so they want them to be superheroes but if you throw something a few levels higher they get squished? That seems like a contradiction?
Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2
- Thread starter CapnZapp
- Start date
CapnZapp
Legend
Well, no, it means that heroes quickly become "super" compared to the heroes they were just a couple of levels ago (and, implicitly, the world they used to live in).
But just like you can squish a villager five levels lower than you, so can an Orc five levels higher squish you. You're still a superhero in that village, compared to your standing in a 5E version of that village...
This is not new to PF2. Its level to proficiency is, IIRC, actually quite compatible to how d20 worked.
In practice, once you take the Christmas tree of magic items into account.
Pathfinder 2 just calculated that +1/level gives roughly the same results (only with a considerably reduced -reduced, not eliminated - reliance on items).
Thomas Shey
Legend
There was a complaint that PF2e, unlike D&D5, makes it pretty useless trying to use monsters more than about four levels above or below the PCs level. I was noting that was similarly true with D&D3 and D&D4, and in practice, probably earlier than that.
seems to be a very extreme stretch of the word superhero. Hero I'll buy, but I stand by my seems counter intuitive to the idea of heroes. By Paizo's logic most fantasy movies written would have ended 15 minutes in.
Thomas Shey
Legend
I'm really not seeing how that follows at all.
I also love pf2. been a 5e gm since next. never ran 3.5, pf1. this is based off of approx 25 sessions as a gm - with 1 home brew, 1 fully completed plaguestone, and now partially into The slithering. what I love:
cheers,
J.
- 3-action economy
- exploration mode
- tough encounters that are interesting and monsters have real options (though I suck as a tactical GM).
- the homebrew game - has several complete newbs to TTRPG's. PF2 is SUPER EASY to remove most of the complexity and play it fast and loose without removing the heart of the game (3-actions etc). with the more experienced group, I dial up the complexity. and removing elements doesn't change the user experience one bit. they still make skill rolls, use feats, 3-actions, and have conditions - but way less.
- love that this is a game that is centered around player choice. I've had 1 player play 2 different monks, and they were completely different, and different in ways that 5e could never be.
- related to the last point, while the feats are a great way to tell the GM what is important to the character, it has never been an anchor to me for my game. for example - the combat climber example used upthread, I would never, ever, contemplate saying no to a PC because they didn't have a specific feat to attempt combat while climbing. allowing player awesomeness is pretty basic GM'ing 101 adjudication with a "yes.. but" mindset. never have I, nor never will I say "Hold On, I've got to look for the absence of a feat to see if this is possible..." so feats take on an aura of a reminder system (players remind themselves of what they are good at), gm's remind themselves as to what players want to have happen to them ("I want to fight on cliff's, because I've invested in that).
- I've found that PF2e has been IDEAL for virtual tabletop play. I've run it in both Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. I agree that it requires needing to have browsers open to quickly look up rules, and yes, rule lookups do happen quite a bit more often than 5e, but this has actually been a feature not a bug. because we can look up at the VTT a rule, we're getting a more RAW experience. in person 5e play that I did previously, we'd rarely (except for really important questions) stop play and flip pages. rule lookups are faster, copy/paste into the chat windows is universal. its good. Additionally, with the homebrew I'm running for the new players - there's hardly any rule lookups (especially by the players), as most of the complexity has been removed.
- Love the dying and wounded condition interactions. it creates so much tension and while healers may be able to quickly restore you back into action - you have to become more and more careful if you continue to drop.
cheers,
J.
Justice and Rule
Legend
I mean, that feat doesn't even restrict you from fighting on the side of a cliff. It just says you can basically climb with one hand occupied (and also that you aren't flatfooted while climbing). And honestly, that restriction doesn't seem like a huge deal to me, but I guess it is to other people.
CapnZapp
Legend
In my opinion the heavy (and I do mean superheavy) reliance on feats to gate and control the littlest thing actively undermines the "yes but" GM-generosity playing style.
PF2 is all about balance, where every little bonus or advantage is meant to be a significant investment to treasure.
If you then play in a game where the GM can invalidate your feat at any time it quickly becomes pointless.
I mean, at that stage why not simply play a looser less rules-heavy game?
I would totally have appreciated the game more if things like crawling faster or climbing with one hand free just came with the various skills. That is, instead of having to take this or that feat (with the implication that if you don't have the feat, you're simply out of luck), you'd simply gain the various benefits (=lifting the very hard restrictions) at various levels.
Also I don't like the binary nature of either being able to do it automatically or not at all. I much prefer rpg systems that involve the dice.
Sometimes PF2 does do this - for instance tumbling through an enemy's space. Have a look at the rule:
Why this natural intuitive playable implementation wasn't used more is anyone's guess. (You still need Acrobatics, so it's still a wonky implementation if your position is that any high level hero should be able to tumble through a villager's space. But it's infinitely preferable to having a feat called, say, "Tumbler" without which you can't even attempt the maneuver. In this case, there is no such feat - Tumbler doesn't exist, or at least it does something else - but unfortunately there are dozens if not hundreds of Tumbler-like feats in the game. It is also wonky in that you get to attempt to tumble through ONE enemy's space, meaning you need to spend all three of your actions to tumble through three guards even if the total distance moved is just 20 ft or so)
My guess is that Paizo became greedy about feats - making as many feats as possible. Selling as many feats as possible. Reserving the right to the itties bittiest space of rules possibility that you can think of.
This approach ruins Pathfinder 2.
This statement might come across as bold, but I stand by it:
Pathfinder 2 contains over two thousand feats (eight hundred in the CRB). The game would have been unquestionably better with half as many.
It would create far fewer instances of gotchas where the player realizes that the rules actually doesn't let her character do this completely basic and natural thing, that in other games even a level 1 hero would be able to do, much less your supposedly badass level 19 megahero. And if the GM accidentally is generous and allows something, chances are the play group will realize at a later date a feat just got invalidated.
Feats whose function is only to make your hero suck less should never have been in the game in the first place.
PF2 is all about balance, where every little bonus or advantage is meant to be a significant investment to treasure.
If you then play in a game where the GM can invalidate your feat at any time it quickly becomes pointless.
I mean, at that stage why not simply play a looser less rules-heavy game?
I would totally have appreciated the game more if things like crawling faster or climbing with one hand free just came with the various skills. That is, instead of having to take this or that feat (with the implication that if you don't have the feat, you're simply out of luck), you'd simply gain the various benefits (=lifting the very hard restrictions) at various levels.
Also I don't like the binary nature of either being able to do it automatically or not at all. I much prefer rpg systems that involve the dice.
Sometimes PF2 does do this - for instance tumbling through an enemy's space. Have a look at the rule:
- everybody can do it, no feat needed
- it isn't automatic, you need a decent die roll
Why this natural intuitive playable implementation wasn't used more is anyone's guess. (You still need Acrobatics, so it's still a wonky implementation if your position is that any high level hero should be able to tumble through a villager's space. But it's infinitely preferable to having a feat called, say, "Tumbler" without which you can't even attempt the maneuver. In this case, there is no such feat - Tumbler doesn't exist, or at least it does something else - but unfortunately there are dozens if not hundreds of Tumbler-like feats in the game. It is also wonky in that you get to attempt to tumble through ONE enemy's space, meaning you need to spend all three of your actions to tumble through three guards even if the total distance moved is just 20 ft or so)
My guess is that Paizo became greedy about feats - making as many feats as possible. Selling as many feats as possible. Reserving the right to the itties bittiest space of rules possibility that you can think of.
This approach ruins Pathfinder 2.
This statement might come across as bold, but I stand by it:
Pathfinder 2 contains over two thousand feats (eight hundred in the CRB). The game would have been unquestionably better with half as many.
It would create far fewer instances of gotchas where the player realizes that the rules actually doesn't let her character do this completely basic and natural thing, that in other games even a level 1 hero would be able to do, much less your supposedly badass level 19 megahero. And if the GM accidentally is generous and allows something, chances are the play group will realize at a later date a feat just got invalidated.
Feats whose function is only to make your hero suck less should never have been in the game in the first place.
Last edited:
