Pathfinder 2E You Have One Last Chance - Do You Try PF2?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I would like to try it, and have read a few reviews. Unfortunately, the most recent review I read said this:

The totems deserve special mention because they all come with a code of conduct, and these are various flavors of game destroying [censored]. The animal totem bars you from using weapons (though it gives you shapeshifting claws at least). Dragon totem requires you to respond to any personal insult, giant totem forces you to accept strength challenges, spirit totem forces you to not disrespect corpses in a game where looting corpses is half of gameplay, and the superstition totem forces you to not accept spells cast on you to the point where you actually have to leave the party rather than travel with someone who casts buff spells on you.

This reminds me of the downside of Planescape (unplayable factions). This makes me fear for the playtesting of the game. (How did the designers respond when GMs said nobody could heal the superstitious barbarian? Or was that subclass even playtested?)

 

[Retreater]

@(Psi)SeveredHead , so you understand my concern?
I also cross-posted on the Paizo forums, and a number of people are telling me "maybe this system isn't for you."
I plan to get my fiancée and the experimental player together tomorrow night to try a PF Society Quest (one of the 1-hour adventures) [along with some NPC retainers]. We're going to put it through a test to see how it works.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I like some ideas, but after buying some books I don't want to await years, literally, to buy the translated version of book I like. Only the corebook of Starfinder has been published in Spanish language, and some modules. Alien Archive nor Pact Worlds haven't been published by Devir yet.

 

[kenada]

This makes me fear for the playtesting of the game. (How did the designers respond when GMs said nobody could heal the superstitious barbarian? Or was that subclass even playtested?)

Superstition Totem was only in the playtest. It didn’t make the final release.

 

[Staffan]

I would like to try it, and have read a few reviews. Unfortunately, the most recent review I read said this:

The totems deserve special mention because they all come with a code of conduct, and these are various flavors of game destroying [censored]. The animal totem bars you from using weapons (though it gives you shapeshifting claws at least). Dragon totem requires you to respond to any personal insult, giant totem forces you to accept strength challenges, spirit totem forces you to not disrespect corpses in a game where looting corpses is half of gameplay, and the superstition totem forces you to not accept spells cast on you to the point where you actually have to leave the party rather than travel with someone who casts buff spells on you.

This reminds me of the downside of Planescape (unplayable factions). This makes me fear for the playtesting of the game. (How did the designers respond when GMs said nobody could heal the superstitious barbarian? Or was that subclass even playtested?)

This seems based on the playtest, not the finalized rules. Barbarians in the final version have Instincts, not Totems, and most of them do come with anathema. Violating the anathema makes you lose the instinct-specific abilities, but not the general barbarian ones, and only until you can take a day off to get your head in order. There's also the Fury instinct, which is the "You're just really, really angry" one and doesn't come with any anathema, but in exchange it is a little weaker - or rather, it is the baseline against which the others get a buff in exchange for their anathema. The instincts in the core game are:

Animal: Gain natural weapons appropriate to the animal chosen when raging. Can't use non-natural weapons when raging, and can't show disrespect to the animal type. Can learn to have a stronger unarmored defense, to transform into their animal, or to pounce.

Dragon: Deal extra elemental damage when raging. Anathema: Don't let insults slide, and either respect or fight dragons of the appropriate type (chosen on character creation - some see the dragons as guides and worthy of respect, others as worthy foes). Can learn a breath weapon, to grow wings, and eventually even transform into a dragon.

Fury: The instinct for those who don't want to mess around with anathema and supernatural stuff. Just gets angry, kicks butts, and doesn't really care about names.

Giant: Can use oversized weapons and deals an buttload of damage when doing so, at the expense of defense and other Dex-based things. Their anathema is that they can't turn down a physical challenge. They can learn to grow Large or even Huge when raging.

Spirit: Deals some extra positive or negative damage when raging, and are good at fighting incorporeal things. Can't disrespect corpses - I wouldn't count looting in this category, but rather things like mounting heads on a pike and such. They can learn to call on spirits to defend against ranged attacks or attack at range.

As mentioned, there's no superstition totem/instinct. So the designers' response to complaints that it was unplayable was to remove it. Playtest accomplished.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Not gonna lie, it feels like your players are the reason your games keep falling apart, rather than the system per say.

My opinion: Find any players who have stuck with you through thick and thin, sit down with them and basically just them (the four of you? that's your core gaming group) say that you want something long term, and figure out what system that's going to be in. No one else comes into it until you have the system settled, because typically when you recruit people to a gaming group, its for a specific system- at least until you've been playing with them so long that they decide they're invested enough to stick with the core group regardless of what its playing.

Each player who wants a different system should present it to the group as a possible option, and explain what the appeal is and stuff, and the group should probably vote (or come to a unanimous decision.) As the GM, you have veto (you shouldn't have to run a system you don't like.) You guys can discuss the different systems and settle on one, any 'trying' should be a one to three session game with just the core group of people who are conscious that they're trying things out.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've tried some experimentation in games, mostly to address desires of a few regular players. Someone wanted to try 4E (having missed that release); another wanted to play Savage Worlds; and another wanted to try Warhammer Fantasy.

Wow, that is a range.

In my situation, do you risk PF2? Is it too much like 4E (too complex for newbies/casuals to understand)?

4e was very easy for new/casual players to pick up. It was always invested fans of past editions that it freaked out and confused. PF2 was designed to appeal to the hard-core system masters who played very-complex 3e in one form or another, maybe for as long as the full run of almost 20 years of 3.x/PF1 combined. Yeah, it needs to be complex and not directed at new/casual players, so if you ever run for a group like that, it should serve you well.
It certainly sounds very good in a number of respects, too (but, then, I'm a long-time player, DM & system wonk, who enjoyed the full run of 3.x).

However, for the past decade the only game that I've had success with running a long term campaign has been 5th edition D&D.

Y'might just wanna go with what works. It sounds like you might have a little diversity of taste in your group, and a countervailing desire for conformity to popularity.

5e's a fair compromise among past D&D editions, a lowest common denominator that's delivered what you're looking for. It does require some dedication, talent, and/or emotional energy to run, but if you're up to it, it sounds like your best shot.