I assume you mean Sorcerer per the bloodlines, right? I thought that too. He is currently a Fighter 1/Warlock 5, and his patron is Vecna (don't ask ). I think the Undying Sorc with a Fighter Archetype might work.There is definitely overlap between the 5e Warlock and the PF2 Warlock. It is certainly not perfect, but it is workable. (The playtest version of the PF2 Witch will also be available in October.) There are bloodlines that correspond fairly closely with the available Warlock patrons: GOO (Aberrant), Archfey (Fey, Hag), Fiend (Diabolic, Demonic), Undying (Undead), and Celestial (Angelic).
Well... It is just much more work, right? I don't want my campaign to start to derail to a lot of customizations when I can have it ready and accessible. I'm already using most of the officially released material for 5E, and there are barely any customizations for the wizard, for example. PF2 brings a lot of interesting character customization just with the Core book, with Class, Skill and Ancestry Feats.It might be easier to just add the depth you want to your 5e game. There are lots of resources on these forums, UA reddit, and the DMsGuild to help with that task.
Not to me. It would be much more difficult for me and my group to completely switch systems. We introduce house rules all the time, so we can do that on the fly. But make a change from 5e to PF2e, that would be a hard stop reboot I would think.Well... It is just much more work, right?
Yes, my mistake. I meant that the PF2 Sorcerer can work for the 5e Warlock. They could take Sorcerer (Undead Bloodline) with the Fighter dedication archetype. They will not get armor proficiencies, but armor proficiency in itself does not have the same weight in PF2 as it does in 5e. When they eventually open up Champion options for Neutral and Evil alignments, that would probably be a good choice for your player, since they could declare Vecna as their deity while picking up armor proficiencies.I assume you mean Sorcerer per the bloodlines, right? I thought that too. He is currently a Fighter 1/Warlock 5, and his patron is Vecna (don't ask ). I think the Undying Sorc with a Fighter Archetype might work.
Same here. I've played it twice now, and it's not the "crunchier version of 5e" that I wanted it to be. It is certainly crunchier though, and the variety of characters you can create is a thousand times bigger than 5e. And that 3 action system is great.I probably will try to play some PF2 but 5E will remain my main game. I still really want something in between 5E and Pathfinder but I don't think PF2 is quite how I'd envisioned it. I really love the three-action system, though.
I think this edition could benefit from a more laid out "here's actions you can take on your turn" type of sheet, kind of like what was had with "power cards" in 4E. Maybe that would help with players who aren't as engaged by the tactical applications. Or maybe that would be even more confusing, I'm not sure.Now that I've read the core rules, I'm even more excited to run the game. Lots to cool elements to this design.
However, anyone who suggests this is a straightforward game is kidding themselves. It's a considerable step up in complexity from 5E. My worry is that I have a couple players at my table of the 'just show up and play' variety, so there will be a lot more hand holding than I have to do with 5E.
Absolutely. The number of mechanically-defined actions a PC can take has to number in the dozens. At the very least a summary sheet would be extremely helpful. Because I sure as heck won't be able to remember them all when I'm running a game.I think this edition could benefit from a more laid out "here's actions you can take on your turn" type of sheet, kind of like what was had with "power cards" in 4E.