Very Impressed with PF2 Thus Far


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

18 people marked this as a favorite.

While my intake of PF2 via reading, GM prep, and at the table continues to progress, I wanted to shout out to Paizo that PF2 is amazing, thus far. I really appreciate the approach the design team took with this game. I appreciate the ability to walk the tightrope of preserving the core experience while taking the opportunity to innovate and clean up problematic areas. As my experience with the game and the new rules continues to grow, the word I keep coming back to is “elegant”. This game is easier to prep, easier to run, more thematically consistent with itself, easier to teach, faster to run, more dynamic tactically, and – in my experience, anyway – consistently facilitates the creation of interesting characters. While a core rulebook can’t possibly contain the breadth of character options that a decade-long edition can, I definitely feel that PF2’s CRB supports a range of character options that is orders of magnitude greater & meaningful than PF1’s CRB did.

For the most part, I’ve been persuaded by some of the design or production choices I was less excited about. Although I think the exclusion of NPC creation in the core rulebook was a misstep (and would have been a better section than the Setting gazetteer chapter), Paizo at least provided those creation rules for free. I was never a fan of NPCs using different rules than PCs prior to Starfinder but now I am. I like PF2’s take even better. Combat level/power separated from social/skill level of ability? 'Bout damn time. NPCs that are a social challenge/obstacle without having to also be a combat threat? Thank you!

As for the launch, the only real criticisms I have is that the Gamemastery Guide should have been called out more explicitly as the 3rd pillar of the core trinity (Core, Bestiary, Gamemastery Guide) rather than the GM customization book. NPC creation, chases, hazards, etc. are all core GM content, IMO. While I understand the desire & need to get updated setting info out early, I think the GG should have taken higher priority than the two Lost Omens books released to date. Having to wait until February to get the GG is taking FOREVER. I don't run my games in Golarion but even if I did, the need for the GG would far outweigh the importance of the content in the Lost Omens books.

I know that min-maxing builds was part of the appeal of PF1 for some people. While I don’t begrudge anyone their desire for fun, I am glad to see that PF2 really wasn’t built with min-maxing in mind. At least, that appears to be the case for me. Balance and meaningful choices are much more consistent across the board and kudos for reworking the underlying math to make that design philosophy possible.

Thanks, Paizo, for this awesome game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with most of what you've said, so I'm really just going to try and provoke a thought rather than make an argument or point out a disagreement:

What if the reason the Game Master Guide is coming out later is because of it's higher importance than the Lost Omens books that have come out? Assigning more time and resources to the project, rather than everything presumably getting the same amount of time and effort and being released only in order of priority.


I am happier with the GMG taking time personally, while you may not see it this way but this is the perfect time for Paizo to get all the feedback that they needed on the CRB and to help make sure that the GMG is going to be giving GMs what they are needing/wanting now that we actually have the final core rules in our hands.

They can see if anything they had built failed in the PFS games or in the APs and adjust advice/systems that didn't work out how they expected or how internal testing showed.


I don’t think the time between launch and Gamemastety Guide shipping was much of a window for feedback. Perhaps the additional time was needed, but CRB feedback, rewrites, layout, print, and ship? Seems like a tall order to me.

Regardless, the Gamemastery Guide content - at least a lot of it - IS core mechanics. It should have landed closer to launch. A GM shouldn’t have to wait 6-7 months for chases, hazards, NPCs, vehicles, etc. Campaign creation advice is good to have when you want to start running a game, etc. I’d rank it far, far above a New Thassilon update, for example.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing I think you're forgetting is how little of the Lost Omens World Guide was mechanics. As I recall, a bunch of people were irate about how little of it was mechanics, but that allowed the vast majority of the book to be made with minimal input from the design team. From what I've heard, they had the design team working on the GMG from the moment they finished the Core Rules and Bestiary, so I think that January/February was the soonest they could get it out, especially with Stephen leaving the company just after Gencon.


On the topic of chases, hazards, NPCs, vehicles, and the like:

Given how common it is that people run the Adventure Paths rather than craft their own campaigns whole cloth, those details are well enough covered without having the whole GMG locked down.

That said, there's genuinely no way to have literally everything that everyone is going to "need" for creating their own campaign in the initial release of a game - the bestiary is "missing" monsters, or the character options are "missing" something, or some area or theme that the GM wants to focus on is "missing" from the advice/toolbox/optional rules portion of the game. So the goal of a launch is really just to have enough of things for most people that want to play the game to be willing to play the game - and core book plus bestiary and/or Adventure Path achieves that.


Yeah, the game isn't FULLY fully released until the APG is how I see it. CRB, B1, GMG, B2, and APG, that's the core set of books for a huge complex game. And once this year is over the game is complete and ready to go forever.


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

Imo, Pf2e is built for min-max, or more accurately character optimization- the game is balanced so that doing so doesn't cause problems, so as someone who really enjoys that part of the game, I'm a happy little fish splashing around in my shiny new pond whenever i get to look through the feats, or the crafting rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
The thing I think you're forgetting is how little of the Lost Omens World Guide was mechanics.

No, I'm not forgetting that. You're reinforcing my point.

Regardless, the game is great, which was the point of my post. If February is the absolute earliest a GG could hit the street, I'll live. Is it ideal? No. Far from it. Could it have been handled differently? Perhaps. Again, that wasn't the point.

Despite any minor criticisms I may have over prioritizing Lost Omens content over the GG (for reasons that could be valid, invalid, avoidable or unavoidable - it doesn't matter), PF2 is a home run in my book.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Cydeth wrote:
The thing I think you're forgetting is how little of the Lost Omens World Guide was mechanics.

No, I'm not forgetting that. You're reinforcing my point.

How? The GMG is going to have tons of mechanics. They're completely different writing teams between world lore and mechanics, from everything I've seen.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Cydeth wrote:
The thing I think you're forgetting is how little of the Lost Omens World Guide was mechanics.

No, I'm not forgetting that. You're reinforcing my point.

How? The GMG is going to have tons of mechanics. They're completely different writing teams between world lore and mechanics, from everything I've seen.

Let's chalk it up to miscommunication via written forum vs. spoken word. You're arguing a point that I'm not refuting nor particularly interested in.

The point of my OP was that PF2 continues to surprise and delight me and kudos to Paizo for creating an elegant new edition. ANYTHING after that was commentary along the lines of "and I feel this way despite any personal preference I might have towards the Gamemaster Guide being core, critical content that I would have liked to have sooner".

If my saying "Despite any minor criticisms I may have over prioritizing Lost Omens content over the GG (for reasons that could be valid, invalid, avoidable or unavoidable - it doesn't matter), PF2 is a home run in my book" doesn't drive home the point I was trying to make, then I cede the hill to you.

Enjoy your Pathfinder, folks. I'm certainly enjoying mine.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BPorter wrote:
Let's chalk it up to miscommunication via written forum vs. spoken word. You're arguing a point that I'm not refuting nor particularly interested in.

I'll grant that you certainly seemed to misinterpret my initial statement. If you misread it, no harm done.

I hope you enjoy the game. I would have loved to have the GMG already myself, and wish it was out, so that I could more easily adapt my own custom setting as well.


BPorter wrote:

I don’t think the time between launch and Gamemastety Guide shipping was much of a window for feedback. Perhaps the additional time was needed, but CRB feedback, rewrites, layout, print, and ship? Seems like a tall order to me.

Regardless, the Gamemastery Guide content - at least a lot of it - IS core mechanics. It should have landed closer to launch. A GM shouldn’t have to wait 6-7 months for chases, hazards, NPCs, vehicles, etc. Campaign creation advice is good to have when you want to start running a game, etc. I’d rank it far, far above a New Thassilon update, for example.

GMG comes out february... CRB came out August 1st.

~3-4months of feedback is absolutely worth while to make the sort of changes necessary.

The lost omens books aren't an either or... They are a completely separate product which likely aren't being worked on in the same way.

It is a "do they release the GMG now, and risk rushing it quality wise... or wait 6 months and release it then"

6 months makes more sense, the CRB and bestiary are enough to run games atm. The GMG just expands upon that.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
BPorter wrote:

I don’t think the time between launch and Gamemastety Guide shipping was much of a window for feedback. Perhaps the additional time was needed, but CRB feedback, rewrites, layout, print, and ship? Seems like a tall order to me.

Regardless, the Gamemastery Guide content - at least a lot of it - IS core mechanics. It should have landed closer to launch. A GM shouldn’t have to wait 6-7 months for chases, hazards, NPCs, vehicles, etc. Campaign creation advice is good to have when you want to start running a game, etc. I’d rank it far, far above a New Thassilon update, for example.

GMG comes out february... CRB came out August 1st.

~3-4months of feedback is absolutely worth while to make the sort of changes necessary.

The lost omens books aren't an either or... They are a completely separate product which likely aren't being worked on in the same way.

It is a "do they release the GMG now, and risk rushing it quality wise... or wait 6 months and release it then"

6 months makes more sense, the CRB and bestiary are enough to run games atm. The GMG just expands upon that.

Just a note that they are probably at like 2 months of feedback at most. For a Feb release the book would have gone to the printer the end of October or beginning of November, and at least the last month of that would have been editing and layout. Not that they couldn't have snuck something in in the last month, but that is usually trickier.


Justin Franklin wrote:


Just a note that they are probably at like 2 months of feedback at most. For a Feb release the book would have gone to the printer the end of October or beginning of November, and at least the last month of that would have been editing and layout. Not that they couldn't have snuck something in in the last month, but that is usually trickier.

The crb went to printers two months before release if memory serves me correctly. Don't feel like scrolling back through blog posts though.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:


Just a note that they are probably at like 2 months of feedback at most. For a Feb release the book would have gone to the printer the end of October or beginning of November, and at least the last month of that would have been editing and layout. Not that they couldn't have snuck something in in the last month, but that is usually trickier.
The crb went to printers two months before release if memory serves me correctly. Don't feel like scrolling back through blog posts though.

According to Bulmahn's twitter it went to the printer on March 27, approximately 4 months before release.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Glad to hear, OP!

I’ve had a few sessions, but I kick off my PF2 campaign tomorrow and I’m anxious about it. We are transitioning from a very well liked 5E game, and I have a handful of players that are going to be super critical (they even made me promise to go back if they’re, subjectively, not having fun - or they wouldn’t play). I’m hoping everything goes off without a hitch, everyone adapts to the rules quickly and easily and the system plays smoothly and posts like this give me confidence.

I’m prepped and ready to go - hoping this works out well!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Hope y’all have fun ^w^


Oh man just found out 3 of my 7 players have written up characters with animal companions - one ranger, one Druid, and one champion with divine steed. This is going downhill fast lol


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Liegence wrote:
Oh man just found out 3 of my 7 players have written up characters with animal companions - one ranger, one Druid, and one champion with divine steed. This is going downhill fast lol

Still entirely manageable. Animal companions are a breeze. Their limited combat options can actually make those players' turns go *faster* because they don't waffle over the third action as much.


Liegence wrote:
Oh man just found out 3 of my 7 players have written up characters with animal companions - one ranger, one Druid, and one champion with divine steed. This is going downhill fast lol

Not at all. Many player get for lack of better word overconfident looking at the stats of their animal companions kind of throwing them into battle with no upgrades and simply hope and a smile. Granted this is coming from a PF 1E perspective, many players wondered how my animal companion was still standing while theirs were down for the count or killed off.

First many DMs can and will target an unprotected animal companion which is not that hard to hit at early levels. Secondly it takes time to upgrade the companion to not only deal damage but also to survive it . Produce Flame, Barkskin take time to cast yet means more damage given and more taken by the animal companion.

As to the OP still on the fence about getting PF 2e. Though my resolve for better or worse is weakening.


Managing animal companions in 2E has been a breeze. Feels like they’re an extension of their masters rather than extra combatants I need to worry about as a DM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as streamlining the system and simplifying, I agree that PF2 is mostly successful. I say mostly because of two things that became unnecessarily complicated in 2e: sensing things, and conditions.

Conditions have become so complex that my group really needed the condition cards to track them. Btw, the condition cards are a great product.

Hidden, Undetected, Concealed, Detected, Observed, wtf?? Unnecessarily complex and hard to understand, this particular piece of the rulebook is a streamlining fail.

Otherwise, my group is really enjoying the 2e system. Cheers Paizo!


I dunno if ease of use is the point of concern for animal Companions. I think it is some combination of immersion, power balance, and PF1 player expectations. That last one has an impact on the first two. Animal companions can make substantial DPR contributions and soak hits that would otherwise come at players. But folks are used to them being more autonomous, and a well built PF1 pouncer could do damage a full martial. Folks get tripped up on needing to command an animal each turn or it getting else actions than an NPC critter of the same species.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:


Hidden, Undetected, Concealed, Detected, Observed, wtf?? Unnecessarily complex and hard to understand, this particular piece of the rulebook is a streamlining fail.

Otherwise, my group is really enjoying the 2e system. Cheers Paizo!

I actually like the senses system, because as a GM I've been making rulings on the spot for stuff like this since DnD 3e and now it's finally supported in the rules. There's a codified difference between knowing where the enemy is versus just knowing they're somewhere near, and the GM is better equipped to give concrete answers to questions like, "What actions from an invisible enemy reveal its location without dropping invisibility?" An enemy close by you speaking might change them from undetected to hidden, and I'll have a little more basis in the rules for that decision, whereas before I had to come up with a rule on the spot to be like, "Yeah, you heard the voice was close by, but I don't know if that's enough for you to target them with an attack?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah the stealth rules are a little wonky to wrap your head around (I still don't always remember the names of the different conditions, and the rules on needing to Hide before you can Sneak through me for a loop) but the stealth vs perception rules are a huge step up from PF1 in usability and common sense.


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

Yeah, if not for the GM screen, the new stealth terminology would have destroyed my GM cred long ago.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I strongly recommend Basics4Gamers Pathfinder (2e) Basics series. The videos on Perception and Concealment and the Basics of Stealth are great videos with examples to reinforce the new rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFR-7N_nOS0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xm_1IBdU6A


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My group hasn't been too tripped up on conditions. Sure there are a bunch, but as a gm I only need to know (or have quick reference too) conditions that my chosen adversarys are capable of inflicting and my players only need to know those they can inflict.

We are finding it far easier than pf1 because the number portion is generally part of the condition so we just had to remember the what not the how much. Pf1 on the other hand had different synonyms for the same effect to describe the how much (is shaken worse than panicked and by how much?)

The detection states are one thing that has drawn us into rules talk at table. But that was due to one of my players also gming another group and wanting to make sure he was getting the rules lingo down tight (we mostly use colloquial language rather than technical language.) Once it was described as a matrix of states he got it though. And as another poster above I had to make these sorts of things up on the go a lot in pf1 so having a solid range helps me consistently apply rules.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

For anyone who doesn't know about it, I highly recommend the tool pf2.easytool.es as a tool for GMing. It has all the rules included, you just type in the search bar. You can bring up multiple monster Stat blocks and flip back and forth with the arrow keys. All the abilities and spells are cross-linked, and all the conditions you can click on to get a tool tip reminding you what that condition does.

It also has all the feats, spells, exploration activities, etc, so you can quickly look them up when a rules question crops up. I have found it invaluable, and it has saved a huge amount of flipping through books or the SRD for me.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BellyBeard wrote:
For anyone who doesn't know about it, I highly recommend the tool pf2.easytool.es as a tool for GMing.

Ooh, that looks nice. I like that key terms are hyperlinked. It even has content from Age of Ashes, which looks to be very helpful for me. Thanks for sharing!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There's some nice links here, and I'm looking forward to both playing and GMing PF2! From just reading the rules, the game looks greatly streamlined no matter which side of the screen you are on.


steelhead wrote:
There's some nice links here, and I'm looking forward to both playing and GMing PF2! From just reading the rules, the game looks greatly streamlined no matter which side of the screen you are on.

As a GM I keep running into old habbits from standard d&D / PF1e play. But I do that whenever I run a fantasy game of this genre :).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am also very impressed by PF2e so far. I just got the physical core rule book and it's a lesson in design in of itself.

It's by no means perfect, but still a very solid game. The APG "playtest" materials were sadly not very encouraging - both the Witch and Oracle are in my experience very disappointing.


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

I'm of two minds on pathfinder2e.

on one hand i find it MUCH easier to GM for. a lot of the garbage rules that were more complicated than needed have been removed, and there are very easy rules to make almost anything very quickly.

however, after my initial excitement of seeing how things are different from 1e, i've become less excited about actually playing it personally. Classes all have the felling they've been set up to end up doing about the same but in a slightly different way. like each melee class as an example, feels all even, except at the one thing their class ability alters.(fighter has better accuracy, barbarian, better damage, and ranger better reliability/adaptability)

it's a fun game, but in that it's easy and quick to play, and nothing is likely to upset the gameplay. like besides being a charisma class, it's hard to make a character good at lying, at least more than anyone else can be. glibness is a +4 from a +20(it was favorite spell ;-;)

idk, it's a fun game, but i think i'd prefer to play 1e as a player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:


idk, it's a fun game, but i think i'd prefer to play 1e as a player.

Definitely a valid opinion. PF2 is a more consistent experience where PF1 could vary wildly based on character and builds, but that's not a bad thing at all: in many people's opinions, different builds SHOULD play wildly differently. If you are used to PF1, PF2 can feel like a reduction in agency, where your character (and by extension you) has less control over the story because many things you could do through optimizing or powerful magic before are simply not possible in PF2. You can't get a +20 modifier to lying from glibness and cause hijinks anymore, so a game where that caused an unexpected and fun change from the norm is no longer possible. That does feel like the game is losing something by bringing the outlier experiences in closer to the norm.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I mean the gap between heavy investment in something and a bit of investment in something is smaller, but you absolutely be amazing at any skill. I mean ultimately the same was true in PF1 but the gap was bigger. Outside of specific class features, everyone had the same maximal cap on any given skill.

It also means that you as a non caster who has invested in lying isn't completely invalidated by a cheap scroll by level 5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Classes all have the felling they've been set up to end up doing about the same but in a slightly different way. like each melee class as an example, feels all even, except at the one thing their class ability alters.(fighter has better accuracy, barbarian, better damage, and ranger better reliability/adaptability)

If you want the classes to be playing differently, that's what class feats like sudden charge are for. I dont understand how you could say they're the same when their tactics are dictated by the class feats they took, and theres so many options.

Moreover I'm completely baffled how pf1's combat could be more varied than pf2? Pf1 is all about full round attacks or spells. Theres way more tactical options in pf2


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:

I mean the gap between heavy investment in something and a bit of investment in something is smaller, but you absolutely be amazing at any skill. I mean ultimately the same was true in PF1 but the gap was bigger. Outside of specific class features, everyone had the same maximal cap on any given skill.

It also means that you as a non caster who has invested in lying isn't completely invalidated by a cheap scroll by level 5.

i mean, it's as simple as there being expected levels where you'll have access to expert, master and legendary for skills.

the most interesting skill interaction i've seen so far is the Iruxi's ability to change their scale color to match an environment to get a +2 to stealth.

Strill wrote:


Moreover I'm completely baffled how pf1's combat could be more varied than pf2? Pf1 is all about full round attacks or spells. Theres way more tactical options in pf2

it's less what actions you perform and what effects you can apply to those actions. like using chilltouch to deliver strength damage through unarmed attacks, just as a really obscure thing i did in a battle.

mind you, i've cooled off to the idea of the increased mobility in 2e, sure you get to do more in 1 turn, and AoO aren't a thing as much, but it makes most battles kind of flat, where movement feels less calculated(but makes it much easier to run from a mindscape), you either can flank or can't. in 1e, you might try to avoid AoO with acrobatics and get behind an enemy and now they're trapped.

mind you i'm also a big fan of spheres of power and might, which takes a ton of emphasis off of full attacks. (you can for instance, choose to trade AC for temp HP each turn you do it, trip as a move action, attack twice as a standard action if using 2 weapons, can cause people to bleed and apply conditions for as long as they bleed, all in one turn at level like 6 or so on the right classes... and that's just how i'd imagine to play an armorless dual axe wielding barbarian in the system.)

I'm currently playing in 1e a divination wizard with a focus on transmutation and summoning (not in-combat summoning, like summoning devils and elementals to perform tasks for me and the party).

in combat he transforms into forms with very strong poisons and uses true strike to try to poison key targets.

Another wizard in my party, is only really good at casting fireball, but has also brought a ton of utility spells to the table. same class but really different.

just saying i think i prefer playing 1e, i don't think 2e is a worse game. I may come off as trying really hard to prove 1e is better here, but i'm just showing some of the reasons i prefer 1e.

like i said, i can still GM for 2e and several of my player's seem to be happy playing it. i'll probably even play as a player eventually.


Bandw2 wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I mean the gap between heavy investment in something and a bit of investment in something is smaller, but you absolutely be amazing at any skill. I mean ultimately the same was true in PF1 but the gap was bigger. Outside of specific class features, everyone had the same maximal cap on any given skill.

It also means that you as a non caster who has invested in lying isn't completely invalidated by a cheap scroll by level 5.

i mean, it's as simple as there being expected levels where you'll have access to expert, master and legendary for skills.

I don't know what you mean. You're saying that because you can't put all your skill increases into one skill, PF2e is more restrictive? Or are you saying that because you don't get skill increases every level, that it's restrictive? I'm having a hard time seeing how this differs much from PF1e.

Quote:
it's less what actions you perform and what effects you can apply to those actions. like using chilltouch to deliver strength damage through unarmed attacks, just as a really obscure thing i did in a battle.

So your problem is that PF2e doesn't have the mountains of splatbooks required to enable obscure combos?

Quote:
mind you i'm also a big fan of spheres of power and might, which takes a ton of emphasis off of full attacks. (you can for instance, choose to trade AC for temp HP each turn you do it, trip as a move action, attack twice as a standard action if using 2 weapons, can cause people to bleed and apply conditions for as long as they bleed, all in one turn at level like 6 or so on the right classes... and that's just how i'd imagine to play an armorless dual axe wielding barbarian in the system.)

For the most part, that sounds like a normal turn for a Pf2e character.

Quote:

I'm currently playing in 1e a divination wizard with a focus on transmutation and summoning (not in-combat summoning, like summoning devils and elementals to perform tasks for me and the party).

in combat he transforms into forms with very strong poisons and uses true strike to try to poison key targets.

Another wizard in my party, is only really good at casting fireball, but has also brought a ton of utility spells to the table. same class but really different.

And you're saying you can't do that in PF2e?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Strill wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I mean the gap between heavy investment in something and a bit of investment in something is smaller, but you absolutely be amazing at any skill. I mean ultimately the same was true in PF1 but the gap was bigger. Outside of specific class features, everyone had the same maximal cap on any given skill.

It also means that you as a non caster who has invested in lying isn't completely invalidated by a cheap scroll by level 5.

i mean, it's as simple as there being expected levels where you'll have access to expert, master and legendary for skills.

I don't know what you mean. You're saying that because you can't put all your skill increases into one skill, PF2e is more restrictive? Or are you saying that because you don't get skill increases every level, that it's restrictive? I'm having a hard time seeing how this differs much from PF1e.

Quote:
it's less what actions you perform and what effects you can apply to those actions. like using chilltouch to deliver strength damage through unarmed attacks, just as a really obscure thing i did in a battle.

So your problem is that PF2e doesn't have the mountains of splatbooks required to enable obscure combos?

Quote:
mind you i'm also a big fan of spheres of power and might, which takes a ton of emphasis off of full attacks. (you can for instance, choose to trade AC for temp HP each turn you do it, trip as a move action, attack twice as a standard action if using 2 weapons, can cause people to bleed and apply conditions for as long as they bleed, all in one turn at level like 6 or so on the right classes... and that's just how i'd imagine to play an armorless dual axe wielding barbarian in the system.)

For the most part, that sounds like a normal turn for a Pf2e character.

Quote:

I'm currently playing in 1e a divination wizard with a focus on transmutation and summoning (not in-combat summoning, like summoning devils and elementals to perform tasks for me and the party).

in

...

1. it's more like, the game knows full well when most people will get a skill increase and is balance around that, and that it's the only reliable way to increase your skill bonus.

2. the chill touch thing is CRB... <_> a wizard -> chill touch -> any polymorph spell(i mean technically the polymorph spell needs a bestiary), or even just punching someone. you can always deliver touch spell attacks as part of a natural attack or unarmed strike if the spell hasn't discharged yet.

3. doesn't for me, spheres of might boosted melee up to caster level instead of 2e nerfing casters down to non-casters. that's not a bad thing mind you, just noting i do play with a playset that fixes a lot of martial class's issues in 1e.

4. i can't poison them, that's for sure. I don't do much damage per attack and so i rely on doing multiple attacks or using strong poisons. (i'm level 11 and i can do a 1d4 con 1d4 str poison with cure: 3, the creature is from bestiary 6 i think) Also most divination spells are uncommon, i'm using arcane eye and scrying to get us all information before hand.

a list of all the splat books i'm using and what i'm using them for:
• Advanced Class Guide - Disable Construct (spell);
Heightened Awareness (spell); Memorize Page (spell);
Mirror Polish (spell); Pierce Disguise (spell); Repair
Undead (spell); Silent Table (spell); Stunning Barrier
(spell)
• Advanced Player's Guide - Ant Haul (spell); Create Pit
(spell); Dancing Lantern (spell); Sculpt Corpse (spell);
Stone Fist (spell); Stumble Gap (spell); Touch of
Gracelessness (spell); Vanish (spell)
• Advanced Player's Guide / Bestiary 2 - Hydraulic Push
(spell)
• Advanced Player's Guide Traits / Character Traits
Web Enhancement - Resilient (trait)
• Advanced Player's Guide Traits / Character Traits
Web Enhancement / Ultimate Campaign - Magical
Lineage (trait)
• Advanced Race Guide - Aboleth's Lung (spell); Armor
of the Pit (feat); Bestow Insight (spell); Prehensile Tail
(alternate racial trait); Recharge Innate Magic (spell);
Scorching Ash Form (spell); Sow Thought (spell); Touch
of Combustion (spell); Undine's Curse (spell); Urban
Grace (spell); Web Bolt (spell)
• Advanced Race Guide / Bestiary / Blood of Fiends /
Inner Sea Races - Tiefling (race)
• Andoran, Spirit of Liberty / Ultimate Combat -
Liberating Command (spell)
• Blood of Fiends / Council of Thieves - +2 INT (race
option)
• Blood of Fiends / Council of Thieves / Inner Sea
Races - Rakshasa-Spawn Tiefling (race option)
• Blood of Shadows - Dancing Darkness (spell); Shadow
Trap (spell); Touch of Blindness (spell)
• Book of the Damned - Cocytus’s Deception
(equipment); Glibness 1/day (race option)
• Council of Thieves / Hell's Vengeance / Inner Sea
World Guide - Infernal Healing (spell)
• Curse of the Crimson Throne - Unlock Flesh (spell)
• Dark Markets: A Guide to Katapesh / Ultimate Magic
- Ray of Sickening (spell)
• Deep Magic / Midgard Player's Guide / Player's Guide
to the Crossroads - Shadow Shape (spell)
• Deep Magic / Midgard Player's Guide / Zobeck
Gazetteer - Compelling Question (spell); Orb of Light,
Lesser (spell)
• Faiths of Balance / Inner Sea Gods - Lighten Object
(spell)
• Faiths of Corruption / Inner Sea Gods - Lose the Trail
(spell)
• Faiths of Golarion / Inner Sea Gods - Deific
Obedience (feat)
• Heroes of the Darklands / Inner Sea Races / Inner
Sea World Guide - Necril (language)
• Inner Sea Gods - Evangelist (class)
• Inner Sea Gods / Legacy of Fire - Face of the
Devourer (spell)
• Inner Sea Gods / Second Darkness - Secret Speech
(spell)
• Iron Gods - Semblance of Flesh (spell)
• Mythic Adventures - Cape of free will +2/+3
(equipment)
• Occult Adventures - Anticipate Thoughts (spell); Create
Mindscape (spell); Anticipate Thoughts (spell);
Hypercognition (spell); Mindlink (spell); Mindscape Door
(spell); Quintessence (spell); Thoughtsense (spell)
• Ultimate Combat - Illusion of Calm (spell); Moment of
Greatness (spell); Negative Reaction (spell); Protection
(it glitched out after this so i just manual wrote the rest)
* Ultimate equipment (for mess kit)
* Ultimate magic (for mostly like 10 or so spells)
*Way of the Wicked AP (for magic items and traits specific to the AP)

most of the splat books are for spells, and i actually clear everything i get with my GM beforehand. besides ultimate magic and occult adventures I think i could lose most of these spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
1. it's more like, the game knows full well when most people will get a skill increase and is balance around that, and that it's the only reliable way to increase your skill bonus.

It's explicitly balanced so that you're ahead of the curve for the skills you max out.


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

Considering that outside of rogues folks can only get 3 non lore skills to legendary, the game cant assume specific levels for a skills rank. On top of that there is around a 4pt variability for related attribute, a 1-3 pt variability for equipment and a massive variability in skill feats. Overall at the lowest levels there may be a spread of over 10 and at the highest levels a spread of over 15.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Considering that outside of rogues folks can only get 3 non lore skills to legendary, the game cant assume specific levels for a skills rank. On top of that there is around a 4pt variability for related attribute, a 1-3 pt variability for equipment and a massive variability in skill feats. Overall at the lowest levels there may be a spread of over 10 and at the highest levels a spread of over 15.

sure and if you look at DCs by level, in the game master section, the DC for a level 1 roll is 15 (difference of 14) and 20 is 40 (difference of 20)

if you don't put any ability adjustments in there, then it stays on par with skill increases. basically, compare a character with the ability to boost charisma to a character who isn't capable, and that's fine, but they're both still at expected ranges, for themselves. like i don't think a comparison of a fighter and a sorcerer both trying to be good at deception is a good comparison. instead compare either a fighter who isn't focusing on deception with one, or the sorcerer with himself likewise. you end up with ranks and possibly a 1-3 item bonus, with maybe spells for a bonus all over the place.

and yes, i know you can also boost charisma, but if you don't really plan on using charisma for anything but deception you're left out, so over the course of play it's a wash. everything else you do isn't a wash, but it's so hard to get those little bonuses out there.

it really feels like an up hill battle to specialize. i don't particularly enjoy that kind of battle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:


it really feels like an up hill battle to specialize. i don't particularly enjoy that kind of battle.

I think one of the design goals has been outright stated as "moving away from hyper-specialized characters." It's not an uphill battle because the system isn't working, it's an uphill battle because you aren't supposed to approach it that way.


Bandw2 wrote:
like each melee class as an example, feels all even, except at the one thing their class ability alters.(fighter has better accuracy, barbarian, better damage, and ranger better reliability/adaptability)
Bandw2 wrote:
2. the chill touch thing is CRB... <_> a wizard -> chill touch -> any polymorph spell(i mean technically the polymorph spell needs a bestiary), or even just punching someone. you can always deliver touch spell attacks as part of a natural attack or unarmed strike if the spell hasn't discharged yet.

How did you go from melee classes (specifically calling out fighter, barbarian and ranger) "feel all even" to explaining what wizards could/can do? That's some major goalpost-moving there.


I think Bandw2 just likes the way PF1e works better, which is very different to 2e in many ways. I mean his group uses Spheres of Power, and so on, so they like the hyper customization aspect, which PF2e won't ever offer even with more rulesbooks.

Good for him. I prefer the tighter margins and less homework required for my players and myself. Both opinions can exist.

There are no goal posts on someone's subjective feelings. It is not really a thing to specialise in the exact way you could specialise in PF1e.

I'm happy with those changes, he isn't. Both opinions can exist.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Artofregicide wrote:
It's by no means perfect, but still a very solid game. The APG "playtest" materials were sadly not very encouraging - both the Witch and Oracle are in my experience very disappointing.

Why the scare quotes? Are you implying it somehow isn't a real playtest?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ruzza wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


it really feels like an up hill battle to specialize. i don't particularly enjoy that kind of battle.
I think one of the design goals has been outright stated as "moving away from hyper-specialized characters." It's not an uphill battle because the system isn't working, it's an uphill battle because you aren't supposed to approach it that way.

which isn't what i said, i said, i don't prefer it because of it over 1e. that's all.

Bluenose wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
like each melee class as an example, feels all even, except at the one thing their class ability alters.(fighter has better accuracy, barbarian, better damage, and ranger better reliability/adaptability)
Bandw2 wrote:
2. the chill touch thing is CRB... <_> a wizard -> chill touch -> any polymorph spell(i mean technically the polymorph spell needs a bestiary), or even just punching someone. you can always deliver touch spell attacks as part of a natural attack or unarmed strike if the spell hasn't discharged yet.
How did you go from melee classes (specifically calling out fighter, barbarian and ranger) "feel all even" to explaining what wizards could/can do? That's some major goalpost-moving there.

that's because i'm currently playing a wizard. also i meant all classes feel really even, and merely showcased some of the classes with little differences. the differentest in my opinion, are bard and alchemist. the rest all rely heavily on the same mechanics and attack assumptions, it's why people complain casters don't have accuracy items on spells because rolling against AC while 1-3 behind means a lot in this system.


Fumarole wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
It's by no means perfect, but still a very solid game. The APG "playtest" materials were sadly not very encouraging - both the Witch and Oracle are in my experience very disappointing.
Why the scare quotes? Are you implying it somehow isn't a real playtest?

I mean, it was a preview. Paizo admitted they didn't have time to make changes before the books hit the press. Mostly it's been an effort to draw attention and build hype for the product. They said they'd apply any feedback to future releases, but that's kind of silly. It's been an ongoing problem where they don't have time to adjust before printing. But it's not their fault, they're fighting an uphill battle and time is not on their side, so they don't have the luxury a 5 year playtest like 5e did. I expect this to be the future of Paizo publications, and I'm concerned that they're flying blind as their player base continues to dry up and either stick with PF1e or leave for other systems like 5e. But they have to publish at breakneck speed to keep the doors open, now more than ever. Don't get me wrong, I want 2e to be successful, even if I don't like the system (and I do like it). I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but only time will tell.

TL;DR: It wasn't a playtest, it was a preview.

But mostly I keep scare quotes to keep the comma crows out of my punctuation patch. :)

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Very Impressed with PF2 Thus Far All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.