Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[CapnZapp]

On sidenote, bit confused by CaptainZapp's hatred of talisman since isn't their whole point to just be "category of consumables that aren't potions or alchemical items"? Like I don't really see point in hating them specifically unless you just don't like consumables at all.

First off, if you're talking as somebody aware of how D&D works in general your confusion is understandable.

You really need to understand how PF2 talismans work in detail. Then, have you read my actual criticism?

But Talismans as written? You could easily just ignore all of them and not even realize you missed out.

Because, oh boy, you aren't missing out!

Spending time to write down their names and what they do, and then select which one to affix, and remembering to use it at the exact time... For what? The tiniest shittiest pathetic little one-time bonus? With a real risk of frustration over not spotting the perfect time to use it, or finding out you affixed the wrong one and just waited in vain the whole fight, or simply by realizing you JUST missed your shot at getting good use out of the annoying little bonus there was!

No, I am personally offended by the very thought anyone is expected to bother with a single Talisman, at all.

To me the designer is giving me a giant F U sign. I hate the design with every fiber of my being.

Especially since there was no reason to create them in that way, and every reason to not create anything that whiffs of 4th edition! I truly am flabbergasted anyone at Paizo thought the implementation to be a good idea.

If you still have any questions after this, I'm happy to answer

 

[CapnZapp]

I think that there is enough space here for no one to be wrong. So, continuing the discussion on that note...



I'd like to know your frame of reference here.

Armor classes don't vary very significantly, frankly. The source of bonuses differ (pf1 = magic christmas tree, pf2 = level), but the overall effect is the same. A CR16 Ancient Black Dragon has AC39 in PF1. A CR16 Ancient Black Dragon has AC38 in PF2. A fairly well-euipped 5th level fighter in full plate +2 has AC ~24, a fairly well equipped fighter in full plate +1 in PF2 has AC ~24. You don't get that much variation, frankly.

Attack bonus is tricky- it has indeed been toned down, but the four-level result system means smaller variations have much more significant impacts. A 5th level fighter wielding a long sword +1 has an attack bonus of +14 or so. a 5th level cleric of Iomdae, same strength, has an attack bonus of +12. In PF1 the fighter will have something like a +11 or +12 while a cleric will have a +8 or +9, assuming similar strength. The +2 difference in pf2 will have a lot more effect than a +2 difference in pf1. at 6th level the fighter gets an extra attack, which shifts things around for sure.

Bottom line- the math is different- more streamlined, certainly- but I don't see it as that much "tighter" in terms of effect. A 7th level fighter will humiliate a 7th level cleric in melee, certainly.

A huge post. I realized my reply were become nearly as huge so I'm chopping it up.

As I read you, you are defending Paizo's decisions to lock in the exact improvements in a class' fundamental bonuses (to hit, AC, saves).

But then you argue the difference isn't that great anyway. Doesn't this mean you're on my side - there was no reason to lock it down, there was no reason to deny the player the satisfaction of making his or her own choices?

In 3E it is the multiclassing mechanism that provides the player control over his fundamentals. It is in this light PF2 comes across as weirdly - almost paranoiacally - locked down. There isn't even a token ability to switch around your saves (as in 5E, where you could take a feat to boost a given save, but since you have six of them, you basically chose your most important one and that was it).

Being able to juggle around your save proficiencies just like you're allowed to select skill proficiencies would have destroyed nothing, made the game slightly more fun, but most importantly, blunted the impression the game knows better than you, and makes the decisions for you!

 

[CapnZapp]

You've said this before, but can you give a concrete example? Not saying you're wrong, but the skill feats you take give you abilities that are clearly abilities that are distinctive, and usually shouldn't be used consistently.

For example, take acrobatics- someone with acrobatics (or even someone without acrobatics) can say "I jump off the balcony, try to grab the chandelier, swing over until I'm over the table and try to jump off and land on the table!"

the DM could call for an acrobatics check at 15 or 20. Someone with trained acrobatics has a much better chance to succeed than someone without acrobatics. They can still take a little bit of damage from falling 10', unless they have the catfall feet, in which case they're good. Nothing is precluded, but the catfall feat makes things a little easier for you.

I honestly can't think of something that is out and out removed from play as a possibility because it's now a class feature.

I do agree that there are much more elegant ways of handling things like backgrounds (I'm a fan of 13th age's background system myself), but I'm pleasantly surprised how few "filler" feats there are. In contrast, at least half of the feats in the 3.5/4e PHB were complete trash.

Regarding skill feats, apologies if I'm wrong, but you come off as someone talking in general as opposed to making a PF2 specific example.

Okay so let's talk Acrobatics and its skill feats.

Quick Squeeze - Feats - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

You Squeeze 5 feet per round (10 feet on a critical success). If you’re legendary in Acrobatics, you Squeeze at full Speed.

2e.aonprd.com

tells me I shouldn't say yes and let someone quickly squeeze through because that sounds reasonable - why then ever take this feat?

Nimble Crawl - Feats - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

You can Crawl incredibly swiftly—up to half your Speed, rather than 5 feet. If you’re a master in Acrobatics, you can Crawl at full Speed, and if you’re legendary, you aren’t flat-footed while prone.

2e.aonprd.com

Many players get disappointed you crawl so very slowly in this game - you must spend an entire action just to move a single square (which isn't enough if you just crawled out of a monster's square). This feat tells me I shouldn't say yes and let someone quickly roll away because that sounds reasonable - why then ever take this feat?

I could go on but won't.

The various books contains multitudes of "traps" like this, that basically paralyze your ability to use the game rules loosely and generously. You are basically told to use the rules as written, the full and complete rules - with every little restriction in place - since Paizo has taken the right to sell you a supplement book where that restriction can be mitigated or removed by taking a very special feat. You can never be sure you aren't invalidating a game choice by adopting a "house style" where some actions are just less clunky than in the RAW.

Contrast this to a feat such as

Steady Balance - Feats - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

You can keep your balance easily, even in adverse conditions. Whenever you roll a success using the Balance action, you get a critical success instead. You’re not flat-footed while attempting to Balance on narrow surfaces and uneven ground. Thanks to your incredible balance, you can attempt an...

2e.aonprd.com

This feat doesn't "retroactively" shut down me being generous. It just provides bonuses to actions. Therefore, this feat isn't a problem feat.


Hope you see the difference and the point I'm making - let's not forget, I brought this up as one of the biggest similarities to 4E I'm seeing in PF2.

 

[MaskedGuy]

shrugs I mean yeah, potency crystal is most commonly used ones, rest of them tend to be more like "Oh, neat, found this, I guess I might as well use it or never bother(puts it into same pile as 50+ cure moderate wounds potions)"(I'm not joking about that, we had hundreds of cure moderate wounds at high level 1e pathfinder just from enemy equipment). Which is my usual experience with consumables in first place, people only buy them if they are bored of saving money or do specifically know they need it or know what kind of success they want to maximize

 

[MaskedGuy]

Regarding skill feats, apologies if I'm wrong, but you come off as someone talking in general as opposed to making a PF2 specific example.

Okay so let's talk Acrobatics and its skill feats.

Quick Squeeze - Feats - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

You Squeeze 5 feet per round (10 feet on a critical success). If you’re legendary in Acrobatics, you Squeeze at full Speed.

2e.aonprd.com

tells me I shouldn't say yes and let someone quickly squeeze through because that sounds reasonable - why then ever take this feat?

Nimble Crawl - Feats - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

You can Crawl incredibly swiftly—up to half your Speed, rather than 5 feet. If you’re a master in Acrobatics, you can Crawl at full Speed, and if you’re legendary, you aren’t flat-footed while prone.

2e.aonprd.com

Many players get disappointed you crawl so very slowly in this game - you must spend an entire action just to move a single square (which isn't enough if you just crawled out of a monster's square). This feat tells me I shouldn't say yes and let someone quickly roll away because that sounds reasonable - why then ever take this feat?

I could go on but won't.

The various books contains multitudes of "traps" like this, that basically paralyze your ability to use the game rules loosely and generously. You are basically told to use the rules as written, the full and complete rules - with every little restriction in place - since Paizo has taken the right to sell you a supplement book where that restriction can be mitigated or removed by taking a very special feat. You can never be sure you aren't invalidating a game choice by adopting a "house style" where some actions are just less clunky than in the RAW.

Contrast this to a feat such as

Steady Balance - Feats - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

You can keep your balance easily, even in adverse conditions. Whenever you roll a success using the Balance action, you get a critical success instead. You’re not flat-footed while attempting to Balance on narrow surfaces and uneven ground. Thanks to your incredible balance, you can attempt an...

2e.aonprd.com

This feat doesn't "retroactively" shut down me being generous. It just provides bonuses to actions. Therefore, this feat isn't a problem feat.


Hope you see the difference and the point I'm making - let's not forget, I brought this up as one of the biggest similarities to 4E I'm seeing in PF2.

Umm, I really don't agree with either of your examples. I mean, first one is because normally squeezing takes minutes

"Critical Success You squeeze through the tight space in 1 minute per 10 feet of squeezing.
Success You squeeze through in 1 minute per 5 feet."

The latter is just about house ruling If you want everyone to be able to crawl faster, then you can just remove feat or make it freebie.

Like your latter complain isn't about "I think it sucks there is feat to let you crawl faster" its "I think it sucks that crawling speed is low"?

Though yeah I do understand the design logic of "allows you to do more with your actions" vs "allows you to do thing better", but I don't really see it as problematic in these examples. Like I can understand it about some examples with 1e feats...

 

[CapnZapp]

This I can't agree with. Those feats promote very different styles of fighters- something the pf1 feat tree very rarely did.

Sure, you can give a guy a "free" second attack, but then everyone would take that action (and ONLY that action). Instead you get a choice of ways to get bonuses, some of which can be combined.

And it appears to me that pf2 concentrates on breadth of customization, rather than power. Another way of stating the above is that pf2 rewards system mastery to a much lesser degree than pf1, which I think is a definite win, even if it means that Golarion blacksmiths need to learn to make something other than falchions.

I can't make you agree with me. As long as you understand my point, you're free to disagree.

I just feel Paizo is doling out gifts as incrementally and specifically as possible. It's like being spoon-fed, never getting slightly more food, never getting slightly less.

I dislike the feeling of being completely controlled - yes, I can make a fighter with this highly specific maneuver here at the cost of not being able to make that maneuver there.

That feels unnatural and gamist. I prefer a slightly looser game framework where the player and GM is given at least minimal trust, minimal latitude to work it out for themselves.

It makes everything look and feel so very complicated. And you always feel at the mercy of the publisher.

Yes, some might like it. But remember it makes the CRB read like a purchasing catalog rather than a living breathing rulebook. It's likely one of the biggest barriers to entry from new customers, especially given the competition. I had hoped this format died out with 4E.

 

[CapnZapp]

The latter is just about house ruling If you want everyone to be able to crawl faster, then you can just remove feat or make it freebie.

Yeah good luck with that.

I couldn't get three sessions into the game before I was completely stopped in my tracks by the cascading number of highly specific feats I was trampling all over.

So I gave up and started to gamesmaster the game like a good little well-adjusted GM that trusts Paizo to improvise better than myself... (yes, that's theatrical bitterness)

 

[MaskedGuy]

You do kinda confuse me there bit since you are using very subjective experiences and terms there. Like "Living breathing rulebook" doesn't really say much to me, I definitely didn't feel like 1e rulebook was like that.

That said, I think I can understand your preferences about flexibility maybe? Not completely, but the way I understood it, you don't like that 2e character building is more about versatility than specialty?

 

[CapnZapp]

Lore is a big old failure- I'm honestly considering bringing 13a's background system to replace it.

Treat wounds and earn income I can appreciate- neither are all that complicated and both make the world a bit more grounded.

I guess you're right about Lore. Not to miffed about it. Once you realize you basically choose a lore as a ribbon ability you can then forget about them.

---

I severely dislike the way Treat Wounds turn downtime into a minigame. I want rules that basically lets you get on with it!

Not asking players to make a lot of decisions - should I go for DC 15 or hope for DC 20? Should I use Assurance or make a roll?

...and forcing them to remember cruft like who has done Battle Medicine? Who has given me Battle Medicine? Have you gotten magical healing today?

Making everything have cooldowns of 10 minutes, 1 hour and one day makes it much messier than it ever needed to be.

It might have been created with the best of intentions, but it's far too complicated when it basically amounts to "you're back to full health after a short rest" ANYWAY. Which would have been MUCH MUCH simpler faster and better. But that's PF2 for you - always taking the most cluttery path possible.

I took a stab at making that second design pass that Paizo never got to make (but should have), significantly simplifying this mess, here:

Pathfinder 2E - PF2 Treat Wounds - Simplified

In short, how about this: Remove all choices, checks and die rolls from the Treat Wounds trained Medicine activity. Replace with the following: Treat Wounds makes the target regain a number of hit points equal to your skill bonus in Medicine plus double your Proficiency Rank: Trained +4 Expert...

www.enworld.org

I can't say I was entirely successful, but it serves as an illustration of how overwrought the existing system really is.

---

Since Earn Income gives you a pittance (relative to your level) why all the details, why the detailed table? And why the daily breakdown instead of "you gain X gold per week"?

I'm getting the definite impression the main reason is to make Earn Income much much more important than it ever is in practice.

Looking at the table on page 236 I'm itching to just erase all the checks, modifiers, tables, rolls and malarkey and just say

A character can spend a downtime week Earning Income. You earn your level squared in gold per week.
(Yes that single line of text is really everything you need)

You don't need to take into account that a high-level character uses an untrained skill. It's okay to just assume characters aren't idiots, and that they will always find a task for a skill they're actually good at.

What I'm doing here is what a good designer would have done. Killing off the crud. Yes, some players aren't able to see beyond the shining surface where everything looks so important and impressive. But I expect more of paid professionals.

 

[CapnZapp]

You do kinda confuse me there bit since you are using very subjective experiences and terms there.

The 4E and PF2 rulebooks are basically only long long lists of choices (powers and feats, respectively).

The 5E rulebook is much more like a general textbook, and like other rpg rulebooks. It contains more text (prose) than tables.

You can't get a sense of what a "fighter" or "ranger" is by just looking at an easy overview. The games are "buried" in lists. I might be able to move past that, but I'm not so sure about many newcomers to the hobby.

Apologies for not being precise.