| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
WIth the one-year anniversary quickly approaching for Second Edition and as I look at my 2e shelf which is quickly filling with new books, I thought now would be a good time to ask everyone how they are getting on with 2e.
My group spent the first 6 months after PF2's release doing nothing but playtesting builds and the new encounter (combat) design. Every session was a new level and the players could level up an existing PC or create a new one. This made for varying groups each session. I was grateful for the early release of the Monster Building rules as I adopted that very early on and was scaling encounters on a weekly basis.
Roughly 2 months ago we started our first campaign for PF2, starting in Kaer Maga. I wanted to wait for the release of the GMG before starting as I knew that would influence Session 0, and it did! We used the Deep Background optional rule and it worked a treat for this style of intrigue-heavy campaign. Having the PCs tied to one another in some fashion made the first session super easy to launch as I didn't have to roll in one PC at a time.
The party is just about to get to Level 2 and I'm enjoying the deep-dive through character options. Overall, my impression of 2e is favorable still and thanks to everything being so balanced, designing encounters is a snap.
We even had the opportunity for a hostage negotiation during the last session, which I ran using the Influence subsystem, which I ran on the fly, and it worked great! Running it like a combat encounter made it really tense as each side scored; loved it! It also made for some fun roleplay.
I've only run into 3 snags thus far in running PF2:
SNAG 1. Not every player can use all 3 actions each round, which leads to 'lost actions'. I have implemented a rule which states that if you have an action remaining and make a successful skill check, you can use that knowledge to Aid a party member who hasn't acted yet; this gives them a +2 bonus to one action during their turn. I am finding that the players are more carefully considering their turns now to take advantage of all 3 actions, but we still end up with unused actions now and then. Have any other GMs run into this? How are you handling it at your table?
SNAG 2. Even low-level threats, if they critically succeed enough, can drop a party if I'm not careful. I feel like I'm still working out the new action economy and combats tend to be quite lethal until the party can shift things to their advantage. This can make what should be mundane encounters drag on a bit and feel a bit grind-y. If any other GMs have encountered this and come up with a solution, I would love to hear it!
SNAG 3. Perhaps the biggest snag I've run across thus-far is the new advancement track/XP rewards for encounters. Overall, they seem low and I feel like the players are a little non-plussed after they fight for their lives to walk out with 15XP lol. The work around I've implemented for this is a bit video-gamey, but it was received with enthusiasm by my players, allows for much greater participation during a session, encourages spending Hero Points, and doesn't seem to be breaking game balance.
What I've done is put a reward system in place for things like spending a Hero Point. This XP reward goes to all of the players so they are encouraged to spend Hero Points. Then, even if the re-roll doesn't turn out as well as expected, there is still some sort of reward. This has also sped up combat encounters a LOT because now they aren't hording Hero Points for 'boss level' encounters. I am also awarding XP for successfully exploring new areas and creating synergies: If a player is able to create a synergy for another player to take advantage of, a small modifier is applied to the XP of that enemy; the more synergies that are stacked up in a round, the greater the multiplier. This has encouraged the players to think less in a self-contained bubble, but to think of how other players can use their character abilities in tandem with their own. This has allowed for a slightly faster XP accumulation.
How about your game? I would love to hear how other GMs (and players) are getting on with PF2.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm absolutely loving PF2 both as a player and a GM, and am ready to fully depart from 5e whenever my group is. I love how smoothly it runs, how easy it is to prep for, the wealth of character options, just everything. But as for your snags:
SNAG 1: I haven't really experienced this, as my players almost always use all three actions. Martials usually have too many things they want to do in a turn and can't fit all of them in (I've never played with a ranged martial, maybe this is different for them), and even when spellcasters just want to cast a spell and not move they typically have something to do with their third action, be it a one action cantrip (shield, message, guidance), use a parry weapon, or recall knowledge. As for your solution, it's probably a little too powerful, but honestly something that encourages teamwork is probably okay being a little too powerful.
SNAG 2: Yeah, not a whole lot you can do when the GM has good luck and the players don't. I've seen a party nearly TPK to a single level+1 enemy because I kept rolling 17+ and getting crits. I guess just a way to mitigate these feeling bad is to play the enemies like they would act normally, and try to fight more dynamically. Like, an enemy might not know your fighter has AoO, so they walk away to deal with someone else and trigger it. That sort of thing.
SNAG 3: Are you dividing XP between your players? You aren't supposed to do that anymore. A fight for their lives should leave every player walking away with at least 60 XP, if not 120-160 for particularly hard fights.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I am not splitting XP, and I was using hyperbole. I should have been more clear in the OP.
Thanks for your insights!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
PCs gaining the Dying condition in combat is not abnormal. I'd say it happens in about half of the fights I run. After the fight the party heals up with Medicine checks and we move on. This non-magical healing happens so often I created a matrix for the party to use to track who used it on whom.
SNAG 3. Perhaps the biggest snag I've run across thus-far is the new advancement track/XP rewards for encounters. Overall, they seem low and I feel like the players are a little non-plussed after they fight for their lives to walk out with 15XP lol. The work around I've implemented for this is a bit video-gamey, but it was received with enthusiasm by my players, allows for much greater participation during a session, encourages spending Hero Points, and doesn't seem to be breaking game balance
I've been working on a conversion of Second Darkness, and I was surprised at how quickly the low XP rewards added up. I still needed to add a couple of encounters and rewards, but not as many as I assumed I would. The first module I added the extra mini adventure into the mix and tacked on 3 rewards to skill challenges that previously had no reward. Assuming the group gets lucky with the Gold Goblin's profits and hits all available jobs, they hit 2nd right before the Raid, 3rd right after they confront Saul Vancas, and 4th by the end of it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dig it.
I had lost interest in PF1 a long time ago. Always loved Golarion, but hated the setting-neutral rules. Also, wasn't a fan of the roleplaying game being 90% combat mechanics. With PF2, they've tied the rules to the setting and have begun trickling in narrative rp mechanics and design philosophy. Is it likely to be my all-time favorite game? Nope, but that's ok. For now, I'm having a great time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depreciating feats are absolutely an issue.
Hell I'd he fine with needing 3 feats as a wizard of I want master medium armor proficiency.
But no you cap at expert and due to this you can just retrain she get better ac naturally at a certain point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't played it as much as I'd like, and I've definitely run into unexpected growing pains when trying to figure out the new rules, but overall I like it a lot more than Pathfinder 1 at the same point in its life cycle.
In particular, I enjoy the single primary class approach, as well as how Ancestry factors into your character more as you level. I also like the new monster/NPC design, and how much more it feels like you can do with skills.
I also like how modular a lot of the game is, and how easy it is to adjust some things without breaking so many others. I've been creating a 'Steam & Sorcery' Victoriana-feel adventure, and I'm startled at how easy it is to build a lot of things I need at times. I've also toyed with the idea of building an artificer class, (or on a completely different subject, a magical girl class, which would require re-working the dying rules to fit the genre) but I've tried to keep my scope focused on the adventure. It certainly isn't easy sometimes!
As for the growing pains, I think they're mostly legacy issues for me. I started with 3.5, and had a near-encyclopedic knowledge of them by the time I switched to Pathfinder 1e when it came out. After years of both of those, I keep making minor mistakes based on them, or even on the PF2 Playtest.
One of the things which is more easily identifiable is the difficulty of fights. Fights are far more well-balanced due to the new game's math, which means they end up more difficult than I expect sometimes. This is made even more obvious when I think about how in Pathfinder 1e I usually gave my players a 20 or 25 point buy, but they're using the basic boost system from the CRB for Pathfinder 2e. This means PCs are weaker (the equivalent of a 15 point buy in Pathfinder 1e), and the monsters are balanced to actually be the level they're listed as. It's just something I need to adjust to.
Lots of things that I want/need to try still, of course, but overall I'm pleased. Now I just have to get together friends on Fantasy Grounds to test my Victorian-Era gun rules.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm super in love with the new edition.
Here's a quick example: I had the party following a level 4 fighter who I didn't stat up. The players wanted to sneakily peek at what he was doing. In a split second I was able to think "10, plus level 4, plus 4 for expert in perception, and let's say plus 1 for a 12 wisdom. That's a stealth DC of 19"
Once you get a little used to the system, you can make *really* fast rules-consistent GM calls. They've managed to make a complex, highly customizable system that can be significantly run in your head.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is really good and is my current go to for Fantasy d20.
There are a couple bits that could be better. The thing I most dislike most is the strict Vancian system but its very very easy to patch that out. Another bit that I think could be a bit better is the NPC stat blocks. They rely a bit too much on tags and that results in a fair amount of page flipping from the monster, to the monster abilities pages and other pages related to said tags. In play, its not the best. The whole perception, tracking hidden, point out stuff is also a bit of a sore point in play. The last sore point are afflictions. Those tend to be a bit of a pain to track in play. They really could have looked to creating a bit more ease of play in general.
Almost everything else is great. The game feels much more tactical than 5e without the rules heft of 3.X. There is no death yo-yo and less quickie I win buttons. The rules could be a bit better organized, but they feel consistent and easy to suss out once you land on the page you need. The 3 action system is satisfying and does not slow down play after a couple sessions of experience with it. The new crit system and the 4 levels of success is well done. The enemies are memorable and the encounters you can build with them are exciting.
All-in-all, very good. Thank you Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is absolutely fantastic, I'm very happy with it and I hope it lasts for as long or longer than 1st edition did.
So far I LOVE 2e. My group and I were having some issues playing the play test at first but now that we've been playing the full version everyone seems to be having a good time. We love how modular it is and I love how deadly the combat can be. In 1e I always had issues with encounter design. There was always one player who was stronger than the rest or could one shot somebody or was completely useless because he did the wrong build. Now I'm not saying that can't happen in 2e but it's a lot less likely that your character will be completely useless or totally overpowered. Whereas in p2e I'm usually having 1 or 2 characters drop in moderate to severe encounters and no one dropping in lower level encounters. I really wish they would have done away with Vancian casting as I really hate it but overall it just feels right. All in all it's definitely my favorite d20 system.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a more serious note, having ran Age of Ashes I've encountered far fewer problems than I did with PF1 across the board - from game balance, though monster/NPC design, running the game (exploration mode is a bit off, but maybe that's just my playstyle), teaching the game to new people, issues with exception-based design - all or mostly gone.
Converting my two other PF1 games (Hell's Rebels and Strange Aeons) as soon as APG drops.
I’ve been running a sandbox hexcrawl since shortly after release. Pathfinder 2e has been absolutely fantastic for this kind of game. Exploration mode provides a very robust framework for running old-school, exploration-focused games. It’s also very amenable to homebrewing and hacking the system.
I’ve done custom creatures and some tweaks to the champion, but the largest amount of content I’ve done are homebrew ancestries for my setting. Because feats are the primary mechanism for customization, it’s very easy to create a new ancestry. You’ve got easy benchmarks, and if there’s something cool that fits, it’s easy to reappropriate it.
We have hit a few snags, but we’ve been able to work around them.
#1: We had to switch to the Proficiency without Level variant. Given that environments aren’t tuned for the PCs’ current levels, it gives us more flexibility in the range of encounters that work for our group. It also works better with mixed levels in the party (due to having a rotating cast of characters).
#2: Many of my players assumed character creation worked like it did in PF1, so we had a lot of missed boosts and other problems in the beginning. Things have gotten better with tooling and player aids. That was another reason to switch to the above variant (so people would stop forgetting to increase all their modifiers when their proficiency increased from leveling up).
#3: The leveling pace feels off for an exploration-based game. If you’re getting XP consistently, then you end up spending the same amount of time at 1st level that you would at 19th level. I can see how that’s very useful in an AP, but that felt like a slog at lower levels (especially before we adopted the Proficiency without Level variant). I ended up switching to scaling XP based on level, so lower levels would go faster while later ones more slowly.
I’ve looked at switching to other systems (including 5e and OSE) for the kind of game I’m running, but there are always major issues with that (such as class options being just kind of awful in OSE). It was so much easier to incorporate ideas from other games into PF2’s framework than to try to fix them when PF2 already does those things so well.
I don’t use any of the Lost Omens stuff, so I’m really looking forward the APG. Now I just need my copy of it to ship, so I can start looking over how I’m going to incorporate some of the new ancestries and versatile heritages into my game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just for reference, I use milestone leveling, and no variant rules.
Loving 2e! During play it just runs smooth. I know this is a pretty vanilla comment, but it encompasses the whole breadth of the game. I want the rules to support the experience, to enhance it, and not get in the way. 2e has accomplished this quite well, while still providing serious depth.
There are ton of different options and they are setup in a way to promote party-dynamics and strategic decisions. As a GM, the ruleset has been a joy to work with. I can really depend upon the encounter rules, and it is crazy easy to adjust creatures, and create unique NPCs. Combat feels edgy, and I really appreciate that. Naturally that largely depends on how you setup encounters and series of encounters, but in general, given how I normally approach combat encounters, there is this touch of edginess that has been injected that I love.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is, without doubt, the best version of the d20 system I have played since the system's inception (and I've played a lot; all the D&D-branded ones, PF1, Star Wars d20, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th Age, among others). It's still not perfect, but literally nothing ever is; right now, the only things that keep me from swearing off PF1 forever are the lack of mythic rules (I'd be willing to convert my Tyrant's Grasp game, but I need mythic first) and that the GM for the Crimson Throne game I'm playing in refuses to go through the conversion effort, not for Curse at the moment and probably not for Shattered Star or Return of the Runelords either.
I’ve been running a sandbox hexcrawl since shortly after release. Pathfinder 2e has been absolutely fantastic for this kind of game. Exploration mode provides a very robust framework for running old-school, exploration-focused games. It’s also very amenable to homebrewing and hacking the system.
I’ve done custom creatures and some tweaks to the champion, but the largest amount of content I’ve done are homebrew ancestries for my setting. Because feats are the primary mechanism for customization, it’s very easy to create a new ancestry. You’ve got easy benchmarks, and if there’s something cool that fits, it’s easy to reappropriate it.
We have hit a few snags, but we’ve been able to work around them.
#1: We had to switch to the Proficiency without Level variant. Given that environments aren’t tuned for the PCs’ current levels, it gives us more flexibility in the range of encounters that work for our group. It also works better with mixed levels in the party (due to having a rotating cast of characters).
#2: Many of my players assumed character creation worked like it did in PF1, so we had a lot of missed boosts and other problems in the beginning. Things have gotten better with tooling and player aids. That was another reason to switch to the above variant (so people would stop forgetting to increase all their modifiers when their proficiency increased from leveling up).
#3: The leveling pace feels off for an exploration-based game. If you’re getting XP consistently, then you end up spending the same amount of time at 1st level that you would at 19th level. I can see how that’s very useful in an AP, but that felt like a slog at lower levels (especially before we adopted the Proficiency without Level variant). I ended up switching to scaling XP based on level, so lower levels would go faster while later ones more slowly.
I’ve looked at switching to other systems (including 5e and OSE) for the kind of game I’m running, but there are always major issues with that (such as class options being just...
If you would consider making a more detailed post (like in its own thread) on running sandbox hexcrawls in this system, I'd be super interested to read it. I'm looking to start one of those at some point after our current campaign and something one of my players wants to do, finishes.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just finished reading the final module in a PF2 AP. You get to play one full chapter against the final boss as a lvl 20 character. That right there was the final sell on PF2. If Paizo plans to make APs so that a player gets to play their character to lvl 20 using their level 20 abilities in the final chapter of an AP against the main villain, then that is fricking awesome.
You get to play a character to max level and actually have to plan for your lvl 20 ability which is just awesome. My players used to multiclass or not care about lvl 20 abilities because they always said, "We'll never use them anyway. So why think about them?" Now they get to use their lvl 20 abilities and lvl 20 spells for an entire chapter of an AP and against the main BBEG.
And the game is balanced to allow for this making that encounter tough even against their max level abilities. That is just a whole lot of win-win-win.
Good job, Paizo. You finally built PF2 so all six modules in an AP can be used and we get to use our lvl 20 abilities in the most spectacular part of the AP. That is just a great design job right there. I have literally never seen this in any game I've played for going on 30 plus years. This is a first. Paizo should get an award for this level of design quality and synergy with designed adventures.
A year in, I vastly prefer it on a basic nuts and bolts level. Some little bits here and there I nudge or fudge, and it looks like I'll be heavily tweaking the oracle when it lands in my grubby little claws, but it's a clear improvement across the board.
If you would consider making a more detailed post (like in its own thread) on running sandbox hexcrawls in this system, I'd be super interested to read it. I'm looking to start one of those at some point after our current campaign and something one of my players wants to do, finishes.
Sure, done. I posted something on reddit a while ago, so this is kind of a sequel to that. Hopefully it doesn’t ramble too much.
Organized Play Developer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, personally, am loving it! One of my online groups finished Age of Ashes in about 9 months, which is a personal record for AP completion, especially since we finished with the same 4 people we started with and the two "rotation slots" were people we expected to drop in and out. Particularly nice that everyone felt like they had lots of cool, unique things to do that were all equally impressive (our barbarian liked to joke that they were a better shapeshifter than the druid because raging dragon > anything else you can turn into).
The balanced design makes adventure creation significantly easier and allows telling stories that often fell apart in PF1, especially any kind of story where a solo boss monster should logically play a big role. It's also much simpler to run pre-written adventures for home groups than it used to be, while allowing broader swaths of material to be freely available.
It's been stickier in the 3pp market, both because PF2 has been releasing content at such a rapid rate that players aren't really looking for more at the levels they used to, and because the game grows so much with every book that gets released, it's hard to know where to focus my efforts so that whatever I'm looking to publish doesn't get obsoleted within half a year, but that's also pretty fun on the player side. I have like 17 different Paizo-only monk builds I want to try out, and I'd like to play more non-monk characters :P
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've absolutely fallen in love with 2E. I have only been playing TTRPGs for a year now, but I had burnt out fairly early due to DMing 5E and found frustration in balancing encounters. I made either extremely easy or extremely hard encounters, even when the CR for both were set to "Moderate" difficulty. I really wanted to throw in the towel.
And then I discovered PF2E. And everything about it got me loving the genre of game again.
Everything in terms of balance is really tuned well for a GM. If I set an encounter to be "Severe", I can reasonably expect my players to go down fairly often. The same way, a "Trivial" or "Low" encounter will at most take up a small amount of their resources. Earning Income is a great way to do Downtime and is a great RPing opportunity for my streaming show group. And the simple DCs let me set up situations REALLY quick and keeps the game nice and smooth.
Players all seem to be having fun, and it's fairly easy to homebrew content, so long as you compare them to existing options.
Only snag I have would be my own memory issues getting in the way of remembering certain details. Also, I tend to screw up and give too much Treasure to the party (and even following the Treasure guidelines, it's hard to not give them more gold than recommended, since I'm working with 5 players).
I really want to thank Paizo for making such an amazing game, and it's definitely my game of choice whenever I can run it for another group. Hopefully one day I can actually play it as a player, haha.
I have enjoyed what I have done so far, which sadly is only about six sessions for various reasons.
SNAG 1. Not every player can use all 3 actions each round, which leads to 'lost actions'. I have implemented a rule which states that if you have an action remaining and make a successful skill check, you can use that knowledge to Aid a party member who hasn't acted yetOut of curiosity, can you explain how your housrule differs from the normal rules for Aid another?
_
glass.
Sure, it's just a flat +2 bonus, not dependent on degree of success, and isn't a Reaction. Let's say there are 5 players and player 2 in the initiative order only uses 2 actions. They can then use their 3rd action to make any appropriate skill check to somehow assist the party. On a success, they can give that +2 to anyone who hasn't acted yet. So, it's not very different but not the same, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 1e was my favorite game system out of the many, many, many I have played... but 2e wildly blows it out of the water.
So far my players love it, too. Age of Ashes has been an absolute blast, and on top of that homebrew is so easy that I'm finding myself building homebrew stuff way more often than I used to.
If I had one thing to knock, it's just a personal preference thing - neither Extinction Curse nor Agents of Edgewatch is particularly exciting for me.
However, my level of hype for Kingmaker is completely off the chain, so that more than makes up for it.
Well, you're posting in its subforum, so it looks like they did!Wait, there ever was a first edition?Wait, they released a second edition?
This is a forum? Where do I buy my individual toe socks from then??
Meanwhile back in the thread...
There's definitely a lot to love about the system. I think the general 3 action rule is a winner far and above anything else at this point. Very easy to keep track of and very easy to adjudicate. All the classes feel robust and interesting and everyone can bring something to the table, even at higher levels. The gold/magic item system is gobsmackingly good and I will be using it retroactively to every other D&Dish game I end up running.
The only thing I feel the need to gripe about is how wordy some of the rules and explanations are. After a year of playing/running the system I don't think anyone really knows how to use a shield (I continued to use dents for about 6 months!) and there are some very strange "if then but" corner rules you have to remember but only if you cross referenced several different parts of the book simultaneously. Glares at the vampire statblocks
Even with all its warts I believe this system will grow and polish itself into an amazing format to run things. I can't wait to see where Paizo chooses to take it.
Pf1 is my darling, I love it to death... but man, PF2 is just such a better system to to run. Currently on Iron gods PF2 Book 3-4, and everything works... like every fight is balanced, not because is harder, or easier... because I have ACTUAl control on the difficulty.
Im still playing them both, but I will be moving on from PF1, at least on the older APs, maybe the newer APs I would keep the original format, but making everything on the fly on the new edition just works, every single time. We have some issues with it, of course, but its all very minor.
(And for everyone playing online, dudes, use Foundry VTT with the Module for PF2, is just a masterpiece)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pf1 is my darling, I love it to death... but man, PF2 is just such a better system to to run. Currently on Iron gods PF2 Book 3-4, and everything works... like every fight is balanced, not because is harder, or easier... because I have ACTUAl control on the difficulty.
As someone who has only ever played a little PF1E... man, I adore the balance.
We got to about 8th level in our 1E campaign, by which point the Unchained Monk was putting out over 200 damage a round. Alone. They could put out more damage in one round than my Oracle has done in the entire campaign up to that point.
In order to face a challenge, we had to fight a monster with 1000 HP. But if our Monk ever got unlucky or incapacitated in an early part of the fight, it would suck because the rest of us could never do that kind of damage. Fights were either a cakewalk or a nightmare.
We would fight stuff between CR5 and CR15 at there was no way of predicting what would be the problem.
5E has a similar concern, where action economy makes high level fights difficult to predict. One generally has to overload a party to the breaking point, and at that point the rolls can easily swing a TPK.
In 2E though? I've had maybe two fights which were harder than predicted, and dozens upon dozens where the math slid in perfectly. Check party level, add XP according to enemy level... it's so absurdly reliable. We were at 10th level and the system was still running smoothly.
if I plugged in an 80XP fight, the party wouldn't break a sweat. If I plugged in a 120XP fight, they'd actually have to work a little. If I plugged in a 160XP fight... watch out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We were getting burnt out on 1E, so we switched to a different system (The Dark Eye if anyone cares). After 2E came out, we are back on the Pathfinder train again. It has revitalized our passion for the game. We all have minor quibbles with the system, but as a whole, we love it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SNAG 1. Not every player can use all 3 actions each round, which leads to 'lost actions'. I have implemented a rule which states that if you have an action remaining and make a successful skill check, you can use that knowledge to Aid a party member who hasn't acted yet; this gives them a +2 bonus to one action during their turn. I am finding that the players are more carefully considering their turns now to take advantage of all 3 actions, but we still end up with unused actions now and then. Have any other GMs run into this? How are you handling it at your table?
I don't like house-ruling until I have gained enough system mastery that I feel like I understand the intent enough. I don't know any player character in my group that doesn't have single action options. Even moving before or after taking a two action option as a spellcaster is a good thing and encouraging players to work within the system rather than ignore it and want something else is better imo.
Knowledge checks are beneficial enough for me. Glad it worked for you though, but I don't actually think it is a flaw in the system. Then there is the hugely useful Aid action that becomes more and more likely to succeed and then crit succeed as you increase in level.SNAG 2. Even low-level threats, if they critically succeed enough, can drop a party if I'm not careful. I feel like I'm still working out the new action economy and combats tend to be quite lethal until the party can shift things to their advantage. This can make what should be mundane encounters drag on a bit and feel a bit grind-y. If any other GMs have encountered this and come up with a solution, I would love to hear it!
Remember that equal to level foes aren't the baseline for folks you should be walking through / mooks. But yeah I personally like it and there are lots of mitigation elements available. As for the grindy elements, I think that is more of a matter of the players and the GM learning the system and building an innate mastery of it, 6 encounters and one major roleplay interaction, two of which were severe and that was in 4 hours of play. So -shrugs-. Oh and just for the reference, crits become a lot less scary as you level, anyone who decides to take any sort of defensive stats and or feats will be able to take 2-3 and remain standing, it does encourage anyone healing to actually heal outside of when someone goes down and to use large heals though. The APG makes this easier than ever.
SNAG 3. Perhaps the biggest snag I've run across thus-far is the new advancement track/XP rewards for encounters. Overall, they seem low and I feel like the players are a little non-plussed after they fight for their lives to walk out with 15XP lol. The work around I've implemented for this is a bit video-gamey, but it was received with enthusiasm by my players, allows for much greater participation during a session, encourages spending Hero Points, and doesn't seem to be breaking game balance.
XP is an abstraction, I have never understood the desire for bigger numbers in the case of damage and such, especially in things like japanese RPGs where you will be looking at numbers in the hundreds of thousands. For, reasons?
Same deal with EXP, this said I will still recommend milestone leveling for GMs who aren't running a sandbox style game. And even then, just giving chunk exp rewards for events / quests is fine if it isn't a westmarches style game imo.-----
My thoughts on the system
I like around about 70% of it, it isn't my favourite fantasy system but it is my favourite high powered high magic system. I like most of the gamey elements and feel that it runs the heroic hero to legend journey quite comfortably.
If anything I kinda wish that treat wounds had been built to be 10min as per continual healing instead of 1hour, because it feels almost like a feat tax for a party as is. But at the same time I see the design goal of making it so that people have to invest to be the primary healer of a group and not just having everyone handle it.
I would like them to RELEASE ERRATA PLEASE, but I am waiting... Being patiently impatient ;) :D. There are quite a few elements of the game that could do with a little clarification or cleanup of wording.
Niggles
- Rations are currently L per week, I like ration tracking and this feels way too light for a full week of rations. I hope this changes to L per day worth but they are purchased in 1 week blocks personally. But I expect enough don't care that they would rather keep it as is.
- Quivers, we have sheaths but no quivers? I would like to have a little guidance on this. Personally I just reflavoured a beltpouch and bandolier into a quiver and two quivers strapped to you, the bandolier still takes the place of a bandolier so it is a trade off.
- Identifying Magic Items, personally I would like more guidance on this. I have seen a few people come up with house ruled options but I would like to know what the developers intent was before I rule restriction on my players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The devs intent with magic item identification was likely to give space for both those GMs who ask you do make a check, those GMs who require you to visit the Wizard's Tower, those who require you to cast some spell to identify and those GMs who just handwave and tell you everything right away unless it's an artefact.
I've played with all these approaches and PF2 gets least in the way of them - I still have nightmares from "Identify Nights" of 3/3.5ed yore when you would spend an entire day casting Identify 30 times. Ugh.
I've played with all these approaches and PF2 gets least in the way of them - I still have nightmares from "Identify Nights" of 3/3.5ed yore when you would spend an entire day casting Identify 30 times. Ugh.
When Im a player in PF1, Im usually the identifier and I have the task of cataloging and separate what we can use, or the unidentified items, and how much we have to wait for another chance. I also trade the goods, carry the coins and trade them. I love that paperwork... but man, while everyone is playing I take 1.5 hours doing all those chores xD
|
I do have to say that while I love 2e, I don't like all of new art designs for D&D classics or Pathfinder original monsters.
Like I much prefer 1e and starfinder moonflower to bestiary 2 moonflower. The design is just too different and loses those weird glowing pod things in order to look more like normal plant. I don't think new design is bad, its just too different from how they looked like and I'm not sure of reason why its different now since its not monster from D&D as far as I know
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the last year of running PF2 has been the most fun I've had with a TTRPG. Combat is very tactical and I find it fun, the players have plenty of options, and it's very welcoming for homebrew that doesn't break the system due to how modular everything is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the last year of running PF2 has been the most fun I've had with a TTRPG. Combat is very tactical and I find it fun, the players have plenty of options, and it's very welcoming for homebrew that doesn't break the system due to how modular everything is.
The homebrewing is a good point. One of my least favorite aspects of 4E was that the transition pit of 3.5 left an entire industry of 3rd party companies and homebrewers out in the cold. It wasn’t impossible to homebrew in 4E, but I personally did not find it worth the bother.
I was afraid the transition from PF1 to PF2 would be similarly rough, especially with the emphasis on feats for everything, but I’ve been very pleasantly surprised at how welcoming the system feels to tinker in it. It’s very much a credit to the designers that they managed to pull that off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Commentary: I think posting in the PF2 forum on the Paizo boards is going to generate a disproportionate amount of pro-PF2 commentary due to survivorship bias.
---
I like PF2 better than PF1, and both better than 5e. I didn't play 3.5e or any other d20 systems. I played Blue Box when I was a kid but it's too difficult to compare across that much time.
Some pluses for PF2 over PF1:
Overall, the organization - combat, exploration, downtime; 3 actions per turn; shortened skill list. I had been planning to teach my kids Pathfinder and was relieved that 2e was so much easier.
I am learning to love the tags. I didn't at first, but it's a lot easier to explain "anything with the Manipulate tag" than "anything you manipulate."
The martial characters have enough feats so that I want to play multiple fighters or multiple monks.
I like that backgrounds are now formalized, just because not enough people were doing it in PF1.
Some pluses of PF2 over 5e:
I like complexity. Having tactics available in combat allow a greater sense of danger or urgency in tense situations.
Some minuses of PF2 compared to PF1:
Armor Class is more or less useless now. The dynamic range is too small, especially between light and medium armor. My alchemist has the same AC as the fighter in her party, which doesn't feel right.
There aren't enough interesting things to buy. I find myself hoarding a lot of gold because there's nothing I want at a level. I assume this will change over time, but I do miss the feeling of being a kid in a candy shop.
Several classes don't have enough interesting feats. I build one and I feel like I've explored all the options. Again, I assume this will change over time, but definitely no kid in a candy shop feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Armor Class is more or less useless now. The dynamic range is too small, especially between light and medium armor. My alchemist has the same AC as the fighter in her party, which doesn't feel right.
I wonder if this is going to vary by players? AC is a small range if you optimize (which is fairly easy to do, admittedly), but some of my players just don't care, and want to prioritize other stats than the Dex they "should" have. I think I have a 5 point spread in AC between the fighter and the bard in my group (that's counting the fighter's shield but she has it up basically 100% of the time), and that's definitely enough to notice.
Armor Class is more or less useless now. The dynamic range is too small, especially between light and medium armor. My alchemist has the same AC as the fighter in her party, which doesn't feel right.I wonder if this is going to vary by players? AC is a small range if you optimize (which is fairly easy to do, admittedly), but some of my players just don't care, and want to prioritize other stats than the Dex they "should" have. I think I have a 5 point spread in AC between the fighter and the bard in my group (that's counting the fighter's shield but she has it up basically 100% of the time), and that's definitely enough to notice.
Two people in my party refuse to wear armor at all. It is kind of silly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just started with 2e. I was turned off for a long time cause of how different it appeared to 1e.
I got to a point where 1e just felt like alot to remember and setting up games was taking me a long time. I wanted something easier to run, but I did not want a rules lite game.
So with Extinction curse I decided give it a try. I love the circus background and there is a lot of dinosaurs/ lizard folk type monsters that I always enjoyed. The plot is rather vanilla but the dressing is really nice.
I found combat runs really fast. Still really deadly even with more abilities to heal between combats. Lot's of choice for players to do. Monsters are easy to read and are fun to run.
I am really excited about. Still there is a lot of little rules to remember, but we are getting better each time.
So ya looking forward to what they got to come for this system. Adventure paths are what got me in Paizo and the next couple are looking really interesting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without delving into the reasoning (I've gone into detail elsewhere) to summarize my feelings about this new edition:
There are aspects of PF2 that I like better than PF1, but there are certain things that just make the game not fun for me to play. I've already told my group I wont join any more PF2 games that are started (we probably have 20 people who play table top games, with various games being played by sub-groups of those 20 people with games such as Call of Cthulhu, Pathfinder, Starfinder, Lancer).
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I quite like almost everything about PF2 as a system. Some specific Classes could use work, and Charisma needs a buff, but that aside I feel like the core system is pretty awesome. I sadly haven't had the opportunity to play it extensively yet, but I'm sure that will change going forward.
Armor Class is more or less useless now. The dynamic range is too small, especially between light and medium armor. My alchemist has the same AC as the fighter in her party, which doesn't feel right.
AC varies more than you're giving it credit for. For one thing, people without armor (other than Monks) are legitimately down AC vs. those who have it. In fact, at early levels they're mostly down two points since they max out at Dex 16. That's a big difference.
Meanwhile, shields add +2 and Heavy Armor +1 over the default of Medium/Light Armor. So a Fighter actually focusing on defense will be +3 AC over the 'default. Dex Monks can also hit the '+3' level.
That's a five point swing even among optimal characters. A five point swing is huge in this system. And the swing actually gets higher as levels rise, since Proficiency starts contributing. An optimal Wizard has an AC of 42 or 43 at 20th, while an optimal Champion with a shield has AC 49.