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!

 

[CapnZapp]

Uhh... “doing D&D but better” is exactly what Pathfinder was built on, and is exactly the thing I’m suggesting they evolve beyond.

Evolve beyond the only reason for their existence?

How are “selling their game on its own merits” and “gunning for continued parity with WotC” in any way mutually exclusive?

You completely missed the point of my examples. A game that is its own thing will probably meet with the success of Numenera et al, that is, no success at all - at least if compared to the expectations I believe Paizo have.

I would argue that the former is absolutely necessary in order to accomplish the latter. As long as Pathfinder is just “3rd Edition but new,”

Who argued for that?

Look, if all you want is win the argument, by all means, keep setting up straw men.

Meanwhile, it's completely obvious Tony (post just above yours) got it.

The fact that no one will come for the brand name alone is why they need to establish a strong identity for their game.

The fact nobody will come for the brand alone is... A reason not to try creating that brand.

“D&D, but crunchier?” Sure, that’s a good selling point - crunch is something the current edition of D&D is lacking in, which is precisely why PF2 caught my interest. But that’s what I’m saying, PF2 needs to do things D&D isn’t already doing, otherwise people will just stick with D&D. If they continue to just barely iterate on 3e’s design, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. They need to instead make a game that appeals in ways D&D 5e doesn’t. Being like D&D isn’t one of those ways.

Being like D&D is the *only* reason.

If it ceases to be like D&D there is nothing left. Or do you believe anyone is interested in yet another fantasy game just because it's called something that was relevant for an edition from 18 years ago?

Why would old hardcore D&D gamers suddenly be interested in non D&D gaming??

And stop with the 3rd edition nonsense. Obviously their opportunity lies with an advanced 5th edition ish.

 

[CapnZapp]

Look, I'm not trying to predict PF2s failure.

I'm saying there's a risk
1) they're completely overestimating their own importance

While

2) severely underestimating the fundamental improvements brought on by 5th edition.

Sure you could dismiss that game as child's play and too shallow - and TBH reading my own posts might give that impression.

But that would be a grave mistake. The changes to casters improve the game on a fundamental level. The abandonment of monsters using PC build rules immensely improve my DMing experience.

Futzing about with four spell lists, three actions to me suggests a design team unable to lift up their collective head to see what's needed to compete with 5E.

 

[zztong]

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

Yes. White books, basic 1e, advanced 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and PF1e would be the trunk of the tree of it in my eyes. I've not yet played a 5e game, so I don't know about it.

 

[zztong]

Unfortunately for me as someone who’s primary interest in a game system comes from the quality of its rules design, you’re far from alone in this. Comfort is a major motivator for a lot of people’s gaming choices, perhaps even the primary motivator for many. I sometimes feel like a neophile in a hobby dominated by neophobia. I get excited every time a System I enjoy announces a new edition because I can’t wait to see all the cool new design innovations the next edition will bring. Meanwhile it seems like most folks I talk to hate Edition changes and treat any upcoming rules changes with skepticism and distrust and need significant convincing to embrace them.

I feel for you.

One thing I really liked was the "spirit" of gaming in the 1970s and 1980s. The rules were vague and everyone had house rules. GMs picked rules to emphasize what they wanted to see, and basically assist their stories. When I looked at 3e, I saw lots of house rules. Feats in 1e? Yeh, we had that, but we didn't call them that and there were only a few. Skills in 1e? Yep, we had that.

PF1e got so complex that you pretty much need automation (Hero Lab) to play it correctly. That's killed house rules, at least beyond things like "we ignore alignment."

Back to your thoughts... I kind of wonder if a more modular system is possible where a GM could pick between a few different skill systems. Then you could seek out the best rules in each category and I wouldn't necessarily lose the comfort of compatibility.

 

[zztong]

5e has a lot of optional 'modules' that DMs can opt into or out of, and any number of others might be appended. Whole new sub-systems could be added or existing ones expanded or tweaked. Alternate MCing rules that make PrCs workable, for instance, would open up a lot of crunch, including Golarion-flavored crunch that could then be tied into the next PF AP (that could be made compatible with both PF1/3.5 & 5e)...

Interesting. I guess I need to read through the D&D 5e book that's been collecting dust on my shelf for years.

EDIT: I previously took part in their playtest, but since all of my regular games went PF1e they didn't see a reason to look at D&D 5e, so while I've had the book, I didn't have a reason to read it. At the time, I knew the rules from the playtest, but I've forgotten them.

 

[Charlaquin]

I feel for you.

One thing I really liked was the "spirit" of gaming in the 1970s and 1980s. The rules were vague and everyone had house rules. GMs picked rules to emphasize what they wanted to see, and basically assist their stories. When I looked at 3e, I saw lots of house rules. Feats in 1e? Yeh, we had that, but we didn't call them that and there were only a few. Skills in 1e? Yep, we had that.

PF1e got so complex that you pretty much need automation (Hero Lab) to play it correctly. That's killed house rules, at least beyond things like "we ignore alignment."

Back to your thoughts... I kind of wonder if a more modular system is possible where a GM could pick between a few different skill systems. Then you could seek out the best rules in each category and I wouldn't necessarily lose the comfort of compatibility.

That’s kinda the spirit 5e is designed around. I have other issues with 5e, but the attempt at modularity and the emphasis on rulings over rules are aspects of it I really appreciate.

 

[zztong]

That’s kinda the spirit 5e is designed around. I have other issues with 5e, but the attempt at modularity and the emphasis on rulings over rules are aspects of it I really appreciate.

I read through D&D 5e today and recalled some of the reasons why I didn't fret when the local games stuck with PF1e. I also read through C&C today and while I like its power levels better I'm still not sold. I'm getting tempted to take the D20 3.5 SRD and just start making modifications. I did something similar years ago when I took D&D 3.5 and made my own classes. Come to think of it, I was probably happiest when I did that compared to any other FRPG rules.

 

[CubicsRube]

I think capnzapp is on the money with an advanced 5e. Whether or not pathfinder will be the ones to do it, there seems to be plenty of demand for those that like the base of 5e, but want more customisation and crunch

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes. White books, basic 1e, advanced 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and PF1e would be the trunk of the tree of it in my eyes. I've not yet played a 5e game, so I don't know about it.

5e fits prettymuch between 2e & 3e in that progression, if you take it as a progression from classic D&D-ness to more sophisticated systems, rather than the obvious, temporal progression.

One thing I really liked was the "spirit" of gaming in the 1970s and 1980s. The rules were vague and everyone had house rules. GMs picked rules to emphasize what they wanted to see

5e is all over that, calls it "DM Empowerment."

and basically assist their stories

No one had started saying 'stories' in the TTRPG context until the 90s. Of course, no one was saying TTRPG in the 80s, either, just RPG...

At the time, I knew the rules from the playtest, but I've forgotten them.

5e does not strongly resemble the playtest versions.

 

[Charlaquin]

5e does not strongly resemble the playtest versions.

Depends which version. It’s not far off from some of the later playtest packets. The earliest ones look pretty different in some ways, but you can see the start of a lot of the ideas that made it through to the end. I think the ones that were most different from the final were the awkward middle stages where everyone used maneuver dice for everything.