Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[Nilbog]

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?

It may well be a personal thing, I used to really enjoy running 3.5, but as more and more books became available I found it more and more difficult to provide meaningful challenges for the players especially at higher levels. The campaign i'd been running for around a year ended on a bit of a damp squib when the group (14th level at the time) defeated the end boss (an encounter which had taken a good few hours to prep) in two rounds. so yes NPC prep is a big part!
I can't say for certain PF2e won't suffer the same fate (our group is only 2nd level) but so far its been a lot easier to throw together good encounters (not necessarily ones that the group only just beat, but ones they come away having enjoyed) than I found with 3.5

As an extra to this I'm finding the various subsystems within PF2e fit together well at the table, certainly better than they read at the book (I find there is a degree of bread crumbing in the book, having to follow a trail of rules to piece together the one you want), in the instances where we've had to quickly houserule something at the table I've found when we've researched the official ruling in downtime after the game, we've generally been very close to the official ruling.

 

[Kaodi]

Funnily enough one of the earliest characters concepts I drew up when PF2 came out was a goblin wizard with a tanked Int, . The idea being to see what you could accomplish if you never used a single spell that was affected by your key stat. So no attack rolls and no saves.

And I would still totally try a concept like that to "stress test" the wizard, though if I wanted to "optimize" for effectiveness it might be easier to go with a half-elf with elven weapon familiarity and put everything into Dex, Con, Str, and Wis, with your backstory being that your elven parent pushed you into wizardry when you did not really have a talent for it (my goblin idea is that he was a gambler who took a bet on reading a book and it turned out to be a spellbook, so he has high charisma for deception, which is not quite as optimized for combat).

The spellbook at 1st level was:
cantrips - dancing lights, detect magic, ghost sound, light, mage hand, message, prestidigitation, read aura, shield, sigil
1st - mage armour, magic missile, magic weapon, pest form, summon animal, true strike

 

[CapnZapp]

Have you played 2e yet?

Read the thread.

 

[Phion]

Background: Been a GM/player for d&D 4E, 5E and 4 sessions of playing pathfinder 2e as war priest cleric.

Some quick reflections on my part. Just things that spring to mind

The Action economy is great, I like having the option to make multiple attacks without it being tied to features. It really helps to make martial classes appealing.

I feel like 2e has the best incarnation of the fighter class and they seem relevant throughout and in fact possibly the strongest class at lower levels. The fighter in our group is having a great time and consistently leaving the group in awe (in a good way, no one feels left behind but the fighter has in fact established himself as our fighter. 5e I always felt I may as well just go a barbarian or paladin if I wanted a tanky heavy hitting martial class).

A lot of players in our group argue there is more choice in pathfinder 2e compared to d&d 5e; I strongly disagree with this from a RP perspective. I find 2e gives the illusion of lots of choice when in reality due to saturation of weapons and features with stats, some blatantly shine more. An example of this is the weapons, I am more likely to go with a pick than any other weapon as a fighter due to the new crit system and the extra damage it will likely deal, whereas 5e with the lack of stats tied to weapons I am more likely to go with what feels right with a character concept without worrying about how to stay relevant.

 

[Phion]

Oh and on a side note I find the Plague stone adventure to be far too opened ended as a introduction to the system from what I have done so far, it was so open ended I accidentally derailed it (nothing beyond fixing). Just think it would have been wiser to start a bit more streamlined.

 

[your_mother]

So, if you are either a player or DM of PF2E, what are your actual experiences of playing in and/or running the game?

I've been running the "We B4 Goblins" adventures using the 2E rules. My experience is that it's been a challenge doing small one-shot adventures for my wife who has only played two role-playing sessions before. The main challenge is the copious amounts of rules and having to page through and research the systems every time we do something.

It would've been nice to have it explained more clearly at the start, maybe I'm just old and it didn't stick with me but, the system is generally: roll a d20, add your level, your skill rating (e.g. trained = +2), your ability modifier (e.g. 12 strength = +1 athletics), and any bonuses against a DC. It's a lot of math to do on the fly and the character sheet hasn't been much help in locating things on the fly.

What works for you in practice and why? If something isn't working for you in practice why is that?

What has worked is to abandon the character sheets entirely, writing things down as they make sense after several game sessions. And, encouraging my wife to keep her character sheet up to date.

Working with a 1E module has also presented some challenges since we occasionally find things like "roll your Ride skill" and in 2E Ride is a general feat and Nature is a skill.

Also, are you coming to PF2E from PF1E or 5e? If so, what have you noticed are the major differences in actual play between the games? How easy is PF2E to run compared to those other games?

I haven't played an RPG in over ten years and the last version of D&D I played was 3rd edition. The main differences I've been noticing is that the Age of Lost Omens is more baked-in and as a result, it feels like there's a lot more details to keep track of in Pathfinder 2E than in D&D.

This is an important question: are you completely new to D&D style games? If so, are you enjoying your experience of PF2E? PF2E will need to attract new people to the game to thrive in the long term so this perspective is crucial.

I am definitely enjoying my experience with PF2E. After a couple of sessions I've been able to convert and prepare the adventures with minimal effort and have begun working on future adventures to run once my wife exhausts the first Goblin modules.

 

[Celtavian]

I was surprised today to see the paladin is still a boss against demons. Smite Evil is not gone, just changed. The extra damage is now programed into the creatures. The Vrock we were fighting today had 10 evil weakness. The paladin smite evil ability allowed him to hit for +14 damage a hit. The paladin is turning out to be far more effective at defending the party than I thought. They truly are very tanky and can really make an enemy pay the price for ignoring them, especially evil creatures.

 

[dave2008]

I feel like 2e has the best incarnation of the fighter class and they seem relevant throughout and in fact possibly the strongest class at lower levels. The fighter in our group is having a great time and consistently leaving the group in awe (in a good way, no one feels left behind but the fighter has in fact established himself as our fighter. 5e I always felt I may as well just go a barbarian or paladin if I wanted a tanky heavy hitting martial class).

I agree with the part about the 5e fighter and I haven't played PF2e yet, but I would caution you about everyone being in awe of the fighter. I had a similar experience in 4e (except it was ranger), and I only learned after we transitioned the game to 5e (after playing for 4 years in 4e) that what I had interpreted as a good feelings about the effectiveness of the ranger, was actually masking resentment for not feeling like the contributed as much. My point: don't assume the rest of the group is good with the awe inspiring character / player even if they say they are.

 

[GrahamWills]

Bold of you to assume.
The problem here is that your not playing a higher level caster. Merely a low level gutter cleric. And you are playing it as a martial wannabe. So congrats I guess.

I was mostly just assuming for fun -- but there was a bit of a point. What you are saying is that if you want to play a high level caster who does not get involved in non-spell combat, then you do not have as much fun in PF2 than PF1. I'm challenging your assumption that this is the One True Way to play a wizard, and that every other part is sub-par.

I used the archetype of the fragile high elf wizard as a caricature, but you actually double-down on it by insulting other builds! I understand the old-school thought that the Real Game is high-level wizards. It certainly was true, and it is a way to play, but I don't think it's a flaw in a modern game to say that this is no longer regarded as the ultimate goal of gaming.

Or, in other words, I think it's a good thing that "a low level gutter cleric" is fun to play.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I'm challenging your assumption that this is the One True Way to play a wizard, and that every other part is sub-par.

And my point was that Paizo overcorrected their wizards. To the point where you are having more fun emulating a martial.
The traditional wizard has been overshadowed by martials and casters trying to be martial lites.