Pathfinder 2E Actual AP Play Experience

[dave2008]

I wasn't talking about you. But I've removed the flippancy.

I realize that; however, what you describe is my players (and me really) except for the headless chicken part. But to be honest, I keep butting into a PF2e conversation when I don't know enough to speak intelligently. I find your post interesting and well argued so I keep coming back, but I should just read and not comment. Sorry.

 

[dave2008]

Tried going back through the quotes... was your question "if they liked the fact that their min-max mindset / play style was ineffectual" by any chance?

Yes, that was it. I'm just curious how removing that part of the game affects them. Did they like, do they not like, is it a challenge, is it frustrating. I realize it is anecdotal, but it is interesting.

PS. I realize re-reading my quote that it wasn't phrased the best. I'm more interested on how they feel, whatever that is. Not just if they like it or not, that's too simple.

If so, my players (not Celt's) are obviously miffed it wasn't easily possible to minmax the naughty word out of the system.

But that hasn't meant they have cooled on the system. Not yet anyway.

My players are historically all about minmaxing the individual character, party optimization be damned - exactly the kind of approach enabled and amply rewarded by 3E/PF1*... and the approach PF2 simply laughs evilly at

It will be interesting to see if they are going to learn anything from the fact that "everybody" says PF2 is all about minmaxing the party tactics. That is, minmaxing what happens at the table rather than before you sit down at the table. I guess I won't know for sure until the party composition changes, though (such as when it's time to generate a new party).

*) 3.5 is probably the favorite game, all categories, for at least two of the players, precisely because it allows for an utterly unchecked power trip, if you only know how to absorb thousands of pages of rules, and are entirely unfazed about cobbling together a dozen prestige classes and yet calling that a "character"... Yes, we're talking about the same game that I as the DM would put as my number #1 most horrible spot. d20 is sadomasochistic that way...

That is very interesting, I look forward to hearing more about it and how it develops. So, if I understand correctly, you think when you finish this campaign and if they haven't been able to get the advantage they want with their characters, they might look to party synergy? That would be interesting.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Celtavian]

Just a small question: what do you mean by "PF2/3E"?

That was a mistake. I did not meant to put 3E there.

We are in complete agreement.

Setting up 3E/PF1 for experienced characters with blinged-out characters to provide a meaningful challenge was a sisyphean task; utterly thankless.

In comparison, 5E is child's play. Yet, still much work, since the devs apparently calibrate the difficulty for the very easy game. And unless you design your own monsters, there's still a... bluntness to the edge, given how 5E is fundamentally a simpler game.

At least when it comes to monsters, PF2 is 3E/PF1 done right. You don't have to run through hoops to make the world scary and dangerous.

And since removing stuff is always easier than adding it, I like it. Instead of having to work hard to cover up the PCs exceptionalism, I only have to work easy to bring it forward

Yep. I agree. I remember giving dragons in PF1 a few thousand hit points to make them seem like dragons. PF1 crits and martial damage buffed by up and backed up by casters was nuts. The APs wouldn't optimize their villains much at all. I always had the feeling they had no idea what their players were doing with their game given how poorly they designed encounters. Now the math is so tight the AP designers can find some monsters of appropriate challenge level and they work, while at the same time not losing the feel of being a real living thing. Pretty nicely balanced the mechanics and realism imo.

 

[Celtavian]

Yes, that was it. I'm just curious how removing that part of the game affects them. Did they like, do they not like, is it a challenge, is it frustrating. I realize it is anecdotal, but it is interesting.

PS. I realize re-reading my quote that it wasn't phrased the best. I'm more interested on how they feel, whatever that is. Not just if they like it or not, that's too simple.
That is very interesting, I look forward to hearing more about it and how it develops. So, if I understand correctly, you think when you finish this campaign and if they haven't been able to get the advantage they want with their characters, they might look to party synergy? That would be interesting.

Thanks for sharing!

I thought I answered it. Maybe I did not make it clear, they don't care as long as they are having fun. PF2 is fun to them. They have a few gripes here and there or things they don't think make sense, but that hasn't changed their view of the game as fun.

My players min-max because it is natural to them to make the best possible character for combat, but that is not their first priority for a system. What makes a system fun for them is being able to make interesting, varied characters with lots of options that are meaningful. They especially hate having someone make the same thing they made mechanically. They don't like being overshadowed by someone else doing the same thing they are doing. The more options available and classes allow them to feel unique and effective mechanically in combat.

It so happens that making an highly effective character generally leads to a min-max situation, which makes it hard on a DM. That can ruin the DM's fun. Since I DM a lot, the PF2 tight math that makes the game more challenging while not losing any of the fantasy feel is making the game fun for me. That is important as well.

We often focus on what is fun for the players. But the game has to be fun for the DM as well or it gets to be a slog of stats. I'm glad PF2 removes a lot of the parts that made DM life hard. Makes my job easier so I can focus on the story more.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I do think that is one of the quasi-innovations of PF2, though I wish they had gone further and wrapped reactions into it. That is the type of system I have been thinking about for a few years. I am also not sold on including movement in the action economy.

The 3-action system is pretty slick. I have had some issues with it in practice. Because of containment we are playing remotely, and we are a pretty big group, so combat rounds tend to take pretty long.

 

[FrogReaver]

They're on board with PF2. They don't want to go back to the overly complicated PF1 and they don't want to play with the lack of options in 5E. So PF2 is now our game as long as it is supported. Seems to offer the right mix between PF1 and 5E. They spend a lot of time pouring over books looking for powerful options and if they don't get books with character options, they get super bored with the game.

Not to derail the thread, but for those that have played - does PF2 actually have more character building options than 5e?

 

[Porridge]

Not to derail the thread, but for those that have played - does PF2 actually have more character building options than 5e?

Whatever one might think of PF2, it definitely has more character building options than 5e.

At character creation they're pretty similar -- you pick an ancestry (race), a background, a class (and often a subclass)), and make some choices regarding ability scores and skills. PF2 offers a few more choices here -- you get to pick an ancestry feat, and some classes also offer you a class feat choice at first level. But it's not that different.

But as you advance, PF2 offers players a lot more choices. At each level you get to make a couple choices (whether it's a class feat, a skill feat, an ancestry feat, a general feat, a skill increase, or an ability score increase). So (for example) if we consider two fighters that start off the same at level 1, in 5e they'll still look pretty similar at level 10, whereas in PF2 they'll generally look pretty different.

There are lots of caveats to this, of course. Some of the advancement choices you make in PF2 are relatively small ones, mechanically speaking. (For example, low level skill feat choices generally won't have a huge impact on what your character is like.) And 5e offers a lot more advancement variety once you take multiclassing options into consideration. But even taking all that into account, I think it's pretty clear that PF2 offers players more choices than 5e.

 

[FrogReaver]

Whatever one might think of PF2, it definitely has more character building options than 5e.

At character creation they're pretty similar -- you pick an ancestry (race), a background, a class (and often a subclass)), and make some choices regarding ability scores and skills. PF2 offers a few more choices here -- you get to pick an ancestry feat, and some classes also offer you a class feat choice at first level. But it's not that different.

But as you advance, PF2 offers players a lot more choices. At each level you get to make a couple choices (whether it's a class feat, a skill feat, an ancestry feat, a general feat, a skill increase, or an ability score increase). So (for example) if we consider two fighters that start off the same at level 1, in 5e they'll still look pretty similar at level 10, whereas in PF2 they'll generally look pretty different.

There are lots of caveats to this, of course. Some of the advancement choices you make in PF2 are relatively small ones, mechanically speaking. (For example, low level skill feat choices generally won't have a huge impact on what your character is like.) And 5e offers a lot more advancement variety once you take multiclassing options into consideration. But even taking all that into account, I think it's pretty clear that PF2 offers players more choices than 5e.

2 Fighters in 5e at level 1 might turn into a fighter 5 / Wizard 5 or a Fighter 5 / Rogue 5 by level 10. Those are very different characters and likely much more different than anything PF2 accomplishes?

Perhaps what PF2 is good at doing is offering a specific kind of option - options to differentiate single classed characters. It blows 5e out of the water there and I think that may be what most people actually mean when they talk about it offering more options?

 

[Porridge]

2 Fighters in 5e at level 1 might turn into a fighter 5 / Wizard 5 or a Fighter 5 / Rogue 5 by level 10. Those are very different characters and likely much more different than anything PF2 accomplishes?

Perhaps what PF2 is good at doing is offering a specific kind of option - options to differentiate single classed characters. It blows 5e out of the water there and I think that may be what most people actually mean when they talk about it offering more options?

In comparing 5e and PF2, it might be helpful to separate non-multiclassing choices and multiclassing choices.

With respect to non-multiclassing choices, I take it that PF2 clearly offers a lot more of these choices.

With respect to multiclassing choices, it's harder to compare the two systems because they treat multiclassing so differently.

As you note, in PF2 you have a main class and then variable degrees of multiclass deviations you can take from your main class. This different approach to multiclassing allows for more variety in some respects, and less variety in others.

PF2 allows more variety in that you can build characters which don't give up any of their core class features to multiclass. So you get a choice between what "angle" you take into multiclassing which doesn't come up in 5e. (E.g., in 5e a Fighter 1/Wizard 19 would look pretty similar to a Wizard 19/Fighter 1, so it doesn't much matter which way you go. In PF2, a Fighter 20 who spent all their class feats on Wizard multiclassing would look very different from a Wizard 20 who spent all their class feats on Fighter multiclassing.) Likewise, PF2 allows more variety in that it allows you to build characters that can get high level abilities from several classes, which 5e forbids.

PF2 allows less variety in that you'll still keep the core features of your "main" class, no matter how much you multiclass. And PF2 allows less variety in that there are a few "core" class abilities that you can't get (or can't get at full strength) unless that class is your primary class.

So for some maximally dramatic contrasts in what you can/can't build in each of the two systems:

• In 5e, you can build a Fighter 1/Barbarian 1/Monk 1/Rogue 1/Paladin 1/Ranger 1/Bard 1/Cleric 1/Druid 1/Warlock 1/Sorcerer 1/Wizard 1. You can't build anything like this in PF2.
• In PF2, you can build a Wizard 20 who's multiclassed into Cleric and Bard who can cast 10th level Wizard spells, 8th level Cleric spells, and 8th level Bard spells (and not just heightened lower level spells -- spells which only become available at those levels). You can't build anything like this in 5e.

 

[FrogReaver]

In comparing 5e and PF2, it might be helpful to separate non-multiclassing choices and multiclassing choices.

With respect to non-multiclassing choices, I take it that PF2 clearly offers a lot more of these choices.

With respect to multiclassing choices, it's harder to compare the two systems because they treat multiclassing so differently.

As you note, in PF2 you have a main class and then variable degrees of multiclass deviations you can take from your main class. This different approach to multiclassing allows for more variety in some respects, and less variety in others.

PF2 allows more variety in that you can build characters which don't give up any of their core class features to multiclass. So you get a choice between what "angle" you take into multiclassing which doesn't come up in 5e. (E.g., in 5e a Fighter 1/Wizard 19 would look pretty similar to a Wizard 19/Fighter 1, so it doesn't much matter which way you go. In PF2, a Fighter 20 who spent all their class feats on Wizard multiclassing would look very different from a Wizard 20 who spent all their class feats on Fighter multiclassing.) Likewise, PF2 allows more variety in that it allows you to build characters that can get high level abilities from several classes, which 5e forbids.

PF2 allows less variety in that you'll still keep the core features of your "main" class, no matter how much you multiclass. And PF2 allows less variety in that there are a few "core" class abilities that you can't get (or can't get at full strength) unless that class is your primary class.

So for some maximally dramatic contrasts in what you can/can't build in each of the two systems:

• In 5e, you can build a Fighter 1/Barbarian 1/Monk 1/Rogue 1/Paladin 1/Ranger 1/Bard 1/Cleric 1/Druid 1/Warlock 1/Sorcerer 1/Wizard 1. You can't build anything like this in PF2.
• In PF2, you can build a Wizard 20 who's multiclassed into Cleric and Bard who can cast 10th level Wizard spells, 8th level Cleric spells, and 8th level Bard spells (and not just heightened lower level spells -- spells which only become available at those levels). You can't build anything like this in 5e.

I think you are overselling multiclassing in PF2. It's essentially trade one of your class feats for a class feat of another class.