Thoughts on Pathfinder 2nd edition?

[Tallyn]

Bought the books, but haven't had time to play yet. I really enjoyed 1st edition Pathfinder, but also look forward to trying out the new edition, there are some rules that look neat, and the game (probably) won't break down as quickly as PF 1.0 did (when it comes to at what PC level does the game start to break down at).

I'm not really looking for "I think X is stupid" or "I hate it" comments, more comments like "I find N problematic, because of X, Y, Z" or "I don't like Q, because of [reasons]."

I know we have at least one or two resident Pathfinder experts (I think Psyren was one), so hoping to hear some good info on what is liked from the new edition, and what is disliked and why.


To start off, I am really digging the 3 action system (at least on paper), with some actions taking 1, 2 or all 3 of your actions in a round. It feels like it may create more situations for tactical movement/attacks/actions.

[Drackstin]

A good review of some problamatic things are found here, this was posted about 2 weeks ago.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?598892-PF2e-house-rules-shiny-new-systems-are-made-to-be-broken)

[Eldonauran]

To start off, I am really digging the 3 action system (at least on paper), with some actions taking 1, 2 or all 3 of your actions in a round. It feels like it may create more situations for tactical movement/attacks/actions.
I've been playing quite regularly (twice a week) recently as a goblin elemental blood sorcerer, with bard dedication aspirations. I have to say that the three action system really gives you some flexibility when you really need it, and you NEED it as a spellcaster that suddenly has a martial-oriented creature with reactions in your face.

1st action: 5ft step away
2nd action: Focus spell "Elemental Toss" for FIRE DAMAGE
3rd Action: 1st level spell Jump (somatic) away onto a high point away from scary monster


PF2E is really a completely different system that has its own thing going for it. I still prefer PF1E and still run/play games for it. And I may have adopted a few things I like from PF2E (such as the 3 action economy) and D&D5E (multiclassing spellcasters).

[ThatMoonGuy]

I like the concept of it but many things are not as well executed as I wished.

Take multiclass, for one. It`s basically a more open ended version of VMC from PF 1e. Instead of getting things at certain levels you can decide when to take the feats from the multiclassed class. It`s a very nice idea but the fact that you can only take feats from half you class level means you`ll rarely be able to access the stronger features of your secondary (or tertiary class).

I really like the three action system (my own system has been using this for a few years) but PF doesn't do enough with it. The open & press is a good demonstration of this. Conceptually, it's a way to combine different actions to get tactical benefits but most of the presses are very weak and that added to the tags (flourish and so on) means you don't get much space for combos. The base system is good but the way it's executed needs improving.

The worst part of so many options being weak is that either everything will remain weak in the coming splats or the CRB options will become useless as powercreep comes into play.

Overall, I feel it's a system that's going to be pretty good once third parties get their hands on it.

[Tallyn]

I like the concept of it but many things are not as well executed as I wished.

Take multiclass, for one. It`s basically a more open ended version of VMC from PF 1e. Instead of getting things at certain levels you can decide when to take the feats from the multiclassed class. It`s a very nice idea but the fact that you can only take feats from half you class level means you`ll rarely be able to access the stronger features of your secondary (or tertiary class).

I really like the three action system (my own system has been using this for a few years) but PF doesn't do enough with it. The open & press is a good demonstration of this. Conceptually, it's a way to combine different actions to get tactical benefits but most of the presses are very weak and that added to the tags (flourish and so on) means you don't get much space for combos. The base system is good but the way it's executed needs improving.

The worst part of so many options being weak is that either everything will remain weak in the coming splats or the CRB options will become useless as powercreep comes into play.

Overall, I feel it's a system that's going to be pretty good once third parties get their hands on it.

Yeah, I get the feeling that the framework for 2nd edition, will be very good once it gets fleshed out with more options. I'm just excited for a bit of change... We've been playing essentially the same framework for almost 20 years (3.0 to 3.5, to PF).

I loved the multiclass system in PF 1.0, but I saw a lot of newer characters absolutely eviscerate their characters strength, by choosing very poor multiclass combinations, and not really having a design/plan for their characters. I think it's sort of a mixed blessing, in PF 1.0 the good thing was you could do almost anything you want... the bad thing was, you could do almost anything you want. :)

Edit: I still need to play one more PF 1.0 game to play a character I've wanted to try for a while.. the "Charisma bonus to everything" character. Thinking either Paladin or Oracle, but gotta figure out a way to get 2 feats at 1st level if it's possible. Want to go Tiefling for Paladin class thing where you get +1 per level when you LOH yourself (can't remember the name of it right now), if I go Paladin. Noble Scion and Fey Foundling possibly, and taking the Way of the Shooting Star fighting style. Eh, if I get the chance I'll see if I can figure it out heh

[Arkain]

For starters, there was an entire thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?594345-Pathfinder-2-Release) shortly after release, with plenty of thoughts, including Psyren and Kurald. If you want to work your way through it, of course.

[Tallyn]

For starters, there was an entire thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?594345-Pathfinder-2-Release) shortly after release, with plenty of thoughts, including Psyren and Kurald. If you want to work your way through it, of course.

Thanks!! I'll work my way through this when I get home :)

[Kurald Galain]

For starters, there was an entire thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?594345-Pathfinder-2-Release) shortly after release, with plenty of thoughts, including Psyren and Kurald. If you want to work your way through it, of course.
Yep.

My main issue is that the game is way too scared to give players interesting abilities, and as a result the mechanics are pretty bland. Examples include,
Feats that let you do something you can already do, but with a small bonus or a different action type (e.g. lie to me; reactive shield).
Spells that only have a worthwhile effect on a crit-failed save (e.g. most debuff or crowd control spells).
Keywords with the sole function of limiting an ability (e.g. open/press/flourish and particularly incapacitation).
Abilities that thematically should be usable together, but aren't since both are a distinct action (e.g. you can't power attack on a sudden charge).
Feats that are so situational you're unlikely to ever use them (e.g. exacting strike requires that you make three attacks AND the second misses AND has the above issue).
Lots of abilities with a fancy name or description that, mechanically speaking, don't actually do that (e.g. finger of death, resilient sphere, or a riposte that has to be declared in advance).


So I read through the 100+ skill feats below legendary, and found about 6 that I'd consider interesting. Even if you call me overly cynical and the actual amount is twice or thrice that, then the ratio is still way too low.

[ThatMoonGuy]

The worst part of it is that PF 2e had a lot of potential for being awesome from start. If you look at what people from DSP, Legendary Games, DDS and the ones who made City of 7 seraphs did, you can see how good late PF 3rd was. If they kept the core system as is but took a page from the 3rd party book PF 2e could be the best class based system on the market. Alas, they decided to double down on the limitations and the result is a system with great ideas cut short by boring options.

[Tallyn]

Ok, then slight change to topic, but I was only allowed to utilize Paizo published stuff for PF1E before.. what 3rd party products are really beneficial to the game (1st ed), but are still well designed enough to not completely destroy any sense of balance the game previously had?

Kurald? ThatMoonGuy? Specific books, rather than publishers, please :) Looking for the purchases you were the MOST pleased with

[EisenKreutzer]

Ok, then slight change to topic, but I was only allowed to utilize Paizo published stuff for PF1E before.. what 3rd party products are really beneficial to the game (1st ed), but are still well designed enough to not completely destroy any sense of balance the game previously had?

Kurald? ThatMoonGuy? Specific books, rather than publishers, please :) Looking for the purchases you were the MOST pleased with

Ultimate Psionics, Path of War and PoW Expanded, Akashic Mysteries. With those, the game feels deeper and more complete.
Grimoire of Lost Souls is also amazing, I love it.

Those books cover most of the original interesting subsystems from 3.5. They are all based on WotC published stuff, with facelifts, expansions and updates for Pathfinder that make them outshine the originals.

[ThatMoonGuy]

Ok, then slight change to topic, but I was only allowed to utilize Paizo published stuff for PF1E before.. what 3rd party products are really beneficial to the game (1st ed), but are still well designed enough to not completely destroy any sense of balance the game previously had?

Kurald? ThatMoonGuy? Specific books, rather than publishers, please :) Looking for the purchases you were the MOST pleased with

Path of War is a very good book, as is the Expanded version. I specially recommend the archetypes for standard classes. Akashic Mysteries from the same publishers is also pretty good. Ultimate Psionics is great but some players may have a hard time at first thanks to the Power point system.

Spheres of Might/Power are good as well but the archetypes not so much. If you're going for that, you're probably gonna have to drop the classes from Paizo. A lot of the Spheres are weak if you're not a full Spherecaster/Warrior (destruction is specially bad) and some spheres are just bad period (Dueling).

Legendary games Legendary series is good but it's harder to recommend. They have class fixes instead of broad, system wide changes. They are the best if you want to still play something that is very recognizably PF but with less blatant power gaps. The problem with this one is they never published a book collecting all the classes so you'd have to get them one by one and some of them aren't that well designed. The Legendary Samurai and Fighter are very good, while I really can't get behind the legendary Magus. A lot of their archetypes are flavorful but not really good and even the classes I like can suffer from feature bloat. What they do right is having a lot of ACFs for their ultimate classes so they are rather flexible.

Deep magic is interesting but, again, hard to recommend. It's a good supplement but it's not something that changes the way Pathfinder works.

A first party book that's worth looking into is Pathfinder Unchained. Some of the fixes they have for PF are pretty interesting and served as basis for PF 2e (Unchained action economy, VMC) or are good hacks to have (automatic bonus progression).

My current game uses Unchained Action economy together with Path of War, Path of War Expanded, Spheres of Power/Might, Ultimate Psionics & Akashic Mysteries and some work I've personally made in feat consolidation but that requires a lot of work to make the parts work together. If you drop UAE, you probably will save yourself a ton of time.

[patchyman]

I’m starting a new 2e campaign after playing 5e, and I admit, I am finding it tough to justify the jump in complexity and the relative weakness of 1st level characters.

I am excited to play my wizard, but I am finding it tough to grok some of the classes. In particular, I really wanted to like the sorcerer but I felt that you ended up giving up too much for the benefit of playing a spontaneous caster, and I found most of the level 1 focus spells useless or weak. I wouldn’t mind getting feedback from someone who has played the game.

[Morty]

Abilities that thematically should be usable together, but aren't since both are a distinct action (e.g. you can't power attack on a sudden charge).
Feats that are so situational you're unlikely to ever use them (e.g. exacting strike requires that you make three attacks AND the second misses AND has the above issue).

This is doubly difficult because in order to use two 1st level feats together, you need to sacrifice one of your 2nd level picks. Since feats come in level-based packages for whatever reason.

[NomGarret]

This is doubly difficult because in order to use two 1st level feats together, you need to sacrifice one of your 2nd level picks. Since feats come in level-based packages for whatever reason.

Coming from Spheres of M/P, which took the game in a different direction, this is even more frustrating. All I see in P2 are seemingly arbitrary prerequisites.

[Silvercrys]

On the one hand it gives you a sense of progression because every even level you get access to new feats you didn't have access to before

On the other hand, most of the feats are bad so you don't really look forward to unlocking them anyway

It's doubly bad because any time there are two feats at the same level you want, you have to "delay" higher level feats or skip one level of feats entirely.

[Rhyltran]

On the one hand it gives you a sense of progression because every even level you get access to new feats you didn't have access to before

I don't see how this is different from pathfinder 1st edition. You got feats every two levels in that as well. First feat at level 1, 3, 5, 7. Etc. You end up with 10 by level 20.

[Silvercrys]

I don't see how this is different from pathfinder 1st edition. You got feats every two levels in that as well. First feat at level 1, 3, 5, 7. Etc. You end up with 10 by level 20.Well. A few differences. Most characters didn't unlock new tiers of feats every odd level, so you spent most of your career just taking the feats you needed in whatever order you wanted. You unlocked new feats by taking prerequisite feats first, and some feats have a Base Attack requirement or skill ranks, sure, but that's a bit different from a hard "you must be this tall to ride" -- plus prerequisite feats and feat taxes aren't gone, anyway, Warpriest clerics have to take a feat that gives a piddling +1 to damage or +1 to shield hardness in order to take later, better feats. As an example.

It isn't "the fact that there are feats" it's that 80% of your feats are gated behind gaining levels and most of them feel less powerful than Pathfinder 1e feats in general.

This is compounded by the fact that combat feats universally got shunted into class talents feats, so now instead of, say, Rangers getting a special exemption for TWF feats by being able to ignore Dex but anyone with a 15 Dex being able to be competent at it, you pretty much have to be a Ranger to be good at TWF.

This is ~kind of okay in the sense that it prevents you from specializing in combat by forcing you to take skill and general feats, but they could have had skill feats every odd level, a shared list of combat or Metamagic feats every even level, and class talents on top of that if that was their goal.

[Milo v3]

I tried to give PF2e a shot but it was just far too dull when it came to character options. It has a tonne of options but each one is insanely niche or boring that it's hard to actually find character creation enjoyable for me, and the entertainment of character creation is basically the only thing I actually played PF1e for (since most systems do specific campaign concepts better IMO).

[Rhyltran]

Well. A few differences. Most characters didn't unlock new tiers of feats every odd level, so you spent most of your career just taking the feats you needed in whatever order you wanted. You unlocked new feats by taking prerequisite feats first, and some feats have a Base Attack requirement or skill ranks, sure, but that's a bit different from a hard "you must be this tall to ride" -- plus prerequisite feats and feat taxes aren't gone, anyway, Warpriest clerics have to take a feat that gives a piddling +1 to damage or +1 to shield hardness in order to take later, better feats. As an example.

It isn't "the fact that there are feats" it's that 80% of your feats are gated behind gaining levels and most of them feel less powerful than Pathfinder 1e feats in general.

This is compounded by the fact that combat feats universally got shunted into class talents feats, so now instead of, say, Rangers getting a special exemption for TWF feats by being able to ignore Dex but anyone with a 15 Dex being able to be competent at it, you pretty much have to be a Ranger to be good at TWF.

This is ~kind of okay in the sense that it prevents you from specializing in combat by forcing you to take skill and general feats, but they could have had skill feats every odd level, a shared list of combat or Metamagic feats every even level, and class talents on top of that if that was their goal.

Oh, okay thanks for the explanation that makes sense. I have no experience with pathfinder 2.0 so this was a really good write up. Thanks for taking the time to explain the difference.

[Kurald Galain]

A good example is the "shove" mechanic, P2's equivalent to bull rush. The feat that increases distance is fighter only. The feat that deals damage on a shove is barbarian only. A feat lets you attack and shove for two actions, but you can already do that without the feat; and this one is monk only. There's an ability similar to shove by another name, so it stacks with none of the above; and that is dwarf only (and takes two actions for no apparent reason). Elegant, this is not.


It isn't "the fact that there are feats" it's that 80% of your feats are gated behind gaining levels and most of them feel less powerful than Pathfinder 1e feats in general.
This is key. While P1 has a fair amount of crappy feats as well, the feeling I get from P1 is that 50% of feats are crap, 45% are decent, and 5% are seriously impressive; whereas in P2, 90% of them are crap, 10% are decent, and none I've seen so far are impressive.

[Selion]

It's strange, because I like almost every change on rules (except the animal Co panion action economy), but character options don't make me feel the will to play, they seem "flat", I have the impression I won't be playing "my" character, but instead a character designed by others. It may be due to the lack of contents of the new edition, but I don't feel involved right now.

[brandnewb]

I think we need to have some positivity in here. I like PF2.

Now obviously there are less options than PF1 but that is because we are in the first book.

People have complained that PF2 feats are just weaker than PF1 feats. That is because people only ever took the 80ish really good feats. You need to remember there were around 4000 feats and most of them were complete garbage.

Now compare it to 5e, were there is basically 1 build and one or two options let along good options. Sometimes there just are no good options in 5e. Particularly when you compare it to core (since that is all we have from PF2). 5E is grabage for character customization.

I also like the action economy better. Better than both 5e and PF2. Simpler than either one and combat flows. I realize PF2 may not be the first to implement the 3 action thing. But I like it.

Someone mentioned redundant abilities and pointed to reactive shield. Reactive shield is good, lets you use your 3 actions and still get your shield bonus. Correct me if I am reading it wrong. I am sure there are legitimate examples of poor feats, but I think the did a good job.

I also like the feat tree structure, and that was in PF1 as well. They just did not tie the feats too levels as obviously as class feats so you did not feel the burn 'giving up' a higher level feat. But seriously, I know everyone wants all the candy however you gota make decisions.

Anywho, I know I am not the norm in this discussion. If you don't like PF2 thats fine. Just want you to realize some people do.

[ThatMoonGuy]

I don't think the majority opinion in this thread is 'PF 2e suck'. It's more like 'yeah, it's a cool system but the options suuuuck'. I've been trying to build characters on it for a while and most options just feel so boring. Even core only PF had more interesting options thanks to things like Combat Reflexes.

Part of this problem is that a lot of the general and skill feats just feel far too weak. If the feats were stronger and more interesting I'd be down for a game of PF 2e right now. That's why I hope 3rd parties will step in and do some work on the system - writing new class, general and skill feats.

[omegaghost]

Now obviously there are less options than PF1 but that is because we are in the first book.

People have complained that PF2 feats are just weaker than PF1 feats. That is because people only ever took the 80ish really good feats. You need to remember there were around 4000 feats and most of them were complete garbage.


But they should be aware of what people used and didn't use before, and keep it in mind when designing new stuff. It's not like it's a completely different company making PF2.

[patchyman]

I think we need to have some positivity in here. I like PF2.

Now obviously there are less options than PF1 but that is because we are in the first book.

People have complained that PF2 feats are just weaker than PF1 feats. That is because people only ever took the 80ish really good feats. You need to remember there were around 4000 feats and most of them were complete garbage.

Now compare it to 5e, were there is basically 1 build and one or two options let along good options. Sometimes there just are no good options in 5e. Particularly when you compare it to core (since that is all we have from PF2). 5E is grabage for character customization.

As someone who regularly plays 5e, and is about to start a Path 2 game (and has designed my Path 2 character), I couldn’t disagree more. I can come up with tons of characters and builds for almost every class in 5e. In Path 2, I am happy with my character, but I felt most of the character classes were meh. Mostly, I felt it was frustrating to choose between feats with excessively small situational benefits.

[vasilidor]

I do not like how they changed the function of shields. ultimately made them overall worse, for most characters, in my opinion. the fact of the matter is without platemail a shield is one of the best melee defenses in real life.

[Tectorman]

I do not like how they changed the function of shields. ultimately made them overall worse, for most characters, in my opinion. the fact of the matter is without platemail a shield is one of the best melee defenses in real life.

I'm not at all a fan of the whole "use Shield Block -> wrecked shield" paradigm. On the other hand, I completely support the fact that using a shield for just the AC boost is something that Joe Average Everyone, their grandmother, AND the Monk can do, AND without fail, fiddliness, or fighting the system. I remain amazed that that's how it turned out, especially compared to how armor and weapon proficiencies work (specifically, how the system all but screams "don't you dare let your imagination color outside the lines").

Also not a fan of Assurance.

[Kurald Galain]

Also not a fan of Assurance.

Why is that?

I've felt assurance is the one thing missing from 5E's skill system (where you have to be a ridiculously high level just to reliably pass an easy DC skill check...)

[Milo v3]

Why is that?

I've felt assurance is the one thing missing from 5E's skill system (where you have to be a ridiculously high level just to reliably pass an easy DC skill check...)

Probably because it removes "Take 10" from everyone and any sensible action, rather than only having it for a single skill.

[Alexvrahr]

It's not a lack of options caused by only a couple of books being out so far, it's that the structure of the game & the focus on balance is set up to prevent interesting options being allowable. See the crit mechanic which disallows even +1 bonuses on the attack roll, or the spells with the incapacitating tag and what that does.

There's other weird stuff like stealth outside combat just dropping you straight into combat with the skill check as your initiative (if you want to actually sneak past the orcs...no luck) which seems to be in there purely to keep adventures on the rails. I think it's no coincidence that D&D 5e is outselling PF2 about 8:1, judging by the sales ranks on Amazon (current sales, not cumulative).

[Tectorman]

Why is that?

I've felt assurance is the one thing missing from 5E's skill system (where you have to be a ridiculously high level just to reliably pass an easy DC skill check...)


Probably because it removes "Take 10" from everyone and any sensible action, rather than only having it for a single skill.

I actually don't have that much issue with "Take 10" being taken away by default and re-becoming an option only with a feat and only on one skill at a time.

My issue is this: "Take 10" only ever changed the "luck" component of a character's attempt to do anything from a variable d20 to a reliable 10. That was the only thing it did, and it didn't over-reach that parameter. Assurance, on the other hand, changes the "luck" component from a variable d20 to a reliable 10, negates any and all penalties you may have, and also negates any bonuses you may have EXCEPT for your proficiency (that's level plus 2, 4, 6, or 8, depending on how proficient you are). Which might sound fair and balanced, but let's look at what's going on.

Penalties to a skill check would come from negative conditions like being encumbered or being frightened. I.e., things that are not ALWAYS going to be inflicted on your character. So using Assurance may SOMETIMES knock off a penalty, but will many times not be.

On the other hand, Assurance flat out does not allow you to use your ability modifier (since that isn't included in your proficiency). Something that otherwise is ALWAYS added to your character's skill check. So if you use Assurance, you pay the CONSTANT price of not using your ability modifier for the OCCASIONAL benefit of not suffering a penalty.

That is not okay with me.

Or you can look at it another way: if your ability modifier is +0, then taking the Assurance feat is effectively you buying the ability to "Take 10". But if your ability modifier is +5, then taking the Assurance feat is effectively you buying the ability to "Take 5". I.e., you can pay the same price in both cases (a feat), but one gets you diminished returns on your investment ("Take 5" vs "Take 10").

That is not okay with me.

[Kurald Galain]

Probably because it removes "Take 10" from everyone and any sensible action, rather than only having it for a single skill.
Importantly, taking 10 doesn't work under stress (i.e. when you actually need it), and Assurance does.


Assurance, on the other hand, changes the "luck" component from a variable d20 to a reliable 10, negates any and all penalties you may have, and also negates any bonuses you may have EXCEPT for your proficiency (that's level plus 2, 4, 6, or 8, depending on how proficient you are).
Penalties to skill checks are relatively rare, and I'm fine with Assurance negating those. Not using your ability modifier is pretty weird, I agree with that. They could easily have made it (e.g.) 7 + ability mod instead of a flat 10.

[Kraynic]

Assurance does sound fairly poor in most cases. From what I have seen on the Paizo forums, it is mostly picked up for athletics to use as your third action in combat on trip/grab and ignore the attack penalties (-8/-10) while targeting the fortitude or reflex save depending on which maneuver you are doing. Which seems like another layer of strangeness on combat in PF2. Once you are at that point the common (level -2) enemies that you couldn't land a 3rd attack on without a 20, but you can perfectly knock them prone...

[Sloanzilla]

Somewhat related question- has there been a time jump to the setting our anything? Like is the Worldwound now closed- etc? Even though Pathfinder's world is very "zoney"- I do really admire the Adventure Paths and how many of them tie in to the larger world.

[Tectorman]

Somewhat related question- has there been a time jump to the setting our anything? Like is the Worldwound now closed- etc? Even though Pathfinder's world is very "zoney"- I do really admire the Adventure Paths and how many of them tie in to the larger world.

There's a time jump relative to P1E's ISWG, but for groups that managed to keep up with all of the APs in realtime, no. Though they did have to pick and choose which endings to go with and make canonical as opposed to others.

[Kurald Galain]

Somewhat related question- has there been a time jump to the setting our anything?
There has been no time jump; every real-world year also advances Golarion by one year. The worldwound was closed in one of the adventure paths, which are canon. So the P2 setting is the same as the P1 setting, plus the outcome of adventure paths.

[Sloanzilla]

Thanks, I actually like how they handled that, then.