With PF1 a house rule had already changed iterative attacks into +5 damage to try to keep combat times reasonable. This was in response to players getting bored waiting on their turn. It worked for us.
When we switched to playing PF2, my observation was that the system was easier for our casual players to understand, but player actions again took too long and folks were getting bored. Multiple attacks and decisions related to the third action extended the time.
Bored players will do things like start distracting conversations or start surfing the web and tune out. We didn't notice it during the playtest because rules discussions were the point.
I wondered if changing the 3-action system to a 1-action system (Each round you get 1 action) would both address boredom and better interleave the actions, but we never tried it because we switched to 5e, instead. I doubt a 1-action system would ultimately be popular, but I'm not afraid to experiment.
Gaining experience with the system so the decision doesn't take as long will solve that
Do you only get one attack in 5E? Because if not then surely you get the same problem
How many players do you have? If it is more than 4 that might be part of the issue on time
Was this for me?
Gaining experience with the system so the decision doesn't take as long will solve that
Do you only get one attack in 5E? Because if not then surely you get the same problem
How many players do you have? If it is more than 4 that might be part of the issue on time
We played PF2 for around 18-20 months counting the playtest. Familiarity was achieved.
Folks are now getting 2 attacks in 5e. We're still pretty new to that system so I wouldn't say we're familiar with it yet and certainly not ready to get into time studies.
That game has 6-7 players: I'd say 4 veterans and 2-3 casual players.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like several others, the biggest reason why my groups haven't converted whole-hog is that we are currently in the middle of 1e APs - Curse of the Crimson Throne and Tyrant's Grasp, specifically. The Curse group might or might not convert after it's over; the GM wants to run Shattered Star and Return of the Runelords as well, and it's not yet clear to me if he has the stomach for conversions. I'm the GM on Tyrant's Grasp, and as soon as it's done I'm out: PF2 here I come! Probably Agents of Edgewatch, unless something else comes along that strikes me as even cooler. (It seems doubtful.)
Also when it's your turn it's your turn no one else gets an ooc say. This speeds up games, makes combats more exciting and actually improves the confidence ov players.
My first reaction was that is too harsh, since normal talking is supposed to happen outside of turn order.
But then I realized, PCs can still talk tactics normally (within agreed scope of combat talk) in regards SUBSEQUENT characters' turns that haven't come up yet... It's just when somebody's turn comes up, they are in hot seat and it is up to them how to act... Also combines with new Recall Knowledge mechanic, where characters tend to only recall that info on their turn, not before. Probably a good idea if one character has especially good Init, to have general discussion of tactics with them before combat ever starts. when it is their turn it's too late for other to chip in advice, because once Init is rolled the first PC isn't getting any immediate combat advice (although they could delay if unsure). Overall, I like it :-)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My very small sampling: out of the 20 groups and approx 200 PF players I know, only one of them has played more than 1 session. The exception is myself. Because I am trying to get sold on the system. That said, if I cannot form a single table...I’ll have to switch around...
I tried to get my GF into tabletop play. After several disastrous attempts when she was younger (old ADND) she had sworn them off. So we signed up for PF2E at a convention. Our experience? 3 and a half hours to go through a single combat round. My GF and I spent about 2-3 minutes total, the rest was by the GM and other 3 players.
Sadly, it seems my GF won’t be joining any PF games anytime soon after that experience.
So I still am giving this a shot, but it is not a big hit in my area...
Were they just chatting about other things and not playing? Three and a half hours is ridiculous, if it was rules discussion the GM should just make a call after a few minutes of searching. I can't see any way you can spend that long on a single turn with even a passing knowledge of d20 systems. Most times I have a whole game session with 3-5 combats in that time.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three and a half hours in that case means over an hour per player per turn. That seems to stretch pretty far beyond the realm of merely taking a slow turn. The most convoluted systems I've ever played have rounds go by faster than that if people actually want them to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three and a half hours in that case means over an hour per player per turn. That seems to stretch pretty far beyond the realm of merely taking a slow turn. The most convoluted systems I've ever played have rounds go by faster than that if people actually want them to.
Agree. I run a Twilight Imperium group, and we take a full round (that is, usually 4-6 players taking 4-5 turns each, plus opening strategy callout and end-of-round politicking) in about an hour. That'd be this little baby here, which despite being simpler than it looks still has a fair amount of complexity, and yes, I am including a lot of negotiation and arguing in that time.
If someone is taking an hour for a pathfinder turn, I'm assuming he went to pick up lunch halfway through. What went wrong?
Three and a half hours in that case means over an hour per player per turn. That seems to stretch pretty far beyond the realm of merely taking a slow turn. The most convoluted systems I've ever played have rounds go by faster than that if people actually want them to.
Right, I've resolved Exalted combats faster than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Three and a half hours in that case means over an hour per player per turn. That seems to stretch pretty far beyond the realm of merely taking a slow turn. The most convoluted systems I've ever played have rounds go by faster than that if people actually want them to.Right, I've resolved Exalted combats faster than that.
I've resolved Exalted social combats faster than that...
Three and a half hours in that case means over an hour per player per turn. That seems to stretch pretty far beyond the realm of merely taking a slow turn. The most convoluted systems I've ever played have rounds go by faster than that if people actually want them to.Agree. I run a Twilight Imperium group
I literally thought of twilight imperium when I saw squiggits post lol
I literally thought of twilight imperium when I saw squiggits post lolThree and a half hours in that case means over an hour per player per turn. That seems to stretch pretty far beyond the realm of merely taking a slow turn. The most convoluted systems I've ever played have rounds go by faster than that if people actually want them to.Agree. I run a Twilight Imperium group
Best board game ever.
Three and a half hours in that case means over an hour per player per turn. That seems to stretch pretty far beyond the realm of merely taking a slow turn. The most convoluted systems I've ever played have rounds go by faster than that if people actually want them to.
I was in a 5e session that was entirely combat and lasted six hours, in which I had four turns. Lots of NPCs will really bog down a fight.
In a 5e round you have:
*action
*reaction
*bonus action
*move action
*interact action
These can all potentially happen in a single turn for each player - and the action covers 'attack' which can be multiple attacks.
Depending on the class the 'regular' round of a 5e combat would be action, move, bonus - that's... 3 actions. (whispers... just like PF 2e!) The only difference is that each 'action' in PF 2e is more open.
In a 5e round you have:
*action
*reaction
*bonus action
*move action
*interact actionThese can all potentially happen in a single turn for each player - and the action covers 'attack' which can be multiple attacks.
Depending on the class the 'regular' round of a 5e combat would be action, move, bonus - that's... 3 actions. (whispers... just like PF 2e!) The only difference is that each 'action' in PF 2e is more open.
And 5e opens a big gap. Some characters, even late game, can walk a few feet and cast a spell, never using bonus actions or reactions. A high level fighter can squeeze off double-digit attacks in one round, in addition to movement.
There are currently less in the way of giant gaps like that in Pathfinder. Keeps the high level game moving a lot quicker.
Three and a half hours in that case means over an hour per player per turn. That seems to stretch pretty far beyond the realm of merely taking a slow turn. The most convoluted systems I've ever played have rounds go by faster than that if people actually want them to.I was in a 5e session that was entirely combat and lasted six hours, in which I had four turns. Lots of NPCs will really bog down a fight.
Four turns in six hours is still twice as fast as three hours per round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, you mean over an hour for one person to do their thing? That's ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Three and a half hours in that case means over an hour per player per turn. That seems to stretch pretty far beyond the realm of merely taking a slow turn. The most convoluted systems I've ever played have rounds go by faster than that if people actually want them to.I was in a 5e session that was entirely combat and lasted six hours, in which I had four turns. Lots of NPCs will really bog down a fight.
More a matter of a GM not being fast at running lots of npcs. Prep is everything.
I say this as someone who routinely runs massive encounters in 5e.
Three and a half hours in that case means over an hour per player per turn. That seems to stretch pretty far beyond the realm of merely taking a slow turn. The most convoluted systems I've ever played have rounds go by faster than that if people actually want them to.I was in a 5e session that was entirely combat and lasted six hours, in which I had four turns. Lots of NPCs will really bog down a fight.More a matter of a GM not being fast at running lots of npcs. Prep is everything.
Now there's a problem that really gets amplified when learning a new game regardless of how well the game would normally run. Troops were an enormous boon to PF1 games for just this reason. I'm curious to see how they'll look in PF2.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as the GM of a group that never really played Pathfinder 1 (I've got an exception who played it for like, a couple of months as their first RPG experience) and came over from 5e, I think that in addition to the trickle of players gradually ending their Pf1e games and/or being pressured into trying PF2e, there's probably going to be a gradually increasing amount of players like us.
Specifically players who were into 5e, but gradually got turned off by it's lack of character customization, it's release pace, it's affection for constant reflavor instead of cool options, and it's dearth of support for magic items, downtime, and exploration.
I suspect 5e will remain king because of it's brand recognition, marketing, and ability to attract new players to the hobby, but I suspect that as it continues to age, players are going to bleed off it toward the more narrative focused PBTA esque side of the hobby, or towards the more mechanically enjoyable PF2e side of the hobby.
My hope is that this creates a very comfortable player base for Pathfinder 2e that loves it for what it is.
Also to point out- Paizo's inclusivity is actually a big selling point for us, we're very much an LGBTQ+ oriented group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as the GM of a group that never really played Pathfinder 1 (I've got an exception who played it for like, a couple of months as their first RPG experience) and came over from 5e, I think that in addition to the trickle of players gradually ending their Pf1e games and/or being pressured into trying PF2e, there's probably going to be a gradually increasing amount of players like us.
Specifically players who were into 5e, but gradually got turned off by it's lack of character customization, it's release pace, it's affection for constant reflavor instead of cool options, and it's dearth of support for magic items, downtime, and exploration.
I suspect 5e will remain king because of it's brand recognition, marketing, and ability to attract new players to the hobby, but I suspect that as it continues to age, players are going to bleed off it toward the more narrative focused PBTA esque side of the hobby, or towards the more mechanically enjoyable PF2e side of the hobby.
My hope is that this creates a very comfortable player base for Pathfinder 2e that loves it for what it is.
Also to point out- Paizo's inclusivity is actually a big selling point for us, we're very much an LGBTQ+ oriented group.
You've pretty much summarized my group as well. We're all a bunch of LGBTQ 5e players who wanted something new.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my area we experienced a high water mark of around 5 tables per slot for our game days in PF1 but had been down to maybe 1 or 2 tables per slot in the past two years.
With the introduction of PF2 we have seen very few players move over from the PF1 campaign and it has fizzled out BUT we have seen an influx of new players and are now already back to 3 full tables per slot of largely new players. Some from 5e, some from Starfinder (surprised me) and some who haven’t picked up an rpg in 30 years.
I would say it is achieving the goal of reaching new audiences in my area at least. I suspect some of the PF1 holdouts will come over in a year or two once more options are available.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my area, new players are not only showing up to Play, but also to Run(!) 2ed society games.
Meanwhile, unfortunately, there continues to be a dwindling number of 1ed DMs...
...
I feel this testifies to what I can only glean as an Edition Change Axiom of "Make the Game easier to DM" panning out with some success?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel this testifies to what I can only glean as an Edition Change Axiom of "Make the Game easier to DM" panning out with some success?
Yeah, back in playtest days I was pointing out how this was clearly a GM-oriented product and that it wasn't about getting players to play it, but about creating more GMs to grow the hobby.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel this testifies to what I can only glean as an Edition Change Axiom of "Make the Game easier to DM" panning out with some success?Yeah, back in playtest days I was pointing out how this was clearly a GM-oriented product and that it wasn't about getting players to play it, but about creating more GMs to grow the hobby.
Not only that but not having game master fatigue. The forever GMs not having to work as hard from session to session and during sessions means games can run longer and less time between games.
I know I’m running two groups right now, and even as the usual gm, I don’t really do that type of thing nor did I ever have the time to dedicate to that kind of prep in PF1. Part of it might be my enthusiasm for the new edition, but it’s also the ease of consumption of the rules and adapting my own.
So not only is it great for new people to try GMing or other GMs to pick it up, it’s also good for keeping a GM wanting to run a game or even multiple games at once.
|
|
I feel this testifies to what I can only glean as an Edition Change Axiom of "Make the Game easier to DM" panning out with some success?Yeah, back in playtest days I was pointing out how this was clearly a GM-oriented product and that it wasn't about getting players to play it, but about creating more GMs to grow the hobby.
Very good point. Too bad it was not stated as such. It would have avoided much "GM has too much power in PF2" posts if we got the message from Paizo that it was a feature rather than a bug.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very good point. Too bad it was not stated as such. It would have avoided much "GM has too much power in PF2" posts if we got the message from Paizo that it was a feature rather than a bug.I feel this testifies to what I can only glean as an Edition Change Axiom of "Make the Game easier to DM" panning out with some success?Yeah, back in playtest days I was pointing out how this was clearly a GM-oriented product and that it wasn't about getting players to play it, but about creating more GMs to grow the hobby.
...But they did say that multiple times O_o
|
|
...But they did say that multiple times O_oVery good point. Too bad it was not stated as such. It would have avoided much "GM has too much power in PF2" posts if we got the message from Paizo that it was a feature rather than a bug.I feel this testifies to what I can only glean as an Edition Change Axiom of "Make the Game easier to DM" panning out with some success?Yeah, back in playtest days I was pointing out how this was clearly a GM-oriented product and that it wasn't about getting players to play it, but about creating more GMs to grow the hobby.
Then I did not recognize it. And by the posts I remember, I was not the only one. I remember a lot of communication putting up front the advantages for players.
Then I did not recognize it. And by the posts I remember, I was not the only one. I remember a lot of communication putting up front the advantages for players....But they did say that multiple times O_oVery good point. Too bad it was not stated as such. It would have avoided much "GM has too much power in PF2" posts if we got the message from Paizo that it was a feature rather than a bug.I feel this testifies to what I can only glean as an Edition Change Axiom of "Make the Game easier to DM" panning out with some success?Yeah, back in playtest days I was pointing out how this was clearly a GM-oriented product and that it wasn't about getting players to play it, but about creating more GMs to grow the hobby.
I reckon it's both. You can empower players and GMs without having to end up in a contradiction, unless there's some baseline issues with the group. This isn't about power, it's about ease of use.
Take the loot tables. "This is what you need to stay on perfect track over the course of a long campaign planning, alter as needed, or do this for extra players".
Screw random tables and treasure-per-encounter, that right there is the tool I tried to have ever since high school. I used to calculate loot based on player wealth difference and then spend it as a budget... so much work... But this is basically AP writing guidelines. Just here. For everyone.
It's the best thing for loot placing ever since we ditched gold=xp.
|
|
In my area, new players are not only showing up to Play, but also to Run(!) 2ed society games.
Meanwhile, unfortunately, there continues to be a dwindling number of 1ed DMs...
...
I feel this testifies to what I can only glean as an Edition Change Axiom of "Make the Game easier to DM" panning out with some success?
That sounds amazing. I can't get anyone willing to even play if I offer to GM, or to GM it for me if they'd prefer to do that, and normally do for other systems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
214 reviews, the rating is now up to 4.4. Can you feel the rush now?
Bless you and your quest, brave ToothyBag.
214 reviews, the rating is now up to 4.4. Can you feel the rush now?
These stat updates are clutch
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Gorbacz inspired me to finally write the review I've been procrastinating on for months.
I gave it one star, too much demanding to be PC and with a numerically inferior potentiality for multiclassing, obviously!
/s
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Gorbacz inspired me to finally write the review I've been procrastinating on for months.
I gave it one star, too much demanding to be PC and with a numerically inferior potentiality for multiclassing, obviously!
/s
Same, had to give it 1 star and then complain about verisimilitude and succubus's wearing too many clothes while yelling that they told me not to be offensive!
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Same. With no changes to the lore between edition, Golarion still uses the same solar system. One star.
googled it. It is possible.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Same. With no changes to the lore between edition, Golarion still uses the same solar system. One star.I think even trinary star systems are pretty rare, I don't know if five is even astronomically possible?
I've visited a 12-star system once. There was a gate to a super weapon in the middle of it... Nevermind.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've visited a 12-star system once. There was a gate to a super weapon in the middle of it... Nevermind.Same. With no changes to the lore between edition, Golarion still uses the same solar system. One star.I think even trinary star systems are pretty rare, I don't know if five is even astronomically possible?
Right, that's where we captured the SSS Shadowlodge.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Specifically players who were into 5e, but gradually got turned off by it's lack of character customization, it's release pace, it's affection for constant reflavor instead of cool options, and it's dearth of support for magic items, downtime, and exploration.
This has largely been what's kept me from touching 5e. Just recently I took a look at 5e's Ravnica book, being a big fan of Magic it seemed like a cool crossover, but I was pretty disappointed. It was mostly fluff (things any Vorthos already knows), and the mechanical things were a few creatures and lists of things like "these classes and items from the core books work well for these guilds".
Could you imagine if Paizo released a setting book that had something like "You can use a Fighter with Rogue multi-class to represent a Red Mantis Assassin" instead of any actual new prestige classes, weapons, or feat chains?