Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[The Crimson Binome]

Let me restate what I am reading: the biggest issue is that if you are fighting a big threat, hitting regularly is boring?

I find that missing, especially wasted rounds are boring. A think I'll even go so far to say that if I'm either grinding for hits or grinding HPs, the one where I am at least contributing regularly is definitively less boring.

That sounds like a simple matter of preference, then. Personally, I feel that large HP pools diminish the thrill of hitting. With high HP and low AC, the only possible outcomes of attacking are "the expected thing" and "nothing"; you feel bad when you miss, instead of feeling good when you hit.

With low HP and high AC, the possible outcomes of attacking are "an exciting thing" and "nothing". You don't hit every round, but when you do, it feels like it really matters.

Just in general, though, game mechanics that skew toward averages are going to be less exciting than game mechanics that skew toward randomness. The art of game design includes finding the balance between the two, since neither extreme is great. Based on recent threads, it sounds like PF2 leans heavily on random crits to keep things interesting, which is not my ideal.

 

[GrahamWills]

I find that missing, especially wasted rounds are boring. A think I'll even go so far to say that if I'm either grinding for hits or grinding HPs, the one where I am at least contributing regularly is definitively less boring.

Hitting a monster for normal damage is essentially a banal result. It's what you are expected to do. For me, a fight where I use the same set of attacks as I always do, and they work about the same amount of time as always, is the most boring possible fight. It literally says "nothing interesting happens". Now, I do understand the point of view that enjoys doing just this -- I've played and run with plenty of players like that, and so for them, bounded accuracy is great. Lots of people like the feeling of contributing by doing their standard hit point damage attack.

For me, when I roll a 16 on the dice and miss a monster, that is interesting. It means that there is something else going on, or a strategy I need to find, or maybe it's just too ;powerful and I should run away! But what it doesn't suggest is keep trying the same old thing. If at the same time I'm missing, it's also doing serious damage, retreating or regrouping is probably a good option. But I might also make a lore check, or look around for some terrain advantage. Maybe I'll start aiding someone else, or trying a different form of attack, looking to distract it so the barbarian has a better chance of landing that big blow.

Essentially, this is why I am not fond of the bounded accuracy paradigm. Its default combat is what I consider the most boring style -- everyone does their thing and it works as expected. I prefer systems where that isn't always the case; for me an opponent being hard to hit doesn't mean "you only hit one time out of three rather than every second turn", it means "you need to do something different". The bounded accuracy philosophy is explicitly that doing the same thing you always do is at least a plausible idea; it may not be the best, but it'll always have a reasonable chance of working. To me, that kills innovation and imagination -- it's a safety net that I'd prefer not to have.

 

[dave2008]

Essentially, this is why I am not fond of the bounded accuracy paradigm. Its default combat is what I consider the most boring style -- everyone does their thing and it works as expected. I prefer systems where that isn't always the case; for me an opponent being hard to hit doesn't mean "you only hit one time out of three rather than every second turn", it means "you need to do something different". The bounded accuracy philosophy is explicitly that doing the same thing you always do is at least a plausible idea; it may not be the best, but it'll always have a reasonable chance of working. To me, that kills innovation and imagination -- it's a safety net that I'd prefer not to have.

I look at it almost completely the opposite. What BA allows me to do is break the norm and make an encounter about different tactics just by using a high AC monster. When the general assumption is you can hit and then the PCs come up to one they can barely hit it really makes them:

1. look for tactics to improve their chance to hit
2. look for tactics to get more attempts to hit without being hit
3. look for tactics to affect the encounter without "hitting"
4. think about retreating
5. other things I'm not thinking of at the moment

For me, BA allows the high AC monster to really shine and change the strategy of an encounter. You give an orc plate and a shield and it totally changes the encounter. Very interesting really and the PCs always come up with the most interesting ways to deal with the issue.

 

[kayman]

Pathfinder 2e is the climax of ttrpg. Thanks Paizo.

 

[kayman]

For me, the climax of RPG... The perfect system. Thanks Paizo.

 

[Carmen Sbordone]

It's been out a while. Lots of us have had a chance to try it. So, what do you think? Rate, and (if you want) review!

Honestly? Irrelevant to me. Still have a ton of PF1 stuff we havent finished, we also enjoy that system. Further, 5e is still enjoyable for something lighter and easy to find other players

 

[BrokenTwin]

I still haven't had a chance to try PF2, but I'm not against the idea. We were in the middle of a Hell's Rebels campaign when we stopped playing PF1 (GM fatigue), and the group I was with will probably want to finish it before we try something new. Some of the players are trying to convince the GM to finish the AP in PF2, but I haven't yet found a way to convert my character into PF2 that I'm happy with, so I'm neutral on that idea.

All in all, the general structure of the system intrigues me (especially the 3 action economy), but I'm really not feeling the level bonus being added to everything. I didn't like it in D&D 4E, and I can't imagine I'll like it here either. It feels like entirely unnecessary number bloat, which was a problem I already had with PF1.

As much as I prefer to run simpler systems, I'm totally a sucker for complex character generation. I love my bells and whistles.

 

[dave2008]

Pathfinder 2e is the climax of ttrpg. Thanks Paizo.

I guess you will not be switching to PF3e then, I see the edition wars starting again!

 

[kayman]

I guess you will not be switching to PF3e then, I see the edition wars starting again!

That is not my intent... Long time DnD and Pathfinder GM. I am current Gming age of Ashes (just finished cult of cinders) and i can say this. After 13 sessions, the game has been perfect in every sense, combat flows without any problem , magic is well balanced and the option of downtime mode and exploration mode play a huge and important part of the game. All PCs plays very diferent from each other. The level of costomization is awesome. Comparing with other editions pathfinder 2e at this moment, imho,is a huge upgrade for TTRPG.
Sorry for my bad english.

 

[kayman]

And the 3 actions economy is the best rule that ever was introduced in the history of DND/Pathfinder. A simple idea that changed the whole game. Just Perfect.