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

[The-Magic-Sword]

You don't need a mystery or a gm designated investigation to pursue a lead.

The strategic strike feature brings you up over a class that doesn't get a damage bonus the same way rogue sneak attack does.

The strength of Devise is also that you can guesstimate whether you hit before you commit to attacking, so you could use the actions for something else.

 

[Staffan]

Different people are going to like different things. The 3-action economy felt like a good process once I got used to it, and I know others who felt the same; among other things it provides the tools for certain tactics and decisions that the more typical standard/move/quick action type arrangements don't. But that doesn't mean it works for everyone.

I think the 3-action economy is basically a good idea, for things like "Raise shield, Stride, Strike" or "Recall Knowledge, Cast spell." However, it can occasionally be overly restrictive. For example, if your hands are occupied, walking through a closed door is a 4-action process: Stride up to the door, drop your weapon as a free action, Interact to open the door, pick up the weapon, and Stride through the door. To some degree it also sometimes feels like some things are overly restrictive just because that lets them introduce feats that bypass those restrictions.

One thing I'd like to see in PF2 is a series of classes that's the reverse of the Kineticist. The Kineticist was created for the mechanical niche of "spellcaster that doesn't use daily resources" – so their abilities are less flexible and less powerful than those of a spell-slot caster, because they can do it all day long. I'd like to see the reverse: a martial class (or several) that does use limited resources and thus gets to do Awesome Stuff that's not just bigger numbers.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well this person was speaking from a DM perspective and being able to threaten their PCs

Notably, as you progress along the learning curve, the element of luck they're discussing doesn't persist. Speaking from experience, my players handle the +4 solo bosses fairly consistently, they remain scary but can be finessed.

REALLY bad streaks can still get you though.

I should also note:

Targeting the Moderate Save of a +3 Creature:
They have a 5% chance to roll a nat 1 and take double damage
They have a 20% chance to take full damage, by rolling 2-5
They have a 25% chance to take nothing, by rolling a 16 or higher.
They have a 50% chance to take half, by rolling 6-15
In aggregate they have a 75% chance of doing something to each target.

Casting at the Low Save of a +3 Creature is even better:
They have a 5% chance to roll a nat 1 and take double damage
They have a 35% chance to take full damage by rolling 2-8
They have a 10% chance to take nothing by rolling a 19-20
They have a 50% chance to take half, by rolling 9-18
In aggregate they have a 90% chance of doing something to each target, with a notable increase in the odds of doing full damage, primarily at the expense of your odds of doing nothing.

is the actual math at play against bosses, since its hard to do full damage to bosses, you have to wear them down until someone gets some big hits in, which is usually a team effort to set up. save or sucks have worse chances than other spells do, however, but unleashing a lightning bolt on a dragon, casting fear on a giant or something generally looks like this. If you do use cantrips, that's strictly suboptimal, since they scale so much worse.

 

[dave2008]

yes. I really like this element and the tiered saves also. There are some great ideas in it.
To me the actions systems for both PF and PF2E are good, with a slight edge to PF2E.

I have been thinking about using a modified 3 action system where you get your base movement for free (and like 5e can use it before, in-between, or after your actions). You then spend your action points on actions like PF2, but you also need to spend an action point on reactions. So no action points left - no reaction!

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Really depends on what you want the feel to be? I found boss solos to be disappointing because the tight level math. Saves for example, for a solo boss are gonna be so high you have a 10-20% chance of a spell landing. So, instead of going with really cool spells, you go with cantrips that might have a slightly inconvenient rider to slow the boss down. Maybe take out one of its three actions so it cant clobber your martial characters too badly. Speaking of which, since the crit system is <10>, it means that the boss is gonna hit on attacks, thats not even a question, but what is up for die roll is if its going to be a critical hit or not. Something, again, the PCs have a tiny chance of happening on their behalf.

The people I play PF2 with also have experience with many other game systems, which helps a lot. For example, Fate handles solos pretty similarly -- they are very hard to affect and very hard to defend against without assistance -- you need to build advantages.

For me, this is a good feature. I like cooperative play in D&D, so rather than a system that rewards everyone doing their own thing and ignoring everyone else, I prefer one like this, where players are expected to coöperate with each other. I've played a couple of 1-20 PF campaigns, and whenever you see a solo, you know that you need to work as a team to defeat it. In our games this would be a very normal conversation:

"I can attempt an intimidate if you want to wait for that"
"Hang on, if you go after me I can give it an evil eye and make the intimidate easier with some luck"
"Sounds good -- I'll stand 15' in front of it and ready my shield. that'll use up its actions and with luck I won't take a crit"

Ranged people would be spending actions to hide and get that advantage, and spell-casters would be buffing and making terrain effects rather than the traditional alpha-strike damage dealing attack.

I played an investigator in one of the 1-20 campaigns and that was a GREAT class for handling solos. I'd devise a stratagem, and if that looked capable of hitting the (high) defense of the creature, I'd do it, otherwise help someone else.

The big downside is, of course, that if you have players who don't want to play a team game, you are in trouble. For a campaign, they will quickly work it out, but in a con game or one-shot it can be bad. I'd tend to avoid using solos in one-shots for that reason.

 

[payn]

The people I play PF2 with also have experience with many other game systems, which helps a lot. For example, Fate handles solos pretty similarly -- they are very hard to affect and very hard to defend against without assistance -- you need to build advantages.

For me, this is a good feature. I like cooperative play in D&D, so rather than a system that rewards everyone doing their own thing and ignoring everyone else, I prefer one like this, where players are expected to coöperate with each other. I've played a couple of 1-20 PF campaigns, and whenever you see a solo, you know that you need to work as a team to defeat it. In our games this would be a very normal conversation:

"I can attempt an intimidate if you want to wait for that"
"Hang on, if you go after me I can give it an evil eye and make the intimidate easier with some luck"
"Sounds good -- I'll stand 15' in front of it and ready my shield. that'll use up its actions and with luck I won't take a crit"

Ranged people would be spending actions to hide and get that advantage, and spell-casters would be buffing and making terrain effects rather than the traditional alpha-strike damage dealing attack.

I played an investigator in one of the 1-20 campaigns and that was a GREAT class for handling solos. I'd devise a stratagem, and if that looked capable of hitting the (high) defense of the creature, I'd do it, otherwise help someone else.

Im of two minds. I do agree, I like the co-operative aspect and tactical set up. On the other hand, I do not appreciate having my crit chances be reduced and the enemy increased to make it seem more challenging. Scoring a massive hit and landing a whammy spell are a lot of fun for me, particularly in a set piece battle. So, its not so much I think PF2 mechanics are bad, its more an opinion of taste.

The big downside is, of course, that if you have players who don't want to play a team game, you are in trouble. For a campaign, they will quickly work it out, but in a con game or one-shot it can be bad. I'd tend to avoid using solos in one-shots for that reason.

This is what worries me. I dont know a ton of tactical minded gamers that want to invest in the knowledge to be good at this. A lot of them just want to unwind every week or two and PF2 requires just a bit more than the average person might want to invest. Though, it certainly differentiates PF play from D&D play so I know longer see PF as a copy even if its in the same fantasy vein. That is surely a good thing fro the brand and its fans.

 

[Staffan]

Targeting the Moderate Save of a +3 Creature:
They have a 5% chance to roll a nat 1 and take double damage
They have a 20% chance to take full damage, by rolling 2-5
They have a 25% chance to take nothing, by rolling a 16 or higher.
They have a 50% chance to take half, by rolling 6-15
In aggregate they have a 75% chance of doing something to each target.

Casting at the Low Save of a +3 Creature is even better:
They have a 5% chance to roll a nat 1 and take double damage
They have a 35% chance to take full damage by rolling 2-8
They have a 10% chance to take nothing by rolling a 19-20
They have a 50% chance to take half, by rolling 9-18
In aggregate they have a 90% chance of doing something to each target, with a notable increase in the odds of doing full damage, primarily at the expense of your odds of doing nothing.

Note that if you try using an Incapacitation effect on a strong creature, those odds become much, MUCH worse. For the moderate save, you get:

• 5% chance of having the "normal" effect (which is usually nasty but not overwhelming – for example, paralyze paralyzes you for 1 round).
• 20% to take a highly reduced effect (Stunned 1 for paralyze, costing them the ability to react until their turn as well as one action)
• 75% of being like the goggles, doing nothing.
• If you hit their low save, the latter two categories become 35% and 60%.

And many of the really interesting spells are incapacitation spells – particularly the ones you'd want to cast on a boss to give your party a fighting chance.

 

[BryonD]

I have been thinking about using a modified 3 action system where you get your base movement for free (and like 5e can use it before, in-between, or after your actions). You then spend your action points on actions like PF2, but you also need to spend an action point on reactions. So no action points left - no reaction!

The party champion will HATE this. They are hurting for reactions as it is.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Note that if you try using an Incapacitation effect on a strong creature, those odds become much, MUCH worse. For the moderate save, you get:

• 5% chance of having the "normal" effect (which is usually nasty but not overwhelming – for example, paralyze paralyzes you for 1 round).
• 20% to take a highly reduced effect (Stunned 1 for paralyze, costing them the ability to react until their turn as well as one action)
• 75% of being like the goggles, doing nothing.
• If you hit their low save, the latter two categories become 35% and 60%.

And many of the really interesting spells are incapacitation spells – particularly the ones you'd want to cast on a boss to give your party a fighting chance.

I will say, I disagree, I know they're meta in other similar games, but I find that it's no great loss to skip out on some spells for those targets in favor of non-incap equivalents. Like, yeah, if you could get them on a boss it'd practically end the fight, but that was also the problem they were solving. Casting condition spells that aren't incap is plenty to give your party a fighting chance, and so is a density of high-damage spells.

Fear/Slow/Befuddle being some low level go-tos for similar effects, and giving way to powerful debuffs like Mask of Terror at high levels, or multitasking like Agonizing Despair.

My parties def have fighting chances XD

 

[payn]

I will say, I disagree, I know they're meta in other similar games, but I find that it's no great loss to skip out on some spells for those targets in favor of non-incap equivalents. Like, yeah, if you could get them on a boss it'd practically end the fight, but that was also the problem they were solving. Casting condition spells that aren't incap is plenty to give your party a fighting chance, and so is a density of high-damage spells.

Fear/Slow/Befuddle being some low level go-tos for similar effects, and giving way to powerful debuffs like Mask of Terror at high levels, or multitasking like Agonizing Despair.

My parties def have fighting chances XD

Id have remedied this with the 4E bloodied mechanic instead. Save or Suck only work to devastating effect on a bloodied target (NPC or PC). Giving fights a sort of two stage approach. Though I get what Paizo went for here and I prefer it over 5E legendary actions and lairs.