Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[CapnZapp]

There is definitely enough design space to sacrifice enough to make a save a "good" save too- it just hasn't been implemented yet.

Thank you.

I'm sure you'll forgive me for not holding off criticism just because it might be implemented down the line...

 

[CapnZapp]

Ah, ok, you're talking the difference between a rule-lite approach, ala 13a and Shadows of the Demon Lord (naming two of my favorite rules-medium/lite games), which is what 5e embraced, for the most part, and rules-heavy approach, which has been Pathfinder's wheelhouse.

I definitely don't mind rules-lite games. In fact, I prefer them, especially when they have include substantial character customization options. 5e, which I think is my favorite version of D&D, doesn't fall in that category. Sure, there are dials you can crank to change effectiveness, but those dials are few in number, and the effect is too radical for my taste- it makes certain builds the "right" build and the whole host of others the "wrong" build.

You are absolutely correct in criticizing PF2 from a rules-lite perspective- it isn't rules-lite. But it wasn't ever intended to be, so there really isn't much point in continuing this part of the discussion- you're right, it's not rules-lite, which is as intended- a good chunk of people like to have definitive rules on crawling, which opens up space for feats that modify it.

I really don't think "it's not rules-lite it's rules-heavy" is enough to let Paizo off the hook here.

PF2 isn't just rules-heavy. It's supertanker heavy. It's black hole heavy.

I think the question "was it really wise to make it THAT rules heavy" merits asking, and that "it was never meant to be rules light, so you might look elsewhere" is not enough of an answer.

Why? Because the contrast between 4E and 5E provides a blindingly obvious hint of what games masters need and most importantly doesn't need.

 

[CapnZapp]

There were powers and abilities that were clearly better than other ones.

Sure.

But let's not reduce the argument to "the ideally balanced game does not contain any choices better than others" because that's simply not at all what you should strive for.

There should absolutely be ways to make your character better than other characters of the same general build at certain aspects, ideally at the expense of other equally desirable aspects.

If there isn't, your choices doesn't matter, and that's not a good thing, that's a bad thing.

 

[CapnZapp]

Since it is our house game, I can do this.

Yes you can!

Apologies if I gave you the impression I would come over to your house to stop you

 

[CapnZapp]

You should be ok. Nice thing about PF2 is you can't really make any mistakes. Even in 4E you could make mistakes choosing inferior powers.

I think this line is what I will end up having repeated the most often during these discussions...:

If everybody's special noone is.​

That is, if you can't make any wrong choices, you can't make any right choices either, which dampens the very important part of many D&D players' enjoyment - the charbuilding phase.

 

[CapnZapp]

Honestly, those aren't even the best examples!

Thank you for upstaging me! (I don't mind getting upstaged when people make my argument even stronger)

 

[CapnZapp]

Not really a problem in my opinion. The feats you suggest make those abilities automatic and unquestioned. Whereas the DM can certainly allow a player to use a skill in an outside the box way for a specific thing without having to apply a condition to it. For example, if a player wants to conceal a spellcasting, he doesn't have the metamagic feat for it to alter the spell component itself. So he would have to say use his napkin to hide his mouth requiring a deception, perhaps one more difficult than normal if insufficient props.

Or he doesn't need to fascinate or impress the group. He can instead convince them or distract them for a few rounds if appropriate. No in game feat needed. He does what he needs to do. It doesn't have a condition.

The feats you noted have specific game rules that can be applied in any situation. The player has control over them due to his expertise rather than the DM controlling the situation allowing something specific to occur. A Fascinating Performance doesn't care if you're using it on an orc or a nymph, the player gets to use it. Whereas the DM can still say the nymph is responsive to beautiful music, so if you give a good enough performance you can convince her to do do such and such or delay combat. The DM can still allow people with skills to use them to resolve issues in a creative fashion, but the player also has control over the use of his skills to use them in a tactical manner. It seems this system allows you to do either.

Not sure why DMs are thinking the rules somehow override their ability as DM to allow players to creatively use their abilities. I know I have had zero trouble allowing player creativity same as any edition. More feats that allow for player agency do not disallow the DM from allowing creative use of abilities.

I am a bit disappointed you so easily brush aside maybe the core complaint about this particular style of design.

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree with you; however, it was real issue some people had with 4e powers too. Some players didn't want to do anything that wasn't in a power, even though 4e had a powerful improvisation engine built in. To break my players of their reliance on their "powers" I ran an adventure completely without powers and we did everything with improvised actions (even spells) and used DMG 42 to adjudicate it. So I get and agree with your point, but @CapnZapp has noted the it is a problem for him and it is likely a problem for others. Best to be aware of it and not just dismiss it, or you might not pick up on it when it is happening.

Yep.

In short, either the game offers improvisation, in which case it's crucial it doesn't also offer a controlling detailistic framework (CDF).

Or it offers a CDF with the assumption that is meant to be enough for the GM and players.

Offering a CDF and then saying "if you don't like it you can always improvise" is an unacceptable cop-out, since it means the devs doesn't have to take responsibility for things that doesn't work in the CDF.

Offering a CDF with the express notion of "only use the parts you like" is even worse: the entire point of a CDF is that you either use it in full, or not at all. As soon as you skip one part of it, you introduce a metal-level of minmaxing where players will want to use the bonuses but avoid the costs/penalties.

 

[CapnZapp]

I know the biggest complaints about PF1 that I saw were:
1. Game Balance: Game balance was terrible past lvl 7 or so. And non-existent at higher levels. PCs were superheroes disguised as fantasy characters easily able to hit for hundreds of points of damage per round per character or cast spells that ended battles with a single missed save often forcing enemies to save multiple times against the same spell. Or they just made it so the enemy couldn't fight back making it just a beatdown fest for the PCs.

2. Ease of Preparation: PF1 required an immense amount of preparation and understanding of the game rules to know how to counter high level PCs. It required hours of preparation and planning for encounters that often lasted anywhere from a few rounds to 10 or 15 rounds depending on rolls.

3. Martial-Caster Balance: Martials did the most damage. But who cares, casters had all the real power. Casters were god-like and their weapons were limited by what spells could do, which wasn't much of a limit.

PF2 addresses all of these concerns without losing the feel of a living, breathing world. That was what was important to me. If none of those areas concerned you, then PF2 is just another game with some interesting subsystems. PF2 took all the complaints from PF1 DMs and players, then produced PF2. I think they addressed most of the primary complaints I heard on the various forums without ruining the game. It doesn't sound to me like those complaints were anything you worried about.

Absolutely.

I remain convinced that an "Advanced 5th Edition" would suit me better, however. That would come much closer to throwing out the bathwater without losing the baby.

The baby being "playing D&D in the 3rd edition style but with #1 balance, #2 DM prep and #3 LFQW comprehensively fixed".

The question remains: while PF2 might fix these problems, does it only do it at the expense of creating a too-different too-controlling game?

My point being: 5E meanwhile fixed the problems at the cost of ending up a tad too simplistic.

Isn't simplicity a much easier thing to solve?

 

[CapnZapp]

I've been DMing so long that it is natural for me to decide things. I can see how a newer DM might feel stuck at times if his players are questioning him or pestering him. A lack of clear rules might also make a DM feel unable to make a decision on what is and is not allowed. Thus it will usually come down to DM experience and confidence improvising.

Well, I am neither an inexperienced nor insecure GM. So...