The little things


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Since I know I have a few, I'm curious-ehats tournfavorite.little thing you've either seen in previews, or from the book itself, or maybe a blog post, what's your favorite little bit of PF2 that you cant help but love?

For me, its things like the elven feat that let's you gain trained in a different skill each day for every lifetime youve lived and forgotten. Or how Goblins get extra fire damage. And the gnomes getting a free familiar.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

How the system pushes a personality onto your character. In 1st edition I can't tell you how many PC's made by my friends didn't have a background or personality. Now you have to choose a background as well as have spaces on your character sheet to talk about yourself which I will definitely be making my players fill out each time


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Everything feels so much more flavorful. I'm not actually sure if it is, or if I'm just nerding out over the new edition, but there's lots of little pieces of lore that I love.

Also those spider people in the first AP book need to become a playable race. I love them so much, lol.

Oh! Speaking of the first AP book: I love that first encounter! Such fantastic balance between combat and other decisions and options that your players need to think about and balance. I really hope it's a sign of more things to come.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The encouragement to spread out ability scores. Also spells using casting mod to hit, so low Dex mages are very viable. Also Focus. I love me some psuedo encounter powers.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I enjoy the little psuedo-society otyughs set up when they meet! Giving each other royal-sounding titles like "king of offal" or "duchess of slime" is hilarious and wholesome at the same time. I'm now starting to imagine all otyughs having over-the-top posh British accents!

VestOfHolding wrote:
Also those spider people in the first AP book need to become a playable race. I love them so much, lol.

I know! Though I was a little surprised by that pic of them. I thought they looked more like regular jumping spiders of unusual size when they were first introduced in Crystal Frasier's article on Grandmother Spider in 1e's Faiths of Golarion. They'd have been even cuter then!


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I reeeeally love how they changed the extremely evil deities to only have evil followers so we don't get any more CN Lamashtu or Rovagug followers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
VestOfHolding wrote:
Everything feels so much more flavorful. I'm not actually sure if it is, or if I'm just nerding out over the new edition, but there's lots of little pieces of lore that I love.

Saaaame.

Not sure if spoilry:
I really like that psychopomps have their own language now


11 people marked this as a favorite.
PFSocietyInitiate wrote:
How the system pushes a personality onto your character. In 1st edition I can't tell you how many PC's made by my friends didn't have a background or personality. Now you have to choose a background as well as have spaces on your character sheet to talk about yourself which I will definitely be making my players fill out each time

Players whose characters didn't have background or personality won't have them now either. "Background" in PF2 is mechanical choice similar to traits, not a "super-pill-of-instant-roleplayer".


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

I reeeeally love how they changed the extremely evil deities to only have evil followers so we don't get any more CN Lamashtu or Rovagug followers.

I too am a fan of the new method of determining cleric alignment in relation to their deity.

You can also have a good worshiper of Calistria now, and it has ALWAYS bugged me that there wasn't a good option for the trickster cleric in Pathfinder (D&D 3.5 had that option though it slips my mind which deity... but at any rate their trickster was neutral not evil, if I recall correctly).


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
necromental wrote:
PFSocietyInitiate wrote:
How the system pushes a personality onto your character. In 1st edition I can't tell you how many PC's made by my friends didn't have a background or personality. Now you have to choose a background as well as have spaces on your character sheet to talk about yourself which I will definitely be making my players fill out each time
Players whose characters didn't have background or personality won't have them now either. "Background" in PF2 is mechanical choice similar to traits, not a "super-pill-of-instant-roleplayer".

From my (admittedly limited) experience in making characters with the book so far, backgrounds have been quite different from traits. For the most part, you can get the mechanical features you want from a half dozen backgrounds. So choosing between them requires you to start thinking “which background makes the most sense?...”, which starts making you think about the character’s origins and background in a way that traits never did (for me).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mm. I'm with necromental on backgrounds. Its purely a stat/skill feat choice.

The only time origins matter is when the system tells me I can't be X background because it has to take Int or Cha (or Str/Con) or whatever pair, and those aren't useful for the class at hand.

Its more a negative choice to me, as the stats I need for the character to function the way I want are dictating what I -can't- be. Which is annoying.

I'd rather have stats be completely independent of background (and ancestry) and not impign on my ability to make an interesting character background.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Having just helped two people with character creation who have both never done 2e before:

One of them knew exactly what her character's backstory was, instantly zeroed in on the background that fit it most, and took that background without caring much what the benefits were.

The other found three or four backgrounds that fit their backstory and then picked the one whose mechanical benefits best matched what they felt like their character would have.

I'd call both a success of backgrounds as a mechanic, but obviously more data is needed.

THAT said, this is probably off topic for this thread.

-----

As I mentioned in the other copy of this thread, my favorite little things so far have been the cool feat combos I've already started to suss out. Fighters making six attacks per turn, monks jumping hundreds of feet without needing a roll, stuff like that. :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:

Mm. I'm with necromental on backgrounds. Its purely a stat/skill feat choice.

The only time origins matter is when the system tells me I can't be X background because it has to take Int or Cha (or Str/Con) or whatever pair, and those aren't useful for the class at hand.

Its more a negative choice to me, as the stats I need for the character to function the way I want are dictating what I -can't- be. Which is annoying.

I'd rather have stats be completely independent of background (and ancestry) and not impign on my ability to make an interesting character background.

Just so I'm clear, you are annoyed that it isn't optimal to choose a background that is related to the class that you want to select?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BlueJay64 wrote:
Voss wrote:

Mm. I'm with necromental on backgrounds. Its purely a stat/skill feat choice.

The only time origins matter is when the system tells me I can't be X background because it has to take Int or Cha (or Str/Con) or whatever pair, and those aren't useful for the class at hand.

Its more a negative choice to me, as the stats I need for the character to function the way I want are dictating what I -can't- be. Which is annoying.

I'd rather have stats be completely independent of background (and ancestry) and not impign on my ability to make an interesting character background.

Just so I'm clear, you are annoyed that it isn't optimal to choose a background that is related to the class that you want to select?

Not really- more that backgrounds are class related at all. I'm more annoyed by the way stat bonuses stack up in character creation and that influences what Backgrounds are allowed to fit in the backstory of the character.

Its a meaningless mechanical straightjacket. To me, it gets in the way of a good backstory without offering anything in return.

For example, I'd like to do a barbarian or sorcerer as my first pf2 character, preferably a Kellie from up north. Nomad (play test) would fit perfectly well, but does nothing for the character mechanically. Scout works better, but is more specific and limited than I'd like. And while others might fit the character better mechanically, conceptually they're even further afield. Its a probably I had frequently during the playtest- background choices generally involved the least bad fit, never a good one.


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


Not really- more that backgrounds are class related at all. I'm more annoyed by the way stat bonuses stack up in character creation and that influences what Backgrounds are allowed to fit in the backstory of the character.

Its a meaningless mechanical straightjacket. To me, it gets in the way of a good backstory without offering anything in return.

For example, I'd like to do a barbarian or sorcerer as my first pf2 character, preferably a Kellie from up north. Nomad (play test) would fit perfectly well, but does nothing for the character mechanically. Scout works better, but is more specific and limited than I'd like. And while others might fit the character better mechanically, conceptually they're even further afield. Its a probably I had frequently during the playtest- background choices generally involved the least bad fit, never a good one.

It sounds like you are thinking that you are locked into a set of backgrounds based on your choice of class. But that isn't the case at all. If you are a Fighter, there is literally nothing stopping you from taking, say, some kind of performer as a background. Yes, Fighters with more militant backgrounds are better fighters than those without (in the short term, and only slightly) but that's to be expected.

If I'm wrong and you're actually saying that your concepts never match up with your desired playstyle because you cannot divorce the bonuses that you need from the background descriptors then I dunno. That's probably something you can work out with your DM. But I wouldn't think that it'd make that much difference. Or at least I hope so. The only thing that's forced on you is a specific boost, a couple skills, and a free skill feat. You still get a free boost out of it, so you can still raise your class's key attribute to 18 no matter which background you pick. One skill feat and training in a couple skills shouldn't make that much of a difference (IMO).

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

They're are 35 Backgrounds in the Core Rulebook, you can probably find one that fits your character. Even then we're also getting more in the Age of Ashes player's guide and will definitely keep getting more as time goes on.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
They're are 35 Backgrounds in the Core Rulebook, you can probably find one that fits your character. Even then we're also getting more in the Age of Ashes player's guide and will definitely keep getting more as time goes on.

Those backgrounds are definitely in volume 1 of the adventure path itself, if you have that book and don't want to wait for the player's guide to come out later this week.


And considering you always got a choice of two ability scores and a free one there aren't exactly many background that lock you out via unfitting stats


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, the Background gives you a floating bonus to put in your "class" stat even if the other has to be in one of two choices. God forbid your fighter has to have a 12 in Int OR Cha.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
They're are 35 Backgrounds in the Core Rulebook, you can probably find one that fits your character. Even then we're also getting more in the Age of Ashes player's guide and will definitely keep getting more as time goes on.

Those backgrounds are definitely in volume 1 of the adventure path itself, if you have that book and don't want to wait for the player's guide to come out later this week.

Oh cool, I skimmed Hellknight Hill so musta missed them.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

PF2 class design. With class feats now a thing, make-your-own archetype is essentially baked into each class. Rather than PF1s "every 'insert class name' gets these class features" and "swap these features for Archetype's new features", class feats allow for player-driven control. It is far, far easier to make characters of the same class operate and feel distinct in PF2 than it was in PF1.

This wasn't something that really 'clicked' for me until I saw the class progression tables in the CRB. Looking at the Playtest, I had some misgivings that archetypes as I understood them in PF1 were gone. Seeing the finished PF2 CRB, class table consistency of presentation & language makes it easier for players to learn while simultaneously expanding customization options. That's pretty damn impressive to me.

There are a ton of close seconds for favorite thing in PF2, thus far, but class design really stands out.

Other contenders:
Proficiency
Spell-less ranger
Focus casters without necessitating PF1s partial-caster progression
Degress of success & failure consistently applied across the game.
Sorcerer distinct from wizard
Fighter, Rogue, Champion, Ranger, and Monk - all look much improved over their PF1 incarnations.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Getting back to the OP,

I honestly am pretty happy that Power Attack no longer has the open trait. This makes Power Attack more useful that it was in the Playtest.

There are class feat combos I can't help but think about.

ALSO the Goblin feat that lets you make equipment out of TRASH? YESS!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
They're are 35 Backgrounds in the Core Rulebook, you can probably find one that fits your character. Even then we're also getting more in the Age of Ashes player's guide and will definitely keep getting more as time goes on.

Those backgrounds are definitely in volume 1 of the adventure path itself, if you have that book and don't want to wait for the player's guide to come out later this week.

Oh cool, I skimmed Hellknight Hill so musta missed them.

Correction: I just realized that I confused Fall of Plaguestone with the first volume of the adventure path. Hellknight Hill has no backgrounds in it, but Fall of Plaguestone does. My apologies for getting your hopes up.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
They're are 35 Backgrounds in the Core Rulebook, you can probably find one that fits your character. Even then we're also getting more in the Age of Ashes player's guide and will definitely keep getting more as time goes on.

Those backgrounds are definitely in volume 1 of the adventure path itself, if you have that book and don't want to wait for the player's guide to come out later this week.

Oh cool, I skimmed Hellknight Hill so musta missed them.

Correction: I just realized that I confused Fall of Plaguestone with the first volume of the adventure path. Hellknight Hill has no backgrounds in it, but Fall of Plaguestone does. My apologies for getting your hopes up.

Ah, no worries. We're still getting some in the Player's Guide :3


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:

PF2 class design. With class feats now a thing, make-your-own archetype is essentially baked into each class. Rather than PF1s "every 'insert class name' gets these class features" and "swap these features for Archetype's new features", class feats allow for player-driven control. It is far, far easier to make characters of the same class operate and feel distinct in PF2 than it was in PF1.

This wasn't something that really 'clicked' for me until I saw the class progression tables in the CRB. Looking at the Playtest, I had some misgivings that archetypes as I understood them in PF1 were gone. Seeing the finished PF2 CRB, class table consistency of presentation & language makes it easier for players to learn while simultaneously expanding customization options. That's pretty damn impressive to me.

There are a ton of close seconds for favorite thing in PF2, thus far, but class design really stands out.

Other contenders:
Proficiency
Spell-less ranger
Focus casters without necessitating PF1s partial-caster progression
Degress of success & failure consistently applied across the game.
Sorcerer distinct from wizard
Fighter, Rogue, Champion, Ranger, and Monk - all look much improved over their PF1 incarnations.

Ha - I am not sure how many of your things meet the OP idea of "little things". But I do agree with most

Fighter looks really good. Champions look distinct and are much more versatile. Indeed all classes look distinct

I like what I have heard of proficiency (some seem to hate it as they think it limits obscure builds)

Degrees of success looks great as save-or-suck or no save spells are a nightmare in PF1 (especially as a GM where I can spend ages researching something and it just goes down instantly with no chance of stopping it. And common decency would stop me using it on players)

So i hope that means no save spells are gone


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

Degrees of success looks great as save-or-suck or no save spells are a nightmare in PF1 (especially as a GM where I can spend ages researching something and it just goes down instantly with no chance of stopping it. And common decency would stop me using it on players)

So i hope that means no save spells are gone

Hear, hear! All-or-nothing/no save effects are a great way to make a game completely un-fun for everyone. Super excited to see the varying degrees of success/failure on saves.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
jdripley wrote:
You can also have a good worshiper of Calistria now, and it has ALWAYS bugged me that there wasn't a good option for the trickster cleric in Pathfinder (D&D 3.5 had that option though it slips my mind which deity... but at any rate their trickster was neutral not evil, if I recall correctly).

Uh...Calistria is CN and always has been. This was available in PF1 as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mrspaghetti wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

Degrees of success looks great as save-or-suck or no save spells are a nightmare in PF1 (especially as a GM where I can spend ages researching something and it just goes down instantly with no chance of stopping it. And common decency would stop me using it on players)

So i hope that means no save spells are gone

Hear, hear! All-or-nothing/no save effects are a great way to make a game completely un-fun for everyone. Super excited to see the varying degrees of success/failure on saves.

I almost despaired when my player came up with a spectral hand empowered (through rod so for free) touch of idiocy on a boss cleric the other day. A hit would have pretty much ended the combat on round one. Luckily it missed

I did make the error in a previous combat a few weeks ago of hitting him with feeblemind (because that was what the AP book tactics said). So I guess I should be thankful he hasn’t picked up that spell

But his one whilst less potent is almost impossible to avoid

I like to try and picture how he would have reacted if I had done it on him first. Or even if I did it on him now . Players never think like that though! Same applies to things like Slumber


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like how extending the duration of rage has massively buffed the utility of various rage powers. Raging Athlete felt tough to justify when you were using it in 3 round increments. Now, it is more relevant in combat and out. Especially when you pair it with things like Sudden Charge or Sudden Leap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I really like how extending the duration of rage has massively buffed the utility of various rage powers. Raging Athlete felt tough to justify when you were using it in 3 round increments. Now, it is more relevant in combat and out. Especially when you pair it with things like Sudden Charge or Sudden Leap.

This combined with no limits on rage per day make these kind of things viable. The non combat raging options were never picked because they were not really usable

The playtest idea of removing the maths behind rage rounds was good but as you say - far too limited


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can only go off of podcasts and comments from here for now. My subscription email just showed up today and says it's going to ship by Friday, Aug 2nd. *sigh*
But from what I can tell, what I'm looking forward to is (what some have said already) that each class is tailored.
Sure, every fighter will get Bravery. But a lot of it depends on what you choose each level. And that intrigues me quite a bit.
It sounds like the playtest was a huge success in picking out the good ideas from the ones that didn't work so well.
And for bringing new players in, you can't beat that action economy! Just everything is 1, 2, or 3 actions. I hated trying to explain all the different action types to new players. Made total sense to me, but I got some blank stares at times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

Champions look distinct and are much more versatile.

Distinct? Yes. Versatile? Much less so.

Far more options, and therefore, utilities, are walled off due to the bonds you choose, and many options that were standard in 1E are either gotten at much later levels, have to be chosen over other options, or both, and in many cases are significantly less powerful. I think Paizo may have been attempting to make the Champion fill a 'support melee' niche, but thus far, I'm very unimpressed.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alabaster Scarf wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

Champions look distinct and are much more versatile.

Distinct? Yes. Versatile? Much less so.

Far more options, and therefore, utilities, are walled off due to the bonds you choose, and many options that were standard in 1E are either gotten at much later levels, have to be chosen over other options, or both, and in many cases are significantly less powerful. I think Paizo may have been attempting to make the Champion fill a 'support melee' niche, but thus far, I'm very unimpressed.

Given that Champion has reasonably decent ranged options at my glance, I find it hard to believe 'support melee' niche is an accurate term.


Also, given that champion is a new class born from one of the most restrictive classes, it being the most limited of the pf2 classes is almost to be expected


I agree it’s somewhat limited atm. I felt Paladins and Sorcerers changes the least feat wise from the playtest. Still quite powerful at what they do. I do agree with the sentiment that they have a few too many feats tied up in their bond feature. A couple more standalone options sprinkled throughout the levels would have helped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Also, given that champion is a new class born from one of the most restrictive classes, it being the most limited of the pf2 classes is almost to be expected

The Champion may be one of the more restrictive classes to role play but they are one of only two classes to get armor specialization. Fighter is the other. Armor specialization is a cool edge based on the type of armor you are wearing. Allows another degree of fine tuning your character to the vision you have for it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if this qualifies as a 'little thing', but in PF1 I never seriously considered multiclassing because it felt like you were just hamstringing yourself. But I am excited at the prospect of trying it out in PF2!


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The littlest thing: Succubus grappling is done with Charisma. Brilliant!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a lot of little things that I like, but one is that resurrect being a ritual means that there won't need to be random friendly 9th level priests hanging out in every major city. It was one of those points where you could really see the needs of the game intruding on worldbuilding and its nice to keep the heroes center stage rather than making a lot of parties hire out the work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you'll turn your Core Rulebook to page 554, you will find an alchemical item called "Snake Oil."

Not gonna lie, it made me chuckle heartily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
If you'll turn your Core Rulebook to page 554, you will find an alchemical item called "Snake Oil."

For when you need to keep your nope rope/danger noodle well lubricated?


Ventnor wrote:

If you'll turn your Core Rulebook to page 554, you will find an alchemical item called "Snake Oil."

Not gonna lie, it made me chuckle heartily.

I found that one pretty amusing, too.

I also love the Obsidian Steed Figurine of Wondrous Power. It has a 10% chance to plane shift a Good character that rides it to the Abyss and strand them there.


I enjoy that the Zon-Kuthon anethma is going to lead to screams and gnashing of teeth over whether his clerics can heal themselves or their party members. (Healing enemies to torture them some more is probably ok.)


Xenocrat wrote:
I enjoy that the Zon-Kuthon anethma is going to lead to screams and gnashing of teeth over whether his clerics can heal themselves or their party members. (Healing enemies to torture them some more is probably ok.)

True, although simply refusing to heal ALL THE WAY TO FULL HEALTH is probably enough by any reasonable interpretation, otherwise it should have just removed their ability to cast Heal spells completely.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The Cloud Step rogue feat finally allows people to play Wile E. Coyote in a tabletop game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The elemental sorcerers are no longer tied to the energy types, so an air elementalist actually uses wind.


Albatoonoe wrote:
The elemental sorcerers are no longer tied to the energy types, so an air elementalist actually uses wind.

Opens up an interesting debate over what eventually (if anything) happens to a Kineticist as sorcerers can now match the elements and get scaling all day blasting

But not one for this post

I do like the change. Notably the earth instead of acid . That one never fully made sense to me


House of imaginary walls. If I pretend hard enough you can't pass through this hall.

Know it All+Dubious Knowledge. So I learned the Jiang Shi can be killed by peach tree wood and rebuked by cooked rice, but is that legit or did the GM throw something zany in there?

Armor specializations are pretty cool.

Gnomes, just in general.

You can summon any common creature in the books (15th or lower) for the summoning spells instead of some random list.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Paradozen wrote:
Know it All+Dubious Knowledge. So I learned the Jiang Shi can be killed by peach tree wood and rebuked by cooked rice, but is that legit or did the GM throw something zany in there?

Know-It-All + Dubious Knowledge + True Hypercognition. "I learned 27 facts this round and I have no idea which of them are true."

I expect the first GM I pull that on to immediately ban the combo. :P

1 to 50 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / The little things All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.