Pathfinder 2E Never give up on PF2

[Retreater]

I've been mostly equally positive and critical about PF2 on these boards overall. I think it's helpful to have both perspectives from someone who's honestly interacted with it quite a bit.

 

[Eric V]

As I said above, we're considering switching to PF2r from 5e so I welcome the discussion. The OP didn't make this a (+) thread and ending with "What do y'all think?" seems to invite people's thoughts. Please stop trying to stifle conversation - if you only want to post in a PF2 Cheerleader-Only (+) thread anyone can make one.

What do you like most about PF2? What draws you to it that you don't see elsewhere or is just done superior?

I don't think I was trying to stifle conversation and feel it's unfair to label me as doing so; I maintain that writing "this keeps getting touted as a good thing is almost as infuriating at this point. I've never been more stifled in a game then with this crap" is not an authentic invitation to conversation and seems more like threadcrapping.

Like @Thomas Shey , I am playing two F20 games: 13thAge and PF2E. They satisfy different itches for me. The latter allows for fantastic customization without trap options (character creation, but also equipment, spells, etc.). The flavour of things is great, and is represented in the mechanics. The degrees of success matter. Player decisions matter a lot. Teamwork matters a lot. Commerce matters. Downtime matters (I especially love this). It can do high magic, no magic or anything in between. The support on Foundry is AWESOME.

It's not a perfect game; if some players are more casual, or just don't know their characters well, it can bog down significantly. Having said that, because it's so hard to make a bad character, even a simpler point-and-click character contributes just fine. It does the 3 pillars of play better than any other F20 game I have played. For combat, it has managed to thread the needle between the love-it-but-too-damn-complex tactical combat of 4e and the blandness of many other systems. I'll never play enough to play all the different characters that come to mind when I read the books. They even have a warlord coming out.

 

[Blue]

@Eric V , @Thomas Shey Thanks, that's pretty useful!

It's interesting that both of you mentioned 13th Age. I ran a 4 year campaign and really enjoyed it - what will draw me as a fan of 13th Age to PF2? And where does it scratch different itches to help choose the right game for a particular table.

 

[Eric V]

@Eric V , @Thomas Shey Thanks, that's pretty useful!

It's interesting that both of you mentioned 13th Age. I ran a 4 year campaign and really enjoyed it - what will draw me as a fan of 13th Age to PF2? And where does it scratch different itches to help choose the right game for a particular table.

Did 13th Age's ambiguity regarding positioning, exact effects of spells (especially AoE), and other hand-waving bother you? It didn't bother me, but some in my group really have a hard time with it (the arguments over intercepting...ugh). As well, the amount of freeform one has to do with skill checks, using Icon Dice, etc. Again, I like that sort of thing, but it's not for everyone.

They really do satisfy different desires.

 

[Thomas Shey]

@Eric V , @Thomas Shey Thanks, that's pretty useful!

It's interesting that both of you mentioned 13th Age. I ran a 4 year campaign and really enjoyed it - what will draw me as a fan of 13th Age to PF2? And where does it scratch different itches to help choose the right game for a particular table.

I think as Eric indicated the scratch very different itches. The reason I choose to run 13A was partly because it has some interesting high-concept things in character generation (some of which are things I've seen people on this board nearly have their heads explode about), and partly because I have a semi-blind player and thought its very loose handling of movement and distance would make the game a bit easier for her.

 

[UnplayedRanger]

I don't think I was trying to stifle conversation and feel it's unfair to label me as doing so; I maintain that writing "this keeps getting touted as a good thing is almost as infuriating at this point. I've never been more stifled in a game then with this crap" is not an authentic invitation to conversation and seems more like threadcrapping.

OP asked what I thought and I told him. Admittedly on a bad day. But I agree with what I said so .

I’ve posted twice on this thread and moved on, but apparently it affected you enough to have to quote it several times.

So don’t worry. Just for you, I’ll never post my opinions about pathfinder here again.

Also, I’m glad you and others enjoy it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Did 13th Age's ambiguity regarding positioning, exact effects of spells (especially AoE), and other hand-waving bother you? It didn't bother me, but some in my group really have a hard time with it (the arguments over intercepting...ugh). As well, the amount of freeform one has to do with skill checks, using Icon Dice, etc. Again, I like that sort of thing, but it's not for everyone.

They really do satisfy different desires.

I have mixed feelings about it myself, but its got some virtues to go with what I consider downsides, so...

 

[Velderan]

What do you like most about PF2? What draws you to it that you don't see elsewhere or is just done superior?

I have yet to be a player in a PF2e game so my perspective has been purely from the GM seat for whatever that’s worth. Prior to switching to PF2e, my group played 5e so that was the baseline we were coming from.

Things I enjoy

• 3 action economy generally is incredibly flexible in what it allows a PC or NPC to do on their turn while being pretty simple to understand. It's not perfect, but I've found less confusion with my group on what they can do in a turn compared to the action/bonus action economy found in 5e.
• 4 degrees of success are usually handled pretty well. Spells in particular are often setup where even on a successful save, something still happens so it's less common where a caster uses a spell slot and nothing at all happens.
• The monsters generally have mechanics to support the flavor of what they're supposed to be. Looking over a stat block, it typically isn't hard to understand the strategy a creature might prefer in combat. Using an example from our last session on Monday, the froghemoth has a couple ways to grab a target and either constrict them or pull them in to bite them all within the game's action economy without having to resort to things like legendary actions to make it enough of a challenge. That particular encounter was rated extreme and the players definitely had to work together to survive. On that note..
• The encounter building tools actually work. If you follow the exp budget for the challenge rating you're looking to create, the encounter will generally be as challenging as you wanted it to be. It's still somewhat prone to the swinginess of other TTRPGs (back to back crits can quickly swing the momentum one way, not much you can do there), but for the most part if an encounter is rated as severe the party will have to use some tactics to get through it. If it's rated as low, they aren't likely to be in any danger. The fact the encounter building tools actually work has made it incredibly easy to take an adventure path designed for 4 players (which the rules presents that as the standard party size) and upscale the encounters for the 6 players I actually have without much work.

Things I don't enjoy

• I found some of the rules to be poorly worded and/or organized. As @Reynard mentioned in another thread, some of the rules rely on you understanding a trait tag that is in a completely different part of the book or even a different book so flipping back and forth between those sections to make sure you're completely understanding the concept can be annoying while you're learning the system. Archives of Nethys eases this a bit by making it easier to quickly move between rules since most things are hyperlinked, but it doesn't completely alleviate the issue. It does get easier as you become more comfortable with the system, but the learning curve can definitely feel steep.
• I really don't like how counteracting works. Basically my complaint about it is if the player doesn't heighten the casting of a spell to a high enough spell rank to remove a condition, they might not be able to remove the condition even if they roll high enough to beat the DC. It just feels like a mechanic that didn't require tinkering from how it was handled in previous editions of PF and D&D. To me the DC is sufficient enough bar to overcome, you don't need to add the level of the poison/disease/what have you to the equation.

That's what comes to mind immediately. Overall we're 14 months into the switch from 5e to PF2e and happy with the change even if it isn't perfect.

 

[Velderan]

I've been mostly equally positive and critical about PF2 on these boards overall. I think it's helpful to have both perspectives from someone who's honestly interacted with it quite a bit.

I'd actually be curious to hear what you do like. You've listed your complaints and maybe it's just selective memory on my part, but I don't know if I've ever seen you talk up what you do like. That might be helpful for @Blue if they're considering giving it a try.

I know you're very particular about what you want in a game system, which sounds like you've mostly been unsuccessful in finding that perfect fit for your group.

 

[Retreater]

I'd actually be curious to hear what you do like. You've listed your complaints and maybe it's just selective memory on my part, but I don't know if I've ever seen you talk up what you do like. That might be helpful for @Blue if they're considering giving it a try.

I know you're very particular about what you want in a game system, which sounds like you've mostly been unsuccessful in finding that perfect fit for your group.

I'd be happy to list some positives.
In no particular order...

• Encounter balancing system works.
• Fantastic implementation on Foundry VTT.
• Guidelines for awarding magic items.
• Guidelines for starting a character higher than 1st level.
• Archives of Nethys is a wonderful (and free) resource.
• Pathbuilder is a wonderful (and free) resource.
• Paizo is friendly to 3PP, giving out so much content to use (which also helps Archives of Nethys, Foundry, and Pathbuilder)
• Wide variety of adventure content (esp. if you consider PFS adventures)
• The Lost Omens books are great setting tomes.
• Pathfinder Society is great for organized play.
• Can adjust monster difficulty with Weak and Elite templates.
• Hardcover, PDF, pocket editions, and free access to Archives of Nethys allows gamers of various financial means to play the game.
• Paizo is good at promoting their games so you know what new releases are coming out - and there's usually synergy if you want crunch, lore, and adventures all tied together.
• Their splat books use public playtest feedback.
• Their employees have a union, so it feels more fair.
• They use good paper quality. Their books are generally of high production value.
• Paizo helped keep the OGL fight going, ensuring open gaming for around two decades.