Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?

[willrali]

Yes, I've actually printed out and digitally distributed to my players a nicely written-up pamphlet with the conditions on it. It's been a godsend and really speeds things up. At first I loathed the continual referring of spells and abilities to these, but it actually makes good sense after a while. There being so many makes the learning curve steeper, but adds a lot of flavor and variation to the game while keeping it tight and fair.

Also helped to have a write-up with all the different actions characters can take. These, with some flow-charts to help with decisions and sequencing, have greatly simplified the game. (I've promised my flowcharts to another poster here... working on it.)

I do wish Paizo had rethought organizing and presenting the game.

 

[Philip Benz]

We use the Paizo condition cards, and they generally clear up any confusion. This said, our campaign has only reached 3rd level so far (after a long COVID break from the game) so I'm sure we'll see more and more conditions pop up.

Also, since my players are all new to PF2, we have not made extensive use of things like weapon properties, and nobody has played a ranger yet, so we're mostly on the simpler side of things.

My feeling is that, as our campaign continues, we will grapple with more and more details, and get used to adding relevant modifiers on the fly.

To address the original question on this thread, I feel that video review of PF2 is exaggerated and unfair, even if the points it raises are not necessarily wrong, as such. I enjoy the unified level-based proficiency system in PF2, and the way it ties together all rolls, from saving throws, to skills to attack rolls, to armor class to spell attacks. After many years of playing DD3, DD3.5 and PF1, I find PF2 to be more intuitive and less mind-numbingly complex. Just the opposite reaction of this reviewer.

 

[Celtavian]

Technically, a character could have : a status bonus, a circumstance bonus, an item bonus, an untyped bonus, a status penalty, a circumstance penalty, an item penalty and a MAP penalty.

The enemy the character is trying to hit could also have a status bonus, a circumstance bonus, an item bonus, a status penalty, a circumstance penalty and item penalty.

Frankly, I think it is more productive to speak in terms of actual play. From my experience (<4 level and characters that didn’t use a lot of buffs or debuffs), every turn there were 2 or 3 effects in play + MAP.

True.

Untyped is very rare which is why I don't mention it too much. I think it only applies to sorcerer bloodline damage bonuses and pick crits. Those are the only two I think I've seen in the game. MAP is pretty easy to calculate most of the time. As a DM I mostly deal with circumstance bonuses or penalties or a status bonus of penalty if we are talking round to round in game play with MAP. You do have to read an ability closely to see how and when MAP applies. Some abilities don't apply MAP until they are finished or apply differently. You do have to read that part closely to adjust for MAP (Multiple Attack Penalty).

Most of my players work their MAP out in advance. As a DM you definitely have to look for that word Agile or read an ability to see how MAP works for the ability.

 

[Celtavian]

Okay.

But how does "you won't break the game by forgetting a modifier" counter my claim?

You still want to remember to add most of them, and just because you forgot once doesn't mean you'll want forget about them entirely.

It's not as if the game offers an "easy" mode. You are absolutely expected to spend entire strategies on how to slap a -1 on your enemies, since that has a real effect.

Counters? It doesn't need to counter. You were implying far too much into what I wrote. You can very much miss a modifier or some ability during a round and not ruin the experience of the game. That in no way means play the game fast and loose making modifiers meaningless. It means don't beat yourself up if you miss something. It's not rocket science. If you or your players aren't exact every round, the game doesn't suddenly become overly easy or overly hard.

I've missed a concealment check or frightened or sickened condition here or there, it hasn't ruined the overall experience of the game. Not sure how you turned that into a "play the game fast and loose" situation. It's an RPG. Play it in a way that is fun, don't get overly caught up in every small rule. PF2 doesn't break if you miss something. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Jaeger]

I don't have 47 minutes spare to watch it, unfortunately. Any chance of a synopsis of the main points?

What does it say for those of us preferring the written word and/or not having 40 minutes of time?

There's nothing to watch - the same graphic stays on the screen the whole time. it's basically a podcast.

 

[Celtavian]

No.

This game clearly expects it's customers to have no problems doing math in their heads, to a significantly higher level than 5th Edition.

Claiming anything else is just misleading.

There's enough exceptions that the "three weapon lines" idea didn't pan out in practice for us. Part of the fun of playing a weapon wielder is the feats that let you vary your routine.

Then there's special weapon traits that come across as incredibly petty for a 5E gamer, but here are clearly intended to be a meaningful addition to your offensive.

Take Sweep for instance. If you switch targets with an axe, you get a +1. In practice, this means you make one attack at +0 then a second at -4 instead of -5.

Definitely don't play a Ranger if you plan on having one line for every possible attack modifier. You can easily end up with three weapons (two melee, one ranged) and all the numbers change depending on whether the target is marked, you're making a twin takedown, using agile weapons, weapons with different fundamental runes, etc etc etc.

Then you have all the conditions imposed on you by poison, disease, curses and the like. Being hit with -1 to attacks, or mental saves, or physical maneuvers is not rare at all. Once past the lowest levels, it happens every session.

Resistance and weakness to damage is not uncommon. Calculating damage as (3d8+12+1d6)X2+1d8+10 is not just something I made up, it can definitely happen, several times in a single combat round in fact. (A greater striking weapon with an acid rune dealing a crit with a fatal weapon against a monster with weakness 10, in this particular case.)

It's just so much more honest to be upfront with the math demand.

I don't have a problem with 23+3-1+2-1+1 type calculations (except when late at night and my brain is mush), but if your friend does, do him a favor and stick to 5E.

Cheers

Higher than 5th edition? Sure. I guess adding a few more modifiers besides Advantage/Disadvantage, bless, and magic item modifiers is higher. There are more rules to understand.

If the person is hit with poisoned, diseased, cursed, frightened, sickened, or what not, those are all status penalties and only the highest number will apply. It could have ten conditions with penalties and only the highest number will apply.

Real game play in PF2 will look something like the following:

Enemy: Stone Giant.

Target is flanked: -2 circumstance penalty to AC
Target is frightened 2: -2 status penalty to AC
Target is sickened 1: Doesn't matter, frightened status penalty is higher. Ignore.

Swing with +2 long sword by lvl10 fighter with master proficiency and 20 strength. (Should be worked out by your player prior to playing)

To hit roll: +23 to hit

Giant AC 31 -2 AC status frightened -2 circumstance flanked =AC 27

Swing: +23/18/13 for three attacks with -5 MAP per attack to a maximum of -10.

The players may add in a status bonus provided by a player like a bard song.

It's more work than 5E, far less work than PF1. It's really not that hard. I don't know why people try to make it seem hard. Most PF DMs will make these things very easy for the players. I run the game all the time. I don't have any trouble with the modifiers. Now PF1 was a beast of a game for modifiers. That got truly insane. PF2 is three modifiers to track with MAP.

I would just give it a try with someone. See how you like it. See for yourself how it all works. I can't imagine my group is particularly special in their ability to do basic addition and subtraction with some occasional multiplication and division. Making PF2 sound like scary math is a little weird to me.

 

[dave2008]

It's more work than 5E, far less work than PF1. It's really not that hard. I don't know why people try to make it seem hard. Most PF DMs will make these things very easy for the players. I run the game all the time. I don't have any trouble with the modifiers. Now PF1 was a beast of a game for modifiers. That got truly insane. PF2 is three modifiers to track with MAP.

I would just give it a try with someone. See how you like it. See for yourself how it all works. I can't imagine my group is particularly special in their ability to do basic addition and subtraction with some occasional multiplication and division. Making PF2 sound like scary math is a little weird to me.

I think Cap is saying it is harder, not that it is hard. And specifically that it is harder than 5e in the math department. He is also not saying that is a bad thing, but that it shouldn't just be dismissed like you seem to want to do. He is also, I believe, talking in reference to people coming from 5e, not PF1. A 5e player or DM would probably find it quite shocking (I know I did). However, it is less the math (which I am pretty good at) and more the multitude of conditions and feats that is keeping me from PF2e (and I couldn't find anyone to play) at this time.

 

[GrahamWills]

I am on the 5th module of Age of Ashes and the second of Extinction Curse running as a DM and playing in a 3rd campaign. I have not noticed that the game runs poorly if you miss an occasional modifier or ability. So not sure what you mean by fast and loose, but I'm certainly not recommending ignoring modifiers. I am stating that if you forget one here or there, you won't break the game or ruin the challenge. The game does not require you remember every number every round without fail or the game runs poorly. That isn't the case at all.

Also agree here. Like Celtavia, I actually have experience here. yes, +1 modifiers are nice, but they aren't game-changing. They could be the difference between a critical and not-a-critical, but that's the same in all D&D systems.

I strongly agree that "The game does not require you remember every number every round without fail or the game runs poorly" -- that's exactly how we play and we've had fun at levels 1-15 (and I'm about to play in 10 minutes!). If I was pressed, I'd say a +1 in PF2 is more valuable than in 5E, maybe about the same as 1.5. So as a rough rule of thumb, if you agonize over getting a +2 in any other D&D, you might agonize over getting +1 in PF2.

There are a lot fo dinky +1 feats, but there are a ton of other more interesting ones. So, for example, my favorite feats are not the +X ones, but the ones that build of my intimidation skill:

• Battle Cry on initiative can give -1 or -2 penalty to target enemy. They might even run in fear for a round
• I can literally frighten a lower-level enemy to death
• I can coerce a group of 10 people to do something they really don't want to, and the coercive effect will last. month

Characterizing the game as nothing but a bunch of minor effects that give minor tweaks to rolls seems to be a bit of a myopic look at only certain sorts of activities. For me, there are so many other fun things to do that I pretty much ignore the +1 tweak feats.

 

[Ancalagon]

So... since everyone has been so helpful with commentary...

I'll deviate from the Puffin video and ask about the alchemist. Now, I'm mildly obsessed with the alchemist as a PC (so much so I read grimoires to mine them for gaming material, and I recently wrote an Alchemist class for the GLOG system using those grimoire spells).

I was very excited when PF2 came out and the alchemist was going to be all alchemy - no more pseudo spells, only alchemical preparations! Yes! But when I read the playtest rules they felt... very flat. Lacked creativity.

How is the class working in the actual release?

 

[Philip Benz]

I suspect you may be disappointed in the alchemist. General consensus is that it is one of the weakest classes, and that the various things he can make feel underpowered. We had an alchemist in our group, and my first suggestion was that he take a multiclass wizard dedication at 2nd level, and after that he spent most of his actions casting attack cantrips, rather than relying on his alchemist powers.

It's very flavorful, sure, but mechanically not the equal of other classes. IMHO, the best way for a DM to make an alchemist PC feel useful is to be sure to give him lots of alchemically-flavored goodies during the campaign, and never stint on supplying formulae in loot drops. If you can work alchemical puzzles and enigmas into the campaign, all the better.