Pathfinder 2E Never give up on PF2

Philip Benz

A Dragontooth Grognard
It's true, DD5e has fewer action types than DD3.5 or PF1 did (a ridiculous amount of action types) but the nature of "bonus actions" seems arbitrary at best, at least seen from the outside looking in.
Note that PF2 has a large number of "action compression" feats, things like a monk doing a flurry of blows (two strikes for one action) or a fighter doing sudden charge (2 moves and a strike for 2 actions). This effectively gives you more than 3 actions.
The Haste spell is also a thing, giving you an extra action to stride or strike.
Shield usage is another peculiarity of PF2, and IMHO adds a lot of tactical interest to the choice to use a shield or not. The shield block action is one of the very few ways to get reliable damage reduction against attacks.

But hey, I get it, some folks don't like things to be strictly codified, like they are in PF2. Others think it's an advantage, since you know what you can and can't do, and it isn't (usually) subject to DM whimsy. A lot of folks still play OD&D, or other versions or offshoots, which is great. The hobby is big enough for everybody.

The important question isn't what system you prefer, but what system your DM chooses to run.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In 5e I can:
Move - attack - move - bonus action, and still use shield.
In PF2 that would be 5 actions.

Movement is so much more flexible in 5e.
And in 5e, your movement always provokes an opportunity attack so unless you are a rogue who can use a bonus action to disengage, you’re burning an action to disengage to avoid getting attacked. In PF2e, I can strike, step to avoid being swung at, and then stride for my 3rd action to let me still do some damage and move to safety. That isn’t possible in 5e for most characters.

And the bonus actions available are hardly evenly spread between classes/subclasses so being able to take a useful bonus action every turn isn’t a guarantee.
 

Retreater

Legend
The important thing isn't whether you have one, three or four actions per round. It's reducing the incomprehensible variety of action types that we saw in DD3.5, PF1 and (some might argue) DD5e. I haven't tried dc20, so I'd be keen on hearing more about it.
There's a free PDF of the playtest rules on the Kickstarter page for you to sample. Might be an interesting read?
 


Retreater

Legend
5) Don't know where you're getting this stuff from, creatures below the party level aren't intrinsically complex. It's true, when you have a lot of critters on the battlemap, combats take longer to run. Maybe you just need a better combat tracker.
Ok. Let's say you have a party of 4 9th level characters. For a moderate fight, you can have 8 5th level monsters.
That could be: 8 flame drakes (keeping track of breath weapon recharge), 8 gibbering mouthers (keeping track of auras), animated objects (breakage conditions), trog spellcasters (spell slots). Not to mention that certain abilities will flat out not have an effect on 9th level characters anyway. So you probably shouldn't do a fight with 8 monsters anyway.
The system just doesn't handle it. And I think that's a big miss.

It's great that you're excited about the system. I can track on Foundry that I've GMed hundreds of hours of this game across multiple campaigns. I know its limitations pretty well. And while I will continue running my existing campaign, I can't see myself starting a new one.
 

Retreater

Legend
Silly noob question but how baked into the system is this? Like, if you simply did away with it, what would it impact?
The Paizo police aren't coming to your house, and they do say you can do it as an optional rule in the GM book.
It does mess with ranges, spell effects, and reach attacks, and they don't address how you'd fix it.
Like if you don't use diagonals, do you have square fireballs? How many squares?
I guess if you create an alternative plan, just be consistent.
It's odd that diagonal movement hasn't been used in most modern games since 2007, but they fell back on this antiquated nonsense.
 

Philip Benz

A Dragontooth Grognard
So you probably shouldn't do a fight with 8 monsters anyway.
The system just doesn't handle it. And I think that's a big miss.
Hard disagree. I have done fights with over a dozen adversaries, no problems.
And at the tabletop, no less.
I use a simple tracking sheet, and copy a few numbers to that sheet for adversaries (the bottom part).
What I hear is that you don't like tracking adversaries and their abilities. Surprise! You'll need to do the same with any game system.
1718542073366.png
 

Retreater

Legend
What I hear is that you don't like tracking adversaries and their abilities. Surprise! You'll need to do the same with any game system.
Not like you do in games as complex as Pathfinder 2. Recharges, spell slots, conditions, etc.
But yeah, I can do it. But what's the point?
With a large level gap, the enemies will miss the PCs far more than hit - and forget second and third attacks. If they have incapacitation effects - no they don't. Do they have abilities that require saving throws, watch the PCs critically succeed on everyone.
The "adding your level to everything" makes low level enemies too easy and high level enemies too hard. So having mooks doesn't work in a satisfying way. Nor does a big boss monster (because it makes the same problem as above, just reversed on the PCs).
4E handles miniatures skirmish combat much better - with designations for minions and solo monsters. With abilities that make sense (easy to track for minions, and able to threaten multiple characters for solos).
 



Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top