PF1 vs PF2 Character "Progression" Statement


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

This is just what I have seen so far as well as what a friend of mine implied after building first PF2 character.

PF1: I explore so I can buy things that make me better
PF2: I explore so I can learn things that make me better

(just a feeling thus far)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Nice.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, basically the vertical growth is handled automatically, and you strive to gain horizontal capabilities, am I correct with the interpretation?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also possibly the fact that access to feats, spells and prestige classes can be rewards now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a lot of good things. But there's also a lot of things which require retraining which I don't like.

Like the feats that improve a save, they do nothing for you once you have expert and you're supposed to retain them until 17th level or just waste a feat.


How onerous is retraining? Retraining / training is a pretty common concept

Training montages exist for a reason

Or is it difficult / costly to retrain?


Lanathar wrote:

How onerous is retraining? Retraining / training is a pretty common concept

Training montages exist for a reason

Or is it difficult / costly to retrain?

It will depend on the availability of downtime in your campaign, therefore entirely dependent on the GM and whoever wrote the module you're running (if applicable.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, in my games I'll ask for a solid reason for retraining. There needs to be a good story reason. If the feat or build is busted and isn't working mechanically, I'll let them dump trap feats and useless feats mid-session if it makes the player happier. But retraining every couple days to optimize your build to your current gear will get a hard no from me.

I consider diablo 3's "access to all abilities at the drop of a hat" the number one reason that killed the game for me. I want builds to matter, and two different people of the same class should have many, many permanent decisions that differentiate them.


I don't like the concept of retraining in character. That means that character loses abilities it used to have. That feels like it doesn't make sense.

I feel like the builds I could make in pf1 didn't require retaining (spells like color spray on a spontaneous caster did have that issue). I feel like for a lot of things in pf2 retaining is intended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
citricking wrote:

I don't like the concept of retraining in character. That means that character loses abilities it used to have. That feels like it doesn't make sense.

I feel like the builds I could make in pf1 didn't require retaining (spells like color spray on a spontaneous caster did have that issue). I feel like for a lot of things in pf2 retaining is intended.

If you consider feats to not be "I've learned this and now know it forever" and more "the list of things I continue to develop as I level" retraining makes perfect sense. Like I've not practised my ropework for 8 years and can't do it great anymore, because Ive been practising other things in that time which I now can do.

As for there being lots of things that would need retraining, that's not true. There are the basic proficiency improvers and thats it. I do think they should retrain automatically if made redundant (like skills) but that's a tiny oversight.


Malk_Content wrote:


As for there being lots of things that would need retraining, that's not true. There are the basic proficiency improvers and thats it. I do think they should retrain automatically if made redundant (like skills) but that's a tiny oversight.

You're right that it's mostly the basic proficiency improvers that need retaining, but I feel there are a lot of those situations.

Otherwise need can get a little subjective, but retaining is also suggested by odd ability scores, spell effectiveness at different levels, and what feats have value.

Now those I guess are all problems that pf1 had too. But the proficiency one at least feels a lot more significant and important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
citricking wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


As for there being lots of things that would need retraining, that's not true. There are the basic proficiency improvers and thats it. I do think they should retrain automatically if made redundant (like skills) but that's a tiny oversight.

You're right that it's mostly the basic proficiency improvers that need retaining, but I feel there are a lot of those situations.

Otherwise need can get a little subjective, but retaining is also suggested by odd ability scores, spell effectiveness at different levels, and what feats have value.

Now those I guess are all problems that pf1 had too. But the proficiency one at least feels a lot more significant and important.

Just to note you can't retrain ability scores. If you want to get that 20 you need to get 19 first, you can't just retrain it at lvl 10.

I don't think the other examples are particularly fair either. They are options, but very rarely will a non-proficiency option just be made redundant by a later choice. In the examples where one feat is strictly better than another, it is usually an improvement that has the redundant feat as a prerequisite. I feel "players might like to change their build priorities as they level" is not a system problem like "previous choices become redundant and useless until you retrain."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Having guidelines to help players retrain is a great idea. It means that players will not feel trapped into choices and thus more willing to experiment with their builds. It is also important that major choices are not something that can be changed overnight, but the idea that the party learns about the adventure ahead and actually trains to prepare for it supports good role playing. If they are then trapped in their choices to learn how to climb mountains or pilot a ship long after that major part of the adventure is over, it is only punishing them for playing to the moment. In PF1, there were 1001 magic items to make most of these niche situations, feats and abilities completely unnecessary. I'd much rather be retraining be the way that characters prepare for specific challenges than just buy the right scrolls/potions.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm very happy retraining is a part of the core rulebook now. It removes the pressure to get your build right from level 1 to 20 right at level 1. If by level 5 you realize there's stuff going on in the campaign that you didn't know about, you can bend your build to it much more easily.

If some feat you took becomes redundant because you get the same effect from a class feature, of course you should be able to retrain that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhyst wrote:

This is just what I have seen so far as well as what a friend of mine implied after building first PF2 character.

PF1: I explore so I can buy things that make me better
PF2: I explore so I can learn things that make me better

(just a feeling thus far)

From what I have seen, it seems more like:

PF1: I explore so I can get better at what I want to focus on.

PF2: I explore so that I can keep up with the treadmill.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ghost of Fourth Edition wrote:
Rhyst wrote:

This is just what I have seen so far as well as what a friend of mine implied after building first PF2 character.

PF1: I explore so I can buy things that make me better
PF2: I explore so I can learn things that make me better

(just a feeling thus far)

From what I have seen, it seems more like:

PF1: I explore so I can get better at what I want to focus on.

PF2: I explore so that I can keep up with the treadmill.

Did you want to elaborate on why you feel that way?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ghost of Fourth Edition wrote:
Rhyst wrote:

This is just what I have seen so far as well as what a friend of mine implied after building first PF2 character.

PF1: I explore so I can buy things that make me better
PF2: I explore so I can learn things that make me better

(just a feeling thus far)

From what I have seen, it seems more like:

PF1: I explore so I can get better at what I want to focus on.

PF2: I explore so that I can keep up with the treadmill.

In 2E, a completely unequipped fighter at level 20 will still beat the tar out of a level 20 wizard trying to fight them in melee.

This is not true of 1E, where the wizard may be utterly horrible at it, but the equipment is such an unbalancing factor that the fighter will lose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion, the treadmill was always there. I mean, how many CR1 monsters and DC 10 skill checks did you put in the way of 8th level characters to in PF1? Presumably not many since a challenge where the outcome is a foregone conclusion is mostly a waste of time.

Only real difference is that the math is tighter in PF2 and PF2 is less interested in obfuscating how things work.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

What treadmill? It’s not like any feat in PF2 makes you better at math. It just gives you more options. While PF1 had a number of issues you were chasing to keep up.

1. Items to keep your core stats up
2. Feats to get your math up.
3. Levels to get the necessary feats to make your build functional. How many builds in PF1 went through multiple levels of just waiting for your next levels to be done so you could finally get your five feats to get your combo working. This also tied into most multiclassing which was dips to get class features or bonus feats to shorten the path until your build was functional.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1: Treadmill

PF2: Escalator


11 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea of P2 being a treadmill is ridiculous. The game is literally designed so that DON'T have to worry about "keeping up." The basic framework does that for you, so you can focus on everything else that you are doing and not if your numbers are high enough to have a chance to succeed at a level appropriate challenge while simultaneously making it so the GM doesn't have to worry about a challenge being trivial for the specialist while being insurmountable by any who isn't a specialist past level 4.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

At some point the definition of "treadmill" becomes just the way RPG's work. Like... are you expecting to not fight progressively stronger enemies and encounter progressively more difficult tasks as you level?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
At some point the definition of "treadmill" becomes just the way RPG's work. Like... are you expecting to not fight progressively stronger enemies and encounter progressively more difficult tasks as you level?

This. The only way to get rid of the "treadmill" is to get rid of the concept of vertical progression altogether. Otherwise the idea of getting better at something so you can overcome challenges that are harder is kind of baked into the core concept of RPGs.

But even beyond that, to try to single out PF2 as uniquely more of a treadmill than 3.5 or PF1 seems bizarre and not really consistent with reality. Given the name and post history of the person making that comment, it's probably bait too.


I mean I guess you could play White Wolf games. The're not level based.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean I guess you could play White Wolf games. The're not level based.

Even there you tend to wind up opposing tougher opposition as you rise in XP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean I guess you could play White Wolf games. The're not level based.
Even there you tend to wind up opposing tougher opposition as you rise in XP.

True.

I can't think of any role-playing games without progression.... probably because they would be boring.

I can think of a few board games however!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Even real life gets stale without progression. We mostly choose the progression we value but it's there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, games without levels where you improve at only things you focus on not "everything all at once" tend to have much slower "treadmills" than games without them.

But literally every d20 game has had a treadmill- that's what levels and "levels give a bunch of things" mean.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, games without levels where you improve at only things you focus on not "everything all at once" tend to have much slower "treadmills" than games without them.

But literally every d20 game has had a treadmill- that's what levels and "levels give a bunch of things" mean.

I used to like point buy games for their freedom, but the "everything together" level based approach has a big advantage. In "just spend your points only on the things you like", characters tended to diverge very drastically. So anything that challenged or threatened one character, was either a death sentence or not even on the radar of another character.

It's a bit like a PF1 party where one character has 20 more AC than the other, but then on many many aspects. Arguably, this is where PF1 started to break down as more books brought more ways to specialize characters and diverge from each other.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

True.

I can't think of any role-playing games without progression.... probably because they would be boring.

Well, you have games like Star Trek Adventures or Dresden Files. In both those games, there is some actual advancement, but it happens really slowly. In Star Trek Adventures, experience is handled via Milestones, which come in three levels: Normal, Spotlight, or Arc.

Normal Milestones happen whenever you're either properly injured, or when your RP traits do some heavy lifting. They let you shift around some of the superficial stuff, like skills or specializations, or change one of the RP traits into something more appropriate.

Spotlight Milestones are supposed to happen to one crew member every 2-3 missions. They let you shift around stuff that's more essential, such as Aptitudes (ability scores) - or, for that matter, ship stats. Assuming four players + GM, and a spotlight milestone being awarded every other mission, that's 8 missions between each spotlight milestone. And at this level, we're still only shifting things around.

And finally, there are Arc milestones. They replace your Spotlight milestones - when you would normally get your third Spotlight, you instead get an Arc milestone. After that, you need one more Spotlight milestone in-between each Arc milestone for each Arc milestone you already have - so it goes Spotlight, Spotlight, Arc, Spotlight, Spotlight, Spotlight, Arc, Spotlight, Spotlight, Spotlight, Spotlight, Arc, and so on. And remember, it's probably going to be at least 8 missions, possibly more, between each Spotlight, which means you get the first Arc milestone after 24 missions, then 32, then 40... I don't think all that many campaigns last that long. Anyhow, the Arc milestone is the only one that provides a straight-up increase to your stats. Or, for that matter, those of your ship.

Anyway, the end result is one where characters certainly change over time, but they don't really become all that much better. They reflect things like the ace pilot being put in a command position, and while that does lead to them increasing their Command discipline, their Science hobby might atrophy somewhat because they don't have time for that anymore.

This approach is rather anathema for a game like Pathfinder which is inherently based around a zero-to-hero arc, but it is certainly a valid way of doing things.

Grand Lodge

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I can't think of any role-playing games without progression.... probably because they would be boring.

1980 era Traveller didn't have any experience based advancement. You created a character who was already skilled (and may have died in the process) and that was it. There was a training mechanism, but I believe it was 4 years of in-game time to get a +1.

No mechanical character growth is fine for a few sessions. I kinda liked that you could focus on the story without caring about advancement. But clearly that style of play is fringe at best.


PF1 = Specialized.
PF2 = Homogenized.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm nope don’t see that either. Look at martials from PF1 whose only real distinction was where they got their math bonuses from, otherwise they took the same feats. There is very little difference in any power attack build across half a dozen classes. Or same for bow, demoralize, twf, trip, etc. So you had a bunch of classes that played pretty much the same, because it was the feats that decided what they did and not the class. In PF2 a barbarian/fighter/Paladin/ranger actually play differently unlike PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not that I disagree with specialized being the PF1 thing. I think that half of the equation is reasonable. After all there were numerous builds that required anywhere between 4-8 (sometimes more) feats for investment to finish a concept. For example my sacred huntmaster inquisitor needed combat reflexes, combat expertise, pack flanking, paired opportunist and outflank to be barebones functional. Demoralize, bows, trip, whip, etc were the same or in some cases even worse. This often left your character ultra specialized, basically only leaving core class abilities (whatever you didn’t trade out for archetypes) to round out your character. If your class was a low int and low skill class it basically left your class useless outside of combat.

So if specialized is a reasonable word to describe PF1, than I think well-rounded is something that fits for PF2. Not homogenized since that means that classes play the same. They don’t and that’s an important distinction which PF2 has deliberately put in place. It does mean that players can decide their focus, but no matter what they choose to focus in they’re not going to be useless in their non speciality. They’ll be able to contribute in all facets of the game and not just be a combat specialist. That fighter from PF1 who was absolutely useless in any social or stealthy situation can now actually contribute to the party without sacrificing their combat effectiveness.


Arakasius wrote:


So if specialized is a reasonable word to describe PF1, than I think well-rounded is something that fits for PF2. Not homogenized since that means that classes play the same. They don’t and that’s an important distinction which PF2 has deliberately put in place. It does mean that players can decide their focus

I agree most of what you've said, but I think there is still a difference in feel between post-APG PF1 and core PF2. With the wealth of PF1 archetypes we had many ways to build characters which "broke the mold" in a way. For example, an urban barbarian/ranger/druid, or a ranged monk, all sorts of things which said "you think my class only does X but I am a special snowflake that can also do Z!" . With PF2, while many of the same paths still exist (and right out of the Core box, too!), they have been neatly packed into class feats and dedications, so the player is told that for his concept there is a One True Build which does it best and no other way to get it. (e.g if you want a gish that competes with martials, you must begin as a martial; if you want a gish with full casting, you must begin as a caster - makes sense but leaves the player feeling that the build was pre-made for them).

I think in many ways it's a core-only issue, but some of that is deliberately embedded in the design to avoid builds which cherry-pick strong abilities and make others obsolete. So players who enjoyed that aspect of PF1 will be left behind by PF2, for better or worse.


CyberMephit wrote:
Arakasius wrote:


So if specialized is a reasonable word to describe PF1, than I think well-rounded is something that fits for PF2. Not homogenized since that means that classes play the same. They don’t and that’s an important distinction which PF2 has deliberately put in place. It does mean that players can decide their focus

I agree most of what you've said, but I think there is still a difference in feel between post-APG PF1 and core PF2. With the wealth of PF1 archetypes we had many ways to build characters which "broke the mold" in a way. For example, an urban barbarian/ranger/druid, or a ranged monk, all sorts of things which said "you think my class only does X but I am a special snowflake that can also do Z!" . With PF2, while many of the same paths still exist (and right out of the Core box, too!), they have been neatly packed into class feats and dedications, so the player is told that for his concept there is a One True Build which does it best and no other way to get it. (e.g if you want a gish that competes with martials, you must begin as a martial; if you want a gish with full casting, you must begin as a caster - makes sense but leaves the player feeling that the build was pre-made for them).

I think in many ways it's a core-only issue, but some of that is deliberately embedded in the design to avoid builds which cherry-pick strong abilities and make others obsolete. So players who enjoyed that aspect of PF1 will be left behind by PF2, for better or worse.

Isn't that essentially just an extension of the design differences between 3.5 and PF1? You get classes like the Magus designed for the the gish concept instead of combinations of base classes and prestige ones. (Yeah, the Eldritch Knight was still around as a prestige class, but was mostly as a holdover and it got little support.)

Or the later Hybrid classes.


Hmm, I find the best comparison is with medicine and wizards.
In PF1e you go and learn how to be a specialist (say brain surgeon).
In Pf2e you go and learn how to be a generalist with a little bit of specialization (say general doctor specializing on brain surgery).

As for breath of choice, yes PF1e has more built up over the year, letting you have many choices for how to specialize. But given how the forum has been when talking about new/imported classes (to a lesser extent new/imported archetypes), I'm worried it'll turn out like 5e, where there doesn't seem to be much support besides the occaisional new "path" (but with a worse "one true build" effect).


CyberMephit wrote:
Arakasius wrote:


So if specialized is a reasonable word to describe PF1, than I think well-rounded is something that fits for PF2. Not homogenized since that means that classes play the same. They don’t and that’s an important distinction which PF2 has deliberately put in place. It does mean that players can decide their focus

I agree most of what you've said, but I think there is still a difference in feel between post-APG PF1 and core PF2. With the wealth of PF1 archetypes we had many ways to build characters which "broke the mold" in a way. For example, an urban barbarian/ranger/druid, or a ranged monk, all sorts of things which said "you think my class only does X but I am a special snowflake that can also do Z!" . With PF2, while many of the same paths still exist (and right out of the Core box, too!), they have been neatly packed into class feats and dedications, so the player is told that for his concept there is a One True Build which does it best and no other way to get it. (e.g if you want a gish that competes with martials, you must begin as a martial; if you want a gish with full casting, you must begin as a caster - makes sense but leaves the player feeling that the build was pre-made for them).

I think in many ways it's a core-only issue, but some of that is deliberately embedded in the design to avoid builds which cherry-pick strong abilities and make others obsolete. So players who enjoyed that aspect of PF1 will be left behind by PF2, for better or worse.

I don’t think it’s that clear cut. If you want to be a Gish than which should you take to start? Fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue, paladin are all valid. And which full caster do you multiclass in to from bard, cleric, sorcerer, wizard and druid. Is there a one true build out of those 5x5 combinations? And you also have warpriest which also opens up options for a cleric/X gish where you get 2 casting traditions. I don’t see how any of what I listed says that the build is premade for it, and this is without getting into archetypes we’ll be getting in lost omens and new classes/archetypes you can get in the future. For all you say about pre-made builds there were exceedingly few Gish builds in PF1 that were functional. Most had to either give up too much casting or too much martial power.

And on to your point about ranged monks and urban X those classes were still basically combat specialities who had very little to do outside of combat. Another victim of PF1 penalizing the generalist over the specialist. As someone who has literally read every guide on the zenith guides page that was how PF1 went. Rely on class abilities/spells for ooc, use all feats for combat. This led to a bunch of One True Builds, Aka you must take this for archery, you must take this for demoralize/twf/trip/whip/etc. For all the choices in PF1 most were just traps to be avoided. Effective builds were all too similar. What will be the best archery build be in PF2? We don’t know yet, but I’m guessing it will be a bit more complicated than taking point-blank/precise/deadly aim/rapid shot/many shot and sticking it on to the best chassis.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PFRPGrognard wrote:

PF1 = Specialized.

PF2 = Homogenized.

First impressions of PF2 are that homogenization is an issue that the game's design struggles with but for the opposite reason, like the developers were trying too hard to avoid homogenization to its own detriment.

There are a lot of options and features that are simply walled off to characters in ways that don't really improve game balance, but seem to exist specifically just to keep certain classes from doing things they aren't 'supposed' to do, aesthetically or mechanically.


Temperans wrote:

Hmm, I find the best comparison is with medicine and wizards.

In PF1e you go and learn how to be a specialist (say brain surgeon).
In Pf2e you go and learn how to be a generalist with a little bit of specialization (say general doctor specializing on brain surgery).

As for breath of choice, yes PF1e has more built up over the year, letting you have many choices for how to specialize. But given how the forum has been when talking about new/imported classes (to a lesser extent new/imported archetypes), I'm worried it'll turn out like 5e, where there doesn't seem to be much support besides the occaisional new "path" (but with a worse "one true build" effect).

Agree with the first paragraph and disagree with the second. What makes you think Paizo is not going to release new archetypes/feats with every splat book they release? 5es issue is two fold. One is that they baked everything into their third level specialization point. So the only way they can add more customizations is add an entire new path (like new oaths for paladin) or add more general feats. The second is they have released new content at a glacially slow pace. PF2s way how they build classes will avoid the first, and how they release books will avoid the second.

Edit: In response to Squiggits post yes PF2 has gone out of their way to give every class its protected space, which is the opposite of homogenized. How well you agree with what they did really seems to depend if you think martial/fighting styles should be protected akin to how casting has always been. That’s likely been one of the biggest divides about the game. I love it because I got sick of martials being marginalized, but I understand that this isn’t for everyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
What makes you think Paizo is not going to release new archetypes/feats with every splat book they release? 5es issue is two fold. One is that they baked everything into their third level specialization point. So the only way they can add more customizations is add an entire new path (like new oaths for paladin) or add more general feats. The second is they have released new content at a glacially slow pace. PF2s way how they build classes will avoid the first, and how they release books will avoid the second.

I do think they will release more, and have a lot more space for adding and exploring things. But, that still doesn't take away the worry that they might forgo cool new classes to not mess with "niches". Or that the whole problem with PF1e "true build" will just get worse due to not having any other way to achieve things.

For example: It was heavily expressed by some that no class other than fighters should ever get cool weapon combat feats that fits that class (if at all), so all classes would have to dip fighter to get the fighter's one and only versions (one true build). Or settle for "you can swing it, what more do you want?"

Edited a bit for more clarity. Also I dont want to mess with niches, but I dont want concepts to be pigeon holed into the same multiclass every time.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
What makes you think Paizo is not going to release new archetypes/feats with every splat book they release? 5es issue is two fold. One is that they baked everything into their third level specialization point. So the only way they can add more customizations is add an entire new path (like new oaths for paladin) or add more general feats. The second is they have released new content at a glacially slow pace. PF2s way how they build classes will avoid the first, and how they release books will avoid the second.

I do think they will release more, and have a lot more space for adding and exploring things. But, that still doesn't take away the worry that they might forgo cool new classes to not mess with "niches". Or that the whole problem with PF1e "true build" will just get worse due to not having any other way to achieve things.

For example: It was heavily expressed by some that no class other than fighters should ever get cool weapon combat feats that fits that class (if at all), so all classes would have to dip fighter to get the fighter's one and only versions (one true build). Or settle for "you can swing it, what more do you want?"

Edited a bit for more clarity. Also I dont want to mess with niches, but I dont want concepts to be pigeon holed into the same multiclass every time.

In PF2, you can make a longbow fighter, longbow ranger, longbow rogue, or longbow cleric. All are viable without multiclassing, but they are different characters, as they should be.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / PF1 vs PF2 Character "Progression" Statement All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.