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

[Temperans]

Squiggit wrote:

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).

Which is why the free archetype or free class feat variants are so great. Glad Paizo released them officially.

[Reckless]

1 year in, and I'm loving 2E. As someone who is 90% GM and 10% player, the rules have freed me up to run for players across a spectrum of optimization without the hair-pulling struggles of mid-to-high-level PF1E.

Most of the players enjoy the ability to sculpt their characters according to a vision, with an occasional hiccup at a level they don't see anything that really fits their idea.

The tactical play aspect, smoothness of 3 action system, and ability for players to mostly deal just with what's on their own sheet makes the game a joy to run. I love it when a player starts doing something new and unexpected and this game gives me lots of that.

Running the game on Fantasy Grounds gives me a good deal of rule automation that makes learning and remembering the rules easier and more smooth to run as well. Putting "grabbed" or "blinded" on someone and letting the vtt take care of what that means is very freeing. Letting the players target the enemy and the vtt figuring a hit, miss, or crit based on stated conditions is great, and recalculating by hitting a button and dragging the result back over the target with a forgotten condition makes rules corrections go quickly and easily.

[Mustachioed]

My major 1e complaint is players who know the system so well that they can build characters with such high power levels, using every OP spell from every miscellaneous book, every OP ability. It is really hard to GM. I am getting better as GM but it is a real challenge to not nullify their fun while helping the less educated players. "Get good" advice isn't particularly helpful. I am a smart person. It is just a very hard system to adjudicate fairly. And even if I scale things back to just the CRB and APG these good players will be able to create uber powerful characters who trounce everything and it all becomes a game of rocket tag.

So far, every 2e character seems in relative balance with each other. If 2e keeps that balance I will continue to be happy with it! I have fully made the switch to 2e for new games... and eagerly awaiting all of my old 1e games to end.

[Hadriker]

I played D&D 3.5 for about a year before my group fully switched to 5e. We've been a mostly 5e group since its release, playing other systems occasionally.

I DM most of the time for our 5e campaigns. I've ran a few modules and a homebrew where i took the players all the way to level 20 that lasted almost 2 years.

I picked up the CRB a couple months ago and have been running one shots at various levels so my group could get a feel for the system and character building. Its been a pretty great success.

My table definitely leans towards power gaming. My table is more into the character building and wargaming part of TTRPGs. 2e supports that tactical style of play much better than 5e does. The 3 action system and wealth of character options really makes that style of play more rewarding and fun.

As a DM, building encounters has never been easier due to the tight math. I can use the encounter builder in the CRB and know it will be right at or close to the kind of challenge i want. 5e's encounter building kind of goes out the window with balance once you get past level 8 and start introducing magic items. Its telling when WoTC rarely has modules go past level 10 and don't even follow their own encounter building rules.

I plan on starting a full fledged campaign once i can get a hold of an APG. my table is looking forward to it.

[nick1wasd]

I absolutely adore PF2, my only experience in TTRPGs is 5e and PF1, and I have to say this has the best aspects of both and shed most issues that plague either. It's simple to pick up, decent skill ceiling, and it's decently fast turn-to-turn (unless you have a slug in your party... one of my tables has 2), and you can have an a-typical player count and it still runs pretty smooth. My only complaint is not with the rules themselves, but the book's formatting; the books don't point to themselves really well, if one rule references another (casting out of a Wand uses Casting a Spell: the activity), you have to go back to the index, find what was referenced, and go to that, rinse and repeat until you get to the thing everything else is founded upon, and then backtrack until the rule you WANTED to learn in he first place. Thank god for AoN and hyperlinks ^.^