Pathfinder 2E PF2E Gurus teach me! +

To expand on what was said by @Thomas Shey on the previous page: PF2 does not have custom spell lists per class. Pathfinder doesn’t even try to divide them up. A class that tried to pare down the list would be weird and probably confusing to players because it’s unprecedented in the system. Any assumptions you have about how spells work would now have an exception for that one class. However, it might be interesting to have a class built around focus spells. You would have a bigger point pool that you could spend on different effects, but those would all be specific to your class.

Given how multiclassing works, that would be a viable way of maybe doing a Warlock conversion that maintains something close to what they have in 5E.

Edit: Without possibly being vulnerable to dips like 5E, that is.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Pathfinder Second Edition classes are built so you can build your character towards one of the niches it covers well. For fighters this tends to be high single target damage or protecting your allies. For Monks it tends to be control / lock down, being a mobile harrier or being tanky. The same is true for spellcasting classes. Each of the traditions have areas where excel and other areas do not.

I personally like this design as a player and GM because it is more resilient to different encounter schedules and encourages more breadth of group setup. You do not have to, but that is fundamentally how the designers have decided to design the game.
 

payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
Pathfinder Second Edition classes are built so you can build your character towards one of the niches it covers well. For fighters this tends to be high single target damage or protecting your allies. For Monks it tends to be control / lock down, being a mobile harrier or being tanky. The same is true for spellcasting classes. Each of the traditions have areas where excel and other areas do not.

I personally like this design as a player and GM because it is more resilient to different encounter schedules and encourages more breadth of group setup. You do not have to, but that is fundamentally how the designers have decided to design the game.
I get it too. I do miss the tool kit that PF1 allowed where I can make any kind of martial or caster, but I also recognize how difficult it often was. Also, because the tool kit always needed expanding there was always another option on the horizon. It got very unwieldy, but man do I really miss that customizability.
 

BrokenTwin

Biological Disaster
My group is planning on finally returning to Pathfinder to finish our Hell's Rebels game in PF2. I think starting our first PF2 game at level 13 is jumping WELL into the deep end, but we'll see how it goes. Digital character builders have been a godsend, haha.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
My group is planning on finally returning to Pathfinder to finish our Hell's Rebels game in PF2. I think starting our first PF2 game at level 13 is jumping WELL into the deep end, but we'll see how it goes. Digital character builders have been a godsend, haha.

I have to admit, that's going to be sink-or-swim if they're only familiar with PF1e and its kin.
 

wish in pf2e is a 10th level spell, which casters get a slot of at level 19 (and which magus' [magi?] never get). also, level 17 casters have 2 9th level spell slots, and get a 3rd at level 18 (and it's possible to get a second level 10 slot with a feat). also, it should be noted that every spell list except the elemental spell list has an equivalent to wish (miracle for divine, alter reality for occult, primal phenomenon for primal), because they only let you replicate 9th level spells from your spell list, as opposed to 7th level spells of spells from other lists that are common or you have access to (and make effects in line with such things and perform actions wish specifically says you can do but yada yada).

pf2e is balanced around encounters, not "the work day". this does not follow.

5e doesn't have competent mages - 5e has superior mages, and that's the exact problem pf2e has worked to solve (well, technically they were trying to solve pf1e/3.5e having superior mages, but again, yada yada).
At lvl 1,
wish in pf2e is a 10th level spell, which casters get a slot of at level 19 (and which magus' [magi?] never get). also, level 17 casters have 2 9th level spell slots, and get a 3rd at level 18 (and it's possible to get a second level 10 slot with a feat). also, it should be noted that every spell list except the elemental spell list has an equivalent to wish (miracle for divine, alter reality for occult, primal phenomenon for primal), because they only let you replicate 9th level spells from your spell list, as opposed to 7th level spells of spells from other lists that are common or you have access to (and make effects in line with such things and perform actions wish specifically says you can do but yada yada).

pf2e is balanced around encounters, not "the work day". this does not follow.

5e doesn't have competent mages - 5e has superior mages, and that's the exact problem pf2e has worked to solve (well, technically they were trying to solve pf1e/3.5e having superior mages, but again, yada yada).
seeing a wizard cast a wish spell is rarer than seeing one being eaten by a dragon

these examples in the last levels are ridiculous.

the game is played 90% in the first 10 levels and the first 10 levels are 90% of the importance of the game.
 

BrokenTwin

Biological Disaster
I have to admit, that's going to be sink-or-swim if they're only familiar with PF1e and its kin.
A couple in the group have prior experience with PF2, but with our group lately it's been The Witcher, Cy_Borg, and the Alien RPG. Arguing to play a quick non-canon adventure with level-1 versions of our PF1 characters so the rest of us have at least SOME exposure.
 
Last edited:

At lvl 1,
?
seeing a wizard cast a wish spell is rarer than seeing one being eaten by a dragon

these examples in the last levels are ridiculous.
if the last level examples are ridiculous, then why are you coming to me about it? i didn't start them.
the game is played 90% in the first 10 levels and the first 10 levels are 90% of the importance of the game.
no. screw this logic. it's not okay to ignore the design concerns of the second half of the game just because it isn't played as often, especially when ignoring the design concerns of the half of the game is part of the reason it doesn't get played as often. also - this is pf2e, not 5e. how do you know the proportions are the same?
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
the game is played 90% in the first 10 levels and the first 10 levels are 90% of the importance of the game.

I suspect that's significantly less true of PF2e than it has been of most D&D versions. There's still practical issues that probably bottom-load the level's played, but I suspect people are immensely less likely to abandon a game of PF2e that starts getting into double digits than 3e or PF1e (I won't speak of 5e because I lack enough experience with it to have an opinion).
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
A couple in the group have prior experience with PF2, but with our group lately it's been The Witcher, Cy_Borg, and the Alien RPG. Arguing to play a quick non-canon adventure with level-1 versions of our PF1 characters so the rest of us have at least SOME exposure.

It wouldn't be a terrible idea. If nothing else, getting used to the three-action system (and getting over trying to use the third action to attack with, which is absolutely the thing that 90% of all characters only want to do with it when there's absolutely no better choice) wouldn't be a bad idea.

At least it sounds like you're not in the group that Knows Nothing But D&D, but since you're ex-PF1e players you're liable to carry forward expectations from that which will not do you in good stead.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top