Forums Gaming Chat Roleplaying Pathfinder 2.0

This topic contains 24 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Reverse 8 months ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #733771

    Reverse
    • Posts : 44
    • Flumph

    Character creation improved somewhat on the 3rd character through, going from two hours to an hour – admittedly, what made it faster was realising most of the options were pretty mediocre, so it made little difference which one you picked. (Fury Totem goblin barbarian gets to pick 2 out of 4 options for a 1st level barbarian feat, one of which duplicates the goblin’s racial darkvision. So picking 2 out of 3 options made the ‘choice’ pretty simple).

    #733779

    EvilAardvark
    • Posts : 33
    • Flumph

    That mediocrity is what’s been bothering me.

    Over the years Pathfinder 1 has become the system of “let a thousand blossoms bloom” but I find that Pathfinder 2 creates bland, homogeneous characters. Even distinct classes aren’t that distinct, Barbarians, Rangers, Fighters… meh, the numbers all come out the same. Sure, there are subtleties of flavor, but I don’t come to Pathfinder for subtle flavors, I come for salted-caramel-sriracha-extra-sharp-cheddar-curried-bbq. Pathfinder should be Guy Fieri not <insert name of chef famous for subtle flavors>.

    I wonder if that’s always going to be the problem with a system based around “balanced mathematical formula”; flavor has to play a back-seat to arithmetic, rather than the numbers being there to support the feel the authors want to create.

    I will say that I’m speaking purely from the experience of reading the book and creating characters. I used to know someone who had put a big-block racing engine in an Morris Minor:

    Vroom Vroom

    Looked like shit, went like a very ugly rocket. So, I’ve never played PF2 and it might be fantastic in action.

    #733781

    thom
    • Posts : 15
    • Commoner

    They characters seem to play somewhat differently because of the changes in action economy. So there is more movement and different actions round to round. I’m hoping it will handle high level play better (but only part way through the second playtest scenario).

    For levelling up Fighter, Rogue and Cleric seem out of the box the most effective character classes with probably the least problems in the playtest. Druid is one of the most interesting to level up (or anything that multi classes) because of the routes you can take.

    There are definitely issues with the playtest rules that need sorting – but even with that I’ve found it lots of fun in practice. Full casters that don’t multi class (creating a gish is extremely easy and probably very effective) seem a bit too weak (but it is probably a good thing that caster power is reduced if they want it fun to play fighters and rogues up to level 20). For example, resonance needs fixing or replacing (but they’ve already announced that it will be changed) and healing improved for non-clerics (as at the moment parties without clerics are a but too fragile).

    #733783

    thom
    • Posts : 15
    • Commoner

    In the terms of the bonuses changes to AC and to hit are a bit misleading. Getting +1 to either is more useful than PF 1 because of the chances of getting a critical. So +1 AC reduces chances of getting hit and getting critted by 5%. Combat has changed quite a bit and its pretty rare to get combats that are over in one round (which seemed very common in PF1 when players had well built parties). It becomes much more important to get tactical advantages, buff and debuff and your third action is usually better spent doing something other than attacking (identifying monsters, using perception, moving, raising a shield).

    #733787

    EvilAardvark
    • Posts : 33
    • Flumph

    Do your characters feel awesome, unique and special when you’re playing? That’s what I want out of an epic fantasy game.

    #733790

    Hal
    Admin
    • Posts : 7745
    • Treant

    I agree with that. Doing the gen with the same idea for both characters in both systems might be an interesting video to highlight the differences in the systems.

    Then perhaps I can level them to 5, 10, 15 and 20 and continue the comparison.

    Cheers
    Hal

    #733791

    thom
    • Posts : 15
    • Commoner

    On terms of play the awesomeness is a bit uneven – some classes need things fixing to make them truly fun (e.g., resonance for alchemist) and choices are necessarily reduced a bit (at the moment from PF1). However, for some classes like fighter or rogue and some concepts like gish or mystic theurge it feels like an improvement in terms fun. I’m optimistic about the final changes. That said I think it will be a different game from PF1 and I’m likely to dabble in both at least for a while.

    #733932

    Reverse
    • Posts : 44
    • Flumph

    Finally had this hit the table (and yes, we did record it, and yes, we will upload it). I have to say, it played a heck of a lot better at the table than it looked on paper.

    #733936

    Hal
    Admin
    • Posts : 7745
    • Treant

    Wooo Pathfinder 2.0 recordings. I need to get my ass in gear and see if I can bring it to the table as well but honestly, I just don’t seem to be inspired by the book at the moment. Maybe listening to it played will help me along 🙂

    Cheers
    Hal

    #733981

    Reverse
    • Posts : 44
    • Flumph

    3 sessions of playtesting done.

    Plenty of fun concepts in there, but some rules – lockpicking, I’m looking at you – can go burn up in a fire.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.