Pathfinder 2E I think I am giving up on PF2ER

[MerricB]

I like all the things you list. Plus I like that the players have all these options for building the character they want. I like that there are benchmark DCs for skill checks (which help me improvise). I like that there ARE rules for things; what I don't like is that I have to learn all those rules to run the game effectively. I don't like having to learn the game -- or, rather, I don't so far feel like the game is that much better than other games I know that it will be worth learning it for the style of game I tend to run.

I had a very poor experience trying to run my 5E group through Abomination Vaults using PF2. It turns out that there are things that they don't vibe with.

My general impression of PF is that it wants a much larger rules buy-in from both GM and players. If you have more casual players, then PF2 is not as likely to appeal, unless there's a system evangelist who helps them through all of it.

(And as we get older, the desire to learn complex rules sets we're not already familiar with also diminishes, I believe).

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've been looking for 13th level 5E adventures to place in a more sandbox environment of my ongoing campaign, and it's really hard. "Oh, this one requires a glacier... pity we're far south", etc.

Most adventures are actually rather specific, even the ones that present sandbox environments. The environment itself may not make sense!

The default European ideal made it easier; the more exotic the setting, the harder it gets.

Cheers,
Merric

Even there, it only worked because the pseudo-Europe kept itself mostly to the equivalent of a tight area.

 

[MerricB]

Even there, it only worked because the pseudo-Europe kept itself mostly to the equivalent of a tight area.

Yep.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I had a very poor experience trying to run my 5E group through Abomination Vaults using PF2. It turns out that there are things that they don't vibe with.

My general impression of PF is that it wants a much larger rules buy-in from both GM and players. If you have more casual players, then PF2 is not as likely to appeal, unless there's a system evangelist who helps them through all of it.

(And as we get older, the desire to learn complex rules sets we're not already familiar with also diminishes, I believe).

Cheers,
Merric

There's not much question that PF2e requires a fair degree of engagement; PF1e allowed baking a cake in advancement and then just sort of bulling ahead in play for many builds. Almost nothing in PF2e will let you do that; you have to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a character and how they interact with other characters. Even the simplest characters just kind of require engagement.

Its a big part of what's attractive with the system, but if you don't want it, you don't want it.

 

[Nilbog]

In my experience fast and loose aren’t possible with PF2. Despite my wishing otherwise.

I guess it depends how fast and how loose, I've been DMimg F2f PF2E since it's release and my group is now 14th level, and by no means am I the perfect rules lawyer DM (my aged brain struggles to hold information) and I've improvised a lot when there have been situations where I couldn't remember the rule, and I don't think it's spoilt the game any.

Sure that might not apply to things like encounter building, but to me that's a positive, I don't want fast and loose there, I want a solid reliable system and for building balanced encounters I've found pf2e to up there with the best.

It will never be a loose and free flowing game like I see a lot of 5e games are played, but I don't think it's a rigid straight jacket either.

 

[Jahydin]

Sorry to hear it, but understandable. PF2E demands system mastery by all participants, but games feel more satisfying as a GM and my players feel more accomplished than 5E.

I love how intricate the monster stat blocks are. Specific resistances/weaknesses really help certain characters shine and make each monster feel unique. Like Shadows can be hit if PC is in magical light or with specific spells, like Force.

That said, even with Archives of Nethys open, a GM screen with all the Conditions listed, and all my encounters read/prepped, I still make small mistakes in combat.

 

[CapnZapp]

I really like PF2ER, and I want to support Paizo, but I have come to the conclusion that it is just too heavy of a system for me. I don't want to scour rulebooks or the Archives for rules, and I don't want to do it half-assed either. I need something much lighter.

I feel bad killing the game for the players I roped into it, but I did tell them it was explicitly a test to see if it was worth the effort and mental overhead, and I don't think it is.

I really tried Pathfinder 2, but it's far too rigid and inflexible.

I still can't fathom why anyone looked at the troubles D&D 4 brought WotC and decided "let's take the most extreme aspects of that game!"

Just like D&D 4, a Pathfinder 2 adventure feels not like D&D, but specifically D&D4 and PF2 respectively. That is, you need to set up a PF2 adventure specifically as such, as evidenced by Paizo's adventure paths - they clearly come across as PF2 adventures, not very useful for general D&D usage.

That's the core of these systems' downfall. It just doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

In contrast, OD&D, AD&D, 3E and 5E all feel much MUCH more interoperable, and an adventure written for one system can easily be run for another ruleset.

I love the martial combat system, and really tried to stick with PF2, running more than an entire adventure path (all 20 levels).

But in the end the inflexible "set piece" mentality of combat just wore me down. A number of plain bad subsystems didn't help.

Had I gotten the feeling "this can be a good system, it just isn't for me" that would have been one thing. But that's not my takeaway. Just like with 4E I'm convinced PF2 is fundamentally and fatally flawed, not useful to run D&D-like campaigns, spending far too much effort on controlling and limiting both the game and the gamers. In the end, the extra control and balance just isn't worth the extra clutter and the heavy toll on pure gameplay fun.

 

[Retreater]

Just like D&D 4, a Pathfinder 2 adventure feels not like D&D, but specifically D&D4 and PF2 respectively. That is, you need to set up a PF2 adventure specifically as such, as evidenced by Paizo's adventure paths - they clearly come across as PF2 adventures, not very useful for general D&D usage.

That's the core of these systems' downfall. It just doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

So I've been running 4E weekly for about 6 months now - and another group of PF2 weekly for over a year.
Here's my take. Both systems basically have well-balanced encounters, and you can't balance encounters without an assumption of the power of the characters. That means there is a baseline of power among all the classes & most abilities reset between encounters.
This leads to a feeling of a miniatures skirmish game - like Warcry, Mordheim, or Necromunda. However, what makes those games enjoyable is that for most battles - both sides are evenly matched and its competitive.
Where this style of play breaks down for RPGs like 4E or PF2, is that you're probably not playing your skirmish game 4-5 hours a session every week for more than a year. And the resolution of the battle isn't a foregone conclusion. In 4E and PF2, a GM is supposed to offer a thrilling tactical experience that gives the illusion of danger, but clearly the party is going to win 99.9% of the time with the loss of 25% of its resources.
To me, this gameplay loop feels soulless and repetitive. It's been a major source of my burnout - I feel so limited in my creativity.
I can't run a mystery in 4E - all the monsters are designed to be balanced, defeated in a combat with 2 skirmishers, 1 brute, 1 solider, and 4 minions (or whatever). Sure, I can run a Skill Challenge to discover the identity of the Lycanthrope hiding in the village - but is the party going to feel any threat to their characters when confronting him? And if they don't feel that threat in the combat, how can the lead-up investigation have any tension?
In PF2E, save a Hero Point and you're immortal. At the end of the fight, take 15 minutes and you're back to full HP.
There are no consequences in these games.

 

[Velderan]

In PF2E, save a Hero Point and you're immortal. At the end of the fight, take 15 minutes and you're back to full HP.

Yeah, this is just a tiny exaggeration.

Using a hero point while dying allows you to stabilize with 0 HP. Someone still needs to heal you to get you on your feet. You also still increase your wounded condition, so if the heal you receive isn't much, you might be right back down on the ground with a higher dying value.

As for the 2nd bit, my group usually takes about 20-30 minutes to recover from a tough fight depending on their rolls. Depending on where the fight ended and what they're doing, you don't HAVE to let them recover to full and I'd actually recommend you don't once you get an idea of your players capabilities and remaining resources. If I think the next encounter is going to be easy and I want to make things interesting, I don't let them take the full 20-30 minutes and throw the next fight at them sooner if it's a moderate or low challenge encounter.

 

[payn]

Honestly, what I found is that in PF2 you either TPK or everyone lives and I dont really think thats a problem in of itself. Considering the game is a tactical team exercise that makes a lot of sense. Unless, of course, you are coming at it from old school perspective where single character death should be common.