Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?

[Parmandur]

I'd argue the point that by the time PF2 was being worked on (2017 into 2019); everyone was well aware that 5e was a massive success. The design team could have iterated on PF1 and borrowed many of the popular design evolutions of 5E.

Making a system with a large amount of customizable pieces and then making those pieces meaningful without making the combat calculation require 4-6 modifiers per attack is certainly a difficult target to hit, but that would be the requirement to make a meaningful upgrade on PF1 while borrowing some of 5E's simple tableside play.

IIRC, the PF2 devs actually expressed a lack of familiarity with 5E, so learning from the advances was apparently just not on their agenda. Pity.

 

[Teemu]

I’ve been reading up on PF2 lately, more thoroughly this time. I like some parts yet other parts turn me off. But I know that reading the rules isn’t the same as playing them. I’m torn whether I should give the game a go or not. Note that I’m talking from the perspective of a GM.

I watched the video and he brought up some points that I was already iffy about. Like enemies that use shields. If I include 3 foes with shields, do I really have to keep track of the shields’ stats too? Isn’t that horribly fiddly? And all the NPCs and monsters seem to use the exact same rules for weapons that PCs use, so the complex situational bonuses like forceful and such are expected to be tracked by the GM too? Isn’t that really tough on the GM who’s already juggling many other conditional things?

Another thing I disliked when reading are some of the skill feats. An entire feat to read things upside down (among other benefits)? A feat to make a check or two to find out about nearby creatures (Survey Wilderness or something)? Why so specific? To me it looks like PF2 has doubled down on the 5e feats like Actor and Keen Mind that seem to shut off spontaneous use of skills beyond the skill descriptions, where the players can describe what they’re attempting, and the GM applies a skill or ability check. Is this an issue in play?

Also, PF2 really seems to like specific subsystems (infiltration, chases, social stuff, etc.) rather than a more general resolution system. I’m worried that it’s tougher to resolve non-combat challenges because you need to resort to these different subsystems instead using a more abstract resolution mechanic. I like that PF2 gives concrete guidelines on what constitutes an easy vs hard non-combat challenge, but I’m not sure if I’ll like all the different systems for them.

For example, I really like 4e’s skill challenges because it’s an easy to use general framework for setting the difficulty of chases, social encounters, exploration challenges and so on. It’s something I miss when running 5e because I often have no idea how to set the DCs of several checks in order to achieve a “difficult” challenge versus a “moderate” challenge. I just wing it, but the rules offer no assistance apart from setting the DC for singular checks. But is PF2 more complex without offering the adequate rewards in exchange for that complexity?

 

[Retreater]

I get the 3 action economy is great
and that people t(Players like, me option but are they more than +1 and +2s?)

But what really is the gm part
how flexible is it to gm how fast can I adapt scenario or monster on the table based on player choices
how far and smooth runs dming

how easy/quick is basic prep

what is it about PF2 that would make me run it as a GM/DM over 5 I have little interest in being a player so it stands and falls with this

I'll do my best to answer (as someone who GMs a biweekly game that is currently at 8th level).

The adaptation part should be about the same as what you would do to adapt any similar game. You can use level-based DCs to set the challenge level for skill tests (or look in the rulebook to see if there is a specific DC). You get an encounter budget based on how difficult you want the encounter to be, but you can pretty much take the template of how many creatures and swap them out for the same level creatures. (Like if you knew the fight was supposed to be 2 level 6 Ettins but the group went in a different direction, find something else level 6 to replace it on the fly.)

I do next to no "basic prep." I run an adventure path. The monsters' abilities are all pretty much lined out in the monster entry. Roll dice and have fun. (There are a lot of conditions that get thrown around, so having the condition card deck has been very helpful to me.)

So here's what I like about it as a GM/DM (compared to 5e):
1) My players like it. Since they're invested, that helps me.
2) There is already close to as many options for monsters, spells, magic items, etc., available for PF2 than official 5e content, and...
3) It's basically free, using Archives of Nethys. You can search for any monster stat, spell, magic item, etc.
4) Every encounter is dynamic and interesting. I haven't had a bad one yet - in 8 levels.

 

[billd91]

IIRC, the PF2 devs actually expressed a lack of familiarity with 5E, so learning from the advances was apparently just not on their agenda. Pity.

Honestly, I doubt they were unfamiliar. I think there'd be problems with people in an industry being unfamiliar with the 800 lb gorilla in their midst. I would buy that they didn't have much in-depth knowledge and experience, but unfamiliarity doesn't seem credible

But I would definitely believe that they were already on a separate, generally incompatible, philosophical direction in their design - rather than taking the step back from defining everything and relying on DM adjudication that 5e has taken, they were already committed to tighter definitions and structure to fight ambiguity.

 

[dave2008]

5e because I often have no idea how to set the DCs of several checks in order to achieve a “difficult” challenge versus a “moderate” challenge. I just wing it, but the rules offer no assistance apart from setting the DC for singular checks.

That information is in the 5e DMG pg 238: Difficulty Class. There is also "Social Interaction," on pg 244 that provides a framework. Though it is geared to social "skill challenges," the concept is easy to adapt to other types. There is also "Improvising Damage," and "Damage Severity by Level" on pg 249 which I find helpful for these types of things too. Finally "Chases" on pg 252 provides another framework for resolving "skill challenges."

 

[Parmandur]

Honestly, I doubt they were unfamiliar. I think there'd be problems with people in an industry being unfamiliar with the 800 lb gorilla in their midst. I would buy that they didn't have much in-depth knowledge and experience, but unfamiliarity doesn't seem credible

But I would definitely believe that they were already on a separate, generally incompatible, philosophical direction in their design - rather than taking the step back from defining everything and relying on DM adjudication that 5e has taken, they were already committed to tighter definitions and structure to fight ambiguity.

Well, obviously, they've heard of the game, but there were some instances when people asked questions during the playtest comparing it to 5E where the answers indicated they had no idea what 5E did in the same place.

 

[Teemu]

That information is in the 5e DMG pg 238: Difficulty Class. There is also "Social Interaction," on pg 244 that provides a framework. Though it is geared to social "skill challenges," the concept is easy to adapt to other types. There is also "Improvising Damage," and "Damage Severity by Level" on pg 249 which I find helpful for these types of things too. Finally "Chases" on pg 252 provides another framework for resolving "skill challenges."

Oh I know. That’s why I mentioned singular checks. But if I ask for 4 checks total for a particular task (encompassing different skills/abilities), the 5e rules don’t offer any guidance on how to set those DCs in order to achieve the desired result. Like, if I ask for four DC 15 checks, versus six DC 12 checks, and so on. I miss that guidance running 5e, compared to 4e (and consider that early 4e was lambasted for getting the math wrong for series of checks, yet in 5e I’m supposed to wing it...).

And the 5e chases are like all the different subsystems of PF2 I’m worried about. It’s easier as a GM when there’s a unified resolution mechanic for most things outside combat since it’s faster to adjudicate and resolve them during play.

 

[dave2008]

Well, obviously, they've heard of the game, but there were some instances when people asked questions during the playtest comparing it to 5E where the answers indicated they had no idea what 5E did in the same place.

This of course assumes they were being honest. I remember feeling like they were saying things just to claim some sort of higher ground. That of course doesn't make it so, it was just the oddness of their responses to such inquiries that (at the time), made me feel it was a bit of a forced response.

 

[dave2008]

It’s easier as a GM when there’s a unified resolution mechanic for most things outside combat since it’s faster to adjudicate and resolve them during play.

I get your point in general, but for me. as the DM, it is easier just wing it. Not that I wouldn't mind a unified frame work (and really 5e is set up do this really well, WotC just hasn't provided clear direction.), but it would not be easier for me. Simple DC like pg 238 is all I need really

 

[GungHo]

The invisibility spell gives the invisibility condition
The invisibility condition says you have the undetected condition
The undetected conditions means that enemies attacking you have the flat footed condition and furthermore, they have a 50/50 miss chance

I, too, was a bit worried about playing a SQL database when I started the PF2 transition. It is quite a bit faster once you build the "links" in your head (invisibility/sneaking is pretty easy to path because so many things do this, as are things like poisoning, etc), but there's still things you sometimes have to look up. The word soup is clarified quite a bit since you know exactly where to go look it up. I do not know if they did this to help with future automation, but it sure makes it easy if you want to go that route.