Pathfinder 2E Actual AP Play Experience

[Nilbog]

I think it is clear our DM styles and player groups are too different. Not really much we can do for each other. Based on that (and other things) I am guessing my group really wouldn't like PF2e, but I still hope to give a try.

I wouldn't give up on PF2, I enjoy 5e a lot but after playing it since its release our group was getting to the point where characters were starting to feel the same, and as @Celtavian mentioned were falling back onto the accepted powebuilds.

So when it was my turn to DM I decided to look for something different, and it was looking likely I was going to give the AGE system a go, when pf2 popped up, now at first I was sceptical as the only edition I point blankly refuse to run is 3e or any of its derivatives (I loved it to start with, but by the end it had nearly driven me insane) and I know pf is an expanded 3.5e.

However reading reviews and preview articles I decided to give it a go (a bit of a boredom impulse buy as much as anything) and I'm really glad I did.

So you ask for in play reviews, and I'll try to encapsulate why I like it. At first read it comes across a bit complicated, however as we worked our way through chargen things started to flow, I think my group had kept their character concepts deliberately simple as it was a new system, but as they progressed they branched out a little and were pleasently surprised that they could get very close to their concepts at 1st level (in 5e we'd long since stopped starting at first because they couldn't get close enough to the concept they wanted) so off to a good start.

The first play session was a bit stop/start as we were stuck in the 5e mindset and the differences in PF2 were often subtle enough to be overlooked at times, we slowly picked up the rules and haven't looked back since.

As a DM I enjoy the monsters more as they have to me more mechanical options than their 5e counterparts and the building encounters is more accurate in PF2 than it was in 5e and hard encounters genuinely are hard.

As a group we find the three action economy lends itself better to translating narrative action into mechanical result. The tactical options fit our group well sitting somewhere between 4e and 5e in terms of complexity.

The players by and large are very happy with their classes.

There are a few things that I think could be improved upon.

Clarity of rules, sometimes it's not easy to find find the ruling you want it's in there, but is often a case of having to follow a breadcrumb trail to find it

The lack of surprise round takes some getting used to and I'm not sure we've fully got our heads around it.

A few too many conditions, I feel they could have consolidated a few of them

And of the classes played so far, as mentioned above, the wizard is a little underwhelming

 

[dave2008]

I wouldn't give up on PF2, I enjoy 5e a lot but after playing it since its release our group was getting to the point where characters were starting to feel the same, and as @Celtavian mentioned were falling back onto the accepted powebuilds.

Well, in the part you quoted i said I still hoped to give it a try. However, similar to my response to Celtaviant, my group is not having the same issues with 5e and there is no willingness to move at this point.

Honestly, the more I read about it, the more I am concerned about it as well from a DM standpoint. The encounter design monster strength is a concern for me. I fear it would be difficult for me to prevent TPK's without doing things I don't generally enjoy (gimping monsters and/or checking encounter design).

 

[Nilbog]

Well, in the part you quoted i said I still hoped to give it a try. However, similar to my response to Celtaviant, my group is not having the same issues with 5e and there is no willingness to move at this point.

Honestly, the more I read about it, the more I am concerned about it as well from a DM standpoint. The encounter design monster strength is a concern for me. I fear it would be difficult for me to prevent TPK's without doing things I don't generally enjoy (gimping monsters and/or checking encounter design).

Although I have emphasised that hard encounters are hard, I've found that the guidelines work well for whatever difficulty level you require, I've only had to fudge one encounter and that was early on when I wasn't fully familiar with the system, and I haven't had one TPK.

 

[CapnZapp]

Honestly, the more I read about it, the more I am concerned about it as well from a DM standpoint. The encounter design monster strength is a concern for me. I fear it would be difficult for me to prevent TPK's without doing things I don't generally enjoy (gimping monsters and/or checking encounter design).

This shouldn't be a problem - as long as you don't run official adventures as published.

When I ran my Sandpoint campaign, I too was concerned over making a mistake and inadvertently getting my party into too-deep waters. Especially since all the carousing necessarily means the party splits up - turns out there isn't a critter in the Bestiary weak enough to not scare the bejeezus out of a low level hero...

But as it turned out, even my most difficult missions were easier than Paizo's default

At least now there's the NPC chapter in the GMG, which I would have given a small body part for to have when I wanted to be able to make up a pair of nasty drunk back-alley thugs, or a backstabbing prostitute, or a group of desperate road bandits (all of which were encountered by one or more party members).

As for the checking of encounter design, you know my stance: this obsession with exact XP amounts (or Challenge Ratings) is unhealthy - they make encounter design seem much more like a straightforward scientific and accurate procedure, and much less the craft and art it really is.

In other words, begin by only pitting your four-man party against a single at-level foe, two L-1 foes, three L-2 foes or four L-3 foes (which only become possible at level 2 since there aren't any -2 critters). Avoid higher-leveled enemies altogether for the first session at least. See how they manage* - you will quickly get the hang of it and become bolder with encounter difficulty variance.

That said, PF2 is crunchy no matter what. Cluttery, even. There will definitely always remain a substantial crowd of 5E lovers that will never enjoy this game. The basic question must never be forgotten: why are you seeking out a new game? If the players aren't dissatisfied with the mechanics of 5E - indeed if they even struggle to remember all of it - then it would be outright merciful to keep PF2 off their radar.

*) Do keep in mind that no matter how careful you are, a level 1 character can still croak with nobody to blame. But you're an experienced D&D DM so you knew that already.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Never had this problem, but I came from 1e when monsters had even less going for them. I never have any issue with making monsters do interesting things. With 4e and now 5e i've got the tools to make improvisation easy.
Not a problem with my group. In my 5e games (6 years worth) I have not had a bard, warlock, paladin, barbarian, sorcerer, or cleric. We do enjoy trying out all the UA feats and not the variant features though.

Interesting, I really enjoyed DMing 4e, it is what brought me back to D&D. The DMG 42 was a revelation and really helped my DM game. It was also the edition that gave me the freedom to explore and really amped up my improve game.

I want to second this. I’m not sure I would run 4e now, when neither my players or I have the time to devote to it, but page 42 was a revelation that has served me well in later games.

 

[dave2008]

Although I have emphasised that hard encounters are hard, I've found that the guidelines work well for whatever difficulty level you require, I've only had to fudge one encounter and that was early on when I wasn't fully familiar with the system, and I haven't had one TPK.

My issue is that I don't design encounters per a guideline. That is not my nature. I go by feel and what I think the world dictates. For example, @CapnZapp mentioned not being able to bring in reinforcements neraby because they would result in a TPK (or similar) or having ever increasing troglodytes. Neither of those two options are in my nature (not that I can't change).

 

[dave2008]

In other words, begin by only pitting your four-man party against a single at-level foe, two L-1 foes, three L-2 foes or four L-3 foes (which only become possible at level 2 since there aren't any -2 critters). Avoid higher-leveled enemies altogether for the first session at least. See how they manage* - you will quickly get the hang of it and become bolder with encounter difficulty variance.

That is my issue, I don't want to have to think about level or CR or anything like that. I just want to populate my world with what makes "sense" to me. With 5e, there a very few monsters that can wipe a player let alone a group in 5e, unless that is what I am trying to do. In PF2e it sounds like that is a possibility with any monster +3 or better. Ideally, I don't want to have to check that.

The basic question must never be forgotten: why are you seeking out a new game? If the players aren't dissatisfied with the mechanics of 5E - indeed if they even struggle to remember all of it - then it would be outright merciful to keep PF2 off their radar.

Good points, it is not my group and they are probably not up for it. However, I am fascinated because the design is so close to what I thought was the "ideal" D&D game that I want to give it a try.

 

[CapnZapp]

My issue is that I don't design encounters per a guideline. That is not my nature. I go by feel and what I think the world dictates. For example, @CapnZapp mentioned not being able to bring in reinforcements neraby because they would result in a TPK (or similar) or having ever increasing troglodytes. Neither of those two options are in my nature (not that I can't change).

Well, what really is realistic and natural is "don't get outnumbered".

And if you run PF2 using proficiency without level, that's pretty much all you need to keep in mind. That is, you no longer get tripped up by the artificial issue I was referring to - how even a single L+2 monster can turn a "fair" fight into hell when played RAW.

You can definitely bring in reinforcements or have "ever increasing" troglodytes. Just make sure the heroes have left the levels the trogs live at (1-3)

 

[CapnZapp]

Ideally, I don't want to have to check that.

You always have to check level. You can't play DM D&D without having a general idea what level a critter is.

Then there's a baseline where a monster can start "easy" or "hard" to defeat. 5E chose easy, PF2 chose hard. But that's something you would get used to quickly.

It is proficiency to level that creates the strangest results, so I would suggest starting without it. I would love a fan-produced version of the Bestiary PDF with level already taken out of monster stats, for instance.

 

[CapnZapp]

Good points, it is not my group and they are probably not up for it. However, I am fascinated because the design is so close to what I thought was the "ideal" D&D game that I want to give it a try.

That sounds about right. (That you ought to give it a spin but not necessarily together with your current players)

Good luck