Grade the Pathfinder 2E Game System

[Thomas Shey]

I've only played at pretty low level, but my sense so far is that I like most of what they've done (3 action and how they've balanced that, caster/martial balance, etc). I just really REALLY wish they'd picked up bounded accuracy from 5e. The treadmill feels really really bad when you're on the wrong end of it, and can't hit & the monster can't miss (and frequently crits) and all you can do is hope for big numbers on the d20.

Also so far I felt like "controller" was a little too restricted. Again, low level play with mostly pregens, but ... I really couldn't figure out how to actually net my team actions with my nominal control spells. The one "Grease" I saw used cost team PC more actions than team monster.

Sometimes even if you lose an action and the opponent loses an action its a win, because some monsters have really ugly multiple action attacks.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Looks like ENWorld is giving the Pathfinder 2E system an overall grade of "B-minus" so far (GPA of 2.60).

It's doing slightly better than the less-popular Cypher System, which has an overall grade of "C-plus" (GPA 2.33) so far.

Though in my particular case, you have to remember it loses one step just being a D&D-adjacent. If I was only comparing it to other D&D-similar games, it'd probably be up to the top tier.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've seen a couple people say they burned out running it after a year, so 100% worth mentioning I've been GMing it for about 4 months so I'm definitely still in the honeymoon phase of playing it. We'll see how it goes as more time passes, but it's been a lot of fun as my group's weekly game.

I can see people who were used to running lighter-weight games might find it fatiguing to run. Personally, in contrasting it to my time running 3e many years ago, it'd win hands down.

 

[CleverNickName]

Though in my particular case, you have to remember it loses one step just being a D&D-adjacent. If I was only comparing it to other D&D-similar games, it'd probably be up to the top tier.

Hmm, that's a good point. I doubt I'd ever be able to do one of these little surveys for the D20 System, at least not until I figure out a way to filter out all of the WotC/D&D votes from the D20 System votes.

Like, the D20 System is used by a ton of RPGs: Castles and Crusades, Pathfinder, D20 Modern, Mutants & Masterminds, 13th Age, the list is huge and it gets bigger every month. So I imagine plenty of people don't have a problem with the D20 System itself, but they would smash the "hate" button immediately just because it's associated with Wizards of the Coast and/or Dungeons & Dragons.

On the other hand, whether or not a system is "D&D Adjacent" is a fair criticism. It should count for something, and removing it entirely isn't fair either.

Hmm.

 

[jdrakeh]

Solid "meh" from me, and I've played it. I like a lot of what it does (I reeeeeeeally like the 3-action economy), but my primary complaint is that it felt hamstrung by the horrible organization and content editing. Our all new to PF2 group got tripped up over a number of things due to rules being tucked away in some hidden corner of the core rulebook instead of being grouped with like rules. I hope the new core book printings fix this. That might raise my vote to "It's pretty good" instead.

 

[Reynard]

All I know is that I REALLY want a PF2 equivalent of BG3.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hmm, that's a good point. I doubt I'd ever be able to do one of these little surveys for the D20 System, at least not until I figure out a way to filter out all of the WotC/D&D votes from the D20 System votes.

Like, the D20 System is used by a ton of RPGs: Castles and Crusades, Pathfinder, D20 Modern, Mutants & Masterminds, 13th Age, the list is huge and it gets bigger every month. So I imagine plenty of people don't have a problem with the D20 System itself, but they would smash the "hate" button immediately just because it's associated with Wizards of the Coast and/or Dungeons & Dragons.

On the other hand, whether or not a system is "D&D Adjacent" is a fair criticism. It should count for something, and removing it entirely isn't fair either.

Hmm.

This is not in indication you did anything wrong. I was just noting I'm primarily a non-D&D sphere guy, even though there's a few close relatives (13th Age, SotDL (and soon SotWW), PF2e) and a couple more distant ones (AGE) I'll accept; it colors how I'll react to any of them because first they have to overcome the fact that, fundamentally, I'm not a fan of a lot of things baked into all of them.

I'm a hard case to assess because of that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Solid "meh" from me, and I've played it. I like a lot of what it does (I reeeeeeeally like the 3-action economy), but my primary complaint is that it felt hamstrung by the horrible organization and content editing. Our all new to PF2 group got tripped up over a number of things due to rules being tucked away in some hidden corner of the core rulebook instead of being grouped with like rules. I hope the new core book printings fix this. That might raise my vote to "It's pretty good" instead.

They're supposed to be at least trying to address some arrangement things. Whether it'll be done adequately is another question.

 

[Campbell]

Pathfinder Second Edition is pretty much my favorite version of Modern D&D (3e+). I absolutely adore how monster and character level are on an even keel, how classes are designed with role flexibility in mind, how the sliding scale of Critical Success and Failure allow a monster to go from an epic boss encounter to basically a minion depending on its relative level. I also really like how monsters are designed with different weaknesses and unique mechanics that make skill at the game just as important as character build.

This is controversial, but I really like how you have to choose which direction to take the more traditionally convoluted classes like Monks, Rangers and Druids. I also really dig how they manage to make martial classes have meaningful gameplay without bogging you down with resource management.

That being said the organization of the rules could really use some work. There are just way too many rules in unintuitive places.

A- from me. Hoping the reorganization coming in the Remaster helps with this.

 

[kenada]

I can see people who were used to running lighter-weight games might find it fatiguing to run. Personally, in contrasting it to my time running 3e many years ago, it'd win hands down.

One thing I’ve learned bout myself from running PF2 and playing Stonetop is I find I don’t like encoding the process of play too much in the game’s mechanics. I don’t like skill actions in PF2 and moves in PbtA games for about the same reasons. I would rather have something more top-down with mechanics hung off it (like the basic play loop of BitD or the various procedures of B/X). Trying to keep all the bits of PF2 in my head all at once was too much. (I also didn’t like monster- or trap-building, but that’s more of an aesthetic/design preference that ended up clashing with how PF2 works.)