Pathfinder 2E I played my first PF2e game this week. Here's why I'm less inclined to play again.

[dave2008]

I have figured out ways to jailbreak the math and make boss fights fun after multiple on the fly mods. But I don't love doing that.

Interesting, I have had another gamer tell me that boss fights were one of the best pasts of PF2e. IDK, I haven't played, but that was on of the drivers for potentially pushing me to play PF2e.

 

[payn]

Interesting, I have had another gamer tell me that boss fights were one of the best pasts of PF2e. IDK, I haven't played, but that was on of the drivers for potentially pushing me to play PF2e.

Really depends on what you want the feel to be? I found boss solos to be disappointing because the tight level math. Saves for example, for a solo boss are gonna be so high you have a 10-20% chance of a spell landing. So, instead of going with really cool spells, you go with cantrips that might have a slightly inconvenient rider to slow the boss down. Maybe take out one of its three actions so it cant clobber your martial characters too badly. Speaking of which, since the crit system is <10>, it means that the boss is gonna hit on attacks, thats not even a question, but what is up for die roll is if its going to be a critical hit or not. Something, again, the PCs have a tiny chance of happening on their behalf.

What that does is cause a nerve wracking encounter where if the party doesnt work in mechanical unison like a volleyball team bumping, setting, spiking, then the party will be wiped. 5E, for example, works great under that paradigm, but isnt required to be successful. While I dont like the feel of it, it does make solos a capable combatant without any assistance like legendary actions or minions.

 

[BryonD]

Interesting, I have had another gamer tell me that boss fights were one of the best pasts of PF2e. IDK, I haven't played, but that was on of the drivers for potentially pushing me to play PF2e.

I suspect that there are very different ideas of what makes the experience great. And I'm good with that.
I think the experience is also very different at Level2 than at level 7, for example.

I broadly agree with payn's comment above.
A few bad rolls and you get slaughtered and feel like the system was just bad. A few good rolls and you win, but it feels like luck rather than heroism and tactic. In between and it is just probability playing out without any agency.

Ironically, the reverse is really fun in small doses. Throw a small crowd of L2s at a L7 party and watch their eyes light up when they roll and 7 and hear "crit!". That wears off fast but thats ok every 6 sessions or so.

 

[dave2008]

Well this person was speaking from a DM perspective and being able to threaten their PCs

Really depends on what you want the feel to be? I found boss solos to be disappointing because the tight level math. Saves for example, for a solo boss are gonna be so high you have a 10-20% chance of a spell landing. So, instead of going with really cool spells, you go with cantrips that might have a slightly inconvenient rider to slow the boss down. Maybe take out one of its three actions so it cant clobber your martial characters too badly. Speaking of which, since the crit system is <10>, it means that the boss is gonna hit on attacks, thats not even a question, but what is up for die roll is if its going to be a critical hit or not. Something, again, the PCs have a tiny chance of happening on their behalf.

What that does is cause a nerve wracking encounter where if the party doesnt work in mechanical unison like a volleyball team bumping, setting, spiking, then the party will be wiped. 5E, for example, works great under that paradigm, but isnt required to be successful. While I dont like the feel of it, it does make solos a capable combatant without any assistance like legendary actions or minions.

I suspect that there are very different ideas of what makes the experience great. And I'm good with that.
I think the experience is also very different at Level2 than at level 7, for example.

I broadly agree with payn's comment above.
A few bad rolls and you get slaughtered and feel like the system was just bad. A few good rolls and you win, but it feels like luck rather than heroism and tactic. In between and it is just probability playing out without any agency.

Ironically, the reverse is really fun in small doses. Throw a small crowd of L2s at a L7 party and watch their eyes light up when they roll and 7 and hear "crit!". That wears off fast but thats ok every 6 sessions or so.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Really depends on what you want the feel to be? I found boss solos to be disappointing because the tight level math. Saves for example, for a solo boss are gonna be so high you have a 10-20% chance of a spell landing. So, instead of going with really cool spells, you go with cantrips that might have a slightly inconvenient rider to slow the boss down. Maybe take out one of its three actions so it cant clobber your martial characters too badly. Speaking of which, since the crit system is <10>, it means that the boss is gonna hit on attacks, thats not even a question, but what is up for die roll is if its going to be a critical hit or not. Something, again, the PCs have a tiny chance of happening on their behalf.

What that does is cause a nerve wracking encounter where if the party doesnt work in mechanical unison like a volleyball team bumping, setting, spiking, then the party will be wiped. 5E, for example, works great under that paradigm, but isnt required to be successful. While I dont like the feel of it, it does make solos a capable combatant without any assistance like legendary actions or minions.

Though that doesn't technically have to be true; you can theoretically have lower level boss fights where the boss just doesn't have that much support, so even though there's a relatively low chance of a PC getting a crit, the number of attacks coming in toward the boss compared to the ones going out are large enough you'll still see some, including on spells.

Its just that almost no one puts those together that way.

Other than that, it gets back to the same old thing; you can set up your mechanics so that when people are playing well in coordination the fight is still interesting and non-trivial, or you can put it together so if everyone is doing their own thing, the fight is still manageable and not overly tense. Its virtually impossible to do both within the same system.

 

[UnplayedRanger]

Which brings us to the 3-action economy. I just really don't like it. D&D baking minor actions like drawing weapons into their move+action economy works much better. You should be able to take some kind of heroic action every round, and when you have to burn actions to draw weapons, sheathe weapons, raise shields, etc. then you run out of the actions you need to use your class features and also do something cool.

I completley agree. I do not like PF2e's action economy at all. It felt stifling in a way that Dnd never did (both 4e and 5e). Even other systems that have a 3 action limit (like SWADE) work much better in my opinion. And for users telling you to try another class. I played both a Ranger and a Fighter, and easch session I felt like I was fighting against the system in order to have any fun.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I completley agree. I do not like PF2e's action economy at all. It felt stifling in a way that Dnd never did (both 4e and 5e). Even other systems that have a 3 action limit (like SWADE) work much better in my opinion. And for users telling you to try another class. I played both a Ranger and a Fighter, and easch session I felt like I was fighting the system in order to have any fun.

Different people are going to like different things. The 3-action economy felt like a good process once I got used to it, and I know others who felt the same; among other things it provides the tools for certain tactics and decisions that the more typical standard/move/quick action type arrangements don't. But that doesn't mean it works for everyone.

 

[UnplayedRanger]

Different people are going to like different things. The 3-action economy felt like a good process once I got used to it, and I know others who felt the same; among other things it provides the tools for certain tactics and decisions that the more typical standard/move/quick action type arrangements don't. But that doesn't mean it works for everyone.

True, and I wish I did enjoy Paizo's game desgin more. I like them, their adventure paths, and even enjoy Golarion as a setting. (hence why I personally like pathfinder for savage worlds).

My friend likes Starfinder, and is planning a 2e campaign. I like my friend, so I will be suffering through the 3 action economy again at some point.

 

[BryonD]

Well this person was speaking from a DM perspective and being able to threaten their PCs

me too. Maybe that wasn't clear. sorry

 

[BryonD]

Different people are going to like different things. The 3-action economy felt like a good process once I got used to it, and I know others who felt the same; among other things it provides the tools for certain tactics and decisions that the more typical standard/move/quick action type arrangements don't. But that doesn't mean it works for everyone.

yes. I really like this element and the tiered saves also. There are some great ideas in it.
To me the actions systems for both PF and PF2E are good, with a slight edge to PF2E.