| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a branch off of this other thread.
I am having a similar problem to Reynard (from the other thread). But, I do have some different obstacles …
* - My players prefer Pathfinder 1st Edition. I can expand on their complaints if needed.
* - We have a lot of "sunk cost" in PF1E. IMHO, this one is at least valid.
* - Paizo is already coming out with a PF2.5 version, with the changes in "Remastered."
* - We are in general less progressive then the current trends in both PF2E and D&D5E.
If it matters, I do own the PF2E Beginner Box, Player's Handbook, APG, Gamemastery Guide, and Abomination Vaults. (and PDFs bundle that came out recently).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Realistically test things out with a one-shot and see if the system clicks. If it does, cool. If not, at least you played a session before giving up.
Realistically test things out with a one-shot and see if the system clicks. If it does, cool. If not, at least you played a session before giving up.
So the Beginner's Box?
If it helps, here are my player's complaints.
* - Starting characters feel weaker, because of race (and some class) abilities being spread over several levels.
* - Not a fan of how sorcerer bloodlines have been broken up over different spell lists.
* - The game is much more ridged.
I'm trying to push for the new edition because …
* - Better game balance.
* - Game works better at higher levels.
* - Three part APs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
* - My players prefer Pathfinder 1st Edition. I can expand on their complaints if needed.
I'm not sure that this is something that any of us can fix for you.
There is a lot of design of PF2 that some people don't like. Most notably that the power ceiling is rather solid. No amount of specializing and powergaming will ever outweigh the d20 roll. Your characters will still have to play through the game experiencing failures at every turn - even for things that they specialize in. That seems to be the biggest gripe from PF1 players that don't like PF2.
And I don't think that changing PF2 to allow auto-success options (but only if you know exactly what you are doing) is a good change.
* - We have a lot of "sunk cost" in PF1E. IMHO, this one is at least valid.
That is valid. If there is still a lot of content in PF1 that you want to play, by all means play it.
* - Paizo is already coming out with a PF2.5 version, with the changes in "Remastered."
You can see the preview of changes in PF2 Remaster here and decide for yourself if it is worth calling it PF2.5 or not.
When I look through it, it definitely isn't worth calling a major change IMO.
* - We are in general less progressive then the current trends in both PF2E and D&D5E.
Well, you do you - but the published APs may not have the type of content that you are looking for.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion would be to just wait until the first sprint of the Remaster hits with PC GMC 1&2 hitting the streets. With that you'll at least have about 75% of the rules from PF2 that are worth their weight. Of course try the game then using the free AoN rules before spending any more money on it but if it goes well I'd say you should be safe to invest.
You don't want to have to convince them to resign thousands of dollars in PF1 books now only to have to do the same in one to two years when the rest of PF2 gets replaced with PF2r/PF2.5. That would just be salt in fresh wounds.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. So, real question, why do you want to switch to PF2?
I'm not saying that you shouldn't. I'm not trying ti discourage you. It's just that your reasoning is actually pretty pertinent here.
Also, you say that they complain that the game is much more rigid. I'd like a better understanding of what they mean by that. It seems pertinent, and there's a number of different things that they could mean (and different responses accordingly).
For me, though, the strongest argument I could bring to the table to convince a bunch of old PF1 grognards that PF2 had value would be... the tier system is gone. It's just gone. It isn't needed anymore. You can pick any class you like, play it from 1-20, and be viable the whole way through. There are some classes that require specific skillsets from their players (Hi there, Alchemist and Investigator) but none that are just straight-up bad, and none that go obsolete partway through the campaign. Similarly, there aren't any character options that you need to avoid lest they break the campaign and/or marginalize your fellow PCs. It all just... works.
I'll agree, though, that it's probably best to wait the changeover until after the ripples from PF2R settle, if there's not some strong reason to jump ship right now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hear what your players dislike about 2e, and it seems like a lot. What do you like about it so much that you’re trying to pitch it to them?
Okay. So, real question, why do you want to switch to PF2?
I'm not saying that you shouldn't. I'm not trying ti discourage you. It's just that your reasoning is actually pretty pertinent here.
As I mentioned above …
* - Better game balance. As you rightly point out, "tiers" are not a thing in PF2E. IMO, that's huge.* - Game works better at higher levels. As a GM, this is my biggest feature. PF1E High level play, even with APs, becomes a Pain.
* - Three part APs.
Also, you say that they complain that the game is much more rigid. I'd like a better understanding of what they mean by that. It seems pertinent, and there's a number of different things that they could mean (and different responses accordingly).
* - The break up of feats into "Skill Feats", "General Feats", "Racial Feats", and "Class Feats."
* - Archetypes replacing how Multiclassing worked.* - Backgrounds becoming kind of "bland."
For me, though, the strongest argument I could bring to the table to convince a bunch of old PF1 grognards that PF2 had value would be... the tier system is gone. It's just gone. It isn't needed anymore. You can pick any class you like, play it from 1-20, and be viable the whole way through. There are some classes that require specific skillsets from their players (Hi there, Alchemist and Investigator) but none that are just straight-up bad, and none that go obsolete partway through the campaign. Similarly, there aren't any character options that you need to avoid lest they break the campaign and/or marginalize your fellow PCs. It all just... works.
… though the Alchemist appears to have failed the Audience response test
I'll agree, though, that it's probably best to wait the changeover until after the ripples from PF2R settle, if there's not some strong reason to jump ship right now.
This is true - but I run into the "sunk cost" issue again as I've already bought a bunch of PF2E stuff.
I hear what your players dislike about 2e, and it seems like a lot. What do you like about it so much that you’re trying to pitch it to them?
Answered in the above post.
* - Better game balance.* - Game works better at higher levels.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hear what your players dislike about 2e, and it seems like a lot. What do you like about it so much that you’re trying to pitch it to them?
While I only have a 66% as big problem as Lord Fyre (i.e. I got one group which is willing to switch over, two however currently are not, mostly due to one guy (who I'm not willing to throw out, so please don't suggest that as a solution. He's otherwise a great player and good friend) not wanting to play the game), I at least can say something to that question.
Firstly, I want to play the new AP's and converting them back to 1E seems too much work to be worth it.
Secondly, after reviewing the system more in depth, playing a few mock battles against myself, building a few characters and already preparing a full conversion of Return of the Runelords, I came to the conclusions that the game feels way less static than 1E, actions matter more and the constant overbuffing of player characters, which really has gotten to me in the last campaigns I GM'ed, is a thing of the past. I like the more tactical gameplay as well. High level gaming seems much more viable to GM and encounter design seems very adjustable as well.
I still got a bugbear with the system coming from 1E, i.e. magic was overnerfed in some aspects. As for things I just don't like very much, hazards are a bit of mystery to me in how to justify explaining to players how to disarm them with all those skill checks, general feats seem to be very sparse in their number, so that there seem to be some good ones and quite a lot of seemingly useless ones and skill feats are steeply divided between very useful ones and a lot of "super specific" occasional use ones.
But the positives definitely seem to outweigh the negatives for me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
* - The break up of feats into "Skill Feats", "General Feats", "Racial Feats", and "Class Feats."
That split-up is so that they can provide different levels of mechanical power in a predictable way. Meaning - was done for game balance reasons.
Class Feats are easily the most powerful. If you want to make more powerful characters, add more class feat slots.
Some of the general feats and a few of the ancestry feats are rather powerful too. There are a few that are a bit above the curve. But for the most part, they are more for breadth development instead of additional power.
Skill feats get a lot of shade cast at them. There are a ton of them, and nearly all are niche use.
The way to think about these low powered feats is that you are getting them for free - meaning that choosing a skill feat isn't going to impact your class feat progression. So pick something that sounds fun.
* - Archetypes replacing how Multiclassing worked.
That is actually a drastic improvement.
PF1 multiclassing: Trade your highest level class features for the lowest level class features of a different class.
It was generally a bad trade. As you level up, that trade becomes more expensive. There were a small handful of classes and matchups that resulted in something that was more powerful in one particular thing. But if you just randomly pick a multiclass and tack it onto your character it would ruin the build much more often than help it.
PF2 archetypes is an even level trade. You trade a class feat of one level for an archetype feat of the same level. And the level that you are trading doesn't change as you progress through the campaign and gain more levels. If you trade your level 2 class feat for a level 2 dedication feat, then when you are level 8 you still get your level 8 class feat.
* - Backgrounds becoming kind of "bland."
That is intentional. These aren't meant to be pre-written backstories that you just pick one and go with without further effort.
It is meant as a way of sparking creativity. A jumping off point for creating a character from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still got a bugbear with the system coming from 1E, i.e. magic was overnerfed in some aspects.
Blasting kinda was. Removing touch AC makes attack roll spells harder to land.
The bigger problem is the reversing of spell power and spell accuracy. PF1 spell accuracy was based on spell level and spell power was based on character level. In PF2 spell power is instead based on spell level and the accuracy is based on character level. So you don't need to try and buff your spell DC in order to continue using your lower level spell slots. Instead those lower rank spell slots are completely irrelevant for damage or healing spells. Which in turn means that you have very few spell slots that you can use for dealing damage.
Cantrips and focus spells somewhat make up for that. Getting a good blasting focus spell goes a long way towards making a good PF2 blaster caster.
Also Kineticist. I don't have the rules yet, but I hear good things about blaster Kineticist.
As for things I just don't like very much, hazards are a bit of mystery to me in how to justify explaining to players how to disarm them with all those skill checks
I'm not sure entirely what you are meaning here.
The general rules for hazards allow disabling using pretty much any skill. But that is for when creating a hazard.
Once a hazard has been created, then there are only the specified skills that can be used for disabling. And hopefully those skills should be fairly intuitive. I guess that is up to the person who created the hazard.
Disabling a spear trap connected to a trip wire should be using thievery. Maybe crafting. You shouldn't have to be trying to justify why the Sorcerer can use Occultism to disable the trap - Occultism shouldn't be one of the options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the positives definitely seem to outweigh the negatives for me.
Let me take a moment to thank the commentators, the information from this thread have been vastly more useful then from the other one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we also got more specific concerns to address.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure entirely what you are meaning here.
The general rules for hazards allow disabling using pretty much any skill. But that is for when creating a hazard.
Once a hazard has been created, then there are only the specified skills that can be used for disabling. And hopefully those skills should be fairly intuitive. I guess that is up to the person who created the hazard.
Disabling a spear trap connected to a trip wire should be using thievery. Maybe crafting. You shouldn't have to be trying to justify why the Sorcerer can use Occultism to disable the trap - Occultism shouldn't be one of the options.
Well, let's take a haunt for example. Plummeting Doom is a lvl 15 haunt from the GMG (page 79), which for disabling it requires a DC 40 Athletics (trained) check to "push back so forcefully that the spirits fear being thrown off the bridge" or a DC 40 religion (expert) check to seal the spirits away for a while.
The second check I can kinda expect players to guess as an option. The first check? Who exactly would get the idea to even try "pushing back spirits"? One in ten players, if I'm being very optimistic? How do I even get that idea over to the players without it seeming to come out of nowhere? There actually does not even seem to be a mechanic to make a recall knowledge check, as far as I have seen.
So, yeah, hazards seem to me to be often underexplained in as how to deal with them, especially haunts. I hope the upcoming GM Core spends a bit more time on how to have players get knowledge on how defeat them, because currently it is a bit of a crapshoot.
Yeah, that's fair. Haunts are a bit strange. I also saw one once that had Intimidation as a disable option. Similarly, I thought, 'who would even think of trying that?'
Most of the others do make sense though. Even really strange looking hazards like the bouncer/guard that the party needs to either sneak past or talk their way past (disable with Stealth from everyone or Diplomacy from one person).
* - The break up of feats into "Skill Feats", "General Feats", "Racial Feats", and "Class Feats."
Just wanted to address the this one a bit - and the bit about Skill Feats in particular. They break out skill feats in particular because it gives you reason to give your characters more depth. I speak as someone who's into CharOp. Given that your players are diehard PF1 players, and one of their complaints is the reduction in multiclassing shenanigans, I'm guessing that they are too. Having a bunch of skill feats showing up on your character... means that you now have a reason to use them. Like, it's power, right there. At least some skill feats are clearly useful as far as making your character stronger... which means that you have to think about and care about which skill feats your characters get. That means that you need to think about and care about which skills your characters get. Give a bit more thought into why, and weave it into the backstory even just a little, and suddenly your character has that much more depth. They're not just someone who calls forth the powers or their blood, smashes face with rage-born strength. They're also someone who has some skills that they developed over time and can use. They're capable of making money on the civilian market, if they choose... and you get there without having to limit yourself or pay for it anywhere else.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's fair. Haunts are a bit strange. I also saw one once that had Intimidation as a disable option. Similarly, I thought, 'who would even think of trying that?'
Most of the others do make sense though. Even really strange looking hazards like the bouncer/guard that the party needs to either sneak past or talk their way past (disable with Stealth from everyone or Diplomacy from one person).
I think mostly I'd want the devs to add a mechanic to obtain knowledge on how to defeat said hazards to the hazard description (something like "DC 35 religion check to get insight on how to disable the hazard" or the like), because I find the variety of methods available to defeat/disable hazards to be a very good thing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the argument that's most likely to convine your players (assuming they are somewhat normal people) is that PF1 is significantly harder to GM than PF2 is, and you as the Game Master would like to have less overhead in order to run these sorts of games.
I think if you phrase it "I am doing this for me, take it or leave it" rather than "I am doing it for your own good" is better to be received.
Some of your reasons (game works better at higher levels, 3-part APs) seem to touch on GM effort/burnout.
You're not wrong. A bigger issue is the amount of time I have to sink into adventure prep. I have a real life outside of Pathfinder.
Are you the forever GM for this group or do you rotate that duty among all/some of the players? When do you get to play that wizard?
Like keftiu, I'm curious about your personal motivations for moving to PF2.
Fortunately, I do get to trade off with Gamer Girrl.
I feel like the argument that's most likely to convine your players (assuming they are somewhat normal people) is that PF1 is significantly harder to GM than PF2 is, and you as the Game Master would like to have less overhead in order to run these sorts of games.
That's it exactly.
Take it or leave it might be a good way to go; with Beginner's Box into Abomination Vaults being the path.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also PF2 needs a different dynamic between players and GM than PF1.
PF1 can lean more towards an adversarial or competitive relationship where the players are trying to win against the GM.
PF2 doesn't work that way. In an adversarial relationship, the GM will trounce the players without effort.
It is usually easy enough for the GM to not roflstomp the players too. But everyone at the table needs to come with the attitude that everyone else at the table is trying to progress the story in a satisfying way - that the GM especially is working hard to make sure that the story is fun and engaging for everyone and that they are ultimately on the player's side.
I have been in games where some of the players are hesitant or afraid to even make RP skill checks. They felt like if they rolled a check in something that they weren't fully optimized for that they were going to fail and then get clobbered hard for it by the GM. In PF2 you are going to fail about half of anything you roll, specialized or not. If the GM is going to clobber a player for failing a single skill check, it is going to be a short and unsatisfying game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fortunately, I do get to trade off with Gamer Girrl.
Maybe you can do what my group does and alternate systems? I am in a group that plays 5e one week and then plays in my P2 game the next. We have been alternating since the P2 playtest (coming up on five years soon) and it works for us. It means campaigns take longer, but the other GM and I are far less likely to become burned out. If the other GM doesn't want to play P2, do they need to be included? Maybe they would appreciate having every other session off? At its largest my group consisted of seven people, and not everyone played in every game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fortunately, I do get to trade off with Gamer Girrl.Maybe you can do what my group does and alternate systems? I am in a group that plays 5e one week and then plays in my P2 game the next. We have been alternating since the P2 playtest (coming up on five years soon) and it works for us. It means campaigns take longer, but the other GM and I are far less likely to become burned out. If the other GM doesn't want to play P2, do they need to be included? Maybe they would appreciate having every other session off?
She's my RL wife, so that would be yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think mostly I'd want the devs to add a mechanic to obtain knowledge on how to defeat said hazards to the hazard description (something like "DC 35 religion check to get insight on how to disable the hazard" or the like), because I find the variety of methods available to defeat/disable hazards to be a very good thing.Yeah, that's fair. Haunts are a bit strange. I also saw one once that had Intimidation as a disable option. Similarly, I thought, 'who would even think of trying that?'
Most of the others do make sense though. Even really strange looking hazards like the bouncer/guard that the party needs to either sneak past or talk their way past (disable with Stealth from everyone or Diplomacy from one person).
I just have players learn how to disable haunts with a Recall Knowledge check, but I too wish this was explicitly spelled out. And in general wish Recall Knowledge was cleaned up a bit. (I think it you look at the bit in the Recall Knowledge actions about giving USEFUL information and actuality do that, it works, but a lot of GMs don't.)
What I struggle with on haunts is how you can detect and disable them before they are triggered. Mechanically it is straight forward, but narratively it is difficult.
I just have players learn how to disable haunts with a Recall Knowledge check, but I too wish this was explicitly spelled out. And in general wish Recall Knowledge was cleaned up a bit. (I think it you look at the bit in the Recall Knowledge actions about giving USEFUL information and actuality do that, it works, but a lot of GMs don't.)
What I struggle with on haunts is how you can detect and disable them before they are triggered. Mechanically it is straight forward, but narratively it is difficult.
In 1E haunts rolled initiative with the party, which however led a lot of times to them being destroyed via positive energy (which doesn't work anymore on a lot of them in 2E), due to their miserable initiative value.
That the party has a perception check to detect their manifestation hints for me towards a similar approach, where, if someone in the party detected the manifestation, all people roll initiative (the haunts initiative modifier should probably be its detection DC minus 10) and then a person who has the appropiate skill (religion or occultism, most likely) can roll a recall knowledge against a level appropiate DC and then tell the party how to proceed.
Well, at least that sounds in my mind like a good method.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* - The break up of feats into "Skill Feats", "General Feats", "Racial Feats", and "Class Feats."
* - Archetypes replacing how Multiclassing worked.
* - Backgrounds becoming kind of "bland."
Being honest IMO these points is more symptomatic of a "resistance to change" than real reasons.
Probably no matter how do you try to explain or convince them they will try to resist.
My own professional experience with "resistance to change" almost always just really ends with "you have no choice you have to change" as only way to force some people to get out from their status quo.
You can and must try to explain and reexplain the advantages and how this will help you and how this is necessary to play new adventures at same time that you keep a "I won't go back" position to prevent rollback trials.
As GM you always have the final decision because is you the get most of the work of an adventure preparation and that most deal with the system. So just say "sorry guys but due many reasons now I will only GM PF2".
Being honest IMO these points is more symptomatic of a "resistance to change" than real reasons.* - The break up of feats into "Skill Feats", "General Feats", "Racial Feats", and "Class Feats."
* - Archetypes replacing how Multiclassing worked.
* - Backgrounds becoming kind of "bland."
You are not wrong.
About multiclassing
Die any of your Players Go Variant multiclassing from of unchained?
Because thats Kind of close, although less flexible, to the new multiclassing
And If they honestly like multiclassing for ability variety and bot just for Powergamer munchkin shenanigans you could always offer free archetype or dual classing Variant rules
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd try a bit different angle.
"Hey folks, I'm really curious about PF2 and I'd like to run a try-out game with you. Now, don't panic. We're not stopping the PF1 campaign. Just trying this out. I know you have doubts. Give it a try because you're my friend and I'm asking you to. I found an adventure that gets really good reviews, let's try it with an open mind."
You don't have to logically refute all their doubts and objections. You just ask them to humor you for a limited duration, because they're your friends.
About multiclassing
Die any of your Players Go Variant multiclassing from of unchained?Because thats Kind of close, although less flexible, to the new multiclassing
And If they honestly like multiclassing for ability variety and bot just for Powergamer munchkin shenanigans you could always offer free archetype or dual classing Variant rules
Using free archetype as a baseline is probably a good idea for PF1 types.
It depends. If the players is already afraid due a decision paralysis this makes the things worse.
Each player that resists to change, if isn't just resisting to change by itself, usually resists because some specifics of the new system. Some may resists due not liking the casters others other may not like the alchemist chassis other may not like because don't have some preferred class other may don't like how action economy works focusing everything needing to be an action. These cases you will rarely find a killing solution like just add FA or dual-class each one need to be treat individually.
It depends. If the players is already afraid due a decision paralysis this makes the things worse.
Each player that resists to change, if isn't just resisting to change by itself, usually resists because some specifics of the new system. Some may resists due not liking the casters others other may not like the alchemist chassis other may not like because don't have some preferred class other may don't like how action economy works focusing everything needing to be an action. These cases you will rarely find a killing solution like just add FA or dual-class each one need to be treat individually.
Yeah, but decision paralysis wasn't one of the issues for Lord's players, was it? That seemed more like Reynard's group. Lord's group thinks PF2 characters start off too weak compared to PF1 characters. They may also feel like PF2 characters have lost too many features and not gained enough feats to make up for it. Free archetype helps alleviate both, and adds a juicy extra level of character optimization for power gamers to dig into.
'lost to many Features and mit gained enough'
I suppose ist depends in the class but fighers 'full Attack Action - end turn' and just getting Generica feats instead of stuff for them feels better off dead in the water
And while spellcaster strength is a topic in on itself, for me it feels like the step from 3.5 to of of making casters more interesting was a good one and pf2 took another in that direction
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd try a bit different angle.
"Hey folks, I'm really curious about PF2 and I'd like to run a try-out game with you. Now, don't panic. We're not stopping the PF1 campaign. Just trying this out. I know you have doubts. Give it a try because you're my friend and I'm asking you to. I found an adventure that gets really good reviews, let's try it with an open mind."
You don't have to logically refute all their doubts and objections. You just ask them to humor you for a limited duration, because they're your friends.
I remember how my players and I started playing PF2. When we finished our PF1 Iron Gods campaign, my wife took over as GM to run a GURPS Dungeon Fantasy campaign. She had invested in the kickstarter for it and wanted to try it out. The GURPS campaign broke up in less than a year, because the introductory adventure provided with it was too difficult. We retreated when outmatched by a demon, leaving us with too few clues to solve a mystery. The PF2 playtest began before the GURPS campaign ended, so we had two games running each week for a few months. Next my wife worked out a short and more balanced GURPS campaign based on a piece of Paizo's Kingmaker adventure path. That second GURPS adventure ended in time for us to start a PF2 campaign in October 2019. I decided to convert the Ironfang Invasion adventure path to PF2 rules rather than run Age of Ashes.
My wife likes to try out other RPG systems. My argument for starting a PF2 campaign was, "We sampled PF2 in the playtest. I want to see how good the final version turned out." Curiosity has been our main motive for switching systems.
Our Ironfang Invasion campaign will end in a few weeks and we might move on to something new next. I am considering Starfinder.
Both PF1 and PF2 are fine systems. PF1 is more polished and supports power fantasies. PF2 is more balanced and requires teamwork. My players had used teamwork in our PF1 games, so switching to PF2 did not require a change in playing style.
|
|
Yeah, but decision paralysis wasn't one of the issues for Lord's players, was it? That seemed more like Reynard's group. Lord's group thinks PF2 characters start off too weak compared to PF1 characters. They may also feel like PF2 characters have lost too many features and not gained enough feats to make up for it. Free archetype helps alleviate both, and adds a juicy extra level of character optimization for power gamers to dig into.It depends. If the players is already afraid due a decision paralysis this makes the things worse.
Each player that resists to change, if isn't just resisting to change by itself, usually resists because some specifics of the new system. Some may resists due not liking the casters others other may not like the alchemist chassis other may not like because don't have some preferred class other may don't like how action economy works focusing everything needing to be an action. These cases you will rarely find a killing solution like just add FA or dual-class each one need to be treat individually.
The problem I can see with FA is that it forces the GM to say No preemptively by restricting which archetypes are open for this. Which needs the GM to spend time and effort assessing all archetypes...
The problem I can see with FA is that it forces the GM to say No preemptively by restricting which archetypes are open for this. Which needs the GM to spend time and effort assessing all archetypes...Yeah, but decision paralysis wasn't one of the issues for Lord's players, was it? That seemed more like Reynard's group. Lord's group thinks PF2 characters start off too weak compared to PF1 characters. They may also feel like PF2 characters have lost too many features and not gained enough feats to make up for it. Free archetype helps alleviate both, and adds a juicy extra level of character optimization for power gamers to dig into.It depends. If the players is already afraid due a decision paralysis this makes the things worse.
Each player that resists to change, if isn't just resisting to change by itself, usually resists because some specifics of the new system. Some may resists due not liking the casters others other may not like the alchemist chassis other may not like because don't have some preferred class other may don't like how action economy works focusing everything needing to be an action. These cases you will rarely find a killing solution like just add FA or dual-class each one need to be treat individually.
Or you just... Don't say no to archetypes, or use rarity rules as the default. Restricting FA is for either trying to get a tight thematic niche or keeping character power in check. I'm suggesting giving them FA to make characters stronger and give them room to optimize.
|
|
I think mostly I'd want the devs to add a mechanic to obtain knowledge on how to defeat said hazards to the hazard description (something like "DC 35 religion check to get insight on how to disable the hazard" or the like), because I find the variety of methods available to defeat/disable hazards to be a very good thing.Yeah, that's fair. Haunts are a bit strange. I also saw one once that had Intimidation as a disable option. Similarly, I thought, 'who would even think of trying that?'
Most of the others do make sense though. Even really strange looking hazards like the bouncer/guard that the party needs to either sneak past or talk their way past (disable with Stealth from everyone or Diplomacy from one person).
Our forever PFS GM has us roll a skill check to identify hazards in PFS scenarios. When successful, he provides us with the info on which skills can be used to disable said hazard.
I guess the PFS scenarios themselves provide the description of the skills and DCs needed for identification and those needed for disabling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the PFS scenarios themselves provide the description of the skills and DCs needed for identification and those needed for disabling.
It doesn't normally provide a description of skills or DCs needed for identification outside of the standard perception check. There's no additional information in a PFS Haunt stat block than in any other. I'm sure there's an exception in a Haunt stat block out there but it would be the exception.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I can see with FA is that it forces the GM to say No preemptively by restricting which archetypes are open for this. Which needs the GM to spend time and effort assessing all archetypes...
No it doesn't. You can run Free Archetype games with no restrictions just fine.
I have yet to see a Free Archetype powergamer build that adds anything significant above what could be done with a standard Archetype rules powergamer build. The most that I have seen is that you can get some combo two levels earlier than normal because you can take a class feat that you need and an archetype feat that you need at the same level instead of having to wait for the next class feat slot.
Now, there are some archetypes that are more powerful than others. But if you are going to ban Jalmeri Heavenseeker for being too powerful, you need to do that under the standard rules too. Free Archetype makes no difference.
The first check? Who exactly would get the idea to even try "pushing back spirits"? One in ten players, if I'm being very optimistic? How do I even get that idea over to the players without it seeming to come out of nowhere? There actually does not even seem to be a mechanic to make a recall knowledge check, as far as I have seen.
So, yeah, hazards seem to me to be often underexplained in as how to deal with them, especially haunts. I hope the upcoming GM Core spends a bit more time on how to have players get knowledge on how defeat them, because currently it is a bit of a crapshoot.
This quote is only an example, but it points at the way to deal with hazards: "Determining a magical hazard’s properties thoroughly enough to disable it requires either the use of more powerful magic or a successful skill check, likely using Identify Magic or Recall Knowledge." So to determine ways to disable hazards you need to Recall Knowledge or Identify Magic in case of magical ones.
As to why haunts sometimes use 'strange' skills - they are spirits or spirit remains, so sometimes you can interact with them a bit like with creatures. That allows 'normal', non-magical skills.
Man I have totally missed that quote. Do you know the page number?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man I have totally missed that quote. Do you know the page number?
Found it. It is in Detecting a Hazard.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have "buy-in" for the Beginner's Box! ;) Thanks for all of your help!!
… and, if all goes well, I might get them to transition to Abomination Vaults.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if all goes well, I might get them to transition to Abomination Vaults.
I liked that one - at least the part of it that I have played.
My only complaint is that those loooooooooong 5 foot wide corridors are really annoying to fight in. If I were to run it again, I might double the dimensions of the maps to be 10 feet to the printed squares.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if all goes well, I might get them to transition to Abomination Vaults.I liked that one - at least the part of it that I have played.
My only complaint is that those loooooooooong 5 foot wide corridors are really annoying to fight in. If I were to run it again, I might double the dimensions of the maps to be 10 feet to the printed squares.
Thanks for the warning.
Man I have totally missed that quote. Do you know the page number?Found it. It is in Detecting a Hazard.
Thanks, that's quite helpful.