Pathfinder 2E Play report (Extinction Curse spoilers)

[CapnZapp]

Can you perhaps specify an exact magical item comparison so I can understand the difference between a 5E item and a PF2 item? So far my players like PF2 items. They like that they changed magic weapons from a flat bonus to damage and hit to the potency and striking runes. They like how holy items tend to do more damage against fiends. Really makes it seem like a holy sword. They also like you can cast a spell from a magic item and not have it take your concentration slot like 5E. There seems to be a lot more variability, strategy, and usefulness with PF2 items.

Ah yes, getting blinded by the awesome Striking runes! Yes, been there, done that.

But there really is only two categories of magic items in PF2.

Fundamental runes, and pretty much optional items.

The fundamental runes have a high impact and sure, they are not subtle or boring. Still, they encourage the 3E/PF1 view where any humanoid NPC has to have them, or it feels "unrealistic" why it should deal level-appropriate damage. It should be the GMs decision whether any tool used by a NPC is lootable or not. Plus, and I guess this is the more important caveat, their use is already factored in by the game. Meaning that you're entitled to getting them. Meaning that not getting them is a punishment, rather than getting them is a reward.

While I dislike how 5E monsters are designed with no items (feats, m/c) in mind, I do like how 5E items are unadulterated rewards.

Back to PF2 - other items, not so much. Sure cold or acid runes, but note how the only place where you can be generous as a GM is damage - and only martial damage to boot!

There's a truckload of items giving a +1 bonus to this specific thing here or one less penalty to that thing there. Far too many items are simply not worth the effort of keeping track of their use. At least a static +1 bonus to a skill can be jotted down on your character sheet and then forgotten about.

What there is not, however, is transcending items - everything (including damage runes) feels so "already calculated in". For instance, I would be surprised if even a single of my own items from my Tomb of Annihilation campaign would be "legit" within the PF2 framework.

Then PF2 has talismans. Yuck.

Sure 5E has its missteps too. Any item that gives an absolute benefit is bad for the game. 5E has items and feats that say "you can't become" surprised or tracked or prone or whatever. That's just lazy game design, that short-circuits certain story developments for no reason. Here Paizo is infinitely better, since it understands that anytime you say "it's impossible" in a level-based game, what you really should say "the DC is high". Instead of saying you can't be this or that, give a high counteract level so that yes, against low-level effects you can indeed not be this or that, but that against a high-level effect your protection isn't so absolute any more.

But overall, 5E magic items can be whatever you want them to be. I liked that in 3E, and I don't like how PF2 actively locks down items for me.

Zapp

tl;dr: there's this brilliant example in the 5E DMG that throws the difference into stark contrast:

That said, rarity shouldn't get in the way of your campaign's story.
If you want a ring of invisibility to fall into the hands of
a 1 st-level character, so be it. No doubt a great story will
arise from that event.

If you let a level 1 character get a ring of invisibility in PF2, he would... hang on, wait a minute - there is no ring of invisibility in PF2!

As a GM, I interpret this as the game not trusting me with handing out an always-on invisibility item. Paizo knows best. Better make every item as limited and conditional as possible, so you can have as many variations of the same effect as possible (you can get a permanent item that gives you invisibility, but conditions apply: you can only use three times a day, you need to remember how many times a day you've used it, it only applies if you wear light armor, and you'll give up one out of three armor rune slots for the privilege) which is exactly what went wrong with 4E items: too damn many limitations.

It really can't be stated any clearer.

 

[Celtavian]

First off, Celtavian, do you see (and agree) to the notion "PF2 is much much more cluttery than 5E"?

Assuming you're on board this, you should have no trouble agreeing with me when I say "PF2 will never be near as successful as 5E regardless of advertising".

In other words, it isn't the lack of branding or advertising dollars that is missing. What's missing is an accessible game. That is, if the competition were 4E or PF1, then yes, PF2 can be viewed as an improvement.

But the competition isn't 4E or PF1.

tl;dr: The success of 5E might involve luck or marketing, but let's not forget that all this is enabled by 5E shedding a lot of D&D crud accumulated since 1E. (And I'm saying this as someone who LIKES crud )

Yes. It is cluttery as written. I think they could clean up a lot of clutter with another few editing passes. So much of this info could have been condensed. PF has always been cluttered like the 3E system. 5E is more approachable for quick gaming.

But Critical Role taking up D&D and bringing it to Geek and Sundry and then bringing in celebrity friends was a marketing coup that really seemed to blow the game up. Mercer and his crew made it cool to play D&D for everyone from nerds to jocks to hot girls. How do you plan for that? That's just some unforeseen bit of luck that surprises you. I'll admit it was enabled by simplifying the system making it easy for a group with a moderately skilled DM to just pick up. That would be harder to do with PF2, even though PF2 is substantially simpler than PF1.

I do believe PFs in house fan base will keep the game going with a bigger market than the other games you mention. Their adventures are still vastly superior to 5E in my opinion. Once people see they are providing a quality experience from 1 to 20, that will attract people to the game. Before you rarely saw lvl 20 and your top level powers. They seem to be designing the new APs with the clear intent of taking you to max level to use those nifty high level powers.

This will be interesting to watch. On the one hand D&D is as mainstream as it's ever been. On other hand PF2 is offering a very interesting game with adventure paths that allow you to fully explore a character all the way to level 20. I think PF2 will probably grow slower, but eventually find a very strong niche market because it's gameplay is solid from 1 to 20 rather than the first 5 to 10 levels.

 

[Celtavian]

Ah yes, getting blinded by the awesome Striking runes! Yes, been there, done that.

But there really is only two categories of magic items in PF2.

Fundamental runes, and pretty much optional items.

The fundamental runes have a high impact and sure, they are not subtle or boring. Still, they encourage the 3E/PF1 view where any humanoid NPC has to have them, or it feels "unrealistic" why it should deal level-appropriate damage. It should be the GMs decision whether any tool used by a NPC is lootable or not. Plus, and I guess this is the more important caveat, their use is already factored in by the game. Meaning that you're entitled to getting them. Meaning that not getting them is a punishment, rather than getting them is a reward.

While I dislike how 5E monsters are designed with no items (feats, m/c) in mind, I do like how 5E items are unadulterated rewards.

Back to PF2 - other items, not so much. Sure cold or acid runes, but note how the only place where you can be generous as a GM is damage - and only martial damage to boot!

There's a truckload of items giving a +1 bonus to this specific thing here or one less penalty to that thing there. Far too many items are simply not worth the effort of keeping track of their use. At least a static +1 bonus to a skill can be jotted down on your character sheet and then forgotten about.

What there is not, however, is transcending items - everything (including damage runes) feels so "already calculated in". For instance, I would be surprised if even a single of my own items from my Tomb of Annihilation campaign would be "legit" within the PF2 framework.

Then PF2 has talismans. Yuck.

Sure 5E has its missteps too. Any item that gives an absolute benefit is bad for the game. 5E has items and feats that say "you can't become" surprised or tracked or prone or whatever. That's just lazy game design, that short-circuits certain story developments for no reason. Here Paizo is infinitely better, since it understands that anytime you say "it's impossible" in a level-based game, what you really should say "the DC is high". Instead of saying you can't be this or that, give a high counteract level so that yes, against low-level effects you can indeed not be this or that, but that against a high-level effect your protection isn't so absolute any more.

But overall, 5E magic items can be whatever you want them to be. I liked that in 3E, and I don't like how PF2 actively locks down items for me.

Zapp

tl;dr: there's this brilliant example in the 5E DMG that throws the difference into stark contrast:

If you let a level 1 character get a ring of invisibility in PF2, he would... hang on, wait a minute - there is no ring of invisibility in PF2!

As a GM, I interpret this as the game not trusting me with handing out an always-on invisibility item. Paizo knows best. Better make every item as limited and conditional as possible, so you can have as many variations of the same effect as possible (you can get a permanent item that gives you invisibility, but conditions apply: you can only use three times a day, you need to remember how many times a day you've used it, it only applies if you wear light armor, and you'll give up one out of three armor rune slots for the privilege) which is exactly what went wrong with 4E items: too damn many limitations.

It really can't be stated any clearer.

I was at first surprised there was no ring of invisibility and a lot of old items are missing. I figure they will be released in future books. We shall see. Balance seems to be their primary starting point. DMs can work there way to what they want from the base point of balance. I don't think PF2 doesn't trust you so much as they are saying, "Here is your very balanced game all the way to level 20. Adjust it as you desire, but our starting point is balance." I would never accuse Paizo of not trusting you, so much as they chose a path of extreme balance to make the game playable from 1 to 20 as that is what a lot of PF players asked for. And it makes their APs more valuable from start to finish since nearly any group can take a PF AP now and play a character from 1 to 20 rather a DM ripping his hair out after hitting the 3rd module in an AP. I think that was intentional.

But some of the items there are powerful and interesting.

1. Ring of Lies. +2 item bonus to Deception and lets you cast glibness at will. Seems boring, but let's you do what it says you can do very, very well and when combined with feats seems very magical in the game.

2. Cloak and Boots of Elvenkind: Bonus to acrobatics and stealth and together let's you cast invisibility, possibly greater invisibility once or twice per day. Which when combined with Stealth and Acrobatics feats can very much make you seem like a character that can disappear into his surroundings or walk on snow.

3. We picked up a magic item in Age of Ashes that let's you adjust your attack roll after you miss with an arrow once per day. This item has proved useful up to level 11. I like to describe it as altering the path of your arrow in flight narratively.


Magic items seem to work well within the context of PF2 enhancing already extraordinary abilities in an interesting way that can be imagined within the framework of the narrative. There are certain magic items in 5E that are extraordinarily good like the ring of invisibility being one that stands out, but for all intents and purposes the cloak and boots of elvenkind with stealth feats and the invis spell can do the same thing for meaningful combats.

Just like everything else in PF2, the magic items tend to play in a more interesting manner than they read. My group was very unimpressed with PF2 magic items and items in general until we started to use them. Goldenmist Elixir looked pathetic. Then we used it. You give a group Goldenmist Elixir before a battle, you lower the damage quite a bit. We though the Cape of the Mountebank wasn't so good. Then the goblin alchemist with his Deception hide ability saw a substantial boost in success and that D-door proved to improve his survival. The ranger picked up a cloak and boots of elvenkind. He was much stealthier and got caught less on his scouting ops than prior and had an escape button if he got caught. Dragon Breath potions last an hour. You get to breathe for an hour every few rounds, which can give you a nice extra AoE attack when you need it.

We'll see how magic items go as we level more. My players like magic items so far with the shield being the main disappointing item as shield block has become fairly useless to counter the damage at these levels. And they definitely like being able to craft items they want or need, which did not exist in base 5E.

But I do have to admit some of the 5E magic items were epic. The Belt of Giant strength stood out in 5E over Apex Items. If you got a high level belt of giant strength, you really felt like a boss far superior to any other strength user in the group. Ring of Invisibility was extremely good. Some of the artifacts were pretty neat. They weren't balanced, but they were cool.

This will give you something to experiment with. You can write up some cool magic items, see how they work within the framework of the system. At least you have this very balanced system to start with and you can figure out how such things affect the system to get the result you desire narratively. If you decide to do this, I'd like to see hear how it works. I may do it some myself. Some of the magic items in the APs are more interesting than the magic items in the Core Rulebook. Maybe that is their plan to make magic items unique to APs.

 

[Porridge]

Ah yes, getting blinded by the awesome Striking runes! Yes, been there, done that.

But there really is only two categories of magic items in PF2.

Fundamental runes, and pretty much optional items.

The fundamental runes have a high impact and sure, they are not subtle or boring. Still, they encourage the 3E/PF1 view where any humanoid NPC has to have them, or it feels "unrealistic" why it should deal level-appropriate damage. It should be the GMs decision whether any tool used by a NPC is lootable or not. Plus, and I guess this is the more important caveat, their use is already factored in by the game. Meaning that you're entitled to getting them. Meaning that not getting them is a punishment, rather than getting them is a reward.

While I dislike how 5E monsters are designed with no items (feats, m/c) in mind, I do like how 5E items are unadulterated rewards.

Back to PF2 - other items, not so much. Sure cold or acid runes, but note how the only place where you can be generous as a GM is damage - and only martial damage to boot!

There's a truckload of items giving a +1 bonus to this specific thing here or one less penalty to that thing there. Far too many items are simply not worth the effort of keeping track of their use. At least a static +1 bonus to a skill can be jotted down on your character sheet and then forgotten about.

What there is not, however, is transcending items - everything (including damage runes) feels so "already calculated in". For instance, I would be surprised if even a single of my own items from my Tomb of Annihilation campaign would be "legit" within the PF2 framework.

Then PF2 has talismans. Yuck.

Sure 5E has its missteps too. Any item that gives an absolute benefit is bad for the game. 5E has items and feats that say "you can't become" surprised or tracked or prone or whatever. That's just lazy game design, that short-circuits certain story developments for no reason. Here Paizo is infinitely better, since it understands that anytime you say "it's impossible" in a level-based game, what you really should say "the DC is high". Instead of saying you can't be this or that, give a high counteract level so that yes, against low-level effects you can indeed not be this or that, but that against a high-level effect your protection isn't so absolute any more.

But overall, 5E magic items can be whatever you want them to be. I liked that in 3E, and I don't like how PF2 actively locks down items for me.

Zapp

tl;dr: there's this brilliant example in the 5E DMG that throws the difference into stark contrast:

If you let a level 1 character get a ring of invisibility in PF2, he would... hang on, wait a minute - there is no ring of invisibility in PF2!

As a GM, I interpret this as the game not trusting me with handing out an always-on invisibility item. Paizo knows best. Better make every item as limited and conditional as possible, so you can have as many variations of the same effect as possible (you can get a permanent item that gives you invisibility, but conditions apply: you can only use three times a day, you need to remember how many times a day you've used it, it only applies if you wear light armor, and you'll give up one out of three armor rune slots for the privilege) which is exactly what went wrong with 4E items: too damn many limitations.

It really can't be stated any clearer.

Yeah, PF2 has sometimes been called the "GM's edition" because so many of the changes of the game are explicitly oriented to making things easier and more enjoyable for the GM.

1. The game is set up in a very modular and easy to customize way, making it easy for GM's to come up with and implement house rules.
2. Monsters have unique and engaging abilities that distinguish them from each other, and make them more fun (as a GM) to play.
3. The game employs a rarity system to helpfully flag spells for the GM that are potentially plot-breaking for various common fantasy campaigns.
4. Level-appropriate challenges involving skills will reliably be challenges for your party, not challenges that (as in PF1) are either trivialized by specialists, or impossible to make for non-specialists.
5. Level-appropriate combat encounters will reliably be challenges for your party, not challenges that (as in PF1) are either trivialized by optimized characters, or very difficult for non-optimized characters, or (worst of all) trivial for some players and extremely difficult for others in the same party.

But in order for something like #4 and #5 to be true, you don't want a magic item system which allows characters with these items to trivialize the encounters, and characters without them to struggle. So you need to expect that the party has certain items and factor that in to the encounter math, which (as you noted above) is precisely what PF2 does.

In contrast, 5e leaves really powerful magic items in the game that aren't factored into encounter math, which has the perk of making them feel really powerful and game-changing (because they are!), but has the downside of making it increasingly difficult for the game to satisfy #5.

I understand why PF2 didn't adopt the 5e approach to magic items, to keep encounter balance intact. But, like you, I'm not a fan of having magic items "baked into" the math, like the default PF2 rules do. In order to both keep encounter balance and not bake items into the math, you need to eliminate flat number-boosting items from the game. This is my preferred solution. And happily, the PF2 Gamemastery Guide's Automatic Bonus Progression option does just that!

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, PF2 has sometimes been called the "GM's edition" because so many of the changes of the game are explicitly oriented to making things easier and more enjoyable for the GM.

1. The game is set up in a very modular and easy to customize way, making it easy for GM's to come up with and implement house rules.

As a DM that loves to tinker with the rules, PF2e has just the opposite effect on me. It could be I just haven't got into it enough, but all the bits and pieces make it feel very intimidating to house-rule. While I really enjoyed modifying 1e an 4e and we have had great success tweaking 5e too, I feel conceptually restrained by the tight math in PF2e. It is strange, it is the only version of D&D that I would currently rather play a PC than DM.

However, maybe after a few sessions that would change.

 

[Porridge]

As a DM that loves to tinker with the rules, PF2e has just the opposite effect on me. It could be I just haven't got into it enough, but all the bits and pieces make it feel very intimidating to house-rule. While I really enjoyed modifying 1e an 4e and we have had great success tweaking 5e too, I feel conceptually restrained by the tight math in PF2e. It is strange, it is the only version of D&D that I would currently rather play a PC than DM.

However, maybe after a few sessions that would change.

Yeah, it’s interesting. In the quote I linked to above, Mark Seifter (one of the developers) mentions how one of his goals in designing PF2 was to make it easy to house rule and home brew things for the system, and still have things work.

For what it’s worth, I’ve found it very easy to introduce house rules and home brew material. But it might depend a bit on the kind of thing one’s introducing house rules for. A lot of changes, even substantial ones, seem pretty easy to implement. But certain kinds of house rules that tinker with the underlying assumptions of the game (like armor as DR) seem trickier to implement.

(Perhaps having Armor block some percentage of damage (as opposed to a fixed amount) might be a way of developing a similar idea that would be more friendly to how the rest of the system works?)

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't consider PF2 easy to houserule at all.

Every time you as the GM say "yes" or "yes, but" (can I jump this ledge without spending a whole action, can I slide under this portcullis, can I jump there while holding this thing, can I remember this factoid while talking to the count/while fighting his guards....) you'll find that there's a feat somewhere which lets you do this.

There are hundreds and hundreds of feats, each making a specific thing for a specified skill slightly easier/quicker/better to pull off.

By saying yes, you've effectively invalidated that feat. Why take the feat if you can simply ask nicely? Put otherwise, as the GM I'm getting the message "don't let the heroes do this for free; only level 16 barbarians or level 12 rogues or people with this specific dedication archetype or whatever are supposed to pull that off".

This mega spamming of feats (there's already over 1100 feats!), and the way the game reserves the right to make crunch out of every littlest thing, was one of my biggest complaints with 4E, and it is one of my biggest complaints with PF2. Not only does it set up the game for maximum commercialization (the potential to sell feats in splatbooks is endless!) but more importantly, it tells me there is zero space for improvisation.

 

[MaskedGuy]

So just to note, I'm still on first page, but sounds promising to me :O

I've been kinda worried about Extinction Curse since while it isn't written at same time when rules were unreleased, its still pretty close to release and I'm sure lot of writers haven't gotten out of the "single 3 level higher soloboss is fiiiiiiine" mentality

But yeah, I FAR prefer adventuring days were players are capable of clearing dungeon on single day, so yeah, sounds really promising to me :3 Heck that is normal playstyle of my 1e party, it just sometimes feels like they are making life harder for themselves by following in universe common sense of "Well geez leaving bad guys to have extra day to react to this feels weird"

 

[MaskedGuy]

Yes, I know Paizo feels burned by WotCs actions (Dragon magazine; 4E OGL) but the bitter truth is they can either play in WotC's garden or they can play with the ghosts (Castles & Crusades, 13th Age, Fantasy Age, HARP, Labyrinth Lord, Numenera, Runequest, Palladium, SoDM, Torchbearer, Tunnels & Trolls, 5 Torches Deep, or the literally other hundreds of D&D pretender games that some might play but none spend serious money on).

I mean, it is probably more profitable to do 3rd party support for 5e, but I like several of those games much better than I like 5e

Like I'm running for 5e first time ever(I had played it few times and started to feel already bit bored of system after first campaign) and... Its really really really really disappointing for me.

 

[MaskedGuy]

I don't consider PF2 easy to houserule at all.

Every time you as the GM say "yes" or "yes, but" (can I jump this ledge without spending a whole action, can I slide under this portcullis, can I jump there while holding this thing, can I remember this factoid while talking to the count/while fighting his guards....) you'll find that there's a feat somewhere which lets you do this.

There are hundreds and hundreds of feats, each making a specific thing for a specified skill slightly easier/quicker/better to pull off.

By saying yes, you've effectively invalidated that feat. Why take the feat if you can simply ask nicely? Put otherwise, as the GM I'm getting the message "don't let the heroes do this for free; only level 16 barbarians or level 12 rogues or people with this specific dedication archetype or whatever are supposed to pull that off".

This mega spamming of feats (there's already over 1100 feats!), and the way the game reserves the right to make crunch out of every littlest thing, was one of my biggest complaints with 4E, and it is one of my biggest complaints with PF2. Not only does it set up the game for maximum commercialization (the potential to sell feats in splatbooks is endless!) but more importantly, it tells me there is zero space for improvisation.

Okay caught up by now

But yeah, well it itself can be considered house ruling of removing all "skill feats that allow you to do x thing" from the game ;P But I honestly prefer theprogramming code "action does y. If you have x it can also do z" style thing to D&D5e's "you can do whatever if gm allows it, rules don't comment on that"

And if nothing else, I think creating homebrew monsters and making them interesting is easier than in 1e at least :3