Grade the Pathfinder 2E Game System

How do you feel about the Pathfinder 2E System?

  • I love it.

    Votes: 30 17.3%
  • It's pretty good.

    Votes: 32 18.5%
  • Meh, it's okay.

    Votes: 38 22.0%
  • It's pretty bad.

    Votes: 15 8.7%
  • I hate it.

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • I've never played it.

    Votes: 57 32.9%
  • I've never heard of it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

😆 This is what PF2 players keep telling me. And you might be right. The thing is though, reading through class feat often feels underwhelming. It's the same thing with the "every +1 counts"-paradigm in PF2. It just didn't fired us up.
Now it's totally a "us" thing, I'm not saying PF2 is a bad game by any means because of this. Just saying it wasn't for us. (Also let me note: I feel that this got better over time, it's as if their class design improved through the years. Although I can't be sure who designed what class, I think I'm more of a Logan Bonner guy than a Mark Seifert guy).

Sorry if I came off a bit brusque, just that specific case irritates me.

And when it comes down to it, I think most of the class feats are actually pretty dope, though there are some that are meant to be more ribbon-ish or character-specific: you may not need it most of the time, but some players might want it. For some games they kind of let you make it up, for Paizo here they made it into a Feat that you can choose. And the thing is that you can select the more niche stuff because your power level isn't really as dependent on your Feat choice: your power is largely built into the class itself and its numbers, the Feats generally expand or focus on how you exert that power.

Well, I think one of the things I disliked the most, were all the meaningless skill feats. Paizo could throw 90% of these out, and I doubt the play at many tables would be much different. When I GM'ing it's annoying thinking "hmmm can Jim Bigteeth do this, or can't he do it before he gets this 7th level skill feat?"

I don't think they are meaningless, but I do think they lack necessity. I think that's by design: there aren't skill feats or general feats that are necessarily must haves, but there are some that are more useful than others if you want them to be. But there are a whole bunch you can just take to sort of back-fill your character concept, which I think is what is meant. I think the problem is that we've been taught to optimize in such a way that we look at Feats that are limited and dismiss them.

I definitely like the 3.5/PF1/5e action economy more. But it's purely a matter of taste (obviously). I don't like this idea that all three actions are of the same value. For us it meant that the players really really have to be pushed into not using it for what they thought was the most important thing they cold do: Attack - Warrrgh! And you can argue and explain about intimidate, bon mot etc. etc. But I kind of feel that it's a design error in the game. And after reading soooo many posts of Paizo boards and Reddit I'm not the only one.

The numbers are really what's meant to push you away: attacking anything at -10 is generally not a great look unless you really outclass it or have a gimmick around it. Your third action (though not necessarily your last) is generally meant to be something else, whether it be a Step to force the enemy to waste an Action moving, a Feint or Demoralize to make your own attacks stronger, or a Knowledge Check to try and divine something about your attacker.

The problem is that the idea of more attacks having a penalty is generally not in line with the most recent iterations of the d20 paradigm, so it can be a bit harder to adapt. There's no disadvantage for a Fighter attacking 3 times in 5E; in fact, it's basically a necessity for them to get every attack in they can. With PF2, it's more meant to maximize your potential attacks: if you can attack once but somehow force an enemy into an Attack of Opportunity on their turn, that's more valuable than 3 attacks in your own. For example, Tripping an enemy has value that it doesn't in 5E because getting up triggers an AoO in PF2. Now everyone doesn't have one, but to the guys that do that's incredibly valuable because there's no multiple attack penalty for a reaction attack.

I'm almost inclined to agree on this one. I do think a shield is too valuable with too few drawbacks in 5e. But going from 5e to PF2 it felt punishing. I'm not decided on this, but I'm getting there.....

I can understand the feeling, since that's how I figured it was before I played with it. You move slower and do fewer things because you want that benefit. But when you use your Reaction to fully negate some damage, it's just a great feeling because it feels like you have a shield. Like, I had a guy with a Tower Shield who moved like a snail when he used it but he was almost untouchable because of it. He only got one attack when he used it to full potential, but he was damn hard to tag back. It's a very different kind of feel to someone who is nimble without a shield who can run around, attack more, etc.

Yeah I'm interested in seeing what the update is going to be.
I'll probably get Player Core 1 to see how much they fixed. They probably aren't fixing as much as I'd like, but let's see. As mentioned I'm in the market for a 5e++ and I hoped PF2 would be the one. Currently it's not 🤷 But I like that Paizo seems to be having some success with it. Perhaps it'll fire up WotC a bit.

I mean, you can always wait for them to update Nethys, too. But I'm excited for the update because it does feel like they are doing what I wanted Wizards do with the Ranger and make some improvements to classes that really needed it. Them fixing the Warpriest by making them better fighters is exactly what I wanted.-
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BigZebra

Adventurer
And when it comes down to it, I think most of the class feats are actually pretty dope, though there are some that are meant to be more ribbon-ish or character-specific: you may not need it most of the time, but some players might want it. For some games they kind of let you make it up, for Paizo here they made it into a Feat that you can choose. And the thing is that you can select the more niche stuff because your power level isn't really as dependent on your Feat choice: your power is largely built into the class itself and its numbers, the Feats generally expand or focus on how you exert that power.
Yeah. I will say one thing I like about how they organized feats in PF2: it's much easier for the players to look at these 10 feats that's specific for e.g. Rangers, than trying to get a handle an the HUNDRES of PF1 feats. Yesterday when biking to work, I thought if I could somehow make it easier for my PF1 players to pick a feat. "How about if I grouped some of the most popular feats into classes......waaaait a minute I see what you did there Paizo!" 😆

The problem is that the idea of more attacks having a penalty is generally not in line with the most recent iterations of the d20 paradigm, so it can be a bit harder to adapt. There's no disadvantage for a Fighter attacking 3 times in 5E; in fact, it's basically a necessity for them to get every attack in they can. With PF2, it's more meant to maximize your potential attacks: if you can attack once but somehow force an enemy into an Attack of Opportunity on their turn, that's more valuable than 3 attacks in your own. For example, Tripping an enemy has value that it doesn't in 5E because getting up triggers an AoO in PF2. Now everyone doesn't have one, but to the guys that do that's incredibly valuable because there's no multiple attack penalty for a reaction attack.
Yeah, agreed. And for people cold starting in PF2 this might not be an issue at all.
 

Retreater

Legend
Feats in PF2 are like "if an enemy critically fails an Intimidate check to Demoralize you AND you're wielding a rapier, you can spend your reaction to deal damage equal to one-half your Charisma bonus."
They're either so situational or unimpressive, that you can easily forget about them. Heck, you could probably run the game just fine without them. They're so watered down because PCs get around 30 of them to be fed little shavings of carrots to keep them engaged every level.
It's almost as if the designers could make "Feat Bundles" and create packages of abilities and make subclasses like weapon master, defender, etc.
 


MuhVerisimilitude

Adventurer
Feats in PF2 are like "if an enemy critically fails an Intimidate check to Demoralize you AND you're wielding a rapier, you can spend your reaction to deal damage equal to one-half your Charisma bonus."
They're either so situational or unimpressive, that you can easily forget about them. Heck, you could probably run the game just fine without them. They're so watered down because PCs get around 30 of them to be fed little shavings of carrots to keep them engaged every level.
It's almost as if the designers could make "Feat Bundles" and create packages of abilities and make subclasses like weapon master, defender, etc.
That would result in the same severe problems D&D 5E has. Class feature compartmentalisation. There would be no choices to make. (except for casters of course lol nobody demands spells to come prepackaged for some reason I wonder why?)
 

Nilbog

Snotling Herder
I mean I love skill feats in PF2e, are they useful? Not often, bit that's why I like them, they represent those niche things we are all have that we are good at but rarely play a massive part on our day to day life. I'm pretty good at pub quizzes, it's not made a massive impact on my life but it's given me a few good moments, and that's how I see skill feats, quirks that round out characters.

The only issue I guess is calling them feats, when mechanically they are behind class/general and probably ancestry feats in terms of overall usefulness. People see the word feat and think of parity. I guess paizo was damned if they did and damned of they didn't when it came to naming, they wanted a known universal word for player options, but with that came the thought all are equal.
 

Zubatcarteira

Now you're infected by the Musical Doodle
Some skill feats can be insanely impactful, like a lot of the medicine ones (Battle Medicine, Ward Medic, Continual Recovery), Titan Wrestler, Scare to Death, etc. I do agree a lot are basically pointless though.
 

payn

He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
Some skill feats can be insanely impactful, like a lot of the medicine ones (Battle Medicine, Ward Medic, Continual Recovery), Titan Wrestler, Scare to Death, etc. I do agree a lot are basically pointless though.
Really its the vast gulf of usefulness that is the issue with skill feats.
 

Really its the vast gulf of usefulness that is the issue with skill feats.

Well, it's the gulf between "I use this in combat" versus "I use this out of combat." If you want to grapple, you want Titan Grappler. If you want to do medicine, you need those feats. Other ones... less so.
 

payn

He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
Well, it's the gulf between "I use this in combat" versus "I use this out of combat." If you want to grapple, you want Titan Grappler. If you want to do medicine, you need those feats. Other ones... less so.
Its not even in and out of combat. When compared, many skill feats are, maybe used once a campaign > probably used per session > used in every encounter. Not much of a choice there.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top