Yeah, that's just the tip of the iceberg. PF2 is definitely not an easy casual game.I'm having some trouble parsing the SRD text. A lot of terms seem to have been changed for the sake of it, and like 4e there are a lot of keywords (eg "Ability Boost" rather than "+2 to an Attribute") that have to be looked up to find out what they mean.
I'm having some trouble parsing the SRD text. A lot of terms seem to have been changed for the sake of it, and like 4e there are a lot of keywords (eg "Ability Boost" rather than "+2 to an Attribute") that have to be looked up to find out what they mean.
A lot of terms seem to have been changed for the sake of it, and like 4e there are a lot of keywords (eg "Ability Boost" rather than "+2 to an Attribute") that have to be looked up to find out what they mean.
The game certainly comes across as having been designed in a vacuum - Paizo has not cared to learn much from the success of 5E, and I see few if any areas where the devs have been inspired by 5E, which really is boggling the mind when you think about it. (Why on Earth would Paizo think they can afford to ignore 5E? How could they not see that their game looks if not feels too much like 4E, a failed edition common sense tells you to distance yourself from? We might never know if it was hubris or ignorance...)
This is a very harsh assessment. Most people say PF came into its own with the Advanced Player's Guide, because the designers put put their own stamp on the system.My view is that Paizo is good at story and module writing, not so much on creating balanced rules. PF1 was pretty much a copy/paste of the 3.x SRD with very little design work being done. Over the years, imbalanced rules, power creep, and bloat made the game virtually unplayable from my perspective. This started as early as the Advanced Players Guide.
So my answer is that Paizo didn't create a good rules system, because that's out of their wheel house. They got lucky with Pathfinder by standing on the shoulders of giants.
PF1 is as broken as 3.x. Paizo did nothing to tone down LFQW or CoDZilla fx. And it's not about being lucky. They took an existing "giant's" system and made it their own, for writing great adventures and lore. But great rules design when it comes to PF1... Not so much.This is a very harsh assessment. Most people say PF came into its own with the Advanced Player's Guide, because the designers put put their own stamp on the system.
It's insulting to Paizo game designers to claim that they merely stood on the shoulders of giants, and got lucky. All game designers draw from what came before.
Not liking a system is fine, but there is nothing in either PF or PF2 that scream too broken to play. This is a hyperbolic response, as there is no genuine critique here, just dislike. PF2 is not perfect but has some very tight game design. It's perfectly playable.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Paizo actually did quite a bit to tone down the power of spellcasters, but it was small and obvious stuff. Clerics lost their proficiency in heavy armor. Druid wildshape worked by adjusting your own stats, rather than replacing them entirely. Save-or-Die effects were replaced with Save-or-Damage. Save-or-Hold spells started offering a new save every turn.PF1 is as broken as 3.x. Paizo did nothing to tone down LFQW or CoDZilla