Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[JFranklin3000]

That’s how things worked in the playtest. In the final release, the GM would typically use the simple DC table, which is based on proficiency. Such a cliff might be a hard DC for an expert, which is a DC 22. It’s still independent of PC level, but it’s easier to use than the task-level system in the playtest.

But there is still a DC by Level chart that can be used as described see pg 503. Either way the difficulty of the wall is what matters not the level of the character trying to climb it.

 

[CleverNickName]

I gave it an "Average." The stacking modifiers were my biggest gripe with 3.X and PF, and it was a bummer to see that they had been carried forward. I've always liked the campaign setting and the flavor, though.

 

[BryonD]

If 4E is any indication, the book would need to go to extreme efforts to remind everyone that high-level heroes should be encountering low-level obstacles. Because 4E didn't spend enough effort in conveying that idea, and everyone ended up running as though the DCs scaled automatically.

The 4E DMG, page 42 provides an example. The example involves a rogue; an ogre; a chandelier; and a brazier. It then shows how to determine the DC. That procedure ignores: being a rogue; the ogre; the chandelier; and the brazier. The example asks "what level is the character?". That is the start and end of how to do it per the example.

The phrase "didn't spend enough effort in conveying that idea" should be preempted by the statement "4E should have first not said to do exactly that and THEN it should have spent more effort conveying the opposite".

PF2E has nothing which compares to this. It hasn't set itself as one thing and thus has no need to go to any extremes to counter that starting position.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

I ranked it excellent, though I have some caveats to that.

Pros:
1. 3 action economy grows on you and feels very natural
2. Combat works great with TotM play
3. it is super GM friendly
4. I like the DM mechanic and the easy way things scale
5. Lots and lots of minor revisions and tweaks in design that make it a more unified experience
6. the 10 over/under crit success/fumble mechanic is almost as much a game changer as 5E's advantage/disadvantage, and it is a great new rule
7. the game plays and feels deadlier and more high stakes overall (with a couple issues)
8. Skill mechanics are easier to adjudicate
9. the proficiency mechanic is an excellent unifying system
10. I have grown to like how ancestries work

Cons:
1. Ancestries are still overly complex, so you can't get quick PC writeups for new races in the Bestiaries like they used to
2. The rules for designing NPCs and monsters should have been in the Bestiary
3. Lots of typos and errata
4. Many things I as GM LOVE my players gripe about; they still seem obsessed with playing it, which is great, but describe the game as "GM friendly, player neutral," which I believe means "The game makes your life easier and more interesting, but seems to shackle us a lot in ways that chafe."
5. Skill feats are annoying levels of granularity that should be rolled into skills and frankly serve nothing other than to clutter up the game.
6. There are lots of interesting little mechanics which you have to check five spots in the rulebook to get the full picture on...things which look subtle but can have a big impact. Examples: "uncommon" designations for items and spells and how they interact with class advancement; what a PC can learn about magic items and how; functions of many skills that it turns out only work a certain way with specific feats; sticking runes on things, etc. etc.
7. The game's tendency to be high stakes and deadly is offset by ridiculously permissive treat wounds skill checks.

Beyond that.....my groups have been playing Pathfinder non-stop weekly since it came out and it looks like we're all in it for the long haul.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

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.

It is possible they realize they can't compete with 5E in that market, and are trying for the slightly smaller market of people like me who want a system with a bit more teeth to it, but which still is designed for ease of access. I'm loving Pathfinder precisely because it's closer to my preferred playstyle than 5E is, though with the caveat that the main differences between the systems are (to me) really small, and mostly about "threat and risk" level. 5E is, to paraphrase my players, more about epic superheroes, and Pathfinder is a tiny bit more old school where dying is still a realistic possibility and resource management is important.

 

[Morrus]

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.

We know. You've made that abundantly clear, over and over again, in so very many threads. You wanted them to made Advanced 5E. They made Pathfinder 2E. We know.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Pretty sure most GMs would let a lvl 20 bard auto succeed in trying to impress a small village. That's story, not something that needs a roll.

This here is pretty key. In PF2E it's pretty clear that most threats which are above or below 4 CRs from the PCs will either be trivial or deadly. If trivial....let the players tell you how they solve the issue. If deadly, let the players know they are about to die and should consider plan B.

 

[Markh3rd]

I gave it Average.

Likes:
The lore and the world.
Their adventures.
The action economy.
The inclusion of backgrounds.
The exploration and downtime elements.

Dislikes:
The small bonus tracking, including one and done magic items.
Inflation of math. "Let's see, 23+18-2 but +1 is....." (This slows down the game.)
Ancestry features being gated.
Feats feeling like small incremental changes.
Classes feeling like some path choices are narrow.
The fact that there exists the potential for a natural 1 to still succeed or a natural 20 to still fail.

Overall I'm not as excited for the game as I wanted to be. I will revisit it later maybe after some additional material comes out.

 

[neostrider]

That’s how things worked in the playtest. In the final release, the GM would typically use the simple DC table, which is based on proficiency. Such a cliff might be a hard DC for an expert, which is a DC 22. It’s still independent of PC level, but it’s easier to use than the task-level system in the playtest.

The book has a simple method where a gm thinks a level of training is recommended to succeed (table 10-4) or a DC by level of challenge (10-5), which I suspect 95% of GMs will follow flatly and present a level X party with Level X skill challenges. My society Gm did.

I prefer a system where a flat brick wall has DC Z and always will be. The GM/ adventure wouldn't even need to think about training, character level, or adventure level. If a character improvised and decides to climb a nearby tree, the complexity of the tree shouldn't be based on the level of the adventure imo.

This also rewards characters who make decisions that increase their numbers above and beyond what they get for free. Skill Focus was for players who wanted to be the best there ever was. Skill feats feel like a soft way of doing that, by locking possible outcomes behind powers. Boots of Amazing Athletics +100 doesn't let you "climb swiftly": it helps you succeed on any check; Quick Climb is the skill feat of increased climb distance on a success.

 

[dungeonHamster]

I rated it "excellent" based on player feedback. We've come from 5e and my players like the feats, a lot. Someone else in the thread said that they don't amount to much of anything, and that may be true, but players really, really, dig even the tiniest skill feat, let alone class feats that outright spells out new combat maneuvers. I guess if, balance wise, feats don't make that much of an impact, so much the better. In D&D everyone rolled variant human for the same set of feats everyone else took, so it's nice that Pathfinder throws so many at you as a player.

In contrast, it's all a pain to keep track of for a DM, especially when building NPCs. Players tend to rely on me to remember rules so there is a lot of page flipping. I've considered printing out "feat cards" for each class in order to try and avoid the constant book usage.