Things you assume from 3.5 / PF1 but are different in PF2!

[Angel Hunter D]

Ravingdork wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.

That would be seriously cool.

Aw man, I could totally see a swashbuckler/gunslinger archetype that let's them draw and fire off a wand in on action, or like one of those multi coloured pens that you need to slide the coloured bit down on, but for magic.

[Tectorman]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.

That would be seriously cool.

Aw man, I could totally see a swashbuckler/gunslinger archetype that let's them draw and fire off a wand in on action, or like one of those multi coloured pens that you need to slide the coloured bit down on, but for magic.

We already know what the Swashbuckler version of that would look like.

[Garretmander]

Another thing that's different in this edition, melee range spells don't necessarily require an attack roll.

[Claxon]

Have we mentioned that you're not flat-footed in the first round of combat anymore?

Except for rogue which have an ability which specifically grants that (Surprise Attack).

[Gorbacz]

I think we should start with mentioning that surprise rounds are gone, because I've already played two PF2e games where everybody forgot about that :)

[Uchuujin]

Claxon wrote:

Have we mentioned that you're not flat-footed in the first round of combat anymore?

Except for rogue which have an ability which specifically grants that (Surprise Attack).

That took one of our GMs by surprise, and turned a crit against me back into a regular hit once I pointed it out.

[Temperans]

The wizard discussion posted something very interesting.

Illusions spells actually have rules as to what counts as interacting. No more (or at least reduced) arguing about how useful illusions are.

[Mellored]

Barbarian can cast most spells while raging.

Such as dirge of doom, for a singing rage.

[vagrant-poet]

Mellored wrote:

Barbarian can cast most spells while raging.

Such as dirge of doom, for a singing rage.

Can they? They can't concentrate, and verbal components are concentrate. Unless you mean while using the Moment of Clarity feat.

[Saros Palanthios]

Mellored wrote:

Barbarian can cast most spells while raging.

Such as dirge of doom, for a singing rage.

No they can't. Spells with a Verbal component (i.e. almost all spells) have the Concentrate trait, which means they can't be cast while raging. Using Silent Spell metamagic doesn't help since that also has the Concentrate trait.

[Claxon]

Gorbacz wrote:

I think we should start with mentioning that surprise rounds are gone, because I've already played two PF2e games where everybody forgot about that :)

That's sort of true sort of not. I believe there's a passage in the rules that gives GMs discretion to occasionally allow a surprise round. I forget where it was said.

I only remember this because I dot into a discussion about stealth and how the events should play out.

But generally speaking, no surprise round. You just roll initiative (with some people potentially using Stealth instead of Perception, and sometimes even Deception) and if the person hiding fails to act first it's because the opposing person was able to detect them.

The fact that perception now acts as init, as well as stealth acting as init makes things a lot smoother.

[Ramanujan]

Claxon wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

I think we should start with mentioning that surprise rounds are gone, because I've already played two PF2e games where everybody forgot about that :)

That's sort of true sort of not. I believe there's a passage in the rules that gives GMs discretion to occasionally allow a surprise round. I forget where it was said.

I only remember this because I dot into a discussion about stealth and how the events should play out.

But generally speaking, no surprise round. You just roll initiative (with some people potentially using Stealth instead of Perception, and sometimes even Deception) and if the person hiding fails to act first it's because the opposing person was able to detect them.

The fact that perception now acts as init, as well as stealth acting as init makes things a lot smoother.

It’s possibly possible to ‘cheat’ a surprise round into existence. I’m not certain:

Enter combat mode with everyone in stealth. Perhaps they are considering sneaking around?

The hidden party delays their actions until initiative 0, then attacks. The enemy have already passed this turn, or spent it taking non combat activities as they were unaware of impending combat.

Next turn happens as normal.

[HammerJack]

Next turn happens as normal, but with the party all at initiative zero. So that clusters initiative into all PCS. Followed by all enemies, but it's not buying anyone an extra round.

[SuperBidi]

Drawing a weapon triggers attacks of opportunity.

[Ed Reppert]

Claxon wrote:

I believe there's a passage in the rules that gives GMs discretion to occasionally allow a surprise round. I forget where it was said.

CRB page 499.

[Claxon]

HammerJack wrote:

Next turn happens as normal, but with the party all at initiative zero. So that clusters initiative into all PCS. Followed by all enemies, but it's not buying anyone an extra round.

Here is the discussion I was referring to. It was slightly different than what I recall, but in there is a quote to support traps or foes sometimes acting (as a reaction) before regular initiative is rolled.

Still it's not a surprise round in the PF1 sense and no real guidance on when it should be allowed.

Generally I would advise ambushers who catch someone unaware get a single action and the ambushers roll init using stealth and everything proceeds as normal otherwise.

[AsmodeusDM]

-Being prone doesn't grant you any bonus to your AC vs. ranged (it just makes you flat-footed)

-You can hide, even while being observed, as long as you have cover or concealment.

- Flanking, Prone, etc. all grant the same non-stacking penalty status of Flat-Footed.

[Sober Caydenite]

AsmodeusDM wrote:

-Being prone doesn't grant you any bonus to your AC vs. ranged (it just makes you flat-footed)

However, while prone you may use the Take Cover action to gain a +4 circumstance bonus to AC against ranged attacks, even without an actual object to hide behind. Still flat-footed, but a net +2 (or better if you have Deny Advantage from rogue or barbarian).

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

I didn't realize until a couple weeks ago that precision dice, like sneak attack and ranger's hunter's precision, double on a crit.

[Ezekieru]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.

That would be seriously cool.

Aw man, I could totally see a swashbuckler/gunslinger archetype that let's them draw and fire off a wand in on action, or like one of those multi coloured pens that you need to slide the coloured bit down on, but for magic.

I'm imagining a sentient wand that EATS other wands, adding more spells and uses as it consumes them. It'd allow the caster to have a single wand with good flavor and the extra utility of having multiple wands.

I hope we get something of the like in the GMG or the APG.

[Albatoonoe]

Ezekieru wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.

That would be seriously cool.

Aw man, I could totally see a swashbuckler/gunslinger archetype that let's them draw and fire off a wand in on action, or like one of those multi coloured pens that you need to slide the coloured bit down on, but for magic.

I'm imagining a sentient wand that EATS other wands, adding more spells and uses as it consumes them. It'd allow the caster to have a single wand with good flavor and the extra utility of having multiple wands.

I hope we get something of the like in the GMG or the APG.

People don't even realize they are describing something from the Adventure Zone.

[Gray]

Unless I'm reading things incorrectly, the following has surprised me.

Incorporeal creatures are now different. It appears there is no longer 50% damage, but instead resistance is applied.

Giants don't have AOC's like they used too.

Demons don't summon in the same way. They now use Abyssal Pacts.

[Reckless]

AsmodeusDM wrote:

-Being prone doesn't grant you any bonus to your AC vs. ranged (it just makes you flat-footed)

If I'm remembering the rule from reading it a week ago, it gives you cover vs. Ranged attacks.

[Lanathar]

Gray wrote:

Unless I'm reading things incorrectly, the following has surprised me.

Incorporeal creatures are now different. It appears there is no longer 50% damage, but instead resistance is applied.

Giants don't have AOC's like they used too.

Demons don't summon in the same way. They now use Abyssal Pacts.

AOCs ?

[Gray]

Lanathar wrote:

AOCs ?

Sorry, I meant AOO, attack of opportunity.

[Gorbacz]

Well, pretty much nothing has AoO in PF2 unless it's explicitly stated in the statblock.

Also notice that swarms no longer have blanket immunity to weapon damage, meaning you're no longer shafted if you don't have alchemical fire/acid and a swarm of cockroaches pops along.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Scrolls no longer burn to ashes for no apparent reason when you copy what's written on them into a spellbook.

I was actually pleasantly surprised when I found this out, as that rule always seemed so ridiculously arbitrary to me, and I remain unconvinced that it ever really balanced anything.

[Staffan Johansson]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Scrolls no longer burn to ashes for no apparent reason when you copy what's written on them into a spellbook.

I was actually pleasantly surprised when I found this out, as that rule always seemed so ridiculously arbitrary to me, and I remain unconvinced that it ever really balanced anything.

Huh.

The way I figured it is that the writing in a spellbook and the writing on a scroll are different. Essentially, the spellbook is the recipe, and a scroll is a finished dish. If you have the recipe, you can easily copy it without any trouble. But if all you have is a dish and you want to make more of that dish, you essentially have to reverse-engineer it, and in the process destroy it.

[Ezekieru]

Albatoonoe wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.

That would be seriously cool.

Aw man, I could totally see a swashbuckler/gunslinger archetype that let's them draw and fire off a wand in on action, or like one of those multi coloured pens that you need to slide the coloured bit down on, but for magic.

I'm imagining a sentient wand that EATS other wands, adding more spells and uses as it consumes them. It'd allow the caster to have a single wand with good flavor and the extra utility of having multiple wands.

I hope we get something of the like in the GMG or the APG.

People don't even realize they are describing something from the Adventure Zone.

Just 'cause I described something that's also been in TAS doesn't mean I have to make it clear it's in TAS. It's a cool concept that can easily be implemented, there's not a copyright on sentient-magic-casting-tools-consuming-other-tools.

[Deadmanwalking]

Gray wrote:

Giants don't have AOC's like they used too.

Assuming you mean AoOs, this is only about half true. Giants don't all have AoOs any more, but they are vastly more likely to have them than just about any other creature type (only Dragons come close, really, and most of them have something similar rather than AoO per se).

[Gray]

I guess it is still a surprise for me regarding AoO's. They were so central to tactics in my games, it will be interesting to play out this new dynamic. That's not a complaint. It will just take some getting used too.

[Ed Reppert]

Just out of curiosity, what's the effective chance of a crit these days?

I did love the simplicity of the math in Harnmaster. Whether you got a success or a failure, 20% of the time it would be a crit.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what's the effective chance of a crit these days?

I did love the simplicity of the math in Harnmaster. Whether you got a success or a failure, 20% of the time it would be a crit.

It always depends on the DC or save you are targeting and always depends on your bonus/DC. So it won't ever be a static and reliable number.

[Red Metal]

Reckless wrote:

AsmodeusDM wrote:

-Being prone doesn't grant you any bonus to your AC vs. ranged (it just makes you flat-footed)

If I'm remembering the rule from reading it a week ago, it gives you cover vs. Ranged attacks.

Being prone gives you the option to use the Take Cover action to gain cover against ranged attacks, it doesn't give it to you automatically.

[Staffan Johansson]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what's the effective chance of a crit these days?

You score a critical success (hit) if you beat the DC (AC) by 10 or more. In addition, a natural 20 increases your success level by one, so in most circumstances (unless you're greatly outmatched, or need a 20 to hit in the first place which might be the case on a third attack) it's going to be a crit.

In other words, if you need to roll a 21+ to succeed, you can't crit, but a natural 20 will succeed. If you need to roll anywhere from 10 to 20 to succeed, a 20 will be a crit, which is a 5% chance. And if the needed roll is 9 or lower, your crit chance starts increasing.

Looking at the monster design guidelines, most monsters whose primary combat role is actually attacking (instead of casting spells or doing something else) will have a high attack. For example, the recommended value at level 5 is +15. At that level, you probably have AC 23 (10 + 7 proficiency + 1 item + 5 combined armor and Dex), so that first attack will hit on an 8 and crit on an 18. If you're fighting a dangerous monster that outlevels you by 1, it has an attack of +17 so it hits on a 6 and crits on 16 - that's 25% crit chance.

[Martialmasters]

Unarmed strike no longer exists.

You have the unarmed trait for certain*weapons* in this category.

You have the unarmed attack action.

But to game the unarmed attack action you need a unarmed trait weapon. By default PC characters have fist.

Despite fist being hands. According to the rules your fist can be any part of your body to make an unarmed attack action with.

So in the world of Pathfinder your knees are fists.

I assume this is the struggling to find a universal word. But it is silly as all hell.

[MarcCCTx]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.

That would be seriously cool.

Why not allow "Wand Use" like a skill.

Untrained - 1/day
Trained - 3/day (1 +2)
Expert - 5/day and so on.

And you could improve your training when you train your regular skills.

[Squiggit]

Martialmasters wrote:

You have the unarmed trait for certain*weapons* in this category.

Just as a minor correction. Unarmed attacks aren't weapons.

Which is another minor tripping point because it means feats that tell you to make an attack with a weapon or something don't work with unarmed strikes.

[Sammy T]

In PF1, an AOO vs someone standing up was considered to happen before they stood up. So, they were prone and you couldn't "triplock" them. However, you did get to attack their prone AC.

However, PF2 differentiated the timing of AOOs on various move actions:

Quote:

Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Attack of Opportunity. Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.

The crit specialization effect of the flail group is knocking your opponent prone. Since the attack happens after they have stood up, if you crit, you knock them down again.

...of course, for this to happen you need to have the ability to make AOOs, crit specialization effect training in flails, AND roll a crit vs your opponent's normal AC (as they are not considered prone).

[MaxAstro]

That's one that I will probably house rule unless given a good reason not to.

More because not getting to hit flat-footed AC while someone is standing up is likely to feel bad for my players, rather than any concern with triplocking.

[Lanathar]

MaxAstro wrote:

That's one that I will probably house rule unless given a good reason not to.

More because not getting to hit flat-footed AC while someone is standing up is likely to feel bad for my players, rather than any concern with triplocking.

It may feel bad but it seems like it demonstrate a lack of appreciation for the three action system and how getting an enemy to waste on action can be huge

I have only managed to play one game - a converted We Be Heroes. There is a level 3 monster in there that can be absolutely brutal. One player got off a spell that sickened it and immediately realised the value in it using an action to try and wretch to remove the condition (pass or fail)

In this case the creature that had an attack roll that gave it almost 50:50 on the animal companion or raging barbarian so removing one definitely did something. And that is not to mention other creatures later on with multi action unique powers

[Indi523]

One thing if I am reading it right is that Bards now no longer have the ability to fascinate someone with their performance.

[Salamileg]

Indi523 wrote:

One thing if I am reading it right is that Bards now no longer have the ability to fascinate someone with their performance.

Anyone can with this feat.

[Ed Reppert]

Feat tax! Feat tax!

:-)

[Indi523]

Salamileg wrote:

Indi523 wrote:

One thing if I am reading it right is that Bards now no longer have the ability to fascinate someone with their performance.

Anyone can with this feat.

That is what I was missing. Thank you so much. It still is different but at least it is not gone.

However, at higher levels you do seem to lost the ability to fascinate more people.

[Paradozen]

Indi523 wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

Indi523 wrote:

One thing if I am reading it right is that Bards now no longer have the ability to fascinate someone with their performance.

Anyone can with this feat.

That is what I was missing. Thank you so much. It still is different but at least it is not gone.

However, at higher levels you do seem to lost the ability to fascinate more people.

Fascinating Performance wrote:

PFS Legal Fascinating Performance Feat 1

General Skill
Source Core Rulebook pg. 261
Prerequisites trained in Performance
When you Perform, compare your result to the Will DC of one observer. If you succeed, the target is fascinated by you for 1 round. If the observer is in a situation that demands immediate attention, such as combat, you must critically succeed to fascinate it and the Perform action gains the incapacitation trait. You must choose which creature you’re trying to fascinate before you roll your check, and the target is then temporarily immune for 1 hour. If you’re an expert in Performance, you can fascinate up to four observers; if you’re a master, you can fascinate up to 10 observers; and if you’re legendary, you can fascinate any number of observers at the same time.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

In a word: everything

[Martialmasters]

Squiggit wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

You have the unarmed trait for certain*weapons* in this category.

Just as a minor correction. Unarmed attacks aren't weapons.

Which is another minor tripping point because it means feats that tell you to make an attack with a weapon or something don't work with unarmed strikes.

thats why i had the stars around the word weapons, as theya re technically not weapons.

also, unarmed strikes dont exist like i said. not in 2e.

[Squiggit]

That's fair! I just wanted to add it because it's another example where the PF2 rules work kinda oddly if you're used to PF1.

Though PF1 had its share of oddities about how natural/unarmed attacks worked with other mechanics too, I guess.

[mardock]

Samurai wrote:

You no longer have to choose to damage undead OR heal allies. A 3-action heal does both. Which brings up the question where does it say that a 3-action heal won't affect enemies (downed or not) too? By my reading it does. It says "this targets all living and undead creatures in the burst"

because only Big Bad Bosses have dying once a monster lose his last hit point, dies