Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?

[CapnZapp]

Hmmmm I'm not sure that no rule is a better solution than using an action, in the 5e games I've played in the DM has insisted its an action (obviously with exceptions), which i think is a fair shout.

I've always started off the encounter with everybody getting a free monster knowledge check. (Talking both 5E and PF2 here)

Success gives pretty much everything you need to know. You seldom need more than one success.

If nobody succeeds, the party members might well spend an action on a second (third...) attempt.

But likely only if the fighters learn the monster is highly resistant to regular attacks. Remember that in many cases, trial and error works well enough.

After all, the overwhelming majority of monsters abide by the classic rule "if it bleeds you can kill it"!

So just attacking it often tells you what you need to know. And in most cases you deal at least some damage! That alone makes the action worthwhile, and likely a better deal than wasting time with monster knowledge.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the reason why Paizo restricted creature knowledge checks in the first place (from 3.5 to PF1) was to reduce rolling. In 3.5 anyone who’s trained in the relevant skill could know something useful, so if you have 3 new monsters in an encounter, you could technically have 3 PCs each make 3 knowledge checks when initiative is rolled. That’s 9 checks before anyone’s turn, plus the DM having to check what exactly the characters would know. Thus, by making this an action with an opportunity cost you reduce the amount of rolling and theoretically speed things up.

Well, in that case, I call it a failure. Creating this highly complex substructure to avoid a few extra rolls?

Consider a far better solution - have everybody make a single roll, and apply that d20 result to each of the relevant skills.

 

[Eric V]

That's not good enough, I'm afraid. I think the segment of the market that enjoys what PF2 is offering is small. More importantly: I think 5E has shown the gamers brought up between 2000-2015 that most of the clutter of 3E and 4E is just that. Clutter.

I believe Paizo could have gained a much larger market share if their game had exhibited any indications its team had studied and learned from 5E.

Well, if you're right, they'll go belly-up sooner than later.

I don't think you're right.

We'll see.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I believe that session time is best spent on adventuring. On encounters - including exploratory and social, not just combat. I believe session time spent on "between encounters" is essentially wasted time.

That's an interesting premise. Does that come from other games and editions, or is it something specific to the PF2 ruleset?

4) Medicine. Somebody should have killed a lot of darlings here. The game is clearly predicated on the assumption every encounter is started at full health or close to it. Going into an encounter at 50% hp is toying with death (at least given the difficulty of official adventure paths). If you have 100 hp there's no reason to worry if you're five or ten short, but if you only have 40 or 60? Then you stop and rest for a number of ten-minute periods before proceeding, it's that simple.

I haven't been following PF2 that closely. Does this mean that HP damage is just as nebulous and inconsistent as it is in 5E? Are people still getting hit, and then claiming that they weren't actually hit?

 

[Bravesteel25]

I have no problems whatsoever with "it's a check". That you're given check DCs is good. That different monsters use different skills is great.

I'm not ignoring the rest of your response. I can definitely see where you are coming from. Do I think they codified too much? Yes, most likely, at least regarding Recall Knowledge, but I think it is easily modified or ignored based on your preference. Should that be an excuse for designing something in a bad way? No. Should you let that get in the way of enjoying the rest of the game? IMO, no.

 

[Nilbog]

I don't mind the identify monster issue so much, its not something my players regular use and when we played 5e it cost a standard action, so in PF2e when it gets used it doesn't seem too much of a penalty, and gives the DM a bit more of a chance to drop in some lore on the creature

I do agree with the medicine and Talismans, they are both way too fiddly, as a DM, I don't give out talismans, too much messing for the players and they are bound to forget them, as for medicine its the only real major bugbear I have with the system, if i could find a more elegant solution that was easy to slot in, I'd be a very happy bunny

 

[FrozenNorth]

That's fair. I don't want to invalidate your experience. The players who have used it in the group I am playing with haven't seen to much of an issue with burning the action to learn some important information, especially since they usually aren't moving all the time anyway.

OOC, what was the class of the players in your group that used it? Obviously, certain classes have more or less use of a third action and therefore it might be less “costly” to use.

In my group, I was the only one ever using Recall Knowledge because the others were pretty much Move/Attack/Attack or Attack/Attack/Attack all the time. Since I was a spellcaster, this meant my options were Cast a spell; and one of Move, Cast Shield, or Recall Knowledge.

Since the point of using Recall Knowledge as a spellcaster is to identify monster vulnerabilities (and hope you have a spell that can target those vulnerabilities), you are really trying to get it off as early as possible.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think the reason why Paizo restricted creature knowledge checks in the first place (from 3.5 to PF1) was to reduce rolling. In 3.5 anyone who’s trained in the relevant skill could know something useful, so if you have 3 new monsters in an encounter, you could technically have 3 PCs each make 3 knowledge checks when initiative is rolled. That’s 9 checks before anyone’s turn, plus the DM having to check what exactly the characters would know. Thus, by making this an action with an opportunity cost you reduce the amount of rolling and theoretically speed things up.

That seems needlessly complicated. Just do what I do in 5e. On your turn, you can try to remember what you know about one monster. It doesn’t take an action, but the DM calls for the appropriate skill check.

Not really directly on point to this discussion, but as a DM, I WANT the characters to have the most information possible. A character that doesn’t know the monster is vulnerable to bludgeoning doesn’t have a meaningful decision to make. A character that does may have to decide whether to keep their ancestral greatsword +1 or switch to a common quaterstaff.

 

[Green Onceler]

...

 

[Bravesteel25]

OOC, what was the class of the players in your group that used it? Obviously, certain classes have more or less use of a third action and therefore it might be less “costly” to use.

In my group, I was the only one ever using Recall Knowledge because the others were pretty much Move/Attack/Attack or Attack/Attack/Attack all the time. Since I was a spellcaster, this meant my options were Cast a spell; and one of Move, Cast Shield, or Recall Knowledge.

Since the point of using Recall Knowledge as a spellcaster is to identify monster vulnerabilities (and hope you have a spell that can target those vulnerabilities), you are really trying to get it off as early as possible.

Let's see, if I am remembering correctly, our Champion (me), Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Rogue have all used it at some point in time in an encounter. The only one that I can't think of a specific instance of using it would be our Fighter.