Take up of Second Edition


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 1,069 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tremaine wrote:
The 3 action system (combined with everyone getting +1/lvl) negates the one advantage martials had, the iterative attack, it has removed the fun of two weapon fighters and flurries huge pile of attacks (low chance of success I admit, but something about rolling 6 or more different coloured d20s for an attack routine is great), and I liked the feel of the war gaming legacy turn structure, the move action, standard action and action of opportunity felt 'right' for a fantasy rpg.

The 3-action system makes a move-attack-move skirmisher workable, instead of a contrived inefficient disappointment such characters were in PF1. After investing multiple feats you could move, make a grand total of 1 attack and move again, which meant your damage output was so far behind "stand still and full attack ad nauseam" characters that it wasn't even funny.

So much for "feeling right for fantasy RPG". In PF2, since attacks beyond the first one have much less chance to land, making a skirmisher doesn't require as much investment and is far more viable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tremaine wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Tremaine wrote:
The 3 action system (combined with everyone getting +1/lvl) negates the one advantage martials had, the iterative attack

Full attack style iteratives were the one of the worst things that could ever happen to martials. They consistently helped to hold martials as an entire archetype back throughout the entire life of 3.x and PF1. Ana ll around terrible mechanic.

You phrase this as though getting rid of them has somehow left martials worse, but that's simply not true, it's almost purely an upgrade, both in terms of relative power this edition and in term of overall mechanical functionality.

Quote:
My issue with the rock solid role enforcement
This one I question on a fundamental level. What 'rock solid' role enforcement?

From experience with the 3 action system, hard disagree that it is an upgrade, it felt boring, flat and uninteresting, everyone had 3 actions, everyone was the same...bleughh. It was boring in unchained, boring in playtest, and boring in live. I loved the challenge and payoff of setting up those full round attacks, now? Everyone can do it, everyone bounds around like super mario...no solid battle lines shattering in a charge, no collapse in disarray, no getting cut to pieces if you are dumb enough to try to run past an enemy (unless they have a specific class with a specific feat)

On rock solid role enforcement: Their are, for champions 3 feats that aren't tied to either healing or tanking with their reaction, and those are arguable. (Smite is a tick until they hit you, blade spirit feats are ok for this, the Oaths are tied to reactions ,so part of the problem, that champions feats are tied to provoking aggro, not striking down evil)

Champions are bound to the tank role, no matter if that is utterly and totally anathema to what your vision of paladins is, you have that or heal as the supported play styles, nothing that supports, properly, being the right hand of a wrathful deity, either the near frenzy and...

As opposed to 5 foot step full attack. so much more exciting. Lol well I guess it takes all types.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Tremaine wrote:
The 3 action system (combined with everyone getting +1/lvl) negates the one advantage martials had, the iterative attack, it has removed the fun of two weapon fighters and flurries huge pile of attacks (low chance of success I admit, but something about rolling 6 or more different coloured d20s for an attack routine is great), and I liked the feel of the war gaming legacy turn structure, the move action, standard action and action of opportunity felt 'right' for a fantasy rpg.

The 3-action system makes a move-attack-move skirmisher workable, instead of a contrived inefficient disappointment such characters were in PF1. After investing multiple feats you could move, make a grand total of 1 attack and move again, which meant your damage output was so far behind "stand still and full attack ad nauseam" characters that it wasn't even funny.

So much for "feeling right for fantasy RPG". In PF2, since attacks beyond the first one have much less chance to land, making a skirmisher doesn't require as much investment and is far more viable.

anything about 'feeling right' is going to be subjective, these are reasons why I don't enjoy the game as is, not reasons I think you should not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tremaine wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Tremaine wrote:
The 3 action system (combined with everyone getting +1/lvl) negates the one advantage martials had, the iterative attack, it has removed the fun of two weapon fighters and flurries huge pile of attacks (low chance of success I admit, but something about rolling 6 or more different coloured d20s for an attack routine is great), and I liked the feel of the war gaming legacy turn structure, the move action, standard action and action of opportunity felt 'right' for a fantasy rpg.

The 3-action system makes a move-attack-move skirmisher workable, instead of a contrived inefficient disappointment such characters were in PF1. After investing multiple feats you could move, make a grand total of 1 attack and move again, which meant your damage output was so far behind "stand still and full attack ad nauseam" characters that it wasn't even funny.

So much for "feeling right for fantasy RPG". In PF2, since attacks beyond the first one have much less chance to land, making a skirmisher doesn't require as much investment and is far more viable.

anything about 'feeling right' is going to be subjective, these are reasons why I don't enjoy the game as is, not reasons I think you should not.

I get it. It just FELT right. Now it feels samey and wrong. I mean I feel the opposite, three action has made the game feel more dynamic and active, like melee characters aren't bound to sitting still or being rubbish. But that's just how I feel.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
vagrant-poet wrote:

I get it. It just FELT right. Now it feels samey and wrong. I mean I feel the opposite, three action has made the game feel more dynamic and active, like melee characters aren't bound to sitting still or being rubbish. But that's just how I feel.

I just wish casters got more opportunities to use the 3 action economy. They really only get 1 or 2 actions: Cast a spell usually takes 2 actions, and sustaining a spell is often their 3rd action. In effect it feels like there is a split, with martials getting to do 3 things and casters getting to really do just 1 (I feel maintaining concentration should be a free action, or reaction at least, so they could at least move or raise a shield or something...)

Silver Crusade

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

The devs indicated that more variable number of actions spells are coming in APG, they didn't want to put too many in Core as deciding how many actions to cast a spell was too decision-paralysing for new players.


Samurai wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:

I get it. It just FELT right. Now it feels samey and wrong. I mean I feel the opposite, three action has made the game feel more dynamic and active, like melee characters aren't bound to sitting still or being rubbish. But that's just how I feel.

I just wish casters got more opportunities to use the 3 action economy. They really only get 1 or 2 actions: Cast a spell usually takes 2 actions, and sustaining a spell is often their 3rd action. In effect it feels like there is a split, with martials getting to do 3 things and casters getting to really do just 1 (I feel maintaining concentration should be a free action, or reaction at least, so they could at least move or raise a shield or something...)

The more the game expands the more this will happen imo.

Also anyone else happy to know they are doing the archery dedication.
So any class can become an archer and gain an archery feat tree but require more investment to do so.

As for characters that drop a class, that is better represented by a dedication to the class you want to train in and then a full retraining as a downtime acrivity in pf2e anyway. In pf1e it created awful characters if you were truly doing it for thematics and not for break point power gaming niche cases.

The new multiclass system objectively allows more complete and viable characters imo. And the retraining option being core allows a lot of flexibility.
Simply forgetting or not using old abilities or not having them progress as you level is weirder than having them progress as you expand your repertoire.

Not a perfect system, but leagues ahead of 1e in terms of making sense and in play options.

Just need those class archetypes :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
My issue with the rock solid role enforcement
This one I question on a fundamental level. What 'rock solid' role enforcement?

I think he means the fact that classes have specialties. Y'know, fighters have the highest attack bonus, barbarians have the highest hp and flat damage, champions have the best AC and teamwork powers, and so on, and it's difficult to poach them from a different class.

We should make them all "fighter, but better" like it was in 1e. Just don't forget power attack.

(jokes aside, I expect some role muddling once class archetype start getting added to the mix. I just hope it's done well, I like that not every class can do everything the other classes do - makes it meaningful)

Funny thing is I actually think that in terms of actual roles a person can play in a party in terms of contributions, I think it’s more malleable than previous editions. DPS, face, healer roles are basically “sure, you have to pick the right build, but doable”. More so in this edition than in 3.0-PF1 IMO and my reasoning would be the lateral expenditure of resources was not only not an option for most classes in those editions, it was also not optimal. Now you can be a good rogue who deals plenty of damage and be the main party healer. Now you can be a barbarian who doesn’t have to be a social pariah. Now you can be a Fighter and be fast, skillful, and even stealthy assassin type.

Now that it’s possible to be optimal and still have resources left over due to separation of buckets, roles can overlap. Add in MCD and it’s basically any role you want to be.

The one exception to me, is the Champion, which I do feel is a little pidgeon holed at the moment to be the tank (mostly because every reaction is based strictly on an ally being struck). And the MCD for Champion and Fighter at the moment are lack luster for other martials (Fingers still crossed on alternate MCDs with prerequisites there), but I think new material could solve this.

Liberty's Edge

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

As for characters that drop a class, that is better represented by a dedication to the class you want to train in and then a full retraining as a downtime acrivity in pf2e anyway. In pf1e it created awful characters if you were truly doing it for thematics and not for break point power gaming niche cases.

The new multiclass system objectively allows more complete and viable characters imo. And the retraining option being core allows a lot of flexibility.
Simply forgetting or not using old abilities or not having them progress as you level is weirder than having them progress as you expand your repertoire.

Not a perfect system, but leagues ahead of 1e in terms of making sense and in play options.

Just need those class archetypes :)

You cannot retrain your class in PF2. Multiclass works much much better in PF2 than in PF1 in most aspects but not this one.

One what started life as a Wizard but soon dropped it all and dedicated themselves to the fighting science are best built as Fighter with MCD in Wizard. But that does not fit the character's narrative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
]I just wish casters got more opportunities to use the 3 action economy. They really only get 1 or 2 actions: Cast a spell usually takes 2 actions, and sustaining a spell is often their 3rd action. In effect it feels like there is a split, with martials getting to do 3 things and casters getting to really do just 1 (I feel maintaining concentration should be a free action, or reaction at least, so they could at least move or raise a shield or something...)

To me, that seems about right. Given the power and scope spells can have, they should have to devote more of their actions to them. It's like finally heading back to incorporate some 1e balancing mechanisms to spellcasting.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
239 reviews, including one by the one and only Ravingdork, complete with dorky raving and pictures. Man, you should do more of these!

239? I waited until it said 299, so that I could get the 300 spot!

Why would we have different numbers?

EDIT: Turned on my VPN and opened the listing in incognito mode in Chrome, and yeah, it's saying 239. You break my heart, Gorbacz.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It says 300 for me...

But on the variable action spells - I wonder if the core spells will also get that treatment or whether it will be restricted to new spells only

I hope it is the former as there are some iconic spells there. But if they don’t do it for APG or Gods and Magic I wonder where they will come

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ravingdork wrote:

239? I waited until it said 299, so that I could get the 300 spot!

Why would we have different numbers?

EDIT: Turned on my VPN and opened the listing in incognito mode in Chrome, and yeah, it's saying 239. You break my heart, Gorbacz.

Amazon recently started experimenting with allowing people to rate books without leaving a review, so I'm guessing that's what happened. I'm an indie author, so the first time I saw I had (pulling numbers out of nowhere, since I don't remember the actual ones) 31 ratings, but only 23 reviews, I was a bit confused.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

You cannot retrain your class in PF2. Multiclass works much much better in PF2 than in PF1 in most aspects but not this one.

One what started life as a Wizard but soon dropped it all and dedicated themselves to the fighting science are best built as Fighter with MCD in Wizard. But that does not fit the character's narrative.

I think this can still be accomplished when looking for solutions outside of class-levels: Starting out with the acolyte background then taking the fighter and picking up some magic powers here and there along the way.

But overall, I never bought this as a good reason to keep PF1 multiclassing around anyway. Yes, in theory, this sounds like an interesting character development but in practice, this resulted, at least in my games, with frustrated players because their characters were hamstrung compared to the other characters. So if that's all you gain from PF1 multiclassing compared to PF2 multiclassing than I'd say that's not worth the trade-off.


The Raven Black wrote:

You cannot retrain your class in PF2. Multiclass works much much better in PF2 than in PF1 in most aspects but not this one.

One what started life as a Wizard but soon dropped it all and dedicated themselves to the fighting science are best built as Fighter with MCD in Wizard. But that does not fit the character's narrative.

http://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=551

This specifically suggests that it is doable for roleplay reasons.

I would also like to stand by my argument that PF1e doesn't do it better.

A 6-14 fighter to wizard that never uses another martial ability again ends up being a worse wizard in its system than a PF2e fighter that takes a wizard dedication at level 6 and also forsakes any martial abilities. (not that anyone should do this, it is horribly gimping a character and thematically weird)

In both cases the characters tell the same story but the PF2e one ends up being more viable (even if it is still garbage). Neither edition has you forgetting previously known abilities and while the PF2e fighter is still improving in power as it levels that is relatively mute since you are not using those abilities anymore.

This becomes more pronounced the later it happens, but again, better to just ask the GM to allow you to retrain and let the system handle it that way imo. Represents the drastic mechanical switch better than either multiclass approach.


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

One thing I'll point out about the champion's current focus on the tank role:

We only have Good causes atm, I wouldn't be surprised to see a less tanky/support champion come from the reaction for evil or neutral champion's.

I also wouldn't be shocked to see a crusader class archetype, could alter the recipe as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

One thing I'll point out about the champion's current focus on the tank role:

We only have Good causes atm, I wouldn't be surprised to see a less tanky/support champion come from the reaction for evil or neutral champion's.

I also wouldn't be shocked to see a crusader class archetype, could alter the recipe as well.

I think role in combat should be agnostic of the alignment entirely.


Midnightoker wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

One thing I'll point out about the champion's current focus on the tank role:

We only have Good causes atm, I wouldn't be surprised to see a less tanky/support champion come from the reaction for evil or neutral champion's.

I also wouldn't be shocked to see a crusader class archetype, could alter the recipe as well.

I think role in combat should be agnostic of the alignment entirely.

I agree, though I also wish that champion mechanics as a whole were agnostic from alignment.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It seems like a bit of a stretch to turn concerns about the champion not having enough variety into an assertion that the entire game is completely role-fixed.

Salamileg wrote:
I agree, though I also wish that champion mechanics as a whole were agnostic from alignment.

TBH this too. Evil alignments might give more offensive options, but I don't see what would be wrong with letting Good characters be offensive or Evil characters be defensive. Or why a Chaotic Good character can't be Retributive or Redeeming.


Squiggit wrote:
TBH this too. Evil alignments might give more offensive options, but I don't see what would be wrong with letting Good characters be offensive or Evil characters be defensive. Or why a Chaotic Good character can't be Retributive or Redeeming.

I feel like this is one area that 5e does well. The system has paladin oaths, all of which strongly imply a certain alignment, but don't bind you to it. If you can justify a LE Oath of Devotion paladin, you can do that.

Plus, I feel like having champion mechanics being tied to alignments forces the devs to go down a checklist. We wouldn't need mechanics specifically for, say, a CN champion if anyone could pick anything. And if they decide not to go down a checklist and just make what they want, then that means it could be years before a CN/other alignment champion is possible. It feels like a loss either way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
The one exception to me, is the Champion, which I do feel is a little pidgeon holed at the moment to be the tank (mostly because every reaction is based strictly on an ally being struck). And the MCD for Champion and Fighter at the moment are lack luster for other martials (Fingers still crossed on alternate MCDs with prerequisites there), but I think new material could solve this.

>.> tell this to Delioth >.> Latest addition to my group, plays a Dex-based Calistrian Liberator with Lion Blade dedication... everyone's still confused by how his character works, but somehow it does...


I think if we get some dedicated rules to retraining your class will be a lot better than what PF1 has. The multiclass/level system was janky and created far more failures than successes.

A little bit if an aside, but my favorite example if a character taking on a "new ckass" in fiction is Guts from Berserk. He began is career as a Fighter with a specialization in heavy armor and an oversized sword. Later, he "takes levels in Barbarian."

In PF1, this works out okay. Transitioning to the barbarian class means he maintains the same BAB, so all is good. Needs an archetype for armored barbarian, but we got that.

In PF2, I feel like this works out even better. He takes on a barbarian dedication, but still increases in his superior sword fighting and tactics. Doesn't need any special Barb options either and works right out of the gate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm playing in one 1st edition game. I would prefer to be playing 2E, but we're in the middle of a 1E adventure path and the GM doesn't want to convert (and I don't blame him).

As far as PFS in our area goes, it seems to be pretty evenly split between 1E and 2E.


Ediwir wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
The one exception to me, is the Champion, which I do feel is a little pidgeon holed at the moment to be the tank (mostly because every reaction is based strictly on an ally being struck). And the MCD for Champion and Fighter at the moment are lack luster for other martials (Fingers still crossed on alternate MCDs with prerequisites there), but I think new material could solve this.
>.> tell this to Delioth >.> Latest addition to my group, plays a Dex-based Calistrian Liberator with Lion Blade dedication... everyone's still confused by how his character works, but somehow it does...

My issue in that case is with champions reactions, as a concept, they are the complete opposite of how I see champions, so I do not want them, at all. Last Edition I could have done a War Priest, with the right feats you have a plate armoured holy warrior, with the reduced casting, and blessings to show his Faiths favour, not perfect but close enough with the pf2e War Priest...you have a 1e Cleric, stealing the name of War Priest and totally missing the point, the point was to not be a 1-9 caster, to have pools of abilities to choose from that were a more fixed and solid blessing of the faith, not to be a spell caster but to be a conduit for divine power, Paladin did this, War Priest nearly did this...now neither do, they are 'the tank' or a classic DnD Cleric, stealing the name of something that was a lot more interesting and fun.

Given my loathing of the MC archetype system, and the way it ties you down, and stops taking a faction archetype until you buy feats you didn't want to pay off the 'debt' of daring to try to leave your lane, it's fair to say that those changes bug the hell out of me, as you have to have 1-9 or have the morally repugnant reactions, until that changes the game doesn't support characters I actually want to play.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Ahh yes, the Paladin’s “You strike at my allies instead of facing me? Have at thee, varlet!”, the Liberator’s “Mike! Get out of there!!”, and the Redeemer’s “Are you really being the person Mr. Rogers thought you could be? No? Then I’m sorry friend, there’s a price to pay for villainy.”

Truly the height of vileness and evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Ahh yes, the Paladin’s “You strike at my allies instead of facing me? Have at thee, varlet!”, the Liberator’s “Mike! Get out of there!!”, and the Redeemer’s “Are you really being the person Mr. Rogers thought you could be? No? Then I’m sorry friend, there’s a price to pay for villainy.”

Truly the height of vileness and evil.

you mean the Paladins 'their blade is caught in Mikes guts, savage them while they struggle' the redeemers 'feel your sanity shatter under my torturous visions' and the liberators 'inflict frenzy'? Dress them up however, but that is how they strike me.

Seriously, best use of Paladins reaction is while hiding behind human shields...yea.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

That’s because you are intentionally twisting them to fit your fairly blatant dislike, bordering on hatred, of the class.

To be absolutely blunt, if you intentionally go into looking at a class from the worst possible perspective, every single class in the book are rapists, murderers, con men, terrorists, Mengele-in-training, or world-ending monsters that should be put down.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

I can understand missing the righteous-scourge-of-all-that-is-evil vibe of the original paladin, but calling the champion's reactions "morally repugnant" is raising the rhetoric escalation to a truly absurd level.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Tremaine wrote:
Seriously, best use of Paladins reaction is while hiding behind human shields...yea.

Any Paladin that used that 'optimal' tactic would no longer be a Paladin afterwards.

The goal of any champion should be that they never need to use their reactions, because that means the enemy is engaging them and not their allies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tremaine wrote:
Seriously, best use of Paladins reaction is while hiding behind human shields...yea.

Any Paladin that used that 'optimal' tactic would no longer be a Paladin afterwards.

The goal of any champion should be that they never need to use their reactions, because that means the enemy is engaging them and not their allies.

Exactly! The Champion’s Reactions are structured to get the point across that if your enemy isn’t fighting him, they’re going to pay a terrible price.

I mean, even some of the later powers they can get spell it out bluntly: Every time your enemy decides they want to hit someone not you, the gods literally, not figuratively, not kinda-sorta maybe them, literally Divine Energy, BURNS THEM, and doesn’t stop until they engage you, and not your allies. How much cleaner can the message be?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Among my friends there is a Pathfinder 1e group I'm involved in and a few are involved in a DnD 5e game or two as well. There is no current interest in switching anything over to 2e. When we finish our current AP we'll either play another AP we haven't yet played like Giant Slayer, a Starfinder game, or some other game entirely. My personal resistance to 2e is it suffers from the same bad design decision that both DnD4 and and DnD5 took. Under the d20 System and derived games, the attitude was here's the mechanics, make the character you want to play. Under PF2/DnD4/DnD5 the decision was made to be here's the characters we, the designers, want you to play, you're not allowed to customize them; be happy with that. The decision to remove multiclassing (feat classing wasn't multiclassing in DnD4, and it still isn't multiclassing in PF2), class locking most mechanics, and designers start saying nonsense like "niche-protection" fully cemented that opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the MC’ing being pretty underwhelming in 2E, but I do understand it from a dev point of view as well. It makes it much harder to create an Archetype or multi class option that turns out to be hot garbage, or hilariously broken. Sadly, it also means that a lot of the fun is lost from them for me as well, like when trying to figure out how to leverage some minor, weak spellcasting into something truly tricksy hobbitses.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I dont 5hink pf2 characters are slaves to the designers will any more than pf1 characters are. I just think there is less content to play around with. Comparing core to core the amount of actually playable variety seems far higher in the new structure.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The goal of any champion should be that they never need to use their reactions, because that means the enemy is engaging them and not their allies.

Ah yes, the hallmark of good class feature design, hoping you never need to actually use it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The class feature is there to reinforce the role of Champion as, well, a Champion. You fight the Champion, or you suffer the consequences.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The goal of any champion should be that they never need to use their reactions, because that means the enemy is engaging them and not their allies.
Ah yes, the hallmark of good class feature design, hoping you never need to actually use it.

Exactly so. The Champion dreams of a world where her abilities are not needed. Until then, she does what she must. If evil is going to attack, she wants it to attack her. That doesn't mean it always will, just as it won't just vanish.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Kasoh wrote:
Ah yes, the hallmark of good class feature design, hoping you never need to actually use it.

But you will, of course.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
I dont 5hink pf2 characters are slaves to the designers will any more than pf1 characters are. I just think there is less content to play around with. Comparing core to core the amount of actually playable variety seems far higher in the new structure.

This is trivially false. Make a Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Paladin 1/Ranger 1/Wizard 1 or a Bard that uses abilities that have since been locked to another class in PF2.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Frozen Yakman wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I dont 5hink pf2 characters are slaves to the designers will any more than pf1 characters are. I just think there is less content to play around with. Comparing core to core the amount of actually playable variety seems far higher in the new structure.
This is trivially false. Make a Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Paladin 1/Ranger 1/Wizard 1 or a Bard that uses abilities that have since been locked to another class in PF2.

I mean you could play that combo in PF1 but you would suck. Depending on what I want from the character concept though I can do most things in PF2. Like what are you trying to get from each of those classes?

Sure PF1 had a massive amount of possible combinations, more than PF2 has. But 99% of them would just be objectively terrible.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Frozen Yakman wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I dont 5hink pf2 characters are slaves to the designers will any more than pf1 characters are. I just think there is less content to play around with. Comparing core to core the amount of actually playable variety seems far higher in the new structure.
This is trivially false. Make a Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Paladin 1/Ranger 1/Wizard 1 or a Bard that uses abilities that have since been locked to another class in PF2.

I think you missed the important part of Malk's point:

Malk_Content wrote:
actually playable variety


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frozen Yakman wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I dont 5hink pf2 characters are slaves to the designers will any more than pf1 characters are. I just think there is less content to play around with. Comparing core to core the amount of actually playable variety seems far higher in the new structure.
This is trivially false. Make a Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Paladin 1/Ranger 1/Wizard 1 or a Bard that uses abilities that have since been locked to another class in PF2.

Not really what he’s saying, there’s a lot more variability simply because lateral resource spending is now viable.

Using the initial dip level as justification, which was the largest culprits for why 3rd - PF1 multiclassing was unwieldy, is a little tone deaf IMO


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
I dont 5hink pf2 characters are slaves to the designers will any more than pf1 characters are.

I think Frozen kind of exaggerates it a bit, but there are some definite moments in the system where the PF2 devs have clearly imposed specific visions and principles on characters.

Proficiency is a pretty obvious and egregious example. PF2 punishes you pretty heavily for wanting to grab weapons and armor outside what the designers have deemed appropriate for your class to take.

The options to buy new weapons (ancestral feats or fighter MC if you aren't a martial) or new armor (champion MC or hellknight MC) are both limited and highly expensive, especially if you want both. Very disproportionately to the rewards involved.

The message is pretty clear, Paizo doesn't want you to color outside the lines.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Ah yes, the hallmark of good class feature design, hoping you never need to actually use it.
But you will, of course.

The class feature is designed to be used, to reinforce the class's tankiness. Saying that the player hopes it shouldn't be used is utterly false from a gameplay perspective. (And I'm taking it too seriously.)

Since it can provide a lot of off turn damage and can easily trigger various weaknesses you can, in fact, want to trigger the Champion's reactions. Which is fine. I liked the Fighter's Mark in 4e.

I think that trying to backform a justification onto the Champion for their new emphasis on defense is shallow. Can you justify it? Sure. No-Prizes abound. Did it need to be changed in the first place? Well, that's a matter of opinion, but in 2e, everyone gets a niche and this is the Champion's. That's the reality a person has to face when trying to decide what class to play.

Silver Crusade

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

90% of PF1 multiclassing was trap options. 10% was dipping or optimisation that made "wild variety of flavorful combinations" people cringe.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Ah yes, the hallmark of good class feature design, hoping you never need to actually use it.
But you will, of course.

The class feature is designed to be used, to reinforce the class's tankiness. Saying that the player hopes it shouldn't be used is utterly false from a gameplay perspective. (And I'm taking it too seriously.)

They didn't say "player". They talked about what the "Champion" wants.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I dont 5hink pf2 characters are slaves to the designers will any more than pf1 characters are.

I think Frozen kind of exaggerates it a bit, but there are some definite moments in the system where the PF2 devs have clearly imposed specific visions and principles on characters.

Proficiency is a pretty obvious and egregious example. PF2 punishes you pretty heavily for wanting to grab weapons and armor outside what the designers have deemed appropriate for your class to take.

The options to buy new weapons (ancestral feats or fighter MC if you aren't a martial) or new armor (champion MC or hellknight MC) are both limited and highly expensive, especially if you want both. Very disproportionately to the rewards involved.

The message is pretty clear, Paizo doesn't want you to color outside the lines.

I think we are going to see how this shakes out with the APG. With more focused general archetypes like "Archer" I think its going to be less expensive to get the equipment flavour you want.

And I think this is still not any worse than PF1. To be ACTUALLY good with a weapon as a Wizard in PF1 required you to spend quite a lot of your character options and still not be very good at it. At least early on in the games lifespan before option glut.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Frozen Yakman wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I dont 5hink pf2 characters are slaves to the designers will any more than pf1 characters are. I just think there is less content to play around with. Comparing core to core the amount of actually playable variety seems far higher in the new structure.
This is trivially false. Make a Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Paladin 1/Ranger 1/Wizard 1 or a Bard that uses abilities that have since been locked to another class in PF2.

Dr Ian Malcolm sums this up quite well :

“ Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”

Sure you could build that character in PF1. But if you wanted any fun at all you really shouldn’t !


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sapient wrote:
They didn't say "player". They talked about what the "Champion" wants.

Which is meaningless. That's a character distinction that is up to the person playing the character. It can just as easily be a violent 'eradicate all evil at the expense of others for the greater good' sort of Champion. Unless we're talking about a specific champion, it won't be a fruitful discussion because Schrodinger's Champion can have any opinion and personality the player wants.

The mechanics are there for the players, who play the game, ostensibly to enjoy themselves. And I think not having to use your class features isn't enjoyable and bad design, which is why I think the feature is meant to be used and was designed as such.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tremaine wrote:
Seriously, best use of Paladins reaction is while hiding behind human shields...yea.

Any Paladin that used that 'optimal' tactic would no longer be a Paladin afterwards.

The goal of any champion should be that they never need to use their reactions, because that means the enemy is engaging them and not their allies.

Exactly! The Champion’s Reactions are structured to get the point across that if your enemy isn’t fighting him, they’re going to pay a terrible price.

I mean, even some of the later powers they can get spell it out bluntly: Every time your enemy decides they want to hit someone not you, the gods literally, not figuratively, not kinda-sorta maybe them, literally Divine Energy, BURNS THEM, and doesn’t stop until they engage you, and not your allies. How much cleaner can the message be?

Which is exactly the opposite of what a champion should be. They should be inflicting terrible judgement on the enemies of god, not being MMO tanks. To bring them to what they actually should be, using the rules we have, you have to leverage human shields etc, because the reactions are so totally anathema to that actual role. Champions stride out and do huge, maiming damage to evil outsiders, etc, they don't 'tank' that is for extreme niche prestige classes like dwarven defenders etc.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Sapient wrote:
They didn't say "player". They talked about what the "Champion" wants.
Which is meaningless....

To the contrary, understanding the difference between the player and the character is vital to udnerstanding the meaning of TriOmegaZero's comment. If the PLAYER was taking abilities in the hopes of never using them, that would be a problem with the mechanics, as you say. But a CHARACTER, especially a Champion, wishing for a world where their abilities were not needed makes perfect sense. The PLAYER can play the game for the very conflicts the CHARACTER wish didn't happen. A CHARACTER can hope her companions are never attacked, even as the PLAYER uses and enjoys the mechanic that thematically represents the CHARACTER'S desire it never be needed.

A character might build a wall because it does not want to be invaded. A player may play the game specifically for the invasion. A character may become a healer because they hate the suffering of others. A player may play a game where people can be hurt so they can control that healer.

251 to 300 of 1,069 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Take up of Second Edition All Messageboards