| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To start this is not a hate thread. In fact, I can't really hate 2nd edition because I barely remember any rules. So, this is more of a change my mind please thread.
I started with D&D 2nd edition in the 90's and have gone through many different systems since then.
When second edition was about to come out, I was hyped. I had preordered all the early releases. I had played the playtests. I gave feedback and really tried to give it a chance. I even kickstartered the 2nd edition Kingmaker AP. After I got the books I lost interest. I didn't like the way combat was handled. I hated how magic was handled. I tried multiple games. I played as a GM, I also played as a player. A buddy of mine was in my party, and he was also the person who was the GM when I played. He also is a better GM then me. We tried really hard to get through the first AP of PF2 and never got through the first AP. I canceled all my subscriptions for the rule books and the AP's after that.
We were both die hard PF1 fans. We still play it. However, after support for PF1 ended it started to die off. He moved, and moved on to D&D 5th. I never did try 5th. I felt like the direction of 2nd went the wrong way.
My biggest complaint was that magic felt weak, and unbalanced. I felt like a melee did more damage then a mage except when they used one of their very limited, spell slots. And then, it only put them on par to a melee. I felt like the ... cantrips was it? The spells they were supposed to use as their go to weapons felt weak. And were significantly weaker then someone using a bow or sword. And the moment they started using magic weapons (which felt needlessly weird. Why can't I just make a +3 longsword? Instead you bought items to buff your sword right? I don't remember the exact language but it was something like a major sharpness talisman? Obviously I don't remember how it exactly worked.) it felt like magic just became a joke. Best they could do was being a buffer or using utility spells.
The other thing and this is the harder one to explain, There seemed like so many choices, which is not bad, to customize your character... However, it just felt like flavor that did not actually create a different experience. 2 fighters could be built completely different, but in the end it just felt like different bonuses, different descriptions, same small bonuses adding up to a similar roll.
To add to that, the number of actions per round being static just seemed.... Boring. I understand that you can make people stronger each level without adding any extra actions, and it was done to streamline combat, but it basically just came down to, I attack, your turn. Wow, you attack, next. And then it was just each person attack once, enemy action, each person attack once. It just drained the excitement of combat from the system. Sure, it was annoying when the monk would have to roll out 6 attacks, but it still felt more fulfilling.
Now, I know that I probably have some misconceptions, and I probably did not understand the rules as well as I thought I did. But, there was 2 Seasoned GM's. Both of us poured over the rules, debated and came on here to ask questions to make sure we were doing things right. I'm here to ask your experience and perception as people who probably spent a lot more time then I have on 2nd, what I got wrong, How it has changed for the better, or how the game improves after the first few levels I experienced.
Remember, I have hundreds of sessions in 1st. I love the growth and the variety of 1st. I understand that the characters become more interesting after the first few levels, but, I did not see that in 2nd based on reading the rules and talking about it. I like high magic, 1st had that, 2nd felt more like high magic world/items low magic characters. My greatest sadness with second, was that a lot of the magical wonders of Golarion was not something you could realistically replicate with 2nd rules. For example, could you even play through the Ruins of Azlant AP in 2nd edition with the same characters you would have used in the 1st edition AP with the 2nd edition rules?
This is not a hate thread, I hope that the experiences and suggestions you put here will convince me to reread the rules, and maybe keep a eye out for something you all say here that I missed with my experience. I REALLY want to WANT to play the 2nd edition kingmaker I paid way too much for. lol
| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
We were both die hard PF1 fans. We still play it.
That is the problem. That right there.
Not a problem with you. There is nothing wrong with liking or even preferring PF1.
No, the problem is that PF1 and PF2 are fundamentally differently designed game systems. They fill the same narrative flavor, but they are very, very different in design goals.
So being a diehard fan of PF1 game design often means that you will dislike PF2.
PF1 is a powergamer's game. It builds superheroes.
PF2 is a storyteller's game. It builds cinematic heroes.
That is why you don't like the character build options. Why magic seems weak. Why there are so many build choices that have no meaningful impact on character power. That is intended by the game design.
-----
PF1 is a great game. But PF1 has a lot of storytelling flaws in its mechanics.
There are something like 90+ separate skills once you separate out the various Crafting, Performance, and Knowledge skills into their separate subtypes. Of those, you generally get full 1/level rank bonus in 4+INT of them. So having an encounter based on character skills being used to win the day is a non-starter. Unless you pre-decide during session-0 which skills are actually going to be used in challenges and limit skill challenges to those skills only.
PF1 characters are generally siloed to do one to three things, and do them so well that they practically never fail at them. And everything else they are so bad at that the player doesn't want to touch their dice to use them.
PF1 only has two outcomes for dice rolls: save... and suck. If you meet the AC/DC, then everything goes your way and you get everything you want. If you miss, you suck. And quite often, it is framed as a player problem of the player building their character wrong, or playing their character wrong , that caused them to fail.
So the storytelling can get rather bland. Usually the GM has to cater to the build of the characters - things like only having combat challenges, and not designing the combat challenges to specifically exploit PC weaknesses or negate their powerbuild abilities. Otherwise the players will have a bad time and feel that their characters are ineffective due to the GM specifically targeting them and soft-nerfing them into failure.
-----
PF2 instead goes in a different direction and tries to build for storytelling.
There are only 16 skills + Lore with its subtypes. You get one Lore automatically and it is only ever used for Earn Income during downtime and on rare occasions as a bonus you can use it for things like Recall Knowledge if it happens to be relevant.
Of those 16 skills, none of them have subtypes - crafting is crafting for anything, performance is for performances of any type, etc. And any time you have any investment in a skill at all, you get a full 1/level bonus to it. You will get boosts to spend on skills to increase your bonus to them, much like the PF1 Skill Focus feat.
Build options like class feats and skill feats are for narrative power, not dice influence power. You can get feats that let you jump farther, get enemies flat-footed when they are frightened, run across the surface of water, or steal things that people are actively using. But you don't often have feats to give you a +2 bonus to your attack roll. The result is that there is a power ceiling on the game math. And for character optimization, that means that it is better to build wide rather than tall - you get diminishing returns on investing in a particular tactic or trick rather quickly. One or two feats in, say, dual wielding is plenty. Don't go overboard and take 6 feats for using two weapons - put those other 4 feats into something else.
PF2 has 4 degrees of success on a d20 roll. Save and suck were renamed to critical success and critical failure and pushed out 10 dice points away from the DC. Two new outcomes were created, named success and failure, and would best be described as moderately good and moderately bad.
So the storytelling can be a lot more varied. The characters are better equipped to handle a wide range of encounters with different win conditions. Encounters can be built to use character skills (because characters are expected to have a much larger percentage of possible skills at a relevant bonus level). Encounters can be built to be won by combat as normal. Encounters can be built to be won by completing an objective while combat is going on around you. And because PF2 has a very narrow power band - the difference between minimal investment in a build option (such as a skill) and maximal investment in a build option - that means that encounter math can be built without seeing the characters who will be participating in the challenge. The challenge can be built for a 'typical' character and the characters that actually play in the challenge will be in the target range for the game math where the outcome is determined primarily by the d20 rolls, and the player's in-the-moment decisions and tactics.
And with the 4 degrees of success, players don't need to be as scared of the d20. They can go ahead and roll for things that they are not fully and maximally optimized for without worrying overly much about getting a result of 'suck'. A result of 'moderately bad' happens often, but for a cinematic hero, that is actually a good thing. A lot of the narrative tension is caused by having bad things happen when the heroes try to do something. Watch a Marvel movie and note how many times the heroes get clobbered by a villain and have to either regroup in order to win that fight, or retreat entirely and lick their wounds and come back later in the movie.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to be honest with you.
PF1 is a far more fun game for a player. Nothing beats the player customization in PF1. The feeling of real power in that game was addictive. I built absolutely insane characters I absolutely loved. The mythic rules took the already insane PF1/3E ruleset and ramped it up even more. The magic items were more fun and impactful. PF1 was a great game.
My personal favorite iteration of D&D was 2nd edition. Most of my favorite characters of all time I played in second edition. They had great world building, modules, and books. Maybe it's part of the reason why they ended up going out of business, but the box sets and book design in 2nd edition was just amazing. My buddy used to buy 2nd edition material just to read it even if he didn't play it.
So why did I move to PF2 if as a player I loved PF1/3E so much?
It was a nightmare to DM past the early levels. Casters were just insanely powerful at high level. It got to the point that if you played a martial character, you may have felt great doing high damage but you were a sidekick to the casters. I built casters that didn't even need the martials there in most adventurers. Caster power increased to the point the game was a joke.
I moved to PF2 after reading it and playing it because it was so easy to DM across all levels. Even level 20 characters aren't so strong you can't pull a CR20 creature from the bestiary and give the characters enough of a challenge to feel the fight. The level 20 characters may still win and may still win relatively easy compared to lower level, but it still requires a group rather than the wizard took his turn.
That's my reason for switching: easier to DM and play. It has allowed me to play a character more often because most of my group gave up DMing PF1/3E because the high levels became so unmanageable.
They don't feel intimidated to run PF2 at any level because they can pull a monster from the bestiary of the appropriate level and run it with minimal prep to provide a decent fight.
Even though I miss the amazing customization and power of PF1 as a player, I find PF2 more playable and enjoyable as a DM and I like that other people in my group are more willing to step up and DM because the game doesn't become so imbalanced at higher levels.
I can't sell you much on PF2 other than its' easier to DM/GM. You can play more often to higher levels easier in PF2 than you can in PF1. I won't lie to you: it won't be near as much fun building a character and you won't feel near as powerful as you did in PF1/3E. Everything is watered down and a lot of the choices are cosmetic rather than real power increases.
The real power increases are all carefully built in to each class to make progression across classes far more balanced with certain innate abilities standing out as better than others, but not so much so that it is as imbalanced as PF1.
Only reason to switch is the easier DMing. If you don't have problems finding PF1 DMs, PF1 is much more fun to build characters in.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2nd Edition went in a direction that not all players will like. It nerfed powergaming which diminished the power fantasy of a god-like hero easily defeating monsters to rescue ordinary people, unless the GM deliberately chooses weak monsters. And Pathfinder 1st Edition still has a richer range of options for character design than PF2 has. Keep playing PF1 if you prefer it. The two editions are sufficiently similar that the newer PF2 modules can be converted to PF1.
My players like tactical teamwork in combat rather than powergaming, so they like both PF1 and PF2.
I have been analyzing the design of PF2 since the 2018 public playtest, and I figured out answers to some of Alenvire's questions.
We tried really hard to get through the first AP of PF2 ...
Paizo now acknowledges that the first PF2 AP, Age of Ashes, was poorly written because the writers had no significant experience with PF2. It had too many difficult combat encounters.
My biggest complaint was that magic felt weak, and unbalanced. I felt like a melee did more damage then a mage except when they used one of their very limited, spell slots. And then, it only put them on par to a melee. I felt like the ... cantrips was it? The spells they were supposed to use as their go to weapons felt weak. And were significantly weaker then someone using a bow or sword.
Look at the cantrip Needle Dart. It makes an attack roll against the target's AC, so it is easy to compare to weapon damage. It deals 3d4 piercing damage, which averages to 7.5 damage. That is weaker than a barbarian wielding a greatsword for 1d12+4 slashing damage, average 10.5 damage, but compares well with its 60-foot range to a longbow dealing 1d8 damage, average 4.5. The longbow can shoot twice in the time to cast Needle Darts, but the second Strike has a -5 penalty, so it hits only about half as often. 1.5 times 4.5 damage comes out to about 7 damage, similar to Needle Darts. The cantrips are in the same ballpark as ranged weapons.
And the moment they started using magic weapons (which felt needlessly weird. Why can't I just make a +3 longsword? Instead you bought items to buff your sword right? I don't remember the exact language but it was something like a major sharpness talisman? Obviously I don't remember how it exactly worked.) it felt like magic just became a joke. Best they could do was being a buffer or using utility spells.
The weapon runes are for player convenience. When a +3 longsword is in the loot, but the martial PC uses a greatsword, then the magical crafter in the party can pry the +3 rune off of the longsword and put it onto a greatsword for the martial character. Other than transferring runes, a +3 longsword is viewed as a magic sword even though the magic is in the rune.
The other thing and this is the harder one to explain, There seemed like so many choices, which is not bad, to customize your character... However, it just felt like flavor that did not actually create a different experience. 2 fighters could be built completely different, but in the end it just felt like different bonuses, different descriptions, same small bonuses adding up to a similar roll.
Alenvire is right, except that the situation is worse than they said. The feats that customize characters beyond their choice of race, class, and attribute bonuses are weak. The feats open up a few alternatives but do not change the nature of the class. A druid with weather powers, a druid with stone powers, and a druid with water powers are not particularly different. The druid with an animal companion and the druid with animal forms have more variety, but they still are primarily primal spellcasters. Feats allows individual flavor, but a class is still that class.
Spending the feats on archetypes can make more of a difference. That gives a dash of another class. Note that it is only a dash. PF2 lacks true multiclass characters.
To add to that, the number of actions per round being static just seemed.... Boring. I understand that you can make people stronger each level without adding any extra actions, and it was done to streamline combat, but it basically just came down to, I attack, your turn. Wow, you attack, next. And then it was just each person attack once, enemy action, each person attack once. It just drained the excitement of combat from the system. Sure, it was annoying when the monk would have to roll out 6 attacks, but it still felt more fulfilling.
Hey, I have played GURPS which has only one action per turn: move, attack, or make half a move and a weak attack. A roleplaying game needs the option of both moving and attacking in the same turn; otherwise, an opponent could just keep backing away and turns would be only movement with no attacks. So two actions per turn are the reasonable minimum. The PF2 designers (technically the PF1 Pathfinder Unchained designers) decided that casting most spells would take two actions, so that forced a three-action minimum.
The PF1 system of full-attack with multiple attacks and a five-foot step, inherited from Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, led to boring battles of standing still to fight. PF2 encourages using just two actions for Strikes and the third action, which might come before the Strikes, to make the Strikes more interesting, such as by Demoralizing the opponent to lower their AC class and their future counterattack or Aiding the barbarian who deals twice the damage. Doing nothing but Strikes is choosing to make combat boring.
My greatest sadness with second, was that a lot of the magical wonders of Golarion was not something you could realistically replicate with 2nd rules. For example, could you even play through the Ruins of Azlant AP in 2nd edition with the same characters you would have used in the 1st edition AP with the 2nd edition rules?
I saw that Age of Ashes would not be to my player's taste, so I converted Ironfang Invasion, the PF1 AP preceding Ruins of Azlant, to PF2 rules. Ruins of Azlant would have been harder to convert at the time, because the Bestiary had too few aquatic creatures, but it too could be played nowadays as a PF2 campaign. That is why I think the PF2 APs can be converted to PF1, too.
The initial PCs in my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign were an elf ranger, a gnome druid, a gnome rogue, and a halfling rogue/sorcerer. They did play differently from PF1 characters of the same race and class. For example, the gnome rogue was a sniper. She would start the round hidden behind a tree, Strike with her bow from hiding for sneak attack damage, Strike again without the sneak attack (since the first attack made her no longer hidden), then use a Hide action to disappear behind the tree again. It was very effective, but PF1 does not allow hiding and attacking in the same turn. The halfling rogue in contrast took the Sorcerer Multiclass Dedication at 2nd level for two cantrips and then took the Magical Trickster feat at 4th level to deal sneak attack damage with those cantrips. But fundamentally, rogues in both PF1 and PF2 are about using good positioning and setups to gain sneak attack damage, and that is what both rogues did.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
To start this is not a hate thread. In fact, I can't really hate 2nd edition because I barely remember any rules. So, this is more of a change my mind please thread.
I feel like it's worth saying that it's possible PF2 just isn't for you, and that's okay. Every RPG system makes tradeoffs to accomplish certain goals over others, and some of those decisions won't work for some people. It's perfectly okay to just say "I tried it and it's not for me."
That said...
I started with D&D 2nd edition in the 90's and have gone through many different systems since then.
Me too!
My biggest complaint was that magic felt weak, and unbalanced.
In some cases, this is true, it does feel that way and there are some pain points with balance. In other cases it only feels that way because PF1 Magic was broken OP and completely dominated the game at high level play, and PF2 magic at those levels is actually far more balanced.
This is going to be a point of contention, because you said that you're a die hard PF1 player and also that you think PF2 magic is unbalanced. If you feel that PF1 is a good balance point, then PF2 will never work for you because the basic assumption of what balance looks like doesn't match.
I felt like a melee did more damage then a mage except when they used one of their very limited, spell slots. And then, it only put them on par to a melee.
Melee does more single target damage than casters do for the most part. That's their thing, and PF2 wants them to be good at their thing. Spell slots do more damage, do significantly more damage than ranged weapon attacks, and can create a variety of effects. Casters also excel at AoE damage and hitting multiple enemies.
That said: playing a blaster caster does not feel as good in PF2 as it did in PF1. This is especially true in single target encounters, even more so against single target "boss" encounters due to how PF2 encounter scaling works (those boss creatures will rarely fail saves).
I felt like the ... cantrips was it? The spells they were supposed to use as their go to weapons felt weak. And were significantly weaker then someone using a bow or sword.
Cantrips don't do big damage numbers. They exist primarily so that casters have something to do when they're not using spell slots, as opposed to the PF1 scenario of casters being stuck shooting crossbows because they don't have any spells to use in a given fight.
They give you a way to do some damage (and other things) while still feeling like a caster. If you compare a PF2 Wizard using Electric Arc instead oof a spell slot to a PF1 Wizard using a Crossbow (or a cantrip) instead of a spell slot, the PF2 Wizard is actually doing better.
This also becomes less of a thing as you gain levels since you have both more spell slots and more focus abilities (per encounter spells), so you're just using cantrips less often.
And the moment they started using magic weapons (which felt needlessly weird. Why can't I just make a +3 longsword? Instead you bought items to buff your sword right? I don't remember the exact language but it was something like a major sharpness talisman? Obviously I don't remember how it exactly worked.)
Weapons don't actually work that differently in PF2 vs PF1: they're still a collection of basic modifiers and properties. In PF1, the basic modifier is the + bonus, and the modifiers are magic properties that get added.
PF2 has two basic modifiers instead of 1. + (potency) adds to your attack roll, and striking adds to your damage. A Striking weapon adds another damage die, like a regular longsword does 1d8 damage and a Striking longsword does 2d8 damage.
Like, a +3 Flaming Holy Longsword in PF1 is roughly the equivalent of a +2 Greater Striking Flaming Holy Longsword in PF2. Flaming and Holy are still special properties you can add, you just do it with runes instead of enchanting the weapon directly.
The other main difference is that you can move runes: if you find a Greater Flaming Trident but no one in your party uses Tridents, you can move that Greater Flaming rune with the Crafting skill to a weapon you do use, instead of just selling it.
The other thing and this is the harder one to explain, There seemed like so many choices, which is not bad, to customize your character... However, it just felt like flavor that did not actually create a different experience. 2 fighters could be built completely different, but in the end it just felt like different bonuses, different descriptions, same small bonuses adding up to a similar roll.
That's deliberate: the math is kept in check so you can't build characters that break the game the way you could in PF1. Feats and such give you new things to do, better action economy, or more ways to use things. They don't generally give stacking bonuses because that was a big way to break things in PF1.
I had a Bard in PF1 where I literally didn't bother rolling a bunch of skills because failure was impossible (and my Shattered Star Unchained Rogue is starting to get there). PF2 very specifically does not want that to happen for on-level challenges, so things are reined in.
If you like the "its impossible to fail" style of play, you won't like this. I greatly prefer it as a GM because in PF1 you'd get situations where any challenge that a specialist can't auto-succeed at effortlessly, no one else can even attempt. That isn't a problem in PF2: The specialist is far better at it than someone who is just Trained, but more people can generally at least attempt to do things.
To add to that, the number of actions per round being static just seemed.... Boring. I understand that you can make people stronger each level without adding any extra actions, and it was done to streamline combat, but it basically just came down to, I attack, your turn. Wow, you attack, next. And then it was just each person attack once, enemy action, each person attack once. It just drained the excitement of combat from the system. Sure, it was annoying when the monk would have to roll out 6 attacks, but it still felt more fulfilling.
The number of actions in PF1 is static as well, it's just that the number of attacks you get out of it isn't. And the way that worked out tended to create very static combats: full attack until target is dead, find new target. Moving and doing other things are actively discouraged in PF1 because doing anything that denies you the full attack is too costly. It also created some goofy situations like a game I was in where a Slayer one-shotted a powerful demon by full attacking it with a boatload of arrows, all of which were getting buffs from other players. (My Bard also did this with the Unchained Monk, by the end of the campaign the damage output once he could full attack was absurd with all my buffs and an enemy would just melt.)
That makes PF2 combat more dynamic. You move around more. You need other things to do with actions because attacking a third time at -10 just isn't worth it vs doing something more useful.
Now, I know that I probably have some misconceptions, and I probably did not understand the rules as well as I thought I did. But, there was 2 Seasoned GM's. Both of us poured over the rules, debated and came on here to ask questions to make sure we were doing things right. I'm here to ask your experience and perception as people who probably spent a lot more time then I have on 2nd, what I got wrong, How it has changed for the better, or how the game improves after the first few levels I experienced.
Characters in PF1 feel different than PF2. They grow faster as there's little real cap on it: broken combos exist and the game lets you go hog wild with them unless the GM bans a lot of stuff. This leads to players overpowering the game in ways that PF2 does not let you do. For players, that can feel pretty limiting.
... but I've been GMing d20 style systems since 3e came out and PF1 for years before PF2 came out, and I won't GM PF1 ever again. It's just a freaking nightmare in comparison to GMing PF2. The constraints put on player power make the game WAY easier on a GM. Building encounters is not a black magic art anymore: the encounter building system largely works as expected. Setting DCs for on-the-fly situations is easy: the book gives you a table and guidance on how to use it. Creatures aren't generally taking out of a fight entirely by failing one save, which is also true of players. Plus, high level play works way, way better.
I don't need an expansive ban list of nonsense the way I did in PF1 and I don't need anywhere near the number of house rules I needed in PF1.
Remember, I have hundreds of sessions in 1st. I love the growth and the variety of 1st. I understand that the characters become more interesting after the first few levels, but, I did not see that in 2nd based on reading the rules and talking about it. I like high magic, 1st had that, 2nd felt more like high magic world/items low magic characters. My greatest sadness with second, was that a lot of the magical wonders of Golarion was not something you could realistically replicate with 2nd rules. For example, could you even play through the Ruins of Azlant AP in 2nd edition with the same characters you would have used in the 1st edition AP with the 2nd edition rules?
Some of this stuff is different, and some stuff in PF1 can't be done in PF2. Like, my absurd, beloved PF1 Bard? Can't recreate her in PF2 without house rules, because she can do too many things at once and give out too many bonuses that don't stack anymore, while also being incredibly good at a huge number of skills.
But considering my GM banned some of the feats I took after that campaign ended from all future games because of how badly she tilted things... maybe that's okay. I did recreate a PF2 version of her and while she's not the absolute monster she was before, she is still quite strong.
Like, I can't give someone +10 to attack anymore. But considering + to attack is also a + to crit... a much smaller bonus is having a similar impact on damage being done. The +3 from Heroism at high level is a massive power boost despite it not sounding that powerful compared to PF1 numbers. The whole scaling is just different.
Now, you might not like the feel of "a +1 bonus is actually big" and want to give out bigger numbers. Totally valid feeling. It's a common issue in PF2 where people don't feel like these small bonuses are actually making a difference even though they are, to the point that Foundry has a module that calls out every time it changes an outcome so players get to see just how often it matters. The perception makes a big difference in terms of feel here: players like feeling effective and PF2 sometimes makes it hard to actually get that feeling without the GM going out of their way to call out that you changed a hit to a crit with that Intimidate action.
All that said... PF1 stuck around for so long for a reason. It scratches certain itches better than PF2 does. If those things are what make you happy playing, you won't like PF2 because it's trying to do other things. That's subjective at the end of the day, and how you feel about it is really what matters in terms of what system you enjoy playing.
Like, I'm a PF2 GM of two campaigns, a player in 1 PF2 campaign, and a player in 1 PF1 campaign. Given the option I'd convert the PF1 game to PF2 but the GM doesn't want to and I like the group and the story, so I'm still there... but I'm frustrated by PF1's penchant for "oh you failed a save in round 1 so you're sitting this fight out", which happens to me far more often than I like. In PF2 I'd need to critically fail for that to happen, whereas a fail is generally problematic but you can do something about it. I like the part more where in a bunch of skills I basically can't fail, but it feels crappy for other party members who basically can't succeed at those things and for the GM who has to either accept that they can't even attempt it, or that I'm just going to succeed no matter what.
(I think today you could run Ruins of Azlant in PF2 just fine. Some character options wouldn't work well, but that was also an issue in PF1 with anything underwater.)
This is not a hate thread, I hope that the experiences and suggestions you put here will convince me to reread the rules, and maybe keep a eye out for something you all say here that I missed with my experience. I REALLY want to WANT to play the 2nd edition kingmaker I paid way too much for. lol
... ironically my group just stopped playing PF2 Kingmaker because it wasn't working for us. I think there's a LOT of problems with that AP, the Kingdom Rules being the most notorious.
I'm a big PF2 booster, but the system definitely has its issues (all systems do). Half-baked AP subsystem rules are way up on the list, which is something that was also true in PF1 and has not improved at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We were both die hard PF1 fans. We still play it.That is the problem. That right there.
Not a problem with you. There is nothing wrong with liking or even preferring PF1.
No, the problem is that PF1 and PF2 are fundamentally differently designed game systems. They fill the same narrative flavor, but they are very, very different in design goals.
So being a diehard fan of PF1 game design often means that you will dislike PF2.
PF1 is a powergamer's game. It builds superheroes.
PF2 is a storyteller's game. It builds cinematic heroes.
That is why you don't like the character build options. Why magic seems weak. Why there are so many build choices that have no meaningful impact on character power. That is intended by the game design.
Just want to reiterate these points, because these were pain points for me when I first started to transition to PF2. Coming from PF1 where you could win the game at character creation made PF2 very painful.
It's not the same game as PF1. All the PF1 players would have be better off if the game had a completely different name, so that we wouldn't think of it as the same game. Because other than being a D20 system, the trappings of the system are so radically different we shouldn't really compare them.
Being used to PF1 and the things you "learned" from that system make PF2 a lot harder, because those habits are bad now.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you love 3.X conventions, then pf2e will not be your game, simple as. It's a system where choice and power are almost completely decoupled. Choice impacts play style but your chargen power ceiling is pretty much decided for you at lvl 1 with your class choice. Team play can boost your numbers but the measure of you specifically is mostly out of your hands. I've seen players make wacky concepts and follow their hearts in character concept without ever negatively impacting their performance on the battle grid. To me, that is the single most laudable accomplishment of the system. The ability to express your character without fear of messing up and being wholly superfluous when measured against other PCs in your party. It's a truly liberating feat. Suddenly, everyone is in it for the story, making the characters they WANT, not the the characters they NEED to compete. I honestly, hope and pray that 3.X conventions never see a revival. Let the dead lie in their repose...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you love 3.X conventions, then pf2e will not be your game, simple as. It's a system where choice and power are almost completely decoupled. Choice impacts play style but your chargen power ceiling is pretty much decided for you at lvl 1 with your class choice. Team play can boost your numbers but the measure of you specifically is mostly out of your hands.
In PF2, I've seen players make wacky concepts and follow their hearts in character concept without ever negatively impacting their performance on the battle grid. To me, that is the single most laudable accomplishment of the system. The ability to express your character without fear of messing up and being wholly superfluous when measured against other PCs in your party. It's a truly liberating feat. Suddenly, everyone is in it for the story, making the characters they WANT, not the the characters they NEED to compete. I honestly, hope and pray that 3.X conventions never see a revival. Let the dead lie in their repose...
I think I agree with what you're saying, but I want to confirm that you omitted so words, so I modified your words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for all the replies. I agree with some points, mildly disagree with some others.
Sadly it seems like my first impressions were pretty accurate for me and my players. Some of the things here were why I was looking forward to pf2, but, I feel like they went too far.
I liked that it made things easier on a GM, and at the same time, never found PF1 a nightmare to run. I can easily see why people think that though, so no disagreement with that point. I wanted mages to be reigned in because they did really dominate, but, I found it more on the utility side. Blasters are boring and really not that much damage heavy compared to melee (Full attacks with good buffs) in my opinion in PF1 (except aoe). Its why I avoided blasters. I did see mages in 2nd edition still being the AOE masters, but waiting till level 5 to be useful in combat seemed very meh in pf2. I hate being a fireball mage. Evocation is usually one of my opposed schools.
Its good to know that cantrips are on par with ranged. Or at least competitive. Though I suspect it falls way behind after they start adding the magic talisman things to a bow. I don't think a cantrip should be stronger then a dedicated single target ranged or melee. But, I found I did less overall then anyone else in the group since there was no spell slots to make me useful in most combats. Much like pf1, I tended to pass on my turn to allow others a chance to go, or, I would just have my dice ready and try and pass my turn as quick as possible.
In pf1 I would try and get a spell out there to assist in a party like grease, or darkness. Web or summon. Then switch to the crossbow. In pf2 I don't have the slot economy to effectively help in each combat unless you rest after each combat. When I did not use a spell slot, I was not being useful.
My impressions is that PF2 went too far, made players not the focus, but the GM and storytelling the focus. While superpowered and overpowered is a problem with PF1, pf2 gameplay feels too simplistic for me. As a player, I would like to feel more empowered to effect the game. As a GM, I feel like I don't need the system to be simplified to tell a good story.
There is a LOT to like about pf2. The character making was some of the most fun character designing I have ever done. Way better then pf1 in my honest opinion. It just felt flat playing it though. To each their own I guess. I was hopeful but oh well.
I will stick with GM'ing Shadowrun, Exalted, and WoD. Playing those and pf1 will be enough for me. I just wish there was still PF1 AP's coming out. lol, or a official conversion for PF2 AP's since I really don't know pf2 enough to downgrade them myself. I have always needed AP's to run PF, the others I can freehand. (Probably a good example of what everyone means about PF1 being a pain for GM's.......)
I have played with many people who would probably prefer pf2. Its just not for me. Good luck and have fun all!
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really agree with "in PF1e is more fun to build characters" when most characters take the same 3-4 feats every time and, by the point where you could actually start taking stuff you actually want instead of feat taxes, the game became an auto-battler pretty much. Not to mention that you still have to cope with a ton of the archaic design logics of 3.X that were carried over to PF1e. The moment I switched to PF2e I was sure I wasn't going to ever look back to PF1e, and all the people I play with are pretty much the same. Its perfectly valid to like PF1e more than PF2e if you want to play the demigod, but PF2e is the more fun system because you can actually play a character there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing and this is the harder one to explain, There seemed like so many choices, which is not bad, to customize your character... However, it just felt like flavor that did not actually create a different experience. 2 fighters could be built completely different, but in the end it just felt like different bonuses, different descriptions, same small bonuses adding up to a similar roll.That's deliberate: the math is kept in check so you can't build characters that break the game the way you could in PF1. Feats and such give you new things to do, better action economy, or more ways to use things. They don't generally give stacking bonuses because that was a big way to break things in PF1.
I think this is a misunderstanding with how I said it. Its not the smaller numbers that is the problem, or the easier math. I'm all for having the game more balanced and less breakable. My problem was that everyone was basically just rolling the same thing. The cantrip attack, damage, and associated bonuses, had very little difference from the rangers roll, or the fighters, or the druids, or anyone elses. The individuality felt stripped. With little to distinguish the characters apart. The attack type for example had very little distinction between them. It would be very possible to list out all the attack rolls, bonuses and damage, and you might not be able to tell what did each roll.
In PF1 if someone pulled out 12 attacks in a full attack action, you had a good idea who or what was attacking just from the numbers. If you saw a attack for 1 hit, with a single damage die but a huge damage bonus, You knew what you were looking at. If you saw 12 d6's you likely knew what that roll was for. The variety in PF2 was limited IMO. Sure, you still see 12 d6's and the other example 'might' still exist, but, in most combats your just going to see similar rolls for a druid, cleric, wizard, fighter group. At least that is what I 'Thought' I dunno if its true. Again, I have a lack of experience and am just going with what I saw in the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for having the game more balanced and less breakable.
Well, that's good.
My problem was that everyone was basically just rolling the same thing.
But that is basically the description of 'more balanced and less breakable'.
That is what balance means. Each character, no matter how they are built, has approximately the same amount of effectiveness. Meaning that the amount of damage that they are doing each round is pretty close to the same.
You might get some variation in that one character is rolling 4d6 damage (spell slot spell), one is rolling 2d6 + 1d8 + 4 (precision ranger), and a third is rolling 2d8 + 3 + 5 (thaumaturge).
The thing is ... if some builds are noticeably different than other builds, some of them are going to also be noticeably better than others. And that is what leads to game imbalance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a misunderstanding with how I said it. Its not the smaller numbers that is the problem, or the easier math. I'm all for having the game more balanced and less breakable. My problem was that everyone was basically just rolling the same thing. The cantrip attack, damage, and associated bonuses, had very little difference from the rangers roll, or the fighters, or the druids, or anyone elses. The individuality felt stripped. With little to distinguish the characters apart. The attack type for example had very little distinction between them. It would be very possible to list out all the attack rolls, bonuses and damage, and you might not be able to tell what did each roll.
Right, yes the gaps are significantly smaller and there's less variance. Though they do exist. My son's Kobold Fighter at high level was critting for 14d12 slashing + 2d6 fire plus setting the enemy on fire for persistant damage (plus his flat bonus which was something like +20 on a crit). He could also deal with ranged enemies by... simply giving his sword 60' reach for a strike. That number is not a typo and no one else in the group could do that. First time he did it, the flying enemy was decidedly unimpressed lol. AND he would use an action to literally kill things with Intimidate because Scare to Death does what it says. He killed 2 demons in one turn by power attack critting one into the ground (it was already injured) and using Scare to Death on the other. Suffice to say he was having a blast. :D
His rolls were very different than the Paladin (d8s for his intelligent rapier and several attacks since he had a counterattack reaction he could use multiple times a round), who were different from the Investigator (lots of d6s for the gun and strategic strike), who were different from the Bards (which could be anything from a pile of d6s for Telekinetic Bombardment to not rolling anything but crippling an enemy with Synethesia).
It's not the same variance as someone doing Multishot/Rapid Shot bow stuff with 9 attacks vs someone who gets a couple of very big hits in PF1, but builds in PF2 do diverge as they level.
I wanted mages to be reigned in because they did really dominate, but, I found it more on the utility side. Blasters are boring and really not that much damage heavy compared to melee (Full attacks with good buffs) in my opinion in PF1 (except aoe). Its why I avoided blasters. I did see mages in 2nd edition still being the AOE masters, but waiting till level 5 to be useful in combat seemed very meh in pf2. I hate being a fireball mage. Evocation is usually one of my opposed schools.
Healer/support/debuff casters are the best ones in PF2, so your impression there might be off. Spells like Synesthesia are absolutely devastating, even on a successful save. That's the target having a 20% miss chance, a chance to lose Concentrate actions (like spells), a speed penalty, and -3 to all DEX stuff including AC. That means if your melee friends were hitting this enemy with a 10 on the dice, they're now hitting on a 7 and critting on a 17. And that happens even on a successful save. This can end fights it's so strong.
Healing is stronger in PF2 than PF1 at low level since Heal is a great spell at level 1 while PF1 Cure spells aren't nearly as strong. PF2 healers can easily swing fights by just undoing entire enemy turns, its wild.
Low level casters aren't that strong, but they weren't in PF1 either and they can contribute faster in PF2 with a decent focus spell and cantrips. It's why I won't play a Wizard in PF1 in any campaign that starts at level 1: it doesn't get fun for a while.
Its good to know that cantrips are on par with ranged. Or at least competitive. Though I suspect it falls way behind after they start adding the magic talisman things to a bow. I don't think a cantrip should be stronger then a dedicated single target ranged or melee. But, I found I did less overall then anyone else in the group since there was no spell slots to make me useful in most combats. Much like pf1, I tended to pass on my turn to allow others a chance to go, or, I would just have my dice ready and try and pass my turn as quick as possible.
Cantrips auto-heighten, so when archers are getting runes on their bows, cantrips are adding more dice. They're still not a thing you want to be doing at higher level, but they do scale. Electric Arc adds another d4 every 2 character levels and since it hits two targets, it remains competitive for quite a while. Something like Telekinetic Projectile adds a d6 every 2 character levels and does the same thing.
In pf1 I would try and get a spell out there to assist in a party like grease, or darkness. Web or summon. Then switch to the crossbow. In pf2 I don't have the slot economy to effectively help in each combat unless you rest after each combat. When I did not use a spell slot, I was not being useful.
You do outside of low level. My Oracle is level 11 and it's getting hard to actually run out of spell slots at this point, plus I have multiple focus spells that I can get back for every fight (and Cursebound abilities which also come back every fight). Oracle is on the stronger end of "doesn't run out of stuff" but every caster should be getting focus spells to rely on and they just naturally all get more spell slots. You may not have your best slot by the 4th fight of the adventuring day, but you'll have way more than none once you're in the mid levels.
Just going by some of the issues you're having, I think you would find it feels better in the mid and high levels. Low level PF2 does get somewhat samey and casters can run out of stuff to do, but that changes as progression kicks in. I had a group of new players that I ran Fists of the Ruby Phoenix for, which is an AP that starts at level 11. It was a lot for them to learn at once, but they definitely felt distinctive with all the cool powers online. (Also a very entertaining adventure, so that helped.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a misunderstanding with how I said it. Its not the smaller numbers that is the problem, or the easier math. I'm all for having the game more balanced and less breakable. My problem was that everyone was basically just rolling the same thing. The cantrip attack, damage, and associated bonuses, had very little difference from the rangers roll, or the fighters, or the druids, or anyone elses. The individuality felt stripped. With little to distinguish the characters apart. The attack type for example had very little distinction between them. It would be very possible to list out all the attack rolls, bonuses and damage, and you might not be able to tell what did each roll.
This is an interesting question, because to some degree you're correct - if you list out all people with, for instance, expert in martial weapons and throw out all the attacks, it would be difficult to tell the specifics from there. This is intentional, to some degree - it means that a given weapon type is as good damage-wise as another weapon type. A given d10 weapon will be as good as another d10 weapon. What matters is how that weapon interacts with the action flow.
For instance, let's take a look at three examples, all level 5 (so all expert). We'll say a human Dragon Stance monk, an elf Precision ranger wielding a scythe, and an orc dragon Barbarian wielding a Falchion. Can you tell me the difference?
1) Stride 35 ft, followed by three attacks, +14/+9/+4 for 2d10+4 (with +1 if the previous missed).
2) Stride 30 feet, unnamed action, followed by one attack, +14 for 2d10+1d8+4 (+d10 on crit).
3) Stride 25 feet, action doing one attack, +15 for 2d10+4+4 force against two enemies.
All of these are very basic examples, but I think you can see some major distinguishing factors there.
In PF1 if someone pulled out 12 attacks in a full attack action, you had a good idea who or what was attacking just from the numbers. If you saw a attack for 1 hit, with a single damage die but a huge damage bonus, You knew what you were looking at.
I certainly can't agree with this. PF1 was designed very much around single damage die but massive damage bonus - there's a reason everyone took Power Attack, for instance. A lot of PF1 was designed around the dice not mattering past a certain point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that is basically the description of 'more balanced and less breakable'.
That is what balance means. Each character, no matter how they are built, has approximately the same amount of effectiveness. Meaning that the amount of damage that they are doing each round is pretty close to the same.
You might get some variation in that one character is rolling 4d6 damage (spell slot spell), one is rolling 2d6 + 1d8 + 4 (precision ranger), and a third is rolling 2d8 + 3 + 5 (thaumaturge).
The thing is ... if some builds are noticeably different than other builds, some of them are going to also be noticeably better than others. And that is what leads to game imbalance.
Only if you assume that combat is the only place where a class should be balanced, if you break this assumption, you can have classes that shine in other areas and still feel good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These are all really good points and honestly, I dunno. I might have to dust off my books and give it another look. Thank you all for the responses.
I'm not going to lie. I felt and to some extent still do that pf2 is more like a mmo then I would like, where dps is just that, a different way to do the same damage as others. But, it does appear there is ways for people to actually feel different, rather then number generators (for mechanics. Story never cares about mechanics really). It may just be the low ish levels of what I played, which I think was a max of level 5, is not a accurate example of what PF2 can be. Not to mention, there is a lot more books and options for people now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is ... if some builds are noticeably different than other builds, some of them are going to also be noticeably better than others. And that is what leads to game imbalance.Only if you assume that combat is the only place where a class should be balanced, if you break this assumption, you can have classes that shine in other areas and still feel good.
Yes, all classes need to be reasonably balanced to each other in combat alone. I don't think that is an invalid assumption.
That is actually one of the problems with Investigator - some of their class feat and class ability power is being spent on non-combat investigative stuff. And they suffer in combat as a result. And so the class is not well received.
And I didn't say that combat is the only challenge type where the characters should be balanced against each other.
In an ideal game system, each campaign would also be balanced in importance between combat, skill challenges, NPC interaction, and downtime (or the equivalents in this hypothetical game system). But in current existing campaigns, combat is still often given a higher focus and priority. So a class or character that shines in those areas that are not important, but struggles in combat, isn't likely to still feel good to play.
The nice thing about PF2 design is that combat power and other power such as skill power are coming from mostly separate build pools. You don't have to give up class feats, class abilities, or class proficiencies (which provide your combat power) in order to take skill feats. You can't spend skill boosts on increasing your weapon proficiency. There is some bleed-across in that some skill feats have combat utility, and most general feats provide combat usefulness, but you can instead spend your general feat slots on additional skill feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may just be the low ish levels of what I played, which I think was a max of level 5, is not a accurate example of what PF2 can be. Not to mention, there is a lot more books and options for people now.
I do think that if you only ever play the first few levels in either system, it's hard to get an accurate idea. For instance, if you have a bow character in PF1, it basically doesn't do anything different until maybe level 8, because the feats are all clogged with Point-Blank Shot/Precise Shot/Rapid Shot/Multishot, in that exact order.
The other thing is that while PF1 mainly did things by distinguishing different values of numbers, PF2 plays a lot more with how that interacts with action economy and gameflow. So sometimes it's harder to tell at an outside glance. One major example is shields, I think. In PF1 it's just a permanent flat bonus to your AC, while in PF2, you have to spend an action to raise it, but it can also give you different bonuses for special shields, as well as the Shield Block reaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, all classes need to be reasonably balanced to each other in combat alone. I don't think that is an invalid assumption.
My most memorable character was played in Cyberpunk, invested very little in combat ability, and was still at least as useful as every other character.
That is actually one of the problems with Investigator - some of their class feat and class ability power is being spent on non-combat investigative stuff. And they suffer in combat as a result. And so the class is not well received.
The class also sucks to GM for. It expects a certain level of preparation and a very specific style of game to function. It's badly designed for many reasons, not just because of how it does or doesn't work in combat.
In an ideal game system, each campaign would also be balanced in importance between combat, skill challenges, NPC interaction, and downtime (or the equivalents in this hypothetical game system). But in current existing campaigns, combat is still often given a higher focus and priority. So a class or character that shines in those areas that are not important, but struggles in combat, isn't likely to still feel good to play.
Combat is only so important in PF2e because everything else sucks. The system isn't good at handling out-of-combat situations and spends 90% of its page count on rules that only matter in combat. Other systems suffer far less from these issues.
The nice thing about PF2 design is that combat power and other power such as skill power are coming from mostly separate build pools. You don't have to give up class feats, class abilities, or class proficiencies (which provide your combat power) in order to take skill feats. You can't spend skill boosts on increasing your weapon proficiency. There is some bleed-across in that some skill feats have combat utility, and most general feats provide combat usefulness, but you can instead spend your general feat slots on additional skill feats.
Why even use feats and classes? Why not just have stats, skills, and things you can do with those skills? More complex and powerful uses of those skills are gated by difficulty rather than artificially gated by feats, so you never get left asking, "Why am I not allowed to even try that without the feat?".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In pf1 I would try and get a spell out there to assist in a party like grease, or darkness. Web or summon. Then switch to the crossbow. In pf2 I don't have the slot economy to effectively help in each combat unless you rest after each combat. When I did not use a spell slot, I was not being useful.
A caster is a bit trickier to play efficiently in PF2.
You have a lot of money available compared to martials.
If you want to be efficient as a caster, you must invest this money in scrolls. They are what will add to your slots so that you can feel really good.
You can see poster SuperBidi's posts for well-thought advice on how to play casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you never get left asking, "Why am I not allowed to even try that without the feat?".
There are entire other threads dedicated to that PF2 misconception. I'll not go into it again here.
As for the rest of the post, it sounds like your Cyberpunk GM is better at keeping the campaign balanced for combat and non-combat value. (Or maybe the system itself is, I haven't played Cyberpunk.) Which is why you don't feel bad about hanging back in every combat doing little to nothing - because you know that when combat is over, then you will be doing awesome things again.
So it feels to me like we are mostly in agreement on that. PF2 could potentially be played in a way where noncombat focused characters would be fun to play even though they are not very useful in combat. But that isn't how this game is normally played in practice. And it doesn't seem like that is one of the design goals. So for PF2, yes - every class needs to be balanced in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues do bother me a bit gaining skill ups and skill feats every level while also being one of the most highly effective classes in combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really agree with "in PF1e is more fun to build characters" when most characters take the same 3-4 feats every time and, by the point where you could actually start taking stuff you actually want instead of feat taxes, the game became an auto-battler pretty much. Not to mention that you still have to cope with a ton of the archaic design logics of 3.X that were carried over to PF1e. The moment I switched to PF2e I was sure I wasn't going to ever look back to PF1e, and all the people I play with are pretty much the same. Its perfectly valid to like PF1e more than PF2e if you want to play the demigod, but PF2e is the more fun system because you can actually play a character there.
Feats were completely separate from class abilities in PF1.
PF2 class ability customization was vastly more fun than PF2. Bringing up people took the "same feats" isn't going to make sense to PF2 players that don't understand that class abilities prior to PF2 were separate from PF1. Class abilities were far more differentiated, customizable, and powerful in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feats were completely separate from class abilities in PF1.
Class abilities were far more differentiated, customizable, and powerful in PF1.
As far as the game design of how it affected your character and who was allowed to access them:
The class abilities of PF1 became the class feats of PF2.
The feats of PF1 became the general feats of PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing I don't care for in PF2 is striking runes making the damage die the main focus for optimization of damage. In PF1 you could use a dagger and do good damage as most damage was based on a static number with the damage die becoming a very small portion of your overall damage. If you take a dagger in PF2 due to the way striking runes work, you are weakening your damage substantially because even double damage doubles the base number of die. So it is always in your best interest to have the highest damage die possible to max your damage from an optimization standpoint. Whereas in PF1 you maximized damage by maxing your static bonuses from stats, feats, class abilities, and the like. You also wanted a wide crit range and big multiplier, even so for classes like rogues the dagger was still very viable. Whereas taking a dagger in PF2 and you will do noticeably less damage than someone taking a shortsword or an elven curveblade.
I really don't love striking runes and everything that keys off them. I would prefer moving back to the weapon damage die being a smaller component of damage making weapons more fungible.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked that it made things easier on a GM, and at the same time, never found PF1 a nightmare to run. I can easily see why people think that though, so no disagreement with that point. I wanted mages to be reigned in because they did really dominate, but, I found it more on the utility side. Blasters are boring and really not that much damage heavy compared to melee (Full attacks with good buffs) in my opinion in PF1 (except aoe). Its why I avoided blasters. I did see mages in 2nd edition still being the AOE masters, but waiting till level 5 to be useful in combat seemed very meh in pf2. I hate being a fireball mage. Evocation is usually one of my opposed schools.
That's good, because there's a lot more to casters than blasting in PF2E.
There are some great spells out of the box at lvl 1, depending on your tradition.
- If you like buffing, you get things like Bless or Benediction, or Runic Weapon that trivializes early encounters.
- If you like blasting, magic missile (renamed force barrage) is great boss damage while a spell like phantom pain hits for 2d4+1d4 persistent - AND STILL DEALS DAMAGE ON A SUCCESSFUL SAVE.
- If you like debuffing, boy do I have spells for you. Fear, command, befuddle, gust of wind... and that's only at level 1.
There's nothing as encounter-ending as Color Spray was in PF1 but that's for the best - nobody likes a fight to rely on one single dice roll. And Color Spray did NOTHING on a save, while many PF2 spells still have an effect, albeit milder.
Its good to know that cantrips are on par with ranged. Or at least competitive. Though I suspect it falls way behind after they start adding the magic talisman things to a bow. I don't think a cantrip should be stronger then a dedicated single target ranged or melee. But, I found I did less overall then anyone else in the group since there was no spell slots to make me useful in most combats. Much like pf1, I tended to pass on my turn to allow others a chance to go, or, I would just have my dice ready and try and pass my turn as quick as possible.
What cantrips did you use ?
1 - Cantrips with saves are more highly regarded than cantrips that require an attack roll.2 - Cantrips that can attack multiple targets or do AOE damage are likewise valued highly.
If you only used Needle Darts (although it's a pretty good cantrip), I can understand your frustration. If you hit, that's ok damage. If you don't, that's almost your whole turn wasted.
Now what if you were to use electric arc instead ? Now suddenly you can have TWO targets, and they still get half damage on a save. Do the maths, 2d4 on two targets with half damage on a miss is damn good damage. Is it as good as a giant barbarian strike ? Nope, and it shouldn't be since 1 - it's a cantrip and 2 - the whole barbarian shtick is hitting things hard. But you're still pretty close.
Also, a lot of monster have some kind of vulnerability, and they're mostly elemental (weak to fire, lightning or ice). Your friendly neighbourly barbarion won't be able to trigger them while you can do it much more easily.
In pf1 I would try and get a spell out there to assist in a party like grease, or darkness. Web or summon. Then switch to the crossbow. In pf2 I don't have the slot economy to effectively help in each combat unless you rest after each combat. When I did not use a spell slot, I was not being useful.
Unless you're playing a bonded caster or a psychic, you have at least 3 slots per level, with some classes (sorcerer, oracle, basically wizard) having four or even more.
You're not supposed to throw a top spell every round - if you do that, you'll get out of steam pretty fast, that's true, especially in a dungeon.
But the difference with PF1 is that your low level slots can stay useful throughout your carreer (except for blasting): the DC is the same whether it's a lvl 1 or a lvl 9 spell. So as a full caster, you're better off throwing a big bad spell in the first two rounds of the encounter, and then mope up with lower level spells and/or cantrips.
You also have focus spells, that are basically "per encounter" spells and that you can use liberally. They're automatically enhanced at your highest casting level, and you get them back after refocusing for 10mn.
My impressions is that PF2 went too far, made players not the focus, but the GM and storytelling the focus. While superpowered and overpowered is a problem with PF1, pf2 gameplay feels too simplistic for me. As a player, I would like to feel more empowered to effect the game. As a GM, I feel like I don't need the system to be simplified to tell a good story.
It's actually the opposite.
Character building is harder and more important in PF1, and you need a good amount of system mastery - but when your character is set, you'll have your routine and probably won't stray much from it. If you took spell focus enchantment + greater spell focus enchantment + whatever bonuses you can pilfer here and there, you'll throw high-DC enchantment spells to try and make it stick, and that's it. If you're melee, you'll try to get into range in order to full attack.
I found PF2 much more tactical on a round by round basis. You have 3 actions and can do whatever you want with it - move three times, intimidate three different enemies, jump over a cliff, try to shove an opponent into a chasm then heal yourself.
You're at half-HP and you're in the reach of some big monster with an AOO. Will you attack ? Raise your shield ? Try to heal anyway ? Step away then heal ? Delay so someone can bait the opportunity attack away ? Try to grapple the monster or maybe trip him ? Step, step, then use battle medicine ? It's got so much more possibilites than just move action/bonus action/action or full action.
PF1 usually was a slugfest of "I do a 5 feet. I full attack". Not anymore.
AS FOR CASTERS BEING WEAK.
That's just not true. They're still incredible powerhouses. It's not linear fighter/exponential wizard anymore, but it still comes close. A high level caster in PF2 is not as powerful as in PF1, but he can still turn encounters.
Don't believe me ? What if that big bad boss that gives everybody trouble is... just not there anymore, so that everyone can take a breather. No save, no nothing, he's just not there anymore. (Quandary).
Or maybe make ALL your opponents lose at least one action, and maybe 1 per round for the whole fight, making it somewhat of an instant win if you play with positioning (Slow 6th level).
Or maybe make ALL your opponents confused for one minute on a failure and still stun them on a success (Confusion 8th).
Or, you know, make that impossible-to-hit boss paper-thin and easy to crit (Synesthesia).
You're telling me all those spells are high levels ? That's true. Then what about incapacitating all the mooks in one fell swoop as soon as character lvl 3 (calm). And hey, even if they save, they're still debuffed.
What about turning into an ooze at level 5 ? Disgusting, right ? But you're now immune to crits (they're frequent and nasty against bosses), you get to almost double your HP and you deal damage almost on par with martials.
You're not into blasting, you said. But Blazing bolt is a lvl 2 spell that can output 12d6 damage, putting your fellow barbarian to shame.
And that's only a few spells from the top of my head - but wall spells are still awesome, invisibility is stronger than ever and you still get all those utility spells, from fly to jump to tailwind to water breathing to planeshift.
Also, as a caster, you'll shine the brightest when there are many opponents. If your DM only throws at you bosses or lieutenants with same level or +2 level, you'll probably feel less useful than in encounters including mooks. It's not PF1, your AC is not untouchable as a tank, so mooks ARE incredibly dangerous if you don't deal with them, and guess who can ?
PF2e is all about teamwork. Without teamwork, you'll probably get wrecked by moderate encounters if the dice don't roll in your favor. With teamwork, you can tackle extreme encounters and live to tell the tale. This opponent has such an AC that your fighter only hits him on a 16+ ? Throw a synesthesia and even on a save the fighter can hit him on a 13+. Flank him and now the fighter hits on a 11+. Use fortissimo (and crit with a brooch) and now the fighter hits on 8+. Use One for All as a legendary diplomat and now the fighter hits on a 4+.
It's an extreme example, but that's what PF2e is about. Bullying, intimidating, charming, creating diversions, tripping, shoving, blinding, tying your opponent's shoes together so that your team as a whole can make short work of much stronger enemies.
If you want to be a lone hero, PF1E is the best game.
If you want your team to be the hero, PF2E is the best game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
making weapons more fungible.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
Weapon types and categories and traits are not interchangeable.
Weapons are fungible. If I take away your +1 Striking Flaming short sword and give you a different +1 Striking Flaming short sword, then mechanically nothing has changed. You don't need to get back your original sword for mechanics reasons.
Maybe you would want to for narrative or plot reasons, but that is different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues do bother me a bit gaining skill ups and skill feats every level while also being one of the most highly effective classes in combat.
Skills aren't as strong as some people think. Having access to nearly every skill and double the amount of skill feats and skill increases is certainly a good thing, but since most characters are trained in at least 4-5 skills at 1st level, have enough skill increases to bring 3 of them to legendary, and stuff like Follow the Expert exist, in practice most parties have access to every skill in the game with relative ease even if they didn't plan for that to happen.
A rogue or investigator isn't necesarily the character that's best suited at skills in the party, that's only really true at 2nd level when they can access expert earlier, but rather someone that can cover all the basics on their own and/or be the backup in a particular check if other PC fails it. However, I do agree the rogue is probably too good at combat taking into account its supposed niche are skills, but I probably think this (and probably you think this as well) because all the other skill classes (mainly investigator and inventor, if the later could be considered a skill class to begin with) IMO underperform significantly (I don't really know why someone would choose investigator over rogue when even flavor-wise they are pretty much the same and the rogue can poach all of its goodies through the archetype and use them for better effect than the investigator itself). Only the thaumaturge and maybe the swashbuckler perform similarly while being a class built around skills or skill (Esoteric Lore).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing I don't care for in PF2 is striking runes making the damage die the main focus for optimization of damage. In PF1 you could use a dagger and do good damage as most damage was based on a static number with the damage die becoming a very small portion of your overall damage. If you take a dagger in PF2 due to the way striking runes work, you are weakening your damage substantially because even double damage doubles the base number of die. So it is always in your best interest to have the highest damage die possible to max your damage from an optimization standpoint. Whereas in PF1 you maximized damage by maxing your static bonuses from stats, feats, class abilities, and the like. You also wanted a wide crit range and big multiplier, even so for classes like rogues the dagger was still very viable. Whereas taking a dagger in PF2 and you will do noticeably less damage than someone taking a shortsword or an elven curveblade.
I really don't love striking runes and everything that keys off them. I would prefer moving back to the weapon damage die being a smaller component of damage making weapons more fungible.
I certainly agree with this and I mentioned recently in other posts that I would love for weapons to be balanced against each other rather than just against weapons of their category (like daggers being bad on design since they are a simple weapon, when the only reason to make simple weapons worse than martial weapons isn't a thing anymore now that casters have good infinite use cantrips and even bards can have access to martial weapons).
I would totally be okay with daggers (and other weapons that are in a similar position) to deal less damage but compensate that with traits or, somehow, to decouple damage from the weapon itself and have the weapons themselves just be a combination of traits. Ideally, some weapons should still deal more damage than others, which could be like a trait for greatswords and greataxes to increase their damage die by one (let's assume the weapon damage die is based on your Strength modifier, so someone with a +4 STR mod would deal 1d8 damage with weapons, or 1d10 with greatswords and greataxes). But anyways, I prefer the first option way more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
making weapons more fungible.I do not think that means what you think it means.
Weapon types and categories and traits are not interchangeable.
Weapons are fungible. If I take away your +1 Striking Flaming short sword and give you a different +1 Striking Flaming short sword, then mechanically nothing has changed. You don't need to get back your original sword for mechanics reasons.
Maybe you would want to for narrative or plot reasons, but that is different.
Eh, I think he used it correctly just in a different way than you're expecting.
Basically he's saying he wishes the majority of damage came from things inherent to the character, such that whether you were using a greatsword or a longsword didn't matter much.
That was the paradigm of PF1, at least in the since that weapon damage dice weren't important. The crit range was usually the single most important thing at that point. To the point where when the custom weapon building rules were released we saw people posting about the 1d4 18-20 crit range weapons with nice traits that they built. And then had conversations about how that weapon was obviously imbalanced. Because the rules put too much weight on weapon damage die, which didn't matter after a couple levels.
I understand the argument, I just think it's a bad idea because then you just go back to "this weapon has the best traits". Currently we have trade offs between damage dice and traits (and simple/martial/advance).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think its more of an issue with the value of traits.
Most don't mind losing a die size to gain reach for example but not all traits are as much of a gamechanger as reach. maybe reach is undervalued in terms of die steps to get it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
making weapons more fungible.I do not think that means what you think it means.
Weapon types and categories and traits are not interchangeable.
Weapons are fungible. If I take away your +1 Striking Flaming short sword and give you a different +1 Striking Flaming short sword, then mechanically nothing has changed. You don't need to get back your original sword for mechanics reasons.
Maybe you would want to for narrative or plot reasons, but that is different.
It means I could easily replace my shortsword with a dagger or a longsword or a handaxe and see a minimal impact on my damage. The weapon is fungible because the damage die no longer dictates what weapon I should choose.
I know there was some weapon optimization in PF1, primarily for big crit classes. But only a handful of weapons were superior and it wasn't based on damage dice, but the crit range and multiplier combination.
You still saw plenty of dagger rogues with shortsword rogues and rapier rogues. Whereas now it is pretty focused on maxing the die making the shortsword, rapier, and eventually the elven curveblade the push for optimizers with a light pick for those who like the crit possibilities.
The d6 to d8 damage is the more important component rendering d4 weapons something that only a person concerned with cosmetics would use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These are all really good points and honestly, I dunno. I might have to dust off my books and give it another look. Thank you all for the responses.
I'm not going to lie. I felt and to some extent still do that pf2 is more like a mmo then I would like, where dps is just that, a different way to do the same damage as others. But, it does appear there is ways for people to actually feel different, rather then number generators (for mechanics. Story never cares about mechanics really). It may just be the low ish levels of what I played, which I think was a max of level 5, is not a accurate example of what PF2 can be. Not to mention, there is a lot more books and options for people now.
Cool. :) One of my favorite PF2 characters was a level 11 Thaumaturge I made. He used a whip and tome as his implements, so he knew a lot about things (very helpful to point out weaknesses and special abilities) and had reach. Damage wasn't great, though it wasn't bad (whip is not a high damage weapon).
But he had Reach Trip and Reach Attack of Opportunity, so he'd trip things and then could react when they got up. Handy in itself... but we had two Rogues in the party, one of which was ranged. Tripping an enemy gave both rogues Sneak Attack. Stuff tended to have a bad day at that point.
If I did want damage, the whip had a Shifting rune on it so I could turn it into some other 1h weapon that hit harder. But Reach Trip gives a ton of tactical options so that tended to be the go-to.
Also had a daily allotment of scrolls I could create, plus could use any scroll in the game if I could get my hands on it. I had a lot of things I could do at any given time, so the flexibility is really what made it fun to play. That was stuff I got with a mid level character and it had a lot it could do vs my typical PF1 characters... which tend to be very good at doing a thing and don't want to deviate from it much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In pf1 I would try and get a spell out there to assist in a party like grease, or darkness. Web or summon. Then switch to the crossbow. In pf2 I don't have the slot economy to effectively help in each combat unless you rest after each combat. When I did not use a spell slot, I was not being useful.A caster is a bit trickier to play efficiently in PF2.
You have a lot of money available compared to martials.
If you want to be efficient as a caster, you must invest this money in scrolls. They are what will add to your slots so that you can feel really good.
You can see poster SuperBidi's posts for well-thought advice on how to play casters.
I never considered that as a realistic balance. If its true that mages have more money then a melee would lying around, then its a fair balance that they spend money on scrolls.
**edit I am loving the responses. It does honestly make me want to consider pf2 again. Honestly, this is what I was hoping for. My problems are still there since none of them was completely dispelled, but, I realize it still does have some interesting options. Now to see if I have my books, or if they are in storage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm someone who enjoyed PF1's magic more, so I'll chime in with a few things that I really appreciate in PF2.
- Illusion spells. You want a talking creature? A body double? Illusory Creature is a second-rank spell that's incredibly useful for a lot of things. Invisible Item gives you way more time than PF1's approach of casting Invisibility on an item while being earlier access- it's eventually even permanent. Illusory Object doesn't require spending all your actions concentrating on it, and is all in one heighten line. Illusory Disguise is no longer self-only, and heightens to cover the whole party; being able to make the main frontline look like a weak zombie is excellent. Illusions got a significant glow-up in PF2, and casting stuff that feels better is a good way to ease into the new system. They do require you to be interested in creative shenanigans, though.
- It's much easier to splash in a little casting, especially with free archetype. (If you're experiencing saminess, free archetype is a good addition anyway.) In PF1, it was like pulling teeth to get something as simple as "Command a couple times a day" on a character. In PF2, you can trade a few feats in and you're good to go. It works best with the non-offensive spells, of course.
- Thaumaturge and Exemplar are interesting martials. They have unique stuff they can do, which is good for mixing up their routine. After the remaster, Swashbuckler is on a pretty good place too. I'm really looking forward to Commander coming out soon- "prepared martial" is a fun concept. (I would also recommend Kineticist, but it's really not for anyone who feels like casters don't do enough damage.)
- Ancestry customization feels good. I went from "reflavoring a tiefling as a kobold because kobolds were so bad" in PF1 to "playing an actual kobold tiefling" in PF2. Versatile heritages do a lot.
It might not solve things for you, but I'm someone who took some adjusting to PF2 as well.
Starfinder 2e does seem to be aiming a little higher power-wise and jumping into more exotic class features earlier, so you might also decide to check that out once it releases or gets a few books under its belt.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve played PF1e since 2012 and started PF2e just a year ago, and I haven’t gone beyond 3rd level, so my experience may be similar to yours. I loved 1e, and my first impressions of 2e were underwhelming—there seemed to be a sameness to many classes, especially compared to my benchmark of the wonderfully diverse 1e oracle. But I really like 2e now. Here are some things I like that might make the OP take a second look.
1) The 3-action system. It’s simple and elegant and adds so much choice and diversity (compared to 1e’s repetitive move and attack, or 5’ step and full attack every round). You still have move and attack, but what to choose for the 3rd action? Debuff a foe with Demoralize or Bon Mot? Defend by Raising a Shield, Taking Cover, or Hiding? Aid an ally? The 3rd action enriches combat immensely.
2) High level spells from 1e have been weakened for balance reasons, but low level spells have also been strengthened. Compare Light & Dancing Lights from 1e with Light 2e. Were you ever annoyed at needing both Vocal Alteration and Disguise Self in 1e for a proper disguise? Compare with Illusory Disguise 2e; this can be heightened to impersonate a specific individual (freely, if you choose it as a sorcerer’s signature spell).
3) It sounds like you tried 2e when it first came out. Have you looked at the Remastered version? Paizo has done a good job fixing and improving on the original (Legacy) version (e.g. you can compare the spells I linked above to their Legacy versions).
4) Though there aren’t as many crazy options as 1e, there are still unique and flavorful abilities: consider the thaumaturge’s Mirror Implement, or a witch with the Ripple in the Deep patron (push a foe 5’ with no save—it’s a short distance, but that’s needed to balance the fact that there’s no save).
The need for balance means that casters shouldn’t outdamage a fighter against single targets—otherwise, what’s the point of being a fighter? They need a place to shine too. But my sorcerer never feels useless in combat, even if she’s just casting damage cantrips. And 2e casters still have all the great spells that martials can only dream of: Invisibility, Wall of Stone, etc.
In pf1 I would try and get a spell out there to assist in a party like grease, or darkness. Web or summon. Then switch to the crossbow.
This puzzles me though. You can do the same thing in 2e--it has the same spells--but rather than using a crossbow, you can cast a cantrip with a better attack bonus (and better damage) than a crossbow, which seems like an improvement. True, you get more spell slots in 1e, but not that much more at low levels, especially when you factor in a free focus spell for basically every encounter in 2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Quote refuses to work right and I'm too tired to fix it. Your response to what I would try to do in pf1, I found I did not have the spell slots to support 1 or 2 spells a encounter before switching to the cantrip. To be fair, I have heard that lower level spells have been buffed compared to pf1 and you yourself mentioned a remaster that I have no idea of. So it sounds like after the first few levels you probably do have the spell slots with enough decent spells to assist in every fight.
I will check out the spells again and see if there has been some changes or additions that will change my opinion. It sounds like it will.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
you yourself mentioned a remaster that I have no idea of.
Pathfinder 1st Edition is a largely based on Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition. This is legal, because Wizards of the Coast published D&D 3rd Edition under a permanent Open Gaming License that lets other publishers copy parts of the game for 3rd-party content. However, the language of open licenses changed and possibly (not legally tested) a permanent license could be revoked. In 2023 Wizards of the Coast considered revoking their OGL for D&D 3rd Edition and D&D 5th Edition (4th Edition did not have an open license). Public outcry among gamers persuaded them to not try. The D&D Open Game License controversy, explained
Pathfinder 2nd Edition built its rules from scratch to avoid ambiguities. Therefore, the PF2 rules themselves do not need the OGL. However, PF2 copied a lot of its vocabulary from PF1, which copied vocabulary from D&D 3rd Edition. Wizards of the Coast could possibly forbid Paizo from using familiar names such as Magic Missile. Paizo decided to be proactive and went ahead with the Remaster Project that removed those D&D names. They replaced the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Core Rulebook with three books: Player Core, Player Core 2, and GM Core. The Bestiary has been replaced with Monster Core.
Mostly this is a vocabulary change, so we have to say Force Barrage instead of Magic Missile. However, Paizo also took the opportunity to adjust some classes to be a little better balanced, mostly shoring up the weaker ones, and some spells to be a little more consistent with other spells. They goofed on wizards when they had to drop D&D's seven schools of magic and replaced them with curriculums from schools that train wizards, but lately they published Lost Omens: Rival Academies to give more variety to the schools. They also dropped the alignments: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil.
The old Pathfinder 2nd Edition Core Rulebook is still usable. Type the old name into PF2 Archives of Nethys search and it will find the Remastered version.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Thank you so much for all of that. Saved me a lot of googling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are entire other threads dedicated to that PF2 misconception. I'll not go into it again here.
Any feat-based system that doesn't explicitly have rules for taking that exact action without the feat is, by default, a system that leaves players asking, "Why does my character need a feat to do [thing]?".
As for the rest of the post, it sounds like your Cyberpunk GM is better at keeping the campaign balanced for combat and non-combat value. (Or maybe the system itself is, I haven't played Cyberpunk.) Which is why you don't feel bad about hanging back in every combat doing little to nothing - because you know that when combat is over, then you will be doing awesome things again.
Cyberpunk spends significantly less page space on rules that are only useful in combat than PF2 and most other D20-based games do. It explicitly encourages running away from any fight you don't have an advantage in and using your non-combat skills to bypass fights or otherwise set them to your advantage. It also encourages you to use the least force you think you can get away with because walking around in full combat armour with a massive rifle attracts heat your characters don't want.
So your average fight has even your most combat-oriented character out of their heaviest armour and wielding a sidearm. It's only when you're going after a hard target or otherwise in a position where firepower beats discretion that the big guns and heavy armour come out.
In the game, I was referencing my Netrunner character was good at hacking and social engineering and never carried more than a medium calibre pistol and light armour designed to look like street clothes. He never made himself a threat and never had to fire his weapon in combat.
So it feels to me like we are mostly in agreement on that. PF2 could potentially be played in a way where noncombat focused characters would be fun to play even though they are not very useful in combat. But that isn't how this game is normally played in practice. And it doesn't seem like that is one of the design goals. So for PF2, yes - every class needs to be balanced in combat.
I think PF2 isn't well designed for a campaign focused on things other than combat. It doesn't have great rules for long stretches of play where combat doesn't happen, and spends so much page count on things only useful in combat that it doesn't sell itself to RP-focused groups the way other systems might.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it feels to me like we are mostly in agreement on that. PF2 could potentially be played in a way where noncombat focused characters would be fun to play even though they are not very useful in combat. But that isn't how this game is normallyI think PF2 isn't well designed for a campaign focused on things other than combat. It doesn't have great rules for long stretches of play where combat doesn't happen, and spends so much page count on things only useful in combat that it doesn't sell itself to RP-focused groups the way other systems might.
Well maybe people could use the mechanics laid out for exploration mode (Player Core, GM Core) and downtime mode (Player Core, GM Core) if they don't want to rely on pure rolelay...
Or maybe even use encounter mode for things other than combat (such as "a race to disarm a doomsday device before it detonates, or even an impassioned negotiation with the queen"). GM Core even provides specific structure for social encounters...
Are the social encounter rules as detailed as the combat rules? No. But they don't need to be, as you don't have to account for all of the different spells and weapons, positioning, maneuvers, conditions, etc.