Weighing in...


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, standard 'here's my two cents about 2e' post, ymmv, etc. I played through the playtest material, and dove-tailed into the finished version. I have the great pleasure [insert some sarcasm there] of playing with people who are somewhat stuck in the old ways, so I've heard a LOT of 'oh, I don't like this' without any substantiation other than it's different. Personally, I've kept an open mind, and where I might not agree with some things, I can at least understand where most of it comes from.

The three-action system is a thing of beauty. Even the naysayers in my group like this feature. It takes a bit for new players to get used to it, but overall it's just awesome on several levels. Ancestries honestly could have still been called races, and been done. It's a pointless change, but no big shakes there - I'm still in agreement with a lot of people that half-orcs and half-elves should be their own distinct ancestries, though. I do like the customization/focus that is inherent; not only in ancestries, but also in class.

Signature skills from the playtest were great; I firmly believe certain classes should be allowed to shine in the things they do over others. Signature skills helped that. Shame they got axed, it was disappointing to see them go. I liked the variable rage duration in the playtest as well [with the increasing-difficulty flat rolls]. Made sense and added a sense of excitement, but I understand it getting axed as it could be seen as a more complicated mechanic that doesn't need to be there.

To date, I've only played a barbarian, and while I liked the playtest rage rules, I'm good with the final rage duration as well. Aside from the Giant build being kind of suck due to how enlarge rules work now, I enjoy it. What I DON'T enjoy, is what they've done to druids.

I have yet to play one, but I've built one up to 5th level with the intent of switching in the game I'm in when it makes sense timing-and-storywise. Druids have great spells, this is true; they had great spells even in 1e. But if I'm going to play a spellcaster focus, I generally go for arcane - that's just my style. No, I play druids for that wonderful wild shape. And it's there that I've hit a major contention point.

Even with the Wild build choice; the one thing that wild-shaping druids do is extremely limited in terms of how often they can do it. Aside from regular spell-casting, they use Focus Points. Limited to 3 at the max, and not easy to get it up that high. My 5th level druid work-up has exactly ONE Focus Point. So, great, I can wild shape once before 'refocusing', which isn't always easy [more on that snag later]. Wizards have a good range of spells, fighters can swing their swords all day... but my character, whose entire concept is to turn into a bear and maul enemies..can only do it once. Feels bad, man. I will say, I do enjoy how wild shape works in 2e, with the scaling and all... but being so limited in how often I can use it, I don't know if I'll bother.

If anything, some classes need to have more feats like in the playtest, that give you more Focus Points. I know, -some- feats do that now, but we still have the 3 cap, and those feats now are a lot more scarce than the ones in the playtest.

...Okay, so main gripe over. For the most part, gameplay using the new rules has been fun and interesting, in general. There's been a lot of good changes. Just that there's some bad ones as well. Let's talk about Conditions. For a game that, in part, was meant to simplify rules, there's a BOATLOAD of conditions, and it's a bit overwhelming to keep track of them all. Resonance had a bumpy start in playtest, but they hammered it out, and it works well now. If I'm going to talk about magic though, I need to address the wand issue.

Wands are near pointless now, with how they work; and what irritates me the most about them is the reasoning why - as I understand it, one of the devs didn't like his players 'abusing' healing wands, etc. There's an easy fix there, limit access to such things. No, instead, he took this new system as a way to ruin it for everyone. Not cool, at all. I'm not as old-school as some, but I've been around, and I've never had this ''heal-spamming'' issue that supposedly needed to be addressed.

Again, I understand where a lot of the changes come from, and agree with the rationale. Some things -still- need polishing, however, and since the 'final' version is out, I fear they never will get the refinement they so dearly deserve.

The final issue I'll mention is one that pervades the entire core book and indeed, the way 2e functions. It's obvious that Paizo is trying to reach a wider audience, and new players/GMs. Understandable. But in doing so, they homogenized the experience, expecting that everyone should play in one specific way. Remember my refocusing note? Here's the rub. It feels like the developers feel sessions should all play out in a very specific way; some combat, some travel, some downtime. Anyone who's played in campaigns for any length of time should know it rarely plays out so cleanly as that. In the game I'm in; in the area I'm in, decent rest is never a given - which goes back to the point of not enough focus points/wild shape ability. If I can't 'refocus', I'm screwed after only a fight or two.

It's easy to list my complaints here, as it is for anyone... but I stress again that for the most part, I do enjoy this new version. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, however, and the few glaring errors I've seen keep squeaking. I'll be sticking with PF2E, at least for the foreseeable future; but I am -REALLY- hoping we get some fixes somewhere not too far down the line.

Thank you for attending my TED talk.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Draven Torakhan wrote:


What I DON'T enjoy, is what they've done to druids.

I am running the Age of Ashes adventure path and in it it states that it take 10 minutes to search a room. As a consequence players who need to regain focus find time to do that following most combats (at the expense of doing something else, like searching). Also, between combat healing takes 10 minute. I suspect you'd find that you have more access to your wild shape than you expect. In fact, I'm not sure you'd ever need more than one focus point.


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

I think you might have some weird misconceptions about the way focus plays out for druids- it lasts for a full minute, that's 10 rounds by default, so if you're fighting back to back it stands to reason that you're still wildshaped through those fights until the ten rounds are consumed.

+ you can get perfect form control at level 4, which boosts it to 10 minutes, to not have the opportunity to refocus, you'd have to stop fighting to let time pass (because good luck playing out 100 rounds of combat), keep moving (assuming refocusing requires you to stand still, which it doesn't explicitly and even calls out that it can overlap with other tasks), and run into fights more than once per 10 minute period, for as many periods as you actually have focus points.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Good points, thank you both for keeping it civil. Again, I've yet to play said druid, so you're both quite correct, it very well may play out differently than I'm thinking. It just comes across as severely limited in the reading.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Danbala wrote:
Draven Torakhan wrote:


What I DON'T enjoy, is what they've done to druids.
I am running the Age of Ashes adventure path and in it it states that it take 10 minutes to search a room. As a consequence players who need to regain focus find time to do that following most combats (at the expense of doing something else, like searching). Also, between combat healing takes 10 minute. I suspect you'd find that you have more access to your wild shape than you expect. In fact, I'm not sure you'd ever need more than one focus point.

It seems like the standard cycle for a string of combats is combat->ten minute rest->combat->ten minute rest. I worry that a lot of people are going to get tripped up on this because it isn't as flagrantly codified as 5E's short rest and is more something that you'd be expected to intuit as the replacement for PF1's minute long wand thwapping.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's realistic to always expect a 10-minute break.
Ruins? Likely, though noise might stir up a nearby creature.
Bases? Doubtful, though you might avoid setting alarms or find a hidey-hole.
Hopefully the difficulty level is adjusted to account for the amount of plausible breaks. And hopefully your PC isn't built solely around a Focus Spell you may or may not recharge. Have alternatives and/or more points.

Reminds me of a new guy at my table after a battle. "Let's loot." A veteran shouted, "NO! We MUST heal. Now." He knew they'd stirred up trouble. :)

10 rounds is very little time. You really do need to bash open the next door to keep that going. I haven't checked for it in the final CRB, but the playtest said if you do anything except bash in the next door, your 1 minute spells end. Even if you converse. Essentially you can't leave Encounter Mode and keep your short buffs. Again, that was the playtest and I haven't checked since.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

There should perhaps have been an option to Heighten to get longer durations. But PF2 avoids tying anything to the level of the caster except DCs (which does make a big deal). And PF2 avoids having such extended buffs, so I think Paizo disagrees with your "shoulda".

I appreciate buffs being one-combat or not lasting through a rest period or simply lasting all day. I've run high level parties where we needed a spreadsheet to track dozens(!) of buffs and their durations. I bet Paizo devs have too, and loved their buffs, so it pretty much had to be an intentional choice.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

It's a great houserule if the intent is to make it so that spells that are written to last a single encounter instead last many encounters as you get further up in levels.

By which I mean it's a terrible houserule.


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

Two things came to mind as I was reading your post

1) you haven’t actually played a Druid yet, and over and over I am seeing how actual play often changes people’s minds. Maybe give it a whirl before striking from your list as it were. Additionally, I would imagine you will start seeing feats/archetypes that address your concerns here soonish.

2) modes of play... I think if you read the partsnin the book discussing the modes of play, the designers absolutely do not intend any sort of rigid use of these modes, the exact opposite in fact. If you factor in the last year or so of designer i interviews/conference sessions/etc you will know for a fact it was not their intention to be rigid about the modes.

Just some thoughts that came to mind. Good to hear you are enjoying 2e!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:


It seems like the standard cycle for a string of combats is combat->ten minute rest->combat->ten minute rest. I worry that a lot of people are going to get tripped up on this because it isn't as flagrantly codified as 5E's short rest and is more something that you'd be expected to intuit as the replacement for PF1's minute long wand thwapping.

Agreed. And if the players were particularly curious about a room or needed extra time to heal and didn't feel a sense of urgency, it wasn't unusual for them to take an extra 10 minutes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draven Torakhan wrote:


Even with the Wild build choice; the one thing that wild-shaping druids do is extremely limited in terms of how often they can do it. Aside from regular spell-casting, they use Focus Points. Limited to 3 at the max, and not easy to get it up that high. My 5th level druid work-up has exactly ONE Focus Point. So, great, I can wild shape once before 'refocusing', which isn't always easy [more on that snag later].

That is a mixture of your choice in feats (as you can get more focus points) and you choosing to not take one or more of the form spells as a backup. Most of the time you will have your focus spell as an option, for when you don't have that as an option have a form spell prepared.

The point of the feature isn't to give you an always on switch ability, it is to give you a commonly accessible ability.

Draven Torakhan wrote:


Wands are near pointless now, with how they work; and what irritates me the most about them is the reasoning why - as I understand it, one of the devs didn't like his players 'abusing' healing wands, etc. There's an easy fix there, limit access to such things. No, instead, he took this new system as a way to ruin it for everyone. Not cool, at all. I'm not as old-school as some, but I've been around, and I've never had this ''heal-spamming'' issue that supposedly needed to be addressed.

Disagree with this, there are lots of wands that are very useful. The difference is that lower level wands have less objective value now outside of some specific spells.

Now, since you never ran into CLW spam I gather you weren't a big PF1e player and certainly not in optimized groups. But it was an an annoying contrivance that treat wounds handles a lot better imo.

Wands as they stand are cool situational utility devices, like something on batman's belt.

Draven Torakhan wrote:


The final issue I'll mention is one that pervades the entire core book and indeed, the way 2e functions. It's obvious that Paizo is trying to reach a wider audience, and new players/GMs. Understandable. But in doing so, they homogenized the experience, expecting that everyone should play in one specific way. Remember my refocusing note? Here's the rub. It feels like the developers feel sessions should all play out in a very specific way; some combat, some travel, some downtime. Anyone who's played in campaigns for any length of time should know it rarely plays out so cleanly as that. In the game I'm in; in the area I'm in, decent rest is never a given - which goes back to the point of not enough focus points/wild shape ability. If I can't 'refocus', I'm screwed after only a fight or two.

I disagree with this, there are a lot of standardised expectations, but there is huge amounts of room to adjust those.

For instance your presented issue regarding focus points is what I would consider to be a design feature that gives more tools to the GM toolbox. (and one that is heavily mitigated by getting more, and by preparing emergency spells)

Otherwise they would have gone with a simple "once per encounter" option or "minutes per day" focus resource.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Danbala wrote:
Draven Torakhan wrote:


What I DON'T enjoy, is what they've done to druids.
I am running the Age of Ashes adventure path and in it it states that it take 10 minutes to search a room. As a consequence players who need to regain focus find time to do that following most combats (at the expense of doing something else, like searching). Also, between combat healing takes 10 minute. I suspect you'd find that you have more access to your wild shape than you expect. In fact, I'm not sure you'd ever need more than one focus point.
It seems like the standard cycle for a string of combats is combat->ten minute rest->combat->ten minute rest. I worry that a lot of people are going to get tripped up on this because it isn't as flagrantly codified as 5E's short rest and is more something that you'd be expected to intuit as the replacement for PF1's minute long wand thwapping.

That's how an infamous game back in 2008 worked, I dont think it will necessarily be as strict in PF2.

I think tactics, smart play and luck could let you go tvrohvh 3 80 XP or less fights, but then you need to rest for 30 mins.

That's just a hope anyway. The fight > always rest dynamic was tiring so I just hope Paizo hasn't brought it back.


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

There's a reason why recovery from combat is broken up into specific actions instead of abstract short rests. It's because you are expected to prioritize and manage your time. Do you refocus or get your wounds treated? Do you have enough time to repair your shield? If you have one character who is trained in medicine whose wounds get treated first? Some of our spells are still up. Do we progress or recover? Is someone going to search the room?

This stuff is not meant to be automatic. You will not always have the time to properly recover. If that was the expectation Barbarians would not have a class feat that let them use rage a second time.

This is supposed to be part of game play.


The other thing is that when a lot of buffs are 10 minutes long, it creates a dynamic where if you stop to recover most of your renewable resources (HP, focus, etc), you lose your buffs. So you have to figure out the right balance there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

10 minute buffs definitely help discourage resting for 10 mins or more, however they're only meant to last for 1 or 2 fights. So if your ruling they're lasting several fights, while you certainly can, that's going against what the rules intend.

So buffs only help mitigate the problem somewhat.


I am not a fan of these 10 Minute increments that need to be managed, but it is also not a big Problem. The Thing is, either you are in a time crunch or you aren't. I have yet to Encounter an interesting Adventure where it makes a difference if you rest 10 or 30 minutes.


If I recall, many people hated wand of Claws.


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

John, I disagree here. Considering the average fight lasts less than a minute, a party moving at pace should easily be able to fit three or four fights into a single cast of a ten minute spell.

I don't think the devs would overlook something like that, and in fact there was discussion by the devs, back in the playtest when almost everything was one minute, about wanting there to be "until you rest" buffs.

The one minute buffs are more the "one fight, maybe two" buffs.

Edit to add: Personally, the way I am handling rests and buffs is basically a gentleman's agreement with my players:

Typically, ten minute buffs last until you stop to rest, stop to thoroughly search a room (including looting bodies), or start wasting time (in or out of character).

Meanwhile, you will typically always have ten minutes to rest after an encounter as long as you haven't done something stupid or reckless. I do not, however, promise you will have twenty minutes*.

That's how I read Paizo's intent for things to work, so I just formalized it a bit so everyone is on the same page.

*I use tension dice, for anyone familiar with that system, and the rule I use is that taking a ten minute rest adds a die without rolling - but taking another one in a row adds a die and rolls the pool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

It's a great houserule if the intent is to make it so that spells that are written to last a single encounter instead last many encounters as you get further up in levels.

By which I mean it's a terrible houserule.

I mean it's bad if you hate magic. If you like spells with durations being actually relevant it's good.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

It's a great houserule if the intent is to make it so that spells that are written to last a single encounter instead last many encounters as you get further up in levels.

By which I mean it's a terrible houserule.

So much this. I'm running a PF1 level 20 campaign and I'm in constant arguments with my players who seek to milk out their buffs by insisting that everything they do is at a breakneck pace. And there have been times when they discuss 10 to 20 minutes IRL how to deal with a problem such as a trap in front of them, and they come up against a battle and they yell:

"Haste is still in effect! It would have taken us Two rounds at the most to dispel that magic trap!"

"What do you mean it would've taken us 3 minutes to look through that desk! It would take us 30 seconds AT MOST!"

I like that it takes 10 minutes to do something in exploration mode in PF2 because, the way durations are calculated, there isn't much reason to rush through things to keep your buffs. And it takes all those arguments OFF THE TABLE.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
I think tactics, smart play and luck could let you go tvrohvh 3 80 XP or less fights, but then you need to rest for 30 mins.

Resting more than 10 minutes rapidly runs into diminishing returns. Treat Wounds has a cooldown of 60 minutes on any one target (though if you have a single medic and multiple people who needs treatment you may need several goes at it), and multiple refocuses don't work (because you can only recover focus spent since the last time you refocused).

So 10 minutes is almost always useful, 20 is often useful (because it lets you Treat/Refocus and do something else like Repair or Search), but more than that would likely be rare.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

It's a great houserule if the intent is to make it so that spells that are written to last a single encounter instead last many encounters as you get further up in levels.

By which I mean it's a terrible houserule.

I mean it's bad if you hate magic. If you like spells with durations being actually relevant it's good.

I love magic, and I find your suggested house rule bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

It's a great houserule if the intent is to make it so that spells that are written to last a single encounter instead last many encounters as you get further up in levels.

By which I mean it's a terrible houserule.

I mean it's bad if you hate magic. If you like spells with durations being actually relevant it's good.

By relevant you mean "forever, and I need a spreadsheet to keep track of it"?

No thank you.

If I wanted "Spreadsheets: the Game" I'd play EVE Online.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

It's a great houserule if the intent is to make it so that spells that are written to last a single encounter instead last many encounters as you get further up in levels.

By which I mean it's a terrible houserule.

I mean it's bad if you hate magic. If you like spells with durations being actually relevant it's good.
I love magic, and I find your suggested house rule bad.

Yeah, but do you love magic to the expense of everything that doesn't have magic? If not then you don't really love magic.


Arachnofiend wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

It's a great houserule if the intent is to make it so that spells that are written to last a single encounter instead last many encounters as you get further up in levels.

By which I mean it's a terrible houserule.

I mean it's bad if you hate magic. If you like spells with durations being actually relevant it's good.
I love magic, and I find your suggested house rule bad.
Yeah, but do you love magic to the expense of everything that doesn't have magic? If not then you don't really love magic.

It's not at the expense of anything. I know of 0 fighters who would want the buffs on them to last for less time.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
John, I disagree here.

Disagree as much as you want. Page 499 is clear that 10 min buffs are meant to last 1 or 2 fights. Only 1 hour buffs are meant to last for several fights. If you are allowing 10 min buffs to last several fights then you are making them far more powerful then the devs intend.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I think tactics, smart play and luck could let you go tvrohvh 3 80 XP or less fights, but then you need to rest for 30 mins.

Resting more than 10 minutes rapidly runs into diminishing returns. Treat Wounds has a cooldown of 60 minutes on any one target (though if you have a single medic and multiple people who needs treatment you may need several goes at it), and multiple refocuses don't work (because you can only recover focus spent since the last time you refocused).

So 10 minutes is almost always useful, 20 is often useful (because it lets you Treat/Refocus and do something else like Repair or Search), but more than that would likely be rare.

The 60 min timer is a non issue with 1 feat for HP recovery.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:


It's not at the expense of anything. I know of 0 fighters who would want the buffs on them to last for less time.

I know of 0 fighters who given the choice between being awesome because he is inherently good or being awesome because the wizard decided to offload some low level spells onto him will choose to need the wizard.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
John, I disagree here.
Disagree as much as you want. Page 499 is clear that 10 min buffs are meant to last 1 or 2 fights. Only 1 hour buffs are meant to last for several fights. If you are allowing 10 min buffs to last several fights then you are making them far more powerful then the devs intend.

I'm not in disagreement with your core argument here, but I think one nuance is that the duration of 10 minutes is meant to be variably powerful based off the situation, it's certainly possible to be in several back to back fights (lets say, holding a gate against waves of monsters) across a 10 minute period, in which case those 10 minute spells are going to offer a lot more bang per buck. But since that isn't the norm, it isn't a problem, the player just gets to feel cool about their resource, and shines because of it in a moment where their ability happens to be way more potent (and notably, one where they're being denied the 10 minutes they need to regain focus.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
John, I disagree here.
Disagree as much as you want. Page 499 is clear that 10 min buffs are meant to last 1 or 2 fights. Only 1 hour buffs are meant to last for several fights. If you are allowing 10 min buffs to last several fights then you are making them far more powerful then the devs intend.
I'm not in disagreement with your core argument here, but I think one nuance is that the duration of 10 minutes is meant to be variably powerful based off the situation, it's certainly possible to be in several back to back fights (lets say, holding a gate against waves of monsters) across a 10 minute period, in which case those 10 minute spells are going to offer a lot more bang per buck. But since that isn't the norm, it isn't a problem, the player just gets to feel cool about their resource, and shines because of it in a moment where their ability happens to be way more potent (and notably, one where they're being denied the 10 minutes they need to regain focus.)

Sure. There are definitely very specific situations where it might make sense. But I think those circumstances could be counted on 1 hand across 17 levels. It sounds like its habit and common in Max's game though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:


It's not at the expense of anything. I know of 0 fighters who would want the buffs on them to last for less time.
I know of 0 fighters who given the choice between being awesome because he is inherently good or being awesome because the wizard decided to offload some low level spells onto him will choose to need the wizard.

Ah, so we should just delete all the buff spells then, I see. Nobody would ever want a buff, given the choice between having one and not having one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
John, I disagree here.
Disagree as much as you want. Page 499 is clear that 10 min buffs are meant to last 1 or 2 fights. Only 1 hour buffs are meant to last for several fights. If you are allowing 10 min buffs to last several fights then you are making them far more powerful then the devs intend.
I'm not in disagreement with your core argument here, but I think one nuance is that the duration of 10 minutes is meant to be variably powerful based off the situation, it's certainly possible to be in several back to back fights (lets say, holding a gate against waves of monsters) across a 10 minute period, in which case those 10 minute spells are going to offer a lot more bang per buck. But since that isn't the norm, it isn't a problem, the player just gets to feel cool about their resource, and shines because of it in a moment where their ability happens to be way more potent (and notably, one where they're being denied the 10 minutes they need to regain focus.)

Fights coming in rapid succession over one 10 minute period probably should be planned out like one or two extended encounters rather than 5 or 6 encounters because the reinforcements should probably be planned out to start arriving in 5 to 10 round increments (if you want to keep it interesting), with maybe one 20 round break if the PCs manage to accomplish one particular task during the encounter (closing a gate, destroying a bridge, etc) and it is very likely you will be overwhelming your party if you, as GM, are thinking of them as 6 medium encounters instead of one to two extreme to severe encounters.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:


It's not at the expense of anything. I know of 0 fighters who would want the buffs on them to last for less time.
I know of 0 fighters who given the choice between being awesome because he is inherently good or being awesome because the wizard decided to offload some low level spells onto him will choose to need the wizard.
Ah, so we should just delete all the buff spells then, I see. Nobody would ever want a buff, given the choice between having one and not having one.

I think this argument is disingenuous. Having buffs that last most of the adventuring day necessitates that buff by feeling mandatory. Having buffs that are meant to last an encounter or two makes it much more balanced in terms of measuring the impact of the spell.

From a tactical point of view, casting your buff spell in the right fight at the right time feels much more impactful than set it and forget it buffing. There is nuance to the design of buffs beyond “they last a significant duration or we should delete them”.


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

As someone who likes to play spell casters I am a fan of most of the changes to spell duration because I like when I cast spells to matter. I like that to get the most of my spells I must make tactical and strategic decisions. I like that I could make the wrong call.

Playing a spell caster should be engaging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Duration House Rule I have implemented is as follows:

Duration = Listed Duration + (Duration/10*Level).

So, a Level 5 caster, using a spell that lasts 1 minute, would get 15 rounds of effect. (1 Minute + (10 rds/ 10)*5)

Is it a GOOD houserule? Jury is still out, and will be for months. But, it gives a mild compromise as we find out how the system works for us.

Will it break the game expectations? I ... don't ... think so. The increase is slight enough, even on the longer duration effects, that all it really does, is help discourage the 'rush rush rush' mentality imo.

Time will tell.


Draven Torakhan wrote:
Good points, thank you both for keeping it civil. Again, I've yet to play said druid, so you're both quite correct, it very well may play out differently than I'm thinking. It just comes across as severely limited in the reading.

The one minute duration seems really limiting when you glance at it but it being 10 rounds of combat you should have it basically through the entire fight and probably then some. Same with rage unless something really weird is going on one way or the other most combats don't tend to last 10 rounds of combat. And the focus stuff is something you are pretty much expected to regain pretty often basically you should have it up for every major encounter.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and replies.


The Rot Grub wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

It's a great houserule if the intent is to make it so that spells that are written to last a single encounter instead last many encounters as you get further up in levels.

By which I mean it's a terrible houserule.

So much this. I'm running a PF1 level 20 campaign and I'm in constant arguments with my players who seek to milk out their buffs by insisting that everything they do is at a breakneck pace. And there have been times when they discuss 10 to 20 minutes IRL how to deal with a problem such as a trap in front of them, and they come up against a battle and they yell:

"Haste is still in effect! It would have taken us Two rounds at the most to dispel that magic trap!"

"What do you mean it would've taken us 3 minutes to look through that desk! It would take us 30 seconds AT MOST!"

I like that it takes 10 minutes to do something in exploration mode in PF2 because, the way durations are calculated, there isn't much reason to rush through things to keep your buffs. And it takes all those arguments OFF THE TABLE.

yeah basically it makes it real simple. Just act well did you take a 10 minute rest or not. both options have their positives and negatives.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like if the buff is gonna last the whole day it should of just been a magic item. One combat is my preference. I have no problem making the caster memorize a spell more then once if he wants it to affect more then 1-2 fights.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Druid level 1 to have wild shape up for every single fight. There might be a couple back to back fights, where you won't have it for the second one. But Druid has a lot more going on than just wild shape, so you'll be fine using those other options. I dont think this is an issue; I think 4e is the only edition where a level 1 Druid can be in wild shape whenever they want, and they achieved that by wild shape only changing your accessible powers, not your stats. I personally wouldn't want that homogenizing of the Druid's iconic ability.


Wow. I didn't expect this thread to blow up as big as it has. As always, thank you to those who have offered well-reasoned and well-stated replies throughout.

I'm going to wait and see, though my GM is already looking at house-ruling a lot of stuff, so who knows, but some valid points were made. My biggest issue with the druid, though, wasn't so much the duration; as much as the number of times it can be done. Different playstyles, etc - in the games I play it, it's not uncommon at all to not even get 10 minutes of downtime before someone else comes at you. But, we shall see what we shall see.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Weighing in... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.