Pathfinder 2E PF2E Gurus teach me! +

[Gammadoodler]

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

You'd know whether or not it's worthwhile after you've spent some time with your players without it.

PF2e rewards engagement with its mechanical systems. If players enjoy that engagement, giving different options to engage will be appealing. Otherwise not so much.

 

[dave2008]

You'd know whether or not it's worthwhile after you've spent some time with your players without it.

PF2e rewards engagement with its mechanical systems. If players enjoy that engagement, giving different options to engage will be appealing. Otherwise not so much.

Yep, my players not so much. That is why I said what I said!

 

[Thomas Shey]

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!

Good luck, man. My own opinion is those two pieces of rope don't meet in the middle.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Uhm. Its a little more complicated than that.

PF2e does not have multiclassing, per se. What it had is Archetypes. Archetypes tie up some of your class feats (for those outside of it, think of them as selectable class features, rather than feats as 3e era+ D&D normally used it) to give you either a set of abilities associated with a different class, or with some sort of specialized offshoot or maybe an extension of your class. I'd describe the latter as the PF2e version of Prestige Classes.

But they do tie up class feats to do so. And class feats are normally the most valuable of the three kinds of feats (Class/General/Skill) you can take in PF2e, and you only get so many of them. So normally to get an Archetype costs you some significant amount of capability in your main class.

Free Archetype allows you to take the Archetype feats associated with one archetype for free as you get to the levels when they're available (often there's only one feat at each of these levels that makes these available--I want to say there's about five available across the 20th level range, but don't hold me to it).

So in practice (assuming you don't just take some of the early Archetype feats and call it good), the difference is you normally are in something like the choice between being fully functional in your class, multiclassing, or taking a prestige class. Free Archetype essentially allows you to do two (since there's nothing stopping you from still sacrificing those class feats for a second Archetype). Most of these combinations are far less strong that tossing on a lot of the old Multiclassing/PrCs would have been (though you can still get some strong synergies in a few cases--a lot of fighting types can get some pretty nice juice out of taking the Rogue Archetype as their freebie for example).

 

[Thomas Shey]

You'd know whether or not it's worthwhile after you've spent some time with your players without it.

PF2e rewards engagement with its mechanical systems. If players enjoy that engagement, giving different options to engage will be appealing. Otherwise not so much.

But then, players who don't enjoy heavy engagement aren't too likely to like PF2e anyway.

 

[Gammadoodler]

But then, players who don't enjoy heavy engagement aren't too likely to like PF2e anyway.

It's certainly a focus of the system. I think it's the kind of thing you can learn to like though. I know that's how it worked for me.

I came into PF2e with only 5e experience. It was somewhat overwhelming at first, but as I learned how to pull the different levers, I was rewarded by being able to be more impactful in encounters.

 

[Porridge]

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.

That's interesting. It's the opposite of how I think PF2 is often received; with GMs being more likely to praise the game (gushing about how much less prep-time and work PF2 ends up taking, how much more fun it is to play monsters, how much less homebrewing they're required to do, etc), and players being more likely to complain (feeling constrained by the tight math, feeling unhappy about how much weaker casters feel, feeling the game is too difficult, etc).

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

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.

Yeah, that's fair.

Though I did come across an interesting take on PF2 from the opposite direction, praising it as being a good fit for rules-light GMs(!):

Running Pathfinder 2E As a Rules-Lite GM

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's certainly a focus of the system. I think it's the kind of thing you can learn to like though. I know that's how it worked for me.

I came into PF2e with only 5e experience. It was somewhat overwhelming at first, but as I learned how to pull the different levers, I was rewarded by being able to be more impactful in encounters.

Its certainly not impossible. But I know there's a subset of players (who tend toward Fighters, Barbarians and Sorcerers) who just want to charge up and swing/blast away, and have it work out. That's not going to be an entirely viable way to play PF2e unless the GM is willing to softball things a bit (and in any case, will probably waste at least some of the characters' abilities).

 

[Gammadoodler]

Its certainly not impossible. But I know there's a subset of players (who tend toward Fighters, Barbarians and Sorcerers) who just want to charge up and swing/blast away, and have it work out. That's not going to be an entirely viable way to play PF2e unless the GM is willing to softball things a bit (and in any case, will probably waste at least some of the characters' abilities).

Agreed. "Kick the door in and roll dice" is a style that gets punished..hard, at the 'default' difficulty, if the DM is playing the monsters to win.

On the other hand, if that's the kind of group you're running for, you're probably softballing it some in 5e as well.

 

[Yaarel]

I do 5e and am looking into P2.

I like mages and need to understand exactly what is going on.

What, exactly, is the "Concentrate" trait. I cant seem to find explicit rules for it.

Is it possible to concentrate on two things that require concentration?

Does concentration always cost an "action" or more?

What are the important mechanical features of this trait?