Alenvire's page

...

Thank you so much for all of that. Saved me a lot of googling.

...

Quote refuses to work right and I'm too tired to fix it. Your response to what I would try to do in pf1, I found I did not have the spell slots to support 1 or 2 spells a encounter before switching to the cantrip. To be fair, I have heard that lower level spells have been buffed compared to pf1 and you yourself mentioned a remaster that I have no idea of. So it sounds like after the first few levels you probably do have the spell slots with enough decent spells to assist in every fight.

I will check out the spells again and see if there has been some changes or additions that will change my opinion. It sounds like it will.

Alenvire wrote:

In pf1 I would try and get a spell out there to assist in a party like grease, or darkness. Web or summon. Then switch to the crossbow. In pf2 I don't have the slot economy to effectively help in each combat unless you rest after each combat. When I did not use a spell slot, I was not being useful.

A caster is a bit trickier to play efficiently in PF2.

You have a lot of money available compared to martials.

If you want to be efficient as a caster, you must invest this money in scrolls. They are what will add to your slots so that you can feel really good.

You can see poster SuperBidi's posts for well-thought advice on how to play casters.

I never considered that as a realistic balance. If its true that mages have more money then a melee would lying around, then its a fair balance that they spend money on scrolls.

**edit I am loving the responses. It does honestly make me want to consider pf2 again. Honestly, this is what I was hoping for. My problems are still there since none of them was completely dispelled, but, I realize it still does have some interesting options. Now to see if I have my books, or if they are in storage.

These are all really good points and honestly, I dunno. I might have to dust off my books and give it another look. Thank you all for the responses.

I'm not going to lie. I felt and to some extent still do that pf2 is more like a mmo then I would like, where dps is just that, a different way to do the same damage as others. But, it does appear there is ways for people to actually feel different, rather then number generators (for mechanics. Story never cares about mechanics really). It may just be the low ish levels of what I played, which I think was a max of level 5, is not a accurate example of what PF2 can be. Not to mention, there is a lot more books and options for people now.

Alenvire wrote:

The other thing and this is the harder one to explain, There seemed like so many choices, which is not bad, to customize your character... However, it just felt like flavor that did not actually create a different experience. 2 fighters could be built completely different, but in the end it just felt like different bonuses, different descriptions, same small bonuses adding up to a similar roll.

That's deliberate: the math is kept in check so you can't build characters that break the game the way you could in PF1. Feats and such give you new things to do, better action economy, or more ways to use things. They don't generally give stacking bonuses because that was a big way to break things in PF1.

I think this is a misunderstanding with how I said it. Its not the smaller numbers that is the problem, or the easier math. I'm all for having the game more balanced and less breakable. My problem was that everyone was basically just rolling the same thing. The cantrip attack, damage, and associated bonuses, had very little difference from the rangers roll, or the fighters, or the druids, or anyone elses. The individuality felt stripped. With little to distinguish the characters apart. The attack type for example had very little distinction between them. It would be very possible to list out all the attack rolls, bonuses and damage, and you might not be able to tell what did each roll.

In PF1 if someone pulled out 12 attacks in a full attack action, you had a good idea who or what was attacking just from the numbers. If you saw a attack for 1 hit, with a single damage die but a huge damage bonus, You knew what you were looking at. If you saw 12 d6's you likely knew what that roll was for. The variety in PF2 was limited IMO. Sure, you still see 12 d6's and the other example 'might' still exist, but, in most combats your just going to see similar rolls for a druid, cleric, wizard, fighter group. At least that is what I 'Thought' I dunno if its true. Again, I have a lack of experience and am just going with what I saw in the rules.

Thanks for all the replies. I agree with some points, mildly disagree with some others.

Sadly it seems like my first impressions were pretty accurate for me and my players. Some of the things here were why I was looking forward to pf2, but, I feel like they went too far.

I liked that it made things easier on a GM, and at the same time, never found PF1 a nightmare to run. I can easily see why people think that though, so no disagreement with that point. I wanted mages to be reigned in because they did really dominate, but, I found it more on the utility side. Blasters are boring and really not that much damage heavy compared to melee (Full attacks with good buffs) in my opinion in PF1 (except aoe). Its why I avoided blasters. I did see mages in 2nd edition still being the AOE masters, but waiting till level 5 to be useful in combat seemed very meh in pf2. I hate being a fireball mage. Evocation is usually one of my opposed schools.

Its good to know that cantrips are on par with ranged. Or at least competitive. Though I suspect it falls way behind after they start adding the magic talisman things to a bow. I don't think a cantrip should be stronger then a dedicated single target ranged or melee. But, I found I did less overall then anyone else in the group since there was no spell slots to make me useful in most combats. Much like pf1, I tended to pass on my turn to allow others a chance to go, or, I would just have my dice ready and try and pass my turn as quick as possible.

In pf1 I would try and get a spell out there to assist in a party like grease, or darkness. Web or summon. Then switch to the crossbow. In pf2 I don't have the slot economy to effectively help in each combat unless you rest after each combat. When I did not use a spell slot, I was not being useful.

My impressions is that PF2 went too far, made players not the focus, but the GM and storytelling the focus. While superpowered and overpowered is a problem with PF1, pf2 gameplay feels too simplistic for me. As a player, I would like to feel more empowered to effect the game. As a GM, I feel like I don't need the system to be simplified to tell a good story.

There is a LOT to like about pf2. The character making was some of the most fun character designing I have ever done. Way better then pf1 in my honest opinion. It just felt flat playing it though. To each their own I guess. I was hopeful but oh well.

I will stick with GM'ing Shadowrun, Exalted, and WoD. Playing those and pf1 will be enough for me. I just wish there was still PF1 AP's coming out. lol, or a official conversion for PF2 AP's since I really don't know pf2 enough to downgrade them myself. I have always needed AP's to run PF, the others I can freehand. (Probably a good example of what everyone means about PF1 being a pain for GM's.......)

I have played with many people who would probably prefer pf2. Its just not for me. Good luck and have fun all!

To start this is not a hate thread. In fact, I can't really hate 2nd edition because I barely remember any rules. So, this is more of a change my mind please thread.

I started with D&D 2nd edition in the 90's and have gone through many different systems since then.

When second edition was about to come out, I was hyped. I had preordered all the early releases. I had played the playtests. I gave feedback and really tried to give it a chance. I even kickstartered the 2nd edition Kingmaker AP. After I got the books I lost interest. I didn't like the way combat was handled. I hated how magic was handled. I tried multiple games. I played as a GM, I also played as a player. A buddy of mine was in my party, and he was also the person who was the GM when I played. He also is a better GM then me. We tried really hard to get through the first AP of PF2 and never got through the first AP. I canceled all my subscriptions for the rule books and the AP's after that.

We were both die hard PF1 fans. We still play it. However, after support for PF1 ended it started to die off. He moved, and moved on to D&D 5th. I never did try 5th. I felt like the direction of 2nd went the wrong way.

My biggest complaint was that magic felt weak, and unbalanced. I felt like a melee did more damage then a mage except when they used one of their very limited, spell slots. And then, it only put them on par to a melee. I felt like the ... cantrips was it? The spells they were supposed to use as their go to weapons felt weak. And were significantly weaker then someone using a bow or sword. And the moment they started using magic weapons (which felt needlessly weird. Why can't I just make a +3 longsword? Instead you bought items to buff your sword right? I don't remember the exact language but it was something like a major sharpness talisman? Obviously I don't remember how it exactly worked.) it felt like magic just became a joke. Best they could do was being a buffer or using utility spells.

The other thing and this is the harder one to explain, There seemed like so many choices, which is not bad, to customize your character... However, it just felt like flavor that did not actually create a different experience. 2 fighters could be built completely different, but in the end it just felt like different bonuses, different descriptions, same small bonuses adding up to a similar roll.

To add to that, the number of actions per round being static just seemed.... Boring. I understand that you can make people stronger each level without adding any extra actions, and it was done to streamline combat, but it basically just came down to, I attack, your turn. Wow, you attack, next. And then it was just each person attack once, enemy action, each person attack once. It just drained the excitement of combat from the system. Sure, it was annoying when the monk would have to roll out 6 attacks, but it still felt more fulfilling.

Now, I know that I probably have some misconceptions, and I probably did not understand the rules as well as I thought I did. But, there was 2 Seasoned GM's. Both of us poured over the rules, debated and came on here to ask questions to make sure we were doing things right. I'm here to ask your experience and perception as people who probably spent a lot more time then I have on 2nd, what I got wrong, How it has changed for the better, or how the game improves after the first few levels I experienced.

Remember, I have hundreds of sessions in 1st. I love the growth and the variety of 1st. I understand that the characters become more interesting after the first few levels, but, I did not see that in 2nd based on reading the rules and talking about it. I like high magic, 1st had that, 2nd felt more like high magic world/items low magic characters. My greatest sadness with second, was that a lot of the magical wonders of Golarion was not something you could realistically replicate with 2nd rules. For example, could you even play through the Ruins of Azlant AP in 2nd edition with the same characters you would have used in the 1st edition AP with the 2nd edition rules?

This is not a hate thread, I hope that the experiences and suggestions you put here will convince me to reread the rules, and maybe keep a eye out for something you all say here that I missed with my experience. I REALLY want to WANT to play the 2nd edition kingmaker I paid way too much for. lol

I feel like poisons are still ok, but, nothing you should focus on sadly.

However, using dragons as your target is a bit excessive. It would be a better point if you used a average fighter and wizard DC's for those levels. As dragons are to this day, still not common enemies in AP's. (How I wish they would make a dragon oriented AP where you fought multiple per AP) Humanoids are still by far the most common enemies you will fight. So, a fighter 20 with legendary fort and 18 con would be a 32 ish. And a wizard with expert fort and say 14 con would be around 26. Those numbers are fluid but not every enemy runs around with runes that increase saves so its a fair number. A potent poisoner is only 1 feat and would give you a decent chance at optimal enemies for poisons. Wizards, Clerics, any other then fighters and champions really have a decent chance with only 1 feat expenditure. Not bad.

I'm the GM in question. And my take at the time was "I don't think it works the way you believe it does, so for now it'll just be +1 to damage on spells with attack rolls, etc." My ruling didn't cause the OP to be ineffective during the game (far from it, he was one of the MVPs of the slot), nor did it cause any enemies to survive with 1 HP left. It was just a ruling I made because it made sense to me and to keep the game moving so we could finish our slot on time.

The system is about two weeks old, it's our second time ever playing it, and it's ultimately 1 point of damage. We're all just trying to understand how the game works and have a good time.

In fact, after the game I then encouraged him to post here to hopefully attract an answer from a larger audience. The real questions I have are:

Does it work with persistent damage?
Does it work with AOE spells?
Does it work with splash damage on a bomb?
What does it not work, if anything? EX: Fall damage from a Bull Rush.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion thus far. I don't think it breaks the game one way or the other, but I'm fairly sure it was designed to either not allow these things or to allow them -- and that's the answer I seek. At the end of the day, I told the OP to expect table variation and that ultimately, it is just one point of damage. Maybe we won't have a designer chime in here, but it would be nice for the OP and others seeking to understand the landscape of PFv2.

The way written until there is a errata, any damage directly caused by the player. A player bull rushing does not cause fall damage, they cause a move. AOE gets any other bonus damage like from the goblin ancestry feat so yes, it would still apply to the damage. Splash damage is part of the damage of a bomb caused by and required by the bomb thrown by the player. And, sadly no to persistent damage. It is not a action caused by the player that round. If it was some sort of sustained spell then yes, but otherwise no. Sadly, all of this needs a errata for clarification, but, as written it effects any specific damage they do with a action.

And as already stated, it would only give a +1 to each enemy hit from magic missile.

I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that the core rulebook for a game with a heavy degree of daily resource management (asymmetrical daily resource management, at that) should offer at least some semblance of expectations for how often a party is expected to be able to take a break from combat encounters.

Honestly, I have played a lot of table top games. This is a rare explanation in most systems. Most of the time, its the party takes a 'rest' and continues when they are ready when they choose. Honestly, I have never used the baseline for anything. Hell, the AP's rarely do also. Its always been up to the GM and party. Not every party is equal and not every GM should treat every party as such.

I dunno. Honestly the archetypes all leave out core elements of the classes. Its there to give you some of the benefits, in this case spells and a spell DC, while not giving you the full enchilada. I like that I can go fighter, MC sorcerer, or Sorcerer MC fighter and them play similar but very different strengths and weaknesses. I mean, a fighter 10 sorcerer 10 in PF1 was considerably weaker in both areas then Sorc/Fighter Figher/Sorc in PF2

I'm just curious if anyone has a good reason for why they do purchases and cancellations in such a old and outdated manner?

You can sign up for a subscription. Add to a cart. Purchase online. But, when a order needs to be modified or canceled or a subscription canceled they have no better way to go about it then to email or post in the customer service section.

Don't get me wrong, I can see a reason for say messed up orders that were shipped wrong or damaged, but, why can't we get the basics of amazon or other online retailers where you can cancel with a few clicks online if its not been processed yet? Cancel a subscription now, and not when a customer service rep is available.

I never really cared or noticed until right now. Customer service is weeks behind due to unforeseen reasons. However, all its doing is causing them to get even further behind due to the fact they will now have to fix all the stuff that goes wrong with how far behind they are.

Paizo Customer service has always been great, but, that does not change the fact we should have basic online control of our orders/changes/cancellations.

I know this became more of a rant then a question, but, the question is still there. Anyone know why they don't have a more up to date online system?

Looks like I get my copy today or tomorrow depending on what UPS is doing right now. But, its at least in my town already. Excited and ready to go.

I find it funny everyone is talking about how this game should be more simple and easier to play then pf1. Me, I am hoping its not too simple. When you have simple systems you end up with simple characters, simple games, and simple just ends up being identical to other characters with just different flavor. If a rogue stabs for 1d6 and a fighter stabs for 1d6 does the rogue and fighter really matter? That is a overly simple example that I really hope is not a problem in pf2

It falls under the same general heading of why I never took weapon enhancements like Flaming Burst. Most characters I built didn't build towards automatic critical hits, so 1d10 extra damage 1/20th of the time (0.275 extra dpr) was not worth a +2 equivalent cost.

And that's ignoring the fact that I have abysmal luck when it comes to actually rolling crits. I played a two year long campaign in the World's Largest Dungeon and rolled a nat-20 on an attack roll twice. Once against a thing that was immune to crits and once against a minion that died to my minimum non-crit damage.

Can it be useful in situations like those?

For me, Flaming burst was just a plus 1 with the pre req of flaming. But, I would agree if you need a nat 20 to crit then the burst effect is just a bad one. I only ever considered it in early to mid play games, and only if I have a a crit fishing build. Honestly when you can pick up improved critical you star coming across so much fire/cold/acid resistance I just don't bother with flaming or burst. Its not necessary half the time for those without resistance, and not enough for those that you would need the extra damage.

Last time I used it was simply because my GM gave me a Flame Tongue... Because its a flame tongue I was required to use it beyond where I would normally trade it out. Because come on, it was a flame tongue. That he made as a scimitar. On my crit fisher build.

I can't say what I want to say because of spoilers, and not know how to make a spoiler section. lol. But yeah, I understand the story fairly well now.

I did however Pick up the World guide after all. After this one I will probably stick with my normal way of doing it by picking up all the major books as PDF since they are rarely books I reference to need a physical guide. Gotta support the devs so they support my addiction.

On a side note, anyone know if we pick up the kingmaker kickstarter if it will be just a remake, or if they are pulling it into the current time line along with it being 2nd edition? Meaning will the map say savage lands, or some country from the end of pf1 kingmaker?

This is making me worried about my Kingmaker all in backing. The company making kingmaker is Paizo right? As long as its Paizo and Legendary games offering the kingdom building rules and tools I am ok with it. Just making sure its not a 3rd party taking in the full responsibility for it like the mini's with this.

That can make for some cool loot. Getting 3 flaming runestones is a lot better than 3 flaming daggers

I Did not even consider that. Makes that random holy dagger +1 not suck at high levels anymore because you can transfer the enchant off it.

It also makes having a backup weapon for specific purposes easier to maintain. So that its not a choice of my +5 Flaming greatsword or my +1 holy undead bane dagger for undead. Or however PF2 is using its runes in the end.

This goes back to the point of potential confusion over what the Doomsday Dawn and Rulebook were. They were not 2nd Edition. They were a loose version of the full Rules with hacked out systems that needed to be stress tested and a loose collection of scenarios that were designed to do the testing.

They can’t keep providing errata because they aren’t correcting/updating the Playtest Rules they’re incorporating those results into the 2e Rules.

My point was that the new rules just did not feel good. I get its not a real campaign and its not all the rules, but, the changes they showed us just did not sit well. What they showed us of magic was the biggest put off for my group. It felt like they were pushing a low magic fantasy game. And that system is one of the things they wanted us to test since it was defined. I don't know. Some problems have been changed, others apparently are still the same and intended. But, we still don't know the final product (which I had thought we would know most of it by now)

Alenvire wrote:

Someone said that PF2 is something altogether new and PF1 got better when they moved away from 3.5.

I felt like PF2 was... unfortunately similar to D&D 5th. Am I wrong? Honest question. Feel free to say yes or no, and if you feel like giving some reasons I would not mind.

The only similarities between PF2 and 5E are that both are simpler than PF1, and both reduce the power disparity between martials and casters. Almost every other thing is different, especially once examined in detail.

Just the fact that everyone adds level to everything they are trained in makes a huge difference from 5E, since it makes level matter an order of magnitude more, and I vastly prefer most aspects of PF2's monster design, just to pick two examples of huge differences between the two games.

Thats good to know. I had not directly compared the two and know fairly little of 5th edition. Thats one thing I LOVED about PF2 is that it felt like it will be a lot more intuitive with monster design to have differing party sizes. I liked the scaling effect. One of the things I purposefully tried to do was use the rules to run a 3 person group and it worked... moderately well. I suspect with the full rules it would have run perfectly fine.

You didn't do the first AP for second edition -- you did the campaign for the playtest. It was not designed first to be a "fun" or "balanced" campaign. It was designed to stress test various systems in different ways. Don't equate the Doomsday Dawn campaign to Second Edition AP. I do think Paizo did a poor job in communicating exactly what a playtest means and the polished publication for the playtest might have furthered that perception.

You misunderstand. I'm not rating the AP. I was not saying it was not fun or balanced or unbalanced or any of that. I am saying that the systems we tested we disliked immensely. Everything from the characters to the magic to the combat system was just unpleasant.

I did look up a little. Skills work differently and resonance is gone which sounds good. I feel like making untrained skills 0 and not based on level to some extent just means at high levels skills you have not trained will just be painfully horrible and will probably just be house ruled out if we pick up second edition. But I do agree, the changes did feel better but until we see how things like magic work I still feel like the game is going to be questionable. I and my party did not like the feel of low fantasy they seem to have pushed on magic.

Sadly I realize now that it appears that they are not gonna let us know what its gonna be like until after its released. I thought they would have a ongoing errata for us to test but it does not appear so. I really hope the game does well, but, right now I don't see much of a reason to change from PF1 and if I did it would probably just be back to dungeons and dragons 5th that I have not touched since 3.5. Still have high hopes though.

Is it just me that personally does not care for the Eratta's? I like that sometimes things are not very well balanced. For example the summoner Eidolon was really buff (compared to unchained)but it was rarely played by my players. I never saw a problem with it. Same thing with stuff like the trait ancestral weapon. I always found that erratta's were excessive and took the shine off stuff and almost always made it less then useful. In other words I liked that there was the random really strong stuff. It's not like every character took ancestral weapon because of it.

I know this is off topic, and there should always be Errattas and Faqs to fix problems and clarify subjects. I just wish there was not so much heavy handed balancing.

So after my party did the first AP for 2nd edition we all lost all interest. It just did not feel good in our hands. I know there has been updates but I honestly lost so much interest in it that I could not keep up to date with the changes.

So, Now that the launch is announced for august 1st What is peoples current opinion of 2nd edition as we know of it and review of it. And if you would put whether you had a similar first impression and if it has changed and why, or if not I would appreciate that. My own lack of interest is making it hard to sell it to my players.

I was kind of put off by the mites in the tomb. Mites? It just seems to not fit in the Boneyard or the campaign. It was a weird choice to me and I immediately began thinking what I'd do instead. I think instead I'll have a few frantic, mauled petitioners hiding in the tomb from a pack of cacodaemons.

Well, it talks about this under one of the way stations how when she messed with the gate (saghide or something like that) opened up a way for fey to travel here and plague various places. The tooth fairies and mites I assume would be those. Also, Cacodaemons are Daemons from Abbadon. How did they get there and not get destroyed by the Psychopomps?

To everyone elses questions about what they have, it specifically says they have all their normal gear.

The PCs are equipped with all their usual gear, so long as it fits within the sarcophagi (each of which is large enough to hold a PC lying down while still allowing for a few inches of space on each side, including above the character).

You could interpret that as a earthbreaker or a reach weapon would not fit, but, depriving a character of their weapons/armor/gear may just be guaranteeing character death or TPK. When it comes to the final encounter if you have run the numbers and tactics of a witch catrina... Even a well optimized Party may very well die to her without even coming close to challenging her.

A Catrina psychopomp is powerful. 5/adamantine, SR 16 and resistances on top. And most importantly, she is not undead. I figure several players will specialize in undead slaying but that sadly wont come into play here. You add in 4 levels of witch with web, levitate, flight, at will invis, and the powerful catrina ability to do her condemn and kiss of death? Archers will be useless, Spellcasters will have a huge problem moving or getting spells into her. And fighters who have been deprived of a big heavy weapon will have a hard time with her adamantine, if she does not just destroy them with her DC 17 will save quick deaths. Not to mention aura calm emotions also DC 17. She is just made to DC spell save the party to death. And with web its terribly dangerous.

Also, She is listed as the wrong CR. A catrina is a CR 5. A level 4 witch is CR 3. She should be a cr 8. +4 levels above the party which is expected to be level 4 when facing her. True that can be offset if you get the two allies. But, that requires a decent diplomacy and no mistakes by the party (like a barbarian raging, or someone not trusting her right away). And if you fail the diplomacy or a member makes a mistake then the second companion is pretty much impossible to get also.

Its my responsibility to make it fun for my players while challenging them. If I take any gear that encounter wont be fun. It wont be doable. I may have to make them level 5 before the encounter. I try not to force my players to optimize a ton, but that encounter is crazy. Even the bug thing with the staff requires the party to figure out the clue to defeating it or risk dieing.

*edit to fix DC and talk about calm emotions aura

Mine would have to be Iomedae due to a certain infamous scene in Herald Of The Ivory Labyrinth (not going to spoil it here, look at the Wrath Of The Righteous forum if you're curious)

I know this is cheesy, but, when I happend to recite the whole, May Imodea's light guide you or whatever it is, at the EXACT right moment to unlock her hidden armory, she became my 2nd favorite of the gods. Behind Desna.

Whats sad is pathfinder 1.0 was based on a system I love. I hate to see it go because they believe that they need to chase D&D 5.0. I honestly don't like a lot of aspects of 5.0 or pathfinder 2.0 and am sad that most likely the AP's for 1.0 are dead within 1 or 2 AP's.