Pathfinder 2 and the game Paizo should have made

[BryonD]

Having multiple meaningful decision points is fundamentally incompatible with having a balanced game.

Probably true. I've stated several times before that any game that is rigid enough to get away from relying on the people around the table to contribute to the success of the experience is not going to be a great story-telling game.
Combat games are easy. Designed a well balanced also sophisticated combat game can be quite a challenge and require a ton of knowledge and experience. And yet, compared to creating a set of mechanics which aspire to allow a person to really pretend to be a fully imagined person in a fantasy world, combat games are easy.

A great TTRPG must rely on the players. For better or for worse, the best possible TTRPG will probably have a "high entry gate". (Which isn't to say you can have starter sets, etc etc etc) I 100% support the goal of having good entry points for new gamers and exciting ways to play without that experience. But too often that goal seems to come paired with a concession that groups will still be playing at that entry level years later.

Lack of multiple meaningful decision points is incompatible with a great RPG mechanics system. You might tell the best stories EVER on top of a seriously underwhelming mechanical system. And that could be awesome fun. But, in that scenario, the fun is coming from the people and the mechanics are beside the point. There may be some people, some groups, who are so focused and talented at story that the system truly makes no difference. I think that for most groups system makes a difference. A move away from meaningful decision points is meaningless to the first group and a negative to the other two. So that is a bad thing.

Certainly there could be groups who really just want a robust tactical system with a sense of vicarious empowerment but negligible character investment. Consider the throngs of online MMO players (NOT comparing any game system here, just talking about players). Tons of people are deeply into their character, and yet I know that when I played WOW (clean and sober ten years now, thank you) the RP Shards were frequently mocked as if they were LARP Lightning Bolt kids. I don't see that as a big share of the TTRPG market. But I'm sure it exists. And I'm not sure if PF2E is a great appeal to them or not. But my argument certainly doesn't apply to them.

But for the bulk of players, I truly believe that this is a very important point.

And it is one of the reasons I shake my head when I read people commenting on how they played their first session and it was awesome. The significance of decision points are experienced cumulatively, and the value either compounds on itself or decays.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

You might be a little biased, going by your disclaimer, I have officially decided to switch over to PF2e and I have to say you've spoken too quickly about what the game isn't. The game might be rules heavier than 5e in particular, but its much more streamlined than pf1e and gets a lot of "bang per buck" for the complexity that it does ask of it's players. That means that it's actually ideal for players who want a "advanced" alternative to 5e Dungeons and Dragons- like, that's been my situation for the past 4-5 years of playing 5e, and 2e is a wonderful breath of fresh air in that respect. It's more complex, but it's certainly a modern game with a modern sensibility about accessibility.

We have found that it essentially plays more smoothly than it seems to read, and even my rules lite players prefer it because its like its "simpler to understand" even though there's more stuff.

The game is also a further progression of PF1e, as a lot of the things they started playing with in Pathfinder Unchained have made their way into the full version of 2e.

It also seems like it takes a lot of the advancements of 4e, without the things that most rankled the 3.x crowd (classes don't have identical resource distribution in their abilities, spellcasting is still a seperate system)

 

[Campbell]

@BryonD

I have no idea where you are getting this idea that Pathfinder Second Edition is a combat focused game. I will have more tomorrow when I have time to construct a more detailed response, but I have not seen a Core Rulebook for a modern iteration of Dungeons and Dragons with more attention paid to exploration and noncombat activities. I have also not seen a modern iteration of the game so focused on who your character is as a person or one that encourages you to engage with the world outside of adventuring as this game.

I think we can talk about this in a nuanced, considerate way.

 

[CapnZapp]

My belief is clear: every edition of D&D is intensely combat focused.

I do see your point about Pathfinder 2 not being particularly more combat focused than any other "modern iteration", though.

 

[Staffan]

My core irk with Pathfinder 2 is - who was this game made for?

Me, it would appear.

In other regards it comes across as completely clueless of 5E's success or even existence. It is very rules heavy. I do not think anyone would say I am unfair if I characterize it as "a wall of feats". It gorges itself on the littlest +1's and -1's. There are literally dozens of conditions. In other words, it utterly lacks 5E's newbie friendliness (no matter how much its defenders try telling you everything is "organized"; the game still is way crunchier than anyone needed or wanted).

There are very few +/-1s in character creation. They do show up in play though via conditions and stuff. However, it should be noted that the existence of critical failures and successes based on rolling a difference of 10+ away from what you need makes these bonuses more impactful.

And the thing about player choices... well, it turns out much of it is is just window-dressing, I'm afraid. Chargen is curiously inflexible, yet very fiddly. You can't impact the fundamentals - your attack bonus, AC and saves are locked in by your level 1 choice of class. Yet you are asked to a swim in a sea of feat choices.

Most (though not all) feats change very little about your character, and thus is of no help anchoring your characterization or portrayal. In short, you're asked to make choices which ultimately doesn't change anything; they just shifting the numbers to where they should have been in the first place. One way of this is to call it "balanced" and "you can't make a wrong choice". Another is "your choices don't matter".

Feats give you options. A 6th level fighter will likely be at +17 to hit with his main weapon unless they're making actively bad choices (level +6, master +6, Strength or Dexterity 19 gives +4, magic +1). But you can be quite different depending on your choice of combat tactics: big two-hander for big damage, fencing style having a hand free for shenanigans, sword & board for more defense, archery, and so on. And since they're feats instead of sub-class choices, you don't have to go all in on any of them, but can mix and match to some extent.

So yes, my choices matter, but they matter regarding what I do, not how well I do it. In addition, my choices during play matter more - PF1 characters are generally built to do one thing really well and hope the situations they find themselves in are ones that can be solved by doing that one thing. In PF2, you need to have a greater ability to adapt to situations, and this is aided by the action economy which is frankly brilliant (I think the best thing about it is the diminishing returns on attacks, thereby providing an incentive to do other things than "I swing my sword at it.")

I for one cannot fathom why Paizo did not create a game that caters to 5E sensibilities but "gives more". More player-side charbuild crunch. Better monster support for the DM.

Because that was not the game they wanted to create.

 

[JeffB]

To me, this seems to be the game Buhlman always wanted to make from day one.

It's not the game for me, but I never worked up much hope after seeing the playtest. It has some bits I like and plenty I don't. Mainly all the fiddly bits for feats and conditional mods for combat that were a time sink/drag for 4e are the turnoff, as well as the big push of turning it into the Golarian RPG (like 5e and the Realms).

 

[dave2008]

We have found that it essentially plays more smoothly than it seems to read, and even my rules lite players prefer it because its like its "simpler to understand" even though there's more stuff.

I will be interested to see if that is true. I hope to find a game in the next few months. However, I have almost exclusively DM'd over the last 30 years and when I look at the PF2e core rulebook I say: nope, not going to run that. It is just to much. It is more than what i want to take on for "fun." I fear the same may be true for playing.

 

[CapnZapp]

I will be interested to see if that is true. I hope to find a game in the next few months. However, I have almost exclusively DM'd over the last 30 years and when I look at the PF2e core rulebook I say: nope, not going to run that. It is just to much. It is more than what i want to take on for "fun." I fear the same may be true for playing.

I am the DM (or GM I guess) and I am fortunate to have very crunch-accepting players.

Meaning I get to focus on my module and its NPCs while my players teach me the nooks and crannies of the rules!

 

[JeffB]

I meant to touch on this earlier-

I've been following Oblivion Oath on youtube and it has kept me interested for quite some time but the last episode really killed my enthusiasm. Though I like the show, they ran a combat of 4 2nd level characters (and NPC follower) against a "boss" and 4 or 5 cultists, and the analysis paralysis and remember all your modifiers was already an issue. The players were sifting through their character sheets, trying to remember how everything worked together or didn't, which mods/conditions were/were not still in effect, where should I move my mini?, etc.. The battle was about 50 minutes, it wasn't exciting even though it was supposed to be an "epic' battle with a NPC who has been a thorn in the PC's sides for about 15 episodes. I was really looking forward to this episode because of this battle and it was so flat and the system killed it. I can only imagine how long something like the characters against a Marilith and Vrock minions at high levels would drag on.

I am going to give it a one/two/three shot-shot run preferably at around 5th level or so to see how it plays before I totally dismiss it as not my style.

 

[Parmandur]

I meant to touch on this earlier-

I've been following Oblivion Oath on youtube and it has kept me interested for quite some time but the last episode really killed my enthusiasm. Though I like the show, they ran a combat of 4 2nd level characters (and NPC follower) against a "boss" and 4 or 5 cultists, and the analysis paralysis and remember all your modifiers was already an issue. The players were sifting through their character sheets, trying to remember how everything worked together or didn't, which mods/conditions were/were not still in effect, where should I move my mini?, etc.. The battle was about 50 minutes, it wasn't exciting even though it was supposed to be an "epic' battle with a NPC who has been a thorn in the PC's sides for about 15 episodes. I was really looking forward to this episode because of this battle and it was so flat and the system killed it. I can only imagine how long something like the characters against a Marilith and Vrock minions at high levels would drag on.

I am going to give it a one/two/three shot-shot run preferably at around 5th level or so to see how it plays before I totally dismiss it as not my style.

Oh, goodness. I remember an anecdote from last decade, about a guy running a four-hour OSR rules game a table away from a group playing 4E. The OSR game went through half a dozen combats, a whole bunch of exploration, going back to town and social interactions. The 4E table got through a single fight in the same timeframe.