| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, Cleric could just be the local village preacher who helps the common people with their lives and their relationship with forces beyond their control who never meets or answers to another person of their faith other than the person who trained them and their neighbors. That, to me, falls within the purview of "Cleric."
And when PossibleCabbage the GM is GM'ing PossibleCabbage's version of Golarion, that's your purview. But certainly the word clergy has far more applicability in universal terms. In the Roman Catholic ecclesiarchy The Pope, Archbishops, Cardinals, Bishops, and Abbots are all clerics and have varying levels of authority.
You can't say "Inquisitor means strictly its real world analogue when it helps my argument and Cleric means only what I think it means when it's detrimental to my argument".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the reason they're avoiding Wis classes is that the power budget is tricky. Wis is keyed to two of the four "recall knowledge" skills, medicine, perception, and Will saves. It competes with Dexterity for the single most powerful attribute in the game (and I'd give it the edge since Perception is like "a second saving throw"). You can hardly avoid having classes with Dex as a KAS, and we've had them from the beginning so they know how to do it.
The Cleric is sort of balanced around "You start with 18 Wisdom" since the Divine list has less in the way of "attention grabbing" spells than the other lists. But if you're like a frontliner who starts with an 18 Wis, you have to make sure the Inventor/Investigator/Thaumaturge/Kineticist not look at you enviously because they started with an 18 Int/Int/Cha/Con which are objectively less useful stats than Wisdom.
I know WIS was key for the 1e Inquisitor, but between 2e class design and them not needing to be nearly as much of a caster in this edition, I'd honestly like to have an 18 in what I make Strikes with. An Inquisitor/Arbiter/Intercessor of Ketephys should be at par with other martials using their longbow, and I wouldn't want one who follows Arazni to be shabby with her beloved rapier.
The playtest Kineticist's CON focus not paying into their accuracy or damage is something I'd prefer to avoid in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been recently stated by Mark Seifter (iirc) that they aren't avoiding Wisdom as a key stat. When they push out a class that the team feels is appropriate to use Wisdom, they will. Fans might think/want certain existing classes to be Wis, but the team did not share the sentiment.
It has been recently stated by Mark Seifter (iirc) that they aren't avoiding Wisdom as a key stat. When they push out a class that the team feels is appropriate to use Wisdom, they will. Fans might think/want certain existing classes to be Wis, but the team did not share the sentiment.
I'd certainly welcome it on a 2e Shaman, who already has good reason to be great at Medicine, Nature, and Religion.
I confess I'm curious what a frontliner with Wis as a KAS would look like, since the Shaman is most likely a caster (and not a wave caster) that potentially works differently from the CRB ones much like how the Psychic does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they key words there are player expectation and the desire of the developers. To be frank, the ideas of players are not always made with balance in mind, and sometimes the belief that their wants supercede those of the people making the game. Not suggesting this is you or anyone in particular, mind you, it is a blanket statment. And again, if the designers themselves decided, say, to not make the Psychic a Wisdom based class, that is their right to do so. There isn't some grand scheme here to deny players access to something they hope to see. But it will come at the time the designers deign to make it so. Any theory that they are doing anything less or more than that is simply that, a theory, devised by individuals who see the lack of something as more than what it is. Pretty much everything we have seen released thus far has followed a pattern and several themes. When a theme is conducive to a Wisdom based Clsss, then they'll do it. The issue, imo, is a sense of instant gratification and the desire to have one's cake and to eat it. These things take time. Not every foreseeable option is going to come all at once. I think people just need to take a step back and actual consider the amount of time and effort actually goes into designing a balanced game.
If anyone is unhappy with thw hard work that the people at Paizo do for us daily, I suggest and challenge them to make the efforts themselves. Infinite was made for that very reason. Not saying that is a solution; but maybe those who are wholly unsatisfied with the direction Paizo is currently going can grasp an understanding of the kinds of challenges the team goes through to bring satisfying content.
I just noticed they printed new feats for old archetypes in Knight of Lastwall, which is promising and makes me feel more confident that an archetype can be quite robust.
There's probably more value in printing more feats for existing archetypes than there is in printing more feats for existing classes. The promise of the system is that all of these things are extremely extensible, but in practice it seems like they prioritize column inches to "things lots of people can take" instead of "things specific to a certain class."
Like how many subclasses have they added to the game since the initial printing of the class? The superstition barbarian was in the playtest so that one coming was inevitable, but it's surprising there hasn't been another.
Like how many subclasses have they added to the game since the initial printing of the class? The superstition barbarian was in the playtest so that one coming was inevitable, but it's surprising there hasn't been another.
Superstition Barbarian, three Evil Champions, one new Oracle Mystery, at least one Sorcerer Bloodline... I think that's it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The APG gave us Eldritch Trickster and Mastermind for the Rogue, too.
And a few Witch Patrons, I shouldn't forget... but it's not a class I have any interest in playing. My kingdom for a spontaneous, non-Familiar take on the Witch.
Maybe someday they'll get weird with the Class Archetypes again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The undead eidolon. I also consider deities (which determine your off list spells, your bonus spells, your focus spells, and additional skills) to be cleric subclasses, and we’ve gotten a fir number of those.
Actually that might be relevant to the current discussion; I would appreciate it if inquisitors likewise used the deity entries.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need more divine classes that don't answer to a specific God though. Clerics and Champions are already bound to a God, and we're not likely to get two divine gishes, so I'd prefer to be able to play one that's like "An Animist" or "A Pantheist" or "A Henotheist" or "A Panentheist."
Like I played a lot of Paladins in 1e and I didn't play a single one who had more than a casual relationship with a God. I have so many ideas for characters like this and I don't really love playing casters.
The undead eidolon. I also consider deities (which determine your off list spells, your bonus spells, your focus spells, and additional skills) to be cleric subclasses, and we’ve gotten a fir number of those.
Actually that might be relevant to the current discussion; I would appreciate it if inquisitors likewise used the deity entries.
I'm also a big proponent of Inquisitors/Arbiters/etc using Deities. Access to Domains and Favored Weapons feels very core to the concept, IMO. Some way to grab the granted Cleric spells would be a real joy.
The bodyguard sworn to Arqueros, shielding her ward with a glowing spear and Protector's Sphere. The slayer of undead whispers a prayer to Tanagaar over their kukri, and shadows rise up to hide them from sight. The ninja assassin invokes Yaezhing to fill her target with terror, wounding the mind - just before her darkly-burning shuriken kill the body.
Now imagine if they had a limited ability to cast the deity-granted spells: the bodyguard gets Endure and Stoneskin, the undead slayer can eventually turn into a bird, and the ninja quickly grabs Invisibility.
We need more divine classes that don't answer to a specific God though. Clerics and Champions are already bound to a God, and we're not likely to get two divine gishes, so I'd prefer to be able to play one that's like "An Animist" or "A Pantheist" or "A Henotheist" or "A Panentheist."
Like I played a lot of Paladins in 1e and I didn't play a single one who had more than a casual relationship with a God. I have so many ideas for characters like this and I don't really love playing casters.
I mean, you've seen me advocating for Shaman to be the class that pairs with the Inquisitor. There can be two cool Divine classes - three, if the Medium survives, but I could see parts of it's identity rolled into the Shaman.
As for your second point, Eberron's had both Clerics and Paladins devoted to a Domain, no deity needed, since 3.5, and 5e Paladins are empowered by their devotion to their oaths, rather than faith in a god. It feels like a simple sidebar - or potentially fuller Class Archetype - to decouple Champions from deities entirely. Heck, one of my big frustrations is how vestigial deity choice feels on Champions!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need more divine classes that don't answer to a specific God though. Clerics and Champions are already bound to a God, and we're not likely to get two divine gishes, so I'd prefer to be able to play one that's like "An Animist" or "A Pantheist" or "A Henotheist" or "A Panentheist."
Like I played a lot of Paladins in 1e and I didn't play a single one who had more than a casual relationship with a God. I have so many ideas for characters like this and I don't really love playing casters.
I feel like part of the way to answer, "What if divine power but no god?" (at least speaking of animism...) is to establish deity statblocks for fonts of divine power that don't come from a particular entity. No reason a notional Shinto priest couldn't still be a Cleric. This would mean you could just as readily play champions of the same faiths if you saw fit, plus whatever comes of the Divine wave caster design space.
At the same time, priests of a deity are not restricted to divine spellcasters so no reason ordained adherents of other faiths must be, albeit I fully recognize that there is a notable gap for classes who directly gain power from their non-deity belief system and Druid doesn't do it for all
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like part of the way to answer, "What if divine power but no god?" (at least speaking of animism...) is to establish deity statblocks for fonts of divine power that don't come from a particular entity. No reason a notional Shinto priest couldn't still be a Cleric. This would mean you could just as readily play champions of the same faiths if you saw fit, plus whatever comes of the Divine wave caster design space.We need more divine classes that don't answer to a specific God though. Clerics and Champions are already bound to a God, and we're not likely to get two divine gishes, so I'd prefer to be able to play one that's like "An Animist" or "A Pantheist" or "A Henotheist" or "A Panentheist."
Like I played a lot of Paladins in 1e and I didn't play a single one who had more than a casual relationship with a God. I have so many ideas for characters like this and I don't really love playing casters.
We already have several of these, plus pantheistic deity stat blocks, plus 3 all-up classes that directly support characters who have divine magic from more esoteric sources. No reason more can't be made to cover stuff not yet done, such as Shamanism and Atheism (separate from the Laws of Mortality, which again we have).
The Oath Feats that Champions can take for specific foes (aberrations, celestials, dragons, fiends, undead, "evil creatures" who have "committed heinous atrocities") all feel like they deserve counterparts here. Paladins gain a spicy +4 damage on their unique Reaction when hitting the foes covered by their Oath - the equivalent of that on a Smite or while smacking the target of a Judgment would go a long way towards selling the fantasy.
Inquisitors of deities for whom that doesn't make sense can opt out, but your Pharasmin exorcist, Kazutali demon-slayer, or Lubaikoan rebel can bring the heat where it makes sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to say I want every divine class going forward to be able to be played without a patron deity. I've been asking for "non-deific Champions" since the playtest and I don't trust that they're going to offer this sort of thing after release- it needs to be built-in from the ground up.
Like the Playtest Oracle said
An oracle draws power from multiple deities, each with their own alignments, agendas, domains, and anathemas
which got changed on release to
Drawing on multiple disparate sources of power inevitably places an incredible stress on your body
They tried to tie the Oracle to the Gods! The Oracle which was *the* class for "I don't care about Gods, I just care about the divine aspect of Fire."
I'm just going to say I want every divine class going forward to be able to be played without a patron deity.
To be clear, when I said "deity" I was talking about the deity entries, which also cover non-deity entities and philosophies. In fact, that is quite literally exactly what I said.
It has been recently stated by Mark Seifter (iirc) that they aren't avoiding Wisdom as a key stat. When they push out a class that the team feels is appropriate to use Wisdom, they will. Fans might think/want certain existing classes to be Wis, but the team did not share the sentiment.If this is true then their words and actions are at odds in addition to being at odds with player expectations, which is cause for concern. I find it impossible that there were no ideas for wisdom based classes/subclasses in the past 3 years given the Inquisitor is a fan favorite. Doubly so when Paizo designers release psychic wisdom paths on Pathfinder infinite.
You're not wrong, but just pointing out Luis is not part of the main design team. That's not a slight on his skill, but merely saying that he's on a different team and when someone says "the design team" decided this or that, they probably aren't talking about him.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To give my 2 cents, there is a lot of space in the religious classes between the cleric and the champion, both mechanically and lore-wise. Those are quite specialised roles after all, and the thaumaturge really doesn't fill that space much, it is more of an all-round monster hunter than anything.
There are a lot of things that are floating around about what an inquisitor - or whatever it ends up being called, I really don't care - could and should end up doing. I'm just sitting here, thinking - why exactly should these be exclusive choices? Mechanically, these have no strong reason to be different. And on the lore front, there are many religions and they vary a hell of a lot, so why should the inquisitors be forced to be the same for everything?
For example, an asmodean inqisitor from Cheliax is most likely closest to the more "traditional" picture of an inquisitor, which is the part a lot of people won't like (for obvious reasons). Part of a large, strictly organized hierarchy and has a lot of power. Such inherently lawful Evil wouldn't tolerate the lone wolf shenanigans of the 40k inquisition, but the whole "death to the heretics" thing would absolutely apply here. Cheliax has a strong history of rooting out any non-devil worship (with some exceptions made for Zon-Kuthon worshippers), so here the heretic-hunter, spy and divine enforcer (to a lesser degree, that's more of a champion thing) would come out.
An erastilian inqisitor on the other hand would be a rare sight and could be more of a pseudo-part-timer like his other servants. Barely any or no organization, just one or two people that are part of the local community. They could swiftly deal with things that the villagers have problems with without potentially waiting for weeks for their aid to arrive. This could be a form of the "divine handyman" with a wider profile than "throw spells at it" (cleric) or "hit it real hard" (champion).
A third form could be abadaran inquisitors. They have a strongly connected and hierarchical structure like the asmodean people - being lawful and all that - but they are much, much less involved and aggressive. These guys are much more into the whole espionage and counter-espionage business, positions in the judiciary that require a subtle but hands-on approach (wandering magistrates for example), as well as the occasional court-sanctioned assassination of strongly disruptive elements like bandit leaders.
And the fourth form I can think of are the norgorberites. Norgorber is pretty much the deity that would most desire the more practical "religious rogue" vibe that the 1e mechanics apparently had (full disclosure - I've never touched 1e directly, so no idea if that assessment is true). All kinds of forms of organization, but it should generally be much more losse than the more lawful dudes. Assassination would satisfy the Blackfingers and Father Skinsaw aspects, while the whole "divine spy" thing practically screams Grey Master and Reaper of Reputation. Honestly, a Reaper of Reputation inquisitor that is constantly rooting around for people's secrets sounds extremely fun.
So yeah, this whole deal is flexible enough for pretty much everything. And, unlike Champions and like clerics, it actually works really well with neutral deities, because the laws of your deity are enough.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like those ideas. If we were going in a skill monkey direction I wonder if Divine Intercessions could be built in. Or if you could use things like Divine Ability scores for the KAS.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need more divine classes that don't answer to a specific God though.
I sort of agree with you, I especially want to see more exploration of animistic and pantheistic belief systems in PF2.
But I'm not sure the numbers line up with the sentiment. We have five spellcasters who can access the Divine tradition and only one of them actually cares about their deity at all.
Stepping away from spellcasters, we have three martials who can innately touch upon a divine power source and again, only one of them actually interacts with having a deity (and to be honest, even then the champion feels like an alignment character first and the follower of a deity second).
If anything it feels like characters associated with a deity are the underrepresented ones here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need more divine classes that don't answer to a specific God though.I sort of agree with you, I especially want to see more exploration of animistic and pantheistic belief systems in PF2.
But I'm not sure the numbers line up with the sentiment. We have five spellcasters who can access the Divine tradition and only one of them actually cares about their deity at all.
Stepping away from spellcasters, we have three martials who can innately touch upon a divine power source and again, only one of them actually interacts with having a deity (and to be honest, even then the champion feels like an alignment character first and the follower of a deity second).
If anything it feels like characters associated with a deity are the underrepresented ones here.
One of my largest frustrations is that the Champion class feels so much more like the "alignment warrior" class than any sort of "knight of my deity" feeling. Between that and Warpriest Clerics being kind of a joke, I'm... surprised people feel like the devotees of the gods are over-represented in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anything it feels like characters associated with a deity are the underrepresented ones here.
But you can make literally any character a devout follower of a deity who is motivated by their faith. Having it always be a quid pro quo for "you get magic powers" probably isn't ideal. Of the characters who can access divine powers without an actual relationship with a God, they're pretty much all casters (the Summoner I guess can technically do that, but it's mostly the Eidolon that hangs out in the danger zone.) If we're going to get a second divine "you are comfortable in the middle of the action" class, it should overlap with the Champion as little as possible.
I think have the opposite opinion of the Champion as Keftiu. I want less "specific relationship with your deity" and more "you are motivated by your cause" from the class. Because if I have a character who is Lawful Good and all about that Lawfulness and Goodness- doing the right thing by the book every time, then I can just make that person an Iomedean or a Toragite if that's how I want to play that character. I don't need specific reinforcement from the rules to roleplay that.
One of my largest frustrations is that the Champion class feels so much more like the "alignment warrior" class than any sort of "knight of my deity" feeling. Between that and Warpriest Clerics being kind of a joke, I'm... surprised people feel like the devotees of the gods are over-represented in PF2.
There is a difference between being represented and being represented well: I feel that there are a LOT of classes that access divine power and can worship a god but that doesn't mean that I feel that great about some aspects of those options like... well everything about the warpriest. I'd rather focus on making existing options better than adding more.
On champions, they have always been an alignment forward class so I'm not surprised by the class: it's why I don't play them. Maybe when they get to neutral and/or alignment agnostic causes/tenets.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"erosion of trust" "finally deign to" "draining good will" seems like very loaded and intense language for something like this.
Paizo's only published ten new classes since PF2 came out. There are a lot of things they haven't done.
I'm not sure such an ascription of malice toward any one of those things is really warranted.
I have full faith (heh) that the 2e Shaman will happen someday and be a Wisdom class. There's clear interest in both Arcadia and Tian Xia from the lore half of the Pathfinder team, and the characters it enables are a big part of the fantasy in both places.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to say I want every divine class going forward to be able to be played without a patron deity. I've been asking for "non-deific Champions" since the playtest and I don't trust that they're going to offer this sort of thing after release- it needs to be built-in from the ground up.
The way I remember it, clerics and paladins could go without worshipping a deity, but only because they decided the make Pathfinder fairly setting-neutral. With Second Edition, they wanted to include the setting more, so clerics and champions were obligated to have a deity.
So, I expect any future inquisitor-like class to require deity worship. I can see them going in a different direction for shaman, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to say I want every divine class going forward to be able to be played without a patron deity. I've been asking for "non-deific Champions" since the playtest and I don't trust that they're going to offer this sort of thing after release- it needs to be built-in from the ground up.The way I remember it, clerics and paladins could go without worshipping a deity, but only because they decided the make Pathfinder fairly setting-neutral. With Second Edition, they wanted to include the setting more, so clerics and champions were obligated to have a deity.
So, I expect any future inquisitor-like class to require deity worship. I can see them going in a different direction for shaman, though.
Put both in a book together and everyone's happy - me most of all :p
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"erosion of trust" "finally deign to" "draining good will" seems like very loaded and intense language for something like this.
Paizo's only published ten new classes since PF2 came out. There are a lot of things they haven't done.
I'm not sure such an ascription of malice toward any one of those things is really warranted.
*sigh* Intensity was intentional and reflects my frustration, ascribing malice was not.
Designers are human and fallible, even the good ones (which I consider the Paizo team to be despite my intense language and wisdom soapbox.) They can have blindspots and pointing them out does not constitute "ascribing malice."
The problem is what the language being used implies. Talking about eroding trust and a loss of goodwill creates the suggestion that you were somehow owed or promised something in particular.
Likewise the use of phrasing like "human and fallible" again suggests that Paizo not publishing the specific class you were looking for is somehow a failure on their part.
It's reasonable to dislike a design choice, or be disappointed, even frustrated or a little upset, but imo it gets problematic to code that frustration in language that implies some personal betrayal or moral failing.
I'm just going to say I want every divine class going forward to be able to be played without a patron deity. I've been asking for "non-deific Champions" since the playtest and I don't trust that they're going to offer this sort of thing after release- it needs to be built-in from the ground up.
And I'm just going to say that if they ever dropped champions*/clerics requiring a patron deity in the core ruleset, I would unsub faster than you can say "Please cancel my account"
People talk about representation in Pathfinder being important. Well, as someone from a religion that says "yes, only those who have been given the sacrament of holy orders can do these things, acting on behalf of the divine" it's nice to see that reflected in clerics and champions.
* Yes, I know Paladins only had to be LG in PF1e and didn't require a patron. This never made sense to me and as a practical house rule matter Paladins were restricted to deities that were within one step of LG.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cleric should always be the "God" class, but the Champion should be open to anybody whose devotion to their cause is sufficient to access vital and spiritual essence.
It should be pretty clear from the Summoner, Oracle, Witch, and Divine Sorcerer that "Divine" magic needn't have anything to do with Gods. So it's really confusing to me why people want the lone existing martial divine class to not be open to people from non-deific traditions, regardless of their zeal.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm just going to say that if they ever dropped champions*/clerics requiring a patron deity in the core ruleset, I would unsub faster than you can say "Please cancel my account"I'm just going to say I want every divine class going forward to be able to be played without a patron deity. I've been asking for "non-deific Champions" since the playtest and I don't trust that they're going to offer this sort of thing after release- it needs to be built-in from the ground up.
Suggesting you'd quit Pathfinder because someone else might be able to play the character of their dreams in a way that has zero effect whatsoever on you is kind of toxic as hell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the important thing about the Champion is that you are Championing something. You have a Cause you are zealously devoted to, which compels you to go out and stand for your cause. It's clear you can access divine power by having special blood, or imagining a demon, or thinking too hard about fire so I don't think that "I protect my people to honor my ancestors" or "I strongly believe in universal dignity up to and including the small gods in ordinary objects" shouldn't have heavily armored well... Champions.