Glabrezu

Stormbinder's page

6 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



2 people marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
There are no more Neutral Clerics of Evil Gods in Pathfinder, and I for one am extremely disappointed. Now I have to retire the character I've been playing for nearly ten years, or find a group that's okay with houseruling Chaotic Neutral Clerics of Lamashtu back into the game. Maybe I'm overreacting, maybe people won't find this fact a big deal, but for me, unless Neutral Clerics of Evil make it back in by the time the official Second Edition comes out, I'm done with Pathfinder.

I think classes should be allowed to have whatever alignment they want without house rules. This applies not only to clerics but Paladins. The whole concept of a paladin being required to be lawful good in nature is an idea I was glad 4E got rid of and 5E did not reverse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group is still working through and doing some playtesting. Also, I am a player not the GM so everything I have is from a player perspective but here are a few things that stand out to me.

Likes:

The New Action Economy: I really like the new 3 action economy rule. One thing that really disappointed me and turned me off from playing PF1 was that they still had clerics and other healers having their healing powers be their standard action so the clerics couldn't cast and attack,etc. I frequently play druids focused on "leader" like abilities to use 4E vernacular and clerics. One of the main problems with D&D 1st and 2nd that people complained about was that clerics felt like healbots. They healed while everyone else did something else on their turn. I have been playing since 1st edition and was very happy with the direction 4E took on healing being a minor action so a priest could heal her buddies, then wage into combat swinging a mace for a little damage the way they have always been described as doing. With PF1 our group voted against and I was one of the against votes because healing steal took an action. Well, with the new action economy (if we have been playing it right) my priest can use a touch heal spell (only one action) to heal a friend, then move forward, and then attack. Even 5E went with healing being somethat that for MOST healing spell is not the only thing done that round so Kudos to Paizo on the new direction.

I also like the way characters are built. No rolling at all and with ancestry bumps your characters end up being heroic characters with good stats. Most modern games other than retroclones I think have embraced the idealogy that PCs are heroic (in term of abilities). The PCs are the stuff legends will be woven from. Therefore they are not the average guy that just decided to pick up a sword and go adventuring instead of farming. The tower above average men and women and provided they survive their foolhardy decisions to avoid honest work to be murder hobos they will became truly famous (or infamous) as their ability scores show and their deeds and decisions dictates.

Dislikes:

Not a lot of dislikes so far....other than a lot of spells seem REALLY toned down but in all honesty I have felt effective and have not playtested enough to get the full impact of how the spells play out.

ONe thing I will say is that I am all for crunch and having a plethora of options (unlike 5E) but I do think 5E had the right design in making those options stand out. So I think the options for feats in PF2 could be more spectacular. I don't' mind having compartmentalized feats by class, ancenstry, and so forth. My problem is many of the feats seem lackluster and others in my group said the same. I think if they made the feats more fantastic while maintaining game balance that would be an improvement.