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

[Thomas Shey]

My experience is the gunslinger was awful. They deal pitiful damage when they don't crit, and you simply don't crit much vs bosses. Having random spike damage is probably the worst form of DPS. Any amount that puts the enemy below 0 doesnt count, so when you crit that mook for 30 and he has 10 HP... you only did 10. They are mainly "good"at shooting minions, but because the crits are so random with the spread damage they deal, they arent even reliable at killing them.

We houseruled dual pistols to only take one action to reload and the gunslinger was still dead last in our Outlaws of Alkenstar game. The ORACLE outdamaged me, largely thanks to electric arc and nearly everything being vulnerable to electric and resistant to physical.

I think when looking back over the whole run of the character I can't support "awful", but there are definitely problems with them as they were written. I don't think they're minion-only killers, but there's no question that once you hit a boss you're contributing less than other people unless that minimum crit chance comes up, and you just can't assume that (especially since PF2e combats often run less rounds than a lot of D&D-adjacents do). Your situation is a bit of an outlier from what your last paragraph says, though, so it may have colored your view.

 

[Incenjucar]

Casters frequently use control rather than damage. Simply conjuring a rock can end an encounter.

 

[Justice and Rule]

My experience is the gunslinger was awful. They deal pitiful damage when they don't crit, and you simply don't crit much vs bosses. Having random spike damage is probably the worst form of DPS. Any amount that puts the enemy below 0 doesnt count, so when you crit that mook for 30 and he has 10 HP... you only did 10. They are mainly "good"at shooting minions, but because the crits are so random with the spread damage they deal, they arent even reliable at killing them.

We houseruled dual pistols to only take one action to reload and the gunslinger was still dead last in our Outlaws of Alkenstar game. The ORACLE outdamaged me, largely thanks to electric arc and nearly everything being vulnerable to electric and resistant to physical.

This would be post-Remaster, which may have helped a bit. But also his luck seems damn good and he edges out crits like nobody's business. I do sometimes wonder if he'd do better if he were using, say, a crossbow instead, but people want to sling guns with gunslingers. Definitely don't see him underperforming the casters of the group, I can say that much.

 

[dave2008]

Just killing the weaker damage dealing, generally less important NPC's l, is the definition of clean up crew. Kill the small ones so melee can have the heroic moment with the big ones. Meshes perfectly with the PF2 design focus of all non melee's just being support for melee.

Sounds like the best design philosophy to me! It is a wonder that I am not a PF2r fan!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Edit: Just realized I not only responded to an old post, but one I'd already responded to previously in this thread. Need more hot chocolate...

 

[FrozenNorth]

The long and the short of it is, that while it does have a few strengths over D&D, I came out of it less interested in PF than I was beforehand.

I wince in sympathy. PF2 is pretty heavy to run from the DM side, and that combined with the tight math can mean that DM mistakes can greatly impact players’ enjoyment.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wince in sympathy. PF2 is pretty heavy to run from the DM side, and that combined with the tight math can mean that DM mistakes can greatly impact players’ enjoyment.

While not untrue, it also makes there less of a guessing game about how to set up opponents and the numbers for situations in an appropriate way. Most of the cases where there's problems that come up here I see come from people not taking things like its encounter math seriously (often, in part, because they come from things like D&D3/PF1 or at least the earlier D&D5 encounter rules, where everyone learns to not take them seriously because they don't really work, and tendeng to up-level encounters because they watch ones build by the book as jokes. Do that with PF2e and the PCs may well get their heads handed to them).

Its not a system you can get super free-and-easy with either, until you're very familiar with it; one of the reasons those numbers do work is that there's less give in the system than in some D&Doids.

 

[FrozenNorth]

While not untrue, it also makes there less of a guessing game about how to set up opponents and the numbers for situations in an appropriate way. Most of the cases where there's problems that come up here I see come from people not taking things like its encounter math seriously (often, in part, because they come from things like D&D3/PF1 or at least the earlier D&D5 encounter rules, where everyone learns to not take them seriously because they don't really work, and tendeng to up-level encounters because they watch ones build by the book as jokes. Do that with PF2e and the PCs may well get their heads handed to them).

I think this is overly reductionist in the ways DMs can make mistakes. Yes, DMs can make mistakes by throwing fights that are too tough against the party (as several early modules did) or by combining encounters because they didn’t understand encounter math.

But it is a heavy game for a DM to run, and there are nigh infinite ways for DMs make mistakes that severely impact players’ enjoyment:

• including characters which require specialized mechanics and not supporting them (the example in the OP);
• failing to provide sufficient Hero Points;
• When a character is downed failing to change their initiative;
• invalidating a character’s choice of feats that modify the Influence action and other actions;
• A DM who misreads monster star blocks can make them much more piwerful than they are supposed to be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think this is overly reductionist in the ways DMs can make mistakes. Yes, DMs can make mistakes by throwing fights that are too tough against the party (as several early modules did) or by combining encounters because they didn’t understand encounter math.

But it is a heavy game for a DM to run, and there are nigh infinite ways for DMs make mistakes that severely impact players’ enjoyment:

• including characters which require specialized mechanics and not supporting them (the example in the OP);
• failing to provide sufficient Hero Points;
• When a character is downed failing to change their initiative;
• invalidating a character’s choice of feats that modify the Influence action and other actions;
• A DM who misreads monster star blocks can make them much more piwerful than they are supposed to be.

5.5 has Hero Points?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think this is overly reductionist in the ways DMs can make mistakes. Yes, DMs can make mistakes by throwing fights that are too tough against the party (as several early modules did) or by combining encounters because they didn’t understand encounter math.

It might be somewhat reductionist, but I keep hitting people who've clearly done that, so I think the problem is still pretty common, because, unsurprisingly, PF2e keeps acquiring people who've mostly played games where the build guidelines don't work.

But it is a heavy game for a DM to run, and there are nigh infinite ways for DMs make mistakes that severely impact players’ enjoyment:

• including characters which require specialized mechanics and not supporting them (the example in the OP);
• failing to provide sufficient Hero Points;

I'm not sold most games need a lot of hero points, though they can be a good backup against misadventure in dice.

• When a character is downed failing to change their initiative;
• invalidating a character’s choice of feats that modify the Influence action and other actions;
• A DM who misreads monster star blocks can make them much more piwerful than they are supposed to be.

I don't disagree with the third, but I'm not even sure what the first two mean, let alone whether they're critical to the function of the game.