Pathfinder 2 Release

[Rhedyn]

They harrassed and banned numerous playtesters/users who voiced strongly negative opinions on Pathfinder 2nd as a whole and never bothered to address anything major beyond resonance, a system that was never meant to be implemented in the first place. It was plainly obvious how they didn't care for any player input during the playtest at all.

I got the impression that player input hurt their feelings and we were supposed to feel bad for giving it.

[Gwynfrid]

You definitely need non-attack ways of using your third action to be "optimized" unless you're a Flurry Ranger, yeah, but I think this game actually rewards hyper-specialization more than PF 1e did

I'm wondering what makes you say that. I mean, PF1 allows hyper-specialization to break the game, I'm not sure what can be more "rewarding" than that (I don't think such a "reward" is worth having, but that's besides the point).

, with two caveats:

(1) it locks what you're allowed to hyper specialize in behind what class you picked at 1st level (if you're a Barbarian you're literally forbidden from specializing in TWF or Archery, for example) and

Not without a dedication feat, yes.

(2) it forces you to spend some build resources like general, skill and heritage feats on non-combat stuff and is more generous with skills so you can't hyper-specialize in just combat and have at least minimal competency in non-combat encounters.

Precisely. Also, you can't hyper-specialize in a skill, either. Well, you can, but it won't get you to PF1 levels, and it will leave you with plenty of feats to do other things.

Also, and more importantly: This remains to be tested with longer experience, but I definitely think that in PF2, being not as good as someone who specialized isn't such a critical issue, because the difference in numbers isn't massive. The non-specialist is playable, and has potential for fun. Of course, I do realize that this argument will sound utterly lame to those players who take an important part of their fun in the build optimization part of the game.

So, sorry if i missed this in the previous 9 pages of the thread.
But i got curious about how viable the monk has become in 2nd ed.
Are there more than 1 build worth talking about?

The answer to that question is yes. For details, however, you'll probably be better off asking this question on the Paizo forum than this thread

[Kurald Galain]

Also, and more importantly: This remains to be tested with longer experience, but I definitely think that in PF2, being not as good as someone who specialized isn't such a critical issue,

Neither is it in P1; or for that matter in 4E or 5E. Non-specialists have always been playable.

Here we are. Gerhard and Erhard are the names of the "two" characters that are really just one. That's... beyond stupid in terms of writing.

I concur that this is poor writing. I was going to say that there's a spell for that, but it turns out Simulacrum no longer exists in p2.

[Divine Susuryu]

Also, and more importantly: This remains to be tested with longer experience, but I definitely think that in PF2, being not as good as someone who specialized isn't such a critical issue, because the difference in numbers isn't massive. The non-specialist is playable, and has potential for fun. Of course, I do realize that this argument will sound utterly lame to those players who take an important part of their fun in the build optimization part of the game.

That'd only matter if either of specialists or non-specialists got non-boring abilities. Which at least in my view they don't. That's far more of a contention than "are non-specialists playable", which for reference they always have been in all but the highest-op tables in PF1.

[Gwynfrid]

Neither is it in P1; or for that matter in 4E or 5E. Non-specialists have always been playable.

Only if the specialists in the group don't totally overshadow them. This is possible of course, but it requires some care by the players. In a group where some players are keen to optimize and others don't want to bother, this is an issue.

[Silvercrys]

I'm wondering what makes you say that. I mean, PF1 allows hyper-specialization to break the game, I'm not sure what can be more "rewarding" than that (I don't think such a "reward" is worth having, but that's besides the point).

"Reward" might have been imprecise; what I meant was that it's still necessary to hyper-specialize, you're just being forbidden from dedicating 100% of your build resources to that end. You still need to take optimal options for your build to avoid falling behind, but the number of things you can optimize for combat purposes is greatly reduced (basically just class feats).

Not without a dedication feat, yes.

Sorry, most Barbarian features explicitly don't work with bows and dedication feats cap you at 1/2 your level; that isn't specializing.

This is basically like if PF 1e didn't have any general TWF feats and your solution to playing a TWF Barbarian was "just take two levels of Ranger for the basic TWF ability!"

Like, yes, this technically allows you to be a Barbarian and derive a benefit from having two weapons, but your ability to wield two weapons is literally prevented from improving because you can't take any further TWF feats until your level is double what a Ranger needs to do the same thing.

Precisely. Also, you can't hyper-specialize in a skill, either. Well, you can, but it won't get you to PF1 levels, and it will leave you with plenty of feats to do other things.

Also, and more importantly: This remains to be tested with longer experience, but I definitely think that in PF2, being not as good as someone who specialized isn't such a critical issue, because the difference in numbers isn't massive. The non-specialist is playable, and has potential for fun. Of course, I do realize that this argument will sound utterly lame to those players who take an important part of their fun in the build optimization part of the game.

Well, with +1 being such a big deal since it also increases your crit range in most cases, I think I disagree pretty heavily with this. Losing out on proficiency bonuses basically reduces the number of crits you can make and thus how much "fun" you're having, because critting more often is just about the only benefit of playing such a swingy, bounded system in the first place.

[Alexvrahr]

So, sorry if i missed this in the previous 9 pages of the thread.
But i got curious about how viable the monk has become in 2nd ed.
Are there more than 1 build worth talking about?

There is the Str/Dex monk who flurries a lot with an agile unarmed attack, or the Str only monk who uses mountain style for AC and who's probably relatively good with combat maneuvers, to the extent that those are useful - they all use the athletics skill, which is based off Str. Weapon use and ki use aren't good enough to build around for a monk. Since they don't get AoOs unless they multiclass into fighter they're not great spellcaster-killers. They are mobile and flurry works with that mobility.

On AoOs note that anything which uses the Interact action triggers an AoO from those enemies which can take them. This includes a lot of things which you'd think should work in melee (e.g. using the parry function of a weapon), watch out for it.

[Telok]

On AoOs note that anything which uses the Interact action triggers an AoO from those enemies which can take them. This includes a lot of things which you'd think should work in melee (e.g. using the parry function of a weapon), watch out for it.

That was so silly that I had to check.

Yup. Using the parry ability is an interaction, which is a manipulation type action, which provokes AoO. To rub salt in the wound I believe that AoOs take place before the provoking action completes. So parrying allows people to hit you before you can parry.

Weird man, just weird.

[Arkhios]

They wen't like "hey, players like feats, so let's make literally everything a feat and call this mess a Pathfinder Second Edition!"


Hard pass for me.