SpiritWolfFenris's page

Midnightoker wrote:

For what it’s worth as someone that’s played a lot of PF2 with a bunch of new and old players, I disagree heavily with their position.

The game is much more tactical, less ivory tower design (tower is basically gone), characters have a wider foundation and hyper specialization is capped so you don’t have trivial encounters.

Character building is vastly better as you have an assortment of options that weren’t even viable in previous 3rd edition adjacent systems.

Sure you’re not landing as many attacks, but you also have a million options on your turn and three actions which is a massive step up from “full attack five foot step every turn” of previous editions.

It may not be everyone’s beat, but it’s my personal favorite edition thus far (even compared to non DnD editions).

I agree the game is much more tactical. That turns out to be one of the things I hate about it.

If I want to play the wild raging barbarian I don't want to be tactical. But I'm forced to be. The system punishes you if you try to play PF2 like you played PF1. You have to be very tactical, finding ways to debuff your enemy and buff your party aren't simply rewarding options, they're downright required.

I'm not sure what you mean by wider foundation, but I agree you can't hyperspecialize into something. However, to me it's worse than that because I don't' feel like I can even specialize in something. About the only optimization you can really do for you character build, is simply making sure you have the highest ability scores you can in the stats you care about doing stuff with. Everything else is basically on rails progression. But yes, there aren't trivial encounters anymore. Unless they're like 2 levels below you.

Personal I don't see the character options as being more (or even close to equally) robust than what was available in PF1, but I think it's probably an unfair comparison considering length of time each system has been out.

So I agree with some of your observations. I...

See, the more you explain PF2 to me, the more I'm hesitant towards it. Like, I'm a huge fan of having fun with your character and going ham if you want too. I like the focus on building and putting in more time with them. Especially with ACG added.

I'm not against tactical, but I want people to have the option if they choose to be or not. Just be silly and have fun with the overall campaign involved.

I may give it a try at some point, but for the sake of doing PF1 adventures, I may stick with the system I know and just continue researching PF2 once I can afford the books.

What "problems" do you think PF2 fixed from PF1 though?

And I haven't done any research on Starfinder at all.

Still open to peoples view points on PF2 as I do want to get more input overall.

Oh wow. I really appreciate the honesty to this. I really love PF1 which is why looking at PF2 gave me some drawback to it as a system. Considering I own quite a few unplayed adventures from PF1, it really does help settle my choice. Thank you so much for being this upfront.

Without starting an edition war...

PF2 is a game I don't care for and don't want to play having giving it a moderate go. The success rates for attacks (and everything else) leave me constantly feeling dissatisfied and like my character is inept.

PF2 feels like a completely different game, just with similar underpinnings of a d20 system.

If you intend to play it, it's best to forget everything you know about PF1 and start over. Even some lore (implicated or out right stated) has changed from PF1.

As for converting a PF1 adventure to PF2...it can be done. But no it's not going to be very straight forward. You will have to alter the stats of every single monster and then figure out how to convert special abilities.

Let me put it like this, if for an analogy we liken PF1 to D&D 1st edition, then PF2 is like 3rd Edition D&D, it terms of scope of change. Or at least that's how drastic it feels to me.

The name and underpinnings of a d20 system are really the only similarities.

I just wanna say.. to the person who posted the 'review'.. You can't review something you haven't read... Jus' sayin' <.<;

snobi wrote:

It could be an act of good. He's giving her an opportunity to play, rather than just work. He's expressing his affection/love for her in a way that the rest of the party refuses to share. And he's potentially providing her sustenance in a very selfless manner, literally giving of himself.

She joins him in his tent, to play dice and card games after a day of work.

The party have dirty minds.

Right? Lol makes me think about them playing pathfinder after actually adventuring to see what could have happened. XD

Thank you for everyone's assistance. I really did appreciate it. I ended up sending Mike a PM, kept everything anonymous. Hopefully I hear back and can let you guys know what happened (unless he posts here before me). I just feel the situation is so big locally that it'll make people who are ranged attackers with them to feel denied an 8,000 GP item. @.@