FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Unless you are looking at a MAD class. Though no worse than standard array I suppose
Pathfinder 2E Are you moving from 5E to PF2?
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
Unless you are looking at a MAD class. Though no worse than standard array I suppose
Argyle King
Legend
I feel as though I still don't have much of an idea about for what playstyle PF2 is aiming.
Emirikol Prime
Explorer
Probably easier to just give them a different array.
That could be done. I just like the way P2 does it.
Our PF1 group has now spent a couple of weeks with PF2. Our experience wasn't as positive as some of the people in this thread and we're currently weighing whether to give 5e a try once our current campaign is over.
Our main issue is what we see as an over-emphasis on simplicity and standardization, which is ironically what drove us from 4e to PF1 in the first place. If some PF1 gamers struggled to add up numbers from multiple tables for their multiclassed characters, we don't see why PF2's answer was to take away flexible multiclassing entirely and replace it with a few feats. If some PF1 players had trouble keeping track of skill points at every level, we don't understand why PF2's answer was to remove most of the granularity and replace it with 5 skill ranks, especially when it's so easy for characters to start life with a couple of ranks and hence have only a couple more to go over their 20-level career. And if some PF1 players were bewildered when their class let them choose a feat from a large list, we don't see why PF2's response was to take away those options and ensure players are nearly always choosing from a highly circumscribed list.
For these reasons and others, we don't fully agree with those who say the PF2 ruleset reduces complexity without sacrificing depth. However there were also some positive features of the new ruleset. We found champions to be a nice and logical evolution of the paladin and inquisitor classes, for example. We really liked the new sorcerer class which finally permits spontaneous divine spellcasting without the sometimes-tedious idiosyncrasies of the oracle class. We were intrigued by the new occult power source as well as the fleshing-out of the bard's spell list. We even thought the paring-back of animal companions and sneak attack damage made sense, though a few players joked they'd need to seriously rework their builds.
Our group will make a final decision later this year on which ruleset to use for our next campaign. In the meantime, best wishes to all who are struggling with similar decisions as well as those who are happier with how PF2 turned out.
Our main issue is what we see as an over-emphasis on simplicity and standardization, which is ironically what drove us from 4e to PF1 in the first place. If some PF1 gamers struggled to add up numbers from multiple tables for their multiclassed characters, we don't see why PF2's answer was to take away flexible multiclassing entirely and replace it with a few feats. If some PF1 players had trouble keeping track of skill points at every level, we don't understand why PF2's answer was to remove most of the granularity and replace it with 5 skill ranks, especially when it's so easy for characters to start life with a couple of ranks and hence have only a couple more to go over their 20-level career. And if some PF1 players were bewildered when their class let them choose a feat from a large list, we don't see why PF2's response was to take away those options and ensure players are nearly always choosing from a highly circumscribed list.
For these reasons and others, we don't fully agree with those who say the PF2 ruleset reduces complexity without sacrificing depth. However there were also some positive features of the new ruleset. We found champions to be a nice and logical evolution of the paladin and inquisitor classes, for example. We really liked the new sorcerer class which finally permits spontaneous divine spellcasting without the sometimes-tedious idiosyncrasies of the oracle class. We were intrigued by the new occult power source as well as the fleshing-out of the bard's spell list. We even thought the paring-back of animal companions and sneak attack damage made sense, though a few players joked they'd need to seriously rework their builds.
Our group will make a final decision later this year on which ruleset to use for our next campaign. In the meantime, best wishes to all who are struggling with similar decisions as well as those who are happier with how PF2 turned out.
Those middle two paragraphs did an excellent job of summarizing how I have felt thus far and some of the discussions some folks in my midweek game have had.
Wiseblood
Adventurer
I will be trying it.....but, So far we have made characters and that alone is enough for me to give it a hard pass. I do not like any of the design considerations. Nor the art direction. I am again confronted by a nagging suspicion that modern RPG’s “customization” is an illusion.
mach1.9pants
Hero
I'm not sure if 5e is for you, which is even simpler and just as standardized. There is certainly much less character customisation
Kaodi
Legend
Just saw the news about Eberron on, oddly enough, GameSpot, and there was a comment trying to explain what Dragonmarks are and suddenly it made me kinda think that Dragonmarks for Eberron were kind of like prototype PF2 archetypes. And then it made me wonder how you would actually go about implementing Dragonmarks in PF2 because multiclass spellcasting feats do so much more than Dragonmark feats did. Ironically could you ever go a different route and make Dragonmarks Heritages with their own Ancestry feats? Just some random thoughts I just had.
Aldarc
Legend
I'm not sure if Dragonmarks would work as heritages, because they would compete with half-elf and half-orc heritages for humans.
Similar Threads
