While I think it’s a fun question to ponder, as a player in the game looking to deal with the death of another players character, I think you are obligated not to meta game the mechanics of cost. As a player, it’s really what your character would do - if you are playing the kind of PC that’s going to tally up the cost and weigh that against the potential ROI on the revived party member more power to you :)
Glad to hear, OP!
I’ve had a few sessions, but I kick off my PF2 campaign tomorrow and I’m anxious about it. We are transitioning from a very well liked 5E game, and I have a handful of players that are going to be super critical (they even made me promise to go back if they’re, subjectively, not having fun - or they wouldn’t play). I’m hoping everything goes off without a hitch, everyone adapts to the rules quickly and easily and the system plays smoothly and posts like this give me confidence.
I’m prepped and ready to go - hoping this works out well!
I feel like you’ve missed the point. It seems like you’ve made an attempt to dissect a lot of the games crunch, but instead you probably should have spent more time in the forward. It just sounds like you guys are doing it wrong. The system is there just to facilitate the simulation - it’s not perfect, it doesn’t have to be. What this is really about is a group of friends gathering together to collaborate on a story and have fun in a shared fantasy setting. The rules give us a common set of mechanics, but it’s not the heart of pen and paper RPGs. It sounds like you guys are attempting to play a pen and paper version of an MMO, or a boardless strategy game on a grid map.
Honestly some people like all that crunch and analysis and that’s fine and all but I’d just say don’t lose sight of what’s really important - experiencing a shared story and having fun. If a player thinks attack/attack/move is boring and repetitive, then maybe he should take actions that seem daring, fun or interesting not because of a mathematical advantage, but because you like fun and interesting gameplay. Maybe instead of focusing on how the difference between an 18 and a 16 offer no significant statistical difference, you should have been contemplating your characters goals and motivations, his relationships with gods and kingdoms, his past trials and tribulations - the lessons he’s learned to put him on a path to adventure, and consider how in game triumphs and defeat could alter his perceptions of what is right or unjust, valiant or foolish and how that develops your character instead of trying to plot out what his stats and feats at level 5 are gonna be...
Now it is possible PF2 is not for you - then you might want to try another system. They’re all different. Picking up the 600 page Core behemoth may not have been the best intro for your group.
Found a nifty combo: Dread Striker Rogue + Dirge of Doom. Unless your opponent is beyond 30ft or immune to fear, enchantment, emotion or precision damage every strike will be a sneak attack. Plus the benefit of enemies at -1 to checks
Comes online late, but rogues already get a lot out of Charisma and all the other discussed benefits are great as well.
It’s AoE resist (anything) = level for all allies in 15ft once per turn as a reaction. Not bad. I actually think the Liberator exalt is slightly worse, since the steps only activate if the target ally refuses the free escape. Which is itself pretty restraining (the irony!) - to get a benefit your ally has to be restrained, in 15ft, and refuse the liberating benefit...
Retributive strikes downside is your allies actually have to use their (typically) only reaction - the ability doesn’t grant it for free, and they’re at -5 which might be worse than any reaction abilities they have available from their own character builds. Gang ups are more common, it a -5 strike being the best reaction option may be restrictive.
I think Redeemer may be the Exalt with the most practical application - AoEs happen, and that apart from the 15ft restriction (which applies to them all), an AoE effect is the only requirement.
Definitely needs clarification, but Manipulate is either using an item, or using a gesture. Since nothing indicates that this feat empowers you with Magic (where gestures are provided an exception that you can do it without a free hand), and presumably you have to have an item to “patch”, I’d say the common sense rule applies regardless of whether or not that makes the feat a poor feat.
Look up definition of manipulate: item or gesture. Nothing under the feat accesses gestures, or magic where gestures are given their free hand exception, but the skill (literally every use of the skill apart from Recall Knowledge) uses a healers kit in each instance. Occam’s razor here says use the healers kit. Anything else sounds like a stretch to me.
It has limited uses because it’s really strong. Someone in your group should have it and use it well. Also keep in mind there are some powers that prevent enemies from losing the frightened condition (although stopped at frightened 1) like Dragon Roar and I think Dirge of Doom (although questionably useful in lieu of other comps)
Playing the game versus white-room simulation. The first encounter in the Fall of Plaguestone (No spoilers)
It bothered me at first, but experience tells me it’s needed. It’s better fantasy than infinite wand pokes, and stretches out rest periods where others are contributing with Medicine, etc. Plus, having a tense hour period of watchful rest and wound tending plays better than having to take 8 hour breaks IMHO.
Cool. Don’t ever use them then. Option closed. That’s fine.
Hang on here - the mutagenist is the melee alchemist, where poison offers the most benefit to the alchemist (because it doesn’t exhaust on a miss). And using jaws and a disposable sidearm for delivery is viable.
And if you are just drinking 1 mutagen and then going into melee, you’re expending less resources than a bomber and thus having a reagent sink may make more sense
Well - you do have to compare that with your chance of hitting with a bomb, which in the same encounter will be equally low.
If your GM is going to constantly throw level+ enemies at you and chance to hit or saves are in the 30s it just going to suck to be an alchemist in general. You can add a few points of splash here and there. If the GM only throws +Fort monsters at least the Bard will be happy about his abilities.
Also, you have to consider that poisons actually advance in formula regularly, while bombs stay the same for 8 levels, except for feats you purchase. There’s a poison for every item level. When you’re 10th level you’re still throwing item level 3 bombs (and ofc, you can still do this if you made poison)
You are welcome to ignore poison if you like, but I suggest you actually try it before being critical. You will end many an adventuring day with unused alchemy items and reagents. It’s high risk high reward, it sucks when they save but when they don’t or they crit fail they will fall very rapidly.
I mean ... I’m talking about literally prepping for combat with 1 reagent. How does that make you a peasant again?
Out of combat, a Champion or any MC with lay on hands can do that every 10 minutes. At first level that’s 36 an hour, multiplied for hours per rest I think he’ll outpace the Chir. No roll necessary.
In combat, when you get 5th the lesser potion is pretty good to pass around. Unfortunately you can’t get perpetual elixirs that would be fun. But keep in mind using those is a free hand + manipulate action so it’s not always easy to use. It’s definitely good heals, because outside of Cleric the heal spell really falls flat without auto heighten and bonus heals/day
Well, the advantage is you can apply them on someone else during exploration/downtime, and rely on them to deliver. The downside is an initial fail ignores, but the upside is massive damage plus conditions. All for none of your encounter actions. I’m not saying go ham on poisons - 1 infusion and now the fighter and rogue have poison blades thats enough, and you still got bombs.
Yeah high forts happen, but low forts happen, too. And sure a bomb does something, but that something is 1 splash damage at level 1
The weird thing to me about Chirugeon is that a Champion with lay on hands is just a flat better downtime healer - over the course of an hour, a Champion can heal 36, which would be a significant number of infusion uses to match. And those lesser healing elixirs don’t really heal enough to be super useful in combat outside of the guaranteed stabilize. What are you really getting?
And comparing healing elixirs to a cleric - like not even close. Heal, especially at higher levels, is really strong for Clerics
Yea I wouldn’t say it’s useless. You are quite exposed to Crits, so I agree you really want wisdom and the initiative feat if you are going to rely on Mountain stance
You can use infusions to make poisons with Advanced Alchemy - not sure what you mean about being a peasant with a crossbow. You make them two for one infusion.
Poisons are Alchemical Items
The whole class needs repair, but the mutagenist is really suffering. I’m glad I’m not the only person that noticed that the research field basically gives you nothing.
The chirurgeon is pretty bad too IMHO. Your research is basically Int to Medicine at the price of two skills for one and with limitations.
It’s like the common theme of the class is that you get less than everybody else, and if you get an ability or feat that puts you on par (or just close to it) there’s a penalty.
It’s the only class (other than Warpriest Cleric) that gets nothing at Legendary.
It can’t even use the normal function of craft alchemy better than anyone else, except by a feat that just doubles your potential batch size (at no price discount).
I think there’s some merit to the bomber, but even at its optimal it feels like a poor version of a blast focused caster
Couple of thoughts...
1) I think reach is less powerful in 2E, particularly for shield users because you will have a choice between Shield Block OR AoO/Retribution. You can take slight advantage of forcing opponent to step to get you, but that’s assuming they don’t charge first, don’t have another viable target, and have no ranged options and don’t have reach themselves. While at high levels there are options for multiple reactions under specific conditions, they are still limited and you’re weighing the value of that feat against others. If you are not going to pick up extra reaction feats, say because you want archetype feats, the flickmace is less attractive.
Agree to disagree. I personally find roleplay to be the most important aspect of tabletop role playing games. If a player is unhappy with their build, I will totally help them, but if they want to build something less than optimal for character reasons that’s totally acceptable as well.
You cannot win the game. The outcomes, both positive and negative, are part of the story. Besting every challenge can be as unfun as never winning. Characters can be weak or strong, someone can be Legolas and another player can be Samwise - their contributions to combat are not an indicator of entertainment value to all players.
However, when you demean other players and criticize them for not building meta or making their own design choices based on something other than the mathematically optimal choice - that, to me as a GM, is a problem.
Any character with a comparative -2 to his peers in whatever stay in the Pathfinder 2E RPG is still 100% absolutely completely viable, valid, and can be equally entertaining to play with either as a player or his ally. If you suggest otherwise - in generalities - I humbly disagree.
Unless you’re a gnome/halfling, right? Because they grow to Medium at mature.
Poor Savage animals I feel they got the shaft. A bear doesn’t even get a higher damage mod to his support feature if he’s savage :(
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Even those stats by level 10 could produce a fairly competent Fighter/ MC Wizard. After two sets of 4 boosts, you’re now:
Not too shabby, actually. By level 20 you’re 20 Str/Con/Int. You have more skills and languages, hearty with good saves across the board, are well rounded in just about anything and you’ve burned less attribute points to +18 boosts. I would consider this more long-term than suboptimal. If you wanted to play this that’s perfectly fine.
Not doubting, but in 20+ years I’ve never had this experience. Typically the actor type role player is still being entertaining while they’re missing the blind crippled goblin :D. That’s fine not everyone needs to be the badass to find role play fulfilling.
My common issue with Min/Maxers (and not implying this is you) is very often they do not play the character on their sheets. They are that badass above in combat, but they’re that way because their character should be a completely antisocial moron since they dumped Int Wis and/or Cha to 7. The violation occurs when they don’t play that character to the flaws of their stats because the only fantasy they willingly acknowledge is how successful their character is in a fight mechanically.
And yes, I do know people that do play it correctly. I’ve enjoyed the company of every type gamer. However, I would estimate this example is far more common than the RP enthusiast player playing the game like a wimp at the table (which I’ve never actually seen)
In my experience, having a max statted character actually impresses very few
I personally enjoy concept, backstory and role playing the most, but I do enjoying crunching out optimization as well. Hell I love it all :)
It’s all about fun. I play with plenty of players that just come up with something, select what looks cool or fits, and then go because they want to get in the role play. TBH, PF1 was a pretty harsh system to these characters and more than once I or the other typical DM have pulled players aside to respec because they were simply not contributing.
Looking forward to seeing if this is still as much an issue but my suspicion for PF2, absent comparative experience, is that it’s going to be more difficult to completely brick a character build - at least out of core.
The power level difference between flavor-only, “standard”, optimized, min/maxed, and exploitive/OP was massive in PF1, and it was honestly one of the systems biggest flaws
To answer the OP, I definitely don’t think it’s the dumbest rule ever. There have been far dumber rules.
I digress. While I have no practical knowledge on the matter, based on some brief research I can find multiple sources citing longbows were less effective at shorter range than shortbows. Some of the comments (not my thoughts) were 1) the stance and draw would give a close target more time to react as the proper stance requirement is more involved and the draw is longer and more difficult, 2) longbow arrows travel slower (but are more wind resistant and powerful on impact because they were longer, heavier and gravity), 3) longbows were designed to fire at a 45+ degree angle - using a lower angle for a close target interferes with accuracy because it’s not being fired as intended.
I can’t say how that should be accurately reflected in the simulation that is PF2E, but I don’t think it sounds dumb and I’m ok with their interpretation. I like it from a balance and practical perspective. Honestly I’ve always thought the idea of wandering a close quarter dungeon with a longbow as being the optimal range option in prior editions was very weird.
I don't think the heavy crossbow is great, but the normal crossbow is fine. d12 vs d10 isn't good enough for the extra action a lot of the time.
If there was more range or an added weapon ability maybe, but since there’s not I think you’d only go heavy for sweet flavor. Assuming expected hit is 55%, you’re talking about less than a point of damage for an extra action reload.
It evens out a bit with running reload. The die increase is not to be dismissed as it multiplies on striking runes. Bows have their drawbacks as well - comp shortbows trade low dice for propulsion, but the dice scale on striking and less so than an Ace’s x-bow. Volley has its own problems as -2 attack is a nasty penalty. If you have to backpedal to avoid the penalty would you have been better off with a d10+2 Light Xbow and running reload?
Deadly is nasty though, but xbows say dump Str and put boosts elsewhere.
I don’t think it’s cut and dry. If you rely on an animal companion attacking (not supporting) and have running reload the xbow is pretty reliable.
Also fighter should consistently out dps a ranger I would think; but the ranger can bring the big fat meatshield
I suggest before questioning the viability of an entire class you should try it utilizing some of the defensive options readily available. If not, it’d be wise to play that character very cautious.
Also at level one anyone can get one-shotted. It happens, and should not be unexpected in a moderate threat encounter at low level. Any insight into the encounter? Even just two +9 creatures could indicate a severe threat to a level 1 group. Also, only a 20% chance difference between you and a reasonably built character (even another monk) getting critted on that roll.
PF 2E can be very deadly, but this stuff happens in all RPGs. I’ve domed plenty of level 1 characters in PF1 in a single hit, even without crits.
There is nuance to this. If the trap can be found untrained the rules say you need not be searching to find it. Rogues get a feat that allows them to find traps even if they are not searching so long as they meet the required proficiency to find. Some magic traps might get picked up on detect magic while the PC is sustaining (and not searching). Even if searching if you don’t meet the proficiency requirement you won’t find it regardless of how high you roll.
Love the trap system it’s a massive improvement to any other system I’ve played with.
Couple of notes to remember:
1) GM decides when an encounter is triggered. If there’s not going to be an encounter because the stealthed creature isn’t going to act and the party isn’t looking, then he’s unnoticed and call for the encounter when it’s time
Have fun, be creative, tell a story
Circumstance bonuses for waiting in ambush totally acceptable. Love the idea that this can be used to bluff encounters - nothing gets players focused like “roll initiative” even if it’s otherwise a standard perception check. Then we can go into a few cautious rounds where I can detail the scenery and the tension of exploring a dark dungeon.
If I don’t beat their perception, maybe they hear the screech of a rusted iron door, or the chittering of a rat. If I pass stealth, maybe it’s just their hair is standing on ends, or maybe this area does actually just look like a great place for an ambush...
Good way to get distracted players to stop messing with their phones and focus for a few rounds on the scene
The rules don’t specify Avoid Notice is what a creature is doing when it ambushes, but it does expressly give the GM flexibility to interpret actions in Exploration Mode. That’s how I run it, absent any other rule in the book to the contrary.
How I do Complex Hazards, too, which btw is amazing. This is the best system to start a trap room I’ve ever seen in a tabletop RPG because it can have so many various starting triggers and by a single unified system.
Think of it like this - I put them into encounter mode to start the tension. I roll stealth and they see I beat their perception DC, but let’s say they win initiative. They know something is up, they can feel it, but what is it? Is it a monster? Or is it a trap? Is it behind us, or am I standing on it? Do you crouch defensively, or move forward to peek behind the corner? Or am I just f’n with them to get them to focus on a detailed role play moment, and what they perceived was just an echo down the hall?
That’s the good stuff.
In Exploration Mode, the Kobolds are attempting the avoid notice action. When the encounter starts (GMs discretion), kobolds roll Stealth for initiative - that roll determines both their initiative (result) and their degree of stealth (result vs. PCs perception DC regardless of initiative result). See page 479 under Avoid Notice.
This can lead to all kind of various results. It’s possible the Kobolds bomb the stealth roll but actually win initiative, in which case they attack first but their target isn’t flat foot (unless they have the Rogue class ability). They could best the perception DC but a PC could absolutely school then on an initiative roll - it’s the PCs turn, but the Kobolds are still hidden and undetected, so that PC would need to take a Seek action to pinpoint his ambushers, but based on his Perception roll he knows something is up.
Keep in mind you can’t take the Feat 4 that gives you a 1st or 2nd level class feat multiple times, and it is a pre-req. ie, you can’t take two 2nd level feats without the MC feat 4 and feat 6. True, at 6th level MC feat 6 is essentially MC feat 4, but now it scales with level and can be taken multiple times, and as noted is the only way to get two 2nd level feats.
Seems fine, confusing, but on closer inspection a fine way to setup the rule even if offering up the option of a 3rd level nonexistent class feat is odd.
The Dwarf pick slinger via True Strike + Hand of Apprentice was my first theorycraft build. I see no by-rules reason why either rune wouldn’t apply; you are attacking with the weapon, just using your spell attack as the roll. The spell literally says damage is as if you hit with a melee strike with the only noted exception is use casting stat to damage. As you’re talking 1-2 attacks per encounter, and it’s not like the damage is high evocation tier, don’t see why it would be a huge balance issue. Just a neato flavorful attack IMHO. It’s the massive upside of crit-fishing the pick with True Strike that can really spike damage.
The only real balance concern I see is that this might actually be the absolute best use of a focus spell in combat (across maybe all classes, even).