PF2 General Questions

[Thurbane]

Hey all,

So we've been invited to play a PF2 game next week. I noticed PF2 doesn't get talked about a lot here (unless it has it's own forum and I missed it?).

I've played quite a small amount of PF1, which was very similar to 3.5.

I had a glance at the PF2 SRD, and it seems there quite a lot of changes.

As someone who has barely touched PF1 or 5E, and mainly played 3.5, what are the major differences between 3.5 and PF2 I should be aware of?

All general advice and tips welcome.

Just looked at this https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/152817/what-are-the-major-changes-between-pathfinder-first-and-second-editions : Does that look like a fair summary?

[pabelfly]

Here's a bare-bones summary of the character creation system. This really stuck with me because I liked a lot about it, excepting the power curve.

Character creation is based on picking a race, class and background. These allocate stat points towards the stat array that you start with, as well as some flavour ribbons. Races have a few stat boosts and a free stat boost in any stat you like, so even if a race isn't perfect for a class, it should at least be decent.

Stat boosts are every fifth level and are much nicer than 3.5. You pick four stats, and if one stat is below 18, add +2, if it's above 18, add +1. I modified this stat boost system for my 3.5 homebrew rules myself, really nice system.

The class you pick is your one class (will get into "multiclassing" in a moment). The class has a set progression which dictates when you get stat boosts, feats, class features, etc. Instead of one set of feats, you have several sets (eg general feats, class feats, ability feats, and ancestry feats). Coming from 3e, these feats are underpowered. The upside of this system is that you get a variety of feats without feeling like you're forgoing better options - picking a feat to boost diplomacy isn't taking the place of feats that boost your combat ability. Intuitively, it's much more balanced, and harder to make a "bad" character. The downside of this is the lack of choice in all of this as a player, and a lot of feats sail dangerously close to being ribbons, rather than power boosts and can mean a lot of bookwork for little effect. It also makes it hard to make more interesting or innovative builds.

Instead of multiclassing as being having class levels in multiple classes, you pick feats to make a multiclass character. For example, if you want to make a gish, you pick your base class (let's say, a Fighter) and then pick the casting type you want (say, Sorcerer) and you pick up a mix of Sorcerer and Fighter-related feats. Or you could be a Sorcerer who takes Fighter-related feats. The two will be slightly different. You can do this for any two classes, and it's incredibly easy to make a "multiclass" character. Or you can go all-in on your class, picking feats that boosts that class's combat ability. Given the power curve of the system and how rigid the game is in alloting feat types, the build you come up with is unlikely to be "bad". And multiclass builds are much simpler to make than 3.5.

Movement and combat are superficially similar. The three-action turn is a pretty neat innovation. Can't remember too much of the rest, it's been a while.

I prefer 3.5 for how complex character building is, but PF2e was a fun alternative.

[Kurald Galain]

As someone who has barely touched PF1 or 5E, and mainly played 3.5, what are the major differences between 3.5 and PF2 I should be aware of?
The major differences? Basically everything. It's one of those editions where they rewrite the whole game from scratch. If anything, PF2 is probably closest to 4E (in fact, it shares several designers with 4E).

In terms of character generation, there are a ton of options that don't really do anything, so for a first game just pick anything that sounds cool and don't worry about it. I recommend playing a martial, because casters got nerfed hard and are largely ineffective (in that they throw small bonuses or penalties around, whereas the game is all about HP damage). 3E-style multiclassing doesn't exist, but you can spend feats to get some low-level powers from another class. If you run out of interesting powers from your base class, I recommend that; in particular, get some focus powers if your class doesn't have them.

In terms of gameplay, you get three actions per turn and you almost always want to attack twice and move, or attack twice and use your class's special ability. If enemies drop small penalties on you, don't worry about that too much. The math is set up so that you will crit enemies only on a natural 20 (unless you're a fighter) and enemies crit-fail saves only on a natural one; but enemies often have a 20%-ish chance to crit you or to make you crit-fail your save. This means you can drop suddenly, and often, and so healing is very important; if you don't have a cleric in the party, I recommend everyone to invest in medicine skill with the assurance feat.

Be aware that some of the first adventure paths for PF2 are very much a meat grinder. On the other hand, PF2 Society modules tend to be very easy.

HTH.

[DrMartin]

that post is a decent summary.

a couple more things: there are only three kinds of bonuses, and as in 3.5 you only use the highest within a given kind. These are Item, Status, and Circumstance. Circumstance covers all kind of situational modifier, like being flat footed or under cover. Most buff/debuff spells give a status bonus or penalty. And items covers, well, everything coming from an item.

Penalties can be untyped, and those stack with each other, as well as all other penalties.

So in general, while some of the fiddly math from 3.5/pf carries over, it has been reduced to max three categories, and only status and circumstance usually tend to change during play.

BUT - this does come up a lot during play, as many many many abilities inflict conditions, and many conditions have a value like "clumsy 1" or "drained 3". Most conditions inflict status penalties, so they don't stack with each other, but they require tracking, as they might increase / reduce their values on certain conditions - end of turn, take an action to get rid of it, etc.

The other side of still having to deal with fiddly small bonuses, is that they matter somewhat more.
Beating a DC by 10 or hitting your opponent by 10 means you crit. The math of the game seems to be geared towards this meaning that only an hyper-specialist gets to crit against an even-matched monster on anything other than a 20, but this changes very rapidly if you manage to get some conditions in. Anyone can aid another (although it's quite resource intensive, action-economy wise), try to trip, try to intimidate, or give better positioning through flanking. Each +1 is both +1 to success and +1 to crit, so getting a +2 bonus from a spell and giving a -2 penalty through flanking mean you now crit on a 16.

The math is quite solid so this keeps being true at high levels, although there to even get a chance at a basic success you need to have invested resources into whatever it is you want to attempt. At lower levels attempting something outside your wheelhouse is not as punishing (and makes the game actually more entertaining, but that's just my opinion)

Caster are very different. Spells do less in general, and my first time playing one it felt like you don't really interact with the 3 action system, as most spells take 2 actions to cast so you feel you are still stuck with "a move and a standard".

Took a bit to learn that that last action can be used for other things - just to reiterate the same examples from above, an athletics check to trip, an intimidate check to demoralize, or to set up an aid another action. All characters start with a long list of actions they can take regardless of their build. To really get good at something you need to pour character resources into it, but it's a far cry from "either dump two feats or forget that the trip action even exists".


also, and this is a personal view: one of the biggest changes is that you don't *have* to obsess over character creations. There's a lot of options, but the fallout from picking option A vs option B is on average way smaller than what it was in 3.5 and PF1. Less trap options and generally options more balanced against each other means you can mostly just pick whatever and end up with a character on the expected curve of effectiveness.
There's of course exceptions and particularly good and bad synergies - but the game designers tried to make a system that doesn't mechanically punish you* for picking something just for its flavor.

*(much)

[Thurbane]

Great feedback so far.

pabelfly: you mention power curve a coupe of times. Do characters and monsters improve quite rapidly as you level, or the opposite?


Be aware that some of the first adventure paths for PF2 are very much a meat grinder. On the other hand, PF2 Society modules tend to be very easy.

It seems likely we'd be running Kingmaker.

[pabelfly]

Great feedback so far.

pabelfly: you mention power curve a coupe of times. Do characters and monsters improve quite rapidly as you level, or the opposite?

The opposite. The curve is more like an even ramp with a slight incline.

[AsuraKyoko]

The opposite. The curve is more like an even ramp with a slight incline.

This is sort of true. While general capability scales linearly, fighting something that is more than a couple levels stronger than the party is going to be very painful. Expect to miss the enemy more often than not, and for the enemy to get critical hits much more frequently. Honestly, I think that the game would be much, much better with 2 changes:


Reduce the level scaling
Remove or rework the critical system entirely


These two problems feed into each other in a bad way, as the critical system effectively amplifies the level difference by a factor of 2. Luckily, the level scaling is relatively easy to fix, as it's not too hard to do something like adjust it to be 1/2 levels, instead of 1/1; unfortunately, the crit system pretty much can't be easily fixed at all, because doing so would break anything that relies on saves, and also the entire spellcasting system.

Mini-rant aside, while it's true that most classes don't really have trap options, there are some classes that are significantly worse than others. In my experience, the classes that are generally the most effective are Fighter, Champion (basically Paladin), Gunslinger, and Ranger, while the classes that are the least effective are Rogue, Cleric, and most casters prior to level 7.

Rogue just can't effectively contribute in combat, honestly. Most of its combat-centric feats are just making it slightly easier to apply its meagre sneak attack damage, or they are about getting out of the way. Cleric gets some nice things, such as a bunch of free spell slots of their highest spell level for preparing healing spells, but is held back by the fact that it is a caster class, and therefore most of its feats are mediocre at best, and by the fact that the Divine spell list is notably worse than the others.

EDIT:
Oh, and the other thing that hurts for clerics is that there is a generic Archetype that any character can take called Herbalist that allows for significantly more healing than cleric can reasonably do. Seriously, the amount of healing an Herbalist can do in a day is wild, and it requires only a little bit of investment.

[stack]

There is a variant that removes level from the proficiency bonus.

[AsuraKyoko]

There is a variant that removes level from the proficiency bonus.

it only applies for skills, if I remember correctly.

[stack]

it only applies for skills, if I remember correctly.

Nope, global (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1370). All proficiencies are adjusted. For PCs, you just don't add in the level. Monster XP gets adjusted, since taking down higher level enemies gets way easier (though groups of lower level enemies are tougher).

[DrMartin]

true, there is the option - but It clashes with what I think is a good chunk of the appeal of PF: its the abundance of GM-facing materials.

That option means having to retouch *a lot* of that, not just by correcting the numbers all monsters stat blocks and skill DCs, but the build up of the encounters themselves - as without level scaling the boss' 6 minions could be more dangerous than the boss itself

One could have the same argument for each options of course - but few are as pervasive as this one, in a system with very tight math like PF2

[Snowbluff]

Something that might trip you up that I don't think I noticed in the summary, is the move action equivalent is what one might call, awful. It just moves. One mode. You cannot hide, jump, climb, or draw a weapon like you can in PF1. In fact, a lot of things that wouldn't normally be their own action now are.

In lieu of lengthier rants, I would suggest running lower scaled versions and maybe with that the prof variant. This system is full of pet peeves for me coming off of PF1/3.5 and those are certainly 2 of them.

[paladinn]

The major differences? Basically everything. It's one of those editions where they rewrite the whole game from scratch. If anything, PF2 is probably closest to 4E (in fact, it shares several designers with 4E).

Thanks for saying this! This explains a lot.. like why I don't like either one.

[Kurald Galain]

Let me add some potentially-relevant quotes from earlier PF2 threads,


Not every spell caster needs to cast all the time. .... But while they often get some portion of their damage or condition off, even on a passed save, they are just useless in terms of damage output or real control ... something really feels wrong at low level with casters. Our cleric felt the same after session 1. When they did heal someone, it didnt do much.


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.


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 ... 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.


The game makes a big deal about "becoming legendary" at high level, which in most cases means getting +2 to hit or to a saving throw. But you get to take "legendary" skill feats, which allow you to do such "legendary" things as increase your party's overland speed by 10', or get cryptic hints from a religious text, or decipher secret messages faster than normal, or gain slightly more money when performing, or request that enemies abandon combat and talk to you (but the ability spells out that they may simply refuse). Are you feeling "legendary" yet?

HTH.

[thompur]

One very important difference: PF2 is very much a game that thrives on teamwork.
The party will be much more successful if they work together.
If you try to go it alone, or if being the most OP/min/maxed uber-character, you will most likely fail.
On the other hand, you really have to be trying to make a non-viable character.
Skills matter more in PF2.
Also, it has been my experience with the system over the past 3+ years that every character
of every class that I have played, and played with, has contributed significantly in combat in some way.

But honestly Thurbane, based on reading your posts on this site for the past decade or so,
I believe you would enjoy PF2. :smallsmile:
.

[AsuraKyoko]

Nope, global (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1370). All proficiencies are adjusted. For PCs, you just don't add in the level. Monster XP gets adjusted, since taking down higher level enemies gets way easier (though groups of lower level enemies are tougher).

Ah, I stand corrected, thanks. (Maybe I was thinking of an older version of the variant, or a different one?)


true, there is the option - but It clashes with what I think is a good chunk of the appeal of PF: its the abundance of GM-facing materials.

That option means having to retouch *a lot* of that, not just by correcting the numbers all monsters stat blocks and skill DCs, but the build up of the encounters themselves - as without level scaling the boss' 6 minions could be more dangerous than the boss itself

One could have the same argument for each options of course - but few are as pervasive as this one, in a system with very tight math like PF2

This is the other problem with adjusting the numbers on the fly. Also, it would be nice if there was an option between "add level to everything" and "don't scale off of level at all", though it would be equally easy to just do a "add half your level" variant, too.

[Gwynfrid]

Hey all,

So we've been invited to play a PF2 game next week. I noticed PF2 doesn't get talked about a lot here (unless it has it's own forum and I missed it?).

I've played quite a small amount of PF1, which was very similar to 3.5.

I had a glance at the PF2 SRD, and it seems there quite a lot of changes.

As someone who has barely touched PF1 or 5E, and mainly played 3.5, what are the major differences between 3.5 and PF2 I should be aware of?

All general advice and tips welcome.

Just looked at this https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/152817/what-are-the-major-changes-between-pathfinder-first-and-second-editions : Does that look like a fair summary?

This is a fairly exhaustive summary. There's only one thing I would add, in the "General" category:
- The list of bonus types is drastically reduced. Only 2 bonus types apply dynamically (ie. can change your stats during combat), the rest are static (ie. fixed on your character sheet).

What it doesn't tell you is how these changes impact the game. Some of the important differences I can list, from experience, are:
- The game no longer rewards expertise in building a character as much as it did in 3.5e or PF1. Instead, it rewards expertise in tactical play during combat at lot more.
- A lot of the complicated, hard to remember rules are gone or streamlined (grappling comes to mind, but there are many more). A few new rules are a little hard to grasp (counteracting, crafting, and the incapacitation trait) but on the whole this is greatly improved.
- Stats progression with level is fast, and the impact on combat is huge. Fighting a creature higher than your level is really tough. At level+3, you're at serious risk of TPK if you don't play optimally or if the dice go against you.
- Martials-caster disparity is mostly gone, mostly through nerfing a lot of spells.
- The game makes the GM's life a lot easier.

Beyond that, I'll just quote myself on another thread:


PF2 is excellent imho. Personally, I come from 3.5e and PF1, and I believe PF2 is a decisive improvement in:
- Rules clarity and structure
- Game balance and power level progression
- Ease of use for players building characters (once one is past the initial learning curve)
- Ease of use for GMs building encounters
- Playability at high levels.

But, as you can see on this thread, opinions on the matter vary. Like any edition of the game, it has its pros and cons. I suggest you don't take anybody's word for it, but instead, just give it a try for yourself.

A solid place for you to start would be the Reddit PF2 for newcomers megathread (https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/10bkx83/are_you_coming_from_dungeons_dragons_need_to_know/). This community is very welcoming and encouraging.

[Thurbane]

So, we played a short one shot, of the sample adventure that comes in the starter set.

We used pregen characters, so I didn't experience character generation/choices.

The thing I found weirdest was the way actions work. Three actions a round, where some things take up two or three actions. The fact you can make a trip attempt as an action, whereas a second attack draws to-hit penalty, weirded me out.

It meant pretty much every monster moved, attacked, and then tried to trip. Or intimidate.

[Gwynfrid]

So, we played a short one shot, of the sample adventure that comes in the starter set.

We used pregen characters, so I didn't experience character generation/choices.

The thing I found weirdest was the way actions work. Three actions a round, where some things take up two or three actions. The fact you can make a trip attempt as an action, whereas a second attack draws to-hit penalty, weirded me out.

It meant pretty much every monster moved, attacked, and then tried to trip. Or intimidate.

If I read you well, your GM let the monsters trip after their attack, as a last action, without a penalty. I can understand how weird that looks!

However... Trip is an attack. In more technical terms, it has the attack trait (check out the brown box just below the action's name here (https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=40)). Any action with the attack trait is subject to the multiple attack penalty. In this case, the monsters should have gotten a -5 on that third action in a move-attack-trip routine.

There are a lot of actions with the attack trait, including all the spells that require rolling an attack roll. A lot of the tactical expertise you will build up over time involves finding ways to avoid the multiple attack penalty. For example if you are an elf wizard with the Elven Weapon Familiarity feat, you are trained with the longbow. That means you can cast a spell, then fire an arrow with a credible chance to hit. But you don't want to choose an offensive spell that has the attack trait, like Produce Flame: This would saddle your wizard with a -5 on the longbow attack roll. Instead, you can cast the Electric Arc cantrip, which requires the enemy to roll a save, as opposed to Produce Flame that uses your attack roll.

By the way: Tripping enemies can be a great tactic. But then, move-attack-trip isn't necessarily the best. Instead, I suggest move-trip-attack: If the Trip is successful, the attack will be against the enemy's prone (so, flat-footed) AC. Plus, this helps your teammates if they attack the same enemy after your turn. If the enemy has a poor Reflex bonus compared to its AC, then move-trip-attack is arguably superior to move-attack-attack.

[Snowbluff]

The thing I found weirdest was the way actions work. Three actions a round, where some things take up two or three actions. The fact you can make a trip attempt as an action, whereas a second attack draws to-hit penalty, weirded me out.

It's not really that weird when you think about it. In 3.5, PF1, and 5e, tripping is an attack, just like a swinging a weapon. Instead of having Full Attack/Attack Action, PF2 adapts that into the 3 Action system. This is equivalent to tripping with an unarmed attack then swinging a sword as a Full Attack action in PF1, and you have the associated BAB... er... Multiple Attack Penalty associated with it.

[Kurald Galain]

The thing I found weirdest was the way actions work. Three actions a round, where some things take up two or three actions.
I really love the three action system, but I find it a big missed opportunity that a lot of feats arbitrarily cost two or three actions (and spells, one or two or three; and then there's abilities you can only use as a first action, or only as a last action, or only once per round). Having three actions is very elegant, but these arbitrary costs and restrictions make the result very messy. This is something 4E and 5E do much better.


I suggest move-trip-attack: If the Trip is successful, the attack will be against the enemy's prone (so, flat-footed) AC. Plus, this helps your teammates if they attack the same enemy after your turn.
The downside is that the defense penalty from being prone doesn't stack with the defense penalty from being flanked. So if you have teammates around, it's usually better to move into flank and attack twice, instead of tripping.

[Gwynfrid]

I really love the three action system, but I find it a big missed opportunity that a lot of feats arbitrarily cost two or three actions (and spells, one or two or three; and then there's abilities you can only use as a first action, or only as a last action, or only once per round). Having three actions is very elegant, but these arbitrary costs and restrictions make the result very messy. This is something 4E and 5E do much better.

Well, things that cost 2 or 3 actions aren't arbitrarily chosen: They're things that are much stronger than a single action (this applies to monsters, too). The obvious example is spells: Most of them cost 2 actions, the weaker ones 1 action, a few are 3 actions. If all spells costed 1 action, then either most spells would have to be weaker, or some other mechanic would have to be introduced to stop everyone from casting 3 spells per round.


The downside is that the defense penalty from being prone doesn't stack with the defense penalty from being flanked. So if you have teammates around, it's usually better to move into flank and attack twice, instead of tripping.

That depends. Being prone means -2 to attack rolls, and in PF2, -2 is a big deal. Movement while prone is very limited. To remove these penalties, the creature can stand up, wasting an action, and possibly triggering reactions. Overall, I think tripping is superior from a defensive perspective, while flanking is superior from an offensive perspective.

[gesalt]

Prone is usually what you want to go for since it costs an action to undo and triggers attack of opportunity (which has no multiple attack penalty).

That said, as long as the fighter is using a hammer or flail, you can just push their attack bonus so high they crit which causes auto prone.

[AsuraKyoko]

Well, things that cost 2 or 3 actions aren't arbitrarily chosen: They're things that are much stronger than a single action (this applies to monsters, too). The obvious example is spells: Most of them cost 2 actions, the weaker ones 1 action, a few are 3 actions. If all spells costed 1 action, then either most spells would have to be weaker, or some other mechanic would have to be introduced to stop everyone from casting 3 spells per round.

Honestly, I think that they were too conservative with making spells cost 2 actions. A decent number of them would be fine as 1 action. Also, I really wish that they had dome more spells like Heal and Magic Missile with variable action costs, since that is a really cool mechanic.

[thompur]

Honestly, I think that they were too conservative with making spells cost 2 actions. A decent number of them would be fine as 1 action. Also, I really wish that they had dome more spells like Heal and Magic Missile with variable action costs, since that is a really cool mechanic.

Absolutely agree! More one action and variable action spells, Focus Spells, and skill actions! I love PF2! It's my favorite TTFRPG from over 40 years of gaming...But
I thought they could have been a way to make the cantrips with the attack trait one action and not adversely affect balance much.
But then, I'm not a math expert.

[AsuraKyoko]

Absolutely agree! More one action and variable action spells, Focus Spells, and skill actions! I love PF2! It's my favorite TTFRPG from over 40 years of gaming...But
I thought they could have been a way to make the cantrips with the attack trait one action and not adversely affect balance much.
But then, I'm not a math expert.

They could have easily made cantrips that had slower scaling only take 1 action, and it wouldn't have affected balance negatively at all. Hell, just make all the single target cantrips one action, and it's probably fine. If need be, you can have them give the target a bonus against the next save against your cantrips that turn, if single target damage is a problem, sort of like a multiple attack penalty, but for spells.

[Gwynfrid]

They could have easily made cantrips that had slower scaling only take 1 action, and it wouldn't have affected balance negatively at all. Hell, just make all the single target cantrips one action, and it's probably fine. If need be, you can have them give the target a bonus against the next save against your cantrips that turn, if single target damage is a problem, sort of like a multiple attack penalty, but for spells.

If offensive cantrips were 1 action, then they would have to be scaled down strongly, since one could then cast 3 per round (at least, for those cantrips that lack the attack trait, since they aren't impacted by MAP). That's a choice I would have considered, for sure. The design team opted differently. Their stated goal was that cantrips should be inferior to focus spells (many of which are 1 action to cast) and focus spells should be inferior to regular, slotted spells.

Also, I agree that spells with a variable number of actions are really cool and I regretted that there were so few in the initial CRB. There are a few more in Secrets of Magic, such as Scorching Ray, Inner Radiance Torrent and Horizon Thunder Sphere. The latter two even extend the concept to allow casting over 2 rounds for a stronger effect.

[AsuraKyoko]

If offensive cantrips were 1 action, then they would have to be scaled down strongly, since one could then cast 3 per round (at least, for those cantrips that lack the attack trait, since they aren't impacted by MAP). That's a choice I would have considered, for sure. The design team opted differently. Their stated goal was that cantrips should be inferior to focus spells (many of which are 1 action to cast) and focus spells should be inferior to regular, slotted spells.

Also, I agree that spells with a variable number of actions are really cool and I regretted that there were so few in the initial CRB. There are a few more in Secrets of Magic, such as Scorching Ray, Inner Radiance Torrent and Horizon Thunder Sphere. The latter two even extend the concept to allow casting over 2 rounds for a stronger effect.

Even scaled down (though I don't know if some of them really need to be, given that there's a number that already have abysmal scaling), single action cantrips would be a lot more interesting, given that they would open up tactical options nicely, and increase turn variety.

[Kurald Galain]

Even scaled down (though I don't know if some of them really need to be, given that there's a number that already have abysmal scaling), single action cantrips would be a lot more interesting, given that they would open up tactical options nicely, and increase turn variety.

Yes, that's right. Cantrips overall really really suck as a combat action. They're not balanced at all, they're just really bad compared to weapon attacks. Changing them to one action would definitely make gameplay more interesting and more tactical.

[gesalt]

Yes, that's right. Cantrips overall really really suck as a combat action. They're not balanced at all, they're just really bad compared to weapon attacks. Changing them to one action would definitely make gameplay more interesting and more tactical. Yup, cantrips are mostly trash. Get electric arc for those fights that don't matter and divine lance to vibe check people with alignment damage. Other combat cantrips really aren't needed except for magus spellstriking.

[Thunder999]

Honestly 2e needs some 1 action spells with a trait similar to flourish that says you can't use them more than once per round, no just standing there spamming 1 action acid splashes like an archer, but the option to toss one out after casting a different spell, moving more etc. Maybe even have two traits so there's two groups of spells and you can cast one from each e.g. you could 1 action damage cantrip and 1 action guidance, but not double up either?

Or just give use more spells like Heal, Heal is honestly the best designed of them, since it's the only one that makes the number of actions to spend a function of anything more than how many actions you have left, in particular the other variable action spells have 3 action variants that are either not worth it, or good enough that you'd never want to 'waste' the slot by only spending 2 actions.
Oddly enough the healing focused oracle, Life Mystery, is probably the best done mystery too, guess someone at paizo wanted to make healers not suck for a change.

[Spamotron]

What you may have noticed is that most of the people here don't like PF2 and don't play it. If you want another perspective before you decide check out Paizo's official forums (https://paizo.com/community/forums)

For the people who have played it for years the majority consensus of the relationship between martials and casters can be summed up in this sentence:

______ classes are noticeably a bit more powerful than _______ classes but ________ still have a useful niche and every party will want at least one. For levels 1-10 put martials in the first blank and casters in the second and third. For levels 11-20 it flips to vise-versa. Fighters and Rogues are generally considered to be the strongest martials. For levels 1-10 Bards and Clerics are the strongest casters because they're the best at supporting martials. For 11-20 wizards are because 5th level and up spells are still the most potent abilities available to any class and they get more of them than anyone else. At 20th an optimized wizard is still probably the most powerful character possible. All of that said class balance is probably as good as it is realistically possible to get and you can have fun and meaningfully contribute with even the "weakest," classes. The only class to beware of is the Alchemist which is generally considered to be the class that needs the most system mastery to realize its full power. The alchemist gets access to every alchemical formula it knows instantly through its Quick Alchemy class feature. To balance this alchemical items are far more specialized than spells. If the player has the ability to mentally juggle all the different alchemical items and use the right one in the right situation it can feel quite powerful. If they don't it will feel frustrating and weak. The joke is that an alchemist player needs the same 18 int as the character to run it well.

Edit: One thing people who play and like the system do complain about is the Recall Knowledge Action ("https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=5&General=true'). Many feel the guidelines on what information a GM is supposed to give are vague and unhelpful. This relates to caster-martial balance because people who have done the math show that the best way for casters to keep up at low levels is to consistently target weak saves and things like elemental weaknesses. If the GM freely gives these out casters feel fine even at low levels but if he's stingy and tend to give out things like "vampires drink blood," being a caster is much harder. It's something to bring up in session zero.

[Kurald Galain]

All of that said class balance is probably as good as it is realistically possible
I find it ironic that you spend several paragraphs explaining how the game is unbalanced, and then claim this is "as good as realistically possible". That strikes me as contradictory. All of 4E, 5E, and Starfinder have better game balance than PF2 does.

[Spamotron]

I find it ironic that you spend several paragraphs explaining how the game is unbalanced, and then claim this is "as good as realistically possible". That strikes me as contradictory. All of 4E, 5E, and Starfinder have better game balance than PF2 does.

Well if you want that statement broken out into great detail I'll be happy to oblige you. First we need to set our expectations what is "realistically possible," when it comes to balance. I think there is general agreement that perfect balance is impossible in any asymmetric class based game designed by humans. 4e is probably the most balanced version of the D20 system ever made. What is the most popular complaint about it? That they used that same basic mechanical skeleton for all the core classes resulting them in all feeling way too similar in play.

So you want multiple distinct mechanics for each class. What is a fair balance standard for that? That debate is still raging in the RPG community. But there's another group that has also struggled with a similar problem where different characters have a tendency to fall into different tiers of power. The Fighting Game Community. How do you balance a game with a huge variety of playstyles shotos, rushdown, grapplers, zoners, pupeteers etc. The debate is higher stakes than ours because often actual serious money is on the line in tournaments. After decades of debate the majority consensus seems to be that a standard that's achievable is: No more than three character tiers, no God tier, no Trash tier.

That seems to be a reasonable standard to apply to class bases RPGs as well. We know of 3E where there were 5 to 7 tiers of power. A definite God Tier (Wizards) and a Trash Tier (Monks). All but some diehards will agree that it was a bit of a mess.

There are about 3 class tiers in PF2 and the gaps between tiers aren't nearly as big as in 3.5/PF1. Though what tier a class is in can change by level. Fighter is generally regarded as Tier 1 in levels 1-10 and Tier 2 in levels 11-20. People strongly debate whether Wizard is Tier 2 or Tier 3 in levels 1-10 but the majority think it jumps to Tier 1 in 11-20. Tier 3 characters like Mutagenist Alchemists and Superstition Barbarians are noticeably weaker than others but they aren't trash and they can contribute meaningfully at all levels of play. Now there will always be some people who insist that a Trash Tier and a God Tier exists in PF2. Those also seem to be the people who refuse to play it.

Compare to 5e where caster martial balance is arguably slightly better in levels 1-10 but completely falls apart at 12+. An optimized high level PF2 party will want at least one martial in it because a martial can still do things the casters can't even if they're slightly weaker overall. An optimized high level 5E party is all Full Casters and any frontline needs can be replaced with polymorph and summons.

As to Starfinder. There are 12 core classes in PF2 and the only class a lot of people feel need a second pass is the alchemist. There are 7 core classes in Starfinder and people commonly take issue with 2 of them. With the sole exception of using the drone to take up two spaces on the battle map the Engineer is widely regarded as worse than an engineering focused Operative in every way to the point of being almost pointless. The Envoy is in the same boat as the Alchemist where if you mathematically spreadsheet out it's abilities its probably on par with the other classes but it requires so much experience and finesse to use well that most new players will find it extremely frustrating to play.

Incidentally I consider my part in this little debate done. I made my initial argument, you made a rebuttal, I made a counter-rebuttal. You are free to post a counter-counter rebuttal and I'll read it but won't respond to it because that's how endless circular arguments that convince no-one and waste everyone's time start.