Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[Morrus]

It's been out a while. Lots of us have had a chance to try it. So, what do you think? Rate, and (if you want) review!

 

[billd91]

I'm still wrapping my brain around it. There are things I like a lot about it - the 3 action economy being foremost. I also like some of the things they've done with saves and critical success, success, failure, critical failures.
I'm not so keen on the game's overall increasing swingy-ness due to frequent critical hits, treadmill math between PC and monster advancements, and levels of proficiencies being applied universally (weapons, skills, and, somewhat egregiously, armor).

So, from my perspective, the things that are good are very good and the things that are bad are very bad. I don't know that I really have an overall rating yet.

 

[kenada]

I rated it “Good”. I really like the system, but a few areas are kind of rough.

• Massive Damage is broken. PCs become immune to it quickly, so it mostly just punishes low level characters for being unlucky.
• Higher level monsters are exceptionally dangerous due to higher crit rates. This makes them more dangerous as bosses, but it means you probably shouldn’t ever use that as solos for moderate-treat encounters (see also: one-shotting 1st level PCs because of a lucky crit).
• The math is tuned around a 40–60% success rate, which my players don’t like because it makes them feel incompetent.
• Recall Knowledge just sucks. It needs to better handle monster families and categories of knowledge better. The above issue with success rates means it’s a crapshoot whether PCs know anything about a topic appropriate to their level/training.
• Character creation is too clunky. I’m having to out together a worksheet to guide my players through creation, so it takes less time than it does now (and with less confusion).

With that said, it’s still my fantasy RPG of choice. It’s just a lot of fun to GM and make content for it.

 

[aarduini]

i rated it average. I really enjoy the class mechanics and flavor, but the number stacking is a real turn off for me. I think PF2 with bounding accuracy would be a dynamite game.

 

[CapnZapp]

Massive Damage is broken. PCs become immune to it quickly, so it mostly just punishes low level characters for being unlucky.

Someone said this in another thread (maybe even on another board?), and I don't think it's broken at all.

In fact, I believe it's working as intended.

Low-level D&D characters are simple creations, where you haven't yet formed a strong bond, quick to replace. High-level characters are.... the opposite. It takes great effort to quickly create one, and losing one can be devastating for party morale. I think the way massive damage fades into insignificance as you level up is deliberate. And good for the game.

As for its impact at low level... that's another issue. That other poster suggested it would be better to remove it entirely, and in the specific case of PF2 I can't disagree. That is because PF2 is plenty lethal as is. That is, the game doesn't need it the way 5E, say, needs it.

 

[CapnZapp]

i rated it average. I really enjoy the class mechanics and flavor, but the number stacking is a real turn off for me. I think PF2 with bounding accuracy would be a dynamite game.

I agree. I remain utterly clueless as to why Paizo completely missed the writing on the wall here (that 5E represents the way most people want to play) and created such a throw-back game to the pre-5E era.

 

[Retreater]

I agree. I remain utterly clueless as to why Paizo completely missed the writing on the wall here (that 5E represents the way most people want to play) and created such a throw-back game to the pre-5E era.

Without trying to derail the thread too much, I don't think bounded accuracy is the gold standard of game design. It's frankly boring, contributes to the feeling of "sameness" between levels, makes characters hit monsters most of the time, takes teeth out of the enemies, makes the game too easy, removes magic items and gear as a mechanical reward of play, etc.

 

[CapnZapp]

I rated it “Good”. I really like the system, but a few areas are kind of rough.

• Feats are noxious. They're set up for precisely the kind of cluttery decision points that change very little that I hated in 4th edition. The feat system's main selling point is for the publisher - since it allows you to shovel out dozens if not hundred new feats as crunch - but 99% of it is empty calories with a miniscule impact.
• Same with magic items like consumable Talismans. I loathe the considerable effort you need to go through just to get a vanishingly small benefit.
• Feats are a PITA in another measure. You can kiss the "winging" style of GM:ing goodbye, since the devs have reserved the right to gate almost any ability behind a feat. Be generous and you likely just invalidated someone's feat choice.
• The lack of humanoid NPC stat blocks in the core Bestiary (guards, bandits, cultists...) was a huge mistake - it hasn't been a session where I didn't want to use predefined cutthroats, acolytes or ragers.
• Paizo tilted the focus away from build mastery to play mastery too much. I don't mind the new combat system. My players complain their build choices (aka feat combinations) matter too little.

With that said, it’s still my current fantasy RPG of choice. It’s just a lot of fun to GM and experience adventures in it.

 

[GrahamWills]

i rated it average. I really enjoy the class mechanics and flavor, but the number stacking is a real turn off for me. I think PF2 with bounding accuracy would be a dynamite game.

And I am in the opposite camp. Bounded Accuracy is a huge turn-off as it implies there's a limit to the stuff you can do, and that limit is typically very low. As Rodney Thompson said, that means that to be more of a threat, monster just have to have more hit points, which for me is a huge negative.

Given the choice between a tough PF2 monster, where you rarely hit him unless you think up clever ways to do so, and the tough 5E monster, which is pretty much as easy to hit as anything else, but just requires you to grind away more hits, I'd definitely go with PF2.

PF2 models Bard shooting Smaug and countless similar legendary encounters. In 5E Bard needs to keep shooting arrows for a while, doing about as well as 2-3 generic archers could do as Smaug gets slowly whittled down. To me that is double-plus-unfun. If you want bounded accuracy, just play 5E. PF2 is for those of us who find bounded accuracy unrealistic (not a huge issue), not in genre (somewhat of an issue) and boring (a big issue).

 

[CapnZapp]

Without trying to derail the thread too much, I don't think bounded accuracy is the gold standard of game design. It's frankly boring, contributes to the feeling of "sameness" between levels, makes characters hit monsters most of the time, takes teeth out of the enemies, makes the game too easy, removes magic items and gear as a mechanical reward of play, etc.

Spoiler: In the spirit of de-derailing

You're free to dislike bounded accuracy but please don't ascribe design choices that has nothing to do it.

That is, the fact 5E characters hit more often than they miss is completely independent of the decision to implement bounded accuracy. That Monster Manual critters lack "teeth" especially at higher levels is completely unrelated to bounded accuracy. The decision to not require or even assume magic items also has nothing to do with bounded accuracy.

I can't help your boredom, but I can state that a game could definitely offer bounded accuracy and yet feature PF2-style attack rates (i.e. a baseline of ~50% instead of 75%), dangerous monsters with sleeves filled with tricks, and a greater assumption of magic items.

As proof, I give you... PF2 with level taken out of proficiency.

(Edit: The above answer goes for GrahamWills too)