It is a shame Paizo overcorrected their wizards. Martials are now lightyears more fun than the casters in PF2.
What was your play experience with both like?
It is a shame Paizo overcorrected their wizards. Martials are now lightyears more fun than the casters in PF2.
Yes, that could be a hitch.Same here, though it kind of made the Sorcerer class superfluous.
For instance, Vancian casting: you don't need it to tell real D&D stories. Already 3.5 with its Sorcerer class proved this. And Paizo will find the gaming world has moved on. People just don't want to muck about with old-skool clutter like that. (Sure, OSR lives and so on, but now I'm talking numbers).
O.K., as I said at the beginning of this discussion there's a lot of talk about pros and cons of Pathfinder2e. I want to hear about actual play.I believe that ship has sailed.
5E has proven you don't need that cluttery junk to tell D&D like stories.
Looking at 5E as if it some kind of throwback game is not useful, in my opinion. It would be much more useful to consider it the future of gaming, since it offers great design to simplify your gaming.
For instance, Vancian casting: you don't need it to tell real D&D stories. Already 3.5 with its Sorcerer class proved this. And Paizo will find the gaming world has moved on. People just don't want to muck about with old-skool clutter like that. (Sure, OSR lives and so on, but now I'm talking numbers).
The question here is why Paizo chose such a curiously cluttery and throwback-y game design. The sad thing is, I don't think they did. I think it's even worse - that they didn't even realize their game was so cluttery and throwback-y.
I wished they'd gone more of a 5E route in many areas..
Both for my sake and the Paizo bottom line's...
In too many cases, it feels like Paizo designed PF2 in isolation, failing to take into account what people have gotten used to since 2015.
There was a reason it was abandoned.
There's lots of things in PF2 5th edition gamers "are not used to".
To me, few of those are warranted. In too many cases, it feels like Paizo designed PF2 in isolation, failing to take into account what people have gotten used to since 2015.
Can you be more specific as to why PF2E is more enjoyable to DM then 3.5? What do you feel makes it easier? Is it NPC prep. (My personal bugbear)? Improvisation?Have played 5 sessions of PF2E, I'm DM'ing for a group of six. We have switched over from 5e, as we've been playing that since release and it was starting to feel a little stale
As for the play experience, its going really well, I'm finding DM'ing to be about equivalent to 5e in terms of effort and prep, the only real difficulty is getting on top of some of the rules, I feel the CRB is great (especially the index) but sometime I feel things could be clarified a little more (currently struggling as to if transferring a rune requires the craft magic item feat), its certainly far more enjoyable to DM than 3.5
As for the players the feedback has been positive, combats seem faster and more dangerous than 5e, which we enjoy, it really brings back an element of risk, that I felt has been missing from 4e onward. The players are more engaged with their characters, but this could be because its new and shiny, we'll see. The only difficulty is switching out of the 5e mindset (everything from reduced AoO's to resting to heal) but so far its all positive.