Just a General Question About the State that Second Edition is in.


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Harles wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Harles wrote:
The only issue I've run into is not having enough adventure content. There's not nearly enough stand-alone modules, and if you're not in the market for an AP (or like my group, just discount a few of them for thematic reasons), you're having to create all of your own adventure content.

The lack of focus on stand alone modules is a thing - and one that was true for much of PF1 as well, though there was a catalog of them from the early days. APs are constantly coming out, so there's a growing amount of long form content. There are also a lot of PFS scenarios, which don't need to be run in PFS, so you could certainly use those for small adventure content.

I was at a point when I really needed a level 7-ish adventure to fill in some gaps in the Age of Ashes AP and there was nothing available I could find (outside of taking sections from other APs), with most of the PFS adventures being levels 1-3 (if memory serves).

That's fair, especially awhile back. No point in putting out higher level PFS scenarios until there were enough low level ones to get characters up to those levels.

Looking now, there are 4-5 scenarios in the 7th level range, but there wouldn't have been 6 months ago.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
10. IMO, there are far fewer character options in PF2. In PF2, you are your class (which I like in general, but not in exactly the way it was done). Your class is a shackle for how you are going to operate and many of the options that were open to all in PF1, are locked into certain classes. Paizo tries to work around this with Dedications/Archetypes. That works if want you want is in some Dedication and you want to Multi-class. If you don't, you might find it frustrating that you aren't really set up to two-weapon-fight as a straight barbarian. Or that you are penalized for using a long bow as a Ranger.

I really don't agree with quite a bit what you said but this one really stuck out with me the most. Why would you not want to use dedications if it fit your concept better? It isn't like PF1 where "multiclassing" takes away features. Pretty much every system I can think of had classes that weren't suited for specific styles including PF1, at least on the base class.

Also in what world is a long bow bad on a ranger. It has longer range and more damage with an actual downside rather than just a better shortbow. It is so nice Paizo actually tried to make weapons with pros and cons. Overall I still do admit there are some weapons that look "bad".

Compared to what's out now it is hard to say there are more options in 2e than 1e but I would say it is surprisingly close for being like 1/10th the age. The nice thing is after learning the system it is super easy to bring concepts into life with the dedication system.

Just a random example...

PF1 - Dual Weapon Barbarian or pretty much every character requires so much effort to make work it is crazy. You have to make sure you get "weapon focus" "improved critical" "dual wield feats" and any other feats required.

PF2 - Dual Weapon Barbarian just take the Dual Weapon Warrior Dedication and just choose your favorite feats and you are good to go.

Also something I forgot to mention is the skill system imo is a lot better in PF2, because skill feats add so much flavor while not making your character bad at fighting.

PF2 really just get's rid of the need to grab as many +X feats in your "niche" as possible. The feats are so refreshing that you can push year characters in "odd" directions and not feel super underpowered. Also tons of feats give more options rather than raw numbers which I find is so fun compared to every game.

Overall I agree PF2 isn't perfect but imo it really tries to give players a huge amount of choices and be somewhat balanced. Also new players can just go single class zero dedication and feel good too. Of course with more and more books balance will probably get worse with more choices, that is just how games work though.

It is interesting to guess what PF2 will be like in +2 years. I am not 100% sure PF2 character creation will be any less daunting. Already there are 16 classes and 90ish archetypes. Luckily no matter how many classes+archetypes they add anyone not too interested in theorycrafting can always just pick a class + an archetype or 2 to have decent character.

I would say there is plenty of content for players, they shouldn't ever get bored making characters. APs on the other hand that can depend on the group. I am pretty sure it will take us a year to complete an AP so we would never run out of content.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
"N N 959 wrote:
However, Paizo did eliminate things like 1st level characters getting +15 Diplomacy, so if Min/Max ruins your fun, PF2 has reduced its impact (but not eliminated by any means).

In my experience, 90% of the time a PC had some insane bonus to a roll or a stupid high armor class in PF1, it was because they were stacking something that didn't stack, or using an ability they didn't meet a pre-req for. And the GM didn't catch it.

This happened time and time and time again.

I had a friend who GM'd a game, and he was always lamenting that his players just trivialized every encounter he threw at them. He said they were such system masters, that their characters all had monster AC, and did hundreds of damage per round.
So, I showed up and sat in on a session. When it was over, I took out my notes I'd made and started in. "The fighter is using an ability that clearly says it's a standard action, but he's using it as part of a full attack. Your cleric can't stack these 3 bonuses onto people, because they're all the same kind of bonus. And every time your monsters move into position, your fighter kills them with an attack of opportunity. But you can't make attacks of opportunity when you're flat-footed, unless you have combat reflexes and your fighter doesn't."
I was asked by the players not to come back anymore.

I don't think PF1 was near as broken as people say it was. It was because most those people were getting the rules wrong.
That being said, I love PF2 and I play all PF2 games now. It's a really fun system.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:
I don't think PF1 was near as broken as people say it was. It was because most those people were getting the rules wrong.

But I think even the examples that you gave are pretty good examples of why people thought the rules were "broken."

Your enemy can move through squares you threaten ... but they provoke an AoO ... unless you're flat-footed ... except when you have Combat Reflexes. For new players, that's looking up 4 rules. It's second nature to a lot of experienced players, but it's a pretty significant barrier to new players - especially when an experienced player gets annoyed at people not knowing the rules.

Even if people were getting the rules wrong (which I agree explains a lot of the worst absurdity, but not most (minor) absurdity), it's because there were a lot of rules, and those rules were patchworked on to a system that Paizo didn't really build. Does this obscure feat from a 2014 module interact with a newly-released archetype from 2018 in a broken way? Tough to know unless you had an encyclopedic knowledge about both the feat and the archetype.

People showed up with some craaazy builds in PF1. If you really wanted to audit it, you'd need to sit and have a 3-hour research session. And maybe you'd catch some errors on their part, or maybe you'd learn some new rules, but it wouldn't negate the fact that 2+ people had to spend 3 hours on it.

The system was untenable because in the end, the designers couldn't design encounters where 10% of characters could hit a DC with a natural 1, while 90% of character couldn't hit it with a natural 20.


Henro wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
While PF2 does things different in some regards, I feel that it is arriving at effectively the same place. It's just taking a better route.

While this is at least kind of true, I do think there are also large differences that don't just come down to choosing a different route to accomplish the same thing. The biggest one for me is where the game places PC optimization. In 1E, optimization happened in CharGen - the strength of your character was the biggest factor in determining how effectively you were able to handle encounters. Whereas in 2E, optimization happens during encounters, depending heavily on PC tactics.

In 2E, a party of average characters who use advanced combat tactics will most likely do much better than a party of optimized characters who don't. In 1E, the reverse was true.

Optimization at character creation is also one of the biggest issues with the whole PF1 system, so it I think it was necessary. I also don't think it was necessarily the intent of 3e based systems, but rather an unfortunate emergence from faults in the system.


There are certain optimized ideas that are necessary. No-brainer feats, for example. If you use shields, not taking Quick Repair is going to hamper you after a couple battles. Woe be the group without Battle Medicine and maxed out Medicine training.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Watery Soup wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:
I don't think PF1 was near as broken as people say it was. It was because most those people were getting the rules wrong.
The system was untenable because in the end, the designers couldn't design encounters where 10% of characters could hit a DC with a natural 1, while 90% of character couldn't hit it with a natural 20.

I can agree with that.

One of the main selling points of PF2 to me was the ease of teaching it to new players.
I enjoyed the complicated rules of PF1. I loved knowing little facts like the combat reflexes example. Or that no bonuses of the same type stack except for unnamed and dodge bonuses.
But... seeing the wide-eyed look of confusion on a new player's face when I explained to him that, yes, you can use an immediate action immediately, but that you can't use immediate actions when you're flat-footed.

The tighter math and more concise action system just lets players get past the rules and into the action.

Paizo Employee Designer

21 people marked this as a favorite.

A kind of cool thing about PF2 is that each book inherently contains a significantly larger number of viable character concepts than PF1, and each new book has a multiplicative impact on that dynamic.

For example, the sentinel archetype in the APG has no prereqs. You now have an armor archetype for every class. Even if you're inclined to argue that it won't be valuable to every class, that's still the equivalent of 8 going on 10 armored caster archetypes in PF1.

Similarly, the class feat structure means that each class has all of its most popular archetypes from PF1 available as a base part of the chassis and you can combine them together in ways you couldn't in PF1, where archetypes that traded out the same feature weren't compatible with each other.

Then there's other efficiencies of PF2 that impact the formula. Weird, random prereqs like Combat Expertise requiring a 13 Int and being a prereq for most of the combat maneuver feats? Gone. You get access to a broad swath of combat maneuvers just by choosing Athletics as a trained skill, which anyone can do. Trees that are 4 feats long just to get a basic combat style going? Gone. Want a character who's a fighter but also good with a variety of skills? Your skill abilities come from a completely different pool of options than your combat abilities, so you can branch out without negatively impacting your ability to be good at the thing the other players at the table need you to be good at.

Versatile heritages are also a big tool in the toolbox. In PF1, a tiefling could be flavored as being from another race and might even get to be a different size if the GM was cool with that. In PF2, any ancestry can be a tiefling (just ask my tiefling (hellspawn) kobold investigator, Devil Slim!) and then mix and match ancestry feats from both their base ancestry and the versatile heritage. Those three versatile heritages provided the equivalent of 180 variant races in PF1, and when Lost Omens Ancestries drops, that number will more than double.

PF2 already has more viable (viable meaning it doesn't have swaths of levels where it's completely ineffective and that it adequately fulfills its concept) character concepts for players than PF1 did in its first 3, maybe even 5, years. They don't necessarily all fill up the same niches, but the numbers are there. By the end of 2021 you're going to need to pull in 3pp content just for PF1 to even come close to having the same amount of concept support.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a couple mechanical slots left to plug; namely Kineticist-style casting, Gun rules, and the final version of Gish casting.

Hopefully all of that will be wandering in shortly. I have high hopes that I can cobble something together for a kineticist-style character in SoM, even if I can't get a Kineticist.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Optimization at character creation is also one of the biggest issues with the whole PF1 system, so it I think it was necessary. I also don't think it was necessarily the intent of 3e based systems, but rather an unfortunate emergence from faults in the system.

I'm pretty sure it was intended, but perhaps not to the degree there was. I know Ryan Dancey (who wasn't primarily a designer, but was the "brand manager" for D&D back then which meant he was the boss of the designers) wanted the game to reward system mastery, so someone who was "good" at the game could make a character that was better than someone who was "bad" at it. For example, that's why 3.0 had feats like Toughness that just gave you +3 hp, so an experienced player could say "That's BS" and avoid that feat.

3e was also very focused on providing player options at every opportunity. Even setting material was generally at least 25% player options.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I generally love PF2. The action economy in particular is such a marked improvement over full attacks that it legitimately makes it hard for me to play PF1 and Starfinder anymore (though I still do).

That doesn't make it perfect. It still has holes compared to PF1, particularly if you look at the more adventurous ideas that came late in PF1's lifecycle (there's nothing really that covers the design space of the occult classes, for instance). Oddly enough, despite probably being some of the best designed content in PF1, there's really no good analogues to any of the 6th level casters in PF2. If you're a big fan of the Inquisitor or PF1 Bard or Occultist or anything like that you're kind of SoL for now.

PF2 class feats can sometimes feel like bottlenecks, since they're both your main source of combat feats, but also pretty much the only way to expand your class features and one of the better ways to expand your skill repertoire as well. PF1 feats could also be an awful bottleneck, but just worth saying that problem still kinda exists in PF2.

PF2 has made the math tighter, which means better balance and fewer optimization tricks. This is generally good, but has the downside of meaning you can no longer compensate for something in your build being suboptimal with max fixers elsewhere, if you have a deficit for whatever reason, you're always going to have that deficit.

Mostly that means starting stat lines are a lot more rigid and often trying to do 'weird' things with a class is going to feel bad.

Finally, PF2 is generally a lot stricter about letting you do things the game doesn't think you're "supposed" to do.

Like in PF1, proficiency with any weapon for any class was a single feat away. In PF2? It's actually impossible for a Rogue to gain full proficiency with a Starknife (as far as I can tell). Lots of other proficiency options are gated by ancestry choice too (which has some unfortunate and uncomfortable implications, but that's another topic). Stuff like that can kind of be a culture shock for someone moving systems.

All that said, PF2 is genuinely a lot of fun, in some ways much more fun than PF1, but you have to be willing to let go of a lot of preconceptions and realize that the system is going to want you to do certain things differently or not at all in order to have that fun.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:

There's a couple mechanical slots left to plug; namely Kineticist-style casting, Gun rules, and the final version of Gish casting.

Hopefully all of that will be wandering in shortly. I have high hopes that I can cobble something together for a kineticist-style character in SoM, even if I can't get a Kineticist.

There are two third-party Kineticist-like class books already out and worth looking at.

Legendary Kineticist by Legendary Games
And
Elemental Host by Little Red Goblin Games


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:
I enjoyed the complicated rules of PF1. I loved knowing little facts like the combat reflexes example. Or that no bonuses of the same type stack except for unnamed and dodge bonuses.

I was firmly in this camp too, and then I started playing the game. I'm being serious there, too. For a really long time I was reading through the rules over and over, enjoying looking at the character options and making characters, but had nobody to play with because of scheduling and travel constraints.

Then I was able to get into a few games, and started realizing that all the fiddly rules I liked reading in a vacuum got in the way of my enjoying the game I was playing. It was a strange disconnect that I wasn't able to fully put into words until I started playing PF2E and noticed the difference.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, let's give props to PF2 for making grappling work. It could definitely use some expansion, but it doesn't require a damned flow chart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:

A kind of cool thing about PF2 is that each book inherently contains a significantly larger number of viable character concepts than PF1, and each new book has a multiplicative impact on that dynamic.

For example, the sentinel archetype in the APG has no prereqs. You now have an armor archetype for every class. Even if you're inclined to argue that it won't be valuable to every class, that's still the equivalent of 8 going on 10 armored caster archetypes in PF1.

I remember when we first learned about archetypes in the playtest and everyone's first thought was "oh thank god, we don't need to waste ink on a pirate archetype in every splatbook anymore".

I have to contest celebrating the removal of the feat tax though, because that is definitely still here in PF2 because of dedications. Many of them represent dead feats to exactly the kind of character that would want the archetype as a whole; "I want Mauler but this class already has martial weapon proficiency" has been a thorn in my side time and time again...

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love PF2 and I loved PF1 before it.

A few caveats :

- using PF1's best practices is a good way to get your PC killed.

- a lone enemy can be a TPK.

- level matters a lot.

- do not try to convert a PF1 character to PF2 based on similarities in class names. Start from what the PC should be able to do and see what PF2 builds allows for it.

- Multiclassing is completely different from PF1. It helps refine your PC's concept and is neither broken nor hopeless. But PF2 multiclassing is not good at translating a PC changing their focus over time.


The whole 6th level caster thing is definitely a hot topic but feel PF2E does it pretty good.

Martial>Caster Dedication is good but just too slow. In theory it should feel quite good at level 12+ though. They can cast decently but they just have so little spell slots.

Caster>Martial dedication imo feels quite good. 1-4 seems great and at 5+ in theory should feel good as the 8+ health classes. They are technically full casters but I feel they can mix magic and combat quite good.

I am finding the Witch/Wizard/Sorcerer are the rough because their low life and armor proficiencies though. They can work but you have to spend a lot of feats on defense.

I do look forward to the Summoner/Magus though to see what they can do. Overall though I am quite happy with PF2E "gish" characters with current archetypes.

It is super easy to be a good caster with okay melee capabilities.

It is also super easy to be a good martial with okay casting abilities. Just wish there were a few more spell slots with this route

There are definitely a lot of ways to mix and magic swords and sorcery.

Sovereign Court

jotheman07 wrote:


Oh great thanks! I'll probably start reading now, but won't jump into it yet then, especially because Magus and Summoner are two of my favorite classes! Any DM's running exclusively 2e right now? If so, anything I should be aware of should I start switching over?

The Magus and Summoner playtest versions are so different from their 1e versions you may not even recognize them. I liked and played a 1e magus too, but at this point, I'm not sure I'll even buy the 2e Ultimate Magic at this point.

Liberty's Edge

If you are interested, there is a whole subsection of the Pathfinder Second Edition board dedicated to these classes' playtest, including many comments on the Post-Playtest blog post.

Sovereign Court

The Raven Black wrote:


- do not try to convert a PF1 character to PF2 based on similarities in class names. Start from what the PC should be able to do and see what PF2 builds allows for it.

Hiya

I would not be so certain on that point. If you use basic builds, you are pretty much able to do the same, and in some cases much better

Best,


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I love PF1 and played it for more than 10 years. But for me, PF2 is just straight up better.

1) Three action systems.
Take it, love it. So elegant.

2) Tighter Math.
It's actually great, because it makes everything relevant. In PF1, you could specialize your character so that it would totally unbalance the game. I had a level 10 buffed monk with 50 AC that no mob could ever touch, unless the GM would make monsters with unbelievable mods to hit - which in turn would play havoc with our swashbuckler who suddenly couldn't parry anymore. Or a wizard so specialized that even a boss would fail on a 18.

3) Effect on a save.
Most spells (the interesting ones, at least) have an effect on a save. Some of these effects are actually pretty brutal. It changes everything.

4) Shield rules. They're so awesome everybody wants to get a shield in our games.

5) Balanced classes
You can do great dps as a martial with a fighter, a barbarian, a rogue, a ranger or even a LG champion. Most people cannot agree on tier lists on casters and, even if people agree that bards are in a very good place, other spellcasters are no slouch.

6) Elegant solutions
Heal is now a single spell that you can cast at any level. Use one action, it's a range of touch. Two actions, it's more powerful and at range. Three actions, and it's now AOE.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Blue_frog wrote:


It's actually great, because I had a level 10 buffed monk with 50 AC that no mob could ever touch, unless the GM would make monsters with unbelievable mods to hit-

With a +6 Dex and +6 Wis, that's a 22. A +5 ring and +5 amulet makes a 32. Bracers of armor +5 would make a 37. That's 13 points of buffs to get to 50 from there.

A +4 from ki for one round, and total defense would make 45.

Would be interested to see the build on that.

Liberty's Edge

Ched Greyfell wrote:
Blue_frog wrote:


It's actually great, because I had a level 10 buffed monk with 50 AC that no mob could ever touch, unless the GM would make monsters with unbelievable mods to hit-

With a +6 Dex and +6 Wis, that's a 22. A +5 ring and +5 amulet makes a 32. Bracers of armor +5 would make a 37. That's 13 points of buffs to get to 50 from there.

A +4 from ki for one round, and total defense would make 45.

Would be interested to see the build on that.

Fighting defensively or total defense? Crane Style, Crane Wing, maybe a trait? That will get closer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Blue_frog wrote:


It's actually great, because I had a level 10 buffed monk with 50 AC that no mob could ever touch, unless the GM would make monsters with unbelievable mods to hit-

With a +6 Dex and +6 Wis, that's a 22. A +5 ring and +5 amulet makes a 32. Bracers of armor +5 would make a 37. That's 13 points of buffs to get to 50 from there.

A +4 from ki for one round, and total defense would make 45.

Would be interested to see the build on that.

So

10 base
+6 dex
+6 wis
+ 3 monk AC bonus (monk robe)
+ 4 mage armor
+ 4 shield potion from alchemist
+ 4 ring of protection
+ 4 barkskin Ki power
+ 4 fighting defensively with Crane Style/Riposte
+ 4 crane wing until hit
+ 1 dusty rose ioun stone
= 50 AC

Grand Lodge

Stack wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Blue_frog wrote:


It's actually great, because I had a level 10 buffed monk with 50 AC that no mob could ever touch, unless the GM would make monsters with unbelievable mods to hit-

With a +6 Dex and +6 Wis, that's a 22. A +5 ring and +5 amulet makes a 32. Bracers of armor +5 would make a 37. That's 13 points of buffs to get to 50 from there.

A +4 from ki for one round, and total defense would make 45.

Would be interested to see the build on that.

Fighting defensively or total defense? Crane Style, Crane Wing, maybe a trait? That will get closer.

I would assume a Monk's Robe as well.


So... I've just read through pretty much all of the rulebooks (not cover to cover, but got a solid grasp of them), and I noticed two things that no one had really brought up, but I wondered if anyone else had been experiencing.

1. It seems like (especially in the ancestries) that a lot of the options look objectively worse...? I totally agree that there aren't many things that read as "Dang that is ridiculously good" but I kept turning things up options where the concept of the bonus seemed really exciting, but the actual results seemed like a let down. One that stood out to me was the Unseen Lizardfolk, I got super pumped when I saw we could have literal chameleons, but then just having +2 stealth... and flavor text that seems to limit this ability further? Is it just me or is that pretty weak? Especially when the Cliff ancestry right next to it seems to have way better utility for ranged stealth characters (martial and caster alike). My initial reaction to the idea of ancestries was that it would make building a character much more personal, but now I'm feeling like some of the choices are just no brainers, tailored for certain builds... and others I can't picture myself ever picking, is this just me?

2. Another vibe I got (and again, this might just be me), was that it kinda felt like they over compensated for limiting feat options and not having the traditional multiclassing. What I mean is, for the first few levels, it seems like there are already too many mechanics for getting feats off of lists you wouldn't traditionally have access to (like other ancestry feats through adopted). It seems like a bit much to me, (even though I am aware that many of these "cross-list" options lose value beyond the first few levels), because having the ability to pick feats from wherever makes your character choices feel a lot less important in the short run. Was this also a vibe that only I am getting?


Oh, also, another random question. Does anyone know what the corkscrews are that appear to be on the backs of the alchemist and druid iconics? When I saw it on the alchemist, I assumed it was a cannon worm (or something similar) but then there seems to be something similar on the back of the druid, and if it was a cannon worm that would make no sense. Are they something else entirely, or are the two slightly similar objects just two different things and I'm overthinking it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
jotheman07 wrote:


1. It seems like (especially in the ancestries) that a lot of the options look objectively worse...? I totally agree that there aren't many things that read as "Dang that is ridiculously good" but I kept turning things up options where the concept of the bonus seemed really exciting, but the actual results seemed like a let down. One that stood out to me was the Unseen Lizardfolk, I got super pumped when I saw we could have literal chameleons, but then just having +2 stealth... and flavor text that seems to limit this ability further? Is it just me or is that pretty weak? Especially when the Cliff ancestry right next to it seems to have way better utility for ranged stealth characters (martial and caster alike). My initial reaction to the idea of ancestries was that it would make building a character much more personal, but now I'm feeling like some of the choices are just no brainers, tailored for certain builds... and others I can't picture myself ever picking, is this just me?

Cliffscale has neat utility, but I fail to see how it's more useful for a stealth character. Yes, getting up high would be good for ranged characters to snipe, but with how tight the math is here, that +2 you're trading away could cause you to fail on being stealthy at all. It's very often I see things like "+1 from bless makes that a crit", or even changing it to a regular success instead of a miss because the bonuses, as small as they seem, matter a lot more now.

As far as the flavor text, yeah it's kinda dumb and restrictive. Considering chameleons are actually garbage at stealth since they change color based on temperature and mood, and can only blend in on the wall of a modern art museum, I would disregard the flavor there personally.


I mean, that's pretty much just Paizo being Paizo. They have a huge contributor base, and produce content at speeds that defy expectations. Some unevenness is to be expected.

Two things to add onto that:

1: "Balance" is a much greater concern for forumites than Paizo themselves. A certain amount of unbalance actually makes for a more interesting game, from what they've said. There's limits to that, and overall PF2 is a lot more balanced than PF1 was, but it is something to keep in mind if you see something that looks out of place.

2: Another thing to consider is that some benefits are not obvious at first, and that bonuses in general are harder to come by. +2 to stealth that stacks with almost everything is pretty good; in an area where you can take advantage (which should actually be everywhere that has a consistent coloration you've spent more than an hour in), with a single action you give yourself that. This is the equivalent of having cover while sneaking, and should add to avoid notice.

Less useful for Hide, admittedly, as the bonus for cover, which you need in order to hide, is the same and does not stack.

Personally, I'd also allow players to pick up the Chameleon gnome ancestry feats, as the heritage is all but identical to the gnome version.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
(which should actually be everywhere that has a consistent coloration you've spent more than an hour in)

Ah, I wasn't sure how people would rule that part. My first impression was that you had to chose the color at character creation and then stick with it (while the gnome one sounded more forgiving). I guess what disappointed me was that 2e feels very much like a new system, where the customization has an impact on how a character plays, and what kinds of actions they take in combat, but certain abilities like that one feel very 1e, taking something really interesting lore wise and boiling it down to a numerical buff.

I think I'll probably figure out some homebrew of that trait for my players, maybe something that has to do with standing without armor adjacent to a wall or large object. Because to me it doesn't seem like having mimetic skin would help if you were standing out the open (and definitely not if your wearing armor), but if you were standing flush with a wall... idk just a thought


Blue_frog wrote:

2) Tighter Math.

It's actually great, because it makes everything relevant.

I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but I'd like to point out the flip side: it makes the system more "fragile". In a system where a +2 bonus is a Big Deal, it can be hard fine tuning things, and creating options that you want to be good but not awesome at doing a thing. As an example, look at the issues with the playtest magus and summoner. They're really hard to get right, because there's not much room in between a proper martial and a caster to begin with.


jotheman07 wrote:


1. It seems like (especially in the ancestries) that a lot of the options look objectively worse...?

Not all options are going to have the same value. I can't see how that will ever be fixed. Especially given that people value different abilities differently, and there are many different styles of play.

Its better than PF1, because the balance in mostly baked into level and class. But yes there are still some crap options and a few powers that are almost worthless.

jotheman07 wrote:


2. Another vibe I got (and again, this might just be me), was that it kinda felt like they over compensated for limiting feat options and not having the traditional multiclassing. What I mean is, for the first few levels, it seems like there are already too many mechanics for getting feats off of lists you wouldn't traditionally have access to (like other ancestry feats through adopted). It seems like a bit much to me, (even though I am aware that many of these "cross-list" options lose value beyond the first few levels), because having the ability to pick feats from wherever makes your character choices feel a lot less important in the short run. Was this also a vibe that only I am getting?

Your access to multiclass abilities is always limited, by half level. There are limits on dedication feats. The core abilitiy of other classes is typically only picked up in a limited form when multiclassing. If anything your core class selection is very important

If you want to pick up something off another ancestry it typically costs you an extra feat to get. So there are limits. The number of feats that you get is tightly controlled, you will feel a limt on what class feats you can get.

I'm very happy to see the death of the 5+ class character builds from PF1. In PF2 its normally 1-3 classes.


GayBirdGM wrote:
Cliffscale has neat utility, but I fail to see how it's more useful for a stealth character.

*Shrug* To me, the question of how I use stealth is always "how can I get to places I shouldn't be, and how can I use it to prepare for combat". As you already noted, the second question is pretty straight forward, it can get me off the ground, so I don't have to worry about pesky melee, and it puts me in a good position to snipe someone in a surprise round. Obviously it isn't going to help when I'm indoors fighting a caster, but at that point, stealth is not really viable. As to the first question, well... its kinda like you said yourself, "that +2 you're trading away could cause you to fail on being stealthy at all". Climbing has always been closely tied to stealth for me, be it pulling off a heist, or infiltrating a castle wall, climbing is just something I always do when sneaky. But, it's also (in my experience) the part of a stealthy plan that can lead to a downward spiral, because if I'm caught climbing, I'm usually screwed, because now I'm stuck on this wall, with no quick way to flee or deal with my witness. But now suddenly, I can climb wherever I want without fear, because I could potentially just use a magic item or cast a spell to get out an uncomfortable situation. Personally, I'd rather have a plan in place that will save me if I am caught, than just adding 5 percent to my chance to not be caught. But, I guess part of it just might be how I am as a player, because I very rarely find myself in situations where I'm just stealthily walking around, I always try to get somewhere no one will find me and then work from there, that way I only have to really worry about stealth once, and it nearly always involves climbing.


jotheman07 wrote:
1. It seems like (especially in the ancestries) that a lot of the options look objectively worse...?

They aren't "objectively worse," they are comparatively worse than what you'd get in PF1. This goes back to expectations, paradigms, and PF2 being a completely different game. If you're coming from PF1 as a player, you'll feel like you've lost a metric ton of character agency, some classes more than others.

As others have pointed out, this is done for "balance' and to support the tight math and under the philosophy that by narrowing/limiting the benefits from any specific ability, it reduces the chance someone will stack them all together and create fairness issues for the GM. Now, I am not a huge fan of how it was done, but you can see the PF1 problem that it attempts to solve.

Quote:
2. Another vibe I got (and again, this might just be me), was that it kinda felt like they over compensated for limiting feat options and not having the traditional multiclassing.

Again, this serves the same god of Almighty "balance." I personally like the fact that you can't multi-class and rob a class of all its low hanging fruit. You'll notice that many of the Dedications actually leave out some benefit you'd get from actually being that class. Amen, is what I says to that. But, others might not agree.

As I said, this is a different game.

Liberty's Edge

The Raven Black wrote:

I love PF2 and I loved PF1 before it.

A few caveats :

- using PF1's best practices is a good way to get your PC killed.

- a lone enemy can be a TPK.

- level matters a lot.

- do not try to convert a PF1 character to PF2 based on similarities in class names. Start from what the PC should be able to do and see what PF2 builds allows for it.

- Multiclassing is completely different from PF1. It helps refine your PC's concept and is neither broken nor hopeless. But PF2 multiclassing is not good at translating a PC changing their focus over time.

One last thing I forgot which is absolutely essential : Hero Points are just necessary to the balance of the game. Do not forget them.


The Raven Black wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I love PF2 and I loved PF1 before it.

A few caveats :

- using PF1's best practices is a good way to get your PC killed.

- a lone enemy can be a TPK.

- level matters a lot.

- do not try to convert a PF1 character to PF2 based on similarities in class names. Start from what the PC should be able to do and see what PF2 builds allows for it.

- Multiclassing is completely different from PF1. It helps refine your PC's concept and is neither broken nor hopeless. But PF2 multiclassing is not good at translating a PC changing their focus over time.

One last thing I forgot which is absolutely essential : Hero Points are just necessary to the balance of the game. Do not forget them.

Whats a hero point?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree that balance isn't perfect but... honestly I'm not sure I get the specific example. Being stealthier because you can shift colors seems like exactly what a chameleon themed option should do.


I think they were interpretting that you had a preset color at character creation, and only got the buff in area that were already that color, more or less.

I interpret it that if you have the full hour to make "drastic changes" and now are close to being the color of the walls around you, you can use the action for stealth.

Grand Lodge

Staffan Johansson wrote:

...In a system where a +2 bonus is a Big Deal, it can be hard fine tuning things, and creating options that you want to be good but not awesome at doing a thing. As an example, look at the issues with the playtest magus and summoner. They're really hard to get right, because there's not much room in between a proper martial and a caster to begin with.

Agree.

I almost wish there was an additional proficiency step (scaled for balance) or just a magical +2 rather than the 1/few classes receiving Legendary in attacks/defense to accommodate the hybrid class situation better.

Liberty's Edge

Filthy Lucre wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I love PF2 and I loved PF1 before it.

A few caveats :

- using PF1's best practices is a good way to get your PC killed.

- a lone enemy can be a TPK.

- level matters a lot.

- do not try to convert a PF1 character to PF2 based on similarities in class names. Start from what the PC should be able to do and see what PF2 builds allows for it.

- Multiclassing is completely different from PF1. It helps refine your PC's concept and is neither broken nor hopeless. But PF2 multiclassing is not good at translating a PC changing their focus over time.

One last thing I forgot which is absolutely essential : Hero Points are just necessary to the balance of the game. Do not forget them.
Whats a hero point?

From Archives of Nethys PF2

"Hero Points
Source Core Rulebook pg. 507 2.0
Unlike Experience Points and treasure, which stay with a character, Hero Points are granted and used on a per-session basis. At the start of a game session, you give out 1 Hero Point to each player character. You can also give out more Hero Points during the game, typically after a heroic moment or accomplishment (see below). As noted on page 467, a player can spend 1 Hero Point for a reroll, or they can spend all their Hero Points to recover when near death."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
jotheman07 wrote:
GayBirdGM wrote:
Cliffscale has neat utility, but I fail to see how it's more useful for a stealth character.
*Shrug* To me, the question of how I use stealth is always "how can I get to places I shouldn't be, and how can I use it to prepare for combat". As you already noted, the second question is pretty straight forward, it can get me off the ground, so I don't have to worry about pesky melee, and it puts me in a good position to snipe someone in a surprise round. Obviously it isn't going to help when I'm indoors fighting a caster, but at that point, stealth is not really viable. As to the first question, well... its kinda like you said yourself, "that +2 you're trading away could cause you to fail on being stealthy at all". Climbing has always been closely tied to stealth for me, be it pulling off a heist, or infiltrating a castle wall, climbing is just something I always do when sneaky. But, it's also (in my experience) the part of a stealthy plan that can lead to a downward spiral, because if I'm caught climbing, I'm usually screwed, because now I'm stuck on this wall, with no quick way to flee or deal with my witness. But now suddenly, I can climb wherever I want without fear, because I could potentially just use a magic item or cast a spell to get out an uncomfortable situation. Personally, I'd rather have a plan in place that will save me if I am caught, than just adding 5 percent to my chance to not be caught. But, I guess part of it just might be how I am as a player, because I very rarely find myself in situations where I'm just stealthily walking around, I always try to get somewhere no one will find me and then work from there, that way I only have to really worry about stealth once, and it nearly always involves climbing.

So what heritage you pick is going to be based on how you want to do your stealthy things. If climbing is what you want, then yes you want cliffscale. If you want to more frequently succeed in stealth checks, then you likely want unseen and get that +2.

Climbing for stealth only works for me in the situations where there is somewhere to climb, and where failing the stealth check to not be seen would not come with getting peppered with arrows and spells until you fall. The +2 gives a nice bonus to stealthing in a variety of areas and situations. But climbing stealth is going to be more useful if you want a more high-up sniper type character. The +2 is going to help more if you want a more low-to-the-ground, stalking in the bushes and blending in type ambusher. Which is great, both options have uses where they are better than the other, and it only depends on what you want to do.

I, personally, would not want to do the climber, but that's because last time I tried a stealth mission, one of my party members decided to start a fight while I tried to sneakily assassinate a guard to steal their armor and ruined the whole thing, so I just don't do stealth at all with that particular group. >_>

Sniper lizard sounds cool, though!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
jotheman07 wrote:
But, I guess part of it just might be how I am as a player, because I very rarely find myself in situations where I'm just stealthily walking around, I always try to get somewhere no one will find me and then work from there, that way I only have to really worry about stealth once, and it nearly always involves climbing.

To add to what Gaybird says, you can usually roll stealth for initiative, as long as you chose the Avoid Notice exploration activity. It is your call as a DM to allow the +2 or not to this roll, but I certainly would if they'd been in there for at least an hour before combat starts(though I would also specify that it does not carry over into combat. Probably. I suppose I could be swayed).

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Just a General Question About the State that Second Edition is in. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.