Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8094375" data-attributes="member: 70468">That was my take too. It probably helped that we used some of the variant rules from Pathfinder Unchained, but it seemed pretty clear when we started playing that the PF2 devs were trying to make something like PF1 in a coherent chassis and with fewer math problems. For the most part, I think they succeeded. It feels like Pathfinder minus some of the rough edges (e.g., with character building).Regarding the other stuff, my game tends more simulationist and exploration-focused. I don’t see some of the issues people have with e.g., Medicine as problems, but I agree that Recall Knowledge in combat is crap.If you read the official forums, PCs should be working together and targeting monsters’ weaknesses for maximum effectiveness. “Target their weakest saves.” Except there is no way to learn that except either empirically or by metagaming. It’s a constant source of frustration for the alchemist in my group.The alchemist’s player thinks that they need all the information so the party won’t get killed. The truth is more like they need to do a better job of working together as a team. I think what you all are saying about fighting like a Seal Team. There’s been a lot of focus here on complexity, but I feel like that is the bigger barrier (the expectations at higher-threat levels re: teamwork and tactics).We had a (self-inflicted) TPK early in my campaign, and I still worry that another would could take the wind out of its sails (even though it’s a sandbox game, and death happens). I also think that’s why the alchemist is so worried about monster knowledge. Not sure what we’d do otherwise. The group is polarized on 5e, and there is absolutely no way I’d ever run PF1 again.</blockquote>

Verification