A First Look at Pathfinder Second Edition

I recall an encounter in the Age of Worms where the main opponent had a number of Liches as minions and that our party effectively dealt with the Liches in a round or two before focusing on the boss du jour.

What I mostly look for in a level-progression-based RPG is the feel of the scope of possibilities changing dramatically over time, and both being terrified of hobgoblins at level 1 and being able to treat liches as bugs on your windshield by the last quarter or so of the level progression feel important to that. I am still hoping that with time we will see PF2 make something akin to epic work - preferably not a mythic-equivalent, I specifically want something after the end of rather than parallel to the standard level progression. (I still miss the I part of BECMI, which was my first introduction to level-based gaming.)

It also seems to me that it will always be easier to play E6 (or E10 or E15 or whatever fits your preferences) within a game that extends to higher levels, than to bolt home-made attempts at epic onto a game that is designed with a lower cap on powers and abilities.

200 villagers would not kill dragon adult/ancient in Pathfinder 2e. Sure a templated monster can be a challenge ghoul or otherwise. By design groups and creatures in general are a bigger threat in 5e related to 5e. It is not bad design just different design. With bounded accuracy the flip side can also be true. The party of characters can be bigger threat to solo monsters. This was the statement that rather than have just the red dragon have the red dragon and some hill giants. The encounter design is different not bad.

I think some of this can be helped by how high level characters are in the world. I view them as very uncommon and much like fantasy super heroes. This works in a home group. Not so much with organized play. So in the 5e model if high level characters are common then yes villages/towns would easily higher them to take out monster problems. I would think in some areas monsters would be wiped out. In world where high level characters are rare the town/village may not be able to hire the group of adventures and live in terror of the monsters.

This is my take on it anyway

Chance Wyvernspur wrote:

I recall an encounter in the Age of Worms where the main opponent had a number of Liches as minions and that our party effectively dealt with the Liches in a round or two before focusing on the boss du jour.

What I mostly look for in a level-progression-based RPG is the feel of the scope of possibilities changing dramatically over time, and both being terrified of hobgoblins at level 1 and being able to treat liches as bugs on your windshield by the last quarter or so of the level progression feel important to that. I am still hoping that with time we will see PF2 make something akin to epic work - preferably not a mythic-equivalent, I specifically want something after the end of rather than parallel to the standard level progression. (I still miss the I part of BECMI, which was my first introduction to level-based gaming.)

It also seems to me that it will always be easier to play E6 (or E10 or E15 or whatever fits your preferences) within a game that extends to higher levels, than to bolt home-made attempts at epic onto a game that is designed with a lower cap on powers and abilities.

I actually think PF2 will be very easy to take PF2 to above 20th level. Your proficiency just continues to increase by 1 every level above 20th, and you just keep picking feats as you did before. 20th level class feats seem really strong and you can keep getting more of them, unlike PF1 capstones. You could run out of feats eventually, but we know there's gonna be plenty more feats coming down the pipeline.

The weirdest thing would be your skill increases, because you couldn't take anything above legendary and would just wind up becoming EML in all the skills eventually.

Now, they could also make content specifically designed for 20+. Tack on a couple proficiency tiers, like Epic(lv+10), Mythic(lv+12), l....azers?(lv+14). And then it is just making even more powerful feats.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong (we only played a few sessions and nobody was a Paladin), but I'm quite sure Paizo did cite 'armour-use' as the class's proposed niche in this new edition.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong (we only played a few sessions and nobody was a Paladin), but I'm quite sure Paizo did cite 'armour-use' as the class's proposed niche in this new edition.

It's kind of funny, since "armor use" was the Paladin's niche back in the original set of the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. Of course, armor was not... particularly popular back then.

I actually think PF2 will be very easy to take PF2 to above 20th level. Your proficiency just continues to increase by 1 every level above 20th, and you just keep picking feats as you did before. 20th level class feats seem really strong and you can keep getting more of them, unlike PF1 capstones. You could run out of feats eventually, but we know there's gonna be plenty more feats coming down the pipeline.

That certainly seems like good grounds to build on, but in and of itself does not guarantee the kind of dramatic qualitative shifts I would favour for level extension. Not unless some of these feats do specifically paradigm-shifting things, on a par with the way first getting flight or teleportation shifts the possibilities for a party.

You could run out of feats eventually, but we know there's gonna be plenty more feats coming down the pipeline.

You can always 'add' more feats by taking a dedication or two more - if you finished fighter you always to have room to improve via paladin or barbarian multiclass

if you are a dragon style monk, why not take on dragon bloodline sorcerer or dragon styled barbarian

and if you are sorcerer, just pick up the class your magic is already in line with to get more spells and options, or monk to pummel people, or paladin so you can equip a heavy armor increasing your survivability

this seems like a really good option to increase on characters if their core feats run low

Captain Morgan wrote:

You could run out of feats eventually, but we know there's gonna be plenty more feats coming down the pipeline.

You can always 'add' more feats by taking a dedication or two more - if you finished fighter you always to have room to improve via paladin or barbarian multiclass

if you are a dragon style monk, why not take on dragon bloodline sorcerer or dragon styled barbarian

and if you are sorcerer, just pick up the class your magic is already in line with to get more spells and options, or monk to pummel people, or paladin so you can equip a heavy armor increasing your survivability

this seems like a really good option to increase on characters if their core feats run low

And if you were enough of a madman to go to level 40, you would be able to use a Multiclass feat to get a level 20 feat from another class. XD

Kind of like...
How going to level 40 in PF1 could allow you to master a second class...

Holy crap, did they plan this? XD

Epic, Mythic, Ludicrous

Captain Morgan wrote:

I've always found a this idea hard to justify in practice. Enemies at level -4 can still be used as part of an encounter. They are weaker than individual PCs, but you throw enough of them at the party and they will start to get some natural 20s and get some damage in. They also make for a fun change of pace when the party can score crits like crazy and feel like badasses. Especially when these same enemy's nearly killed one of them a couple levels ago. Not all fights should be the same difficulty.

Level+3 makes for a helluva boss fight. The only thing I'd actually hesitate to use is level+4 as that seems VERY lethal, but for an appropriately climatic final boss that the party can prepare extremely well for, it could be used. That's basically what it comes down to. A Creatures have like a 9 level range they can be used for, but the role...

Well my experience with DMing is a 2.5 year campaign with the same party. I think we just had session 62. We did about the first 45 sessions in PF1 and the last with playtest rules (some modifications added but the math the same, the rules were mostly adding Oracle revelations for one player)

I found that in PF1 that -4 monsters could still threaten and the party was capable of defeating monsters between 4-6 CR above them. In PF2 I just tried a +3 and it almost wiped them. I’ve tried -4 and it was hopeless, the -8 to hit meant that you were just fishing for nat 20s. Also PF1 had some monsters who were super accurate or attacked touch. Similarly they had monsters who had had high AC but low touch AC or saves. That meant even a higher level monster could be beat. The new crit rules is making everything more bounded in that +/- 2 level range and I feel level/2 would work better in letting it be a +/- 4 level range

My own experience with this has been a little different honestly. I ran Doomsday Dawn and am now running a couple games with the PT rules. And I use level +4 monsters fairly often for bosses, and my players have yet to fail against one. Now I do often have a party of more than 4, but in those cases I add monsters to keep the CR equivalency, and I have still seen party of 4 vs level+4 monster. It is quite doable, though I will add the caveat that buff/debuffing us very important, and having good healing on hand may be important as well.

Also I don't think it works at very early levels, a level 5 foe could absolutely wipe a level 1 party most likely.

And level-4 foes can pose a thread too, assuming they have the numbers to compensate (four of these monsters is technically equivalent to one player). They may only hit on a 19 or 20 normally, but all they have to do is flank you and that goes to 17 or 18, and when you have four per player swinging at you that becomes a threat quickly. Bonus if they have debuffs to tip it further or casters, where you generally need a crit to fully avoid their attacks.

But they also drop fast which gives that satisfying feeling.

TL;DR I've found my parties have done quite fine with the full +/-4 range of monsters, but I can see that definitely isn't everyone's experience.

Epic, Mythic, Ludicrous

YES. XD

But if we use that name there needs to be an option to improve your proficiency in movement speed...

Epic, Mythic, Ludicrous.

Captain Morgan wrote:

I actually think PF2 will be very easy to take PF2 to above 20th level. Your proficiency just continues to increase by 1 every level above 20th, and you just keep picking feats as you did before. 20th level class feats seem really strong and you can keep getting more of them, unlike PF1 capstones. You could run out of feats eventually, but we know there's gonna be plenty more feats coming down the pipeline.

That certainly seems like good grounds to build on, but in and of itself does not guarantee the kind of dramatic qualitative shifts I would favour for level extension. Not unless some of these feats do specifically paradigm-shifting things, on a par with the way first getting flight or teleportation shifts the possibilities for a party.

Well, existing high level feats from the playtest or PF2 spoilers include:

The ability to revive the freshly dead with a single elixir.
Bombs that almost always debilitate.
No drawbacks from mutagens.
Crafting Philosopher's Stones.
Instant poison purging.
Granting your full rage bonuses to an ally.
Earthquakes at will.
10th level spells
Single Action, no save death effect for 17th level and below creatures or 50 instant no roll damage for above
Turning into dragons
Becoming a plant person who heal all damage and conditions on the daily
Unfettered shapechange
Being able to cast unlimited 5th level or lower spells via metamagic*
Critting automatically on a 19
Being permanently quick
Becoming Ethereal
Decreasing enemy strikes by one degree of success, increasing saving throws by one degree
Celestial Mount (Angel wings yo)
Perma Fly speed
At will martial AoE
Walk through Walls
Know the exact location of a target ANYWHERE
At will invisibility
At will dispel
Walking on air
Immunity to detection, revelation, and scrying
Whatever you want to call Reactive Distraction
Automatically sensing any unseen creatures
*No action for metamagic
Spell combination.

No one stops you but there is no reason to be such a party pooper

of course they want to make money with it, that is what these people live from

PF1 has so much material, no need to bloat it up further

copy of dnd5, nah not really... I've taken close looks at both and dnd 5 is a whole different cup of tea (and seriously not one for me)

So, I guess have fun playing pf1, it is an awesome game

But I keep looking forward for pf2 which intends to fix a lot of the issues the first had and (again imo) looks pretty cool

Also, if money wasn't a thing, like we were in the Star Trek future, then Paizo would still find a way to appeal to a wide audience because catering to a small handful of grognards would kill off the brand in short order.

Then people would accuse Paizo of making a "cynical popularity grubbing attempt" or some nonsense.

Seriously, if you've spoken to the Paizo staff AT ALL you know that they've put an honest effort into the new edition and sincerely hope we all enjoy it. They're the least opaque devs around, and make plain the reasons for their decisions.

D&D 5 barely had iterative attack and correct me if i am wrong but didnt it have the same spellcasting?

and killing of alignment is a matter of taste, I didn'T like it tbh

D&D 5 barely had iterative attack and correct me if i am wrong but didnt it have the same spellcasting?

Not quite, in PF you prepare spells in spell slots assigning spell effect, level, and how many of each you have at the start of the day.

In 5e you prepare lvl+int/Wis at the start of the day and you choose which of those prepared spells to cast whenever you expend a spell slot. More like an arcanist. 5e spellcasting is pretty easy it ends up being fewer options at high levels than in PF1 but it is more intuitive.

Because they aren't making a 5e clone they decided to keep it PF1 style forcing a bit more planning at the start of the day since some of their fans enjoy that tactical guessing game.

well we can hope to meet the arcanist again :P

It was time to move on from the PF1/3.0.3.5 line. PF1 was very complete game. Paizo was publishing NPC books. There were not too many more rulebooks they could publish. It was around 10 years and time for new line and new rulebooks to print.

I like what I have seen from PF2 a great deal. I look forward to it and moved on from PF1. The whole line of 3.0/3.5 for me had gotten long in the tooth.

I also like 5e and think at their base they have allot in common as I have pointed out. Will not re hash those points. I do think it is ok to like both since they will feel different from each other during play.

I do like the range in the proficiencies and depth of character choices PF2 will offer.

I mean- Paizo is going to publish more books either way, and it's seems pretty likely that they are going to make more people happy/sell more books by releasing a new edition than to go into the 12th year of dealing with the legacy issues inherited from a different game entirely.

D&D 5 barely had iterative attack and correct me if i am wrong but didnt it have the same spellcasting?

Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

As for spellcasting, no. There are overall limits on spell preparation (level+spellcasting modifier), no bonus spells and fewer spells overall (especially spell levels 6+, which is 1 spell per day per level, period).

Seems like I mixed up something
still like pf2 version better

Seisho wrote:

D&D 5 barely had iterative attack and correct me if i am wrong but didnt it have the same spellcasting?

Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

Well there is one limit, none of them can ever be combined.

Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

You don't have to like penalties (who does?) but I think this one actually does a pretty cool thing, both with PCs and with monsters.

With each attack being progressively less good, you'll eventually hit the point where some other action is better. Three attacks without penalty would mean you end up making three attacks the vast majority of rounds and, like in P1, martial characters want to build to never spend actions doing anything else. That penalty isn't fun, in itself, but it pushes us out of our comfort zones to actually do interesting stuff in combat.

So, instead of an attack at -10, you feint or drop into a stance or shove your opponent away from the casters or move around the battlefield to get an advantageous position. Your first attack is only rarely worth trading out, but that -10? Maybe even the -5? The penalty exposes other options that make combat a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Voss wrote:

Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

You don't have to like penalties (who does?) but I think this one actually does a pretty cool thing, both with PCs and with monsters.

With each attack being progressively less good, you'll eventually hit the point where some other action is better. Three attacks without penalty would mean you end up making three attacks the vast majority of rounds and, like in P1, martial characters want to build to never spend actions doing anything else. That penalty isn't fun, in itself, but it pushes us out of our comfort zones to actually do interesting stuff in combat.

So, instead of an attack at -10, you feint or drop into a stance or shove your opponent away from the casters or move around the battlefield to get an advantageous position. Your first attack is only rarely worth trading out, but that -10? Maybe even the -5? The penalty exposes other options that make combat a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Do you feel the same way about characters moving more than once in a turn? How about casting more than one spell? Making more than one first aid check? Retrieving more than one item from their pack?

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

Landon Winkler wrote:

Voss wrote:

Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

You don't have to like penalties (who does?) but I think this one actually does a pretty cool thing, both with PCs and with monsters.

With each attack being progressively less good, you'll eventually hit the point where some other action is better. Three attacks without penalty would mean you end up making three attacks the vast majority of rounds and, like in P1, martial characters want to build to never spend actions doing anything else. That penalty isn't fun, in itself, but it pushes us out of our comfort zones to actually do interesting stuff in combat.

So, instead of an attack at -10, you feint or drop into a stance or shove your opponent away from the casters or move around the battlefield to get an advantageous position. Your first attack is only rarely worth trading out, but that -10? Maybe even the -5? The penalty exposes other options that make combat a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Do you feel the same way about characters moving more than once in a turn? How about casting more than one spell? Making more than one first aid check? Retrieving more than one item from their pack?

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

I don't think that quite sums up

A charakter using the 'strike' action is more then simply striking, it involves reading movement, defining a tactic and finally striking, doing this over a short ammount of time is taxing
not to mention that your enemy tries to avoid it actively

spells also need a lot of focus, that is why they need multiple actions - and if you cast multiple offensive spells you usually invest recources and >also< get the attack penalty (if the spell needs an attack)

and walking multiple times, well - it may be a little exhausting if you are not used to it but it is really basic
besides that moving multiple times is not 'the thing a specific class does'

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

Because if there's no degradation in attack actions, you just recreate the full attack paradigm that's part of the reason martials suck so much in PF1.

By making extra attacks degrade they become more of a choice and less of a default assumption about DPR. This is a good thing.

As much as you think you're championing martials right now, making extra attacks less mandatory is a buff to them, not a nerf. Your proposal would destroy them in the long run.

Plus:

How about casting more than one spell?

Generally you can't even do that anyways.

AnCap Dawg wrote:

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

Because if there's no degradation in attack actions, you just recreate the full attack paradigm that's part of the reason martials suck so much in PF1.

By making extra attacks degrade they become more of a choice and less of a default assumption about DPR. This is a good thing.

As much as you think you're championing martials right now, making extra attacks less mandatory is a buff to them, not a nerf. Your proposal would destroy them in the long run.

Plus:

Quote:

How about casting more than one spell?

Generally you can't even do that anyways.

You may be right. I guess we'll find out in about 4 weeks.

Landon Winkler wrote:

Voss wrote:

Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

You don't have to like penalties (who does?) but I think this one actually does a pretty cool thing, both with PCs and with monsters.

With each attack being progressively less good, you'll eventually hit the point where some other action is better. Three attacks without penalty would mean you end up making three attacks the vast majority of rounds and, like in P1, martial characters want to build to never spend actions doing anything else. That penalty isn't fun, in itself, but it pushes us out of our comfort zones to actually do interesting stuff in combat.

So, instead of an attack at -10, you feint or drop into a stance or shove your opponent away from the casters or move around the battlefield to get an advantageous position. Your first attack is only rarely worth trading out, but that -10? Maybe even the -5? The penalty exposes other options that make combat a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Do you feel the same way about characters moving more than once in a turn? How about casting more than one spell? Making more than one first aid check? Retrieving more than one item from their pack?

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

Because then, just like PF1, you disincentivize doing anything but standing there and attacking. And then everyone will do it, and we're back to the "stand there and full attack" meta.

You're rarely ever going to come up with a situation in which anything is better than another attack at full bonus. You move? That costs you another full power attack, so better not. You root for a potion and drink it? Ooh, that cost you two attacks.

I would like the people who think "PF2 is bad because it's copying 4e" to have a discussion with the people who think "PF2 is bad because it's copying 5e". Perhaps they could do it somewhere else too.

I mean, we could maybe get someone who is convinced PF2 is bad because Pathfinder is still stuck in an outdated 3.5e paradigm to moderate... offsite.

AnCap Dawg wrote:

Landon Winkler wrote:

Voss wrote:

Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

You don't have to like penalties (who does?) but I think this one actually does a pretty cool thing, both with PCs and with monsters.

With each attack being progressively less good, you'll eventually hit the point where some other action is better. Three attacks without penalty would mean you end up making three attacks the vast majority of rounds and, like in P1, martial characters want to build to never spend actions doing anything else. That penalty isn't fun, in itself, but it pushes us out of our comfort zones to actually do interesting stuff in combat.

So, instead of an attack at -10, you feint or drop into a stance or shove your opponent away from the casters or move around the battlefield to get an advantageous position. Your first attack is only rarely worth trading out, but that -10? Maybe even the -5? The penalty exposes other options that make combat a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Do you feel the same way about characters moving more than once in a turn? How about casting more than one spell? Making more than one first aid check? Retrieving more than one item from their pack?

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

Because then, just like PF1, you disincentivize doing anything but standing there and attacking. And then everyone will do it, and we're back to the "stand there and full attack" meta.

You're rarely ever going to come up with a situation in which anything is better than another attack at full bonus. You move? That costs you another full power attack, so better not. You root for a potion and drink it? Ooh, that cost you two attacks.

Being completely fair, this isn't really a problem in 5e exactly. Attacking is always a single action, regardless of how many attacks your class gives you, and can freely be mixed into your movement for the turn. And you still get a bonus action. In a way, it can be more flexible than the 3 action system, though not as intuitive.

You can also substitute one of those attacks for a shove or grapple IIRC, so you have some ability to mix it up. So I certainly wouldn't say 5e is less mobile or combat maneuver friendly. But the game is balanced around very different assumptions, with multiple attacks being the only way your damage actually increases with level.

And it does maintain the full attack paradigm when it comes to doing anything other than moving or striking. IE, drinking a potion or casting a spell means no attacks that round, rather than less attacks. Meanwhile PF2, as you mention, gives you an incentive to break your turn up with more varied actions.

Cyouni wrote:

AnCap Dawg wrote:

Landon Winkler wrote:

Voss wrote:

Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

You don't have to like penalties (who does?) but I think this one actually does a pretty cool thing, both with PCs and with monsters.

With each attack being progressively less good, you'll eventually hit the point where some other action is better. Three attacks without penalty would mean you end up making three attacks the vast majority of rounds and, like in P1, martial characters want to build to never spend actions doing anything else. That penalty isn't fun, in itself, but it pushes us out of our comfort zones to actually do interesting stuff in combat.

So, instead of an attack at -10, you feint or drop into a stance or shove your opponent away from the casters or move around the battlefield to get an advantageous position. Your first attack is only rarely worth trading out, but that -10? Maybe even the -5? The penalty exposes other options that make combat a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Do you feel the same way about characters moving more than once in a turn? How about casting more than one spell? Making more than one first aid check? Retrieving more than one item from their pack?

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

Because then, just like PF1, you disincentivize doing anything but standing there and attacking. And then everyone will do it, and we're back to the "stand there and full attack" meta.

You're rarely ever going to come up with a situation in which anything is better than another attack at full bonus. You move? That costs you another full power attack, so better not. You root for a potion and drink it? Ooh, that cost you two attacks.

Being completely fair, this isn't really a problem in 5e exactly. Attacking is always a single action, regardless of how many attacks your...

While that may be true for 5e, I believe the post I was replying to was saying that PF2 attacks shouldn't have an iterative penalty.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

AnCap Dawg wrote:

Landon Winkler wrote:

Voss wrote:

Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

You don't have to like penalties (who does?) but I think this one actually does a pretty cool thing, both with PCs and with monsters.

With each attack being progressively less good, you'll eventually hit the point where some other action is better. Three attacks without penalty would mean you end up making three attacks the vast majority of rounds and, like in P1, martial characters want to build to never spend actions doing anything else. That penalty isn't fun, in itself, but it pushes us out of our comfort zones to actually do interesting stuff in combat.

So, instead of an attack at -10, you feint or drop into a stance or shove your opponent away from the casters or move around the battlefield to get an advantageous position. Your first attack is only rarely worth trading out, but that -10? Maybe even the -5? The penalty exposes other options that make combat a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Do you feel the same way about characters moving more than once in a turn? How about casting more than one spell? Making more than one first aid check? Retrieving more than one item from their pack?

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

Because then, just like PF1, you disincentivize doing anything but standing there and attacking. And then everyone will do it, and we're back to the "stand there and full attack" meta.

You're rarely ever going to come up with a situation in which anything is better than another attack at full bonus. You move? That costs you another full power attack, so better not. You root for a potion and drink it? Ooh, that cost you two attacks.

Being completely fair, this isn't really a problem in 5e exactly. Attacking is always a single action,

...

Yes, and I agree with you that the iterative penalty is good for the game. My point was that removing it need not make the game "stand still and full attack." It would instead be "move around a bunch and full attack." Not that 5e has great incentive to move around with AoO for all and no flanking rules.

Serious, these Kobolds are adorable, I just love the new design and now I can't use them against my players because they are too cute to be killed.

Yes, and I agree with you that the iterative penalty is good for the game. My point was that removing it need not make the game "stand still and full attack." It would instead be "move around a bunch and full attack." Not that 5e has great incentive to move around with AoO for all and no flanking rules.

Maybe I'm missing something. In the context of 2E and the three-action system, when will moving be remotely equal to another attack at full bonus?

I would like the people who think "PF2 is bad because it's copying 4e" to have a discussion with the people who think "PF2 is bad because it's copying 5e". Perhaps they could do it somewhere else too.

I mean, we could maybe get someone who is convinced PF2 is bad because Pathfinder is still stuck in an outdated 3.5e paradigm to moderate... offsite.

I'd also have those people actually play 4e or 5e before making any comparison.

No, "I've read the rulebooks" doesn't count.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Yes, and I agree with you that the iterative penalty is good for the game. My point was that removing it need not make the game "stand still and full attack." It would instead be "move around a bunch and full attack." Not that 5e has great incentive to move around with AoO for all and no flanking rules.

Maybe I'm missing something. In the context of 2E and the three-action system, when will moving be remotely equal to another attack at full bonus?

When you don't want to take one more attack against an enemy, I will use one Gnoll per example.

They use the first action to strike, then they use a special gnoll trait where if they hit one strike they can spend one action to automatically trip the enemy and now the last action for an agile bite attack that will have only an -2 penalty because the target is prone and flat footed.

If you move away you don't take that last attack because they have to move after you or they do two strikes and you are not prone.

Squiggit wrote:

AnCap Dawg wrote:

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

Because if there's no degradation in attack actions, you just recreate the full attack paradigm that's part of the reason martials suck so much in PF1.

By making extra attacks degrade they become more of a choice and less of a default assumption about DPR. This is a good thing.

As much as you think you're championing martials right now, making extra attacks less mandatory is a buff to them, not a nerf. Your proposal would destroy them in the long run.

Plus:

Quote:

How about casting more than one spell?

Generally you can't even do that anyways.

You may be right. I guess we'll find out in about 4 weeks.

We already know, from the most recent Know Direction podcast. Most spells take two actions to cast, so the only way to cast more than one spell in a round is to cast one of the rare single action spells.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would like the people who think "PF2 is bad because it's copying 4e" to have a discussion with the people who think "PF2 is bad because it's copying 5e". Perhaps they could do it somewhere else too.

I mean, we could maybe get someone who is convinced PF2 is bad because Pathfinder is still stuck in an outdated 3.5e paradigm to moderate... offsite.

I'd also have those people actually play 4e or 5e before making any comparison.

No, "I've read the rulebooks" doesn't count.

As someone who was an avid 5e player for several years—recently my interest has begun to wane—but who only played 4e a handful of times, I see more parallels to 4e than to 5e.

I didn't much care for 4e, but I am really excited to try PF2. The way I see it, PF2 and 4e have arrived at some very similar solutions to the systemic issues of 3.5 (tighter math, modular powers, better balanced classes/feats, a more unified system, heavy reliance on keywords/jargon, simplified monsters), but PF2 has done it in a much more appealing package that just looks a lot more fun to me. It's kind of like Paizo's extracted only the best parts of 4e to use in PF2.

That's how I see it, anyway.

It's almost as if PF2 builds on a decade of experience of building PF1 and on the experiences of its developers in other Tabletop RPGs.

Madness, Madness I say, I demand a return to to-hit tables, rolling 3d6 for stats in order and the GM doing everything in their power to force a TPK.

In all seriousness though, tabletop RPG's have grown and will continue to grow as they always have and while its not as obvious to people as with a computer game, tabletop RPG's are very much limited by the underlying 'technology' that they are built on. PF2 is them rebuilding that underlying 'technology' so that Pathfinder can hopefully be with us for at least another decade. PF2 is built with room to grow, that's why it feels different, because this time around Paizo knows what the future may hold, it knows how it grew last time and can consequently build in things like what were in the APG, the ARG, the ACG Ultimate Combat, Magic and Equipment, and all the rest, along with leaving them wiggle room for when they introduce new elements. They can do the things they've been trying to do with Occult Adventures and all of the other books without being quite so constrained by a system that honestly wasn't build with them in mind.

Tabletop RPG's have grown in the last decade, in no small part because of Pathfinder and I for one, want to see the CRB that Paizo has put together and what comes next.

[Also I'm not say that rolling for stats in order, nor a campaign where it's the DM vs the players are inherently bad, they should exist as variant rules options for those that like them, but they shouldn't be the default. If you like to-hit tables , I wish you luck with your math degree, but otherwise have nothing to offer you]

It's almost as if PF2 builds on a decade of experience of building PF1 and on the experiences of its developers in other Tabletop RPGs.

Madness, Madness I say, I demand a return to to-hit tables, rolling 3d6 for stats in order and the GM doing everything in their power to force a TPK.

In all seriousness though, tabletop RPG's have grown and will continue to grow as they always have and while its not as obvious to people as with a computer game, tabletop RPG's are very much limited by the underlying 'technology' that they are built on. PF2 is them rebuilding that underlying 'technology' so that Pathfinder can hopefully be with us for at least another decade. PF2 is built with room to grow, that's why it feels different, because this time around Paizo knows what the future may hold, it knows how it grew last time and can consequently build in things like what were in the APG, the ARG, the ACG Ultimate Combat, Magic and Equipment, and all the rest, along with leaving them wiggle room for when they introduce new elements. They can do the things they've been trying to do with Occult Adventures and all of the other books without being quite so constrained by a system that honestly wasn't build with them in mind.

Tabletop RPG's have grown in the last decade, in no small part because of Pathfinder and I for one, want to see the CRB that Paizo has put together and what comes next.

[Also I'm not say that rolling for stats in order, nor a campaign where it's the DM vs the players are inherently bad, they should exist as variant rules options for those that like them, but they shouldn't be the default. If you like to-hit tables , I wish you luck with your math degree, but otherwise have nothing to offer you]

I'll be perfectly honest:

So yeah. PF1 stole 4th ideas before it was cool. ;)

Lots of systems out there. I've always been partial to Harnmaster, but it's a very different game from Pathfinder. :-)

Harnmaster...reads really strange if you are from germany :P

We already know, from the most recent Know Direction podcast. Most spells take two actions to cast, so the only way to cast more than one spell in a round is to cast one of the rare single action spells.

And what's the penalty to the spell roll for casting that second spell?

that would be the same as for an normal attack

David knott 242 wrote:

We already know, from the most recent Know Direction podcast. Most spells take two actions to cast, so the only way to cast more than one spell in a round is to cast one of the rare single action spells.

And what's the penalty to the spell roll for casting that second spell?

If both are Attack spells, the same -5 as if you'd made an attack with your third action. If either of them isn't, no penalty (Again, same as if you'd made an attack before instead of the other spell)