CapnZapp
Legend
Read my reply just above.
Pathfinder 2E Actual AP Play Experience
CapnZapp
Legend
Well, yes, except that Pathfinder 2 multiclass dedication feats does allow warriors to cast spells. Not many, but still. Some utility spells have a profound impact on gameplay, so this is certainly not nothing.
Other multiclass dedications are decidedly meh, though. (Casters multiclassing into warrior classes is an outright trap, insofar that nothing in PF2 really is a trap, since you can't botch your character)
But this mechanism is used also for archetype dedications, somewhat akin to a "prestige class light" concept (where I'm talking about the 3E prestige classes). So there's that.
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
Compared to 3E/5E style multiclassing PF2 offers next to no real customization power. And by that I mean "creating a character stronger in combat than the others".
Examples: 3E allowed you to create a paladin with nigh-impenetrable saves, because the very first level of a prestige class granted an outsized save bonus, for instance. There is zero ways to create "a fighter, but with a better to-hit than anyone else in exchange for a worse AC" for instance. (Instead you're asked to create a Barbarian that's designed that way from the start, which isn't the same thing or even close). Paizo doesn't trust you to decide for yourself which of the three saving throws you want your character to excel at - it's decided by your choice of class at level 1. The end.
After all minmaxing is the art of maximizing your strengths in areas with the greatest impact (most commonly, the ability to turn live monsters into dead ones) at the expense of having weaknesses, preferably in areas with a lower impact than the devs could imagine (through clever tactics, if nothing else).
The archetypal (and
My players have found that minmaxing in the build stage is exceedingly difficult in PF2. It does seem like Paizo have failed to make all classes equally strong, and so about the only advice I can give you at this stage is "play barbarians and bards instead of alchemists and wizards". Once you've made that choice at level 1, though, you aren't given any other opportunities to make a difference.
Personally, I actually like that especially items can give you an edge over and beyond the expected math, and this is why I think Paizo went too far. If 3E was broken as naughty word, and 4E was way way too contained, I personally prefer 5E's stance over PF2 in this regard. Put plainly: PF2 contains way too many feats and magic items that remind me of 4E magic items - very bland and mediocre bonuses you don't get unless you're willing to jump through surprisingly byzantine hoops.
*) D&D is positively neanderthalian in this regard - if you look good, you are overwhelmingly likely to actually be good. If you look monstrous, you are quite often literally a monster. And yes, I'm talking about adventures written in 2020, not just 1970. I would say that substituting "detect evil" for "would I naughty word it" doesn't give appreciably worse readings overall... so maybe them munchkins had a point all along?
Last edited:
dave2008
Legend
I brought my kids up in 4e.
I find this an odd viewpoint. In 5E, you could create characters with no weaknesses or minimal weaknesses. I did it more than a few times. There was only one or two ways to build a character into something powerful. They were clearly delineated. You took the same thing the same way every time to become powerful. It wasn't like you had a lot of options to become powerful. You took GWM if a martial or Sharpshooter if an archer. You were a sorlock as a caster or nothing. You took a few levels of paladin for smite or six levels for the saves, then did something else like fighter if you felt like it. You didn't have a lot of meaningful choices, you had a few simple limited choices. You wanted to make a two weapon fighter or a knife thrower, don't bother. You want to make a straight wizard that does damage, forget about it, sorlock makes you look weak. And bless was a requirement. Keep it up at all times in every fight.
Now PF1 definitely allowed far more customization, not necessarily in the core rulebook which is the only book we have for PF2 right now. After nearly 18 years of materials, it allowed an enormous amount of customization. I would say the PF2 core rulebook had more customization than the PF1 core rulebook.
I believe the choices are meaningful in PF2, but instead of allowing a character to become some overpowered, unassailable monster they instead allow you to create a character that does what it does well. I don't consider that meaningless. That seems an odd way to see it.
I created many characters in PF1 and they had no weaknesses. They were unassailable. 90% of the feats in PF1 were pointless as were the archetypes because of how weak they were. There was a way to build a powerful, nearly unassailable character. It would look nearly the same for every single person building that powerful unassailable option. There were very few trade offs. That doesn't seem like variation to me. It was just straight up power gaming. If you made a paladin, you didn't have to do any work to build up yours saves other than raise your charisma. You could go a little farther with save resistance by multi-classing some levels of monk for across the board good saves with evasion, but it wasn't hugely necessary. I built so many power monsters in PF1. There were no trade offs. You took the most powerful options and made a nearly unassailable character the DM hated.
I think you have much greater variation when you can make a game where the player can pick a concept and not feel gimped for doing it. In PF2 you can make a good archer, two-weapon fighter, two-hander fighter, or sword and board guy and not feel like you're the gimp sidekick along for the ride because the other guy built some monster two-hander guy that can't be touched. Then again, who made fighters in PF1 beyond getting weapon spec. That weak will save was a no-go in PF1. Too many will save spells that ended your day.
Comparing PF1 core rulebook versus PF2 core rule book, PF2 core rulebook offers way more customization. Now if you compare PF1 everything compared to the PF2 core rulebook, sure, I see what you're saying. But in all the years of PF1 material they put out, 90% of it wasn't very meaningful. You had about 10% to work with if you wanted to maximize your character, then a ton of options everyone ignored. A new book would come out and maybe one or two feats would end up being used, a handful of spells, and maybe one archetype. To me that's isn't huge variation, that's limited options that you must take or you are weaker than someone taking more powerful options.
Whereas in PF2 you could probably use 50% to 70% or more of the options available to make a class of fairly equal effectiveness to another class in a uniquely different way. And you wouldn't feel like a gimp doing it. I believe that gives players a larger degree of variation than PF1 or 5E in that they can make some interesting concept that you wouldn't normally try because it would be considered an inferior option in PF1 or 5E.
One 5E example is one of my players made a straight paladin. While this other player made a wizard with two levels of paladin and a whip. Here was this paladin whose main ability was to smite to do damage and this wizard-paladin had way more spell slots and a reach weapon to smite with. Not to mention spell versatility with fly. Then this other player in the same group made a warlock-sorcerer-paladin doing smites and eldritch beams. The poor paladin felt pathetic. His entire class over-shadowed by people dipping two levels of paladin.
I still don't get the alchemist hate. The bomber alchemist does a ton of damage and is very helpful. He's been a huge boon to our party.
The only class so far that has been underwhelming is the wizard. The lack of a good one option action and the magic limits just make them pretty lame. They really missed the boat on the wizard. For all the thought they put into balancing, the wizard is terrible. Like they hired some designer that hated wizards and was absolutely intent on making sure they were the D list class this version of PF.
dave2008
Legend
I don't get this sentiment, but everyone has there limitations (externally and internally). I just can't imagine getting bored as the DM.
CapnZapp
Legend
Not sure what to say. Seems extremely straight-forward to me.
Either your build choices change your power level and/or shift your strengths or they don't.
If you genuinely don't understand my point and genuinely do want to know more, we can continue this discussion. But if I'm gonna be completely honest, I think you understand me just fine, Celt. In that case, it's fine to prefer PF2's priorities. Just don't act as if I said something strange or peculiar.
Thanks
I understand your viewpoint within the framework of min-maxing. I don't think it applies to the word variation though. There is plenty of variation in PF2 and it doesn't punish you as badly as PF1 and 5E to choose to do what you want. You certainly don't have to make bards and barbaraians to be effective. Even a wizard can be very effective. Not as effective as a PF1 wizard, though I would say a wizard is as effective as a 5E wizard. 5E wizards sucked too compared to what they were.
We could start a whole new thread discussing comparative variation with examples. I do believe the PF2 core rulebook has more variation than did PF1 core rulebook. We'll see how good the chassis is at allowing expanded options in supplements. Supplements are where PF1 grew into the game so many of us loved for so many years.
One thing I know for certain is that PF2 allows far more character concepts to be realized because of the tight math which makes it so min-maxers can also role-play because they don't always have to fit their concept into the min-max combat box. Every worthwhile martial doesn't have to be a 2-handed weapon, power attacking Greatsword wielder with a wide crit range to feel useful. Every archer doesn't have to buy the same deadly aim, many shot, etc. feats usually as a monk to be the top guy. Casters don't absolutely rule the game at the upper levels so martials become little more than PC versions of summoned monsters waiting for buffs from their caster masters. To me that allows for a great deal more variation than PF1.
So I guess we just disagree on what variation is as I see more variation in PF2 and more opportunity for variation when the system doesn't punish choices to the same degree that PF1 and 5E did in combat.
I like more tactical options than monsters in 5E have. 5E has very simplified monsters without many out of combat abilities. 5E monsters were built to fight. Almost every ability was some short-term attack that didn't last long. I would have had to modify quite a few monsters to make them do what I want them to do. It just became a boring slog as a DM of rinse and repeat combat. Players doing and building exactly the same characters. Every party had a bard with bless, every party had a warlock hybrid for eldtrich beams, every party had paladins for smiting. Leomund's Tiny Hut grew into a powerful spell used to defeat many things with minimal damage. It wasn't fun to DM.
I'll play almost any game someone enjoys running though. At least I didn't actively hate DMing it like I did 4E. I could not stand DMing 4E. 5E I found boring, but I didn't actively despise it like 4E. I didn't find the tactical options on monsters very interesting in 5E. If I don't have tactical options to rival the players, then I don't have much fun DMing.
dave2008
Legend
Never had this problem, but I came from 1e when monsters had even less going for them. I never have any issue with making monsters do interesting things. With 4e and now 5e i've got the tools to make improvisation easy.
Not a problem with my group. In my 5e games (6 years worth) I have not had a bard, warlock, paladin, barbarian, sorcerer, or cleric. We do enjoy trying out all the UA feats and not the variant features though.
Interesting, I really enjoyed DMing 4e, it is what brought me back to D&D. The DMG 42 was a revelation and really helped my DM game. It was also the edition that gave me the freedom to explore and really amped up my improve game.
I think it is clear our DM styles and player groups are too different. Not really much we can do for each other. Based on that (and other things) I am guessing my group really wouldn't like PF2e, but I still hope to give a try.
