Pathfinder 2E Is It Time for PF2 "Essentials"?

[Justice and Rule]

the latest Orr report doesn't agree.

Yeah, it's the first time it's gone down, but at this point it may we be because PF2 players are just moving away from Roll20. It's like the worst major VTT for the system compared to FGU and Foundry.

 

[Campbell]

Delete please.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I wish Paizo had come out with something that wasn't so much CTRL-C CTRL-V from Dungeons & Dragons. Over the last few years, I've gotten Dungeon Crawl Classics, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, ACKS, and Castles & Crusades, and I've run none of them, because I realized something: a slightly different way to stat out a wizard and cast Magic Missile at an orc is, on its own, not very interesting to me. I'm switching to an OSR system for my next campaign largely because I like running old modules.

But outside of that, you know what? Selling anybody on, "D&D, but kind of different," when they're already having fun with 5e is pretty tough. Playing something actually different is an easier pitch.

Yeah, it's the first time it's gone down, but at this point it may we be because PF2 players are just moving away from Roll20. It's like the worst major VTT for the system compared to FGU and Foundry.

As of mid-2020, PF2 enjoyed a 4% share of active Fantasy Grounds games.

Fantasy Grounds Game Sessions through May 2020 - Blogs - Fantasy Grounds Message Boards

Fantasy Grounds Game Sessions through May 2020 ddavison

www.fantasygrounds.com

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Not a single officially published NPC in 5e uses the PC creation rules. They don’t get feats or ASIs, they don’t get XP, they don’t have inspiration. All built with the “monster” creation rules.

And as a player, non of that matters to me. If the play the same at the table, they are using the same rules as far as I am concerned.

 

[fearsomepirate]

And as a player, non of that matters to me. If the play the same at the table, they are using the same rules as far as I am concerned.

I mean did a single player in the history of 3.x gaming care that a monster was able to bite him in the face because of "Monster Feat: Improved Face-Biting" instead of it just being in the stat block?

 

[darjr]

What?!? Yes!!! There were and I can squint and kinda get it, as a fairness thing. Sorta. Maybe.

 

[kenada]

the latest Orr report doesn't agree.

That’s correct, but the Q4 report wasn’t available when I posted that. It was released about a week later. I’m not sure it’s time yet to sing the doom song, but it’s definitely not good if the trend continues into Q1 2021.

Edit: Saw new page, and yes, it could be the effect of other VTTs having better PF2 support than roll20.

 

[kenada]

The gatekeeping claims are 100% BS.

It’s one thing to call out problems with PF2. It’s another to claim it’s not an RPG. If that’s not gatekeeping, then it’s lazy rhetoric.

To the contrary, people complaining about PF2E want it to appeal to MORE people.

I’m under no illusion that PF2 is a perfect system. I’ve posted my share of criticisms in these threads too. However, I try to keep my comments constructive and moderated (hence why I’ve tried to avoid going into specifics why we’re switching from PF2 to OSE) because I don’t think complaining helps attract more people to PF2.

 

[Nilbog]

I think this is always true. And triply so on the internet.

However, the reverse applies as well. People will insist that the thing they like is perfect "as is" and no amount of evidence will change that.

I think PF2E failed to learn from 4E when it went all-in on a math-balance first mechanic foundation.

It isn't growing. It isn't gaining popularity. It is "fine", I suppose because of course nobody can say what Paizo wanted. But you can't even point to any evidence that it is doing better than PF was doing the day before PF2E was announced. It trades off with Call of Chthulu in sales and there is now 5E 3PP that is solidly outselling it day over day on Amazon.

I know it is considered a low blow to compare PF2E to 5E. But this is 5E 3PP!!!!
I have a hard time believing that Paizo couldn't CRUSH any other 5E 3PP if they had elected to go that direction. And they could have done it with a far smaller investment.

And, of course, I'm just saying this because I'm sour. OK. Guilty. It doesn't make it not true. I'll completely own that I was super excited for the design team of Paizo to turn their talents to a more modern game that still provided the game experience I enjoy. But they turned away from that and I'm bummed by that.

I do like 5E. I like it a lot. But if they wanted to make my personal ideal game it would be a lot different. And it would be a lot less popular. A whole lot less. I am quite conscious of my personal taste bias. And I don't confuse that for trying to look at the data honestly.

I anyone thinks that four years ago the Paizo mgmt sat down and said "go design a game that will be on par with CoC and behind 5E 3PP after 18 months" then I think they are out to lunch.

Well I play PF2E, and think it's far from perfect, however for me it works because the areas I don't like are ones that I can easily hand wave or house rule.

I don't think an essentials line would work, as I think it would just dillute the pathfinder fanbase even more. If it isn't selling well that's a shame for many reasons, but we live in a competitive world and not everything can be a success, be that something you like or not.

My objection to people hating on it isn't that I feel offended, I'm too old for that, it's that potential we lose an established creative outlet, that offers market diversity. I like 5e, but having no other current alternatives available that aren't super obscure (which looking at the metrics pf2e is) isn't healthy for the rpg industry. Sure something can and will pick up if pathfinder fails, but it will be a lot harder to reach even pathfinders status.

Live and let live enjoy the fact there are alternatives even if you may not like them (not directing this at you @byrond as I think you comments are fair it's just my general opinion on well anything really)

 

[CapnZapp]

And as a player, non of that matters to me. If the play the same at the table, they are using the same rules as far as I am concerned.

You're getting the right point, but I'm not sure for the right reasons.

PF2 NPCs play the same in the sense that they use the same end interface (numbers like AC or Will saves) and obey the same fundamental rules (such as "you can only take the actions you have available on your character sheet plus those of the CRB").

But PF2 NPCs are created very differently from PF2 PCs. Their stats obey a completely different set of rules (by which I mean "no rules" since it's table look-up only). They have none of the feats available to players (though designers frequently give them unique actions that mimic some of the most iconic feats for each class).

They also can be equipped with special actions that simply have no counterparts for player characters. They can (and frequently do) have considerably better numeric values (and not just for obscure defense values but for highly visible ones like their attack bonus).

However, they rarely have substantial recovery resources, which of course is the single most important reason heroes routinely overcome them, despite being outclassed at first blush.

---

So, yes, you're quite right in not letting any of this matter to you. That's the goal and purpose.

But they don't play the same at the table, not really.

And that's because they really aren't using the same rules at all. Yes they have three actions just like you do. Yes they can take Jump and Hide actions just like you can.

But when you dig a little deeper under the hoods the cracks become obvious. When you're interacting beyond the basic trading of blows with monsters in general and NPCs in particular you'll note monsters often lack crucial skill proficiencies.

Actions particularly with the physical fields of Athletics and Acrobatics are significantly constrained in important ways and then there are player-side feats like Combat Climber of Quick Squeezer to negate them. True some monsters are created by writers paying attention and so have corresponding unique abilities to achieve the same thing. But most don't. At high level, if you take the Cloud Jump feat, you will consistently be able to trivially win any long-jumping contest against a monster trying to play by the rules (as opposed to, say, having a Fly Speed), simply because without this specific feat, you can never jump longer than your Speed. And unless the monster's speed is three times as fast as yours you have won before the event even started.

Social interaction is governed by a little rule on page 246-247 called "Changing Attitudes", notably how player characters are immune to it. Skills like Diplomacy are otherwise extremely potent in Pathfinder 2 (bordering on the magical) simply because of how widely scores vary across levels. Just as a player hero with a decent Charisma score needs no magic to pretty much do whatever he wants to a villager four or five levels below him (because any roll will likely be a critical success even if the GM decrees an ad-hoc +2 or +5 modifier to the DC for the PC suggesting something outrageous), an NPC can't do the same to a PC against that player's will.

---

I'm not stating this to hate on the system. In fact, I am supremely convinced this is the way to go (because otherwise creating high-level NPCs become a nightmare for the GM).

I'm saying this because I am convinced pretending NPCs use the same rules as PCs is not the way to go. It is too obvious they really aren't.

It is much better imo to 1) acknowledge the disparity and then 2) actively ignore it, accepting it as a price worth paying. After all, I quit DM'ing third edition specifically because NPCs had to be created as PCs, so I know that while the price is not trivial it is most certainly preferable to the alternative, which is not to play at all, or only to play the simplest of games where (N)PC creation is not a time-consuming endeavor.

Have a nice day.