Cài đặt Steam
Đăng nhập
|
Ngôn ngữ
简体中文 (Hán giản thể)
繁體中文 (Hán phồn thể)
日本語 (Nhật)
한국어 (Hàn Quốc)
ไทย (Thái)
Български (Bungari)
Čeština (CH Séc)
Dansk (Đan Mạch)
Deutsch (Đức)
English (Anh)
Español - España (Tây Ban Nha - TBN)
Español - Latinoamérica (Tây Ban Nha cho Mỹ Latin)
Ελληνικά (Hy Lạp)
Français (Pháp)
Italiano (Ý)
Bahasa Indonesia (tiếng Indonesia)
Magyar (Hungary)
Nederlands (Hà Lan)
Norsk (Na Uy)
Polski (Ba Lan)
Português (Tiếng Bồ Đào Nha - BĐN)
Português - Brasil (Bồ Đào Nha - Brazil)
Română (Rumani)
Русский (Nga)
Suomi (Phần Lan)
Svenska (Thụy Điển)
Türkçe (Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ)
Українська (Ukraine)
Báo cáo lỗi dịch thuật
Quy định & Hướng dẫn thảo luận
Báo cáo bài viết này
Some of the better ideas have been like, rogue being able to replace sneak attack dice with special effects and maneuevers.
As far as Pathfinder 2, that's my favorite system. The key thing to know going in though, it's *not* DND5e. PF2 gives you several choices at every level, rather than just at creation and every couple of levels.
WRT skill feats, the easiest way to approach them is to look at the skills you have proficiency in and choose a few you want to specialize in. Then just look at the skill feats there for anything interesting. If you want to be a grappler, get Titan Wrestler or other athletics feats. If you want to treat wounds, you have a host of medicine feats to choose from, especially Battle Medicine. Assurance is also always great for skills you just want to never fail at, for basic checks at least. (Assurance in athletics can always allow you to succeed at grappling a low level target, even at maximum MAP.)
There are some options that are objectively situational or kinda traps, but they're not overwhelmingly common. Most skill feats let you do more exceptional things, rather than be a prerequisite for basic actions (like how before you needed 'improved grapple' to grapple without provoking.) Occasionally you do get a feat that feels like it should just be an automatic thing though (which even 5e isn't free of).
As for the bonuses, there's only like 4 bonus types and they don't stack. Compared to PF1, where there were somewhere on the order of 15 categorized bonus types with the potential for more, it's much more manageable. With how the crit system works, a more crunchy bonus system feels way more rewarding rather than everything being constrained to an advantage system.
In Pathfinder 2 the difficulty is evolving with you. There is a chapter in the book that gives you what is "the basic difficulty" at what level you are. Why is this difficulty is evolving with you?
At high level when you are meeting a task where you aren't proficient you only can succeed it with a 20 (5% of success) even with the task being "mundane" for your level.
This is a big problem because as your character is gaining powers everything and everyone is matching his powers then and he began to become incompetent little by little in every task he isn't proficient. To me this is a "bad design".
The rules for your bonus is:
Proficiency [0/2/4/6/8]+level(except if prof=0 then level=0)+bonus stats+Other
So let say you are level 7 and you have a simple proficiency in athletics, so your bonus is:
2 (proficiency) + 7 (level) + 3 (stat for the example) + 0 (no other bonus) = +12
Now let's take the same example with another guy that isn't proficient in the skill:
0 (proficiency) + 0 (level because proficiency is 0) + 3 (stat for the example) + 0 (no other bonus) = +3
+12 -> +3 : The difference is huge.
To handle the fact that most people with proficiency can have the right challenge the campaigns are setting big difficult for "common tasks".
The guys in your group that aren't proficient cannot take the challenge at all. They must do a 20, most of the time in middle/high level to do the task.
Pathfinder 2e I haven't played as much, but it really needs a VTT like Foundry to help IMO. I played a 1-5 level short campaign which was OK, and another where I tried to come in at L8. Don't ever do that in PF2e lol, it is overwhelming. Between feats, skills, runes, its all too much even with software help. Plus some GMs allow free archetype which complicates things even further.
From my own experience higher level play really just gets to be a bit much in terms of complexity (for both GMs and players). I'm sticking to simpler systems like BFRPG or Shadowdark that have fewer classes with fewer abilities, that emphasize more creative freedom and cool abilities from limited magic items.
So the basic idea is for you to have special effect with weapon you are specialized with.
Like for example each time you injure an enemy with your longsword you will be able to use the feature sap.
Sap gives a disadvantage to the next attack of the guys that you have injured with your longsword. Each weapon has different features, which is actually great because there is no difference currently in DD5 between the longsword and the battleaxe.
Now there is because battleaxe have topple which set your enemy prone instead.
The different feature are not the thing i have a problem with.
My problem is that when you have the "weapon mastery" feat you will chose some weapons that you have the mastery with and then you can trigger their feature.
So it is great, you will dedicate yourself with some weapons.
Well actually no: each time you do a long rest you can switch all your weapon mastery. I find it too bad, i liked the mecanics around dedicate yourself to some weapons.
You have the same type of experience that i do with Pathfinder 2.
You are already summing up how most players feel with the new D&D and the latest developements which you can learn early from interviews videos on YouTube and "Mathfinder".
My stance on the new D&D is wary. In the past Wizards of the Coast did players no good with changes and limitations, hence the "cursed 4th edition". Right now the rails have been set to prevent that from ever happening again, by concept of how the upcoming rulesbook are planned.
Overall it seems more shallow than second and third and especially fourth, but the developements fits the Zeitgeist and it might be not so bad by breaking it more and more down and focus on what is fun for players. As in: players have more choice than ever either to play a more "roleplay/acting game" versus a more skill/tactic tabletop game.
In comparison you have Pathfinder which is a stronghold to canon and the underlying system behind it of the third edition. That too is good and offers overall "canonical stability" within the "tabletop universe", while also allow players to enjoy more a tactical like game.
From that point of view it is like comparing a game of Final Fantasy Tactics versus Final Fantasy 13 - somewhat simplified.
I am definitely wary of the changes and the developements. But I am also welcoming them as long as they are that player friendly, even if it seems too player friendly and simplified at times. I prefer the availability of choice and by the end of the day when playing with friends, we never care about lore & canon beyond what the Dungeon Master dictates. The official backgrounds, stories and such are basis for inspirations and ideas. But if anyone has something which is more fun than that, we welcome it with open arms. What matters are laughter & fun at the table. And if the Dungeon Master decides the rogue should roll for dexterity to seduce someone at the bar, well, that is to their discretion how they hand/le it.
What in the game made you feel it was the best for you?
I actually like to give it another shot. What do you like the most?
Do you have any hint to master the game?
I do like the custom instant rule from an inspired DM, but i feel like it's easier when the game is easier. I would definitely be able to improvise a rule in DD5, i only wish i could in PF2 but i know i would break the entire game for it.
Did you tried Pathfinder 2?
As a GM, I find it way easier to balance encounters compared to 5e. The encounter building system works across all levels and tiers of play. I do like how 5e's bounded accuracy lets me use monsters across multiple levels, but PF2's straightforward encounter building makes up for this: at any level (beyond maybe the first 4), I know a 'severe' encounter will be suitably challenging for my players, and about what to expect resource-wise.
5e more puts the expectation of balance squarely on the GM, which is great when doing things purely from a narrative point, but can be dicey if you wanna try and build an encounter that won't wipe your players / will actually pose a threat to your players. Conversely I'll admit that sometimes I get a bit caught up looking up rules for PF2 when it'd be better to just handwave what's going on and focus on storytelling.
As a GM though, early on, I'd recommend making the max difficulty encounter 'moderate'. A 'moderate' encounter in PF2 is about equal to 5e's 'deadly' encounters. You can make things tougher as players level up and get more room for error. Monsters also often have unique abilities that let them do more tactical things in combat. These can help influence the tactics monsters use, though I'll admit I've used some monsters before and forgotten to make note of their abilities, even when they'd be relevant to the fight.
On further note of balance: no one class massively outpaces the others. The martial-caster divide has been heavily closed. The multiclass archetype system also is fantastic, as it lets you dabble in another class without giving up your core class progression. What some people find controversial that I like: more complicated classes don't reward you with a higher ceiling of power, but rather might give you flexibility and the enjoyment of playing a more involved class. This helps prevent situations where that power gamer at your table kinda does everything for your party.
I also really like the action system, but you have to go in knowing where the little action taxes come up that you may not be used to. Things like drawing your weapon or adjusting your grip can be played around and feel important when you're aware of them, it just takes a bit of getting used to. I actually prefer how these taxes work now compared to RAW 5e's item interaction rules. And, beyond that, the three action system often means you can do more. (And a lot of these things you can use against enemies--stepping out of range while doing something to deny them movement can often mean they miss out on an attack their next turn.) That said, don't get hung up on individual actions.
Get into the flow of planning out your turn before it comes up, and adjusting as need be. This is true for every table top, but don't lament and hesitate over failed rolls. In my experience, a hesitant turn in PF2 goes slower on average than one in 5e, but the average well-thought-out turn in PF2 goes faster than in 5e.
With how attacks are weighted more heavily, one attack with a striking rune feels about as worthwhile the two attacks you get with extra attack at level 5 in 5e. Couple this with the Multiple Attack Penalty, there is an incentive to do more than just only attack all the time. As a player, I *really* like how PF2 encourages use of skills and actions in combat beyond just attacking. Doing things to support allies or even yourself (even if it's just to give a +1) makes a huge difference, since it's often not a +1 chance to hit, it's a +1 chance to crit. Finding out if the monster has good fort or ref saves, and then doing a trip if it has poor reflex or grapple if it has poor fort means even your martial character has a means to debuff your opponent to set things up for allies.
And admittedly, I like the crunchiness. 5e is very streamlined, and focuses on a few major choices like your starting class/race, your subclass, and feats when they come up. In PF2, you're making choices at every level, some major, some minor. For some people this can get overwhelming, but for me it really feels like there's a mechanical side of making my characters unique. My friend and I can both play monks but with totally different builds and kits and feel completely distinct, aside from the fact that we both have flurry of blows and use stances (which, we have different ones).
I'll also say I really like how magic items actually have prices attached to them, though sorting through them can admittedly be a bit of a hassle at times to find something worthwhile.
I will advise, if playing a prewritten adventure, Paizo has a bad habit of making the first levels a bit unfair and tough. This is less a concern in a home game. Beyond that, don't worry too much about being 'perfectly optimized.' It's easy to make a functional character, as long as you just read what the options you take or are given actually do, and you pick options that fit your character.
The game definitely benefits from having a compendium, and luckily https://2e.aonprd.com/ is free and official, which is another huge reason why I like the game.
For one, everything is being made into a gray blob. Every race just gets +2, +1 (hate this in BG3 too, that's why I made a mod to revert it), but a bunch of them also get to choose whether they're big or small, and everyone still gets 30ft movement. Really shows a lack of understand of the Small and 25ft movement, in that it was a balancing factor. Gnome Cunning for example was an S-tier feature, right up there with Level 1 feat, so as a trade off, they were slower, can't grapple anything bigger than Medium, and a bit more limited in viable weapon choice.
Then you got the shared spell lists, which similarly shows a lack of understanding. It gets rid of class identity. Wizards and Bards would have access to the same spells, which means you can make a Bard into an evoker or something. But Bards if you look at them, I don't think they even have a single attack roll spell, and not many AoE damage spells either. They're about buffing and debuffing. Classic support.
And I was also seeing even more of a lack in specializaton, when grappling was changed from Athletics to Attack Roll, essentially. Some of my favorite builds were made possible by getting Expertise in Athletics and grappling.
That's not even getting into the destruction of the lore
What's worse is by all indication, they're planning to do some really horrible anti-customer business models, between how they'll sell stuff and their stupid Unreal 5 Virtual TableTop (Like, how many of DnD players do they think will be able to run that? Roll20 is popular for a reason), that will seemingly get the old microtransaction treatment. Just because they failed to destroy the OGL/SRD doesn't mean they gave up on this
Same here. So now it is +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 link to background instead of race. That was not entirely at my liking at first and then hardcore players explained to me the reason why it was like that. Basically when you play D&D you do not play Bob the random farmer that is becoming an adventurer, you are playing some kind of super-hero. You need to think captain America more than Bob the farmer.
So whatever you pick you will be "different", even "weird" compare to the people that represent your species.
That is on one hand. On a second hand... You can actually create yourself your own background and get any skill or +2/+1 anywhere as you can making them up. I find it is a terrible design. I would have prefer that the background are set in stones to not let players abuse of those bonuses.
I finally and after all (it took me some times to get there) like the fact that the species only gives "racial features" and not bonus stats. It really goes along with this super-hero concept.
They roll back that. It didn't worked very well.
Yes it changed like you just said. Actually, now your target need to do a save check instead and it is definitely not linked to your Athletics (except to escape after being grappled).
There is a feat to improve your grapple and you can get it at level 1. There is also one new subclass for fighter that are specialized in this kind of combat.
Don't know about the virtual tabletop. I've never been there, i don't think it's for me. I'm still living in the dark age of pen and paper with my team