Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?

[nevin]

2e brought a lot of fixes, though some may argue whether they fixed the right things, 1e definitely needs some work.. It just suffers from the same problem 1e already does. They want every single possible thing that could happen to already be adjudicated because of Pathfinder Society. I think they listened to the guys that they make more money from and have more interaction with and were surprised that the base split as bad as everyone else expected. The system is better balanced. Pathfinders fix for everything is arbitrary restrictions that everyone is supposed to be ok with. Some are some aren't. I hope thier player base grows to at least where it was before they split it, but I'll be surprised if that happens. But for the health of the industry I hope they pull it off.

 

[Ancalagon]

Thing is, PF2 is a great improvement over PF1. It was created solely for that reason. The game's ability to compete with 5E seems to have been no consideration at all.

What are the improvements? the 3 action economy sure, that looks great. But what was made better?

 

[Ancalagon]

A few observations. Not 'cause I necessarily I agree with the man (or your transcript rather), but because it's otherwise too easy to write off his criticisms.

First of all, thank you for the detailed reply

At first sight (and really a review can't be expected to look deeper than that) the game comes off as incredibly thought out and tidy. Scratch the surface, and any number of question marks pop up. Kudos to him finding some of them.

I've only read playtest material and it did not do it for me. You are right that a real review takes a lot of work. From what I can see Puffin spent several months playing.

Yeah. 3.x/PF/d20 magic buying is loads of fun, and 5E deciding to drop it like a hot turd is one of the biggest flaws of that edition.

I disagree, we both know that, let's move on

However, he's right it isn't as fun as it could have been. Why? Because while 3e (and 5e!) get magic items right (as opposed to pricing them, in 5e's case) PF2 gets them absolutely wrong. In fact, PF2 brings magic items* back to the 4E nightmare of anemic items that do incredibly little, and often with ridiculous limits on how and when you get the little benefit there is.

Ye-ikes. Weak magical items can be fun if they are very useful or have a lot of "personality". Most of them though... ugh. Even in PF1, we would find items that gave you a +1 bonus vs sleep spell or some nonsense... sell it and move on.

Assuming he's not maths-averse, that is. Like I said, this game absolutely requires players quick at doing basic algebra in their head. If you're not comfortable calculating 33+2-1+3+1-4+1=? in your head multiple times each round*, PF2 isn't for you. There are no shortcuts or easy cheatsheets.

You simply must be math-friendly. (Don't trust anyone downplaying this!) Luckily most PF1 fans, clearly Paizo's target demographic, seem to have no problems with this. (Me and our group are all a bunch of tech-loving nerds with Int as our by far best ability so this isn't a problem for us)

I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I think this is a serious problem. Because it isn't just about you, the player, being math friendly. Everyone in the party has to. If you have one player who's bad at math - and I know a few - it slows down the system tremendously.

Let's say that the odds of being bad at math is 1/6. The odds of a group of 6 people having no one bad at math is, if I didn't get the math wrong ha, about 33%....

 

[Green Onceler]

What are the improvements? the 3 action economy sure, that looks great.

People always cite this as some compelling reason to embrace the Second Edition, but it's been available for First Edition Pathfinder since 2015.

 

[Celtavian]

I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I think this is a serious problem. Because it isn't just about you, the player, being math friendly. Everyone in the party has to. If you have one player who's bad at math - and I know a few - it slows down the system tremendously.

Let's say that the odds of being bad at math is 1/6. The odds of a group of 6 people having no one bad at math is, if I didn't get the math wrong ha, about 33%....

I am not sure anyone says you need to be good at math at any of these games. Unless you're playing with someone who can't do multiplication-division-addition-subtraction, you'll be fine.

The game isn't algebra. It's adding and subtracting small modifiers. The game is balanced enough forgetting a modifier or bonus here and there won't change much. Happens to me all the time, game runs fine. It's not as simple as advantage/disadvantage, but it's not hard either.

Most conditions apply a status bonus or penalty which do not stack with other status bonuses or penalties. So if they have one condition, you go with the highest number.

Circumstance bonuses the same. If they're already flat-footed somehow they take a =2 circumstance penalty to their AC. If nothing else provides a circumstance penalty higher, you don't worry about it.

Then item bonuses like a +1 sword or an innate item bonus to a bomb. If the item bonus isn't higher, then you don't worry about it.

If you can find someone to play it with, give it a shot. See you like it. I read the game and didn't like it after reading it. Then I played it and am having a blast. I haven't done homebrewing in 20 plus years because most of these games make it too hard and unsatisfying to homebrew. When you spend hours working on something and the party just uses a bunch of poorly designed mechanical advantages in a game system to destroy it with fair ease, you don't much feel like spending your time homebrewing or arguing with players about over-powered options. Now I have this game that somehow made all the math work to make things challenging across levels and I feel like homebrewing is worth my time again. I can make things within the recommended math and they will provide a substantial and interesting challenge for my players without having to resort to trick environments or what not. The monsters do the job regardless of how the characters build their characters. They have to work for a win. No more gaming the system to get the win.

 

[Ancalagon]

Unless you're playing with someone who can't do multiplication-division-addition-subtraction, you'll be fine.

The game isn't algebra. It's adding and subtracting small modifiers.

You clearly haven't played with people who can't do quick additions and subtractions. I know a few - I know because I've gamed with them.

 

[CapnZapp]

What are the improvements? the 3 action economy sure, that looks great. But what was made better?

Martial/mundane characters are no longer the laughing stock of magical/spellcasting characters. While I prefer 5Es solution to the LFQW problem, at least Paizo too solves it. (I like how Paizo preserves the role of Strength and melee better than 5E, but I like 5Es restrictions on magic better than PF2s)

NPCs are no longer a nightmare to create. Just like 5E, monsters are not governed by the detailed rules that define player characters. (Here PF2 has the clear advantage over 5E)

These are the two big ones. In fact each one is super huge all by itself. Each change is all by itself worth the price of admission.

Then there's a multitude of other things, but nothing that can compare to these (and some of which you could argue isn't an improvement at all).

But fixing magic and NPCs were absolutely essential, and it is no surprise both Paizo and WotC have abandoned the old ways of 3E/d20.

---

Of course, fixing this in 2019 is not nearly as impressive as fixing them in 2015. That is, I'm only counting them as improvements over PF1, not advantages over the competition. Which is a big problem - PF2 comes across as a game created in a world where 5E simply hasn't happened.

 

[CapnZapp]

Let's say that the odds of being bad at math is 1/6. The odds of a group of 6 people having no one bad at math is, if I didn't get the math wrong ha, about 33%....

Lol

In the general population, I think the ratio is rather reversed.

Even in the highly specific group of "crunchy-minded role-players" I think you're generous.

In the population of people liking PF2, on the other hand, I'd say the ratio is close to 0%... simply because the game would have driven you away if you didn't do math!

 

[CapnZapp]

First of all, thank you for the detailed reply



I've only read playtest material and it did not do it for me. You are right that a real review takes a lot of work. From what I can see Puffin spent several months playing.



I disagree, we both know that, let's move on



Ye-ikes. Weak magical items can be fun if they are very useful or have a lot of "personality". Most of them though... ugh. Even in PF1, we would find items that gave you a +1 bonus vs sleep spell or some nonsense... sell it and move on.

Thank you. (Doing multi quotes on the app is just not feasible so you'll get this in a chunky backass order)

Ayup. Since Paizo is all about balance in PF2, you'll see no awesome magic items such as those offered by 3E or 5E. Your +1 sleep is exactly what you'll find in PF2, items that give a small boost to your existing abilities.

The closest thing to an exception regards non-numerical abilities. Flight, for instance, can still be had, even though it's an awesome game changer. But any time you can put a number on it, you get no more than +3, and that only at the highest levels.

Now you might think of striking runes and how you can get lots of extra weapon damage dice. Yes, compared to other items they come across as mind-blowingly powerful. The secret there, of course, is that they're accounted for by the game's monster math.

In fact, check out the automatic bonus progression variant of the GMG (all rules are available online for free) and you'll realize that NO magic item is meant to get you ahead of the curve; give you abilities no other character of your level can have.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am not sure anyone says you need to be good at math at any of these games. Unless you're playing with someone who can't do multiplication-division-addition-subtraction, you'll be fine.

The game isn't algebra. It's adding and subtracting small modifiers. The game is balanced enough forgetting a modifier or bonus here and there won't change much. Happens to me all the time, game runs fine. It's not as simple as advantage/disadvantage, but it's not hard either.

Most conditions apply a status bonus or penalty which do not stack with other status bonuses or penalties. So if they have one condition, you go with the highest number.

Circumstance bonuses the same. If they're already flat-footed somehow they take a =2 circumstance penalty to their AC. If nothing else provides a circumstance penalty higher, you don't worry about it.

Then item bonuses like a +1 sword or an innate item bonus to a bomb. If the item bonus isn't higher, then you don't worry about it.

If you can find someone to play it with, give it a shot. See you like it. I read the game and didn't like it after reading it. Then I played it and am having a blast. I haven't done homebrewing in 20 plus years because most of these games make it too hard and unsatisfying to homebrew. When you spend hours working on something and the party just uses a bunch of poorly designed mechanical advantages in a game system to destroy it with fair ease, you don't much feel like spending your time homebrewing or arguing with players about over-powered options. Now I have this game that somehow made all the math work to make things challenging across levels and I feel like homebrewing is worth my time again. I can make things within the recommended math and they will provide a substantial and interesting challenge for my players without having to resort to trick environments or what not. The monsters do the job regardless of how the characters build their characters. They have to work for a win. No more gaming the system to get the win.

The whole point of the game is that every +1 matters.

I disagree with you on every level here, Celtavian. The game is super calibrated and balanced around the fact that even +1 is a big deal, so playing it fast and loose makes no sense to me.

You are absolutely meant to treat a +1 (or -1 to the enemy) as a big deal. Entire actions, spells and builds are devoted to squeezing that extra +1 or +2 out of your combat turn. Intimidation, flanking, debugged; it's all on the scale of little +1s adding up to a decisive advantage.

Monsters are dangerous and deadly in this game. Official encounters feature brutally difficult combats. Not caring about that +1 or -1 can and will kill you.

You are right in one instance though:

I stand corrected, I meant arithmetics, not algebra.