Count me an unlikely convert to 2e.


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

37 people marked this as a favorite.

First of all, I'm well aware this post is 100% subjective opinion and experience. Troper, you've been warned.

So I started off extremely skeptical of Second Edition. The playtest pretty much confirmed my fears. I tried out an early iteration of the playtest as well as watched later variants on GCP streams (obviously, not the best on rules- but not the worst either). There was a lot of stuff that I didn't like- but that's relevant to my point.

When I make a judgement call on a system (and I've played a lot of them in the past 10 years), I tend to be right. You could call it confirmation bias, but I try to give each system a fair chance and deep down I want every game to be awesome.

But in the case of PF2e I had a vested interest- I love PF1e (original flavor). Even if I despised PF2e and never played it, I'd want it to be a huge success- Paizo is an amazing company and even just for the AP's I'd want to see them keep publishing instead of relegated to a 3rd party D&D 5e publisher with a few side projects. I still have that fear, even with my change of opinion on Second Edition- financial success and product quality aren't always closely related. I should state that I also play 5e in addition to a half dozen other systems when I get the chance- Powered by the Apocalypse games, Fate, Stars Without Number, Blades in the Dark, Darkshine, 5e, PF1e, and a few others I can't think of. I enjoy all of them, so this isn't an edition wars thing.

But to get to the point... in playtesting PF2e I've come to a few conclusions.

1) The book is gorgeous, brilliantly laid out, and I was going to buy it even if I didn't like the system.

2) The game itself is ridiculously fun to play, and scales much better at higher levels than PF1e.

3) PF2e is actually straightforward enough that I feel like I can introduce it to casual gamer friends without worrying about them getting fatigued or confused.

4) Character creation is so much fun and addictive.

5) GMing is really straightforward compared to PF1e, but way more interesting than 5e. Whenever I run 5e, I have to completely rebuild monsters to make them interesting to fun (they barely utilize their action economy). I don't have this issue with PF2e.

6) I'm insanely excited about what's to come. I'm a loyal customer already, but I may actually get a subscription.

7) If you don't think you'd like PF2e, give it a try in it's finished condition. Maybe you'll enjoy it. Maybe you won't. But it's worth a shot- if after a few sessions you don't like it, no worries, it's not for you. But that's a lot of games- they're not for everyone.

Keep in mind, whatever your opinions, this is someone who really had strong reservations against Second Edition, and had their mind changed not by some argument on the forums or fancy advertising, but just *playing the game*.

So yeah, I guess whatever you think about Second Edition, have a nice day?


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

Not gonna lie I was reading this whole thing waiting for the "But..."

read the title as "Count me as unlikely to convert", set the whole tone different then expected.

There is always a certain feel you get from looking at the rules, that doesn't always capture when you dive in. I recall when D&D 4e came out I actually had the opinion a lot of people did summarized roughly by (incoherent screeching noises followed by exclamations of it not being D&D and having no depth or world feel). I now consider it one of my favorites of all time (However it is a different type of game, for different types of play).

Best advice is to not try to judge by the rules, understand them, understand why, and give them a shot with as little bias as humanly possible. They may have defined a new paradigm a new flow your not used to, try to go with that flow not against it just because it's different. After that if you don't like it well then it's not for you, but you can't define something new based on what it is not, only what it is.

I also had my doubts from the playtest, my Group hated the game from what the playtest showed and almost wasn't willing to play the final release, but we gave the final release a real shot and love it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Yeah, my friends and I all had a similar experience to the OP.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Its almost like the playtest was just to test certain ideas and features and not an accurate indication of the final product.

Really glad to see people giving the final product a chance after all the mid-playtest "I'll never play 2e" posts people where making.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Glad you're liking it! It seems like you played the Playtest some. Care to say more what you found different from your playtest experience?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Cool to hear! Thanks for sharing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Update: I'm strongly considering converting my Hell's Rebels campaign from 1e to 2e. Just finished book 3, PC's are level 9.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
Update: I'm strongly considering converting my Hell's Rebels campaign from 1e to 2e. Just finished book 3, PC's are level 9.

If you do I hope you'll consider throwing up some of your conversion notes here on the forum. Hell's Rebels is one of my favorite APs and I'd like to see suggestions on how to swap it over.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Artofregicide wrote:
Update: I'm strongly considering converting my Hell's Rebels campaign from 1e to 2e. Just finished book 3, PC's are level 9.

Super interested in any notes/ideas - I'm running a PF1 Hell's Rebels game, we're midway through book 4, considering switching to PF2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The body of the OP's post makes so much more sense when I actually read it, as opposed to glancing at it and believing it states 'Count me unlikely to convert to 2e.' lol

Great post, though!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Erpa wrote:

The body of the OP's post makes so much more sense when I actually read it, as opposed to glancing at it and believing it states 'Count me unlikely to convert to 2e.' lol

Great post, though!

Yeah... in retrospect I should have picked a more clear title.

My original was "I want to hate 2e but..." but I felt like that was too inflammatory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
I hope you'll consider throwing up some of your conversion notes here on the forum

To the OP: If you're eating your conversion notes, that can't be good for you. And throwing them up again is even worse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

He makes his conversion notes out of cake frosting. It's all good, if illegible once it gets here.


You could always print out your notes literally on cakes...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

When I learned that 2E wasn't going to be backwards-compatible with 1e adventure paths, I decided not to bother with it.

Now that I've actually read the finished product, I'm madly in love and will put up with the extra work, because I know my players will have a great time with 2E!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Still on the fence about switching over. I have too much material from 1E yet hearing the many positive things they have been saying about 2E may just push me towards getting it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Particular Jones wrote:
Still on the fence about switching over. I have too much material from 1E yet hearing the many positive things they have been saying about 2E may just push me towards getting it.

give it a try, everything rules wise is free and the most recent blog post was about a free adventure so you/your md doesn't even have to invest design time


Malk_Content wrote:
Particular Jones wrote:
Still on the fence about switching over. I have too much material from 1E yet hearing the many positive things they have been saying about 2E may just push me towards getting it.
give it a try, everything rules wise is free and the most recent blog post was about a free adventure so you/your md doesn't even have to invest design time

Life gets in the way. Between a new car and getting married next year. at the moment I can't justify it both on a personal level and to my fiance buying into the new edition for now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Krathanos wrote:

When I learned that 2E wasn't going to be backwards-compatible with 1e adventure paths, I decided not to bother with it.

Now that I've actually read the finished product, I'm madly in love and will put up with the extra work, because I know my players will have a great time with 2E!

I have stopped playing PF1 a couple of years ago and I have to say the APs still offer great value even when I haven't been running them. I'm now running book 1 of Tyrant's Grasp in PF2 and the only thing that has been a slight headache to convert is the treasure and loot.

I think that shows that keeping an open mind and not judging beforehand is beneficial in most cases.


Gorbacz wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
Update: I'm strongly considering converting my Hell's Rebels campaign from 1e to 2e. Just finished book 3, PC's are level 9.
Super interested in any notes/ideas - I'm running a PF1 Hell's Rebels game, we're midway through book 4, considering switching to PF2.

I enacted a swap at the end of book 4, and we'll be seeing how that goes. Though I'm decently happy with how it's gone thus far, I also haven't gone through that much yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
You could always print out your notes literally on cakes...

Wouldn't that run the risk of Lex Luthor stealing them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Look OP, it is simple for me really. There are a number of grievances that I could list regarding 2E, but the one that breaks the deal and "can't" be fixed is simple, magic was crap.

I mean... it could fixed if I literally wasted my time rewriting spell after spell and then adding ones removed... but let's be real, no way I'm spending the time doing that.

So yeah, there and then it is over. No way I'm playing 2E, cause I can overlook the rest, but I sure ain't overlooking this.

As long as my main table doesn't either, hey, I'm fine. May others play 2E for the next 10 years till 3E.

Still, it is interesting gaining a perspective about 2E from this forums since I'm not going to be playing it.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say magic has an actual high skill ceiling now and a high skill floor. For three editions that was the goal, but mostly amounted to people finding the most binary op spells and spamming them until something better came online.

Now tactics matter for magic. At least that’s how I’ve experienced it thus far. On paper, it looks like a nerf, but in reality it’s still strong.

If anyone here is a fan of mobas, it reminds of when lee sin gets nerfed. Every time it happens people say he’s garbage, and then it turns out he’s not garbage you just play him a little different and he’s still s tier as a champion (haven’t played in years so maybe it’s actually different now).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your post was a confusing read thanks to the title. I misread it as "count me unlikely to convert to pf2e" and then I read all the praise and sat there thinking "are these reasons to not play, this is odd"

-laughs-

Nope just me failing to read properly.


Honestly same here. The playtest had some seriously awful design decisions in it (literally everything resonance, for example) that just made me doubt the quality of the final product.

I actually can't believe how much they listened to the player base and how much they ended up changing. It's...actually really smooth. It's not everything I wanted, but whatever changes needed can either be patched with houserules with no effort or turned out to be typos.

I still like PF1e for the sheer volume of options, but I would definitely be switching once a few more books get released.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

I would say magic has an actual high skill ceiling now and a high skill floor. For three editions that was the goal, but mostly amounted to people finding the most binary op spells and spamming them until something better came online.

Now tactics matter for magic. At least that’s how I’ve experienced it thus far. On paper, it looks like a nerf, but in reality it’s still strong.

Yeah after hearing how Wizards were trash tier now and fighters rock, I was plenty surprised how not true this was in play (Fighters still rock, but I don't think a party is better with another Fighter>Wizard as was argued). Maybe they need to actually think in combat now, and make use of knowledge skills (depending how much the GM let's them know), but a lot of creatures tend to still have a really bad save. Out of combat I still find them full of world altering utility. Given the GM Guide reveal on how they will be stating up NPCs (A Master Baker/Lawyer/Etc can still have a combat level of 1 but a Challenge Rating of 7+ for a Bake-off/Court challenge, as opposed to Lv. 7 Expert from 1e) Critical Failure and low level manipulation spells become still very valid (Charm/Illusions) as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

I would say magic has an actual high skill ceiling now and a high skill floor. For three editions that was the goal, but mostly amounted to people finding the most binary op spells and spamming them until something better came online.

Now tactics matter for magic. At least that’s how I’ve experienced it thus far. On paper, it looks like a nerf, but in reality it’s still strong.

If anyone here is a fan of mobas, it reminds of when lee sin gets nerfed. Every time it happens people say he’s garbage, and then it turns out he’s not garbage you just play him a little different and he’s still s tier as a champion (haven’t played in years so maybe it’s actually different now).

Nope, i disagree heavily.

There is only on paper for plenty of spells.

There is no high skill ceiling for unseen servant that lasts "10 minutes", if you actually keep it for 10 minutes, oh boy prepare for consequences.

Duration, was nerfed across the board, with one spell here and there being saved. Save or Die became critically Fail or be mildly/lightly inconvenienced for a short while for plenty of spells... Some buffs dont even make sense to me, like haste, i cant see why in gods name i would ever cast this spell till 7th circle and by then i would likely want something else in such slot anyway...

Due to the new balancing, apparently damage spells kinda work, if you spend enough other spells to support landing them well anyway.

I will give you that, when all yours spells are much weaker, you better be by far the most intelligent and capable person sitting on that table, cause you have a limited number of short duration spells to make count, missing will cost you. So high skill ceiling, if that is what you were going for.

Mages became "The guys who are fancy for a few minutes a day". Which for a fantasy setting kills any and all my interest in playing it. Their utility was reduced to pretty much battle and one offs.

Luckily, I have my main group and we will continue with PF1, in which magic is still fantastical, and other systems in which it doesnt have to be, instead of it.

Ofc, i understand it is the game for others, but as long as i can keep it away from this table, i really dont care.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What's the point of martials if casters could outshine them in contribution more than 50% of the total playtime? The old free scaling for raw power and duration was a big offender in that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
So I started off extremely skeptical of Second Edition

I'm really glad to hear you decided to give it a chance and have enjoyed it :) I've got my second session of PF2e tonight so we'll see how it goes :) I'm giving it a 3 month trial before deciding what to do going forward (I'm really not a fan of D&D 5e but it and White Wolf's games are pretty much the only game system played around these parts).

I'm hoping I enjoy it as much as you clearly have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

I would say magic has an actual high skill ceiling now and a high skill floor. For three editions that was the goal, but mostly amounted to people finding the most binary op spells and spamming them until something better came online.

Now tactics matter for magic. At least that’s how I’ve experienced it thus far. On paper, it looks like a nerf, but in reality it’s still strong.

If anyone here is a fan of mobas, it reminds of when lee sin gets nerfed. Every time it happens people say he’s garbage, and then it turns out he’s not garbage you just play him a little different and he’s still s tier as a champion (haven’t played in years so maybe it’s actually different now).

Nope, i disagree heavily.

There is only on paper for plenty of spells.

There is no high skill ceiling for unseen servant that lasts "10 minutes", if you actually keep it for 10 minutes, oh boy prepare for consequences.

Duration, was nerfed across the board, with one spell here and there being saved. Save or Die became critically Fail or be mildly/lightly inconvenienced for a short while for plenty of spells... Some buffs dont even make sense to me, like haste, i cant see why in gods name i would ever cast this spell till 7th circle and by then i would likely want something else in such slot anyway...

Due to the new balancing, apparently damage spells kinda work, if you spend enough other spells to support landing them well anyway.

I will give you that, when all yours spells are much weaker, you better be by far the most intelligent and capable person sitting on that table, cause you have a limited number of short duration spells to make count, missing will cost you. So high skill ceiling, if that is what you were going for.

Mages became "The guys who are fancy for a few minutes a day". Which for a fantasy setting kills any and all my interest in playing it. Their utility was reduced to pretty much battle and one offs.

Luckily, I have my main group and we will continue with PF1, in...

I’m curious what you view the role of non-casters to be. I’ve heard this argument that lowered durations and removal of Save-or-die spells ruins casters but I’m not sure I completely grok the argument and how it fits in with other characters.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'm giving it a 3 month trial before deciding what to do going forward

Pretty much the same for me: I'm waiting until the gamemastery guide comes out and I see the optional rules look like. Until then, I'll be playing a few games here and there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Paizo is an amazing company and even just for the AP's I'd want to see them keep publishing instead of relegated to a 3rd party D&D 5e publisher with a few side projects.

I can't say with absolute certainty because I don't have the sales numbers, but what reports I've seen indicate that PF2 has been quite successful; it was a huge hit at its Gencon launch and has even made some waves outside of the "hardcore gamer" market enough to break into top seller lists on Amazon.

I doubt it'll compete with 5e, because nothing short of tabletop gaming going back to a niche hobby will lead to 5e dropping off its pedestal, but a solid #2 is more than enough for a company like Paizo to keep doing what they do for the foreseeable future.


I bought it and have been enjoying it tremendously running it for just two PCs, but they'll never fully convert me until I get Changeling and Winter Witch back.

I just hope the Enchanter I built doesn't suck.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Nope, i disagree heavily.

There is only on paper for plenty of spells.

I want to say, when you start with an assumption that you "cannot be wrong and only paper matters" in the current system, then you're really losing sight of what the current system has done for the game.

And this is from someone that, like OP, was very critical during the Playtest (though I had more faith it would come out decent).

Quote:


There is no high skill ceiling for unseen servant that lasts "10 minutes", if you actually keep it for 10 minutes, oh boy prepare for consequences.

Unseen Servant wasn't/isn't what made casters powerful though. It was a tame spell used to resolve mundane tasks. Now, it's not altogether needed.

I wouldn't argue that it wasn't nerfed, it was, I just don't think it's a big deal. I realize that's subjective, and I'm sorry that it does upset you.

Quote:
Duration, was nerfed across the board, with one spell here and there being saved.

Duration was "nerfed" but the value of short durations went up, in my opinion. There are now more resources to spend, actions are more plentiful and diverse.

"One round" in the previous edition meant 1 set of attacks and a five foot step.

One round in the current edition would mean 3 actions of varying nature, no 2/3 action actions, etc.

Not to mention, by the time 7th level was hit in the previous edition, duration was trivial.

As a GM, I always felt the "hurry up and rush to find more enemies so we can keep using our buffs!" mentality to be antithetical to the themes of the game. That's the type of thing you'd expect out of a video game, but TTRPG it felt very off to me.

Quote:
Save or Die became critically Fail or be mildly/lightly inconvenienced for a short while for plenty of spells...

Save or Die didn't really exist in PF1, and in PF1 I was happy they dialed the SoD stuff back.

You wanna know what I thought felt equally bad? When players would blow their highest level spell and get nothing out of the boss because if I had been stupid enough to let them fight a boss with a low save the fight would be over instantly.

It's not hard to kill anything when it's asleep, unconscious, or paralyzed.

So what's happened is there's been a trade. You are slightly less effective against mooks than you were in the previous edition as a caster (though I'd still say you get CF more often than F as I've seen) but you can actually spend SoS on bosses for value.

Quote:
Due to the new balancing, apparently damage spells kinda work, if you spend enough other spells to support landing them well anyway.

They work period. True Strike isn't really needed except for something like Disintegrate.

And Disintegrate was busted good for a long time.

Quote:
I will give you that, when all yours spells are much weaker, you better be by far the most intelligent and capable person sitting on that table

There not all much weaker to the point that it requires you to be smart.

But let's not act like the "point and shoot" from the previous edition required any real tactics.

Most tactics amount to tedious AoE selections to get the most enemies or miss allies.

I did have people use spells creatively, but it was certainly not required in the least to be the most effective person on the battlefield.

Quote:
Mages became "The guys who are fancy for a few minutes a day". Which for a fantasy setting kills any and all my interest in playing it. Their utility was reduced to pretty much battle and one offs.

Except that Cantrips are now extremely good and are available all day, as well as Casters now actually getting to participate in the Skill system when previously they were relegated to Knowledge checks or CHA based casters operating as a face for the party by extension of not being awkward to talk to.

A lot of gloom and doom to be preaching without playing the final product. You can't claim to know casters/magic are "weak" when you haven't seen it working in it's intended environment. You're looking at it from the perspective of the previous edition.

Not that I have any issues with those that prefer PF1, but if you didn't taste the actual recipe, forgive me if I take that kind of criticism with a grain of salt.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If there's one thing I've seen from trying to read the rules vs. actually playing them is that there is a lot of subtlety that makes play mostly smooth and make sense. I don't think it's really possible to fairly judge the magic system without seeing it in context. That extra action on a single target haste doesn't seem like a lot until you sit there trying to figure out which action to use in your third action slot as a martial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To each their own, because comparing the two systems (despite the temptation) is a bit of an apples and oranges problem in regards to pure mechanics.

That said, I'd say overall magic has clearly been nerfed, though not as badly as in the playtest. There's some areas that are stronger (cantrips, handful of spells, effects on save, double damage on critical failure) and an equal number of more or less equivalent power spells. That said more than half of spells have been nerfed (especially durations) and most buff spells have been removed entirely.

Long story short, magic is worse in 2e. It's worse than D&D 5e too (which is super unbalanced but fun). I've played level 1 and 5, and in both casters spent most of their time casting cantrips or fighting like martials with spells for healing or backup. That said, a lucky charm spell and well placed fireball completely an encounter. That said, playing spellcasters was still fun, just different.

I guess I disagree that magic has a higher floor or ceiling (my opinion solely). Like 5e, it's a lot simpler, less spells to juggle, more streamlined. Better for casual and narrative first gamers.

If I want to play a complex, magic rich game I'll play PF1e. I'm not abandoning it. But most of my friends aren't into that, and I'd rather them play a Paizo product than 5e (which is fine in it's own right).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, my argument would be that more permutations of magic makes it more valuable.

So when we say "it's weaker", it's contextual.

Weaker how? In total influence in combat?

Maybe

I believe the new system augments combat roles and tactics in at least as good a way as previous, more so now that others can take advantage of the things you offer in an agreeable way.

Resistances being frequent, plentiful, and thematically present in almost every creature makes a huge difference. Now choosing the right spell actually matters, instead of spending investments over and over until X is always the right spell.

Hyperbole: People weren't really playing "casters" so much in the previous edition as they were playing glorified Wands of X with umpteen feats to back up the power of that particular spell.

Now the above, as I preempted, is a hyperbole, but there is some truth to it.

We're coming at the new edition with no directions/meta/anything on how to use spells. People are still figuring it out.

The fact that spamming Sleep/Color Spray until level 4 is no longer a thing is a healthy part of the game.

Buffs will eventually be present, and likely will come in the form of augmented bonuses for specific things instead of straight damage increases or number bumps.

We also have to keep in mind that because bonuses are no longer things you can realistically give out on a whim, spells need to change to accommodate that. So old spells where all they did was that, while objectively strong, aren't doable without massively breaking the game.

Nor were they particularly "interesting" anyways. I've never had Bull's Strength and that alone made me go "WOW!"

I would also argue that what happened was the distribution of power among spells became more even.

Damage Spells are vastly better, as are Illusion Spells which suffered from core mechanics issues that rendered them problematic.

Cantrips are vastly better, offering an all day (and potent choice) to your daily spells.

Now instead of Enchantment/Conjuration spells >>>>> everything else, it's situational. Knowing when to use a spell and having the right spell on hand actually matters.

Now to remedy the "I didn't pick a good list today" that comes with that, Cantrips of considerably longevity were introduced, giving them a good fall back if the main spell cast can't deal with the current day.

If in a year people still thought "magic was terrible" I'd be surprised is all I'm saying. Magic is going to take more time to figure out than Sudden Charge.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:


Nope, i disagree heavily.

There is only on paper for plenty of spells.

There is no high skill ceiling for unseen servant that lasts "10 minutes", if you actually keep it for 10 minutes, oh boy prepare for consequences.

Duration, was nerfed across the board, with one spell here and there being saved. Save or Die became critically Fail or be mildly/lightly inconvenienced for a short while for plenty of spells... Some buffs dont even make sense to me, like haste, i cant see why in gods name i would ever cast this spell till 7th circle and by then i would likely want something else in such slot anyway...

Due to the new balancing, apparently damage spells kinda work, if you spend enough other spells to support landing them well anyway.

I will give you that, when all yours spells are much weaker, you better be by far the most intelligent and capable person sitting on that table, cause you have a limited number of short duration spells to make count, missing will cost you. So high skill ceiling, if that is what you were going for.

Mages became "The guys who are fancy for a few minutes a day". Which for a fantasy setting kills any and all my interest in playing it. Their utility was reduced to pretty much battle and one offs.

Luckily, I have my main group and we will continue with PF1, in...

"Nerf" has a negative connotation. But if the spell was too powerful to begin with, then I think it's a positive.

As for Haste, it is now not an automatic choice for 3rd-level spells. That extra stride or strike is actually quite useful if you think about it, or if you actually try the new system...

The cleric can now move into a strategic position before doing a 3-action area heal, or an area attack against undead.

The ranger can now Hunt Prey or demoralize his target to lower its AC before doing 3 attacks.

The giant instinct barbarian can stride into the middle of enemies and do a 3-action whirlwind attack against everyone within her reach.

The druid can now cast a magical buff on her animal companion mount, command it to move forward and attack, and make an attack herself.

The spellcaster can Sustain an important spell and still be able to cast more spells while moving around the battlefield or applying metamagic to them. And she can use metamagic to enhance a spell without having to stand still.

The rogue can spend an action Feinting and still have a fair number of Strikes to take advantage of the Feint.

The list goes on and on.

Yes, casters need to be more "intelligent" in 2nd Edition. But I don't join your hyperbole in saying that they have to be "by far the most intelligent and capable person at the table." Because you're underestimating the martials, who now have more options on their turn than they used to especially as they gain more feats, get talismans, etc. To me the fact that players need to be "more intelligent" is a good thing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Wouldn't that run the risk of Lex Luthor stealing them?

Only if you've got 40 pages of notes. That's as many as four tens.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Wouldn't that run the risk of Lex Luthor stealing them?

Only if you've got 40 pages of notes. That's as many as four tens.

And that's terrible.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
dirtypool wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Wouldn't that run the risk of Lex Luthor stealing them?

Only if you've got 40 pages of notes. That's as many as four tens.

And that's terrible.

I thought you were going to say it was tenuous.

For anyone also planning on running 2e Hell's Rebels, I've found my major difficulty thus far is converting monsters, and finding interesting yet thematic abilities for them.


Cyouni wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
dirtypool wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Wouldn't that run the risk of Lex Luthor stealing them?

Only if you've got 40 pages of notes. That's as many as four tens.

And that's terrible.

I thought you were going to say it was tenuous.

For anyone also planning on running 2e Hell's Rebels, I've found my major difficulty thus far is converting monsters, and finding interesting yet thematic abilities for them.

Which ones specifically?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the ability to cast multiple spells per turn (or cast and attack in the same turn) is a pretty big buff to casters.


Cyouni wrote:

I thought you were going to say it was tenuous.

For anyone also planning on running 2e Hell's Rebels, I've found my major difficulty thus far is converting monsters, and finding interesting yet thematic abilities for them.

I haven't done a lot of converting yet, but on first glance I thought it would be the thematic abilities that would be the easiest to convert?


Tender Tendrils wrote:
I think the ability to cast multiple spells per turn (or cast and attack in the same turn) is a pretty big buff to casters.

And it will only get stronger as more spells are released and more Metamagic Class Feats with action adjustments come out, even Archetypes that improve certain spells action economies (like summons).

Not to mention if they go back and give spells a “additional action” pass in the same way Heal and Magic Missile have them.

It’s a permutation game. If anything Paizo is going to have to be diligent since they’ll have to account for spell combinations now, which realistically last edition was a non issue.


Perhaps the Roof is 5 spells?

<A> Spell One
<A> Spell Two
<A> Spell Three
<F> Spell Four
<R> Spell Five


rainzax wrote:

Perhaps the Roof is 5 spells?

<A> Spell One
<A> Spell Two
<A> Spell Three
<F> Spell Four
<R> Spell Five

Potentially but I’d be strongly in favor of no free action spells, reactions covers things like Feather Fall and the like and spells should probably command some kind of effort regardless (aka reaction is the new swift/immediate)

Time will tell what they decide to do. Spell blending could also become a thing.


Free action spell from haste, I assume.


BellyBeard wrote:
Free action spell from haste, I assume.

I thought haste was restricted to stride and strike, is there a work around or are we speaking the Bard?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
Free action spell from haste, I assume.
I thought haste was restricted to stride and strike, is there a work around or are we speaking the Bard?

Assume I'm wrong, and it's the other thing, since I actually don't know and was just guessing. :)

1 to 50 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Count me an unlikely convert to 2e. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.