Pathfinder 2E Are you moving from 5E to PF2?

[Campbell]

Played first game of Pathfinder Society today. We played through The Absolam Initiation scenario which is meant to be players introduction to Pathfinder Society. Lots of great role playing and lore in the scenario. It was also fairly brutal. My Barbarian dropped 3 times throughout, including two in the last encounter. He almost did not make it through - got down to Dying 3. Luckily I had one Hero Point left. Several of the other characters also went down at least once.

Things played pretty quick even with 6 players. Combats took about the same amount of time as they take with my Fifth Edition group. The game is pretty swingy. Critical hits are a really big deal. The higher level monster the 6 of us faced in the last part nearly took out 3 of the 6 us. The fight was tense.

I have to say that I am really enjoying the secret rolls for things like Gather Information, Searching, and Recall Knowledge. It creates an environment of uncertainty that I really enjoy. We ended up having a much harder time disrupting the ritual in the second part of the scenario because we were operating under faulty information from a Critical Failure on Gather Information.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Yup, for our group it really scratches the itch of wanting a rules system that handles a deeper more complex game better, and more involved character building, with the relative streamlining to give it most of the benefits that 5e has. It makes me feel like where 5e messed up (in terms of engaging my interest) was in the department of creating a game that is simpler, but gets relatively little bang per buck on it's simplicity vs. depth trade off.

2e is much simpler than pf1e, while being a step up in complexity relative to 5e, but while having the sheer depth I haven't gotten to experience since 4e. It also works better because there's a lot more guidance for things like exploration and downtime, which means those systems aren't as hit or miss based off your DM.

 

[zztong]

I know a friend will bring PF2 back from GenCon and I'm pretty sure we'll try it. We were a PF1 game until the PF2 playtest. After the PF2 playtest, and a couple of post-playtest PF2 adventures, we've been testing the waters with 5e and played several sessions. I've no idea where that game will end up long term.

We've largely completed the Plaguestone adventure, after having done the playtest and a couple of homebrew adventures between the playtest and the release of the completed rules.

Over beers this weekend, my friend told me that he was bailing on PF2 after this and going to D&D 5e. (We played PF1 for many years and not D&D 5e.) He might be interested in trying PF2 again in a year, but right now he saw "more negatives than positives." I'm trying to remember what he liked and didn't like. I recall he wasn't happy with our characters that multiclassed and the oft-expressed player frustration about too many tiny feats. I know he liked the bestiary, the action system, and the more-defined exploration mode. We talked about the "fail forward" approach to skills and the higher DCs and how that wasn't a good fit for some of the players. We talked about how the table dynamic has changed with more casual players and folks with less time, thus less patience for complex rules. PF1 had been working because we already knew, and were comfortable with the rules, but it too probably wouldn't have worked for the current group if we were just starting.

 

[Xenonnonex]

We've largely completed the Plaguestone adventure, after having done the playtest and a couple of homebrew adventures between the playtest and the release of the completed rules.

Over beers this weekend, my friend told me that he was bailing on PF2 after this and going to D&D 5e. (We played PF1 for many years and not D&D 5e.) He might be interested in trying PF2 again in a year, but right now he saw "more negatives than positives." I'm trying to remember what he liked and didn't like. I recall he wasn't happy with our characters that multiclassed and the oft-expressed player frustration about too many tiny feats. I know he liked the bestiary, the action system, and the more-defined exploration mode. We talked about the "fail forward" approach to skills and the higher DCs and how that wasn't a good fit for some of the players. We talked about how the table dynamic has changed with more casual players and folks with less time, thus less patience for complex rules. PF1 had been working because we already knew, and were comfortable with the rules, but it too probably wouldn't have worked for the current group if we were just starting.

Our group was also similarly disappointed with the plethora of microfeats and the lackluster ancestries.

 

[CapnZapp]

One concern of mine is something I don't often see discussed:

The way feats enable highly specific actions (or uses of skills).

Does that mean you can't do that unless you have the skill?

If "yes", this means the game becomes a nightmare for the DM who ought to learn all thousand feats by heart, and say "no" to every attempt to use something without the requisite feat.

If "no", then... why take the feat?

 

[dave2008]

One concern of mine is something I don't often see discussed:

The way feats enable highly specific actions (or uses of skills).

Does that mean you can't do that unless you have the skill?

If "yes", this means the game becomes a nightmare for the DM who ought to learn all thousand feats by heart, and say "no" to every attempt to use something without the requisite feat.

If "no", then... why take the feat?

That was the same issue a lot of people had with 4e. I heard that argument all the time on the old WotC 4e forum

 

[Parmandur]

One concern of mine is something I don't often see discussed:

The way feats enable highly specific actions (or uses of skills).

Does that mean you can't do that unless you have the skill?

If "yes", this means the game becomes a nightmare for the DM who ought to learn all thousand feats by heart, and say "no" to every attempt to use something without the requisite feat.

If "no", then... why take the feat?

That's been a problem with Feats since 3E was released.

 

[kenada]

I think that’s a fair take, and it’s mine too. I think it’s fine, because it reminds me of how PbtA systems view moves, but I can see its causing friction and problems in groups that want something more freeform.

That said, when I ran it for my group, the basic actions seemed pretty broadly applicable. I could deal with improvised actions, but I admit one has to be diligent about following the rules as written.

 

[Campbell]

In general if you follow the advice on improvising actions you should mostly be fine. Abilities from feats tend to be far more effective in terms of the action economy.

Skill feats tend to extend existing actions and make them better or lift restrictions.

 

[kenada]

Definitely. I had no problem handling improvised actions when I ran PF2. The place where I see friction is when players try to do something outside the boundaries like try to Make an Impression to or Request of a group, which normally only works on an individual, but they expect the GM to make a ruling and let them try anyway. I don’t think PF2 is wrong for working the way it does, but I can understand that might be an issue for some people.