Pathfinder Beginner Box Review

Hello buckaroos! We return once again from the feet of the golem with a new PAIZO PRODUCT REVIEW! Today we’re looking at the new Pathfinder Beginner Box, Paizo’s latest in a hugely successful line of products for newcomers to our hobby. Spoiler alert: they’ve got another success on their hands. Let’s get into it!

First Impressions​

We start off this box review with an initial impression, and the initial impression is good! Bright, colorful, cheerful lettering, and a good heft—all things that say “good RPG thing must buy” to my primal dicegoblin brain. Upon first opening, we see a bag of dice, a bag of token bases, and a handful of small inserts culminating in a page that says READ THIS FIRST.

Of course I do not READ THAT FIRST! I huck the token bases to the side and take a gander at the dice. One each of d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20, each in strong, single colors with clear lettering. I’m of mixed mind on these dice. On one hand, I appreciate a grab-bag approach to starter dice: my first starter set in a beginner box had mixed colors, and non-uniform dice to me makes them easier to share. That said, the bright primary colors evoke a handful of crayons, and while beginner boxes are in part meant to accommodate a younger audience and get them excited, I think the color-scheme may be skewing a bit young. The Crayola colors are easily forgiven as soon as you dig past the READ THIS FIRST page and you see the character sheets with delightful reference images for each of the dice—but we’ll get to the character sheets in a bit. I only have a few minor issues left with the dice. This is a bit snobbish, but I consider any dice set that doesn’t have two d10 and four d6 to be incomplete. Also, I’d prefer a resealable dice bag over the disposable one: my first set of dice from my beginner box is down to just five dice from the original ten because they spent their lives rattling around loose in their box.

Now, the inserts! A little postcard lets you know that there’s a custom Syrinscape playlist for the adventure contained within. Neat! The other postcards are player reference cards, which are about the best attempt at getting new players over the fairly steep Pathfinder learning curve I’ve seen yet. That said, there is a bit of a shock when you turn them over and are greeted with a wall of text. Finally, the READ THIS FIRST page is short, sweet, and to the point, laying out how to approach the Box as a solo player or with a group of players.

Character Sheets​

Below the READ THIS FIRST we have the character sheets, and here’s where the Box starts to show its hand a bit. You’re clearly meant to use this with a group of players, as it’s those pregenerated character folios which appear before the Hero’s Handbook which contains the solo adventure. That said, I have quite a lot of good things to say about these character sheets. Cover page features a name, a class, a huge splash art of the character’s portrait, and a quick description to help potential newcomers choose their playstyle.

Like the reference cards, the meat and potatoes of the character sheets can seem like an overwhelming barrage of information, but thankfully a solid half of that text is dedicated to explaining and leading a new player through the rather complicated process of understanding a Pathfinder character sheet. Truly excellent layout design is on display here—little coordinating lettered yellow circles lead the reader easily from explanation to relevant box, and the most-used sections of the sheet (AC, hit points, so on) are boxed out in red to stand out from the regular black. As I said before, there’s a handsome little sidebar displaying each of the dice available and their abbreviations—excellent! Also, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen this on a Pathfinder character sheet before, but these now have a space for personal pronouns! Finally, the layout artist gets a cheeky point from me for putting a few characters of character history on the back page of the folio—literal backstory.

As an aside: Wayne Reynolds' art maintains his high level of technical excellence, but there’s something repetitive about the characters' poses. This all stands in contrast to the cover art for the Hero’s Handbook, done by Ekaterina Burmak. The character posing here helps focus the eye on defining aspects of each character: Kyra’s pose pulls back and up into her holy symbol, shining forth with protecting energy against the lightning blast of the dragon. Valeros pushes forward into his shield, taking the brunt of the blast, emphasizing his role on the front line and the use of his shield in his playstyle. And then, off to the side, we see Merisiel darting in, lines almost blurred with speed, unseen by the dragon, dagger darting forward to the exposed neck. Sure, Wayne’s art is technically more accurate to the adventure—the dragon is green, and on top of one of the massive mushrooms in its cavern—but I definitely like Ekaterina’s art more.

The Hero's Handbook​

The Hero's Handbook kicks off with a solo adventure, a delightful little romp through a quick little cavern with a few nasties and quite a bit of treasure. My advice for those taking their own crack at it? Fortune favors the bold. The rest of the Hero’s Handbook concerns itself with expertly navigating a new player through the process of making a new character, complete with the colorful lettered circles that connect to spaces on the provided empty character sheets. Also, the Hero’s Handbook FINALLY does away with the difference between ability scores and ability modifiers—thank goodness.

The Game Master's Guide​

Like the Hero’s Handbook, the Game Master’s Guide kicks off with an adventure. As a GM and as an adventure designer, I do appreciate the way the adventure designers generally nail one-page sections for each room or encounter. Like with the solo adventure, there’s excellent escalation of challenges: first simple combat, then a combat with some saving throws, then skill checks, puzzles, persistent damage, and some undead to let the cleric shine in an offensive moment. Other nice spots of design include magical boon rewards and defending monsters getting some home turf advantages. Also, it must be said: this features a dragon in a dungeon. Points again!

My only real issues with the adventure was the tired artifact of XP—if we’re going to be doing away with ability scores and modifiers, just take the leap to milestone XP, especially if the Game Master’s Guide later insists all players advance equally anyway—and the climactic encounters seem a little lackluster. Perhaps it’s just a glut of excellent encounter design I’ve seen from other places lately, but I tend to expect a little more action from the environment. That said, this is an introductory adventure, and I wouldn’t want to throw a new GM too far into the deep end.

The rest of the Game Master’s Guide is simply excellent material for a new GM learning the ropes, and indeed is a fantastic refresher for experienced GMs wanting a straightforward and concise presentation of the fundamentals of running tabletop games in general and Pathfinder 2E in specific. My only issue with this section is that there's more ogre art in line with their supposed foul and flabby nature. I can tell this was a deliberate choice because much of the rest of the monster art, specifically that of the orcs, is lifted directly from the Bestiary. I will keep my ogres beautiful and beefy, thank you very much.

The Rest​

What’s left? Well, we have the fold-out maps, which are excellent and which absolutely require a full table to use properly. There are tokens for every monster that appears in the Game Master’s Guide, and even tokens for every ancestry/gender/class combination possible with the limited options available in the Hero’s Handbook. Also, some tokens with action and reaction symbols on them for use with the relevant spaces on the included character sheets.

In summary, the Pathfinder Beginner Box is an excellent introduction to the game for new solo players and new groups, and an excellent reintroduction for veterans looking for a refresh on the game’s core identity. Well worth the investment and guaranteed to be a hit at your table.

 

[kenada]

I can explain why it takes a while in PF2e to make a character, at least for me and probably other players that were with us in our try of the PF2e.

#1. YOU HAVE to UNDERSTAND We had NO experience with PF2e (well, maybe limited experience, some HAD tried the playtest I believe, not everyone though). Zero, None, Nada (with the caveat I added). You start off the bat building your ability scores rather than rolling them, using a standard array, or even a point buy like system. Every race, background, and class adds different numbers to your ability scores. While those who are experienced with the system may know these off the top of their head, I DO NOT. I have to read through them to understand what gives me what ability scores. I STILL don't have these memorized. Some make sense, others aren't something that would occur to me off the top of my head. Reading through the options and making these decisions with your ability scores in mind just takes me longer because of this. Perhaps if I were an experienced PF2e player I'd know all these ability score building points off the top of my head...but I don't.

In addition, I did not see anywhere where it said you have to be an expert and memorize all that stuff to play the game. If it had, you can be guaranteed we would not have even given it a shot. However, because we did NOT know it at first, and because we do not have all these options memorized (even if it is more limited in the PF2e Beginner Box, it's still a lot for a beginning player of PF2e to grasp) it TAKES TIME.

(edit - For comparison, 5e doesn't have the drawn out building of your ability scores, thus this is one section where 5e takes less time. It takes less time for those unfamiliar with the system to figure out their ability scores, though perhaps someone who was unfamiliar with D&D would still have trouble deciding what to assign where which may add time).

#2. In the BB, once you choose your class you still have to decide what to add your other ability score points to. They have to be different ability scores, so even if you only care about Intelligence, Dexterity, and Constitution if you were a Wizard, you still have to figure where you want that third ability score increase (You get 4 ability score increases, one is automatic depending on the class, you choose the other 3). Perhaps experienced players know exactly where they want to put it, but I didn't. With other systems it is relatively easy as you either already rolled it up by chance, you already know which scores (standard array) you want your highest scores to be in and don't really care what you put the other scores in, or with point buy you can focus the points on precisely the ability scores you want to max out with. The PF BB forces you to sort of spread out a little rather than focus on a min/max type idea, or otherwise.

#3. This is a new system. I am unfamiliar with it. Period. If you cannot understand that and why it may add to the time to create new characters, I'm not sure if you should be commenting on how long a character may take a new player to a system.

(edit: This would obviously also apply to any system new players are creating new characters with).

#4. In the PFBB you get Character sheets. They are a tad more complex and confusing than your standard Character sheets in 5e and you need to understand what the differences between Trained and Expert are. It's kind of like filling in a bubble sheet for a test, a test with many fill in bubbles. The Skill system has a lot more options and I LIKE THE VARIETY more than how 5e does it, BUT...it means you fill in a LOT OF BUBBLES for the skills and other items on your character sheet. I definitely felt I did FAR more writing and filling in on my character sheet than I have for any D&D game (including 3e and 3.5) for PF2e. It takes time to fill that sucker out. I don't know how anyone could cut that time down.

(In comparison, 5e is much simpler. You simply have a proficiency bonus and ability score modifiers, and they apply broadly, so filling out the sheet is much quicker. You have far more limited skills that use your proficiency bonus and after that you don't really worry about it. Shorter list and not as many differing numbers reduces the time to do this in 5e).

#5. In relation to #4 above, the book just gives you what equipment your starting character has, but it does not tell you the numbers that go with that equipment. You have to flip back and forth in the book to get it down, or you have to write it down and than find the relevant information in the book to write it down. Now, if you were really experienced with PF2e, you might be able to do this off the top of your head, but I can't. Heck, I play 5e a bit and can't even do that with all the items in 5e, much less PF2e.

All those things above made creating a character with the BB a longer experience than it would for me with 5e. I imagine that if these are the tailored down options of the BB from the Full game, that it probably would take longer to make a character using the full Core rules than it does with the BB. Hopefully that explains WHY it took me longer to make a character. As I said, I didn't find it too complex or confusing, or even frustrating. Creating the character was actually kind of fun, but it DID take time. I'm not going to lie about that to anyone. Simply put, it took quite awhile. I think the GM of our PF2e BB game knew it would take time which is why they had us create characters PRIOR to the first session, so we wouldn't be spending that much time during the first session making new characters.

I’m going to dissent a bit from the others and say that this is somewhat fair. It’s not fair in the sense of a qualitative comparison between systems, but I think it is somewhat fair from the perspective of on-boarding. If players perceive the game as requiring too much effort just to give it a try, then they may give it a pass unfairly. However, I suspect that newer players will have newer issues than experienced ones. The issue seems to be with wanting to work out ability scores before you pick options instead of building them up as you go.

Like you say, someone who knows the system (or has the right tools) knows what gives what, so you can work that all out before you start building. When I make characters using the core method (not rolling), I plan out my boosts before picking anything then go shopping for what gives me those things. That helps me ensure that I get the stats I want. Admittedly, I seriously doubt players coming to PF2 from other systems would take that approach without getting some experience with the game first.

As an aside, for those who don’t have the Beginer Box, it dispenses with ability scores and follows a different process for character creation. You still do your ABCs, but you get +1s from different sources, and only classes give you free +1s (except for humans). Your ancestry gives you two +1s (no ability flaws). Your background gives you a single +1. Your class gives you a +3 and three free +1s (but no stacking). The highest score you can get is a 16, and you only get that if you make sure to pick options that boost the same modifier. I understand wanting to simplify, but I don’t understand why they made BB characters weaker than core characters.

Update: Something bothered me about that, so I went back and checked again. You get a +3 and three +1s from your class (not a +1 and three +1s). That’s way different, and it means that BB characters should be equivalent to core characters, though you can end up with a +3 instead of a +4 if your ancestry doesn’t synergize with your class. I don’t think the way they handled background boosts is sustainable in the full game (they special case options to avoid letting you start with a +5), but I like what the BB does here a bit more than what the core game does.

 

[dave2008]

..., but I stand by my opinion that the difference isn't massive and certainly not to the point where it becomes confusing or frustrating

Everyone is different though. I've made several 5e characters, but I got frustrated with the one rogue I tried to make in PF2e, stopped making it and have yet to play a game of PF2e despite having the CRB, GMG, & Bestiary.*

Also, it doesn't necessarily take a massive difference for frustration to take root. Everyone's tolerance is different.

*EDIT: To clarify, the major reason I haven't played is the lack of finding a group and then the pandemic. If I found a group to play I would have finished my character eventually (I think).

 

[kenada]

And with that, @GreyLord I think there was something off with your characters. The pregens all have +7 or +9 to hit (not +4). It’s true that Kyra and Ezren have only +4 with melee weapons, but their spell attack modifiers are +7. Since you talk about building ability scores, were you treating the increases you got as increasing the score rather than the modifier? What the BB is doing is a change from PF1 and PF2 core (and most other D&D-likes).

For example, a human fighter in the BB gets a +3 Strengh modifier and can pick two +1s from their ancestry. Assuming they take Strength again, that results in a +4 modifier for a +9 to hit. In core PF2, boosts are +2 to an ability score (not the modifier). You get four sources of boosts in core PF2 (ancestry, background, class, free) that you can stack up to four times (never from the same source though) for a maximum score of 18, and then you calculate the modifier.

 

[GreyLord]

And with that, @GreyLord I think there was something off with your characters. The pregens all have +7 or +9 to hit (not +4). It’s true that Kyra and Ezren have only +4 with melee weapons, but their spell attack modifiers are +7. Since you talk about building ability scores, were you treating the increases you got as increasing the score rather than the modifier? What the BB is doing is a change from PF1 and PF2 core (and most other D&D-likes).

For example, a human fighter in the BB gets a +3 Strengh modifier and can pick two +1s from their ancestry. Assuming they take Strength again, that results in a +4 modifier for a +9 to hit. In core PF2, boosts are +2 to an ability score (not the modifier). You get four sources of boosts in core PF2 (ancestry, background, class, free) that you can stack up to four times (never from the same source though) for a maximum score of 18, and then you calculate the modifier.

And with that criticism, my desire to play the game has become even less. You assume too much about what my character looked like and some of your assumptions about what we did or how we designed our characters sound wrong if I'm reading what you wrote as you intended. Your thoughts have made me decide if this is what the player base is like toward beginning players...I don't even want to give this game a chance again.

(A prime example, you assume that as PF2e works on a 5 minute workday where you recover all your spells after each combat encounter. If THAT's HOW IT"S SUPPOSED TO WORK, you are right, we played PF2e wrong. There was nothing in the box that indicated that this was the correct way to play. Because of that, my first reaction was not to spend my limited amount of spells on the first combat in the first and second rounds. I had weapons that did more damage than the cantrips already...and if I could have hit with them, it would have been far more damaging. There was a lot of dungeon on that map that we could see beyond that encounter, blowing all my spells in the first combat did not seem like a smart choice. Then again, as we did not play with the 5 minute work day (much less the 15 minute), perhaps that's not how PF2e is supposed to work. Perhaps it's supposed to work off a 5 minute workday so that you rest and recover your full compliment of spells after every encounter...which if true, reduces my desire to play it even more).

Another example...You seem to assume that we made some mistakes which we did not on our characters, for example, if you read what I wrote I didn't give the exact modifiers you add, just the basic idea of how it works as you boost your scores in character creation. It appears you thought I implied a specific number with those boosts, which I did not. You bring an interesting point though, in that the BB uses modifiers as the ability scores instead of the traditional D&D ability scores of 3-18. One thing our GM DID do was use their books to translate our modifiers into actual ability scores so that we could do PFS if we wanted to at a later date or something to that effect.

I'm not sure what the purpose behind telling beginning players they are Bad/wrong people, but it hasn't actually done anything to make me want to give PF2e another chance, if anything it has driven me away far more.

I'd rather people address the problems we actually had (combat was not fun, which is the major reason I didn't like the game) than try to tell me I'm a bad person and so are the others I played with.

 

[Justice and Rule]

And with that criticism, my desire to play the game has become even less. You assume too much about what my character looked like and some of your assumptions about what we did or how we designed our characters sound wrong if I'm reading what you wrote as you intended (You seem to assume that we made some mistakes which we did not on our characters). Your thoughts have made me decide if this is what the player base is like toward beginning players...I don't even want to give this game a chance again.

(A prime example, you assume that as PF2e works on a 5 minute workday where you recover all your spells after each combat encounter. If THAT's HOW IT"S SUPPOSED TO WORK, you are right, we played PF2e wrong. There was nothing in the box that indicated that this was the correct way to play. Because of that, my first reaction was not to spend my limited amount of spells on the first combat in the first and second rounds. I had weapons that did more damage than the cantrips already...and if I could have hit with them, it would have been far more damaging. There was a lot of dungeon on that map that we could see beyond that encounter, blowing all my spells in the first combat did not seem like a smart choice. Then again, as we did not play with the 5 minute work day (much less the 15 minute), perhaps that's not how PF2e is supposed to work. Perhaps it's supposed to work off a 5 minute workday so that you rest and recover your full compliment of spells after every encounter...which if true, reduces my desire to play it even more).

I'm not sure what the purpose behind telling beginning players they are Bad/wrong people, but it hasn't actually done anything to make me want to give PF2e another chance, if anything it has driven me away far more.

I'd rather people address the problems we actually had (combat was not fun, which is the major reason I didn't like the game) than try to tell me I'm a bad person and so are the others I played with.

I don't think @kenada said anything rude like that, and he's easily one of the most civil, polite, and even-handed of people on this board: he's criticized the game a number of times and what he's doing here isn't saying you're having "badwrongfun", but that your numbers don't seem right for the game. It's completely possible, given that PF2 has many surface similarities with 5E (a game you obviously have experience with) but also some critical differences that make it easy for a beginner to make an absent-minded assumption from the wrong game.

Maybe you could post your stats so we see where your numbers are coming from?

 

[GreyLord]

I don't think @kenada said anything rude like that, and he's easily one of the most civil, polite, and even-handed of people on this board: he's criticized the game a number of times and what he's doing here isn't saying you're having "badwrongfun", but that your numbers don't seem right for the game. It's completely possible, given that PF2 has many surface similarities with 5E (a game you obviously have experience with) but also some critical differences that make it easy for a beginner to make an absent-minded assumption from the wrong game.

Maybe you could post your stats so we see where your numbers are coming from?

I don't really want to write the entire sheet here (it would take FAR too long and really don't feel like doing that), but I can do an abridged quick type. This is also after at least one level up (sorry, I can see the erasure marks, so I know this is after the level ups, I don't have the original stats of the character as they were erased upon me making changes to the character sheet.

In BB terms, I had a

DEX +3
CON +1
INT +4
WIS +1

AC 17

Whisper Elf Wizard as a Chaotic Neutral Acrobat with a Dagger and Longsword. I think I also somewhere picked up a crossbow eventually, but not sure if I had it at the beginning. . Spells memorized on my sheet currently are Ray of Frost x2, Shield x 3, Magic Missile x 2, and Burning Hands x 2. I had different spells originally, though Ray of Frost and Magic Missile were still on there I believe. Ray of Frost was not as effective as I had wanted it to be at first but I've adapted with it's use since then.

I was not the guy who died in the first encounter. My wizard survived through the entire game.

If I had to guess, I think you'd subtract one or two from the AC and the spells and such as well as the attack bonuses. Originally I think I probably had a +4 or +5 with ranged weapons, with the level ups it is currently a +7. Melee is at a +4.

My original idea was more of a melee type wizard character. In the original adventure never really got to see that as the Cleric and Fighter were always at the front and were the ones who engaged in melee. I might have at one point, because I got attacked from behind by a spider which put me out of that combat for a bit, but didn't die there. Spacing tended to be an issue. Saw it once or twice in Plaguestone, but didn't perform as well as I'd have liked it too in melee+magic combat.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The issue seems to be with wanting to work out ability scores before you pick options instead of building them up as you go.

Like you say, someone who knows the system (or has the right tools) knows what gives what, so you can work that all out before you start building. When I make characters using the core method (not rolling), I plan out my boosts before picking anything then go shopping for what gives me those things. That helps me ensure that I get the stats I want. Admittedly, I seriously doubt players coming to PF2 from other systems would take that approach without getting some experience with the game first.

That is a very good point, though I do wonder how well characters built using the “Character Path” creation system would fare in low level BB adventure or Plaguestone.

The players would probably make sure to have an 18 in their main stat, but I can see inexperienced players making wizards with 12 Dex, clerics with 14 to their weapon stat or artificers with a 14 Dex.

 

[dave2008]

And with that criticism, my desire to play the game has become even less. You assume too much about what my character looked like and some of your assumptions about what we did or how we designed our characters sound wrong if I'm reading what you wrote as you intended. Your thoughts have made me decide if this is what the player base is like toward beginning players...I don't even want to give this game a chance again.

(A prime example, you assume that as PF2e works on a 5 minute workday where you recover all your spells after each combat encounter. If THAT's HOW IT"S SUPPOSED TO WORK, you are right, we played PF2e wrong. There was nothing in the box that indicated that this was the correct way to play. Because of that, my first reaction was not to spend my limited amount of spells on the first combat in the first and second rounds. I had weapons that did more damage than the cantrips already...and if I could have hit with them, it would have been far more damaging. There was a lot of dungeon on that map that we could see beyond that encounter, blowing all my spells in the first combat did not seem like a smart choice. Then again, as we did not play with the 5 minute work day (much less the 15 minute), perhaps that's not how PF2e is supposed to work. Perhaps it's supposed to work off a 5 minute workday so that you rest and recover your full compliment of spells after every encounter...which if true, reduces my desire to play it even more).

Another example...You seem to assume that we made some mistakes which we did not on our characters, for example, if you read what I wrote I didn't give the exact modifiers you add, just the basic idea of how it works as you boost your scores in character creation. It appears you thought I implied a specific number with those boosts, which I did not. You bring an interesting point though, in that the BB uses modifiers as the ability scores instead of the traditional D&D ability scores of 3-18. One thing our GM DID do was use their books to translate our modifiers into actual ability scores so that we could do PFS if we wanted to at a later date or something to that effect.

I'm not sure what the purpose behind telling beginning players they are Bad/wrong people, but it hasn't actually done anything to make me want to give PF2e another chance, if anything it has driven me away far more.

I'd rather people address the problems we actually had (combat was not fun, which is the major reason I didn't like the game) than try to tell me I'm a bad person and so are the others I played with.

I think you are misunderstanding @kenada's post. He/she just thought you made a mistake in how you created your characters and was letting you know. That is a kind and appropriate thing to tell beginners. If he misunderstood your post and posted information you already know, well mistakes happen. No need to be so angry about it.

Also, maybe a missed it, but I didn't see anything in the part you quoted with regard to assumptions about your play style. You mention the 5mwd, put their is nothing about that in the part you quoted.

 

[Justice and Rule]

One more question @GreyLord: what is your current level? 2? Or is it more?

 

[Campbell]

PF2 Cantrips function much like Fifth Edition cantrips. They do not go away when you cast them and get more powerful as you level. Generally Wizards are better off relying on their cantrips rather than ranged weapons. Not trying to make a point here.

 

[ronaldsf]

I don't really want to write the entire sheet here (it would take FAR too long and really don't feel like doing that), but I can do an abridged quick type. This is also after at least one level up (sorry, I can see the erasure marks, so I know this is after the level ups, I don't have the original stats of the character as they were erased upon me making changes to the character sheet.

In BB terms, I had a

DEX +3
CON +1
INT +4
WIS +1

AC 17

Whisper Elf Wizard as a Chaotic Neutral Acrobat with a Dagger and Longsword. I think I also somewhere picked up a crossbow eventually, but not sure if I had it at the beginning. . Spells memorized on my sheet currently are Ray of Frost x2, Shield x 3, Magic Missile x 2, and Burning Hands x 2. I had different spells originally, though Ray of Frost and Magic Missile were still on there I believe. Ray of Frost was not as effective as I had wanted it to be at first but I've adapted with it's use since then.

I was not the guy who died in the first encounter. My wizard survived through the entire game.

If I had to guess, I think you'd subtract one or two from the AC and the spells and such as well as the attack bonuses. Originally I think I probably had a +4 or +5 with ranged weapons, with the level ups it is currently a +7. Melee is at a +4.

My original idea was more of a melee type wizard character. In the original adventure never really got to see that as the Cleric and Fighter were always at the front and were the ones who engaged in melee. I might have at one point, because I got attacked from behind by a spider which put me out of that combat for a bit, but didn't die there. Spacing tended to be an issue. Saw it once or twice in Plaguestone, but didn't perform as well as I'd have liked it too in melee+magic combat.

Havent visited this thread in a couple days, but first Greylord I'm glad you shared more info about your negative session.

I agree that PF2 IS more involved in character creation than 5e. For folks who've felt like they need to defend PF2's system as simple: it sounds like this wasn't the dealbreaker for Greylord and rather it was the difficulty.

All that said, having a +4 in your main Stat should mean that you have a +7 in your main attacks at 1st level. The fighter should have a +9. This is because you add your Proficiency Bonus (Trained is Level+2, so 3... Expert is Level+4, so 5) to your ability modifier.

This Proficiency Modifier is added your AC and all your saving throws and DCs as well. So your AC at level 1 should be somewhere between 15 and 18 (unless you were a wizard who tanked DEX). Those rats should not be able to hit PCs by rolling 6s and 8s.

Having stats that are 3 lower than what they should be is almost like having Level 0 characters in this system. No wonder your 1st experience left a bad taste! Perhaps the BB should have been clearer on everything you add up for your stats? Sorry that happened to you.

If this is indeed what happened, I venture to say that if your group is willing that you should try again? Because what you got would NOT have been a representative experience. As you observed, small differences of 1 or 2 make a huge difference in this system. Your group might have played Dark Souls in nightmare mode.

 

[kenada]

And with that criticism, my desire to play the game has become even less. You assume too much about what my character looked like and some of your assumptions about what we did or how we designed our characters sound wrong if I'm reading what you wrote as you intended. Your thoughts have made me decide if this is what the player base is like toward beginning players...I don't even want to give this game a chance again.

(A prime example, you assume that as PF2e works on a 5 minute workday where you recover all your spells after each combat encounter. If THAT's HOW IT"S SUPPOSED TO WORK, you are right, we played PF2e wrong. There was nothing in the box that indicated that this was the correct way to play. Because of that, my first reaction was not to spend my limited amount of spells on the first combat in the first and second rounds. I had weapons that did more damage than the cantrips already...and if I could have hit with them, it would have been far more damaging. There was a lot of dungeon on that map that we could see beyond that encounter, blowing all my spells in the first combat did not seem like a smart choice. Then again, as we did not play with the 5 minute work day (much less the 15 minute), perhaps that's not how PF2e is supposed to work. Perhaps it's supposed to work off a 5 minute workday so that you rest and recover your full compliment of spells after every encounter...which if true, reduces my desire to play it even more).

Another example...You seem to assume that we made some mistakes which we did not on our characters, for example, if you read what I wrote I didn't give the exact modifiers you add, just the basic idea of how it works as you boost your scores in character creation. It appears you thought I implied a specific number with those boosts, which I did not. You bring an interesting point though, in that the BB uses modifiers as the ability scores instead of the traditional D&D ability scores of 3-18. One thing our GM DID do was use their books to translate our modifiers into actual ability scores so that we could do PFS if we wanted to at a later date or something to that effect.

I'm not sure what the purpose behind telling beginning players they are Bad/wrong people, but it hasn't actually done anything to make me want to give PF2e another chance, if anything it has driven me away far more.

I'd rather people address the problems we actually had (combat was not fun, which is the major reason I didn't like the game) than try to tell me I'm a bad person and so are the others I played with.

I’m confused by this response. You mentioned earlier in this thread how characters had +4 to hit. I was trying to understand how that could be given the way that proficiency works. If you are proficient in an attack, then your minimum bonus is +3 (trained +2 + 1 from level) or +5 if you’re a fighter (expert +4 + 1 from level). I hadn’t even realized that the BB was using modifiers in place of ability scores until this thread prompted me to dig into it because that’s not how the core game works. When I saw that, I thought that could be how you were seeing such low modifiers. The intent was to be constructive. I also wanted to point this out to the other commenters here who were familiar with the core game but not the BB, so they wouldn’t make the same mistake I did (since the BB is supposed to use the same rules as the CRB, though it’s obviously not entirely).

I’m also super confused about the 5-minute workday stuff because I never brought it up. There are people here who do feel strongly about it, and will argue profusely about how the game must be run and how you can’t do this or that thing. I’m not one of those people. I’m sympathetic towards people who have problems with hard fights because I think the game is more interesting when the players really get into exploration mode and play through things organically, which means that sometimes you take a couple of fights in a row, or things change dynamically, or you got an advantage, or whatever. I also don’t think getting beat up all the time or doing nothing but hard combat is very fun, and the game would benefit from some guidance on tuning encounter expectations for one’s group.

If you didn’t have fun playing PF2, then that’s fine. Play what’s fun. Like I said earlier, I’m pitching a switch to OSE to my group (because I burnt out running PF2), so don’t think I’m trying to encourage you to play PF2 in spite of yourself. I also want to apologize for my post. It wasn’t intended as critical, but it came across that way. It’s not wrong for you to take it like you did. Again, I apologize for the lack of clarity and consternation caused.

 

[Retreater]

Its so absurdly fast with Pathbuilder 2e, like 'puts OSR games to shame' fast,

I call shenanigans.

 

[dave2008]

Its so absurdly fast with Pathbuilder 2e,...

What is the "Its..." Without the context I have no idea what your talking about.

 

[GreyLord]

I’m confused by this response. You mentioned earlier in this thread how characters had +4 to hit. I was trying to understand how that could be given the way that proficiency works. If you are proficient in an attack, then your minimum bonus is +3 (trained +2 + 1 from level) or +5 if you’re a fighter (expert +4 + 1 from level). I hadn’t even realized that the BB was using modifiers in place of ability scores until this thread prompted me to dig into it because that’s not how the core game works. When I saw that, I thought that could be how you were seeing such low modifiers. The intent was to be constructive. I also wanted to point this out to the other commenters here who were familiar with the core game but not the BB, so they wouldn’t make the same mistake I did (since the BB is supposed to use the same rules as the CRB, though it’s obviously not entirely).

I’m also super confused about the 5-minute workday stuff because I never brought it up. There are people here who do feel strongly about it, and will argue profusely about how the game must be run and how you can’t do this or that thing. I’m not one of those people. I’m sympathetic towards people who have problems with hard fights because I think the game is more interesting when the players really get into exploration mode and play through things organically, which means that sometimes you take a couple of fights in a row, or things change dynamically, or you got an advantage, or whatever. I also don’t think getting beat up all the time or doing nothing but hard combat is very fun, and the game would benefit from some guidance on tuning encounter expectations for one’s group.

If you didn’t have fun playing PF2, then that’s fine. Play what’s fun. Like I said earlier, I’m pitching a switch to OSE to my group (because I burnt out running PF2), so don’t think I’m trying to encourage you to play PF2 in spite of yourself. I also want to apologize for my post. It wasn’t intended as critical, but it came across that way. It’s not wrong for you to take it like you did. Again, I apologize for the lack of clarity and consternation caused.

Thank you and sorry. I was upset under the impression that I should have cast spells in the other post, when you mentioned the spell attack modifier (which, if I extrapolate as the character I listed was my first character which we took on the adventure in the box with, is 2nd level, would probably have had a +6 Attack modifier for their spells at the time, but that was different then what I was using in the first battle, the next character I had was a Cleric during Plaguestone). Ray of Frost was super weak and I only had three 1st level spells for the dungeon at the time, which really gave me a limited number of spell attacks. The impression I had when you talked about what my spell attack was, is that I should have been using my spells.

If I had used my spells that first battle, I would have been out for the ensuing fights, or that was my thought process. I did use a Ray of Frost eventually, but the combo I was hoping was to be a Melee type Magic-User with sword and magic (like an Eldritch Knight or other type of character like that I suppose, but the BB doesn't have an option for that).

At First level I think my Wizard actually had a +3 to hit with the Longsword at the time, a +3 to hit with the Dagger, but a +6 if he threw it. I think His AC was either 15 or 16 at First level, so not the greatest build to melee, but with the corridors I never really got to try it in a straight fight in the BB adventure. Once I had a crossbow, I could do more damage with it than most of my magic at range.

The individual who played the Rogue was even more disappointed than me I think, as flanking was very rare for us to get into being able to do. They had a missile weapon, but really wanted to melee as well.

My second character I went with a better melee build that could still cast magic (yes, there is a pattern there, you may see somewhat of my preferences) where I went with a Cleric who used a Scimitar, but at first level (I actually know the Cleric better than the Wizard as I played it longer) only had a +5 to hit with that Scimitar without any other modifiers coming into play at first level. Got up to a +8 by the time we finished, but that was at a higher level and past what the BB offered.

The implication that I should have blown my spells was what got me though and had me give the response.

 

[GreyLord]

View attachment 131915

One more question @GreyLord: what is your current level? 2? Or is it more?

For that character I only played through the BB adventure with, it's the one that took on the Rats. I believe we were level 2 when we finished, which is what level that character is.

I THINK.

I cannot see the level actually listed on the Character sheet, so I'm not positive. But I THINK that's what level it is for what I'm listing the stats as.

PF2 Cantrips function much like Fifth Edition cantrips. They do not go away when you cast them and get more powerful as you level. Generally Wizards are better off relying on their cantrips rather than ranged weapons. Not trying to make a point here.

Hmm, that's interesting. I was under the impression that we could only cast them 5 times (at 1st level) and would get them after a rest, so that's how I played it accordingly, I suppose I may have played it differently if I had realized that during our first session. I think I probably was tossed off with the Character sheet which kind of shows Cantrips in the same light as other spells and so I played it like that.

That said, after I got my crossbow it was my preferred attack form from range rather than magic as the Crossbow did 1d8 damage if I hit with it.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I call shenanigans.

Wanna bet?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

What is the "Its..." Without the context I have no idea what your talking about.

Character Creation, though I feel like the rest of the conversation prior was sufficient context.

 

[kenada]

Thank you and sorry. I was upset under the impression that I should have cast spells in the other post, when you mentioned the spell attack modifier (which, if I extrapolate as the character I listed was my first character which we took on the adventure in the box with, is 2nd level, would probably have had a +6 Attack modifier for their spells at the time, but that was different then what I was using in the first battle, the next character I had was a Cleric during Plaguestone). Ray of Frost was super weak and I only had three 1st level spells for the dungeon at the time, which really gave me a limited number of spell attacks. The impression I had when you talked about what my spell attack was, is that I should have been using my spells.

If I had used my spells that first battle, I would have been out for the ensuing fights, or that was my thought process. I did use a Ray of Frost eventually, but the combo I was hoping was to be a Melee type Magic-User with sword and magic (like an Eldritch Knight or other type of character like that I suppose, but the BB doesn't have an option for that).

At First level I think my Wizard actually had a +3 to hit with the Longsword at the time, a +3 to hit with the Dagger, but a +6 if he threw it. I think His AC was either 15 or 16 at First level, so not the greatest build to melee, but with the corridors I never really got to try it in a straight fight in the BB adventure. Once I had a crossbow, I could do more damage with it than most of my magic at range.

The individual who played the Rogue was even more disappointed than me I think, as flanking was very rare for us to get into being able to do. They had a missile weapon, but really wanted to melee as well.

My second character I went with a better melee build that could still cast magic (yes, there is a pattern there, you may see somewhat of my preferences) where I went with a Cleric who used a Scimitar, but at first level (I actually know the Cleric better than the Wizard as I played it longer) only had a +5 to hit with that Scimitar without any other modifiers coming into play at first level. Got up to a +8 by the time we finished, but that was at a higher level and past what the BB offered.

The implication that I should have blown my spells was what got me though and had me give the response.

No worries. I understand being upset at being accused of having “badwrongfun”. However, I’d like to note that I didn’t bring up specific tactics. My “and with that” was meant to follow up my previous post rather than someone else’s (if that’s the source of confusion).

Based on this and your subsequent post, it sounds like the BB didn’t do a good job of communicating how some things work. Looking at the wizard’s entry in the Hero’s Handbook, cantrips are mentioned as something of an afterthought. That’s not great. Since you can cast them an unlimited number of times, they’re meant to take the place of needing to use a weapon. I also agree that ray of frost is not very good. The go-to damage cantrip is electric arc, but it’s not included in the BB. The damage is the same as ray of frost, but it attacks two targets (versus one) instead of having a chance of slowing the target (due to needing a crit). Electric arc also requires a basic saving throw, so you also deal at least half damage to the targets.

There are a few ways to do gish characters in PF2. Unfortunately, none of them are in the BB. There’s the magus class in the upcoming Secrets of Magic book, but you can also multiclass fighter/wizard very easily. If you want to specialize in a particular weapon, you can take one of the style archetypes from the APG. Alternatively, if you want to be a martial who casts spells, you start as the appropriate martial class and then pick up the dedication for the casting class you want at 2nd level. You won’t go all the way up to 10th level spells, but you can still be a pretty decent caster. Of course, however, none of that’s in the BB. If you want to draw outside of the boxes it offers, there’s not a lot of help for that.

You also mention playing a cleric. I that was also the cleric class from BB (vs. the core version)? That’s at least the warpriest, but the way the BB does character creation makes it harder to be good at it. In the core rules, you have more control over where to put your modifiers, so it’s easy to start with a +3 in Strength (for a +6 to hit in melee at 1st level). With the optional rule for voluntary flaws, you could even get a +4 if you really wanted it. None of that’s in the BB. Offering a combat-oriented cleric without being able to tweak your stats for it isn’t very friendly to new players. You’d have to pick human as your ancestry plus one of the backgrounds that offered Strength modifiers (deckhand or warrior). With the core rules, you could do that with basically whatever combination you wanted (because ancestry and background typically come with free boosts you can put anywhere else [like the extra +1 modifiers you get in the BB]).

The rest is a more of an aside ….

The Kyra pre-gen included in the BB is a little weird. Her normal pregen is written up as a cloistered cleric, but she’s using the warpriest stuff in the BB (because that’s the only option). Her stats are still similar to her cloistered version, which means her Strength modifier is pretty awful. It really should be a +2 or a +3 (for a +5 or a +6 to hit with her scimitar). I think the idea was to rebuild the standard iconic using the BB, but this is just not a very good example to new players of what stats you should want out of a warpriest. She’s not even wearing medium armor in the BB (even though it’s listed right there on page 20 under defenses). (I assume they went with warpriest instead of cloistered cleric so they could avoid having to introduce focus spells in the BB, but still ….)

So, while I think they did a fairly decent job of stilling things down, there are some head-scratchers. Looking at how people would transition from the BB to the core rules, there are some big differences they’ll have to internalize. The first is that core PF2 uses ability scores not modifiers, and that matters once you start gaining boosts past 18 (because you only go one point at a time instead of two). Also, two characters built with the exact same options can end up with the core version’s being slightly better due to having more control over allocating boosts. The other is differences in terminology or aspects they just didn’t introduce. If you compare it to the 5e basic rules, the basic rules still used the same terminology even though they only offered one option.

 

[ronaldsf]

That said, after I got my crossbow it was my preferred attack form from range rather than magic as the Crossbow did 1d8 damage if I hit with it.

Yes, cantrips are at-will in PF 2E.

Assuming you have a +4 Intelligence, Ray of Frost should be doing 1d4+4 damage, substantially more than the 1d8 crossbow.