[PF2] Cleric class preview + spells per level

[Tony Vargas]

If some third party were to jump in at this point and pick up the torch and ship a 3.85e set of books, I can guarantee they'd end up with $100 of purchases (assuming 2 $49 books) from over a dozen gamers who are wondering what their 2019 and beyond gaming looks like.

Thanks to the OGL, that'll always be a possibility...

 

[Parmandur]

On topic, it is interesting to see that Pathfinder 2 is definitely going with a life path character generation for abilities: Ancestry, Background and Class for abilities rather than point buy.

 

[wakedown]

Honestly, hearing way more of this than anything else: destroying backwards compatibility is a very strange decision for Paizo here.

The designers have basically suggested that they took the most radical/controversial option for any particular decision and went with that in the Playtest, believing they can always inch backwards from that if its not well received.

I could probably find those citations.

Presumably things inch back towards a more reasonable system for PF1e-to-PF2e conversion as they roll back a lot of the systems that will end up being rejected by playtesters as it becomes too cumbersome to convert an in-progress Carrion Crown (or what-have-you) campaign over.

So much of their adventure material for PF1e has adversaries with class levels, a huge change to class-based mechanics makes it really hard to run those. If it was all mostly monsters who stayed in CR bands, then it's easy to run.

 

[wakedown]

On topic, it is interesting to see that Pathfinder 2 is definitely going with a life path character generation for abilities: Ancestry, Background and Class for abilities rather than point buy.

I'm OK with this on the player and GM side. I know some folks who really enjoy the point-buy or rolling though.

All the small races they've previewed I believe have a bonus to Charisma, which is a bit wonky.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I’m still running 5e too, but only because there isn’t a better alternative that’s currently supported. PF2 is looking like it could be that alternative, for me and a lot of other 4e fans.
.

That would be deeply ironic...

The designers have basically suggested that they took the most radical/controversial option for any particular decision and went with that in the Playtest, ...

Presumably things inch back towards a more reasonable system for PF1e-to-PF2e conversion as they roll back a lot of the systems that will end up being rejected by playtesters .

...This, OTOH, sound plausible.

 

[Charlaquin]

The designers have basically suggested that they took the most radical/controversial option for any particular decision and went with that in the Playtest, believing they can always inch backwards from that if its not well received.

I could probably find those citations.

That would be cool if you don’t mind. That doesn’t surprise me, but I’d be interested in seeing the comments in context.

That would be deeply ironic...

Indeed it would.

 

[barasawa]

I'm of mixed and unsettled feelings about Anathema.

...I dislike them being specified and required by the game system. Given a blank slate, players come up much more interesting variations that take into account a wider and richer personality...

...Plus, I don't really see "the gods" as choosing to micromanage their followers.

Even in 1st edition, the clerics were supposed to be following the gods rules, but since it wasn't specifically listed, most didn't do so. The Paladins code was more explicitly stated though vauge, so I've seen plenty of games where the Paladins got away with almost anything. Then again, I've also seen nearly as many Paladins that were so heavily restricted that if they so much as farted indoors they were likely to lose their powers. Having a clear set of do's and don'ts helps everyone imo.

Besides, the religions always have rules, and the deities also have minions, the least of which are probably the souls of those faithful that now serve their god.
No micromanagement needed, that's what the divine bureaucracy is for.

 

[Lylandra]

I'm OK with this on the player and GM side. I know some folks who really enjoy the point-buy or rolling though.

All the small races they've previewed I believe have a bonus to Charisma, which is a bit wonky.

Yeah, I'm not too fond of the small = charismatic equation. There should be un-charismatic smallfolk, especially for those who like Hobbit-like characters and I'm not sure whether Goblins should have a baseline Cha bonus. Also, I'm a bit afraid that this leaves the medium sized or larger ancestries with no high-cha option which would be really sad.

 

[Aldarc]

That does not change my assessment of 5E one bit. And I have veeery optimized players. If casters had had even some of the humongous imbalance advantage from d20, do you think they'd still play martials?

I don't think so. If the caster martial balance hadn't been fundamentally and comprehensively shifted I would never have said it had.

I recall that the Fighter was actually the most popular class in PF1 according to survey done by Paizo and d20pfsrd. I don't think that the popularity of a class is entirely dependent on its power level.

On topic, it is interesting to see that Pathfinder 2 is definitely going with a life path character generation for abilities: Ancestry, Background and Class for abilities rather than point buy.

It's an interesting way to "build" a character such that who you are and what you did matters. But it could make it more difficult to play against type, though this may also be possible with the appropriate backgrounds and floating ancestry modifiers.

 

[TwoSix]

Honestly, hearing way more of this than anything else: destroying backwards compatibility is a very strange decision for Paizo here.

While I'm not unhappy about their decision, I admit it's not what I expected them to do. My assumption was always that a PF2 would be more of a "Pathfinder Unchained" for a new set of core classes, sort of a rebuilt greatest hits of their previous releases. I never though they would do a full system rebuild, because backwards compatibility was too important.