Meet Pathfinder 2's Cleric; Plus Spellcasting Basics!

On the Paizo comments a lot of people are annoyed that classes get less than PF1, less class features and have to pay feats to get them back. The counter argument is that you get those feats instead of class features, just meaning you can chose how you want your class - rather than stuck with what is written. The same applies to races/ancestries. Either argument aside it does seem that all classes and races are nerfed, you don't have enough feats at level 1 in PF2 to get all the features to equal level 1 PF1. We haven't seen what backgrounds and Archetypes exactly do yet tho. I think this is a good thing, spread the power - but people don't like having things taken away I guess.

Secondly a lot of comments about only getting, max, 3 spells memorised per spell level. Another good thing IMO, to lower the power of casters vs mundanes; and also casters won;t have the spell to do automatically what other classes roll skills etc for all the time. There is the concern about 15 min adventure day tho, but that is partially offset by scaling cantrips.

These things mostly look good to me, as a DM normally I don't care about PC's having less than PF1. As long as they are better balanced against each other and opponents, it's irrelevant - but there is a lot of the Endowment Effect going on

Very interested to see the entire Playtest tho, very hard to get a feel with these tiny titbits - not that it hasn't released the rage on Paizo!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Have you tried starting a campaign at 3rd level?

At the tail end of the playtest it was becoming clear how sub-classes & such would work, and it honestly seemed like starting at 3rd should've been the default - that levels 1 & 2 would've been there only for multi-classing purposes, so you could have an old-school Fighter/Cleric/MU or Fighter/MU/Thief at the start of play, while still using 3.x/5e style MCing.

It's a testament to the power of ordinal numbers (and organized play) that anyone starts a 5e campaign at 1st.

One of the core problems, IMHO, is that 5E failed on delivering on the degree of modularity it promised in its initial pitch. And the uneven class structures has been one of the greatest impediments to modularity, customization, and balance in the game, despite the improvements that it did make.

True, but it's not like PF2 is positioned to offer an alternative, their core fanbase is even more deeply committed to uneven class structures than 5e's.

Which is a shame, if the 5e class progression was more unified you could actually port subclass features between classes with a minimum of fuss.

You probably wouldn't even need sub-classes, in that hypothetical case. Sub-classes the way Essentials used them (which was closer the way 5e uses them than 5e is to older versions of the concept) are sort of a kludge to allow you to play a selection of narrow concepts instead of just fitting yourself to the one class straight-jacket - a kludge, really. If 4e & 5e had continued to build upon and refine 3.x-style modular MCing there'd've been no need for such pre-fab options.

 

[TwoSix]

Have you tried starting a campaign at 3rd level?

You should be able to switch out subclasses there.

You'd still have to resolve specifics, but you already knew that. At least it no longer matters whether you got your subclass at level 2 or not.

True enough. My issue is more that each class has differing power levels embedded in the subclass relative to the base class, so you're pretty much making ad-hoc decisions as to whether any subclass feature swap should be allowed. Which is fine when I'm the DM, but isn't very empowering as a player.

True, but it's not like PF2 is positioned to offer an alternative, their core fanbase is even more deeply committed to uneven class structures than 5e's. You probably wouldn't even need sub-classes, in that hypothetical case. Sub-classes the way Essentials used them (which was closer the way 5e uses them than 5e is to older versions of the concept) are sort of a kludge to allow you to play a selection of narrow concepts instead of just fitting yourself to the one class straight-jacket - a kludge, really. If 4e & 5e had continued to build upon and refine 3.x-style modular MCing there'd've been no need for such pre-fab options.

Agreed. SW Saga was probably the closest model to what I'd like to see, with its limited starting class options and modular talent trees.

 

[Sunseeker]

True enough. My issue is more that each class has differing power levels embedded in the subclass relative to the base class, so you're pretty much making ad-hoc decisions as to whether any subclass feature swap should be allowed. Which is fine when I'm the DM, but isn't very empowering as a player.


Agreed. SW Saga was probably the closest model to what I'd like to see, with its limited starting class options and modular talent trees.

One thing I would love to see is a balanced progression of abilities. No more Fighter gets things at level 2, Rogue gets things at level 3, Paladin gets things at level 4. Lets find some unique class features, roughly on equal level with each other, that every class can get at the same time.

As I've pointed out in other threads, what PF2 seems to be missing is that repetition is key to memorization. We all know we get feats every other level because it's standard across the board. Odd level? Get a feat! Simple. Easy to remember.

It will also go a long way towards balancing classes.