Newbie to PF2

[EggKookoo]

So I'm curious about PF2, but I can't for the life of me figure out what a good book is to start with. Any Pathfinder 2 players out there? What's a good place to start?

Also, I guess just as important, is PF2 good? I intend to find out for myself but it can't hurt to get a lay of the land.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre: Assuming that by PF2 you mean "Pathfinder 2nd edition", I have moved it to the appropriate forum.

[EggKookoo]

The Mod Ogre: Assuming that by PF2 you mean "Pathfinder 2nd edition", I have moved it to the appropriate forum.

Thank you sir.

[DrMartin]

Hi!

start with the core book, add the monster manual, and you can finish there if you want. later book add stuff but do not expand significantly on the core rules.

everything's online as a reference on archive of nethys, just like for PF 1.

In my opinion it is quite good, but is not a world shaking revolution. Took a few lessons from everything that happened in game design between 2008 and now, while still trying to be the same kind of game as PF1.
It's like a new fast food chain which does things just a bit differently. there's another thread on PF2 active right now which collects a few top-level introduction to the system, maybe take a look over there.

[Kurald Galain]

What's a good place to start?
Go to warhorn.net and find yourself an online game to join.


Also, I guess just as important, is PF2 good?
The stories are pretty good, because Paizo is good at storyteling (although, they are very much "lighter and softer" than PF1; less edgy and aimed at a young family / all ages audience). The mechanics are highly complex in a way where this complexity makes almost no difference: there are tons and tons of feats that in practice do little or nothing, so you can spend a lot of time paging through them to see what you want for your character but in practice it ends up all the same. Likewise, combat has lots of tiny little modifiers and conditions that in practice do little or nothing (e.g. if you get -5% chance to hit on your attack, you're going to... attack anyway because that's what you always do). Notably, combat is all about HP damage, and anything that doesn't do HP damage (including almost all spells that aren't blasting) is in practice mostly irrelevant.

The upside: it's very hard to upstage anyone or to make a useless character. The downside: both character creation and combat are exceedingly slow to resolve in a way that ends up changing very little. Basically, 3E/PF has lots of choices and they make a big difference. 5E has few choices and they make a big difference. P2 has lots of choices and they make very little difference.

So personally I would not recommend. But by all means, go to warhorn.net and find an online game, it's easy as pi. HTH!

[LibraryOgre]

start with the core book, add the monster manual, and you can finish there if you want. later book add stuff but do not expand significantly on the core rules.

Depending on where you live, you might also be able to check out the core book from the library. I did so and paged through a bit; not for me.

[Anonymouswizard]

Notably, combat is all about HP damage, and anything that doesn't do HP damage (including almost all spells that aren't blasting) is in practice mostly irrelevant.

Not really, penalties for multiple attacks scale fast enough that warriors don't want to be spending all their actions on them, and it's generally agreed that anything that can deny or waste monster attacks is better than sitting there and taking damage. Part of the issue is that degrees of success take too long to rack up, so you're not going to get the good effects on many level appropriate monsters, but casters should still be focusing on control over blasting.

Mostly though it is a lot of fiddling for little real benefit. Some ideas are good, like the heritage feats bringing more differentiation, but there's a lot of complexity that the game doesn't actually need.

[EggKookoo]

start with the core book

By which you mean the big 600-pager? I've seen a few different books (that look like "core" books) on their site and Amazon.

[Kurald Galain]

Not really, penalties for multiple attacks scale fast enough that warriors don't want to be spending all their actions on them
True enough, attacking a third time in your turn doesn't usually do anything. Instead, the third action is usually for moving, or sometimes for e.g. raising your shield, or raging, or the investigator's "make a new cunning plan every single turn" ability. Of course sitting there and taking damage is not going to help anyone.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mark Hall
Depending on where you live, you might also be able to check out the core book from the library.


Originally Posted by EggKookoo
By which you mean the big 600-pager? I've seen a few different books (that look like "core" books) on their site and Amazon.

Also, if your library doesn’t have the core book, you can probably get a copy through interlibrary loan. Should cost about $5 for postage, so much less risk and potential hassle than buying it on Amazon.

[DrMartin]

By which you mean the big 600-pager? I've seen a few different books (that look like "core" books) on their site and Amazon.

yeah the core rulebook is the 640 pages one. I have it in paper form but if i'm honest I don't bring it to games - the pdf has good enough indexing. plus everything is on archive of nethys: https://2e.aonprd.com/PlayersGuide.aspx

[Snowbluff]

Also, I guess just as important, is PF2 good? I intend to find out for myself but it can't hurt to get a lay of the land.

I think it depends where you are coming from. As a 3.5/PF1/5e player, I would say there are definitely some issues I think exist compared to these older systems. The three action system, at it's core, is simple and easy to learn. However, internal portions of this I think hinder the streamlining effect this was meant to have with what I like to call the Ouroboros of Pathfinder. Due to the issues with being able to attack 3 times, you have Multiple Attack Penalties, but also because of this, some effects alter it. There's a rule to balance a rule with in turn has it's own set of extra rules. Your attack scoring being different from action to action also affects the way critical hits work in the system, since each one essentially has its own crit ranged, and an operation is need to determine each one.

This also extends to "Everything is an Action." Stride isn't a very good movement action. It's nowhere near as useful or flexible as 5e's movement allotment. It pales in comparison to PF1's version, which allows you to swim, jump, climb, hide, draw a weapon etc. Your action economy can get eaten pretty quickly by just traversing the field.

I will try to avoid repeating everything Kuruld Galain says on the matter. I generally agree that there is an issue with the complexity being high with little payout. I think managing expectations is important. I was pretty burned on it during playtest and its early life, but it's possible to have fun in most table tops as long as you have a group you like.

[Tanarii]

Just ordered the core books in support. And 3 board games while I was at it. Core rule book is hard to get on Amazon right now, almost a month delivery time. :smallamused:

I'm already soliciting playtest players from my old player base. Unfortunately everyone has heard how complicated the system is, which IMO from my previous research appears to be somewhat true. Despite that, I keep hearing that it's pretty easy to PLAY, and that most of complicated is in the character creation. I think the biggest mental block for folks is the HUGE core rulebook.

I did just find that Paizo has a Basic Rules Cheat Sheet on their downloads. Unfortunately zipped and my current device doesn't want to play nice, but I plan to take a look as soon as I'm on a more convenient device. Hopefully it'll be comprehensive but short and sweet, so I can sell the concept better to my potential players.

[EggKookoo]

It looks like the Cheat Sheet is for PF1. I might trek down to my local brick & mortar. Always good to have an excuse.

[gesalt]

While there are a lot (a lot!) of useless feats and spells, this shouldn't be new to anyone familiar with 3.5 or pf1. As it is, for all that the game is mostly balanced, there are a couple of traps to avoid and some build choices that are much stronger than others the system has. As much as paizo tries to make sure new content isn't strong enough to exceed (or match 90% of the time) the options in the core rulebook, enough has slipped through to make sifting out the good stuff a noticeable power bump for the party.

I will disagree on hp damage being the only thing that matters though. In throwaway fights (anything moderate or below for a competent party) there isn't much point in expending resources, sure. In harder fights (severe or above) you can get more value out of your typical area control spells to cut enemy action economy against large groups or buffs/debuffs to increase your fighter's hit/crit rate and/or reduce incoming damage rather than throwing out anemic damage spells.

[Kurald Galain]

In harder fights (severe or above) you can get more value out of your typical area control spells to cut enemy action economy against large groups

But that unfortunately doesn't work. Compared to PF1 and every single edition of D&D, your "typical area control spells" in PF2 are either single-target, or have a negligible effect, or only do something useful on a crit-failed save (meaning the spells don't work 95% of the time).

You can't crowd control in PF2; the designers took great care to remove that aspect. Unfortunately.

(edit) For instance, the classic Web spell in all other editions immobilizes or restrains creatures until they succeed at a check for breaking out; whereas in PF2 all it does is give 10' penalty to speed for a single turn - in addition to being much smaller, and a three-action casting. Yeah, that's pretty sad.

[gesalt]

But that unfortunately doesn't work. Compared to PF1 and every single edition of D&D, your "typical area control spells" in PF2 are either single-target, or have a negligible effect, or only do something useful on a crit-failed save (meaning the spells don't work 95% of the time).

You can't crowd control in PF2; the designers took great care to remove that aspect. Unfortunately.

(edit) For instance, the classic Web spell in all other editions immobilizes or restrains creatures until they succeed at a check for breaking out; whereas in PF2 all it does is give 10' penalty to speed for a single turn - in addition to being much smaller, and a three-action casting. Yeah, that's pretty sad. The baseline CC in pf2e is calm emotions. AoE, on fail enemies are banned from hostile actions. You only ever need to CC groups of mooks, so they actually have a good chance to fail and incapacitation's level limit doesn't come into play so long as you use a high enough slot.

Alternatively, illusions all require spending an action to even have a chance at saving against (aside from enemies with passive true seeing). Given that the offered example for the level 1 illusory object is a waterfall, it's easy enough to drain one or more enemy actions in a large AoE from level 1, regardless of their saves or level.

You basically don't ever want to try to CC a single target before maze though. At best you use hideous laughter to remove their reaction or slow to remove an action.

Edit: martials can trip single targets though. Skills scale fast and high enough for that to always be good.

[Gwynfrid]

So I'm curious about PF2, but I can't for the life of me figure out what a good book is to start with. Any Pathfinder 2 players out there? What's a good place to start?

Also, I guess just as important, is PF2 good? I intend to find out for myself but it can't hurt to get a lay of the land.

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.

[Kurald Galain]

The baseline CC in pf2e is calm emotions.
That's... not so much baseline as the strongest low-level CC you could find, isn't it?

As such, it has quite a number of restrictions (small area, doesn't work on level-appropriate enemies or anything immune to "emotion" effects, costs an action each turn, immediately broken by any hostile effect); to the point where I wouldn't call that effective crowd control in any other system.

Oh, and everything the traditional CC class (wizard) gets appears to be weaker than this. Sure, not every player enjoys CC; but to just remove the role from a game that purports to have tactical combat... not a good sign.

[Gwynfrid]

Oh, and everything the traditional CC class (wizard) gets appears to be weaker than this. Sure, not every player enjoys CC; but to just remove the role from a game that purports to have tactical combat... not a good sign.

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that the wizard's crowd control is removed. It is, for sure, nerfed pretty strongly. That's not the same thing as removed outright.

In PF2, magic in general is nerfed compared to earlier editions, and crowd control goes along with the rest (the only big exceptions to the big nerfing are healing and blasting).

The definition of crowd control in 3.5e/PF1 is something like: "Cast a spell on an area, everyone in it who fail their saves is mostly removed from the rest of the fight." In PF2, this definition becomes: "Cast a spell on an area, everyone in it who fails their save will lose or waste one or more actions. Those who critically fail will be seriously hampered, those who succeed may suffer a minor penalty, and those who critically succeed are unaffected."

For example:


For instance, the classic Web spell in all other editions immobilizes or restrains creatures until they succeed at a check for breaking out; whereas in PF2 all it does is give 10' penalty to speed for a single turn - in addition to being much smaller, and a three-action casting. Yeah, that's pretty sad.

This description forgets a detail: All the squares in the Web area are difficult terrain. That means a creature with a 25ft speed who fails their save has their speed reduced to 15, and with that, it can only move one square forward per action until the end of their turn. So, if the wizard casts this on a group of charging enemies, at least some of them will basically lose their turn and maybe some of their next turn too. In a tactical game where the action economy is critical, using 2 actions to cast Web and cause several enemies to lose their turn is a good deal. Sure, it's nowhere near what the PF1 version of the spell accomplishes. But it's not nothing.

Another example is Color Spray. In PF1, any creature of 2HD or less in the area who fails their save is finished. In PF2, that same creature is stunned 1 (loses 1 action), blinded for 1 round, and dazzled for 1 minute (PF2 dazzled condition = 20% miss chance on attacks). Clearly a lot weaker than PF1, but still impactful.

Now, of course, I can totally understand how this major change in magic's effectiveness could be unacceptable to players used to play wizards in 3.5e or PF1.

[Kurald Galain]

This description forgets a detail: All the squares in the Web area are difficult terrain. That means a creature with a 25ft speed
Given the small size of the web, the creature is guaranteed to be adjacent to a non-webbed square, meaning it can move out. Perhaps not in the direction it prefers, but it's not stuck or anything. So this will never "cause several enemies to lose their turn"; it will instead slightly inconvenience one or two of them.
This distinction is very important: "reduce speed by 10'" DOES NOT equate to "lose a turn".


In a tactical game where the action economy is critical, using 2 actions to cast WebWeb is a three-action spell; and in a tactical game where the action economy is critical, using three actions to cast web is not a good use of your actions.


Now, of course, I can totally understand how this major change in magic's effectiveness could be unacceptable to players used to play wizards in 3.5e or PF1.
The point you're missing is that magic's (lack of) effectiveness could be unacceptable compared to other PF2 classes, as seen by the frequent complaints that casters are useless in PF2, or by the fact that (at least in my area) nobody who does PF2 wants to play a primary spellcaster. It's not about spells being weaker than in other games, but it's about many spells being completely overshadowed by other PF2 abilities.

So PF2 has a strong caster/martial discrepancy, but in the other direction. Talk about overcompensating :smallamused:

[Gwynfrid]

Given the small size of the web, the creature is guaranteed to be adjacent to a non-webbed square, meaning it can move out. Perhaps not in the direction it prefers, but it's not stuck or anything. So this will never "cause several enemies to lose their turn"; it will instead slightly inconvenience one or two of them.
This distinction is very important: "reduce speed by 10'" DOES NOT equate to "lose a turn".

If you have to go in the opposite direction vs the one you aimed for, you pretty much lost a turn, or most of it. Of course this is going to depend on terrain configuration: Web in the middle of a big room would be a waste of time (Edit: come to think of it, the ideal setting for Web use is corridors, and then half the spell area will not be adjacent to a non-webbed square.) PF2 is more demanding in terms of optimizing tactics vs terrain, not surprisingly, since combat involves a lot more movement than the typical PF1 equivalent.


Web is a three-action spell; and in a tactical game where the action economy is critical, using three actions to cast web is not a good use of your actions.

3 actions, I stand corrected. Still worth it, imo, depending on terrain, circumstance, and enemy type.



The point you're missing is that magic's (lack of) effectiveness could be unacceptable compared to other PF2 classes, as seen by the frequent complaints that casters are useless in PF2, or by the fact that (at least in my area) nobody who does PF2 wants to play a primary spellcaster. It's not about spells being weaker than in other games, but it's about many spells being completely overshadowed by other PF2 abilities.

So PF2 has a strong caster/martial discrepancy, but in the other direction. Talk about overcompensating :smallamused:

Whatever class power balance issues are still in PF2, they are waaay less severe than PF1's. If no one in your circle wants to play a primary spellcaster, that's their loss (and the group's).

... But I don't expect you to agree with me on this either :smallbiggrin:

[gesalt]

That's... not so much baseline as the strongest low-level CC you could find, isn't it?

As such, it has quite a number of restrictions (small area, doesn't work on level-appropriate enemies or anything immune to "emotion" effects, costs an action each turn, immediately broken by any hostile effect); to the point where I wouldn't call that effective crowd control in any other system.

Oh, and everything the traditional CC class (wizard) gets appears to be weaker than this. Sure, not every player enjoys CC; but to just remove the role from a game that purports to have tactical combat... not a good sign. Not just low level, that spell lasts right through the end of the game since emotion or mental immunity outside of being mindless is rare, as is having a high will save. It costing actions to maintain doesn't particularly matter either as trading one (or none at high levels) is more than worth preventing enemy aggression.

Enemies could break it themselves of course. Assuming they have the skill proficiency and spend the actions to recognize the spell and attack affected targets. Much like illusions, that sort of thing isn't free to try anymore and proficiency in magic identifying skills isn't exactly common.

Also, CCing level appropriate targets isn't particularly necessary. PF2 tries is hardest to be "fair and balanced" meaning you'll never encounter equal or higher level enemies in numbers great enough to warrant CC. You only CC mooks to cut larger amounts of action economy after all. For fewer targets, you just use 1-turn debuffs and follow the reaction meta to burst down a target and remove actions with auto-prone crits and attack of opportunity on stand.

There's an argument to be made somewhere that if CC is the go-to tactic 100% of the time the game isn't particularly tactical. I find the game to be pretty simple for casters for the most part. CC large mook horde encounters. De/buff smaller boss encounters. AFK electric arc during meaningless encounters.

[gesalt]

The point you're missing is that magic's (lack of) effectiveness could be unacceptable compared to other PF2 classes, as seen by the frequent complaints that casters are useless in PF2, or by the fact that (at least in my area) nobody who does PF2 wants to play a primary spellcaster. It's not about spells being weaker than in other games, but it's about many spells being completely overshadowed by other PF2 abilities.

So PF2 has a strong caster/martial discrepancy, but in the other direction. Talk about overcompensating :smallamused:
In my experience, casters are borderline a liability from levels 1-6. Casters are absolutely miserable to play early in this system. Eventually the magic gets good enough to feel good, but I don't blame anyone for not wanting to play a spellcaster in PF2. Bard is the best of the bunch for not being dead weight for the early game between lingering inspire and illusions, but for the most part a caster will be casting magic weapon on the martial as the height of their ability to contribute for the first 1-3 levels. Maybe you'll get lucky and use hideous laughter to turn off a boss's reaction attack but it's slim pickings.

[TotallyNotEvil]

As someone that also just got invited to a PF2 game, which I suspect is going to be a trend these days given recent happenings, this discussion is pretty interesting.

Maybe we should make a thread dedicated to that most venerable of topics, martial x caster disparity, but in PF2?

Or perhaps, a general "how do classes stack up" in PF2, a more informal tiering thread?

[pabelfly]

As someone that also just got invited to a PF2 game, which I suspect is going to be a trend these days given recent happenings, this discussion is pretty interesting.

Maybe we should make a thread dedicated to that most venerable of topics, martial x caster disparity, but in PF2?

Or perhaps, a general "how do classes stack up" in PF2, a more informal tiering thread?

If you want to do a proper tiering thread, like we're currently doing with original Pathfinder, Pathfinder 2e has 22 base classes. If you did 4 or 5 classes a week you'd get it done in maybe five weeks.

Whether it's worth doing with a game system still getting content is another question entirely, but it wouldn't be too difficult to do if you wanted to.

[Snowbluff]

The point you're missing is that magic's (lack of) effectiveness could be unacceptable compared to other PF2 classes, as seen by the frequent complaints that casters are useless in PF2, or by the fact that (at least in my area) nobody who does PF2 wants to play a primary spellcaster. It's not about spells being weaker than in other games, but it's about many spells being completely overshadowed by other PF2 abilities.

So PF2 has a strong caster/martial discrepancy, but in the other direction. Talk about overcompensating :smallamused:

I think the other part of this problem is that spells still require more game knowledge and time to operate than most other abilities. It's an unrewarding experience that demands more of your time. Simply put, trying to balance spellcasting by making it super weak also means you just have truenamer, essentially.

[AsuraKyoko]

I think the other part of this problem is that spells still require more game knowledge and time to operate than most other abilities. It's an unrewarding experience that demands more of your time. Simply put, trying to balance spellcasting by making it super weak also means you just have truenamer, essentially.

That's been my experience, too. By the time you reach high levels, casters start to actually become fun and feel strong, and mid levels are okay, but before, like, levels 7-9 casters are kinda miserable.

[Kurald Galain]

I think the other part of this problem is that spells still require more game knowledge and time to operate than most other abilities. It's an unrewarding experience that demands more of your time. Simply put, trying to balance spellcasting by making it super weak also means you just have truenamer, essentially.

That's a good point.

Also, given the disagreements on Web and Calm Emotions, I looked them up in the PF2 Wizard Handbook (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nMvKYaoImIfQFUo9mCRgg8KyUQw48AWFt4xKixoM6RY/edit), as the author of a much-discussed handbook probably knows more than the average forum user. According to the guide... they're both mediocre spells on the red-yellow-green-blue scale. Make of that what you will.

[gesalt]

That's a good point.

Also, given the disagreements on Web and Calm Emotions, I looked them up in the PF2 Wizard Handbook (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nMvKYaoImIfQFUo9mCRgg8KyUQw48AWFt4xKixoM6RY/edit), as the author of a much-discussed handbook probably knows more than the average forum user. According to the guide... they're both mediocre spells on the red-yellow-green-blue scale. Make of that what you will. Web aside, calm emotions isn't on the arcane list so it should be a deep red since the wizard will never be able to heighten it high enough to even hit mooks.

He also seems to highly rate some very laughable spells like hypercognition while not understanding that something like wall of water eats a ton of actions because you can't change movement types while moving. So you'd need to spend and action to stride up, another to swim through, and another to stride again. One spell to make even bosses lose their whole turn on movement is pretty good, if you ask me.

To me, it tells me he doesn't quite understand how the game works. Not that there aren't plenty of other weird things in that guide like highly rated ancestries with a save penalty, thinking familiar thesis is worth anything and thinking attack roll blasts like scorching ray are good.