On topic.
Have some non-vancian spellcasters. {. . .}
Dreamscarred Press did some pretty good adaptations of D&D 3.x non-Vancian spellcasters (as well as a bunch of associated stuff).
For me the rules is less important than the setting.For me, it's the opposite. I came here for continued 3.5e support, not for Golarion. That said, it's a fine setting. Home for me though is Eberron. Not because it was my first - it wasn't - but because it's my favorite. We came here because converting things to that setting is really hard because of the density of themed content.
WotC are releasing a 5E campaign setting for Eberron later in the year, in case you haven’t heard. I doubt the official book will be much use to you, but it might be worth keeping an eye on the DMs Guild for 3PP stuff you can convert. There’s generally a flurry of product along with every official book.
If PF2 was a failure, I would want them to focus on the setting and adventures (maybe making them system agnostic, or with downloadable statblocks for different systems or something).Thing is, my understanding is that the adventures market is smaller than the rules market. So if they can't make enough money as-is, they'll make even less by dropping the rules portion. No win here.
This was my response to the hypothetical that PF2 had failed. If that’s the case, I don’t think releasing another system is going to help. Producing content for D&D night though - D&D is currently selling better than it did in AD&D’s heyday. The market for D&D adventures could be bigger than the market for rules (in a world where PF2 has failed).
I think that’s too pessimistic though. I expect PF2 will find a big enough niche to keep people employed, which is success, as far as I’m concerned.
|
Funny thing is there used to be a cantrip called cure minor wounds (heals 1 hp). Had it been left in, Clerics would be able to heal parties to full between fights.-downtime healing and minor magic recovery so that you don’t deal with the 15 minute adventuring day
Wasn't actually a cantrip. It was a 0 level spell. Back in 3.5, all spells had limited casting, even at level 0. But I agree. Had it been left in, and even if it was limited to no more than 1/10 of your total hp, it's still better than nothing. It'd be about on par with Rebuke Death from the Healing Domain.
For home games, I allow Hidbiddle's Revitalizing Touch from Necromancers of the Northwest.
|
|
Two more add-ons:
-Make a cleric's channel more versatile. A paladin with lay on hands is much better at curing and healing than a cleric can be. It'd be nice if a cleric could do some of the same things in place of a channel, or have the same ability as the soul warden PrC.
-Make channel be based on WISDOM! This whole MAD nonsense needs to stop. Paladins use Charisma for spells and other abilities. A HUGE change compared to 3.5, yet Clerics only gained the ability to do damage to undead or heal with their original Turn Undead, which in 3.5 cost you a feat to do. Now, you need a feat to command or turn undead. Interesting change of events, but it's just a straight reversal.
|
|
You do know that Pladins are as MAD as clerics right? Paladins need at least 1 Phys stat and Cha, Clerics need Wis and Cha.
There is also a balance concern if Clerics are able to be SAD, it would probably mean large nerfs.
As for curing/healing, yes the default Cleric is not as good on channel healing, cause they have spells and open feats for it. They also have 3 archetypes dedicated to channel healing, one of which straight up gains mercies.
*****************
On a side note, Variant Channeling should be made more prominent instead of a little known side system. Some of the channels are really fun.
Paladins are MAD? In Pathfinder? Try again. Paladins need Con and Cha, and either Str or Dex depending on their archetype. That’s doable even with 15 point buy. Clerics need four good stats. Everything a paladin needs plus Wis. The only other class that needs that many is monk and that’s because Paizo fears Dex to damage.
As for the cleric archetype that gets mercies, it’s useless against undead. It’s literally a heal bot archetype and nothing else. You’re better off with a Core cleric in that regard. But yes, variant channeling should be an additional option that every cleric gets access to with abilities based on their deity.
I’d also love an additional feat so clerics can channel to heal and harm at the same time, like a couple of the archetypes can. Maybe make it so the feats give a boost to the archetypes so they’re still worth taking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A cleric who wants to be a frontliner is extremely MAD. A cleric who only wants to be a caster and energy channeller is only somewhat MAD. A cleric who wants to be a pure caster is pretty SAD.
A cleric who wants to be a frontliner is extremely MAD. A cleric who only wants to be a caster and energy channeller is only somewhat MAD. A cleric who wants to be a pure caster is pretty SAD.
Being a frontliner is always MAD
STR/DEX and decent CON.
|
|
A cleric who wants to be a frontliner is extremely MAD. A cleric who only wants to be a caster and energy channeller is only somewhat MAD. A cleric who wants to be a pure caster is pretty SAD.
Sad indeed. Clerics are terrible at low levels for attack spells unless they take evocation domains and an archetype that lets them prepare numerous domain spells. And you need Str to be able to wear the heavy armor, or Dex to make the most of the light armor. Even then, if you’re not a front liner, you’d hope the cleric can at least be competent at ranged. Unless you plan on healing the enemies too, you’ll want a good Cha for the Selective Channeling feat.
Unless you’re going mystic theurge or multiclassing with monk, you can’t use the mage armor spell.
The problem is that a life oracle is a far better cleric than the cleric. The only reason you’d go cleric is for the ability to prepare spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cleric who wants to be a frontliner is extremely MAD. A cleric who only wants to be a caster and energy channeller is only somewhat MAD. A cleric who wants to be a pure caster is pretty SAD.Sad indeed. Clerics are terrible at low levels for attack spells unless they take evocation domains and an archetype that lets them prepare numerous domain spells. And you need Str to be able to wear the heavy armor, or Dex to make the most of the light armor. Even then, if you’re not a front liner, you’d hope the cleric can at least be competent at ranged. Unless you plan on healing the enemies too, you’ll want a good Cha for the Selective Channeling feat.
Unless you’re going mystic theurge or multiclassing with monk, you can’t use the mage armor spell.
The problem is that a life oracle is a far better cleric than the cleric. The only reason you’d go cleric is for the ability to prepare spells.
I have a deep seated need to build a cleric thats almost completely channel focused with this archetype,
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/archetypes/paizo-cleric -archetypes/blossoming-light-cleric-archetype/
Clerics need four good stats.
That is just nonsense.
If you want to be a gish jack of all trades then yes.... but then that is actually the least effective way to be a cleric.
I can tell you emphatically, that the only way to get the most out of the cleric is to specialise. Dumping STR and CHA is perfectly viable if you want to go pure caster.
Heavy armour is overrated, although dumping DEX and CHA to boost STR is viable if you wanna be tank-caster (hello dwarf cleric). Even CON can be kept at 12 or even 10 since you get D8 HD and good FORT saves... there is nothing stopping you taking +1hp as FCB.
Personally I quite like putting INT at 14 and taking my fcb as +1 skill point.... but thats just me.
All clerics should IMO specialise, since their huge spell list and the fact that they know it all and can change it from day to day, always enables them to be a bit of a generalist when the need arises.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a frontliner is always MAD
STR/DEX and decent CON.
Some frontliners are MADder than others. A cleric who wants decent Str and Dex/Con for survival and Wisdom for spellcasting? I hope you like getting 1 skill point per level due to dumping Int, or being reduced to 1-2 channels per day (and ruin your chances of being a good Diplomat) by dumping Charisma...
Arguably this makes Clerics one of the best designed classes for a point-buy game, because there are many different valid Cleric builds, all very different from one another, while other classes attract advice like, "You're making a Fighter/Monk/Barbarian/Ranger? Well for starters, dump your Charisma down to 7, if you want to be competent at your main job. Oh, and Intelligence is almost certainly going to be useless to you, unless you need Combat Expertise for some reason..."
|
|
Clerics need four good stats.That is just nonsense.
If you want to be a gish jack of all trades then yes.... but then that is actually the least effective way to be a cleric.
I can tell you emphatically, that the only way to get the most out of the cleric is to specialise. Dumping STR and CHA is perfectly viable if you want to go pure caster.
Heavy armour is overrated, although dumping DEX and CHA to boost STR is viable if you wanna be tank-caster (hello dwarf cleric). Even CON can be kept at 12 or even 10 since you get D8 HD and good FORT saves... there is nothing stopping you taking +1hp as FCB.
Personally I quite like putting INT at 14 and taking my fcb as +1 skill point.... but thats just me.
All clerics should IMO specialise, since their huge spell list and the fact that they know it all and can change it from day to day, always enables them to be a bit of a generalist when the need arises.
I am absolutely calling your bluff on that one. Standard 15 point buy cleric with a 14 Int can't possibly last a single book from a Paizo AP. Maybe a skill focused PFS scenario where you get 20 pt buy and can get away with a cure wounds wand or even a homebrew campaign where the GM is taking it easy on you for the first few levels. Clerics are boring as pure casters. They don't get attack spells that are worth a darn until they're 7th level. Otherwise they're just relegated to buffing and healing the party for a 15 minute adventuring day, and then needing to rest.
I am absolutely calling your bluff on that one. Standard 15 point buy cleric with a 14 Int can't possibly last a single book from a Paizo AP. Maybe a skill focused PFS scenario where you get 20 pt buy and can get away with a cure wounds wand or even a homebrew campaign where the GM is taking it easy on you for the first few levels. Clerics are boring as pure casters. They don't get attack spells that are worth a darn until they're 7th level. Otherwise they're just relegated to buffing and healing the party for a 15 minute adventuring day, and then needing to rest.
Call away but you're mistaken....
First up the 20 point buy is generally considered standard because of PFS, but even with a 15 point buy you can still be effective. But then with a 15 point buy many other full casters will also struggle.... eg) a Shaman will have kittens trying!
As a pure caster 9/10 you aren't going to be as good as a wizard but then thats the whole point!
However you will be a very survivable pure caster.... best WILL save in the game, good FORT save relative to many other full casters, access to armour if you want it, good Perception, D8 HD, healing....
I once played a dwarf cleric with Steel Soul and Glory of Old and he laughed hard in the face of enemy casters.... he broke down in hysterics once he got a decent Cloak of Res. and a 4 leaf clover.
And you forget with domain spells, domain abilities and some good bonus spells from some deities you can pull off all kinds of things.
Dont confuse boring with not effective.
Clerics are boring yes for most players, but that is mainly because of 3 reasons:
1) A high degree of system mastery is required to use them properly and most people don't have that
2) RP is mandatory to get into the spirit of the class and most people can't do it properly
3) An overall lack of decent archetypes and decent deity differentiation can make vanilla cleric seem like the only viable approach for newbs
A cleric has the 2nd largest and 2nd best spell list in the game, knows of all of them, and can use it whilst wearing armour and having probably the best overall saves of any caster. Out of all the casters it is also probably the best for going into PrC with.
Boring.... yes a bit.... BUT definitely effective.
Go away and do your homework next time!
|
|
Go away and do your homework next time!
I've been forced to play a cleric for the last three campaigns in my group. Both for 3.5 and Pathfinder. Because no one else will play one and refuse to acknowledge that maybe we need healing to actually complete a campaign. It wasn't until I played one in 5e that I started having fun. Attack spells are great and make you feel like you're contributing beyond healing and buffing. Especially since cantrips level up alongside you. Your dwarf cleric would have died just as quickly as mine did because Maximized and Empowered magic missiles don't care that you have bonuses to your saves. And I was only 3rd level at the time.
You like clerics. I get that. I won't begrudge you that. However, what I wanted was for you to give me a sample build that you consider survivable and playable, not the air of superiority response you gave. All I can say without a doubt is you and I will never agree on this, but that's because we obviously play with completely different campaign building GMs. I know because you've brought up RP. That is not a thing in the games I play. Just encounters. Slogs and slogs of encounters that you pray you survive because the alternative is synonymous with abject terror.
But now we're off topic completely.
Science fiction games tend to go metric because obviously. But games which want some of that Olde Worlde feeling may use feet, miles etc. Also apparently a majority of PFs sales are in the USA so for PF in particular metric is a change that they have no reason to make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
I have a deep seated need to build a cleric thats almost completely channel focused with this archetype,
Linkified.
* * * * * * * *
And here's +1 for making 20 point buy the standard.
|
|
Well, BESM was made in Canada. They're metric. No surprise I guess.Now that you bring that up, out of all the game systems I’ve played, I think BESM is the only one that uses the metric system. Huh.A change I would like to see is Pathfinder to go metric. Most of the world uses the metric system.
Would this be a controversial thing?
True, but we have to learn both. Due to where most of the sales come from it's why I think most systems are imperial. The more popular ones tend to be either made in the US or sold in the US, and the rule of thumb is to pander to the ones that make you the most money.
Definitely would like to see more metric though.
And here's +1 for making 20 point buy the standard.
I second that. Even if the adventures are written for 15 point buy, having 20 point buy gives a lot of room for play. I mean, it's 15 point buy and you play very strictly archetyped characters that are well balanced with one another. PFS is 20 point buy because there's no guarantee there'll be a balanced party coming to the table. Gives groups a chance to actually play what they want. Less pigeonholes.
|
|
One thing I'd like to see people's opinions on is what I'm seeing a lot lately on Twitter.
Whole gaggles of groups coming together for equality of gender and races wanting a boycott for racial attributes (in addition to no race should be allowed to be written as evil). Essentially they say that high elves shouldn't have +2 Dex, -2 Con, +2 Int in Pathfinder and +2 Dex, +1 Int in 5e. That all races should be +2 to one stat like humans, half-elves, and half-orcs because otherwise you're just pushing the racial stereotypes and forcing them to be typecasted to a particular class. For the most part they seem to be okay with the racial traits for the most part, especially for Pathfinder, because the system has so many alternate racial traits that you can swap out and insert. There's no "the elf has THIS and ONLY this" making it more accepted.
Should that be something PF 1.5 does too? Or would it be fine as-is?
Not looking to start anything. Just want to know if anyone here feels that this would be a direction that should be done for a revised edition.
SPOILER.
The fact that you were in a campaign where you were a Lv 3 cleric and had a GM throwing maximised & empowered magic missiles at you (which by my maths that is a minimum of a Lv 5 spell slot using MM reducing traits), is evidence of nothing apart from that your GM has absolutely no idea how to build encounters..... these scenarios do not exist in any AP or PFS scenario that I'm aware of.
Lets get real buddy.... any Lv 3 PC would struggle with an encounter like that!
Thats like saying Wizards are crap because in campaign X made by GM Y there was this Lv 3 wizard and he got chopped up into pieces by a Lv 9 Barbarian who full attacked him for 100+ hp!
|
|
SPOILER.
The fact that you were in a campaign where you were a Lv 3 cleric and had a GM throwing maximised & empowered magic missiles at you (which by my maths that is a minimum of a Lv 5 spell slot using MM reducing traits), is evidence of nothing apart from that your GM has absolutely no idea how to build encounters..... these scenarios do not exist in any AP or PFS scenario that I'm aware of.
Lets get real buddy.... any Lv 3 PC would struggle with an encounter like that!
Thats like saying Wizards are crap because in campaign X made by GM Y there was this Lv 3 wizard and he got chopped up into pieces by a Lv 9 Barbarian who full attacked him for 100+ hp!
To be fair, it's in a Paizo AP as an end boss to one of the books. The GM just decided to ignore the established and written tactics of the boss creature, but Spell Mastery and Metamagic feats were present and prepared by Paizo themselves so that much is on them. Sadly, there are some pretty out-there scenarios in AP form and especially PFS (even the newer Season 10 stuff) that make you shake your head and wonder just what they were thinking when they put a particular tier system down, and it's completely wrong. Reign of Winter was not written by someone who's experienced an actual wintery season. Those Fort save DCs are ridiculous.
Admittedly, my PFS players have said a few times the GM in question is toxic in comparison to other GMs, but on that note I haven't met any other types but those ones kinds.
|
|
I'm tempted to remove the spell level limit on wands. Right now wands can only be made for spells of 4th level or lower. Way back in 3e, staves used to be big wands; 50 charges and multiple spells of any spell level. In Pathfinder, staves now are 10 charges and can be recharged.
Thoughts?
I'm fine with staffs having lower charges and being rechargeable, but not 10. Make them at least 15-20. Personally I'd like to see 3PP implementation of wands being able to do up to 6th level, and 5e version of wands that could use extra charges so you could cast it at a higher caster level. Actually make it worth having. A level 1 wand of magic missile doesn't do much for you at 10th or higher level.
They are the ones best equipped to know which pipe to smoke.Maybe. The rhetoric about how old and undoable 3.5 was as 4th came out was more or less exactly what people are saying about pathfinder 1.0 now, right before a radically different game under the same name gets released.Funny thing is, back then I got flak from 4e fans for saying the PF1 is the better choice and now I'm getting flak from PF1 fans for saying that PF2 is the better choice. But I'm fine, I like a good fight.
And the market did change massively over the 12 years. Pen and paper RPG industry looks now totally different in this post-5e, post-Critical Role world we live in. It's now full of people for whom PF1 is a clunky mess, and the number of people who loved PF1 for its complexity and didn't switch over to 5e because everybody around them did it is dwindling.
Also, I hope that you realise that there's no scenario in which you win this fight - if Paizo tanks, there will be no forum for you to state "Gorbacz you were wrong and I was right! Paizo should have listened to me!" and if Paizo succeeds, well, you'll look silly every time I'll link any of those "well let's just wait until they fail because they will fail and they will be sorry!" posts you're now making.
Well, there's always that one forum a bunch of people went to when Paizo went on a banning spree a while back. Definitely not a great outcome, though. Which is one of the reasons that I hope Paizo makes lots of money with its new game.
And the market did change massively over the 12 years. Pen and paper RPG industry looks now totally different in this post-5e, post-Critical Role world we live in. It's now full of people for whom PF1 is a clunky mess, and the number of people who loved PF1 for its complexity and didn't switch over to 5e because everybody around them did it is dwindling.
Also, I hope that you realise that there's no scenario in which you win this fight - if Paizo tanks, there will be no forum for you to state "Gorbacz you were wrong and I was right! Paizo should have listened to me!" and if Paizo succeeds, well, you'll look silly every time I'll link any of those "well let's just wait until they fail because they will fail and they will be sorry!" posts you're now making.
I'm not sure why you think i'd need to come gloat? Every time your eyes go across your little list of people to come gloat to you'll remind YOURSELF that you were wrong.
Not like i'm over in the pf2 forum stirring up trouble. The difference is, even if i'm wrong it wont really matter to me, ive got almost all the pf1 material i need, and none of the groups i'm in are interested in pf2.0, they'll swap to 5th edition first.
You quite delicately nailed the problem on the head in an attempt to win this argument though. The number of people who haven't already switched to 5th edition is dwindling. Then you have to subtract the number of people who played pf1 for its complexity.
This isn't pathfinder carrying on a beloved game system in the face of the big dog flopping hard on their attempt to simplify. This is pathfinder, trying to create their own game system, up against the biggest dog in the yard that is currently offering probably its most successful version of the game yet.
On Topic:
Archetype cleanup and a consolidation of slightly different named abilities into restrictions on the choices of a core ability. IE: Spear training, etc for fighter archetypes. Stuff that is basically identical to a core ability but named differently should count as the core ability for feats and the like.
I'm fine with staffs having lower charges and being rechargeable, but not 10. Make them at least 15-20. Personally I'd like to see 3PP implementation of wands being able to do up to 6th level, and 5e version of wands that could use extra charges so you could cast it at a higher caster level. Actually make it worth having. A level 1 wand of magic missile doesn't do much for you at 10th or higher level.I'm tempted to remove the spell level limit on wands. Right now wands can only be made for spells of 4th level or lower. Way back in 3e, staves used to be big wands; 50 charges and multiple spells of any spell level. In Pathfinder, staves now are 10 charges and can be recharged.
Thoughts?
I remember D&D 1st Edition, in which not all Potions, Scrolls, Wands, and Staves are just generic spell storage devices but more customized magic items like in D&D 1st Edition, in which only most Scrolls, Potions, and Wands were spell storage devices, and many Staves weren't. Not all of this is practical to implement in Pathfinder, but it would be nice to recapture some of the flavor, so that even though some of these items should still be possible to get with a reasonable amount of cash (but depending upon where you are), finding one of them doesn't overwhelmingly often mean that you have just found some specialized batteries (Potions, Scrolls) or some specialized lamps with built-in batteries (Wands, Staves). Likewise for Rods, although at least Pathfinder does have some Rods (uncommon though they seem to be) that aren't just specialized Metamagic batteries.
{. . .}
Archetype cleanup and a consolidation of slightly different named abilities into restrictions on the choices of a core ability. IE: Spear training, etc for fighter archetypes. Stuff that is basically identical to a core ability but named differently should count as the core ability for feats and the like.
+1 on that, and add consolidation of a LOT of of archetypes into class talents (Rogue Talent, etc.) and specializations (like what Vigilante started to do with Vigilante Specialization, but then abandoned after 2 of these, or more distantly sort of like what Ranger does with Ranger Combat Style).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of miss staves being more unique than just big wands with fewer charges.
^+1 on that. Also add that when they do differ from Wands by having more spells, having the higher level spells makes them harder to recharge for their low level spells (and also makes the number of castings of the higher level spells ridiculously small). They also take ridiculously long to charge.
|
|
The arcane discovery "Staff-Like Wand" allows Wizards to use their DCs and caster level in place of what the wand has.
There is also the class feature "Improved Scroll Casting" from the Scrollmaster Wizard archetype that does the same for scrolls. Unfortunately it is a class feature and not an arcane discovery. I think I'll house rule that it is in my games though.
I'd still want what 5e does for wands, but it's nice that wizards could take that discovery and use the wands ability "for free" so it only uses one charge instead of additional ones.
Also add that when they do differ from Wands by having more spells, having the higher level spells makes them harder to recharge for their low level spells (and also makes the number of castings of the higher level spells ridiculously small). They also take ridiculously long to charge.
I also agree with this. For the cost, staffs should be recharging themselves for free. I'd want to steal another thing from 5e, and like their wands, have a staff automatically recharge 1d6+1 charges each day, in additional to what you put into it.
On Topic:
Archetype cleanup and a consolidation of slightly different named abilities into restrictions on the choices of a core ability. IE: Spear training, etc for fighter archetypes. Stuff that is basically identical to a...
Agreed. And how many slightly different versions of flurry do we need? Just make it one thing with easily grokked variants.
I kind of miss staves being more unique than just big wands with fewer charges.
Oh yeah. Finding a staff should be "whoa, this thing is awesome", not "whoa, this thing will sell for a ton". Heck, wands could use more character while we're at it.
One thing I'd like to see people's opinions on is what I'm seeing a lot lately on Twitter.
Whole gaggles of groups coming together for equality of gender and races wanting a boycott for racial attributes (in addition to no race should be allowed to be written as evil). Essentially they say that high elves shouldn't have +2 Dex, -2 Con, +2 Int in Pathfinder and +2 Dex, +1 Int in 5e. That all races should be +2 to one stat like humans, half-elves, and half-orcs because otherwise you're just pushing the racial stereotypes and forcing them to be typecasted to a particular class. For the most part they seem to be okay with the racial traits for the most part, especially for Pathfinder, because the system has so many alternate racial traits that you can swap out and insert. There's no "the elf has THIS and ONLY this" making it more accepted.
Maybe they'd be happier if RPG used "species" instead of "race". A Dwarf is physically different enough from a Human that their stats should absolutely reflect that, and it's only to be expected that they would tend to adopt fighting styles that suit them. To use an extreme example, Humans are physically well-adapted to throwing weapons powerfully and accurately so so we've made good use of them, but other apes—who are smart enough to use tools, and much stronger than us—are not, so they don't bother.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had my druthers, PF2 would have been more along the lines of Starfinder: keeping the core gameplay of PF1 intact, while streamlining some of the more complicated elements and tinkering a little with the math to avoid extremes. In other words, a true revision as opposed to a whole new game, which is what we're going to get (for better or worse).
Basically this. Starfinder is superior than 2e and in some respects to 1e.
But I would have definitely liked to have seen 1e revised for things that were never answered. Too many too list off the top of my mind.
I agree with "species" instead of "race", except that Humans are close enough to both Orcs and Elves to breed with both without all or nearly of the offspring being sterile, and Orcs supposedly breed with some other Humanoids as well (no idea about fertility of the offspring), so maybe we have something like a ring species for at least some Humanoids.
How aasimar, tiefling and the other partly human races fit is weird thou.
Throw real-world biology right out the window at that point.
^And when we're talking about human flexibility, we're talking about . . . uh . . . nevermind.
I’d change the CR rules. Too many times I believe a realistic encounter is ruined cause a rule lawyer complains it is too hard. The players should have to make appropriate knowledge checks to see if they can handle it but hiding behind a “that CR is too high”