Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e

[S'mon]

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Yeah, that's just the tip of the iceberg. PF2 is definitely not an easy casual game.

 

[billd91]

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.

Yeah, there is a lot of language that needs to be understood. In at least some cases, they're trying to be comprehensive to head off the inevitable message board debates on what some rules mean like the old days of trying to hash out exactly what benefits being stealthy gets you. To that end, there are now some fairly subtle gradations in statuses like the defined difference between undetected and unnoticed.
It's taking some work to really grok.

 

[pcrotteau]

My son and I are enjoying the game, mainly because of our buy in of the setting and the organized play system. PF1 is his first system, but he enjoys 5e as well (weather I run it or not)

Most of my PF1 group is switching over willingly and eagerly. We saw lots of bloat in the previous system and are looking for the chance to reset.

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.

Keywords have exploded in this edition, in part to standardize terms and definitions. As we play they make more sense.

 

[Alzrius]

The problem is that, for my group, we never got to the point of giving it a chance. We've been playing Pathfinder 1E for so long that the investment of time, money, and energy to learn the new game, all under the vague promise of "the same experience you've been getting, but better!" wasn't really enough to entice anyone...especially since everyone was skeptical about how much better it would really be, as opposed to "better in some areas but not as good in others."

Also, we all like the "bloat" of PF 1E, since everyone sees options as being part of the customization process. It's going to take PF 2E some time to work up to that same level of available options.

 

[Retreater]

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...)

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.

 

[Arilyn]

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.

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.

 

[Campbell]

If you are looking for a game with tight math, tight encounter design, meaningful narrative uncertainty, embedded lore and modular design the actual execution here is excellent.

If that is not what you are looking for then the execution does not particularly matter.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

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.

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.

The point here is that whether or not PF2 is broken or not, it's hard to determine who exactly is the audience when looking at the market today. And even though it might be tightly designed, the point of the micro management is not clear. At all.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

PF1 is as broken as 3.x. Paizo did nothing to tone down LFQW or CoDZilla

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.

There's no doubt in my mind that PF1 has a better balance than D&D 3.5 did, but I still wouldn't qualify anyone at Paizo as being especially insightful based on those changes.