Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[CapnZapp]

shrugs I mean yeah, potency crystal is most commonly used ones, rest of them tend to be more like "Oh, neat, found this, I guess I might as well use it or never bother(puts it into same pile as 50+ cure moderate wounds potions)"(I'm not joking about that, we had hundreds of cure moderate wounds at high level 1e pathfinder just from enemy equipment). Which is my usual experience with consumables in first place, people only buy them if they are bored of saving money or do specifically know they need it or know what kind of success they want to maximize

Seems we are in agreement - for consumables in general.

I guess I just take Talisman design more personally than you. I'm insulted by the designer asking me to jump through all these hoops, and for what? To gain a ridiculously restricted and minimal ability for the shortest possible time imaginable? Let me give you my detached and professional opinion: naughty word, no!

50+ cure moderate wounds potions come off as positively generous design work compared to Talismans!

 

[MaskedGuy]

In general its really hard to tell what newcomers are able to grasp and what they aren't. According to Jason Bulhman thing he was most surprised about 2e was that newbies seemed to grasp it easier and faster than 1e veterans did. Though I'd still be surprised if 5e wasn't even easier to grasp for newbies.

But yeah, I guess I don't mind the list since uh... Well looking for feats to pick for fighter in 1e WAS looking at list. And same way for all archetypes really when you use online sources to have all of them in one place.

Anyhoo, I don't really have strong opinion on treat wounds vs short rest. Starfinder did the short rest version, 2e did it differently, I haven't seen much problems caused by medicine(and usually all gms including the devs I've seen usually just say "you have enough time to heal yourself fully" unless pcs actually have some sort of time limit present.)

Starfinder did do the "your earn income is twice your dice result" but I've seen some people dislike that as well. I think earn income table is overly complicated yeah, but apparently it is to some people's tastes for reasons I don't really know. That said, lore skills are actually surprisingly useful. Like forest lore pretty much allows character without nature to roll nature when subject is forest related stuff. Which is.... Surprisingly useful really xD

 

[CapnZapp]

This is why I prefer the 5E way of preparation. This advanced preparation in a game of already weakened magic is too restricting on casters. I'd rather let them prepare level plus appropriate stat number of spells whatever varying levels they want and cast what they need. That is one aspect of 5E I vastly prefer. It punishes preparation casters less and allows classes like clerics to decide between a few useful options with their spell slots while having things like neutralize poison prepared. After some time, I think I'm going to move my PF2 group to 5E casting memorization. I think that would go a long way to fix the caster-wizard balance.

Even in 1e, its usually better to leave few spellslots empty so you can prepare utility spells in case you happen to run into situation where they would be useful rather than prepping utility spell just in case you get to use them.

Obviously you can't just houserule this without invalidating a game choice in PF2

Spell Substitution - Arcane Thesis - Wizard - Classes - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

You don't accept the fact that once spells are prepared, they can't be changed until your next daily preparation, and you have uncovered a shortcut allowing you to substitute new spells for those you originally prepared.<br /><br /> You can spend 10 minutes to empty one of your prepared spell...

2e.aonprd.com

That is, the game does offer a way for a Wizard to be able to cast any spell (in his spellbook) if only given 10 minutes warning.

 

[MaskedGuy]

Isn't that different thing though? That allows you to swap your already prepared slot. I could remember wrong yeah, but as far as I remember, 2e allows same "If you leave slot empty, you can at any time use 10 minutes to prep something in it" rule.

That said, the 5e way is definitely user friendlier to player. (though I kinda dislike what they did with wizards since it makes sorcerers in comparison feel less useful )

 

[dave2008]

The 4E and PF2 rulebooks are basically only long long lists of choices (powers and feats, respectively).

The 5E rulebook is much more like a general textbook, and like other rpg rulebooks. It contains more text (prose) than tables.

You can't get a sense of what a "fighter" or "ranger" is by just looking at an easy overview. The games are "buried" in lists. I might be able to move past that, but I'm not so sure about many newcomers to the hobby.

Apologies for not being precise.

I must say I had the same feeling. For me personally, who hasn't been a PC in about 25 years, it is very overwhelming and has lessened my desire to play.

 

[Puggins]

A huge post. I realized my reply were become nearly as huge so I'm chopping it up.

As I read you, you are defending Paizo's decisions to lock in the exact improvements in a class' fundamental bonuses (to hit, AC, saves).

Not so much defending it as understanding it- in a class-based system there have to be distinctions. The logical question then becomes- Why make a class-based system at all? Which is a very valid question. But we're not discussing that, so class-based system it is, and it has to lock in some differences.

But then you argue the difference isn't that great anyway. Doesn't this mean you're on my side - there was no reason to lock it down, there was no reason to deny the player the satisfaction of making his or her own choices?

Didn't say that- or at least I didn't mean to say it. The differences are really big. REALLY big.

At any given level if a fighter is getting hit 65% of the time (hit on 8+, which seems pretty common) while another one is using a steel shield and raising it, the one raising the shield is taking 25% less damage. That's just for having +2AC and before we even talk about using the shield to block incoming damage. That's... a pretty significant improvement for just adding 2AC.

Giving a character a choice is always good, as long as the choice is genuine- there's no genuine choice between +1 to attack and +2 to athletics and acrobatics (two actual feats in PF1), there was a choice which made your character substantially stronger and one that didn't move the needle at all. There are definitely better feats than others in PF2, but that huge disparity isn't there yet, at least not most of the time.

In 3E it is the multiclassing mechanism that provides the player control over his fundamentals. It is in this light PF2 comes across as weirdly - almost paranoiacally - locked down. There isn't even a token ability to switch around your saves (as in 5E, where you could take a feat to boost a given save, but since you have six of them, you basically chose your most important one and that was it).

There is a way- Canny acumen, which takes the pf2 equivalent of a "Poor" save and makes it a "medium" save.

There is definitely enough design space to sacrifice enough to make a save a "good" save too- it just hasn't been implemented yet.

Being able to juggle around your save proficiencies just like you're allowed to select skill proficiencies would have destroyed nothing, made the game slightly more fun, but most importantly, blunted the impression the game knows better than you, and makes the decisions for you!

Again, I think the design space is there to implement this. The issue here is how to implement it in a way that doesn't just make it an almost-automatic wisdom choice, as in 5e. The saving throws should be a clear point of distinction between classes if they're being used to balance the classes- something that appears to be the case.

 

[Puggins]

Regarding skill feats, apologies if I'm wrong, but you come off as someone talking in general as opposed to making a PF2 specific example.

...

The various books contains multitudes of "traps" like this, that basically paralyze your ability to use the game rules loosely and generously. You are basically told to use the rules as written, the full and complete rules - with every little restriction in place - since Paizo has taken the right to sell you a supplement book where that restriction can be mitigated or removed by taking a very special feat. You can never be sure you aren't invalidating a game choice by adopting a "house style" where some actions are just less clunky than in the RAW.

Ah, ok, you're talking the difference between a rule-lite approach, ala 13a and Shadows of the Demon Lord (naming two of my favorite rules-medium/lite games), which is what 5e embraced, for the most part, and rules-heavy approach, which has been Pathfinder's wheelhouse.

I definitely don't mind rules-lite games. In fact, I prefer them, especially when they have include substantial character customization options. 5e, which I think is my favorite version of D&D, doesn't fall in that category. Sure, there are dials you can crank to change effectiveness, but those dials are few in number, and the effect is too radical for my taste- it makes certain builds the "right" build and the whole host of others the "wrong" build.

You are absolutely correct in criticizing PF2 from a rules-lite perspective- it isn't rules-lite. But it wasn't ever intended to be, so there really isn't much point in continuing this part of the discussion- you're right, it's not rules-lite, which is as intended- a good chunk of people like to have definitive rules on crawling, which opens up space for feats that modify it.

Hope you see the difference and the point I'm making - let's not forget, I brought this up as one of the biggest similarities to 4E I'm seeing in PF2.

I hope I do.

 

[Celtavian]

I can't make you agree with me. As long as you understand my point, you're free to disagree.

I just feel Paizo is doling out gifts as incrementally and specifically as possible. It's like being spoon-fed, never getting slightly more food, never getting slightly less.

I dislike the feeling of being completely controlled - yes, I can make a fighter with this highly specific maneuver here at the cost of not being able to make that maneuver there.

That feels unnatural and gamist. I prefer a slightly looser game framework where the player and GM is given at least minimal trust, minimal latitude to work it out for themselves.

It makes everything look and feel so very complicated. And you always feel at the mercy of the publisher.

Yes, some might like it. But remember it makes the CRB read like a purchasing catalog rather than a living breathing rulebook. It's likely one of the biggest barriers to entry from new customers, especially given the competition. I had hoped this format died out with 4E.

I think we've seen with 5E and every version of every game besides PF2 that I know of that it is really hard to have balance from 1 to 20 without tight math.

Heck, even 4E which this is being compared to failed at balance. There were powers and abilities that were clearly better than other ones. Every single wizard or caster who could in 4E took Flaming Sphere. This spell was absolutely the superior choice at the level and for many levels up. I think every barbarian took the same at will power because it was superior that gave him constant temp Hps. Even 4E had a lot of min-maxing.

I have never in my entire 30 plus years of gaming seen a game as carefully balanced as PF2. I know some people don't love that balance. And maybe DMs asking for that tight balance will find that they don't like it as much as they thought they would. But this is what they gave us. A game that is playable from 1 to 20 with very little modification that is challenging that still includes lots of ways to build a character even if it is mostly a visual difference. This is the price of game balance from 1 to 20. The very tight math must have taken them a while to reach with quite a bit of testing, but they have as near as I can tell accomplished what nearly every other game has failed at for decades of game design: a very balanced game that you can play nearly any character concept in from 1 to 20.

Now we'll see how much people like what so many have requested for so many years. Because this is that game that may win the award for most balanced game over largest number of levels in RPG history.

 

[Celtavian]

Obviously you can't just houserule this without invalidating a game choice in PF2

Spell Substitution - Arcane Thesis - Wizard - Classes - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

You don't accept the fact that once spells are prepared, they can't be changed until your next daily preparation, and you have uncovered a shortcut allowing you to substitute new spells for those you originally prepared.<br /><br /> You can spend 10 minutes to empty one of your prepared spell...

2e.aonprd.com

That is, the game does offer a way for a Wizard to be able to cast any spell (in his spellbook) if only given 10 minutes warning.

Since it is our house game, I can do this. Done it before in PF1 or 3E elminating feats or requirements when we for example made it up to the player to choose between Dex and Str for attack rolls and combat maneuvers like grappling. We just write the feat out of the system and ignore it.

Every game has things in it that some want to change that might interfere with the rules. You just do it.

I know you're a good enough DM to do such things, explain how it will change the game to your players, and analyze the material effects on balance and gameplay. If you make it so Treat Wounds doesn't require a roll and reduce the time, I doubt any of your players will notice. One of the main reasons my players don't notice is because we don't spend much time thinking about it. We just ballpark the time, make a few rolls, done. 10 minutes to me just like the 6 second round is an arbitrary measure of time decided by the game designers for ease of tracking. In my mind's eyes, combats are longer, more like you would see in a movie or a real fight, and downtime is what we think it looks like. The numbers are there to provide a framework, not to trap you in that framework. We DMs can manipulate those activities to get the feel we want. If don't care, then we let them have plenty of downtime, handwave the treat wounds rolls, and be done with it. If we want to build tension and push the characters into tighter circumstances, then we make those Treat Wounds rolls feel important and pressured like if you don't get these wounds patched up, your party might die.


For me this has always been a game of manipulating the game elements for a desired outcome within a story. I don't see why PF2 would be any different other than it's starting point is far more balanced than other games. I feel like once I learn this game thoroughly since it is relatively new, then I'll be able to make it do what I want it to do with less problems at higher levels designing encounters. That's a win for me.

 

[dave2008]

And maybe DMs asking for that tight balance will find that they don't like it as much as they thought they would.

I would also add players to that query. Regardless, that is the question I am wondering too. I used to want balance, but 4e taught me that I don't. I still really like that game, but have decided I don't really like so much balance, and PF2e is more balanced then 4e. That makes me a bit worried, but not enough to not give it try. I think from a player perspective I can mostly ignore the balance.