What part of the game did you unexpectedly like?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Knee-jerk reactions are pretty common through life, especially towards change™. Unfortunately, I tend to judge things very impulsively but, because I am aware of that, I also make a conscious effort to keep an open mind when dealing, talking or interacting about something that I think that I am not into.

I found myself going through that a few good times during my experiences with the game. In this vein, I’m wondering if I’m alone — or if you, too, judged something in particular too quickly about the game, but then grew to like it.

To me for example, that was the influence subsystem! Well, technically it’s pretty much translated from the first edition, but still. I was very confused by the mere need of rules for intrigue, but I gotta say: As far as structured social rules around influencing and schmoozing goes, it plays really great! The only downside is that influence statblocks require some good work. My players just finished participating in this party, where there were… 14 relevant, influenceable NPCs? And I think I had to nail down two or one and a half hours of scribbling per day for three weeks, to get them all ready. But, I mean… There’s no fix for that, ofc. :B

What about you? Did some part of the game surprise you more than you expected, and why?


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

I expected Recall Knowledge requiring an action to be annoying and encourage metagaming. My players have used it a couple times to successfully find a monster weakness instead of wasting an action on a third miss, and it felt pretty good to them.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

The part of the game I unexpectedly liked was gamemastering. My wife was running a PF1-conversion of the D&D 3.5 Rise of the Runelords adventure path and decided that she had to end the game in the middle of the 3rd module because of her health problems. I was interested in seeing the rest of the adventure path, so I volunteered to take over as GM. A few weeks later after medical care, she made a character and joined as a player.

That was 10 years ago. In addition to finishing Rise of the Runelords, I have run Jade Regent and Iron Gods and we are halfway through Ironfang Invasion. I have run player characters in other GM's campaigns, but the improvisation of keeping up with player characters is more challenging.

Okay, that was not about Pathfinder 2nd Edition specifically. The unexpected twist that PF2 put on GMing was separating the design rules for player characters and for non-player creatures. I thought that using different rules would feel unfair. I guess it is unfair, but the creatures lost details that did not matter in a single encounter and the creatures gained survivability against the party's versatility that came from practice in many encounters. PCs and creatures had different designs because they had different roles in the overall story.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

The lore.

From the outside looking in for most of 1e, Pathfinder seemed like Yet Another D&D Setting, albeit one that sometimes reveled in pushing the envelope for edginess beyond what WotC would ever touch. I finally hopped aboard with the transition to 2e, and am now a big Golarion lore nerd! The pivot to a more nuanced and inclusive house style is a huge appeal, and large swathes of the setting are actually really, really compelling - though I’m never going to like Golarion goblins.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I love this thread, just for its title. Too many Let's bash PF2 threads these days for my taste.

Thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Free archetype.

At first I was definitely stubborn and dubious about it.

Now I love it and regardless the little powercreep it may give I consider it a must have, especially because it allow great customization even at low levels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really can't think of much, because I pretty much just went in expecting to like everything.

I guess the thing I was most worried about was Archetypes vs Full Multiclassing since I always enjoyed multiclassing in other systems.

Overall I was expecting to like it but after playing I like more than I ever imagined. Especially once the APG hit.

Just my experiences after picking Bard...
Do I want an animal companion? Beastmaster works out great.
Do I want to fight up close? Weapon archetype / Champion / Sentinel all works great.
Do I want to focus 100% on spellcasting? Class feats + caster archetypes.
Do I want to use a bow to weave while I cast spells? Archer archetype
The list just goes on and on :).

It is so nice being able to take these options and not worrying about hindering your self, at least too much anyway. Nothing like PF1/5e where you can severely hamper your character multiclassing poorly.

If I get to play in a free archetype game I plan on even delving deeper into archetype combos.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like that no class has a death grip on a particular skill. I make it a habit to give my martial characters at least a 14 in one mental ability and pick up those skills, and that really widens the scope of out of combat scenes in which you can contribute significantly.

I tend to sign up my monk as a "rogue" role on Warhorn because he's pretty stealthy and solid at Thievery. In PF1 you'd be lacking Trapfinding bonuses to disable device and it would have been much harder to pick a skill outside your designated lane.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RPGnoremac wrote:

I really can't think of much, because I pretty much just went in expecting to like everything.

I guess the thing I was most worried about was Archetypes vs Full Multiclassing since I always enjoyed multiclassing in other systems.

Overall I was expecting to like it but after playing I like more than I ever imagined. Especially once the APG hit.

Just my experiences after picking Bard...
Do I want an animal companion? Beastmaster works out great.
Do I want to fight up close? Weapon archetype / Champion / Sentinel all works great.
Do I want to focus 100% on spellcasting? Class feats + caster archetypes.
Do I want to use a bow to weave while I cast spells? Archer archetype
The list just goes on and on :).

It is so nice being able to take these options and not worrying about hindering your self, at least too much anyway. Nothing like PF1/5e where you can severely hamper your character multiclassing poorly.

If I get to play in a free archetype game I plan on even delving deeper into archetype combos.

Same. PF2E is the first game where I have ever actually considered multiclassing because I like how it does its archetype and multiclassing system so much. In other games I tried it in I always felt like I was missing out somehow, and not necessarily getting back something worth what I'd paid for outside of some fairly frontloaded classes.

Now I can multiclass to broaden what I want my character to do without having to worry about possibly hamstringing myself, and that makes multiclassing feel a lot better.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

The lore.

From the outside looking in for most of 1e, Pathfinder seemed like Yet Another D&D Setting, albeit one that sometimes reveled in pushing the envelope for edginess beyond what WotC would ever touch. I finally hopped aboard with the transition to 2e, and am now a big Golarion lore nerd! The pivot to a more nuanced and inclusive house style is a huge appeal, and large swathes of the setting are actually really, really compelling - though I’m never going to like Golarion goblins.

I'll agree, they have really made the setting their own and while I really really disliked PF1 (I had a bad time DMing 3.5) this has been a complete turn around for me in terms of well....everything! Mechanics are fresh and tight while still allowing depth, lots of options, etc. The biggest thing for ME however is the act of being inclusive without making a big deal out of it (looking at you WotC), which makes me feel like I am welcome in this game. The art shows people of all colors regardless of theme and location. There are places that aren't just fantasy Africa, they have a unique identity that is respectful of the source material. The fact that when casually reading about NPCs in the beginner box and its supplements you come across gay couples and nonbinary folk is amazing, plus there was a main class character that is trans (shaman if I recall)! Im loving the openness of the game itself and its something I have NEVER encountered in an RPG product.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I was and still am amazed that PF2 tells the same stories as PF1 but with a infinitely more balanced and tactical system.

And I find it incredible how robust the balance is, and that we have so much variety at the table without breaking the engine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The druid. I don't normally like to play druids. But the PF2 druid is a fun class that feels very powerful and useful to a party. Almost all their feats are good and it's a real challenge picking which ones to go with. Druid is probably the most versatile class to build in PF2 and has a lot of high quality feats.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am kind of repeating what some folks have already said, but:

1) GMing. I picked up the PF2 CRB because I was down a rabbit hole, reading through a bunch of non-5e d20 games and thinking about their relationship to each other. Reading PF2, I started to find myself really itching to run a game. & actually running it was great--I really liked how distinct creatures and npcs seemed from each other and how they had such colorful abilities.

I appreciated the pathos of the creatures, too. The fiction they came with made it much easier to tell interesting stories around them.

Weirdly, PC creation rules did neat things for me as a GM, too, often becoming a jumping off point from which I could build the narrative core of a session.

2) Golarion. Initially, it left me super cold, but the more I dipped into it, the more I picked up and used elements from it, the more I liked it. I thought the science fiction elements that led toward Starfinder would be a proud nail for me, but I kind of love them now?

3) The various subsystems (chases, infiltrations, etc.) in the Gamemastery Guide. I didn't know quite what to make of them when I first read through them, but I have been pleased how they work during play. They pace success and complications well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Free Archetype and ABP rules. At first I thought they were yet another gestalt in disguise optional ruleset, but after playing with it, if given the choice, I don't think I would ever GM nor play a game without those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Martial characters. I've avoided casters in PF2 because I can't shake the feeling that they got very little back for all the power taken out of their spells. Thankfully martial characters tend to interact well with the new 3-action system and are more fun than I thought they'd be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good/fun monk and ranger mechanics. 5e was my main system and playing the two classes that called to me the most was always a mechanical let down (that didn't stop me, but I couldn't dish out paladin or wizard level shenanigans or contributions). P2e blew out of the gate with a functioning ranger not mired in ribbon abilities capable of speccing into a working animal companion and a monk of various stances and anime/wuxia capabilities fully divorced from ki with ki opt in by way of focus abilities. Hunt prey and flurry of blows were resouceless, AS THEY SHOULD BE.......... just so, so much better. I've never looked back.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I love this thread! I think the biggest surprise love for me has been the character creation system. For the most part, it's incredibly fun, and now that I've gotten used to the things I don't like, sure, I still don't like them, but I'm able to focus on all the great stuff. The different types of feats? Absolutely brilliant. I adore it. I love getting to customize what kind of kobold I am, instead of just being a "kobold" with stock abilities and a few alternate traits. There are so many layers to character creation. It's a treat.

Also, I love kobolds no longer getting a Strength penalty. It's bizarre, I thought I'd hate it... but it makes sense. It's really grown on me. They're miners. Of course they're buff little devils. I've also come to like their Mouse Guard-esque designs a lot more than I did initially.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Martials.

I never played them in 1e, except to be powerful more helpful at low levels. Once I got past level 5 or so, and a caster had enough hp to survive an encounter with your everyday house cat, I'd always kill off retire the martial in favor of the caster so that I could continue dominating assisting in the party's goals. Casters simply offered far more options other than "I stab things" and were generally far more capable of manipulating contributing to the narrative.

Now, in 2e, I absolutely love martials. They're actually playable at all levels! Not just that, they're interesting and powerful at all levels of play too. I especially like the monk, as they just have oodles of different options ranging from tanking to high mobility and many others. I still play casters more often, but now I get to have fun and feel powerful no matter what class I choose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
roquepo wrote:
Free Archetype and ABP rules. At first I thought they were yet another gestalt in disguise optional ruleset, but after playing with it, if given the choice, I don't think I would ever GM nor play a game without those.

I'm curious why you like the ABP rules. I'm interested in them, but would love to hear the perspective of someone who has used them.

Would you say more about it?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Monk and Barbarian are two classes I’ve never reached for in other games, but adored straight out of the core rulebook. They’re home runs.

Psychic is shaping up to be the first Vancian caster I actually can bear to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I love this thread! I think the biggest surprise love for me has been the character creation system. For the most part, it's incredibly fun, and now that I've gotten used to the things I don't like, sure, I still don't like them, but I'm able to focus on all the great stuff. The different types of feats? Absolutely brilliant. I adore it. I love getting to customize what kind of kobold I am, instead of just being a "kobold" with stock abilities and a few alternate traits. There are so many layers to character creation. It's a treat.

Also, I love kobolds no longer getting a Strength penalty. It's bizarre, I thought I'd hate it... but it makes sense. It's really grown on me. They're miners. Of course they're buff little devils. I've also come to like their Mouse Guard-esque designs a lot more than I did initially.

Yea those shark heads made me do a double take the first time I saw them. Now I just consider it iconic. Definitely sets it apart as Paizo's kobold.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Applied_People wrote:
roquepo wrote:
Free Archetype and ABP rules. At first I thought they were yet another gestalt in disguise optional ruleset, but after playing with it, if given the choice, I don't think I would ever GM nor play a game without those.

I'm curious why you like the ABP rules. I'm interested in them, but would love to hear the perspective of someone who has used them.

Would you say more about it?

It makes GMing easier (having to track less treasure, specially the treasure that is considered mandatory, helps a lot), allows PCs to have several usable weapons while still having to specialize in one or two thanks to the property runes and makes handling and receiving loot more interesting imo. Finally, a lot of the "gold budget" you loose is siphoned into skill upgrades too, so players feel a bit more incentivized to use those.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
roquepo wrote:
Applied_People wrote:
roquepo wrote:
Free Archetype and ABP rules. At first I thought they were yet another gestalt in disguise optional ruleset, but after playing with it, if given the choice, I don't think I would ever GM nor play a game without those.

I'm curious why you like the ABP rules. I'm interested in them, but would love to hear the perspective of someone who has used them.

Would you say more about it?

It makes GMing easier (having to track less treasure, specially the treasure that is considered mandatory, helps a lot), allows PCs to have several usable weapons while still having to specialize in one or two thanks to the property runes and makes handling and receiving loot more interesting imo. Finally, a lot of the "gold budget" you loose is siphoned into skill upgrades too, so players feel a bit more incentivized to use those.

Thank you!

From a player's perspective, I imagine there are several benefits too.

- Not worrying that you're "behind" where you should be with your offensive and defensive capabilities (and skills as you point out).

- Not having to weigh keeping the "cool" item you looted vs. selling it for half its value to fund a "basic" purchase

- Less loot haggling and having to argue for why your ranged Magus deserves a fundamental armor rune as much as or more than the frontline Champion

- Less loot management and gold distribution responsibility

Any downsides for you as the GM and/or for your players?

For example, I'm thinking the narrative might be wonky...like why is my character suddenly able to make magical attacks?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Applied_People wrote:
- Less loot haggling and having to argue for why your ranged Magus deserves a fundamental armor rune as much as or more than the frontline Champion
This too. I hate being in this position.
Applied_People wrote:
For example, I'm thinking the narrative might be wonky...like why is my character suddenly able to make magical attacks?

You can say it is some type of inner magic the warrior is channelling through their weapons and armor. Like, they can't control the arcane to the point a mage can but just enought to channel their inner magical energy in a practical way.


My group is weird. We like doing that haggling and tracking, figuring out who would benefit most and handing out loot accordingly. It makes us feel more like a team to collectively decide on resources and who can best use them.

I'm glad that ABP exists for those who aren't as into that fiddliness though, for sure.

Wayfinders Contributor

13 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like that Attack of Opportunity is uncommon, which makes battlefields way more mobile and combat more tactical.

Hmm


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, I have to pronounce "attack of opportunity" way less.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's been brought up before, but multiclassing was the first thing I recoiled at when I got my playtest book. I think I mentally vowed not to touch it until maybe midway through the playtest period and fell in love. We're two years on now and plenty of dedications now fill in that niche of "I want to be a fighter, but one who does this," but multiclassing still holds up.

I came in expecting PF1 level dips and optimized frustration and left with the ability to create my own personal mark on the character. During the playtest I made a Red Mantis out of fighter with rogue and cleric dedications, a "ninja" with monk and rogue, and my mini-theurge with wizard and cleric. I'm now firmly in GMing territory, but I had fun exploring the options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I ended up liking the three action economy more than i thought.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Bulk.

At first I was 'OMG they dumbed it down, it sucks now'. Not that I fancied bookkeeping my toons' encumbrance down to the last potion bottle, but damn it if it was not realistic that pack-rats will suffer if they don't manage their loot or tools-of-the-trade responsibly. Can make things a headache for people who don't have STR as a main stat, compounded by the fact that your lonely +1 stat all four levels always goes into your main stat, which will more then likely not be STR.

But now? The more I interacted with the Bulk system, I learned that it simply works. And that's the best thing it can do, no?

Mayor things, like armour and weapons, those with actual Bulk values, you'll run out of Bulk capacity soon, even on a STR-based character. Better learn to prioritise! But lesser things, even light weapons (which are usually the ones a DEX-focused character might favour, and thus would be hurt even more by having to carry one or two primary weapons with full bulk) and some basic adventuring gear simply have that 0.1 Bulk, and you can always fit in a little extra bit of stuff, without having to worry about a fiddly weight in pounds or fractions thereof.

Basically, you can have 'that many big things' before it starts to weight you down, and for every 'big thing' you don't bring, get 10 'small things'. Instead. And it just works.

And that brings us to...

Multiple stat increases.

In 3.x/PF 1, your stat increases go into your main stat. That's it. If you put them anywhere else, you gimp yourself (ask any optimiser). Get a wish? Inherent bonus! Quest for those manuals/tomes of +stat or you'll never get to 34+ whatever, scrub!

But now? Sure, you will always up your 'to-hit'-stat, that is still a given, but why won't you. And then, if you wish, you can also max out your save stats. But that is not that important as some people seem to think. And it kinda 'throws a bone' to the DEX and WIS based classes, which can breathe a bit easier and up a stat of their choice freely. Why not go charisma on your Druid? Give the Rogue some extra INT, make all those knowledges and lores you can pick up left, right and centre work.

Finally, even stat-wise, high-level characters can be exceptional compared to 'mere mortals', showing that those 19 extra levels allowed them to grow as persons in all areas. And if one never graduates from that 8 CHA as a Dwarf, well, I suppose that can be very in-character too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to second that I ended up liking Golarion a lot more than I thought I would. I thought it was like Forgotten Realms, just another kitchen sink setting with a billion unnecessary gods. And while I still think it would be fine with fewer gods, once I realized Golarion is less "a setting" and more "a whole bunch of different settings that interact with each other" I started loving it.

Just started my first Golarion-based homebrew campaign in Ustalav and am having a great time.


Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I really like that Attack of Opportunity is uncommon, which makes battlefields way more mobile and combat more tactical.

Hmm

*Magus intensifies*

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Also, I have to pronounce "attack of opportunity" way less.

Oh, that's right! Kobolds have trouble with the "P" sound due to a lack of lips.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I love this thread, just for its title. Too many Let's bash PF2 threads these days for my taste.

Thank you.

Aww, thank you! As someone that has started a few negative sounding threads before in the past(but never with any ill intentions), I remembered that one of the devs mentioned in one of them (I think it was in one of them, at least) that positive reinforcement works just as well as negative reinforcement, concerning feedback. And, as you yourself said, there's been a consistent flux of threads with, hm... Punitive, I guess? Feedback.

Of course the forums represent a small portion of the player base, but still, it makes sense to me. Letting the devs know what we do like (especially when our expectations tended us toward a more negative view) lets them know in what to invest in the future as well, especially if there isn't a lot of content for that yet or it can be explored more deeply. cof influence subsystem cof /s

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, I can't choose just one part to like. Picking a feat every level is really great. I love having choices.

Raising a shield was something I expecting to hate, but it makes my champion really have choices in battle, even on their reaction. Do I raise my shield, or go for the longshot third strike on a near-dead enemy? Do I take the AoO I picked up, or save my reaction to prevent damage? If I prevent damage, do I prevent damage to me, or the rogue?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Getting rid of NPC classes. In my last PF1 campaign they were an important part of the world building so I was extremely worried. Turns out the new NPC rules work great and I don’t miss them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wild shape was 1000% this for me, to a T. At first, I was alarmed--wait, where's Wild Shape? Do only Shifter druids get it? I only get ten minutes? I can't turn into a bird until 8th level? I can't enhance my swimming or climbing or movement speed or anything until 3rd level??

But then I kept reading, trying to understand it. And honestly, it's... amazing. Focus Spells work so gracefully for wild shape, it's like they were designed just with it in mind. Reposting from my gripe thread (which isn't all negative nancying, you know :P):

Focus spells make wild shape into something I can do casually--morphing into a crow, a cat, a wolf, just to goof around or solve a particular task, not worrying about "wasting" the ability. At level 4, I can be a dog for 50 minutes, rest for ten, then be a dog for another fifty minutes, and keep doing that all day, never having to shift out. That's fantastic.

And I can turn into an animal at first level! Any animal, as long as I'm not determined to use movement speeds or the like! I was so disappointed with the Shifter--which I'm sure was a great class, it just wasn't what I was hoping for. Now, finally, I can shapeshift without a care. I can play a shapeshifter who just cheerfully morphs just to be expressive or to goof around. I am incredibly happy with this change.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Splitting apart NPC and PC character generation. Not having to jump through the hoops to justify why a creature dealt X amount of damage is really great and allows more focus to be placed on designing fun adventures.

I remember feeling like I'd miss the "honesty" of playing by mostly the same rules as the players in PF1, but there was always caveats like creatures getting a bunch of bonus feats/natural armor/other math-fixing abilities. It's much nicer to GM when you're explicitly supposed to just pick statistics by what feels right from a list.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought the +/- 10 Critical Hit/Miss system was going to be pure dog water but in time I found it to actually be one of the biggest upgrades in in the "core" mechanics of d20 RPGs made in decades.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists. I don't want to derail this thread, but I got into Alchemists because of all the stuff I read about them on these forums, and I just found myself thinking "they can't be *that* bad" so I went Alchemist when I decided to get into PFS.

Best decision I ever made, gaming wise. My now 9th-level semi-retired Bomber may be the most fun character I've ever played, in my 30 or so years of RPGs.


I'm so glad alchemists don't have to do bombing stuff anymore. It was an absurd pigeonholing to begin with.


You know what else I didn't think I would like, mostly because I hadn't considered it a whole ton? I really enjoy how the three action system interacts with natural weapons. It makes it way easier to grant abilities that let people have claws or fangs or horns or whatever when those abilities don't have to be balanced around the possibility that each new natural attack allows that character to roll the dice again when making a full attack, which was both a little mechanically wonky and also looked weird if you thought about it, with characters going at fast-forward speeds to do a full iterative with a weapon, attacks with their claws, bite, gore, slam, two wing strikes and a tail slap.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I also like the monster generation, because there's just "this is its level, so these are appropriate numbers", not

"well if I take a ghoul, turn it into a ghast (subtle advanced template) but make it young (bonus dex, size bonus to hit) and then give it a rogue level (which includes another set of ability bonuses) then by the rules it's only a CR 3 but by the numbers a whole lot more than that"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I love how straight forward PF2 is. It's really open to new players in a way PF1 was not. I started with PF1, kinda late into the dev cycle (I started in 2015/2016) and there was just..... so much stuff to do/use that it was insane. My GM tried to limit me to the Core book only, but the character idea I had fit the Magus, so I needed to look into Ult Magic, but even with only those 2 books, there was too much for little newbie me to fully understand until after like, a year of playing. With PF2? I had pretty decent mastery within the month, and I helped THREE new players learn the game, and after only 6 months they're really only lacking in keeping all their options in mind, which is a struggle even for our (literal and metaphorical) veteran of O.G. Gygaxian DnD 1st has issues with from time to time. It's just so... Welcoming, is the only word that comes to mind. You can hand someone the CRB and give them 2 weeks and they'll probably be table ready for a new session sans a few initial misunderstandings that every new player to a new system has.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A reddit post made be remember the two things that I was really worried about when switching. That was Martial vs Casters and Prepared casting. I mostly played 5e and PF1 Arcanist/Spontaneous Casters.

After playing enough Pathfinder 2e I found I actually enjoy casters the most in PF2 than any other version. The combination of focus spells, cantrips and lack of concentration from 5e make casters feel really fun along with the spell variety. There are a lot of fun spells :). The 4 degrees of success really make the spells feel more unique to me.

Biggest example is a basic spell like Fear is so much more interesting than most level 1 spells in other systems.

I was VERY worried I would hate playing prepared casters. After playing quite a bit of PF2E I love how it makes every character I play feel different. It is just so fun playing a Prepared Caster in Pathfinder Society.

For consistent groups of players I think I prefer spontaneous or flexible casters but in general it is so nice that the casting styles feel different.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I kind of really liked Warpriest??????

Didn't play it beyond a one-shot, but I loved shield tanking and buffing the party.

I also really liked how Monks fared with simply having higher unarmored proficiency.

The Exploration system was great too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am surprised that I enjoy the four levels of success (or not) so much. With basic saving throws it's pretty straightforward: a critical succes you take no damage, a success is half, failure is full, and critical failure is x2 damage. However, it really adds to gameplay when there can be significant consequences to everyone trying to make a skill check to identify an item or gather information/recall knowledge. Sometimes it's hard to come up with a believable fake item, good fake rumor, or a realistic falsely identified creature. However, within that design space is all kinds of opportunities for shenanigans, whether the PCs try to use an item in ways unintended for the object, are just confused, or respond by laughing out of character about the characters' assumptions (in my Extinction Curse campaign, certain demons are now known among the group as slime xulgaths).

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I also like the monster generation, because there's just "this is its level, so these are appropriate numbers", not

"well if I take a ghoul, turn it into a ghast (subtle advanced template) but make it young (bonus dex, size bonus to hit) and then give it a rogue level (which includes another set of ability bonuses) then by the rules it's only a CR 3 but by the numbers a whole lot more than that"

Yes, no more Young templates on shadows for CR 3 encounters that can take out 8th level parties, lol.

My favorite thing that I unexpectedly liked was wizards, just in general. I'd really gotten used to the idea that I was just never going to be happy playing one in PF1 because I was either going to be constantly underplaying my potential or making actively bad choices to not leave my party in the dust. Getting a wizard in PF2 who can have barrels of spells and be constantly magical without creating uncomfortable group dynamics or pushing "casters only" parties let me get back into wizards and really enjoy playing one without using some 3pp specialization class or archetype to focus the build for the first time in a very long time.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Never expected it would be so much fun to be a healer. Healing is *powerful* and being able to pull off big-time in-combat heals makes you feel like an all-star at the table. My first PF2E character was a fighter with the Medicine skill and Battle Medic skill feat, and I had so much fun healing in combat that I eventually added the Medic Archetype. Super fun stuff.


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

The Magus, I had kind of given up on anything ever matching my old 4e Swordmage for how fully realized a spellsword could be as its own thing, and the playtest version was neat, but not really doing it for me so I had resigned myself to the idea that it would be 'for someone else' and that I'd move onto the rest of the game's awesome concepts. Then the final version came out and it blew my mind-- the change in emphasis to the weapon styles and the specialized focus spells for each one was huge, especially Dimensional Assault for Laughing Shadow. Overall, it ended up being much, much, closer to what I originally wanted.

The Investigator, I was disinterested in the class completely during the playtest due to thinking of it primarily as a detective, but once I really looked at it in the final version, its become competitive for top dog in my heart, to let me play one of those 'scholar searching after ancient secrets' type characters, particularly as a platform for the Ritualist archetype. My friends tell me that I, IRL, am an Interrogator Investigator, what with pointed question and such. Its perfect for me who loves exploration and dungeon crawling and hidden passageways and lore.

The Summoner, not usually my bag in games but I ended up playing one in a 'Lets play our favorite NPC' session of a dual class game, the apprentice of my Wizard Emrys. Holy Crap Summoners are fun, especially at high level.

Finally guns, not really my thing in games either, but man, they're so fun to chart out and figure out which one to use and how to make the most of it's action economy. Double Barrel Muskets and Pistols are my favorite, and I wouldn't be shocked if I ended up playing a Gunslinger just because of the cool mechanical plan I have for my firing pattern, of all things.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What part of the game did you unexpectedly like? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.