Heal.

That makes the healbot problem worse, because before the healing was covered without requiring the few strong spell slots Clerics had. Now they're more likely to be Heal, leaving you less room for anything else. Let alone if you wanted to actually use something like Channel Smite, which is just a flat out bad idea.

Although, part of this is that most of the class feats are bad and spells per day was nerfed too hard. Add it all up and you had a class that was reliant on Channel to work... which then got nerfed with nothing else changing.

The issue here is less that Channel needed changing, because having the entire class reliant on Channel wasn't good. But they needed to rebalance away from Channel and they didn't do that, they just nerfed it and assumed everything else was fine because the overall feedback was positive from before they nerfed Channel.

Hopefully they don't think that for the release version.

(Also, casting high level Heal is pretty fun. Far more so than most of the other spells I could cast, which didn't feel terribly effective and/or didn't stack with what someone else was doing. Heal always works and always makes an impact. That was a preciously rare thing in the playtest.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel the problem with the playtest cleric is a MMO/Pathfinder Society problem.

The situation is this. You are assembling a party for a session of MMO/Pathfinder society. You need a healer. A lot of classes can heal, but there is no guarantee you get a healer with any particular class - except with the cleric (less so after 1.6, but still so). This forces all clerics to be healers - or to be subpar, as healing is the one thing a cleric can do well (now with a Cha tax).

I felt this was SO transparent from the first moment I saw the playtest cleric. Playtest numbers required healing - you can no longer be hit proof thru AC. That healing comes in the form of the cleric class.

With the new resting rules, healing became an in-combat thing, so now cleric healing could be scaled down. This happened in 1.6. But this left the cleric basically unable to fulfill ANY role without the Cha tax.

Clerics were both overpowered and underpurposed with the initial playtest release. Now they are just underpurposed. Hopefully a general spell upgrade will make them viable again. But that requires much more weight laid on domains, to allow different clerics to actually play different once their very few power points are spent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
When you have 3+CHA channels, you've got lots of Heal. You can use your spell slots for something else, especially the high level ones, because healing is already covered.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

You max Charisma, you prepare Heal, and you take the Healing domain to use spell points to Channel.
There's very little else that's actually worth the slots when compared to Heal in the divine list.
Heal wrecks encounters very easily when cast repeatedly. It's always good, always effective, and always powerful.
Some spells are really good, but only if the right situation shows up, and they'll never use your max level slots anyways. There's a major need for some form of flexibility and adaptability in the Cleric, because as of now, the best choice is just to prepare Heal (and a couple others maybe sometimes if you knew you were going to use them). This hasn't come up after 1.6, it was always there.

Now, after Treat Wounds, perhaps we can transition to a less Heal-centered cleric who can use his spell list effectively... but not in the Playtest. Perhaps in the Release.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
Tridus wrote:
When you have 3+CHA channels, you've got lots of Heal. You can use your spell slots for something else, especially the high level ones, because healing is already covered.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

You max Charisma, you prepare Heal, and you take the Healing domain to use spell points to Channel.
There's very little else that's actually worth the slots when compared to Heal in the divine list.

Heal wrecks encounters very easily when cast repeatedly. It's always good, always effective, and always powerful.

Some spells are really good, but only if the right situation shows up, and they'll never use your max level slots anyways. There's a major need for some form of flexibility and adaptability in the Cleric, because as of now, the best choice is just to prepare Heal (and a couple others maybe sometimes if you knew you were going to use them). This hasn't come up after 1.6, it was always there.

Now, after Treat Wounds, perhaps we can transition to a less Heal-centered cleric who can use his spell list effectively... but not in the Playtest. Perhaps in the Release.

I mean, at some point I don't need more Heal. There just isn't enough damage past a certain point, especialy when I can do something offensive to end a fight faster... which would be nice if the Divine spell list wasn't so bad.

1.6 made this problem worse because I'm starting off with a tiny amount of Heal and have basically no choice but to prepare it. When I paid the CHA tax and had 6 at the start of the day, I had a lot more freedom to take other stuff without feeling like I'm letting the group down by daring to cast a spell that isn't Heal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:

I feel the problem with the playtest cleric is a MMO/Pathfinder Society problem.

The situation is this. You are assembling a party for a session of MMO/Pathfinder society. You need a healer. A lot of classes can heal, but there is no guarantee you get a healer with any particular class - except with the cleric (less so after 1.6, but still so). This forces all clerics to be healers - or to be subpar, as healing is the one thing a cleric can do well (now with a Cha tax).

I felt this was SO transparent from the first moment I saw the playtest cleric. Playtest numbers required healing - you can no longer be hit proof thru AC. That healing comes in the form of the cleric class.

If the goal is to solve it for PFS, they went about it backwards with the Cleric nerf. The trouble in PFS is lots of people don't want to play healers, and you don't know what you'll have in advance. You can't fix that by saying "this class is the healing one", because people will just avoid it.

You can fix it by giving out healing that doesn't require heavy investment or act as the defining feature of a class. Think of a offensive focused PF1 Cleric. If they're using positive energy, they get some healing in Channel just for showing up, and can convert spells if they need to. That isn't an investment, it's just a thing they have. They are free to focus on offense and still offer up enough healing to patch a group up between encounters or stabilize someone at risk of bleeding out.

In the current playtest rules, you're paying a higher cost to get healing and you get much stronger healing out of it. If you want to play a healer that's okay, because playtest Heal is awesome. But "having more healing at a PFS table" it is not, since a table of people who don't want to play healers won't be getting any except from Treat Wounds (which hopefully someone took).

Quote:


With the new resting rules, healing became an in-combat thing, so now cleric healing could be scaled down. This happened in 1.6. But this left the cleric basically unable to fulfill ANY role without the Cha tax.

Clerics were both overpowered and underpurposed with the initial playtest release. Now they are just underpurposed. Hopefully a general spell upgrade will make them viable again. But that requires much more weight laid on domains, to allow different clerics to actually play different once their very few power points are spent.

Treat wounds was a step in the right direction for sure. Clerics need a rethink in general, though.

I mean, maybe the goal was to make a "healer" class. And if so, great. Run with it. But if it wasn't, they need a lot of work because they created a class that isn't good at anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I would like to see the focus being on making domains and their powers more attractive and increasing the potential of the divine spell list a bit. Removing some of the free channels was a must I think, because that single class feature was a better or at least equal healer to all other classes. I do like healing being useful in combat now, but a single class feature shouldn't allow that kind of healing ever, healing can be fun but if all combats required you to go through several hundred extra hp from a near limitless source of healing it would simply start to drag combat out.

Personally I don't see clerics being in that bad of a spot, but I can understand the sentiment that every spell prepared that isn't a heal have a hard time stacking up, and it obviously shouldn't be like that.

It's hard to remove the CHA tax on clerics though, because a bonus spell of the highest level is an incredible strong value for a stat, so maybe that could be changed in some way. For instance clerics getting 1+half cha mod of channel energy instead, and then give them another 1 or 2 extra channels based on level to make up for it.


FWIW I think the assertion of in-battle healing on a significant level being necessary might be a bit off-kilter. At least to the point of needing a dedicated healer for sure.

My group has handily beaten Parts 1, 4, and 7 of Doomsday Dawn with the only healing coming from an Alchemist who prepares an Elixir of life for everyone at the start of each day and a Druid with Cleric MC who hardly ever prepares Heal but did pick up a Staff of Healing in Part 4. Also this is a 5-person party so we are generally facing a little more incoming damage than a 4-person party.

Part 1, we made it by on 6 elixirs (1d6 HP each) and the potion we found. (To be fair we only encountered the sewer ooze, the first goblin fight, and Drakkus)

Part 4, I'm nor sure if we even used the elixirs. Maybe once? And Heal got cast maybe 1-3 times total (Though we did only fight the dragon and giant and the weakest version of the night heralds).

Part 7, I think we cast Heal once and used one Elixir in the first fight (I'm not even sure if we used an elixir and if we did I think it turned out to be unnecessary) and then we used maybe one elixir in an Extreme-difficulty fight. Nothing in the other fights.

Also we would have used much less healing in Part 1 if treat Wounds had been around then, almost every elixir there was for in-between-battle healing.

So, I mean, If a Cleric is getting 2 or 3 channels per day then if the party is well on their game they quite possibly should be able to get by without preparing Heal at all in their slots, even if there isn't any other healing in the party.

And I can't speak for anyone else but while it could use some work the Divine spell list has been plenty powerful in my parties.


Part 4 only has one fight a day, typically, though. In combat healing is a lot more useful when you're doing fights in rapid succession and/or things start going badly. We burned through absolutely tons of healing in part 2 in order to get through the last part without a pile of deaths.

We didn't have a healer at all in part 4 and it didn't matter because we kept finishing fights with single digit HP (frequently via recovery from dying) and then could just spend the entire day spamming treat wounds afterward. Throw a second fight at us right after the first and we would have been obliterated.

It was telling to me in the part 4 group that despite how powerful Heal is, when I didn't play a healer, nobody did. The rest of the group still didn't want to despite it's effectiveness. The subset of people willing to actually play that role is pretty narrow and there is a huge group of players that simply won't, no matter what you do.


Tridus wrote:

Part 4 only has one fight a day, typically, though. In combat healing is a lot more useful when you're doing fights in rapid succession and/or things start going badly. We burned through absolutely tons of healing in part 2 in order to get through the last part without a pile of deaths.

We didn't have a healer at all in part 4 and it didn't matter because we kept finishing fights with single digit HP (frequently via recovery from dying) and then could just spend the entire day spamming treat wounds afterward. Throw a second fight at us right after the first and we would have been obliterated.

It was telling to me in the part 4 group that despite how powerful Heal is, when I didn't play a healer, nobody did. The rest of the group still didn't want to despite it's effectiveness. The subset of people willing to actually play that role is pretty narrow and there is a huge group of players that simply won't, no matter what you do.

Fights in rapid succession is a fair point, but I think it's going to be pretty rare to have fights in such quick succession that you couldn't use some potions or something kept away for cases where you can't stop to rest after a Fight.

To clarify, I mean that something between top-tier Heal spells and Treat Wounds should suffice if you're looking for healing between close-together battles.

I mean, Heroes of Undarin has multiple runs of multiple fights with time between measured in rounds, but our Cleric only ever used a Channel to heal between fights once. We used other methods other times (Potions, Battle Medic, and Wand of level 3 Heal). And this was only once in all the sets of fights (My group actually made it through so this was tested on the entire module. And the Channel wasn't even used on the last set).

Also as a matter of basic encounter design, a Severe or Extreme-difficulty fight should NOT be followed up immediately by something else unless MAYBE if it's really weak. If a GM or module throws something that tough at a party it's a design mistake in most cases to not let them recuperate at least somewhat afterwards.

Silver Crusade

Edge93 wrote:

FWIW I think the assertion of in-battle healing on a significant level being necessary might be a bit off-kilter. At least to the point of needing a dedicated healer for sure.

My group has handily beaten Parts 1, 4, and 7 of Doomsday Dawn with the only healing coming from an Alchemist who prepares an Elixir of life

I'll start by stating up front that I absolutely believe that you are correctly reporting your experience.

But its wildly at variance with my experience. In my experience, in combat healing (and lots of it) has been an absolute necessity for the party to prevail without loss (at least, for the iterations of the rules that made a PC death actually possible :-) :-))

I'd love to know what the cause of that variance is but I see no way of finding out :-(. Could be just the luck of the dice, maybe your players are awesome optimizers or mine really suck, maybe you're a softy as a GM or I'm a total hard ass.

Or, quite likely, you are misinterpreting at least 1 rule in a way that seriously advantages players and/or I am misinterpreting at least 1 rule in a way that seriously disadvantages players.


Part 5 shows off the absolute criticality of in-combat healing. How much you had was probably the sole distinguishing factor into what round you made it to.

My group I played a paladin and we also had a druid, no other sources of healing except for maybe cross-class features (eg alchemist archetype feats). We hard-stopped in the middle of wave 5 (the...litch and the ghosts with Cone of Cold) because:

1) I was out of Heal except for 2 wand charges, druid was similarly low on Heal (1 more cast?)
2) Barbarian was unconscious
3) Ranger was muther ducking blinded
4) Every enemy was flying
5) Litch still had 2-3 6th level spells

If it wasn't for 3 and 4 combined we might have been ok
If it wasn't for 1 and 2 combined we might have been ok
If it wasn't for 5 we might have been ok


Draco18s wrote:

Part 5 shows off the absolute criticality of in-combat healing. How much you had was probably the sole distinguishing factor into what round you made it to.

My group I played a paladin and we also had a druid, no other sources of healing except for maybe cross-class features (eg alchemist archetype feats). We hard-stopped in the middle of wave 5 (the...litch and the ghosts with Cone of Cold) because:

1) I was out of Heal except for 2 wand charges, druid was similarly low on Heal (1 more cast?)
2) Barbarian was unconscious
3) Ranger was muther ducking blinded
4) Every enemy was flying
5) Litch still had 2-3 6th level spells

If it wasn't for 3 and 4 combined we might have been ok
If it wasn't for 1 and 2 combined we might have been ok
If it wasn't for 5 we might have been ok

Hmm. We played under update 1.4, 6-person party with the prescribed battle changes (Some of the HoU fights actually over-scale for the extra players so we actually faced a couple of encounters that were actually at or beyond Extreme tier, but the last fight doesn't scale for over 4 so it balanced out but only partly.).

For healing we Had a Cleric with Channel, a Paladin with Lay on Hands and Channel Life, and the wands and potions given.

And we made it through all 9 fights with no deaths.

Oh and the Monk had a Holy Rune.

Oh and the Cleric and Fighter had Battle Medic, was mostly used between fights.

So I guess we did have a bit better healing than a typical party, it probably did make the difference between failure and victory. But then again so did a lot of things. There were plenty of things where we might have lost if any of them had not been.

Though I'm not sure that a module which throws a FAR greater deal of encounter power at you than is recommended for actual play is a good example of how important combat healing is or is not in a normal campaign.


Yeah, at 1.4 with a cleric you would have had ~6 more casts of Heal than my group had.

Liberty's Edge

If you want more healing, play multiple Clerics tuned differently. Take Multiclass feats if you dislike the Class feats. What essential thing is any other single class bringing to the table that the party can't do without? Other classes have value too, and my point is that having all the healing focused in one class isn't good for the game. Play without a Cleric and then report on how a Cleric wouldn't've added anything.

Tridus wrote:
(Heal)... propped up the rest of the class features being largely terrible.

Although I think the Cleric class feats are pretty weak, the other features are pretty good. They shouldn't have a selection of spells as good as pure casters, they get hit points, armor, skills, spell abilities, and additional max leveled spell slots with one of the best spells. For example, Serenrae provides as much blasting as a wizard - and you've still got Channels.

Previloc wrote:
I'm against Clerics hoarding all the healing because then your back to the party healing slave - let Clerics use thier actions for some fun.
Tridus wrote:
…(this is wrong)… When you have 3+CHA channels, you've got lots of Heal. You can use your spell slots for something else

Slots isn't the answer for Actions - If you had 100 channels and the party needs healing at range, all the Clerics actions are spent healing. You wouldn't get a chance for other 2 action spells.

Anyway, for most of the game you'll only need one or two high level slots for Heal - get a Staff of Healing and spontaneously change those cool alternatives to Heal when that's needed.

Tridus wrote:
That makes the healbot problem worse, because before the healing was covered without requiring the few strong spell slots Clerics had. Now they're more likely to be Heal, leaving you less room for anything else.

The problem is if only 1 class has all the heals.

My idea of fun is an occasional attack action (or skill check, or yes, sometimes cast a different spell - not be the only one who can heal), not spending the game healing. Other characters could take an occasional action out to do a Heal. My point about Hoarding is that if the party needs 3+ channels, it's meaningless to a party that doesn't have a Cleric (doesn't show up, dies, or is in a trap). If you gave several (or all) other classes a single Channel to go with choice of deity (and guidelines, etc.), and left the Cleric at CHA, you'd end up with similar or the same number of heals (that actually scaled better with party scale). Paladin, Druid, Bard, and Divine Sorcerer are simple answers, and the others fit with characters the least devoted.

Tridus wrote:
… Let alone if you wanted to actually use something like Channel Smite, which is just a flat out bad idea.

Don't disagree - most of the time. Sometimes the alternative uses come in handy, and it's a good option.

Tridus wrote:
… most of the class feats are bad and spells per day was nerfed too hard. Add it all up and you had a class that was reliant on Channel to work … which then got nerfed with nothing else changing.

Still not disagreeing with class feats - I took the PFPT Cleric to be a multiclass base, after Reach and/or Healing Hands (both of which are quite good). The class has good hit points, skills (not 2/lvl), and the potential for a good weapon proficiency and/or spell point powers.

Spells: Magic Weapon? Disrupting Weapons (with Reach)? Protection? all pretty decent - Sleep/ColorSpray/True Strike/BurningHands/Magic Missile...and that's 1st level. Not up to classes without much armor proficiency, but it shouldn't be...and with a Staff of Healing, you can always change the spell into something that is useful more often than any other spell.

Everybody has the same number of spells (so Cleric isn't nerfed), and I prefer domain spells on the list rather than a single bonus. Cleric gets CHA extra max level spells of the most useful spell in the book - what other caster class gets that?

Quote:
The issue here is less that Channel needed changing, because having the entire class reliant on Channel wasn't good.

I think the issue is that the party is dependent on Healing, only the Cleric has it in any quantity, and it just got reduced. If the party is reliant on channeling, that means that any party is dependent on someone in a single class - so someone has to be the cleric. If you won't go adventuring without a Cleric, how can you say that the Cleric is falling short?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:

Part 5 shows off the absolute criticality of in-combat healing. How much you had was probably the sole distinguishing factor into what round you made it to.

My group I played a paladin and we also had a druid, no other sources of healing except for maybe cross-class features (eg alchemist archetype feats). We hard-stopped in the middle of wave 5 (the...litch and the ghosts with Cone of Cold) because:

1) I was out of Heal except for 2 wand charges, druid was similarly low on Heal (1 more cast?)
2) Barbarian was unconscious
3) Ranger was muther ducking blinded
4) Every enemy was flying
5) Litch still had 2-3 6th level spells

If it wasn't for 3 and 4 combined we might have been ok
If it wasn't for 1 and 2 combined we might have been ok
If it wasn't for 5 we might have been ok

For me, Part 2 (level4) showed the complete collapse of any combat encounter in the face of a Healing focused cleric.

We had a Cha-based Cleric of Sarenrae with the advanced healing domain, healing hands, and a staff.
Regardless of whatever I threw at them, including focus-firing the weakest party member, they were back to full as soon as the Cleric finished her turn.
They rested once in the full adventure.

This is with the flyby manticore, the wrecking elementals, and every possible hostile terrain. No Treat Wounds yet.
Didn't matter in the face of twenty-five lv2 empowered heals (over 450hp single-target healing). She even had a few lv1 heals which she empowered with Healing Hands.

Did the Cleric have fun? Ish. It was fun to break the game, but it felt plain (his comments eventually spawned my own Cleric issue thread, "a lopsided issue").
Did the party have fun? Ish. They were kinda bewildered, but they definitely got to do their stuff without worrying. If anything, the feedback was that nothing felt challenging.
Did the GM have fun? ...I could've skipped the fights.

I don't mind healers.
I do mind healers that can overwhelm absolutely everything.
I even more mind if those healers are only and exclusively belonging to one class.


Ediwir wrote:
Draco18s wrote:

Part 5 shows off the absolute criticality of in-combat healing. How much you had was probably the sole distinguishing factor into what round you made it to.

My group I played a paladin and we also had a druid, no other sources of healing except for maybe cross-class features (eg alchemist archetype feats). We hard-stopped in the middle of wave 5 (the...litch and the ghosts with Cone of Cold) because:

1) I was out of Heal except for 2 wand charges, druid was similarly low on Heal (1 more cast?)
2) Barbarian was unconscious
3) Ranger was muther ducking blinded
4) Every enemy was flying
5) Litch still had 2-3 6th level spells

If it wasn't for 3 and 4 combined we might have been ok
If it wasn't for 1 and 2 combined we might have been ok
If it wasn't for 5 we might have been ok

For me, Part 2 (level4) showed the complete collapse of any combat encounter in the face of a Healing focused cleric.

We had a Cha-based Cleric of Sarenrae with the advanced healing domain, healing hands, and a staff.
Regardless of whatever I threw at them, including focus-firing the weakest party member, they were back to full as soon as the Cleric finished her turn.
They rested once in the full adventure.

This is with the flyby manticore, the wrecking elementals, and every possible hostile terrain. No Treat Wounds yet.
Didn't matter in the face of twenty-five lv2 empowered heals (over 450hp single-target healing). She even had a few lv1 heals which she empowered with Healing Hands.

Did the Cleric have fun? Ish. It was fun to break the game, but it felt plain (his comments eventually spawned my own Cleric issue thread, "a lopsided issue").
Did the party have fun? Ish. They were kinda bewildered, but they definitely got to do their stuff without worrying. If anything, the feedback was that nothing felt challenging.
Did the GM have fun? ...I could've skipped the fights.

I don't mind healers.
I do mind healers that can overwhelm absolutely everything.
I even more...

Beg pardon, but how the frick did you get 25 lv.2 Heals in 2 days? Even if you had max Cha and prepared nothing but heal that's 9 a day for 18 total. And that's forsaking any other l2 spells.

I mean that's still a lot, but 25?


pauljathome wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

FWIW I think the assertion of in-battle healing on a significant level being necessary might be a bit off-kilter. At least to the point of needing a dedicated healer for sure.

My group has handily beaten Parts 1, 4, and 7 of Doomsday Dawn with the only healing coming from an Alchemist who prepares an Elixir of life

I'll start by stating up front that I absolutely believe that you are correctly reporting your experience.

But its wildly at variance with my experience. In my experience, in combat healing (and lots of it) has been an absolute necessity for the party to prevail without loss (at least, for the iterations of the rules that made a PC death actually possible :-) :-))

I'd love to know what the cause of that variance is but I see no way of finding out :-(. Could be just the luck of the dice, maybe your players are awesome optimizers or mine really suck, maybe you're a softy as a GM or I'm a total hard ass.

Or, quite likely, you are misinterpreting at least 1 rule in a way that seriously advantages players and/or I am misinterpreting at least 1 rule in a way that seriously disadvantages players.

Aye, table variance will ever be the bugger that makes us wonder what the frick is going on and are we even playing the same game? XD This isn't the first thread where we've voiced vastly differential experiences with the Playtest, and probably won't be the last. I could go over where I am on various points but somehow I feel that won't draw us a conclusion as many things are quite subjective.

One thing I will say though that may be relevant, my players have largely been playing this game much differently than they do PF1. In PF1 the math is such that they typically just roll in with the buffs and damage and trust the Quick Channel Healing Domain Cleric to keep them up for the couple rounds it takes to overwhelm foes with sheer accuracy and numbers. (The exception being that they do so a bit less in one of my current PF1 games as the point by and wealth have been kept notably tighter than what I usually run, which is 25 point buy double WBL with a CR increase to compensate. They still do it a lot though because even with things held back they get pretty jacked up stats.)

But in PF2 they focus a lot more on tactics. They do still put forth a strong offense but they also look to do more variety of things with the action economy and to use debuffs and such, which with the tight math using buffs and debuffs and such to turn the numbers in your favor and overcome your enemies in more than just heavy damage offense is VERY STRONG. It creates a great feel for me where due to characters and foes having greater staying power (Higher HP, less jacked damage, defense is more viable against accuracy so less hits land, etc.) it feels like going straight in with the offense isn't a good idea as your enemy can last long enough to get a telling advantage over with buffs and debuffs and then turn the fight around, or if they use similar tactics they have a shot at out-offensing you. But when you come in with such tools yourselves it feels like you're the one weathering their assault as you simultaneously wear down their health and get the upper hand through buffs and debuffs and turn the battle on them, essentially winning the battle well before the last foe falls.

So this could be another point of variance, if your players play a bit more straightforward than mine, or a bit more like stereotypical PF1 strats. Not that there's anything wrong with such a playstyle, I just feel it's less optimal here.

Also yeah, my players are probably pretty well optimized. About half of the party characters are actually made by me TBH (With the base choices being made by the player and with me asking about various things) because the players were way too busy IRL to keep up with the rapidfire character generation. (Note I made these characters BEFORE I read up on the chapters and the challenges involved, to avoid metagame influence on builds.)

So, yeah. Table variance will be table variance. XP


Edge93 wrote:

Beg pardon, but how the frick did you get 25 lv.2 Heals in 2 days? Even if you had max Cha and prepared nothing but heal that's 9 a day for 18 total. And that's forsaking any other l2 spells.

I mean that's still a lot, but 25?

Staff of Healing gives you... (under the original rules, not the resonance test)... a number. If it was the staff that gives level 2 heals, then 7 charges worth of Heal (3 level 2s and a level 1, or 7 level 1s) over two days. Additionally, all Heal spells get an item bonus to the amount healed (which is not insignificant on 18-20 casts works out to about 1.5 extra casts of Heal).

The healing domain also increases things a bit.


Previloc wrote:
If you want more healing, play multiple Clerics tuned differently. Take Multiclass feats if you dislike the Class feats. What essential thing is any other single class bringing to the table that the party can't do without? Other classes have value too, and my point is that having all the healing focused in one class isn't good for the game. Play without a Cleric and then report on how a Cleric wouldn't've added anything.

We did play without a cleric, as soon as I didn't play one. Nobody else in my group wanted to play something with healing.

It was pretty clear that a healer adds a lot, but in 1.6 Clerics don't have that monopolized at all. Unless you do the "take only Paladin feats" Cleric, those guys can pump out tremendous amounts of healing.

Quote:


Tridus wrote:
(Heal)... propped up the rest of the class features being largely terrible.
Although I think the Cleric class feats are pretty weak, the other features are pretty good. They shouldn't have a selection of spells as good as pure casters, they get hit points, armor, skills, spell abilities, and additional max leveled spell slots with one of the best spells.

They get the same skills as everyone else that isn't a Rogue, the spell abilities are worse, they get fewer spell slots than Sorcerers and AFAIK Wizards due to the lack of a bonus slot, and Channel, yeah.

Quote:
For example, Serenrae provides as much blasting as a wizard - and you've still got Channels.

... how? You get access to some spells, but you have to slot them and you get fewer slots. That doesn't get you at all the same blasting as a Wizard.

Quote:
Slots isn't the answer for Actions - If you had 100 channels and the party needs healing at range, all the Clerics actions are spent healing. You wouldn't get a chance for other 2 action spells.

I dunno, I had plenty of time to do something else when we had more than one encounter in a day. You're getting blasted pretty hard if you need to Heal every round. But if my effective slots are all Heal, then I don't have much else to do anyway.

Quote:
Spells: Magic Weapon? Disrupting Weapons (with Reach)? Protection? all pretty decent - Sleep/ColorSpray/True Strike/BurningHands/Magic Missile...and that's 1st level. Not up to classes without much armor proficiency, but it shouldn't be...and with a Staff of Healing, you can always change the spell into something that is useful more often than any other spell.

Clerics don't get several of those without specific domains, and Protection is uncommon. The actual list any one Cleric has is far, far more limited than that and pretty lousy.

Quote:
Everybody has the same number of spells (so Cleric isn't nerfed),

No they don't. Sorcerers and Wizards have more. That said, I was comparing to PF1, from which Clerics are down around half their spells per level for most levels.

Quote:
and I prefer domain spells on the list rather than a single bonus. Cleric gets CHA extra max level spells of the most useful spell in the book - what other caster class gets that?

Paladins, lol. ;)

I prefer getting a domain slot, with how limited slots are now. But in general, I find the playtest does a bad job of making spellcasters feel like spellcasters. They feel like hybrids that have spells.

Quote:


I think the issue is that the party is dependent on Healing, only the Cleric has it in any quantity, and it just got reduced. If the party is reliant on channeling, that means that any party is dependent on someone in a single class - so someone has to be the cleric. If you won't go adventuring without a Cleric, how can you say that the Cleric is falling short?

Well, what are Clerics good at that isn't healing? Not much compared to the other classes. It's a weak class with one really powerful ability. That's a problem.


Edge93 wrote:

Beg pardon, but how the frick did you get 25 lv.2 Heals in 2 days? Even if you had max Cha and prepared nothing but heal that's 9 a day for 18 total. And that's forsaking any other l2 spells.

I mean that's still a lot, but 25?

3 base spells. 3+3Cha channel. 5 spell points used to cast another 2 Heals. Total 11 max Heals a day, times two.

I was off by a little bit, but then again Healing Hands pushes the total healing value up by a ton, and I didn't count that because she hasn't used it all the time on lv2s.

Staff of Minor healing gave 3x Heal (lv1) and a +1 to each healing.

...I don't think Communal Healing was involved, but potentially it can almost double the amount again. Basically, this class is busted.

Tridus wrote:
Well, what are Clerics good at that isn't healing? Not much compared to the other classes. It's a weak class with one really powerful ability. That's a problem.

EXACTLY. It's a bland class with highly situational spells and extremely weak powers, BUT it can bust up encounter through sheer HP output.

It's the class you'd like as an NPC follower. Boring, overpowered one-trick pony. But you probably won't want to play it.


Ediwir said wrote:

EXACTLY. It's a bland class with highly situational spells and extremely weak powers, BUT it can bust up encounter through sheer HP output.

It's the class you'd like as an NPC follower. Boring, overpowered one-trick pony. But you probably won't want to play it.

With spells and maybe domain powers seemingly getting some more love in the final version hopefully it will be more equal to prepare other spells instead of healing. Maybe they should consider letting clerics change spells to heals spontaneously, however this does step in on the sorcerers area, but I think sorcerers would just need something else to make them more distinguished (which they already need in my mind). This spell swap effect is quite easy to get for clerics with staff of healing already but it seems odd that every cleric most be using that item.


Yeah, I know, but then we’d still be dealing with ‘clerics cast about twice as many max level spells as everyone else”, which really is a hindrance on the class. You can’t cast twice as much and still have each spell be as meanigful, you need some sort of weakness to balance that out... and that’s why the Cleric has all of these issues. It’s “fine” overall with the ton of high spells it gets, but it needs a good chopping down if we want the spellcasting part of the class to really feel relevant.


As clerics level up there spells become more and more important to them, because they get more powerful spells and more casts. On the other hand their powers and Channel Energy stay the same power.

Heal is one of the best spells at level 1, but spells get stronger at higher levels, so Heal becomes weaker and weaker comparatively.


citricking wrote:
Heal is one of the best spells at level 1, but spells get stronger at higher levels, so Heal becomes weaker and weaker comparatively.

What? No. Heal is one of the best spells in the game at any level.

2nd level Heal is 3d8, 3rd is 5d8, 4th is 7d8.

That is, it's healing goes up by 2 dice with each level of heightening. Clerics get to heighten their channel to max level for free. So at first level they have 6 (4)* 1st level Heals. At third they have 6 second level Heals. At fifth they have 6 third level Heals.

*Patch 1.6

All damage spells all heighten at this same rate (and this rate is very close to the amount of damage spells get base at each level), so on if Heal is the best 1st level spell, and a 3rd level spell does 5d8 base damage, then Heal is the best 3rd level spell too. There are some exceptions (aoe spells heighten at one die...just like 3-action Heal) and some have higher or lower base damage, but at the cost/benefit of some other ability. (Oh and a bunch of damage spells got errata to increase their base damage by about +1 level of heightening, but not all of them).

Even if we say that a 1st level spell heightened to 9th is really only about as good as a 7th level spell...that still makes Heal a really good spell when it gets heightened automatically for free 6 times a day.


Draco18s wrote:
citricking wrote:
Heal is one of the best spells at level 1, but spells get stronger at higher levels, so Heal becomes weaker and weaker comparatively.

What? No. Heal is one of the best spells in the game at any level.

2nd level Heal is 3d8, 3rd is 5d8, 4th is 7d8.

That is, it's healing goes up by 2 dice with each level of heightening. Clerics get to heighten their channel to max level for free. So at first level they have 6 (4)* 1st level Heals. At third they have 6 second level Heals. At fifth they have 6 third level Heals.

*Patch 1.6

All damage spells all heighten at this same rate (and this rate is very close to the amount of damage spells get base at each level), so on if Heal is the best 1st level spell, and a 3rd level spell does 5d8 base damage, then Heal is the best 3rd level spell too. There are some exceptions (aoe spells heighten at one die...just like 3-action Heal) and some have higher or lower base damage, but at the cost/benefit of some other ability. (Oh and a bunch of damage spells got errata to increase their base damage by about +1 level of heightening, but not all of them).

Even if we say that a 1st level spell heightened to 9th is really only about as good as a 7th level spell...that still makes Heal a really good spell when it gets heightened automatically for free 6 times a day.

Damage heightened spells all are weaker compared to spells of the level they're heightened to, but you seem to understand that…

I'm saying heightened heal is comparatively weaker because you highest level spell slots are stronger. You agree with that even if you still think heal is strong right?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:


I'm saying heightened heal is comparatively weaker because you highest level spell slots are stronger. You agree with that even if you still think heal is strong right?

Sure, they're comparatively weaker.

They go from "The absolute bestest possible spell ever" to only "still the best spell at this level in most circumstances".


citricking wrote:

Damage heightened spells all are weaker compared to spells of the level they're heightened to, but you seem to understand that…

I'm saying heightened heal is comparatively weaker because you highest level spell slots are stronger. You agree with that even if you still think heal is strong right?

"Comparatively weaker" only in a raw numerical sense. And as we all know, raw numericals don't encapsulate every aspect of utility. And besides, those numbers don't include things like the staff of healing item bonus to heal rolls, or the Healing Hands feat, etc. which can boost those numbers pretty substantially, other spells don't get this benefit. (Dangerous Sorcery is the only existent similar bonus for damage spells).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
I find the playtest does a bad job of making spellcasters feel like spellcasters. They feel like hybrids that have spells.

Quoted for truth. This could become a classic.


For me clerics scale with level much more similarly to weapon users than wizards/sorcerers do, because a lot of their power comes from a class feature that doesn't increase in power with level. Wizards and sorcerers get almost all of their power from their spell slots, which drastically increase in power over levels.

If the ability score system is changed to be more stable across levels (instead of too restrictive levels 1-4, and to generous levels 10-20) and weapon users damage scales enough to keep up with monster HP then clerics would fit very well.

With all that the powers of course need to be redone, and it would be nice to have feats to get other uses of the channel energy pool based on domain (or to trade it for an Int based pool that related to domains/archivist themed)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
For me clerics scale with level much more similarly to weapon users than wizards/sorcerers do, because a lot of their power comes from a class feature that doesn't increase in power with level.

Uh?

Channel is Auto-Heightened to the same level as the highest level spell you can cast.

This is why Clerics are actually Channel Energy: The Class


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not looking forward to PF 2.0.


Draco18s wrote:
citricking wrote:
For me clerics scale with level much more similarly to weapon users than wizards/sorcerers do, because a lot of their power comes from a class feature that doesn't increase in power with level.

Uh?

Channel is Auto-Heightened to the same level as the highest level spell you can cast.

This is why Clerics are actually Channel Energy: The Class

The healing increases when heightened, but doesn't really increase as a portion of your HP. So a highest level heal always heals a similar percentage of your HP. This isn't increasing power. Spell slurs increase in power with spell level, heroism increases from +1 to +3, fear goes from affecting 1 target to many targets, and so on.


citricking wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
citricking wrote:
For me clerics scale with level much more similarly to weapon users than wizards/sorcerers do, because a lot of their power comes from a class feature that doesn't increase in power with level.

Uh?

Channel is Auto-Heightened to the same level as the highest level spell you can cast.

This is why Clerics are actually Channel Energy: The Class

The healing increases when heightened, but doesn't really increase as a portion of your HP. So a highest level heal always heals a similar percentage of your HP. This isn't increasing power. Spell slurs increase in power with spell level, heroism increases from +1 to +3, fear goes from affecting 1 target to many targets, and so on.

In my experience in the playtest, the percentage of HP a heightened Heal restored was close to 80%. Being tied to 80% healing isn't so bad.


Scythia wrote:
In my experience in the playtest, the percentage of HP a heightened Heal restored was close to 80%. Being tied to 80% healing isn't so bad.

It might even be too much.

Though...alchemist potions don't feel percentage-high-enough.
(at 14th the difference of 10d6 and 13d8: 35 vs. 58 average)


Scythia wrote:
citricking wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
citricking wrote:
For me clerics scale with level much more similarly to weapon users than wizards/sorcerers do, because a lot of their power comes from a class feature that doesn't increase in power with level.

Uh?

Channel is Auto-Heightened to the same level as the highest level spell you can cast.

This is why Clerics are actually Channel Energy: The Class

The healing increases when heightened, but doesn't really increase as a portion of your HP. So a highest level heal always heals a similar percentage of your HP. This isn't increasing power. Spell slurs increase in power with spell level, heroism increases from +1 to +3, fear goes from affecting 1 target to many targets, and so on.
In my experience in the playtest, the percentage of HP a heightened Heal restored was close to 80%. Being tied to 80% healing isn't so bad.

I was saying that it's good their power (from channel energy) doesn't increase with level.

But you must have gotten lucky with your rolls.

Level 1 normal HP: 17
Level 1 average healing: 8.5
50%

Level 20 normal HP: 248
Level 20 average healing: 92.5
37.3%

So it actually decreases with level, but damage goes down too so I'd call it about constant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just find the PF2 cleric design decisions really bizarre....

In PF1, channel energy was widely decried as a class feature for a variety of reasons, and largely a waste of design space.

In PF2, channel energy has now become seemingly almost the backbone of the class. So many feat/class options tailored towards it.

In PF1, most 3PP design work focussed on making the cleric less gish and more caster focussed. A logical choice being that the divine classes have always lacked a 'pure caster' option. Some of these 3PP designs were some of the most wide selling 3PP out there.

In PF2, Paizo have made the cleric less caster focussed and more towards a bland middle of the road gish. PF1 cleric lacked flavour/interest but things have gone even further with PF2.

Bizarre, tragically amusing, but if Im honest not unexpected.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:
In PF1, channel energy was widely decried as a class feature for a variety of reasons, and largely a waste of design space.

As I recall, PF1 Channel Energy was very popular as a class feature for a variety of reasons, such as making it easy for Clerics to use their spell slots for things other than healing, making them strong against large groups of weak undead, and cool upgrades like the feat to channel energy as a move action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, major improvement over 3.5’s ‘just burn your spells to heal’ approach. But it wasn’t as good as an actual healing spell nor an effective use of the cleric’s combat round, so it never really overshadowed her other features (I mean unless she focused on it I guess).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In our PF1 house rules we have a set of "birthright" spells which each caster class can cast without preparing them, the way PF1 clerics cast Cure spells. The cleric list includes Cure spells, Remove Curse, Dispel Magic, the Restoration line, Remove Disease and Neutralize Poison.

The reasoning behind this is that the cleric list has lots of flavorful situational spells, but if you have to prepare the list above all the time you'll never see them, and it's frustrating and boring. Or you become an item platform rather than a caster, carrying big sets of scrolls so that you can pull those abilities out when needed. I really dislike relying on items this way, plus it can wreck the game if they aren't available. (My GM ran Dragon's Demand as written, meaning you couldn't buy stuff for most of the game. A miserable place to be a cleric.)

Channeling and convert cast help some, enough that I will play a RAW PF1 cleric, but the house rules help a lot more.

I played a cleric in PF2 playtest episodes 2 and 3 and it was, for me personally, really painful. So few spells, so little channeling (he was a dwarf cleric), all the support spells single target.... The character was not entirely ineffective, but he was boring to play, indistinguishable from the other cleric, and in the end he failed at his core mission. Episode 3's TPK could have been averted if I had prepared heightened Restoration in all my top slots, but how to know?

It felt like a gigantic step backwards.

This probably gets better at high level. Everything appears to get better at high level. But I like low-level play and I would like it to work well too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Might be a little controversial but a better spellcastiong method ? Spellpoint or Arcanist spellcasting for clerics. Also a CANTRIP with long range that deals damage, preferbly alignment damage.

Also if the clerics spells had a niche. For instance the few offensive clerics spells could for instance be partyfriendly (the Divine know their own) up to say Cha-modifier targets. Or they could have other cool features, like Flame strike. Which currently halves flame-resistance but IMO should completely ignore fire-resistance. But fire-immunity should lead to a higher save succes (as it is now). The Divine spell list is pretty much the worst so improving the spell quality and spell-casting method (arcanist or spellpoint/mana) would do wonders.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:


As I recall, PF1 Channel Energy was very popular as a class feature for a variety of reasons

EH?!?!?!.... We clearly have appeared in this forum simultaneously from parallel dimensions, as I remember the following quite clearly!

1) Pos channelling

- Forces role of healbot onto PC at the expense of other options. Channelling is very rarely traded out in archetypes making the problem worse. Wide abundance of healing in other forms makes it largely unnecessary..... classic example = the ubiquitous wand of CLW

- Tied into CHA score which pushed cleric further into MAD territory and required a minimum of CHA 16 and selective channelling feat to work it worthwhile for use in combat. Failing this its sole purpose is out of combat healing which is fine in principle but no something that should be forced upon a PC.

- Cleric is already feat starved making investment in channelling feats relatively more expensive.

- Variant channelling for the most part lacking in impact

2) Neg channelling

- Similar to above but generally regarded as EVEN WORSE since the DC was also CHA based, but also since it is offensive and thus designed to be used in combat made a high CHA and selective channelling mandatory. The fact that its damage scaled terribly and that a save meant 1/2 damage meant that for any neg channeller a big chunk of their class skills had been gobbled up by something pretty useless!


You clearly weren't around for the 3.5 -> pathfinder shift. Channel Energy was a blessing back then.

51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Clerics are badly falling short..... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.