Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[CapnZapp]

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.

Well, I can. FrozenNorth's GM, for instance.

(But you're right. Nothing says summoned critters must take only "fighty" actions. That line is flavor text, and the rules make it clear it does not set a binding restriction)

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well, I can. FrozenNorth's GM, for instance.

(But you're right. Nothing says summoned critters must take only "fighty" actions. That line is flavor text, and the rules make it clear it does not set a binding restriction)

I don’t want to pick on my GM: he indicated that he wanted to play RAW as it was a new system, and I respect that.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It is also worth noting that both the “Summon Nature’s Ally” spell from PF1 and “Conjure Animals” from 5e, are a lot more transparent that you can summon animals for non-combat purposes.

 

[CapnZapp]

It is also worth noting that both the “Summon Nature’s Ally” spell from PF1 and “Conjure Animals” from 5e, are a lot more transparent that you can summon animals for non-combat purposes.

PF2 absolutely has its fair share of too-brief or under-explained passages.

 

[Celtavian]

I don’t want to pick on my GM: he indicated that he wanted to play RAW as it was a new system, and I respect that.

I didn't even think RAW you couldn't do this. The only restrictions on minions I've read is that you can't ask them to do something their intelligence wouldn't allow, no spells equal to or above the level spell used to cast, and no summoning or calling other creatures or use of things like wishes or what not. No reactions as well.

I can see you using a low level summon spell for some rat summon to do what you want since a high level summon spell would be a waste out of combat for a summoner type.

 

[Celtavian]

That doesn't change in my proposed 6 action system , it just gets better, IMO.

If that seems fun to you and your players, give it a shot. See how it works. PF2 works with house rules as the offense and defense levels are set right if you want to modify some other variable like number of actions.

 

[dave2008]

If that seems fun to you and your players, give it a shot. See how it works. PF2 works with house rules as the offense and defense levels are set right if you want to modify some other variable like number of actions.

No, it is not a game play issue, just a design one. However, I do like to tweak so what do you mean by: "...as the offense and defense levels are set right if you..."

 

[Celtavian]

No, it is not a game play issue, just a design one. However, I do like to tweak so what do you mean by: "...as the offense and defense levels are set right if you..."

The AC, hit points, and offensive and defensive capabilities are set high enough that a change in the action system should not upset their ability to be challenging to appropriate level players.

 

[zztong]

I must say as this thread is about actual play experience, I haven't heard from many people you have actually played* the game and didn't like it. That should be a good sign.

*By this I mean a min. levels 1-10, preferably up to 20.

About 9 months ago there was a table full of us who had played the entire playtest, a homegrown set of adventures during the gap between the end of the playtest and launch, and then a module I want to call Age of Ashes (or something like that). I want to say it was about 18 months of play with PF2. IIRC the playtest got us to 20. Homegrown stuff I think took us to 10th or so.

I've largely forgotten the details of the system, but I could probably speak in generalities about how the table felt. Skimming conversations like this is my only connection to PF2 these days.

Some of what CapnZapp said recently rang familiar. I recall folks not really liking their characters and feeling like there weren't any significant choices to be made, classes being too narrowly scoped, and multi-classing not providing any relief. Basically, not being able to make the character to go with your concept, with one or two concluding that leveling a character was a waste of time.

I've watched the same group learn and play 5e over the past 6-9 months. Folks seem content. It seems pretty clear we're not coming back to PF2. Folks largely wanted to stay with Golarion, but I don't hear them saying that any more.

My other regular game stuck with PF1 and never really considered PF2. A few house rules we brought from D&D 3.5 has kept that game happy for many years.

 

[kenada]

I’m fortunate that my players aren’t really power gamers or optimizers, so not having any clearly better and worse options is not a problem (if anything, it’s a boon), but there are some areas that are pretty lacking.

I was talking to one of my players last night. He’s playing a sorcerer with a draconic bloodline. He likes to play gishes, so he wants to do stuff with his character’s dragon claws, but the options aren’t there. They don’t count as weapons, so he can’t just dip into a martial class. If he went monk/sorcerer, the monk’s unarmed attacks would be way better, and it’s basically end up a different character. Even Bespell Weapon doesn’t work (requires a weapon). I really hope the APG can fill in some of these gaps (since I run a homebrew setting and don’t use anything from the Lost Omens line).