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!

 

[houser2112]

[5E] puts a Concentration requirement on only some spells and only on maintaining them, not casting them, it has a chance of maintaining concentration when you're hit. That's noticeably different from Concentration skill in 3.5 or concentration requirements in AD&D, but it's also quite similar to both of them.

I think you're neglecting to mention the biggest difference that Concentration in 5E made. In past editions, spells that required you to actively concentrate on them were few and far between, and were usually divinations that you would rarely use in combat. 5E put Concentration on buffs and debuffs (things you will want to do in combat) and severely limits the number you can maintain at the same time. This is the biggest issue you have to work around as a spellcaster regarding Concentration, not how you maintain it once obtained.

 

[Charlaquin]

No worries. I guess I sorta look at it a different way. RPGs have generational bands of audiences. Two of the most excitable bands, which I'll call the older, nostalgia band and the younger-trending band) don't have the patience of some of the rigamarole and cruft sometimes intrinsic within the 3x systems. And this is for two different reasons.

The nostalgia band of players has a fondness for a simpler time of their first spark. They shake their fists at the complex underlying formulas behind the 3x system. I have a certain amount of sympathy for this but often find that the design of such old school clones relies on information of experience or (sometimes covertly) uses a mix of new and old game design tech.

The younger band grew up in the gaming revolution that D&D helped create. They came into the game via other games that used, discarded, and often improved on older mechanics. Their game savvy is both high and often sophisticated, even if they don't realize that they are.

Now, the funny thing is that both of these groups love the depth of options for play, both on the character and the GM side. While Pathfinder could be seen as purely a reaction to 4e (which is often a point of frustration for me, given that I worked and I am very proud of my work on that game, though I will freely admit that mistakes were made), it has grown to be something so much more. In many ways, the Pathfinder Playtest is an attempt to smooth out the cruft, decrease the rigamarole, and capitalize on what makes Pathfinder a great game experience.

Of course, the elephant in the room is those who look at the 3x differently than what I've just described. The other goal of the Playtest is to keep the things that most of them like while creating better tools for character and adventure design in a robust form so that we can change some of their opinions on the matter.

The Playtest is sure to be exciting and will let us know when we did this well and what is not gaining traction. We will celebrate the former and go back to the drawing board with the latter.

Thanks for sharing your perspective! I think I have a similar perspective on 3e. Whether or not it’s true that Pathfinder was in part a reaction to 4e, the perception that it was is there, and unfortunately holds Pathfinder 1st Edition back, in my opinion. While I love the depth of options, the 3rd edition cruft has kept me from adopting it. Here’s hoping that 2nd Edition is able to make Pathfinder’s strengths shine while shaking off the baggage of edition wars past. As one of that later band of players you mentioned, what I’ve seen so far has got me really excited!

 

[Yaarel]

Very true.

This may sound weird, but I've spent the past many years considering PF1e to be "D&D" and D&D 5e to be something else. Now PF2e doesn't seem like "D&D" either, and I'm becoming aware that between the many versions of D&D, PF, and dozens of retro-clones that perhaps "D&D" is a state of mind that transcends brand names.

Or maybe I'm just full of... silver pieces.

I am curious. To you, does D&D 1e seem like ‘D&D’ to you?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am curious. To you, does D&D 1e seem like ‘D&D’ to you?

What kind of a crazy question is that? 1e AD&D /defines/ D&D!

(says the guy who started in 1980, when 1e was the latest & greatest...)

I think you're neglecting to mention the biggest difference that Concentration in 5E made. In past editions, spells that required you to actively concentrate on them were few and far between, and were usually divinations that you would rarely use in combat

Wall of Fire and Conjure Elemental are two 1e examples I happen to remember.

5E put Concentration on buffs and debuffs (things you will want to do in combat) and severely limits the number you can maintain at the same time.

AFAIK, the limitation, where it's existed, has always been one at a time (again, as always, the exception being 'not-D&D'-enough 4e where you could downgrade actions to keep two or even three sustain:minor spells going, though you'd be doing nothing else, at all, /and/ it was likely all your dailies blown on one encounter).

The emphasis on picking one powerful buff to drop on your party & maintain, vs pre-casting layers of buffs is different from 3.5, but not so different from classic D&D, where about the only memorable buff-layering strategy was Prayer followed by Chant (which, oh, was a buff you had to concentrate on - V components throughout, even, now that I think of it). It's probably as or more legit to say that 3.5's systematic pre-casting strategies deviate from classic D&D feel than to say that 5e concentration does.

 

[houser2112]

5E put Concentration on buffs and debuffs (things you will want to do in combat) and severely limits the number you can maintain at the same time.

Wall of Fire and Conjure Elemental are two 1e examples I happen to remember.

According to this site, you are correct with conjure elemental, but not on wall of fire.

AFAIK, the limitation, where it's existed, has always been one at a time (again, as always, the exception being 'not-D&D'-enough 4e where you could downgrade actions to keep two or even three sustain:minor spells going, though you'd be doing nothing else, at all).

The emphasis on picking one powerful buff to drop on your party & maintain, vs pre-casting layers of buffs is different from 3.5, but not so different from classic D&D, where about the only memorable buff-layering strategy was Prayer followed by Chant (which, oh, was a buff you had to concentrate on - V components throughout, even, now that I think of it). It's probably as or more legit to say that 3.5's systematic pre-casting strategies deviate from classic D&D feel than to say that 5e concentration does.

I seem to remember clerics being able to have bless and hold person up simultaneously, and wizards able to have fly and invisibility up simultaneously.

 

[Tony Vargas]

According to this site, you are correct with conjure elemental, but not on wall of fire.

The latter had a short duration after concentration ended, IIRC. The former, if your concentration was broken, attacked you.
1e was very uneven, that way.

And 1e concentration didn't just lock out other concentration spells, it kept you from casting, at all, because any casting required you concentrate...

I seem to remember clerics being able to have bless and hold person up simultaneously, and wizards able to have fly and invisibility up simultaneously.

Sure, hold person was just a fire-and-forget, save-or-else spell, and bless wasn't a critical component of a broken combos, then, either.
Fly & invisible was a little tricky in 1e. IIRC, casting broke invisibility, and you couldn't cast while flying. So you'd cast fly, but not use it yet, then cast invisibility, and you'd be flying invisibly - but you wouldn't be raining destruction on the enemy from points unknown in the sky without breaking said invisibility.

Really, the 5e feel is pretty close to the classic, that way.

 

[Yaarel]

Indeed, the fall of 4e and the rise of PF1 proved that “D&D” is more than just a brand name. But the rise of 5e and the fall of PF1 is proving that the brand name does contribute to what makes D&D, as do its proprietary settings and monsters.

The ongoing D&D traditions flourish. At the same time they include difficulties of various kinds.

The reason D&D 5e is ‘true’ D&D is because WotC made an extreme effort to find out what the D&D community wanted. WotC designers care about meeting the needs of players. WotC as a corporation made unprecedented outreaches to the D&D community, to discern the needs of D&D players.

Seeing 3e, I was so happy at the improvements since 1e. The systematization of AD&D rules was timely. WotC saved the D&D tradition. During 3e, I advocated nonvancian options, then delighted in the 3e (XPH) Psion. Also during 3e, I advocated passionately for balance, especially among player classes. Also balance among ability scores, each of which is a valid archetype to choose from. 4e gave balance, albeit a rigid form of balance. During 4e, I advocated that WotC always ask what the player base wants. Then I saw WotC reaching out to meet the needs of D&D players via attentive designers − and even corporate outreaches to survey what the majority of the D&D community wants − beyond my expectations, even beyond what I thought was plausible for a ‘corporation’ to do. WotC did amazing in regard to the surveys that resulted in D&D 5e.

WotC did so many things that I value. For examples, in 5e, the spontaneous Wizard and the full-caster Bard are two classes I advocated for, and I love the 5e versions of them. The 5e Bard is mythologically accurate (or at least mythologically respectful).

5e still has desiderata for me. I need to see monotheism be a *normal* option for progressive D&D (and animism and monism, and I appreciate spiritual diversity in general), and I need to see a Charisma elf that is inherently magic, preferably a sun-and-sky-dwelling elf (accurate to Norse world views) − even better this elf be psionic − and I want to see psionics in general that extends from a person’s own consciousness be a normative part of D&D.

Despite the fact that there are important aspects that I still need to see, I respect − value − appreciate − WotC and its designers make a remarkable effort to reach the D&D community as a whole.

D&D 5e puts me in a position where I have to admit D&D under the facility of WotC makes an honest effort to meet the desires of the majority of D&D players. For certain things (like non-vancian Wizards and full-caster Bards) I am happy to share among the majority. For certain other things (like monotheism, charismatic elf, and psionics) I seem to be in a minority. Even in those places where a minority, I suspect there is room enough in D&D for these options that I care about.

In all, I care about D&D reaching the player base. It has and it does.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m not sure why you quoted me in that post... I mean, it’s cool that you feel that way, I just don’t really see the connection between that and my post.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The ongoing D&D traditions flourish. At the same time they include difficulties of various kinds.

The reason D&D 5e is ‘true’ D&D is because WotC made an extreme effort to find out what the D&D community wanted. WotC designers care about meeting the needs of players. WotC as a corporation made unprecedented outreaches to the D&D community, to discern the needs of D&D players.

That sounds great but, really, in essence, all that was just WotC finally doing what Paizo had been doing for fans of 3.5 with PF since 2009.

Also during 3e, I advocated passionately for balance, especially among player classes. 4e gave balance

Yeah, a balanced game and a empty sack is worth the sack, it turns out.

D&D 5e puts me in a position where I have to admit D&D under the facility of WotC makes an honest effort to meet the desires of the majority of D&D players

The respondents to WotC's playtest surveys and the like were necessarily a self-selected minority of those actually playing D&D at the time - which was arguably a nadir of the game's popularity, because of the rampant negativity of the edition war - and the playtest surveys, themselves, were pretty selective in the questions they asked. Plus, even if the game were catering to some holy-grail unified 'majority' of D&D players (at the time), what about all the lapsed players, and what about the 7.4 billion non-D&D players, 1% of whom even trying the game would blow away every record of the fad years by an order of magnitude?

And, what about the premise that 5e was actually for everyone who ever loved D&D, not just a theoretical majority or plurality of them - if it really is game design by mob rule, why are there so many options so minority opinions can re-shape it into what they need?

5e is a well-managed iteration of the property, which neatly walks the tight-rope between acceptability to the established, vocal (sometimes viciously so) hard-core fanbase and accessibility to potential new players (if not so much to the mainstream). That's more than any edition since 1e has managed, and it hasn't left a whole lot of crumbs for Paizo/PF2 to pick up, really. Nothing like the situation when the fanbase was divided against itself, and anyone willing to pick a side (there were at least 3) and cater to it had a captive audience.

In all, I care about D&D reaching the player base. It has and it does.

So, the basic message is that Paizo and PF2 should dry up and die?

 

[Shasarak]

Because D&D will beat them at that game. If Paizo wants to keep Pathfinder alive, they’ll have to figure out what it does that D&D doesn’t, and sell it based on that.

Eh, being the second most popular RPG in the world is not so bad that you should shoot yourself in the foot and go all Full New Coke.

No one should go Full New Coke.