Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[The-Magic-Sword]

Yes, I'm not too sure about Vancian casting either, and wished they'd gone the 5e route in this area.

Honestly? I don't, this approach may be less streamlined but you get way more design space in how casters work, more differentiation in their playstyles, and it helps to balance the power and versatility of magic in these games.

It's less of a flaw in 2e, and more of an important mechanic 5e players won't be used to.

 

[Campbell]

If I ever get the chance to play rather than run the game I am really looking forward to playing a wizard. With the additional flourishes that sit atop Vancian casting it looks like Wizards will feel more like Wizards then they ever have. I think Neovancian casting was the right call for Fifth Edition's design goals, but I feel something was lost in translation. There is something to the fiction of a uniquely prepared Wizard. It's one of those things were the game play really matches what is going on in the narrative.

 

[Arilyn]

Yes, I see both the above points, but I just really like the flexibility of the the 5e casting system. But it's not a huge deal.

 

[Xenonnonex]

If I ever get the chance to play rather than run the game I am really looking forward to playing a wizard. With the additional flourishes that sit atop Vancian casting it looks like Wizards will feel more like Wizards then they ever have. I think Neovancian casting was the right call for Fifth Edition's design goals, but I feel something was lost in translation. There is something to the fiction of a uniquely prepared Wizard. It's one of those things were the game play really matches what is going on in the narrative.

It is a shame Paizo overcorrected their wizards. Martials are now lightyears more fun than the casters in PF2.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, I'm not too sure about Vancian casting either, and wished they'd gone the 5e route in this area.

I wished they'd gone more of a 5E route in many areas..

Both for my sake and the Paizo bottom line's...

 

[CapnZapp]

Honestly? I don't, this approach may be less streamlined but you get way more design space in how casters work, more differentiation in their playstyles, and it helps to balance the power and versatility of magic in these games.

It's less of a flaw in 2e, and more of an important mechanic 5e players won't be used to.

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.

 

[Campbell]

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.

A significant part of Fifth Edition's success comes from turning the clock back and embracing the legacy of the game.

For me personally a substantial part of the appeal of Pathfinder 2 is located in its embrace of dungeon crawling, encumbrance, secret rolls, monsters that are puzzles to be solved, alignment, poisons and diseases, calling back to things like strongholds, actually preparing your spells, and other classic elements of the game.

Basically your argument amounts to there's too much Dungeons and Dragons in the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

 

[Retreater]

I know my post doesn't specifically address the OP's question as I haven't played the finalized rules yet, but think of this as an "actual read experience." So I have been sitting with the Core Rulebook, pouring over it for the past few days. And this is coming from someone who has been a big Paizo detractor for years, someone who didn't care for the playtest after actually running and playing in a few sessions, and someone who didn't like the previews and was predisposed to dislike PF2.
So it means something for me to say, I'm impressed. I look forward to trying it. It may not become my go-to system, but I appreciate the crunch, the options, the monster design, the encounter XP system - all seem superior to 5E.

 

[Eric V]

Yes, I see both the above points, but I just really like the flexibility of the the 5e casting system. But it's not a huge deal.

Same here, though it kind of made the Sorcerer class superfluous.