Pathfinder 2E Actual AP Play Experience

[Porridge]

I think you are overselling multiclassing in PF2.

?

It's essentially trade one of your class feats for a class feat of another class.

Yeah, you trade one of your class feats for a class feat of another class, or a class feature of another class. (Trading class feats for class features is often the most important part of multiclassing, since that's what gets you things like spellcasting.)

 

[Celtavian]

Not to derail the thread, but for those that have played - does PF2 actually have more character building options than 5e?

I've only played 5E to lvl 15 and PF2 to lvl 11. From what I have seen so far, PF2 has far more options than 5E. It's the main reason my players switched to PF2. Their biggest complaint about 5E was every character felt the same. Once an ability allowed you to gain advantage, you were done needing any other abilities no matter how they were worded or what they were named other than bless. We played with feats and multiclassing. Nearly every martial type wanting to do heavy damage took 2 levels of paladin with some caster for smite. Every caster wanting to do some damage built a sorlock of some kind. PF2 is not like that. You can build so many different types of characters that no one has found the most powerful option yet because it doesn't seem to exist. There is no fighting style, type of magic, or feat that seems more powerful than any other options. Just different and pretty effective. I can't even begin to tell you how many character options there are. The new sorcerer is just a treasure trove of character options with each bloodline having access to a different spell list. Multiclassing opens up even more options for character building. The PF2 chassis for character building is pretty insane in its variability.

I've built the following classes so far. A cavern elf thief racket rogue using a rapier. Pretty standard. He's very good at skills and skills are more meaningful in PF2 than they have been in the past. You get real powerful mechanical abilities as you advance in skill level. I have a half-elf maestro bard who I've built as a support class with a sort of shadowy spell capability who likes to call on ghost-like power to defeat enemies and help the party. He uses a lot of shadow magic and illusion. In another group I built an ancient elf undead bloodline sorcerer wizard multiclass archetype who uses positive and negative energy to kill foes and heal friends. Those are just a few options you can build out of the Core Rulebook. PF2 is far more varied than the PF1 core rulebook for character building.

The PF2 rule set works in strange ways which we figured out after we played. I'll list a few examples:
1. Skills: You not only have to have a high skill number, but you need to have a high rank to do certain things. For example, if you don't have expert or higher in thievery, you can't disarm some traps. If you don't have expert and master in Arcana, you can't get higher level multiclass archetype feats for casting. If you don't have expert in Religion, you can't learn resurrect rituals or use religion to banish haunts. Skills have real meaning in PF2.

2. Smite Evil: When we first read divine smite, we thought it was weak. Charisma good damage versus the PF1 level damage. Then we found out many evil creatures like demons and devils have weakness good 10. So suddenly this weak charisma damage smite evil was doing 14 points of damage a hit. So smite evil was still powerful, just not powerful against everything. A little extra damage against an evil humanoid, but huge damage against an evil demon or devil. That was pretty cool as the paladin shined at the right moment against the right creatures rather than slaughtering everything evil.

There's a lot of little rules that make the game interesting to play. We're finding more of them the more we play. Only downside for those that like a simpler game is be ready to memorize a lot of rules. Not as many as PF2 as the rule system is better integrated, but still quite a bit to learn. Like read Attack of Opportunity closely. It only disrupts spells on a crit, not a regular hit. It is important to remember that so casters don't end up screwed worse than they already are if some AoO creatures moves on them.

 

[dave2008]

Not to derail the thread, but for those that have played - does PF2 actually have more character building options than 5e?

A lot more

 

[dave2008]

I thought I answered it. Maybe I did not make it clear, they don't care as long as they are having fun. PF2 is fun to them. They have a few gripes here and there or things they don't think make sense, but that hasn't changed their view of the game as fun.

You didn't answer it because you are making an assumption because they are having fun. I was asking you to ask them directly about what they thought of the min/max play style being ineffective in PF2. You haven't asked them, you just assumed. I understand they are having fun, but:

• Is that because they can't min/max
• are they surprised they like the game more because they can't min/max
• do they miss min/max, but still enjoying playing.
• Is it because they are still tying to min/max (i.e. the challenge)
• Is in spite of the fact the can't min/max (i.e. it is not as important to them as they thought)
• Is it fun because they can't min/max and that has removed a burden,
• etc.

EDIT: I wrote the above before reading your whole post. It seems you did answer it, though it still sounds as if you are making assumptions and I would rather have their responses after being asked directly.

 

[dave2008]

We often focus on what is fun for the players. But the game has to be fun for the DM as well or it gets to be a slog of stats. I'm glad PF2 removes a lot of the parts that made DM life hard. Makes my job easier so I can focus on the story more.

Yep, that is why we are stuck in 5e, most fun we've had playing D&D yet and I can't convince them to give PF2e a try. I am really fascinated by it from a game design perspective, but doesn't appear to match our play style (which I total didn't realize until reading the books, and play reports, and reflecting on what is fun in our games).

 

[Celtavian]

You didn't answer it because you are making an assumption because they are having fun. I was asking you to ask them directly about what they thought of the min/max play style being ineffective in PF2. You haven't asked them, you just assumed. I understand they are having fun, but:

• Is that because they can't min/max
• are they surprised they like the game more because they can't min/max
• do they mis min/max, but still enjoying playing.
• Is it because they are still tying to min/max (i.e. the challenge)
• Is in spite of the fact the can't min/max (i.e. it is not as important to them as they thought)
• Is it fun because they can't min/max and that has removed a burden,
• etc.

EDIT: I wrote the above before reading your whole post. It seems you did answer it, though it still sounds as if you are making assumptions and I would rather have their responses after being asked directly.

Let me see if I can clear this up. My players don't min-max to break the game. I know those players exist, but that's not my players. My players min-max within the framework of a given system because they like being really effective in combat. So asking them if they miss being able to min-max isn't really what I've asked them. They wouldn't even understand the question and might be get offended. Sometimes I give them a hard time for min-max like one of my buddies chose to use a longsword for 1 point of extra damage until he reached level 3 on a magus so he could use a scimitar for dex damage and when I said that is BS, you're min-maxing for a point of damage. He got offended and said I can do whatever I want. So I left it alone.

Their mentality summed up:
1. They don't rule lawyer. If something seems too powerful and they can see it too, they don't mind if I come up with a reasonable compromise to reduce the ability in power. They aren't trying to exploit the game.
2. They still very much build concepts. They don't take every powerful ability in the game even if it doesn't fit their concept. They have a strategy and a character concept they are building around. They try to find the most effective combat ability to support their concept.
3. They play to win, but want something worth winning. They love winning and defeating challenges. It would bore the living crap out of them if they built these powerful concepts and they ran over everything like it was nothing. That's why I have to put so much work in. They don't want a broken, easy game, but in PF1 I really had to work hard to challenge them. 5E wasn't as bad as PF1 thankfully, I found it boring to DM but I didn't have to hugely modify creatures to make them challenging.

I hope that better explains. We discuss the game, but not in the context of min-max.

I've been asking my players if they are having fun. I can give you the reasons they've told me they still like it and some of their concerns:

1. They like the 3 action system and the variety of options. The options really got them on board. They really missed being able to build interesting characters and additional books in 5E. One of their biggest complaints they joked about was having all this extra money because they had no 5E books to buy. We talked about that. They are looking forward to buying books again.

2. The champion is finding the shield underwhelming as he levels. Monsters hit so hard that blocking isn't a good option any longer. We might look at that some more.

3. One player doesn't like having to buy up skills like Religion and Arcana to get more access to feats he wants or rituals. He wants to be able to buy skills at trained and not be limited. I don't agree with that, so I likely won't be making that change. I like player having to build up his skill to be better with the skill.

4. I think the wizard is too weak. They need some tweaking in my opinion. But I'll definitely wait until someone really puts effort into playing a wizard before I make changes. See I'm missing something.

Those are some of the topics we've been discussing as we play. I can't ask them about min-maxing. Sorry. That would lead to arguments or eye rolling.

 

[Celtavian]

Yep, that is why we are stuck in 5e, most fun we've had playing D&D yet and I can't convince them to give PF2e a try. I am really fascinated by it from a game design perspective, but doesn't appear to match our play style (which I total didn't realize until reading the books, and play reports, and reflecting on what is fun in our games).

My friend runs his kids through 5E. They had a lot of fun. 5E is a great game to run for people that want an easy, fun tabletop RPG experience. I even like playing it, even though I find it boring to run.

It's kind of nice to have a good version of 5E D&D and a good new version of PF2.

 

[FrogReaver]

?

Yeah, you trade one of your class feats for a class feat of another class, or a class feature of another class. (Trading class feats for class features is often the most important part of multiclassing, since that's what gets you things like spellcasting.)

My impression has been that the class feature you obtain is often missing quite a bit?

 

[Celtavian]

My impression has been that the class feature you obtain is often missing quite a bit?

It depends on what multiclass archetype you're going for. They all generally give something useful. The base dedication usually gives an appropriate skill and some kind of proficiency. Wizard dedication gives you a spell book and a couple of cantrips. The fighter one gives you trained in martial weapons. The champion one gives you trained in heavy armor. It really depends on what you're trying to do. A ranger taking fighter archetype doesn't give you much until you can buy one of the fighter feats you want. A caster getting two cantrips is pretty much like one of their second level feats with an additional perk of a skill.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not to derail the thread, but for those that have played - does PF2 actually have more character building options than 5e?

It definitely has "more", as in "numerically many more". I think there are already over eleven hundred feats, and the game isn't even a year old!

But in truth, most (all?) of them don't ultimately matter much. While you can switch it around a bit (making you better at one skill or another, or giving you one special attack instead of another), or the feat lets' you mitigate or ignore a specific limitation or requirement, you can't change the fundamentals of your class build; everything is tightly locked down. If Paizo has decided a Fighter can reach +15 in attacks at a certain level, there's nothing you can do to make that better by sacrificing prowess elsewhere, and you can't pay the cost of a worse score in return for "unexpected" strengths elsewhere either. Basically, you're asked to tinker about with inconsequential aesthetic choices. And lots of them. At every single level, in fact.

If what you're really asking is which game offers the charbuild choices (multiclassing, feats, items) with the greatest impact, I would say 5th Edition, hands down. (not to mention 3E/PF1 of course which remains the undisputed champion of D&D charbuild customization)

PS. There's two sides of this coin, of course. You can choose to see the upside instead and say things like "you can't accidentally create a gimped character" or "minmaxers can't destroy the game balance".