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

[Micah Sweet]

Its just way more complicated 5e, if you do like to feel clever by learning tons of options, and like having things more complicated than needed by choice (to make it look more deep), then it can be fun for you.


PF2 has a specific target audience, people loving system mastery and wanting to be rewarded for it.

PF1 had that audience too, but my understanding (and my brief attempt to play) is that they're quite different games.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Its just way more complicated 5e, if you do like to feel clever by learning tons of options, and like having things more complicated than needed by choice (to make it look more deep), then it can be fun for you.


PF2 has a specific target audience, people loving system mastery and wanting to be rewarded for it.

Eh. I'd say that was far more true of PF1. Its actually possible to build a PF2e character fairly casually and still get some value out of it, if you don't happen to fall into one of the limited number of pitfalls (and there's less of those with Remastered).

 

[Tigris]

PF1 had that audience too, but my understanding (and my brief attempt to play) is that they're quite different games.

I just edited my post to be a bit more clear. PF1 had an audience, and I like PF1, but its a really different game.

PF1 is high fantasy, really crazy effects, classes being more or less balanced by everyone doing crazy things.


PF2 is really really really tightly balanced, but you can do a lot less fantastical things. You have a lot of complexity like different conditions, which in the end give small numerical modifiers as debuffs or make an enemy lose 1 action.


PF2 is stingy and wants to make sure to not hand out something too powerfull.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's what I mean. There's actually a reason for people other than casters to be there other than meat shields. If that's bothersome to someone, then no, they're not going to like it.

They still have a vast variety of versitility, progressively increasing with level, that no non-caster can match. Its just that doesn't include "best choice to take out a singleton" in its bailiwick.

Well, best choice for single targets is a lot softer than your, "a reason for people other than casters to be there other than meat shields". You may be overstating your case, or presenting an anti-caster bias. And reducing the things magic can do effectively also affects how the setting handles magic, or at least it should IMO. I just really wonder how folks who enjoyed playing wizards et al in PF1 and non-4e D&D (and all the games based on those) would feel about this new PF2 paradigm.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just edited my post to be a bit more clear. PF1 had an audience, and I like PF1, but its a really different game.

PF1 is high fantasy, really crazy effects, classes being more or less balanced by everyone doing crazy things.


PF2 is really really really tightly balanced, but you can do a lot less fantastical things. You have a lot of complexity like different conditions, which in the end give small numerical modifiers as debuffs or make an enemy lose 1 action.


PF2 is stingy and wants to make sure to not hand out something too powerfull.

Reminds me of 4e. Not my cup of tea. At all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, best choice for single targets is a lot softer than your, "a reason for people other than casters to be there other than meat shields". You may be overstating your case, or presenting an anti-caster bias. And reducing the things magic can do effectively also affects how the setting handles magic, or at least it should IMO. I just really wonder how folks who enjoyed playing wizards et al in PF1 and non-4e D&D (and all the games based on those) would feel about this new PF2 paradigm.

Some of them hate it. I'd argue that's because they've gotten used to casters from the 3e period on being overtuned, but they'll of course disagree.

On the other hand, I'm playing with three people who played a fair bit of PF1e, and at least two of the still play casters fairly often, so I again have to assume its not a complete dealbreaker for such folks.

(As it goes, I'm not intrinsically hostile to casters, but as my statement above indicates, I think 3e and PF1e casters were overtuned (and probably ones in 5e too but I'm going by word-of-mouth there) so if that translates into "anti-caster bias" so be it).

 

[Staffan]

PF2 is really really really tightly balanced, but you can do a lot less fantastical things. You have a lot of complexity like different conditions, which in the end give small numerical modifiers as debuffs or make an enemy lose 1 action.


PF2 is stingy and wants to make sure to not hand out something too powerfull.

The way I see it (and I think I've said it before, possibly in this very thread but I can't be hedgehogged to go back and check):

• In D&D 3e and its derivatives (like Pathfinder 1e), you win the game in character generation by picking the right options that get you big numbers, and by figuring out the best way to apply those big numbers.
• In Pathfinder 2e, you win the game by applying the right debuffs to your opposition and by smacking them around once they've gotten debuffed enough.
• In Draw Steel, you win the game by synergizing with your team and by using the right ability at the right time, and by using the terrain in the right way (usually by kicking your opponent into it).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Reminds me of 4e. Not my cup of tea. At all.

If you completely hated 4e, I'd say you're unlikely to like PF2e. I'd describe PF2e in many ways as a milder 4e approach that isn't as focused on battleboard manipulation, and didn't overly generalize its non-combat elements, but it still absolutely does want to keep its characters all on the same playing field, and there's prices to doing that.

 

[Tigris]

Reminds me of 4e. Not my cup of tea. At all.

PF2 is built upon 4E. The lead designer of PF2 was the 8th best 4E designer before.

PF2 uses many of 4Es systems and even the main math (encounter building and progression) is the same as 4E just with a factor 2, but combined it with some parts of PF1 ("Vancian casting" with 9 levels of spells).

• general power progression is 4E with a factor of 2 (double power every 2 level instead of every 4)
• encounter building is 4E but with a factor 2 to limit number of monsters which makes it feel more like bullying. In 4E a normal encounter had 1 enemy per player of the same level, PF2 has 1 enemy per 2 players of the same level as the base.
• Adding level to defenses and skills etc is from 4e (just with a factor 2 since 4e added half)
• multiclassing is 4E with feat based
• class progression is heavily inspired by 4E. Every 2 levels you get a new class power (called class feat) and the other levels you get general feats. (just that unlike 4E there are not just feats but more categories)
• chase rules is 4e skill challenges
• etc.

However, PF2 makes the spells and effects on low level way more "grounded" than 4E. So where in 4E a level 1 spell could stun an enemy even a boss for 1+ turns, in PF2 a level 1 spell can maybe "stun" an enemy for 1+ turns, just that in PF2 stun is way way weaker and only is called stun to give the impression that you can stun enemies. Since the enemy will just lose 1 of the 3 actions a turn not all (normally, if you crit maybe 2).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Some of them hate it. I'd argue that's because they've gotten used to casters from the 3e period on being overtuned, but they'll of course disagree.

On the other hand, I'm playing with three people who played a fair bit of PF1e, and at least two of the still play casters fairly often, so I again have to assume its not a complete dealbreaker for such folks.

(As it goes, I'm not intrinsically hostile to casters, but as my statement above indicates, I think 3e and PF1e casters were overtuned (and probably ones in 5e too but I'm going by word-of-mouth there) so if that translates into "anti-caster bias" so be it).

I never played 3e or PF1 as an exercise in system mastery, so I have no personal experience with any of the issues folks have reported over the years. I just like options, and the d20 system gave them to me.

My own preference is for TSR-era D&D and games based on it anyway. Of course, you can't play those wizards in PF2 either.