Pathfinder 2E I think I am giving up on PF2ER

[Eric V]

They definitely should be but I've found with the P2e group I game with, combat (we play on Foundry) becomes a video-game slog where everyone just gets fairly silent and stares at their map screens and moves pieces on a board to 'win' the situation using positioning and manuevers. I really try to role-play but none of the 6 other players say much of anything and it's clear my behavior isn't the social norm -other players proceed to click-away on the VTT.

I've played dozens of other rpg systems (though not on VTT) and I've never quite seen the focus on tactical play at the cost of role-play.

Though, who knows, maybe P2e played face to face is like a critical role episode. No idea, I've never had that opportunity.

I can see combat demanding a certain amount of mental focus, for sure.

But PF2E also has Exploration and Downtime modes of play...between the 3, there's plenty of roleplay. Not Shakespeare-on-a-stage levels, but "playing one's character in the world"? Sure.

 

[Elvish Lore]

I can see combat demanding a certain amount of mental focus, for sure.

But PF2E also has Exploration and Downtime modes of play...between the 3, there's plenty of roleplay. Not Shakespeare-on-a-stage levels, but "playing one's character in the world"? Sure.

Yep. I was talking strictly about combat which is what the earlier post was focusing on.

We certainly do role-play freely in other modes.

 

[Staffan]

Combat is tactical focused and requires a team effort that can at times be really tedious. Like killing a foe with a thousand paper cuts tedious.

One issue I've found with PF2 combat is that "boss fights" (i.e. fights against one strong foe) are counterintuitive, particularly for casters. When you fight a boss, narratively it makes sense to "bring out the big guns" and "stop holding back". But PF2 doesn't work like that, because of rapidly escalating numbers for creatures and because of Incapacitation. So you don't want to use your strongest spells on the boss, you want to use moderately strong debuffs that (a) aren't strong enough to count for Incapacitation (slow is great here, as is fear) and (b) still have an OK effect on a successful save.

This is one area where I think 13th Age has the better solution to incapacitating effects: cap them by current hp. That way you can't stop the dragon with a paralyze in round 1, but maybe you can use it as a finisher in round 3-4.

 

[payn]

One issue I've found with PF2 combat is that "boss fights" (i.e. fights against one strong foe) are counterintuitive, particularly for casters. When you fight a boss, narratively it makes sense to "bring out the big guns" and "stop holding back". But PF2 doesn't work like that, because of rapidly escalating numbers for creatures and because of Incapacitation. So you don't want to use your strongest spells on the boss, you want to use moderately strong debuffs that (a) aren't strong enough to count for Incapacitation (slow is great here, as is fear) and (b) still have an OK effect on a successful save.

This is one area where I think 13th Age has the better solution to incapacitating effects: cap them by current hp. That way you can't stop the dragon with a paralyze in round 1, but maybe you can use it as a finisher in round 3-4.

Yeap, agreed. I think there was a lot of design space around 4E bloodied. Most spells are a danger before bloodied, but can be deadly after.

 

[Eric V]

Yeap, agreed. I think there was a lot of design space around 4E bloodied. Most spells are a danger before bloodied, but can be deadly after.

I would have loved if the incapactiation trait in PF2E only worked until the target was bloodied.

 

[BigZebra]

I would have loved if the incapactiation trait in PF2E only worked until the target was bloodied.

That is actually a really great idea! If I still played PF2 I would steal that house rule.

 

[Velderan]

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.

Your players. Plenty of players enjoy how PF2e works, so many that by any available info it's the 2nd most popular TTRPG which should probably explain why they had the design philosophy they did; WotC D&D works like that, so we're going to make something different to try to pick up the players that don't enjoy how their game works.

And you know what? In the long run, you absolutely can play a D&D-style campaign using the ruleset. I'm doing it with my group, others in this thread have expressed the same thing. The game just wasn't for you and that's fine, but it comes off as pretty ridiculous to say it's impossible to tell a certain type of game using the ruleset when others are absolutely doing it.

 

[Velderan]

There are options that are clearly better than others. Champions stink. Alchemists and Oracles stink. Rogues are leagues ahead of barbarians and rangers who waste action economy to be effective. Fighters are ahead of everyone.
Maybe they'll fix these terrible classes in Player Core 2?

The fighter in my group asked to remake his character as a champion about 3 levels in and hasn't complained or asked to switch back. My wife wants to make an oracle for her next character because it "sounds fun" (she's playing a summoner currently). Our barbarian is having a blast with his huge crits using 2 handed weapons.

Silly us, trying to have fun playing checks notes a game.

 

[Weiley31]

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

Did that EVER release? I feel like once the whole OGL Fiasco happened, Paizo just nixed the 5E version of Abomination Vault.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I've commented that the difference between PF1e (and D&D 3e) and PF2e is that most cleverness and systems mastery in the former took place in character generation and advancement (there was some in proper use of spells, but that only applies to a portion of characters), where as most cleverness and system mastery in PF2e is during play. You can stumble around a bit in character gen and advancement in PF2e and barring running into a handful of bad spots (it was easy to make an original Alchemist feel substandard) you could still do pretty well once you understood how the system actually plays assuming you were willing to engage with it (as I've said before, its generally a bad game to try and go through on autopilot, though some types of characters can get away with this better than others if you at least develop an SOP).