Pathfinder 2 and the game Paizo should have made

[gyor]

I think the variety of Sorcerer bloodlines were in PF1.

The issue isn't variety in bloodlines its the imbalance in spell lists.

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh, goodness. I remember an anecdote from last decade, about a guy running a four-hour OSR rules game a table away from a group playing 4E. The OSR game went through half a dozen combats, a whole bunch of exploration, going back to town and social interactions. The 4E table got through a single fight in the same timeframe.

Our interest in 4E was definitely killed by the time it took to resolve combats, and for that reason specifically.

In part it was that we focused on actually challenging fights - hard fights, where the players were motivated to really play well: use sound tactics and minmax the metagame of applying buffs and debuffs. 4E does this really well.

The reason for us doing that is that we quickly grew bored of the "easy" fights. Since combat resolution in 4E was markedly slower than in 3E (and in 5E) we did not want to spend the time killing off three goblins (bring out the battle mat, preparing the markers used for conditions etc).

Sure, easy combats take less time. But they also always end the same way. Just playing them out to see whether someone lost a healing surge or not is decidedly not our idea of "fun". Just going through the motions when you already know you are going to win weren't fun. In 5E (or OSR?) it's still a reasonable thing to do because it's over so quick.

So we realized we played 4E like it was a tactical skirmish board game. Our sesssions were dominated by The One Big Fight.

And so actual story and roleplaying suffered - suffered too much.

In the end, we stopped playing. Combat was fun, tactical and challenging but in the end analysis we all prefer to play tabletop roleplaying games over board games. And 4E combat was only fun when you went "all in".

In glaring contrast, 5E combats feel much more like how we want them to feel - like 3E combats.

Lesson learned: there is a definite ceiling on how involved you should make combat. 5E shows real design skill in the myriad ways it tries to speed up combat by bringing in new mechanisms.

So far, Pathfinder 2 feels much more like 3/5E than 4E, which is good, but it's still early days - too early to tell if this keeps being the case as we leave the lowest levels. At low levels, every fight is dangerous, and the conditions game is yet not overwhelming. Time will tell if combat bogs down once we hit level 5 or so (generally the point where D&D combat changes character).

 

[S'mon]

In 5E (or OSR?) it's still a reasonable thing to do because it's over so quick.

5e combat is still a good deal slower than OSR combat IME, mostly because of cyclical init and the individual turn cycle. Typically in OSR games each side has a 'turn', rather than each PC having a separate turn - so eg in Moldvay B/X games everyone moves, shoots, attacks and casts spells in that order, as a group. The game doesn't attempt to regulate who within a group shoots first, unlike 3e-4e-5e-PF2.

 

[CapnZapp]

5e combat is still a good deal slower than OSR combat IME, mostly because of cyclical init and the individual turn cycle. Typically in OSR games each side has a 'turn', rather than each PC having a separate turn - so eg in Moldvay B/X games everyone moves, shoots, attacks and casts spells in that order, as a group. The game doesn't attempt to regulate who within a group shoots first, unlike 3e-4e-5e-PF2.

O...kay?

If you aren't contesting my claim, and just want to drop that info here, thanks, I guess.

 

[S'mon]

O...kay?

If you aren't contesting my claim, and just want to drop that info here, thanks, I guess.

Stay Zappy, Cap'n!

 

[darjr]

I love 5e and I think it’s a really well designed game. But if I’m honest I have to admit that WotC has captured lighting in a bottle. In many ways a perfect storm lead to its current success.

WotC themselves have acknowledged surprise at what has happened. So much so that they are reluctant to screw things up and mess with the PHB.

So to compare P2 to it, it’s level of success, it’s design, it’s intended audience, seems terribly unfair.

I think PF1 was also a similar situation, it was the right game at the right time and a perfect storm happened. So to compare P2 to it is also unfair, to some degree.

Also I don’t think any one can say that PF2 is a failure. Objectively it is a success. Flat out. There shouldn’t be any dispute.

I would have loved something for 5e, I also would have strongly considered doubling down on a 3.5 style game. But I don’t think anyone can say that they’d really do any better than what P2 is doing now.

I may have posted the above in the wrong thread but I think it’s ok there. And is good here?

 

[Aldarc]

There are so many game systems in the market that I read through and think to myself, "There is a lot that this system does that I like, a lot that I love, but...". There are always a number of rules, mechanics, or flavor that I don't find to my particular liking or I would have done differently about the system or game, and I perhaps wish that they had done.

After a certain point, I have come to realize that the argument appealing to "the game that X company should have made" can come with a lot of problematic assumptions that reflect my own biases. Am I the person or group being targeted by this game? Why should I assume that I should be targeted? Why should I assume that I know better than the author(s) and publisher whom they should target? Are others enjoying the game as it is written or played? Am I projecting my own desires for the product that I want on a hypothetical mass of people?

And it seems like the question "who was this game made for?" begs the question, though it does so from an underlying presumption "if it does not appeal to me and my pet issues, then who else could possibly find this appealing?" And reading through the OP, one can definitely see how the thumb is on the scale in how they frame and rationalize their question.

It seems like the question in the OP is framed from the presumption that no one is being targeted rather than attempting to gather any data and derive commonalities or trends between people who do find the game to their liking. Sure, one can attempt to deflect from this by saying "it's just discussion on a web forum and should not necessarily attempt rigorous scientific research." However, I am not proposing rigorous research here. A simple (and more neutral) question of "who likes this game and why?" would suffice for these purposes rather than starting from a position of bafflement that people would like it and that Paizo should have made some other game instead.

 

[Zaukrie]

Me. a guy that has played D&D since it was first released. I find it funny that people say the choices in PF2 don't mean much, when at most levels in 5e, you don't get anything at all, let alone choices.

 

[Parmandur]

Me. a guy that has played D&D since it was first released. I find it funny that people say the choices in PF2 don't mean much, when at most levels in 5e, you don't get anything at all, let alone choices.

I find build choices boring, personally: choices in play are what matters. 5E gets the balance right for me. Folks like @CapnZapp however, are frustrated with the choices in 5E, and wanted a game with the advances of 5E, but with more build choices of significance.

 

[Arilyn]

I'm starting to pick up a whiff of edition warring.