Search results

The point with only having a 5 spread between proficiencies is rather deliberate. Early on when they revealed that they showed the math. For example at level 1 in PF1 a trained rogue in stealth would have about a +8 bonus while a fighter in chain who was trained would be about -1 or so, maybe...

Yeah people who call out bs are a pain. Maybe we could spend the next six months about how to make the final game better and provide actual feedback for the playtest or we can just rehash edition wars that everyone is sick of. There is plenty of actual things we can discuss that I think would be...

You said “PF2e has nothing like the concentration system to prevent the layering of spell effects.” and you’re wrong despite how much you’re trying to walk it back now that someone called out your misinformation. Spending your entire turn concentrating on buffs that are weaker than their 5e...

This is pretty much what PF2 is. For how much you’ve posted in this thread you’ve not actually said anything of substance. If you look at the combat rules you’ll find that PF2 and 5e share a ton in common now, far more than PF2 and PF1 do.

As for playing I’ll be DM’ing my first session on Sunday. I’ll let you all know how it goes.

I’m not sure why I should argue with someone who hasn’t read the rulebook. That being said. 1. Pathfinder 2 does have concentration, in fact most buff spells have it. 2. 5e does not fully lack buff spells. Bless, guidance, magic weapon, bardic inspiration, etc all give buffs. Many of those...

I don’t see how they could make PF2 any more like 5e without being 5e. Look at how battle works. It’s got a better and different action system and the critical success/failure system but otherwise they are very similar. Spells scale in the same way, spell power is down in general, they have a...

But they are making that and I don’t understand arguments that say they’re not. PF2 playtest looks a lot like PF1 from character building and a lot like 5e from in battle flow. There is going to be more feats (both class and general feats) and gating them like they have now is no different than...

We’ll be converting our level 11 PF1 game to PF2, so I’ll let you know how that goes.

Pretty close yeah. So several things here. 1. Much less static buff options. Basically you’ll do dmg from a spell or dmg + mods from a martial type. The few you’ll have that add static buffs you should be able to bake in. (There are exepctions like longbow users being less accurate at close...

Except lots of those feats give powers and very few of those feats provide static bonuses, so it really seems you’re hung up on the word feat.

People seem to be too hung up on the word feat and history of certain feats going back to 1e. Even though in PF1 most martial classes had baked in class features that provided far more differentiation than exists in PF2. But since power attack or point blank shot was generic in PF1 it bothers...

Fighters in PF1 had a scaling attack/damage buff in weapon training that everyone else lacked plus access to some powerful fighter only feats. Somehow the game functioned with it and non fighter melee classes worked and worked well. Not all classes need access to same feats or buffs as long as...

But the feats are hardly required. If you want to min max like that it has an opportunity cost. It’s not like missing one of those feats is going to cripple your character. It’s a trade off. In PF1 regardless of your class you could just take them all. 5e seems to do well with just allowing...

Lots of hyperbole here. 1. Why would Paizo want to remake 5e? If they just remade the game that’s not going to work. 5e has the official brand name and is entrenched. 2. Character differentiation and building unique characters are what defines Paizo games. 5e has a bit with feats but very...

Sure that is but when the objection to the rule is “Why doesn’t this work like it does in PF1 (see power attack or other changes) than that’s really not their problem. If you want to play PF1 with some simplifications it already exists in Pathfinder Unchained. They’re still going to have to wade...

It was 2 pages (5-6) Starting on page 7 it was all game terms and the steps/options to building your characters. I think it was sensible information for Paizo to include in this day and age. It’s something WotC struggles with in MTG and D&D and it’s important to bring new audience to the game...

There is certainly room in there for blaster wizards. I think battlefield controllers (both summoners and save or suck) took a step back. But damage dealers might get a bump with critical failures being a thing. Even something like ray of frost which at level ten is 2d8 + mod is going to auto...

There isn’t even 200 feats. The PF1 rulebook has over 600. Sure maybe there is a lot now if you’re used to 5e, but that’s really not a lot of feats. And virtually none are feat taxes (feats requires to unlock other feats when you don’t care about the first.)

Some things to note here. Fire Ray is a spell power that uses spell points (like 1e domain/school powers) so it’s not really a spell. Anyway both of these abilities auto heighten. As for differences we got this: Fire Ray: 60 foot range Can’t crit Gets 1d6 dmg per caster level, eventually...