Lets discuss Pathfinder 2e. Post some stuff you like about PF2, and then some stuff you dislike about it. Hard mode: don't sperg out.I'll start:Like- No 1-20 ability points, instead just opting for the bonuses. The 1-20 system has always felt kinda pointless outside of rolling stats, and you can still roll stats but instead of recording 1-20, you simply roll whatever modifier you'd get instead. (roll - 10) / 2- No multiclassing. At first I didn't like this much, but it makes it much easier to create new classes that don't clash with other classes in unexpected ways. I think the idea of "hybrid classes" or subclasses that still offer a somewhat linear progression is more solid than multiclassing.- Combat actions are class specific. This simplifies the rules in a way that I really like, and means whatever you can do, you'll probably be able to do well. You aren't going to be grappling people in combat as a wizard, after all. It also gives martials some more distinction, which is nice. It also means you can add more actions to each class without bloating the core system.- Monsters don't use the same stats as PCs. I used to love this about 3.5e, but it just felt like needless complexity 19/20 times.Dislike- No touch / flat-footed AC. I love the concept of removing dex / armor from AC, so I'm sad this is gone, and I think the new flat modifiers are inferior. I never had any problems tracking this either, so I don't see the point.- Skills and proficiencies getting bonuses from your levels. I just think the concept of 20+ level skill bonuses is a little hard to wrap my head around. It also feels like levels overpower everything else in the game, after a certain threshold.
>>96528148>Monsters don't use the same stats as PCsI really like that.
>>96528148>what I dislikeit>what I likeI don't have to play it
>Like-Free Archetype system, enables a lot of flavorful customization of characters.-Cross compatibility with Starfinder 2e.-Three action economy feels good to use most of the time. >Dislikes- The math is so tight to keep classes balanced that it's near impossible to create a very powerful character. Feels like a very "on-rails" experience.- The game needs more variety in general and skill feats.
>>96528148>don't likedogass skills featsit's math-rigid community ready to crucify you if you willingly mess with numeric corks and screws, especially if it's spell DCsillusion of choice regarding feats. sure you don't have to take the best ones to be ok but......their dogshit writers for adventures will make you sure wish you did pick them because they willingly ignore their own GM-book guidelines for encounter design (and when they chilled a bit with cbt people started complaining that it's all too easy)>everything elseit's ok, don't mind playing
>>96528384>CommunityWhy would you submit yourself to that?>>96528328I understand why casters must feel weaker yadda yadda, but PF2 mechanics with D&D3.5's classes, feats, etc. would be peak.
The pathfinder 2 community is so obnoxiously smug. They also really force toxic positivity and deflect all criticism.
>>96528769You just described literally every community in the year 2025. Simply don't use the internet.
Playing since release. >LikeEasy to prep games, monsters are easy to make and understandMath is worked out for you, CR system actually worksLinear leveling that makes sense Lower power levels overall which I think is goodEvery item spell and ability has a level, cost, and rarityHigh quality product control>DislikeRemoval of touch AC and 90% of spell attack roll spells, this completely neutered the blaster caster.The critical hit system, if you are not min maxing not only are you hurting yourself, you are hurting others. E-sports levels of balancing, it makes all classes feel generic and all feat options might as well be preselected because one is ALWAYS the best.Using errata to "balance" the game, errata seems to be focused on removing anything remotely fun instead of correcting spelling/grammar errors. Lack of options, removed 90% of the options from pf1e including multiclass, prestige classes, class architypes and feats. Fighters simply being better than every other class, they start with higher proficiency, get access to action compression and have items tailored just for them. Every other class has lower proficiency and are action taxed to do their special combo which doesn't even average out to a fighter simply hitting and critting more. PF2E is a fighter's game, everyone else is just support for the fighter. PF2e manages to have less flavors of classes than 5e somehow. The game can be fun if you homebrew the fuck out of it, but rules as written its very sterile game.
>>96529198what kind of homebrew do you use?I dicked around with the playtest for 2e, I liked some of the design concepts but I dont think they were implimented well - Shields not being viable in core lmao
>>96528297>found the no-friendsWhat's it like being so miserable and alone?
I'm coming back from DMing a Cyberpunk campaign, was looking into p2e, like said in the thread, for reading it the balancing really seems to neutered classes. What homebrews you guys use to make the game fun?Also what are other alternatives for classic fantasy RPG system, that are not D&D?
>>96530825You probably should just play the game vanilla and derive your conclusions from that. The reality is that most of the balancing complaints come from people who are used to 3.5e style "balance" (me included, I love 3.5e) but it might not be a huge deal for you / your group.
>>96530872Thanks, that's good to know.For now the one homebrew I'm sure to use is the free archetype.Still interested to hear you anon's homebrews, to keep the thread alive I'll use my best lust provoking image.
>>96530825It's hard to homebrew because even adding small modifications breaks the system
>>96528148I like its action points. They just make more sense than D&D's pigeonholed [move/main/bonus] actions, so I actually copied that idea for my games.I don't really like much else about it, though. The main thing I dislike is how they do the D&D thing where their character options and monsters don't feel like they can occupy the same world. The fighter is there because some people like to play fighters, not because they fit in a world in which the system's other aspects exist.I know a lot of people like kitchen sinks here, but I think it's better to just play a low magic game if you want to be a no-magic fighter.
>he's STILL playing class based slop KEK
>>96528328Oh no, I can't make other players irrelevant! This is bad for some reason!
I like the reduced emphasis on full attacks, although the 3 action system is pretty terrible overall and ended with a ton of action taxes that once were free or swift actions and didn't compete with other thingsI somewhat like the reduced prevalence of AoOs, there are a lot of spells and abilities that are near unusable in 1e because they provoke an AoO. But I think they went about it the wrong way, making many pcs and Npcs not able to AoO rather than refining what abilities actually provoke
