Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[CapnZapp]

This what I don't understand. Why would you want a game with choices that so clearly outclass other choices if you don't play that way? Why would you want them to exist?

That's reductive, Celt, and you know it.

No, this isn't about choosing "would you like +10 damage or pink fingernails".

It's a question about who gets to build the character. The player or the game.

In PF2 you easily get the impression the game is building your character for you, when you aren't allowed many (any?) choices that really matter.

We should be able to discuss why the player isn't trusted enough to choose which save to maximize, for instance, (or whether to focus on saves or AC, to take another example) without that being characterized as "you want choices that clearly outclass others".

 

[CapnZapp]

And if that is an issue hurting the game for them, their options are house rules or different game. I'm just saying that they are only as problematic as you make them. At some point, you have to decide if the other elements of the game are desirable and you can house rule the parts you don't like in such a way to make them palatable.

We know by this point they are not going to rewrite the game to change these things. So house rules is the only method for dealing with them or just doing things the way you want to do them. If you're playing PFS, then you're at the mercy of their rule decisions. If you're playing pick up games, then you let the players know your house rules and they decide if they want to play with you.

The design for PF2 is pretty much done and decided. Options for official adjustments are likely not coming. DMs gotta do what they gotta do at this point to make things work.

Hate to break it to ya but forum discussions are quite often about things you can't actually change

 

[CapnZapp]

Personally when running a game like 5e I often feel like I am doing all the heavy lifting - that the game is providing no actual value outside of combat.

An interesting take.

I wouldn't have said PF2 is better at ooc stuff than 5E myself. I'll keep this in mind as we level up.

 

[dave2008]

This what I don't understand. Why would you want a game with choices that so clearly outclass other choices if you don't play that way? Why would you want them to exist?

I've seen people run the numbers for 5e and clearly outclass is an exaggeration. IMO, every build in 5e is effective. Some do more damage, but the difference is, IMO, minimal. But to be honest, my players don't look at that stuff or seem to care. We have 2 fighters in my current group and only one chose GWM and they are thinking about retraining that feat because with the -5 they miss to often.

However, that is not really what I am talking about. If each feat was just as effective as the next, that would be fine. It doesn't matter to me or our group one way or the other.

Also, to be honest, 5e is to balanced for me too. I would prefer unbalanced races.

 

[dave2008]

The design for PF2 is pretty much done and decided. Options for official adjustments are likely not coming. DMs gotta do what they gotta do at this point to make things work.

Agreed, but that never stops people from pointing out things they don't like!

 

[dave2008]

It is what it is. If you are looking for a game where the rules of the game fade into the background you probably should not be playing either edition of Pathfinder. Pathfinder Second Edition wants you to be actively engaged with the rules. It defines what a character is capable of both in combat and out of combat. That allows them to build in meaningful progression of noncombat prowess (that is not just numbers). It also means that when I am running a game I get to be meaningfully surprised by how things go.

Is that really a requirement to play? I guess I am weird in that I like designing rules, but not playing with them! I am fascinated by the design of PF2e. On paper it is close to my ideal game (with a few tweaks); however, I simply don't want to play a game were I have to master the rules to have fun. @Celtavian hinted that I could still enjoy PF2e and learn the rules through play. Are you suggesting that is incorrect, that you really have to master the rules to enjoy PF2?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Is that really a requirement to play? I guess I am weird in that I like designing rules, but not playing with them! I am fascinated by the design of PF2e. On paper it is close to my ideal game (with a few tweaks); however, I simply don't want to play a game were I have to master the rules to have fun. @Celtavian hinted that I could still enjoy PF2e and learn the rules through play. Are you suggesting that is incorrect, that you really have to master the rules to enjoy PF2?

Unfortunately, it doesn’t help in learning the game that the rules are poorly edited.
Examples

Blinded works like concealed (in that you need a flat check to target something if you are blind).

Is this explained in the summary of conditions at the end of the book? No (though for concealed, which works similarly, it is explained there). How about in the conditions section under “Playing the Game”? Still no. It is explained in the “Detecting Creatures” subsection, under the subheading “Hidden”.

The Artificer wanted to Repair a Shield. Is the DC to do sounder the Repair action in the Skills section? No. “The GM determines the DC based on its level, rarity and other circumstances.” Ok, how about the Equipment section? Still no, and no useful redirects. Ok, “Crafting and Treasure” Section? Nope, its in the Game Mastering section “Craft” subsection (but you need to cross-reference the item level).

Last example. Does “frightened” affect a character’s AC? Ah ha! The condition says that it only affects a character’s DCs. But wait! The definition of AC specifies that it is a special type of DC. But double wait!! Is it “the character’s” DC? Isn’t it literally the Difficulty Class of the creature trying to hit you? We finally landed on “yes”, frightened does affect DCs.

 

[BryonD]

I think the pro-2E comments are completely valid at face value. But the flaw is that they look at the game in a vacuum.
If there were no other TTRPGs in the world and I had PF2E, I expect I'd be thrilled.
But there are other games. And PF2E is held to the standard of doing a BETTER job of delivering fun and fulfillment at the table than the other choices available.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the pro-2E comments are completely valid at face value. But the flaw is that they look at the game in a vacuum.
If there were no other TTRPGs in the world and I had PF2E, I expect I'd be thrilled.
But there are other games. And PF2E is held to the standard of doing a BETTER job of delivering fun and fulfillment at the table than the other choices available.

Exactly my point when I question the launch of PF2 in a world where 5E has already achieved mega success.

PF2 does have definite merit, but did it have to come across as so clueless about two things?
a) the success and popularity of 5E
b) pretty much the exact opposite for 4E

I say, no, I don't see any reason why Paizo couldn't have made a successor to their Pathfinder game that at the very least made a token effort to take those two factoids into account. To me, PF2 comes uncomfortably close to existing in an alternative timeline where 4E was appreciated and 5E didn't exist. Almost as if the game was developed during 2008 and then collected dust in a desk drawer for a decade.

 

[BryonD]

I say, no, I don't see any reason why Paizo couldn't have made a successor to their Pathfinder game that at the very least made a token effort to take those two factoids into account.

Heh, at the risk of cross referencing threads.... I think the "like 4E" thing is a big factor here.
Now, I'll repeat my position that PF2E is UNLIKE 4E in a lot more ways than it is LIKE 4E. In my opinion, it is a weak analysis to say that PF2E is like 4E.

BUT...
I strongly believe that the roots of 4E and the roots of PF2E both being reaction to the 3X core system can't be denied.
And this is a squeaky wheel gets the grease kind of thing. The people who disliked the balance issues (bugs for some, features for others, but certainly bugs for those squeaking) were LOUD and constantly repeating. I'm sure the design teams in both cases had those complaints ringing in their ears eternally.
I won't suggest that they were not completely fair and honest concerns for some people. But I will say that the significant number of players who had no problem with these issues (ranging from "its a feature" to "whatever") didn't go around posting how awesome it was ever other day. People don't work that way. So after literally a DECADE in the Paizo case, this water torture had an effect.
The mentality that "our next game will be a balanced as any game in the history of the universe" mindset seems practically overwhelming.

They went very different directions once that foundation was set. But that foundation itself, very much the same.

And it crushed their chance for the "token effort" you speak of. I truly think they were so saturated in the vocal minority eternal drone that they had no idea it was happening. I think they were shocked that so many of their old fans were so disappointed.