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]

I'm gonna say, I think the "incompatible system" arguments are a bit thin. The point of a new game is to sell a new product. An incremental change over a previous product isn't going to do that.

1e->2e and 3.0->3.5 were pretty incremental, but sold well enough.

OTOH, Paizo probably doesn't want anyone feeling PF2 is a 'cash grab,' like 3.5 was accused of being for a while. They are very conscious of their fans, and, in a sense, owe them to WotC making mistakes like that.

 

[MichaelSomething]

For my own tastes there are only four ability scores.

• Athletics − melee attack roll, movement (speed, run, jump, climb, balance, fall); reflex
• Toughness − melee damage, size, reach, heavy weapons, heavy armor, hit points; fortitude
• Perception − shooting attack roll (bow, gun), senses, investigation, stealth, knowledge, deception, steady-hand manual dexterity; perception
• Empathy − magic and spellcasting, social skills, sense of self, art and esthetics; willpower

A Fighter stat, a Rogue stat, a Wizard stat, and a Cleric stat?

 

[Parmandur]

Some people will always want "the old game". Maybe I'll like PF2. I like 5E, but I still play 3.5 (and I'd play 4th more if I could get people to play it).

PF2 material can't be useful to people playing the old game. They might as well not bother making it if it's going to be 99% the same system.

Sure, it could be, if they designed with compatibility in mind, or at least conversion. They are not doing that, which they could. It's a bold move business wise, given who their core audience is and what the market looks like.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, it could be, if they designed with compatibility in mind, or at least conversion. They are not doing that, which they could. It's a bold move business wise, given who their core audience is and what the market looks like.

I suppose it depends what “compatibility” and “conversion” mean to you. They were able to adapt a PF1 module to the playtest rules on the fly for the glass cannon podcast, and they’ve said it will be fairly easy to do the same with other modules, simply by replacing enemies with their PF2 counterparts. So if by “compatibility” you mean you can run the same games with the new rules, they are designing PF 2 with that in mind. If on the other hand you are using the word to mean “basically the same system with some minor tweaks,” then no, that’s not what they’re doing. Is it a bold business move? In the short term, yes, as their audience at this point is mostly people who have refused to change systems for the past 20 years. In the long term, I think it’s a smart business decision, because a 20 year old product is naturally going to have a hard time attracting new customers.

 

[jmucchiello]

Intelligence is mental Strength, Wisdom is mental Dexterity and Charisma is mental Constitution. Makes good sense as is, no need to reinvent the wheel.

More like Int -> Dex (manipulation), Wis -> Con (sturdiness), Cha -> Str (force)

 

[Sunseeker]

Sure, it could be, if they designed with compatibility in mind, or at least conversion. They are not doing that, which they could. It's a bold move business wise, given who their core audience is and what the market looks like.

I'm still not really seeing this "lack of compatibility" ya'll keep talking about.

If you're talking about "compatibility" in the sense of "everything will match right up", yeah, ya ain't getting that.

But fundamentally, the difference between what has been shown for PF2 and PF1 is the difference between PF1 and Starfinder. That is to say: very little.

 

[Sunseeker]

1e->2e and 3.0->3.5 were pretty incremental, but sold well enough.

OTOH, Paizo probably doesn't want anyone feeling PF2 is a 'cash grab,' like 3.5 was accused of being for a while. They are very conscious of their fans, and, in a sense, owe them to WotC making mistakes like that.

That's in part, because 2E was a needed evolution from 1E that fixed stuff. The same is true for 3.0->3.5
What you're missing here (and I think this is funny because it's so obvious) is that 2E-3X sold really well, even though 3X was not an incremental change to 2E.

 

[Charlaquin]

More like Int -> Dex (manipulation), Wis -> Con (sturdiness), Cha -> Str (force)

See, I’d say the best fit is:
Int -> Str (directly increases mental/physical ability - Str increases to-hit and damage with most weapons, Int adds bonus languages and skill points).
Wis -> Con (directly increases resistance mental/physical assault - Con increases HP and adds to Fort saves, Wis adds to Will saves and Sense Motive checks)
Cha -> Dex (improves subtle physical/mental manipulation - Dex adds to stealth-related rolls and Cha adds to social rolls)

The fact that three different people come up with three different interpretations of how the physical and mental abilities map to each other goes to show that it’s a poor analogy.

 

[Parmandur]

I suppose it depends what “compatibility” and “conversion” mean to you. They were able to adapt a PF1 module to the playtest rules on the fly for the glass cannon podcast, and they’ve said it will be fairly easy to do the same with other modules, simply by replacing enemies with their PF2 counterparts. So if by “compatibility” you mean you can run the same games with the new rules, they are designing PF 2 with that in mind. If on the other hand you are using the word to mean “basically the same system with some minor tweaks,” then no, that’s not what they’re doing. Is it a bold business move? In the short term, yes, as their audience at this point is mostly people who have refused to change systems for the past 20 years. In the long term, I think it’s a smart business decision, because a 20 year old product is naturally going to have a hard time attracting new customers.

In the long term, it is a good bold decision if it works, and if not...

I don't particularly care, I'm fairly disinterested except as game industry theory.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm still not really seeing this "lack of compatibility" ya'll keep talking about.

If you're talking about "compatibility" in the sense of "everything will match right up", yeah, ya ain't getting that.

But fundamentally, the difference between what has been shown for PF2 and PF1 is the difference between PF1 and Starfinder. That is to say: very little.

I don't play PF1, nor will I play PF2, so I ain't getting anything no matter how we cut it. The question is more theoretical to me.