Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[BryonD]

Interestingly the gamemaster's book coming out soon is supposed to have an option to remove +level. That being said, I to prefer to mine PF2e for good ideas to apply to my game.

I am very interested to see their take. But I'm really not holding my breath. Despite popular assumptions, I did try a lot to find a way to like PF2E. Removing +level is one thing, removing +level and accounting for the "baked in" thing is quite another, achieving that accounting for "baked in" and being left with a game that is better than just playing another game that didn't have to make that change (aka being better than options already available) is more the challenge yet.

 

[Eric V]

Well maybe that somewhat proves my point - I can't for the life of me find where it says that.

I sympathize. Using the free Character Builder app on my tablet went a LONG way to address some of these issues. I have never used the characters in play, but the building was fun.

 

[dave2008]

I am very interested to see their take. But I'm really not holding my breath. Despite popular assumptions, I did try a lot to find a way to like PF2E. Removing +level is one thing, removing +level and accounting for the "baked in" thing is quite another, achieving that accounting for "baked in" and being left with a game that is better than just playing another game that didn't have to make that change (aka being better than options already available) is more the challenge yet.

At this point I find it is better to take good ideas form other games and add them to mine, than to run other systems - to much work to make it what I want.

 

[CapnZapp]

I played with this some because there are things about PF2E I do really like. But the system is built with that +level concept baked into the foundation.

Yes, it is very easy to simply apply a -level to everything, canceling out the +level effect. And you will get modifiers and targets. In some ways it really transforms into a bounded accuracy type game with HP, damage boosts and other special powers defining the difference. But it also gets wonky in a lot of little ways. The game is simply built assuming the +level paradigm and removal impacts how it plays. It "functions", but the results are not satisfying. Ultimately, it is easier to adapt ideas from PF2E into other games (3AE is particularly easy) than it is to unring the +level bell in PF2E.

Not on-topic, but I would very much like to hear you discuss your experience experimenting with this. Du you have a link (maybe you've discussed it on Paizo) or you could bring it up in a new thread?

 

[CapnZapp]

I haven't followed this thread too closely but I've been taking a look at PF2 lately. I am a 5E player and someone who wants more choice in 5E. So I've been looking to see if there's anything to salvage to add customization options to 5E.

From what I've seen so far, I rated it Average. That rating needs a lot of clarification however.

First impression: TONS of options. No design stone has been left unturned. There is no doubt that the design team focused on innovation and rethinking every system from the ground up. Lots of innovation.

However, as I delve deeper, the options and minutia become distracting. Every step of character creation is a choice that requires a level of system mastery. Every rule and system is a multi-step process to understand execute. And to boot, the book is a chore to read.

Deconstructing every class into a multitude of feat choices is a HUGE miss for me. On casual glance, I can't get a feel for the classes, and the scope of choices within each class makes comparison of one choice to another extremely difficult. Also, why am I forced into one choice at each level? What if I want 2 feats from level 1 instead of a choice at level 2? Design choices like that really bother me.

There is a lot I like. I like the expanded uses of skills system. I like (some) of the weapon and armor properties. I like the critical success and failure of skills and spells.

But it feels like an exercise in extremes. PF2 is massively over-designed. I appreciate the drive to innovate, I really do. But it feels like along the way, the drive to innovate superseded playability.

PF2 pushes the d20 system to new limits but is in desperate need of an editor.

I agree completely. There is playability, but I can easily see PF2 never becoming a commercial success for the masses. It is uncompromising.

The worst aspect, I've found, is that this approach to design is actively hostile to good "yes but" gamesmastering ("don't say no, say yes but"). I have found that nearly every time I wanted to be generous and allowed a character to do something a little extra there's a feat for that, meaning that by being generous and saying "yes" I am invalidating some option down the line (which can be twelve levels later for an unrelated class). PF2 is unrelentingly mechanistic/deterministic (or whatever term you like to oppose "open to winging it").

PS. And yes, each time you're given a feat at level N you can pick any feat of less than N if you want. As long they're the same type which likely is why your experience is "couldn't take a N-1 feat at level N".

 

[CapnZapp]

I do want to be clear, I definitely thin there are some general things and specific monsters that are better in PF2e than 5e; but I don't see the vast difference you describe. To me, that vast difference is in the system and encounter guidelines.

You come across as saying "5E and PF2 are pretty much the same, just PF2 turning up the difficulty a notch or three". If so, I disagree.

At this point my only comment is "maybe try playing the game?"

 

[CapnZapp]

Well maybe that somewhat proves my point - I can't for the life of me find where it says that.

What it says is that feats have prerequisites (such as "must be an Elf"). A level prerequisite means you can take the feat once you meet the required level.

So if you're level 8 you meet the level prerequisite for a level 2 feat, for example.

This way of phrasing it means I have to tell you that it never states outright that you can't take the feat only at the exact level where you meet this prerequisite. I hope you see I'm not being facetious here, you just expected it to use one approach to rules language that it didn't.

 

[dave2008]

You come across as saying "5E and PF2 are pretty much the same, just PF2 turning up the difficulty a notch or three". If so, I disagree.

Close, what I am saying is that 5e & PF2e monsters are pretty much the same, just the PF2e system notches up difficulty, complexity and tactical options.

As I have mentioned several times, there is almost no difference in the 5e orc and the PF2e orc warrior. This is one example, but it is not the only one. I find a lot of similarities between equivalent monsters between the two books. I think what you are describing is how well the PF2e monsters take advantage of the PF2e system to make a better combat experience.

Really, I think our difference stems from what we consider "monster design," not the end results. I have a much more narrow definition of monster design, I think. Basically, I think you are correct under your definition and I am correct under my definition.

At this point my only comment is "maybe try playing the game?"

I've tried for a few months and failed to find a group. If one falls into my lap I will, but I am done looking for a bit. RL concerns and all. Might suggest a one-shot with my current 5e group, but they have not liked the idea when I suggested it to them before. But I can keep trying!

 

[CapnZapp]

Close, what I am saying is that 5e & PF2e monsters are pretty much the same, just the PF2e system notches up difficulty, complexity and tactical options.

As I have mentioned several times, there is almost no difference in the 5e orc and the PF2e orc warrior. This is one example, but it is not the only one. I find a lot of similarities between equivalent monsters between the two books. I think what you are describing is how well the PF2e monsters take advantage of the PF2e system to make a better combat experience.

Really, I think our difference stems from what we consider "monster design," not the end results. I have a much more narrow definition of monster design, I think. Basically, I think you are correct under your definition and I am correct under my definition.

I guess I just prefer terminology that lets me avoid statements like "there is almost no difference in the 5e orc and the PF2e orc warrior" since such a statement - taken in isolation - means a reader is likely to be misled completely.

In PF2 I have witnessed a single Bugbear (with just three Goblin civilians to assist) wreck an entire party just one level lower than it. This is a profound difference compared to 5E. In 5E, suggesting a lone Bugbear should be able to down not just one, but two player characters, and nearly wipe the floor with them, is outright laughable.

Most monsters in 5E are completely outclassed by player characters that have access to PHB options. One exception that really stands out in how rare it is and how "old school" it feels is the double whammy of a Banshee plus Will o' the Wisps encounter.

 

[GlassJaw]

What it says is that feats have prerequisites (such as "must be an Elf"). A level prerequisite means you can take the feat once you meet the required level.

So if you're level 8 you meet the level prerequisite for a level 2 feat, for example.

This way of phrasing it means I have to tell you that it never states outright that you can't take the feat only at the exact level where you meet this prerequisite. I hope you see I'm not being facetious here, you just expected it to use one approach to rules language that it didn't.

Got it. You are exactly right on the approach to rules language.

PF2 throws a MASSIVE amount of text at the reader, so when I encountered something that the rules assume, I wasn't in the head space to see it. I was expecting to be explicitly told.