Pathfinder 2E Taking20 -"I'm Quitting Pathfinder 2e Because of This Issue"

[Campbell]

Or they care about games as games at the table. The char build game only became a thing in D&D with 3rd edition. To an earlier generation of players, getting through the Tomb of Horrors alive, using a pregen character, was a true test of player skill.

Char op is an element of the game that some players find tremendously engaging, and others care about not at all. I have guys in my group whom have been playing for 40 years and never so much as cracked a PHB away from the table.

Are you speaking in terms of your build determining success or in terms of there being mechanics to engage with at all?

If the former PF2 has done an excellent job of making the decisions that matter the most the ones you make at the table and would love to have that discussion. I would argue that it is a game that does not require a significant amount of time away from the table to play well.

If the latter I think some level of tuning your critique to your subject is necessary. Like I love B/X and even simpler OSR games like Mork Borg and Into The Odd, but it is obvious PF2 is not trying to be that type of game. Not even close.

 

[teitan]

I always thought 3e and PF1 had that illusion of choice because of people worried about AoO and remaining immobile in combats resulting in combats where it is just a bunch of PC's clumped around 1 or two enemies hacking away and not moving so they don't draw that AoO.

 

[tetrasodium]

I always thought 3e and PF1 had that illusion of choice because of people worried about AoO and remaining immobile in combats resulting in combats where it is just a bunch of PC's clumped around 1 or two enemies hacking away and not moving so they don't draw that AoO.

5 foot step did not provoke an AoO so people would move just not all at once and because of the -5/-10/etc penalty on second/third/etc attack there was a big payoff for getting into flanking positions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And notably, a whole lot less opponents have AoOs in PF2e.

 

[CapnZapp]

I always thought 3e and PF1 had that illusion of choice because of people worried about AoO and remaining immobile in combats resulting in combats where it is just a bunch of PC's clumped around 1 or two enemies hacking away and not moving so they don't draw that AoO.

The by far biggest reason is because you only get a single attack if you move (more than a single step).

 

[CapnZapp]

And notably, a whole lot less opponents have AoOs in PF2e.

The d20 system was a great game for it's time. Remember that it had AD&D as its predecessor.

But its dichotomy between standard and full attacks just weren't a good solution. It heavily encouraged heroes and monsters to stand still and just duke it out. Static fights look and feel boring, predictable.

It's actually the one thing 4E did right. The way many powers gave you both an attack AND movement meant that players went "since I get to move for free why not move, can't waste a freebie". Which is good for the game - dynamic fights look and feel exciting, unpredictable.

I'm not really slagging d20 here. It assumed movement would be considered just as valuable as attacks. This didn't pan out but at least they tried. (WFRP2 lifted its fundamental combat framework straight from d20 and suffers from the exact same issue)

5E solve this issue, by not asking players to choose between movement and damage output. You get both. (Important: you can't convert the movement into bonus damage, which would only have brought us back to square one. The movement must be absolutely free, no strings attached!)

PF2 kinda gets a pass even though it still asks you to spend an action you could have used on attacking, in order to move. The attack is penalized, many monsters sport impressive ACs, and moving feels more valuable in a game where being outnumbered or flanked gets you killed. (Meaning that if every combat were easy you wouldn't feel compelled to use movement; it's the difficulty that saves PF2). Wisely the game doesn't pile onto the already-high cost of movement by giving attacks of opportunity to every monster (to finally get back to the topic discussed...)

Above opinions based on extensive play experience with every game mentioned. Yes, I've really played AD&D, 3E, WFRP2, 4E, 5E, and PF2.

 

[Ancalagon]

Or they care about games as games at the table. The char build game only became a thing in D&D with 3rd edition. To an earlier generation of players, getting through the Tomb of Horrors alive, using a pregen character, was a true test of player skill.

Char op is an element of the game that some players find tremendously engaging, and others care about not at all. I have guys in my group whom have been playing for 40 years and never so much as cracked a PHB away from the table.

One of my players in a campaign that reached level 8 (it's on hold, maybe we'll return to it) played a monk, and admitted to me they never read the class once.

 

[Thomas Shey]

PF2 kinda gets a pass even though it still asks you to spend an action you could have used on attacking, in order to move. The attack is penalized, many monsters sport impressive ACs, and moving feels more valuable in a game where being outnumbered or flanked gets you killed. (Meaning that if every combat were easy you wouldn't feel compelled to use movement; it's the difficulty that saves PF2). Wisely the game doesn't pile onto the already-high cost of movement by giving attacks of opportunity to every monster (to finally get back to the topic discussed...)

Above opinions based on extensive play experience with every game mentioned. Yes, I've really played AD&D, 3E, WFRP2, 4E, 5E, and PF2.

Yeah, honestly, movement in PF2e is in a trade-off with other actions like raising a shield and the like more than it is with a third attack for most people because the third attack is often a Hail Mary anyway.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

One nice thing is that the turn dynamic changes radically by build as well-- for most builds using a third action to attack is a hail mary, and you have way better things to be doing, but some characters can be built for it (flurry rangers come to mind) or for even weirder turn dynamics that include increasing defenses, debuffing, buffing, differing numbers of attacks, spells, and so forth.

 

[Starfox]

This sort of cherry-picking misses how Pathfinder 2E is built differently than D&D, because PF2 characters are more broadly competent and have more options from the start, and it's why these arguments come off as so ill-informed.

My feeling for PF2 characters are that they are much less competent than either PF1 or 5E characters. In 5E, the difference between being trained or not is rather small until high levels, so 5E characters feel like they are competent at most things that are not on their dump stats. Comparing PF1 to PF2, race/heritage is my prime example; in PF1 you got all of the classic race abilities, while in PF2, all the things an ancestry can do became a palette and you are only allowed a few of the choices.

I am not saying this is a flaw in PF2, that is a matter of taste.