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

[Justice and Rule]

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.

I mean, I'd honestly say it's way less complicated than 5E because it's just a lot easier to build a functional character, and especially since multi-classing has been properly taken care of. Like, this sort of argument always relies on "The writing is casual, so you know it's simple!" sort of logic instead of looking at all the moving parts of things like 5E and how many unwritten parts are there, especially in regards towards character building or even combat. Like, not having rules around something doesn't necessarily make it simple, it can often make it more complex because you have to adjudicate things on the spot given the circumstances and how to properly balance it with the moment. That can work sometimes, but other times can be a mess.

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

Again, really sounds like someone who has never played the game. PF2 doesn't really require system mastery and honestly kind of bucks it compared to PF1, where you had to have some level of system mastery given how wildly power levels can vary between different builds of the same level.

PF2 overall is more "down to earth" than 5E. And casters for me feel in low levels just weak because their spells mostly just do small numerical modifier and or weak damage.

I mean, this is just not true? Their damage doesn't really compare to martials, but that doesn't mean they do low damage. This feels like an argument made from only reading angry reddit posts and not actually experiencing the game.

If you love getting "the enemy now has -1 to hit" or "martials you get +2 to hit for 1 round!" as a result for casting your rare spell slot, then you will like it. If you expect big flashy effects (in mechanics not just flavour), then you will most likely (like me) be dissapointed.

I feel like you'd actually have to play the game to be disappointed, and you really don't seem like you ever actually tried it.

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.

Bahahahahahahaha

Classes in PF1 are... I wouldn't say balanced. Even trying to fix 3.5E it never seemed to get it from what I've read. What it relied on was system mastery to basically use certain builds to achieve some proper disparity. Which is certainly a kind of game, but it's one I've become way too old for.

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.

You keep talking about these things like they are small, but in the moment they have big consequences and feel cool: staggering a dude for one damage so that he can't do his big boss move feels great, and stacking stuff that doesn't just instant win but still brings around victory.

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

I would say it hands out plenty of powerful things, but it's better balanced in such a way that you can't simply create "I win" cards like a lot of other games like to. Removing things like "Save versus Suck" is great, especially compared to alternatives like Legendary Saves (which still doesn't really address or fix the problem, it just delays it in an incredibly unsatisfying way).

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

Honestly hilarious coming from someone who was talking about how simple the conditions for Attacks of Opportunity were in PF1 compared to PF2.

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.

So a lot of that is highly variable (Like "PF2 has 1 enemy per 2 players of the same level as base" is just a bold assertion, given that a CR-1 monster is a moderate challenge to a single character) but it does have a good amount of inspiration from 4E. Similarly, I would argue the chases aren't skill challenges, but also have a bit of inspiration from things like clocks and other stuff. There's a whole world of stuff with the different subsystems, but saying they got it from 4E misses all the other stuff going on in the space.

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).

Yeah, but for a lot of people "Stunning an enemy or boss for 1+ turns" is a problem, and even places like 5E recognize it with stuff like Legendary Saves. Paralyze is a weaker spell, but it's also a spell that almost always has an effect, unlike Hold which can either win a battle or do nothing.

Also, once again, you don't know the game if you say "If you crit, maybe 2", given that Paralyze on a fail (not a success) deletes an enemy's turn and on a critical failure is ongoing up to 4 rounds. Given that, as you mentioned previously, combat is faster,

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Well, its going to be really hard to compare them to old TSR wizards on any number of levels. Among other things, there was a greater tendency toward "Your stuff is really punchy when you can make it happen" and "higher level spells can be ridiculously OP, if you ever get to see them."

Its really hard to find that entirely virtuous, and I understand why its disappeared from modern design (outside, I presume, some OSR spots).

 

[GMMichael]

They should probably not have been handing out weird stuff like Investigator & Inventor at a taster session.

I read this as "investigator and investor" and didn't even bat an eye. It tells you about my PF2 expectations.

 

[S'mon]

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).

The second character I ever made as a pregen is the most powerful PC in our group, stronger than the minmaxers veteran's PC. I just chose Dwarf Fighter and focused on damage.

So far it feels like the most powerful P2 party would be 3 Fighters and a Cleric. But the encounter math is balanced to not kill a squishy snowflake party, my group of 2F 1C 1W and Monk has been easily trashing Extreme encounters.

 

[BigZebra]

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.


PF2 overall is more "down to earth" than 5E. And casters for me feel in low levels just weak because their spells mostly just do small numerical modifier and or weak damage.


If you love getting "the enemy now has -1 to hit" or "martials you get +2 to hit for 1 round!" as a result for casting your rare spell slot, then you will like it. If you expect big flashy effects (in mechanics not just flavour), then you will most likely (like me) be dissapointed.

This was our experience as well.
I really wanted to like PF2 because I like Paizo and they put out some good content and interesting APs (some of them at least).

But my players just couldn't get "into it". Spending two actions for some (perceived) minor numerical adjustment really didn't inspire them. The group's pre-remaster Warpriest absolutely hated his character and they all were very happy when we returned to 5e after completing Quest for the Frozen Flame.

After playing a 5e campaign, we're now playing PF1 which they also love a lot.

 

[BigZebra]

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

Well IME there's a huge difference.
While 4e was balanced, the characters were heroic as hell.
4e is the "you did whaaaat? cool!"-edition.

Honestly PF2 feels like they wanted to make a version where they combined 4e's balance with 3.5e's number crunching but then left out the fun parts of both systems. Obviously this is just IMO. Many people enjoy PF2, which is awesome because I adore Paizo.

 

[Tigris]

But my players just couldn't get "into it". Spending two actions for some (perceived) minor numerical adjustment really didn't inspire them. The group's pre-remaster Warpriest absolutely hated his character and they all were very happy when we returned to 5e after completing Quest for the Frozen Flame.

Well it makes sense that it is perceived weak, because the numerical adjustments in PF2 are also factually low. As in they are normally 1, the smallest possible modifier, or 2, the second smallest possible modifier.

Of course because how the math works in PF2 these modifiers have bigger effects than in other systems but its still the smallest and second smallest possible modifier and this will always feel weak.

After playing a 5e campaign, we're now playing PF1 which they also love a lot.

Ah thats nice!

Well IME there's a huge difference.
While 4e was balanced, the characters were heroic as hell.
4e is the "you did whaaaat? cool!"-edition.

Yeah I have the same feeling. PF2 uses 4e mechanics, but does not have the heroic feel mechanically.

Honestly PF2 feels like they wanted to make a version where they combined 4e's balance with 3.5e's number crunching but then left out the fun parts of both systems. Obviously this is just IMO. Many people enjoy PF2, which is awesome because I adore Paizo.

Yeah for me PF2 also really feels like it combines the faults (the things I dont like) of both systems. Which is why PF2 for me was such a dissapointment liking both PF1 and 4E.


Of course it has an audience, and its good to have some other companies beside WotC getting some slices of the market.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, its going to be really hard to compare them to old TSR wizards on any number of levels. Among other things, there was a greater tendency toward "Your stuff is really punchy when you can make it happen" and "higher level spells can be ridiculously OP, if you ever get to see them."

Its really hard to find that entirely virtuous, and I understand why its disappeared from modern design (outside, I presume, some OSR spots).

Virtuous? That term seem entirely inappropriate to me. Many OSR games derive their spellcasters from TSR's model, so it's hardly disappeared or is "not virtuous" design, whatever you're trying to have that mean. It's just not as popular a style as it was in decades past. Popularity and value are not connected.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well IME there's a huge difference.
While 4e was balanced, the characters were heroic as hell.
4e is the "you did whaaaat? cool!"-edition.

Honestly PF2 feels like they wanted to make a version where they combined 4e's balance with 3.5e's number crunching but then left out the fun parts of both systems. Obviously this is just IMO. Many people enjoy PF2, which is awesome because I adore Paizo.

Well, fantasy super heroes isn't my cup of tea either. I prefer the OSR playstyle.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The second character I ever made as a pregen is the most powerful PC in our group, stronger than the minmaxers veteran's PC. I just chose Dwarf Fighter and focused on damage.

So far it feels like the most powerful P2 party would be 3 Fighters and a Cleric. But the encounter math is balanced to not kill a squishy snowflake party, my group of 2F 1C 1W and Monk has been easily trashing Extreme encounters.

You'd probably spend a lot of time struggling with some opponents, unless you spread around special materials and magic items very carefully at the very least, and you're still going to run into the issue that mooks are a problem, because the tools for Fighters to take them down are sharply limited. Truth is the various conditions casters drop on opponents is, contrary to what some people think not trivial, and the ability of casters (at least arcanists and primalists) to deal with groups is not a minor factor unless the GM actively avoids putting groups out.

(This is, of course, always one of the issues when discussing PF2e;; a GM or AP that leans heavily into certain kinds of encounter patterns can make some character or group compositions look much stronger or weaker than they are overall. Something as simple as the tendency to (or not to) have outdoor encounters with ranged attackers can change the dynamic notably).