Clerics are badly falling short.....


Classes

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to say I'm sorely disappointed by the cleric in the playtest

One of the big gripes people previously had in PF1 was that the cleric was too gish and didn't really provide the 'holy man' pure caster option. And as it was feat starved it didn't allow for any wiggle room.

Looking at the cleric in the playtest....

- Its spell list is now distinctly sub-par compared to PF1.... the divine list has now slipped way down the pecking order
- The domains are in many ways not only lacking in flavor in comparison to PF1 but also in power/effectiveness.
- Paizo has AGAIN continued to hold on to that albatross called channeling.... so many of the class options are geared towards it and to little benefit (or point)

I could go on.....

Overall, the cleric has YET AGAIN been nerfed with a change of edition and is arguably even more gish and healbot than it was in PF1!!! Paizo made a big statement at the beginning of all this saying they realised the PF1 cleric was lacking, but IMHO the class has taken a step backwards.

It is gish and it is a healbot!!

Looking at the bigger picture with the other classes, I cannot see any reason why you would play one!! What purpose do they serve other than to heal?!?

A lost customer I'm afraid..... as I've been saying for years... Paizo just doesn't get the class.

In their heads they just cannot seem to let go of the age old flawed thinking of....cleric = bit of armour + bit of weapon + crap channeling + sub-par caster


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Looking at the bigger picture with the other classes, I cannot see any reason why you would play one!!

It is gish and it is a healbot!!

^^ This would be a reason.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Many ages ago I played a class from Arduin called the Saint. Basically, a cleric with no armor, no weapons, and no physical usefulness, but with powerful spellcasting ability. Often the group's wizard complained that I was a better wizard than he was (not true, but at least there were times that I could make him feel that way).

That was a fun class. I could smite undead (magically, not paladinly), heal, buff, debuff, and nuke the crap out my enemies. All while wearing vestments and a mitre.

But Pathfinder and its predecessor have never viewed clerics that way. At best, an archetype or two aimed in that direction but still using the limited spell lists and really only resulted in a heal/buff bot.

So I hear your pain.

What we really need is an entirely new class with its own spell list. Something that lets gods put the fear of, well, themselves in their foes without having to send somebody to hit those foes with a stick.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

Many ages ago I played a class from Arduin called the Saint. Basically, a cleric with no armor, no weapons, and no physical usefulness, but with powerful spellcasting ability. Often the group's wizard complained that I was a better wizard than he was (not true, but at least there were times that I could make him feel that way).

That was a fun class. I could smite undead (magically, not paladinly), heal, buff, debuff, and nuke the crap out my enemies. All while wearing vestments and a mitre.

But Pathfinder and its predecessor have never viewed clerics that way. At best, an archetype or two aimed in that direction but still using the limited spell lists and really only resulted in a heal/buff bot.

So I hear your pain.

What we really need is an entirely new class with its own spell list. Something that lets gods put the fear of, well, themselves in their foes without having to send somebody to hit those foes with a stick.

Oracle would like to have a word with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

Many ages ago I played a class from Arduin called the Saint. Basically, a cleric with no armor, no weapons, and no physical usefulness, but with powerful spellcasting ability. Often the group's wizard complained that I was a better wizard than he was (not true, but at least there were times that I could make him feel that way).

That was a fun class. I could smite undead (magically, not paladinly), heal, buff, debuff, and nuke the crap out my enemies. All while wearing vestments and a mitre.

But Pathfinder and its predecessor have never viewed clerics that way. At best, an archetype or two aimed in that direction but still using the limited spell lists and really only resulted in a heal/buff bot.

So I hear your pain.

What we really need is an entirely new class with its own spell list. Something that lets gods put the fear of, well, themselves in their foes without having to send somebody to hit those foes with a stick.

Oracle would like to have a word with you.

Not in the PF2 playtest


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There are a number of problems affecting the cleric, but some of them are more general to the system. For instance, having a magical weapon attack is all but mandatory for everyone. Even wizards and sorcerers can't really afford to be running around unarmed anymore, and if pretty much all arcane casters are snapping up feat taxes for weapon proficiency because it's that important there is no way the cleric is getting away without going the gish route. Fixing this problem would require a rebalancing of the system's combat to de-emphasize hit points and DPR in favor of other roles. Armor is in a similar situation; the new critical hit system means that AC is super important and you absolutely must be wearing the best suit of armor that's appropriate to your dexterity score. If you aren't heavily investing in dexterity, that means medium armor at minimum. Clerics are extremely MAD and can rarely afford to invest in Dex, and this means many clerics end up in heavy armor.

The healbot problem is a tricky one because the Heal spell is the best spell in the game currently. Because DPR is so important to the game system, a spell that restores large numbers of hit points very quickly is extraordinarily good, and the amount it restores far eclipses the damage of an equivalent-level spell (which is often needs an attack roll to succeed or allows a saving throw for reduced damage, bringing it down even further than what it deals on paper). The 1.6 spellcasting buff reduced the distance of the gap, but it's still very wide and the heal spell is very dominant in practice. Even before considering channeling, the mere existence of the heal spell has an overbearing influence on a spell list.

Finally, there's the problem with class features. By and large, PF2 classes have fewer and less interesting class features across the board. The Rogue is the only notable exception, with literally everyone else getting a significant step backwards from their PF1 incarnation in terms of how many goodies they get. For classes like the Cleric that already got relatively little in PF1 they now get... pretty much nothing. It's exacerbated what was probably their worst problem in PF1: powerful but bland. Now they're just bland. I'm actually a bit afraid that Paizo has painted themselves into a corner here because many classes get so little that they pretty much are just "a spell list and a class feat list", which leaves extraordinarily little design space for interesting variations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Even before considering channeling, the mere existence of the heal spell has an overbearing influence on a spell list.

Exactly. And their fix was to reduce how many the cleric got for free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The tragedy is that what should be one of (if not the) most flavourful classes in the entire game has now been butchered and left as a bland, underpowered, gish healbot that in reality offers very little other than being a walking band-aid depository.

Its actually laughable.... the cleric had a lot of design issues in PF1 ....but with a dollop of system mastery you could about make it work.

Paizo made a lot of noise about addressing the class properly, but yet I look at the cleric in PF2 and I see absolutely no reason to play one.

I didn't like the direction PF2 had taken in terms of design anyway, but after what Paizo did to one of the iconic D&D classes, it made my mind up.

R.I.P Cleric.... the only time we got to see you near what you should represent was at the end of Ed 3.5 :(((


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Between how anemic the divine spells are and how the majority of the cleric feat list is based on channel energy (then basically half the uses per day clerics get for channel energy) and then to top off the cherry the domains powers are, in the majority, garbage abilities its no wonder that clerics are a garbage class at the moment.

Seriously, it was designed as a primary caster class, with almost no offensive spells. The few spells that are offensive are either low damage or the control/debuff spells target the best save on the type of opponent that you want to cast that spell against. Buffs are weak as well, especially those that give any kind of bonus to offense. Those that give resistance to effects are a bit more useful, but still pretty weak.

Then there is the entire problem with condition removing spells need to be memorized to their highest level in order to have a good chance of removing effects, which basically removes the cleric's top two spell levels for many purposes unless you know you are going to be facing a specific threat that you set up for.

You can build a melee or ranged offense cleric, although they won't ever be anywhere near as good as a fighter/paladin/rogue at those jobs since those classes get feat to boost those aspects, whereas the cleric spells come no where near.

And when you throw in that almost 1/4 of the the gods are true neutral, but numerous spells and feats aren't usable by true neutral gods its really sad.

At low levels it isn't so bad, but the problems with the cleric become apparent as you level them up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:
The tragedy is that what should be one of (if not the) most flavourful classes in the entire game

I feel like the PF1 cleric was the least flavorful class out of like 30+ classes, and it wasn't really all that close. So it's not like we lack a track record here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

Many ages ago I played a class from Arduin called the Saint. Basically, a cleric with no armor, no weapons, and no physical usefulness, but with powerful spellcasting ability. Often the group's wizard complained that I was a better wizard than he was (not true, but at least there were times that I could make him feel that way).

That was a fun class. I could smite undead (magically, not paladinly), heal, buff, debuff, and nuke the crap out my enemies. All while wearing vestments and a mitre.

But Pathfinder and its predecessor have never viewed clerics that way. At best, an archetype or two aimed in that direction but still using the limited spell lists and really only resulted in a heal/buff bot.

So I hear your pain.

What we really need is an entirely new class with its own spell list. Something that lets gods put the fear of, well, themselves in their foes without having to send somebody to hit those foes with a stick.

Oracle would like to have a word with you.
Not in the PF2 playtest

Divine Sorcerer would like to have a word with you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


I feel like the PF1 cleric was the least flavorful class out of like 30+ classes, and it wasn't really all that close. So it's not like we lack a track record here.

I completely agree..... its truly surreal.

Out of all the classes it should be jam-packed with RP-goodness

Here you have a class that is based on this amazing concept of them being a divine emissary of the gods.... here to aid the faithful and lay waste to the unbelievers with fire, brimstone and plagues... and what do we get?

In PF1.... a limp attempt with a few token cursory nods... not much but with an experienced gamer you could stick something together

In PF2.... a complete and utter waste of time and paper.

Dear Paizo.... if you can't see the blindingly obvious just remove the cleric from the playtest all-together. Let us at least have some fond memories of the class rather than have this abomination staring at us for the next 10 years!! You've never appreciated the cleric that much has always been clear.... at least give it the decency of a good burial. :((

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
doc roc wrote:


R.I.P Cleric.... the only time we got to see you near what you should represent was at the end of Ed 3.5 :(((

You mean back when they would Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell + nightsticks in order to make every martial class obsolete? Well, class tribalism is sure fun, but you should not let your love for the class blind you as to facts.

3.5 Cleric, in particular late towards the edition cycle, was insanely powerful. Pathfinder reined that in somewhat, but it still was a full caster with an ever-growing spell repertoire and some really silly strong domains such as Travel.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really can't understand some people.

Weapons offer the consistent, single target, sustainable damage.

Blasts offer aoe and burst.

Buffs/debuffs offer etcetera

I often see the argument "all casters need weapons". Often, this argument is alongside "not enough spells".

But... You choose less spells (weapon over staff+spell duelist stuff) for round by round weapon attacks?!

Or are people assuming that they should get both burst, aoe, sustained, buffs, debuffs and control simultaneously?

I've seen both blaster sorcs and Druids without weapons doing excellent. Cleric especially has so little martial support (outside of purely martial deities) that I see no basis for "it's a gish".


Gorbacz wrote:


You mean back when they would Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell + nightsticks in order to make every martial class obsolete? Well, class tribalism is sure fun, but you should not let your love for the class blind you as to facts.

3.5 Cleric, in particular late towards the edition cycle, was insanely powerful. Pathfinder reined that in somewhat, but it still was a full caster with an ever-growing spell repertoire and some really silly strong domains such as Travel.

I completely agree with you...at the end of 3.5 things were getting crazy...but then druids were in the same boat and wizards were in another tier above them both, so you cant make out that the cleric was this sole glaring example of 3.5 ed bloat.

But nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that 3.5 at least recognised the fact that cleric wasn't this mace + shield + bit of casting mess of blandness. You actually had some options to explore.

In PF1 the cleric get nerfed hard, more than any other caster.... far more so than the wizard for example (who ironically actually got a relative boost).... and Paizo consistently failed to do anything of note with the class for basically its entire 10 year run.

And here we are in PF2 back at square one with gish + bandaid dispenser!! I mean for Asmodeus sake, how many class options for PF2 cleric are now based around channeling?!?!.... Something well recognised as just about the worst aspect of PF1 cleric!

By going towards the 5ed model, Paizo unfortunately have hit the cleric with the nerf and bland bat again.... its lost all relevance when it should be a class oozing options due to the obviously inherent variety of deities and therefore inherent variety of cleric styles.

The fact that PF1 cleric seems to have a lot more going for it relative to PF2 cleric speaks volumes for the garbage class it now is!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

I really can't understand some people.

Weapons offer the consistent, single target, sustainable damage.

Blasts offer aoe and burst.

Buffs/debuffs offer etcetera

I often see the argument "all casters need weapons". Often, this argument is alongside "not enough spells".

But... You choose less spells (weapon over staff+spell duelist stuff) for round by round weapon attacks?!

Or are people assuming that they should get both burst, aoe, sustained, buffs, debuffs and control simultaneously?

I've seen both blaster sorcs and Druids without weapons doing excellent. Cleric especially has so little martial support (outside of purely martial deities) that I see no basis for "it's a gish".

These people are just looking at low levels. Casters in the playtest have so few spells at low levels, that using weapons is a good idea. Especially if their domain doesn't have a usable power.

This is the same problem as in pf1, low level casters suck, but their power scales extremely.

At high levels clerics spell casting gets stronger and stronger as they get more spell slots, and can cast higher level spells.

Martials don't scale the same way at all, their expected damage as a portion of enemy health even decreases as they level up.

I really hope they get rid of this scaling difference, and make classes contribute similar amounts at all levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t know, in the “Before you Post”, they call out that extreme appeals of passion and hyperbole are read, but not strongly considered. His recommendation was more for helping your voice be heard.

Paizo’s iconic for cleric (Sarenrae) seems to be a divine gish. They added in the archetypes later such as the ecclesitheurge to play that powerful divine caster. The priestly cleric is just one of many types of possible clerics anyway. Clerics of different deities don’t look and act the same, which I think is fine and is in line with Paizo’s customization strength. Paizo clearly hasn’t suffered for this.

They mentioned how barbarian totems, Druid Wild orders, and bard muses were treated differently to see which how these different “specialization” works out. They found bard muses system very uninspiring and meaningless, so they made the 1.6 change to make it feel more. I think they could also test the cloth divine caster through the sorcerer, which seems to work, but has overall mixed feelings which needs to be addressed.

Feats. We just overall need more feats. There’s a strong core. Just needs fleshing out.

I’m prettt optimistic that they will have more support for these different styles. Just, this play test they prioritized mechanical ideas, over flavor. Once they’ve comb through the data, I think we will see more flavorful options.

Coz I want to be a sun-praising dirty cleric that drops the lightning bolt wrath of the gods upon thine enemies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:
Paizo made a lot of noise about addressing the class properly, but yet I look at the cleric in PF2 and I see absolutely no reason to play one.

Given all of the damage incoming I see a reason to have one. I also see a table full of people who don't want to play one. As if being a healbot wasn't already unappealing, you get to have your foot nailed to the deck by Anathema too. Alas, I'm ready to return to D&D 3.5. I just can't convince my friends to follow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, for the "holy man pure caster option" wouldn't the Angelic Sorcerer Multiclassed into Cleric be a better option? Not only are you more magical but you're also squishier and less martially adept.

Personally, I like my clerics beefy but if I wanted to do the aforementioned thing, that's how I would do it.


I'm not sure how seriously to take all of this when the thread creator is calling PF2 Clerics garbage but also saying PF1 Clerics suck. Like I haven't been around the forums except since the start of the Playtest but I've played Cleric numerous times, it was even my first character, and they are seriously strong! Admittedly my usual style is a Fire and Healing domain Cleric with a Falchion, not exactly the full caster style but it's still Cleric and it's seriously strong. Their buffs easily let them make up their BAB disparity and then some, adding damage too to where they aren't far behind Fighters in melee capacity. Add in great party buffs, good debuffs, and even some blasts like Burst of Radiance (Damage isn't stellar but there's no save for the damage, only the Blindness rider which is also good), Holy Smite (Meh damage but a good debuff on a failed save), and for Fire Clerics at least some stuff like Fireball, and you have a majorly versatile character, not to mention one of the few builds that can provide healing in-battle that actually keeps up with damage if need be.

And that's just with one potential build. There are so many domains and spells and potential builds that I really don't get any lack of flavor claim. Honestly I felt like Clerics were, if anything, too strong in PF1 despite my love of the class.

And I've tried a full caster Cleric in PF1 as well. Not as fun to me but definitely effective.

And I feel like PF2 hasn't ruined that, either. They are every bit as able to mix it up in combat as they were in PF1 IF you want to, if not then they still have solid spells, maybe not as good as Arcane but that's always been the case. Heck, I think Clerics actually have better Blasting options than in PF1. And they definitely still have excellent buffs and some serious debuffs. And Heal is a MASSIVE improvement over Cure Wounds, especially the ability to provide Touch range healing and still cast another spell in the same round. I do wish they had a ranged not-undead-only attack cantrip though.

Domain spells are improved IMO, not having to confine them to that one slot per level. Wouldn't mind seeing them get more per deity though. And I've definitely seen domain powers I like, though like most Powers they need and are getting work.

And sure they have a lot of Channel based options, and I wish the per-day there hadn't been nerfed, but there are still enough other Cleric feats that you can have a robust build without even touching channel.

Though I do think they need something to replace the lost channels, since that was their spell slot augment (Wizards have schol slots, Sorcerers have an extra slot per day, Bards have Performance cantrips, and Clerics had Channel. Now they have notably less channel. Also Druids could use a similar perk to these).

I mean, I dunno, I'm sure Clerics could use improvement but I really don't get the level of complaint here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My #1 hope for the PF2 cleric coming out of the playtest is that I want less emphasis on channel energy for the class. Like a Dwarf Cleric who has decided to go Wis>Str>Cha starts with a 18,16,and 10 in those 3 stats so they are not going to channel much if ever. Plus, if they are a servant of a Dwarven deity there's a good chance their sacred weapon doesn't qualify for deadly simplicity. So what am I spending my cleric feats on besides "multiclass to something"?

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

Removed a few posts. There are ways to have discussions without belittling others. If you still want to make your arguments, reword them and make sure that you're not casting aspersions when you do so.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
I'm not sure how seriously to take all of this when the thread creator is calling PF2 Clerics garbage but also saying PF1 Clerics suck.

Keep in mind that in PF1 the relative strength of various classes is HUGELY influenced by build choices and which set of rules are allowable.

A PF1 Core cleric is a quite strong class when compared to other PF1 Core options. But a PF1 Core cleric is almost underpowered compared to a well built Shaman or Oracle trying to cover the same ground (regardless of what ground that PF1 Core Cleric was trying to cover, a Shaman or Oracle can beat it).

So different people can have WILDLY differing views about how powerful a class depending on options that they use, their system mastery, what formal or informal rules are in place in their group to keep characters "sort of kind of equal", availability of magic items, etc etc etc.

And also people can mean VERY different things by "suck". Some people use that to mean "Aren't quite 100% optimal", some people mean "Not a viable contributor", some mean "Boring as heck to play", again etc.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
My #1 hope for the PF2 cleric coming out of the playtest is that I want less emphasis on channel energy for the class. Like a Dwarf Cleric who has decided to go Wis>Str>Cha starts with a 18,16,and 10 in those 3 stats so they are not going to channel much if ever. Plus, if they are a servant of a Dwarven deity there's a good chance their sacred weapon doesn't qualify for deadly simplicity. So what am I spending my cleric feats on besides "multiclass to something"?

But aren't Archetypes exactly the correct way to customise a class when you vier away from the traditional builds of a class?

Keep in mind that pf2 doesn't have "multiclass" in the traditional sense of abandoning your class and doing something different, but it has "archetypes" that just replace very specific class options for other class options.

A cleric/fighter isn't a cleric+fighter, it is a martial Cleric. A cleric/wizard isn't a cleric+wizard, it is a more scholarly Cleric. And etc.

You still keep full progression for your class but just gain extra options if you don't need you base ones.

Exactly like old archetypes.

Or are all those PF1 builds that people describe ONLY base Cleric, with no archetype at all? Because that's simply not true.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cleric in PF1 was a beast except for that Healing capability which was just about useless. Now it's the complete opposite. Yes you have subpar spell list, supar domain powers, great healing. This will be fixed in time, domain powers could be slightly more powerful (I'm sure they are aware of this), spells will get better once official version comes out. But yes Doc you are correct, in a nutshell the class lost most everything but gained the power to heal.

Liberty's Edge

Summary: PF1 and PFPT Clerics can be powerful if wisely built, and played as multi-role characters (great candidates for multi-class), but not if the Cleric player lets the party control thier actions (because they 'demand' healing). PFPT spontaneous Heal through Staves (and RP) is okay, but I think the game will improve if that uses the favored weapon (such as transforming the stick when Invested - cool!).

PF1 Clerics could be amazing! I played PF1 for years, and Combat Cleric builds were great - Liberating Cmd, Grace (!!!), Blessing of Fervor, plus AoE heals. More so than in PFPT, Wisdom was a 3rd tier stat (you need 10+sp lvl). Using Trade/Defense: Shield, Fly, Dimension Door, and Dimension Step (into combat with a Strike Team with an armored melee caster) - wow.

I can't see how you can play PFPT without a Cleric - and it can be a lot of fun to play the class. This is, imo, a weakness in PFPT - the party healing resource is tied too much into one class. For balance, I'd rather see unused RPs used for healing (self, or through multiple casting classes) - and while the de-channeling of the world cut this party resource, it was still something the Cleric had that others didn't (and they still have separate spell points).

As a PFPT class, Clerics have more options (their domains) than any other, although that can make the build time consuming and too complex for many to yield a satisfactory character. If you're picky, you have to cross-reference and optimize (for your goal) weapon, alignment, domain powers, and domain spells. This is a great opportunity for other worlds, in which you build your own pantheon (or better, allow the Cleric to pick and choose to build their own).

Using PFPT Serenrae, you can back-up the Wizard with Burning Hands and Fireball (and instead of PF1 'you get 1', you can fill every slot), and FireRay isn't a slouch option. Several other deities are interesting, providing arcane spells in armor, hit points, and better weapons.

There are good PFPT Cleric options for nearly any backup role. Instead of Channeling feats, take multi-class feats (e.g. Fighter) but while Healing Hands makes Heals better, Reach Spell takes a lot of so-so spells and ramps them up. PFPT Clerics get good skill participation (and Perception/Initiative), which was one of the challenges for the class in PF1.

The challenge of the Cleric class in PF1 and PFPT is that you don't get the bang for the buck with one-dimensional tactics or choices - you need almost every stat (PF1 Clerics had it better from stat point builds than the flat system in PFPT). Clerics do best thinking strategically with a large diversity of weapons (Reach, Ranged, Melee, silver, cold iron, BPS...), as Clerics are good back-ups for everyone else, who are usually specialists, and may not be able to power through DR. There is also a tendency for others to expect control of your PC (healing), and it's crucial to the Cleric player's enjoyment to control that, and allow foolish tactics to sometimes put PCs down. At some point, you're going to be the party IV, but you tell 'em you got what you got, and that you get to play too. Another advantage of this approach is that you normally get to contribute/play more often...perhaps not the most (except healing), but meaningfully.

More in PFPT, the Cleric has the reason to drive group expenses through scrolls. Other players/PCs may expect a healing slave (and be aggressive about it), but there's no reason to enable that kind of selfishness. Even with the worldwide channeling drain, Clerics still have the largest number of max level spells (and PFPT Heal is the best of the bunch). With Spontaneous Casting from a staff, you have the best of both worlds.

That brings up one limitation that I think Clerics need addressed - the ability to have a 'Staff of Healing' in the form of a magical weapon matching their deity's favored weapon. Otherwise, the Cleric is really forced to wield the staff as thier weapon (and Shifting is too action intensive). I would even favor a rule that when Invested, staves transform to the favored weapon, so Clerics really will wield that weapon. A lack of choice becomes greater flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The blurb in the 1.6 update says almost all feedback on the cleric has been positive and therefore the cleric doesn't really need many changes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

^lol


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
The blurb in the 1.6 update says almost all feedback on the cleric has been positive and therefore the cleric doesn't really need many changes.

Oh yeah! There was that. XD The lack of negative feedback plus feedback of channel being OP was why we got the channel nerf and nothing else in 1.6. XP

Kinda like how the survey feedback screamed "We're cool with the Fighter" so they just altered stance traits and called it good. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
The blurb in the 1.6 update says almost all feedback on the cleric has been positive and therefore the cleric doesn't really need many changes.

Oh yeah! There was that. XD The lack of negative feedback plus feedback of channel being OP was why we got the channel nerf and nothing else in 1.6. XP

Kinda like how the survey feedback screamed "We're cool with the Fighter" so they just altered stance traits and called it good. XD

I mean, the Cleric, Rogue, and Fighter did need a lot less work than some of the other classes (the poor ranger, sorcerer, and alchemist come to mind.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Locking the class's best ability to CHA seems like a mistake. If channeling is their only good ability (I have looked at domains and they look awful to be honest), then it should be tied to WIS

Otherwise if still tied to CHA, channeling should be considered a lesser part of the class, and other parts should be buffed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nicholas storm wrote:
Locking the class's best ability to CHA seems like a mistake. If channeling is their only good ability (I have looked at domains and they look awful to be honest), then it should be tied to WIS

Domains are pretty underwhelming but I think that's a consequence of Domains (and bloodline powers, too) in PF2 simply granting spell points and powers, whereas in PF1 a lot of these things granted a passive effect that was always on, like the Feather subdomain of the Animal Domain gave an animal companion, an initiative bonus, and a perception bonus none of which ever turned off or ran out.

Considering that things like "Double Slice" or "Opportune Backstab" never run out, spending a class feat on a thing you can use at most 3-4 times per day (and competes with similar abilities for the same resource pool) isn't that attractive. For the monk it kind of works since the monk's only access to magic is via ki powers, and most are pretty situational, but the cleric and the sorcerer have *spells*.

Some Druid powers show a way around this, giving additional benefits to druids of a particular order in addition to powers. Every Storm Druid I've seen takes Storm Retribution not for what it does (which is pretty situational) but because it increases the damage on tempest surge.


Its also really bad that new powers only increase you SP pool by their cost. If your SP pool is 3 (can use a 1st power 3 times) and gain a 3 point power, you can use it a hand total of twice. Woop de doo.


I had my own small proposal of Cleric as a mixed prepared / spontaneous caster (spells prepared per day as normal, plus one per level spontaneous slot to be used with positive energy or healing spells such as heal, disrupting weapons, or remove paralisys), but it still relies heavily on a divine list overhaul.

Basically the spells are bad and they need an up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:
Locking the class's best ability to CHA seems like a mistake. If channeling is their only good ability (I have looked at domains and they look awful to be honest), then it should be tied to WIS

Domains are pretty underwhelming but I think that's a consequence of Domains (and bloodline powers, too) in PF2 simply granting spell points and powers, whereas in PF1 a lot of these things granted a passive effect that was always on, like the Feather subdomain of the Animal Domain gave an animal companion, an initiative bonus, and a perception bonus none of which ever turned off or ran out.

Considering that things like "Double Slice" or "Opportune Backstab" never run out, spending a class feat on a thing you can use at most 3-4 times per day (and competes with similar abilities for the same resource pool) isn't that attractive. For the monk it kind of works since the monk's only access to magic is via ki powers, and most are pretty situational, but the cleric and the sorcerer have *spells*.

Some Druid powers show a way around this, giving additional benefits to druids of a particular order in addition to powers. Every Storm Druid I've seen takes Storm Retribution not for what it does (which is pretty situational) but because it increases the damage on tempest surge.

It also creates some weird corner cases. Compare a sorcerer's dragon breath to a barbarian's. The barbar does better damage and can use it much more often in the day, though less often in the same fight. That's not great considering both abilities cost a 6th level class feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
doc roc wrote:
Paizo made a lot of noise about addressing the class properly, but yet I look at the cleric in PF2 and I see absolutely no reason to play one.
Given all of the damage incoming I see a reason to have one. I also see a table full of people who don't want to play one. As if being a healbot wasn't already unappealing, you get to have your foot nailed to the deck by Anathema too. Alas, I'm ready to return to D&D 3.5. I just can't convince my friends to follow.

As the guy who usually plays clerics, when I get a chance to play, I feel your pain. My group and I have pretty much decided that if these nerfs stay, for cleric's and casters in general (feels like the old days of WoW where classes were nerfed due to whining in the forums), we won't do 2E. As the playtest went on, excitement waned then went away. Changes were made supposedly due to reduce complexity, which didn't make sense or seemed disingenuous at best (like the removal of bonus spells based on stats), while making other areas more complex than before. We really wanted this to be the next go to but beyond a few changes (most which seems to be tweaks from unchained, like action economy), we just don't see us embracing the new system. It sucks since we have been here from the beginning.


C Shepard wrote:
Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
doc roc wrote:
Paizo made a lot of noise about addressing the class properly, but yet I look at the cleric in PF2 and I see absolutely no reason to play one.
Given all of the damage incoming I see a reason to have one. I also see a table full of people who don't want to play one. As if being a healbot wasn't already unappealing, you get to have your foot nailed to the deck by Anathema too. Alas, I'm ready to return to D&D 3.5. I just can't convince my friends to follow.
As the guy who usually plays clerics, when I get a chance to play, I feel your pain. My group and I have pretty much decided that if these nerfs stay, for cleric's and casters in general (feels like the old days of WoW where classes were nerfed due to whining in the forums), we won't do 2E. As the playtest went on, excitement waned then went away. Changes were made supposedly due to reduce complexity, which didn't make sense or seemed disingenuous at best (like the removal of bonus spells based on stats), while making other areas more complex than before. We really wanted this to be the next go to but beyond a few changes (most which seems to be tweaks from unchained, like action economy), we just don't see us embracing the new system. It sucks since we have been here from the beginning.

Just one note here, I was all for the removal of bonus spells for stat. I felt casters had too many uses of their best options each day, and while I figured it out without too much trouble I SWEAR the difficulty of explaining those bonus spells to some people...

I also feel like the magic changes were a major step. Cantrips rock, lower level spell slots aren't good for damage spells but are great for anything else as opposed to PF1 where ANYTHING with a save was basically disqualified from your lower level slots because spell level based DC. As such I feel the versatility added to lower level slots makes up for the fewer higher level slots. Casters have less of their best shots but more viable shots over the course of the day (Or at least less restriction on them). And just, 4 degrees of success. I can't begin to describe how much I love almost universally having some effect on a successful save. I often avoided spells that did nothing on a save in PF1 because they were just way too unreliable in my games, as opposed to blasting which was sure to do at least some pretty decent damage (I hear this is a minority opinion but it's how most of my games have been, at least until recently. But even then still some.).

And this is all from someone who has Cleric as their favorite class (Yes, I felt that my favorite class was frankly OP in PF1), rarely played anything else in PF1, and rarer still didn't play a caster.

So, I guess we have pretty different mileage on caster changes despite a similar initial stance. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Individually I can agree with the intent behind the changes to the various spell changes:

- I like scaling cantrips
- I'm ok with the loss of bonus spells (explaining and looking them up was a pain)
- I like that the DC is no longer spell level based (the whole "anything with a save becomes useless" problem)
- I'm ok with what happened to metamagic feats (I've always hated them because it caused you to use higher level slots on what was essentially just a fancy version of a crappy low level spell)
- I like low level slots being exceptional for non-damage things (though it makes sorcerer a frigging nightmare to play across a campaign)
- I like the four degrees of success
- I like the mechanical versatility of Heightening.

However, the end result is something I detest. All the "on fail" effects from PF1 became "on crit-fail" with a new, piss-weak penalty for regular failure, reduced duration from "hours" to "minutes," "minutes" to "rounds" and "rounds" to "actions." Ranges got reduced heavily. Anything that was 25+5/lv is now 30 feet (effectively capping at 1st level effectiveness) anything that was 100+10/lv is now 60 feet (-4 level?!) or worse, and so on. It basically made "do I spend an action to move or do I spend an action to use Reach Spell?" completely meaningless: Both are 1 action and both get you "about 30 feet" of extra distance (and both preclude 3-action spells...like AOE Heal).

Liberty's Edge

Draco18s wrote:

Individually I can agree with the intent behind the changes to the various spell changes:

- I like scaling cantrips
- I'm ok with the loss of bonus spells (explaining and looking them up was a pain)
- I like that the DC is no longer spell level based (the whole "anything with a save becomes useless" problem)
- I'm ok with what happened to metamagic feats (I've always hated them because it caused you to use higher level slots on what was essentially just a fancy version of a crappy low level spell)
- I like low level slots being exceptional for non-damage things (though it makes sorcerer a frigging nightmare to play across a campaign)
- I like the four degrees of success
- I like the mechanical versatility of Heightening.

I agree, and would add that I like:

- that domain spells add to your list (not as a single bonus)
- the auto-heighted domain spell powers and channelled Heal
- that Heal is touch (1action), ranged (2actions)...this is Big
- the idea of staves to spontaneously change spells
- the change to allow casting without a free hand (2h or 1h&shield)

Draco18s wrote:
However, the end result is something I detest. …(PF1) "on fail" … became "on crit-fail"…; … reduced duration …(and) Ranges … It basically made "do I spend an action to move or do I spend an action to use Reach Spell?" completely meaningless … (and both preclude 3-action spells...like AOE Heal).

I'm not so on with 'despise'. The class is different (healing and having a fistful of Burning Hands and Fireballs with Fire Rays was fun).

I agree that spells need some more muscle (Paizo adjusted damaging spells, and said they'd get to the others), and that Reach Spell can seem superfluous. I'd say Reach Spell makes Disrupting Weapons usable, and extends to many other touch spells where you can't get there with a move (or don't want to). I'd like to see Paizo's spell adjustment include more targets in spells, for the same reason.

I do dislike the AOE version of Heal being 3 actions - the drop in healing makes it worth 1 action. I also dislike that the Spontaneous Casting class feature is only available through a staff - not the deity's favored weapon. I'd also think that they could go ahead and increase the (heightened) level of the spells in the Staves, as charges are severely limited and the feature replaces the previously unrestricted spontaneous casting feature.

One unfortunate effect of PFPT spellcasting of one of the best PFPT features (3 actions) is that casters frequently end up only getting 1 action - a 3 component spell. I'd like to be able to use a reaction for one of those, so I either could get a 4 component spell off, or do something while healing. This wouldn't be so bad in PF1 (FRA), but in PFPT, spellcasters have some trouble participating in the 3 action economy that everyone else enjoys.


Previloc wrote:

I agree, and would add that I like:

- that domain spells add to your list (not as a single bonus)
- the auto-heighted domain spell powers and channelled Heal
- that Heal is touch (1action), ranged (2actions)...this is Big
- the idea of staves to spontaneously change spells
- the change to allow casting without a free hand (2h or 1h&shield)

3: Heal is the only spell that got a buff, so while I like what they did with it, it came at the cost of everything else being garbage in comparison. For example, if they'd reduced the effectiveness of Heal instead of reducing how many Channel Energy gave, I'd have liked that better.

1, 2, 5: easily agreed.

4: I'm not sure I'm sold on this one yet, but I can see the appeal for Wizard and other prepared casters. There's just no comparable benefit for spontaneous casters, where spont casters are already getting the short end of the stick relative to prepared casters. Another "individually fine, but as part of the whole I don't like it" kind of things?

Quote:
I'm not so on with 'despise'. The class is different (healing and having a fistful of Burning Hands and Fireballs with Fire Rays was fun).

Maybe "detest" is too strong a word. "Not happy with"?

There are nice things about the new system, but I don't like the fact that I read the name of a thing and go "Ooh..! what's this do?" look up the rules and go "UGH, why should I even bother? Does writing this down on my sheet actually give me something I can use?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
The blurb in the 1.6 update says almost all feedback on the cleric has been positive and therefore the cleric doesn't really need many changes.

Yeah, that was feedback from before Channel was nerfed and Clerics leaned on it almost entirely to be effective... which worked.

Then they cut the legs out from under that and assumed everything else was fine, which was just plain wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
C Shepard wrote:
Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
doc roc wrote:
Paizo made a lot of noise about addressing the class properly, but yet I look at the cleric in PF2 and I see absolutely no reason to play one.
Given all of the damage incoming I see a reason to have one. I also see a table full of people who don't want to play one. As if being a healbot wasn't already unappealing, you get to have your foot nailed to the deck by Anathema too. Alas, I'm ready to return to D&D 3.5. I just can't convince my friends to follow.
As the guy who usually plays clerics, when I get a chance to play, I feel your pain. My group and I have pretty much decided that if these nerfs stay, for cleric's and casters in general (feels like the old days of WoW where classes were nerfed due to whining in the forums), we won't do 2E. As the playtest went on, excitement waned then went away. Changes were made supposedly due to reduce complexity, which didn't make sense or seemed disingenuous at best (like the removal of bonus spells based on stats), while making other areas more complex than before. We really wanted this to be the next go to but beyond a few changes (most which seems to be tweaks from unchained, like action economy), we just don't see us embracing the new system. It sucks since we have been here from the beginning.
Just one note here, I was all for the removal of bonus spells for stat. I felt casters had too many uses of their best options each day, and while I figured it out without too much trouble I SWEAR the difficulty of explaining those bonus spells to some people...

The thing is that Clerics had extra spells from multiple sources. A 1e Cleric gets typically 4 spells per level base, and a domain spell, and bonus spell(s).

Playtest Clerics get typically 3 spells per level. That's a 50% loss. You feel like we had double the number of spell castings we needed? Because if so, then we just disagree and will never convince each other otherwise.

Fundamentally, I want to play a spellcaster. Removing half of my spells per day leaves me with insufficient spells to do that until much higher level and forces me to fall back on "I walk over and hit it with a weapon."

Quote:
I also feel like the magic changes were a major step. Cantrips rock

I hear this a lot. I don't understand why. Clerics don't even have a ranged offensive Cantrip that works on not-undead. Chill Touch isn't exactly terribly impressive.

Quote:
lower level spell slots aren't good for damage spells but are great for anything else as opposed to PF1 where ANYTHING with a save was basically disqualified from your lower level slots because spell level based DC.

Low level spell slots in 1e have tons of buffs and things you can and will want to be using. The duration scaling means you can prebuff and make extensive use of them, or quicken them to fire them off mid combat. Those things never lose value, even at very high level.

Playtest buffs are comparatively terribly weak, don't last long enough to make prebuffing viable, often don't stack with anyone else (got a Bard? Take a bunch of your buffs right off your spell list), and I'm not aware of any way to quicken them. The value of these slots on that end was massively diminished.

But yes, low level spells that target saves work better now.

Quote:
As such I feel the versatility added to lower level slots makes up for the fewer higher level slots.

Not even close. I lost the ability to put up a party wide buff for a solid duration as a swift action and half my spells per day at the same time. Versatility did not go up. It was just shifted from buffs to save or suck attack spells (which still have a significant chance of outright failure).

Quote:
Casters have less of their best shots but more viable shots over the course of the day (Or at least less restriction on them). And just, 4 degrees of success. I can't begin to describe how much I love almost universally having some effect on a successful save. I often avoided spells that did nothing on a save in PF1 because they were just way too unreliable in my games, as opposed to blasting which was sure to do at least some pretty decent damage (I hear this is a minority opinion but it's how most of my games have been, at least until recently. But even then still some.).

Yes, the ones that do something on a successful save are nice, especially once they fix the save DCs so half the results aren't critical success. Too bad the effects themselves were nerfed so much, though.

Quote:

And this is all from someone who has Cleric as their favorite class (Yes, I felt that my favorite class was frankly OP in PF1), rarely played anything else in PF1, and rarer still didn't play a caster.

So, I guess we have pretty different mileage on caster changes despite a similar initial stance. XD

Ditto on that. Cleric is my favorite class. Has been for years. But the playtest one is not in a good place right now.

Liberty's Edge

I'm less happy with Fighters than with Clerics, and can see issues with many of the classes - but then, it's a playtest (so I can understand a lack of depth and breadth). Cleric has worked out for me - but then, I've a Human Cleric that spent all the class feats on Fighter multiclassing except the first ancestry feat (take a class feat).

Previloc wrote:
… - the idea of staves to spontaneously change spell
Draco18s wrote:
4: I'm not sure I'm sold on this one yet, but I can see the appeal for Wizard and other prepared casters. There's just no comparable benefit for spontaneous casters...

I'd think Spontaneous Casters would be able to sacrifice a casting slot, RP, and cast a spell from the staff just like a Wizard...so they don't need to choose spells in staves. I may be wrong, but I hope not.

I initially expected 'legacy' spontaneous healing, and was sorely disappointed that it wasn't in PFPT...and then found it in staves. Spontaneity in staves is thematically limiting for Cleric and Bard, and less so for other casters who thematically do use staves (Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer). So, I'd like the Cleric's investment to change it to thier favored weapon, and Bard - not my favorite class, but I'm sure you could attach some strings to one and play it (or bore holes and play a really big flute/oboe).

So, I like the idea of staves, but not the exact execution. I think reskinning a Staff into the stereotypical implements of casting would work fine - Shillelagh as a Druid Option, Orbs and Tomes for Wizards, and specific items for Bloodlines.

Draco18s wrote:
… I don't like the fact that I read the name of a thing and go "Ooh..! what's this do?" look up the rules and go "UGH, why should I even bother? Does writing this down on my sheet actually give me something I can use?"

I'm right with you there! Building a Cleric was really time consuming because so many of the Domains "held nothing for me". Interesting Domain powers were hard to find. I'd've preferred more focus on developing a handful of themes. But then, if Paizo limits one thing to provide variety elsewhere, they get called on it - they just couldn't win that one. Everybody wanted full rules for thier favorite things.

Similarly, looking up spells and Feats became tiresome, as the nuggets were hard to find. I chalked all that up to 'playtest', and do fault Paizo for not including a collection of pregenerated characters (with build/leveling goals discussed), to fill out good examples of the most common characters. I'm glad they didn't build adventures on pregens (so credit them for that), and we ignored the 'experimentation goals' for the adventures, playing the same PCs throughout (with tweaking due to rule updates).

So, I empathize with the disappointment I hear from so many, but rationally am happy that they didn't just leave us hanging for another year and blindside us with a new rulebook. I'm very glad Paizo decided to publish a lengthy playtest and respond with live updates - to let us help them do their job to support our favorite hobby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Previloc wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
4: I'm not sure I'm sold on this one yet, but I can see the appeal for Wizard and other prepared casters. There's just no comparable benefit for spontaneous casters...
I'd think Spontaneous Casters would be able to sacrifice a casting slot, RP, and cast a spell from the staff just like a Wizard...so they don't need to choose spells in staves. I may be wrong, but I hope not.

Wizards get a massive benefit for a staff: it lets them prepare things they might not need without consuming valuable limited spell slots (at the cost of spending an RP, which isn't nearly as limited).

For sorcerers it increases the spells known...sort of. The problem with spells known is that in order to be valuable you want to cast them a bunch and staves don't increase your spells per day (ok, ok, you can get one extra, but only one of the ones from the staff!)

That is: wizards get increased no-time versitility (the thing they aren't good at) and sorcerers get...increased no-time versitility (the thing they're already so good at they're bumping up against the freshly imposed weakness: the same number of spells per day.

Draco18s wrote:
… I don't like the fact that I read the name of a thing and go "Ooh..! what's this do?" look up the rules and go "UGH, why should I even bother? Does writing this down on my sheet actually give me something I can use?"
I'm right with you there! Building a Cleric was really time consuming because so many of the Domains "held nothing for me". Interesting Domain powers were hard to find. etc...

Agreed. Every option outside of "feats for my class" was always a disappointment. (Sometimes "feats for my class were also bad--hack, cough, cleric--in which case multiclass)

Even magic items are trash across the board. Get your +1 weapon and +1 armor and burn the rest on necklace of fireballs or other consumable that looks alright. Maybe a skill boosting item if a) one exists for your skill of choice and b) isn't too expensive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Previloc wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
4: I'm not sure I'm sold on this one yet, but I can see the appeal for Wizard and other prepared casters. There's just no comparable benefit for spontaneous casters...
I'd think Spontaneous Casters would be able to sacrifice a casting slot, RP, and cast a spell from the staff just like a Wizard...so they don't need to choose spells in staves. I may be wrong, but I hope not.

Wizards get a massive benefit for a staff: it lets them prepare things they might not need without consuming valuable limited spell slots (at the cost of spending an RP, which isn't nearly as limited).

For sorcerers it increases the spells known...sort of. The problem with spells known is that in order to be valuable you want to cast them a bunch and staves don't increase your spells per day (ok, ok, you can get one extra, but only one of the ones from the staff!)

That is: wizards get increased no-time versitility (the thing they aren't good at) and sorcerers get...increased no-time versitility (the thing they're already so good at they're bumping up against the freshly imposed weakness: the same number of spells per day.

Draco18s wrote:
… I don't like the fact that I read the name of a thing and go "Ooh..! what's this do?" look up the rules and go "UGH, why should I even bother? Does writing this down on my sheet actually give me something I can use?"
I'm right with you there! Building a Cleric was really time consuming because so many of the Domains "held nothing for me". Interesting Domain powers were hard to find. etc...

Agreed. Every option outside of "feats for my class" was always a disappointment. (Sometimes "feats for my class were also bad--hack, cough, cleric--in which case multiclass)

Even magic items are trash across the board. Get your +1 weapon and +1 armor and burn the rest on necklace of fireballs or other consumable that looks alright. Maybe a skill boosting item if a) one exists for your skill of choice and b) isn't too...

I'm not sure where magic items being trash is coming from. They're loads more fun than a lot of PF1 items, useful, and items that emulate spells don't automatically SUCK anymore.

DCs falling off over levels is an issue but the final CRB is looking at that and it isn't nearly as bad as PF1 anyway.

Like, seriously, I'm interested in a lot of the PF2 magic items, while I often struggled to find PF1 items that weren't just number boosts or unusable-DC spell effects.

Not that PF2 items couldn't use some work, but overall I definitely like them over PF1.


Draco18s wrote:
Previloc wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
4: I'm not sure I'm sold on this one yet, but I can see the appeal for Wizard and other prepared casters. There's just no comparable benefit for spontaneous casters...
I'd think Spontaneous Casters would be able to sacrifice a casting slot, RP, and cast a spell from the staff just like a Wizard...so they don't need to choose spells in staves. I may be wrong, but I hope not.

Wizards get a massive benefit for a staff: it lets them prepare things they might not need without consuming valuable limited spell slots (at the cost of spending an RP, which isn't nearly as limited).

For sorcerers it increases the spells known...sort of. The problem with spells known is that in order to be valuable you want to cast them a bunch and staves don't increase your spells per day (ok, ok, you can get one extra, but only one of the ones from the staff!)

That is: wizards get increased no-time versitility (the thing they aren't good at) and sorcerers get...increased no-time versitility (the thing they're already so good at they're bumping up against the freshly imposed weakness: the same number of spells per day.

Draco18s wrote:
… I don't like the fact that I read the name of a thing and go "Ooh..! what's this do?" look up the rules and go "UGH, why should I even bother? Does writing this down on my sheet actually give me something I can use?"

Agreed. Every option outside of "feats for my class" was always a disappointment. (Sometimes "feats for my class were also bad--hack, cough, cleric--in which case multiclass)

Even magic items are trash across the board. Get your +1 weapon and +1 armor and burn the rest on necklace of fireballs or other consumable that looks alright. Maybe a skill boosting item if a) one exists for your skill of choice and b) isn't too...

That's not exactly true.

Both get:
Spontaneous casting of the staff spells
Extra spells known of the staff spells

For wizards, the extra spells known, especially because they often are just the same spell at different spell level, is useless
But the spontaneity is really good.

For sorcs it's the opposite.
Spontaneity is meh, but extra spells known is really good.


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...)


1 person 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...)

To put a counterpoint, I think there very much is the bracket of "I don't care about these spells enough to learn them over my other spells but I recognize they may be useful with fair frequency".

For an example, my Part 6 party's Sorcerer. She was mainly a non-combat Mage, focusing more on utility and on status spells that were useful outside of direct combat as well as in it. So she could hold up in a fight with debuffs and all, not a total non-combatant.

But she also knew that sometimes you do come face to face with an unavoidable battle and it can be really useful sometimes to bypass subtlety and blast some punks.

So she took a Staff of Evocation.

Attack spells weren't high enough priority to learn, but having them at her fingertips as long as she has spells and resonance is very worthwhile.

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Clerics are badly falling short..... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.