Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?

[MockingBird]

It really is amazing how important perception is. Just by changing the words "encounter" and "daily" to "short rest" and "long rest" respectively, you'll be more likely to attract players.

It is pretty interesting that PF2 seems to have gone the at-will/encounter/daily (or unlimited/short rest/long rest) route. 4e really was ahead of its time!

Those key words never turned me off of 4e. The combats and how they were presented, the reliance on grid and minis, and just the way the game played is what turned me off. A casual friend you just talked into playing couldn't really sit down and just play, it was overwhelming with all the choices that could be made at character generation. They just wanted to hit things. I mistakenly thought Essentials toned it down and fell for that line only to find out it was much the same. I cant speak for others who disliked 4e but this is what turned me away. Saying that PF1e wasnt much better when I attempted to recruit new players who had never played. It wasnt until 5e and much persuasion that I was able to hook my friends into having a regular game.

 

[Celtavian]

I just got my books yesterday.

I don't know where you're getting your info from, but I'm a PF1 diehard and I'm LOVING what I'm seeing in PF2 so far. Mechanically, it seems a wholesale upgrade of PF1 without losing PF1's ability to have rich character customization and tactical combat, rules language and presentation is cleaned up and clarified significantly, it appears as though it will be much smoother and faster to run, and - where necessary - has taken steps to adhere to its own internal consistency and storytelling logic than adhering to D&Disms for nostalgia's sake.

The proof will be in the playing of the game, of course, but so far this looks like a home run!

I don't care about edition warring and 5e is entitled to its success, but for players and GMs that find 5e lacking the tactical depth or options that they desire, I think there is a new home available for them. (I think 5e is a very good game, but it didn't satisfy my character option or tactical depth requirements.)

Good to hear. I like a lot of what I saw in the play test. The 3 flexible action round is one of the most interesting mechanics to our group. It really made combat seem more natural and realistic than the move, do some kind of power, with swift or immediate actions possible. It has a lot of possibilities for actions without disrupting the flow of combat that might include skill use or some kind of role-play element. My initial feel is the 3 flexible action system will make encounter design a lot more interesting. We are looking forward to trying the game.

Everything I'm reading so far seems to indicate they improved on class design from the play test. I hope that truly is the case.

 

[Celtavian]

Interesting - so PF2 shields absorb damage, they don't merely add +2 AC like shields have done since the dawn of time.

Damage Reduction X is generally more powerful than +X damage (since 1 point of adventurer hp is generally much more valuable than 1 point of monster hp) so the specific trade-off isn't my immediate concern.

At least they didn't ask the sword and boarder to trade (3d12 - 3d8) for a measly +2 AC!

The passive AC bonus is provided for the Raise a Shield action, which I guess they eliminated.

Then when you have your shield raised, you can use a reaction to shield block mitigating some damage. You can also do this with the shield spell once every 10 minutes.

I like the mechanic myself. It better simulates the use of a shield as a general piece of armor while also allowing the shield to directly interpose itself to an attack taking damage the same time. Seeing a shield battered or hacked apart is a definite part of the genres D&D simulates.

 

[MockingBird]

The shield mechanic is interesting. The problem I have is players will add the bonus to AC and never manage it afterwards or when they need to put the shield away. This seems like it keeps having a shield in one hand at the forefront.

 

[CapnZapp]

The shield mechanic is interesting. The problem I have is players will add the bonus to AC and never manage it afterwards or when they need to put the shield away. This seems like it keeps having a shield in one hand at the forefront.

The reporting of the shield mechanism must be missing something.

You will never choose sword 'n board over a two-handed weapon if all you gain is +2 and a one-time damage reduction.

Especially since magic swords deal multiples of their weapon die and not just +1 per plus.

There must be ways to increase the protection (Armor Class, Damage Reduction) or Paizo will have failed to make the choice between shield and no shield a real choice.

This shield mechanism and shields in general will simply be ignored once magic items start being ubiquitous unless you can upgrade a "shield build" in a similar fashion to a "twohander build".

Again, I don't have the rules, so this is just speculation. I find it fascinating, however, by the very possibility that Paizo could have made such an obviously clumsy blunder...

 

[Noir le Lotus]

Another drawback of the S&B build in the PF2 playtest was that you only used the worst proficiency between armor and shield to add to your AC, so if you really wanted to increase your AC, it costed you twice the cost ...

 

[JesterOC]

After reading discussions that speculated that a two handed weapon user vs a sword and board user.
I wrote a little program to try to see what the results would be.


UPDATE: Had to add code to only use a shield block once per turn.


I assumed fighters both had these statistics
+9 to hit
AC 18 with armor
HP 21
18 strength


The great sword user
1d12+4 damage


Sword and Board
1d8+4
Steel shield 5 hardness 20 hp


I used two strategies for the shield user
Always use the shield and try to preserve the shield unless you might die (assumes that we don't know the total damage until after the shield block was in place)


Results were interesting
On average the sword and boarder won about 58 percent of the time if the shield was trying to preserve the shield, and they won about 60% of the time when all used the shield every time they could.


The shield info
when trying to preserve
rendered unusable in a fight about 30% of the time
2.5% were destroyed in a fight


when using all the time
rendered unusable in a fight about 42% of the time
5% were destroyed in a fight


When I adjusted to 4th level
with +12 to hit
60 HP
and 21 AC
preserve shield became 55% win for sword and board
but use always it dropped to 50% for the sword and boarder and the shields were broken 89% of the time


If I gave them both +1 striking weapons at that level it goes to about 50/50 in preserve mode, and 55/45 in the two hander's favor if they went to always mode.


But if I give the sword a boarder a sturdy shield it jumps back to 58% to 42% favoring the sword and boarder. In preserve, and 59% / 41% shield user to two handed in use always.


Anyway there could be (more) things I am missing but it currently looks pretty good for the sword and boarder, but I am not taking into account feats now weapon properties.

 

[JesterOC]

Especially since magic swords deal multiples of their weapon die and not just +1 per plus.

The progression of magic weapons can be enchanted to +1 to +3
For each plus to hit and damage you have you CAN add an extra die.
The extra die mechanic is called striking.
So you can have a +1 sword
Or a +1 striking sword that does +1 and an extra die
Or a +2 striking sword that does +2 and a single extra die
or a +2 major striking sword that does +2 and two extra dice.
and so on.
Oh and it looks at least for low levels sword and board is better than two handed weapons. Not including feats and weapon properties
I made a post. see perhaps above for some details.

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh and it looks at least for low levels sword and board is better than two handed weapons. Not including feats and weapon properties
I made a post. see perhaps above for some details.

Thank you, but we don't really need any math or analysis to tell us nobody will build their character for shields if it only stays competitive before feats, properties and magic items ...

...since all those things are part and parcel of a Pathfinder game.

Unless there's something I've missed there is an obvious flaw here. Why mess around with shield actions and shield damage when there's no upgrade path once you're past the lowest levels.

This can't be something everybody just missed. Have Paizo said why they hate shields...?

 

[JesterOC]

Thank you, but we don't really need any math or analysis to tell us nobody will build their character for shields if it only stays competitive before feats, properties and magic items ...

How do you arrive at those conclusions? I just showed that from 1-4 the sword and board is better, at what point do you think it all spins out of control for the sword and boarder?
The reason I didn't check higher than 4th level is because I am not familiar with the game enough to say with a high degree of certainty what the stats of a high level character is. If you have an idea of that, I assume you do or you would not think it is a forgone conclusion that swords and boards suck. Just write them here and I will run the sim. All we need are the stats I listed, if we need another stat let me know.