PF2 - late-to-the-party impressions


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 121 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Lanathar wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
My friend had a lot of system mastery. He wanted to play a straight fighter two-hander style. It wasn't fixable using that base template. About the only way I've seen fighters fix that weak will save is multi-classing. A weak will save is really hard to deal with as you level up until you can get ideal magic items and even then quite a few spells bypass it. He was very reliant on caster help. Weak will save is worse than a weak Fort or Reflex.
Iron Will and Armed Bravery (the latter under Advanced Weapon Training, available from 5th level as a Feat) really do more or less fix this. The problem is that the latter was a well hidden ability and one they were basically required to buy, not that it didn't exist.
Add in half orc with sacred tattoo and fate’s favoured trait for another +2 to all saves on top of what DMW said

Why would the Fighter prioritize those feats instead of feats to make his fighting style better? Those would be some feats you take once you already have your fighter feats.

So the system mastery answer to this is take feats that don't add to your fighting abilities. Sorry, that is not a system mastery answer. That is self-defeating as it makes you a worse fighter by either severely delaying your ability to take the fighting feats you want or making you take that in lieu of high end feats like the super critical feats or similar combat feats.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Don't know about Armed Bravery. He bought Iron Will. Caster DCs with feats and special abilities could get DCs high enough to challenge good will save PCs. So a minor +2 bump wasn't much of a fix. Not sure how much Armed Bravery helped. With auras, spells, special abilities, gazes, and the like, it was rough having a low will save.

Armed Bravery is another +2 by 6th level...which is to say at that point, added to Iron Will, it equals high Will Save from Class. The combination eventually exceeds such, as a Good Will Save is +12, while a bad Will Save is +6, Iron Will is +2, and Armed Bravery +5 for a total of +13.

So...it matters quite a bit.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
Why would the Fighter prioritize those feats instead of feats to make his fighting style better? Those would be some feats you take once you already have your fighter feats.

Neither Sacred Tattoos nor Fate's Favored are Feats, and neither is really competing with something Fighters can use to improve combat prowess. Armed Bravery actually is, but having a good Will Save is probably more important.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
So the system mastery answer to this is take feats that don't add to your fighting abilities. Sorry, that is not a system mastery answer. That is self-defeating as it makes you a worse fighter by either severely delaying your ability to take the fighting feats you want or making you take that in lieu of high end feats like the super critical feats or similar combat feats.

This doesn't follow at all. Firstly, defense is as much a part of combat as offense and having solid Saves is part of defense, so acting like putting Feats into Saves is not 'adding to your fighting abilities' is weird and inaccurate. Second, most fighting styles don't have an unlimited number of Feats you can put into them on offense, and arranging things so your Saves are good is very doable.

The issue is not that making this work wasn't possible, I assure you it was. The issue is that Armed Bravery came out in a softcover supplement in 2015, more than halfway through PF1's lifetime, and most of these other tricks are similarly obscure and from entirely different and separate books. It was doable but only at high levels of system mastery (slightly lower if using online resources, I admit) and combining a bunch of obscure options, and was still not really as good as just playing a caster of some sort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The issue is not that making this work wasn't possible, I assure you it was. The issue is that Armed Bravery came out in a softcover supplement in 2015, more than halfway through PF1's lifetime, and most of these other tricks are similarly obscure and from entirely different and separate books. It was doable but only at high levels of system mastery (slightly lower if using online resources, I admit) and combining a bunch of obscure options, and was still not really as good as just playing a caster of some sort.

THAT


I mean, the real problem with the "with system mastery you can fix x" is that generally you're not just looking to fix one thing, and the fix to things you're bad at generally come at the expense of being less good at your schtick.

Since PF2 does away with so many of the PF1 feats that were essentially "math enhancers" it also means you can just play with "extra feats" and not blow balance all to hell.


Aka as I have been stating. The problem was largely from GMs that only allowed Core + APG or players choosing not to take the options to help their will.

PFS was more problematic due to needing to own the book. Or am I remembering that wrong?

****************

* P.S. I agree that its nice that PF2 has fewer math enhances.

Whether they went over board is more debatable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
So the system mastery answer to this is take feats that don't add to your fighting abilities. Sorry, that is not a system mastery answer. That is self-defeating as it makes you a worse fighter by either severely delaying your ability to take the fighting feats you want or making you take that in lieu of high end feats like the super critical feats or similar combat feats.
This doesn't follow at all. Firstly, defense is as much a part of combat as offense and having solid Saves is part of defense, so acting like putting Feats into Saves is not 'adding to your fighting abilities' is weird and inaccurate. Second, most fighting styles don't have an unlimited number of Feats you can put into them on offense, and arranging things so your Saves are good is very doable.

I can only speak for myself here, but there are two things to keep in mind about PF1:

1) There are Combat feats and General feats. But if you look at the plethora of feats existing (even if more then 90% of that are quite emphatically trash, if only for the other 10%), there is so much you are missing out on if you don't also dedicate your General feats to both combat effectiveness and efficiency.

As a Fighter, your job is one. Thing: Inflict HP damage. That's all. And that's all Fighters can do. Never mind they get beaten at their own game by an even moderately competent CoDzilla. And then at everything else too, because you are a dirty muggle and can't be allowed to have nice things.

2) There were (and still are) people complaining about having Fighters and other classes exist, because if some noob player picks up these trash classes, their god-like caster must waste precious spell-slots on 'propping up the gimp', so these single-minded and weak-willed murder-machines don't get turned against the party, and they have to sacrifice a turn to deal with them. Because gods help you if you make them spend a single spell not focused on them...

So yeah, PF 2 not having that much potential for 'optimisation' is a godsend as far as I'm concerned. Not having the ability to spend General feats on combat stuff also means not having the obligation (implied or otherwise) to do so. Which is absolutely liberating.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I don't disagree with any of that. I vastly prefer the PF2 feat silo-ing as well, among many other things. I was just noting that striking a valid balance on things like that was possible in PF1, not that PF2 didn't vastly improve the situation in almost every way.


Lycar wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
So the system mastery answer to this is take feats that don't add to your fighting abilities. Sorry, that is not a system mastery answer. That is self-defeating as it makes you a worse fighter by either severely delaying your ability to take the fighting feats you want or making you take that in lieu of high end feats like the super critical feats or similar combat feats.
This doesn't follow at all. Firstly, defense is as much a part of combat as offense and having solid Saves is part of defense, so acting like putting Feats into Saves is not 'adding to your fighting abilities' is weird and inaccurate. Second, most fighting styles don't have an unlimited number of Feats you can put into them on offense, and arranging things so your Saves are good is very doable.

I can only speak for myself here, but there are two things to keep in mind about PF1:

1) There are Combat feats and General feats. But if you look at the plethora of feats existing (even if more then 90% of that are quite emphatically trash, if only for the other 10%), there is so much you are missing out on if you don't also dedicate your General feats to both combat effectiveness and efficiency.

As a Fighter, your job is one. Thing: Inflict HP damage. That's all. And that's all Fighters can do. Never mind they get beaten at their own game by an even moderately competent CoDzilla. And then at everything else too, because you are a dirty muggle and can't be allowed to have nice things.

2) There were (and still are) people complaining about having Fighters and other classes exist, because if some noob player picks up these trash classes, their god-like caster must waste precious spell-slots on 'propping up the gimp', so these single-minded and weak-willed murder-machines don't get turned against the party, and they have to sacrifice a turn to deal with them. Because gods help you if you make them spend a single spell not focused on them...

So yeah, PF 2 not having...

I see this all the time about how codzilla can do damage like a fighter or a barbarian. I can only assume they have never seen anyone make a proper fighter or barbarian. its no contest.

fighters when made properly that a single feat spent on iron will is will worth it. Over the 10 years we played Pf1 my gm never banned a single caster related thing, everything that gave his encounter designs problems where barbarians and fighters. there are race and archtypes feat/power combos that just straight blow up the math of game.


Temperans wrote:
Aka as I have been stating. The problem was largely from GMs that only allowed Core + APG or players choosing not to take the options to help their will.

I allow all the hardbacks, doesn't help the fighter though since all the good options are from softbacks.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Aka as I have been stating. The problem was largely from GMs that only allowed Core + APG or players choosing not to take the options to help their will.
I allow all the hardbacks, doesn't help the fighter though since all the good options are from softbacks.

this is very true


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Don't know about Armed Bravery. He bought Iron Will. Caster DCs with feats and special abilities could get DCs high enough to challenge good will save PCs. So a minor +2 bump wasn't much of a fix. Not sure how much Armed Bravery helped. With auras, spells, special abilities, gazes, and the like, it was rough having a low will save.

Armed Bravery is another +2 by 6th level...which is to say at that point, added to Iron Will, it equals high Will Save from Class. The combination eventually exceeds such, as a Good Will Save is +12, while a bad Will Save is +6, Iron Will is +2, and Armed Bravery +5 for a total of +13.

So...it matters quite a bit.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
Why would the Fighter prioritize those feats instead of feats to make his fighting style better? Those would be some feats you take once you already have your fighter feats.

Neither Sacred Tattoos nor Fate's Favored are Feats, and neither is really competing with something Fighters can use to improve combat prowess. Armed Bravery actually is, but having a good Will Save is probably more important.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
So the system mastery answer to this is take feats that don't add to your fighting abilities. Sorry, that is not a system mastery answer. That is self-defeating as it makes you a worse fighter by either severely delaying your ability to take the fighting feats you want or making you take that in lieu of high end feats like the super critical feats or similar combat feats.

This doesn't follow at all. Firstly, defense is as much a part of combat as offense and having solid Saves is part of defense, so acting like putting Feats into Saves is not 'adding to your fighting abilities' is weird and inaccurate. Second, most fighting styles don't have an unlimited number of Feats you can put into them on offense, and arranging things so your Saves are good is very doable.

The issue is not that making this work wasn't possible, I assure you it was. The issue is that...

Armed Bravery sounds fine. That feat did not exist back when my buddy was playing a fighter. All that existed was Iron Will. Sounds like this was a tacked on feat to fix the fighter will problem.

Defense is part of combat, but a player doesn't generally want to take feats that slow down his combat progression. He wants to take those feats that keep combat progression same as those classes that don't have save deficiencies that are so impactful. That weak will save was terrible for many years.

This affected the rogue as well. The barbarian fixed this with Superstition and an inherent boost from rage. Paladin obviously never had this problem. Ranger wasn't played for other reasons.

I'm glad they did a much better job balancing all these classes in PF2. So far every class is pretty solid and playable without feeling like a liability or third wheel.

We're even finding we wished we had a damage focused arcane caster like a wizard or sorcerer to take down multiple high level groups of enemies as taking them down one at a time has been tougher than expected.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting how different peoples' experiences shaped entirely different views on the same game. Some people played in games where god wizard destroyed the world while everyone else could only stand there watching helplessly. Other people played in games where impotent wizard threw another useless spell that the enemy didn't roll a 1 so they saved, while untouchable fighter destroyed the world and everyone else was powerless to stop them...

Hopefully whatever game you played in, you had a good time with friends. Sometimes we forget that was the point of it all.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Don't know about Armed Bravery. He bought Iron Will. Caster DCs with feats and special abilities could get DCs high enough to challenge good will save PCs. So a minor +2 bump wasn't much of a fix. Not sure how much Armed Bravery helped. With auras, spells, special abilities, gazes, and the like, it was rough having a low will save.

Armed Bravery is another +2 by 6th level...which is to say at that point, added to Iron Will, it equals high Will Save from Class. The combination eventually exceeds such, as a Good Will Save is +12, while a bad Will Save is +6, Iron Will is +2, and Armed Bravery +5 for a total of +13.

So...it matters quite a bit.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
Why would the Fighter prioritize those feats instead of feats to make his fighting style better? Those would be some feats you take once you already have your fighter feats.

Neither Sacred Tattoos nor Fate's Favored are Feats, and neither is really competing with something Fighters can use to improve combat prowess. Armed Bravery actually is, but having a good Will Save is probably more important.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
So the system mastery answer to this is take feats that don't add to your fighting abilities. Sorry, that is not a system mastery answer. That is self-defeating as it makes you a worse fighter by either severely delaying your ability to take the fighting feats you want or making you take that in lieu of high end feats like the super critical feats or similar combat feats.

This doesn't follow at all. Firstly, defense is as much a part of combat as offense and having solid Saves is part of defense, so acting like putting Feats into Saves is not 'adding to your fighting abilities' is weird and inaccurate. Second, most fighting styles don't have an unlimited number of Feats you can put into them on offense, and arranging things so your Saves are good is very doable.

The issue is not that making this work wasn't possible, I

...

barbarians didnt really need the soft covers though

human -alt racial supersition bonus, unbreakable or superstitious, rage powers { superstition - witch hunter spell breaker, strengh surge}, sunder feats, come and get me, and the beast line and barbarians pretty much broke every type of encounter you threw at them. literally the incredible hulk


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, if Armed Bravery is being touted as the "fix" to PF1 Fighter's poor will, it's worth mentioning that I ran PF1 for over a decade, read most of the books cover-to-cover, have by far the highest system mastery of anyone in my group, and this is the first time I've ever heard of it.

Of course overall the problem with Fighters in PF1 was never really Will or even damage. Fighters can be absolute damage machines that can blender through fights in record pace.

The problem with Fighters though is that they have no battlefield control. A Fighter may be able to slaughter one enemy per full-attack-routine, but they can't compete with the Wizard saying "okay, nothing in this fight is getting a meaningful turn for the next five rounds".

There's a reason that when people built classes to solo high level adventures, they built Wizards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:

It's interesting how different peoples' experiences shaped entirely different views on the same game. Some people played in games where god wizard destroyed the world while everyone else could only stand there watching helplessly. Other people played in games where impotent wizard threw another useless spell that the enemy didn't roll a 1 so they saved, while untouchable fighter destroyed the world and everyone else was powerless to stop them...

Hopefully whatever game you played in, you had a good time with friends. Sometimes we forget that was the point of it all.

Some of us played in games where it came down to the initiative roll whether it was the god wizard or untouchable fighter took down the encounter first...

which I could write an essay on why that ended up not working out, but it's not really on the topic of the thread so I won't.


thenobledrake wrote:
gnoams wrote:

It's interesting how different peoples' experiences shaped entirely different views on the same game. Some people played in games where god wizard destroyed the world while everyone else could only stand there watching helplessly. Other people played in games where impotent wizard threw another useless spell that the enemy didn't roll a 1 so they saved, while untouchable fighter destroyed the world and everyone else was powerless to stop them...

Hopefully whatever game you played in, you had a good time with friends. Sometimes we forget that was the point of it all.

Some of us played in games where it came down to the initiative roll whether it was the god wizard or untouchable fighter took down the encounter first...

which I could write an essay on why that ended up not working out, but it's not really on the topic of the thread so I won't.

the game pretty much became rocket tag after level 12. who went first was gonna win most likely. no one even mentioned the archers.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gnoams wrote:

It's interesting how different peoples' experiences shaped entirely different views on the same game. Some people played in games where god wizard destroyed the world while everyone else could only stand there watching helplessly. Other people played in games where impotent wizard threw another useless spell that the enemy didn't roll a 1 so they saved, while untouchable fighter destroyed the world and everyone else was powerless to stop them...

Hopefully whatever game you played in, you had a good time with friends. Sometimes we forget that was the point of it all.

Yes, we all played in that one game where the Wizard player was incompetent.

Which does not change the fact that the class was OP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
gnoams wrote:

It's interesting how different peoples' experiences shaped entirely different views on the same game. Some people played in games where god wizard destroyed the world while everyone else could only stand there watching helplessly. Other people played in games where impotent wizard threw another useless spell that the enemy didn't roll a 1 so they saved, while untouchable fighter destroyed the world and everyone else was powerless to stop them...

Hopefully whatever game you played in, you had a good time with friends. Sometimes we forget that was the point of it all.

Some of us played in games where it came down to the initiative roll whether it was the god wizard or untouchable fighter took down the encounter first...

which I could write an essay on why that ended up not working out, but it's not really on the topic of the thread so I won't.

What makes this especially hilarious is that a correctly built god wizard wins that initiative roll by default, since all wizards are Diviners... XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, even AC all use the exact same level-based proficiency system. [...] In general, though, I really like that once you grok proficiency for one of those things, you've really figured it out for all of them.

I concur! I have found it is one of a number of updates that have made play much smoother.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Funny story: I was building a monster a moment ago and I needed to come up with the save DC for a special ability. I spent entirely too long looking for that "ability save DCs" table before I realized, oh duh, it's just the same DCs as for spells. :)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, even AC all use the exact same level-based proficiency system. [...] In general, though, I really like that once you grok proficiency for one of those things, you've really figured it out for all of them.
I concur! I have found it is one of a number of updates that have made play much smoother.

This is really the best part of pf2 imo, that all the numbers are on the same scale so that you can roll any ability, skill, attack, whatever against any other one. You could roll stealth vs AC if it made sense to do for some reason. This allows much easier gm adjudication to facilitate interesting player ideas.

101 to 121 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / PF2 - late-to-the-party impressions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.