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

MindWanderer

Explorer
To begin with: I'm a D&D veteran of decades, having played every edition of D&D except 5.0 and the white paper, when each was the most recent version of the game. I had read the rules for PF1e and PF2e (thanks, Humble Bundle) and found them promising, plus people rave over PF, so I was eager to play a demo at GalaxyCon last weekend.

The long and the short of it is, that while it does have a few strengths over D&D, I came out of it less interested in PF than I was beforehand.

In the first game, I played an Investigator. This just sort of... didn't work. A level 1 Investigator seems to be flatly worse than every other class. If there's a mystery of some sort involved, and if you have the opportunity to prep with some investigation, then you can use your Int for attack rolls... making you still worse than any other class that gets their prime attribute to attack and damage with no preparation. At best, you can set up a +1 bonus to use against 1 enemy, which is, over the course of a typical battle, not going to be as good as just attacking them one time. One of the other players at the table had to explain how an Investigator gets more usable at higher levels, but I didn't get to experience it myself.

But the bigger problem was that the adventure wasn't a mystery, until suddenly it was and we're rolling initiative. The DM apologized for not realizing I was an Investigator and needed some additional prep opportunity baked into the game, but he shouldn't have had to. Especially in organized play, that shouldn't be an extra job he has to do.

In the second game, I was an Inventor. This worked better, because I could spend one action to both move and attack with my robot buddy. But I also needed an action to power myself up for a damage bonus, and in a battle that only lasts 2-3 rounds, it's not worth trading an attack now for a small damage boost later. So basically the whole setup was a more complicated way to get two attacks, sometimes, maybe.

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.

Finally, complexity. A demo D&D character sheet is one piece of paper, single-sided; maybe two if you're a spellcaster. Every PF character sheet was two pieces of paper, at least the first of which was double-sided. And the class features are dense. I had to read both of them very carefully (while the game was going on) to figure out how all the pieces interlocked. Now, granted, that's because a level 1 PF2e character is comparable in stats and complexity to a level 3 D&D5.x character. But even then, a D&D character's abilities are easier to grok.

I was absolutely the target audience for PF walking into the event, so the fact that I'm now turned off of it seems like a big miss. Maybe the characters I chose were poor examples (in which case, taking them out of the stack of the dozen pregens we were handed might have been a good idea). But with my lack of experience, I can't tell the difference between a lacking demo and a lacking game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad





While I agree with folks saying your class choice may have been suboptimal, the fact is that if you did not like the 3 action economy, that there is enough to let it be. You gave the game an honest go. That's great! And a lot more than many gamers ever do. It is totally ok to bounce of something a lot of other folks love.

I bounced off PF2E for a different reason: the system is too precise and the math too tight. I prefer nmy RPGs to have more float for when I inevitably make up random BS at the table.

My white whale is a game with a PF2E player side and a Shadowdark GM side.
 

I recommend playing a "traditional" class. You may have a better experience.
Generally speaking that is what I have noticed over the last ~2 years running the game. I haven't seen an Inventor or Investigator played yet, but the "less traditional" classes like Summoner and Magus that I have seen played have some quirks to their action economy that depending on what you want to do can be restricting. The current group I am GMing is 2 clerics (one is a warpriest), rogue, witch, alchemist, and kineticist hasn't had many issues with the game's action economy getting in the way of them doing what they want each turn. The first group had more issues with a Summoner and a Magus, although the magus had an easier time once he was able to take the Rapid Recharge feat.
 

Not for you, good that you were willing to try it though.

I love PF2e but like most things in life it's not for everyone, it's certainly refreshing to hear constructive criticism from someone who was willing to try it and make a reasoned post as to why they didn't.
 

As others have said, if the 3 action economy put you off, that's probably that. I do agree some of the quirkier classes can give a more negative impression than some traditional classes though; I'd probably had a worse initial impression if playing the two-gun Gunslinger I played later than the sword-and-board Fighter I did in my first game.
 

In the first game, I played an Investigator. This just sort of... didn't work. A level 1 Investigator seems to be flatly worse than every other class. If there's a mystery of some sort involved, and if you have the opportunity to prep with some investigation, then you can use your Int for attack rolls...

But the bigger problem was that the adventure wasn't a mystery, until suddenly it was and we're rolling initiative.
I'm stuck on the assumption that an investigator is supposed to be good in combat. And that a mystery requires initiative.

Maybe I should avoid PF2 as well.
 

Remove ads

Top