Pathfinder 2E PF2 house-rules / variant rules

[dave2008]

Never seen 2e lore conversation live long though. Could try that I suppose

Rules aren't lore, so this is the wrong thread for that. But feel free to post your own thread about 2e lore. I don't know if PF2 is the same, but over 50% of D&D players use their own setting, so you are likely to get less traction with a lore thread vs a mechanics thread.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That is not a PF2 issue. Most D&D and D&D adjacent threads go this way.

Honestly, as Payn says above, any game with significant mechanical heft does. And it does seem oddly perverse to object to mechanical discussion in a houserules thread. After all, the whole point of houserules is to address mechanical issues which aren't serving your purposes, or where you think the extent rules are malformed--what else would be discussed in this kind of thread?

 

[MaskedGuy]

Honestly, as Payn says above, any game with significant mechanical heft does. And it does seem oddly perverse to object to mechanical discussion in a houserules thread. After all, the whole point of houserules is to address mechanical issues which aren't serving your purposes, or where you think the extent rules are malformed--what else would be discussed in this kind of thread?

I think two people pointing that out means third one pointing it out is kinda kicking person down x'D

(I was in really bad mood okay x'D)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Rules aren't lore, so this is the wrong thread for that. But feel free to post your own thread about 2e lore. I don't know if PF2 is the same, but over 50% of D&D players use their own setting, so you are likely to get less traction with a lore thread vs a mechanics thread.

I have to admit, I'm only mildly interested in Golarion, so...

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think two people pointing that out means third one pointing it out is kinda kicking person down x'D

(I was in really bad mood okay x'D)

Happens to everyone. But I was more agreeing with Dave2008 than trying to kick you.

 

[MaskedGuy]

Rules aren't lore, so this is the wrong thread for that. But feel free to post your own thread about 2e lore. I don't know if PF2 is the same, but over 50% of D&D players use their own setting, so you are likely to get less traction with a lore thread vs a mechanics thread.

I have to admit, I'm only mildly interested in Golarion, so...

Just to note though, when I talk about lore threads I'm talking about stuff like

"Man proteans are cool, you should use them more often"

Or "man this deity is cool, anybody likes this sort of tropes?"

than "I wonder if they are ever going to make book on this nation"

 

[payn]

Just to note though, when I talk about lore threads I'm talking about stuff like

"Man proteans are cool, you should use them more often"

Or "man this deity is cool, anybody likes this sort of tropes?"

than "I wonder if they are ever going to make book on this nation"

I like this stuff too. Tho, you are correct you wont get many takers on those subjects unfortunately.

 

[BigZebra]

Well perhaps on the PF2 Reddit. That’s pretty active. Also for lore stuff. But yes even there mechanics are top sellers.

 

[Staffan]

Well, far as I can tell, the buffs on the Primal list are really intended for yourself, unlike the ones on the Occult list (which overlap with the Arcane one a fair bit in that area I noticed). I think actually Primal has the worst list of buffs for others of the four.

That's one of its main weaknesses, yes. There are some buffs, but mostly in the form of imparting new abilities (e.g. fly) than improving existing ones. The other main primal weakness is that they have very few spells requiring Will saves, which is bad because it is really useful to be able to figure out what an opponent's weak save is and target that. My understanding is that the relationship between player save DCs and monster saves more or less assumes that you'll be able to target a weak save most of the time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Just to note though, when I talk about lore threads I'm talking about stuff like

"Man proteans are cool, you should use them more often"

Or "man this deity is cool, anybody likes this sort of tropes?"

than "I wonder if they are ever going to make book on this nation"

I might be able to get something out of the first one, but I rarely even use extent deities, so...

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's one of its main weaknesses, yes. There are some buffs, but mostly in the form of imparting new abilities (e.g. fly) than improving existing ones. The other main primal weakness is that they have very few spells requiring Will saves, which is bad because it is really useful to be able to figure out what an opponent's weak save is and target that. My understanding is that the relationship between player save DCs and monster saves more or less assumes that you'll be able to target a weak save most of the time.

In terms of offensive spells, yeah. I'll have to look over Primal again and get back to you; it didn't seem that bad to me, but I've admittedly not read them in detail.

 

[Staffan]

In terms of offensive spells, yeah. I'll have to look over Primal again and get back to you; it didn't seem that bad to me, but I've admittedly not read them in detail.

There's plenty of offense, both in terms of boom-boom and physical debuffs. There are very few mental debuffs because primal isn't about that sort of thing. Fear is one of course (because ROAR!), as is charm (but that's not very combat-suitable) but I think the next one I found was curse of the mariner. I also remember an APG spell that has an indirect Will save, where you cast the spell on one target who gets a Fortitude save to resist a bunch of body horror stuff, and everyone who sees it has to make a Will save or be grossed out. But in general, Will saves are sufficiently rare in primal that I've strongly considered spending my sorcerer's next feat on Cross-blooded evolution just so I can get some Will goodness (or badness, as the case may be).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, that part doesn't surprise me; like you say it just mostly isn't their gig. It was mostly the lack of personal buffs I found surprising.

 

[MaskedGuy]

Charm is one weird spell because while its not combat suitable, it can solve entire encounter with good luck.

Like, in Edgewatch there is strike with single rabblerouser bullying others to be violent, she crit failed charm spell from our sorcerer(and will save was worst save before +4 in combat bonus) so we essentially solved entire dungeon with single spell without much violence :'D

 

[Philip Benz]

Yeah, that part doesn't surprise me; like you say it just mostly isn't their gig. It was mostly the lack of personal buffs I found surprising.

Just off the top of my head, Stoneskin, Haste and Fly are all primal spells. Sure, there are buffs they don't get, like Heroism, but that's true of any tradition.

The important thing to do with a spellcaster, regardless of your tradition, is to try different options and be creative with how you can put them to use. Druids have a leg up over spontaneous casters, since they can swap out their spells every day, having access to all common spells in the CRB (and from other sources, if your DM is ready to ignore that niggling little detail).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Just off the top of my head, Stoneskin, Haste and Fly are all primal spells. Sure, there are buffs they don't get, like Heroism, but that's true of any tradition.

Well, Fly is arguably not a buff spell (because not everyone can usefully take advantage of it), but I'd indeed have been surprised that Primal didn't get the other two.

(Yes, I know, not everyone gets much out of Haste either, but there's enough benefits for being able to move in and out of combat without otherwise disrupting your three-action process I'm willing to count it as one).

The important thing to do with a spellcaster, regardless of your tradition, is to try different options and be creative with how you can put them to use. Druids have a leg up over spontaneous casters, since they can swap out their spells every day, having access to all common spells in the CRB (and from other sources, if your DM is ready to ignore that niggling little detail).

While true, I'll be honest: if I'm playing a prepared spellcaster 90% of the time I might as well be playing a spontaneous one, since I lack the patience for constantly micromanaging my spell list. I'll do something special if I know something very specific is going to be in demand, but otherwise I just have a standard set that I stick to.

 

[Philip Benz]

One of the things I love about playing wizards is trying to expand my spellbook as much as possible, and even if I have a few must-take spells, I try to change things up here and there, and find situational spells that'll fit the right situation.

There is also an arcane theses, Spell Substitution, that allows you to swap out a prepared but uncast spell for a different one. Very handy indeed, for the wizard with a big spellbook.

You're right, Thomas, a player not wanting to get into the minutiae of having lots of spells is better off going spontaneous.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You're right, Thomas, a player not wanting to get into the minutiae of having lots of spells is better off going spontaneous.

But of course sometimes you want other elements of the class, so you just shrug and do what I do.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Yeah when I was playing my Evocation Wizard, I wasnt really trying to use that many spells, it just fit the character and I wanted a spell blender to maximize top level slots for blasting, and to use intelligence.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah when I was playing my Evocation Wizard, I wasnt really trying to use that many spells, it just fit the character and I wanted a spell blender to maximize top level slots for blasting, and to use intelligence.

Well, I still question how many people regularly use spells below his top three levels; there's a few bottom-end boosts and such that keep some value, but when you factor in time factors and such, I still wonder about it.