Pathfinder Second Edition's first anniversary -- how do we feel about the new edition?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm loving this new edition of Pathfinder.

I love Golarion. Like, a lot. It's easily one of my favorite campaign settings ever just because it's so grab-bag with everything. The world is incredibly varied, just like the real world, and it makes my obsession with anthropology, culture, language and geography validated. But the one big hang-up with trying to play Pathfinder to play in Golarion was that... we had to play Pathfinder.

My players had effectively "solved" PF1 with the aid of Guide to Etcetera google docs and forum posts, much like any of the people on this forum could attest. They could easily kill any encounter in the game without taking damage if they chose the right spell and won initiative, and even then, enemies winning initiative didn't mean they could do much besides deal a middling amount of damage and present themselves to be full attacked. All of the narrative gravitas we'd build to in our roleplaying would amount to the villain being one-round killed. Action economy worked against us so hard to have a satisfying storytelling experience that one of my players gathered the others together and made them promise to not attack the villain who had a name over their mooks until the mooks were dead just so every climactic fight wasn't flat and boring after the villain who spoke inevitably died just before their turn. At least they could have fun bantering with the villain while they killed the mooks they would inevitably fight anyways.

I think I've told the story of my PC who full attacked the boss with her bow, killing him, and then he came back to life... during her full attack, so she finished her full attack and killed him again.

That's not happened only once, or just because of splat books. This also happened against the main villain of Curse of the Crimson Throne back in 2011. And the main villain of Council of Thieves in 2010. And so many bosses inbetween.

And the prevailing wisdom was always "add 100% more hp!" or "make their saves impossible!" as if that was the goal-- to pretend to play Pathfinder and just make everything up. And it was exhausting, and more than exhausting, it was dull. I stopped running Pathfinder 1e after a particularly strong Hell's Rebels game led into a flop of Ironfang Invasion because the PCs felt like they could just take on the eponymous Ironfang Invasion instead of running and honestly with their builds lovingly hand-crafted from internet google documents they probably could until I put something too strong to one-round on the table, but that something wasn't in the book so again-- exhausting, dull.

Even worse! We had a few players drop in here and there who hadn't played D&D before and when they realized their entire character was a character optimization checklist I could tell that they checked out as well. About as much interactivity as a World of Warcraft simcraft program! Plug in fighter, what weapon? Oh, two-handed sword, how daring! Here's your build...

The GM has to go through a lot of emotional labor to get a game going. In my opinion you have to be a certain kind of person who enjoys letting everyone else stomp on your toys so that they can have fun. You have to both want the villains to lose and to play them to win-- after all, what point is it in playing if the heroes don't need to struggle along the way to their goal? It's all charades, and when the system actively fights against that by making the villains' victory something that is impossible to even comprehend the game becomes... flat. Even for the players. Especially for the GM.

Another Anecdote::
We walked into the final battle of Book #1 in Shattered Star to find... not what we expected as a final villain. Our oracle was so non-plussed she refused to cast spells or spend resources during the combat assuming there was more to the adventuring day after this. Because of that we were effectively down a player. Everyone else engaged and won the battle and the oracle was surprised that was all. I still remember what they said in defense of their inaction: "It's Pathfinder. It's not like we're going to lose as long as our paladin can smite and full attack." Despite the fact that we felt this was wrong, we also knew... yeah. We won. They were right.

2e's tighter math means that villains are threatening. The margin for failure for the heroes is higher, but not because you didn't look in a google doc and you've just built your entire character wrong. It's about strategy in play instead of outside of it, it's about character synergy and setting up your allies for success. Magic items aren't a necessary wish-list save for arms and armor, and now there are way more interesting and fun things to pick up. Everything is more tightly controlled both so the GM can't abuse mechanics vs the PCs and vice versa. I love it. As a permanent GM, it's a dream. I've planned something like 300 encounters from level 1-20 for my home campaign and so far at level 5 (only 75 encounters in) the only thing that's effected the perception of their challenge rating is bad rolls!

Are there some things I don't like? Yeah, sure. Animal companions kind of suck in this edition. Casters feel bad because their spells become easy to save against if they don't know the monster's save totals. Party composition is incredibly important to the point where it can make or break your entire experience -- I think clerics and champions are as mandatory as a class can be to help survive unlucky streaks on dice, for example. I don't like that hero points feel more like mediocrity points because you can just roll lower or the same and now you're going to die to what hit you because you were stupid enough to try to save instead of lay down the whole fight-- how heroic!

But unlike PF1 it's not the core of the game that's gone bad for me-- it's things I can houserule and move on with. I'm considering making archetypes free, adding a divine font archetype, adding a champion's reaction archetype. We add +10 to hero point re-rolls below 11. I added magic weapons for casters that add to their to-hit and DC. I'm working on houseruling animal companions, but it doesn't look like anyone is going to use one because of how soured our druid was watching their bear miss every attack in a boss encounter because they have an arbitrary -3 to hit because of no magic weapons.

Because the math is so tight, houseruling is easy. Making up new treasure is easy. Adding new subsystems like a deck of cards that represent allied characters aiding the party-- it was super easy!

In short: yes. Huge improvement. Love it. Golarion! Yay!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

On the AC thing: My party has 3 high-AC frontliners and 3 mediocre-AC backliners. The lowest AC in the party at 5 is 21 and the highest is 24, then 26 with shield or fighter parry stance.

It matters a lot when I'm swinging on a +14 for creatures. I miss often by shield/parry, or don't crit by shield/parry. And even though they've been hit, not being crit is huge!


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Really loving how 2E has been. Started with new characters and new campaign to get familiar with it a few months ago.

My other group took the plunge and we converted our 14th level campaign over to 2E last session. Some characters are buffed but some lost major parts of their build. Going to revisit their character builds with the APG options and see if we can get closer.

Snags? Missing some of the later options from 1e but filling in gaps hasn't been too hard. I'm sure those classes and ancestries will arrive at some point


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Generally speaking I find most things about the new system to be better. I'm playing in a 1e game and running a couple 2e games and the 1e game gets legitimately painful at times with the way some of the options play out.

I have a few issues with the system, but I think they can be tl;dr'd as the way gear proficiency works being bad, the game relying too much on accuracy gating, and a lack of options.

Spoiler:
Most of my problems with the game have been with the way the game starts to fall apart if you step outside where you're supposed to be. Trying to grab proficiencies you aren't 'supposed' to have is a nightmare (one of the few areas where PF2 feels seriously regressive compared to PF1). Generally speaking a lot of classes feel like they have a wheelhouse and if you try to step outside it the game is built to punish you.

My players have complained a bit about the way high level encounters play out. There's a lot of failure baked into the system, which they've felt strips away some of the 'heroic fantasy' feel from the game, bosses end up being tough in large part just because a character fumbles around unable to do anything to them.
You can mitigate the failure by stacking debuffs on high level enemies, which is a brutally effective tactic, but they haven't much cared for that either because... again, it doesn't feel very heroic to beat someone to death while they're blinded, sickened, slowed, knocked to the floor and also probably burning alive for good measure.

The last, but probably least significant issue, is just that there are a lot of concepts that are difficult or uncomfortable to execute well, sometimes in part because of the proficiency and accuracy issues everyone's been having. That's stuff we mostly expect to get fixed over time, though.

Again though, despite that I think it's very fun. It does a good job taking a lot of great ideas from 3.5/PF1, D&D4e and D&D5e and probably other sources and distilling them into a really enjoyable shape that preserves character customization while also streamlining a lot of systems and avoiding jank.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF2's such an improvement over the previous edition that it's hard for me to even consider going back.

It's not without its issues. I'm not pleased with the current state of the Alchemist, and regardless of power level, casters don't feel as fun to play as martial classes right now. I'll also echo the concern about how restrictive proficiency can feel when trying to step outside of your class's comfort zone, but that can easily be fixed by future archetypes.

The foundation of the game is infinitely more solid than 3.5/PF1, though. The 3-action system and the +/-10 for criticals run so smoothly that I have a hard time seeing how I ever put up with the old 'full/standard/move/swift/free' hierarchy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Watery Soup wrote:
Armor Class is more or less useless now. The dynamic range is too small, especially between light and medium armor. My alchemist has the same AC as the fighter in her party, which doesn't feel right.
I wonder if this is going to vary by players? AC is a small range if you optimize (which is fairly easy to do, admittedly), but some of my players just don't care, and want to prioritize other stats than the Dex they "should" have. I think I have a 5 point spread in AC between the fighter and the bard in my group (that's counting the fighter's shield but she has it up basically 100% of the time), and that's definitely enough to notice.
Two people in my party refuse to wear armor at all. It is kind of silly.

I like that you can wear no armor and be ok. You can be Conan if you feel like it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Brew Bird wrote:
I'll also echo the concern about how restrictive proficiency can feel when trying to step outside of your class's comfort zone, but that can easily be fixed by future archetypes.

I'm really hoping that the weapon-specific archetypes in the APG are going to make a big difference here.


MaxAstro wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
I'll also echo the concern about how restrictive proficiency can feel when trying to step outside of your class's comfort zone, but that can easily be fixed by future archetypes.
I'm really hoping that the weapon-specific archetypes in the APG are going to make a big difference here.

I cannot remember mauler, but archer only gives scaling based on class proficiency so it won't help people who want to be a legendary archer while also being a sorcerer or rogue.

Talking archer, it can be a bit tricky as a dedication actually, it has four dedication feats

Advanced Archery: Gives access to advanced bows and proficiency scaling.

Quick Shot: Bow only quickdraw

Crossbow Terror: Bonus damage and increased damage die for simple crossbows.

Archers Aim: 2 actions +2 to accuracy ignores concealed and reduces hidden to a DC5 check. (good option if you are using poisons imo)

The issue here is for rogues who want to take this for expanded options means it is quite difficult to get enough dedication feats without choosing a throwaway option. Quickdraw is just outright better than Quick Shot, and if you use crossbows you have one feat and if you use bows well you would have to want to be using advanced bows or it is also a wasted feat.

In my skimming other dedications don't have this problem to the same degree though, I kinda wish they had just made quickdraw a dedication feat instead (meaning it could just be retrained and nobody would be stuck choosing something that would never come up).


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
I'll also echo the concern about how restrictive proficiency can feel when trying to step outside of your class's comfort zone, but that can easily be fixed by future archetypes.
I'm really hoping that the weapon-specific archetypes in the APG are going to make a big difference here.

I cannot remember mauler, but archer only gives scaling based on class proficiency so it won't help people who want to be a legendary archer while also being a sorcerer or rogue.

Talking archer, it can be a bit tricky as a dedication actually, it has four dedication feats

Advanced Archery: Gives access to advanced bows and proficiency scaling.

Quick Shot: Bow only quickdraw

Crossbow Terror: Bonus damage and increased damage die for simple crossbows.

Archers Aim: 2 actions +2 to accuracy ignores concealed and reduces hidden to a DC5 check. (good option if you are using poisons imo)

The issue here is for rogues who want to take this for expanded options means it is quite difficult to get enough dedication feats without choosing a throwaway option. Quickdraw is just outright better than Quick Shot, and if you use crossbows you have one feat and if you use bows well you would have to want to be using advanced bows or it is also a wasted feat.

You don't need tot take the Crossbow training if you don't want it; its not a prereq for anything else, Advanced Bow Training is at the same level, and there's no need to finish out the Dedication at all unless you want to take another. Far as that goes, its not entirely clear to me whether or not the other corebook feats it gives you access to count as Dedication feats for this purpose.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

All the additional feats count as feats of the archetype.

APG p150 under Additional Feats said wrote:
You can take the feat as an archetype feat of that level, meaning it counts toward the number of feats required by the archetype’s dedication feat.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One year in, playing pretty regularly throughout, I like the new system a lot. It plays significantly faster than 1st edition, while simultaneously allowing for greater tactical depth.

I find that it places more emphasis on in-play decisions and creativity rather than out-of-play character optimization. This means I can run a game with the player who likes to spend hours building a character with the player who likes to just throw random choices together and go without the former overshadowing the latter.

PCs get a ton of options as they level up, but they only need to know their own character sheet. The game also plays well at every level I've experienced so far.

Overall, Pathfinder 2e hits my sweet spot in this particular RPG genre, to the point where other games that fill the same niche often leave me wishing I was playing this one instead.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I cannot remember mauler, but archer only gives scaling based on class proficiency so it won't help people who want to be a legendary archer while also being a sorcerer or rogue.

I doubt that will ever change. The way the math of the system works, I don't think any option will ever give you better proficiency in either weapons or armor than your base class gives you - just proficiency in different things.

Because if a Sorcerer can just archetype into legendary archery, why even be a fighter?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am huge Pathfinder 2 fan. As I rank the games it goes PF2, Starfinder 5 e tied. 13th Age. The action system , proficiencies, critical hits, and class feats are outstanding to me. Architype system is also great.

I have liked all the PF2 books better than PF1 versions so far. I think the one thing I debate with myself is the PF1 Advanced Players Guide changed the way PF1 was played with Architypes. The PF2 Advanced Players Guide is outstanding and expands player options with new classes class feats, spells, and Architypes. Allot more than core book as far as Architypes. It does not change how PF2 is played since Architypes were established in the core book for PF2. However, if you like PF2 like me it the Advanced Players Guide is a must.


Cintra Bristol wrote:

All the additional feats count as feats of the archetype.

APG p150 under Additional Feats said wrote:
You can take the feat as an archetype feat of that level, meaning it counts toward the number of feats required by the archetype’s dedication feat.

Thanks, I haven't had time to do more than skim today.

Shadow Lodge

For me the base rules of pf2 is really good, but the ways classes currently are is awful.

You ask someone what class they are and they say rogue. So you say oh, that means you're good at sneaking and stabbing people in the back?

In pf 1 they might say no, I can't do any of that, I'm a doctor, I heal you for large amounts, remove conditions, give you temp hp, and have high knowledge skills.

In pf2 they say yup, I'm a rogue.

Until you can trade out features and make unique characters that are not defined by narrow class tropes, I'm not interested. I already played plenty of rogues back in ad&d. Give me a more nuanced character creation please.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry but, you do know that PF2 rogues make great medics, right? They get expert before anyone else and get loads of skill feats.

Also, with rackets, you can vary up your rogue quite a bit more.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

Sorry but, you do know that PF2 rogues make great medics, right? They get expert before anyone else and get loads of skill feats.

Also, with rackets, you can vary up your rogue quite a bit more.

You got hung up on my example and missed the point completely. The pf2 rogue sneaks and stabs people in the back. You have to take those abilities. They are baked in to the class. There is no way around that. You are stuck with them. You can't drop elements of a class that don't fit your concept.

Liberty's Edge

12 people marked this as a favorite.

As a Rogue in PF2, you are Trained in Stealth...but being primarily a medic and knowledge specialist is entirely possible. I mean, you probably need Dex 12, but no more than that if you go Ruffian, and Dex 12 plus Trained in Stealth does not exactly make you the sneakiest person on Golarion...

And yes, you have Sneak Attack...but you know how long it took in PF1 for a Rogue Archetype without Sneak Attack to show up? Something like 7 years. It's possible, but only because of the vast number of options you get after a game has been going long enough, not anything inherently in the Class design between editions.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
gnoams wrote:
The pf2 rogue sneaks and stabs people in the back. You have to take those abilities. They are baked in to the class. There is no way around that. You are stuck with them. You can't drop elements of a class that don't fit your concept.

Do you think this will get better once there are more classes? Or is it that fundamentally you think too much of all of the classes are "locked" for want of a better word?

(I don't think "class" is an in-game concept, so for me loads and loads of classes or SF-style archetypes is an equivalent solution to super-flexible classes. However, I wonder if for others they consider that their PC "knows" they're a cleric/bard/rogues/etcetera... and if that makes a difference).


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

I'm also excited for class archetypes!

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
gnoams wrote:
The pf2 rogue sneaks and stabs people in the back. You have to take those abilities. They are baked in to the class. There is no way around that. You are stuck with them. You can't drop elements of a class that don't fit your concept.

Do you think this will get better once there are more classes? Or is it that fundamentally you think too much of all of the classes are "locked" for want of a better word?

(I don't think "class" is an in-game concept, so for me loads and loads of classes or SF-style archetypes is an equivalent solution to super-flexible classes. However, I wonder if for others they consider that their PC "knows" they're a cleric/bard/rogues/etcetera... and if that makes a difference).

Too much of the classes are locked currently for my taste. I do think/hope it will get better as more classes and archetypes are released. I also consider class to be a rules mechanic, not an in game term.

I think that having alternate class features would be the best route to take. If they don't do that, then I feel like we will eventually end up with a huge amount of classes that are all slightly different from each other, leading to unnecessary rules bloat which is what the system was trying to correct in the first place.

I know it's not fair to compare, pf1 has essentially 20+ years of history, while pf2 is only a year old, but that's what it's competing with for us old timers. Even after playing all this time, I'm still making new characters in pf1 that are different than any I've played before. PF2 is just too vanilla, I've already played all the options currently available many times, over many different systems. A rules change doesn't make playing another "fighter" any more interesting to me.

I'm hoping for class archetypes to fix this and win me over. I get that it takes time for these things to happen. I get that the game isn't designed for me, but for the next generation. I also get that it isn't a 'problem' for everyone. I play with a group that includes people I've been playing with for decades. One of the guys plays a halfling rogue. Sometimes he switches it up and plays an elf rogue. He's been doing that since first edition d&d. To each their own.

Doesn't stop me from hoping though.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Heh. I pretty much play "human fighter" nine times out of ten. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I cannot remember mauler, but archer only gives scaling based on class proficiency so it won't help people who want to be a legendary archer while also being a sorcerer or rogue.

That seems perfectly reasonable. Legendary weapon skills are what fighters do. It is the defining trait of the class, and a big part of the balance between classes. If you want to be a legendary archer who also casts spells, you're probably better off going the other direction: play a fighter and multi-class as a sorcerer.

That said, rogues are martial characters. Their weapon proficiency increases at the same level as other non-fighter martials. So they can be just as good at shootin' as a ranger.

Essentially, PF2 has two main offense proficiency tracks. Martial characters get Expert weapons at level 5 and Master weapons at 13. Casters get Expert weapons at 11, Expert casting at 7, Master casting at 15, and Legendary casting at 19. You have some exceptions (like Warpriests), but those are the core progressions. Archetypes, feats, and the like should not allow you to break out of those progressions, but they should allow you to apply the proficiency levels to things normally outside your wheelhouse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I feel like the PF2 rogue is more open to a bunch of different ideas than the PF1 rogue was. Didn't the PF1 rogue have "dealing with traps" as a huge part of its kit? That to me is a lot more specific than the things PF2 assumes about the rogue.

Sure, you can trade away trapfinding, and trapsense, etc. with archetypes but they didn't have those early on in PF1 either. PF2 will eventually have a class archetype that trades away sneak attack, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am currently playing a halfling Rogue and I am having a lot of fun playing off brand. He is a Ruffian, so he has scalemail and a mace. He mostly focuses on intimidation and flanking rather than sneaking. I, of course, can sneak and have done it a few times, but I mostly bash guys in the face.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here are some impressions from our group as represented by myself (being our only active forum user). Our group is playing RPGs for more than 25 years, starting our "DnD" experiences with 2nd edition. We are currently playing the Age of Ashes adventure path, are somewhere in in middle of the second volume and just reached character level 7.

1) The character building is top notch as the modular system provides a lot of flexibility without being overly complicated. Will be interesting to see if the system can hold its own in regards to power creep and power gaming once more source material is available and "tactical archetype dipping" will be a more prominent thing.

2) The 3 action system is very solid. However when it comes to the "fun factor" of the new systems it seems that martial characters seem to get the most out of it. For example at low level there is no contest that a Reach Spell Electric Arc will be brutally effective, however it also rather ends your turn in 1 "action" instead of 3.

3) All our players (and the GM) have a background of being avid tabletop wargamers, so the tactical combat is very well received within our gaming group.

4) The numbers crunch is a little to tight for our liking. Most relevant challenges (hazzards, skill checks and sometimes also combat) seem to assume that there is a maxed out specialist in the party (or has the correct spell selection available), which a) not always is the case and b) makes you feel bad if you for any reason did not max your relevant skills or attributes, especially during character creation (and which also can't be retrained).

5) The rule set itself is more than playable, however we are not especially font of a couple of rules when it comes to the issue how they are applied at the first place or to their intentional or unintentional. Being the guy responible for the "rules crunch" within our group even the GM turns to me from time to time and asks if I knew how a certain rule is handled and when I start with "Well, it is ambigious and neither the FAQ nor the forumites are in agreement on this either." he already rolls his eyes in mild annoyance. Be it simple things like number of hands for Battle Medicine, monster identification via recall knowledge or stealth rules (especially transition from exploration mode to encounter mode) for our liking there are too many things that are either overly complex (as e.g. in traits within traits), unclear or strangly ambigious for such a sophisticated game. Note that our GM is neither inexperienced nor insecure, however he does not like making rulings for events that are by no means corner cases and he feels should be clear in the base game.

That are our five cents...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:


I doubt that will ever change. The way the math of the system works, I don't think any option will ever give you better proficiency in either weapons or armor than your base class gives you - just proficiency in different things.

Because if a Sorcerer can just archetype into legendary archery, why even be a fighter?

I know, and I am happy with this.

But others seemed to be hoping for more.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:
4) The numbers crunch is a little to tight for our liking. Most relevant challenges (hazzards, skill checks and sometimes also combat) seem to assume that there is a maxed out specialist in the party (or has the correct spell selection available), which a) not always is the case and b) makes you feel bad if you for any reason did not max your relevant skills or attributes, especially during character creation (and which also can't be retrained).

I knew this will happen.

Playtest: Why is +level to everything! Why can't we be abysmally bad at something! Why is everyone at least competent at everything!

Paizo: OK, untrained doesn't give +level.

Full rules: Why do we need specialists in everything! Why is the game assuming somebody will be trained in something! Why can't we all be at least competent in everything!

Sadly, Paizo once again listened to people who wanted something else than they were asking for.

Silver Crusade

Love the new system. I've played every edition of D&D from OD&D to 5e.

Our group got back together for 3e. Played a 3/x campaign for 8 years. Played a 4e campaign for 4 years. Left us sour on long campaigns. Played 5e one shots twice a year for another 5. But now with PF2e, we are back playing twice a month.

Ironically, the quarantine has helped us with the new system and getting gaming again. We started playing on Roll20 and quickly switched over to Foundry. Not being able to meet in person, made it easier to switch to online. Also Foundry is downright amazing with the system.

Love the modular nature of it. It feels tactical in every way in combat, but not the same repetitive tactics that 4e power system brought. Character creation and options are already light years ahead of 5e. Whenever a new system comes out, I teach myself the system by going back and building the parties of our 20 plus year campaigns. With most systems, it takes a lot of reflavoring or close approximation to make the characters work. With PF2e I was able to build very satisfying versions of 90% of previous characters on day one. With the release of the APG, it will go to 98%.(Last Character is an ancestry that won't ever come officially to the PF2e. But if i take the Kobold and move a few things around, make it taller etc etc, it should work well)

Overall super pleased with where the game is a year in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
4) The numbers crunch is a little to tight for our liking. Most relevant challenges (hazzards, skill checks and sometimes also combat) seem to assume that there is a maxed out specialist in the party (or has the correct spell selection available), which a) not always is the case and b) makes you feel bad if you for any reason did not max your relevant skills or attributes, especially during character creation (and which also can't be retrained).

I knew this will happen.

Playtest: Why is +level to everything! Why can't we be abysmally bad at something! Why is everyone at least competent at everything!

Paizo: OK, untrained doesn't give +level.

Full rules: Why do we need specialists in everything! Why is the game assuming somebody will be trained in something! Why can't we all be at least competent in everything!

Sadly, Paizo once again listened to people who wanted something else than they were asking for.

Hey! Don’t paint with too broad a brush!

If I can’t suck at something an rpg is pretty much a nonstarter for me, as a player. Call it an endearing quirk, if you must..


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
4) The numbers crunch is a little to tight for our liking. Most relevant challenges (hazzards, skill checks and sometimes also combat) seem to assume that there is a maxed out specialist in the party (or has the correct spell selection available), which a) not always is the case and b) makes you feel bad if you for any reason did not max your relevant skills or attributes, especially during character creation (and which also can't be retrained).

I knew this will happen.

Playtest: Why is +level to everything! Why can't we be abysmally bad at something! Why is everyone at least competent at everything!

Paizo: OK, untrained doesn't give +level.

Full rules: Why do we need specialists in everything! Why is the game assuming somebody will be trained in something! Why can't we all be at least competent in everything!

Sadly, Paizo once again listened to people who wanted something else than they were asking for.

Hey! Don’t paint with too broad a brush!

If I can’t suck at something an rpg is pretty much a nonstarter for me, as a player. Call it an endearing quirk, if you must..

Agreed. I called for having untrained not giving +level, and I'm pleased as punch by how it worked out.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
...Charisma needs a buff...

I disagree. When I build a character (for PFS) I am usually tempted to dump INT, not CHA. CHA-based skills, especially Intimodation, are great in many official campaigns.

OTOH, INT-based skills are not used as often IME. Plus it's easy to get trained skills through Ancestry Lore feats and multiclassing.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like the locked class features. I think you have a locked class system like PF2 with Architypes that can give some additional class features. Or you have a totally open system with all class features can be learned. You could have the cost be less for classes that certain feature are associated with like fighter, rogue, and wizard ect. You could attach certain requirements for the feature for spells an associated ability score like intelligence. Or for martial features strength. Rogues would be Dex. You could also have level requirement. All of these features would be open to the other classes if they met the requirement. The problem arises where you have a system that falls in between. This was the case in 3.5 where feats allowed other classes to do what a fighter could and then complained about how bad the fighter was. The fighter could not learn the rogues back stab or the barbarians rage because they were class features. Yet other classes could learn martial feats that should have been fighter class features. I look at it like this. If you are going to say it is ok for wizard to learn those class features through feats. Then why can't an intelligent fighter learn spells as a feat?

The one thing I will say is the class feats could have been called class abilities and I think it may have been easier for some to get behind. Feats have allot of preconceived ideas related to earlier editions PF1 and 3.5


WatersLethe wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

I knew this will happen.

Playtest: Why is +level to everything! Why can't we be abysmally bad at something! Why is everyone at least competent at everything!

Paizo: OK, untrained doesn't give +level.

Full rules: Why do we need specialists in everything! Why is the game assuming somebody will be trained in something! Why can't we all be at least competent in everything!

Sadly, Paizo once again listened to people who wanted something else than they were asking for.

Hey! Don’t paint with too broad a brush!

If I can’t suck at something an rpg is pretty much a nonstarter for me, as a player. Call it an endearing quirk, if you must..

Agreed. I called for having untrained not giving +level, and I'm pleased as punch by how it worked out.

Indeed. And the "problem" in that bolded statement isn't +level or not +level, its the impact quantity of +level when it comes to the "everything else."

It isn't so much that by not being trained you're incompetent (that's a good thing!) it's that as you go from low level to mid, and from mid to high, the game expects you to be more than trained not just trained. You have to be as good as you can be. The +4 difference between Trained and Master is so significant that Trained skills may as well be Untrained for all the good they'll do you.

(Interestingly, Master is sufficient, getting up to Legendary is not strictly necessary, but the game makes you think it is. Master @ 20th is just as good as Trained @ 1st, if not slightly better, but Trained at 20th and Untrained at 20th are both basically "fish for a 20").

And there's only so many skills you can raise above Trained.


WatersLethe wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
4) The numbers crunch is a little to tight for our liking. Most relevant challenges (hazzards, skill checks and sometimes also combat) seem to assume that there is a maxed out specialist in the party (or has the correct spell selection available), which a) not always is the case and b) makes you feel bad if you for any reason did not max your relevant skills or attributes, especially during character creation (and which also can't be retrained).

I knew this will happen.

Playtest: Why is +level to everything! Why can't we be abysmally bad at something! Why is everyone at least competent at everything!

Paizo: OK, untrained doesn't give +level.

Full rules: Why do we need specialists in everything! Why is the game assuming somebody will be trained in something! Why can't we all be at least competent in everything!

Sadly, Paizo once again listened to people who wanted something else than they were asking for.

Hey! Don’t paint with too broad a brush!

If I can’t suck at something an rpg is pretty much a nonstarter for me, as a player. Call it an endearing quirk, if you must..

Agreed. I called for having untrained not giving +level, and I'm pleased as punch by how it worked out.

This is all about baseline sucess expectations. If the baseline is set at 11+ for a maxed out specialist, 13+ because the challenge is level +2, 14+ because you don't have your stat for that skill maxed and finally 16+ because you did not choose to go expert with this particular skill when you had the choice, then we are already deep in the "might at well not try at all and save the action" territory.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I love it. I haven't had the giddy feeling for new material in a long while. I wasn't even getting to play that often until PF2, once in a blue moon at best.

And I actually feel like this community is pretty cool. With the world the way it is, it's nice to be able to lose myself in another one for a few hours once in a while.

I hope everyone's having as much fun as I am!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
...Charisma needs a buff...

I disagree. When I build a character (for PFS) I am usually tempted to dump INT, not CHA. CHA-based skills, especially Intimodation, are great in many official campaigns.

OTOH, INT-based skills are not used as often IME. Plus it's easy to get trained skills through Ancestry Lore feats and multiclassing.

And honestly, a lot of people undervalue the INT skills due to not a whole lot of people using Recall Knowledge often in comparison to more offensive/defensive actions in combat.

That and the info given from RK being very GM-fiat.


Personally while I enjoy some of the new rules there are others that I find in poor taste. So I am very much 50/50 at this point.

Pros:
* Action economy is easy to remember.
* Feat silo for skill and combat feats.
* Better implementation of variant multiclassing.
* Smaller scale of gold (gold doesnt reach 200k).
* Ease of modding feats and subsystems.
* Better formatting.

Cone:
* Action economy is too punitive in some case, like casters. Or until you get to really high level.
* The values are too tight so its hard to get ahead of the math without using as many buff/debuff as possible.
* Crits are too common making the game very swingy, specially at low level.
* Classes are too set in their niche. Its hard to make a class work vastly differently, at least for now.
* Spells have lost a lot of their magic. Most are either too specialized or too useful; While the remainder are kind of meh.
* Aninal companions feel to like a class feature than an actual animal. I dont like I have to buy their increases or command then every single time to do the same thing.

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

* P.S. GM fiat is weird. And personally as both a player and GM I could do with less being built into the rule. But thats a very personal taste, and a matter of me wanting more guidance on a rule than, "your GM decides".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not a game for me, I´m afraid.
The combat system is fine, I actually like that, I see a lot of things that could have been potentially cool about the game, but it just falls shy being good and just end up being meh for me.

The Exchange

2e is a great system. It is not yet perfect but is playing well. I still have nostalgia for earlier versions AD&D being my first love but 2e PF is working well.

So how not perfect?

There are certain aspects which need more work after a year out in the wild. I’d like to see more on the transition from Exploration mode to Encounter mode

I have always felt that the number of hands needed for stuff needs a little work.

I would love to see casters get some of the swashbuckling fun that martials get. I always felt derating the power of the spells the caster can cast while tying them to a 3 action economy where they still only (mostly) get to do one cool thing a round was a bridge too far.

Evolving from the 3.x world there is an expectation that though the rules may no longer strive to cover every possible eventuality there is still IMHO a need for a clarity on lots of small but important things.

Over all the system is a success!

W


Draco18s wrote:
(Interestingly, Master is sufficient, getting up to Legendary is not strictly necessary, but the game makes you think it is. Master @ 20th is just as good as Trained @ 1st, if not slightly better, but Trained at 20th and Untrained at 20th are both basically "fish for a 20").

Are they though? There are plenty of skills that aim for flat DCs that never increase.

Let's hypothetically say every DC at 20 was legendary/a level 20 dc (Not an assumption that should be made, but hey let's run with it)

A trained character will have what. 22 prof, 4 from a non main stat, 2 from an item.
That is a 45% success rate, add in aid, follow an expert and or simple common bonuses from spells and such and you can easily have a much better chance at succeeding at level 20 with a skill just being trained.

This all said, it isn't amazing and you will struggle with modifiers or when you are debuffed. But it is just trained, not expert or master and that was a choice the player made. Hardly fishing for 20's.

Looking at actual APs though.

Exinction curse volume 6, mostly dc 30-35 check with a solid number of 40-45 checks smattered about (45 usually for secondary knowledges).

Age of Ashes volume 6, mostly ~38, some 40-45 and some 30s


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:


Sadly, Paizo once again listened to people who wanted something else than they were asking for.

Maybe, though from my experience the issue has less to do with untrained > trained and more to do with going beyond trained. The costs of investing in associated ability scores and juggling a very limited number of skill increases can do a lot to create the issues Ubertron is talking about, outside of how many trained skills you have.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
(Interestingly, Master is sufficient, getting up to Legendary is not strictly necessary, but the game makes you think it is. Master @ 20th is just as good as Trained @ 1st, if not slightly better, but Trained at 20th and Untrained at 20th are both basically "fish for a 20").
Are they though? There are plenty of skills that aim for flat DCs that never increase.

There are some, yes. But there are many uses of skills where that is not true, and that's what I was addressing.


Draco18s wrote:
There are some, yes. But there are many uses of skills where that is not true, and that's what I was addressing.

I addressed that when I pointed out how commonly accessible 45% base success rate was on legendary or at level dc checks at level 20 though (with trained skills).

And as I said, throw in Aid, follow an expert or a variety of spell bonuses and this can increase again. It isn't great, but it isn't fishing for a 20 either. Especially as even at level 20 you will be getting some dc 30 and 35 checks.

And if you want to use a skill in combat at high levels but cannot be bothered increasing it past trained at some point, well that is a different issue and certainly not a fault of the system.

Personally I would have liked the skill points system to be core, but for simplicity sake I can see why they went with what they did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


And if you want to use a skill in combat at high levels but cannot be bothered increasing it past trained at some point, well that is a different issue and certainly not a fault of the system.

While I think it's a fair point, it is worth noting too that skill increases are pretty limited. If there are four or five things you want to be good at you're already in trouble. Moreso if you play a class that expects you to go down a certain path to begin with (like alchemists or snare rangers and Crafting) but also have some other ideas or if the things you want to be good at run off attributes that are harder for you to invest in.


Squiggit wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


And if you want to use a skill in combat at high levels but cannot be bothered increasing it past trained at some point, well that is a different issue and certainly not a fault of the system.
While I think it's a fair point, it is worth noting too that skill increases are pretty limited. If there are four or five things you want to be good at you're already in trouble. Moreso if you play a class that expects you to go down a certain path to begin with (like alchemists or snare rangers and Crafting) but also have some other ideas or if the things you want to be good at run off attributes that are harder for you to invest in.

Really hoping for a General Feat that allows you to elevate a skill a tier of the tier below you have access to, I think that would solve most of the problems about feeling starved for Skill choices.

Basically if you are level 7, you can elevate a Trained -> Expert as a General Feat or something.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

We only got to play 2 or 3 sessions of my 2E campaign before we had to stop meeting in person. We haven't tried to play online yet, but maybe someday.

Overall I like 2E, but I would be happy with a simpler ruleset. Poisons, in particular are waaaay more complicated than I would prefer. I've read the poison section of the rules two or three times, and I still don't grasp it.

I don't think 2E needs four times the number of conditions that D&D 5E has to be a fun game. Oh, and feats seem really weak. But I guess having 1000 weak feats allows for more customization than 250 strong feats?

On the positive side, the action economy is great. Combat seems to move quickly (and I think that will get better once we know the rules better). Overall, I like it, but I'm at the age where I don't necessarily want such a rules-heavy game.

Liberty's Edge

Squiggit wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


And if you want to use a skill in combat at high levels but cannot be bothered increasing it past trained at some point, well that is a different issue and certainly not a fault of the system.
While I think it's a fair point, it is worth noting too that skill increases are pretty limited. If there are four or five things you want to be good at you're already in trouble. Moreso if you play a class that expects you to go down a certain path to begin with (like alchemists or snare rangers and Crafting) but also have some other ideas or if the things you want to be good at run off attributes that are harder for you to invest in.

I have "solved" this problem on several characters with rogue dedication and Skill Mastery. It works, but I won't pretend I wouldn't prefer another option.

I have a 12th level swashbuckler/sorcerer/rogue with four Master skills and two more Expert, but I had to use Skilled Heritage, Additional Lore, and Skill Mastery to do it.


Shisumo wrote:
I have "solved" this problem on several characters with rogue dedication and Skill Mastery. It works, but I won't pretend I wouldn't prefer another option.

I'd love to see a General feat at level 3+ that let you upgrade a trained skill to expert. That would seem about right, and would give you something useful to do with general feats other than Toughness, Fleet, or Canny Acumen.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


And if you want to use a skill in combat at high levels but cannot be bothered increasing it past trained at some point, well that is a different issue and certainly not a fault of the system.
While I think it's a fair point, it is worth noting too that skill increases are pretty limited. If there are four or five things you want to be good at you're already in trouble. Moreso if you play a class that expects you to go down a certain path to begin with (like alchemists or snare rangers and Crafting) but also have some other ideas or if the things you want to be good at run off attributes that are harder for you to invest in.

I have "solved" this problem on several characters with rogue dedication and Skill Mastery. It works, but I won't pretend I wouldn't prefer another option.

I have a 12th level swashbuckler/sorcerer/rogue with four Master skills and two more Expert, but I had to use Skilled Heritage, Additional Lore, and Skill Mastery to do it.

I do really love rogue dedication, yeah, it's a nice solution, albeit kind of heavy handed (and brings up another small issue that feats can feel like a bit of a bottleneck, especially at low levels).

51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder Second Edition's first anniversary -- how do we feel about the new edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.