| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<snip>That's just the thing, I don't disagree that PF1/3.x is a bear to run and that it places an undue burden on the GM. I get that it's a rusted-out frame with an overturned engine stuck to it and that you need to be skilled, careful, and lucky to make it run smoothly session in and session out. I just think that for all of its flaws few games have ever attempted to pair meaty mechanical crunch in a simulationist framework with the sheer uninhibited freedom that it offers.
It's not something inherently awful like RIFTS or F.A.T.A.L., it does what it sets out to do well if in a maddeningly difficult to run fashion, and I'll take that over a system that always feels like its holding back.
I never considered PF1 a simulationist game. I consider all versions of D&D their own thing. Maybe the best description is a level-based game system. PF1 had a lot of things going for it compared to past editions. It added feats and created the character build structure that we all see as commonplace now. Prior to 3E you picked a class and were that class with maybe some multiclassing.
But the AoOs, BAB, and the like were not really a simulation of reality. It was a different way to do level based math. Monster building the same. In some ways it was extremely limiting because there was this expectation that every creature had to have hit dice, an AC that fit into this natural armor/touch AC paradigm, every devil had to have certain immunities, and the like.
One thing I liked that 5E did and PF2 adopted was monsters are made to be fearsome monsters. They have unique abilities that fit the concept of they are. They are built to challenge parties of appropriate level while still having a visually interested and believable power basis.
I'm not sure why you play these games. I know people play for different reasons. I've always played fantasy games to try to simulate fantasy stories that I read and still like to read. PF1 did not do that very well past a certain point.
5E recaptured some of this feel of simulating a fantasy story where you could be a character of any level in a world of dragons and demons, but they dropped the ball as well by making it so any character customization broke the math of the game. Heck, even being able to move and fight broke their monsters as they had no means to stop this.
But PF2 has captured the monster creation I enjoy in 5E where monsters are built to be monsters without having to conform to any particular types. PF2 is also much easier to run across all levels. Yet it still allows you to make every single type of fantasy character you might want to make visually and conceptually.
PF2 captured a lot of what I like about these games. Its limitations and mechanics I'm starting to understand better, so I can manipulate to better construct challenges that don't feel disheartening to the party. I feel PF2 is a very good game for fantasy gaming that is both friendly to the DM and robust enough for players to make just about whatever concept they want with proper visuals without breaking the game.
I get it. Not everyone is going to like PF2. Everyone has different preferences and the like. I hated 4E. I gave it a shot, didn't like it, and moved on to PF. There is plenty of PF1 material out there for people to play generated over the last 10 plus years. So both camps can be happy. PF2 players can enjoy this new edition. PF1 players have ten plus years of material to continue to play that edition. I don't see the point in arguing.
I enjoyed PF1/3E for ten plus years. Now I'm enjoying PF2. If you still enjoy PF1, keep on enjoying it. It has everything you might ever need to play that game in perpetuity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See to me a game where one player sits on their butt for months doing nothing and then becomes the focus for months or vice versa is kind of a big problem. That’s not balance that’s just a bad game. Like said above there was a reason 5-8 or so was the best, in that spot when casters got third level spells til when caster invalidated the party. PF2 decided that spot should be where the game resides. Every player at all levels should be able to equally contribute and PF1 makes that impossible by design.
Is the DM not giving the less combat-capable PCs spotlight in the RP segments? These games aren't just combat and rolling dice, and that's where you can let the player whose character hasn't yet peaked in their build shine.
Let me add that as a pro:
Monster Building: PF2 adopted 5E style of monster building. You no longer have to make sure monster has a certain number of feats, it has a touch AC or flat-footed, and it conforms to type beyond some very basic rules.
You can pretty much write the monster up to be what you want it to be or fit what you've seen or read. You can write the abilities in a free form manner. Then apply appropriate level DCs, AC, hit points and the like.
It will take some getting used to, but you'll get the feel for monster creation if you DM a lot. You can make very interesting monsters to challenge your PCs.
Hazards are also better explained. You can use a variety of skills to beat them rather than the rogue doing it all. The hazards in PF2 have been far more interesting and dangerous than in previous editions.
I've actually had to use a remove disease and a remove curse spell in this edition as I had players afflicted with both that were getting worn down by them. Neither spell is automatic. Powerful curses, poisons, and diseases can be a real danger in PF2.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, the tight math shifts the focus away from math entirely. Now what defines your character is the gestalt of unique abilities, and never superior numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is some very good criticism in here. To answer a few:
- Cyouni, yes of course Martials were rather decent at hitting things, but what I meant by that 50%, is the fact that the chance of failing the thing you're supposed to be goot at were much higher than in PF1 (or many other game to be fair). Even more so at low level (it gets better around 7-8). We felt we underperformed way much more in our "main thing" that in many other game. Even we taking hard and tough game like Warhammer or Shadow of the Demon Lord. Stacking debuff to be able to reliabily hit a +1 Level mid session boss felt bad. What is worse was the fact that he was hitting us (and crit...) again and again. Yes we had a bad tactic at first, playing like in 5e or PF1, but as we learnt, it was still, untill higher level (like 10+) very noticeable.
Well, given you could functionally make it so you pretty much never failed anything you specialized in in PF1, that's not really that surprising. A large part of PF2 is actually having the dice matter, and in previews, it was explicitly compared to PF1 in how that wasn't the case there.
That said, that's not to say you can't give yourself incredibly good odds if you plan around it. For example, let's say I'm trying to give myself panache on my Swashbuckler. I have three options - Tumble Behind, Bon Mot, and One for All. If I think they have a high Reflex, I almost never bother with Tumble Behind unless I already need to move to the enemy (in which case I throw it out because why not). Bon Mot is usually reserved for enemies I think are particularly dumb (or when I need to give allies a bonus to Will attacks). One for All is my utility buff, and with Cooperative Nature, giving my ally a +3 to an attack/skill at level 7 is very high (+22 at level 7, meaning I give the +3 on an 8 and +1 on anything higher than a 1).
Right now, with Daredevil Boots at level 11, I have a +25 to Acrobatics on my Tumble Behind. Even against High level 11 Ref, I succeed on a 9, and against Moderate I succeed on a 6. (Vs moderate level 9, I succeed on a 3.)
- Blasting is decent. But it is not as decent as before when you built for it, and utility and supports has been nerfed so hard. The worst is controll. Our caster like to play heavy controllers, so the Incapacitation Trait and other things like that (tigth math) make boss almost never failed a save. Which is fine, it is a boss, ok. But when you suceeded to Petrify a Dragon or Mind Controll A Balord in 5e or PF1, the feeling of "this is my moment" of the caster is just gone. No smart Charm Personn, no "I transform our Barbarian in a murder machine".
Control is actually better overall, assuming you didn't go with an infinite save DC save-or-die in PF1. Because of the four degrees of success, it's a lot rarer for your control spell to have 0 effect, meaning you can, with the right spells, keep your opponent very unhappy regardless. My favourite example here is Hideous Laughter, because if you're just looking to take away a fighter's AoO (or other dangerous reaction), you have solid odds even if they're significantly higher level, and can significantly shift the battle with just that.
The other thing is that while, yes, Incapacitation means that you can't just casually one-shot bosses, it also means that random mooks can't do the same to you. Very important to not get paralyzed by random ghouls (looking at a certain AP which has that into coup de grace as the specific listed tactic), or not die to a barrage of random low-level save-or-dies. Some APs really loved those swarms of low-level clerics with Hold Person, which isn't particularly fun when you eventually roll a low number.
Optimizers can do better but they won’t be too much ahead of the rest.This is the part that I have trouble with in 2E. I have been playing/running it for a bit and it is a fine game but certainly not my favorite. If I want to try and make the best "insert ability or character type here" that ever was I am maybe a few points ahead of the curve if I really try to nail it. Yes maybe I have more choices on how to achieve the goal. Sure I can swing my sword in 15 ways while that guy can only do 3 or 4 but the fact that mechanically he hits just as often makes me feel like my extra flair is pointless and just window dressing.
The "tight math" is what I really dislike about the new system.
Within the context of the world, you most assuredly could be one of the best swordsman of all time. But you weren't the best swordsman in PF1. So I don't get this complaint. It really is a false pretense that PF1 allowed you to be the best swordsman or best at anything. A DM could easily make someone to match you like occurs in PF2.
If you played in a game where the DM made a knight in full plate a better swordsman than you, how exactly did you make the best swordsman within PF1?
The only way this occurred is if you were running with a DM that made you feel like the best swordsman. That is still very possible in PF2.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A DM could easily make someone to match you like occurs in PF2.
Easily?
Making a character on 1e, NPC or otherwise, could take DAYS! Now it's roughly ten minutes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you played in a game where the DM made a knight in full plate a better swordsman than you, how exactly did you make the best swordsman within PF1?
The only way this occurred is if you were running with a DM that made you feel like the best swordsman. That is still very possible in PF2.
Well, of course, the DM can do whatever he likes. NPCs should be rivals for PCs. You can have a PC rival too, if both players are trying to out do one another. The problem with the tight math is that if I am a melee character that is trying to be amazing at using a longsword and invest heavily in it and another player has a character that is also a melee class and has invested nothing into swords, numerically he is almost, if not entirely, identical to me.
Sure I can RP the crap out of being better but what I see and feel at the table is that here is no actual difference between us both.
A fighter who invests no feats in his abilities will not be as good as someone who did. He won't be able to do as many things. About the only thing they will be somewhat similar on is single strikes.
But single strikes are not how PF2 differentiates martial types.
Some examples:
1. I play a 2-hander fighter. I picked an ability known as knockdown. This allows me to strike and knockdown an enemy without reducing my attack penalty until the strike and trip are resolved.
I also have power attack for single strong hits against say a creature with DR.
2. A swashbuckler who invests in Dueling Perry and various finishers will have far more options and do more damage than a Swashbuckler who invests nothing.
A swashbuckler player in my group switches between attacks. He sometimes hits them with Bleeding Finisher to do persistent bleed damage against even to weak Ac targets.
Or he'll use Perfect Finisher against higher AC targets because it makes a finisher like a True Strike.
3. A ranger archer alternates shots. He may use Twin Shot to maximize number of Attacks againast weak AC targets.
He may use Deadly Aim to punch through DR.
He may used Aimed Shot to hit higher AC targets.
If you don't invest in any feats, your character won't be able to do any of that.
Because PC power isn't purely based on attack rolls. It's based on action economy and skills that provide boosts against different types of opponents to show a martial's skill and fighting style development.
It's not just stack weapon focus as high as you can get it, pick up weapon specialization as high as you can get it, get your weapon's version of power attack, and do the same thing over and over again like PF1.
That seems to be why you view PF2 the way you do. You don't seem to have much experience building a character past the lower levels. You don't start to see how martial character fighting styles develop into more complex and interesting abilities that allow you to show greater skill in combat than pure damage.
I can guarantee that a player who invests in becoming very good at a fighting style like single weapon fighting or two-hander fighting can do a lot more than a character who invests no feats. They will do more damage and have better action economy and abilities that will make them a much better fighter.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.
A long while ago I saw some math on these forums somewhere that demonstrated that those "whopping bonuses" DOUBLED your chances of getting a critical hit in this edition.
That's significant!
Not much I can do about your feelings, but when that was pointed out to me I started to feel a lot better about my tiny bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.A long while ago I saw some math on these forums somewhere that demonstrated that those "whopping bonuses" DOUBLED your chances of getting a critical hit in this edition.
That's significant!
Not much I can do about your feelings, but when that was pointed out to me I started to feel a lot better about my tiny bonuses.
Well, let's take a few quick examples. Let's say we have Fighter Man with his 1d10+4 weapon (average 9.5 damage) swinging at +9, and Generic Weapon Guy swinging at +7.
On sample ACs of 14 (Moderate -1), 16 (High 1) and 18 (High 2), what does that mean?
FighterMan deals an average of 10.45/5.7 vs the mook (critting 30% of the time on first attack), 8.55/4.75 vs the level 1 (critting 20% of the time), 6.65/3.8 vs the miniboss (crit 10%).
WeaponGuy deals on average 8.55/4.75 vs the mook (critting 20% of the time), 6.65/3.8 vs the level 1 (crit 10%), and 5.225/2.85 vs the miniboss (crit 5%).
So on average on any given swing Fighter Man is 20% better than his compatriot, which is pretty good for literally just existing.
This is probably where you're also getting the "doubled crit chances", because on average that's what you'll be getting in a vacuum. This does go a little off when you count buffs/debuffs, though - with flat-footed and inspire FighterMan goes to 45/35/25% crit chances, whereas WeaponGuy goes to 35/25/15%. I think you'll still be seeing a mathematical 20% increase, but the crit chances end up very different.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.A long while ago I saw some math on these forums somewhere that demonstrated that those "whopping bonuses" DOUBLED your chances of getting a critical hit in this edition.
That's significant!
Not much I can do about your feelings, but when that was pointed out to me I started to feel a lot better about my tiny bonuses.
The math is simpler than Cyouni's example above. Assume that a Str 18 fighter and a Str 18 champion are attacking an equal-level Dex 18 foe in leather armor. The fighter has expert proficiency in martial weapons, so he has +8+level bonus to hit. The champion has trained proficiency in martial weapons, so he has +6+level bonus to hit. The foe has trained proficiency in light armor and leather armor gives a +1 item bonus, so he has AC 17+level. The fighter hits on a roll of 9 or higher, 50% chance of a regular hit and 10% chance of a critical hit (rolling 19 gives 27+level, a crit). The champion hits on a roll of 11 or higher, 45% change of a regular hit and 5% chance of a critical hit. If both gained an additional +2 to their attack, such as a +2 circumstance bonus, the fighter would have 20% critical hits and the champion would have 10% critical hits.
I agree with the majority views in the above posts comparing PF1 and PF2, skipping over the side discussion about Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Nevertheless, I love to talk about design, so let me throw in my two cents.
Pathfinder 1st Edition had some known flaws:
(1) powergaming - cleverly selecting feats and gear can create PCs five times as powerful as a typical PC of the same level. This puts new players at a disadvantage in constructing characters.
(2) stand still - a martial character with two or more attacks in a full round had best use that full round to make all the attacks. That meant no tactical movement beyond a 5-foot step.
(3) rocket tag - high-level combat can be so brutal that the only good tactic is to hit before the enemy can. Save-or-die spells were part of rapid victory in Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition; fortunately, PF1 had already reduced the impact of Save-or-die.
(4) 15-minute workday - spellcasters feel useless after their highest spell slots are consumed.
(5) wands of Cure Light Wounds - PF1 adventures were often written on an attrition plan to avoid rocket tag. A few preliminary encounters would wear out the party so that the final battle would be more balanced. Wands of Cure Light Wounds could be abuse to restore the martial characters greatest resource, their hit points.
(6) linear fighter, quadratic wizard - spellcasters increase in power by level faster than martial characters. They start close to useless but eventually overshadow the martials.
(7) rules complexity - new classes added more rules and the bloat became too much. Piling new rules on top of the foundation in original core rulebook not designed for those rules led to ambiguity.
(8) too much data - PF1 makes players feel like they need to search through 1,000 feats to find the best ones, with failure resulting in an underperforming character. They have to either read those feats, archetypes, and multiclass options or follow someone else's guide to the character class.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition tried to fix those 8 problems, and possibly some other problems that I overlooked. It succeeded yet introduced some new disappointments in the process.
Adding level to proficiency, nerfing feats, and tightening math were the cure for powergaming. Unfortunately, powergaming provided the fun of power fantasies, having an unbeatable hero. The PF2 characters are stuck with failures and deficiencies appropriate for their level.
The three-action system removed the standing still to fight. The -10 penalty to the 3rd attack combined with the tight math made the 3rd attack close to useless. The PCs instead fared better by using one of the three actions for something tactical. The tight math and nerfed spellcasting also toned down the brutal damage dealing of high levels (compared to the average hit points at that level) so rocket tag was no longer necessary. The three-action system does not have a downside; it is the best new feature of PF2.
Cantrips scale with level, so a spellcaster out of spells still had something useful to cast. Furthermore, Refocus on focus spells and Treat Wounds on hit points provides a 10-minute recharge for valuable resources. The party takes a short break every 5 minutes to Refocus rather than quitting for the day after 15 minutes. Wands where changed from 50 charges per lifetime of the wand to 1 charge per day, mostly to simplify bookkeeping about magic items but it also nerfed the wand of 1st-level Heal (the new name for Cure Light Wounds). The spells moved even farther from Save-or-die. They were weakened or bumped up a spell level, but in exchange they gained a minor useful effect if the target saved--but not critically saved--against the spell. Boosting the cantrips and nerfing the highest-level spells removed the quadratic wizard (wizard might be the weakest class in PF2).
The gigantic list of feats that any PC could take at every odd level were replaced by class feats, so that only a particular class or two could take that feat. As part of the tight math, feats that gave numerical bonuses were dropped, though some other feats recycled their names. For example, PF2 Power Attack resembles PF1 Power Attack only in that both give extra damage. PF1 Power Attack slows the attack and PF1 Power Attack gambles with a lower chance to hit. A few feats, such as Toughness and Armor Proficiency, were left so that anyone could learn them. They are called general feats, given out at 3rd level and every 4 levels after that. Some aspects of race and training were renamed as feats, too, so PF2 also has ancestry feat (once every 5 levels) and skill feats (every even level, and 1st level too for non-casters). Hopefully, with the 4 kinds of feats, character design might chose some feats for something other than improving combat. Some people dislike selecting from feats that don't improve combat.
Multiclassing and archetypes were re-envisioned in PF2 to reduce the mix-and-match possibilities that could create an overpowered combination. Instead, the PC can spend some of their class feat slots on archetype feats instead that give carefully-vetted abilities from another class or a special archetype. The PC can never abandon their original class--once a rogue, always a rogue. That disappointingly reduces characters' options to change their life as they level up.
I would love to say that rewriting the rules from scratch made PF2 rules much clearer, but that is not so. Those rules have a firm foundation that removes ambiguities, but PF2 also uses a ton of nitpicking little rules that tighten the math and maintain balance. For example, animal companions get only two actions per turn and the PC must spend one of their own actions commanding the animal companion to enable those two actions. And to prevent a player from enhancing an animal companion with magic items, only their speed and AC can be improved by items. These little special-case rules are hard to remember.
One other difference cropped up in monster design. The monsters had to be kept simple to fit into the bestiary and so GMs could quickly learn to play them. Therefore, they received fewer special abilities and instead received better numbers, especially attack bonuses. The CR system was abandoned and monsters were given levels like the PCs, so the better numbers on the monsters are glaringly obvious. This means that a PC standing still and fighting toe to toe with an equal-level monster would be defeated by the monster. The PC instead has to use tactics that exploit their greater number of special abilities and trained skills. The first two PF1 adventure paths, Age of Ashes and Extinction Curse, were designed with tough challenges and many players suffered total party kills on the way to learning new tactics.
The monsters also receive hard-to-counter abilities, such as flying, at lower levels than the PCs receive them, on the excuse that the PCs are versatile enough to counter them but the monsters are not versatile enough. That feels unfair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that my build would be much more versatile than another not of the same focus. Sure I can do 50 things with my weapon and player B can do 2. But we both have virtually the same chance of success and THAT is what bothers me.
You don't have the same success chance.
Also, why didn't it bother you when the paladin and warrior in the same group had the same or better success chance?
Or the caster didn't even need you and could utterly destroy you with ease even as one of the greatest swordsman in the world?
And not just highly specialized wizard, but nearly any wizard with an even halfway decent build?
Like I said, your arguments aren't accurate. They don't reflect PF1.
I played that game. Every one in the group was as good as you and the casters were far, far better and didn't need you. As a swordsman, you were literally unnecessary in a high level group with casters.
The level 21 demon totem, come and get me barbarian with the +5 magic sword, superstition, and 400 plus hit points didn't hold a candle to the lvl 21 wizard who defeated the same enemies he faced alone with no real help from him needed. And could have killed him with ease without him landing a blow back on him.
Why was that ok with you since you built one of the greatest swordsman in the world?
Or the fact the half-orc lvl 21 two-hander wielder did twice as much damage as you?
The fact is every single PC and PC built enemy was as good as you. Why didn't you have a problem with that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.Well if you want to be the best at [certain weapon type] you are probably a Fighter. At which point you are, for most of your career numerically better than any non-fighter with that weapon type and better than all other fighters who didn't pick that weapon type for levels 5-19.
If you pick another class then best at certain weapon wasn't actually the fundamental core of your character.
Every martial was +20 BAB. So exactly the same as you.
In the PF1 math, a +15 BAB class was one attack behind you and a +10 BAB class was 2 attacks behind you.
Both of the +15 and +10 BAB classes had spells that could make them far better than you.
You were no more the greatest swordsman in PF1 than you were in PF2. Your BAB and abilities as anything similar you faced.
The only thing that made you any better were casters. Martials in PF1 were easy to kill meat for a DM. If you squared off as a martial in PF1 against a caster at high level without your own casters backing you up, you would be all done.
There was no differentiation between +20 BAB martials. Every martials hit chance in a group was the same just like PF2.
Martials are far more competitive and interesting in PF2 than they were in PF1. Caster complaints I understand as the drop in power from PF1 to PF2 is extreme and takes some getting used to. PF1 casters became god-like. But a martial player in PF2 is amazing compared to what they were in PF1 as far as against the game world.
PF1 was caster world. Past a certain level you could run the casters alone and they would have no problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.Well if you want to be the best at [certain weapon type] you are probably a Fighter. At which point you are, for most of your career numerically better than any non-fighter with that weapon type and better than all other fighters who didn't pick that weapon type for levels 5-19.
If you pick another class then best at certain weapon wasn't actually the fundamental core of your character.
Every martial was +20 BAB. So exactly the same as you.
In the PF1 math, a +15 BAB class was one attack behind you and a +10 BAB class was 2 attacks behind you.
Both of the +15 and +10 BAB classes had spells that could make them far better than you.
You were no more the greatest swordsman in PF1 than you were in PF2. Your BAB and abilities as anything similar you faced.
The only thing that made you any better were casters. Martials in PF1 were easy to kill meat for a DM. If you squared off as a martial in PF1 against a caster at high level without your own casters backing you up, you would be all done.
There was no differentiation between +20 BAB martials. Every martials hit chance in a group was the same just like PF2.
There were a bigger difference if you had knowledge of the system. I think that's the point, if you knew more than another player and you were both aiming for the same thing the gap in pf1 was huge. In pf2... Not so much. Unless you are gimping yourself on purpose it's quite hard to make a useless character. The game tells you predefined builds that are at least decent and most things are baked in so you can't miss. And even if you miss them the gape is not as wide.
While in 3.5 for example you could start with 1 attack doing 1d8+4 while another character with multiattacks hits like 8 times all the secondary with only a -2 penalty and does 1d6+8 on the primary and 1d4+4 on the secondary.
In pf2 if I want to hit a lot and grab a ranger in the start I hit 4 times with low penalty while the monk does the same with higher penalty but has a skill that both does more damage and makes his first hit more accurate. Or even if he is a barb that tends to hit only once can hit 3 times. The gap is quite narrow.
I guess the thing is pf2 is a system that is easier to master. And well easier overall if one wants to be better it's just they can't and in other systems it could be done easily.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing to keep in mind with PF2 is the combat balance actually works. A level X creature is about as dangerous as another level X creature. This was the intent in PF1 and it never worked out in practice. But the balance actually working means that if you want the power fantasy of being the best swordsman, you just can't get pitted against swordsmen of equal level. Because that is what level means. If start fight enemies a couple levels below you you start critting like crazy.
Your class feats also tend to give you a lot more narratively satisfying abilities as well. A mid to high level great sword fighter can leap 30 feet straight up to smash an enemy out of the sky or knock them flying 20 feet with a two hit combo. Yeah, you can't make yourself hit on a 2 against an enemy 3 levels higher than you anymore, but you're a lot more interesting than just stepping 5 feat and full attacking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.Well if you want to be the best at [certain weapon type] you are probably a Fighter. At which point you are, for most of your career numerically better than any non-fighter with that weapon type and better than all other fighters who didn't pick that weapon type for levels 5-19.
If you pick another class then best at certain weapon wasn't actually the fundamental core of your character.
Every martial was +20 BAB. So exactly the same as you.
In the PF1 math, a +15 BAB class was one attack behind you and a +10 BAB class was 2 attacks behind you.
Both of the +15 and +10 BAB classes had spells that could make them far better than you.
You were no more the greatest swordsman in PF1 than you were in PF2. Your BAB and abilities as anything similar you faced.
The only thing that made you any better were casters. Martials in PF1 were easy to kill meat for a DM. If you squared off as a martial in PF1 against a caster at high level without your own casters backing you up, you would be all done.
There was no differentiation between +20 BAB martials. Every martials hit chance in a group was the same just like PF2.
There were a bigger difference if you had knowledge of the system. I think that's the point, if you knew more than another player and you were both aiming for the same thing the gap in pf1 was huge. In pf2... Not so much. Unless you are gimping yourself on purpose it's quite hard to make a useless character. The game tells you predefined builds that are at least decent and most things are baked in so you can't miss. And even if you miss them the gape is not as wide.
While in 3.5 for example you could start with 1 attack doing 1d8+4 while another character with multiattacks hits like 8 times all the secondary with only a -2 penalty and does 1d6+8 on the primary and 1d4+4 on the secondary....
The gap didn't seem that huge as most of the feats to be great were obvious. Weapon Focus, some version of Power Attack, Spell Focus. Build up your main attack stat and stack all the needed magic items.
From what someone told me, fighter will saves got better with some feats. But fighter will saves were trash for years. My players avoided fighters other than 4 level multiclass for base specialization like the plague because failing will saves was painful in PF1. You often were pretty much done with the fight if you failed a will save.
The main difference between PF1 and PF2 is the ability to game the math. Almost everything else is aesthetically similar. It looks the same in the mind's eye. The biggest difference is players can't build combat monsters that put the math in their favor and then argue with their DM when the DM goes, "That doesn't seem right. It's absolutely destroying the game."
There was no reason a Barbarian should be able to Come and Get Me taking Combat Reflexes and building up his Dex with items and tomes to the point he gets way more attacks than a rogue or fighter. But that was the feat that was put in the game.
Fortunately I had players I could reason with when I told them that feat isn't going to fly as is in the game. But from reading these forums and EN world, I could see not everyone had such players.
Debating two games I enjoy is difficult. I have no interest in throwing PF1 under the bus. It was an immensely fun game for years that saved those of us that despised 4E from having no game material to enjoy. But PF2 is also a great game that has taken PF and RPGs in a direction that makes the game much easier to run at all levels while still being fun. It also got rid of old tropes like the need for a healer or even an arcane caster. Something many versions of D&D and PF claimed could be done, but I had not experienced unless you wanted to invite TPKs and failure on a constant basis if the DM didn't perfectly create encounters to allow survival.
The fact my group can build parties without a dedicated healer or arcane caster is a big change for us. It wasn't possible in previous versions of D&D/PF with a high level of survivability. I was quite surprised that PF2 really did allow you to build any party and have a reasonably high level of survivability. This is the first time in 30 years we've made parties with only a single caster and were able to survive well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Right and I am a whopping +2 better than another player. That doesn't make me feel very special.Well if you want to be the best at [certain weapon type] you are probably a Fighter. At which point you are, for most of your career numerically better than any non-fighter with that weapon type and better than all other fighters who didn't pick that weapon type for levels 5-19.
If you pick another class then best at certain weapon wasn't actually the fundamental core of your character.
Every martial was +20 BAB. So exactly the same as you.
In the PF1 math, a +15 BAB class was one attack behind you and a +10 BAB class was 2 attacks behind you.
Both of the +15 and +10 BAB classes had spells that could make them far better than you.
You were no more the greatest swordsman in PF1 than you were in PF2. Your BAB and abilities as anything similar you faced.
The only thing that made you any better were casters. Martials in PF1 were easy to kill meat for a DM. If you squared off as a martial in PF1 against a caster at high level without your own casters backing you up, you would be all done.
There was no differentiation between +20 BAB martials. Every martials hit chance in a group was the same just like PF2.
There were a bigger difference if you had knowledge of the system. I think that's the point, if you knew more than another player and you were both aiming for the same thing the gap in pf1 was huge. In pf2... Not so much. Unless you are gimping yourself on purpose it's quite hard to make a useless character. The game tells you predefined builds that are at least decent and most things are baked in so you can't miss. And even if you miss them the gape is not as wide.
While in 3.5 for example you could start with 1 attack doing 1d8+4 while another character with multiattacks hits like 8 times all the secondary with only a -2 penalty and does 1d6+8 on the primary and
Haha same. To me it was mostly 3.5 that was even more broken. But to me the biggest difference is time. Pf1 takes just so long to do anything, pf2 I know the challenges for level X are Y and they are challenges for a roll. In pf1 some people could do X at level 5 while most could not do at level 20.
It just took so long for builds, to dm... To read old rules. And well the ability to invite a new player to a party of veterans and not go. "Well he will probably die in the first 10 seconda if I try to make a challenge for the rest."
And another thing do remember most people do not go on forums. When you say they are obvious they might not be as obvious to anyone that just picked the book. I've invited about 3-4 people to my table and about 3-4 of them came without even bothering to open the srd or even read the player's handbook haha.
Also just remembered save or dies were often a thing without 4 degrees of success, so many times you could put an enemy with a single save or die spell and see people collapse because they rolled a 10.
Also I am glad they broke the healing wand slurp method and just gave it to regular healers, cause it was annoying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also just remembered save or dies were often a thing without 4 degrees of success, so many times you could put an enemy with a single save or die spell and see people collapse because they rolled a 10.
I was going to talk about incapacitation but then I realized I'd already done so here.
My group will forever remember that moment that I buffed up my level 5 inquisitor's saves to +9 and went into the level 2 ghasts, only to immediately roll a 5 vs paralysis (needed a 6) and an 8 vs coup de grace (needed a 12).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that you didn't have the option or that it was unusable. But that people straight up refuse to see those types of characters as actually useable. Heck that still happens in PF2.
If you're in a game where you're doing 50 damage in your turn, and the other player is doing 200 damage while also having better defenses and social skills, then yes, your 50 damage character is basically not usable.
A player tried making a more defensive, pacifist, healing paladin with less Str and without Power Attack in our game that ended up having an optimized kensei magus and a sticky celestial poison toxicant alchemist who was also a very good nonmagical healer.
Spoilers: they ended up taking Power Attack, and even then they still fell behind.
As an aside, said player also played a daring champion cavalier in another campaign and literally complained of feeling useless next to the highly optimized aerokineticist (who was very good at covering their weaknesses).
P.S. People talk so bad about wands of cure light wounds, but they are so rare to get unless you make them yourself. Even then it costed you money and had limited uses. But PF2 straight up makes it so you can be full HP for every combat.
750 gp apiece. Wealth for a level 5 character is 10500 gp, 20% of which is expected to be spent on consumables.
By the rules, this is available in any town with a base value of 750 gp or more, aka any town with 200 people or more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(snip)
*All of these opinions are fully formed without ever playing a single game of PF2.
Serious question: Have you ever played a game of PF1, Temperans? All of your posting seems to come from this place of "hypothetical Pathfinder," where the game works so well on paper (PF1) or works so awful on paper (PF2), but you've never mentioned concrete examples of actual gameplay. I mean, obviously, you don't play PF2, but it makes sense if you also have never played PF1.
EDIT: Full disclosure, I played PF1 with a healthy mix of powergamers and non. Things that looked great on paper would get blown out of the water by someone who came with a net build or just a spellcaster who knew what they were doing. At one point, my group had a bard who spent all of his feats on weapon and armor proficiencies and he contributed little to the party outside of Diplomacy checks, but he also had an intimidating chain fighter Cornugon Smashing the frontlines along with a Sin Casting Conjurer to win all the fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that my build would be much more versatile than another not of the same focus. Sure I can do 50 things with my weapon and player B can do 2. But we both have virtually the same chance of success and THAT is what bothers me.You don't have the same success chance.
Also, why didn't it bother you when the paladin and warrior in the same group had the same or better success chance?
Or the caster didn't even need you and could utterly destroy you with ease even as one of the greatest swordsman in the world?
And not just highly specialized wizard, but nearly any wizard with an even halfway decent build?
Like I said, your arguments aren't accurate. They don't reflect PF1.
I played that game. Every one in the group was as good as you and the casters were far, far better and didn't need you. As a swordsman, you were literally unnecessary in a high level group with casters.
The level 21 demon totem, come and get me barbarian with the +5 magic sword, superstition, and 400 plus hit points didn't hold a candle to the lvl 21 wizard who defeated the same enemies he faced alone with no real help from him needed. And could have killed him with ease without him landing a blow back on him.
Why was that ok with you since you built one of the greatest swordsman in the world?
Or the fact the half-orc lvl 21 two-hander wielder did twice as much damage as you?
The fact is every single PC and PC built enemy was as good as you. Why didn't you have a problem with that?
You speak the truth, my most powerful PF1+3.x melee type character was a Knowledge Devotion abusing Cloistered Cleric who had 7+ permanent buffs on him two of which were Ice Axe. Hence he was attacking with multiple 2d12+1/2 level+knowledge devotion touch attacks on top of being a Cleric who could do things like summon gravity elementals and create regenerating skeletons to accomplish things while he sat back and watched. The funny thing is that he was tame compared to what could be done...
I don't think the GM liked me much that game, but that's why I normally ran things myself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You see too me it seems like people are over valuing minmaxing and getting blinded by it as the only choice. Fun fact minmaxing is never the only choice. A PF1 paladin gets defences and damage so they don't have to worry as much about get "more damage". But players do so anyways. Fighters got twice as many feats and plenty of damage bonuses so they didn't have to spend 21 feats on damage. But players do so anyways. Advance Weapon/Armor training gives plenty of leeway for Fighters to get power and skills without spending more feats on combat, but again players still tend to invest more on power.
It's not that you didn't have the option or that it was unusable. But that people straight up refuse to see those types of characters as actually useable. Heck that still happens in PF2.
********************
Someone compared it to the safety of a ride. But I would like to compare it to a car driving in the highway. Most cars can easily do 100-200 miles per hour, and it's incredibly fun to be behind the wheel of such a car. But those cars are also extremely likely to crash, when the other cars are moving too slow.
** spoiler omitted **I...
I'm not sure why you state because it wasn't the only choice that it wasn't the primary choice people would make. The entire reason PF1 was such a problem is because it was so easy to game the math.
It wasn't like you had to really work hard to make a combat monster. Every new book there was something in the book that someone found that was insanely imbalanced and broke, usually more than a few things. And they were common, optimal choices that anyone could take.
I don't know why you all liked the magic item Christmas tree. PF2 literally got rid of this. You can use nothing but a striking weapon and be fine. If you use the optional rules, you don't even need the striking weapons.
It's real hard to listen to criticisms of PF2 that don't line up with my experience playing the game. I can see how someone on the outside reading the game would look and see the things people are claiming, but not someone who has played it.
I remember thinking how weak Divine Smite looked for the paladin. Then after seeing Divine Smite in play and how they made it powerful by giving evil friends weakness to good damage and how clever that was. Rather than have a generic ability adding level damage to anything against evil, they made the good damage count against the creatures it should be powerful against. I personally prefer changes of this kind.
They got rid of the stat-based save stacking. No more stacking your main save stat and your charisma super high to have insanely overpowered saving throws. Now save bonuses are situational and limited and don't require that I as a DM build a save DC high enough to challenge the class with insane save DCs as well as the class with weak saves.
When you were designing encounters for a paladin/monk who stacked their saves so high that no one else could compete and you designed an enemy that wouldn't be trivial for them, it made it difficult to balance their save DC abilities when once class had +14 on his save and the monk had +23. That kind of separation makes for a very difficult time for a DM to design encounters.
It ended up causing my players to dump low save classes in favor of higher save classes. If a class didn't have two good saves at least, then it wasn't work playing. A bad fortitude save was just asking to die in PF1.
If we were to have an in-depth discussion of mid to high level PF1 and all the math problems caused by class and build differences and DM encounter design, we could go on for weeks discussing it.
PF2 compressed all the math making encounter design easier across different classes. No more wide gaps between classes causing major issues with encounter design where you design a challenging encounter for a paladin and end up being a "sit there and look stupid" encounter for Joe Fighter because he's missing his will save over and over again. And rogue saving throw design was terrible in the original book. Only good reflex save when fortitude and will saves were devastating. I cleaned that up with a house rule quickly or no one was going to play a rogue.
There was a lot of problems with PF1 math. It was a fun game. But they did certain things in 3E design that made things extremely hard for DMs to design encounters that didn't destroy one class in favor of another. Only casters generally had the means to counter these for most levels.
It's why rings of freedom of movement and +1 maximum fortification armor were the priority in our campaigns. AC much like it is in PF2 was often not worth building up unless you were a class that could stack 2 or 3 stats onto AC like a monk/swashbucker stacking Dex, Wisdom, and Intelligence onto AC. If you were Joe Blow fighter or rogue, in general your AC would be insufficient to avoid critical hits from a +20 BAB enemy. So your best bet to cut the damage was to maximize fortification to avoid critical hits and then rely on a healer to keep you from dying during rocket tag matches.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You speak the truth, my most powerful PF1+3.x melee type character was a Knowledge Devotion abusing Cloistered Cleric who had 7+ permanent buffs on him two of which were Ice Axe. Hence he was attacking with multiple 2d12+1/2 level+knowledge devotion touch attacks on top of being a Cleric who could do things like summon gravity elementals and create regenerating skeletons to accomplish things while he sat back and watched. The funny thing is that he was tame...I understand that my build would be much more versatile than another not of the same focus. Sure I can do 50 things with my weapon and player B can do 2. But we both have virtually the same chance of success and THAT is what bothers me.You don't have the same success chance.
Also, why didn't it bother you when the paladin and warrior in the same group had the same or better success chance?
Or the caster didn't even need you and could utterly destroy you with ease even as one of the greatest swordsman in the world?
And not just highly specialized wizard, but nearly any wizard with an even halfway decent build?
Like I said, your arguments aren't accurate. They don't reflect PF1.
I played that game. Every one in the group was as good as you and the casters were far, far better and didn't need you. As a swordsman, you were literally unnecessary in a high level group with casters.
The level 21 demon totem, come and get me barbarian with the +5 magic sword, superstition, and 400 plus hit points didn't hold a candle to the lvl 21 wizard who defeated the same enemies he faced alone with no real help from him needed. And could have killed him with ease without him landing a blow back on him.
Why was that ok with you since you built one of the greatest swordsman in the world?
Or the fact the half-orc lvl 21 two-hander wielder did twice as much damage as you?
The fact is every single PC and PC built enemy was as good as you. Why didn't you have a problem with that?
Exact same reason I had to run the game. No one else wanted to put the time in to handle the insane builds you could make in PF1.
I designed encounters not by checking the recommendations in the book. Rather I designed encounters according to the PC capabilities.
I looked at their saves. The party DPR. Spell combinations and innate abilities. Basically, I had to gain an understanding of all their character abilities, then designed the encounters.
I ended up throwing out anything remotely close to what was recommended or designed. I gave dragons 2000 hit points or hit points based on the calculated DPR and how many rounds I wanted the creature to survive to make the fight seem tough. I boosted their saves. I manipulated the DCs of their abilities to give the percentage chance of success I felt would be challenging.
All of this work to make the game feel like an epic heroic game. Took hours of preparation sometimes. I wrote tons of house rules to adjust classes to close power gaps or get rid of overpowered feats or spells.
Another guy who DMed did the same thing. He would tend to have overshoot encounter design trying to challenge us, kill half the party, and then shrug and say, "Oh well, you're dead. Campaign is over." He probably burned out. The other players gave up running the game. They didn't want to deal with all the headaches of running PF1.
All that headache is gone with PF2. Game is much easier to run. Guys who haven't run the game in years are wanting to take a shot running PF2. That's why I consider PF2 a GM's edition. It's the most friendly game to run from a GM/DM perspective perhaps ever made from a mainstream company. About as easy to run as 5E and much more challenging.
I like a challenging game. My whole group does. We hate pushover games. They're not fun for our group. If the main BBEG didn't leave us on the brink of death, then we don't even know why he was a BBEG to begin with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 could (more like would with some GMs) end up as an, almost, rules-light game if you wanted to DM certain fights as a challenge. You just set the enemy stats such that most of the party was sitting at 40% or worse to harm/incapacitate it and then gave it a suite of abilities tailored to each PC that hit them specifically 60% of the time. In that way, you could easily stumble into PF2 'fixed' math by accident.
This wasn't my solution at the time, but I could easily see my current self running PF1 with not much more than my PC's character sheets and some quick and dirty math for DCs/ACs/HP counts for enemies.
Problem with tailoring stats like that in my last PF1 game was that you had so much difference in the numbers. The martial character had 42 AC passively (and could boost it with smite good), and saves of 23/16/18. Meanwhile, my witch had 18 AC, and saves of 15/14/16, along with being able to swap into basically any outsider's immunities if given a standard action to prepare. I can't quite reference most of the numbers anymore, but the bard looks to have had 14 Fort, the cleric had 19 Fort, 11 Ref, and both their ACs were around 30. There were also some undead in play, but let's ignore them for now.
The numbers are just so different that you can't really build for them.
(Also we were very good at having our martial character paste anything single-target, whereas my witch dealt with hordes. And we didn't even pull anything really cheesy out of the bin - I sat on the "summon augmented fiendish dire tigers" strategy for half of the campaign.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Advance Weapon/Armor training gives plenty of leeway for Fighters to get power and skills without spending more feats on combat, but again players still tend to invest more on power.
Just wanted to point out that those options didn't exist for fighters until 6-7 YEARS after 1E Pathfinder released. Then, said options only existed for a couple of years before 2E Pathfinder released.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed Arakasius.
Deriven I really do think that the reason we don't see eye to eye is a difference in play experience. I have not seen the need for all of that optimizing unless the GM themselves heavily optimized. For example, I have seen regular armor work fine to stop attacks, without needing fortification. It might be needed on a game where the GM is heavily going against the players and so that might be why I didn't see it. So yeah I 100% believe it's just we have had different experience as to what is needed to play because of difference in GMs.
For me seeing eye to eye is not important. I know how PF1 works. I played 3E and PF1 for over ten years since 3E and PF1 first came out. I know how it works and what you can do with it.
I built so many characters over the years with different concepts, then ran all the concepts my players wanted to try. We often ran to higher level. Our overage campaigns I ran ended around lvl 12 and often got to 15 or higher. Our highest campaign ended at 21.
I also none of these games are simulationist. When I want to play a simulationist game, I play GURPS. That game really, really tried to do a great simulationist game. Steve Jackson Games hired experts in various areas to help create their game and design their rule books to give an authentic, simulationist feel to the game.
PF1 is a level-based RPG that attempts to create a system that allows high fantasy sword and sorcery play with elements that are completely specific to D&D type games. Magical healing is super rare in fantasy stories, but almost a necessity in most versions of D&D.
You can play different ways and have different experiences with the same game. But it doesn't change what can be done with the rules versus what some do with the rules.
PF1 was a broken game past around lvl 7. Balance was out the window. They added things to the game that made it nearly unplayable unless you were willing to toss the game as designed out the window.
I could list a laundry list of characters that were problems, martials and casters. Casters more so than martials, but martials still did absolutely insane damage.
Casters could build their DCs to levels that monsters could not easily resist. They could build Metamagic into the spells that did not increase level, so they could take some single powerful spell and make the enemy roll twice taking the lower save after debuffing them.
Then stat pumping was immense in PF1. You could stack stat enhancing items easily, especially with the Craft Wondrous Item feat.
All this doesn't matter if you experienced it or not, it absolutely is allowed by the rules. It was not some uncommon or DM controlled rule. It was a part of the standard game.
Now Leadership I often limited, but the few times I did allow it the feat was vastly overpowered as it was basically a second character a few levels behind as a henchmen. They could also be built in a min-max fashion and they were.
My players haven't been able to break PF2. It keeps everything tamped down and easily managed by a DM with minimal modification. It still provides a robust play experience where your characters can do what you expect fantasy characters to do.
My players don't like everything about PF2. It's taken some getting used to for all of us. But the benefits outweigh the negatives. They're learning how to build better, more enjoyable, and capable characters.
But I know both PF1 very, very well and now PF2 pretty well. It's real hard for someone to make claims about either one that I won't understand on a mechanical level.
The complaint about the math is indicative of players who played with DMs that allowed them to build combat monsters while not modifying the game sufficiently to challenge them. That seems to occur either due to players arguing with a DM to force them to comply with their interpretation of the rules or a group play style choice where they like an easy game where they crush everything or players who don't know how to build highly effective characters.
All these level based games look the same across levels if you're building the same type of character. That's never a good argument to claim. All PF1 martials were built with the same chasses and the same feat choices. Casters the same number of spells and bonus spells from high stats and the same spell DCs. That is a part of the game is not unique to PF1 or PF2.
The main difference is how far the math could be pushed versus the environment in PF1 and PF2. In PF1 the math could be pushed to broken levels meaning levels where the designed enemies were no longer a challenge to players without extreme modification using the standard rule set. PF2 math is much narrower and created to ensure that the math can be pushed only so far in relation to the challenges the players face and the DM can better predict what is and is not challenging to players.
Both games allow you to create heroic characters doing fantastic actions that would look amazing in movies. But PF2 is easier to DM, while PF1 loses predictability and thus the ability to run using the standard rules as the players advance. It makes for a hard slog that isn't worth the time investment or headaches in my opinion.
If your PF1 games are still reasonable, enjoy the game. I prefer Pf2 now. I don't want the headaches or to spend the time investment to challenge players in high level PF1 games. I had my ten plus years of fun with PF1 and 3E playing the super powered fantasy. I want a game where I can still feel like a powerful fantasy hero, but is far easier to run and manage as a DM.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also it is tiresome having to always defend my self from your personal attack. Instead of you know, actual criticism of my opinions.
I'm not attacking you, unless you have wrapped up your sense of self with being the "poster who doesn't play Pathfinder but posts religiously on the forums." Also, a legitimate criticism of your opinions is absolutely "sure, these don't look like they make sense on paper, but it works in play." The same thing everyone has been saying for the past two years. It's okay to defend your opinions, but you have no actual experience to defend them. Anyone who opens AoN or cracks the Core Rulebook has the same level of expertise that you have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that two people who have zero background in motor vehicles staring at an engine would have the same level of expertise. But that's apples and oranges, here. Temperans has never played the game, period. That's fine, but they make sweeping statements about the balance of the system with no understanding of how it actually works in play. Why should their opinion hold weight beyond anything that is exactly that - an opinion?
You can definitely not like the game and not play the system. Defending the position of why the mechanics don't work, however, will require some creative cognitive loop-de-loops.