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

ParanoydStyle · Jul 2, 2019

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.)

Jer · Jul 2, 2019

Has anyone actually seen the final product yet? I thought it wasn't out until GenCon?

DragonBelow · Jul 2, 2019

It's not out yet, this is pure speculation. This kind of thread just fuels the misinformation. Give it a go and then give your opinion, or at least get the opinion from folks that have actually used it.

zztong · Jul 2, 2019

I didn't care for the Playtest rules. I worry my playtest experience has colored my opinion of the yet unreleased Pathfinder 2 rules. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I admit I struggle with that on boards like this, Reddit, and on the Paizo website. I'm sure a friend will bring back a copy of the rules from GenCon and that I'll get a chance to play the final version of PF2. What I cannot predict is how much play it will get.

My biggest complaint with the playtest was character creation. Ultimately, I didn't enjoy making or leveling characters. The process felt like being forced to make a great many pointless choices.

My next biggest complaint was the skill system. They trimmed the skill list down a little too much for me. The DCs were out of whack, though I'm aware they've addressed that. I preferred spending skill points over just getting +1 per level and having to deal with the proficiency system.

The 3-action system was okay. Its easier to learn than PF1's system and it cleans up multiple attacks nicely.

The +10/-10 critical system did nicely with spells, but I didn't care for it with melee.

I don't want to short-change it. Some folks are going to really like it. I just don't think it will be my system of choice when its my turn to run, but it is too soon to tell.

mewzard · Jul 2, 2019

Well, while we don't have the finished product, what we have seen leading into it makes me think it's a game I could enjoy. Going to have to do a few games with my group, see if we enjoy it more or less than Pathfinder as is.

Hoping it finds that sweet spot between Pathfinder 1st Edition and D&D 5E that I need in my life.

Morrus · Jul 3, 2019

The only people who have seen the game are under NDA.

I liked some aspect of the playtest rules, and didn't like other things. But I knew it was a playtest, not a ruleset, and included exaggerated examples of things and a very specific set of adventures geared towards stress testing.

I'm sure Paizo knew that the playtest process would turn off some people, but would make for a better game, and the overall reaction when it's released will overwhelm that in the same way we all remember the 5E playtest documents in great deal. Which we don't.

TL;DR. It comes out at Gen Con. Wait and see what people say then.

Morrus · Jul 3, 2019

ParanoydStyle said:
most people don't like PF2E.

They haven't seen it. How do you feel about the D&D Next playtest document back in 2015 or whenever it was?

Retreater · Jul 3, 2019

I have only run the Playtest and played in a few demo events at cons, so my experience might be limited. I actually enjoyed the character creation as something different. What I didn't care for was the organization of the Playtest rulebook (which I think can be fixed) and the death and dying mechanics (which might have been clarified). What I truly hated was the three action economy for monsters. As a GM, I could tell that the inflation of actions on monsters made it increasingly lethal. A swarm of goblins with suddenly 3 attacks each (even with worse probability of hitting), is a devastating encounter. This gives every enemy encounter an unfair advantage over the PCs. Sure the PCs get 3 attacks, but they're going to be overwhelmed in no time. Most enemies only need to survive a few turns in a single combat; most characters would like to survive 4-5 encounters in a day.

Morrus · Jul 3, 2019

I am curious whether there is a worrisome demographic to this day composed of people who refuse to play D&D 5E because they didn't like the playtest document back in 2014 or whenever it was. I suspect... the playtest document really won't be a thing anybody remembers in a couple of months' time. But hey, I might be wrong. Those 2014 diehard D&D Next playtest doc haters might still be out there harbouring their grudges about a game that never existed!

Retreater · Jul 3, 2019

Morrus said:
I am curious whether there is a worrisome demographic to this day composed of people who refuse to play D&D 5E because they didn't like the playtest document back in 2014 or whenever it was. I suspect... the playtest document really won't be a thing anybody remembers in a couple of months' time. But hey, I might be wrong. Those 2014 diehard D&D Next playtest doc haters might still be out there harbouring their grudges about a game that never existed!

I disliked D&D Next. I never even tried the Next Adventures (Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle?) I didn't like HotDQ when it came out. For me, it didn't start to click until Lost Mines of Phandelver.

All I can say is that I didn't like the Pathfinder 2E Playtest. I want more information before making a decision about purchasing the full rules. I'm at a "soft pass" currently.