| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maneuvers and in-combat healing are good, standing still and using your whole turn to strike an enemy is not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crafting is not a money/power multiplier.
Casters are no longer demi-gods past level 7. They have been toned down while martials have been buffed. Martials are the kings of damage while casters excel at buffs, debuffs and utility. With a still decent amount ot damage thrown in if you want.
DCs for all spells is the same. No more useless low level slots at higher levels.
Caster level is gone. Spell effects depend on heightening (which is basically like 5e's upcasting).
Buffs have been nerfed, granting lower numbers and having significantly reduced durations. Most buffs are only up for one combat.
Unlike any of the other games you mentioned, PF2 is actually balanced. Not perfectly of course (because that's probably impossible to pull off) but close enough. Also: The Encounter-Building rules work.
Multiclassing is mostly gone. You only have a single class, ever. You can spend your feats to get abilities from other classes, but usually in a weaker form and/or with a significant delay in level.
Proficiency rules surpreme. It determins what your character class is good at. There is no way to make a wizard equal to a fighter in hitting things since there's nearly no way to get your proficiencies beyond what your class provides. You might get an upgrade to perception (no longer a skill!) or a save, but stuff like armor and weapon proficiencies are hard-locked by class. You can teach your wizard to wear full plate, but he will never get the same benefits from it as a fighter or champion (the latter is basically the new Paladin).
|
Spending time between encounters so that everybody can refocus and be healed back to full HPs.
The overall balance between PCs being extremely tight and stable : For fun builds and optimized builds can completely venture side-by-side.
GMs can very easily change parameters of the game to adjust the difficulty level and use variant rules without fear of unexpectedly crashing the game.
Level is god (the dice too BTW). A same-level encounter is a 50% chance of TPK.
NPCs and monsters are not built like PCs.
Encounter building rules are easy to use. Though Severe encounters with few enemies can be too deadly at lower levels.
Single enemies are extremely dangerous because above PCs' level.
Easiest way to TPK for a GM is to merge encounters because "it makes sense ".
Winning the game is based on using good tactics as a party rather than on building overpowered PCs.
|
|
Note that the Remastered version of PF2 will come soon.
It will be based on the new ORC license and thus we will say goodbye to many things from OGL, including alignment and the 8 schools of wizardry that tagged each and every spell (though wizard schools will still exist).
It will also include lots of errata, quality of life changes (such as the new refocus rule, or alignment damage changing to spiritual damage that can affect everyone) and a revamp of a few classes (especially the underpowered Witch, and Champion because no more alignment).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The overall balance between PCs being extremely tight and stable : For fun builds and optimized builds can completely venture side-by-side.
GMs can very easily change parameters of the game to adjust the difficulty level and use variant rules without fear of unexpectedly crashing the game.
Level is god (the dice too BTW). A same-level encounter is a 50% chance of TPK.
For someone coming from 3.5/PF1 - most certainly that.
The power ceiling. Which creates a solid power floor. You don't win a campaign during character creation. But that also means that you don't have to scour through the internet looking for an optimized build that happens to vaguely match your character concept closely enough to work.
The GM also doesn't have to do anything sneaky in order to challenge the players and create tension and drama. Creating challenging encounters is simple - just actually read, believe, and follow the Building Encounters rules. Yes, a level +1 enemy is, in fact, a boss. Though they should have some henchmen with them since 60 XP is only a low threat encounter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the obvious question: as a long-time 1e player, what takes most getting used to in 2e?
Considering PF2 to be a new game. In these boards, we have seen a lot of players coming from D&D5 or PF1 and having hard time getting into PF2 because the game is just different. Beginners on the other side have easier time getting into the game. It doesn't look at first glance, because it uses similar game concepts, but PF2 is really different.
So the best thing to do is just to accept the game as it is. Don't bring expectations or tactics from previous games, chances are high that they just don't work. Read the rules, the character abilities, and play with them. You'll make some mistakes (you're a beginner in this system after all) but you won't end up frustrated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest player shock is likely around difficulty. You can't optimize your way to invincibility anymore, and trying to play like PF1 will get your ass kicked by the much tougher monsters. Tactical play in the moment and teamwork are necessary if you want to make encounters easier. (Or having the GM increase the party level relative to their opposition.)
This shock can also apply to GMs, and has more trickle down effects to keep in mind. For example, you don't need to play your cards as close to your chest to create challenging encounters as the challenge is already there.
Beyond that, there are some helpful tips for class selection and build considerations here:
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1aO5JSdq_9tjjSfb8yIWfPa2eyItNV-B0lYe OAiS3xsM/mobilebasic#heading=h.mw9zrgfybfug
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That you can't kick an on level enemies ass easily.
In fact, if you're rolling poorly an on level enemy might kick your ass if the rest of the party doesn't help.
Honestly the single best piece of advice for PF1 players to know is Don't try to "full attack".
Monsters have higher attack values than you. And even with the best accuracy in game (fighter) your first attacks will have like ~65% chance to hit. The second attack can be worth it. But once you're suffering a -8 or -10 it's almost never worth it to continue attacking. Move away from the enemy! Especially as you get into higher levels enemies have multi action attack, sometimes 3 actions. Moving away to deny them the ability to use that multi action attack is far more effective than swinging away on an almost certain miss. Arguably it's even better than whatever amount of damage you might contribute, because those multi action attacks can hit like a freight train. If you receive 3 of those you're going to be in bad shape, probably needing to retreat or to receiving healing from others.
Ultimately, combat is won by denying your enemy the ability to perform their best attacks, and by buffing and debuffing. And +2 is a big deal in this system.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, building characters feels less satisfying. Because 2E is so tightly balanced, the characters rarely look powerful on paper. It's hard to see how strong a Fighter is if I focus on its attack bonus, which is just two points higher than a typical martial character's. And the Rogue? Before feats come into play, almost any character can match it in Stealth or Thievery as long as they're willing to invest in Dexterity and dedicate skill increases and items to those skills.
I still enjoy brainstorming characters, but only if I approach it in a different way. When new rules dropped in 1E, I'd ask myself, "How can I use these new toys to create a character who feels busted?" In 2E, it's more, "Does this character sound fun to play?"
Personally, I find that to be absolutely liberating.
I don't have to go looking for feats and character build options that create a broken powered character in order to keep up with the others at the table. I can instead build to a concept and know that the character that I create will be fun and playable.
It also means that I have more freedom of choice in class. If I want to build a stealthy character, I don't have to play a Rogue or Ranger. I can play a stealth Thamuaturge or lockpicking Witch.
One thing I do feel somewhat constraining how many skills I can have.
Like having a skill at only trained or even expert means eventually those skills aren't relevant if you have on level challenges.
So it's okay for things that are purely like background, but not for something that you want to use in any serious way.
However, I do oddly like the Human feats Clever Improviser and Incredible Improvisation. It can make you the equivalent of expert at everything. At 7th level you count as your full level for any skills you're untrained in. And incredible improvisation gives you a +4 bonus to those. I think I like it so much because it's only two ancestry feats that give you a chance to do anything. Not on level stuff, but stuff.
Like your champion can suddenly be "good" at stealth. Maybe he's not avoiding near equal level opponents. But if your 10th level champion wants to sneak into the 1st level bandits camp and get out undetected he's got a good chance at doing so despite being completely untrained in stealth.
I guess I just find it narratively interesting for minimal investment.
One thing I do feel somewhat constraining how many skills I can have.
Like having a skill at only trained or even expert means eventually those skills aren't relevant if you have on level challenges.
That's not entirely accurate. If you compare nothing but your proficiency modifier to the DCs by level table, the gap growths a bit. But at high levels you also get a wider variety of bonuses on top of your proficiency.
Ability scores increases
Cheap or hand me down item bonuses
Mutagens (up to +4 item)
Aid (up to +4 circumstance)
Spells like Illusory Disguise, Knock, or Glibness become cheaper and give +4 status
Now, I wouldn't necessarily try rolling against an enemy defense without full investment, as those tend to be higher than on level DCs... But you can get a lot of use on other challenges, especially out of combat.
|
|
For me, building characters feels less satisfying. Because 2E is so tightly balanced, the characters rarely look powerful on paper. It's hard to see how strong a Fighter is if I focus on its attack bonus, which is just two points higher than a typical martial character's. And the Rogue? Before feats come into play, almost any character can match it in Stealth or Thievery as long as they're willing to invest in Dexterity and dedicate skill increases and items to those skills.
I still enjoy brainstorming characters, but only if I approach it in a different way. When new rules dropped in 1E, I'd ask myself, "How can I use these new toys to create a character who feels busted?" In 2E, it's more, "Does this character sound fun to play?" or "Can I use this class to represent a character from a show I like?"
The tight balance also means that even characters who invest as much as they can in something will occasionally fail. That helps keep the game fun over time, but it can be frustrating in the moment.
Have you played a Fighter ?
+2 to hit (and thus to crit) and AoO for free from the start make it a beast of a class.
Use a Reach weapon with a nice Critical effect and enjoy.
If you want even more, MC into Wild Druid and Martial Artist dedication to get an additional +2 (status) bonus.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not much of a PF1 powergamer. I have only played in one campaign, and it didn't last all that long.
But Fighter with Reach and Druid archetype doesn't even come close to the broken levels of bonkery that I saw in that one aborted game.
So to people who are craving the PF1 powergaming, PF2 doesn't really scratch that itch.
Sorry, not sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One quick search on youtube and you can make a build that breaks D&D. So much so that that is players expectations of D&D. You have super powered characters and your GM has to keep adjusting encounters to cope.
In PF2 combats are tight and better balanced. Extreme encounters are extreme. The danger is real. If you still want to play that super powered game then the GM has to give you easier encounters. Which is perfectly fine BTW.
In PF2 ranged characters don't do as much damage as melee characters.
In PF2 flanking and combat modifiers are available but you have to work for them.
Team play is more important.
Most of what is different has been mentioned.
1. Summons don't scale very well and are action intensive without the payoff of PF1 or 3E or 5E.
2. Wizard not god any more. In fact probably a lower tier class.
3. If you want a fun power up, use the Dual Class rules once you learn the game some. Makes the game more interesting giving the sheer volume of build options.
4. Keep track of Incap spells. Not great against bosses, can be ok against equal level or lower creatures.
5. Casters can and should use a weapon. They can actually use it effectively in conjunction with spells.
6. You get a lot of stat boosts, so you don't need stat boosting items as much. There is only one stat boosting item you get around level 17.
7. Fighters are a top tier class in this edition.
8. Trip is the god maneuver of PF2.
9. You will get crit a lot by CR equal to higher monsters. There isn't much of a way to stop it.
10. The 2 action heal is the king of healing in PF2.
11. Give the game a real try. It takes some getting used to, but PF2 grows on you over time. It's extremely easy to DM which may allow you to play more often because PF2 is so easy to run out of the box once you learn the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also
You do not need a Cleric Healbot, as there are many ways to heal and any PC can get it.
Frightened is the king of debuffs as it applies to everything (attacks and defenses including AC).
Multiclassing is not a trap nor a way to godhood in PF2. It is completely balanced with other options. But, as mentioned previously, it does not change what you're good at. It just adds an exotic spice to your main dish. Starts a Fighter, ends up a Fighter, even if you put all your Class feats in the Wizard Multiclass archetype.
Hero points are good, precious and should be spent wisely. And the GM should not forget awarding them.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The result is that while in theory the game has a ton of options, in actual practice you only have a very small amount you can actually use
That's more of a description of PF1/D&D3.
In PF2, there are tons of options and you can really use them (of course, if the rules allow you to take them). Your character won't be forever crippled because you made a wrong multiclassing choice or because you chose the wrong feat line. Of course, it means that the game is more constrained to avoid bad choices but at least choices are real. When in PF1 and D&D3 (for those I know about) there are tons of trap options, trap feats and combinations that are just not working. The result is that a great portion of the potential choices are no choices at all and the "usable" options are an extremely small subset of the available options.
You do not need a Cleric Healbot, as there are many ways to heal and any PC can get it.
I kinda have to question that bit. In my test runs, frontline PC's got hit and crit pretty damn often and to win the HP race, multiple applications of in-combat healing were necessary. When I put one elite rune giant and three storm giants against a five-character level 16 party in a combat example (which was ranked as a moderate encounter by the encounter XP system), the cleric was pretty instrumental in keeping the party going, despite multiple chain lightnings and all the stuff the rune giant could throw their way (also blindless is nasty in this edition). While there are of course other classes which can cast Heal or Soothe, the cleric with its higher potential to even have in-combat healing available above other classes seems almost mandatory to have the adventuring day go on for long. I wouldn't want these kinds of encounters to happen when the healer has run dry already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda have to question that bit. In my test runs, frontline PC's got hit and crit pretty damn often and to win the HP race, multiple applications of in-combat healing were necessary. When I put one elite rune giant and three storm giants against a five-character level 16 party in a combat example (which was ranked as a moderate encounter by the encounter XP system), the cleric was pretty instrumental in keeping the party going, despite multiple chain lightnings and all the stuff the rune giant could throw their way (also blindless is nasty in this edition). While there are of course other classes which can cast Heal or Soothe, the cleric with its higher potential to even have in-combat healing available above other classes seems almost mandatory to have the adventuring day go on for long. I wouldn't want these kinds of encounters to happen when the healer has run dry already.
I have the exact opposite experience: Past the very first levels my healers nearly no more use healing. I even thought of retraining Divine Evolution on my Sorcerer as my Heal slot was nearly never used.
Healing is still very important and you need healing in a party. But the ideal is to have a couple of secondary healers for the unexpected damage spikes.
Against Chain Lightning, you have Spell Immunity (the added benefit is that it breaks the chain so you don't need to put everyone under it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The result is that while in theory the game has a ton of options, in actual practice you only have a very small amount you can actually useThat's more of a description of PF1/D&D3.
In PF2, there are tons of options and you can really use them (of course, if the rules allow you to take them). Your character won't be forever crippled because you made a wrong multiclassing choice or because you chose the wrong feat line. Of course, it means that the game is more constrained to avoid bad choices but at least choices are real. When in PF1 and D&D3 (for those I know about) there are tons of trap options, trap feats and combinations that are just not working. The result is that a great portion of the potential choices are no choices at all and the "usable" options are an extremely small subset of the available options.
Meh. I've seen more variety in effective 3.x and pf1 characters than I've seen in pf2. Sure, the older stuff had way more room for total character failure, but the benefit of having horrible internal balance is that you can collectively pick a band of optimization to play in rather than pf2 being a mostly binary "can we reliably handle severe+." Of course, that's only useful for an established group rather than pf2's more PUG/society friendly nature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do not need a Cleric Healbot, as there are many ways to heal and any PC can get it.I kinda have to question that bit. In my test runs, frontline PC's got hit and crit pretty damn often and to win the HP race, multiple applications of in-combat healing were necessary. When I put one elite rune giant and three storm giants against a five-character level 16 party in a combat example (which was ranked as a moderate encounter by the encounter XP system), the cleric was pretty instrumental in keeping the party going, despite multiple chain lightnings and all the stuff the rune giant could throw their way (also blindless is nasty in this edition). While there are of course other classes which can cast Heal or Soothe, the cleric with its higher potential to even have in-combat healing available above other classes seems almost mandatory to have the adventuring day go on for long. I wouldn't want these kinds of encounters to happen when the healer has run dry already.
Alternatively healing potions, and one or two people with the medic archetype and medicine using Battle Medicine can do pretty well.
Is it as good as the spell slots a cleric needs to spend? No, nor should it be since it's something that you can do once an hour per person while a cleric will only get between 3 and 6 max level healing spells.
There's no need to play a bandaid. But I don't hate it when someone in the party chooses to play a cleric with healing font access.
I have the exact opposite experience: Past the very first levels my healers nearly no more use healing. I even thought of retraining Divine Evolution on my Sorcerer as my Heal slot was nearly never used.
Healing is still very important and you need healing in a party. But the ideal is to have a couple of secondary healers for the unexpected damage spikes.
Secondary healing also was pretty important, since the cleric couldn't keep up with multiple chain lightnings, the bard had to get busy, too, at least for one round.
Against Chain Lightning, you have Spell Immunity (the added benefit is that it breaks the chain so you don't need to put everyone under it).
That presumes that you know that you'll be going up against certain enemies, what their capabilities are and that you have Spell Immunity prepared for multiple people in the first place. All rather shaky assumptions to have, IMO.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have a dedicated healer (Cleric + Medic) in one of my groups.
Problem is his PC does very little to contribute to the fight by hitting or debuffing opponents or buffing PCs. He is always and only on the lookout for healing other PCs.
Because of his lack of involvement in actively hurting our foes, the fight lasts longer, PCs get hurt more and healing is more required. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have a dedicated healer (Cleric + Medic) in one of my groups.
Problem is his PC does very little to contribute to the fight by hitting or debuffing opponents or buffing PCs. He is always and only on the lookout for healing other PCs.
Because of his lack of involvement in actively hurting our foes, the fight lasts longer, PCs get hurt more and healing is more required. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yeah, in my opinion this is something to avoid.
Every character needs to be built to actively contribute to hurting the enemy. Even if it's "only" buffing your allies.
A character that is purely reactive (like a cleric medic who waits around for someone to be injured) is always playing catch up to the enemy. Personally I wouldn't be happy with someone like that in my group, but I also probably wouldn't say anything unless fights become unwinnable because I don't want to stop someone else from having their fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do not need a Cleric Healbot, as there are many ways to heal and any PC can get it.I kinda have to question that bit. In my test runs, frontline PC's got hit and crit pretty damn often and to win the HP race, multiple applications of in-combat healing were necessary.
We aren't saying that the party doesn't need in-combat healing. That is still useful and somewhat necessary.
It doesn't have to be from a Healbot - a character that is dedicated to doing mostly healing.
And it definitely doesn't have to be from a Cleric specifically.
I agree with what some of the others have said. The best option for in-combat healing is to have at least half of the party have some option for in-combat healing. Whether that is spell slot healing, focus point healing, Battle Medicine, or healing items.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. I've seen more variety in effective 3.x and pf1 characters than I've seen in pf2. Sure, the older stuff had way more room for total character failure, but the benefit of having horrible internal balance is that you can collectively pick a band of optimization to play in rather than pf2 being a mostly binary "can we reliably handle severe+." Of course, that's only useful for an established group rather than pf2's more PUG/society friendly nature.
I'm hoping this won't sound too insulting. I'm not trying to be offensive.
When I read that, what I hear is something along the lines of: powergamers have more fun with PF1. They have more options to play with and can build powerful builds in a wide variety. When powergamers try to powergame PF2 they all end up with the same tiny handful of builds.
And I would actually agree with that. Powergaming is not fun in PF2. Those powergamed builds, in addition to being very few of them, are also only barely more powerful than anything else that could be built. And they can still fall flat at their powergamed schtick when the d20 says 'nope'.
But just because powergaming isn't fun in PF2 doesn't mean that PF2 isn't fun.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Powergaming can be fun in PF2 if you get the whole party to help with your trick AND if you look at long-term statistics (ie, better results on average). Not if you plan on building a self-sufficient PC that wins almost every time with their trick. The latter is just unfeasible in PF2.
That presumes that you know that you'll be going up against certain enemies, what their capabilities are and that you have Spell Immunity prepared for multiple people in the first place. All rather shaky assumptions to have, IMO.
As I said, Spell Immunity breaks the chain of lightnings, so even a single character with it will reduce the damage taken by the party by more than half.
And it's one of these spells that solve a fight. Definitely a spell to have somewhere in your list. Now, for prepared casters, it's ideally on a scroll. My Spontaneous casters on the other hand always find some space to learn it at some point before level 16.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once again I give my opinion and the immidiate thing is to start saying I am wrong. So that people wont start saying "I derailed a threat" (again not my fault) I will just comment on this post.
You are talking about "options that are effective" saying that PF1 has more options that are bad. Which true enough PF1 has more options that are bad. But I was talking about the ways you can pick and combine options being larger, which PF2 is a lot more restrictive in:
* Fewer class features. No increasing proficiency is not really a feature, that is just keeping up with the math.
* Much fewer (and often bad so far) class archetypes. So the few features you do have are hardly changed.
* You are stuck with the feats allowed by your class. Which is why free archetype is popular.
* Trying to get anything outside of your class has a feat tax with debatable benefits and a "must get 3 feats" requirement. Again why free archetype is popular.
* No items to grant free feats.
* Few items that replicate feats.
* Feats rarely if ever combine. Most take an action of modify a specific action.If picking options and combining them was...
I see what you mean. I think the difference in our vision comes from the definition of "options". PF1 had more options (in your sense) and more ways to combine them, but the overall result in terms of build variety was far lower than what could be expected from the number of options. PF2 has less options but a similar number of resulting builds. The main difference is that in PF2 you don't have to jump through hoops to be "the best at Stealth" (for example) while in PF1 it was an exercise of system mastery all by itself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
the benefit of having horrible internal balance is that you can collectively pick a band of optimization to play in rather than pf2 being a mostly binary "can we reliably handle severe+."
I would also respond to this specifically. The benefit of good internal balance is that the players can collectively pick a difficulty level at session zero. The GM can set the difficulty by following the guidelines in the Building Encounters rules - even if that means adjusting the quantity of monsters in the encounter or applying weak/elite templates to make them less or more challenging. Or even by changing the level of the party from what is stated in the AP.
And then the players can get the difficulty level that they were wanting while still playing whatever characters they brought with them in the first place rather than having to change build to suit the new optimization band that was decided on.
Not every combat should be severe+.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is key to remember that PF2 was designed to avoid the pitfalls / problems that 3.5 / PF1 had.
Because of this, long-time experts at PF1 system mastery are the people who have the worst time adapting to PF2. Because the ways to efficiency they learned and used for success in PF1 are specifically those that PF2 was designed to shut down.
Not only has the paradigm changed. On key points, it is actually the opposite.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are also players who like the challenge of making an option that seems bad at first play well. The people who like to build for a specific theme and use the freedom to make sure that theme works.
I appreciate that the builds in PF2 that seem bad at first actually aren't bad. I can build to a theme and I don't have to make sure that the theme works. The game engine itself takes care of that for me.
My 'constrictor snake' Sacred Nagaji Gymnast Swashbuckler character has not felt less powerful when playing along side the Champion, Bard, Sorcerer, and Monk in the party while we play through Agents of Edgewatch.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is key to remember that PF2 was designed to avoid the pitfalls / problems that 3.5 / PF1 had.
Because of this, long-time experts at PF1 system mastery are the people who have the worst time adapting to PF2. Because the ways to efficiency they learned and used for success in PF1 are specifically those that PF2 was designed to shut down.
Not only has the paradigm changed. On key points, it is actually the opposite.
I think this is very important to mention. I started getting interested in the hobby back in AD&D days, but I really got a chance to play and run games in 3.0/3.5. (cue old man in the back ground, "Back in my day!") I switched to Pathfinder 1e at that point because there were relatively few changes and I wanted to keep using the adventures I had in 3.5. I kept playing Pathfinder through 4e and 5e D&D because I knew the system and liked it.
Switching to 2e was rough. I bought the core book tried to make a character. The whole thing felt very constrained compared to 1e, and I washed my hands of it for several years. Eventually I came back around to it and really came to appreciate 2e for what it was, but I had to realize that even though it said Pathfinder on the cover, many of the core assumptions of the game are the opposite of Pathfinder 1e.
(Edit: Thought it might be good to add on some more context) The thing I appreciate most is on the GM side. No more rejiggering encounters on the fly, everything just works like it should. I'd love to play 1e again, but I'd sure as heck not want to run a game.
We have a dedicated healer (Cleric + Medic) in one of my groups.
Problem is his PC does very little to contribute to the fight by hitting or debuffing opponents or buffing PCs. He is always and only on the lookout for healing other PCs.
Because of his lack of involvement in actively hurting our foes, the fight lasts longer, PCs get hurt more and healing is more required. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
He should also have buff spells and some AOE to throw around, unless it's the very low levels.
As I said, Spell Immunity breaks the chain of lightnings, so even a single character with it will reduce the damage taken by the party by more than half.
Yes, if that character gets hit early in the chain.
And it's one of these spells that solve a fight. Definitely a spell to have somewhere in your list. Now, for prepared casters, it's ideally on a scroll. My Spontaneous casters on the other hand always find some space to learn it at some point before level 16.
Well, I'm still new to the system, so maybe it has become more prevalent in 2E than in 1E, but it seldomly showed up for most divine casters in 20 years of gameplay in my games. I'm open to be surprised when we get around to starting our first 2E campaign!
I'm hoping this won't sound too insulting. I'm not trying to be offensive.
When I read that, what I hear is something along the lines of: powergamers have more fun with PF1. They have more options to play with and can build powerful builds in a wide variety. When powergamers try to powergame PF2 they all end up with the same tiny handful of builds.
And I would actually agree with that. Powergaming is not fun in PF2. Those powergamed builds, in addition to being very few of them, are also only barely more powerful than anything else that could be built. And they can still fall flat at their powergamed schtick when the d20 says 'nope'.
But just because powergaming isn't fun in PF2 doesn't mean that PF2 isn't fun.
None taken, though I don't find the pf2 d20 says 'nope' that often when most of the time you're ignoring the d20 (buffs, saveless control), you're running around with constant math fixing (plentiful low or no resource de/buffing), or you only truly fail on the worst die rolls (crit success on enemy saves). Powergaming in pf2 is a group activity, which I don't mind in the slightest.
Which is part of my reasoning, but not the whole of it. Sure, pf2 only has a few party setups that truly perform beyond usual expectations, but pf2 I find is very binary in regards to difficulty. "Can you handle severe+ reliably" is the only breakpoint for optimization I've really seen in this system. If you can, you can cruise through them with minimal resource expenditure and clear several such encounters per day. If you can't, one or two will completely exhaust a party of resources, or you're very vulnerable to the fight relying on luck. I'm not entirely sure it's mathematically possible to make moderate or lower difficult enough, or make a build bad enough, for there to be other bands of difficulty.
In pf1 though, there was more number stacking possible and therefore, a much greater range of difficulty bands a given group could play in. And of course, the builds and classes that showed up in those bands could be very different. Like I said though, that requires your group to be willing to not optimize past a certain point. Which is great for established groups of friends (or the owlcat games), but far less so for every other way people end up playing together.
More on topic though, there wasn't much in 2e to get used to aside from some of the unspoken expectations. Needing a medicine bot or similar healing capability, proficiency gating forcing certain skill progressions, enemies succeeding on their saves as the baseline expectation, other little things I've since internalized and can't remember.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. I've seen more variety in effective 3.x and pf1 characters than I've seen in pf2. Sure, the older stuff had way more room for total character failure, but the benefit of having horrible internal balance is that you can collectively pick a band of optimization to play in rather than pf2 being a mostly binary "can we reliably handle severe+." Of course, that's only useful for an established group rather than pf2's more PUG/society friendly nature.I'm hoping this won't sound too insulting. I'm not trying to be offensive.
When I read that, what I hear is something along the lines of: powergamers have more fun with PF1. They have more options to play with and can build powerful builds in a wide variety. When powergamers try to powergame PF2 they all end up with the same tiny handful of builds.
And I would actually agree with that. Powergaming is not fun in PF2. Those powergamed builds, in addition to being very few of them, are also only barely more powerful than anything else that could be built. And they can still fall flat at their powergamed schtick when the d20 says 'nope'.
But just because powergaming isn't fun in PF2 doesn't mean that PF2 isn't fun.
In my career as an algorithm developer, I loved to see a design of mine function powerfully as intended. From that angle, I understand powergaming. And the power fantasy of a great and powerful hero rescuing the kingdom by the strength of their hewes or the intensity of their magic is well established in fantasy genre.
On the other hand, from the view of a GM, no player character is powerful in all contexts. I can always create a challenge more powerful than them, even if I have to tower over them with a kaiju or heavily buff a mirror image of the party.
In Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder 1st Edition, a good powergaming build can make a 5th-level PC as strong as a normal 7th-level PC. So when the GM throws challenges against the party that are balanced for 5th level, the challenge is too weak and victory is assured. This is commonly referred to as, "Winning the campaign during character creation." I had a few players who liked easy combat as a good way to relax after a hard day's work. But most of my players prefered a challenge to be challenging. So I would throw 7th-level challenges against a powerful 5th-level party.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is more accurate about PC power. An optimized 5th-level PC might be 15% more powerful than expected, but not twice as powerful as expected. The 5th-level challenges, therefore, are challenging.
Once in my job, I rewrote 25-year-old data-analysis code to run on a new computer. I took the opportunity to replace a Hidden Markov Model subroutine that was 10% effective with a more modern Hidden Markov Model subroutine that was 50% effective. Another office that was also moving their programs to the new computer heard that I had ported the subroutine and asked for a copy. But the old 10% subroutine had run on a loop that applied it 10 times, feeding the previous results back in rather than raw data, to approximate 100%. Mathematically, the loop was more like 50% efficiency and 50% false confidence from feedback. Since I already had 50% efficiency in my new subroutine, I skipped the loop. But the other office liked the more solid results with the false confidence, so they asked if I could do that in my new subroutine. I told them to run my new subroutine twice. The advice that other people give about Pathfinder 2nd Edition, that people can restore the power fantasy by simply giving the party an extra level or two, is also a fix for being more accurate than the old way.
The non-power-fantasy way to win challenging battles in PF2 to to use the inherent weakness that Paizo developers build into their creatures. That weakness is that PF2 creatures are simple.
Back when I raised the challenges in PF1 adventure paths by 2 levels to challenge my players, I had to analyze the creatures, such as a CR 7 Hobgoblin Bombadier with class alchemist (grenadier) and feats Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Throw Anything, Toughness, Weapon Focus (bomb), to see how the numbers on the creature were derived in order to invent a CR 9 version. The PF1 creatures have so many details in their stat blocks that the GM needs a one-paragraph Tactics guide to know how to play them. The PF1 Hobgoblin Bambadier has multiple tactics, such as buffing before combat with mutagens and potions of fly, invisibility, or haste, throwing bombs, enhancing their weapons alchemically, and something called directed blast which is probably the alchemist discovery Directed Bomb.
During Combat The bombardier hurls bombs at enemies, or uses directed blast if the foes are grouped closely together. He uses unstable accelerants with the bombs that seem most likely to hit. He saves most of his alchemical items to use with the alchemical weapon ability if he gets stuck fighting in melee range. In this circumstance, he drinks his mutagen before attacking.
PF2 creatures are simpler. They don't need feats nor a Tactics guide, because they have only two or three tactics that are expressed as their Strikes and their special abilities.
For example, look at the 4th-level PF2 Hobgoblin Archer. It lists no class and no feats, but it appears similar to a ranger with Precision Edge and its Running Reload special ability is identical to the ranger Running Reload feat. Ranger PCs have to Hunt Prey on a target to use their Precision Edge, but the Hobgoblin Archer simplifies that to Crossbow Precision which does not require hunted prey. Shooting with crossbows is a Hobgoblin Archer's only good tactic, though they can instead stand in formation for extra defense and attack with shortswords if forced into melee. Their Stealth and Perfect Aim ability suggests that they could set up to shoot from ambush, too. That is three simple tactics.
And simple creatures with only three good tactics can be outmaneuvered. If they specialize in melee Strikes, then attack them from range. If they specialize in ranged Strikes, then sneak up to them from behind cover for melee combat. If they have lots of hit points balanced by a weakness to fire, then hit them with fire. Etc. My party fought Hobgoblin Archers by ranged bow Strikes and spell attacks followed by a Hide action to duck behind cover for defense, while the Hobgoblin Archers were stuck out in the open in formation. The melee PCs prevented the Hobgoblin Archers from finding cover of their own.
The difficulty of applying tactics is that some players might think they are invulnerable, scream "Leeroy Jenkins!" swing their +1 striking shocking greatswords, and run into melee combat with the melee-expert enemy while taking ranged shots from the ranged-expert enemy, all while hoarding the party's supply of Alchemist's Fire deep in backpacks because they never discover the fire weakness. Tactics require some planning during each combat, not just planning during character creation.
The fun of tactical play is that the players can invent tactics around their preferences. They could play offensively with a cleric providing in-combat healing. They could play defensively to deduce damage and Treat Wounds between encounters without a cleric. They could scout to figure out enemy weaknesses in advance, or they could discover those weaknesses during combat by hitting the enemy with many different kinds of attacks. Some players could spend their turns debuffing enemies with spells or Demoralize, or all players could focus on dealing damage. They could do one of these in one combat and another of these in the next combat for variety or to exploit individual tactical situations.
My players did this during PF1 games, so to us PF2 tactics were not new.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't a primary healer is necessary in PF2. Our groups in PF1 always had a primary healer because the game was built sufficiently brutal on purpose to create the need for one.
PF2's difficulty level is set high enough to create the illusion of challenge without the need a dedicated healer as you level. So it's better to have a secondary healer with a heal spell when you need it that can do other things.
I don't a primary healer is necessary in PF2. Our groups in PF1 always had a primary healer because the game was built sufficiently brutal on purpose to create the need for one.
PF2's difficulty level is set high enough to create the illusion of challenge without the need a dedicated healer as you level. So it's better to have a secondary healer with a heal spell when you need it that can do other things.
The playtesting I did (about 8 fights between levels 1 - 16) did suggest otherwise, but then again I stuck mostly to moderate to severe encounters, to test how those fights felt. The elite rune giant and three storm giants actually were on the lower scale of encounter difficulty. That may have skewed my perspective somewhat.
Otherwise I'll just have to give out some extra healing items, I guess.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the time I see chain lightning just stopping somewhere because someone critically saves. By that level several classes have their "treat success as critical success" abilities.
I think a dedicated healer isn't pulling their weight. Some spike healing in combat is really useful so that for example the fighter doesn't have to abandon the front line / get knocked out. But until that actually becomes likely, I want that healer to be doing aggressive things instead - debuffing, striking or throwing damaging spells.
For my (cloistered) cleric in Age of Ashes a combat might start by moving (so I'm in the right position next turn), throwing a Divine Wrath to damage/sicken enemies (many of them were weak to good), and firing an arrow from my Speed longbow. Does that sound like a healbot to you? I almost never ran out of the Heal spells I got from my charisma, so I didn't spend spell slots preparing extra Heal spells.