Pathfinder 2E Taking20's Illusion of Choice - Breaking it Down

[Decoby j.]

A response to the criticism on his first video. It 50 min long just to warn you.

 

[kenada]

I’ve just started watching it, but the opening feels like a shifting of the goalposts by saying critics did not offer any kind of mechanics-based response to the first video. The original video said the problem happens in both PF2 and 5e, so it’s not clear how a discussion of PF2’s mechanics would be relevant. It could be a structural fault with D&D-likes, but it could also be something that happens with certain styles of play regardless of system.

 

[willrali]

It's more of the same: he's unhappy that the system offers too few mechanically optimal paths, and in a game that requires optimal play--I personally disagree but I'll yield that point--that gets boring. I mean, sure, okay.

What baffles me is he's going all in on 5e to get less sameyness? Really? Or is it that he's only slightly sour on sameyness, but if he's getting sameyness then he wants less complexity?

Anyway, I'm McShruggin about this whole thing.

 

[kenada]

I’m only about 10 minutes in, but he’s dialed in on combat rotations. I singled them out recently in another thread here. I wouldn’t call them an illusion of choice, but I don’t like the effect they have on combat either.

Some of the newer classes are more egregious than the ranger example. The swashbuckler is all about generating panache. The magus in the Secrets of Magic playtest needed a certain sequence of actions to set up Striking Spell. Monks flurry, barbarians rage, etc.

I think his reasoning for going with 5e is if the combat is going to be samey either way, why put up with the extra complexity of PF2? That’s understandable. I’m looking at switching away for similar (but different) reasons.

 

[!DWolf]

I wasn’t going to post this because I have said it all before but:

Being a GM is like being a craftsman in that you have a set of tools which you use to build adventures/ sessions. There are a lot of different tools but one of the first ones that most D20 fantasy style GMs learn is the “monster leaps out of the brush/darkness, moves up, and melee attacks until dead” and it’s not necessarily a bad tool, it certainly has its uses, but it’s very common and almost every player knows exactly how to deal with it.

What is happening here is that Cody either has a very limited selection of tools such that he has to repeatedly rely on the same tool for every fight or when he read the AP he assumed that every encounter had to use his favorite/most familiar tool, ignored everything that contradicted that, and attempted to run the game using nothing but that tool – to predictably poor results.

Now I haven’t watched the second video (and I’m not going to since I have better things to spend my time and data on) but I’m betting he is going to bring up a couple encounter examples using his favorite tool and then try to illustrate how one combat routine is clearly ‘optimal’ (the sequence won’t actually be ‘optimal’ and have some flaws that people on the forums will point out if they haven’t lost interest already, but that’s beside the point). What he won’t do is bring out six different tools (say hit-and-fade, a deathtrap, combatants mixed with non-combatants, sentry removal/raid, the classic monster burst out of the brush, and attacking prepared defenses as examples) and give examples showing how the same sequence is optimal for all of them even though that would support his argument while a certain sequence being optimal in a certain situation will not (unless of course that is the only situation the players will ever encounter – which for a good GM it won’t be).

Because of the way pathfinder 2e works characters tend to get a broader range of actions as they progress. This makes it a fantastic system for GMs who like to mix up their tools as you will be less likely to find those “I’m completely useless in this situation” moments (which is incidentally why some GMs rely so heavily on the ‘monster burst out of … and melee attacks until dead’ tool because players almost always have an option they can use in that situation and the GMs feel bad when they create situations in which characters can do nothing).

BTW: if any of you do have the ‘optimal’ build/sequence/routine for all situations for a class please post it! I’m doing sanity checks on a bunch of boss battles and death traps and would love some ‘optimized’ test characters to balance them against.

 

[MockingBird]

I feel like a lot of PF2e fans took his video the wrong way. Ive seen so many "response" videos. I never once got the feeling he was attacking PF2e but simply giving his own criticisms. His critics are fair in my opinion. Some people like complicated systems and some don't and that's okay.

 

[kenada]

I wasn’t going to post this because I have said it all before but:

Being a GM is like being a craftsman in that you have a set of tools which you use to build adventures/ sessions. There are a lot of different tools but one of the first ones that most D20 fantasy style GMs learn is the “monster leaps out of the brush/darkness, moves up, and melee attacks until dead” and it’s not necessarily a bad tool, it certainly has its uses, but it’s very common and almost every player knows exactly how to deal with it.

What is happening here is that Cody either has a very limited selection of tools such that he has to repeatedly rely on the same tool for every fight or when he read the AP he assumed that every encounter had to use his favorite/most familiar tool, ignored everything that contradicted that, and attempted to run the game using nothing but that tool – to predictably poor results.

Now I haven’t watched the second video (and I’m not going to since I have better things to spend my time and data on) but I’m betting he is going to bring up a couple encounter examples using his favorite tool and then try to illustrate how one combat routine is clearly ‘optimal’ (the sequence won’t actually be ‘optimal’ and have some flaws that people on the forums will point out if they haven’t lost interest already, but that’s beside the point). What he won’t do is bring out six different tools (say hit-and-fade, a deathtrap, combatants mixed with non-combatants, sentry removal/raid, the classic monster burst out of the brush, and attacking prepared defenses as examples) and give examples showing how the same sequence is optimal for all of them even though that would support his argument while a certain sequence being optimal in a certain situation will not (unless of course that is the only situation the players will ever encounter – which for a good GM it won’t be).

Because of the way pathfinder 2e works characters tend to get a broader range of actions as they progress. This makes it a fantastic system for GMs who like to mix up their tools as you will be less likely to find those “I’m completely useless in this situation” moments (which is incidentally why some GMs rely so heavily on the ‘monster burst out of … and melee attacks until dead’ tool because players almost always have an option they can use in that situation and the GMs feel bad when they create situations in which characters can do nothing).

BTW: if any of you do have the ‘optimal’ build/sequence/routine for all situations for a class please post it! I’m doing sanity checks on a bunch of boss battles and death traps and would love some ‘optimized’ test characters to balance them against.

The second video is worth watching. He addresses the points you make regarding the kinds of encounters he’s doing, and clarifies what he means by “optimal”. He says he’s not talking about maximizing DPR or min-maxing in general. He’s talking about how classes are designed to encourage you to take a certain sequence of actions, and how those tend to be the right thing to do in most situations.

The example he gives is the ranger. A ranger at the start of almost any combat wants to Hunt Prey. It sets up all your other ranger-y things. After that, you attack. A flurry ranger will make tons of Strikes because that is what a flurry ranger is designed to do. A bow ranger will Hunt Prey and do bow stuff. If you took the gravity weapon focus spell in the APG, you’ll do that but then you’ll Hunt Prey. Other classes are the same way. A swashbuckler wants to generate panache before buckling swashes. Investigators will Devise a Stratagem. It’s just their idiom.

He also includes a 5e example. Your ranger in 5e is basically going to do the same thing. Though it has a few more options due to the way PF2 combat is designed generally, he doesn’t really hold that against PF2. You could probably construct a similar example between PF2 and 3e. I don’t know, but you might even be able to get AD&D into the mix. It’s just a natural issue with systems that give classes obvious things to do, which is that players will tend to do the obvious thing (because it’s obvious).

So if everything is basically the same between systems, why the issue? Skill actions. Skill actions impose a lot of cognitive load on the GM. There’s a lot to internalize. I’ve complained about them quite a bit here lately in our complexity thread. Cody’s point is he doesn’t want to run that way. He doesn’t want skills broken down into little actions with various degrees of success. He says he could just not use them, but then he can also just use a system that doesn’t work that way in the first place, which is apparently what he’s inclined to do.

To be honest, that’s more or less my reasoning for pitching my group on OSE. Looking at how we actually play, and what I want out of a GMing experience, I could run PF2 and make it work, or I could run a system that better matches our style and what I want out of a system. I just need to convince them it’s not as lethal as they think it is (and if that fails, we’ll likely switch to 5e instead of sticking with PF2).

 

[Retreater]

Cody isn't wrong. (It's his opinion, after all. How could he be?) My experience with PF2 was sort of a straw breaking the camel's back moment for me. For the time being, I'm moving to OSR games (or stripped down 5e for those who must play that).
I just don't have the mental bandwidth for the discussions that arise from PF. The game focuses so much on the system that the mechanics are always in the way of the action. Those mechanics, to me, do not offer a better experience or more enjoyable game, though it requires significantly more prep time, fiddling with math, and slower resolution in and out of combat.
I'm not saying any PF2 fans are wrong - it's just not for me right now.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I feel like a lot of PF2e fans took his video the wrong way. Ive seen so many "response" videos. I never once got the feeling he was attacking PF2e but simply giving his own criticisms. His critics are fair in my opinion. Some people like complicated systems and some don't and that's okay.

I mean, when he made his diplomacy shot, I feel like that came across as rather untrue. But that's just me.

The second video is worth watching. He addresses the points you make regarding the kinds of encounters he’s doing, and clarifies what he means by “optimal”. He says he’s not talking about maximizing DPR or min-maxing in general. He’s talking about how classes are designed to encourage you to take a certain sequence of actions, and how those tend to be the right thing to do in most situations.

The example he gives is the ranger. A ranger at the start of almost any combat wants to Hunt Prey. It sets up all your other ranger-y things. After that, you attack. A flurry ranger will make tons of Strikes because that is what a flurry ranger is designed to do. A bow ranger will Hunt Prey and do bow stuff. If you took the gravity weapon focus spell in the APG, you’ll do that but then you’ll Hunt Prey. Other classes are the same way. A swashbuckler wants to generate panache before buckling swashes. Investigators will Devise a Stratagem. It’s just their idiom.

He also includes a 5e example. Your ranger in 5e is basically going to do the same thing. Though it has a few more options due to the way PF2 combat is designed generally, he doesn’t really hold that against PF2. You could probably construct a similar example between PF2 and 3e. I don’t know, but you might even be able to get AD&D into the mix. It’s just a natural issue with systems that give classes obvious things to do, which is that players will tend to do the obvious thing (because it’s obvious).

Ah God, you got me to watch this, or at least move through it quickly. And I'm going to disagree hard here, because his example really isn't that great

First off, the grapple/trip stuff is egregious. In PF2, you don't need to grapple the dude on the second one because it's unnecessary for the situation: he's already flat-footed and at a penalty to attack. Trip him and hit him: you'll have a MAP, but if you have an agile weapon it'll be only a -2 to hit with being flatfooted. Grappling isn't necessary.

"But he'll get up and make all that hard work useless compared to a regular attack!"

Then let him. No matter the turn order, the Fighter will get his attacks in, because in getting up he'll trigger an Attack of Opportunity. That means the fighter will get to whap him at least once, and he's way more likely to hit than the Ranger. If the order of initiative is for the Fighter next, you've also increased his critical range, which is even better! Dude probably has Runes of Striking on his sword and will completely annihilate that thing with more of a critical chance.

Meanwhile the 5E play isn't bad, but it's way more situational: you don't have to grapple necessarily (if you can get in an attack in 5E, you take the attack), but it's much more likely to need to because (unless the fighter has the Sentinel feat) if the wight is up next he doesn't trigger an AoO on standing. And that's the thing: it's got a lot more risk with less upside than PF2: while you are less likely to get hit, advantage on attacks means less because, well, Wights only have an AC of 14. You're not getting a huge expanded critical range, you're just getting a second chance at a possible critical. That's fine... but it's kind of lame.

Also worth noting, you have to be at 5th level to do that with the 5E character because otherwise they could only do one of those anyways, and grapple is basically close to useless on its own (and I say this as a guy who plays a 5E 6 Shadow Monk/1 Rogue Dragonborn submission artist).

But the problem here is that it's just very... bland whiteboxing. The Ranger is optimized for archery... well, okay, what are his skill feats? Does he have anything else to look at? Like, you can actually do things with other skills in combat for, and ignoring that part of PF2 kind of misses the point: there's a whole bunch of extra stuff you can do (stuff which adds crunch, but it's there). With the 5E ranger, well... there's just not much more there. There's just not much more off the page for that character.

So if everything is basically the same between systems, why the issue? Skill actions. Skill actions impose a lot of cognitive load on the GM. There’s a lot to internalize. I’ve complained about them quite a bit here lately in our complexity thread. Cody’s point is he doesn’t want to run that way. He doesn’t want skills broken down into little actions with various degrees of success. He says he could just not use them, but then he can also just use a system that doesn’t work that way in the first place, which is apparently what he’s inclined to do.

To be honest, that’s more or less my reasoning for pitching my group on OSE. Looking at how we actually play, and what I want out of a GMing experience, I could run PF2 and make it work, or I could run a system that better matches our style and what I want out of a system. I just need to convince them it’s not as lethal as they think it is (and if that fails, we’ll likely switch to 5e instead of sticking with PF2).

Cody isn't wrong. (It's his opinion, after all. How could he be?) My experience with PF2 was sort of a straw breaking the camel's back moment for me. For the time being, I'm moving to OSR games (or stripped down 5e for those who must play that).
I just don't have the mental bandwidth for the discussions that arise from PF. The game focuses so much on the system that the mechanics are always in the way of the action. Those mechanics, to me, do not offer a better experience or more enjoyable game, though it requires significantly more prep time, fiddling with math, and slower resolution in and out of combat.
I'm not saying any PF2 fans are wrong - it's just not for me right now.

If this were the argument he made from the beginning (and in less of a kind of dickish comment from the first one), I'd honestly care less. I didn't really care about the Puffin one (except maybe for the "calculating your to-hit thing", which was kind of eye-rolly), but if was just "I want a more freeform game and I honestly don't get much out of it", I wouldn't have anything to say about it. But that's not how he made it out to be.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

What baffles me is he's going all in on 5e to get less sameyness? Really? Or is it that he's only slightly sour on sameyness, but if he's getting sameyness then he wants less complexity?

As I mentioned on the other thread about this, the guy runs what is, primarily, a 5e youtube channel and does it as an income stream. He is not realistically going to escape 5e, as talking 5e while maintaining fairly strong system mastry is what butters his bread. Pathfinder 2, for him, is going to be held to a different standard as it is a game he has a lot more leeway to choose to engage with or not based on taste and which he hasn't already invested so much time in.