Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[CapnZapp]

Your failure, if there is one, is not in conveying that. Its in convincing me its true.

Hmm.

I don't recognize you from earlier in the thread so I need to ask if you're at all aware of the very many issues i bring up, both in this thread and as standalone threads in the forum?

If your comment is based solely on me saying something is true that's one thing.

If not, well...

 

[CapnZapp]

I guess you're referring to the AGE engine from the Dragon Age game.

Yes totally. The first box showed great promise. By the second it appeared alarmingly likely that hope was misplaced. By the third it was obvious the system just didn't work past the first 6-7 levels. Never even considered purchasing the final box, or the later Fantasy AGE product.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hmm.

I don't recognize you from earlier in the thread so I need to ask if you're at all aware of the very many issues i bring up, both in this thread and as standalone threads in the forum?

If your comment is based solely on me saying something is true that's one thing.

If not, well...

I didn't participate earlier in the thread, but I read it. I just did not feel like getting into the depth and back and forth necessary to refute the parts I disagreed with. In many cases I consider it based on premises I didn't agree with, and digging down to disagreements in premise is long (and often tedious) work.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I guess you're referring to the AGE engine from the Dragon Age game.

Yes totally. The first box showed great promise. By the second it appeared alarmingly likely that hope was misplaced. By the third it was obvious the system just didn't work past the first 6-7 levels. Never even considered purchasing the final box, or the later Fantasy AGE product.

Correct. I ran a middlin' long Dragon Age game, and the problems with the system became progressively obvious over time.

 

[MaskedGuy]

I haven't been following up on thread for at least five pages by now, but I can concur: You are assuming that if you were able to put your opnions better, they would be sufficient argument to convince other people that you are right about your opinion. But that isn't how it works, people are just going to disagree when your experience doesn't match their experience.

Like, you keep trying to say that your posts should give other people objective point of view on the system, but umm, that isn't how objective and subjective opinions work. You can't just declare yourself to be inpartial enough that your opinion is objective and not subjective.

 

[MaskedGuy]

Anyone got anything positive to say about this system? I was running a homebrew campaign in pf2e and quite enjoying it until lockdown hit, I've been spending what free time I have getting it up and running in foundry vtt, but reading this thread I'm wondering if it's worth the effort and I should try something else.

Well that seems a resounding no, so what system do people recommend that allows varied mechanical character builds, reasonable tactical combat and a nice choice of character options on level up, while still maintaining a semblance of balance?

Not interested in OSE stuff, tried em and we found stepping back too jarring, 13th age was ok but as I DM I hated the icon integration, and shadow of the demon lords setting wasn't our style. Am I heading back to the almost impossible task of 4e ( playing without an electronic character builder is so much fun)

Hey, I always post positive opinions on my favorite system that isn't Cypher System ;p (Psst, try out Cypher System)

 

[Porridge]

Well that seems a resounding no, so what system do people recommend that allows varied mechanical character builds, reasonable tactical combat and a nice choice of character options on level up, while still maintaining a semblance of balance?

Ordinarily I'd recommend PF2, since this sounds like a list of PF2's strongest features: interestingly varied mechanical builds, tactical combat, lots of character options at each level, and possibly the best balanced game I've played. But if you already tried it and didn't get into it, I certainly wouldn't suggest sinking more time into it. Life's too short to play games you don't enjoy!

EDIT:

Anyone got anything positive to say about this system? I was running a homebrew campaign in pf2e and quite enjoying it until lockdown hit, I've been spending what free time I have getting it up and running in foundry vtt, but reading this thread I'm wondering if it's worth the effort and I should try something else.

...wait, what? If you're already playing the system and enjoying it, why do you want to switch?

Reading about other people's experiences and why they didn't enjoy it is interesting, but expected, since different games work for different people. But the fact that some people dislike features of the game I enjoy doesn't make them any less enjoyable...

 

[Retreater]

Hey, I always post positive opinions on my favorite system that isn't Cypher System ;p (Psst, try out Cypher System)

Not to start a tangential debate, but I've had an awful time with the Cypher System (Numenera), both in home games and convention games run by MCG staff/volunteers.
Every game devolved into a "you can only do one thing" and "chip away at this beast you can barely affect due to your low damage and its high DR" and "spending metacurrency will kill your character."
I wonder how others have different experiences beyond the 5+ games I've played.

 

[Aldarc]

Correct. I ran a middlin' long Dragon Age game, and the problems with the system became progressively obvious over time.

The skeleton of a good system is there, but I think it tries too much to be D&D when really it should have played to its strengths. AGE is still one of the hands-down easiest systems I have run when it comes to "the new player experience." I also would have preferred if magic was more as it is in Blue Rose AGE than in FAGE and MAGE.

I wonder how others have different experiences beyond the 5+ games I've played.

If you are curious how others have different experiences, you can always check the old threads where I and others explain to you how and why that might be the case as well as our own experiences.

 

[Porridge]

Anyone got anything positive to say about this system?

I mean, this is obviously subjective. But here are some of the features of the PF2 I like (which is not to say there are features I don't like, but that's a different post!):

• Encounter difficulty is really well balanced. From a GM perspective, it's easy to construct encounters that will be roughly as challenging as you want. (Contrast this to my experiences with PF1 or (higher level) 5e.)
• On the GM side, creating interesting new monsters and NPCs is quick and easy.
• On the GM side, the game is extremely modular, making it easy to implement houserules. (And happily, the couple parts of the rules I find most finicky are also among the easiest to houserule away.)
• On the GM side, the quality of the APs and modules Paizo produces is really high. (This was true for PF1 too, of course.)
• It lends itself to dynamic fights with lots of tactical decision-making. And this true for both the PCs and the GM.
• It lends itself to a lot of variety in combat encounters (especially given the variety of different monster features things get).
• It puts more emphasis on skills, and provides more in-depth rules regarding them, making it much easier to run a skill-focused game than in most other D&D-adjacent games.
• Different classes and builds are relatively well-balanced. (There's definitely room for optimization or the lack thereof. But it's much more difficult to build a character that dominates everything or contributes nothing, than it is in (say) PF1.)
• On the PC side, there are lot of different options and builds you can pursue during character creation.
• On the PC side, there are lots of interesting options available each time you level up.
• On the PC side, martial classes are fun and effective to play, even at higher levels.