Pathfinder 2E PF2E Gurus teach me! +

[Gammadoodler]

pf2e doesn't have an artificer, it has an inventor. it's quite a different beast.

They are both primary weapons users with a bag of supplemental tricks. The tricks for the inventor aren't spells, but the effects and economy are similar in many cases to PF2e spells.

They are very different beasts, but it's mostly the same way that the 5e and PF2e fighters are very different beasts.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

They are both primary weapons users with a bag of supplemental tricks. The tricks for the inventor aren't spells, but the effects and economy are similar in many cases to PF2e spells.

They are very different beasts, but it's mostly the same way that the 5e and PF2e fighters are very different beasts.

5e artificers aren't really primarily weapon users, though? it's subclass dependent. not to mention 5e artificers also (for better or worse) encompass the design space of the alchemist as well. then there's infusions...i dunno if it's really a comparable situation at all to fighters.

 

[Gammadoodler]

5e artificers aren't really primarily weapon users, though? it's subclass dependent. not to mention 5e artificers also (for better or worse) encompass the design space of the alchemist as well. then there's infusions...i dunno if it's really a comparable situation at all to fighters.

The artificer is a half-caster like the ranger
Two of the subclasses have ways to use Int to boost damage and tohit for weapons/unarmed strikes. And the subclasses are "armorer" (see inventor's armor innovation), "battlesmith" (see inventor's construct innovation) and "alchemist", which, to your point, isn't included in the inventor class, but that is likely because it was already its own whole separate PF2e class already.

I don't really see much of a difference between infusions in 5e and modifications in PF2e.

Ultimately the 5e artificer has more and better tricks than the inventor because they have more spells and spells are better in 5e, but, absent the alchemist, they are more similar than dissimilar, at least in my opinion.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

The artificer is a half-caster like the ranger
Two of the subclasses have ways to use Int to boost damage and tohit for weapons/unarmed strikes. And the subclasses are "armorer" (see inventor's armor innovation), "battlesmith" (see inventor's construct innovation) and "alchemist", which, to your point, isn't included in the inventor class, but that is likely because it was already its own whole separate PF2e class already.

...you forgot the artillerist, which is essentially a blaster. and that's what i meant about the alchemist - the 5e artificer is almost more an alchemist and inventor in one then just an inventor.

I don't really see much of a difference between infusions in 5e and modifications in PF2e.

pf2e's modifications seem (at least to me) focused around your invention (which i guess could be considered your subclass?). 5e's infusions have little if anything to do with your subclass - they're very general improvements you can give out however you want. in other words, modifications only help you, while infusions can (usually) be given to teammates. i think that's a pretty big distinction. also infusions seem a lot more core to the artificer then modifications are to the inventor.

Ultimately the 5e artificer has more and better tricks than the inventor because they have more spells and spells are better in 5e, but, absent the alchemist, they are more similar than dissimilar, at least in my opinion.

considering the overall topic, i think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Staffan]

There's two slightly different cases. Class Archetypes you can only take one of according to the core book; far as I can tell, these are all the Archetypes that are not essentially Multiclassing Archetypes. You can take more than one Multiclass Archetype (or combine any number of them with a Class Archetype) but at least all the ones I've seen you have to do a three-feat buy-in before you can take a second, so there's no "I just grab the first feat for what I want and move on" like the one-level dips in 3e.

Well, you can take a one-feat dip into an archetype, but only one. If you really wanted Expert Medicine at 2nd level without being a rogue or investigator (which would then allow you to get Continuous Recovery at 2nd level as well, and then use your 3rd level general feat for Ward Medic), you could take the Medic archetype and then never take another Medic feat again. But you wouldn't then be able to also go into e.g. Herbalist for even more healing.

 

[Yaarel]

(though some people feel the Wizard Class Feats are underwhelming enough that its not that painful there).

Hmmm. Yeah.

 

[Yaarel]

I am reading more about the Nordic "Ulfen".

To be fair, I am reading P1 descriptions about the Ulfen, from the book, Lands of the Linnorm Kings, and from PathfinderWiki .com. But since this is lore, it still remains in effect for players who continue the Golarion setting in P2.

The gaming descriptions about Nordic ethnic groups are "Oriental Adventures" levels of problematic.

Maybe Golarion is worse, because the exoticization leans into demonization.

The descriptions are almost always from an "outsider" point of view of a foreigner, exaggerating stereotypes, with little or no empathy for who is being described, or what the values of these cultures are, or how a culture functions sustainably. There is frequent misrepresentation of reallife terms from the Nordic cultural heritages. Main cities are classified as "Chaotic Evil" or at best "Chaotic Neutral".

This is the stuff of defamation.

 

[Yaarel]

Hopefully future Paizo products and options can remedy the Ulfen to comprise more mindful ethnicities with more dignity and a fair share of altruism.

At least Pathfinder 2 can be a fresh start for how to portray cultural identities generally, especially if the "other". Seeing the culture from the point of view of an "insider" always helps, and when modeling a reallife culture then one requires a reallife insider. There needs to be an effort to find ways to value and appreciate any differences − sometimes even by the insider oneself. Many aspects are shared in common and taken for granted − but can be important to portray a culture with more weight, depth, and realism.

Heh, an unfortunate depiction of cultures isnt the first, and wont be the last, issue that the D&D traditions have to finetune as the traditions move forward for new generations.



By the way, I found this character optimization assessment for the Pathfinder 2 Wizard to be helpful, at RPG Bot .net. Seeing a class analyzed this way helps me understand more clearly how the features work, and also a sense of the balance.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I am reading more about the Nordic "Ulfen".

To be fair, I am reading P1 descriptions about the Ulfen, from the book, Lands of the Linnorm Kings, and from PathfinderWiki .com. But since this is lore, it still remains in effect for players who continue the Golarion setting in P2.

The gaming descriptions about Nordic ethnic groups are "Oriental Adventures" levels of problematic.

Maybe Golarion is worse, because the exoticization leans into demonization.

The descriptions are almost always from an "outsider" point of view of a foreigner, exaggerating stereotypes, with little or no empathy for who is being described, or what the values of these cultures are, or how a culture functions sustainably. There is frequent misrepresentation of reallife terms from the Nordic cultural heritages. Main cities are classified as "Chaotic Evil" or at best "Chaotic Neutral".

This is the stuff of defamation.

Yeah, earlier Pathfinder (October 2011, so just over 2 years after the initial release), which was a whole lot of edge. Just look at the Hook Mountain Ogres or early Erastil and there's plenty of rough stuff. Their output has greatly improved with their recent stuff, but no denying some of the rough parts of the old stuff.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's been a great degree of the older material that has been sort of passively ignored when you get into the details. That is to say, Paizo hasn't addressed the matter actively in the new material, but when happens to come up, they treat it like it was never the case. I know some people would prefer they actively repudiate some of the more problematic stuff, but that doesn't seem like the tact they're taking, but they're also not sticking with it.