log in or register to remove this ad

 

PF2E Complexity vs. Depth -- A Look Inside Pathfinder 2nd Edition

One of the biggest tabletop RPG releases of the decade, Pathfinder 2nd Edition launches today at Gen Con. Many of us have playtested it, others have watched streams and podcasts, but this is the big day. Here are my thoughts on the new iteration of this classic game. I'm assuming here that you're basically familiar with either Pathfinder 1E or D&D 5E.

pf_cover.jpg



Background
Before I start this look at the Pathfinder 2nd Edition core rulebook, let me explain my background so that you can contextualize it. I was a big fan of D&D 3E and 3.5 back in the early 2000s and ran two multi-year campaigns with that ruleset (one being Age of Worms from Paizo). When the D&D 4E/Pathfinder edition war happened, I ran one long 4E campaign (our own War of the Burning Sky adventure path). After that, I played through the Kingmaker AP for Pathfinder as a player, ran a couple of D&D 5E storylines (loved Strahd!), and I've run about half the Pathfinder 2E playtest but having received my pre-ordered copy of the materials after they were on store shelves, struggled to keep up with the pace and eventually bowed out.

Going in to this: I was a fan of the 3.x ruleset, but felt a little left behind after a while with PF1 in terms of system mastery, rules boat, and setting lore. I didn't get on super-well with the playtest, so I was slightly wary as I opened this book. On the other hand, I do enjoy a bit of crunch in my games. A new jumping on point, you say? Let's take a look!

Overview
There are two important concepts to keep in mind when looking at this game: the difference between complexity and depth. I'd like to quickly define them as I use them, just in case your definitions are different. To me, complexity arises from multiple subsystems or different rules, or complicated rules. Depth, on the other hand, resides in the options and available customization. These two things can exist independently, and for me a game works best when it has low complexity but high depth.

The short version of this review: I think Paizo have pulled that off. Compared to PF1, they have reduced complexity. Compared to, say, D&D 5E, they have more depth. I would say that this game is about as complex as D&D 5E, but with more depth. The rules are more standardized than they used to be, but you have important choices at all stages of character development. If you don't want read this big wall of text of a review -- I like it, and it scratches an itch for me. I'm pretty sure I'll run it soon.

I find it amusing that Pathfinder 2nd Edition has the exact same page count as D&D 5th Edition. I don't know if that's a coincidence, some artifact of printing scales, or an inside joke at Paizo, but the Pathfinder 2E core rulebook is 640 pages, while the equivalent content, D&D's PHB plus DMG, is 639 pages. Basically, if you take the PHB and the DMG and smoosh them into one hardcover, it's the exact same size as the Pathfinder 2E core rulebook. Like, uncannily so.

Sticking with format, the edge of every right-hand page has a useful 'bar' which shows you where in the book you are. It's a big book, and this really helps with navigation (though I feel maybe adding each section's page number would help? Or maybe that would look too cluttered. Not sure!)

Screenshot 2019-08-02 at 00.06.39.png

The game now formally codifies some things which were not explicit in the original: the mechanics are divided into three "modes", namely encounter (rounds), exploration (freeform), and downtime (daily). And Golarion is officially the core, default setting and baked into the core rulebook, although under the pen-name of Age of Lost Omens. I don't know much about Golarion or the Forgotten Realms myself (I know FR has a Drizzt in it), and I'm not really a settings guy, but all of Paizo's adventure paths take place in that setting, so the chapter is useful.

Characters
So, let's look at the rules, starting with character creation. A character is built out of feats, which are chosen from lists granted by ancestry (what was once 'race'), background, and class.

At each stage you get a choice of from two to about six feats -- for example, if you choose the dwarf ancestry, you choose one of six feats at first level, then one at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th. The effect of this is that any two dwarves are not the same; ignoring the heritages (basically 'sub-races') which grant minor tweaks like fire or poison resistance, a dwarf is going to choose between the familiar stonecunning, or something like dwarven ore, rock runner, unburdened iron, and so on. And this is what I mean by depth v. complexity: it's easy (you are just choosing one of six feats) but it's deeper (you have more customization to your race); plus you become more like your race as you go up in levels and get more of those race feats. Your ancestry keeps being important. You become more and more dwarfy.


Screenshot 2019-08-02 at 00.08.17.png



The races are the standard list you'd expect; plus a goblin. Each race has a handful of heritages (sub-races), and half-orc and half-elf are now human heritages.

Moving on to classes, again we're looking at a fairly typical list. The Paladin is now a "Champion", and each class has some sample builds such as the Rogue Scoundrel, or the Ranger Archer. Like with race, you have a free choice of class feats from a list presented in that class -- the Alchemist, for example, has a choice of three at 1st level, three at 2nd level, and again at 4th, 6th, etc. This means that your Alchemist will differ from your friend's Alchemist. Low complexity (you're just choosing from a short list of feats again) but high depth (two characters of the same class can be customized by a choice of three options every other level).

There are other bits -- archetypes (used to pseudo-multiclass) and backgrounds (each gives ability adjustments, skills, and a feat) which customize your character a little more.

Feats & Skills
As with previous editions of both Pathfinder and D&D, this game features the expected skill list. It's familiar ground; each iteration of the d20 engine has a similar list, with some tweaking. In this case we have a list of 17. PF1 and D&D 3.x had skill ranks which went from 0 upwards (a bard character in my Age of Worms D&D 3E campaign was rolling something like +40 on Use Magic Device by the end of the campaign). D&D 5E simplified that to a binary skill proficiency - you're proficient, or you're not. Pathfinder 2E takes a middle ground - there are five skill levels called untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary. Some skill uses require a certain skill level, and can give access to certain skill feats (there's feats again!)

I keep talking about feats. There's a reason for that. Feats are the core of the game's depth: everything is a feat. Race feats, class feats, archetype feats, skill feats, general feats. You can very much customize your character with your choice of feats. At each level you'll be choosing one or more feats. These are literally on the character sheet, so you can see them, and simply fill in the box. That character sheet isn't pretty, but its very functional. You can see them below -- the character sheet tells you what feats you are choosing at any given level and - more importantly - while the game has a lot of feats in it, at any given time you're choosing from a short list. At 5th level, you get an ancestry feat, but you're only choosing from a small handful for your race at that level.


Screenshot 2019-07-30 at 23.22.09.png



It's easy to think that a game with a thousand feats is too complex. It's not. You never have to choose from a thousand feats; you're always choosing from a short list for that level of ancestry, class, skill, or what-have-you. Low complexity. High depth.

Equipment
Like all games of its ilk, PF2 has an equipment chapter. Pathfinder delves into equipment in more detail than its main competitor, but it's not onerous -- about 25 pages of the book. It's mainly familiar ground, with some structural differences -- equipment has a level which defines how hard it is to make, and encumbrance is measured in an abstract value called 'bulk' which takes into account size and weight. Then we have the usual lists of armor, shields, weapons, and gear, including alchemical stuff, animals, services, and so on. When I ran the playtest last year, I struggled with the sheer volume of keywords in the game - especially when they sounded similar, like a weapon that was deadly or fatal (aren't they all?), finesse or agile, and this hasn't changed; it's something which will come naturally with familiarity, I'm sure. Overall, though, this chapter is pretty much what you'd expect.

Magic
So, spells. Magic is a BIG part D&D and Pathfinder, and this book is no exception. You know when you buy a D&D descendant what you're getting into: a big 120-page chapter full of spells. Many you'll be familiar with -- your magic missiles and fireballs and walls of stone and so on. We have lists of spells for four magical traditions -- arcane and divine, plus primal and occult. These four big lists tell you which classes get access to them (wizards cast arcane spells, bards cast occult spells, druids cast primal spells, and so on), and each of the many, many spells listed in the book is tagged with one or more of those four lists.

The schools of magic are familiar, and Vancian magic is still king. Vancian magic has been D&D's core 'fire and forget' spell slot system since the 1970s, based on the books of Jack Vance. So what's changed?

For a start, we now have 10 spell levels (plus cantrips) rather than the traditional 9. All four lists go up to 10, and that top level contains the heavy hitters like wish, gate, time stop, and cataclysm. Generally speaking, you'll only ever have one 10th level spell slot, although there is a way to get a second. You can 'heighten' spells by putting them in a higher level spell slot, and each spell has a little list of what benefits that gives you - usually it's a numerical or damage increase, but other times it's an upgrade in functionality - a 1st level detect alignment, for example, indicates the presence of but not location or strength of aligned auras. If you heighten it to 2nd level, however, you get each aura's location and strength, too.

Most spells take between 1-3 actions to cast (more on the 'three-action economy' later), and this is depicted by a nifty little icon in the spell description. 2 actions seems to be the default, some like guidance take a quick single action, and some vary depending how you use the spell - magic missile is one action per missile, heal increases its range and area depending on how many actions you use, and so on. Others take minutes or longer. Here's magic missile and heal, as an example:

mmhe.jpg


The Core Rules
Pathfinder has a reputation for having a lot of rules. This is where a lot of work has been done. Rather than many subsystems, or weird ways of doing different things, Paizo has streamlined the game here; going back to my theme of reduced complexity, this is the obvious area you'll see the effects. Anybody familiar with d20-based games knows that a check or attack is a d20 plus modifiers to beat a target number, and this hasn't changed, though the actual numbers are slightly different (skills have a limited tier of modifiers rather than running from 0 to infinity).

Sadly, the many itty bitty modifiers are still in there (I love D&D's advantage/disadvantage system, though I recognise it's lack of granularity), but Paizo has done something interesting here: all checks, whether an attack, a save, or a skill check, have four degrees of success baked into the core. You can critically succeed (beat the target by 10+), succeed, fail, or fumble (miss the target by 10+). Many activities tell you exactly what happens in those situations. Let's look at a couple of examples:

Skill Check using Acrobatics to balance:

  • Critical Success You move up to your Speed.
  • Success You move up to your Speed, treating it as difficult terrain (every 5 feet costs 10 feet of movement).
  • Failure You must remain stationary to keep your balance (wasting the action) or you fall. If you fall, your turn ends.
  • Critical Failure You fall and your turn ends.

Saving against the 5th level banishment spell:
  • Critical Success The target resists being banished and you are stunned 1.
  • Success The target resists being banished.
  • Failure The target is banished.
  • Critical Failure The target is banished and can’t return by any means to the plane it’s banished from for 1 week.
You'll see this all throughout the book, whatever the activity.

Combat
Combat has had quite an overhaul. It's faster now, and a little more tactical. I feel like characters are making meaningful choices more often, but from our playtests, I really did feel it ran quicker. Time will tell with big convoluted encounters and high-level stat blocks, of course, the latter of which Pathfinder is famous for.

Notably, there isn't a big section called "Combat". The section is called "Encounter Mode".

Combat begins with Initiative, as always. Initiative has been tweaked here; instead of rolling d20 plus a dex modifier, instead you are making a skill check. The fun part is that it's not always the same skill check -- often it will be Perception, but a sneaky rogue might be rolling Stealth, and sometimes you might even be rolling a Diplomacy check! Even if you don't play PF2E, use this in your d20 game, whatever it is.

Screenshot 2019-08-02 at 00.26.39.png

Each character gets three actions, in what people are calling the new "three-action economy". This is a big change. Any given activity takes between 1-3 actions (most are one action, spells are often 2-3, and so on). You could move three times, move and attack twice, attack and then move then cast a 1-action spell, or whatever you like. Available actions are listed, and include things like Aid, Crawl, Ready, Seek, Step, Take Cover, and more. Something those who played the playtest will recall, and which is still in, is the choice to take an action to Raise A Shield in order to gain an AC bonus until your next turn; this initially sounds fiddly and extra complication where it's not needed... but it's not. It works. Everyone I played with reported that it made it feel like their shield was a thing, not just a static bonus on their character sheet, and that its use was a defensive choice (after all, you could use that action to attack or move). It's a little innovation which adds far more to the game than it has any right to do.

Screenshot 2019-08-02 at 00.28.10.png

What happens when you die? Well, you can't go below 0 hit points. At that stage you gain the "Dying" condition, which has four levels. Each round you roll to see if you get better or worse, and if you get to Dying 4 you're dead. If you do recover, you gain the Wounded condition, which adds to future Dying values - so you can't keep bouncing up and down; it'll catch up with you. Other than that, you have a fairly standard set of conditions - blinded, fatigued, invisible, and so on.

Game Mastering
This 40-page section of the book is part GM advice, and part collection of miscellaneous rules. Here you'll find the rules for environments, hazards, natural disasters, and traps. You'll also see mechanical advice on appropriate rewards, setting difficulty classes, and using the different modes of play. And, of course, information on how to plan a campaign, create a welcoming environment (there's a sidebar which calls out X-Cards as a veil, and a section on dealing with objectionable content, with a description of what the game's assumed "baseline" is -- PCs don't torture, rape, own slaves, harm children, and so on). It's a useful chapter, although it feels a little eclectic; a grab-bag of stuff that doesn't quite fit elsewhere.

Treasure!
No d20 game is complete without a big list of magic items, and those familiar with PF1 or D&D will recognise many of these. Interestingly, this chapter is actually called "Crafting & Treasure"; 3.x and PF always had a crafting element to magic items, and PF2 is no exception. It's one thing that 5E studiously avoids.

So, in addition to pages and pages of wands, potions, amulets, and other assorted magical items (the categories have actually changed a bit) we have a big section on crafting items. You can make things out of special materials like darkwood or cold iron, and you make them magic by etching runes on them - runes like Invisibility, Dancing, Thundering, Vorpal, and so on. There's also a section on crafting snares (simple traps).

That Character Sheet
The character sheet is not a pretty sight. It looks like a tax form, and I feel like it alone could put people off this game. But it IS functional. The feats section pretty much tells you what you need to know about the game: you start by looking at it and saying "ten million feats!" but then you realise you're just picking a couple from a different short list each time, and the character sheet tells you when you do that. It's much more manageable than you might think at first. I can see why people might balk at this sheet, but I'm sure that fans will create dozens of pretty ones within hours of the game's release.

Screenshot 2019-07-31 at 14.41.57.png

Summary
This was always going to be a tricky launch. Somehow Paizo has to keep the fans of PF1E on board, many of whom are veterans of the D&D 3.x games, switched over when 4E was released and are naturally invested in that system by definition; but the game has reached peak bloat, the engine is 18 years old, and its cracks are really showing. Is that even possible?

For me personally, they pulled it off. They have reduced complexity AND increased depth. I know I keep saying that, but that's the thing I keep coming back to and it's the theme of this article.

Is it perfect? No. It's too keyword heavy for my tastes (requiring a lot of "what does 'deadly' mean?" at the table), and that requires time to gain mastery in. I feel that, if anything, would be the barrier to new gamers. Also, there's still lots of those little +1 or +2 modifiers or penalties which I find too finicky.

But it is good. It's a really good evolution of the d20 system. It's modern game design, with heritage. And it feels weighty in a "reliable" not a "cumbersome" way. Is it D&D 5E? No. Is it D&D 4E? No (although the monster stat blocks do remind me of that game in terms of layout). It is neither of those things. It's very much Pathfinder 2E. Of course, there are some general design principles which are found in most modern RPGs, some of which 5E and 4E created and others which they adopted from elsewhere, and you will see the edges of the Venn diagram overlap with Pathfinder 2E, but it would be a mistake to think it's not its own game.

So who's it for? If you're a new player, it may be a little intimidating as a first game, but the complexity is about on par with D&D 5E. If you're a 5E player, it has some extra depth where 5E leans more into the storytelling, and might scratch that itch for a little more mechanical heft and character customization. If you're a Pathfinder 1E player, it's more difficult -- it depends on how invested you are in that system, and I'm not yet clear on the level of backward compatibility.

Things I personally struggled with:
  • Lots of keywords. I'll be looking up the difference between deadly, dangerous, fatal, and mildly-ouchy weapons for a while (OK, I made two of those up); I'm sure the designers are thinking "What? But that's so simple!" and I am sure it is after a bit of play.
  • Lots of small +1 modifiers.
The people I think would like this game are those who, like me:
  • Like Pathfinder 1E but would like a more modern, streamlined play experience than the aging 3.x engine
  • Like D&D 5E but would like a bit more mechanical depth
  • Were intimidated by the sheer volume of Pathfinder 1E material and are looking for a jumping-on point
  • Want to customise their character more
I wasn't sure going in, but I think this is a better game than its predecessor and scratches an itch for mechanical depth. I'm going to run it.
 
Last edited:
Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Aldarc

Legend
I hear your concerns about shield usage.

However, for me a much more pressing concern is static, boring combats. If you can't move without sacrificing something really useful (an attack, using shield) it's far too often the case you will stay put, and just slog your way through the encounter. From a 5E perspective, that's an unwelcome return to 3E, and its lousy five-foot step

So if that's the case, the number one houserule needs to be something that fixes that.
From what I have seen in most actual plays of the game, that isn't the case. A lot of the combats that I have seen features movement and use of shields. But it's also part of the tactical decision-making process to decide whether you will raise your shield against attacks, in a system where criticals just require +10 against your AC, or taking another attack, though at a reduced attack bonus. I personally like the risk-reward that this action economy produces. Everything I have seen so far has been anything other than static combat. Actually quite the reverse. I have seen more static combat in 5e because some characters don't want to provoke opportunity attacks from moving or not properly disengaging.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kaodi

Adventurer
I looked through the Fighter feats and I think level 16 is the only level without a feat that can be used with basically any weapon. And I think there are at least two level 14 feats like that, so you would not be "losing" much if you went that route.

I am not sure if it only applies to tower shields (though it may only be worth it with a tower shield) but if for Raise A Shield and then use an additional action to Take Cover (behind the shield) you can get a bonus to Reflex saves as well. If you Take Cover with a tower shield it is +4 circumstance to AC and Reflex saves. What I am unsure of is if you can get a +2 bonus to Reflex saves with a regular shield that way. In 1e thought you had to use your standard action to take cover behind a tower shield. But in 2e, if you can accommodate the bulk and are in melee range already you can attack once and then take cover. And that could be meaningful against, say, large, iconic foes...
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I got defeated by the complexity of Paizos website

Couldn't find the PDF in the store following the link from the forums. I didn't have the homepage saved but that had the hardcover so back to the store which had trouble with anything 2E.

Eventually figured out to go to homepage, pick the PF2 hardcover and the you add PDF hoping I wasn't gonna get charged $75. Thankfully only the PDF was in the cart.

My card expired 2014 so I picked another payment option to switch to PayPal but it gave me new credit card details to fill out.

Gave up I'll dig up my card tomorrow and redo.
Anyway their site was cancer, didn't have trouble on the old DDI, RPGnow, DMGuild,EN5ider or buying off Kobold Press.

To be fair I probably expected to much like intuitive online shopping a'la Ebay circa 2004.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CapnZapp

Legend
Did you notice that your third attack is at -10? So a shield character is taking the decision between a +2 to it’s AC or a -10 attempt to hit
The problem is that this is not the true cost.

The true cost is devoting one of your two hands to something other than offense.

A shield character took the decision to not use a magical +3 Greatsword some fifteen levels later. The cost is the DPS differential between a top-of-the-line two-handed weapon and a top-of-the-line one-handed weapon.

Since Pathfinder apparently grants you one extra weapon die per plus, the difference is (at least) 4d12-4d8≈8 damage per attack (not counting the possibility two-handed weapon feats are better than one-handed weapon feats).

So a high-level character is taking the decision between +2 to AC and some damage reduction, and +8 to damage and some inferior third attack.

That damage reduction better be reliable enough and high enough to justify the loss of 8 damage each attack (at the very minimum). Not to mention how your reaction can't now be used for attacks of opportunity or somesuch (if PF2 is anything like 5E, you will want to make an extra attack using that reaction).

I leave it up to each of you to decide for yourself how much DR you will require in order to give up all that DPS, without which shields become a non-starter trap option.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dave2008

Legend
That would be +8 for expending all three actions, not +6.
I said it: "...+6 to your AC (on top of the base +2)." Which does equal +8, I didn't think that need to be clarified.

I like the idea but I would implement it without the free +2 you’ve suggested
To each his own. I don't like the cost of an action to gain the +2 bonus when in 3.5e/PF1e (and 5e) you get the bonus just for having the shield. I like it as a benefit if I want to make a choice to defend instead of attack (the additional +2 I mentioned), but I believe there should be a base assumption of defending oneself while wielding a shield. I feel a baseline +2 does that.
 

dave2008

Legend
I have seen more static combat in 5e because some characters don't want to provoke opportunity attacks from moving or not properly disengaging.
Wait, you don't get opportunity attacks in PF2e?

PS, not a problem I've seen in 5 years of 5e. Just the opposite, as DM I have a bit of a hard time keeping up with all of the movement now that it is virtually free. Even more movement then when we played 4e!
 

dave2008

Legend
I got defeated by the complexity of Paizos website

Couldn't find the PDF in the store following the link from the forums. I didn't have the homepage saved but that had the hardcover so back to the store which had trouble with anything 2E.

Eventually figured out to go to homepage, pick the PF2 hardcover and the you add PDF hoping I wasn't gonna get charged $75. Thankfully only the PDF was in the cart.

My card expired 2014 so I picked another payment option to switch to PayPal but it gave me new credit card details to fill out.

Gave up I'll dig up my card tomorrow and redo.
Anyway their site was cancer, didn't have trouble on the old DDI, RPGnow, DMGuild,EN5ider or buying off Kobold Press.

To be fair I probably expected to much like intuitive online shopping a'la Ebay circa 2004.

I had the same problem at first until I realized the didn't call it Pathfinder 2nd Edition, they just called it Pathfinder "Bestiary" & "Core Rulebook." I add to look carefully at the small image icon to realize it said second edition. Luckily my chart info was still saved. That being said I am not 100% sure I am getting the correct items as the chart doesn't mention anything about "2nd Edition." I little surprising really.
 

FowlJ

First Post
Wait, you don't get opportunity attacks in PF2e?

PS, not a problem I've seen in 5 years of 5e. Just the opposite, as DM I have a bit of a hard time keeping up with all of the movement now that it is virtually free. Even more movement then when we played 4e!

Fighters get opportunity attacks, several other classes, as well as characters that multiclass fighter, have either the option of getting AoO or a similar reaction attack ability. Most monsters also lack AoO.
 

Kurviak

Explorer
The problem is that this is not the true cost.

The true cost is devoting one of your two hands to something other than offense.

A shield character took the decision to not use a magical +3 Greatsword some fifteen levels later. The cost is the DPS differential between a top-of-the-line two-handed weapon and a top-of-the-line one-handed weapon.

Since Pathfinder apparently grants you one extra weapon die per plus, the difference is (at least) 4d12-4d8≈8 damage per attack (not counting the possibility two-handed weapon feats are better than one-handed weapon feats).

So a high-level character is taking the decision between +2 to AC and some damage reduction, and +8 to damage and some inferior third attack.

That damage reduction better be reliable enough and high enough to justify the loss of 8 damage each attack (at the very minimum). Not to mention how your reaction can't now be used for attacks of opportunity or somesuch (if PF2 is anything like 5E, you will want to make an extra attack using that reaction).

I leave it up to each of you to decide for yourself how much DR you will require in order to give up all that DPS, without which shields become a non-starter trap option.

Shields also scale, you know? And having the shield risen doesn’t preclude you to use a different reaction if the situation enables a different one
 

Puggins

Explorer
Supporter
Since Pathfinder apparently grants you one extra weapon die per plus, the difference is (at least) 4d12-4d8≈8 damage per attack (not counting the possibility two-handed weapon feats are better than one-handed weapon feats).

So a high-level character is taking the decision between +2 to AC and some damage reduction, and +8 to damage and some inferior third attack.

That damage reduction better be reliable enough and high enough to justify the loss of 8 damage each attack (at the very minimum). Not to mention how your reaction can't now be used for attacks of opportunity or somesuch (if PF2 is anything like 5E, you will want to make an extra attack using that reaction).

I leave it up to each of you to decide for yourself how much DR you will require in order to give up all that DPS, without which shields become a non-starter trap option.


Static bonuses no longer scale through the roof when you wield weapons in two hands. Lots (most?) of characters now get static bonuses per die that don't scale out with 2h, and strength doesn't scale either. That DPS bonus isn't as big as you think it is percentage-wise.

A paladin with master-level proficiency and 20 strength and a +3 weapons at 15th level hits for 4d8 + 11 with a long sword or 4d12 + 11 with a great sword. 29 vs 37. Also, they have an additional reaction used only for shield block and can also use it to protect their allies. This doesn't include smite evil, which would take the comparison to 35 to 43- less than a 20% loss of damage.

And the sword n' board can always use an AOO if they have it too- they just have the option to reduce damage instead, an options the 2h-wielder doesn't (and again, to higher level characters that option is free).
 


dave2008

Legend
Fighters get opportunity attacks, several other classes, as well as characters that multiclass fighter, have either the option of getting AoO or a similar reaction attack ability. Most monsters also lack AoO.

Thank you for the clarification. I don't mind restricting it to certain classes. There is some sense in that. Do you have to multiclass or is there a feat that would allow you to take OA?

However, I would give most monsters OA if I ever DM'd PF2e
 

dave2008

Legend
A paladin with master-level proficiency and 20 strength and a +3 weapons at 15th level hits for 4d8 + 11 with a long sword or 4d12 + 11 with a great sword. 29 vs 37. .
That is the +8 @CapnZapp mentioned i believe. Which is per attack? That is quite frankly - huge. I haven't looked at monsters yet, but that is quite a big difference in damage.

EDIT: missed the part where you said the static bonus doesn't apply to latter attacks in the action economy. Is that correct? If so, ugh - that might be worse. I will have to take a closer look, but the more I hear the less I am liking what I hear! I still think there are good ideas I can use in my game, but I don't know that I will run PF2e
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Parmandur

Legend
That is the +8 @CapnZapp mentioned i believe. Which is per attack? That is quite frankly - huge. I haven't looked at monsters yet, but that is quite a big difference in damage.

EDIT: missed the part where you said the static bonus doesn't apply to latter attacks in the action economy. Is that correct? If so, ugh - that might be worse. I will have to take a closer look, but the more I hear the less I am liking what I hear! I still think there are good ideas I can use in my game, but I don't know that I will run PF2e

For me, it is both too involved (compared to 5E, Powered by the Apocalypse, FATE, or other more fuzzy systems), and not involved enough (compared to GURPs, Hero or other highly detailed systems). There's something to be said for a golden mean, but I'm not feeling elegance.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
That is the +8 @CapnZapp mentioned i believe. Which is per attack? That is quite frankly - huge. I haven't looked at monsters yet, but that is quite a big difference in damage.

EDIT: missed the part where you said the static bonus doesn't apply to latter attacks in the action economy. Is that correct? If so, ugh - that might be worse. I will have to take a closer look, but the more I hear the less I am liking what I hear! I still think there are good ideas I can use in my game, but I don't know that I will run PF2e

I think it's fair to say this game isn't for you. It's OK -- there are other games. :)
 

Kaodi

Adventurer
Playing around with other multi-class possibilities, and I think there might be more system mastery than I have so far involved in choose whether taking archetype class feats can be "good" . Right now trading a class feat for one of another class with half the level does not seem numerically great, but then I do not know what all the feats *do* yet.

In any case, I was making a half-elf martial disciple fighter/rogue-alchemist-monk with starting stats Str 16 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 10 and seeing how many dedications I could get out of it. Had to take alchemist with my level 9 multitalented (half-elves can ignore stat requirements with that one) because of the Int. By the time I got to high level feats I am not sure a level 16 and 18 fighter feat were worth trading for 2 extra trained skills, powerful fist, and a +2 bonus to will saves. But who knows? Save 20, of course, for weapon supremacy. Would be interesting to see how it worked out in practice.

ancestry feats
9: multitalented/alchemist dedication

class feats
2: rogue dedication
4: sneak attacker
6: advantageous assault
8: blind-fight
10: expert alchemy
12: master alchemy
14: uncanny dodge
16: monk dedication
18: perfection's path/will
20: weapon supremacy
 

CapnZapp

Legend
EDIT: missed the part where you said the static bonus doesn't apply to latter attacks in the action economy. Is that correct? If so, ugh - that might be worse. I will have to take a closer look, but the more I hear the less I am liking what I hear! I still think there are good ideas I can use in my game, but I don't know that I will run PF2e

I believe your edit refers to this part of Puggins' post:

Static bonuses no longer scale through the roof when you wield weapons in two hands. Lots (most?) of characters now get static bonuses per die that don't scale out with 2h, and strength doesn't scale either. That DPS bonus isn't as big as you think it is percentage-wise.

I don't know what he means, but it does not look as if he is claiming "static bonus doesn't apply to latter attacks in the action economy".

But I'll await Puggins clearing this up for both of us, Dave. :)
 

Puggins

Explorer
Supporter
I don't know what he means, but it does not look as if he is claiming "static bonus doesn't apply to latter attacks in the action economy".

But I'll await Puggins clearing this up for both of us, Dave. :)

Oh definitely no- static bonuses apply to every attack (at least from what I'm understanding- I've had it in my hand for about 48 hours :)).

I meant that wielding a 2h weapon no longer jacks up static bonuses like it did in 1e, where you'd get a 50% bonus to strength and power attack damage bonuses.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the elegance of the system overall either. I do think the action economy is simplified AND vastly improved. All those weird exceptions and combinations (you can ONLY take one swift action a turn, you can ONLY take a 5' step action if you don't take a move action, etc.) are replaced by three actions that you can spend at your discretion.

Want to cast burning hands but don't need to move afterwards? Cast it then shock a couple of other monsters with Electric Arc. Or just use electric arc three times- I haven't read anywhere about multiple-casting DC penalties, but who cares- at least you have that option. I love it. Don't know how it'll work out in actual play, but points for giving me those options.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Thanks [MENTION=12386]Puggins[/MENTION]

At this point, I'm focusing on finding out the relevant data for the choice between your second hand holding a shield and it grasping the same weapon your first hand is already holding.

The next steps would be:

a) what kinds of Damage Reduction can you expect (at the level where you typically have a +3 weapon).

b) How reliable is that DR? Meaning b1) is the shield breakage risk significant? b2) Are there monsters that bypass the DR? b3) how often do you lose initiative and thus can't get up the shield in time? (relevant if you are not allowed to proceed with the shield already up, at least if the system assumes only ~3 combat rounds per fight)

c) are there any feats that shift the balance in favor of either weapons style? (Or is the feat subsytem neutral as regards greatweapons vs board'n'sword)

Then, and only then, can we resume the really interesting discussion - how many points of weapon damage delta is one point of Damage Resistance worth?
 

Parmandur

Legend
Oh definitely no- static bonuses apply to every attack (at least from what I'm understanding- I've had it in my hand for about 48 hours :)).

I meant that wielding a 2h weapon no longer jacks up static bonuses like it did in 1e, where you'd get a 50% bonus to strength and power attack damage bonuses.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the elegance of the system overall either. I do think the action economy is simplified AND vastly improved. All those weird exceptions and combinations (you can ONLY take one swift action a turn, you can ONLY take a 5' step action if you don't take a move action, etc.) are replaced by three actions that you can spend at your discretion.

Want to cast burning hands but don't need to move afterwards? Cast it then shock a couple of other monsters with Electric Arc. Or just use electric arc three times- I haven't read anywhere about multiple-casting DC penalties, but who cares- at least you have that option. I love it. Don't know how it'll work out in actual play, but points for giving me those options.

The three-move round is elegant as a structure, for sure.
 

Presents for Goblins

Advertisement1

Presents for Goblins

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top