tomas rosenberg's page

I think they both have their uses (for me). However indeed the overlap for people who prefer only one style of game could be limited. D&D is mechanically simple (could have gone simpler) and good for stories and I like it for gaming with my kids. It is (generally) a bit higher on the role playing axis of role playing game.

PF2 is mechanically complex - and effectively more on the game axis of role playing game.

But then I have played dozens of different RPGs, and don’t see the need for them to be exclusionary. So while you can explain differences and what you like about a game it isn’t like a monotheistic religion or Highlander…….. there can be more than one.

Only personal challenge these days is that I have less time…….. so end up doing more limited different games - but even then I don’t dislike the others.

Both DnD5e and PF2e are simple mechanically as written. You can overcomplexify (sniglet) ANY game system just like you can oversimplify (existing word) ANY game system with optional/modified/gm adjudicated rules. Heck, you can make checkers be more complicated than almost any game.

THe key to enjoyment is which system allows you to make the characters you want and the playstyle you enjoy.

That is why I actually went from PF2e to DnD5e with my groups with me being the only one who still thinks about PF2e periodically

SuperBidi wrote:

Cellion wrote:

I think better statistics/success rates accompanied by less HP and less forgiving dying rules (and probably no hero points) would go a long way to addressing the weird punching-bag feel. But those changes don't necessarily play nice with the crit system. It's not an easy or straightforward change.

The increased statistics/success rate can be easily achieved by giving the PCs an extra level.

For the less forgiving dying rules, removing the ability to stabilize through hero points is a first step but I'd also force the PCs to take a long rest to get rid of the Wounded condition. So the first time you drop is not so much of a big deal, but the second time you drop you are now a critical away from death, pushing you to play safe (or to take a long rest).

In my opinion it's enough, but you can also remove hit points, even if it's harder to balance depending on classes.

Those all strike me as very sensible and easy to implement house rules to achieve that desired style of play.

That's what I like about 2nd Edition. It doesn't take much to get it working for most anyone.

That is actually true for EVERY system I have played. House rules made Rolemaster, Palladium, Shadowrun, even Amber work without much effort (seriously). The essence of Pathfinder 2e is that its action economy is very structured and the technical aspects of play are slightly more complicated than Settlers of Catan. Thus, you can modify difficulty easily and overlay whatever roleplaying story with much effort. It is a GMs game (vs a players game) that works best for introducing people to the hobby

Hsui wrote:

Internal contradiction? No clue why you feel that saying other systems have...

You can't complain that we do theorycrafting and at the same time say this is not a place for objective discussions. Either you want subjective discussions or you want theorycrafting which is the only form of objective discussions we can have on a system.

You misuse the word objective. Agreeing with you is not being objective. Also, subjective is not bad. To understand a game we need both theorycrafting and experience, they both complement each other.

Ah - a Princess Bride quote comes to mind ...

oh well, have fun and hopefully you continue enjoying whatever you do

Ubertron_X wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

The 60% mark is quite working. I've very often seen 9s and 10s being successes.

The only question that I do have in this regards is, how white roomy are those 60% (expected to hit versus monster building AC guidelines), because I do not remember 9s and 10s mostly being successes, at least not during the first 2 volumes of AoA that I have played (which however means that I am definitely missing high level experience).

** spoiler omitted **

Also, if you do a success chance for other activities, e.g. counteracting, your success chance might be really lower (not done a survey about this yet, but most enemy casters or hazards encountered seemed extraordinary hard to counteract), especially as you mostly can not pump those rolls with easy to achieve conditions or buffs.

AoA is not a very good benchmark as there was a lot of issues in it (one of the monsters you speak about is notorious for their insane damage).

As a side note, 19 AC at level 2 is 55% chance to hit once you get the potency rune that you're supposed to get at this level. Obviously, I have considered max item bonus.

Also, I've used high AC, not Moderate ones, as High AC is more common than Moderate. From my experience (both as a player and a GM) most monsters are at high AC. Sometimes they have one extra point of AC, but it's kind of the end of it. Extreme AC monsters exist, but they are not very common.

Hsui wrote:

It is completely white room theorycrafting and that is what is expected here on the Paizo forums.

Hsui wrote:

However, much like the various boards for every other game system (e.g. Shadowrun (every edition), Rolemaster, Harn, Amber, Ars Magica, etc.), it is not a good place for objective discussion of issues with a system.

I love the internal contradiction. Is it theorycrafting or subjective? You got to make a choice.

Internal contradiction? No clue why you feel that saying other systems have discussion boards has any relevance. But your comment does support what I mention

Ubertron_X wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

The 60% mark is quite working. I've very often seen 9s and 10s being successes.

The only question that I do have in this regards is, how white roomy are those 60% (expected to hit versus monster building AC guidelines), because I do not remember 9s and 10s mostly being successes, at least not during the first 2 volumes of AoA that I have played (which however means that I am definitely missing high level experience).

** spoiler omitted **

Also, if you do a success chance for other activities, e.g. counteracting, your success chance might be really lower (not done a survey about this yet, but most enemy casters or hazards encountered seemed extraordinary hard to counteract), especially as you mostly can not pump those rolls with easy to achieve conditions or buffs.

It is completely white room theorycrafting and that is what is expected here on the Paizo forums.

The posters on these boards represent the most "enthusiastic" fanpersons of the system and thus is a great resource if you have gone all-in on the system.

However, much like the various boards for every other game system (e.g. Shadowrun (every edition), Rolemaster, Harn, Amber, Ars Magica, etc.), it is not a good place for objective discussion of issues with a system.

Also keep in mind that most if not all of the posters are primarily GMs. On one extreme, you have a poster GMing SIX concurrent pathfinder games. As has been mentioned before by others PF2 is a GMs edition while PF1 was a players edition. Even though there is some mention of being players, ... let us leave it at that ....

graystone wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

So you've actually played one?

Seen one played till level 11; that and I have a solid understanding of the system after running it quite a lot since release. I have seen where these granted benefits have come up, when they won't and as a GM know why a player may want those benefits and how different types of players may use them.

Wanna try again. Actually refute a statement of mine or contribute with your own... or just take another attempt at a dismissive "gotcha" stance again? r_r

What gatcha? The OP specifically ASKED that question so how is it a gatcha?

OP: "Has anyone ever actually played an Outwit ranger?"

I feel TGG's experience still brings value and should not be casually dismissed out of hand, as it seemed to be.

And it did answer the OP since one of TGG's players "has actually played an Outwit ranger".

Realistically, being a GM for a game with one and actually playing one are two quite different experiences. Being a theorycrafter also brings value but is not what was asked

Ah - this really makes clear why PF2 Society and many conventions reliant on modules are so problematic.

The posters on this board appear to feel that in PF2 you do not really build a character rather a group builds a team so that you tweak your characters to make sure all the bases are covered

This team building is not really an option in PFS2 play since you hope that people bring a wide selection of on-level characters to allow for a balanced team rather than playing a ad hoc group of 1 fighter and 3 wizard.

The ad hoc nature of Society play is one of the reasons that I believe adding the Free Archetype rule would have been helpful in Society play. The adamant decision to never have the Free Archetype rule to allow characters to backstop weak spots in an ad hoc group is also one of the reasons the I and many other people I know stopped Society play. By extension many conventions with BYOC (bring your own character) for scenarios rather provided pregens also suffer from this frustration

The following is my opinion and are probably not be shared by the hardcore pathfinder players on these boards.

You are correct. Combat in PF2 is brutal and bloody and there is not much you can due to change it. The system in very lock-stepped in terms of using level to determine power. Once you realize that you need to use a more mobile playstyle for all characters it becomes easier, especially when you understand that actual character design is virtually meaningless.

In PF1 it was well-known that actual success during the gaming session itself was about 75%-90% due to your build design. A reasonably built character would overcome almost all scenarios with little difficulty. The differential between a well-built character and a poorly-built character was immense and impossible to overcome in creating a scenario which would challenge both.

In Pf2 it is about 0%-10% due to your build design. You can take any character and give it 1 class feat, 1 skill feat and 90%-95% of the time it will play the same to the identical character with the additional class, skill, general, and ancestry feats. For example, you can play a daredevil fighter who sweeps low-level mobs with non-lethal takedowns and do a saber dance with the Big Dude with ANY fighter build and have virtually the same chances of success.

TL;DR: PF1 was about creating a character to fit a play style, PF2 is about a player using a play style regardless of character. This means that the difference in system BUILD mastery is virtually meaningless. System PLAY mastery is what is important. You can do many things regarding movement, placement, attack types but the vast majority of these choices can be done regardless of feats or with the investment of a single feat.

As an aside, this makes the job of the GM very difficult. The goal of any session is to let the individual player AND character shine as both a part of a team AND as individuals. The GM has to ensure that the choices in character design allow each player’s character to stand out at some point and not just have “Rob the Player” stand out. PF2 is easy to adjust monster power level so the team will not die but very difficult to allow individual character (not player) choices to shine. This means that ¾ of the time you spend in other systems where you create your character and study how to make them what you want is missing in PF2. Character creation is just quick little jaunt until your monthly gaming session. There are some options like Free Archetype which encourage actually building characters but the vanilla PF2 is a little lacking

I like to give bonus feats (or feat adjacent abilities like relic powers) as adventure awards. So, I prefer to GM without Free Archetype otherwise it gets to be just a little too much.

I hope the players have the choice as to what feat they take otherwise the GM is asying "I think your character should be tweaked the way that I want it to look"

Hsui wrote:

...unless you are saying that ONLY those three item types are allowed)?...

I'm not saying that; the book is saying that.

I would hesitate to enforce that highly restrictive reading. The spellheart itself says that it only requires the "cast as spell" ability to use it. It does not actually say you have to have the same tradition or anything else.

For me, the general to specific chain seems pretty straightforward.

Generally you can't use any magic items that say "activation: Cast a Spell" unless you have a spellcasting feature.

Specifically, basic spellcasting archetype feats count as giving you a spellcasting feature.

Even more specifically, spellcasting archetypes enable you to use some - but not all - cast a spell activation items the class of the archetype would normally be able to use.

So a fighter picking up a wizard dedication can cast spells from the arcane list from scrolls, use staves with arcane spells, and use wands with arcane spells... but can't do other cast a spell activations like use a spellheart.

So why can't a wizard dedication fighter not use a spellheart? I do not see the restriction unless you are saying that since spellheart is not in the list in dedication, it is not allowed (which doesn't seem to matter actually unless you are saying that ONLY those three item types are allowed)? Or is it that you have to have the spell slot of the appropriate level? Did I miss a clarification? When spellcasting archetypes were created, spellhearts did not exist and were not even a twinkle in the devs eyes. They included all the items that existed that needed cast a spell and didn't include future non-existent items.

Garulo wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Note that, in my PFS experience, I rarely played beyond level 6. So, you only enjoy Striking for half your career. And by the time you can get it, you will soon be able to invest in a second one if need be.

And that is only if you play an empty-handed Drifter. IIRC, 1-handed melee weapon + 1-handed gun Drifter is quite feasible.

It is very very uncommon to play anything in PFS2 past 7-8 and even above L6 is normally only your main so it is pretty much the norm that striking only comes into play at the end of the character lifespan

Luckily where we play we have a dedicated group of players so that really isn't an issue. I already have 2 PFS characters that are level 7+

You have a dedicated gaming group that plays pfs style? Hmmm ... I think I see the disconnect.

As an aside, there are only something like 10-12 scenarios which could be potentially higher than level 6 which means in normal PFS play it is very hard to find at the right time for your character. Also there are only 2 scenarios that go above L8 (ofc you could play APs and say that you are playing PFS to level 20)

Note that, in my PFS experience, I rarely played beyond level 6. So, you only enjoy Striking for half your career. And by the time you can get it, you will soon be able to invest in a second one if need be.

And that is only if you play an empty-handed Drifter. IIRC, 1-handed melee weapon + 1-handed gun Drifter is quite feasible.

It is very very uncommon to play anything in PFS2 past 7-8 and even above L6 is normally only your main so it is pretty much the norm that striking only comes into play at the end of the character lifespan

Garulo wrote:

So we have 330 odd posts about a major class feature/feat choice that people can not agree on how it works. And we are told that there are worse undefined, vague important game mechanics. Wow - and people are ok with Paizo not offering up any type of answers

All that proves is that people like to argue. The answers are already in the book for people willing to see them.

Not really - the people are saying that the answers do not exist in the book. If the answer is "use your own judgement or interpolate" then that is not an answer as to how it works, it is a work around for an undefined rule/mechanic.

So we have 330 odd posts about a major class feature/feat choice that people can not agree on how it works. And we are told that there are worse undefined, vague important game mechanics. Wow - and people are ok with Paizo not offering up any type of answers

I think the only vanity that I truly miss is the Sailing Ship. I would love to spend gobs of ACP on my own Sailing Ship.

I personally miss the island off the coast where all of my characters had houses, gardens, and groves

... There isn't anything inherently wrong with a familiar as an item. If you made an item that did everything a familiar can do and priced it so any 1st level character could buy it, I think you'd find a LOT of PC's would be quite satisfied with it. ...

You hit the nail on the head. But instead of "satisfying," I think most people would think that if you could get a familiar for gold, it would be reasonable (scaling costs to add abilities and maybe gate as a class FEATURE).

If you are trying to build a characters, you have to think in terms of resource budgets. You get 10ish class feats over the life of a PC (disregard that the overwhelmingly vast majority of campaigns end before around level 12 or so and also racial selections change it) and 5 ancestry feats. While we talk about L1/L2 feats being low power (with obvious exceptions), feat resources are still hard capped. Money is not. If I have a L12 wizard (which is probably at the end of most campaigns), a hundred (or even 1,000) gold means a lot less than a class feat. Especially in PFS which is strictly RAW

1) yes

2) by that logic what’s the point of having Orcs and Elves since we have the Heritages for Halves? Lots of points actually.

I stand corrected. It will be an awesome vampire with great abilities. Since the elf has iconic features such as speed increase and access to unique feats which support the fantasy vision of elves, I am sure that there are iconic features of vampires that dhampirs are missing so that it will be rolled into archetype and its feats ... (help me out by telling me what is missing)

<edit> Ah, things like not needing to eat or drink. Immortality, Ability to create permanent servants. Ok, that will be cool and definitely not in dhampir camp (I think it was due to balance issues)

People have different standards and yardsticks. You think the wizard is great and all of these feats that a number of people consider lackluster would be considered supremely awesome if we only knew enough to understand them. It is wonderful that you like all these feats and I am truly glad you are enjoying them. But I would suggest that we have actually looked at them and rather than dismissing them because we did not understand how great they were, we dismissed them because in our experience they are supremely niche or rather useless. Everybody's gaming groups are different so there will always be cases where abilities like forager are fantastic.

Hsui wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I want to reiterate that PF2 is built so things like free archetype, dual-classing, double feats, etc. are really not that much of a power increase so if your group thinks this makes the game more fun, you should consider it.

Like if you want to give everyone an extra first level feat so Wizards can take one without being human or "wasting" a 2nd level slot, this will honestly not change very much (but will help a lot of characters feel better- like the monk who starts with both a style and a ki power).

Lets not start that debate again. However, I will say that Graystone's comment really did resonate with me. He stated that ... " I find myself just sitting down and making characters a lot less than I used to because it's not as much fun to play around with different builds." I think that sums it up for me. When I play an rpg there three parts to the game: 1) Building the character, 2) Exploring, and 3) Encounters. PF2 has a very good system for 3) Encounters but the other two are rather meh with 1) being far and away really meh. In PF1, D&D, Shadowrun, etc. I would get excited about making different characters and making something work that wasn't particularly powerful. Unfortunately, PF2 doesn't spark so to speak

See, that's your opinion. I'm a heavy PF1 optimizer, and I really spend more time thinking about character building than I did in PF1 despite actually playing less. See, when you have things that change the interaction dynamic, it's much more interesting than when half the things you need are the standard number increasers (or other default feats/abilities), and most of the interesting options are just flat-out bad.

That is nice. I have found that every system appeals to somebody so I am glad PF2 appeals to you. My group has gone back to PF1 and we have gotten back the spark. Personally, I still want to like PF2 but PFS2 was my only choice and it was not my cup of tea (I did manage to get a L8 a L5 and a L4 so I gave it a good try)

I want to reiterate that PF2 is built so things like free archetype, dual-classing, double feats, etc. are really not that much of a power increase so if your group thinks this makes the game more fun, you should consider it.

Like if you want to give everyone an extra first level feat so Wizards can take one without being human or "wasting" a 2nd level slot, this will honestly not change very much (but will help a lot of characters feel better- like the monk who starts with both a style and a ki power).

Lets not start that debate again. However, I will say that Graystone's comment really did resonate with me. He stated that ... " I find myself just sitting down and making characters a lot less than I used to because it's not as much fun to play around with different builds." I think that sums it up for me. When I play an rpg there three parts to the game: 1) Building the character, 2) Exploring, and 3) Encounters. PF2 has a very good system for 3) Encounters but the other two are rather meh with 1) being far and away really meh. In PF1, D&D, Shadowrun, etc. I would get excited about making different characters and making something work that wasn't particularly powerful. Unfortunately, PF2 doesn't spark so to speak

Garulo wrote:

Ahh - you get the massive wealth equivalent items in common alchemical items that you stash (after you spend the time/money to get the formulas). Of course, there are common boons which allow you to do earn income at your level or so and thus you get the same amount but in cash. Easy way to do that especially since a large number of people take the extra lore skill feat for that purpose

Well, even if they are not that rare, they are not common. And even with such a boon, the crafter can gain more. The thing to realize is that you gain the equivalent of a task of your level but you roll for the difficulty of the item you are making. So, if like me you produce a lot of alchemical items to complement your daily allocation, and choose lower level items, you roll low difficulty and earn at your level. So lots of critical successes.

Another interesting thing with crafting is when you Craft big items. You only need one success (or better, one critical success) for the whole duration. If you craft an item for an entire level (which is the case for my soon to be Inventor and her Composite Longbow), you only need one success and you're set for 30 days of gain. Unlike Earn Income where you roll every 8 days and if you roll high you only get 8 days of work out of it and have to roll again afterwards.

Another advantage of the Alchemist is that Formulas are basically free, because I need them in my Formula Book anyway.
Also, because crafters gain more, going Commissioned Agent is a good idea. But overall, you gain more with Crafting, if you make it properly.

Yes, I see that if all you ever want is to craft a bunch of low level alchemical items for your stash and your play style uses these items all the time, you can gain a nominally higher "value." Of course if you do not want to spend all of your earn income on those low level alchemical items (maybe you want to get a low level magic item) then you are actually worse off given the 4 days of prep work required for each item batch.

Garulo wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Garulo wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Crafting is all about availability of items and downtime activities. If both are readily available, then it's pointless. Otherwise, it may be useful. In some campaigns (survival type ones) it is central.

As an example, in PFS, crafters make roughly twice more money than non crafters.

Really? Not been the case as far as I have been able to see. You might want to review how it is handled in PFS

My Alchemist crafts since day one and she gain wonderful amounts of money, sometimes getting as high as 20% extra money when I crit succeed.

So, yes, twice is when you don't try to optimize it.

WOuld you care to share since I have never seen it and I used to play PFS2 quite a bit. I assume you are referring to the PFS2 since this is the PF2 boards. Especially interested in seeing your getting the double money since day one (crit succeeding on a your level task is quite a feat). Especially since you have to sell your items you craft for 1/2 price

Ho no, you misunderstood me, I craft items for myself, so I don't sell them.

Ahh - you get the massive wealth equivalent items in common alchemical items that you stash (after you spend the time/money to get the formulas). Of course, there are common boons which allow you to do earn income at your level or so and thus you get the same amount but in cash. Easy way to do that especially since a large number of people take the extra lore skill feat for that purpose

Garulo wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Crafting is all about availability of items and downtime activities. If both are readily available, then it's pointless. Otherwise, it may be useful. In some campaigns (survival type ones) it is central.

As an example, in PFS, crafters make roughly twice more money than non crafters.

Really? Not been the case as far as I have been able to see. You might want to review how it is handled in PFS

My Alchemist crafts since day one and she gain wonderful amounts of money, sometimes getting as high as 20% extra money when I crit succeed.

So, yes, twice is when you don't try to optimize it.

WOuld you care to share since I have never seen it and I used to play PFS2 quite a bit. I assume you are referring to the PFS2 since this is the PF2 boards. Especially interested in seeing your getting the double money since day one (crit succeeding on a your level task is quite a feat). Especially since you have to sell your items you craft for 1/2 price

As we showed it is not a system or writers' problem though.

And thus it has been spoken - There are no problems with AP design or the CR system, there is only astronomically bad die rolls or horrendous tactics. Of course while there has been ample discussion that many monsters have cliff scalability (relatively normal challenge at level but become virtual tpk machines at lvl+2 due to abilities), it is expected that all GMs will know this and immediately compensate for it (it is part of the game assumptions after all)

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah I agree with Vamp, creature level just doesn't tell the whole story. Some monsters scale much more harshly to lower level parties than others.

Or just for different player comps / approaches. Casters with AoE, alchemists and anyone with bombs will absolutely thrash it. When I ran it I had a party of 3 level 2 casters beat it handily (cosmos oracle, companion druid, maestro bard). Recalled knowledge on wasp behaviours, went back to town to get some tools, kept distance and whittled their numbers down without letting it become a melee fight. I mean, not heroic... but fighting a swarm of wasps is more of an extermination situation anyway rather than high fantasy heroics.

The wasp issue really sounds like a mixture of general system inexperience and potentially a lack of a session zero between the GM and players to set the expectation of what sort of game they want to run/play in.

As written though:
- The party should know about the wasps before going in
- The party should immediately see the wasp nest before entering, either from one of the many windows or just from opening the door.
- The wasps only ** spoiler omitted **

And really, a party that runs in to attack a massive hive and doesn't do so with planning / recall knowledge checks... ooof. Some groups like the gungho playstyle, but as I mentioned before, it is important that the GM knows you want that style and agrees before playing.

Now the ** spoiler omitted ** in AoA that is brutal if played remotely tactically (and there isn't text telling a gm not to). But that unlike this has the threat hidden, is a +4 creature and even turns the terrain against the PCs with cliffs blocking exits. Couple that with AoO, huge size, resistances to everything and persistent damage.

Oh and the grikkitog from another book, in an enclosed space randomly where it is essentially impossible to kill if played to its abilities. Another random encounter the PCs have zero ability to

...

You have to expect the blinders about that on this forum. There are no problems with either the system or the adventure paths, there is just either astronomically bad die rolls or horrendous lack of tactics.

Okay, let's dial it back around.

There's a finite number of choices that you can make in this game. Granted. Choices accumulate as you go up in levels, meaning that higher-level characters are going to tend to show more gameplay differences than lower-level characters. Granted. On the combat side, at first level, roughly speaking, the average non-caster class is probably only going to see about 10 builds per class that are meaningfully distinct from each other from a tactical standpoint -

Not seeing you having 10 different builds per class that play SIGNIFICANTLY different due to the skill/ancestry feat choices. Take your human sword and board fighter who will spend 90% of their time "raise shield, move attack (be it strike, trip, etc). You will have maybe 4 meaningfully different fighter builds based upon your class feat choice. Also not seeing the "billions" of significantly different class builds from just the CRB.

Also the billions of choices do not "... change(s) things all that much."

Garulo wrote:

Remember that 2e is about the play NOT the character. They have designed it so that your character and their gear is secondary/tertiary to the actual play (your decisions during the game). If you like building characters and kitting out your PC, then 1e is probably better for your desires

That's simply not true. PF2 has far tighter balance math, which makes the game of it quite a lot cleaner. I had little interest in building or kitting out for PF1, because it all just devolves to broken combos, and I got plenty of that in my dalliances with 3.x. PF2 is doesn't have that problem.

If you like "building characters and kitting out your PC" as an exercise in "what weird and extreme thing can I break the system with today", then yeah - PF1 will give you that. For those of us who like our games balanced, though....

So yes - the character-build game here is good (much better than 5e) and we want to help it become better. That's not a wrong or bad thing to want.

Nah - this is a tactical board game where you can make a plethora of characters that have very little difference within a class until the higher levels. Of course, you are correct that one character may have a +12 in a skill vs others having +11 and given the "tight math" that makes the characters completely different.

Now that we have a good selection of these, how do we feel about this system?

I'm personally rather split, tending towards a negative response. A lot of them are cool and inherently tell a story, but the majority of them are just as frustratingly impotent. Not everything is an Oathbow, where with a minor increase in price at worst, you can build an objectively better weapon from your existing one by just filling the rune slots. There are a couple Holy Avengers, Celestial Armours, Flame Tongues and Rowan Rifles out there, though not many.

My other gripe is their inherently limited lifespan (unless they are like level 17+), because their effects and most importantly their DCs don't scale, meaning within about 4 levels at best, you are basically required to take the cool ancient sword you found not too long ago, which has served you well until now, and sell it to the next merchant. It makes a lot of sense that they work this way, I just don't like it.

Maybe I just care about optimization a bit too much? Thoughts?

Remember that 2e is about the play NOT the character. They have designed it so that your character and their gear is secondary/tertiary to the actual play (your decisions during the game). If you like building characters and kitting out your PC, then 1e is probably better for your desires

Really speaking Animal Companions should be able to grab an edge - but thats a common sense argument only. The rules clearly stop it.

Some animal companions do have reactions. For example the Vulture has Feast on the Fallen. Its pretty clear that that is supposed to work, or it is very useless. So you would assume that a reasonable GM is going to allow it to do so. Which means allowing it to use this reaction out of its masters turn.

Then there are things like Summon Deific Herald which as one of its variants grants a champion's Retributive Strike reaction. In this case because its not specifically tied to an animal companions or minions, I wouldn't let them get it. But GMs are just going to differ on that.

It is clear from the rules that feast of the fallen can ONLY happen on your turn when you are the one downing another creature.

My Swashbuckler (Braggart) gets really good use out of Intimidating Glare and Battle Cry. Additional Lore [Fiends] has been incredibly useful going through Extinction Curse.

Intimidating glare is one of the few feats that is useful.

Battlecry can be nice at level 7 (of course it will lose the condition after 1 round) so it is wonderful when you win initiative and charge into combat.

Not disingenuous at all. If "the ambush you got caught in" was the only form of encounter that could ever exist, it might be. That isn't the case.

Checks happening to end up open is pretty common in the Plague Years, with so many games going online, and some tools used for that defaulting to making rolls visible if you don't take steps to prevent it.

You are citing a single example of recall knowledge as though it were something much more meaningful and much more catergorically defining than it is.

That is not a single example, it is literally how the CRB says to adjudicate recall knowledge checks. (edit - not critical success not needed to stop regen knowledge but any weaknesses yes)

"Creature Identification
A character who successfully identifies a creature learns
one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s
regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid
or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes. On a critical success,
the character also learns something subtler, like a demon’s
weakness or the trigger for one of the creature’s reactions."

Checks happening in the open due to technical quirks is easily stopped in most TTRPGs by making them secret. Just because some GMs do not do so does not make it the standard

The vast majority of PFS scenarios are written in such a way that you cannot spot the next encounter.

Quote:

This is a great illustration of the difference between PFS play and home games. NOT PFS scenarios, PFS play.

All GMs have to abide strictly by the rules so they are not supposed to adjust anything {making a uniform experience). It has to be played as written and as expected (e.g. no rolling open saves so PCs know the monster has high will saves, recall knowledge results stay notoriously stingy as written- so requiring crit success to get any weaknesses)

While I absolutely tell people myself that normal play and PFS aren't really the same thing, this post seems to be saying some things that aren't quite accurate.

It has to be run as written... EXCEPT that when they PCs don't act as written, the GM actually is expected to account for the way the PCs are approaching things. The GM can't decide "This monster is too much for this party, I will adjust it's stats" but there is no PFS rule suggesting that if the party has a clever plan for how to scope out the dangers ahead, prepare in some unexpected way, go around the expected path (so that they aren't encountering the situation quite as expected), or what-have-you that you should prevent them from doing it.

Things that are simple table practice (whether there's a GM screen between the die I just rolled and the players or not) also aren't rules, and GMs are not compelled to do them the same way.

Recall knowledge is also extremely variable between tables as the rules do also say to give useful information and tightly formal rules on recall knowledge results don't exist so no one can be required to follow them.

That is quite disingenuous. Clever plans for how to avoid the ambush that you get caught in? Clever plans for how to explore the railroad exploration path and constrained map?

Table practice so you roll your checks in the open and comment on the modifiers of the npcs is not usual (correct that it is not forbidden as is handing out the npc stat blocks is not forbidden)

Recall knowledge (p506) specific FORMAL rule - on a regular success you learn one of the common characteristics of a creature while it takes a critical success to learn a weakness. Thus, you might learn that a troll regenerates but it takes a critical success to learn what stops it.

graystone wrote:

Mathmuse wrote:

lots of Recall Knowledge checks against opponents of a new type (And I am an generous about tactical information on Recall Knowledge successes)

This here can be a HUGE shift difficulty and peoples perception of it: What Recall Knowledge checks get you vacillates wildly from DM to DM. Individual DM's can hinder or facilitate what you called adaptive tactics, so it might not be "each individual tactic only works in some cases" but they also might work more or less often depending on the DM: often what works great for one party doesn't translate to a winning tactic for another group/DM.

The GMs who are stingy about information from Recall Knowledge are missing out on fun. Watching the PCs play Keep-Away from the nuckelavee was more interesting than having a PC unexpectedly infected with Mortasheen disease without warning.

I also view useful information as game balance for the Recall Knowledge action. If the results of Recall Knowledge are not worth spending an action, then the players will stop spending the action. Tossing a skill action out of their toolbox diminishes the game.

Besides, the information would leak out soon. The players track which numbers hit their opponent and quickly narrow down the AC. Whenever a monster uses a special attack, then the attack is revealed. When the barbarian's Deny Advantage prevented a sneak attack, I had to tell the players for free that the barbarian was not flat-footed to stop the rogues from adding sneak attack damage to their damage rolls. And the rogues had Deny Advantage themselves, so they knew what that meant. Stinginess in Recall Knowledge does not keep information secret; rather, it keeps information untimely.

Furthermore, I encourage tactics in other ways. I roleplay the enemy rather than optimizing their response with GM knowledge. Lawful opponents follow orders predictably. Chaotic opponents don't use disciplined tactics. Good opponents listen. Evil opponents don't necessarily listen to each other....

This is a great illustration of the difference between PFS play and home games. NOT PFS scenarios, PFS play.

All GMs have to abide strictly by the rules so they are not supposed to adjust anything {making a uniform experience). It has to be played as written and as expected (e.g. no rolling open saves so PCs know the monster has high will saves, recall knowledge results stay notoriously stingy as written- so requiring crit success to get any weaknesses)

We have to understand that there are actually two PF2 games

Home games - This is where the combat tactics have a chance to work because you can scout, the GM is able to tailor the encounters, the group is able to coordinate so abilities complement. In addition, character options are available like modified Free Archetype (limit to non-MCD etc) can be used to allow for people to become invested in their character

PFS games - Combat tactics are much less useful because the setup of the scenario precludes most of them (e.g. lack of allowed scouting, ambush into small rooms, no room to dance out of the npc reach). In addition, people do not really get invested in their characters since they really very bare bones basic (e.g. skill feats such as forager, etc are meaningless, never hear anyone take a non-mcd dedication EXCEPT MEDIC and Beatmaster).

Assurance working out that well (Especially in a main skill) probably is an outlier. If you're a higher level character than the rest of the party, you may end up with it working out, but generally Assurance, by not including attribute bonuses, Item bonuses, and the like guarantees a result that matches up with DCs you would expect of tasks slightly below your level, so if you're a level 4 character in a scenario that decided a standard level 4 challenge DC was appropriate, it would only guarantee failure.

The only real use I have found with Assurance in practical terms is to guarantee a successful AID check or a Medicine check (since those are set to unchanging numbers).

The problem I run into more is that characters are boringly similar until much higher level (compared to PF1). I understand the desire to stretch out the life of a character to L20 but the problem is that while you CAN create conceptually different characters based upon the same chassis at lets say level 4 (2 1/2 months of PFS play on average), the practical differences in play between the two PCs is minimal (given the need to move most rounds/frighten becoming immune etc). This means that scenarios that are hard for any characters will aslso be hard for almost every other character. Perhaps adding the Free Archetype to PFS would be useful

The fact Paizo did not update the release date for this until the day-of, despite knowing for at least a week before, is a clear sign that PDF purchasers are a second tier concern. Makes me really not wanna support them anymore.

If it legitimately takes you a week to change a product date on your website, your website is unusable and needs to be rewritten from scratch as your top priority.

Priority number one: Make money to stay in business

Reality is that Paizo states that PF2 is doing gangbusters in terms of overall sales (even if people are reporting serious drops of interest in different locales). They have to weigh potential sales disruption of webpage redesign with any benefit. Reality is that people who complain on the forums are already huge fans who will buy even if they grumble. There is no financial benefit to webpage redesign in their eyes if they are already doing blockbuster business

painted_green wrote:

The term "activity" is not really comprehensively defined anywhere, but it is very possible for an activity to be a reaction.

I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. As I recall, an activity was defined as anything that required two or more actions. If it's not a single action, free action, or reaction, it is most likely an activity.

"Activities are special tasks that you complete by spending one or more of your actions together. Usually, an activity uses two or more actions and lets you do more than a single action would allow..." [p17 CRB]

Activities CAN be one action. While the intent appears to be that actions are the building blocks and activities are the combination of building blocks, a single action can be a single activity

EDIT
ANother example is p461 CRB

"In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action."

My thought is that the 1 action allowance is to ensure that cast a spell was always considered an activity and rules lawyers would not be able to say that the cast a spell ability/activity does not work on 1 action spells since they are not activities

In addition, I think that a 1-action reload IS an activity to ensure that all reloads (including the 2 action) would be considered under the "Reload" activity

The point of most posters is that FA is not a game-breaking increase in power for a party of 4. They point out that all FA allows for is some diversification and redundancy (e.g. an optimized party already will debuff and buff for every combat so having every party member instead of 1 or 2 be able to do it is NOT an increase in effective power). Specializing a striker so increasing the odds of your ONE reaction strike proccing sounds great until you realize that the increase is negligible (if you proc if the npc strikes, the few times you will proc when it moves and does not strike is minimal EDIT - going from 85% to 87% is not game breaking). I am reminded of a youtuber called Shadversity

Garulo wrote:

Since you cannot become Legendary until level 15, a Level 10 character can not guarantee the +4 (cannot even achieve it).

A human-adopted halfling could achieve +4 well before level 15.

Yes, I see that. However, I have difficulty seeing that this will cause everybody and their brother to take the multiple feats necessary if you play with FA and nobody taking it if you do not. FA does not cause this to all of a sudden become the default. (unlike the fey foundling from PF1 :) )

I do not think it works the way people think it works

One for all - this is allows you to use Diplomacy as the Aid skill for anything. The preparatory action is all it does. You still have to use the reaction to perform the actual aid

Aid action - it is +1 on a success UNLESS you critically succeed in which case it is +2. It does not become +3 on a critical success unless you are a Master in the Skill or +4 if you are Legendary.

Since you cannot become Legendary until level 15, a Level 10 character can not guarantee the +4 (cannot even achieve it).