Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[Celtavian]

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!

May be differing ideas of what we feel is challenging as well. Only way we would be able to tell is to play at the other's table, see what differs. I hate short combats for BBEG encounters. If the party wins in less than 10 plus rounds of play, then I haven't done my job to challenge them as a DM. I like lots of moving parts and tactics. I really want the players to feel they might die including requiring combat healing. A worthy victory requires a worthy enemy. If the enemy can't challenge a party in a long combat, it's not much of a challenge. I gotta have that feel in BBEG combats like it's a real knock down, drag out, back and forth to the death battle against some evil or opposing group who really wants to win as badly as the PCs. I gotta have that feel.

 

[BryonD]

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.

bummer

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.

Again, there are a lot of real complaints about PF2E. Go digging through this forum and find me three quotes of people saying that is their problem with the game.
Please address the actual complaints. Or, as I said before just don't. But this repeated strawman argument is pointless. You keep pointing at Jack and Suzy over there and claiming they are afraid fo the game. Jack and Suzy beg to differ. And it is insulting to impose that on people with honest opinions which are not aligned with yours.

PF2 and 4E are not alike no matter how many people try to make it seem so. I played 4E. It was a terrible game. PF2 is nothing like that game. Plays nothing like that game. And isn't 4E or even close to it.

I'm not saying the game are the same. I'm saying the marketplace reactions are following a somewhat similar path.

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

Don't talk about "spin" when you keep putting the "fear" word in other people's mouths.

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.

I don't doubt it.
But the problem is your assessment of the wide audience is reached by assuming you can extrapolate entirely from your own taste.
My assessment is based on what other people are saying and looking at the world around me.
Seriously, my personal issues with PF2E don't even seems to be in the majority camp of reasons why people are not adopting.

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.

Time will tell, but I think it is safe to say that false claims of fear and imposing your personal tastes onto the market at large are both flawed assessments.

And, again, there you go with the "ooh its soo big" thing. You are literally talking about how to you the simplicity is a saving grace compared to PF. And yet you are fixated on PF fans being intimidated. It is nonsense.

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.

Again, regardless of how different 4E and PF2E are, it is correct to point out that 4E was way more popular at this point. And the trends look similar.

You can close out with slams against PF all you want. Unlike you, I'm totally comfortable with the fact that different games appeal to different people and I don't mind people disliking PF for reasons that make total sense to them. As I already said, if you say PF2E is awesome for you, then I take that at face value. But slamming a nearly 20 year old game won't do anything to make PF2E more popular.

 

[Condiments]

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.

For me, I would rather play a game where the core assumptions line up with my sensibilities rather than re-working it to try and fit them. I think of the strength of 5e's design is that it can appeal to so many different types of game tables, but any game can only stretch so far. I am glad that the design of magic items appeals to your table's needs. However, at my table, we all really enjoy a pretty steady flow of magic items that can liven up and change the gameplay.

The advantage of 5e's magic item system is how novel and fun some of the items are. The decanter of endless water ended up becoming a campaign defining magic item, that I randomly rolled on a magic item table for. The player who used it originally thought it would be useless, but ended up using it in all sorts of situations to get himself out of jams. The flip-side is that giving players powerful battle oriented magic items can quickly break the game's balance for the worse. Towards the end, I was balancing fights at a baseline of deadly, and would often double or triple that to get things really dicey.

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!

I'm glad for you that you can functionally DM at level 15 in 5e without issues. When I was running it...man it was brutal. Adventuring days just felt way too long trying to wear down player resources, and the sorcerer was very good at shutting down encounters entirely with spells like slow, hypnotic pattern, polymorph and banish. The fighter started multi-classing into barbarian and was a wrecking ball that was very difficult to take down, and could consistently dish out obscene amounts of damage. Our range/rogue pumped out consistent high damage from the back lines, and was nearly impossible to pin down. The last player was a druid(who died), but could easily trivialize any travel challenges I could set out with spells like wind walk. Seriously...screw wind walk! Too many spells came online that wipe away what I put before them.

Building adventures against that team was a very humbling lesson in the limitations of my tactical acumen. I also stopped having fun and was getting burn out. I would have probably had way more fun playing 5e if I didn't have power gamers for players, or was more tactically gifted. I just felt the monsters in 5e didn't give me a helping hand with that and were too simple. I'm currently DMing a 13th age campaign that is at 4th level, and I can consistently frighten my players by turning a few knobs. It's like night and day to me and is way less stressful.

Pathfinder 2e appeals to me because of what I've been hearing. A balanced system that can operate it's whole level range that allows you to run monsters out of the box. It's simply music to my ears as DM who has experienced a lot of problems with systems that have wobbly math and balance.

 

[dave2008]

May be differing ideas of what we feel is challenging as well. Only way we would be able to tell is to play at the other's table, see what differs. I hate short combats for BBEG encounters. If the party wins in less than 10 plus rounds of play, then I haven't done my job to challenge them as a DM. I like lots of moving parts and tactics. I really want the players to feel they might die including requiring combat healing. A worthy victory requires a worthy enemy. If the enemy can't challenge a party in a long combat, it's not much of a challenge. I gotta have that feel in BBEG combats like it's a real knock down, drag out, back and forth to the death battle against some evil or opposing group who really wants to win as badly as the PCs. I gotta have that feel.

I agree completely. Probably our most epic battle in 4e was with the players at lvl 30 against Tiamat. By the end, the Party of 6 PCs had used all there HD and limited resources (encounter and daily) and all of them were dead except one., who was at 10 HP. If it had gone one more round it would have been a TPK. I can't be sure, but I think it went close to 20 rounds.

 

[dave2008]

For me, I would rather play a game where the core assumptions line up with my sensibilities rather than re-working it to try and fit them.

I agree. The issue I have is that no D&D game (PF included) lines up with my sensibilities, so I always end up re-working them. I just need to do less with 5e. Not sure yet about PF2e.

I'm glad for you that you can functionally DM at level 15 in 5e without issues. When I was running it...man it was brutal. Adventuring days just felt way too long trying to wear down player resources, ...

We tend to have short adventuring days, 2-3 combats. Occasionally more and sometimes less.

Building adventures against that team was a very humbling lesson in the limitations of my tactical acumen. I also stopped having fun and was getting burn out. I would have probably had way more fun playing 5e if I didn't have power gamers for players, or was more tactically gifted. I just felt the monsters in 5e didn't give me a helping hand with that and were too simple. I'm currently DMing a 13th age campaign that is at 4th level, and I can consistently frighten my players by turning a few knobs. It's like night and day to me and is way less stressful.

Glad you found something that works for you. My group is definitely not power gamers. Based on this forum I think that makes a big difference.

Pathfinder 2e appeals to me because of what I've been hearing. A balanced system that can operate it's whole level range that allows you to run monsters out of the box. It's simply music to my ears as DM who has experienced a lot of problems with systems that have wobbly math and balance.

Give it a try, I find it interesting too and hope I can give it a try once this covid-19 thing dies down.

 

[Numidius]

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.

The story-telling bit caught my attention. Would you elaborate on that? Thanks

 

[CapnZapp]

I know I have seen them. However, the difference is not as great as you state, IMO, and even less so in actual play. Also, my players don't go on forums and don't run the numbers. Again, if your not chasing numbers these things simply don't matter.

Not picking on you personally Dave, but yours was the latest posting bringing up what basically amounts to an argument I don't understand.

My counterargument is that a game can either be balanced or not balanced.
If you don't "chase numbers" both games work equally well.
But if you do mind balance, only one works.

Ergo games should be balanced. Especially games with a significant contingent of balance-minded players. Especially games that are combat-centered. Games like D&D.

In other words, the fact that your players (as well as other voices here in the thread) don't mind or care for or even recognize imbalance is a poor argument for why we should give WotC a pass.

Celtavian is right - properly minmaxed, the -5/+10 mechanism creates a gulf between those characters who has it (and uses it properly) and those who don't or don't. There's no point in me trying to convince you it makes a huge difference; either you care enough for optimization and you see it, or you're not and you don't.

You might be able to enjoy 5E despite this. Celtavian clearly doesn't. I'm asking y'all to accept that, and especially, that you don't dismiss it by "I don't see it".

tl;dr: just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there

 

[nevin]

Not picking on you personally Dave, but yours was the latest posting bringing up what basically amounts to an argument I don't understand.

My counterargument is that a game can either be balanced or not balanced.
If you don't "chase numbers" both games work equally well.
But if you do mind balance, only one works.

Ergo games should be balanced. Especially games with a significant contingent of balance-minded players. Especially games that are combat-centered. Games like D&D.

In other words, the fact that your players (as well as other voices here in the thread) don't mind or care for or even recognize imbalance is a poor argument for why we should give WotC a pass.

Celtavian is right - properly minmaxed, the -5/+10 mechanism creates a gulf between those characters who has it (and uses it properly) and those who don't or don't. There's no point in me trying to convince you it makes a huge difference; either you care enough for optimization and you see it, or you're not and you don't.

You might be able to enjoy 5E despite this. Celtavian clearly doesn't. I'm asking y'all to accept that, and especially, that you don't dismiss it by "I don't see it".

tl;dr: just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there

This in my opinion is what will limit pathfinder's appeal. In any game with a DM controlling encounters and rewards the only actual chance of balance is the DM.
The idea that any one can pick up any game system and run low level and high level encounters with equal effort and balance is just silly.

High level characters have more resources and can do more powerful things, the balance is either the enemies can do those things too or the challenges become complex and multifaceted. If you don't like that don't run high level games. Don't take options away from me because you don't like them.

Pathfinder has tried to balance their game for Society Play where players know what module they are going to play, what monsters they are going to fight and they want to make sure they can't sit at home and plan out the perfect tactic to bomb the dungeon crawl when they know exactly what is coming. that's why the pathfinder devs hate casters. A caster that knows what's coming and can prepare the magic for it is at thier most powerful. Take away that foreknowledge and the mage if far less effective.

In a regular at home game where the players don't know what is coming that isn't an issue, assuming the DM knows the rules and lets the bad guys have access to the same levels of power or higher that the good guys do.

I tried to like pathfinder 2e. I love the 3 action economy. But the game feels like my 10th grade math teacher is looking over my shoulder in an attempt to make me behave and follow the school code of conduct. I never liked the overly complex tactical focus in pathfinder. Simplifying it was genius. 1e edition drove me crazy with the arbitrary nonsensical limits that seem to be designed by people who don't trust their players or their DM's to be able to run or a play a game, but 2E just doubled down on that and pretended it was in the name of balance.

Short version. Trying to Balance a Role playing game via anything but the DM is counterproductive.

 

[nevin]

None of my players feel less effective - that is what you don't understand.

We have a sword & board, a GWF, and a dual-wielder. None of them feels like they are more or less effective. Heck, magic items make more of a difference than their fighting style. That is were I get the most flak as a DM.

I think most of the players you are talking about do society play where the mages read the module before the game and get to prepare their spell list for the monsters they'll be facing. That is why pathfinder fights optimizers because they've stopped worrying about the regular at home games and only focus on how things affect society play. Thus the mindbending arguments between home players and society players. It's why home players don't understand why mages who never seem to have the spells they need memorized are so powerful and the society player who never sees a mage not have the spells he needs memorized cant believe they don't think mages aren't overpowered.

My opinion is the Pathfinder Society focus will kill pathfinder eventually. Society Play is the opposite of Role playing. But it seems to be the only thing they care about.

 

[dave2008]

Not picking on you personally Dave, but yours was the latest posting bringing up what basically amounts to an argument I don't understand.

My counterargument is that a game can either be balanced or not balanced.
If you don't "chase numbers" both games work equally well.
But if you do mind balance, only one works.

Ergo games should be balanced. Especially games with a significant contingent of balance-minded players. Especially games that are combat-centered. Games like D&D.

In other words, the fact that your players (as well as other voices here in the thread) don't mind or care for or even recognize imbalance is a poor argument for why we should give WotC a pass.

I generally agree, a game should be balanced. I have mentioned several times how PF2e is very close to what I had considered the ideal design concept some time ago. However, I am having doubts, mostly based on your posts (and others). For example, you have mention that PF2e drowns you in a bunch of small choices that don't matter or shackles you in the math. Well, they did this to achieve the ideal balance they have. So I guess, what I am curious about is how to retain the balance and also remove the shakles? I don't really know. Which is more important: balance or freedom? Can we have both?

You might be able to enjoy 5E despite this. Celtavian clearly doesn't. I'm asking y'all to accept that, and especially, that you don't dismiss it by "I don't see it".

tl;dr: just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there

Again, I agree. And I do accept it that it doesn't work for him and many like him. Similarly, I would prefer people in a similar situation to @Celtavian and yourself understand that things do work for those who play differently. Which I assume they do, but some post make me wonder.