Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[BryonD]

And that is why I much prefer PF2 math where they have painstakingly worked to ensure the math is very tight. The rules very clear and mostly controlled. Classes are very balanced. And challenges are difficult for their level. If this wasn't what you were dealing with at your table, then I can see why maybe you don't share the same appreciation for the PF2 math.

I 100% respect this.
But, you must admit that you are describing a player problem that you are using rules shackling to manage.
If one doesn't have this player problem, then not adding a shackle is, well, not adding a shackle.

I have several other issues with the PF2E math that create dissonance in the experience. So while not having this shackle on the players is a good thing, it is just on top of avoiding the other problems.

I don't think my opinions should be construed as meaning anything to you. But they are what they are.
I'm not trying to insult anyone either.

But, at the end of the day, it is not your opinion or mine that counts. It is how much does a given system appeal to a wide set of players. And, further, how sustainable is that appeal. I strongly believe that as months continue to go by, the constraints of the PF2E math will wear on some portion of those who are now playing it. Just as the 4E fanbase shrunk, I see PF2E shrinking. There will always be a devoted core who love it. And good for them. Though I think ti would be better for them if they could trade off a bit of the shackles for more of a playerbase.

 

[BryonD]

I think you are underselling the choices because they aren't as obviously superior as they were in PF1 or 5E.

I think you have contradicted yourself in this one sentence.
If you concede that the difference is more in PF or 5E, then it is hard to declare that someone else is underselling the choices. By some measure they are "under" what other currently enjoy and prefer. I don't think anyone is claiming that there is ZERO difference. Yes, it is fair to call them "false choices" and still agree that the difference is not completely zero. It is a false choice if the difference is not enough to feel as fun as could otherwise be had.

 

[Condiments]

It's definitely been interesting watching this thread unfold, and seeing everyone's perspective from those more steeped in the D&D 5e world than other RPG communities I usually travel in.

It's funny seeing modern tabletop RPGs from the perspective of "post 5e" world. To me, D&D 5e merely leaned into the over-arching trend of rules lite systems while still bowing to the sacred cows that it drags along like anchors. It's lightning in a bottle popularity is a mix of it being an accessible easy to grasp system, an iconic brand pushed by the corporate machine of Hasbro, and our generational need to get closer without technology. I was certainly part of that wave that surged back in 2014.

5e is a great system, but there are countless other rules lite modern alternatives that accomplish what 5e set out to do with more singular vision. 13th age, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Fantasy Age, Unity, Savage Worlds, Geneysis, Dungeon World, etc. 5e straddles the line between crunch and fluff, but I think is compromised by appeasing to so many audiences at once.

There is definitely a niche within the the RPG community for a game like Pathfinder 2e, which wasn't even on my gaming radar until recently. From what I've seen it tried to modernize the gonzo munchkin paradise of 3e/pathfinder, by keeping everything tightly balanced. This appeals to me as both a player and a DM who wouldn't touch p1/3e with a ten foot pole.

Seems like people in this thread are chafing at how tightly wound the system is, but consider the costs of the alternative. Picking through tons of options with pitfalls and traps sounds like catastrophe from a new player perspective, and wide spreads in player power sound like a nightmare to GM. After GMing my 5e campaign to 15th level with an optimized crew of a Sorcerer, Paladin, Ranger/Rogue, and Fighter I took a break from GMing for nearly 2 years. Just too much work to make the game interesting after a certain point. I expect the system to do most of the heavy lifting for me as I figure out what my group can and can't handle in combats. I expect to run monsters out of the book that can contend with players who have magic items. Anything else is just wasting my precious time that I can spending building interesting adventures.

Nothing wrong in realizing that a system isn't tailored to your preferences. That is why I don't GM 5e anymore, because to me it eventually becomes a boring slog. Paizo was smart in realizing they couldn't wrestle with 500 lb gorilla of 5e directly by imitating or iterating of their success. It'd be the WoW effect all over again, where the brand vortex just pulls everyone back. The smart thing is to carve a sustainable niche...time will tell if they can do it. However, they have won me as a customer with what they've created so far.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I 100% respect this.
But, you must admit that you are describing a player problem that you are using rules shackling to manage.
If one doesn't have this player problem, then not adding a shackle is, well, not adding a shackle.

I would go even further. Sometimes adding a shackle to limit powergaming has the effect of reducing immersion among players who don’t powergame.

The net effect is something like: “You’re protecting me from something that isn’t an issue in my games, and detracting from my fun to do so!”.

Before rolling up my illusionist wizard, I was tempted to play a summoner/conjurer. I looked at the summon animals spell, and the first line is that it summons animals to fight for you. You can summon a rat to fight an iron golem, but he draws the line at fetching the dungeon key that is just out of your reach.

 

[dave2008]

I expect to run monsters out of the book that can contend with players who have magic items.

This is an interesting perspective. I am curious how would you propose to cover both ends of the spectrum?

For me, I typical run a low magic campaign and I like that 5e assumes no magic items and the monsters are attuned to that. Conversely, if the game assumed magic items, I would have to work to nerf them or change how i like to play. Personally it makes sense to me to start low and add to make things tougher as needed. But I guess the opposite is equally valid. However, I don't know how to make magic items special and account for them in the basic math and account for them not being present too.

 

[Celtavian]

I 100% respect this.
But, you must admit that you are describing a player problem that you are using rules shackling to manage.
If one doesn't have this player problem, then not adding a shackle is, well, not adding a shackle.

I have several other issues with the PF2E math that create dissonance in the experience. So while not having this shackle on the players is a good thing, it is just on top of avoiding the other problems.

I don't think my opinions should be construed as meaning anything to you. But they are what they are.
I'm not trying to insult anyone either.

But, at the end of the day, it is not your opinion or mine that counts. It is how much does a given system appeal to a wide set of players. And, further, how sustainable is that appeal. I strongly believe that as months continue to go by, the constraints of the PF2E math will wear on some portion of those who are now playing it. Just as the 4E fanbase shrunk, I see PF2E shrinking. There will always be a devoted core who love it. And good for them. Though I think ti would be better for them if they could trade off a bit of the shackles for more of a playerbase.

We shall see.

I think there is a lot of appeal in a game where the players get to play level 1 to 20 and feel challenged. DMs can run an entire adventure path without much modification. That a DM doesn't feel like he has to spend a week or more preparing his enemies only to see them decimated in 10 minutes with a few bad saves or just weak design.

And not just to focus on the negative, I have a lot of fun playing PF2 characters.
1. The goblin alchemist likes that he can modify his bombs. He even came up with names for his bombs. He generally tries to stack persistent damage on creatures. He even came up with a bomb he calls a Hot Sasha that he creates a fire bomb with an even higher amount of persistent damage. He likes being able to make cheetah elixirs and goldenmist elixirs for defense and mobility. He is now testing his disguise elixir with his high Deception skill to engage in infiltration and spying.

The goblin alchemist also likes using his Deception skill to create a diversion and disappear into the fog of battle when he draws aggro. I as a DM find it amusing to find ways which he does that like pretending he disappeared under his cape or hiding behind some other character's leg or yelling giant while looking behind the person, then scampering behind some corner.

2. The Champion enjoys being able to use intimidation and athletics in unique ways. She is a master at athletics with a high strength. She knock back most enemies from doors, drive in while raising her shield to defend herself, and generally physically manhandle enemies she deals with including grabbing flying enemies to hold them in place and jumping up walls to go over enemies to get behind them so they can't run.

She intimidates mooks to make them run to prevent herself from getting flanked or ganged up on when she is engaged with the BBEG.

3. The ranger archer alternates the types of shots he uses depending on the AC of the targets he is facing. It seems to give him the feel of an expert archer. He is able to provide his ranger bonuses to allies to boost their damage. Which gives the ranger some nice support abilities.

4. The bard has all kinds of interesting things to do. He mostly sings and harmonizes blending together effective offense and defense. But sometimes switch to a fearful dirge and unleashes some nasty magic like phantasmal calamity and phantasmal killer. He is a master crafter that can make items and repair shields with extreme alacrity.

5. The rogue is super stealthy, hits hard, can climb faster, move better, and is generally an all around skill badass.

6. The cleric healer is a master medic with a lot of healing magic and get out of death spells. Not much different from previous healer clerics.

So the game is still fun to play. I believe the more people that truly play it will find it far more fun to play than they expected. I know my group did. I've stated it many times, but PF2 plays better than it reads. It gets more interesting as you level and learn to accept that it isn't PF1 or 5E, but something new and unique that is better built for long-term play than past editions of D&D including PF1.

I think the more people that try it will find it an enjoyable game that you can play much longer than other editions of D&D and of course PF1 in a challenging and interesting way. It's not like 4E. It's not like PF1. It's closer to 5E, but still not like that game either.

I think the main thing that will hold back PF2 from growing is the initial fear of the rule book and the boring reading. It's a big rule book with a lot of rules in it. Some of them could be condensed as Captain Zapp has stated. It will take more time to memorize and fully understand than a game like 5E. It's less complicated than PF1, but definitely a rules heavy game. And much of what you read looks boring compared to 5E or PF1. But when you actually play the game and see how the rules operate together, you find it lends itself very well to story-telling and does provide quite a number of interesting choices and abilities that are more powerful than they seem on paper.

Only time will tell if it succeeds in the market. I can see one reason why Paizo did it. If PF2 succeeds, it makes their APs more valuable. One of the other complaints about APs was them stopping at 12 to 15 or so. Now they can build APs from 1 to 20 and always let the players build a max-level character that let's them experience the high level game. I think quite a few players will enjoy that, while DMs won't have to commit so much time to building high level encounters.

 

[BryonD]

We shall see.

I think there is a lot of appeal in a game where the players get to play level 1 to 20 and feel challenged. DMs can run an entire adventure path without much modification. That a DM doesn't feel like he has to spend a week or more preparing his enemies only to see them decimated in 10 minutes with a few bad saves or just weak design.

Ah, yes. Apple pie = good. We love mom.

You seem to be implying that PF2E is the one and only game which finally brought this to your personal table.
If you are not saying that, then I don't see much point to your proclamations of otherwise obvious statements. Please clarify.
If you are saying that, then I'd say "bummer" because I think there are a lot of great games on the market right now.

And not just to focus on the negative, I have a lot of fun playing PF2 characters.

Right. I don't doubt any of your examples. I don't see how abstract idealistic descriptions make one mechanical framework better than another.
But I'm sure you are having fun.
If you go back and read my threads you will see me saying OVER AND OVER that there are people in the niche for whom PF2E will be awesome.
Waving your hand in the air and saying you are one example is a non sequitur to my position.

So the game is still fun to play. I believe the more people that truly play it will find it far more fun to play than they expected. I know my group did. I've stated it many times, but PF2 plays better than it reads. It gets more interesting as you level and learn to accept that it isn't PF1 or 5E, but something new and unique that is better built for long-term play than past editions of D&D including PF1.

Ok. I don't think enough people will agree with you in the long run.

I think the main thing that will hold back PF2 from growing is the initial fear of the rule book and the boring reading. It's a big rule book with a lot of rules in it. Some of them could be condensed as Captain Zapp has stated. It will take more time to memorize and fully understand than a game like 5E. It's less complicated than PF1, but definitely a rules heavy game. And much of what you read looks boring compared to 5E or PF1. But when you actually play the game and see how the rules operate together, you find it lends itself very well to story-telling and does provide quite a number of interesting choices and abilities that are more powerful than they seem on paper.

This is just an insult to people who don't like PF2E.

Seriously, I don't know anyone who has stated that they didn't choose PF2E because they are afraid of the rulebook. If you try just a little, you can find a lot of people listing a lot of legitimate reasons for being dissatisfied. The PF2E fanbase would better served attempting to address those concerns than simply trying to disparage those who simply don't agree with them.

Only time will tell if it succeeds in the market. I can see one reason why Paizo did it. If PF2 succeeds, it makes their APs more valuable. One of the other complaints about APs was them stopping at 12 to 15 or so. Now they can build APs from 1 to 20 and always let the players build a max-level character that let's them experience the high level game. I think quite a few players will enjoy that, while DMs won't have to commit so much time to building high level encounters.

I think there is one good reason they did it: PF was DONE. I love PF, but as a game that is really on the edge of 20 years old, a lot of innovation is missing. The remaining fanbase was saturated in content and 5E was crushing it both in sales and in marketplace control.

You have repeated praise on simplicity in several places. I'll just throw in that, to me, that is on the list of poison pills within the mechanics. It is simple. And the next time it will be a slightly different version of the same simple. Yes, if you ignore all other games you can go on and on about how this fighter option is completely different than that fighter option. And how each class is different. And you will be telling the truth at every step. But the game is not in a vacuum. It has to compare to other games and it has to contrast itself to itself as the months roll by. PF2E is not nearly as popular as 4E was after 9 months out. But 4E saw a steady burnout as the downside of not expecting player investment shows itself. I expect that to repeat.

And, as you are already hinting here, the refrain will become the bad bad people who feared the new game and refused to accept change are the reasons why. There ain't no fear, and 5E has shown us that GOOD change is embraced with joy. Which, again, is not to say that the change isn't good for YOU. But you need to step back and look at WHY the larger response is what it is. Or rather, you don't NEED to do anything you don't want to. But if you want to understand what is happening around you, looking past you own personal taste and anecdotes will be necessary.

 

[Celtavian]

I would go even further. Sometimes adding a shackle to limit powergaming has the effect of reducing immersion among players who don’t powergame.

The net effect is something like: “You’re protecting me from something that isn’t an issue in my games, and detracting from my fun to do so!”.

Before rolling up my illusionist wizard, I was tempted to play a summoner/conjurer. I looked at the summon animals spell, and the first line is that it summons animals to fight for you. You can summon a rat to fight an iron golem, but he draws the line at fetching the dungeon key that is just out of your reach.

The summoned creature does what you tell it to do as far as I know. I can't imagine a DM would not let you to do this.

And you seem to forget that you can summon creatures for longer durations and to do more things with rituals.

Which is what I've been trying to convey. There is more to the some single spell you are unhappy with. One of the more surprising examples was Smite Evil. It looks not so great doing Charisma good damage. Looks small compared to PF1 paladins or even 5E smiting paladins. Then you read a demon and see it has weakness good 10. Suddenly that smite evil ability is crushing fiends.

That's the same thing for someone who wants to Conjure. The conjuration spells might create some quick combat minion for battle. But maybe you decide to make a master conjurer spending your skill ups on Expert or better in Arcana, Nature, and Religion picking up the Planar Ally, Primal Call, and Planar Binding. So you can call many different types of servants to do things for you spending your gold and time on callings prior to adventures. There are other ways to do things in PF2 than you commonly did them in PF1 that should be explored before writing off a concept.

 

[Celtavian]

You seem to be implying that PF2E is the one and only game which finally brought this to your personal table.
If you are not saying that, then I don't see much point to your proclamations of otherwise obvious statements. Please clarify.
If you are saying that, then I'd say "bummer" because I think there are a lot of great games on the market right now.

I am saying PF2 is the first game to bring 1 to 20 to my table with minimal modification of the APs. I ran high level characters, but it took tons of time to create encounters capable of challenging high level characters. There certainly weren't PF1 APs that challenged PCs as written.

Ok. I don't think enough people will agree with you in the long run.

I'm well aware you don't think that. That is why only time will tell.

This is just an insult to people who don't like PF2E.

Seriously, I don't know anyone who has stated that they didn't choose PF2E because they are afraid of the rulebook. If you try just a little, you can find a lot of people listing a lot of legitimate reasons for being dissatisfied. The PF2E fanbase would better served attempting to address those concerns than simply trying to disparage those who simply don't agree with them.

I know plenty of people who turn away or don't even try games because they look overly complicated. I couldn't convince more than one player in my gaming group to try GURPS due the rules complexity and I really liked GURPS. The advantage PF1 had was that it was attracting an audience of players coming from 3rd edition. They were very familiar with the 3rd edition system and at the time they were starting, PF1 was going to directly compete with 4th edition D&D, a very different game.

Now PF2 has to compete with 5E, a much simpler rule book. I think given the state of the current market and competition, it is very relevant to note that PF2 is a big, intimidating rule book for someone coming from 5E. It's a different market now. And it will take some time to see if PF1 players adopt PF2. I think DMs will have a huge influence on PF2 adoption just as they always do.

If DMs take up PF2 and find they like it more than PF1 or 5E and take their players along because that is what they feel like running, then it will find a market. I know I'm not alone in that as a primary DM, I have a huge influence in what game my group takes up because so few of them want to put the work into running the game.

You have repeated praise on simplicity in several places. I'll just throw in that, to me, that is on the list of poison pills within the mechanics. It is simple. And the next time it will be a slightly different version of the same simple. Yes, if you ignore all other games you can go on and on about how this fighter option is completely different than that fighter option. And how each class is different. And you will be telling the truth at every step. But the game is not in a vacuum. It has to compare to other games and it has to contrast itself to itself as the months roll by. PF2E is not nearly as popular as 4E was after 9 months out. But 4E saw a steady burnout as the downside of not expecting player investment shows itself. I expect that to repeat.

PF2 and 4E are not alike no matter how many people try to make it seem so. I played 4E. I did not like it. PF2 is nothing like that game. Plays nothing like that game. And isn't 4E or even close to it. If it played like 4E, I would think I would have had the same reaction I had to 4E which would have made me quit.

And, as you are already hinting here, the refrain will become the bad bad people who feared the new game and refused to accept change are the reasons why. There ain't no fear, and 5E has shown us that GOOD change is embraced with joy. Which, again, is not to say that the change isn't good for YOU. But you need to step back and look at WHY the larger response is what it is. Or rather, you don't NEED to do anything you don't want to. But if you want to understand what is happening around you, looking past you own personal taste and anecdotes will be necessary.

I am not hinting at anything. You are putting your own spin on things.

All I am saying is after being skeptical of PF2, avoiding trying it for months because it looked lame, and burning out on 5E, I am finding PF2 to be far more fun to play than read. The more I fiddle with it, the more I find I can do with it. The game interacts in interesting ways that are surprisingly good for story-telling. I don't feel locked in like some others seem to feel. I can only encourage people to give it a shot, run it to higher level, let your players fiddle with it, don't get too hung on following every little rule, and see if you can tell the types of stories you want to tell with the system. They might like it.

As far as your predictions versus what I'd like to see happen, only time will tell. I think those that give it a try will find it is more fun to play the more you play it and learn how it works. But I also acknowledge it's a big crunchy book that won't appeal in the same way 5E does with its simplicity, which may slow down its adoption as it tries finds a market. Whether or not it will be successful is a matter of time to tell.

The nice thing about these types of things is that talk is cheap, sales and adoption measured in sales of supplements and engagement will decide things. All I can say is I hope people give PF2 a good run. It's surprisingly fun in my opinion. Though it isn't perfect. My players at this point are missing the big, obviously powerful stat enhancing items of PF1 and are trying to get used to the small bonuses of PF2 magic items and one-shot wands that don't allow constant buff stacking they used to buy and accumulate. As a DM I don't miss tracking the ten buffs and magic item christmas trees you had to build each enemy with to challenge them. So they're going to have to get used to it as I have no intention of going back to PF1 or 5E as a DM.

 

[dave2008]

I think quite a few players will enjoy that, while DMs won't have to commit so much time to building high level encounters.

I find this an interesting statement I have heard many times, but don't quite understand. I spend or spent no more time in my 4e and 5e high level encounters (up to 30 in 4e and currently at 15 in 5e) than I did at low level. In fact, probably less. My it is the great value of having players that are not power gamers!