Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wakedown" data-source="post: 7639230" data-attributes="member: 15901">With some folks having received their PF2E Core book here, we're at the crossroads where those folks who sprung the $60 want to give it a spin and others who didn't enjoy the Playtest requiring convincing.A muster for a 2nd level table of PF2E is certainly better than PF1E would be in terms of parity if we had a game tonight.&nbsp; PF1E has over a hundred books where some players have mastery over all of them, so you could see a Level 2 PC which is an Alchemist/Barbarian who rages and drinks their mutagen and rolls into a brawl while power attacking with a greatsword with a 26 Strength (this has happened countless times).&nbsp;&nbsp; PF1E Core that wasn't possible.&nbsp;&nbsp; Or I could have two players with wizards at 3rd level, and one has a 3d4 burning hands and the other has a 6d4 free-rime entangling burning hands thanks to their system mastery (and has spent their GP/PP on pearls of power so they seem like they have an infinite number). Just by limiting to a single Core book, we're in better territory in choosing PF2E over PF1E.What I can already see in PF2E (which again was present in 4E and 3E as well, but not so much in 1E/2E &amp; 5E) is the notion of alpha player quarterbacking of non-alpha players in both building their characters and taking their in-turn combat actions.&nbsp;&nbsp; PF2E is an intimidating system (PF2E core to PF1E core) if I put an alpha and non-alpha next to each other.&nbsp;&nbsp; Right now, a critical conversation affecting a possible game with the PF2E final rules with a non-alpha player is &quot;oh, you want to be a ranged rogue?&nbsp; Are you sure, that's really sub-optimal unless you take the Fighter Dedication, but you'll want to consider if taking that as your first or second...&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; The alpha players actually have Excel open with probability models of critical successes vs regular successes and are building cheat sheets on what to do with their actions (from what I understand this will govern on if you should attack again or take a different action, or a multi-action &quot;activity&quot; type attack).If your table is all alphas, or all non-alphas (or just the GM is the alpha), these problems don't manifest as readily.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wakedown, post: 7639230, member: 15901"] With some folks having received their PF2E Core book here, we're at the crossroads where those folks who sprung the $60 want to give it a spin and others who didn't enjoy the Playtest requiring convincing. A muster for a 2nd level table of PF2E is certainly better than PF1E would be in terms of parity if we had a game tonight. PF1E has over a hundred books where some players have mastery over all of them, so you could see a Level 2 PC which is an Alchemist/Barbarian who rages and drinks their mutagen and rolls into a brawl while power attacking with a greatsword with a 26 Strength (this has happened countless times). PF1E Core that wasn't possible. Or I could have two players with wizards at 3rd level, and one has a 3d4 burning hands and the other has a 6d4 free-rime entangling burning hands thanks to their system mastery (and has spent their GP/PP on pearls of power so they seem like they have an infinite number). Just by limiting to a single Core book, we're in better territory in choosing PF2E over PF1E. What I can already see in PF2E (which again was present in 4E and 3E as well, but not so much in 1E/2E & 5E) is the notion of alpha player quarterbacking of non-alpha players in both building their characters and taking their in-turn combat actions. PF2E is an intimidating system (PF2E core to PF1E core) if I put an alpha and non-alpha next to each other. Right now, a critical conversation affecting a possible game with the PF2E final rules with a non-alpha player is "oh, you want to be a ranged rogue? Are you sure, that's really sub-optimal unless you take the Fighter Dedication, but you'll want to consider if taking that as your first or second..." The alpha players actually have Excel open with probability models of critical successes vs regular successes and are building cheat sheets on what to do with their actions (from what I understand this will govern on if you should attack again or take a different action, or a multi-action "activity" type attack). If your table is all alphas, or all non-alphas (or just the GM is the alpha), these problems don't manifest as readily. [/QUOTE]

Verification