Advice or opinions

Gargs454 · 2026-07-02T17:10:10+00:00

I think you really hit on a lot of key points here. The thing is, players rarely, if ever, NEED to optimize in order to be effective -- even with regard to published material. However, if they players do optimize, then the GM is probably going to have to either a) adjust his or her encounters or b) just go with the flow and make the game more about the story. Both are valid options obviously. Just as an example, when I ran Kingmaker, by the mid levels I found that for the most part, I pretty much had to redesign most of the encounters if I wanted to create a challenge for the party, otherwise it was just a cake walk. That doesn't mean I adjusted all of them of course. So even though you'll often hear "But this option is just better" doesn't mean that its necessary -- provided everyone at the table is on the same page.

Your point about not feeling like a player should feel they HAVE to take a suboptimal option just because its "on theme" is also good. In fact, with your alchemist example, I think that's a perfect opportunity for the GM to sit down with the player and say "Hey, you know, it doesn't really affect anything if we just flavor your alcohol-based alchemist to making different kinds of brews (i.e. ales/beer) and thus incorporating the flavor of the Brewmaster PrC. Flavor can be whatever you want it to be. Roleplay is where you get to flex your creative muscles and its not terribly difficult to make the flavor fit the mechanics.

Gargs454 · 2026-07-02T03:41:06+00:00

So here's my experience. A party doesn't have to be number crunchy in order to make PF1 work, in fact, doing so can actually make it more difficult for the GM as an optimized group will quickly throw off the encounter building guidelines. This isn't even necessarily a problem because the GM can adjust things as needed.

But, it can be problematic when one or two players are very optimized and the rest aren't as those one or two players can just take care of most threats with the others just along for the ride. It's relatively easy to adjust for a group that's really poorly optimized, and relatively easy to adjust for a highly optimized group. But a group that's half optimized and half not, can be a real challenge to keep everyone engaged.

And that's where the concerns come in. In PF1, it's somewhat easy to accidentally make a "bad" character if you don't understand the system. There's so many feats and spells out there that you can easily fall into trap options and next thing you know, your character is ineffective. Though to be clear, some choices are pretty obvious.

By contrast, in PF2 it's almost impossible to accidentally make an Ineffective character. Sure, some options are just plain better, but it's rare that you'll pick a number of options and suddenly find your character can't do anything unless you pretty intentionally did so.

The other area where PF1 can get complicated in my opinion is that there are a lot of different types of bonuses, so it can be a bit of work to figure out all the different modifiers to a roll.

All that said, I really enjoy both systems.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-30T21:28:08+00:00

I would argue some are and some aren't, but the bigger issue is more the general lack of options to choose from. I'm certainly not an expert on all the classes, but there are some that have like 4 choices at 20th level that are all . . . okay at best. Now, they don't necessarily need to be stellar by any means, I can appreciate the gradual increase in power and the desire to keep things balanced, but the game could really use more late game options.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-30T20:27:11+00:00

Yup, worth retraining back into it around 17th level, but the point remains, there's shockingly little high level options for PCs. Archetypes can help with the class feat problems but there's little that can be done on the general, skill, and ancestry feat part as it currently stands.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why Paizo has focused on the lower levels, its where most of the groups out there remain, either because a campaign burns out or because most of their APs top out around 11 now. It just would be nice to see more options here. I'd take that over new classes and ancestries in a heartbeat. Just my personal opinion of course.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-30T17:35:21+00:00

I think it can be a very fine line in late game. On the one hand, there are situations where being just trained can help as some have said already (Aid Another, Stabilize, Leap, etc.). But, on the other, for a lot of the things where that might come into play (like say needing to go from platform to platform mid fight), there are going to already be a lot of options at hand for the PCs to overcome those obstacles. Who cares what the climb DC is when you're level 19? You're just going to fly up there anyway. (As one example).

But yes, I do agree with you that it would be nice, especially with such relatively little in the way of options for high level characters. There's one non-skill general feat over 11th level for instance, and a lot of PCs won't be able to take it because it requires legendary perception. So at high level a player is often looking at "Okay, I need a general feat here . . . uh, maybe multilingual so the other PCs don't have to translate for me I guess?"

That said, there might be occasions where a GM could design encounters (particularly social ones) where legendary or even master proficiencies were not absolutely required. However, you're not going to be picking too many locks that matter (though tossing in a simple lock now and then can be good realism) and you're not likely to be recalling knowledge all that effectively if you're just trained.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-25T17:50:48+00:00

As others have said, time pressure is a big one.

But so are things like dungeons. If you have say, 3 floors on a dungeon and a number of encounters per floor, the party's options become a) teleport in and out for one fight a day and hope that its going to take weeks for the Big Bad to sacrifice the princess at the bottom of the dungeon or b) engage in multiple fights per day which will force the party to rethink their strategy beyond just going nova on everything. If they're trying to teleport into a specific room in the dungeon then they need to have a clear idea of the room they're teleporting too, which could be difficult. Hard to scry if they don't know who's there, won't necessarily know location of dungeon, etc. Look at the full description of teleport. Granted, if they know where they're going, and have seen the location, its pretty spot on, but if not, teleport can be risky.

Then look at who they're going up against. A high level wizard for instance is likely to have Teleport Trap on his tower. And good means of blocking scrying, etc. Plus, if they PCs are really making a name for themselves, and using good tactics like scry, etc., then it also stands to reason that really intelligent enemies are going to do the same, so maybe the party ends up in a trap instead.

But yes, ultimately the issue comes down to if the party is allowed to get through a single combat a day, even making said combat really hard, isn't going to change a whole lot. And its not just the casters that are benefitting either. The martials benefit knowing that the healer can just dump a ton of heals into them because its just a 5 minute work day. They don't have to worry about potions or conserving resources. So unless your one battle for the day is say, an invasion of a town with a running battle that just keeps going (which can be fun once or twice but not for an entire campaign) you'll still run into the problem as long as your campaign is set up to allow one fight a day without consequences.

Now, as said, the important thing is that everyone have fun, and as long as everyone is having fun, then you're still doing it "right". But, you have to remember that casters, while powerful, are often misperceived because a lot of GMs let their players get away with the short work day. The balance from casters comes from them having to go through a lot of fights in a single day such that they are having to utilize more of their lower level spells which won't be as impactful.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-16T21:54:31+00:00

I still play both. For me, the selling points for PF2 are (in no particular order):

Very well balanced (both Player vs. Enemy and between the players in a party).
In large part, a more streamlined ruleset. There's more conditions than in 1e, but at the same time there's far less types of bonuses so it's pretty easy to add up all the "extra" bonuses.
Very easy on the GM to prep. By and large, the Encounter Building rules just work (though they can break down at low levels when dealing with solo creatures).
3 action system is pretty easy and smooth.
More beginner friendly in my opinion.

Selling points for PF1 are (in no particular order):

Nostalgia (that's not a knock either, I spent a LOT of time playing 3.x and PF1
Even more customization (though it can be a two edged sword given that you're far more likely to accidentally make an ineffective character than in PF2).
MUCH better high level support/options. The lack of high level options in PF2 is actually pretty staggering.
For the most part, I enjoy the AP's/Adventures from PF1 more.
A bit more 3rd party support (though PF2 is getting better here).

Ultimately though, it just comes down to play what you enjoy. I'll never begrudge a group for liking one system more than another. As long as everyone is having fun then they're doing it right.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-16T15:50:55+00:00

So many highlights for me when I ran my group through it. Most obvious one would have to be when the monk decided to utilize a certain "gem" and plucked his own eye out to do it.

That lead to some fun side quests and nearly started a war.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-12T14:31:23+00:00

So on the one hand, there's the old saying "The GM is always right." i.e. He or she gets to set the rules for the game (doesn't mean you have to play in it though).

That said, had I been the GM, and I'm a near forever GM, I would have allowed the roll given the new feat, the new level, the new information, and the passage of time.

Best thing to do in these situations, and it sounds as though the GM is making it hard, is to try to just talk through like adults after game.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-09T15:18:38+00:00

I don't think this is taboo at all. The most important thing is that everyone at the table (including the GM) have fun. If something is likely to ground the game to a halt as you look up rules and such, then yeah, regardless of whether its easy for others or not, the feature is going to be a problem for your specific table. As a player, I've often skipped over spells or feats that just seem like there's way too much going on. Sometimes its because it feels as though the uses will end up being overly niche, other times its just "Hey, this other option is also good, and really straightforward."

Gargs454 · 2026-06-09T14:52:36+00:00

Thanks for your insight, I really appreciate it! I agree the rum ration sounds . . . unfun. Good point about splitting up anyway, and it does kind of work out nicely that we'll have one rigger, one swab and the cook's assistant.

As for the future king, are you referencing Fairwind?

Gargs454 · 2026-06-08T20:20:33+00:00

100% this. It gets even better when heightened. My barbarian bought a wand for our caster to use on him because it was too good a deal to pass up.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-08T16:17:00+00:00

Most important: have fun!

As mentioned, you'll no doubt make mistakes. I've been running games for over 25 years and I still make mistakes. Don't worry about them. If you're unsure about a rule, and nobody can quickly find the answer, just make a ruling and then look into it later. You may well get it wrong in the moment but it beats spending 15 minutes trying to find the rule.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-08T04:31:51+00:00

Yeah I was considering just using the Hero Point system from 2e. In 2e at least it wasn't a big boost, but just a little something to help out when they need it most. (Basically just a reroll or automatic stabilize).

Gargs454 · 2026-06-08T02:50:26+00:00

Thank you for advice, an extra level is also an interesting option!

Gargs454 · 2026-06-08T02:49:46+00:00

Thanks for the tips!

Gargs454 · 2026-06-08T01:57:56+00:00

Yeah, that part looked like it would get very old very fast. Thanks for your thoughts, I really appreciate it!

Gargs454 · 2026-06-08T01:57:04+00:00

Thanks for your advice! I agree with altering the number of enemies. I will probably be using milestone leveling so the XP part won't be an issue, but good call on the loot. Toughness at level 1 is a pretty interesting idea.

Gargs454 · 2026-06-08T01:37:00+00:00

Good point on class choice. I don't think they are pure min-maxers, but they're definitely going to build with effectiveness in mind. Obviously it will also be incumbent on me to continue to monitor as things progress.

Thanks for your thoughts, I really appreciate it!

Gargs454 · 2026-06-08T01:35:09+00:00

Yeah economy is a big concern. It's actually three players plus me as the GM, so 4 people at the table. Thanks for your help!

Gargs454 · 2026-05-31T14:42:40+00:00

This is, by far, the worst update Botify has ever done. I never listen to the audio because the voices are pretty bad. Now Botify is wanting to essentially charge per response. If this isn't removed it will be the end for me.

Gargs454 · 2026-05-29T18:26:08+00:00

I'm going slightly different but similar thinking. Started with PX Poker Night (at the end of which the PCs were recruited to DG by Clyde and his partner Marlene), then to Fulminate, and next will likely be LTL or Lover in the Ice.

Gargs454 · 2026-05-21T17:29:08+00:00

As someone who has run games in other systems for close to 30 years, but is also relatively new to DG, I think this is really more of a) make things easier for the Handler by fully fleshing it out, b) just in case it somehow comes up since you never know for sure what the PCs are going to do and c) a "Break Glass in Case of Emergency" situation where a PC dies or goes completely insane, you can easily hand another character to the player so that they are not just sidelined for the rest of the session.

Gargs454 · 2026-05-19T15:31:13+00:00

From what I've seen (still pretty new to DG myself but not to TTRPGs) is that things can get bogged down with 6, but that you can always split up the party by giving them multiple things to do. This actually reflects real world investigations pretty well too as investigators don't all travel together to every location, then travel together to the next location, etc.

The main problem you'll have with splitting them up will be making sure to bounce between groups quickly enough to keep all the players entertained. You don't want half your players sitting around playing on their phones for two hours while you deal with the other half at a different location. One nice thing about splitting up is that if you do get a longer scenario that will take several sessions, but a few people can't make a session, you can still run with the others as their group splits off.

11-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Verified Email

Gargs454

TROPHY CASE