431
No, really, I just care about hygiene
(lemmy.sdf.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
431 points (96.3% liked)
RPGMemes
14520 readers
776 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What are some highlights that make you feel that way? I've never played.
Here's my list:
I don't know if I agree that all classes are good.
Oracle and Gunslinger have always (at least in my mind) seemed to be overly weak. Like, Gunslinger seems like if should be a high damage output class, but lack of Dex to Damage really seems to hinder him from being a hard hitter. Lol, not to mention, guns just feel really weak.
For Oracle, her curse seems a major downside without a compensating upside (at least until late levels; haven't built one above lv 5).
I'd love to hear counterpoints of anyone has any.
To be clear, 95% agree with your takes though.
This is offset by nearly every firearm having the lethal trait, where on a crit their damage dice increase in size and they get an addition damage die.
The class is built around crit-fishing, and it works well. Granted, it gets hard to reliably crit higher-level enemies, but that's easily offset by the party working together
Wait, your party works together??
Wish mine did that.
Very rarely
I just wish I could be a player in a PF2E game for once because I love playing support classes
I'm a gunslinger in one of the games I play in, and yeah, I don't do barbarian numbers, but I hold my own, and it is a FUN class to play. I built a dual-wielder with the hopes that it would play like Han Solo running down the hallway shooting back at stormtroopers, and it delivers.
Plus, being 60 feet away means that I can help everyone do damage at once. It makes the party happy, too.
Hmmm, okay. So I have a personal affinity for Swashbucklers. Compared to a proper fighter, they don't lay down much damage, but they can move, and then when you get where you need to be, you can lay down pain in other ways (love a good tumble through + trip).
I remember immediately seeing the value in all that when it was first released, even though my party said that it felt way to convoluted. I think I'm just in the other side of that kind of conversation here.
Re: oracle
Being a divine spontaneous caster fucks; your entire spell list is Heal if you need it, and literally anything else if you don't. And trading a spell/day and slightly smaller repertoire for some extra durability is generally worth it in my experience.
Also Divine Access means you can pretty much pick whatever spells you want, and more as more gods come out or you and your GM make some more.
I liked the focus spells more back when battle oracles weren't hit with the nerf bat and could literally just be the juggernaut whenever they got cursed
I've always been allergic to spell casters (the strategy behind the best use of spell slots just never clicked for me - which is extra painful because it seems like if should be simple, but I consistently manage to botch it), going back to when i picked this all up in the 3.0e days.
I think that's caused me to not really engage with the spell casting side of spell casters in PF2e. I remember in 3.5, we banned Mystics because spontaneous divine spell casting was broken, so maybe I just need to run one to see if work.
Great list. Totally agreed across the board, and I'd add that they just folded Starfinder into the PF2e engine, which means that it now has a ton more content for it (including some stuff that isn't sci-fi exclusive).
Also the sheer amount of stuff they print. They are continuously putting out high quality adventures with a storyline that makes sense and doesn't have giant blank spots that you're expected to fill in for a few levels. They're switching to a quarterly hardcover model instead of a monthly adventure next year. The rulebooks are nice and paizo isn't shy about making new ancestries, classes, and options for existing ones, and they balance the more odd or possibly unbalanced options by making them uncommon or rare such that they require GM approval to take. And a whole bunch of setting books that examine all corners of their world, from over views of whole continents to deep dives into specific cities.
Two big things I love:
Three action system: every "activity" (strike, stride, cast a spell, etc) has an action cost. On a standard turn, your character gets 3 actions to spend on those various activities. This obviates the need for DnD's rules about spending a whole turn running since you can just spend multiple actions striding.
Keyword system: PF2e leans more onto standardized keywords and uses them appropriately. Everything (all actions, weapons, items, even statuses) has a set of traits that (usually) briefly explains how the thing acts. It allows for standardized templates for interactions between different elements of the game. This takes a HUGE burden off the GM during game play, esp for modules that weren't written to think about each other. All the examples I can think of would take several pages to explain, but you can look up some things on Easy Tools and see their traits.
Bonus thing I love: all the rules are openly published, leading to TONS of extra tools that just make the game easier to run. (That said you should buy a set of books to help the publishers after you've been converted).
Not OP but the top 3 for me are
That does seem like a big upside!
3 action economy for me, I also like that the rules are much clearer and more balanced to more play styles.
I think one of the biggest things, besides not being owned by WOTC, is that it doesn't have a million exceptions you have to remember.
D&D5e: Want to use your bonus action? Cool. Is it for a spell? Have you cast a spell this round? Is it a spell that's allowed to be cast even if you've cast a spell?
Pathfinder2e: Do you have enough actions to perform an action? OK, do it.
That does seem nice. One of the many reasons I DM 5e from a "does it make sense" perspective over a rules as written perspective.
I’ll play with you.
Seriously.
I haven’t before but I’d love to. Last dnd I played was 3.5. I won’t touch anything else, except pathfinder and other non-dnd games.
I haven't really played PF2e, but from reading it I don't really love that it does the "numbers go way up" thing. I did 3e and I didn't like the "I rolled a 4, but I have a +47 on my check" thing. I'm told PF2e has a "without level bonus" mode, but I don't know if anyone plays it.
To me it feels meaningful in a way that the ludicrous numbers never did in previous versions. The expanded crit system makes degrees of success matter, and they do a great job of making you feel heroic; especially when you go back and fight underleveled enemies and crit on every attack. (Or, alternatively, when you roll a natural 20 and it just upgrades your crit fail to a regular fail. That's when you know it's time to run.)
How often do pathfinder games do the thing like "The soldiers in the first area attack at +4, but these basically identical soldiers two plot beats later attack at +12, because you're higher level and I want the math to be challenging"? Because I've always disliked that in games. That's more of a video game trope, but I've seen it leak into tabletop games before. I liked the idea of bounded accuracy, and how a goblin is always a goblin. You don't need to make mega-goblins to fight the higher level party, because even the little ones can still hit and wear you down.
I have never seen that happen in PF2e printed adventures. A lot of the time they use monsters straight out of the Bestiary without modification, and when they don't they usually put the statblocks in the back of the AP so that they can all be referenced from wherever they need to be.
I just pulled down my copy of "The Enmity Cycle" (the closest Paizo adventure I have at hand). It's a level 4-6 adventure published in 2023. I haven't read it since shortly after I bought it, but the encounters go like this:
The first encounter is with 4 bandits, and it references the Gamemastery Guide directly for their statblocks (though you can also get them on AoN). There is a note about a change to their favored terrain and what skill they roll for initiative (in PF2e, you can roll different stats for initiative depending on what you're doing; usually it's perception, but in this case, the bandits roll their stealth for initiative). It also notes their tactics (they try to threaten the party before attacking, and if you kill or capture two of them, the other two flee). This is standard for any encounter.
The second encounter is with two sand wolves, the stat block for which is printed in the back of the module.
The third encounter is with four gnoll hunters, taken straight from the Bestiary, page 178. If this were a more recent, post-OGL book, it would've referenced the Monster Core instead (page 208).
Then the party enters a temple (read: dungeon). Here the encounters are themed, but they don't pull any shenanigans like you mentioned. There are encounters...
with two Scorching Sun Cultists (stat block inline with the adventure, mechanically and visually distinct from previous enemies) and a Filth Fire (Bestiary 2, page 110);
with three cultists (this refers GMs back to the statblock printed above);
with two cultists (again, reference back to the previous page) and a named priest of the cult (who is similar to the cultists, but also has some unique features befitting his position);
with an atajma (an undead cleric monster who honestly looks super cool; reference to Book of the Dead p112, though I can't find it on AoN for some reason), and two more cultists;
and an elite poltergeist (reference Bestiary, page 264). "Elite" is a template you can use to make a regular poltergeist more scary, so in fairness that is a way that they could do what you're saying, but they don't here.
That's the end of chapter one. Characters are supposed to level up around this time. In chapter 2, you fight:
...in various configurations, both before and in the dungeon. All of the enemies here refer to the same statblocks each time they appear, with the exception of the ones that have the "weak" template (which is like the "elite" template above, but in reverse). The sand wolves are the only repeated monster from chapter one, and they seem to be used as a power level indicator to show how much stronger you are, so they also appear with the same stats.
In chapter three there are more sand wolves and more cultists, some new creatures, some creatures that have been seen before, but none of them are reskinned soldiers dealing suspiciously different damage.
That was fun, incidentally. Makes me want to run this adventure I bought two years ago. Alas, the enemy of every campaign is the schedule.
Either you send mega-goblins, or you send MORE goblins.
A lower level party might fight 3 goblins fair and square, so 4 levels later they confront 6 goblins and 2 lieutenants.
The idea that the same enemy stays a challenge despite the level increase is actually what I despise in D&D. My character has grown in power, why is the rat from the beginning still able to down me?
I read an article online somewhere about bounded accuracy, and it brought a question like that as a litmus test for if you like the idea. Should a novice archer, no matter how lucky they are, be able to shoot the ominous black knight? For a scratch? Or a lucky hit in the throat?
D&D 3e says no. You can only hit them on a natural 20. I think PF2e also says no in the same way.
D&D 5e tried to say yes, the archer should be able to hit the knight. The knight's armor is probably ~22, and the archer is rolling at +5, so there's decent odds. But he certainly won't be able to kill him, because HP is what scales up with power.
Other systems are more deadly.
Personally, I don't like the "these goblins can't even touch me anymore" mode that much. I prefer less superhero heroics, where a goblin with a knife can be a real threat
Sure but Pathfinder 2E is explicitly about teamwork and positioning. One archer will not be able to hit the death knight unless it's very lucky (which IMHO makes sense), but an archer supported by some melee fighters flanking the knight and giving them some off-guard malus has way better odds. "Every +1 matters" is true for both the party and the NPCs
I understand heroic fantasy not being your cup of tea, that's the beauty of having lots of RPGs to choose from. But beware of thinking that bounded accuracy makes things more gritty. In my experience it just makes things more heroic for the party (which can now take down a dragon at level 2) and just breaks down after the first dozen levels
I think the level scaling fits Golarion, since "becoming a god" is a semi realistic goal for someone to set for themselves :P
But people who want to play in grittier settings do use the proficiency without level rules, and from what I've seen all the major third party tools support that option. As a gm, It can be hard to balance for though! The +level to everything mostly serves to give your level 10 cleric a fighting chance on their stealth checks, and without that boost there are some actions some characters just can't perform.
First you get really really drunk.
And then you take the Test of the Starstone. As a joke, of course.