Pathfinder 2E I think I am giving up on PF2ER

[Incenjucar]

Maybe. I don't like having a battle and then have the PCs be completely unphased an hour later for the next fight. That has been the default experience I've had with PF2.


I don't necessarily mean "they are down to 2 HP and no spells." There is a gradient. I just don't like one fight having almost no bearing on the next fight. Or to the session (or campaign) overall. It makes it seem a waste of time.


3 hours of actual play is closer, by the time we settle in and start the session, take breaks, etc


Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer Fantasy, Mork Borg, Vaesen, TSR-era D&D and OSR? Stuff like that?

Yeah, it seems like those might fit your playstyle better, though TSR only works until you can get cure wands, and had random meaningless encounters constantly.

 

[Weiley31]

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

Depends on how blasphemous you want to be with it with rules. For example, Minions can be a thing regardless if it says otherwise when it comes to HP. You just have to be willing to commit the blasphemy when appropriate.

 

[Weiley31]

I will admit that I was always curious about trying Pathfinder 2E out. Now that Starfinder 2E is gonna be compatible WITH Pathfinder 2E, I actually am thinking of looking into it so I can combine the two together. And the main books I would want to get for Pathfinder 2E would be.the Tian Xia book, The Magic Book, and the book that adds Firearms.

However, I am aware of the history of Pathfinder and how, just like the original system it was spung off from, has trap options and the heavy focus in the Ivory Tower design ethos. Which from what I understand, continues in PF2E. And that always turned me off on some level. I don't want my character to have a multi class combo that sounds like a Yugi-Oh monster card title just so said character knows how to open a door or flush a toilet properly.

Still, I'm thinking about it.

 

[Incenjucar]

Pathfinder has some sub-optimal options, but you'd still need to put effort into picking them. Single-classed characters work great. CharOp is not king in PF2E.

 

[payn]

I will admit that I was always curious about trying Pathfinder 2E out. Now that Starfinder 2E is gonna be compatible WITH Pathfinder 2E, I actually am thinking of looking into it so I can combine the two together. And the main books I would want to get for Pathfinder 2E would be.the Tian Xia book, The Magic Book, and the book that adds Firearms.

However, I am aware of the history of Pathfinder and how, just like the original system it was spung off from, has trap options and the heavy focus in the Ivory Tower design ethos. Which from what I understand, continues in PF2E. And that always turned me off on some level. I don't want my character to have a multi class combo that sounds like a Yugi-Oh monster card title just so said character knows how to open a door or flush a toilet properly.

Still, I'm thinking about it.

First, multiclassing has been greatly restricted in a hybrid manner more like 4E. Unlike PF1, its not the system mastery reward for knowing how to mix classes and feats. As long as you dont give you PC less than 16 in the primary stat its not possible to make an ineffective one. As for feats, they are all silod into obvious choices that cant be gamed anywhere close to PF1. I wouldnt let experience with PF1 color impression of PF2, they are very different games and I say this as a big fan of PF1.

ninja'd.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I will admit that I was always curious about trying Pathfinder 2E out. Now that Starfinder 2E is gonna be compatible WITH Pathfinder 2E, I actually am thinking of looking into it so I can combine the two together. And the main books I would want to get for Pathfinder 2E would be.the Tian Xia book, The Magic Book, and the book that adds Firearms.

However, I am aware of the history of Pathfinder and how, just like the original system it was spung off from, has trap options and the heavy focus in the Ivory Tower design ethos. Which from what I understand, continues in PF2E. And that always turned me off on some level. I don't want my character to have a multi class combo that sounds like a Yugi-Oh monster card title just so said character knows how to open a door or flush a toilet properly.

Still, I'm thinking about it.

For what its worth, there's minimal actual trap options in PF2e. I won't say none, but its much thinner on the ground than 3e era D&D.

(Some will argue with me, but they usually have what seem like pretty extreme ideas of how good an option should be).

 

[CapnZapp]

That hasn't been my experience at all. I'm running the Abomination Vaults AP and it feels just like any D&D dungeon crawl adventure I've ever played in tone and story. Having played quite a bit of 5e, the adventure would work just fine being converted over. Reading ahead for the AP I'm running next (Stolen Fate), I don't get a significantly different vibe in the adventure being presented.

The AP I ran from start to finish was Extinction Curse. But I then started Abomination Vaults, and for a while it seemed like what you say. However, after the first few levels, the structure mandated by the PF2 rules reimposed itself and I burned out maybe 50-60% into the module.

The chief problem with PF2 is the same as with 4th Edition: in the long run you can't just play D&D, you need to follow a strict rhythm of crescendo and climax (combat-wise) that can and will get in the way of role-playing.

D&D 4 should by any reasonable train of thought have taught Paizo the lesson that's not what gamers want. Paizo doing PF2 right after the crash and burn that was 4E is basically incomprehensible to me.

These games offer a solution to a problem that throws out the baby with the bathwater. Yes D&D combat can be uneven, and yes bigger set pieces can end with a whimper (or a TPK) but the solution is not to impose a structure upon play, because the exceptions (where this hinders the flow of your campaign) far outnumber the rule (where it does help you).

It's as if you want help structuring and balancing up your set pieces and end up having to make every combat such a set piece. PF2 and 4E simply... gets in the way. Far too often to be worth the benefits they bring.

Also players dislike being so controlled. Both games give off this vibe of "we don't trust you filthy minmaxers so we're going to bend backwards limiting your ability to do that" completely forgetting that player freedom during charbuild is one of the chief strengths of D&D - it's a core strength of the game that is essential to explaining why people like D&D.

PS. Paizo has already done what you suggest - there is a Abomination Vaults for 5th Edition. DS.

 

[Nilbog]

The AP I ran from start to finish was Extinction Curse. But I then started Abomination Vaults, and for a while it seemed like what you say. However, after the first few levels, the structure mandated by the PF2 rules reimposed itself and I burned out maybe 50-60% into the module.

The chief problem with PF2 is the same as with 4th Edition: in the long run you can't just play D&D, you need to follow a strict rhythm of crescendo and climax (combat-wise) that can and will get in the way of role-playing.

D&D 4 should by any reasonable train of thought have taught Paizo the lesson that's not what gamers want. Paizo doing PF2 right after the crash and burn that was 4E is basically incomprehensible to me.

These games offer a solution to a problem that throws out the baby with the bathwater. Yes D&D combat can be uneven, and yes bigger set pieces can end with a whimper (or a TPK) but the solution is not to impose a structure upon play, because the exceptions (where this hinders the flow of your campaign) far outnumber the rule (where it does help you).

It's as if you want help structuring and balancing up your set pieces and end up having to make every combat such a set piece. PF2 and 4E simply... gets in the way. Far too often to be worth the benefits they bring.

Also players dislike being so controlled. Both games give off this vibe of "we don't trust you filthy minmaxers so we're going to bend backwards limiting your ability to do that" completely forgetting that player freedom during charbuild is one of the chief strengths of D&D - it's a core strength of the game that is essential to explaining why people like D&D.

PS. Paizo has already done what you suggest - there is a Abomination Vaults for 5th Edition. DS.

Which is the total opposite of my experience with PF2E, we've had some great roleplaying, lots of fun combats and overall a good time. Given your posts I suspect I'm running it wrong

 

[Philip Benz]

Which is the total opposite of my experience with PF2E, we've had some great roleplaying, lots of fun combats and overall a good time. Given your posts I suspect I'm running it wrong

No, you're not "running it wrong". Nothing in PF2 prevents clever roleplay.
The only thing I'd agree with in Capnzapp's negative posts is that PF2 does not allow you to "win" the game at character creation. The gap between casually created characters and so-called "minmaxer" carefully designed characters is very small. That's a good thing. You have endless options in character design, but the PF2 system doesn't allow you to create characters that are head and shoulders above casually created characters of the same level.

 

[Alzrius]

However, I am aware of the history of Pathfinder and how, just like the original system it was spung off from, has trap options and the heavy focus in the Ivory Tower design ethos.

I'll note here that "trap options" is a misunderstanding of what ivory tower design means.