Pathfinder 2E Never give up on PF2

[CapnZapp]

I'll be honest, I haven't tried PF2 and I don't have much interest in it. It is far too fiddly for my taste; it doesn't seem to have fixed the issues 3e had, and it seems to have imported the tight math that 4e had- which was both one of its best and worst features.

A great summary!

 

[Incenjucar]

That's interesting. We were playing DD3.5 and switched to PF1 around the time DD4 came out. It felt too "videogamey" to us, and PF1 was just DD3.5 with a few corrections and additional content.
But I quickly tired with how PF1 (and DD3.5) had such a huge gulf between casually-built PCs and optimized PCs with all the right feats and traits to boost combos into the stratosphere. Those were games you could "win" through character creation. PF2 chucked all that out the window. We could still select cool feats, archetypes and everything, while still having "balanced" characters instead of "broken" ones.

I won't get into the irony of that because nobody needs more edition wars, but suffice it to say I was more focused on good game design than whether or not it reminds me of another geek tribe. PF2E is even better design than 4E (powers auto-scale!), so it gets my attention. It's not flawless by any means, but most of the issues could be fixed in-engine; e.g. skills are all over the bloody place, especially Lore.

 

[ironchains]

Part of the problem for me is that makes only the few skills you have (unless rogue or bard) seem like the only things the PC is really good at. You only have a few chances to get better at skills via proficiency and feats so its not like PF1 where you can actually do something about it every level.

All the more reason pf2 emphasizes teamwork and working together. No one character can be good at everything, but the group of characters can make a balanced whole and solve any problem.

 

[Belen]

There is so much cool content available for PF2, new books and adventures coming out all the time, and consistent high quality.
The 3-action turn, the four degrees of success and the wild variety of feats, classes and archetypes all make for a fun experience with the game, for players and DMs alike.
I've played D&D since 1974, many different editions and offshoots, and several D&D-like games from other publishers. DMing PF2 is so much more relaxing than with any other game system (with the possible exception of OD&D) that I can't imagine going for any other currently available game system.
What do y'all think?

I loved PF1e but I burned out on mega crunchy games. PF2e doubled down on the crunch and I could not imagine having a relaxing time running such a rules heavy game.

 

[payn]

All the more reason pf2 emphasizes teamwork and working together. No one character can be good at everything, but the group of characters can make a balanced whole and solve any problem.

I think that’s an exaggeration of what I said but highlights the hyper specialization of PF2 that just doesn’t sit well with me. If you had more ways to engage the skill system I might be more agreeable to it. Also, they took all the problems PF1 feats had and added it to the skill system.

 

[Eric V]

I loved PF1e but I burned out on mega crunchy games. PF2e doubled down on the crunch and I could not imagine having a relaxing time running such a rules heavy game.

"Doubled down?"

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

PF2e doubled down on the crunch

PF2E is significantly lighter than 3.X d&d and pf ever were. There are significantly less situational modifiers, bonus stacking, or spot rules.

The Rules are 46 pages compared to 5e's 32 pages, and pathfinder 1E's 84 pages.

 

[Belen]

PF2E is significantly lighter than 3.X d&d and pf ever were. There are significantly less situational modifiers, bonus stacking, or spot rules.

The Rules are 46 pages compared to 5e's 32 pages, and pathfinder 1E's 84 pages.

I will have to remember that fewer pages is linked to less complexity.

I maintain that PF2e is far too rules heavy for my tastes.

 

[ironchains]

I think that’s an exaggeration of what I said but highlights the hyper specialization of PF2 that just doesn’t sit well with me. If you had more ways to engage the skill system I might be more agreeable to it. Also, they took all the problems PF1 feats had and added it to the skill system.

I have played 5e since before it came out. And I dabbled in other systems. And pf2 was the first time I truly felt like the system encouraged teamwork.
In 5e specifically, every character feels heroic on their own. And each feels like the main character on their own and it's easy for a pc to hog the spotlight
In pf2, no one can hold the spotlight by themselves. It is only as a group can they truly be heroic.

As far as "feat problems" goes. I think it's a straw man argument.
A feat in pf1, 5e and PF2e are completely different things.
In pf1, you had crazy feat chains which were extreme.
In 5e, classes have a collection of pre-selected Features earned per level (with very little choice or variability), and a special set of Feature groups you can buy by giving up an ASI.
In pf2, classes have a collection Features you can choose from at every level.

A class feature by a different name is still a class feature. If you want pf2 to be like 5e, I guess you could go through and limit each class to a specific feat at every level. Instead of having options.

 

[Eric V]

I will have to remember that fewer pages is linked to less complexity.

I maintain that PF2e is far too rules heavy for my tastes.

That's fine.

To say that PF2E "doubled down" on complexity from PF1E? That's a whole other thing, and objectively incorrect.