Pathfinder 2E PF2E Gurus teach me! +

[Thomas Shey]

During the playtest the developers floated the idea of making something like Automatic Bonus Progression rules the default rules, but they found a large majority of playtesters preferred going the other way. Personally, I share your dislike for mandatory magic items (and I can't imagine playing without the Automatic Bonus Progression rules). But that's not what the majority of playtesters wanted...

Yeah, from what I heard there was massive pushback about that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Pathfinder 2e sounds interesting, but also significantly more complex than 5e while at the same time not 3.75e, either.

How much time did it take 3.5/5e DMs to get up to speed running Pathfinder 2e? From what I've been reading lately, 2e sounds like it belongs squarely in the "I'd like to play it, but not run it" category.

Though I haven't done so yet, I'll tell you'd I'd honestly much rather run PF2e than D3.0/3.5, and I suspect from what I've heard, than PF1e. At least at any significant level (I ran a D&D 3.0 then 3.5 campaign up to level 14 and said never again).

I've really become accustomed to all the ways 5e streamlines the game. I'm also a little leery about the 'expected gear' and 'tighter, therefore harder to mess with' challenge rating system.

If you really want lighterweight and loosey-goosey, its probably not the game for you. Neither of those is a virtue from where I sit, so...

 

[Thomas Shey]

Im also a big fan of proficiency without level and free archetype variants.

Now having seen it in play, I'd consider Free Archetype pretty much a default if I was going to run it. It opens up character customization widely without, as best I can tell, preturbing power level excessively.

 

[dave2008]

If you really want lighterweight and loosey-goosey, its probably not the game for you. Neither of those is a virtue from where I sit, so...

I'm really conflicted, and have been since PF2 came out. The designer in my loves the tight and controlled math and design of PF2e; however, the player and DM on me loves the "lighterweight and loosey-goosey" nature of 5e. I would love to find a way to combine the too!

 

[dave2008]

Can someone remind me what the "free archetype" variant is?

 

[payn]

Can someone remind me what the "free archetype" variant is?

It allows you to take an archetype along with multiclassing instead of choosing between them. No idea how they thought it could be Pathfinder as written.

 

[Staffan]

Can someone remind me what the "free archetype" variant is?

An extra class feat every even level that you can't spend on your main class but have to spend on an archetype.

The original intent of the variant rule is for themed campaigns where everyone is supposed to be a _________ in addition to their main class, and in those cases it would be limited to one or a small number of thematic archetypes. For example, if you're doing a pirate campaign it makes sense that all characters should have the Pirate archetype, and in the Strength of Thousands AP where you play students (and later teachers) at the Magaambiya (a world-renowned magic academy that mainly studies arcane and primal magic) everyone has either the Druid or Wizard multi-class archetypes. But a large portion of the player base likes the additional customization possible through it, so they just open it wide to whatever.

 

[dave2008]

An extra class feat every even level that you can't spend on your main class but have to spend on an archetype.

The original intent of the variant rule is for themed campaigns where everyone is supposed to be a _________ in addition to their main class, and in those cases it would be limited to one or a small number of thematic archetypes. For example, if you're doing a pirate campaign it makes sense that all characters should have the Pirate archetype, and in the Strength of Thousands AP where you play students (and later teachers) at the Magaambiya (a world-renowned magic academy that mainly studies arcane and primal magic) everyone has either the Druid or Wizard multi-class archetypes. But a large portion of the player base likes the additional customization possible through it, so they just open it wide to whatever.

So even more customization! Yikes - I think my players would not care for that, I guess I don't have to use it!

 

[Staffan]

So even more customization! Yikes - I think my players would not care for that, I guess I don't have to use it!

To each their own. I probably wouldn't use it for my first Pathfinder campaign (there's enough to deal with already), but it really does open up the possibilities. And since archetypes generally broaden your abilities rather than sharpen them (you're more likely to have the abilities to deal with any given situation, but you're not any better at the stuff you're already good at), there are fairly few balance considerations.

 

[dave2008]

To each their own. I probably wouldn't use it for my first Pathfinder campaign (there's enough to deal with already), but it really does open up the possibilities. And since archetypes generally broaden your abilities rather than sharpen them (you're more likely to have the abilities to deal with any given situation, but you're not any better at the stuff you're already good at), there are fairly few balance considerations.

Again, love the idea as a designer - I just know my players and it would not be their thing. Which is OK.