Pathfinder 2E Advice for a 5E DM moving to PF2E

[CapnZapp]

You will want at least one player with Battle Medicine, and one player with access to Healing magic

Yes. If you read the CRB, this will not be indicated at all. You'd think Medicine is just one skill out of many. You'd think the Heal spell is just one spell out of many.

But in reality the CRB should have said "if you opt to play a party without both these options, you'll be playing the game on Nightmare mode".

For spellcasters there is a ton of trap options, especially at low levels.

You could argue all of the low level spells are trap options*... compared to instead playing a second fighter (or somesuch), that is.
*) except Heal of course

 

[CapnZapp]

Is this true? If so, it makes me a bit sad. I hate the idea that you have to have a maxed stat.

Since every +1 is so valuable, it really is not worth it to start with 16 instead of 18 just because you get to put a 14 instead of a 12 in something else (or whatever).

Pathfinder 2 is the literal opposite of those other D&D games where your ability scores are more descriptive in nature, but doesn't change much about your character's statistical prowess, as it were. Put otherwise, while playing a Fighter with Strength 13 or a Bard with Charisma 8 is at least feasible in OD&D (and perhaps even in 5E) if maybe more "fun" than "workable" it is unthinkable in PF2. And by that I literally mean that nothing about this game even considers such an eventuality - everything instead expects you to fight nail and tooth for every little +1.

Consider this: if a Wizard is expected to enjoy having her main contribution to a fight be debuffing the monsters by slapping a -1 penalty on them, somethinga 5E player might consider the most boring and least flashy contribution ever; what do you think the designers would think about a character that voluntarily abstains from a +1 already from the start - and remember, that's a permanent decision; you will never be able to catch up.

So it isn't that you "have" to have a maxed stat. Instead, as Magic Sword says, there's just no reason not to.

There was no reason implemented in the game since it suggests the player are interested in more of a friendly casual game, and everything about PF2 is instead geared up for a competitive game where every little +1 is intended to mean a lot.

 

[CapnZapp]

My group's opinion is that anything below an 18 is terrible for a primary stat, and will feel super bad, so I'd go with what they say, given that they seem to do better than most of the people I read about, and with harder encounters.

Word.

I tried suggesting adding randomness to character generation. Not quite "roll 3d6 in order" but at least "you get the chance of starting with 20 if you also accept the risk of starting with 16".

No dice.

I got push-back so hard I was completely blindsided. All players unanimously decreed that while a 20 was nice it was not worth the risk of starting with a 16, despite that only being -1 compared to the standard.

After recovering from the shock (random chargen is after all core to the D&D experience) I of course acquiesced and dropped the idea (going with the standard char-build rules). But it really opened my eyes to how important each +1 bonus really is viewed from the player side (as I'm the GM I hadn't really looked into the particulars of building my own character)

 

[meltdownpass]

Yes. If you read the CRB, this will not be indicated at all. You'd think Medicine is just one skill out of many. You'd think the Heal spell is just one spell out of many.

But in reality the CRB should have said "if you opt to play a party without both these options, you'll be playing the game on Nightmare mode".

If your characters are dead -- Are you really playing?

Since every +1 is so valuable, it really is not worth it to start with 16 instead of 18 just because you get to put a 14 instead of a 12 in something else (or whatever).

Pathfinder 2 is the literal opposite of those other D&D games where your ability scores are more descriptive in nature, but doesn't change much about your character's statistical prowess, as it were. Put otherwise, while playing a Fighter with Strength 13 or a Bard with Charisma 8 is at least feasible in OD&D (and perhaps even in 5E) if maybe more "fun" than "workable" it is unthinkable in PF2. And by that I literally mean that nothing about this game even considers such an eventuality - everything instead expects you to fight nail and tooth for every little +1.

If I were running a PF2 game I would probably houserule that whatever your class's primary attribute is, automatically consider that an 18 irrespective of stat boosts. This might mess with the game's math a little bit, but messing with the math in the players' favor is fine in this game.

 

[kenada]

Word.

I tried suggesting adding randomness to character generation. Not quite "roll 3d6 in order" but at least "you get the chance of starting with 20 if you also accept the risk of starting with 16".

No dice.

I got push-back so hard I was completely blindsided. All players unanimously decreed that while a 20 was nice it was not worth the risk of starting with a 16, despite that only being -1 compared to the standard.

After recovering from the shock (random chargen is after all core to the D&D experience) I of course acquiesced and dropped the idea (going with the standard char-build rules). But it really opened my eyes to how important each +1 bonus really is viewed from the player side (as I'm the GM I hadn't really looked into the particulars of building my own character)

I was going to reply to your first comment regarding randomizing ability scores, but this one is much more appropriate.

When I was prepping for my Winter’s Daughter one-shot, I looked at randomizing ability scores. I don’t think there’s any dice-based method that will work out well for PF2. The possible spread of results is just too high. However, the card method (with an appropriate distribution of cards) pair with gradual boosts seems to work out okay.

I’m not going to delve into which distribution of cards is most appropriate (because I’m not really sure, though I think I used 445556778899), but as long as you start with a 17, then you can take a gradual boost at 2nd level and be on par with someone who started with an 18 and took one (17 + 2 = 18 + 1).

However, that’s not going to be for everyone or even many people. My group likes the card method, so it’s an easy sell. What I think Paizo should have done is used the Beginner Box method in core. You get three boosts with your class, and you have no option to spend them a different way. All you have to do is pair an appropriate ancestry or background with your class to max things out.

For new GMs, it might be worth looking at what the BB does, but it’s going to require a bit of work to use at the table. A quick conversion of the core method to the BB method might look something like:

• Ancestry: drop the flaw and free boost (e.g., a goblin gets a Dexterity boost and a Charisma boost).
• Background: drop the free boost (e.g., the artist background gives you a choice of a Dexterity or a Charisma boost).
• Class: start with 16 in your primary ability score and get 3 free boosts to spend on other scores.
• Restriction: you cannot start with higher than an 18 in any score. Any boosts that would take you over 18 are lost.
• Optional: you can take two optional flaws for a free boost. The free boost may be spent on any score except for the ones boosted by your ancestry.

My players managed to mess up the default character creation procedure. They forgot to spend boosts (including a full set of free boosts). The BB method makes things work a little more like older editions without having rolling and without the fiddliness of point buy.

 

[kenada]

Is this true? If so, it makes me a bit sad. I hate the idea that you have to have a maxed stat.

You get tons of boosts by default. Unless you avoid spending boosts on your primary score, it’s going to be maxed out or close to it. I wish the game had embraced a wider spread of scores (to make alternate methods of score generation more feasible), but it didn’t.

 

[dave2008]

You get tons of boosts by default. Unless you avoid spending boosts on your primary score, it’s going to be maxed out or close to it. I wish the game had embraced a wider spread of scores (to make alternate methods of score generation more feasible), but it didn’t.

Is there no random stat generation? I will have to look at the character creation rules again (it has been close to 2 years), but I am not liking what I am hearing. It seems very rigid.

 

[kenada]

Is there no random stat generation? I will have to look at the character creation rules again (it has been close to 2 years), but I am not liking what I am hearing. It seems very rigid.

There is, but it’s not the default.

My guess is Paizo went this route as an alternate way of solving the problem with classes in PF1 that were multiple ability dependent. Instead of making it easy to attack and deal damage with your primary stat (like 4e and 5e), they give out tons of boosts instead, so MAD classes have an easier time keeping up.

If you rolled ability scores in PF1, MAD was less of an issue because the nature of the method provides for starting with multiple high ability scores, which is impossible in point buy.

Another way to solve the MAD issue is to give out point buy points as characters gain levels. Because of the increasing costs for higher scores, MAD classes have an easier time catching up. That’s what I did in PF1, and that’s how the point buy variant in the GMG works. The only tweak to the variant I’d suggest making is increasing the starting points from 15 to 25, which yields characters closer in power to those made using the boost method.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Is there no random stat generation? I will have to look at the character creation rules again (it has been close to 2 years), but I am not liking what I am hearing. It seems very rigid.

Its an optional rule. I would say the regular rule isn't actually very restrictive , the reason is because of the way stat generation actually works and its place in the rest of the game. You start with 10s, and each category of starting character creation gives you boosts (+2 each, until you hit 18, in which case it becomes based off what you picked.

So pretend I'm playing a farmer turned fighter.

Being a fighter gives me a boost to my choice of Strength or Dexterity.

Being a Dwarf gives me a Boost to Constitution, and a Boost to Wisdom, as well as a Free Boost (as well as a flaw to Charisma, -2)

Being a Farmhand for my background gives me Constitution OR Wisdom for another boost, and a Free Boost

Then I have 4 boosts I'm directed to apply to different stats.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Dwarf can actually do either Strength or Dexterity equally well, but I'll go with Strength for the classic sort of Dwarf, so I'll take that in my Fighter choice.

My Free boost from being a Dwarf will also go to Strength since I already get Constitution and Wisdom from it.

My farmhand is going to take whichever for the choice (they're both fine choices) and make the Free Boost Strength.

Then for my four boosts, I'll throw one last boost into Strength, One into Constitution, One into Wisdom, and finally Dexterity, Intelligence, or Charisma. In this case probably dexterity or intelligence, since Charisma is already dumped (incidentally, if I have a Dwarven Sorcerer, there's an optional flaw rule I can use to get that up to the same degree my Strength is here) so I'll go with Dexterity for the example and for sneaking/reflex. This gets me to something like

18 Strength, 14 Constitution, 14 Wisdom, 12 Dexterity, 10 Intelligence, 8 Charisma

without changing the actual choice of class/background/ancestry it could just as easily become:

18 Strength, 16 Constitution, 12 Wisdom, 12 Dexterity, 10 Intelligence, 8 Charisma, or many other similar permutations, especially with different ancestry and background choices-- this same fighter could be quite intelligent, stealthy, or even charismatic if I really want. Having 18 strength is important for me to hit reliably, but I'm still making a lot of choices. Every few levels after this will give me more boosts, while I'll want to continue raising strength, each time it happens I get 3 other choices that can't be strength, and your progression speed halves after a stat hits 18. So I can put it in whatever suits my concept of my Fighter, and I can choose whether to bring anything else past 18 or not to be more specialized or more well rounded.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Honestly, its more customization than any other d20 TTRPG I've played, my stats usually felt more constrained in 5e because while you could tank your primary it was never actually a good idea, and even the 'still kind of valid' 16 I used on Gish builds wasn't adding much customization at that point.

 

[dave2008]

Its an optional rule. I would say the regular rule isn't actually very restrictive , the reason is because of the way stat generation actually works and its place in the rest of the game. You start with 10s, and each category of starting character creation gives you boosts (+2 each, until you hit 18, in which case it becomes based off what you picked.

Thank you for the clarification; however, you misunderstood (I failed to explain) what I meant by restrictive. What I meant by restrictive is the idea you have to have an 18 in your primary stat to be effective. Not how you get to your stats.