Pathfinder 2e niche

[Squiggit]

Ironically after looking up Level Up! I see a lot of criticism of AD&D5e mirroring what Verdyn says and complaining that the system looks like bad PF2.

[Dan_Dare74]

As a player and GM, I loved 4e, but in the end it's strengths became it's weaknesses. It was fantastic doing all these larger than life flashy powers but it became harder and harder as a dm to create encounters that avoided reputition fatigue, as well as this once the encounter was set it relied a lot on the DM being very tactically accute to run the encounter at the right balance, the encounter building guide was fantastic at ensuring the monsters weren't over powered, but playing them and ensuring they used their powers in the right way became tough.
And then there is the math, boy at high levels could that become a headache, I remember my ranger unleashing one of his dailies backed by a warlord and another character (as an aside, power synergy between classes in 4e was superb and no other system I've played comes near it), the amount of different damage sources was obscene, and to calculate it pulled us right out of the narrative.

So we were happy to move to 5e when that came along with its narrative focussed approach, and we enjoyed it for many years, however that soon it hit the problem of while we doing many and varied cool things narratively the ultimate mechanical end point had little variance, for our group (and I know a lot of people don't mind this as 5e's success testifies) it all started to feel very samey, characters felt to have little mechanical variation, which is not something our group likes.

Enter PF2E, and while we aren't as far into its lifespan as the two above systems, it currently feels like a great midpoint between them, characters have a great degree of mechanical variance, they can do really cool stuff as they level up, but it still has a grounding which keeps the traditional dungeon adventuring style relevant. Encounters can be scaled a lot more on the 'flashy' scale than either 4e (which needed super flavourful encounters to make the most of players and monsters abilities) or 5e (which tends to fall back to the more grounded standard dungeon approach) PF2E can do both well.

[The_Congzilla]

I think PF2e is every bit as easy to learn the basics as D&D 5e, there is just more depth to master passed the basics. PF2e's character creation also shines in making very unique and balanced PCs. People seem to confuse not being able to break the system as easy as the system lacking depth and that is not the case.

PF2e is also way easier to create balanced encounters for that anything else. And the math doesn't completely fall apart at level 10 like 5e.

And for getting new players into the game the PF2e beginner box is absolutely head and tails above the 5e starter set. Yes the PF2e set costs more but you would have to get the 5e beginner box and the 5e Essentials kit to even get close to the same content and even then the PF2e box has more.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

The_Congzilla wrote:

And for getting new players into the game the PF2e beginner box is absolutely head and tails above the 5e starter set. Yes the PF2e set costs more but you would have to get the 5e beginner box and the 5e Essentials kit to even get close to the same content and even then the PF2e box has more.

As much as I like the beginner box, lost mines of phandelver is a fantastic first adventure and having 5 pregens with built in checklists for levels is excelent.

As an intro set having a super low introductory price and simple contents is a plus to.

PF2e by design couldn't easily get away with that. Although I would love to see it one day to see how well it could do, but the beginner box is good enough for now.

[Verdyn]

I'm just digging into the Level-Up Playtest stuff now. There are some rough patches but let's not pretend that the PF2 playtest didn't have its share of those as well. It's also telling how much we don't see yet. Things like Cleric domains and Warlock pacts for one, anything past level 10, new feats.

It's a tease right now but one that already looks more enticing than the base version 5e that needs a lot of polish. If it gets that polish it could be more fun, to me, in play than PF2. If not, at least it has bits to steal and incorporate into a base 5e game.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Verdyn wrote:

I'm just digging into the Level-Up Playtest stuff now. There are some rough patches but let's not pretend that the PF2 playtest didn't have its share of those as well. It's also telling how much we don't see yet. Things like Cleric domains and Warlock pacts for one, anything past level 10, new feats.

It's a tease right now but one that already looks more enticing than the base version 5e that needs a lot of polish. If it gets that polish it could be more fun, to me, in play than PF2. If not, at least it has bits to steal and incorporate into a base 5e game.

What parts have stood out to you?

I haven't seen anything I would categorise as exceptional, let alone sharing a niche with PF2e.

[Verdyn]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

What parts have stood out to you?

I haven't seen anything I would categorise as exceptional, let alone sharing a niche with PF2e.

I liked what they were going for with making maneuvers a think every martial class can use. They need some balancing work but are a welcome sight as something every martial class just gets to have now.

Adventuring knacks seem like they'll help make exploration interesting without completely invalidating it.

Without seeing the pacts and domains it's hard to judge Clerics and Warlocks versus their base 5e counterparts but they have a ton of neat ideas baked into the class even if not all of them hit exactly right.

It's still limited by being tied to core 5e game design choices, so if you dislike the way 5e runs this won't change your mind. Nor will it feel as tactical as PF2 in play, but the system isn't aimed at stealing PF2 players back to 5e. It's aimed to bring over core 5e players who don't want to learn a new system but who want more to the experience.

[Abraham spalding]

I like the fact ancestry is a thing that is not simply a quick skin at level one and then rarely matters from that point forward. I like the general set up of the action economy in combat. I do not like the "everything scales" nature of proficiency, but otherwise like the proficiency system.

I do not appreciate how little stats seem to matter and how little impact stats have for spells and how few spells casters get. However I like the increase in cantrips for their usefulness, and focus powers are a neat way to handle regular use abilities that get fatigued in combat.

I do like how healing has generally been handled and every class having a subclass system (except you fighter, you get nothing, sorry).

[The_Congzilla]

Verdyn wrote:

How will PF2's niche be infringed upon by Level-Up releasing and giving us AD&D5e? I know a lot of posters here probably won't switch but the general public might latch onto a D&D upgrade more readily than an entirely new system that they may have no prior experience with.

I don't see something like Level-Up taking any real number of players away from anything.

[Rushniyamat]

Dan_Dare74 wrote:

So we were happy to move to 5e when that came along with its narrative focussed approach,

I don't see how 5e can be called a "narrative focused" RPG - Its designe doesn't come close to it in my opinion. The abilities are too restrictive and focus on the mechanical side, and its skill checks doesn't really ignite the imagination like good Powered by the Apocalypse moves. Its mechanics, like Pathfinder and many other RPGs, weren't built to tell a story just by using them (the classic something or nothig checks problem for example) - you can tell a story while playing it, not by playing it.

[Sanityfaerie]

I see Pathfinder 2 as doing the following things Quite Well:
- It's exceedingly well-balanced, to the point that a CharOp geek and a rank newbie can both build a character and have them function in the same party where the one does not utterly invalidate the other. This is non-trivial. It does this significantly better than 3.x, PF1, and 4th ed did, and arguably does it better than 5th ed.
- At the same time, unlike 5th ed, it doesn't hate on the CharOp player. I personally am something of an optimizer, and it's pretty clear that 5th ed hates me and all my kind. PF2's attitude is more "Oh, you want to break the system? Heh. Good luck, kid." It gives me the tools and options to play with to tweak and tune my character, and if I work at it really hard, I really *can* eke out just a bit more performance at the edges. It means I'm fighting for 10% performance gain, rather than 50% or 200%, but that gain is there to be taken, if I have the will to claw it out. This is *hard*, and very well done... and if it's not enough for me as a CharOpper, than paizo will happily invite me to help beta-test the *next* class for them, so that *it* can be well-balanced *too*.
- It's pure heroic. They took e6, and they put the entire 20 level range into it. You may or may not like it, but it means that you aren't dramatically changing the nature of the game partway through. Also... well, people came up with e6 for a reason.
- The tactical options are interesting, and optimizing your character won't remove that. You don't get to a point where you're so good at doing specific thing X that the clearly ideal thing to do with your turn, every time, is thing X.
- The noncombat part of the game is also functional. It's not vestigial, and everyone gets some, even if they've sunk all they can into optimizing for combat. That's not *hard* necessarily, but it's something that a number of other systems don't do.

So, yeah... its a game where you can take a rank newbie and a capable CharOpper, toss them together in the same party without it being terrible for either one, and play heroic-tier adventures from level 1 to level 20 with tactically interesting combat where your build matters, and also tactically interesting noncombat where your build matters. It's the most beautifully tuned game system I've ever seen.

[siegfriedliner]

I think your underestimating charop in 5e, there is plenty of room for non marginal advantage, it's easier too I don't need to know the dozens of feats that mutually synergise to make a broken build I just need to know the broken spells and class features and when to use them.

[AnimatedPaper]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

- It's pure heroic. They took e6, and they put the entire 20 level range into it. You may or may not like it, but it means that you aren't dramatically changing the nature of the game partway through. Also... well, people came up with e6 for a reason.

THIS is what my subconscious has been prodding at me; thanks for articulating it.

I enjoyed E6, including all the classes they made specifically for E6, and getting a 1-20 TTRPG that tries for that style is great.

-
On a more personal level, I like how easy it is to solo in this game. Just add a couple levels, and you can use modules/ap entries as is. Also cool for when it is just me and 1-2 other people.

[Sanityfaerie]

No, see, that's the point. CharOp is about the *game* of character building. Working out how to assemble the dozens of feats that mutually synergize is part of the fun. 4th ed was great for this (after it had a few books under its belt), because it was a huge focus and they did it reasonably well, but CharOp and tactical combat were all that 4th ed did. 3.x was kind of cool but also deeply broken, to the point where actually having fun with it often required that you pre-emptively mark entire areas of the design space as off-limits because they were so much more powerful than everything else that it broke the game. 5th ed... sure, there are some options that are somewhat more powerful, but they've stripped almost all of the game out of it. There just aren't enough decision points (especially for non-casters to build the CharOp game on. 5th ed was made for the people who hated 4th ed, and it shows.

PF2, on the other hand, gives me lots and lots of tasty options to play with. I get a class, an ancestry, one or more feats every level, and other options besides. I can absolutely go synergy-hunting... and when I do I find that there's *just* enough there to make it worth it, if I work hard at it. 5e offers me a wasteland that hates me and all my kind. PF2 offers me a *challenge*.

...and then it also makes a solid set of "good" options obvious enough that someone who's not into the CharOp side can sit down and throw together a character out of what mostly looks good and have something that works come out the other end. It's really *very* well done.

[Alchemic_Genius]

To me, the main advantages of 2e are:

-on the gm side, it's much easier to make in the fly choices, since it's math and guidelines make it easy to set DCs, the build-a-monster rules can be done literally in combat as it's happening, etc.

-it's math and transparent power guidelines make it incredibly easy to make balanced homebrew. Even if DIY homebrew isn't your jam, the built in optional rules in the gmg let you customize you game pretty extensively to tailor your 2e experience to your table.

-the modular feat system offers a lot of customization. Class mechanics are less exclusive to other classes too, which makes it easier to mix and match (magic not having armor failure chance comes to mind). If you play free archetype, you have an immense amount of customization; and thankfully, with 2e's design principles, doesn't even knock the balance of the game off

-combat is pretty fast. I don't really like long fights unless we have story mixed in. Fwiw, I also find it to be a more fun battle boardgame than the rocket tag of yore

-the classes, for the most part, are balanced. We don't have linear fighter, quadratic wizard, and tbh that's a very good thing. Everyone will typically have their moments to shine at all levels, and enough of said moments to feel good

To me, 2e captures what I like most about classless systems (customization, both for base rules and character creation) and class based systems (easier accessibility) and rolls it into one package.

[Artofregicide]

So, let's compare PF2e to some systems, in my completely unbiased and 100% universally applicable opinion. Basically, what I'm saying is everything I say is always right and if you disagree you're wrong. Everything I say is objectively true. (Did I layer on enough sarcasm?)

1) PF1e: PF2e is more streamlined, narrative-first, and intuitive. It lacks the options of PF1e (which has the benefit of 10 years of publication) as well as the "bloat" or "content" depending on who you ask. Generally, PF2e is a less "crunchy" and more "casual" game. Neither of these are criticisms - for the right table, they're very much strong selling points. I'm recording my podcast in PF2e for many of these reasons, even though PF1e is easily my favorite D20 RPG (and possibly favorite RPG). Without going down a rabbit hole and derailing the thread, there are some big design decisions (nerfing casters to oblivion, return of the healbot, skill feats vastly outpacing magic, green kender) that I'm not a huge fan of. But Paizo didn't publish this edition with only my tastes in mind - and that was a terrible mistake! I'm the only one who matters!

2) 5e: Having run and played a lot of 5e, I don't have a ton of good things to say about it. While the core mechanics of the game are brilliant, it doesn't have a lot of space to grow and the design team gave up after writing the CRB. Balance doesn't really even seem to be a consideration, making GMing a headache. Conversely, PF2e is clearly written, expertly balanced (for the most part) and every new piece of content adds value to the game. I'm strongly considering changing my gateway RPG to PF2e. Doesn't hurt that the complexity of 5e scales up in such a way that if you level up players at a reasonable pace they'll quickly get lost. Still, the base game of 5e is simpler and more intuitive than PF2e, and it does have brand-name mindflayers...

3) Blades in the Dark/Anything FitD: Most of this would apply to Apocalypse World/Anything PbtA. Narrative first games are great. I love them. But they're not for everyone and often not for newcomers to RPGs. Too much freedom can lead to paralysis, anxiety, and frustration. Blades is the other contender for my favorite RPG, and it really does a masterful job of what it seeks to accomplish but stays within those boundaries.

4) Rollmaster: Never played it, so it doesn't exist.

Summary: PF1e and PF2e are both fantastic games. Play the one you enjoy. From a marketing perspective, I'm concerned that PF2e doesn't distinguish itself enough - but in simply quality I think it holds its own against the name recognition of 5e.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Artofregicide wrote:

and the design team gave up after writing the CRB.

I can get behind this, heck I would go as far as to say that 5e design past the core 3 books is very much at odds with the core book design.

As someone who actually likes 5e for true sandbox environments and super fast play. I was disgusted after reading tasha's guide and couldn't even bring myself to purchase it for completionist sake.

I get it, they were a team of 6 when 5e was in playtest and wotc had asked for an evergreen system to sit on shelves and protect the IP while hopefully selling copies. To modernize AD&D while they use outsourced adventure writers.

They did well given what was asked of them (half asi feats being terrible design aside). But boy did no party expect it to he as popular as it is.

[Sanityfaerie]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

I get it, they were a team of 6 when 5e was in playtest and wotc had asked for an evergreen system to sit on shelves and protect the IP while hopefully selling copies. To modernize AD&D while they use outsourced adventure writers.

They did well given what was asked of them (half asi feats being terrible design aside). But boy did no party expect it to he as popular as it is.

Huh. Really? If so, they massively overachieved on that goal. 5th ed was really very well done, for what it does. (It curates the history of D&D while inviting back the people that 4th ed drove away and cutting down on the massive power disparities between PCs of the earlier editions.) Unfortunately, "what it does" includes, among other things, "hates me personally" (I *liked* 4th ed) so I'm limited in my ability to enjoy it.

But yeah, it really was built so that adding character options wouldn't do but so much for you. By comparison, when I think about new character options coming out for PF2, I get excited. The core of the game is solid enough that literally every complaint I might have about it could be solved by a few new classes (or archetypes for old classes), and maybe a few extra feats here or there... and it looks like they've built the balance into the core of it well enough that they'll be able to do that without exploding with power creep. That's *hard*.

[Perpdepog]

Abraham spalding wrote:

I like the fact ancestry is a thing that is not simply a quick skin at level one and then rarely matters from that point forward. I like the general set up of the action economy in combat. I do not like the "everything scales" nature of proficiency, but otherwise like the proficiency system.

If you're not a fan of how dramatic the proficiency system scales, might I suggest these rules? It may still not be entirely what you're looking for, but still.

Abraham spolding wrote:

I do like how healing has generally been handled and every class having a subclass system (except you fighter, you get nothing, sorry).

For what it's worth, I think that this was intentional. The lack of a clear style path or whatever, plus the fighter's ability to get more class feats than any other class, strongly point to an emphasis on mixing up tactics as the situation requires, which feels a lot more fightery to me than previous iterations tended to. This also has the side-effect of making the fighter one of the friendlier classes to slap archetypes on, which I think is another good niche to have.

[Thunder999]

According to my GM it's super easy to run. Most of the players, myself included, feel like it's a definite downgrade compared to 1e, but the GM loves it.

[Squiggit]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

As someone who actually likes 5e for true sandbox environments and super fast play. I was disgusted after reading tasha's guide and couldn't even bring myself to purchase it for completionist sake.

My players have felt pretty much the opposite. They were starting to feel really frustrated with how anemic 5e is mechanically and saw a lot of the stuff in Tasha's as a real ray of hope, even if it's a little annoying how much of the material ended up being reprinted.

Perpdepog wrote:

The lack of a clear style path or whatever, plus the fighter's ability to get more class feats than any other class, strongly point to an emphasis on mixing up tactics as the situation requires

I mean you say that, but then the Fighter's primary combat mechanic is designed to only work with one type of weapon, which seems to suggest the opposite. The fighter's actively penalized for 'mixing it up' too much.

[thenobledrake]

I think "actively penalized" is a touch of an overstatement when it comes to characterizing a fighter not using their best possible type of weapon.

That's getting into that whole fallacious ranking system in which things are either in the top tier, or the bottom tier, and there's nothing between - especially given that a fighter using a weapon not in their favored group of weapons is still as accurate as a same-level character of another weapon-focused class so the "penalty" being applied doesn't push the character below the "good enough" benchmark.

[Verdyn]

thenobledrake wrote:

I think "actively penalized" is a touch of an overstatement when it comes to characterizing a fighter not using their best possible type of weapon.

That's getting into that whole fallacious ranking system in which things are either in the top tier, or the bottom tier, and there's nothing between - especially given that a fighter using a weapon not in their favored group of weapons is still as accurate as a same-level character of another weapon-focused class so the "penalty" being applied doesn't push the character below the "good enough" benchmark.

With how much the fighter gives up for that +2 to hit getting anything less is going to feel like a massive step down for that character.

[Squiggit]

thenobledrake wrote:

I think "actively penalized" is a touch of an overstatement when it comes to characterizing a fighter not using their best possible type of weapon.

Not really. Every martial (sans the champion, which is in a bit of an odd place and has other things going on) has some sort of mechanic to make their Strikes better. Using a different weapon group denies the fighter theirs.

So to say that there's a mechanical disincentive to change weapons as a fighter is just... how the class works.

Granted it's not just a Fighter issue, Barbarians, Monks and Swashbucklers have the same problem, though they have feats to expand their options a bit.

[thenobledrake]

alright... let's try this again:

not getting a bonus =/= getting a penalty

You are no more "penalized" for attacking with an axe when you've got better sword proficiency than you are "penalized" for only making a single attack in a round when you've got the Exacting Strike feat.

And it's not "a mechanical disincentive" unless it makes you actually bad rather than just not as good as you could have otherwise been. The game does not mandate "optimal" play, not by a long shot.

[Albatoonoe]

It's nice to see someone else that looked Tasha's Cauldron with bewilderment. I usually like 5e books for their great 3rd party community and stuff that is easily poachable. Tasha's Cauldron was just...weak. And don't get me started on the freaking DM facing rules.

[Squiggit]

thenobledrake wrote:

alright... let's try this again:

not getting a bonus =/= getting a penalty

You are no more "penalized" for attacking with an axe when you've got better sword proficiency

Sure, you're not penalized for using an axe, you're just less accurate and therefore worse off using one over your sword.

Really just kind of splitting hairs here.

[AnimatedPaper]

If Fighters got focus spells, "max proficiency with a weapon for 1-10 rounds" would be a good one.

Perhaps they can get a stance or cooldown feat of some sort down the road.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Squiggit wrote:

My players have felt pretty much the opposite. They were starting to feel really frustrated with how anemic 5e is mechanically and saw a lot of the stuff in Tasha's as a real ray of hope, even if it's a little annoying how much of the material ended up being reprinted.

My issues are:

- the entire book has "all of this is variant consult your gm for every option" slapped on it at the start, which is incredibly lazy balance wise.
- the book ignores a lot of its previous balance considerations including modifying spell saves (making level 11+ worse)
- a number of options are pure upgrades to existing subclasses, meaning there are clear traps for new players rather than WotC
- the optional replacement of features is cool... until you get to variant class features that don't replace anything and are purely additional, but you are told not to add all of them and are given no guidelines. Worse, sometimes they are a balance fix disguised as an option othertimes they just gave a class a bunch of "options" a class can take all of without sacrificing anything
- feats that step on the toes of unique features of subclasses, especially sorcerer metamagic and invocations
- the sheer amount of wasted space in the book pretending to be options when it is balance fixing like the new summons or variant ranger pet system. Or... the "you can build these" fighter section where they aren't options at all
- a lot of the subclasses are incredibly niche focused thematically (a problem they have had since XGtE) and don't often suit level 3 sensibilities or encourage creativity in character creation imo. This is very subjective though. It is like having prestige classes from 3.5 at early levels for me, it clashes with the mid magic default of 5e's mechanics.

I can see players liking it, but I cannot seeing the book being good for the game overall. I have no issues with them expanding or fixing content (the new summon spells are great design) but the implementation is important and I feel 5e players tend to accept whatever they can get given how rare option book releases are. Giving WotC a pass on some insanely lazy practices for the biggest RPG manufacturer in the world.

[thenobledrake]

Squiggit wrote:

Really just kind of splitting hairs here.

Setting perceptive expectations is almost never "splitting hairs"

It's important to remember the context of a situation so that the attitude toward the situation - the feeling it produces - isn't off base or out of line.

...like how it's off base to treat anything short of the best you could possibly be doing as if it were bad.

[Verdyn]

thenobledrake wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Really just kind of splitting hairs here.

Setting perceptive expectations is almost never "splitting hairs"

It's important to remember the context of a situation so that the attitude toward the situation - the feeling it produces - isn't off base or out of line.

...like how it's off base to treat anything short of the best you could possibly be doing as if it were bad.

Ignoring the fact that the Fighter pays for the bonus by not having a lot of class features and thus is, in a very real sense, at a penalty when they can't use the one feature they paid so much to get. It would be like saying that a Barbarian who's forced into a fight where they can't rage isn't being penalized, it's technically true but misses the root of the issue by a mile.

[Abraham spalding]

Perpdepog wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

I like the fact ancestry is a thing that is not simply a quick skin at level one and then rarely matters from that point forward. I like the general set up of the action economy in combat. I do not like the "everything scales" nature of proficiency, but otherwise like the proficiency system.

If you're not a fan of how dramatic the proficiency system scales, might I suggest these rules? It may still not be entirely what you're looking for, but still.

Abraham spolding wrote:

I do like how healing has generally been handled and every class having a subclass system (except you fighter, you get nothing, sorry).

For what it's worth, I think that this was intentional. The lack of a clear style path or whatever, plus the fighter's ability to get more class feats than any other class, strongly point to an emphasis on mixing up tactics as the situation requires, which feels a lot more fightery to me than previous iterations tended to. This also has the side-effect of making the fighter one of the friendlier classes to slap archetypes on, which I think is another good niche to have.

I am a fan of the non-scaling proficiency alternate rules. I get why they did what they did with fighter, it just stands out compared to everyone else. I think there was a little room for a main focus for the fighter but at the end of the day I will still play one on occasion so maybe they were right.

Heck they probably were, they are selling books and I am not so what do I know?

All in all it is a solid system that I have minor issues with, so a great effort.

[thenobledrake]

Verdyn wrote:

Ignoring the fact that the Fighter pays for the bonus by not having a lot of class features and thus is, in a very real sense, at a penalty when they can't use the one feature they paid so much to get. It would be like saying that a Barbarian who's forced into a fight where they can't rage isn't being penalized, it's technically true but misses the root of the issue by a mile.

GM: "Your enemy has hunkered down 200 feet away, and are preparing a volley of crossbow fire."

Player: "You are penalizing me!"
GM: "...what? How?"
Player: "I picked a feat that only applies to melee weapons, but my character is in a position where I should use a ranged weapon, that's a penalty."
GM: <stares blankly at a player that can't tell the difference between not getting a bonus, and receiving a penalty, and as a result thinks they are being treated unfairly when that is not even remotely the case>

[TheWayofPie]

Just coming to say Fighters should have a feat that let him add another group to get the bonus. Then another feat to transfer runes between those weapon groups.Would love to invest into a true weapon master fighter.

[Plane]

If you have a +1 striking longsword, add a shifting rune to it, change it into a battle axe, and then remove the rune, do you get to keep the axe? Should every party just carry around a shifting rune for this purpose when finding a magic weapon they don't like?

[Unicore]

Between Mauler, Martial Artist, and Archer, it is really easy for a fighter who wants to switch hit or use different weapons to do so at their full proficiency progression. That on top of essentially getting 2 extra class feats as a part of their class features, I don't really see fighters being limited by getting their proficiency boost in a staggered fashion. They very much do what they are advertised to do.

[Queaux]

PF2's niche is a mechanically complete fantasy fighting monsters game with diverse and balanced player options.

The market niche that appeals to most is enfranchised players that value the whole table having a good time without a ton of house rules, a.k.a. the group of people that have an interest in GMing games.

It might not be the absolute best game system for beginning players, but I think it is certainly the best game system for beginning GMs. I've seen this play out at my table with more people volunteering to run story arcs than in any game like this that I've ever played. It's really been a lovely experience.

[Perpdepog]

Unicore wrote:

Between Mauler, Martial Artist, and Archer, it is really easy for a fighter who wants to switch hit or use different weapons to do so at their full proficiency progression. That on top of essentially getting 2 extra class feats as a part of their class features, I don't really see fighters being limited by getting their proficiency boost in a staggered fashion. They very much do what they are advertised to do.

Three extra class feats if you feel like taking Ultimate Flexibility, which is probably my favorite of the fighter's capstone feats. Three feats which you can retrain out fits how I like to think of fighters very well.

Queaux wrote:

It might not be the absolute best game system for beginning players, but I think it is certainly the best game system for beginning GMs.

Just calling this out because it's very well said. I have a friend who has gotten back into GMing because of how much easier and less stressful PF2E is to run than other systems they've played or tried to run.

[Hsui]

It is funny but I find the niche of PF2 to be the less-than-exciting beer and pretzel rpg. You can pick up pretty much any character and just push the buttons after finding out what is its main action, secondary action, and out of combat action.

There are usually 4-5 class feats which define the actions above and the rest of the feats don't matter. Don't get me wrong, this is not a bad thing. It allows you to spend time with others but as people have said to me "Everything feels the same." We discussed it and it feels like Paizo tried to too hard to squash potential shenanigans. We looked at the items and we looked at the feats (lord we looked at the feats). It felt like "ok, the 2H fighter picks the following 5 feats and then all the other feats are just fleshing out his minor background." Items likewise

[Cyouni]

Hsui wrote:

It is funny but I find the niche of PF2 to be the less-than-exciting beer and pretzel rpg. You can pick up pretty much any character and just push the buttons after finding out what is its main action, secondary action, and out of combat action.

There are usually 4-5 class feats which define the actions above and the rest of the feats don't matter. Don't get me wrong, this is not a bad thing. It allows you to spend time with others but as people have said to me "Everything feels the same." We discussed it and it feels like Paizo tried to too hard to squash potential shenanigans. We looked at the items and we looked at the feats (lord we looked at the feats). It felt like "ok, the 2H fighter picks the following 5 feats and then all the other feats are just fleshing out his minor background." Items likewise

Honestly, if you try that with my swashbuckler, you are definitely going to be running him at far lower capability. Just for panache, you have to decide when to use Tumble Behind/Bon Mot/One for All, then he has Twin Party and a shifting weapon that's normally a whip (so you might want it as a main-gauche), and then he has Precise Finisher and Dual Finisher.

There are so many different ways the action can go, it's a struggle to figure out which action is the best in any given scenario.

If you set yourself to exact standard-use actions, you're the one limiting your character.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Hsui wrote:

It is funny but I find the niche of PF2 to be the less-than-exciting beer and pretzel rpg. You can pick up pretty much any character and just push the buttons after finding out what is its main action, secondary action, and out of combat action.

That is a good way to play incredibly suboptimally.

Reminds me of the Taking20 argument, where he was talking about optimal rotations and then proceeded to talk about how his party TPKed and used a bunch of suboptimal examples.

A well balanced character chooses feats to expand their options most of the time and it allows them to adjust dynamically to the threat/challenge. If they are just building into one focused niche (such as being a 2h fighter) then they will suffer if the GM runs the game in a way that doesn't cater to them and only be marginally better in the area they want to focus on.

[Exocist]

Perpdepog wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Between Mauler, Martial Artist, and Archer, it is really easy for a fighter who wants to switch hit or use different weapons to do so at their full proficiency progression. That on top of essentially getting 2 extra class feats as a part of their class features, I don't really see fighters being limited by getting their proficiency boost in a staggered fashion. They very much do what they are advertised to do.

Three extra class feats if you feel like taking Ultimate Flexibility, which is probably my favorite of the fighter's capstone feats. Three feats which you can retrain out fits how I like to think of fighters very well.

Queaux wrote:

It might not be the absolute best game system for beginning players, but I think it is certainly the best game system for beginning GMs.

Just calling this out because it's very well said. I have a friend who has gotten back into GMing because of how much easier and less stressful PF2E is to run than other systems they've played or tried to run.

Just here to say: Ultimate flexibility is only one feat. It builds on improved flexibility, a core feature which gives you 2 feats already. So comparatively you’re spending a 20th feat to get a floating 18th and the ability to swap all 3 of those feats with an hour.

[WatersLethe]

Hsui wrote:

It is funny but I find the niche of PF2 to be the less-than-exciting beer and pretzel rpg. You can pick up pretty much any character and just push the buttons after finding out what is its main action, secondary action, and out of combat action.

There are usually 4-5 class feats which define the actions above and the rest of the feats don't matter. Don't get me wrong, this is not a bad thing. It allows you to spend time with others but as people have said to me "Everything feels the same." We discussed it and it feels like Paizo tried to too hard to squash potential shenanigans. We looked at the items and we looked at the feats (lord we looked at the feats). It felt like "ok, the 2H fighter picks the following 5 feats and then all the other feats are just fleshing out his minor background." Items likewise

Not usually one to contradict people, but in the interest of clarity for anyone new reading this thread: The above person's concept of the game is flat out wrong. If you think you have a "routine" that you can just keep doing, you're probably missing out on A LOT of combat and roleplay potential.

[siegfriedliner]

WatersLethe wrote:

Hsui wrote:

It is funny but I find the niche of PF2 to be the less-than-exciting beer and pretzel rpg. You can pick up pretty much any character and just push the buttons after finding out what is its main action, secondary action, and out of combat action.

There are usually 4-5 class feats which define the actions above and the rest of the feats don't matter. Don't get me wrong, this is not a bad thing. It allows you to spend time with others but as people have said to me "Everything feels the same." We discussed it and it feels like Paizo tried to too hard to squash potential shenanigans. We looked at the items and we looked at the feats (lord we looked at the feats). It felt like "ok, the 2H fighter picks the following 5 feats and then all the other feats are just fleshing out his minor background." Items likewise

Not usually one to contradict people, but in the interest of clarity for anyone new reading this thread: The above person's concept of the game is flat out wrong. If you think you have a "routine" that you can just keep doing, you're probably missing out on A LOT of combat and roleplay potential.

He isn't entirely wrong, as a bard I tend to have the use composition cantrip + cast spell routine apart from when I am lingering where I might use a shield cantrip or a move or an intimadate or when I need to spend more than 1 action to extricate myself from a bad situation.

Same with my champion 6/10 rounds it's move, attack, raise shield. But sometimes its attack, attack, raise shield or move, attack, attack (usually when I have missed and want to do some damage on my turn) etc.

My fighter tends to double slice and move to flank / attack each turn, unless the enemy forces him to play differently (by flying mainly, or difficult terrain or aura's).

Lots of people have habits as long as they player knows how to adapt when the thing they want to do is the wrong tactical move its fine.

[Ruzza]

I have no idea how people end up having very many turns that look anything alike given how open combat is now. Not to point blame at GMs if this is happening, but the only conclusion I can come to is combat where enemies run into melee and spend all of their actions Striking, ignoring... well everything else their stat block has. Even a level 0 Orc Brute with no adjustments changes the encounter significantly depending on how a GM would run them. Opening with a thrown javelin and a Readied action to Disarm melee opponents, Striding - Intimidating - Striking, even just playing as meat shields for their ranged allies; these all change how PCs should want to interact with the encounter.

Like Grognard said up thread, if you have a "rotation" or "encounter loop," you're likely playing very suboptimally. Or, like I am callously proposing, your GM is.

[thenobledrake]

When talking about whether you can or can't "just push the buttons" and get by, I think there's two important things to remember:

First, that there is a difference between "this works" and "this works well." Even in my own group I've seen a couple of players that basically have their "rotation" locked down in their mind and they use it in every situation... but they also regularly express frustration if there is anything in the way of that working at full potency (whether it is the rogue player that wants to Skirmish Strike into place to Twin Feint upset that the enemy is "too far away" or it is the swashbuckler player failing a Feint and not getting their panache and just being cranky about it as they keep trying and failing the same thing).

And secondly, and more importantly, because it's part of what causes the prior statement to be true; there's the other side of the equation: encounter design and the way your GM runs creatures.

If you are regularly seeing different goals within an encounter, and regularly seeing opposition that behaves in different ways, then the likelihood of repeating the same string of actions over and over and that actually working to accomplish your goals gets smaller and smaller. But if the GM is basically just setting up encounters with the same goals, and having the creatures behave in roughly the same way, then yes, the PCs doing the same thing most of the time is going to work out - it's just important to realize that is "because this GM runs the game this way" rather than "because this is the way the game runs."

[siegfriedliner]

Ruzza wrote:

I have no idea how people end up having very many turns that look anything alike given how open combat is now. Not to point blame at GMs if this is happening, but the only conclusion I can come to is combat where enemies run into melee and spend all of their actions Striking, ignoring... well everything else their stat block has. Even a level 0 Orc Brute with no adjustments changes the encounter significantly depending on how a GM would run them. Opening with a thrown javelin and a Readied action to Disarm melee opponents, Striding - Intimidating - Striking, even just playing as meat shields for their ranged allies; these all change how PCs should want to interact with the encounter.

Like Grognard said up thread, if you have a "rotation" or "encounter loop," you're likely playing very suboptimally. Or, like I am callously proposing, your GM is.

Let's go with the a caster most casters who aren't polymorphed are going to be looking to a casts a spell each turn and do one additional action.

Now that one actions can be varied, but I bet you the majority of times it's going to be either a shield,a composition cantrip, witches hex, a move actions or a skill action (demoralise, bon mot,battle medecine etc), or am Animal companion, or a summoned minion.

.... That ended up being a longer list than expected.

Then we come to spells obviously my view of the game has been set by low level but usually these run out very quick and then your likely to be casting electric arc or telikentic projectile because there just better. Unless you want range then you can't go wrong with ray of Frost. This can get samey if your having a lot of encounters at low level.

[Unicore]

siegfriedliner wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

I have no idea how people end up having very many turns that look anything alike given how open combat is now. Not to point blame at GMs if this is happening, but the only conclusion I can come to is combat where enemies run into melee and spend all of their actions Striking, ignoring... well everything else their stat block has. Even a level 0 Orc Brute with no adjustments changes the encounter significantly depending on how a GM would run them. Opening with a thrown javelin and a Readied action to Disarm melee opponents, Striding - Intimidating - Striking, even just playing as meat shields for their ranged allies; these all change how PCs should want to interact with the encounter.

Like Grognard said up thread, if you have a "rotation" or "encounter loop," you're likely playing very suboptimally. Or, like I am callously proposing, your GM is.

Let's go with the a caster most casters who aren't polymorphed are going to be looking to a casts a spell each turn and do one additional action.

Now that one actions can be varied, but I bet you the majority of times it's going to be either a shield,a composition cantrip, witches hex, a move actions or a skill action (demoralise, bon mot,battle medecine etc), or am Animal companion, or a summoned minion.

.... That ended up being a longer list than expected.

Then we come to spells obviously my view of the game has been set by low level but usually these run out very quick and then your likely to be casting electric arc or telikentic projectile because there just better. Unless you want range then you can't go wrong with ray of Frost. This can get samey if your having a lot of encounters at low level.

"Cast a spell" and take an action is a pretty wildly open ended routine. Maybe if "cast a spell" means using the same cantrip over and over again, then I agree that that can feel repetitive. Spell attack rolls with cantrips can be very frustrating for many players.

But casting a spell can also be casting lightning bolt to catch 4 enemies in a massive damage spell, or critically hitting with a hydraulic push, doing a bunch of damage and pushing an enemy with their hands full over the rail of a moving boat, or casting a greater silence spell on an ally who trips a powerful enemy caster and then shuts down their entire turn, and getting to take an extra action on top of doing all those different things is pretty awesome.

[Unicore]

Ruzza wrote:

I have no idea how people end up having very many turns that look anything alike given how open combat is now. Not to point blame at GMs if this is happening, but the only conclusion I can come to is combat where enemies run into melee and spend all of their actions Striking, ignoring... well everything else their stat block has. Even a level 0 Orc Brute with no adjustments changes the encounter significantly depending on how a GM would run them. Opening with a thrown javelin and a Readied action to Disarm melee opponents, Striding - Intimidating - Striking, even just playing as meat shields for their ranged allies; these all change how PCs should want to interact with the encounter.

Like Grognard said up thread, if you have a "rotation" or "encounter loop," you're likely playing very suboptimally. Or, like I am callously proposing, your GM is.

Reading an action to disarm is an absolutely brilliant tactic against foes you out number that are using powerful weapons (like a party full of PCs usually will be for a group of orcs). I would love to see more suggestions for tactics like this recommended in APs because I think a lot of GMs need a little bit of help realizing how flexible the PF2 system is for letting enemies do things like run away to regroup or take advantage of a more favorable environment.

[WatersLethe]

siegfriedliner wrote:

Now that one actions can be varied, but I bet you the majority of times it's going to be either a shield,a composition cantrip, witches hex, a move actions or a skill action (demoralise, bon mot,battle medecine etc), or am Animal companion, or a summoned minion.

.... That ended up being a longer list than expected.

Let's not forget Recall Knowledge, which has huge impacts on fights and the actions you might take.

For example, in my last session the party used Recall Knowledge to find out that a Revenant can't stand its own reflection. The thing used Baleful Shriek that paralyzed several players, then in response one player pulled out their mirror and passed it to another who distracted it on its next turn, effectively covering for the three players who were paralyzed.

Also a caster can Spell/Cantrip -> Ranged Weapon Attack if they don't have to move.