log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

dave2008

Legend
To be honest I can’t comprehend why people feel they can bo longer play a game because they stop putting out new books for it. Blows my mind. I think it finds them easier to play because canon closed.
I agree, personally I don't see any need for my group to switch from our customized 5e, ever. However, I personally would like to give PF2 a try (just can't convince my group).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kenada

Adventurer
Supporter
I mean, that is one take on the video. You can dismiss what he says by suggesting nefarious intent or adding assumptions he never makes.

Or you could consider that he and the other people who have strongly criticized PF2, who often come from different gaming backgrounds and have different approaches to the game, are acting in good faith and have legitimate issues with the game.
The assumption he articulated is that you have to play optimally. It’s pretty much the entire basis of his complaint. His druid always changed into a t-rex because that’s what the player thought they had to do to play optimally. He explained how every combat played out exactly the same (like you would go through your rotations in an MMO). That’s why he said the choices you made didn’t matter — because the system expects you to play that way, so they had to do that.

Let’s assume he’s completely sincere. I have no reason to believe that he doesn’t believe what he says is true. I’m not going to impugn his style of play or the choices they make. I said in my very first response that PF2 is not a great fit for certain types of groups or players. His group may be one of those groups, and that’s okay, but it’s also possible for it to be a bad fit and for that not to be a systemic issue with the game. If I had any quibble with his video, it’s conflating the two.

If this were just a random post on the Internet somewhere, it wouldn’t have gotten much traction. People wouldn’t care because it would be limited to that venue, but it was posted to Youtube on a channel with a decently sized audience. People are going to react to that. Some might call it trolling, but if we’re assuming sincerity, it’s hard to call it trolling. Anyway, he can make videos about whatever he wants, but his right to have an opinion does not negate anyone else’s right to have one counter to that or to respond to it.

With all that said, I don’t think Cody is really interested in having a conversation about this issue. His response to Nonat’s video was dismissive, and I think that’s being charitable. I find it hard to believe that an honest discourse about PF2’s problems was the intended outcome. Even if we still assume his complaint his sincere, there can be other reasons for sharing it (i.e., driving views to his channel).

It might also be better to do so without making snide comments against posters who have responded to this comment section.
I was taking a dig at the wider discourse. This conversation has a familiar shape. It’s happen before, and it’ll happen again. I also take issue with the expectation that those on the receiving side of criticism are obliged to show magnanimity. That’s nothing more than tone policing.
 

Gammadoodler

Adventurer
I’m not sure about the relative sizes of PF2 and Roll20, so you could instead feel embarassed for PF2. 😃
Insofar as Roll20 is a VTT intended to facilitate online RPGs and PF2 is a one such RPG, I can say that the VTT side of it is very bad. How much that has to do with the PF2 ruleset or Paizo support is a question I don't have an answer for but by comparison the Foundry VTT experience is significantly better.

I may feel bad for PF2 that is been implemented so poorly, but I'm embarrassed for Roll20
a. ) That the product is so bad, and
b.) That such a superior product is in the market by a new and small entrant.

Roll20 should have the benefits of scale and experience to prevent such quality disparities.
 

kenada

Adventurer
Supporter
I believe you, unfortunately that does nothing to mitigate me concerns. I just need to give it a try when this pandemic thing is mostly over.
Sure. You’ve articulated a bunch of reasons in these threads for why PF2 may not be a good fit for you. More as a GM, but I think that’s fair either way.

I was partially responding more for readers than I am to your concern. There’s a ton of negativity going around about PF2. If someone who’s curious in the game sees only negativity, then they might give it a pass.

I also wanted to clarify what I meant by “deoptimize”. Optimization is a common theme in PF2 discourse. The video that prompted this thread makes the assumption you have to optimize and play optimally. My hope is that by being more specific, it should be clear that I’m saying you don’t have to play that way.
 

kenada

Adventurer
Supporter
Insofar as Roll20 is a VTT intended to facilitate online RPGs and PF2 is a one such RPG, I can say that the VTT side of it is very bad. How much that has to do with the PF2 ruleset or Paizo support is a question I don't have an answer for but by comparison the Foundry VTT experience is significantly better.

I may feel bad for PF2 that is been implemented so poorly, but I'm embarrassed for Roll20
a. ) That the product is so bad, and
b.) That such a superior product is in the market by a new and small entrant.

Roll20 should have the benefits of scale and experience to prevent such quality disparities.
It’s also worth emphasizing that the PF2 support in Foundry is done entirely by the community. Volunteers are doing a better job for free than a company working with the publisher and being paid for the content.

The only thing I miss in Foundry is the tokens. I really wish I could just buy a token sheet from Paizo for use in my VTT of choice.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
Sure. You’ve articulated a bunch of reasons in these threads for why PF2 may not be a good fit for you. More as a GM, but I think that’s fair either way.
Yep, no real interest in DMing PF2 at the moment, but I have a lot more freedom in what I chose to play. Really it comes down to who I play with I believe. I'm just hoping I can find some casual players. I'm not into character building, optimizing, team synergy / tactics. I mostly hear those are the parts people who play PF2 enjoy and I therefor will have a hard time finding players I fit with. We will see...
 

dave2008

Legend
It’s also worth emphasizing that the PF2 support in Foundry is done entirely by the community. Volunteers are doing a better job for free than a company working with the publisher and being paid for the content.
That's amazing. I don't use VTTs, but that is pretty shocking that a community effort is surpassing a professional paid effort.
 
Last edited:

TheWayofPie

Explorer
That's amazing. I don't use VTTs, but that is pretty shocking that a community effort is surprising a professional paid effort.
I think it’s mostly because Roll20 seems complacent and has probably terrible infrastructure (where the heck is night mode???). Only reason I use it is to play 4e because I see no support ever coming for foundry since the community is incredibly tiny and only getting smaller. Once I can get a group to run pathfinder 2e or other systems I’m doing everything else on foundry
 

FrozenNorth

Adventurer
Anyway, he can make videos about whatever he wants, but his right to have an opinion does not negate anyone else’s right to have one counter to that or to respond to it.
Want to disagree with his opinion? Go ahead. There are numerous posts on this thread that do just that.

Suggesting that his video was just to drive views (as the original poster did) and suggesting that his issue was that he was unwilling to make any changes to the AP (while making a snide dig at another poster, as you did) is both unconvincing, and a bit of a jerk move.

Plus, while I have not had the same issue Cody had with the system, I have had my own issues with the system despite my game approach being extremely different from his.

I was taking a dig at the wider discourse. This conversation has a familiar shape. It’s happen before, and it’ll happen again. I also take issue with the expectation that those on the receiving side of criticism are obliged to show magnanimity. That’s nothing more than tone policing.
Cody is the one of the receiving end of criticism. He was the one accused of lacking sincerity.

You weren’t on the receiving side of any criticism. Instead, you made an unsolicited snide remark about @Retreater.
 

It does seem like a good indicator for games that are receiving active development and I'm not suggesting you're wrong. I would point out, however, that those of us in PF1 games cannot buy new PF1 products from Paizo because they aren't being made. One local DM kept his subscription to Paizo adventures but plans to convert anything he likes to PF1.

I mean, I know I bought some Paizo material and converted it to 5E before PF2 came out. That could easily work in the reverse, too, though overall I think it's probably a small bit of the market.

Also keep in mind he made a 5e vs PF2e video and he gave the win to PF2e. I feel his complaints are legitimate. I tried to like it but it was just too busy. He did give the game a fair shot. Its his opinion after all.

I mean, I feel his complaints are kind of lame because he just doesn't give any real support to it. There's no real justification for saying the Druid has to shapeshift into a T-Rex every time: I've looked at the different stats and honestly there is are other easily viable options there. You need to give some sort of more detailed evidence if you are going to talk about "optimal picks" because you're dealing with stuff like numbers. That he didn't... well, it's weaksauce. With his Diplomacy jab at the end, it all comes off as pretty weak.

It’s kinda cool to polymorph into a T-Rex. Sounds like fun to me. It’s nothing I would get upset about. But maybe that’s a sign that they need to create more monsters of that challenge rating to maybe spice things up a bit.

It doesn't quite work like that in PF2: you basically a base form and you get stat/attack mods depending on the form. I think they could do a little more to flesh out (The Ankylosaurus should get extra AC, Brontosaurus should get more HP, the Stegosaurus should probably cut teh difference between the two to give it a little niche, and the Deinonychus should probably cause a bit more bleed damage to stay competitive), but the T-Rex isn't like the end-all be-all for that transformation: the Triceratops is definitely more of a damage-dealer, it just lacks the T-Rex's range. Then again the Big B has more range, and if you have access to AoO it's definitely going to lockdown more people, though it's attack doesn't have the Deadly trait like the T-Rex's jaws do (though the jaws don't cause as much normal damage).

Also really needs a Pteradon transformation, maybe a Plesiosaurus to give air/water versatility.

While I agree with most of your analysis, I think it is absolutely wrong that many claimed you could not roleplay in 4e. I'm not sure how you could dispute that (of course I couldn't understand it when people said it on the WotC boards as well). In case you misunderstood, that is what I was claiming was wrong, not anything to do with combats.

People seem to think that having systems to arbitrate roleplaying is meant to replace roleplaying. His last Diplomacy comment really nailed that home.

To be honest I can’t comprehend why people feel they can bo longer play a game because they stop putting out new books for it. Blows my mind. I think it makes them easier to play because canon closed.

I mean, it's always regrettable, but as long as you got the books you're good. When it looked like FFG Star Wars was ending, I was pretty okay because I had all the material for it.

Insofar as Roll20 is a VTT intended to facilitate online RPGs and PF2 is a one such RPG, I can say that the VTT side of it is very bad. How much that has to do with the PF2 ruleset or Paizo support is a question I don't have an answer for but by comparison the Foundry VTT experience is significantly better.

I may feel bad for PF2 that is been implemented so poorly, but I'm embarrassed for Roll20
a. ) That the product is so bad, and
b.) That such a superior product is in the market by a new and small entrant.

Roll20 should have the benefits of scale and experience to prevent such quality disparities.

Roll20 is just really lackluster. Like, the interface is dated as hell in my opinion, especially when you compare it to Foundry. I'm not a fan of the subscription service, but if you're going to do it I think you should really have a solid user interface and options, and honestly it feels like a product from 3-4 years ago.

I think it’s mostly because Roll20 seems complacent and has probably terrible infrastructure (where the heck is night mode???). Only reason I use it is to play 4e because I see no support ever coming for foundry since the community is incredibly tiny and only getting smaller. Once I can get a group to run pathfinder 2e or other systems I’m doing everything else on foundry

God, yes, night mode.

I do hope 4E appears on it, though I think the bigger problem is the lack of OGL material, which makes it legally difficult to create it. :(
 

kenada

Adventurer
Supporter
Suggesting that his video was just to drive views (as the original poster did) and suggesting that his issue was that he was unwilling to make any changes to the AP (while making a snide dig at another poster, as you did) is both unconvincing, and a bit of a jerk move.
I’m trying to understand this particular line of discussion, but I’m failing to come up with a charitable reading. Help me not think this is not just more tone policing. Why focus on this particular comment and not engage with anything else I’ve posted in this thread? Is it just to call out that it was a “jerk move”? Yep, it was crass. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Cody is the one of the receiving end of criticism. He was the one accused of lacking sincerity.

You weren’t on the receiving side of any criticism. Instead, you made an unsolicited snide remark about @Retreater.
Huh. I certainly didn’t have @Retreater in mind when I posted that. I apologize for creating that impression, and I apologize to him even if he didn’t think it was directed at him.

Let me reiterate that I was talking about the discussion we’ve been having here for the last several months. The back and forth between the original video and the responses and the tweet all struck me as very familiar. I’m not going to apologize for making the dig. Expecting a community to respond magnanimously when one side is obviously not interested in having a conversation about the perceived problem (as evinced by that tweet I linked) is just not reasonable or fair to that community, and dealing with it can be exhausting.

Lost in all this is the point that PF2 isn’t good for all groups. I don’t think that’s really a controversial point. I don’t think even the most ardent proponent of PF2 here would contest that claim. I disagree the issue raised in this case is a systemic issue, but there’s no discourse to be had. Even if there were, then what would we conclude? That people have different tastes and like different things?
 

Retreater

Legend
Huh. I certainly didn’t have @Retreater in mind when I posted that. I apologize for creating that impression, and I apologize to him even if he didn’t think it was directed at him.
I didn't notice anything, and certainly didn't take any offence from any of the comments on here.

Roll20 is just really lackluster. Like, the interface is dated as hell in my opinion, especially when you compare it to Foundry. I'm not a fan of the subscription service, but if you're going to do it I think you should really have a solid user interface and options, and honestly it feels like a product from 3-4 years ago.
I agree that Roll20 is bad for PF2. We were all enjoying the system pretty well before the pandemic forced us into a VTT, and for various technical reasons Roll20 was the only option that would work for everyone. The debate for me is now that I'm pretty familiar with Roll20 (despite its limitations), should I pick up Foundry, learn all of its ins-and-outs, and hope everything works when it's a community-produced and not officially-supported VTT (knowing everything could change in a week like it did with its D&D Beyond integration)?

I read earlier in the thread (can't find the reference to quote ATM) that Cody from Taking20 was trying to run Age of Ashes "by the book." I can say from first hand experience that this can lead to a bad time. Unless you are being paid to do a playtest, regardless of the system you have to adapt to your players, change up the encounters, and add/remove content from the adventure as needed. I will go on record to say that Age of Ashes is not a great AP, and it was probably a mistake for Paizo to use it as among its first adventure products instead of a good starting adventure to train beginning players on the system.
 

dave2008

Legend
I think it’s mostly because Roll20 seems complacent and has probably terrible infrastructure (where the heck is night mode???). Only reason I use it is to play 4e because I see no support ever coming for foundry since the community is incredibly tiny and only getting smaller. Once I can get a group to run pathfinder 2e or other systems I’m doing everything else on foundry
It is getting so much praise, I may have to start a Foundry questions thread!
 

I agree that Roll20 is bad for PF2. We were all enjoying the system pretty well before the pandemic forced us into a VTT, and for various technical reasons Roll20 was the only option that would work for everyone. The debate for me is now that I'm pretty familiar with Roll20 (despite its limitations), should I pick up Foundry, learn all of its ins-and-outs, and hope everything works when it's a community-produced and not officially-supported VTT (knowing everything could change in a week like it did with its D&D Beyond integration)?

I mean, I'd say yes. First off if you are playing PF2, the possibility of losing compatibility with something like DND Beyond really not a problem since it's all on the SRD, and as a guy who is running 5E stuff on there, the guy who is currently running the working D&D Beyond module has it up in working order (or at least close enough to it for things to run for my group).

But the benefits are just great: no monthly fee, you are basically hosting all the stuff off your own machine (or you can pay for hosting elsewhere if you really want), great integration of effects and map tricks that are well beyond what you can do in Roll20. You can do flickering torches, zones of darkness, roiling fog, weird energy waves, and all sorts of neat little things. You can do weird stuff like directional sound, too; as an example, one of my games had the party in the sewers. I made up a HUGE map using the Pathfinder sewer tiles (Imported the PDF into GIMP and then saved the pages as individual PNGs) and made a little hidden crypt in a side passage. I put down zombie eating noises for ghouls, and when they got close enough, one of the party members picked it up and told them to stop. It's a really neat effect.

You also have a bunch of modules that do cool things, like multi-level tokens. So like, if you have a multi-story map where you can see down (or up), you can basically clone the tokens so that players above can see them moving around below as you move them below and vice-versa. Also can be used as a teleporter.

Really, just a lot of cool stuff you can do with it, especially if you like using maps. And most of it is fairly easy.
 
Last edited:

I can't remember if this has been posted, but this is how my brother and I looked over most of the features in Foundry. This is the first video in the playlist.



I always loved his reaction.

This is the thing.png
 

kenada

Adventurer
Supporter
And the walls. If you do anything with walls in roll20, the walls in Foundry are way better. You can have player-clickable doors. You can have one-way walls, so you can have cliffs on a map. You can have walls that let you do shrubberies that block line of sight but don’t obscure the shrubbery on the map. There’s also a Dungeondraft importer that doesn’t require a subscription tier to use (because the roll20 one needs API access).

There’s also a module that does difficult terrain, so when you drag a ruler over it, it gets adjusted for the difficult terrain. Oh, and there’s module that implements darkvision correctly (not whatever weird crap roll20 does). It knows about 5e and PF2 by default, and it’ll do the right thing (e.g., stuff in darkness renders in black in white in Foundry for PF2).

I mean, I'd say yes. First off if you are playing PF2, the possibility of losing compatibility with something like DND Beyond really not a problem since it's all on the SRD, and as a guy who is running 5E stuff on there, the guy who is currently running the working D&D Beyond module has it up in working order (or at least close enough to it for things to run for my group).
Could you talk a bit more about the D&D Beyond module? I was looking at 5e support in Foundry recently (because I’m trying to figure out what to do for my campaign once we pick back up again in January), and it seemed like a bit of a mess compared to PF2.
 

Could you talk a bit more about the D&D Beyond module? I was looking at 5e support in Foundry recently (because I’m trying to figure out what to do for my campaign once we pick back up again in January), and it seemed like a bit of a mess compared to PF2.

So right now there are two Modules: VTTA and D&D Beyond Importer. The former hasn't been worked on in a few months because the maker became busy, so the latter came about. As far as I know it seems to be working well enough for me right now, but I haven't imported any Tasha-specific stuff, which broke the previous one. By January, I expect things to be in a better place, but I know D&D Beyond Importer is getting like, rather regular updates to fix things. I think you need a Patreon pledge for both when it comes to spells and monsters (I know at least the former, haven't do so with the latter yet).

EDIT: Sorry, gotta comment on this, too.

And the walls. If you do anything with walls in roll20, the walls in Foundry are way better. You can have player-clickable doors. You can have one-way walls, so you can have cliffs on a map. You can have walls that let you do shrubberies that block line of sight but don’t obscure the shrubbery on the map. There’s also a Dungeondraft importer that doesn’t require a subscription tier to use (because the roll20 one needs API access).

There’s also a module that does difficult terrain, so when you drag a ruler over it, it gets adjusted for the difficult terrain. Oh, and there’s module that implements darkvision correctly (not whatever weird crap roll20 does). It knows about 5e and PF2 by default, and it’ll do the right thing (e.g., stuff in darkness renders in black in white in Foundry for PF2).

Oh God, it's like night and day. You can have clickable doors, and also locked ones. You can have walls which you can see through but not go through, as well as walls which block sight but can be walked through (Good for thick brush and the like). There's also "Object Walls", which allows you to see the outline of the solid object, but not beyond it. This means if you have an alleyway map, you'll actually see all the buildings around you, rather than a narrow black hallway.
 
Last edited:

Retreater

Legend
I guess I should try to get into a Foundry game as a player to see how it functions. Fantasy Grounds ended up being well beyond my capacity to learn. I'm pretty comfortable putting maps into Roll20, and the dynamic lighting there seems to be at least serviceable for my purposes.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
I guess I should try to get into a Foundry game as a player to see how it functions. Fantasy Grounds ended up being well beyond my capacity to learn. I'm pretty comfortable putting maps into Roll20, and the dynamic lighting there seems to be at least serviceable for my purposes.
I’m reasonably pleased with the new dynamic lighting controls. MUCH easier to work with.
 

Yep, no real interest in DMing PF2 at the moment, but I have a lot more freedom in what I chose to play. Really it comes down to who I play with I believe. I'm just hoping I can find some casual players. I'm not into character building, optimizing, team synergy / tactics. I mostly hear those are the parts people who play PF2 enjoy and I therefor will have a hard time finding players I fit with. We will see...
At least in so far as the first half of what you said (Character-building/ optimization), I will point out something that might help:

I'm actually convinced characters that do their stats correctly (which is fairly intuitive, it just involves maxing the primary stat and making sure you have some kind of AC solution in place, where the classes kind of offer obvious routes to do that in line with their classic thematic space), would be capable of achieving a surprising degree of success, even deprived completely of all of their feats (note: Feats, not Class Features). Characters with their feats are obviously stronger (and well selected feats, stronger still) but the margin feels small enough to me that I suspect they'd be able to be victorious over encounters, up to a point (they can take Moderate encounters, I think, and claw their way to victory in a severe encounter with luck and good play.) I also suspect I'm being conservative in my estimate, if the players are good tacticians.

That much of the game's actual power is loaded into the classes as things you just get for free, or contingent more on good play than character building. So I definitely think minimal attention to power when doing things like picking feats is far less crippling than it would be in comparable games (like 5e, Pathfinder 1e, or 4e, 3.5, and so forth.) You could make most, or maybe even all, of your feats 'flavor' and still pull your weight in the dungeon.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top