Search results

I understand your viewpoint within the framework of min-maxing. I don't think it applies to the word variation though. There is plenty of variation in PF2 and it doesn't punish you as badly as PF1 and 5E to choose to do what you want. You certainly don't have to make bards and barbaraians to be...

I find this an odd viewpoint. In 5E, you could create characters with no weaknesses or minimal weaknesses. I did it more than a few times. There was only one or two ways to build a character into something powerful. They were clearly delineated. You took the same thing the same way every time to...

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...

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.

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...

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...

Interesting discussion. My feeling is PF2 will take longer to adopt than PF1. PF1 had the advantage of using a very popular rule system that D&D was moving on from completely for a version of D&D that was a major move away from what the player base was accustomed to. The splintered community...

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. My players min-max because it is...

That was a mistake. I did not meant to put 3E there. Yep. I agree. I remember giving dragons in PF1 a few thousand hit points to make them seem like dragons. PF1 crits and martial damage buffed by up and backed up by casters was nuts. The APs wouldn't optimize their villains much at all. I...

I didn't play enough 4E to see the similarities. To me PF2/3E feels like something between PF1, 5E, and old school 2E and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. You can see little bits of each game's influence in PF2. You still have a massive number of options and ability to add options like the PF/3E...

They're on board with PF2. They don't want to go back to the overly complicated PF1 and they don't want to play with the lack of options in 5E. So PF2 is now our game as long as it is supported. Seems to offer the right mix between PF1 and 5E. They spend a lot of time pouring over books looking...

Hmm. So far the alchemist has been super nasty and useful. His Mist Elixirs and movement elixirs are solid party buffs. His bombs do a lot of damage and he can control the splash better than AoE spells. He likes to build up persistent damage on multiple creatures. He can flat-foot creatures with...

The 3 action system doesn't help this monster as much as I thought. I figured it's barbed maw required an action, but it's just a part of its bite. I've played Legendary creatures. They don't compare to PF2 creatures whose attacks are part of their options. With the three action system I can...

They don't mind. They like the challenge of trying to build the most powerful character within the context of the system. They bitch a little when I tell them a rule doesn't work like they think it does which suddenly reduces what they think they found from powerful to normative or substandard...

Yes, my players like it. It took them a bit to get used to, but after learning it they like it a lot. We're fully on board. What sold them on PF2 versus 5E: 1. Main thing was player options. They had fun making characters again. 5E had very limited character creation options and being able to...

For myself? Because it took a lot of time to build PF1 encounters to make them harder. It took a lot of time in other D&D systems. In nearly every system of D&D, casters made encounters incredibly easy as the levels got higher. They trivialized so much with pre-buffing and wide ranging powerful...

I see. It did seem harder at lower level. We have a cleric with master medicine skill built for healing. He can get the party up fairly quick. He also memorizes at few heal spells to supplement his font. We're getting beam heals for 6d10+48, which pushes people up quickly. He can do the higher...

You do have a wide array of monsters to challenge a PCs. You do have to comply with the tight math. But you can make anything within that math range and challenge the PCs. That's the nice thing about PF2: the math works unlike other editions of D&D and PF where the math really did not work. Even...

You don't think a well made party can fight two average encounters together? I would have to check. I'm running the Age of Ashes AP. I've been grouping all the encounters together and the party seems to handle it. It's challenging, but they win. The only series of encounters in a day that were...

Monsters out of the book in 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e and PF1 were all weak against a well built party of experienced players. I won't comment on your players, but if I take some monsters out of the book and toss it at my players they will destroy those encounters. 5E started off promising for...