I agree with the general sentiment, if the class is not for you then it's not for you. My group is well into a PF2 campaign and in the beginning my caster didn't feel all that hot. Now at 8th level my Cleric who is geared to healing can out damage the melee characters when I cast an offensive spell. Additionally, in the three action economy any spell that costs some of the nastier enemies we have faced a single action have saved our bacon more times than I can count.
That said RPGs are very much about feel for some players and no amount of data or anecdotes will change some folks love or dislike of a class if they aren't feeling it.
What do you call mid-levels? In the AP we are playing through my 6th Cleric has had to keep two Dispels in their highest level slots in case the first one fails (being vague so as to not too give to much away about the AP).
Ah, the internet. I love how people proclaim their stance like it applies to everyone, rather than just saying "I don't like X" or "I find X unusable, can anyone offer any options?" When people make broad statements that sound they have decreed that their stance is the law of the land, whether that was their intent or not, I tune out and frankly ignore any followup points they may have (sadly in the Internet Age that means I spend a lot of time not listening to folks). Personally, I (see it's not that hard) find Herolab to be a decent tool, though it is far from perfect, but what is? My group plays every week and while I have my gripes it works for me.
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Yep,that part I knew, but thank you both for the answers.
Sorry of this has been asked but my Search Fu has failed me and I want to be sure I am reading all this right.
A character has a spell that is sustained up so it lasts until the end of their next turn and they are subsequently knocked down to dying but get healed back up before their next turn allowing them to act as normal. So is the sustained spell still be going for them to sustain it on thier turn as per the duration rules? Have I missed something, or is that right?
lol, I was traveling when this update came out and only now read the playtest book and noticed this gaff.
As someone who spent 13 years in the Fire Protection industry before becoming a full-time historian who loved stuff like this. I wanted to share this article about how flammable and inflammable were used side by sade for a very long time.
In the 1920s "...the eagle-eyed language guardians of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) realized that many people were viewing the in– in inflammable as a negative prefix, and were at risk of consequently incinerating themselves at a much higher rate than was desirable."
The NFPA, which is the organization that makes the national standards for gas cans, and warning signs for reactivity, flammability, etc. began advocating that things be only marked as flammable to reduce confusion, thus increasing the use of the word and dropping inflammable from the colloquial lexicon. The reduced usage of inflammable only adds to the confusion of the word for modern readers.
This should be especially funny for old time D&D players like me as the 1st edition Flame Tounge noted it had extra benefits vs. inflammable creatures. Meaning the knowledge of inflammable's proper meaning existed way back in the early days of the game that started it all.
I have not used alignments in any D&D variant for 25 years, other systems mange just fine without them, and while purely anecdotal IMO, so does PF. I also enjoy how I don't have to hear or endure what someone else should be doing because they are "X" alignment.
While I will use them for the sake of the playtest, once the full version of the game hits they will once again be expunged. In my setting that I have run for 15+ years they just don't fit, Paladins are just holy warriors and have a code based on their god's tenets (frankly, I can't wait to see the anathema my group and I will work out for some of the not so good two shoes deities). Dragons and so many other creatures cannot be assumed to be 'evil' based on their color or appearance, my setting has benevolent Red dragons, despotic gold dragons, and I prefer the nuance of a game where characters must stop to think that there might be somethings more to a band of Goblins robbing supply caravans and only taking food, rather than just declaring, "Well they are goblins so they are evil, let's just kill em all!" This is not to say they can't still make such assumptions, but even afterI had warned my players one session years ago where they assumed a silver dragon was good only to discover the depths of her malevolence was some of the most fun we have had in ages.
Therefore, I support any move to expunge alignments, I know many will disagree and it will likely not go anywhere, but as a player and GM of well over 5 dozen RPG systems since 1977 across many genres, most of which don't have alignments, I think that the time of trying to define moralistic issues with a structured (and oft debated) system is past. Let people just play their characters and let the consequences of their moralistic actions come from RP not systems. Having a code, like a cleric paldain is different because the PC chose to follow that code (or at least the player did in the case of PCs raised in a faith not fully knowing their were other options). To those that love them but the second the playtest ends they will vanish, once again, from my game.