Grade the Pathfinder 2E Game System
niklinna
satisfied?
From a certain perspective, the action economy shafts spellcasters, as the great majority of spells require two of your three actions to cast. Then again, anybody involved in melee had more often than not better use their third action to raise a shield, or disengage (or both, for two of your three actions!). Either way, the three-action economy wound up feeling more restrictive to me rather than freeing.
More broadly, the bulk of the complicated rules are, as usual, about round-by-round melee combat, although use of skills is also pretty regimented (or, "precisely defined," if you're inclined to like that approach). At least interesting things can happen on failures, rather than mere whiffs. Group tactics are crucial in the combat rules, as are things like knowledge checks. If your group isn't working as a team, you are likely to have a very tough time. And the group I played with...wasn't so good at that. (The other two spellcasters barely knew what their own spells were or what they did. Not knowing the basics of your charcter is not unique to Pathfinder 2, of course, but this is not a system for more casual gamers.)
A lot of the classes look really interesting. They've got cool themes and cool-sounding abilities. The way classes are baseline very minimally defined, and customized through feats (lots and lots of feats) appeals to me more than the package deal classes & subclasses of D&D 5e. In theory there are several classes l I'd love to play (that Thaumaturge!). Thinking about how they'd actually play mechanically, though, I can't say I want do do that.
Those are the highlights of what I like & dislike about Pathfinder 2e.
(Edit: Fixed a typo.)
More broadly, the bulk of the complicated rules are, as usual, about round-by-round melee combat, although use of skills is also pretty regimented (or, "precisely defined," if you're inclined to like that approach). At least interesting things can happen on failures, rather than mere whiffs. Group tactics are crucial in the combat rules, as are things like knowledge checks. If your group isn't working as a team, you are likely to have a very tough time. And the group I played with...wasn't so good at that. (The other two spellcasters barely knew what their own spells were or what they did. Not knowing the basics of your charcter is not unique to Pathfinder 2, of course, but this is not a system for more casual gamers.)
A lot of the classes look really interesting. They've got cool themes and cool-sounding abilities. The way classes are baseline very minimally defined, and customized through feats (lots and lots of feats) appeals to me more than the package deal classes & subclasses of D&D 5e. In theory there are several classes l I'd love to play (that Thaumaturge!). Thinking about how they'd actually play mechanically, though, I can't say I want do do that.
Those are the highlights of what I like & dislike about Pathfinder 2e.
(Edit: Fixed a typo.)
Last edited:
I think PF2 is the most dynamic and balanced mainstream system in production. The dynamism and balance comes at the cost of mountain of complex (even convoluted) rules. They are out of reach of most casual gamers, and the most dedicated often rely on online databases, character creation programs, and VTT automation.
The characters feel unique. The monsters have cool abilities. The fights turn out as you expect.
It's often compared to 4E. However, I could run 4E for new players without rule books or online tools at the table, all while half inebriated.
PF2 demands more than a typical TTRPG from players and GMs.
The characters feel unique. The monsters have cool abilities. The fights turn out as you expect.
It's often compared to 4E. However, I could run 4E for new players without rule books or online tools at the table, all while half inebriated.
PF2 demands more than a typical TTRPG from players and GMs.
Kannik
Hero
From my experience playing it, one of the biggest things that had me be meh about it is that, on its surface, it looks like it's chock full of options and interesting bits (Class feats! Skill feats! Ancestry feats! Oh my!). Only, during play, you realize that in order to do this not only is each option minor in the grand scheme of things, and thus it takes a long time to build up to something notable, but they've also restricted the characters' base abilities and made them 'options' you get to pick. It was like the game was teasing us with the promise that "someday, you will get to be cool and do cool things when you get to pick these 'options'." It stopped being exciting. (And certain character classes seemed like traps -- they looked cool, but the mechanics had you do a lot just to be as effective as one of the other base classes, and/or you had to wait for the magic level to become perhaps not only effective but superior-ly so.)
The three action system also felt like that. With the exception of variable spells, mostly it didn't feel like it added much as it first seemed it would, and could even feel punishing. (Are you a dual user who started the encounter with their weapons sheathed so you could leave your options over for the non-combat quandary you're trying to solve? Hope you like losing a turn as you spend 2 of your 3 actions to draw your weapons...)
Plus Vancian casting. I grew up on 1e+. I am very much done with Vancian casting, thank you.
That said, it appears to have very tight math, the roll 10 over or 10 under mechanism seems like a workable margin of success method for a linear die roll system, and I do very much like the idea of the Archetype system, especially when a "free" one is given by the DM. Plus it seems to be a viable way to handle multiclassing. But even then I'd still prefer Themes from 4e.
The three action system also felt like that. With the exception of variable spells, mostly it didn't feel like it added much as it first seemed it would, and could even feel punishing. (Are you a dual user who started the encounter with their weapons sheathed so you could leave your options over for the non-combat quandary you're trying to solve? Hope you like losing a turn as you spend 2 of your 3 actions to draw your weapons...)
Plus Vancian casting. I grew up on 1e+. I am very much done with Vancian casting, thank you.
That said, it appears to have very tight math, the roll 10 over or 10 under mechanism seems like a workable margin of success method for a linear die roll system, and I do very much like the idea of the Archetype system, especially when a "free" one is given by the DM. Plus it seems to be a viable way to handle multiclassing. But even then I'd still prefer Themes from 4e.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
No, it was not marketed that way...but PF2E set out to fix various perceived issues of 3.x (otherwise, why even do a 2E, right?), and the 3E Grognard segment of their fanbase (who, it might be recalled, we're their core audience) took any perceived similarity to 4E's solutions to the same issues as a personal insult.
I bounced off the game: seems fine for people who like that sort of thing, too much fiddley math for my tastes.
aramis erak
Legend
Again, have, have read, not going to run.
Things I like:
Things I like:
- Attributes built from other decisions.
- 3 action action economy
- Showing the math as callout boxes
- The art style
- D&D style Magic.
- icon choice for action costs (It «bleep»s with my dyslexia)
- font choice (again, dyslexic issues.)
HaroldTheHobbit
Adventurer
As a perma-GM only playing online via Foundry, I love it, since the vast majority of the crunch is player facing and the Foundry implementation is incredibly good. It's probably one of the most lazy systems to GM that I've tried. It's one of the last systems I would like to be a player in though.
Justice and Rule
Hero
I really enjoy it as a very tightly-built system with a lot of options. I can't speak to the experiences of others here, but I find that the options are actually pretty good at making characters distinct, especially within individual classes. This is particularly true for the martials, but every class has a lot of space to build within it.
The Action Economy is generally the looked at as its killer feature, and I would tend agree that it's probably the most refreshing part. It clears the confusion of different kinds of actions and how they relate by basically boiling almost everything down to different amounts of actions. This does mean you have fewer kinds of free actions, but I found that to not really be a problem: the clarity was way more useful and it meant that getting the drop on people generally meant you had an extra turn or two instead of, say, everyone instantly drawing their swords and running at you because they actually had to ready themselves for combat. The game is more defined and generally harsher on restrictions when it comes to movement than 5E, but it also helps create a different feel for environments and combined with slightly slower movement (I think most ancestries are about 5 Feet slower per move than their D&D equivalents), you have to be smart in your terrain choice and maneuvering otherwise you can get in real trouble.
Along with that the design of things like magic are about as good as you are going to get while staying within the Vancian paradigm: the Crit system works incredibly well at creating scaling results that allow magic to be generally more reliable but less powerful. The math is tightly written, which is dependent on taste: if you like feeling powerful and outstripping old opponents after a few levels, you'll really like it. If not, you might want to try their own version of the Bounded Accuracy of 5E. But overall, it's my go-to for any sort of d20 fantasy action.
The Action Economy is generally the looked at as its killer feature, and I would tend agree that it's probably the most refreshing part. It clears the confusion of different kinds of actions and how they relate by basically boiling almost everything down to different amounts of actions. This does mean you have fewer kinds of free actions, but I found that to not really be a problem: the clarity was way more useful and it meant that getting the drop on people generally meant you had an extra turn or two instead of, say, everyone instantly drawing their swords and running at you because they actually had to ready themselves for combat. The game is more defined and generally harsher on restrictions when it comes to movement than 5E, but it also helps create a different feel for environments and combined with slightly slower movement (I think most ancestries are about 5 Feet slower per move than their D&D equivalents), you have to be smart in your terrain choice and maneuvering otherwise you can get in real trouble.
Along with that the design of things like magic are about as good as you are going to get while staying within the Vancian paradigm: the Crit system works incredibly well at creating scaling results that allow magic to be generally more reliable but less powerful. The math is tightly written, which is dependent on taste: if you like feeling powerful and outstripping old opponents after a few levels, you'll really like it. If not, you might want to try their own version of the Bounded Accuracy of 5E. But overall, it's my go-to for any sort of d20 fantasy action.
Thomas Shey
Legend
The above poster reminded me of one other thing: the reduction but not elimination of Attacks of Opportunity (not everyone, PC or NPC gets them) provides for a more dynamic environment without going all the way back to the "everyone just run by inconvenient opponents" thing that goes on in a lot of games, in or out of the D&D sphere.
Zubatcarteira
Now you're infected by the Musical Doodle
I like it a lot, lots of good options for characters even outside of classes, more stuff to do in combat, an intuitive action system, mostly no super overpowered stuff (damn you, wood Kineticist), etc.
My main issues are mostly stuff that you can fix well enough with the rules given, like needing equipment for basic competency as you level up (Automatic Bonus Progression variant), and a lot of feats that just ain't very good (retraining rule).
From the d20 systems I've played, it's definitely miles ahead of 5e, and a couple lightyears ahead of 3.5.
My main issues are mostly stuff that you can fix well enough with the rules given, like needing equipment for basic competency as you level up (Automatic Bonus Progression variant), and a lot of feats that just ain't very good (retraining rule).
From the d20 systems I've played, it's definitely miles ahead of 5e, and a couple lightyears ahead of 3.5.
