Pain Points Moving Into 2e


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Gorbacz wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

We tried a patchwork PF2 oneshot thing once and one of the players started to complain how numbers aren't big enough and we're gonna be weak etc. Ironically this dude never played PF2 and was three sessions into PF1, then they went ham on the starting trash mobs.

Anyone else got any experience where people start seeing the future and claim how things work before actually testing them?

Pretty much every day on this forum brings a new form of some armchair rocking theorycraft and passing judgment on how X works without ever seeing it in action. There are even people who have developed extensive houserule documents aimed at "fixing grave issues" with PF2 without having played a single session of the game.

So, yes.

Glad to hear it's not just here then I suppose. Also sad to hear this isn't a unique issue. It was a game we ran that I learned that same morning that I'd be running since the other planned session flopped, so between not having dm'd for a decade and learning the rules, it was quite something to have someone who never even touched the system complain about bonuses. I think I used hobgoblin fighters as fodder, and they only had like 16 AC.

Then again, some players are more hassle than not I suppose.

Silver Crusade

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

People who are used to PF1 are sometimes surprised by some of the numbers in PF2. That's natural, it's a different mechanical chassis which at the same time uses the same calling cards (STR/DEX/CON, AC, hp).

But the game plays much different and due to tighter math, numbers have an entire different meaning and effect than they had in PF1. In PF2, a +2 bonus to anything is tremendeous, in PF1 it was a nice thing to have, but not really a big deal.


Gorbacz wrote:

People who are used to PF1 are sometimes surprised by some of the numbers in PF2. That's natural, it's a different mechanical chassis which at the same time uses the same calling cards (STR/DEX/CON, AC, hp).

But the game plays much different and due to tighter math, numbers have an entire different meaning and effect than they had in PF1. In PF2, a +2 bonus to anything is tremendeous, in PF1 it was a nice thing to have, but not really a big deal.

This player, as far as I know, never touched PF1, but he played some 3.5 and 5e.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

People who are used to PF1 are sometimes surprised by some of the numbers in PF2. That's natural, it's a different mechanical chassis which at the same time uses the same calling cards (STR/DEX/CON, AC, hp).

But the game plays much different and due to tighter math, numbers have an entire different meaning and effect than they had in PF1. In PF2, a +2 bonus to anything is tremendeous, in PF1 it was a nice thing to have, but not really a big deal.

This player, as far as I know, never touched PF1, but he played some 3.5 and 5e.

PF1 numbers are pretty much identical to 3.5 numbers and very similar to 3e numbers. In all three cases, PF2 numbers will look weird to anybody familiar to them. Of course, in turn the 3/3.5/PF1 numbers looked funky to any AD&D 1e/2e veteran :)


Gorbacz wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

People who are used to PF1 are sometimes surprised by some of the numbers in PF2. That's natural, it's a different mechanical chassis which at the same time uses the same calling cards (STR/DEX/CON, AC, hp).

But the game plays much different and due to tighter math, numbers have an entire different meaning and effect than they had in PF1. In PF2, a +2 bonus to anything is tremendeous, in PF1 it was a nice thing to have, but not really a big deal.

This player, as far as I know, never touched PF1, but he played some 3.5 and 5e.
PF1 numbers are pretty much identical to 3.5 numbers and very similar to 3e numbers. In all three cases, PF2 numbers will look weird to anybody familiar to them. Of course, in turn the 3/3.5/PF1 numbers looked funky to any AD&D 1e/2e veteran :)

Bit sidenote, speaking of PF2, any idea if there is any Play by post presence on these forums? Looking to get into it digitally, but things are too hectic for voice sessions.


Gorbacz wrote:
PF1 numbers are pretty much identical to 3.5 numbers and very similar to 3e numbers. In all three cases, PF2 numbers will look weird to anybody familiar to them. Of course, in turn the 3/3.5/PF1 numbers looked funky to any AD&D 1e/2e veteran :)

The most surprising issue for our group was not the overall numbers but how "bloody" PF2 had become and how HP was treated as a more or less disposable ressource (both in loosing them and gaining them back). In PF1 a low level enemy would usually require a higher than average roll to hit you exactly once in a round. In PF2 even low level enemies will hit you 50% of the time with their first attack, 25% with their second attack and some might even hit you with your 3rd attack. So while I am not saying that AC has become useless (high AC is still great), however you will have to accept that in PF2 you will get hit easier and more often than in PF1.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

PF2 has certainly a much different combat dynamic than PF1. Again, something that will trip you up if you approach fights with some 3.5/PF1 assumptions in mind.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I suppose it is the difference between people liking "my character is now a god" feel of WoW and mmos and people who enjoy the Darksouls feeling of "I am stronger, but I still need to be careful because a bear can still rip my throat out if I am not cautious."

That's a fine way to prefer an RPG, but it's not really Pathfinder.

May I suggest you try the recently-released Alien RPG? The combat in that is quite deadly, no matter how skilled your character. I've played it and love it, but certainly wouldn't want the danger to be toned down as that's part of what makes the game so great.


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


May I suggest you try the recently-released Alien RPG? The combat in that is quite deadly, no matter how skilled your character. I've played it and love it, but certainly wouldn't want the danger to be toned down as that's part of what makes the game so great.

Mark Seifter said this option will be in the Gamemastery Guide. From the thread on the project page:

Mark Seifter wrote:
My personal preference for high fantasy stories is also to include a level component to make the highest level PCs and foes truly capable of matching near-armies of lower level opponents, but sometimes you want to tell a grittier story where at the end of the day, eight reasonably capable bandits are a threat to a skilled swordmaster because eight against one is terrible odds, and the GMG has your back if you want to tell that story.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Bit sidenote, speaking of PF2, any idea if there is any Play by post presence on these forums? Looking to get into it digitally, but things are too hectic for voice sessions.

Yes, you can find the play-by-post forums right here. There haven't been too many P2e games start up yet that I've seen, though.


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

Play-by-play seems to be disadvantaged by the same thing that makes it great at live play. Combat is so dynamic. In PF1 if you were next to something you could just resolve all of your full-attack rolls in one post. Afterall once you start you can't do anything else. In Pf2 you kinda have to actually wait for the result of each action before moving to the next, which would obviously slow pbp massively.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Joana wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Bit sidenote, speaking of PF2, any idea if there is any Play by post presence on these forums? Looking to get into it digitally, but things are too hectic for voice sessions.
Yes, you can find the play-by-post forums right here. There haven't been too many P2e games start up yet that I've seen, though.

FWIW, there seem to be plenty of PF2 PBP games on Discord (the Roll for Combat discord server has tons of them, for example).


rooneg wrote:
Joana wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Bit sidenote, speaking of PF2, any idea if there is any Play by post presence on these forums? Looking to get into it digitally, but things are too hectic for voice sessions.
Yes, you can find the play-by-post forums right here. There haven't been too many P2e games start up yet that I've seen, though.
FWIW, there seem to be plenty of PF2 PBP games on Discord (the Roll for Combat discord server has tons of them, for example).

I think it may be a sign of the times? Discord gives a lot of the benefits of PbP with fewer drawback? Hrm...


DRD1812 wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

There's actually a thread here in general somewhere about the biggest things you didn't know worked differently in 2E.

My google-fu is weak today. Do you have a link for a fellow seeker?

Here is that link for you. It was buried a bit.

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Pain Points Moving Into 2e All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.