Pathfinder 2E PF2E Gurus teach me! +

Staffan

Legend
Not sure if the following is a rules question, a setting question, or even a social encounter question:

How does a Wizard "buy" new spells during downtime?

To learn a spell, you use the Learn a Spell exploration activity, and you must have the spell in writing or someone who can teach it to you. Note that if you learn the spell from a scroll, that does not consume the scroll. There are no rules I know of for how much getting access to the spell costs, but you could use half the scroll price as a guideline (which would be the same as buying a scroll, learning the spell, and then selling the scroll). There are also costs for the learning process itself, as explained in the link.

The same rules are used for e.g. clerics learning uncommon/rare spells.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

• Melee gish
With the way attack and armor bonuses scale, this is a difficult concept to pull off using the core caster classes (likely on purpose) after the first few levels.

The Magus is probably the closest, but the full caster that is also a deadly melee combatant isn't really a thing in PF2e.
 


Thomas Shey

Legend
4e and 5e have this kind of stuff too. For example, the 4e "Bloodied" condition and the 5e "Psionic" tag, dont have mechanics in themselves, but other mechanics can refer to them.

It just needs to be clear, when a flavor text clarifies there is actually no mechanics, but there can be mechanics elsewhere relating to it.

I agree, reducing complexity as much as possible ("but not simpler" than that) is an important goal.

And "possible" is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence. You can always simplify a set of game mechanics more; the question is what you sacrificed to do so and is it worth it? Often there's a price in either mechanical engagement, character representation, or game balance and how much those matter is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Last edited:


Thomas Shey

Legend
How easy is it to play different settings in P2?

How baked in is the Golarion flavor into the classes and rules, in practice.

For example,

The stereotype of Nordic peoples as the "fur-clad raiders" Ulfen is uninformed and a bit offensive.

Also, I am less interested in the gods scene, and the core Cleric class seems to require it.

What do P2 players do for non-Golarion settings?

Its hard to easily answer this. There are certainly parts where you're going to need to do a bit of work to use some material, but its not prohibitive. As I noted up above, we're playing currently in a 3PP adventure path with its own implied setting, and the GM has just let us extend the setting as needed to cover any ground.

There are a few ancestries you'd need to rework. Personally, I'd find the hardest part constructing proper ancestry feats that are well balanced for new or substitute ancestries. The rest is mostly trivial (the clerics do require some definition on the gods, but that shouldn't be surprised for a priestly class that has any texture to it at all).
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
In my experience, while our campaign is set in Golarion, almost none of the core class or racial features have explicit setting correspondence.

If it'd been set in fantasy Philadelphia, I think the impact on character creation would have been negligible (assuming you're cool with elves, dwarves and goblins being residents in fantasy Philadelphia).

Its less true with some non-core material, though. As I noted, some of the more unusual Ancestries are more Golarion-specific.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
The canonical (ironically) solution for people who want to cast divine spells without worshiping a deity is to be an Oracle instead.

Or a divine Sorcerer, though I've heard some complaints that's one of the weaker sorcerer takes (I don't have enough context to say why).

As for ethnicities and rules connected to those: there are some ancestry feats, mostly in books in the Lost Omens product line (the Golarion setting). I don't think there are any in the core books.

I haven't noticed any, partly because Golarion elves, dwarves, gnomes and so on are, in practice, pretty conventional for the D&D-sphere.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
With the way attack and armor bonuses scale, this is a difficult concept to pull off using the core caster classes (likely on purpose) after the first few levels.

The Magus is probably the closest, but the full caster that is also a deadly melee combatant isn't really a thing in PF2e.

You can make it work after a fashion with a wizard or sorcerer with an Archetype Dedication to a fighting class, but unless its its a free archetype game that's not a cost-free option.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I was also going to comment on something someone earlier in the thread about the reputation being that GMs like PF2e better than players do. I think there's a couple reasons you see this frequently and it has everything to do with the fact that most players and GMs hitting the game system aren't tabula rasas and are often familiar with either 3e era D&D or PF1e.

1. At the GM end, those games become progressively a pill to run at higher levels because of the compounding accumulated bits many opponents have that you need to keep track of. Except to a limited degree with spellcasters, PF2e avoids that, and its a pretty noticeable difference.

2. At the other end, players have sometimes gotten used to one of three things that are either less or not true with PF2e: A. Being able to bake a cake during character generation and/or advancement so you breeze through opposition, B. Being able to run a character on autopilot, C. Spellcasters that are, frankly, often OP compared to other classes. Its genuinely hard to completely cook a character in PF2e (and requires some effort to wreck one), the system almost always requires paying some attention in play, and spellcasters and non-spellcasters have been pushed closer together which required the reduction or elimination of some easy-win cards some people got used to. If any of these three apply, the system can take some getting used to at the least, and if players were really comfortable with any of the three, can come across as unpleasant. As mentioned, if the level of opposition is not comforting you can adjust that a bit (but its going to be in a way that doesn't hide what it is) but the others are not likely addressable in ways that wouldn't break the system.

My opinion is neither of these would be as pronounced to people who come in entirely from outside the D&D ecosystem or were new to RPGing in general.
 

You can make it work after a fashion with a wizard or sorcerer with an Archetype Dedication to a fighting class, but unless its its a free archetype game that's not a cost-free option.
And it is decidedly "after a fashion", though, if you pick the right archetypes and general feats, perhaps it is less noticeably so until the mid levels when the proficiency scaling stalls out and you run out of ways to boost it.

It's certainly nowhere near the bananapants things 5e enables.
 
Last edited:

Its less true with some non-core material, though. As I noted, some of the more unusual Ancestries are more Golarion-specific.
Agreed.

The nice thing is that these are generally tagged as "uncommon" or "rare" in the books, so it's not too difficult to put a fence around it and then decide what you're ok with.
 
Last edited:

Staffan

Legend
Or a divine Sorcerer, though I've heard some complaints that's one of the weaker sorcerer takes (I don't have enough context to say why).
Well, here's the thing. In theory, the four tradition spell lists are balanced against one another. In practice, they are built around the wizard, druid, cleric, and bard classes. Out of those, the Arcane list is the strongest, which is balanced by the rest of the wizard being weaker (worse hp, less exciting class feats, and so on.

The sorcerer gets to choose a spell list, but the rest of the class is based more-or-less around the wizard chassis. So if you put the cleric divine spell list on a wizard-like chassis, that's going to have a little less oomph.

In addition, the divine list is heavy on heals and condition relief, and low on offense – particularly general-purpose offense. Many of the divine list's offensive spells are alignment-based and require a deity (because by the book their alignments are limited by the deity's alignment – it would be reasonable to use the sorcerer's alignment for these spells, but that's not RAW).

Further, condition relief leans heavily on the counteracting mechanic, which wants you to use high-level spells to counter high-level threats. But it's hard for a sorcerer, with their limited repertoire, to be ready with dispel magic, remove curse, remove fear, remove paralysis, remove disease, neutralize poison, and whatever else all at high levels. The cleric can even take a class feat that deals with this (Channeled Succor), but the sorcerer has no such luck.

The primal and occult lists also have a lot of condition relief, but they have enough offense that you can focus on that instead. The divine list does not.
I haven't noticed any, partly because Golarion elves, dwarves, gnomes and so on are, in practice, pretty conventional for the D&D-sphere.
I was mainly thinking of feats like Devil's Advocate, which requires Chelaxian nationality. The Character Guide has some similar feats for other ancestries, like Wildborn Magic which is only accessible to a particular elven ethnicity.

The baseline ancestries as described in the core book are pretty vanilla, yes. The Character Guide gives more Golarion-specific information about different ethnicities and cultures belonging to the various ancestries.
 


It's certainly nowhere near the bananapants things 5e enables.

Yeah, recent events made me really appreciate the simplified multiclassing here. I'm in a 5E campaign (probably the last one my group does for a while) and one of the players is switching to a new character, and she wanted to do a Cleric/Artificer. At that point, me and another player were like, trying to figure out if that was a worthwhile choice and how that would work and I almost got a headache. There is just so much that goes into the straight "Mash these two classes together" multiclassing that you can do some wild stuff with it, but trying to guide other people through it is just a straight-up hassle, especially when you are trying to avoid having a useless combo.
 


Further, condition relief leans heavily on the counteracting mechanic, which wants you to use high-level spells to counter high-level threats. But it's hard for a sorcerer, with their limited repertoire, to be ready with dispel magic, remove curse, remove fear, remove paralysis, remove disease, neutralize poison, and whatever else all at high levels. The cleric can even take a class feat that deals with this (Channeled Succor), but the sorcerer has no such luck.
One thing I'd note is the moment to moment flexibility the sorcerer has in spell selection as a spontaneous caster (who can use any of spell slots they have of a particular level to cast any spell they know at that level) vs. the cleric as a prepared caster (who has to assign each spell slot to a particular spell as part of daily prep).

Divine Font (which gives clerics some bonus "free" Heal spells) + the feat you linked helps a lot with this, bit it's a difference worth highlighting.
 

Folks vastly prefer Foundry and from what I heard its not much of a competition when it comes to PF2.
We played one session in Roll20 before switching over. Roll20 at the time needed a whole bunch of custom formulas and such to get things to work even decently.

Foundry's stuff is almost 100% drag and drop (e.g. if someone casts enlarge on you, you can drag the effect from chat onto your token, it will make your token the appropriate size and put all the relevant bonuses into your character sheet) and nearly every feature has continued to improve over the last couple years.

I haven't played 5e on it, but I wouldn't be shocked to find out that the 5e experience is superior as well.

The main thing roll20 has going for it is that it's the most convenient place I'm aware of to look for players/games.
 

niklinna

Legend
Drat it, that gets me more often than I'd like. 2nd edition doesn't seem to have a central discussion of concentration. I can't even find text explaining how the trait applies to casting spells!
Ah, the nut of it is in the Sustain a Spell activity. You can spend one action to sustain a spell—which means you can sustain up to three spells, if you don't mind not doing anything else. Or two spells, and do one other thing (which will probably not be casting a new spell, as most spells cost two actions).

And here I had assumed you could only concentrate on one spell at a time, just like in 5e, because of that word being there. Like learning a foreign language similar to your own but a couple essential words have very different meanings!
 

Lord Shark

Explorer
Drat it, that gets me more often than I'd like. 2nd edition doesn't seem to have a central discussion of concentration. I can't even find text explaining how the trait applies to casting spells!

If you're thinking of concentration as a spell duration, see the Sustain a Spell action.

It's important to note that in PF2, just getting hit does not make it impossible to Cast a Spell, Sustain a Spell, or do other actions with the Concentrate trait (unless you have an ability that says you do, like the fighter's Disruptive Stance).

Does this mean casters can just wade into melee in PF2 without fear of losing spells? Yeah, but going over to stand next to the angry guy with a battleaxe when you've got a bathrobe and 14 HP probably isn't an optimal strategy.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top