My advice having playing both: if they want to shift it will be because of the increased character options and increased danger of combats. Most other things are basically the same.Any comments on how you got everyone to shift? What were you playing before for example.
That's the plan, for sure, but it will certainly be an uphill battle as 5E is still much easier to introduce to new players (especially new RPG players) than PF2. We will be fighting the good fight, but 5E's brand power is hard to get passed at this point as people tend to want to play what is popular.Or, if you guys are having fun and ask the store to purchase PF2 materials, and others are enthused by your enthusiasm - maybe the presence will grow!
Hehe, OK.Don't be coy, what did you like?
I picked Pathfinder 2e for a few games with the family over Christmas. Basically three players (14, 21, er prime of beauteous life) and a 21 5e player.So a mixed play experience so far?
I'm concerned about the experience of the casual players that you mentioned. If I were to hypothetically run PF2E in the future, the ease of introducing new players to the game would be my major concern.
Don't expect Wizards to contribute much before "Fireball level", level 5.and frankly, if by level 4, my wizard doesn't feel more effective, I will probably drop the character, if not the game.
You sound like you take 5E's bounded accuracy for granted, but you also say you have played D&D for many editions.The other thing that I hate (but kicks in more at higher levels) is the skill system. When I DM, I like to throw my characters curveballs in the form of skill checks they are not trained in. I find it is neither realistic nor particularly fun for the barbarian that dumped Charisma to be able to avoid Charisma checks for the entire campaign.
This doesn't work in Pathfinder 2. By level 5, an on-level DC is pretty much impossible unless you're trained in the skill.
Mathematically this is true. Producing a quality gaming result is another matter altogether.On the bright side, it would be relatively (but not trivially) easy to play without level to proficiency:
Try subtracting you level from each and every check, attack and save you make (including AC, Perception and static skill DCs).
I don't think this is at all true beyond the most trivial of elements. Just as PF2E was designed with +level as a fundamental presumption, 5E was designed knowing that bounded accuracy was its foundation. The huge distinction is baked in throughout little details of everything.The result should resemble 5E quite a bit, seeing that without level the proficiency bonus ranges from +2 to +8, quite similar to how it goes from +2 to +6 in 5E.
I wouldn’t say that I take it for granted: rather that I am comparing two systems I am currently playing.You sound like you take 5E's bounded accuracy for granted, but you also say you have played D&D for many editions.
Maybe time to remind everyone the described circumstances aren't unique to PF2 - the same extreme reliance on level was also present in PF1 and the whole of 3E?
I don't remember concluding the Wizard was weak, but of the several Wizards I played, they all multi-classed. Mix in some Fighter and you can wear armor and swing a two-handed sword. During the weak and moderate challenge fights, you can go knock heads and save your spells. Not your character conception? I feel your pain.Like a couple of others have posted, the wizard is underpowered.
Yeh, the skill system and I didn't get along either. I think it probably shines in a Pathfinder Society event where the DM doesn't know what the PCs will be, but it didn't match my style or goals.The other thing that I hate (but kicks in more at higher levels) is the skill system.
My concern is that Paizo will publish a long list of tweaks they recommend in order to play the game without level to proficiency, because if they do, that likely means noone will bother.But it will need to be a really sophisticated retooling to be a solid alternative.
This is it on the nose. The concept for the character was Fey magic-user, a concept that does not leave a lot of room for weapon and armor proficiencies.I don't remember concluding the Wizard was weak, but of the several Wizards I played, they all multi-classed. Mix in some Fighter and you can wear armor and swing a two-handed sword. During the weak and moderate challenge fights, you can go knock heads and save your spells. Not your character conception? I feel your pain.
I agree with you.If you can't apply the tweaks on the fly as you play, the variant isn't really workable. That would just confirm you can't easily take out levels, and that if you want to play with Bounded Accuracy, PF2 isn't for you.
For reference, here is my level 5 character sheet: http://willsfamily.org/files/rpg/misc/Magog _5.pdfThats where I see the issue for me. Level 5 characters have a ridiculous amount of stuff going on the character sheets. I see that killing any hopes for anything but a diversion
I like the concept. A friend and I were recently talking about Merlin. I was suggesting that in lore he was a Druid. And we were lamenting that the DnD culture has gone with a much more modern druidism view which neither of us thought fit the genre. Not that there couldn't be beastmasters, folks who turned into totem creatures, plant fanatics, but that we didn't connect those with being a Druid. We eventually wandered into discussion of if Druids might better be considered arcane casters. The trouble would be the spell lists are full of spells that don't fit the concept.This is it on the nose. The concept for the character was Fey magic-user, a concept that does not leave a lot of room for weapon and armor proficiencies.
Ironically, I considered playing an actual Fey sorcerer, but the class doesn’t do a good job of matching the archetype (though I may multiclass into it in the future).