Pathfinder 2E The Pathfinder Subform Is Definitely Dead - So What?

[Jfdlsjfd]

Out of curiosity, where's your break point on that? Because I don't play perfect characters either, I have a 'good enough is good enough' threshold at like 70%.

It's extremely variable. The limit I feel is when the character becomes a liability for the group and other characters would be justified in posting an ad to recruit a replacement for him ;-) I have seen played totally nonviolent character who were just obnoxious disruption to the group (usually, a pacifist barbarian or something like that you knew would be awful), and I don't want to be this. But unoptimized characters or "wasting a level" for flair and no mechanical benefit, I have done. That's why I like when the campaign starts at higher than level 1 : it's an opportunity to have more starting variety...

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

It's extremely variable. The limit I feel is when the character becomes a liability for the group and other characters would be justified in posting an ad to recruit a replacement for him ;-) I have seen played totally nonviolent character who were just obnoxious disruption to the group (usually, a pacifist barbarian or something like that you knew would be awful), and I don't want to be this. But unoptimized characters or "wasting a level" for flair and no mechanical benefit, I have done. That's why I like when the campaign starts at higher than level 1 : it's an opportunity to have more starting variety...

Same pretty much.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Its certainly possible to have a criterion for "bad" that translates into "anything outside a very narrow collection of character creation and advancement options", and I don't have much sympathy for those. A lot of that depends on how prone a given system is with outright trap options. PF2e seems to mostly avoid those, though there are a few cases where you really have to want the trappings of a particular class or setup to conclude its actually the way you want to build a character (because there's three to four other not-dissimilar constructions that seem to be more generally useful).

And of course you have to account for some people confusing "I just don't like how this works" with "It works bad". The Alchemist is kind of an example of the range here, where a bomber can be made useful with the right choice, and a mutagenist is at least functional as long as you're looking for what it gives you. The churgeon may land in my above case (you really have to want an alchemist/healer, because almost any other specialist healer build will probably to the actual job better).

 

[Staffan]

The churgeon may land in my above case (you really have to want an alchemist/healer, because almost any other specialist healer build will probably to the actual job better).

I think part of the problem with the chirurgeon is that magical healing got a huge last-minute boost (by adding +8/spell level to the amount healed by a 2-action heal, and adding a similar-sized boost to soothe), and elixirs of life did not keep up. In the playtest, an 8th level cleric would cast a 4th level heal for 4d8 (average 18) points, and an 8th level alchemist could make an elixir of life healing 7d6 (average 24). That's a comparison that's pretty favorable to the alchemist. But in the published version, the elixir of life is 9th level for starters instead of 8th, and heals 5d6+12 (average 29). That might seem good, but not when compared to a 5th level heal doing 5d8+40 points (average 62 – twice as much). And that's without considering that alchemists off-load the action cost of their healing on the healed target (when the whole point of having a healer is that the healer spends their actions and resources healing, leaving damage-dealers free to deal damage).

The numerical comparison is a little unfair, because the cleric will likely have something like 3 heals per day, whereas the alchemist can make up to 39 elixirs, although that's assuming they use all their reagents on that. But IME, healing big is more useful than healing efficiently, because when you're not in a hurry you use Treat Wounds instead.

Another chirurgeon problem is that their Perpetual Infusions gets them unlimited antidotes/antiplagues, but (a) an antidote or antiplague already lasts for 6 hours, so you generally don't need all that many of them, and (b) by the time you get them, you should be about to get resilience runes so they're effectively only +1. I mean, +1 to saves versus poison and disease isn't nothing, but it's not as fun as infinite Bottled Lightning.

If I were to try to fix the chirurgeon, I would give them a pretty chonky bonus to healing done with their infused elixirs of life. I'd also add in a level 3 version, because trying to heal a 4th level dwarf fighter with 58 hp by using 1d6 elixirs doesn't sound like a good time. I'd probably also let their Perpetual Potions make Elixirs of Life – unlimited 1d6/round healing at level 7 isn't as broken as it sounds, I think. Oh, and I'd include a clarification that lets them substitute Crafting for Medicine when it comes to skill feats and unlocking higher-level versions of Treat Wounds and the like.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think part of the problem with the chirurgeon is that magical healing got a huge last-minute boost (by adding +8/spell level to the amount healed by a 2-action heal, and adding a similar-sized boost to soothe), and elixirs of life did not keep up. In the playtest, an 8th level cleric would cast a 4th level heal for 4d8 (average 18) points, and an 8th level alchemist could make an elixir of life healing 7d6 (average 24). That's a comparison that's pretty favorable to the alchemist. But in the published version, the elixir of life is 9th level for starters instead of 8th, and heals 5d6+12 (average 29). That might seem good, but not when compared to a 5th level heal doing 5d8+40 points (average 62 – twice as much). And that's without considering that alchemists off-load the action cost of their healing on the healed target (when the whole point of having a healer is that the healer spends their actions and resources healing, leaving damage-dealers free to deal damage).

The numerical comparison is a little unfair, because the cleric will likely have something like 3 heals per day, whereas the alchemist can make up to 39 elixirs, although that's assuming they use all their reagents on that. But IME, healing big is more useful than healing efficiently, because when you're not in a hurry you use Treat Wounds instead.

Another chirurgeon problem is that their Perpetual Infusions gets them unlimited antidotes/antiplagues, but (a) an antidote or antiplague already lasts for 6 hours, so you generally don't need all that many of them, and (b) by the time you get them, you should be about to get resilience runes so they're effectively only +1. I mean, +1 to saves versus poison and disease isn't nothing, but it's not as fun as infinite Bottled Lightning.

If I were to try to fix the chirurgeon, I would give them a pretty chonky bonus to healing done with their infused elixirs of life. I'd also add in a level 3 version, because trying to heal a 4th level dwarf fighter with 58 hp by using 1d6 elixirs doesn't sound like a good time. I'd probably also let their Perpetual Potions make Elixirs of Life – unlimited 1d6/round healing at level 7 isn't as broken as it sounds, I think. Oh, and I'd include a clarification that lets them substitute Crafting for Medicine when it comes to skill feats and unlocking higher-level versions of Treat Wounds and the like.

The chirurgeon definitely feels like a place they held back a bit because Alchemists kind of have a weird power curve depending on how adaptable you think they are; while I know the community is generally down on them, I feel like there are a lot of people who absolutely swear by their out-of-combat versatility. Personally I think they could have gone a little more ham with them, but while they have some efficiency problems they are definitely not broken.

 

[MNblockhead]

I've thought about this for a while, and I've come up with a few reasons why discussion around PF2e on this forum and a few others is low:

<SNIP>

Adventure Paths are outdated:

What was once the core product of Paizo is now an outdated relic. The pandemic has proven that more and more players are moving to virtual tabletops. Pathfinder 2e is very lucky to have a fantastic fan implementation of it's ruleset into Foundry, but that isn't for effort on Paizos part. Paizo is still interested in being a traditional publishing company, as if any of their customers are buying their products from local game stores. The player base is almost entirely online, and Paizo should be pivoting toward catering to where their audience actually plays. Instead they release what should be single-purchase adventures as multiple installment adventure paths. Adventure Paths were great when the main movers of your product were game stores with highly active tabletop scenes that served as hubs of discussion for newest stuff. Now the internet is your main customer, and your players are all going to discord and reddit and playing on Foundry VTT. Make the adventure content in a way that enables discussion better across the internet and caters to your existing customer base, which frankly you could do by just combining adventure paths into larger campaigns.

I'm fully invested in 5e and am also a big Foundry fan and I'm VERY impressed and mighty jealous of what the PF2 folks have done with their Foundry mods. If Paizo would make their content available for Foundry, including full adventures with the maps prepped and fully supported mods for character sheets and automations, I would seriously consider switching to PF2.

Few good fan shows:

This is how new fans get made and existing fans participate when they can't play in a game. I have tried desperately to find a good live play or parody show of Pathfinder 2e. None have been at all palletable. The best Pathfinder fan content I can find on Youtube is Tower of Tomes which does in-universe lore explorations of factions and locations. I'd love for a more active fan scene around the game/lore, but barring that I'd settle for Paizo just paying noteworthy live play groups like Critical Role or Adventure Zone to do some one shots or mini series in their game setting.

Maybe, but The Glass Canon is one of the best TTRPG live-play podcasts/streams out there and seems to be very popular. I'm not caught up yet, not sure if they eventually moved to playing with 2e rules entirely. I would assume they did after they completed the Giantslayer campaign, but I've not listened that far.

 

[Staffan]

The chirurgeon definitely feels like a place they held back a bit because Alchemists kind of have a weird power curve depending on how adaptable you think they are; while I know the community is generally down on them, I feel like there are a lot of people who absolutely swear by their out-of-combat versatility. Personally I think they could have gone a little more ham with them, but while they have some efficiency problems they are definitely not broken.

I agree that balancing alchemists can be an issue, because they can use all their daily resources to make their most powerful items, unlike casters who get a small number of spells at each level up to their highest, and because of the way they can hold some resources back for Quick Alchemy. But the way they have tried to balance this is by basically not giving alchemists any fun toys at mid-to-high-level. They just get upgrades to the things they already do. So for example, you have the lesser cheetah's elixir at 1st level that gives you +5 foot speed for 1 minute, moderate at 5th that gives you +10 for 10 minutes, and greater at 9th that gives you +10 for 1 hour. Meanwhile, casters have longstrider that gives them +10 foot speed for 1 hour as a 1st level spell, or for 8 hours as a 2nd level spell. If you look at the transportation options a caster gets at 9th level, we see things like tree stride or shadow walk. Casters can give their whole party water breathing for an hour as a 2nd level spell, while alchemists don't get to provide water breathing until 12th level (as an improvement on the elixir that gives you a Swim speed).

The core problem with alchemists is, well, alchemy. In PF1, alchemists were basically casters on par with bards (maxing out at 6th level spells), with bombs and mutagens as resources on top of their regular elixirs. This meant that their abilities could be balanced as spells, and in many cases were just spells in elixir form. But in PF2, alchemy is just stuff anyone can buy, and alchemists just get to make some of it for free instead of going through the normal crafting rules.

 

[hedgeknight]

I was at Gen Con when the first edition of Pathfinder dropped. I had not intended to purchase yet another D&D "clone" (is that a fair comparison? maybe not), but I got caught up in the hoopla and jumped on it like a duck on a junebug. And I have to say, I immersed myself in it for years. Loved the Paizo forums, ran a game or two and played in several more. I began to lose interest when all of the character builds began to emerge. I realize that's part of the draw, but having cut my gaming teeth on B/X and 1E, I really didn't care for all of that. So, eventually I faded out, sold all my Pathfinder books, and returned to 1E & 2E.
As with anything I've done in gaming, I regret selling my original books, but there is not enough of a draw to make me return...yet. And if I did, it would be to Pathfinder 1st Edition. I bought my last "shiny new edition" with D&D 5E, so I have zero interest in Pathfinder 2nd edition. Could part of the problem of interest and fan interaction have to do with Paizo's recent controversies?

 

[payn]

With affordable PDFs and the SRD selling (at least rule books) is not that big a deal anymore.

 

[jmartkdr2]

There are games that allow characters to be good at their jobs a sent any optimization...

There are, and PF2 is like 99% that (if you work at it you can have a barbarian start with 10 strength), but the post I was responding too was about whether optimization was anti-fun. It's not. Ignoring the rest of the game to optimize dps might be, but frankly in PF2 the difference is so small that I'm not sure you can optimize the fun out of it if you're actually playing the game.