|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think he just expected to be able to try to do something more without necessarily restraining/pinning the person. Like spending all 3 actions to increase the spell failure chance or increase the AC penalty or something.
With the tight math of PF2, increasing the AC penalty might be a game breaker, but it’s probably not unreasonable to want to have some additional options for grappling. The thing is, we’re talking about a first level character who has only invested a single skill increase in Athletics. PF2E is a level-based game, so a first level character isn’t going to be able to do absolutely everything. PF2E is a feat-based game, so there are going to be options that a character who hasn’t taken the right feats isn’t going to have.
He expected that three PCs with Str 16+ standing next to a physically weak caster could do more than hold him in place with a 20% spell failure chance and -2 AC penalty. Without actually attacking the caster with normal Strikes, to be clear, which is where I think his hope and the PF2 system diverge.
That’s sounding like a “wrong system for this player” issue, and there’s nothing wrong with that. PF2E is my favorite RPG, but there are kinds of RPG experiences I enjoy for which PF2 absolutely isn’t the right choice.
"But then to be completely frank there is zero reason ever to invest in an interesting character with any kind of meaningful story as opposed to a mathematically perfect robot that just metaphorically mashes buttons on its turn to maximize damage."
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of PF2, but I have to admit it’s more of an exaggeration than a make-‘em-up. Again, though, that points to “wrong system for this player.”
No, for me that's completely made up and makes no sense at all. Also it goes back to that problem, optimization vs roleplaying. And we know the answer to it: they are almost entirely disconnected. 'Zero reason to invest' is a player's problem altogether, a system has nothing to do with it. Maybe that jadedness is showing."But then to be completely frank there is zero reason ever to invest in an interesting character with any kind of meaningful story as opposed to a mathematically perfect robot that just metaphorically mashes buttons on its turn to maximize damage."I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of PF2, but I have to admit it’s more of an exaggeration than a make-‘em-up. Again, though, that points to “wrong system for this player.”
I would think its just a matter of understanding the concepts differently.
So if I were to try and see it from this persons perspective as best as I can I might consider the following.
The system hands you and strongly encourages a max key stat. So here there is very little sense of not every wizard being equal, if they wanted to all of them can be equal when it comes to intelligence. If you had the perspective coming in that stats and therefor math define roleplay ranges then you might see Pf2's generous non random and somewhat homogenized method for stats to be geared for making math equal characters and therefor same range of story defined characters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"But then to be completely frank there is zero reason ever to invest in an interesting character with any kind of meaningful story as opposed to a mathematically perfect robot that just metaphorically mashes buttons on its turn to maximize damage."
Since people are pulling this quote out and it's both massively uncharitable and an understandable way to feel:
This game severs flavor and mechanics to a degree I (and several others used to more simulationist games) often find unpleasant. However much it pains your players, they kind of have to just accept that the game was designed with a different set of expectations in mind than what they may be used to. They will have more fun if they can find it in them to divorce the mechanics of their character on their sheets from their character's roleplayed strengths, abilities, past, and so on when needed. The game is fairly tight mechanically, but doesn't translate that mechanical layer into a terribly compelling narrative most of the time, because it prioritizes the wargame balance far more. That balance is the system's strength, not its narrative prowess.
The line people tend to use is something like "PF2E is 'combat as sport,' while PF1E is more 'combat as war.'" This is to say that, mechanically, PF2E fights are to fantasy combat as something like regulation fencing is to an actual duel with swords: a scored, competitively fair approximation of a very unfair activity. Much of what your players seem to be complaining about is this discrepancy between the combat they're envisioning and the "fair, balanced approximation" PF2E creates. Coup de grace? Gone, because it enables combats to end unfairly. Grappling utterly destroying casters? Much the same. PF2E aims to provide an interesting wargame experience with characters that don't outstrip each other when built well or break combats in half; it is very, very dialed into combat as sport.
PF1E splits the difference a bit more, and comes across more as combat as war, even if it's not as dialed into it as some other systems. PF1E is more likely than PF2E to prioritize outcomes that seem "narratively appropriate" or match the flavor of an ability than outcomes that are fair. "Why can't I just lethally stab the opponent my caster just put to sleep?" "Well, I can't think of much of a diegetic reason not to, so I guess that should work." That kind of design.
Some people cannot really get over this. But my personal advice to your players is they should accept that PF2E plays closer to a game like ICON (which explicitly divorces combat mechanics and narrative mechanics, uses different systems for each, and swaps to entirely different gameplay mechanics when you enter combat) in practice.
Sure, PF2E doesn't technically swap gameplay mechanics in this way. But the game just isn't balanced with playing or building for flavor over mechanics. The expected performance floor is often too high for that, and the mechanics are made less to form a diegetic narrative and more to create a certain playflow the designers felt was enjoyable, so there's not much point in it anyways.
There is an expected amount of dissonance between how your character plays combat in PF2E and how you roleplay the character outside of it, and the solution is just... you don't roleplay your character in combat. You treat it like a separate game. You were walking around the field playing a looser narrative game before, and now you've cut to a tightly designed turn-based combat sequence on a grid, and then you'll just swap back to the looser narrative game when combat is over. The only real alternative is—as your player noted—to roleplay a relatively competent, skilled combatant every time you make a character. That is what the game mechanics ask you to make, after all. But I think most people would rather divorce flavor and mechanics than play that all the time, and that's what I recommend doing. You know how many video games divorce their mechanical combat from the narrative, and you just accept that's how it is? In my opinion, you want to do the same kind of accepting here.
I don't /like/ it. But it's an important part of coming to peace with PF2E if you have these sorts of complaints. And if your players can't get over it, the system probably just won't be for them, regardless of its very real virtues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is not an outside-the-box system; it is a sandbox. You can play with x number of toys picked out from toyboxes a through j, and whatever box you pick from first locks you into a specific main method of interacting with the sand in the box. The downside of a tightly balanced system focused on combat is a lack of the build creativity available in other systems. For players that like creative solutions PF2 either requires you to know the rules so well that you can improvise a skill challenge in minutes or to abandon what makes the system worth using and handwave things to grant the players an outcome not allowed for within its sandbox.
I tend to bounce off PF2 because I want a system that prioritizes verisimilitude and player freedom. The posters who stick around here tend to be able to look past these issues and enjoy the sandbox Paizo has created for them. Your player is in the void between these two poles, too lacking in system mastery to know which mechanical concepts mesh well with the player's desired narrative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The downside of a tightly balanced system focused on combat is a lack of the build creativity available in other systems.This I don't understand at all. PF2 is THE system for buildcrafting. Most other systems don't come even close. PF1 is more involved, but is almost completely broken. 5e is broken and a complete joke for build crafting. Rules-light systems aren't build-oriented at all, there most situations are resolved with same rolls, there's basically no builds. Other systems are about on 5e level. There're also constructors I guess, like GURPS. There is a lot of character crafting there, but I'm not sure there's more 'creativity'. Whatever this would mean.
PF2 builds suck. Your stats are mostly predetermined with very little room for trade-offs without hurting your saving throws, you're locked into one primary class with limited ability to incorporate a second class as an equal part of your character's identity, and there's no room to approach the game from unexpected angles (like going for a skill monkey build that ends combats with skill checks instead of spells or attack rolls). A lot of PF2 is just choosing what theme and level of complexity you want to use to achieve your role's expected output.
PF1 and 3.x were broken and could be unfun games of rocket tag if everybody was only out to optimize. Below that cap, there are a lot of interesting builds that don't break the game. If you don't want broken experiences, just get some system knowledge and play with people who want to bend the system in interesting ways rather than broken ones. The experiences people here have with more high-powered systems seem to be the result of PUGing rather than playing with like-minded friends.
Beyond that, you've listed a very tiny subset of possible TTRPGs one could play. Why ignore rich systems like Traveller, Rolemaster, Lancer, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, 13th Age, RIFTs, Eclipse Phase, Spire, Hard Wired Island and many others? Can you confidently say that PF2 provides the best character building out of even this small subset of systems that have, to varying degrees, enough rules to allow for builds?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is generally good advice, but I think your focusing on it to much. It sounds more like the player wanted realism to beat out mechanics. Two buff guys should be able to manhandle the caster. But they didn't get the desired result with the method that seemed obvious to them. That seamed to ruin their immersion as well, since it didn't make sense to them.
But to me, this is the problem, everything else is a band-aid.
The problem is the player expectations.
In real life I expect a single (non-glancing) wound to be significant enough that most enemies would surrender or run away. But we know it doesn't work that way in game. Accommodating "real life" expectations runs counter to how the game works in a lot of cases. Players need to learn the system and what it's expectations are. Or else they're just going to keep running into spots where their expectations are so far off from the game system that it will just continue to be a problem.
But to me, this is the problem, everything else is a band-aid.The problem is the player expectations.
In real life I expect a single (non-glancing) wound to be significant enough that most enemies would surrender or run away. But we know it doesn't work that way in game. Accommodating "real life" expectations runs counter to how the game works in a lot of cases. Players need to learn the system and what it's expectations are. Or else they're just going to keep running into spots where their expectations are so far off from the game system that it will just continue to be a problem.
Indeed, they did say the group wanted a more crunch based system however so overall one would hope this wouldn't be a recurring problem.
As a side note, it seems when ever people talk expectations around here they almost always refer to PF1, while there must be others like me who never played that. It just makes the advise seem a bit too assuming to me.
To RPG-geek, you mention Rifts, the system where you slap a character together and then never make any choices after that, I wouldn't consider that much of building and maintaining a characters identity. I would love for it to be a better system mechanically since the options and world are interesting.
Shadowrun is more social interaction and espionage focused but you can totally run a PF2 game like that, I'm sure plenty of SF2 games will lean that way.
PF2 requires accepting certain things, it's focused as a group based high fantasy heroic adventure game. To fulfill that things are balanced around always being in a group, choosing your heroic path (class) and sticking to it, having stats matter but your path sets limits on your wiggle room for them, etc. You might not like those design goals, but within that context, PF2 does a damn good job of giving choices for interesting character builds IMO.
To RPG-geek, you mention Rifts, the system where you slap a character together and then never make any choices after that, I wouldn't consider that much of building and maintaining a characters identity. I would love for it to be a better system mechanically since the options and world are interesting.
To me, Rifts' character building is less on a per-character level and more on an entire party level. The balance between characters can be so skewed that everybody needs to come together and collaborate on the kind of game that will be played. I like games that trust their players to be mature enough to make interesting but imbalanced characters and mechanics work.
This isn't to say Rifts is a good system. Like most of what Palladium makes it's pretty awful to run, but the party-building and plot focus that such a system tends to force has a charm.
Shadowrun is more social interaction and espionage focused but you can totally run a PF2 game like that, I'm sure plenty of SF2 games will lean that way.
Shadowrun has a more interesting building to me because point and skill-based systems are inherently more open to player expression than a purely class-based system. It does have roles and archetypes, but you have a lot of freedom to grow your character as you desire rather than following the breadcrumbs of a class-based system.
PF2 requires accepting certain things, it's focused as a group based high fantasy heroic adventure game. To fulfill that things are balanced around always being in a group, choosing your heroic path (class) and sticking to it, having stats matter but your path sets limits on your wiggle room for them, etc. You might not like those design goals, but within that context, PF2 does a damn good job of giving choices for interesting character builds IMO.
I feel like its far too restrictive in what it allows with even staples of the class-based d20 system like multiclassing being excised in the name of balance. I vastly prefer systems that trust their players more and are ambitious even if they ultimately fail to live up to that ambition. It's very much a "This is brilliant, but I like this." situation.
Yes, PF2 is a class based game and not a pure construction set. But there are a lot of possibilities to approach the game "from unexpected angles".
A game that is so rigid it can't even allow proper multiclassing is a very constricted system. The fact that it chooses to strip classes of things to sell them back to you in bits as class feats gives the illusion of build diversity but often these feats are so imbalanced that you'd be nerfing yourself if went away from the optimal path. This isn't a fatal flaw given that even a bad PF2 character can't fall too far behind, but for people who enjoy "breaking" mechanics that are otherwise viewed as weak, it's a fatal flaw.
And another thing. I'm exteremely sceptical about any sort of mechanics which creates alternative separate 'victory tracks' like skill checks ending encounters.
So you're saying you wouldn't enjoy a fight set in a large arena where victory can be achieved by either brute force and defeating the boss or by skill checks to destroy his hidden power source rendering them harmless. I like when things are open-ended and strive to design my games such that combat is never the only way to win.
Especially in any character building games. Because when you have your nicely crafted combat build you've spend so much time on and then half your group stops fighting, this is what really sucks.
Why aren't you working with your party to ensure everybody gets their time to shine? Some battles should skew to skill-based outcomes and others toward strength at arms. It does take more work on the GM's part, but as a GM who opts to run less balanced games, it's more rewarding to nail something difficult than to have a system hand you easy balance.
Depending on lot of parameters there could be a lot of possible consequences: battle prolongs, you are bored, other players are bored, you kill enemy first (their strategy is useless), they overpower enemy first (your damage dealing is useless), battle is lost and TPK. Notning positive here. So everyone basically should always do the same thing, which is not realistic. Or maybe there could be some game which somehow combines all victory tracks (skill checks and damage), haven't seen one though (at least char building-oriented). For example, 'Tasks' and clocks in Fabula Ultima is exactly this terrible experience. And of course in rules-light narrative games this could work because there isn't such emphasis on battles and damage and everything is basically the same. But those aren't charbuilding games!
It seems like you might not enjoy a style of TTRPG where sometimes a set piece ends in anticlimax because the plan works and the fight was won in the planning phase. Having run and played a fair bit of Cyberpunk 2020 where any hard fight risks being a TPK I tend to respect a group that seeks to treat battle as a life-threatening thing rather than as a game where the fight is the point.
And then your examples. So why haven't you enlightened us on these excellent char building games and their great character building mechanics? Which are probably all vastly better than PF2 in char building? Is random name throwing enough?
My preferred d20 game with good character building is still a hybrid of PF1 and D&D 3.x. It does take work and a group who wants to stay in the middle of game's power curve, but within that curve there's a lot of room to make interesting characters that mix and match classes and feats to make something expressive rather than just picking a class and following it for 20 levels. It's as close to class-less as a d20 class-based system can be.
And if Cyberpunk is anything like Witcher from same designers
Cyberpunk Red is a lot simpler than Cyberpunk 2020, especially when one factor in the decades of house rules that can be applied to 2020. It's not as detailed in terms of character building as 3.x but once you factor in cyberwear and equipment the same sets of stats and skills can play very differently. Lifepath, while less unique to the modern eye, is also a cool system for fleshing out what could otherwise be a boring collection of stats.
It can also be interesting to play in an old-school style where the PCs are disposable members of an organization built using the quick and dirty expendables rules.
Spire anything like the Heart from same designers - no, they aren't great char builders either.
Spire has pretty good character-building for the rules-lite design ethos it follows. I would use it to run for a group that likes the idea of FATE but wants a bit more crunch to go with it.
The games I picked are more to show things I like and why I like the different types of building they promote to show why I feel so restricted by what PF2 allows. When I say I think PF2 character-building sucks, it's because I like freedom and don't much value the balance and stability that PF2 leans into.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shadowrun has a more interesting building to me because point and skill-based systems are inherently more open to player expression than a purely class-based system. It does have roles and archetypes, but you have a lot of freedom to grow your character as you desire rather than following the breadcrumbs of a class-based system.
In my limited experience with Shadowrun, I felt it was a prime example of how classless systems don't actually deliver on their promise. Sure, you can build however you want, but if you want to be *good* at your role in the party your options narrow down to such a degree that you end up having *fewer* options than you get in a class based system. Classes have stuff built in to make sure they deliver on their promised niche, then give you various other options to built out your character fantasy, and it's hard to make a character that can't contribute. In Shadowrun, I felt I had to pour all my build resources into my niche to stay competitive.
In my limited experience with Shadowrun, I felt it was a prime example of how classless systems don't actually deliver on their promise. Sure, you can build however you want, but if you want to be *good* at your role in the party your options narrow down to such a degree that you end up having *fewer* options than you get in a class based system. Classes have stuff built in to make sure they deliver on their promised niche, then give you various other options to built out your character fantasy, and it's hard to make a character that can't contribute. In Shadowrun, I felt I had to pour all my build resources into my niche to stay competitive.
I haven't found that, but it is one of the games I've played less than others on the list. It's possible that if you fall outside of the rest of the party's optimization curve the game breaks in ways I haven't experienced. Though, as I've said, I tend to favour games that allow for messy balance and flawed builds as I find them more charming than systems that go out of their way to ensure that all builds reach the same ends.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't find PF2E character building very interesting myself.
WRT class feats:
• When playing a class with good feats, I often find it hard to shake the feeling I'm just picking synergistic options from predefined "kits." These feats are often integral to character function, as well, so it's hard to take an archetype. Build space is tight and very few of my decisions make me feel good. I can't escape the feeling my character isn't quite where I want them to be. It's reminiscent of that feeling in tightly designed eurogames where you always have one or two turns fewer than you need.
• When playing a class with bad feats, it's a game of "patch the holes with one of the good archetypes." It doesn't help that many bad feats aren't even situationally good or interesting; they would just make me want to retrain within a few sessions if I took them.
• Combine that with what I said about classes with good feats and classes with bad feats, and there's a serious issue. There are ultimately few choices that feel like real choices on the classes with good feats, and the real choices make me feel like I'm losing out on something I want rather than gaining something I want. Ironically, it's the classes with bad feats that give me more freedom (because I can pick from far more archetype options). This is not good.
• I have a hard time taking fun or interesting options as opposed to more power-oriented options because the build space is so limited. Free archetype helps with this greatly, and I hate playing the game without it.
WRT Skill Feats:
• The powerlevel is all over the place, some are better than others by a country mile, and the skill increase thresholds for picking up the skill feats that actually are good end up influencing way too much of the rest of your build. Skill feats influence what skills I choose to take way too much, and how I choose to spend skill increases.
WRT general feats:
• They all suck except the 10 or 15 that don't, and the ones that are good are exceptionally generalist. They're boring.
WRT ancestry feats:
• All over the place. Some have huge build impact (multitalented, ancestries with flight access), some much less so. I think, on reflection, I find these generally fun to interact with. It's one of the better things to sort through when building. I didn't expect to say this when I started typing, but it's a high point of the build process—possibly because there's often room to take stuff that isn't good.
WRT spells:
• Not enough weirdo niche spells for my tastes. More Seashells of Stolen Sound, please. They don't need to be strong, just unique and fun.
-Spells generally feel bad because they're balanced with a "you pay resources to have a lower chance of nothing happening to the enemy" mentality as opposed to a "you pay resources to have a higher chance of something cool happening" mentality. People have beaten this subject to death, though.
WRT classes:
• Classes themselves give you almost nothing in this game; it all really comes from talent picks and class package picks. I despise this. I prefer it when classes have more baseline functionality. Leveling up is dull; you barely get anything besides proficiency number go up and pick a talent, and you've seen my complaint about class feats. Almost all of your levelup table is passive fluff instead of active fun.
• No class archetypes from PF1E blows, and the above is part of why it's not here—classes give you almost no features to trade out on their own. I don't want to have to slapdash together every character concept I might have and kind of ask permission to paint nonstandard flavor on it (not that there's enough build space to make most concepts without FA anyways). I want a chef-prepared meal that oozes flavor, not an ala carte buffet from golden corral I'm dousing in sauce. A lot of my PF1E builds start by seeing cool archetypes I want to play. This doesn't happen with PF2E. PF1E-style archetypes are the thing I miss the most.
• To continue along this line of logic, the talent-heavy design resulted in a game that lacks build options that must be taken as total packages. (It didn't have to, but it did.) There is no way to frontload power now in exchange for you getting less power later, as the game is set up. There are fewer interesting build trades on the table as a result.
• The generally poor mechanics to flavor conversion of PF2E strikes the hardest here—especially when classes relegate so much of what makes them interesting to class feats.
In general, and more abstractly:
• Because the game has poor mechanics-to-flavor "click" for me, I find it hard to get into building characters. This is terribly subjective, of course, but for every ability that feels really cool and has a vivid mechanical representation, there are dozens that don't spark my imagination. (For reference, Spirit Warrior's Transcendent Deflection is a good example of something where the mechanics and flavor all click: you block an attack, break your weapon, instantly draw a new one, and your level 6 feat to share runes with your handwraps makes it work. It's really cool, and importantly, every step of it feels reflected mechanically.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, PF2 is a class based game and not a pure construction set. But there are a lot of possibilities to approach the game "from unexpected angles".
Let me preface this by repeating that PF2 is my favorite RPG, but character generation sometimes feels pretty constrained even to me. I think critics often exaggerate the issue, but I can’t deny it is an issue.
|
Honestly, I don't find PF2E character building very interesting myself.
...
Very detailed and interesting character creation conceptual process
What's interesting is that you approach character creation from a completely different angle than I do.
I usually start with an Archetype that I have never/rarely seen in play, and commit to using most of my class feat slots for that archetype. Then I look for the base class with a chassis that I think will best support that. Then I try to slot in the 1 or 2 class feats from that class that I will actually take.
By this time I should know my stat array, and whether this is a single or dual stat character and what the dump stat is. If I haven't already decided on an ancestry for thematic reasons, I'll do a quick check of available ancestries whose stat flaw fits into the dump stat. (I *always* take the stat flaw from an ancestry. I do that because I hate negative stats. So I make myself use them to get better at working around them.) If this is how I chose the ancestry, and it is non-core, then I'll choose ancestry feats entirely on the cool factor.
If I *didn't* start with an Archetype, than I start with an Ancestry I've never played, and will look for interesting class synergies (mechanical or thematic) with that ancestry's main shtick. Ancestry-first builds will end up fairly true to their standard class build, but will also be able to take advantage of whatever ancestry feat chain I decided to center.
I also tend to build around Deity a lot, so I'm really happy that we have more classes that can take advantage of Deity features. I currently have way too many Clerics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see what multiclassing or build variety has to do with the issue of a player wanting to be able to end an encounter with skill checks instead of reducing an enemy to 0 HP though.
The issue here is that the player sees HP as a measure of how close to death a character is, and thus doesn't want to interact with an NPC by bringing them closer to death, but by convincing them that their is no hope of victory and to surrender before being knocked out or killed.
In real life, the idea of "non-lethal violence" is pretty suspect though, and part of what happens when you learn to "fight professionally" like in a fighting competition, is learning when to give up long before you get close to death, because once you get close to death, no one is really in control of that anymore. So it still boils down more to the enemy's resolve to keep fighting than it does with a fighters ability to fight non-lethally, and I think HP is about as good a way to represent that as anything else could be, without introducing a very complicated morale system into a game that players will hate because of how much it destroys agency.
Thus why I recommended the occasional skill challenge combat, for very special encounters, but just talking to the player about flavoring their unarmed, non-lethal attacks as painful/exhausting holds and maneuvers that will eventually leave an enemy unconscious.
The reason I recommend this is because the game has really collapsed all "will to keep fighting" into HP, hence why many psychic abilities and spells now do mental damage along side a minor debuff. Grappling and then punching a couple of times is definitely a fine way to keep an enemy caster loosely controlled while you reduce their will to fight back, especially if you flavor it as squeezing the vitality out of your opponent instead of directly translating the "fist" attack as a punch.
Remember too that players can generally be subject to the same combat encounter strategies as NPCs so 2 or 3 level -2 enemies dogpiling actions into some activity that can completely shut down a PC with even a 5% chance of success becomes very unfun, very quickly.
|
|
The issue here is that the player sees HP as a measure of how close to death a character is, and thus doesn't want to interact with an NPC by bringing them closer to death, but by convincing them that their is no hope of victory and to surrender before being knocked out or killed.
To be fair, HP basically is a measure of how close to death a character is. And not wanting to interact with the HP system isn’t an unreasonable itch, it’s just not an itch that PF2 is well-suited to scratch.
think HP is about as good a way to represent that as anything else could be, without introducing a very complicated morale system into a game that players will hate because of how much it destroys agency.
PF2 has moved far enough away from PCs and NPCs using the same rules that a morale system for NPCs only wouldn’t be a huge leap. There’s a taste of that baked into a lot of published encounters with text (albeit outside the statblock) stating that “John Doe will surrender if reduced below 30 hp, or if all his allies are defeated).
If you know your players are looking for alternatives to dealing hp damage, one could adapt that pattern with something like “Summoner Sam will surrender if he is prevented from casting a spell for three consecutive rounds.” I can’t think of a great way to communicate that to the players in a given combat, but it could easily be a part of discussion of table expectations.
All that said, we’re still talking about what amounts to house rules because that’s not how PF2 was designed to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, PF2 is a class based game and not a pure construction set. But there are a lot of possibilities to approach the game "from unexpected angles".Let me preface this by repeating that PF2 is my favorite RPG, but character generation sometimes feels pretty constrained even to me. I think critics often exaggerate the issue, but I can’t deny it is an issue.
I understand what you're saying, but I would reword the statement to say it is bounded, as constrained feels overly negative.
The system is design to help new players build a character in an intuitive way, and I think it does that. Want to build someone good at fighting? Try the fighter.
Where the system breaks down and feels "constraining" is when you try to do things with a class that it isn't designed to do. I understand that's unsatisfying to many people, but I think it's mostly a good thing.
Earlier I read a thread where someone was complaining they couldn't build a melee focused Witch using Witch's Armament. It's true, you're going to have a bad time if you try fitting the square peg in the round hole. I pointed out that if you absolutely wanted to use Witch's Armaments for some reason, you're better off playing a fighter with the witch dedication and picking up the witch feats.
But something that is even better supported and can fit a similar niche is an Animal Instinct barbarian.
I think the problem is too many people come in and they're like "Oh I wanna make this class do this thing it shouldn't do" instead of saying "I want this character that fights with their hair or other natural weapons" and seeing what the best way they can represent that concept is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not enjoy breakable systems, as the real "play" of them occurs in the character sheet or the GM prep work to counter the build instead of at the table.
PF2E could use more equally viable options, but splatbook fatigue is a factor, and archetypes are how they get around the worst of that.
Any given character is going to be good at roughly three things, and the challenge is in making sure that doesn't become Too Good at one thing, or meh at six things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's interesting is that you approach character creation from a completely different angle than I do.
I usually start with an Archetype that I have never/rarely seen in play, and commit to using most of my class feat slots for that archetype. Then I look for the base class with a chassis that I think will best support that. Then I try to slot in the 1 or 2 class feats from that class that I will actually take.
By this time I should know my stat array, and whether this is a single or dual stat character and what the dump stat is. If I haven't already decided on an ancestry for thematic reasons, I'll do a quick check of available ancestries whose stat flaw fits into the dump stat. (I *always* take the stat flaw from an ancestry. I do that because I hate negative stats. So I make myself use them to get better at working around them.) If this is how I chose the ancestry, and it is non-core, then I'll choose ancestry feats entirely on the cool factor.
If I *didn't* start with an Archetype, than I start with an Ancestry I've never played, and will look for interesting class synergies (mechanical or thematic) with that ancestry's main shtick. Ancestry-first builds will end up fairly true to their standard class build, but will also be able to take advantage of whatever ancestry feat chain I decided to center.
I also tend to build around Deity a lot, so I'm really happy that we have more classes that can take advantage of Deity features. I currently have way too many Clerics.
Yeah, it is interesting how opposite that is. I would need to see more strong build-around archetypes to want to do that.
I'm curious what your characters typically turn out like. Do you have any examples on hand? What kinds of archetypes have you used as build centerpieces?
I do not enjoy breakable systems, as the real "play" of them occurs in the character sheet or the GM prep work to counter the build instead of at the table.
PF2E could use more equally viable options, but splatbook fatigue is a factor, and archetypes are how they get around the worst of that.
Any given character is going to be good at roughly three things, and the challenge is in making sure that doesn't become Too Good at one thing, or meh at six things.
Breakable systems are fine if the group has a good consensus about what power level to play at and the ability to achieve it. That's a huge ask, and too much of the work of getting to this point will come from the GM. But the payoff is being able to play at a wide variety of powerlevels and play a wide variety of builds.
PF2E is a far more GM-friendly package than breakable games are, since PF2E requires far less system mastery (and player herding) to run a good experience. But it also is much harder to customize your PF2E experience in exchange. It's an interesting tradeoff.
...Where the system breaks down and feels "constraining" is when you try to do things with a class that it isn't designed to do. I understand that's unsatisfying to many people, but I think it's mostly a good thing...
I think the problem is too many people come in and they're like "Oh I wanna make this class do this thing it shouldn't do" instead of saying "I want this character that fights with their hair or other natural weapons" and seeing what the best way they can represent that concept is.
I think in general, Agonarchy's observation that "any given character is going to be good at roughly three things" is very pertinent here. A lot of people want their character to be good at more than 3 things, and PF2E won't let you do that without fairly significant sacrifices. Builds do fewer things by default than many people want. The game's aggressive niche protection (part of which is how constrained builds are—keeping people from getting everything they might want ensures other people need to fill those gaps) keeps a lot of concepts from getting off the ground. This is the entire reason FA has the highest playrate of almost any optional rule I can think of.
It's fine when you look at the game as a game. But it's not so attractive when you want to bring character concepts to life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not enjoy breakable systems, as the real "play" of them occurs in the character sheet or the GM prep work to counter the build instead of at the table.
PF2E could use more equally viable options, but splatbook fatigue is a factor, and archetypes are how they get around the worst of that.
Any given character is going to be good at roughly three things, and the challenge is in making sure that doesn't become Too Good at one thing, or meh at six things.
Agreed. PF2 has been pretty well designed to avoid options that break the power ceiling, although there are some options that create a lower than desirable power floor.
And players ideally would pick out the 3 things they want to be good at, and figure out what options support that. While understanding that choosing to be good at one thing sometimes also means choosing to be bad or mediocre at another thing, like choosing to be good at spell casting typically means being bad at martial things. There's a few specific options that blend it a bit better (magus and warpriest cleric, but the effectiveness of the blend is up for debate).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's fine when you look at the game as a game. But it's not so attractive when you want to bring character concepts to life.
My advice for this problem is:
1) Don't try to make character from TV shows and video games, or accept you'll only represent certain facets of them2) Try to have a very focused concept, don't try to do too much
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand what you're saying, but I would reword the statement to say it is bounded, as constrained feels overly negative.
I hear that, but when I'm feeling it, I'm usually feeling pretty negative.
It's true, you're going to have a bad time if you try fitting the square peg in the round hole.
I think the bigger issue is when there is no hole that accommodates the desired peg.
I think the problem is too many people come in and they're like "Oh I wanna make this class do this thing it shouldn't do" instead of saying "I want this character that fights with their hair or other natural weapons" and seeing what the best way they can represent that concept is.
But because we're in a class-based system, often the class that best accommodates a concept doesn't actually accommodate it, and the mechanical experience of playing the character is disappointing, which is especially frustrating in PF2 because the mechanical experience is what we're buying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of good practical reasons for keeping characters to only a narrow band of skill sets. Choice paralysis gets worse, abusive combos pile up, classes get diluted, expansions become more expensive and harder to sell, and challenges become more difficult to create.
FA is a good option for tables that are up for this, and doesn't require Paizo to act on all the challenges it can bring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's true, you're going to have a bad time if you try fitting the square peg in the round hole.I think the bigger issue is when there is no hole that accommodates the desired peg.
Do you have an example of what you mean? And I will preemptively refer you back to my statement about not trying to make pop-culture characters or accepting that you will only represent facets of them.
But because we're in a class-based system, often the class that best accommodates a concept doesn't actually accommodate it, and the mechanical experience of playing the character is disappointing, which is especially frustrating in PF2 because the mechanical experience is what we're buying.
Let me tell you a secret, though Paizo has written multiple mechanical systems, they primarily think of themselves as a company that writes adventure paths and scenarios. I understand that a lot of players only look at the mechanical system that has been created (that was designed to go with those stories) but that's not really the way to look at it. Remember, you can go to Archives of Nethys and get all the mechanical tidbits from all the main line books for free. So you're not buying (or rather shouldn't buy) the "mechanical experience", not unless you really want to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's true, you're going to have a bad time if you try fitting the square peg in the round hole.I think the bigger issue is when there is no hole that accommodates the desired peg.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't find PF2E character building very interesting myself.
Then go play a different game.
Yes I'll agree that there is still aboiut a 50% failure rate in feats of all types that are just too weak to seriously consider. but the good options are there. Open your eyes.They all suck except the 10 or 15 that don't, and the ones that are good are...
So you might choose 5 over the life of your character and you are complaining that there are only 15 good ones!?
Honestly, I don't find PF2E character building very interesting myself.Then go play a different game.
Yes I'll agree that there is still aboiut a 50% failure rate in feats of all types that are just too weak to seriously consider. but the good options are there. Open your eyes.They all suck except the 10 or 15 that don't, and the ones that are good are...So you might choose 5 over the life of your character and you are complaining that there are only 15 good ones!?
I can kind of understand, because chances are you will end up with at least two of the same general feats on every character.
But honestly I think it's kind of a good thing, to the extent that there aren't a huge pile of useless feats that no one is going to take like there were in previous editions. That said, I would like the number of interesting general feats to be a bit more than there are. I end up with Fleet and Canny Acumen on pretty much every character.
|
|
Do you have an example of what you mean? And I will preemptively refer you back to my statement about not trying to make pop-culture characters or accepting that you will only represent facets of them.
Off hand, I've tried several different builds to remake my 1e Brawler / face, and I've not been satisfied with any. Rogue with Martial Artist via Free Archetype probably got me closest, but that made first level a slog because his main "thing" didn't come online until level 2. It's not a huge deal, just annoying.
I haven't tried to "recreate" my 1e Hunter, but I could probably get closer to him with Druid than I can to my Brawler with Monk.
It's probably not insignificant that both the characters I miss from 1e were hybrid classes.
Let me tell you a secret, though Paizo has written multiple mechanical systems, they primarily think of themselves as a company that writes adventure paths and scenarios.
There are a LOT of scenarios out there that don't have the ruleset that I love, though, so to my mind the mechanical experience Paizo provides is the tipping point. That's why, for instance, Kingmaker 2E is a bit of a disappointment compared to 1e. If anything, the "scenario" is improved, but 2e isn't all that well suited to a hex crawl and the kingdom building rules are a hot mess, so the mechanical experience falls short even while the scenario is strong.
Remember, you can go to Archives of Nethys and get all the mechanical tidbits from all the main line books for free. So you're not buying (or rather shouldn't buy) the "mechanical experience", not unless you really want to.
Nah, the mechanical experience is well worth supporting with my purchases.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if people hate me for saying this, if a game needs to ask players to adjust their expectations, it indicates underlying issues with the game itself.
"Issues," maybe, but not necessarily problems. If I'm watching a drama, but looking for a comedy, I probably need to adjust my expectations. That's an issue with the movie, but it's not a problem with the movie.
It's fine to want the game to be focused on balance, but we shouldn't invalidate others' opinions simply because they expect a product to align with established norms. It's like an ice cream store deciding to drop chocolate, strawberry and vanilla to make only lemon mint and then complaining when customers expect chocolate, strawberry and vanilla.
"Sir, this is a Wendy's" isn't an invalid response if a customer orders a Big Mac.
Even if people hate me for saying this, if a game needs to ask players to adjust their expectations, it indicates underlying issues with the game itself. It's fine to want the game to be focused on balance, but we shouldn't invalidate others' opinions simply because they expect a product to align with established norms. It's like an ice cream store deciding to drop chocolate, strawberry and vanilla to make only lemon mint and then complaining when customers expect chocolate, strawberry and vanilla.
I definitely don't hate you, but I don't think you're right either.
The problem is experienced player's and their expectations, from older and different game systems creating certain expectations that aren't fulfilled.
If Paizo had called the new edition Golariverse Fantasies and told everyone it was meant to be a "whole new system" we'd probably have very different conversations.
Not every game system supports every idea players might have, they can't and they shouldn't try (the ones that do try end up not be very good and super shallow in my experience).
This isn't a matter of Paizo not offering chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla. This is an issue of Paizo not offering mint (not chocolate mint, just mint) or horchata flavor ice cream (at least in my perspective).
Even if people hate me for saying this, if a game needs to ask players to adjust their expectations, it indicates underlying issues with the game itself."Issues," maybe, but not necessarily problems. If I'm watching a drama, but looking for a comedy, I probably need to adjust my expectations. That's an issue with the movie, but it's not a problem with the movie.
It's fine to want the game to be focused on balance, but we shouldn't invalidate others' opinions simply because they expect a product to align with established norms. It's like an ice cream store deciding to drop chocolate, strawberry and vanilla to make only lemon mint and then complaining when customers expect chocolate, strawberry and vanilla."Sir, this is a Wendy's" isn't an invalid response if a customer orders a Big Mac.
Bingo! That's exactly what I'm trying to say.
But the expectations weren't incompatible with P2E.
They were just not delivered by normal combat. They could be delivered with subsystems which are also a part of P2E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't find PF2E character building very interesting myself.Then go play a different game.
Yes I'll agree that there is still aboiut a 50% failure rate in feats of all types that are just too weak to seriously consider. but the good options are there. Open your eyes.
I run the game more than I play it, for what it's worth. And building characters isn't a lot of the overall play experience. Besides, a lot of my playerside time is with friends I've played RPGs with for a decade or more. Not gonna drop those games because I don't like PF2E as much as I could.
It's not even so much about good options being there or not as the amount of ways I'd be interested in combining them. I can think of an overwhelming amount of ways I might be interested in building a lot of the PF1E classes I enjoy, but I often only feel there's 1 or 2 ways I might want to build a given subclass in PF2E, and I usually am not interested in every subclass. There are always other choices, yeah. I may be a bit more down on archetyping on more feat-intensive classes than is reasonable, especially with the good archetypes that give generically useful abilities (like Mauler).
So you might choose 5 over the life of your character and you are complaining that there are only 15 good ones!?
Yeah, considering the amount of options—even if the vast majority of those options are skill feats you might only take to get them a level earlier than you would otherwise and then retrain them. Without skill feats, it's still less than a 50% hit rate.
This isn't a matter of Paizo not offering chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla. This is an issue of Paizo not offering mint (not chocolate mint, just mint) or horchata flavor ice cream (at least in my perspective).
TBH, Paizo did repeatedly undersell the extent of the mechanical and practical changes to the game. There were a whole lot of reassurances that you'd be able to tell "all the same stories" and somesuch.
And true, PF1E was very good at offering weird ice cream flavors! It was a perk of the system.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it is interesting how opposite that is. I would need to see more strong build-around archetypes to want to do that.
I'm curious what your characters typically turn out like. Do you have any examples on hand? What kinds of archetypes have you used as build centerpieces?
Archetypes I've successfully built around to high level: Bullet Dancer (Monk) and Shadowdancer (Swashbuckler).
Archetypes I have built around, but the characters aren't high enough level yet for me to claim success -- Sniping Duo (Ranger), Dandy (Psychic), and Gladiator (Champion).
Shadowdancer/Battledancer Swashbuckler is pretty obvious once you start putting it together. It's *ridiculous* synergy.
The Bullet Dancer is my most played character. Bullet Dancer looks like a trash Archetype, but the recent errata helped, and you really have to play around with it to understand how it functions. I went with a DEX/WIS monk, dumping STR, thinking it was mostly a ranged character. It would have been better to start with a STR of 12 or 14 because in actuality it is a true switch hitter.
I took the Bullet Dancer Burn feat chain but skipped the Bullet Dancer Boost chain (because as a Sylph I didn't need any help with leaping). My only Monk Feats are Ki Strike and Stunning Fist. (When in stance your guns/bayonets/stocks count as unarmed strikes for all Monk effects.)
In play, I am a weird tank -- a Gunslinger with Monk defenses and Monk movement that wants to be in reach of the enemy. It's what Drifter wishes it were. As a WIS character I have Trick Magic Item, Natural Medicine, and Assurance Nature so I can activate level-appropriate Primal Items(usually for crowd control) and heal out of combat.
The main gameplay loop is making sure you get a Flurry off every turn (either dual pistol shots or shoot/stab) -- this will proc Stunning Fist *every turn* and even with Incapacitation the number of saves you force with that pays off a surprising number of times. Gun crits are huge, and having Ki Strike to mix in when you need a boost helps.
I went dual pistol (for reasons) but rifle would be easier to manage your hands and reloads. The Swap action made Dual Pistols viable. Most of the time I am one hand free to reload and Pistol/Bayonet in the other -- double shot is realistically only turn 1.
You'd never build a Monk like this. Low levels were rough, but it hit its stride at 5 and has never looked back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I run the game more than I play it, for what it's worth. And building characters isn't a lot of the overall play experience. Besides, a lot of my playerside time is with friends I've played RPGs with for a decade or more. Not gonna drop those games because I don't like PF2E as much as I could.
It's not even so much about good options being there or not as the amount of ways I'd be interested in combining them. I can think of an overwhelming amount of ways I might be interested in building a lot of the PF1E classes I enjoy, but I often only feel there's 1 or 2 ways I might want to build a given subclass in PF2E, and I usually am not interested in every subclass. There are always other choices, yeah. I may be a bit more down on archetyping on more feat-intensive classes than is reasonable, especially with the good archetypes that give generically useful abilities (like Mauler).
It is very easy to get stuck on the most popular options. Or for a group to come up with a couple of good builds and not be able to see the other options. There are multiple ways to build most subclasses. Their are a lot of interesting archetypes especially when you get away from the multiclass archetypes. I've been looking at D&D2024 recently and been very grateful for the options in PF2.
Paizo did repeatedly undersell the extent of the mechanical and practical changes to the game. There were a whole lot of reassurances that you'd be able to tell "all the same stories" and somesuch.
Yes the remaster was a significant change to the Oracle, Swashbuckler and Alchemist, a minor touch up to the Witch. That was all needed. Then significant changes to Cleric, Barbarian and Sorcerer which were less necessary. Then there is the more or less forced changes to Alignment, Champion and Wizards. In general I support most of it as an improvement overall. But it was a lot of change.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There can be a lot of opinions on things without someone being a troll. I'm really not a d20 fan and never have been. My tastes tend to fall towards either an annoying amount of crunch or being extremely rules light. For me either of those give options- Either there is a rule for damn near everything or its flexible enough to easily handwave. D20 has always fallen into the middle for me.
With that said, my group has always been more d20 system based. I run most of our games so I used to always run a 3x adventure and then get them to do a short burst of WoD or Shadowrun. I love the settings that Paizo makes which adds a lot to the fun with me, but I'd still rather have used the setting with the Genesys system or something.
PF2e has been the best d20 system to me though and between that and how much the world building has continued to grow I enjoy running it, but there are definitely folks out there who appreciate the system for what it is without it being made for them. The idea that a class based system is inherently constraining and that PF2e has done a lot to add to the ability to customize your classes aren't exclusive.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Pf2 is way more popular than PF1.IS it? PF1 was the highest selling RPG for a considerable period. Has PF2 EVER outsold 5E?
Well, D&D 5E was orders of magnitude more popular than 4E, which itself was only outsold by PF1 for a brief period of time, not over the course of the entire edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question shouldn't be total sales as the TTRPG market has expanded in recent years. Instead we should ask, has PF2 grown Paizo's market share? Sadly, that is a question I doubt we can answer.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Pf2 is way more popular than PF1.IS it? PF1 was the highest selling RPG for a considerable period. Has PF2 EVER outsold 5E?
You do know that one of the reasons PF2 exists is that PF1 got flattened by 5e in sales, right?
Nothing has outsold 5e since it got to #1.
|
|
I don't think there's any real point in talking about market share or relative sales - literally no-one, not even the companies themselves has the information to do that. What is clear is that PF2 has been a substantial commercial success for Paizo - the Paizo dev team has increased in size substantially over the last half-decade, and they seem to be feeling pretty confident about the future.
TBH, Paizo did repeatedly undersell the extent of the mechanical and practical changes to the game. There were a whole lot of reassurances that you'd be able to tell "all the same stories" and somesuch.
It really does seem to me that this is true. It seems uncharitable to me to assume that "the same stories" was meaning that all characters would be able to do the same exact things to the same enemies in the same way they used to - what would be the point of a new edition in that case? But the same stories can be told - maybe now for the monk to consistently fully restrain an enemy out of a fight the monk needs to be significantly higher level than their opponent. But the overall story very rarely relied on that level of detail - and if you need to make the creature the antagonist is fighting a few levels lower, it's not the end of the world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed.
Telling the same story doesn't mean your character can grapple and tie up enemies in a single round.
It means being able to say "the heroes fought valiant and overcame the enemy, including grappling, swordplay, and magic".
So yeah, it's more of a truism than a real promise of anything specific, and thus not really able to be broken. In order to not be a truism, you would need a radically different system from anything that D&D or Pathfinder has been for the last ~30 years.