| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading and rereading the rules to 2e for years now. Every so often I start watching a ton of 2e content creators on YouTube and generally I'm of the opinion that its probably the most well designed system to date, but I have a growing list of oddities, barriers to entry, or general silliness that make me hesitate.
I'd love feedback on any or all of the following issues:
1) Default character sheet is baaaaad.
2) Backgrounds are neat but just seem "extra" and unnecessary. Just get a stat boost and skill+lore of your choice. They're so unimportant why make me go through a list of "none of this is what I want"
3) Stat generation is neat, but hard to track in practice. I'd rather take the "standard array"
4) Every player needs a rulebook. Real DnD 4e energy on this one.
5) Trick Magic Item is a silly name, it's like your class doesn't actually let you know how to activate an item, the item just has a rule against letting you use it unless you pull a fast one on it.
6) Stronger enemies are more vulnerable to damage than weaker ones. Makes some sense mechanically, the vulnerability needs to scale with attacks at their challenge level to stay relevant, but seriously big bag dragon is so weak to cold that 3 damage becomes almost 30? That's SOME vulnerability.
7) I thought we were tryna go away from Save or Suck mechanics in modern TT? Why would Treat Wounds be save or suck? I got stuck by a goblin so a trained medic stitched me up. I got stabbed by two goblins and an master medic was like "I may have doubled the roll of the last medic but I'm sorry, I've completely forgotten how medicine works and can offer you no benefit. Like I get that you're trying to heal twice as much in the same amount of time but a medic isn't going to go "I can either try to stitch one of these stab wounds in 10 minutes, or try to rush through 2 in the same time." They're going to go "I have 10 minutes, lets see how many of these stab wounds I can sew." No fail forward at all?
8) Direct Damage cantrips are just terrible early on. Sure better than 1d3 ray of frost from 3.5 but still.
9) Cantrips quickly become more powerful than 1st level spells in terms of blasters. What are those slots for after that?
10) Focus spells add a needless layer of complexity and could have been wrapped into cantrip rules.
11) Math is far too high. Everybody is full base and also gets up to +8 beyond that before bonuses. It feels like 2e was made with VTTs that roll everything for you as the standard.
12) I get decision paralysis when choosing skill feats because none of them really seem all that good. Trying to theorycraft a rogue is particularly bad in this area. Did they really need so many of these?
13) Leveling is too complex in general.
13) Character creation is too complex in general. There's just so much going on both of these points, use of character generation and leveling apps is almost mandatory to play. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the customization level here but it would have been nice to do more with less. I don't think 1e struggled in the customization department and I found that much easier to follow.
14) Every class is a sorcerer. There are no "martial" classes. Everyone is a super hero at high levels and not because of feats of strength or skill, the rogue is literally so sneaky that they create illusory decoys? That's not skill that's magic. That's not a rogue that's an arcane trickster. DnD 4e energy again.
15) Martial classes should be simpler to play. The most 4e of all, and don't get me wrong I like that martials don't just stand there and trade blows until dead, and it's implemented worlds better than 4e in that they're not a lot of "once per day/once per encounter" martial skills because that made no sense. But they do keep gaining more and more abilities until their action list is big enough that you need a rulebook nearby or you can't really track it all. Do Fighters feel like wizards? No, but at my table we probably get into combat 25-50% as often as standard. We run pre-fabs and do a lot of "just the plot" fighting. Storming Hook Mountain plays a lot more like a movie than a video game (and not like, the Avengers). I feel like half as many strike options would be more than enough and this issue contributes to some other points like "leveling up is complicated"
I really *want* to like 2e, I had really high hopes, and DnD 5e was a disappointment, watered down and too simple, but 2e feels like a pretty wide swing the other way. I was hoping for a streamlined Pathfinder but ended up with this overwhelming system that begs to be run with Apps and browser based rulebooks to be playable. Which, on the one hand it's really neat that we have such powerful tools that we can play a system so complex with relative ease. I've seen YouTubers play really *fast* sessions on Foundry. And they obviously know exactly what to do and exactly what to click to get that to happen but I would 100% play a 1hr combat in 4hrs here with all the time my players would take thinking over their turn and constantly having to reference one of the *forty two* different conditions. But I don't want to play on my laptop I want to play on my notebook.
Please help. Talk me into it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My weekly game session starts in 5 minutes. Here are a few quick answers.
1) Other people think the character sheets are bad, too, so they made better ones. I hear the Dyslexic Character Sheets are good.
2) Yes, backgrounds are merely an excuse to give two stat boosts, a trained skill, and a skill feat. It no longer matters after character creation unless the player decided to make their background a significant part of their backstory. What's wrong with that?
4) The rulebook is available as a hypertext document for free online at the Archives of Nethys. It has all the players need except for some history and geography lore.
5) I think Trick Magic Item is a legacy name. It is more like unreliable basic instructions for non-spellcasters to use a wand. The purpose is that spells are powerful, so the game does not want the non-spellcasters to have reliable access to them.
7) Treat Wounds versus Save or Suck sound like two separate issues. The one-hour immunity to all Treat Wounds, except with the Continual Recovery skill feat, is to prevent repeated quick healing. Pretend any physician needs to let the body heal on its own for a little while before any more non-magical healing will work.
11) Yes, everyone adds full level to their trained attacks. But everyone also adds full level to their trained armor classes, too, so it balances out. The proficiency bonuses of expert, master, and legendary are necessary to have an advantage in Striking.
I don't think I can convince you that all of those things aren't issues but I can mention a couple of positive points and see if they sway you.
1) Balance.
The game is objectively more balanced than previous D20 fantasy games even if some classes are objectively a bit weak and some of the post-core classes are fiddly for no real gain in power compared to just being a fighter.
2) Tactical combat.
The balance and 3-action system makes for combats that aren't move-strike, full-attack, full-attack, victory and spells can't just end fights before they've even begun.
3) Ease of GMing.
The above means that the CR system actually works and that can make encounter design far easier for the GM which means less work and fewer campaigns that end due to GM burn-out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) What's wrong with it is that it makes character creation more difficult. I get the impression they were going for the opposite effect but that's the effect it has for me.
4) Reliance on technology at the table is a barrier for entry to me.
5) I understand not giving people access my gripe is entirely based on not liking it's name.
7) One hour immunity isn't the issue so much as attempting to heal at a more competent skill level results in an increased chance to heal anything at all.
11) You described my problem with it. Adding your full level to *everything* and then +8 and then bonuses leads to adding huge numbers for everything. Plus it's like, "well I leveled up again time to erase literally every number on my character sheet."
I appreciate you popping in before your game!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I can convince you that all of those things aren't issues but I can mention a couple of positive points and see if they sway you.
1) Balance.
The game is objectively more balanced than previous D20 fantasy games even if some classes are objectively a bit weak and some of the post-core classes are fiddly for no real gain in power compared to just being a fighter.
2) Tactical combat.
The balance and 3-action system makes for combats that aren't move-strike, full-attack, full-attack, victory and spells can't just end fights before they've even begun.
3) Ease of GMing.
The above means that the CR system actually works and that can make encounter design far easier for the GM which means less work and fewer campaigns that end due to GM burn-out.
All extremely good points.
I just wish we could have that without the whole thing being bloated and superfluous.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main reason to switch to PF2 in my opinion is it is vastly easier to DM and play without huge amounts of preparation across all levels. PF2 comes down to ease of running the game on a challenge setting I find enjoyable, while still having enough character customization I can enjoy building and playing a character. That is PF2's main advantage and why I switched with my group.
If I'm being honest, building characters was way more fun in PF1. Characters were more powerful in PF1. I liked being a player in PF1 more than I like being a character in PF2. But I like DMing PF2 way, way, way more than I liked DMing PF1.
PF1:
Player Enjoyment: 10
DM Enjoyment: 2
PF2:
Player Enjoyment: 7
DM Enjoyment: 9
5E:
Player Enjoyment: 8
DM Enjoyment: 3
Numbers are inexact, but give the basic idea of why I decided to switch and how I weighed each game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah it kinda feels like you get a lot more juice for less squeeze in PF1.
I DM so I'd look forward to the tight encounter balance I keep hearing about, but not all my players are as nerdy as I am so I have to get involved with character building a lot. It's a lot to go through and feels like "Yeah none of this matters" so its actually really hard to offer meaningful advice. (we made characters and played 1 or 2 sessions last year)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't want people to have to buy a copy of the rulebook, and you don't have access to the internet while you're playing, then it's going to be very difficult for both the GM and the players to follow the rules.
My point exactly.
We don't need more than 1 rulebook at our PF1 table because every character doesn't have an expansive list of abilities with very specific mechanics for each, so yes, every player needs a rulebook - digital or otherwise.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathbuilder2e
First, they are literally free for your character build. It isn't like they cost you a class feat to get.
Second, they are to help you build a character rather than just a stat block that defeats other stat blocks.
Third, they normally give you a Lore skill that is needed to participate in downtime Earn Income.
If none of the ones that are published already are to your liking, it isn't hard to create one of your own making that is.
Resistance and vulnerability values scale with the HP and typical damage of that level.
I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about here. Treat Wounds doesn't target a particular injury. You don't keep track of how much damage you took from each hit.
When Cantrips become more powerful than your 1st level spells, you will have 2nd and probably 3rd level spells.
Your highest couple of spell levels are for changing someones HP - either damage or healing. The lower level spells are for other things like buffing, debuffing, terrain navigation, or cute tricks.
Focus spells are for 1/encounter abilities. Or 2/encounter or even all the way up to 3/encounter abilities. You can spam a cantrip for 8 rounds if you need to. You can cast a spell from a spell slot only once per day. Focus spells are in between. You can cast them all day, but only a few times during any particular fight.
Math Teacher: Today we will be learning addition
Student: Bah, when are we ever going to use this in real life?
Yes.
Again, they are free in the sense that they don't cost you a class feat. Pick one that sounds like fun.
Pathbuilder2e
Pathbuilder2e
So you want a high level rogue to do what, exactly? Be completely outshone by a spellcaster and twiddle their thumbs going, 'ehh, just let me know once you have killed it and I can go back to disabling traps'?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
13) Leveling is too complex in general.
13) Character creation is too complex in general. There's just so much going on both of these points, use of character generation and leveling apps is almost mandatory to play. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the customization level here but it would have been nice to do more with less. I don't think 1e struggled in the customization department and I found that much easier to follow.
Also, exactly how much of PF1 were you playing?
I have built exactly one PF1 character in the last year. It took several hours a day for about 4 days to go through the bazillion and sixty options that are currently available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've been playing PF1 for over a decade now.
Most of your responses are "Pathbuilder2e" which is making my point for me.
I don't like that the game is so complex that you need external apps to play it.
Things like Backgrounds contribute to this, yes, they're free but they do COST something. They cost the energy it takes to go through them when previously, PF1 lets you put your stats where you want and skills where you want and then just say where you learned those things to come up with your background.
You can poke fun that I didn't listen to my math teacher about needing to use math but the point stands that I need a calculator to play this and don't want to, and don't so much in PF1.
I don't want the rogue twiddling their thumbs obviously. But I want them to shine as bright with *martial* prowess not magical.
My complaints with PF1 is the disparity between Martials and Casters, but my complaints about PF2 are piling up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so yes, every player needs a rulebook - digital or otherwise.I'm not understanding your point. Why can't your players share the PF2 rulebook just like they share the PF1 rulebook?
I think you're saying that PF2 is so much more complicated than PF2 that your players can't understand their character's attributes without a rulebook handy to consult before every round?
Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying.
Double sided knife that - I don't want "Vital Strike" or "Power attack" to be the only thing a martial can do, but PF2 feels like they have a *lot* and we may not be memorizing every attack - we certainly couldn't in 4th edition. You find it easy to track in PF2 once you get used to it?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've been playing PF1 for over a decade now.
Most of your responses are "Pathbuilder2e" which is making my point for me.I don't like that the game is so complex that you need external apps to play it.
Things like Backgrounds contribute to this, yes, they're free but they do COST something. They cost the energy it takes to go through them when previously, PF1 lets you put your stats where you want and skills where you want and then just say where you learned those things to come up with your background.
You can poke fun that I didn't listen to my math teacher about needing to use math but the point stands that I need a calculator to play this and don't want to, and don't so much in PF1.
All of this just makes me think that you haven't actually played PF1.
In PF1:
What is the normal attack bonus of a Fighter at level 18?
How many general feats do they have? How many are available?
How many combat feats do they have? How many are available?
I don't want the rogue twiddling their thumbs obviously. But I want them to shine as bright with *martial* prowess not magical.
Well sure, you could take things like Minor Magic and Loaner Spell. But Rogue also could stick to things like Bullseye and Stay Down if you don't want something that feels magical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've been playing PF1 for over a decade now.
Most of your responses are "Pathbuilder2e" which is making my point for me.I don't like that the game is so complex that you need external apps to play it.
Things like Backgrounds contribute to this, yes, they're free but they do COST something. They cost the energy it takes to go through them when previously, PF1 lets you put your stats where you want and skills where you want and then just say where you learned those things to come up with your background.
You can poke fun that I didn't listen to my math teacher about needing to use math but the point stands that I need a calculator to play this and don't want to, and don't so much in PF1.
All of this just makes me think that you haven't actually played PF1.
In PF1:
What is the normal attack bonus of a Fighter at level 18?
How many general feats do they have? How many are available?
How many combat feats do they have? How many are available?I don't want the rogue twiddling their thumbs obviously. But I want them to shine as bright with *martial* prowess not magical.Well sure, you could take things like Minor Magic and Loaner Spell. But Rogue also could stick to things like Bullseye and Stay Down if you don't want something that feels magical.
Fighter is one class which, in particular is defined by the number of extra feats and static bonuses it gets. Hardly a fair comparison.
Take the Monk, which is rather feature heavy, there are no dead levels but there are plenty of levels where you get a thing without having to flip through a ton of choices you need to make.
You want to play a fighter you get fighter but not every class does that.
"If you don't want your martial to be magical don't take the magic-like options" is fair. I think I'm just sour about 4e on that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading and rereading the rules to 2e for years now. Every so often I start watching a ton of 2e content creators on YouTube and generally I'm of the opinion that its probably the most well designed system to date, but I have a growing list of oddities, barriers to entry, or general silliness that make me hesitate.
I'd love feedback on any or all of the following issues:1) Default character sheet is baaaaad.
2) Backgrounds are neat but just seem "extra" and unnecessary. Just get a stat boost and skill+lore of your choice. They're so unimportant why make me go through a list of "none of this is what I want"
3) Stat generation is neat, but hard to track in practice. I'd rather take the "standard array"
4) Every player needs a rulebook. Real DnD 4e energy on this one.
5) Trick Magic Item is a silly name, it's like your class doesn't actually let you know how to activate an item, the item just has a rule against letting you use it unless you pull a fast one on it.
6) Stronger enemies are more vulnerable to damage than weaker ones. Makes some sense mechanically, the vulnerability needs to scale with attacks at their challenge level to stay relevant, but seriously big bag dragon is so weak to cold that 3 damage becomes almost 30? That's SOME vulnerability.
7) I thought we were tryna go away from Save or Suck mechanics in modern TT? Why would Treat Wounds be save or suck? I got stuck by a goblin so a trained medic stitched me up. I got stabbed by two goblins and an master medic was like "I may have doubled the roll of the last medic but I'm sorry, I've completely forgotten how medicine works and can offer you no benefit. Like I get that you're trying to heal twice as much in the same amount of time but a medic isn't going to go "I can either try to stitch one of these stab wounds in 10 minutes, or try to rush through 2 in the same time." They're going to go "I have 10 minutes, lets see how many of these stab wounds I can sew." No fail forward at all?
8) Direct Damage cantrips are just terrible...
Okay, let's tackle this, then.
1. If you're adverse to using sheets and would rather use an "app" to keep track of your character, the Pathbuilder 2E app for phones is a far more intuitive "character sheet" to work with, and can be used to "template" your character onto an actual sheet with a printer. I would honestly say that having a hand-written one becomes annoying when you level, given that proficiencies affect a lot of things, and change between every level (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the bookkeeping for it is tedious).
2. Backgrounds aren't necessarily meant to be something that is meant to tie a character down to being extremely specific. That's not to say that Backgrounds are perfect, but I don't mind that you can take a Background that has as little or as much to do with your character as you want it to, either in-adventure or mechanically. It would have been nice if there were ways to make Backgrounds more relevant in-game, either on the player side (such as with feats) or on the GM side, but I've seen worse things implemented.
3. The ABC method of PF2 is hardly difficult to track compared to previous character generation methods of PF1 or D&D 3.X, especially when the rules essentially spell it out as much. Arrays are simple and balanced, but also pretty generic and uninteresting. However, given how much they back-pedaled on certain attribute generation aspects, and how much they wanted to remove the whole "trap" character generation possibility, it might have been simpler to give an array, but honestly, there is nothing stopping GMs from doing this if they feel their table is fine with it, and can just relegate the Ancestry choices more for flavor, feats, and starting HP/size. Haven't seen a table do this yet, but I'm sure at least one table has; if not, be the first and let us know how it goes!
4. Not necessarily. If the players and GM are familiar enough with the rules, a rulebook isn't needed by every player, especially if everyone understands the basics of the game. If you feel you need rules information, but don't have enough books laying around for everyone to pour through, the Archives of Nethys website, officially sponsored by Paizo, has most all of the current rules for the game posted on it.
5. Trick Magic Item is more for spellcasting-based items (or items you otherwise lack the capacity to activate), which is why there is "a rule against letting you use it unless you pull a fast one on it." Since activating spellcasting-based items requires the ability to cast spells in the first place, the feat lets you effectively "cheat" having this capacity to do so for a limited time as an action. And honestly, "Cheat Magic Item" sounds like a very badly written thing to list as a feat name, since this implies you're cheating, which is a poor light to paint for the players who want to take this feat.
6. Weaknesses are more of a reverse of Resistances, which can also apply regardless of whether an effect deals damage or not. And your example is a little extreme, as almost no enemy has a Weakness value that high. Also, the Dragon might have casted Resist Energy against Cold on themself during or prior to combat, either reducing or eliminating such a Weakness otherwise being present, which is quite likely.
7. "Save or Suck" refers to when you have to succeed at a Saving Throw or basically be taken out. Treat Wounds is, by nature, a Skill Check. Therefore, the comparison to it being "Save or Suck" doesn't really make sense. Your main complaint, however, still doesn't hold up from a simulationist perspective, because sometimes treatments that can be more potent require more precise skill, and botching can result in not getting the desired result (i.e. a failure), or causing more harm than help (i.e. a critical failure). Mechanically, having a "fail forward" benefit would make Medicine far more ubiquitous than what it already is. This issue more readily applies to the skill feat Battle Medicine; realistically, a character cannot be stitched up of serious wounds within 2 seconds (the average real time of a single action), nor should it be effective if the character suffered Mental damage, for example. But certain things (especially the mundane stuff like this) requires enough suspension of disbelief from a simulationist standpoint for us to accept what these things do mechanically.
8. In another thread on this forum, at 1st level, an optimized spellcaster using a cantrip like Ray of Frost does 1D4+4 damage on a hit to an enemy. An optimized archer martial using a Shortbow to hit does 1D6 damage, with the opportunity to hit twice, doubling that damage (the same number of actions as Ray of Frost). The average damage between these two action load-outs are within 1 point of each other. Now, the scaling isn't the best, but Cantrips aren't meant to be comparable to martial-based damage, especially later on in the game.
9. Lower level slots become more used for utility options than anything. That second level Acid Arrow can instead be used for See Invisibility, for example. That Fireball at 3rd level can instead be substituted for Slow, a spell that does the same amount of effect regardless of level, and reducing the action loadout of a higher level enemy is far better than a mere 6D6 fire damage with a save that they are likely to save against. Remember that Cantrips count as a spell level equal to the highest level spells you can cast, meaning a 2nd level Cantrip is a higher level than a 1st level spell slot.
10. Focus spells are meant to provide "per encounter" powers to characters without having to resort to spell slots or cantrips, as Focus spells are meant to be stronger than cantrips, but weaker than spell slots, if that makes sense. I can agree that the Focus spells section for certain characters could be made clearer, since the idea of "Focus cantrips" are introduced with classes like Bard, whom can perform Focus spells that don't take Focus points, hence the term "Focus cantrip."
11. For martials, the math isn't terribly difficult, and honestly, the character sheet figures out most of the bonuses for you. Short of being affected by buff spells, MAP, or conditions, your total to-hit value written down on your sheet is likely going to be the value you add to your dice roll. And damage dice only scale out of control if you invest in it (such as a Power Attack at 19th level with a Major Striking weapon), with static modifiers being not that prevalent. For spellcasters, the number of dice can get annoying with blasting spells; a 10th level Fireball (if you so choose to cast one) deals 20D6 damage, meaning you need 20 six-sided dice if you want to roll it all in one shot.
12. There are some skill feats that are situational or useless or rarity-gated, but a good method for choosing skill feats is to follow what skill training you improve, since using skill feats associated with your most trained skills means you're getting the best use out of those feats (and getting access to better/stronger skill feats). This isn't to say that some skill feats with merely being trained is bad, as some skill feats don't really scale, but optimizers tend to go the path described above, which makes sense, since in this game you can't have one person doing everything and everyone else is just along for the ride.
13a. Levels aren't necessarily difficult to adjudicate. You just add class HP (plus Constitution, and Toughness if you have it), look at your class features listed for the given level, and apply them. The only thing that gets annoying is having to erase/change all the values affected by proficiency, which takes time. If you run the Pathbuilder 2E app, though, it adjusts these values for you automatically once you set your level.
13b. Character creation is complex in that there are a lot of options that are similar (but with slight relevant differences) and that there are plenty of ways to build a given character, but honestly, I couldn't build certain classes if I wanted, and I couldn't build multiples of certain classes if I wanted, simply because I'm either lacking important stuff or I'm not seeing other viable options for the character I'm building. It's honestly simpler to go with a concept and look and see what options best enable that concept than it is to just take a class and see if you can build a class that works with it. Otherwise, just stick to the ABCs method spelled out in the introduction of the book. Compared to previous editions, in my opinion, this isn't really any better or worse.
14. I would disagree that there are no "feats of strength or skill," when there are skill feats that let you literally divebomb from Golarion's outer atmosphere onto the planet without taking a single point of damage, and feats where you can pull a Skyrim by stealing equipped Full Plate from a guard. There are plenty of other ones out there, but these are the ones that come to mind. Also, I'm not sure how to counter the "everyone is a sorcerer/super hero" argument because it would require me to understand what you want high level or different class play to mean in this context. It would be helpful if you explained what you expect high level/different class play to be like; would basic Goblins still be threatening to Level 18 characters, for example? Should Fighters not have the ability to gain Focus spells or Bloodlines via Multiclassing? If so, the Proficiency Without Level/Bounded Accuracy rules would apply here, or you can just disallow Multiclassing altogether, as an example.
15. Honestly, martials having more options means they can tackle more situations. Power Attack is great for punching through resistant/high AC enemies. Knockdown means you can keep enemies on the ground and reliably trigger Attacks of Opportunity for you and the party. Whirlwind Attack is awesome for those fights where you're surrounded by the enemy. Saying they have too many actions to choose from only makes sense when you have actions that can apply to every situation, and they don't. You can't use Power Attack when you are relegated to a bow and arrow or a thrown weapon. You can't use Knockdown if the enemy is flying by nature of being unable to reach them. Whirlwind Attack is a bad feat to use against single or few enemies. Heck, some of these feats aren't even actions, and can either improve existing actions, or just provide passive benefits. I've been in a few groups that have played to higher level, and the martials have still be doing the same stuff they do for levels upon levels, and very rarely have I seen them not do their schtick, or have a reliable back-up option that's noteworthy enough to not forget to use instead.
Hope these clarifications help!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter is one class which, in particular is defined by the number of extra feats and static bonuses it gets. Hardly a fair comparison.
Take the Monk, which is rather feature heavy, there are no dead levels but there are plenty of levels where you get a thing without having to flip through a ton of choices you need to make.
You still haven't answered my question. Perhaps Fighter isn't the right class to ask about. But I am not sure Monk is either.
How about Rogue, where every other level you need to pick one of these and every third level you need to pick one of these.
And yet somehow you think that PF2 is the bloated one...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s entirely possible 2E might not be for you and that’s okay. Trust your instincts. As is true of all systems RP can happen no matter what but it’s no secret the core Rulebook goes the great length and a lot of class features are centered around the combat aspect. It might not be for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter is one class which, in particular is defined by the number of extra feats and static bonuses it gets. Hardly a fair comparison.
Take the Monk, which is rather feature heavy, there are no dead levels but there are plenty of levels where you get a thing without having to flip through a ton of choices you need to make.
You still haven't answered my question. Perhaps Fighter isn't the right class to ask about. But I am not sure Monk is either.
How about Rogue, where every other level you need to pick one of these and every third level you need to pick one of these.
And yet somehow you think that PF2 is the bloated one...
Every other and every third is less than every level there is something and a lot of it is superfluous. And a Rogue at level 18 is going to have something like a +23 to hit? Does that sound about right? Whereas in 2e it's going to be something more like 34? I've seen people get up to +20 at level 5 in 2e (under very specific circumstances, admittedly).
@Darksol That is extremely thorough, I was expecting most to just pick at 4 or 5 of them at their leisure. Most of what you said I can't argue with, except that I still wish I didn't have to dig through all the crunch a lot of the time. PF1 was crunchy, this is a jawbreaker.
On the topic of Cantrip vs Shortbow you it should also be noted that the archer is going to be getting 1d6/8 precision damage probably as well.
And Focus spells are just the worst. One of my players is a Sorcerer and they would have like 4 different kinds of magic. You got your spell slots, and they don't deal more damage per level unless you upcast them but that is essentially no different than learning a new spell. Except there are also signature spells, those can always upcast even if you don't learn it at that slot. And then you've got cantrips, those you can cast and they don't take a slot and they're always upcast to the highest you qualify for. And then there's Focus spells, which also don't take spell slots but you also can't cast them all the time you cast them with Focus points which come back once per rest but only if you've used one since your last rest which is kindof like you have ONE focus point that always gets used first and it comes back when you rest and you have these focus points which you can fall back on if you used your regening one but those don't come back when you rest.
That's a lot. Even if a some of that is from the added complication of the Sorcerer over the wizard who wouldn't need to deal with the Signature spell portion - Focus spells are complex to explain. They're fine in practice I suppose, but I feel like I'd want to color code them on my character sheet (this one comes back) haha.
In 1e, he's an elemental sorcerer and its "here are your spell slots, here are your infinite use spells, and here is your non-spell elemental blast you can use 7 times a day" That's a lot simpler. Even simpler when you consider that the cantrips are all so worthless in combat you may as well not learn them, but that's hardly a point in 1e's favor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, one of my players has come back at me with
"Shutup and enjoy your three action economy you ungrateful swine" haha.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. If you're adverse to using sheets and would rather use an "app" to keep track of your character, the Pathbuilder 2E app for phones is a far more intuitive "character sheet" to work with, and can be used to "template" your character onto an actual sheet with a printer. I would honestly say that having a hand-written one becomes annoying when you level, given that proficiencies affect a lot of things, and change between every level (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the bookkeeping for it is tedious).
He's saying the official Paizo sheet is garbage, which is undeniably true. Paizo could have put work into a better sheet and along side it better fillable and automated sheets but they instead left that to 3rd parties.
2. Backgrounds aren't necessarily meant to be something that is meant to tie a character down to being extremely specific. That's not to say that Backgrounds are perfect, but I don't mind that you can take a Background that has as little or as much to do with your character as you want it to, either in-adventure or mechanically. It would have been nice if there were ways to make Backgrounds more relevant in-game, either on the player side (such as with feats) or on the GM side, but I've seen worse things implemented.
Backgrounds should have either been more detailed or made entirely freeform. The way they are is passable but not great.
I agree on the rest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading and rereading the rules to 2e for years now. Every so often I start watching a ton of 2e content creators on YouTube and generally I'm of the opinion that its probably the most well designed system to date, but I have a growing list of oddities, barriers to entry, or general silliness that make me hesitate.
I'd love feedback on any or all of the following issues:
OK let's go!
1) Default character sheet is baaaaad.
Yes, it has a lot of bad stuff (although I think the versions that are specific to each class are cool). But let's be honest, the one on the 5e is too! But it's kind of the thing that there are lots of alternative versions on the internet. Just look around and you'll probably find one you like.
2) Backgrounds are neat but just seem "extra" and unnecessary. Just get a stat boost and skill+lore of your choice. They're so unimportant why make me go through a list of "none of this is what I want"
The idea of backgrounds is to give your character a background. If you've got a background idea, great use the Deep Backgrounds rules and adjust your abilities, skill, lore and skill feat accordingly.
If you don't have it (or want to worry too much about having it) just search for a backgroud that contains what you want in terms of abilities, skill feat and skill.
The idea is just to make sure that your character has a background and that this has some relation to his current characteristics.
3) Stat generation is neat, but hard to track in practice. I'd rather take the "standard array"
Serious!?
Do you prefer that system where you have a bunch of points with different weights that you have to keep distributing balancing like a scale?Or that completely random thing where you roll 4 d6s and discard 1? Where depending on luck can a player end up being very strong or very weak for the rest of the game just because of luck?
Honestly, I don't know how you can see so much difficulty tracking stat points, it's simply:
After choosing what you're going to receive, just add it all up and you're done. Honestly it's much simpler!
Yet if you are dissatisfied with that, there are variant rules to suit all tastes.
4) Every player needs a rulebook. Real DnD 4e energy on this one.
What your players really need are copies of the Actions and Conditions pages at the end of the Character Sheet Pack. But if you don't have it, no problem. There's a Reddit thread that already made a downloadable and printable version of them.
As a GM, you need the GM Screen.
If you have both, you will very rarely hunt anything in the book other than the description of very rare spells or similar options that you need see the description (although I strongly recommend using a cell phone to research this in AoN).
5) Trick Magic Item is a silly name, it's like your class doesn't actually let you know how to activate an item, the item just has a rule against letting you use it unless you pull a fast one on it.
It's a heritage name from the times where this was a skill almost exclusive to Rogues.
6) Stronger enemies are more vulnerable to damage than weaker ones. Makes some sense mechanically, the vulnerability needs to scale with attacks at their challenge level to stay relevant, but seriously big bag dragon is so weak to cold that 3 damage becomes almost 30? That's SOME vulnerability.
Look, the value is not that high (a dragon's greatest weakness is 20), and remember that these are creatures that have more than 2x the hp of a barbarian.
Anyway, the idea of this mechanic is that characters who have small sources of alternative damage, such as alchemists, can exploit these weaknesses more easily.
7) I thought we were tryna go away from Save or Suck mechanics in modern TT? Why would Treat Wounds be save or suck? I got stuck by a goblin so a trained medic stitched me up. I got stabbed by two goblins and an master medic was like "I may have doubled the roll of the last medic but I'm sorry, I've completely forgotten how medicine works and can offer you no benefit. Like I get that you're trying to heal twice as much in the same amount of time but a medic isn't going to go "I can either try to stitch one of these stab wounds in 10 minutes, or try to rush through 2 in the same time." They're going to go "I have 10 minutes, lets see how many of these stab wounds I can sew." No fail forward at all?
Look, it's not like having a glitch effect would help that much.
Also, because it is a skill with fixed CDs, you can use Assurance to automatically pass tests from level 9 and the way to interpret the skill results is up to you and/or the player.
For example, a failure could simply mean that the complexity of the wound (due to the tissues, bones, arteries and even organs) affected was so high that even your attempts at treatment were not enough to treat and close these wounds and that because of that you will need to work longer on them.
8) Direct Damage cantrips are just terrible early on. Sure better than 1d3 ray of frost from 3.5 but still.
It depends on the cantrip.
In fact, there is a wide range of usefulness within the different existing cantrips. But some of them like Electric Arc are potent enough to compete with 1st level spells in terms of average damage.
Others that have the attack trait are more situational and work better in cases where the target is off guard and/or scared or has similar debuffs to their AC, or else to be used by specific skills for them like spellstrike.
9) Cantrips quickly become more powerful than 1st level spells in terms of blasters. What are those slots for after that?
Cantrips were designed to compete with even 1st-level spells, at least in terms of damage.
This is easy to understand when you only have 1-3 spell slots at 1st level to use all day. This makes these spell slots more useful for "special attacks" against strong opponents such as using Magic Missiles or Spellstrike with Shocking Grasp.10) Focus spells add a needless layer of complexity and could have been wrapped into cantrip rules.
Focus spells are almost as strong as spellslot spells and with the added advantage that you can practically recharge them between each fight.
Focus spells like Elemental Blast are practically as strong as fireballs and at high levels you can spam them up to 3x per combat making them an excellent way to get a caster to preserve their spellslots in "very long days".
11) Math is far too high. Everybody is full base and also gets up to +8 beyond that before bonuses. It feels like 2e was made with VTTs that roll everything for you as the standard.
Is this serious?
In PF1/3.x you normally add up to +6 depending on your spellcasting attribute already at level 1 (BAB+Stat).At 5e it adds up to about +5 (Stat+Proficiency)
In PF2 normally the sum is +6 or +8 in the case of fighters and gunslingers.
With the exception of 5e, all systems increase these bonuses with the level or a fraction of it. Honestly, I don't see any significant difficulties here.
12) I get decision paralysis when choosing skill feats because none of them really seem all that good. Trying to theorycraft a rogue is particularly bad in this area. Did they really need so many of these?
Here's something I agree with, but only very partially.
If you are doing a build choosing your skills depending on the feat you are going to use, OK there will be dozens of feats to analyze. But if you've already chosen your skills, your options are greatly diminished because of skill proficiency prerequisites.
For me today, the question of ancestry and archetype feats is much more paralyzing than the skill ones.
13) Leveling is too complex in general.
If you compare it with D&D/PF1, yes it is more complex, because there are options. The alternative would be to not have these options.
13) Character creation is too complex in general. There's just so much going on both of these points, use of character generation and leveling apps is almost mandatory to play. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the customization level here but it would have been nice to do more with less. I don't think 1e struggled in the customization department and I found that much easier to follow.
Yes, I especially agree when choosing an ancestry, heritage and archetype. But again, the alternative was to have fewer options, which is not necessarily a good thing.
I don't think it needs character generation and level progression apps. Character building is relatively easy and simple, as it is almost the same for all classes, with only minor variations.What really delays and is where online tools really help is when looking for the available options to see which one to choose, which are many. But it's not like other systems don't have similar problems, in PF1 there are a huge number of combinations of classes, archetypes and prestige classes and feats to choose from, in 5e there are far fewer options, but when putting together several different books, you are also played in a myriad of races, bios, classes, subclasses and feats to choose from.
Honestly, in the middle of 2023, I see little reason not to use online tools in any TTRPG.
14) Every class is a sorcerer. There are no "martial" classes. Everyone is a super hero at high levels and not because of feats of strength or skill, the rogue is literally so sneaky that they create illusory decoys? That's not skill that's magic. That's not a rogue that's an arcane trickster. DnD 4e energy again.
This exists in large part to help equalize the martial with the spellcasters, precisely to end the stigma that in a fantasy world, either you cast or you will end up dying to that creature that is flying nonstop and spitting fire or some other kind of energy against you with just a sword and a few strikes.
15) Martial classes should be simpler to play. The most 4e of all, and don't get me wrong I like that martials don't just stand there and trade blows until dead, and it's implemented worlds better than 4e in that they're not a lot of "once per day/once per encounter" martial skills because that made no sense. But they do keep gaining more and more abilities until their action list is big enough that you need a rulebook nearby or you can't really track it all. Do Fighters feel like wizards? No, but at my table we probably get into combat 25-50% as often as standard. We run pre-fabs and do a lot of "just the plot" fighting. Storming Hook Mountain plays a lot more like a movie than a video game (and not like, the Avengers). I feel like half as many strike options would be more than enough and this issue contributes to some other points like "leveling up is complicated"
I even understand your point. But do you really want to pass 20 levels limited to half a dozen actions? Or gain a new different action option only every 4-5 levels?
I really *want* to like 2e, I had really high hopes, and DnD 5e was a disappointment, watered down and too simple, but 2e feels like a pretty wide swing the other way. I was hoping for a streamlined Pathfinder but ended up with this overwhelming system that begs to be run with Apps and browser based rulebooks to be playable. Which, on the one hand it's really neat that we have such powerful tools that we can play a system so complex with relative ease. I've seen YouTubers play really *fast* sessions on Foundry. And they obviously know exactly what to do and exactly what to click to get that to happen but I would 100% play a 1hr combat in 4hrs here with all the time my players would take thinking over their turn and constantly having to reference one of the *forty two* different conditions. But I don't want to play on my laptop I want to play on my notebook.
Dude, what you described throughout this post was basically: "The bad thing about PF2 is that it is more complex than 5e. But 5e is very simple." But for another 15 threads what you pretty much described were the differences from 5e to PF2, with the exception of balance and GM issues.
A lot of things, in my opinion, are overvalued and affect much less the day-to-day game sessions or simply are or lack of preparation (like leaving the descriptions of the actions and skills of the characters sheets noted on a sheet together to them to avoid re-consulting the books), or aversion to technological solutions at the table, or simple strangeness even at the differences between the systems.
If you still can't enjoy the game, then it's probably not for you, and you might need to consider going back to 5e or PF1.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starting to think OP never wanted to be convinced here, folks.
I will echo others and say that Pathbuilder is a lovely free resource that's well worth tinkering with.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please help. Talk me into it!
No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 grew on me the more I played it. I did miss some of the amazing character power of PF1, but when I had to DM PF1 it brought back nightmares. Whereas PF2 I DM and everything feels smooth with the ability to use challenges as they are designed in the module or as written in the Bestiary. I can literally have level 20 characters show up and build an encounter for them that will feel challenging in 10 minutes using the monster as written in the book.
Leaves me more time role-playing and focusing on the adventure versus monster modification to challenge insanely powerful PF1 characters.
I'd give it a shot and see if it grows on you. Monsters are pretty cool. The three action system allowed for a lot more interesting monster and encounter design.
Characters are still fun. You can build them a lot different ways and try to capture almost any class visually even if the pure power is not there.
It's game definitely more balanced for a shared gaming experience between a DM and the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@YuriP
1) Someone else posted a character generator that had images of these class specific sheets but no way to download blank ones without actually going through the process of building one it looked like. Do you happen to have a link? I've looked through some others and none really "fit" me.
2) Ohh Deep Backgrounds is what I want. Pity that's not default because it's a lot less to dig through but in an ABC kind of way it's a hand-holdy way to do it which you would think helps new players. Personally I literally had a player break down and say "we'll have to come back to this I need to read all of these and agonize over this decision for a week."
I'm not kidding.
3) Yeah I didn't love the weights to the point-buy either and I don't mind getting +2 to "this and that" but unless you're assigning the boosts as you go it was hard to track as a newb. Like if you're targeting a certain stat distribution it's best to wait until the end to assign anything and then its "I get a free boost from this, and this, or was it this? And this gives me a free boost but only to X or Y and am I missing one?" which is way harder than just getting ancestral boosts and boost to your classes main stat and then "here are an extra X boosts to put wherever, don't go over (16? 18? whatever is normal).
Don't get me wrong I *love* rolling stats but it's sweet and sour so we usually take the "standard array" option where they give you the exact stats and you assign them and then apply racial bonuses.
4) It seems I need more table experience at mid-levels to judge fairly.
5) What was wrong with "Use magic device" from PF1?
6) Yeah, I get it from a mechanical viewpoint. Feels silly still.
7) Yeah but if you had choses to attempt to be less helpful you would have healed them. That doesn't make sense. Your roll should determine how well you help them you shouldn't have this all or nothing thing it's got going. Still the best implementation of non-magical healing in an RPG to date, and I want wounds to be impactful not something you shrug off. That's a hard mark to hit, but I don't think Paizo hit it in this case.
(8-10 I've discussed with others, and like, I get it - just don't love it)
11) In the case of casters, your bonus was 1/2 your level plus your stat. Now it's your full level, plus your stat, and plus your prof beyond that. This is substantially more, less "more" for the "tanks" but still more.
12) I didn't explicitly say it, but I do include ancestry feats in with this point. I like the concept but I would really prefer to let my ancestry stuff be set and forget. Or have general feats I could use for skill feats or extra ancestry feats, which, in PF1 would be one of these two things every 3 levels. I've seen some others talk about how much bigger the feat list is in PF1 especially after 10 years of content. But PF2 will get there eventually too if you continue to let every player use every option from every book. And PF1 was a lot more "get +2 to this thing" and less "Here's a new thing you can do in this very specific circumstance" which is more interesting sure, but harder to pick between.
13) That's a fair take, but our table rarely dives that far away from Core/Adv/ultimate magic it's really not all that many classes and archetypes to go through.
15) Honestly yeah. I feel like this combat system is SO crunchy (in the good way) that you can get away with only having half a dozen options at level 20 combined with a potentially infinite number of circumstances. The simple act of kicking over a table (admittedly a low level example) is enough to make your action interesting and add a lot of enjoyment to your next attack based on any number of effects that could create - candles lighting a tapestry on fire, drinks splashing on your enemies just enough for even like -1 to their AC. A lot less effective than these new actions you're getting but more flavorful to begin with. This along with the skill feats, a lot of it could just be handled with the fact that you can roll up to a 50 on any of your main skills by the end. You don't need a feat to run across the surface of water for a square or two you rolled a FIFTY whatever you did with that was a feat by the definition of the word if not by definition of the game term.
On your last note, you're not wrong. 5e is far too simple. I wanted PF1 but balanced and streamlined got PF1 but balanced and *un*streamlined. I'm just disappointed is all and sad about it because I'm such a Paizo fan. And I'm not *totally* against using your cell phone to look up a thing real quick but it's the seeming *requirement* to use it in all aspects of the game. Most people tell me "this isn't an issue if you use X character creator" and "This isn't an issue if you use Foundry" and like I said, I kinda do think its neat we're able to have this crunchy a game because we have such easy to use tech these days. But when I DM I like to describe things with my hands a lot, I'll stand up and demonstrate and I guess I'm showing my age in that I don't want to *rely* on the tech.
I really appreciate you and everyone taking the time to respond to my wall of text of admittedly pedantic complaints!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starting to think OP never wanted to be convinced here, folks.
I will echo others and say that Pathbuilder is a lovely free resource that's well worth tinkering with.
Okay but, is it not fair to critique that one shouldn't *need* 3rd party tools to be able to play?
I'm sorry you feel I was disingenuous about wanting to be convinced, I'm enjoying the conversation and feedback.
It really does seem like it would be really fun to play, its just everything that happens away from the table that's holding me back.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have not found the abilities to require too much look up past learning the initial rules. Most abilities are written very simply.
One of the learning curves pf PF2 is the tags. Certain tags have certain associated rules. It takes some time to commit them to memory. Sometimes players will think something is better than it is until you look closer at the tag, which puts a limiter in place that will make an ability less attractive.
It's overall not much different than having to know how things work in PF1 with stacking bonuses, different action types, and such save that you need to learn the abilities in PF2 which you will commit to memory the more you play.
But keep a close eye on the tags. One example I recall off the top of my head is the Press tag. It means an ability can only be used when you have a Multiple Attack Penalty (MAP). So that usually means only on the second attack or later when you are penalized. There are tags like the Open tag meaning the ability can only be used if you haven't used an action with the attack trait yet.
Tags and number of actions are the big difference between PF1 and PF2 versus action, full round action, immediate action, and swift action. Once you learn action numbers and tags, it plays fast like PF1 (maybe faster).
You'll have a learning curve going in, but after that curve it should run even more quickly and smoothly than PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said above, I *know* I'm being pedantic. I dunno, I guess I just wanted some of my complaints to be validated and to be told "you're not wrong; but just play it." which I think largely I have been.
Maybe you're right Deriven and I just need to make 20 characters over 10 years and it'll seem like nothing. Sounds silly saying that out loud of course it will be.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starting to think OP never wanted to be convinced here, folks.
I will echo others and say that Pathbuilder is a lovely free resource that's well worth tinkering with.
Pretty much the same story every time there's a "Convince me!" thread. It's borderline trolling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much the same story every time there's a "Convince me!" thread. It's borderline trolling.Starting to think OP never wanted to be convinced here, folks.
I will echo others and say that Pathbuilder is a lovely free resource that's well worth tinkering with.
I'm really not T_T
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2:
Player Enjoyment: 7
DM Enjoyment: 9
The drop in Player Enjoyment is unfortunate. :(
Starting to think OP never wanted to be convinced here, folks.
I too would like to be convinced. But, I only have a couple of problems:
1 - As a GM, I am not liking the current stories.2 - Also, as a GM, I'd like PCs to be a bit stronger.
These are my main reasons.
Also ...
3 - I am not a fan of how Summoning was broken up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter is one class which, in particular is defined by the number of extra feats and static bonuses it gets. Hardly a fair comparison.
Take the Monk, which is rather feature heavy, there are no dead levels but there are plenty of levels where you get a thing without having to flip through a ton of choices you need to make.
You still haven't answered my question. Perhaps Fighter isn't the right class to ask about. But I am not sure Monk is either.
How about Rogue, where every other level you need to pick one of these and every third level you need to pick one of these.
And yet somehow you think that PF2 is the bloated one...
Every other and every third is less than every level there is something and a lot of it is superfluous. And a Rogue at level 18 is going to have something like a +23 to hit? Does that sound about right? Whereas in 2e it's going to be something more like 34? I've seen people get up to +20 at level 5 in 2e (under very specific circumstances, admittedly).
@Darksol That is extremely thorough, I was expecting most to just pick at 4 or 5 of them at their leisure. Most of what you said I can't argue with, except that I still wish I didn't have to dig through all the crunch a lot of the time. PF1 was crunchy, this is a jawbreaker.
On the topic of Cantrip vs Shortbow you it should also be noted that the archer is going to be getting 1d6/8 precision damage probably as well.
And Focus spells are just the worst. One of my players is a Sorcerer and they would have like 4 different kinds of magic. You got your spell slots, and they don't deal more damage per level unless you upcast them but that is essentially no different than learning a new spell. Except there are also signature spells, those can always upcast even if you don't...
A level 18 Rogue in PF2 would have approximately +33 to hit (24 proficiency, 6 Dexterity, 3 potency), not factoring in other potential buffs/debuffs. A level 18 Rogue in PF1 would probably have closer to +26 to hit (13 BAB, 8 Dexterity, 5 potency), again, not factoring in other buffs/debuffs. So, while it seems significantly higher by PF1 standards, it would probably be equivalent to if you used a full BAB class, which makes sense given that the Rogue has the same proficiency scaling as Barbarians, Rangers, Monks, etc., whom would probably have +31 or so to-hit instead. But being a strict Rogue is pretty bad in PF1 anyway, whereas being a strict Rogue is pretty good in PF2, so it's an apples to oranges comparison at this point.
PF1 has plenty more crunch than PF2 does. There's nowhere near as many buffs, items, or means to "cheese" the system to your advantage (though the amount that exists is still plenty). In my opinion, it feels more like you're struggling with wanting to learn a new system that is relatively as crunchy as the system you're learning, and I get that: I felt like learning both rulesets was a daunting task, but the more I learned and played PF2's ruleset, the more I abandoned PF1's ruleset because it's honestly not all it's cracked up to be. Yes, you can make powerful characters that can defeat enemies/adventures considered difficult, but honestly, once you make the character, the "adventure" is basically just going through the (mathematical) motions, and when enemies are defeated based on initiative counters, it's not very fun or engaging. "Oh, I won Initiative? I cast my typical encounter-ending spells, concluding the 15 minute adventuring day."
Both of those are class-specific, though. I was being a bit more class-agnostic, and there are more than just those class types that would use a bow (such as the Monastic Archer Monk and the Bow Champion). Certain optimized builds will do more damage than others, but the point was more to demonstrate that if a non-optimized spellcaster chose to use a Shortbow if it would be worthwhile to do so in place of an attack roll cantrip, with the short answer being "Not really."
It just doesn't seem that complicated to me. It's no more complicated than a PF1 Wand of Cure Light Wounds that you can recharge, with the only difference is that you can have up to 3 charges (with each Focus Spell usually giving you an additional maximum charge), and that you can only recharge the Focus charges after spending at least one of them and taking 10 minutes to regain them. That's it. There are feats which adjust these rules slightly (such as being able to refocus for additional Focus charges each time you recharge), but it's, again, not complicated.
One important thing to note is that Signature Spells aren't a type of spell to learn; they are basically spells known that you designate as being able to cast at any level, which is crucial for spontaneous spellcasters making use of their lower level known spells for higher level slots and getting those heightened benefits without having to sacrifice another spell known for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here are my arguements for 2e over 1e
1: More freedom. There are less restrictions on things compared to 1e
Did you know you can play a lawful barbarian to a chaotic monk? While limiting alignment makes sense on champions it doesn’t make any sense at all for monks and barbarians. The alignment restrictions for monk and barbarians were unneeded, limited flavor and character, and overall just plain stupid. A barbarian chieftain who is an honorable warrior would be lawful good yet 1e doesn’t allow that. A young monk who is energetic and seeks to make themselves stronger and is free spirited would be chaotic… yet 1e doesn’t let you play a chaotic monk. 1e placing alignment restrictions on these classes alone is why I will never play 1e. Why can’t I reflavor monk to be a chaotic neutral drunken tavern brawler?
2: Racial/Ancestry ability scores
Thanks to a recent errata, any ancestry and class combo can work. Instead of being forced to take +str +Wis +free -int on lizardfolk you can instead choose free free like a human. Meaning you can play as a divination wizard iruxi who is constellation and star divination themed with “ancestry” abilities being int and con
This way, you can play lots of character concepts without being unfairly put at a disadvantage. I have an iruxi Eldritch trickster (wizard) who’s backstory involves not being allowed into magic schools because everyone thought she was less intelligent due to her ancestry, when in reality she is very very intelligent (16 int), leading to her stealing books from magic schools and teaching herself. This wouldn’t be possible if I was forced to take that intelligence flaw.
3: more people playing it
While there are, unfortunately, more 1e westmarches than 2e ones, overall people are playing 2e more and you’ll be more likely to find games online to play for 2e, especially with the recent surge of people coming over from 5e
...Fighter is one class which, in particular is defined by the number of extra feats and static bonuses it gets. Hardly a fair comparison.
Take the Monk, which is rather feature heavy, there are no dead levels but there are plenty of levels where you get a thing without having to flip through a ton of choices you need to make.
You still haven't answered my question. Perhaps Fighter isn't the right class to ask about. But I am not sure Monk is either.
How about Rogue, where every other level you need to pick one of these and every third level you need to pick one of these.
And yet somehow you think that PF2 is the bloated one...
Every other and every third is less than every level there is something and a lot of it is superfluous. And a Rogue at level 18 is going to have something like a +23 to hit? Does that sound about right? Whereas in 2e it's going to be something more like 34? I've seen people get up to +20 at level 5 in 2e (under very specific circumstances, admittedly).
@Darksol That is extremely thorough, I was expecting most to just pick at 4 or 5 of them at their leisure. Most of what you said I can't argue with, except that I still wish I didn't have to dig through all the crunch a lot of the time. PF1 was crunchy, this is a jawbreaker.
On the topic of Cantrip vs Shortbow you it should also be noted that the archer is going to be getting 1d6/8 precision damage probably as well.
And Focus spells are just the worst. One of my players is a Sorcerer and they would have like 4 different kinds of magic. You got your spell slots, and they don't deal more damage per level unless you upcast them but that is essentially no different than learning a new spell. Except there are also signature spells, those can always upcast
Well, I'm gunna give it a shot. With a different group I think. If I play with others who already know it I'm bound to have a better experience. I'll start as a player and go from there.
On Focus spells though, it's my understanding that you only gain 1 point at a rest, and you only gain that point if you've used one since your last rest. That's a bit more complicated, and Signature spells may not be different spells but they follow different rules. It's just one example of the way PF2 asks you to remember just 1 more thing about this system or that. Focus spells are just the non-spell bloodline abilities from PF1 with an extra complicated method for tracking them. I can mechanically see why they phrased the Refocus activity the way they did, because they don't want casters holding up the whole group for a half hour so they can get all 3 of their points back. But if it's been an hour since your last short rest I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to regain a Focus point during the next short rest.
I don't know how to word that beyond doing something 4e like such as "once per short rest."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here are my arguements for 2e over 1e
1: More freedom. There are less restrictions on things compared to 1e
Did you know you can play a lawful barbarian to a chaotic monk? While limiting alignment makes sense on champions it doesn’t make any sense at all for monks and barbarians. The alignment restrictions for monk and barbarians were unneeded, limited flavor and character, and overall just plain stupid. A barbarian chieftain who is an honorable warrior would be lawful good yet 1e doesn’t allow that. A young monk who is energetic and seeks to make themselves stronger and is free spirited would be chaotic… yet 1e doesn’t let you play a chaotic monk. 1e placing alignment restrictions on these classes alone is why I will never play 1e. Why can’t I reflavor monk to be a chaotic neutral drunken tavern brawler?
2: Racial/Ancestry ability scores
Thanks to a recent errata, any ancestry and class combo can work. Instead of being forced to take +str +Wis +free -int on lizardfolk you can instead choose free free like a human. Meaning you can play as a divination wizard iruxi who is constellation and star divination themed with “ancestry” abilities being int and con
This way, you can play lots of character concepts without being unfairly put at a disadvantage. I have an iruxi Eldritch trickster (wizard) who’s backstory involves not being allowed into magic schools because everyone thought she was less intelligent due to her ancestry, when in reality she is very very intelligent (16 int), leading to her stealing books from magic schools and teaching herself. This wouldn’t be possible if I was forced to take that intelligence flaw.3: more people playing it
While there are, unfortunately, more 1e westmarches than 2e ones, overall people are playing 2e more and you’ll be more likely to find games online to play for 2e, especially with the recent surge of people coming over from 5e
Yeah I'm sorta getting a lot of "The good more than makes up for the bad." vibes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You keep changing what the complaint is.
The numbers are so high we need a calculator to play.
PF1 numbers are also really high.
Well, PF2 numbers are slightly higher.
The official character sheet doesn't look good and doesn't help to build a character.
There are 3rd party sheets that look better, and apps that help build characters.
Well, I shouldn't have to use 3rd party stuff.
There are so many options to choose from and the skill feat choices are not interesting.
PF1 has more options to sift through at most levels.
Well, there are some levels in PF1 where you don't have to make choices.
I'm agreeing with keftiu. I don't think you are actually wanting to be convinced.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can share what convinced me: the setting is much more considered now thanks to the diversity of staff, without losing any of the old Pathfinder theme park fun. You couldn’t pay me to engage with the Darkest Africa “cannibals and headhunters everywhere” 1e approach to the Mwangi, while the 2e book on it is one of the finest setting supplements in the d20 sphere.
The old Dragon Empires books have aged like milk in places. I’m excited to see how a bunch of awesome Asian talent tackles Tian Xia for 2e soon.
You keep changing what the complaint is.
The numbers are so high we need a calculator to play.
PF1 numbers are also really high.
Well, PF2 numbers are slightly higher.The official character sheet doesn't look good and doesn't help to build a character.
There are 3rd party sheets that look better, and apps that help build characters.
Well, I shouldn't have to use 3rd party stuff.There are so many options to choose from and the skill feat choices are not interesting.
PF1 has more options to sift through at most levels.
Well, there are some levels in PF1 where you don't have to make choices.I'm agreeing with keftiu. I don't think you are actually wanting to be convinced.
I don't really see any moving of the goalpost in any of these examples, since the last lines in every section is the reasoning behind the first line in the section. Supporting arguments as it were.
But also, I've already agreed to give it a shot as a player to see if it helps so, don't know what else to say about you not thinking I want to be convinced.
I do appreciate you continuing to come back and discuss it with me even though it's clear we don't agree, I appreciate the discourse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can share what convinced me: the setting is much more considered now thanks to the diversity of staff, without losing any of the old Pathfinder theme park fun. You couldn’t pay me to engage with the Darkest Africa “cannibals and headhunters everywhere” 1e approach to the Mwangi, while the 2e book on it is one of the finest setting supplements in the d20 sphere.
The old Dragon Empires books have aged like milk in places. I’m excited to see how a bunch of awesome Asian talent tackles Tian Xia for 2e soon.
Definitely, I had no desire to visit Mgwani before beyond, I'm pretty sure it's the last place the Tarrasque was seen? And there was a floating city there once? Is there an adventure path that explores those ruins that would be awesome.
But in 2e: that magic school AP looks really, really fun. I'm not even a Harry Potter fan.
Personally, as someone who also likes much simpler systems with much smaller systems, yeah, you're right, it would be a massive pain to keep track of all of a character's features on paper and have to erase and rewrite several dozen different numbers on it every time I leveled up. If someone absolutely can't use electronic tools while playing the game, then yeah, I'd be less likely to recommend it to them.
But I play on Foundry and the automation there makes it run pretty smoothly (although IME picking options when leveling up is easier if you do it on Pathbuilder first before moving over to the VTT's sheets). And it sounds like access to Pathbuilder isn't a barrier for you either. So it sounds like it's a question of whether it and other largely aesthetic issues override the draw of the action system and the tighter balance for you.
Nobody here can force you to play it, but at some point I think you need to just try it and see whether you prefer it, ideally using the tools people are suggesting that are aimed at making the experience smoother.
Yeah this is the core of it I think.
Just gotta jump in and see if I can get past that aesthetic issue.
Backgrounds are more complex than has been suggested as there are some really non standard ones.
For me PF2 is about the richness of player options, and the more tactical play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Yes, backgrounds are merely an excuse to give two stat boosts, a trained skill, and a skill feat. [Errata: I forgot about the lore skill.] It no longer matters after character creation unless the player decided to make their background a significant part of their backstory. What's wrong with that?
2) What's wrong with it is that it makes character creation more difficult. I get the impression they were going for the opposite effect but that's the effect it has for me.
Customization requires extra steps. Customization and balance are the primary advantages of PF2 over D&D 5e, so reducing those steps would make PF2 less marketable. If that is not for you, then PF2 is not for you. (For minor advantages of PF2 over D&D 5e, see DM Lair's recent video on why his videos will also cover PF2 in addition to D&D 5e.)
The flavor of having a Farmhand or Entertainer background is that if a player wants a high-Strength character, then the name Farmhand suggests physical labor, meaning strong; and if a player wants a high-Charisma character, then the name Entertainer suggests entertainment, meaning charismatic. The names let the player avoid reading all the details of all the backgrounds to make the Background step easier, because a player wanting to play a plain fighter does not need to consider a weak-sounding background like Fortune Teller.
4) The rulebook is available as a hypertext document for free online at the Archives of Nethys. It has all the players need except for some history and geography lore.
4) Reliance on technology at the table is a barrier for entry to me.
If you are all at the same table, then one rulebook is enough. At first we had only my rulebook, I just handed my rulebook around. We switched to online technology in March 2020 due to the CoVid-19 pandemic, so Archives of Nethys filled in when we could no longer share one book.
The players need to reference the rules directly during character creation and leveling up, because they need to read the options. But for gameplay, asking another player who knows the rules is enough. We had a new player in our current campaign. My instructions to her were to tell us in English what her character wanted to do, and we experienced players (some of us had participated in the PF2 playtest) would convert her intentions to PF2 actions and describe how to do it by the rules. That was in 2019, so that player is no longer a newbie, but she still does not own a rulebook.
The one-hour immunity to all Treat Wounds, except with the Continual Recovery skill feat is to prevent repeated quick healing. Act like any physician needs to let the body heal on its own for a little while before any more non-magical healing will work.
7) One hour immunity isn't the issue so much as attempting to heal at a more competent skill level results in an increased chance to heal anything at all.
Pathfinder has a fundamental limitation that success is all about rolling a d20 plus bonuses higher than some difficulty class (DC). For fighting an opponent, the DCs come from the opponent's statistics, but what is the DC of the damage of a character? Increasing the DC based on the total amount of damage would make healing after a difficult fight almost impossible. Thus, Treat Wounds uses a fixed DC 15. Roll 15 or higher heals 2d8 damage; roll less than 15 and no damage heals.
Of course, at higher levels, 2d8 healing looks small, so Treat Wounds allows a voluntary higher DC to be able to heal more. An expert in Medicine could still perform a DC 15 Medicine check to heal 2d8 damage, but if they are in a hurry, they could try treating wounds with techniques that require more skill to heal more, a DC 20 Medicine check to heal 2d8+10. Essentially, the advanced technique requires greater skill so has a greater chance of failure. But it heals more than a critical success with the reliable beginner technique.
Imagine a 6th-level expert in Medicine with Wisdom 18. They would have Medicine +14. They fail against DC 15 only on a natural 1. That is 5% chance of failure (0 damage healed), 50% chance of success (average of 9 damage healed), and 45% chance of critical success (average of 18 damage healed). The three cases average to 12.6 damage healed. But going for the tougher DC 20, that gives a 25% chance of failure (0 damage healed), 50% chance of success (average of 19 damage healed), and 25% chance of critical success (average of 28 damage healed) . Those three cases average to 16.5 damage healed, despite the greater chance of failure. Four level later, or 2 levels with improving the Medicine proficiency rank to master, the Medicine skill bonus gets so high that using the DC 20 fails only on a natural 1, the same as the DC 15 option.
11) You described my problem with it. Adding your full level to *everything* and then +8 and then bonuses leads to adding huge numbers for everything. Plus it's like, "well I leveled up again time to erase literally every number on my character sheet."
My wife has the same complaint about erasing numbers on her character sheet. Every three levels she starts over with a fresh new character sheet. But if the numbers remained the same, then the odds would not improve for the characters.
As for two-digit addition on the dice rolls, my wife and I homeschooled our daughters and used dice rolls in board games as practice in addition. As a college math professor I learned mental multiplication of two-digit numbers because reaching for my calculator during calculus lectures was embarrassing. My gut reaction as a mathematician and math teacher is, "Practice more."
I appreciate you popping in before your game!
I have an example from the game session to illustrate breithauptclan's answer.
9) Cantrips quickly become more powerful than 1st level spells in terms of blasters. What are those slots for after that?
When Cantrips become more powerful than your 1st level spells, you will have 2nd and probably 3rd level spells.
Your highest couple of spell levels are for changing someones HP - either damage or healing. The lower level spells are for other things like buffing, debuffing, terrain navigation, or cute tricks.
My party has 7 players and 3 animal companions, which exceed the carrying capacity on high-level travel spells such as Teleport (5 characters) and Wind Walk (6 characters). Instead, in today's game when they traveled 40 miles three of them rode their animal companions, the monk ran very fast, and the other three rode conjured Phantom Steeds. Actually, they were in a hurry, so they conjured the 4th-level Phantom Steeds with a speed of 60 feet. That limited them to the speed of the animal companions, two which moved at 50 feet and one which moved at 40 feet. So they cast 2nd-level Longstrider on the slowest animal companion to travel at a speed of 50 feet, which is 5 miles per hour. After the travel but still in the wilderness the fey-blooded sorcerer who had conjured the Phantom Steeds cast 9th-level Resplendent Mansion to bed down for the night.
1) Someone else posted a character generator that had images of these class specific sheets but no way to download blank ones without actually going through the process of building one it looked like. Do you happen to have a link? I've looked through some others and none really "fit" me.
Oops, I think that was me. Sorry. I don't use character sheets so I never actually downloaded the 3rd-party ones. I write up my monsters and NPCs in text as stat blocks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main reason for preferring pf2e:
I can't really make a broken character, no matter how hard I try.
PF1 : so many ways/builds
Dark Heresy : sniping
FF Star Wars : pressure points
Shadow Run : Sniping
DnD 5e : dex focus, wild shaping druid (or bear barian)
Catalyst: reinforce
DnD 3.5-3.0 : Cleave shenanigans
Those are the systems I remember playing, and breaking.