Tell me why I should switch from PF1 to PF2


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The title says it all. I've been playing PF1 for a decade. PF2 looks intriguing but it's a significant investment, not only of money but of time. Presumably most posters on this port either have switched or are in the process of switching. So... please tell a fellow gamer, how has that worked out for you? Would you recommend it? And if so, why -- what's so good about the new system?

Thanks in advance,

Doug M.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For me, personally, the three action economy (and the fact that the system was designed for it from the start vs the alternate rules in 1e) has -ruined- the old economy for me. I run a starfinder game for friends on roll20 every friday, and every other week or so, I run a pathfinder 2e game for local friends. I've found the options to be extremely diverse in pathfinder 2e compared to starfinder. The tactics they use are more varied, actions are changing, and they are encouraged to be creative because actions don't have weighted costs (standard > move, etc.).

It's gotten to the point that I'm not enjoying running my starfinder game. I had one of my more successful combats of the campaign last night and I found myself wishing for 2e every time they asked if/how they could do something and opted for simpler actions.

Outside the action economy, it's streamlined my GM process a lot. I find it very easy to quickly make encounters and other challenges, and have thrown a wide variety of well-received skill checks and other things beyond just combat and rp.

As far as 1e pathfinder. I admit I haven't played as much as others, which is why I use starfinder as my main reference point. I hope this still helps though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I started the Ironfang Invasion adventure path from 2017 (PathfinderWiki: Ironfang Invasion) under PF2 rules. Converting the monsters to PF2 was not difficult, because the Bestiary had an entry for hobgobin soldier and I adapted the hobgoblin heavy trooper as a variant on that. Converting the 6th-level NPC Aubrin was more work, since I had to rebuild her from scratch using similar choices.

Pathfinder 2nd Edition is built on a solid foundation. Pathfinder 1st Edition was an improved form of the d20 open licensed system (Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 without trademarked material) and everything else Paizo added was built on rules not designed for that specific additional material. Paizo designed PF2 to better handle new classes and new feats and new equipment and new spells. The current classes and feats, however, are a small handful compared to the vast variety of PF1 material. That is why I am adapting PF1 material.

One of my players has repeatedly remarked that PF2 is not simpler than PF1. Paizo had to make a lot of compromises between their goals of balance and fairness and simplicity. Simplicity always lost. For example, in character creation a character could be trained in the same skill from ancestry, background, or class specialty. Rather than unfairly shortchange a character to be trained in fewer skills than expected, PF2 has a general rule that gaining training in the same skill twice gives free training in another skill to make up for the loss (see Record Class Details on page 26 or the beginning of the Skills chapter on page 233). That is fair, but it adds a complication. The rules have plenty of little complcations like that.

The three-action system is smooth, but the balance between actions is odd. The attack system mimics PF1's BAB +11 full-round attack with its -5 penalty for the 2nd attack and -10 penalty for the 3rd attack, but everyone just spends one action per attack, called a Strike action. A regular move is a Stride action. Thus, a turn could be Strike+Strike+Strike for a full attack, or Stride+Strike+Strike to move to an opponent and attack twice, or Interact+Stride+Strike because drawing a weapon takes an interact action, or Strike+Strike+RaiseShield because a shield is useless unless it was raised that turn. Okay, that last makes little sense, but there is complicated logic behind it. Almost everything is an action (spellcasting is typically two actions, some off-turn reactions are permitted, and free actions have a tiny niche), so they are easy to mix and match without worrying about move actions versus standard actions versus swift actions.

That logic behind raising shields is that armor and shields are items, so they ought to each give an item bonus to AC. item bonuses do not stack, so Paizo abandoned the item bonus for shields. Raising a shield is an action so it gives a circumstance bonus to AC rather than an item bonus, which will stack with the item bonus from armor. Pazio was so adamant about having only four types of bonuses: item, circumstance, static, and proficiency--that they altered how items are used. Oh, and the six ability score bonuses from Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, but those have their own style separate from the others. My hobgoblin soldiers fought in formation, a special ability that gives a +1 circumstance bonus to AC and saving throws, but when they raised their shields for the +2 circumstance bonus to AC, the circumstance bonus to AC from formation was lost in non-stacking. I haven't yet grown accustomed to such details.

In summary, learning PF2 will definitely take an investment of time to grow accustomed to the new details. At the moment, the rewards from that investment are small, but they will grow as Paizo expands the PF2 material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just try it and see what you think

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I bought the core books and 2 adventures, but I have not been able to get the rest of my group to play even 1 game of it yet. They are too heavily invested in PF1e to want to change.

While I love some of the changes, like the 3 action economy, for me personally, the more I read in the book and online on forums, the more problems I have with it. While many of the ideas are good, it feels like a beta edition. (and I already bought the PF2e beta book.) I have written 11 pages of changes to the core book, and 1 more page each for the Lost Omens World Guide and Character Guides. That's 13 pages of changes I made, and Paizo announced yesterday that they will be releasing an errata document of their own that is supposed to be about 7 pages (not sure yet how many of them will duplicate or fix problems I found as well, I'll go through and consolidate the changes with my own when the Errata comes out).

But I don't mean to be a downer, a lot of people seem to be playing it and liking it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does it have to be one or the other? You could play through your 1e adventures and slowly grab an adventure or two that look neat and try the new system bit by bit. If you like it, incorporate more into your gaming routine. If you don't, you've only lost one module's worth of money, not the full investment of CRB+Bestiary+other.

For me the biggest reason to switch is homebrewing my own adventures. Making monsters is easier, level isn't as tricky as CR, and encounter design and XP tracking feel more intuitive, freeing up cognitive space for developing the story more. Paizo's adventures will soon become a bigger reason to switch to 2e, they do a fantastic job writing and will be continuing to support 2e, rather than 1e. The current AP isn't my jam, but the next one looks promising and there is a lot in the world left to explore.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me it's simple: Pathfinder Society has moved to 2e. Society was the only reason I played Pathfinder, the first RPG where I didn't need to be the GM and offered regular play. I'm interested in the world and characters of the Pathfinder Society now, and I want to see more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like just about everything in 2e better than 1e, but I don't think anyone has mentioned the tiered saving throws yet. Getting rid of save-or-suck is huge for me. Also, clean-slating it means there are no grossly broken builds, like the small cavalier mounted on a giant bat who one-shots everything. I had a number of PFS1 sessions spoiled by that silliness. That problem may arise again at some point, but for now the game is infinitely more balanced than 1e and the devs clearly put a lot of thought and effort into making it that way.

I personally also think multiclassing is vastly improved.


I do like tiered saving throws. It's a better guide for flavoring the effect of a saving throw. Even if you succeed, something might still happen to you.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't stopped playing PF1e.

This said why I run PF2e atm.

- Running different systems is fun and makes for better GMs.

- The math is way more consistent in PF2e and you can clearly see what elements interact, how they scale and how they effect other elements. It is very nice from a design perspective (For the most part).

- Martial Caster balance is far more equal, using a PF1e tier list example it is like everyone is Tier 1 except for alchemist who is a high tier 2.

- Choices are usually about expanding a character's options rather than making sure a character is able to viably do something. Skill feats being separate from class means flavour is not automatically ignored.

- Skills being proficiency tier based rather than rank based helps give more interesting variety between characters and the math behind DCs means that skills don't have optimal break points in the way they did in PF1e.

- Spells have been streamlined or made more interesting and nerfed where I think is fair. e.g. cure can be cast as 1, 2 or 3 actions being touch, range (with a healing boost), AoE; Charm now works on everything but has a penalty for things that don't share a language; Invisibility gives its normal benefits when you get it, but when heightened to a level 4 slot gives the benefits of greater invis but drops the spell duration; Fly duration has been drastically dropped until you can heighten it.

- Monsters are built for purpose, rather than pretending to be built with PC rules and then introducing a bunch of elements that aren't pc options or balanced for PCs. The level balancing system has worked out so far in all of my test and play scenarios.

- Encounter building/management works so far, not sure if it will still work at later levels. But so far it works.

- Action economy is great and allows for a lot of room in the design space. A character can actually move 10ft, open a door, move 20ft now.

- Tags are awesome and introduce a lot of clarity when reading rules.

- Rarity tags are awesome

- Rituals are baseline to the system

- The economy isn't broken and inflated in the same way it is in PF1e. Not perfect but leagues above.

- runes mean magical items can retain their value.

Scattered thoughts I know, so I will stop here.

I ran/played pathfinder 1e ~12 months after it launched, I ran/played 3e around 6 months after it launched.

I have no system loyalty, I run what I think is going to be best for the campaign I want to run. I play what I find interesting or fun.
PF2e fixes a lot of the issues I had with PF1e and encourages more diverse viable characters and consistent progression while being cleaner and better to run as a GM.

Games I run

- 5e: For sandbox style games (3.x/PF1e/PF2e all suck as sandbox games imo)

- Forbidden Lands: OSR theme but faster modern ruleset and very hands off when it comes to GM guidance. My favourite system for Westmarch style games.

- Conan 2d20: Sword and sorcery, needs some house rules to make it a bit grittier but very fun for short story style adventures. Very different feel and highly co-operative.

- Cypher System Games: Quick, simple and fun for weird concepts or ideas where rules would get in the way of the pacing.

- Call of Cthulhu: I mean, investigative horror is fun.

- PF1e: Gonzo silly linear adventures with high power caps and weird fun character build interactions.

- PF2e: Linear adventures with high power caps but less of the gonzo variety, more freedom when it comes to character concept imo (not in raw options, but that you have to do less to make a concept work in most cases).

- Symbaroum: Classless adventures in a sublime setting with the best artwork in the industry. Not convinced that it does sandbox well and it suffers if people approach it from a powergaming mindset. But it is actually a really solid system.

- Old School Essentials: The second edition of a clone of B/X D&D, really really well laid out. Supports ascending AC. Has all the pros and cons of B/X, very easy to pick up... Very nice pacing. Favourite for hardcore sandbox gameplay (although finding players who would like that is another matter).

- Seventh Sea 2e: The only system I would use for light hearted swashbuckling adventure. Well, maybe conan 2d20, but probably 7th sea.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

- PF2e: Linear adventures

...

What makes pf2 restricted or best at linear adventures? Isn't this just a group/gm thing. I know my group has gone completely of the rails in FoP

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
What makes pf2 restricted or best at linear adventures? Isn't this just a group/gm thing. I know my group has gone completely of the rails in FoP

They also listed PF1 as 'linear adventures'. I suspect they just mean that the APs tend toward the linear and are a fair bit of the draw, but regardless of what they mean, they are applying the descriptor to PF1 as well as PF2.


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

I guess as someone who either 100% homebrew or quickly veers in that direction after a couple of sessions I've never equated pathfinder with linearity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tend to gravitate towards heavy alteration of Adventure paths based on the PCs backstories and decisions, but I don’t know if that’s atypical. It always seemed to me that in the APs and modules there are usually plenty of sidequests and alternative solutions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose it may be the way power of creatures in PF depends heavily on their level. So if you have various monsters waiting for players in your sandbox it doesn't matter as much in which order they encounter them for the challenge to stay relevant in 5e, compared to PF.


Henro wrote:
I tend to gravitate towards heavy alteration of Adventure paths based on the PCs backstories and decisions, but I don’t know if that’s atypical. It always seemed to me that in the APs and modules there are usually plenty of sidequests and alternative solutions.

The same thing happens to me. The beginning of my Ironfang Invasion campaign occurred six days before the first event in the first module to help fit the PCs' backstories into the main story.

They also make decisions that the module never expected, so I often have to rearrange the elements of the module to accommodate the new plot or create new material from scratch. I use the adventure paths not because I can't create my own material, but because the modules are more colorful than my own ideas.

This is why I figure I can handle running a PF1 adventure path under PF2. It isn't going to run as written regardless.


As a GM, the more utility-focused stat blocks for monsters and three action system has made running combat so much easier and more fun for everyone.

Running combat encounters that go on for longer in terms of rounds feels a lot better now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
- PF2e: Linear adventures
What makes pf2 restricted or best at linear adventures?

The rate of power growth from levelling up is more extreme than in a lot of games. That means that if you wanted to publish a pure sandbox campaign, parties that wandered away from their level-appropriate zones would probably die when they ran into a challenge intended for a party two levels higher.

If the GM is building the encounters as needed, it's not a problem.


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

PF2 isn't so extreme with power growth that players should TPK wandering off the track, unless the off the track bits are extreme highs in an otherwise lower level area. Like if you wander into a Level 3 Moderate encounter at level 2 you'll just be in a level 2 Severe.

This might be a bit tighter than some games, but any game with rapid progression will hit this issue.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm surprised people are citing the mechanics of the game as primary factors. For me, what it comes down to is what other people are playing.

If someone has a group of friends that all want to play homebrew D&D 3.5e, I see no reason ever to play anything else.

Most of us, if not over the next few weeks, definitely as the years pass, will struggle with finding a group to play with. I found my current group when I used the word "icosahedral" at work and someone asked, "like a d20?" He played 5e and it had previously come up that the guy in the cube across from him played PF1. We roped in two randos and started playing 5e, and when we rotated GMs we switched to PF1 because that's what the second GM knew.

So why PF2?

1. PFS is rapidly going to PFS2 only. All new material is for PFS2, and given limited replays, it is mathematically inevitable thay PFS1 will end.

2. PF2 is conceptually closer to 5e than PF1 was. And as much as people dedicated to PF1 treat that as a bad thing, for those of us who don't have a rock solid group to play with, it's a gamesaver.

3. So why not just move to 5e? Because PF2 is more complex. And as much as people dedicated to 5e treat that as a
bad thing, it's easier to learn a more complex system and have to drop rules than learn a super basic system and struggle to keep up when you play literally anything else.

4. In a similar vein, it's easier to be familiar with a world like Golarion and have some potential knowledge overlap with random players, than to have your RPG experience solely consist of an isolated demiplane defined by a single characteristic.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
CyberMephit wrote:
I suppose it may be the way power of creatures in PF depends heavily on their level. So if you have various monsters waiting for players in your sandbox it doesn't matter as much in which order they encounter them for the challenge to stay relevant in 5e, compared to PF.

That's my best guess as well, particularly when I saw that Gleeful Grognard preferred 5e for sandboxing and thought the entire 3e family (which includes PF) sucked for sandboxing. I don't know that I'd use the term linear as the alternative. The play doesn't have to be linear, but I think there's more pressure on the GM to make the encounters tailored to the power level of the characters (mostly with an upper limit). That's easier with a linear-style campaign, but not necessarily impossible with something non-linear.


Most of my group has enjoyed the switch, and I'm not going to have any specific reason to add the other people haven't said already, but I will say this. There are two people in my group that absolutely don't want to switch and it's just a personal preference thing. Because of that, we still run some games in first edition, some people don't mind doing either one, but myself and two other players really feel the limitations of the action economy when going back to first edition. That said, there are some classes that you really just can't duplicate with the new system yet, so it is kind of nice to go back and play some stuff that I haven't had a chance to play before it comes out with new rules


3 action economy and dedications ( which allows you to create different archetypes but at a cost. You will be considering every single choice ).

Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.

My recommendation is contingent on what you like about first edition. If, for instance, you're one of the folks who like to play with character builds -- one of the folks who have spent countless hours happily min-maxing awesome, if often overpowered character creations -- then don't make the switch. The developers have made too focused an effort on curtailing all that, and so PF2 doesn't support it.

If you like your games to sometimes go easily careening off the rails because PC choices combined with an enabling rule set allow for it, then don't make the switch. GMs more readily control the narrative in PF2, and the dice account for what agency remains after that.

PCs, on the other hand, cannot build skills/to-hit/AC/DCs/anything beyond a seemingly carefully-monitored set of bland numbers; again, they live and die by the dice. An easy example is how a PC cannot build a starting stat to 18 unless his/her class very specifically allows it. A wizard, for instance, will most likely have an 18 to INT, and most certainly a maximum of 16 to anything else, regardless of character concept/vision (barring house rules, of course). That "high power caps" PF2 descriptor I saw in a post further up is debatable, at best; if you're coming in from PF1 it's downright ludicrous.

If those features, which I've painted as negatives, seem more like positives to you, then I recommend making the switch. (Indeed, it's all subjective.) I don't like PF2, but I admit that it is in a lot of ways cleaner than first edition. There are definitely features I like (the three-action system is excellent).

I don't like PF2, but I play it. I play it because my group plays it, and because support will end (or has ended?) for PF1, and I don't want to step away from Golarion.

I could go on, but I need to prepare for today's PF2 session, wherein our martials will hit things, I the wizard will cast my boring, static-DC spells (and will likely resort to hitting things), and the baddies will hit us back. In terms of combat, grappling into submission as an alternate win condition is suboptimal at best. Control spells as an alternate win condition are nonexistent. It's all about damage now. We hit things, the enemies hit us back, and when the dice allow for it, one side wins. Long live my d20.


Yes, I am not saying you cannot do pf1e or 2e in non linear adventues but I find they work best for "heroes journey" adventures as the mechanical progression supports the ever increasing heights approach rather than a living breathing world approach.

Perhaps I should have used "tailored adventures" rather than "linear"? But I don't personally associate "linear" with "bad" either, I wouldn't have investing pf2e or bought every single pf1e hardcover otherwise ;).

I do however believe any system that scales character strength as high as pf1e and pf2e do makes for a inoptimal sandbox fit though(based on my desires as a gm or player). It ends up with a bit of the skyrim issue of either the characters are allowed to be op and the mechanics stop mattering, or things go back to being tailored for the party and light rails are put in place. Doable, but kinda like filing off the edges of a cube so it can fit into a circular hole.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I mean I pretty much run pure sandbox (my go to in PF1 was an ongoing world, when a group failed or retired I just asked the players to point at what part of the map they are interested in telling a story about and we'd zoom in there.)

There was obviously some concessions to be made narratively to fit in the scope of power ranges (although the same is true in all rpgs, you don't put a Balor in a place where the level 1 party may roam in 5e either) to illustrate the scope but the world didn't overall scale to the players. For example when they accidentally unpetrified an entire nation of slaving serpent folk at level 4, they did so in an ruined outpost of that empire, with an elder serpent suffering from the climate differences. That showed them what they were up against and to tread carefully.

And yeah linear to be says rails, but might not be so loaded for others


perception check wrote:


I could go on, but I need to prepare for today's PF2 session, wherein our martials will hit things, I the wizard will cast my boring, static-DC spells (and will likely resort to hitting things), and the baddies will hit us back. In terms of combat, grappling into submission as an alternate win condition is suboptimal at best. Control spells as an alternate win condition are nonexistent. It's all about damage now. We hit things, the enemies hit us back, and when the dice allow for it, one side wins. Long live my d20.

Harsh. Anyone have a response to this?

Doug M.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree it is subjective, but if you find a game boring it is more likely an issue with who you are playing with than whatever particular rule set you happened to choose.


Perception Check’s experiences aren’t exactly reflective of my table. Tripping and demoralizing are both great examples of powerful non-damage moves martials frequently use. At the lower levels we’ve been playing at there hasn’t been a lot of what I’d consider control magic, though the druid has been split 50/50 between nondamaging and damaging spells. Grease is still a cool low-level control spell.

I don’t really understand the static DC complaint, so no comment there.

Liberty's Edge

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
perception check wrote:


I could go on, but I need to prepare for today's PF2 session, wherein our martials will hit things, I the wizard will cast my boring, static-DC spells (and will likely resort to hitting things), and the baddies will hit us back. In terms of combat, grappling into submission as an alternate win condition is suboptimal at best. Control spells as an alternate win condition are nonexistent. It's all about damage now. We hit things, the enemies hit us back, and when the dice allow for it, one side wins. Long live my d20.
Harsh. Anyone have a response to this?

Basically, it's not true.

Spellcasters are certainly less powerful than in PF1...but that's hardly a problem in and of itself, and makes martials actually relevant. They don't tend to 'auto-win' serious fights with SoD stuff, but that was more of a problem in PF1 than a boon. Spellcasters remain excellent at area effect damage, buffing, debuffing, and utility effects...martials are just now actually better than casters at something as well (they do better single target damage and have better Saves). They certainly have enough spells (and cantrips are actually better than most mundane attacks for, say, a Wizard) that they're not gonna need to 'resort to hitting things' in the way I'd use the term.

Yes, most enemies probably go down to damage...but that was true in PF1 as well. Even most 'SoD' spells didn't literally kill something, they just disabled it. In PF2 they're more likely to penalize it than completely take it out of the fight, but the core strategy of casting something to disable a foe and then finishing them off with a weapon isn't really different.

Grappling is perhaps legitimately a little weaker, though that's largely just due to a relative lack of Feat support as of yet. But that's really the only part of that paragraph that doesn't just read as sour grapes that the Wizard is no longer able to win many encounters without the input of the rest of the party.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
mrspaghetti wrote:
I agree it is subjective, but if you find a game boring it is more likely an issue with who you are playing with than whatever particular rule set you happened to choose.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'll still have fun -- specifically because my group makes it fun. PF2's rule set, however, does nothing to help that entertainment value along; it just happens to be present for it.

Henro wrote:

Perception Check’s experiences aren’t exactly reflective of my table. Tripping and demoralizing are both great examples of powerful non-damage moves martials frequently use. At the lower levels we’ve been playing at there hasn’t been a lot of what I’d consider control magic, though the druid has been split 50/50 between nondamaging and damaging spells. Grease is still a cool low-level control spell.

I don’t really understand the static DC complaint, so no comment there.

Tripping and demoralizing certainly add a tiny amount of variety to combat (I'd even go so far as to say demoralizing is a highly recommended skill for every party), but they're both just optional steps on the way to the slugfest that every combat is.

And, sorry, "static DC" is a little cryptic. What I mean is that there's little to no way to increase DCs -- meaning, among other things, that the dice will dictate what actually happens. There's little I can do to pump up my Slow DC, and there's little our barbarian can do to pump up his grapple chance. There are no feats to make trip a reliable, go-to move; there's no such thing as a trip build. The math points to a base, rules-sanctioned success chance for these things, and that's that. While I agree that this helps against one of PF1's most notorious problems (I'd often made characters that can end fights on round one, and I respected and appreciated when other people did the same), it also means everyone's relatively average at everything.

Again, there's a lot of value in that, but I think we end up with a net loss when we take into account what's given up.

Liberty's Edge

12 people marked this as a favorite.
perception check wrote:

Tripping and demoralizing certainly add a tiny amount of variety to combat (I'd even go so far as to say demoralizing is a highly recommended skill for every party), but they're both just optional steps on the way to the slugfest that every combat is.

And, sorry, "static DC" is a little cryptic. What I mean is that there's little to no way to increase DCs -- meaning, among other things, that the dice will dictate what actually happens. There's little I can do to pump up my Slow DC, and there's little our barbarian can do to pump up his grapple chance. There are no feats to make trip a reliable, go-to move; there's no such thing as a trip build. The math points to a base, rules-sanctioned success chance for these things, and that's that. While I agree that this helps against one of PF1's most notorious problems (I'd often made characters that can end fights on round one, and I respected and appreciated when other people did the same), it also means everyone's relatively average at everything.

You're looking for things to increase your odds in the wrong place.

Yes, there are no longer ways to get your odds too high as part of character creation, but there are absolutely ways to do so as active tactics in combat. Sure, you can't up the DC on Slow, but you can choose to target foes you know have a low Fort Save, or those who someone just hit with Demoralize, or various other in-the-moment tactics to increase your odds of success.

The same is true of most other combat options. You can't scale them to the point of being certain of success with static decisions in character creation that will always be active, you have to actively work for the bonuses you get.

Now, that might not be fun for some people, it's totally true, but it's not a boring slugfest unless you ignore the wide array of tactical options you have to increase your odds of success at various things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
perception check wrote:
While I agree that this helps against one of PF1's most notorious problems (I'd often made characters that can end fights on round one, and I respected and appreciated when other people did the same), it also means everyone's relatively average at everything.

If you like when there is no challenge, just fight underleveled enemies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
perception check wrote:


I could go on, but I need to prepare for today's PF2 session, wherein our martials will hit things, I the wizard will cast my boring, static-DC spells (and will likely resort to hitting things), and the baddies will hit us back. In terms of combat, grappling into submission as an alternate win condition is suboptimal at best. Control spells as an alternate win condition are nonexistent. It's all about damage now. We hit things, the enemies hit us back, and when the dice allow for it, one side wins. Long live my d20.

Harsh. Anyone have a response to this?

Doug M.

I somewhat agree, PF2 wizards were nerfed to below-parity and overall, spells are much less effective. Casters can be boring IME if the couple spells they memorized have little effect (monsters make the save, missed attack roll, move around the Grease/Web, incapacitation, immunities, etc.), then they are left spamming cantrips which are 'effective' - but not really, when compared to other PCs' headline powers, which can often go all day at max effect.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
perception check wrote:


I could go on, but I need to prepare for today's PF2 session, wherein our martials will hit things, I the wizard will cast my boring, static-DC spells (and will likely resort to hitting things), and the baddies will hit us back. In terms of combat, grappling into submission as an alternate win condition is suboptimal at best. Control spells as an alternate win condition are nonexistent. It's all about damage now. We hit things, the enemies hit us back, and when the dice allow for it, one side wins. Long live my d20.

Harsh. Anyone have a response to this?

Doug M.

Just that my own experiences in both editions seem to be different.

In 2e my character, a Bard, always had a handful of different things they are trying to do at once. Know more about the baddy, inspire allies, throw up a shield, summon a fey, move to safety, use an attack cantrip, heal, or interact with the unique features of the scene. I find this fun and dynamic, and that it leads to each turn feeling a bit different. The fight as a whole also feels more dynamic, moving actually matters because fewer people are locked into standing still and full attacking and more can do things like rush past the monster.

In 1e a lot of fights felt more like a slugfest. You don't move more than 5' at a time or you get smacked and lose most of your attack routine, your spells either completely end the fight or do nothing worthwhile, or contribute to the slugfest similar to the 2e array. Healing is not generally a feasible idea and is best left to wands. Bards rarely if ever have a reason to not perform past level 4 or so.

Again though, this may just be a difference of experiences.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
perception check wrote:

And, sorry, "static DC" is a little cryptic. What I mean is that there's little to no way to increase DCs -- meaning, among other things, that the dice will dictate what actually happens. There's little I can do to pump up my Slow DC, and there's little our barbarian can do to pump up his grapple chance. There are no feats to make trip a reliable, go-to move; there's no such thing as a trip build. The math points to a base, rules-sanctioned success chance for these things, and that's that. While I agree that this helps against one of PF1's most notorious problems (I'd often made characters that can end fights on round one, and I respected and appreciated when other people did the same), it also means everyone's relatively average at everything.

Again, there's a lot of value in that, but I think we end up with a net loss when we take into account what's...

(emphasis added)

Soo...putting skill increases into Athletics will absolutely make a difference as you level, and represents a pretty significant character choice because nobody has that many skill increases available.

Also: Assurance makes for a surprisingly good trip build for anyone investing in athletics. Anybody below party level is likely to be hit by it (i.e., most support enemies), and at-level foes still may fall if they're low on reflex. As a third action alternative to an attack at a -10, it's solid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
perception check wrote:


And, sorry, "static DC" is a little cryptic. What I mean is that there's little to no way to increase DCs -- meaning, among other things, that the dice will dictate what actually happens. There's little I can do to pump up my Slow DC, and there's little our barbarian can do to pump up his grapple chance. There are no feats to make trip a reliable, go-to move; there's no such thing as a trip build. The math points to a base, rules-sanctioned success chance for these things, and that's that. While I agree that this helps against one of PF1's most notorious problems (I'd often made characters that can end fights on round one, and I respected and appreciated when other people did the same), it also means everyone's relatively average at everything.

Conditions are how you do things. Sickened and frightened both impart DC penalties, you can find ways to give yourself Athletics bonuses through things like Transmutation school's physical boost or other things that give skill bonuses, and similar things.

This means that you're unlikely to give yourself guaranteed success though build, but can do a lot more in combat to affect your chances.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
perception check wrote:


I could go on, but I need to prepare for today's PF2 session, wherein our martials will hit things, I the wizard will cast my boring, static-DC spells (and will likely resort to hitting things), and the baddies will hit us back. In terms of combat, grappling into submission as an alternate win condition is suboptimal at best. Control spells as an alternate win condition are nonexistent. It's all about damage now. We hit things, the enemies hit us back, and when the dice allow for it, one side wins. Long live my d20.

Harsh. Anyone have a response to this?

Doug M.

As others have pointed out, there are a variety of options that make combat more engaging than 1e. Casters are no longer the end-all-be-all in groups, but that does not mean that they’re any worse than martials, unless you specifically ignore the attributes that can make a caster shine. The game encourages players to be proactive and reactive to gain an edge over opponents and to really make an effort to use the tools available to them (skills, feats, movement, spells, etc) instead of relying on passive and prebuff bonuses to guarantee success or failure. That is not to say that buffs are useless, as every little bonus or penalty can play a major effect on a character’s survival. Instead of knowing the best way to build a character in order to destroy encounters that DMs spend precious time to create in one round and make the rest of the party background characters, learning how conditions and modifiers work and applying them in the most appropriate situation to help the team is more important. Did I mention that the team being the focus instead of the individual (though every class can get into the spotlight) is also a benefit of this system?

One more thing to note about spell casters is that their lowest level spells also maintain a competitive spell dc equal to their highest level spell slots. Bards are also a really great class in this edition. .

As an aside, my opinion is completely biased as someone whose first experience in a full campaign was Pathfinder 1e as a rogue, and I can honestly say that despite trying the system out multiple times afterward, I hated it (mostly because I was bored of 5e’s lack of options). In most cases, I found that I was all-but useless unless I looked at a guide to create a character and hope that it was viable. Of course, I couldn’t compete with the casters, especially with all the new spells, and I didn’t find any enjoyment in needing help making a character after reading the rules. With Pathfinder Second Edition, unless specifically built with the intention to not be viable and basic understanding of the system, almost any concept within the rules (which have only been out a couple months) will be useful to the party, more so with smart play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
perception check wrote:

And, sorry, "static DC" is a little cryptic. What I mean is that there's little to no way to increase DCs -- meaning, among other things, that the dice will dictate what actually happens. There's little I can do to pump up my Slow DC, and there's little our barbarian can do to pump up his grapple chance. There are no feats to make trip a reliable, go-to move; there's no such thing as a trip build. The math points to a base, rules-sanctioned success chance for these things, and that's that. While I agree that this helps against one of PF1's most notorious problems (I'd often made characters that can end fights on round one, and I respected and appreciated when other people did the same), it also means everyone's relatively average at everything.

Again, there's a lot of value in that, but I think we end up with a net loss when we take into account what's...

(emphasis added)

Soo...putting skill increases into Athletics will absolutely make a difference as you level, and represents a pretty significant character choice because nobody has that many skill increases available.

Also: Assurance makes for a surprisingly good trip build for anyone investing in athletics. Anybody below party level is likely to be hit by it (i.e., most support enemies), and at-level foes still may fall if they're low on reflex. As a third action alternative to an attack at a -10, it's solid.

RicoTheBold's point reminds me that while PF1 built a character out of specialized feats and archetypes, PF2 is more about using proficiencies in weapons and skills that do not cost feats. And PF2 skills are versatile. A character who trained in Athletics to be able to trip can also Swim and Climb and High Jump, because he or she is athletic. A character who trained in Nature to identify hostile creatures can also command domesticated animals better, because he knows animals. A character trained in Thievery can both pick a pocket and pick a lock. Craft is no longer divided into two dozen subcategories, it is just crafting (though alchemical brewing, magic item crafting, and snare crafting all require their one particular feat).

This gives the player freedom to experiment. No longer are trip, grapple, and shove (bull rush) build off of separate feats like in PF1, so that the player has to focus on one with only build guides to tell the best from the average. In PF2 the player can try them all with training in Athletics.


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

I think the other thing that contributes to this feeling of "cant increase my specialization" is that is just plain as day how you do it. Being so easy to optimise means you overlook that you've done it all.

By level 3 though you will have made two choices that will make you noticeably more effective at one of your skills over the rest.

Silver Crusade

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

I think both are great games and systems. PF2 is more streamlined in actual play, IMHO and I have found it far easier to teach new players who are new to RPGs, especially kids.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arklore wrote:
I think both are great games and systems. PF2 is more streamlined in actual play, IMHO and I have found it far easier to teach new players who are new to RPGs, especially kids.

Weirdly I find PF2e easier to teach than 5e.

The action economy had people picking it up very quickly, players selected all of their feats and most of their skills so most remembered what they were/did. And the extra HP + hero point buffer led to people being a bit braver in what they would do.

The nuances of the system take more knowledge to understand, but the process of understanding those nuances seems to be clearer for most people.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
perception check wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
I agree it is subjective, but if you find a game boring it is more likely an issue with who you are playing with than whatever particular rule set you happened to choose.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'll still have fun -- specifically because my group makes it fun. PF2's rule set, however, does nothing to help that entertainment value along; it just happens to be present for it.

Henro wrote:

Perception Check’s experiences aren’t exactly reflective of my table. Tripping and demoralizing are both great examples of powerful non-damage moves martials frequently use. At the lower levels we’ve been playing at there hasn’t been a lot of what I’d consider control magic, though the druid has been split 50/50 between nondamaging and damaging spells. Grease is still a cool low-level control spell.

I don’t really understand the static DC complaint, so no comment there.

Tripping and demoralizing certainly add a tiny amount of variety to combat (I'd even go so far as to say demoralizing is a highly recommended skill for every party), but they're both just optional steps on the way to the slugfest that every combat is.

And, sorry, "static DC" is a little cryptic. What I mean is that there's little to no way to increase DCs -- meaning, among other things, that the dice will dictate what actually happens. There's little I can do to pump up my Slow DC, and there's little our barbarian can do to pump up his grapple chance. There are no feats to make trip a reliable, go-to move; there's no such thing as a trip build. The math points to a base, rules-sanctioned success chance for these things, and that's that. While I agree that this helps against one of PF1's most notorious problems (I'd often made characters that can end fights on round one, and I respected and appreciated when other people did the same), it also means everyone's relatively average at everything.

Again, there's a lot of value in that, but I think we end up with a net loss when we take into account what's...

for static DC, can't you use demoralize to effect their saves?

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
perception check wrote:


I could go on, but I need to prepare for today's PF2 session, wherein our martials will hit things, I the wizard will cast my boring, static-DC spells (and will likely resort to hitting things), and the baddies will hit us back. In terms of combat, grappling into submission as an alternate win condition is suboptimal at best. Control spells as an alternate win condition are nonexistent. It's all about damage now. We hit things, the enemies hit us back, and when the dice allow for it, one side wins. Long live my d20.
Harsh. Anyone have a response to this?

Basically, it's not true.

Spellcasters are certainly less powerful than in PF1...but that's hardly a problem in and of itself, and makes martials actually relevant. They don't tend to 'auto-win' serious fights with SoD stuff, but that was more of a problem in PF1 than a boon. Spellcasters remain excellent at area effect damage, buffing, debuffing, and utility effects...martials are just now actually better than casters at something as well (they do better single target damage and have better Saves). They certainly have enough spells (and cantrips are actually better than most mundane attacks for, say, a Wizard) that they're not gonna need to 'resort to hitting things' in the way I'd use the term.

Yes, most enemies probably go down to damage...but that was true in PF1 as well. Even most 'SoD' spells didn't literally kill something, they just disabled it. In PF2 they're more likely to penalize it than completely take it out of the fight, but the core strategy of casting something to disable a foe and then finishing them off with a weapon isn't really different.

Grappling is perhaps legitimately a little weaker, though that's largely just due to a relative lack of Feat support as of yet. But that's really the only part of that paragraph that doesn't just read as sour grapes that the Wizard is no longer able to win many encounters without the input of the rest of the party.

I play a wizard now, yes, and one of my favorite first-edition Society characters was a wizard, but my absolute favorite was a fox-form kitsune who would grapple things extremely effectively, combining a high grapple modifier, a high sneak score, and the bushwhack feat. My wife played a second grappler in the same group and, with a splash of the constable archetype of cavalier, was also extremely effective, albeit in a different way. I could pin creatures before they even knew I was there (they typically did not know I was there), and she would often leave baddies tied up -- not a single point of damage done to them, in either case.

One of my wife's other characters was a fox-form kitsune that took levels in four or five different classes, all martial. It had a high grapple modifier, but also a high damage output with its array of unarmed strike feats/abilities. It was also remarkably durable -- extremely high AC, extremely high saves, higher-than-average hp. That character, like my own kitsune, was made even more amazing when equipped with a ring of seven lovely colors. (As a side note, for a few levels its unarmed strike damage was 1d1+13 or something like that, which I still find amusing.)

Those are three martial characters that were more than just "relevant"; they were overpowered. (Others, I'm sure, have been able to make "relevant" martial characters in first edition.)

They also didn't rely on damage (though they were very capable of dealing it out when their primary shticks were rendered unavailable -- by, say, freedom of movement). The sleep hex was a common means of ending combats. Again, no need to deal damage to those target(s). I suspect there are other non-damage means of winning combats that I'd not considered. (Wasn't there a polymorph spell that turned the target into a harmless creature?)

No, martials were not irrelevant; it just took a little more imagination to build them powerfully (with the exception of the zen archer, which was "relevant" all on its own, and right out of the box). But the greater point I'm trying to make is that it's not wizards (and magic in general) being nerfed into the ground that I'm lamenting here (though I appreciate that you've assumed as much). Nor is it the loss of overpowered-ness. What I'm grieving is the flatness of character builds -- and, by necessary extension, the flatness of combat. There is no reward for imagination or for system mastery. There aren't even any other means of winning combats apart from damage. Sure, that can change as second edition moves forward, but I'm not holding my breath, given the continually demonstrated animosity toward PF1's min-maxing potential.

In closing, I'm a little confused by what appears to be a contradiction, but I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding on my part. I can't reconcile the following:

Perception Check wrote:
...our martials will hit things, I the wizard will cast my boring, static-DC spells (and will likely resort to hitting things), and the baddies will hit us back. In terms of combat, grappling into submission as an alternate win condition is suboptimal at best. Control spells as an alternate win condition are nonexistent. It's all about damage now. We hit things, the enemies hit us back, and when the dice allow for it, one side wins. Long live my d20.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Anyone have a response to this?
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Basically, it's not true.

...

Yes, most enemies probably go down to damage...

Emphasis mine.

Liberty's Edge

21 people marked this as a favorite.
perception check wrote:
I play a wizard now, yes, and one of my favorite first-edition Society characters was a wizard, but my absolute favorite was a fox-form kitsune who would grapple things extremely effectively, combining a high grapple modifier, a high sneak score, and the bushwhack feat. My wife played a second grappler in the same group and, with a splash of the constable archetype of cavalier, was also extremely effective, albeit in a different way. I could pin creatures before they even knew I was there (they typically did not know I was there), and she would often leave baddies tied up -- not a single point of damage done to them, in either case.

Okay. How many books were involved in making those extremely niche builds? And how much did the rest of the group enjoy you auto-succeeding and making encounters not happen?

Because, IME, the latter is almost always an issue with 'always win' builds, and the former I bring up because there are currently three books for this edition, of which only two are really rules focused. Expecting to be equally focused on a niche area like grappling at this stage in the game's life is kind of unlikely.

perception check wrote:
One of my wife's other characters was a fox-form kitsune that took levels in four or five different classes, all martial. It had a high grapple modifier, but also a high damage output with its array of unarmed strike feats/abilities. It was also remarkably durable -- extremely high AC, extremely high saves, higher-than-average hp. That character, like my own kitsune, was made even more amazing when equipped with a ring of seven lovely colors. (As a side note, for a few levels its unarmed strike damage was 1d1+13 or something like that, which I still find amusing.)

Sure. There were a lot more ways to optimize in PF1, and to do so to a greater degree. I wouldn't call that an advantage of the game, though. The fact that people who didn't want to hunt through huge numbers of books and work out the corner cases for specific advantages just got left behind. Which sucks.

perception check wrote:
Those are three martial characters that were more than just "relevant"; they were overpowered. (Others, I'm sure, have been able to make "relevant" martial characters in first edition.)

I'm sure they were. But I'm also pretty sure I can flatly make a spellcaster who succeeds at all their schticks better than they do. Or at the very least one who just casually ends encounters so they never get to use their specialties. The issue with martial characters in PF1 was not absolute it was comparative. They were irrelevant compared to equally optimized spellcasters.

perception check wrote:
They also didn't rely on damage (though they were very capable of dealing it out when their primary shticks were rendered unavailable -- by, say, freedom of movement). The sleep hex was a common means of ending combats. Again, no need to deal damage to those target(s). I suspect there are other non-damage means of winning combats that I'd not considered. (Wasn't there a polymorph spell that turned the target into a harmless creature?)

Indeed there was. In fact, it still exists in PF2, for that matter. As a matter of fact, there are still quite a few SoD effects, though they mostly have the Incapacitation trait and don't work well on those higher level than you. But they work fine, and many are very neat.

perception check wrote:
No, martials were not irrelevant; it just took a little more imagination to build them powerfully (with the exception of the zen archer, which was "relevant" all on its own, and right out of the box). But the greater point I'm trying to make is that it's not wizards (and magic in general) being nerfed into the ground that I'm lamenting here (though I appreciate that you've assumed as much). Nor is it the loss of overpowered-ness. What I'm grieving is the flatness of character builds -- and, by necessary extension, the flatness of combat. There is no reward for imagination or for system mastery. There aren't even any other means of winning combats apart from damage. Sure, that can change as second edition moves forward, but I'm not holding my breath, given the continually demonstrated animosity toward PF1's min-maxing potential.

Combat isn't flat just because character builds have a lower power differential, because combat itself has become much more tactically complex with the various actions available, the loimits upon them, and the three action system. As I discuss above, you're looking to character creation for something that PF2 puts into the combat itself.

PF1 was a game of logistics and character building in many ways, you got the kind of depth you're discussing in how you made your character, and then always did the same one or two things (which you were amazing at) every round of combat. Doing that in PF1 is a bad mistake and deeply suboptimal, as the ideal thing to do will vary quite a bit.

PF2 is a more tactical game. You make a character, and optimizing them still helps, but nothing in character creation will get you to the heights that PF1 allowed, instead you have to make up the difference in the actual combat itself, choosing the right strategy to maximize your bonuses and chances of success in the moment.

It's very different, but it makes combat a lot less boring than it was in PF1, IMO.

Now, if what you really want is a build that will auto-succeed at X and never need to do anything else to win, then yes, I agree entirely that you should stick to PF1, but that's not the same as combat being flat in PF2.

perception check wrote:
In closing, I'm a little confused by what appears to be a contradiction, but I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding on my part. I can't reconcile the following:

I was disagreeing with literally everything else you said. Yes, damage takes down most enemies. Indeed, damage took down most enemies in PF1, one way or another, but just as it's inaccurate to give the Fighter primary credit for the enemies they get to coup de grace due to color spray in PF1, it's inaccurate to say that PF2 is 'all about damage' when so many other things contribute at least as much to the victory as the 'just hitting things' part. At least, they do if you're fighting smart.

You portray the combat in PF2 as a boring slugfest, and while that may be true in your group (and you have my sympathies if so), it's certainly not in most groups. So even if one sentence of your paragraph is technically true, the way it describes the game working is, generally speaking, false.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
perception check wrote:
Those are three martial characters that were more than just "relevant"; they were overpowered. (Others, I'm sure, have been able to make "relevant" martial characters in first edition.)

I stick with what I was saying above: What you want is to play overpowered characters that trivializes combat. Just ask your DM to put underleveled opponents against you. Most PF2 spells and maneuvers have PF1 efficiency when you aim for the critical success.

Now, if what you want is abuse the system, then PF2 is not for you at the moment, as noone has currently found any abusive build.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
What I'm grieving is the flatness of character builds -- and, by necessary extension, the flatness of combat.

I don't see that those two things are necessarily connected.

Flatness of character builds could also be read as "balance", no? Then it comes down to a question of flavor. -- For those of us who remember D&D 4e, that was a huge problem. At a given level, the fighter could hit you with a sword with about an 80% of hitting you for around 10 points of damage; or the wizard could blast you with about an 80% chance of success for around 10 points of damage; or the thief could grab the chandelier, do a backflip and hit you from behind and... he'd have about an 80% chance of pulling it off and would do about 10 points of damage. The math in 4e was *too* tight, and you could see the skeleton under the skin. Is that the issue here?

Also, flat or balanced characters != flat or boring combats automatically. Maybe it does, but I'm not seeing the automatic connection. Anyone?

Doug M.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
What I'm grieving is the flatness of character builds -- and, by necessary extension, the flatness of combat.

I don't see that those two things are necessarily connected.

Flatness of character builds could also be read as "balance", no? Then it comes down to a question of flavor. -- For those of us who remember D&D 4e, that was a huge problem. At a given level, the fighter could hit you with a sword with about an 80% of hitting you for around 10 points of damage; or the wizard could blast you with about an 80% chance of success for around 10 points of damage; or the thief could grab the chandelier, do a backflip and hit you from behind and... he'd have about an 80% chance of pulling it off and would do about 10 points of damage. The math in 4e was *too* tight, and you could see the skeleton under the skin. Is that the issue here?

You probably wanted to quote perception check rather than DMW, but they must have shapeshifted into the fox form and stealthed.

PF2 does share some traits with D&D4 alongside what you described, but it learned from the old mistakes and is better. A big part is the action economy often allowing to do two things on a turn, and the +-10 crit system.

The fighter can combine multiple attacks (Open/Press/Flourish) to achieve higher damage in suitable conditions. They can also apply crit spec debuffs depending on their weapon and feats.

A wizard in this case inflicts the same 10 damage but more reliably because they do 5 even on a successful save. They can also inflict a wide variety of debuffs (again, with reduced degree effect even on a success) or they can tailor the damage type to exploit enemy weaknesses.

A rogue would be able to choose between inflicting 15 sneak damage with a nasty backstabbing debuff - or doing 7 damage and stay behind the front line, spring attack style - with no feats needed. They also have a number of ways to use their skills in combat, like feint.

Every class has something that only they can do.

Quote:
Also, flat or balanced characters != flat or boring combats automatically. Maybe it does, but I'm not seeing the automatic connection.

I think this could be the PF2 tagline. This game rewards emergent group tactical decisions much more than each party member focusing on its own one-trick build path.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like 50% of optimization is now in combat while 50% is in character building whereas in 1E it was all in character building.

Also what is probably the most prominent action in the game - strike - loses value if used often. This has massive tactical ramifications in that your first strike in a turn is really good as a martial, whereas your last is worse than your other alternatives giving you an actual reason to use those alternatives.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
At a given level, the fighter could hit you with a sword with about an 80% of hitting you for around 10 points of damage; or the wizard could blast you with about an 80% chance of success for around 10 points of damage; or the thief could grab the chandelier, do a backflip and hit you from behind and... he'd have about an 80% chance of pulling it off and would do about 10 points of damage. The math in 4e was *too* tight, and you could see the skeleton under the skin. Is that the issue here?

It is not.

Firstly, martials and spellcasters work very differently. Spellcasters simply can't reliably equal the single target damage of martials (not without spending turns buffing, anyway) but have, well, spells to do quite a lot of other different things better (buffs, debuffs, area effects, SoD vs lower level foes, etc.).

Secondly, even among martials, while the DPR is actually very comparable among most of them, it's not in the same way at all. Fighters have an unassailable accuracy advantage over everyone else, while Barbarians get massive damage bonuses, Rogues have Sneak Attack and some debuff effects, Monks get action economy and mobility advantages, and so on.

Thirdly, attack routines and odds vary a lot based on the tactical choices you make and Feats you use. It's not like there's no ways to increase your odds of success once the combat starts or everyone always full attacks.

perception check's complaint seems to be focused on the fact that generally, you need to get enemies to zero HP to take them out, rather than having alternate possibilities (like SoD effects and grappling) to take out foes while leaving them at full HP (which is not quite true, but much more so than it was in PF1). And that apparently this makes the fights boring. I don't personally feel that quite follows, but that seems to be a large part of the complaint.

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Tell me why I should switch from PF1 to PF2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.