My requested thoughts on PF2 after session 1

[Albions_Angel]

Hi all,

A little while ago, in another thread, I mentioned I would be starting an intermittent PF2e game, and people asked me to report. I know there is a "Hows Pathfinder 2 Like" thread going on, but I feel this is a little different than what that one has turned into. I will try to make this logical:

This is not a campaign log. I can do one of those later if people want, but this is not it.

TL:DR

Pathfinder 2 feels significantly different from 3.5e and PF1 that (personally) I think it doesnt belong in this sub-forum
The character creation minigame is fun, but its not 3.5e
I did not feel I lacked for things to do that were meaningful, but others may
It is a good system, and I would recommend people try it.


The Game and the Players

We are playing through the Fall of Plaguestone module. There are 5 (4 for first session) players and 1 DM. They are all experienced in 5e, while I am 3.5e. I will not be going into major spoilers but I will say this:

This module does not pull its punches. We actually wiped in the first encounter, partly because the DM overplayed the monsters, a mistake he admits to, partly due to inexperience with the system, but also just because we are a CR 1 party of 4, and faced a CR 3 encounter as per the module opening. That hurt a lot. DM fiat has us all surviving, but I had a lot of fun anyway, and this is not a review based on that encounter.

Thoughts on character creation

The take home points are:


The minigame feels quick to an experienced 3.5e player - it was easy and rather fun, nice and relaxing
The 5e players said it was meatier than they were used to - they enjoyed it but are glad it is done
The feats at level 1, and the other options you get from classes and races, arnt as bad as people made out.
Even though, its not a minmaxers minigame. If you want the most, there is probably a best path every time.
It feels like it needs an interactive character sheet.



Character creation is very different to 3.5e and pathfinder. For a start, you dont roll, buy, or pick stats. Instead you start with 10 in everything, and then get +2 bonuses from your "race" (now called ancestry), "background", "class", and several "free" bonuses. Some races also get a flaw. So if you want to min max, it actually dictates your backstory somewhat. You also get your skill proficiency, some weapon profs, some hit points, and a free special feat from your race, and some more skills and potentially a feat from your background. All the level 1 options felt meaningful. Nothing earthshattering but gave me a few options I would not otherwise have had.

The classes are similar. There are class options which you just get, and class feats, which you choose. Again, none of them break the bank. If you are looking for crazy numbers, this isnt for you. But if you want to do something weird, or have that one super situational ability without it eating normal resources, then the feats can help with that. This may well change at higher levels, but at level 1, I felt I had far more options than most classes from 3.5e or pathfinder.

I ended up with a Hobgoblin sorcerer. The spells were your standard set, with some fun additions, but also a few nerfs. I didnt see the point of mage armor's +1 to AC. But a 30 foot tentacle line that deals damage and sickens the enemy? Sure thing! Bloodlines were nice, giving real, tangible benefits to the class. That said, some seem... a little nonfunctional? I went for Aberrant. Grants me access to occult (witchy) spells, some specific spells on top of that, and the ability to grow 10 foot tentacle arms once per day, which can also deliver touch spells out to 20 foot. But the first spell it gives you, spidersting, isnt an occult spell, so I dont get my full DC bonus or my prof bonus to the to hit roll, making it kinda pointless...

Weapons were... well... weapons, and its nice that your race still grants some proficiency to those. It means my sorcerer actually packs a couple of different pointy and smacky things for when times get tough.

Encumbrance... is probably a pain to track if you are not using Roll20. Character creation feels like it NEEDS a dynamic character sheet. Its a shame the Roll20 one is buggy as all hell though...

All in all, I had a lot of fun with it, but it wont ever satisfy that itch that digging through 30 splat books gives. I did feel more well rounded than a level 1 3.5e character though. In that regard, I felt more like I had built a 5e character, but without needing to pick my direction from 1-20 the first time I get my archetype.

The 5e players found it more taxing than their 5e character creation, but I wonder how much of that is them being used to the charactermancer on roll20.

The first session - combat


The 3 action system is slick
I had a lot of options, I used very few
Inexperience and lack of expectation killed us all




Our first session was a bit of DM text, then the first encounter. I wont go into what that was.

But I will talk about how it felt. First up, combat is slick. It feels really good. I can move, up to 3 times if i need to. I can cast a spell (usually 2 actions). I can hit something, again, 3 times if i need to. I can trip, I can bull rush, I can intimidate and still have the actions to move and smack someone. What I actually did was stand still and fire cantrips at things for mediocre damage. But then thats cantrips for you.

I will go out and say this. I didnt know all the ins and outs of the system. Even if I had, I was expecting the first encounter to be easy. Its not in this module. Oh, individual monsters seem right, but this is a known tough module. Known to people that arnt me and my group apparently. I was saving my spells, because I only get 3 per day, which feels normal for level 1. Mistake. Turns out, that was the only encounter and I should have gone nova. I should have used all 3 spells, my one per day bloodline ability, and both scrolls I had and maybe, just maybe, we might have survived. But, I COULD have done so much more. And knowing that was nice. Its all the actions from 3.5e, but now I have the action points to actually use them all instead of doing something else. And if I wasnt a spellcaster, I would have. Our ranger was having a great time running, using one action to fire 2 shots, and using her third action to fire another shot. She missed all of them, but she had fun. The Alchemist was doing all sorts, and the cleric tried their hand at intimidating an enemy, in between healing, bashing, and falling over. If we did that again, I would try tripping first, and would want to see the ranger grapple an enemy for me to spell at. Lots of the options came from the feats we took as part of our race or class. If we had chosen different ones, we would have had different options. We still would have died though. But at the time, not knowing it was our only encounter, and with our DM accidentally making it harder than it should be, I felt the only thing I could do was ping away with cantrips.

The game has serious promise. I know a lot of you have looked at the feats and decided they are not good. Maybe at later levels they are not. But at level 1, the whole system sings. But its not 3.5e. Its not Pathfinder. And its not even 5e. Its very, very different to everything else.

Please, ask questions. I will answer what I can.

[stack]

I'm pretty sure spells added to your repertoire by your bloodline count as being of your tradition for you regardless if their normal tradition, but I haven't looked closely to find text stating it.

[Firest Kathon]

If you are looking for a different dynamic character sheet, Hero Lab Online (https://www.wolflair.com/hlo/) has a free demo mode where you can create level 1 characters, so you can use it at least for character creation.

[Kurald Galain]

The feats at level 1, and the other options you get from classes and races, arnt as bad as people made out.
My impression of what people "made out" so far is that the PF2 options are (1) not exciting, and (2) many of them are mechanically irrelevant.

From the rest of your post, I see a lot of comments that suggest that to you, the options are not exciting either:

Nothing earthshattering ...
none of them break the bank. If you are looking for crazy numbers, this isnt for you ...
some seem... a little nonfunctional? ...
I dont get my full DC bonus or my prof bonus to the to hit roll, making it kinda pointless...
I had a lot of options, I used very few


And then you describe that you could move, bull rush, intimidate and so forth, but what in practice you did was "stand still and fire cantrips at things for mediocre damage." This suggests that mechanically, the options aren't all that relevant either.

...so isn't that just what "people" were saying all along? That you get many options that are unexciting and not all that relevant?

[JeromeKCog]

Thanks for doing a write up of your thoughts.

I've not looked into PF2 due to never having made the transition from 3.5 to Pf (instead my group gradually added a large number of our own house rules, class tweaks, and homebrew material over the years) but it seems like an interesting change from what I'm used to and now I'm considering trying it out in a few months when I can get a regular group together again.

I'd be very interested in hearing about your continued experience with the system.

[patchyman]

Thanks for the post. I also am playing in Plaguestone, and I also almost made an aberrant sorcerer before going with a wizard because our group needed better versatility.

A couple of points: your tentacle arms are a focus spell, so you get it back if you rest for 10 minutes. It is really supposed to be an encounter power, and I can attest that it is one of the cooler ones.

Second point, and and answer to K.G., you get a lot of cool options...as long as you are not a caster. My wizard was also reduced to plinking away with cantrips during the encounter described (for the exact same reason, I was anticipating another combat), while other classes had a lot more options (that they didn’t use).

The problem is that spells take 2 or your 3 actions, and do equivalent damage to single melee strikes. You just don’t have the action economy to try cool things. Overall, the game is more fun if you aren’t a caster.

[Albions_Angel]

My impression of what people "made out" so far is that the PF2 options are (1) not exciting, and (2) many of them are mechanically irrelevant.

From the rest of your post, I see a lot of comments that suggest that to you, the options are not exciting either:


And then you describe that you could move, bull rush, intimidate and so forth, but what in practice you did was "stand still and fire cantrips at things for mediocre damage." This suggests that mechanically, the options aren't all that relevant either.

...so isn't that just what "people" were saying all along? That you get many options that are unexciting and not all that relevant?

Fair points, but what I was trying to say is PF2 doesnt seem like a number race game like 3.5e or PF1 were. The things you do get are full of flavour, and the variety of actions, whether you take them or not, is really nice.

Note, we were level 1. In 3.5e, you actually have just as few options. Fewer in may respects. At that level.

As for not using all the actions. No, I didnt. I was expecting multiple encounters per day. PF2 seems to still be built on the ~4 encounters per day cycle. But PLAGUESTONE specifically only gives you one encounter on the first day, and makes it crazy hard (compared to what other level 1 starting modules might have). None of us, even the DM, really realised that. So we were all pulling our punches. I was using my cantrips, because 4 damage is 4 damage and its infinite. But I could have been using colour spray, or sleep, or grim tentacles, or any other one of my level 1 spells or scrolls (scrolls are cheap btw!) and things would have gone better. Probably. Maybe.

Also, the other players could have used those actions I mentioned (and so could I for that matter), but here is the thing. They were coming from 5e, and forgot they could do all that stuff, while I was coming from the other direction and, hmm, well lets just say I would have liked to try tripping, but I was facing a quadruped and believed it would be ineffective. But in hindsight, I am not sure that rule exists in pathfinder 2.

The feats, the options, they all mean something at level 1. I could take ancestral weapon proficiency, or gain tremmorsense, or keep things feared when hitting them (what I actually took), etc etc.

But, if people are looking for 3.5e and pathfinder, but supported in the future, PF2 is not it. At all. This harks back to my first point. THIS GAME DOES NOT PLAY LIKE 3.5E OR EVEN 5E! It doesnt feel the same.

The options arnt useless because they dont have the numbers we remember from 3.5e, they are DIFFERENT. Its OK not to like that, but I was asked my opinion and my opinion is that this is not relevant to 3.5e. I strongly advise you give it a try, but you need to look at it through the same prism as you would look at, say, Fate, or d100, or Savage Worlds. Not through the prism you use for a pathfinder addon.

Yes, the creators of PF1 and PF2 are the same people, but Capcom make both monster hunter world and street fighter and it is not valid to criticize MHW for not having Zorah Magdoros perform a Hadouken.


Thanks for the post. I also am playing in Plaguestone, and I also almost made an aberrant sorcerer before going with a wizard because our group needed better versatility.

A couple of points: your tentacle arms are a focus spell, so you get it back if you rest for 10 minutes. It is really supposed to be an encounter power, and I can attest that it is one of the cooler ones.

Second point, and and answer to K.G., you get a lot of cool options...as long as you are not a caster. My wizard was also reduced to plinking away with cantrips during the encounter described (for the exact same reason, I was anticipating another combat), while other classes had a lot more options (that they didn’t use).

The problem is that spells take 2 or your 3 actions, and do equivalent damage to single melee strikes. You just don’t have the action economy to try cool things. Overall, the game is more fun if you aren’t a caster.

On focus, you are right. I didnt know that at the time, but I will remember next time. Not that I get AoO as a caster. I will admit, that feels a little bit odd, not having it, but I guess it makes sense to not have AoO as default, given the potential 3 attacks at level 1 (all be it at +0, -5 and -10).

Yeah, casters at low levels seem a little action starved, but I think as I level it will feel better? On the one hand, part of me thinks spells should be 1 action. I can do no where near as much damage at level 1 as the ranger potentially can. BUT, on the other hand, nearly all my spells are auto-hit, save spells. If I could cast 3 in a round, things could get crazy because I wouldnt be affected by the to hit penalty. You could make it a DC penalty, but that could get messy. I think this is probably the most simplistic solution.

Now I know the power level of the campaign slightly better, I can burn spells more readily, which should help. I wont just be plinking.

[Crake]

Pathfinder 2 feels significantly different from 3.5e and PF1 that (personally) I think it doesnt belong in this sub-forum


I've been saying this from the start. It's not a d20 game, it doesn't belong in the d20 subforum any more than 4e or 5e do.

I'm happy for them to have a place to discuss the new system, but I'd rather it not come with the encroachment on the one of the dwindling few places to exclusively discuss 3.5 and pf1 content. We already have do have people specifying between 3.5 and pf1 as it is.

[Kurald Galain]

This harks back to my first point. THIS GAME DOES NOT PLAY LIKE 3.5E OR EVEN 5E! It doesnt feel the same.
Of course it's its own game and plays differently. I haven't seen anybody, in any PF2 thread, disagree with that one.

The question is whether, as its own game, it offers mechanically interesting options.

For instance, if a spell only has a serious impact on a crit-failed save, is that worth two actions? Or if a level-9 feat has the same result as a level-2 feat, is the former worth taking? Or if you become 10% better at something you could already do, with no other benefits, do you feel you are now "legendary"?

That's what this is about. Other PF2 threads suggest that it gives a lot of "choices" that make no real difference.

[patchyman]

On focus, you are right. I didnt know that at the time, but I will remember next time. Not that I get AoO as a caster. I will admit, that feels a little bit odd, not having it, but I guess it makes sense to not have AoO as default, given the potential 3 attacks at level 1 (all be it at +0, -5 and -10).

Yeah, casters at low levels seem a little action starved, but I think as I level it will feel better? On the one hand, part of me thinks spells should be 1 action. I can do no where near as much damage at level 1 as the ranger potentially can. BUT, on the other hand, nearly all my spells are auto-hit, save spells. If I could cast 3 in a round, things could get crazy because I wouldnt be affected by the to hit penalty. You could make it a DC penalty, but that could get messy. I think this is probably the most simplistic solution.

Now I know the power level of the campaign slightly better, I can burn spells more readily, which should help. I wont just be plinking.

For my aberrant sorcerer, I was looking at a monk multiclass at level 2. Those noodle arms are super useful for tripping, grabbing and disarming.

Trying not to be biased, but I’m not sure it gets better for casters at high levels. Spells are nerfed, you get fewer of them and most take 2 actions. Maybe once you reach level 10, but slogging for 10 levels really isn’t a selling point for the game.

[Crake]

For my aberrant sorcerer, I was looking at a monk multiclass at level 2. Those noodle arms are super useful for tripping, grabbing and disarming.

Trying not to be biased, but I’m not sure it gets better for casters at high levels. Spells are nerfed, you get fewer of them and most take 2 actions. Maybe once you reach level 10, but slogging for 10 levels really isn’t a selling point for the game.

Not to mention that the truly impactful spells basically necessitate that your enemy rolls a critical fail on their save to actually be properly used as you would expect.

[Albions_Angel]

Not to mention that the truly impactful spells basically necessitate that your enemy rolls a critical fail on their save to actually be properly used as you would expect.

I think thats ok though. Crits are pretty easy to get, even at level 1. We only rolled a single 20, and no 1s, but we got several crits because +10/-10 above the target DC is now a crit.

And a lot of the impactful spells do some sort of status effect on their crit fail, which often reduces the action economy of the enemy in some way. And with the new 3 action system, action economy is clearly king. I dont mind the limit on casters in this way. Most of our spells dont need attack rolls anyway so we are often doing SOME damage every round, while the martials get more chances, but also have to contend with penalties and missing.

Also, Crake, your other point? Totally agree. Its not d20. It doesnt feel like d20. I think it could be big, but I dont know if it warrants its own section yet. I am posting here mostly because I was asked my thoughts, but when this is all done, I wouldnt mind seeing the admins come in and say "ok, no more PF2 talk here".

Stack, I cant find that passage about spells becoming your tradition if they are bloodline granted spells. Its certainly not in the bloodline section. Any luck tracking it down?

I will post more when I play session 2, but this is an in between game, when the groups current DM is away. So depending on when it is, either I will resurface this thread, or start a new one (subject to admins making a decision on PF2 material).

[Crake]

Also, Crake, your other point? Totally agree. Its not d20. It doesnt feel like d20. I think it could be big, but I dont know if it warrants its own section yet. I am posting here mostly because I was asked my thoughts, but when this is all done, I wouldnt mind seeing the admins come in and say "ok, no more PF2 talk here".

I do want to make it clear that I'm not advocating the ostricisation of pf2 players before they have their own area to post, and the admins have made it clear that this is offically the place for pf2 players to post, so I think it's more something site management should take care of, but I do think that users should make it clear that we'd prefer pf2 has it's own section, simply because 3.pf and pf2 discussions are so inherently incompatible.

[Gwynfrid]

I think thats ok though. Crits are pretty easy to get, even at level 1. We only rolled a single 20, and no 1s, but we got several crits because +10/-10 above the target DC is now a crit.
Crits happen more often than 5%, but I wouldn't call them easy to get; nor would I say that it's easy for enemies to crit fail on their saves. There are ways to improve the odds through debuffing, but not enough to make crits easy, unless the opposition is of a lower level than the PCs.

So, folks who say that PF2 spells are no longer impactful will correctly point out that a failed save in PF1 is a lot more common than a crit failed save in PF2.

The answer to the "spells have been nerfed!" objection, in my view, is more with the other side to the equation: What happens when the save is a success. On a success, a lot of spells still have an effect, and that's where the casters have an adge against martials (at least until higher levels when martials gain feats that offer an effect on a failed strike).

For example, compare PF1's Hold Person against its PF2 counterpart, Paralyze.
Hold Person :
- Incapacitates the enemy for at least a round on a failed save (new save attempts in the next rounds to end the spell)
- Does nothing on a successful save.
In PF2, Paralyze:
- Incapacitates the enemy on a crit fail, for up to 4 rounds (new save attempts in the next rounds to reduce the duration)
- Incapacitates the enemy for 1 round on a fail
- Denies one action to the enemy on a success (stunned 1)
- Does nothing on a crit success.

As you correctly point out, the action economy is extremely important in PF2, and action denial is very effective. The stunned 1 effect on a successful save is a major reason why Paralyze is just as good a spell as Hold Person: It will more rarely end a combat, but it will more frequently do something useful.


Stack, I cant find that passage about spells becoming your tradition if they are bloodline granted spells. Its certainly not in the bloodline section. Any luck tracking it down?
CRB, page 299, in the "magical traditions" box.

[Morty]

I admit I'm rather sceptical when people complain about PF2E spells not being impactful enough. Since it does feel a bit like the point of comparison is 3E/PF1E's action denial/crowd control spells, which were pretty overpowered across the board.

[Kurald Galain]

I admit I'm rather sceptical when people complain about PF2E spells not being impactful enough. Since it does feel a bit like the point of comparison is 3E/PF1E's action denial/crowd control spells, which were pretty overpowered across the board.
Have you seen the incapacitation keyword (https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=93) found on many of these spells, that basically gives most enemies +10 to their saving throws?

Effectively, this means that PF2's Paralyze spell:
- Incapacitates the enemy for 1 round on a crit fail
- Denies one action to the enemy on a fail
- Does nothing on a success or crit success.

In other words, is it worth two of your actions to maybe remove one enemy action?

[Albions_Angel]

Eh, with most campaigns of any RPG ending in the mid levels, level 6 is big boy territory for most of the game. And thats assuming you dont take para as a signature spell or upcast it some other way. Its for tying up annoying mooks while your bigger spells, or ones that deal more damage or have different status effects handle the big guys.

And its not 2 actions to remove one of theirs. Its 2 of the PARTY'S actions to CRIPPLE one of the opponents for a round. Is it as spectacular as some of the effects in 3.5e? No. But as I cant pick 3.5e spells in place of PF2 ones, that hardly matters.

Honestly, Kurald, it just sounds like PF2 isnt for you. You are looking for more support for the d20 system by the sound of it, and perhaps some power creep for some things, or some rebalancing. But thats not the direction the designers wanted to move. I understand your frustrations that some of the spells dont seem all that powerful, or the word "legendary" only constitutes a +2 over "heroic" (although, isnt it a +6 over trained, and a +8 over untrained, essentially a whole success category? Not failing "impossible" tasks and super succeeding at "normal" ones does seem kinda legendary to me) but if the reason you feel that way is because the 3.5 or PF1 version is "better", then I feel its a touch of false equivalence, unless the reason you are saying it is simply because you want more d20 and are agreeing that PF2 is not d20. If you play both monster hunter and starcraft, and complain because the insect glaive is worse than a protos colossi, then thats a poor comparison. But if you only play starcraft, and the creators of starcraft made a monster hunter clone and you didnt want to play it because you only like protos colossi, then thats fine.

A more extreme example would be to ask what your thoughts were on Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. In that, you are lucky at any level if you hit an enemy in combat more than about 30% of the time. But in d20 systems, even at low levels, you should be hitting appropriate encounters ~60% of the time, rising to 95% of the time at high levels if you optimise. Does that mean all the options in WFRP are sub-optimal? No, they are optimal for that system.

(Honestly, I wouldnt be surprised if the designers specifically chose to limit control spells to make blasting more viable, as for the majority of players, blasting is more fun... Not for everyone, and there is a certain feeling of power to shutting down an encounter before it starts but... Denying an action is still powerful in PF2, giving the party an action advantage which can swing the tide of battle, its just not the encounter ending guaranteed win of d20.)

[Gnaeus]

Honestly, Kurald, it just sounds like PF2 isnt for you. You are looking for more support for the d20 system by the sound of it, and perhaps some power creep for some things, or some rebalancing. But thats not the direction the designers wanted to move. I understand your frustrations that some of the spells dont seem all that powerful, or the word "legendary" only constitutes a +2 over "heroic" (although, isnt it a +6 over trained, and a +8 over untrained, essentially a whole success category? Not failing "impossible" tasks and super succeeding at "normal" ones does seem kinda legendary to me) but if the reason you feel that way is because the 3.5 or PF1 version is "better", then I feel its a touch of false equivalence, unless the reason you are saying it is simply because you want more d20 and are agreeing that PF2 is not d20. If you play both monster hunter and starcraft, and complain because the insect glaive is worse than a protos colossi, then thats a poor comparison. But if you only play starcraft, and the creators of starcraft made a monster hunter clone and you didnt want to play it because you only like protos colossi, then thats fine.)

He’s right, Kurald. It’s a case of false equivalence. You are saying that Rock/Paper/Scissors is better than Rock to the Face simply because both games have the word Rock in them. Going in for emergency dental surgery or having your cheekbones reconstructed is still optimized in the new system, because Rock to the Face doesn’t have the option of just throwing out a closed fist. It’s a completely different game and some people will just prefer smashing each other in the face with a Rock.

[Albions_Angel]

Thats a bit harsh, Gnaeus. I dont prefer hitting people in the face with a rock. I enjoy both hand based rock impersonation play AND rock face hitting, as well as "Evil rocks kill everyone" (WFRP) and "Even the rocks are doomed" (Cthulhu Dark), and I will be starting "Rock/Paper/Scissors in SPAAAAACE" soon. Rocksalt is the spice of life after all, and it can be hard to find a team that like the complexity of rock/paper/scissors.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Albions_Angel
Pathfinder 2 feels significantly different from 3.5e and PF1 that (personally) I think it doesnt belong in this sub-forum….


Originally Posted by Crake
It's not a d20 game, it doesn't belong in the d20 subforum any more than 4e or 5e do.

From everything I’ve seen I have to agree with this. Just from the discussions here, the system seems utterly different from 3.5 and PF1, and apart from occasionally rolling a d20 it doesn’t seem to have much in common with other d20 systems.


Originally Posted by Crake
…I do think that users should make it clear that we'd prefer pf2 has it's own section, simply because 3.pf and pf2 discussions are so inherently incompatible.

This nails it, but the question is where that section should go. There doesn’t seem to be anywhere it would fit, not even the “Other Systems” subforum, since that’s quite a grab bag. It doesn't really seem to fit anywhere.

PF2, the angsty edgelord half-elf of gaming systems.

[patchyman]

As you correctly point out, the action economy is extremely important in PF2, and action denial is very effective. The stunned 1 effect on a successful save is a major reason why Paralyze is just as good a spell as Hold Person: It will more rarely end a combat, but it will more frequently do something useful.


If action economy is sufficiently important that making an enemy lose one of their 3 actions at the cost of a 3rd level spell slot is meaningful, than how should I feel about the fact that my cantrips, which do equivalent damage to a ranged martial attack (and less damage than a melee martial attack) take 2 of my actions each turn, while each martial attack takes a single action?

[Crake]

This nails it, but the question is where that section should go. There doesn’t seem to be anywhere it would fit, not even the “Other Systems” subforum, since that’s quite a grab bag. It doesn't really seem to fit anywhere.

PF2, the angsty edgelord half-elf of gaming systems.

They should just get their own subforum, like 4e and 5e imo

[Morty]

Have you seen the incapacitation keyword (https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=93) found on many of these spells, that basically gives most enemies +10 to their saving throws?

Effectively, this means that PF2's Paralyze spell:
- Incapacitates the enemy for 1 round on a crit fail
- Denies one action to the enemy on a fail
- Does nothing on a success or crit success.

In other words, is it worth two of your actions to maybe remove one enemy action?

The Incapacitation keyword does look kind of excessive. Then again, I see its purpose. This way the players are less likely to deny the actions of important enemies, but can do it to supporting ones. Then again, in case of spells it depends on the spell's level, not the caster's, so I'm not sure how this shakes out.

[Albions_Angel]

If action economy is sufficiently important that making an enemy lose one of their 3 actions at the cost of a 3rd level spell slot is meaningful, than how should I feel about the fact that my cantrips, which do equivalent damage to a ranged martial attack (and less damage than a melee martial attack) take 2 of my actions each turn, while each martial attack takes a single action?

Well, the cantrips will nearly always do damage, the martial attack might miss. Im not saying its a good decision, but I think I can see why it was done that way. 2 actions to nearly guarantee damage (spells), or 2 actions, with the second at a penalty, for a smaller chance to deal double damage (attacks). It also stops the casters eclipsing the other chars too much, and makes it much more of a team game. But they may have cocked it up. When I play again, I will report back.


The Incapacitation keyword does look kind of excessive. Then again, I see its purpose. This way the players are less likely to deny the actions of important enemies, but can do it to supporting ones. Then again, in case of spells it depends on the spell's level, not the caster's, so I'm not sure how this shakes out.

Double spell level. Which is actually higher than minimum caster level for any given spell.


1st level spell can be cast at level 1, but the bonus to the enemy only applies if they are level 2
2nd level spell can be cast at level 3, but the bonus to the enemy only applies if they are level 4
3rd level spell (the one we are talking about) comes into play at level 5, but mr mook cant shake it off reliably until they are level 6.


Its literally a boss protector. I think Paralyze's heighten effect (level 7th spell, can target 10 monsters at once with one spell) actually backs this up. You get level 7 spells at level 13. If at level 13, you are facing 10 level 14 monsters in the same encounter, something has gone wrong... On the other hand, facing one level 14 monster and 10 level 6 minions who, by action economy alone, can be quite nasty, thats a tough by probably doable encounter. And having the caster take his turn to take out probably half of those minimum for at least a turn... It wont end the encounter, but it will give others a chance to shine by ending things.

I can see what they were doing. I think this all might be good for a more casual type of role playing game. It might even be good for a serious role playing game. Unfortunately, I can also see some possible flaws, and until I play more, I dont know if I am pulling a Kurald, and comparing apples to, well, rocky face punches, or if the system itself is borked.

Im happy to keep chatting, but I dont know when we will next have a session.

[Gwynfrid]

Have you seen the incapacitation keyword (https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=93) found on many of these spells, that basically gives most enemies +10 to their saving throws?

Effectively, this means that PF2's Paralyze spell:
- Incapacitates the enemy for 1 round on a crit fail
- Denies one action to the enemy on a fail
- Does nothing on a success or crit success.

In other words, is it worth two of your actions to maybe remove one enemy action?

Incapacitation reduces the effect of the spell by one degree on creatures of more than twice the spell’s level. That's not "most enemies". In the case of Paralyze cast as a level 3 spell, it means enemies of level 7 or higher. If I'm level 5 or 6 and face a level 7 or higher enemy, it's absolutely worth two of my actions to deny one of theirs, since presumably :
- Their actions are generally more powerful than mine
- The party will be more numerous than the enemy (if the enemy is 1 or 2 levels higher than the party and has equivalent or higher numbers, then something went really wrong). Denying actions is the best way to leverage this advantage and to help my teammates stay in the fight.

Now if you're in an adventure where all enemies are higher level than the party, it simply means it's time to switch to direct damage or buff spells.


If action economy is sufficiently important that making an enemy lose one of their 3 actions at the cost of a 3rd level spell slot is meaningful, than how should I feel about the fact that my cantrips, which do equivalent damage to a ranged martial attack (and less damage than a melee martial attack) take 2 of my actions each turn, while each martial attack takes a single action?

Since the casters' spells are more powerful than the martials' single attacks, they have to be a limited resource. Cantrips are an unlimited resource, so it stands to reason that they're less powerful than martial attacks (if they were equivalent, then casters would be superior or equal in every situation). Cantrips are meant to be a backup solution when your caster runs out of spells, not to rival the martials' combat prowess.

By the way, cantrips are not that weak. They're particularly useful when the enemy has a weakness against some type of energy, which happens for many monsters.

[Chromascope3D]

Yeah, I don't see how the incapacitation keyword is any different from spells in 1e just having a hard HD cap on what they can affect, i.e. sleep/color spray/etc.

[patchyman]

Well, the cantrips will nearly always do damage, the martial attack might miss. Im not saying its a good decision, but I think I can see why it was done that way. 2 actions to nearly guarantee damage (spells), or 2 actions, with the second at a penalty, for a smaller chance to deal double damage (attacks). It also stops the casters eclipsing the other chars too much, and makes it much more of a team game. But they may have cocked it up. When I play again, I will report back.

Why do you say cantrips almost always do damage? Daze does consistent damage, but it is about half normal ranged damage. My impression is that the other cantrips are as consistent as weapon attacks.

On the contrary, the most common condition is flat-footed which affects AC but not saving throws. So, it seems cantrips are less consistent than weapon attacks.

[Albions_Angel]

Why do you say cantrips almost always do damage? Daze does consistent damage, but it is about half normal ranged damage. My impression is that the other cantrips are as consistent as weapon attacks.

On the contrary, the most common condition is flat-footed which affects AC but not saving throws. So, it seems cantrips are less consistent than weapon attacks.

Daze does your spell modifier in damage, which is usually 3 or 4 for a pure caster, right? Ranged is about 1d8. Now, on a single 1d8, everything is equal in chance, but over time, the average score would be about half the dice in damage.

Other cantrips have a damage roll, but often not an attack roll. Just the save, and they often do damage even on a success (all be it half damage). Basically, weapon attacks have one roll to often completely fail (the attack roll), and one roll where you could do poor damage (the damage roll). Cantrips have one roll to often succeed (the save, where only a crit success negates all damage), and maybe one roll to potentially do poor damage, or no roll to do fixed damage.

Now some cantrips (telekenetic projectile) do have an attack roll, but thats going off your spell casting modifier too, and a caster might have their spell modifier higher than a martial has their attack modifier, because they are more SAD. And then most cantrips come with rider effects (daze for example), so in general, I think it works out.

[Kurald Galain]

Other cantrips have a damage roll, but often not an attack roll.
That is incorrect; most cantrips use a "spell attack", which is int/wis/cha vs armor class. E.g. acid splash, produce flame, ray of frost, TK projectile, divine lance. And none of those come with rider effects, except ray of frost on a crit only.

Well then, let's do some math on that.

The average level-1 monster has AC 17.
A warrior with a composite longbow has +6 to hit (+4 from dex, +2 trained) and deals 5.5 damage (1d8 base, +1 from half str); +1d10 on a crit.
Spending two actions to attack, he'll deal (45% * 5.5 + 5% * 16.5) + (20% * 5.5 + 5% * 16.5), for an average of 5.2 damage.
But wait. A fighter would do 7.1 damage because he's a weapon expert. If it's a ranger, make that 7.5 damage for precision hunter's edge. If it's a rogue, that's 7.7 if you can sneak attack. A barbarian with raging thrower and dragon instinct does 8.1 on average.
Oh, and all of these can make a third attack which hits only on a 20, for another +0.8 on average. Alternatively, a non-ranged character can usually move and make two melee attacks, for 8.9 damage (not counting any class features yet).

A wizard with a cantrip has +6 to hit (+4 int, +2 trained) and deals 6.5 damage (1d4 base, +4 int).
Spending two actions to cast, he'll deal (45% * 6.5 + 5% * 13), for an average of 3.6 damage.
Now the Daze cantrip does grants a saving throw instead; the average level-1 monster has +6 to save, DC of 16. This deals (50% * 2 + 40% * 4 + 5% * 8) = 2.0 damage, and a 5% chance to trigger its rider effect.

So yeah, cantrips are rather lacklustre. If the caster has decent dexterity then he's better off picking up a longbow (one feat for any non-wizard caster, or for a human/elf/half-elf wizard). It seems that Patchyman has a point that P2 is more fun for martials:
The problem is that spells take 2 or your 3 actions, and do equivalent damage to single melee strikes. You just don’t have the action economy to try cool things. Overall, the game is more fun if you aren’t a caster.

Of course, OP already said that:
What I actually did was stand still and fire cantrips at things for mediocre damage. But then thats cantrips for you.

[Morty]

I'd make a quip about martial/caster disparity finally being resolved, but given the overall quality of class feats for non-casters, I don't know if that's the way to do it.

[Alexvrahr]

Yeah, I don't see how the incapacitation keyword is any different from spells in 1e just having a hard HD cap on what they can affect, i.e. sleep/color spray/etc.
Most spells in PF1 (and D&D 3.x, and AD&D, and similar RPGs) don't have a hard HD cap on what they can effect.

It has the meta effect of making spells with that keyword primarily for use on mooks while competent enemies have their HP chipped away by swords and blast spells. Together with the scaling of saving throws, hoping to take away 1 action from a boss via one of your best spells isn't smart. Still something PCs might do of course, but it doesn't look like a good move. Maybe worthwhile once the spell in question is a couple of levels below your best; spell save DCs are the same for your 1st and 6th level spells.

I've heard from another acquaintance that PF2 does make for a decent pure combat game. I'm fairly sure he plays while drunk, so take that with a splash of beer.

[Gwynfrid]

Most spells in PF1 (and D&D 3.x, and AD&D, and similar RPGs) don't have a hard HD cap on what they can effect.

That's correct. On the other hand, one could well argue that save-or-suck spells in PF1 are badly in need of a hard HD cap, because they unbalance the game and make it less interesting. A successful round 1 Baleful Polymorph on the major villain of a campaign can do a lot to deflate the excitement of the final fight.

PF1, however, had another balancing mechanism for "boss protection": Spell Resistance, which no longer exists in PF2. That role is now played by the Incapacitation rule. The equivalence between the two is incomplete, since not every high-level opponent in PF1 had SR, while the Incapacitation mechanism applies to high-level baddies across the board. Also, PF1 had a static (and therefore boring) way to alleviate SR with the Spell Penetration feat line. Overall, I think Incapacitation is a better way to handle that problem.


It has the meta effect of making spells with that keyword primarily for use on mooks while competent enemies have their HP chipped away by swords and blast spells. Together with the scaling of saving throws, hoping to take away 1 action from a boss via one of your best spells isn't smart. Still something PCs might do of course, but it doesn't look like a good move. Maybe worthwhile once the spell in question is a couple of levels below your best; spell save DCs are the same for your 1st and 6th level spells.

That's a good point. For example, if my wizard has run out of his best attack spells and his martial companions are facing a large monster, I may be better off trying Hideous Laughter, to get a chance of shutting down the monster's reactions (especially if the monster's Will is its lowest save). This could well be a lot better than trying for a chance of doing minor damage with a cantrip.

[Quertus]

Have you seen the incapacitation keyword (https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=93) found on many of these spells, that basically gives most enemies +10 to their saving throws?

Effectively, this means that PF2's Paralyze spell:
- Incapacitates the enemy for 1 round on a crit fail
- Denies one action to the enemy on a fail
- Does nothing on a success or crit success.

In other words, is it worth two of your actions to maybe remove one enemy action?

Even as an at-will ability, that sounds bad.


And its not 2 actions to remove one of theirs. Its 2 of the PARTY'S actions to CRIPPLE one of the opponents for a round.

Sell me on how that's good.

So, if you are facing a single foe encounter, a 4-person party would need to see a 75% success rate *just to break even* if that took 3 actions to cast, and was usable at will.

Taking just the last action of a full attack send next to useless, as does taking one action from a Wizard when casting a spell doesn't require that 3rd action.

Give me some math that makes this sound like anything other than a waste of time, even if it were usable at will.


Thats a bit harsh, Gnaeus. I dont prefer hitting people in the face with a rock. I enjoy both hand based rock impersonation play AND rock face hitting, as well as "Evil rocks kill everyone" (WFRP) and "Even the rocks are doomed" (Cthulhu Dark), and I will be starting "Rock/Paper/Scissors in SPAAAAACE" soon. Rocksalt is the spice of life after all, and it can be hard to find a team that like the complexity of rock/paper/scissors.

I want you to know, I was able to stop laughing. It was hard, but I did it.


They should just get their own subforum, like 4e and 5e imo

Agreed. Pf2e sounds too unlike its predecessors. That said, do we have a good definition of "d20 game", that would exclude 4e & 5e?

[Dienekes]

So here's a question for Albions_Angel, how often in your game did the martials you played with simply just attack each round as opposed to using some sort of special active ability or maneuver of some kind?

[Crake]

Agreed. Pf2e sounds too unlike its predecessors. That said, do we have a good definition of "d20 game", that would exclude 4e & 5e?

D20 is the name of 3.5's underlying OGL system. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D20_System) Any 3.5 derivatives which utilize it's OGL are considered "d20" games. This means that 4e and 5e, despite using a d20 as their primary dice, are not d20 games.

[Albions_Angel]

So here's a question for Albions_Angel, how often in your game did the martials you played with simply just attack each round as opposed to using some sort of special active ability or maneuver of some kind?

A pertinent question. Unfortunately the answer is rather nuanced. Or, at least, the full answer is.

The short answer is "They didnt".

But, before anyone goes "Aha! Gotcha!", I need to make it clear that this gaming group (my girlfriends primary one) have never played a d20 system. They did 4th for a bit and liked it, and then moved to 5th when it came out, and havnt tried much else. And they way they play 5e, they never try and trip, disarm, bullrush, etc. When they do encounter a new system, they all prefer to take it easy and let the DM remind them what the new rules are. This game is their backup game for when their current dm, who is rather unreliable, cant make it to their regular night. So the PF2 DM had very little time to read the system.

Its also important to note the composition of the group. A paladin (champion is the new name) who wasnt there for session 1 (martial), a ranged ranger (martial - ranged), an alchemist (spell caster i guess? Maybe?), a healer cleric (spellcaster) and me, a sorcerer (martial... only joking).

And while I wont talk about specifics, its also important to note that our DM screwed up (his own admission) and killed us all too quickly in a way that wasnt meant to happen. The joys of a new system. Without too many specifics, the fight was against quadrupeds with natural weapons, who are supposed to be too stupid to flank or use tactics, but did anyway.

So, while I was aware of the special actions, the party was not. Or not as conscious as maybe a 3.5e veteran would have been. And while I knew that, I wouldnt have called out those actions anyway, as I assume you cannot disarm a creature with natural weapons, its hard to grapple a creature with natural weapons, and tripping a quadruped is difficult in 3.5e. For what its worth, one of the quadrupeds did bullrush one of the PCs (something else they were not supposed to do...). EVEN THEN, good luck tripping or disarming with a bow...

In hindsight, I dont think PF2 does make it difficult to trip a quadruped, and had we had the Champion with us, I might well have suggested it. Instead, what happened was a series of slip ups that TPKed in session 1 (except not because we all still had our hero points and the DM realised they made it much more difficult than was intended).

The quadrupeds appeared, and were in cover. The Ranger assumed the wagon we were in was covered, and ran out on their own, before using an action to mark a target, and another to fire 2 shots (ranger ability), rolling an 8 on one of them, their highest roll of the game, into cover, and missing. The heavily armoured cleric and the lightly armoured alchemist stayed where they were, and I will be honest, I dont actually remember them doing anything, leaving me closest to the enemy and with a clear space to either side of me. Maybe they went after the monsters? I fired a cantrip, dealing some damage. It turns out, even my cantrip damage was enough to leave the thing on 1 hp (we found that out later). Then the enemy went and (error 1) flanked me, and downed me. Thats right, then the cleric had their turn. And, being the good, efficient 3.5e player that I am, I argued them down from healing me, saying it was more efficient to just smack an enemy. But you know what, with the new action economy, I dont think thats true. They could still have hit them AND healed me. Instead they hit once and missed twice. The alchemist... dithered. To be fair, their options were spend 2 actions putting away their flask of fire and drawing their dagger, then one action to hit, or use the fire and deal damage to everyone... They eventually chose the dagger and missed. With a thrown shot. Not their finest hour. Especially when they threw it at the enemy that HADNT engaged us yet. The Ranger fired and missed. 3 times. I bled a bit. The alchemist got eaten by enemies. The cleric healed me. A harder enemy appeared. The scripted NPC helpers... didnt. At this point, the DM is furious flicking through their notes going "I dont understand. It says this is the first encounter. But the total level is higher than yours. There should be more of you. And they are hitting you so easily!" While he is saying all of this, I fire a real spell, deal significant damage to the harder enemy, but I am still thinking "first encounter of the day and now I only have 2 spells left" so silly me. The ranger missed her shots again btw. Cleric gets badly mauled and heals the alchemist. Ranger misses again. I fire a cantrip. I die. For real this time (I start of dying with a level of 2 severity, and then take splash damage as) the cleric falls over and the alchemists commits suicide trying to kill the enemies with splash damage (and me). So far, one dead enemy. 2 badly wounded. One weak enemy untouched. I am current damage dealer supreme! Also dead. At this point, its 3 vs 1 and the 1 seems to have a faulty bow. In desperation, the DM pulls in 2 NPCs to help. The wrong 2. They die. So does the ranger. Then the dm rereads the encounter and swears a lot. A good time was had by all.

Honestly, I can see the special abilities helping. A melee martial could have charged the enemy, breaking up their line, or forcing them to concentrate on them. At level 1, the -10 to attack on your 3rd attack in a round is nearly impossible, but burning an action to try and trip (incidentally, I was actually best placed to try as I had a sickle, a tripping weapon), then hitting twice at a prone enemy, that seems worth it in a way that it wasnt even in 3.5e, as it no longer eats your attack! We also didnt know until after the fight that enemies dont automatically get AoOs. I could have moved away. I SHOULD have moved away.

The special actions didnt help us, but thats not because we left them for more efficient ones. Its because we messed up.

[Lirya]

I have played one session of pf2. The party was a fighter (who had no experience with rpgs), two monks, an alchemist, and me playing a cleric. We felt that character creation took too long, but that was partially due to only having one book and lack of experience making pf2 characters.

In game, the d20 ruled the skill checks. This was fine for a one shot, and we all cheered for the fighter as she couldn't roll less than 15 that evening. In combat, I buffed the fighter with magic weapon (which looked like the best buff in the game at 1st level) causing her to kill anything she touched.

The fighter had to leave early, and my other spell was utility so we struggled a lot with grinding down enemies after she left. Nobody used any special maneuvers, I had enough healing for us to win eventually. After the game the alchemist commented that he felt useless and the gm wondered if we had done something wrong.

[Gwynfrid]

D20 is the name of 3.5's underlying OGL system. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D20_System) Any 3.5 derivatives which utilize it's OGL are considered "d20" games. This means that 4e and 5e, despite using a d20 as their primary dice, are not d20 games.

This definition is correct from a legal perspective, but isn't super helpful if all you want to do is to understand how similar to each other two editions are. At the end of the day, all editions branch out from the same original set of ideas invented in the 70s. I agree PF2 is as different from PF1 as it is from 5e, irrespective of whatever "d20" label.


But, before anyone goes "Aha! Gotcha!", I need to make it clear that this gaming group (my girlfriends primary one) have never played a d20 system. They did 4th for a bit and liked it, and then moved to 5th when it came out, and havnt tried much else. And they way they play 5e, they never try and trip, disarm, bullrush, etc. When they do encounter a new system, they all prefer to take it easy and let the DM remind them what the new rules are. This game is their backup game for when their current dm, who is rather unreliable, cant make it to their regular night. So the PF2 DM had very little time to read the system.

This experience provides for an amusing read (sorry!) but comes to show how different PF2 is from anything that came before, and how important it is to provide at least an introduction into the fundamentals of combat to all players, before session 1. When I introduced PF2 to my group (longtime 3.5 then PF1 players) I put together an 18-page Powerpoint presentation to showcase the major mechanical changes. This helped a lot.


I have played one session of pf2. The party was a fighter (who had no experience with rpgs), two monks, an alchemist, and me playing a cleric. We felt that character creation took too long, but that was partially due to only having one book and lack of experience making pf2 characters.

In game, the d20 ruled the skill checks. This was fine for a one shot, and we all cheered for the fighter as she couldn't roll less than 15 that evening. In combat, I buffed the fighter with magic weapon (which looked like the best buff in the game at 1st level) causing her to kill anything she touched.

The fighter had to leave early, and my other spell was utility so we struggled a lot with grinding down enemies after she left. Nobody used any special maneuvers, I had enough healing for us to win eventually. After the game the alchemist commented that he felt useless and the gm wondered if we had done something wrong.

Sounds like a reasonable first session for a new game. The alchemist is the one class I find problematic from a mechanical perspective, I wouldn't recommend it as a first character. It already got significant erratas, and it looks like there may be more coming soon.

[Crake]

This definition is correct from a legal perspective, but isn't super helpful if all you want to do is to understand how similar to each other two editions are. At the end of the day, all editions branch out from the same original set of ideas invented in the 70s. I agree PF2 is as different from PF1 as it is from 5e, irrespective of whatever "d20" label.

Uhh, I mean, regardless of the legalities, the point was that d20 is the OGL name for the 3.5 base system. 4e, 5e and pf2 may have similarities, but they don't actually utilize the same base system, and are thus not d20 games and don't belong in this subforum. Meanwhile, games that are directly built upon the d20 ogl like mutants and masterminds, spycraft, or the stargate sg1 tabletop rpg are all classified as "d20 games".

[Albions_Angel]

Uhh, I mean, regardless of the legalities, the point was that d20 is the OGL name for the 3.5 base system. 4e, 5e and pf2 may have similarities, but they don't actually utilize the same base system, and are thus not d20 games and don't belong in this subforum. Meanwhile, games that are directly built upon the d20 ogl like mutants and masterminds, spycraft, or the stargate sg1 tabletop rpg are all classified as "d20 games".

Yeah, this is exactly it. Legality doesnt come into it. d20 games all use the same base rules, and, give or take some specific stuff, SHOULD all be largely compatible. Its how you can get 3.P games. You cant do that with 3rd and 5th though, because the very base rules on which they are both founded are different. Same here, you cant use any P2 stuff in a P1 game without seriously compromising the ruleset of one of the 2 games.

[crayzz]

Have you seen the incapacitation keyword (https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=93) found on many of these spells, that basically gives most enemies +10 to their saving throws?

Effectively, this means that PF2's Paralyze spell:
- Incapacitates the enemy for 1 round on a crit fail
- Denies one action to the enemy on a fail
- Does nothing on a success or crit success.

In other words, is it worth two of your actions to maybe remove one enemy action?

Assuming a 4 adventurer party against a single boss, your party has 12 actions per round while the opponent has 3. Trading down to 10 and 2 will often be beneficial. You slant the action economy even more in your favour. If you're up against 2 high level opponents, it's a straight trade in terms of action economy, but can be beneficial in forcing an opponent to work with a smaller pool of actions (e.g. the opponent can't use their stronger 2 action ability and retreat during the same round, meaning your spell either forces them to use a weaker one action ability and retreat, or use the two action ability and remain open to attack).

[patchyman]

Since the casters' spells are more powerful than the martials' single attacks, they have to be a limited resource. Cantrips are an unlimited resource, so it stands to reason that they're less powerful than martial attacks (if they were equivalent, then casters would be superior or equal in every situation). Cantrips are meant to be a backup solution when your caster runs out of spells, not to rival the martials' combat prowess.

By the way, cantrips are not that weak. They're particularly useful when the enemy has a weakness against some type of energy, which happens for many monsters.

K.G. included the math for Daze. For other cantrips, my table napkin math is pretty good: it does about the same amount of damage as a standard ranged attack, but takes 2 actions instead of 1. Note that every martial character has ways to increase the damage on their standard ranged or melee attack. Based on the foregoing, cantrips are weak. The fact that you *may* fight a monster that is weak to a particular energy type does not redeem them.

Nothing you have written justifies cantrips taking two actions. If anything, you make a good argument for levelled spells taking two actions, and cantrips taking one action, but characters not being able to cast more than 1 spell per turn.




Taking just the last action of a full attack send next to useless, as does taking one action from a Wizard when casting a spell doesn't require that 3rd action.

Give me some math that makes this sound like anything other than a waste of time, even if it were usable at will.


I cannot attest as to the truth of what follows, because as a player, I chose not to buy the Bestiary. I have heard that there are quite a few monsters that tend to have strong 2-action or 3-action attacks, more so than PCs (which for the most part, don't have very many 3-action attacks). I leave you to decide whether this justifies the difference (especially since there is no guarantee you will fight these monsters, or, if you do, that you will be aware that they have 2-action or 3-action attacks), but, in the interests of fairness, it is worth mentioning.




Its also important to note the composition of the group. A paladin (champion is the new name) who wasnt there for session 1 (martial), a ranged ranger (martial - ranged), an alchemist (spell caster i guess? Maybe?), a healer cleric (spellcaster) and me, a sorcerer (martial... only joking).

And while I wont talk about specifics, its also important to note that our DM screwed up (his own admission) and killed us all too quickly in a way that wasnt meant to happen. The joys of a new system. Without too many specifics, the fight was against quadrupeds with natural weapons, who are supposed to be too stupid to flank or use tactics, but did anyway.

(…)

Honestly, I can see the special abilities helping. A melee martial could have charged the enemy, breaking up their line, or forcing them to concentrate on them. At level 1, the -10 to attack on your 3rd attack in a round is nearly impossible, but burning an action to try and trip (incidentally, I was actually best placed to try as I had a sickle, a tripping weapon), then hitting twice at a prone enemy, that seems worth it in a way that it wasnt even in 3.5e, as it no longer eats your attack! We also didnt know until after the fight that enemies dont automatically get AoOs. I could have moved away. I SHOULD have moved away.

The special actions didnt help us, but thats not because we left them for more efficient ones. Its because we messed up.

Thank you for the play-by-play. Very informative. The maneuvers probably would not have helped very much. They count as an attack for the purpose of calculating the penalty, so a character that trips then attacks twice has the first attack at -5 and the second at -10. Plus, tripping targets Reflex, which I imagine most animals are pretty good at, and on a critical fail, you fall prone.

Also the no AOO is a double edged sword (and the reason why I chose not the aberrant sorcerer). Your frail, low AC and low hp sorcerer is standing 20' behind the champion (because you want to use your noodle arms, right?). Most enemies (not the case in the 1st fight in Plaguestone) can simply walk around the champion and attack you twice. Since your AC is abysmal (sorcerer), they not only have a great chance of getting a crit, but the -5 they take on the 2nd attack is offset by your AC being 3 or 4 points lower than the champion.

[Kurald Galain]

Assuming a 4 adventurer party against a single boss,
It's a good point that in a four-against-one fight, denying even one action is useful... but the rulebook explicitly points out not to build encounters like that; and that instead "the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters".


the Bestiary. I have heard that there are quite a few monsters that tend to have strong 2-action or 3-action attacks,
The bestiary is freely available online (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx). Taking a sample of fifth-level monsters, I find that only half of them have two-action attacks, and none of them have three-action attacks. It seems that what you've heard is incorrect.

Both of these suggest that spending two actions to maybe remove one enemy action is just not a good ability in practice.

[Quertus]

Assuming a 4 adventurer party against a single boss, your party has 12 actions per round while the opponent has 3. Trading down to 10 and 2 will often be beneficial. You slant the action economy even more in your favour. If you're up against 2 high level opponents, it's a straight trade in terms of action economy, but can be beneficial in forcing an opponent to work with a smaller pool of actions (e.g. the opponent can't use their stronger 2 action ability and retreat during the same round, meaning your spell either forces them to use a weaker one action ability and retreat, or use the two action ability and remain open to attack).

If all actions were equal, it was an at-will ability, and didn't allow a save? It would be amazing! As none of those are true, it's a bit harder to evaluate.

Or is it? I mean, it's just math, right? So, it's the proportional change in the value of the opponent's actions, times the probability of success, compared to the opportunity cost of taking that action as a fraction of the party's total action value.

So, [(val3-val2)/val3]*[probAffected]/[Cantrip+party] vs val3/[Cantrip*3+party]? No, that's not quite right. It's expectedVal/[Cantrip+party] vs val3/[Cantrip*3+party], where expectedVal is [(val3*probUnaffected)+(val2*probAffected)]. That at least allows you to evaluate its effectiveness as an at-will ability.

Although, really, it sounds like the real opportunity cost was in choosing a caster. :smallamused:


I cannot attest as to the truth of what follows, because as a player, I chose not to buy the Bestiary. I have heard that there are quite a few monsters that tend to have strong 2-action or 3-action attacks, more so than PCs (which for the most part, don't have very many 3-action attacks). I leave you to decide whether this justifies the difference (especially since there is no guarantee you will fight these monsters, or, if you do, that you will be aware that they have 2-action or 3-action attacks), but, in the interests of fairness, it is worth mentioning.

Thanks. So… ugh. Does anyone know if monsters have "1/day" or "encounter" abilities, where taking their 1 action away only means "you can't use it this round", rather than "you can't use it"; ie, where all you spent your actions doing is (effectively) switching their turn 1 & turn 2?

[patchyman]

Thanks. So… ugh. Does anyone know if monsters have "1/day" or "encounter" abilities, where taking their 1 action away only means "you can't use it this round", rather than "you can't use it"; ie, where all you spent your actions doing is (effectively) switching their turn 1 & turn 2?

I find it difficult to evaluate how I feel about many monsters having strong 2-action and 3-action abilities. On the one hand, I have never had an issue with enemies being built using different rules than the players. On the other hand, something about this doesn't *sit* well with me, and I have trouble identifying it.

Is it that it feels metagamey that what is important is interacting with actions rather than what occurs on the fiction layer? Is it that the mechanics have been deliberately obscured to reward "initiates"? Is it that instinct is (correctly or incorrectly) telling me that one enemy losing one action out of 3 or taking a -1 on one attribute for one round is not worth my highest level spell slot? I don't know.

[Firest Kathon]

When I introduced PF2 to my group (longtime 3.5 then PF1 players) I put together an 18-page Powerpoint presentation to showcase the major mechanical changes. This helped a lot.

Would you be able and willing to share this presentation? I think it will be quite useful to many gaming groups, including mine.

[evildmguy]

When I introduced PF2 to my group (longtime 3.5 then PF1 players) I put together an 18-page Powerpoint presentation to showcase the major mechanical changes. This helped a lot..

I would also be interested in seeing this. I don't have an electronic copy but a player summarized all of the actions a character can take. I will see if I can find that or if it was something he made.

Thanks!

[Gwynfrid]

Happy to help, feel free to use as you please (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mtLwcJota0esfYfH7mloOTJWndxbDPja). This is just a high-level view of the main mechanical changes, taken from the perspective of someone who comes from PF1. I welcome comments and corrections, if you have any.

[Sir Chuckles]

I find it difficult to evaluate how I feel about many monsters having strong 2-action and 3-action abilities. On the one hand, I have never had an issue with enemies being built using different rules than the players. On the other hand, something about this doesn't *sit* well with me, and I have trouble identifying it.

Is it that it feels metagamey that what is important is interacting with actions rather than what occurs on the fiction layer? Is it that the mechanics have been deliberately obscured to reward "initiates"? Is it that instinct is (correctly or incorrectly) telling me that one enemy losing one action out of 3 or taking a -1 on one attribute for one round is not worth my highest level spell slot? I don't know.

Having spoken to a lot of serious defenders of PF2e, they typically defend that feeling due to the apparent importance of the Lore skill. Nevermind that a vast majority of Lore skills are utterly useless, but I've had more than one person sing the praises of feats that let you use Recall Knowledge without an Action. A major portion of the tactical layer seems to want you to have that information. Not just once, mind you. The give examples such as using Arcana on a Golem to discover its magical defenses and then Crafting to discover its physical ones.

Reading into the rules and having multiple discussions, there're many aspects of the system that feel extremely "gamey".

[Alexvrahr]

Re monsters having a lot of 2-3 action abilities, maybe that's in the published adventures? I've heard it as well as Patchyman (unless he read it on my post of course).


The special actions didnt help us, but thats not because we left them for more efficient ones. Its because we messed up.
Not really? A trip attempt raises your multiple attack penalty the same as an attack (-4 or -5 generally), prone is only a 2 point penalty to AC. And trip attempts can fail. Disarm is worse. Intimidate doesn't raise your MAP and isn't affected by it, but it's a minor effect which fades quickly and only works once on an enemy per encounter.

The ability to move freely because so few monsters have the ability to take AoOs is a change to remember though.

[Firest Kathon]

Happy to help, feel free to use as you please (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mtLwcJota0esfYfH7mloOTJWndxbDPja). This is just a high-level view of the main mechanical changes, taken from the perspective of someone who comes from PF1. I welcome comments and corrections, if you have any.

Thank you, have a seasonal cookie and 0.827 internets.

[patchyman]

Re monsters having a lot of 2-3 action abilities, maybe that's in the published adventures? I've heard it as well as Patchyman (unless he read it on my post of course).


I lurk on the Paizo Pathfinder 2 forums, and I read it there on one of the wizard threads. Is that where you read it as well?


Having spoken to a lot of serious defenders of PF2e, they typically defend that feeling due to the apparent importance of the Lore skill. Nevermind that a vast majority of Lore skills are utterly useless, but I've had more than one person sing the praises of feats that let you use Recall Knowledge without an Action. A major portion of the tactical layer seems to want you to have that information. Not just once, mind you. The give examples such as using Arcana on a Golem to discover its magical defenses and then Crafting to discover its physical ones.

Reading into the rules and having multiple discussions, there're many aspects of the system that feel extremely "gamey".

I have seen the Recall Knowledge action argument as well, on the Paizo Pathfinder 2 forums (see above). Currently, Recall Knowledge is not a good use of an action: casting a spell requires 2 actions, so I only have 1 action to move, take cover or cast Shield as necessary.

As you mentioned, there is a skill feat that allows me to use Recall Knowledge as a free action ONCE per day (Automatic Knowledge). Its prerequisites are: Expert level in the associated skill and the Assurance skill feat in the associated skill. The earliest this comes online for a standard wizard (i.e. one that wasn't built specifically for it) is level 3 : using my level 2 skill feat to grab Assurance(Arcana), my level 3 general feat (not skill feat) to grab Automatic Knowledge and using my level 3 skill increase to advance Arcana to Expert. More realistically, this comes online at level 4, so I can use my level 4 skill feat for Automatic Knowledge and my level 3 general feat for a general feat (probably Magical Crafting so I can make scrolls).

Note that I would have sunk 2 skill feats in order that ONCE per day, I can use Recall Knowledge as a free action, but ONLY for Arcane creatures (not for Nature, Religion or Occult creatures). Also, as per the Core Rulebook, using the Recall Knowledge action would provide me with a SINGLE one of its best-known attributes (though the book does specify that the knowledge provided by the DM should be useful).

[Kurald Galain]

Having spoken to a lot of serious defenders of PF2e, they typically defend that feeling due to the apparent importance of the Lore skill. Nevermind that a vast majority of Lore skills are utterly useless, but I've had more than one person sing the praises of feats that let you use Recall Knowledge without an Action.I find it odd to call this a strength of P2 in particular. Monster knowledge checks have largely the same rules in 3E, P1, 4E and 5E, except in all of those systems it doesn't cost an action, whereas in P2 it does.


I lurk on the Paizo Pathfinder 2 forums, and I read it there on one of the wizard threads.Did they post actual examples of monsters with impressive 3-action abilities?

[Alexvrahr]

I lurk on the Paizo Pathfinder 2 forums, and I read it there on one of the wizard threads. Is that where you read it as well?
No, but Atalius might have mentioned it there too possibly - he's my source.

[Sir Chuckles]

I find it odd to call this a strength of P2 in particular. Monster knowledge checks have largely the same rules in 3E, P1, 4E and 5E, except in all of those systems it doesn't cost an action, whereas in P2 it does.

That's what I don't get, personally. They're not praising the specific rule, but using the fact that feats allow you to do it as a less intense action at all. It had stemmed from a discussion about how feats were drastically variable in power and I had pointed to the Diabolic Certitude feat from the Hellknight Armiger Archetype. The feat allows you to use a Reaction at the start of a turn in which you are observing a Devil to Recall Knowledge about that Devil with the added bonus of being unable to critically fail.

I pointed to it as an example of "weak in context", as there're feats in the same archetype that grant Resistances, increased movement speed in heavy armor, and other Order abilities like innate spellcasting, as an example of selling the solution to a manufactured problem, and of one of the many "if and or, and also but" abilities. They praised it as an example of a powerful tactical option because of it being a Reaction instead of an Action and because it avoids crit fails.

I feel that my latter two issues with that specific feat are likely my two core issues with the system overall.

[Gwynfrid]

I find it odd to call this a strength of P2 in particular. Monster knowledge checks have largely the same rules in 3E, P1, 4E and 5E, except in all of those systems it doesn't cost an action, whereas in P2 it does.

In this context, PF2's strength is about the complexity of tactical choices it offers to characters with their 3 actions. For casters, 2 actions are often (but not always) best used with casting a spell. For the third action, there are a lot of options: casting a one-action spell, taking cover, moving to a better position, using a metamagic feat on the 2-action spell, etc. Recall Knowledge being an action adds to the list. This makes the tactical options richer. In the same way, for martials, Recall Knowledge can also be a valid option as a 3rd action along with 2 attacks, move+attack, or using a 2-action feat.


Did they post actual examples?

There will be cases when Recall Knowledge is an important action the character wants to take. For example, knowing which of the monster's saves is weaker can be a very big deal: Per the monster creation guidelines, there's a +3 difference between a "low" and a "moderate" save bonus, and another +3 between "moderate" and "high". Resistances and weaknesses are also big deals, and I think they appear more frequently than they do in PF1.

If you'll allow me to take this discussion of the Recall Knowledge action to a broader perspective, I would say that a lot of the unease with PF2 stems from the far-reaching (some will say, excessively so) changes the game takes as a consequence of the new action economy. I would compare it this way:
- In PF1, characters have, as a baseline, 2 actions: move + standard. The move action is a lot less powerful and flexible than the standard action. Then, there are a few ways to use them differently for greater effect, mostly by combining them into a full-round action, either through a high BAB or through feats. Also, some class features, feats and spells add the possibility to take a 3rd action (the swift action) but this is quite restricted, until higher levels.
- PF2 aims to make play more flexible and dynamic, so it changes the action economy paradigm by giving 3 actions of equal power and flexibility to everybody, right at the start. This is a huge boost in power, so the game takes a lot of steps to tone this down (otherwise, initiative would too often be enough decide the outcome of a fight), in a way to achieve another of its design goals, ie. improving power balance between the classes. To do so, it increases the cost of many activities, beginning with spells of course (2 actions cost for most of them). That's how a lot of things that were free in PF1, like using a shield, recalling knowledge, or the 5-ft step, are now actions. In short: You get a lot more actions, but more things cost an action, so it balances out (but less so for casters, intentionally).

A natural tendency all of us share is to overestimate the value of things we lose, while underestimating the value of things we gain: Hence, the very common impression that PF2 is a giant nerf across the board... This was my first reaction to reading the playtest, to be honest. It took some actual play for me to accept those changes as reasonable.

[Kurald Galain]

In this context, PF2's strength is about the complexity of tactical choices it offers to characters with their 3 actions. For casters, 2 actions are often (but not always) best used with casting a spell. For the third action, there are a lot of options: casting a one-action spell, taking cover, moving to a better position, using a metamagic feat on the 2-action spell, etc. Recall Knowledge being an action adds to the list. This makes the tactical options richer. In the same way, for martials, Recall Knowledge can also be a valid option as a 3rd action along with 2 attacks, move+attack, or using a 2-action feat.
Well, it's a matter of concept vs. implementation.

As you say, it is a great concept to have Recall cost an action. This changes it from something that every character does all the time to a tactical choice, and that does lead to more interesting gameplay.

But the implementation... as Sir Chuckles points out, Recall doesn't let you ask a question about a monster (like which of its saves is weaker). Instead, you learn one of its best-known attributes (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=563) (like a manticore's tail spikes; that's an actual example from the rulebook). Regardless of how it works in other editions, compared to other P2 actions this is pretty much always a bad choice for your action.

The same applies to feats (as noted above, identifying devils is not nearly common enough to spend a feat on compared to other P2 feats), and to spells (e.g. the Daze cantrip deals pitiful damage and has only a 5% to 10% chance of debuffing, so that's a waste of time compared to other P2 actions). So it's not about comparing to P1; it's that P2 by itself has way too many "trap" options that are highly unlikely to do anything.

[patchyman]

Did they post actual examples of monsters with impressive 3-action abilities?

I did not see any specific examples posted.

[Psychoalpha]

PF2, the angsty edgelord half-elf of gaming systems.

This is the best thing. Thank you, Palanan. I want this on a t-shirt.

[Spacehamster]

So nerver realt played Pathfinder xcpt the kingmaker CRPG, wanting to try it out as pen and paper and were wondering how big the difference is between the original pathfinder which is very similar to 3.5 and the 2e pathfinder?

[Gwynfrid]

K.G. included the math for Daze. For other cantrips, my table napkin math is pretty good: it does about the same amount of damage as a standard ranged attack, but takes 2 actions instead of 1. Note that every martial character has ways to increase the damage on their standard ranged or melee attack. Based on the foregoing, cantrips are weak. The fact that you *may* fight a monster that is weak to a particular energy type does not redeem them.

Nothing you have written justifies cantrips taking two actions. If anything, you make a good argument for levelled spells taking two actions, and cantrips taking one action, but characters not being able to cast more than 1 spell per turn.

Fundamentally, attack cantrips take 2 actions because they're far superior to any 3rd action in the round in most situations. If we houserule that cantrips take 1 action, then casters will use them on every turn along with another spell, unless they really need to move.

You suggest that cantrips could take 1 action with a specification that only 1 spell can be cast per turn. I think that would be a net loss for the game. Characters should totally be able to cast 2 spells per turn (heck, even 3 spells, although I expect that to be very rare). Their 1 action cost is what makes things like True Strike, the Shield cantrip, the 1-action version of Heal and others interesting tactical options along with another spell. If you think of what a caster can do with a third action, assuming 2 actions will be taken by a regular spell, the list is impressive: Move, raise a shield, cast a 1-action spell, use metamagics, attack with a weapon, recall knowledge, attempt to demoralize an opponent, and more. Every rule that adds to the list is a good one in my book.


Well, it's a matter of concept vs. implementation.

As you say, it is a great concept to have Recall cost an action. This changes it from something that every character does all the time to a tactical choice, and that does lead to more interesting gameplay.

But the implementation... as Sir Chuckles points out, Recall doesn't let you ask a question about a monster (like which of its saves is weaker). Instead, you learn one of its best-known attributes (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=563) (like a manticore's tail spikes; that's an actual example from the rulebook). Regardless of how it works in other editions, compared to other P2 actions this is pretty much always a bad choice for your action.

Well, the Recall Knowledge text also says that a success gives you useful information. If you're at home planning an attack against a manticore, it's useful to hear about the tail spikes, and you have time to roll again for further information (at an gradually increased difficulty level, until you fail). If you're right in front of the manticore and you've just taken a volley of spikes to the face then this information no longer qualifies as useful and the GM should give you something else.

Of course this is all subject to GM discretion, as it always has been. The GM should answer in such a way that Recall Knowledge isn't a waste of an action. Possibly, exact information on the monster's weakest save should be reserved for a critical success; this is a matter of individual judgment. Personally, on a success I might say something like "it's got a pretty thick carapace" or "that's a highly intelligent creature" hinting at a high AC or Will save.


The same applies to feats (as noted above, identifying devils is not nearly common enough to spend a feat on compared to other P2 feats), and to spells (e.g. the Daze cantrip deals pitiful damage and has only a 5% to 10% chance of debuffing, so that's a waste of time compared to other P2 actions). So it's not about comparing to P1; it's that P2 by itself has way too many "trap" options that are highly unlikely to do anything.

Daze only debuffs on a critically failed save, but, as discussed above, it's a big debuff. I feel this is reasonably balanced against other cantrips: Electric Arc does the biggest damage if 2 targets are available, with no rider effect. Ray of Frost does as much damage, but only 1 target (provided you hit), and a modest rider effect. Produce Flame does the same damage plus big persistent damage on a crit. Acid Splash does modest damage, and some persistent damage on a crit, but it's the only one with a (small) splash effect. Compared to all these, Daze does low damage, but has a solid rider effect on a crit. It also has more subtle advantages: It cast be cast from a fairly safe distance of 60 ft, and it's the only cantrip that attacks the Will save. It's never going to be anyone's go-to cantrip, but I think it will have its uses.

As for Diabolic certitude, it's very good if you're in a campaign involving a lot of interaction with devils. In any other situation, it doesn't make sense to take this feat.


I did not see any specific examples posted.

There are few 3-action attacks in the book. The most common one is trample (2 strides with automatic damage on everyone in the path, Refl for half). I can see a lot of 2-action attacks, most mid and high level monsters have one - for example, the dragon's breath weapon.


So nerver realt played Pathfinder xcpt the kingmaker CRPG, wanting to try it out as pen and paper and were wondering how big the difference is between the original pathfinder which is very similar to 3.5 and the 2e pathfinder?

It's pretty different. For details, I suggest you read this thread from the OP down, it's a good start on the subject.

[John Campbell]

My party came within a hair of getting TPKed by that first Plaguestone encounter, too - and not because the GM was running them too smart, or we weren't using our characters effectively. Partly it was system issues, partly it was bad luck (the boss monster maxed out its AoE damage, which made it effectively a save-or-die against a too-high save DC), but mostly it was just bad adventure design. You should not throw an overwhelming encounter at a brand-new group of 1st-level characters as their very first encounter of the game, and very probably first encounter ever using the game system.

According to our GM, there's allowance made in the module for the party getting wiped by the first encounter... which suggests to me that they knew that was going to happen with significant frequency, and went and did it anyway. Bad adventure design.

The kind of encounters we've been running into just around town are suspension-of-disbelief-stretching ridiculous, too. Seriously, how are these people not all dead already?

The main system problem we've been running into is that getting potentially three attacks at once from 1st level on makes low-level combat unexpectedly brutal. Characters start with way more HP than in previous editions, and attack damage is generally slightly reduced. But being able to hit three times between your opponent being able to do anything about it means that damage output per round is way, way up, and they get to respond with healing or just running away less frequently. We've had several moments of, "I'm unhurt, oh wait it landed multiple attacks and rolled high on damage, I'm down." This cuts both ways, but when monsters don't get to do anything because a PC won initiative and alpha-striked them to death, that's much less of a problem than when the PCs don't get to do anything because the monsters destroyed them with multiple attacks before they got to act. And that initiative d20 is awfully swingy.

They just looooove throwing fiddly debuff conditions around, too, which is just obnoxious, even though - or maybe because - it hasn't actually had any effect at all on the outcome of anything.

We just finished the first act and leveled up, and I've been going through the skill feats, trying to find something, anything, that's worth taking for my 2nd-level skill feat. And failing. You could set the entire Skill Feat section on fire and nothing of value would be lost. I think I need to raise my Int so I can spend all of my skill feats on Skill Training, because being Trained in an extra skill is actually worth something. (Ultimately +22 to the skill, as opposed to "situational mitigation of an insignificant non-scaling situational modifier", "minor non-scaling situational bonus", or "situational skill application that should be available to anybody trained in the skill" from most of the skill feats.)

The general feats aren't much better, and it's kind of pathetic that there are so few actual general feats that they have to try to foist the skill feats off on you again in your general slots.

[Kurald Galain]

Fundamentally, attack cantrips take 2 actions because they're far superior to any 3rd action in the round in most situations.
The issue with cantrips is not that they cost two actions, but that they're a lot less effective than two weapon attacks. The math is earlier in the thread.


Daze only debuffs on a critically failed save, but, as discussed above, it's a big debuff.
Best be careful, if you start calling minor effects like Daze a "big debuff" you're going to run out of superlatives when you get to the spells that have more than a 5% chance of actually doing something :smallamused:


Resistances and weaknesses are also big deals, and I think they appear more frequently than they do in PF1.
Sampling monsters suggests that about one-third of them have a weakness; usually fire, cold, or good. However, I note that a cantrip against weakness still does less than a weapon, so they're really not that big a difference.


There are few 3-action attacks in the book. The most common one is trample (2 strides with automatic damage on everyone in the path, Refl for half).
Trample is decent enough, but does markedly less than a two-action Fireball or breath weapon. The context here was that denying one monster action would allegedly prevent three-action attacks, but given how rare such attacks actually are, it follows that spending two actions to maybe remove one enemy action is a rather poor tactic.


They just looooove throwing fiddly debuff conditions around, too, which is just obnoxious, even though - or maybe because - it hasn't actually had any effect at all on the outcome of anything.
Yes, that is my impression as well. Unfortunately this also applies to a lot of PC spells, other than blasting.

[NomGarret]

We just finished the first act and leveled up, and I've been going through the skill feats, trying to find something, anything, that's worth taking for my 2nd-level skill feat. And failing. You could set the entire Skill Feat section on fire and nothing of value would be lost. I think I need to raise my Int so I can spend all of my skill feats on Skill Training, because being Trained in an extra skill is actually worth something. (Ultimately +22 to the skill, as opposed to "situational mitigation of an insignificant non-scaling situational modifier", "minor non-scaling situational bonus", or "situational skill application that should be available to anybody trained in the skill" from most of the skill feats.)

The general feats aren't much better, and it's kind of pathetic that there are so few actual general feats that they have to try to foist the skill feats off on you again in your general slots.

Untrained Improvisation is a rare decent feat in this regard. Giving 1/2 level to untrained skills which bumps up to +level at 7th level.

[thompur]

Untrained Improvisation is a rare decent feat in this regard. Giving 1/2 level to untrained skills which bumps up to +level at 7th level.

Catfall is pretty sweet, and frankly, the way most skill feats should be built, gaining usefulness or power as your skill level rises.

And don't discount the usefulness of Assurance. At 3rd level, Assurance:Medicine means you will always succeed on your medicine check.
Assurance:Athletics means a 2nd level Halfling rogue with expert in Athletics can always trip an Ogre brute, or anything else with a reflex DC of 16 or less.

[Gwynfrid]

The issue with cantrips is not that they cost two actions, but that they're a lot less effective than two weapon attacks. The math is earlier in the thread.

Cantrips are less effective than two weapon attacks, it's not a bug, it's a feature. If cantrips were equal to weapons, then martials would be at an obvious disadvantage.

By the way, I went to look at your math a bit more closely, and it has a couple of issues:
- The average AC of a level-1 creature is 15, not 17.
- At 30-ft range (ie cantrip range), damage for warriors should be based on a composite shortbow, not longbow, since the latter has a -2 penalty (btw, I find the volley property pretty silly, its only justification is game balance - that's the one thing I dislike in PF2 weapon design).
- Telekinetic Projectile does 1d6 + spellcasting ability bonus in damage. One still needs to find or carry items to use it, however, so it's not going to be always the best choice.

The remarks above change the numbers a bit, but not enough to change the conclusion: Cantrips still are less effective than 2 weapon attacks. As they should.


Best be careful, if you start calling minor effects like Daze a "big debuff" you're going to run out of superlatives when you get to the spells that have more than a 5% chance of actually doing something :smallamused:

Well, if "big" is a superlative, then I wonder what to call half the points people make on this forum, including your quote :smallbiggrin:

More seriously, stunned 1 is a solid debuff (if "big" is too big a word), just like any action denial debuff is a solid debuff. It denies the use of 3-action attacks, but that doesn't matter so much since they're rare, as mentioned earlier. What matters more is how it restricts the effectiveness of 2-action attacks, which are very common, and are the most powerful thing many monsters can do. PF2 combat is a lot less static than PF1 combat (once you shed the PF1-driven habit of always using a full attack if you can). Therefore, using a 2-action attack well will often require some movement. For example, if you face a dragon and you give it the stunned 1 condition:
- Unless the characters positioned themselves very poorly, it won't be able to maximize the number of characters caught in its breath weapon, since it would need to move for that.
- If flying, it can't use its breath weapon at all, or it will fall to the ground, since it must use an action to remain airborne.


Sampling monsters suggests that about one-third of them have a weakness; usually fire, cold, or good. However, I note that a cantrip against weakness still does less than a weapon, so they're really not that big a difference.

Even if you revise the math as I mentioned above, this is correct. But the difference becomes modest. Also, we need to count the resistances to physical damage in this equation. Many monsters have some sort of resistance, meaning martials will need to switch weapons. This takes an action and often forces the use of an inferior weapon. In contrast, the wizard only needs to prepare 2 cantrips in order to bypass the resistances of the vast majority of monsters.


Trample is decent enough, but does markedly less than a two-action Fireball or breath weapon. The context here was that denying one monster action would allegedly prevent three-action attacks, but given how rare such attacks actually are, it follows that spending two actions to maybe remove one enemy action is a rather poor tactic.

See points above about 2-action attacks. This isn't to say that using Daze is a great tactic generally (as I said, it's not going to be a go-to solution). But there are circumstances for it to be a decent option. [edited to remove silly example] For example, if I'm too far away for my 30-ft ranged spells and I'd like to stay away from the enemy for whatever reason (low hit points, suspected presence of traps, nasty aura on the monster, out of attack spells, want to keep big spells for later boss fight, etc) then I'd consider using Daze, then attacking once with a crossbow or sling.

[NomGarret]

Looking at the spell lists, Daze is mostly for Occult casters who only have it and Telekinetic Projectile to choose from. Divine casters might take it as a universal backup to Disrupt Undead or Divine Lance. Arcane and Primal casters have a lot more options, including Ray of Frost which beats it in terms of range.

[Quertus]

Cantrips are less effective than two weapon attacks, it's not a bug, it's a feature. If cantrips were equal to weapons, then martials would be at an obvious disadvantage.

With their better armor and more HP, I'm curious just what that disadvantage might be.

[stack]

With their better armor and more HP, I'm curious just what that disadvantage might be.

Can deal damage at will is at a disadvantage verses can deal damage at will + have flexible abilities to deal with other challenges.

[patchyman]

Cantrips are less effective than two weapon attacks, it's not a bug, it's a feature. If cantrips were equal to weapons, then martials would be at an obvious disadvantage.

No, they wouldn't. If cantrips did equal damage to ranged standard attacks (which is what we are comparing here), martials would only be at a disadvantage if their class goodies weren't as good as the class goodies of spellcasters. This may have been the case in Pathfinder 1, but if you are saying this is the case in Pathfinder 2, you have to show your work, you can't just baldly affirm it.



By the way, I went to look at your math a bit more closely, and it has a couple of issues:
- The average AC of a level-1 creature is 15, not 17.
- At 30-ft range (ie cantrip range), damage for warriors should be based on a composite shortbow, not longbow, since the latter has a -2 penalty (btw, I find the volley property pretty silly, its only justification is game balance - that's the one thing I dislike in PF2 weapon design).
- Telekinetic Projectile does 1d6 + spellcasting ability bonus in damage. One still needs to find or carry items to use it, however, so it's not going to be always the best choice.

The remarks above change the numbers a bit, but not enough to change the conclusion: Cantrips still are less effective than 2 weapon attacks. As they should.


A 30' range on cantrips is a limitation, not a feature. It means that if you are a spellcaster, you have to get your AC 15 ...um, neck... within one Move action of your target. Depending on the circumstances, a martial archer could already have shot twice before the spellcaster got into range. This isn't taken into account in K.G.'s DPR calculation (because it can't be).

Another thing not taken into account in K.G.'s DPR calculation (because it can't be), is that if the spellcaster needs to take 2 actions without attacking, his DPR drops to 0 (unless he has one of certain specific subclasses). The martial archer's DPR does not, since he can take a 1-action shot.

[Dienekes]

Well a part of the problem here is, attacks by nature have a penalty (some might argue an unwarranted penalty, but still it’s there) against repeat use. I don’t think spells and cantrips really have a succinct method of making the second and third spell cast per turn comparatively worse.

The other argument of martial vs casters is of course going to be a messy one. But from just perusing the fighter, I find it hard to imagine casters being worse. I mean, come on. You can’t even get Whirlwind Attack until level 14 or something.

[Gwynfrid]

No, they wouldn't. If cantrips did equal damage to ranged standard attacks (which is what we are comparing here), martials would only be at a disadvantage if their class goodies weren't as good as the class goodies of spellcasters. This may have been the case in Pathfinder 1, but if you are saying this is the case in Pathfinder 2, you have to show your work, you can't just baldly affirm it.

I don't have anything to add to stack's answer in that regard. He put it better and more succintly than I would have been able to.


A 30' range on cantrips is a limitation, not a feature. It means that if you are a spellcaster, you have to get your AC 15 ...um, neck... within one Move action of your target. Depending on the circumstances, a martial archer could already have shot twice before the spellcaster got into range. This isn't taken into account in K.G.'s DPR calculation (because it can't be).

Well, if the archer wants to avoid the -2 penalty from the volley trait, he has to move out of the 30' range, kind of a symmetrical issue. Anyway, if we want to compare DPR in a more or less apples to apples manner, the two characters need to be the same position vs the enemy: This is why a longbow isn't appropriate in this math, unless the -2 is taken into account.

[patchyman]

Can deal damage at will is at a disadvantage verses can deal damage at will + have flexible abilities to deal with other challenges.


I don't have anything to add to stack's answer in that regard. He put it better and more succintly than I would have been able to.

Does that mean that Rogues are better than Wizards? After all, the Rogues a large number of extra skill points and skill feats that means that they can flexibly deal with other challenge all day long, while the Wizard is limited by the spell slots they have.

But then, you are not considering many other factors:

Martials having higher HP, AC
Melee combat doing more damage than ranged combat
Martial class abilities that improve combat beyond standard ranged and standard melee combat (lest we forget, fighters get a +2 to all melee and ranged attacks before they have chosen a single class feat)


Once again, it is not sufficient in Pathfinder 2 to state that casters are overpowered unless cantrips are weaker than a standard ranged attack. You need to provide some support for that claim.



Well, if the archer wants to avoid the -2 penalty from the volley trait, he has to move out of the 30' range, kind of a symmetrical issue. Anyway, if we want to compare DPR in a more or less apples to apples manner, the two characters need to be the same position vs the enemy: This is why a longbow isn't appropriate in this math, unless the -2 is taken into account.

So we are comparing best case for spellcasters, more than 5' and less than 30', to the worst case for archers (since they are either using a composite shortbow or taking a -2 on their longbow), and archers are still better off?

[Gwynfrid]

Does that mean that Rogues are better than Wizards? After all, the Rogues a large number of extra skill points and skill feats that means that they can flexibly deal with other challenge all day long, while the Wizard is limited by the spell slots they have.
But then, you are not considering many other factors:

Martials having higher HP, AC
Melee combat doing more damage than ranged combat


I'm sorry, but none of these points is relevant to the topic at hand, which is DPR for cantrips compared to ranged martial attacks.



Martial class abilities that improve combat beyond standard ranged and standard melee combat (lest we forget, fighters get a +2 to all melee and ranged attacks before they have chosen a single class feat)


Correct. But that +2 is included in the math from K.G. already.


Once again, it is not sufficient in Pathfinder 2 to state that casters are overpowered unless cantrips are weaker than a standard ranged attack. You need to provide some support for that claim.

The claim is more narrow than that. I'm saying that if cantrips offer the same DPR as a ranged martial attack, then casters make ranged martials redundant. This is because they have spells that are superior to ranged martial attacks, and when they run out of spells they have cantrips at DPR parity: Therefore they're superior or equal in every circumstance. (This is just a more wordy version of stack's point.)


So we are comparing best case for spellcasters, more than 5' and less than 30', to the worst case for archers (since they are either using a composite shortbow or taking a -2 on their longbow), and archers are still better off?

I only pointed out to K.G. that his math was overly optimistic for an archer. The archer won't always have the opportunity to choose the range at which to fire. That range is likely to get closer rather than farther, since the enemy tends to move in rather than out. Plus, unless the adventure is outdoors, many fights won't have much space to deploy.

But, even if I concede your point, this won't change much to the substance of the debate. Cantrips are inferior to archery either way. My point is that this is proper game balance, not that the difference doesn't exist.

[Quertus]

I'm sorry, but none of these points is relevant to the topic at hand, which is DPR for cantrips compared to ranged martial attacks.

The claim is more narrow than that. I'm saying that if cantrips offer the same DPR as a ranged martial attack, then casters make ranged martials redundant. This is because they have spells that are superior to ranged martial attacks, and when they run out of spells they have cantrips at DPR parity: Therefore they're superior or equal in every circumstance. (This is just a more wordy version of stack's point.)

Cantrips are inferior to archery either way. My point is that this is proper game balance, not that the difference doesn't exist.

A Wizard with higher burst damage and same sustained damage is or can be balanced with an Archer with same sustained damage and better defenses. The claim is, only looking at the damage output of the two classes is insufficient to determine game balance, and that such a glass cannon Wizard does not inherently make a ranged battle platform Archer redundant.

Or that's my take, at any rate.

EDIT: if the Archer's defenses matter, and the Wizard drops quickly, the Wizard needs higher burst damage to contribute equally. If the Wizard's low defenses don't matter, he needs similar sustained damage output to contribute equally over this longer period of time, where his burst damage increasingly becomes just noise for his total contribution as the length of time increases.

EDIT 2: also, I am uncertain whether the Wizard's "burst damage" had been proven to be higher than the Archer's base damage. Certainly the "lose an action" effect has been debated for usefulness.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm sorry, but none of these points is relevant to the topic at hand, which is DPR for cantrips compared to ranged martial attacks.
The topic at hand is that P2 contains way too many options that are mechanically irrelevant. Cantrips are just one example thereof.


I'm saying that if cantrips offer the same DPR as a ranged martial attack, then casters make ranged martials redundant.
Why would that necessarily be true? It is clearly not true in 4E or 5E, or for that matter with 3E's warlock. As Patchyman says, you need to provide support for that claim.

And as Quertus and Patchyman point out, when comparing classes you should consider range and defenses as well. Bows can hit beyond 300', but most combat spells (except blasting) cap at 30', within easy move+melee range of any enemies. And most casters have mediocre armor and saves; wiz/sorc gets poor hit points to boot. Even outside of cantrips I'm not seeing any "caster superiority" here.


This is because they have spells that are superior to ranged martial attacks,
The issue is that they largely don't. Other than (non-cantrip) blasting spells, there are a lot of spells which are mechanically irrelevant (too small an effect, and/or too unlikely to work, and/or clearly inferior to hit point damage). The P2 caster guide classifies over half of its spells as poor or useless. Or as John puts it:

They just looooove throwing fiddly debuff conditions around, too, which is just obnoxious, even though - or maybe because - it hasn't actually had any effect at all on the outcome of anything.

(and as John notes, the same applies to skill feats...)

[Gwynfrid]

Somebody wrote a P2 caster guide? I couldn't find it with Google. But anyways, its contents aren't fact, they can only be a bunch of opinions (informed by how many hours of actual play experience, by the way?). I always found class guides to be helpful in PF1, with the enormous bloat the rules had accumulated over the years, and the many traps they contained, not all of them easy to see. In PF2, the rules (for now) are much smaller in size, characters are much easier and faster to build, and there is less difference between a fully optimized and a run-of-the-mill character than there was in PF1. So, I think writing optimization guides is somewhat premature.

Anyway, I'm not going to engage in an expansion of the debate to the entire spell list, defenses, hit points, skill feats and what have you. We've already gone way past the scope of the original topic of this thread.

Discussing aspects of some cantrips with you helped me refine my understanding of the rules' balance, and I thank you for helping me with that. Beyond that, I'll agree to disagree with you. Some folks don't like PF2. Some do. I hope all camps can enjoy happy gaming with their favorite rule set.

[Quertus]

If we were evaluating wholistic balance, we would also need to take into account that a Wizard's lower AC means that they are a greater drain on party healing resources relative to the amount of aggro that they draw than the Archer is.

But, just evaluating DPS, not balance, we have come to the conclusion and consensus that Cantrip damage is only a very small fraction of expected Archer DPS, right?

[MeimuHakurei]

If we were evaluating wholistic balance, we would also need to take into account that a Wizard's lower AC means that they are a greater drain on party healing resources relative to the amount of aggro that they draw than the Archer is.

But, just evaluating DPS, not balance, we have come to the conclusion and consensus that Cantrip damage is only a very small fraction of expected Archer DPS, right?

A quick look tells me that it's likely the wizard's cantrips won't just be worse than a martial's expected damage, they might well be worse than even the wizard's own attacks with a crossbow (or a bow especially if they're elves).

[Alexvrahr]

For anyone who wants a guide to PF2 spells there's one here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TOd9-spwBjst13NRHEr1fl8AyrK3trsofTHzfEJy30E/edit#) if your google-fu is weak. No guarantees on the depth of analysis or experience of the writer.

[Morty]

The first character I tried to create in PF2E was a finesse-using human fighter with an elven curved blade. The feats available on low levels were... not inspiring, let's just say that. Neither was dealing 1d8+2 damage with a two-handed martial weapon. And after seeing the advanced class playtest, the entire exercise may have been rendered obsolete by the swashbuckler anyway. Will PF2E manage to have a swashbuckler class that's not utterly terrible? That'd be a first, unless we count 5E's swashbuckler subclass.

[patchyman]

EDIT: if the Archer's defenses matter, and the Wizard drops quickly, the Wizard needs higher burst damage to contribute equally. If the Wizard's low defenses don't matter, he needs similar sustained damage output to contribute equally over this longer period of time, where his burst damage increasingly becomes just noise for his total contribution as the length of time increases.


This is a good point and deserved to be mathed out.

My level 1 elf wizard is AC 15 (AC 16 if he uses one of his 4 1st level spells for mage armor) and has 13 hp. A 1st level champion (without a shield, since we are comparing like-to-like) has an AC 18 and 18 or 19 hp.

Suppose a standard orc strides past the champion to get to me. He is armed with an orc necksplitter, for a +7 to hit which does 1d8+4 damage. He gets 2 attacks (since he used one action to reach me).

First attack:

For the wizard: 40% chance miss, 50% hit for an average of 8.5 dmg, 10% chance crit for an average of 17 dmg. If the orc rolls a crit, I am unconscious unless he rolls a 1 or a 2 damage (so 75% chance I fall unconscious on a crit).

For the champion: 50% chance miss, 45% chance hit, 5% chance crit. If the orc rolls a crit, the champion has an even chance not to fall unconscious.

If both the wizard and the champion survive the first attack, the orc gets a second attack at -5.

For the wizard: 65% chance miss, 30% chance hit, 5% chance crit. If the orc hit on the first attack or crits on either attack, the wizard is unconscious.

For the champion: 75% chance miss, 20% chance hit, 5% chance crit. The champion is less likely to be crit, and has a better chance of surviving the crit.

If we add a shield, the comparison is even more favourable to the champion, as his shield gives him a +2 AC whereas my shield spell gives me a +1.

Note that this isn't even necessarily a problem! I am OK with wizards being a high-risk high-reward playstyle. The problem is that Pathfinder 2 seems to be supporting a high-risk, low-reward playstyle for wizards: few levelled spells, Vancian casting, spells which have been nerfed in comparison to 5e and Pathfinder, and cantrips that do less damage than if I had maxed Dex instead of Int and used a bow.

For instance: Shocking Grasp is a touch spell so it should be compared melee damage. Unless the target is wearing metal armor, it does on average 13 dmg (2d12). Standard melee damage for a greatsword (assuming Str 18 but not class feats or expert training) is 10.5 (1d12 +4). 13 damage is higher than 10.5, but I used 25% of my daily resources and because of my low hp and AC, I am putting myself at considerably greater risk.

[Kurald Galain]

A quick look tells me that it's likely the wizard's cantrips won't just be worse than a martial's expected damage, they might well be worse than even the wizard's own attacks with a crossbow (or a bow especially if they're elves).
I've quickly checked the math and you are correct. Sorcerer, bard, cleric, and druid can all throw javelins (4.7 average damage); or spend a single feat to learn the composite longbow (5.2 damage). A warpriest cleric gets this for free at level 3; a wizard needs to be a elf, half-elf, human, or hobgoblin to pick it up. All of this is better than cantripping for 3.6 damage.


For instance: Shocking Grasp is a touch spell so it should be compared melee damage. Unless the target is wearing metal armor, it does on average 13 dmg (2d12). Standard melee damage for a greatsword (assuming Str 18 but not class feats or expert training) is 10.5 (1d12 +4).
Shocking Grasp is also a two-action spell, so it should be compared to two greatsword strikes.


Suppose a standard orc strides past the champion to get to me. He is armed with an orc necksplitter, for a +7 to hit which does 1d8+4 damage. He gets 2 attacks (since he used one action to reach me).
Calculating this, the wizard has a one-in-four chance of dropping, whereas the champion has a one-in-eleven chance.

[NomGarret]

Shocking Grasp is also a two-action spell, so it should be compared to two greatsword strikes.



It does look like Shocking Grasp would be a good candidate for Spellstrike Ammunition, especially since it at least stacks with base weapon damage. Less sure about striking runes, however.