Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?

Aldarc · Jul 16, 2019

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
I like this.

For 4e, I considered making only Soldier monsters have opportunity attacks.

Other classes can also get thematically appropriate abilities for their reactions. Paladins have Retributive Strike. Wizards can pick up Counterspell. Etc.

Tony Vargas · Jul 16, 2019

CapnZapp said:
The whole point of OAs is deterrence. As a fighter, you don't actually want to use your opportunity attack; you just want the threat of it to make the monster stay put.

The 4e Fighter's "Combat Superiority" OA spoiled the target's movement if it hit. They're mark-punishment interrupt, OTOH, did not, but could be in response to a shift or attack that didn't normally provoke. Consensus was the features made them very 'sticky,' even by defender standards.

If monsters and creatures in general don't have OAs how will they know they're fighting something that has 'em?

It could be automatic when they're in the fighter's Threatened area?

For this idea to work, PF2 OAs must work differently. Maybe like Sentinel; they stop the monster dead in it's tracks?

Haven't used feats much when running 5e, just AL, and in AL it always seemed to be the Heavy Armor feat that attracted variant humans. ::shrug:: Sentinel is a lot like Combat Superiority was, though, and my experience there was that enemies rarely provoked vs a fighter, it did indeed become a threat that rarely needed to be carried through to have the desired effect.

Parmandur · Jul 16, 2019

billd91 said:
I’d buy into argument b, but not a, at least, not within a setting agnostic set of core rules. The witch’s importance to Golarion (which I don’t necessarily agree with), should be of secondary importance.

The core rules for PF2 are not setting agnostic: Paizo is going all in on Golarion, and all PF2 books assume that setting is in play.

zztong · Jul 16, 2019

CapnZapp said:
For this idea to work, PF2 OAs must work differently.

Yes, or you look at the Wizard differently. Wizards aren't necessarily easy meat when a combatant gets into the backfield. Their AC improves with level, just like the Fighter. One Feat at 2nd level and they're wearing armor just like a Fighter. Wizards don't necessarily stay in the backfield. I tried both Wizard/Fighter and Wizard/Ranger multi-classes and sometimes I ended up _tanking_ in the Playtest.

This is one reason why I don't think PF2 tells the same stories as PF1. PF2 seemed to walk away from the classic weak, vulnerable Wizard and the "protect/sack the quarterback" mantra.

jimtillman · Jul 16, 2019

ParanoydStyle said:
Basically thread title = thread topic but I'll clarify a little bit.

So I'm not asking this just to stir up smiley face emojii smiley face emojii smiley face emojii smiley face emojii but it IS a curiosity question for me. I would describe myself as having "settled comfortably" on D&D 5E, it's what everyone in my area knows how to play and it's good enough that I don't see myself going anywhere even were this thread to somehow convince me that PF2E is the proverbial second coming of Gary Gygax.

That said, the general impression I get about Pathfinder 2E...the very much AT A GLANCE impression I get, is that most people don't like PF2E. Esp. Pathfinder fans. I was curious what's wrong with it (or if you like it, I guess what are percveived to be its flaws) and just how bad the problems were.

(Plz be civil with each other.)

im not seeing any issue syet, though we will see if anything crops up with once i have read the full book, so far im loving what i have seen and my wife really loves the new monk

CapnZapp · Jul 16, 2019

zztong said:
Yes, or you look at the Wizard differently. Wizards aren't necessarily easy meat when a combatant gets into the backfield. Their AC improves with level, just like the Fighter. One Feat at 2nd level and they're wearing armor just like a Fighter. Wizards don't necessarily stay in the backfield. I tried both Wizard/Fighter and Wizard/Ranger multi-classes and sometimes I ended up _tanking_ in the Playtest.

This is one reason why I don't think PF2 tells the same stories as PF1. PF2 seemed to walk away from the classic weak, vulnerable Wizard and the "protect/sack the quarterback" mantra.

Can't you just build a different wizard, one that remains a squishie, if telling "squishie stories" is that important to you?

zztong · Jul 17, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Can't you just build a different wizard, one that remains a squishie, if telling "squishie stories" is that important to you?

As a player, you could make decisions that lead to a wimpier wizard. You could short your Constitution and Dexterity, avoid armor, and never raise a shield. This would keep your AC and hit points as low as possible. The system will still augment your AC by +1 per level, so you'll eventually grow to be immune to rabble, but you can arrange to be at a moderate risk of suffering a critical hit that will take a big chunk of your hit points.

As a DM, you always have the option to make house rules to better model your setting.

GrahamWills · Jul 17, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Not sure what you mean by "fluid", but if you mean the opposite of "static", that is, that PF2 characters are able to move about the battlefield more, then I'm all for it

For me, this was my definite experience playing in the PF2 playtest. Combats were by far the most fluid of any D&D game I've experienced. Three actions per turn combined with the big incentive to roll 10+ higher than your opponent and land a critical (plus the desire for that NOT to happen to you), plus moving opportunity attacks to a special thing some people do rather than a thing everyone does made a big difference.

Some typical rounds were:
• Move form behind cover, stab opponent in back, run off to new cover
• Hit opponent, move to new opponent, hit opponent
• Cast self-buff, move to enemy, hit enemy

The spell system, with variable effects based on how many actions you take casting, also makes for fun decisions: I can use a 3-action heal to heal everyone, but only Bob really needs it. Maybe I should move to Bob, cast a heal on him and then hit the opponent.

Raising a shield as an action is also really interesting. I recall once when a large sea creature was our solo opponent thinking I'd move in and double attack. When I saw it crit our other melee fighter on a roll of 13, I changed my mind -- move in, attack and raise shield!

4E is still my vote for the best tactical combat game, but PF2 is faster, simpler and so for a fluid combat style, it's a winner.

Haffrung · Jul 19, 2019

In response to the OP:

Every time a new edition of a game in the D&D family is announced, commentary is dominated by grognards who don't want to change to a new edition. Every time. So it's not at all surprising that your impression of PF2 at this point is that people don't like it. The people who dislike the very idea of PF2 generate commentary out of all proportion to their numbers, just as was the case with D&D 3E, 3.5, 4E, Essentials, and 5E. It's just part of the culture of the game and online forums.

The time to make judgements about PF2 will be in the months following its official release, when lots of people have had a change to play it in the wild.