• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

My Biggest Concern for Pathfinder 2e

Aldarc

Adventurer
Why is this 'clearly' untrue? By your own arguement you appear to imply that Pathfinder 2e is going to succeed but this is unsubstantiated. I don't take issue with that though as this is your implied viewpoint.
Simple. Because I have neither said nor implied that anywhere in my posts.

The 'narratives' that people put forward for why PF2e may or may not succeed are also part of their opinions. You might not like them, in which case you should put forward a counter arguement as to why those opinions are incorrect. You can't just keep saying 'I take issue with those opinions' because they rub you up the wrong way.
You may have not been paying much attention to other PF2 threads then. This is not the first time this has come up in discussions, and I have addressed those points elsewhere.
 
Simple. Because I have neither said nor implied that anywhere in my posts.

You may have not been paying much attention to other PF2 threads then. This is not the first time this has come up in discussions, and I have addressed those points elsewhere.
I take Capn Zap's point; I do not wish to go around in circles discussing validity of opinions except to say this: you clearly don't understand what 'implied' means. Plus, admittedly, I haven't read many other PF2E threads but that's because I don't have the time.

I want PF2E to succeed but the conditions that allowed PF1E to flourish no longer exist. PF2E - due to it's dense rules complexity and upcoming stream of supplemental rules bloat - will put up barriers to entry for new players to the hobby. I witnessed this first hand in the days of 3.5 and PF2E is doubling down on this. Without the lifeblood of new players the game will wither. If 5E did not exist I would say PF2E has a chance, with 5E Pathfinder 2E becomes just another fantasy RPG with diminishing brand recognition. If I had to put money down I would bet on PF2E being a small success but perhaps not enough to support Paizo in its current business model and size of company.
 

Istbor

Explorer
I feel if nothing else, this thread may lead me to learn more about PF2.
Now... I have doubts that I will ever run a game in that system, and it already sounds like a pain to plan a campaign for. (Maybe a published one would work better for me, but we do those so rarely)

Building a character if we ever play one though, I could probably imagine myself doing that. Again though, with whom? So far, I have not heard of many groups going over to the new edition. Of the four bigger gaming stores in town, most are playing PF1 yet, Adventure league, or the starfinder society.

I suppose there are or could be some home groups or private groups starting out in the new system. That won't help any new comers to RPGs however.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
Opinions are just that, personal opinions. Opinions themselves do not cause problems - how people perceive them is what causes the problem.

Clearly, you have a problem with the idea that someone believes Pathfinder 2e is going to fail. That's your issue to deal with. I also believe Pathfinder 2e is on a rocky road - that's my opinion, it doesn't serve a pre-existing narrative and nobody can say to me my opinion is a problem.

I DM 5th edition because I burnt out running 3.5 due to heavy prep and cognitive overload as a result of rules complexity. For that reason I never ran Pathfinder 1e and, similarly, I'm not going to try Pathfinder 2e.

At this point 5e is the the Heavyweight champ of D&D, not perfect but the game all the newbies recognise. Good luck introducing new players to the overtweaked and constrained P2e let alone new GMs. If you are new to fantasy tabletop RPGs, what game are you going to adopt, the wildly successful brand name 5e which everyone is talking about and has massive social media exposure or the new game Pathfinder 2e which has proved divisive amongst its fanbase and which many people are not trying because of 5e.

I do actually wish Paizo good luck because competition is a good thing and more options for fantasy gaming is always better. However, I don't think the right strategy has been chosen here - at the moment it looks like all eggs are in one basket when it might be a good idea to develop for 5e as well.
I never played pathfinder 1e. But the more I look at Pathfinder 2e, the more I think it's more akin to 4e in balance than to 3.5e or pathfinder 1e. I honestly think at level encounters in that system would likely be a breeze to prep and run.
 

Schmoe

Explorer
You can count me as one person who really hopes the system is successful in the long-term. I haven't purchased the books yet (although I plan to), but reading some actual play reports of the finished game has me more and more interested in it. It sounds like a well-designed game that doesn't have a lot of the problems of 5e.
 

Xenonnonex

Explorer
You mean "with blinders on" I think.
No, blinkers are the things you put on horses to constrict their vision, it means the same narrow perception of the world though.

Edit: and they're the same, but British English is superior :p
 
Last edited:

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
I'm curious as to what problems 5E have that PF2 doesn't (besides nothing to spend your gold on....)
In general I do not like to think about game designs in terms of fixing problems. I prefer to think of different games in terms of cultivating different sorts of play experiences. There are some features of 5th Edition that make it difficult for me to manage as a GM at the table and not as exciting as some other games when I am a player. These are my own issues. I do not really want to make a big deal about. I still really enjoy playing it, but not so much running it.

Here are some areas where I anticipate the Pathfinder 2 improving handling time for me.
  • The text is remarkably clear and concise. It uses templates, traits, and precise language to make it easy to parse and reference rules at the table. This is probably my biggest issue with 5th Edition at the table.
  • The action economy is a lot more fluid, intuitive, and has much fewer exceptions. It lacks things like split moves, abilities that use movement as a resource, abilities that use up one of your attacks, and the like. Because things just cost a certain number of actions there is no juggling action vs bonus action vs movement. You do a thing and costs 1, 2, or 3 actions. Done.
  • Almost everything that has a limited use is either a spell that uses spell slots or a focus spell that uses focus points. The way these things work is consistent across character classes. There are no class features on their own resource individual resource schedules like Channel Divinity, Bardic Inspiration, Lay On Hands, Action Surge and the like.
  • Rules that have a similar effect almost always use the exact same mechanic. Proficiency works the same way for weapons, armor, skills, saves, Perception, Class DC, Spell DC, and spell attack. Every score can be used as a check or a DC. Any effect that counters a spell or ability works in exactly the same way. You learn a rule once and can apply it all over the place.
  • Interactions between abilities are clear thanks to traits. You do not have to guess if Mind Blank will impact casting a certain spell or if a creature's immunity or resistance applies to a given attack.
  • Where the game expects you to apply GM judgement it flat out tells you and gives you tools to help determine things like DCs. There is strong advice and examples on how to handle things like Knowledge checks.

Here are the things that have me excited about the game as a GM
  • Nothing is a sure thing. Blanket player side immunities are gone. Spells have been written so that there is less certainty over the outcome. Spells like Remove Disease now give you a chance to counter the Disease. Mind Blank, Nondetection, and True Seeing now give you a chance to overcome spells and other abilities. Thanks to degrees of success and failure there is now a broader range of outcomes for most spells. They have reinvigorated the drama of playing a spell caster.
  • The game has a strong focus on exploration. Things like licking your wounds after battle, repairing shields, recovering focus spells, choosing to search or sneak about, and the like are clearly defined parts of the game with implications on encounters. As someone who is very found of B/X this makes me inordinately happy.
  • Everything is very grounded in the fiction. Abilities describe how your character is doing the thing that they are doing. Anything that is supernatural is called out as such. Martial characters have no limited use abilities. The action economy is their only playground. Focus spells are explicitly supernatural.
  • Many character classes have features that ground them in the larger setting. If you are a champion you have a specific set of oaths and a connection to a patron deity that impacts your behavior with a specific set of edicts and anathema. Sorcerers blood magic connects them to the setting and there is a sidebar reminding players that their bloodline will impact the way people see them. Powerful rituals require secondary casters that require players to interact with the setting to achieve. Some even require that the secondary casters are followers of the same faith.
  • Items and spells have an indicated rarity with anything that is Uncommon or Rare assumed to be something that must be acquired through play. It also indicates that we cannot really assume every wizard has access to spells like Mind Blank and Teleport.
  • The monsters look like a lot of fun. They pretty much all have unique abilities and many have weaknesses, resistances, and immunities. In many ways monsters have become like puzzles to solve. Some like the hydra even require you to kill them in a specific way.
 

Schmoe

Explorer
I'm curious as to what problems 5E have that PF2 doesn't (besides nothing to spend your gold on....)
Looking back at my post, I want to start out with a few disclaimers. I wasn't trying to claim one game is better than the other, or one game has problems while another does not. 5e has some problems that I see, and I'm sure PF2 will have other problems.

That being said, some of the problems I see with 5e are difficulties challenging high-level characters, depth of tactical combat, and depth of character build options. Those are all things that are actually pretty fun for me, and I like the direction PF2 has taken.

Edit: I also just read Campbell's reply, which is much more thorough than mine. Yeah, what they said :)
 

Markh3rd

Explorer
No, blinkers are the things you put on horses to constrict their vision, it means the same narrow perception of the world though.

Edit: and they're the same, but British English is superior :p
Yes I see! (Didn't know that they both meant the same thing, apologies!)
 
Looking back at my post, I want to start out with a few disclaimers. I wasn't trying to claim one game is better than the other, or one game has problems while another does not. 5e has some problems that I see, and I'm sure PF2 will have other problems.

That being said, some of the problems I see with 5e are difficulties challenging high-level characters, depth of tactical combat, and depth of character build options. Those are all things that are actually pretty fun for me, and I like the direction PF2 has taken.

Edit: I also just read Campbell's reply, which is much more thorough than mine. Yeah, what they said :)
I'm glad you clarified your post. Your problems are not problems for me so these things are very subjective. Life is short so do whatever makes you happy!
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
In general I do not like to think about game designs in terms of fixing problems. I prefer to think of different games in terms of cultivating different sorts of play experiences. There are some features of 5th Edition that make it difficult for me to manage as a GM at the table and not as exciting as some other games when I am a player. These are my own issues. I do not really want to make a big deal about. I still really enjoy playing it, but not so much running it.

Here are some areas where I anticipate the Pathfinder 2 improving handling time for me.
  • The text is remarkably clear and concise. It uses templates, traits, and precise language to make it easy to parse and reference rules at the table. This is probably my biggest issue with 5th Edition at the table.
5e was shooting for lack of precision natural language... they got it. What a goal.
  • The action economy is a lot more fluid, intuitive, and has much fewer exceptions. It lacks things like split moves, abilities that use movement as a resource, abilities that use up one of your attacks, and the like. Because things just cost a certain number of actions there is no juggling action vs bonus action vs movement. You do a thing and costs 1, 2, or 3 actions. Done.
I might like 5e better wrt the movement... but having things use multiple actions is sweet.
Almost everything that has a limited use is either a spell that uses spell slots or a focus spell that uses focus points. The way these things work is consistent across character classes. There are no class features on their own resource individual resource schedules like Channel Divinity, Bardic Inspiration, Lay On Hands, Action Surge and the like.
I like consistent resources but would prefer it to be broader so that heroic exertion - applies to martial things not just obviously caster only things. (perhaps focus points gained by martial classes). I mean martial artists meditate for reasons.

  • Rules that have a similar effect almost always use the exact same mechanic. Proficiency works the same way for weapons, armor, skills, saves, Perception, Class DC, Spell DC, and spell attack. Every score can be used as a check or a DC. Any effect that counters a spell or ability works in exactly the same way. You learn a rule once and can apply it all over the place.
  • Interactions between abilities are clear thanks to traits. You do not have to guess if Mind Blank will impact casting a certain spell or if a creature's immunity or resistance applies to a given attack.
  • Where the game expects you to apply GM judgement it flat out tells you and gives you tools to help determine things like DCs. There is strong advice and examples on how to handle things like Knowledge checks.
Yeah 5e is way too vague for me... if you arent a spell caster. AND it seems downright proud of using different mechanics for things which arguable accomplish the same things just for flavor.

  • Everything is very grounded in the fiction. Abilities describe how your character is doing the thing that they are doing. Anything that is supernatural is called out as such. Martial characters have no limited use abilities. The action economy is their only playground. Focus spells are explicitly supernatural
If they can pull of bigger moves using that action economy that is one thing however classically this has meant lack of power (if you are unable to make more extremes of effort you are stuck with median results almost always) and. Basically I think lack of being able to shoot for the gold in a reliable way ie only able to pull of extremes as a fluke of die roll a 5e problem even more due to very very poor skill advancement that nobody really wants to try "when it is most important to make it" encourages boring a lot.

  • The monsters look like a lot of fun. They pretty much all have unique abilities and many have weaknesses, resistances, and immunities. In many ways monsters have become like puzzles to solve. Some like the hydra even require you to kill them in a specific way.
5e seems swimming in bags of hit points if you do not fix it yourself.

I am finding more intriguing aspects in PF 2 in spite of the elements 5e inherited from 4e

I have managed to find a ver 1.6 playtest I think it was to read.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Vague harder to understand better to let two lawyers conflict over ... yup sounds USAn snicker.
And yet in play it is not so, from my own play and the observation of others in play. Compare to 3.x and 4E, which made the attempt to be "clear" and "through," where arguments abounded. For instance, grappling in 5E is easy, and requires no flipping through books.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
For instance, grappling in 5E is easy, and requires no flipping through books.
Grappling certainly overly elaborated in 3e to the point of ick... though in my short exposure to that version I never got to see it attempted the DM was nose in book for a lot of other things as well.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Grappling certainly overly elaborated in 3e to the point of ick... though in my short exposure to that version I never got to see it attempted the DM was nose in book for a lot of other things as well.
Played a lot of 3.x: we never figured out grappling. PF2, at the very least, probably fixes that.
 

Advertisement

Top