Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2 and support for other playing styles/subgenres

[nevin]

True

Ironically exploration rules were in the earliest editions of the game and only disappeared fully with 3.x...

But almost nobody used them. They had a lot of optional rules. for example combat had Rules that were just chainmail light.

 

[transmission89]

True

But almost nobody used them. They had a lot of optional rules. for example combat had Rules that were just chainmail light.

Not quite, check out Jon Peterson’s “playing at the world” re chainmail and d&d. Those exploration rules are alive and well in the OSR community.

 

[kenada]

I don't really like the modern game design of a rule for everything. The idea of exploration mode just feels like one more step towards a console game. To me exploration mode is like a third leg. I think pathfinder devs spend too much time trying to fix problems and not enough time focusing on how to have fun. But a lot of people seem to like it that way.

Exploration mode isn’t really modern though. Classic D&D had a well-defined exploration procedure. What Paizo did is more of a throwback. The only thing modern about it is in recognizing that system matters, and that procedures and structure can be used to create and inform experiences at the table.

There’s a big thread ongoing about running dungeon crawls. I’m not going to rehash the arguments here, but the core conflict seems to be over how they play out. Are dungeons just about fights and story, or is there more to it than that? One of the key points from the OSR perspective is the use of procedures and principles to create an engaging dungeon crawl.

Of course, Paizo has yet to release a site-based adventure, but I don’t think that is any more a flaw in exploration mode than there was in the original exploration procedures when TSR released Dragonlance. Well, except that they’re sometimes a poor fit for story-driven games. I think Paizo is aware of that, which is why it lacks some if the elements I consider important (like reactions, morale, and retreats).

 

[nevin]

Not quite, check out Jon Peterson’s “playing at the world” re chainmail and d&d. Those exploration rules are alive and well in the OSR community.

I didn't say they weren't alive. I said most people didn't use them

 

[Luceilia]

I'm talking about the fact that many Pathfinder 2 traps do not in any way shape or form explain how heroes find out about them, let alone how they realize what to do to disable them.

For a simple trapdoor, we obviously can see the picture play out. But many PF2 traps are what I'd call abstract game constructs, literally the result of the designer going "what if we require different skills than Perception and Thievery?"

At least, I have not found a better way of telling the player he must roll Religion, say, than... "you must use Religion here", which I find deeply meta (the GM telling the player rather than the GM describing the world so the character understands what must be done) and thus unsatisfying.

Here's my current list of things wrong with PF2. Unfortunately, it never seems to stop growing...


To this we now add:

• Next to zero customizability
• Magical heroes vs Martial monsters
• Abstract traps

I know I'm about a year and a half late, but I really want to thank you for this analysis.

Everything I've heard about PF2 up to this point was either fans singing its praises or 5E/OSR diehards with generic and not useful offhand criticism.

As a former 3.P GM who spent over a decade in the combined system, I had been gearing up to dive headlong into PF2 but thanks to your wonderfully thorough critique I'm going to put that on hold until a later date (possibly never lol, only time will tell.)

 

[grankless]

I would definitely read through the many rebuttals in this thread prior to taking the words of a guy who has made a veritable posting career out of arguing that Paizo is an incompetent company. Zapp over here is a very biased source.

 

[Luceilia]

I would definitely read through the many rebuttals in this thread prior to taking the words of a guy who has made a veritable posting career out of arguing that Paizo is an incompetent company. Zapp over here is a very biased source.

It wasn't his assessment that I was expressing gratitude over. It was his point by point analysis.

Fwiw, I really really like Paizo's ideals as a company. Publishing their rules for free online is amazing, and they were a driving force keeping 'My D&D' (3.X) alive when the parent company abandoned it.

That didn't stop me from criticizing a lot of Paizo's design decisions on the Paizo forums back in the day lol.

But yeah, at this point I'm a lot more interested in mining things to steal from Pf2 for 3.P1 campaigns rather than learning a new system whole cloth when some of my complaints about PF1 seem to have gotten worse.

Tiny Situational Bonuses suck so hard.

Also the +10 Crit system just... Rubs me the wrong way. Yes level Superiority is a big advantage but I want that baked into the system in a more tangible way rather than 'more crits/less crits'

 

[payn]

Also the +10 Crit system just... Rubs me the wrong way. Yes level Superiority is a big advantage but I want that baked into the system in a more tangible way rather than 'more crits/less crits'

Yeap, this is one thing I'm not sold on at all from PF2.

 

[Nilbog]

Ah another bash PF2 thread (nice that this one is necro'ed not new though) I thought we'd gone too long without anyone having a dig.

 

[CapnZapp]

I know I'm about a year and a half late, but I really want to thank you for this analysis.

Thank you. I put a lot of play testing and analysis into it.

Contrary to what some posters try to tell you, I spent a lot of time and effort trying out possible fixes for nearly every bullet point on my list, since I sincerely wanted PF2 to work. Alas, it was all for naught, and I have concluded PF2 is simply not worth your time and attention - there's simply too many decisions taken working actively against you; "just use another system" ended up being the rational fix to subsystem after subsystem.

I should say, however, that the criticals system is not on my list. I do understand it comes across as strange and unfamiliar at first, but the math and gameplay is sound, and I think it works well enough. The basic martial combat engine overall is, as I've stated before, one of PF2s main strengths, and this wouldn't have worked so well without the way PF2 criticals are both relatively common and relatively strong.

Zapp