Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

Yes, I'm not too sure about Vancian casting either, and wished they'd gone the 5e route in this area.
Honestly? I don't, this approach may be less streamlined but you get way more design space in how casters work, more differentiation in their playstyles, and it helps to balance the power and versatility of magic in these games.

It's less of a flaw in 2e, and more of an important mechanic 5e players won't be used to.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
If I ever get the chance to play rather than run the game I am really looking forward to playing a wizard. With the additional flourishes that sit atop Vancian casting it looks like Wizards will feel more like Wizards then they ever have. I think Neovancian casting was the right call for Fifth Edition's design goals, but I feel something was lost in translation. There is something to the fiction of a uniquely prepared Wizard. It's one of those things were the game play really matches what is going on in the narrative.
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
If I ever get the chance to play rather than run the game I am really looking forward to playing a wizard. With the additional flourishes that sit atop Vancian casting it looks like Wizards will feel more like Wizards then they ever have. I think Neovancian casting was the right call for Fifth Edition's design goals, but I feel something was lost in translation. There is something to the fiction of a uniquely prepared Wizard. It's one of those things were the game play really matches what is going on in the narrative.
It is a shame Paizo overcorrected their wizards. Martials are now lightyears more fun than the casters in PF2.
 

CapnZapp

Hero
Honestly? I don't, this approach may be less streamlined but you get way more design space in how casters work, more differentiation in their playstyles, and it helps to balance the power and versatility of magic in these games.

It's less of a flaw in 2e, and more of an important mechanic 5e players won't be used to.
There was a reason it was abandoned.

There's lots of things in PF2 5th edition gamers "are not used to".

To me, few of those are warranted. In too many cases, it feels like Paizo designed PF2 in isolation, failing to take into account what people have gotten used to since 2015.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
There was a reason it was abandoned.

There's lots of things in PF2 5th edition gamers "are not used to".

To me, few of those are warranted. In too many cases, it feels like Paizo designed PF2 in isolation, failing to take into account what people have gotten used to since 2015.
A significant part of Fifth Edition's success comes from turning the clock back and embracing the legacy of the game.

For me personally a substantial part of the appeal of Pathfinder 2 is located in its embrace of dungeon crawling, encumbrance, secret rolls, monsters that are puzzles to be solved, alignment, poisons and diseases, calling back to things like strongholds, actually preparing your spells, and other classic elements of the game.

Basically your argument amounts to there's too much Dungeons and Dragons in the game.
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Hero
I believe that ship has sailed.

5E has proven you don't need that cluttery junk to tell D&D like stories.

Looking at 5E as if it some kind of throwback game is not useful, in my opinion. It would be much more useful to consider it the future of gaming, since it offers great design to simplify your gaming.

For instance, Vancian casting: you don't need it to tell real D&D stories. Already 3.5 with its Sorcerer class proved this. And Paizo will find the gaming world has moved on. People just don't want to muck about with old-skool clutter like that. (Sure, OSR lives and so on, but now I'm talking numbers).

The question here is why Paizo chose such a curiously cluttery and throwback-y game design. The sad thing is, I don't think they did. I think it's even worse - that they didn't even realize their game was so cluttery and throwback-y.
 
I know my post doesn't specifically address the OP's question as I haven't played the finalized rules yet, but think of this as an "actual read experience." So I have been sitting with the Core Rulebook, pouring over it for the past few days. And this is coming from someone who has been a big Paizo detractor for years, someone who didn't care for the playtest after actually running and playing in a few sessions, and someone who didn't like the previews and was predisposed to dislike PF2.
So it means something for me to say, I'm impressed. I look forward to trying it. It may not become my go-to system, but I appreciate the crunch, the options, the monster design, the encounter XP system - all seem superior to 5E.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
For instance, Vancian casting: you don't need it to tell real D&D stories. Already 3.5 with its Sorcerer class proved this. And Paizo will find the gaming world has moved on. People just don't want to muck about with old-skool clutter like that. (Sure, OSR lives and so on, but now I'm talking numbers).
I wonder if replacing Vancian might be one of the optional systems in the Gamemastery Guide. At the same time, don't some of the classes in PF1 have spell-casting that works a bit like 5E? (Oracle/Witch?) I hope there's an official variant but if they don't bother, surely someone else will.
 
I believe that ship has sailed.

5E has proven you don't need that cluttery junk to tell D&D like stories.

Looking at 5E as if it some kind of throwback game is not useful, in my opinion. It would be much more useful to consider it the future of gaming, since it offers great design to simplify your gaming.

For instance, Vancian casting: you don't need it to tell real D&D stories. Already 3.5 with its Sorcerer class proved this. And Paizo will find the gaming world has moved on. People just don't want to muck about with old-skool clutter like that. (Sure, OSR lives and so on, but now I'm talking numbers).

The question here is why Paizo chose such a curiously cluttery and throwback-y game design. The sad thing is, I don't think they did. I think it's even worse - that they didn't even realize their game was so cluttery and throwback-y.
O.K., as I said at the beginning of this discussion there's a lot of talk about pros and cons of Pathfinder2e. I want to hear about actual play.

There's plenty of other threads in this forum for PF2E cheering or bashing.
 
There was a reason it was abandoned.

There's lots of things in PF2 5th edition gamers "are not used to".

To me, few of those are warranted. In too many cases, it feels like Paizo designed PF2 in isolation, failing to take into account what people have gotten used to since 2015.
You know, just gonna throw this out there, I've sort of picked up from a few places in your posts that you would rather not be playing pf2e- and I respect that, but not everyone is in agreement with you about the superiority of the system, and I say this as someone who was very into 5e, and has no attachment to any system of DND prior to 4e.

5e has its flaws, and one major criticism that could be levied against it is: why stop there? sure its very successful but it has the benefits of being a household name in its own right, critical role, the publicity of it as a 'redemption story' from 4e (which is nuts to me, given how much I love that game.)

But other games like dungeon world, or 13th age are even more streamlined- and that seems like what many of the people getting into 5e atm want, even greater simplicity- I have players who basically ignore their spell descriptions in 5e to try and improvise the title of the spell into whatever and all I can think about is- wouldn't they be just great in a PBTA style game? Why are they playing this watered down wargame?

I suspect that as they mature as players, and they start to become veteran players in their own right, you're going to see them split off into either more rules lite games that free them from the shackles of rules, or into more crunchy games (like our very own PF2e) that offer more mechanical engagement. I wouldn't be surprised if DND followed them into the more rules lite territory, functionally making the next edition of the game an entirely different genre than PF2e.

But even if it doesn't, Paizo doesn't need to duplicate the size of 5e's audience, it could honestly do quite well simply by being a crunchier alternative and absorbing the new players who develop a taste for crunch as the new wave of fans mature.

Copycatting 5e is not a recipe for success, because those players already have 5e.
 

Nilbog

Snotling Herder
Have played 5 sessions of PF2E, I'm DM'ing for a group of six. We have switched over from 5e, as we've been playing that since release and it was starting to feel a little stale

As for the play experience, its going really well, I'm finding DM'ing to be about equivalent to 5e in terms of effort and prep, the only real difficulty is getting on top of some of the rules, I feel the CRB is great (especially the index) but sometime I feel things could be clarified a little more (currently struggling as to if transferring a rune requires the craft magic item feat), its certainly far more enjoyable to DM than 3.5

As for the players the feedback has been positive, combats seem faster and more dangerous than 5e, which we enjoy, it really brings back an element of risk, that I felt has been missing from 4e onward. The players are more engaged with their characters, but this could be because its new and shiny, we'll see. The only difficulty is switching out of the 5e mindset (everything from reduced AoO's to resting to heal) but so far its all positive.
 
Last edited:

Kaodi

Adventurer
I wish I had a table game. I looked at the Pathfinder Discord but... I am just not super into a time commitment that does not include leaving the house right now. Maybe that is a bit ironic.
 
Have played 5 sessions of PF2E, I'm DM'ing for a group of six. We have switched over from 5e, as we've been playing that since release and it was starting to feel a little stale

As for the play experience, its going really well, I'm finding DM'ing to be about equivalent to 5e in terms of effort and prep, the only real difficulty is getting on top of some of the rules, I feel the CRB is great (especially the index) but sometime I feel things could be clarified a little more (currently struggling as to if transferring a rune requires the craft magic item feat), its certainly far more enjoyable to DM than 3.5

As for the players the feedback has been positive, combats seem faster and more dangerous than 5e, which we enjoy, it really brings back an element of risk, that I felt has been missing from 4e onward. The players are more engaged with their characters, but this could be because its new and shiny, we'll see. The only difficulty is switching out of the 5e mindset (everything from reduced AoO's to resting to heal) but so far its all positive.
Can you be more specific as to why PF2E is more enjoyable to DM then 3.5? What do you feel makes it easier? Is it NPC prep. (My personal bugbear)? Improvisation?
 

Advertisement

Top