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!

 

[zztong]

As long as Pathfinder is just “3rd Edition but new,” it’s going to continue to fall further and further behind as the demand for a 3e clone continues to shrink. Now that Pathfinder can’t sell itself as a refuge from 4e any more, it needs a new selling point.

Gadz, this is probably so true, yet I'd be happy to stick with a "3rd Edition But New" product. I'm not overly concerned with game system rules quality so much as comfort. If I went with game systems entirely for their rules, I'd have never stopped monkeying around with the Hero System.

Of the three PF1e games with which I'm involved, I expect one to move to PF2e, one to stay with PF1e, and one to search more widely... maybe D&D 5e, maybe C&C, maybe Traveler.

 

[Adso]

Pathfinder’s fan base is dwindling because the majority of people who adopted PF1 as an alternative to 4e have moved on now that 4e is dead and 5e has returned D&D to form in their eyes. And nobody coming into the hobby for the first time is going to start with PF1 when 5e is so popular unless they’re brought into it by a dedicated PF1 fan. So Pathfinder has not only lost a significant portion of its existing fan base, it also isn’t bringing in enough new blood.

Wow, I wouldn't say it is dwindling nor are we not able to attract new players. We still run the largest RPG hall at Gen Con, our organized play numbers and sales numbers are strong, and the Beginner Box has been reprinted a number of times. The Humble Bundle offer of PDFs and the Beginner box we did a couple of years ago brought many people into the game. I see plenty of faces, both older and younger, when I run and see games at shows and game stores.

5e is a fantastic game, there is no doubt about it, and my friends over at Wizards are doing a great job with it. I applaud their success, and I'm happy that so many folks are playing and enjoy RPGs, no matter what system they use.

It seems like more folks are figuring out something most of us have known for decades. Tabletop RPGs are frick'ng fun! And are a fantastic way to engage your mind, creativity, and make great friends (even after a couple of heated rules arguments).

The Pathfinder Playtests is our opportunity to present a game that is purely Pathfinder, with all the options and the interesting bits that our fans (past, present, and future) will enjoy, with a new sturdier architecture and more immediately playable engine. That's the goal, anyway. Game design, like any discipline, evolves. The Pathfinder Playtest is purely an evolution of the design.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Aside from the "continued" part being gone already, as D&D has been back to out-selling PF since the moment 5e hit the shelves, we have 40 or so years of history illustrating that "selling a game on its own merits" results in, at best, a successful niche game that doesn't come any where near parity with D&D. OTOH, selling a game to people who have been convinced they hate D&D (because it was demonized as "Roll Playing," or edition-warred against by it's own fans, for the two instances where it worked) /can/ flirt with parity with D&D... especially when D&D is already in trouble on the business side (as happened in both those instances, too).

Now, because it did also happen in the 90s, we can't say that the opportunity PF1 cashed in on was 'unique' - but it's been fairly rare.

So, yeah, barring D&D imploding again, "sell your game based on it's own merits" and "seek parity with D&D" are mutually exclusive. Sad but truism of the industry.

The fact that no one will come for the brand name alone is why they need to establish a strong identity for their game. Because no one will come for “D&D, but still 3e” any more either.

PF had a brand name before it became a full 3.5 clone in it's own right - and a well-respected one, for producing top-notch adventures.
3.x, by virtue of the OGL, can always be cloned for those interested in continuing to play that iteration of D&D - if PF2 isn't that, someone else can take up the mantle.

“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.

I'm beginning to think, thanks to points made in this discussion, that a better course might have been to return to PF as a brand for adventures and expansions - more crunch, and more challenging adventures that let you enjoy crunching it. So more the Judges Guild model than the Arduin Grimoire model.

 

[houser2112]

That sounds plausible. What if, instead of PF2 being a free-standing game, it were a rich expansion of 5e, delivering all those player options that 5e has been slow to publish?

I don't think it's possible to do this since the 5E chassis doesn't have the "hooks" that you would need to do it. The multiclassing restrictions, ASIs/feats sharing the same resource, that resource being a class feature instead of a character feature, archetypes being something you can only apply once, these are just a few things holding 5E back from being "crunchy" enough to satisfy Pathfinder fans.

To me, it's not that WotC has been too slow to publish options, it's that the opportunities within the system for options are too few.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wow, I wouldn't say it is dwindling nor are we not able to attract new players. We still run the largest RPG hall at Gen Con, our organized play numbers and sales numbers are strong, and the Beginner Box has been reprinted a number of times. The Humble Bundle offer of PDFs and the Beginner box we did a couple of years ago brought many people into the game. I see plenty of faces, both older and younger, when I run and see games at shows and game stores.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest interest in Pathfinder is dwindling, but that interest in a D&D 3e clone is dwindling. Which, correct me if I’m wrong, but seems to be at least part of the motivation behind your stated goal of making Pathfinder Second Edition the best version of Pathfinder it can be. Which to be clear, I applaud you for! I think focusing on what makes Pathfinder great instead of trying to capture what made D&D 3e great is the best decision you could have made going forward.

As for the comment about not attracting enough new players, that was based on my anecdotal experience, I’ll defer to you on that subject. Whatever your reasons, I think the decision to evolve beyond just a 3e clone and make Pathfinder Second Edition a game founded on Pathfinder’s unique strengths was a fantastic one, and I can’t wait to dive into the playtest. I’ve been greatly enjoying what I’ve seen in the previews and am looking forward to adding Pathfinder Second Edition to my gaming library.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think it's possible to do this since the 5E chassis doesn't have the "hooks" that you would need to do it. The multiclassing restrictions, ASIs/feats sharing the same resource, that resource being a class feature instead of a character feature, archetypes being something you can only apply once, these are just a few things holding 5E back from being "crunchy" enough to satisfy Pathfinder fans.
To me, it's not that WotC has been too slow to publish options, it's that the opportunities within the system for options are too few.

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)...

 

[Charlaquin]

Gadz, this is probably so true, yet I'd be happy to stick with a "3rd Edition But New" product. I'm not overly concerned with game system rules quality so much as comfort. If I went with game systems entirely for their rules, I'd have never stopped monkeying around with the Hero System.

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.

 

[Consona]

Concentration has been in the game in one form or another for a long time, in 1e, it was necessary to concentrate to cast any spell at all, and some required it throughout (possibly with severe consequences for breaking it), and any damage broke concentration, automatically. 3e had a concentration skill that could be optimized to the point you'd rarely face a meaningful chance of it breaking.

I thought it was clear we are talking about 5e Concentration. Which is something noticeably different.

 

[Adso]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest interest in Pathfinder is dwindling, but that interest in a D&D 3e clone is dwindling.

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I thought it was clear we are talking about 5e Concentration. Which is something noticeably different.

Crystal, yes.
There are lots of little, but noticeable differences among D&D editions, that don't prevent any one edition from being still being very much D&D. 5e is about as D&D as D&D can get, without just re-printing the 1e classics (which WotC has also done), it 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. In contrast, 4e didn't have concentration, it had 'sustain' lines on powers that required an action every turn to keep the power running, if your turn ended without you taking that action - because you couldn't (a number of conditions deprived you of most or all your actions) or another action was higher-priority - the spell dropped. That was a greater difference, but it was the profound decrease in the number and power of daily spells (and the corresponding increase in flexibility/resource-management of non-casters), not how concentration had changed, that really helped make 4e "not D&D" in the way that opened the door to PF1.