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

[kenada]

I've been thinking over what makes PF2 feel like a rollplaying game (using Justice and Rule's term). I think it is because all the options are so siloed. If I play an elven rogue, I pick elf and rogue feats. Elves and rouges may or may not have a certain ability. If they don't, I am out of luck. I am not freeing my imagination to create a character, I am picking from a rather closed menu. Some abilities are based on skill feats available to anyone, but this could be many, many more.

The second thing is something I mentioned above, that the rules create a world that feel ephemeral. There is not enough connection between the rules and the in-world image. The best example here is the one i already used; the only difference between large and small animal companions is the size of the playing piece.

The third is even more nebulous. In PF1 we used squares to move, had a zone of control (reach and AoO) and generally played an advanced boardgame. But that was somehow ok. In PF2 the same thing crossed some threshold to me, it became too gamey. This might just be lack of practice, I've been playing 3E, 3.5, and PF1 for decades and PF2 around 4 months.

All these points are subjective, they are how I feel. I am happy people don't agree because I still genuinely like Paizo.

Thanks for staying engaged. The first two seem somewhat related: characters feel less grounded because their options are siloed, and elements fee disconnected from the world due to the numbers being overtly arbitrary. Let me know if I got that wrong.

The thing with companions seems to be a matter of framing. Savage companions do get better stats, but they aren’t tied to the size change, so it reads like changing size does nothing. The section on companions could benefit from being written like PC customization (where it’s about what happens to you then the mechanics rather than just about the mechanics).

I agree on the siloing. In my list of changes posted earlier in this thread, I included building martials off of a shared chassis. The framework is there in the APG via martial archetypes, but it’s not available to 1st level characters unless you use the (apparently popular) free archetype variant.

The free archetype variant should have been reprinted in the APG and made the default (outside of PFS?). Archetypes were a game-changer in PF1. Giving classes a free archetype would help diversify builds while also making characters feel more grounded (by taking options from a shared pool).

 

[Justice and Rule]

It's less about the use of a 20-sided die than it is the D&D-inspired fantasy. I have a GURPS-based dungeon crawler that is just D&D, but with different math, and as such, I can't be bothered to play it. In the case of PF2 and so many others, having evil chroma dragons and good metal dragons isn't "high fantasy;" it's Dungeons & Dragons. If you have evil, depth-dwelling duergar who grow huge and turn invisible, that's D&D. If you're mashing up dinosaurs, Greek myth, European fairy tales, Tolkien, and things that a bunch of nerds in Wisconsin dreamed up because winter there is hell, that's D&D.

Stop it.

Do something original. Do something that says something other than, "Your mom says Fruit Roll-Ups are too expensive? Well, check out these Fruity Roll-Snacks! They're almost as good!"

Fair, though not sure Pathfinder is the game to do it with. Would Starfinder qualify?

Certainly the larger market has gotten way more diverse in the last decade. Hell, Free League's output alone is pretty insanely diverse (Tales from the Loop, ALIEN, Twilight 2000, Mutant Year Zero) and you're seeing it from a lot of other companies, whether it be licensed stuff (40K, Star Trek, etc) or classic stuff (Cyberpunk, Lot5R, etc).

 

[darjr]

Let people enjoy stuff. I mean I want other games and to be able to play them and support creators. But some people’s hobbies are Dungeons and Dragons, not role playing games in general. Sometimes they want to change things up with different rules and play styles.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Fair, though not sure Pathfinder is the game to do it with. Would Starfinder qualify?

Certainly the larger market has gotten way more diverse in the last decade. Hell, Free League's output alone is pretty insanely diverse (Tales from the Loop, ALIEN, Twilight 2000, Mutant Year Zero) and you're seeing it from a lot of other companies, whether it be licensed stuff (40K, Star Trek, etc) or classic stuff (Cyberpunk, Lot5R, etc).

Yeah, I would have liked to see them work more at growing Starfinder. But maybe that's not possible. What do I know? Armchair businessmen are a dime a dozen.

Let people enjoy stuff. I mean I want other games and to be able to play them and support creators. But some people’s hobbies are Dungeons and Dragons, not role playing games in general. Sometimes they want to change things up with different rules and play styles.

I haven't been able to reach my team of book-burning commandos all week due to the ice storm. It may be too late.

 

[darjr]

I haven't been able to reach my team of book-burning commandos all week due to the ice storm. It may be too late.

Well hurry up! It’s cold!

 

[Porridge]

Thank you for the PF2 explanation, I haven't played yet. However, @Teemu was talking about 5e. Based on your description of PF2e, it is even more like a board game than 5e according to his/her criteria. Not that I agree with that!

Just to be clear, you can build NPCs using PC rules in PF2. But they also have quick-build rules you can use to build NPCs.

So what you said earlier is completely right!

They do follow the same rules. You can create them differently if you want, but you don’t have too. I think it is the same in PF2

 

[FrozenNorth]

My objection to people hating on it isn't that I feel offended, I'm too old for that,

But being offended at trivial things is one of the perks of growing older!

 

[fearsomepirate]

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

The funny thing is I said that, yet I had a player who had really been into 3.5 who demanded I explain why a monster was able to do anything it did. Every session, every new monster, he'd say at least once, "What?!?!? How is the monster able to do that?!?!?!"

"Because a bugbear gets +2d6 damage if it smacks you while you're surprised."
"But how is that possible."
The cruel and heartless DM shows him the stat block.
"Fine."

 

[HJFudge]

I've recently started up as a player in a PF2 campaign and (so far) I have really enjoyed it. I am having fun playing my character. If it was more like PF1, I feel I would enjoy it less? Of course that all depends on HOW it was more like PF1...

But I am of the same opinion as several other posters here. PF2 does some unique things that are interesting to me, as a player. I have not tried to DM it (yet) but from a player side it's been fun. If it doesn't sell well, that is unfortunate, but lets not make it less unique to appeal to a wider swathe of people...as that would lessen its appeal to me.

Ya'll have your games let me have this one! It's an interesting alternative to the games I play now and I'd like it to remain such without 'essentialing' it into unrecognizability.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The funny thing is I said that, yet I had a player who had really been into 3.5 who demanded I explain why a monster was able to do anything it did. Every session, every new monster, he'd say at least once, "What?!?!? How is the monster able to do that?!?!?!"

"Because a bugbear gets +2d6 damage if it smacks you while you're surprised."
"But how is that possible."
The cruel and heartless DM shows him the stat block.
"Fine."