Pathfinder 2E PF2E Gurus teach me! +

pf2e doesn't have an artificer, it has an inventor. it's quite a different beast.
They are both primary weapons users with a bag of supplemental tricks. The tricks for the inventor aren't spells, but the effects and economy are similar in many cases to PF2e spells.

They are very different beasts, but it's mostly the same way that the 5e and PF2e fighters are very different beasts.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

W'rkncacnter

Adventurer
They are both primary weapons users with a bag of supplemental tricks. The tricks for the inventor aren't spells, but the effects and economy are similar in many cases to PF2e spells.

They are very different beasts, but it's mostly the same way that the 5e and PF2e fighters are very different beasts.
5e artificers aren't really primarily weapon users, though? it's subclass dependent. not to mention 5e artificers also (for better or worse) encompass the design space of the alchemist as well. then there's infusions...i dunno if it's really a comparable situation at all to fighters.
 

5e artificers aren't really primarily weapon users, though? it's subclass dependent. not to mention 5e artificers also (for better or worse) encompass the design space of the alchemist as well. then there's infusions...i dunno if it's really a comparable situation at all to fighters.
The artificer is a half-caster like the ranger
Two of the subclasses have ways to use Int to boost damage and tohit for weapons/unarmed strikes. And the subclasses are "armorer" (see inventor's armor innovation), "battlesmith" (see inventor's construct innovation) and "alchemist", which, to your point, isn't included in the inventor class, but that is likely because it was already its own whole separate PF2e class already.

I don't really see much of a difference between infusions in 5e and modifications in PF2e.

Ultimately the 5e artificer has more and better tricks than the inventor because they have more spells and spells are better in 5e, but, absent the alchemist, they are more similar than dissimilar, at least in my opinion.
 

W'rkncacnter

Adventurer
The artificer is a half-caster like the ranger
Two of the subclasses have ways to use Int to boost damage and tohit for weapons/unarmed strikes. And the subclasses are "armorer" (see inventor's armor innovation), "battlesmith" (see inventor's construct innovation) and "alchemist", which, to your point, isn't included in the inventor class, but that is likely because it was already its own whole separate PF2e class already.
...you forgot the artillerist, which is essentially a blaster. and that's what i meant about the alchemist - the 5e artificer is almost more an alchemist and inventor in one then just an inventor.
I don't really see much of a difference between infusions in 5e and modifications in PF2e.
pf2e's modifications seem (at least to me) focused around your invention (which i guess could be considered your subclass?). 5e's infusions have little if anything to do with your subclass - they're very general improvements you can give out however you want. in other words, modifications only help you, while infusions can (usually) be given to teammates. i think that's a pretty big distinction. also infusions seem a lot more core to the artificer then modifications are to the inventor.
Ultimately the 5e artificer has more and better tricks than the inventor because they have more spells and spells are better in 5e, but, absent the alchemist, they are more similar than dissimilar, at least in my opinion.
considering the overall topic, i think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree and move on.
 

Staffan

Legend
There's two slightly different cases. Class Archetypes you can only take one of according to the core book; far as I can tell, these are all the Archetypes that are not essentially Multiclassing Archetypes. You can take more than one Multiclass Archetype (or combine any number of them with a Class Archetype) but at least all the ones I've seen you have to do a three-feat buy-in before you can take a second, so there's no "I just grab the first feat for what I want and move on" like the one-level dips in 3e.
Well, you can take a one-feat dip into an archetype, but only one. If you really wanted Expert Medicine at 2nd level without being a rogue or investigator (which would then allow you to get Continuous Recovery at 2nd level as well, and then use your 3rd level general feat for Ward Medic), you could take the Medic archetype and then never take another Medic feat again. But you wouldn't then be able to also go into e.g. Herbalist for even more healing.
 


Yaarel

Mind Mage
I am reading more about the Nordic "Ulfen".

To be fair, I am reading P1 descriptions about the Ulfen, from the book, Lands of the Linnorm Kings, and from PathfinderWiki .com. But since this is lore, it still remains in effect for players who continue the Golarion setting in P2.

The gaming descriptions about Nordic ethnic groups are "Oriental Adventures" levels of problematic.

Maybe Golarion is worse, because the exoticization leans into demonization.

The descriptions are almost always from an "outsider" point of view of a foreigner, exaggerating stereotypes, with little or no empathy for who is being described, or what the values of these cultures are, or how a culture functions sustainably. There is frequent misrepresentation of reallife terms from the Nordic cultural heritages. Main cities are classified as "Chaotic Evil" or at best "Chaotic Neutral".

This is the stuff of defamation.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
Hopefully future Paizo products and options can remedy the Ulfen to comprise more mindful ethnicities with more dignity and a fair share of altruism.

At least Pathfinder 2 can be a fresh start for how to portray cultural identities generally, especially if the "other". Seeing the culture from the point of view of an "insider" always helps, and when modeling a reallife culture then one requires a reallife insider. There needs to be an effort to find ways to value and appreciate any differences − sometimes even by the insider oneself. Many aspects are shared in common and taken for granted − but can be important to portray a culture with more weight, depth, and realism.

Heh, an unfortunate depiction of cultures isnt the first, and wont be the last, issue that the D&D traditions have to finetune as the traditions move forward for new generations.



By the way, I found this character optimization assessment for the Pathfinder 2 Wizard to be helpful, at RPG Bot .net. Seeing a class analyzed this way helps me understand more clearly how the features work, and also a sense of the balance.
 

I am reading more about the Nordic "Ulfen".

To be fair, I am reading P1 descriptions about the Ulfen, from the book, Lands of the Linnorm Kings, and from PathfinderWiki .com. But since this is lore, it still remains in effect for players who continue the Golarion setting in P2.

The gaming descriptions about Nordic ethnic groups are "Oriental Adventures" levels of problematic.

Maybe Golarion is worse, because the exoticization leans into demonization.

The descriptions are almost always from an "outsider" point of view of a foreigner, exaggerating stereotypes, with little or no empathy for who is being described, or what the values of these cultures are, or how a culture functions sustainably. There is frequent misrepresentation of reallife terms from the Nordic cultural heritages. Main cities are classified as "Chaotic Evil" or at best "Chaotic Neutral".

This is the stuff of defamation.

Yeah, earlier Pathfinder (October 2011, so just over 2 years after the initial release), which was a whole lot of edge. Just look at the Hook Mountain Ogres or early Erastil and there's plenty of rough stuff. Their output has greatly improved with their recent stuff, but no denying some of the rough parts of the old stuff.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
There's been a great degree of the older material that has been sort of passively ignored when you get into the details. That is to say, Paizo hasn't addressed the matter actively in the new material, but when happens to come up, they treat it like it was never the case. I know some people would prefer they actively repudiate some of the more problematic stuff, but that doesn't seem like the tact they're taking, but they're also not sticking with it.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
Is Golarion a setting that actively welcomes people to add to it and modify it? Or is it more like a Forgotten Realms canon, whose official lore is zealously guarded?
 
Last edited:


Retreater

Legend
At least Pathfinder 2 can be a fresh start for how to portray cultural identities generally, especially if the "other". Seeing the culture from the point of view of an "insider" always helps, and when modeling a reallife culture then one requires a reallife insider. There needs to be an effort to find ways to value and appreciate any differences − sometimes even by the insider oneself. Many aspects are shared in common and taken for granted − but can be important to portray a culture with more weight, depth, and realism.
I think you can see a good example of that in the recent Lost Omens: Mwangi Expanse release.
If you're curious about the bios of the writers, here's a link. It's a pretty diverse pool, at least by the old time RPG standards.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
Do you mean like in a content-creation way for Pathfinder Infinite, or just as a community in general?
Kinda both.

Pathfinder Infinite is cool as a place to put homebrew.

At the same time, generally, do Golarion players typically modify the setting and rules, or do they tend to go by the book?

For example, most 5e players dont use the FR setting, or if they do use it loosely. But the players who are dedicated to the FR setting specifically tend to accumulate canon. (Altho FR setting users are a minority, there are more for FR than any other official setting.)


I guess what I am asking. If I am creating new setting content, should I make an effort to make this content available for Golarion for other players who want to import it? Or should I just start my own setting from scratch?
 

payn

Legend
Kinda both.

Pathfinder Infinite is cool as a place to put homebrew.

At the same time, generally, do Golarion players typically modify the setting and rules, or do they tend to go by the book?

For example, most 5e players dont use the FR setting, or if they do use it loosely. But the players who are dedicated to the FR setting specifically tend to accumulate canon. (Altho FR setting users are a minority, there are more for FR than any other official setting.)


I guess what I am asking. If I am creating new setting content, should I make an effort to make this content available for Golarion for other players who want to import it? Or should I just start my own setting from scratch?
My experience is that PF fans tend to be a lot more into Golarion than D&D players are in the variety of settings there. I believe its because of that variety that D&D tends to be a lot more do what ya feel. Also, Golarion has a ton of adventure paths, PFS scenarios, etc.. It's a lot more concentrated than its D&D counterparts.

The lazy take a foundation and make it really something style in me says go for Golarion. Though, if you are not so lacking in creativity as me, and can make your own deal out of whole cloth, go for it!
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
My own suspicion is that on the macro scale (i.e. the countries and cultures) most PF2e players and GMs just figure there's probably some area they can get what they want out of as-is without doing the heavy lifting. That said, if I'm recalling correctly there's one area that's deliberately underdeveloped to let GMs who want to do more of a ground-up approach do so while still using the rest of it.

I'll be upfront here; while PF2e is one of my favorites in the D&D-sphere, I'm prone to want to do my own worlds all the way, and I find adapting PF2e to that more than a little intimidating. But then, when of that mood, I'm not particularly likely to use something D&D-ish anyway.
 

fjw70

Adventurer
My own suspicion is that on the macro scale (i.e. the countries and cultures) most PF2e players and GMs just figure there's probably some area they can get what they want out of as-is without doing the heavy lifting. That said, if I'm recalling correctly there's one area that's deliberately underdeveloped to let GMs who want to do more of a ground-up approach do so while still using the rest of it.

I'll be upfront here; while PF2e is one of my favorites in the D&D-sphere, I'm prone to want to do my own worlds all the way, and I find adapting PF2e to that more than a little intimidating. But then, when of that mood, I'm not particularly likely to use something D&D-ish anyway.
I am curious what find intimidating about adapting PF2 to other setting.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
I am curious what find intimidating about adapting PF2 to other setting.
I ran PF2 in a homebrew setting and ran into a few issues. A lot of these are due to the nature of my setting, so others may have different or less severe experiences than I did.

My homebrew setting does not have any of the common D&D ancestries. The two closest (elven and yuma, which are humans renamed to avoid confusion by players) are still different enough that I did not want to use human as written in the book. I wanted humans to be another kind of monster (setting eschews humanocentrism). That meant I had to devise new ancestries for my six core ancestries, and I had to create ancestry feats for them. There were far fewer ancestries at the time, so there were fewer feats to repurpose or use as a benchmark when designing my own. If you can get by with the core races or taking some of the published ones and tweaking them, that will make things a lot easier.

A cleric gets a lot of functionality from their deity in PF2. There are still domains, but every deity has edicts and anathema. The latter is important because clerics are obligated to follow it. My setting has religion but no actual deities (powerful creatures that are worshiped don’t grant powers or anything). I also don’t like the way D&D has traditionally approached religion, so that meant I had to come up with a bunch of cleric stuff to replace the core deities. That never really happened except in the case of one player, and (at the time) it was fortuitous that I could use Sarenrae as an angel that was worshiped. Most people won’t have the problems I did, especially if they can reflavor the core deities or adapt them to other settings that work similarly.

I don’t like the champion class. I thought the paladin in PF1 was more interesting because its powers came from belief in its righteousness than being an emissary of a deity. That meant you could have thematically interesting situations like a paladin of Asmodeus. That’s not the case nor possible in PF2. I made some attempts to hack up the champion to be oath-based, but if I ran PF2 again, I’d just ban the class. It was a lot of effort, and it worked really poorly with the tools at the time (Hero Lab Online) because its support for homebrew was pretty poor (especially compared to Hero Lab Classic). This is related to the above in that if you have a more traditional D&D approach to religion/deities, the champion is probably fine.

A more practical issue is the PF1 Player’s Companion line got combined with the Campaign Setting line in PF2, so a lot of new material is published in the Lost Omens line. If you want to use it, you’ll have to adapt some of it to your setting. I categorically disallowed it because I was not willing to do that work (on top of everything else). I’d also add I liked some aspects of Golarion more before it was changed in PF2. I actually liked having a functioning Evil civilization. I think that’s more interesting than where things seemed to be heading towards the end of PF1 and into PF2. I also liked that Good people and factions did some seemingly awful things, and those were not necessarily against their alignments. I think alignment is more interesting when it’s not just the clearly good versus the clearly bad.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I am curious what find intimidating about adapting PF2 to other setting.

One of the things about PF2e is that it is, for the D&D sphere, shockingly well-balanced. This doesn't mean there aren't a few problem children here and there, but you can play for quite some time without running into them. One of the reasons for this is that there's been great care taken with class, archetype and ancestry feats.

But the latter is the rub here. When I do a fantasy setting from the ground up, its quite likely to want to do a number of either original or heavily modified ancestries and archetypes. And I have remarkable little faith in my ability to consistently get them balanced properly against each other and the extent material.

This is a fundamental problem with games in the D&D-sphere to me: everything is, at the end of the day, ad-hoc. That's true of feats, spells, magic items and pretty much almost everything above the most basic level.

Edit: Keneda's post above, though having problems in different areas, illustrates the kind of problems I'm talking about.
 

fjw70

Adventurer
I see. When I use a game (like Pathfinder) for other setting I don’t create new races/ancestries and backgrounds. I typically just reskin things. I can see that creating issues.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top