Playing the game versus white-room simulation. The first encounter in the Fall of Plaguestone (No spoilers)


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

33 people marked this as a favorite.

I got the chance yesterday to finally play as a character in second edition. I wanted to note that we started playing Fall of Plaguestone, but the specific combat or story itself isn't really relevant to what I want to say, especially so the thread can stay spoiler free.

Some background, I have been feverishly trying to stay fully up to date on all things 2e, but I am playing in a game of people new to TTRPGs in general (with some familiarity in 5e).

We started playing (myself as a monk with Dragon and Mountain stances, the other two as a Crossbow Ace ranger and Animal Companion druid), and I have never had a better start to an RPG ever. The three action system clicked for everybody and we went through the entire encounter smoothly. I guess the best way to describe it is that we played for more rounds than I'm used to (compared to 1e), but the rounds themselves went much faster. This made combat feel quick and exciting and it felt like a lot happened!

Fighting was dynamic, and the frantic battle ended with the ranger at 1 HP, my monk barely standing with 2 HP after a shield block kept me from going down, and the druid in the back having a wellspring of 10 HP. Enemies did what felt like a fair amount of damage, and we had enough health at level 1 to take some hits and keep fighting.

As a separate note, playing the monk was awesome. I started off with longspear and shield in hand trying to keep the enemies away, before shifting into dragon stance (while still holding shield and spear) and starting to flurry kicks when I realized I should stop just protecting the cart we were on. I eventually dropped the spear to start tripping and using mountain stance, and the entire time I felt like an awesome monk shifting my strategy with plenty of options, even from level 1.

All the time I spent theory crafting and looking at optimal DPR went out the window when I ACTUALLY started playing Pathfinder. Absolutely tons of fun and I'm so excited to see where it goes from here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cool after-action report. Thanks.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is so great to hear. The theorycrafting seems to end with so many negative conclusions, so I was hoping to hear that people ended up enjoying the game as soon as they started actually playing, and I'm pleased to hear that this (at least anecdotally) is the case! :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Great stuff to hear. I’m particularly pleased to hear that swapping weapons actually made a meaningful difference. I think it’s going to take a long time for us PF1e converts to learn to use a wide variety of weapons. So much about PF1e was centered around investing in one fighting style only.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
cartmanbeck wrote:
This is so great to hear. The theorycrafting seems to end with so many negative conclusions, so I was hoping to hear that people ended up enjoying the game as soon as they started actually playing, and I'm pleased to hear that this (at least anecdotally) is the case! :)

Honestly, even I spent a lot of time worrying about weapon choices and stances, but by the time the game started we were knee deep in danger at the start of a story and the only thing I thought was "thank gods I have a longspear (why is a monk using a longspear? That's not optimized!) to stab down from the top of this wagon where they can't reach me". Right off the bat I found that the game is so much more interesting than maximizing DPR (and that maximizing DRP isn't required, there seems to be more forgiving wiggle room since combat goes longer), and that's what you lose from just thinking about stuff in a white room. It took 2 rounds before I got off the wagon to change my tactics, but it felt natural and in character and fluid to evolve what you do as the combat changes.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Great stuff to hear. I’m particularly pleased to hear that swapping weapons actually made a meaningful difference. I think it’s going to take a long time for us PF1e converts to learn to use a wide variety of weapons. So much about PF1e was centered around investing in one fighting style only.

Weapon traits mean a lot more to me now, since I wouldn't have guessed that I would have needed a spear to defend myself and a location where I wouldn't be attacked. As a bonus, three actions and flurry makes switching between stances incredibly fun, I got to pull off a flurry of Lashing Dragon Tail kicks before shifting into mountain stance and raising my shield. I dished out big damage and then shifted into a brick wall all in the same turn!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a Mondo main in Battle Arena Toshinden, I approve of monks with spears.

Scarab Sages

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That encounter went terribly slow for my group, but we had a bunch of people who didn't really understand there characters and we were working through a lot of the rules. There was a lot of looking things up.

One of the things that I think boosts overall engagement and keeps people from getting bored is the number of abilities that are reactions. Things like retributive strike encourage people to keep paying attention and possibly have something to do even when it's not their turn.

We've made it to the end of Part 1 and everyone really enjoyed it. I think the system was a hit.


Great read, thanks for sharing!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The action combat portion of the game is excellently designed, i agree.

The combat feels faster, smoother, and much more dynamic than ever.

That's why i stopped oing direct "dpr calculations" in the middle of the playtest as well. Builds do matter a lot, but mostly for "other stuff" and not for pure "dpr".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'll back up the OP from the other side of the GM screen. A few days ago I ran the first session of 2e for my group. A few of us participated in the playtest so we were more or less familiar and it wasn't much of a surprise, but...

yeah. The game runs smooth as warm butter. As a GM it was a pleasure to both make and run the adventure. And I'm just dipping my toe in, I can't wait to be a year or more down the road with that much more system mastery.

I'm digging it!

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
AvalonRellen wrote:
Weapon traits mean a lot more to me now, since I wouldn't have guessed that I would have needed a spear to defend myself and a location where I wouldn't be attacked. As a bonus, three actions and flurry makes switching between stances incredibly fun, I got to pull off a flurry of Lashing Dragon Tail kicks before shifting into mountain stance and raising my shield. I dished out big damage and then shifted into a brick wall all in the same turn!

Glad you're having fun with it, I'm looking forward to my first 2e session this Sunday.

Just one small detail (and it might be your build covers this), but I didn't think Monks started with Shield Block at all? Did you take the feat for it?


Also there is that normal Shields can't be equipped while wielding 2Handed weapon like Longspear, only Bucklers.
And even Bucklers don't grant any benefit / can't be Raised/Block until 1 hand is free.
Dropping 1 hand off 2H weapon is free action, but re-gripping it costs 1 action and you can't attack with it until it's properly wielded.

Overall, not any worse than shifting Monk Stances, but OP's wording wasn't clear to me, so I thought I'd mention it.
The Monk specifically does have advantage in still being able to do UAS attacks with Kicks even without re-gripping 2Handed Lonspear.


YogoZuno wrote:
AvalonRellen wrote:
Weapon traits mean a lot more to me now, since I wouldn't have guessed that I would have needed a spear to defend myself and a location where I wouldn't be attacked. As a bonus, three actions and flurry makes switching between stances incredibly fun, I got to pull off a flurry of Lashing Dragon Tail kicks before shifting into mountain stance and raising my shield. I dished out big damage and then shifted into a brick wall all in the same turn!

Glad you're having fun with it, I'm looking forward to my first 2e session this Sunday.

Just one small detail (and it might be your build covers this), but I didn't think Monks started with Shield Block at all? Did you take the feat for it?

Shields work fine without Shield Block, the +2 AC is great. But they probably did grab it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
YogoZuno wrote:
AvalonRellen wrote:
Weapon traits mean a lot more to me now, since I wouldn't have guessed that I would have needed a spear to defend myself and a location where I wouldn't be attacked. As a bonus, three actions and flurry makes switching between stances incredibly fun, I got to pull off a flurry of Lashing Dragon Tail kicks before shifting into mountain stance and raising my shield. I dished out big damage and then shifted into a brick wall all in the same turn!

Glad you're having fun with it, I'm looking forward to my first 2e session this Sunday.

Just one small detail (and it might be your build covers this), but I didn't think Monks started with Shield Block at all? Did you take the feat for it?

Shields work fine without Shield Block, the +2 AC is great. But they probably did grab it.

Correct, human monk, so I grabbed the shield block reaction as my general feat. Also I wasn't clear, but I was using the spear on top of the wagon, then stopped attacking with it and started kicking while holding it still, then dropped it to have a free hand. The initial wording was a bit confusing on my part.


I understood your wording perfectly. Just saying.

I haven't been abme to play the full release yet, but I like what I'm hearing. And tge improvements from the playtest seem to hit most off my quibbles.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Thanks for sharing!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As I player I was not so fond of our 2 to 3 combats so far. It somehow all boiled down to multi-attack slugfests (from both heroes and monsters) for the strikers and the usual two action spell plus one extra action for the casters. Combats were very short, usually not lasting more than 3 rounds, so there was no switching of weapons or other fancy stuff, just the usual, strike, strike, raise shields or move routine.

Note that this is just my first impression, not my final verdict, perhaps combat will last longer and be more intriguing on higher levels.

TomParker wrote:
One of the things that I think boosts overall engagement and keeps people from getting bored is the number of abilities that are reactions. Things like retributive strike encourage people to keep paying attention and possibly have something to do even when it's not their turn.

It's all fun and games until you realize that your fighter can not shield block and make attacks of opportunity in the same turn...

I really do consider the 1 reaction/round limit a huge factor when it comes to action economy, especially as the list of possible / additional reactions for each character will probably increase over time.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:
It's all fun and games until you realize that your fighter can not shield block and make attacks of opportunity in the same turn...

As in PF1, unless you had a feat.

Quote:
I really do consider the 1 reaction/round limit a huge factor when it comes to action economy, especially as the list of possible / additional reactions for each character will probably increase over time.

I think at some point we’ll see a feat that adds reactions. Probably not to the extent that Combat Reflexes did. But the limitation to reactions really doesn’t bother me. I’ve played lots of characters that had a lot of choices for their one swift action, so this doesn’t feel any more restrictive to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TomParker wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
It's all fun and games until you realize that your fighter can not shield block and make attacks of opportunity in the same turn...

As in PF1, unless you had a feat.

Quote:
I really do consider the 1 reaction/round limit a huge factor when it comes to action economy, especially as the list of possible / additional reactions for each character will probably increase over time.
I think at some point we’ll see a feat that adds reactions. Probably not to the extent that Combat Reflexes did. But the limitation to reactions really doesn’t bother me. I’ve played lots of characters that had a lot of choices for their one swift action, so this doesn’t feel any more restrictive to me.

There are already several feats that grant extra reactions. 3 for Fighter, 1 for Champion.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:

As I player I was not so fond of our 2 to 3 combats so far. It somehow all boiled down to multi-attack slugfests (from both heroes and monsters) for the strikers and the usual two action spell plus one extra action for the casters. Combats were very short, usually not lasting more than 3 rounds, so there was no switching of weapons or other fancy stuff, just the usual, strike, strike, raise shields or move routine.

This seems to be an issue of playing pf2 like pf1. Standing still and attacking three times is probably one of the worst tactical choices.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
TomParker wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
It's all fun and games until you realize that your fighter can not shield block and make attacks of opportunity in the same turn...

As in PF1, unless you had a feat.

Quote:
I really do consider the 1 reaction/round limit a huge factor when it comes to action economy, especially as the list of possible / additional reactions for each character will probably increase over time.
I think at some point we’ll see a feat that adds reactions. Probably not to the extent that Combat Reflexes did. But the limitation to reactions really doesn’t bother me. I’ve played lots of characters that had a lot of choices for their one swift action, so this doesn’t feel any more restrictive to me.
There are already several feats that grant extra reactions. 3 for Fighter, 1 for Champion.

Champion actually has 2, quick block and divine reflexes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:


This seems to be an issue of playing pf2 like pf1. Standing still and attacking three times is probably one of the worst tactical choices.

Only if you have actions that are not attack or move which a lot of characters will not. Well in my limited first one sixth of Plaguestone experience. The fighter had plenty to do with actions the others really ran out of things to do other than attack at -10.

I was DMing & they were completely new to PF2. I know if I get to play I will be making sure I have some, but not too many, auxiliary actions and reactions.


Pickles Grr wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


This seems to be an issue of playing pf2 like pf1. Standing still and attacking three times is probably one of the worst tactical choices.

Only if you have actions that are not attack or move which a lot of characters will not. Well in my limited first one sixth of Plaguestone experience. The fighter had plenty to do with actions the others really ran out of things to do other than attack at -10.

I was DMing & they were completely new to PF2. I know if I get to play I will be making sure I have some, but not too many, auxiliary actions and reactions.

even with only the basic actions available to them, as the GM and as experienced with the new version, you should at least point out to them how much more accessible, easy to use, and useful, the new maneuver system is (grab/trip especially, shove is as always bound by the terrain for usefulness and disarm is kinda terrible imo. As well as intimidate.

I'm really intrigued what the party composition is, because most martials have plenty of access from 1st level for things to do.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
lordcirth wrote:
TomParker wrote:
I think at some point we’ll see a feat that adds reactions.
There are already several feats that grant extra reactions. 3 for Fighter, 1 for Champion.

Sweet! I’ve only played a Champion so far, and not beyond first level. Going to look for feats now!


shroudb wrote:
Pickles Grr wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


This seems to be an issue of playing pf2 like pf1. Standing still and attacking three times is probably one of the worst tactical choices.

Only if you have actions that are not attack or move which a lot of characters will not. Well in my limited first one sixth of Plaguestone experience. The fighter had plenty to do with actions the others really ran out of things to do other than attack at -10.

I was DMing & they were completely new to PF2. I know if I get to play I will be making sure I have some, but not too many, auxiliary actions and reactions.

even with only the basic actions available to them, as the GM and as experienced with the new version, you should at least point out to them how much more accessible, easy to use, and useful, the new maneuver system is (grab/trip especially, shove is as always bound by the terrain for usefulness and disarm is kinda terrible imo. As well as intimidate.

I'm really intrigued what the party composition is, because most martials have plenty of access from 1st level for things to do.

We have not yet delved into maneuvres much, but I see two main points of concern, first you need a free hand for grab or trip (or use the appropriate weapon) and second most of those maneuvres have the attack trait and suffer MAP, or am I wrong?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Pickles Grr wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


This seems to be an issue of playing pf2 like pf1. Standing still and attacking three times is probably one of the worst tactical choices.

Only if you have actions that are not attack or move which a lot of characters will not. Well in my limited first one sixth of Plaguestone experience. The fighter had plenty to do with actions the others really ran out of things to do other than attack at -10.

I was DMing & they were completely new to PF2. I know if I get to play I will be making sure I have some, but not too many, auxiliary actions and reactions.

even with only the basic actions available to them, as the GM and as experienced with the new version, you should at least point out to them how much more accessible, easy to use, and useful, the new maneuver system is (grab/trip especially, shove is as always bound by the terrain for usefulness and disarm is kinda terrible imo. As well as intimidate.

I'm really intrigued what the party composition is, because most martials have plenty of access from 1st level for things to do.

We have not yet delved into maneuvres much, but I see two main points of concern, first you need a free hand for grab or trip (or use the appropriate weapon) and second most of those maneuvres have the attack trait and suffer MAP, or am I wrong?

I can speak to their usefulness while staying... Vague... About the fight. I found that trip EXCELS when you force the enemy to have to get up from prone. Any action a big-bad can use to attack is huge, so I was weaving trips in before attacks to functionally Slow it when it got up to not be a glaring target for the rest of the party. I thought it was balanced and tactical and most importantly: fun fun fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:


even with only the basic actions available to them, as the GM and as experienced with the new version, you should at least point out to them how much more accessible, easy to use, and useful, the new maneuver system is (grab/trip especially, shove is as always bound by the terrain for usefulness and disarm is kinda terrible imo. As well as intimidate.

I'm really intrigued what the party composition is, because most martials have plenty of access from 1st level for things to do.

Shield Fighter, Monk, Pet plus Bow precise Ranger, Cloistered Cleric.

None of them had seen PF2 before we started and as they were expecting to play 5e there was some sulking.

Manoeuvres are effected by MAP so fail in the same way.

The Ranger had obviously got control pet and mark target but the pet was pretty automatic and we forgot the mark target (:O)) He also chose to move out of volley range on occasion (that is a dreadful rule). Archers have always been as dull as anything to play but the pet & the mark target will I hope make this more interesting by pressuring the actions. It was still pet shoot twice a lot of the time - not exciting to me, but I think the player likes it and much better than shoot 3 times.

In a static melee the monk was even more blessed with attacks at -10 (well -8) as flurry gets him a free one.

The cloistered cleric was particularly disgruntled at learning new things and cloistered clerics seem bad - no spammable cantrips and pretty poor with his X-bow. He is a gnome so will probably retrofit a primal cantrip or two and that seems fine. Or switch to battle cleric (which is also mediocre as a gnome, but looks OK otherwise).

They all set up flanking all the time - this is super easy at the cost of a terrible attack with no OAs.

Aargh sorry for long derail. I am excited by PF2 but it certainly has some red flags for me (arithmetic basically) so I'm feeling my way with rather conservative players.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Pickles Grr wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


This seems to be an issue of playing pf2 like pf1. Standing still and attacking three times is probably one of the worst tactical choices.

Only if you have actions that are not attack or move which a lot of characters will not. Well in my limited first one sixth of Plaguestone experience. The fighter had plenty to do with actions the others really ran out of things to do other than attack at -10.

I was DMing & they were completely new to PF2. I know if I get to play I will be making sure I have some, but not too many, auxiliary actions and reactions.

even with only the basic actions available to them, as the GM and as experienced with the new version, you should at least point out to them how much more accessible, easy to use, and useful, the new maneuver system is (grab/trip especially, shove is as always bound by the terrain for usefulness and disarm is kinda terrible imo. As well as intimidate.

I'm really intrigued what the party composition is, because most martials have plenty of access from 1st level for things to do.

We have not yet delved into maneuvres much, but I see two main points of concern, first you need a free hand for grab or trip (or use the appropriate weapon) and second most of those maneuvres have the attack trait and suffer MAP, or am I wrong?

you are not wrong, you do them INSTEAD of attacking.

Grabbing someone as an example, eithre via a grab weapon (currently limited to animal berserkers) or via a free hand is one of the easiest ways to limit their mobility and protect your backline (remoember, no AoO means that they can walk around you in most cases)

A thing to note is that Escape (from a grapple) is ALSO an "attack action", so even if they manage to break free, you effectively gave them -5 to attack the backline, given that they also need to move there, it already kinda demolished their ability to do so effectively.

All this is in addition of causing the enemy to be flat-footed for all till he breaks free.

Add an intimidation check, and BAM he's at -3 to AC (and -1 to everything else) which is huge in the tight math paradigm of pf2.

You SHOULD give the maneuvers a very good read, they are extremely accessible to all and offer alternative actions to use instead of spamming Strikes.

Difficult terrain, different move speeds, and different move actions (leaps as an exmaple), all also help to keep a very dynamic battlefield. Why waste an action for a -10 attack when you are faster than the opponent, so he has to waste 2 of his actions if you just move away from him, or else force him to target the "raised shield" defender next to you.

And etc


shroudb wrote:

you are not wrong, you do them INSTEAD of attacking.

Grabbing someone as an example, eithre via a grab weapon (currently limited to animal berserkers) or via a free hand is one of the easiest ways to limit their mobility and protect your backline (remoember, no AoO means that they can walk around you in most cases)

A thing to note is that Escape (from a grapple) is ALSO an "attack action", so even if they manage to break free, you effectively gave them -5 to attack the backline, given that they also need to move there, it already kinda demolished their ability to do so effectively.

All this is in...

If the enemy is dead he can't do fancy stuff either. ;)

Naaa, just kidding, will give it a try.

However I have to admit that our sword & board Fighter, bow Ranger and dual wielding Rogue did a very good job in flanking and killing stuff really fast.

Scarab Sages

How did you get 2 stances and Shield Block at level 1? And how did you have enough hands for a shield and spear?


Angel Hunter D wrote:
How did you get 2 stances and Shield Block at level 1? And how did you have enough hands for a shield and spear?

for the feats:

A veratile human starts with a general feat from his ancestry and an ancestry feat that he can pick up natural ambition for an extra level 1 feat.
plus his normal class feat, so 2 stances+shield block is doable at 1.

for the shield:
you're right, you can't hold a shield and a spear simultaneously.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
How did you get 2 stances and Shield Block at level 1? And how did you have enough hands for a shield and spear?

for the feats:

A veratile human starts with a general feat from his ancestry and an ancestry feat that he can pick up natural ambition for an extra level 1 feat.
plus his normal class feat, so 2 stances+shield block is doable at 1.

for the shield:
you're right, you can't hold a shield and a spear simultaneously.

Spears are 1 handed


Pickles Grr wrote:
shroudb wrote:


even with only the basic actions available to them, as the GM and as experienced with the new version, you should at least point out to them how much more accessible, easy to use, and useful, the new maneuver system is (grab/trip especially, shove is as always bound by the terrain for usefulness and disarm is kinda terrible imo. As well as intimidate.

I'm really intrigued what the party composition is, because most martials have plenty of access from 1st level for things to do.

Shield Fighter, Monk, Pet plus Bow precise Ranger, Cloistered Cleric.

None of them had seen PF2 before we started and as they were expecting to play 5e there was some sulking.

Manoeuvres are effected by MAP so fail in the same way.

The Ranger had obviously got control pet and mark target but the pet was pretty automatic and we forgot the mark target (:O)) He also chose to move out of volley range on occasion (that is a dreadful rule). Archers have always been as dull as anything to play but the pet & the mark target will I hope make this more interesting by pressuring the actions. It was still pet shoot twice a lot of the time - not exciting to me, but I think the player likes it and much better than shoot 3 times.

In a static melee the monk was even more blessed with attacks at -10 (well -8) as flurry gets him a free one.

The cloistered cleric was particularly disgruntled at learning new things and cloistered clerics seem bad - no spammable cantrips and pretty poor with his X-bow. He is a gnome so will probably retrofit a primal cantrip or two and that seems fine. Or switch to battle cleric (which is also mediocre as a gnome, but looks OK otherwise).

They all set up flanking all the time - this is super easy at the cost of a terrible attack with no OAs.

Aargh sorry for long derail. I am excited by PF2 but it certainly has some red flags for me (arithmetic basically) so I'm feeling my way with rather conservative players.

For the Monk, using your actions to dart in and out of combat to stay a moving target, either darting between targets or trying to get a foe to chase you (the latter being difficult if you have a tank too) can be a lot of fun, since your first two attacks are the most important and you get those in one action via Flurry.

For the Ranger, well, they might find themselves doing something similar at 2nd level assuming they take Hunted Shot. It's basically Flurry of Blows with a bow but only against your hunted target. Though if they have the Precision edge they might want something like Hunter's Aim instead to maximize a singular shot. Hunted Shot is more for Flurry Edge Rangers, as the massive MAP reduction makes them one of the few builds where spamming attacks actually works.

The Cloistered Cleric is just fine if what you want is essentially a Divine Wizard. Assuming you fight evil foes regularly Divine Lance is great, but without that you might want to invest in an Ancestry feat to get an offensive Cantrip. Human, Gnome, and Elf all have options there. Assuming he has 16 Dex he's only 1 point of accuracy behind a Martial with a crossbow, but the reload trait makes crossbows not the best, yeah. Guidance is actually a fairly useful support cantrip BTW. But if your player is looking for more fighty-ness Warpriest might be better.

Anyhow, I can see action options feeling a little limited for some at 1st level, but it opens up quickly, especially if you make a point to open new actions.


shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
How did you get 2 stances and Shield Block at level 1? And how did you have enough hands for a shield and spear?

for the feats:

A veratile human starts with a general feat from his ancestry and an ancestry feat that he can pick up natural ambition for an extra level 1 feat.
plus his normal class feat, so 2 stances+shield block is doable at 1.

for the shield:
you're right, you can't hold a shield and a spear simultaneously.

I replied elsewhere but essentially in game I didn't have the spear readied anymore, and I eventually dropped it. But we rules in game that I could hold it when it wasn't positioned to be able to attack with anymore.


xNellynelx wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
How did you get 2 stances and Shield Block at level 1? And how did you have enough hands for a shield and spear?

for the feats:

A veratile human starts with a general feat from his ancestry and an ancestry feat that he can pick up natural ambition for an extra level 1 feat.
plus his normal class feat, so 2 stances+shield block is doable at 1.

for the shield:
you're right, you can't hold a shield and a spear simultaneously.

Spears are 1 handed

oh yeah, lol.

somehow i had a brainfart that had my mind stuck at longspear instead.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Great stuff to hear. I’m particularly pleased to hear that swapping weapons actually made a meaningful difference. I think it’s going to take a long time for us PF1e converts to learn to use a wide variety of weapons. So much about PF1e was centered around investing in one fighting style only.

I'm especially keen on the idea of a Shifting Rune weapon for non-Fighters, you can easily swap it around a variety of traits and damage types and it just seems hype, and you don't have to worry about maintaining multiple weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Great stuff to hear. I’m particularly pleased to hear that swapping weapons actually made a meaningful difference. I think it’s going to take a long time for us PF1e converts to learn to use a wide variety of weapons. So much about PF1e was centered around investing in one fighting style only.
I'm especially keen on the idea of a Shifting Rune weapon for non-Fighters, you can easily swap it around a variety of traits and damage types and it just seems hype, and you don't have to worry about maintaining multiple weapons.

Now I kinda want to make a monk with Monastic Weaponry and shifting rune...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that Avalon quickly grasped what took my group a few sessions to understand during the Playtest: doing stuff other than "Strike, Strike, Strike," in combat is the way to go. Sounds like you're having a great time and are handling the new system well.

(First actual, non-Playtest game for me this weekend and I'm really hyped.)


Ruzza wrote:
I think that Avalon quickly grasped what took my group a few sessions to understand during the Playtest: doing stuff other than "Strike, Strike, Strike," in combat is the way to go.

Well it is only wrong if you can't win the damage race. Why should I trip or grab an enemy if I can deal damage and kill him instead.

Don't get me wrong, I do get the grips about how tripping/grapping can help you in winning the damage race by lowering AC and denying actions respectively keep your soft targets secure, and for sure the third attack is debatable for anything that is not a fighter and/or flanking, however I yet have to encounter an adversary that has not gone down pretty fast while being at the receiving end of the good, old 3d8+12 and 6d6+12 fighter & rogue combo (rolling high on to-hit obviously helps).

As I said earlier I reckon maneuvers become more important once the enemies are out of "one-shot" range, so I will take some time studying the new mechanics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
I think that Avalon quickly grasped what took my group a few sessions to understand during the Playtest: doing stuff other than "Strike, Strike, Strike," in combat is the way to go.

Well it is only wrong if you can't win the damage race. Why should I trip or grab an enemy if I can deal damage and kill him instead.

Don't get me wrong, I do get the grips about how tripping/grapping can help you in winning the damage race by lowering AC and denying actions respectively keep your soft targets secure, and for sure the third attack is debatable for anything that is not a fighter and/or flanking, however I yet have to encounter an adversary that has not gone down pretty fast while being at the receiving end of the good, old 3d8+12 and 6d6+12 fighter & rogue combo (rolling high on to-hit obviously helps).

As I said earlier I reckon maneuvers become more important once the enemies are out of "one-shot" range, so I will take some time studying the new mechanics.

If your guys routinely hit on - 10 and - 8, then there's something wrong with your challenge ratings.

Usually a 3rd attack for a rogue, even with flank, will hit only on something like 18-19+


Ubertron_X wrote:


I yet have to encounter an adversary that has not gone down pretty fast while being at the receiving end of the good, old 3d8+12 and 6d6+12 fighter & rogue combo (rolling high on to-hit obviously helps).

At which level is that? Do you just assume all 3 attacks will hit? The chance of that is actually very slim (especially against something that needs 6 hits to die in the first place).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pickles Grr wrote:
shroudb wrote:


even with only the basic actions available to them, as the GM and as experienced with the new version, you should at least point out to them how much more accessible, easy to use, and useful, the new maneuver system is (grab/trip especially, shove is as always bound by the terrain for usefulness and disarm is kinda terrible imo. As well as intimidate.

I'm really intrigued what the party composition is, because most martials have plenty of access from 1st level for things to do.

Shield Fighter, Monk, Pet plus Bow precise Ranger, Cloistered Cleric.

None of them had seen PF2 before we started and as they were expecting to play 5e there was some sulking.

Manoeuvres are effected by MAP so fail in the same way.

The Ranger had obviously got control pet and mark target but the pet was pretty automatic and we forgot the mark target (:O)) He also chose to move out of volley range on occasion (that is a dreadful rule). Archers have always been as dull as anything to play but the pet & the mark target will I hope make this more interesting by pressuring the actions. It was still pet shoot twice a lot of the time - not exciting to me, but I think the player likes it and much better than shoot 3 times.

In a static melee the monk was even more blessed with attacks at -10 (well -8) as flurry gets him a free one.

The cloistered cleric was particularly disgruntled at learning new things and cloistered clerics seem bad - no spammable cantrips and pretty poor with his X-bow. He is a gnome so will probably retrofit a primal cantrip or two and that seems fine. Or switch to battle cleric (which is also mediocre as a gnome, but looks OK otherwise).

They all set up flanking all the time - this is super easy at the cost of a terrible attack with no OAs.

Aargh sorry for long derail. I am excited by PF2 but it certainly has some red flags for me (arithmetic basically) so I'm feeling my way with rather conservative players.

Animal Companion is not automatic, it requires your action to act.

And yes, maneuvers have map, you open with them usually to make the rest attacks benefit from the penalties they impose.

And don't know what I can tell you, but if you're just standing there are striking things, what's stopping the enemies just going around and smacking the cloistered in the head?

What's stopping them from moving and turning the flank on the party instead, maybe even opening with a trip so that the player can at most do 1 attack in his round if he wants to setup flank?
What's stopping them from going to the ranger?

And etc.

The problem probably lies with the GM not having yet adapted to the freedom a 3 action, no AoO system gives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AvalonRellen wrote:
As a separate note, playing the monk was awesome. I started off with longspear and shield in hand trying to keep the enemies away, before shifting into dragon stance (while still holding shield and spear) and starting to flurry kicks when I realized I should stop just protecting the cart we were on. I eventually dropped the spear to start tripping and using mountain stance, and the entire time I felt like an awesome monk shifting my strategy with plenty of options, even from level 1.

Never thought I'd see a monk with shield and spear. But I love the aesthetic. Could always throw the spear before following up with the badass kicks as well for maximum cinematic power.

On a separate note, what's the biggest/most unexpected difference for your white room monk vs actual play monk?

Ubertron_X wrote:

It's all fun and games until you realize that your fighter can not shield block and make attacks of opportunity in the same turn...

I really do consider the 1 reaction/round limit a huge factor when it comes to action economy, especially as the list of possible / additional reactions for each character will probably increase over time.

I think that might be intentional, since the fighter can acquire feats that give extra reactions just for shield block, or even a stance that always has your shield raised, essentially giving an extra action each turn.

As for the multiple reaction abilities but limited reactions, I'd like to think it adds depth and makes your choices matter more. Early on that shield block or attack of opportunity has more weight if you can pick one but not the other. If you can do both each turn, they become the cookie cutter, not a choice. Do you reduce damage taken there and then, or eat it to maybe attack someone running past you which might happen or not?


shroudb wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
I think that Avalon quickly grasped what took my group a few sessions to understand during the Playtest: doing stuff other than "Strike, Strike, Strike," in combat is the way to go.

Well it is only wrong if you can't win the damage race. Why should I trip or grab an enemy if I can deal damage and kill him instead.

Don't get me wrong, I do get the grips about how tripping/grapping can help you in winning the damage race by lowering AC and denying actions respectively keep your soft targets secure, and for sure the third attack is debatable for anything that is not a fighter and/or flanking, however I yet have to encounter an adversary that has not gone down pretty fast while being at the receiving end of the good, old 3d8+12 and 6d6+12 fighter & rogue combo (rolling high on to-hit obviously helps).

As I said earlier I reckon maneuvers become more important once the enemies are out of "one-shot" range, so I will take some time studying the new mechanics.

If your guys routinely hit on - 10 and - 8, then there's something wrong with your challenge ratings.

Usually a 3rd attack for a rogue, even with flank, will hit only on something like 18-19+

Even at -5/-4 shouldn't be that common. Quick math says +9 for the fighter to hit, so +7 effective in a flank with an agile weapon, and +4 usually. Average AC of enemies you'd fight at level 1 is 16, so needing a 9 and 12 respectively to hit.

Do they just constantly roll 9+ on the second attack or something?


shroudb wrote:

If your guys routinely hit on - 10 and - 8, then there's something wrong with your challenge ratings.

Usually a 3rd attack for a rogue, even with flank, will hit only on something like 18-19+

Well obviously that is very much depending on the enemy AC, so lets take an example of a creature we actually fought, Warg (Level2, AC17). The fighter has +9 to hit, so he will hit his 3. attack on 16+ while flanking, which is a nice 25% chance. Rogue has +7 to-hit but will also hit his 3. attack on 16+ because of agile weapons.

shroudb wrote:
The problem probably lies with the GM not having yet adapted to the freedom a 3 action, no AoO system gives.

This I guess.

However my group usually is using tankier builds for all chars to avoid all hell breaking lose once a monster is running wild, so every char is expected to be able to off-tank for some time (e.g. warpriest instead of cloistered).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget that you can use Assurance with combat maneuvers to avoid the MAP!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
shroudb wrote:

If your guys routinely hit on - 10 and - 8, then there's something wrong with your challenge ratings.

Usually a 3rd attack for a rogue, even with flank, will hit only on something like 18-19+

Well obviously that is very much depending on the enemy AC, so lets take an example of a creature we actually fought, Warg (Level2, AC17). The fighter has +9 to hit, so he will hit his 3. attack on 16+ while flanking, which is a nice 25% chance. Rogue has +7 to-hit but will also hit his 3. attack on 16+ because of agile weapons.

shroudb wrote:
The problem probably lies with the GM not having yet adapted to the freedom a 3 action, no AoO system gives.

This I guess.

However my group usually is using tankier builds for all chars to avoid all hell breaking lose once a monster is running wild, so every char is expected to be able to off-tank for some time (e.g. warpriest instead of cloistered).

A 25% chance to hit IF you have flank (opponent can just leave, and setup his own flank) is not that great.

It especially isn't something one can call the "usual 6d6+x" if it only happens like 1 in 8 (you need both the 50% to hit the 2nd attack and the 25% to hit the 3rd...)

That's like calculating your "average" damage in PF1 by using your Critical damage as a basis.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pickles Grr wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


This seems to be an issue of playing pf2 like pf1. Standing still and attacking three times is probably one of the worst tactical choices.
Only if you have actions that are not attack or move which a lot of characters will not.

I think that's going to be one of the things people will have to learn about building characters in PF2. It's not just about to-hit/damage scores. A well-built character has enough one-action abilities. Too few and you're just praying for 20s in the face of MAP. Too many and you don't have enough actions to do them, so you should have probably spent those feats on other stuff.

But remember, PF2 is pretty easy on retraining. It's okay for people learning the new rules to respec once they figure out how it works.


Ubertron_X wrote:
The fighter has +9 to hit, so he will hit his 3. attack on 16+ while flanking, which is a nice 25% chance. Rogue has +7 to-hit but will also hit his 3. attack on 16+ because of agile weapons.

Do we get a +1 weapon as early as level 2?

I'm assuming the +9 is from +4 proficiency and +4Str, but the extra +1 is from what source?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I'm assuming the +9 is from +4 proficiency and +4Str, but the extra +1 is from what source?

IIRC, Proficiency is +5, being +4 from Expert and +1 from level.

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Playing the game versus white-room simulation. The first encounter in the Fall of Plaguestone (No spoilers) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.