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

[Gammadoodler]

The Roll20 data actually supports @Zardnaar 's claim. Yes it is trending the right direction, but the trend is very gradual and right now PF1 as a much larger online presence than PF2 (in Roll20 at least). Now, that is a "thing," but not necessarily a bad thing, For example, 4e had a much larger online presence than 3e initially; however, it trended the wrong way and was eventually replaced.

Perhaps, but as had been pointed out elsewhere, the Roll20 PF2 player experience is terrrrrrible. It's about where 5e was 5 years ago in terms of build, but with a waaaay more complex ruleset to deal with..I can only imagine it for the DM.

The implementation on Foundry is so much better I feel embarrassed for Roll20.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The implementation on Foundry is so much better I feel embarrassed for Roll20.

I’m not sure about the relative sizes of PF2 and Roll20, so you could instead feel embarassed for PF2.

 

[Zsong]

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

I just want to point out that this was a complaint / comment that many made about 4e as well. It was equally wrong, but a lot of people believed it / felt that way and didn't play / stick with 4e because of it.

I played 4E. It did not work for us because in order to be fun, combat needed to be challenging. Only very large and long combats fulfil this criteria. We like to play making good moves, not just making quick moves just to get on with it. Everything about 4E rewards tactical play, group cooperation and exact play.

Easier combats, in contrast, still takes a lot of time to play out even when the outcome is totally obvious. We quickly learned to skip those, since just making the moves with no thrill or challenge felt like a waste of time. But this lead to a much worse problem: We found there was not enough time left in the session when having a combat of this type. The combat itself was very fun, but in the end the experience felt much more like a tactical skirmish boardgame with vestigial roleplay squeezed in.

This is the source for calling 4E a board game lacking roleplay. Saying that isn't wrong, even though it is a simplification.

The lesson is: it's no use creating fun and engaging combats if they can't be resolved quickly enough.

In contrast PF2 manages to provide also-very-fun combats but in a much quicker package. It dares make wilder swings, meaning that even fights you are exceedingly likely to win can still feel exciting (because of a stray critical messing up your plans).

So, no, the claim that "many" made claims that were "wrong" isn't true. I clearly see why 4E failed as a commercial product, even though it featured fantastically engaging skirmishes.

 

[kenada]

That is my fear a bit as I've never been interested in optimizing. I could easily unintentionally deoptimize. I don't want to be the person who brings the part down because I am not optimized and not interested / familiar with game tactics

Alchemists got light armor at the time, and now they can also wear medium armor. Shields don’t require (or have) proficiency, so anyone can Raise a Shield. The only classes that should start that low are casters without armor proficiency, which usually have some other way to boost their AC.

There’s a middle ground between deoptimized and optimized. That middle ground is pretty broad, and characters in it are fine. If you don’t minimize your primary stat, at least use the equipment you bought in the class kit, and do the obvious things your class was designed to do; you should be fine.

We’re doing a one-shot this weekend where a bunch of the pre-gens only have 17 in their primary stat and took backgrounds for reasons other than synergy with their primary role. I think they will be fine, but I’ll post about it since we’re doing Winter’s Daughter (converted from OSE), and someone had asked I post my experience with it (though that was when I was planning to run it in OSE).

 

[kenada]

I’m not sure about the relative sizes of PF2 and Roll20, so you could instead feel embarassed for PF2.

PF2 (other than the sheet) is paid content. That’s the really galling part of roll20’s support. You pay nearly full price for the books, and you can’t even drag and drop (most of?) the content into the character sheet from the compendium. The compendium itself is also just unformatted HTML. It’s an incredibly low effort product.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'll also add that he is a big 5e D&D youtuber who approaches his channel very much as an important income stream and although he goes on at the beginning about all his good will for Paizo, he nevertheless has a bias towards sticking to the game system where the videos generate the most views. He may have frustrations with the system from it just not helping to promote his channel as much as he would like.

Has anyone responded yet in defense of Cody that he just had to run Age of Ashes as written because (reasons)? That’s what usually comes next in this discourse. It’s an effectively unassailable (self-inflicted) position — because anything one could do to address the problem is out of bounds. It also infantilizes the GM, who is just helpless to do anything to make the game actually fun for everyone.

After that comes something something PF2 something 5e, though Cody kind of already went there at the end.

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.

It might also be better to do so without making snide comments against posters who have responded to this comment section.

 

[dave2008]

So, no, the claim that "many" made claims that were "wrong" isn't true. I clearly see why 4E failed as a commercial product, even though it featured fantastically engaging skirmishes.

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.

 

[dave2008]

Alchemists got light armor at the time, and now they can also wear medium armor. Shields don’t require (or have) proficiency, so anyone can Raise a Shield. The only classes that should start that low are casters without armor proficiency, which usually have some other way to boost their AC.

There’s a middle ground between deoptimized and optimized. That middle ground is pretty broad, and characters in it are fine. If you don’t minimize your primary stat, at least use the equipment you bought in the class kit, and do the obvious things your class was designed to do; you should be fine.

We’re doing a one-shot this weekend where a bunch of the pre-gens only have 17 in their primary stat and took backgrounds for reasons other than synergy with their primary role. I think they will be fine, but I’ll post about it since we’re doing Winter’s Daughter (converted from OSE), and someone had asked I post my experience with it (though that was when I was planning to run it in OSE).

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.

 

[Zsong]

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.